The Perfect Left vs The Perfect Right

[Spectral]

1> Some people don't understand their own ideals, and what they fundamentally mean (see above).

I'd tend towards saying most people don't understand their own ideals, or at least that their ideals are so poorly thought out that they're contradictory. Since we don't teach epistemology in any meaningful sense (and the condescending part of me thinks that many people simply aren't smart enough to grasp it anyway), people don't tend to ask what I think are the two most important questions about any given idea - "how do I know that?", and "then what?". These are important things to ask oneself - do I know something because it lines up with what I'd like to believe anyway and I found evidence for it? Did I learn it from someone I trust? Did I arrive at it by reasoning (possibly motivated)? The other is equally important and goes a couple directions - if this thing I think is true, what follows? How does that line up with other things I think? What does it imply about how I should act? What does it imply about root causes?

This is especially important to apply to ideas that are hard to have any reasonable level of certainty about. For example, when someone says they're reasonably confident that spending on X has a stimulatory effect, these are critical questions - how do you know that and what does it mean we should do? Too often, the answer is basically, "well, X is a thing that I like and it means we should spend more on it". Not good enough for policy!

2> Some people think a "better society" can only exist after mass genocide. So they literally want to see people starving to death, to get rid of those "lower castes" they feel are dragging society down. I'm comfortable with describing these people as "evil".

Yes, agreed. This is an extreme minority position in wealthy countries though. I'm sure it exists, but when pressed, even the most anarcho-capitalist people I know will grudgingly admit that they're not willing to let people starve in the street. They have some odd ideas (in my view anyway) about how to get to no one starving in the street, but it's generally not seen as a goal.

[Revi]

Eh, I don't share your views of what constitutes the perfect left or right, but I wouldn't want either of those you described. I can see from pages one this is going to be a "my side is perfect, but here's the horrible flaws with the other side:", hurrah.

[Spectral]

I see left-wing as being concerned about freedom and opportunity for everyone, whilst in right-wing thinking individual freedom and opportunity is more important. The thing with extremism though is that they ironically become closer to each other than "moderate" left & right ideologies. If you imagine that the political spectrum is a horseshoe, the extreme left & right are at the opposite ends of the shoe - yet they are closer to each other than moderates are. That's why we see right-wingers acting like left-wingers on certain issues (e.g. abortion) and left-wingers acting like right-wingers (e.g. some groups of people deserve more freedom & opportunity).

Yeah, in practice, it becomes hard to discern the differences between communism and hard-line right-wing fascism. Oh sure, I can articulate what the theoretical differences are, but when we actually see those governments implemented, the societies look awfully similar in their willingness to castigate and kill dissenters, concentration of power and wealth into the hands of members of The Party, and so on.

[Endus]

Yes, agreed. This is an extreme minority position in wealthy countries though. I'm sure it exists, but when pressed, even the most anarcho-capitalist people I know will grudgingly admit that they're not willing to let people starve in the street. They have some odd ideas (in my view anyway) about how to get to no one starving in the street, but it's generally not seen as a goal.

Yeah, I didn't mean to suggest that this is a major position. I've just seen a few people on these very forums support those kinds of ideological stances.

The purpose of any social ideology, whether right- or left-wing, is to maximize the success and welfare of society as a whole. When you put a large portion of society on the sacrificial altar, your ideology is inherently evil. That goes for either ideological extreme, and it isn't the majority of either.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, in practice, it becomes hard to discern the differences between communism and hard-line right-wing fascism. Oh sure, I can articulate what the theoretical differences are, but when we actually see those governments implemented, the societies look awfully similar in their willingness to castigate and kill dissenters, concentration of power and wealth into the hands of members of The Party, and so on.

Which is why I just start laughing when people hear I'm a socialist, ideologically, so they start comparing me to Stalin or Mao.

Who are about as diametrically opposite to my views as it is possible to be. Which is also why the political compass two-axis system is more useful than a simple left/right comparison, which is additionally fraught by the fact that people misinterpret what left-wing and right-wing mean.

