Can someone define left-wing?

[Matterhorn]

I'm a little confused with the difference between left-wing and right-wing. Can someone clear this up for me?

[Agent Equality]

oh boy...:rolleyes:

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Left Wing: socialist, communist, anarchist

Right wing: republican, fascist, and other conservative,and radical, ideologies.

Center: democrats (not progressive,just liberals), green party

Definitions vary on your view point,but true left and right wings usually is not something you find from television pundits.

[o well this is ok I guess]

I would like to give you a definition. However, every definition I can think of seems to fall short in properly describing all that is called left wing. However, this seems odd. I throw around a phrase that I cannot even define. Yet, I'm fairly sure I know what it means. I am not particularly knowledgeable on the subject of either the left wing or linguistics, but what I can surmise from my limited view is this: It is impossible to properly define such terms. At the very least, one cannot do so without excluding a fair portion of what is under such a term, for lack of certain shared universals.

One can look across all left-wing ideologies and create a definition based on what is universal to them (or perhaps what is mostly universal between them), but such a definition is likely to be vague and unlikely to leave you any less confused than you already are. For instance, I can look at numerous egg dishes and say "that is a cooked egg". However, we cannot make demonstration of this property without being somewhat vague. There is, after all, quite the variety of eggs. No doubt most egg dishes will taste "eggy" but how eggy it will taste will of course depend on how exactly the egg is cooked and prepared, and may not even taste much like egg at all (does balut count as cooked egg? Totally does.). Furthermore, the flavour of "eggy" is not even exclusive to eggs, as one can identify certain non-egg foods to taste somewhat eggy. So, something will be a cooked egg, but by our definition, we cannot without uncertainty identify as a cooked egg unless we ourselves witness it being prepared or have intimate acquaintance with the particular dish. Then, something may not be a cooked egg, but by its flavour we cannot without uncertainty identify it as not cooked egg unless we are either acquainted with the non-egg dish or have witnessed its preparation. We cannot trust ourselves to with certainty say what is cooked egg and what is not cooked egg by our definition (flavour) because of the varying degrees each dish partakes in the definition. Therefore, our account of taste is unreliable in identifying all that is cooked egg.

I would say this is also so of the left wing. If we are to take what is absolutely universal between what is described as left wing, we're left with almost nothing. If we take what is mostly universal, we are left with something of buzzwords that themselves require similar definition, which will be almost equally as vague. We are looking for universals among other words that also describe universal qualities between other objects (or perhaps even other similarly universal words). What is universal between the Marxist-Leninist, The Post-Structural Anarchist, the Democratic Socialist? I can say they are "collectivist", but the question is then raised of what exactly collectivism is, as it radically differs radically between the three. we can then say it is "work together towards a common goal", but even "work" and "common goal" is ambiguous in its interpretations between the three. In the end, what have we said that is clearly understood and leaves no room for misunderstanding?

I would say definition of such words must then be as such: A knowledge of what is described as "left wing", rather than the term "left wing" itself. If we are to be unable to give a proper account of what "left wing" is, we can point to various things and say they are left wing and point out what practices and properties they have that can be described as left wing. It is, after all, not particularly difficult to point out Trotsky or a labour organizer and say "he is of the left wing". We can then say that which is similar to Trotsky or the labour organizer is left wing, from having qualities universal to them without allowing too much ambiguity (I can say Trotsky and a man next to him have x, y, and z as properties, and then add "but Trotsky has property b". At the very least, more properties are shared than are differing and therefore it is mostly clear that Trotsky and man next to Trotsky are left wing by these easily identifiable traits between them).

Or I could be speaking absolute nonsense and have made logical slipup after logical slipup, and a definition will be provided that properly encompasses all that is left wing, or excludes all that does not fit into its definition. At the very least, someone may address what is obviously lacking from what I have said (1. for instance, it seems to me easier to grasp a word when it is defined clearly, rather than used multiple times in context. Or is simply from an understanding of the words used to define the word in question? But then again, if all language must be understood in such a way, it is impossible to know what any word can mean without demonstration of the word in context. But how can we have context if a word is not defined in the first place? 2. How does one then determine what is left wing among new practices without any sort of definition by which to make reference to? Must they come from what is already considered left wing in the first place (ie. a marxist philosopher coming up with a new theory of rice as a dominant trade currency or whatever)? But then if the same idea were to come of something that we do not call left wing, we would then not call it left wing, despite it being the same thing. 3. If they must be similar to Trotsky and the labour organizer, anything we cannot describe as similar cannot be left wing, although we may call it left wing. Is it therefore not left wing, and sectarianism turns out not to be sectarianism at all? Or do we also allow similar things to said similar things to also be left wing? But then we may find that, in fact, everything is left wing.).

