The "Right-Left" dichotomy: false, simplistic, & manipulative.

[Bill Ryan]

I posted earlier that the so-called "Right-Left spectrum" is really a circle. "Extreme Right" (Fascism) and "Extreme Left" (Communism) are actually the same thing.



Is present-day China Fascist or Communist? Answer: It's both. There we see it. And there are plenty more examples in history.

But the following is what irks me. Drilling down into all the rhetoric, we can distill out all these variable viewpoints. They do NOT all correlate neatly.

And they pertain to every country. This isn't just about the US.

1. Personal and corporate tax policy.
2. Federal/national financial policy. (not the same thing)
3. Foreign policy.
4. Disarmament.
5. Immigration.
6. Refugees.
7. Environmental issues.
8. Education.
9. Transgenderism and LGBT issues.
10. Policing and law and order.
11. Recreational drugs.
12. Personal surveillance and privacy.
13. Censorship and freedom of speech.
14. Gun control.
15. Abortion.
16. Governmental control of personal health and well-being.
17. Racism (whatever that means!).
18. Religion.
19. Regional independence.

If we look at all the different possible permutations of viewpoints there, even approximating crudely, there are 2¹⁹ combinations. That's over 520,000 different ways of categorizing any person's opinions.

Each time we add another variable (for sure, there are more), that number doubles. And we've not even included which politicians or parties one might vote for in any election.

If we held a poll (we won't! ) that suggests that no two Avalonians would have the same sets of views — even very roughly.

So personally, I refuse to be categorized on that simplistic kindergarten-level spectrum. I have my own views, all subject to change. The world is complicated, hard to understand, and we are too.

None of us should get into fights about any of this. But what we can do here (and do do!) is share good information and perspectives to help others continue to modify and fine-tune their views. That's how we all learn.

[Feritciva]

Never liked right wing. Never voted for right wing. For me right wing was the symbol for sociopath/psychopath viewpoints.

Only in these previous years I came to the realisation of above circle-construct. After 40 years! (yes, slow learner here)

Well we still have a lot to learn. Probably that's why we're on planet earth (if it's not a spiritual-trap, which is totally another story!)


PS: And by the way, that's why we're on PA, to learn and share more!

[Dorjezigzag]

When i was studying I wrote an essay with a similar viewpoint that if you study history there are many similarities between totalitarian regimes whether on the right or the left. The marxist lecturer I was having for that module severely marked me down what was an extremely well researched and sourced essay. I appealed and my essay was remarked to a more appropriate grade and she was reprimanded, I'm not sure that if I had studied more recently that would happen today

Although the Nazis were anti communists they did take a lot from the communist mind set and indeed called themselves socialists, national socialists. Both can be seen as products of the modernist mindset. Whereby we become cogs in the machine, compliance is all.

I think many people going along with this current marxist group think do not realise the totalitarian destination it is heading in. The labelling of anyone who disagrees with them as 'alt-right' or even worse labels that attempt to cancel
someone is a technique to try and prevent any further discussion or debate. The audacity of some people to believe that their opinions are somehow beyond reproach and analysis, is an expression of a fundamentalist zeal that can related to a religion. Indeed John McWhorter has pointed out how the Marxist BLM movement is becoming like a religion.

For those who think BLM is just a fluffy human rights movement please do your research. BLM happily self-identifies as a neo-Marxist movement with various far left objectives, including defunding the police (an evolution of the Panther position of public open-carry to control the police), to dismantling capitalism and the patriarchal system, disrupting the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure, seeking reparations from slavery to redistribute wealth and via various offshoot appeals, to raise money to bail black prisoners awaiting trial.

Of course they have a right to express these views but I also have a right to criticise them!

The left used to be at the vanguard of freedom of speech and it has been so sad to see this being eroded over the years to the extent that those who do not identify as right are being labeled as such by those marxist totalitarians who believe it is either my way or the highway.

I leave you with a quote from Noam Chomsky someone very much on the left who describes himself as a libertarian socialist, who has been a huge advocate for freedom of speech over the years and doesn't need to 'cancel' anyone as he has a sharp mind and he can discuss and debate with anyone. I do not agree with a lot of what he says but I have huge respect for him and like to listen and integrate his viewpoints.

“Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech.”

I really like to take from both the left and right, its funny it seems more acceptable to identify as gender neutral than politically neutral.

[shaberon]

That is 90% very elegant and practically perfect. I have a couple polishing suggestions.

Firstly at the top of the circle, don't put an "ism". Just leave the "Freedom" stuff:

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Then make a bigger color version and on the right and left, stick in names and symbols, if possible, a few main things not too many.

On the line of "more examples from history", add something a little stronger or more examples so it will be seen as more "everywhere" and not so much "China". Then just reduce the next bit to:

Drilling down into all the rhetoric, we can distill out all these variable viewpoints.

When I have to sit there and pause for, what does he mean, correlate? I have to try to figure something out, and it's like downshifting a gear.

When you put together the right graphic with the quick, direct point that includes lots of relevant, modern, undeniable issues and show how quickly the math racks up to such an overwhelming variety of opinions or, i. e. political platforms, that hits pretty hard.

Then, you have a quick, easy thing anyone can see that encapsulates miles of more detailed posts...kind of like a "flash card" like was posted the other day representing "diversity training". It is that same kind of tool. I think we could use something like this to show other people outside the forum, and really, the mathematical thing about using half a million stuffs as downward force arrows into totalitarianism is psychologically almost Minerva-like.

Like the notorious Jack Chick tracts or something, except just one card that could for example be printed and left on benches, in waiting rooms, etc., especially if there is no "ism" at the top, then it can never be complained it is trying to push or support anything except someone to think.

[norman]

If totalitarian[ism] ever becomes the way of the whole world, they won't need to play groups off against each other like they have had to with the fake freedom game.

I'll guess, they had a bit of a problem, tho', coming up with a gap filler method between national representational government collapse and totally ironed out global central automation. With only one brand of politics, they'd have to dump political groupings as the divider and switch to something else temporarily.

Looking back over the last few years and also right now in the streets, I'll say, almost for certain, that the temporary group divider they chose was race. Totally bogus 'made up' parameters, but then, so were the political parameters they're trying to squeeze out.

They have a little extra problem yet. Hillary didn't win in 2016. There's still a lot of 'politics' around, despite their greatest attempt to blackout and bypass that fact and jump straight into "race", as if she had won anyway.

Or maybe I'm being too simplistic. Being a truther is far more like an old skool political faction than any current political faction achieves.

[TomKat]

I'm amazed at how quickly and easily China went from Communist to Fascist in the 1990s. That's because they're not opposites at all, more like non-identical twins.

[TargeT]

not many people understand that fascism and communism are BOTH under the umbrella of socialism, one is the far "right" version of socialism (fascism) and the other the far "left".

[Bill Ryan]

One or two folks reading this might possibly have missed my point. I was suggesting that the "Right"—"Left" dichotomy is unhelpful, simplistic, and misleading.

I never use those terms, ever, because it really compresses all discussion about politics into a very one-dimensional place (which is what a straight line is ).

Let me illustrate my point. Looking at these variables, here are [some of] my provisional personal views.

1. Personal and corporate tax policy.
2. Federal/national financial policy. (not the same thing)
3. Foreign policy.
4. Disarmament.
5. Immigration.
6. Refugees.
7. Environmental issues.
8. Education.
9. Transgenderism and LGBT issues.
10. Policing and law and order.
11. Recreational drugs.
12. Personal surveillance and privacy.
13. Censorship and freedom of speech.
14. Gun control.
15. Abortion.
16. Governmental control of personal health and well-being.
17. Racism (whatever that means!).
18. Religion.
19. Regional independence.

I'm pro education, pro environment, anti fracking, anti war, pro nuclear disarmament, pro taxing large corporations and very wealthy individuals, anti immigration, concerned about the global migrant situation (which is different), very critical about transgender promotion in schools and the media, anti censorship, anti vaccine, anti surveillance, anti interference in personal health issues, pro a well-trained and well-funded police, anti EU and other aspects of the creeping global agenda (so I'm always pro regional independence in almost every instance), anti transnational global corporations, anti slave labor factories in Asia, and so on.

