At its core this is the difference between the Left and Right

Leftists believe that all humans have the same capacity and that the state is able to mold all people equally and effectively. People are blank slates and anything can be written on them.

The Right sees humans as products of nature and nurture. Because some (not all) things are innate, the state must develop around those things which cannot change. Moreover, even those things that can change probably shouldn't; they are the result of nature playing out for certain people in certain environments, and any artificial ideas asserted by the state are likely to be facsimiles to true culture.

So given this difference, why does the Left exist? Left and Right made sense when the science didn't exist to let people pick one side definitively, but human knowledge has caught up. People aren't blank slates and they aren't equal.

Other urls found in this thread:

madr.ro/docs/ind-alimentara/risipa_alimentara/presentation_food_waste.pdf
twitter.com/AnonBabble

I think your interpretation of the right and the left might be off.

At their cores, the difference between right and left political thinking is based on how one feels about hierarchy and power.

Rightists recognize that hierarchy is inherent in humanity, and that not all people are created with equal strength. Rather than try to fight this, they believe that we should take advantage of it, allowing the strong to advance our society without being held back.

Leftists believe that the hierarchy inherent is evil and needs to be suppressed to create equality between all people. This involves many forms of taking power from the strong and distributing it to the weak.

Pretty much this, the left thinks it can change fundemental things that make humans the way they are, weather it be through indoctrination, or what ever else nonsense an intellectual hatches up.

Well one question is this: Does the Left believe the hierarchy exists in the first place? They claim they do not, even going to lengths of distorting/flat out lying about the science of difference.

So are they ignorant or deliberately spitting in the face of reality?

Leftypol here

The truth is... both left or right are not one person

But while I do believe a healthy share of the left believe in all domination being evil by definition like said just like the caricatural feminists and fat acceptance witches which Sup Forums overrepresent, you did hit the nail prety well.

One of the core belief that led me to the far end of left is that human mad mind doesn't have a free will the Descartes described it, but instead, that the desires of all humans come from external stimulis, and that humans always behave as the constrains they face push them to behave, like Spinosa theorizes, and like some neuronal studies are starting to validate.

If you take free will out of the equation, meritocracy becomes fluked to the core, and telling people they can do anything if they try hard enough doesn't cover the reality which is that most people simply don't have the reasons (which can only come from outside stimuli) to do that hard work

Jamal, 16 y-o doesn't plan for any career at all. But the truth is nothing in his world gives him any reason to do so. Non of his friends does, his parent(s) don't give a shit enough to encourage him, his teacher is too depresive to care, almost no one he know leaves the hood when they grow up, and the media (which is still in majority composed of whites persons) is hammering that people should get a job, but they're speaking to whites only and look at black people like a savage population they have to educate in a paternalistic manner while rap clips they identify to does the apology of luxury and vanity, the oposite of "getting a job" in short.
There's barely any stimuli for hard work, and the exceptions we see rising from the hoods often have an exceptionnal story, like a teacher who belived in them (a stimuli) which pushed them to work harder than the average nigger

The problem with that is that there's no such thing as a clear description of "what the left believes". Now, from the start, I'm very doubtful about the whole left/right distinction in general because political opinion is too complicated to fit on a binary system. At best, it works in order to give names to the parties in a 2 party system, similar to how you can describe parties by other arbitrary descriptions like colour.

The problem with extrapolating that into beliefs is that you have no idea why the people are actually in that party. 2 people may both support a redistribution of wealth, but that could be on the basis of 2 fundamentally different core beliefs that just happen to result in the same policy. Some might indeed belief stupid things like everyone being completely equal with the same capacity (wtf?), but others may want a redistribution exactly BECAUSE people aren't equal, and they want to help the better people rise to the top if they had the bad luck of being born in a low income family.

Now, as long as both of these people want the same policy enacted, they will join the same party and support each other. That's how parties come together. But you can never really take the political union of a party anywhere beyond the description of specific policies. A party can only be defined by what they do, because what each individual believes could be completely different.

Things get even more complicated once you include that a person might be both, for minimum wage, and against abortion. If there's no candidate that shares both of these believes, the person will now have to compromise on the issue. That's why you can only either speak about "left wing party", not "left wing person", or you need to say that a person is "left wing on one specific issue", but could be right wing on another.

