Democracy or What's Right?

[Idaho]

Do you think it's more important for your nation to have democracy, or that it does what is right*?













*right as defined by you.

[Fragony]

Can only speak for my 'culture' but look at Yugoslavia it fared better under a dictator then it did without, falled apart in the worst possible way . Democracy or any system is only as good as it's people probably.

[rory_20_uk]

To rely totally on any one system is folly. Although less likely than others, pure democracy can have very intolerant outcomes.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

The primacy of public opinion is paramount.

If the public is unequal to the responsibility then they should be punished accordingly.

[Lemur]

All of this will be irrelevant when my son is fully grown and unites the fractious nations of the Earth under his iron rule. When he is global Emperor, you will be able to do what he says, or you will be free to DIE.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Individual freedom is much more important than democracy. I'd rather live under a dictator that kept a low profile running the country with his cronies, than in some sort of totalitarian society where people think being the majority gives them the right to do anything.

[Idaho]

Individual freedom is much more important than democracy. I'd rather live under a dictator that kept a low profile running the country with his cronies, than in some sort of totalitarian society where people think being the majority gives them the right to do anything.

That doesn't make much sense. How can it be a totalitarian democracy?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Do you think it's more important for your nation to have democracy, or that it does what is right*?













*right as defined by you.

Something of a fallacy, if you believe that Tyranny is wrong, so that doing what is "right" is maintaining democracy and a freedom.

[Idaho]

A few things prompted my enquiry.

Firstly the situation in Thailand at the moment. Where a democratically elected party was removed from office by a combination of army and anti-democracy, pro-privilege protesters. I see a lot of parallels with the Pinochet coup in Chile and the Contras in Nicaragua.

I think that for many the character of the government is more important than the way it comes about, and my working hypothesis is that it's a trait more prevalent for the centre-right.

Personally I think that the democratic principle is as central as the rule of law, and without them we may as well turn the clock back 200 years.

[Furunculus]

A few things prompted my enquiry.

Firstly the situation in Thailand at the moment. Where a democratically elected party was removed from office by a combination of army and anti-democracy, pro-privilege protesters. I see a lot of parallels with the Pinochet coup in Chile and the Contras in Nicaragua.

I think that for many the character of the government is more important than the way it comes about, and my working hypothesis is that it's a trait more prevalent for the centre-right.

Personally I think that the democratic principle is as central as the rule of law, and without them we may as well turn the clock back 200 years.

chile and thailand are somewhat different examples, as pinochet is the result of cold-war superpower politics where proxies were used instead of europe as a battlefield. your talk of privilege and pinochet betrays a particular bias from the outset.

just so we get this straight; your working hypothesis is that right-wing people would hold doing what is 'right' to be more important than 'democracy' from the point of view of internal governance? let me firmly state that if this is the position then i as a right wing person am firmly on the side of representative government (by which you may read "democracy").

[gaelic cowboy]

All of this will be irrelevant when my son is fully grown and unites the fractious nations of the Earth under his iron rule. When he is global Emperor, you will be able to do what he says, or you will be free to DIE.

So say the teachings of Lemur-Maud Dib the God Emporer Bi-la kaifa

[gaelic cowboy]

I hold that it's not democracy or public opinion thats important but reason this is the key 51% cant just vote to genocide the other 49%.

[Furunculus]

I hold that any nation that does not trust it politicians to work collectively for the good of the people, and likewise does not trust the people not to descend into barbarism, should immediately introduce fundamental human rights and party-list proportional representation.

i have no use for fundamental human rights and PR in Britain, precisely because i trust both the people and the government to act in a civilised manner.

[Vladimir]

All of this will be irrelevant when my son is fully grown and unites the fractious nations of the Earth under his iron rule. When he is global Emperor, you will be able to do what he says, or you will be free to DIE.

Is this the one that runs around naked spanking himself?

~;)

[gaelic cowboy]

I hold that any nation that does not trust it politicians to work collectively for the good of the people, and likewise does not trust the people not to descend into barbarism, should immediately introduce fundamental human rights and party-list proportional representation.

i have no use for fundamental human rights and PR in Britain, precisely because i trust both the people and the government to act in a civilised manner.

So your in the reason camp so????? like meself

[Rhyfelwyr]

That doesn't make much sense. How can it be a totalitarian democracy?

Well if a totalitarian government was supported by 51% of the population, that would be a totalitarian democracy. I speak of course of the idea of pure democracy as opposed to modern western liberal democracies (which are centred on individual rights above mob rule), since a tyranny of the majority is why the likes of Aristotle said democracy was a bad form of government.

[Furunculus]

So your in the reason camp so????? like meself

i'm in the "The primacy of public opinion is paramount" camp, for Britain at any rate.

[gaelic cowboy]

But how can opinion be a good idea most people have no opinion on anything or worse they form bad ones or abuse good one's. If you use reason it doesn't matter what opinion you have it will be informed by said reason as opposed to the mob

[al Roumi]

A few things prompted my enquiry.

Firstly the situation in Thailand at the moment. Where a democratically elected party was removed from office by a combination of army and anti-democracy, pro-privilege protesters. I see a lot of parallels with the Pinochet coup in Chile and the Contras in Nicaragua.


I think your examples are a helpful reminder that no system of governance functions in a vacuum or as in theory.

WRT to Thailand i can imagine that either side would argue that they are in favour of democracy, but that the other started using "un-democratic means" to gain an advantage, to which they had no option but to respond -in the interests of democracy of course.

I voted in favour of democracy, on the (shaky) belief that a consensus of the majority is most likely system to deliver the least bad/mad system of governance. Then again, there are bountiful examples from history where that has not been the case...

I believe the main reason not to compromise on democracy is not about who/what immediately replaces it, but what could happen afterwards or who could get hold of it next...

Also, it is of course easier to do something radical when you have more concentrated authority than it is when that authority is more difuse. When you have the power to do radical things, your mistakes are likely to be that much more radical too...

And of course, Democracy isn't going to be any "good" if it isn't accompanied by Montesquieu's check's & balances.

[Skullheadhq]

There is no 'right thing to do', only what people hink is the right thing to do.

[Furunculus]

But how can opinion be a good idea most people have no opinion on anything or worse they form bad ones or abuse good one's. If you use reason it doesn't matter what opinion you have it will be informed by said reason as opposed to the mob

is this directed at me, i'm struggling to make a connection?

[gaelic cowboy]

is this directed at me, i'm struggling to make a connection?

Sorry yes it is

[Furunculus]

i'm still struggling to link your comment to mine..............? :)

[gaelic cowboy]

@furunculus your saying only public opinion matters I think thats is dangerous maybe even more dangerous than dictatorship.

[Centurion1]

Pure democracy is an imbecilic notion and imo people should take an intelligence test to be able to vote. Not really but public opinion is so swayed and unknowledgeable that representative democracy controlled by a political elite is the only realistic form of democracy.

