It is an option, of course. And sometimes it happen. But many more times did not. What it seems is that the left wing lost their ability to talk to the common people on the street, which historically was their voters. It is an open discussion here that the right basically win over the left taking over the arguments the left had until 5/10 years ago. As i said, it was a process.
I put it to you that its not that they dont listen, its that they (despite having listened) disagree. As a group, its been decided that it must be that they didn't listen because who could disagree with something so True^^^^tm ? I would also add that the UK labour party which is the closet thing we have to a left just won nearly the greatest landslide in their history, forcing the tories to the lowest seats since thd 1830s, specifically because the right lost the common people in the street. How do we reconcile that with such a broad term as "the left wing" when talking about the ability to talk to the common person in the street?
True, but they can easily frame this way because is what people see. In these areas people don’t see Italians, they see migrants because the migrants are there, not Italians. They see that are migrants that commit the petty crimes (I’ve seen more than one myself), not the Italians. True, maybe the right exaggerate this, but the people see this.
I'm not saying they don't see this. I'm saying they're wrong to associate it with their foreign-ness which I'm glad we seem to agree on. But you simply can't counter that kind of weaponsied ignorance. The only way to is to sink as low as the people making it out to be due to their foreign-ness and not their being poor. But then you're not the good guys anymore. So, its pointless. To me, I have to just accept that some people simply don't even care what the truth is too. I mean, its what they see but they're an adult and its a simple explanation.
Honestly, if I see that in a certain zone (Central Station for example) the majority of the petty crimes I saw was committed by foreigners or people from a different races, my logical conclusion could be that these people are a problem, which in itself did not exclude the Italians, but simply start from the more visible aspect. I agree that it could be limitating of course.
Violent crime per capita has fallen across the world for centuries now. You think its bad now, you should have see the state of it 100 years ago or even 30. Thats why we have to go with data analysis. That doesn't make it less intimidating or not a problem. But it also means that what the right is using for is a lie (blaming the economic situation on them).
Can you name an example of a socialist country that wasn’t attacked as much as possible, by the worlds only super power, specifically to ensure that socialism failed? Of course, you can’t. No one can. It would be like me tripping you up and then claiming you can walk properly.
All the comunist block before 1990.
But they were attacked all the time. They were excluded and cut off from the rest of the world too. There isn't an instance of it failing of its own accord or unmolested. Would you accept me tripping you over and using that to claim you fail at walking? I don't imagine you would.
Better for the common people. Back at the time, my parents had it a lot better than the equivalent parents in a comunist/socialist state.
And now their children and grandchildren will have less than them. Yes, I agree that socialist states are starved by the rest of the world. Even more so, if its not socialism for everyone, its not socialism at all. None of those countries were socialist.
Agree on that.
But I just described capitalism.
I distinctly remember that URSS tried pretty hard to destroy capitalism, like USA tried to destroy socialism. So URSS never wanted to quit the fight, they simply lost it.
Let's say that was true, how about Cuba and all the Latin American countries that tried to be socialist, until America "liberated" them from what they had democratically chosen? Even then, what has convinced you that anyone would choose to be dumb enough to cut themselves of from the counties that make up nato? Also, it was American policy of containment. Also also, the ussr was awful, just to be clear.
As I said, I do not know how old are you, but I am old enough to remember that at the time the end result of the socialism was the exact same result of the capitalism: few ultrarich and powerfull people and a lot of poor people. Difference was that poor people from the west were anyway richer than the poor people in the comunist block, even if it started a century later. For some aspect it was way better: they arrive at the same result starting way later.
If you genuinely beleive the USSR was socialist then you simply do not know what socialism is. I'm sorry to be blunt. I don't know how old you are either but I'm old enough to know what that word means and that simply declaring ones self to be something doesn't make someone that thing. If I paint something orange and declare it to be blue, its still orange.
They weren't poor because they were socialist. They didn't lose because they were socialist. They lost because the richest countries in the world they would lose. Firstly, they weren't socialist. Secondly, they could have had any model ever and they would have lost. Capitalism has to claim victory for the things it isn't responsible for and blame everything else for the things it is responsible for.
Heres a good thought experiment, try defending capitalism on its OWN merit. For that, a person can't just claim others to be bad or worse of course. They also can't claim the things that we have due to the passage of time, like medicine. Otherwise, you're claiming that those things would never have happened if capitalism didn't happen which would, on reflection, obviously be very silly.