Define "Left".

[del62]

The abolition of all forms of domination of man by man. Power and autonomy for every individual, and mutual cooperation.

The thing is when they have tried to implement this utopia it more often than not turns out worse than the system it replaced

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

The thing is when they have tried to implement this utopia it more often than not turns out worse than the system it replaced

When have they(??) tried to implement this utopia?

 

[del62]

When have they(??) tried to implement this utopia?

I think it is fair to say that this is what Lenin and Mao beleived they were trying to implement, generally it ends with a few big people and a lot of little people getting killed though.

Not that I think much of the semi- feudal systems they replaced.

But I don't really think we can define Leftwing thought by Arwon's narrow definition.

 

[Traitorfish]

I've heard that citation too quite a lot. People may disagree, but the guy's hard to shake off as a kickstarter of liberalism.

Economic liberalism, you could make an argument for that, but "capitalism" isn't a school of thought or a movement, and Smith- who as I said believed that he was simply elucidating natural laws- certainly didn't believe it to be so. We don't even get a coherent picture of "capitalism" as something distinct until Marx, which by even the most conservative estimate is at least a few generations after it had emerged.

I think it is fair to say that this is what Lenin and Mao beleived they were trying to implement, generally it ends with a few big people and a lot of little people getting killed though.

Actually, in both cases they believed that what they were implementing was in the strictest sense capitalism. "Soviets plus electricity" and all that.

 

[Angst]

Economic liberalism, you could make an argument for that, but "capitalism" isn't a school of thought or a movement, and Smith- who as I said believed that he was simply elucidating natural laws- certainly didn't believe it to be so. We don't even get a coherent picture of "capitalism" as something distinct until Marx, and he certainly didn't regard it as something that you could "created".

Ah, so you were onto semantics. OK, I get it. Capitalism has, as you know, merely become something you loosely use together with liberalism, so I kind of went with it.

 

[Traitorfish]

I don't think that it's usual to use of "capitalism" as a synonym for "economic liberalism". The only people who really use it like that are politicians and/or a bit stupid.

...But I suppose that's what I was claiming of Synsensa's friend all along, so you might have a point.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

I think it is fair to say that this is what Lenin and Mao beleived they were trying to implement, generally it ends with a few big people and a lot of little people getting killed though.

Not that I think much of the semi- feudal systems they replaced.

But I don't really think we can define Leftwing thought by Arwon's narrow definition.

I'm not well versed enough in their personal histories to claim that they never held the ideals laid out by Arwon's definition so I won't disagree. But if they once did, their conversion to jerks was a swift one thus their regimes are more an example of jerkdom than any failure in leftist principles. I'm just not a fan of using evil dictators as the example when discussing the pros and cons of various political ideals (which I can now see you weren't really doing).

 

[Mise]

I have no idea who Rawls is

You should learn who Rawls is.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

You should learn who Rawls is.

I'd never heard of him either. But I just read his Wikipedia page and certainly endorse the above suggestion. Definitely my find of the day.

 

[BvBPL]

The left is traditionally marked by policies which seek to redistribute wealth, but that does not imply a support for strict equality.

I wouldn't say that strict equality is necessarily the goal of the left; simply a progression towards more equality.

Until Thatcher, British conservatives were explicitly opposed to equality of opportunity, holding instead to a sort of sloppy functionalism in which each social stratum should know its place, and get on as best it could within those terms.

I'd say, for the most part, that such behavior primarily serves the goals of the social sphere I discussed, rather than the economic one. Still, your point does make me think that the definitions of the right and left differ on which side of the Atlantic you're on as well as illustrating contemporary versus historical differences.

Instead, I think the distinction is, as I said before, about orientation towards power.

A valid model. I choose a model that I thought represented the stated goals of the right and left, not the actual end results of their policies. I don't think any party would receive a great number of votes if its platform was based on the consolidation of resources among a few.

 

[Tahuti]

Economic liberalism, you could make an argument for that, but "capitalism" isn't a school of thought or a movement, and Smith- who as I said believed that he was simply elucidating natural laws- certainly didn't believe it to be so. We don't even get a coherent picture of "capitalism" as something distinct until Marx, which by even the most conservative estimate is at least a few generations after it had emerged.

