NationStates Jolt Archive

Got into this debate at work today and thought that I'd put it up on NS for a broader opinion.

I see the core differance between left and right as this; the left want to help, they will do almost anything to help out someone.
The right help you help yourself, they will help you up, but expect you to eventually stand on your own too feet.

After all the BS and politics, I think that this is at the base of of both sides. what do you think?

Got into this debate at work today and thought that I'd put it up on NS for a broader opinion.

I see the core differance between left and right as this; the left want to help, they will do almost anything to help out someone.
The right help you help yourself, they will help you up, but expect you to eventually stand on your own too feet.

After all the BS and politics, I think that this is at the base of of both sides. what do you think?
basically,
the Left wants to give a starving man a fish.
the Right wants to teach the starving man how to fish.

never saw it that way.

but then I'm a person who will give a man a fish then teach him how to fish.

but he buys his own beer.

Except the right doesn't help. They expect that each person can help themselves if they are worthy to survive. The right believes in "Survival of the Fittest" in every way except biology.

Actually the difference is the Right has won with the rules the way they are so do not want to change the rules because that might remove any survival advantage they have.

The Left sees that the rules the way they are do no work for many people so they want to "flatten the playing field" so everyone has a chance.

Got into this debate at work today and thought that I'd put it up on NS for a broader opinion.

I see the core differance between left and right as this; the left want to help, they will do almost anything to help out someone.

The right help you help yourself, they will help you up, but expect you to eventually stand on your own too feet.

After all the BS and politics, I think that this is at the base of of both sides. what do you think?
I would have said that the left want to force everyone to help, whether they want to or not, while the right want to help, but think that it should be an individual decsiion.

Except the right doesn't help. They expect that each person can help themselves if they are worthy to survive. The right believes in "Survival of the Fittest" in every way except biology.
Charity? :rolleyes:

I'm a person who will give a man a fish then teach him how to fish. but he buys his own beer.
:D

I would have said that the left want to force everyone to help, whether they want to or not, while the right want to help, but think that it should be an individual decsiion.
Not quite, the left thinks everyone deserves help, the right thinks that only "right-thinking-folk" deserve help.

Not quite, the left thinks everyone deserves help, the right thinks that only "right-thinking-folk" deserve help.
:p

hows this for an Idea.
if you're left, state your view on your sides Ideals and Core Values.
same as the Right.

neither comments on the other side. and let's find out what the people on NS think their CORE Values are.

I've always seen myself as central. so I've no opinion on either right or left.

Not quite, the left thinks everyone deserves help, the right thinks that only "right-thinking-folk" deserve help.
but "right-thinking-folk" are acutally Left handed :D

The generalized position of the left is to make everyone help everyone else, the generalized position of the right is to withdrawl help so that people are forced to help themselves.

The members of both sides are most often somewhere in between.

hows this for an Idea.
if you're left, state your view on your sides Ideals and Core Values.
same as the Right.

neither comments on the other side. and let's find out what the people on NS think their CORE Values are.

I've always seen myself as central. so I've no opinion on either right or left.
Damned if I know. I, personally, am very Shakespearian in my views so... ;)

Personally, I would much rather help, to a point, than not. Yeah, I know there are those who abuse the hell out of the system, but there are also those who really do need the help to get out of a situation that wasn't of their own making. The tricky part is deciding what is the point, where does help stop and it becomes handouts?

:p
;)
but "right-thinking-folk" are acutally Left handed :D
Well, left handed. I am right handed, but I have always known I am out of my right mind. :cool:

Distill the beliefs down to thier core, and I still think I'm right.

Most people think that thier beliefs are right and the other is wrong, and nothing will change thier minds.

I've also noticed that these forums are not for debate, but are more for screaming your views and shouting down all those that disagree.

Damned if I know. I, personally, am very Shakespearian in my views so... ;)

Personally, I would much rather help, to a point, than not. Yeah, I know there are those who abuse the hell out of the system, but there are also those who really do need the help to get out of a situation that wasn't of their own making. The tricky part is deciding what is the point, where does help stop and it becomes handouts?
for me, when you see women in nice evening gowns, and men in pressed shirts and neckties getting out of their sports car to go to the supermarket and pay for their purchases in FOOD STAMPS!

(and yes, I've seen those people...:mad: )

Charity? :rolleyes:
The poorer a person is the larger percent of income is given to charity. By far the poor in total give more than the rich, and they don't use it as a publicity stunt to gain more wealth.

hows this for an Idea.
if you're left, state your view on your sides Ideals and Core Values.
same as the Right.

neither comments on the other side. and let's find out what the people on NS think their CORE Values are.

