what does left wing and right wing mean to you

[egb_hibs]

I feel a bit like St Auggy with this these days - "If no one asks me, I know what it is. If I wish to explain it to him who asks, I do not know."

what does left and right mean to you; some prompts regarding issues around which one might conceive a left or right position:

economics - local

economics - global

individual freedom

foreign policy

multi-culturalism

environmentalism

[Haruki]

Sproule and Zemmama

[Joe]

Its a scale of economic freedom. The further to the right you go, the more economic freedom you believe in e.g. Neo Liberals such as Thatcher, privatisation, free trade, open markets etc. The further left you go the more your economic liberty is constrained e.g. Lenin, state run industries, protectionism etc.

Its nothing to do with civil rights, environmentalism, feminism, etc. Its simply economic. So when people refer to "the far right" what they actually mean is the centre left (ironically) but people associate intolerance with being right wing, which is in itself intolerant. Milton Feedman was possible the most right wing person ever, and he was a Libertarian, the complete opposite of a Facist.

[Quagmire]

in short=-iu8

left = good (when the right people are in charge) but too hard to put into practice

right = evil and too easy to put into practice



it's no coincidence IMO that it's so difficult to put left wing into practice. almost everything good in the world is difficult to achieve, or at least harder to achieve than it's worse equivelent. the right wing plays on humanity's greedy nature, it's the most appealing to individuals and is the easiest to put into practice. for people that are well off the left takes a bit more guts and concideration for other people.

i find it odd that generally, religious people vote right wing when they preach about temptation and all that jazz. that's what the right wing is all about.

[Joe]

Originally Posted by Quagmire

in short=-iu8

left = good (when the right people are in charge) but too hard to put into practice

right = evil and too easy to put into practice



it's no coincidence IMO that it's so difficult to put left wing into practice. almost everything good in the world is difficult to achieve, or at least harder to achieve than it's worse equivelent. the right wing plays on humanity's greedy nature, it's the most appealing to individuals and is the easiest to put into practice. for people that are well off the left takes a bit more guts and concideration for other people.

i find it odd that generally, religious people vote right wing when they preach about temptation and all that jazz. that's what the right wing is all about.

Its not really as simple as that. I used to be the single most left wing person in the world, but basicly I just realized that its a massive load of bollocks. My advice is, just dont be political.

Right wingers are usually self intrested and eager to prey on fear, but at the sametime in touch with what people actually want and are capable of delivering. Left wingers basily (dispite all their guff) are just interested in telling people what to do. They have their own views of what is "right" and what is "wrong" and they think they have somehow come up with an improved version of the ten commandment, which they have divine right ot force on everyone else.

On paper the left woops the rights arse. In practise its the opposite.

The post war concensus was great......on paper. Who would object to stronger unions, the people running industy for the benefit of the many not the few and social structures in place to help the poor? Nobody. In reality it was a complete disaster and we ended up with a society where you couldnt even bury the dead.

[EasterToad]

Originally Posted by Joe

Its not really as simple as that. I used to be the single most left wing person in the world, but basicly I just realized that its a massive load of bollocks. My advice is, just dont be political.

Right wingers are usually self intrested and eager to prey on fear, but at the sametime in touch with what people actually want and are capable of delivering. Left wingers basily (dispite all their guff) are just interested in telling people what to do. They have their own views of what is "right" and what is "wrong" and they think they have somehow come up with an improved version of the ten commandment, which they have divine right ot force on everyone else.

On paper the left woops the rights arse. In practise its the opposite.

The post war concensus was great......on paper. Who would object to stronger unions, the people running industy for the benefit of the many not the few and social structures in place to help the poor? Nobody. In reality it was a complete disaster and we ended up with a society where you couldnt even bury the dead.

I used to be left leaning in my foolish student days, but I've seen the light. Unfortunately the same can't be said of the ridiculous David Cameron and his Blairite agenda. I don't mind some socialistic policies for the indigenous peoples of these Islands, but I'll be fkd if I'm going to put up with what's been happening here over the past decade. We now have a national health service that's used and abused by anyone that can get their ragged arse through an airport, and a welfare system that's open to easy abuse from all and sundry thanks to Blair's Human Rights rubbish. We don't have any political choice in this country anymore; so in many ways, it's just like the post war consensus that led to the unions running Britain into the dirt. Unfortunately there isn't a solution on the horizon, just more Multi-Culturism, PC dogma and hypocrits like Tommy Sheridan and his lackeys.

[superbam]

Originally Posted by Joe

Milton Feedman was possible the most right wing person ever, and he was a Libertarian, the complete opposite of a Facist.

Right....but somehow needed to use a fascist regime to test out his ideas - his pal Pinochet's Chile. Ask the Chileans just how libertarian that boy was.

