Is there any difference between a Communist and a Leftist?

[Brendan_64]

I’m a lifelong Tory and I get as mystified by it as anybody else.

I’m glad to hear that it isn’t just us ‘lefties’ that are puzzled by it.

 

[Kaninchen]

I’m glad to hear that it isn’t just us ‘lefties’ that are puzzled by it.

I ignore anything to do with American politics, policies and so on because I just don’t speak the language (I’m also not even vaguely interested which helps).

Other than, from time to time and usually futilely, trying to explain things like why the rest of the world (and definitely the people involved at the time) thinks the Italian Fascists and the German NSDAP were ultra-right wing movements I tend to the view that politics is best avoided here unless it’s some European matter when American Conservative views are irrelevant anyway.

 

[livingwordunity]

We really ought to get beyond the “Right-wing”, “Left-wing” nonsense, and look at Catholic teaching, because the teaching of the Church is not defined by ‘left’ or ‘right’ and to define it as such mocks our Lord. There are teachings that people who cling to, and identify themselves, with ‘left’ or ‘right’ will find difficult on all sides of the political spectrum. I think nobody is in doubt about where we should stand on issues such as abortion, everyone is clear on that, but on certain core issues of Catholic social teaching (which does include the distribution of wealth within our nations and within our world) there seems to be a lot of misconceptions.

It’s not ideal, but it is what it is. And currently, the two primary ideological camps in America are labeled as ‘left’ or ‘right’. While the right isn’t perfect, it doesn’t hold to an issue that is not debatable. By contrast, the downside to the left is abortion, so-called same-sex “marriage”, euthanasia, human cloning, embryonic stem cell experimentation, HHS mandate, socialism/communism, etc. What the Church says are intrinsic evils the left calls absolute rights.

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

In theory, there’s supposed to be no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.

In 20th century practice, governments ostensibly run under these ideologies killed more of their own citizens than died in all of the inter-state wars.

Both communism and socialism are based on the violation of the 10th Commandment: Thou Shalt Not Covet Thy Neighbor’s Wife or His Goods. That people don’t take kindly to mass violations of this Commandment and therefore have to be silenced shouldn’t surprise anyone.

 

[Brendan_64]

It’s not ideal, but it is what it is. And currently, the two primary ideological camps in America are labeled as ‘left’ or ‘right’. While the right isn’t perfect, it doesn’t hold to an issue that is not debatable. By contrast, the downside to the left is abortion, so-called same-sex “marriage”, euthanasia, human cloning, embryonic stem cell experimentation, HHS mandate, socialism/communism, etc. What the Church says are intrinsic evils the left calls absolute rights.

Here is where you are using a model that defines a person’s view on economic management, and lumping in issues such as abortion, gay ‘marriage’, euthanasia, etc. These issues have nothing whatsoever to do with a person’s view of how economic affairs ought to be managed.

In the UK all parties support abortion, gay ‘marriage’ and embryonic stem cell experimentation. It was the Conservative led government (under David Cameron) that brought in the gay ‘marriage’ legislation (with the support of the Labour opposition).

To someone outside of the USA, the lumping in of economic and moral issues, which are completely unrelated as part of the same ‘ideology’ doesn’t make any logical sense. And then presenting everything as a choice of two packages. It’s just bonkers.

Saying that, “The Left support this” or, “The Right support that” is nonsensical, particularly when they issues in each package have nothing to link them in terms of ideology. What, for example, has a person’s stance on gay ‘marriage’ or abortion got to do with a person’s stance on the management of the economy? Where is the rational ideological link (other than “Rightists believe this and Leftists believe that”)?

Or do people just say to themselves, “I’m a Rightist (or Leftist) therefore I will adopt the views and values that all good Rightists (or Leftists) accept”?

Oh and on your list, socialism (without an atheistic component) is debatable.

I would also say that views held by those on the political ‘right’ concerning civilian casualties during modern warfare, and certainly the view that the atomic bombing of Japan in WWII (and bombing of Dresden etc.) was justifiable, are issues that are not debatable and fly directly in the face of Church Social Doctrine. Then there is the preferential option for the poor that is one of the core pillars of Catholic Social Teaching.

