Right-Wing vs Left-Wing

[D_N Flay Table]

Right wing. Left wing. Its all showbiz. Break out of the left right paradigm.

 

[scyguy46]

The use of the terms "right" and "left" in American politics is so far off the meaning of those terms in the context from which they derive (European politics) that I have a hard time figuring out what they are supposed to mean. One thing that I have heard repeatedly from European commentators is that the American idea of what is on the "left," to the extent that it fits on any European spectrum at all, is to the right of center by their standards.

By the way, the phrases "right wing" and "left wing" are hyphenated only when they are used as adjectives, not when they are used as nouns. So, e.g., "The left wing argues that the right wing," etc. (noun phrases) versus "Right-wing politicians" (adjectival phrase), etc. The same applies to the phrase "false dichotomy."

I agree with Calboner's observation that the US left is right of the European left (Communist/socialist) also the US right is often further right than the right in Europe at least in recent times. This is laid out in Wikipedia which lists in a left/right spectrum the European political parties as: communist, socialist, green, liberal, Christian democratic, conservative and right-wing extremist. In US, the left would be represented by the liberal position in the European spectrum which supports Calboner's comment. In my opinion, what is referred to as the left in the US has shifted more to the center and right more the right in the last 30 years.

 

[Bbucko]

In my opinion, what is referred to as the left in the US has shifted more to the center and right more the right in the last 30 years.

That's been what's referred to as the "Reagan Revolution"; President Obama was supposed to have reset the compass needle just a hair back over, but as near as I can tell, it hasn't budged yet.

BTW: though I did not quote your post in full, I happen to agree with it 100%. David Cameron, the new PM of GB, would be somewhere between a conservative-ish New England Democrat and a Blue Dog Democrat, though in the UK he's the leader of the Conservative party (had to verify via Wikipedia that he's not, in fact, a Tory).

As I've posted above, there are odd splits in the US's political spectrum of "fiscal" versus "social". Socially we are moving slowly toward a more inclusive society, which is seen as "lefty". Fiscally we are just a mess: after eight years of Bush's unfunded wars, massive tax cuts and the implementation of Medicare Part D in a cynical attempt to achieve a "permanent Republican majority" by "buying off" seniors, the Republicans cannot claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility (or even restraint) without being deeply, sincerely disingenuous. And the Democrats (despite what's posted below) hardly own the high ground on this issue, either.

The pragmatism required in the late 90s which led to Gingrich (ugh! yuck!) and Clinton (same, essentially, with an extra hurl-in-the-mouth), led to the first balanced budgets in a generation. Unfortunately, such pragmatism is impossible in today's political climate in Washington, where one needs a gas mask to make it through the Capitol Building.

 

[EvanLesnick]

TonyK8483,

I have been taking a look into all the craziness by the Tea-partiers, and the right-wing, the continuation of many of Bush's policies by the left-wing (extraordinary rendtion, moving prisoners to Bagram where they cannot challenge their detention), not to mention the left-wing arguing that the right-wingers are a bunch of fascists on the rise, and the right-wing arguing that the left-wingers are a bunch of communists on the rise.

I'm wondering if there's some kind of false-dichotomy at work (i.e. a false dilemma in which a person is lead to believe there are two choices to a problem, when in actuality there could be many choices), in which you have a number of power-hungry "elites" who are either exploiting the actions of the right-wing, and/or manipulating them either directly or indirectly, and manipulating the left-wing as well at the same time. Basically steering them into a conflict with each other until only one side is left on top.

I don't think these people really care whether Corporatism, Fascism (Right-Wing) or Communism (Left-Wing) becomes the dominant system of government. I think they just want absolute, unrestrained power, plain and simple. Any of these options give them absolute power if you think about it. While, I do believe there may be some that are more partial to one or the other, they'll take their absolute power in whatever form it comes.

That's a very interesting take on the issue, and does explain a lot of what is happening lately

This, of course, means that the issue is not Right-Wing versus Left-Wing, it's not about Democrat versus Republican, and not about Progressive versus Conservative either. The issue comes down to Liberty vs Totalitarianism, with those seeking absolute liberty on one end of the spectrum.

