What does being Right Wing Mean?

Turnip

People who are right wing are good at making money, people who are left wing are good at taking it. :ninja:

Lefties should realise that it's easy to criticise but it's hard to lead and take responsibility for making tough decisions. Idealism tends to result in power vacuums being created which are then filled by opportunists and despots whose systems are usually much more cruel and vicious than those they supposedly wished to see abolished. Eg. According to the Oxford History Of The French Revolution the peasants were actually much worse off after it.

bugler

I believe it is important to bear in mind that Turnip sees the murder of civilians on the grounds of their political preference as acceptable. As long as they're left-wing of course!

Turnip

I beg your pardon?

It should also be said that lefties like children, have great imagination and like to make stuff up.

Sparks

Right-wing or Authoritarian turnip?
(After a two-page argument on terminology, it'd be nice if you'd be clear on what you're saying...)

Éomer of Rohan

Lefties should realise that it's easy to criticise but it's hard to lead and take responsibility for making tough decisions. Idealism tends to result in power vacuums being created which are then filled by opportunists and despots whose systems are usually much more cruel and vicious than those they supposedly wished to see abolished. Eg. According to the Oxford History Of The French Revolution the peasants were actually much worse off after it.

As a philosophic writer once said, men will break their chains only to forge new ones - and in hitherto progressive revolutions, this has indeed been the case; Russia, France, Germany, Ireland (Civil War), England (CW) etc etc etc - but the point needs to be made that none of these revolutions and upsurges in popular movement were truly left wing - and idealism is exactly what is at fault. Which is precisely why true Marxism is not based on idealism - there is an element of Utopianism which can be construed as the same thing but it is based on a system which itsef can grow rather than stagnate as the ancien régimes, feudalism and capitalism all eventually did or will - the slow down of global capitalism can even be observed today.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Which is precisely why true Marxism is not based on idealism - there is an element of Utopianism which can be construed as the same thing but it is based on a system which itsef can grow rather than stagnate as the ancien régimes, feudalism and capitalism all eventually did or will

That really is just such appalling intellectual masturbation, every ideology will claim that.

the slow down of global capitalism can even be observed today.

Ironically, capitalists (unlike many, if not most, socialists) do not claim that capitalism is a perfect system - Just the best of a bad lot.

Éomer of Rohan

As I recall antidisestablishmentarianism is the attitude which people adopt when they wish that the Church retain powers in the operation of the State - for example in Ireland, correct?

Ironically, capitalists (unlike many, if not most, socialists) do not claim that capitalism is a perfect system - Just the best of a bad lot.

Not true. ALL adherents of Free Market Capitalism that I have debated with and chatted socially to are very gung ho that the WTO etc will deliver world peace, food on every plate, a ferarri in every garage and so on. As we have discussed many times, all are flawed but some are more flawed than others. Capitalism ranking as second most flawed only to feudalistic forms of government.

Éomer of Rohan

And while you decide to feign anti-intellectualism, I would ask that you do it elsewhere.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
And while you decide to feign anti-intellectualism, I would ask that you do it elsewhere.

I never opposed intellectualism, only pseudo-intellectualism, and criticized a florid and verbose post that said absolutely nothing outside of attempting to look clever.

The Emperor’s willy is showing...

Turnip

Originally posted by Sparks
Right-wing or Authoritarian turnip?
(After a two-page argument on terminology, it'd be nice if you'd be clear on what you're saying...)

Right wing. I vote PD, they're a radical and realistic party. The country needs a major shakeup particularly with regard to the poor work ethic. More than anything I'd like to see major social welfare reform. What's the dole? 120 euros or something? For doing nothing?? Are we mad?

I don't like the word authoritarian. Those who break the law should receive the correct punishment. No more no less.

Zombrex

The Corinthian
Ironically, capitalists (unlike many, if not most, socialists) do not claim that capitalism is a perfect system - Just the best of a bad lot.

Ah nothing like wild stereotypical statements to prove a point. Well most (if not all) capitalist I talk to think capitalism is a stupid idea ... haha I win

Capitalism is quite popular (especially in the US) not cause it is a particularly good system, but because it is a system that allows a person to believe they are as free as possible to make and keep money and wealth. In a truly capitalist society there would be no taxation (and a small government), and any money you made you would get to keep. You would then buy on the free market anything you need such as health insurance, housing, police force etc etc.

Socialism is a quite unpopular system in a lot of places (especially the US!!) cause it asks people to give up the opportunity to make vast fortunes for the sake of the wider society, and to be honest most people couldn't give 2 ****s about the wider society. It doesn't matter if it gives all people the security of education and health care (such as Cuba), greed and the desire for more wealth are basic human natures that is hard to reason with (which is why hundreds of Cubans leave for Florida every year to live in the slums of Miami with virtually no health care, education system or prospects of a good long turn job).

In truth Capitalism is an appalling system when a true free market model is used.

Imagine a truly capitalistic system ...

Money stops filtering down to the unskilled working classes in country A cause all the jobs have gone to country B where they do it for half the price. Just look at the flood of industries that down-sized in the US to move to Asia, leaving thousands unemployed.

But wait you say, times are changing, these unskilled workers need to become skilled in areas that are in demanded!

But you forget! ... we live in a truly capitalist system, where education costs money and such lefty wishy washy ideas a free education are considered stupid unrealistic idealism!!.

An unemployed unskilled worker cannot afford the education necessary to train himself, and the wealthy elite refuse to pay the taxes that could help him to pay for the training.

The worker, who was stupid enough to be born without rich parents to pay for his education is left unemployed and unemployable ... so he naturally goes on the welfare to survive right? Of course not my dear reader!!, because such socialist lefty communist hippie notions of others giving their hard earned money in tax to help support our lazy unemployed probably-doesn’t-even-want-a-job worker would never exist in our utopian capitalist free market world.

No if he wants money he should get a job like the rest of us damn it!! Oh that’s right, forgot his factory was moved to Vietnam, where a small Asian girl does that same amount of work for a tenth of the cost you would have to pay our worker.

Of course some not-really-sure-what-they-are-talking-about person is going to replay "Socialism is just as bad ... sure look at Stalin!!!)

Can I just make a small point about communism, socialism and one party dictatorships

There is a reason why most communist countries are not democracies and it is not because socialism lends itself to have a mad insane leader

It is simply because, people, i.e. the human race, are greedy, self-serving, "that is mine and I will kill you if you take it from me" creatures. Simply put, we have to be FORCED TO SHARE, and any very socialist country that was also a democracy would simply vote itself out of socialism (look at New Zealand) , unless great effort is put into showing the people the benefits of social responsibility. And lets be honest, who wants to do that, as it is unpopular and you have all the right-wingers scream "they want to take your money"

So to sum up ... WE ARE ALL SCREWED ... capitalist systems will NOT work in the long run, but ironically we are all draw to them as the promise that everything is possible, even thought you might not get it yourself (just like the Lotto).

Zombrex

Originally posted by Turnip
What's the dole? 120 euros or something? For doing nothing?? Are we mad?

OMG ... so many things wrong with that one statement alone ... where to begin

Just ask you what would u do if you were fired from your job, and couldn't get another ... would you live off the land, growing carrots in a ditch off the M50?

Also can i just ask you what you think the original idea/point of the dole is?? It amazes me that in this day and age people don't understand why we have a social welfare system.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Wicknight
Ah nothing like wild stereotypical statements to prove a point. Well most (if not all) capitalist I talk to think capitalism is a stupid idea ... haha I win

I think the problem lies with the misconception that capitalism is a political ideology. It’s not, it’s an economic system, and due to it’s organic, libertarian or, frankly, amoral Darwinist approach is by far the most efficient economic system ever to have existence.

However, in itself, it is not a political system. It has no social doctrine, outside of that which will form as a by-product of commerce. So to accuse capitalists of supporting a bankrupt or failing ideology, is inaccurate - some capitalists are socially liberal, while others are highly authoritarian.

Capitalism’s greatest imperfection is that it is not an ideology, and that too many people, both pro and against, try to fit it into that role.

Sparks

The problem TC, as pointed out above, is that pure capitalism is simply not a viable social system. Even the bastions of capitalism have elements of socialism, even if they are ill-considered, underfunded and disdained by many...

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sparks
The problem TC, as pointed out above, is that pure capitalism is simply not a viable social system. Even the bastions of capitalism have elements of socialism, even if they are ill-considered, underfunded and disdained by many...

