Definitions of leftism, liberalism, conservatism, and rightism

[Diello]

I mostly understand these terms from a "By their fruits ye shall know them" perspective. So, what precisely do these terms mean as you understand them, and what distinguishes them?

[Aurorus Ruber]

Both the left and right are very broad tents, each encompassing a wide range of political philosophies and movements that seem unified more by family resemblance than anything else. Most of us would agree that social liberalism, anarcho-communism, and Stalinism all belong to the left while neo-conservatism, libertarianism (in the American sense), and fascism all belong to the right. But obviously the various movements and philosophies within each camp differ widely from each other and even contradict each other completely. The differences between anarchism and Stalinism or fascism and libertarianism are almost as wide as those between anarchism and fascism or Stalinism and libertarianism.

It seems to me the main unifying elements of the left and right are various axiomata about human nature and ethics. Nearly all left wing philosophies favor progress over tradition in some sense, whether it be revolution against feudal monarchy or reforming marriage laws. Right wing movements, by contrast, typically draw their basis from tradition as they understand it and regard progress or change with suspicion. As a corollary, the left is generally secular and rational in outlook while the right upholds religious orthodoxy and faith. Furthermore, thinkers on the left has generally considered all humans equal in some fashion, leading them to favor increased democracy and economic equality. The right by contrast assumes that "some people are just better than others", that certain people deserve more privileges and power than others and that attempts to change this are unnatural.

Although it depends on the context, I would generally consider "liberal" and "conservative" tendencies within bourgeois democratic politics. Conservatives favor maintaining the status quo and the established élites who benefit from it. They want to keep the church established, the aristocrats unchallenged, the landed dominant over the urban, and so forth. Liberals favor social and political reforms that accommodate some challenges to the status quo without seriously challenging the prevailing social system. They may change laws to allow greater religious freedom, establish social programs to alleviate poverty, and look to higher education for economic progress. But they agree with the conservatives that no policy should imperil capitalism or override the interests of the bourgeoisie.

[Diello]

I always counted myself as a liberal before I discovered the wonderful world of radical politics, simply because I did (and still do) agree with typically liberal positions more than I do with typically conservative positions (for instance, on abortion, separation of church and state, minority rights, nationalism etc).

(And also because, having grown up among conservatives, I'd had little chance to experience the obnoxious side of liberalism as I had with conservatism.)

[mikelepore]

I think the most important difference between the left and right is in what they identify as the source of economic and political inequality. The left believes that inequality exists because the social system causes it. The right believes that inequality exists because some people are naturally superior to others.

[ckaihatsu]

I always counted myself as a liberal before I discovered the wonderful world of radical politics, simply because I did (and still do) agree with typically liberal positions more than I do with typically conservative positions (for instance, on abortion, separation of church and state, minority rights, nationalism etc).

(And also because, having grown up among conservatives, I'd had little chance to experience the obnoxious side of liberalism as I had with conservatism.)


Then you may get to the point where the liberal "side" of things becomes frustratingly go-slow and limited, compared to what workers' power could accomplish overnight.

For example why can't we have free, no-questions-asked abortions paid for with tax dollars, as part of a universal, single-payer health care system -- ?! And why not let religious organizations sink or swim on their own *without* the special privilege of tax-exempt status -- ?! If minority rights were to be taken seriously we would have means-testing on *everything* so that all discrimination would be wiped out at once since it's all mediated through *economics*. And nationalism could be devolved for major-power, *imperialist* countries while empowered for minor, *oppressed* countries simply by allowing rank-and-file labor organizations to collectively bargain unimpeded across international boundaries.

I've taken a particular interest in the issue of the foundational sources of people's politics, since that sums up what they think is most important regarding a societal direction going forward.

And, since I come from an education and graphics background I've put the three together to deal with this stuff in a comprehensive, yet comprehendible, way -- see the attached, and also my thread here at RevLeft:

tinyurl.com/ckaihatsu-diagrams-revleft


Leftism -- Want, Get

http://postimage.org/image/pgx9pah0/


Ideologies & Operations -- Left Centrifugalism

http://postimage.org/image/2cvo2d7fo/


[3] Ideologies & Operations Fundamentals

http://postimage.org/image/34modgv1g/

[Diello]

Then you may get to the point where the liberal "side" of things becomes frustratingly go-slow and limited, compared to what workers' power could accomplish overnight.

I will give a more complete reply later, but I do want to say that I am now aware of some of the inadequacies of liberalism. Many of the problems which liberalism perpetuates and leftism aims to eradicate are problems that I was not fully aware of at one point. The exploitation created by capitalism, for instance-- I did not think of capitalism as "capitalism"; I thought of capitalism as "what is." I wasn't even aware of communism other than as "Everyone owns everything" or "The state owns and controls everything." I had a vague notion of anarchy as promoting chaos or "wanting to destroy the government." (I drew these impressions mostly from what I read in history class, by the way.)

I recognized and agonized over a lot of the problems created by capitalism, but I assumed that they were inherent to human society.

I didn't investigate further because, well, why bother learning about the fine details of society that's just an engine of hopeless injustice? I had to stumble across leftist philosophy randomly to learn that there is some chance of changing things for the better, and I wish I had sooner.

[ckaihatsu]

I will give a more complete reply later, but I do want to say that I am now aware of some of the inadequacies of liberalism. Many of the problems which liberalism perpetuates and leftism aims to eradicate are problems that I was not fully aware of at one point. The exploitation created by capitalism, for instance-- I did not think of capitalism as "capitalism"; I thought of capitalism as "what is." I wasn't even aware of communism other than as "Everyone owns everything" or "The state owns and controls everything." I had a vague notion of anarchy as promoting chaos or "wanting to destroy the government." (I drew these impressions mostly from what I read in history class, by the way.)

I recognized and agonized over a lot of the problems created by capitalism, but I assumed that they were inherent to human society.

I didn't investigate further because, well, why bother learning about the fine details of society that's just an engine of hopeless injustice? I had to stumble across leftist philosophy randomly to learn that there is some chance of changing things for the better, and I wish I had sooner.


Well, no need for apologetics, if that is indeed what you happen to be verging on -- *I* wish RevLeft existed back in the early '90s when I first became political...(!) I was around comrades most of the time in political contexts, but the presence of soft-left types, too, around the scene was annoying and only tried my patience, especially since I was relatively new to it all.... It hasn't been till recently that I've been able to do these frameworks in a visual style to illustrate the basic structure underlying the politics of the world, and the world itself.

[Diello]

Well, no need for apologetics, if that is indeed what you happen to be verging on -- *I* wish RevLeft existed back in the early '90s when I first became political...(!) I was around comrades most of the time in political contexts, but the presence of soft-left types, too, around the scene was annoying and only tried my patience, especially since I was relatively new to it all.... It hasn't been till recently that I've been able to do these frameworks in a visual style to illustrate the basic structure underlying the politics of the world, and the world itself.

Really, I've just felt the need to splurge, for whatever reason. I don't blame myself for not knowing. It's so strange to me, to think that this was always here and yet-- even while contemplating many issues germane to leftist philosophy-- I was never aware of it.

P.S.- Oh, and I'm also slightly inebriated, which is probably making me a bit maudlin.

[ckaihatsu]

Really, I've just felt the need to splurge, for whatever reason. I don't blame myself for not knowing. It's so strange to me, to think that this was always here and yet-- even while contemplating many issues germane to leftist philosophy-- I was never aware of it.


Yeah, well, we don't exactly get commercials on TV during the Superbowl, so just *becoming* revolutionary-political seems to have a consistent Winston-Smith-1984 feel to it for everyone, at some point....





P.S.- Oh, and I'm also slightly inebriated, which is probably making me a bit maudlin.


Um, yeah... if by "maudlin" you mean *introspective*....

= )

[Diello]

Yeah, well, we don't exactly get commercials on TV during the Superbowl, so just *becoming* revolutionary-political seems to have a consistent Winston-Smith-1984 feel to it for everyone, at some point....

XD You know, the initial germ of my introduction to the topic was actually planted by a film, Der Baader Meinhof Komplex, which I watched because Netflix kept putting it at the top of the "Suggestions for you!" list.

