lefties and righties

adnans

can anyone explain to me those labels given to politicians almost everywhere. from what i have gathered, anyone on the left is a hippy and anyone on the right is a corrupt politician ?!?

adnans

American

In the United States, no political side has a lock on corruption, both sides have some corrupt politicians. Perhaps that is why many Americans tend to distrust most politicians.
And there is a Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell who is a Republican (right wing), and also a Native American (an American Indian), who dresses pretty cool, authentically, like the hippie wannabe's.
Most Americans believe our President is honest and he is Republican. So, your generalization doesn't hold in the United States.

dahamsta

Most Americans believe our President is honest and he is Republican.

Says a lot about most Americans. George Bush is a gun totin' imbecile owned and paid for by the oil companies. Even his hard-man image is a complete fake, and the only people who didn't see through this on September 11 were the Americans. Everyone else was just waiting for him to head home to mammy.

So, your generalization doesn't hold in the United States.

Not for a couple of years anyway...

adam

bonkey

I'm on shaky ground here, but my understanding is that "left" is socialist in nature, while right is libertarian. I'm using these terms independantly of their political connotations (i.e. socialist does not imply "socialist party".

Simply put, the "left" view supports the notion of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need", while the "right" view tends more towards the right of the individual to persue "life liberty and happiness".

So leftist views would (for example) tend to be against capitalism, where the success of the individual takes favour over the wellbeing of the whole - which is why communists, anti-capitalists, etc. all get classed as "lefties". The hippy contingent get landed in there becuase whatever they support tends to fall into these categories as well.

Rightist views would, conversely, tend to favour systems such as capitalism, as they offer the individual the best freedom to pursue their individual goals, and to rise to their own level through their own merits.

If course, given that such absurd polarities dont really exist in the majority of cases, you start hearing about "left of center" or "somewhat more rightist" and so on...implying a position on some mythical scale between the extremes.

At least, thats how I interpret them...

jc

American

Originally posted by dahamsta
George Bush is a gun totin' imbecile owned and paid for by the oil companies. ... the only people who didn't see through this on September 11 were the Americans. Everyone else was just waiting for him to head home to mammy.

There are still people in the United States who don't realize the greatness of this man.

Fair warning, though. You'll be waiting out in the cold for a long time if you think he'll give up and go to "mammy."

P.S. A man who graduated Yale in History and took a Masters of Business Administration (MBA) from Harvard is not an imbecile. But he can shoot purty dang well; ye got that right, sonny.

azezil

Ya I'd agree with bonkey's interpretation, I see right wingers as more authoritarian, stricter rules and regulations, maybe even more militaristic?

And lefties as bonkey has described.

American

Originally posted by azezil
Ya I'd agree with bonkey's interpretation, I see right wingers as more authoritarian, stricter rules and regulations, maybe even more militaristic?
And lefties as bonkey has described.

Is that how it is in your country? Here, the right wing want less government interference in their lives, less rules and regulations, smaller government and lower taxes.

The military part is correct--the left loathes them, while the right sends them care packages.

dahamsta

Is that how it is in your country? Here, the right wing want less government interference in their lives, less rules and regulations, smaller government and lower taxes.

Less rules and regulations? Which government just enacted draconian new rules and regulations which stamp all over civil liberties in the United States?

adam

Robbo

A man who graduated Yale in History and took a Masters of Business Administration (MBA) from Harvard is not an imbecile.

And commerce students are noted for their ingenuity and adeptness?

They give those MBAs away to anyone who can afford em.

Red Moose

They give those MBAs away to anyone who can afford em.

And if they can't afford them they can get jobs teaching MBA students in Dublin

dahamsta

A man who graduated Yale in History and took a Masters of Business Administration (MBA) from Harvard is not an imbecile.

Ditto Red Moose and Robbo. In addition, I think it should be pointed out that a man who comes out with utter tripe and idiocy like this has gone a long way to prove it himself, without any need for third-party participation. The man is a moron, period. The only thing he's clever at is politics, and in a country where a dead guy can win a Senate seat*, that doesn't count for much.

But he can shoot purty dang well; ye got that right, sonny.

So can the trailer trash on Jerry Springer, so it's not really something that will sway my opinion.

adam

* You have to feel sorry for John Ashcroft though, eh? Less charisma than a dead guy?

American

Originally posted by Robbo

They give those MBAs away to anyone who can afford em.

And you personally know someone who purchased an MBA from Harvard?

American

Originally posted by dahamsta
Less rules and regulations? Which government just enacted draconian new rules and regulations which stamp all over civil liberties in the United States? adam

The new laws apply to noncitizens, and have a sunset clause, expiring in four years.

Still, people in the rightwing are screaming the loudest about them. Despite their diehard support of the war, a definite group on the right don't want any infringement on their liberties to result.

The majority of the country, however, is solidly behind these measures to find sleeper terrorists and terrorist that aided the 9-11 attack on America. And they are also behind the military tribunals, so they don't have to serve on juries and come under threat of terrorist reprisals.

American

Originally posted by dahamsta
in a country where a dead guy can win a Senate seat, that doesn't count for much.

The late Governor Carnahan was a Democrat ("leftie"), and the people in Missouri elected him (barely) on a sympathy vote and a tribute vote to his former service to their State with the understanding that his widow, Jean Carnahan, would serve in his place.

You have to feel sorry for John Ashcroft though, eh? Less charisma than a dead guy?

Still, as U.S. Attorney General, former Senator and former Governor and former Missouri Attorney General John Ashcroft just polled a 70% approval rating in the United States.

Hobbes

The new laws apply to noncitizens, and have a sunset clause, expiring in four years.

Heh, heh. Have you actually bothered to read the bill that went through?

Only one or two items have sunset clauses and the only thing that applies to non US citizens is that they can be held without being charged or access to legal counsel.


Some of the things that effect you as a US citizen (and have no sunset clause)

- Goverment is allowed issue secret search warrents. They can break into your house and search it, take pictures and seise items without telling you.

Which I believe is against your Bill of Rights? 4th Admendment? Imagine they go to search your neighbours house while they are out and go to yours by accident while your in it and you being the "right to bare arms" type American thinking they are getting robbed shoot at a cop.

It also goes against the UN Human Rights charter.

- Roaming Wiretaps, with NO timelimit on phones tapped

While a lot agreed to the roaming wiretaps (makes sense) what is bad about this is the fact they can continue to tap that phone long after the terrorist has stopped using it.

- No offshore accounts that don't have business addresses

This one I believe all the Rich lobbists wanted removed, so it may of changed.

- Goverment is allowed access to more information about you without the need for a warrent.

For example before in order to see someone's credit card statements the would need a warrant justifying the reason, now they don't need one.

Another part is that stores/CC companies have to report you to the goverment if you spend over $10,000.

- Goverment plans to re-introduce COINTELPRO (sp)

For those not familar with it. When J Edger Hoover died they found that the FBI had been spying on religous and political organisations which was a major embarrasment for the FBI and the goverment (look it up for more details). Restrictions where put in place to stop them repeating the same mistake again. The US Goverment plan to remove those restrictions.

- People are tried in a military court instead of a public court

Again this goes against the Bill of Rights and the UN Human Rights charter.

Bush’s executive order is remarkably sweeping: It allows the president to put any noncitizen on military trial, in secret, without the protection of the Bill of Rights. A suspected terrorist could be seized, tried and executed without the public knowing.

I see the US is now taking after Peru.

- Freedom of Information Act has been squashed

I'll need to check up more linkage for this but from what I remember the FOIA has been more or less crippled.

- Bush has passed a law that stops information about him ever being released

After a president leaves office his non-secret documentation is supposed to be available under the FOIA. However he made a new law now which allows the president that the information relates to or current president to deny access to the information.

He is basically repealing a law that was put in place after the Nixon/Watergate mess.

- Right to dissent is now illegal

Apart from hurting the WTO protesters (boo hoo :rolleyes:) I believe under the Bill of Rights it actually allows the citizens to revolt if the goverment in place is unjust.

- The Goverment is now allowed (and does) monitor all internet traffic

Supposedly they said it was to "track email addresses" but considering the email comes as part of the package there is nothing to stop them reading them.

Funny thing about this one was they did a poll and a lot of Americans said they should monitor the internet, but when asked should they do the same for paper mail they all disagreed (but it's now the same thing these days).

- US plans to install public suveillance systems

Big deal? What is funny is the system they plan to put in place is what was previously set up in Communist Russia.

. . . There is more but I have to get ready for work. Just search through this and Humanities board for the USA act and you'll find a link to the whole 198 pages of the bill which you can read for yourself.

The majority of the country, however, is solidly behind these measures to find sleeper terrorists

That's because the majority are idiots or misinformed. Heck Congress admitted to not even reading the bill before signing it and are now upset at some of the stuff in it.

American

Originally posted by Hobbes

Only one or two items have sunset clauses and the only thing that applies to non US citizens is that they can be held without being charged or access to legal counsel.
As this is a thread about left vs. right, now you know why people on the right that are informed about the new law are yelling about it.

There are other things to take into consideration. We had no such powers legal for the executive branch before 9-11, but the Clintons trampled the privacy of citizens anyway. They took FBI documents and used contents to blackmail people to do their will. They enlisted the IRS (tax revenue agency) to harrass their enemies. And they were never held accountable under the law.
So it doesn't matter if you don't have a law permitting certain things, a corrupt President will do what he wants anyway.
There are checks and balances in our Constitution to help us right ourselves if things get out of hand. The Supreme Court can declare certain laws and acts unconstitutional. And we have our cherished Second Amendment. We have the right to bear arms, and that puts the fear of God into any President or Presidential candidate who goes too far.

gandalf

Originally posted by American

And we have our cherished Second Amendment. We have the right to bear arms, and that puts the fear of God into any President or Presidential candidate who goes too far.

Careful now with todays atmosphere in the US you might be labelled a terrorist with an attitude like that

Gandalf.

Hobbes

Gandalf beat me to it.

bonkey

Originally posted by American

Originally posted by Hobbes
And we have our cherished Second Amendment. We have the right to bear arms, and that puts the fear of God into any President or Presidential candidate who goes too far.

You mean in the same way that you have a cherished First Amendment which guarantees freedom of speech - except when laws like the DMCA come along and get upheld in the Supreme Court saying that Freedom of Speech is not always applicable?

