Left-wing versus Right-wing

[austere]

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.

Oh but it does. The same corporations you think are out for "free market capitalism" and so on, aren't. They lobby for regulation when it suits them and when it doesn't, they lobby for deregulation. A corporation can be formed by anyone of course, but you will find that, without the right connections to the existing social hierarchy, you will seldom get anywhere with it. And so, back to work you go! So much for "individualism" right?

Even if we start from scratch under your proposed "individualism" system, you will find that the same order we live in now will reformulate itself. All you need to realise (as you do, but selectively) this is that people aren't equal.

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.

You misunderstood what I was saying. I was pointing out how your passage can only make sense if the above were true.

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

That's essentially what the terms used to mean, the origin was from the seating position parliament in France before the revolution. Those seated on the right of the chamber were the nobles while those on the left were those representing the rabble. To be "left-winged" back then, was to oppose the status-quo and ironically, to believe in many of the policies that people would consider "right-winged" today. Essentially, it's about ceasing power from an existing social hierarchy along with the promotion of an ideology which protects your new position. So even with the old meanings, the two terms are clearly redundant.

[BPzeBanshee]

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.

I liked some of Rudd's ideas to be honest, and that crap with the mining tax could be said to be part of his IQ issues but from what I understand I'd say its balls. Gillard lost my confidence when she backstabbed Mr. Rudd the same way Keating backstabbed Bob Hawke.

Speaking of Keating, the book I mentioned has a bit of him too - since it focuses mainly on Iemma's attempt at reform and a lot of the stuff he was doing was along similar lines to Keating's line of thinking, and has a bit of mention of him throughout the book. Not a bad idea going by how the book puts it.

[ED-057]

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.).

I agree 100% with this characterization of the difference between left/right ideology.

The trick is to realize that either collectivism or individualism, in pure form and taken to the extreme, would be disastrous.

Pure collectivism would only work in a fantasy world where every person has the same needs, the same desires, and the same abilities. In that situation, 100% cooperation would yield the best results for everyone. In the real world however, where people are not interchangable, collectivism would result in a crushing lack of freedom. It would be a ban on any activity which could negatively affect a person's contribution to society or result in additional cost to society.

Pure individualism would only work in a fantasy world where every person had access to infinite resources. Then no person would have to depend on any other, and all would be truly free. In the real world however, where the Earth has limitted resources and people are born into different circumstances, individualism means that one person (or group) may control resources that another person needs to survive. The have-nots become dependant on the haves, and suffer from a weaker bargaining position.

[Drum]

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.).

I agree 100% with this characterization of the difference between left/right ideology.

Why would you agree with something that's completely wrong? Individualism vs collectivism is a separate deal, and neither has much crossover with either left or right politics. Same thing with authoritarianism and libertarianism. There aren't even any trends or tendencies - it's a cartoon pov that doesn't even work in stereotype terms.
If you want to talk about individualism vs collectivism, go nuts, but don't conflate it with left vs right.

[drauch]

Let's start an argument: The thread.

[ED-057]

Why would you agree with something that's completely wrong? Individualism vs collectivism is a separate deal, and neither has much crossover with either left or right politics.

I don`t think it is separate. Maybe the wikipedia page (or whatever reference) says otherwise, but in my experience, individualism vs collectivism is a difference that consistently stands out when right and left labels are applied.

Of course here in the USA it is popular to use definitions left=dem and right=rep, leading to the questions: why use them at all? and what is this thread about?

But seriously, how better would you distinguish left-wing ideology from right-wing?

edit: actually this wikipedia graphic would seem to agree http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Polit ... raphic.svg

[Drum]

Why would you agree with something that's completely wrong? Individualism vs collectivism is a separate deal, and neither has much crossover with either left or right politics.

I don`t think it is separate. Maybe the wikipedia page (or whatever reference) says otherwise, but in my experience, individualism vs collectivism is a difference that consistently stands out when right and left labels are applied.

Only in the rhetoric. Specifically, right-wing rhetoric (ever heard a mainstream leftie refer to themselves as a 'collectivist'?). Nationalism, corporations, religious conservatism, anti-immigration laws, family values, anti-drug laws - these are all typically (but not always) right wing institutions and they are all collectivist in nature or counter-individualist. At least in America, social conservatives aggressively push their morals on everybody they can, and have little regard for individual rights, which are typically championed by libertarians and the left (though usually not by those in power). People who strongly self-identify as individualists exist on both ends of the spectrum - ie. anarchists and libertarians. The right can either be hyper-capitalist or hyper-protectionist. The early right-wingers in France were not at all about individual rights or striving for personal betterment - that was a left-wing thing.

But seriously, how better would you distinguish left-wing ideology from right-wing?

These aren't really ideologies we are talking about. FYI. But I already did upthread - the dichotomy is essentially: those that have and want it preserved (or those that want to turn back the clock) vs those that don't and want things changed. Generally, if you get less vague than that, you also get more wrong. They're not terribly useful or meaningful terms anyway, so don't worry about it.

[CptRansom]

The only wing that matters is Giga Wing.

[BPzeBanshee]

The only wing that matters is Giga Wing.

What about Gemini Wing?

[louisg]

The only wing that matters is Giga Wing.

What about Gemini Wing?

No, Gemini Wing and Zero Wing don't count. I have to agree with Captain Ransom. Plus GigaWing has a very liberal amount of bullets and is often neither fair nor balanced

[BryanM]

The whole breaking down numbers into clumps of four instead of three really goes to show how REALLY alien these folks are to us.

It makes the comma perversion of the French seem so small in comparison.

1.0000,56 people did not give a crap~