Leftists vs Rightists

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by spire

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I've done it again. Seem to be moving left (it's this bl**dy lot [;)]).

I'm virtually on the cross-hair! Yuk!

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I found that revising my views on hanging single mothers moved me two whole points to the left.[;)]

mjones · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Chris James

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mjones

Taking a totally objective viewpoint ([;)]), it does strike me that this (albeit contrived) left-right struggle here is rather asymmetrical: there appear to be a lot more representatives of the far-left than of the far-right. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

That is interesting as one of things that has often surprised me about Cycling Plus is the number of right wingers on it! Especially since most non cyclists woudl tend to view peopel on bikes as hippy eco warriors.

Most of the right wingers seem to come from the London area and I assumed that London cyclists were different breed from cyclists in the rest of the country.

By the way, I don't consider your views listed above as being particularly right wing although possibly some of them are a little glib as stated and discussion of them would make interesting threads of their own.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
OK, so can you provide specific examples of some of those 'right wing' views that surprise you so much? NB- my comment was that there are more from the far left than from the far right; clearly there are many more from the moderate centre ground than from either extreme group.

My point is that quite moderate views can appear right-wing to those on the far-left, so in a heated debate those of us from the political centre are attacking the left and might then be perceived (or assumed) to be of the right.

I'd agree with your assumption that people interested in sustainable transport (or indeed environmentalism more widely) are more likely to be of the left, but that doesn't mean that the solutions to environmental problems can be nicely fitted to a traditional left wing-right wing axis. In a previous life where I was heavily involved in environmental campaigning I did find that other environmental campaigners would often make assumptions about my views towards economic policies, Green Party, animal rights, unilateral nuclear disarmament, nuclear power and GM crops etc- worse still that I'd be into alternative medicine (aka trendy placebos)! However, by making an assumption about where you'd expect forum members views to be on a left-wing right-wing axis you have inadvertently created a false middle ground that is actually left of centre, making lots of people with moderate views appear to be right wing.

BTW- all the opinions in my list come from (numerous!) previous threads in which I've been accused of right wing tendencies, so are necessarily shortened versions of much longer (and more tedious) arguments...

Unknown · June 2007

Sorry if this is slightly off thread but it seems to me that there is not much difference between far left and far right political views or regimes. In both types of country power and wealth are concentrated in a small ruling elite, both do not tolerate opposition or minorities, for example.

Was Nazi Germany far left or far right?

speshcp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by pme

Sorry if this is slightly off thread but it seems to me that there is not much difference between far left and far right political views or regimes. In both types of country power and wealth are concentrated in a small ruling elite, both do not tolerate opposition or minorities, for example.

Was Nazi Germany far left or far right? Or modern Syria?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">The political compass site makes for interesting reading - once you add a social scale, it can be quite surprising where various politicans end up.

The regimes that we normally associate with the terms "far-left" and "far right" have a lot of commonality on the social scale, in that they are very much authoritarian regimes. Stalin was as equally fascistic as Hitler was, for example.

On economic policy, Hitler was actually more left-wing than many self-styled Labour parties of today.:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/index
http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2

<hr noshade size="1">"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." (Albert Einstein)

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by willski

...how do you feel about lower investment returns, or higher debt repayments? what if the reduction hits the services you want to consume?...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Airports, schmairports... he's nailed you, spire [:)]

So you voted, and now you've got a government. I just hope YOU like it.

peterbr · June 2007

I agree mjjones on politicalcompass.org I come out only very, very slightly to the right of centre and as a libertarian. I think quite a few people here are unaware just how far left of the mainstream centre they actually are. Perhaps because they only mix with people of similar opinions? I certainly don't t'would be boring but I have often witness lefty love-ins that passed as a "debate" at university. This is what turned me off politics in my early 20s. They were almost as tedious as the labour party deputy leadership "question time" the other day. How pathetic that the overriding ambition is to become deputy leader - geeesh. I've found that even very far right wing people will enter into a debate whereas the left simply regard being right-wing and beyond the pale and that a few choice insults (racist, islamophobe, fascist etc.) are acceptable "debate" which cannot be argued.

The trouble is a certain issues will get you labeled. For example I think our current immigration policy is a form of insanity. Immigration is fine if you budget and pay for the consequences, such as support for families, housing and infrastructure. This should then be decided by the public if this is a price worth paying. None of this is happening and we're cramming people into an already crumbling infrastructure. But then I am vehemently opposed to the death penalty and I'm for even stricter controls on firearms and weapons in general.I despise Bush and the Iraq war.

The thing that worries me most at the moment is the "debate" on Europe. I don't understand how people can risk hard-fought freedoms gains over centuries seemingly without any thought or analysis at all - just some nebulous assertion that centralising power is a good thing. for example Habeous corpus and the right to trial by jury. I would feel much safer under the UK legal system than anything derived from Napoleonic law. Bizarrely enough often the same people who support devolution for Scotland also support submerging Britain in the EU. Square that circle if you can.

<hr noshade size="1">
Elephants and Ivory go together in perfect harmony. Oh Lord, why can't we?

Simon L2 · June 2007

rightward libertarianism (I apologise for the ugliness of that phrase, and I'm willing to accept alternatives [:I]) is a complete fake.

Ask your man (and peterbr is the absolute perfect example) whether he has any objection to the freedom of individuals to travel the world looking for work? Has he any objection to the freedom of individuals to set up home on 'somebody elses' land?

It's all about national identity and property rights. They don't mind if you smoke a bit of weed, and they don't mind if you drive a car that creates part of the smog cloud that kills 160 child asthmatics in London in a year, but suggest that 'pikeys' can set up on the village green, or that Chadians can work on building sites in London and they reach for their Daily Telegraph...

ankev1 · June 2007

I think that the fundamental difference of right and left is one of ideology.

IMO the modern left is grounded most firmly on Marxist ideology or variants thereof i.e. it is very much an "invented" set of views which have been built up as a result of (mostly 19th C) analysis. Nothing wrong with that. The problem is that anyone who tends to disagree with the left tends to be automatically branded right wing.

There has been relativley little right wing ideology: Naziism/ fascism and most recently the US-led neocons, the latter probably being the most destructive in the long run.

The remainder which is branded right wing tends to be not self conscious ideology but simply views which have evolved in cultures over the centuries. For instance socialism (artificial ideology) sits very uncomfortably alongside principles like freedom of thought and speech and socialist theory specifically rules out democracy i.e. room for varying viewpoints, once the utopia has been achieved.

Therefore I find myself as a north European who clings to the values of democracy etc and who doesn't particularly want to share his bit of the world with unlimited numbers of people from alien cultures, as being branded right wing. This is ludicrous as I loathe fascism and oppose neo-con values but I'm implacably opposed to the left as their views are opposed to liberal democratic freedoms.

So it's not difficult to see how you can be green, liberal (even vegetarian if you must) and be dead set against the left without being of the right.

Unknown · June 2007

It's really quite simple. Many of the posters here have views well outside mainstream politics. If they are in the Labour Party then they're confined to the fringes of it and kept where they can't do any harm. Therefore, to these lefties, virtually everyone is right wing - even those who on any rational basis are probably slightly left of centre.

mjones · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Simon L2

rightward libertarianism (I apologise for the ugliness of that phrase, and I'm willing to accept alternatives [:I]) is a complete fake.

Ask your man (and peterbr is the absolute perfect example) whether he has any objection to the freedom of individuals to travel the world looking for work? Has he any objection to the freedom of individuals to set up home on 'somebody elses' land?

It's all about national identity and property rights. They don't mind if you smoke a bit of weed, and they don't mind if you drive a car that creates part of the smog cloud that kills 160 child asthmatics in London in a year, but suggest that 'pikeys' can set up on the village green, or that Chadians can work on building sites in London and they reach for their Daily Telegraph...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
There most certainly are right-wing libertarians, though whether you agree with them or not is another matter- at the extremes there are some real gun-toting nutters... Nonetheless that doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with the starting premise that individual choice matters and it should be for the state to justify imposing restrictions on the individual, not the other way round.

