Left wing dialogue

[TrueBlueYorkshire]

As someone who has worked all over the world and is interested in politics I just wanted to see if I am only one who finds the language of the left tiring.

To give you an allusion of the type of language i mean below are two prime examples:

1. Taking the most extreme view and expressing it as if it is common.
2. Denying that people should show personal responsibility (this quite often goes hand in hand with point number 1).

I just find the language instantly de-rails any sort of constructive conversation regarding policy into a haves vs have-nots type argument which puts most people on the defensive. While people on the right are having sensible arguments with each other regarding society; in general people I talk to on the left seem to be in their own little world.

AIBU to think this sort of language is all to common from the left and it is what is isolating them?

I think you've done a great job of painting yourself as smug NC

Rape really isn't that rare, neither is contraceptive failure, neither is multiple birth and especially not all combined.

It is absolutely fair to point out the reasons why something is an abhorrent thing to suggest. People often point out rape because the idea of even one person who is bringing up a baby conceived by rape being financially punished because someone has made a moral judgement about people who have children is utterly wrong.

I believe I advocated levelling the playing field flash.

hardly a call to perpetuate poverty now is it?

you have no hope of agreeing with my socialist rhetoric flash

sometimes an educated guess can be dressed up as judgement to suit an argument.

If we didn't set store in educated guesses then probability would most likely not be a component of the mathematics curriculum.

don't insult my intelligence. its not judgement. its inductive reasoning.

I've been working hard at dragging myself and my children up for the last ten years now. Each successive government has done nothing but kick me when I am down and endanger my efforts because for some reason they think they know better than me what scum like me who have kids out of wedlock need/can achieve. It's only the rich who are allowed the 'freedom' of 'personal responsibility'. The poor are almost entirely at the mercy of the state and have next to no control over their own lives.

"some people have no hope of doing anything other than making large salaries."

I've never come across anyone who I would put in that category. What type of person do you mean?

For what it's worth I do identify as quite strongly left-wing on most issues but also agree that your posts seem to be "writing off" the capacities of people who are economically/socially disadvantaged! Albeit perhaps with good/compassionate intentions. I have worked with many such families and there is a lot of capacity and potential and desire to achieve more than "only" having children.

While people on the right are having sensible arguments with each other regarding society

YABU. And naive to boot. The reason that people on the right appear "sensible" to you is that their narrative is the hegemonic one - in other words, the ideologi of the ruling class is accepted as truth and common sense, making anyone who questions it appear unhinged. An example is the 'strivers and skivers' rhetoric that pitches 'hard-working taxpayers' against benefit recipients (just the word 'benefits' suggests that it's something people should be bloody grateful for), as though these are two separate groups of people where one pays for the idleness of the other, and never the twain shall meet. In reality, the majority of benefit recipients do work - they just don't get paid enough, so the state subsidizes their employers with tax credits (and even that is going to be cut now in exchange for a new minimum wage that has erroneously been labelled 'living wage'. Living wage as concept already exists, and is much higher!) My point is, most people pay into the system for much of their lives and shouldn't have to grovel to get something back if they need it. I personally haven't been negatively affected by the Tories cuts, but many people have, including children who surely cannot be held responsible for the economic situation of their parents? But wait, the Tories have abolished the child poverty targets! Oh great, then we can pretend there aren't any UK children living in poverty! Sorry, but that's evil in my eyes, and that's not even hyperbole. The right-wing idea that 'I'm alright, Jack, so everyone else can go fuck themselves (I put that sweary bit in on purpose) is really uncivilized in my opinion and not remotely 'sensible'. I could make similar observations about Greece and the EU, but I'm sure you've all stopped reading by now. End of sleep-deprived rant

YANBU. If a moderate or god forbid a slightly right of centre view is expressed on MN the poster is hounded and denigrated by some of the most self absorbed and entitled people I've ever come across.

Offred. My point is that the tragic case of rape resulting in pregnancy is being used as a basis for the argument that having children is somehow not a lifestyle choice for the vast majority who are not in this position, who apparently should have the right to have as many children as they want, irrespective of their financial position, as they should be entitled to state support. I disagree that we have such a 'right' and believe those that hold it are irresponsibly entitled.

This is not the same as saying the state shouldn't provide support for the children where they are in poverty (I'm not pushing a cuts agenda here) just the people should be responsible and not expect the state to pick up the pieces.

Part of the issue is that some on the right think that 'striving to become a higher rate taxpayer' is an end in itself.

For sure, 'strive' (loaded word anyway but there we go) to earn a decent salary that will support you and yours. Strive for a job that you enjoy. Strive for fulfilment, for something useful to society. Those are things worth 'striving' for. But striving to become a higher rate taxpayer - are you serious? (I will be a higher rate taxpayer within the next couple of years, btw, so there's no jealousy here. That's the barb usually aimed at people like me, and it's laughable.)

