In a sense you are somewhat correct, except for the part on morality. Morality has to do with the notions of what is right and wrong. Right wing and left wing belong to the socialist paradigm. One is Theology and the other is Politics.
When used properly, right wing and left wing are socialist paradigms describing constrained socialism and unconstrained socialism. The difference between the two polarities has to do with "vision". Unconstrained socialism envisions a world ruled by intellectual elites who, as the state, guide the course of a nation. The collective lives and works to serve those elites, who are occasionally overturned by future generations through revolution. Examples of true unconstrained socialism has never been successfully tried, but are exemplified by many of the attempted Utopian movements founded in the 18th century.
Constrained socialism envisions a system (either cultural or constitutional), which guides the course of the nation. That system becomes the state which the collective serves. There is no revolution to change the system. The system is supposed to be fully integrated into the national or cultural fiber of the nation. This vision has also never been attempted fully, but is exemplified in the National Socialist German Workers Party of the mid 20th century. This is why some leftists continue to claim that Nazis are right wingers. If you are only arguing from the socialist perspective, then yes. But no, from outside the socialist paradigm.
In the 19th century, Karl Marx tried to synthesize the two visions and created Marxism. Communism is basically a centrist attempt at making socialism work, by applying the Hegelian dialectic to come to a synthetic answer. Marx was influenced by Hegel. As we all know, Marxism does not work, either. It's a flawed experiment and has caused the death and destruction of thousands of people and nations.
The good news is that the United States Constitution was envisioned before all that nonsense. Our constitution and the principles it was founded upon are not socialist. One can then argue that by being a U.S. Constitutionalist (including upholding the Bill of Rights) one is neither right wing, left wing, or centrist. We are individuals with God given rights and the state exists to serve and protect us. We do not serve a system or an intellectual elite as is envisioned in socialism.
If anyone is interested, these concepts are not mine. They come from Thomas Sowell's book A Conflict of Visions, but through the lens of my own interpretation. I don't make any claim to accuracy. This is just how I see things at the moment.
It could be argued that the right/left paradigm is more or less rendered meaningless nowadays (but that wouldn’t make Corporate Media $$$). I view it as more globalist/nationalist.
Right wing people realize rich people make companies and products that improve our lives and create jobs and we all benefit from it, leftists see success and profit as a form of theft because they believe in a zero sum world.
Right wingers tend to have a higher view of their countrymen as well. If the right wing did welfare it would be in the form of state funded employment agencies that help poor people get a job. Leftists want to just give you money and have it be earmarked for specific purposes because they think you’re a degenerate retard who isn’t self sufficient or capable of budgeting and never will be.
In a sense you are somewhat correct, except for the part on morality. Morality has to do with the notions of what is right and wrong. Right wing and left wing belong to the socialist paradigm. One is Theology and the other is Politics.
When used properly, right wing and left wing are socialist paradigms describing constrained socialism and unconstrained socialism. The difference between the two polarities has to do with "vision". Unconstrained socialism envisions a world ruled by intellectual elites who, as the state, guide the course of a nation. The collective lives and works to serve those elites, who are occasionally overturned by future generations through revolution. Examples of true unconstrained socialism has never been successfully tried, but are exemplified by many of the attempted Utopian movements founded in the 18th century.
Constrained socialism envisions a system (either cultural or constitutional), which guides the course of the nation. That system becomes the state which the collective serves. There is no revolution to change the system. The system is supposed to be fully integrated into the national or cultural fiber of the nation. This vision has also never been attempted fully, but is exemplified in the National Socialist German Workers Party of the mid 20th century. This is why some leftists continue to claim that Nazis are right wingers. If you are only arguing from the socialist perspective, then yes. But no, from outside the socialist paradigm.
In the 19th century, Karl Marx tried to synthesize the two visions and created Marxism. Communism is basically a centrist attempt at making socialism work, by applying the Hegelian dialectic to come to a synthetic answer. Marx was influenced by Hegel. As we all know, Marxism does not work, either. It's a flawed experiment and has caused the death and destruction of thousands of people and nations.
The good news is that the United States Constitution was envisioned before all that nonsense. Our constitution and the principles it was founded upon are not socialist. One can then argue that by being a U.S. Constitutionalist (including upholding the Bill of Rights) one is neither right wing, left wing, or centrist. We are individuals with God given rights and the state exists to serve and protect us. We do not serve a system or an intellectual elite as is envisioned in socialism.
If anyone is interested, these concepts are not mine. They come from Thomas Sowell's book A Conflict of Visions, but through the lens of my own interpretation. I don't make any claim to accuracy. This is just how I see things at the moment.
It could be argued that the right/left paradigm is more or less rendered meaningless nowadays (but that wouldn’t make Corporate Media $$$). I view it as more globalist/nationalist.
I know what side I’m on.
Abundance vs Poverty Mindset is a big one.
Right wing people realize rich people make companies and products that improve our lives and create jobs and we all benefit from it, leftists see success and profit as a form of theft because they believe in a zero sum world.
Right wingers tend to have a higher view of their countrymen as well. If the right wing did welfare it would be in the form of state funded employment agencies that help poor people get a job. Leftists want to just give you money and have it be earmarked for specific purposes because they think you’re a degenerate retard who isn’t self sufficient or capable of budgeting and never will be.
GOD IS ORDER
GOD IS BEAUTY
GOD IS TRUTH
GOD IS GOODNESS
GOD IS ABUNDANCE