This isn’t possible. It is a contradiction of itself. (The other while possible isn’t realistic, there is a difference.)Â
This type of situation couldn’t possibly ever happen
lol long ago I sat in a pub totally drunk debating this same thing
@ beans Jesus H Christ.
Left extreme = total government =Israel ??
Right extreme = no government = Palestine??
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
lol long ago I sat in a pub totally drunk debating this same thing[/quote]
I assume you get where I’m coming from right?
Neither extreme of the spectrum is going to work any better or worse than the other, they will both fail. But a “communistic” anarchy isn’t even possible.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
@ beans Jesus H Christ.
Left extreme = total government =Israel ??
Right extreme = no government = Palestine??
[/quote]
No. I thought you were referring to a reply I had to the new guy, who isn’t half bad, not the new guys who are clowns.
My post to you was totally off topic re: Israel
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
@ beans Jesus H Christ.
Left extreme = total government =Israel ??
Right extreme = no government = Palestine??
[/quote]
No. I thought you were referring to a reply I had to the new guy, who isn’t half bad, not the new guys who are clowns.
My post to you was totally off topic re: Israel[/quote]
Why because it is not consistent ??
my question remains
Right = Kick ass and Non empathy ??
Left = ???
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
lol long ago I sat in a pub totally drunk debating this same thing[/quote]
I assume you get where I’m coming from right?
Neither extreme of the spectrum is going to work any better or worse than the other, they will both fail. But a “communistic” anarchy isn’t even possible. [/quote]
True, I still stand by my drunken words, it isn’t. 
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
my question remains
Right = Kick ass and Non empathy ??
Left = ???[/quote]
Seems accurate.
Anyhow, about the current situation. Israel is having problems with palestine youth inside it’s borders, jewish youth too. Not to mention the West Bank. Harrasing of jewish communities in France, Germany and Malmo in Sweden began already sooner and it’s probably worsening. Haven’t heard anything especial from Malmo recently, though. I hope they get those tunnels obliterated soon. If that is not enough and they are after Hamas organsation shit is gonna hit the wall.
Wich is kind of ridiculous when so much more people are dying on other fronts. Can’t be helped, we are the passengers. And we have a comfy ride.
We’ll see what happens. In a half year this will be history. And my greatest fear, nothing has changed. Not that it directly affects my life, the embargo on Russia is a problem that directly affects people around me.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
my question remains
Right = Kick ass and Non empathy ??
Left = ???[/quote]
Right = Strong, independent, free thinking, able to defend themselves and not afraid to do so, intelligent, have well thought out LOGICAL arguments based on these things called “FACTS”, respects individual achievement, doesn’t believe in a free lunch, would rather teach someone to fish than GIVE them a fish, acts responsibly, has a strong moral compass and therefore doesn’t need a million laws telling us how to live, fiscal conservative, low taxes, LESS GOVERNMENT.
Left = Weak, dependent on government because they are too incompetent to fend for themselves, incapable of free thought, STUPID, Believes that all people are incompetent so that the Gubment should protect all of us, has arguments based on “FEELINGS” (that often change and don’t stand up to logic), respects communal achievement and group synergy and “getting along”, will take the free lunch every day of the week and twice on Sunday and never question who paid for it (they believe money falls from the sky like fairy dust), acts irresponsibly over and over again because they ignore history and don’t learn from past mistakes, has a weak moral compass and believes 8 year olds have the “right” to be transgender because they are just “expressing themselves” (expressing one’s self freely with no judgment or consequence is the most important value to the left), High taxes, MORE GOVERNMENT CONTROL over EVERY ASPECT of our lives from the cradle to the grave - they don’t want to have to make a SINGLE FUCKING DECISION FOR THEMSELVES, they want it all provided for them.
EDIT: ANNND they want to redistribute wealth so that it’s “fair” to everyone (except for the evil capitalist who, you know, EARNED IT).
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
my question remains
Right = Kick ass and Non empathy ??
Left = ???[/quote]
Right = Strong, independent, free thinking, able to defend themselves and not afraid to do so, intelligent, have well thought out LOGICAL arguments based on these things called “FACTS”, respects individual achievement, doesn’t believe in a free lunch, would rather teach someone to fish than GIVE them a fish, acts responsibly, has a strong moral compass and therefore doesn’t need a million laws telling us how to live, fiscal conservative, low taxes, LESS GOVERNMENT.