And sometimes people must extend their powers. Let's look at imo the most powerfuly middle eastern nation, turkey. Why are they the dominant faction even without vast oil reserves? Because amid a sea of islamic fundementalist nation states they are secular and westernized. And why are they like this? Because whenever islamic clerics fundies of course attempt to seize power the military squashes them since ataturk. There are other reasons of course but that is key and some would argue that turkey has a better representation for its constituents than many other nations (unless your a kurd)

Other me examples egypt pakistan (before the current events there of course lol)

[Furunculus]

@furunculus your saying only public opinion matters I think thats is dangerous maybe even more dangerous than dictatorship.

public opinion includes civic norms and societal goodwill, which is found in Britain in sufficient measure to permit FPTP winner takes all politics and a system of governance that directly reflects the will of the British electorate.

if other countries don't have that trust then they must cripple the representative nature of their government, but that isn't my concern.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

There is no 'right thing to do', only what people hink is the right thing to do.

That's a self-disproving statement. If it's true then it's false, which means it's true.... which demonstrates the existence of objective truth and therefore objective "right".

In response to Idaho, I would argue that doing what is "right" over being democratic, or more generally subverting the Constitution of the State is more something which is historically associated with the Left than Right, most of the overthrows of legitimate government in the last hundred years were by the Left, and most of current Despots are left or Centre; with the exception of Putin who is a result of a previous Leftist revolution.

[Idaho]

That's a self-disproving statement. If it's true then it's false, which means it's true.... which demonstrates the existence of objective truth and therefore objective "right".

In response to Idaho, I would argue that doing what is "right" over being democratic, or more generally subverting the Constitution of the State is more something which is historically associated with the Left than Right, most of the overthrows of legitimate government in the last hundred years were by the Left, and most of current Despots are left or Centre; with the exception of Putin who is a result of a previous Leftist revolution.

Examples?!?

I can give you Thailand, Chile, Spain in 1936, Greece off the top of my head. There are a few more in central America I would wager.

[Fragony]

Could consider it anti-status quo and anti-revolutionary, both resulting in state repression. Left and right doesn't really matter here.

[Furunculus]

Could consider it anti-status quo and anti-revolutionary, both resulting in state repression. Left and right doesn't really matter here.

agreed.

the example are influenced by too many external factors anyway.

[Idaho]

I am talking about democratic government overthrown by internal forces. I can't think of any democratic governments overthrown by leftists, but there are numerous examples of them being overthrown by rightists.

[Furunculus]

are these a good start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_coups_d%27%C3%A9tat_and_coup_attempts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_successful_coups_d%27%C3%A9tat

[Centurion1]

edit: lol

[Idaho]

are these a good start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_coups_d%27%C3%A9tat_and_coup_attempts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_successful_coups_d%27%C3%A9tat

Would you care to go through your link to find democracies overthrown by leftists and rightists and compare?

[Furunculus]

nope. :laugh4:

[al Roumi]

In response to Idaho, I would argue that doing what is "right" over being democratic, or more generally subverting the Constitution of the State is more something which is historically associated with the Left than Right, most of the overthrows of legitimate government in the last hundred years were by the Left, and most of current Despots are left or Centre; with the exception of Putin who is a result of a previous Leftist revolution.


Could consider it anti-status quo and anti-revolutionary, both resulting in state repression. Left and right doesn't really matter here.

If there have been more leftist revolutions, that's because there have been more right-wing/conservative (in the sense of preserving the status quo) governements/regimes to overthrough.

There's also a question of terminology here, a right wing "revolution" is often not called a revolution but a "Coup d'etat" or "Putsch" (counter-revolution may also be more accurate in certain cases, given that a right wing movement is more likely to be reactionary, e.g. Spain).

[al Roumi]

Would you care to go through your link to find democracies overthrown by leftists and rightists and compare?

I think that's a bit of a red-herring. Democracy is a system of governance, not a politcal perspective. That said, democracy has been closely associated with political causes in particular contexts -but only because it was considered to serve the political interests of that cause (and in some cases, only at a particular time).

As has been remarked here, democracy and elections are alone no guarantee of representative government.

edit:

While reading around this subject, i just came accross this fascinating page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_in_Marxism

Don't be put off by the title, it includes a run down of how democracy can contribute to the social good (as well as to the interests of the working class).

[Idaho]

nope. :laugh4:


I think that's a bit of a red-herring. Democracy is a system of governance, not a politcal perspective. That said, democracy has been closely associated with political causes in particular contexts -but only because it was considered to serve the political interests of that cause (and in some cases, only at a particular time).

So Furunculus concedes the point, and alh_p misses it :laugh4:

I am making the point that rightist forces are prone to being anti-democratic. And to prove this I am asserting that it is almost always rightists who overthrow democratic governments.

(raises gavel)... motion carried... going, going...

[Furunculus]

funny, i didn't see you prove that conclusion, and many examples from the cold war had as much to do with proxy conflict as internal pressure.

[Idaho]

You are just being evasive as the evidence seems rather overwhelming. The right is much more likely to overthrow a democratic government than the left.

[rory_20_uk]

There are many left wing uprisings that just hadn't managed to take power: India / Nepal for example. But one reason for this is that Right revolutions tend to be organised and efficient at taking power. Leftist ones are more like rabbles. Look at the communist Army: decided to scrap ranks, and have votes on battle plans. A few horrendous slaughters later and ranks were reinstated.

Others that did: Eastern Europe post WW2 for example. I'm pretty sure there were some in Africa too.

~:smoking:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I am talking about democratic government overthrown by internal forces. I can't think of any democratic governments overthrown by leftists, but there are numerous examples of them being overthrown by rightists.

Russia, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba.... all Leftist Communist revolutions that were arguably "internal", to which you can add less violent Tyrannies like Chavexz in Venuzelua.

so there's the start of a list, and I did that without looking anything up.

[al Roumi]

So Furunculus concedes the point, and alh_p misses it :laugh4:

I am making the point that rightist forces are prone to being anti-democratic. And to prove this I am asserting that it is almost always rightists who overthrow democratic governments.

(raises gavel)... motion carried... going, going...

I have to disagree. In these fairly crude terms, Fragony is right to say the political right/left is immaterial. What matters more is what the incumbent system is, and what the overthrowers stand for. If incumbents have traditionaly been conservative, preserving the interests of an elite/old order, then it is natural that the revolutionaries appear progressive, and by comparison to the conservative incumbents apparently left wing.

To provide the most obvious filibuster to your theory, one need look no further than Communism and its revolutionary doctrine which ultimately drives for a proletarian Dictatroship. Whilst it's clear that on the path to that dictatorship, Communists supported democracy, this was only ever a transient phase -witness the February & October revolutions in Russia and the Spanish Communist party's gradual corruption/creeping control of the Republican (democratic) movement druing the civil war. Democracy is even seen by Marx as one step on the path towards communism.

Marxist/Leninst Communism is highly antagonistic to capitalist democracy, seeing it at as a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. It considers liberal democracy a utopian pipe dream. Perhaps the relative (social and economic) success of "liberal" democracies has gone some way to erroding support for communism.

I have been interested to see how little people here are actually attached to democracy, for all its failings I'm happier with consensus forming politics than centralised autocracy.

[gaelic cowboy]

Russia, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba.... all Leftist Communist revolutions that were arguably "internal", to which you can add less violent Tyrannies like Chavexz in Venuzelua.

so there's the start of a list, and I did that without looking anything up.

