Left vs. Right

[_Sal]

I hear people in here speak of lefties and others the right but really what does that mean

what is your definition of what is left, and what is right?

what is the middle ground/road?

 

[SCitizen]

In USA, Left -- mostly Liberal, Democrat. Right -- Republican, Conservative.

In Russia, Left -- Communist, Right --?? do not know.

 

[AlbqOwl]

I hear people in here speak of lefties and others the right but really what does that mean

what is your definition of what is left, and what is right?

what is the middle ground/road?

Various dictionaries and older definitions vary, but in modern day America:

Left = communism, socialism, Marxism, statism, progressivism, liberalism, political class. Those on the left generally support a large, powerful, and authoritarian government with ability to order what sort of society we are required to be, including equality of outcome. The rich should be less rich; the poor should be less poor so that there is less inequality between those two extremes.

Right = conservatism, libertarianism, constitutional originalists, American exceptionalism, and, in the extreme anarchism. Those on the right generally support a central government that is given authority restricted to narrow Constitutional assigned responsibilities and otherwise the people themselves, within the various states, will form whatever sorts of societies they wish to have and will govern themselves. No restrictions shall be placed denying opportunity to the people in how they will pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness other than they may not do economic or physical violence to each other or tread on each other's rights.

 

[iguanaman]

In USA, Left -- mostly Liberal, Democrat. Right -- Republican, Conservative.

In Russia, Left -- Communist, Right --?? do not know.

Russia has a right wing reactionary authoritarian President/Dictator named Putin who presides over an Oligarchy.

 

[Hawkeye10]

The left believes that government is primarily the tool to make a better human.

The right believes that government is primarily a tool for personal enrichment.

 

[spud_meister]

Left is progressive, they seek to form a better society.

Right is regressive, they seek to go back to a time when society was better.

That's why libertarianism is a right-wing philosophy in the US, despite being left-wing in the rest of the world, because it was tried there already.

 

[spud_meister]

Various dictionaries and older definitions vary, but in modern day America:

Left = communism, socialism, Marxism, statism, progressivism, liberalism, political class. Those on the left generally support a large, powerful, and authoritarian government with ability to order what sort of society we are required to be, including equality of outcome. The rich should be less rich; the poor should be less poor so that there is less inequality between those two extremes.

Right = conservatism, libertarianism, constitutional originalists, American exceptionalism, and, in the extreme anarchism. Those on the right generally support a central government that is given authority restricted to narrow Constitutional assigned responsibilities and otherwise the people themselves, within the various states, will form whatever sorts of societies they wish to have and will govern themselves. No restrictions shall be placed denying opportunity to the people in how they will pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness other than they may not do economic or physical violence to each other or tread on each other's rights.

Wow, you place fascists and theocrats on the left, but anarcho-communists on the right. Good for you.

 

[Casper]

The left believes that government is primarily the tool to make a better human.

The right believes that government is primarily a tool for personal enrichment.

And the answer to most issues is somewhere closer to the middle.

 

[late]

I hear people in here speak of lefties and others the right but really what does that mean

what is your definition of what is left, and what is right?

what is the middle ground/road?

I think it was Winston Churchill that said conservatism was more of an attitude than a philosophy. I agree with that. There is a human impulse to resist change.

The problem with that idea is that science and capitalism has given us a world where change is not a constant, it's accelerating.

And Darwin was right, when things change, you adapt or die.

So conservatism, the idea of protecting what you have, requires change now.

It's called Progressive.

In a world where a reactionary impulse to conserve will result in disaster, there is no middle ground. Look at climate change, you deal with it, or the species dies. I can provide other examples if you need them.

That's not how most people would use those words. But I do appreciate the irony. Conservatism killed itself, leaving nothing in the middle that will work as a long term solution.

 

[Josie]

In simple terms......

The left are people who want more government, more taxes, more regulation, more entitlements. They believe that government makes the country great.

The right are people who want less government, less taxes, less regulation and more personal responsibility. They believe that individuals make the country great.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Russia has a right wing reactionary authoritarian President/Dictator named Putin who presides over an Oligarchy.