Add in the revocation of the right to dissent which Hobbes mentioned in some recent post, and your much-vaunted First Amendment doesnt seem so all-encompassing.

So - exactly why is your Second Amendment going to be any more sacrosanct?

jc

American

Originally posted by bonkey


You mean in the same way that you have a cherished First Amendment which guarantees freedom of speech - except when laws like the DMCA come along and get upheld in the Supreme Court saying that Freedom of Speech is not always applicable?

Add in the revocation of the right to dissent which Hobbes mentioned in some recent post, and your much-vaunted First Amendment doesnt seem so all-encompassing.

So - exactly why is your Second Amendment going to be any more sacrosanct?

jc

Without the Second Amendment we can't defend and insure the First will triumph in the end. We are in the spasm of war right now. But we will right ourselves in the end.

American

Originally posted by bonkey

the revocation of the right to dissent which Hobbes mentioned in some recent post, and your much-vaunted First Amendment doesnt seem so all-encompassing.

Well, if somebody revoked our right to dissent, they seem to have forgotten to tell us about it. There is a lot of dissenting going on (by a very small but determined minority) and the only check against their protests is that a lot of other people who normally would just shake their head and move on, are stopping long enough to flip a bird or yell something back. Plus people then start congregating to do counter-protesting.

What kind of dissenting did you think we were being prevented from doing and being subjected to penalties for doing(other than the whithering scorn of fellow citizens)?

bonkey

Originally posted by American


Without the Second Amendment we can't defend and insure the First will triumph in the end.

Excuse me?

The right of a civilian to bear arms somehow gives your nation the ability fo defend itself?

Amazing how so many other nations manage to defend themselves, and allow freedom of speech, without allowing their citizens the right to carry firearms.

jc

dahamsta

The right of a civilian to bear arms somehow gives your nation the ability fo defend itself?

To quote Robin Williams: "You have the right to bear arms, and the right to arm bears, whatever the hell you wanna do."

adam

Von

Originally posted by American


Well, if somebody revoked our right to dissent, they seem to have forgotten to tell us about it. There is a lot of dissenting going on (by a very small but determined minority) and the only check against their protests is that a lot of other people who normally would just shake their head and move on, are stopping long enough to flip a bird or yell something back. Plus people then start congregating to do counter-protesting.

We dig your propaganda. Are you some sort of US government spook or something?

From American Civil Liberties Union site

Monday, December 6, 1999

SEATTLE -- At a news conference today, the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington called for a range of actions in response to civil liberties violations by police and city officials during the meeting of the World Trade Organization here last week.

The ACLU said that it is particularly concerned about the city's imposition of a "no protest" order and the exclusion of most citizens from Seattle's downtown area, a tactic designed to stifle lawful protest. The ACLU also said it was troubled by the level of force used by police against people who were acting in a nonviolent manner.

"We recognize that police were operating under difficult circumstances and in many instances displayed commendable restraint," said Kathleen Taylor, Executive Director of the ACLU of Washington, "but to the extent that individual police officers used excessive force, they should be held accountable for their actions."

The ACLU also questioned the city's strategic and tactical decisions to use pepper spray and rubber bullets against protesters who were engaged in nonviolent civil disobedience, and criticized the widespread use of tear gas in areas filled with workers, residents, and other bystanders not directly involved in the protests.

American

Originally posted by bonkey

Excuse me? The right of a civilian to bear arms somehow gives your nation the ability fo defend itself?

Amazing how so many other nations manage to defend themselves, and allow freedom of speech, without allowing their citizens the right to carry firearms.

You aren't defending yourselves. You are under our nuclear umbrella, and under our protection, in so far as attacks from foreign nations like the old USSR go or whatever modern monsters might arise.

We have a selfish reason for wanting a Second Amendment. We want to insure against tyranny, and I'm sure many of you don't realize that from the viewpoint of those of us in Red Country America, we barely averted having our Constitution hijacked in our last election because we were able to bear arms.
Most of our media is controlled by leftists, so Freedom of Speech is a mighty relative term if your side of the story only gets told at the local bar and the left's side is blared out of every television. These last ten years we've found ways around Pravda, through talk radio, the internet, and the amateur FOX NEWS channel.

And the European countries and UK, you say you can defend yourselves? From our point of view, it looks like you lost without a shot, or much of a battle. Lost self-determination, and rugged individualism. Lost your birthright to socialism for a mess of pottage, and got second rate pablum at best. And your news is all one-sided.
And you're all ripe for plucking when another monster comes along.
And I gather you don't see that the only people who are allowed true free speech on television or newspaper are leftists.

There however is another reason our citizens keeping our arms is essential for you. The United States of America has become an irresistible military power. Such power means to us that only those of godly and humble character who seek guidance from our wisest minds and our Father in Heaven should wield it. We the people of Red Country America are the militia that guards the Constitution from usurpaton by Presidents that get too full of themselves. We are why Clinton didn't try to get a third term, and why Gore finally had to bow to the mandates of our Constitution.

It's late and I have a lot of promises to keep tomorrow.

