Leftwing - Rightwing and the Political Axis

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Basically it means you have a 47% chance of remaining in the same economic status as your father, while in Denmark you have a 15% chance of remaining in the same economic status as your father.

I am not sure what is so complicated about it

How did you reach that conclusion based on the chart? You had to have other information.

.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Basically it means you have a 47% chance of remaining in the same economic status as your father, while in Denmark you have a 15% chance of remaining in the same economic status as your father.

I am not sure what is so complicated about it

How did you reach that conclusion based on the chart? You had to have other information.

.

Somewhere back in this thread I provided the article that the chart came from, and because I know what earnings elasticity means. I did a project on this topic for one of my classes for my degree.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Basically it means you have a 47% chance of remaining in the same economic status as your father, while in Denmark you have a 15% chance of remaining in the same economic status as your father.

I am not sure what is so complicated about it

How did you reach that conclusion based on the chart? You had to have other information.

.

Somewhere back in this thread I provided the article that the chart came from, and because I know what earnings elasticity means. I did a project on this topic for one of my classes for my degree.

So, you found that people are better off living in Denmark than the U.S.?

(this question, and the next one, gets to the heart of this discussion)

 

[Mac1958]

In sum, the authoritarian methods are the problem, not necessarily the ideology. In other words, left and right do not mater. Up and down (authoritarian v. libertarian) do matter.

Good point. The authoritarian impulse is the issue, and both ends of the spectrum suffer from it - just on different issues.

And they always have an excuse for more.
.

Oh, fuck you and your BULLSHIT Tu Quoque fallacy.

Don't you have a fence you need to fall off of?

Yes, I know: I have to obediently be in either one tribe or the other, or there's something wrong with me.

Sorry, I can think for myself. I realize that exposes people like you for what you are, but it is what it is.
.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

So, you found that people are better off living in Denmark than the U.S.?

(this question, and the next one, gets to the heart of this discussion)

No, I found that the US lags in the area of social mobility, it is not near as easy to move from one class to the next as people think it is.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

westwall What defines them? I think it's misleading to look at it solely as defined by the absence or presence of government (or state).

Rightwing:
Individual Authority
Individual Liberty
Favoring Hierarchy
Socially Conservative
Nationalism
Anti-taxation
Equal playing field
Pro-Military
Traditional

Leftwing:
Collective Authority
Collective Liberty
Favoring Equality
Socially Liberal
Globalism
Social spending
Equal outcome
Anti-Military
Progressive

RIGHTWING
Individual Authority. Correct. The individual takes precedence over the collective.

Individual Liberty. Correct, the individual is free to do what they want, with who they want, when they want.

Rightwing doesn't favor hierarchy, it accepts that there needs to be some form of it, but begrudgingly.

Socially conservative is not rightwing, it is leftwing.

Nationalism is ultimately leftwing. Look at the way collectivist governments refer to their countries. Nazis called Germany the Fatherland, communists called Russia the Motherland. The ultimate form of rightwing is anarchy. There can be no nationalism when there is no nation.

Anti Taxation, yup. To a point.

Equal Playing Field, absolutely.

Pro-military, yes, but so are leftwing groups. After all, you need a strong military to subjugate your citizens. The difference is in a rightwing government military service is normally voluntary, in a leftwing government it is mandatory.

Traditional, true, for a leftwing government to survive it must first destroy the traditions that came before it so they can replace those traditions with their own.

I disagree - social conservatism and traditional values are absolutely rightwing, not left.

Nationalism is also rightwing vs. leftwing globalism (or internationalism).

It doesn't mean there isn't cross over - for example rightwing Nazi's and leftwing Stalinists employed many of the same tactics, so if you view it as not just economic left/right axis, but also social left/right and authority/less authority the extreme right (Nazi) and extreme left (Stalinist) authoritarian regimes are very similar.

Rightwing governments typically have mandatory military service but also typically glorify the military.

Define socially conservative.

Nationalism is leftwing. Globalism is merely a group of leftwing countries deciding to control everything, and everybody.

If they use the same tactics, they ARE the same. Your pointing out that Nazis were slightly less totalitarian than Stalinists only shows that they were still totalitarian, just a little nicer to the people they liked. But only a little.

Leftwing governments ALWAYS glorify the military.

