Democracy or What's Right?

[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.

[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.

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 and this

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.