Different countries have different definitions of left and right. There seems to be some system, but also… well, let me give you an example: In Slovakia, the political party promoting marijuana legalization and homosexual marriage was labeled by its opponents as right-wing, because… well, they also supported free-market, and supporting free market means opposing communists, and since communists are left-wing, then logically if you oppose them, you must be right-wing. Having exactly the same opinions in USA would make one left-wing, if I understand it correctly.
This said, the examples I have in mind may be rather atypical for most LW readers. Thinking about my country, I would roughly classify political parties into three groups, listed from most powerful to least powerful.
1) Communists, including some small Nazi-ish parties, because they have a similar ideology (defend the working class, blame evil people for everything bad; the difference is that for Communists the evil people are Americans and entrepreneurs, while for Nazis they are Americans, Hungarians, Jews, and Gypsies; also both are strongly pro-Russia).
2) Liberals/Libertarians, basicly anyone who knows Economics 101 and wants to have some free market, and in extreme cases even things like marijuana and gay marriage.
3) Catholics, who only care about more power and money to Catholic church, and are willing to support either of the previous two groups if they in return give them what they want (so far they mostly joined the Liberals, but it always created a lot of tension within the government)
So for me, “left-wing” usually means (1), and “right-wing” usually means (2) + (3).
In my country, knowing Economics 101 already gets you labeled “right-wing”, and if you say things like “if you increases taxes, you will punish the rich, but you will also make stuff more expensive for the poor” or “if you increase minimum wage, some people will get higher salary, but other people will get fired or unable to find a job”, this is perceived by many as being mind-killed.
But in other countries it may be completely different.
Different countries have different definitions of left and right
In many non-western countries the very dichotomy between left and right doesn’t make any sense. Westerners make a lot of fatal mistakes when they try to project their limited understanding onto non-Western countries.
On reading that comment on Top Comments Today before having read its ancestors, I thought you was talking about Australian Aboriginal cultures who use compass directions even in everyday situations where Europeans would use relative directions.
Having exactly the same opinions in USA would make one left-wing, if I understand it correctly.
The only American political party like that is the libertarian party, which is consistently considered right-wing. (That is, the combination of marijuana legalization, gay rights, and free-market; you do find people in favor of marijuana legalization, gay rights, and less free market on the left.)
You are right. Well, in Slovakia the libertarian-ish party is the only one that would touch the topic of marijuana and gay rights. We do not have a “marijuana, gay rights, less free market” party, and maybe not even the voters who would vote for such party. Any kind of freedom is right-wing (although not everything right-wing is pro-freedom).
Communists (in the marxist sense) definitely take a systems thinking gear like approach, not a magical “evil people do evil things” approach. The entire idea behind Marxism is that there’s a systemic problem with capitalism where the rich own the means of production. This will lead to a systemic unrest among those who don’t own the means of production, which will eventually lead to a revolution.
I would say the problem is not systems thinking in this case, but lack of empiricism. Communism has been proven again and again to lead to corruption, but that fact is ignored by communists because it contradicts their systemic models. That’s not just a leftist problem though. For instance, it’s been shown again and again that raising the minimum wage doesn’t lead to unemployement, but that’s been ignored again and again by the right because it contradicts their systemic model.
Communists (in the marxist sense) definitely take a systems thinking gear like approach, not a magical “evil people do evil things” approach.
True for textbook Communism, but it doesn’t work for politicians. What is a Communist politician supposed to say to their voters: “Let’s sit here with our hands folded and wait for the inevitable collapse of the capitalism”? They must point fingers. They must point fingers more than their competitors for the same role.
And when the Communists rule the country… they empirically can’t deliver what Marx has promised. So they must find excuses. Stuff like “Socialism is the initial stage of the Communism, containing still some elements of capitalist system such as money; just wait a few years longer and you will see the final stage”. In reality, you have a pseudo-capitalist system with a dictatorship of the Communist Party, state-owned factories and regulated prices, mandatory employment and press censorship… and you stay there for decades, because… well, again, you must point fingers. American imperialists, internal traitors, everyone is trying to destroy our ‘freedom’ and happiness.
EDIT: But probably more important than this all is that you have to “sell” Communism to people who are prone to magical thinking. So whatever the original theory was, as soon as it reaches the masses, your average supporter will think magically.
Yes, I agree with all of this. It’s essentially restating my initial point, which is that communism’s problem is not that they don’t think in systems—it’s that they don’t update their systems based on empirical results.
it’s been shown again and again that raising the minimum wage doesn’t lead to unemployement
That’s not true. Or, rather, it’s only true if you cherry-pick your economics papers. In fact, there is considerable debate as to the economic consequences (especially beyond short-term) of the minimum wage and the question is far from settled.
Which still means that the right wing stance is at best, incomplete. Which isn’t the stance you see any of the politicians taking, at least not in the US.
