Define "Left".
- Thread starter IdiotsOpposite
- Start date
I don't see safety and order as interchangeable, especially with regards to recreational drugs, consumer safety, the environment, etc. And as far as I know, neither side wants to abolish police departments, so on that basis they both favor order.
John Rawls is basically the granddaddy of modern leftist thought, at least in the US. He endorses market systems while still advocating for social justice.
And this (as well as the similar snarky lines) isn't far off.
Verarde
Pondering Wearing A Hat
The opposite of right.
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
I love safety. I hate order.
rugbyLEAGUEfan
Deity
Ultimately I see it as a tendency towards the promotion of redistribution of income via taxation. The rest I see as window dressing that is in the end, beyond the scope of government to truly impact upon (whether these attempts at social policy be by the left or the right)
Ailedhoo
wonderer
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2012
- Messages
- 7,811
The left is basically the area that follows the ecomonic ideal of collective controlment of resources via either regulations, abolisation of marketing or other forms of collective control of resource. The right on contrasts favours little to no regulation on resource management, to the point of demanding that "the markets make right."
It is a mistake to presume that the means of gaining the leftist aim is via the state: voluntery collectivism that was hailed by Ghandi is completery different to collectivism uphold by authoriterian powers.
The left ecomonically must not be confussed with the authoritarian and liberaterian scale. Stalin and Pinochet were both athoriterian but were ecomonic opposites. It is important to not confuss political scales with ecomonic scales.
It is a mistake to presume that the means of gaining the leftist aim is via the state: voluntery collectivism that was hailed by Ghandi is completery different to collectivism uphold by authoriterian powers.
The left ecomonically must not be confussed with the authoritarian and liberaterian scale. Stalin and Pinochet were both athoriterian but were ecomonic opposites. It is important to not confuss political scales with ecomonic scales.
del62
Deity
Here is a liitle snippet I picked up of the net, which I guess is how the Aristocracies particularly in 18th centuary France or early 20th Century Russia might define left
classical_hero
In whom I trust
Anarchy?
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Ideally, I'd define "left" as a critical-emancipatory orientation towards power. Unfortunately, this doesn't map particularly well to its practical usage, which pays more reference to certain genres of policy than anything else, so we find as non-critical and anti-emancipatory tendencies as Stalinism being described as a "leftist".
BvBPL
Pour Decision Maker
For its faults, the political compass folks are so enamored of does point out that there are at least two key differences between the left and right in terms of economic policy and social policy. It is best to examine these individually.
In economic policy, the difference between the left and the right is a question of how equality is best achieved. For the left, the role of the state in economic affairs is to act in a manner than ensures equality of the distribution of resources. This is an active role that utilizes state functions in a manner that promotes the welfare of the downtrodden and disadvantaged. In contrast, the right seeks equality of opportunity by eliminating barriers that prevent folks from engaging in the economic marketplace. This is, essentially, an additive versus subtractive difference in what the role of the state should be in the capitalist market.
The difference between the left and right in the social sphere is marked by differing interpretations of what role the state should play in balancing the liberty of individuals versus the common interest of the state's subjects in maintaining a shared culture and system of values. How these differences fall are clearly shown in the liberal/conservative divide. Liberals value the liberty of the individual, whereas conservatives prize shared communal values.
These two factors, economics and social policy, don't necessarily overlap. Indeed, the common political views of Catholics within the United States favors leftist economic policies and conservative social policies. However, these spheres often do overlap to the point where it is often fair to pigeonhole a person's social policies based on his or her economic preferences and vice versa.
In economic policy, the difference between the left and the right is a question of how equality is best achieved. For the left, the role of the state in economic affairs is to act in a manner than ensures equality of the distribution of resources. This is an active role that utilizes state functions in a manner that promotes the welfare of the downtrodden and disadvantaged. In contrast, the right seeks equality of opportunity by eliminating barriers that prevent folks from engaging in the economic marketplace. This is, essentially, an additive versus subtractive difference in what the role of the state should be in the capitalist market.
The difference between the left and right in the social sphere is marked by differing interpretations of what role the state should play in balancing the liberty of individuals versus the common interest of the state's subjects in maintaining a shared culture and system of values. How these differences fall are clearly shown in the liberal/conservative divide. Liberals value the liberty of the individual, whereas conservatives prize shared communal values.
These two factors, economics and social policy, don't necessarily overlap. Indeed, the common political views of Catholics within the United States favors leftist economic policies and conservative social policies. However, these spheres often do overlap to the point where it is often fair to pigeonhole a person's social policies based on his or her economic preferences and vice versa.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
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.
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
Right-minded people sometimes openly say inequality is a necessary evil. It's not all who think so, but the whole model of capitalism kind of necessiates a difference of class in order to incentivize.
Synobun
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2006
- Messages
- 24,884
I was talking to someone about this, and he told me about the creator of modern capitalism writing a book and saying that in the end, capitalism always involves a winner and a loser.
I totally forget who it was and what name the book had. Any ideas?
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Given that it involves describing somebody as the "creator of modern capitalism", which: no, you're unlikely to be missing much.
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
Synobun
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2006
- Messages
- 24,884
I think that's the one. I know that book was mentioned in the conversation, but not sure if it was in this segment. We'll go with that one, though!
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
I wonder how your friend reconciles his description of the claim that Smith "created modern capitalism" with the fact that he only ever purported to describe natural laws of commerce?
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
Wiki said:
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.
Late modern capitalism, however, is something else entirely with its mixed market economy and all, and I see no easily pickable guy to grant that title. If that's what you are getting at?
