What defines "left-wing" and "right-wing"?

I tried to describe to an American. acquaintance that their left wing was almost a right winger in Australia. that blew them away! lol!
 
Mark6 said:
Can you elaborate?
Click to expand...

Hmm...let's see, as in the US, the right-wing in India comprises primarily an elite social and political class (more precisely a conglomeration of upper caste Hindus who insist on a predominant status in society as a matter of privelege). There is added to this group middle and lower caste who tend to aspire to and be accepted among the elite (neo-brahmins; Re: Why I am not a Hindu Kancha Ilaiah). The ideology predominant among them is as being seen as the "benign" elite who strive for a moral, spiritual and economic utopia based on some made up ideal of an age, Ram Rajya (Age of lord Rama) where everyone knew their place and functioned as an ideal society.

The left wing, comprised a whole range of movements including tribal groups fighting for the rights to their land, lower caste groups fighting upper caste oppression and more recently women's groups fighting patriarchy. With the advent of Industrial revolution in colonial India and the spread of universal education (until then exclusively reserved for the upper caste), their rose a group of educated reformists who questioned existing socio-political relationships and began countering the status quo...some times violently.

The Communist Party rose from the Industrial labour group and immediately appropriated the other struggles. The became the left front and was allowed to be so for nearly a century. However, during the last decade of the 20th C onwards, there has been a move from many left movements, particularly among the women's rights groups, the tribal groups and the caste groups, to dissociate themselves from the Communists.

What I have seen in the US and UK is that anyone who is in opposes the Republican/Tea Party ideology in the former and the Conservative/UKIP/BNP ideology in the latter is considered left. From our perspective Clinton, Obama, Blair, Brown...all of them are still right-wing.
 
Susheel said:
Hmm...let's see, as in the US, the right-wing in India comprises primarily an elite social and political class (more precisely a conglomeration of upper caste Hindus who insist on a predominant status in society as a matter of privelege). There is added to this group middle and lower caste who tend to aspire to and be accepted among the elite (neo-brahmins; Re: Why I am not a Hindu Kancha Ilaiah). The ideology predominant among them is as being seen as the "benign" elite who strive for a moral, spiritual and economic utopia based on some made up ideal of an age, Ram Rajya (Age of lord Rama) where everyone knew their place and functioned as an ideal society.

The left wing, comprised a whole range of movements including tribal groups fighting for the rights to their land, lower caste groups fighting upper caste oppression and more recently women's groups fighting patriarchy. With the advent of Industrial revolution in colonial India and the spread of universal education (until then exclusively reserved for the upper caste), their rose a group of educated reformists who questioned existing socio-political relationships and began countering the status quo...some times violently.

The Communist Party rose from the Industrial labour group and immediately appropriated the other struggles. The became the left front and was allowed to be so for nearly a century. However, during the last decade of the 20th C onwards, there has been a move from many left movements, particularly among the women's rights groups, the tribal groups and the caste groups, to dissociate themselves from the Communists.

What I have seen in the US and UK is that anyone who is in opposes the Republican/Tea Party ideology in the former and the Conservative/UKIP/BNP ideology in the latter is considered left. From our perspective Clinton, Obama, Blair, Brown...all of them are still right-wing.
Click to expand...

Definitely depends on what country you live in and population. the bigger it is breeds extremes.

Here in NZ for example. Small population. Appeal to the middle ( with compromises). You are in power
 
cullennz said:
Definitely depends on what country you live in and population. the bigger it is breeds extremes.

Here in NZ for example. Small population. Appeal to the middle ( with compromises). You are in power
Click to expand...

And also existant social, political and economic structures.
 
Susheel said:
And also existant social, political and economic structures.
Click to expand...

Indeed.

We have less of the big issues.

Gun control laws - we have them

Universal health care - we have it

Universal cover for any physical damage from accident - we have it

Having to have insurance if you own a house with a mortgage - we have it.

emergency fund for earthquakes - we have it.

To be fair I think we must be one of the most politically boring countries in the world.

Its like which one has the nicest tie
 
Puppycow said:
Personally I decided that I prefer the term "liberal" to "left-wing" for myself. I don't think of myself as a left-winger or a right-winger but a liberal and a rationalist. I'm for science and progress and reason. I'm basically a utilitarian.
Click to expand...

People here in Central Europe think of this stance as solidly right of center.
 
I think the basic distinction is what they perceive as the cause for societal ills. Right wingers tend to trace it to some group constructed as outsiders (immigrants, the poor, people jugded amoral), while left wingers see the problem in how the society itself is set up and structured.
 
The left-right dichotomy is about several dimensions that don't nnecesarily run parallel:

A) Legal constitution: Group rights and duties vs. individual rights and duties
B) State economy: Communalism, centralism vs. individual freedom of contract
C) Private economy: Labour and unions vs. employers, industries; social equality vs. meritocracy
D) Society, values: Progress vs. conservation, tradition
E) Foreign relations: Internationalism vs. nationalism

Examples where those dimensions can work in opposite directions:
  • Both the extreme left and the extreme right are suspicious of individual rights and freedoms
  • Socialism and labour solidarity have become a tradition in many countries that the moderate left tries to conserve
  • Religious traditionalists with conservative values (family...) are often ardent proponents of social equality
  • Those who favour strong and free enterprises nowadays are much in favour of international levelling, against national quirks
 
What defines "left-wing" and "right-wing"?
Generally the beliefs, opinions and prejudices of the person.

Personally I think RW/LW is pointlessly limiting; a two or three dimensional framework is better, for example Pournelle's Axes.
 
At the end of the day helping out those in the poo while also offering tax breaks to certain industries (as long as it helps the country) is cool
 
Admittedly NZ has the advantage of being a pretty much a secular country so we don't have to deal with all that crap either.

Im beginning to remember why I live here
 
Oystein said:
[*]Both the extreme left and the extreme right are suspicious of individual rights and freedoms
Click to expand...

This doesn't seem right at all. Anarchism is about as strongly for individual freedom as it gets, and close to the same holds for the socialist far left.
 
catsmate said:
What defines "left-wing" and "right-wing"?
Click to expand...

As a first approximation, I'd define the left-wing as

1. System-critical
2. The extension of one side of social struggles into politics. For instance socialists based on the working class labour struggles.

And the right-wing as the opposite

1. System-preserving
2. The extension of the other side of social struggles into politics. For instance liberals based on the capitalist side of labour struggles.

Generally the beliefs, opinions and prejudices of the person.
Click to expand...

I view politics as the extension of social struggles into another domain, so I'm going to agree with this.

for example Pournelle's Axes.
Click to expand...

I'm all for the idea of multiple dimensions in this, but I think Pournelle's chart, as well as Nolan's, is even worse than the one-dimensional left-right categorization. It takes the peculiarities of the American conception of political ideologies and magnifies them to something that's just unrecognizable.
 
Giz said:
I think that article must have been written by a left winger! (i.e. Left wing is defined by its goals while the Right wing is defined by what it tolerates).

A mirror image re-wording (from a right wing perspective) might replace:
-------
Left-wing politics are political positions or activities that accept or support social equality

Right-wing politics are political positions or activities that view some forms of social stratification or social inequality as either inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable
--------

with

--------
Right-wing politics are political positions or activities that accept or support individual responsibility, lower taxes and smaller government

Left-wing politics are political positions or activities that view some forms of increased government, higher taxes and persons not being held responsible, as either inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable
----------

See the problem?
Click to expand...

The former definitions are actually broad definitions that that into account movements that were on "the left" and "the right". Your definitions are very US-centric.

How does your first definition take into account monarchists (earliest groups consider to be right-wing)? How does your second take into account anarchists (traditionally left-wing)?
 
caveman1917 said:
This doesn't seem right at all. Anarchism is about as strongly for individual freedom as it gets, and close to the same holds for the socialist far left.
Click to expand...

Historically, real existing Communism abhored and violently suppressed individual dissent - including anarchists.
I guess that high-lights even more the problems with one- or two-dimensional definitions :p
 
Oystein said:
Historically, real existing Communism abhored and violently suppressed individual dissent - including anarchists.
I guess that high-lights even more the problems with one- or two-dimensional definitions :p
Click to expand...


Those who are left wing want the state to provide everything, fix their mistakes,
and pay their bills.
The Greeks are typical example.

The right wing adhere to a policy of self determination.
I support the latter.
I made all my own cash!

The Americans are also an example of people who determine their own future.
The British could be, to their advantage.

Who cares about the Greeks anyway?
 
Last edited:
Oystein said:
Historically, real existing Communism abhored and violently suppressed individual dissent - including anarchists.
Click to expand...

and pretty much every communist that stood in [insert current leader]'s way,. There aren't that many hardline communists around these days, hence my remark about socialists in general (most today are democratic socialists) respecting individual freedoms.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom