Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Having been on both sides of the fence when it has come to my views on economics, it has taken some time for me to really put in words why conservatives and liberals are so different in their views of economics. However lately I have to put myself in the mindset when I was a socialist, and think of the things that drove me to socialism. So here are some of the ways I felt when I was a socialist...
* Angry at the perceived imbalance and inequality in the world
* Upset that some people had things when other did not have them
* In love with the idea of equality
* Believing that socialism was great because it enforced equality
* I wanted to see everyone happy
* I wanted to punish people who seem to have more, why others suffered.
As you can see in my days as a liberal, I was driven by abstract concepts. Socialism is the apex of ideology. The reality is that socialism has taken the imagination of many people the world over because it is a great ideology, which enforce fairness and egalitarianism. The thing that kept me as a socialist for so long was that I could look at functioning example of socialism around the world. I could also just chalk up bad socialistic governments as implementing socialism incorrectly, and go about my merry way. Basically I was a socialist because I did not understand capitalism.
When it came to me becoming a capitalist, one thing drove me to it
As you can see, capitalism is a system based on the intracies of mechanics. It isn't very high on ideology at all. Generally capitalist are very great in business and finance. This is because most people love capitalism not because of idealism, but because of results. We look at things from a purely numerical and calculation standpoint. So what capitalism does is really throw away a lot of the high idealism of "progress" or "egalitarianism" and we tend to see things in a cold/systematic way. Capitalism lean toward the more practical end.
So this is mainly why capitalist and socialist are at odds with each other. We are arguing two different things. Have you really ever heard a true bonafide liberal socialist get down into the intracies of how scalable socialism really is? Of course not. This is because a socialist isn't driven by math and mechanics. They're rarely ever driven by finance period. They don't love socialism because it's a great system, they love it because it's a great theory. And to love a theory, you have to love ideas. Socialism is a romanticizing of economics, not a realization of it.
We must get socialist to think about mechanics and intracies. We must force them to debate how socialism actually can and would work. We cannot let socialist keep espousing ideas, but we must force them to get into the details of functionality. We must get down into these details to invalidate this theory, so that people will reject a failed system.
Both are extremes. Both are horrible and divisive.
There are 2 parts. The elected official, the citizen.
Elected cons and libs are exactly same. They are owned by lobbyists and special interest groups. They are only concerned with personal gain and nothing more.
The citizens are largely ignorant without the slightest clue what either party is supposed to stand for. They cling to a few of the ideas and ignore the rest. They are incapable of critically thinking.
The two parties, Democrat and Republican (including con and lib here) are great at one thing and one thing only. Divide and conquer. We need to all drop this false dichotomy and start holding our government and citizens accountable for their actions.
Having been on both sides of the fence when it has come to my views on economics, it has taken some time for me to really put in words why conservatives and liberals are so different in their views of economics. However lately I have to put myself in the mindset when I was a socialist, and think of the things that drove me to socialism. So here are some of the ways I felt when I was a socialist...
* Angry at the perceived imbalance and inequality in the world
* Upset that some people had things when other did not have them
* In love with the idea of equality
* Believing that socialism was great because it enforced equality
* I wanted to see everyone happy
* I wanted to punish people who seem to have more, why others suffered.
As you can see in my days as a liberal, I was driven by abstract concepts. Socialism is the apex of ideology. The reality is that socialism has taken the imagination of many people the world over because it is a great ideology, which enforce fairness and egalitarianism. The thing that kept me as a socialist for so long was that I could look at functioning example of socialism around the world. I could also just chalk up bad socialistic governments as implementing socialism incorrectly, and go about my merry way. Basically I was a socialist because I did not understand capitalism.
When it came to me becoming a capitalist, one thing drove me to it
As you can see, capitalism is a system based on the intracies of mechanics. It isn't very high on ideology at all. Generally capitalist are very great in business and finance. This is because most people love capitalism not because of idealism, but because of results. We look at things from a purely numerical and calculation standpoint. So what capitalism does is really throw away a lot of the high idealism of "progress" or "egalitarianism" and we tend to see things in a cold/systematic way. Capitalism lean toward the more practical end.
So this is mainly why capitalist and socialist are at odds with each other. We are arguing two different things. Have you really ever heard a true bonafide liberal socialist get down into the intracies of how scalable socialism really is? Of course not. This is because a socialist isn't driven by math and mechanics. They're rarely ever driven by finance period. They don't love socialism because it's a great system, they love it because it's a great theory. And to love a theory, you have to love ideas. Socialism is a romanticizing of economics, not a realization of it.
We must get socialist to think about mechanics and intracies. We must force them to debate how socialism actually can and would work. We cannot let socialist keep espousing ideas, but we must force them to get into the details of functionality. We must get down into these details to invalidate this theory, so that people will reject a failed system.
Liberals are not socialists. Liberals are capitalists. Liberals realize that market based economies out-perform socialist economies. The difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals believe that the government has a bigger role to play in society to make up for the in-qualities built in to the capitalist system.
As a liberal I believe the government should be able to eliminate market distortions such as monopoly and oligopoly created by colluding businessmen. Capitalism only works if there is free and open access to any market.
Liberals are not socialists. Liberals are capitalists. Liberals realize that market based economies out-perform socialist economies. The difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals believe that the government has a bigger role to play in society to make up for the in-qualities built in to the capitalist system.
Liberals are not socialists. Liberals are capitalists. Liberals realize that market based economies out-perform socialist economies. The difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals believe that the government has a bigger role to play in society to make up for the in-qualities built in to the capitalist system.
Well said.
IMO, people who do not even know that liberalism and socialism are NOT synonyms are too ignorant to lecture anybody about economics, philosophy or politics.
The main difference is the amount of control federal government controls the economy GDP distribution and control how its produced. Its done thru taxation and transfers of wealth. Of course the degree is the difference with the party from left side to right. Generally like looking at Bu ill Clinton party when he controlled the democratic committee who wrote the platform. he favored right of center governing and when left and Obama took control he favors left governing .Funny that Hillary has always been left in the party and Bill right of center. When elected governor first time Bill favored left by but shifted has written in his book because he said basically you can't govern from the left in a right of center country which showed he already had presidential ambitions. Basically the fruits. Basically high taxing of GDP and low taxing of GDP. That in fact is difference between capitalist system and socialist systems ;control of means and fruits of production.
Both are extremes. Both are horrible and divisive.
There are 2 parts. The elected official, the citizen.
Elected cons and libs are exactly same. They are owned by lobbyists and special interest groups. They are only concerned with personal gain and nothing more.
The citizens are largely ignorant without the slightest clue what either party is supposed to stand for. They cling to a few of the ideas and ignore the rest. They are incapable of critically thinking.
The two parties, Democrat and Republican (including con and lib here) are great at one thing and one thing only. Divide and conquer. We need to all drop this false dichotomy and start holding our government and citizens accountable for their actions.
Excellent post.
Maybe one day we will evolve to the point that everyone isn't expected to fit into one of two groups, for any topic. Few if any fit every assumed definition of a particular group, so we're all a compromise. This in itself is enough of a reason to view the adversarial nature of any two-group system as pointless.
As a liberal I believe the government should be able to eliminate market distortions such as monopoly and oligopoly created by colluding businessmen. Capitalism only works if there is free and open access to any market.
The problem here is that such collusion is only possible with access to the monopoly on the power to coerce invested in the state. And few "liberals", if any, are willing to renounce, or even to limit that inherently-corruptive exercise of power.
One option here might be to turn more of that power back to state and local authorities -- a much more plausible option since the overt racism and cliquishness which used to dominate politics in many rural areas has been substantially mitigated (except. of course, in Chicago). But I can guarantee you that those within the corridors of power will show no interest in this, since it would diminish the power and influence which is a far-stronger motivation for them than financial reward.
Liberal: noun
One who is generous; one who favors greater freedom in political or religious matters; one free from prejudice or narrow thinking. Antonyms.- stingy, mean, bigoted, or conservative
Conservative: noun
A person who believes in the value of established and traditional practices in politics and society : a person who is averse to change and holds to traditional values and attitudes, typically in relation to politics. Antonyms.- broad-minded, liberal
Enough said.
Last edited by KaaBoom; 12-30-2013 at 12:56 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
). But I can guarantee you that those within the corridors of power will show no interest in this, since it would diminish the power and influence which is a far-stronger motivation for them than financial reward.