I've always seen myself as central. so I've no opinion on either right or left.
Very well. Personally, I think a state should be minarchist, and be the last-solution provider (from everything ranging from education to welfare), ie that it only provides for what the free-market cannot, after the free-market has been promoted to maximum effect. It should also provide some regulation over the economy. Ideally, it would governed by a non-hereditary, elective Monarchy, with a socially mobile aristocracy (in the truest sense of the world). I believe in socially liberal societies, where gender and sexuality do not matter. Also a cultural conservative on some levels, and against immigration with no limits.

So, mostly right-wing.

The poorer a person is the larger percent of income is given to charity. By far the poor in total give more than the rich, and they don't use it as a publicity stunt to gain more wealth.
Prove this.

By the way, rich does not necessarily mean right-wing.

The rightwingers and leftwingers over here know all about fishing since it's our main industry :) . Core differences seem to be the market, wages in health care, views on pollution, views on industry and some extremely boring road-planning.

Lucky for us, education, welfare and the police seem to run smoothly so neither side wants to fuck with it.

How annoying, left is better! right is better! who cares!, Left gives and gives and gives thats bad then they never learn. right dosent give enough thats bad then they dont get enough help. The middle ground is where its at give a good bit then let them figure it out for them selves.

Charity? :rolleyes:

Charity is wonderful: it means the nicest persons have less, while the more egoistic gets away with it...

Or you speak of "true charity" as Martin Luther King said ? "True charity is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring." That's communism !

I'd like to say:
Right = Personal responsibility matters most
Left = Social justice matters most

but that's just not the way it seems to pan out. In truth, there's not much difference between a current democrat and a current republican, with the following exceptions:
1) Republicans are pro-active with an ambitious agenda. Democrats are mostly reactionary.
2) Republicans are trying to destroy the seperation of church and state. Democrats think this is a bad idea (though only half of them will say so).
3) The average republican voter is richer and better educated. The average democratic administration is WAY the heck more effective in what it does.

but "right-thinking-folk" are acutally Left handed :D

BWAAHAA,HAA,HAA.

You forgot the rest of it. Left in the Dark. :D

The core differences between the right and left are many, but they basically split up among this line: egoism versus altruism, each-for-himself versus solidarity.

The left consider that human beings, as human beings, have inherent rights. The rights of personnal freedom, but also the rights of living decently. We consider that people who are in a difficult situation (whatever the reason is) deserve help and support. We consider that people should work and decide together, not against each other. We consider that people are equal.

On the other hand, the right consider that "survival of fittest" (or "survival of the most reckless", as it often is) is the way of organising the society. That people should only take care of themselves, and if they can't (due to bad luck, disease, or whatever), too bad for them. The right consider that people should always struggle against each, like in jungle. They consider that those who managed to raise above have therefore a right to enforce their will on others.

In order to maintain their inhuman, reckless system that sentence a huge number of human beings to live in misery, the right is then forced to use coercion ways: strong police force and harsh punishment against the "lumpen proletariat", religion used as "the opium of the people", wars to "unite the country", ...

basically,
the Left wants to give a starving man a fish.
the Right wants to teach the starving man how to fish.

No,
the Left wants to give a starving man a fish, and keep doing that.
the Right wants to feed the starving man to the fishes of We Are Rich Fishermen Inc.

Neither side actually bothers to teach.

No,
the Left wants to give a starving man a fish, and keep doing that.
the Right wants to feed the starving man to the fishes of We Are Rich Fishermen Inc.

Neither side actually bothers to teach.

That's not true, especially when you see that education is one of the first domain (with healthcare) in which the left invests ressources. Alphabetisation program, free schools, ... are always promoted by leftists.

basically,
the Left wants to give a starving man a fish.
the Right wants to teach the starving man how to fish.


No. The left wants to give a starving fishes while teaching him to fish. The right points a gun on the starving man and say to him "now fish or I shot you".

I think we should think carefully and try to improve upon our current situation.

What does that make me? Besides universally despised?

I see the core differance between left and right as this; the left want to help, they will do almost anything to help out someone.
The right help you help yourself, they will help you up, but expect you to eventually stand on your own too feet.

How about, the core difference between the left and right is that the left wants to help those who need help, they will do almost anything to help out someone who needs help. The right help those who've already helped themselves, they will help the upper class, but expect that everyone else should just be standing on their own two feet.

:)

I'm Left (or Socialist, to be more precise), and our values are helping others despite their social class/wealth.
We consider right-wing members (and accurately so) as helping others, IF they can afford it. They promote individual success as opposed to social success - which is why currently, under our capitalist system, a small percentage of people live in extreme luxury while a large percentage are living in poverty and are deprived.
Still, people will vote Conservative :rolleyes:

No. The left wants to give a starving fishes while teaching him to fish. The right points a gun on the starving man and say to him "now fish or I shot you".

