Right? Left! Left? Right!

[JollyRoger]

People havent learned from history, the road to serfdom awaits us once again, as the poll so clearly shows.

22% willing to be serfs doesn't build much of a road.

 

[Richard Cribb]

Economically speaking I'm slightly right wing. I don't believe that the free market can solve all our problems but it is a useful tool for achieving an efficient economy. However with that said I do believe that the government is there to improve the lives of its citizens and to promote equality, so thats why I'm only slightly right wing.

Socially speaking I'm a dirty librul.

Please, and this is not directed only to you.
There a some things I hate, and among them the so-called Political Compass with its moronic dichotomy. Please, and this is still directed to everybody, be so kind to just state left or right. Only that. Nothing more.

So I think the same things and am a leftist. A far leftist in the US. The thing is that as far as US politics, which is what I'm most familiar with, NOBODY holds views opposite to those you stated.
Do leftists oppose entrepreneurship? Does anyone? What is the opposite view and where is it practiced?
Not formally
Who supports regulation other than to capture external costs (ie pollution etc.) or to prevent fraud etc. It is an area for legitimate argument on the left-right continium but I am not aware of leftist arguments for gratutious regulation simply for the sake of government control.

Who doesn't believe in property rights??

Who doesn't believe in the right to self-defense? Even the most left-wing governments sport a military. I think the US could cut military spending in 1/2 but I still support a military and the right to use it.

It really irritates me to see left-right arguments framed with this kind of series of strawmen. But maybe I'm not aware of parties in other countries that want to eleminate entrepreneurship, property rights, and the military. Does this define the left in other places? Does this supposed party win substantial numbers of seats?

It seems to me that you are unaware of the existence of socialists and communists in the USA. Granted, you as a native should know better, but I am willing to bet that they exist. Without going in detail on your questions, I prefer to ask you a counter-question.
Do every citizen in the USA support private ownership of the means of production?

I would fall more greatly into the rightist camp based on the ideas that I agree with and the importance they are relative to me. All of the following are based on common observations of the left-right spectrum:

I strongly in support of free markets and few trade barriers, a rightist position.
I oppose the government attempting to legislate morality, a (sometimes) leftist position.
I support reducing the size of the government, a rightist position.
I oppose massive U.S. aid to Israel and Egypt, a view taken by some in both positions.
I support of abortion rights, a leftist position.

Yet, my views on issues tend to be further on the extreme ends particular spectrum than in the general public (e.g., support for legalizing hard drugs or abolishing the Department of Agriculture) so I don't think it's accurate to place people like myself, MobBoss, and Integral all necessarily in same grouping.

Not a bad post, but I think it somehow neglects basic principles for what could be considered left and right, and also the motivation behind supporting or opposing different issues.
Also, I admit that my poll is a bit crude, but I am just in the process of clearifying, so there will be an opportunity for more complex classifications later.

( El_M.'s post, then: )
BTW: There's also the "idiotlogue". That's someone who listens to ideologues and, without understanding the issues, the principles, or anything beyond their preconceptions, really, parrots the ideologue's statements. Most apparent ideologues are *also* idiotlogues.

I think such a strong statement are in need of being backed up by some concrete data.

Leftist - about the uses of the words, here's my beef:

Left and Right should be SOLELY economic terms. I stand by the American uses of "Liberal" and "Conservative" though I recognize others will use them differently. But these cannot be replaced by "left" and "right" in all instances-the former are broader than the latter. And of course I might not understand any weirder uses of the terms from other backgrounds either - if you're not talking about economics, it's probably better to use say things like authoritarian, theocratic, etc... rather than trying to lump them under left or right.

Very well. Is a socialist a conservative or a liberal then. Or a fascist? And what do you mean by economics in this context?

I know you are going to kill me for this, but I see myself as a leftist socialist capitalist. But that's because I disagree with the exclusive meaning of socialism, preferring a more socially based (who'd have thought socialism could be more based on social policy?) definition than a purely economically based one. I support the market economic system, but with a lot of restrictions and regulations, higher progressive tax, fair distribution of income etc.. This may put me more in the social democrat basket, and really, the only difference is in what definitions you use.

I am not going to kill you, not today at least, but I feel that you are not making things clearer, to put it mildly. I also fail to see how you differ from a classical liberal, and then I mean a real classical liberal.
Also, capitalism and socialism are social systems.

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.

First of all, I would apprecite immensly if it was pbligatory for forum members to inform about their age. Then I could see if such accusations had some foundation whatsoever. Ah well.
Apart from that, this sort of relativism seems to me to be... No good. Except for that I already addressed this sort of thing in my comment to our mutual Estonian friend with the very rudimentary knowledge about recent German history, this makes little sense. Or should I consider Joseph Goebbels as a leftist because he represented the left wing of NSDAP. Is this mature and reflected. I think not.
I think it should be obvious that what I hinted at in the OP is that I think that the political left and right represent certain values, and that I want to learn more about what they could be.

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.

That would seem to be very poor history. The main reason for the misery of Labour parties in Europe was that they alienated from ther political base and main principles, or "modernized" to use a fashionable Newspeech phrase. Ironically, your post sounds like one who could typically have been written by one of their ideologues.

People havent learned from history, the road to serfdom awaits us once again, as the poll so clearly shows.

That is pretty rich from somebody who ceaselessly agitates for neo-feudalism.

BTW, democracy and socialism are mutually exclusive. It is not possible to commence economic planning democratically.

Define democracy and socialism. Then we can have a discussion about it.

Fixed it for you!

I don't live in a democracy? Someone liberate us

You live in a limited democracy. It is a good start. But you have to liberate yourself.

 

[Tarquelne]

I think such a strong statement are in need of being backed up by some concrete data.

Has an obvious bias, but a good place for info.

 

[JollyRoger]

What is the reason capitalism implies slavery or serfdom?

The same reason restraints on capitalism implies slavery or serfdom.

 

[Cutlass]

What is the reason capitalism implies slavery or serfdom? If you use the labour theory of value argument, then we will have to agree to disagree.

I would never use the labor theory of value. It doesn't work. Capitalism reduces people to serfs because that is the profit and power maximizing thing to do. And since they have the power to do it, and the incentive to do it, they will do it anytime there is not a government preventing it.

 

[lovett]

Apart from that, this sort of relativism seems to me to be... No good. Except for that I already addressed this sort of thing in my comment to our mutual Estonian friend with the very rudimentary knowledge about recent German history, this makes little sense. Or should I consider Joseph Goebbels as a leftist because he represented the left wing of NSDAP. Is this mature and reflected. I think not.
I think it should be obvious that what I hinted at in the OP is that I think that the political left and right represent certain values, and that I want to learn more about what they could be.

You know, I'd be perfectly happy to accept this if left and right weren't BLOODY RELATIVE TERMS! In the OP you said that anybody who wasn't quite strongly opposed to Capitalism couldn't be considered left wing. You'd be perfectly right if you were to say that they couldn't be considered Communist nor strongly Socialist but that's not what you said at all. Rather, you decided to take two widely used terms and massively redefine them. Which is....No good.

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.

Yeah. Your right. If one were to study this in-depth they could probably deduce a decent picture of what is generally considered left wing and what is generally considered right wing across the world. But that kind of work is the makings of a decent sized thesis. Are you prepared to put that kind of effort in? I'm certainly not.

Indeed, it also raises the question of how far one should go. If we accept that the use of political terms in a country ten thousand miles away has a bearing on how I should use said terms, why stop there? It doesn't seem implausible to suggest that one should consider attitudes in my own country a hundred years ago. Quite clearly, the problem very quickly becomes intractable. I doubt that a 'sufficiently clear distinction' will ever arise.