So, uh, TL;DR it's probably better to study specific instances of labour movements, revolutions, prominent leftists, leftist writings, and all that jazz and say "well, this is left-wing", rather than attempting to find some specific set of words to describe the phrase "left-wing".

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Firstly, let's establish the traditional political spectrum, and i'll make some alterations:

From left to right: Anarchism, Revolutionary Socialism, Democratic Socialism/Social Democracy, Liberalism, Conservatism, Nationalism, Fascism.

Within these political philosophies, we can place differing tendencies as such, from left to right:

Revolutionary Socialism: left Communism/Libertarian Socialism, Bolshevism/Leninism, Stalinism, vulgar Marxism

Social Democracy: Democratic Socialism (i.e. Bennism), left-Social Democracy (think left-wing Labourism, Dennis Skinner, Jeremy Corbyn).

Liberalism: Classical Liberalism, Neo-Liberalism. Same for conservatism. There is an overlap between right-Social Democracy and Neo-Liberalism. New Labour might be seen as a combination of the two, with Blair on the extreme right and Ed Balls on the left(ish) side of New Labour, incorporating elements of right-social democracy and neo-liberal policy.

So, what is left-wing is relative. To revolutionaries, New Labour is a reactionary, right-wing grouping. To the Daily Mail and to Peter Hitchens, they are quasi-Marxists.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

My answer, I realise, is absolute shit in terms of not expanding, but its a basic overview suitable for the question.

[Kornilios Sunshine]

LEFT WING
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-QjGbF6eP_A0/Tguox-3IPGI/AAAAAAAACjw/PBTBSTZygWE/s640/0808-0806-1216-5805.jpg

RIGHT WING
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/images/right_wing_1.jpg

Don't you see any difference?:sleep:

[Rodrigo]

Revolutionary Socialism: left Communism/Libertarian Socialism, Bolshevism/Leninism, Stalinism, vulgar Marxism

Liberalism: Classical Liberalism, Neo-Liberalism. Same for conservatism. There is an overlap between right-Social Democracy and Neo-Liberalism. New Labour might be seen as a combination of the two, with Blair on the extreme right and Ed Balls on the left(ish) side of New Labour, incorporating elements of right-social democracy and neo-liberal policy.

Stalinism doesn't exist, it's a pejorative term invented by the opposition and has nothing do to with Stalin. Stalin was a true Bolshevik/Leninist.

We should put "libertarian socialism" in the Anarchist group, since it's much different from Scientific Socialism and Socialdemocracy.

Anarchism: Mutualism (Proudhon), anarcho-communism (Bakunin, Malatesta, Kropotkin), anarcho-individualism (Max Stirner; also should be put under Liberalism), green anarchism (Theodor Kaczynski), religious anarchism (Tolstoy), anarcho-sindicalism (Lagardelle), post-anarchism (Foucault, Deleuze), anarcho-capitalism (Murray Rothbard; also should be put under Liberalism), autarchism (LeFebvre), libertarian socialism (Chomsky, Rosa Luxemburg, Anton Pannekoek)

[thefinalmarch]

Fuck the left-right political spectrum.

So-called "far-left" ideologies such as Marxism and anarchism have nothing to do with "moderate left" or "centre-left" ideologies. It's absurd to even consider placing them next to each other.

Ideologies should be classified on the basis of which class' interests their theories serve.

[Rodrigo]

Fuck the left-right political spectrum.

So-called "far-left" ideologies such as Marxism and anarchism have nothing to do with "moderate left" or "centre-left" ideologies. It's absurd to even consider placing them next to each other.

Ideologies should be classified on the basis of which class' interests their theories serve.

It's just a political spectrum. Don't expect too much coherence in that thing.

A political-economical spectrum is better:

Right - bourgeoisie ideologies (conservatives, liberals -- include individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism -- and moderates);
Left - proletarian ideologies (communists - Marxists, anarcho-communists, etc);
Center - just a reference point. :)

[ColonelCossack]

Basically left-wing is where you support the interests of the many, and right-wing is where you support the interests of the few.

The terms originate in the french assembly of the 1789 revolution... or something like that.

[Tjis]

left-right is a classification originating from the French revolution, where people seated in the left wing of the National Assembly were republicans and those in the right wing were royalists. As time passes and new ideologies come to exist it becomes more and more difficult to classify them as left or right.

Some ruling organ from centuries ago isn't really a good classification system. It's better to analyze political movements based on which class in society they favor. By now many people consider 'left-wing' to be that which favors the proletariat (including such things as free healthcare, higher minimum wages, shorter work hours), and 'right-wing' that which favors the bourgeoisie (less business regulation, lower wages, etc). But there's no universal agreement on this.

[The Idler]

The left want to distribute power as widely as possible, the right want to concentrate it as much as possible.
Naturally for those that want to concentrate power, this is inconvenient, so they are dismissive of the political spectrum or call themselves left-wing when in fact they are not. The idea that ideologies have defied the analysis in terms of distributing power is an illusion that suits the ruling class who do not want power distributed.

[Rooster]

I'm a little drunk right now so it's kinda hard to read the previous posts but I will try to give you my summary.

Historically, left and ring wing stem from (as far as I know) the French revolution. In their parliament, the left wing were the more radical grouping and the right were the more conservative. This is a gross oversimplification though but it does help inform us further. This is in reference to a bourgeois government, one of capitalist mode of production.

Since that we've moved on from then with Marx and such, left has taken on another meaning whilst still retaining the original. Which is why some people dislike being called left-wing as it can mean working within a bourgeois framework ie social democrats, etc.

I see Marxism as stepping out from that framework, and I'm sure a few other people do as well. This also means that some marxists can have completely conservative views on things and other people can have really radical views such as anarchists or left-communists.

Fundamentally, I think this separation of a left and right is lacking a great deal especially in regards to people who want to move on from the frame work that it's set in. Generally I just call myself a socialist to people who aren't politically educated and a marxist to people who might know what that mean.

I hope this drink fuelled reply was helpful, comrade.

[RadioRaheem84]

Ideologies should be classified on the basis of which class' interests their theories serve.


In the end this is really what it's all about.

The defining attribute all leftists share is the class analysis.

[Luc]

I suggest this instead of left and right:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

doesn't answer your question but if you stick with left and right it'll fuck you up:lol:

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Left and right (in terms of the French bourgeois parliament spectrum) doesn't really make sense in terms of a smooth line, but it does allow one to neatly align most of the tendencies that exist.

Of course, as Marxists (and I guess this is why my first post was shit), we can divide the political spectrum into Socialism (the rule of 'social' means, i.e. people - extreme democracy) and Capitalism (the rule of capital). You can probably extrapolate from there.

To whoever said Stalinism is one and the same with Leninism, i'd probably say that Stalinism is an extended form of Leninism. Really it's difficult to pin Leninism down as in theory Lenin certainly flip flopped around, and in application, if we include Stalinism as a branch of Leninism, then the latter included the NEP, mass industrialisation, a ban on the purging of party members and the purging/execution of party members.

[The Idler]

Class analysis isn't a good indicator since fascists believe in productive class and consuming class. I think there are even people who accept the working-class and ruling-class who aren't leftists.

[RadioRaheem84]

Class analysis isn't a good indicator since fascists believe in productive class and consuming class. I think there are even people who accept the working-class and ruling-class who aren't leftists.
Correction then: radical class analysis.

We know what class analysis we're talking about, one that talks about radical systemic change.

Most on the right believe only in the status quo even if they acknowledge classes.

Most on the right especially fascists believe in class collaboration as the natural order.

[The Idler]

Correction then: radical class analysis.

We know what class analysis we're talking about, one that talks about radical systemic change.

Most on the right believe only in the status quo even if they acknowledge classes.

Most on the right especially fascists believe in class collaboration as the natural order.
Radical class analysis is an even worse definition of left-wing.

[ColonelCossack]

I suggest this instead of left and right:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

doesn't answer your question but if you stick with left and right it'll fuck you up:lol:

Yeah but the quiz is biased towards bourgeois politics.

[Luc]

Yeah but the quiz is biased towards bourgeois politics.

Really? How so?

[RadioRaheem84]

Radical class analysis is an even worse definition of left-wing.


What the hell are you talking about? I got that notion from Chomsky himself when asked to describe what can best describe the left. He said the class analysis is essential.

Only leftists have a radical class analysis of society. Everyone else rejects or limits the role of class as an essential structure of capitalist society. Fascists deem it essential for a nation to survive.

I'm not just talking about addressing it but actively pursuing to change it.

[Commissar Rykov]

Really? How so?
Because the whole quiz assumes you are ok with capitalism and the current status quo. It doesn't factor in any actual revolutionary politics it is just a barometer for those already in and enjoying the current system.

[Rafiq]

Basically It's progressive class interest vs. Reactionary or conservative class interest.

[Rodrigo]

To whoever said Stalinism is one and the same with Leninism, i'd probably say that Stalinism is an extended form of Leninism. Really it's difficult to pin Leninism down as in theory Lenin certainly flip flopped around, and in application, if we include Stalinism as a branch of Leninism, then the latter included the NEP, mass industrialisation, a ban on the purging of party members and the purging/execution of party members.

Some things considered as "solely Stalin's actions", and often repudiated, appeared first because of Lenin's leadership, like the purges/purification in the party, the secret police (Cheka then NKVD) or the Gulag system.

The term Stalinism was coined by Nikita Khruschev: "Our Constitution is the Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism that has conquered one sixth of the globe." (Pravda, 30 November 1936, cited in: L. Pistrak: ibid.; p. 161).

Then, in August 1937, it was used by Trotsky in a text called "Stalinism and Bolshevism" (as if the two were different, what is a false premise).

__________________________________________________ ______________________


An Address to the Sarat Academy in London
on 30 April 1999 by Bill Bland


I am grateful to the Sarat Academy for inviting me to speak to you on ‘Stalinism’.
However, your choice of subject presented me with some difficulty, since I am a great admirer of Stalin and the word ‘Stalinism’ was introduced by concealed opponents of Stalin - in particular by Nikita Khrushchev - in preparation for later political attacks upon him.
Today, in fact, ‘Stalinism’ has become a meaningless term of abuse employed to denote political views with which one disagrees. The Conservative press sometimes even describes Tony Blair as a ‘Stalinist’ -giving Stalin, were he still alive, ample grounds for a libel action!
Stalin always referred to himself modestly as 'a pupil of Lenin' and T shall follow his example and interpret the subject of ‘Stalinism’ as ‘Marxism-Leninism.
(...)
The Soviet traitors to socialism opened their attack upon socialism in 1956 at the 20th Congress of the Communist Party in February 1956 by charging Stalin with organizing a ‘cult of personality’ around himself.
Certainly, there in the time of Stalin there was a cult of his personality in the Soviet Union. But this was organized not by Stalin, but against his himself opposed and ridiculed this cult.
For example, when in February 1938 someone wanted to publish entitled ‘Stories of the Childhood of Stalin’, Stalin wrote typically:
"I am absolutely against the publication of ‘Stories of the Childhood of Stalin’.
The book abounds with a mass of inexactitudes of fact, . . . of exaggerations and of unmerited praise. .
But… the important thing resides tendency to engrave on the minds of Soviet children (and people in general) the personality cult of leaders, of infallible heroes. This is dangerous and detrimental…I suggest we burn this book".
There was indeed a ‘cult of personality’ around Stalin. A leading communist cried at the 18th Congress of the Party in March 1939:
"The Ukrainian people proclaim with all their heart and soul . ‘Long live our beloved Stalin!’ .
Long live the towering genius of all humanity, . . . our beloved Comrade Stalin!"
The speaker was Nikita Khrushchev!
It was Khrushchev too who coined the term ‘Stalinism’ and began to call Stalin ‘Vozhd" - the Russian equivalent of the German ‘Fuhrer’, Leader.
In other words, the ‘cult of personality’ around Stalin was built up not by Stalin and those who genuinely supported him, but by his political opponents as a prelude to attacking him later as a megalomaniac dictator
Even though Stalin did not have the power to stop these alleged manifestations of ‘loyalty’ and ‘patriotism’, Stalin was no fool and was aware that their motives were, as he told the German writer Lion Feuchtwanger in 1937, ‘to discredit him’ at a later date.
Thus, the cult of personality around Stalin was contrary to Stalin’s own wishes, and the fact that it went on demonstrates that in the last few years of his life Stalin - far from wielding dictatorial power - was in a minority within the Soviet leadership.


__________________________________________________ _______


:)

[Geiseric]

the jacobins sat on the left side of the french congress during the french revolution, and the conservatives/proto bourgeois who were closer to pro-monarchy were on the right.

[Geiseric]

and my friend, you are beating a dead horse on the stalinism subject. There have been dozens of threads on the subject, with most of them ending the same way, with the utter refusal and reputal of stalinist politics by most members of the forum. There is a huge difference between Leninism and Stalinism. Leninism doesn't advocate for a beuracratic caste to be in charge of society, however the main difference in my opinion is the Menshevik policies forced on revolutionary communists by comintern's stalinists, and the refusal of internationalism.

[Rodrigo]

Leninism doesn't advocate for a beuracratic caste to be in charge of society

Neither what you call "Stalinists"! :lol:


Menshevik policies forced on revolutionary communists by comintern's stalinists, and the refusal of internationalism.

What "Menshevik policies"?

"Stalinists", that is, Marxist-Leninists, don't refuse internationalism. On the contrary, they were in history of communism the biggest internationalists. Just because we give attention to the national question -- like Lenin did -- it doesn't mean we refuse internationalism. :lol: