[Closed] Monbiot on the psychology of left and right (political content)

I often wonder if it's possible to drive a Prius on not be a deluded person trying to be holier than thou. Not in my experience.

Molgrips - fake-green, pious tryhard.

Discuss.

I often wonder if it's possible to drive a Prius on not be a deluded person trying to be holier than thou. Not in my experience.

Have you seen the South Park episode?

I often wonder if it's possible to drive a Prius on not be a deluded person trying to be holier than thou. Not in my experience.

Wtf?

Where was I holier than thou?

I've said a dozen times on here my carbon footprint is sh*t.

Lol. I wasn't serious. Just making the point that asking an insult as a question or adding 'discuss' at the end will be taken as an insult. As you did as it happens. Sorry, thought the point was obvious enough not to need explanation.

There are selfish right wing twunts, and ****less idiots who might be left wing if they ever thought about anything. So what?

Monbiot says

People with strong intrinsic values must cease to be embarrassed by them.

I wonder if he'd say that about anti-abortion anti-evolution Christian nutters, or Stalinist communists?

The trouble is once we start waving our values and our certainties around - we define ourselves as being different from others with different "values"

molgrips - Member
Which neatly demonstrates the stupidity of trying to label people as right or left wing and making assumptions about them on that basis alone.
That's why I don't do it

I'm thinking about people I've known and talked to at length, and the similarities I've noticed in their attitudes.

It is not just two groups though
It is when you have to put your X in the box though - unfortunately

Given that this country hasn't had a left-wing government for over 30 years, right-wingers must be the larger of the two groups.

Oh, sorry.. been a lot of arguing on here today, I seem to have my narky specs on 8)

I didn't mean to assert that the right wing thing WAS true - just trying to start a discussion in a lame way.

Look, sorry for coming over as attacking the right wingers, but I do sometimes struggle to see the compassion in the actions of the Tories here or the Grand Old Party in the USA.

Can anyone explain?

I do sometimes struggle to see the compassion in the actions of the Tories here or the Grand Old Party in the USA.

I tend to agree actually, especially about the GOP but that's just a comment on implementation not the beliefs or values themselves, in the same way that it's stupid to say that communists are murderous bastards because Stalin's communism was.

What does the right-wing path mean to you then?

[b]Molgrips[/b].

vaguely left wing myself, but how is bankrupting the economy and rewarding people for being indolent sofa-dwellers and developing dependency over responsibility a good thing for anyone?

How safe does a safety net have to be?

It doesn't. As above, it's not a simple one axis thing is it. There's social and fiscal aspects for starters which can be linked but in humans, contradictory as we are, can end up with opposing sides in different matters.

Ok. Bankrupting the economy is not left wing ideology, for a start. That's down to how specific governments behave.

Left wing ideas aren't the last Labour govt or even any Labour govt.

With regards the sofa dwellers:

People are varied, complicated and devious. It's impossible to design the social security system to perfectly weed out all the scroungers. Therefore is it not better to be over-generous than under?

I believe that a social security system is vital. I do not believe it's good to reward lazy scroungers; no-one does. Not even Guardian readers. That's a poor straw-man.

The real question though is how to identify those that really need help? And what about those that have difficulty working?

One of my favourite films is One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest. When most people see it they think Nurse Ratched is the evil emotionless establishment suppressing our spirited hero. My reading of it is that she is in fact the embodiment of compassion.

It is her job in the asylum to ensure peace and safety for the majority of the inmates, even at the ultimate expense of the minority. She represents the willingness of the compassionate majority to enforce certain standards of behaviour and decency.

Personally I think that we need our Nurse Ratcheds in this world, but so many people get squeamish when it comes to the brutal compassion that must be dished out that the image of the bleeding heart liberal persists.

Discuss. 😉

aracer, you just vindicated me.

those statements are not claims about the groups of people in question. They are questions posed

Personally I think that we need our Nurse Ratcheds in this world, but so many people get squeamish when it comes to the brutal compassion that must be dished out that the image of the bleeding heart liberal persists.

Interesting. More specific examples?

Aracer - people can be broadly placed into two camps along the lines of political ideas.

The question is, are those ideas intrinsic or resulting from certain personality traits? If it were the latter, then you could group personalities into political groups..?

Btw saying "I tend to think.." is intended to mean that I am not sure but there may be something in it. And as such I'd have thought it would invite further discussion.

The point I was trying to make is that empathy and compassion are not always the same thing or what people think they are.

For example, at the moments the Tories are steeling themselves to make deep cuts which Monbiot argues is an act that lacks compassion. The view could be taken though that they are just delivering the inevitable bad news and doing their best to deliver the required cuts as fairly as possible. It might in fact show a marked lack of compassion for the next generation if we were to continue to squander their legacy and run up debts.

Now you and I know that the tories are a bunch of self serving ****ers but as stated above, they reflect the implementation and not the ideology. The previous governments, left or right, have not been compassionate or responsible and to now point the finger at the Tories because they are taking the decision forced upon them by the previous administrations is not seeing the whole picture. Compassion can be complex but I think there are very few people out there who would let their neighbours starve, regardless of political persuasion.

Empathy and compassion are all very laudable no doubt, but without the creation of wealth, there's nothing that can be done about the object of your concern.

Pop quiz. Who said:

"“No one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions - he had money too”

That is quite true, Woppit.

Which is why societies are almost all partially capitalist.

The left wing part comes in when you start reining in that capitalism. Most of us are of course quite close to the middle ground in real terms.

Torminalis - agreed. The current issues are really economic rather than ideological I think. The question is, how much cuts can the economy stand? But then again, the Tories might feel it is ok to cut things that Labour might thing are essential.

It's a bell curve, as usual.

Amusingly with reference to Warren Buffett mentioned earlier - he's a Democrat, or as Americans go a left winger. Now go figure.

So, this tells me that people with ambition don't care about anyone else.
People who don't do so well in life do.
Come on, it's absurd.
People don't fit into neat boxes which psychologists like them to. There are millions of people in the UK and they're not "left" or "right", they're individuals each capable of every emotion (empathy, ambition, greed etc). Some people do well just by working hard, a result is increased income. They didn't necessarily ****t their way up and may well care about people just as much as the average union rep does. IMHO.

People do have politial alignments, most of us stick to them pretty closely. So from that point of view, we are indeed left and right.

And psychologists don't put people into boxes, they categories people along whatever lines they are studying. That's not the same as labelling the entire person.

So, this tells me that people with ambition don't care about anyone else.
People who don't do so well in life do.

You're confusing 'do' and 'don't' with 'tend to'

People do have politial alignments, most of us stick to them pretty closely

Some people do well just by working hard, a result is increased income.

Says a lot that your only definition of 'doing well' is earning more money.

Psychologists can categorise all they like but a persons political beliefs have no more baring on their emotions than their choice in music or sport.

The concept was the other way around. That your emotions (or psychological make-up) could be reasonably expected to affect the way you vote, could it not?

You misunderstand, a result of doing well (in the most widely used and understood sense of the term) is increased income. See "doing well for him/herself". Please don't try and insinuate alternative meaning for my comments.

But the people that work hard and succeed, do they suddenly start voting Tory?

The concept was the other way around. That their emotions (or psychological make-up) could be reasonably expected to affect the way you vote, could it not?

Yes, it could. I just don't agree that right wingers would vote for a certain party just to see others suffer. It doesn't sit nicely with me to believe that people would think like that. I would hope that these people had many different reasons to vote for whoever that just spite. Or it could have been that their chosen party seemed the best of a bad lot.

But the people that work hard and succeed, do they suddenly start voting Tory?

I just don't agree that right wingers would vote for a certain party just to see others suffer

You really think that's what I'm saying? 😯

But the people that work hard and succeed, do they suddenly start voting Tory?

What makes you think they did?

Wtf? I don't think they did?! I asked a question, you know, one of those things that you say when you don't know something?

In a roundabout sense, yes. You imply that right wing people are not capable of empathy which insinuates that they don't care about anyone. That if they vote a certain way, certain people will be worse off. It would be like claiming that left wing people are incapable of feeling embarrassment or greed.
I'm tired and have to be up early so it's off to bed for me. Nice talking with you molgrips.
Edit, I don't think people change their voting just because of their personal circumstances, at least I would hope not. No need for the sarcasm.

That if they vote a certain way, certain people will be worse off

That doens't follow at all. Not caring about the poor is not the same as actively voting to make them more miserable.

Fair comment, I sometimes don't express myself as I would like to in written form.
Goodnight.

I knew the second I clicked this link it'd be the same names going on about the same stuff. Why do some of you lot sound so defensive and soooooo right in your opinions/life. Uptight, every thing is allright! **** left or right, just be nice! Why do you have to define youself by some political agenda? it's all the same crap. I think everyone should be forced to be nice, by law, then we'd wheedle out the ****s. Nice people would have it easy!

Kelvin McKenzie on taxation:

"I don't like the government spending MY MONEY!!!"

Explain what makes me confused?
A TRUE Marxist regime would be the fairest, would it not?
But a TRUE Marxist regime will never ever work. People are at large stupid lieing self serving hypocritical barstards, weather they care to admit it or not.
Ergo there will always be some pigs more equal then other pigs.

A labour government has proven to be disasterous oh so many times to the economy and social fabric of this country, and with the denizen of this fair isle being stupid, self serving, and hypocritical they still get voted in. "Because my Dad voted Labour" "Because they look after the working man" "Because they wont cut my Dole"
Tie a red rag to a goat and some idiot will put an x next to its name, without giving a seconds thought as to why its better for the country to vote labour.

A Tory government is in the main made up from industrialists, captains of industry, trying to get richer from the sweat of your labour.
They are TRYING TO MAKE MORE MONEY.
This increases taxes, This increases capital in circulation this increases wealth for EVERYONE
Think about it. When you get a bonus, you mostly spend it.. On bike stuff, on car stuff, on meals out. This means LBS, car dealers restaurants, sandwich shops or whatever benefit from your increased earning. Thier earnings increase. This can stimulate GROWTH.
growth means the possibility of more people needed in work. These people earn. These people go out and buy.

Capiche?

Fair comment, I sometimes don't express myself as I would like to in written form.

Same here! Thanks for the understanding 🙂 (non sarcastic)

I think everyone should be forced to be nice, by law

That sounds great. The ultimate left-wing policy though isn't it? 🙂

"I don't like the government spending MY MONEY!!!"

It's not yours if you don't have a right to it in the first place.

A lot of people make the mistake of looking at the before-tax number on their payslip. It's bigger, so they get jealous.

£25k a year doesn't mean £25k a year, so why act as if it does then someone's come along and pilfered it?

U31:

The right wing are not just trying to make tons of money for themselves. The idea is that if people are allowed to create wealth then everyone should get at least some of it. That theory has holes, but in reality it's what's worked best so far. The countries with the highest standard of living are the capitalist ones. That includes Scandinavia etc - although they are more socialist than most of the West they are still capitalistic insofar as free enterprise is what drives the economy mostly.

The reality is that both the left and right wing paths would work in theory (given a capitalist system), but both have holes. I do however think that each path results in a different kind of society...

The Trickle Down Theory?

Which is WHY i state i have Marxist ideals whilst voting Tory, i understand that all political models have flaws, and the least flawed ( to the best of my knowledge )with our current societal values seems to be Tory.

Any political system that fails to take human nature into account is doomed to failure. Political ideology has to change to fit humanity, not the other way round.

Of course, what we define as human nature changes markedly over time, meaning that what worked as a political system in the past is seen as unacceptable now. No wonder no one can agree on anything.

Personally, I'm in favour of democratic socialism, small scale anarchism or a benign dictatorship.
Sadly, none of these have appeared on my ballot paper as a viable option for quite some time.

Of course, what we define as human nature changes markedly over time

Mmm yes. I wonder if the public respond to governments, or the other way round?

For example, in the 80s with Thatcher, did we all become that little bit more capitalistic?

In Scandinavia, people seem to value their countries' socialist ideals.

Very difficult question Molgrips.

I would say that with continued exposure to a certain ideology, the middle ground of public opinion moves accordingly.

More interesting still is how human nature changes over time in respect of attitudes toward violence, the rights of the individual, religious orthodoxy, moral relativeism & objectivity, nature v nuture, the nature of authority etc.

You can never just recreate the past, or assume that solutions that worked then will still work now.

In respect of the original post, I would say that Monbiot's point was definitely correct 30 or 40 years ago, but as the political middle ground has moved to the right it's not so clearly defined now.

That includes Scandinavia etc - although they are more socialist than most of the West they are still capitalistic insofar as free enterprise is what drives the economy mostly.

Not sure about that tbh, suppose it depends what you mean. Bby far the biggest driver of the Norwegian Economy is Statoil where the biggest shareholder is the Norwegian government.

Also, the unions in the whole of Norway are incredibly powerful. This results in making it much more difficult to sack people and much more expensive to make them redundant. What this tends to mean in practice is that people are kept on in an economic downturn but their working hours are reduced with an appropriate reduction in pay. This happened to a few of my friends but they are all back to full time now and the company has not lost any of it's skilled workers.

Compared to my friends in the UK this is a much better system for both the workers and the companies. The UK companies I have experience of simply fire or make redundant 1 in 5 people which will be a problem once the economy recovers.

I'm pretty sure that this is only possible due to the fact that the unions are so strong in Scandinavia.

Saying all that, I would still describe myself as right wing. I think that central government is not good for large countries. I think that 3 - 5 million is a good population for a country or autonomous government, whatever you want to call it. This allows people to interact with politicians much more closely and makes government more accountable. Hell, I drink in the same bar as the Norwegian minister for culture.

George Monbiot is trying to offer simple solutions to complicated questions, the sort of thing previously the province of religious apologists.

There will never be a "perfect" system that satisfies everybody. How could there be, given the range of aspirations spread across the population?

We live in the shifting political zeitgeist caused by the conflict between two ideological extremes. Which, ironically enough, meet each other if you go far enough to the end of the line, only to find it turns into a circle.

I feel that this will always be the case. The most important thing is to maintain the space to keep the conversation going (in the macro sense), rather than allowing it to slide into an ideological cul-de-sac, from whence come the various nasty end-games that have occurred throughout history: Nazi Germany, Khmer Rouge Cambodia, Soviet Russia, Maoist China, Fascist Italy and so on...

I see nobody bothered with my Pop Quiz. Here's another one, from the same source:

“If you want something said, ask a man...if you want something done, ask a woman." 😉

Woppit is right, but I don't share his opinion of Monbiot.

He is writing newspaper articles to get people talking remember, not just dumping his brain onto paper.

molgrips - Member
Woppit is right, but I don't share his opinion of Monbiot.

He is writing newspaper articles [b]for the money[/b].

T.FIFY.