• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is the Left more violent than the Right?

Which side of the political spectrum is more likely to be violent: Right or Left?

  • The Right is more violent than the Left, historically

    Votes: 10 52.6%
  • The Left is more violent than the Right, historically

    Votes: 1 5.3%
  • The Left and Right are equally violent

    Votes: 2 10.5%
  • I haven't got a clue, there's no data that speaks to the question

    Votes: 6 31.6%
  • Nobody is violent, it's all in our imagination

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    19

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I picked the best wrong answer, ie, equally violent.
They're generally not equal at the same time.
Only over the long haul. Why?
Both are human, & grouped not according to
violence vs peacefulness, but rather by
political affiliation.

"Equal" & "equivalence" are tricky terms.
Are they approximate or about precision?
If the former, we can see patterns. But I
notice that many use the latter as a means
to deny anything in common between foes
& favored groups. This maintains beliefs
of superiority.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
How far back do we want to go? Also, do we consider communism from the 60s a political principle representing the left? In which case, Stalin & Mao win.
Me, I's say that Stalin and Mao were Right Wing Authoritarians who promoted, in public, egalitarianism and worker control of their particular businesses, but, in fact, enforced a top-down, authoritarian control by a hierarchical State. They used violence and repression because they were Right Wing Authoritarians -- a psychological and, indirectly, a neurological diagnosis. Their political ideology was secondary.

This is why its important to clarify terms. There are political lefts and rights, economic lefts and rights, and there are psychological and neurological lefts and rights. Violence can arise at either end of the political and economic spectra, provided there's a RWA component. Aggression is part of the authoritarian triad.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
...It's also a question of motives. Left-wing violence is generally to fight against injustice, while right-wing violence entails either implementing injustice or maintaining it. So, it doesn't matter which side is "more violent," but who has the more righteous cause.
I associate the 'right wing' with hierarchy and conventionalism; with maintenance of traditional patterns of social organization, attitudes and values. The left is more open to new experience. It's comfortable with novelty and change, and doesn't fear progress.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
I don't think 'right' and 'left' work any more. They're leftovers from clearer times. Things are more blurry now.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
So the question is: what do those foment violence have in common, regardless of economic or political ideology?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I don't think 'right' and 'left' work any more. They're leftovers from clearer times. Things are more blurry now.
We see "right" meaning economic liberty, ie, capitalism
on the popular political quiz used here. But we also
see it used to mean conservative. And authoritarian.
But the left (anti-capitalists) can also be authoritarian.
Then too, the economic kind of right can be progressive,
while the left can be socially conservative.
Tricky terms, eh.
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic ☿
Premium Member
I've been wracking my brain for hours trying to remember the name and author of a short story I read in Omni magazine back in the early '80's--to no avail!

I do remember the storyline, however, which may or may not apply here.
The setting is post war between USA and Russia, where the USA deployed short-term radiation bombs that killed the Russian people, but left the cities and civilization intact, but empty. The Russians employed (frankly fictional) weapons that would detect a "manufactured" signature and destroy anything manufactured, without harming living organisms. (Well, except for the poor souls who happened to be on a airplane which suddenly dissolved from around them or happened to be in a high-rise building when the building dissolved around them.)
The West (Right) morally valued property over people, so killed the people in the war.
The East (Left) morally valued people over property, so destroyed the property in the war.

The Russians were all dead. The Americans were alive, but left in savage conditions.
In the aftermath, the Americans, wearing their dog-pelt garments made the long trek on foot to Russia to occupy the now empty Russian country, and eventually learned to read and speak Russian so they could figure out how to get things started back up. They then started taking on the culture of Russia. Eventually, they started to consider themselves to be Russians, essentially resurrecting Russia while leaving America an abandoned wild land.

So, who won the war, and which side was more violent in the war?
 
Last edited:

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Authoritarians have larger amygdalas, and less active anterior cingulate cortexes. It's anatomical/physiologic. They can be identified on fMRIs. Even Democrats and Republicans can be differentiated medically.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I've been wracking my brain for hours trying to remember the name and author of a short story I read in Omni magazine back in the early '80's--to no avail!

I do remember the storyline, however, which may or may not apply here.
The setting is post war between USA and Russia, where the USA deployed short-term radiation bombs that killed the Russian people, but left the cities and civilization intact, but empty. The Russians employed (frankly fictional) weapons that would detect a "manufactured" signature and destroy anything manufactured, without harming living organisms. (Well, except for the poor souls who happened to be on a airplane which suddenly dissolved from around them or happened to be in a high-rise building when the building dissolved around them.)
The West (Right) morally valued property over people, so killed the people in the war.
The East (Left) morally valued people over property, so destroyed the property in the war.

The Russians were all dead. The Americans were alive, but left in savage conditions.
In the aftermath, the Americans, wearing their dog-pelt garments made the long trek on foot to Russia to occupy the now empty Russian country, and eventually learned to read and speak Russian so they could figure out how to get things started back up. They then started taking on the culture of Russia. Eventually, they started to consider themselves to be Russians, essentially resurrecting Russia while leaving America an abandoned wild land.

So, who won the war, and which side was more violent in the war?
Both sides were "Right."
 
Last edited:

Quetzal

A little to the left and slightly out of focus.
Premium Member
You drive me crazy!

This may seem strange to you, but I generally do not consider the communism of either Stalin or Mao to be "left" at all. But that's because the simplistic notion of "left/right" really only seems to speak to economic notions. Questions about the rights of individuals to choose for themselves how to live (what we might call libertarian/totalitarian) are not really included. That leaves a very distorted, and over-simlistic, view.