An even better description :D

The left 'wants to' but never actually gets around doing anything - for they are always befuddled by so-called grey areas.

The right simply does. Of course, at the risk of being ill-advised and all.

The left 'wants to' but never actually gets around doing anything - for they are always befuddled by so-called grey areas.

The right simply does. Of course, at the risk of being ill-advised and all.
It's funny you should say that, because the country that immediately springs to mind as one that 'just gets on with it' is France, a nation that generally leans to the left, while in Britain, a country that leans more to the right, we just arse about with public enquires for ten years before deciding not to do anything because it might endanger a particular type of rare slug.

Distill the beliefs down to thier core, and I still think I'm right.
If you'd do that, you'd first have to divide "the Right" into those who are actual Libertarians (ie believe in human rationality with all the consequences) and Conservatives (who only happen to believe in economic freedom because that's the accepted norm, but don't really believe in human rationality).

Personally I'd put Libertarians as my favourites, followed by centrists and pragmatists, followed by lefties, followed by commies, followed by conservatives, followed by Neonazis, Fascists and Xenophobes.

As you can see, I'm not a fan of what is usually said to be "the Right".

It's funny you should say that, because the country that immediately springs to mind as one that 'just gets on with it' is France...
Funny you should say that, because a certain Mr. de Villepin just got into a lot of trouble for 'just getting on with it'...

France is not exactly an example of the most flexible of societies or governments.

It's funny you should say that, because the country that immediately springs to mind as one that 'just gets on with it' is France, a nation that generally leans to the left, while in Britain, a country that leans more to the right, we just arse about with public enquires for ten years before deciding not to do anything because it might endanger a particular type of rare slug.

I don't think it is funny, but anyway, it may have more to do with a rather old french tradition of just cutting through the fog.

But to get back: check any of the Iran-threads. Grey area? The left will call for delays!

Check Army-enrolment. Who does, and who doesn't?

Check our own History in the 19th century
Gladstone will talk his fool head off - but Peel will actually enact social legislation.
Who does, and who doesn't?

Right vz Left is the story of Ready-Fire-Aim vz Ready-Aim-Aim-Aim-Aim.

Funny you should say that, because a certain Mr. de Villepin just got into a lot of trouble for 'just getting on with it'...

France is not exactly an example of the most flexible of societies or governments.
Look at the high speed Channel Tunnel Rail Link, for example; in France, it was completed in time for the Tunnel opening in 1994. In the UK, it's not fully opening until about 2008.

But to get back: check any of the Iran-threads. Grey area? The left will call for delays!
In this case, you've decided what is 'right' though and applied it to the actions of both sides. The Left would argue that delays are what are needed; it is you who sees this as the incorrect strategy.

Gladstone will talk his fool head off - but Peel will actually enact social legislation.
Peel was about 50 years before Gladstone, making it quite difficult for the latter to match the formers achievements in terms of being the earliest to do something.

Right vz Left is the story of Ready-Fire-Aim vz Ready-Aim-Aim-Aim-Aim.
Ready-Fire-Aim? :p

Isn't that how 'friendly fire' comes about?

In this case, you've decided what is 'right' though and applied it to the actions of both sides. The Left would argue that delays are what are needed; it is you who sees this as the incorrect strategy.


Peel was about 50 years before Gladstone, making it quite difficult for the latter to match the formers achievements in terms of being the earliest to do something.


Ready-Fire-Aim? :p

Isn't that how 'friendly fire' comes about?

En bref: since my 2 top priorities are democracy and ecology ( LDP-supporter ) I consider myself more left than right these days.
But our problem is that the left is averse to getting things done on the double.
Friendly fire is too bad - but it beats procrastination.

( sorry, off to lunch! Laterz )

The left 'wants to' but never actually gets around doing anything - for they are always befuddled by so-called grey areas.

The right simply does. Of course, at the risk of being ill-advised and all.

That's far from an historical truth. The left is behind major changes in most countries. The left is always associated with "changing society", with "progress", while the right is more associated with conservatism.

It's less true nowadays, because many who claim to be on the left aren't really on the left and lack the courage to do changes; while the right is doing changes... by trying to disband what the left did before. The right is doing a "conservative revolution" in many countries of the world, which is mostly undoing what the left did during the XXest century.

The biggest fundamental difference between left, and right, is this:

The Left always throws money at a problem.

The right only throws money at themselves.

