What does "right" and "left" mean?

[water]

The term "right-wing" is overused to the point of hilarity (much like "communist" has been in the past). Two people with literally opposite political views would both be called right wing:


Person 1 is in favor of:

an interventionist foreign policy.
progressive tax brackets.
cutting social-welfare spending.
pro-choice policies.
free trade.
strict gun control laws.
strict immigration laws.
affirmative action laws.
allowing gay marriage.
strict drug laws.


Person 2 is in favor of:

an isolationist foreign policy.
a flat tax structure.
increasing social-welfare spending.
pro-life policies.
protectionist trade policy.
lax gun control laws.
lax immigration laws.
no affirmative action laws.
banning gay marriage.
lax drug laws.


How does that make any sense?

On the other hand, it seems that I'm not allowed to be "left-wing" because I am strictly opposed to government involvement in the economy. Am I missing something, or are the definitions for "left" and "right" inconsistent?

[sandnsea]

1. Person 1 is almost Bill Clinton

and what planet do you live on that the govt isn't involved in the economy? The government has been involved in the economy since it built the Old National Road to improve expansion into Ohio and beyond.

[angrycarpenter]

2. It is the danger of using broad terms

But if you are talking in general terms they serve to get the point across.

[thunder rising]

3. I am strictly opposed to government involvement in the economy.

Buddy, that is just soooo stupid I feel sorry for you.

With no regulation on the corporations (which is interference in the economy) you will not have a pot to piss in without permission. How do you think this recession started ... it sure as hell wasn't from over regulation and oversight.
Get a clue.

[lvx35]

4. The definitions of left and right are horsecrap.

The sooner we give it up the better. Your first person is almost a populist, your second person is almost a libertarian. We need more words to describe these political realities. Left and right make no sense in themselves.

[Djinn]

12. they make plenty of sense

it's just that 99% of people using the terms have no idea what they mean.

That in most western nations 2 parties from the right fight it out at election time has led people to assume one of them is left the other is right.

The Democrats are not and never have been left wing, neither have the "Labor" parties in other parts of the west.

Just because we rarely see/hear from the left anymore doesn't mean the definition is meaningless.

[lvx35]

16. I remember this argument I had with a girl in college.

Somehow the idea came up of having your whole life handed to you by a corporation, or by the government. I said I would rather have the government manage my life than a corporation. The girl was shocked, she said "Oh my God! That's so republican! I would rather have my whole life managed by a corporation!" She looked at the republican right as the party of big government, and the left as the party of big business. I laughed at the time, but after the Bush and Clinton administrations, I'm not sure I was right...

[water]

20. I don't understand that anology...

... the government can easily be considered a giant corporation -- a monopoly, in fact.

If you don't like how a company treats you, you choose another company.

[lvx35]

45. The difference is that a company isn't compelled to do anything but make money.

They don't have an obligation to anything but that. The government is supposed to have a much wider obligation to the welfare of the people...There is no corporations "By the people for the people". Corporations are "by the CEO for the Board of Directors".

[lurky]

5. Right and left are pretty simplistic descriptions.

There are many ways to measure and compare political beliefs. Here is a pretty common two-axis chart, which I think captures most people:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/Worlds-Smallest-Political-Quiz.svg

Here is an article on wikipedia about political spectra (the place where I got the chart, also):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum

[Orsino]

42. ...and often confused when the two major parties are right and hard right. n/t

[stillcool]

6. The right is very consistent...

Protection of business interests over the protection of people. The left in reality is not so different. The divisions among the little people come from bullshit arguments over 'issues' that most politicians have no intention of solving. Just sore spots to be exploited and used to create divisiveness that borders on hatred.

[water]

7. What happens when business interests confict?

And how is it possible that two people with opposite policies are both right-wing?

[stillcool]

9. I think that competing business...

interests are why we have wars. I don't know why some people support some positions and not others. But I consider a person 'right wing' when they want to take away the rights of others, to preserve the rights of themselves. Wherever.

