What does being Right Wing Mean?

Éomer of Rohan

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

Get your facts straight - communism is responsible for the welfare state in the UK - there were plenty of communist MP's in the UK who fought tooth and nail with a seriously entrenched government in order to get a better deal for working people. The whole 'government' implementation problem does not exist - the problem is simply that in all hitherto cases the revolutions have been led by the narrow few - an oligarchy which is much easier to subvert than a mass of people - hence the Troskyist principle of Democractic Socialism (which is very distinct from Social Democracy - the latter being a watered down derivative of the former) which cannot be subverted given that it would be the entire working peoples of a nation which would place such a government in power to one end - return the power to the workers. The point which I would have thought fairly clear by now is watch what generalisations you make for you are wrong.

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

How very crass. There was no reason for the US to napalm civilians or for US troops to rape Vietnamese women - and this did happen whether you believe it or not. 3 million civilians died in the Vietnamese war - some of them from Cambodia and Laos! The war in Vietnam was of the making of the US - hell the South Vietnamese were glad to get rid of the Americans after the atrocities they committed.

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

Read the Communist Manifesto, the German Ideology, Capital etc and then read Mein Kampf and if you cannot distinguish a genuine difference then you simply have not read them properly.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Right doesn't even have to mean fascist

FFS Éomer, he said that left and right were Cold War constructs and I pointed out how inane that argument was - How did you decide to take that unrelated argumentative tangent - Do you even read what’s posted here?

Éomer of Rohan

FFS Éomer, he said that left and right were Cold War constructs and I pointed out how inane that argument was - How did you decide to take that unrelated argumentative tangent - Do you even read what’s posted here?

O....K and people say I take things too seriously?:D
Anyway, granted, left and right are not cold war contructs - they have been in this manner since ancient times - the battle between the people and the oligarchs however, one point he was making was that mostly it had been left behind - in the cold war - and I think he is correct in that assumption much to my chagrin

Zombrex

Originally posted by The Corinthian
However, in itself , it i]capitalism[/i is not a political system.

I think it would be very naive to disassociate the economic notion of capitalism from the social and political notion, especially on this discussion on right and left wing political views.

There is a very well developed and established ideology behind political and social capitalism that basically says the way to run a country or society is to limit government and social influence over the economy, education, health-care and police forces and to allow free market dynamics to control them instead.

Of course there are (like ever-other political system) degrees of capitalism and it can be mixed in with other political and social ideas ... but it is a very real political idea.

See www.capitalism.org for more on the political ideology behind more extreme capitalism (everything from education to abortion).

Cork

Leaders of socialist Ireland are not adverse of capitalism. Dick Spring has been involved with a number of companies. Yet, people have a mis-concecption that socialists are simply "not capitalists".

Socialist ideas don't really differ too much from capitalist ones.

Measures like the mimimum wage and free transport for OOPs were not introduced by socialists.

Socialists do not have a monopoly of socially orientated policies.

At the end of the day - left V right is of no consequence as they are all in pretty much in agreement on economic and social policy.

ednwireland

Turnip,

could you explain to me what the pd's are about they seem to be inent on destroying every structure this country has and replacing it with a profit making organisation, now i have no problem with profit (being an inetrnet specialist in DOnegal neans i don't see much of it) BUT i don't see how creating a private monopolistic culture in a market as small as irelands really makes any sense (see insurance companies)
i would like to hear ONE sensible policy from the pd's that would work outside of dublin city.

as far as radical politics and policies go thatcher did what the pd's want and its taken several years of albeit dodgy labour gov. to get anywhere near giving the people something.

I moved to ireland several years ago nad have no intention of leaving (or ever voting ff/pd or anyone else apart from odd local interest candidate - if caring about people and places makes me left wing so be it)

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Wicknight
I think it would be very naive to disassociate the economic notion of capitalism from the social and political notion, especially on this discussion on right and left wing political views.

That is one school of thought that takes the principles of an economic theory and applies them to a social model - essentially social Darwinism.

Capitalism is principally, or originally, an economic notion; I had argued earlier that it would be an error to ascribe it to an ideology, but perhaps that was just my own intellectual prejudice speaking - Social Darwinism, inspired by Capitalism is as valid an ideology as any other.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Cork
Socialist ideas don't really differ too much from capitalist ones.

The fundamental assumption that one should never forget is that every ideology reckons it’s the good guy - Even National Socialism believed that what it stood for was for the good of all (obviously with reservations on the definition of all). So it’s hardly surprising that even diametrically opposed ideologies will often share traits.

Ideological partisanship, on the other hand, as is often seen on the fringes of the political spectrum, is not a new concept; it’s more about human nature than human philosophy. The same people who would classify themselves as Nazi’s or Socialists today, would have probably been Guelphs or Ghibellines 500 years ago.

Measures like the mimimum wage and free transport for OOPs were not introduced by socialists.

Actually, there’s a school of thought that will argue that it is not important whether a political movement actually ever gains power or not, but simply in it’s activity it can influence the establishment in tempering it’s own policy towards that of the political movement - I think that was originally the idea with the Green Party movement, until some middle class voters began to take them seriously

bugler

Originally posted by Turnip
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.

You didn't respond to my post at all. It has nothing to do with making mistakes. Civilians were deliberately bombed and shot in Vietnam. As for Latin America, there is no mistake involved in the systematic torture and assassination of political dissidents. And it very often had nothing to do with a war, and everything to do with freedom of expression.

Your logic is the logic of very many. Timothy McVeigh took a similar approach. He was at war with the Federal U.S government and all those civilian workers he blew up in his war just got in the way. Happens though doesn't it? Sometimes you have to take sides and accept that civilian casualties will occur.

Please, come out and say what everyone knows you mean. That when governments ('democratic' ones only of course) are faced with a threat they should be forgiven for murdering civilians. It's ok. They're only acting in peace and freedom loving peoples best interests. After all, there is a war on.

Feel free to post up your definitive list of "Civilians its OK to Kill". So far we only have German civilians during world war two, Vietnamese civilians (both North and South) in the Vietnam war, Ba'ath Party supporting civilians in Iraq, and any civilians who are communists or presumed communist anywhere.

Turnip

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Capitalism is principally, or originally, an economic notion; I had argued earlier that it would be an error to ascribe it to an ideology, but perhaps that was just my own intellectual prejudice speaking - Social Darwinism, inspired by Capitalism is as valid an ideology as any other.

Are you a social darwinist? It’s human nature to compete but basically, social darwinism is anarchy. It’s the creed of rapists, murderers, thieves, fraudsters, granny muggers and all the other types of cowardly dysfunctional filth who are unable to compete within normal legal bounds. In civilisations there are rules and there are channels through which one may progress socially. If you are too weak or too stupid to beat others on reasonably fair terms then tough. You don’t deserve to succeed.

Turnip

Originally posted by bonkey
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.

I'm saying that I'm not overly upset about the deaths of civilians who actively support evil regimes. That's called being honest. I reserve the bulk of my sympathy (which is largely worthless anyway - one accurately targeted cruise missile is worth all the useless liberal guilt in the world) for the victims of those regimes.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Turnip
Are you a social darwinist?

Never said I was.

It’s human nature to compete but basically, social darwinism is anarchy. It’s the creed of rapists, murderers, thieves, fraudsters, granny muggers and all the other types of cowardly dysfunctional filth who are unable to compete within normal legal bounds. In civilisations there are rules and there are channels through which one may progress socially. If you are too weak or too stupid to beat others on reasonably fair terms then tough. You don’t deserve to succeed.

Actually, Social Darwinism is the ultimate extension of the free market into society. The citizen is entirely free to pursue their goals and express him or herself as they wish. Success or failure is based upon ‘survival of the fittest’, so that those with disabilities or from disadvantaged backgrounds would be at a disadvantage to those with more admirable traits. As an ideology it was most popular in the US in the nineteenth century, although it is also linked to the eugenics movement as well as race theory.

I suggest you read up on it before posting again.

TomF

This discussion is like, a lot more fun to read when translated into Valley Girl. See <http://www.80s.com/Entertainment/ValleyURL/>

Turnip

Originally posted by The Corinthian
The citizen is entirely free to pursue their goals and express him or herself as they wish.

Sounds suspiciously hippyish to me. That kind of lawless anarchical society would last about 5 minutes. It's not worth discussing.

Success or failure is based upon ‘survival of the fittest’, so that those with disabilities or from disadvantaged backgrounds would be at a disadvantage to those with more admirable traits.

Being from an advantaged background does not guarantee admiration. Look at the British royal family. They're incredibly wealthy and privileged but what a pitiful collection of brutally ugly inbred half wits they are. I'll reserve my admiration for one-legged special olympics cyclists thank you.

How do you measure success? One can be a total failure in one's lifetime, die young and only receive recognition years later. Like Van Gogh.

And I get accused of trolling?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Turnip
Sounds suspiciously hippyish to me. That kind of lawless anarchical society would last about 5 minutes. It's not worth discussing.

Actually the freedom to pursue one’s happiness is one of the cornerstones of modern liberal democracy (remember all that equality, fraternity, etc. stuff?). It is also essential for consumerism to flourish; after all, without that freedom of choice there is no free market.

Hardly a description of anarchy is it?

I’m afraid, and mildly amused, that you’re making assumptions due to your lack of knowledge, and then exemplifying this ignorance as a virtue.

Being from an advantaged background does not guarantee admiration.

No it does not. But that’s not really what I was saying. Go back and read (again).

How do you measure success? One can be a total failure in one's lifetime, die young and only receive recognition years later. Like Van Gogh.

The measurement of individual or collective success is arguable, not unlike the value of art (seeing you mentioned it).

And I get accused of trolling?

If one reads a response that resembles a perfect parody of the most gauche, barrow-boy derivatives trader of the Thatcherite era, then it would be natural that people might consider the author a troll.

Again, I suggest you read up on this before posting again.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by Turnip
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.

The civil rights movement back in the 1960s, and far more recently, the fight against apartheid- were these communist regimes enslaving their people? South Africa was downright facist, repressive, and the very nations that "fought" communism traded openly and generously with this barbarous regime. That's not making a stand against oppression, that's expedient tolerance of oppression to serve a wider political goal. Or is that ok with you too?

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.

With an attitude like that we'd still be in the Dark Ages- welcome to the 21st century. Your statement about communists shows about 0 knowledge of why it even came about- granted it's easy for people to forget, but trashing a philosophy before even knowing its history seems a bit premature. These days it's a given that people who till the soil own their land or have help to buy it. When communism was born, farmers, labourers and land-owners were perpetually indebted to wealthy gentry. I'd say the labour revolutions of the last century owe their success to the rise of communist thinking. As an economic system, any command economy is ultimately doomed to failure, be it nationalist, facist or communist. But the political ideals of communism changed the face of capitalism, no doubt about it. So don't talk about "spilt communists"- without those spilt communists we'd still likely be living in a society that valued labour at about the level of livestock.

As far as Nazis or Ba'thist thugs go- do you think those people were always Nazis or Ba'thists? Granted the Ba'ath party ruled much of the population through fear, but loyal support was there, from the lowest Fedayeen private all the way to the top. Support for the Nazi party was widespread in *Europe* never mind Germany. The uncomfortable truth is that ordinary decent people subscribed to the Nazi and Ba'athist ideals because they saw it as a way out. Inclusion, hope of a better life for themselves and indeed their country. The same is true of terrorists- how do you propose we deal with them hmm? Kill them all, or perhaps deter them? Second you tell me a viable means of deterring someone determined to throw away his life for a cause, I'm all ears.

The underlying causes of crime, extremism and terrorism are the targets of the left Turnip. Because that is how you treat the condition rather than knee-jerk reactions to the symptoms. Criminals, terrorists and the like don't take massive and mortal risk on without a damn good reason- they aren't born hating from the cradle. Locking people up without trial or recourse to legal aid doesn't fight terror, it gives it a fetid atmosphere in which to thrive. Many of the prisoners at Guantanomo will be released at some stage, since the majority of them didn't do anything beyond stray from their villages, the wrong place at the wrong time. Tell you what though, the damage has been done. I wonder how many future terror attacks, radical organizations and haters of the West were produced in Guantanomo. Bin Laden couldn't have indoctrinated hatred of America any better had he been in charge of them. But that's what knee-jerk responses do, they exacerbate the problem- whatever it takes to give the public a false sense of security in order to buy votes. Bush is right wing as they come- and that's the result Turnip.

Being from an advantaged background does not guarantee admiration.

Admiration isn't what the majority of people are after oddly enough. A roof over their heads and where the next meal comes from is what most of the people on the planet worry about. You ask how success is to be measured. For most people in the world, success means basic animal survival. I don't blame them either, 2/3 children go to bed hungry at night. But with your admiration Turnip, I'm sure they'll do just fine :rolleyes:

Admiration isn't the issue, the issue is equity of opportunity. Does someone from an advantaged background have a greater chance to succeed than someone from a poor background? Of course they do, just look at employment statistics for any nation at any stage of development. To socialists, a healthy society is one in which the disadvantaged are given a leg up, that they may compete on a more equal footing. That's why socialist states guarantee education, health care and legal aid free at the point of delivery. Private enteprise is always available mind you, but the safety net exists for those who can't afford the private route.

People in Europe don't truly realize what a good deal they're getting for their taxes either...I could take you to any one of a dozen hospitals & clinics in my hometown Seattle and show you destitute patients begging for treatment and being refused due to lack of insurance. I could show you single parents being forced into remaining on welfare because no jobless scheme covers them outside of food stamps and basic amenities. Under Clinton, MedicAid national insurance gave everyone the basic right of healthcare on the spot- costs were to be addressed after treatment, with the aid of state loans if need be.

And the "welfare bums" Republicans love to refer to were put back on the track to work via community work programmes and temp job schemes controlled on a national register. All these schemes are now history. Bush's tax refund is expensive you see- these were just some of the state benefits slashed in the 780 million dollar tax credit, mainly to the rich, and the big business that paid his election meal ticket. "Can't tax the rich, it hurts the economy" says Dick Cheney- wtf else are CEOs going to buy, another private jet? Cheney has 4 of them incidentally, and recently preached the tax credit to business leaders not 300 yards from a soup kitchen due to be dismantled a week later, part of that spending reform. What's more- the same day that was put before Congress, defence as a proportion of national spending went up by 8%. Our country hasn't seen an increase on that level since the second world war.

The author of this thread asks what makes someone right wing. Someone who can destroy the "Great Society" that Lyndon Johnson built 1 brick at a time over 2 terms- and destroy it in the space of a few months. Public schooling in suburban areas is the next targeted spending cut for this administration- as if our kids weren't dumber than sh1t already...teaching staff have been assured job losses won't be excessive, in the single digit thousands, not the ten thousands- nice reassurance.

That my friends, is right wing, self-professed by PNAC subscribed members of this government. You judge for yourselves whether a society like that is fair, equitable or humane- if indeed it is better or worse on some levels than Cuba or Vietnam, both communist governments.

Éomer of Rohan

Wooohoooo! Well said Bob. I must admit, I am thankful that someone recognises the communistic contribution to western democracy. And he's an American. Never thought I'd see the day. Anway,

after all, without that freedom of choice there is no free market

IS the Free Market not based less on free choice and more on the freedom to transport goods and so on across national borders without tariffs being imposed?

The underlying causes of crime, extremism and terrorism are the targets of the left Turnip.

Whereas the targets of the right are popular, debate closing, jingoistic slogans like 'War on Terror' and so on. I personally regard those who vote for right wing parties as not understabnding completely what they vote for and there I think lies the difference between right and true left and the reason why true leftwingers have never really succeeded in moder democracies - big business use the people how they wish and use their funds to buy the media and various political parties that want to keep the status quo - and thus the argument becomes one which the right can win - jingoistic and anti-intellectual (the later under the slogan of supporting the common man and his interests). Thus in turn, support for the left dwindles because the left is based on intelligent argument rather than a publicity fight - note the decline of the Labour party - and the people are being convinced by media (eg The Sun) and without meaningful argument that the right is right and that the status quo should be saved.

bonkey

Originally posted by Turnip

I'm saying that I'm not overly upset about the deaths of civilians who actively support evil regimes. That's called being honest.

