Left-wing versus Right-wing

[austere]

I'm starting this topic not to ascertain (or otherwise debate on) which of the two is the better ideology. Instead, I ask that people who are interested to explain to me how the two sides are different at all, at a fundamental level. This will actually involve defining the two terms, so it isn't exactly the cake walk you may think it is.

For those who make it to the Ura loop, can they also describe to me the operational differences between Communism and Fascism?

[Ex-Cyber]

Well, if you limit the discussion to those terms, there's not much to discuss. "Left-wing" and "right-wing" are just vacuous tribal labels, usually applied to others rather than to oneself.

[austere]

Well put, as I have seen, the two labels themselves are meaningless except in the manner you described. However, people are free to propose a definition and I'd love it if you would examine those with me.

How about the second question, it's quite specific isn't it?

[JoshF]

Communism and Fascism as practiced were essentially the same thing. In the USSR an all-powerful state acted as a monopolistic corporation (hence the term "state capitalism." In Fascist countries the recourses against corporate power were annihilated so that corporations could act as private tyrannies that ruled over public life. They're both two sides of the same coin of totalitarianism.

[Domino]

I considier Left-Wing to be Collectivism and Right-Wing to be Individualism.

Many left-wing politics put major focus on a group of people and trying to make more or less everything equal, because by everyone begin equal nobody is being left out and the playing field is flat and balance. The problem with is that someone who's more educated and is successful will be on the same playing field as someone who's not educated and is a failure in life. More or less in collectivism you are not judged by ones merits.

Individualism is where there's a huge focus on the person itself to be on their own and do their own thing. There's no group of people working together, you are on your own trying to make it in the real world. Individualism look down heavily at groups (unions for example) because it can hurt the chance of people being themselves and work on their own. Some problems with this is that there's huge unequality between people (poor, rich, successful, unsuccessful, etc.), and it is full of risk than Collectivism. But if done correctly then Individualism will reep better rewards than Collectivism (more money, more indepenence, etc.).

That's one way I look at it.

[njiska]

Honestly just read this. It's pretty much the textbook definition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum

You may also want to read up on how both the progressive and conservative sides of the spectrum view the Locus of Control.

[austere]

In Fascist countries the recourses against corporate power were annihilated so that corporations could act as private tyrannies that ruled over public life. They're both two sides of the same coin of totalitarianism.

Entirely correct, in fact, both systems essentially operated as a monolithic corporation. What matters is how much power the government has and as you observed, they can both have maximum power if possible, reducing them to the same system.

These days, with Democracy[TM] we no longer have to worry about such things forming. Indeed, over here in Australia, the government is already a corporation listed on the US security exchange! Ditto the RBA, which essentially controls the entire economy by proxy, with a selected board of former bankers.

On the bright side, we get to vote from a selection of a bunch of mentally handicapped rats.

I considier Left-Wing to be Collectivism and Right-Wing to be Individualism.

So to you, it essentially boils down to Left-wing being egalitarianism and right wing being anarchy. However, you trip over while trying to define Right-wing:

Individualism is where there's a huge focus on the person itself to be on their own and do their own thing. There's no group of people working together, you are on your own trying to make it in the real world.

What about the gigantic corporation you would have to work for, when one forms? Is it suddenly outside the system? A part of nature, if you will? Consider the end result of any policy you propose. I think you will then find that the rest of your description is fantastically impossible. Anarchy is a state that exists only for those privileged enough to live in it while a state/order exists for the rest. Eventually, from that order anarchy might arrise and from that anarchy a new order can form.

Honestly just read this (Wikipedia link on the usual political spectrum idea)

There's no real spectrum, there's only power and people. When you look at all these little political ideologies, they all reduce down to the same thing: how a few wish to obtain power and wield it over others to get what they want. Of course, there are those who genuinely hope to "fix" things but eventually they will realise that there's nothing really to fix. The world hasn't changed to the degree most people assume it has. It's just more technologically advanced, that's all.

[maxlords]

I think all wings need to be clipped at this point.

[Domino]

What about the gigantic corporation you would have to work for, when one forms? Is it suddenly outside the system? A part of nature, if you will? Consider the end result of any policy you propose. I think you will then find that the rest of your description is fantastically impossible. Anarchy is a state that exists only for those privileged enough to live in it while a state/order exists for the rest. Eventually, from that order anarchy might arrise and from that anarchy a new order can form.

You see this is where we are different. You say this:

What about the gigantic corporation you would have to work for, when one forms?

You see you don't have to a gigantic corporation. You say "you would have to work for" is incorrect. Nobody is pointing a gun to you saying you must work for one. Doesn't work that way.

No corporation is part of nature, or outside of the system. This is now a matter of two viewpoints where your viewpoint states a corporation can be outside of the system while mine said it can't.

