PDA

View Full Version : The right gets it wrong, the left just don't get it



Basil
17-06-2006, 12:44 AM
Kevin, in the temp/ perm defunct "other place", you asked if I were as right as some may think.

In answer, I refer you to a political questionnaire you directed me to. I don't know if you recall or even checked my result, but it could be fairly summarised as:

On the graph [which had a decent spread from left to right], not only did I finish up dead on centre, but I split it fair up the middle.

- I have absolutely no time for extremist views on anything.
- I have zero tolerance and save my most voluminist disgust for the extreme right as it embraces the most vile of human inequality. I won't even discuss issues with this filth.
- I rarely discuss politics with the far right because IMHO, they are barely of this world - they live in a separate society.
- I generally only engage with the far left because their heart is in the right place and I sympathise entirely with what they seek to achieve, however despite their biggest thoughts, they simply have no idea on how to achieve these ends.

Furthermore, I see them shouting and marching and lobbying and agitating with the very best of intentions, knowing full well that they will not only fail miserably to create the infrastructure to achieve those ends, but actually create circumstances even more difficult to do so.

I rely on history and a multitude of failed models to support my claims. Any suggestion of arrogance or "I know better" would be unfair.

With respect to the title of this thread, I am aware of a number of occasions throughout history where the right, equally well intentioned, have royally farted it up. The difference in my mind is that eventually the right learn from their mistakes [millions of ruined lives later], while the left simply don't get it - and I doubt, ever will. After all each year, a new wave of docile and wide-eyed innocents spew out from our places of learning ready to reinvent the wheel. God, its painful to watch - and even more painful to listen to the diatribe.

I think the word is naiive.

Kevin Bonham
17-06-2006, 12:48 AM
I didn't see you had posted a result.

However the comments above confirm my suspicions that we are really not that different. Like you I despise the far right considerably more than the far left but spend more time stirring the latter.

Basil
17-06-2006, 12:49 AM
However the comments above confirm my suspicions that we are really not that different.
I've known that for quite a while now, but for God's sake don't tell anyone. And for Goodness sake, don't tell Qpawn that I said God.

Axiom
17-06-2006, 01:09 AM
like HD and KB, I too despise the far right (to adopt current paradigm terms)
and like wise see much of the folly of the far left, although my heart lies somewhere there.

but like a punch and judy PUPPET show, i am convinced that the the "left-right" paradigm , acts as a fundamental distraction from real polotik.

Whilst "we" argue R<->L , Iwould contend that the real didactic debate is ,as always has been, is between the controllers of resources, and the ppl these resources are for.

Right/Left has been a "convenient" way to run this ongoing debate, but we all can see the holes punched in this model, with the multitude of contradictions..this smoke/mirrors type model serves us badly

much like the belief in god, this false belief system leads us down the garden path.......until we can accurately label then discuss the debate closer to reality, we will continue to be mislead.

Basil
17-06-2006, 01:17 AM
Ax, sometimes you dribble the most inane amount of codswallop, but I like you.

To start, you can have two yellow cards, one for paradigm and one for didactic. eugghhhh.

As for the thrust of what you say, you are indeed correct in identifying the breakdown of traditional identifiers, overlap and so forth, but for goodness sake, your constant reference to it is like listening to an academic spewing forth about something in which he is well versed, but never having actually experienced.

Grown men don't need this bollocks. The construction of the arguments in this topic [pro and con] can survive and have contempory meaning without your nouveau, pseudo, babble new speak!

Go and get a job in the real world and get beaten up and then come back to Howie for tea and bikkies, kisses and hugs.

Apart from that, you're growing on me.

Basil
17-06-2006, 01:28 AM
In fact, come to think of it, you're blurring sociology with politics. Forget about going through what I just said. Pack up shop. Get up here to Queensland and take a year with me. That'll sort you out and you can venture forth as a complete and useful unit.

