Are all Socialists/left wingers delusional, unrealistic or just plain stupid? Discuss

[aintforever]

It's already been scientifically proven that liberals are more intelligent, it makes sense if you think about it (go on, give it go)...

 

A study by Dr Kanazawa, published in Social Science Quarterly in March, based on the same data showed that young adults who identified themselves as "very liberal" had an average IQ of 106 while those who identified themselves as "very conservative" had an average IQ of 95.

 

"The ability to think and reason endowed our ancestors with advantages in solving evolutionarily novel problems for which they did not have innate solutions. As a result, more intelligent people are more likely to recognise and understand such novel entities and situations than less intelligent people, and some of these entities and situations are preferences, values, and lifestyles," Dr Kanazawa said.

 

Humans are evolutionarily designed to be conservative, caring mostly about their family and friends. Being liberal and caring about an indefinite number of genetically unrelated strangers is evolutionarily novel. So more intelligent children may be more likely to grow up to be liberals.

[Colinjb]

It's already been scientifically proven that liberals are more intelligent, it makes sense if you think about it (go on, give it go)...

 

A study by Dr Kanazawa, published in Social Science Quarterly in March, based on the same data showed that young adults who identified themselves as "very liberal" had an average IQ of 106 while those who identified themselves as "very conservative" had an average IQ of 95.

 

"The ability to think and reason endowed our ancestors with advantages in solving evolutionarily novel problems for which they did not have innate solutions. As a result, more intelligent people are more likely to recognise and understand such novel entities and situations than less intelligent people, and some of these entities and situations are preferences, values, and lifestyles," Dr Kanazawa said.

 

Humans are evolutionarily designed to be conservative, caring mostly about their family and friends. Being liberal and caring about an indefinite number of genetically unrelated strangers is evolutionarily novel. So more intelligent children may be more likely to grow up to be liberals.

 

Interesting theory.

Edited 13 December, 2010 by Colinjb

[CB Saint]

It's already been scientifically proven that liberals are more intelligent, it makes sense if you think about it (go on, give it go)...

 

A study by Dr Kanazawa, published in Social Science Quarterly in March, based on the same data showed that young adults who identified themselves as "very liberal" had an average IQ of 106 while those who identified themselves as "very conservative" had an average IQ of 95.

 

"The ability to think and reason endowed our ancestors with advantages in solving evolutionarily novel problems for which they did not have innate solutions. As a result, more intelligent people are more likely to recognise and understand such novel entities and situations than less intelligent people, and some of these entities and situations are preferences, values, and lifestyles," Dr Kanazawa said.

 

Humans are evolutionarily designed to be conservative, caring mostly about their family and friends. Being liberal and caring about an indefinite number of genetically unrelated strangers is evolutionarily novel. So more intelligent children may be more likely to grow up to be liberals.

 

So in about 10,000 years we will have a Liberal government. After all it will probably take them that long to recover from this fees issue.

[View From The Top]

A lot of lefties do hold rather utopian ideas but like anything where you stand in relation to the centre is important, in the same way right wingers can be from the One Nation wing and others are neo-nazis.

 

To me being a leftie is about giving life opportunities to sectors of society that are often excluded through education. I don't want to see lives wasted in a benefits reliant cycle and I have seen the benefits education brings to disenfranchised groups if it is delivered well.

 

Personally I have no issues with wealth (I have a major issue with the tax avoidance of the seriously wealthy such as Philip Green) and I enjoy the benefits of a good wage and fruits of a successful private business venture and I would like all to aspire to the trappings of success.

 

I am comfortable with that outlook and my place in building an equitable society based on ability and not birthright and will raise my children to understand that hard work and education are their keys to a bright future.

[Colinjb]

I am comfortable with that outlook and my place in building an equitable society based on ability and not birthright and will raise my children to understand that hard work and education are their keys to a bright future.

 

An excellent Tory view.

[Verbal]

Interesting theory.

 

No, not theory - he said it was scientifically proven. Now what, I wonder, is the reason for your not grasping this simple point?

[View From The Top]

An excellent Tory view.

 

No, it's not and I'm not surprised that a tory fails to grasp that.

 

It they believed in equality they really wouldn't be scrapping the EMA.

[Colinjb]

No, not theory - he said it was scientifically proven. Now what, I wonder, is the reason for your not grasping this simple point?

 

I would be interested to know what the sample rates were for the experiment. Like all facts, they are simply refined theories that are judged to have been proven by repeated and confirmed observation. the greater the sample rate the more plausible and credible the theory.

 

I am not dissagreeing with it, I would just like to know more.

[Colinjb]

No, it's not and I'm not surprised that a tory fails to grasp that.

 

It they believed in equality they really wouldn't be scrapping the EMA.

 

Tory values stipulate that the hard work of an individual benefits society. I was taking what you said in isolation.

[Verbal]

I would be interested to know what the sample rates were for the experiment. Like all facts, they are simply refined theories that are judged to have been proven by repeated and confirmed observation. the greater the sample rate the more plausible and credible the theory.

 

I am not dissagreeing with it, I would just like to know more.

 

There are some mental exercises you can do to improve your IQ. As you do so, you will find your politics moving inexorably to the left. I promise.

[Colinjb]

There are some mental exercises you can do to improve your IQ. As you do so, you will find your politics moving inexorably to the left. I promise.

 

I am quite certain of my politics, but thankyou for your concern. Now if you don't mind I have some X Factor to watch on Sky+.

[buctootim]

American psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg did a lot of work on moral development and believed there were six levels. All humans progress sequentially from stage 1 in early childhood through to the higher stages. However most adults dont reach stage six and may top out at 3,4 or 5. It has a lot of relevance for the left / right, me first / society first argument. You cant really paraphrase his work but the basics are below.

 

Stage one is characterized by blind obedience to rules and authority and a fear of punishment. Stage two is characterized by seeking to pursue one's concrete interests, recognizing that others need to do the same, and a calculating instrumental approach to decision-making. Stage three is characterized by trying to live up to the expectations of others for good behavior, by having good motives, and by fostering close relationships. Stage four is characterized by a concern for maintaining the social system in order to promote social order and welfare. Stage five is characterized by judging the moral worth of societal rules and values insofar as they are consistent with fundamental values, such as liberty, the general welfare or utility, human rights, and contractual obligations. Stage six is characterized by universal principles of justice and respect for human autonomy.

Edited 14 December, 2010 by buctootim

[Colinjb]

It's interesting that many with a socialist/liberal bias consider themelves as more enlightened or superior to those who are more right wing in their views... who apparently are meant to be the ones who are condescending and elitist.

 

Love these little human/political paradoxes.

[Verbal]

It's interesting that many with a socialist/liberal bias consider themelves as more enlightened or superior to those who are more right wing in their views... who apparently are meant to be the ones who are condescending and elitist.

 

Love these little human/political paradoxes.

 

We are not elitist or condescending; we just feel sorry for you. But there is hope in your case.

[Colinjb]

We are not elitist or condescending; we just feel sorry for you. But there is hope in your case.

 

No help required! But thanks again.

[trousers]

We are not elitist or condescending; we just feel sorry for you. But there is hope in your case.

 

I see what you did there... ;-)

[trousers]

There are some mental exercises you can do to improve your IQ. As you do so, you will find your politics moving inexorably to the left. I promise.

 

Two words: John & Prescott ;-)

[aintforever]

It's interesting that many with a socialist/liberal bias consider themelves as more enlightened or superior to those who are more right wing in their views... who apparently are meant to be the ones who are condescending and elitist.

 

Love these little human/political paradoxes.

 

I was merely responding to the title of the thread, I'm sorry it it came across as condescending, I really don't have anything against you uneducated types.

[Colinjb]

I was merely responding to the title of the thread, I'm sorry it it came across as condescending, I really don't have anything against you uneducated types.

 

.

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

There are some mental exercises you can do to improve your IQ. As you do so, you will find your politics moving inexorably to the left. I promise.

 

Why is everything so condescending with you? It makes you look even more of a psychologists wet dream, considering you're consistently wrong. I think they call that delusional...

[Verbal]

Why is everything so condescending with you? It makes you look even more of a psychologists wet dream, considering you're consistently wrong. I think they call that delusional...

 

Ah another fan. I'm collecting starry eyed acolytes at a rate of knots. I think Delldays is organising the fan club. Please do PM him, not me. I don't answer plebeian requests, I'm afraid.

[Gingeletiss]

No, it's not and I'm not surprised that a tory fails to grasp that.