Over the last few days I have seen many, many posts from those who identify as right-wing, clearly incapable of judging fellow humans on the basis of anything other than their earning potential. I have seen posts which very starkly and honestly state that people's usefulness to society should be judged on a ratio of number of children to monthly salary. And if the sums don't add up, that person is, well, non grata!

And that kind of reasoning has absolutely nothing to do with 'personal responsibility' or a desire for national money to be spent 'more wisely'. It has nothing to do with a desire to get the national debt down. It is not born out of some superior understanding of The Way The World Works. It is ignorance, bile, and fear. Nothing else.

Many on the left may be more idealistic than perhaps they should be. I'll give you that. We live in a deeply imperfect world and levelling the playing field is going to be tough, really bloody tough. There are no absolutely straightforward, quick fix answers.

But a society like this one is becoming, where those who can't (or indeed won't - there has to be room for them in a civilised world) maximise their means of production, can't or won't be docile lttle units of economic output, are derided, loathed, scorned and punished...a society like this one will eventually disintegrate, because humans are about more than the tax rate they pay.

so now we're supposed to to accept that the most socially vulnerable in our society have a misguided sense of entitlement?

is that supposed to be an ironic statement?

oh and piggles I'm not 'writing off' anybody
as I've explained on numerous occasions I actually value the role of parent. I don't see it as being less valid than the state of paid employment.

you obviously do though, to accuse me of denigrating those who make the choice to have many children at the expense of the state.

I applaud them.

It's disingenuous in the extreme to suppose that in our capitalist society they have myriad other lifestyle choices. oftentimes they simply do not and I for one will continue to wish to support them in their endeavour to raise healthy, happy children. at the tax payer's expense.

For both their sake, their offspring's sake and indeed our societies continued proliferation.

Lemonade: I agree we should level the playing field, but your method appears to involve a crude redistribution of wealth that makes people in society more equal financially, but which perpetuates, and even seems to celebrate, the split between a provider class (earning the wealth to pay the tax) and a dependent class (those economically disadvantaged who apparently can only aspire to procreate who are supported by sizeable benefits funded by the provider class). This level playing field created by this socialist model is superficial and demeaning to the dependent classes.... Ironically it is more socially divisive than the capitalist model you abhor....

how so?

If we support economically disadvantaged members of society to provide materially for their children we will be complicit in providing them with opportunities that are equivalent to those children born in to more economically advantageous circumstances.

If we fail to do this we perpetuate poverty and division.

We need to invest in this generation to proliferate advantage in the next.

"so now we're supposed to to accept that the most socially vulnerable in our society have a misguided sense of entitlement?"

No, I believe most would expect to provide for their families rather than expect that to be the state's job.

why should they flash?

they have been denied the advantages of you or I.

They are entitled to our support.

I do have some sympathy with some of what you are saying OP. I am a member of the Labour Party and was heavily involved in campaigning during the lead up to the GE. During this time I was incredibly frustrated by many fellow party members maintaining that Labour cares about the vulnerable and the Torys don't. There was a real edge of taking the moral highground and a worthiness that was hard to stomach.

Many of my friends vote Tory and they really do care about society's most vulnerable. They just have very different ideas about how best to provide for people. The rhetoric about Tory voters just putting themselves first and only caring for the rich just discredited Labour in their eyes.

I do think the Conservatives think they are doing the best for everyone. They think people will be happier if they participate more fully in society and have more autonomy and financial independence. For what it is worth, I think their strategy is rubbish and damaging but I don't doubt their positive intensions.

I think everyone would benefit from political debate moving on from 'who cares the most' to 'what is the best way to enable and support those in need'.

The Tory's never, ever claim to prioritise the rich over the poor. They do put forward arguments about why their strategy will help those in need. I don't think that political argument based on 'you're lying' and 'we care so much more than you' achieves anything. Assume that they are telling the truth and then focus debate on showing them how they are failing to deliver on their goals. Proving that they are not achieving what they want to achieve will make them look bad.

lemonade they have been denied the advantages of you or I

What, such as a free extensive education up to the age of 16, or 18 if they wish?

Access to further education or work if they work hard enough?

If you were talking about refugees from some war torn hellhole, I would agree with you. But there are opportunities in Britain. True, some people are unable to access them. But sometimes, it is their own fault. Not someone else's. Lots of people have poor opportunities and manage perfectly well, because we already live in a socialist country with a redistributive tax system to provide for these things (I don't know about you, but when I look at my pay statements, I see a lot of the money I have earned going anywhere but into my own bank account).

They already get our support. You are reaching the stage where further support disadvantages such people, because it removes what they already lack completely - motivation.

ElectraCute Over the last few days I have seen many, many posts from those who identify as right-wing, clearly incapable of judging fellow humans on the basis of anything other than their earning potential. I have seen posts which very starkly and honestly state that people's usefulness to society should be judged on a ratio of number of children to monthly salary. And if the sums don't add up, that person is, well, non grata!

