Santiago, Chile is rioting

[generals3]

it is in South America where all right-wing protests are US-backed. Or did you already forget about the one in Bolivia that led to a fascist dictatorship?

And if you want to compare the numbers of deaths caused by communusist regimes versus the capitalist ones.. be my guest.

It's hard to compare deaths caused by an all encompassing political ideology and those caused by an economic policy. But i'll gladly compare the deaths and suffering caused by liberalism and communism.

And what fascist coup in bolivia? The rise to power of the pro-axis MNR in 1943?
Surely you can't mean the recent ousting of Evo Morales who tried to take down the democratic foundations in Bolivia after having shadily changed the term limit and ensured he passed in the first round after the vote counting temporarily stopped (funny how he was set to face a second round than some issues arise with the counting and tadaaaa he wins in the first round...).
He has only himself to blame, had he not try to mess with Bolivian democracy whatever nation or group you believe to be solely responsible for the situation would have not been able to interfere right now.

 

[generals3]

I have spent the last *checks* 3 years elaborating on why left is good and right is bad.

And this right-wing fascist government is just another blatant piece of glaring evidence why that is the case. If the government is bad, you should not replace it with a more blatantly evil government.

Stalin and Mao are as communist as North Korea is 'Democratic Republic'.

Nope, you have spent 3 years ranting about Donald Trump and republicans. That's something totally different. That hardly proves the entire "right wing" (whatever that might mean) is "evil". And that most definitely doesn't prove the entire left wing is "good".

And if you don't believe Stalin nor Mao were communists you should spend more time reading into these characters.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

it is in South America where all right-wing protests are US-backed. Or did you already forget about the one in Bolivia that led to a fascist dictatorship?

And if you want to compare the numbers of deaths caused by communusist regimes versus the capitalist ones.. be my guest.

It's hard to compare deaths caused by an all encompassing political ideology and those caused by an economic policy. But i'll gladly compare the deaths and suffering caused by liberalism and communism.

And what fascist coup in bolivia? The rise to power of the pro-axis MNR in 1943?
Surely you can't mean the recent ousting of Evo Morales who tried to take down the democratic foundations in Bolivia after having shadily changed the term limit and ensured he passed in the first round after the vote counting temporarily stopped (funny how he was set to face a second round than some issues arise with the counting and tadaaaa he wins in the first round...).
He has only himself to blame, had he not try to mess with Bolivian democracy whatever nation or group you believe to be solely responsible for the situation would have not been able to interfere right now.

Yeah, the new regime who has shown to be very racist against the natives, cut up the native flag and is killing protestors. Nothing fascist about that at all!
Oh, and Bolivia had its term limits removed by its elected judges, so have fun with that.


I'tll be fun to see how many deaths you think are caused by communist nations versus capitalist nations. Are you going to use that book that included the deaths of nazis in WWII in its final count? Still no idea what communism has to do with all of this, but whatever.

 

[Seanchaidh]

(funny how he was set to face a second round than some issues arise with the counting and tadaaaa he wins in the first round...)

Ok, fine, have it your way, you can be corrected here if you don't want to look at the existing thread about Bolivia. Your characterization of events is utterly and completely false. The fact that Mesa declared himself as having made it to the second round based on 1)an unofficial count that 2)wasn't even complete is no one's fault but his own. The fact that the margin for Morales widens as votes are counted is not surprising: poorer, more rural areas favor the indigenous leftist and their ballots typically finish counting later. This same geographic trend has existed in previous elections; it is neither surprising nor irregular, and it is perfectly consistent with a single round victory for Morales. The official count had no interruption; the quick (unofficial) count had the usual suspension as the official count took over. Because Mesa demanded it (because he was losing the official count), the quick count was continued after it had been suspended to make way for the official count. In both counts, the ballots counted later tended to favor Morales more, which comes down to geography: there's a big rural/urban divide in Bolivia and the less developed rural areas favor Morales much more than the affluent, whiter cities. They also take longer to count and report their votes.[footnote]A similar phenomenon recently occurred in a Seattle City Council race: Kshama Sawant on election night was significantly behind in the votes that were counted (behind by 8%), but mailed-in ballots favored her by a large enough margin that she ended up winning a few days later as all the votes were counted. The Sawant example isn't even geographical: it appears to be a result of one campaign having lots of volunteers to knock on doors while the other had an absolutely gross amount of money (happily, in this case the money ended up losing), and for whatever reason that meant that mailed-in ballots were systematically different than in-person ballots.[/footnote]

