• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Which extreme is more dangerous to America?

Choose.

  • Far Left

    Votes: 35 46.7%

  • Far Right

    Votes: 40 53.3%
  • Total voters
    75
The question itself is a bit misleading because everyone is different. The more dangerous extreme varies by the person.

For example most active or retired military personnel see the extreme left is more of a threat because of their rejection of nationalism.

Me personally its about even; the extreme right believes that the Constitution doesnt apply to me because Im not a WASP and the extreme left would alter the Constitution so much that the document itself becomes rendered worthless.
 
Agnapostate said:
No, I also pointed to the Free Territory of Ukraine and the Paris Commune, and expanding somewhat, should also mention the Israeli kibbutzim, the municipalities of Chiapas still under the control of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation, the autonomous Shinmin region of Manchuria, the successes of workers' management in Yugoslavia, the successes of workers' ownership and management in the Mondragon Cooperative Corporation of the Basque region of Spain, and the successes of workers' ownership and management in general, which are integral elements in the formation of enterprises superior to the orthodox capitalist firm and would be at the core of the libertarian socialist economy.
Click to expand...

All small scale. On a large scale again it has never worked and can't. This has been proven time after time.

Agnapostate said:
Actually, I provided an example of its successful implementation that involved millions of people, and you dismissed it because it was eventually destabilized by overwhelming military force rather than collapsing because of internal deficiencies. :shrug:
Click to expand...

As I said 3 years is not an example of anything.
 
Alex Libman said:
It's like a bully giving you a choice of being punched with his left fist or his right... They are not opposite extremes, just two flavors of socialism - I reject both of them.

The extreme I favor is the very top of the Nolan Chart - complete individual liberty.
Click to expand...

Thankfully, that position isn't influential enough to be a threat to America.
 
Agnapostate said:
But liberalism and socialism are opposing ideologies.
Click to expand...

I think that one sentence encapsulates what most people are not aware of, and often 'wrongly' associated as being conducive to one another. If one was juxtaposed with the other it highlights the difference.

Paul
 
The far left could mean socialists/communists/fascists so I would say that is more dangerous than the far right.
 
Lakryte said:
The far left could mean socialists/communists/fascists so I would say that is more dangerous than the far right.
Click to expand...

The far right is much more communistic and facist than the far left.
The far left is much more socialistic than the far right.

Socialism vs. Communism

Socialism is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works. Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works. "Democracy," said Marx, "is the road to socialism." He was wrong about how economics and politics interact, but he did see their similar underpinnings.

Communism is conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works. Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works. The conservatives in the US are in the same position as the communists in the 30s, and for the same reason: Their revolutions failed spectacularly but they refuse to admit what went wrong.

A common mistake is to confuse Socialism, the economic system, with Communism, the political system
 
Last edited:
For the love of God, will you ****ing people buy a goddamn dictionary and learn what words mean?

This nonsense would be positively ****ing Orwellian if I thought either of you were actually doing it on purpose.
 
Tucker Case said:
Can you define both terms as you mean them, please?
Click to expand...

Of the two extremes listed, which are the most dangerous:

Far right (fiscal conservative): No. These are what we need a lot more of.

Far right (social conservative): Yes, at least to some extent. Many are religious extremests who want to insert religion into government.

Far left (social liberal): No. We need more of these also, along with the fiscal conservatives.

Far left (fiscal liberal). YES, these are the really dangerous people, the ones whose mantra is tax and spend all you can. These are the ones we should NEVER elect for public office.
 
disneydude said:
The far right is much more communistic and facist than the far left.
The far left is much more socialistic than the far right.
Click to expand...
:roll:
Only if you ignore the actual meanings of the terms you are using...
 
Goobieman said:
:roll:
Only if you ignore the actual meanings of the terms you are using...
Click to expand...

Stalinism/Communism is a state in which exploitation is controlled by a ruling caste.... at the expense of the working class." This is the exact opposite of what Marx and Engels were trying to accomplish, and is precisely what the Republicans are working so hard for.

A lot of people mistakenly believe that Socialism and Communism are the same thing. Socialism/Marxism is much more in line with the views of the far left. Stalinism/Communism is much more in line with the views of the far right.
 
Last edited:
ronpaulvoter said:
Far right (fiscal conservative): No. These are what we need a lot more of.
Click to expand...

If by "conservative" you mean people who think government ought not spend more money than it has, and that every expenditure ought to be carefully considered before implemented, I certainly agree with you. We need much more responsible, conservative fiscal management by the government.

If you mean that the government should cut all possible spending, however beneficial, and lower taxes to match... I disagree entirely. That's neither "conservative" nor prudent. Taxes and spending are a necessary function of government, and there's nothing wrong with high spending as long as it is disciplined spending, both within the government's means and implemented with clear, measurable social benefit.

ronpaulvoter said:
Far right (social conservative): Yes, at least to some extent. Many are religious extremests who want to insert religion into government.

Far left (social liberal): No. We need more of these also, along with the fiscal conservatives.
Click to expand...

Quite frankly, I think we need neither. The government has a legitimate role in upholding-- and helping shape-- moral and cultural values in the society that it's a part of, but the vaunted "family values" of so many social conservatives are so much irrational superstition. They've been distorted beyond all recognition by the corporate machines, and religious extremists who don't understand the difference between mindful obligation and mindless obedience.

