|
||||||||
Why does society veer to the 'right'? |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#51 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 15,483
|
Quote:
Was UKIP Popular or the idea of leaving the EU?
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#52 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 10,733
|
Quote:
The survival instinct is not selfishness - and man, as he mainly lives in organised societies, does not need a survival instinct in the main (although it will always be there).
There is enough to go round for all. Shout last orders at a bar and people will go and grab more drinks as the supply soon will be cut off. Buy a pizza or a bag of chips and everyone around you wants a slice/chip and suddenly all you can do is have to hand em out and probably left with 1 piece of pineapple or that manky green chip that no one else wanted |
|
|
|
|
|
#53 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 14,772
|
Quote:
In some cases it is to the left - i.e. communist societies. However, in the West this isn't generally the case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#54 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belfast
Posts: 7,275
|
Quote:
There is nothing inherently wrong in wanting stability and not revolotuion. This nation has developed hrough evolution.
|
|
|
|
|
#55 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 🖥⌨🖱
Posts: 29,238
|
Apart from being over-simplistic, I think the left-right model of politics is bogus in the sense that almost everyone has a mixture of typically left-wing and right-wing attitudes. What separates people is the different contexts in which people adopt one type of attitude or another.
In many ways I think political differences actually equate to distinctions between who an individual sees as his or her ingroup (or the ingroup to which they aspire). People tend to have left-wing attitudes towards their ingroup and right-wing attitudes towards their outgroup regardless of whether they identify as left-wing or right-wing. Of course politicians aren't going to portray themselves as inconsistent, hypocritical and unprincipled and neither are people who support a particular political party. That's how I see it though. |
|
|
|
|
#56 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belfast
Posts: 7,275
|
Quote:
Apart from being over-simplistic, I think the left-right model of politics is bogus in the sense that almost everyone has a mixture of typically left-wing and right-wing attitudes. What separates people is the different contexts in which people adopt one type of attitude or another.
In many ways I think political differences equate to distinctions between who an individual sees as his or her ingroup (or the ingroup to which they aspire). People tend to have left-wing attitudes towards their ingroup and right-wing attitudes towards their outgroup regardless of whether they identify as left-wing or right-wing. Of course politicians aren't going to portray themselves as inconsistent, hypocritical and unprincipled and neither are people who support a particular political party. That's how I see it though. |
|
|
|
|
#57 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belfast
Posts: 7,275
|
Quote:
After WW2 the country adopted the mixed economy which worked relatively well while people were already accustomed to being controlled by conscription, rationing and under enemy attack. People pulled together for the common good in order to win the War.
My mother too benefited from a council house, as did approximately 40% of the population, as well as free healthcare, etc., but never electricity. I'm not sure what my mother would do now in the same circumstances, however, priority is given to families with children. |
|
|
|
|
#58 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 35,805
|
Quote:
Lets say you are trapped on a mountainside and the last piece of the first aid kit lets say a solitary bandage and both of you have need of it what then.
Shout last orders at a bar and people will go and grab more drinks as the supply soon will be cut off. Buy a pizza or a bag of chips and everyone around you wants a slice/chip and suddenly all you can do is have to hand em out and probably left with 1 piece of pineapple or that manky green chip that no one else wanted |
|
|
|
|
|
#59 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 24,726
|
Quote:
Sorry, I don't see what point you are making here.
It is that in a given group where survival is at stake people will resort to their animal instincts to the exclusion of the group as a whole |
|
|
|
|
|
#60 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 61
|
Quote:
Countries moves to both the left and the right, often at the same time. I think your post is really asking why are the UK and the US have recently moved to the right, and imo the answer is that while the electorate in the referendum and the US election both wanted change, the "left" has positioned itself as the defender of the status quo. The DNC pushed Clinton rather than Saunders, while the Labour Party ensured that they were united behind Remain, even when the leader is a leaver. If the left refuse to offer change, where else are people going to turn except the right?
Quote:
The Socialists wouldn't agree. They tell us that a baby will share its food with others and it's simply society that teaches them how to be greedy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#61 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 14,772
|
Quote:
The Socialists wouldn't agree. They tell us that a baby will share its food with others and it's simply society that teaches them how to be greedy.
I struggle with that theory as survival is ultimately a selfish instinct whether it be for the immediate grouping or, in severe circumstances, oneself. If you compromise your own survival for others then you can put the whole group in jeopardy. Weak members of a group are not as strong as a smaller number of stronger ones. It's the law of the jungle and survival of the fittest. I see your contention and I raise you the capitalist view which is, it's fine to be a backstabber, lack morals or any kind of human decency because its just business. |
|
|
|
|
|
#62 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 5,360
|
Political correctness & human nature don't mix well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#63 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 12,479
|
Quote:
Political correctness & human nature don't mix well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#64 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Is there life on Mars
Posts: 5,364
|
Capitalist societies are for the politically lazy. People just turn up for their pay cheque and off they go without having to give a second thought to politics . The few manage the many. That seems to suit most.
For socialism to work it takes more effort and thought from the masses , there isn't the general will for that anymore. |
|
|
|
|
|
#65 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 35,805
|
Quote:
It is that in a given group where survival is at stake people will resort to their animal instincts to the exclusion of the group as a whole
Why would survival be at stake in the first place? I am not questioning the existence of basic survival instincts in man, but that they are overridden in a well ordered society, as they become unnecessary. |
|
|
|
|
|
#66 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: London
Posts: 4,450
|
Quote:
You mean survival of the richest!
Survival is dependent on access to resources. |
|
|
|
|
|
#67 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 10,591
|
People fundamentally believe that they should benefit from their own efforts. They are happy to give their money to provide law and order and support for the most vulnerable but when it strays into wider provision there is a kick back. Socialism to loved by those who take/benefit. Take out more than they put in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#68 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Brighton
Posts: 4,923
|
Quote:
People fundamentally believe that they should benefit from their own efforts. They are happy to give their money to provide law and order and support for the most vulnerable but when it strays into wider provision there is a kick back. Socialism to loved by those who take/benefit. Take out more than they put in.
Some people live their lives very prudently and try to put something away even if it means not having the luxuries of life, others simply spend with no thought for tomorrow and the future. This is the case right across the income spectrum We get confused as a society because we extrapolate our own situations and assume everyone has the same chances, skills etc. a moments thought would convince that such was a nonsense and that the generalisations that we hear so often are totally unrepresentative, unhelpful and often dishonest. |
|
|
|
|
|
#69 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: London
Posts: 4,450
|
Quote:
Socialists would say no such thing. They would say that we should be raising ourselves above what is natural and putting the negative parts of human nature behind us. That is what civilisation is all about after all. We are not in the jungle anymore.
Quote:
No it doesn't. It's frightening to think some people know nothing about socialism but still want to hold it up as the source of all evil.
I don't hold Socialism "up as the source of all evil". I believe that the majority of people believe in Democratic Socialism, it's just how much of it we're prepared to accept at any given time. Socialism (or a form of it) will survive and evolve into the systems we use to organise society eventually, however, pretending it has all the answers is as folly as pretending that Capitalism has them too. It does seem though that Capitalism provides the means to create the wealth necessary to be able to provide Socialism. |
|
|
|
|
|
#70 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 35,805
|
Quote:
[1]People fundamentally believe that they should benefit from their own efforts. They are happy to give their money to provide law and order and support for the most vulnerable but when it strays into wider provision there is a kick back. [2]Socialism to loved by those who take/benefit. Take out more than they put in.
It is socialism, which promotes the social ownership of the means of production, that attempts to remedy that. 2. It is the capitalists who benefit from the present system, but I don't think they are particularly enamoured of socialism........ |
|
|
|
|
|
#71 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,030
|
Society only veers to the right after it has veered too far to the left.
It's just a correction mechanism which works both ways and keeps us roughly on the centre path. |
|
|
|
|
|
#72 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: GL51 0EX
Posts: 14,085
|
Quote:
In most cases it is the employer who benefits the most from a worker's efforts.
Quote:
It is socialism, which promotes the social ownership of the means of production, that attempts to remedy that.
I bought my means of production on amazon |
|
|
|
|
|
#73 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 24,726
|
Quote:
1. In most cases it is the employer who benefits the most from a worker's efforts.
Quote:
It is socialism, which promotes the social ownership of the means of production, that attempts to remedy that.
Love the jargon - in practice however this means little and the average worker has no more benefit from those industries which are 'socially' (state) owned than they did when they were privately owned.Quote:
2. It is the capitalists who benefit from the present system, but I don't think they are particularly enamoured of socialism........
At one point it was the aristocracy that were the beneficiaries under the Feudal system - then when the Agricultural Revolution it was the landed Gentry - the capitalists after the Industrial Revolution.We are now on the cusp of another revolution and this will broaden those who benefit from the system so that most if not all can benefit, it is just that most choose not to. |
|
|
|
|
|
#74 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Here--------->
Posts: 12,398
|
Quote:
In some cases it is to the left - i.e. communist societies. However, in the West this isn't generally the case.
Rinse and repeat. |
|
|
|
|
|
#75 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 🖥⌨🖱
Posts: 29,238
|
Quote:
Would it be fair to say the politics is essentially a process where different views are expressed and contested and we arrive at a policy conclusion? And that is why ideological positions are useful for setting up the debate but not for resolving it.
I mean this forum would die if we were all like me...it needs people who identify strongly with one part of the spectrum or another even if it's in an exaggerated way. |
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 10:23.