Sure, except that what you said was that you werent gonna cry over any of the civilians who were killed in particular nations during wars.

So, does this mean that we can conclude you think every Japanese, German and Vietnamese civilian who died in the relevant wars was an active supporter of its government and therefore deserved to die?

Would you also say that all of the Iraqi civilians who were killed during the liberation of Iraq all deserved to die because they actively supported Saddam???

Andf what happened to your belief in "punishment to suit the crime - no more, no less". Such a stance would mean you are also implying that support of any regime you morally disagree with (e.g. communism) should be a mandatory death-sentence?

So - has that stance changed since this thread started, or is this actually your belief....because its the logical conclusion from the different points you've made.

If it hasnt, should you not be calling for the rounding up of all communist-supporting Irish people and their execution? After all - they actively support the same ideals, so surely they've comitted the same crime.You want the punishment to suit the crime, and feel that death is a suitable punishment. So....off with their heads?



jc

bonkey

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
I personally regard those who vote for right wing parties as not understabnding completely what they vote for and there I think lies the difference between right and true left

God forbid we compare like with like, huh Eomer?

Anyone voting right doesnt know what they are talking about....and that is why any right supporter has less of a clue then certain left supporters.

Thats what you're saying. One nicely chosen generality for the opposition ("the right") compared to one nicely specific, defensible subgroup ("the true left") for yourself.

Well, one can either say you're elitist (all the smartest people believe the same as me - the righties are all a bit thick), or being deliberately misleading (not comparing like with like, and when push comes to shove you didnt quite mean what you said, and god forbid that you actually offer proof rather than conjecture for this belief).

Either way, its somewhat amusing that you have the cojones to claim that the Right are the ones not engaging in honest debate and are relying on jingoism, anti-intellectualism, etc. etc. etc. while you - the chosen Left - engage in intelligent debate, whilst at the same time saying "but the right are basically less intelligent than some of us true lefties".

Now honestly....do you think such a skewed comparison fits more in the Sun tabloid style of argumentation, or in "intelligent debate"? I'm sure the answer will be enlightening given your assertion of who engages in what type of debate and why.

jc

Clintons Cat

jingoistic and anti-intellectual (the later under the slogan of supporting the common man and his interests). Thus in turn, support for the left dwindles because the left is based on intelligent argument rather than a publicity fight - note the decline of the Labour party -

I think your thinking along the right lines,but New Labour has adopted the meaningless slogans in a way that makes Tory bickering over euro scepticism look like high debate.

To reel off some of New Labour Jingoism over the years
For example...Third Way,Tough on crime Tough on the causes of crime,Cool Britania,Forces Of conservitism,Axis of terror.Chicken Tikka Massala.

Labour didnt do to badly in the second term council elections seeing as most wards saw an increase in council tax of around £100-£200 per annum per household for declining standards in public service.

I think where Labour has gone wrong is by pandering to the devisive agenda of the Mail,express and sun on issues such as immigration and asylum and definately in loosing its own grass root support who were overwhelmingly against the attack on iraq whose organisational support they will need come next election time.When it comes to favorable election coverage The sun are notoriously fickle bed partners.

Biffa Bacon

I think I can sort this one out. Basically, the Right is right about everything, and the Left has been left behind by history.

Éomer of Rohan

I think your thinking along the right lines,but New Labour has adopted the meaningless slogans in a way that makes Tory bickering over euro scepticism look like high debate.

I completely agree - which is why I would not classify Labour as a left wing party - it is a centre right wing party in my opinion; not far off the Conservatives but yet better at manipulating the press much as the old right wing seem to be able to do. In truth Labour should have lost it's grass roots support years ago - but still the Trade Unions give their contirbutions to Labour party funds despite the obvious dismissal of Labour issues by the party heirarchy - the bottom line is that a new party of labour needs to be formed.

not comparing like with like

I am interested to know Bonkey, what exactly you would term as 'like with like' in this instance before I offer my reply to your post and I can't help wondering about the edit you made to it.

