NationStates Jolt Archive

I think the ideas of "left-wing" and "right-wing" are flawed and only serve to prevent people from thinking clearly about politics. I think it's stupid to try to box everything into "left-wing" and "right-wing" categories.

Having an axis for social freedom and economic left-right is barely an improvement.

I think the political compass has it down.

There are no two wings, there are four quadrants.

It tires me to hear people talk about right and left wing ideology. I think it is impossible to be completely one way or another. You have to look at the world and the issues objectively and reasonably. To look at issues strictly as "Right" or "Left" is not only ignorant but totally ridiculous. The world is not black and white.:cool:

they are still useful in designating economic stances of individuals and parties. confusion arises when you start attributing left and right to social stances. we either need a set of entirely new labels or just add the preffixes 'authoritarian' and 'liberal' onto the left and right labels we use.

I much prefer the political compass idea. Left and right wing gets a bit stupid, especially when it is explained as communism (economic policy) at the far left and authoritarianism (social policy) at the far right. Stalin went a long way towards proving that you can have both.

"Right/left wing" divides everyone into two groups. What if you're pro-gun and pro-choice? What if you don't want a "nanny" government, but do want a decent "safety net"?

they are still useful in designating economic stances of individuals and parties.
But you're still assuming that someone's entire economic policy can be described by a single variable and there's no other policy possible other than a "left" one or a "right" one.

I think the political compass has it down.

There are no two wings, there are four quadrants.
Absolutely.

But you're still assuming that someone's entire economic policy can be described by a single variable and there's no other policy possible other than a "left" one or a "right" one.
Or a mix.

But you're still assuming that someone's entire economic policy can be described by a single variable and there's no other policy possible other than a "left" one or a "right" one.

I like the left-right labels on economic policy. Policies that claim not to be either typically have some consistency issues.

Absolutely.
Four quandrants is still a great simplification. That's two numbers. Imagine a political party answering the question "what are your policies?" with "-2.00,3.50" - not particularly useful!

But you're still assuming that someone's entire economic policy can be described by a single variable and there's no other policy possible other than a "left" one or a "right" one.

did you read the rest of my post? it was based on the political compass' way of doing things.

I like the left-right labels on economic policy. Policies that claim not to be either typically have some consistency issues.
Like what? Does "consistency" have any objective value, or is it just aesthetic?

did you read the rest of my post? it was based on the political compass' way of doing things.
The political compass has two variables. One for social policies and one for economic policies.

Which is what I said:
But you're still assuming that someone's entire economic policy can be described by a single variable

Four quandrants is still a great simplification. That's two numbers. Imagine a political party answering the question "what are your policies?" with "-2.00,3.50" - not particularly useful!
It's still a hell of a lot better than "Right wing" and "left wing".

Four quandrants is still a great simplification. That's two numbers. Imagine a political party answering the question "what are your policies?" with "-2.00,3.50" - not particularly useful!

Well, sort of.

You would say, we are socially liberal yet economically Conservative. That would describe the American Libertarian Party.

they are still useful in designating economic stances of individuals and parties. confusion arises when you start attributing left and right to social stances. we either need a set of entirely new labels or just add the preffixes 'authoritarian' and 'liberal' onto the left and right labels we use.
Ah, sorry, but a reasonable person realizes that economic policies are situational and what is ideal and necessary can differ widely from place to place and from time to time.
Anyone who would classify themselves as either wholly right or left economically is little no more and no less than every other foolish ideologue to come before them.

Right and left are useful as a way of uniting consistent policy positions on a very wide range of issues.

"Right/left wing" divides everyone into two groups. What if you're pro-gun and pro-choice? What if you don't want a "nanny" government, but do want a decent "safety net"?
Being pro-gun does nothing to take you away from the far left if your other opinions match that. The idea that the far left opposes guns was invented by right-wing Americans.

Like what? Does "consistency" have any objective value, or is it just aesthetic?
If governments enact inconsistent policies, they tend to clash with each other or waste money.

I think the political compass has it down.

There are no two wings, there are four quadrants.

There are as many lines/sectors/"quadrants" as there are possible factors that influence human behavior and choices. And then, of course, there are infinitely many individual points one can occupy within any one of those lines, sectors, or quadrants.

In other words, essentially every "political compass" type model that exists out there suffers from an incredible degree of simplification and generalization. None of them are a perfect model or authority and as such should be taken with an appropriate measure of salt.

Ah, sorry, but a reasonable person realizes that economic policies are situational and what is ideal and necessary can differ widely from place to place and from time to time.
Anyone who would classify themselves as either wholly right or left economically is little no more and no less than every other foolish ideologue to come before them.

The political compass has two variables. One for social policies and one for economic policies.

Which is what I said:

Quote:
But you're still assuming that someone's entire economic policy can be described by a single variable

i'm sorry but you are both completely misunderstanding me. left and right is not black and white. there are governments and parties that employ economic policies which could be described as left or right depending on which aspects you look at. if they have more left policies they are left leaning if they have more right policies they are right leaning. if it's an even mix it is centrist. that doesn't mean that a communist party cannot be called left wing or thatchers conservatives cannot be called right wing. a very liberal socialist government can still legitimately be called left wing even if its liberal social policies mean that a few aspects of it's economic policy drift right.

You would say, we are socially liberal yet economically Conservative.


Of course, the meanings of "liberal" and "conservative" are subjective and context specific. In the 18th Century, capitalism was the rising liberal economic ideology, and as such characterized the political left along side the socialist and other anti-feudalist/merchantilist ideologies.

Politics is all about the pigeonhole. Apparently, you can't presume to govern unless you can presume about the governed. Didn't the last [US] election show us that black and white are what the electorate wants, and that the candidate who introduces nuance, no matter how well explained or needed for any given issue, is going to lose?

i'm sorry but you are both completely misunderstanding me. left and right is not black and white. there are governments and parties that employ economic policies which could be described as left or right depending on which aspects you look at. if they have more left policies they are left leaning if they have more right policies they are right leaning. if it's an even mix it is centrist. that doesn't mean that a communist party cannot be called left wing or thatchers conservatives cannot be called right wing. a very liberal socialist government can still legitimately be called left wing even if its liberal social policies mean that a few aspects of it's economic policy drift right.
I still think the left-right spectrum and political compass encourage people to take a simplified look at things, although I suppose it is useful for party nomenclature.

Also, you're still saying that a policy is either "left" or "right" and nothing else is possible.

Like what? Does "consistency" have any objective value, or is it just aesthetic?

Yes it does. If a new issue arises which you've never addressed before, your reaction to it is not predictable if you've previously exhibited inconsistent policies.

The only way we can have any idea what you'll do when faced with issues you haven't specifically discussed is by applying the principles behind the policies we have discussed. But if your policies are inconsistent, then there aren't any known principles behind them.

I think the political compass has it down.

There are no two wings, there are four quadrants.

So how come a trotskyist, anarchist and democratic socialist can all have the same point on the political compass despite having massive differences in ideology?

So how come a trotskyist, anarchist and democratic socialist can all have the same point on the political compass despite having massive differences in ideology?
Depends on the type of anarchist.

So how come a trotskyist, anarchist and democratic socialist can all have the same point on the political compass despite having massive differences in ideology?

Because the values are still just sums.

1+5-2 = 4

0+2+2 = 4

If those numbers all positions on various issues, they lead to the same place on the grid, even though they differ significantly, especially on the last point.

I've always thought that an anarchist dictating economic policy kind of defeated the object of maximum freedom.

The left/right lables are worthless to the intelligent and informed.

However, both major polical parties in the US fear intelligent and informed people.

Depends on the type of anarchist.

I'm sorry- the anarchists who set fire to starbucks, not the ones who own them.

Another problem I have with "wings" is that frequently everything good belongs to your "wing" and the bad stuff belongs to the other "wing".

For example, I might say that an all-controlling government is left-wing, and many liberals will deny it. Or, a liberal might claim that right-wingers are racist, which is bull. I've also heard the reverse (left = racist, right = control freak), showing that "wings" is simplistic bull.

Also, you're still saying that a policy is either "left" or "right" and nothing else is possible.

okay. would you care to give me some examples of an economic policy that cannot be called either left-wing or right-wing? i can't think of any just now, but then i'm supposed to be thinking about ancient mesopotamia so i'm not entirely focused on this.

Another problem I have with "wings" is that frequently everything good belongs to your "wing" and the bad stuff belongs to the other "wing".

For example, I might say that an all-controlling government is left-wing, and many liberals will deny it. Or, a liberal might claim that right-wingers are racist, which is bull. I've also heard the reverse (left = racist, right = control freak), showing that "wings" is simplistic bull.
that's because you and they don't understand what left and right wing are supposed to mean.

