h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

just a out-of-the blue remark about left and right.

Left and right used to be, quite literally and physically, showing your political opinion. Conservatives on the right, reformers on the left. Some, even though i have forgot who said it first, have claimed that that model is overly simplistic. That nowadays and in the days of fasicsm and communism one could better think of a horseshoe to define left or right. The extremes are relatively close to eachother (there are numerous examples, think of the millions of deaths caused both by hitler and stalin in deathcamps)

just my

>>Bigotry isn't political, it's personal.

Well...that's partly true. However - it can be used in the service of politics. Consider:

'I feel uncomfortable around gays/ Jews/ Tutsis/ Assylum seekers'
'You're absolutely right! They're responsible for all the ills of the world. Come and join us.'

vs

'I feel uncomfortable around gays/ Jews/ Tutsis/ Assylum seekers'
'Well...we're all part of the same society, so you're going to have to get over it. Come and join in our Family Fun Day to promote community diversity.'

Yes they can be made to *serve* politicdal ends, but they don't begin there.

Like charity, they begin at home.

I agree. But...consider also:

'I want more pies!'
'You're entitled! Go for it! Grab all you can!'

vs

'I want more pies!'
'Sorry...there's not enough to go around. You should leave a bit for everyone else.'

Some political philosophies are based around our worst tendencies, others around our best.

That's true enough.

But which are our best and which are our worst often depends on the perspective of the viewer. There are those who view

'I want more pies!'
'Sorry...there's not enough to go around. You should leave a bit for everyone else.'

as a far greater moral abomination and perversion of nature than homosexuality.

But...it depends what your societal preconceptions are. Are humans naturally greedy or altruistic? Is homosexuality a deviation from the norm or an example of the rich diversity of humanity?

A few posts back, someone mentioned left v right as reformer v anti-reform (as per its original French Revolution definition). Isn't the left seeking a reform of preconceptions such as 'Gross inequality of wealth is an inevitable consequence of human nature' and 'All relationships should conform to the commonest heterosexual model'?

("Heterosexuality isn't 'normal', merely 'common'." - St Derek of Dungeness)

I don't doubt that. IBut I would question whether the polar opposite applies to the right wing.

Well...by right we originally meant 'anti-reform.' This grouping sees a natural order everywhere, in such things as a hierarchical society and the distribution of wealth. It's because of the latter that the right-libertarians tend to ally themselves with the old conservative right. While they's not averse to changing hierarchies, aren't socially conservative, and believe that individuals, not governments should determine wealth distribution...they're naturally drawn to where the money is.

It seems that Darwinism, or more precisely, a belief in social Darwinism encapsulates the right-wing belief.

And this is interesting, because when you think about it, evidence for social Darwinism exists everywhere. Certain people who adapt best to circumstances given to them tend to excel, whereas others less well adapted are less fortunate. Whether it be winning business, getting the job, becoming the pop-star, being promoted to boss, getting the best grades, the rules apply consistently. To be right-wing in your attitude you don't need to do anything except observe the way society really works and accept that that's the way it is.

Socialism by contrast requires huge effort, because to a large extent it is against the natural order, isn't it? To structure a society so that everyone gets their fair share is hugely difficult given the natural tendency in society toward social Darwinism.

I'm not saying that there isn't a tendency towards co-operation of course, but co-operation tends to emerge from Darwinism anyway - so in many ways you could describe left and right as a tension between realism and idealism.

Interestingly, though 'realism' doesn't play well in politics.

The greatest insult they ever use against Harold Wilson was that he was a 'pragmatic' PM.

And pragmatism was Wilson's best quality!

>>Socialism by contrast requires huge effort, because to a large extent it is against the natural order, isn't it? To structure a society so that everyone gets their fair share is hugely difficult given the natural tendency in society toward social Darwinism.

However...we can also observe the natural tendency of humans to cooperate in groups. This goes way back to when we developed our advantages as hunter/gatherers. Our various other technologies which have allowed us to dominate - agriculture, cities, etc. etc. - are fundamentally dependent on cooperation.

I'd say that the unbridled dog-eat-dog model requires far more effort. Imagine having to go everywhere armed! Imagine the difficulties of not being a top dog. Imagine the difficulties getting healthcare following a chance reduction in your earning capacity (eg old age). Imagine being responsible for your own education (could you even build a school alone, still less write the textbooks?) Imagine being responsible for disposing of your own sewage! Life is so much easier when we stick together. (trite but true)

Peoples Front of Judea...Pah!

Listen to you all, discussing a definition of something that no longer exists. Have the events of the last 20 years meant nothing to you? There is no more left or right wing, that's the language of the 70s and 80s; it's now far more complicated than that as we can truly no longer tell who are pigs and who are humans, it's no wonder we are all confused.

As to the actual subject of this debate, it's not a left or right trait, it's just bigotry. (Whoever you meet "left or right" will have it's own version tucked away somewhere)

Conservatives - maintaining the status quo

Liberals - maintaining the status quo but pretending they aren't.


az

Right - but dog-eat-dog is an extreme view of what Darwinism is about. Darwinism is not so much about survival of the fittest individual, more the survival of the fittest strategy. So if teamwork and co-operation generates the benefits - and very very often in social circumstances it does - then the strategy will survive.

>>Listen to you all, discussing a definition of something that no longer exists.

Uh huh? Try telling that to Hugo Chavez or Evo Morales Seriously, though...the Tory/ New Labour consensus that we're all one big, happy class now is somewhat fictitious. A Left/Right divide remains valid...albeit difficult to pin down precisely and but one of many dimensions. All that's *actually* happened in the last 20 years is that the centre-right has become predominant in British politics, to the extent that perfectly ordinary left-wing ideas can now be laughed off as being far outside the consensus. (And former card-carrying Labour party activists such as myself can no longer stomach voting for the murdering [word-that-won't-get-through-the-filter]).

I thoroughly agree that the root of homophobia is in personal bigotry...*except* a) that bigotry can be used to political advantage and b) that bigotry comes from *somewhere* - I'd suggest it's an internalisation of the norm in (small C) conservative societies.

>>Right - but dog-eat-dog is an extreme view of what Darwinism is about. Darwinism is not so much about survival of the fittest individual, more the survival of the fittest strategy. So if teamwork and co-operation generates the benefits - and very very often in social circumstances it does - then the strategy will survive.

Good point. So there's survival benefit in finding a social system that works.

We *do* have to think about what we mean by survival, though. Of the individual gene or of the human genome? Surviving simply to breed...or being happy. An argument *might* be made that gay genes are counter-productive to individual survival. On the other hand...do we want to live in a brutal society that supresses/ exterminates homosexuality? Or are tolerant, diverse societies happier? And does societal happiness have species survival value? I'd argue that it does - happy people enjoy cooperating.

Am I rambling? It makes sense to me...but that's not necessarily a good test.

You're right Edward and I like what you've said. I made that statement to stop us analysing the line and to start looking toward the motives. The world has changed and I believe that we are far more cunningly manipulated than before. I look toward the News Int. organisation and its like for fostering the bigotry that seems more and more engendered in us all. Even the television media that continues to portray gay men as camp in all of it's programming and sit-coms has its part to play. At the back of all of these corporations you'll find people with many different political leanings, but always the same ruthless struggle for personal power.

Well provoked, that man! I like it when someone forces us out of a cosy consensus and challenges us to make an argument.

Social darwinism to me seems to be about dog-eat-dog. Basically saying it should be very man for himself, with no free healthcare or education or even taxes. But I don't think all people on the right wing want that, probably rather few does. The americans talk about the pursuit of happiness and the american dream, which it does seem socialism rather hinders. If you work really hard and really dedicate yourself, well you get nothing more than anyone else. Socialism seems to rather keep people down, which I would also consider a form of control.

Tom Paine...the guy who insisted on the inclusion 'Life, Liverty and the Pursuit of Hapiness' would be turning in his grave!

Socialism >>keeping people down<<?!! Not from the perspective of those who are already down, who '...have nothing to lose but their chains.' And never forget that things like free healthcare and education have had to be fought for - often quite literally - by those very people, every inch of the way.

That is not to disregard te obvious fact that some models of socialism have been *extremely* repressive. But I'd argue that in Europe a whole socialism has had a wide and beneficial impact on political systems. Compare the lives of the poorest in, say, Denmark, Nigeria and the USA.