Why is being "Right-Wing" considered as bad these days?

You wrote what I was basically trying to get at. I think we're about level.

Well, I should have been a bit less general. I understand that resources are only able to be given out if they are produced to begin with, I wasn't trying to say that the amount is static, regardless of contribution. If less is produced, less is distributed among the people. The main issue with this, though, is the blow is softened to those who don't contribute as much because the loss is dispersed among everyone. Depending on the person in this situation, they'd either work harder to get themselves more or be satisfied with what they received and continue to do so in the future as the cost is less to them personally. The issue lies in whether you believe people would be motivated to work for that minimal increase or settle for that minimal decrease if it suits their needs. This one is up in the air as many people would react differently in this situation. The situation with the jobs is also a bit hazy. In the US, the market decides what job we get, but in communism, the state decides what job you get depending on your skills. I don't believe either are naturally suited for deciding what people should do for their lives as there will always be the need for many, many unskilled workers, and no matter what system you live under, many people will be disgruntled with their jobs. I believe that having the hope that you can change your situation in life is better than knowing you're stuck doing what you do now. Regardless, each system has it's own share of problems in the job market.

Efficiency in the workplace suffers under communism as well. As the state dictates all citizens must be employed, it can create an over-saturation in certain fields, namely the necessary blue-collar work done by unskilled workers. As more people are employed, the work becomes trivial and work is created to keep the workers busy. At this point, you're just making more without worrying about how well it is done or whether or not it is actually needed. There is less profit to hand out as you hire more people, so you spend less to train them, their work becomes sloppy, they lose motivation as they lack any incentive to do the job. It effectively stagnates progression as the workforce becomes little more than (and this is grossly overstated) children who you're just trying to find things to do. The focus becomes the quantity of workers, not the quality. People could care less about their jobs and don't try to do their best as there are others who can do the job as well, and this has been documented in the former USSR. Where in the US it's stress causing friction, in communism it's sloth.

I, purely and honestly, have a hard time not seeing communism as relying on the selfless citizen, from an on-paper standpoint. You're going to have to explain your stance on this.

I still don't believe people should be forced to contribute a specific amount. We can not quantify the value an individual brings to the world.

In the US, the market decides what job we get, but in communism, the state decides what job you get depending on your skills.

In communism there is no state.

and no matter what system you live under, many people will be disgruntled with their jobs. I believe that having the hope that you can change your situation in life is better than knowing you're stuck doing what you do now. Regardless, each system has it's own share of problems in the job market.

Communism pretty much guaranties no barriers to passion projects. A big problem indie game developers face is saving enough money to keep themselves alive throughout the time they take to develop the game. In communism this problem would not exist.

Efficiency in the workplace suffers under communism as well. As the state dictates all citizens must be employed, it can create an over-saturation in certain fields, namely the necessary blue-collar work done by unskilled workers. As more people are employed, the work becomes trivial and work is created to keep the workers busy. At this point, you're just making more without worrying about how well it is done or whether or not it is actually needed. There is less profit to hand out as you hire more people, so you spend less to train them, their work becomes sloppy, they lose motivation as they lack any incentive to do the job. It effectively stagnates progression as the workforce becomes little more than (and this is grossly overstated) children who you're just trying to find things to do. The focus becomes the quantity of workers, not the quality. People could care less about their jobs and don't try to do their best as there are others who can do the job as well, and this has been documented in the former USSR. Where in the US it's stress causing friction, in communism it's sloth.

You are talking about a type of state socialism. Central planning doesn't work. I don't believe that is a path towards communism.

The problem is you wanna associate communism with government planning.

You look at all the countries that have had greater gdp growth than the usa, and the one thing in common is they arent afraid to leverage their government. Keep relying on the communist boogeyman, but the rest of the world is seeing huge gdp growth and insulation from recession, because they arent afraid to leverage their government vs private industry.]

Countries that lay down the law and say, you wanna do business here, you follow my rules. Have been more successful than the usa's policy of bending over for companies.

China, growing faster than anyone has been on the forefront of leveraging their government and telling private business how to suck it. Additionally countries like south korea, norway heavy government investment, largely insulated.

Its only dumbass countries like the usa that let private companies run a train on them, where we really see a severe gdp meltdown and anemic recovery.

I don't get it. The US has quite a bit of regulation. If you want to look back at when the US didn't have a lot of regulation look at the gilded era. It would probably be awesome for someone like me who was born into an upper middleclass family and had the luxury to sit around "investing" time on a skill that may or may not pay off but for everyone else it fucking sucked.

Well here is the problem with the usa, we love states rights. So if a walmart is looking to plant their HQ, we have states trying to undercut each other, offer subsiies and remove the rights of workers in order to get that facility in their state.

