Why is the Left more active than the Right?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

This is a genuine observation I've made. Historically, whether talking about the feminist, labor, civil rights, homosexual, green, or anti-war movements, the Left has been more "active" than the Right. The only issue where this might be contested is abortion, but I've seen just as many pro-choice protesters as I have anti-choice alternatives. Perhaps it has to do with the Left being tied into the youth?

[Bud Struggle]

This is a genuine observation I've made. Historically, whether talking about the feminist, labor, civil rights, homosexual, green, or anti-war movements, the Left has been more "active" than the Right. The only issue where this might be contested is abortion, but I've seen just as many pro-choice protesters as I have anti-choice alternatives. Perhaps it has to do with the Left being tied into the youth?

Well my Commie friend--you don't live in Florida! I was at the Sara Palin vew-a-thon in the Villiages (a wall to wall 55+ sex orgy) here in Florida and there was ample interest in the Conservative direction.

I think it has more to do with the media than anything else.

[Incendiarism]

Because they generally do not want to nor need to fundamentally change anything, I guess. Or they are too busy claiming they run a small business like TomK(I kid!).

[Kwisatz Haderach]

This is a genuine observation I've made. Historically, whether talking about the feminist, labor, civil rights, homosexual, green, or anti-war movements, the Left has been more "active" than the Right. The only issue where this might be contested is abortion, but I've seen just as many pro-choice protesters as I have anti-choice alternatives. Perhaps it has to do with the Left being tied into the youth?
I think it is just because the Right is traditionally the side of the status quo. The Left is more active because the Left is more likely to call for radical change. It's hard to build enthusiastic support when your message is "let's keep things the way they are" or "let's make a few small changes here and there in a reactionary direction."

When the Right does call for radical change, they do get just as much activity as the Left. Fascist movements never lacked "activity," after all.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Well my Commie friend--you don't live in Florida! I was at the Sara Palin vew-a-thon in the Villiages (a wall to wall 55+ sex orgy) here in Florida and there was ample interest in the Conservative direction.

I think it has more to do with the media than anything else.

A distant relative of mine living in Florida said the media over reported her numbers. Relativity! :D

[jake williams]

I think it is just because the Right is traditionally the side of the status quo.
I'd take this point further. The historical debate between "right" and "left" have been between extant institutions of authoritarianism and oppression and those who want to improve the world, respectively. We live in a right-wing dominated society because that politics in its current state is dominant, but in another way dominance-oriented, it's the dominant ideology but it's also the ideology of dominance.

Anyway, the point is that the only reason to protest is in a left-wing direction against right-wing power. It simply wouldn't mean anything to protest against the government asking for more militarization and better treatment of capitalists.

Well, actually, this happens routinely - it's just a different sort of activism. It's just not really considered "activism" in the sense we're used to when you actually get invited in to advise governments.

[GPDP]

If by the Right, we focus more specifically on the "libertarian" right, they do turn to activism at times. Just look at the Ron Paul movement.

That said, they still pale in comparison to the left, simply because there's really not that much of a reason for them to protest. Sure, they do possess some grievances with the way the current system is set up and run, but by and large, they agree with many of its fundamentals, only objecting to the way these fundamentals have been corrupted or co-opted into something else. So I don't see them turning to organizations the way we do. They pretty much have it easy.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Well my Commie friend--you don't live in Florida! I was at the Sara Palin vew-a-thon in the Villiages (a wall to wall 55+ sex orgy) here in Florida and there was ample interest in the Conservative direction.

I think it has more to do with the media than anything else.
That would be more centre than right though. The centre, fron centre-left to centre-right, is obviously much much more active than either fringe simply because it is so much bigger support-wise, and because everybody knows that centrist politics is how you get things done. I may be wrong but I believe the OP was referring to the far-right.

[EvigLidelse]

Essentially the right-left wing spectrum actually was a separation of those who wanted to radically change society and of those who wanted to keep it much as it is. Thus most parties wanting radical change are in the left wing. Since our view on the spectrum has changed over the years, we now consider for example Liberalism right-wing (it was considered left wing for like 200 years ago since the change Liberalism was fighting for back then was very radical).

Simply, you don't demonstrate or generally being "active" if you don't want radical change. The lefties often believe more in uniting and direct action, thus demonstrations and activism emerges. This is also why fascistic groups and the such are visible, since they also believe more in uniting and direct action.

[Dr Mindbender]

I suppose it depends what you mean by 'right'. If you mean far-fascist-right then thats contestable (most fascists are extremely active if not more so than the revolutionary left) but if you mean conservative right of centre thats probably because for the most part they already have sufficient power to afford some level of complacency.

Compared to the left, they do not have such an uphill battle especially in ultra neo-liberal countries like the US and britain where they own and control the mass media.

