Clarifying the meaning of Left and Right

GreenFish66

House Member
Apr 16, 2008
2,717
10
38
www.myspace.com
We have it a lot better than most, though we often whine more than most.

For now .Not forever..

Soon it will be .No wine for most.Better left for few..
If things don't change for the better soon..

But things don't get any better being bitter...????oh wait...Or is that..Things taste better with butter?.F*&$..

Anyway...

Was Better.Now.It's Good, For Now, Not Forever if Left/Right don't keep Workin' Together, at Makin' changes for the betterment of all ..Without Always, being so damned bitter...=)-

Left/Right ?...Earth/ Economy..??
Left and Right, in the end..AllWays = 1.( ad inf :))

Or

Well....

Whatever...It all falls apart into little pieces..

Peace or Pieces ?

Peace..
 
Last edited:

Bar Sinister

Executive Branch Member
Jan 17, 2010
8,252
19
38
Edmonton
Just because it pisses me off there is something I'd like to clear up when it comes to the terms Left and Right and the political spectrum.


First off Right is not Conservative and Left is not Socialist, Libertarian or Commie.


Far Right is zero government at all. None. Zip zant doodly squat.


Far Left is totalitarian dictators whether Nazi or Commie or Fascist.


We sit in the middle whether Con or Lib in the fine nation of Canada so thank your lucky stars that none of us are far right or far left.


As you were!

A little correction here, Petros. Far right is fascist or Nazi, not far left. And is is quite correct to label anything on the right as conservative. It might be moderate conservative, but it is still conservative. You have chosen to define Canada's two main parties as centrist and that is not completely inaccurate, but they are right of centre and left of centre parties.
 

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
In terms of Canadian politics we don't have any real left or right, the concept is mere
labelling. Left/right is something that lightening rods are made of. Every single party
in this country recognizes there needs to be a measure of free enterprise and of course
Government involvement in the economy. There is no dictator coming to take our
liberty and there is no threat of totalitarian government on the horizon.
I think the Left Right label game is nothing more than a measure of drama for the press.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,001
14,192
113
Low Earth Orbit
A little correction here, Petros. Far right is fascist or Nazi, not far left. And is is quite correct to label anything on the right as conservative. It might be moderate conservative, but it is still conservative. You have chosen to define Canada's two main parties as centrist and that is not completely inaccurate, but they are right of centre and left of centre parties.
Sorry Bubba Louie but the whole reason this post was posted was to correct the use of the terms left and right.

Canada is left of center and Harper is just as Socialist as the rest of them. He is so Socialist that he allows Mexican permit workers full Canadian rights with healthcare and EI.

Yup. On Harper's watch $23 MILLION was paid out in EI bennys to Mexicans in Mexico.

If the Mexican permit working brings his pregnant wife she gets full health coverage while their kid is born Canadian and Pedro collects maternity EI benefits so he can cook burritos.

As a Canadian the kid has a right to a Canadian education so it's parents will be allowed to apply for landed immigrant status while little Pedro grows up a Canadian.

While unemploymet sat at 8.9% in 2008, 258,000 Mexicans were busy working away in Canada to get their EI and enjoying all the free healthcare they could manage.

Are you glad Harper just recently upped the stakes allowing even more Mexican permit workers who will go home with good moey and EI to boot?

Conservative my ass... They are all commies.

Well doesn't that just sugar your ****ing churro?

As you were.
 

Corduroy

Senate Member
Feb 9, 2011
6,670
2
36
Vancouver, BC
You can't make up your own definition of a word and expect people to follow it. Despite the meanings of left and right being murky and often contradictory, people use them in ways we understand.

Fascism is a problematic ideology because it varies significantly across examples. It is best described as authoritarian, nationalist and revolutionary. Revolutionary would give it cred on the left which typically promotes change, sometimes revolution, whereas the right tries to maintain the status quo or revert some aspects of society back to a previous status quo. At the same time, fascism is reactionary against the kind of change the left promotes and has nostalgic visions of the past. Nationalism was once a liberal ideology it should be noted too. And it isn't right to say fascism was necessarily capitalist. The state was heavily involved in many fascist economies. Italy in particular was full of nationalized industries. But all fascist countries were different. At best you can call Nazi Germany state capitalist, or even slave capitalist and Spain turned free market after a few decades.

Basically what I'm saying is fascism is too slippery to define. It's both left and right, contradictory and undefinable. Is it any surprise that so many fascist governments were psychotic and suicidal?
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,001
14,192
113
Low Earth Orbit
Of course you can't make **** up. That's why you are having troubles defining fascism to fit you beliefs.

Fascism is Left along with ALL totalitarian regimes. No govt is far Right.

Not to hard to define when you know what you are talking about.

Why is this hard to comprehend? Everyone bought the false definition hook line and sphincter so why is the correct definition so hard to grasp?
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
The problem with left and right is it lumps economy and social issues together.

You could have no problem with a tightly controlled economy, but that does not make you an authoritative dictator like Stalin or Hitler if you allow the state to have many civil liberties. In fact, the economy can be tightly structured in such a way that it lends itself to the needs of the many rather than the few -- this is extremely antithetical to one person dictating control.

Conversely, it's actually pretty dangerous to have a smaller government, because that would reduce the number of controlling heads, and increases the chance of despotism.


It's pretty unnerving, but there is this false assumption that libertarians need to swing to the right. That's patently false, and most people (at least on this planet) are actually libertarian socialists.

--
Left-libertarianism

Main article: Left-libertarianism

Left-libertarianism is usually regarded as a doctrine that has an egalitarian view concerning natural resources, holding that it is not legitimate for someone to claim private ownership of such resources to the detriment of others.[63][92][93][94] Most left libertarians support some form of income redistribution on the grounds of a claim by each individual to be entitled to an equal share of natural resources, including Georgist supporters of a single tax.[94][95] Some claim it is standard for left-libertarians to support substantial redistributive welfare programs.[96] Left libertarianism is defended by contemporary theorists such as Peter Vallentyne, Hillel Steiner and Michael Otsuka.[93] The term is also sometimes used as a synonym for libertarian socialism.[97]

The Encyclopedia of Political Theory describes Noam Chomsky as an anti-statist left-libertarian.[98] Chomsky shares an egalitarian view of resources such as natural capital. Left-libertarians like Chomsky[99] promote free association in place of governments and institutions of capitalism (if defined as private ownership and control over means of production).[8] Chomsky has described this libertarian socialism as an anarchist philosophy.[8]

Some members of the U.S. libertarian movement, including the late Samuel Edward Konkin[100] and members of the Alliance of the Libertarian Left as Roderick Long, and Gary Chartier support property rights and identify themselves with the political left for a variety of reasons. They tend to oppose intellectual property, war, and state policies they believe cause poverty.[101]
 
Last edited:

Bar Sinister

Executive Branch Member
Jan 17, 2010
8,252
19
38
Edmonton
Sorry Bubba Louie but the whole reason this post was posted was to correct the use of the terms left and right.

Canada is left of center and Harper is just as Socialist as the rest of them. He is so Socialist that he allows Mexican permit workers full Canadian rights with healthcare and EI.

Yup. On Harper's watch $23 MILLION was paid out in EI bennys to Mexicans in Mexico.

If the Mexican permit working brings his pregnant wife she gets full health coverage while their kid is born Canadian and Pedro collects maternity EI benefits so he can cook burritos.

As a Canadian the kid has a right to a Canadian education so it's parents will be allowed to apply for landed immigrant status while little Pedro grows up a Canadian.

While unemploymet sat at 8.9% in 2008, 258,000 Mexicans were busy working away in Canada to get their EI and enjoying all the free healthcare they could manage.

Are you glad Harper just recently upped the stakes allowing even more Mexican permit workers who will go home with good moey and EI to boot?

Conservative my ass... They are all commies.

Well doesn't that just sugar your ****ing churro?

As you were.

...the whole reason this post was posted was to correct the use of the terms left and right.


That might well be from your point of view, but you are "correcting" the terms incorrectly. The fact that Harper now supports many of the programs that were once regarded as left wing does not make his party right wing, as his tax breaks to the wealthy, his opposition to gun control, and his useless spending on the military clearly indicate. What you fail to take into account is that over time many ideas that were considered left wing (even extreme left wing) have now been accepted by most mainstream parties. In other words most major Canadian political parties (with the exception of the NDP) have drifted to the left. There are many examples of this, but I can illustrate it with just a few:

1. Secret ballot - regarded as left wing by most conservative politicians - now accepted by all political parties.
2. Votes for women - regarded at one time as extreme left wing - now accepted by all political parties.
3. Medicare and other social security programs - regarded as left wing fantasies - now accepted by all political parties.

By international standards the Conservatives are still quite right wing - only by American standards might the Conservatives be considered left of centre and it appears it is the American view of politics that you are giving us. Sadly, the US does not have a real left wing party. What it has is a moderate right wing party (the Democrats) and a more extreme right wing party (the Republicans).

As for the benefits to migrant workers you use as an example; they have been a long time coming (held back by various conservative governments in Canada). It is about time that immigrant workers were given a few of the same benefits due other Canadians. It is a step in ending the ugly exploitation of these workers. Or are you suggesting that Canada allow employers to import as many migrant workers as they can get away with in order to deny them social benefits they would have to provide to Canadian workers? Just in case you are not aware of it, Mexican workers cannot collect EI unless they have paid into the program. It seems that you are advocating that EI be deducted from their paycheques, but they not be allowed to receive any of the benefits of the program.

