Right? Left! Left? Right!

[plarq]

I'm always anti-nationalist and pro-western, that's for sure.

I will have no political affiliation before I can leave this country.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

It should probably be mentioned at some point that support of free market forces is not an exclusively capitalist position. The socialist beef is largely with the exploitative system of capitalism, not with a free market. There are many socialist theories that revolve around worker-owned factories and social, state-organized programs, yet continue to work within the market framework. Economic planning is by no means a must. I personally tend to lean towards this type of socialism, actually (close to what some might call "anarcho-syndicalism"), but I also understand the strengths of economic planning, and the weaknesses of the attempts thus far to actually do it. After all, corporations and large businesses produce much of what we consume, and are they not planned economies in miniature?

 

[Phlegmak]

Anyone who can actually simplify the entirety of their positions onto a one-dimensional plot needs to reevaluate their positions.

Thank you.

 

[Tarquelne]

Problem with that is you're going to offend almost everyone based on what you assume the right way to do things is.... Right away you've put anyone who disagrees with you into a defensive position.

No. Not those who disagree with me, or even those with the same goals or values. They just need a fact-based, decently-reasoned position. It's not really that high a standard. I don't demand a slew of statistics or a 12-page argument. Well, almost never...

Yeah, I'm making a claim about the right way to do things... but I have absolutely no problem with offending someone if asking them to back up their claims is offensive to them. Or with putting someone in a "defensive position" if they make a claim and have yet to adequately support it. In fact I think *not* holding people to that standard - most especially yourself (a generalized "me", not you specifically Gustave) - is a problem.

People tend to spend a lot of time building political arguments on claims that can be debunked via Google. Or a visit to Snopes.com. *That's* a problem. The logic is often no better.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

I like worker or consumer co-operative ownership systems; I like labour unions; I support state-owned enterprises in key industries, or at least the state holding on to certain levers over ownership as in France and Taiwan (at least in the forseeable future). I strongly support state education, health care, pensions, etc. I don't particularly care about market forces dictating the markets for widgets and other such things (the majority of the economy?), but unions and overall pro-labour laws are important. Regulation in general is important to control the negative effects of externalities and promote positive externalities. I think there can be a lot of super-local political organization, action, and community programs.

I suppose I am fairly leftist.

 

[Richard Cribb]

I never realised that capitalism was a political system? Thanks for telling me that. I always had it as an economic system, not a political one.

Capitalism is a social system.
You may thank me now.

1.You're just doing it again. 2. Labeling the world and sticking people into meaningless categories. 3.And I know you didn't mention conservative and liberal (and it's irrelevant that you didn't use those particular labels), but you're doing the exact same thing as Coulter. 4.I didn't say it before but I'll say it now: it's intellectually dead.

1.No I am not.
2.No I am not.
3.No I am not.
4.No it isn't.
Do you consider yourself an intellectual, by the way?

Only post-modernism is alive. lol

Indeed.

I am a leftist and THIS HAS BEEN DONE BEFORE. No more duplicates, please

Bah. I am one of those evil people who don't believe in property rights (but I don't have anything about the military). So i stole your idea. What do you intend to do about it?

EDIT: Grouping me, Bast, Cheezy, and RRW in the same group is pretty arbitrary

Perhaps. Or not.

I'm a pragmatic who believes in progress and that society and culture either moves forward or regresses, it does not stand still.

That said, I eschew labels. They only serve to caricature, stereotype, and short-circuit any useful dialogue or discussion.

What I find unfortunate about this forum is how many people WANT to be labeled, who WANT to be classified. They self-identify themselves and put stupid warnings in their signatures, etc... Good to know they want to be seen as cartoons rather than individuals.

As already commented, I see this sort of thing especially among people who rarely come up with truly original ideas.
I guess it makes sense if society only consisted of individuals and nothing else, this would actually make a lot of sense, so I guess that those people subscribe to that idea.
But I can't resist my preferance for uninteresting people with interesting ideas to interesting people with uninteresting ideas.

Not really.


Ms. Coulter, the world is a bit more complicated than that. You know what? Believe what you want. Right and left are subjectively defined, in other words, meaningless, so believe whatever you wish. Please, by all means, continue stratifying humanity into nonexistant categories.

See, Richard...
(It seems so strange to say that. Why did you change your name and avatar? I liked Honecker. Not much of a politician, but one hell of a kisser - as Comrade Brezhnev used to say.)