The OAS complaints about Bolivia's election are outrageously thin; it appears they are meant to accomplish little more than muddy the waters and be vaguely referenced as if dispositive without in reality even being minimally persuasive if closely examined. Like much right-wing propaganda, the idea that Evo Morales rigged the election somehow only needs to be plausible enough that utterly shameless people can shout it with a straight face. No need for evidence, just the accusation will do.

This study goes into detail. http://cepr.net/images/stories/reports/bolivia-elections-2019-11.pdf?v=2

On October 21, the OAS Electoral Observation Mission in Bolivia (hereafter referred to as the OAS mission, or the mission) issued an initial postelection press release, which expressed "its deep concern and surprise at the drastic and hard-to-explain change in the trend of the preliminary results [from the quick count] revealed after the closing of the polls." In line with the quick count process in previous elections, the TSE had ended the quick count at 83.85 percent of tally sheets verified. This tally showed MAS-IPSP receiving 45.71 percent of the presidential votes, and CC receiving 37.84 percent, a difference of 7.87 percentage points. Two days later, the OAS mission issued its preliminary report on the elections, which briefly repeated the criticism that "the changes in the TREP [quick count] trend were hard to explain and did not match the other measurements available." However, the mission provided no evidence to support these statements suggesting that the quick count could be wrong or "hard to explain." The following paper analyzes the election results and finds that:
[li]The results from the quick count for the first 83.85 percent of the vote count are consistent with a final projected result of Morales winning the election outright with a more than 10 percentage point victory;[/li]
[li]Neither the OAS mission nor any other party has demonstrated that there were widespread or systematic irregularities in the elections of October 20, 2019;[/li]
[li]Neither the quick count nor the official count exhibit significant changes in voting trends in the final results; rather, the same well-known trend, explainable by differences in voter preferences in different geographical areas, is evident in both counts;[/li]
[li]The legally binding vote count ?the official count ?did not stop for any significant period of time;[/li]
[li]It is unclear how the OAS mission's objections regarding the quick count would affect the official count[/li]

 

[Saelune]

I have spent the last *checks* 3 years elaborating on why left is good and right is bad.

And this right-wing fascist government is just another blatant piece of glaring evidence why that is the case. If the government is bad, you should not replace it with a more blatantly evil government.

Stalin and Mao are as communist as North Korea is 'Democratic Republic'.

Nope, you have spent 3 years ranting about Donald Trump and republicans. That's something totally different. That hardly proves the entire "right wing" (whatever that might mean) is "evil". And that most definitely doesn't prove the entire left wing is "good".

And if you don't believe Stalin nor Mao were communists you should spend more time reading into these characters.

You realize that Trump has been President for 3 years, right? You realize I complain about them because they are a problem, right? For a good long time I did not complain about Trump because he wasnt busy swindling the world, just stupid contractors. If you dont think racism and corruption are bad, thats on you. If you think equality and universial healthcare are bad, thats on you.

Communism is about all the common people being equal and in power. That was not true under Stalin's fascism, and not under Mao's either. Slavery is not communism, nor is secret police. That these right-wing fascists use Communism the same way Republicans used Christianity and 'family values', doesnt mean they actually succeeded in what Communism is supposed to be. If someone smashes a beer bottle into a glass weapon and stabs you with it, its not Heineken's fault.