 

It they believed in equality they really wouldn't be scrapping the EMA.

 

If a Labour (left wing) government, hadn't spent all the countrys money, stole the pension fund, sold the gold reserves, open the borders to benifit grabbing immigrants etc etc, then maybe they wouldn't be scrapping the EMA........how hard is it to comprehend, this country is nearly bankrupt!!

[rocknrollman no2]

If a Labour (left wing) government, hadn't spent all the countrys money, stole the pension fund, sold the gold reserves, open the borders to benifit grabbing immigrants etc etc, then maybe they wouldn't be scrapping the EMA........how hard is it to comprehend, this country is nearly bankrupt!!

 

We have to have a certain amount of immigrants because we are part of the community of Europe,something the TORYS signed us up to.

Labour bailed out the banks,something the TORYS agreed with.The rest of this mess was caused by said banks overleading and being greedy,something that went on just as much under the TORY government.

The EMA was there to help poorer students and is a drop in the ocean compared to what the government needs to spend,but has been taken away by this condem goverment,made up from mostly TORYS.

HTHs

[Saintandy666]

Socialism transcends boarders. The whole idea of socialism if any of you right wingers knew anything about it is that it needs to be in place on an extremely large scale as in worldwide for it to work. If capitalism still remains the main system a socialist state can not function to the degree it could.

 

I'm not saying I advocate absolute equality, I just think people need to stop viewing everything through the goggles of capitalism.

[buctootim]

Whilst there is greater inequality in terms of income now between the rich and those on average incomes - lifestyles have actually become much more similar. (yes I know this a generralisation) 50 years ago the rich holidayed abroad, ate in restaurants, drove to work and lived in centrally heated homes. People on average incomes holidayed on the IOW, made sandwiches, travelled to work on the bus and huddled round the single coal fire. Beyond a certain point additional money doesnt add much to your quality of life. I actually know people who have sold their Aston Martin for a Ford Mondeo and moved from their big country house back to a 'normal' town centre place - not because they had to, but because rich mans toys often aren't all they're cracked up to be.

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

Socialism transcends boarders. The whole idea of socialism if any of you right wingers knew anything about it is that it needs to be in place on an extremely large scale as in worldwide for it to work. If capitalism still remains the main system a socialist state can not function to the degree it could.

 

I'm not saying I advocate absolute equality, I just think people need to stop viewing everything through the goggles of capitalism.

 

Surely then people who support the idea and implementation of socialism are therefore unrealistic as they know that it needs the full planet to participate, and that will not happen.

[bridge too far]

Socialism transcends boarders. The whole idea of socialism if any of you right wingers knew anything about it is that it needs to be in place on an extremely large scale as in worldwide for it to work. If capitalism still remains the main system a socialist state can not function to the degree it could.

 

I'm not saying I advocate absolute equality, I just think people need to stop viewing everything through the goggles of capitalism.

 

To add to this: I don't know of any socialists who advocate EQUALITY. What they do advocate is equality of opportunity. That's quite different and it's an ideal that I would be happy to subscribe to.

[buctootim]

Those labels are outdated now. Nowhere in the world does out and out capitalism or true socialism exist. Everywhere operates a regulated market economy and wealth redistribution. Economies and politics have converged, the only difference is the degree of regulation.

[Seaford Saint]

To add to this: I don't know of any socialists who advocate EQUALITY. What they do advocate is equality of opportunity. That's quite different and it's an ideal that I would be happy to subscribe to.

 

Welcome back fellow socialist thinker

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

Surely then people who support the idea and implementation of socialism are therefore unrealistic as they know that it needs the full planet to participate, and that will not happen.

 

Anyone going to answer this, or is the answer to the original question 'unrealistic'?

 

I'm thinking that is the conclusion for this thread.

[Seaford Saint]

Not at all a loaded question!

 

Unrealistic is probably the right point though.

 

Socialists try to work against human nature by stipulating a system that is utterly fair for all, providing equal opportunity for all and equal chance for all. Human nature itself will always undermine such nobel ideals. Besides which, the captalist system they seak to use to make it possible could never support these dreams.

The banking crisis is human nature is it? Invading Iraq, afghanistan......its all human nature. Who'd have thought it?

 

No one has ever

[Saintandy666]

Anyone going to answer this, or is the answer to the original question 'unrealistic'?

 

I'm thinking that is the conclusion for this thread.

 

But you don't have to have pure socialism though. I'm just saying socialism as you think it is. Conservatism and Socialism are broad families... personally, I would not advocate total equality but what I would advocate is Equality of Opportunity, Social Justice(so some equality of outcome to remedy the unfairness of capitalism), tame capitalism a bit with PROPER regulation and also push for more co-operation between countries and people... I think this is what modern socialism is and most UK socialists would be of those views, not marxism which most people here seem to see socialism as.

[Saintandy666]

What really brings my **** to boil in this pure competition based world is pharmaceutical companies. They don't ****ing co-operate and share their research to ensure the quickest and best medicine for all. They want to get there first so they can have big profits. Off topic but it ****es me off.

[Thedelldays]

left wing government though, you try again...

 

You say the Obama lot are left wing.. When just now on telly a few facts have been shown

 

Obama has..

Prosecuted more whistle blowers or wanna be whistle blowers more than any other president

 

He has signed off on a $708bn war chest.. The biggest ever

 

Despite saying he was dead against war he has signed off on more troops in Iraq and afghan.. And also expanded American firepower into Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen

 

Hmmmmmmm makes the Tories look like a bunch of puppies

[trousers]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11992177

 

I've always liked the cut of Mr Reid's jib...

[OldNick]

A lot of lefties do hold rather utopian ideas but like anything where you stand in relation to the centre is important, in the same way right wingers can be from the One Nation wing and others are neo-nazis.

 

To me being a leftie is about giving life opportunities to sectors of society that are often excluded through education. I don't want to see lives wasted in a benefits reliant cycle and I have seen the benefits education brings to disenfranchised groups if it is delivered well.

 

Personally I have no issues with wealth (I have a major issue with the tax avoidance of the seriously wealthy such as Philip Green) and I enjoy the benefits of a good wage and fruits of a successful private business venture and I would like all to aspire to the trappings of success.

 

I am comfortable with that outlook and my place in building an equitable society based on ability and not birthright and will raise my children to understand that hard work and education are their keys to a bright future.

much of that is to my beliefs as well, but I'd still vote Tory as it stands at present.

If the country is financially weak it is not strong enough to support the needy.

I dislike the rich who like Phillip green do not pay into the kitty, but i dont resent those people who are driving the economy so that more tax is earned and so the government then gets revenue in to pay for schools and hospitals. I don't like the Labour way of getting the schools and hospitals, but then expecting my grandchildren pay for them.It is immoral, and all the people crying now who have overspent themselves and put the nation in massive debt, not then have the fibre to stand up and take the medicine.

[bridge too far]

Nick - PFI (I'm assuming that is what you're talking about at the end of your comment) was introduced by the Tories. I know, because I was working on one of the first PFI hospital schemes in 1997 BEFORE the election).

 

They are carrying on with the tradition as they are proposing to hand over the Search & Rescue service as part of a PFI scheme.

 

http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/2050204/?UserKey=

[OldNick]

Nick - PFI (I'm assuming that is what you're talking about at the end of your comment) was introduced by the Tories. I know, because I was working on one of the first PFI hospital schemes in 1997 BEFORE the election).

 

They are carrying on with the tradition as they are proposing to hand over the Search & Rescue service as part of a PFI scheme.

 

http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/2050204/?UserKey=

I was not thinking of PFI in my statement but you are correct that the Tories did start the PFI, that still does not make the scheme correct in my eyes. This makes interesting reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_finance_initiative

Good old Brown has faith in the Public sector lol

[Verbal]

Nick - PFI (I'm assuming that is what you're talking about at the end of your comment) was introduced by the Tories. I know, because I was working on one of the first PFI hospital schemes in 1997 BEFORE the election).

 

They are carrying on with the tradition as they are proposing to hand over the Search & Rescue service as part of a PFI scheme.

 

http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/2050204/?UserKey=

 

Since you raise it, it always amuses me when the 'where's there's muck there's brass' types start pontificating on here about the heroics of capitalists - because large numbers of capitalist wonderkids are utterly dependent on the public sector. PFI companies are one of the best examples. Another is the dependency of many companies on government to provide funding for apprenticeships. For heaven's sake, the cost is minimal (apprentices are cheap labour) - why the hell do business owners need to go cap in hand to the government to fund their schemes?