And the other seeking totalitarianism?

 

[Bbucko]

And the other seeking totalitarianism?

That was the typical sort of cheap hyperbole that passes for enlightened discussion here in the Politics forum. I have never met anyone who personally espouses a totalitarianist view politically. I'm sure they exist, but I've never actually met one.

 

[snobbsdale24]

The "left" is not communist, get that out of your head and you'll make more sense of the world.

The left is not communist, they are progressive socialist.
In turn, eventually will get to be a communist society, unless we stop their agenda.

 

[b.c.]

That was the typical sort of cheap hyperbole that passes for enlightened discussion here in the Politics forum. I have never met anyone who personally espouses a totalitarianist view politically. I'm sure they exist, but I've never actually met one.

This is why I said in my above post that such ideological definitions are bogus as they apply to U.S. politics.

Some for example might equate an administration trying to support the nation's infrastructure and economy through government programs and legislation designed to provide relief as some form of totalitarianism ("government trying to regulate every aspect of public and private life") -while at the same time mistaking those with very definite ideas on what our moral values should or shouldn't be for “those seeking absolute liberty”.

 

[B_TonyK8483]

EvanLesnick,

And the other seeking totalitarianism?

Correct, what I meant to say was: "The issue comes down to Liberty vs Totalitarianism, with those seeking absolute liberty on one end of the spectrum, and those seeking a totalitarian dictatorship on the other"

 

[D_Harvey Schmeckel]

Correct, what I meant to say was: "The issue comes down to Liberty vs Totalitarianism, with those seeking absolute liberty on one end of the spectrum, and those seeking a totalitarian dictatorship on the other"

But this assumes some kind of philosophical consistency whereas partisanship rarely involves that. What I have seen is Republicans being enthusiastic supporters of every step toward totalitarian dictatorship under a Republican president, but alarmist opponents of the [reduced] danger of it under a Democratic president. While Democrats who were vehement opponents of steps in the direction of totalitarianism under a Republican are sometimes not so worried when a Democrat is elected and pursues the same policies.

 

[B_bxmuscle]

Not to appear disrespectful, but the analysis is totally off. Whether one agrees with any of the issues, movements or parties the OP mentioned, his understanding has little basis in reality, past or present.

Those who see themselves (rightly or wrongly) as defending liberty, individualism, local autonomy etc against "big government" of one type or another are operating within the tradition of Classical Liberalism, what is generally called "libertarianism" these days (classical Liberals were the defenders of Liberty, not to be confused with what usually fall under the label of "liberalism" in the US today).

Those who favor more government activism within the context of a capitalist economy evolved from the British Radicals of the early 19th century (Radicals: a term borrowed from mathematics to describe getting to the the root of a problem with specific solutions; it does not mean revolutionary). These British Radicals were responding to entirely new types of issues emerging in the world's first industrial society by the 1830s (Britain) and concluded that the strict laissez-faire ideology first proposed by Adam Smith and other in the late 18th century was simply not up to dealing with the unprecedented issues of the first fully industrialized society. They were thus reformers, not revolutionaries.

Whatever one's position on such matters, a clearer knowledge of what words mean and where they came from is in order.

 

[B_bxmuscle]

Leftwing vs. Rightwing: from the French Revolution of 1789-99 in which revolutionaries group together on the left side of the French National Assembly, conservatives group together on the right side of the same body with moderates separating them in the Center.

Totalitarianism: Mussolini's term adopted during the second stage of his Fascist Party's regime in Italy around 1925-6. He used it to refer to Fascism's aspiration to totally integrate and reconcile the competing interests of Italian society within the frame-work of the Fascist State. It thus had a positive connotation for fascists seeking to establish unity through a powerful state. It was Hannah Arendt's 1947 "Origins of Totalitarianism" which attempted to extend the discredited totalitarian ambitions of fascism to the Soviet Union in the context of the emerging Cold War, but this was largely a distortion of the term despite being a staple of Cold War ideology.

