Is the difference between Right Wing and Left that RW loves authority?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

It seems to me that right wingers and conservatives, from the entire spectrum, be they Republicans, Nazis or whatever, have a love affair with authority and punishment. I also think it matters little to right wingers whether they're the leader or the subordinate, as long as there is a leader and a subordinate, they're happy. Equality makes right wingers feel horribly uncomfortable, as if life were dangerous and a threat. Right wingers believe someone must always be under someone's heel at all times. Right wingers also don't care if they're the ones doing the punishing of subordinates, or they're the subordinates getting punished, as long as someone is being punished at all times. This, I believe, is their view of the world. What do you think?

[NVMojo]

1. the Right Wing loves INTRUSIVE CONTROL

[seabeyond]

2. we absolutely have our authoritarians on the left too.

haven't you been listening to all the demands posters put on this board how all are suppose to live their lives..... their way. or because people irritate them. (what is with all this f*in i am irritated by, crap.) or because they become enraged someone would dare to do something that they dont do, ergo think all should not do.

[StellaBlue]

3. Yeah, the Statist Communists

Too bad fascism hasn't been as thoroughly discredited.

(And I say this is a socialist.)

[Brigid]

4. I think you're right.

And it's strange, too, because this country was founded by people with a problem with authority. And yet the RW cliams they know what this country is all about. Just goes to show you how far this country has gotten away from the founders' vision.

[alterfurz]

5. the right-winger's must-haves:

"someone to obey, someone to blame, and a herd to belong to"

[Brigid]

This is classic. Abolutely classic.

Mostly because it's so true! :rofl:

[laundry_queen]

27. HAHA!

Bang on!

[ClassWarrior]

6. Read George Lakoff's "Don' Think of an Elephant"...

He describes it as a "nation as a family" metaphor... Cons believe in a "strict father" model, and Progressives believe in a "nurturing parent" model.

It's an inexpensive, easy-to-read book. Pick it up.

NGU.

[Rocknrule]

12. That's also reflected in the RW concept of Jesus

as a gun-toting, war-loving, gay-hating Republican
Versus the liberal, and much more accurate, interpretation of Jesus

[liberal N proud]

7. The right wing would just as soon destroy as create and that is the

fundamental difference between the right and the left

The left will not destroy things in order to achieve their goal whereas is destruction of all things does not bother the right. This regime is a prime example of the destruction they reap.

[JVS]

8. During the 90's the RW had a very anti-authoritarian streak

See McVeigh, the freemen, people who talk about Ruby Ridge, or for a more comical version Dale Gribble from King of the Hill.

An ideologue's affection for authority often varies depending on who holds the authority.

[Blue Fire]

9. Right On!

[kevinbgoode]

10. No - the Right only love THEMSELVES in authority.

And, naturally, they always know what is best. This is why the entire country is now in a mess.

[tives12]

11. Even though they love authority, they still refuse to show it to the

real enemies, whether it be the American war criminals or Enron type businesses. When these cases come along, they merely shrug.

[ComerPerro]

13. They wanted to declare war on the government during the '90s, Never forget

During the 1990s, no one hated this country more than the Republicans.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. "Power corrupts..." No matter who wields it.

The left certainly has it's share of bosses and "leaders" eager to exert their authority over the people. And, both the right and left are equally eager to exclaim that it's for their own good.

That's why I'm an Anarchist.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

15. Don't anarchists believe in chaos being the best system? nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. Anarchism has nothing to do with chaos.

Rather than try to explain it to you, try reading some Kropotkin, Bakunin, Proudhon, Tolstoy, Goldman, Chomsky.

A guy named Gandhi got many of his ideas and was a close friend of Tolstoy - the Anarchist.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

17. I've known what that means for too long

an-ar-chy:

1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.


an-ar-chism:

1. The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished.
2. Active resistance and terrorism against the state, as used by some anarchists.
3. Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority: “He was inclined to anarchism; he hated system and organization and uniformity” (Bertrand Russell).

n : a political theory favoring the abolition of governments

Anarchism is the name for both a political philosophy and manner of organizing society, derived from the Greek ἀναρχία ("without archons" or "without chiefs"). Thus "anarchism," in its most general meaning, is the belief that all forms of rulership are undesirable and should be abolished. The word "anarchy", as most anarchists use it, does not imply chaos, nihilism, or anomie, but rather a harmonious anti-authoritarian society that is based on voluntary association of free individuals in autonomous communities, mutual aid, and self-governance.

