[Peace-discuss] Left and right

[John W.]

At 04:24 PM 7/15/2007, Morton K. Brussel wrote:

>All this seems simplistic. The "left-right" distinction does not seem
>to me to be one dimensional. There is no non-amorphous delineation.
>In addition to the democratic distinctions Carl alludes to, there are
>others. Customarily attributed to these adjectives is a social
>dimension, ("socialism", "communism",  political and economic
>egalitarianism [not simply reducible to democracy]), and, of course,
>there is the issue of capitalism, which Marx in particular brought
>into play, although I don't remember whether he used "left-right"
>terminology. All that said, "it is a demarcation fraught with
>ambiguity", and I'm afraid not resolved here.

Precisely.  And that was my point.  I'm sick of Rob Dunn and his ilk saying 
"The Left believes this" and "The Right believes that" and pronouncing who 
among us is "Left" and "Right". It's utterly meaningless.


>(I really didn't want to get into this. A debate could last
>indefinitely. )
>
>--mkb
>
>
>On Jul 15, 2007, at 11:04 AM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>
>>It's a commonplace that the distinction between Left and Right is
>>fraught with ambiguity. (When the Democratic party is spoken of as
>>on the Left, it's gotten pretty silly.) And it's also generally
>>accepted that the terminology arose from the seating arrangements
>>in the French National Assembly of 1789.
>>
>>But if we want a consistent usage for the Left/Right distinction,
>>we might think of political parties ranged along a line according
>>to how authoritarian or democratic they are. The further Right one
>>goes, the more authoritarian the parties, and the further Left, the
>>more democratic. (At the far Left end are the socialists, who want
>>not just a democratic polity but a democratic economy as well --
>>investment decisions made not by corporations but by elections.)
>>
>>Lenin's Bolsheviks, then, must be seen as a right-wing Marxist
>>party, as must all twentieth century communist parties in the
>>Marxist-Leninist tradition, owing to their authoritarianism. (And
>>they were indeed so described by left-wing Marxists like Rosa
>>Luxemburg and Anton Pannekoek.)
>>
>>The commitment to democracy and an ever-widening franchise means
>>that it has been the Left under this definition that has called
>>attention to marginalized groups in the modern West. The historic
>>task of the Left has been to include in political and civil society
>>groups formerly excluded on the grounds that their full humanity
>>was denied -- e.g., Africans, Amerindians, and women.
>>
>><http://www.counterpunch.org/estabrook01172003.html>