And I'm undecided about gun control: I think I'm increasingly pro that, but I understand all the arguments each way. And I'm not a Christian, which is increasingly associated with those on the "Right".

I have no idea whether that combo places me on the "Right" or the "Left", but I sure don't want anyone to make that judgment for me, and I'm not interested in those labels.

Does my post start to make more sense?

[TomKat]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
One or two folks reading this might possibly have missed my point. I was suggesting that the "Right"—"Left" dichotomy is unhelpful, simplistic, and misleading.

I never use those terms, ever, because it really compresses all discussion about politics into a very one-dimensional place (which is what a straight line is ).

The libertarian perspective has always been that the conventional left/right graph is wrong. On the left should be no govt, and on the right, total govt. So it would be more like:

Anarchy ----- Libertarianism --- Socialism --- Communism/Fascism (probably missing a few, such as protection rackets, feudalism...)

[Harmony]

Personal values, and acting with integrity don't necessarily fit into political labels and may change as a person evolves depending on unique experiences that form the lenses of personal opinions.

A personal example is I have read articles on wearing masks. With my personal health issues I decided to wear a mask only in crowded stores. I am not in the US and I am not a sheeple and I don't think it makes me look smart, in fact sometimes I'm the only one wearing a mask quite often, and its a bit embarassing, It isn't mandatory here and it has nothing to do with "left or "rignt". For me, I do it just for what I need to do to personally stay well.

[samildamach]

Sometimes you have to live the far right and the far left to understand truly the madness of it all.
But anybody who has been there will tell you it's less the ideals and more the brotherhood of belonging which keeps you there

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
I'm pro education, pro environment, anti fracking, anti war, pro nuclear disarmament, pro taxing large corporations and very wealthy individuals, anti immigration, concerned about the global migrant situation (which is different), very critical about transgender promotion in schools and the media, anti censorship, anti vaccine, anti surveillance, anti interference in personal health issues, pro a well-trained and well-funded police, anti EU and other aspects of the creeping global agenda (so I'm always pro regional independence in almost every instance), anti transnational global corporations, anti slave labor factories in Asia, and so on.

And I'm undecided about gun control: I think I'm increasingly pro that, but I understand all the arguments each way. And I'm not a Christian, which is increasingly associated with those on the "Right".

Brilliant, and brave. Today you have to be brave to stand up and say what you believe in. These days one person's common sense is another person's hate speech. You can be vilified for it. It's been made to be that way. The conditions for such violent polarities to flourish have all been carefully orchestrated. Everyone knows about 1984 - well it's all in there. Blueprint of the future, or our present. Just substitute wrong-think for "hate speech" and you'll know what I mean.

For my 'list' of personal views I would add one thing to yours Bill, and that's transparency - 100% or near as possible transparency in any governing body. I would go so far as to say the abolition of state secrecy in total, unless and where absolutely necessary, for instance where it infringes on personal privacy or safety.

The sooner people understand that right-wing and left-wing are both wings of the same vulture, humanity will never be free (or One). The right-wing/left-wing construct is itself the true wrong-think. It merely drives us into separate pens like sheep. Exactly as designed. We shall never be free, either, until we clearly understand that social outrage movements are ALL engineered, and ALL for a purpose quite beyond any well-meaning rhetoric that accompanies them. We are being gamed. Those at the top, those in control behind the curtain, do not give an actual damn about any of these causes themselves, about black lives, about LGBTs, about goodness, about progress, about any of it or about any of us. They never did, they never have, and they never will. Period. Ever. It's all psychological warfare (against us). It's all problem>reaction>solution. Ultimately it's all about money, it's all about fear, and it's all about control. All about control.