See, Yeekim or Dogbert. Here is the thing.
If you truly want to patronize people to a great effect, you shouldn't start with factual errors. I know that that is not directly related to the topic, but still...
My former avatar did not depict Erich Honecker, but Walter Ulbricht (try a google session if you don't believe me), a fact I even told this forum a couple of time. I know it is confusing with this long row of rulers of the German Democratic Republic, 5 of them I think, and we are not all historians, but still...
Disappointing.
And I think that Ulbricht was quite a competent politician, thank you, but I wouldn't even consider to think about his ability as a kisser.
Now for my change of username and avatar, since it so interests you. My old username was a Romanian name for the Evening Star (long story, told that a couple of times here as well, lived in Romania for a while, read Eminescu, as far as I remember even married down there). It lost it lustre during the years so I exchanged it with one of my heroes from the fictional world: Peter Lovesey's Sergeant Cribb. I explained here why I decided on this as well, and can't be bothered to go further into that now, I think I already have tested the patience of the audience more than enough.

... I believe your confusion arises from the fact that you have, perhaps consciously, perhaps not, neglected to take notice of a perfectly natural trend in this world: words are changing their meaning to keep up with changing reality. The times when being "left" necessarily meant harboring socialist of communist ideology are over. Why should we let marginal fringe ideologies define the way we speak? If we continued to do so - and continued to seat our elected representatives according to such "right-left" affiliation, we'd need to build all assembly halls twice as large while having one half constantly empty. People speak in a way that is more likely to convey meaningful information. Even in CFC.

Well thank you for stating what I may call the "official version" from the perspective of the ruling segment of society. Unfortunately, except that I have heard all of this before, it doesn't make me any wiser. I know my baron Giddens, I know my own "Labour Party", coming to think about it I know a lot.
However, I am afraid it is not so simple, or at least I am not convinced that it is so. While words do indeed change meaning, there are, at least regarding some words certain qualities we ascribe to certain words.
And. There is in principle no reason why we shouldn't ascribe certain terms to what you describe as "marginal fringe ideologies" if they are the only ones reasonably representing certain political ideas. Nobody ever said, I hope, that in politics there is a need for any symmetry, at least not for other than manipulative purposes. There is absolutely no reason why you can't have a majority, even a substantial one of political ideologies representing either the right or the left. Not if that makes more sense from the perspective of political values.
Then I think that such a separation might contribute more to "conveying useful information, actually.
But thanks for your contribution anyway, any debates need its Captain Obvious.

Therefore I will take freedom to plagiarize an old DDR joke: "Lieber Genosse Erich - Du bist der Letzte. Bitte mach das Licht aus."

A couple of things here.
To repeat, as something good can't be said too often, either learn some basic history of the GDR or avoid discussing it. It is embarassing, and not necessarily most for me.
It is a poor joke. That is a matter of taste of course.
Then, one should be wary of pronouncing the death of political systems and ideologies. This has been done before. It wasn't necessarily such a great success.
And finally. Have some mercy on me. Contrary to you, I am not very young and as a consequence I can't know everything.

Problem with that is you're going to offend almost everyone based on what you assume the right way to do things is. Personally, I think "scientific socialism" is an apt description of anarchist communism - however, if I were to refer to it as "pragmatism" or "realism," that would imply that everything else is, therefore, unrealistic. Right away you've put anyone who disagrees with you into a defensive position.

Very good point. I don't know anybody who isn't pragmatic or realistic. With the possible exception of my father-in-law occasionally.

Economics are inextricably linked to politics. Capitalism is necessarily authoritarian, for instance, so referring to something as "liberal" or "conservative" implies that it is authoritarian.

I wish everybody could take the bolded sentence to their heart and never forget it.
The real great mystifaction by capitalism was its separation of economics and politics.

 

[Richard Cribb]

Just to clear of the confusion regarding GDR politicians and since the hunk thread seems to be dead.


1.Erich Honecker. Leader of the GDR 1971-1989. Mediocre politician but the wet dream of certain other politicians as well as one OT poster.

Walter Ulbricht. Leader of the GDR 1950-1971. Competent politician but without Honecker's animal magnetism.

As most people should remember, I had the second photo, the one of Ulbricht as my avatar. Most people with some knowledge of the GDR will also know that that should suggest less heartily feelings towards Honecker.

 

[Kerozine]

OP, you a leftist or a Righist?

 

[Richard Cribb]

Whatever, as long as nobody accuse me of being an interesting, independent free-thinking individual.

 

[aelf]

Anyone who can actually simplify the entirety of their positions onto a one-dimensional plot needs to reevaluate their positions.

Really? So what's your position on God? Any atheist/theist/agnostic who can actually simplify the entirety of their positions into atheism/theism/agnosticism needs to reevaluate his position.

 

[Richard Cribb]

I also used to think that I was center, but I realised that center just ends up being on the right most of the time. I chose instead to go to the left, since it's the more ethical way.

I must apologise to quite a few people whose posts I intended to comment, but this multiquote-function really leaves a bit to be desired, besides I didn't come here today prepared to give a crash course in recognizing leaders from the GDR.
So I will try to make up for my omissions tomorrow. I just noticed the bolded part above and want to draw the community's attention to it. Everybody should take that to their heart as well. It is a very important observation.

 

[aelf]

As already commented, I see this sort of thing especially among people who rarely come up with truly original ideas.
I guess it makes sense if society only consisted of individuals and nothing else, this would actually make a lot of sense, so I guess that those people subscribe to that idea.

And I was going to comment on this. I think this is a very good point. And as per one of my earlier posts, I'm beginning to think that this has something to do with the post-modern movement - if nothing or almost nothing is objectively right, then I'm as right as any other person. It contributes to a hostility towards big and unified ideas, and a sense that since not everyone in a unified movement can really agree with each other fully, the movement is doomed to fail.

Actually, just looking around would dispel this queer notion. People continue to live as communities despite a greater or an increasing opportunity to be intellectually independent, and this will not change unless technology allows individuals to live in separate spaces with armies of robots to help them thrive. And even then, I'm not sure people would choose to live that way in general. Communities imply some extent of unity and shared belief, or at least compromise, and they show how big ideas can also thrive today despite differences amongst their adherents.

 

[amadeus]

1.Erich Honecker. Leader of the GDR 1971-1994.

He must have been hallucinating for the last few years.

 

[Antilogic]

I picked the no-clue-what-you-are-talking-about option because nobody can agree on what's left and what's right. Seemed like the only logical option.

At least the political compass test can distinguish between economic and social positions. Insert generic hating of single dimensional categorization here.

 

[Richard Cribb]

He must have been hallucinating for the last few years.

Oops. Still on medication, I am afraid.
Thanks for correcting me, have yourself a nice virtual cookie.

 

[Richard Cribb]

And I was going to comment on this. I think this is a very good point. And as per one of my earlier posts, I'm beginning to think that this has something to do with the post-modern movement - if nothing or almost nothing is objectively right, then I'm as right as any other person. It contributes to a hostility towards big and unified ideas, and a sense that since not everyone in a unified movement can really agree with each other fully, the movement is doomed to fail.

Oh yes, I am quite sure that post-modernism has something to do with it. Somebody once described post-modernism as lubricant for neo-liberalism.

Actually, just looking around would dispel this queer notion. People continue to live as communities despite a greater or an increasing opportunity to be intellectually independent, and this will not change unless technology allows individuals to live in separate spaces with armies of robots to help them thrive. And even then, I'm not sure people would choose to live that way in general. Communities imply some extent of unity and shared belief, or at least compromise, and they show how big ideas can also thrive today despite differences amongst their adherents.

Exactly. But that is not heroic enough for certain people, obviously.
And lo and behold, only two posts below:

I picked the no-clue-what-you-are-talking-about option because nobody can agree on what's left and what's right. Seemed like the only logical option.

For you, at least. As you can see only from this thread not everybody would agree with you, and for good reasons.

At least the political compass test can distinguish between economic and social positions. Insert generic hating of single dimensional categorization here.

Might I ask you why you consider that to be an improvement?

 

[aelf]

Oh yes, I am quite sure that post-modernism has something to do with it. Somebody once described post-modernism as lubricant for neo-liberalism.

