What Commitments Define "the Left"

[TC]

There is often an assumption of a shared mutual understanding of what "the left" means (and, perhaps by implication what "the right" means). The term "left" in politics comes (as most people will know) from the French Revolution when those seated on the left side of the Estates General supported the revolution and republic and those seated on the right side supported the Ancien Régime.

Within bourgeois "liberal democracies" there tends to be a broad agreement on the parties of the left and right in relation to each other (US Democrats are left of center,US Republicans are right of center, UK Labour are left of centre, UK Tories are right of centre, etc) - and that socialist, communist, and egalitarian anarchists are of the 'far left', whereas fascists and traditionalist theocrats are of the 'far right'. Various nationalists, classic liberalism, libertarianism, progressivism, might be hard to place as 'to the left' or 'to the right' of different previously mentioned ideologies. Likewise, different positions on the far left are hard to definitively place to the left or to the right of each other.

But while people may feel they know it when they see it, there is not as far as I can tell a simple straightforward definition of left and right that would be agreeable to people placed on both the left and right by them.

Definitions that would be politically disagreeable to people on one or the other side of the divide are somewhat unsatisfying as general definitions of left and right because they, in effect, operate as the view of the left and right from the left, or the view from the right. This is to say that such definitions reveal overt interpretative bias, which although it may be impossible to avoid, make for perhaps less compelling definitions than those that could be approved of by all parties.

Likewise, definitions that rely exclusively on historical analogy to their usage lack the conceptual clarity and specificity of those that don't because they raise the question of, on what basis is the analogy being drawn.

My first question for this thread is:

1. What conceptually defines the left, in terms of commitments and beliefs or normative political positions.

My follow up questions are -

2. so, then, what conceptually defines the right on its own rather than purely in relation to the left.

3. And can these definitions clarify which positions occupy conceptual space to the left or right of each other beyond generally being of the left or of the right?

[tuwix]

The first difference in times of French revolution was distinction between monarchists and republicans or otherwise between conservatists and liberals. There is needed to remind that all socialists were recognized then as liberals. After fall of monarchy there started to be a difference about equality. Right is in their conservative positions against it and left for it.

Now right is focused on conservatism. Their objective is to conserve a capitalism. Left's aim is to reform or destroy (radical left) a capitalism.

However, there are two major cases that are beyond such conceptualization. The first one is Nazism. Their declared aim was equality although on level of nation but put in practice it conserved a capitalism pretty much giving only a power to dictator who was independent form capital. The second case are many forms of practical Leninism. In theory, Leninism was for en equality. In practice, it has created a new class of bureaucratic owners and preserved a capitalism. So the ideology put in practice has features of conservatism. There are harsh cases having roots in Leninism as Stalinism that were a return to absolutism. Stalin was a one with absolute power over a state. However, such systems are called a left. It seems to me that it's just exception of a rule.

[exeexe]

Left is everything from nationalization of the means of production or high taxes in the one end to zero taxes and the abolition of the state in the other end. Its important for the left that the workers will think more about their political situation.

The right is for low taxes. Hierarchies like the state, church, capitalism and monarchy must be maintained, so the workers will remain poor. Its important for the right that the workers will work more.

[Red Economist]

In Political Science the "right" refers to a political position that supports social inequality, whereas the "left" refers to a position that supports social equality.

The concept of 'right' and 'left' is a legacy of the french revolution in which the national assembly was divided between the Monarchists who sat on the right of the chamber, and the Republicans who sat on the left of the Chamber. Historically speaking, the Jacobins were in the 'Far left' of the chamber, and their radical egalitarianism was an influence on the early development of socialist theory (when communism/anarchism/socialism were still the same thing). So we are classified as 'far left' as the result of this.

This conceptual framework has held on since then because it describes a different political order than the feudal/monarchist one that preceded it. But, it has been under significant stress because 'right' and 'left' don't define the means to achieve social equality/inequality. So in the Political compass, you get a second Axis of 'Libertarianism/Authoritarainism'.

But most of revleft agrees this still poses problems as it often misses the subtleties of communist/anarchist/socialist theories, particuarly concerning the difference between the political positions held in a pre- and post-revolutionary society.

[QueerVanguard]

Proletarian material interest, which practically would cover racial liberation, LGBTQ rights, feminism, the whole shaboigan.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I would say there is quite a difference between the socialist left and the bourgeois left. We socialists call ourselves "left" by analogy with the revolutionary party during the great bourgeois revolution in France. On the other hand, liberals and petit-bourgeois democrats (including many a self-proclaimed socialist) are considered to be "the left" in bourgeois politics, because their rhetoric matches the historic left of the French Revolution. The two kinds of left are not the same, and conflating them leads to the notion that liberals are "closer" to socialists than conservatives are, which I don't think is true at all.


The first difference in times of French revolution was distinction between monarchists and republicans or otherwise between conservatists and liberals. There is needed to remind that all socialists were recognized then as liberals. After fall of monarchy there started to be a difference about equality. Right is in their conservative positions against it and left for it.

Now right is focused on conservatism. Their objective is to conserve a capitalism. Left's aim is to reform or destroy (radical left) a capitalism.

However, there are two major cases that are beyond such conceptualization. The first one is Nazism. Their declared aim was equality although on level of nation but put in practice it conserved a capitalism pretty much giving only a power to dictator who was independent form capital. The second case are many forms of practical Leninism. In theory, Leninism was for en equality. In practice, it has created a new class of bureaucratic owners and preserved a capitalism. So the ideology put in practice has features of conservatism. There are harsh cases having roots in Leninism as Stalinism that were a return to absolutism. Stalin was a one with absolute power over a state. However, such systems are called a left. It seems to me that it's just exception of a rule.