Now I'm not even talking about Anarchy because that's a different topic IMO and a whole new can of worms. The issue is when people saying attacking the unions is an attack on the middle class is not 100% true. There's still the other 50% of the middle class who hate the unions (me) and want to get rid of it altogether because their usefullness has long been done.

[njiska]

Honestly just read this (Wikipedia link on the usual political spectrum idea)

There's no real spectrum, there's only power and people. When you look at all these little political ideologies, they all reduce down to the same thing: how a few wish to obtain power and wield it over others to get what they want. Of course, there are those who genuinely hope to "fix" things but eventually they will realise that there's nothing really to fix. The world hasn't changed to the degree most people assume it has. It's just more technologically advanced, that's all.

You do realize that the question you asked is entirely based upon the spectrum that you just swept under the rug as being pure bollocks. I guess that means this thread is really just a bait and switch. You're not really interested in a debate between functional difference of the two ideologies (which are not real ideologies, but sides of the spectrum), but rather looking for an excuse to present a view of all government as selfish and explotive. That Is a debate I have no interest in having because it is childish and short sighted.

[louisg]

Every time I read a political discussion on this site, I just want to tell everyone to put down the bong

[BryanM]

You see you don't have to a gigantic corporation. You say "you would have to work for" is incorrect. Nobody is pointing a gun to you saying you must work for one. Doesn't work that way.

You breathe their oxygen, they make money off of you.

They (Them) are also the ones who force you to double space on the internet, even though we now have variable width fonts. And even though HTML does not acknowledge such madness.

You didn't make a conscious decision to press the space bar a random number of times. That was a choice made FOR you, decades ago when it actually had a reason to exist (in the era of fixed width fonts). And it lingers still to this day as a relic of how the little replicating cogs keep doing what they're programmed to do until forced by their masters or circumstance to do otherwise. Identically to why bras that cause cancer and cause boob sag and toilets that that cause rectal damage are still pervasive.

So in conclusion, if you really believe in "individualism" and moving up in the world, then you'll cease this strange perverted habit immediately. Otherwise you're not a pawn (pawns move forward you see).

In either case, this illustrates that not everything you believe is what you believe.

Also that the metaphorical "gun" are your own beliefs, put into you when you were a child.

[louisg]

^^^^^^^^^^^

re: my previous post

[oli_lar]

toilets that that cause rectal damage are still pervasive.

Neptune's kiss isn't that bad is it?

[Mischief Maker]

Right Wing is the path of perceived safety.

Left Wing is taking a risk in hopes of better returns.

The reason right-wing politicians constantly engage in tactics of fear and reminders of people's mortality is that it makes people flee to a perceived safe place. It's safer to assume all blacks are gang-bangers and keep them out of your gated community than risk letting one in to rob, rape, and murder you. It's safer to lay-off employees and keep more money in your pocket to support your lifestyle than take a pay cut yourself and spread the money out in hopes that a richer middle-class indirectly makes for a more stable customer base. It's safer to take a literal interpretation of law and the bible, etc. "Shoot first and ask questions later" is the ultimate Right-Wing slogan.

Even Bush jr's war in Iraq was the path of perceived safety. The Project for a New American Century had been harping for over a decade that if the US took control of all the world's oil stores before a second superpower filled the vacuum left by the USSR, we would be forever safe in a worldwide Pax Americana. The people of Iraq would greet the US with roses. That that did not turn out to be true was not the point, it was perceived as the safest option by the decision makers at the time.

At the same time, this explains why the left is so maddeningly docile most of the time. If the status quo is working out for people, they aren't inclined to take risks. It's only when the status quo becomes intolerable that the left becomes activated. The Great Depression leading to the New Deal. The Vietnam lottery draft leading to the Peace Movement. Jim Crow leading to the Civil Rights movement. The coordinated state union bust leading to the Madison protests.

[Domino]

Every time I read a political discussion on this site, I just want to tell everyone to put down the bong

Agreed.

[BryanM]

Heh no.

The human body isn't designed to poop in that position. The squat is how to poo. Science!

It's only when the status quo becomes intolerable that the left becomes activated. The Great Depression leading to the New Deal. The Vietnam lottery draft leading to the antiwar protests. Jim Crow leading to the Civil Rights movement. The coordinated state union bust leading to the Madison protests.

Obama winning an election based on sweet lies.

[Domino]

What about the beer?

[Drum]

I considier Left-Wing to be Collectivism and Right-Wing to be Individualism.

This is just completely wrong. Hope that helps ^_^



Agree with Mischief Maker above. It's basically a couple of opposing brute-level survival strategies that's been sort of culturally absorbed/codified/owned. People will do some pretty lunatic things to convince themselves that the left/right division has something very much to do with wider philosophical outlooks, but that stuff gets added later on, often in order to make the strategy that suits them seem somehow loftier, and also good enough for the people it doesn't actually suit (and that they're moral degenerates for not going along with it, as opposed to people who are merely in a different situation).
Not saying that ethics has no place in politics or anything!