Your goal in this topic is apparently to defend right-wing fascism. Why? You're arguing with me and Seanchaidh who are calling it out. Do you like the new Bolivian government?

 

[generals3]

You realize that Trump has been President for 3 years, right? You realize I complain about them because they are a problem, right? For a good long time I did not complain about Trump because he wasnt busy swindling the world, just stupid contractors. If you dont think racism and corruption are bad, thats on you. If you think equality and universial healthcare are bad, thats on you.

I'm not sure what the hell you're talking about. All you have done here is show how desperately american-centric you are and fail to see your grudges against Trump have no link whatsoever with political "Right vs Left" conflicts in South America. (and the rest of the world for that matter). You talk about universal healthcare, guess what Chile has universal healthcare and the current right wing government hasn't taken it down. So your idea to not consider "the entire right wing" as evil has to go hand in hand with being against healthcare is absurd. There is a world outside of the United States of America. Don't project US politics on the entire world.

Racism is bad, correct, this didn't stop the communist "Khmer Rouge" to commit a genocide. Nor has that prevented right wing politicians around the globe to fight racism. And corruption is definitely not a right vs left issue as communist countries have been/are notorious for their rampant corruption. Anyway, point is that your idea of what American politics currently are means no squat once the discussion addresses foreign politics.

Communism is about all the common people being equal and in power. That was not true under Stalin's fascism, and not under Mao's either. Slavery is not communism, nor is secret police. That these right-wing fascists use Communism the same way Republicans used Christianity and 'family values', doesnt mean they actually succeeded in what Communism is supposed to be. If someone smashes a beer bottle into a glass weapon and stabs you with it, its not Heineken's fault.

Your goal in this topic is apparently to defend right-wing fascism. Why? You're arguing with me and Seanchaidh who are calling it out. Do you like the new Bolivian government?

Not only have you just given your own definition of communism but you have also butchered the definition of Fascism. All this tells me is that you need to better inform yourself about 20th century politics and that your definitions are not "The" definitions. I could say that whatever you attribute to the "right" isn't right wing politics at all because it is *Insert idealised definition/version of liberal conservatism* and you wouldn't buy it either. If you can't even accept the failure of an ideology and learn from it you're bound to repeat the exact same mistakes.

And how am I defending right wing Fascism? The current Chilean government isn't fascistic at all.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

But the one is Bolivia is.

 

[generals3]

Yeah, the new regime who has shown to be very racist against the natives, cut up the native flag and is killing protestors. Nothing fascist about that at all!
Oh, and Bolivia had its term limits removed by its elected judges, so have fun with that.


I'tll be fun to see how many deaths you think are caused by communist nations versus capitalist nations. Are you going to use that book that included the deaths of nazis in WWII in its final count? Still no idea what communism has to do with all of this, but whatever.

I don't think we need to add the deaths of Wehrmacht/SS troops to realize that the USSR, China, Cambodja, Albania and North Korea deliberately killed millions of innocent civilians through oppression, genocide and orchestrated famines. Communist regimes have never produced anything good. At best you can argue there are some socialist regimes which did "ok".

 

[generals3]

But the one is Bolivia is.

And I have never defended the current ad-interim president of Bolivia. I merely stated Morales was trying to take down democratic foundations and that is what sparked the initial popular uproar. His replacement may very well be worse, but doesn't change the fact he shouldn't have used judges to rule the constitution unconstitutional (after a failed referendum(!)) to ensure he would personally stay Bolivias leader. Surely his party has other competent politicians who could have taken over?

 

[crimson5pheonix]

But the one is Bolivia is.

And I have never defended the current ad-interim president of Bolivia. I merely stated Morales was trying to take down democratic foundations and that is what sparked the initial popular uproar. His replacement may very well be worse, but doesn't change the fact he shouldn't have used judges to rule the constitution unconstitutional (after a failed referendum(!)) to ensure he would personally stay Bolivias leader. Surely his party has other competent politicians who could have taken over?