The economic system that dominated the West since the 1300s has been described as Capitalism, albeit retroactively so. Adam Smith (and the French physiocrats, who parallel with him articulated similiar beliefs) simply advocated Free Market Capitalism as alternative to Mercantilism, which was a form of Capitalism too, even if that did feature a large role of government and a fusion of business and national interest - not unlike Mussolini's Corporatism or Socialism with Chinese Characteristics - to maintain a positive balance of trade.

 

[Traitorfish]

I wouldn't say that strict equality is necessarily the goal of the left; simply a progression towards more equality.

I didn't make my self clear, sorry; when I said "strict equality", I didn't mean "absolute equality", but "equality in the strict sense", that is, of everyone contributing and receiving the same. A lot of classically leftist policies are directly contrary to this strict sense of "equality", so I don't think it makes much sense to describe the left as being "for equality", or even "for more equality", because in numerous cases it is directly orientated towards more inequality. (Possibly you could construct this as representing a "deeper" equality, but to explain that logic you'd end up talking about power relationships anyway, so you may as well just skip to the end.)

I'd say, for the most part, that such behavior primarily serves the goals of the social sphere I discussed, rather than the economic one.

I don't think that the distinction is very helpful in this context. The sort of institutionalised inequality of opportunity that we're talking about was about the division of labour and property, so although the division was formally based on "social" criteria (culture, kinship, wealth), it was necessarily constituted in economic terms; neither precedes the other.

Still, your point does make me think that the definitions of the right and left differ on which side of the Atlantic you're on as well as illustrating contemporary versus historical differences.

It certainly reflects that the terms are relative, but I don't think it suggests that leftness qua leftness and rightness qua rightness are relative. To say that "X is above Y" is to make a relative statement, but the relationship described by "above" is itself constant, if you follow me.

A valid model. I choose a model that I thought represented the stated goals of the right and left, not the actual end results of their policies. I don't think any party would receive a great number of votes if its platform was based on the consolidation of resources among a few.

The problem, with trying to work from stated goals is that sooner or later you'll have to distil things down to "the left wants freedom and wellbeing, but the right wants wellbeing and freedom", which is less than super helpful.) Instead of trying to take everything we identify as "left-wing" and boil down from that some average or essence, I think we're better off trying to figure out what it is that leads us to identify them as left-wing in the first place. They're abstractions, not actual phenomena, and we should approach them as such.

 

[Leoreth]

I didn't make my self clear, sorry; when I said "strict equality", I didn't mean "absolute equality", but "equality in the strict sense", that is, of everyone contributing and receiving the same. A lot of classically leftist policies are directly contrary to this strict sense of "equality", so I don't think it makes much sense to describe the left as being "for equality", or even "for more equality", because in numerous cases it is directly orientated towards more inequality. (Possibly you could construct this as representing a "deeper" equality, but to explain that logic you'd end up talking about power relationships anyway, so you may as well just skip to the end.)

What do you mean with more inequality? Things like "positive discrimination"?

Or the conflict between equality of treatment vs. equality of outcome (i.e. taxing the rich more than the poor could be argued to be unequal treatment, even though it desires to make their wealth more equal)?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

A person on the 'left' is someone who has their heart and ideals in the right place but does not understand how this world works, nor how it should work.

I agree with this definition. Since I think the right also doesn't know how the world works, and also has noble ideals and their heart in the right place, I would also agree with it as a definition what a person on "the right" is. In fact, what you have done is defined "a person".

Why I consider myself a leftie is that I'm not that obsessed with money, and I don't mind that a part of it is used to help society and those who are less fortunate than me. The fact that the way this is done in will be abused is a consequence I am willing to put up with, since the way the "right wing" solutions are implemented are just as open to abuse. Only often it's the already very fortunate who are more prone to abuse it.

So overall, considering all the pros and cons, my opinion is that left wing policies are more social and work just as well (badly) as polices derived from it's opposing counterpart,

 

[Takhisis]

Anarchy?