None of those could have been considered democratic at the time of there overthrow which was the point of the earlier post

[Idaho]

Russia, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba.... all Leftist Communist revolutions that were arguably "internal", to which you can add less violent Tyrannies like Chavexz in Venuzelua.

so there's the start of a list, and I did that without looking anything up.

Hmm... I am struggling to see how you could characterise any of those countries as democratic. Or maybe you have misread?

[Idaho]

Marxist/Leninst Communism is highly antagonistic to capitalist democracy, seeing it at as a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. It considers liberal democracy a utopian pipe dream. Perhaps the relative (social and economic) success of "liberal" democracies has gone some way to erroding support for communism.

Those are intellectual positions rather than grass-roots understanding.

Democracy does errode support for hard left groups. But when centre-left, or even left groups become successful in democracy, rightist elements respond by shutting down democracy.

[Fragony]

Would you care to go through your link to find democracies overthrown by leftists and rightists and compare?

But democracy is evolutionary, do you want a list of country's growing more democratic, or at least try to do so .

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Hmm... I am struggling to see how you could characterise any of those countries as democratic. Or maybe you have misread?

I don't see why that matters. Lenin chose to institute a dictatorship, ignoring the elections his Communists did badly in - so that's one example. More generally, you argued that doing what is "Right" over what is "Democratic" is a trait more of the political Right than the /Left. The fact that most Left-ist revolutions were anti-democratic surely proves this to be incorrect; regardless of the system they replaced.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So Furunculus concedes the point, and alh_p misses it :laugh4:

I am making the point that rightist forces are prone to being anti-democratic. And to prove this I am asserting that it is almost always rightists who overthrow democratic governments.

(raises gavel)... motion carried... going, going...

Are you counting the Kerensky government as democratic? Or Batista (I know, a stretch as best....).

[al Roumi]

Those are intellectual positions rather than grass-roots understanding.

I disagree. Surely any serious communist would know this... People didn't support Lenin becasue they wanted a democracy, they were more interested in his agenda and policies. Exactly what one thinks when choosing number 2 in your vote...


Democracy does errode support for hard left groups. But when centre-left, or even left groups become successful in democracy, rightist elements respond by shutting down democracy.

yes, in some cases they have, but so have left wing groups. As Stalin so adroitely demonstrates from history, you can be very left wing aswell as being totalitarian and having a warped sense of compassion for human life.

[Idaho]

It's an essay in evasion this thread. Trying to redefine democracy, going off piste entirely with talk of Stalin. And yet no-one has come up with anywhere near the number of democracies overthrown by leftists as democracies overthrown by rightists - in fact so far we haven't had one decent example.

Why not just say "yes, democracies have much more to fear from rightists than leftists" and then we can move on?

[Idaho]

I disagree. Surely any serious communist would know this... People didn't support Lenin becasue they wanted a democracy, they were more interested in his agenda and policies. Exactly what one thinks when choosing number 2 in your vote...

That's an interesting discussion we could have on another thread, but it isn't really material to this thread as Russia was a monarchy, not a democracy.

[Idaho]

Are you counting the Kerensky government as democratic? Or Batista (I know, a stretch as best....).

The Kerensky government could possibly be an example. The soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia could also possibly be one. But neither were really home grown leftists forming a coup against an established democracy.

[Fragony]

The Kerensky government could possibly be an example. The soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia could also possibly be one. But neither were really home grown leftists forming a coup against an established democracy.

What we see as left and right stays within our conventions, it's not powerplay it's a mere disagreement.

bit of a cynical read but OT http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/morg6.htm

Also applies for internal affairs. Left or right, comes down to power, no matter the scale.

[Beskar]

yes, in some cases they have, but so have left wing groups. As Stalin so adroitely demonstrates from history, you can be very left wing aswell as being totalitarian and having a warped sense of compassion for human life.

Stalin wasn't a lefty. He mainly did all he could for personal power and ambition. He wasn't even the leader of Russia (that was Mikhail Kalinin), shows you what he did for his own personal power.

Vladimir Lenin on his deathbed tried to get rid of Stalin, including Lenin's wife, trying to convey his will and testament after he was gone. This was ignored by the Politiburo-Rightwingers (which Stalin was apart of) as they feared the influence of Trotsky (leading Polituburo-Leftwinger). It was Stalin who played these factions off against eachother, eliminating his rivals, is how he gained the control and power as he did. While they fought in the speeches, Stalin was behind the scenes, planting loyal supporters to himself in all the positions, a grand scale of corruption on the highest level.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's an essay in evasion this thread. Trying to redefine democracy, going off piste entirely with talk of Stalin. And yet no-one has come up with anywhere near the number of democracies overthrown by leftists as democracies overthrown by rightists - in fact so far we haven't had one decent example.

Why not just say "yes, democracies have much more to fear from rightists than leftists" and then we can move on?

I dissagree, I am certainly not evaiding. This was your original question:


Do you think it's more important for your nation to have democracy, or that it does what is right*?

*right as defined by you.

You then said this was an opinion held more by the Right than the Left. I gave you a list of anti-Democratic revolutions, the fact that they overthrew monarchies is irrelevant, because they instituted oppressive Tyrannies.

If you want to now redefine the question as, "who has overthrown more democracies", I think that is a very different issue - not least because until recently most governments were "Right" of the modern centre and not very Democratic. Ergo, there were not many democracies to be overthrown.

My point was that ignoring the actual wishes of the people and doing what "you" believe is Right is more a trait of the Left, as evidenced by the numerous oppressive and brutal Leftist regimes from Cromwell onwards (Cromwell was "Left" for his period).



Stalin wasn't a lefty. He mainly did all he could for personal power and ambition. He wasn't even the leader of Russia (that was Mikhail Kalinin), shows you what he did for his own personal power.

Vladimir Lenin on his deathbed tried to get rid of Stalin, including Lenin's wife, trying to convey his will and testament after he was gone. This was ignored by the Politiburo-Rightwingers (which Stalin was apart of) as they feared the influence of Trotsky (leading Polituburo-Leftwinger). It was Stalin who played these factions off against eachother, eliminating his rivals, is how he gained the control and power as he did. While they fought in the speeches, Stalin was behind the scenes, planting loyal supporters to himself in all the positions, a grand scale of corruption on the highest level.

Even if I agreed with you, and I don't, I think Stalin was Left Wing, Trotsky was just as unconcerned with traditional morality, as ruthless, and as blood-soaked, so the point is irrelevant.

[Furunculus]

It's an essay in evasion this thread. Trying to redefine democracy, going off piste entirely with talk of Stalin. And yet no-one has come up with anywhere near the number of democracies overthrown by leftists as democracies overthrown by rightists - in fact so far we haven't had one decent example.

Why not just say "yes, democracies have much more to fear from rightists than leftists" and then we can move on?
i think you're evading, democracy is not a desirable end in itself, it is merely a possible means of achieving representative governance (i.e. the absence of tyranny) for the people. many of the revolutions or coups have been against tyrannical government, or merely unrepresentaive government, to talk of left or right is simply irrelevant except in the context of 20th century history, and even then it had as much to do external influence as internal pressure on either side.

[Kralizec]

The Kerensky government could possibly be an example. The soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia could also possibly be one. But neither were really home grown leftists forming a coup against an established democracy.

Red Army Fraction in west Germany and the Japenese Red Army (link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Red_Army))

There's also a handful of ultra-leftists groups wich were founded when their respective countries were autocratic, but continued to exist once they became democratic. Examples: FARC, ETA and the PKK.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The discussion was at first more about left/right ideology, rather than how these translated into revolutions, and I think the ideological perspective is more useful, since the reality was clouded by a ton of other factors that obscure things.

In purely ideological terms, both the far-left and far-right are anti-democractic. Everything inbetween is democratic to some extent.

For the far-left, political equality is meaningless so long as there is material/social inequality. For the far-right, its collectivist approach to the idea of the good of the nation as a whole means there is simply no need for democracy.

For leftists or rightists to try to claim a monopoly on democracy and slander the other is just plain stupid.


My point was that ignoring the actual wishes of the people and doing what "you" believe is Right is more a trait of the Left, as evidenced by the numerous oppressive and brutal Leftist regimes from Cromwell onwards (Cromwell was "Left" for his period).

Must refrain from derailing another thread.... *tries really hard not to argue with the above*


Stalin wasn't a lefty. He mainly did all he could for personal power and ambition. He wasn't even the leader of Russia (that was Mikhail Kalinin), shows you what he did for his own personal power.

Vladimir Lenin on his deathbed tried to get rid of Stalin, including Lenin's wife, trying to convey his will and testament after he was gone. This was ignored by the Politiburo-Rightwingers (which Stalin was apart of) as they feared the influence of Trotsky (leading Polituburo-Leftwinger). It was Stalin who played these factions off against eachother, eliminating his rivals, is how he gained the control and power as he did. While they fought in the speeches, Stalin was behind the scenes, planting loyal supporters to himself in all the positions, a grand scale of corruption on the highest level.

There was factionalism all right, but it was never seen in left/right terms. I think it would be fair to say than rather than being left or right in ideology, Stalin was really a product of the totalitarianism of his time, something that transcended the left/right divide.

[PanzerJaeger]

Why not just say "yes, democracies have much more to fear from rightists than leftists" and then we can move on?

While I'm inclined to agree with your historical analysis, you're stretching it to make a political point.

In any event, the reason that right wing coups generally have more success has less to do with ideology and more to do with practical realities on the ground. Specifically, military institutions are generally favorable to the right and coups usually only succeed when the military takes a side.

alh_p's point is prescient. There is nothing in far left ideology that makes it particularly more favorable to Western style capitalist democracy than far right ideology. Marxist thinking revolves around enforcing its tenets regardless of public opinion.


As for the poll, I'd rather live in an autocracy that promotes my interests than a democracy that doesn't. That's just basic self preservation.

[Idaho]

i think you're evading, democracy is not a desirable end in itself, it is merely a possible means of achieving representative governance (i.e. the absence of tyranny) for the people.

Aha! This is the nub of it. The point of the poll is that democracy is an end in itself. The self governance of the people.


My point was that ignoring the actual wishes of the people and doing what "you" believe is Right is more a trait of the Left, as evidenced by the numerous oppressive and brutal Leftist regimes from Cromwell onwards (Cromwell was "Left" for his period).

Cromwell is left wing? I think you are, er... skating at the limits of conventional thinking there. I suppose he was the antithesis or Toryism* at that time. And as you are a Tory he may well, on reflection, seem left wing. Although once again this isn't germane to the thread as he didn't overturn a democracy.






*Toryism. The belief that "Real England/Britain" is the character of the landowning classes and those who support them.

[Furunculus]

Aha! This is the nub of it. The point of the poll is that democracy is an end in itself. The self governance of the people.

*Toryism. The belief that "Real England/Britain" is the character of the landowning classes and those who support them.

Since i start from the position that the aim of democracy geovernment is to achieve representation of the people the first option; The primacy of public opinion is paramount, make a lot more sense. There have after all been plenty of political systems that claim to be deomocratic without be representaive of the will of the people.

* in your opinion, to me it is the belief that individual freedom is a far healthier position that state imposed freedom.

[al Roumi]

It's an essay in evasion this thread. Trying to redefine democracy, going off piste entirely with talk of Stalin. And yet no-one has come up with anywhere near the number of democracies overthrown by leftists as democracies overthrown by rightists - in fact so far we haven't had one decent example.

Why not just say "yes, democracies have much more to fear from rightists than leftists" and then we can move on?

Essentially, you want to affirm a supposition you have that right wing people & groups are fundamentally undemocratic. I think you are the only person arguing that case in this thread. Furthermore, in the absence of evidence, you want to affirm your own opinion as fact! :laugh:


Aha! This is the nub of it. The point of the poll is that democracy is an end in itself. The self governance of the people.

I think it is very easy to be confused by what democracy theoretically means and what it is in practice. Exactly as a totalitarian state can be left wing (furthering the interests of the poor/working class) and right wing (preserving the interests of the elite), so can a “democracy”.

Democracy only means a system of election of the people to rule the people. Under no circumstances does it alone ensure representative or responsive governance. To be so fixated on “democracy” as a system is frankly absurd –you don’t have to look far round the world to find corrupt, kleptocratic, un-representative and un-responsive “democratically” elected governments.

The single thing which democratic elections do contribute to representative and responsive governance is a (crude) system of accountability –if you don’t like the incumbent, don’t vote for him again! I say this is a crude system though because elections can be so open to corruption and influence that the accountability can be no more than a fig-leaf for decidedly un-representative, unresponsive and unaccountable governance.


That's an interesting discussion we could have on another thread, but it isn't really material to this thread as Russia was a monarchy, not a democracy.

:wince: As I mentioned above, there was a February revolution before an October one in Russia. The February revolution, supported by the communists, deposed the Tsar’s absolute power and established an elected “democratic” government (middle/upper class dominated). The communists then proceeded to undermine this government and later in the same year provoked the October revolution –deposing the elected democratic government and imposing a communist one.


Stalin wasn't a lefty. He mainly did all he could for personal power and ambition. He wasn't even the leader of Russia (that was Mikhail Kalinin), shows you what he did for his own personal power.

Stalin must, at some level, have been motivated by the interests of the proletariat, ergo left wing. He would also quite clearly have been one to vote “2” in this poll…

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Cromwell is left wing? I think you are, er... skating at the limits of conventional thinking there. I suppose he was the antithesis or Toryism* at that time. And as you are a Tory he may well, on reflection, seem left wing. Although once again this isn't germane to the thread as he didn't overturn a democracy.

*Toryism. The belief that "Real England/Britain" is the character of the landowning classes and those who support them.

I said that Cromwell was left wing, in his time. Cromwell wanted to further the interests of the "Commons" as a group rather than the aristocracy, he also wanted a secularised state (secular in so far as you could pick your flavour of Protestantism) rather than a State-established Church. At the same time, he most certainly did overthrow a democracy whn he desolved Parliament and declared himself "Lord Protector" for life.

Oh, and before you say Parliament was not then democratic, it was but only with a limited franchise. Another example of a despotic regime desposing a democractic one can be seen in Lenin's Communists, as has been noted.

In any case, you sgtill haven't responded to my point that most Leftist revolutions impose Tyrannies instead of Democracies.

