Being a leftist means to side with the employees and never with employers.
Then that means that you would support the banning of the existence of employers entirely, otherwise you're siding with employers by opposing having them banned.
Is this a problem to you, to call for banning employers entirely?
It means to value respect and solidarity between social classes.
How exactly is this implemented? What specifics does it entail?
Should someone be stuck perpetually in the lower social classes & would this be something you call valuing respect and solidarity between social classes?
Should the state make it easier or harder for people to move up in class?
It means to believe in a strict State that protects the weakest classes and punishes the abuses of the capitalists.
Does this description fit, in any way, onto what the following current and defunct nations are doing or have done: USSR, Nazi Germany, Mussolini's Fascist Italy, Cuba, Venezuela, Red China, North Korea?
I chose to be a leftist because injustices really bother me. They make me freak out like crazy
Have you ever heard the expression "life is not fair"?
Would a 100% tax on everything be a solution for dealing with injustices?
Is wealth and income inequality an injustice? If so, how can you condone the existence of more than one social class, which you are doing by virtue of in effect advocating for respect and solidarity between social classes?
We can have wealth and income equality by making everyone have no money at all (everyone has $0.00 in their wallets, bank accounts, etc.); would that be a solution for dealing with injustice that you'd support?
Or, why don't we just have the state give everyone $50 million dollars? It wouldn't even need to run any money printing presses; it could just credit everyone's bank account with $50 million dollars.
Which do you think is worse, an employer with a boss who makes 1,000 times more than what the average employee makes, which is more than enough for the employees to make ends meet, or no employer to provide jobs? I would rather have a boss who makes 1,000 times more than what I make than be unemployed.
Now, you might want to call foul and say that I'm pitching a false dichotomy, because it ignores the boss who makes the same as I do as a choice or possibility & if that's the case then let me ask you this:
If you were to get paid the same no matter what occupation you have, would you prefer to take one of the easiest occupations available, or would you rather take one of the most difficult occupations available?
I'll tell you what I would choose; if I had the option of taking a job as an electrical engineer for $25/hr or a job pushing a mop for $25/hr, I'd rather take the mop jockey gig, because it's much easier. It's challenging to be an electrical engineer; it involves having to make difficult decisions, including decisions that mean the design could be flawed, or won't work, or be dangerous enough to injure or kill people. Don't forget, in order to become an electrical engineer, you have to spend years in college studying very hard to earn an electrical engineering degree. No one has to spend years in college to learn how to drive a mop; anyone can start earning a paycheck working as a janitor immediately, and they won't have to worry so much about doing something that could injure or kill people, as long as they don't forget to prop up those yellow Cuidado Piso Mojado signs.
Let's say that in a world where everyone gets paid the same rate no matter what their occupation is, everyone wants the easiest jobs (janitors, fry cooks, stock clerks, waiters/waitresses, mowing lawns, etc.). Who's going to go through the trouble to take the more difficult occupations, whether it's physicians, nurses, carpenters, plumbers, police officers, engineers, lawyers, accountants, or any other vocational or professional type of background that requires training, skills, and experience? These type of occupations need to be filled by someone, and without the incentive to go through the trouble to fill them, no one's going to fill them.
Perhaps you're thinking that there are only so many slots for janitors, fry cooks, stock clerks, waiters/waitresses, mowing lawns, etc. so everyone else can go fill the rest of the occupations. Do you really want someone who wasn't clever enough to even land a career as a janitor performing open heart surgery on you?
The point is that the political left doesn't seem to even understand how to think through their logic all the way through to the end, to what the conclusion is, to what the consequences are, to what the implications are for the positions they take, etc. or maybe they just don't care.
I'm not saying that there are no injustices out there, but I think in almost every case society has figured out how to best deal with them. What the left is doing in almost every case is fabricating narratives of injustices that haven't been mitigated as best they can and falsely leading people to believe that they have a solution for a non-existent or solved problem; then, they make things worse, blame the political right, and go through this repetitious and endless cycle of making things worse and blaming the political right.
It's actually more complicated than that, because the political right is not necessarily blameless, and this political left-right paradigm is a false dichotomy (e.g. it leaves out room for libertarianism). In practice, the left & right are the two wings of the same hideous beast. In some cases the solution to injustice may be to oppose what both the political left and right want to do.
I'll actually give you one example of what I think is an injustice - there's no compensation in exchange for recognition of property rights; for example, I don't get compensated to recognize that someone else owns a plot of land full of apple trees and to let them put up a fence to keep me and others out. I'm not saying I'm opposed to property rights per se; what I'm saying is that natural resources that anyone would've normally had access to is being blocked, and compensation isn't being provided for that. A true free market means there's some sort of agreement or compensation for something; the way we practice capitalism today involves property rights with neither agreement nor compensation.
Earlier, I brought up the idea about life not being fair & it's one thing when that unfairness is the result of natural causes, but that doesn't justify unfairness from other people. It also doesn't mean that it's ok to throw out the baby with the bath water, which is what policies like a minimum wage actually do.
Anyhow, I'm not just going to point out an injustice, I'll also mention a solution that I propose for this problem I described associated with property rights: basically this solution I propose would be like a UBI, with the main difference being that it has to actually be based on a dividend as a function of the performance of the economy (otherwise it'll cause inflation and could drive the economy into the ground).
You can disagree with me if you wish, but I get the impression that your solution for dealing with injustices doesn't necessarily exclude ideas or actions that are or could result in even bigger injustices or disasters for society.
