Hardkill

Leo, do you still see a difference between Liberalism and Progressivism?

72 posts in this topic

25 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I would be for socialism if it worked. But socialism is hippie nonsense, so I am forced to be capitalist.

There is no choice about it. We are all capitalists. Even the craziest socialist is actually a capitalist. He's just in denial about it.

Capitalism isn't a choice. It's just nature.

Interesting take.  


 

Wisdom.  Truth.  Love.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

48 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I would be for socialism if it worked. But socialism is hippie nonsense, so I am forced to be capitalist.

There is no choice about it. We are all capitalists. Even the craziest socialist is actually a capitalist. He's just in denial about it.

Capitalism isn't a choice. It's just nature.

Yes exactly making it work is the struggle. Our survival and our need (and right) for freedom is what drives Capitalism. However when the few have everything and the rest have little it breeds the need for socialism.  Yet this is the art of survival left unrestricted.  The trick is putting the right restrictions in place to allow those less skilled or ambitious to still have a chance at a decent life. Therein lies the challenge.

Edited by Inliytened1

 

Wisdom.  Truth.  Love.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

Wow. 

I kinda thought that. However, that's gotta be extremely rare given how contradictory conservatism and stage Yellow seem to be with each other.

Thats not correct. Study many countries in Eastern Europe, countries from the former USSR and you will notice that the left there is more corrupt and evil than the right in those countries. When Leo says that the left is more developed than the right that is solely explicit for the US. Leo says that propgresives are more developed than conservatives. In the countries of the former ussr actually the right is more progressive than the left. In my country the most progressive party in the parliament is center-right. And they advocate for small government.

I'd argue that there are more stage yellow politicians at centre right than at centre left. The centre left seem to be stuck at stage green, whereas stage Yellow is like a natural evolution towards less welfare and a more individualistic approach towards society as the pendulum swings once again towards individualism.


https://x.com/DanyBalan7 - Please follow me on twitter! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

@Daniel Balan the only reason he thinks that is because of the claims of fascism on the right in the US.  Obviously he adheres to capitalism to some degree. But honestly its all relative bro.  The right and left are relative to what you think they are and they might be different in different countries.  But that's a great point.   When you say the right was more progressive than the left in the USSR what do you mean specifically?

Edited by Inliytened1

 

Wisdom.  Truth.  Love.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

@Daniel Balan the only reason he thinks that is because of the claims of fascism on the right in the US.  Obviously he adheres to capitalism to some degree. But honestly its all relative bro.  The right and left are relative to what you think they are and they might be different in different countries.  But that's a great point.   When you say the right was more progressive than the left in the USSR what do you mean specifically?

Well look at the elections in Moldova. The left is pro Russian, anti progressive, denies climate change, anti LGBT, anti vaxx, anti migration, anti foreign capital, is corrupt as hell becaue it is financed dirrecly from Russia by the oligarcs, also it is the conservative faction in that country. While the right is pro EU, pro liberalism, pro reform, pro gay rights, human rights etc. The right in Moldova is actually progressive and liberal while the left which has the sycle and hammer logo by the way, is the conservative faction.


https://x.com/DanyBalan7 - Please follow me on twitter! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Daniel Balan said:

Thats not correct. Study many countries in Eastern Europe, countries from the former USSR and you will notice that the left there is more corrupt and evil than the right in those countries. When Leo says that the left is more developed than the right that is solely explicit for the US. Leo says that propgresives are more developed than conservatives. In the countries of the former ussr actually the right is more progressive than the left. In my country the most progressive party in the parliament is center-right. And they advocate for small government.

I'd argue that there are more stage yellow politicians at centre right than at centre left. The centre left seem to be stuck at stage green, whereas stage Yellow is like a natural evolution towards less welfare and a more individualistic approach towards society as the pendulum swings once again towards individualism.

Limiting welfare and having more limited government intervention backfires in the long-run.

Mixed economies like in the Nordic countries have the most progressive, most fair, and most sustainable type of economies for everyone. Central European countries, Western European countries, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Taiwan, Singapore, Japan, and South Korea have the second 2nd fairest and 2nd most sustainable types of economies.

The kind of Left that you are talking about in the former USSR was far-left in economics, whereby there was state ownership, central planning, and redistribution of EVERYTHING. That doesn't well work for long either. Plus, the USSR's extreme left-wing regime had no liberal democracy, was authoritarian with a one-party rule, implemented censorship, had coercive security services, and had top-down bureaucracy; the promised council democracy never materialized.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

11 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

Limiting welfare and having more limited government intervention backfires in the long-run.