[Idaho]

Democracy only means a system of election of the people to rule the people. Under no circumstances does it alone ensure representative or responsive governance. To be so fixated on “democracy” as a system is frankly absurd –you don’t have to look far round the world to find corrupt, kleptocratic, un-representative and un-responsive “democratically” elected governments.

Well that, once again, is a whole other debate, but one more cogent of this thread. Democracy isn't per se about a system of elections. It is "rule by the people". Elections are one method to acheive this via a representative model.


I said that Cromwell was left wing, in his time. Cromwell wanted to further the interests of the "Commons" as a group rather than the aristocracy, he also wanted a secularised state (secular in so far as you could pick your flavour of Protestantism) rather than a State-established Church. At the same time, he most certainly did overthrow a democracy whn he desolved Parliament and declared himself "Lord Protector" for life.

Oh, and before you say Parliament was not then democratic, it was but only with a limited franchise. Another example of a despotic regime desposing a democractic one can be seen in Lenin's Communists, as has been noted.

Those are examples, sure enough. Although, fairly weak ones in terms of antiquity and the nature and establishment of the state that was overthrown.

They compare fairly poorly to Spain in 1936, Greece in the 1970s, Thailand recently, Chile in the 70s, Germany in the 30s, Italy in the 20/30s - primarily because these examples were deliberate attempts to remove established democracies.

[al Roumi]

In any case, you still haven't responded to my point that most Leftist revolutions impose Tyrannies instead of Democracies.

Honestly, that's as silly as Idaho's opposing bias.

A movement for particular values imposes the system which best suits its interests, e.g. A working class communist movement imposes a communist dictatorship. A monarchist/aristocratic movement imposes an autocratic system. A middle class movement imposes a "democracy".

There are exceptions and these are traditionaly due to neccessary measures taken to tighter enforce/preserve the movement's interests in the face of a strong challenge to them (e.g. the French revolution turning into a dictatorship during la terreur). Ironically these bourgeoi movements have often stepped away from democratic rule as a measure to preserve it in the long term.

[Rhyfelwyr]

* in your opinion, to me it is the belief that individual freedom is a far healthier position that state imposed freedom.

I think Idaho was referring to the more historical Toryism, and it is true that they did aim to protect the old feudal order in the face of the rise of the Whigs and the new bourgeoisie elites. The English Tories even tried to get French help for some of the Jacobite risings. I suspect you yourself would identify much more as a Whig in this time period.


I said that Cromwell was left wing, in his time. Cromwell wanted to further the interests of the "Commons" as a group rather than the aristocracy, he also wanted a secularised state (secular in so far as you could pick your flavour of Protestantism) rather than a State-established Church. At the same time, he most certainly did overthrow a democracy whn he desolved Parliament and declared himself "Lord Protector" for life.

I will reply now since I think this is a relevant example of what I was talking about earlier. Well, as a side note, I don't think you can apply concepts of the left/right in a seventeenth century scenario, if anyone was left wing in this period it was the Diggers, which Cromwell quite strongly opposed.

But more on topic, Cromwell's dissolution of Parliament is a classic example of preserving individual freedom in the face of a tyranny of the majority, much like the sentiments of my first post here. For a start, Parliament was dominated by the Political Presbyterians (which mostly weren't actually Presbyterians, the name being from an earlier time before Congregationalism became dominant), which were going a bit nuts imposing Puritan laws such as banning walks on the sabbath etc. On the other hand, the army was dominated by the rival faction, the Independents, which were much more secular due to the fact they had a lot of the quirkier sects like Anabaptists and what not. But the Political Presbyterians kept enforcing laws to keep them down, and eventually cut pay to the army to prevent the Independets seizing power (which is not nice when they were campaigning all over Scotland and Ireland). And so Cromwell stepped in with his army dissolved Parliament, removed much of the oppressive laws, and actually allowed for much more tolerance on the whole. And this is why I do not like Cromwell portrayed as a military dictator in the face of a democratic Parliament, since he was actually all for individual liberty (given his belief in the idea of the ancient Anglo-Saxon constitution as appointed by God).

So I think that is very relevant to this thread, and a classic example of how democratic systems can be far more oppressive and harmful to individual liberty, than even, in the above case, an army council proved to be.

[al Roumi]

So I think that is very relevant to this thread, and a classic example of how democratic systems can be far more oppressive and harmful to individual liberty, than even, in the above case, an army council proved to be.

:bow:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Honestly, that's as silly as Idaho's opposing bias.

Specifically Leftist revolutions have generally imposed Tyrannies though. What usually happens is that the Left/Right Tyranny is eventually overthrown by a democratic revolution, which is when people get fed up with ideaology and decide they'd rather the State leave them alone, thank you very much.

I was responding to Idaho's argument that Tyranny is a Right-wing phenomenon, not arguing with his examples of Right-wing Tyrannies.


I think Idaho was referring to the more historical Toryism, and it is true that they did aim to protect the old feudal order in the face of the rise of the Whigs and the new bourgeoisie elites. The English Tories even tried to get French help for some of the Jacobite risings. I suspect you yourself would identify much more as a Whig in this time period.

Quite true, though Toryism should really be seen as Constitutional conservatism, and the maintainance of an ordered society. The fact that this favours the established elite is (partly) co-incidental.


But more on topic, Cromwell's dissolution of Parliament is a classic example of preserving individual freedom in the face of a tyranny of the majority, much like the sentiments of my first post here. For a start, Parliament was dominated by the Political Presbyterians (which mostly weren't actually Presbyterians, the name being from an earlier time before Congregationalism became dominant), which were going a bit nuts imposing Puritan laws such as banning walks on the sabbath etc. On the other hand, the army was dominated by the rival faction, the Independents, which were much more secular due to the fact they had a lot of the quirkier sects like Anabaptists and what not. But the Political Presbyterians kept enforcing laws to keep them down, and eventually cut pay to the army to prevent the Independets seizing power (which is not nice when they were campaigning all over Scotland and Ireland). And so Cromwell stepped in with his army dissolved Parliament, removed much of the oppressive laws, and actually allowed for much more tolerance on the whole. And this is why I do not like Cromwell portrayed as a military dictator in the face of a democratic Parliament, since he was actually all for individual liberty (given his belief in the idea of the ancient Anglo-Saxon constitution as appointed by God).

So I think that is very relevant to this thread, and a classic example of how democratic systems can be far more oppressive and harmful to individual liberty, than even, in the above case, an army council proved to be.

While I think you're glossing over Cromwell's brutality in putting down rebellions I broadly agree. However, this rather proves my point; Cromwell became a dictator in order to force a "progressive" reform program. what he didn't do was expand the franchise in order to break the Puritan hold on Parliament; or offer an amnesty and incentives to allow the more religiously liberal Royalists to come home and participate in power.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Specifically Leftist revolutions have generally imposed Tyrannies though. What usually happens is that the Left/Right Tyranny is eventually overthrown by a democratic revolution, which is when people get fed up with ideaology and decide they'd rather the State leave them alone, thank you very much.

I think this pretty much sums everything up, the whole leftist/rightist argument here just seems like petty point-scoring.