American

Originally posted by Von


We dig your propaganda. Are you some sort of US government spook or something?
From American Civil Liberties Union site
and from
SEATTLE --

No need to say more...the far left in Blue Country speak. See, the dissenters are being heard, just not allowed to trash the town like last time.

adnans

just about as i was getting closer to figuring out the lefties from the righties, in comes American throws another wall at me.

whats this about Red Country America and Blue Country America that you keep talking about? and then you proceed to include far left in the Blue Country? can you explain please.

adnans

bonkey

Originally posted by American

You aren't defending yourselves. You are under our nuclear umbrella, and under our protection, in so far as attacks from foreign nations like the old USSR go or whatever modern monsters might arise.

Absolute rot.

I would point you at my current nation of residence. Switzerland. They have been neutral for hundreds of years, and have never been defended by another nation, nor attacked in any way that I can recall in the past several hundred years. They remained neutral throughout WW2, despite their being war on pretty much all borders of hte nation. Exactly how is Switzerland under your nuclear umbrella and protection, and exactly why should it need it?

Furthermore, the European nations at this point in time would be more than capable of defending themselves from pretty much any aggressor other than the US itself. The major difference is that the European states individually are quite small, and even as a whole unit, they tend to have a military force scaled purely to resist realistic threats. America, on the other hand, has a military far too large for purely "home defense".

We have a selfish reason for wanting a Second Amendment. We want to insure against tyranny,

In other words, you need a gun to ensure democracy. So either America is not the bastion of democracy which it makes itself out to be, or your argument falls flat on its face. Which is it to be, because I cannot see how the right of a civilian to carry a weapon has anything to do with national security or democracy - the two reasons put forward to date.

and I'm sure many of you don't realize that from the viewpoint of those of us in Red Country America, we barely averted having our Constitution hijacked in our last election because we were able to bear arms.

What? You're telling me that the issues in the last presedential election were decided by peope carrying guns? I could have sworn it was the courts. In either case, you are again basically arguing that internal democracy in the US is only held together by armed force. I always thought that this was the type of thing American condemned in other nations?

And the European countries and UK, you say you can defend yourselves? From our point of view, it looks like you lost without a shot, or much of a battle.

Lost what?

If you're going back to WW2, I would please ask you to rejoin modern society. That was 60 years ago - more than two generations - long before the creation of a somewhat unified Europe, which has completely altered Europes defensive capabilities.

If you want some more recent history, Europe and America created NATO jointly to see off the threat of the USSR. Are you going to try and tell me that the US did this just to make other nations feel happy about themselves, and that the US never really needed help against the Soviet threat? If you are, then you have a seriously slanted view of history. America needed Europe to be able to withstand a soviet threat, and therefore for its own future needed to support and mutually defend Europe. So while Europe would probably have needed American support had the Soviets invaded, the Americans would have had no choice but to assist Europe even in the absence of NATO, because had the Soviet's managed to build a nation spanning the Eurasian landmass, the world would have been theirs.

Therefore, while it would be true to say that America was protecting Europe, it would be equally true to say that Europe was also protecting America.

And your news is all one-sided.

After ranting about how leftist the US news is earlier in your post, this is a bit of a farcical criticism to be levelling at European nations.

And you're all ripe for plucking when another monster comes along.

Again - Europe today has enough defensive power to protect itself against any current threat in the world, barring the US.

Should the US become a threat, or the situation change, you can be damned sure that the European nations will take steps to be able to defend themselves.

There however is another reason our citizens keeping our arms is essential for you. The United States of America has become an irresistible military power. Such power means to us that only those of godly and humble character who seek guidance from our wisest minds and our Father in Heaven should wield it.

So - although America is the land of tolerance, and religious freedom is a basic right in your nation, you somehow believe that only Christians have the ability to rule? That, sir, is not a very pro-freedom attitude.

Furthermore, if the US military is so irresistable, exactly how could American civilians stand against it?

You are basically saying that revolution would occur in America if the US abandoned its current (alleged) pacifistic nature? Again, I would ask you to reconcile this with the concept of democracy which American preaches to the rest of the world.

We the people of Red Country America are the militia that guards the Constitution from usurpaton by Presidents that get too full of themselves.

First of all, if you believe that your right to carry arms is so that you can "defend your constitution" through military might. Again - thank you for showing how shallow the American ideal of democracy is. You are once again saying that your nation is run by the people carrying the guns, or at least run at the sufference of the people carrying the guns.

We are why Clinton didn't try to get a third term, and why Gore finally had to bow to the mandates of our Constitution.

I am not fully aware of the laws regarding the American presidency, but I always thought the presidents were limited to serving two terms of office, which would be why Clinton didnt try to get a third term.

Also, I would be more inclined to say that Gore, having won the popular vote, was entitled to contest the election until such times as the law decided that he had lost. This is what he did.

If you are saying that Gore lost because of the threat of a bunch of gun-toting civilians, then I either have to pity the American system which is ruled by force of arms, or your vision of it which sees it that way.

jc

Von

Originally posted by American

We are why Clinton didn't try to get a third term, and why Gore finally had to bow to the mandates of our Constitution.

I was under the impression that the 22nd amendment prohibited future presidents from being elected to more than two consecutive terms.

<edited by bonkey>

Aspro

Left and right wing are definitions which arose from the seating arrangements of the french parliament after the french revolution - Left, being in favour of reform and changing society, and Right, being conservative and maintaining the status quo.