Left-wing: Ideologically predicated on the idea that inequality between social classes is negative and should be minimized
Right-wing: Ideologically predicated on the idea that inequality is necessary/unavoidable/good, and thus society should be structured to foster that same inequality

They are only tangentially related to being a liberal or conservative, in the USA. In China, a conservative would be left-wing, while liberals are typically much more right-wing.

I'm definitely far-left in ideology, but I'm relatively practical about implementation.

[Spectral]

I think my preferred way of explaining/articulating left vs. right is to egalitarian vs. hierarchical. This seems to do a much better job of making it clear what we're referring to than thinking in terms of American left vs. right. I also like the axis system, with the other axis being degree of authoritarianism. As it turns out, authoritarian egalitarianism is an almost unimaginable horror show, with the best example being Pol Pot's government. How do we get to everyone being equal? Kill all those educated people! Yay, now we're all poor farmers and everyone's equal! Except those that are more equal, of course!

Broadly speaking, I'm sympathetic to both egalitarian and hierarchical arguments, provided they're anti-authoritarian. I understand both perspectives, I think there are good people on both sides of that debate, and I think both are honestly in favor of maximizing utility (or minimizing negative utility).

[Tydrane]

And now we're off the reservation. It was good while it lasted!

[Zecora]

What...? OP, those descriptions doesn't in any way match up with "Perfect", neither in the "Left" nor "Right" column. Heck, I'm an Eco-Socialist, and "the perfect Left" sounds pretty horrid to me! I may be wrong, indeed, I hope I am, but it seems to me that comparison was one you made just to say that "In the left, your life is managed for you by the government. In the right, your life is managed by you." Which is pretty much a complete miss as to what a lot of the Left side of the political spectrum is about. And indeed, it's also a miss as to what the right side of the spectrum is about, as Endus pointed out, it's the market that manages your life, not you.

[Deleted]

What...? OP, those descriptions doesn't in any way match up with "Perfect", neither in the "Left" nor "Right" column. Heck, I'm an Eco-Socialist, and "the perfect Left" sounds pretty horrid to me! I may be wrong, indeed, I hope I am, but it seems to me that comparison was one you made just to say that "In the left, your life is managed for you by the government. In the right, your life is managed by you." Which is pretty much a complete miss as to what a lot of the Left side of the political spectrum is about. And indeed, it's also a miss as to what the right side of the spectrum is about, as Endus pointed out, it's the market that manages your life, not you.

Well, you could say that in the perfect system, supply, demand and workforce would be in perfect equlibrium.

Therefore, the individual would fulfill his/her role and the be part of that equilibrium to spend his/her acquired money on whatever he/she pleases.


A bit paradoxical perhaps, but we are only thinking aloud about what ifs

[Deleted]

Wouldn't call either of those perfect.

[Elegiac]

Broadly speaking, I'm sympathetic to both egalitarian and hierarchical arguments, provided they're anti-authoritarian. I understand both perspectives, I think there are good people on both sides of that debate, and I think both are honestly in favor of maximizing utility (or minimizing negative utility).

Yeah, but I really wouldn't call an ideology based on a pseudoscientific outlook of society a particularly valid one.

[Grummgug]

The right-wing doesn't believe in a perfect system. That's more of a left-wing concept.

The right-wing says we're gonna go with a free society and limited government, not because it is perfect, but because it is the best option. The reason it is the best option is because free societies with limited government will, over time, grow to become the wealthiest and most technologically advanced compared to statist, left-wing, centrally planned societies.

The free market can and will be inefficient at allocating resources. You just need to look at recessions to see that. Its just that if you decide to have government do it instead, its vastly MORE inefficient and wasteful.

But right-wingers also believe monopolies should be broken up, because that also leads to more freedom. For example, the democrats have a monopoly on the mainstream press. That should be broken up just like AT&T was in the 1980s. The media has passed the point of being worth anything and now does harm because it is too biased. Its a place where right-wingers would say its time for government to step in and allow more voices to be heard.