Its a worthless form of competition, where states try to suck off a company in order to procure investment. Thats why we need regulation at the federal level. Its why texas is doing so well despite the fact that they have arguably the dumbest and least educated workforce in the nation. They function as a tax haven within the usa.

@RushKing: In all, I still think that stateless communism is a utopian pipe dream. Every time progress is made towards a society like this, it's torn down by human inhibition. It's too easy to corrupt, too easy to kill. I admire the merits behind a system like it, but it relies on people not acting human.
Collectively, we can't be trusted.

communism is working in china, because of their state planning they are the fastest growing nation in the world. They dont pit their municipalities against one another, and instead bargain with private corporations on the federal level. It has paid massive dividends for the country.

@BeardMaster:Personally, I think its economic upturn stemmed from the inclusion of capitalist policies and companies and the droves of cheap labor. Communism may have gotten the ball rolling, but it's a glass pedestal. They need to rebalance or they're done for.

Both sides have their idiots.

It's just lately the right-wingers have said a lot of stupid shit.

Leave it in the cart for too long and it will.

Unless the rest of the apples wake up and distance themselves.

edgy

Problem, Ali? Do you not like my metaphors? >__>

There's nothing wrong with your metaphors, I just wanted to poke you that's all :)

And kudos to you for calling me Ali. I really can't comprehend why everybody calls me "Gaza".

Hilarious, seriously. I am going to pretend I am fair by saying all extremism is bad.....but i am going to say your side has the worst of it. So tired of people like you. The left and right both suck equally, the sooner people realize that the sooner we can fix this country.

Even more ironic is all the lefty liberals who cry about people being close minded because they don't 100% agree with them lol. You are open minded....as long as you agree with everything I say. So many idiots, so so many.

There's no issue in being conservative. "right wing" refers to people that are ultraconservative or extreme in their views. Most people with extreme views are usually (and often justifiably) looked down upon.

Can you elaborate? Humans are capable of both compassion and egotism. I believe the question is how we create in environment where the former can flourish.

George Orwell:

The Anarchists were still in virtual control of Catalonia and the revolution was still in full swing. To anyone who had been there since the beginning it probably seemed even in December or January that the revolutionary period was ending; but when one came straight from England the aspect of Barcelona was something startling and overwhelming. It was the first time that I had ever been in a town where the working class was in the saddle.

Waiters and shop-walkers looked you in the face and treated you as an equal. Servile and even ceremonial forms of speech had temporarily disappeared. Nobody said 'Senor' or 'Don' or even 'Usted'; everyone called everyone else 'Comrade' and 'Thou,' and said 'Salud!' instead of 'Buenas Dias.'

Yet so far as one could judge the people were contented and hopeful. There was no unemployment, and the price of living was still extremely low; you saw very few conspicuously destitute people, and no beggars except the gypsies. Above all, there was a belief in the revolution and the future, a feeling of having suddenly emerged into an era of equality and freedom. Human beings were trying to behave as human beings and not as cogs in the capitalist machine. In the barbers' shops were Anarchist notices (the barbers were mostly Anarchists) solemnly explaining that barbers were no longer slaves. In the streets were coloured posters appealing to prostitutes to stop being prostitutes.

As far as my purely personal preferences went I would have liked to join the Anarchists.

I had dropped more or less by chance into the only community of any size in Western Europe where political consciousness and disbelief in capitalism were more normal than their opposites. Up here in Aragon one was among tens of thousands of people, mainly though not entirely of working-class origin, all living at the same level and mingling on terms of equality. In theory it was perfect equality, and even in practice it was not far from it. There is a sense in which it would be true to say that one was experiencing a foretaste of Socialism, by which I mean that the prevailing mental atmosphere was that of Socialism. Many of the normal motives of civilized life—snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc.—had simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money-tainted air of England; there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves, and no one owned anyone else as his master.

It's also noteworthy that the republican party has made this the least productive Congress in history.

I would argue Congress being 'unproductive' is a plus not a negative. The last time they were really 'productive' they came up with crap like Obamacare and the 'stimulus'.

I wish the Congress would be part time with a similar schedule to the national guard....one weekend a month, two weeks in the summer.

Cause its the first part of your username I guess. I instictively want to call you Gaza too. It took conscious effort to type "Ali". lol

It's funny how you buy into the socialist narrative that the "productivity" of the government is measured by the volume of decrees it enacts. What's scary, however, is that people like you vote. If anything, the productivity of the government should be measured by how it carries out its duties, which are essentially protecting the rights of individuals and faithfully protecting the constitution - which means we need a government that retracts onerous laws and regulations that restrict our freedoms, not impose more and more of them indefinitely.

In my short time here, you stand out as one of the most useless posters. Politics ain't your thing, kiddo.

I agree, but unfortunately most Republicans are onboard with the status quo of endless expansion of governmental power. While the Republicans holding the House is better than the alternative, in their current incarnation they're just driving America into despotism and tyranny slightly more slowly.

No such thing as "the masses". We're individuals, not groups of idiots as you seem to think. If you want to play the holier-than-thou "I'm smarter than 'the masses'" card, I'll go with it for a moment - socialism is the opiate of the masses. A better and more accurate way to phrase it is thus: politically/historically/economically ignorant individuals (this includes you, in many ways) are vulnerable to the intoxicating utopian promises of communism. I mean, that's why you're here spinning wildly to defend the ideology, isn't it? It's funny and sad at the same time. I guess we mere mortals aren't yet evolved (i.e. coerced) enough into buying your brand. No matter, it's not like catastrophic failures (i.e. millions of consumed individuals) have ever stopped your ilk from trodding "forward" relentlessly, am I right?

@returnedbro: The masses is a common term used to describe a large general population. It's a rather neutral term, so I'm not sure what you're actually responding to. Understanding communism and advocating it are two entirely different issues. I understand the intent of communism because I've read The Communist Manifesto and I've known people who believed in it. My efforts here have been merely intended to address misconceptions about what communism is actually supposed to be. I have no interest in advocating it because, as I've stated previously, it's too idealistic to be possible, as are most other purely ideological viewpoints. If you re-read what I wrote about Marx and the context within which The Communist Manifesto was written perhaps that will help you understand where you missed the point of my comments.

@capaho

Of course it's a common term. It's not a neutral term, however. 99% of people who invoke that term, such as yourself, believe themselves to be outside "the masses". Guess what? Every single individual who you incorporate into that group also separates himself or herself in a similar manner. It's a derogatory term, whether or not you realise it. It's a term used by people who view themselves as part of an imaginary elite.

@capaho

One more thing, it's sad that you lack even the most basic honesty to acknowledge your own political orientation. You're a socialist/communist. You feign academic interest - "I just wanna get the truth out there!" (as if you're in any position to be educating me about these matters), and then say that you're ideologically ambivalent or "not a communist". It's pathetic how so many of your ideological side can't even engage in such discussions without being forthright about their values and ideological points of departure. Small matter, though, you're incredibly transparent - it takes about thirty seconds to see where you're coming from.

@returnedbro: Well, at least you've answered the question posited in the thread title:

Why is being "Right-Wing" considered as bad these days?

You, like most right-wingers, criticize and accuse without actually saying anything of substance. You are merely waging a propaganda campaign without regard for the facts under discussion. I have made no direct statements regarding my own political orientation. You merely argue without understanding, which pretty much typifies the contemporary right-winger. All I can say is, keep it up. Your agenda has no credibility as long you keep behaving like that, and that's a very good thing for the rest of us.

Quit projecting.

Not all "right wingers" are the same, there are varying levels of "how far right" someone is, not to mention how Americans seem to think being "conservative" means "social conservative".
You're labeling all "right wingers" without specifying social/financial conservatism, or without any clear topic in hand.

Continue to generalize and insult entire groups of people, however people are just going to call you out on being the bigot you are.

@Nibroc420: You should re-read the quote you included in your comment. You've provided yet another example of exactly what I was talking about there.

Wow, Gamespot keeps eating 2-3 paragraphs of my posts.

Its a new feature. Its to keep the boards free of rubbish and misleading info. A spam filter of sorts.

You're funny.

One doesn't have to be a bigot, or religious to be "right wing".Capaho is a clear example of that.

According to the Tea Party, conservative religious ideology is the foundation of conservatism, so if you aren't an anti-gay, anti-women, anti-immigration, anti-education, throw-the-poor-under-the-bus religious zealot, then you aren't a true conservative. Unfounded accusations are also a common behavior of theirs, so you aren't helping your cause by doing that yourself.

@capaho: Funny, instead of coming up with a rational argument, you claim conservatives have to be extremists... And use quotes from extremists to prove it...

I wonder if conservatives feel that democrats have gotten incredibly extreme over the last few of years or is that more of thought libs have of conservatives.

I can say that's the feeling some have. I'm referring to both professionals who cater to the fringe base as well as a large number of "on the street" conservatives I encounter here in the Midwest.

Whether that's something in common across geographical regions I can't say, but I don't see why it would be different outside of, perhaps, those residing in blue areas.

That is precisely the point. The Tea Party is a group of extremists who comprise a small faction of the Republican Party yet they completely dominate Republican Party ideology now. You have them to thank for conservatism being equated with extremism, so take your complaints to them. They are the reason why right-wing is considered bad these days.

@capaho: that's about as ignorant as claiming all Christians are extremists because westboro exists....

Come back when you'd like to discuss reality. Listening to a bigot make accusations and generalizations is pointless

@Nibroc420: You are obviously just trolling.

Oh man this thread. How dare you say the right is extreme, that's a generalization and I'm insulted by it, you pinko-commie-nazi!