Democracy or What's Right?

[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.

oh yes, sorry, you are quite right.

[Fragony]

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.

[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.

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.