Why do the Right always label liberal causes as left-wing and communist? Watch

This discussion is closed.
Kurdt Morello
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 15 years ago
#1
This is an annoying trend for me - I am a liberal and am all for fairness and humanity - sweatshops/racial discrimination/unfair trade and the like are all abhorrent to me and i have in fact backed various causes - but the Right always presume to label such causes as left-wing or communist. I am in no way a supporter of Communism because it doesnt make sense - there is simply no incentive where everyone remains equal regardless of effort and hard work. However this doesnt stop the Right ignorantly labelling Libertarian causes as Communist. It is rather annoying that such causes are meant to be the preserve of the Left when i know people who are right of centre who are Libertarian. And why is it that only extreme political thoughts make sense and middle of the road liberal thought is described as 'wishy-washy' = this is outrageous and downright ignorant. Are either ends of the political scale particularly relevant in today's age? Surely Liberal ground is the place to be where each situation is taken account of as it arises rather than set, unapplicable policies exhibited by both the Left and the Right!
0
GH
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#2
Report 15 years ago
#2
Liberals should be in a different section by themselves. And you do realise that no matter what arguments, if you bring in the Nazis or Communism into the argument, then you win the argument.
0
rednirt
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3
Report 15 years ago
#3
The right wing are just quick to jump on anything that disagree with them. Liberals don't seem to (no offence, and this is a totally objective view) stand for all that much and this is seen as a form of weakness by them.
0
Kurdt Morello
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 15 years ago
#4
(Original post by rednirt)
The right wing are just quick to jump on anything that disagree with them. Liberals don't seem to (no offence, and this is a totally objective view) stand for all that much and this is seen as a form of weakness by them.
But isnt pragmatism enough today - why should anyone have a particular agenda in politics or in life - we should care more about working to make the world better rather than take an attitude to different sets of people
0
rednirt
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#5
Report 15 years ago
#5
(Original post by Kurdt Morello)
But isnt pragmatism enough today - why should anyone have a particular agenda in politics or in life - we should care more about working to make the world better rather than take an attitude to different sets of people
I would say I agree with the liberal view, but pragmatism can be seen as nochalance and an unwillingness to commit to certain causes, which some people find hard to understand. Being nice and caring in general is a concept which is lost on some as they cannot see past their own situation.
0
waiting2smile
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#6
Report 15 years ago
#6
that's so true.
0
fred0202
Badges: 0
#7
Report 15 years ago
#7
I don't think anybody can be labelled left wing or right wing because most people have certain issues that they are left wing on and other issues that they are right wing on, such as some people I know are for being very hard on criminals (right wing) but they are also for higher taxes to fund the public services (left wing).
0
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#8
Report 15 years ago
#8
(Original post by Kurdt Morello)
This is an annoying trend for me - I am a liberal and am all for fairness and humanity - sweatshops/racial discrimination/unfair trade and the like are all abhorrent to me and i have in fact backed various causes - but the Right always presume to label such causes as left-wing or communist. I am in no way a supporter of Communism because it doesnt make sense - there is simply no incentive where everyone remains equal regardless of effort and hard work. However this doesnt stop the Right ignorantly labelling Libertarian causes as Communist. It is rather annoying that such causes are meant to be the preserve of the Left when i know people who are right of centre who are Libertarian. And why is it that only extreme political thoughts make sense and middle of the road liberal thought is described as 'wishy-washy' = this is outrageous and downright ignorant. Are either ends of the political scale particularly relevant in today's age? Surely Liberal ground is the place to be where each situation is taken account of as it arises rather than set, unapplicable policies exhibited by both the Left and the Right!
way 2000th post. A liberal is actually right wing economically, therefore you are to the right. Unless you are a New Liberal and therefore not really a liberal, in the same way the New Labour is not really socialist. Fairness and humanity are associated with equality of status (including the right wing law) and therefore with socialism. Libertarian is actually right so you are attacking yourself. This makes no sense. Middle of the road is never middle of the road, it has to lean one way or the other. (look at New Labour). The right is liberal you idiot and they also take account of each situation as it arises. Liberals actually used to dogmatically stick to laissez faire and new liberlas dogmatically stick to humanity and other crap and therefore you are jsut as guilty. Why can people never see the faults in their own political beliefs. (I can, i cold even argue against mine).
0
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#9
Report 15 years ago
#9
(Original post by 2776)
Liberals should be in a different section by themselves. And you do realise that no matter what arguments, if you bring in the Nazis or Communism into the argument, then you win the argument.
yep, i win the argument as socialism = NAzis and Communism, what fun.
0
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#10
Report 15 years ago
#10
(Original post by Kurdt Morello)
But isnt pragmatism enough today - why should anyone have a particular agenda in politics or in life - we should care more about working to make the world better rather than take an attitude to different sets of people
pragmatism shows that you do not actually defend any ideal world and therefore are dangerous as it is essentially self serving and therefore extremely right wing.
0
kildare
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#11
Report 15 years ago
#11
No one with a grain of sense would ever try to claim that all 'left-wingers' were communists.
0
Linda
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#12
Report 15 years ago
#12
Not always...