I think you've mixed several unconnected things together here. Attitudes to immigration don't necessarily fall neatly onto a left-right axis any more than other issues like the environment. Within the parties of both the left and the right you will find a range of views towards immigrants.

Those on the Daily Mail right, for example, hate immigrants because they take our benefits, they take our jobs, and mostly because they are different. However, there are plenty on the left that also want to restrict immigration, similarly because they take our jobs and benefits. And on both left and right are those who take a more liberal view towards immigration.

Personally, I think that if people are motivated enough to make the considerable effort to come here, then they are likely to contribute rather more than they'll take. As long as they comply with the laws and values of a liberal democracy then I welcome them in. Does that make me left or right in your book?

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mjones

Personally, I think that if people are motivated enough to make the considerable effort to come here, then they are likely to contribute rather more than they'll take. As long as they comply with the laws and values of a liberal democracy then I welcome them in. Does that make me left or right in your book?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Curiously enough, this is an issue that cuts across political divides. I've found archetypal Daily Mail readers being actually rather keen on economic migrants because they provide hard working employees and keep wage rates down. Equally, I've found traditional Labour voters being very anti, because they are being undercut on wages by immigrants.

Canrider · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The remainder which is branded right wing tends to be not self conscious ideology but simply views which have evolved in cultures over the centuries.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
So, an ideology, then, just one which you accord greater time depth, revealing a certain lack of historical awareness to say the least.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">For instance socialism (artificial ideology) sits very uncomfortably alongside principles like freedom of thought and speech<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Freedom of thought and speech, another rather recently-invented non-universal (ie, artificial) ideology, desireable though it may be! I suspect you're taking 'We hold these truths to be self-evident...' (Franklin, Jefferson et al. 1776) as a non-ideological statement. Of course, by the rest of your argument that would make the Founding Fathers ideologically on the right and the British government of the time ideologically on the left.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">and socialist theory specifically rules out democracy i.e. room for varying viewpoints, once the utopia has been achieved.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Um, no. Source?

You really need to better understand the concept of ideology:
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Every society has an ideology that forms the basis of the "public opinion" or common sense, a basis that usually remains invisible to most people within the society. This dominant ideology appears as "neutral", holding to assumptions that are largely unchallenged. Meanwhile, all other ideologies that differ from the dominant ideology are seen as radical, no matter what the content of their actual vision may be. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
(Wiki, natch)

"We will never win until the oil runs out or they invent hover cars - but then they may land on us." -- lardarse rider

Tourist Tony · June 2007

Exactly. To take an example from the news, the concept of "honour" murders is apparently approved of by 10% of young Moslem British males. That is an ideological extreme, but seen by the owners as just simple morality.
And there's a word...
I would argue that morality is inextricably entangled with ideology, in that they feed each other. They also result in backward somersaults by people trying to reconcile mutually exclusive concepts.
Thou shalt not kill---a life for a life
War of national liberation---bourgeois nationalism.

What I found interesting on an earlier thread were the suggestions by some of our religious friends that morality could only come from religion.
A religion is just another ideology.

If I had a stalker, I would hug it and kiss it and call it George...or Dick

Unknown · June 2007

One interesting point is that the mainstream of politics has moved significantly to the right over the last 25 years. There is little difference between Michael Foot's Labour Party manifesto and that of today's Socialist Labour Party led by Arthur Scargill.

peterbr · June 2007

Someone like Sir Digby Jones would certainly be a right wing libertarian.

<hr noshade size="1">
Elephants and Ivory go together in perfect harmony. Oh Lord, why can't we?

ankev1 · June 2007

Canrider,

I take the points you're making but (there's always got to be a "but" hasn't there?), it would genuinely never occur to me to look to the USA for ideas. I suppose they do have them now and again. Perhaps I ought to take an interest. So no, I wasn't thinking of Franklin etc.

To jump to your final point: of course now you mention it, the established view of what is a norm in a society equates to an ideology; the idea hadn't occurred to me and I thank you for it. Tourist Tony's point that honour murders may be the norm in certain barbaric societies is well made. (I assume we're not self loathing enough not to condemn that sort of thing as barbaric).

