Israel-Hamas War 2023

[Valmy]

I think hard right is still conservatism, if you define conservatism in absolute terms as I did, rather than relative terms like "conservative wants society to stay as it is, regardless of where it is".  If you believe that society should be without any social engineering, but some assholes on the left already did a lot of social engineering, you may become very proactive about knocking it down to get back to where you think society should be.

Gotcha. I agree with that.

Even if it is a mystical past you are restoring, that is a kind of conservatism.

[grumbler]

I mean I know this will likely be a long-winded, controversial mess (so perfect for languish perhaps) - but what are the characteristics if being left wing and of being right wing?

For the left, the over-riding virtue is justice.  A leftist talks about pretty much everything in those terms. 

For the right, the over-riding virtue is opportunity.  A rightist talks about pretty much everything in those terms.

Justice requires a state strong enough to overcome any opponent of justice.  Opportunity requires a state too weak to deny opportunity.

[crazy canuck]

You have a typo in the second sentence 

[Valmy]

For the left, the over-riding virtue is justice.  A leftist talks about pretty much everything in those terms. 

For the left, the over-riding virtue is opportunity.  A rightist talks about pretty much everything in those terms.

Justice requires a state strong enough to overcome any opponent of justice.  Opportunity requires a state too weak to deny opportunity.

So why are there leftwing anarchists and right wing totalitarian states?

[Barrister]

It's interesting how pointing out stalin was dubiously left wing means i believe every dodgy left wing figure ever cannot possibly be left wing.

Again. I'm not the one with these black and white blinkers here.

There's nothing remotely dubious about it - Stalin was left wing.  Unless you define "left wing=good" and "right wing=bad" - which I think you subconsciously do.

Do you really see the world in such simple basic categories as good and bad?
Where do rather less controversially socialist but nasty figures like mao sit in this view of left good right bad?

I mean as a Christian - yes I do believe in good and evil.

I just disagree it has much, if anything, to do with left wing versus right wing.  Lots of good and virtuous leftwingers, as well as evil ones.  Same on the right wing.

[grumbler]

You have a typo in the second sentence 

Fixed. Thanks.

[Threviel]

Well, when it comes to a lot of things the left/right scale just isn't enough.

Take corporativism for example, dress it up with socialist terms and it's socialist, dress it up with fascist terms it's fascism. The same with commie-Chinas economy. Dress it up with fascist terms and it becomes corporativism, dress it up with socialist language it's socialism.

It's a borderline irrelevant term since the end of the cold war. Were the talibans left or right? Neither I'd say. Hamas? Saddam Hussein? Iran? Unlike with Stalin there can be serious discussions on how to label a lot of governments in the post cold war world.

[grumbler]

For the left, the over-riding virtue is justice.  A leftist talks about pretty much everything in those terms. 

For the left, the over-riding virtue is opportunity.  A rightist talks about pretty much everything in those terms.

Justice requires a state strong enough to overcome any opponent of justice.  Opportunity requires a state too weak to deny opportunity.

So why are there leftwing anarchists and right wing totalitarian states?

Because anarchists don't believe that justice can be imposed by a distant authority and requires the authority be local and familiar with the citizens it is supervising.  Anarchists don't believe in pure anarchy.

Right-wing authoritarian states aren't always about individual opportunity.  Sometimes that opportunity represents the opportunity of a "race" (hence Nazi Germany and their focus on racial purity and the opportunity for Germans to evolve into superhumans).

Nationalization and "collectivization" are not necessarily left-wing concepts.  Far-right Saudi Arabia nationalized its oil fields.  Early industrialists "collectivized" cottage industries (just without government ownership, thus the quote marks).

[grumbler]

Well, when it comes to a lot of things the left/right scale just isn't enough.

Take corporativism for example, dress it up with socialist terms and it's socialist, dress it up with fascist terms it's fascism. The same with commie-Chinas economy. Dress it up with fascist terms and it becomes corporativism, dress it up with socialist language it's socialism.

It's a borderline irrelevant term since the end of the cold war. Were the talibans left or right? Neither I'd say. Hamas? Saddam Hussein? Iran? Unlike with Stalin there can be serious discussions on how to label a lot of governments in the post cold war world.

Agree 100% that not everything falls into "left wing" or "right wing."  There's a middle ground that is neither. 

There's a political philosophy organizational tool called the political compass:


I'd argue that, for this to be more accurate, there should be a big hole in the middle, for political philosophies that don't really fall on both (or maybe even either) axis.  Still, it's a better tool than just a spectrum.

[Barrister]

Well, when it comes to a lot of things the left/right scale just isn't enough.

Take corporativism for example, dress it up with socialist terms and it's socialist, dress it up with fascist terms it's fascism. The same with commie-Chinas economy. Dress it up with fascist terms and it becomes corporativism, dress it up with socialist language it's socialism.

It's a borderline irrelevant term since the end of the cold war. Were the talibans left or right? Neither I'd say. Hamas? Saddam Hussein? Iran? Unlike with Stalin there can be serious discussions on how to label a lot of governments in the post cold war world.

Agree 100% that not everything falls into "left wing" or "right wing."  There's a middle ground that is neither. 

There's a political philosophy organizational tool called the political compass:


I'd argue that, for this to be more accurate, there should be a big hole in the middle, for political philosophies that don't really fall on both (or maybe even either) axis.  Still, it's a better tool than just a spectrum.

I dislike this political compass.

Now obviously grumbles didn't invent it, so this isn't an attack on him.  I even cited that having a 1 dimensional "left-right" is a pretty poor model.

The problem though with this model is that it introduces the second axis as "authoritarian-libertarian".  This is a really, really pro-libertarian model.  If the option is between being a libertarian and an authoritarian, well, who wants to be an authoritarian?

All kinds of other scales could be introduced on the Y-axis.  Why not internationalist vs nationalist?  Religious vs secular?  Why not democrat vs authoritarian?

[crazy canuck]

It's a continuum.  The choices are not be a libertarian or be an authoritarian.

[Admiral Yi]

Complete libertarian is Hobbes state of nature.

[crazy canuck]

Complete libertarian is Hobbes state of nature.

And complete authoritarian is Hobbes' leviathan, which he thought was preferable.

[Barrister]

It's a continuum.  The choices are not be a libertarian or be an authoritarian.

You continue to think so very little of me.

Of course it's a fucking continuum.

But it's like a continuum between "good" and "evil" in this context.

[Razgovory]

I dislike this political compass.

Now obviously grumbles didn't invent it, so this isn't an attack on him.  I even cited that having a 1 dimensional "left-right" is a pretty poor model.

The problem though with this model is that it introduces the second axis as "authoritarian-libertarian".  This is a really, really pro-libertarian model.  If the option is between being a libertarian and an authoritarian, well, who wants to be an authoritarian?

Yeah, I think the person who made it was a libertarian.  It's based on an older political compass that used the terms "Democratic-Authoritarian".