What exactly does "left" or "right" mean to you?

[Guynemer]

if right isn't right, left is all that's left, right?

[lord of the mark]

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.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's based on tradition. Those on the right are for very slow, gradual progress, but keeping as many traditions as are possible. The far right want no change at all or to go back to a 'better time'. The left wants more rapid change and screw tradition where it conflicts with what is 'just'. The far left wants super-rapid change and screw tradition even where it doesn't conflict with what is 'just'.

[Kuciwalker]

I take it I'm left-wing then, Imran?

[Chemical Ollie]

When driving a car in England, the left side is the right side and the right side is suicide

[Imran Siddiqui]

I take it I'm left-wing then, Imran?

If you want to say **** tradition, then yes.

[Kuciwalker]

Proof that England is screwed up

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I beleive the question was what does 'left' or 'right' mean to you?

You don't need Imran's permission to be either Sky.

You simply need to define it for yourself and then come to the conclusion whether you are right or left.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

right and left are synonymus (sic) with the repression of liberty.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

I take it I'm left-wing then, Imran?

If you want to say **** tradition, then yes.

What if I want to completely ignore tradition?

[Imran Siddiqui]

What if I want to completely ignore tradition?

Then similarly... but you are not one of those people. For example, you don't want to ignore the Constitution when you feel something would be better except for a pesky Constitutional provision (ie, you'd rather go through the process of changing it... acknowledging tradition).

[Drogue]

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.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

What if I want to completely ignore tradition?

Then similarly... but you are not one of those people. For example, you don't want to ignore the Constitution when you feel something would be better except for a pesky Constitutional provision (ie, you'd rather go through the process of changing it... acknowledging tradition).

Huh? You don't obey the constitution because it's tradition, you obey it because it's the law. Otherwise, anyone except an anarchist is conservative.

[Arrian]

Imran the lawyer in training... heh. Remember, Sky, the Law is all about tradition. I think that's the point of view Imran is coming from. Thus, the Constitution is tradition, and following it is accepting said tradition.

-Arrian

[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).

[Sava]

Originally posted by skywalker
Huh? You don't obey the constitution because it's tradition, you obey it because it's the law. Otherwise, anyone except an anarchist is conservative.

the consitution doesn't really set up laws individuals have to obey, it's more like a blueprint for government and an outline of civil rights... except for that stupid prohibition crap... hopefully all this gay marriage talk is hot air, because I'd hate to see a great document disgraced once again.

Plus, I follow my own moral guidelines. For instance, I piss on marijuana laws.

[Capt Dizle]

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

[Agathon]

To add to my post above.

- This is why "The Christian Right" is an oxymoron.

[Arrian]

And Agathon trots out the old "the Right is evil" line.

-Arrian

[Capt Dizle]

I'll compromise with Agathon.

Left=tooth fairies
Right=evil dentists

Does that work for you?

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It's based on tradition. Those on the right are for very slow, gradual progress, but keeping as many traditions as are possible. The far right want no change at all or to go back to a 'better time'. The left wants more rapid change and screw tradition where it conflicts with what is 'just'. The far left wants super-rapid change and screw tradition even where it doesn't conflict with what is 'just'.

Cool, now I can claim to be right-wing.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
A de-emphasis of private sector solutions and/or penalizing of same.

And, to me, a private sector solution is an oxymoron.


The problem with a lot of replies in this thread is that they are defining one side and then just stating that the other is the opposite.

Saying that the Left == "pro-taxes" is silly. Yes, the Right may == "anti-taxes", but the Left isn't the Right's complement. The two sides have different priorities and taxes -- whether raising or lowering -- just aren't high on the Left's list. Taxes are a means to an end. They are not an end in and of themselves.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Arrian
And Agathon trots out the old "the Right is evil" line.

-Arrian

Historically, that is what the right has stood for. It's the simplest and best explanation that links together right wing behaviour.

The right currently want to privilege the welfare of heterosexuals over homosexuals and rich over poor.

Historically, they've privileged the welfare of men over women and whites over everyone else (esp. Jews). See a pattern?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by jimmytrick

that is all bullshit

Says the man who has never posted anything worth reading in his whole Apolyton career.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It's based on tradition. Those on the right are for very slow, gradual progress, but keeping as many traditions as are possible. The far right want no change at all or to go back to a 'better time'. The left wants more rapid change and screw tradition where it conflicts with what is 'just'. The far left wants super-rapid change and screw tradition even where it doesn't conflict with what is 'just'.

Keeping tradition for it's own sake. Has there ever been a more brainless philosophy? I think not...

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by Agathon


Says the man who has never posted anything worth reading in his whole Apolyton career.

well, how can I argue with that kind of statement

[Buck Birdseed]

I hate to agree with Ag, who'se obviously a weapons-grade tosser, but that's how it is more or less. Find any system of oppression where one group dominates another, and the ones who support the weak group are inevitably "the left" while those who support the continual domination of the strong group are "the right".

[Japher]

Left=Che
Right=Ned

[Kuciwalker]

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).

Where, then, would you place a system that focuses on giving benefits based on merit, but has an equal opportunity to show that merit? Where would you place a system that wants to make everyone better, but doesn't care if they're equal?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
The right currently want to privilege the welfare of heterosexuals over homosexuals and rich over poor.

SOME of the "religious right" want to privilege heterosexuals over homosexuals. Notice that a lot of the "right" at 'Poly don't.