For an analysis of the various extremes of the right wing see:

http://www.publiceye.org/lnk_rit.html

and for a breakdown of the left see:

http://www.dsausa.org/archive/Docs/Lingo.html

It can all seem a bit confusing unless we realise that we live live in a world with two major classes - the working class who produce the wealth and the ruling class who own it.

The right wing fights in the interests of the ruling class, and the left wing in the interests of the working class.

For this reason we can see that those institutions such as the Labour Party in Ireland, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, Sinn Fein, the Democratic Party in the USA, New Labour in Britain, the Socialist Party in France etc. which are all meant to be left-wing have completely sold out and now represent the other side.

You cannot represent the people AND the profits. One of them has to take precedence.

<snip> paragraph removed by bonkey. Aspro - read the PM I'm sending you please

Most of our media is controlled by leftists, so Freedom of Speech is a mighty relative term if your side of the story only gets told at the local bar and the left's side is blared out of every television.

Oh, that must have been on the day that Rupert Murdoch and Ted Turner went on holidays.:)

Von

bah bonkey, you beat me to it. The boy's been rumbled.

Von

Originally posted by American

You aren't defending yourselves. You are under our nuclear umbrella, and under our protection,

Where was that protection in the 70's? I don't mind if you're just taking the pi$$, you're a card sir.

Aspro

No problems Bonkey.

CiaranC

I find it amusing that Americans think of democrats and those who control the US media as leftist.

In the mainstream US political arena, there is only the right - and the far right. Sure, one is left of the other, but only in the sense that Mussolini was left of Hitler.

American

Originally posted by bonkey

Absolute rot.

yes, it is rotten that I don't have time tonight to answer these questions. But I'll try to hit this thread first tomorrow.

American

Originally posted by adnans
j
whats this about Red Country America and Blue Country America that you keep talking about? and then you proceed to include far left in the Blue Country? can you explain please.

adnans

There is a cultural divide in America between the the urban and the rural areas of the country. It pivots around the way we see government in our lives and the way we see religion in our lives.

In the last Presidential election in 2000, the television news programming department, possibly arbitrarily, chose red as the color to show the States that Bush won and used blue as the color to show the States that Gore won.
The division in the country is seen, however, most graphically when you look at a counties map of the United States, red being counties that voted predominantly for Bush and blue being counties that voted predominantly for Gore. Our States are subdivided into counties for more local governmental functions.
The politically active or politically interested people in the counties that voted for Bush have taken to referring to themselves as living in "Red Country" as a way to emphasize their feeling like a separate nation from those that live in Blue Country. Red Country is the heartland of America, rural in it's thinking, patriotic, and religious. Sophisticated urbanites, who live in Blue Country, think of us as "Fly Over" country, because they never think about all those living in these vast areas of the United States that slip beneath their planes as they head from one coast to another.

Don't know how to post a picture of the counties map.

American

Originally posted by CiaranC
I find it amusing that Americans think of democrats and those who control the US media as leftist.

In the mainstream US political arena, there is only the right - and the far right. Sure, one is left of the other, but only in the sense that Mussolini was left of Hitler.

Then I assume the people in your country are all leftist, some of them far leftist, if that is your perspective. And that your political parties range from the philosophies of Stalin to those of Marx and Lenin.

In the U.S. Democrats are wannabe Socialists. The Greens on the far left wannabe Utopians. The mainstream doesn't wannabe bothered. Republicans on the right wannabe left alone by government. And those to the far right see the U.N. as a One World conspiracy to take away their guns and their freedom and abolish the U.S. and enslave them under a U.N. flag.
The Libertarians, however, are a bit of a mix of both sides, prefering Repubican economics and military policy but wanting to legalize all vices, like drugs and anything to do with sex. They are very big on personal freedom, and thus against big government and government authority over their personal choices.
It is my personal judgment, which hardly anyone shares, that the Libertarian Party will compete more and more with the Democrats for status as one of the top two parties in the U.S.

The Corinthian

Left wing and right wing are fairly meaningless but practical terms. When I went to college in Ireland, the left wing was a mixture of IRA sympathisers (who were not in Fianna Fail), libertarians and a few Marxist-Whateverists. Right-wingers were largely catholic traditionalists with a smattering of politically-incorrect wanna-be Thatcherites and crypto-fascists.

Then the wall came down in Berlin. Slowly we found that the divide between left and right wing began to become narrower (as they began to vie for the more attractive ‘middle ground’) and the terms became somewhat redefined. Fringe groups, such as the Socialist Workers or Youth Defence, stayed, but to be honest every country has its mostly harmless fringe groups.

So what I witnessed led me to believe that there’s no hard and fast definition for left or right wing. Why is Fascism right wing? The majority of its ideologies can be defined as socialist or left wing. Why is Communist China left wing? It’s equally viable to consider it right wing. Would one tend to see the Soviet Communist Party as leftwing in 1917 and rightwing in 1980?

Left and right wing from my understanding of history (i.e. I vaguely remember reading about this, but would have to dig up the reference) appear to come from the classical distinction between conservative and liberal (revolutionary) elements within a society. The former abhors any change; the latter is far too fond of it.

Left and right are thus the two sides of the same coin; neither can exist without the other for long, as much because they define each other. And each acts as a watchdog to the other, one pushing for change, the other slowing it down, each in its own way stopping the extremes of chaos or stagnation.

Perhaps that is a better definition of these polls rather than to attribute them to any particular ideologies.

My two cent.

Aspro

Originally posted by The Corinthian
So what I witnessed led me to believe that there’s no hard and fast definition for left or right wing. Why is Fascism right wing? The majority of its ideologies can be defined as socialist or left wing. Why is Communist China left wing? It’s equally viable to consider it right wing. Would one tend to see the Soviet Communist Party as leftwing in 1917 and rightwing in 1980?

The divide between left and right has never been starker. If the waters appear to have been muddied it is because, as I said earlier, those institutions that have come traditionally from the Left, such as the Labour Party, ICTU, Sinn Fein, New Labour in Britain etc. have leaderships which have driven them wholesale to the right.

They purport to represent ordinary people but whenever they are put to the test they fail miserably. Examples:

Labour Party: Have been in coalition governments on many occasions in the history of the state and have made precious little difference. No ideological difference with FF or FG. Support double taxation in the form of service charges and will rally to the side of big business before they defend ordinary people every time.

Trade Union bureaucracies: Infamous for selling out their members (prime example - the Liverpool dockers). Is it any wonder trade union membership has fallen dramatically when you have to fight on two fronts - against the boss and against the union?

Sinn Fein: Had the opportunity to make a difference being in government in the North for the first time. What do they do? Start closing hospitals. Different history but same route as Labour.

New Labour: Enough said.

There is a huge vacuum for a genuine Left, not just in Ireland, but Britain and worldwide. People have confused perceptions of what is Left - and this has been a factor in Sinn Fein's increased support in the South over the last while and will result in them getting a few more TDs in the next election.

It's important not to confuse populism with socialist politics. Fascism and neo-fascists like Jorg Haider and his Freedom Party in Austria highlight certain economic issues that affect ordinary people but instead of blaming the endemic inequalities of our society he takes the usual far right road of blaming immigrants.

Fascism is right wing because it stifles any change that would benefit ordinary people and seeks to crush their rights while defending the interests of the ruling class.

For a better definition of fascism see:
http://www.publiceye.org/eyes/whatfasc.html

Stalinist China and Russia were left wing in ideology but right wing in leadership. The societies were meant to be based on the interests of the working class but were dominated by bureaucratic elites who stifled change and used repressive measures to ensure their continued control. Without a genuine and democratic input by the bulk of society in the planned economies the eventually ground to a halt and collapsed resulting in the reinstallment of capitalism - "when the wall came down".

Therefore:

Would one tend to see the Soviet Communist Party as leftwing in 1917 and rightwing in 1980?

Answer: Yes. The Bolshevik Party was the most democratic and revolutionary party ever seen in 1917 when capitalism was overthrown in Russia - therefore most definitely Left.
When the revolution did not spread to Germany and further it left the country isolated and trying to fight a war against 21 armies, while peasants in the countryside were staving. A small elite grew around Stalin, determined to usurp power for themselves in this difficult period - so gradually the party moved further to the right in Stalin's attempts to have total control.

Left and right are thus the two sides of the same coin; neither can exist without the other for long, as much because they define each other. And each acts as a watchdog to the other, one pushing for change, the other slowing it down, each in its own way stopping the extremes of chaos or stagnation.

As long as we live in an unequal society where some have, and most haven't there will always be the Right - trying to keep things the same to benefit the "haves" - and the Left fighting for change, equality and fairness for everyone else.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Aspro
Fascism is right wing because it stifles any change that would benefit ordinary people and seeks to crush their rights while defending the interests of the ruling class.

You're missing my point. After all, socialism will crush the rights of ordinary people because it is tyanny by the majorty. Does that make it not 'fascist'? Regardless of it's flavour (Stalinist, Trotskist, etc.).

Also, Fascism is change - not change you may agree with - but change nonetheless. In some cases it did not change the ruling class, but was the ruling class that it failed to change any better than the ruling class imposed by Communist societies (please don't give me any rubbish about how they weren't really Communist).

American

Originally posted by bonkey
I am not fully aware of the laws regarding the American presidency, but I always thought the presidents were limited to serving two terms of office, which would be why Clinton didnt try to get a third term.
After Franklin Delano Roosevelt broke the tradition set by George Washington and stood for election for third and a fourth terms, the country decided to codify the two term tradition in the XXII Amendment to our Constitution. I have such a low opinion of former President Clinton that I wouldn't even put it passed him of trying to get around this constitutional law, if he had not had stiff opposition from a determined and armed minority.

Also, I would be more inclined to say that Gore, having won the popular vote, was entitled to contest the election until such times as the law decided that he had lost. This is what he did.
What he did was break the tradition of the 20th century in America that a close election for President is not contested, but graciously accepted to preserve unity in the country. Being entitled to do something does not mean it is considered right to do it.
And there are a significant number of people who believe that Bush did not lose the legal popular vote. If you eliminate the votes of noncitizens and felons and outright fraudulent votes, then Gore's numbers would drop considerably.
There are Democrat precincts where 120% of the registered voters voted. Some people estimate that the percentage of noncitizens voting is 2% of the electorate; some people think it is higher.
If you look at the counties (political subdivisions of our States), Gore won in only 677 counties which contained 127 million of our population, while Bush won in 2434 counties which contained 143 million of our population.

If you are saying that Gore lost because of the threat of a bunch of gun-toting civilians, then I ... have to pity the American system
Gore did not lose because of gun-toting civilians, but because he lost the electoral vote under our system. Gore was not able to steal the election because of civilians who have guns in their homes and who would not have allowed theft of the election to stand.

American

Originally posted by The Corinthian

Left and right are thus the two sides of the same coin; neither can exist without the other for long, as much because they define each other. And each acts as a watchdog to the other, one pushing for change, the other slowing it down, each in its own way stopping the extremes of chaos or stagnation.

My two cent.

Very well stated, and worth a great deal more than two cents.
I'm inclined also to take the long view that you have espoused here.

American

Originally posted by Aspro
we live in a world with two major classes - the working class who produce the wealth and the ruling class who own it.
The right wing fights in the interests of the ruling class, and the left wing in the interests of the working class. ...
You cannot represent the people AND the profits. One of them has to take precedence.

Do you really believe that people who have managerial or ownership positions do not work? If you had ever put a company together and employed people you might get a different view.

The small business owners in the United States employ the majority of the employees here. And small business owners typically work longer hours than any of their employees, and get "paid" only after the payroll is met, if there is anything left over. Typically they also get fewer benefits than their employees.

And they don't rule much of anything.

I'm sure the experience is much different in Ireland and Europe where there are still crowned heads.

Ah, I wish you would watch Gettysburg with Martin Sheen and Jeff Daniels, and discuss it with me.

Baz_

Posted by american:
I'm sure the experience is much different in Ireland and Europe where there are still crowned heads.

I'll be expecting a flame or two for that. There are no crowned heads in Ireland, and Ireland aren't ruled by England, or any other monarchical state, so there isn't even indirectly a crowned head in Ireland.

Posted by american:
The small business owners in the United States employ the majority of the employees here. And small business owners typically work longer hours than any of their employees, and get "paid" only after the payroll is met, if there is anything left over. Typically they also get fewer benefits than their employees.

I'm sure aspro didnt mean the small business owner but the large business owner Rupert Murdoch et al.

Posted by american:
If you eliminate the votes of noncitizens and felons and outright fraudulent votes, then Gore's numbers would drop considerably.

and bushs thats a stupid point.

Baz_

Originally posted by American

Ah, I wish you would watch Gettysburg with Martin Sheen and Jeff Daniels, and discuss it with me.

Are you serious about this point, you want people to watch a movie made in America for their historical reference?? Movies which I might add are fraught with Americanisms, and biased by the directors own political views, and agenda. Get a grip man, if there is a reason I don't like America its because of the twenty movies worth of American propaganda they spew out a year, sickening. For an example that submarine piece of ****, the decoding box (enygma???) was found first by the British I believe, and a good few months before the Americans, what a load of BS that film was.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by American
Very well stated, and worth a great deal more than two cents.

Maybe a little less - I was thinking in Euros

The small business owners in the United States employ the majority of the employees here. And small business owners typically work longer hours than any of their employees, and get "paid" only after the payroll is met, if there is anything left over. Typically they also get fewer benefits than their employees.

This may be drifting a little OT, however...

The phisiocrats, who were the first recognisable proponents of what was to become economics, considered land to be effectively the only input or value of a market. Other inputs, such as labour were not considered. Needless to say, we would consider this to be an inaccurate assessment of value, today.

Aspro's view makes a similar error, in which it ignores investment as an input. That investment could be capital, or the risk of effectively working for free for a venture that may fail, or even going to college when you could be earning a wage instead.

I'd agree with American's highlighting of small business owners plight. I know of one small IT company here in Ireland, where the directors (to make ends meet) have not paid themselves since March! Why? You take the rough with the smooth as a capitalist - you make the investment that may allow you to become a big business owner in the end.

Originally posted by Aspro
we live in a world with two major classes - the working class who produce the wealth and the ruling class who own it.
The right wing fights in the interests of the ruling class, and the left wing in the interests of the working class. ...
You cannot represent the people AND the profits. One of them has to take precedence.

Back on topic now, I suppose...

Two major classes? That one went out of fashion a good while ago. You still view left and right with old ideologies. As a matter of fact you even appear to ignore the middle class (which frankly makes up the bulk of the population in first world countries). And what of the class that neither produces nor owns the wealth? Those who chose not to work, but are happy (or resigned) to avail of the State's financial assistance? Would you classify them as working?

It's not the 19th century anymore. Many of Marx's economic theories were found to be incorrect and Communism was a white elephant (please don't play the "it was State Capitalism" card - that's just a fudge).

Please consider the question objectively and without the aid of rhetorical dogma.

(Edited to clarify that when I'm talking about the "State's financial assistance" I mean the government of a Nation State as opposed to the US)

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Aspro
Fascism is right wing because it stifles any change that would benefit ordinary people and seeks to crush their rights while defending the interests of the ruling class.