Quite true, though Toryism should really be seen as Constitutional conservatism, and the maintainance of an ordered society. The fact that this favours the established elite is (partly) co-incidental.

The odd things about the Tories with the talk of constitutions and conservatism, is they they were actually pretty radical. I think their problem was that they had such a romanticised view of the past (a remant of the 'wrong but romantic' Royalists in many respects I suppose). They clung to their view of the old paternal, benevolent Stuart monarchs as the head of the ordered society you mentioned, yet ironically, the Stuarts had of course been quite radical in their absolutism, and all the social and political change going on which the Tories opposed was really a result of the programme of centralisation led by the Stuarts.


While I think you're glossing over Cromwell's brutality in putting down rebellions I broadly agree. However, this rather proves my point; Cromwell became a dictator in order to force a "progressive" reform program. what he didn't do was expand the franchise in order to break the Puritan hold on Parliament; or offer an amnesty and incentives to allow the more religiously liberal Royalists to come home and participate in power.

The brutality is another bone of contention (like with the 2,700 slaughtered at Drogheda Irish nationalists keep going on about... guess how many English Royalist soldiers were stationed at Drogheda). But as for the dicatator bit, he did believe in democratic government as well as individual liberty, and he did make several attempts to get a Parliament functioning that wouldn't work as a tyranny of the majority.

Having studied a bit about his personal life and his character as well, I think the problem is he went a bit... mental. When Parliament was being given 70 members to model the Sanhedrin, and Jews were being brought over from the Netherlands to the Godly Commonwealth to make way for the second coming... it became pretty clear that the religious element had taken precedent over the previous constitutional issues.

[Idaho]

I was responding to Idaho's argument that Tyranny is a Right-wing phenomenon, not arguing with his examples of Right-wing Tyrannies.

I argued no such thing. I argued that the overthrow of democracies is a right-wing thing.


Quite true, though Toryism should really be seen as Constitutional conservatism, and the maintainance of an ordered society. The fact that this favours the established elite is (partly) co-incidental.

It is not coincidental, partly or fully. It is entirely causal. Conservatism, as a philosophy, is about the preservation of existing power structures.

[drone]

I argued no such thing. I argued that the successful overthrow of democracies is a right-wing thing.
Fixed. The lefties just don't know how to do it correctly. ~;)

[al Roumi]

Fixed. The lefties just don't know how to do it correctly. ~;)

LOL, THAT would make an interesting research subject. My (uneducated) guess would be that lefty groups are less flush, so have fewer means to fight a protracted war physically as well as ideologicaly (propaganda). That said, with the USSR and China to prop them up, there were a good few successful lefty "revolutions" during the cold war.

Or, as Idaho is dying to conclude, Right wing groups are inherently evil and ready to go that little bit further in being appalingly ruthless. :laugh2:

[gaelic cowboy]

The brutality is another bone of contention (like with the 2,700 slaughtered at Drogheda Irish nationalists keep going on about... guess how many English Royalist soldiers were stationed at Drogheda).

That probably had more to do with healing a rift in England due to bad blood in the civil war they ignored what really happened and so only one narrative continued to the present. It is true that both Confederate and Royalists made common cause in Ireland and this was probably an awkward memory after the Cromwellian period ended.

[rotorgun]

Not a bad body of posts to read through. I won't try to get into the whole left/right debate, but would like to offer this quote from the preamble of the Declaration of Independence.


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,[71] that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

I think that the third line, beginning "That whenever any for of government....etc." is the one point most apt to the thread. It answers entirely, for myself in any case, the question of whether it would be better to retain a democracy or adopt a government that seems "right" to the governed. It means that if the people feel that adopting a different government, notice that no distinction as to democratic or not is made, seems preferable to them, than it is their right.

PS: I appreciate all the references to Cromwell, a fascinating historical figure to say the least.

[Idaho]

Or, as Idaho is dying to conclude, Right wing groups are inherently evil and ready to go that little bit further in being appalingly ruthless. :laugh2:

The right usually co-opt the army into their coups.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I argued no such thing. I argued that the overthrow of democracies is a right-wing thing.

Actually, you said:



A few things prompted my enquiry.

Firstly the situation in Thailand at the moment. Where a democratically elected party was removed from office by a combination of army and anti-democracy, pro-privilege protesters. I see a lot of parallels with the Pinochet coup in Chile and the Contras in Nicaragua.

I think that for many the character of the government is more important than the way it comes about, and my working hypothesis is that it's a trait more prevalent for the centre-right.

Personally I think that the democratic principle is as central as the rule of law, and without them we may as well turn the clock back 200 years.

I.e. Right-Wingers are (in your opinion) more likely to ignore democracy in order to institute a Right-Wing Government than Left-Wingers are to institute a Left-Wing one. The fact that the most despotic and oppressive governments of the 20th Century were Left-Wing clearly demonstrates that subversion of democracy or, "the end justifies the means" is not an inherrently Right-Wing philosophy.


It is not coincidental, partly or fully. It is entirely causal. Conservatism, as a philosophy, is about the preservation of existing power structures.

no, Conservatism is about preservation and maintainance of society. Preservation of "existing power structues" might come under that, but that does not translate to, "we want to keep all the power for ourselves".

Conservatism is not inherrently selfish, which is your persistant position.

[al Roumi]

no, Conservatism is about preservation and maintainance of society. Preservation of "existing power structues" might come under that, but that does not translate to, "we want to keep all the power for ourselves".

Conservatism is not inherrently selfish, which is your persistant position.

While it may not eaxctly be "we want to keep all the power for ourselves", it certainly is "we want things to stay as they are" -which does mean preserving the status quo Socially, politicaly and economicaly.

Lefties think that only in changing the status quo can a "fair deal" for all, if not the institutionaly exploited in particular, be ensured. Right wingers consider that sufficiently gifted/worthy people will extricate themselves from misery/poverty and that the system therefore needs no change.

Not wanting change is the very definition of the word "conservative".

Edit:

the apparent lack of compassion and unwillingness to change the system which entraps and impedes those unable to help themselves, does make conservatives look inherently selfish. That is, providing one believes the system is at least partly at fault for the misery of the unfortunates (i.e. what lefties think).

[gaelic cowboy]

@ Furunculus and Idaho

Your both wrong a Tory is a term of insult

The word derives from the Middle Irish word tóraidhe; modern Irish tóraí: outlaw, robber, from the Irish word tóir, meaning "pursuit", since outlaws were "pursued men". It was originally used to refer to an Irish outlaw and later applied to Confederates or Royalists in arms. The term was thus originally a term of abuse, "an Irish rebel", before being adopted as a political label in the same way as Whig.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The term was thus originally a term of abuse, "an Irish rebel", before being adopted as a political label in the same way as Whig.

I had thought Whig came from the Gaelic work for sheep-thief, but some google-fu indicates it just means anyone who drove horses or cattle...

[gaelic cowboy]

Bit more complicated it may have two differant but equally plausible answers I just did a quicky on google and found this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiggamore_Raid) and this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_(British_political_party))

It seems they were all insults adopted by the respective party involved like the N word in america for black people

[Furunculus]

@ Furunculus and Idaho

Your both wrong a Tory is a term of insult

The word derives from the Middle Irish word tóraidhe; modern Irish tóraí: outlaw, robber, from the Irish word tóir, meaning "pursuit", since outlaws were "pursued men". It was originally used to refer to an Irish outlaw and later applied to Confederates or Royalists in arms. The term was thus originally a term of abuse, "an Irish rebel", before being adopted as a political label in the same way as Whig.

i'm not argueing the origin of the term, merely what i hold it to represent.

[gaelic cowboy]

I couldn't resist it though :beam:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

the apparent lack of compassion and unwillingness to change the system which entraps and impedes those unable to help themselves, does make conservatives look inherently selfish. That is, providing one believes the system is at least partly at fault for the misery of the unfortunates (i.e. what lefties think).

I agree with you, except for this bit. Conservatives believe it is the responsibility of the wealthy to be philanthropic towards the poor. What Conservatives object to is the Leftist practice of over-taxing/stealing from the Rich to give to the Poor. the Conservative position is that charity should be voluntary and that excessive state intervention breeds contempt on both sides.

On the final point I think it's clear the Cons are correct.

[Idaho]

I agree with you, except for this bit. Conservatives believe it is the responsibility of the wealthy to be philanthropic towards the poor. What Conservatives object to is the Leftist practice of over-taxing/stealing from the Rich to give to the Poor. the Conservative position is that charity should be voluntary and that excessive state intervention breeds contempt on both sides.

On the final point I think it's clear the Cons are correct.

To give the poor scraps from the table to make the rich feel noble and maintain their own belief that they are fundamentally superior people. The 15th century is over - move on.

[Idaho]

Actually, you said:

I.e. Right-Wingers are (in your opinion) more likely to ignore democracy in order to institute a Right-Wing Government than Left-Wingers are to institute a Left-Wing one. The fact that the most despotic and oppressive governments of the 20th Century were Left-Wing clearly demonstrates that subversion of democracy or, "the end justifies the means" is not an inherrently Right-Wing philosophy.

Not ignore democracy, but overturn democracy to institute a right-wing government.

As for the last point - it's not cogent to this particular debate. But I think that the most despotic and oppressive governments of the 18th, 19th and 20th century were definately right wing. I suggest you start a new thread.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

To give the poor scraps from the table to make the rich feel noble and maintain their own belief that they are fundamentally superior people. The 15th century is over - move on.

not what I said.


Not ignore democracy, but overturn democracy to institute a right-wing government.

you didn't make that clear when you opened the thread, in fact you didn't narrow your focus until after people started giving lists of Left-Wing tyrannies.

[al Roumi]

I agree with you, except for this bit. Conservatives believe it is the responsibility of the wealthy to be philanthropic towards the poor. What Conservatives object to is the Leftist practice of over-taxing/stealing from the Rich to give to the Poor. the Conservative position is that charity should be voluntary and that excessive state intervention breeds contempt on both sides.

On the final point I think it's clear the Cons are correct.

Without further derailing this thread (Sorry idaho!), the only thing that is clear is that you are unable to disaggregate opinion from fact.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Not ignore democracy, but overturn democracy to institute a right-wing government.

As for the last point - it's not cogent to this particular debate. But I think that the most despotic and oppressive governments of the 18th, 19th and 20th century were definately right wing. I suggest you start a new thread.

The dynamics are completely different for the 18th/19th centuries. This shows where the failings of simply talking about left/right show up - the 'right' as you are terming them in those times were really the remnants of the feudal elite that resisted the up and coming class of bourgeoisie capitalists, who you could hardly call 'left-wing'.

Then in the 20th century, you might say the far-right regimes were about the oppression of the lower-classes, but they certainly didn't see it that way. Remember, fascism was the 'third way', that was strongly opposed to the decadent bourgeoisie elites and international capitalism, instead promoting the good of the nation, and all its classes, and making it self-sufficient.

We can't write modern left/right concepts (confusingingly different enough even if you just cross the Atlantic) into the past, they just don't fit.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Without further derailing this thread (Sorry idaho!), the only thing that is clear is that you are unable to disaggregate opinion from fact.

Sharp words, but I feel vindicated in this case when multiple generations in some areas live in virtual poverty, subsisting on state handouts. Are you saying, "Chavs" are not generally viewed with contempt by those with jobs, and that the rich are generally viewed with contempt by Chavs?

[Idaho]

I have been thinking about this tonight. The question you must ask yourself PVC, is whether you blame the problems of the world on those more powerful than yourself, or less powerful.

That is the difference between left and right.

[Rhyfelwyr]

That is the difference between left and right.

I wouldn't say that, I explained in my last post the inadequacies of the terms left/right. I am coming to think that they do more harm than good. They're not even generalisations, they conflate completely different concepts. How on earth can you place classic free-market capitalism alongside fascism and the far-right?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I have been thinking about this tonight. The question you must ask yourself PVC, is whether you blame the problems of the world on those more powerful than yourself, or less powerful.

That is the difference between left and right.

That's a Marxist, Class-Warfare, way of looking at things. I consider that individuals are responsible for themselves and society is responsible for itself collectively.

I see no value in your "blame game".

[Furunculus]

I have been thinking about this tonight. The question you must ask yourself PVC, is whether you blame the problems of the world on those more powerful than yourself, or less powerful.

That is the difference between left and right.

that question simply is not relevant to me, because i have no intention of going through my life being all bitter and twisted about other peoples privilege. it is my job to make a good fist of my life, and it is my duty to assist others where I deem i am able.

[Idaho]

That's a Marxist, Class-Warfare, way of looking at things. I consider that individuals are responsible for themselves and society is responsible for itself collectively.

I see no value in your "blame game".

PVC exposing collectivism? Intriguing. I completely agree with your consideration. But do you not think those who are in control of the politics and economics of society are far more able to shape that society for everyone's benefit or their own?


that question simply is not relevant to me, because i have no intention of going through my life being all bitter and twisted about other peoples privilege. it is my job to make a good fist of my life, and it is my duty to assist others where I deem i am able.

It is nothing to do with bitterness, and everything to do identifying who can effect positive change in society through their decisions, and who can largely just be swept along by those decisions.

[al Roumi]

The Conservative position is that charity should be voluntary and that excessive state intervention breeds contempt on both sides.

On the final point I think it's clear the Cons are correct.


Sharp words, but I feel vindicated in this case when multiple generations in some areas live in virtual poverty, subsisting on state handouts. Are you saying, "Chavs" are not generally viewed with contempt by those with jobs, and that the rich are generally viewed with contempt by Chavs?

If "Chavs" or "Scallies" are viewed with contempt, I don't think you can afford to be so sure it is so because of state intervention.

You may think the state creates/permits their joblessness right? I might think that the system creates the joblessness, the state's interevention mitigates the misery and tries to correct the innequality from being transmitted to the next generation.

[Fragony]

I have been thinking about this tonight. The question you must ask yourself PVC, is whether you blame the problems of the world on those more powerful than yourself, or less powerful.

That is the difference between left and right.

What imho is the irony of it all is that the left doesn't really believe in human kindness.

[al Roumi]

What imho is the irony of it all is that the left doesn't really believe in human kindness.
:speechless: oh yes, sorry, you are quite right.