Make that a leftwing socialist oligarchy under a dictator and you'll have it right.

 

[AlbqOwl]

I think it was Winston Churchill that said conservatism was more of an attitude than a philosophy. I agree with that. There is a human impulse to resist change.

The problem with that idea is that science and capitalism has given us a world where change is not a constant, it's accelerating.

And Darwin was right, when things change, you adapt or die.

So conservatism, the idea of protecting what you have, requires change now.

It's called Progressive.

In a world where a reactionary impulse to conserve will result in disaster, there is no middle ground. Look at climate change, you deal with it, or the species dies. I can provide other examples if you need them.

That's not how most people would use those words. But I do appreciate the irony. Conservatism killed itself, leaving nothing in the middle that will work as a long term solution.

American conservatism does not resist change at all. It does however recognize values that are a positive force and influence in society and will try to preserve them.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Wow, you place fascists and theocrats on the left, but anarcho-communists on the right. Good for you.

There is nothing in any part of American conservatism that is in any way communistic. That is strictly an American leftist philosophy, i.e. you are required to share what you have - share and share alike.

 

[ocean515]

I think it was Winston Churchill that said conservatism was more of an attitude than a philosophy. I agree with that. There is a human impulse to resist change.

The problem with that idea is that science and capitalism has given us a world where change is not a constant, it's accelerating.

And Darwin was right, when things change, you adapt or die.

So conservatism, the idea of protecting what you have, requires change now.

It's called Progressive.

In a world where a reactionary impulse to conserve will result in disaster, there is no middle ground. Look at climate change, you deal with it, or the species dies. I can provide other examples if you need them.

That's not how most people would use those words. But I do appreciate the irony. Conservatism killed itself, leaving nothing in the middle that will work as a long term solution.

LOL

Actually, the fatal flaw in Progressivism is it needs subservience to the cause and other peoples money to survive. Alas, both will never last.

I don't know anymore what passes for conservatism, or liberalism. It's obvious nobody really does, as all of it has been co-opted in one way or another.

The one true constant throughout human history is the power of the individual and the natural power in that individual that drives creativity and ambition.

Whatever ideology that more closely represents, I don't know, but it certainly doesn't fit on what most would define as the left side of the aisle.

 

[TheGoverness]

I hear people in here speak of lefties and others the right but really what does that mean

what is your definition of what is left, and what is right?

what is the middle ground/road?

There is no middle ground for most people. That bridge is pretty much all but reduced to rubble.

 

[DamnYankee]

American conservatism does not resist change at all. It does however recognize values that are a positive force and influence in society and will try to preserve them.

Yep.

Leftists fail to understand conservatism because they are programmed by their elites that conservatism is something to fear. In reality, conservatism seeks to preserve the constitution as originally founded, or come as close as possible. Conservatives place family and nation above ideology. Limited gov't, freedom, liberty, and positive values are things to strive for.

 

[Hawkeye10]

And the answer to most issues is somewhere closer to the middle.

This is America @2016, we dont believe in working together for the common good by way of compromise anymore.

That's what our ancestors sometimes did.

 

[StillBallin75]

In USA, Left -- mostly Liberal, Democrat. Right -- Republican, Conservative.

In Russia, Left -- Communist, Right --?? do not know.

The concept of the original "left-right" dichotomy first originated in Revolutionary era France, I believe.

This is overly simplistic. First of all, don't conflate ideology with party. I don't remember when this was conducted, but there was a Gallup poll within the last couple years that showed that a majority of Democrats actually did not describe themselves as liberals. It's also inaccurate to conflate the left with liberalism solely, and the right with conservatism. The political "left" encompasses more than just modern American liberals, to include progressives, left libertarians, and even left anarchists (the same applies to the right, which is not synonymous with conservatism only).

In Russia, the political right actually consists of those who are against economic and political reform (i.e. old school Soviet Communists and some Russian nationalists). The political left actually describes those who are trying to liberalize Russian society and make things more open.

 

[spud_meister]

There is nothing in any part of American conservatism that is in any way communistic. That is strictly an American leftist philosophy, i.e. you are required to share what you have - share and share alike.

If you define left and right solely by the amount of government control, then anarcho-communism is right-wing.

 

[Sparky2]

'Left' versus 'Right'.

In my observation, they are overly-simplistic labels that people choose to either wear themselves, or cast disdainfully onto others.

I get it, don't get me wrong.
But it's just intellectually-lazy.

I myself am an independent free-thinker.
I have some views that would be considered wildly-left-wing.
I have some view that are considered stodgily right-wing.
And I have a lot of views that simply cannot be neatly packaged into this neat little box or that neat little box.

Because, as some of you have accurately noted, there is no one person who can be so neatly packaged, polished, labeled, price-checked, and then spit back out onto the street.

It is disconcerting to me whenever any web forum poster rushes to judgement and labels somebody they don't agree with as one of the hated 'others'.
(Left-winger or right-winger.)
Just because that person expressed an opinion that didn't fit neatly into their rigid notion of 'left' or 'right'.

What is even MORE disconcerting to me is whenever I encounter somebody on the internet who has so foolishly rushed into adopting and embracing this or that label (left or right), simply because they feel a need to belong to this clique or that.

Because let's face it.
This is a world (and in my case, in the United States) a nation deeply divided in a culture of animosity.
And by God, everybody is supposed to take sides.

I reject the sides, and I reject the labels.
There are other persuasions of men and women beyond 'left' and 'right'.
Things are not always black and white.

There are the grays.
The uncomfortable, disconcerting grays.

 

[Chillfolks]

On here:

the left is anyone disagreeing with a Republican

The right is anyone disagreeing with a democrat.

The middle is anyone who thinks they are both full of ****

 

[AlbqOwl]

If you define left and right solely by the amount of government control, then anarcho-communism is right-wing.

Perhaps if you look up the definition of anarchy and the definition of communism you might see how anarcho-communism is an oxymoron but there is certainly nothing in conservatism as it is understood and practiced in modern day America that would apply to Putin. He is perhaps not as extreme leftist as Lenin and Stalin, but he is most certainly a leftist. And I was pretty clear that the left and right see good government very differently but that certainly isn't the only factor in the definitions.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

A lot of people frame the political map as a square, but I like to think of it as a diamond. The closer you get to the middle, the more divergent the left and the right become, but at the top and the bottom, they are virtually identical. Authoritarianism and totalitarianism may not be the same thing, but as you go up - eventually all power becomes totally centralized within the hands of an ultimate "demi-god"-like authority, which in my mind is utter blasphemy. Because at that point, it doesn't matter if you're left-leaning or right-leaning, because any and all dissent against the centralized power-structure is crushed with unremitting ardent fervor. Same with the bottom. If you go full-on nihilist, it bow-and-arrows back to the top as government will inevitably materialize, and without any rules, checks or balances on society (I'm a bit more of a Locke than a Hobbes, but I disagree with Locke that human nature is characterized by reason and tolerance, since selfishness is only semi-reasonable in special circumstances, like in the face of an oppressor, nor is it remotely tolerant, but I digress) a dictator will inevitably seize power. Radicals are taboo because they are conflated with extremism. When you drive a state-sponsored wedge into the heart of a people, and push them to the outer extremities, the center is empowered and ascends, dragging humanity kicking and screaming along with it into authoritarianism/totalitarianism, and eventually dictatorship. The human spirit is crushed and dominated by uncaring numbers, statistics and other dehumanizing processes. Humanity itself, and by extension the planet and world we live in, is subject to the whims of a non-human system enabled by the dictators and oligarchs it spawns. The fiery, inherently-radical passion of the human heart and soul is branded an evil, and by extension, anything that is not unnatural and machine. And so, our species and our planet is divided, conquered, and caught in the gears of a pitiless, massive, war and death machine.

 

[Casper]

This is America @2016, we dont believe in working together for the common good by way of compromise anymore.

That's what our ancestors sometimes did.

And our descendants may relearn again one day, when things get bad enough.

 

[Hawkeye10]

And our descendants may relearn again one day, when things get bad enough.

Oh it will happen....Pain is the best teacher around.