Anarchism: from the Greek "absence of government." Its modern meaning developed by French thinker Pierre-Joseph Proudhon beginning in the 1840s, then by Russian revolutionary M. Bakunin. Modern terrorism is the legacy of the Bakunin tradition in Anarchism. The Proudhon tradition of worker-owned enterprise is the basis of everything from apartment coops, credit unions and producer association like the people who make Florida's Best OJ, Mutual of Omaha Insurance, Land'o Lakes butter, and the Government Employee Insurance Company (Geico).

 

[B_TonyK8483]

Just for the record, when I say "Totalitarianism", I mean a government that has control over, or is aiming for control over every aspect of the lives of all of it's people.

 

[B_bxmuscle]

Socialism: the term that became current in the 1840s in France in the context of that country's industrial revolution. It had no specific ideological orientation but referred to a wide range of ideas of how to deal with the social problems created by industrialization. Thus conservative solutions to said problems were particular forms of socialism, as in Otto von Bismarck social welfare legislation in 1880s Germany, which he called State Socialism to distinguish it from various forms of revolutionary socialism.

Communism: 1) the term first used by Etienne Cabet in his 1840 novel "Voyage in Icaria". Cabet presents a Utopian society of order, prosperity, and the collective ownership of the means of production, calling this system "Communism." 2) The name chose by V.I. Lenin in 1918 for his faction of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party after it seized power in the Russian Empire. Marxists before 1917 invariable called themselves "Social Democratics", but in the wake of Lenin radical reinterpretation of Marxism beginning in 1902 and completed in the wake of the Russian Revolution of 1917, he repudiated the then mainstream Marxism, choosing the term "Communist" to clearly distinguish his party and regime from the older Marxist tradition.

 

[B_bxmuscle]

Someone once told me that we American only have two choices in politics, the Right and the Extreme Right. Very apt.

 

[B_bxmuscle]

During the Civil War thousands of quite poor Southerners rushed to enlist in the Confederate Army, for the purpose of defending “states’ rights” and “their way of life”. Not that they personally profited from it (not directly at least). While it could be argued that the Southern economy as a whole benefited from the work done by a massive force of free labor, rich plantation owners were the primary beneficiaries.

Likewise, a large group of poor and middle class people today support the so-called “right” whose ideology relating to social programs, wages, civil rights,
[/QUOTE]

See Marx's 1861 short piece "The North American Civil War" on for insight into how the slave-holding oligarchy was able to tie the vast class of poor Southern whites to slavery, available at Articles by Marx in the U.S. Civil War 1861

A good intro in plain English to Italian thinker Antonio Gramsci's theories how ruling classes are able to establish their hegemony through culture and ideology over subordinate classes is at Antonio Gramsci, schooling and education

 

[faceking]

craziness by the Tea-partiers,

huh>? what this "craziness"?

i'm not a tea partier, but same craziness by the Bush-era protestor standards? I'm sure you labeled them as such. craziness? false race allegations? how about props for ppl who fucking don't stick to the Democrat party or Republican party. aside from a remote few Greenies... Democrats are lock-stock-barrel in defending Barrah Obama... at least give these ppl props and sticking to their values vs the party

... i can't say the same for hardcore GOPers, and pretty much every Obamabot.... still stuck watching every second of "Faux News" to find something to bitch about... meanwhile Rome is burning, and the Caesar is on The View for ratings and fun ON THE TAXPAYER DIME.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

When will you ever learn?

 

[MercyfulFate]

What the hell happened to this country? Our infrastructure is collapsing, our economy collapsed, people seem dumber than ever, we've shipped all our jobs away...when does it stop?

We have more millionaires than ever and our country is collapsing in on itself. Something bad is coming, like riots, or worse. We've always had problems from slavery and racism, to the war on drugs and the wars we fight even when we shouldn't.

Something needs to change, or we're fucked as a nation.

 

[B_TonyK8483]

Mercyful Fate,

What the hell happened to this country? Our infrastructure is collapsing, our economy collapsed, people seem dumber than ever, we've shipped all our jobs away...when does it stop?

When our country implodes, we are integrated into a one-world government, and our Constitution is rendered null and void in the process.

 

[Calboner]

When our country implodes, we are integrated into a one-world government, and our Constitution is rendered null and void in the process.

Yeah, but by then the aliens from another galaxy will have taken over our planet anyway.