Which is why declaring a particular brand of ideology 'true left' is a completely blind sighted way to go about things. It doesn't mean anything and it doesn't help society one bit.

That would seem to be very poor history. The main reason for the misery of Labour parties in Europe was that they alienated from ther political base and main principles, or "modernized" to use a fashionable Newspeech phrase. Ironically, your post sounds like one who could typically have been written by one of their ideologues.

[/QUOTE]

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

[/QUOTE]

I'm actually talking about the UK Labour Party from the late 70's 'till the end of Thatcher. The whole vicious infighting and being out of power for two decades thing.

To whit, there's a pretty decent scene in The Life Of Brian satirizing exactly this.

 

[aelf]

Yeah. Your right. If one were to study this in-depth they could probably deduce a decent picture of what is generally considered left wing and what is generally considered right wing across the world. But that kind of work is the makings of a decent sized thesis. Are you prepared to put that kind of effort in? I'm certainly not.

That's what political scientists are for, no? They've given us a survey, and from my own studies, I'm satisfied with the semi-historical picture that has been drawn. It's a good starting point for discussion, same as in plenty of other fields where there is a general consensus on where we are, the standpoint which we can safely assume.

Granted this might not be the case for localised debates, where indeed what truly matters are the local distinctions. But it's important to understand the general picture if you wish to talk about things generally. I believe the OP is intended to bring to light that some people don't seem to know the general picture well enough, especially when trying to rope in the rest of the world into their discussions on this board.

Indeed, it also raises the question of how far one should go. If we accept that the use of political terms in a country ten thousand miles away has a bearing on how I should use said terms, why stop there? It doesn't seem implausible to suggest that one should consider attitudes in my own country a hundred years ago. Quite clearly, the problem very quickly becomes intractable. I doubt that a 'sufficiently clear distinction' will ever arise.

Well, that's not really right. Essentially, I don't think this is a problem at all. Firstly, the distinction assumes a certain development in political thought. It's quite useless to speculate whether the Res Publica or the Dominate were really right-wing, for example, since there were no grounds for the right/left distinction at that time.

Secondly, on this note, the right/left distinction emerged during the French Revolution, so that is a natural historical point to start thinking of political views as being either right or left-wing, and indeed this is done. We know, for example, who were right-wing and who were left-wing during the Revolution and henceforth.

Lastly, on the other hand, the development of thought is not static. What was considered left-wing before might not be left-wing anymore, so context is also important, and this makes history not entirely commensurable with the present. Historical context is inescapable, unlike geographical context, since it is plausible for an American to be socialist despite the prevalent system in the country, for example, whereas it's implausible for someone to be a Tsarist today. So, again, there is no problem with having to be overly concerned with where historical positions stand relative to the contemporary distinction.

I'm actually talking about the UK Labour Party from the late 70's 'till the end of Thatcher. The whole vicious infighting and being out of power for two decades thing.

Even within the political parties, there are always disagreements. Does that mean political parties are fundamentally unworkable?

Making a clear distinction between left and right doesn't imply some sort of absolutism. There's still a lot of room for debate. It just eliminates absolute relativism.

 

[Kerozine]

You know, I'd be perfectly happy to accept this if left and right weren't BLOODY RELATIVE TERMS!

tl;dr

How is it relative?

 

[Richard Cribb]

You know, I'd be perfectly happy to accept this if left and right weren't BLOODY RELATIVE TERMS! In the OP you said that anybody who wasn't quite strongly opposed to Capitalism couldn't be considered left wing. You'd be perfectly right if you were to say that they couldn't be considered Communist nor strongly Socialist but that's not what you said at all. Rather, you decided to take two widely used terms and massively redefine them. Which is....No good.