Left = Weak, dependent on government because they are too incompetent to fend for themselves, incapable of free thought, STUPID, Believes that all people are incompetent so that the Gubment should protect all of us, has arguments based on “FEELINGS” (that often change and don’t stand up to logic), respects communal achievement and group synergy and “getting along”, will take the free lunch every day of the week and twice on Sunday and never question who paid for it (they believe money falls from the sky like fairy dust), acts irresponsibly over and over again because they ignore history and don’t learn from past mistakes, has a weak moral compass and believes 8 year olds have the “right” to be transgender because they are just “expressing themselves” (expressing one’s self freely with no judgment or consequence is the most important value to the left), High taxes, MORE GOVERNMENT CONTROL over EVERY ASPECT of our lives from the cradle to the grave - they don’t want to have to make a SINGLE FUCKING DECISION FOR THEMSELVES, they want it all provided for them.
EDIT: ANNND they want to redistribute wealth so that it’s “fair” to everyone (except for the evil capitalist who, you know, EARNED IT).[/quote]
Basically I agree with you, but what should be done with the clueless people? I’m a big fan of the scandinavian system, obviously. I don’t want to have them sitting by the church door, even though I seldom venture there. I would provide them their booze, it’s cheap, and joints, cheap too, and a roof above their heads and a door open for those that have a revelation. Basically it could be arranged with low costs, but there are all kind of “moral” restraints.
Left-wing and right-wing were originally used to describe the French monarchists(right) and the French Revolutionaries and Republicans(left). Throughout the next century or so this meaning was the same with the “left-wing” constituting Communists, anarchists and other violent revolutionaries on the far left. And also socialists, social democrats on the left and monarchists/conservatives/reactionaries on the right.
In Italy prior to The First World War, the left were mostly anti-interventionists opposing Italian entry. This is because the left had traditionally opposed nationalism as nationalism was the monarchical institution that had to be crushed in furtherance of a global revolution. The proto-fascists were socialists, anarchists, corporate syndicalists and others who were intensely nationalistic and strongly in favour of Italian entry into the war.
The fascists came to represent the hard right even though they were far left revolutionaries. Their nationalism lumped them onto the “right wing.”
So in that sense there is cross over.
Some argue that left/right should be a horseshoe shaped spectrum with the hard left and the hard right bending around to meet each other. I disagree. It’s too difficult to classify political ideology on a binary scale. Left and right are pretty meaningless terms unless the audience knows what you’re talking about which is dependent on context and knowledge. For example if I say “the hard left” everyone knows I’m talking about Commies, Marxists etc. the traditional violent left-wingers that have plagued Europe since the French Revolution.
When I’m talking about parliamentary politics and I say “hard left” people generally know I’m talking about Democrats who take extreme positions associated with the New Left - traditional Marxism, radical identity politics, environmentalism etc.
Some argue that “left” and “right” is some soft of liberty scale with anarchy at one end and some form of totalitarian statism at the other end. This might be a workable scale if you ignore all the other things traditionally associated with the left and the right.
The best question really is not “what is left and right?” but rather, “what do you mean by left or right?”
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Left-wing and right-wing were originally used to describe the French monarchists(right) and the French Revolutionaries and Republicans(left). Throughout the next century or so this meaning was the same with the “left-wing” constituting Communists, anarchists and other violent revolutionaries on the far left. And also socialists, social democrats on the left and monarchists/conservatives/reactionaries on the right.
In Italy prior to The First World War, the left were mostly anti-interventionists opposing Italian entry. This is because the left had traditionally opposed nationalism as nationalism was the monarchical institution that had to be crushed in furtherance of a global revolution. The proto-fascists were socialists, anarchists, corporate syndicalists and others who were intensely nationalistic and strongly in favour of Italian entry into the war.
The fascists came to represent the hard right even though they were far left revolutionaries. Their nationalism lumped them onto the “right wing.”
So in that sense there is cross over.
Some argue that left/right should be a horseshoe shaped spectrum with the hard left and the hard right bending around to meet each other. I disagree. It’s too difficult to classify political ideology on a binary scale. Left and right are pretty meaningless terms unless the audience knows what you’re talking about which is dependent on context and knowledge. For example if I say “the hard left” everyone knows I’m talking about Commies, Marxists etc. the traditional violent left-wingers that have plagued Europe since the French Revolution.
When I’m talking about parliamentary politics and I say “hard left” people generally know I’m talking about Democrats who take extreme positions associated with the New Left - traditional Marxism, radical identity politics, environmentalism etc.
Some argue that “left” and “right” is some soft of liberty scale with anarchy at one end and some form of totalitarian statism at the other end. This might be a workable scale if you ignore all the other things traditionally associated with the left and the right.
The best question really is not “what is left and right?” but rather, “what do you mean by left or right?”[/quote]
Great post , informative. It’s situational and the shift of definition aggravates historians. I’m interested, can you distill something out of it?
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
too incompetent to fend for themselves, [/quote]
you know that this is not true.
[guote] acts irresponsibly over and over again because they ignore history and don’t learn from past mistakes, [/quote]
Ignoring history is not limited to the liberals
you do realize, that if the wealth was redistributed, then you would get the lions share of the redistribution, because you are not anywhere near the top 10% of wage earners…
(sigh) - you should stick to bar tending, and not politiking.
but dont listen to me, I am just one of the newbie clowns on this forum.
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Left-wing and right-wing were originally used to describe the French monarchists(right) and the French Revolutionaries and Republicans(left). Throughout the next century or so this meaning was the same with the “left-wing” constituting Communists, anarchists and other violent revolutionaries on the far left. And also socialists, social democrats on the left and monarchists/conservatives/reactionaries on the right.
In Italy prior to The First World War, the left were mostly anti-interventionists opposing Italian entry. This is because the left had traditionally opposed nationalism as nationalism was the monarchical institution that had to be crushed in furtherance of a global revolution. The proto-fascists were socialists, anarchists, corporate syndicalists and others who were intensely nationalistic and strongly in favour of Italian entry into the war.
The fascists came to represent the hard right even though they were far left revolutionaries. Their nationalism lumped them onto the “right wing.”
So in that sense there is cross over.
Some argue that left/right should be a horseshoe shaped spectrum with the hard left and the hard right bending around to meet each other. I disagree. It’s too difficult to classify political ideology on a binary scale. Left and right are pretty meaningless terms unless the audience knows what you’re talking about which is dependent on context and knowledge. For example if I say “the hard left” everyone knows I’m talking about Commies, Marxists etc. the traditional violent left-wingers that have plagued Europe since the French Revolution.
When I’m talking about parliamentary politics and I say “hard left” people generally know I’m talking about Democrats who take extreme positions associated with the New Left - traditional Marxism, radical identity politics, environmentalism etc.
Some argue that “left” and “right” is some soft of liberty scale with anarchy at one end and some form of totalitarian statism at the other end. This might be a workable scale if you ignore all the other things traditionally associated with the left and the right.
The best question really is not “what is left and right?” but rather, “what do you mean by left or right?”[/quote]
Great post , informative. It’s situational and the shift of definition aggravates historians. I’m interested, can you distill something out of it?[/quote]
Not really. It depends on context. Left and right could be used as a binary scale for macroeconomics as they relate to the free market and the state. It could also be used as a binary scale for liberty with anarchism at one end and totalitarian statism on the other. But that’s about as far as it goes for universal application.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Left-wing and right-wing were originally used to describe the French monarchists(right) and the French Revolutionaries and Republicans(left). Throughout the next century or so this meaning was the same with the “left-wing” constituting Communists, anarchists and other violent revolutionaries on the far left. And also socialists, social democrats on the left and monarchists/conservatives/reactionaries on the right.
In Italy prior to The First World War, the left were mostly anti-interventionists opposing Italian entry. This is because the left had traditionally opposed nationalism as nationalism was the monarchical institution that had to be crushed in furtherance of a global revolution. The proto-fascists were socialists, anarchists, corporate syndicalists and others who were intensely nationalistic and strongly in favour of Italian entry into the war.
The fascists came to represent the hard right even though they were far left revolutionaries. Their nationalism lumped them onto the “right wing.”
So in that sense there is cross over.
Some argue that left/right should be a horseshoe shaped spectrum with the hard left and the hard right bending around to meet each other. I disagree. It’s too difficult to classify political ideology on a binary scale. Left and right are pretty meaningless terms unless the audience knows what you’re talking about which is dependent on context and knowledge. For example if I say “the hard left” everyone knows I’m talking about Commies, Marxists etc. the traditional violent left-wingers that have plagued Europe since the French Revolution.
