Left and Right - A problem with the way we talk about politics - Polidicks

So recently there have been some politics discussion threads open up, I like these, but it has highlighted an issue. I'll try to demonstrate with some examples, read thru the list and assign whether it's "lefty" or "righty" 1) person who wants public healthcare, gay rights, more school funding, female equality, less interventionist 2) same as above but also a white suoremecist who wants to expel minorities 3) person who wants protected gun rights in the usa 4) person who wants more civil liberties, including legalised prostitution, drug use etc 5) same as 4 but put heavy empathsis on crippling the government and giving power to individuals/corporations 6) a capitalist who favours government regulation and intervention in business matters and supports a progressive social agenda 7) a neoliberal (think Obama, hillary or Tony Blair) Some of these might be a lil hard to gauge, I've tried to mix up social and economic concerns so people with different views might mark them differently. 1 and 2 shows that a single stance (eg racism) can make someone go from seeming very progressive to very alt righty. I think its a problem because there is the risk of using whatever you're not as a negative thing or (maybe more commonly) negative attributes bleeding across between people classified on the same thing. Like the racist in 2 is probably completely opposite to the libertarian in 5 but the two are both classified as right wing (or far right for different reasons depending on how radical the libertarian was) that's bad for discussion imo. It's confusing at best and at worst it can damage discussion. I propose that we aim, where possible, to specify what we mean. Using something like socially progressive fiscal Conservative or socially Liberal economic left. There are more facets but I feel these are the 2 main ones people are referring to when they classify peeps left and right. It's further confused by the split between 2 ideologies, two economically right wing people might have totally different motivations, a compassionate Conservative is right wing for different reasons than a greedy businessman who just wants to maximise personal wealth. Thanks for reading, if you have any suggestions or observations please share em, and I hope we can figure out a better guideline/framework for discussion.

I've always despised the "one group or the other" ideology. An independent person loses a lot of what makes them independent if they start becoming convinced they should label themselves A and not B or vice versa.

Even this I think does not evade the root of the problem: that when people use labels like that they are under the assumption that everyone who listens to them has, in their mind, the same meaning for the words they use to denote their positions. It is far better to ditch labels and straight up say specific statements about policies whenever possible, instead of relying on labels in the vain hope that whoever you're speaking to is on the same page with you on semantic terminology. Would do wonders to stop semantic arguments dead in their tracks, focusing instead on the things in themselves rather than the words used to denote them.

The issue is that people have emotional connections to the left and the right that clouds their judgement on actual policy, even I do and I try to avoid it. In the academic world the spectrum is useful, but in the modern world it undermines democracy.

I prefer to be on the blue/orange scale.

The worst thing about Left VS right is that one side pins "FASCISM" or other buzzwordism onto the other Fascism isn't a concept of either side, it's far authoritarian. Just like Anarchy a far libertarian concept, but it's not instantly inclusive, you can have socialist or economic anarchists. All these labels describe thousands of different types of political stances. There is no left VS right, outside the illusion that the world is black and white. I'm a populist/social democrat but I'd have more to talk about with a conservative than a communist, in fact I'm very libertarian about anything that isn't big business. Do whatever the fuck you want, just don't damage or harm. The government shouldn't be getting directly into peoples lives. in reality the world is more like, black, white, brown, blue, checkerboard green and pink, turquoise, etc

I think Fascism specifically is economically right wing (mass privatization, support for businesses seeking profit, destroying trade unions). As an ideology it is economically right wing but I think when people use it they are probably referring more to the authoritarian aspect, which makes it awkward and because of that it sort of has 2 meanings. I am aware that as a economic lefty it's in my interest to "disown" Fascism but the economic left has plenty of examples where it's been implimented by a terrible authoritarian regime eg soviets and china. I speak genuinely when I argue that Fascism (and Nazism) were predominantly economically right wing.

How though. A government power itself with enough power is effectively a fascist state. It has total power, is ultra-nationalist, and maintains a dead middle class. It would effectively have the same results as a true corporate government. An elite, dead middle class, etc.

This. I really hate it when people reduce fascism to authoritarianism. IMO it is easily the most intellectually lazy nonsense that anyone can come out with when talking about politics. Authoritarianism is extremely broad - Medieval Kings were authoritarian. Stalin was authoritarian. Calling both fascist makes the word meaningless. "Far authoritarianism" / "totalitarianism" is no better. Stalin still falls into that category, as do a number of other interwar dictatorships like Francoist Spain which on closer inspection are quite distinct from fascist Italy/Nazi Germany. When you talk about fascism, you're talking about ideology which is far, far more complex. Historically fascists have had distinct beliefs in terms of aesthetics, culture and how to resolve class relations. You can't separate fascism from nationalism. If you're not talking about people who at the core of their beliefs have extreme views about importance of national identity and culture in the operation of the state then they are not fascists. Period.

Maybe this is specifically what I'm missing from the bigger picture, which is nationalism. But what stops a lefty from being nationalist?

I hate what politics has become in the US where you're either with us or against us, red or blue, Fox News or NBC, etc, etc. Nazi or Commie. This shit isn't a sports team.

Short answer: because Left Wing economics is incompatible with ultra-nationalism. If you take left-wing economics to an authoritarian, collectivist level, what you get is the Soviet Union et al. Imagine a multi-layered pyramid of how society is built in terms of class as the Y axis, and population as the X axis. With a socialist state, the intention of its economic policy is to reduce the disparity between the classes so that the pyramid actually looks more like a square. The aim is what the left imagine to be a fairer redistribution of wealth. In fascism, the state has no intention to change the pyramid. Instead, the state seeks to exploit the makeup of the pyramid. The moneyed classes nearer the top organise and own the means of production, while the working classes are used as labour. The uniting factor isn't an ethos that the pyramid needs to change, but a distinct political culture that everyone has a stake in the state as part of a "nation". Your value as a person regardless of your wealth is determined by your utility to the state. Equality through loyalty to the state, as I've seen it written. Extreme nationalism is defined by seeking exclusion based on the parameters that are seen to define the nation. The parameters tend to be things like ethnicity, culture or language. Now the main thing leftists are concerned about - wealth - that cannot define a person as part of a nation. A person could be rich in any country in the world, or be rich and move to any country in the world. Leftist economic thinking is all about managing wealth so that is supposedly fairer for everyone. Extreme nationalism isn't concerned with wealth - it comes about because people are concerned about national identity and national culture, which are very distinct concepts from wealth. Hypothetically, you could imagine a state which tries to run things along leftist economic lines while promoting the idea of there being a nation that needs to push all non-nationals out for not being pure enough. However, there's never been a state like this to my knowledge, and there probably never will - it would be like the state equivalent of Abradolf Lincler from Rick & Morty. It would be a weird, confusing mess of priorities which would never materialize in the real world.

Stop categorising everyone into labels. Everyone’s politics are different. Most people on Facepunch would consider my stances to align with being a ‘centrist’, but I hate that label as it implies that I’ll take the middleground to absolutely everything. When in reality, I’ll support policies which I perceive to maximise utility - whether those policies are championed by one ideology or another, or are a compromise. When everyone’s grouped into labels, and indeed place a label(s) on themselves, then no one is being open-minded. Everyone’s motivations suddenly shift into how to be ideologically pure, and constructive dialogue in political discourse dies.

Fascism, in its proper original meaning, refers to a specific political ideology which was economically right wing. One might argue that taken to extremes a (economically right wing) corporate monopoly (where the only interest is corperate interest and not the workers/people/stake holders) and a (economically left wing) totalitarian state run monopoly (where the state is unaccountable to the people/workers) are very similar but it doesn't change the fact that one is extreme economic right and the other is extreme economic left. We don't take stuff to extremes for a reason though, you could argue a whole bunch of stuff if you take it to the extremes, so we don't do that. I'm not saying economically right wing is a bad thing, indeed I think it's wholly necessary to mitigate for failure, a perfect system will never exist and it's folly to try and make it, one should expect error and several decentralised private actors is a decent way to safely allow failure to happen. Also I feel that independent private actors can respond better to changes in technology - like all our governments are years behind the private sector on making laws regarding crypto and gig economy etc. We need private indsutry just like we need gov oversight. I will say though I think that police, healthcare, essential utilities and fire service should be nationalised (with private sector allowed to compete if they so wish) that's why I classify myself an economic leftie The original fascist ideology was also tied to nationalism and religion - so it becomes less and less appropriate to be used as widely as it is (especially for the various left wing regimes which were generally not religious in nature) I think totalitarian might be a better term, less specific but still carries the heft and meaning.

How so? I consider myself to be a liberal in general but it's not like I go out of my way to specifically adhere to common liberal beliefs. I use that label because it's the most accurate for my beliefs and makes it easier to communicate said beliefs quickly and efficiently to others. That label doesn't dictate my beliefs in any way, shape or form. The exact opposite is true.

I like 1, 3, 4, and 6. What kind of freak of nature political spectrum do I fall under

I think the concept of Left-Right politics should've stayed as a way to group the ideas of Economic concepts instead of being about social issues. Like what leans more towards a State-regulated economy, or what leans more towards a unregulated/private economy. Cause each version of left/right economies have their own merits and disadvantages and are clearly worth discussing and debating about. The problem is that somehow for the past 20-40 years. We have slowly but surely grouped social concepts such as LGBT rights, civil rights, etc into the Left-Right political spectrum. Where they should've been their own standalone ideas that have absolutely nothing to do with left-right wing economic ideas. Though some can say that's a byproduct of left/ring wing economies. The Environment they create possibly attracts or produces people with these differing social ideologies that have somehow become a staple of left/right wing politics. Allowing them to flourish unchallenged. So say would a group of socially progressive individuals, but who also hold right-winged economic ideas flourish the same way as a group of xenophobic individuals who also hold the same economic ideas in a right wing economy? Or will they be challenged and have much more difficulty compared to the Xenophobic individuals? Same goes with the situation if it were flipped and they were left-leaning economically.

I think this is just a product of electoral strategy under the two party system. A natural dichotomy is inevitably going to emerge under this system, and will further development and entrencth itself over time. I think the biggest problem with this is that it ultimately shoehorns people into ideology. If you're a conservative in economic terms (low taxation, free market), you're pretty much forced to be anti-progressive on social issues as well. What this usually results in is people with one piece of held ideology developing an affinity for everything else in the package as well. The more they begin to identify with the ideology of their chosen party, the easier it will be to have them go along with whatever "their side" endorses, and makes it easier to ignore their wrongdoing. Because after all, what choice do you really have when you disagree with one or two issues but agree with the rest? The US needs major, sweeping electoral reform. It's only going to get worse if we let what we have fester any further. It's producing visible tears in our society.

Time to add the upwards and downwards to the list. Or the ups and the :downs: or the forwards and backwards.

People like labels, they make it so you don't have to think about things. And if they did think about things, they might realize their opponents have some good points. It would be really nice if we could vote on a per-issue basis, but figuring out a system of doing that without being cumbersome or prone to some kind of bias like gerrymandering would be hard.

I just call myself a centrist because I agree with things from both sides. It's easier than always breaking down where I stand on every issue.

To be fair though, if you are just looking at the two major parties in the United States it's really hard to treat one the same as the other. The Democrats are equal parts corrupt and incomptent but do not harbor the sheer, unadulterated malice and casual disregard for basic humanity that the Republican party does. You're absolutely right, it's not a sports team, and you would do well to consider why people might be outraged with one side or the other instead of just assuming they are into some dumb tribalism shit.

Tribal mentality has been one of the factors that's plagued how we talk about politics. Another being marketability of parties, political parties exploiting human psychology to tap at that tribal us v them mentality in order to rally supporters. Nuance and critical thinking have been thrown out the window in most political discourse nowadays. It ought to be taught more often to have civil debates addressing said nuance of various topics instead of boiling it down to emotionally charged attack or ad hominem.

I blame the french, personally.

A norm of people plotting political spectrums on a 2D plane instead of a single line is desperately needed, especially in the U.S.A. where people have lost sight of what they vote for due to sports mentalities when it comes to politics: No, less government is not right-wing. No, left libertarianism isn't an oxymoron. No, a theocratic dictatorship is not leftist. No, anarchy is absolutely not just to the right of conservatism. No, a communist government doesn't magically swing from left to right if it breaks down in anarchy. Yes, fascism can originate from right-wing democracies. Yes, conservativism can be more authoritarian than socialism. Yes, it is possible for someone to have ideals that would be both Marxist and libertarian and be a valid and labelable political position No, you can't say someone's political point of view is not able to be plotted on a spectrum just because you're using literally one-dimensional concepts.

For me, left and right implies a degree of pro- or anti-capitalism, where what could be considered left-leaning favors regulating the worst effects of capitalism while the far-left favors abolishing it altogether.

Hadn't it always been like that though? Orwell certainly complained of it. Maybe it's the elitist vs populist struggle in general, it lends itself naturally to 2 sides. Tories vs whips in British politics, right vs left in French parliament, it probably goes back to early politics like the elite run senate vs tiberius graccus types. It's always been around but maybe it was more amicable in the past. I think that system has been subverted in America they left wing (meant to be for the people) very much protects the interests of elites, though not quite to the extent of the republicans/right wing. So the parties differentiate themselves by appealing to different identities. There's an article someone posted on facepunch a while back https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/mar/01/how-americas-identity-politics-went-from-inclusion-to-division Here's an excerpt In America today, every group feels this way to some extent. Whites and blacks, Latinos and Asians, men and women, Christians, Jews, and Muslims, straight people and gay people, liberals and conservatives – all feel their groups are being attacked, bullied, persecuted, discriminated against. Of course, one group’s claims to feeling threatened and voiceless are often met by another group’s derision because it discounts their own feelings of persecution – but such is political tribalism. This – combined with record levels of inequality – is why we now see identity politics on both sides of the political spectrum. And it leaves the United States in a perilous new situation: almost no one is standing up for an America without identity politics, for an American identity that transcends and unites all the country’s many subgroups. So if that is the case its become some scenario where rather than ideologies being opposed its identities, which somewhat raises the stakes,it feels like a group is opposing you as a person. That might explain why its become so toxic, especially in American politics. Maybe a kind of soft nationalism has a bigger role to play in modern politics, to unite people as a single group, so even if you disagree on specifics or ideology or policy you still belong to the same super group so things never get nasty. <conspiritard> this wouldn't benefit the current parties since both have similar economically right wing stances and if people stopped fightng over identity they'd start fighting over economics again; and with the current inequality in America the economic left wing would have a sizeable base of voters. There would be a shift left, with wealth being distributed more evenly (probably by single payer healthcare or better welfare) which would hurt the super rich peeps' wallets, it's in their interests to stop such a shift. And those super rich peeps just happen to be donors for both parties. </conspiritard>