I'm sorry- the anarchists who set fire to starbucks, not the ones who own them.
I think you might be referring to the "anarchist" punks who oppose all authority, not based on ideology, but for the sake of it. The rebels without a cause.

okay. would you care to give me some examples of an economic policy that cannot be called either left-wing or right-wing? i can't think of any just now, but then i'm supposed to be thinking about ancient mesopotamia so i'm not entirely focused on this.
Were they capitalist or communist in ancient mesopotamia? I have a good feeling such ideologies did not exist. Is feudalism left-wing or right-wing?

Were they capitalist or communist in ancient mesopotamia? I have a good feeling such ideologies did not exist. Is feudalism left-wing or right-wing?
Knowledge of such ideologies does not preclude the possibility of their practical outcomes in these ages. You might say an ancient society was heavily capitalist, even if they did not know of the ideology. It's just how things were.

Knowledge of such ideologies does not preclude the possibility of their practical outcomes in these ages. You might say an ancient society was heavily capitalist, even if they did not know of the ideology. It's just how things were.
True, but that was hardly the focal point of my statement.

Were they capitalist or communist in ancient mesopotamia? I have a good feeling such ideologies did not exist. Is feudalism left-wing or right-wing?

capitalism and communism didn't exist as ideologies then, there were theocracies, despotisms, mercantilist states, empires etc. it all depends really on who's interpreting the archaeological and limited textual evidence. left and right as nomenclature for economic policies probably didn't come into use until capitalism gradually grew out of the economic changes when feudalism ended.

True, but that was hardly the focal point of my statement.
If you read his current response to the question you posed, you will see why I made the clarification.

capitalism and communism didn't exist as ideologies then, there were theocracies, despotisms, mercantilist states, empires etc. it all depends really on who's interpreting the archaeological and limited textual evidence. left and right as nomenclature for economic policies probably didn't come into use until capitalism gradually grew out of the economic changes when feudalism ended.
OK, but would you be able to label those ideologies as left or right? If not, then surely future ideologies could be outside the left-right spectrum, and the spectrum is just getting in the way?

anyway, you guys are gunna have to excuse me. i have an exam in the morning on ancient mesopotamian cities. i really hope they don't ask me if i think they were communist or capitalist! :p

OK, but would you be able to label those ideologies as left or right? If not, then surely future ideologies could be outside the left-right spectrum, and the spectrum is just getting in the way?
well it could be said that anarchists are neither left nor right. but that's something for another day.

OK, but would you be able to label those ideologies as left or right? If not, then surely future ideologies could be outside the left-right spectrum, and the spectrum is just getting in the way?
Left and right are often used to define differing positions on an especially crucial issue in a given locale. Could be immigration, taxes, drugs, religion, whatever.

The tiredness of left and right wing politics is probably what made Tony Blair talk of a "third way". I agree that these two poles are no longer enough to distinguish political parties today. They certainly don't help the public to understand newer ideologies like that of the Liberals, etc...

I've done the four quadrant test, but I dislike the fact that some of it's poles are stigmatised with "expired" ideologies. I tried to look at this political compass, without using biased words.


Authoritarian
|
|
|
|
Pluralism————X————Individualism
|
|
|
|
Libertarian


Authoritarian/Libertarian: This is mainly a Law measure of how the state achieves "Order". A totally authoritarian state imposes plenty of laws and rules on people (not necessarily in a violent but certainly in a strict way). In a totally Libertarian state people are self-regulated on social order (hopefully without chaos... aahh Utopia)

While I feel that the ability of mankind to move away from an Authoritarian to a Libertarian model is proof of maturity of intellect and a sign of evolution, I also feel that moving too quickly to a Libertarian model, BEFORE the people have reached the necessary maturity, will cause a certain amount of chaos. (the extreme would be equivalent to giving a young teenager free reign to do whatever they want).

Pluralism/Individualism: This is a measure of what the state sees as the main strategy to achieve the perfect nation. Pluralism tries to achieve perfection through equal distribution of wealth, never placing individual interests above the totality of the population, while Individualism gives individuals total freedom to reach as much (or as little) wealth as they can, on their own.

[IOn this scale things get a bit trickier, since both extremes have the same goal: reaching the "perfect" nation. Ultimately, both Pluralists and Individualists will want to reach a society so wealthy that everyone lives a good life, unless - of course - they are complete bastards.

Some potential benefits and pitfalls on both ends?

