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

>> Left = [...] Freedom, socially; greater freedoms to think/do as one wants <<



RF

I presume the laughter is based on the mistaken belief that the present government is left-wing?

No...I suspect he's a right-libertarian who hasn't thought through the contradictions. The libertarian right leaves people free to form dictatorships and impose control.

The left also has contradictions, of course.

Back to the sexuality thing, though. Religion has been mentioned. It is true that the major religions *do* tend to condemn homosexuality...but I'm not convinced that this is unique to them. Oftentimes people profess religions because they legitimise their views...rather than having their views formed by then.

For example - I very, very much doubt that decent, tolerant people become homophobes because they are led that way by their faith's teachings. In fact - within any faith you'll find people prepared to play down that aspect. But you do find homophobes who glory in their illness on the excuse that 'It's what my faith teaches me' (and I'll therefore brook no argument).

Re the political spectrum, I have seen right wing and left wing discussed in terms of a political compass: one that considers right wing and left wing as purely economic stances relating to how property ownership is viewed on one dimension and the degree of authoritarianism (individual versus state) on another. However, I think there is a flaw in the logic as authoritarianism can be seen as a dependent effect of either far-right or far-left policies. The far-right want a strong police force to deal with the have-nots while the far-left need to impose strict control to ensure social equity.

That's why there was not much difference in the end between Hitler and Stalin - the degree of authoritarianism imposed by both regimes made their economic policies almost irrelevant.

Another interesting question to me is whether the word "conservative" necessarily means "right wing"?

What about those survivalists in the US who are very interested in having as little goverment interference as possible? Are they right wing, since they seem to not want control?

They're certainly right-libertarian, as opposed to left-libertarian. Their values seem to centre around 'I'll be allright - I've got a big gun'. It's the 'I' that is significant. There's no notion of the interdependency of humans, nor of government as an organising societal mechanism.

See also Ayn Rand, who saw selfish actions by talented individuals as 'The Geratest Good'.

I still stand by my earlier definition:
Right wing = I'm entitled to the best I can get
Left wing = So is everyone else.

Both have contradictions, though. On the right, the strongest individuals can subjugate others according to their own desires. On the left there is always some level of mutual...subjugation? deference?...for the good of all.

BUT: I'm not convinced that sexuality is a left/right issue per se; it comes down to individual mentalties, themselves based on societal prejudices. In modern political life the libertarian right have aligned themselves with conservative elements who endorse the status quo. The left are combating an economic status quo and in so doing align themselves with those who seek to change the societal status quo.

Well, yes if there was no control at all you end up with every man for himself.

What about polygamyphobia or what you want to call it. Is that then a right wing or left wing idea?

Interesting one.

Arguably, non-conventional forms of human relationship fall foul of both the left and the right. For conservatives - it's not the way we or our parents and grandparents and so on did it. For the left...firstly it falls outwith the easily understandable idea of a family unit as an organising principle, secondly it potentially puts women into an exploitative situation. (polyandry is far less common)

But, consider...The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as formed the basis of The European Convention on Human Rights and hence (in the UK) the Human Rights Act. It falls foul of the right-libertarians (Rights imposed by/ defended by governments). It falls foul of traditional conservatives (it breaks the status quo by granting rights that weren't hitherto available)...plus it's from Brussels. It is, if anything, a left-of-centre document. And it grants privacy within family/ private life.

"Simple either/or question: is condemnation of homosexuality a right-wing or left-wing attitude?"

Given that my own view is that the left tend to favour diversity within the confines of progressive morals and the right often strike me as being tied to traditionally morality and a certain degree of social "cohesion" (either because they believe in it or because they feel it provides a necessary stability) then I would say rightwing.

However, it is important to factor in that a great deal of leftwing (far-left in particular) politics are tied to socialism and even class struggle and many who pursue this route (especially those who did in the past) often have conservative social stances.

There are also most certainly rightwingers (albeit the vast majority centre-right) who support progressive position on gay rights although this is a recent phenomenon.

"What about those survivalists in the US who are very interested in having as little goverment interference as possible? Are they right wing, since they seem to not want control?"

They're a strange bunch. Some of them are genuine right-libertarians but I think many oppose government interference because of what they think it represents. The terrorist Timothy McVeigh, for example, called himself "libertarian" but his beliefs and opinion of the government drew on neo-nazi ideas. He was most probably anti-government because (according to his worldview) government was liberal/jewish controlled territory whilst anything completely free of it was untainted.