Ref the lack of democracy in socialist societies. I've always understood the theory to go that eventually everybody sees the light, capitalism has collapsed and everybody is pulling together on the socialist utopian rope. By definition no other political view is present or is indeed needed in this wonder world. Given that any form of plurality would mean that less than 100% of society is socialist, clearly there is no room for plurality once the Final Solution - oops! make that final utopian vision - has been achieved. So what do we do with dissenters? Re-education perhaps (see Mao and Pol Pot)? Why not just make it more centralised and have a gulag system (see those wonderful enlightened visionaries Lenin, Stalin and descendants). All of which has long left me convinced that the only solution for socialism is rectal insertion of it on the part of socialists.

But to the main point: evolved sets of societal norms. I reckon that most people would generally take the view that evolution is better than revolution and a society living according to a set of evolved norms (a de facto ideology as you have pointed out) is probably much more content and at ease with itself than a society which has had what in effect are a set of alien, academic theories imposed upon it. To borrow a phrase: the societies where that has been tried have usually collapsed under the weight of their own contradictions.

Chris James · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by ankev1

I think that the fundamental difference of right and left is one of ideology....etc
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Ankev1, I think you have equated leftism with authoritarian Marxism in your post.

Communism has never been a popular ideology in Britain and if you were to poll most Lefties you would struggle to find a single person who would describe themselves as Marxist. Or who have even read any Marx.

There are many strands of left wing ideology (in the same way as there are many on the right too) and I would suggest that Christianity is probbaly more of a starting point for the Labour movement than Marx!

By the way, when I mentioned eco hippy cyclists I was being tongue in cheek. I know that cycling has at least as much consumer culture as any other interest - you only have to look at the threads about changing their frames and groupsets after 6 months to know that branding and gear lust has a central place in cycling!

Unknown · June 2007

Why is the opportunity to elect your local Party delegate in a one-party state any less "democratic" than to be offered the choice between various mutually indistinguishable parties?

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by NickM

Why is the opportunity to elect your local Party delegate in a one-party state any less "democratic" than to be offered the choice between various mutually indistinguishable parties?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Well, for a start, you're not going to be able to change the government.

spire · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Chris James

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mjones

Taking a totally objective viewpoint ([;)]), it does strike me that this (albeit contrived) left-right struggle here is rather asymmetrical: there appear to be a lot more representatives of the far-left than of the far-right. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

That is interesting as one of things that has often surprised me about Cycling Plus is the number of right wingers on it! Especially since most non cyclists woudl tend to view peopel on bikes as hippy eco warriors.

Most of the right wingers seem to come from the London area and I assumed that London cyclists were different breed from cyclists in the rest of the country.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

So who are these right-wingers?

I bet many you (and certain other Soapboxers [;)]) consider right wing would be considered pretty much centrist by the majority of the population.

Several of the alledged right wing extremists are shown to be nothing more than moderates by political compass.

As mjones posted, Soapbox's centre of gravity is far to the left, and is atypical of the population as a whole.

Chris James · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mjones
[
OK, so can you provide specific examples of some of those 'right wing' views that surprise you so much? NB- my comment was that there are more from the far left than from the far right; clearly there are many more from the moderate centre ground than from either extreme group.of much longer (and more tedious) arguments...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

No, because I cannot be bothered to trawl through a load of posts to try to find some that I think might constitite being right wing. Especially since whatever I come up with somebody would disgaree with anyway!

I take your point that a left wing ideologue will find all statements right wing sounding. However, I don't consider myself to be particularly left wing, just interested in politics. I am not a member of any political party.

I have always voted Labour as I grew up under Thatcher and find her politics unappealing. I realise that some of the Tory party never agreed with her and am sure that I could find much to agree with with 'wet' Tories.

Going back to your otiginal question though, the comments I view as being right wing on this forum tend not to be about economics as such. They tend to be about society rejection or demonising others, whereas I would consider myself and the left (although not necessarily new Labour!)to have a more inclusive approach. So for example, the people who dogmatically blame the dead at Hillsborough for their own deaths, people who reject all evidence for the existence of climate change, people who blmae the current Government for absolutely everything (eg the NHS was in crisis last year because of its debts, now its debts have been removed it is in crisis due to the cuts required to prevent the over spend- they can't win) for example.