You're beginning to sound like one of those people that think Strasserism was "libertarian socialism" as opposed to Leninist "state capitalism" (yes, they exist, although mainly on RevLeft). As for equality, one only needs to recall that the only time Marx mentioned equality he opposed it as a confused, Lassallean demand.

[tuwix]

^^And you're beginning to sound like one of those idiots who believe that state capitalism is socialism who try to put label on everyone else (yes, they exist, although mainly on RevLeft).

[Црвена]

The question is, "why does it have to be so hard to define the left?" The right-wing pretty much just want the preservation of capitalism, hierarchy and age-old beliefs and get more extreme in their means of achieving these ends as you go further right. Whereas the left is extremely divided and this is seriously hampering our ability to present our beliefs as a suitable alternative, leaving the modern-day proletarian to look to the right, as we have seen with UKIP's gain in working-class areas of the UK.

[Sea]

However, there are two major cases that are beyond such conceptualization. The first one is Nazism. Their declared aim was equality although on level of nation but put in practice it conserved a capitalism pretty much giving only a power to dictator who was independent form capital.This is why we are to be suspicious of declared aims, never mind that this is nullified by the ability to arbitrary demand that people change their definition of what constitutes a nation.
The second case are many forms of practical Leninism. In theory, Leninism was for en equality. In practice, it has created a new class of bureaucratic owners and preserved a capitalism. So the ideology put in practice has features of conservatism. There are harsh cases having roots in Leninism as Stalinism that were a return to absolutism. Stalin was a one with absolute power over a state. However, such systems are called a left. It seems to me that it's just exception of a rule.There was no "new" (unique) class in the Soviet Union. I don't care how bad you think it looked in practice. As long as it looks good on paper there is a discrepancy to explain. For that the onus is on you, the anti-Leninist.

[DigitalBluster]

For me it's just a continuation of the original spirit of left-wing politics: resistance to the entrenched forces of oppression. The players change, but the game remains the same.

As to the notion of a left wing of the ruling class, I reject it as absurd. Ruling-class parties simply represent different ways of doing the same thing; some are more tolerable than others, from the perspective of the left, but that doesn't make them left wing.

[Luís Henrique]

"Left" and "right" in politics are fuzzy concepts; they cannot be "defined". Any definition will immediately conflict with exceptions and/or result in counter-intuitive labeling of obviously right-wing groups as leftists, and conversely.

So what can be done is to establish which are the general "themes" of the "left" and the "right". I think the best explanation is that the left is about equality, and the right is about inequality.

Luís Henrique

[TC]

"Left" and "right" in politics are fuzzy concepts; they cannot be "defined". Any definition will immediately conflict with exceptions and/or result in counter-intuitive labeling of obviously right-wing groups as leftists, and conversely.

So what can be done is to establish which are the general "themes" of the "left" and the "right". I think the best explanation is that the left is about equality, and the right is about inequality.

Luís Henrique

I think you may be onto something with this comment and with the notion that themes are better than a 'definition'. I'm not sure if I'm committed to that notion but I'm interested in seeing it play out.

I agree that if the left has a core theme that theme is equality.

Perhaps if liberalism has a core theme, that theme is liberty or freedom (and hence a position like 'libertarian socialism' could be understood as both far left and far liberal, as thematically about equality and liberty).

I don't think though, in returning to my original notion that:


"Definitions that would be politically disagreeable to people on one or the other side of the divide are somewhat unsatisfying as general definitions of left and right because they, in effect, operate as the view of the left and right from the left, or the view from the right. This is to say that such definitions reveal overt interpretative bias, which although it may be impossible to avoid, make for perhaps less compelling definitions than those that could be approved of by all parties."

Your notion of the right as thematically about inequality is not satisfying. That is mostly just saying, we're about X, those who are not us, who are the opposite of us, are about not-X. It is a perspective of the left on the right, not a theme that many on the right would find appealing or would identify with.

Lots of people would I think agree that what matters to them and what is distinctive about their political views is equality, or liberty. But few would say that they're most interested in inequality. Inequality is almost never identified as a good in and of itself.


So what would be a theme for the right that the right would accept that would not involve a claim to a special virtue that the left would reject?

Surely it is not a single theme, but several come to mind especially when distinguishing the real right (fascism, right of center conservatism) from liberalism:

How about *order*? Rightists support militarism, state power, police, want to be tough on crime, are suspicious of things that they think threaten the order of society or the family that they regard as socially deviant (from sexualities other than their own to liberation of women and minority groups to immigration from other cultures). Conservatives display a love of order in their commitment to maintaining the real or imagined old way and its traditions. Fascists display a love of order in the most overt and obvious of ways, from a love of uniforms to an interest in crushing dissent and getting everyone lined up behind a total state.


Or perhaps if the left is characterized by equality, liberalism is characterized by liberty, the right is characterized by the third part of the tripartite french revolutionary motto: *fraternity*. The right is not universalistic in its scope of concern in the way both leftism and liberalism aim to be, the right is tribal and nationalistic. Both conservatives and fascists want to support people who they regard as their people and exclude those they regard as not their people - not (if they are asked) necessarily out of a belief that inequality is inherently good but out of a belief that people should look after their own first - their family, their nation, their coreligionists, etc. Universalistic liberals and the left (when not in 'anti-imperialist' mode which may have conservative undertones in some instances) note that this view is incompatible with equality but the right really doesn't care nor is the right motivated by inequality, it just isn't part of its core commitment.


What do you think?

[cyu]

What commitments define a Marxist?

http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-if-anything-is-certain-it-is-that-i-myself-am-not-a-marxist-karl-marx-250991.jpg