In the UK, It's coming sometime…

A person on the 'left' is someone who has their heart and ideals in the right place but does not understand how this world works, nor how it should work.

I agree with this definition. Since I think the right also doesn't know how the world works, and also has noble ideals and their heart in the right place, I would also agree with it as a definition what a person on "the right" is. In fact, what you have done is defined "a person".

Yeap, he defined a leftist, and a really skewed vision of aprt of the leftist spectrum.

Why I consider myself a leftie is that I'm not that obsessed with money, and I don't mind that a part of it is used to help society and those who are less fortunate than me. The fact that the way this is done in will be abused is a consequence I am willing to put up with, since the way the "right wing" solutions are implemented are just as open to abuse. Only often it's the already very fortunate who are more prone to abuse it.

So overall, considering all the pros and cons, my opinion is that left wing policies are more social and work just as well (badly) as polices derived from it's opposing counterpart,

As well as the whole collective v. private property thing.

 

[Cutlass]

I don't think either of these claims is really true.

The left is traditionally marked by policies which seek to redistribute wealth, but that does not imply a support for strict equality. The British NHS, for example, is a classically left-wing institution, but it operates on a thoroughly unequal basis, being funded on the basis of ability to contribute, and distributing on the basis of need for its services.

The right has in the 20th century been marked by an opposition to economic regulation, but that doesn't imply a support for "equality of opportunity". Until Thatcher, British conservatives were explicitly opposed to equality of opportunity, holding instead to a sort of sloppy functionalism in which each social stratum should know its place, and get on as best it could within those terms. (This becomes doubly obvious if we go back to the 19th century, when free trade was a key plank of the British left, in opposition to the protectionism of the conservatives.)

Instead, I think the distinction is, as I said before, about orientation towards power. The left pursues policies policies which undermine the power that one individual is able to wield over another, which in capitalist society primarily take the form of deep wealth inequalities; socialised healthcare, for example, removes the power imbalances inherent in a privatised system as we see in the US. The right pursues policies which defend power; demolishing market regulations while bolstering protections for private property allows the power of capital to operate unhindered.

In the US the right is entirely committed to redistributing wealth above and beyond literally every other consideration. So redistribution per se is not a useful definition.

 

[Takhisis]

Private property, in the US right's view: 'What's mine's mine, what's yours yours but will be mine'.

 

[W|M]

Leftists are republicans, Rightists are monarchists.

 

[MobBoss]

Liberals think the government should intervene to assure that everybody has the basic necessities. That sufficient food, clothing, shelter is provided for all, and that everybody has access to healthcare at all times.

In other words, lets reward unproductivity.

That corporations must be strongly regulated to assure they don't take advantage of others.

In other words, shackle corporations so they cant be successful.

That natural resources should be protected and shared by everybody instead of exploited by the few.

In other words, its ok to allow resource prices to skyrocket because you might disturb a moth.

That the government should intervene wherever possible to assure that people are treated equally. That children are well-protected, especially from their own parents.

In other words, the state is your parent. And dont you forget it.

That the elderly should be adequately provided for and treated with respect.

Until the death panel decides your done.

That the basic precepts which this country was founded should be practiced at all times, regardless of the consequences.

Unless, of course it means less power for the left. Then whatever goes.

For those who are Christians, that Christianity is something which should be practiced seven days a week instead of given lip service on Sunday mornings.

In other words practice your faith the way we think you should, even though we are Godless.

That change is good and should be encouraged whenever possible.

Unless of course that change gives power to the opposition...then its horrible bad.

That all people no matter where they live should have the same basic human rights, and that they are treated with decency and respect by their own government. That the government should intervene when other countries mistreat their own citizens.

In other words, we are against war, unless of course its for a reason we deem appropriate, although we will always call our opposition warmongers.

A person on the 'left' is someone who has their heart and ideals in the right place but does not understand how this world works, nor how it should work.

"A young man who is not a liberal, has no heart...
...but an old man who is not a conservative, has no mind!"

Winston Churchill

 

[Takhisis]

Until the death panel decides your done.

Lolwut?