[cop an Attitude]

well isnt the right constantly active. your really only looking at reformists. We live in a Capitalist world so therfore we live in a right world. the left is trying to change the right. anti-reformists only appear once somebody has questioned the current way. I'm sure that if we lived in a world governered by Socalism, Communism or Anrachism then we would see the right reformists. if you mean fascist or the super religious, i think people are slowly begining to wise up and see that its full of shit. the KKK have dwindled their numbers greatly in the past decades due to a common exeptance of race and differing creeds. More and more atheist are appreaing too and may are throwing away the strict rules of catholicism. the far right are falling but the basic right still rule, which means that right winged ideas are still more alive and well than the left, I mean they even got their own tv channel, fox news.

[Dejavu]

This is a genuine observation I've made. Historically, whether talking about the feminist, labor, civil rights, homosexual, green, or anti-war movements, the Left has been more "active" than the Right. The only issue where this might be contested is abortion, but I've seen just as many pro-choice protesters as I have anti-choice alternatives. Perhaps it has to do with the Left being tied into the youth?

Left politics usually got more support from the governments of the time. Much of the Left's rise came in the Progressive Era. Except when its religious in nature , the Left usually trumps the Right.

And yes , it does appear that the youth are more attracted to the Left.

[Drace]

What does the right have to be active for? Watching its own ideology kill millions o.O? WHO WOULD DO THAT!?

[Jazzratt]

The right is very active. They may not be out on the streets or organising workers but that's because they're in the halls of power organising plutocrats.

[Dejavu]

What does the right have to be active for? Watching its own ideology kill millions o.O? WHO WOULD DO THAT!?

Both extreme wings are guilty for this. Interestingly enough the common denominator between extreme L and R ideologies is collectivism.

[Dejavu]

The right is very active. They may not be out on the streets or organising workers but that's because they're in the halls of power organising plutocrats.

Both have a large share of lobbyists. Its a mistake to believe one is out there in the 'factory trenches' trying to improve conditions for the working class while the other is chattering with bigwigs in a could of cigar smoke drinking brandy. Both L and R politics are likely to be doing the latter. :thumbdown:

[Jazzratt]

Both have a large share of lobbyists. Its a mistake to believe one is out there in the 'factory trenches' trying to improve conditions for the working class while the other is chattering with bigwigs in a could of cigar smoke drinking brandy. Both L and R politics are likely to be doing the latter. :thumbdown:

Only if you use the rather singular definition of left that means "social democrat" or, at the most extreme, "neo-fabian".

[Dejavu]

Only if you use the rather singular definition of left that means "social democrat" or, at the most extreme, "neo-fabian".

Even some of the most sincere leftists have been corrupted by power.

[IcarusAngel]

About 300 million people have been murdered by capitalism in the Third World; tens of millions in Latin America and hundreds of millions in India.

It had everything to do with who has the leverage, and in this case it was the capitalists and the capitalist class, and nothing to do with any "collectivist vs individualism" false dichotomy (especially because capitalism combines with the worst forms of collectivism and conformity with the worst forms of Hitler like "individualism").

By that standards the system is a great failure economically. Capitalism is replete with "boom and busts." They are all caused by the fear and greed the market participates.

Whoever has the leverage wins, and it's the capitalist class, which is why it should be destroyed.

[#FF0000]

Because the Right have jobs.

[Bud Struggle]

Because the Right have jobs.

The Right MAKE jobs.

[cop an Attitude]

Because the Right have jobs.

hahaha well put:thumbup1:.

the right are active by participating in the current system. the left are active by trying to change that.

[#FF0000]

hahaha well put:thumbup1:.

the right are active by participating in the current system. the left are active by trying to change that.

Yeah I was going to pretty much say this (to balance out my non-serious post)

But we have to put things in perspective. What are we talking about when we say Right and Left?

[graffic]

Because the right has what it wants.. Capitalist society.

In a communist society surely the "right" would be more active than the "left"

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Yeah I was going to pretty much say this (to balance out my non-serious post)

But we have to put things in perspective. What are we talking about when we say Right and Left?

Any incarnation, really. I concede that fascists and racists are typically active, though. Libertarians can sometimes get out (Ron Paul), but they're largely stuck to complaining.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

I'm going to have to repeat what many people have been saying. The Right is more active than the Left. We can sure as hell point out several rightwing wars, movements, governments, etc... Where is the comparable wars (class or otherwise), movements, governments on the left?

Hopefully, we'll be able to change this.

[Sendo]

In addition to what others have said, the Right doesn't ahve to organize. It's easier to say "Obey the state!" or "fight desegregation" than it is to introduce new ideas or organize horizontally. But the biggest reason is that the Left is looking for change whereas the Right is more often than not looking to maintain status quos or move here and there into a reactionary direction.

[Djehuti]

This is a genuine observation I've made. Historically, whether talking about the feminist, labor, civil rights, homosexual, green, or anti-war movements, the Left has been more "active" than the Right.

It is because the left don't have the power. We have to work hard and active in order to change society.

The right (including the liberals) are conservative, that's very the definition of left (progressive - radical - revolutionary) and the right (liberal - conservative - reactionary).




Also, if we see it from another perspective... we are "active" when we take control of a factory for example, but the bourgeoisie got control of the other 100 million factories, so what does that make them? We are "active" when we protest against a war, but the bourgeosie are making war every day, so what does that make them? ;)