Why is it?

[manifold]

But we weren't talking about socialism way back when. Capitalism is also a liberal philosophy. You are the one that is intent on assigning it to the right wing. That makes no sense to me.

Capitalism is consistent with liberal philosophy. In case you missed it, I've said on multiple occasions that I'm a strong supporter of both.

Perhaps it is the use of left-right that is causing a misunderstanding between us. There are several spectrums of ideology and you can really only view them as left-right one at a time, or only once. I choose to view economic models as the original left-right spectrum and thus do not use it for any other. You've said yourself many times that liberal does not equal left-wing, yet that is exactly what you are arguing now, as far as I can tell. So when I say right-wing ideology, I'm referring specifically and exclusively to the economic ideal of capitalism and making no judgements about liberal, authoritarian, conservative or progressive.

 

[manifold]

Fair enough.... per the following, communism sought to create a dynamic specifically intended to destroy communism. Socialism or at least mixed socialist/capitalist societies have no intention of destroying capitalism, but rather attempt to minimize the effects of laissez faire capitalism.



http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761572241/communism.html

We were discussing ideological theory and not practical implementation. I'm happy to discuss either, however mixing the two tends to muddy the waters and undermines any meaningful discussion of either...IMO.

 

[jillian]

We were discussing ideological theory and not practical implementation. I'm happy to discuss either, however mixing the two tends to muddy the waters and undermines any meaningful discussion of either...IMO.

I wasn't talking about just the practical result. Fact... the intent of communism is to destroy capitalism. That isn't the case in socialist or mixed socialist constructs.

You asked the opposite... I believe gave it to you. Of course, you're free to disagree

 

[ScreamingEagle]

We have many elements of socialism too, but by and large yes, we live under a right-wing economic model. I thought everyone knew that.

You assume too much….with lefties controlling our schools today….the garbage that spews forth is utterly flabbergasting….as exhibited by various posters on this Board.

 

[Ravi]

Capitalism is consistent with liberal philosophy. In case you missed it, I've said on multiple occasions that I'm a strong supporter of both.

Perhaps it is the use of left-right that is causing a misunderstanding between us. There are several spectrums of ideology and you can really only view them as left-right one at a time, or only once. I choose to view economic models as the original left-right spectrum and thus do not use it for any other. You've said yourself many times that liberal does not equal left-wing, yet that is exactly what you are arguing now, as far as I can tell. So when I say right-wing ideology, I'm referring specifically and exclusively to the economic ideal of capitalism and making no judgements about liberal, authoritarian, conservative or progressive.

Groan.

Perhaps I did misunderstand you. You aren't saying capitalism is a right wing ideal but that your particular view of capitalism follows the right's ideal of capitalism.

Did I get that right?

 

[manifold]

I wasn't talking about just the practical result. Fact... the intent of communism is to destroy capitalism. That isn't the case in socialist or mixed socialist constructs.

You asked the opposite... I believe gave it to you. Of course, you're free to disagree

Did you read the definition of socialism that I posted? Don't take my word for it, go read about it yourself. Socialist theory is not materially different from communist theory with regard to capitalism. They both seek to eliminate it. They both seek to eliminate private property and private investment. They both seek to place the means of production in the hands of the state.

In practice, both pure capitalism and pure socialism are flawed. Pure capitalism is just a bit too ruthless and pure socialism is just plain idiotic and could never work. Combining elements of the two is what has worked best. The pragmatic argument of today is where the optimal balance lies and where we currently stand relative to this equilibrium.

 

[manifold]

Groan.

Perhaps I did misunderstand you. You aren't saying capitalism is a right wing ideal but that your particular view of capitalism follows the right's ideal of capitalism.

Did I get that right?

Double-groan!! NO.

According to well established and accepted economic ideological theory, capitalism is a right-wing ideal. Period. If you support many of the aspects of capitalism, as I believe you do, then in at least this regard, you support a right wing ideal. Sorry to disappoint you.

 

[Ravi]

Double-groan!! NO.

According to well established and accepted economic ideological theory, capitalism is a right-wing ideal. Period. If you support many of the aspects of capitalism, as I believe you do, then in at least this regard, you support a right wing ideal. Sorry to disappoint you.

Then I'd have to accept that the founders were right wing and that is far from the truth.

 

[AllieBaba]

They'd be right wing if you plopped them down in today's climate.

"Liberal" is a relative term. If you're a liberal today, you do NOT have the same values as our forefathers.

 

[manifold]

Then I'd have to accept that the founders were right wing and that is far from the truth.

When it comes to economic ideology, it is precisely the truth. Again, sorry to disappoint you.

 

[Ravi]

When it comes to economic ideology, it is precisely the truth. Again, sorry to disappoint you.

I'm not disappointed. I just don't agree with you.

 

[manifold]

I'm not disappointed. I just don't agree with you.

Perhaps I can get you to understand with a simple question: Are Libertarians right-wing or left-wing?

 

[Ravi]

Perhaps I can get you to understand with a simple question: Are Libertarians right-wing or left-wing?

Neither.

 

[jillian]

Then I'd have to accept that the founders were right wing and that is far from the truth.

Well, yes, and no. On one hand, they were radicals, given they overthrew an existing government and waged war against it.

On the other hand, they were landed gentry and wanted to protect the aristocracy and their property. And yet, on the other hand, made it clear that they rejected primogeniture as a means of carrying on social status.

A complex bunch of old men.

 

[manifold]

Neither.

A copout proving my point.

Thanks!

 

[Ravi]

Well, yes, and no. On one hand, they were radicals, given they overthrew an existing government and waged war against it.

On the other hand, they were landed gentry and wanted to protect the aristocracy and their property. And yet, on the other hand, made it clear that they rejected primogeniture as a means of carrying on social status.

A complex bunch of old men.

Still, hardly right wing like the right wing is now defined. Or even conservative.

 

[Ravi]

A copout proving my point.

Thanks!

How is that a cop out?

 

[manifold]

How is that a cop out?

You really don't know???

In this entire exchange you've been attempting to force multiple dimensions of economic and political philosophy and ideology into a single dimension (left - right). Again, something that RetardedGaySgt does here on a daily basis but that I don't expect from you. Your refusal to place Libertarians on this spectrum is a tacit acknowledgement of my point that forcing everything to a single dimension is a fools errand.

When it comes to economic ideology, our model is based on a right-wing ideal...capitalism. Class dismissed.

 

[Ravi]

You really don't know???

In this entire exchange you've been attempting to force multiple dimensions of economic and political philosophy and ideology into a single dimension (left - right). Again, something that RetardedGaySgt does here on a daily basis but that I don't expect from you. Your refusal to place Libertarians on this spectrum is a tacit acknowledgement of my point that forcing everything to a single dimension is a fools errand.

When it comes to economic ideology, our model is based on a right-wing ideal...capitalism. Class dismissed.

Aren't you the one that posted the thread about the political spectrum recently? Where did libertarian fall on the axis?

 

[jillian]

Still, hardly right wing like the right wing is now defined. Or even conservative.

I agree, which is why I said they were a complicated group.

The "right" now isn't conservative, it's reactionary.