Good thing Morales never did such a thing, his 4th term was legal. Those judges where also elected by the people, so is it 'using them' whenever you disgaree or what?

 

[Saelune]

You realize that Trump has been President for 3 years, right? You realize I complain about them because they are a problem, right? For a good long time I did not complain about Trump because he wasnt busy swindling the world, just stupid contractors. If you dont think racism and corruption are bad, thats on you. If you think equality and universial healthcare are bad, thats on you.

I'm not sure what the hell you're talking about. All you have done here is show how desperately american-centric you are and fail to see your grudges against Trump have no link whatsoever with political "Right vs Left" conflicts in South America. (and the rest of the world for that matter). You talk about universal healthcare, guess what Chile has universal healthcare and the current right wing government hasn't taken it down. So your idea to not consider "the entire right wing" as evil has to go hand in hand with being against healthcare is absurd. There is a world outside of the United States of America. Don't project US politics on the entire world.

Racism is bad, correct, this didn't stop the communist "Khmer Rouge" to commit a genocide. Nor has that prevented right wing politicians around the globe to fight racism. And corruption is definitely not a right vs left issue as communist countries have been/are notorious for their rampant corruption. Anyway, point is that your idea of what American politics currently are means no squat once the discussion addresses foreign politics.

Communism is about all the common people being equal and in power. That was not true under Stalin's fascism, and not under Mao's either. Slavery is not communism, nor is secret police. That these right-wing fascists use Communism the same way Republicans used Christianity and 'family values', doesnt mean they actually succeeded in what Communism is supposed to be. If someone smashes a beer bottle into a glass weapon and stabs you with it, its not Heineken's fault.

Your goal in this topic is apparently to defend right-wing fascism. Why? You're arguing with me and Seanchaidh who are calling it out. Do you like the new Bolivian government?

Not only have you just given your own definition of communism but you have also butchered the definition of Fascism. All this tells me is that you need to better inform yourself about 20th century politics and that your definitions are not "The" definitions. I could say that whatever you attribute to the "right" isn't right wing politics at all because it is *Insert idealised definition/version of liberal conservatism* and you wouldn't buy it either. If you can't even accept the failure of an ideology and learn from it you're bound to repeat the exact same mistakes.

And how am I defending right wing Fascism? The current Chilean government isn't fascistic at all.

Alright, without using labels (ie Communism, conservative, liberal, capitalism etc), define left and right for me. As in, what are 'leftist' views and policies, what are 'rightist' views and policies. Let us figure out each other's definitions here to clear up confusion then, since all I ever see is just flat 'They call themselves communist, so they are left-wing', even though there is tons of blatant misuse of such labels which mislead people. (Such as North Korea using 'Democratic Republic' which it is objectively not, and Nazis using the term 'Socialist' even though they are not.)

 

[generals3]

Alright, without using labels (ie Communism, conservative, liberal, capitalism etc), define left and right for me. As in, what are 'leftist' views and policies, what are 'rightist' views and policies. Let us figure out each other's definitions here to clear up confusion then, since all I ever see is just flat 'They call themselves communist, so they are left-wing', even though there is tons of blatant misuse of such labels which mislead people. (Such as North Korea using 'Democratic Republic' which it is objectively not, and Nazis using the term 'Socialist' even though they are not.)

That's the beauty about our complex world now isn't it? You can't just fit everything into neatly defined categories.

First to define left and right I would need to ask on which axis? Socio-Economically? Socio-culturally? Environmentally (even so some nations have right wing environmentalist parties)? Is a libertarian who is anti-tax and government handouts "right wing"? Would that make his pro legalization of drugs/gay marriage/Euthanasia and pro Open border stances right wing ideas? Is a nationalist right wing? Does that mean "social security" and "welfare programs" are right wing too? after all Mussolini greatly improved Italy's social welfare system and was even a pioneer on European standards.

See it's not all that easy, only in countries like the US where you have two parties which are more "left/right" of each other on both main axes it's "easy" to categorize one as "right" and the other "left".

And that's even without taking into account that being on the left or right is also relative to the context you live in. You consider being anti universal healthcare something "right wing". I can assure you the right wing in countries with such healthcare coverage never dare to question it. For us it would be something like "Ultra liberal right wing". Most of the right wing politicians over here are lefties compared to any of your democrats with the exception of Bernie Sanders & Elizabeth Warren (and even so, one has to see what they would do in practice).

As to whether or not calling oneself something makes that person that thing... Off course not. But you can't just overlook how all these communist regimes followed communist ideals. The idea of stripping people from their property to redistribute it equally was inspired by their communist ideology. So was the persecution and purging of the "elites". Now did these regime fit 100% neatly into communist ideology? (and even so, the question could be asked: which communist ideology? Marxism? Trotskyism? Stalinism?...) Off course not. But than again Mussolini's policies didn't entirely fit into his own Fascist Manifesto either, doesn't mean we can't call him a Fascist.

I mean in the case of modern china it is totally fair to question whether they are communist simply because there is almost not overlap left with the ideology. There is large scaleinstitutionalised racism, international exploitation and a weird form of nationalistic capitalism is thriving. So both socio-cultural and economic communist ideals have been severely violated.

 

[generals3]

Good thing Morales never did such a thing, his 4th term was legal. Those judges where also elected by the people, so is it 'using them' whenever you disgaree or what?

Because being elected somehow makes everything you do right? Come now, trying to defend this is just showing your total lack of objectivity and your desperation to defend him. The people voted against the increase in term limit and he used his allies in the supreme court to somehow deem the constitutional term limit a violation against his human rights?! Since when is running for president an unconditional "human right"?

 

[Seanchaidh]

Good thing Morales never did such a thing, his 4th term was legal. Those judges where also elected by the people, so is it 'using them' whenever you disgaree or what?

Because being elected somehow makes everything you do right? Come now, trying to defend this is just showing your total lack of objectivity and your desperation to defend him. The people voted against the increase in term limit and he used his allies in the supreme court to somehow deem the constitutional term limit a violation against his human rights?! Since when is running for president an unconditional "human right"?

If you want to disagree with the decision, maybe read it and engage with it instead of grousing about the top-line while christofascists murder people in the streets.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Good thing Morales never did such a thing, his 4th term was legal. Those judges where also elected by the people, so is it 'using them' whenever you disgaree or what?

Because being elected somehow makes everything you do right? Come now, trying to defend this is just showing your total lack of objectivity and your desperation to defend him. The people voted against the increase in term limit and he used his allies in the supreme court to somehow deem the constitutional term limit a violation against his human rights?! Since when is running for president an unconditional "human right"?

Yes, they consider it a human right. And being elected means they gave to judges the power to make such decisiona.
But hey, anything to defend your beloved christofascists, right?

 

[Saelune]

Alright, without using labels (ie Communism, conservative, liberal, capitalism etc), define left and right for me. As in, what are 'leftist' views and policies, what are 'rightist' views and policies. Let us figure out each other's definitions here to clear up confusion then, since all I ever see is just flat 'They call themselves communist, so they are left-wing', even though there is tons of blatant misuse of such labels which mislead people. (Such as North Korea using 'Democratic Republic' which it is objectively not, and Nazis using the term 'Socialist' even though they are not.)

That's the beauty about our complex world now isn't it? You can't just fit everything into neatly defined categories.

First to define left and right I would need to ask on which axis? Socio-Economically? Socio-culturally? Environmentally (even so some nations have right wing environmentalist parties)? Is a libertarian who is anti-tax and government handouts "right wing"? Would that make his pro legalization of drugs/gay marriage/Euthanasia and pro Open border stances right wing ideas? Is a nationalist right wing? Does that mean "social security" and "welfare programs" are right wing too? after all Mussolini greatly improved Italy's social welfare system and was even a pioneer on European standards.