[Zecora]

Well, you could say that in the perfect system, supply, demand and workforce would be in perfect equlibrium.

Therefore, the individual would fulfill his/her role and the be part of that equilibrium to spend his/her acquired money on whatever he/she pleases.


A bit paradoxical perhaps, but we are only thinking aloud about what ifs

Except that completely leaves out resources being limited, space being limited, everyone being dependant upon the environment, quantities such as pollution and so on. It also leaves aside all ethical consideration, and can you really discuss a "perfect" (mind you, both of the "perfect" examples still strikes me as anything but) system of either political wing without looking at such considerations?

-No political system can be entirely perfect.

[Elegiac]

The right-wing doesn't believe in a perfect system. That's more of a left-wing concept.

False. All political ideologies espouse a utopian ideal to work towards at their core.

The right-wing says we're gonna go with a free society and limited government, not because it is perfect, but because it is the best option. The reason it is the best option is because free societies with limited government will, over time, grow to become the wealthiest and most technologically advanced compared to statist, left-wing, centrally planned societies.

A notion of which there is no supporting evidence either historically or sociologically.

The free market can and will be inefficient at allocating resources. You just need to look at recessions to see that. Its just that if you decide to have government do it instead, its vastly MORE inefficient and wasteful.

Hence the least inefficient option is a mixed system exactly as most of those on the left support.

But right-wingers also believe monopolies should be broken up, because that also leads to more freedom.

Hardly. Right wingers apply their pseudoscientific outlook to the market; "if a business is a monopoly, they're obviously the most fit and thus deserve that position".

It's actually even more idealistic than the left because it assumes that the market is incapable of foul play.

For example, the democrats have a monopoly on the mainstream press.

Ignoring the fact that this is a) false and b) truistic, considering the Democrats are also a right wing party.

The media has passed the point of being worth anything and now does harm because it is too biased. Its a place where right-wingers would say its time for government to step in and allow more voices to be heard.

The media already caters to the right wing because it is corporate.

There is significant evidence to suggest that publicly run media is vastly more impartial, vis a vis the BBC in the UK, the ABC in Australia, et cetera.

[Grummgug]

Right-wing is more centrist. They believe in a mix of freedom and government, called limited government. When the left wing attacks the right-wing, they try to paint them as anarchists sometimes which is not what it is. The right-wing believes in essential government functions.

The left is more one-sided, wanting more government everywhere.

[Elegiac]

Right-wing is more centrist.

This is impossible by definition.

They believe in a mix of freedom and government, called limited government.

"A mix of freedom and government" is what is referred to as social democracy in politically scientific terms.

When the left wing attacks the right-wing, they try to paint them as anarchists sometimes which is not what it is. The right-wing believes in essential government functions.

Anarchism is a left wing ideology, actually.

The left is more one-sided, wanting more government everywhere.

False, for the above reason.

You do not have a very educated conception of what the political spectrum actually defines.

"Left" and "right" are not the same thing as "more government" and "less government". On the far left you have communists and anarchists, on the far right you have fascists and libertarians - thus, 'authoritarianism' is not in fact the distinguishing factor.

The point of division comes over the nature of inequality. The left believes inequality is something to be minimized and a product of humanity's imperfect nature; the right believes inequality is a good thing that makes society stronger by purging the weak and lifting up the 'fit' (again, based on pseudoscience).

[Crissi]

Whenever I hear limited government, and I ask what they should do, the answers are always all over the place. Just syaing limited government isnt enough. You cant say government shouldnt interfere in business, then cry about how the government should reign in the big banks form taking your house or keeping your water source clean or keep West, Tx from happening again.

and then when the government DOES do something over what it has authority over (immigration) you have states suing anyways because they disagree with it! Limited givernment is the most varrying described system I've ever heard of.

[Zecora]

The right-wing doesn't believe in a perfect system. That's more of a left-wing concept.

