NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok...well here is an interesting piece of information that I believe sheds light on the issue of left versus right in politics.

In the Australian Parliament, when a bill is put to the floor, the Speaker of the House calls upon all those who support the bill to stand on his right (with the government) and those who do not support the bill to stand to the left.

The word "right" essentially means somebody is correct. This ties in with those supporting a bill being asked to stand on the right hand side. It is therefore assumed that those on the right are correct in their actions - hence governments sit on the right hand side of the Speaker (after all people must believe they are right for they elected them).

So...taking this into account, we may determine that being "right wing" suggests you are correct in your way of thought.

Being "left" suggests you are in opposition to the correct action taken.

...also...what does the political spectrum look like? My version is thus:

left totalitarian - communist - socialist - left - fascist - centrist - centre/right - right wing - right wing totalitarian (corporate governance)

NOTE: I placed fascism between centrist and left because when you consider Nazi Germany, there were socialist elements and centre/right elements to Hitler's policies.

'NOTE: I placed fascism between centrist and left because when you consider Nazi Germany, there were socialist elements and centre/right elements to Hitler's policies.'

And that is the problem with this left and right thing. They can be far right on one issue and far left on another. trying to label them restricts how you think of them and colours your views of all thier policies.

I think that anarchy should be on the extreme left, and communism can only be on the far left in the theoretical version. The practiced version goes more to the right.

Actually, it is basically inaccurate to have a scale such as this one, as the scale needs to be two-dimensional: One scale for social and one scale for economic politics. In that case fascism would go on the far right on the social scale, but perhaps more to the left on the economic scale. (Although I really don't believe this either. Even if Hitler did have socialist tendencies, you can't say that all fascists are like that.)

As for the left-right origin, the terms were originally used in the French revolution, and thus have nothing to do with "right" as "correct:

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Political%20spectrum

"Originally, the defining point on the ideological spectrum was the ancien régime ("old order"). "The Right" thus implied support for aristocratic or royal interests, while "The Left" implied opposition to the same. Because the political franchise at the start of the revolution was relatively narrow, the original "Left" represented mainly the interests of the bourgeoisie, the rising capitalist class. At that time, support for laissez-faire capitalism and Free markets were counted as being on the left; today in most Western countries these views would be characterized as being on the Right.

As the franchise expanded over the next several years, it became clear that there was something to the left of that original "Left": the precursors of socialism and communism, advocating the interests of wage-earners and peasants."

The definitions of left and right are different and have changed over the course of history. There are also difference between countries and within countries about the definition.
Following the traditional model only having left and right you have big problems. For example: true liberals have "extreme right-wing" political views in the economic field but are left-wing on other issues (civil right, abortion, e.g.).
Putting them in the middle is an option, but is not such a good solution. For some people the economic questions matter more and they don´t care much about the other, but for other people (rather less I assume) it is the opposite.


I actually prefer a two dimension modell to "locate" political views. The two sides: right - left are not appropiate enough, because it is just one dimension.
In the modell I prefer one dimensions stands for economy.
Here right stands for free economy and left for socialism.
The other dimension goes to the so views of society (everything from immigration ( like: open to all - or - no immigration as the two extreme positions) to crime (no punishment for criminals - death penalty for every crime)).


A test for this modell is
http://www.politicalcompass.org/

I disagree with some of the questions and the way they are asked and this test can certainly be improved, but it gives an idea for the stance of people.

It's kind of ironic that you realise the left-right idea comes purely out of the structures of most parliaments, and then you still try to fit varied political ideologies on to this one dimensional scale. I don't think it's sensible to try to categorise ideologies by a one-, two-, or three-dimensional scale. It may make sense to say 'A and B are more alike than either are like C' in many cases, but that doesn't mean there are only three (or fewer) degress of freedom.

@Safalra,

I understand your criticism. However models can be useful. It is however important not to think that modells give a full picture of the reality. But since reality is so complex you in fact can not go over it without having any modell. The two dimension modell is at least much more appropiate than just having two. However it is admittedly also having weaknesses.

Well, in America at least, the left is a bunch of total scumbag limpwristed commie hippie minority bleeding hearts antipatriot terrorists. At least if you're part of the right. Or, if you're part of the left, the right is a bunch of goose stepping racist redneck oil barons and their progeny out to control and oppress the world.

Unfortunately, due to the ever simplifying nature of education and culture in this country, this kind of black and white polarization is unlikely to ever change.

I understand your criticism. However models can be useful. It is however important not to think that modells give a full picture of the reality.

Of course. Unfortunately many people do interpret them that wat.

But since reality is so complex you in fact can not go over it without having any modell. The two dimension modell is at least much more appropiate than just having two. However it is admittedly also having weaknesses.

Definitely more than one dimension is needed - both those who regard themselves as 'left' and those who regard themselves as 'right' disown anarchism as belonging to the other side. An anarchistic/authoratiran axis is needed.

It's all about left. Hell I'm even left handed.

I define anybody who is "left" as a truly sinister politician!!! :lol: