Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
User Journal

Chacham's Journal: Verbiage: Right-Wing and Left-Wing in the Social Arena 40

Journal by Chacham

On a thought about right-wingers and left-wingers in social settings. I am not sure how much of this is what i truly believe; parts of this are thoughts in progress.

Assuming they are not bigoted, everyone believes that everyone has the same potential, albeit in different areas. However, when dealing with the freeze-frame of where and who were are right now, both the right and left believe their group is better than the other, simply because of concious choice. The question is the focus.

The right wing believes the focus is on being better. That is, everyone starts off worse and the purpose of life is to become better, and then reap the very rewards that they have earned. The inferior group simply hasn't made it (yet), but avenues are open and welcome.

The left-wing believes the focus is on being worse. That is, everyone starts off (relatively) better and the purpose in life is to make sure we don't get worse. Though, they admit that by doing nothing people get worse automatically, and therefore require work to stay better. Thus, while rewards do go to the better naturally, they are not truly theirs, as they have not "earned" it. They just didn't "lose" them.

My personal feelings are left-wing. I even tell people that at heart i'm a Socialist. However, for two reason i do not politically go in that way. For one, i do not believe in forcing others to share this belief. I can advertise it, but not force it. As forcing it is contradicatory to the very belief that everyone is equal, and therefore their feelings--however incorrect they may be--are just as important as mine. Two, that to treat others as inferior is to disrespect them. I'd rather respect them and let them know that i believe that if they work hard they will be successful, as opposed to helping and saying "you're a loser, so i'm helping you."

In thought, the right-wing is better. It gives respect to each individual, and is true equality. You work, you gain. The major downfall is that it rejects reality. Some people do have better talents, and are thus more geared toward reaping those rewards. It is by no means an even playing field.

It therefore is only the centrists who believe in true equality. Nobody is better, and nobody is worse. They just are. And, possibly, we should only step in in the case of abuse. For even though people are who they are, circumstances that place things beyond the person's control remove some of that equality. However, this might have to work both ways, as long as it is outside the person's control. This though, seems the worst of all. Because without facing the reality that some are better and some are worse, it is unlikey that people ar helped at all. And that is simply bad news for the human condition.

In US politics, this makes about half the Republicans centrists, and the other half slightly right. The Democrats would be slightly left, and moderately left. The same can be seen in Israel. The Likud are mostly centrists and slightly right, where Labor is slightly and moderately left.

The main reason people call Republicans (or Likudnicks) rightists, is because they are to the right of the current center of the native populous. That is, people currently in the "Western" world tend to be slightly left. That makes the actual centrists into the "rightist", and the actual rightists into "wackos".

Given the leftward direction (slow as it may be). this may help explain why the media is considered left-wing. In reality it most definitely is left-wing, however, as the head of the train named culture, they are exactly what the people want. Some people are just a bit scared before they get there, though they will be mollified at the next stop.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Verbiage: Right-Wing and Left-Wing in the Social Arena

Comments Filter:
  • I know that my views tend to be left and I would also call myself a socialist if that party carried any weight here in the states. In fact, I remember taking a political test online once that had a four quadrant graph and it would place a dot on to indicte where you all politically ased on some survey questions. Interestingly, I fell into the left catgory, but with authoritarian tendencies which put me in the company of a few "colorful" people. So, it's probably a good thing that I don't really have a se
    • Interesting.

      Being i vote rightist, both for soicial and political reasons, i disagree wholeheartedly with (what i perceive as) the leftist agenda. However, i would love if real debate were on the floor of the House, and not the babble that is currently there. In a sense, i wish you would get interested so we'd have an intelligent leftist out there. :) I have a friend who is a leftist, and when we argue about points (rather than parties) he will say that he feels that's how it should be. He knows those valu
      • Damn. I just hit submit for my original posting and didn't bother to preview. Pardon the typos, but I got a new laptop and the keys require much harder pressure than I am used to or like. So... I've been mistyping like a fiend for the past few weeks.
        • No problem. I am more interested in what you have to say. (Though i will probably enjoy it more when you are back to your non-tpyo self. :-P )
  • by Zarf (5735) on Sunday March 14, 2004 @03:55PM (#8563220) Journal
    I have always though that the difference between the left and right wings were summed up in Jefferson versus Hamilton. The Jeffersonians seeking a happy rural society where everything is engineered to have a place and the government protects the individual from harsh business and market forces. The Hamiltonians seek to allow the "invisible hand" to guide the economy and foster private intrest's undertaking things that the Jeffersonians would see as "something only government can do."

