Left V Right

bobbyjoe

Regarding another thread about Pinochet it seems that many discussions on political topics degenerate into a left v right arguement. This is very common in the US where ideas are dismissed because its "left" or "right". What they define as being left or right is another issue but it seems to be coming into newspapers here, one Sunday newspaper in particular where an issue can be dismissed as being "lefty".
I asked in the Pinochet thread why this is but it got locked. My theory is that its a lazy method of debating just the suggestion of something is dismissed as "left" your like Stalin or "right" your like Hitler.
Fortunatly most Irish people seem to be more pragmatic and take issues on their merrits but its depressing if this left right thing takes hold here.

What do ye think?

mike65

Its a valid enough use of terms I think. It can be crude and no-one is left or right in a continuing consistent fashion. Me rightish on economy but leftish on society matters.

Mike.

Attractive Nun

I agree with mike. As long as the terms are used properly (if that's even possible, considering the ambiguity surrounding them), it can be useful enough to remind people of what they may be arguing. Personally, I'm similarly rightish on economy, leftish on social issues, and I know that arises from what I'd like to think of as a considered and logical premise. So if I start arguing for some left wing economic ideal, it is useful to be reminded that I may be deviating from my core beliefs.

Of course, when people start dismissing arguments simply because they are left- or right-wing, you have a problem. But when people start dismissing argument simply for any reason, you're likely to have a problem.

Sand

Theyre inaccurate labels, or rather theyre used inaccurately. I wouldnt say its a sudden invention or the Irish political scene has never dismissively labelled another point of view before [west brits, free staters, etc, etc]. How theyre used, or what people use them as shorthand for is important in seeing if it will be good or bad for debate.

Any meaning Ive taken from them is usually economic policy first and foremost [individualistic free market vs state driven economy for the "common good"], but in terms of social policy I think it can also work logically

Used in that fasion, I think it can be a useful summary even though its based on a individual vs state model which assumes some things right at the start.

Very few follow that view though - hence you find neo nazi groups who despise globalisation, free market, individualism [and skinheads are about as individualistic as goths] and demand a state driven, militaristic society and "jobs for life" type stuff being described as "right", which is very confusing when you consider everyone understands the right as being for small government, that doesnt intervene in the economy. Hence the only meaning you can get for the terms used that way are Right=Bad, Left=Good.

If terms are used in the Good/Bad way its not all that helpful. I think when newspapers dismiss someone or something as "lefty" theyre using shorthand to describe the various SWP/arts students/hippies who helpfully discredit every political cause they support-like the "peaceful protestors" who turned everyone against the shell to sea crowd. Its a dismissive term, but thats what its there for - not to summarise the political views of someone accurately. Id settle on hippy as a compromise.

DadaKopf

"Hippy" is hardly a useful synonym when describing many people in Ireland who are concerned about social justice/vote for social democracy, but who don't fit your stereotype and live perfectly average lives with average jobs.

I could just as easily stereotype "righties" people - since, mysteriously, you don't - but I'm not that immature.

People need to be less concerned with labels and more concerned about the rights, responsibilities and obligations that go with national and global citizenship.

If this thread is about *not* flying meaningless labels around the place, shouldn't the debate therefore shift?

Judt

In an affluent society, it doesn't matter. Left and right are black and white, and we last saw the struggle between the two in Europe and other parts of the world when people are on the bread line.

For example in Ireland education, health and law might be the three biggest issues. On education and health we're almost all for providing both for all, which is a "left" idea - although parties on both the "left" and the "right" agree on it, it's simply a matter of how left or right you go into it. With law, we might be for tougher sentences - right, but all parties are for punishing criminals.

The debate doesn't ring - that's why most parties are "center-something"; you might be left wing on social issues, right wing on others. There's nothing to say that somebody who wants free healthcare isn't for the death penalty and a strong military.

DadaKopf

It does matter in an affluent society.

If you see any of the debates currently going on, it's between different ideas of social justice, it's over the impacts of particular power/interest groups on society and democracy.

I take your point. It's the case that political parties are moving towards the centre as the 'middle-classes' expand. The contours of party politics are shifting to meet this middleground, but this is concurrent with highly political and activist sections of society who are largely ignored by the mainstream because they themselves are disillusioned with party systems.

But the issues people are concerned about remain the same, and, underpinned by these are different conceptions of social justice. We call that 'left' and 'right' here - though what is connoted by those terms is always disputed - but new voices, such as Islam, is rising, too.

Judt

DadaKopf wrote:

It does matter in an affluent society.

If you see any of the debates currently going on, it's between different ideas of social justice, it's over the impacts of particular power/interest groups on society and democracy.

I take your point. It's the case that political parties are moving towards the centre as the 'middle-classes' expand. The contours of party politics are shifting to meet this middleground, but this is concurrent with highly political and activist sections of society who are largely ignored by the mainstream because they themselves are disillusioned with party systems.

But the issues people are concerned about remain the same, and, underpinned by these are different conceptions of social justice. We call that 'left' and 'right' here - though what is connoted by those terms is always disputed - but new voices, such as Islam, is rising, too.

What we term left and right would be seen as left if this were the early 1900's. At the moment our politics is mainly within degrees of left - we accept the nanny state as a given, and that's a socialist idea on the left.

So, in current debates there's no such thing as left vs right in the traditional sense. However, left vs right is pertinent on a more micro scale - IE, how left or right are we in the left band of politics.

DadaKopf

This is a political theory forum, so I'm going to assume you're not just talking about Ireland, or Europe plus the USA.

Many do not "accept the nanny state". Perhaps you've forgotten about the Washington Consensus of the 1980s - a set of policies whose aim was to radically privatise public institutions and services and vastly reduce the size of the state. Much of this is associated with the Thatcherite/Reaganite era, but it still continues.

But these policies are continuing in the post-Washington Consensus era.

There is a strong constituency out there - people who support anti-nanny-state parties (parties who differentiate themselves because of it) - who believe in privatisation and the erosion to destruction of the welfare state. Luckily the beneficiaries in developing countries can obstruct this. Which is why companies are outsourcing more. Oh dear.

And, since this is the political theory thread, maybe it's worth mentioning some. English economic historial, Karl Polanyi, having studied over 100 years of social struggle and transformation, identified what he called the 'double movement'. He realised that under industrial capitalism, societies would shift alternate constantly between two movements: attempts to socially disembed and attempts to socially embed the market. The industrial revolution made millions destitute. They had to work in foul factories and live in sub-human hovels to survive. The market was, for capitalists, a free-floating realm in which they were free to exploit other human beings. After a century of struggle, the market was brought under control by society through the political representation of the labour movement in politics, and operationally by the Keynesian welfare state. But from the late-1970s (after the massive economic boom of the 1960s), attempts were made to free the market from the 'shackles' of politics. Enter Reagan, Thatcher, Globalisation. Now we have increasing global inequality, increasing urbanisation in which the world's poor migrate to live in slums, a destruction of the welfare state in the rich world, the destruction of the environment.

How could this have occurred if it wasn't for a radical push by the (traditional) 'right'? The reason for vestiges of the left in public politics and institutions is because people who still support 'leftist' values obstruct those who don't. But don't fool yourself. The welfare state *is* being eroded. What side can this be coming from?

And, taking a more global view, the same thing is happening. There is powerful resistence to what the IMF, World Bank, USAID and the EU is forcing developing countries to do.

But Polanyi's prediction is that, when things get so bad, things will swing back to the left.

I think there's a lot more going on than people are led to believe.

What complicates matters from a popular perspective, is how political parties are moving towards the centre. But, as I said, this is the politics of exclusion. Parties are taking advantage of the many millions of people who are political but have turned away from party politics, and union politics. From the parties' perspectives, civil society's weakness is the political party's gain.

banaman

While I agree with the broad thrust of your argument I think it is worth pointing out that while Reagan and Thatcher both came in on a Neo-Liberal (right) agenda neither actually cut government spending, or delivered de-centralisation. And in the case of the UK no government has been able to dismantle the NHS or welfare state to any degree.
Probably because too many people benefit from it either directly or indirectly.

ON the point about the drift to the centre there is a theory out there called Public Choice Theory that looks at voters as consumers of politics and politicians(and Bureaucrats) as suppliers.
Under this sort of analysis two things occur
1) politicians will not be seen to be responsible for spending cuts (its always the market or europe etc)
2) They have to move to where the most consumers are i.e. the middle. The analogy used is the one of ice cream sellers on a long flat beach. In economic terms the sensible place for the First stall is in the middle. and using purely economic rationale the logical place for the second is alongside the first.

I don't like the theory due to the corrosive way it views human interactions and reasoning. But some of its ideas are thought provoking

Sand

People need to be less concerned with labels and more concerned about the rights, responsibilities and obligations that go with national and global citizenship.

Most though concentrate on rights alone. Responsibilities and obligations are optional...

I could just as easily stereotype "righties" people - since, mysteriously, you don't - but I'm not that immature.

Nah, its cause "lefties" is a dismissive term that capitalises on perceptions that go back as far as the Young Ones [Neil & Rik] and beyond. Whereas, leftists are consumed with the belief theyre "Good", hence those on the right are "Evil". You could go with "righties" but it just doesnt have the same public perception as lefties - even Joe Higgins rolls his eyes heaven wards on hearing the term.

How could this have occurred if it wasn't for a radical push by the (traditional) 'right'?

Because socialism was designed for "one country", was a bad economic, political and social [ironic...] system and failed when competing with others who looked for efficiency and practicality in economic matters over idealogy? The vestiges of socialist thought concentrate on leveraging the "home" advantage over Johnny Foreigner - trade unions.

The traditional right has always looked for the state to justify itself and its exceptional powers to the individual. Whats wrong with that?

Akrasia

Sand wrote:

The traditional right has always looked for the state to justify itself and its exceptional powers to the individual. Whats wrong with that?

because those on the economic right want to appropriate those exceptional powers for themselves through their 'Property rights' (and again, these rights should come with responsiilities and duties but it is actually Illegal for a corporation to take these into account if there is a cost to the bottom line)

Dontico

depends if you what you mean by left and right. by the proper meaning hilter was left. an authoritarian lefty. but not a fascist.

sorry just read some the posts.
lift and right is an economic term nothing ot do with social.
libertarian and authoritarian for social.

just a qucik comment of fascism. fascism is neither left or right. however some fascists lean to one side. it is usually refered to as "the third" way. but is authoritarian.

DadaKopf

The 'Third Way' is Anthony Giddens' political sociological theory of post-Cold War post-industrial society. The National Socialists were politically and economically authoritarian.

I've done those tests and am satisfied that I'm a left-liberal. Go me.

Dontico

DadaKopf wrote:

The 'Third Way' is Anthony Giddens' political sociological theory of post-Cold War post-industrial society. The National Socialists were politically and economically authoritarian.

I've done those tests and am satisfied that I'm a left-liberal. Go me.

what do you mean by economically authoritarian?
generally right is associeted with the free market. left is usually means controlled economy.

the term "the third way", was used in the 1920-30s to describe fascism, meaning it was neither socialist nor capitalist. it supported the idea of corporatism, whixhi would describe as, holding a controled economy in one hand and capitalism in the other, trying to work with both.

in every political tes i've done describe me as an authoritarian centrist, which means i'm pushing towards the origional deffinition of a fascist.

Stabshauptmann

Im just glad nobody has mentioned that stupid political compas website. Though feeling it inevitable that someone will, I think the idea grand, but the test itself completely biased and inaccurate

Dontico

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Im just glad nobody has mentioned that stupid political compas website. Though feeling it inevitable that someone will, I think the idea grand, but the test itself completely biased and inaccurate

i agree. but things like that are hard to write. people interpurate the questions differently, for instances, it usually regard thats the enviroment is a 'left' issue, however i would consider the enviroment is very important for economy in the long term.
note i'm not jumping on the '"enviroment is good for econmoy" band wagon most economist are jumping on. i've had that opinion since i was 10.

The Corinthian

bobbyjoe wrote:

I asked in the Pinochet thread why this is but it got locked. My theory is that its a lazy method of debating just the suggestion of something is dismissed as "left" your like Stalin or "right" your like Hitler.

Then you missed the point I made there.

This was that one should judge such individuals upon their actions and not their ideology, which was precisely the inverse of what was occurring in the thread, in that many posters were willing to damn one brutal dictator because he belonged to one ideology and excuse another simple because he belonged to an ideology they supported. As a result the thread lost any moral high ground it may have originally had and simply became a farce.

In this particular case it was a ‘left wing’ hypocrisy, but it could have been just as easily a ‘right wing’ one; or Christian, or Islamic, or Atheistic, or any case where one will create a double standard based simply upon an ideological label.

Beyond that the terms left and right are long deprecated labels, used to make broad generalisations and only really taken seriously by college students anymore.

bobbyjoe

The Corinthian wrote:

Then you missed the point I made there.

This was that one should judge such individuals upon their actions and not their ideology, which was precisely the inverse of what was occurring in the thread, in that many posters were willing to damn one brutal dictator because he belonged to one ideology and excuse another simple because he belonged to an ideology they supported. As a result the thread lost any moral high ground it may have originally had and simply became a farce.

In this particular case it was a ‘left wing’ hypocrisy, but it could have been just as easily a ‘right wing’ one; or Christian, or Islamic, or Atheistic, or any case where one will create a double standard based simply upon an ideological label.

Beyond that the terms left and right are long deprecated labels, used to make broad generalisations and only really taken seriously by college students anymore.

Don't think I missed your point.
You were the one who brought up Castro. Maybe you know the opinions of others who posted in that thread from previous threads but the idea that someone has to condemn all dictators before condemning one is stupid.
You were the one who started calling others hypocrits and turned it into a left v right thing. Which is the point of this thread how a discussion can degenerate into that which is a)boring b)off topic and c) a lazy way of argueing.

I agree with your last point left and right has become meaningless pretty much.

The Corinthian

bobbyjoe wrote:

You were the one who brought up Castro. Maybe you know the opinions of others who posted in that thread from previous threads but the idea that someone has to condemn all dictators before condemning one is stupid.

And the idea that one can condemn only some dictators and make excuses for others is the height of hypocrisy.

Of course, having read other posts by those posters in the past, I had already understood this, which is why I raised the point. Had they responded that they condemned all dictators, then that would have pretty much brought an end to my argument, but they didn’t – they either avoided any condemnation or began justifying those ‘good’ dictators.

You were the one who started calling others hypocrits and turned it into a left v right thing. Which is the point of this thread how a discussion can degenerate into that which is a)boring b)off topic and c) a lazy way of argueing.

However my point, which you’ve still not twigged, is that that those posters were not pursuing the thread because a “brutal dictator” had died, but because a “right-wing dictator” had died. That he was brutal was irrelevant given their willingness to make excuses for brutal dictators that they had agreed with ideologically.

My point was not one of being specifically left wing or right, but that people have no moral right to pontificate if they are so inconsistent with the principles they outwardly claim to uphold.

Otherwise, the thread would simply degenerate into a backslapping session of people who all wave the same flag and are cheering the death of someone on ideological grounds and not because he was a ‘brutal dictator’. If that’s the case, they should be honest about their intentions, otherwise they’re the ones who are being boring, lazy and, frankly, dishonest.

bobbyjoe

The Corinthian wrote:

And the idea that one can condemn only some dictators and make excuses for others is the height of hypocrisy.

Of course, having read other posts by those posters in the past, I had already understood this, which is why I raised the point. Had they responded that they condemned all dictators, then that would have pretty much brought an end to my argument, but they didn’t – they either avoided any condemnation or began justifying those ‘good’ dictators.

However my point, which you’ve still not twigged, is that that those posters were not pursuing the thread because a “brutal dictator” had died, but because a “right-wing dictator” had died. That he was brutal was irrelevant given their willingness to make excuses for brutal dictators that they had agreed with ideologically.

My point was not one of being specifically left wing or right, but that people have no moral right to pontificate if they are so inconsistent with the principles they outwardly claim to uphold.

Otherwise, the thread would simply degenerate into a backslapping session of people who all wave the same flag and are cheering the death of someone on ideological grounds and not because he was a ‘brutal dictator’. If that’s the case, they should be honest about their intentions, otherwise they’re the ones who are being boring, lazy and, frankly, dishonest.

I twigged your "point" from the very first post you made in the Pinochet thread "like Castro?" thanks very much.
Maybe you know the opinions of some of the posters regarding left wing dictators but all of them? You know that they cheering the death of someone on ideological grounds and not because he was a ‘brutal dictator’.? How do you know that? You wouldn't be making assumptions based on your own ideology by any chance?

I don't recall praising any dictators yet you call everyone including myself a hypocrite and assume that if somone is anti-Pinochet their pro-Castro or whatever. This is the left/right thing this thread is about making all kinds of assumptions and dismissing relevant points based on them. The icing on the cake was the "comrade" comment, dismissing posters as Stalinists or commies straight away. This is the lazy technique I refer to in this thread.
I don't agree that it would have turned into a backslapping session there were a few pro-Pinochet posts and a debate about them would have been interesting. Instead it ended up a left v right thing and got locked which is extremely boring. Your attempt to stop it degenerate did the exact opposite.

The Corinthian

bobbyjoe wrote:

I twigged your "point" from the very first post you made in the Pinochet thread "like Castro?" thanks very much.

Doesn’t look much like it TBH.

Maybe you know the opinions of some of the posters regarding left wing dictators but all of them? You know that they cheering the death of someone on ideological grounds and not because he was a ‘brutal dictator’.? How do you know that?

Because I’ve seen those posters put forward their views before and when challenged they either refused to respond or even justified the brutal behaviour of ‘good’ dictators. It’s all in the thread in question. Read it.

You wouldn't be making assumptions based on your own ideology by any chance?

I’d certainly admit it in past occasions, but not really in this case.

I don't recall praising any dictators yet you call everyone including myself a hypocrite and assume that if somone is anti-Pinochet their pro-Castro or whatever.

Actually, at least one tried to put forward a defence for Castro’s regime as justified. Apparantly you missed that bit.

This is the left/right thing this thread is about making all kinds of assumptions and dismissing relevant points based on them. The icing on the cake was the "comrade" comment, dismissing posters as Stalinists or commies straight away. This is the lazy technique I refer to in this thread.

You’re obviously unfamiliar with satire.

I don't agree that it would have turned into a backslapping session there were a few pro-Pinochet posts and a debate about them would have been interesting. Instead it ended up a left v right thing and got locked which is extremely boring. Your attempt to stop it degenerate did the exact opposite.

I refer you to the bit about you not twigging things above.

bobbyjoe

The Corinthian wrote:

Doesn’t look much like it TBH.

Because I’ve seen those posters put forward their views before and when challenged they either refused to respond or even justified the brutal behaviour of ‘good’ dictators. It’s all in the thread in question. Read it.

I’d certainly admit it in past occasions, but not really in this case.

Actually, at least one tried to put forward a defence for Castro’s regime as justified. Apparantly you missed that bit.

You’re obviously unfamiliar with satire.

I refer you to the bit about you not twigging things above.

You have a fair point if you knew the opinions of all of the posters but you didn't. Instead you went off on the left/right rant and calling people names killing the thread. Regarding satire its hard to tell sometimes and the hypocrite comment above it didn't help.
Your point is obvious your not as smart as you seem to think.

The Corinthian

bobbyjoe wrote:

You have a fair point if you knew the opinions of all of the posters but you didn't.

I didn't challenge the views of all the posters.

Your point is obvious your not as smart as you seem to think.

Do you really think I care?

oscarBravo

bobbyjoe wrote:

your not as smart as you seem to think.

Think you can continue this discussion without getting personal?

Manic Moran

I think a good portion of the blame of devolving into simple left v right is the fact that there are only two parties of any note in America, one is more left than the other, which is more right than the one. I get the feeling American cultural influence is transferring over and being applied in Europe, where there is left and right, and also up and down. (Statist, individualist).
On boards that I frequent that tend to be dominated by Republican supporters, I'm considered a left-wing socialist-commie-pinko. I've been called a 'Neo-Con' for some of my opinions when voiced on boards where Democrats (Or at least, Anti-Republicans) are in the majority. (I live in America, hence my choice of boards). I think I'm a Social Democrat in European terms: Fairly conservative in values, but in favour of socialised government spending. But who cares? In an earlier post someone mentioned 'taking matters on their merits.' This is quite accurate, but how to describe them?

For example, sticking with US politics since I am more familiar with them these days, Libertarians and Republicans are both considered right-wing. Which is further right? The Libertarians believe in many of the same things that the Republicans do, they're against the 'nanny state', they're in favour of firearms rights, and so on and so forth. But the Libertarians go a step further: They are in favour of a highly minimalist government. Almost one step from anarchy. So they should be further right, right? But then, Libertarians also tend to be supporters of abortion rights or homosexual rights, which is definitely a position associated with the left in the US.

I think left-v-right in the US is delineated really by the positions that the two parties tend to favour at that point and time because there really are only two viable parties. Gun control is seen as a 'left' idea, gun ownership one for the right. But really, that's just because the current leadership of the 'left' party happens to believe in it. There are lots of members of the 'left' party that are against it. If they become the leadership, does that mean that the 'left' party are no longer the 'left'? What if they decide to up military spending? That's also seen as a 'right' idea. What if a member of the 'right' party decided to increase government aid for medical care? But there's nothing I can think of which exclusively reserves such actions to one side over the other. It's just convenient to bundle things together.

NTM

jawlie

The terms "Left" and "Right" long ago ceased to function as much of an indication of anything, and are now used more as terms of abuse than anything else.

m1ke

I think we can still apply meaningful labels, we just need to apply new ones that more accurately reflect things today. Although the world is now complex, we can still simplify political divisions, it's just people don't have the time to invest in abandoning old divisions like left/right. I think the following are more accurate:

individual - society
agriculture - labour
owners - workers
nations - nations
conservative - liberal
public sector - private sector
materialist - post-materialist

These are mostly cogged from Stein Rokkan, Inglehart and others

DadaKopf

They're political cleavages (and some are interest groups). Also misleading they way you've presented them. Cleavages aren't necessarily binary.

Left-Right could be considered higher-level placeholders/signs for combinations of the above.

bobbyjoe

The Corinthian wrote:

I didn't challenge the views of all the posters.

Do you really think I care?

Think Manic Moran hit the nail on the head there.
The "We're not all hypocrites Comrade." comment made me think that but you were being sarcastic so you say.
Do I think you care? certainly not.

The Corinthian

bobbyjoe wrote:

Do I think you care? certainly not.

In general or just for your opinion?