Axiom
17-06-2006, 01:32 AM
In fact, come to think of it, you're blurring sociology with politics. Forget about going through what I just said. Pack up shop. Get up here to Queensland and take a year with me. That'll sort you out and you can venture forth as a complete and useful unit.AT THE RISK OF SEEMING A TRITE OBSCURE...COULD YOU PLEASE TRANSLATE THE ABOVE...........(sorry about the caps)

Basil
17-06-2006, 01:39 AM
AT THE RISK OF SEEMING A TRITE OBSCURE...COULD YOU PLEASE TRANSLATE THE ABOVE...........(sorry about the caps)

Translation:
Two posts ago I suggested you have to serve your rite of passage. Its a good way to lose the psycho babble.

In the last post, I suggested an easier an more productive way forward would be to forget said rite of passage and come and learn from a cluey and classy plugged-in unit such as myself.

Axiom
17-06-2006, 01:53 AM
Translation:
Two posts ago I suggested you have to serve your rite of passage. Its a good way to lose the psycho babble.

In the last post, I suggested an easier an more productive way forward would be to forget said rite of passage and come and learn from a cluey and classy plugged-in unit such as myself.
at the risk of seeming thick, what would i learn? you must recall i have acces to the great wisdom of the ancients....and so keep open minded

Davidflude
17-06-2006, 11:20 AM
Isn't this heading a straight copy of the title of an article in "The Economist" magazine?

Look one crucial difference between the extreme right and the extreme left is that the extreme left is totally discredited while the extreme right is out of the closet and causing chaos.

1) trying to wind back the enlightenment.

2) cheating on elections.

3) appointing right wing idealogues to jobs where they are not well qualified.

4) trash talking their opponents. They make the Aussie cricket team look like beginners.

5) telling porkie pies at every opportunty.

6) ignoring the Geneva convention

7) torturing prisoners.

Next thing they will be dressing up in Gilber and Sullivan uniforms.

Basil
17-06-2006, 01:15 PM
Isn't this heading a straight copy of the title of an article in "The Economist" magazine?
I have never read a the Economist Magazine. I can assure you it isn't.

ElevatorEscapee
17-06-2006, 01:23 PM
bah, The Economist probably pinched it from somewhere else! ;)

Basil
17-06-2006, 08:47 PM
David, this is penetrating stuff. I'm not sure if I can keep this chit chat up!


1) trying to wind back the enlightenment.
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D


2) cheating on elections.
Cheating? That's a new one! LOL


3) appointing right wing idealogues to jobs where they are not well qualified.
As opposed to the left who don't have a single commercial brain cell between them - I'd love to see how they can appoint anyone in any commercial field - oh hang on - the academics that have studied it! :)


4) trash talking their opponents.
*ROFL* *ROFL* *ROFL* *ROFL* *ROFL* *ROFL* *ROFL*
Oh yeah, baby - brand new tactic from the libs! I can't fight these revelations


5) telling porkie pies at every opportunty.
*ROFL* *ROFL* *ROFL* *ROFL* *ROFL* *ROFL* *ROFL*
Stop it! You're hurting me. I can just see the Royal Commission now.


6) ignoring the Geneva convention & 7) torturing prisoners.
This one's more serious and is a difficulty all governments face when involved in conflict. Pick a war, any war. Pick a government, any government. This could be levelled at all. I'd like to think all governments of all pursuasions would never condone these issues.

Thanks for the biggest laugh I've had all day

antichrist
17-06-2006, 10:00 PM
Originally Posted by Davidflude
6) ignoring the Geneva convention & 7) torturing prisoners.

This one's more serious and is a difficulty all governments face when involved in conflict. Pick a war, any war. Pick a government, any government. This could be levelled at all. I'd like to think all governments of all pursuasions would never condone these issues.

If the Israeli govt can get away with it for years against the Palestinians (breaking their bones etc.) why can't the Aussies.

Desmond
17-06-2006, 10:23 PM
If the Israeli govt can get away with it for years against the Palestinians (breaking their bones etc.) why can't the Aussies.
I'm sure you would disagree if you or someone you know were the wrongly accused party.

antichrist
17-06-2006, 10:28 PM
I'm sure you would disagree if you or someone you know were the wrongly accused party.

It does not seem to stop the Israelis and as far as I am concerned every one of the Palestinians is innocent - which is why I go out to bat for them.

A mate of mine's sister was killed in the Bali bombing - I feel like asking him if he is going to convert to Islam?

