Left wing or Right wing

[Hayek]

Originally posted by Akka

Get a history book, and sees from which part of the political spectrum fascism and anarchism came.

I didn't mean where the ideologies came from historically, but why you see anarchism as left-wing and fascism as right-wing today.

If you're as far to the left as it gets, then you can have no freedoms, that is why anarchy is NOT left-wing.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Anarchism has no wings, neither left or right. Its an almost extinct flightless bird. A few specimens are kept in captivity, but they cant produce offspring. The last known breeding pairs in the wild died in the 1920's and 30's.

 

[luiz]

Originally posted by Akka

I can repeat the last sentence of the very message you quoted, which pretty much answer your questions :

" Now you can say that "it's contradictory", etc. Yes, because a single-axis is doomed to have many contradictions. Nevertheless, fascism as its roots in extreme right, anarchism in extreme left."

Your last statement is where we disagree. Because I don't believe that a tow axis system exist, so it's impossible to say that the Fascists are right-wing(IMO). Furthermore, saying that they are right-wing means that there exists a definition for right-wing.

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by Hayek

I didn't mean where the ideologies came from historically, but why you see anarchism as left-wing and fascism as right-wing today.

Hard to answer that without describing WHAT is left-wing and right-wing, and impossible to describe left-wing and right-wing without having contradictions. Each wing include ideologies that seems pretty contradictory between themselves, not even speaking about the RESULTS of these ideologies when they are put in practice...

If I really had to make a very very rough definition, still, I would describe each wing like this :

Left-wing is more interested in supporting the individual, and look for the well-being of individuals on a universalist basis.

Right-wing is more interested in supporting the political structure, and look for the well-being of individuals on a restrictive basis.

 

[luiz]

Originally posted by Akka

Left-wing is more interested in supporting the individual, and look for the well-being of individuals on a universalist basis.

Right-wing is more interested in supporting the political structure, and look for the well-being of individuals on a restrictive basis.

By your definition Left=Good Guys and Right=Bad Guys

If I wanted to make a very rough definition(for the modern right and left wings), I would say the following:

Left-Wing: interested in the well-beign of society, individual rights are not as important as the collective good.

Right-Wing: individual rights are above collective rights. Each individual have certain rights that cannot be broken, even if they go againts the interest of the State. There is no such thing as collective good, each citizen must make his living.

 

[Free Enterprise]

Originally posted by archer_007
Sure the right wants personal freedoms, thats why they are pro-abortion, pro-drug decriminalization, pro-gay rights, pro-seperation of church and state, anti-kangaroo court, and pro-allowing patents to sue their HMO

What about gun rights(pro liberty)? Also, if you count abortion then you have to consider anyone who wants to punish murder a crime as big government. Because people oppose abortion because they think it is murder. Not to hard to figure how a libertarian could oppose abortion. Drug decriminalization is also opposed by many Democrats just as many moderate rightists not far right oppose it. Libertarian has much more in common with minimalists conservatives than with big government liberal democrats.

Affirmative Action= Anti social and economic liberty, government run corporations=anti economic liberty, high taxation for entitlements= anti economic liberty, and Anti school choice= Anti social liberty

Therefore to avoid contradicting measurements you have to adopt a system that does not have conflicting trends.

At least you could say that there are four ends like Roundman drew and posted.

Ok on that one left would be pro socialism in economics while the right would be pro capitalism in economics. Now the other two spectrums would be the anti “social” rights and the pro social rights. That would mean the libertarians are right wing with the addition of being pro social rights. Some republicans would be pro-economic freedom and anti-social freedom while others would be pro freedom in both. Libertarians would be pro freedom in both. Democrats would be anti-economic freedom(left wing on this model) and some would be pro social freedom and some opposed to it. However if you think about it you could have a pro large government scale(left wing) and an anti government scale(right wing) although this would lack fine detail it would be logical. Saying the right(presumably you base on Republicans) wing is anti social freedoms is not logical because the Democrats oppose many, many, many social freedoms also.

Originally posted by Akka
Oh, and just for the record :

Fascism is right-wing.
Anarchism is left-wing.

Now you can say that "it's contradictory", etc. Yes, because a single-axis is doomed to have many contradictions. Nevertheless, fascism as its roots in extreme right, anarchism in extreme left.