First - define social conservative. Essentially, protecting the status quo. Protecting traditional culture, and what is accepted as traditional evolves. Liberals (leftists) push the social envelope, expanding what is defined as "us" - sometimes beyond what society can tolerate, but they push. Liberalism is increasing inclusiveness...Conservatism is protecting social exclusivism, protecting the more narrow definition of us. Social conservatism is what opposes homosexual rights and marriage for example, or the a more liberal and equal role for women, or a woman's rights to determine her own sexual agenda. Social conservatism carefully defines roles for men and women, respects authority and religion, traditional marriage and role models for children. Social conservatism is not necessarily bring me a sammich because the status quo that is being preserved as adopted a broader role for women in some respects. At least in the US. That's how I see it - this is my opinion only, but it's based on an interesting read I found:
The fundamentalist agenda

Definitions are definitions - we don't get to make up our own. Nationalism and Globalism (or Internationalism) have meanings and one entity can't really be both. I might be wrongly conflating Internationalism and Globalism, if so, I stand corrected.

Internationalism (associated with the left):
the principle of cooperation among nations, for the promotion of their common good, sometimesas contrasted with nationalism, or devotion to the interests of a particular nation.

Nationalism (associated with the right):
identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.

Totalitarianism is not the pervue of only one ideology - left and right can both end in a totalitarian regime.

Leftism does not always end up in totalitarianism....if the right emphasizes the authority of the individual, and the left emphasizes the authority of the collective, then democracy itself, a collective endeavor is pretty leftist.

Leftist countries such as much of Europe are hardly totalitarian.

Once again, how can you have right wing and left wing totalitarianism? Totalitarianism is the ultimate form of collective government.

All real Right wingers are Authoritarians.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

No, I found that the US lags in the area of social mobility, it is not near as easy to move from one class to the next as people think it is.

Especially in the U.S., because social mobility is relative.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

No, I found that the US lags in the area of social mobility, it is not near as easy to move from one class to the next as people think it is.

Especially in the U.S., because social mobility is relative.

social mobility is relative everywhere.

 

[Coyote]

westwall What defines them? I think it's misleading to look at it solely as defined by the absence or presence of government (or state).

Rightwing:
Individual Authority
Individual Liberty
Favoring Hierarchy
Socially Conservative
Nationalism
Anti-taxation
Equal playing field
Pro-Military
Traditional

Leftwing:
Collective Authority
Collective Liberty
Favoring Equality
Socially Liberal
Globalism
Social spending
Equal outcome
Anti-Military
Progressive

RIGHTWING
Individual Authority. Correct. The individual takes precedence over the collective.

Individual Liberty. Correct, the individual is free to do what they want, with who they want, when they want.

Rightwing doesn't favor hierarchy, it accepts that there needs to be some form of it, but begrudgingly.

Socially conservative is not rightwing, it is leftwing.

Nationalism is ultimately leftwing. Look at the way collectivist governments refer to their countries. Nazis called Germany the Fatherland, communists called Russia the Motherland. The ultimate form of rightwing is anarchy. There can be no nationalism when there is no nation.

Anti Taxation, yup. To a point.

Equal Playing Field, absolutely.

Pro-military, yes, but so are leftwing groups. After all, you need a strong military to subjugate your citizens. The difference is in a rightwing government military service is normally voluntary, in a leftwing government it is mandatory.

Traditional, true, for a leftwing government to survive it must first destroy the traditions that came before it so they can replace those traditions with their own.

I disagree - social conservatism and traditional values are absolutely rightwing, not left.

Nationalism is also rightwing vs. leftwing globalism (or internationalism).

It doesn't mean there isn't cross over - for example rightwing Nazi's and leftwing Stalinists employed many of the same tactics, so if you view it as not just economic left/right axis, but also social left/right and authority/less authority the extreme right (Nazi) and extreme left (Stalinist) authoritarian regimes are very similar.

Rightwing governments typically have mandatory military service but also typically glorify the military.

Define socially conservative.

Nationalism is leftwing. Globalism is merely a group of leftwing countries deciding to control everything, and everybody.

If they use the same tactics, they ARE the same. Your pointing out that Nazis were slightly less totalitarian than Stalinists only shows that they were still totalitarian, just a little nicer to the people they liked. But only a little.

Leftwing governments ALWAYS glorify the military.