    The prime example of a Hamiltonian public work is the privately funded New York state water way system. New York city itself being the example of the Hamiltonian city. The Jeffersonians, however, are exemplified by the rural cities of the south. An example would be any one of the southern captial cities.

    The result is that northern capital cities are known for efficiency and southern ones for their grace and beauty. While Washington DC has the grace of a northern city and the efficiency of a southern one.

    Left-wing causes tend to be the rights of individuals over the rights of corprate entities... such as business, government, or society as a whole. Right-wing causes tend to be the rights of businesses, governments, and society as a whole... over the rights of the individual.

    A prime example of this is the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act compromises individual freedoms in order to provide greater saftey to the public at large. The accusation of "terrorist" may rob a single innocent man of his freedom but it protects one-hundred other innocents from a potential terrorist.

    The opposing left-wing view would simply be that it is better to let ten guilty men go free than to punish one innocent man.

    Consider the compromises that we see from each party. Consider the very core of Abortion rights, the right of the child over the mother versus the right of the mother over the child. The child cannot speak and is therefore defended by the corporate whole... the mother can speak and is therefore her own individual. The right winger will side with the corporate rights of all people to enjoy life... the left-winger will side with the individual woman's right to determine her own fate.

    I've always seen the difference between the left and the right as the balance between the rights of one and the rights of the many. This business about self-betterment just strikes me as odd. I don't think there's anything in particular in either view that says anything toward "self betterment" and I think that attributing such views is dangerous.

    The right-winger wants you to better yourself so you can contribute to the wealth of society. The left-winger wants to encourage you to better yourself for your own right to do so. Both view points can encourage the same things. They are not somehow exclusive.
    • Interesting post.

      A couple points.

      1) I am talking specifically about the social role, not the political one.
      2) Abortion is a terrible example. The right wingers see it as a quesiton of life, the left as individual rights. However, switch it to anything else and the opposite happens. For example, if a person wanted to remove his right arm. A rightist would allow for it (it's his body), whereas the leftist would oppose either for the greater good or the person not knowing what he "really" wants.

      A more commo
      • 2) Abortion is a terrible example. The right wingers see it as a quesiton of life, the left as individual rights. However, switch it to anything else and the opposite happens. For example, if a person wanted to remove his right arm. A rightist would allow for it (it's his body), whereas the leftist would oppose either for the greater good or the person not knowing what he "really" wants.

        No, I would say that Abortion is a perfect example. Righties are all for the benefit of society and the right of being
        • I disagree with everything you have said here. But, to reply, i would just be repeating my last post. Being redundant, i won't bother.

          Okay, did you or did you not take the mantiory Philosophy class in college? Did you sleep through it?

          Nope. I read these things myself. As such i formed my *own* opinion. :)

          People who make $100,000 a year are in a wholly different class from those who make $30,000 or $12,000. That's just fact.

          No, it is not fact. It is a perception. Those who perceive it as a class are
          • No, it is not fact. It is a perception. Those who perceive it as a class are left-wing, those who don't, are right-wing.

            Oh, please. Don't even pretend that the rich get a different view of "justice" from the poor. If OJ Simpson were a poor man he would have had a radically different trial. Not to mention the huge difference in health care and education. You have got to be kidding me. There is no comparison. Most people worry about next month's rent.

            Nope. I read these things myself. As such i formed my
            • Don't even pretend that the rich get a different view of "justice" from the poor.

              That's because of the lawyers they can hire. Unfortunately, the system allows for too many technicalities. Of course, it was the leftists that added them. A pure rightist would probably skip the jury and the verbiage of the law, and go after the idea of the law when it was proposed. But, this is very much intermingled with the religous-right's view that there is an absolute right and wrong, and therefore rules must be created
              • i'd hardly call it "new agey".

                Okay, "fruity" ... "foo foo" ... "girly" which one do you like better? Remember I wear cowboy boots and drive a truck... I can't think in those kinds of circles.

                Okay, fine I don't really wear cowboy boots and drive a truck... it's bad for the environment.

                So would you say the far right is best personified Libertarian and the far left is Leninist or Marxist? I'd say politicians added the technicalities... for the benefit of those who could afford lawyers... right or left
                • So would you say the far right is best personified Libertarian and the far left is Leninist or Marxist?