[Fragony]

:speechless: oh yes, sorry, you are quite right.

Don't you see the inherent paradox of institutionalising humanity out of kindness.

I miss AdrianII I am sure he has something to say here.

As for left/right it's pretty simple, we don't want to be a part of a machine no matter how good it works. We just want to do as we please.

[al Roumi]

Don't you see the inherent paradox of institutionalising humanity out of kindness.

Nope, not when what the state is meant to do is further it and ultimately avoid dependancy on it.

[Idaho]

Don't you see the inherent paradox of institutionalising humanity out of kindness.

I miss AdrianII I am sure he has something to say here.

As for left/right it's pretty simple, we don't want to be a part of a machine no matter how good it works. We just want to do as we please.
I understand what you are getting at - but disagree. What you are thinking about is bureaucracy rather than the left.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I understand what you are getting at - but disagree. What you are thinking about is bureaucracy rather than the left.

A fair distinction.

However, the political left's preference has been for a comparatively powerful government to engender social change towards a more idealized end-state of culture/economics etc. Regrettably, nobody has come up with a way to truly smooth out the major kinks inherent in the bureacratic approach and government is virtually guaranteed to end up as a bureaucracy wherever it is not conducted by fiat or by graft.

This limitation undercuts many of the political left's best efforts.

[Fragony]

I understand what you are getting at - but disagree. What you are thinking about is bureaucracy rather than the left.

No, it's it very core, the left loves humanity but doesn't trust the people.

[Idaho]

No, it's it very core, the left loves humanity but doesn't trust the people.

And at it's core the right fears and distrusts humanity.

[Idaho]

A fair distinction.

However, the political left's preference has been for a comparatively powerful government to engender social change towards a more idealized end-state of culture/economics etc. Regrettably, nobody has come up with a way to truly smooth out the major kinks inherent in the bureacratic approach and government is virtually guaranteed to end up as a bureaucracy wherever it is not conducted by fiat or by graft.

This limitation undercuts many of the political left's best efforts.

The right always talks about reducing state power, but always increases it. State power and state spending grow every year regardless of who is in charge.

[Furunculus]

And at it's core the right fears and distrusts humanity.

wrong, the opposite to Fragony's statement about the left would be far closer to the mark:

at it's it very core, the right trusts the people but doesn't 'love' humanity.


The right always talks about reducing state power, but always increases it. State power and state spending grow every year regardless of who is in charge.

wrong again, authoritarian governments increase state power, and excellent example of which is the last 13 years of labour government where ~4,300 new criminal offences were created, and guess which side of the spectrum they happened to sit.............

[Fragony]

And at it's core the right fears and distrusts humanity.

By emphasising personal responsibity?

[Idaho]

wrong again, authoritarian governments increase state power, and excellent example of which is the last 13 years of labour government where ~4,300 new criminal offences were created, and guess which side of the spectrum they happened to sit.............

Centre-right.

[Fragony]

Centre-right.

In some ways. It's a useless concept overall, extreme leftist when it comes to multiculturalism. Our socialist party was anti-immigration when Wilders was still bouncing in the punk scene. I see 'the left' as utopians, fits them better imho. I just got other concerns, what's for dinner and other trivialities in the greater scheme.

[Beskar]

Centre-right.

Actually, according to the Political Compass of 2010 policies, Labour is pretty much Right-wing and in bed with the Conservatives and the BNP. Lib-dems on the otherhand are Centre.
https://img245.imageshack.us/img245/6629/compass.png

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The right always talks about reducing state power, but always increases it. State power and state spending grow every year regardless of who is in charge.

Not always, but all too often. The Reagan administration truly did scale back federal power in a number of categories (though not of course spending). Sadly, both of the Bush administrations exemplified your point qiute a lot -- and 43 was way worse than 41. In fact, to find a series of Right Wing administrations that didn't you pretty well have to go back to Harding/Coolidge (and they had the advantage of the boom of the 1920s and resurgent US isolationism/downsize the military to work with).

Is the same pattern true in the UK as well?

[Furunculus]

Actually, according to the Political Compass of 2010 policies, Labour is pretty much Right-wing and in bed with the Conservatives and the BNP. Lib-dems on the otherhand are Centre.
https://img245.imageshack.us/img245/6629/compass.png


Centre-right.

really it is the mainstream of politics (the two and a half parties) that define the spectrum of politics, regardless of what the political compass says, it is designed to represent every view across the entire spectrum rather than differntiate along the spectrum that is relevant to the polity it is describing.

i would also say that that graph is not representaive of todays policy if it is placing the Cons as next door neighbours to labour on authoritarianism.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Surely the 'traditional left' on Beskar's graph should be the authoritarian left? That's why the likes of the Scottish Socialist Party belong in the top-left quarter, whereas the new liberal left like the Greens go in the bottom-left?

[Beskar]

Surely the 'traditional left' on Beskar's graph should be the authoritarian left? That's why the likes of the Scottish Socialist Party belong in the top-left quarter, whereas the new liberal left like the Greens go in the bottom-left?

No, that is incorrect, what I put is correct. Also, if you take a bunch of results, you will see the linear line between the axis I pointed out. There is a strong correlation between Left-Liberatarian, and Right-Authorianism. What many people don't understand is the nature of power and no, the government isn't the only power.

[Furunculus]

please edumacate us on the nature of power then, because i have never found british left wing of mainstream politics to be any less less authoritarian than the mainstream right.............

[Beskar]

please edumacate us on the nature of power then, because i have never found british left wing of mainstream politics to be any less less authoritarian than the mainstream right.............

Since Mainstream is classed as Labour being Left and Conversatives right, it is rather like the Lib-dems discribed it as "Labservative". What is interesting though, where my Political Compass score was in relation to the parties.

[Furunculus]

Mine is almost spot-on where the Lib-Dem's lie, but i don't agree with almost anything on their manifesto.

[Idaho]

I don't really like the political compass. I think it's a tedious way to see all political systems as if they were factions within the US Republican or Democrat parties.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I don't really like the political compass. I think it's a tedious way to see all political systems as if they were factions within the US Republican or Democrat parties.

Same here. The fact that the BNP are placed to the left of Labour shows that there is just too much to ram into a simple left/right spectrum.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I don't really like the political compass. I think it's a tedious way to see all political systems as if they were factions within the US Republican or Democrat parties.

It wouldn't even let you chart those factions accurately. Twin axes are somewhat limiting at best, though at least nominally better than the hackneyed left/right dichotomy.

[Beskar]

It wouldn't even let you chart those factions accurately. Twin axes are somewhat limiting at best, though at least nominally better than the hackneyed left/right dichotomy.

It gets even worse with more axes, as it makes less sense. However, political compass is a good measuring stick for a quick look. For example: I am a Libertarian Socialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism), where did I score on political compass? In the Libertarian Socialist area. (Left-Bottom)

[Furunculus]

interesting score on the poll so far, if we presume the polling refelects the intent of the polled question rather than the amorphous intent that appeared later on.

[Rhyfelwyr]

interesting score on the poll so far, if we presume the polling refelects the intent of the polled question rather than the amorphous intent that appeared later on.

Gah! I forgot to vote, thanks for the reminder...

If I had to pick, I would take basic rights over democracy any day.