First - define social conservative. Essentially, protecting the status quo. Protecting traditional culture, and what is accepted as traditional evolves. Liberals (leftists) push the social envelope, expanding what is defined as "us" - sometimes beyond what society can tolerate, but they push. Liberalism is increasing inclusiveness...Conservatism is protecting social exclusivism, protecting the more narrow definition of us. Social conservatism is what opposes homosexual rights and marriage for example, or the a more liberal and equal role for women, or a woman's rights to determine her own sexual agenda. Social conservatism carefully defines roles for men and women, respects authority and religion, traditional marriage and role models for children. Social conservatism is not necessarily bring me a sammich because the status quo that is being preserved as adopted a broader role for women in some respects. At least in the US. That's how I see it - this is my opinion only, but it's based on an interesting read I found:
The fundamentalist agenda

Definitions are definitions - we don't get to make up our own. Nationalism and Globalism (or Internationalism) have meanings and one entity can't really be both. I might be wrongly conflating Internationalism and Globalism, if so, I stand corrected.

Internationalism (associated with the left):
the principle of cooperation among nations, for the promotion of their common good, sometimesas contrasted with nationalism, or devotion to the interests of a particular nation.

Nationalism (associated with the right):
identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.

Totalitarianism is not the pervue of only one ideology - left and right can both end in a totalitarian regime.

Leftism does not always end up in totalitarianism....if the right emphasizes the authority of the individual, and the left emphasizes the authority of the collective, then democracy itself, a collective endeavor is pretty leftist.

Leftist countries such as much of Europe are hardly totalitarian.

Once again, how can you have right wing and left wing totalitarianism? Totalitarianism is the ultimate form of collective government.

Not at all. The right authoritarianism invests powere in one individual.. A dictator.

 

[Coyote]

Where are the libertarians?

They can be left or right or center, but under less authority?

That's why I think a linear left-right only axis doesn't work too well.

A libertarian can not be left lololol

Sure they can. Abortion, same sex marriage, legalization of drugs.

 

[Auld Phart]

It’s no longer left-wing and right wing. It’s Americans and Putin‘s party.

Interesting concept.


And where do you go to attend Putins meetings?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

It’s no longer left-wing and right wing. It’s Americans and Putin‘s party.

Interesting concept.


And where do you go to attend Putins meetings?

your house!

 

[Auld Phart]

Dean, and his fellow communists, are not welcome at my house.

 

[westwall]

Does anyone find it odd that so many people claim to be fiscally conservative yet we have not elected a fiscally Conservative president since Calvin Coolidge and we have 22 trillion dollars in national debt?

You neglect to mention that the respective political party's never give we the people that option.

That is one thing the 2016 election exposed for all to see.

We don't get to choose the candidates. The political elite trot out their two chosen ones and we get to choose the lesser of the two evils.


We are still choosing evil.

You know, there are more than two choices, if only people would take them

But there really aren't. The 2016 elections showed us just how much the political class controls our choices.

 

[westwall]

The difference between leftwing and rightwing in this context is rightwing is mobile. You can start at the bottom and reach the top, while those at the top can fall to the bottom. leftwing is regimented. Whatever level you were born into, you stay. There is no way to break into the upper echelons of power, or society. They are closed.

Perhaps that is why we have one of the worst social mobility rate among industrialized nations

Ours is one of the best. However, if the progressive left get more power this country will be over as a experiment in freedom.

In the US, social mobility rate among the worst of all industrialized nations

Facts in evidence show that to be completely false

 

[westwall]

In the US, social mobility rate among the worst of all industrialized nations

Link?

look above, I have given multiple

See, but here is where that is misleading.

From the Forbes article:

"Now, we can compare not only how the U.S. fares on mobility, but how developing countries in Asia and Africa are doing relative to the U.S.. The results are striking."

Of course they are. Have they factored in the increase in available technology and resources?

If my parents lived in a hut with no electricity or plumbing, and improvements in international trade have improved home building in my shit hole country, I could move into a shack with those plumbing and electricity, and PRESTO... I have greatly surpassed my parents in standard of living.

There is not much room to improve in the U.S. apart from standards generally improving for the entire population as technology and methods improve.

Here is more:

"Rather than using the more traditional metric of income, this study uses educational attainment as the basis for defining upward mobility. Absolute upward mobility refers to the ability of children to “out-learn” (my term) their parents. For example, if the parents only completed secondary school, but the children completed tertiary schooling, that would reflect absolute upward mobility. Relative mobility refers to the ability of children to do better than their peers compared to how the parents did relative to their own peers. In other words, if the parents were in the bottom quartile of educational attainment within their cohort, but the children were in the middle or upper quartile, that would reflect relative upward mobility."

Well....FUCK!!!

If neither of my parents had any formal education (because we are bush people) and I learn to read....PRESTO...

This is a ridiculous metric that is way more about shit holes becoming non-shit holes than it is the U.S. getting worse.

.

You have a point developing countries in Asia and Africa. but we also fare poorly compared to other just as developed countries as this one.

