Democracies are already dead before they're born. Every party that has ever came to power in a democracy has not done so due to any firm set of ideals that it represented, but simply to appeal the base masses. Like say, I'm going to create jobs for you, or I'm going to feed you, or I'm going to put cheaper gasoline into your cars, and etc.
This is why democracies and parties in these democracies sought short term gains, as short term gains are also visible in short time, and parties only have a short time until the next election: investing into long term, greater deeds is simply not profitable for a political party, as they could simply be ousted by the public in the next election. So what really is the point of having a system that doesn't really do anything?
It wasn't during times of "freedoms" or "democracies" that anyone was able to archive anything significant.
This piece of writing once again thinks that every problem in today's world are "class related" problems, and that right-wing politics are about making the rich even richer, while making the poor, poorer. Such an ignorant statement is due to the ignorance of people, who cannot comprehend that right-wing and left-wing politics are not a matter of economics: it's a simple matter of ideals that run the deal.
Under that context, I see only two worldviews. Either you're left, or you're right. Centre, in my opinion is non-existant, as right and left are the polar opposites of eachother just as in words as they are in core set of ideals. From how I see it, the world has moved from Empires to smaller nation states. This, for me, represents a world that moves from the left, to the right. On the other hand, leftism proposes a worldwide system-it cannot work without being applied worldwide. It's economics, on the other hand, are applicable on smaller-nation scales, and are not exclusive to the left-wing-something leftists would rather love to claim, however it's the context and the way in which they're applied. Leftists try to apply these policies by gaining the sympathy of the lower classes, either the working class, or the impoverished and jobless ones, and give them a pink dream of a world where they will be the masters. They create this by fueling class-wars. In their impression, capital owners who created the evils of the world, and they had to be toppled, with their capital dispersed amongst the populace, of course, distributed by a like-minded government. Indeed, due to human nature of greed, capital owners are likely to impose policies that maximizes their profit in all things. This also includes screwing their workers.
However the right way to protect the workers, while allowing them to really earn what they have earned from their hard labor is not through the way of demonizing one, while exalting the other, its to exalt both. Both the capital owner, and the worker are members of society. Leftists do not try to actually inject a sense of fairness and appreciation for labor into capital owners, instead they call for the blood and money of capital owners. On the other hand, they motivate the lower classes with both promises of wealth and a world, where everything will be supplied to them by an unknown power.
They are the same to me, as the capitalists are.
Capitalists too, are in many ways, left-wing. Their worldview too, cannot survive without the whole world sharing their views. Capitalists cannot truly thrive without international trade, and they too, promise lower classes things like luxurious lifestyles, and they perpetrate this by allowing consumerism to run rampart. What difference is there between a communist and a capitalist? Only economic. In ideals, they both are the same. Classifying left-wingers as protectors of humanity and the poor, while declaring right-wingers as opressors of the impoverished, and as suckers of capital owners and the rich, is and was always a habit of left-wingers ever since communism started creeping throughout Europe and Asia. They cannot even truly present examples in which their accusations truly hold, neither can they show any examples of their system working properly anywhere.
This is why democracies and parties in these democracies sought short term gains, as short term gains are also visible in short time, and parties only have a short time until the next election: investing into long term, greater deeds is simply not profitable for a political party, as they could simply be ousted by the public in the next election. So what really is the point of having a system that doesn't really do anything?
It wasn't during times of "freedoms" or "democracies" that anyone was able to archive anything significant.
This piece of writing once again thinks that every problem in today's world are "class related" problems, and that right-wing politics are about making the rich even richer, while making the poor, poorer. Such an ignorant statement is due to the ignorance of people, who cannot comprehend that right-wing and left-wing politics are not a matter of economics: it's a simple matter of ideals that run the deal.
Under that context, I see only two worldviews. Either you're left, or you're right. Centre, in my opinion is non-existant, as right and left are the polar opposites of eachother just as in words as they are in core set of ideals. From how I see it, the world has moved from Empires to smaller nation states. This, for me, represents a world that moves from the left, to the right. On the other hand, leftism proposes a worldwide system-it cannot work without being applied worldwide. It's economics, on the other hand, are applicable on smaller-nation scales, and are not exclusive to the left-wing-something leftists would rather love to claim, however it's the context and the way in which they're applied. Leftists try to apply these policies by gaining the sympathy of the lower classes, either the working class, or the impoverished and jobless ones, and give them a pink dream of a world where they will be the masters. They create this by fueling class-wars. In their impression, capital owners who created the evils of the world, and they had to be toppled, with their capital dispersed amongst the populace, of course, distributed by a like-minded government. Indeed, due to human nature of greed, capital owners are likely to impose policies that maximizes their profit in all things. This also includes screwing their workers.
However the right way to protect the workers, while allowing them to really earn what they have earned from their hard labor is not through the way of demonizing one, while exalting the other, its to exalt both. Both the capital owner, and the worker are members of society. Leftists do not try to actually inject a sense of fairness and appreciation for labor into capital owners, instead they call for the blood and money of capital owners. On the other hand, they motivate the lower classes with both promises of wealth and a world, where everything will be supplied to them by an unknown power.
They are the same to me, as the capitalists are.
Capitalists too, are in many ways, left-wing. Their worldview too, cannot survive without the whole world sharing their views. Capitalists cannot truly thrive without international trade, and they too, promise lower classes things like luxurious lifestyles, and they perpetrate this by allowing consumerism to run rampart. What difference is there between a communist and a capitalist? Only economic. In ideals, they both are the same. Classifying left-wingers as protectors of humanity and the poor, while declaring right-wingers as opressors of the impoverished, and as suckers of capital owners and the rich, is and was always a habit of left-wingers ever since communism started creeping throughout Europe and Asia. They cannot even truly present examples in which their accusations truly hold, neither can they show any examples of their system working properly anywhere.
![[Image: trkdevletbayraklar.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i128.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fp161%2Fazmhyr%2Ftrkdevletbayraklar.jpg)
Üze Tengri basmasar, asra Yir telinmeser, Türük bodun ilingin törüngin kim artatı udaçı erti?