I have seen on these pages a repeated similar attitude to those who they would identify as right wing - looking at them as cash cows, in terms only of how much more money they can squeeze out of them, all the time while trying to make them feel guilty for going out to work and earning a living for themselves.

Its pathetic and ridiculous. Everyone in this country already pays a lot of tax. Its not a low tax country. We have an NHS. We have extensive benefits and free education.

Treating hard working people as stupid, evil, dim witted and so on is ridiculous. If you are that bothered, I would suppose you make sure you yourself work full time in an extremely well paid role, donating an extra 10% or so of your monthly take home pay to charities providing for the sort of people you describe?

And as for the writing off of people who come from what you claim is under-privileged backgrounds. That attitude has to be one of the biggest problems that people from less wealthy backgrounds have to deal with.

Funnily enough, just about every socialist I know in real life either doesn't work and lives off someone else, or works but not very hard, and spends a lot of time bearing anyone who earns more than them ("the rich") on the internet.

my education wasn't free.
my parents were dual earner professionals.
I was socialised to be entitled to a university education, a career, an inheritance, aspiration.

I had far more than free education up until the age of 18 and the opportunity to work for pay if I was 'sufficiently motivated'

people who were denied the advantages I was are entitled to my taxation as support.

I wrote a long old post in rely to thechandler but tbh life's too short and the tennis is on and I have lavender to plant. So just this, then, and then I'm done.

I have seen on these pages a repeated similar attitude to those who they would identify as right wing - looking at them as cash cows, in terms only of how much more money they can squeeze out of them, all the time while trying to make them feel guilty for going out to work and earning a living for themselves.

Show me one single post, on the whole of MN, with that attitude, and I will start to take you seriously.

Funnily enough, just about every socialist I know in real life either doesn't work and lives off someone else, or works but not very hard, and spends a lot of time bearing anyone who earns more than them ("the rich") on the internet.

I'm betting you don't know a single, solitary 'socialist' in real life. Your posts betray your utter cluelessness, over and over again.

Access to further education or work if they work hard enough

You have no idea what it is like. I have been trying and trying to 'access further education' and 'work hard' I contribute around £60,000 a year to the economy in free voluntary work as well as studying for a degree and raising four children. There are SO many barriers to actually succeeding at this if you are poor. Your choice is basically starve and achieve or give up and live in poverty (in work or not).

Yes, ordinary people pay a lot of tax but the wealthy pay virtually nothing. The whole tax system is meant to be about giving what you can afford so that people can have state support - everyone not just the poor.

The issue with arguments about entitlement are that the people in the middle, who are being exploited by the wealthy so that they can avoid taxation and hand the burden of providing for the whole state to ordinary workers, are blaming the poor for being 'entitled' - to what? Food? Shelter? A chance to improve their lives? Come on....

The whole point of people making part of their income available to the state in terms of taxation and giving up their rights to the land they live on IS that the state, in return, manages the economy, which provides for everyone, effectively. Poor people are trapped entirely at the state's mercy (or not), they simply do not have any other option.

Lemonade: it's good that you want others to have the same opportunities as you had, and that you're willing for your taxes to be used to enable this. I fully concur with you, and am equally willing for my taxes to be spent in this way.

The issue I have is that I believe the policies you espouse would be counter-productive and have the opposite impact. The economically disadvantaged are not helped by policies that reinforce their dependency. The child of the economically dependent parent(s) would perhaps under your policy be better off materially, but the culture in which they live would be a comfortably dependent one, and they wouldn't have the formative role models you were lucky enough to have in your parents. If they were to become aspirational, it would be despite their situation. Your 'kindness' would actually be perpetuating their disadvantage.

At the end of they day, I think we want the same thing, we just have different approaches....

Yes, ordinary people pay a lot of tax but the wealthy pay virtually nothing.

Perhaps the extremely wealthy, and I agree that is wrong... The merely wealthy (i.e those who can't live most of the year in Barbados) do pay a lot of tax - nearly half their income - and are massive net contributors.

Well, that's my point. I count those people as ordinary people because they live ordinary lives.

I find it repugnant that people feel they should be able to tell me what is good for me just because I'm poor. Often those judgements have involved - "university education is not realistic, why don't you think about something more achievable" and increasing withdrawal of financial support because whilst I'm not earning a wage I am working towards bettering my career and eventual income. I have the ability to contribute more to society than working on minimum wage in a shop and I want to contribute more to society than that (not a judgement on anybody who does) why should I be told I cannot work towards fulfilling my potential and providing better for my children just because I'm poor. It is bad for me psychologically and bad for my family and society economically to not invest in people so they can achieve their potential. Supporting people with housing and food so that they can raise children or work towards a career is not encouraging dependency. I am yet to meet someone who is happy with being dependent on anyone who does not have pretty serious mental health problems (and is therefore in need of health treatment).

90% of people are not net contributors btw - that in itself is a sign of hideous and problematic inequality. When coupled with the low tax burden on those who can best afford it that makes for an extremely mismanaged economy.