[Selatius]

10. I think you confuse left-right dichotomy with libertarian-authoritarian dichotomy.

People who are out to gain power by stripping others of rights are pretty much a match for the definition of an authoritarian. Anything not under their control must be brought under their control or destroyed as a potential threat to their goal. There are left wingers who are just as authoritarian as some on the right. Stalin comes to mind. If you had to choose among left wingers, it's preferable to chose among them the left-libertarian variety, as opposed to the left-authoritarians.

[water]

13. Isn't Social Security taking away rights?

It's holding a gun to someone's head and forcing them to buy something, whether or not they want to.

[Djinn]

15. wow

they hold a gun to your head to get your taxes in the US :eyes:

having to do something you don't completely enjoy does not equate to having ones rights infringed

[water]

23. Yes, they do.

If you don't pay taxes, they will take your home. If you don't let them, they will draw guns.

If forcing someone to give you money isn't violating rights, what is? Wiretapping?

[Djinn]

24. so when the grocer

demands you give him money for taking a litre of milk is it an outrageous infringement on your rights?

You pay for what you use - that is not gun to the head theft.

If you wish to abdicate the use of ALL taxpayer funded services you would need to leave the country (air pollution reg for example)

If and when you do so, you will no longer be expected to pay US tax.

[water]

27. No, the grocer doesn't force me to take his milk, but the government...

... forces me to buy Social Security.

[Selatius]

19. You can argue it both ways, actually.

You can argue that destroying Social Security is also depriving a senior citizen his right against dying of starvation. It comes down to whether you believe an individual has no responsibility to the society he exists within or does have responsibility to the society he exists within.

[TahitiNut]

8. Here... map those two "persons" on the Political Compass. (Let me know how it turns out.)

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

FWIW ... when one bases their views on the issues in a set of principles - rather than mere convenience - some contradictory postures just don't occur.

[Selatius]

11. Definitions of left and right refer only to economic policy, not social policy or methodology.

To accurately measure a politician, you must look at both their social stances as well as economic policies. The second person is clearly a social conservative, while the first person is clearly a social liberal. Social conservatives favor imposing their own moral code upon others, a code that was once the predominant one in the past, while social liberals would rather each individual decide for himself or herself.

However, on economic policy, there is an overlap. True, the first person favors a progressive tax code, yet at the same time, the person also favors gutting social welfare programs. The second person favors a regressive flat tax while also favoring more social welfare spending.

In short, simply looking at economic policy, neither of them are truly left wing. You can argue over them being center-right or center-left, but these people are definitely not FDRs and Trumans that your grandfather elected 70 years ago.

[water]

17. If left and right really were just about economic policy...

... then Bush would be a liberal and Clinton would be a conservative. In fact, no mainstream Republican would be right-wing, and the neo-conservatives wouldn't be right-wing, either.

Also, why would you often hear people say "socially-conservative"? Unless you want to make a distinction between left/liberal and right/conservative, but the words in their current use are nearly interchangeable.

I agree 100% that it should be about economics to be consistent, but it isn't consistent.

[Djinn]

21. yes

Clinton was a conservative - what radical changes did he make? None, he was OK with the status quo (with minor tinkering) thereby making him conservatives.

Most Republicans are reactionary not conservative.

Economically - the desire to take the govt out of social spending (social engineering as it's sneeringly referred to) and to move public wealth into private hands is absolutely a right wing view - one most Dems share.

Yes the words in their current usage don't make a lot of sense. That's not because the terms are irrelevant but because most people are politically ignorant.

[Selatius]

22. That's why I said left and right, as opposed to liberal and conservative.

Liberal and conservative are really measurements of attitudes towards change. It is much more broad than simply "left wing" or "right wing."

Liberals are open to change. They are usually not happy with the status quo and wish to change it. Conservatives are more happy with the status quo, and if they do wish to see change, they favor slow change. Radicals, on the other hand, favor very rapid change, usually faster than liberals, and reactionaries, like radicals, also favor very rapid change, but they favor retrogressive change instead. That is, they favor going backward. An example of retrogressive change would be favoring a return to segregation and reinstituting the role of women as only being in the kitchen and jobless.