Funny you should say that, because a certain Mr. de Villepin just got into a lot of trouble for 'just getting on with it'...

Because he was a counter-reform: moving backward in history, back to the age before the Working Code of 1944. French people don't accept counter-reforms. But counter-reforms are not "having things done", but just "undoing what was done".

France is not exactly an example of the most flexible of societies or governments.

It is, historically, one of the most progessive society, with many rights conquered by the people (and by the left).

Because he was a counter-reform: moving backward in history...
I wish you would jump your shadow and read the Economist from time to time.

The biggest fundamental difference between left, and right, is this:

The Left always throws money at a problem.

The right only throws money at themselves.

You win the interenets! Well, a warehouse full of servers anyway.

Except the right doesn't help. They expect that each person can help themselves if they are worthy to survive. The right believes in "Survival of the Fittest" in every way except biology.

Actually the difference is the Right has won with the rules the way they are so do not want to change the rules because that might remove any survival advantage they have.

Yes, you're on the right track, but with the Right it's not about Darwinian survival of the fittest. It's about survival of the fittest within the system that they have constructed for their own benefit.

Got into this debate at work today and thought that I'd put it up on NS for a broader opinion.

I see the core differance between left and right as this; the left want to help, they will do almost anything to help out someone.
The right help you help yourself, they will help you up, but expect you to eventually stand on your own too feet.

After all the BS and politics, I think that this is at the base of of both sides. what do you think?
No. The differences between left and right come down to:

Left-wing positions are, at root, based on the right to live. (because Marx pointed out that all humans strive first and foremost to satisfy their immediate survival needs, such as food and drink before all else)

Right-wing positions are, at root, based on the right to own private property.

I would have said that the left want to force everyone to help, whether they want to or not, while the right want to help, but think that it should be an individual decsiion.
Why such a narrow definition? You're basically talking about social welfare. There's more to it than that.

If your definition is true, then why does the US Right want to force everyone to help sort out any problems that might exist in Iraq, but the US Left doesn't?

Charity? :rolleyes:
Charity is a stop-gap crutch that attempts to merely allay the problems casued by a flawed system, rather than fix the flaws in the system.

but "right-thinking-folk" are acutally Left handed :D
lol, lefties are dyslexic!

The core differences between the right and left are many, but they basically split up among this line: egoism versus altruism, each-for-himself versus solidarity.
I disagree strongly with the perception that socialism is about politicised altrusim. I can justify almost any socialist idea you want to give me with self-interest in mind.

The right consider that people should always struggle against each, like in jungle. They consider that those who managed to raise above have therefore a right to enforce their will on others.
The capitalist system is not like the jungle. It is not natural. It is as constructed and artificial as any other system you care to mention.

But to get back: check any of the Iran-threads. Grey area? The left will call for delays!

Right vz Left is the story of Ready-Fire-Aim vz Ready-Aim-Aim-Aim-Aim.
This must be a recent phenomenon, because for most of the 20th century in the west, left-wing parties enacted legislation and social programmes while right-wing parties sat on the bench complaining about it, but doing nothing.

You win the interenets! Well, a warehouse full of servers anyway.


Woot!

I shall take them, and build a "Laser", wich will seek out, and destroy all intelligent life in Washington DC.

Woot!

I shall take them, and build a "Laser", wich will seek out, and destroy all intelligent life in Washington DC.
It won't hit many things then. :p

I can justify almost any socialist idea you want to give me with self-interest in mind.
Indeed. Which then begs the question why you wouldn't do these things voluntarily and be happy, and why it is somehow better to force people to do them by threat of a gun.

The capitalist system is not like the jungle. It is not natural. It is as constructed and artificial as any other system you care to mention.
Owning things is unnatural?
Exchanging things is unnatural?
Because those two are the only things necessary for capitalism to exist. Everything else then just stems from that.

It won't hit many things then. :p


DAMN.

Your absolutely right......absolutely no signs of intelligent life can be found anywhere near Pennslyvania Ave.

Curse your shallow empty skulls Bushies!

Surely this is what You Have Two Cows (http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/You_have_two_cows/17) is for, no?

Indeed. Which then begs the question why you wouldn't do these things voluntarily and be happy, and why it is somehow better to force people to do them by threat of a gun.
Come on, you don't think that capitalism forces people to do things as well?

I said, that socialism is in my self-interest, and the self-interests of the majority of people. It's probably not in the self-interests of the minority who are already rich, which is why they don't redistribute voluntarily.

Owning things is unnatural?
Exchanging things is unnatural?
Because those two are the only things necessary for capitalism to exist. Everything else then just stems from that.
Yes, they are unnatural.