[Fuengirola Saint]

Since you raise it, it always amuses me when the 'where's there's muck there's brass' types start pontificating on here about the heroics of capitalists - because large numbers of capitalist wonderkids are utterly dependent on the public sector. PFI companies are one of the best examples. Another is the dependency of many companies on government to provide funding for apprenticeships. For heaven's sake, the cost is minimal (apprentices are cheap labour) - why the hell do business owners need to go cap in hand to the government to fund their schemes?

 

 

Because they are Greedy ( Tories )

[OldNick]

Since you raise it, it always amuses me when the 'where's there's muck there's brass' types start pontificating on here about the heroics of capitalists - because large numbers of capitalist wonderkids are utterly dependent on the public sector. PFI companies are one of the best examples. Another is the dependency of many companies on government to provide funding for apprenticeships. For heaven's sake, the cost is minimal (apprentices are cheap labour) - why the hell do business owners need to go cap in hand to the government to fund their schemes?

i dont think apprentices are cheap labour, they are green behind their ears and hardly contribute to a companies profits, in fact some of the time they would hinder the qualified worker. It must be galling to train them up and as soon as they are trained that they clear off to a better paid job. I'm not sure if there is legislation that makes them when qualified to have to stay at a company. I doubt in modern day Britain it would be allowed.

No incentive for a business to train people if there is no reward. Of course the lefties will argue about the wages and rights to move on, but the company they move to can afford to pay more if they haven't apprentices holding them back

[OldNick]

Because they are Greedy ( Tories )

Lol, greedy human nature Fuengirola, not just down to politics. Saturday at half time there was a competition on the pitch to win a signed shirt. There was a middle aged man and a kid competing, I (a Tory) was hoping the man would intentionally lose to let the kid get the shirt. He didn't, he won and left the kid disappointed. i dont care about his politics but to me it was mean spirited.Would all socialists/Labour supporters have given the kid the shirt?

[Verbal]

i dont think apprentices are cheap labour, they are green behind their ears and hardly contribute to a companies profits, in fact some of the time they would hinder the qualified worker. It must be galling to train them up and as soon as they are trained that they clear off to a better paid job. I'm not sure if there is legislation that makes them when qualified to have to stay at a company. I doubt in modern day Britain it would be allowed.

No incentive for a business to train people if there is no reward. Of course the lefties will argue about the wages and rights to move on, but the company they move to can afford to pay more if they haven't apprentices holding them back

 

Sorry Nick but companies always used to bear the full cost of apprenticeships. Now they're just corporate welfare scroungers, cadging a few quid off of the taxpayer.

[trousers]

http://shop.conservatives.com/product97342/ed-milibands-policies-for-britain.aspx

[Blind Dog]

It's an interesting observation to make that the most sucessful Socialist country ever was NAZI Germany.

 

Makes one wonder why they bothered to crush the communists, the socialists and the trade unionists doesn't it!

[tedmaul]

Capitalism is a recent movement.

[tedmaul]

[tedmaul]

Socialism is a beautiful idea, which cannot exist unfortunately due too existing political structures and human nature itself. Which is evolving all the time in a genetically selfish way through a process of natural selection.

[Blind Dog]

Give some examples of sucessful Socialist countries.

 

Basically there are none.

 

Having said that the October Revolution In Russia was the greatest event in human history - Why? because for the first time in history the majority had the power. Unfortunately for various reasons including the failure of the German Revolution of 1918 Russia was left isolated and, after the death of Lenin and the forced exile of Trotsky a bureaucratic elite developed. This elite usurped power. Nevertheless the benefits of the planned economy can be seen in the defeat of nazi germany, the space race, medicine, for example, because the profit motive was not paramount. The former Warsaw pact, China and Cuba developed basically in the image of Moscow.

 

Socialism to exist and develop needs democracy the same as the human body needs oxygen. Capitalism on the other hand exists in Taliban controlled Afganistan, Saudi Arabia and every other despotic tyranny you can think of

[Blind Dog]

This human nature - is it the same human nature that must have existed throughout many hundreds of thousands of years of history when everyone had to band together to save one another from an attack from a lion; in other words human beings had to cooperate and join together to fight off common enemies; or is it the human nature of the last few hundred years of capitalism which has crystalised into this current Thatcherite me only business. Imagine me only fighting the lion!