A few points.
Writing in caps doesn't a poor argument stronger make.
You are misrepresenting me, and you either don't understand or pretend not to understand that relative in this context doesn't mean interchangeable. You also, like Captain Obvious of Estonia don't reflect over that hegemonic ideas are not necessarily the same as good, excellent or indeed useful ideas, and that redefining political terms can be in some groups interest. Incorporated in this is a neglect for the history of political terms and a supreme neglect for rhetorics which you seem to be sharing with not a few around here.
In short.... Very not good.
In contrast, here recommended for your study, is somebody who understands what it is about:

That's what political scientists are for, no? They've given us a survey, and from my own studies, I'm satisfied with the semi-historical picture that has been drawn. It's a good starting point for discussion, same as in plenty of other fields where there is a general consensus on where we are, the standpoint which we can safely assume.

Granted this might not be the case for localised debates, where indeed what truly matters are the local distinctions. But it's important to understand the general picture if you wish to talk about things generally. I believe the OP is intended to bring to light that some people don't seem to know the general picture well enough, especially when trying to rope in the rest of the world into their discussions on this board.

You are certainly right about that being part of my attention. Furthermore, I am concerned with the rhetorical implications, how you for instance can marginalize or even real oppositional political fractions from the public discourse by making slightly more progressive pro status-quo parties into oppositional ones as has already happened in the USA and also seems to be the picture in Europe.

Well, that's not really right. Essentially, I don't think this is a problem at all. Firstly, the distinction assumes a certain development in political thought. It's quite useless to speculate whether the Res Publica or the Dominate were really right-wing, for example, since there were no grounds for the right/left distinction at that time.

Secondly, on this note, the right/left distinction emerged during the French Revolution, so that is a natural historical point to start thinking of political views as being either right or left-wing, and indeed this is done. We know, for example, who were right-wing and who were left-wing during the Revolution and henceforth.

Lastly, on the other hand, the development of thought is not static. What was considered left-wing before might not be left-wing anymore, so context is also important, and this makes history not entirely commensurable with the present. Historical context is inescapable, unlike geographical context, since it is plausible for an American to be socialist despite the prevalent system in the country, for example, whereas it's implausible for someone to be a Tsarist today. So, again, there is no problem with having to be overly concerned with where historical positions stand relative to the contemporary distinction.



Even within the political parties, there are always disagreements. Does that mean political parties are fundamentally unworkable?

Making a clear distinction between left and right doesn't imply some sort of absolutism. There's still a lot of room for debate. It just eliminates absolute relativism.

That is exactly what I am trying to get at. I would also add that from my perspective the term left in politics must necessarily imply a critical attitude to a hegemonic socie-economic system from a progressive angle. This can then both include a reformists and revolutionairies as long as the former have systemic change as a final goal.
I hope that makes it a bit clearer.

 

[civ_king]

ah yes yes, the good old socialist redefinition game. when they define things by their own terms, they are all for liberty and freedom aswell, and support the ideas of different people having different goals and ends in life and living by them.

as you obviously know, socialists are evil despicable animals, I mean isn't taking some money from someone who would otherwise by a fourth yacht and giving that money to some one who is starving, isn't that cruel and evil?

 

[plarq]

Where's the chart that indicates the general direction of political movements to left or right over those centuries?

 

[innonimatu]

Leftist, because I believe that everyone has a right to an equal share of political power. Reality is always different, I know, but what ideal a political system aims at matters a lot for the final outcome. Any real effort to share power as equably as possible must also lead to sharing wealth in the same way (regardless of weather it is power -> wealth or wealth -> power).

The division made by the right (including "liberals") between politics and economics, between political power and wealth, is false. That leaves the leftist agenda as the only truly democratic one. Sharing political power requires sharing also the responsibilities (and profits) over how wealth is generated in society. How to do it, of course, can be argued about; the goal (equitable shares) cannot.

 

[RedRalph]

sure no problem. ill come to youre house some day if i feel hungry, empty your fridge, watch some TV, and sleep on your couch. Its OK with you, right?

after all, from each according to their capability, to each according to their need.

