Discussion in 'Current Events & Politics' started by Politico, Apr 14, 2017.
For those in need of a crash course on the differences.
Oh look, its the Right Wing Prager U. Its totally not going to be biased.
Look the video is what it is, but the real difference between the left and right is varying degrees of economic oversight by the government. Far left is communism where there is no private property and far right is complete free open Market capitalism. That's about it. Then you have the up down scale of Authoritarian vs Libertarian. So you get extreme Authoritarians that want to control people through rigid moral structures, and you get libertarians who have a free for all on social norms and structure.
The negatives are on the extremes, but most politicians and voters are very centrist and sway from right to left and up and down depending on where they are socially and economically themselves.
It said essentially what you said.
I just summed up the vid, I just rolled my eyes a lot in the first 5 minutes from the out of context left does this and that nonsense.
I think he nailed it.
No because the speaker is asserting that left always means authoritarian left. Libertarian Left does not put government as the biggest entity for example Prager U assumes a binary of Authoritarian left and Libertarian right. It ignores Authoritarian right and Libertarian Left. So no, they didn't nail it. Also the video assumes that people sit on extremes on the Left and that those on the Right are more moderate and are given favorable treatment. Just what I'd expect from Pages U since it's a right wing based online fake college.
The video also conflate Left with government when Left means collectivism but not necessarily government.
That's an oxymoron.
The video assumes neither.
It attempts to communicate the difference between the Left and the Right in general terms and nails it.
Just the kind of comment I would expect from an intolerant, exclusive leftist.
You are conflating theory with reality.
In theory, a communist world would have no government at all.
In practice, every socialist form of government is authoritarian. It is not "collective."
Collectivism is the free will sharing of the goods of a community withing the community according to each person's needs.
Socialism operates on the confiscation of people's wealth by the government through taxes, fees, etc. and the redistribution of that wealth according to what the government bureaucracy is told by it's overseers is the current, politically correct "fair" manner of disbursement.
Theory and reality are not even close to identity.
Lets deal with reality, OK?
iakov the fool
The Libertarian Part and philosophical libertarianism are not one in the same. You can easily be left libertarian. Social libertarian in a collective society isn't an oxymoron.
[QuouteThe video assumes neither.
It attempts to communicate the difference between the Left and the Right in general terms and nails it.[/quote] I guess you missed the beginning of the video where they rattled on how the left is just Corrupt government and how the right is all about fighting corrupt governments.
Hey, if you have to resort to insults and using liberal as a pejorative, then I guess that tells me all I need to know about you then.
We haven't discussed any hard theory yet actually.
Yep, that is the ultimate end goal of the party.
It seems that you are mixing up socialism and collectivism. The left is collectivist based and socialism is only one type of economic model on the left.
In real life, the Left does not permit libertarianism. It may be something that political science (another oxymoron) students are taught as a theoretical mode of social organization but it won't exist in the real world. And, again, that's what I'm talking about: the real world.
That is not what he said. That is you liberal spin on what he said.
He said that the Left is for ever increasing size of government and power of government.
He said that power inevitable corrupts.
No socialist wants a corrupt government and he never said that the left wants that.
He said it is an inevitable result of more and more power being given to the government, and, as history clearly demonstrates, he is 100% correct.
Then he said that the right wants smaller government with limited power.
It more government with more power leads to more corruption (and it does every time) then less government with less power should lead to less government corruption. That's just logic. (To which most liberals have an innate immunity.)
Because they are irrelevant.
And it will never happen.
And all their models fail in the real world.
I think it's really telling how a certain type of conservative constantly whines about how terribly intolerant liberals are, and then turns around and treats any perceived liberal horrifically. They're probably the same ones who label any Republicans who disagree with them RINOs. The epitome of tolerance.
I certainly have known people who identify as libertarians and are on the left. But you're obviously the final authority on all things related to liberalism, since you clearly have had so much contact with it.
Libertarians can be found in all the same spectrum of flavors, just like Dems and Repubs: everything from conservative to liberal.
