I am always right.
Right? Left! Left? Right!
- Thread starter Richard Cribb
- Start date
What is probably the most puzzling about the political discussions in OT is, IMHO, the frivolous use of the term left and right.
It is not unusual to see certain people claim that there are so many "leftists" around here, even to the extent to dominate the place one is to believe. Funny that. Because when I look around, I fail to see this, from my perspective it would seem that except for one or two communists, just as many anarchists (the real ones mind you), and some 20-odd socialists and genuine social democrats it is rather packed with people who appear to be living quite in harmony with the dominant socio-economical system,which was last time I checked (about 10 minutes ago, capitalism. But then they should belong to the political right, shouldn't they?
So I think it might prove beneficial to clear this up a bit.
And here is my suggestion:
Outline in as few words as possible your political affiliation, whether you consider yourself as a leftist or a rightist and the reason(s) for doing so. And note well that I have left the opinion "centrist" out of the poll. I am sorry, but for me that is like being a bit pregnant. This time you have to chose sides.
Thanks in forehand for your cooperation.
See, Richard...
(It seems so strange to say that. Why did you change your name and avatar? I liked Honecker. Not much of a politician, but one hell of a kisser - as Comrade Brezhnev used to say.)
... I believe your confusion arises from the fact that you have, perhaps consciously, perhaps not, neglected to take notice of a perfectly natural trend in this world: words are changing their meaning to keep up with changing reality. The times when being "left" necessarily meant harboring socialist of communist ideology are over. Why should we let marginal fringe ideologies define the way we speak? If we continued to do so - and continued to seat our elected representatives according to such "right-left" affiliation, we'd need to build all assembly halls twice as large while having one half constantly empty. People speak in a way that is more likely to convey meaningful information. Even in CFC.
Therefore I will take freedom to plagiarize an old DDR joke: "Lieber Genosse Erich - Du bist der Letzte. Bitte mach das Licht aus."
Like "upper lower middle-class", right?
EDIT: Of course they are not meaningless. They have a new meaning. What used to be center is the new left.
You aren't in the US are you? In the US the right wing is adamantly opposed to the private ownership of property. As I was reminded listening to the radio today.
Tarquelne
Follower of Tytalus
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2001
- Messages
- 3,718
( El_M.'s post, then: )
A far more important - if less marketable - basic breakdown might be "ideologue" " vs. "realist" or "pragmatist."
For example: Just about everybody likes free markets... but most realize Bad Things happen when they're *too* free.
The hopefully-not-completely-proverbial "reasonable men" can and will disagree about where to draw the line. But they won't throw a hissy about, to pick a recent example, socialist DOOM! if the gov. engages in some bail/buy-outs or counter cyclical spending. To pick a less recent example: A realist is unlikely to conclude the violent overthrow of the capitalist class and awarding of all means of production to the People (note the cap!) is a great idea.
Pick just about any political issue and I think you'll find a bunch of ideologues making it harder to do anything useful - or just yammering on TV - and a smaller number of realists concerned with matters-of-fact. Is a new gov. program really likely to help, or not? Is a new tough-on-crime law really likely to help, or not? What's the cost - be it gold, blood, or anything less tangible - and is it worth it?
I'm pretty sure most people are realists, but the more heavily involved someone is with politics the more likely it is they're an ideologue: You tell them if their pet principle is involved or not, and they'll tell you the answer. No details need apply... though they may be discussed at enormous length as a sort of zen.
Not a good sort.
Ideologues are also often "Anti". They aren't so much "right" or "left," say, as they are anti-left or anti-right.
BTW: There's also the "idiotlogue". That's someone who listens to ideologues and, without understanding the issues, the principles, or anything beyond their preconceptions, really, parrots the ideologue's statements. Most apparent ideologues are *also* idiotlogues.
A far more important - if less marketable - basic breakdown might be "ideologue" " vs. "realist" or "pragmatist."
For example: Just about everybody likes free markets... but most realize Bad Things happen when they're *too* free.
The hopefully-not-completely-proverbial "reasonable men" can and will disagree about where to draw the line. But they won't throw a hissy about, to pick a recent example, socialist DOOM! if the gov. engages in some bail/buy-outs or counter cyclical spending. To pick a less recent example: A realist is unlikely to conclude the violent overthrow of the capitalist class and awarding of all means of production to the People (note the cap!) is a great idea.
Pick just about any political issue and I think you'll find a bunch of ideologues making it harder to do anything useful - or just yammering on TV - and a smaller number of realists concerned with matters-of-fact. Is a new gov. program really likely to help, or not? Is a new tough-on-crime law really likely to help, or not? What's the cost - be it gold, blood, or anything less tangible - and is it worth it?