When I’m talking about parliamentary politics and I say “hard left” people generally know I’m talking about Democrats who take extreme positions associated with the New Left - traditional Marxism, radical identity politics, environmentalism etc.
Some argue that “left” and “right” is some soft of liberty scale with anarchy at one end and some form of totalitarian statism at the other end. This might be a workable scale if you ignore all the other things traditionally associated with the left and the right.
The best question really is not “what is left and right?” but rather, “what do you mean by left or right?”[/quote]
Great post , informative. It’s situational and the shift of definition aggravates historians. I’m interested, can you distill something out of it?[/quote]
Not really. It depends on context. Left and right could be used as a binary scale for macroeconomics as they relate to the free market and the state. It could also be used as a binary scale for liberty with anarchism at one end and totalitarian statism on the other. But that’s about as far as it goes for universal application.[/quote]
Yeah, the context. Crucial, but obfuscating. It seems to be about which lies fly. It’s so simple and at the same time… reality lacks purpose. It has the potential to make a person depressed. At the moment I’m on the Israelian side, though. What a possibility Hamas sqandered when they didn’t care of their people, as Boromir dd at his last momets
Three interesting interviews (assuming they are viewable in America). Might help introduce some different perspectives.
the left-right spectrum obfuscates the fact that there is three main models competing to replace traditional society.
Each with its own internal contradictions and conflicts.
-
Individualism / liberalism.
main goal : to put an ultimate nail in the coffin of traditional society
Internal contradiction : where to stop ?
its right wing focuses on economic deregulation. Its left-wing focuses on social deregulation. Some psychos focuses on both. -
socialism
main goal : to replace traditionnal society with some kind of biggest and more rational society
internal contradiction : the role of the State. (Or more accurately “bottom-up vs top-down”).
Its “left-wing” rejects the State (see 19th century anarchism). Its “right-wing” promotes it (see marxism/communism, but some brand of nationalism, like french’s gaullism could be classified here too). -
organicism
main goal : want to go back to traditional society, or at the very least, ressurect some kind of natural, organic society.
internal contradiction : too many to list (religion vs nation vs race // cultural activism vs political activism // escapism vs sectarism, etc)
major examples are the passive-agressive wing of the religious right on one hand, the old european fascism on the other.
to see all the variants of these three models in one room, just go to an internal meeting of an environmentalist party in Europe.
The smallest the party, the biggest your chances to see the full spectrum at once.
Most people, being assholes, are individualists as far are they are concerned, socialists when the rest of society is concerned, and conservative organicists when they have dinner with their in-laws.
I suppose its a definition of “centrism”.
[quote]squatbenchhench wrote:
Three interesting interviews (assuming they are viewable in America). Might help introduce some different perspectives.
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/headtohead/2013/06/201361310127499186.html[/quote]
Al Jazeera = state funded propaganda channel of the Qataris.
PressTV = state funded propaganda channel of the Iranians
RTV = state funded propaganda channel of the Russians
^^The “perspectives” of these media outlets are synonymous with the “perspectives” of the Salafist regime in Qatar, the Khameneian regime in Iran and the Putin regime in Moscow. All of these channels seek to promote the foreign policy objectives of a particular regime. That’s why you get stories about Israeli “war crimes” on Al Jazeera, stories about the perfidy of nuclear weapons inspectors on PressTV and stories about the Ukrainians carrying out false flag ops to frame the Russians for the shooting down of a commercial airliner.
[quote]Edgy wrote:
you do realize, that if the wealth was redistributed, then you would get the lions share of the redistribution, because you are not anywhere near the top 10% of wage earners…
(sigh) - you should stick to bar tending, and not politiking.
but dont listen to me, I am just one of the newbie clowns on this forum.
[/quote]
Actually, Edgy, I stopped bartending a few years ago, I went down south and got back into electrical work (my career before I did Mortgage) servicing oil rigs and production platforms - everything from generators, switchgear to PLC’s. After a year or so doing that, I was able to leverage that critical power experience to getting a position supervising the electrical power at one of the largest data centers on the east coast. I’m on track to make 300K this year (already at 170K so far). That puts me above the top 5%… Not QUITE in the “1%”, but close enough to know that I’m getting my ass handed to me by the fucking IRS so that our wonderful government can give the money I EARNED to fucking idiots too lazy to get a fucking job…
So I actually DO have a vested interest in this subject.