 |
|
Guynemer
|
|
if right isn't right, left is all that's left, right?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:34
|
|
the words right and left forpolitics, which started in France after the Revolution, have been used in so many different ways in different times and places,as to have little meaning outside of a specific context.
while it is hard to avoid their use in describing a political spectrum, 90% of the time when they are used they generate more heat then light.
Even relatively they are problematic - as a direction left means A. Favoring change over the past B. Favoring those with less wealth or power C. Favoring Cosmopolitan or universalist approaches over ethnocentric ones
But these dont all go together (for example when the wealthy are also universalist, or the antitraditionalist change favors those with more wealth) and this is further confused by historically accidental correlations with related issues such as govt intervention in the economy, as GePap points out - eg in 18th C France govt interventions in the economy where A. Traditional B. ethnocentric and C. Favorable to privileged classes - so free markets were "left" Once capitalism had created a new wealthy (i wont press the hot buttons by saying "ruling") class, and once capitalism had been reconciled to the ethnocentric state, capitalism didnt seem so left, especially with calls for state interventions that were more "left" - some of which interventions are now criticized as privileges by some.
Left-right implies a one dimensional issue spectrum. stable over time and space. Instead we have multidimensional issue spectrums which vary over time and space. There is just enough correlation among issues, and enough continuity over time and space, to make left and right useful, though tricky categories.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
 |
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:34
|
|
Left and right comes, IIRC, from the French revolution, whereby 'the Mountain', the radical Jacobins sat on the left, high up; the Girondins and the Monarchists on the right; and the Plain in the middle. The left generally were more radical, wanted more democracy, more power for the lower classes, and a fast, revolutionary change. the right generally were more for the status quo and wanted more authoritarian rule from above.
However economics has become increasingly more important in politics, so generally lower tax has become a right wing policy, and higher tax a left wing one. Which goes with the size of government too.
Thus, policies I would see as right wing:
Low tax, low welfare - Social Darwinism.
Pro-business/the rich.
Authoritarian rule - more power to the rulers, and stronger on law and order.
Smaller government.
More freedom in business and monetary matters.
Less freedom in social matters.
Policies I would see as left wing:
High tax, high welfare - helping those who are disadvantaged.
Anti-corporation/pro-the poor.
See's criminals as disadvantaged, so laxer on punishment and law.
Larger government.
Less freedom in business and monetary matters.
More freedom in social matters.
Obviously few adhere to all of them, on either side, but as a general guide, that is how I'd see policies.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
It's simpler. It's a conflict of fundamental values. The stuff about governments and policy are just means to an end. That's why both right and left have endorsed statist solutions at one time or another.
In my view the fundamental value of the left is equality: no person's welfare has more moral significance than anyone else's. The resulting political program emphasizes equalizing outcomes as much as practically possible (exceptions can be made when inequalities will lead to the bottom group being better off than they would have been under absolute equality.
For example, public education is a leftist institution because it attempts to give everyone a good education so that they may fairly compete for the more desired positions in society. In the view of the left this is a just and efficient outcome. Just because it preserves equality of opportunity and efficient because (ideally) nothing gets in the way of talent being recognized.
The fundamental value of the right is inequality - the privileging of the welfare of certain groups over that of others. That's why the right will tend to support anything that preserves power, class and privilege and why it is the preferred ideology of the powerful - in our case that usually means inequality of wealth.
Again education is a good example. The right prefer private education over public because it allows wealthy individuals to give their children a competitive advantage and maintain class inequality (they give other reasons, but this is the real one - which parents who send their kids to private school will admit if pressed). |
that is all bullshit
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
I'll compromise with Agathon.
Left=tooth fairies
Right=evil dentists
Does that work for you?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-03-2004 23:15
|