Mixed economies like in the Nordic countries have the most progressive, most fair, and most sustainable type of economies for everyone. Central European countries, Western European countries, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Taiwan, Singapore, Japan, and South Korea have the second 2nd fairest and 2nd most sustainable types of economies.

The kind of Left that you are talking about in the former USSR was far-left in economics, whereby there was state ownership, central planning, and redistribution of EVERYTHING. That doesn't well work for long either. Plus, the USSR's extreme left-wing regime had no liberal democracy, was authoritarian with a one-party rule, implemented censorship, had coercive security services, and had top-down bureaucracy; the promised council democracy never materialized.

 

Actually all the countries you look up to have a gigantic problem called a Mammoth Public Debt. And unless a more carefully spending government is appointed, all those welfare programs you appreciate will go to hell. 

Only the centre right can solve the problems of gigantic public debts and deficits. 

The left will double down on populism and welfare and it will collapse the whole economy and society. 

People don't realize how severe and dangerous deficit spending and enormous public debt is. Inflation that is caused solely by the giant deficit spending generated on inefficient welfare, is taking away any benefit that the welfare is offering to the population.

Regarding the right/left outside America, I'll give my country as an example. The party I vote for is centre right, and is the only party in parliament that acknowledges same sex marriage and other progressive social issues. Whereas the social democratic party is conservative AF and also anti climate change, pro corruption, pro status quo. The party I vote for is neither conservative nor pro status quo, yet it defines itself as right or center right. Basically the party I'm talking about is the corporate dem wing from the Democratic party of your America.

 

Edited by Daniel Balan

https://x.com/DanyBalan7 - Please follow me on twitter! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Daniel Balan said:

Well look at the elections in Moldova. The left is pro Russian, anti progressive, denies climate change, anti LGBT, anti vaxx, anti migration, anti foreign capital, is corrupt as hell becaue it is financed dirrecly from Russia by the oligarcs, also it is the conservative faction in that country. While the right is pro EU, pro liberalism, pro reform, pro gay rights, human rights etc. The right in Moldova is actually progressive and liberal while the left which has the sycle and hammer logo by the way, is the conservative faction.

It just means the terms left and right are reversed in Russia pretty much.


 

Wisdom.  Truth.  Love.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Daniel Balan said:

Actually all the countries you look up to have a gigantic problem called a Mammoth Public Debt. And unless a more carefully spending government is appointed, all those welfare programs you appreciate will go to hell. 

Only the centre right can solve the problems of gigantic public debts and deficits. 

The left will double down on populism and welfare and it will collapse the whole economy and society. 

People don't realize how severe and dangerous deficit spending and enormous public debt is. Inflation that is caused solely by the giant deficit spending generated on inefficient welfare, is taking away any benefit that the welfare is offering to the population.

Regarding the right/left outside America, I'll give my country as an example. The party I vote for is centre right, and is the only party in parliament that acknowledges same sex marriage and other progressive social issues. Whereas the social democratic party is conservative AF and also anti climate change, pro corruption, pro status quo. The party I vote for is neither conservative nor pro status quo, yet it defines itself as right or center right. Basically the party I'm talking about is the corporate dem wing from the Democratic party of your America.

 

There actually isn't “Mammoth debt” in many of those countries, and debt level alone doesn’t tell you whether a welfare state is doomed. 

On standard gross-debt measures, the Nordics are generally moderate by rich-country standards (Norway and Denmark are low; Sweden is mid-range; Finland is higher). Check the IMF WEO dashboard for current ratios rather than memes.

Norway actually runs a giant sovereign wealth fund (~NOK 19.6–20+ trillion in 2025), which supports its public finances. That’s the opposite of “unsustainable.” Even though Singapore has high gross debt, its government has a strong net asset position and actually budgets a recurring revenue line from investment returns (NIRC ~3.5% of GDP in recent years).

Furthermore, interest burden matters more than just the stock. OECD data show debt-service costs have risen with rates, but the squeeze is concentrated in a handful of large borrowers; many smaller, high-trust/high-tax states still carry low-interest bills relative to GDP. Sustainability is about servicing costs vs. tax capacity and growth.

Moreover, countries like Sweden have a public pension with an automatic balancing mechanism (ABM) that adjusts indexation/benefits to keep the system solvent—one reason its “big welfare” doesn’t implode when demographics or markets shift.

Inflation isn't solely caused by giant deficit spending. It happens when the supply of goods and/or services is too low in proportion to the demand for such goods and/or services.

What developed countries need to do is protect the corporate base, raise and equalize capital-income taxes at the top, broaden VAT/carbon/land bases with rebates, enforce hard, and pair it with cost-curve reforms in health/pensions and pro-growth housing/productivity moves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

12 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

I would be for socialism if it worked. But socialism is hippie nonsense, so I am forced to be capitalist.

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.76.6.661

This study shows that given equal levels of economic development, socialist countries provide a standard of living that is on par or even superior to that of capitalist countries.

 

Edited by Husseinisdoingfine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, hippie nonsense? Even ancient Egypt had central planning.

We have as well have modern examples of it working, such as; (most notably) Yugoslavia, Burkina Faso, Guatemala under president Jacobo Arbenz, and Chile under president Allende. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Husseinisdoingfine said:

Also, hippie nonsense? Even ancient Egypt had central planning.

We have as well have modern examples of it working, such as; (most notably) Yugoslavia, Burkina Faso, Guatemala under president Jacobo Arbenz, and Chile under president Allende. 

 

 

Man, you are Russian, study the USSR, and why the central planned economy was all just a ruse. When COMECON collapsed with the Soviet Union, and exposed the Russian economy to a globalized market economy, no one really wanted to buy the shit that was built in the USSR or its former puppet states.

They said that there is no inflation in a cental economy but in reality on the black market everything was much more expensive by the day compared to the goods that the state sold in their shops. 

I don't say that we can't learn good aspects from the central planned economy but in my eyes, the market economy is much superior to the central state run economy. There is a reason why the west won the cold war, and that reason alone is the market economy that overpowered the central planned economy. 

Edited by Daniel Balan

https://x.com/DanyBalan7 - Please follow me on twitter! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have also worked as a logger in the forest, and there is no chainsaw better than Stihl or Husqvarna. 

This proves that market economies produce far more better products than any shit that is produced in a central planned economy. I bet my life that the Chinese or other dictatorships will never ever produce anything remotely close to the powerhouse products made by Husqvarna or Stihl. You can only get such supreme quality tools and products in a market economy, in a democracy, in a society that people are happy living. 


https://x.com/DanyBalan7 - Please follow me on twitter! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or the tractor manufacturer John Deere. No tractor made in the USSR or China could ever compete with the powerhouse tractors made by John Deere or Ford. Market economies are producing quality over quantity whereas in centeal planned economies quantity comes before quality.


https://x.com/DanyBalan7 - Please follow me on twitter! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When it comes to post-1989 Romania and post-Soviet Russia, the reason these countries went through such hardship in the 1990s compared to the 1980s is that, once COMECON collapsed and their economies were suddenly exposed to the global market, once they shifted from a centrally planned economy to a market one, the curtain was lifted.

All the illusions and lies of central planning were laid bare at once, like ripping off a bandage from a wound. The bandage was COMECON itself, along with the repression, propaganda, and dictatorship that had kept the illusion alive.


https://x.com/DanyBalan7 - Please follow me on twitter! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Hardkill said:

There actually isn't “Mammoth debt” in many of those countries, and debt level alone doesn’t tell you whether a welfare state is doomed. 

On standard gross-debt measures, the Nordics are generally moderate by rich-country standards (Norway and Denmark are low; Sweden is mid-range; Finland is higher). Check the IMF WEO dashboard for current ratios rather than memes.

Norway actually runs a giant sovereign wealth fund (~NOK 19.6–20+ trillion in 2025), which supports its public finances. That’s the opposite of “unsustainable.” Even though Singapore has high gross debt, its government has a strong net asset position and actually budgets a recurring revenue line from investment returns (NIRC ~3.5% of GDP in recent years).

Furthermore, interest burden matters more than just the stock. OECD data show debt-service costs have risen with rates, but the squeeze is concentrated in a handful of large borrowers; many smaller, high-trust/high-tax states still carry low-interest bills relative to GDP. Sustainability is about servicing costs vs. tax capacity and growth.

Moreover, countries like Sweden have a public pension with an automatic balancing mechanism (ABM) that adjusts indexation/benefits to keep the system solvent—one reason its “big welfare” doesn’t implode when demographics or markets shift.