I got the above from dictionary.com and wikipedia.

Anarchism presumes and assumes that human beings will sing kumbaya together and cooperate. What it will lead to, is a chaotic world where the big fish or most powerful fish will eat the little fish ALWAYS, not just sometimes or most of the time. It is a wonderful set-up for the rich and the criminally minded.

Perhaps anarchists just want the word "anarchism" to mean, "no bad, mean leader", in which case they should just call themselves the "no bad, mean leaders group." As I see it, the word "anarchism" is being used as a misnomer by so-called anarchists, and only serves to lead to confusion. A different name is needed.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. Your opinion of most of mankind leads to authoritarianism.

Whether from the left or the right or the "middle".

The idea that there are some superior and wise individuals who know what's good for us is just another way of saying that we can't control ourselves. That we are condemend to be victims or bosses. That we must all become children with hopefully benevolent parents. Or, if we are ruthless, criminal, or persuasive enough, become bosses ourselves.

I don't want a "no, bad, mean leader". I don't want ANY leaders deciding what is best for me.

You like bosses? There are plenty available to guide you through your own life.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

21. Okay, I'm listening....

Describe to me in a simple way, how an anarchist U.S. would function.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. Try this.

It pretty well sums up how I think Anarchism could work anywhere.

Anarchy is about abolishing hierarchy. According to the original, Greek meaning of the word, Anarchy stands to create a world where there is no separation between the rulers and the ruled--a place where everyone rules themselves. (An-archy in Greek means without rulers.) An anarchic vision of society is nonviolent, self-managed and non-hierarchical, and Anarchist thinkers hold dear to the ideal of democracy--rule by the people. They suggest political confederations of local organizations; a "commune of communes" was how the 19th century Parisians Anarchists articulated it. Anarchists seek to dissolve power instead of seize it. Therefore, they seek a social revolution instead of a political one. The social revolution throws into question all aspects of social life including family organization, schooling, religion, crime and punishment, technology, political organization, patriarchy, environmental concerns as well as others. Anarchists are identified "as enemies of the State," because they do oppose the existence of a hierarchical, top-down State.

Mohandas Gandhi opposed the State. The State is the military, police, prisons, courts, tax collectors, and bureaucrats. He saw the State as concentrated violence. "The State represents violence in a concentrated and organized form. The individual has a soul, but as the State is a soulless machine, it can never be weaned from violence to which it owes its very existence." Gandhi recognized that the State claims to serve the nation, but he realized that this was a fallacy. "While apparently doing good by minimizing exploitation, does the greatest harm to mankind."1

According to Dr. Dhawan, Gandhi was a philosophical Anarchist because he believed that the " can be realized only in the classless, stateless democracy."2 While Gandhi advocated democracy, he differentiated between direct democracy and western democracy. Commenting on the parliamentary system, Gandhi says, "If India copies England, it is my firm conviction that she will be ruined. Parliaments are merely emblems of slavery."3 He had no more appetite for majority democracy of America, "It is a superstition and an ungodly thing to believe that an act of a majority binds a minority."4 By centralizing power, western democracies feed into violence. Thus, he thought decentralization was the key to world peace.

In Gandhi's view all the political power that was concentrated in the State apparatus could be dissolved down to every last individual. He stated "Power resides in the people, they can use it at any time."5 Reiterating the idea of Anarchy, Gandhi said, "In such a state (of affairs), everyone is his own rulers. He rules himself in such a manner that he is never a hindrance to his neighbor."6 Gandhi had no illusions about the enormity of the task, but he took it on anyways. He believed that by reforming enough individuals and communities, society at large will change. Gandhi's concept of swaraj elucidates the connection between the individual and society.

Swaraj translates into "self-rule" or "autonomy". For Gandhi, every individual had to take steps towards self-rule in their lives; then India would naturally move towards self-rule as a nation. Gandhi insisted, "Everyone will have to take for himself."7 He continued, "If we become free, India becomes free and in this thought you have a definition of swaraj. It is swaraj when we learn to rule ourselves."

http://calpeacepower.org/0201/gandhi_anarchist.htm

[Sarah Ibarruri]

23. If everyone were a Ghandi...

If everyone were a Ghandi, I, too, would be an anarchist and would want all hierarchies abolished. If everyone were a Ghandi, everyone would be loving, caring, and there would be few, if any problems. Unfortunately, almost no one is a Ghandi. People come in all types, with almost none being Ghandi types. That being the case, I reject the free-for-all system that anarchy suggests is ideal and where everyone (regardless of how horrific their intentions are) is free to do as they desire.

I don't know about you, but those people who would want to kill me, I want in jail. Those people who would want to rape me, I want in jail. I want some sort of system whereby taxes is taken from the collective population, so the money could be put to large uses, even if a few object (which they will). I don't see any of that and multi-millions of other things getting done if there were no hierarchy of any sort. Everyone would do whatever the hell they wanted, when they wanted, to whom they wanted, and it would be monstrously awful. An anarchical system would be horrific. Such a thing cannot exist in a civilized manner. From prehistoric man on, we have always required some form of hierarchy for the purpose of organization.

Look at the family unit. It requires hierarchy for decision making. If everyone did whatever the hell they wanted, there would be tragedy within the family sooner or later. As for everyone politely voting within a family for what should and could be done, that happens only within certain families with certain personalities (Ghandi comes to mind again).

I merely want a FAIR system of elections whereby donation funds are provided by the govt. and no one is allowed to donate, a progressive tax, controlled lobbying, more input from the population via referenda (so congress has less power), and less control from a president.

Anarchism is idealistic and horrific.

[Jade Fox]

19. Read this.....

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/07/22_politics.shtml

[Sarah Ibarruri]

24. Great article about research on conservatives

<snip> Four researchers who culled through 50 years of research literature about the psychology of conservatism report that at the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality, and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include:

Fear and aggression

Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity

Uncertainty avoidance

Need for cognitive closure

Terror management <snip>

I've always thought that the U.S. in general had an intolerance of ambiguity that Europe doesn't have. Look at their movies. Hollywood always has a good guy and a bad guy. In Hollywood movies, there's always a happy ending. In Hollywood movies, women are always young, airbrushed, implanted, surgically altered. European movies aren't that way. They're real, like life. They don't always have a happy ending. There is not always a good and a bad guy. The women can be older, or have wrinkles. I wonder if our entire country is geared towards a conservative fantasy world.

[AnnInLa]

20. It's so much psychological

For some of the RW, it's the "Whose Your Daddy?" syndrome....they want to feel that someone all-powerful is in control, so they in turn, feel safe and protected. Viola! They don't even have to make tough decisions, someone who is much wiser and more powerful can do it for them. They don't even have to think too deeply....someone else can do it for them. That's why they defend their Daddy-God and Daddy-Bush against all reasonable arguments. To me, these are characterized by the "soccer moms" and the "stepford wives" and the female anti-choicers.

For some of the RW....it's THEY THEMSELVES who want to be the Daddy in control. They take the role of the Daddy of the Old-Fashioned family, or the God person. They don't want anyone (mommy, kids, Dems) to threaten their position/role. Control, baby, control. Why are there so many men on the protest lines at abortion clinics?? Or speaking out against women having control of their own bodies? Gotta control those upstart women who are threatening their daddy-ship.

In Psychology 101, the first thing we learned is that people in control don't give up control. They fight the people who are trying to gain control with everything in their arsenal. The sheeple want to identify with the people in control, even when the ones in control are making decisions that hurt the sheeple. By identification with the ones in control, the sheeple feel that, someone is watching over them (wrong), someone is keeping them safe (wrong), and that they somehow are in the elite control group. So, blindly they fight liberals even when liberals would make their lives easier.

If Dems could figure out how to frame issues to get the most psychological impact, we could take control. Control, baby, control.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

25. You're right. RWers want to feel protected and safe.

I wonder where they get all this fear, or if they're born that way, or raised to be fearful?

Part of the problem with libs is that we live and let live, rather than seek to step on others and keep them under control. We don't like to do things by force and by threat. Maybe conservatives need that, to be forced, controlled and threatened?

[DireStrike]

26. Political Compass has a system

Left-right is an economics scale.
Up-Down is an authoritarian scale.

The left-right scale is traditional. The other scale ranges from total authoritarianism at the top to anarchy at the bottom. Pretty much all the main stream dems and repubs wind up in the upper right corner, with dems generally being lower and more left - closer to the center, but still up and right of it.