Clinton wasn't a left winger, and neither is Bush. Clinton is where the Republican Party used to be under Barry Goldwater.

[water]

26. Interesting, but using those definitions...

A left-wing person in a left-wing country would be "conservative", and, a right-wing person in that same country would be "liberal". Those are fine definitions, but it's not what people generally use today.

In addition, I don't know of any self-proclaimed conservatives (famous or otherwise) who don't want sweeping policy changes in this country (towards things that we've never had before). Would that make them liberal?

Plus, I know many (self-proclaimed) liberals who don't want anyone to touch the New Deal programs. Would that make them conservative?

I think we are using different definitions here: you are using logical definitions, and I'm arguing that the current definitions are illogical.

[water]

37. Plus, it could be argued...

... that the liberals in this country pushing for a more progressive tax system are actually reactionary/conservatives!

[Selatius]

14. If you oppose gov't regulation of the markets, you aren't a left winger at all.

By the definitions, you are a right winger.

[water]

18. Here's what I think:

"Right-winger", in general language, refers to a wide variety of possibly conflicting views.

"Left-winger", in general language, is purely based on economic views.

[Selatius]

25. I disagree. They're both purely based on economic views.

Right wingers favor capitalism of some form. Left wingers disagree and favor regulating activity with capitalism or even outright favor socialism, citing abuses in the labor market and the market for goods and services, but right wingers are split up among several smaller camps just as left wingers are also split.

Right wingers who favor subsidies to private corporations and tax breaks to corporations are opposed by others on the right who oppose any form of welfare, be it corporate or social welfare. It's the difference between anarcho-capitalism and corporatism.

On the left, you have similar splits between anarcho-socialists and state socialists.

[water]

28. Nazis are considered right wing, but they weren't capitalist whatsoever.

[Selatius]

29. They favored a mixed economy, leaning center-right in my opinion.

Mixed economies have elements of both capitalism and socialism. Indeed, all economies in the industrialized world are mixed economies, with varying degrees of socialism and capitalism. Hitler's economic policy was more centrist than Bush's policies today, which are even more right wing but not as far right as, say, the dictator Augusto Pinochet, who favored pure capitalism. With Hitler, he maintained several social programs aimed at poverty relief, job training, etc. He had to in order to maintain popularity, as many Germans had endured harsh economic times in the 1920s and 1930s with the post-war hyperinflation and the Great Depression. Like Bush, Hitler maintained a collaborative relationship with German industry, often with many leading German industrialists being members of the Nazi Party.

[water]

31. To be honest, I could not disagree more.

Hitler's economic policies were no where near a free market:

There were massive "public works" programs, unions were (I believe) abolished, along with the right to strike, extraordinarily strict wage and price controls were enacted, and (according to Wikipedia) the right to quit was abolished.

None of those are capitalist.

[Selatius]

35. I define capitalism as private ownership of capital. Marketplace competition is just an incidental.

As I said, the economy under Nazi Germany had elements of both with public works programs as well as private ownership of capital. Abolishing the right to strike was what many industrialists and businessmen pushed for and favored, both in Germany, the US, and indeed in many other countries. They absolutely abhorred unions because they argued that it drove up operating costs. Indeed, before FDR, the right to strike was not really recognized in the United States until the Wagner Act of 1935, and the right for you to, for example, quit my workplace has no bearing on my right to own the workplace. As far as slavery goes and my definition of capitalism, that's just an earlier form of capitalism that converts humans into owned capital.

Indeed, in the US, labor unions were crippled with the passage of the Taft-Hartley Act, favored heavily by business interests, which effectively broke labor power down and allowed for the low 10 percent unionization rate seen in the US today.

Private ownership of capital only necessitates marketplace competition if there are several firms existing within a particular market that compete against each other for market share. The prices will reflect the forces of supply and demand. Given enough time, the number of competitors in the market dwindles as existing firms naturally attempt to consolidate, throw up barriers to entry to make it difficult for new entrants, drive out other firms, etc. Ultimately, what happens is a private monopoly emerges in this market. In such cases, the pricing mechanism breaks down in terms of reflecting the forces of supply and demand. Instead, it is now being artificially distorted by the private firm in pursuit of greater profits. Upstarts who attempt to enter this market are at a disadvantage in terms of access to capital to compete against the larger firm.

