Extreme Left/Right
Sandy, I always had trouble understanding what people meant when they used the terms "extreme left" and "extreme right". Then, about 4 months ago, I saw a guy define the "political spectrum" the way (he said) it used to be defined before the definitions were corrupted (by whomever wants to divide - and conquer - the people). It made sense to me. A spectrum afterall, at least when we're talking about colors, starts with one type of color and graduates to other, DIFFERENT colors. He defined the "political spectrum" as follows: < ------- LEFT RIGHT -------> Monarchy Oligarchy Democracy Republic Anarchy Rule by: ONE FEW MANY LAW NONE Examples: Dictator, Communist, Lynch Mob Constitutional King Fascist State Govt (US before 1930's) So, according to this definition of the political spectrum, a true "leftist" would be a person that supported the government's usurpation of individual rights, property rights, human rights, privacy rights, etc. Obviously we don't look at it this way. The government only takes away our property (eg. through income taxes), etc. when it's FOR OUR OWN GOOD AND THE GOOD OF OUR COUNTRYMEN!!! Sadly, this can only be done (in this country) by violating the US Constitution, and it has been done and it is being done. Unfortuneately, the people that support and seek to defend the Constitution (according to the political spectrum you see above) are on the right (those that support the Republic). It's not politically correct to call yourself a "rightist" these days. Of course, there are not too many Americans (including people that call themselves "leftists" or "liberals") that are willing to publicly admit that they are opposed to the US Constitution. I dare say that most leftists would actually say that they SUPPORT the US Constitution. Many of these people are very concerned about the deterioration of our liberties and spend a lot of time and energy educating themselves and others about how this is being done. I know this because I used to consider myself a "leftist" (although I was never too fond of applying such labels to myself); after all, I had to be SOMEWHERE!!! My political "education" started during the Reagan years. Since that administration was considered "right-wing", I knew I didn't like that (because of the BAD things that it was doing) so I must be the opposite. When I used to listen to a certain "leftist" radio station broadcasting out of New York City, they would talk about "left-wing", communist dictatorships and "right-wing", fascist dictatorships. A dictatorship is a dictatorship!!! The "wing" that it comes from makes no difference!! The way the media defines these things makes no sense; you can't have a dictatorship on BOTH sides of a POLITICAL SPECTRUM no more than you can have YELLOW on both sides of the COLOR SPECTRUM. Maybe I'm totally wrong in my thinking. If I am please try to clarify things for me. I bring this to your attention only because I notice that you often use these terms in some of your e-mails. I think that most "leftists" and "rightists" want many of the same things. We can't get together because the language we use has been so corrupted. Sincerely, Jim.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- James Ormond <jimo@astea.com> writes: <snip>
He defined the "political spectrum" as follows:
< ------- LEFT RIGHT ------->
Monarchy Oligarchy Democracy Republic Anarchy
Rule by: ONE FEW MANY LAW NONE
Examples: Dictator, Communist, Lynch Mob Constitutional King Fascist State Govt (US before 1930's)
I prefer the 2 dimentional spectrum (the libretarians tend to push this) that l;ooks more like this: (fucking) Statist Left Right Anarchist The statist-anarchist (the lidretarians use "libretarian" instead of "anarchist") scale is dependant on the centralization of power, and the left-right scale has to do with the amount of collectivism. So, the extremem of leftist-statis would be a socialist monarchy (think China), whereas leftist anarchist societies (like the commune I lived in last summer) are also possible. To round it out, there's right(ist? wing?) statist, like say pre-revolution France, and right(ist/wing) anarchist, which is what most people think of as anarchy, I guess. As you hint at in your post, the simple right-left scale is totally inadequate to describe political beliefs. I think that the one you're using was created by folks who wanted to demonize leftists.
Maybe I'm totally wrong in my thinking. If I am please try to clarify things for me.
Hope I did.
I think that most "leftists" and "rightists" want many of the same things. We can't get together because the language we use has been so corrupted.
Yeah, personally, I'm a moderate-left anarchist. It seems to me that most folks on this list are rightist anarchist. While our desired furute worlds are not the same, they are completely compatible as there is no central power to enforce an economic model on the citizen- units. Our methods to achieving our goals are also quite similar. Hope this helps, Jer "standing on top of the world/ never knew how you never could/ never knew why you never could live/ innocent life that everyone did" -Wormhole -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQB1AwUBMpFSv8kz/YzIV3P5AQENCwMAgaLrCrefc2y50Zdb8hPdO4enZA3ZvsxW sLNSqyS6CRuzBWXeCj51FWWVFbWKVyS6BZjnsVkQxJGBli0eI7x8GLP4nPwhz7eq JCgw8rwGiXIpplMty5RXLD61yfOFpi5o =GkkO -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <Pine.HPP.3.91.961118184355.23458G-100000@hpg60.astea.com>, on 11/18/96 at 09:10 PM, James Ormond <jimo@astea.com> said: [snip]
I think that most "leftists" and "rightists" want many of the same things. We can't get together because the language we use has been so corrupted.
Actually most of those today that consider themselfs on the "right" or "left" are truly socialist/statist. They have their select group of "rights" & special intrests that they want protected but are often willing to distroy all other rights in the process. The debate of socialism vs. capitalism died in this country decades ago. It now has degenerated into what flavor of statism do you want? Either a people are free or they are not. There is no middle ground. You can't be a little pregnant. - -- - ----------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii Geiger Consulting WebExplorer & Java Enhanced!!! Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-SECURE - PGP Front End for OS/2 Look for MR/2 Tips & Rexx Scripts Get Work Place Shell for Windows!! PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. Finger whgiii@amaranth.com for PGP Key and other info - ----------------------------------------------------------- *MR/2 ICE: Turn your 486 into a Gameboy: Type WIN at C:\> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMpFKL49Co1n+aLhhAQEfoAP/fs56AZntB4nMkNPB5mxTMdFEGHy+7DQb Vjlu/HAI5ym8/nIjLZaSai/j2Rh+zH5KL65hAH0CTwaXnm2vV8nfwQ5p6PgKQv35 j2+FKoWycYLArpqydRGRtIXNpCMzfMuoNR5xN5OeOaiiXckJhyREVK+rkRyjBazc fjRq5MIh4+8= =9hy3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
James Ormond wrote:
Sandy, I always had trouble understanding what people meant when they used the terms "extreme left" and "extreme right". Then, about 4 months ago, I saw a guy define the "political spectrum" the way (he said) it used to be defined before the definitions were corrupted (by whomever wants to divide - and conquer - the people). It made sense to me. A spectrum afterall, at least when we're talking about colors, starts with one type of color and graduates to other, DIFFERENT colors.
[snip] Tell ya' something you might find amusing: During the 1992 campaign, when I worked for awhile for Perot The Populist, I also sent personal letters to every right- and left-wing organization I could find out about (a couple thousand orgs and individuals), and I kept track of the responses. My records indicated that the orgs and individuals identified closely with the *Right* were twice as responsive as those on the *Left*, and easily ten times as friendly. There's something to be said about the down-home sincerity of those folks in small-town America, as opposed to the ruthless, cynical people who mostly populate the left-wing positions of influence today in big cities. Of course, if the Right were to seize power from the Left today (i.e., take over newpapers, TV, and so on), what I've described might shift a bit.
On Mon, 18 Nov 1996 20:10:53 -0500 (EST), you wrote: : :Sandy, : :I always had trouble understanding what people meant when they used the :terms "extreme left" and "extreme right". Then, about 4 months ago, I :saw a guy define the "political spectrum" the way (he said) it used to be :defined before the definitions were corrupted (by whomever wants to :divide - and conquer - the people). It made sense to me. A spectrum :afterall, at least when we're talking about colors, starts with one type :of color and graduates to other, DIFFERENT colors. : :He defined the "political spectrum" as follows: : :< ------- LEFT RIGHT -------> : : Monarchy Oligarchy Democracy Republic Anarchy : :Rule by: ONE FEW MANY LAW NONE : :Examples: Dictator, Communist, Lynch Mob Constitutional : King Fascist State Govt (US before : 1930's) You forgot the property situation under each. Anarchy: (IMO belongs left of monarchy, just to keep it mathematical) Ownership and distribution of product of ownership controlled by the strongest mob. Monarchy: Ownership by the one. Privileged few allowed to make use of it. Oligarchy: Communist: No private ownership. Distribution of product by the state. Fascist: Private ownership allowed. Distribution of product by the state. Democracy: Ownership and distribution by the loudest mob. Republic: Private ownership and private determination of distribution. (Major paradigm shift in governance - away from whims of one/few/many *people* to *objective laws*.) NOTE: Key word here is *objective* - not law. Whims are subjective. -- Pat McCotter Finger patm@connix.com for PGP Public Key PGP Key Fingerprint PGP Key ID D437B2D9 D0 E7 C6 5A 9E EF 0D CF C7 10 88 2A 73 41 11 24
participants (5)
-
Dale Thorn -
James Ormond -
Jeremiah A Blatz -
patm＠connix.com -
William H. Geiger III