The right-wing says we're gonna go with a free society and limited government, not because it is perfect, but because it is the best option. The reason it is the best option is because free societies with limited government will, over time, grow to become the wealthiest and most technologically advanced compared to statist, left-wing, centrally planned societies.

Except that it isn't the best system. On the contrary, it's a system that destroys its own foundation, as the free market cares nothing for destruction of the environment, which is the basis of all life, including humans. Free market ideology is also a surefire way to ensure that resources, which are limited, benefits only those who can pay the most for them. In other words, it is a system where the wealthy minority enriches itself at the cost of the majority, a veritable ponzi scheme.

Also, a free market does not necessarily produce the most technologically advanced society, the USSR was leading in the space race for a very long time, and we still use many of the inventions that was made by USSR scientists today. That does of course not mean that the country with the Left-wing political system will end up as the most technologically advanced either, rather, the society that allocate the maximum resources (private or public) into the research and development of new technology will claim the highest technological level of advance.
It is possible that a society structured after the right-wing political ideologies will end up as the most wealthy, but it will be a wealth that is very unevenly distributed, and as a result, the majority will not really be able to share (to any significant degree) in that wealth.

- - - Updated - - -

Right-wing is more centrist. They believe in a mix of freedom and government, called limited government. When the left wing attacks the right-wing, they try to paint them as anarchists sometimes which is not what it is. The right-wing believes in essential government functions.

The left is more one-sided, wanting more government everywhere.

Now that is, quite simply, not true. I'm almost as left-wing as they come. I've no interest in more government than what is needed to administer and supply the essential services that should be made avaliable to EVERY citizen. More government for the sake of more government is not on my wishlist.

[Deleted]

Except that it isn't the best system. On the contrary, it's a system that destroys its own foundation, as the free market cares nothing for destruction of the environment, which is the basis of all life, including humans. Free market ideology is also a surefire way to ensure that resources, which are limited, benefits only those who can pay the most for them. In other words, it is a system where the wealthy minority enriches itself at the cost of the majority, a veritable ponzi scheme.

Also, a free market does not necessarily produce the most technologically advanced society, the USSR was leading in the space race for a very long time, and we still use many of the inventions that was made by USSR scientists today. That does of course not mean that the country with the Left-wing political system will end up as the most technologically advanced either, rather, the society that allocate the maximum resources (private or public) into the research and development of new technology will claim the highest technological level of advance.
It is possible that a society structured after the right-wing political ideologies will end up as the most wealthy, but it will be a wealth that is very unevenly distributed, and as a result, the majority will not really be able to share (to any significant degree) in that wealth.

- - - Updated - - -



Now that is, quite simply, not true. I'm almost as left-wing as they come. I've no interest in more government than what is needed to administer and supply the essential services that should be made avaliable to EVERY citizen. More government for the sake of more government is not on my wishlist.

I think it's probably more accurate to say that a free market will produce better and more commercially available technology to the masses of society.

Space technology from the major players has traditionally been funded by the tax payer and budgeted by the state in any type of political system.

[Kraenen]

Why do people equate "right" with libertarian and small government? They aren't synonymous, just like left isn't equal to statist. But meh, the political spectrum these days doesn't make logical sense. Liberals are supposedly against the free market, and conservatives are supposedly against protectionism. I think people don't have a good understanding of the root of the ideologies, or the psychology of being a conservative or liberal. You'll justify who a conservative is by who calls themselves a conservative, but that's spurious at best.

- - - Updated - - -

This is impossible by definition.

"Right wing is centrist".
That's actually the best example of doing mental gymnastics I've ever seen in my life. Literally, just the epitome of it.

[Elegiac]

I think it's probably more accurate to say that a free market will produce better and more commercially available technology to the masses of society.

Which would also be incorrect. Historically generalized prosperity followed the advent of the industrialised market after a considerable lag - and only after the implementation of various forms of public assistance and progressive social policy.