Just my 2 cents.

You may be on to something there, but I think that fundamentally what separates left from right is an individual's perception of moral responsibility as it relates to society as a whole. A right-leaning person tends to believe that an individual is the only person responsible for himself, and that he is not responsible for any other person. I get up every day, I work or go to school or do whatever it is I have to do, and I succeed or fail based on my own efforts. I don't know what Jamal's situation is, and fundamentally I don't care. Nobody is responsible for Jamal's situation but Jamal, and he'll either realize that or he won't. I don't necessarily believe that if I work hard I will automatically be successful, or that if Jamal works hard he will become successful. Jamal might objectively be better off stealing cars and collecting welfare than going to college, who knows. It's not about success or failure. For me, I simply believe that my life is mine, nobody but me is responsible for it, and I'm not responsible for any life but mine. The ideal society, from a right-wing point of view, is achieved by every individual striving to continually better himself.

A left-leaning person thinks differently. It's not so much that they don't believe in hard work or that they are all meme-tier feminists, they just see the world and their role in it differently. Someone on the left will look at Jamal and feel responsible. They see Jamal's shitty situation and how his teachers didn't care and his parents were shit and all the rest of that, and they feel that it is society's responsibility to correct the imbalance. The ideal society from a left-wing perspective is achieved through cooperation and sharing.

>If you take free will out of the equation, meritocracy becomes fluked to the core

Not at all.
Nobody believes dogs have free will, yet you still punish and reward them accordingly to their actions.
Also, free will doesn't necessarily mean libertarian free will.

Jamal is also genetically less talented in cognitive faculties, but this is verboten for you to accept.

contd.

The irony is that as much as the left values equality, a left-winger doesn't see Jamal as an equal. He sees Jamal as someone beneath himself, some poor disadvantaged ghetto kid who requires scraps from his table in order to live.

Meanwhile, even though he may be racist as all fuck, at a fundamental level a right-winger views Jamal as his equal. He sees Jamal as an independent entity that is responsible for his own situation. If Jamal can't or won't better himself, that's Jamal's problem and ultimately the source of Jamal's suffering. He doesn't give a fuck about the details of Jamal's life because he knows that Jamal doesn't give a fuck about the details of his. He doesn't expect Jamal to give a fuck, nor does he fault Jamal for not giving a fuck. He simply deals with his own suffering and leaves Jamal to deal with his.

Naturally, he expects the same level of respect and fair treatment from Jamal. If Jamal antagonizes or attacks him, Jamal has broken the social contract and become his adversary. In that instance, whatever Jamal's reasons for attacking him are irrelevant. He has a right to use whatever means are at his disposal to subdue Jamal and ensure his own safety, same as Jamal would in the event that he were to attack Jamal without provocation.

I'm all for meritocracy structure which rewards effort
But currently, the way nationnal and internationnal laws, which have been enacted to help the world rebuil itself after the second world was and oppose the sovietic blocks, makes for a meritocracy which rewards the flat cash income you can claim is your own.

I don't believe this is a sane meritocracy, because the birth take a proeminent role in this instead of actual effort, and the disparity of the reward can be counted in millions of time. I do believe a billionaire trader should get more "rewarded" that a car washer, but not millions of times more.

None of the stuff you just said is "far left". You can be right wing as they come and believe there should be regulations that make it so people can't earn gorillions of dollars.

That's not compatible with lolbertarianism, but honestly, who the fuck cares?

>The irony is that as much as the left values equality, a left-winger doesn't see Jamal as an equal. He sees Jamal as someone beneath himself, some poor disadvantaged ghetto kid who requires scraps from his table in order to live.

I do acknowledge that it's very hard for a leftist like me to see the minoties as equal while still seeing then as getting the shorter end of the social stick. But many left wing writers have studied and deconstructed the vision the west has from the minorities and how it still express itself in the media and our everyday vision of these, and I do believe that many leftist are aware of their alienations toward these minorities. Besides, the project the left wing I'm following aims at making these representations disappear, and to destroy this vision of the minorities not for us, but for future generations

Rewarding solely effort, as in actually creating a product, is one of the core concept of marxism

Don't tell, anyone, but, I think we're actually having a real discussion on Sup Forums and I'm kinda happy about it

...