[Tintin]

Posted by Star Mariner (here)

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
I'm pro education, pro environment, anti fracking, anti war, pro nuclear disarmament, pro taxing large corporations and very wealthy individuals, anti immigration, concerned about the global migrant situation (which is different), very critical about transgender promotion in schools and the media, anti censorship, anti vaccine, anti surveillance, anti interference in personal health issues, pro a well-trained and well-funded police, anti EU and other aspects of the creeping global agenda (so I'm always pro regional independence in almost every instance), anti transnational global corporations, anti slave labor factories in Asia, and so on.

And I'm undecided about gun control: I think I'm increasingly pro that, but I understand all the arguments each way. And I'm not a Christian, which is increasingly associated with those on the "Right".

Brilliant, and brave. Today you have to be brave to stand up and say what you believe in. These days one person's common sense is another person's hate speech. You can be vilified for it. It's been made to be that way. The conditions for such violent polarities to flourish have all been carefully orchestrated. Everyone knows about 1984 - well it's all in there. Blueprint of the future, or our present. Just substitute wrong-think for "hate speech" and you'll know what I mean.

For my 'list' of personal views I would add one thing to yours Bill, and that's transparency - 100% or near as possible transparency in any governing body. I would go so far as to say the abolition of state secrecy in total, unless and where absolutely necessary, for instance where it infringes on personal privacy or safety.

The sooner people understand that right-wing and left-wing are both wings of the same vulture, humanity will never be free (or One). The right-wing/left-wing construct is itself the true wrong-think. It merely drives us into separate pens like sheep. Exactly as designed. We shall never be free, either, until we clearly understand that social outrage movements are ALL engineered, and ALL for a purpose quite beyond any well-meaning rhetoric that accompanies them. We are being gamed. Those at the top, those in control behind the curtain, do not give an actual damn about any of these causes themselves, about black lives, about LGBTs, about goodness, about progress, about any of it or about any of us. They never did, they never have, and they never will. Period. Ever. It's all psychological warfare (against us). It's all problem>reaction>solution. Ultimately it's all about money, it's all about fear, and it's all about control. All about control.

I was going to contribute something meaningful myself to this thread but it seems Bill and Star Mariner have saved me the need to do so - thank you, both I really could not have expressed it better myself and I'm not too shabby in that department.

Gentlemen, take a bow.

[TomKat]

Posted by samildamach (here)
Sometimes you have to live the far right and the far left to understand truly the madness of it all.
But anybody who has been there will tell you it's less the ideals and more the brotherhood of belonging which keeps you there

To experience tyranny is best done by travelling, not by instituting it at home. Once implemented, getting rid of tyranny requires a LOT of bloodshed.

[araucaria]

We’ve had this discussion before, but OK, I’m game to give it another go.

The right-left ‘duality’ is parliamentarian in origin. For purposes of orderly debate, it was and is helpful to know where to sit: somewhere in line with where you ‘stand’ – to the right or left of the chair/speaker: either side of the house in confrontational British politics, or somewhere along the spectrum of the republican hemisphere. Topologically speaking, the far left and the far right could always meet up round the back in a place where parliamentary rule no longer functions. There are two attitudes to be adopted in such cases. You may be dealing with a case of democracy being broken down on principle (a form of anarchy), or with a case of democracy having broken down in practice (parliament no longer doing its job). This second instance is not anarchy: it is a form of anti-oligarchy (some section of parliament has taken charge over the collective). Here the notion of right or left is no longer appropriate, since the same two situations can arise on either side. The common factor is in reality the attitude towards collective government of whatever kind, and the two diverging positions, call them what you will, are that there is either not enough or too much collective government. However the distinction becomes blurred because both groups will find that parliament contains too many people whose politics they don’t like. This is not to say that both groups are in the wrong and outside the law. Parliament is not necessarily ideal and may need reforming through outside influence. For it to function at all adequately, this can only be in full spectrum mode, in full acceptance of such diversity.

The fact that this is broadly in line with political left and right just goes to show that the major issue has always been how little or much people like or dislike any form of collective enterprise. The West and notably America is typically well to the right in preferring rampant individualism, the East well to the left in taking positive community values to levels rarely seen in the West, and granted sometimes too far. (I remember as a child being given a definition of communism and thinking, why is it a dirty word?) Unsurprisingly then, this also marks the major geopolitical faultline, leading to peace and war. East and West are basically synonyms for left and right.