Desmond
17-06-2006, 10:31 PM
It does not seem to stop the Israelis and as far as I am concerned every one of the Palestinians is innocent - which is why I go out to bat for them.

I am loathe to make the following all too obvious point, but it must be made against your point. Just because they do it doesn't make it right. Didn't you learn that in primary school?

antichrist
17-06-2006, 10:36 PM
It is right as far as about 75% of the world sees it.

Desmond
17-06-2006, 10:40 PM
It is right as far as about 75% of the world sees it.

No. Just because people tolerate something out of necessity does not mean that they approve of it. Even Dubya acknowledges that Guantanemo (or however you spell it) SHOULD be closed down, but he thinks it NEEDS to be open.

Igor_Goldenberg
19-06-2006, 09:55 AM
It is right as far as about 75% of the world sees it.

What is the point accusing Israel, US or Australia of some minor violation of whatever acceptable conventions when Palestinians blatanly break them on everyday basis on a much larger scale while being applauded by 75% of the world?

Igor_Goldenberg
19-06-2006, 10:00 AM
My suggestion - "extreme left wing group that fall out of favour with other extreme left wing groups".

More narrow category - "extreme left wing group that become so blatanly racist that they fall out of favour with other extreme left wing groups".

Examples:

1. Pauline Hanson one nation.
2. Hitler.

The list can be extended, of cource.

Rincewind
19-06-2006, 01:31 PM
My suggestion - "extreme left wing group that fall out of favour with other extreme left wing groups".

More narrow category - "extreme left wing group that become so blatanly racist that they fall out of favour with other extreme left wing groups".

Examples:

1. Pauline Hanson one nation.
2. Hitler.

The list can be extended, of cource.

Well I'm confused. Igor, are you sure you know your left from your right?

Basil
19-06-2006, 04:07 PM
Well I'm confused. Igor, are you sure you know your left from your right?
I had to read that 3 times too. I think Igor's point is that a traditional far left group becomes so extreme that it adopts policies which attacks humanity - and therefore as Ax has suggested q.v., it somehow wraps around and becomes extreme right.

At blush, it does appear that Igor was suggesting that Hanson and Hitler [clearly right] were left, but that was not Igor's meaning. :doh:

firegoat7
19-06-2006, 10:13 PM
- I have absolutely no time for extremist views on anything.


And yet you clearly seem to believe that in a plural society with all sorts of different beliefs and views that yours are normal. Maybe your views are extreme?


- I have zero tolerance and save my most voluminist disgust for the extreme right as it embraces the most vile of human inequality. I won't even discuss issues with this filth.
And in doing so you remove probably the only avenue available to alter such extremity....dialogue.


- I rarely discuss politics with the far right because IMHO, they are barely of this world - they live in a separate society.

Yet unfortunately for you they don't and neither do you.


- I generally only engage with the far left because their heart is in the right place and I sympathise entirely with what they seek to achieve, however despite their biggest thoughts, they simply have no idea on how to achieve these ends.
Spoken like somebody who understands what the end result is? Which of course maybe the actual problem.


Furthermore, I see them shouting and marching and lobbying and agitating with the very best of intentions, knowing full well that they will not only fail miserably to create the infrastructure to achieve those ends, but actually create circumstances even more difficult to do so.

A particularly apathetic way of viewing things, and may I add, not one based on historical evidence.


I rely on history and a multitude of failed models to support my claims. Any suggestion of arrogance or "I know better" would be unfair.

What claims? what are you supporting? And what makes you so sure that 'history' agrees with you? Nobody knows what you are talking about because you have not qualified what your historical model is ?



With respect to the title of this thread, I am aware of a number of occasions throughout history where the right, equally well intentioned, have royally farted it up. The difference in my mind is that eventually the right learn from their mistakes [millions of ruined lives later], while the left simply don't get it - and I doubt, ever will.
This exageration is totally unproveable.



I think the word is naiive.
My advice is the best we can do is accept our own naivity on everything, for knowledge presumed is a very dangerous thing for a thinking person.

cheers Fg7

firegoat7
19-06-2006, 10:24 PM
My suggestion - "extreme left wing group that fall out of favour with other extreme left wing groups".