Individualism boosts economies through production of individual wealth and hard-work based on irrational instincts like self-preservation and selfishness. Now, before you flame me for saying this, please note that I'm not trying to offend anyone. These instincts are part of everyone's nature and are an EASY and POWERFUL source of motivation. The Individualistic model will also play on basic instincts like "fear" and "anxiety" of failure and poverty, to try to persuade weaker or lazier members to work. Inevitably, those that still fall, on the way to perfection, will fall harder, since they don't have much of a safety net beyond their own resources. An Individualistic model will reward highly it's stronger members, while leaving weaker members pretty much on their own. In an Individualistic model, sustainability poses a few problems. Sustainability is a rational and non-natural concept, so an Individualistic society must curb itself, on its hunger for resources, before it reaches dangerous and unsustainable levels. This poses a second problem. If the state needs to pose any kind of regulations to curb an unsustainable pace, this will inevitably have an impact on wealth and, therefore, will be felt as authoritarian. For a population that isn't used to think "of the good of the whole nation", this may be harder to digest.

Pluralism relies on the more rational concept of "fair distribution of wealth" and, therefore, relies more on the empathic and intellectual capability of its population. The perfect Pluralists are highly empathic and intelligent human beings, who manage to "trick" their brain's reward system to think they are getting a bigger reward, while fighting an instinct that tells them they could have more for themselves in an Individualistic society. Because of this higher empathy and intellect required, the levels of motivation will be much more vulnerable to corruption of the "fair distribution of wealth" system (and these will be more visible). Morale will also be more vulnerable to inevitable failures, since a higher intellect usually comes with a higher demand of oneself. A Pluralist economy will be slower but more sustainable in its production of wealth. In an ideal Pluralist society, the economic engine will start slowly and gather more and more pace, giving itself time to prevent impacts on resources and the environment. Necessary regulations will more easily be accepted, when their clear intention is in the best interest of the totality of the population. Weaker members will have a better safety net, but the state will require very cleaver ways to motivate lazier individuals to do their share. Let's say that in an extreme Pluralist society even the laziest chap would be given at least a bed in a shelter where he could sleep in, with public bathrooms, basic food, basic healthcare and education. Inevitably, these people would come at the cost of all, unless some level of authoritarianism was used to force them to pay for these in some way.

Just some ideas...

i whole heartedly aggree withthe appearant premiss of the poll and am greatly heartend to see a majority, presumably both 'right' and 'left' aggreeing as well.

every once in a while i come accross something that cheers my day. seeing the resaults of this poll as they stand as i'm saying this, with a clear majority, 26 votes in favor of left-right is stupid, over about 6 i think it was for the largest of either of the other three options.

=^^=
.../\...

every once in a while i come accross something that cheers my day.

hear, hear... it's true how some very simple polls can speak so loud, and of how this community is reaching farther than modern democracy in many respects. Unfortunately, we are a minority of the global population. On the other hand, here we are free to ask whatever we want - and in a game environment - which allows some very bold and creative questions... :D

The tiredness of left and right wing politics is probably what made Tony Blair talk of a "third way". I agree that these two poles are no longer enough to distinguish political parties today. They certainly don't help the public to understand newer ideologies like that of the Liberals, etc...

I've done the four quadrant test, but I dislike the fact that some of it's poles are stigmatised with "expired" ideologies. I tried to look at this political compass, without using biased words.


Authoritarian
|
|
|
|
Pluralism————X————Individualism
|
|
|
|
Libertarian


Authoritarian/Libertarian: This is mainly a Law measure of how the state achieves "Order". A totally authoritarian state imposes plenty of laws and rules on people (not necessarily in a violent but certainly in a strict way). In a totally Libertarian state people are self-regulated on social order (hopefully without chaos... aahh Utopia)

While I feel that the ability of mankind to move away from an Authoritarian to a Libertarian model is proof of maturity of intellect and a sign of evolution, I also feel that moving too quickly to a Libertarian model, BEFORE the people have reached the necessary maturity, will cause a certain amount of chaos. (the extreme would be equivalent to giving a young teenager free reign to do whatever they want).

Pluralism/Individualism: This is a measure of what the state sees as the main strategy to achieve the perfect nation. Pluralism tries to achieve perfection through equal distribution of wealth, never placing individual interests above the totality of the population, while Individualism gives individuals total freedom to reach as much (or as little) wealth as they can, on their own.

[IOn this scale things get a bit trickier, since both extremes have the same goal: reaching the "perfect" nation. Ultimately, both Pluralists and Individualists will want to reach a society so wealthy that everyone lives a good life, unless - of course - they are complete bastards.