[superbam]

Originally Posted by EasterToad

I used to be left leaning in my foolish student days, but I've seen the light. Unfortunately the same can't be said of the ridiculous David Cameron and his Blairite agenda. I don't mind some socialistic policies for the indigenous peoples of these Islands, but I'll be fkd if I'm going to put up with what's been happening here over the past decade. We now have a national health service that's used and abused by anyone that can get their ragged arse through an airport, and a welfare system that's open to easy abuse from all and sundry thanks to Blair's Human Rights rubbish. We don't have any political choice in this country anymore; so in many ways, it's just like the post war consensus that led to the unions running Britain into the dirt. Unfortunately there isn't a solution on the horizon, just more Multi-Culturism, PC dogma and hypocrits like Tommy Sheridan and his lackeys.

Fuckin hell - Cameron and Blair with socialistic agendas, your Britain is a hell of alot rosier than mine mate!
But heaven forbid such policies be extended to non-indigenous peoples

Sometimes I just wish the little englander paranoia was a bit closer to the truth

[Bridie]

The feathery appendages on either side of a bird or angel.

[ELWisty]

left = a society that operates first and foremost on the basis of need
right = a society that operates first and foremost to protect profit

[egb_hibs]

my god. what an alarming set of responses.

i don't know what is more bizarre - joe's equation of 'far right' with centre left or quagmire's astonishingly hubruistic equation of left with good and right with evil. Quaggers - that kind of thinking has stacked the bodies high for the last 100 years fella.

as for the left being good but hard to implement and right the other way around - ever occured to you, that for 'hard to implement' (which I assume refers to the hard rather than centre left) might actually mean it's incompatible with reality, and attempts to force it upon reality are consequently prone to being 'evil'?

on what is your notion of good and evil founded quagmire? does it position stalin as good and david cameron as evil?

as for the conflation of religious with right - especially given the definition of right in use; what a statement bereft of historical perspective. the church's spats with the left originate from a time where what you now define as right would have been 'the left'; eg liberalism. this continued with mutual antipathy from the communist left who were virulently opposed to the church. but in terms of the softer shades; what are some of the core bastions of support (historically) for the british labour party and the american democrats?


elwisty's comment i disagree with, but at least it's not bonkers - wisty your a smart guy, let's have something more than such a nebulous mission statement. that's as unrepresentative of reality as saying 'right is about invidual freedom, left is about suppression of invididuality'. there's a kernel of truth in both, but in isolation they're not just misleading, but down right incorrect.

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by superbam

Right....but somehow needed to use a fascist regime to test out his ideas - his pal Pinochet's Chile. Ask the Chileans just how libertarian that boy was.

on the bright side, chile's in better economic nick than most of the continent, no

agree with your point though. then again western economists are also helping china. there is the (morally debatable) point that introducing market reforms leads to greater social freedoms. it's a tricky one i haven't made my mind up on.

[egb_hibs]

quagmire - how would your beautifully simple model process this conundrum;

- right wing economics encourages immigration and racial tolerance as imported labour is good for business
- left wing economics does not because imported labour drives down wages

bit of a reversal of the positions of the early 70s where right was not synonymous with liberalism, and the left had an interest in splitting traditional society towards it's own ends; but it's starting to happen; it's the globalisation argument reapplied.

now - does that make support for immigration 'good or evil'?

[snoots]

Originally Posted by Bridie

The feathery appendages on either side of a bird or angel.

Should this not be on your advent calendar thread Bridie?

[wee 162]

Completely depends on what you are talking about.

Economically I would say that currently the centre-left, or social democratic type, could be generally defined as anti-globalist wrt things like the WTO, and IMF, but also far more willing to end subsidies to industries in the developed world where the underdeveloped world can compete. That's things like agriculture, textiles, and other labour intensive industries imo. Of course I am speaking about the more internationalist wing of the left rather than those specific to nation states where workers will lose their jobs because of undertaking these policies.

In terms of what I would describe as the actual left I would describe the general economic theory as being based on either anarchistic, or communistic principles. That would be, imo, a sharing of all wealth using either a top-down, or bottom-up structure.

The centre-right I would describe as being free-market ideologues in theory, but protectionist in practice. The only industries which will have subsidies removed will be those which are heavily unionised as a political decision, and the others will be protected from external competition.

The far-right I would describe as being completely protectionist, and nationalistic.


In terms of personal freedom within the nation state, I would say there is no clear distinction between left and right, since imo both describe only economic perpspectives. Both will have libertarian, and authoritarian people holding those positions, although I would say that there are lines of thought, such as anarchism, which will also define other attitudes as well as economic.

[pilrig70]

[IMG]file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Administrator/Desktop/com%20marcos%20poster.jpg[/IMG]

[Smurf]

Left wing to me these days means dreamers and Right wing realists..

[egb_hibs]

Hurrah! A balanced and nuanced reply!

Completely depends on what you are talking about.

Economically I would say that currently the centre-left, or social democratic type, could be generally defined as anti-globalist wrt things like the WTO, and IMF, but also far more willing to end subsidies to industries in the developed world where the underdeveloped world can compete. That's things like agriculture, textiles, and other labour intensive industries imo. Of course I am speaking about the more internationalist wing of the left rather than those specific to nation states where workers will lose their jobs because of undertaking these policies.

Not sure about this Al - there's a lot of devil in the detail of your last sentence here. How are the 'international (social democratic) left'? I think the centre left is much more likely to be protectionists currently (your bang on with your inference of fluidity in these positions), but more in a mo...

In terms of what I would describe as the actual left I would describe the general economic theory as being based on either anarchistic, or communistic principles. That would be, imo, a sharing of all wealth using either a top-down, or bottom-up structure.

See this is where I think the definitions prove lacking. To me top-down and bottom-up imply polar opposite things here. And I mean opposite. I consider anarchism to have more in common with an absolute free market than a command economy. I'm not an expert, though.

The centre-right I would describe as being free-market ideologues in theory, but protectionist in practice. The only industries which will have subsidies removed will be those which are heavily unionised as a political decision, and the others will be protected from external competition.

disagree here bud. well partially anyway. yes there is protectionism in places, but it's the centre right that are removing the bits that have been removed - it's not just unionised workplaces that are in play; consider the whole call centre phenomena which is transforming into an exodus of high value technology jobs. The centre right are also driving the mirror image dynamic of encouraging mass population migration - it's the same process; putting cheap labour and production in proximity with on another. the only difference is whether you move a to b or b to a.

The far-right I would describe as being completely protectionist, and nationalistic.

Agreed. Although some versions of it also favour similar economic models to what you describe as 'actual left'.

In terms of personal freedom within the nation state, I would say there is no clear distinction between left and right, since imo both describe only economic perpspectives. Both will have libertarian, and authoritarian people holding those positions, although I would say that there are lines of thought, such as anarchism, which will also define other attitudes as well as economic.

Are you really saying that there are no social views, for example, which can be viewed as left or right? does this mean for example, that conservatism (as in the philosophical position) is not intrinsically right wing (or left)? BTW I'd actually agree with that, but I didn't realise that you would feel that way.

regarding anarchism for example, also defining other attitudes - I agree. The other obvious example is liberalism. True social and philosophical liberalism cannot be divorced from economic liberalism IMHO. there's a lot of people that don't get that these days as far as I can see, and confusingly, a lot of what are termed liberal views (including by moi) is probably more accurately social democratic positions.

By the way the corollorary of the point about liberalism, is that I don't think socialism can truly be libertarian, because it's economic premises aren't compatible with it. Again there's a lot of people that try and square a circle in this area. That's not to say it must be draconianly authoritarian either though, but the very nature of shared economic resources necessary limits invidual liberties, there's simply no way around that fact.

[Quagmire]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

reality, and attempts to force it upon reality are consequently prone to being 'evil'?

i meant the ideologies, not the people behind them. right wing politics is all about gaining as much for yourself as you can - greed, basically. sadly, the only way you can get people interested in left wing politics is by saying "share all your money or well shoot you"

it's a funny ol' world.

[egb_hibs]

Ok quagmire, here's some fairly standard arguments mounted in favour of liberal economics (your definition of right wing as far as i can see). Sure, there are some that favour it purely for self gain, just as some favour left wing economics as a means of controlling everyone. but that doesn't mean that everybody on either side shares those motives. Many liberals believe things like this:

- Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty and created more social freedoms than any other system.

- Capitalism has done more to improve longevity, health and quality of life than any other system

- A socio-economic model that puts no barriers on how high one might climb, and provides a safety net that creates a level below which no one can fall, allows for the greatest level of social freedom possible

- Welfarism by comparison, infantilises sections the population, making them dependent on hand outs from a powerful elite which they are then necessarily beholden to, and generally impoverishes everyone

- Capitalism delivers choice and enables diversity - a socialist system must deliver homogeny, both from economic necessity and in order to provide the communalism required to support an economic philosphy founded on communalism

- A true socialist economy is incompatible with freedom, as restricting people's economic freedom soon requires that you restrict their freedom to comment on economics in order to prevent dissent that is fatal to the system, and from their on other freedoms of speech and action collapse topple a row of dominos

- Moreover, such an economy is incompatible with human nature, and therefore - even if you assume it is right - the things you need to do to enforce it are a greater wrong than anything you could hope to correct

Now; you may not agree with all these positions. That's not the point. The point is, can you consider something with such motivations (whether mistaken or correct) 'evil'?