The Church is neither of the ‘left’ or the ‘right’, the Church is of Christ and Christ does not belong to either ‘left’ or ‘right’. We should not look to align the Church with secular political position, as this mocks Our Lord.

 

[JB_Dugan]

Moderate, extremist, we all gotta be something!

Concerning those issues where the Church is uncompromising, I am just as inflexible as you are. Where the Church allows for options, we apparently go our separate ways.

Subsidiarity and Solidarity must coexist in the service of all people, and there is more than one way to ensure that this happens. ** My way just happens to be better than yours.**

:doh2: Oh Yeah? Yeah?

I’m going into lurking mode…I’ll be watching you. This ain’t over…

 

[ishii]

I ignore anything to do with American politics, policies and so on because I just don’t speak the language (I’m also not even vaguely interested which helps).

Other than, from time to time and usually futilely, trying to explain things like why the rest of the world (and definitely the people involved at the time) thinks the Italian Fascists and the German NSDAP were ultra-right wing movements I tend to the view that politics is best avoided here unless it’s some European matter when American Conservative views are irrelevant anyway.

Yes, Kaninchen, we remember you feel this way from the last time you told us this.

Those of us actually living in America who are directly affected by the policies which are regularly debated on CAF do not have the luxury of ignoring American politics. I suppose the exceptions would be those living on a self sufficient compound in northern Montana, and/or those living in penthouses on Park avenue in NY - whose wealth allows them to be largely immune to the effects of political decisions.

But I see your point - I’m not interested in politics when it involves European matters. Nor do I find them very interesting. I do regret very much the apparent desire on the part of some Europeans to support euthanasia.

Ishii

 

[Cricket2]

Well I consider myself to be a Christian Socialist. I believe there ought to be greater levels of taxation than there currently is, particularly on higher earners, with an increase in levels of public services and social security. I believe that there should be a greater redistribution of wealth from the higher earners to the lower earners, and I do not believe in the concept of ‘trickle down’ wealth. I am also a very strong believer in the Trade Union movement and believe trade unions ought to have more power and clout.

I also think we ought to severely axe defence spending and use this to help boost levels of public services. I would also ban exports of arms from my country to anywhere.

At the same time I strongly oppose abortion and gay ‘marriage’, and fully support the stance of the Church on these and other moral issues (I also believe we the Church ought to be striving to keep with tradition, rather than ‘reform’, when it comes to issues of liturgy and Church discipline).

Does that make me a ‘leftist’? I have always thought of myself as ‘left-wing’, but how can I be if I oppose abortion, gay ‘marriage’ and other such issues?

Good for you. I believe much as you do. I would also stop export of arms from this country to anywhere else. I would also stop importing those items we can grow or produce here.
Whether people like it or not the USA exports more weapons to other countries, including those that turn out to wage war against her, than any other nation. I for one see no reason for our exploration of Mars, other planets or outer space. We can’t manage this planet well enough to justify any attempts to do so elsewhere. I see the need for the satellites, but that’s it.

 

[ishii]

And what of anti-abortion conservatives in the UK. Every political party in the UK favours abortion. Does that make the views of anti-abortion conservatives also suspect?

Yes, its unfortunate that the climate in UK has slid to the point where everyone in govt. accepts the killing of the unborn. In America, some of us are trying to avoid that. Most are to be found on the right where there is still a belief that not all rights and authority is bestowed on us from the govt, but given to us from God and are inalienable.

And as for my voting habits, you know nothing of them.

I don’t recall every alleging that I know anything about your voting habits. And its too bad that things have become so bad in the UK that all parties are pro-abortion. That is not the case (yet) in America.

You really fail to distinguish between issues of morality (such as abortion, gay ‘marriage’ etc.) and issues of economics. The two issues are very different. You really do seem to be defining your views on such issues purely on the views held by politicians in the USA., which is a very narrow-minded and parochial view.

I don’t think its any coincidence that the left, which believes in economic liberalism (the American meaning of liberalism - stronger central govt. and overall “socialistic”) also believes in social liberalism. The leftists in America who happens to agree with the Church on the social issues like abortion and gay marriage are so rare as to be kind of an anomaly. Those who are economic liberals, downplay the importance of traditional institutions and family, Church. For them, the almighty government is our Daddy - there for us all throughout their lives. If this idea confuses you: check out this Obama campaign ad from 2012:

youtube.com/watch?v=ig2KmRI-S4A

Note that not only does the almighty Daddy-government provide for us economically, it also provides free birth control and abortions! Economic liberalism and social liberalism go hand in hand, Brendan.

You also seem to be using the fact that ‘right-wing’ politicians in the USA tend to appear to be less in favour of abortion, gay ‘marriage’ etc. as a means of justifying their economic views and implying that therefore these to must be in line with Church teaching.

I don’t suppose that, when you go to the ballot box, you ever consider , “Do the policies this candidate supports give a preferential option for the poor?”

What does preferential option for the poor mean specifically when it comes to American candidates? What does “preferential option for poor” translate to from a policy standpoint? Does it mean " give them handouts" ? A safety net? Be specific and I can answer your question.

Pope Francis is right. Yes abortion, gay 'marriage' etc. are very important issues, but they are not the only issues for Catholics to consider. There is also the issues of social justice, and the need to consider whether the poor are being treated preferentially, not equally, but **preferentially **, because the preferential option for the poor is one of the core pillars of Catholic Social teaching. How does this square with the moral principles of Catholics who vote for conservatives who support policies that see the economic differences in our society widen rather than narrow?

I reject your premise that the policies of conservatives “see the economic differences in our society widen.” In fact, the policies of conservatives help those who are lower on the economic ladder have opportunities to move up the ladder. It is the liberal policies that see those down the ladder, stay there.

The notion of, "right-wing good, left-wing bad" that seems to dominate American religious thinking, looks naive, infantile and ludicrous, when viewed by someone outside of the USA. In the USA it seems to be that people lump everything together and create a 'left-wing' standard package of beliefs, and a 'right-wing' standard package of beliefs, and fail to even be able to separate and distinguish between a range of different beliefs a person may hold. It's as if its all viewed as a ready-made package and you must choose one package or the other. To someone outside the USA that just seems bonkers and is something 10-year-olds over here would be able to pull apart in their RE and PSHCE lessons.

The notion of “right-wing bad, left-wing good” seems to dominate your thinking, Brendan. So I could, using your own logic, say that you are naïve, infantile and ludicrous.

Let me help you understand American politics, Brendan: (see, I can be rude and condescending too!).

** In America, the battle has not been lost. There is still hope that traditional institutions and respect for life might yet win out against the secular leftist onslaught. I am sorry that in the UK, the secular left has won. But in America, the battle is still on. And we will continue the good fight.

Ishii

 

[JB_Dugan]

Well I consider myself to be a Christian Socialist. I believe there ought to be greater levels of taxation than there currently is, particularly on higher earners, with an increase in levels of public services and social security. I believe that there should be a greater redistribution of wealth from the higher earners to the lower earners, and I do not believe in the concept of ‘trickle down’ wealth. I am also a very strong believer in the Trade Union movement and believe trade unions ought to have more power and clout.

I also think we ought to severely axe defence spending and use this to help boost levels of public services. I would also ban exports of arms from my country to anywhere.

At the same time I strongly oppose abortion and gay ‘marriage’, and fully support the stance of the Church on these and other moral issues (I also believe we the Church ought to be striving to keep with tradition, rather than ‘reform’, when it comes to issues of liturgy and Church discipline).

Does that make me a ‘leftist’? I have always thought of myself as ‘left-wing’, but how can I be if I oppose abortion, gay ‘marriage’ and other such issues?

“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy.”
“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”-- Sir Winston Churchill

 

[Brendan_64]

“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy.”
“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”-- Sir Winston Churchill

The personal opinion of Winston Churchill has got nothing to do with Church teaching.

 

[Brendan_64]

Yes, its unfortunate that the climate in UK has slid to the point where everyone in govt. accepts the killing of the unborn. In America, some of us are trying to avoid that. Most are to be found on the right where there is still a belief that not all rights and authority is bestowed on us from the govt, but given to us from God and are inalienable.

Then perhaps you ought to separate your distinction of ‘right’ and ‘left’ in terms of support or not for issues such as abortion, gay ‘marriage’ etc., because your definition does not apply outside of the boundaries of your own country.

Economic liberalism and social liberalism go hand in hand, Brendan.

Only within a narrow interpretation of the views of many American domestic politicians. This does not apply outside of the borders of your nation. And since Americans don’t simply restrict the use of the terms ‘right’ and ‘left’ to domestic politics, but use them to describe political views internationally it makes a nonsense of using these terms.

What does preferential option for the poor mean specifically when it comes to American candidates? What does “preferential option for poor” translate to from a policy standpoint? Does it mean " give them handouts" ? A safety net? Be specific and I can answer your question. .

It means policies that do not just include them, but give them preferential treatment over other groups. That means policy being created and driven primarily with the benefit of the poor, over other groups, in mind.

I reject your premise that the policies of conservatives “see the economic differences in our society widen.” In fact, the policies of conservatives help those who are lower on the economic ladder have opportunities to move up the ladder. It is the liberal policies that see those down the ladder, stay there.

This is an interesting video that shows the huge differential between rich and poor in the UK, a differential that is far greater than even the public think it is (and even greater still than the public think is fair).

youtube.com/watch?v=aOJ93tAbPP0

The top 20% of earners hold 60% of the nation’s wealth, while the bottom 20% hold only 0.6%. The earnings gap between the richest and poorest in our society has widen, and continues to do so. Trickle-down economics doesn’t work, as far as helping those at the bottom of our society, and Pope Francis has rightly condemned it.

The notion of “right-wing bad, left-wing good” seems to dominate your thinking, Brendan. So I could, using your own logic, say that you are naïve, infantile and ludicrous.

No I do not hold that view. But I do not accept that views on economic management and moral issues such as abortion etc. are automatically linked. I do not accept your definition of what is ‘right-wing’ or what is ‘left-wing’. I am opposed to abortion, euthanasia, gay ‘marriage’, embryonic stem-cell research, IVF etc. Answer me this, how can I (using your definition of right and left) be left-wing?

In America, the battle has not been lost. There is still hope that traditional institutions and respect for life might yet win out against the secular leftist onslaught. I am sorry that in the UK, the secular left has won. But in America, the battle is still on. And we will continue the good fight.

There you go again, mixing up definitions. Are you therefore trying to argue that the British Conservative Party is a left-wing party?

 

[Brendan_64]

Ishii,

Here’s one for the USA

utrend.tv/v/9-out-of-10-americans-are-completely-wrong-about-this-mind-blowing-fact/

The wealth equality in the USA is even greater than in the USA.

Is your nation really being run and policies being decided upon on the basis of giving preferential treatment for the poor over the wealthy? Because that is what the Social Doctrine of the Church says ought to happen.

 

[John_Lazarus]

For those of us just joining this show already in progress, maybe we need a few definitions.

What, exactly, is meant by the terms “right-wing”, “left-wing”, and “center”? [Outside of professional hockey].

What does a leftist supposedly believe? And what happens at the “ultra-” or “extreme-left”?

What does a rightist supposedly believe? And what of the “exreme-” or “ultra-right”?

What makes a centrist?

At least for me, it would make these discussions clearer.

 

[JB_Dugan]

The personal opinion of Winston Churchill has got nothing to do with Church teaching.

That’s true, Brendan. However you brought TAXATION into this discussion and that involves government and Sir Winnie’s opinion does apply there.

Now if you and the others would limit the discussion to Church/Christian matters and dwell on tithing, donations and the basic collection plate…then I would not have brought up comments by a wise statesman.

 

[Brendan_64]

That’s true, Brendan. However you brought TAXATION into this discussion and that involves government and Sir Winnie’s opinion does apply there.

Now if you and the others would limit the discussion to Church/Christian matters and dwell on tithing, donations and the basic collection plate…then I would not have brought up comments by a wise statesman.

A wise statesman? That is debatable.

How did Britain stack up in terms of a world power after the war, compared to its position before the war? After the war there were only two world powers of any significance, the USA and the USSR. When the fate of Europe was being decided at Potsdam, Churchill spent half the time asleep leaving Truman and Stalin to carve things up in their favour.

He was good at giving rousing speeches during the war years, but after the war ended he couldn’t even lead his own party properly, let alone lead the nation, and he lost the 1945 General Election.

A drunkard, a womaniser, a Prime Minister who neglected his to properly represent his nations interests at Potsdam, and a Prime Minister who failed in his ability to lead his country (or even his party) during peacetime. A charismatic figure? Yes. A man to give rousing speeches? Yes. But a wise statesman? Hardly.

Still, I suppose he looked good with his bow tie and fat cigar. So that’s OK then.

 

[JB_Dugan]

A wise statesman? That is debatable.

How did Britain stack up in terms of a world power after the war, compared to its position before the war? After the war there were only two world powers of any significance, the USA and the USSR. When the fate of Europe was being decided at Potsdam, Churchill spent half the time asleep leaving Truman and Stalin to carve things up in their favour.

He was good at giving rousing speeches during the war years, but after the war ended he couldn’t even lead his own party properly, let alone lead the nation, and he lost the 1945 General Election.

A drunkard, a womaniser, a Prime Minister who neglected his to properly represent his nations interests at Potsdam, and a Prime Minister who failed in his ability to lead his country (or even his party) during peacetime. A charismatic figure? Yes. A man to give rousing speeches? Yes. But a wise statesman? Hardly.

Still, I suppose he looked good with his bow tie and fat cigar. So that’s OK then.

Gee, I get the distinct feeling that you don’t like Sir Winston. Most Americans do. And a poll of Brits back in 2002 named him as the “Most Influential Briton in History”.

Oh well…I guess you don’t think much of Margaret Thatcher either. She’s the one who said:

“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”

 

[ishii]

Then perhaps you ought to separate your distinction of ‘right’ and ‘left’ in terms of support or not for issues such as abortion, gay ‘marriage’ etc., because your definition does not apply outside of the boundaries of your own country.

Well Brendan, I am primarily interested in the politics of my own country because those I can have an effect on ( albeit in a small way). However, I find that outside America, left leaning or “social democrat” run countries seem to be in favor of things such as gay marriage, abortion rights and euthanasia. Sticking with Europe, which is more and more post-Christian, euthanasia seems to be on the rise: currently Luxembourg, Belgium and the Netherlands have legalized euthanasia. A bill to legalize euthanasia in the UK was introduced by a Labour party member. It did not succeed. Other countries in Europe, while not having legalized the practice, basically have little or no punishment for the “crime” of helping someone commit suicide. In America, the pro-euthanasia groups are all part of the left - which is no coincidence because in the brave new world of the secular left, there really is no belief in an inherent value of the individual, the sanctity of life, which we get from God. For the secular left, morality is cast aside, and society is adrift in a relativistic world.

Only within a narrow interpretation of the views of many American domestic politicians. This does not apply outside of the borders of your nation. And since Americans don’t simply restrict the use of the terms ‘right’ and ‘left’ to domestic politics, but use them to describe political views internationally it makes a nonsense of using these terms.

No, you’re wrong: for the secular left, worldwide, the Church and God are mostly rejected. What takes their place, gradually, is the almighty government. That is most certainly not merely a construct derived from domestic US politics.

It means policies that do not just include them, but give them preferential treatment over other groups. That means policy being created and driven primarily with the benefit of the poor, over other groups, in mind.

You still aren’t answering my question. What would be an example of a policy that gives “preferential option for the poor” ? You asked me if the candidates I support “give a preferential option for the poor.” So I am asking you for a specific, concrete example: is it keeping the tax rate at a certain level? Is it extending jobless benefits for two years instead of only 18 months? Is it providing federally funded breakfast and lunch for school kids?