I'm pretty sure most people are realists, but the more heavily involved someone is with politics the more likely it is they're an ideologue: You tell them if their pet principle is involved or not, and they'll tell you the answer. No details need apply... though they may be discussed at enormous length as a sort of zen.
Not a good sort.
Ideologues are also often "Anti". They aren't so much "right" or "left," say, as they are anti-left or anti-right.
BTW: There's also the "idiotlogue". That's someone who listens to ideologues and, without understanding the issues, the principles, or anything beyond their preconceptions, really, parrots the ideologue's statements. Most apparent ideologues are *also* idiotlogues.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
West 36
Can count up to 4
Leftist. I'm a socialist. I agree with some things espoused by anarchists and communists, though always anti-authoritarian and I'm not at all big on the idea of a vanguard. There has been no country that I have supported for these reasons, as I've yet to see one that lives up to what I'd like to see. Or really been anywhere close. I could go on, but, well I won't.
boogaboo
Josef Popper 4ever
I voted "I have no idea what you are talking about", although I would usually find my self on the left.
Fact is - there are many right/left : economic-wise, diplomatic-wise, etc...
I'll say some stuff about the diplomatic end of it, though :
I think right-wing are people who think something is their right because they can, and left-wing are people who think something is their right because it is morally correct.
*** In the following text, "SHOULD" = "morally correct".
I have an example I use to show that people SHOULD act as left wing, except in the case where they are faced with right-wing behaviour (which is unfortunately common):
Well, 2 monkeys sit on a tree branch and are hungry.
One of them finds a banana.
He can either split it and give half to the other one (left-wing), or keep it to himself (right-wing).
If he shares the banana, the other monkey SHOULD share his banana (act left-wing) if he ever finds one himself.
If he takes the banana all to himself, the other monkey SHOULD eat his banana (act right-wing), otherwise he'd just be a sucker and gain nothing if he would share his banana.
One can ofcourse also argue that the 2nd monkey can "give peace a chance" and act left-wing (share) just to see if the 1st monkeys' behaviour change on his next banana.
I think this can be done to relieve tensions and gain friends, but not more than once or twice (orelse you truely are a supreme sucker who likes being humiliated, sometimes dubbed extreme left
)
In conclusion, the correct behaviour should be left wing, but it can turn into right wing behaviour and still be correct in some situations.
Moral correctness is all that is needed in this world IMO, but people are manytimes unaware and stupid to see this simple logic.
Unfortunately, I see the whole world going in the right wing direction right now, for different reasons in different places.
2 examples for going right I see brightest in this period are:
1. Europe - because of low birth rate europeans and many high birth rate immigrants.
I'm not against immigration or integration, but everything should be sized up.
Sure, the Netherlans won't be "ok" with 10 million people from .. any other country entering it. It needs to keep some sort of identity - language, culture, etc..
However, India (for example) won't really suffer or change if 5 million people from any other country would enter it.
My conclusion is that immigration should be limited by percentage of population every year.
Also, IMHO, number of children should be upper-capped somewhere between 2 and 4.
2. (I DON'T want to turn this into a Israel-PA thread, but) Israel - because we see we are mainly facing right-wing behaviour even after "giving peace a chance", and still demanded by many countries to keep taking the heat and make one-sided retreats. That is true especially from Hamas ruled Gaza, from Hizbullah, but also in unprovoked threats from Iran. Sure, we didn't always do the right thing, but if the other side doesn't even recognise your right to exist and keeps fighting you, at some point you SHOULD fight it back. At some point nations should also ask THEM to keep in line with their commitments, not just asking ISRAEL to stay quiet while it is being slapped (again).
That's my 2 cents, and I'll be happy for responces (except on Israel-PA issues, where I won't reply in this thread )
P.S: Can someone find me a translation into English (or Hebrew) of a book written by Josef Popper-lynkeus named "Moral World Order" ?? It was originally written in German..
Fact is - there are many right/left : economic-wise, diplomatic-wise, etc...
I'll say some stuff about the diplomatic end of it, though :
I think right-wing are people who think something is their right because they can, and left-wing are people who think something is their right because it is morally correct.
*** In the following text, "SHOULD" = "morally correct".
I have an example I use to show that people SHOULD act as left wing, except in the case where they are faced with right-wing behaviour (which is unfortunately common):
Well, 2 monkeys sit on a tree branch and are hungry.
One of them finds a banana.
He can either split it and give half to the other one (left-wing), or keep it to himself (right-wing).
If he shares the banana, the other monkey SHOULD share his banana (act left-wing) if he ever finds one himself.
If he takes the banana all to himself, the other monkey SHOULD eat his banana (act right-wing), otherwise he'd just be a sucker and gain nothing if he would share his banana.
One can ofcourse also argue that the 2nd monkey can "give peace a chance" and act left-wing (share) just to see if the 1st monkeys' behaviour change on his next banana.
I think this can be done to relieve tensions and gain friends, but not more than once or twice (orelse you truely are a supreme sucker who likes being humiliated, sometimes dubbed extreme left
)In conclusion, the correct behaviour should be left wing, but it can turn into right wing behaviour and still be correct in some situations.
Moral correctness is all that is needed in this world IMO, but people are manytimes unaware and stupid to see this simple logic.
Unfortunately, I see the whole world going in the right wing direction right now, for different reasons in different places.
2 examples for going right I see brightest in this period are:
1. Europe - because of low birth rate europeans and many high birth rate immigrants.
I'm not against immigration or integration, but everything should be sized up.
Sure, the Netherlans won't be "ok" with 10 million people from .. any other country entering it. It needs to keep some sort of identity - language, culture, etc..
However, India (for example) won't really suffer or change if 5 million people from any other country would enter it.
My conclusion is that immigration should be limited by percentage of population every year.
Also, IMHO, number of children should be upper-capped somewhere between 2 and 4.
2. (I DON'T want to turn this into a Israel-PA thread, but) Israel - because we see we are mainly facing right-wing behaviour even after "giving peace a chance", and still demanded by many countries to keep taking the heat and make one-sided retreats. That is true especially from Hamas ruled Gaza, from Hizbullah, but also in unprovoked threats from Iran. Sure, we didn't always do the right thing, but if the other side doesn't even recognise your right to exist and keeps fighting you, at some point you SHOULD fight it back. At some point nations should also ask THEM to keep in line with their commitments, not just asking ISRAEL to stay quiet while it is being slapped (again).
That's my 2 cents, and I'll be happy for responces (except on Israel-PA issues, where I won't reply in this thread
)P.S: Can someone find me a translation into English (or Hebrew) of a book written by Josef Popper-lynkeus named "Moral World Order" ?? It was originally written in German..
SS-18 ICBM
Oscillator
I like to think of myself as centrist, but I lean to the left.
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
I'm a leftist, I guess.
Leftist - about the uses of the words, here's my beef:
Left and Right should be SOLELY economic terms. I stand by the American uses of "Liberal" and "Conservative" though I recognize others will use them differently. But these cannot be replaced by "left" and "right" in all instances-the former are broader than the latter. And of course I might not understand any weirder uses of the terms from other backgrounds either - if you're not talking about economics, it's probably better to use say things like authoritarian, theocratic, etc... rather than trying to lump them under left or right.
Left and Right should be SOLELY economic terms. I stand by the American uses of "Liberal" and "Conservative" though I recognize others will use them differently. But these cannot be replaced by "left" and "right" in all instances-the former are broader than the latter. And of course I might not understand any weirder uses of the terms from other backgrounds either - if you're not talking about economics, it's probably better to use say things like authoritarian, theocratic, etc... rather than trying to lump them under left or right.
Perfection
The Great Head.
I voted Righist!
All hail the Righ!
All hail the Righ!
Bast
Protector of Cats
You are so skilled with Paint. 
Outline in as few words as possible your political affiliation, whether you consider yourself as a leftist or a rightist and the reason(s) for doing so. And note well that I have left the opinion "centrist" out of the poll. I am sorry, but for me that is like being a bit pregnant. This time you have to chose sides.
Thanks in forehand for your cooperation.
I know you are going to kill me for this, but I see myself as a leftist socialist capitalist. But that's because I disagree with the exclusive meaning of socialism, preferring a more socially based (who'd have thought socialism could be more based on social policy?) definition than a purely economically based one. I support the market economic system, but with a lot of restrictions and regulations, higher progressive tax, fair distribution of income etc.. This may put me more in the social democrat basket, and really, the only difference is in what definitions you use.
CaptainF
The Professional Poster
I just don't care anymore.
I hate government, to put it succinctly. I only see it getting worse with time. More bureaucracy, more corruption, more control over people's lives.
Left? Right? Screw 'em both. Leave me alone.
I hate government, to put it succinctly. I only see it getting worse with time. More bureaucracy, more corruption, more control over people's lives.
Left? Right? Screw 'em both. Leave me alone.
Gustave5436
Emperor
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2008
- Messages
- 1,319
Problem with that is you're going to offend almost everyone based on what you assume the right way to do things is. Personally, I think "scientific socialism" is an apt description of anarchist communism - however, if I were to refer to it as "pragmatism" or "realism," that would imply that everything else is, therefore, unrealistic. Right away you've put anyone who disagrees with you into a defensive position.
Economics are inextricably linked to politics. Capitalism is necessarily authoritarian, for instance, so referring to something as "liberal" or "conservative" implies that it is authoritarian.
