Page 5 of 11
Posted:
Sun Sep 14, 2014 4:05 amby Vissegaard
Republic of Coldwater wrote:Infected Mushroom wrote:I think the easiest way to think about it (at least in the Western world)... is that the Left Wing support new approaches to things and the Right Wing supports existing/older approaches to things.
This pretty much explains all situations. Its not necessarily based on freedom or equality. This is why you can have a Right Wing in one place that supports a pro-freedom position on one issue and an anti-freedom position in another society/culture.
In the US the Right Wing supports gun rights while the Right Wing in Europe doesn't. Why? Because it is tradition in one place and not tradition in another place.
Its therefore not inconsistent for the Right Wing to support some libertarian ideas (ex gun rights) while emphasizing authoritarian position on others (ex death penalty). Its about what is Tradition, subconsciously or consciously it tends to come back to that.
It also explains why the Right Wing used to support monarchy, but no longer support it.
This makes sense to some extent, except the Nazis are considered Far-Right even during their time when their idea of Fascism is relatively new. It also puts some ideas such as Libertarianism and the Whig Party out of the political spectrum as Libertarianism supports the old idea of Free Markets and new idea of ending drug prohibition and ending the death penalty. The Whig Party would also be off the spectrum as they support classical liberalism yet they support a central bank and centralized government, which are generally left-wing ideas.
Nazis = National Socialist. Not very rightish, actually.
However, today's Nazis are considered that way, because they tend to support ultraconservative parties. But Hitler and stuff? No, not really.
Posted:
Sun Sep 14, 2014 4:36 amby Martean
Vissegaard wrote:Republic of Coldwater wrote:This makes sense to some extent, except the Nazis are considered Far-Right even during their time when their idea of Fascism is relatively new. It also puts some ideas such as Libertarianism and the Whig Party out of the political spectrum as Libertarianism supports the old idea of Free Markets and new idea of ending drug prohibition and ending the death penalty. The Whig Party would also be off the spectrum as they support classical liberalism yet they support a central bank and centralized government, which are generally left-wing ideas.
Nazis = National Socialist. Not very rightish, actually.
However, today's Nazis are considered that way, because they tend to support ultraconservative parties. But Hitler and stuff? No, not really.
Hitler was a social conservative: centre-left economically, and far-right in social issues.
Posted:
Sun Sep 14, 2014 5:03 amby Immoren
Waideland wrote:There's no such thing as heavy-handed capitalism, assuming you meant capitalism as in free trade. Anarcho-communism doesn't exist either, except in the minds and hearts of idealists.
Capitalism and free trade are not synonyms
Posted:
Sun Sep 14, 2014 5:14 amby Arkolon
Immoren wrote:Waideland wrote:There's no such thing as heavy-handed capitalism, assuming you meant capitalism as in free trade. Anarcho-communism doesn't exist either, except in the minds and hearts of idealists.
Capitalism and free trade are not synonyms
Veritable capitalism and free trade are.
Posted:
Sun Sep 14, 2014 5:16 amby CTALNH
Bandwagon wrote:Left Wing- Liberal
Right Wing- Dictators.
Yeah lets totally forget that leftists can't go dictatorship on anyone.
Posted:
Sun Sep 14, 2014 5:19 amby Republic of Coldwater
Immoren wrote:Waideland wrote:There's no such thing as heavy-handed capitalism, assuming you meant capitalism as in free trade. Anarcho-communism doesn't exist either, except in the minds and hearts of idealists.
Capitalism and free trade are not synonyms
It does
Dictionary wrote:an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.
Trade is an exchange of wealth, and free trade is when the government doesn't regulate the international exchange of wealth, so an element of pure Capitalism is Free Trade.
Posted:
Sun Sep 14, 2014 5:22 amby Immoren
Arkolon wrote:Immoren wrote:Capitalism and free trade are not synonyms
Veritable capitalism and free trade are.
You can have capitalism with out *free* trade.
You can have *free* trade with out class of capital owners.
They are often intertwened, but not synonyms.
"Veritable"
I can hear Neigbor's magpies laughing.
Posted:
Sun Sep 14, 2014 5:29 amby Olivaero
Waideland wrote:Olivaero wrote:This really only applies to mainstream American politics and rhetoric. There are plenty and have been plenty of "Heavy Handed" Capitalist governments in the past. I mean would you call the Prussian State Left wing? Or how about the German Empire? And then their are the left wing anarchists who despise government yet are firmly on the left, like Anarchist Communists. So your definitions are really lacking in global and historical perspective.
There's no such thing as heavy-handed capitalism, assuming you meant capitalism as in free trade. Anarcho-communism doesn't exist either, except in the minds and hearts of idealists.
Of course the main reason people who claim to be leftist have such a problem with free market capitalism, is because they confuse it with the current state of what people refer to as capitalism, which is more about making deals with the corrupt government than market forces at work. Capitalism is another thing that only currently exists in the minds and hearts of idealists. The fact that you referred to a "Capitalist government" means that you don't understand capitalism, because by the very nature of capitalism, the government stays out of it on the frontend, and only comes in on the backend as a mediator of disputes, and a watchdog for abuses.
A capitalist government: A government that operates within the capitalist system. Capitalism is the system where the means of production are not owned in a social manner and where capital is owned by private individuals ie: Capitalists. Laissez faire capitalism is not the only type that exist, the state can act as a capitalist in a capitalist system. ALL governments that allow private accumulation of capital and private (Non social) ownership of the means of production are capitalist in nature. Whether they are Laissez faire or interventionist in nature. Capitalism is not a synonym for free market as you appear to be using it. EDIT: just realized I was ninja'd on the synonym bit by Immoren.
Posted:
Sun Sep 14, 2014 5:30 amby Immoren
Republic of Coldwater wrote:It does
Who are capitalists of medieval market town?
Posted:
Sun Sep 14, 2014 5:32 amby Republic of Coldwater
Martean wrote:Vissegaard wrote:Nazis = National Socialist. Not very rightish, actually.
However, today's Nazis are considered that way, because they tend to support ultraconservative parties. But Hitler and stuff? No, not really.
Hitler was a social conservative: centre-left economically, and far-right in social issues.
Yet we still call him a "far-right" dictator, which is a very bad generalization.
Posted:
Sun Sep 14, 2014 5:45 amby Olivaero
Republic of Coldwater wrote:Martean wrote:Hitler was a social conservative: centre-left economically, and far-right in social issues.
Yet we still call him a "far-right" dictator, which is a very bad generalization.
His government was the epitome of social order and stratification of society, he took social stratification to the N-th degree. And whilst he threw some bones to the worker, like holidays and Volkswagen's lets not forget the Romans gave citizens grain rations would you call them center left? Fascism is a revolutionary right wing movement, it was in response to Communism, Nazism is basically the Stalinism of Fascism. Hitler was a far right dictator he expelled the left of the nazi party All the benefits he chucked to the worker were just his version bread and circuses not out of any ideological commitment to the ideal of equality.
Posted:
Sun Sep 14, 2014 5:47 amby Immoren
Olivaero wrote:Republic of Coldwater wrote:Yet we still call him a "far-right" dictator, which is a very bad generalization.
His government was the epitome of social order and stratification of society, he took social stratification to the N-th degree. And whilst he threw some bones to the worker, like holidays and Volkswagen's lets not forget the Romans gave citizens grain rations would you call them center left? Fascism is a revolutionary right wing movement, it was in response to Communism, Nazism is basically the Stalinism of Fascism. Hitler was a far right dictator he expelled the left of the nazi party All the benefits he chucked to the worker were just his version bread and circuses not out of any ideological commitment to the ideal of equality.
One right wing state capitalism trying to out-douche another.
Posted:
Sun Sep 14, 2014 6:06 amby Kraslavia
I see this problem as multi-aixes:
Social ("Help people!" on left - "Free to rise and fall!" on right)
Economical ("Be equal!" on left - "Be rich!" on right)
Ethics ("Be free to do!" on left - "Wrongdoers shall be punished!" on right)
Relation to Past ("It learn us what was wrong" on left - "It learn us what was good" on right)
and more.
But someone can be left on one aix and right on other.
So Leftism/Centrism/Rightism is mean between this aixes - which values dominates (if none - then: centrist)
Posted:
Sun Sep 14, 2014 6:08 amby Central Asian Republics
Bandwagon wrote:Left Wing- Liberal
Right Wing- Dictators.
Wait... I thought liberals were more centrists than left wing.
Posted:
Wed Sep 17, 2014 9:36 pmby Dainer
Estado Nacional wrote:Dainer wrote:It all depends. For example, what's usually called left-wing in the United States, which has much more of a corporatist bent to its politics,
would be considered far-right in Brazil, where there's several socialist parties and where even the center-right is in favor of extensive welfare.
No, it wouldn't.
Eh, they barely qualify as center-right, if you're being charitable.
Posted:
Wed Sep 17, 2014 10:01 pmby Nationes Pii Redivivi
The Left, I think, is characterised by class based politics, that is to say, that it sees class conflict in terms of exploitation, and advocate policies which varies, with those towards the centre focusing on government intervening and providing benefits to lubricate the relationship, and make it seem fair, while those further down advocating a reformation of society and the economic system that cause this exploitation.
The Right, on the other hand, sees itself as the guardian of tradition, and also vary, most usually supporting Capitalistic status quo, or advocating something that moves towards a Capitalistic ideal, to rejecting both and advocating a return to more traditional societies.
Posted:
Thu Sep 18, 2014 12:37 amby Dejanic
Dainer wrote:Estado Nacional wrote:No, it wouldn't.
Eh, they barely qualify as center-right, if you're being charitable.
The Democrats would probably be considered solid right wing here in the UK, their policies are pretty much across the board socially and fiscally to the right of the UK Conservative party. People like to say that "Liberalism inside America refers to Left Liberalism, where as Liberalism in Europe and the rest of the world refers to the old style right wing form of Liberalism", the reality is that the US Liberals are fairly right wing, it's just that the extremeness of the GOP makes them look left leaning. I could easily see the Democrats being part of the EPP in the Euro parliament if they were a European party.
Posted:
Thu Sep 18, 2014 12:41 amby Dejanic
Central Asian Republics wrote:Bandwagon wrote:Left Wing- Liberal
Right Wing- Dictators.
Wait... I thought liberals were more centrists than left wing.
They are, Liberals outside of the US are usually put into the 2 or 3 main camps, "social Liberal camp" which is a solid Centrist movement, or the "right wing Liberal camp" which can be split into either "Conservative Liberalism" as practised by the Dutch VVD, or "Classical Liberalism" which is effectively a watered down version of US Libertarianism (or to be precise, US Libertarianism is a drugged up version of Classical Liberalism) and is practised by for example the German FDP. Centre-Left Liberal parties barely exist, there's probably about two of them, the centre-left spot is usually filled by Social Democratic parties.
Posted:
Thu Sep 18, 2014 12:56 amby Ayreonia
The Left-Right divide is a hopelessly outdated concept that fails to capture all the nuances and silliness of politics, especially since it's defined differently depending on where you live.
Posted:
Thu Sep 18, 2014 1:13 amby Communal Ecotopia
New Breteyne wrote:Communal Ecotopia wrote:Economically, they would. Liberal in European-speak means classical-liberal, which has affinity with libertarian constructs.
This is wrong, the big liberal parties in Europe are social liberals. They are economically right in their countries but still fit the definition of social liberals.
The economic arena was what I was pointing to. Still, the CDU/CSU, FDP, OVP, and UMP as social-liberal? I'll give you the Finnish Centre Party, UDEUR in Italy, the Belgian CDH/CD&V,
some of the Dutch VVD, and some Red Tories, but I'm still not buying the whole argument, unless it's "every classical-liberal party would tear down the welfare state." Hell, even Thatcher knew she couldn't touch the NHS really.
Posted:
Thu Sep 18, 2014 1:26 amby Communal Ecotopia
Republic of Coldwater wrote:Martean wrote:Hitler was a social conservative: centre-left economically, and far-right in social issues.
Yet we still call him a "far-right" dictator, which is a very bad generalization.
Not really...Hitler and many of his allies minus, I believe, Goebbels were more than willing to be the economically-conservative friends of German big business, just as Hindenburg had been. It was mostly the losing (and, therefore, dead) wing of the NSDAP that held themselves to a real sense of socialism (the Strassers, Rohm, a good chunk of the SA).
Posted:
Thu Sep 18, 2014 3:03 amby Kilobugya
Historically, it comes from the French Revolution. Those who wanted the King to keeps veto power over all laws seated to the right of the King. Those who didn't want the King to have such power seated to the left of the King.
So since the beginning, the right-wing is those wanted the current ruling class to keep the power, and/or to keep things as they are. Which translates to economical liberalism, social conservatism, hostility towards democracy.
And since the beginning, the left-wing is those wanted to get the people in charge, don't hesitate to change what is wrong, and favor equality. Which translates to more egalitarian economical policies (social-democratic or socialists), social liberalism and praise of actual democracy ("government of the people, by the people, for the people").
Posted:
Thu Sep 18, 2014 10:33 amby Martean
Olivaero wrote:Republic of Coldwater wrote:Yet we still call him a "far-right" dictator, which is a very bad generalization.
His government was the epitome of social order and stratification of society, he took social stratification to the N-th degree. And whilst he threw some bones to the worker, like holidays and Volkswagen's lets not forget the Romans gave citizens grain rations would you call them center left? Fascism is a revolutionary right wing movement, it was in response to Communism, Nazism is basically the Stalinism of Fascism. Hitler was a far right dictator he expelled the left of the nazi party All the benefits he chucked to the worker were just his version bread and circuses not out of any ideological commitment to the ideal of equality.
Fascism was mostly right-wing populism, and wasn't as 'social' as the Nazis.
The problem here it's that you only think in a left-right scale, but if you have ever done a compass you should know it's Left-Right + Authoritarian-Libertarian (and maybe that wouldn't even be enough)
Hitler would be very authoritarian (8+) and centre-left (-2/-1)
Fascist dictators like Franco or Mussolinni would be like 8+ Authoritarian and +1/+2 centre-right
Posted:
Thu Sep 18, 2014 11:42 amby Kelinfort
The real divide is between social authoritarianism and social libertarianism.
Posted:
Thu Sep 18, 2014 11:50 amby New Aerios
In the spirit of most of this thread:
Right: Me, and the good guys like me.
Left: Everyone else, like Hitler, Stalin, George Bush, Kim Jong Un, Putin, that fucking fly that keeps buzzing around the house, my neighbour's horde of evil cats, aubergines, people who put milk in their coffee, people who think tea is better than coffee, that guy off that terrible TV show, wasps, and all those fuckers on NSG.