As for health care, the program is considered a basic right of anyone working in Canada whether they are full citizens or not. I can see why you don't think the Conservatives are right wing anymore given the fact that your own philosophy seems right wing enough to fit comfortably into the 1950s.

BTW don't call me Bubba Louie. If I wanted to use that pseudonym I would have chosen it myself. Or are you incapable of making an intelligent post without resorting to name-calling?
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
Wouldn't a well oiled Nation have a bit of other extremes might be better than being in the middle (on some issues) no link for the list beloe because I don't want to discuss that part, is this and example of left or right. (the issue of him having the right to kill you is another thread)

* GDP per capita - $ 14,192.
* Unemployment benefit - $ 730.
* Each family member subsidized by the state gets annually $ 1.000
* Salary for nurses - $ 1.000.
* For every newborn is paid $ 7.000.
* The bride and groom receive a $ 64 thousand to purchase flats.
* Major taxes and levies prohibited.
* To open a personal business a one-time financial assistance of $ 20.000
* Education and medicine are free.
* Educ.Internships abroad - at government expense.
* Stores for large families with symbolic prices for basic foodstuffs.
* Part of pharmacies - with free dispensing.
* Loans for buying a car and an apartment - no interest.
* Real estate services are prohibited.,
 

Taxx

Conservative
Apr 10, 2011
128
0
16
PEI
I will post my knowledge of the spectrum, as I disagree with yours.

First off, simply put left wing is change and right wing is stay the same (very basic explanation, I know that is the point)

In Canada, we have 5 main parties (Con, Lib, Gre, Bloc, NDP).

We have no real major right-wing parties.

In the center you find the Conservatives and the liberals.

To the left, you find the NDP and the Green.

The bloc is on both sides. They are Left wing because they want to separate (radical change) and they are also right wing because they want to preserve culture (french language, food, culture etc).

That is a VERY BASIC way to explain the parties, but the point is still vaild.

EDIT:
Communists (such as china) are left wing radicals, they want to overthrow the current system and install thier own. Fascists are right wing radicals, they tend to try and preserve the status quo, usually using racist policies (such as the Nazis)
 
Last edited:

cranky

Time Out
Apr 17, 2011
1,312
0
36
I can apreciate the comparison, but you need to look specifically at what is being changed or being left the same. For example, a free enterprise market experiences maximum growth and change....a left wing party is least likely to allow free enterprise. hence you explanation doesn't fit well with this particular example.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Wikipedia has a decent introduction:

The left–right political spectrum is a common way of classifying political positions, political ideologies, or political parties along a one-dimensional political spectrum. The perspective of Left vs. Right is a binary interpretation of complex questions. Left-wing politics and right-wing politics are often presented as polar opposites, and although a particular individual or party may take a left-wing stance on one matter and a right-wing stance on another, the terms left and right are commonly used as if they described two globally opposed political families. In France, where the terms originated, the Left is called "the party of movement" and the Right "the party of order".[1]

Traditionally, the Left includes progressives, social liberals, social democrats, socialists, communists and anarchists.[2][3][4][5] The Right includes conservatives, plutocrats, reactionaries, capitalists, monarchists, nationalists and fascists.[6]

The terms left and right are often used to spin a particular point of view rather than as simple descriptors. In modern political rhetoric, those on the Left typically emphasize their support for working people and accuse the Right of supporting the interests of the upper class, whereas those on the Right usually emphasize their support for individualism and accuse the Left of supporting collectivism. As a result, arguments about the way the words should be used often displace arguments about policy by raising emotional prejudice against a preconceived notion of what the terms mean.

My bold for emphasis.
 

Bar Sinister

Executive Branch Member
Jan 17, 2010
8,252
19
38
Edmonton
Wikipedia has a decent introduction:

The left–right political spectrum is a common way of classifying political positions, political ideologies, or political parties along a one-dimensional political spectrum. The perspective of Left vs. Right is a binary interpretation of complex questions. Left-wing politics and right-wing politics are often presented as polar opposites, and although a particular individual or party may take a left-wing stance on one matter and a right-wing stance on another, the terms left and right are commonly used as if they described two globally opposed political families. In France, where the terms originated, the Left is called "the party of movement" and the Right "the party of order".[1]

Traditionally, the Left includes progressives, social liberals, social democrats, socialists, communists and anarchists.[2][3][4][5] The Right includes conservatives, plutocrats, reactionaries, capitalists, monarchists, nationalists and fascists.[6]

The terms left and right are often used to spin a particular point of view rather than as simple descriptors. In modern political rhetoric, those on the Left typically emphasize their support for working people and accuse the Right of supporting the interests of the upper class, whereas those on the Right usually emphasize their support for individualism and accuse the Left of supporting collectivism. As a result, arguments about the way the words should be used often displace arguments about policy by raising emotional prejudice against a preconceived notion of what the terms mean.

My bold for emphasis.


Ah! The voice of reason.