This is an interesting video that shows the huge differential between rich and poor in the UK, a differential that is far greater than even the public think it is (and even greater still than the public think is fair).

youtube.com/watch?v=aOJ93tAbPP0

The top 20% of earners hold 60% of the nation’s wealth, while the bottom 20% hold only 0.6%. The earnings gap between the richest and poorest in our society has widen, and continues to do so. Trickle-down economics doesn’t work, as far as helping those at the bottom of our society, and Pope Francis has rightly condemned it.

I reject the term “trickle down economics” - that is merely a perjorative term meant to unfairly caricature the economic policies which value tax cuts as a means of increasing economic growth and therefore, more jobs, etc. The term is worthless and there is no such theory to be found in any study of economics. Furthermore, Pope Francis did not use the term, “trickle down economics” but unfortunately his words were translated as such. In America, tax cuts helped spur economic growth under Kennedy in 1961, under Reagan in the 80’s (in a big way), and under George W Bush in the 2000’s.

No I do not hold that view. But I do not accept that views on economic management and moral issues such as abortion etc. are automatically linked. I do not accept your definition of what is ‘right-wing’ or what is ‘left-wing’. I am opposed to abortion, euthanasia, gay ‘marriage’, embryonic stem-cell research, IVF etc. Answer me this, how can I (using your definition of right and left) be left-wing?

They are not automatically linked. But in general, the left is both statist and socially liberal. If you are socially conservative (I am using the words conservative and liberal in the modern American sense) then you are unusual - because most leftists are also socially liberal. In general, the left rejects the traditional moral authority of the Church. And that traditional authority is replaced by the government.

There you go again, mixing up definitions. Are you therefore trying to argue that the British Conservative Party is a left-wing party?

On social issues, they are secular, for sure. Maybe the better term is “secular” - meaning in general rejecting the moral authority of the Church and traditional institutions. The reason why I tend to conflate the two - secularists and leftists - is because in America they tend to be one and the same. I would say that certainly the British conservative party is influenced by the secular leftist social agenda. Perhaps there is a consensus now in the British conservative party that certain things like gay marriage, abortion, etc. are settled issues and that they should concentrate on the economic issues which they can still change. That may be the case in the UK (or not - I would like to hear your opinion on that), but not in the USA. Yet.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

A wise statesman? That is debatable.

How did Britain stack up in terms of a world power after the war, compared to its position before the war? After the war there were only two world powers of any significance, the USA and the USSR. When the fate of Europe was being decided at Potsdam, Churchill spent half the time asleep leaving Truman and Stalin to carve things up in their favour.

He was good at giving rousing speeches during the war years, but after the war ended he couldn’t even lead his own party properly, let alone lead the nation, and he lost the 1945 General Election.

A drunkard, a womaniser, a Prime Minister who neglected his to properly represent his nations interests at Potsdam, and a Prime Minister who failed in his ability to lead his country (or even his party) during peacetime. A charismatic figure? Yes. A man to give rousing speeches? Yes. But a wise statesman? Hardly.

Still, I suppose he looked good with his bow tie and fat cigar. So that’s OK then.

Your assessment of Churchill as well as the history of Potsdam is a bit off the mark. I will respond in a longer post when I have more time.

Ishii

 

[Brendan_64]

Gee, I get the distinct feeling that you don’t like Sir Winston. Most Americans do. And a poll of Brits back in 2002 named him as the “Most Influential Briton in History”.

I never said I didn’t like him, I said that he wasn’t much of a statesman. He was good at boosting the country’s morale during WWII (which was extremely useful) but he proved himself inept when negotiating with Truman and Stalin (he was simply out of his depth) and Britain’s position as a political power in the world suffered greatly as a result. He also proved incapable of leading his own party (let alone the nation) in peacetime, hence his losing the General Election at the end of the war.

I do actually like him, but he was a one-trick-pony, he certainly wasn’t a wise statesman by any means.