Right Wing...

I'm confused I just don't see the idea of Right Wing working. I mean an authoritarianism government leads our lives to be dictated by a few men leads me feeling a bit weird, considering I don't know these men and their real intentions.Now in a Right Wing government their intentions are probably the following.

Big class divide.
Making as much money as possible
more law basses jobs including law enforcement
bigger military
more jobs based on money (stocks brokers, banks).
tightening border control.
less talking with nations and letting actions do the speaking.
money is power.

To me that is a living hell where we are all slaves to the system (a lot more than now) and i just cant understand why this system even exists as a possibility?
Okay if you go far left you get Communism and a lot of people say that it does work, which if you look at modern day examples it has not worked. But if you know what communism means then you realise that how could a left wing political system such as communism be entangled with a right wing system a dictator?!?!?!!


All collapsed communism states to date have had some sort of dictator and a dictator is the opposite of a left wing government it is a so far right Hitler was one so the idea that communism does not work to mean is only because it has never been implemented properly. Communism is the stuff of pure democracy meaning everyone has a say and vote into how their country is organised and run where we can make our own laws for our bankers and banks to abide by. It is not a military state, everyone does not have to do what they are told.

I find it funny when i come across American people who get angered at a mention of the word communist, they think of the former USSR and the so called PRC (Peoples Republic of China, which isn't really communist is complicated) Yet they are not communist they are no where near the true meaning of the word communist never have been, so I want to let people know that communism is not the enemy that you thought it was, I want you to know that the fear of communism if you have any are probably based on facts that are on a political system that is not really communist.

To me it just seam like if we would be too left wing then we would have much more control over our own lives, so why don't we?

Do you really trust a few group of men that you don't know to control how you, your friends, your kids and your family live their lives?

Do you trust them knowing they can be influenced by money?

Do you trust them when they say one thing for one reason, but their intentions and reasons in due course seam to become clearer until it turns out the original thing was just to make you agree?

I mean I just don't get why people support right wing? can someone enlighten me please.



P.S Before you say thing like "If America turn communist tomorrow, it would collapse" you have to realise it would have to work globally, because as long as the phrase 'Money = Power' is existing in a true state then it will not work. And yes i am talking about a "Venus Project" type world....

reply to post by definity


Using your strawman definition to define what is "right wing" would lead anyone to reject conservative politics. Categorizing with half truths might speak well to the choir but it ain't gonna convince anyone else.

Well with the way things are going we are headed for a Nazi America.

Linguist Compares Political Hate Talk to Nazi Propaganda
www.opednews.com...

I think we need to define terms here and Right Wing as your saying it isn't the definition of the Conservative I am or even the Republican I once was.

It sounds like you look at Bush and think Right Wing when I look at Bush as the closest to a Facist President we've had since Lincoln ruled over the civil war.

If we use Reagan or even Nixon or that matter...and talk domestic ideas along conservative ideas, I think we find ourselves in a radically different discussion. In my view, we haven't seen a Conservative in the White House since 1988. We've had a Warmongering little twit with grudges from the 70s, A Democrat who wasn't half bad in hindsight, a Facist with Darth Vader as his Padowan and now the closest thing to a true red communist our nation has seen.

It's been one hell of a 20 year stretch with the last 10 or so being something akin to nightmares for us true Americans. Lets get back to AMERICANS leading America..and that does mean THREE of the last 4 Presidents, not just this one. American is a whole lot more than just the line on a Birth Cert, IMO.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
I think we need to define terms here and Right Wing as your saying it isn't the definition of the Conservative I am or even the Republican I once was.

It sounds like you look at Bush and think Right Wing when I look at Bush as the closest to a Facist President we've had since Lincoln ruled over the civil war.

If we use Reagan or even Nixon or that matter...and talk domestic ideas along conservative ideas, I think we find ourselves in a radically different discussion. In my view, we haven't seen a Conservative in the White House since 1988.

If you can consider Reagans several clandestine wars in S. America 'conservative, sure.

