Is it possible to be so left you're right?

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.

reply to post by halfoldman

Although the thread is inclusive and non-prescriptive, especial points of interest might be youth culture and music fascism, censorship of any kind or encouragement, especially in popular culture, crime staistics or whatever makes people question and feel uncomfortable with their own political position.
Surely if people cannot question anything on their own position, then it borders on fascism. Or not?

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]

reply to post by Xcalibur254

Yes I think the movements that developed politically in the 1920's and 1930's are a bit of a challange to both points. The Nazis were the National Socialist German Worker's Party - so at least originally it sounded like another Leftist movement.
I mean, if the left is egalitarian, and perhaps comparative to things like "co-operation", "sharing", "altruism" and other collective over individual consciousness deals, then why do they even have leaders?
So maybe the "right" grows from the far left, where a leader must be one with the spirit of the people?

reply to post by halfoldman

This is what I mean by youth culture and music fascism, just as a moot point interjection.
When I grew my hair long in the early 1990s, thrash metal like Metallica, Megadeth and Slayer was in. One day I wore a Poison T-shirt and was almost lynched. That was "fag/poser metal", or "commercial" (as if any of it wasn't commercial).
And I thought: I became a headbanger to be a non-conformist, but now suddenly I must conform to their tastes despite the fact that I liked Poison.
I first thought that I was joining something really radical and "left-wing" tolerant, but in its own group it was actually fascist.

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

reply to post by ganjoa


Right and left do not constitute a closed loop. Right and left are opposing political ideologies they meet in the middle in social democracy. Right and left also constitute diffeting modes of production and economics.


[edit on 11-4-2010 by Tiger5]

reply to post by Tiger5

A very salient, short way of putting it.
Thanks for that understanding.
Very often "east" and "west", and nowadays north-south discussions complicate the dichotomy further.

reply to post by halfoldman


Any time you take an ideology to the extreme you end up with something bad. The key lies in balance and moderation. That's why the left-right illusion is so damaging, because in reality most Americans don't conform to rigid meaningless platforms but have their own opinions that more often them not leave them in the middle. But instead of forming their own opinions they are forced into the right-left mold that has so badly damaged our nation.

reply to post by Titen-Sxull

So maybe it's a bit like the Golden Mean - or Goldilocks's porridge - not too hot or too cold. But wait, isn't that begging the question? If most people were like that we wouldn't need concepts like left or right.
Isn't that a comprimise on the right side of left?

reply to post by halfoldman


We don't need the left or the right. Its a false duality that helps TPTB divide and conquer. America was built on compromises when delegates from every colony came together and reached a consensus on how our new government should be formed.

Its much better if we are allowed to form our own opinions on topics. For instance I have a mix of left and right opinions (ie I'm against abortion but for gay marriage). Most people would have mixed views on various subjects and topics but instead they just pick a party and hop on the bandwagon conforming to a rigid platform that works kind of like a religion in that it polarizes them against those who don't believe the same way.

reply to post by Titen-Sxull

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?
I'm not convinced or cleared-up how Republican is right, and Democrat is
left, but that's how the world sees it.

reply to post by halfoldman


Truth is at the top both parties are bought and paid for by special interests, or as we call them here on ATS, the powers that be, the Elite. The super-rich basically puppeteer the government. In that way both parties are working toward more government intrusions in our life.

They pretend to be at war with each other to keep the people asleep but at the top they are both working toward the same goals (more power and wealth for themselves and less for us).

[edit on 11-4-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

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.