The Left and Right Political Ideologies

I considered writing this topic because of the huge amount of people who talk about Communism (Extreme Left) and Nazism (Extreme Right), and confusing them and their ideologies.

Definitions

LEFT - describes an outlook or specific position that accepts or supports social equality, often in opposition to social hierarchy and social inequality.
RIGHT - describes an outlook or specific position that accepts or supports social hierarchy or social inequality. Social hierarchy and social inequality is viewed by those affiliated with the Right as either inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable, whether it arises through traditional social differences or from competition in market economies.

Sources:
Left Wing Politics
Right Wing Politics

As a lot of you have seen on this forum, a lot of people consider the current path of the USA politics as leading to communism by the removal of the middle class, creating a bigger gap between the rich and the poor.

As the above definitions state, the left wing communist ideology supports social equality (although some are more equal than others) and is opposed to social inequality and social hierearchy and the right wing ideology supports social inequality, social hierearchy and nationalism combined with discrimination of minorities. This right wing ideologic trend can be clearly seen in US politics today by the destruction of the current middle class, nationalistic policies, favorization of the rich and expansionist imperial policies.

The US has a two party system*: the Centrist-Left Democratic Party and the Centrist-Right Republican Party; but if you look at how they operate you will clearly see a pattern of Centrist-Right/Right-Wing ideology, so we can call it the Left-Right paradigm or illusion.

* there are more parties in the US but these two are the most popular.

I think that this confusion is caused by the Cold War anti-communist propaganda.


So in conclusion, next time you write a thread about "Communist America" take these definitions and examples in to account and stop this confusion.

reply to post by AlexIR


Hmm I am not sure I fully agree with you...

You look at the "left" and the "right" in terms of a rather... social aspect. Yes you mentioned that extreme right wing believes in social inequality as well as some other type of "market" inequality as well but I am not sure that is the proper way to describe either party. Equality in terms of the people makes a little bit of sense. A liberal society would want to be a smaller gap in classes than say a conservative society, but each are trying to remove social classes. An extreme liberal would remove both rich and poor classes while inevitably an extreme conservative would remove a middle class.

Even in some social issues I suppose there may be some type of natural inequality in the social system of America now, but personally I blame that far more on the liberal left-wingers than the right. Maybe originally it wasn't so but nowadays a person can't say black or gay without heads turning, yet the term cracker is never censored in media like other racial slurs. This is the only real social inequality I see in America, on a whole.

The politics these days I think are less viewed in terms of an "equality" sense as really it comes down to issues with government. Less of a left and right thing but more of an up and down thing I suppose. Governmental politics are so very control centered that I think both drown out what you would consider to be the determining factor in what makes left or right. It isn't that the US is a country full of right-centrists and right-wingers as much as the illusion is within there being a color at all. There is no red and blue, just a government that ultimately wants to control the people.

I guess where I disagree with you is that I think the left and right in terms of equality should be looked at it in eyes of the government. Left wing to me is the government keeping everyone on equal disadvantage with the government. The leftists are ok with this decision of "equality" because even though personal freedoms are watered down it keeps a feeling of safety. Right wing to me, is when the people don't accept this and oppose the government forcing the people to be regulated into being the same person as everyone else.

reply to post by PhysicsAdept


I first talked about the extremes where these ideologies are defined but the US has centrist parties which have parts from both left and right but both parties have more parts from right wing than from left wing.

And as for the lefties keeping everyone in an equal social disadvantage, i quoted George Orwell, "some are more equal than others" but in communism this "equality" is not as great as in the US where coorporations are considered people with rights, more rights than humans.

Uh, yeah, communism is precisely the supposed pursuit of social equality. So by your definitions, OP, the liberal political position in the United States is patently communist.

And as is also obvious, both communism and American liberalism, to whatever small extent they can be distinguished, are actually geared toward empowering the rulers of society, thus breaking the "social equality" and instead empowering authoritarians and their slavish supporters, while disempowering dissidents or other opponents in principle or convenience.

This of course is entirely in keeping with historical trends.

The Republican party and its conservatives were the ones who ended the subjugation of slaves, and then of women. Later we fought for an end to segregation, and even today we fight to stop drug use and importation and to empower lower income Americans to protect themselves and to choose which school they send their children to.

reply to post by PhysicsAdept

Maybe originally it wasn't so but nowadays a person can't say black or gay without heads turning, yet the term cracker is never censored in media like other racial slurs. This is the only real social inequality I see in America, on a whole.

With you on the first part but you lost me on this one...

Consider the education background on the major politic players and you can clearly see social inequality at work. In fact I wouldn't even dismiss that the system is so rigged than the rise of political figures is mostly managed in the US. Why risk it be otherwise.