It is a bit Winston Smith, isn't it? Or, rather, it was before I became aware of the leftist community.

At the moment I'm mowing through lefty books and hoping that I'll eventually find myself forming an informed, comprehensive opinion on things. Thus read: Live Working or Die Fighting, Das Kapital, Parecon, Ten Days That Shook the World, My Disillusionment in Russia, and God and the State.

I have as-yet nebulous plans to go abroad and check out some places that i understand have significant leftist movements, once I get done with my degree.

P.S.- I think I like your Want, Get graphic best of the three, for what that may be worth.

[ckaihatsu]

XD You know, the initial germ of my introduction to the topic was actually planted by a film, Der Baader Meinhof Komplex, which I watched because Netflix kept putting it at the top of the "Suggestions for you!" list.


Yes, we have many methods by which we reach potential inductees....


x D


So you were politicized by an algorithm -- that's gotta be the cleanest way yet.... Lucky you....








Connectionism

Connectionism is a set of approaches in the fields of artificial intelligence, cognitive psychology, cognitive science, neuroscience and philosophy of mind, that models mental or behavioral phenomena as the emergent processes of interconnected networks of simple units. There are many forms of connectionism, but the most common forms use neural network models.




Learning

Connectionists[citation needed] generally stress the importance of learning in their models. Thus, connectionists have created many sophisticated learning procedures for neural networks. Learning always involves modifying the connection weights. These generally involve mathematical formulas to determine the change in weights when given sets of data consisting of activation vectors for some subset of the neural units.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connectionism





It is a bit Winston Smith, isn't it? Or, rather, it was before I became aware of the leftist community.


I suppose so -- it's cool if you're around a leftist community that works for you. For me it's RevLeft....





At the moment I'm mowing through lefty books and hoping that I'll eventually find myself forming an informed, comprehensive opinion on things. Thus read: Live Working or Die Fighting, Das Kapital, Parecon, Ten Days That Shook the World, My Disillusionment in Russia, and God and the State.


Impressive.





I have as-yet nebulous plans to go abroad and check out some places that i understand have significant leftist movements, once I get done with my degree.


Very good.





P.S.- I think I like your Want, Get graphic best of the three, for what that may be worth.


Okay, cool -- thanks. The overall, original model (attached) has many aspects to explore, as with the 'Leftism -- Want, Get' dynamic within.... Don't hesitate to give a shout if there's something in particular you'd like to see.... I'm the 'graphics guy'...(!)


[21] Ideologies & Operations

http://postimage.org/image/1d2pk9lok/

[Magón]

snip

Why does your third graphic at the end have Stalinism/Maoism as decentralized, like Anarchism? Shouldn't you replace Stalinism/Maoism in Centralized, and even have Communism decentralized since it's the end result of it all.

[Diello]

I suppose so -- it's cool if you're around a leftist community that works for you. For me it's RevLeft....

Oh, same here. I'm not in contact with any local leftist community. It's just knowing that such a community exists, a community devoted to addressing the problems which have agonized me for so many years, even if the only contact I have with that community is by teh internetz.

Well, my best friend is an anarchist, so you might consider us a community of two.

Impressive.

I've found most of it pretty engrossing, though reading Ten Days That Shook the World and My Disillusionment In Russia back-to-back was a bit jarring, as you can imagine.

if there's something in particular you'd like to see.... I'm the 'graphics guy'...

I shall bear you in mind, then. Good lord, I'm tired. I'm going to go dream utopian dreams of a society where everyone gets along and nobody exploits anybody.

[NGNM85]

Let’s start at the very beginning. ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ are extremely broad divisions of political ideology that originated in post-revolutionary France. This is a textbook example of the Left/Right political spectrum;

http://blsciblogs.baruch.cuny.edu/luc/files/2009/10/left-right.png (http://blsciblogs.baruch.cuny.edu/luc/files/2009/10/left-right.png)

At the far Right you have Fascists, then Reactionaries, then Conservatives, then the Center, which is sometimes called ‘Moderate’, then Center-Left, to Progressives, or Liberals (More on that, later.) to Socialists, Anarchists and Communists at the far Left, or radical Left. Some Democrats are Liberals, and all of them are Leftists. However, they are largely Centrist-Leftists.

Leftists tend to focus more on fairness, equality, diplomacy, plurality, it tends to be progressive and communal. The right is conservative, places greater emphasis on obedience and authority, personal responsibility, they tend to be more militant, individualistic, etc.

Liberalism is a school of thought that came out of the Enlightenment. Some of the central ideas were; democracy, human rights, secular government, and capitalism. (Which has almost no relationship to the present, prevailing economic system.) Liberalism had a wide impact on philosophy, and influenced both the Left and the Right, but not the far-Right. The Liberal Enlightenment ideas inspired early Anarchists, like Bakunin, who took some of these ideas and expanded on them.

Liberals, at least in the US, believe in many of the ideas of classical Liberalism, although they generally support mixed economies. Most modern US Liberals are something of a different beast, while generally well-educated; they aren’t taking their cues directly from Locke and Rousseau. Modern American Liberals are moderate Leftists. They are more Left than Center-Leftists, but not as much as Radicals. Sometimes they call themselves Progressives, which is essentially the same thing. This is in part because the American Right has turned Liberal into a four-letter word. They tend to be less religious, and more inclusive of other groups, they embrace diversity. Liberals look forward to the future. They tend to be more in favor of diplomatic solutions, etc. Again, these are crude oversimplifications.

Conservatives are generally classified as being on the moderate end of the right. Of course, these terms are often abused. (For example, George Bush first campaigned as a ‘compassionate conservative’, despite the fact that he exemplifies neither of these characteristics.) Conservatives tend to get nostalgic about the past, and have a natural resistance to change. They tend to think the best way to improve the general welfare is for people to help themselves. They tend to be more religious, more hawkish on foreign policy, etc.

[ckaihatsu]

Why does your third graphic at the end have Stalinism/Maoism as decentralized, like Anarchism? Shouldn't you replace Stalinism/Maoism in Centralized,








Lol. Also, howcome Stalinists/Maoists, Jacobinists are classed as decentralised alongside the anarchists but Trotskyists and Marxists are centralised revolutionaries?

Or have I misunderstood your graphs? In which case, I apologise. I do find the graphs you post very interesting, though, might I say.

p.s. I don't *get* the want-get graph.





Stalinism / Maoism is limited to the nation-state, and so are decentralized in relation to the world as a whole -- similar for Jacobinism, and for locality-minded, albeit internationalist, anarchists.





and even have Communism decentralized since it's the end result of it all.


Whether the final communism would be relatively politically aggregated in (mass) administration or not is certainly debatable -- I tend to think of it as being capable of supporting a world-centralized co-administration of liberated labor, for singular global public-works-type projects. Undoubtedly not everyone would be "on board" for such a project, regardless, so certainly plenty of local-oriented (decentralized, anarchist-type) communities of liberated labor would exist as well....

For the purposes of the schematic the point is more along the lines of vanguardism, or *how* the workers of the world are to accomplish the overthrow of capitalist rule.

[The Idler]

The left want to distribute power, the right want to concentrate power. Simple as that. Liberals are any lefties who think a market economy (which retains exploitation and surplus value) can distribute power.

[NGNM85]

The left want to distribute power, the right want to concentrate power.

These are absurd oversimplifications. It's also inaccurate. Harsh authoritarians, Maoists, Leninists, etc., are also considered to be part of the Left, that's one of the serious failings of this spectrum, as I pointed out, earlier.


Simple as that. Liberals are any lefties who think a market economy (which retains exploitation and surplus value) can distribute power.

That is a terribly insufficient explaination of the ideology of modern Liberals.

[Diello]

These are absurd oversimplifications. It's also inaccurate. Harsh authoritarians, Maoists, Leninists, etc., are also considered to be part of the Left, that's one of the serious failings of this spectrum, as I pointed out, earlier.


That is a terribly insufficient explaination of the ideology of modern Liberals.

Got the time and inclination to furnish your own explanation?