Different countries have different definitions of left and right. There seems to be some system, but also… well, let me give you an example: In Slovakia, the political party promoting marijuana legalization and homosexual marriage was labeled by its opponents as right-wing, because… well, they also supported free-market, and supporting free market means opposing communists, and since communists are left-wing, then logically if you oppose them, you must be right-wing. Having exactly the same opinions in USA would make one left-wing, if I understand it correctly.
This said, the examples I have in mind may be rather atypical for most LW readers. Thinking about my country, I would roughly classify political parties into three groups, listed from most powerful to least powerful.
1) Communists, including some small Nazi-ish parties, because they have a similar ideology (defend the working class, blame evil people for everything bad; the difference is that for Communists the evil people are Americans and entrepreneurs, while for Nazis they are Americans, Hungarians, Jews, and Gypsies; also both are strongly pro-Russia).
2) Liberals/Libertarians, basicly anyone who knows Economics 101 and wants to have some free market, and in extreme cases even things like marijuana and gay marriage.
3) Catholics, who only care about more power and money to Catholic church, and are willing to support either of the previous two groups if they in return give them what they want (so far they mostly joined the Liberals, but it always created a lot of tension within the government)
So for me, “left-wing” usually means (1), and “right-wing” usually means (2) + (3).
In my country, knowing Economics 101 already gets you labeled “right-wing”, and if you say things like “if you increases taxes, you will punish the rich, but you will also make stuff more expensive for the poor” or “if you increase minimum wage, some people will get higher salary, but other people will get fired or unable to find a job”, this is perceived by many as being mind-killed.
But in other countries it may be completely different.
In many non-western countries the very dichotomy between left and right doesn’t make any sense. Westerners make a lot of fatal mistakes when they try to project their limited understanding onto non-Western countries.
On reading that comment on Top Comments Today before having read its ancestors, I thought you was talking about Australian Aboriginal cultures who use compass directions even in everyday situations where Europeans would use relative directions.
The only American political party like that is the libertarian party, which is consistently considered right-wing. (That is, the combination of marijuana legalization, gay rights, and free-market; you do find people in favor of marijuana legalization, gay rights, and less free market on the left.)
You are right. Well, in Slovakia the libertarian-ish party is the only one that would touch the topic of marijuana and gay rights. We do not have a “marijuana, gay rights, less free market” party, and maybe not even the voters who would vote for such party. Any kind of freedom is right-wing (although not everything right-wing is pro-freedom).
Communists (in the marxist sense) definitely take a systems thinking gear like approach, not a magical “evil people do evil things” approach. The entire idea behind Marxism is that there’s a systemic problem with capitalism where the rich own the means of production. This will lead to a systemic unrest among those who don’t own the means of production, which will eventually lead to a revolution.
I would say the problem is not systems thinking in this case, but lack of empiricism. Communism has been proven again and again to lead to corruption, but that fact is ignored by communists because it contradicts their systemic models. That’s not just a leftist problem though. For instance, it’s been shown again and again that raising the minimum wage doesn’t lead to unemployement, but that’s been ignored again and again by the right because it contradicts their systemic model.
True for textbook Communism, but it doesn’t work for politicians. What is a Communist politician supposed to say to their voters: “Let’s sit here with our hands folded and wait for the inevitable collapse of the capitalism”? They must point fingers. They must point fingers more than their competitors for the same role.
And when the Communists rule the country… they empirically can’t deliver what Marx has promised. So they must find excuses. Stuff like “Socialism is the initial stage of the Communism, containing still some elements of capitalist system such as money; just wait a few years longer and you will see the final stage”. In reality, you have a pseudo-capitalist system with a dictatorship of the Communist Party, state-owned factories and regulated prices, mandatory employment and press censorship… and you stay there for decades, because… well, again, you must point fingers. American imperialists, internal traitors, everyone is trying to destroy our ‘freedom’ and happiness.
EDIT: But probably more important than this all is that you have to “sell” Communism to people who are prone to magical thinking. So whatever the original theory was, as soon as it reaches the masses, your average supporter will think magically.
Yes, I agree with all of this. It’s essentially restating my initial point, which is that communism’s problem is not that they don’t think in systems—it’s that they don’t update their systems based on empirical results.
That’s not true. Or, rather, it’s only true if you cherry-pick your economics papers. In fact, there is considerable debate as to the economic consequences (especially beyond short-term) of the minimum wage and the question is far from settled.
Well, yes.
Which still means that the right wing stance is at best, incomplete. Which isn’t the stance you see any of the politicians taking, at least not in the US.
I haven’t seen anyone (well, anyone who isn’t drooling or foaming) claim “completeness” :-)
I think it’s implied in the arguments you see them making.
Oh, like this one?
Yes, as I’ve admitted in the previous comments, that’s not true.
And yes, I’ve seen the reverse attitude many times.