Individualism being multiple is hierarchical and potentially aggressive, as individuals jostle for position. It is nonetheless vitally important because we all have our personal input which is very much needed. However it needs to be tempered with healthy collectivism, seeking unity, as a way towards peace. While a collective effort can physically move mountains (and as such is often put to work by individualists), any would-be spacefaring civilization needs to have reached a high level of smooth interpersonal cooperation in order to envisage even the tiniest first step. This is because long-distance space-flight and an eventual space colony presuppose a potentially explosive mixture of lockdown (nowhere to go) and zero social distancing (nowhere to hide). This is an extreme case of ‘we are all in this together’.

Hence the duality that needs mostly urgently to be overcome in the world and in microcosms like this forum amounts to exposing the Western ‘rightist’ mindset to the ‘leftist’ Eastern philosophy, which is not easy, not comfortable, but it is happening all the same. Writing from this perspective prior to 1923, in The Mind of East Asia (translated from the German in 1952) Lily Abegg was already ‘thinking that the period of restless technical progress might gradually come to a stop’:

Once spiritual needs are experienced, however, man will spontaneously turn his attention more and more to inner things, and this alone would indirectly bring about a gradual reduction of the rate of technical progress. In other words, nothing can grow and prosper when humanity has lost interest in it. Technology has no ‘life of its own’, it is no independent self-subsistent system of causality, but is essentially the work of man and is dependent on human volition and human striving. Technology cannot be developed ad infinitum if man is psychically unable to endure it.

[Bill Ryan]

[Ravenlocke]

Where do the homeless peoples, starving peoples, and the Indigenous peoples of the world, fall in this dichotomy? Or are they just a result of the current dichotomy?

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Ravenlocke (here)
Where do the homeless peoples, starving peoples, and the Indigenous peoples of the world, fall in this dichotomy? Or are they just a result of the current dichotomy?

In the current dichotomy (and I'm principally looking at the US), neither the so-called "Left" or "Right" cares a bean about any of them. True caring libertarians (and I'd loosely call myself one of those) are almost extinct in western politics.

[rgray222]

The most successful books and movies almost always need a villain to grab and keep your attention. The bigger the villain the better the story. Politics is the same with one major difference, the true political villains are always disguised as the good guys. The labels we assign to them, (Republican, Democrat, Independent) are meaningless. Those that see beyond the labels call them the establishment, they are the dominant group of party leaders. They are always comprised of the leadership elite that control policy, the purse strings, participation in the war, and even other politicians.

In the USA it became fairly easy to understand this deception just before, during, and after the Trump presidency. A group emerged within Trump's own party called the never Tumpers. Not only did they turn on Trump and attempt to have him removed from office they turned on the country. Global governance is far more important to this group than the USA. The never-Trumpers aligned with the opposition party and the mainstream media to overthrow Donald Trump. All of a sudden there was no separation between Democrats and Republicans, they were in lockstep together as one single entity. This alignment is rarely exposed to the public so when it happens we should take note and understand who is truly the villain.

As a footnote, not all politicians are evil, most become politicians because they want to change things for the better but once they get into office they are confronted with the reality and the evil of the establishment.

[T Smith]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by Ravenlocke (here)
Where do the homeless peoples, starving peoples, and the Indigenous peoples of the world, fall in this dichotomy? Or are they just a result of the current dichotomy?

In the current dichotomy (and I'm principally looking at the US), neither the so-called "Left" or "Right" cares a bean about any of them. True caring libertarians (and I'd loosely call myself one of those) are almost extinct in western politics.

Before rigged elections were a well-know "thing", Ron Paul, a true caring libertarian, was cheated out of the Republican nomination for POTUS in 2012. All thing equal, he would have easily defeated Romney, and probably even Obama in the general election. But he didn't belong to the Uniparty, so he was effectively squeezed out.