The Left versus The Right

[Gawain 0]

A few recent posts in the political realm caused me to think a bit about what's "right" and what's "left"; who's a "commie" and who's a "nazi". This is not a snub directed in particular to anyone or anything. It just got me thinking about how we use "left" versus "right" or "conservative" versus "liberal". Despite my well known politics, I am not trying to advocate anything over the other here.

Now my little bit here is not talking about social alignment, rather the pure political alignment. This is the premise: "Conservative" or "right" is referring to precept of a smaller scope of influence by a governmental body in terms of taxes, oversight, fewer "social" programs to allow private initiative. "Liberal" or "left" is referring to the ideas of stronger governmental oversight, influence and a greater claim on taxes to operate a central body, relying less on private initiative.

For instance, Communism -- We often hear/say phrase along the lines of "left-wing-pinko-commie". This is based on what we saw in the former USSR, eastern bloc and now, China. But, I submit to you that true "Communism" is indeed an extreme "right" environment and that the aforementioned states here are extreme "left" environments. True communism ultimately seeks to end a centralized body or "class" to influence the whole.

Yes, the Cold War always talked about Communism. Indeed, that was the desired intent when the Czars fell in 1917. On the face of it, it was in line with Marx's proposal in his Communist Manifesto, "Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labor of others by means of such appropriation." Yet, nothing even approaching this key element ever happened in the USSR, or in China for that matter. In fact, it was almost the exact opposite. It ended up being an extreme Socialist environment. It was a collective ownership, but a self-oppressive, inflexible, authoritative regime. Because of the extremely intrusive oversight from a central governmental body, it was in fact an extremely "left" environment.

To think of Communism as a "pie-in-the-sky" dream of where everybody get's along utopia isn't far off the mark per se. It's ultimate goal was an unobtrusive governemt, typically a politically conservative or "right" position.

What was defeated in the Cold War was, in fact, Socialism. Or has it really been defeated?

Vive la Liberte -- France's lower house of parliment just passed a sweeping bill to ban any expression of religion throughout its schools. It still needs to be passed by their Senate, but there's little opposition there. A fundamental freedom will be overtly, and wholly illogically wiped out from a country that smugly reminds its neighbors of its virtues. However, this is simply a "softer edged" socialism which is beginning to smear out a fundamental freedom.

Marriage -- Here in the USA, the debate is looming about a Constitutional amendment for a definition of Marriage and who is eligible to reap the benefits of said Marriage (there's more depth to it, but I'll keep it simple for now since it's an election year, and there won't be real action on this in 2004). Now, regardless of your position on the issue, bear in mind that if the requisite support creates such an amendment, it will be the first such amendment which would actually deny a personal freedom. This is, regardless of how you slice it, pretty significant governmental intrusion.

---

Now, on the opposite end of the spectrum. People thinking of the "brown shirts" and political party they represented. Often, this is tagged as "ultra right-wing-nazi". But the party line and its actions that ultimately usurped power in Germany in the 1930s, had its cornerstone in governmental programs and even through the "volunteer" SA (which by the way was created and founded by the very liberal lifestyle and life-long friend of Adolf). This framework was decidedly liberal in nature, thus a "left" environment. Additionally, the National Socialist party of the era was a fully liberalized, government oversight environment.

---

So amongst these extremes in history, what we perceive, and what was in place, may be academically opposite from their popular labels.

Just pondering...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[benny 0]

communism is inherently an economic rather than political view, fascism or extreme nationalism would be the political concept of state controlled ideology.

Never go to a DZ strip show.

[bobsled92 0]

The 2 EXTREME Commies and Nazi parties were really
public examples of "Totalitarianism" & "Dictatorship".
You have stated good points. Look how many groups try to lable themselves as "THE GOOD GUYS" and are far from it.
(I'm not exempt. I myself am a "poor" example of a "good Christian")

_______________________________
If I could be a Super Hero,
I chose to be: "GRANT-A-CLAUS". and work 365 days a Year.
http://www.hangout.no/speednews/

[Nightingale 0]

nope. First amendment to deny a personal freedom was the 18th, prohibition.

Luckily for us, a few years later, they had the sense to repeal it with the 21st amendment.

[rehmwa 2]

any votes for the 16th amendment?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Nightingale 0]

the 16th amendment gave the feds power to collect income tax.

I wouldn't say that's a direct infringement on personal freedom, since we help decide (by electing our representatives) how that money is spent.

[Gawain 0]

I stand corrected. I literally forgot that was an actual Constitutional action, not legislation.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[storm1977 0]

I will vote for the 16th!!!!

My money is my money!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[Slappie 9]

Quote

the 16th amendment gave the feds power to collect income tax.

I wouldn't say that's a direct infringement on personal freedom, since we help decide (by electing our representatives) how that money is spent.

It was actually only supposed to be a short term amendment also. Wasn't supposed to be inflicted on us "forever"

"Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them."

[storm1977 0]

Sad but true.... Not like going to see that one taken back. There would be a lot of accountants and lawyers looking for work!!!!

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[Kennedy 0]

You know what I got out of that, Gawain?
(1) communism as originally defined is not a bad thing
(2) socialism is representative of USSR, China, the "Reds," and it is the extreme left
(3) nazism is another facet of the extreme left

Wow, would you look at that, the most popular examples of evil in the 20th century are examples of the extreme left. And people wonder why I'm a "knuckle dragging conservative."

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Not like going to see that one taken back. There would be a lot of accountants and lawyers looking for work!!!!

Not to mention an entire bureaucracy [IRS, anyone]

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

the 16th amendment gave the feds power to collect income tax.

I wouldn't say that's a direct infringement on personal freedom, since we help decide (by electing our representatives) how that money is spent.

You could have said the same thing about prohibition since the legislature voted for that too and they voted in their legislature.....

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

nazism is another facet of the extreme left

Not quite....

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

[Gawain 0]

If you take that test, citing the agenda of the National Socialist part of Germany in the 1930s, you'll find that it is closer to Stalin (or modern day Hussein), than Hitler as individuals. Nothing was left untouched by the "governement" of its day.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Lee03 0]

This thread could be a very good discussion/debait, but will probably end up a lighting rod for fights, hard feelings and argurments. The fact is that government, left unchecked, becomes more and more oppressive, socialistic and tyranical! A look at what the Democrats it this country are pushing with their agenda is purely socialist. Increasingly higher, progressive and burdensome taxation, the stamping out of the people's choice to be religous, if they so chose, government control of everything, to a point where they desire to run every aspect of your life, from what you can eat, to how you raise your children. They seek to destroy the represenative republic form of government, and replace it with their desired socialist government. They preach "tolerance" but their idea of "tolerance" is that you fully accept and embrace their feelings, believes, and ideal, or you are intolerant! They forget that "tolerance" means that someone puts up with something, NOT accepts it! Their idea of tolerance is FORCED ACCEPTANCE! I am not giving the Republicans a free pass here. Tom Ridge, and John Ashcroft are, in their own way, just as dangerous to the freedom of this nation as are Hillery Klinton, Charles Schumer or Ted Kennedy! This government was set up to be a weak federal government, with the majority of the power lying in the different state of the country, but it has been turned into the very thing that it was set up to be opposed of, an opressive, burdensome, freedom denying, socialist destroyer of freedom and personal rights!

The 16th ammendment is one thing that started the slide toward socialism. Another, allowing Senator's seats to be voted positions instead of being, as originally set in the Constitution, appointed seats from the House of Represenatives. Socialist security, wellfare, and allot of other socialist programs have only served to weaken freedom of the people, making them more and more dependents/slaves of and to big government! At the rate socialism is taking over the government, I don't give this country another 5, 10 at the most years to survive!

--------
To put your life in danger from time to time ... breeds a saneness in dealing with day-to-day trivialities.

--Nevil Shute, Slide Rule

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

This thread could be a very good discussion/debait, but will probably end up a lighting rod for fights, hard feelings and argurments. The fact is that ...{and then the rest}

self fulfilling prophecies don't count as being able to predict responses (not that much of the rant didn't ring true to me anyway, however, this thread ....)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,131]

>Now my little bit here is not talking about social alignment, rather the
> pure political alignment. This is the premise: "Conservative"
> or "right" is referring to precept of a smaller scope of influence by a
> governmental body in terms of taxes, oversight, fewer "social"
> programs to allow private initiative.

I agree with you on the right vs left thing; they define a point on a political curve, if you can define politics on a one-dimensional line. (I'm sure you've seen the libertarian two-dimensional 'political grid.) I think the terms liberal vs conservative are, almost by definition, social rather than political viewpoints, although they often get lumped together.

>So amongst these extremes in history, what we perceive, and what
>was in place, may be academically opposite from their popular labels.

Not only that, but even the accepted definitions change. Republicans were once the party of liberalism and weak national defense; it was also the party that ended slavery and stood for equal rights (Abraham Lincoln was a republican.) After the civil war the rural South mostly switched to the democratic party in protest over the war, leaving the wealthy North as the majority of the party. The republicans also adopted the laissez-faire policies of the Whigs, a party that ceased to exist around that time. They also adopted an anti-immigrant isolationist platform, which was challenged by both world wars.

Nowadays the republican party is becoming the party of big government. Will that change after this administration? Hard to say. But it wouldn't suprise me one bit to see a gradual change in both parties as they try to attract voters from the undecided center.

[mikkey 0]

Defining Left vs. Right depends also in which "culture" you live in. Whats is seen as "left" in the US might not bee seen as such in other countries. In some countries being a "liberal" actually means you are to the right side of politics (confused?). Example, where I live I see myself more to the right / conservative (and the the conservatives are called the Liberal party) if I was an American I probably would be on the other side and vote for the Democrats. So these "left", "right", "liberal", "conservative" tags are really quite useless. I also think you can be to the "left" when it comes to "social / cultural" issues and to the right when it comes to economic policies etc.

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[PhillyKev 0]

Not only that, but the president who pushed through the 16th amendment, Taft, was a Republican. We can thank them for income taxes.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Nowadays the republican party is becoming the party of big government

The Republican Party has been a party of big government for 50 years. The Democrats have been a party of big government for 75 years.

The Republicans blame the Democrats for being big government and deny it. Democrats sometimes try to deny it, while other times flat out admitting it.

Republicans like to grow certain sectors of the government. Democrats like to grow other sectors of the goyernment. Both try, usually unsuccessfully, to reverse the growth of the others. End result, it grows bigger and bigger.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Lee03 0]

The problem is appearent, BIG GOVERNMENT is the problem!

--------
To put your life in danger from time to time ... breeds a saneness in dealing with day-to-day trivialities.

--Nevil Shute, Slide Rule

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

[replyNowadays the republican party is becoming the party of big government. Will that change after this administration? Hard to say. But it wouldn't suprise me one bit to see a gradual change in both parties as they try to attract voters from the undecided center.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Interesting website Phillykev. The first time I saw that ideology grid was in a book published just before the 1972 election called "None Dare Call It Conspiracy." This book is about the international bankers' conspiracy to rule the world. It's not a jewish conspiracy, but all the big names they use (Rothchild, Warburg, Rockefeller) are Jewish. According to this book communism is a capitalist plot and John D. Rockefeller flew to Moscow to personally fire Kruschev.
SOOO... if you went there and took their little poll, welcome to the FBI's Conspiracy Theory Kook Watch List!