Come on, you don't think that capitalism forces people to do things as well?
Well, capitalism doesn't force anyone to do anything. Reality does.

Capitalism is simply the basic facts of life, presented in the framework of a large human society.
You have to work to gain, the better you work the better your results, the choice what your work is worth lies not with you but with exogenous factors...these are all hard, cold realities of living on earth.

I said, that socialism is in my self-interest, and the self-interests of the majority of people. It's probably not in the self-interests of the minority who are already rich, which is why they don't redistribute voluntarily.
Well, you can say that it is in your self-interest. You cannot say that it is in anybody else's self-interest, because you are not in a position to judge that.
For example, I am not in a rich minority. I wish I were, then I wouldn't have to cringe everytime I have to fill up the car, wondering how much of my money is left on my account after helping my family pay the rent. I could also buy textbooks for uni, rather than going without them because after paying for the semester, there's nothing left.
Nonetheless, I am planning to do big things. I have the ability to do them, thanks to my brain and my motivation to use it. Capitalism is the system that enables me to achieve thanks to skill.
Socialism might mean that I could fill up my car easier (if then socialism was able to provide me with a proper car, which I doubt) - but that would be that. There'd be nothing in my life to look forward to, nothing to achieve, nothing to motivate me.

No thanks, I'll decide myself what is in my best self-interest.

Yes, they are unnatural.
And now comes the part where you make an argument towards that hypothesis.

Socialism might mean that I could fill up my car easier (if then socialism was able to provide me with a proper car, which I doubt) - but that would be that. There'd be nothing in my life to look forward to, nothing to achieve, nothing to motivate me.

Why on earth not ? Are bigger monetary rewards your only motivation to achieve things ?

I wish you would jump your shadow and read the Economist from time to time.

Well I do read the Economist from time to time. It reads like a broken record. It's obsessively ideological. Somehow, whatever the topic, they manage to end up saying it all proves the need for fewer social rights and more hardline capitalism.

Why on earth not ? Are bigger monetary rewards your only motivation to achieve things ?
I happen to be a shallow and materialistic person, yes.

My dream is a Lamborghini Gallardo. I don't think socialism would provide it.

No, but seriously - my belief is that people only become happy by achieving goals they set themselves. Real capitalism, without the interference of so many conservatives with their social laws, is a system that is all about setting one's goals and achieving them. That can be monetary, or it can be anything else.
Capitalism doesn't exclude some from achieving happiness by having a big family (note that reality forces a trade-off at times). But Socialism exludes some from achieving happiness by buying a Lamborghini.

I consider myself mostly a centrist, because I like to decide on things issue by issue, and, in my case, my decisions on each issue eventually are more towards the center than toward the right or the left.

One example of this was when I took a political survey that solely decided whether one was Republican or Democrat, and I ended up 51% Democrat and 49% Republican.

Left and right is an illusion. They are all rich, they all lie, and they all merely serve their own interests. Ever notice how we seem to constantly shift from one to the other and we still don't get anywhere?

Tis true. A as politics student I have seen that socialism could work in theory but that it wouldn't allow people to acheive their own desires. Capitalism allows people to acheive their desires any way they can (within the law) and so makes peoples overall happiness increase.

I think we should think carefully and try to improve upon our current situation.

What does that make me? Besides universally despised?

More like an undecided whose 'conversion' would be considered too tiresome for any partisan... :p

That's far from an historical truth. The left is behind major changes in most countries. The left is always associated with "changing society", with "progress", while the right is more associated with conservatism.

It's less true nowadays, because many who claim to be on the left aren't really on the left and lack the courage to do changes; while the right is doing changes... by trying to disband what the left did before. The right is doing a "conservative revolution" in many countries of the world, which is mostly undoing what the left did during the XXest century.

So?

What was done by who in the 20th century is old news.
The kind used to wrap fish and chips in.
Meanwhile, the left of the 21st century specialises in words, not actions.
The right of the 21st century specialises in actions - even when lost for words.

Left and right is an illusion. They are all rich, they all lie, and they all merely serve their own interests. Ever notice how we seem to constantly shift from one to the other and we still don't get anywhere?

"Left" is only left because you perceive it as such. And if the left is right, then the right is left right behind the right ideology. But if the left was right, they would be known as right and they could have left left behind. However, if might makes right, only the right would be left if they were right. Right?

:confused:
Ooh, my head is spinning.

No. The left wants to give a starving fishes while teaching him to fish. The right points a gun on the starving man and say to him "now fish or I shot you".

Seeing as all government power ultimately comes from the barrel of a gun*, and the left wants the government to inervene, you have it backwards...