                  Not really. The rightist eventually wants everyone to be equal. Thus, pure Communism. The leftist wants everyone to do the right thing, thus Socialism. Though, i find it overwhelmingly odd that the extreme of freedom, Communism, tells people what to do, and the extreme of telling people what to do, Socialism, gives absolute freedom (amongst the legal jobs).

                  Being Lenin and Marx were neither pure Communis
                  • So, what then is the difference between "pure Communism" and "Peaceful Anarchy"?
                    • In Communism people are told what to do, although the people have to delegate these tasks in some fashion. Further, everyone own everything, and there is no money. All in all, there is a great sense of coommunity in living life towards a common goal.

                      In Peaceful Anarchy people do what they want, with no resrictions. People own whatever they grab first, and gold or something else precious is used for bartering. All in all, there is a great sense of indiviualism, and each person can do what he wants.
                    • So where does the term "The Withering away of the State" fit into the Communist Philosophy? When a state has achieved the "Whithering away" to the idealistic point mentioned by Marx how is it different from Peacful Anarchy then. How can people be told what to do by a state that doesn't exist?
                    • So where does the term "The Withering away of the State" fit into the Communist Philosophy?

                      I don't konw. I have never heard of the term.

                      Note though, that Marxism was not Communism, though it was related.
                    • So who wrote the "Communist Manifesto" and what is in it? How is this different from Communism? What are the stages of human civilization described by Marx? How does the most primitive civilization compare to the most advanced by Marxist philosophy? How is this different from Communist philosophy?
                    • Then how can you possibly know what communism is? How can you make statements about what it is?
                    • Because, the ideas are simple, and easily understood. How they then are adapted to fit ther demographics or other realities is irrelevant.

                      Besides that, i have spoken to people who were born and raised in Russia (well, Latvia) , and questioned them on the difference between Communism and Socialism, and a bit about the rest.
      • The left wingers believe you should contribute to society. This is even in the ultimate left-wing entity known as Socialism. Although, they allow you to do what you want, you a) must contribute to society (or at least not be destructive to it) b) when you benefit you must share it with society.

        Socialism is the ultimate manifestation of the "Positive Rights" issue. BTW. It has nothing to do with whether you should "contribute to society" as an individual or not. The unfortunate consequence of providing ev
        • It has nothing to do with whether you should "contribute to society" as an individual or not.

          Socialism [dictionary.com] is the belief "of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy." Hence, what i said. You merely explained what a far-left Democrat--though not quite Socialist--believes. And, based on its beginning in The Republic, it is very much classed.

          Though this is different from Communism,
          • The point is not that "there are no classes" the point is that an individual can cross those classes freely. To say there are no classes and that anyone who believes in classes is wrong is like saying there are no races... ect.
            • You are correct. However, to add classes based on wealth is to extend these classes. The basis of the social rightist is that as far as society is concerned, the classes do not exist.
              • Okay, now you have to define society. Do you mean society as persons collectively considered or society as the way people relate to one-another. The classes exist as surely as races exist as an unfortunate reality of having or not having money. The way people relate to each other does not have to be governed by the fact of being rich or poor... but in reality IT WILL. So as far as "society" goes "society" can ignore classes but "society" will be force to deal with the classes that compose society.
                • Do you mean society as persons collectively considered or society as the way people relate to one-another.

                  The former.

                  but in reality IT WILL

                  I disagree. It only affects the people who let it affect them. Like a victim syndrome. If someone believes they are a victim, they probably will become one. Even so, accepting this gives it official sanction, making it okey, and thus worsens the problem. It's better to ignore it, so it doesn't take on a new form.
                  • Even so, accepting this gives it official sanction, making it okey, and thus worsens the problem. It's better to ignore it, so it doesn't take on a new form.

                    So it's like discrimination then? If you ignore discrimination it goes away? By ignoring the inequality you make everything alright?
                    • If you ignore discrimination it goes away?

                      In most cases, yes. Using Keirsey's types, and how Delunas explains the Games model, an Artisan discriminates mostly because of a negative trait designed to protect the Artisan's self-respect. The best way to combat it, is to care less than the Artisan cares. If there is no shock value, the Artisan generally stops gaming.

                      With Guardians, it may be an understanding that there are classes and roles, and through growing up in a bigotted household, the child may have
                    • So how is discrimination different from inequality? Doesn't discrimination generate inequality and inequality foster discrimination? How can a law bar discrimination without forcing equality? How can you create equality between classes without helping the discriminated against class achieve equality?

