The US elections in November, 2010.

[Coito ergo sum]

If they were predominantly progressive and revolutionary, then yes they were left-wing.

They were progressive, but not left wing.

Being left wing does not require one to be revolutionary.

Secondly, lol. No, the source has no bearing on the debate.

Of course it does. You've claimed yours is a commonly used definition. If that's the case, surely it can be demonstrated.

You have to actually provide a response to the question now:
In what way is the Chinese Government not right-wing?

I answered that. They are communists. Communists are left wing.

And 'because it's communist' isn't an answer in any sense.

Of course it is.

Please explain explicit, specific actions it has taken which are characteristic of the left-wing.

Implementing a political philosophy of Maoist Communism in China, limiting private property rights, maintaining control of the means of production in "The People," expropriating property, confiscation of all property of rebels and "enemies of the people," maintenance of nationalized industries....



I

[Trolldor]

Implementing a political philosophy of Maoist Communism in China, limiting private property rights, maintaining control of the means of production in "The People," expropriating property, confiscation of all property of rebels and "enemies of the people," maintenance of nationalized industries....

Not implemented by the current Chinese Government.

LOL.

[Trolldor]

confiscation of all property of rebels and "enemies of the people"

Actually, this is, but oddly enough it reeks of something...

Of... of resistance to change and opposition. It seems almost... reactionary.

[Trolldor]

Oh yeah, also:

Yes, being left-wing does require being revolutionary.
Just as being reactionary is the key component of being right-wing.

Secondly you said "they were progressive and republican", which means you've equated being Republican to being right wing.
I never said they weren't right wing, what I said was that 'being a republican' does not equate to being on the right, and that if they were progressive and revolutionary then yes they were left-wing.

[maiforpeace]

Republicans:

Canton Area McDonald's Investigated for Voter Intimidation

As OhioDaily was first to report last night, a fast-food franchisee in the 16th Congressional District may have violated both state and federal law. We can now report that it is a McDonald's chain and have obtained a copy of the letter which was attached to paychecks of the restaurant employees.

Parts of the letter read as follows:

If the right people are elected, we will be able to continue with raises and benefits at or above our present levels. If others are elected we will not."

Those listed as the "right people?"

John Kasich. Rob Portman. Jim Rennaci.

Attorneys from the Canton law firm Schulman Zimmerman & Associates has taken on the case and submitted copies of the handbill to local prosecutors. The firm, through attorney Allen Schulman, issued a statement:

"This handbill endorses candidates who have, in essence, pledged to roll back the minimum wage and eviscerate the safety net that protects the most vulnerable members of our workforce. But it's more than that. When a corporation like McDonald's intimidates its employees into voting a specific way, it violates both state and federal elections law. It's no surprise to anyone that Ohio is a battleground state in this election, and for a multinational corporation like McDonald's to threaten employees like this is morally and legally wrong. This despicable corporate conduct is the logical extension of the Citizens United decision, which has unleashed corporate arrogance and abuse"

The Letter:

[Warren Dew]

Considering how unions pressure members into doing "volunteer" work for candidates, it strikes me that making a suggestion but telling people their vote is "completely your personal decision" is pretty mild.

[eXcommunicate]

The problem you guys are having placing various political ideology stems from your insistence on using the outmoded "spectrum" idea of political thought. It's a problem because it attempts to place all political thought on one axis and squeezes together very different ideologies in order to make things fit.

Try something like the political compass:



Seems to model reality a lot better than a simple 1-dimensional axis. There are many versions of it, but they all do about the same thing:

[Warren Dew]

Interpreted correctly, that graph is a useful way of looking at things. For example, a lot of the current disenchantment with Obama can be explained by voters who voted for him because they thought he was a leftist or centrist, and his turning out to be a statist instead.

Unfortunately there are a lot of distortions of that graph out there, such as this:

The idea that Stalin, who banned homosexuality and abortion in Russia after they had been legal under Lenin, is anywhere near the socially liberal end of things is ridiculous.

[Coito ergo sum]

Oh yeah, also:

Yes, being left-wing does require being revolutionary.

No it doesn't. One can be on the Left with out going to the extreme of a "revolution."

Just as being reactionary is the key component of being right-wing.

Not necessarily "reactionary."

Secondly you said "they were progressive and republican", which means you've equated being Republican to being right wing.

No - I equated the Republicans of the early 1900s and the progressive era with not being "Left Wing."

I never said they weren't right wing, what I said was that 'being a republican' does not equate to being on the right,

And, I agreed with that.

and that if they were progressive and revolutionary then yes they were left-wing.

But they were Progressive, and they were not Left Wing.

[Coito ergo sum]

Republicans:

Canton Area McDonald's Investigated for Voter Intimidation

As OhioDaily was first to report last night, a fast-food franchisee in the 16th Congressional District may have violated both state and federal law. We can now report that it is a McDonald's chain and have obtained a copy of the letter which was attached to paychecks of the restaurant employees.

Parts of the letter read as follows:

If the right people are elected, we will be able to continue with raises and benefits at or above our present levels. If others are elected we will not."

Those listed as the "right people?"

John Kasich. Rob Portman. Jim Rennaci.

Attorneys from the Canton law firm Schulman Zimmerman & Associates has taken on the case and submitted copies of the handbill to local prosecutors. The firm, through attorney Allen Schulman, issued a statement:

"This handbill endorses candidates who have, in essence, pledged to roll back the minimum wage and eviscerate the safety net that protects the most vulnerable members of our workforce. But it's more than that. When a corporation like McDonald's intimidates its employees into voting a specific way, it violates both state and federal elections law. It's no surprise to anyone that Ohio is a battleground state in this election, and for a multinational corporation like McDonald's to threaten employees like this is morally and legally wrong. This despicable corporate conduct is the logical extension of the Citizens United decision, which has unleashed corporate arrogance and abuse"

The Letter:

That letter doesn't seem like an issue at all. It's managements opinion, which they are entitled to have. They seem to bend over backwards - they say it's the employee's decision, etc.

What could possibly be wrong with this?

[eXcommunicate]

What could possibly be wrong with this?

it is thinly veiled political coercion. That's what's wrong with it.

[Warren Dew]

That letter doesn't seem like an issue at all. It's managements opinion, which they are entitled to have. They seem to bend over backwards - they say it's the employee's decision, etc.

What could possibly be wrong with this?

Well, it was supposedly distributed with peoples' paychecks. I suspect that was just the easiest way to distribute it - having worked in fast food places, it's not like you have a desk and an inbox to get your interoffice mail - but people who want to see a conspiracy may think there's a hidden message there. If management had been smarter, they would have distributed it separately just to avoid the appearance of impropriety.

Still, I give them credit for saying in the letter that it's just their opinion, and emphasizing that recipients might not vote in the way that's best for the company.

[Coito ergo sum]

What could possibly be wrong with this?

it is thinly veiled political coercion. That's what's wrong with it.

LOL - compared to what unions do in expressing their opinions to their membership, it's a big nothing.

One, McDonalds doesn't have access to its employees' voting records, so regardless of who the employee votes for, McDonalds doesn't know, so they can't "coerce" anything.

And, if we are such a sad and puerile people that managements expression of opinion as to what candidates it feels are best for its business, while in the same sized font stating "of course your decision of who to vote for is yours, and depends on a variety of factors," is considered "coercion" ...well, then I don't know what to say...

When I saw the news reports about this the other day, i expected some sort of arm twisting meeting where McDonald's made representations to its employees that if certain people didn't get elected, that McDonald's would be cutting jobs or something like that.....when I read the actual memo that Mai posted, I almost spit my coffee on my keyboard, with a little "out the nose", from a spontaneous belly-laugh... McDonald's note is extraordinarily tame, and is a straightforward, non-threatening expression of opinion. If that letter is called "coercion" then there isn't a damn thing company management could say under any circumstances that isn't coercion.

[Coito ergo sum]

That letter doesn't seem like an issue at all. It's managements opinion, which they are entitled to have. They seem to bend over backwards - they say it's the employee's decision, etc.

What could possibly be wrong with this?

Well, it was supposedly distributed with peoples' paychecks. I suspect that was just the easiest way to distribute it - having worked in fast food places, it's not like you have a desk and an inbox to get your interoffice mail - but people who want to see a conspiracy may think there's a hidden message there. If management had been smarter, they would have distributed it separately just to avoid the appearance of impropriety.

Still, I give them credit for saying in the letter that it's just their opinion, and emphasizing that recipients might not vote in the way that's best for the company.

As you said, it makes sense to distribute it with paychecks (although I bet most McDonald's employees have direct deposit). Putting it in the paycheck envelope is an efficient way of distribution, guaranteeing everyone gets one without a second round of envelope stuffing. It's a cost savings.

I think that the folks who think this is some horrible thing are those that think management and business have no right to participate in the political process. I mean - this is an expression of political speech by a group of people. Just because a corporation is for profit, like McDonalds, as opposed to not for profit, like maybe PETA or the Discovery Institute, doesn't mean that those who run it have less of a right to participate in the political process or make their opinions know.

[eXcommunicate]

I think that the folks who think this is some horrible thing are those that think management and business have no right to participate in the political process.

Nonsense. They have every right to free speech and participation in the political process. They have no right, however, to tell their employees how to vote under a thinly veiled threat of termination.