Consider also the deficit in Latinos, even Native Americans or their descendants, in front most positions or the excess of Jews in media and politics. Racial profile is a bad thing but when it is clear and obvious there is no reasonable way to dismiss it. Then there are the other social inequalities, like religion and other that are not unique to the US, there is clearly an inequality regarding gender.

Originally posted by Panic2k11
With you on the first part but you lost me on this one...

Consider the education background on the major politic players and you can clearly see social inequality at work. In fact I wouldn't even dismiss that the system is so rigged than the rise of political figures is mostly managed in the US. Why risk it be otherwise.

Consider also the deficit in Latinos, even Native Americans or their descendants, in front most positions or the excess of Jews in media and politics. Racial profile is a bad thing but when it is clear and obvious there is no reasonable way to dismiss it. Then there are the other social inequalities, like religion and other that are not unique to the US, there is clearly an inequality regarding gender.

What you seem to be suggesting is that if people from ten different ethnicities are allowed to compete in the same race, and people of one particular ethnicity tend to win that race, then that is evidence of racism.

I don't see that that's the case. Do you believe that the NFL or the NBA are racist organizations?

reply to post by JBlitzen


I believe that ethnicity representation across the social strata of US society clearly contrasts with your lack of identifying problems. Take for instance the state of society that goes into the military and the reasons why.

Then there is the normal class stratification in regards to education relation to wage.

As for the NFL and NBA I do not define the institutions as racist organizations but the general US society that enables ethnic stratification.

To me as a non American the logic and industry behind collage sports that then drives professional sports is extremely deplorable. It goes in parallel with the issue I mentioned above (the military) I see their benefit in social planning as a way to address the pressure from lower classes, its like the lottery, percentage wise how many rich people play the lotto ?

I think you mixed me up with PhysicsAdept, heh. Understandable, I'm still getting used to this board layout, it's a little weird compared to most.

reply to post by JBlitzen


Thanks will correct it. I also dislike the setup, I have every chance to push for something like slashdot. Threaded threads and a way to downgrade karma (negative stars) and a limit to initiate threads...

nod.

Originally posted by Panic2k11
I believe that ethnicity representation across the social strata of US society clearly contrasts with your lack of identifying problems. Take for instance the state of society that goes into the military and the reasons why.

Then there is the normal class stratification in regards to education relation to wage.

As for the NFL and NBA I do not define the institutions as racist organizations but the general US society that enables ethnic stratification.

To me as a non American the logic and industry behind collage sports that then drives professional sports is extremely deplorable. It goes in parallel with the issue I mentioned above (the military) I see their benefit in social planning as a way to address the pressure from lower classes, its like the lottery, percentage wise how many rich people play the lotto ?

edit on 11-1-2013 by Panic2k11 because: fixed was replying incorrectly to another user

Social stratification in the US actually has more to do with liberal make-believe policies to "equalize" social situations than anything else.

The problem is that some ethnic groups and social groups experience what you can think of as subsidized poverty. They are paid to "know their place", and members who rise above that place are universally excoriated, such as Clarence Thomas (a Republican-appointed Supreme Court justice) (and one who's extremely popular with Republicans, myself included).

What it really is is merely a continuation of the now-banned practice of segregation, which itself was a continuation of the then-banned practice of slavery.

And that subjugation is almost exclusively perpetrated by American liberals through the policies of the Democratic party.

It's actually quite difficult for me to think of a counter-example, and I'm pretty well-versed on the subject. Abortion, for instance, very heavily targets african americans, and the founder of planned parenthood was a firm supporter of the Ku Klux Klan. Susan B Anthony, on the other hand, was one of the first women in the country to vote, voted for a Republican (the party founded by abolitionists in order to bring about abolition), and remained an opponent of abortion until the day she died.

But fine, abortion is probably too third-rail.

Let's try gun control. Here conservatives are, arguing for the right of low-income inner-city residents (often african american) to purchase and legally own inexpensive firearms in order to protect themselves, their loved ones, and their neighborhoods. A far cry from the liberal position which forces blacks to choose between defending themselves and obeying the law, and thus creating a culture where criminality is viewed positively.

It could be that every liberal policy simply suffers from radical unintended consequences. Or it could be that, taken altogether, they combine to form a single fully intended policy of racial and social suppression and subjugation. I tend to hold the latter view more than the former, these days.

reply to post by JBlitzen


They have learned that if they keep a certain instability of social and racial aspects of the US population they can control the people and they will always follow what they are told because they use this instability and inequality as a bogie man.

By trying to keep us in a social strata and in a constant social inequality, i consider them to be more right-wing than left-wing.

If they were left-wingers they would have kept everyone equal and themselves above others.

No, they definitely couch it as social equality. Take from the rich and give to the poor. What is communism if not the subordination of individuals to the state?

Define "social equality". It sounds nice, but what is it really? I suppose it's the subjective ideal of whoever happens to be using the phrase at the time.