Then you obviously think communism is right wing. Communism is a absolutely and completey incompatible with anarchy this is self evident. Also, anarchism could be said to be “reactionary”, returning to a state of nature. Fascism is radical just like Communism. Both support massive state control of the economy and both are anti-free trade. Why is it Fascism is so similar to free market capitalists on a scale if you even accept rightists are generally capitalists? Everyone has accepted that the left opposes capitalism so it shouldn’t be that hard to finish the steps to the logical conclusion: The right is capitalist and free-market whilst the left is socialists and pro state control of economy.

 

[newfangle]

Akka, your definitions seem kind of scewed.

If you mean "left" in the European sense, I suppose I'd agree.

However, if you mean "left" in the North American sense, it has nothing to do with the individual and everything to do with the collective.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

I would say that a disillusioned leftist would be more likely to turn to anarchism than a disillusioned fascist would.

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by Akka

Get a history book, and sees from which part of the political spectrum fascism and anarchism came.

Akka, I know you know better than this, so...?

Anarchism, I'd agree, is rooted in left-wing idealogies that saw collectivism by people as a better vehicle for society than collectivism by the state.

I've always preferred the Spanish term "libertarian communism" to describe anarchism, actually, since it is more descriptive.

But fascism, as you surely know, is a direct byproduct of Mussolini's socialism. Better, perhaps, to use the Spanish model again and call it reactionary socialism (or perhaps, nationalist socialism?). Instead of callling for state management of the economy, it proposes state management of society to achieve the same objectives.

R.III

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by luiz
By your definition Left=Good Guys and Right=Bad Guys

Yes, but this is conclusion a posteriori, not a prejudice a priori.

If I wanted to make a very rough definition(for the modern right and left wings), I would say the following:

Left-Wing: interested in the well-beign of society, individual rights are not as important as the collective good.

Right-Wing: individual rights are above collective rights. Each individual have certain rights that cannot be broken, even if they go againts the interest of the State. There is no such thing as collective good, each citizen must make his living.

Well, that's a definition from a right-wing point of view

From mine (a left-wing, so ^^), it's quite different. It's quite the opposite in fact, I rather consider that left-wing is MUCH more interested in the rights of individuals, while right-wing is more interested in the structure and the process, without considering how people are crushed by it.

Kinda like the "bleeding heart liberals against the selfish conservating" picture
I could say that left-wing is more universal, while right-wing is more egotistical, but though I think there is some part true in it, it's a bit too much caricatural.

Each wing consider of course that the others have less regards for the individual rights, because usually, people vote for one wing for the very reason that they feel this wing will protect their rights more than the other ^^

The difference relies, in fact, more in the KIND of rights than in the AMOUNT of rights.
Left-wing typically believes in positive rights, while right-wing typically believes in negative rights. Which could explain why each one feels that the other does not respect individual rights as much as itself

 

[Free Enterprise]

Originally posted by Akka

The difference relies, in fact, more in the KIND of rights than in the AMOUNT of rights.
Left-wing typically believes in positive rights, while right-wing typically believes in negative rights. Which could explain why each one feels that the other does not respect individual rights as much as itself

Then negative rights are freedom and liberty while postive rights are "civil" 'rights' bestowed upon you by the government. Like the right to a job the right to be free from want ect. I have never liked the term "expanded rights". That implies that anything could be consider a right in the right circumstance. Like claiming the 'right' to certain government monies under the equal protections clause.

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by Free Enterprise
Then you obviously think communism is right wing. Communism is a absolutely and completey incompatible with anarchy this is self evident. Also, anarchism could be said to be “reactionary”, returning to a state of nature. Fascism is radical just like Communism. Both support massive state control of the economy and both are anti-free trade.

No, facism is not at all anti-trade.
I do agree that communism and fascism give very similar results from many point of views. Still, they are mortal ennemies, because they don't have the same ideals. They use the same methods, but one is nationalist and is rooted in traditions, while the other is universalist and is rooted in revolution.

There is a saying, with which I completely agree : "extremes rejoin".

Why is it Fascism is so similar to free market capitalists on a scale if you even accept rightists are generally capitalists?

Sorry, I don't understand the sentence. Could you reformulate it ?

Everyone has accepted that the left opposes capitalism so it shouldn’t be that hard to finish the steps to the logical conclusion: The right is capitalist and free-market whilst the left is socialists and pro state control of economy.

Well, yes, I do agree with that.

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by newfangle
Akka, your definitions seem kind of scewed.

If you mean "left" in the European sense, I suppose I'd agree.

However, if you mean "left" in the North American sense, it has nothing to do with the individual and everything to do with the collective.