The left points a gun at a man with fish and says share your fish or die. The right points a gun at a man with no fish and says take mine and die.

*Ultimately the power of government to make you obey amounts to putting a gun to your head. If you break the law, you go to jail. If you try to escape, you get shot.

But Socialism exludes some from achieving happiness by buying a Lamborghini.

Perhaps because there are more important things? If you achieve your material "happiness" by relying on a system which causes poverty, misery, illness and, in poorer parts of the world, death, should your "right" to excess material wealth not be questioned?

The main difference between left and right, as I see it, lies in matters of priority. To the left, priorities include everyone having decent living conditions, food, water, health and a roof over their head. To the right, all that comes a distant second to the "right" to profit and selfishness.

I happen to be a shallow and materialistic person, yes.

My dream is a Lamborghini Gallardo. I don't think socialism would provide it.

No, but seriously - my belief is that people only become happy by achieving goals they set themselves. Real capitalism, without the interference of so many conservatives with their social laws, is a system that is all about setting one's goals and achieving them. That can be monetary, or it can be anything else.
Capitalism doesn't exclude some from achieving happiness by having a big family (note that reality forces a trade-off at times). But Socialism exludes some from achieving happiness by buying a Lamborghini.


Can somebody explain how Socialism wont get you a better car then. I though that it was about making sure that those that can't help them selves get some help, where does it say a Socialist cannot make some cash for himself?

Perhaps because there are more important things? If you achieve your material "happiness" by relying on a system which causes poverty, misery, illness and, in poorer parts of the world, death, should your "right" to excess material wealth not be questioned?

The main difference between left and right, as I see it, lies in matters of priority. To the left, priorities include everyone having decent living conditions, food, water, health and a roof over their head. To the right, all that comes a distant second to the "right" to profit and selfishness.


A belief in a personal standard of freedom - or in a preconceived standard of justice.
*shrug*
Different ideals.

Not quite, the left thinks everyone deserves help, the right thinks that only "right-thinking-folk" deserve help.

Rubbish..

hmmm ok I didn't realise how many pages this has been.

Perhaps because there are more important things?
Says who?
You're now resorting to arbitrary absolutes.

If you achieve your material "happiness" by relying on a system which causes poverty, misery, illness and, in poorer parts of the world, death, should your "right" to excess material wealth not be questioned?
I wish you would prove that this is the case. Unfortunately, I see primarily incapable 3rd world governments and leaders when I look for poverty et al.
South Korea somehow managed it, didn't it? And after the war there, they had a GDP per capita lower than Ghana's.

Can somebody explain how Socialism wont get you a better car then. I though that it was about making sure that those that can't help them selves get some help, where does it say a Socialist cannot make some cash for himself?
Well, pretty much by definition, owning means of production is a no-no.
A Lamborghini is not exactly the sort of product that can be produced for everyone - the quality and engineering required makes for a certain minimum price.

Well, pretty much by definition, owning means of production is a no-no.
A Lamborghini is not exactly the sort of product that can be produced for everyone - the quality and engineering required makes for a certain minimum price.

Ohhh I see, so I guess it is down to differant interpretations or perhaps differant grades of Socialism. To my mind there is a vast differance in say State owned basic food manufacturing and disrtibution, and luxary goods. I can't see why a Socilast govement needs to trake luxary goods under it's wing, nor do I see why a Socilist goverment need not indulge in capatalist practicies as long as those that need help are helped.

Ohhh I see, so I guess it is down to differant interpretations or perhaps differant grades of Socialism.
Well, what you are proposing then is more of a mixed system, perhaps a 1960's Britain.

Owning things is unnatural?
Exchanging things is unnatural?
Because those two are the only things necessary for capitalism to exist. Everything else then just stems from that.

Property is very unnatural. It only exists because it is enforced by something artificial (state and police, ...). It doesn't exist (as we know it under capitalism) in any animal societies, nor does it in "primitive" human societies.

Being unnatural doesn't mean it's necesserly bad, but you can't say that property is something natural.

Being unnatural doesn't mean it's necesserly bad, but you can't say that property is something natural.
Yes, there was communal property in primitive societies. But there were also items of personal worth. Shiny things, things of personal meaning and so on.

People pick stuff up and keep it...that's something natural, and it's the beginning of ownership.

And that quite aside from tribes being very capitalistic if they meet each other. Because then, it is always about trade and very tough negotiations.

So?

What was done by who in the 20th century is old news.
The kind used to wrap fish and chips in.
Meanwhile, the left of the 21st century specialises in words, not actions.
The right of the 21st century specialises in actions - even when lost for words.

Depends what "left" you look at. If you look at the left in South America (especially in Venezuela and Bolivia), they specialise in actions.

