Why the Right and Left hate each other

Do you have children? Just curious as to how close you have ever been through the birthing process, and as to how you grew to be so callous.

 

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Until your born you are not a citizen of the unites states.

 

My hope was that you would define what you understand by Marxism. I have come to understand that you refuse to. Instead you decided to catalogue "Marxism" according to their actions (walks like a duck.... talks like a duck... etc). You shifted the discussion. So I'm following what you started. If you judge "Marxism" by the way they have attained power, nobody in this country is more "Marxist-like" then Trump. This is easy to demonstrate: the tactics used by Marxists like Hugo Chavez, for example: Attack the press, attack judges and Supreme Court Justices and replace them with OPENLY partisan allies (Kavanaugh even attacked Democrats during his confirmation), cheat (see Mueller and Republican Senate Committee Investigations), claim that if he doesn't win that means the opposition cheated (Chavez did that), incite the crowds to attack anything that stands in his way.... I mean... EVERYTHING Trump DOES to stay in power was taken straight out of the Marxist playbook.

Of course, the only difference is that Chavez succeeded and Trump failed. But the actions (and you were the one who changed the subject to this) are pretty much the same. Then again, they are pretty much the same for any type of dictatorship. But you were the one who provided the parameter.

 

In my opinion the left and the right "hate" each other because that's how we're conditioning people to think. People are under a constant barrage of information these days. They have 1,000 channels on their TVs, they have radio stations and podcasts, they have their phones and all their news feeds popping up on their screens. All that and we haven't even mentioned their computers.

With all those signals the bland reporting of facts is very quickly and very completely drowned out by all the hyperbole every influencer and op-ed writer uses just to get noticed. Think about it, the only way a person is heard is if they are extreme on one side or the other. Headlines try to grab our attention with sex and blood and extremism. Simple journalism is dying, quickly.

When everything is extreme then "hate" becomes a mild emotion.

 

I explained in very simple terms what marxism is but you simply refuse it. A person is always defined by his actions and that mainly means the specifics of what he does. If a guy works for the Boston Celtics, shows up at the gymnasium often, runs up and down the court and shoots baskets and tries to grab rebounds, he is....... wait for it...... a basketball player! Calling him an athlete is not very helpful. Calling him a man is not helpful. Calling him a human means virtually nothing. Violence (while not absolutely required but is expected) is marxism. Dividing people into classes to form class warfare is marxist. Getting people to riot and cause mayhem is marxist. Criticizing the press is not marxist; getting complete control of the press is marxist. Attacking judges and appointing judges you like is not marxist; making the judiciary beholden to the executive branch is marxist. Destroying the past and heritage is marxist; maintaining the past history is not. Winning elections, like Trump did, is not marxist. Doing what one can get away with to fix elections (which the Democrats, though not Biden, did) is pretty much marxist.) Getting rid of a constitutionally elected president in any way possible (hopefully, though in the end not likely, short of violence) is revolutionary and marxist. Supporting and condoning disruptive riots to get political advantage is marxist. AFAIK Trump has not done anything marxist. (Please don't retort with the hyperbolic comparison of the silly-assed Jan 6 disruption with the nation-wide and extensive 2020 riots and mayhem.) IIRC Hugo Chavez did not use any marxist tactics.

 

You dont agree with physics, nor are your interpretations accurate. If thats not agreeing with me, then that's a coincidence, because even if i never existed, you would still be wrong.
BLM simply does not mean what you communicated. Nor are you accurate with any interpretation of any presentation you have witnessed.

I told you you were wrong, and you disagreed with facts, not me. Simple as that.

Yes, the void its presented in and any interpretation from said presentation. Any interpretation from such partial data alone is just going to be inaccurate.

 

You have not.

I wasn't debating "a person" I was debating an ideology. You didn't like that debate and turned into a debate about people's actions. But when I pointed out that Trump is the politician that acts most like a Marxist (and listed the ways), you didn't like that either. So... here we are.

I'm not talking about "criticizing" the press. Trump did more than that. He did what ALL Marxist heads of state do: block any press that is not loyal to "the leader". They huddle in their own "official" press. You know... like Trump DID.

I don't know that this has anything to do with Marxism. All communist leaders embrace their culture. Mao's cultural revolution was based on preserving the Chinese cultural heritage. Same for Pol Pot. Most attempts at imposing communism in South America where predicated on embracing the heritage of "El Libertador" Simon Bolivar or, in Nicaragua (for example) the cultural legacy of Cesar Augusto Sandino (thereby the term "Sandinistas"). Many (most?) movements in Africa use the name of some cultural hero that is considered the "role model" to their movement.

So you are clearly mistaken. However, it is a fact that Trump did do quite a bit to throw away our democratic heritage. Attacking our historical allies. So you might not be completely wrong.

Of course I'll use it. Riots to break windows and rob jewelry and TV sets or even lighting cars on fire (I don't even know if they did that) are never going to destroy democracy. Inciting a mob to violence against legislators and the VP to overturn the results of an election COULD.

You knew I was going to say that because you KNOW that is true.

That is true because there is no such thing as "marxist tactics". There is only Marxist ideology. The tactics used to try to reach the Marxist ideal have varied throughout history from outright war, to subtle tactics like Trump's, to ... even democratic elections (like in Allende's Chile)... and many others. But you are the one who brought up the "walks like a duck..." cliché. I do understand that you want to walk it back. But you do need to make up your mind whether you want to talk about "actions" or you want to talk about ideology. Because neither is going to make your case.

 

Well said. Yep, the Urban Helpless are driving 21stC "Marxism".

They're the MOST afraid, so they go the hardest.

 

That's the KEY difference between 20thC and 21stC partisan politics.

Last century it was a philosophical choice, even for the working classes. This century it's perceived as a matter of actual physical survival.

Last century even the small man had some independence, and could thus consider his choice more - or if inclined - much less (we were after all, less interest in politics generally in the 20thC). The small man had the luxury to actually choose whether he'd think about it or ignore it. Now it's knee jerk allegiance, driven by deep terror.

 

It's evident the founders, er, the federalists wanted increased power for the federal government than was provided or more accurately not provided by The Articles of the Confederation. I see your interpretation (and Rand Paul's interpretation) as more of an antifederalist notion, er, an 'anti-constitutional' notion and more of a pro-Articles of the Confederation notion.

IMO, you give the Bill of Rights way too much emphasis in The Constitution. George Washington and Alex Hamilton, for examples, would disagree with you on your interpretation of the power of federal government wielded by The Constitution.

 

IF BLM had any genuinely good intentions, you wouldn't see them acting like school-yard bullies. You wouldn't see them explaining the the mass looting of the "Miracle mile" shopping strip was "reparations", or that it didn't matter because those stores had insurance. The only reason a person could defend the crap they do- is if you are one of them, have the same no-value tunnel-vision mindset.

A person with a rational assessment of anything has taken all factors into consideration whether they like them or not. If you make your case by ignoring what doesn't make your case..... you have no case, you've only lied to yourself- and all that does is prove my point. You can't afford to look at the facts.

 

Washington was an avid supporter of "Republicanism". - Republicanism is important because, when applied to a political system, it gives citizens sovereign authority over government instead of making their lives and rights subordinate to government.
To Edmund Pendleton on Jan22,1795 h wrote: " Republicanism is not the phantom of a deluded imagination. On the contrary,... under no form of government, will laws be better supported, liberty and property better secured, or happiness be more effectually dispensed to mankind."

To this is what Rand Paul is speaking and I am in agreement. A strong centralized power is necessary in terms of National defense but as far as the governance of citizens, it leads to rule by a powerful elite not close to the people. We see this "powerful elite" trying to install a National power base through National mandates and most evidently in the attempt to "nationalize" election laws. They also have no problem with placing their desires over our Bill of Rights.

 

I fully agree!

It was Lincoln that summarized the concept of that, which is clearly the intent of both the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution when he stated:
"Government of the People, By the people, For the people". That is the essential element that has made America exceptional in the history of the world- and it is both under attack and in great danger today.
The best possible, most needed action for this nation to day is to restore that is fully working fashion. The only way this can be done is for the people themselves to have the power to cause the immediate removal of corrupt legislators. This is not the concept of voting them out, not of dealing with unsatisfactory performance or positions- but of removing those who ignore the fundamental conditions and duties of their position. The first is related to political preferences- the second is criminal or dishonest actions, which should never have been tolerated.

IF politics were a game, their would be officials (like referees, umpires, etc) who would monitor conduct- and have the power to remove those who's conduct violated certain rules. That is the essence of what is needed in Congress; citizen oversight of conduct, with the power to terminate them for violations of their oath of office, or the ethics rules which every one of them have sworn to uphold and actually written for themselves.

Thomas Jefferson said- "When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."

Time to put the fear of losing your job for not doing your job honorably firmly in the minds of our politicians.

If that were to happen, Congress would soon see a revival of good character and honor. Those that did not.... would not be there.

Working on it....

 

This may help with the current "Marxism" discussion: https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/difference-between-marxism-and-communism/

I suggest that the orthodox definitions of Marxism, Communism, Socialism, et al, are not sufficiently applicable to either the reality or aspirations of very many in the United States, specifically.

Back on topic: it may be fair to say that "Right and Left hate each other" because each faction thinks that the other one is trying to steal from them, usually in a variety of ways almost too numerous to go into here in much detail. The Right (including economic-Conservatives like myself) see many on the Left as doctrinaire, opportunistic parasites that toil endlessly to get UNEARNED income, services, and "subsidies" from a highly-centralized government, supported by taxPAYERS. Many on the Left, however, feel that rich Conservatives have manipulated commodities, goods, services, marketplaces, and tax codes so that they can become wealthy, powerful, and therefore able to suppress the total compensation EARNED by the various working-classes, resulting in an ever-lower standard of living for them.

Truth? Both those of the Right and the Left are surely right, to one degree or another. But, since about the time of '9/11', the entire economic situation has spiraled out of control -- made far worse by the 'Great Recession', the 'rescue' reaction to that recession by 'our' Central Bank (the Federal Reserve System) which propped up stock markets to the detriment of everyone else, and now, of course, 'the virus'....

More truth? When you mash all the rhetoric, 'class-warfare', specious accusations of rampant 'racism', and other nonsense OUT of the American 'problem', it all really boils down to MONEY. Who gets how much money, and for what reason...? Get to the bottom of THAT, and you finally can understand the whole thing in its proper perspective.

And I suggest that at this late date, we'd better figure it out quickly -- because our main opponents in the world don't seem to be having these same problems... and the nascent Sino-Russian military/economic alliance is becoming more pervasive, efficient, and powerful every day -- ironically, not by practicing orthodox Marxism or Communism, but by perfecting state-sponsored, partially-state-owned NEO-CAPITALISM!

 

Applicable to this thread......

 

I see your point; wantt o add one thing to your statement below:

"it all really boils down to MONEY. Who gets how much money, and for what reason...?" AND- From Whom.

Much of the essence of politics is the transference of wealth without any exchange of value, usually to buy votes and power.
We should remember that when the government spends or gives away money for anything- that money comes from the people, not the government. When benefits and money are distributed-, the real question in terms of fairness depends on (1) contribution earning it, meaning for example social security- which the recipients receive from a fund they have been contributing for all their adult lives, or (2) Legitimate need, meaning the recipient is in need of support through no fault of their own, or (3) the money is given to undeserving people or entities for political reasons- to the detriment of the people actually supporting the nation and paying the bills. I think most people understand the first and second conditions- but few would approve of the third, yet it is all too common and getting worse. It is also detrimental to the structure of a society, it is the forced subsidization of the unproductive for the benefit of political entities. That is simply unjust.

A quote from Alexander Tytler around 1780:
"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."

Could we avoid that? Of course- it is a choice, but we need the majority of voters on board- and it's nearly impossible to get an entire populace to start thinking in terms of the benefit of all in the long run.

 

A very well-written, well-considered post, Spirit. Unfortunately for us, since Obama, we've been in a situation where just over half our population is receiving UNEARNED handout-welfare of different kinds, and/or, "subsidies" (which is just another word for 'welfare').

And, because people can receive UNEARNED 'benefits' from the government AND still be able to VOTE in all elections, just like those who fully support themselves, we are on an unavoidable collision course toward an even worse economy than this propped-up fraud the Federal Reserve has foisted on all of us today....

Another view: those who "row the boat" come to resent the ones who simply sit in the "boat" -- and do NOTHING.

 

One side is overwhelmingly right, the other predominately wrong...... in their presentation of the facts of the matter. For instance the rich conservatives built the entire middle class and made the lower class the envy of the lower classes elsewhere.

Defining marxism is not an easy task. It's like defining athletes. Comes in many different flavors,although there are some core marxist beliefs and actions that normally cover all factions.

 

Just a bit of a reply on your post which refers to the last sentence in your post...How do you feel about later amendments to The Constitution nullifying previous amendments to The Constitution?...I'm referring directly to the 10th amendment stating that any federal power not covered at the point of amendment number 10 is to be covered by states and then along comes the 13-15 amendments involving federal mandates on slaves' voting rights, for example, which contradicts or nullifies amendment number 10 because the federal is determining who can and cannot vote which was exclusively once a province of states?

 

There's plenty of blame to go around, Rod, but when it comes to finding much commonality between Left and Right, we probably have to go much deeper than looking at Marx. The old saying goes, "All wars are economic wars!" And, certainly since the Industrial Revolution that began in the 19th-century, I'd suggest that "All political concerns are economic concerns!"

In other words, it all goes back to that stuff about "Who gets how much money, and for what reason...?" But, to examine that fairly, we probably have to drill all the way down into those considerations posed by psychologist Abraham Maslow in his epic, "Hierarchy of Needs". Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs

And, that takes us right back to what I maintain is the source of the greatest antagonism between Left and Right in this country -- that people who work to support themselves fully, without handout welfare (in any form) become bitterly opposed to those who do NOT work to support themselves fully, but who instead look for government to provide them with what they want and need. The psychological leverage that the Left uses to support their societal concepts is that it should be perfectly acceptable, and even LAUDIBLE for the "takers" among us to steal from the "makers"....

Lots of room for blame in both 'camps', as I said before -- but the matter of ECONOMY is at the root of all of it.

 

I'll jump in to maybe help. The 10th amendment says that all powers not designated for the federal government belong to the states (or the people) which meant only those authorities enumerated are the federal government's although there are other passages in the Constitution that restrict states. Making amendments to the Constitution is perfectly constitutional, and while the 13th-15th specifically stated the constitution has these authorities and explicitly said they apply to the states. (As an aside there was much disagreement for a long time whether any of the amendments applied to the states. It was only gradual that SCOTUS, in a process that came to be known as incorporation, ruled that they did -- the bill of rights for instance. The 13th-15th are the only amendments that explicitly state they apply to the states IIRC.) At any rate there is nothing unconstitutional with any amendment including one that explicitly nullifies another amendment (prohibition being a perfect example.)

The 13th-15th amendments did not nullify the 10th and are just a gnat-like problem for the 10th amendment compared to the almost total erosion of the 10th amendment over the decades as the federal government glommed a little more power over the states and then a little more power, abetted by a congenial SCOTUS. In my view a very large amount of what the feds do is unconstitutional.

 

I pretty much agree with your observation. I have no problem with others having a different view and beliefs from mine, but I took umbrage with the facts cited. As Patrick Moynihan infamously said, Everyone has a right to their own opinions, but not their own facts. That is why I said, "One side is overwhelmingly right, the other predominately wrong."

Your post is reminiscent of James Carville's 1992 campaign slogan, "It's the economy, stupid."

 

Over the last ten years in the UK (of which I write as I know it very well) the Tory government has implemented a draconian austerity programme. The directed almost all its economic policies primarily to reduce the borrowing debt. Even when interest rates were quite low.
Consequently over ten years schools and hospitals ran on just about empty, hardly anyone got a wage rise in the public sector, there was far less investment in social programmes or infrastructure. Slowly the whole economy ran slower and slower and many people had to find second and even third jobs.
They weren't shirking, assuming dependence, wanting to live off someone else. There just weren't the jobs that kept up with costs of living while th government, wanting to pay off this debt, kept raising taxes.
Yesterday I tuned into a UK radio programme where the subject was the huge rise in the cost of living after such austerity has left so many people short. There was someone on there who had three children because they had budgeted for it five years ago, and both partners work. One is a teacher. Today they have to use food banks.
I was astounded to hear that pasta...PASTA! has gone up over three times in price.

Now it is fine for those who fell out of bed on the right side and never had the rug pulled from under their feet. But that isn't reality.

IMO the state should not "give" money away but be there when things go wrong. In the USA, reputedly hard working and conscientious, wealthy and "Christian", I am surprised that you don't feel able to help those who need help, often through no fault of their own.

 

The bolded isprobably the most egregious nonsense you have ever written.

I give you an excerpt from the NYT:

HONG KONG, May 18—One of the early objectives of the Cultural Revolution in China, which began in 1966 and goes on today, was to wipe out the “four olds”—old things, old ideas, old customs and old habits.

The “four olds” had already suffered setbacks in the years of Communist rule preceding the Cultural Revolution, but the Maoist leadership tried to use the new revolutionary upsurge launched in 1966 to eliminate them completely.

In the turbulent years from 1966 to 1968, what remained of old religious practices, old superstitions, old festivals, old social practices such as traditional weddings and funerals, and old ways of dress were violently attacked and suppressed. Visual evidences of old things were destroyed, and there was an orgy of burning of old books and smashing of old art objects.

Young Red Guards invaded homes and shattered family altars that denoted continued Confucian reverence for generations of forbears. The few temples, mosques and churches still used for religious purposes were closed and put to secular use. Even those that had been left open for sightseeing purposes, such as the great Buddhist, Lama and Taoist temples of Peking, were barred and their statues, altars and other furnishings were removed.

Continue reading the main story

https://www.nytimes.com/1971/05/19/archives/china-transformed-by-elimination-of-four-olds.html

 

I am embarrassed to admit that I have also been aware at times that my analytical processes are distressingly similar to Carville's, from time to time -- even though I absolutely LOATHE the man, his allegiances, and his very evident political viewpoints.

But what I've suggested is surely nothing new -- all throughout the history of mankind, nearly every society of any prominence has despised and detested parasites. But what makes parasites in any nation far worse is when they find what they believe is justification for their parasitism in various political theories! The friction develops in the application of the parasitism, though -- because it's one thing to BEG, but another thing altogether to STEAL....