The Difference Between Right-Wing and Left-Wing

Post Reply New Topic

The dirfence is, with left wing, evrythings expected to be for the good of ALL THE PEOPLE (or at least not to the detriment of), whereas with right wing, its for the good of the bigwigs at the top of the hierarchy

Yes: expected.

It just doesn't turn out like that.

This is such an easy question, and you all got it wrong!

Right-wingers think there is too much sex in movies & TV shows, but violence is ok.
Left-wingers think there is too much violence in movies & TV shows, but sex is ok.

lol, ed!

nice one, ed!

erm... i haven't got a telly - what does that make me?

oh, i know...

i think there's too much tv on tv.

(works for me...)

Now that is right on the button.

right-wingers beleeve that the individual doesnt matter and everything thats done should be done for the good of the state, and that to go against the state is "morally wrong". bullsh*t

I think someone remedied this one but comments afterwards still left me slightly consfused

So:

Left-wing is contributing towards the state (the government and those around you), and Right-wing is based more on the progress and determination of the individual, no?

There seems to be contradicting definitions going on...

As a right winger, i can confirm that the concept is, be a selfish twat 2 win.

It depends on which kind of left wing and right wing.

If you're talking about democrats and republicans, there's basically not much difference.

If you're talking about liberal vs. conservative, then remember that in today's world everything's one more notch to the right of what it's called. If someone's "radical," (i.e. feminists, believers in the "radical" idea that women are people) then by definition they're more liberal. "Liberal" = moderate. "Moderate" = conservative. "Conservative" = reactionary. And "Reactionary"? Well, nobody's called that in the media anyway, even though they are. Heh.

If you're talking about radical vs. reactionary, radical wants new ideas, and reactionary wants to go BACKWARDS, and both do this with violence.

Liberals are like radicals, but without violence. They say, Change the world 'cus it's not in good shape and it's gonna only get worse! Conservatives, however, think things should stay the same 'cus that's how they've always been. Conservatives also tend to be reactionary because there's always been a violent, warlike foreign policy in general, so there's really not much difference except that they don't want to go quite as backwards as some reactionaries.

Some would say it's not that complex, but I personally think it is.

Let me see if I have anything to add.

The right wing believes in self-determination and personal morality. They believe that in society, it is important for individuals to be self-reliant and to have a strong moral backbone. This is why they tend to support laissez faire economics, small government, low taxes, and religion/morality, they also support strong enforcement of laws to ensure that people realize they shouldn't break them and a strong military to deal with a dangerous world and a distrust of international organizations. They tend to think that capitalism is the best system and that socialism is bad or inefficient and they also think that people need strong morality. Some people disagree with them because of reasons like that capitalism is not a good system due to corruption, favoritism to the rich, lack of aid to the poor/oppresion of the poor, some disagree with their beliefs on morality because they believe morality is something for individuals to decide not the government and see this as a form of totalitarianism, also some disagree with the morality or effectiveness of harsh punishment or the need or morality of strong militaries as well they tend to see the distrust of international organizations as backwards and anti-progress/anti-peace.

The left wing believes in cooperation and tolerance. They believe htat in a society, it is important for everyone to help each other succeed and as such they tend to believe in more government intervention in an economy like socialist economics, welfare, strong government, as well as pacifism/globalism, tolerance for different lifestyles. They tend to think that capitalism, especially laissez-faire capitalism is an unfair system that leads great inequality and suffering, they also believe that people have the right to be who they are. Some disagree with them for reasons like that socialism is an inefficient system that leads to corruption, bureacracy, inefficiency, and possibly even totalitarianism, others disagree with the welfare state because it does not reward people for working but instead takes other people's money to give to them because they could not find a job for themselves, some disagree with the pacifism because they see it as a bad policy for a dangerous world, others dislike internationalism because of the fact that it involves the nation in question being controlled by other nations and weakens the power of that nation's self-determination, some think that the tolerance for different lifestyles will weaken society's strength and morality leading to its downfall.

Hopefully my assessment of the ideals of these wings is somewhat unbiased.

2 ideological groups not on the wings are totalitarianism and libertarianism.

Totalitarianism believes in a strong state with state controlled economy and state controlled morality because they see both the capitalist system to be distrusted and they think that individual morality needs to be bolstered by society. The main disagreement people have with this system is its elimination of all freedom and its tendency towards economic stagnation in the eyes of some.

Libertarians believe in a weak state with a laissez faire economy and lack of personal restrictions. They believe that the laissez faire capitalist economy is the most efficient of all systems and some even think it is the most moral because it rewards hardwork and ability and they also believe in a lack of personal restrictions because they see this as not part of the governments job. Some disagree with this group because they see this extreme level of freedom to lead to economic slavery in the forms of monopoly formation, and inequalities of wealth, as well others think that the personal freedom will lead to decadence and self-destructive personal behaviors that would undermine society.

i am the biggest threat to this country....a godless moderate libertarian who hates groups/individuals like peta, the a.l.f., greenpeace, michael moore, neoconservatives, bill o'reily, gun control advocates, anti-abortion advocates, anti-gay advocates, racists, all religions (they're tools of control, hatred, fear, and greed), hillary clinton, tipper gore....and some others too. actually hate is a strong word....it's more that i strongly frown on such groups and individuals and what they represent and do.



i believe in common sense. i think banning guns is idiotic, i think banning smoking in bars is unconstitutional and intrusive on private business, i also think the government should allow gay marriage and treat gays as equals, i think that the government has no right to make marijuana illegal for medicinal or casual use, i think that the rich should be taxed more to compensate for the poor and should be directed towards better education and after-school and daycare programs for parents who both have to work. i think that there shouldn't be censorship, i think parents should stop being such wimps about talking to their kids about the world around them including about sex, i think doing medical research on animals is awesome, that medicinal cloning is great and stem cell research should continue. i also think that male circumcision is cruel and unneccessary mutilation for the sake of an old religious idea that cutting off the foreskin will lessen a man's sexual pleasure and therefore allow him to devote himself more to god.


so yeah....i hold some controversial opinions but can back them up with logic and, in most cases, fact.


i also think the idea of adhering simply to a party's political views to be a part of a group is horribly stupid and dangerous.


.....and i'm saying all of this without having read the past few pages so if i'm stepping on some feet here or something.....quit wearing open-toed shoes. :p

I really doubt that you are the biggest threat to this country. I will bold the reason why. The biggest threat to our nation is the insane ideologues. I doubt that they will hold any power but really, libertarians are not a big bad evil group. My brother is mildly libertarian. Meh, whatever, left and right do not really cover all corners of the political map as expressed by many political tests. According to them, which is probably based upon the "world's smallest political test"(i think it was first), a test created by libertarians, there are 4 different sections, libertarian, totalitarian, leftwing and rightwing.

i was joking about being the biggest threat because i'm against most idealogues on both side and so therefore a danger to all of them because i refuse to fall simply into one political group and refuse to fall for religion.

Well, I figured you were joking but seriously, moderate people are good. I don't like the extreme extremists and few people do. I really don't have too much problems with libertarians, certainly I will disagree with them on occasion... possibly a good amount but still. They tend to be reasonable people so long as they aren't the extreme anarcho-capitalists.

yeah...and for as much as i say that i'm against religion and that religion is fake, in the end, i respect the constitution and people's rights to believe whatever they want about god and what not....i just don't like that they see it fit to force their religious views on me through legislation.

I don't really think that right-wing and left-wing really matter that much these days. To me, the real battle going on is that of liberty v authoritarianism.