[ckaihatsu]

Thought I'd re-post the following quoted description / explanation of the 'Left Centrifugalism' dynamic to these two currently active threads....


sick of right-wingers who don't understand the spectrum

http://www.revleft.com/vb/sick-right-wingers-t147564/index.html


Definitions of leftism, liberalism, conservatism, and rightism

http://www.revleft.com/vb/definitions-leftism-liberalism-t147104/index.html





[T]he idea is to show that the nation-state exerts a centripetal-like force on society due to its middleman role between labor and capital. Likewise, the working class and ownership class each tend to consolidate to their peripheries -- like centrifugal force -- due to their counterposed, irreconcilable material interests over the societal surplus.


It would look best as an animation -- the general idea is that the left-to-right spectrum of inverted 'ideology' points is a single fast-spinning element on top of a wooden platform from the 'Interpersonal Meanings' schematic. As social meaning increases there's more at stake and so more resources are invested by the state to *destabilize* the politics of the day by making the element spin faster and faster -- this circular velocity primarily affects the general "mainstream" center.

With faster spin comes more disorientation around the center, and the relatively stable center shrinks, losing its "eye of the storm" safety with a diminished "sweet spot". Centripetal forces increase, pulling the general mainstream towards the center nation-state, while centrifugal forces increase as well, throwing either side of the political spectrum's "outer regions" out and away from involvement near the "mainstream".

But as social meaning increases upwards, the heightened elevation, along with the instability from the spinning, combine *against* the spinning inertia to *slow* it down, towards relative stability at higher levels of social meaning, tending towards a standstill. This increased stability cuts against the intrinsic interest of the nation-state for *instability* since the general disorientation throughout the political spectrum lessens as the spinning slows down. At the upper reaches of social meaning the destabilization threatens to *cease altogether*, yielding a relaxing of the separation caused by the counteracting centrifugal and centripetal forces. In such a situation the nation-state becomes *exposed* and the disparate, counterposed class forces at either end of the spectrum would easily swamp the center to meet in open conflict.

Likewise, the converse may occur where objective economic crisis (and political crisis) saps the nation-state's ability to keep politics "up-in-the-air" and destabilized -- widespread social meanings would tend *downward* in this case, approaching a *collapse* into 'falsities / bullshit' at the "ground level", putting a total stop to the spinning and disorientation. Again this would yield a climate of political stability that would reveal objective, counterposed class interests, giving them the chance to confront in the center in open conflict.





[T]he use of objective physical forces in the visual metaphor is proper, appropriate, valid, and illustrative.

Consider that during the capitalist expansionist period in the 19th century, and earlier centuries, the boom-bust cycle was entirely regular and predictably cyclical. In the 20th century, during periods of upswings -- as during the war-production '40s -- the nation-state likewise enjoyed a higher-level, less-unstable existence. This sovereign economic health -- as through warfare -- equates to a spinning center that is slower, more stable, and with a larger "sweet spot" of lessened circular motion in the middle.

Appropriately enough this condition also means that there's less *centrifugal* force flinging objective, counterposed *class* interests to either "outer region" -- in periods when the economy is not fluctuating as much the nation-state's "lessened motion" allows forces from both labor and capital to "cross the divide" and confront each other as the nation-state is less able to provide a spinning, destabilizing "centripetal" force.

So, to sum up, the "spinning disc" is illustrative of the extent of nation-state political activity -- assertion of sovereignty -- as during periods of economic fluctuation, either on the way up or on the way down. When the ruling class is too preoccupied with its own well-off being or crisis-ridden state of existence it fails to pay enough attention to and provide adequate "physical" destabilizing "spinning-disc force" to its 'executive committee of the ruling class', the nation-state. This equates to a lessening of official domestic and imperialist / adventurist political repression, allowing revolutionary and fascist forces a newfound political ground on which to clash, as is their wont.


Ideologies & Operations -- Left Centrifugalism

http://postimage.org/image/2cvo2d7fo/


Interpersonal Meanings

http://postimage.org/image/1d5a6d1c4/

[NGNM85]

Got the time and inclination to furnish your own explanation?

I already did. See above. I even had a graphic, albiet a simple one.

[Diello]

I already did. See above. I even had a graphic, albiet a simple one.

Oh, so you did. XD Thank you.