Yes, there is a problem the mainstream leftish parties in western countries: but the problem is that they behave as centrist parties, not as leftish parties.It's not a problem of the left, but of those who claim to be left without being it.

For the right, their acts is only going backwards, destroying what was built during the XXest century. Not moving is better than going in the backward direction...

Seeing as all government power ultimately comes from the barrel of a gun, and the left wants the government to inervene, you have it backwards...

Because property "rights" doesn't come ultimately from the barrel of a gun ? Police is using force to enforce property (need for capitalism) much more than to enforce socialism.

Yes, there was communal property in primitive societies. But there were also items of personal worth. Shiny things, things of personal meaning and so on.

People pick stuff up and keep it...that's something natural, and it's the beginning of ownership.

Of ownership of POSSESSION. Not of PROPERTY, to use Proudhon's words. The gap between both is fundamental. Nearly no one opposes "possession" (things you directly use, your clothes, ...), what we socialists oppose is "property" (things you don't use directly, but "own" and use to exploit the work of others). Property is something totally unnatural, which doesn't exist in primitive societies.

And that quite aside from tribes being very capitalistic if they meet each other. Because then, it is always about trade and very tough negotiations.

Not really. Primitive cultures are also very commonly offering presents, hospitality, ... When they do tough negocitations is when the situation is critical, as it often was, and in such situations, it's perfectly natural: it's survival instinct. But seeking wealth for wealth is not natural; while offering to those in need is.

The actions of the left follow Christianity while the people deny being Christian.

The actions of the right oppose Christianity while the people claim to own Christianity.


Strange world ain't it.

Not quite, the left thinks everyone deserves help, the right thinks that only "right-thinking-folk" deserve help.

Well, the right believe that you should do it yourself. Only problem is, if you lack the resources, youre fucked. The left believe everything should be provided to everyone rather than a priviledged few. This is the land of the free not the land of the rich.

Because property "rights" doesn't come ultimately from the barrel of a gun ? Police is using force to enforce property (need for capitalism) much more than to enforce socialism.

Go back and look at what I said.

The left want people to be free from.

The right want people to be free to.

And that quite aside from tribes being very capitalistic if they meet each other. Because then, it is always about trade and very tough negotiations.

that's when dealing with unknowns or actual enemies. exchange between friendly groups is more about the exchange of gifts and hospitality, and may involve ritually adopting people into the group, all of which serves to increase the social ties between them and create reciprocal obligations of support.

The left want people to be free from.

The right want people to be free to.

and where do the fascists fit in this scheme? old school monarchists? stalinists?

and where do the fascists fit in this scheme? old school monarchists? stalinists?
In the authoritarian/libertarian scale, not on the left/right one...

and where do the fascists fit in this scheme? old school monarchists? stalinists?

As Assis says, on another scale. You can have left or right wing monarchists, and equally left or right wing fascists. (I happen to believe that fascists are inherently left wing in that they want people to be free from having their own opinions, but meh)

As Assis says, on another scale. You can have left or right wing monarchists, and equally left or right wing fascists.

i guess, if we freely redefine essentially all of the relevant history. to me that just doesn't seem like a reasonable thing to do. monarchists and fascists uniformly have lined up and continue to line up on the right.

i guess, if we freely redefine essentially all of the relevant history. to me that just doesn't seem like a reasonable thing to do. monarchists and fascists uniformly have lined up and continue to line up on the right.

There is an association between both monarchism and fascism with conservatism, this however, does not make them right wing politically.

Fascism, in particular, holds that the state is responsible for the welfare of the people, and true monarchism, (which is feudal in nature) also holds that the welfare of the nation depends upon the monarch. Now how are those not left wing principles? The individual is secondary to the society, the person is to be kept free from starvation and misery, by the apparatus of government. In monarchy there are exceptions to the individual being secondary to the state, in that the monarch is the state. In fascism the party is above the state, but the individual is not.

It is possible to be left wing and conservative, and this is what both of these systems manage. If you don't like this view, the one that the society is more important than the individual, as a defining aspect of left wing thinking, then explain what it is to be left wing.

I think the core differences between the left and the right are far too complex to possibly be described in three lines or less. I also think people in a pluralistic society are far too complex for their political identity to be described in one word.

The left believes in freedom while the right believes in tyranny.

Got into this debate at work today and thought that I'd put it up on NS for a broader opinion.

I see the core differance between left and right as this; the left want to help, they will do almost anything to help out someone.
The right help you help yourself, they will help you up, but expect you to eventually stand on your own too feet.

After all the BS and politics, I think that this is at the base of of both sides. what do you think?

The Left wants to control everything I have or say and the Right wants to control everything I think or do.

The differences vary with country.

If you don't like this view, the one that the society is more important than the individual, as a defining aspect of left wing thinking, then explain what it is to be left wing.

i don't know that left and right have defining aspects. i think they might be better described as clusters of ideologies that can contain mutually contradictory positions on any particular issue. it's more important to see what ideologies can 'hang together', so to speak. family resemblances rather than sets of necessary and sufficient conditions.

as for the "society vs. individual" criteria, that rules out vast swaths of, for example, the american right (which self-identifies and is widely percieved as such) from actually being right wing. which just strikes me as wrong - if anything, it is the very things about which they hold society to be more important than the individal that make them right wing.

Left = liberal Comme red scum

Right = conservative Fascist capitalist pig dog

The ultimate government leader........a scummy red conservative liberal pigdog

Not quite, the left thinks everyone deserves help, the right thinks that only "right-thinking-folk" deserve help.

lol

where is the "personal responsibility" slant in all this?

The Left think someone else's welfare is my responsibility

The Right thinks that someone else's welfare is that person's responsibility

NO MOOCHING ALLOWED

hehe

. Now how are those not left wing principles?.

no Fascism deliberately outlaws a section of the population. They are no longer protected by law and so anything can be done to them. They also believe in racial superiority. They believe in their country not others.

Left wing principles are. That all of the population are equal. Yes everybody
Laws protect the people from tyranny.
Real left wing countries generally will be more International. World socialism etc.

The Right thinks that someone else's welfare is that person's responsibility

NO MOOCHING ALLOWED

hehe

unless it is a major national industry that wants a multimillion dollar handout. or they are currently defining welfare to include forcibly excluding group x from 'their' schools, neighborhoods, etc. and other such instances. in those cases, the right is all about making everybody pay up.

no Fascism deliberately outlaws a section of the population. They are no longer protected by law and so anything can be done to them. They also believe in racial superiority. They believe in their country not others.

Left wing principles are. That all of the population are equal. Yes everybody
Laws protect the people from tyranny.
Real left wing countries generally will be more International. World socialism etc.

Fascism is not necessarily racist. I am as anti fascist as it is possible to be, but I do recognise that the racist, nationalist part of the view of fascism is not essential to a fascist position. You appear to be identifying fascism with the NAZIs. Now they were fascist, but noty everything they did derived from a fascist position. The defining element of fascism is the supremecy of the party. Nothing more, nothing less.


Only communism, of the left wing positions, has placed any genuine emphasis on internationalism (because it can not function alongside capitalism). The left here, in South America, hold self sufficiency isolationist positions.

lol

where is the "personal responsibility" slant in all this?

The Left think someone else's welfare is my responsibility

The Right thinks that someone else's welfare is that person's responsibility

NO MOOCHING ALLOWED

hehe
Really? One of the things I often hear from the right is how charity, particularly faith based ones, will step up and take care of those in need. However, said faith based ones have a tendancy to help only those who fit a certain mold. A good example of this is the debaitcal that is African aid, where money is being given to help people, but only those who will follow abstinance only programs.

Both sides want to help, I just find that the right has a tendancy to try to exlcude anyone it doesn't think it "worthy" of that help and that worthiness is judged by beliefs.

The left just helps, even those who probably really didn't need it.

basically,
the Left wants to give a starving man a fish.
the Right wants to teach the starving man how to fish.

never saw it that way.


That's wrong. It depends on your point of view.
If you are a left-winger.
The left wants to make sure every man can fish his own fish to avoid starving.
The right wants to sell a starving man a fish, and will refuse to teach him how to fish. Teaching him how to fish will ruin a great business opportunity.

If you are a right-winger.
The right allows the starving man to fish for himself.
The left wants to give a starving man a fish.

If you are a centrist like me you will seek to balance the scale.

The basic difference was this: Right wanted things to remain the same, Left wanted changes. It's evolved from their to develop various connatations.

The left want people to be free from.

The right want people to be free to.
Good post. It must be noted that they are related. To be free to do some things, freedom from other things is needed. For this reason, many of the freedoms boasted by libertarians are laughably useless for most people.

Really? One of the things I often hear from the right is how charity, particularly faith based ones, will step up and take care of those in need. However, said faith based ones have a tendancy to help only those who fit a certain mold. A good example of this is the debaitcal that is African aid, where money is being given to help people, but only those who will follow abstinance only programs.
I've done a bit of charity work in my life, and I can say that the vast majority of charity workers are on the left. They think that the government should do more to help the poor, but are frustrated with government inaction, so they take it into their own hands.