>Rewarding solely effort, as in actually creating a product, is one of the core concept of marxism

But rewarding creation isn't rewarding solely effort. There's plenty of other factors like the actual results and innate talent.

And nevermind that rewarding solely effort doesn't make any sense. If Leonardo da Vinci employed half his effort doing a painting, you would pay much more for what he has produced than a painting of mine, done with 100% of my effort (I can barely hold a pencil correctly).

Da Vinci spent his life learning how to paint. You didn't. But you've learned how to make other things. Let's say you're a machanic, I'd pay good dollars to have my car repared by you, probably as much as buying a master painting. (bacause I'm not really into paintings)

I do admit that rewarding for one's effort is kind of a senseless meme alone, and actually there's all lot of thinking for this I still haven't done to actually put it into practice

As I see it, the goal would be to make sure one can live from make "honest efforts" toward making something

Honest effort being working toward making something there's an actual demand for and genuinly trying to adress that demand

But like I said, I admit I'm not aware of the parctical ways of making something like this happen

No, left and right is purely an economic metric, leftists believe the government should have control over the market, and people on the right believe in the free market. In greater and lesser extremes.

Hitler was a conservative leftist. LE DUDE WEED MAN is a liberal leftist.

Learn the difference.

But again, the idea that everyone (minus certain exceptions) should be able to make a honest living with what they can do isn't a radical left wing idea.

It is because the capitalist version of employment is not longer compatible with the technological reality we face right now

As we speak, there's 10-20% of unemplyment in a lot of western countries. But still, 100% of the damand of almost everything is met. The unemployed for the most aren't starving to death in western countries. They live poorly, but their basic needs are met.

Right now, a company has to squeeze as much value as it can from as few people as possible to make profit. And toward that, automitisation of a lot of work alowed to reduce the number of persons needed to perform the same job.

The construction of the workforce doesn't make it possible for everyone to live decently from honest effort

First of all, demand isn't a fixed thing, so it being 100% satisfied (which I don't think it is, but let's leave it at that) is not something that stays that way for long. There's always new things to be created and new wants that people require to be satisfied.

Setting that aside, I don't like the current economic system either nor do I think it's sustainable in the long term. I don't even have a problem with a basic income, but nobody calls me left-wing.

I don't think it's a mystery to you that incredible amount of food are wasted each year and that there's an incredible amount of unoccupied, but to expensive estate in the west

madr.ro/docs/ind-alimentara/risipa_alimentara/presentation_food_waste.pdf

And while new demand exist, especially in the technlogic fields, I believe we've already stretched that sting to the bitter end, with new phones of the same brand twice a year and electronics which aren't supposed to last more than two years.

I don't have proofs to support this claim right now, but I don't believe the new demand can significantly increase the number of people in the actual workforce alone.

I do admit that for me, any system which is fundamentally oposes the current capitalism system has to be inspired from ideas comming from the left end of the political spectrum to some extend, and I did not take interest in other non leftist alternatives, but I'd be really okay to learn about them

People like to think that everyone is equal and can be anything. Whether it's true or not (it isn't) doesn't really matter to them, but it's a nice thought.
Sorta boils down to optimism and pessimism.

To increase occupation, we could for example increase the availability and decrease the worload.

Like say, increasing the amount of hours in which services are provided and reducing the amount of hours everyone works.

If that still doesn't save certain jobs, then have the people do something else.

To do that would imply to either force private corporations into a certain, constraining buisness plan or to apply is solely to the state workers (which are already considered lazy assholes by the mainstream media )

The first scenario goes against the internationnal fair competition laws that the EU upholds in europe, which were enacted by the Lisbonne treaty. Said treaty which, I believe you know it, was accepted without any referendum in europe except for the Irish. Irish people who when they said no, had to vote again until they said yes.

The second scenario would also go against the austerity policy which is once again enfforced by the EU as it would greatly increase public spending and debt

This is also the main reason the french far left parties want to frexit