Inflation isn't solely caused by giant deficit spending. It happens when the supply of goods and/or services is too low in proportion to the demand for such goods and/or services.

What developed countries need to do is protect the corporate base, raise and equalize capital-income taxes at the top, broaden VAT/carbon/land bases with rebates, enforce hard, and pair it with cost-curve reforms in health/pensions and pro-growth housing/productivity moves.

Yes you make good points but look at France, Italy, The US, The UK, Germany etc. Those countries have trillions upon trillions in public debt. At some point you can no longer sustain welfare when it is all financed via deficit spending. To have a strong welfare you need high taxes. Much higher than today's taxes. France has one of world's most robust welfare system. It is great to have such welfare, but look at its public debt, look at the giant deficit spending every year, look at the out of bounds inflation. In the end inflation will hurt the people more than the welfare can help them ease their life. What is the point of having a cool welfare state if you have to work 3 jobs just to have money for rent and groceries? I'd rather have no welfare and the grocieries and rent to be as low as possible than to have welfare and have 0 free time for myself because I have to work non stop to keep up with inflation to be able just to survive. 

Edited by Daniel Balan

https://x.com/DanyBalan7 - Please follow me on twitter! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Husseinisdoingfine said:

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.76.6.661

This study shows that given equal levels of economic development, socialist countries provide a standard of living that is on par or even superior to that of capitalist countries.

There are no socialist countries. And, none of them are superior to capitalist countries.

Socialism is not a stable system. Socialism is less stable than capitalism. Every socialist system that has ever existed has collapsed and devolved into a more corrupt and oppressive form of capitalism.

So I would rather just have an honest form of capitalism.

Socialism is like a teen doing no-fap. But we all know he's fapping in the closet late at night where no one can see him.

Edited by Leo Gura

You are God. You are Truth. You are Love. You are Infinity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Hardkill said:

given how contradictory conservatism and stage Yellow seem to be with each other.

@Hardkill Yellow differs from Blue in his flowness, flexibility, subtleness, harmony, curiosity and all of those can be imprinted into one's conservative lifestyle.

Edited by Nivsch

🏔 Spiral dynamics can be limited, or it can be unlimited if one's development is constantly reflected in its interpretation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Daniel Balan said:

Yes you make good points but look at France, Italy, The US, The UK, Germany etc. Those countries have trillions upon trillions in public debt. At some point you can no longer sustain welfare when it is all financed via deficit spending. To have a strong welfare you need high taxes. Much higher than today's taxes. France has one of world's most robust welfare system. It is great to have such welfare, but look at its public debt, look at the giant deficit spending every year, look at the out of bounds inflation. In the end inflation will hurt the people more than the welfare can help them ease their life. What is the point of having a cool welfare state if you have to work 3 jobs just to have money for rent and groceries? I'd rather have no welfare and the grocieries and rent to be as low as possible than to have welfare and have 0 free time for myself because I have to work non stop to keep up with inflation to be able just to survive. 

So, why not raise taxes back to what they were in mid 1900s?

Also, what will you do if you don't have a job or any welfare during an economic crisis?

Btw, if I were you, I would worry more about the rise in corporate tyranny and corporate extremism that's spreading like a cancer in many parts of the world.

Edited by Hardkill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

So, why not raise taxes back to what they were in mid 1900s?

Also, what will you do if you don't have a job or any welfare during an economic crisis?

Btw, if I were you, I would worry more about the rise in corporate tyranny and corporate extremism that's spreading like a cancer in many parts of the world.

Bro I'm literally 25 and I never worked a day legally. I have 0 money put aside for retirement. If I injury myself I go bankrupt, I have no health insurance. I work at whoever needs something done. Like bucking wood in the forest, construction work and agriculture work. I litteraly go to farms to shovel cow shit for 20$ a day. And I never complained or bitched or moaned for the government to give me a handout. I am happy the way I am. I don't expect anyone especially the government to help me. I help myself.

I think welfare is more than needed, but not financed from deficit spending. Welfare should be financed solely from tax money. Not from public debt. Public debt should finance subsidies for large sectors of economy such as infrastructure, energy etc. Debt should be used to build factories and businesses that generate revenue, not to give UBI to lazy individuals. 

Edited by Daniel Balan

https://x.com/DanyBalan7 - Please follow me on twitter! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now