Both Reagan and Nixon would be considered 'liberal' by today's Republican party.

Originally posted by SirMike
reply to post by definity

 

Using your strawman definition to define what is "right wing" would lead anyone to reject conservative politics. Categorizing with half truths might speak well to the choir but it ain't gonna convince anyone else.

How is it a strawman?

Traditionally the right wing is support of state interventionism, the left-wing being anti-state (even Marxism is ultimately anti-state, Marxists just believed a temporary state is necessary in order to reverse the problems caused by capitalism before communism is possible, and ultimately communism is anarchist).

..In this sense communism is always libertarian or anarchist, as the abolition of the wage brings about the abolition of the relation of command which structures the organs of state power such as the police, army and bureaucracy.

struggle.ws...

The original political meanings of ‘left’ and ‘right’ have changed since their origin in the French estates general in 1789. There the people sitting on the left could be viewed as more or less anti-statists with those on the right being state-interventionists of one kind or another. In this interpretation of the pristine sense, libertarianism was clearly at the extreme left-wing.

www.la-articles.org.uk...

Contrary to popular misconception, the goal of Communists was ultimately to abolish the State altogether. Basic Communist ideology holds that the purpose of "the State" is to enforce social and economic disparity. According to Marxist thinking the State developed as a tool for a minority of people to oppress other people.

rationalrevolution.net...

The ultimate goal for all left-wing ideologies is 'free association'...

In the anarchist, Marxist and socialist sense, free association (also called free association of producers or, as Marx often called it, community of freely associated individuals) is a kind of relation between individuals where there is no state, social class or authority, in a society that has abolished the private property of means of production. Once private property is abolished, individuals are no longer deprived of access to means of production so they can freely associate themselves (without social constraint) to produce and reproduce their own conditions of existence and fulfill their needs and desires.

en.wikipedia.org...

Government and state control ultimately comes from capitalism, not socialism.

The problem with right wing and left wing is that they are still part of the evil, vile, and disgusting dragon.

Originally posted by calnorak
The problem with right wing and left wing is that they are still part of the evil, vile, and disgusting dragon.

You're thinking of Republicans and Democrats.

Right and Left are political ideologies.

Originally posted by calnorak
The problem with right wing and left wing is that they are still part of the evil, vile, and disgusting dragon.

People have to realise there is the true left, and there is the pseudo-left sold to us by the majority right wing state.

The left you read of in the MSM, has nothing to do with traditional left-wing ideology.

There is no left-wing in government, only different degrees of right wing. Two sides of the same coin as the saying goes. Two sides to give you the illusion of change, while all the time we have the same economic system.

The left traditionally was about reducing the authority of the state, not making it larger, and creating a system of free association. Free association is only possible with worker ownership, socialism.

You can't ague socialism and capitalism while using incorrect terminology, otherwise the discussion is meaningless.

Originally posted by definity

To me that is a living hell where we are all slaves to the system (a lot more than now) and i just cant understand why this system even exists as a possibility?

Funny thing, after reading that I laughed pretty good because thats exactly what I felt like when I moved form a liberal state to a conservative state!

Only those who have experienced both a liberal state AND a conservative state could come to such a conclusion as to how they compare. There are a few things MUCH BETTER in a conservative state, but as for quality of life OVERALL, for the middle-class hard-workers, a liberal state wins by a LANDSLIDE.

But the "hell" part is EXACTLY what I felt after a few years in a conservative state. And that I say being a skilled and educated Caucasian male which certainly makes me fare more "favorably" than our other gender and other classes of folks in conservative states... Conservative states seem to favor the DARK AGES and seem hellbent on RETURNING to that time.

CONservative HELL. SIGH!!.

I agree, why else would they need to hire 16,000+ IRS agents.

Its weird that people that claim leftists tend to never admit that their has been left ideological governments. I have heard this argument before my utopia has never existed because it wasn't done the right way, thanks Lenin and Mao and the other dictators that give us left leaning guys ideas bad names!

reply to post by HangTheTraitors


I hear you a little bit on that. I lived in the Tacoma, Wa area and they shove the liberal kool-aid down your throat and if you don't swallow or if you showed that you are different, then the claws and fangs come out.

I still live in Wa but on the other side of the Cascade's which is much more conservative. I actually have a mortgage under $600.00 which is nice and people mind their own business. I really like it hear. My quality of life is WAY better and people aren't always trying to get me fined or in trouble. Also the police leave me alone here. I don't get followed with them trying to push my speed up here.

reply to post by stanguilles7


I never said the man walked on water or broke bread with 12 disciples. Show me a President that hasn't had their own little wars during their term. Obama has Central Africa, Libya and likely Syria by the end of things. Maybe even Iran. Clinton had Kosovo and a new push followed by a VERY humiliating defeat in Somalia. Carter had Iran and almost had the whole region in his lap before the Camp David Accords. Ford did nothing but keep a seat warm....and you REALLY don't want to go to Johnson for Presidents running dirty dirty covert wars...do ya?

Sorry if every President has an ugly side, but even our early ones were just human.

I simply noted it's been 1988 and Reagan since America has had the opportunity to see Conservative approaches to our problems. I would have said Carter represented the last time America saw the disaster of the EXTREME left...but then Obama came along.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by stanguilles7

 

I never said the man walked on water or broke bread with 12 disciples.

Show me a President that hasn't had their own little wars during their term. Obama has Central Africa, Libya and likely Syria by the end of things. Maybe even Iran. Clinton had Kosovo and a new push followed by a VERY humiliating defeat in Somalia. Carter had Iran and almost had the whole region in his lap before the Camp David Accords. Ford did nothing but keep a seat warm....and you REALLY don't want to go to Johnson for Presidents running dirty dirty covert wars...do ya?

Sorry if every President has an ugly side, but even our early ones were just human.

I simply noted it's been 1988 and Reagan since America has had the opportunity to see Conservative approaches to our problems. I would have said Carter represented the last time America saw the disaster of the EXTREME left...but then Obama came along.

So your point is that Reagan was a conservative COMPARED TO OBAMA, but not by any actual conservative standards?

reply to post by stanguilles7

No. If you read the first post I made where I said exactly what the comparison was..you'd see I wasn't comparing Reagan to Obama.

It sounds like you look at Bush and think Right Wing when I look at Bush as the closest to a Facist President we've had since Lincoln ruled over the civil war.

If we use Reagan or even Nixon or that matter...and talk domestic ideas along conservative ideas, I think we find ourselves in a radically different discussion.

I'm comparing W. Bush to Reagan...and his Father for that matter. Neither Bush was much of a Conservative in any real sense..and even Reagan didn't much care for H.W. Bush. He was more necessary for the ticket than he was any real friend to the Boss.

My point was simply that if Right Wing is being defined by those who only knew W. Bush as the example to see, oh..please don't. As noted, Bush was about as conservative in the end as I am Jewish. I ASSURE you...I am no one a person would mistake for Jewish. So...Reagan is the best example I can think of that MOST, if not all know and can relate to the example of on an international site.

Originally posted by ANOK

Traditionally the right wing is support of state interventionism, the left-wing being anti-state (even Marxism is ultimately anti-state, Marxists just believed a temporary state is necessary in order to reverse the problems caused by capitalism before communism is possible, and ultimately communism is anarchist).

But anarchy is no government, communism has some form of centralized government surley.

Originally posted by definity

But anarchy is no government, communism has some form of centralized government surley.

Nope, all forms of left wing ideology ultimately are anarchist as they all believe in 'free association'...

In the anarchist, Marxist and socialist sense, free association (also called free association of producers or, as Marx often called it, community of freely associated individuals) is a kind of relation between individuals where there is no state, social class or authority, in a society that has abolished the private property of means of production. Once private property is abolished, individuals are no longer deprived of access to means of production so they can freely associate themselves (without social constraint) to produce and reproduce their own conditions of existence and fulfill their needs and desires.

en.wikipedia.org...