So these days, when I talk about "left" and "right," I generally mean:
  • Left -- socially libertarian (live as you see fit), economically aligned to some government controls.
  • Right -- more socially totalitarian (you should be like the rest of us), and an economy generally free of government intervention.
My point is that the definitions of these political platforms will vary based on who you ask.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
You drive me crazy!

This may seem strange to you, but I generally do not consider the communism of either Stalin or Mao to be "left" at all. But that's because the simplistic notion of "left/right" really only seems to speak to economic notions. Questions about the rights of individuals to choose for themselves how to live (what we might call libertarian/totalitarian) are not really included. That leaves a very distorted, and over-simlistic, view.

So these days, when I talk about "left" and "right," I generally mean:
  • Left -- socially libertarian (live as you see fit), economically aligned to some government controls.
  • Right -- more socially totalitarian (you should be like the rest of us), and an economy generally free of government intervention.
Very few will agree with such a definition. Communists were left and Nazis were right ( wing). You need to change your names in the poll. There had been and always will be good left (liberals) and good right ( conservatives) and bad left and bad right. Just the way it is.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
We see "right" meaning economic liberty, ie, capitalism
on the popular political quiz used here. But we also
see it used to mean conservative. And authoritarian.
But the left (anti-capitalists) can also be authoritarian.
Then too, the economic kind of right can be progressive,
while the left can be socially conservative.
Tricky terms, eh.
Try applying it to Indian politics, or other countries, if you want tricky.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Okay, I admit my question was ill-thought-out. Most of these sorts of questions are, actually, since whenever you try to compare people on one characteristic or other, the argument inevnitably turns to definitions of those characteristics.

(Secretly, I think this is because we're all trying to be protective of whichever side of the argument we think that we are on, but let that be.)

My whole point, though, is that there is a very real problem in the United States today, and one that is rearing its ugly head in other nations around the world, too -- a reversion to violence to solve perceived problems.

But how do you begin to fix something when you can't begin to agree on any potential cause(s)?
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Okay, I admit my question was ill-thought-out. Most of these sorts of questions are, actually, since whenever you try to compare people on one characteristic or other, the argument inevnitably turns to definitions of those characteristics.

(Secretly, I think this is because we're all trying to be protective of whichever side of the argument we think that we are on, but let that be.)

My whole point, though, is that there is a very real problem in the United States today, and one that is rearing its ugly head in other nations around the world, too -- a reversion to violence to solve perceived problems.

But how do you begin to fix something when you can't begin to agree on any potential cause(s)?

I believe the causes to be primarily economic. If you take care of the masses and ensure economic equality, then there would be greater stability and less violence. But if people are intentionally kept impoverished and necessitous, then they get anxious, worried, and on edge. They might even tend towards violence without being attached to any political cause.

They might choose the left or the right based on what they perceive as the side which is going to give them a better deal.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
From Wiki: ( Right-wing authoritarianism - Wikipedia )

Right-wing authoritarianism
(RWA) is an ideological variable studied in political, social and personality psychology. Right-wing authoritarians are people who have a high degree of willingness to submit to authorities they perceive as established and legitimate, who adhere to societal conventions and norms and who are hostile and punitive in their attitudes towards people who do not adhere to them. They value uniformity and are in favour of using group authority, including coercion, to achieve it.

Right-wing authoritarians want society and social interactions structured in ways that increase uniformity and minimize diversity. In order to achieve that, they tend to be in favour of social control, coercion and the use of group authority to place constraints on the behaviours of people such as political dissidents and immigrants.

The phrase right-wing in right-wing authoritarianism does not necessarily refer to someone's specific political beliefs, but to his general preference vis-à-vis social equality and hierarchy. The classic definition of left-wing describes somebody who believes in social equality and right-wing describes somebody who believes in social hierarchy.
The authoritarian triad:
  1. Authoritarian submission — a high degree of submissiveness to the authorities who are perceived to be established and legitimate in the society in which one lives.
  2. Authoritarian aggression — a general aggressiveness directed against deviants, outgroups and other people that are perceived to be targets according to established authorities.
  3. Conventionalism — a high degree of adherence to the traditions and social norms that are perceived to be endorsed by society and its established authorities and a belief that others in one's society should also be required to adhere to these norms.
Not a political, but a psychological type. You can see how this would apply to the US Capitol invaders, as well as the various "right-wing" dissident factions like the Proud Boys, Boogaloo Bois, Q-Anon and even Antifa.
 

Kooky

Freedom from Sanity
Okay, I admit my question was ill-thought-out. Most of these sorts of questions are, actually, since whenever you try to compare people on one characteristic or other, the argument inevnitably turns to definitions of those characteristics.

(Secretly, I think this is because we're all trying to be protective of whichever side of the argument we think that we are on, but let that be.)

My whole point, though, is that there is a very real problem in the United States today, and one that is rearing its ugly head in other nations around the world, too -- a reversion to violence to solve perceived problems.

But how do you begin to fix something when you can't begin to agree on any potential cause(s)?
Honestly I think the issues already start with the problem that we generally do not conceive of certain forms of violence (specifically, government-directed, morally or politically legitimized, violence) as "violence" to begin with, which tends to skew the issue quite a bit depending on people's personal and political perception.

Another issue is that a lot of violence, by its very nature, is being conducted by governments or public institutions first and foremost, which makes the question even more muddled.

Is liberal government that engages in imperialism or racial violence "left wing" or "right wing", for example? Many leftists would argue that "imperialism" would be inimical to leftist political beliefs, yet mainstream left-wing governments in the US and elsewhere habe routinely engaged in imperialist policies, often under the pressure of influence of the exact same powerful capitalist interests that tended to give right-wingers their marching orders.
 
Top