I do mean "left" in the European sense.
You know, from a European point of view, there is no "left" in USA, only "right" and "far right"

Originally posted by Richard III
But fascism, as you surely know, is a direct byproduct of Mussolini's socialism. Better, perhaps, to use the Spanish model again and call it reactionary socialism (or perhaps, nationalist socialism?). Instead of callling for state management of the economy, it proposes state management of society to achieve the same objectives.

Well, yes. And it's precisely why fascism is right-wing and not left-wing

Left-wing tends to do more state control on economy and less on social. Right tends to be the exact opposite (of course, I said "tends to", there is plenty of ideologies that just don't follow this pattern).

Communism is supposed to have total control on economy, and let people do what they want on a social scale.
Fascism is supposed to control totally the minds of the people, but don't really care how they make a living and if they do success or not in it.

 

[newfangle]

I think this entire thread is confusion of semantics.

 

[Richard III]

I agree, and I refuse to participate anymore.

I'm going to go and pour myself a beer.

Any of you commies want to join me?

 

[Free Enterprise]

Originally posted by Akka

No, facism is not at all anti-trade.
I do agree that communism and fascism give very similar results from many point of views. Still, they are mortal ennemies, because they don't have the same ideals. They use the same methods, but one is nationalist and is rooted in traditions, while the other is universalist and is rooted in revolution.

There is a saying, with which I completely agree : "extremes rejoin".

Ok you are basing on ideals. Yet many of us are basing it on economic or economic and other policy. Therefore we can say that it is a different standard therefore we can directly compare the two different left-right scales. I would say most pro freedom people do not support either ideology fascist, or communist. However this also precludes socialism and regulation.

Originally posted by Akka
Sorry, I don't understand the sentence. Could you reformulate it ?

If you accept right wingers are capitalists how or why can fascists be similar on the scale? I see very little similarities from most right parties that win elections and fascists.

Originally posted by Akka
I do mean "left" in the European sense.
You know, from a European point of view, there is no "left" in USA, only "right" and "far right"

That may explain this entire thread……. In most of North America the free marketers are right wing and the socialists are left wing. Although sometimes other things are thrown into the mix. Perhaps because none of NA became communist or fascists and oppose both.

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by newfangle
I think this entire thread is confusion of semantics.

I rather think it's simply a different perception of things, which leads to a different conclusion, then naming.

Some will equate "capitalism" with liberty and freedom, while others will equate it with tyranny and law of the strongest. They both speak about the same things, but each one get a completely opposed perception of it.

I feel that "left-wing" as justice and "right-wing" as "might makes right". I'm pretty sure there is about half of the humanity who think the exact opposite

I agree, and I refuse to participate anymore.

I'm going to go and pour myself a beer.

Any of you commies want to join me?

Well, I'm not a commie, but I would gladly accept to join you, if only I wasn't so disgusted by alcohol ^^

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Will Democratic Republicans be welcome?

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by Free Enterprise
Ok you are basing on ideals. Yet many of us are basing it on economic or economic and other policy. Therefore we can say that it is a different standard therefore we can directly compare the two different left-right scales. I would say most pro freedom people do not support either ideology fascist, or communist. However this also precludes socialism and regulation.

Regulations don't equate with "less freedom". They can increase freedom, by preventing others to do things that reduce our own freedom (caricatural example : regulations about murder increase your freedom, as you are subject to much less threats).

The main difference is in the perception of these freedoms (positive rights and negative rights, again).

If you accept right wingers are capitalists how or why can fascists be similar on the scale? I see very little similarities from most right parties that win elections and fascists.

Well, because fascists ARE more or less capitalists. At the very least, they share the basic value of the law of the strongest.
I see very little similarities between most left parties that win elections and stalinists also, you know.

That may explain this entire thread……. In most of North America the free marketers are right wing and the socialists are left wing. Although sometimes other things are thrown into the mix. Perhaps because none of NA became communist or fascists and oppose both.

It's the same in Europe : free marketers are right wing and socialists are left wing.
But Europe has a "political center" that is much farther on the left than USA. Our "center" would be on your "left".

 

[Archer 007]

Originally posted by Free Enterprise

Therefore to avoid contradicting measurements you have to adopt a system that does not have conflicting trends.

At least you could say that there are four ends like Roundman drew and posted.

I agree with the two-axis system, but I feel Roundman's is not very accurate. This one (link) seems more accurate to me.