Some potential benefits and pitfalls on both ends?

Individualism boosts economies through production of individual wealth and hard-work based on irrational instincts like self-preservation and selfishness. Now, before you flame me for saying this, please note that I'm not trying to offend anyone. These instincts are part of everyone's nature and are an EASY and POWERFUL source of motivation. The Individualistic model will also play on basic instincts like "fear" and "anxiety" of failure and poverty, to try to persuade weaker or lazier members to work. Inevitably, those that still fall, on the way to perfection, will fall harder, since they don't have much of a safety net beyond their own resources. An Individualistic model will reward highly it's stronger members, while leaving weaker members pretty much on their own. In an Individualistic model, sustainability poses a few problems. Sustainability is a rational and non-natural concept, so an Individualistic society must curb itself, on its hunger for resources, before it reaches dangerous and unsustainable levels. This poses a second problem. If the state needs to pose any kind of regulations to curb an unsustainable pace, this will inevitably have an impact on wealth and, therefore, will be felt as authoritarian. For a population that isn't used to think "of the good of the whole nation", this may be harder to digest.

Pluralism relies on the more rational concept of "fair distribution of wealth" and, therefore, relies more on the empathic and intellectual capability of its population. The perfect Pluralists are highly empathic and intelligent human beings, who manage to "trick" their brain's reward system to think they are getting a bigger reward, while fighting an instinct that tells them they could have more for themselves in an Individualistic society. Because of this higher empathy and intellect required, the levels of motivation will be much more vulnerable to corruption of the "fair distribution of wealth" system (and these will be more visible). Morale will also be more vulnerable to inevitable failures, since a higher intellect usually comes with a higher demand of oneself. A Pluralist economy will be slower but more sustainable in its production of wealth. In an ideal Pluralist society, the economic engine will start slowly and gather more and more pace, giving itself time to prevent impacts on resources and the environment. Necessary regulations will more easily be accepted, when their clear intention is in the best interest of the totality of the population. Weaker members will have a better safety net, but the state will require very cleaver ways to motivate lazier individuals to do their share. Let's say that in an extreme Pluralist society even the laziest chap would be given at least a bed in a shelter where he could sleep in, with public bathrooms, basic food, basic healthcare and education. Inevitably, these people would come at the cost of all, unless some level of authoritarianism was used to force them to pay for these in some way.

Just some ideas...


Im sure you put a lot of thought into that and all but i dont want to classify myself as one of your definitions any more than I want to classify myself as "left wing" or "right wing". No matter how well you think your scheme ought to be able to define me. All of them no matter how well thought out represent the people who are doing the defining better than they do the people they are attempting to define. Id suggest that the reason the poll went as it did (with the majority of those polled considering left wing and right wing descriptions "stupid) might very well be because people in general dont often feel they fit the definitions others foist upon them. Most folk know somehow know that when a person incorrectly defines them that that person is "stupid"

Im sure you put a lot of thought into that and all but i dont want to classify myself as one of your definitions any more than I want to classify myself as "left wing" or "right wing". No matter how well you think your scheme ought to be able to define me. All of them no matter how well thought out represent the people who are doing the defining better than they do the people they are attempting to define. Id suggest that the reason the poll went as it did (with the majority of those polled considering left wing and right wing descriptions "stupid) might very well be because people in general dont often feel they fit the definitions others foist upon them. Most folk know somehow know that when a person incorrectly defines them that that person is "stupid"

I think you have misunderstood me. There are no definitions of people anywhere on my post, for you to fit in. I do mention some extreme definitions of people (the Ultra-Pluralist or Ultra-Individualist), but I would hardly argue you could ever imagine people conforming to such extremes. All you see on my most are societal models, 2 poles of application of Law and 2 poles of societal goal posting, together with some possible basic and ideal requirements as well as some possible benefits and pitfalls. No definitions of people for you or anybody, I'm afraid.

The fact that our traditional political scale doesn't work anymore, doesn't mean we can't create new scales to measure or rationalise new modern ideologies better. In fact, these scales could even be applied with flexibility on different subjects (sports/environment/economy), to adapt to different needs... The fact that the Left and Right ideologies have become "expired", doesn't mean we don't look for others or would you prefer to argue we don't need any ideologies or definitions? Because that in itself is an ideology...

These are just ideas anyway, so feel free to contribute with your constructive suggestions...