>>However, it is important to factor in that a great deal of leftwing (far-left in particular) politics are tied to socialism and even class struggle and many who pursue this route (especially those who did in the past) often have conservative social stances.

Although...in many cases, socialism went hand-in-hand with new ideas on morality (plus a blossoming in the arts...etc. etc.) Examples: The Paris Commune, socialist Zionism, the Spanish Republic...and also Post-Franco broadly-socialist Spain, Paris '68...

Certainly this is not the case for any right-wing coup that I can think of!

"
Right = Freedom, economically; a free economy with less controls and a more lassiez-faire approach, ie less pro-welfare state. Control, socially; 'looking out' for the moral standards of the country etc.

Left = Control, economically; pro-welfare state, controling economics, ie nationalising key industries. Freedom, socially; greater freedoms to think/do as one wants."

Neither of those is strictly correct. For example, free-market economics was invented by Adam Smith - a liberal - it only became a "rightwing" issue when people realised it was a route to personal power. Smith supported free-market economics because he thought they would benefit society as a whole and opposed the national-capitalism of mercantilism that preceeded his ideas. There are people on the left who continue to regard market-economics as the best way to secure capital for social-change, incidentally.

Similarly, I would associate freedom of thought, social-freedom etc with the centrist left/right positions. The far-left and far-right tend to think in aggressive tribal terms and have a strong desire to control people. What differentiates them is their reasons and aims in controlling people.

"Although...in many cases, socialism went hand-in-hand with new ideas on morality (plus a blossoming in the arts...etc. etc.) Examples: The Paris Commune, socialist Zionism, the Spanish Republic...and also Post-Franco broadly-socialist Spain, Paris '68...

Certainly this is not the case for any right-wing coup that I can think of!"

Most Communist states were homophobic (East Germany being a uncharacteristic exception) and tied homophobia to Marxist ideology (ie that it was a characteristic of bourgeois individualism and useless in terms of building a working-class utopia). Things have improved in some of those that remain (Cuba has improved its record in relation to homosexuals although still lags behind democratic countries) but it's centre-left liberals who have done the most, in my opinion, to advance gay rights. The extreme-left have traditionally been a hinderance at best and their adoption of it in recent decades strikes me as opportunistic (like their adoption of environmental issues).

Some good points Zagreb, but I stand by my current position.
Firstly, on your point about Smith, I believe it is perfectly possible to be liberal/progressive, and right-wing. I don't agree with the assumption that rightwing=personal good, left wing= good of the masses. I would describe Malthus, or Ricardo as right wing, as they opposed outdoor relief for the poor, and supported Smith's Lassiez-faire attitude, yet they were ultimately intrested in the greater good of tthe whole of society.

Regarding what you say about extreme right and left, I absolutely agree, as I mentioned in my previous post there is this theory of the 'horseshoe effect' where the futher left or right you go the more similair they become. I personally view the moderate left as supporting a greater degree of freedom of speech than the moderate right.

As to wether a 'strictly correct' defenition is achievable, I am uncertain. I don't believe its all about personal vs social power, as most parties have an ideological basis for the good of alll society. My descriptions work well based on my experience.

bb

"Norman 'Polecat' Tebbit insisted that the Nazis were left wing. They were, after all, National *Socialists*."

That simply confirms to me that Tebbit is an idiot. The Nazis were manifestly *not* leftwing and they were not even particularly socialistic (especially for the day). Some nazis did support a policy of nationalisation and state-ownership but Hitler had them all killed in the night of the long knives.

The Nazis were borne out of the frustrated and paranoid German far-right who resented their defeat in World War I and scapegoated the Jews and the "traitorous" German liberals and leftwing rather than (correctly) blaming it on their own horrendous policies like unrestricted submarine warfare. They did not support laize-faire capitalism because that was seen (at the time) as benefiting Germany's enemies and Jewish business interests and, after 1929, it was seen as a flawed system that was on its way out. The word "socialist" in the nazi party name was designed to give the party broad-appeal and to ensure that working-class rightwingers did not fall into the hands of the bolsheviks. As I said, some Nazis *did* believe in the same state-controlled economy that marxists did (although they believed in it as a way of benefitting the German nation rather that a proletariat revolutionary state) but Hitler, as I said, had them murdered partly because he saw them as a threat and partly to reassure his supporters in Germany's business community.

Anyone foolish enough to be tempted by the simplistic arguments forwarded by the likes of Tebbit might want to note the following: in the 1930s nobody, even those on the right who still supported laize-faire economics, seriously thought the nazis were remotely leftwing. You can't just re-allign the goalposts and pretend left and right are and have always been about economics.

It ain't just capitalism either. Nationalism was originally a radical lefty idea, at least in so far as it includes self-determination and the sovereignity of the people. Differentiated from the standard loyalty to the ruler and the law viewpoint. I guess it became right-wing largely due to wars.

I guess Libertarianism is very close to classical 19th century liberalism. Unfortunately, the image that comes to mind for that is one of the Whig government refusing to do anything that would interrupt the flow of trade during the Irish Potato Famine . I have some sympathy for their position though. I certainly see the government as nothing more than the inheritors of the biggest stick, and it galls me somewhat that we can be born into a society with never so much as an opt-out clause.

I suppose for me left/right is about radicalism versus orthodoxy, in which case 'conservative' is the very essence of being right-wing. Especially when you're trying to conserve something that's already gone. Which is my excuse for why the BNP aren't left of the Conservative party under that model.

Here's a curiosity though: if you're trying to preserve something that was never more than a figment of your imagination (cf. Ludditism; racial purists), does that make you conservative or radical?

I agree with much of what you say regarding the Nazis, but this last sentance suprised me. I'd personally say all extremist parties of a certain type, left or right wing, seek both social and economic control, which is what I believe the Nazis did.

"You can't just re-allign the goalposts and pretend left and right are and have always been about economics."

Noone has yet said politics is purely about economics, or purely about social policy. I would argue that politics is about both of these, and my definitions of left and right wing demonstarate my belief that these are measures of which is given priority.
I'd be intrested for you to give your personal defenitions of left and right wing.

bb

"Here's a curiosity though: if you're trying to preserve something that was never more than a figment of your imagination (cf. Ludditism; racial purists), does that make you conservative or radical?"

To muddy the waters even more, Thatcher (considered to be conservative) was radical in the sense of altering the status quo quite aggressively. Environmentalism (considered to be left-wing / radical) is a deeply conservative idea when you consider that it advocates a less wasteful, more self-reliant culture. It depends on the timescale - how far you want to look back.

"It ain't just capitalism either. Nationalism was originally a radical lefty idea, at least in so far as it includes self-determination and the sovereignity of the people. Differentiated from the standard loyalty to the ruler and the law viewpoint. I guess it became right-wing largely due to wars."

Nationalism (in the 19th century sense) was only leftwing when it was pursuing those aims. It quickly tipped into expanisionism and imperialism though.

"I guess Libertarianism is very close to classical 19th century liberalism."

Possibly,

Unfortunately, the image that comes to mind for that is one of the Whig government refusing to do anything that would interrupt the flow of trade during the Irish Potato Famine . I have some sympathy for their position though. I certainly see the government as nothing more than the inheritors of the biggest stick, and it galls me somewhat that we can be born into a society with never so much as an opt-out clause.

"I suppose for me left/right is about radicalism versus orthodoxy, in which case 'conservative' is the very essence of being right-wing."

I disagree entirely. For me "left/right" is about intent and a general attiude to the world. If you want to actively make the world a "better" place and what you regard as injustice upsets you and you want to actively change or replace it then you are, in essence, a leftist. If you think self-interest (enlightened or otherwise) is a more appealing option, that injustice is a fact of life, and that it's better to deal with your own problems than worry about someone elses (or even deal with your own problems even if that creates them for someone else) then you are, in essence, a rightist. The extremes tend to be belligerent and radical whilst the centrist ideas tend to be progressive and very willing to compromise. So, for example, if you support a free-market economy for your country because you believe it will produce capital to pay for social welfare, state healthcare and state education you are a leftist whilst someone who supports the same because it makes them wealthy is a rightist. Converesly, someone who supports a protectionist economic policy because they believe it will preserve jobs is a leftist whilst someone who does the same because it will protect their company (and income) from foreign competition is a rightist.

"I'd be intrested for you to give your personal defenitions of left and right wing."

See above.