Either way, its somewhat amusing that you have the cojones to claim that the Right are the ones not engaging in honest debate and are relying on jingoism, anti-intellectualism, etc. etc. etc. while you - the chosen Left - engage in intelligent debate, whilst at the same time saying "but the right are basically less intelligent than some of us true lefties"

I think you are reading what I wrote the wrong way around; I am not saying anything about levels of intelligence - what I am saying is that the right tend to use jingoistic arguments to mire the waters and cut off debate because they cannot beat the left if time and understanding is lent by the audience to what is being said. Thus the arguments deteriorate not due to the supposed lack of intelligence of the right but rather the opposite; they follow one of the principle rules of war; engage the enemy in a manner of your own choosing. In this way they simply pull the wool over the eyes of the electorate and the worth of our so-called democracy decreases.

Éomer of Rohan

And if I was being elitist Bonkey, I think we could agree that Biffa has QED'd my argument. But I wasn't all the same.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus
These days it's a given that people who till the soil own their land or have help to buy it. When communism was born, farmers, labourers and land-owners were perpetually indebted to wealthy gentry. I'd say the labour revolutions of the last century owe their success to the rise of communist thinking.

Surely Commies are opposed to people owning their own land. So I don't think you can credit Communism with that one. Socialism maybe, but not communism.

Meh

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
what I am saying is that the right tend to use jingoistic arguments to mire the waters and cut off debate

The right doesn't have a monopoly on this tactic. Read http://www.indymedia.ie lately?

bonkey

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
I am interested to know Bonkey, what exactly you would term as 'like with like' in this instance before I offer my reply to your post and I can't help wondering about the edit you made to it.

The edit was putting a bold tag back into the quote which I had managed to delete, and a word I had managed to misspell. Nothing sinister.

Like with like would be to compare "true left" with "true right" or "left" with "right". Not comparing "true left" with "right". One is a far more general term than the other.

I think you are reading what I wrote the wrong way around; I am not saying anything about levels of intelligence

Sorry Eomer...perhaps intelligence was the wrong term. Allow me to elucidate.

You are saying that the one side do not understand what they are voting for - and that this is a main difference between the two - which implies that the other side does know what they are voting for.

Now, given that both sides have equal access to the same public information, one can only conclude that this lack of understanding is either caused by one side not wanting to be aware of the issues, or not being capable of understanding them.

So either the left care more about informing themseves, or they are smarter and capable of understanding this information better.

what I am saying is that the right tend to use jingoistic arguments to mire the waters and cut off debate

As opposed to your "The Right dont understand the issues and The Left do" argument which is designed to encourage debate???

In this way they simply pull the wool over the eyes of the electorate

That is an entirely different point. You are now discussing the understanding of the issues by the "unaligned" electorage, and the effect that the presentation of information by both sides has on this group.

That has nothing to do with the understanding of the issues by the right or left (the point I took exception to), but rather how they choose to portray their arguments to others, and how those others understand the issues as a result (a point not mentioned at all in the original piece I took exception to).

So...as I have been trying to point out....the argument you have been making is a distorted, inaccurate, and misleading version of the real point you seem to want to make.

Now, if this distortion is deliberate, it is exactly what you are complaing the Right do and you (the Left) do not do.

If on the other hand, it was not deliberate, I would ask how you can determine that the Rightist propaganda is not just the same - poorly worded arguments rather than deliberately misleading ones.

And if I was being elitist Bonkey, I think we could agree that Biffa has QED'd my argument./quote]

We wouldnt agree on that at all. I would point out that you would be using an individual case to claim proof of a generality, which is - again - hardly a tactic intrinsic to intelligent and non-jingoistic debate, and more like spin or propaganda.

jc

Éomer of Rohan

I would point out that you would be using an individual case to claim proof of a generality, which is - again - hardly a tactic intrinsic to intelligent and non-jingoistic debate, and more like spin or propaganda

LMAO - granted.

