Skip to content

When Left is Left and Right is Left

February 12, 2012

Have you ever wondered about the convoluted methodology used to determine what is left wing and what is right?  One common system the establishment uses is based on the custom during the French Revolution to have the commoners, who demanded more change, seated on the left and those sympathetic to the monarchy on the right.  In modern times, however, the communists and liberals are grouped on the left with fascists, Nazis, and neoconservatives to the right.  This only creates confusion.  Both communist and fascist states use dictators, concentration camps, torture, slave labor, and secret police.  They both seize control over production, however, fascism allows titles to companies to be held privately.  Possessing similar characteristics, both are forms of collectivism.  How then can they be classified as polar opposites?

Overview of America

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6732659166933078950#

A more meaningful explanation of the terms left and right can be found in the documentary called Overview of America which can be viewed on You Tube.  On the left, you will find communism (Leninism), socialism, fascism, Nazis and other totalitarian governments listed under the the category of “total government.”  The left can be described as the tendency toward greater government scale and intervention, potentially over every aspect of human activity, eventually resulting in slavery to the state.

On the far right, you’ll find the total absence of government or anarchy, which of course, is unworkable.  A limited constitutional republic, designed to protect liberty, is also on the right, but not fully.  More to the middle of the political spectrum is democracy, which moves toward the left as it changes into social democracy and finally disintegrates into tyranny.  Political positions favoring less government size and interference into the affairs of men are correctly associated with the right.  The cautious approach toward, or reluctance to use military force is historically an American right wing mindset based on just war principles.  Since the armed forces are part of the government, favoring a huge, imposing military is typically a leftist concept.  Remember Soviet missile parades?

Liberals undoubtedly occupy the left, however, some aspects of liberalism are right wing.  Most liberals are strongly for free speech and other civil liberties like protection from unreasonable search.  They oppose being sexually assaulted by TSA goons at airports.  These are RIGHT wing positions that support less government intervention just as opposing the NDAA’s indefinite detention provision is on the right.  Republicans are conditioned to assume everything “liberals” believe in is wrong, therefore, they are easily duped into embracing the opposite as a knee jerk response.  That’s how Republicans are trained to diminish the value the Constitution and support tyranny.  Many aren’t concerned about warrant-less wiretapping, forced naked x-ray scans, police brutality, extra-judicial killings, torture, Homeland Gestapo or, for example, the murder of innocents by CIA drones.  Neoconservatives helped establish the leftist police state component of American fascism without realizing it.

The press label neoconservative warmongers like Bill Kristol, Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Rumsfeld as hard right, yet in practice, they are seated more toward the totalitarian left.  As laid out in the Project for a New American Century reports, the strategy of permanent revolution endorsed by the late comrade Trotsky (Bronstein), is being carried out under the misnomer “Pax Americana.”  Obama dutifully falls in line with these neocon policies, though not in word.  His actions betray his compliance with the globalists’ schemes, just like Bush, except Obama justifies it as humanitarian.

America’s foggy understanding of the political spectrum, as promoted by the establishment, conceals the alarming fact that there is virtually NO authentic right wing that will reduce the size of an out of control government.  Furthermore, should there be any statesmen serious about restoring DC to its constitutionally legitimate size, they are labelled extremists.

John K Rooney
Tri-Cities Liberty Alliance
Petersburg

Advertisements
One Comment leave one →
  1. December 4, 2015 6:49 pm

    Your definition is out of line with historical fact. “Left wing” and “right wing” are about ideology, not methods, and either can be statist or libertarian (the anarchist movement is left-wing, labels itself left-wing, and uses Communistic language, while neo-Nazis label themselves, and are considered, right-wing, and use symbols and language traditionally associated with the American right, but in a more exteme way). Traditionally, libertarian was left-wing, and many anti-statist socialists use the term today. The actual distinction, historically and in modern times as a fact of political science easily confirmed by any basic research into scholarly articles, is whether one advocates imposed egalitarianism, either through statist or anarchist means, or inequality, either as a consequence of unregulated economic interaction, or through imposition by the state, as in feudalism, the ideology for which the phrase “right wing” was coined, or fascism. Now, that is not to say that egalitarians are the “good guys” versus the “bad” supporters of inequality; many on the right claim that as you increase equality, whether you artificially impose it on the natural structure of the economy from above or below, you decrease efficiency. While this is debatable, the process of transition to a more leftist system unquestionably increases inefficiency and can result in chaos and destruction, which must either be tolerated, or quashed with increased statism (this was the actual process which created Soviet Communism, out of the unprecedentedly libertarian post-revolutionary system of Soviet rule.) Incidentally, statism is often employed on the far right as well, to promote unity and crush dissent, but it is used to defend right-wing rather than left-wing values, and right-wing rather than left-wing justifications are given in these cases. Even Centrist governments can be either statist or libertarian. For example, the United States occupies apprimately the same place with regards to ideology and inequality, and has the same balance, more or less, of programs favoring rich or poor, as modern postcommunist Russia. However, the US is far less statist. This is why actual political scientists use the “Nolan chart” to address the secondary characteristic of statism, which rates authoritarianism vs libertarianism along a vertical spectrum, alongside the left-right distinction about whether or not a society is attempting to move toward increased equality, or instead prioritizes efficiency (although many leftists claim the prioritization of efficiency is actually a ruse for the wealthy acting against the interests of the poor out of self-interest, this is debatable, and certainly efficiency and not inequality is the stated goal of right-wing economics.) To sum up, the definitions you use here are not in accordance with establshed language and fact, and appear to be an ideologically biased attempt to redefine a concept that is widely understood both within and outside of the field. You seek to singlehandedly assert the invented definitions you give for “left” and “right”, which are not in line with either common usage, professional usage, or fact, because you resent being clumped with fascists, and want to see politics as a simple struggle or tyranny vs. freedom. You are apparently so attached to this self-image that you are willing to dismiss incontrovertible historical facts, and reject the complexities of political science, the study of thousands of competing interests, in favor of an “us vs them” dynamic that challenges the widely accepted realistic political spectrum. It replaces it with one that, due to the way in which it does not reflect actual or professional usage, would allow right-wing extremists to hide their neofascism in a cloak of freedom, the same way that selling the spectrum as “equality vs oppression” as some on the left do allows them to justify violent anarcho-Communist rebellion with anti-authoritarian language. If you are going to arbitrarily and singlehandedly redefine a social science according to your own beliefs, it might be more useful to construct an entirely new spectrum, instead of deliberately confusing to issue by taking the conventional spectrum, crossing out the definitions used by political scientists, and inserting your own definitions that have no bearing on the way the terms are used by the media, political analysts, or political parties themselves. But it’s also possible that the flaws in your anaysis may come from a hyperfocus on the US. For example, in Russia, the center left opposition is the most libertarian force. Putin’s far more statist supporters are to their right.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: