NationStates Jolt Archive

Why do we still politically categorize ourselves based on how some French people sat nearly two hundred years ago? The entire concept of political right and left is now outdated and inaccurate. Hell, it may have always been inaccurate.

First of all there is the problem of regional perspective. Someone in Western Europe may consider Democratic Communists to be center-left, while the average American would place the same people on the extreme left. In America, traditional progressives are generally viewed as left wing, while Europeans think of them as center-right. No one can really say who perspective is the correct one unless they have no problem being an ethnocentric ass.

Even within the same region, the terms are inaccurate. Some say they define right and left by economic policy, capitalism on the right, communism on the left. Problem there is, which is closer to capitalism, the big government deficit advocating, corporate welfare policies of neo-conservatives, or the small government, balanced budget policies of libertarians and traditional conservatives. It doesn’t work on the left either. Most would agree that a militant communist is undoubtedly on the left, but what of so called Democratic Socialists. They sustain capitalism by appeasing the lower classes without actually drastically changing their lot in life. How can they be on the left?

So let’s define right and left by social issues. Woops. Can’t do that either. Even putting aside the fact that anybody worth listening to looks at each individual issue and determine their opinion based on what they feel is right, the idea of left and right completely breaks down in this area. Religion is a tool to control the lower classes. Is banning it totalitarian (right) or communistic (left)?

The whole concept is pointless.

I prefer the terms "Turnwise" and "Widdershins"

Your argument is quite ovious, and has been knwo for quite some time.
find Political Compass on the internet, it has 4 mesurment scales, I found it to be much better than the old system

I prefer the terms "Turnwise" and "Widdershins"

Those damn widdershins bastards has such a ring to it no?

Why do we still politically categorize ourselves based on how some French people sat nearly two hundred years ago? The entire concept of political right and left is now outdated and inaccurate. Hell, it may have always been inaccurate.

First of all there is the problem of regional perspective. Someone in Western Europe may consider Democratic Communists to be center-left, while the average American would place the same people on the extreme left. In America, traditional progressives are generally viewed as left wing, while Europeans think of them as center-right. No one can really say who perspective is the correct one unless they have no problem being an ethnocentric ass.

Even within the same region, the terms are inaccurate. Some say they define right and left by economic policy, capitalism on the right, communism on the left. Problem there is, which is closer to capitalism, the big government deficit advocating, corporate welfare policies of neo-conservatives, or the small government, balanced budget policies of libertarians and traditional conservatives. It doesn’t work on the left either. Most would agree that a militant communist is undoubtedly on the left, but what of so called Democratic Socialists. They sustain capitalism by appeasing the lower classes without actually drastically changing their lot in life. How can they be on the left?

So let’s define right and left by social issues. Woops. Can’t do that either. Even putting aside the fact that anybody worth listening to looks at each individual issue and determine their opinion based on what they feel is right, the idea of left and right completely breaks down in this area. Religion is a tool to control the lower classes. Is banning it totalitarian (right) or communistic (left)?

The whole concept is pointless.
All I needed to read was the first paragraph. You are absolutely correct. I have wanted to post this argument here for some time but you beat me too it. The world is far too complicated now for their to be these convenient little labels for people's beliefs.

I suppose we could use up or down.

It doesn’t work on the left either. Most would agree that a militant communist is undoubtedly on the left, but what of so called Democratic Socialists.
Social Democrats allow capitalism, because they are not as far left as militant communists.

It's just an easy system of figuring how ideologies relate to each other without drowing in a sea of -isms.

It's just an easy system of figuring how ideologies relate to each other without drowing in a sea of -isms.
God forbid political philosophy be complicated.
Your argument is quite ovious, and has been knwo for quite some time.
find Political Compass on the internet, it has 4 mesurment scales, I found it to be much better than the old system
The political compass is patently worthless. It works inside a vary thin frame of political thought.

I view politics as a continuum between agreeing with me (correct) and disagreeing with me (incorrect). Thus, there is a correct and incorrect wing.:D

I view politics as a continuum between agreeing with me (correct) and disagreeing with me (incorrect). Thus, there is a correct and incorrect wing.:D
You're like me then.:eek:

Undelia is right....can I have your man-babies?

I've believed this since I first studied politics.

We use left and right 'cause it's nice and simple, and people generally prefer a simple idea to a correct one. The majority of the public fit nicely on to the linear system - observe that on the graphs of political compass results for NationStates, most people fall close to a diagonal from bottom-left to top-right.

Why do we still politically categorize ourselves based on how some French people sat nearly two hundred years ago?

it might have something to do with the fact that the left holds that the french revolution was an important/defining moment in history (whichever lessons you draw from it), and so they sort of symbolically associate themselves with it.


and those on the right just don't know history. especially history outside of their country of origin.

it might have something to do with the fact that the left holds that the french revolution was an important/defining moment in history (whichever lessons you draw from it), and so they sort of symbolically associate themselves with it.


and those on the right just don't know history. especially history outside of their country of origin.
Enlighten us, Dr. History. :)

I often call myself "right-wing". But, I'm also anti-big corporation, pro-choice, and anti-Bush. There are more than just two positions politically.

I prefer the terms "Turnwise" and "Widdershins"

Me too. Because once you go really far in either direction they end up being the same in every practical sense. Totalitarian control from a tiny elite who controls the lower classes who live in poverty and have no power.

You can either get there from the right by giving all the power to the employers and undermining the efforts of the workers to organize like Hitler did and Reagan started to do. From the left you get there by abolishing the employers and having the people work directly for the government who then sets the wages and acts like government and corporation in one.

There's only one way that you can keep going in the same direction and end up where you started, travel in circle.

Enlighten us, Dr. History. :)

what i'm really getting at is that it makes sense for the left to liken their opponents to the french monarchists and counterrevolutionaries, but i find it weird that rightwingers themselves have adopted the term.

Why do we still politically categorize ourselves based on how some French people sat nearly two hundred years ago?

Because we're lazy.

ENNNUIIIIIII!!!!!

Why do we still politically categorize ourselves based on how some French people sat nearly two hundred years ago? The entire concept of political right and left is now outdated and inaccurate. Hell, it may have always been inaccurate.

Indeed. For one thing, it overlooks religion - which is neither left or right wing (though tends to be a tad bit conservative socially) . Anyone denying that religion is important in politics is requested to tell me where to find their lovely drugs ;)

I often call myself "right-wing". But, I'm also anti-big corporation, pro-choice, and anti-Bush. There are more than just two positions politically.

What's left (by which I mean what remains of the right-wing with which you identify after you've pointed out what bits of it that you disagree with)? Culturally imperialist militarism?

I identify as left-wing, but the only position on which I disagree with most left-wingers is gun control. That's one little spot on what is otherwise complete agreement, and I see that as an extension of my liberalism. I believe in the choice of the individual ("i.e. the liberty from which the philosophy derives its name"), and that includes whether or not to own a gun.

God forbid political philosophy be complicated.

The political compass is patently worthless. It works inside a vary thin frame of political thought.

Do you have a better way to determine your political position? I certainly wouldn't mind one as accurate as possible. :)

Indeed. For one thing, it overlooks religion - which is neither left or right wing (though tends to be a tad bit conservative socially) . Anyone denying that religion is important in politics is requested to tell me where to find their lovely drugs ;)

We can't, because the drugs we take for religious purposes are considered controlled substances by the Bush administration. And he claims that the PATRIOT act gives him the right to snoop on private emails to determine whether or not we're taking them. :D

Why do we still politically categorize ourselves based on how some French people sat nearly two hundred years ago?
France has superpower status, that's why. In the early 19th century...

Indeed. For one thing, it overlooks religion - which is neither left or right wing (though tends to be a tad bit conservative socially) . Anyone denying that religion is important in politics is requested to tell me where to find their lovely drugs ;)

actually, the position of religion in society fits rather nicely with the standard description, with just a few outlying religious ideologies. the left is typically anti-clerical to some degree, depending on the existing role of religion in a particular society.

What's left (by which I mean what remains of the right-wing with which you identify after you've pointed out what bits of it that you disagree with)? Culturally imperialist militarism?

I identify as left-wing, but the only position on which I disagree with most left-wingers is gun control. That's one little spot on what is otherwise complete agreement, and I see that as an extension of my liberalism. I believe in the choice of the individual ("i.e. the liberty from which the philosophy derives its name"), and that includes whether or not to own a gun.

If I understand what you're asking correctly, I'm pro-gun and anti-big, nanny government. And my personal opinion on abortion is right-wing, except that I don't think it's the Government's business.

It's becuase there are only two wings.

The right wing... And the wrong wing.

I'm right, everyone else is wrong :D

actually, the position of religion in society fits rather nicely with the standard description, with just a few outlying religious ideologies. the left is typically anti-clerical to some degree, depending on the existing role of religion in a particular society.

You are aware that a significant part of the European "socialist" econonmic policies are a direct result of Christianity ? As in " being excessively greedy is wrong" and "we should care for the poor". As well as that the parties that style themselves as "left wing" are often the ones most tolerant of religions.

At the same time, some religious parties are extremely socially conservative - like claiming women should have no rights since God never intended them to do anything but produce children.

You are aware that a significant part of the European "socialist" econonmic policies are a direct result of Christianity ? As in " being excessively greedy is wrong" and "we should care for the poor". As well as that the parties that style themselves as "left wing" are often the ones most tolerant of religions.

At the same time, some religious parties are extremely socially conservative - like claiming women should have no rights since God never intended them to do anything but produce children.

this goes against what i said how, exactly?

Why do we still politically categorize ourselves based on how some French people sat nearly two hundred years ago? The entire concept of political right and left is now outdated and inaccurate. Hell, it may have always been inaccurate.

First of all there is the problem of regional perspective. Someone in Western Europe may consider Democratic Communists to be center-left, while the average American would place the same people on the extreme left. In America, traditional progressives are generally viewed as left wing, while Europeans think of them as center-right. No one can really say who perspective is the correct one unless they have no problem being an ethnocentric ass....

Why do we still geographically catagorize ourselves based on where some Viking dwarves supposedly set up shop when the world was a block of ice? The entire concept of east and west is now outdated and inaccurate. Hell, it may have always been inaccurate.

First of all, there is the problem of regional perspective. Someone in Western Europe may consider New York to be far West, while the average American would place the same city on the East Coast. In America, Ohio is considered to be mid-West, but from Japan it would be distant East. Which is more or less what we call Japan. No one can really say whose perspective is the correct one unless they have no problem...

...Well, I think you all see where I'm going with this.

rewriting political alignment would be like trying to re-write time on a new system of binary and metric.

you'd spend 1101001 kilo-hours tyring to design it and then nobody would use it until after 001 giga-years.

If I understand what you're asking correctly, I'm pro-gun and anti-big, nanny government. And my personal opinion on abortion is right-wing, except that I don't think it's the Government's business.

But all the right wingers believe in big government. They just believe in big abusive daddy government instead of big nanny government. And there aren't really any anti-gun politicians in the Democratic party.

But all the right wingers believe in big government. They just believe in big abusive daddy government instead of big nanny government.
Depends on what you consider to be right wing. Libertarians, for instance, are considered to be right wing, but favor small government. The scale is pointless.

It's still used because some basis for politicial comparison will always and should always exist. We could devise a new, more in-depth system, but people would be bitching about that one within a few generations too. Human beings possess the odd habit of both needing to categorize things, and hating it at the same time. No one wants to be pigeonholed, but at the same time some mechanism must exist to determine one's political philosophy. The only way said mechanism could possibly cease to exist is if we all suddenly woke up one day and agreed with everyone else about everything, which I don't see happening in the near future [thank christ].

For example, I don't like being called a right-winger [primarily as a result of the people it associates me with], but sometimes I've got to bite the bullet and accept the label when it fits.

it might have something to do with the fact that the left holds that the french revolution was an important/defining moment in history (whichever lessons you draw from it), and so they sort of symbolically associate themselves with it.

and those on the right just don't know history. especially history outside of their country of origin.
Most of the right-wing in western countries is also ideologically descended from French revolutionary and 18th century liberal thought. The gulf between isn't generally that vast.

I identify as left-wing, but the only position on which I disagree with most left-wingers is gun control. That's one little spot on what is otherwise complete agreement, and I see that as an extension of my liberalism. I believe in the choice of the individual ("i.e. the liberty from which the philosophy derives its name"), and that includes whether or not to own a gun.
I question the popularity of gun control on the left. It seems to be mostly big on the American centre-wing of politics (Democrats).

For example, I don't like being called a right-winger [primarily as a result of the people it associates me with], but sometimes I've got to bite the bullet and accept the label when it fits.
Dude, you make Bush look like a socialist. :D

We could call it Dave and John....or Jack and Jill

yes that a good idea *nods* I am more Jill that Jack, but sometimes I am up the hill.....

Most of the right-wing in western countries is also ideologically descended from French revolutionary and 18th century liberal thought. The gulf between isn't generally that vast.

descended from, yes. but they don't typically hold up the french revolution for any particular glorification.

as i said, it makes sense to me for the left (which does tend to glorify the french revolution) to symbolically adopt it's terms for themselves and their current opponents, but it doesn't really make sense that the right has taken it on themselves too. why symbolically link themselves to the ancien régime?

Not being able to say where someone is along the line is a mild criticism really. I think that no position on the line can really describe a person's position, and worse still, that thinking in terms of left and right creates the illusion that one must be either capitalist, socialist or a mix of the two.

descended from, yes. but they don't typically hold up the french revolution for any particular glorification.

as i said, it makes sense to me for the left (which does tend to glorify the french revolution) to symbolically adopt it's terms for themselves and their current opponents, but it doesn't really make sense that the right has taken it on themselves too. why symbolically link themselves to the ancien régime?
To be honest I don't hear a lot of remeniscing about 1789 in contemporary political discussion from any side.

To be honest I don't hear a lot of remeniscing about 1789 in contemporary political discussion from any side.

it's fallen out slightly, sure. but all the old socialists loved that shit.

Dude, you make Bush look like a socialist. :D

Bush *is* a socialist!

Bush *is* a socialist!
Umm, yeah. Roach-Busters also called him a "communist lover". That was even funnier.