The ultimate goal of the left is the liberation of the proletariat.

Communism is the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat.

www.marxists.org...

Marxists, for example, support forming a revolutionary government that would lead to socialism, and temporary state system that would increase production to overcome the artificial scarcity caused by capitalism. Once production is increased to the point everyone's needs are met then the state becomes unnecessary, and true communism can be practiced.

The anarchists were socialists, and communists, who didn't believe a revolutionary government was possible.
History proves they were right. In the UK the 'labour party' started in 1900 as a pressure group on behalf of the workers. Workers were not represented in government at that time (like they're not now). When the labour paty formed into a proper political party, it was supposed to be the revolutionary government that would lead to socialism. But of course, as the anarchists correctly predicted, power is power, and those in power tend to have their own interests at heart, and again the workers became unrepresented in government.

The Labour Party was created in 1900: a new party for a new century. Its formation was the result of many years of hard effort by working people, trade unionists and socialists, united by the goal of changing the British Parliament to represent the interests of everybody. Ignored by the Tories and disillusioned with the Liberals, a coalition of different interests came together to push for change at a Conference on Labour Representation in London's Memorial Hall in February 1900.

www.labour.org.uk...

It's a misinterpretation of communism by right-wing propaganda, that communism is a centralized state system.
Marxism, a political system, only supports the idea of a temporary state system before communism can be implemented. But even then it is still socialism, which is the workers ownership of the means of production.
So even if there is a state/government system the workers have the power, not the state. Just like under capitalism private owners have the real power, not the state. Capitalists manipulates and control the state through their economic power. Whoever controls the economy controls everything.

Those with the real power is not government, it's the capitalist owners of industry.

reply to post by ANOK


You just tried to prove 'all leftists are anarchists' by claiming they are all Marxists?

You know the anarchists actively and aggressively opposed the Marxists, right?

The disconnect is astounding.

Originally posted by stanguilles7
reply to post by ANOK

 

You just tried to prove 'all leftists are anarchists' by claiming they are all Marxists?

No I didn't, I just used Marx as an example because it is what most people think of when talking about socialism.

Yes even Marxism is ultimately anarchist. In Marxism the state system is temporary.

What I said was all left wing ideologies are ultimately communist and communism is ultimately anarchist, not the state system people think it is.

You know the anarchists actively and aggressively opposed the Marxists, right?

The disconnect is astounding.

Of course. But only because anarchists don't believe a revolutionary government is possible. They all support the same final goal, free association. All left-wing ideologies have the same goal, the differences lie in how to get there.

The goal of all left-wing ideologies is free association...

In the anarchist, Marxist and socialist sense, free association (also called free association of producers or, as Marx often called it, community of freely associated individuals) is a kind of relation between individuals where there is no state, social class or authority, in a society that has abolished the private property of means of production. Once private property is abolished, individuals are no longer deprived of access to means of production so they can freely associate themselves (without social constraint) to produce and reproduce their own conditions of existence and fulfill their needs and desires.

en.wikipedia.org...

In the early 1800's the socialists split between those who supported a 'state system', Marxism, and those who apposed the state system who started calling themselves anarchists. They were still all socialists.

This is talking about left wing systems, Marxism vs Anarchism...

...This is not to say that it cannot be argued that all these political system are fundamentally the same, that their differences, no matter how violent, are secondary to certain essential features that all have in common. But the point is that it is necessary to argue the case, to marshal some evidence, to know a phenomenon before condemning it. One can't simply begin with the conclusion.

libcom.org...

Wow this is getting interesting, I learnt some new understandings, I suppose I am talking about Marxism and The Venus project kinda combined, TBH their will always have to be some form of centralised government to control such things as health care and police force for sick and crazy out of control people (Who is going to maintain them?), which their will always be. But surely Marx would of worked that out he was an extremely cleaver guy.