But more to the point, you said that there are more far left wingers on her than far right wingers. Who do you believe to be from the far left? And how much support do they get for their ideas from the rest of the posters? I can only think of redcogs!

redcogs · June 2007

The silent majority on soapbox are anti capitalist revolutionaries - they just havn't realised it yet.

please look up to the stars.. ***

redcogs · June 2007

As for me being 'far left', i belong to no political party, i eat muesli only occasionally, and i probably feel about the same as every other contributer here - generally content, often concerned about injustice (but the type of injustice that concerns me is at variance with what the right wing consider unjust), sometimes hacked off by events. Just human really.

please look up to the stars.. ***

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by redcogs

As for me being 'far left', i belong to no political party,][/size=6]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Redders, you'd consider any political party to be full of fascist reactionaries. [;)]

Chris James · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by spire

So who are these right-wingers?

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I don't follow Soapbox THAT closely but YOU have always stood out as one of the right wingers!

I clicked on your user name to see what threads you had contributed to recently and none of them appeared to be to do with cycling per se. I didn't bother to read them all though, so you might have been coming out with arguments about how good value your BBC licence fee was, except for the fact there weren't enough programmes about foreign, homosexual asylum seekers for your liking etc.

I wouldn't take too much notice of political compass either. I came out a being fairly central, albeit with a left and authoritarian(!) leaning. My wife, who is not that interested in politics really came out as a anarchist, which would seem a little unlikely if you knew her.

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Chris James

My wife, who is not that interested in politics really came out as a anarchist, which would seem a little unlikely if you knew her.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You mean she isn't bearded, wild eyed and planting bombs like the anarchists in Victorian cartoons. [;)]

ankev1 · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by NickM

Why is the opportunity to elect your local Party delegate in a one-party state any less "democratic" than to be offered the choice between various mutually indistinguishable parties?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Because in a one party state your freedom of choice to form a party of your own has, by definition, been denied you. This represents a wholly unnecessary and unjustifiable restriction of expression.

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by ankev1

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by NickM

Why is the opportunity to elect your local Party delegate in a one-party state any less "democratic" than to be offered the choice between various mutually indistinguishable parties?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Because in a one party state your freedom of choice to form a party of your own has, by definition, been denied you. This represents a wholly unnecessary and unjustifiable restriction of expression.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

It's a bit of an indicator of political position if someone finds the mainstream parties indistinguishable.

spire · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Chris James

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by spire

So who are these right-wingers?

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

1. I don't follow Soapbox THAT closely but YOU have always stood out as one of the right wingers!

2. I clicked on your user name to see what threads you had contributed to recently and none of them appeared to be to do with cycling per se. I didn't bother to read them all though, so you might have been coming out with arguments about how good value your BBC licence fee was, except for the fact there weren't enough programmes about foreign, homosexual asylum seekers for your liking etc.

3. I wouldn't take too much notice of political compass either. I came out a being fairly central, albeit with a left and authoritarian(!) leaning. My wife, who is not that interested in politics really came out as a anarchist, which would seem a little unlikely if you knew her.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

1. Right wing and proud! Sadly Political Compass keeps putting me only slightly right of centre.

2. I have contributed to, and started, many cycling threads but perhaps not recently. With regards to BBC threads, that's not an interest of mine. Simoncp's your man in that area,

3. I don't know how accurate Political Compass is, but what you say doesn't prove it's wrong. (In the scheme of things maybe you ARE only a bit left and I'm only a bit right. As for your wife, perhaps she has secrets! [;)][:D])

Chris James · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Patrick Stevens

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Chris James

My wife, who is not that interested in politics really came out as a anarchist, which would seem a little unlikely if you knew her.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You mean she isn't bearded, wild eyed and planting bombs like the anarchists in Victorian cartoons. [;)]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

The wild eyed bit fits

Leftists vs Rightists

Comments

Categories