My view would follow David f’s, the notion, which the grand pontificator asserts, that all human benefit comes from the left (including “compassion”) and all evil comes from the right (dictators) is am absolute crock of tish.

Where the Left : Right comparison becomes important is in determining the balance between what could generally be described as “the collective need” versus “the individual need”

I would observe that whilst I have met many individuals who can express their need, the needs of the “collective” are essentially the needs of a group of individuals who have clubbed together and formed a common view, often regardless of the needs or aspirations of those who are not part of their group (it is called political parties).

My belief is the more power attributed to the state (representing the collective) and its paid officials and the less power left in the hands of individuals several things happen

Aspects of personal /individual discretion are (obviously by definition) limited
The dead hand of bureaucracy (the state & its officials) is enhanced
Personal Accountability is relinquished
Government Accountability is covered up
Through l.oss of personal discretion, personal life quality is diminished
Through the natural inertia of government (lack of accountability and lack of that vital “personal motivation”) the theoretical improvement in the life quality of the collective does not compensate for the loss of personal life quality.

Regarding excuses like “Don't confuse the USSR with true Communism” I guess pretending that theory is better than fact is a nice notion, the sort of dross thinking designed to separate the socialists from the consequences of their folly, especially when Lenin accurately observed

“the goal of socialism is communism…
but
Cont….

The USSR was the result of applying Communism and any attempt to apply it in the future will produce the same outcome, for example, Mao Tse Tung and his hiers butchered millions in the name of communism, Pol Pots experiment in restarting the Cambodia social system demanded he destroy the vestiges of the previous system and the term “killing fields” came into the vocabulary.

In fact more people have been murdered, tortured and defiled in the name of “Fraternity, Liberty and Equality” (aka “the common good”) (including those who were guillotined by the “committee of public safety” under Robespierre, than in the name of combined names of capitalism and libertarianism .

So in short

Left versus right - anyone who thinks that giving away personal discretion (freedom) is adequately compensated by those who would seek would to regulate and limit it is a fool.

As Margaret Thatcher (Democratically elected prime minister of UK, right of the centre) said
"To be free is better than to be unfree - always. Any politician who suggests the opposite should be treated as suspect."

And (with the Krudd dimulous package in mind)
“….The muddle arises because once we concede that public spending and taxation are (more) than a necessary evil we have lost sight of the core values of freedom”

Conversely Lenin (Communist Dictator and left of the centre) said
“It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.”

And the classic which is a constant of all the left (socialist/communist.. whoever)

“A lie told often enough becomes the truth.”

So to all of the left I tell you this delude yourselves if you wish, that you are free to do but never try to delude or hoodwink me that your infantile notions of “collective good“ will ever produce the dynamicism and real energy of individuals pursuing their individual goals and individual life aspirations (and the “collective” benefits which from that individual energy will ensue)

I think you may be committing the same error that you ascribe to your political adversaries, Col Rouge.

>>I guess pretending that theory is better than fact is a nice notion, the sort of dross thinking designed to separate the socialists from the consequences of their folly<<

Precisely the same charge may be levelled at your platonic ideal of capitalism - or, more accurately in your case, Thatcherism.

While her ladyship was extraordinarily accurate in her theorising about individual freedoms, the rights and values of the individual, and the tyranny of government intervention, her actual performance fell at the same hurdle of real-life implementation.

In precisely the same way that you cannot "separate the socialists from the consequences of their folly", you need to recognize that there were equally unpleasant consequences arising from the red-braces-on-chavs laissez-faire capitalism that she let loose on the Square Mile.

I have no problem paying tribute to her grasp on theory. I have (far) less respect for her heavy-handed, schoolmarm, devil-take-the-hindmost implementation.

And let's face it, she didn't even reduce government meddling overmuch either.

examinator,
You say "Sorry to be a pain",
but don't stop, because I think you're a barrel of laughs!
In the same post you say "Stalin was...extreme right".
By my reckoning then, you consider yourself extremely left of Stalin.
Keep them coming!

Pericles “I have no problem paying tribute to her grasp on theory. I have (far) less respect for her heavy-handed, schoolmarm, devil-take-the-hindmost implementation.”

You are entitled to criticize the practical limits of Margaret Thatchers achievements.

The point is

she preserved such freedoms as to criticize from being killed under the opposing socialist manifesto of 1970 ( Foot and Wedgewood-Benn & Co, who planned the wholesale nationalization of the finance/Insurance sector and the appointment of political commissars to censor every newspaper and publication in the country (more of Lenin’s communist goals being implemented by “socialists”)),

she was turning the ship of state from one course, doomed to economic failure, national impoverishment and the removal of basic freedoms (which are still taken for granted),

onto a new course.

Turning course creates waves, disruptions and in some areas progress is only be achieved by seeming to be going backward but what is certain is that to steer a ship requires a “steady hand” which, to some might seem to appear as and may well be, a “heavy hand”.

To “school marm”… now you are focusing on personality more than achievement. The Russian called the “Iron Lady” , a title from which she publically endorsed – the Argentineans called her worse but South American Military Despots are hardly in a position to cast dispersions on anyone else.

If “devil-take-the-hind-most” translates to less bad and pointless regulation and inefficient meddling by government… then she would be proud of it.

“And let's face it, she didn't even reduce government meddling overmuch either.”

Privatization of major areas of British industry and removal of “monopoly entitlements”, relied on for decades to prop up inefficient and restrictive practices by parts of the rest, reduced “government meddling” considerably.

Another innovation which the socialists of the 21st century have benefitted from was her re-negotiation of the rules of EEC membership, which the socialists of previous years hand stupidly signed UK up for.

So I reject your assertion, although you are free to elaborate it further if you wish (another freedom MT effectively supported and endorsed).

StG,

You just pigeon holed people who pigeon hole.

All,

Y'all seem pretty confused to me. Especially the pontificator. He doesn't seem to distinguish between social vs economic values, and patronisingly (as usual) thinks people still see the ALP as left and the Libs as right. Or thinks if anyone uses the term left or right, they are saying a person is wholly left or wholly right. Just because nobody is totally left or right doesn't mean the words have no value as descritpions of attitudes.

Do the left-right challenge political compass if you have no understanding of where you stand. Note: It doesn't have Stalin as extreme right.

http://www.politicalcompass.org

PS:
'Define and discuss' , 'Tell me what's wrong with is picture hint..', 'so far you win the prize'

'What do you mean when you use those terms?'

I know exactly what you mean. You mean to say that you're the 'teacher' and 'examinator', and you're attempting to patronise the posters. 'discuss', as in , I know everything, and hopefully as I instruct you all to discuss my lordly pontifications, maybe you will understand. I have spoken, go off and discuss and ponder over my profound brilliance. I'll give you some hints, and I will hand out the prizes to the worthy.

That pretty much sums up what you mean when you use those terms.