Why do you call your leftwingers liberals, when leftist politics is always authoritarian (antiliberal)?
>>72933292
Because they aren't left-wingers. They are liberal capitalists.
>>72933357
asking the government to steal money for them is not liberal.
>>72933610
Since they print the money and give it any worth, I'd say they're not stealing it.
>>72933292
Liberals is just American form of socialists.
They developed sometimes in 1960 in counterculture movements - called "New Left" or liberal socialists.
They're basically more Rosa Luxemburg type of communist shit than Stalin type.
>>72933357
Greeks always retarded.
>>72933693
which is the point, they are stealing property by claiming its their right to do so.
>>72934019
They aren't liberals in European, classical liberal type, they are:
"The origins of the New Left have been traced to several factors. Prominently, the confused response of the Communist Party of the USA and the Communist Party of Great Britain to the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 led some Marxist intellectuals to develop a more democratic approach to politics, opposed to what they saw as the centralised and authoritarian politics of the pre-war leftist parties. Those Communists who became disillusioned with the Communist Parties due to their authoritarian character eventually formed the "new left", first among dissenting Communist Party intellectuals and campus groups in the United Kingdom, and later alongside campus radicalism in the United States and elsewhere."
Democratic socialist shit. They should be called socialists in Europe.
>>72934019
What property are they stealing? Can you form a logical sentence? You said they steal money. Whose money are they stealing?
>>72933921
>>72934105
Slovakia is correct.
>>72934479
That might be true for Bernie, but not for Hillary. Essentially it isn't true, since all important people in the Democratic Party are affiliated with big companies.
>>72934599
I was talking about the fact that what Americans call liberal, we Europeans call socialist. Even if she's backed by corporate interest, she still supports a lot of regulation and wellfare.
>>72934705
Regulation and welfare in a capitalist society, are capitalist ingrediants. They are done with consultation from capitalists and not directly against them. It's a different think for Stalin to make regulations and for Hillary to make regulations. Same with welfare, it's different when you own the state (socialism) than when the state gives you it's pity.
>>72934705
>>72934599
We also have "progressives"
They believe in liberal policies but grow government
Former Presidents Wilson, Hoover, FDR are good examples of it. While they were mostly big-gov proponents they were very anti-Socialist.
>>72935045
Those were good guys. And you said it correctly. They were progressive Capitalists, anti-Socialists.
>>72934999
Regulation is regulation.
Ofc it's not all out socialsism (ie workers owning the means of production), it's just throwing socialist policies into a capitalist society.
>>72935045
how can you claim to be antisocialist, if you want to have a big government? and what does the big government do when they do not push regulations?
>>72935368
Regulation without the power to support it (a communist party, organized people, strategic means of production) is nothing. In capitalism, all regulation is done for the capitalists, not against them. More precisely, for the biggest capitalists. Some smallers ones may be hurt by the regulation.. Regulation is power. All systems do it, but it depends on who has the power to do it. Also welfare was instituted to grow strong, educated workers to produce profits. Nothing more, nothing less. It's isn't a socialist measure. Now that the economy needs less workers, it's dismantled.
>>72935634
>it depends on who has the power
Nope. Regulation isn't even done in favor of capitalists. I can see you have no idea what you're talking about.
>>72935801
Maybe you haven't worked in business or government, because you don't understand how laws are made then. No law comes for a 'socialist' reason in capitalist society. It comes to address a problem in capitalist production, make greater profits, negotiate betseen competition, take safety measures etc.
>>72933292
Anarchism is not authoritarian .
Stop dividing politics into "left wing" and "right wing".
>>72935995
thats not capitalism, thats corporatism
>>72936161
For example, Greece failed because it was a "bad capitalist", not because it was socialist. It mismanaged capitalistic assets and corruption is a thing.
>this is corporatism not capitalism
What you call corporatism is capitalism historically. There has never been a form of capitalism that didn't require a strong state to back it (yet). Unless you have an examole.
>>72936515
No, Greece failed because it had huge loans that it couldnt possibly have repaid.
>>72936809
Yeah, that's bad capitalism. It happens to actual businesses too. Lol.
>>72937236
Then bailouts are good capitalism?
>>72937768
It's really the only choice and an inevitability, that's why you see the European institutions setting up companies (like the European Stability Mechanism) to tackle this possibility (defaults) in an organized way in the future. Essentially what the Bush-Obama government did with the banks in America. The other option would be for Greeks or Americans to start doubting the system itself, which is a very dangerous thing for capitalism, so its better to throw money at it.
>>72933292
When you talk about SOCAL issues then you are either progressive or authoritarian. When you talk ECONOMY you are left or right - wing.
That said, Soviet Union was economic left wing and authoritarian, social conservative state.
You can be left - wing and be socially conservative at the same time.
>leftist politics are always authoritarian
lol no, provide logical proof of this(not examples)
>>72938213
It's not the only choice. You could just let the companies go bankrupt.
>>72934019
>claiming
but muh representative government
>>72938395
Redistributing wealth or the means of productions is usually pretty authoritarian.
>>72938478
Yeah, you could, and in older times you would. Same with states. Greece has went bankrupt countless times in the past and nothing much happened. The world and capitalism has become too complicated and fragile so everything is solved in an authoritarian manner. At least that's my opinion and a logical explanation. Instability right now world-wide is bigger than ever and there are valid reasons for that. More players than ever. It's no longer the British Empire or the American-Soviet duality, it's a multi-polar world.
>>72938692
The only institutions a country cant let go bankrupt is banks, because of their tie-in with the federal reserve or central banks, that causes them to accumulate federal debt if they were to go bankrupt. But I think stuff like a central bank or federal reserve is anti-capitalist.
>>72939131
Central banks are VERY capitalist. And I insist on VERY. Not because they are bad (I don't fear the word capitalist and neither should you). It's because, in fact, they weren't there from the beginning as you know - they were created because the need for them arose by the capitalist system itself. So they are an organic element of our system of goods and services. Try to remove it and the underlying structure stops working well. Economics are mainly empiricism, not theory. The financial system solves a lot of the underlying problems of production - and it creates others. General tip: Don't label what you like, makes you money etc. 'Capitalism' and what you don't like 'not-Capitalism'. You have to take the whole package.
>>72939838
that's extremely abstract.
Central banks are anti-capitalist because they were made by the government to back the banks in case of bankruptcy and most importantly to print extra money in case of immediate shortages. It takes away the entire risk for the bank, since they just get money when they face bankruptcy.
Central banks can be completely destroyed by banks taking risks and going bankrupt if they take stupid risks, the intrinsic value for money can be fixed with gold backing, rather than glorified interest backed currency.
>>72940600
Indeed, that was abstract. Thank you for understanding what I was saying, though. Now yeah, I agree with what you're saying, but it seems the guys in charge don't. Dunno if it's some technicality we're missing or just that they found a 'free' way to guarantee their investments.