See it's not all that easy, only in countries like the US where you have two parties which are more "left/right" of each other on both main axes it's "easy" to categorize one as "right" and the other "left".

And that's even without taking into account that being on the left or right is also relative to the context you live in. You consider being anti universal healthcare something "right wing". I can assure you the right wing in countries with such healthcare coverage never dare to question it. For us it would be something like "Ultra liberal right wing". Most of the right wing politicians over here are lefties compared to any of your democrats with the exception of Bernie Sanders & Elizabeth Warren (and even so, one has to see what they would do in practice).

As to whether or not calling oneself something makes that person that thing... Off course not. But you can't just overlook how all these communist regimes followed communist ideals. The idea of stripping people from their property to redistribute it equally was inspired by their communist ideology. So was the persecution and purging of the "elites". Now did these regime fit 100% neatly into communist ideology? (and even so, the question could be asked: which communist ideology? Marxism? Trotskyism? Stalinism?...) Off course not. But than again Mussolini's policies didn't entirely fit into his own Fascist Manifesto either, doesn't mean we can't call him a Fascist.

I mean in the case of modern china it is totally fair to question whether they are communist simply because there is almost not overlap left with the ideology. There is large scaleinstitutionalised racism, international exploitation and a weird form of nationalistic capitalism is thriving. So both socio-cultural and economic communist ideals have been severely violated.

Its all human rights, all of it. Socially, economically, it is all motivated by how people view other people, always. The left/right thing is not complex, the 'complexity' comes from that it is a scale. Though right-wingers love to misconstrue it because they want to redifine the 'center' to be between right-wing, and far right-wing, so that being even moderately left is considered 'extreme'.

Also no, europe is not farther left than the US. Having universal healthcare is not enough. Too much of Europe still has monarchies, and no monarchy is further left than the US. (Not that Trump isnt trying to change that though.) That Euro-centric myth is just to make Europeans feel better that they are not the US. Meanwhile you have places like Poland and Turkey which are far-right and the UK is also right-wing, even besides the monarchy thing.

Anyways, I was hoping you would actually answer this instead of deflecting it so we could actually have a real conversation without falling into bias, but you just want to condemn anything you consider 'communist' without considering what communism is, so I guess not.

The opposite of right-wing is not communism. You just call everything you disagree with communist.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Also no, europe is not farther left than the US. Having universal healthcare is not enough. Too much of Europe still has monarchies, and no monarchy is further left than the US. (Not that Trump isnt trying to change that though.) That Euro-centric myth is just to make Europeans feel better that they are not the US. Meanwhile you have places like Poland and Turkey which are far-right and the UK is also right-wing, even besides the monarchy thing.

Yeah, no, quite a number of European nations (including monarchies) are more left-wing than the US. The UK isn't as much as it should be, and it's backsliding badly, and there are some far-right European nations as well, but that doesn't mean that the US is equal or more left wing than Europe as a whole.

 

[generals3]

Also no, europe is not farther left than the US. Having universal healthcare is not enough. Too much of Europe still has monarchies, and no monarchy is further left than the US. (Not that Trump isnt trying to change that though.) That Euro-centric myth is just to make Europeans feel better that they are not the US. Meanwhile you have places like Poland and Turkey which are far-right and the UK is also right-wing, even besides the monarchy thing.

Anyways, I was hoping you would actually answer this instead of deflecting it so we could actually have a real conversation without falling into bias, but you just want to condemn anything you consider 'communist' without considering what communism is, so I guess not.

The opposite of right-wing is not communism. You just call everything you disagree with communist.

I beg to differ, while certain eastern european nations are very conservative western continental europe is very much to the left of the US. Whether it be with regards to subsidizing higher education, healthcare, gay rights, abortion rights or even immigration. I mean it's so far to the left that we have to outsource any kind of immigration control to Turkey because no one wants to be "that guy". (And while Turkey partly falls into Europe geographically it's usually not considered as "European" culturally speaking).

But mind you that I said "Over here". Over here = My country = Belgium. I wasn't using "Europe" as a counter-example as Europe (including Eastern Europe and the UK) contains a very wide spectrum of economic and socio-cultural policies.
What I can assure you is that a corporate hack like Joe Biden would instantly be labeled as a "right wing ultra liberal rich people lover" over here. I mean politicians have been accused of causing a "social blood bath" for merely cutting a little bit in unemployment benefits.
Taking down universal healthcare or Increasing University tuition (which are ludicrously low)
won't get you elected in a million years over here. Yet most democrat politicians don't believe in accessible healthcare and education.

Meanwhile gays can marry and adopt and no party questions that (except one neo fascistic), people suffering from incurable diseases can ask for assisted suicide, we are a very popular destination among asylum seekers because we throw money and housing at anyone coming here and kicking out illegal immigrants is as hard as hell due to an army of left wing activist lawyers. Gun laws? Very strict. The only less left wing thing about us might be that canabis isn't legalized (unlike the US where some states have legalized it) but consumption is generally "tolerated" by law enforcement.

So yeah, your definition of right/left has no meaning here. You'd probably consider our traditional right wing as left wing saviors.

And I have not deflected anything. Pointing out it is impossible to give a specific definition of two broad political spectra is me just pointing out a fact.
Maybe you should question your constant urge to categorise people the way you do.

And where did I call everything I disagree with "Communist", don't project your tendency to abuse the words "Fascism" and "Nazi" onto others. I have merely used the atrocities caused by communism as an example to prove your assumption that right = bad and left = good is false. That doesn't mean left = bad or right = good. Both sides have their rights and wrongs and it also depends how far you're willing to push the ideologies.
Take individualism vs collectivism. Recognizing the value of individuals and the rights & freedoms which flow from that recognition is good, but pushed to an extreme it will come at the expense of the collective good. On the other hand recognizing that actions have an impact on others and that the "collectivity" has to be taken into account when judging actions is good. Pushing that to an extreme however leads to a total marginalization and subjugation of individuals to whatever is considered "the collective good" and you can say goodbye to "human rights".

It is much more interesting and valuable to discuss certain policies or specific ideologies (which can at least be somewhat defined) than trying to judge "the right" or "the left".

Its all human rights, all of it. Socially, economically, it is all motivated by how people view other people, always. The left/right thing is not complex, the 'complexity' comes from that it is a scale. Though right-wingers love to misconstrue it because they want to redifine the 'center' to be between right-wing, and far right-wing, so that being even moderately left is considered 'extreme'.

That doesn't make a lot of sense nor does it fit into how the left vs right dichotomy is commonly understood. For instance whenever there are economic debates the whole notion of "human rights" becomes moot. Worse, the right might actually be more able to claim being on the side of human rights. After all excessive taxation might very well be construed as unfair confiscation and a violation of people's property rights. And even on the socio-cultural axis it is not always that clear.
Is fining someone for making a racist comment on facebook a human rights issue (which can happen over here due to ever stricter anti discrimination laws)? Isn't the fining (and thus confiscation of property) a bigger human rights violation than someone's feelings potentially being hurt? What about freedom of speech in that case? As you can see human rights can conflict (and the definition of what is a human right) and when they conflict there is usually no pro "more" or "less" human rights but a different prioritization of rights.

 

[tstorm823]

Its all human rights, all of it. Socially, economically, it is all motivated by how people view other people, always. The left/right thing is not complex, the 'complexity' comes from that it is a scale. Though right-wingers love to misconstrue it because they want to redifine the 'center' to be between right-wing, and far right-wing, so that being even moderately left is considered 'extreme'.

It is complex, because it isn't all how people view each other. Left and right isn't pro-rights and anti-rights. It isn't about rights at all. Whether a right is left-wing or right-wing depends entirely on the right being discussed, and two things viewed as rights can be entirely contradictory. The 3rd amendment in the bill of rights is the right to not have soldiers quartered in your house without permission. It's a property right. Property rights are a right wing thing. I would absolutely extend that right beyond soldiers to the right not to house anyone without permission. You ask someone on the left, they'll tell you that housing is a human right. Now there's a right not to house people and a right to house people and it's conflicting right.

Left and right is a question of the power structures of a nation. Left is for equalized power structures, right is for hierarchical power structures. And that's motivated by more than just how people view other people. It's how people view other people, how people view society, and then how people view the role of government built out of those things. Take for example fascism vs communism: these two are tied up together for good reason, they share a paradigm of the world. A fascist and a communist both see individuals broken down by the classes of people the belong to, and they both see society as a constant conflict between these classes. It's just the communist thinks the government is responsible for eliminating all class divisions where the fascist sees the government as the tool to enforce them.

And I'm sure you're reading this right now thinking "yes, and the communist is the good guy". But not everyone is a fascist or a communist, and all of the options where you don't treat society in terms of class warfare are 1000% better than either. Hierarchy is not a difficult thing to defend once you break out of that fatalistic view. You may think "why should any one person be higher on the societal ladder than another" and the answer is "because one is a licensed pharmacist and the other is a meth dealer, and giving more power to the pharmacist is better for both parties". A republic is the expression of this: government decisions are not made by the people, rather the people award higher power in society to those they trust to make decisions for them. A republic is a hierarchy. That's why the right wing party is the Republican Party. A democracy would be equal power to all people. That's why the left wing party is the Democratic Party.

So like, the heart of your contention is about Communist dictatorships being left or right wing. And it's a weird question. Because communism is ideologically the most extreme left you can possibly be. Communism wants absolute equality: no societal divisions whatsoever. But a dictatorship is sort of the opposite of that. You could call that extreme right if you want, but it's not as though there's really a political viewpoint of "dictatorship for dictatorship's sake". It's not as though all of these communist regimes formed with right-wing intentions. But it's what it takes to tear down the structures of society. For the extreme left that wants to dismantle all inequalities even against the will of the individuals in that society, the government has to have greater power than all of society to tear those structures down. That's communist China. That's the Cultural Revolution. And that is unimaginable violence as a result of left-wing thought. And then once you tear down the structures of society, you find out people actually like structure in their life, and they give a dictator power. Every time. You can probably feel welcome to call that last step right wing, particularly relative to what preceded it. But it's not because right-wing politicians wanted a right-wing government, but rather because a left-wing government tried to destroy society and reality asserted itself.

Communism is a left-wing utopian vision. Utopia can never exist. You can call the final tragedy of Communism right-wing movement if you want, but what you can't do is blame it on people who are right wing because they view society as cooperation rather than class warfare and want to preserve it as a result.

I beg to differ, while certain eastern european nations are very conservative western continental europe is very much to the left of the US. Whether it be with regards to subsidizing higher education, healthcare, gay rights, abortion rights or even immigration.

I don't think any of these claims is simply true, but the bolded claim is particularly false. The majority of Europe puts a 12 week limit on abortion by request. I'm not sure there's any European country that allows the abortion of a viable pregnancy beyond extreme circumstances.

 

[generals3]

I don't think any of these claims is simply true, but the bolded claim is particularly false. The majority of Europe puts a 12 week limit on abortion by request. I'm not sure there's any European country that allows the abortion of a viable pregnancy beyond extreme circumstances.

You're correct, depending on the nation time limits can be more or less strict. But in contrario to the US, where some states continuously try to render abortions quasi impossible, as far as I know in western european nations people don't question existing abortion rights and the general trend is towards more liberty. That has been the main difference on quite some issues for quite some years now: the fact there is a strong conservative movement in many US states willing to take the US back to where it was 50 years ago on whatever social issue the US can consider itself "progressive". (and to not budge one iota on issues where the US can be definitely be considered (very) conservative)

As such, as years pass by, you end up more and more on the right of the rest of the "western" world.