Another interesting commentary on fascism can be found here:

http://www.freeradical.co.nz/solo/sechrest_fascism.html

As long as we live in an unequal society where some have, and most haven't there will always be the Right - trying to keep things the same to benefit the "haves" - and the Left fighting for change, equality and fairness for everyone else. [/QUOTE]

You seem to make the assumption that only the Left is "fighting for change, equality and fairness for everyone else", or for 'the common good'. There are two fatal conclusions to this view:

1. The Right acts against 'the common good' and hence evil, and

2. The Left is good and the only correct option.

Had you not considered that the Right may consider itself to be acting for 'the common good' and view the Left to be acting against it?

Your viewpoint appears partisan and almost religious in its certainty that ‘God’ is on your side...

Whenever I find myself in a discussion on Left vs. Right, I can’t but feel that Nietzsche hit the nail on the head when he wrote "Do not do battle with monsters, lest you become a monster; and when you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks into you".

dahamsta

I have such a low opinion of former President Clinton that I wouldn't even put it passed him of trying to get around this constitutional law, if he had not had stiff opposition from a determined and armed minority.

Your opinion means little or nothing in this case. Clinton didn't try for a third term, and never even looked like he was going to attempt it. An American citizen you may be, a magician you ain't, so stop trying to pull rabbits out of hats.

If you eliminate the votes of noncitizens and felons and outright fraudulent votes, then Gore's numbers would drop considerably.

And Bush's wouldn't? When it comes to felons and fraud, the Republicans win every time.

adam

Aspro

Originally posted by The Corinthian
You're missing my point. After all, socialism will crush the rights of ordinary people because it is tyanny by the majorty. Does that make it not 'fascist'? Regardless of it's flavour (Stalinist, Trotskist, etc.).

No, because fascism is based around one single fuhrer, one party totalitarian rule - Hitler, Mussolini, Franco

True democracy means government by the majority - obviously doesn't exist under fascism. Also didn't exist under Stalinism, whether that be Russia post-1923, China, Cuba etc.

Notice I said "Stalinism" as opposed to communism or socialism. There is a diametric difference. Otherwise Stalin's purges would not have murdered millions of genuine socialists, and Trotsky would not have been assassinated.

If you can't acknowledge that fact then I suspect you are one of those ex-college heads who was turned completely off left wing politics by the Socialist Workers Party and now has a knee-jerk reaction to it. Even those most reactionary of intellectuals and commentators have to acknowledge that there is a world of difference between Stalinism and genuine democratic socialism.

Two major classes? That one went out of fashion a good while ago. You still view left and right with old ideologies. As a matter of fact you even appear to ignore the middle class (which frankly makes up the bulk of the population in first world countries). And what of the class that neither produces nor owns the wealth? Those who chose not to work, but are happy (or resigned) to avail of the State's financial assistance? Would you classify them as working?

Sounds like Tony Blair talking now. We live in a classless society yadda yadda. Except you have negated your argument. If the idea that there are two major classes in society is unfounded, how could the middle class "make up the bulk of the population in first world countries"??
What are they in the middle of? Lunch and dinner??

The majority in society based on Marx's class analysis is the working class - those whose only means of surviving is by selling their ability to work to the highest bidder - those who have no independent financial means of sustaining themselves i.e. profession or practice, or the ownership of capital.

Now you can call me a crank, but it's a fact that "The Times" newspaper in Britain held a readers poll in 1999 and Good old Karl Marx was voted the greatest thinker of the millenium. And that paper isn't exactly the mouthpiece of the proletariat, now is it?

It's not the 19th century anymore. Many of Marx's economic theories were found to be incorrect and Communism was a white elephant (please don't play the "it was State Capitalism" card - that's just a fudge).

Many people misquote and misinterpret Marx just for the point of discrediting his analysis. After all, capitalism still exists, the world is still a grossly unfair and unequal place so obviously those at the top don't want us plebs concluding that there is an alternative to the profit-driven madness.

Those who purposely or unknowingly misunderstand marxism and socialism treat it as utopian dogma. First mistake: "nice idea, it'll never work". So is curing cancer and AIDS. Does that mean we stop trying?? It is a methodology. A way of analysing the world we live in and striving to change that to benefit the majority by taking the wealth and resources into public ownership, cutting the working week, increasing employment, enabling EVERYONE to utilise their talents and abilities to their fullest extent and having full participation in accountable and truly democratic running of the world.

You don't have to agree with me, but you do have to acknowledge at least one thing (based on the needs of the majority of people in our world) and that is - capitalism doesn't work.

American

Originally posted by Baz_


Are you serious about this point, you want people to watch a movie made in America for their historical reference??

Yes, because most of them made now are tripe at best. This one stated a few American ideals correctly at least, and showed men who were brave enough to stand and fight for those ideals.

Turn it around, and suggest a film that you admire as having something to say about your country that rings true.

I'll bite first and tell you what I thought was good about your film and what I learned.

Gargoyle

Originally posted by dahamsta
If you eliminate the votes of noncitizens and felons and outright fraudulent votes, then Gore's numbers would drop considerably.

And Bush's wouldn't? When it comes to felons and fraud, the Republicans win every time.

adam

I think your views are very skewed here by where you get your information. The Irish media tends to lift up the Democratic party (no surprise there...the Kennedys), while the Republican party is demonized.

If you look back objectively over history, you'll see both parties have their share or dark past. If anything in the last 40 years, I'd say the Democrats are ahead in the fraud category.