                      Example: Lincon freed the slaves but was killed before implementing educational programs that allowed them to do any other jobs than the slave labor positions they had previously occupied. Thus, they had free
                    • So how is discrimination different from inequality?

                      Discrimination is an action, inequality is a passive view. The action of discrimination is to push people down, the action of inequality (when people decide to take action) is to raise people up.

                      Jews were given freedom only to practice money changing businesses and allowed only to live in Ghettos.

                      The focus there was acutally on what they couldn't do. They couldn't live with everyone else, they couldn't have normal jobs. Money lending was allowed, as C
                    • Inequality is not barred. It is ignored. Active discrimination is barred.

                      Discrimination is an action, inequality is a passive view.

                      So to discriminate is to actively push down while inequality is to lift up. How then does one choose who is lifted up and who receives inequality? What mechanism does one decide who gets to be lifted up? What is this mechanism called? How is it different from discrimination? How is it not an action? What is action?

                      The choice of who is unequal is a choice. That choice is
                    • So to discriminate is to actively push down while inequality is to lift up.

                      No. Inequality is to see people as different. If one takes action *against* inequality, it is to pull them up.

                      How then does one choose who is lifted up and who receives inequality?

                      This is a natural reaction to the different group. Jung would probably place this as the collective unconcious, thus based on demographics.

                      What mechanism does one decide who gets to be lifted up?

                      If an action is decided to be taken, those people wh
                    • If everyone with blonde hair were to discriminate against those with red hair, in that they refuse to give them haircuts, the reddists could easily start their own barbershops. As such, while there would be discrimination, there would be no inequality.

                      You realize you are advocating "Separate but Equal" here right? This is saying that having Black schools and White schools is okay? Is that really what you meant to argue?

                      But, now that we're complaining :) ..... you are being defensive, and doing what Dr
                    • You realize you are advocating "Separate but Equal" here right? This is saying that having Black schools and White schools is okay? Is that really what you meant to argue?

                      No, it is not what i am advocating. As the sentence prior made clear "Though discrimination may lead to inequality, it is not always the result."

                      So, seeking clarity of terms is nit-picking and attempting to apply a socratic method is a game?

                      Not at all. But most of your responses do one of two things. One, tell me that i don't know wh
  • by FroMan (111520)
    I do not beleive all people are equal.

    What?

    Okey, sure we are all equal in theory (such as we all are fallen sinners).

    However, that is about as far as it goes. Some folks have more talent, skill, drive, and desire than others.

    As a conservative I believe in equal oppertunity. Quite simpley, allow everyone a chance at an education to a certain level, say highschool. Then, offer incentives to those to go beyond that, perhaps through college, with loans, grants, and other sorts of scholarships.

    Now, once
    • Equal oppertunity is what makes a conservative a conservative. Equal outcome is what makes many liberals liberal.

      Interesting vantage point. Though, to truly be equal some intervention is needed, as such the conservatives need to admit to reality. Then again, so do the leftists. :)

      Nice post.
  • The right wing believes the focus is on being better. That is, everyone starts off worse and the purpose of life is to become better, and then reap the very rewards that they have earned. The inferior group simply hasn't made it (yet), but avenues are open and welcome.

    The left-wing believes the focus is on being worse. That is, everyone starts off (relatively) better and the purpose in life is to make sure we don't get worse. Though, they admit that by doing nothing people get worse automatically, and the

    • Re:This view (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Chacham (981) *
      At the end of the day, this makes debate rather useless, since both sides simply have different priorities.

      Interesting. Here's some more brain fodder.

      The pro-life group does not call themselves anti-abortion. That isn't the focus, The question is, "Is this a life or not?"

      The pro-death group does not call themselves pro-abortion. That isn't the focus. The focus is that the mother can choose. The question is "Does the female have authority over her own body?"

      In each question, both sides agree to the answ
  • by salimma (115327) * on Monday March 15, 2004 @01:54AM (#8566274) Homepage Journal
    .. old-fashioned socialists want equality, while 'Third Way' centrists want equality of opportunity...

    Not that I endorse the specific policies of the Rt. Hon. Anthony Blair and his government, and especially not the way his PR department behaves.

Recent research has tended to show that the Abominable No-Man is being replaced by the Prohibitive Procrastinator. -- C.N. Parkinson

Working...