OrangeEmpire
The White Debonair
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2005
- Messages
- 74,988
- Likes
- 59
I think this raises some questions about what is meant by "leftist." Most seen to be operating under the assumption that leftism = statism while rightism = individualism. Possibly, but this creates some strange situations. For instance, why does most opposition to the present (and past) wars in Iraq as well as the Vietnam war come from the left? With the exeption of WWII, socialists and pacifists have (at least in the west) been closely aligned. If the Truman doctrines of containment are 'leftist' than why would they be aimed at 'containing' leftist as opposed to rightist systems of government?
I'd like to point out that, for example, Sweden (this is for emain)has been consistently more socialistic throughout the 20th century while also remaining non-aligned in most of its wars. Liberal Canada has opted out of the recent war in Iraq, while supposed "conservatives" supported it.
Militarism and nationalistic fervor as something being embraced by the left leads me to wonder just what definition of "left" is operating under, and what "leftists" would "right" present as evidence of this?
Such things are strongly at odds with what typically constitutes "leftist" thought in most western societies. The western left typically embraces "Nationalism" with regards (supposadly) oppressed 3rd world nations and racial groups, while opposing the same for rich, powerful nations. Why would this be so (see below for the answer).
Marxist/Leninist doctrine holds that war and conquest is caused by capitalism and is required by the capitalist system in order to successfully operate. Whether this is true or not is highly debatable, as conflict between communist nations has since attested to, but casts serious doubts on the notion that the left is inherantly pro-war.
There's more to left-right politics than simply the embracing vs rejection of the state. Otherwise, American liberalism, social democracy, communism, fascism, fundamentalism, military dictatorship and absolute monarchism would all be lumped together as being "left wing," despite the huge philosophical differences that exist between each, while placing libertarian anarcho-capitalism alone on the right.
While this suits the political biases of the libertarians just fine, it obscures the fact that leftism and rightism are not strictly about "the state" but the uses to which the state is put. And those uses are, in turn, guided by beliefs about human nature and social organization that are the foundations of the real differences between left and right.
Which leads me to my thesis. Left and right are not so much political or even economic divisions as they are moral and philosophical divisions.
I suggest that the "right" refers to ideologies that are more traditionalist, more tolerant of inequality and concerned with preservation of an existing cultural and social order, while the "left" is more rationalist and progressive (meaning that it believes in planned social progress and rejects notions of natural law and fixed, transcendent social order) and more egalitarian. Statist vs. individualist are divisions that can exist within as well as between leftist and rightist thought.
Thoughts?
P.S. In plain talk....... either one are pieces of dog poop!
I'd like to point out that, for example, Sweden (this is for emain)has been consistently more socialistic throughout the 20th century while also remaining non-aligned in most of its wars. Liberal Canada has opted out of the recent war in Iraq, while supposed "conservatives" supported it.
Militarism and nationalistic fervor as something being embraced by the left leads me to wonder just what definition of "left" is operating under, and what "leftists" would "right" present as evidence of this?
Such things are strongly at odds with what typically constitutes "leftist" thought in most western societies. The western left typically embraces "Nationalism" with regards (supposadly) oppressed 3rd world nations and racial groups, while opposing the same for rich, powerful nations. Why would this be so (see below for the answer).
Marxist/Leninist doctrine holds that war and conquest is caused by capitalism and is required by the capitalist system in order to successfully operate. Whether this is true or not is highly debatable, as conflict between communist nations has since attested to, but casts serious doubts on the notion that the left is inherantly pro-war.
There's more to left-right politics than simply the embracing vs rejection of the state. Otherwise, American liberalism, social democracy, communism, fascism, fundamentalism, military dictatorship and absolute monarchism would all be lumped together as being "left wing," despite the huge philosophical differences that exist between each, while placing libertarian anarcho-capitalism alone on the right.
While this suits the political biases of the libertarians just fine, it obscures the fact that leftism and rightism are not strictly about "the state" but the uses to which the state is put. And those uses are, in turn, guided by beliefs about human nature and social organization that are the foundations of the real differences between left and right.
Which leads me to my thesis. Left and right are not so much political or even economic divisions as they are moral and philosophical divisions.
I suggest that the "right" refers to ideologies that are more traditionalist, more tolerant of inequality and concerned with preservation of an existing cultural and social order, while the "left" is more rationalist and progressive (meaning that it believes in planned social progress and rejects notions of natural law and fixed, transcendent social order) and more egalitarian. Statist vs. individualist are divisions that can exist within as well as between leftist and rightist thought.
Thoughts?
P.S. In plain talk....... either one are pieces of dog poop!