[Mischief Maker]

Every time I read a political discussion on this site, I just want to tell everyone to put down the bong

Agreed.

It's safer to try to quash a discussion when you can't articulate and defend the argument for your side.

OMIGOD! Everybody stop discussing politics! If we don't stop we're gonna run out of internet!!!

[Domino]

Every time I read a political discussion on this site, I just want to tell everyone to put down the bong

Agreed.

It's safer to try to quash a discussion when you can't articulate and defend the argument for your side.

OMIGOD! Everybody stop discussing politics! If we don't stop we're gonna run out of internet!!!

No because doesn't matter what will come out of my mouth it will be a endless and useless discuss. Talking to the left is like talking to a brick wall. Trying to say that unions are good is like pigs can fly.

And I have video games to play and real life to attend. K thx.

[BryanM]

Talking to the left is like talking to a brick wall.

Like trying to educate people that their space piles can't be seen on the internet?

One of these days I'll convert someone. To give up is to lay down and die.

You can't take the sky from me.

[Mischief Maker]

No because doesn't matter what will come out of my mouth it will be a endless and useless discuss. Talking to the left is like talking to a brick wall.

NOTHING is safer than knee-jerk cynicism. You're either vindicated or pleasantly surprised, whatever the occasion.

[louisg]

Trying to say that unions are good is like pigs can fly

Don't be such a tool. There is a place for unions, and there is a place of course for corporations. It's a balance between two powerful entities. It's not as simple as "unions are evil" or "corporations are evil". If it were, everything would be solved and we'd live in a blissful utopia

[Drum]

No because doesn't matter what will come out of my mouth it will be a endless and useless discuss. Talking to the left is like talking to a brick wall. Trying to say that unions are good is like pigs can fly.

I thought you were joking at first - maybe I was just hoping ):

Here: Unions aren't good, they're just part of the way capitalism works - when it works. If you don't like unions, move to China or something.

[Heartwork]

A couple recent threads in Off Topic have led me to believe Domino is completely batshit insane.

[BPzeBanshee]

Every time I read a political discussion on this site, I just want to tell everyone to put down the bong

Austere man, if you want an interesting view on the wings of government you should read "Betrayal: The Underbelly of Australian Labor". Its actually about NSW Labor and how Morris Iemma went down but says a little bit about Kevin Rudd (my favourite Prime Minister, fuck Gillard and especially Howard).

[BulletMagnet]

Talking to the left is like talking to a brick wall.

Try telling a rightie that tax cuts don't increase revenue, and have never even once come close to paying for themselves.

[austere]

You do realize that the question you asked is entirely based upon the spectrum that you just swept under the rug as being pure bollocks. I guess that means this thread is really just a bait and switch.

It's only a bait and switch if I was hiding behind a real motive of the thread. If you read the post that preceded this thread, the intent of this thread should have been obvious from the very beginning.

You're not really interested in a debate between functional difference of the two ideologies (which are not real ideologies, but sides of the spectrum),

I asked you for a definition of left and right wing and you threw me a link from Wikipedia assuming I haven't read through similar material before. If anyone is not interested in debate, it's clearly you. Just look at how I responded in detail to Domino's attempt. I want your own definition, you're free to paste the relevant passage if need be, in this case, tell me what's are at the ends of this so-called "spectrum".

but rather looking for an excuse to present a view of all government as selfish and [exploitive]. That Is a debate I have no interest in having because it is childish and short sighted.

Being a ward of a government is nearly as childish and short sighted as one can be! It's amazing how defensive people can be about their authorities when someone suggests that most of them are in it for the power alone. Go tell the Libyans something about the virtues of governance, I dare you.

Austere man, if you want an interesting view on the wings of government you should read "Betrayal: The Underbelly of Australian Labor".

I'll check it out, our parliament is basically a circus and so these things can be entertaining. It's funny how it took Gillard less than a year to basically lie about everything and yet her supporters still find excuses for her. My favourite Australia PM was Paul Keating and that's more a preference about his personality than anything else. It's a shame Mark Latham didn't win the 2005 elections as well, he's hilarious. Kevin Rudd is way too passive aggressive for my taste and isn't nearly as smart as he thinks he is.

[neorichieb1971]

People who have power should have all the power they need, except the power to remain in power. Being in power once your usefulness has been fully realized is no longer a credit, but a weakness to that nation/organization.

Since America is getting weaker, I would imagine too many people are grinding the gears. Its time to relube them.

Left or right wing views. I thought left wing was giving the power to the people, where as right wing is giving the power to the rich.