We need a government that understands that the basis of morality is duty, and its own role in both promoting that sense of duty and assisting its citizens in fulfilling their duties.

As far as I can tell, this is neither Right nor Left. It's nowhere on the chart.
 
disneydude said:
Stalinism/Communism is a state in which exploitation is controlled by a ruling caste.... at the expense of the working class." This is the exact opposite of what Marx and Engels were trying to accomplish, and is precisely what the Republicans are working so hard for.

A lot of people mistakenly believe that Socialism and Communism are the same thing. Socialism/Marxism is much more in line with the views of the far left. Stalinism/Communism is much more in line with the views of the far right.
Click to expand...
Stalin's first move in power was to take property from individual farmers to create a national agriculutural collective. You really think he was in line with the views of the far right? The guy was a communist for the love of God.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
The government has a legitimate role in upholding-- and helping shape-- moral and cultural values in the society that it's a part of
Click to expand...

The government should have absolutely no role in shaping cultural or moral values. If you believe in that, go live in communist Cuba. They'll tell you how to think and feel.

Anyways, you cannot legislate morality.
 
Last edited:
G.I. Joe said:
Stalin's first move in power was to take property from individual farmers to create a national agriculutural collective. You really think he was in line with the views of the far right? The guy was a communist for the love of God.
Click to expand...

Exactly and not exactly. Stalin...absolutely was a communist, that's why Stalinism = Communism.

However people often mistake Stalinism/Communism w/ Marxism/Socialism.

And...yes...it is in lines with the far right. The right-wing and strict Capitalists adhere to a dogma that Businesses should be left to regulate themselves and the economy. What you find under this belief is the "Wal-mart" effect. That is....Large Corporations price goods below market value to drive out the smaller competition. Once they are driven out of business they can gain more business. More business = more profits for the corporation.
Unrestricted, these businesses will pay as little as they possibly can to the workers. Keep them hungry and they will fight each other to keep working.
This is the idea I was referring to in saying that exploitation is controlled by a ruling caste. This the opposite of socialism.
 
How is that different from socialism? The only difference is, with socialism, the "ruling caste" would be the government.

Also, you use this Wal-Mart analogy as if to say that they are a corporation with absolute totalitarian control, like they have the power to keep people down via low wages. This isn't true. Wal-Mart is used by many people as a stepping stone to better stations in life. That is the beauty of capatalism. As long as you're willing to work hard, noone can hold you back except yourself.
 
LiveUninhibited said:
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." -Benjamin Franklin
Click to expand...

Poignant words from a slave trader don'tcha think? But regardless he was talking about the security provided for by the crown not a republican system of governance of, by, and for the citizenry, against a foreign threat. Of course during war time certain unessential liberties are temporarily rescinded for the well being of the populace; such as, airport security increases following 9-11.

And of course the left has absolutely 0 problem giving up other peoples liberties for the sake of their own security (SEE: Welfare, Socialized Medicine, or any other government aid program in which ones right of property is abridged in the name of the general welfare of the population.
 
Agnapostate said:
I'm a left-wing extremist, and the phrase "America is not worth defending" seemed so vague as to be rendered meaningless. That's why the similar phrase "hating America" is prized by the jingoist; he can label any criticism of governmental policy an attack on the very morals and principles of the nation as a whole.
Click to expand...

Do you or do you not want the Constitution dissolved, if the answer is yes (as I believe it is considering your political affiliation) then you hate America and everything it stands for.
 
Anymore I would have to vote for whoever has the better policy on Second Amendment and MY gun ownership.

Other than that, it's the same doody, different toilet.
 
G.I. Joe said:
How is that different from socialism? The only difference is, with socialism, the "ruling caste" would be the government.

Also, you use this Wal-Mart analogy as if to say that they are a corporation with absolute totalitarian control, like they have the power to keep people down via low wages. This isn't true. Wal-Mart is used by many people as a stepping stone to better stations in life. That is the beauty of capatalism. As long as you're willing to work hard, noone can hold you back except yourself.
Click to expand...

That's only because right now...there are regulations that keep pure Capitalism in check. Allowed to run rampant as the extreme Capitalists want, you would see a return to more exploitation of the workers as was the case in the early days before the formation of unions.

As far as your first point....you are essentially correct.

In a purely socialistic state, the government would be the ruling caste
In a purely communistic state, you would have a party or a corporative ruling caste.

There are marked similarities and vast differences which make them polar opposites.
 
disneydude said:
That's only because right now...there are regulations that keep pure Capitalism in check. Allowed to run rampant as the extreme Capitalists want, you would see a return to more exploitation of the workers as was the case in the early days before the formation of unions.

As far as your first point....you are essentially correct.

In a purely socialistic state, the government would be the ruling caste
In a purely communistic state, you would have a party or a corporative ruling caste.

There are marked similarities and vast differences which make them polar opposites.
Click to expand...
Ok, you have to clear something up for me here. How is government not the ruling caste in a communist model?
 
No one seems to have given much consideration to what the 'Far Right' would bring to the table in terms of racial equality, or lack of...

Paul
 
gunner said:
No one seems to have given much consideration to what the 'Far Right' would bring to the table in terms of racial equality, or lack of...

Paul
Click to expand...
That is an unfair statement. Racism exists on both sides of aisle and to imply that it is a principle of the far right is disingenuine, at best. Not to mention that the left is dependent upon a lack of racial equality in order to keep the black vote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom