How can a leftist be a good worker in a company?

[Above us only sky]

A leftist is a person who reject Capitalism and is supportive of Socialism, Anarchism, Communitarianism or Marxism. Yet a leftist is also a human being, that means she needs to work in a job and be a good employee. But how can a person be a leftist and a good worker in a company at the same time?

Is it because people cannot be a good employee and a leftist at the same time therefore nowadays there are less and less leftists among the whole human population?

[Alias]

Nobody should ever be a worker in a company, except maybe ants.
Free people should be their own boss: decide what work they want to do and how they want to do it and benefit from the product.
They should not support freeloaders.

[Sy Borg]

Can a right winger who rejects collectivism effectively work in a team?

Are humans capable of pragmatism, flexibility and compromise?

Can workers take their fair share of the workload for their workmates regardless of ideology?

Edit: typo

[Renee]

A leftist is a person who reject Capitalism and is supportive of Socialism, Anarchism, Communitarianism or Marxism. Yet a leftist is also a human being, that means she needs to work in a job and be a good employee. But how can a person be a leftist and a good worker in a company at the same time?

Is it because people cannot be a good employee and a leftist at the same time therefore nowadays there are less and less leftists among the whole human population?

The whole thing is shot to pieces with liberal leftists.

But then again, nobody should work in jobs. not even ants or insects or other critters.

Instead, god should have arranged that we get free food, clothing, housing, entertainment and sex without needing to work for it.

Now, that would be a good arrangement. It would get the leftist pinko liberal ganefs off the hook. Everyone would be happier.

It is all god's fault.

refer to this in the "what has god done wrong" section.

[Steve3007]

OP (bold type is mine):

A leftist is a person who reject Capitalism and is supportive of Socialism, Anarchism, Communitarianism or Marxism.

Traditional generalisations in politics: the further to the left you are on the political spectrum the more you're in favour of publicly funded services paid for through taxation, and collective good over individual liberties. The further to the right you are, the more you believe that the free market is the best way to provide goods and services and that individual freedom with low taxation are the best way to benefit society.

So why label Anarchism (an extreme form of individual liberty) as leftist?

As Greta points out, it seems much easier to argue that a person with a generally right wing, individualist, worldview would find it difficult to fit in as an employee (a cog in a machine) than to argue that of a left leaning person.

Is it because people cannot be a good employee and a leftist at the same time therefore nowadays there are less and less leftists among the whole human population?

Do you have some evidence that the human population of the world in general is moving, politically, to the right? Are you thinking of the collapse of what is often referred to as Communism in places like the former USSR and China? It seems to me (as is usually the case with these things) that it's more complex than that. A recent trend in the western world seems to be polarisation and a move away from consensus. But generally, I think the traditional labels of left and right are becoming less relevant and applicable.

[Eduk]

I personally find the terms left and right to be basically meaningless as they are used in everyday conversation. They are used mainly to put people into categories where you no longer need to think about what they are saying (as in the OP). For example political parties may describe themselves as left wing or right wing but in my direct experience parties are amoral (or Machiavellian) and will do whatever is thought is needed to get into power. Once they get into power it's more or less impossible to predict what they will do as they are largely incompetent, so even if they did have genuine left or right wing sentiments it would still be impossible to guess what they might actually do.
I far prefer to judge what people actually do and react accordingly. For example a good worker is a good worker and what is important is being able to judge whether work is good or not.

[Steve3007]

I personally find the terms left and right to be basically meaningless as they are used in everyday conversation. They are used mainly to put people into categories where you no longer need to think about what they are saying (as in the OP).

I think this is a danger with all labels, not just "left" and "right". I referred to them as "generalisations" and the trade-off with generalisations/categorisations is that on the plus side they allow us to attempt to describe a complex world in a reasonable amount of time, but on the minus side we lose detail and nuance.

So, unless we want to always dive into a huge detailed analysis, we always to some extent have to assign labels to particular political positions. I don't think "left" and "right" are any better or worse than most other political labels. Maybe they're just a bit dated.

For example political parties may describe themselves as left wing or right wing but in my direct experience parties are amoral (or Machiavellian) and will do whatever is thought is needed to get into power. Once they get into power it's more or less impossible to predict what they will do as they are largely incompetent, so even if they did have genuine left or right wing sentiments it would still be impossible to guess what they might actually do.

I'm not quite as cynical as that. Political parties are collections of politically minded people and, on average, at least where I live, I don't see those people as being especially more or less competent than your average person. I don't buy the cliche that politicians, simply because they are politicians, are all unprincipled power-hungry potential despots. They have egos, ambitions and tribal instincts like everyone else, but most also appear to me to have genuinely held views about the best way to run a society, even if I don't agree with them.

[Alias]

Traditional generalisations in politics: the further to the left you are on the political spectrum the more you're in favour of publicly funded services paid for through taxation, and collective good over individual liberties. The further to the right you are, the more you believe that the free market is the best way to provide goods and services and that individual freedom with low taxation are the best way to benefit society.

Are you sure about that characterization of "further right"? What, then, of ultra-nationalism, fascism, militarism, conformity, theocracy, xenophobia? In fact, when you go all the way right, it's control by a select elite, dictatorship by landowners and/or clergy and/or military commanders, with very little, if any, room for individual freedom.
The opposite of anarchy is monarchy. Marxism is opposite to laissez-faire capitalism. I have no idea what cumminitarianism is - could be a monastic order or Mormon family unit, as easily as a farming collective or craft guild or Native fishing village. Socialism is a secular society that used money for exchange of goods and services and has a government that regulates those transactions, protects the vulnerable and safeguards the rights of all citizens while favouring no class.

Does the OP poster know what he's talking about?
I have to wonder.

[Eduk]

Let me put it this way, it's reasonable to use labels to help describe but not useful when you are obscuring description. So at the least we need to be careful. I would hesitate to ask if a leftist can be a good worker, because I don't think the label leftist makes sense in this question. I think it's too open to interpretation to have meaning.

I'm not quite as cynical as that. Political parties are collections of politically minded people and, on average, at least where I live, I don't see those people as being especially more or less competent than your average person. I don't buy the cliche that politicians, simply because they are politicians, are all unprincipled power-hungry potential despots. They have egos, ambitions and tribal instincts like everyone else, but most also appear to me to have genuinely held views about the best way to run a society, even if I don't agree with them.

I am not talking about general competence. I am talking about specifically competence to govern. You can't be a concert pianist with average competence you need be one of the best in the world otherwise you're incompetent to be a concert pianist. Similarly in politics, unless you are one of the most competent people to govern in the world you are incompetent to govern (I'm talking about the highest levels here of course). What expertise do you believe you need in order to competently govern?
I think there are many many forces working against a competent man.
1. Working within the party system.
2. Having to be voted for.
3. Vested interests that contradict good governance (yourself and others).
And many others, and I've hardly scratched the surface of any of the above.
Also I haven't actually seen many (any) interviews with politicians where they were genuine about their views? Do you have any examples?

-- Updated January 6th, 2017, 11:10 am to add the following --

I think there are many many forces working against a competent man.

Whoops meant to put competent person, not man. Add that to the list of forces working against competent people

[Renee]

I personally find the terms left and right to be basically meaningless as they are used in everyday conversation.

I don't blame you. I personally find the terms: "and", "superstition", "because" and "holy MacKarel" meaningless, because they are used in everyday conversation.

Good thinking, good logic.

-- Updated January 6th, 2017, 1:09 pm to add the following --

I personally find the terms left and right to be basically meaningless as they are used in everyday conversation.

My mistake. I took initially your "as" as "because". Now I realize you used "as" as "in the way".

My sincere apologies.

[Eduk]

Renee
haha Well thank you for taking the time to re-read. I can see the confusion, not entirely clear writing style on my part. Just goes to show though how easy it is to misunderstand people.

[LuckyR]

For example political parties may describe themselves as left wing or right wing but in my direct experience parties are amoral (or Machiavellian) and will do whatever is thought is needed to get into power. Once they get into power it's more or less impossible to predict what they will do as they are largely incompetent, so even if they did have genuine left or right wing sentiments it would still be impossible to guess what they might actually do.

I'm not quite as cynical as that. Political parties are collections of politically minded people and, on average, at least where I live, I don't see those people as being especially more or less competent than your average person. I don't buy the cliche that politicians, simply because they are politicians, are all unprincipled power-hungry potential despots. They have egos, ambitions and tribal instincts like everyone else, but most also appear to me to have genuinely held views about the best way to run a society, even if I don't agree with them.

I don't disagree with your observation that the different parties have different goals (beyond the primary one of "winning" more power and influence). What is identical between the left and right is that they are happy to use appropriate reasoning to explain their ideology: "we need a smaller, less meddling government to reduce regulations and increase profits and good paying jobs" and they are equally happy to violate that exact same "reasoning" (read: rationalization), if it happens to not be compatible with another of their goals: "we need to stick our gigantic, meddling and interfering governmental nose into your business and regulate whom you marry and what you discuss and plan with your gynecologist".