For many historic reasons being left-wing is always regarded as more "open", "tolerant" and generally well-adjusted. Being right-wing is then seen as "constrained" and "myopic".
Any society right from centre is then also viewed as "fascist" or "reactrionary".
However, are any liberal associations any better? Step out of line and you're history.
Perhaps the terms "fascist hippy" are not so much of a joke.
Some really are so far let they're right.

Of course it's possible, just compare Hitler and Stalin. Hitler was extremely right, while Stalin was extremely left, but in the end one finds their practices to be more similar to each other than other rightists or leftists.

That's why it shouldn't be left or right anymore.

There is a now scale that goes left and right for the economic qualities of liberal and conservative, and up and down, which is authoritarian and libertarian.



[edit on 11-4-2010 by Phlynx]

Right and left have little to do with tyranny, except for the following.

Right wing thought, in essence, concludes that all people are driven by primitive survival instincts and thus are greedy and selfish, and therefore the best system to promote overall progress is one that stimulates and rewards primitive instincts. Thus the tree hugger is an object of derision and the investment banker is a hero. Its underlying principle is "do what you want" and it is the basis of Libertarianism.

Left wing thought embraces the concept of an enlightened humanity, endorsing the idea that we can rise above primitive instincts and do better as a whole by cooperating rather than competing, and that giving is a virtue. Those who do the most to improve the lives of others are considered the greatest successes. Its underlying principles are those of Jesus Christ and it is the basis of Socialism.

Tyranny is the exploitation of either of these ideas in order to maintain control over a population. The tyrant is, in essence, the Godfather of a criminal gang which exists to exploit the people of a nation. Tyrants may claim to be about the left or the right, but either is simply a system to exploit, while the tyrant really only follows one principle: enrich thyself.

yeah yaa man some of those who call them selves liberals sound more like fascist . The extreme of either side of the equation results in a tyrannical fascist system .

Left-wing is about inclusivity and the working class as the many being the elite. It is very collective in outlook.

Ring wing is about the individual as elite. Thus indivuals try to set themselves up as better than the "hoi poloi".

The terrible problem for the left is that Human nature is not easily transcended hence there is an elite that seeks to rule the masses. The right has no such problem as they are fully embrasing of their elites and the inate superiority of certain individuals.


It is ideologically impossible to " be so left you're right". Let and right are completely separate ideologies. The left in particular has a massive body of writiing on left wing ideologies. There is also a strong history of debates. In fact debate is part of the dialectical process.


[edit on 11-4-2010 by Tiger5]

I think the answer to your question is it possible is affirmative - I also think it a necessary function of any closed loop system to self regulate or seek statsis/equilibrium. Any system under observation must conform to the viewpoint of the observer. This is the primary reason labels are so inadequate to describe anything other than physical existence/events.
Except perhaps "non-conformist".

gj

Originally posted by halfoldman
Coming from South Africa, I've never quite understood the US dual main party system. They say the Republicans are towards the "right", but they want very little government intervention in people's lives - to me that sounds very liberal left, and I suppose a lot of hippies and such would agree. So why must people vote Democrat to get less state intervention concerning what they put into their own bodies, like medical marijuana?
I really don't want to encourage partisan politics or any such issue. But why do Americans rather pay for conservative Republican wars, but they are anti-health-care reform?

Excellent post, and yes, you are correct, it makes no sense, but that is the way it is here. The reason is that the Republicans (right) are really all about lowering the costs of production, so they are, in essence, in the business of exploiting the working man. But they could not achieve electoral victory on such a platform, so they run as "social conservatives" (in other words, fundamentalist Christians) to further exploit the working man by using his own ignorance, fears and prejudices to induce him to support his destroyer.

Unfortunately the Democrats have their own issues with corruption. They essentially manage a varied constituency of special interests (like gays, blacks, women's righters, pro choice advocates, peaceniks, etc.), so they often fail to put together a cohesive platform to inspire the nation. They are far, far to easy to pick off with the divide and conquer strategies of the GOP, and they can be easily demonized by appealing to the fears of the simpleminded.