DS Forums

 
 

Why does society veer to the 'right'?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 29-12-2016, 14:53
ustarion
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 15,483
Was UKIP Popular or the idea of leaving the EU?
UKIP linked all of the country's woes to the EU and millions lapped it up like children in a sweet shop
ustarion is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 29-12-2016, 15:04
Maxatoria
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 10,733
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.
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
Maxatoria is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 15:07
GibsonSG
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 14,772
In some cases it is to the left - i.e. communist societies. However, in the West this isn't generally the case.
..... at this present point in history it is the pre cursor to the destruction of a cohesive society, bit like many empires before. In Britain it started in the 80's when the Magon and her cohorts convinced people to create their own little worlds free of responsibility to society in general. That in turn encourages people to want to protect that world, the right encourages people to think that the only important thing is money, and so it goes ..........
GibsonSG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 15:19
mgvsmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belfast
Posts: 7,276
There is nothing inherently wrong in wanting stability and not revolotuion. This nation has developed hrough evolution.
Yes, there is nothing morally wrong about wanting stability but evolution shows you that change is inevitable and so those who are innately conservative are always going to ultimately disappointed.
mgvsmith is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 15:21
Arcana
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 🖥⌨🖱
Posts: 29,240
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.
Arcana is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 15:26
mgvsmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belfast
Posts: 7,276
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.
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.
mgvsmith is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 15:28
mgvsmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belfast
Posts: 7,276
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.
Does it always require a threat to the entire Nation to bring about the social cohesion which would make society fairer and more productive in the long run?
mgvsmith is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 16:32
GreatGodPan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 35,814
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
Sorry, I don't see what point you are making here.
GreatGodPan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 16:42
paulschapman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 24,735
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
paulschapman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 16:48
scowie
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 61
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?
Saunders? You mean Sanders. He was the left, not Clinton, so the left was the side pushing for change. The more centrist DNC pushed for Clinton and the rigged voting machines in the US then made sure the most right-leaning candidate won, Clinton in the primaries, Trump in the finals. Over here, Corbyn has now made the Labour party the party of change, but the reality is that people do not really want change as much as they might claim. Bigotry is king right now so people will vote for whoever is the most anti-immigrant.

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.
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.
scowie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 17:07
GibsonSG
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 14,772
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.
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 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.
GibsonSG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 18:40
Jenny_Sawyer
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 5,360
Political correctness & human nature don't mix well.
Jenny_Sawyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 18:44
niceguy1966
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 12,479
Political correctness & human nature don't mix well.
It's called civilisation. Some cope better with it than others.
niceguy1966 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 20:12
belly button
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Is there life on Mars
Posts: 5,365
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.
belly button is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 09:51
GreatGodPan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 35,814
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
As I said, in a society like this there is more than enough to go round.

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.
GreatGodPan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 10:18
Ennerjee
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: London
Posts: 4,453
You mean survival of the richest!

Survival is dependent on access to resources.
Well of course. Availability of resources is key and "richest" is what that means whether that's access to those resources via the amount of money a person has, or the physical strength of an animal (or intelligence).
Ennerjee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 10:30
Aurora13
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 10,592
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.
Aurora13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 10:56
razorboy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Brighton
Posts: 4,923
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.
The big and difficult question is where the line is drawn. I am sure most people want to live independently and wherever possible self sufficiently but life is often more complex and misfortune and poor health for oneself or people close to you can destroy what is a fragile balance

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.
razorboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 10:59
Ennerjee
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: London
Posts: 4,453
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.
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.
A friend who is a Socialist (he works for and sells the Socialist Worker) has often given me that scenario as an argument. He maintains that our natural instinct is to share what we have and not be selfish.

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.
Ennerjee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 12:38
GreatGodPan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 35,814
[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.
1. In most cases it is the employer who benefits the most from a worker's efforts.

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........
GreatGodPan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 13:09
CSJB
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,037
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.
CSJB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 13:21
platelet
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: GL51 0EX
Posts: 14,090
In most cases it is the employer who benefits the most from a worker's efforts.
Really? By what measure? Are you saying that for most companies profit outweighs staff costs? Don't think that's been true anywhere I've worked

It is socialism, which promotes the social ownership of the means of production, that attempts to remedy that.
What means of production are being denied to the masses? You think we'd all be happily working at T'mill if it was just publicly owned?

I bought my means of production on amazon
platelet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 13:53
paulschapman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 24,735
1. In most cases it is the employer who benefits the most from a worker's efforts.
There are mutual obligations between an employer and employee. - these are far more than you do work and get paid. (since all contracts are like that).

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.

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.
paulschapman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 14:32
MidnightFalcon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Here--------->
Posts: 12,398
In some cases it is to the left - i.e. communist societies. However, in the West this isn't generally the case.
"The left" takes the ascendency and after a while becomes arrogant in it's power so people veer to "the right" in response. Eventually "The right" gains enough support to take the ascendency and in turn becomes arrogant in it's power.

Rinse and repeat.
MidnightFalcon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 14:40
Arcana
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 🖥⌨🖱
Posts: 29,240
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.
Absolutely.

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.
Arcana is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 20:13.