However, the other side of the coin is where, as a reaction to capitalism, ideologies reject capitalist economic theory, in favour of economic philosophies that are disastrously inefficient (five-year plans, et al) - Economic models based upon theories devised in the nineteenth century.

Sparks

TC,
I don't think the age of an economic theory can be used as a reasonable metric. For a start, capitalism is rather ancient itself.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sparks
For a start, capitalism is rather ancient itself.

Surely this is only proof of what Corinthian is saying? Capitalism has outlasted political ideologies, systems of governance, wars, revolutions, evolutions, and the rest.

Through it all, capitalism has stayed there...changing its face somewhat to better fit with the ideological demands of the political system of the day....but always remaining.

I personally believe that a socially-responsible democratic capitalism is overall the best system. I'm not sure if thats left, right, or middle...and to be honest I dont really care.

Of course, I'm living in the nation which I believe has the best implementation of such a system at present, so its fair to say that I'm somewhat biased

jc

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sparks
I don't think the age of an economic theory can be used as a reasonable metric. For a start, capitalism is rather ancient itself.

Absolutely it should!

Economics is a social science. As such you can’t point to any ‘law of thermodynamics’ in economics that would have been devised centuries ago and we can assume that it still holds. Political circumstances, and their effect upon commerce and resources change, as do our assumptions of the market in the first place.

When Marx argued that religion was the opiate of the masses, he lived in a very different time - he might have thought differently had he known of television

Also capitalism is not really an ancient system. Modern capitalism is only a few centuries old, at best. Concepts such as banking and interest only appeared in the last few centuries; the idea that labour is an input of production is younger still and modern consumerism younger still again.

That modern capitalism is the evolutionary product of feudalism and, before it, the slave-based economies of the ancient world, is correct, but to say that they are the same thing would be not.

Sparks

TC,
Feudalism is a venerable political system with thousands of years of experience to it's name. I don't see many people clamouring for it's return though. Hence my statement that age is not the best metric...

ps. The "law of thermodynamics" (the second one to be exact) has been shown to not hold true at quantum levels. So it's not really a law anymore... not that it ever was...

And somehow I think if you wish to get to the roots of it, communism has rather venerable ancestors as well...

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sparks
Feudalism is a venerable political system with thousands of years of experience to it's name. I don't see many people clamouring for it's return though. Hence my statement that age is not the best metric...

Your point about age not being the best metric was a response to my implication that certain economic models, from the nineteenth century, were out of date and inaccurate.

Hence you are now arguing that age is not the best metric in some cases, but is in others. You’re contradicting yourself.

ps. The "law of thermodynamics" (the second one to be exact) has been shown to not hold true at quantum levels. So it's not really a law anymore... not that it ever was...

Don’t be pedantic - my point is that as a social science economics is based upon theories rather than laws.

And somehow I think if you wish to get to the roots of it, communism has rather venerable ancestors as well...

Never said it didn’t.

Sparks

TC,
No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying the age of a theory is not a valuable metric (with the sole exception that you'd allow a "breaking-in period" for kicking the theory around with a fresh set of minds for a while).

"Don’t be pedantic - my point is that as a social science economics is based upon theories rather than laws."
This is the problem with social sciences, to be honest - pay attention to detail and someone can level the charge of pedantry at you with impunity.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sparks
No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying the age of a theory is not a valuable metric

But the example you gave was a ‘man of straw’ and refuted nothing of what I said - if anything it would have concurred with my point that economic theory either becomes stale with time as Society evolves or must evolve itself.

This is the problem with social sciences, to be honest - pay attention to detail and someone can level the charge of pedantry at you with impunity.

You were being pedantic about a simile I used to describe my point, not the point itself. It was completely irrelevant.

bugler

Originally posted by Turnip
I beg your pardon?

It should also be said that lefties like children, have great imagination and like to make stuff up.

I'd like to think I have a good imagination. Unfortunately, even I couldn't make shít like this up:

Originally posted by Turnip
I for one am not particularly bothered about Japanese German and Vietnamese civilian deaths (in the relevant wars -b)

Ok, so maybe that's just a tad harsh. I mean in the case of the Japanese and Germans, well they were the citizens of countries that initiated aggression, and how innocent they were has been and will be debated til the cows come home. But what of the Vietnamese? Why have you no sympathy for those Vietnamese citizens killed or maimed? What did they do to merit their deaths? You answer later in the same post.

Originally posted by Turnip
The Vietnamese and people of various latin american states were communists. Good riddance.

Ah. So here we are at the core of your belief system. You don't agree with killing civilians, unless they're communists, is it? By the way, it certainly is very wishful thinking on your behalf that all those killed were dirty reds. Many of the Vietnamese killed were actually people of the South, which was a fine democracy! Also many of them (whether they were northern or southern) would have been ignorant of what communism was, but what does that matter eh.

And as for latin-america, well anything resembling left-wing politics could have brought death. Trade Unionists, clergy members (godless atheists all!) were murdered in state sponsored violence. So exactly what is your position on these murders? Please tell me how far left I have to be before you think it is ok for me to be murdered in order to preserve the right-wing heaven the likes of the PDs are ruling over. I believe every employer should provide adequate health insurance for their employees. Good riddance to bugler?

This might seem off topic, but I think Turnip's input could provide a telling insight into how some people view the left-right divide.

Before anyone says it, yes I know he's a troll, and an ineffectual one at that. Mind you, he probably has some effective ideas on how to deal with those troublesome teacher's unions..

Cork

Originally posted by bonkey

I personally believe that a socially-responsible democratic capitalism is overall the best system. I'm not sure if thats left, right, or middle...and to be honest I dont really care.
jc

I completely agree. I think that all political partys would also agree.

I do think it is an ideal that should be used as a yard stick.

A lot of the left/right stuff is cold war clap trap.

Sparks

I think lots would agree with that allright - sadly though, only because the phrase "socially-responsible democratic capitalism" is so loose. Do you mean pure capitalism? If not (and no nation has ever had pure capitalism), how impure do you want to be? Do you mean direct or representative democracy? And what social policies are responsible and which are not?

Devil's in the details and all that...

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Cork
I completely agree. I think that all political partys would also agree.

I’m sure they would, but then again, most political parties are keenly aware that the middle ground is the most fertile for votes.

I do think it is an ideal that should be used as a yard stick.

Don’t you think that socially-responsible democratic capitalism might be a little fuzzy to be used as a yard stick or standard?

A lot of the left/right stuff is cold war clap trap.

Absolutely. All that Fascism vs. Communism stuff happened during the Cold War after all... :rolleyes:

Éomer of Rohan

socially-responsible democratic capitalism

Doesn't exist. The point of capitalism is profit. As one man once said (Marcus Porcius Cato the Younger btw) there are good men and bad men and mostly both types want power and prestige, the bad men simply are willing to achieve them by unscrupulous means and therefore capitalism ESPECIALLY free market capitalism, can never be socially responsible.

Absolutely. All that Fascism vs. Communism stuff happened during the Cold War after all...

Right doesn't even have to mean fascist - Laissez Faire Capitalists are right wing, Conservatives are right wing etc. But essentially, he has a point - the decline in the socialist movements following the western media induced idea that the Fall of the Soviet Union was because of a flawed idea (which ultimately the USSR wasn't based on itself!) and the betrayal of the Labour party has really rendered popular left/right clashes a thing of the past - though it is inevitable that at some point, a circle will occur to bring us back to the days of powerful trade unions (in the UK at least) and their political wing - and I think we are already on course for that anyway - the decline of the welfare state being part of the course.

Turnip

Originally posted by bugler
Ah. So here we are at the core of your belief system. You don't agree with killing civilians, unless they're communists, is it?

There was a war on sonny, a war against an inhuman ideology - communism - which wherever it's been implemented has resulted in slavery and genocide. In war sometimes it's necessary to take sides and accept that civilian casualties will occur. And yes, mistakes will be made. In any venture where the stakes are high, mistakes can and will be made. That's the unfortunate reality. But there's no use crying over spilt communists. Or nazis or Ba'ath party thugs for that matter.

bonkey

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Doesn't exist.

I dont understand how you can say this.

Capitalism is fundamentally an economic principle. Social responsibility is an approach to how governance should treat its society in general (please note I deliberately did not use the term "socialism". Democracy is a basic underlying governance system.

There is no reason that all three cannot co-exist. It may require some concessions and compromises on the status of all of them, but hey - purity does not and cannot exist in an imperfect world, so this doesn't cause my belief in a compromise-system any major obstacles.

Put anoter way....I defy anyone to hold up any existant governance which is a pure form of any of the underlying ideologies I have mentioned. Choose an example from history that has ceased, and you only add weight to my argument that such systems cannot exist (or more correctly, which cannot survive existance).

Of course its a vague description as others have pointed out. Then again, so is "socialism", "communism", "capitalism", "democracy" or any other term generally applied to our formal social structures because all of them are simply implemented in one of many varying forms. The descriptions never convey more than the broadest of structures which are then implemented in specific forms. If we were to posit that Ireland was a democracy, then no nation which had anything different to Ireland could be considered a democracy, or we could at best say that "democracy" was a vague term which is appied to a general category of systems. So I would conclude that saying that my definition is "vague" is irrelevant. Show me that its more vague than any of the other terms generally used to define existant systems of governance (as opposed to ideals) and I'll accept the point, but until then its a criticism which is irrelevant as it equally defies the classification of all systems of governance under specific titles.

Put it this way....before anyone wishes to tell me that socially aware democratic capitalism doesnt exist, I would like them to explain to me how Switzerland is not democratic, not capitalistic, or not socially-aware in its legal structure and method of governance.

Swissville has SFA natural resources to have generated its wealth, and yet it is an incredibly wealthy country when viweed on a per-capita basis. Indeed, without research, I would stick my neck out and say that it has the highest ratio of per-capita-wealth to national-resource-value-per-capita, if you see what I'm driving at. Its major historical strength has actually been its military ferocity. Indeed - the only major difference between the Swiss and the Irish is that someone managed to subjugate Ireland for a few hundred years. The Swiss even had wars to decide who they would let rule them when they were conquered - kicking the crap out of the vassals of the Hapsburgs because they decided that if they were going to be ruled, it would be directly from the top, and not by some appointed lackey. They also had "in-fighting" to a comparable level to Ireland prior to its being conquered by the English.

And yet, despite their bloody, divisive history, Switzerland has emerged as a rich and peafecul nation with a system of governance which is generally held up as one of the best around today. As I said...I'm biased, but I firmly believe that there are some glaringly obvious lessons to be learned here.

Switzerland is unquestionably capitalistic. It is unquestionably democratic. And - from living here the past two years and gaining quite an amount of insight as to how its social structures work, I can say honestly that it has an incredible social conscience. This seems to fit exactly the description I assigned to it, and that Eomer seems to think doesnt exist. So like I said...explain to me why my description is inaccurate, or explain to me how Switzerland doesnt exist.

I do not believe in the absolutes of a single ideology. The "correct" structure for an imperfect world - IMHO - has to be a blend of several ideologies. I believe that the blend I have selected offers the most workable compromise in our imperfect world. I've already admitted I'm biased, so it should be obvious I don't really expect that everyone will agree, nor do I believe that this. or any other system can be universally applied successfully.

But this system exists, works, and works better than any I've seen, any I've heard of, and any I can honestly think of in our current world.

To be quite honest...to tell me it doesnt exist is somewhat blinkered...unless (as suggested earlier) you can tell me why my terminology does not apply to the nation I live in. If you can do that, then I will quite happily turn my description of it to whatever you can convince me it should be termed as.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by Turnip
But there's no use crying over spilt communists. Or nazis or Ba'ath party thugs for that matter.

Turnip....maybe you missed the bit where it was the "spilt" innocents which were being cried over.

Or maybe you'd like to claim that the only Iraqi's who died in the most recent war were the ones who deserved it.

And if thats the case, then what the hell was anyone caring about "civilian deaths" for. after all, if people getting blown up in a market by a stray missile arent worth crying over, what the hell was anyone in that nation worth saving?

I accept that innocents die in war, but thats not what you're saying...you're saying that those who die arent worth crying over because they deserved what was coming to them.

Thats either trollery or just plain insensitive.

How would you feel if a friend/relation/loved one of yours was killed in some similar military action? Would you just say "sh1t...never knew they were a <insert grouping of choice here>. Deserved what was coming to them then, didnt they".

Somehow I doubt it....and if you do too, then I would strongly urge you to reconsider the wording you used before climbing up on any cross of indignation, because - quite frankly - others need the wood.

jc