I don't know about anyone else here, but I'm so done with all the post-election nonsense.
It's time we unite!
What a plessent and wonderful idea. Wish there was a decent method of doing that.
Jim, you want to use the terms Left and Leftist, which are political science terms, but trash poli sci at the same time. You can't have your cake and eat it to. You can scream " Real Life" all you want, but theory has to come into it at some point or no one will have any idea of what anyone is talking about.
Yes because the presenter conflates left with government. Left doesn't mean government. Doesn't necessarily mean big government. The presenter is using Authoritarian Left for the entire presentation. That is it. How I do I know this? The guy uses silhouettes of Stalin, Mao, Hitler.
Here is the problem. This video isn't History of fascism, its a video that is supposed to be the differences between the Left and Right. Which means it should be about the theoretical differences ( Because like it or not, you can't even start to talk about Right and Left without theory). Instead its just criticism, and criticism of a specific type of Left ideology. The problems is we do have some modern Countries that use Left economic models that aren't Nazi Germany, The USSR, or China under Chairman Mao. We Have Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Germany. All of them are very powerful economic nations that use varied forms of Leftist economics, but none of them are purely Socialist or Communist. They have mixed economies. Right now they are having immigration problems, but that is something that the US is even have a problem with.
Yes, he also mentioned the military, and even said some stuff about social safety nets being something that the right can consider ( which is fully left ideological), but immediately backpedals and says that the right prefers charities. That the thing though the extreme side of Right wing Ideology witch is Anarcho Capitalism actually looks down on Charity because it encourages collectivism.
Jim you can't seem to grasp my problem with the video. The problem I have with the video is that the left isn't one ideology, but Prager U treats the Left as if its all just Bureaucratic socialism. The even bigger problem Jim is that I actually freaking agree with you on the idea that big government makes it easier for corruption to form. You forget every single time we have a conversation that I'm right wing. I reject Communism and Socialism on their tenants because I'm entrepreneurial and fully support open markets with limited bureaucracy. However I understand that both economics and people are pretty complex. Its easy to arm chair theorize how the government and business should work, its a whole nother ball game when you deal with it yourself.
I've been on both ends where I've seen the complex tax nonsense and fees for stupid stuff, and the mind numbing bureaucracy that goes with it. I've also been on the end where short sighted small and large business owners have tried to cheat their staff and their customers for as much as their possibly can for short term benefit.
I criticize videos like Prager U because they over simplify ( not just for brevity, but because people just don't know any better) A lot of complex systems and ideas for the clicks and for people to send them money.
I appreciate Jim's apparent point that the vid is based on end results/reality and it attempts to present the the Left and Right in general terms. I mean, why should the person in the vid explain the variety of models proposed by Leftists when something like collectivism is not actually practiced? In other words, if all we see materializing out of the left is the current socialist governments, then what's the point of describing collectivism? I agree with Jim that we should view and judge the Left by what kind of societies it has and is producing. The Left can talk all they want about their imagined models of how society should be organized and ran, but that is insignificant to what actually manifests from their attempts at applying their ideology to society.
One of the great benefits of history is that it actually demonstrates what occurs when certain ideologies are applied to society. That is the one of the main points of the vid, I think. It attempts to define and present patterns that are actually occurring. It is attempts to describe the end result of applying Leftist ideology to society.
One of the main differences that I have noticed between the Left and Right is their position on the nature, role and influence of God's Word and the influence it should serve in society and its influence on the historical formation of America. This is not presented in the vid unless I missed it, but those three things seem to be the center divide from which the differences between the Left and Right begin to expand. For example, if someone believes that God's Word is authoritative and America could not have been formed without the influence of the bible and christian principles, then that person will often hold many of the other ideas commonly associated with the Right, such as opposing abortion, transgenderism, unchecked mass immigration, etc.
LOL... Good luck with that, too many would rather live off of the hard efforts of others...
Separate names with a comma.