I'm a member of the Norwegian Liberal Party, and we are right-wing...
0
kildare
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#13
Report 15 years ago
#13
(Original post by JSM)
yep, i win the argument as socialism = NAzis and Communism, what fun.
No, you make the incorrect assumption that assuming socialism can only mean either Nazism or Communism and as such do nothing to advance the argument.
0
kildare
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#14
Report 15 years ago
#14
Liberal can be either in the economic sense (and would therefore by right-wing) or in the social, 'civil liberties' sense (usally associated with the left). I think it's perfectly reasonable to believe in one or the other, both, or for that matter neither.
0
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#15
Report 15 years ago
#15
(Original post by kildare)
No, you make the incorrect assumption that assuming socialism can only mean either Nazism or Communism and as such do nothing to advance the argument.
no, socialism leads to totalitarianism, eg the National Socialist Workers party (or whatever) and the communist party as that is the only way of making everybody equal. And the power given to the government to effect socialism could be used to enrich a ruling elite. So either way it loses.
0
kildare
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#16
Report 15 years ago
#16
(Original post by JSM)
no, socialism leads to totalitarianism, eg the National Socialist Workers party (or whatever) and the communist party as that is the only way of making everybody equal. And the power given to the government to effect socialism could be used to enrich a ruling elite. So either way it loses.
Socialism may lead to totalitarism or it may not. Similarily 'economic liberalism' may (or may not) lead to it. See the overthrow of the democratically elected Ayende by the military junta in Chile in the 70's and the subsequent totalitarian (although free market) regime imposed for a case in point.
0
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#17
Report 15 years ago
#17
(Original post by kildare)
Socialism may lead to totalitarism or it may not. Similarily 'economic liberalism' may (or may not) lead to it. See the overthrow of the democratically elected Ayende by the military junta in Chile in the 70's and the subsequent totalitarian (although free market) regime imposed for a case in point.
btw its Allende, you got problems.

i never said i was an advocate of economic liberlisation, if you go to politicalcompass.org, i would agree with authoritarian and economic policies axis. All socialist governments have to be totalitarian or they dont work, all economic liberally governments do not have to be in order to have free markets. So it is an all or only some totalitarian argument.
0
kildare
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#18
Report 15 years ago
#18
(Original post by JSM)
btw its Allende, you got problems.

i never said i was an advocate of economic liberlisation, if you go to politicalcompass.org, i would agree with authoritarian and economic policies axis. All socialist governments have to be totalitarian or they dont work, all economic liberally governments do not have to be in order to have free markets. So it is an all or only some totalitarian argument.
Hmmm, if mispelling a name means I have problems then so be it.

A lot of Scandavian (both past and present) could be easily described as 'socialist', I don't think many people would call them authoritarian though.
0
Linda
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#19
Report 15 years ago
#19
(Original post by kildare)
Liberal can be either in the economic sense (and would therefore by right-wing) or in the social, 'civil liberties' sense (usally associated with the left). I think it's perfectly reasonable to believe in one or the other, both, or for that matter neither.
the Norwegian Liberal party is economically conservative/liberal and socially liberal/radical. To make things even more confusing, the Norwegian name is Venstre (for historical reasons) which means "left".
0
LH
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#20
Report 15 years ago
#20
(Original post by JSM)
no, socialism leads to totalitarianism, eg the National Socialist Workers party (or whatever) and the communist party as that is the only way of making everybody equal. And the power given to the government to effect socialism could be used to enrich a ruling elite. So either way it loses.
National Socialist Deutsches Arbeits Party
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you think the internet has made political discussion more aggressive?

Yes (15)
93.75%
No (1)
6.25%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise