Left versus Right

I wouldn't suggest that the average person spends a huge amount of time studying politics. However, I do think that it's useful to know the basics, in order to understand the world that you live in.

Let's start by defining left-wing and right-wing politics. These terms have become muddled over the years.

I would suggest the following definition: left-wing ideology seeks a relatively large amount of government or communal control over the economy, for some perceived greater good. Often, but not necessarily, this greater good is relative social and financial equality.

Far-left ideology is where the government or community has total control over the economy, such as with communism in the Soviet Union. Modern-day China isn't far left, because private enterprise is allowed in China.

Personally I live in a non-coercive form of communism where there barely is any government, and the economy genuinely is controlled communally. However, due to Earth human's relatively lower level of consciousness, communism on Earth has been coercive and government-controlled wherever it's implemented on any kind of large scale.

Conversely, right-wing ideology seeks a relatively small amount of government or communal control over the economy. This usually means relatively few laws, relatively little taxation, a relatively small government, and a willingness to accept that some people will become much wealthier than others.

Far-right ideology wants there to be practically zero government or communal control over the economy. This means that individuals should be allowed to dump poisonous chemicals into the river, openly and without hiding it. If a company becomes a monopoly and abuses their position, that's fine. The far right may want the state to enforce property rights and stop people from just murdering each other, but other than that they want a tiny or non-existent state.

That's it. In my slightly nonstandard definition, left-wing politics is large amounts of communal or government control over the economy. Right-wing politics is small amounts of communal or government control over the economy.

Now yes, there are also all kinds of things commonly associated with the left (such as identity politics) and with the right (such as nationalism).

However, if you apply left-wing and right-wing labels based on these common associations, you end up with the left seeing itself as close to the center and seeing much of the right as far-right. And you end up with the right seeing itself as close to the center and seeing much of the left as far-left.

This isn't very productive. It leads to unjustified hysteria: the left sees Trump as a nationalist, but then has the unjustified association that nationalism = far right. And so the left sees Trump as a far-right fascist who is going to end democracy forever if he is elected.

Or you have the right thinking that identity politics = far-left and identity politics = communism. And while there are some correlations between these things, right now you have people on the right thinking that lots of American politicians are secretly communists, even though they're really not. The mainstream modern left isn't trying to abolish private property.

I think that with my definitions, most people will agree that the majority of the left isn't far-left, and the majority of the right isn't far-right. As, indeed, they are not.

Now yes, some people on the left have gone off the rails with extreme identity politics, which discriminates against men and white people. However just because some people on the left engage in that, doesn't mean that the definition of the left is engaging in extreme identity politics. After all, there are far-left communists out there who don't engage in modern-left extreme identity politics, so it isn't an inherent part of left-wing ideology.

Frankly, I think extreme identity politics doesn't deserve to be dignified by being defined as core to left-wing ideology. Because left-wing ideology is genuine and valid and valuable in my opinion, and extreme identity politics is not. I think extreme identity politics is just discrimination, and I don't think that discrimination is inherently part of the left.

Next up, I will argue why I don't think that a lot of other left-wing and right-wing definitions work very well:

The classical definition of communism is that individuals aren't allowed to own means of production. Some people would say that's the definition of left-wing, and the position that individuals should be allowed to own means of production is right-wing. I don't think this is helpful, because by that definition, Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden are right-wing. So is modern-day China. But obviously, most people wouldn't classify them as right-wing.

Globalism isn't always left-wing. The corporate establishment right in the United States is somewhat globalist, being not very concerned with offshored jobs and illegal immigration and loss of sovereignty that comes from signing big international treaties. This was actually one of the big disagreements between Trump and the corporate establishment right: nationalism versus globalism. So the political right can lean towards globalism.

Now yes, the current left is globalist. But I think that's just something that the current left happens to be doing, and it's not an inextricable part of left-wing ideology. So is the current left globalist, yes. Is globalism an inherent part of the definition of being left-wing, in my opinion not, it's just something that the left happens to be right now. 

Is nationalism part of the definition of being right-wing? Also in my opinion not. After all, nationalism isn't always right-wing.

 After all, back then the left was more concerned with providing material well-being to their in-group, hence they opposed illegal immigration. And now the left has included illegal immigrants into their in-group, and the left is also more concerned with providing emotional well-being to their in-group through so-called social justice initiatives.

Also, left-winger Stalin was an extreme nationalist, to the point where he conquered other countries and committed genocide against Ukranians during the Holodomor. He was also noted for his "socialism in one country" policy.

Nowadays many people would say that any genocidal imperialist who targets specific racial groups is far-right, but nope, communist Stalin was an authoritarian imperialist who committed genocide against specifically Ukranians. So the left can do that too.

Some left-wingers try to avoid Stalin's awful record by saying that the Soviet Union wasn't communist, it was state capitalist. I think "state capitalist" is a term that contradicts itself, because capitalism is precisely not the state running the entire economy by itself. Furthermore, it's weird to me to call the communist Soviet Union capitalist, even if you put "state" in front of the word "capitalist."

I think this is just a rhetorical trick from the left to not take responsibility for what the clearly left-wing Soviet Union did. It's like how some right-wingers say that any bad thing that happens under capitalism isn't actually capitalism's fault, it's the fault of crony capitalism.

The reality is that communism at your current level of consciousness does lead to certain negative outcomes, as Stalin showed. You can't just pretend those negative consequences aren't part of communism, because communism leads to those negative outcomes.

The reality is also that capitalism at your current level of consciousness does lead to certain negative outcomes, as the US shows. You can't just pretend those negative consequences aren't part of capitalism, because capitalism leads to those negative outcomes. Later on in this political series I'll point out which part of capitalism is producing a lot of these so-called crony capitalist kinds of outcomes.

If you want the left to own the downsides of the communist Soviet Union, you have to own the downsides of the capitalist United States. And if you want the right to own the downsides of the capitalist United States, you have to own the downsides of the communist Soviet Union.

I also don't think you can define the right as being the financially responsible side. During 2017 – 2019, Trump was president and the right controlled the house and the senate, and that was before covid times. And during this period, the national debt went up. So I don't think that the right can really claim to be financially responsible.

It's not even clear that the left increases government debt more quickly, because the right tends to slash taxes and the left tends to raise them.

Now yes, the right IS associated with lower taxes and a smaller government, as we already included in our definition. But if you just look at the numbers, then I don't think that it's so obvious that the right wing is better at reducing government debt than the left is. Sure, someone could make an argument along those lines, but it's not inherently clear and so I wouldn't define the right as being better at reducing government debt.

Right now there's this kind of awful spiral in America, where the left increases government expenditures while the right slashes taxes, and together that leads to more and more government debt. And of course, both sides say that their part of this is fine, it's the actions of the other side that are the problem.

Next up, I don't think that you can say that by definition left-wing politics is better for the poor or underprivileged. After all, the right would argue that right-wing politics are actually better for the poor and underprivileged. And this argument cannot be immediately dismissed: look at the economy under Trump vs the economy under Biden for example. Or if you want to look at a nation-wide level, an argument can be made that the poor fared better in capitalist countries than in left-wing countries in the medium term, due to higher overall economic growth. A rising tide lifts all boats.

Some people on the right have also pointed out that if one person goes to work at 18 while another goes to study at 18, then in the long term the student will earn significantly more over their lifetime, if they make sensible choices. However, so the right-wing argument goes, what the left wants to do is take taxpayer money from the working person who is already on a path to earning relatively less, and use that taxpayer money to forgive student loans. So, the argument goes, in this case the left is hurting working-class people for the benefit of people who are already on a path to earning significantly more in their lifetime. Which is one example of the left wing being against the working class.

While the left likes to say that they're better for the poor and underprivileged, there is a whole lot of "help the ingroup" going on. People who study are the in-group because they're typically more left-wing, while people who go to work at 18 are the outgroup because they're typically more right-wing. So, let's transfer money from right-wing to left-wing people, even though in this case the right-wing people will earn less over their lifetime. And let's call the working class racists and deplorables if they try to make anti-immigration arguments that they feel are necessary for their economic well-being.

You can argue whether these right-wing arguments are justified, but at the very least I think they're reasonable enough that you cannot just define the left wing as being better for the poor or underprivileged. Of course, people can still make arguments about these topics either way, I'm just trying to find definitions right now, and I think "the left is better for the poor" isn't part of a definition of the left.

I wouldn't say that either side can claim to be inherently better for human rights. The right passed the Patriot act for example, and the left would say that their repeal of Roe v Wade is a violation of women's rights. Conversely, the right would argue that the left promotes hiring policies that discriminate against men and white people, and that the left censors, and that the left seriously violated the rights of people who refused the covid jab. Hence, I don't think you can define either side as being better for human rights.

As for freedom, it's slightly complicated. If you mean freedom as in "there are relatively few cases where the government stops you from taking certain actions", then that's right-wing.

If you mean freedom as in "having access to a welfare state and universal healthcare and education, so that you are free to pursue your highest life without fear of financial ruin" then that's left-wing.

Of course the right would argue that the left's idea of freedom isn't free at all. But then the left might retort that if the left doesn't keep companies in check, then average working class people will one day wake up with theoretical freedom, while being reduced to a life of wage slavery in practice.

Also, the left tends to accuse the right of being authoritarian, and the right tends to accuse the left of being authoritarian.

Hence, I didn't include "being pro-freedom" as in my definition of either the left or the right, because both sides will claim to be pro-freedom in their own way.

Next up, if you go to wikipedia, it says: "Right-wing politics is the range of political ideologies that view certain social orders and hierarchies as inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable,"

I think this is a strange definition. If the right cared about social orders and hierarchies, and saw these as inevitable, then wouldn't the right just sit back, because their preferred outcome is inevitable anyway?

It is true that the right isn't opposed to some people becoming much wealthier and more successful and more influential than others. However, I'd say that most right-wingers aren't right-wing because they love hierarchy. That's more of an outcome that they're okay with than their primary motivator. 

I don't think right-wingers wake up every day thinking that they love hierarchy so much, or that they must defend hierarchies, or that all is well in the world because no matter what the left does, hierarchies are inevitable anyway.

Instead, right wingers are typically more concerned about the government not messing with them or the economy too much, thinking that it's free market capitalism that makes a country prosperous. Right wingers often are concerned with the government not causing or getting into problems such as with the national debt. And right wingers have a number of values they hold dear, such as freedom and the rule of law.

But I guess that position sounds too sympathetic, while it sounds vaguely sinister to say that the right likes certain social order or hierarchies. This illustrates an important point that the left is well aware of: if you can manipulate language and definitions, then you can put your side on favorable terrain.

I have provided definitions of the left-wing and the right-wing. I have discussed why I think that a number of alternative definitions don't work well. Here are some questions for reflection.

Question one: on a zoomed-out, big picture level: what things should and shouldn't the government concern itself with?

Question two: is the solution to the current economic problems more government involvement in the economy, or less government involvement in the economy? What are the most important things that the government should start doing or should stop doing?

Question three: is it a problem that rich individuals/families get richer and richer over time? Should the government do something to stop rich individuals/families from snowballing their wealth?

by Talia at https://channelings.substack.com on May 11, 2024