2. Hitler.

The list can be extended, of cource.

I am curious about this understanding.

My understanding, a typical Western one, is that Hitler was indeed a social democrat, but that the communists in Germany at the time were almost as powerful when he first got to power. The communists were certainly veiwed as being more left wing then the social democrats.

Yet we are taught in the West, that fascism is an ideology that is on the extreme right, and that most of Hitler's right wing ideology comes from the Italian fascist Mussolini which he adopted later. The suggestion is that Fascist Germany was the first modern totalitarian state and that it showed how useless the old left/right divide was when dealing with modern representational politics which usurp democratic power for their own ideological agendas.

I am curious, Igor, because I know that you grew up in communist Soviet Union. Was the understanding of Hitlers political persuasion viewed or taught differently in Soviet schools? Where did the communists situate themselves in political ideology? and where did they situate the West? Who did the Soviets regard as left/right etc?

cheers fg7

Basil
20-06-2006, 12:02 AM
Hi fg

You have taken EVERY SINGLE sentence and taken issue with it. I know for a fact we are not opposed on all I have said, so I am concluding you are being pedantic for the sake of it. Let's cut to the chase.

In CL, I asked to be engaged on any specific topic of yours or anybody's nomination - the idea being to give the proponent a leg up. If you'd rather I'll nominate a topic and engage you. I don't mind.

But this "Howard posts and waits a week for an fg reply" is not a happy state of affairs. Further, when the reply comes, its a sloppy nitpick - both this one and the one in CL."

Come on sunshine, pick an issue and let's get it on.

Igor_Goldenberg
20-06-2006, 05:07 PM
I had to read that 3 times too. I think Igor's point is that a traditional far left group becomes so extreme that it adopts policies which attacks humanity - and therefore as Ax has suggested q.v., it somehow wraps around and becomes extreme right.

At blush, it does appear that Igor was suggesting that Hanson and Hitler [clearly right] were left, but that was not Igor's meaning. :doh:

It was indeed my meaning.

Let me explain it at some length. To me the most important aspects of any political ideology are:

1. How much do they restrict economical freedom
2. How much do they restrict personal freedom.

The two above are highly correlated. The social democrats tend to restrict economical freedom somewhat more then liberal democrats by implementing different aspects of "welfare state" on a different scale. All major parties in the Western society are "social democrats". In Australia Labour tends to be slightly to the left of the Liberal. This difference is not significant when we look on the whole scale.

Some socilaist parties want to have a much greater restriction on private property and enterprise, they are far to the left of Western social democracies.

Communist regimes abolished private property altogether (I am not talking about personal possesion, but the means of production).

1st of May was celebrated in both Germany and USSR

Facist regimes are very close to communist in terms of both personal and economic freedom (even though German facism was not as oppresive as Stalin's regime).

The main difference is that fasism was "national socialism", while communists are "international - socialist". Most Hitler's crimes and atrocities were directed outside of Germany, while most Stalin's atrocities - inside USSR.

Hitler lost to Stalin. As a result:

1. His crimes were acknowledged on a greater scale.
2. Crimes of Hitler were given more publicity then comparable crimes of Stalin (uncle Joe was on Allies' side after all).
3. Hitler was labelled as a right winger for obvious propaganda reasons: a)criminal nature of left wing regimes becomes less evident, b)right wing movement can always be identified with Hitler.

While it's easy to me to identify left wing ideology (collective right trumpets individual right), I am still at loss what is "right wing ideology"?


I am curious, Igor, because I know that you grew up in communist Soviet Union. Was the understanding of Hitlers political persuasion viewed or taught differently in Soviet schools? Where did the communists situate themselves in political ideology? and where did they situate the West? Who did the Soviets regard as left/right etc?

cheers fg7

In Soviet School fasism was portrait as the most reactionary capitalism, extreme right wing, etc. The fact that Hitler's policy were very simular to that of other communist regimes was obviously never mentioned.

Axiom
20-06-2006, 05:28 PM
igor's above post, a very neat summary.

....it also supports my view that left/right,fascism/communism is mostly an hegelian dialectic word-play,easily manipulated like strings of the puppet governments everywhere, obscuring the very "real politik"

again, nice post igor.