[Peace-discuss] Left and right

[John W.]

At 10:45 PM 7/15/2007, C. G. Estabrook wrote:

>Why not accept a consistent usage for the terms?  We might ask, whose 
>interests are served by keeping their meaning "amorphous"?  Let's say what 
>we mean.
>
>It makes sense, e.g., to say that the Left (those who favor democracy) 
>want to promote democratic control of the economy, while the Right (those 
>who favor authoritarianism) want the economy kept in private hands.   --CGE
>
>==============
>
>In a letter to Henry ("Light Horse Harry") Lee, the father of R. E. 
>Lee,   Thomas Jefferson wrote shortly before he died that people are 
>"naturally divided into two parties: (1) Those who fear and distrust the 
>people, and wish to draw all power from them into the hands of the higher 
>classes; and (2) Those who identify themselves with the people, have 
>confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, 
>although not the most wise, depository of the public interests."


Here are four well-known political tests that you can take in about 10 
minutes or less on the web.  All involve more than one dimension (basically 
the same two dimensions, though they label them slightly different), and 
all are (arguably) marginally more useful than the unidimensional 
definition Carl proposes.  But ultimately labels are relatively unhelpful 
in political discussion.


http://www.politicalcompass.org/  - economic and social scales     I like 
this one the best by far, for a variety of reasons.  The questions are 
phrased in such a way that they're easier for me to answer.  And I score 
roughly the same as Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, and the Dalai Lama.  :-)

http://www.okcupid.com/politics  - economic and social dimensions

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html   - personal issues/economic issues

http://www.politicalbrew.com/politest.cgi  - fiscal and non-fiscal issues


The problem with Carl's definition is in its application.  It's too 
subjective, requiring us to rank ourselves on only one question:  Do we or 
do we not "identify ourselves with the people, have confidence in them, 
cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the 
most wise, depository of the public interests"?  I'm sure just about all of 
us reading this would answer a resounding "Yes!", including Rob Dunn and 
I.  Yet Rob considers me "Left" and himself "Right".  So where's the 
usefulness?

John



>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.
>>(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>