In such a situation, I would say that there is little "free" in the market.

However, in the example I laid out, I would say it's still capitalism because there the right to own capital is still preserved given that the monopoly is still privately owned and that it exists to profit the shareholder(s). Whether or not you can quit or form a labor union has no bearing on whether I still own the factory.

[water]

36. This is ridiculous! You can't make up your own definitions!

If Hitler's Germany can be considered capitalist/right-wing because it involved private ownership, then Cuba's economy can be considered capitalist/right-wing because it involves private ownership. You could call both (and every economy ever) mixed economies, but neither are predominantly capitalist and in both cases the government had/has its hands deep into individuals' personal economic affairs.

Massive government employment projects, legal crackdowns on striking/quitting works, and wage/price controls are not capitalist instruments! All involve the government controlling how individuals use their property and their time, none of which is compatible with laissez-faire economic systems, and it's disingenuous to imply that Hitler's economy was capitalist. It was statist. Capitalist systems are market systems.

[Selatius]

38. I'm not making up definitions. Hitler's Germany was a mixed economy.

Just because there is private ownership of capital doesn't necessarily mean that there is a functioning free market. A private monopoly is evidence of capitalism without a functioning free market mechanism.

[water]

43. I agreed that they (and every economy ever) were both mixed economies.

You said his economy leaned-capitalist, which is simply untrue, as I pointed out above.

It almost seems like you are using the lesser-used definition of "capitalist", meaning "someone who owns capital" (which means communists would be called capitalists), and applying it to the economic system.

[muriel_volestrangler]

46. No, that's the basic definition of a capitalist

"one who has capital available for employment in financial or industrial enterprises" - OED.

Your 'capitalist systems are market systems' is just your wishful thinking. You'd like them to be market systems, but there's nothing that means they are. And since the noun 'capitalist' refers to an individual, then no, a communist is not a capitalist. A communist system does not have individuals who put up capital to employ people and make a profit from it.

Yes, most, if not all, countries are in some sense mixed. But it's easy to see that Nazi Germany was more capitalist than present-day Cuba. It had large companies in private ownership that were a significant part of the economy, as well as small businesses. Cuba doesn't - it still have about 3 times as many people employed in the public sector as the private.

You say "legal crackdowns on striking/quitting works, and wage/price controls are not capitalist instruments". They're not capitalist instruments per se, but they are not incompatible with capitalism. The presence of large government works programmes in Nazi Germany is one indication that it wasn't a completely capitalist economy, yes. But crackdowns on striking benefit capitalists. For instance, Thatcher and Reagan made it much harder to strike in their countries in the 1980s, because they thought strikes held back businesses.

[water]

47. The backbone and revenue source of socialism is private capital. Does that make it capitalist?

Face it, government restrictions on the economy are not capitalist. :)

On edit: If you want to define capitalist that way, then expect people who call themselves "capitalist" to be confused when you talk to them.

[muriel_volestrangler]

49. No, socialism does not have private capital as its backbone

In mixed economies, private capital will be part of the revenue source. Here, let me give you some definitions: http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=define%3Asocialism

A socialist society could exist without any private capital at all.

"Face it, government restrictions on the economy are not capitalist"

Look at the word - "capitalist". You're putting extra definitions in there. That's what you'd like, but it's not reality. You're talking about deregulation, and free markets. They are not essential parts of capitalism.

[water]

50. In socialism, workers get paid.

Plus, I don't understand your desire to define "capitalist" as "a system with private capital". I'm sure that you believe in private capital. Do you consider yourself "capitalist"?

You are being so misleading here that it's incredible. If you insist of defining capitalism to mean something other than a market system (which no one does), then realize that when someone identifies his/herself as capitalist, he/she does not mean what you mean, and does not support what you wish he/she supports.

No self-identified capitalist wants to:

1. Outlaw striking
   
2. Implement price controls
   
3. Outlaw quitting
   
4. Implement wage controls
   
5. Have massive government employment projects
   

Again, you can use whatever definition you want, but ultimately it doesn't do you any good, because you'll be trying to associate things with capitalism to which its supporters are viciously opposed.

Therefore, you can't claim that because many right-wingers support capitalism (and not all do), they would support Hitler's economic system, or that his system was right-wing. They would hate it.

edit: Changed a lot

[muriel_volestrangler]

51. "In socialism, workers get paid" - huh?

When did anyone ever dispute that? I don't understand why you say that at all.

I don't understand your desire to define "capitalist" as "a system with private capital".

I'm just reading the dictionaries, and using the definitions other people use. Here's a bunch: http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=define%3Acapitalism

Do you consider yourself "capitalist"?

Yes.

If you insist of defining capitalism to mean something other than a market system (which no one does)

See the list of definitions above. It's about who owns the means of production. Outlawing striking has been very popular amongst capitalist investors since capitalism started, let alone when the word was first used about 200 years ago. Price controls are sometimes useful for them too - they may stop competition from abroad, for instance. I don't know of instances of outlawing quitting; wage controls, in terms of saying a worker cannot demand a pay rise, can be good for a capitalist investor too - though if if a minimum wage is set, then that isn't. Government employment projects that don't compete with an investors' own business can be good for them too - improvements to infrastructure, for instance. It can make it cheaper for them to produce their goods - so they can sell more, both at home and abroad. It also may mean there are more workers who can afford their goods.

Capitalist investors want whatever makes them a profit. Your examples of things to which you claim they are "viciously opposed" will frequently help that, and so they may support them.

I haven't actually used 'right' or left', on purpose. I just wanted to correct you about what capitalism is. The original definition of the terms, under a powerful monarchy, have been given, and it can be a problem, sometimes, transposing them to a republic. LeftishBrit's definition in #32 looks quite good to me. I'm not talking about whether right-wingers in general would support Hitler's economic system, but Hitler was right-wing, for a number of reasons; there's a good article on why the Fascists and Nazis were right wing here: http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2008/01/methodology-of-liberal-fascism.html

[water]

52. And again, you ignore my point.

First off, if workers get paid under socialism, there is private capital.

Second, self-proclaimed "capitalists" (libertarians and some right-wingers) do not mean what you want them to mean. They are promoting a market economy. What word would you rather them use? You are being dishonest by equating them with Nazis!

I don't care (and neither do they) the original meaning.

"Liberal" used to mean libertarian, you know.

[muriel_volestrangler]

54. No, getting paid means there is money

The money is issued by a government (even in a pure capitalist economy); in a state or community-owned enterprise, the workers are paid by a public entity - the capital for the entity was public, not private. 'Money' and 'capital' are not synonymous; 'capital' is money that is used to establish a business that will produce a profit. If there are no privately-owned businesses, then there's no private capital.

Most people in industrialised countries are capitalists, to some extent. They're happy to work in private companies, and they're happy to invest some money, if they have a bit excess, in a pension fund or similar that will own a bit of a company, and get a dividend from it. A window cleaner who owns a bucket and cloth, and gets a mate to wash windows with him, and pays him for it, is a capitalist (arguably, even if they don't havge anyone work with them, they're a capitalist, since they invested money in the bucket to get a future income from it). You say you don't care about 'the original meaning'; but it's not just the original meaning I've shown you, it's the present meaning. It's you who seems determined to give 'capitalism' a different meaning.

I'm not equating capitalists with Nazis; I'm saying the Nazi economy was significantly capitalist. So was the British economy then (and now), and the US economy, and so on (FDR started public works programmes, but the US economy was still capitalist). But you brought up the Nazis, and claimed "they weren't capitalist whatsoever". Selatius gave a good explanation of why their economy was mixed, with large amounts of captialism in it; I've tried to persuade you that's right. Did you read the Orcinus blog article? If you didn't, it's the excerpts from Robert O. Paxton's The Anatomy of Fascism and the discussion of them that are relevant.

Or watch 'Schindler's List'. Schindler was a business owner who employed many people. There were many thousands of private businesses in Nazi Germany, some very large, like United Steelworks, Krupp, IG Farben, and so on. Foreign companies operated there, like IBM, and General Motors (until the Nazis seized Opel to turn it to war production - but that was after WW2 started).

'Liberal' had, and has, many meanings, depending on which country you're in. In the US many people think it's synonymous with 'left-wing', but most other English-speaking countries, and other languages using its equivalent, don't use it in quite that way. But it probably isn't worth getting into that now. Better to get you to understand what 'capitalism' means first.

[LeftishBrit]

30. I would consider both to be right-wing in different ways

And that both have fairly internally inconsistent views. E.g. while it's logically possible to be socially liberal but economically RW and vice versa, how *can* someone living in the real world support a flat tax *and* increased social welfare spending? (By accepting huge deficits?)

[water]

33. By having a higher flat tax rate?

[LeftishBrit]

32. My definition of right-wing...

is someone who thinks that the unfettered right of those in a stronger position in society to become stronger trumps the need to protect those in a weaker position in society. The 'strong' may be strong economically, physically, by virtue of belonging to majority groups, by being born into the right family or affiliated with the right leaders, etc. The details of being right-wing will vary according to time and place, according to whether those *do* hold the stronger position are e.g. feudal lords, wealthy businessmen, Stalinist apparatchiks, members of a particular religious faction, etc.

I do think that a person who opposes all government intervention in the economy cannot be left-wing, as they are thereby giving free rein for the rich to oppress the poor, and the weakest to go to the wall without protection or support. It's possible that someone who does support government intervention in the economy might also be right-wing as they might use the intervention to favour those already in the stronger position - but not necessarily.

[zeos3]

34. Where did these people come from?

Is this from two actual people's views or is this a hypothetical with random attributes? Things are a little more complicated then right-left, check out the Wiki page listed above and politicalcompas.org
both are interesting

[wintersoulja]

39. Its fascist speak

for Divide and Conquer.

[Echo In Light]

40. Definitions have been subverted over time. Currently, corporatists blur distinctions

In my estimation, left wing represents a broad spectrum of interests for humanity, including social safety nets - NOT nationalistic socialism. Right wing represents corporate/state interests for a marginal economic sector guided/fueled by lust for greed/power. Hence, gut social safety nets, create a huge govt for the wealthy, restricting and castigating many areas within that broad spectrum of humanity's best interests that don't promote corporate friendly uniformity.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

41. I like the old definition. The Sans-cullottes vs the Aristos and Girondins.

The sans-culottes (so named because they didn't wear upper class breeches or culottes ) were the common people of Paris. They were working people: shop owners, tradespeople, artisans, and even factory workers. They, like the poor, were among the prominent losers of the first, more moderate revolution. While the middle class and wealthy classes benefitted greatly from the revolution, the sans-culottes saw their livelihoods disappearing and inflation driving them to bare subsistence. Of all the groups of France, it is the hopes, dreams, and views of the sans-culottes that drove the radical revolution from 1792 to 1794.

The desires of the sans-culottes were simple: subsistence was a right for all people; inequality of any kind was to be abolished; the aristocracy and the monarchy was to be abolished; property was not to be completely eliminated, but to be shared in communal groups. These ideas were, on the whole, far more radical than what the Jacobins had in mind. However, more radical Jacobins sympathized with the sans-culotte and began to work with them. This radical group of Jacobins were called the Mountain, because they took the highest seats in the assembly (which was held in a multi-tiered hall).

[leftofthedial]

44. same thing as "pro-choice" versus "pro-life"

It means we get to be divided and fighting one another while criminals loot our country and keep us subjugated

[SalmonChantedEvening]

48. It's really quite simple

They always think they're Right. Despite all evidence to the contrary.

We're always Left the task of cleaning up their messes.

[LeftishBrit]

55. Best definition I've ever seen!

[mmonk]

53. Don't ask me, my feet hurt.