Like with like would be to compare "true left" with "true right" or "left" with "right". Not comparing "true left" with "right". One is a far more general term than the other

My diminution of what is encompassed by 'left' was in order that new Labour and such groups be disregarded because I do not believe they are left wing as I reiterated in answer to Clinton's Cat - not meaning to reduce the ability of the opposition to counter the arguments that I am promulgating - sorry for any misunderstanding on that point.

You are saying that the one side do not understand what they are voting for - and that this is a main difference between the two - which implies that the other side does know what they are voting for.

Correct - because fundamental to this argument is the inherent fact and the belief of many that capitalism is a flawed system - I don't think that this is the time to digress onto whether or not capitalism is flawed or not, but consider it from a left wing point of view; why would right wingers vote for a system that is hurting millions. Either then they are heartless scum, which I do not believe, or they do not fully understand what they vote for - again I make the assumption here that Free Market Economics is a right wing policy.

As opposed to your "The Right dont understand the issues and The Left do" argument which is designed to encourage debate???

That is an entirely different point. You are now discussing the understanding of the issues by the "unaligned" electorage, and the effect that the presentation of information by both sides has on this group.

No I disagree that these are seperate issues. There is no such thing as an unaligned electorate - except for those people who don't vote. People vote left, right or centrist - and by their vote they are aligned, or do you disagree? I was discussing the effect that presentation of the issues has on all groups which is fundamental to the success of the right wing.

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
why would right wingers vote for a system that is hurting millions. Either then they are heartless scum, which I do not believe, or they do not fully understand what they vote for - again I make the assumption here that Free Market Economics is a right wing policy.

Because people when they work hard, by and large want whats best for themselves, not the collective.
Sure they will give out about poor public services, that they pay for, but you won't find anyone earning a fair wage through hard work wanting to give most of that away, it kills incentive.
Free market Economics/capitalism, call it what you like, appeals to most basic human instincts.

Although I know Éomer, ideologically, yourself and Joe higgins are a different type of Socialist to those that brought the Soviet Union into the world, it's still what people associate mostly with, the ultimate direction hard left wing politics would bring us.
I want an incentive to do the job I do, and thats money, to give me the best standard of living as possible( while I will of course where possible donate to charities as well ) where in your system of governance, would that incentive for me and countless millions like me, be accomadated?
mm

Meh

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Correct - because fundamental to this argument is the inherent fact and the belief of many that capitalism is a flawed system - I don't think that this is the time to digress onto whether or not capitalism is flawed or not, but consider it from a left wing point of view; why would right wingers vote for a system that is hurting millions. Either then they are heartless scum, which I do not believe, or they do not fully understand what they vote for

There's a third option: perhaps they recognize that capitalism has its flaws but still think it's better than any other available system.

Éomer of Rohan

Although I know Éomer, ideologically, yourself and Joe higgins are a different type of Socialist to those that brought the Soviet Union into the world

Then I am grateful to you for that.

it's still what people associate mostly with, the ultimate direction hard left wing politics would bring us

Well I will agree to differ here because I think a debate on the differences between Socialist doctrines and those that have been employed are way OT - I will content myself to say that there are differences.

Because people when they work hard, by and large want whats best for themselves, not the collective.
Sure they will give out about poor public services, that they pay for, but you won't find anyone earning a fair wage through hard work wanting to give most of that away, it kills incentive.
Free market Economics/capitalism, call it what you like, appeals to most basic human instincts.

Yes - I know it does, which is why I hate it. We consider ourselves civilised but we aren't civilised until we learn to put ourselves in the position where we care about other people - even people who are a different colour and religion and live on the other side of the world, who we have never met - to the point where we are willing to make sacrifices to help them. And I don't mean a few quid every so often - I mean life changes.

where in your system of governance, would that incentive for me and countless millions like me, be accomadated?

The idea that an incentive needs to be monetary has to be removed; for doctors, the incentive is to save human lives, for teachers, it is to pass on the knowledge they have accumulated to the future, for computer technicians, it is the prestige of your name being known across the world for coming up with the new OS and so on - human betterment is the key to incentive - people simply need to move away from the idea of 'me, me, me' which is fundamentally what we gave birth to when we invented consumerist societies.