HISTORY OF RIGHT AND LEFT IN POLITICS
b1s
A Definition of Political Terms by Jack Roeser
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
After the French Revolution, the first general assembly was seated in 1789.
The radicals and liberals were seated to the left of the Speaker, and the
traditional conservatives to the right. Note that the radicals were on the
left.
In time this arrangement became convenient to describe a spectrum of
political values. The far left was for the Socialist, Marxist, and
Communists. To the center were the Conservatives and in order the modern
libertarians, and the anarchists (who despised all government, believing in
unrestrained individualism.)
The present day habit of the media to place Hitler, Nazism and Mussolini on
the far right defies reason. Hitler's political party that took control of
Germany in the 1930's was the National Socialist Party. Russia was, until
the fall of Communism, the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics." The whole
bunch were Marxists, Karl Marx not Harpo.
The socialist countries of Germany and Italy experimented with hybrid forms,
at times allowing some private ownership, either of small shops or of larger
semi capitalist operations. Both were closely regulated by the government in
a symbiotic support structure called Fascism.
The theory was that under pure socialism the government would wither away as
the socialist citizen lost his evil ways caused by capitalism, and communism
would result. In fact Communism became the name for the socialists who
believed with Lenin that "power comes from the barrel of a gun." These were
the Bolsheviks.
The Russian Communists killed more than 20,000,000 of their own people in
establishing their power. Nobel Prize winner Solzenitzen provided endless
details of the horrors perpetrated in that process in his book "The Gulag
Archipelago", and the literary epic "One Day." They were outdone by the
Chinese Communists who executed nearly 100,000,000 of their own people.
Hitler similarly executed perhaps as many as 10,000,000 Catholics, Jews, and
other ethnic groups in his socialist juggernaut. You may wonder why the
American press has portrayed Hitler as the most heinous offender, and tried
to attribute him to the "fascist right."
The Socialists who believed in overcoming Capitalism by gradual means
settled in England. They were the Mensheviks (minority in Russian) who
founded the Fabian Society, named after the Roman general Fabius who avoided
pitched battles and fought wars of attrition. The Fabian Society was very
influential, attracting powerful leaders such as George Bernard Shaw, the
Webbs, and Bertrand Russell. England became heavily socialized until
conservative Margaret Thatcher was elected Prime Minister and set about
selling off the government owned and operated industries.
Attempts were made to socialize America following the methods of the Fabian
society. The Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) and the Communists Party
of America were involved. Whitaker Chamber's epic tome "Witness" delineates
that struggle involving idealists as well as traitors and spies who sought
to take over American institutions such as the media, schools, and politics
during the 1920's and subsequently. This process sputtered out in any valid
philosophical sense when Russian Communism collapsed, but remnants of the
elitist left persist in academia and media.
Many of these people were idealists who thought they were doing good. But
Socialism, whether the violent Communists or the milder welfare state
democratic form, leads to the government wielding both political and
economic power. As Lord Acton said, "Power corrupts, and absolute power
corrupts absolutely."
Conservatives in America strive to maintain a political structure based on
our Constitution, the oldest and most successful contract governing the
association of the state and the people. Our Constitution limits the power
of government, acknowledging the God given freedom and superiority of the
people. Our government is intended to limit excesses, whether by criminals,
or by the government itself.
There was a time when Socialists dominated the major media. They bought ink
by the barrel and tried to hang the name of ultra right, extremist, or Nazi
on the Conservatives. It is totally inappropriate.
Conservatives in America can not be considered "Ultra-Right" or "Extremist,"
nor do they share anything with Hitler or the Fascists. Hitler, Mussolini,
Lenin, Stalin, Castro and Mao were cut out of the same socialist cloth.
It is silly to apply "extremist", "ultra-right", "fascist", and "Lunatic
Fringe" to people who support our Constitution and its limited government
safeguards.
William D. Allen Sr.
There are over fifty card carrying Socialists passing themselves off as
Democrats in our House Of Representatives. Their names are listed at:
http://www.dsausa.org/pc/pc.members.html
As you can see the list includes some of the dregs of Congress.
While being a Socialist is not a crime in the USA it is certainly deceitful
to masquerade as a Liberal, a Progressive, or a Democrat, but not a
Socialist, especially when your real intent is ulterior to our nation's
Constitution. It's really so amazing how ignorant our socialists are about
real Socialism.
WDA
end
b1s <cocl...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:D2YD4.8628$m54....@typhoon2.san.rr.com...
Ed Wagner
dinner in West Virginia?
Freewheeling
I don't know who Jack Roeser is, but his rendition of the historical origins
of "right" and "left" amount to "dis-information." First, the important
event was not the General Assembly, but the First National Assembly, which
did *not* take place *after* the French Revolution, but was one of the
primary events that *precipitated* it. In 1789 Marx was not even a gleam in
his father's eye, although his link to the French Revolution, through his
teacher Hegel, was to be direct. Likewise, there was at that time in France
no indentifiable faction linked to the notion of individualism (other than
Bodin), and certainly if there had been they would *never* have allowed
themselves to identified with the "right," since they were clearly opposed
to the absolute authority of the time.
The First "National Assembly" was called in order to endorse new rules
giving the Third Estate more power in French "Estates General." Locked out
of the proper place of meeting the representatives of the Third Estate met
instead in an adjacent tennis court. There, they took an oath to remain
assembled until a constitution could be prepared and accepted by the king.
They were joined by a small group of like minded individuals from the First
and Second Estates, but the not-yet-realized divisions were between the
chief factions within the Third Estate, including groups like the Jacobins.
At the Oath of the Tennis court not only the definitions of "right" and
"left," but the meaning of "revolution" as historical necessity were born.
The revolutionaries split into two extreme factions during the course of the
revolution: the *indulgents* and the *enrages*. These are the distinctions
that correspond to the "right" and the "left." The impression developed,
probably due to a famous painting by Jacques Louis David, that the two
revolutionary factions had been seated on different sides of the court and
that those on the right had been joined by the small contingent of the
clergy and the nobles. This is certainly a matter of "artistic license" but
it represents the degree to which hindsight had rearranged the circumstances
to conform to the view that the upheaval of the French Revolution, and all
subsequent revolutions, had been dictated and ordained by history.
The linkage between this event and the modern political divisions of the
right and left is expressed with extaordinary clarity by Hannah Arendt, in
*On Revolution*:
"Ever since the French Revolution, it has been common to interpret every
violent upheaval, be it revolutionary or counter-revolutionary, in terms of
a continuation of the movement originally started in 1789, as though the
times of quiet and restoration were only the pauses in which the current had
gone underground to gather force to break up to the surface again--in 1830
and 1832, in 1848 and 1851, in 1871, to mention only the more important
nineteenth-century dates. Each time the adherents and opponents of these
revolutions understood the events as immediate consequences of 1789....
...;they knew that a revolution must devour its own children, just as they
knew that a revolution would take its course in a sequence of revolutions,
or that the open enemy was followed by the hidden enemy under the mask of
the 'suspects', or that a revolution would split into two extreme
factions--the *indulgents* and the *enrages*--that actually or 'objectively'
worked together in order to undermine the revolutionary government, and that
the revolution was 'saved' by the man in the middle, who, far from being
more moderate, liquidated the right and the left as Robespierre had
liquidated Danton and Hebert....; they [the men of the revolution] were
fooled by history, and they had become the fools of history."
Hegel, who was Marx's teacher and mentor, invented the modern concept of
history under the influence of the French Revolution. His insight was that
the absolutes of the classical philosophers were revealed in the experiences
of human affairs. Everything that had been "political" was transformed
through the magic of the backward glance into "history." The realm of human
action, according to the Hegellian fallacy, is to be understood from the
point of view not of the actor or agent, but from the point of view of the
"spectator." Revolutionary events became a matter of destiny. The
tremendous opportunity perceived in the American Revolution by Tocqueville
to establish a "new science of politics" was lost to a fallacy engendered by
the French Revolution that had established, in it's stead, a "philosophy of
history." This is what underlies the concept of "left" and "right," and
why it is ultimately incoherent.
--
-Scott Talkington
talk...@bigfoottail.com
Cut the "tail" to respond by email.
b1s <cocl...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:D2YD4.8628$m54....@typhoon2.san.rr.com...
b1s
There were big government, government power, nose into everything with
government, etc. advocates before the Marx, god of communism decided to
change the definition of all things to socialism.
Left and right are simple as can be. If you want more government than your
neighbor, you are to the left of him.
If you choose to participate in disinformation vocabulary reversing tactics
taught to cold war era traitors for the general confusion and indoctrination
of our intellectuals towards communism, I hate to tell you.
The Soviet Union is no longer in existence! The Russians don't want you to
think, or argue that bullshit any more.
Chip
"Freewheeling" <talk...@bigfoottail.com> wrote in message
news:ychE4.119022$_G1.1...@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com...
b1s
I think there's some difference between the two major parties. However,
neither is pro-freedom to the extent an American political group should be.
I'm voting for a less pushy slate of candidates, regardless their standing
vs. the uninformed majority.
Chip
"Steve Koterski >" <<kote...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:fk62es4nigu4gr2pp...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 06:11:47 GMT, "b1s" <cocl...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >Who's Right and Who's Left?
> >A Definition of Political Terms by Jack Roeser
>
> [...]
>
> In the US, the definitions are much simpler than that small book you
> posted:
>
> Right: Republicans
> ------------------
> Pro-big government
> Anti-freedom
> Pro-tax and spend
> Judge success of legislature by how many new restrictive laws passed
> Anti-US Constitution
> Governing by smoke-and-mirrors and fear-mongering
> Highest priority: self and fellow politicians
> Lowest priority: We the People
>
> Left: Democrats
> ---------------
> Pro-big government
> Anti-freedom
> Pro-tax and spend
> Judge success of legislature by how many new restrictive laws passed
> Anti-US Constitution
> Governing by smoke-and-mirrors and fear-mongering
> Highest priority: self and fellow politicians
> Lowest priority: We the People
>
Freewheeling
You are completely full of it. The incontrovertible fact is that the terms
"right" and "left" are totally inadequate to describe the political spectrum
and those on the right are as likely to support government intrusiveness and
those on the left. The only difference is their justification for doing so.
This is simple insight and wisdom, not some communist indoctrination.
Irving Kristol is hardly pro-communist, you twit.
--
-Scott Talkington
talk...@bigfoottail.com
Cut the "tail" to respond by email.
b1s <cocl...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:wFmE4.2522$d5.4...@typhoon1.san.rr.com...
Freewheeling
"Perhaps the very fact that these two elements, the concern with stability
and the spirit of the new, have become opposites in political thought and
terminology--the one being identified as conservatism and the other being
claimed as the monopoly of progressive liberalism--must be recognized to be
among the symptoms of our loss. Nothing, after all, compromises the
understanding of political issues and their meaningful debate today more
seriously than the automatic thought-reactions conditioned by the beaten
paths of ideologies which all were born in the wake and aftermath of
revolution.... In other words, to the extent that our political terminology
is modern at all, it is revolutionary in character. And the chief
characteristic of this modern, revolutionary vocabulary seems to be that it
always talks in pairs of opposites--the right and left, reactionary and
progressive, conservatism and liberalism, to mention a few at random."
(Hannah Arendt, *On Revolution*: 223.)
--
-Scott Talkington
talk...@bigfoottail.com
Cut the "tail" to respond by email.
b1s <cocl...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:wFmE4.2522$d5.4...@typhoon1.san.rr.com...
Frank Jaskulke
> Scott
>
> There were big government, government power, nose into everything with
> government, etc. advocates before the Marx, god of communism decided to
> change the definition of all things to socialism.
Time for some defintion correction. Mark was a communist, not a socialist.
They are two very different things. In a communist governemnt, a ruling elite
runs the whole nation, sussposdely with the greater good of the people at
heart. In a socialism, the people run the means of production democraticly. A
socialism can exist in a democracy or a republic, or even a communist society,
but they are not the same.
You can compare socialism and capitialism, as they are econmic ideas. You can
compare communism and democracy because they are governmental ideas. You can
not compare communism to captialism, as they are apples an oranges.
>
>
> Left and right are simple as can be. If you want more government than your
> neighbor, you are to the left of him.
That is a sterotype, and not the truth. If you want more govenrment then your
neighbor, then your more of a welfare state liberl then that person is. If you
want more social equality for people then your more liberal then that person.
If you want more individual freedom, then your more libertarin then that
person.
Being on the left, does not mean more government. I would point to the ideals
of the thrid way democrats. For them, they wish to achive social goals like
the liberals though the private sector and free market forces. The governments
role would limited to checking abuses of power and ensure that people have the
things (information mostly) to prevent those abuses. They are on the left.
>
>
> If you choose to participate in disinformation vocabulary reversing tactics
> taught to cold war era traitors for the general confusion and indoctrination
> of our intellectuals towards communism, I hate to tell you.
>
> The Soviet Union is no longer in existence! The Russians don't want you to
> think, or argue that bullshit any more.
Tell that to the 24% of the population that voted for the communist party chair
in last sundays presidental election.
Frank Jaskulke
> Steve:
>
> I think there's some difference between the two major parties. However,
> neither is pro-freedom to the extent an American political group should be.
Isn't this sad but true? The democratic party which once defined itself as
the party of freedom has lost many of those roots because now its a bad thing
to be a "liberal" and the republican party have lost it because they use the
same thing Henry ford did, you can have the car in any color you want as long
as its black. For them, its you can beleive in anything you want as long as
its our way...sad state of affiars.
Frank Jaskulke
> Chip:
>
> You are completely full of it. The incontrovertible fact is that the terms
> "right" and "left" are totally inadequate to describe the political spectrum
> and those on the right are as likely to support government intrusiveness and
> those on the left. The only difference is their justification for doing so.
> This is simple insight and wisdom, not some communist indoctrination.
> Irving Kristol is hardly pro-communist, you twit.
Is irving kristol a writer for the weekly standard? or is that another
kristol?
Freewheeling
I think that's Bill Kristol, the son of Irving Kristol and Gertrude
Himmelfarbe. Irving was one of the founding editors of "Public Opinion,"
and the first person who ever used the term "neoconservative." Some people
believe he's the only *real* neoconservative.
--
-Scott Talkington
talk...@bigfoottail.com
Cut the "tail" to respond by email.
Frank Jaskulke <time...@usfamily.net> wrote in message
news:38E2940D...@usfamily.net...
> Freewheeling wrote:
>
> > Chip:
> >
> > You are completely full of it. The incontrovertible fact is that the
terms
> > "right" and "left" are totally inadequate to describe the political
spectrum
> > and those on the right are as likely to support government intrusiveness
and
> > those on the left. The only difference is their justification for doing
so.
> > This is simple insight and wisdom, not some communist indoctrination.
> > Irving Kristol is hardly pro-communist, you twit.
>
Freewheeling
Re: "You can
not compare communism to captialism, as they are apples an oranges."
Actually, I like Louis O. Kelso's definition. Communism: centralized
government controlled capitalism. :-)
--
-Scott Talkington
talk...@bigfoottail.com
Cut the "tail" to respond by email.
Frank Jaskulke <time...@usfamily.net> wrote in message
news:38E29292...@usfamily.net...
Frank Jaskulke
> Frank:
>
> Communism is no government "utopia."
I never said it was, i may have said that it was an ideal, though I don't
beleive it to be a utopia.
> Marx invented socialism and communism.
> Socialism is supposed to be the period of transition while working toward
> utopian communism.
Thats fine, it doesn't mean they are differnt things.
>
>
> Every "communist " government in the world was actually socialist, as none
> had yet reached the theoretical utopia of communism. The USSR - Union of
> Soviet SOCIALIST Republics.
They said they were socialist, they were not. They were dictartoships
of the
worse kind.
>
>
> The left vs. right is historically accurate. Left has always been more
> government, at least since the French revolution.
Ahh, no. Classic liberals, now called libertarins are opposed to more
government. Libertarinism is towards the left, and then you have
right-libertarinsim, which is even more economiclly orientated.
The only groups on the left that support big government explictly would be
communists and welfare state liberals. Socilist support implictily.
Facists support big government, and they are on the right. Historical
represenations create distortions of the true meanings. Whey else would
liberal become a bad word, when it should have been welfare state liberal?
>
>
> The complicated version of political labeling prevalant today is the result
> of Soviet Union disinformation tactics used to disassociate socialism from
> national socialism(Nazi) in peoples minds. Naziism is a branch of socialism,
> just like what you think of as communism.
Is every problem the fault of the commies? Damn, its not like america hasn't
done a damn good job at contributed to the problem, the whole red scare thing
wasn't the greatest thing to happen in a democracy.
Further, nazism is only socilist in name, it does not fit the defination (the
people did not control the means of production democratllicy), they had an
authortian dictator. They belevied in racist statements, which in most
socilist theorys is a no no (the primary tentate of socilist moral
theory is
equality). Nazism is closer to facism then socilism.
>
>
> Chip
b1s
Communism is no government "utopia." Marx invented socialism and communism.
Socialism is supposed to be the period of transition while working toward
utopian communism.
Every "communist " government in the world was actually socialist, as none
had yet reached the theoretical utopia of communism. The USSR - Union of
Soviet SOCIALIST Republics.
The left vs. right is historically accurate. Left has always been more
government, at least since the French revolution.
The complicated version of political labeling prevalant today is the result
of Soviet Union disinformation tactics used to disassociate socialism from
national socialism(Nazi) in peoples minds. Naziism is a branch of socialism,
just like what you think of as communism.
Chip
"Frank Jaskulke" <time...@usfamily.net> wrote in message
news:38E29292...@usfamily.net...
b1s
You may believe whatever you wish, even soviet propaganda's dead issue,
political voice of the past concerning right and left. Disinformation is
long lasting, that's evident.
I am libertarian, but if you consider that leftist, then that is your
choice. It is more dis-information that there are right and left
libertarians, but it is of little consequense to the bull headed. If you
wish to take obsolete propaganda as your world view, you have much company
You need big powerful government to do nazi-ism or fascism, and that is
socialistic.
Right wingers want smaller government libertarians want as little
government as practical, anarchists want less than that. Can the smaller
government advocates oppress as well as the big government folks? Smaller
oppression ?
Now how is a libertarian or anarchist lilliput government going to oppress
at all?
Chip
"Frank Jaskulke" <time...@usfamily.net> wrote in message
news:38E42D91...@usfamily.net...
> b1s wrote:
>
> > Frank:
> >
> > Communism is no government "utopia."
>
> I never said it was, i may have said that it was an ideal, though I don't
> beleive it to be a utopia.
>
> > Marx invented socialism and communism.
> > Socialism is supposed to be the period of transition while working
toward
> > utopian communism.
>
> Thats fine, it doesn't mean they are differnt things.
>
> >
> >
> > Every "communist " government in the world was actually socialist, as
none
> > had yet reached the theoretical utopia of communism. The USSR - Union of
> > Soviet SOCIALIST Republics.
>
> They said they were socialist, they were not. They were dictartoships
> of the
> worse kind.
>
> >
> >
> > The left vs. right is historically accurate. Left has always been more
> > government, at least since the French revolution.
>
> Ahh, no. Classic liberals, now called libertarins are opposed to more
> government. Libertarinism is towards the left, and then you have
> right-libertarinsim, which is even more economiclly orientated.
>
> The only groups on the left that support big government explictly would be
> communists and welfare state liberals. Socilist support implictily.
>
> Facists support big government, and they are on the right. Historical
> represenations create distortions of the true meanings. Whey else would
> liberal become a bad word, when it should have been welfare state liberal?
>
> >
> >
> > The complicated version of political labeling prevalant today is the
result
> > of Soviet Union disinformation tactics used to disassociate socialism
from
> > national socialism(Nazi) in peoples minds. Naziism is a branch of
socialism,
> > just like what you think of as communism.
>
b1s
I detect some evidence of vision more binocular, wide field, commendable.
There are different terminologies, and when you are bilingual, you can charm
a dual audience.
Could be dangerous.
Regards.
Chip
"Freewheeling" <talk...@bigfoottail.com> wrote in message
news:HZoE4.119096$_G1.1...@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com...
tony G as Frank Cannon
>Scott
>
>There were big government, government power, nose into everything with
>government, etc. advocates before the Marx, god of communism decided to
>change the definition of all things to socialism.
>
>Left and right are simple as can be. If you want more government than your
>neighbor, you are to the left of him.
I'm starting to see a pattern to your posts. Lets say a person wants
more government in the stopping of the drug war. This makes them a
liberal? Tell Orin Hatch.
>If you choose to participate in disinformation vocabulary reversing tactics
>taught to cold war era traitors for the general confusion and indoctrination
>of our intellectuals towards communism, I hate to tell you.
Bro if anybody here is destroying language it would be you and your
insane crank posts.
b1s
If we stopped the drug war, would that not be - less government?
If it is less government, I would place it on the right. You may place it
where you wish.
Chip
"tony G as Frank Cannon" <kur...@ass.ass> wrote in message
news:39086db0....@news.swbell.net...