Yeah, thats how it is. In the USSR in 1938, there was few things more frightening than a knock on the door in the dead of night; it could have been the NKVD come to eat from your fridge

 

[holy king]

Yeah, thats how it is. In the USSR in 1938, there was few things more frightening than a knock on the door in the dead of night; it could have been the NKVD come to eat from your fridge

 

[abefar]

far-right reactionary

 

[Richard Cribb]

Where's the chart that indicates the general direction of political movements to left or right over those centuries?

Where is my salary for doing things here?
However, if you have the patience to wait until the poll closes, I will entertain you with another small project.

Leftist, because I believe that everyone has a right to an equal share of political power. Reality is always different, I know, but what ideal a political system aims at matters a lot for the final outcome. Any real effort to share power as equably as possible must also lead to sharing wealth in the same way (regardless of weather it is power -> wealth or wealth -> power).

The division made by the right (including "liberals") between politics and economics, between political power and wealth, is false. That leaves the leftist agenda as the only truly democratic one. Sharing political power requires sharing also the responsibilities (and profits) over how wealth is generated in society. How to do it, of course, can be argued about; the goal (equitable shares) cannot.

This is even clearer than I managed to put it, and now I think the plot thickens.

sure no problem. ill come to youre house some day if i feel hungry, empty your fridge, watch some TV, and sleep on your couch. Its OK with you, right?

You are disabled?

after all, from each according to their capability, to each according to their need.

I am afraid you don't understand this principle.

what society came closest to conditions of equal political power? Medieval Iceland.

Now that is interesting. Please don't let me have to live in suspension on that, but enlighten a poor old Norwegian historian why medieval Island was such a model democracy.

far-right reactionary

Ah, a honest person. Capital!

 

[Ayatollah So]

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

And yet, if one did a Principal Component Analysis of political positions, the first dimension would definitely be the one that goes by the "left-right" label. Therefore a brief characterization of one's political position should probably start (but not end) with a placement on that axis.

 

[Masada]

*Shrug* why was anyone playing with semantics? It's fairly clear what the OP's position with regards to left and right wing is being in the opening post and all.

Right wing.

 

[zenspiderz]

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.

Feck knows. I have given fair hearing to just about every political ideology. At one time or another i could crow that i was anything from an uber-capitalist, communist, anarchist, libertarian, authoritarian, eco-fascist etc. blah, etc blah.

I guess i am finally finding a home in pragmatic/spiritual/morallism (warning! made up word). as in if it works, is moral and god is groovy with it then its ok in my book.

But yeah the whole left/right mental paradigm is a pile of steaming you know whats.

BTW last time i looked, 5 mins ago, the US is a semi-marxist state (like china but lazier), i mean just who exactly owns the major industries and banks now, it wouldn't be the state would it? whoops bye bye capitalism hello marxism.

 

[Yeekim]

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...

Ouch. All I can say in my defence is that minus Walter's beard, they look somewhat similar. And the beard was barely discernible on that photo. Still

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.

True. "Right" and "Left" are such words. If you've got the entire political spectrum of a nation lined up and the leftmost is still described as being "on the right", you can not use these terms to discuss differences between these people/parties, but only to discuss differences between them and, excuse me for repeating this, marginal fringe ideologies that have, at least for the time being, ceased to exist for all practical purposes. How often would you need to do that?

Nobody ever said, I hope, that in politics there is a need for any symmetry, at least not for other than manipulative purposes.

Not in politics, but in descriptive speech (for lack of a better term).

But thanks for your contribution anyway, any debates need its Captain Obvious.

You're most welcome.

It is a poor joke. That is a matter of taste of course.

If you say so...
But I've got another one: do you happen to know what unit was called "ein Ulb" in DDR?

And finally. Have some mercy on me. Contrary to you, I am not very young and as a consequence I can't know everything.

I believe we are both well past the phase where we knew everything. However, there seem to be some matters we are quite convinced about. So I give no quarter.