And a ready market for rampant capitalism

 

[lovett]

What is probably the most puzzling about the political discussions in OT is, IMHO, the frivolous use of the term left and right.
It is not unusual to see certain people claim that there are so many "leftists" around here, even to the extent to dominate the place one is to believe. Funny that. Because when I look around, I fail to see this, from my perspective it would seem that except for one or two communists, just as many anarchists (the real ones mind you), and some 20-odd socialists and genuine social democrats it is rather packed with people who appear to be living quite in harmony with the dominant socio-economical system,which was last time I checked (about 10 minutes ago, capitalism. But then they should belong to the political right, shouldn't they?
So I think it might prove beneficial to clear this up a bit.
And here is my suggestion:
Outline in as few words as possible your political affiliation, whether you consider yourself as a leftist or a rightist and the reason(s) for doing so. And note well that I have left the opinion "centrist" out of the poll. I am sorry, but for me that is like being a bit pregnant. This time you have to chose sides.
Thanks in forehand for your cooperation.

I'm sure this has been already said, but don't you find this an incredibly immature way of looking at the world? Language doesn't exist in a vacuum and it so happens that 'right' and 'left' are particularly good examples of this. They're quite blatantly terms of relative description. You can't hold a position objectively to the political left any more then one could describe ones physical position as 'left'. It's incomprehensible. Left and right are terms of reference, one must be to the left or right of something. If you tried to describe where you lived by just saying 'left' ("to the left of what?" "Nah, Just left...") people would think you an idiot. Justifiably so. Similarly the political uses of 'left' and 'right' are entirely dependent on what is the 'centrist' position. I.e the average political viewpoint of a given society. This is why what is left and right are different in different societies at different times.

Incidentally, It strikes me as exactly this kind of thinking which lead to the 20th century implosion of the Labour party around here. Choosing a particular viewpoint and then taking on oneself the arbitrary power to dictate that all other viewpoints are insufficiently 'left'. This kind of 'with us or against us' extremism leads inevitably to infighting and essentially robs a party of the credibility needed to wield power.

 

[Bill3000]

And I was going to comment on this. I think this is a very good point. And as per one of my earlier posts, I'm beginning to think that this has something to do with the post-modern movement - if nothing or almost nothing is objectively right, then I'm as right as any other person. It contributes to a hostility towards big and unified ideas, and a sense that since not everyone in a unified movement can really agree with each other fully, the movement is doomed to fail.

I don't see how it has anything to do with either postmodernism or the idea that one is "as right as any other person".

Honestly, the entire post-modern movement thing is a little overstretched. As seen in threads in this forum there are plenty of people that would claim to be moral relativists or whatever but when you look into it further it turns out that they are not, and they just misunderstood the terms.

 

[aelf]

I'm sure this has been already said, but don't you find this an incredibly immature way of looking at the world? Language doesn't exist in a vacuum and it so happens that 'right' and 'left' are particularly good examples of this. They're quite blatantly terms of relative description. You can't hold a position objectively to the political left any more then one could describe ones physical position as 'left'. It's incomprehensible. Left and right are terms of reference, one must be to the left or right of something. If you tried to describe where you lived by just saying 'left' ("to the left of what?" "Nah, Just left...") people would think you an idiot. Justifiably so. Similarly the political uses of 'left' and 'right' are entirely dependent on what is the 'centrist' position. I.e the average political viewpoint of a given society. This is why what is left and right are different in different societies at different times.

Allow me to say something. I'm sorry, but I think it's sufficiently clear what "left" and "right" mean in this thread. And has been said before, not everything is relative. Even if the terms are relative, if you take stock of all the political views that are held by people everywhere, then you will still get a given picture of left and right. A group of people might be considered dark in a country with fair people, but when you look at the whole world, they might not be considered dark at all. Does that mean the terms "fair" and "dark" are meaningless? Does the fact that the distinction can be made in every geographical area mean that there isn't an overarching distinction when you look at the big picture?

If people insist on myopic (in terms of the scale of context) views of some terms, then, yeah, whatever. But don't be surprised when other people think you're either insular or simple-minded. The truth is if you look at all the political views in the world, a sufficiently clear distinction between right and left can be made, where disparate views can be broadly classified under these terms.

Incidentally, It strikes me as exactly this kind of thinking which lead to the 20th century implosion of the Labour party around here. Choosing a particular viewpoint and then taking on oneself the arbitrary power to dictate that all other viewpoints are insufficiently 'left'. This kind of 'with us or against us' extremism leads inevitably to infighting and essentially robs a party of the credibility needed to wield power.

I thought the problem was Labour moving too much to the right, not that they insisted on staying on the left. If you think the latter is the case, then the current picture just boggles me

I don't see how it has anything to do with either postmodernism or the idea that one is "as right as any other person".

Then enlighten me on why it doesn't. I think I know what post-modernism is about.