Left-right:
By the means used, communism and socialism are right-wing political trends, not left-wing ones.
"Right" means are political and general monopolism, non-freedom , hierarchy, violence.
"Bourgeois" propagandists confused the concept of " left-right " - with the aim of manipulation.
In particular, dragged to the "right" direction - racism.
Initially, during the French Revolution, " left-right " denoted an attitude towards class privileges.
Freedom, liberalism belonged to the "left" direction, since it is precisely the restrictions on freedom that are the cause of inequality.
If some people, some social stratum has power and the possibility of some kind of monopolization, any power privileges, then these people naturally use one way or another the possibilities of power - for their own benefit, even if they received power and opportunities to reduce inequalities.
There are no flaws in freedom, there is only a lack of freedom.
Only true freedom can give complete equality.
"Socialist" privileges for the poor are usually just an excuse for maintaining privileges for the rich, from which the rich get more than the poor.
As the Russians say, it is more important not to help, but not to hinder.
For disabled people who are unable to work, voluntary assistance that does not justify taxes is sufficient and optimal.
I propose a simplification of concepts - Consider that the "Left" is what is against social polarization.
"Real" "Left" - reduces social polarization not with the help of polarization in relation to power, but with the help of increasing freedom, including property.
In the USSR, for example, there was low inequality in property, but high inequality in relation to power.
But today the goal of the "Left" movement is not so much the standard of living of the poor and disenfranchised as their survival.
those in power to manipulate people are sharply increasing.
It was necessary not to fight monopolies with the help of the absolute monopoly of the state, but to help anti-monopoly.
The best help now is organizational, not tax, not "antimonopoly" legislation.
The "Deliberative Network" is the best way to help the "Social Modes of Production".
An open discussion is needed:
1. Economic legislation.
2. All - economic, legal, etc. details - "business design" of collective farms, etc.
- The factor of "practical" economic education is more significant than simple freedom of entrepreneurship.
Political education in a democracy increases democracy, that is, a positive feedback is formed.
There is strong competition for profit - there is an optimal way to reduce it.
The structure of the "Deliberative Network" should be geared towards the high efficiency of these discussions.
§ On the protection of private property:
This question appeared in the 18th century in England and France - when the owners were defenseless against " raiding " and arbitrariness on the part of those close to power, who used the state's monopoly on violence.
In the 20th century, large owners themselves became power - through lobbying and propaganda. And they began to abuse the protection of private property - they began to create monopoly artificial advantages - already for themselves.
These were monopoly advantages not only in relation to competitors, but also collective e- "class" advantages, as well as advantages in relation to militarily weak countries.
That is, the role of protecting private property has fallen dramatically - in "democratic" countries.
More important has become the protection - against the new monopoly - used in relation to:
- "Operated" classes,
- Weak countries.
- New competitors. – The notorious invented “Intellectual Property” has become the main mechanism of monopoly and a brake on development.
It is necessary to protect private property - from the power over it of Kings and all others who are not direct producers, since they, one way or another, create monopolistic advantages for themselves.
Latifundists, investors, enterprises and employers are not direct producers.
§ Public property:
Public ownership of the means of production is not state property.
Public property is property democratically controlled by the people.
Perhaps this is what the Marxists had in mind, but now they do not see such an emphasis.
Perhaps it was hidden by communist propaganda.
This also does not mean that the Marxist thesis about the necessity - the monopoly of public property - is correct.
The monopoly of public ownership of the means of production is in itself a factor in its "bureaucratic degeneration."
In general, the question of the options for the functioning of public property and their effectiveness remains objectively unexplored, not only in practice, but also in theory.
Modern criticism of Public Property by scientists from "democratic countries" is not objective either.
Although in Western countries there are many implementations of forms of public property, however, they are in an oppressive and distorting environment.
And in general, before IT , democratic - very complex control of ownership was simply not real.
§ #Billionaire Allies:
Penalties against the Google monopoly are similar to the fight between the state oligarch Putin and rival oligarchs like Khodorkovsky.
There are no scientific articles with an analytical analysis of the Google monopoly . - Google 's accusations of preventing the creation of alternative tools seem one-sided and make one suspect the existence of censorship, similar to the one that acted when looking for scapegoats in the USSR in 1937.
"Left" - "Right":
"Left" - for freedom, equality, fraternity and flat evolution.
Prior to the manipulation of terms, "Left" originally meant just that.
"Right" - for the concentration of power, hierarchy, cultural manipulation and the extinction of mankind.
However, I have my own position.
Let them look at it, and not at the labels created for manipulation.
I do not adapt to other people's criteria of positions.
Latynina "burned in milk, blowing on the water":
( https://novayagazeta.ru/articles/2020/06/30/86074-velikaya-zapadnaya-kulturnaya-revolyutsiya ) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Latynina writes that the real goal of the New Reds ( Antifa and the feminists) is not to protect the rights of victims, but to destroy freedoms and an open society.
Yes, among the "democratic socialists" of the United States there is a mood for the redistribution of income.
However, Antifa is far from the "ignorant" Sharikovs .
Few people in Antifa are going to build a communist dictatorship in America.
The threat to democracy and freedom no longer comes from Antifa , but from monopolies in the US.
- From the dealers in life who came up with "Intellectual Property", destroying the free production of drugs, and with it millions of people.
- From manufacturers who have lobbied dozens of subtle laws to increase their profits at the expense of salaries.
Redistribution of income is the lesser evil.
In addition, it will reduce social polarization - the material basis for replacing freedoms with their mirage, and building a society of deep manipulation - worse than in the post-USSR.
Yes, so far redistribution has strengthened state administration.
But today more democratic variants of redistribution are also possible.
And redistribution is still less parasitism than the parasitism of monopolists monetizing their non-free advantages.
Extra income ordinary people reinvest in the education of their children - more than people accustomed to luxury reinvest their profits in inefficient centralized science.
|