Which of these two statements sounds more 'left-wing' to you?

[Tooting Carmen]

bump

[Latinus]

2.
The first statement could also be nationalist/anti-leftist-shifted, not necessarily Left-Wing.

[Tooting Carmen]

2.
The first statement could also be nationalist/anti-leftist-shifted, not necessarily Left-Wing.

But what sort of right-wing government would collectivise ALL the economy, and not just some of the more strategic and important bits?

[Oneeye]

Disgusting comments, both

[Latinus]

But what sort of right-wing government would collectivise ALL the economy, and not just some of the more strategic and important bits?

I don't know.
I leave politics to the politicians.

[Aldaris]

Collectivization and nationalization in itself don't really imply equal distribution afterwards, they can actually be used to promote social hierarchy.

That first statement isn't inherently left-wing because of this, but there's no such reverse context in which the second one can be taken.

[Tooting Carmen]

Collectivization and nationalization in itself don't really imply equal distribution afterwards, they can actually be used to promote social hierarchy.

In theory it is supposed to lead to redistribution, but of course in practice it can and does lead to abuse and corruption (though not always).

[Aldaris]

In theory it is supposed to lead to redistribution, but of course in practice it can and does lead to abuse and corruption (though not always).

Not necessarily, only if you assume the left-wing context of that statement in the first place.

[WhatsGoingOnBigGuy]

2.

Nazbol gang rise up

[Tooting Carmen]

Not necessarily, only if you assume the left-wing context of that statement in the first place.

I know what you mean, but the theory is that a market-based class society is highly unequal, and the State may intervene to reduce the inequality, be it through taxation, welfare or wholesale collectivisation.