That is not true at all. The EU is highly regimented. Class is everything in Europe.

 

[westwall]

RIGHTWING
Individual Authority. Correct. The individual takes precedence over the collective.

Individual Liberty. Correct, the individual is free to do what they want, with who they want, when they want.

Rightwing doesn't favor hierarchy, it accepts that there needs to be some form of it, but begrudgingly.

Socially conservative is not rightwing, it is leftwing.

Nationalism is ultimately leftwing. Look at the way collectivist governments refer to their countries. Nazis called Germany the Fatherland, communists called Russia the Motherland. The ultimate form of rightwing is anarchy. There can be no nationalism when there is no nation.

Anti Taxation, yup. To a point.

Equal Playing Field, absolutely.

Pro-military, yes, but so are leftwing groups. After all, you need a strong military to subjugate your citizens. The difference is in a rightwing government military service is normally voluntary, in a leftwing government it is mandatory.

Traditional, true, for a leftwing government to survive it must first destroy the traditions that came before it so they can replace those traditions with their own.

I disagree - social conservatism and traditional values are absolutely rightwing, not left.

Nationalism is also rightwing vs. leftwing globalism (or internationalism).

It doesn't mean there isn't cross over - for example rightwing Nazi's and leftwing Stalinists employed many of the same tactics, so if you view it as not just economic left/right axis, but also social left/right and authority/less authority the extreme right (Nazi) and extreme left (Stalinist) authoritarian regimes are very similar.

Rightwing governments typically have mandatory military service but also typically glorify the military.

Define socially conservative.

Nationalism is leftwing. Globalism is merely a group of leftwing countries deciding to control everything, and everybody.

If they use the same tactics, they ARE the same. Your pointing out that Nazis were slightly less totalitarian than Stalinists only shows that they were still totalitarian, just a little nicer to the people they liked. But only a little.

Leftwing governments ALWAYS glorify the military.

First - define social conservative. Essentially, protecting the status quo. Protecting traditional culture, and what is accepted as traditional evolves. Liberals (leftists) push the social envelope, expanding what is defined as "us" - sometimes beyond what society can tolerate, but they push. Liberalism is increasing inclusiveness...Conservatism is protecting social exclusivism, protecting the more narrow definition of us. Social conservatism is what opposes homosexual rights and marriage for example, or the a more liberal and equal role for women, or a woman's rights to determine her own sexual agenda. Social conservatism carefully defines roles for men and women, respects authority and religion, traditional marriage and role models for children. Social conservatism is not necessarily bring me a sammich because the status quo that is being preserved as adopted a broader role for women in some respects. At least in the US. That's how I see it - this is my opinion only, but it's based on an interesting read I found:
The fundamentalist agenda

Definitions are definitions - we don't get to make up our own. Nationalism and Globalism (or Internationalism) have meanings and one entity can't really be both. I might be wrongly conflating Internationalism and Globalism, if so, I stand corrected.

Internationalism (associated with the left):
the principle of cooperation among nations, for the promotion of their common good, sometimesas contrasted with nationalism, or devotion to the interests of a particular nation.

Nationalism (associated with the right):
identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.

Totalitarianism is not the pervue of only one ideology - left and right can both end in a totalitarian regime.

Leftism does not always end up in totalitarianism....if the right emphasizes the authority of the individual, and the left emphasizes the authority of the collective, then democracy itself, a collective endeavor is pretty leftist.

Leftist countries such as much of Europe are hardly totalitarian.

Once again, how can you have right wing and left wing totalitarianism? Totalitarianism is the ultimate form of collective government.

Not at all. The right authoritarianism invests powere in one individual.. A dictator.

Ummmm, Stalin, Maduro, Castro, Pol Pot, all dictators identified as left wing.

 

[Mindful]

In the US, social mobility rate among the worst of all industrialized nations

Link?

look above, I have given multiple

See, but here is where that is misleading.

From the Forbes article:

"Now, we can compare not only how the U.S. fares on mobility, but how developing countries in Asia and Africa are doing relative to the U.S.. The results are striking."

Of course they are. Have they factored in the increase in available technology and resources?

If my parents lived in a hut with no electricity or plumbing, and improvements in international trade have improved home building in my shit hole country, I could move into a shack with those plumbing and electricity, and PRESTO... I have greatly surpassed my parents in standard of living.

There is not much room to improve in the U.S. apart from standards generally improving for the entire population as technology and methods improve.

Here is more:

"Rather than using the more traditional metric of income, this study uses educational attainment as the basis for defining upward mobility. Absolute upward mobility refers to the ability of children to “out-learn” (my term) their parents. For example, if the parents only completed secondary school, but the children completed tertiary schooling, that would reflect absolute upward mobility. Relative mobility refers to the ability of children to do better than their peers compared to how the parents did relative to their own peers. In other words, if the parents were in the bottom quartile of educational attainment within their cohort, but the children were in the middle or upper quartile, that would reflect relative upward mobility."

Well....FUCK!!!

If neither of my parents had any formal education (because we are bush people) and I learn to read....PRESTO...

This is a ridiculous metric that is way more about shit holes becoming non-shit holes than it is the U.S. getting worse.

.

You have a point developing countries in Asia and Africa. but we also fare poorly compared to other just as developed countries as this one.

That is not true at all. The EU is highly regimented. Class is everything in Europe.

Particularly in the UK. They'll never get rid of it.

 

[westwall]

Link?

look above, I have given multiple

See, but here is where that is misleading.

From the Forbes article:

"Now, we can compare not only how the U.S. fares on mobility, but how developing countries in Asia and Africa are doing relative to the U.S.. The results are striking."

Of course they are. Have they factored in the increase in available technology and resources?

If my parents lived in a hut with no electricity or plumbing, and improvements in international trade have improved home building in my shit hole country, I could move into a shack with those plumbing and electricity, and PRESTO... I have greatly surpassed my parents in standard of living.

There is not much room to improve in the U.S. apart from standards generally improving for the entire population as technology and methods improve.

Here is more:

"Rather than using the more traditional metric of income, this study uses educational attainment as the basis for defining upward mobility. Absolute upward mobility refers to the ability of children to “out-learn” (my term) their parents. For example, if the parents only completed secondary school, but the children completed tertiary schooling, that would reflect absolute upward mobility. Relative mobility refers to the ability of children to do better than their peers compared to how the parents did relative to their own peers. In other words, if the parents were in the bottom quartile of educational attainment within their cohort, but the children were in the middle or upper quartile, that would reflect relative upward mobility."

Well....FUCK!!!

If neither of my parents had any formal education (because we are bush people) and I learn to read....PRESTO...

This is a ridiculous metric that is way more about shit holes becoming non-shit holes than it is the U.S. getting worse.

.

You have a point developing countries in Asia and Africa. but we also fare poorly compared to other just as developed countries as this one.

That is not true at all. The EU is highly regimented. Class is everything in Europe.

Particularly in the UK. They'll never get rid of it.

It's the same in Germany and italy as well. France lost most of their upper class, so they are the least class oriented, and yet it still exists.

 

[Mindful]

look above, I have given multiple

See, but here is where that is misleading.

From the Forbes article:

"Now, we can compare not only how the U.S. fares on mobility, but how developing countries in Asia and Africa are doing relative to the U.S.. The results are striking."

Of course they are. Have they factored in the increase in available technology and resources?

If my parents lived in a hut with no electricity or plumbing, and improvements in international trade have improved home building in my shit hole country, I could move into a shack with those plumbing and electricity, and PRESTO... I have greatly surpassed my parents in standard of living.

There is not much room to improve in the U.S. apart from standards generally improving for the entire population as technology and methods improve.

Here is more:

"Rather than using the more traditional metric of income, this study uses educational attainment as the basis for defining upward mobility. Absolute upward mobility refers to the ability of children to “out-learn” (my term) their parents. For example, if the parents only completed secondary school, but the children completed tertiary schooling, that would reflect absolute upward mobility. Relative mobility refers to the ability of children to do better than their peers compared to how the parents did relative to their own peers. In other words, if the parents were in the bottom quartile of educational attainment within their cohort, but the children were in the middle or upper quartile, that would reflect relative upward mobility."

Well....FUCK!!!

If neither of my parents had any formal education (because we are bush people) and I learn to read....PRESTO...

This is a ridiculous metric that is way more about shit holes becoming non-shit holes than it is the U.S. getting worse.

.

You have a point developing countries in Asia and Africa. but we also fare poorly compared to other just as developed countries as this one.

That is not true at all. The EU is highly regimented. Class is everything in Europe.

Particularly in the UK. They'll never get rid of it.

It's the same in Germany and italy as well. France lost most of their upper class, so they are the least class oriented, and yet it still exists.

In France, I was reading about it, there's an elite school for boys, have forgotten the name, where most of the French politicians have attended. If you haven't been there, you don't stand a chance. Leads on to the old boys network; a case of "who you know".

As for Germany, it's more egalitarian than Britain. And the Germans are not fans of social mobility.