Talk:Left–right political spectrum/Archive 3

US
I cut the following: "Prior to the 20th century in America, the Left (the liberals) were the advocates of laissez-faire capitalism. However, early in the 20th century, the meaning of the term changed with the Left advocating increased economic interventionism and social programs."

To some extent, its just a reiteration of what we've already said about the evolution of the terms in general, but the reason I've cut it is I think that insofar as it says anything specific, it's wrong. For one thing, the terms "left" and "right" were late in coming to the U.S. Few would have used them in the 19th century other than someone identified with socialism and the international left. I don't think 19th century American liberals ever particularly thought of themselves as "left", and a lot of American political currents weren't particularly "left" or "right". For example, the Populists were economically "left" (cooperativist, opposed to concentrations of capital) but were often religiously fundamentalist and very racist, not at all believers in any universalist notion of rights. Conversely, the Progressives were often somewhat like Tory Chartists: rooted in the liberal tradition, opposed to corruption and oligopoly, but more likely to do things for the poor than with them.

I don't feel I know enough about this to write it confidently, and I don't have any particular source handy, but I know enough to know that the two sentences I cut were not likely to shed any light on the matter at all. I'd gladly see something in the articel on the late 19th century U.S. use of these terms, but only if it's based on something solid. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

"X is left; Y is right" list
This seemed to be a nice way of making the first section more readable. I 'm not entirely sure about it but I think it is better than what there was before. I'm planning to do a plain-English sweep through the rest of the article over the next few days too.

I hope it is clear that the "X is right; Y is left" format of the list is not supposed to be a bold assertion, but an example of one possible interpretation of the divide. If that isn't clear, does anyone have any suggestions for making it clear? Robin Johnson 20:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It would be nice if were possible. Unfortunatly there isn't a single major modern party in the developed world (that I can think of atleast) that could be defined as purely left or right wing. Every party has elements of both due to the over-simplification inherent such a naive classification system. Canderra 17:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That's why it's such a long list! Note that it's a list of concepts that are (perceived by someone or other to be) left or right, not parties or politicians. Robin Johnson 18:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I disapprove of this list because, whether intentional or not, it seems like a series of bold assertions. Also, not enough attention is paid to ideologies that deviate from these simplistic generalizations.  The left vs. right ideas should be discussed more thoroughly in essay form. -- WGee 21:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Meaning of the terms section is overwhelming POV
This section quotes almost only LEFT-WING sources. What could be more unbalanced? Justice III 02:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I wrote most of the "Meaning of the terms" section in its current incarnation, but all I did was copy-edit what was there already so I'm not responsible for the sources. I'll admit to being a leftie, so what I write will almost certainly end up being biased that way no matter how hard I try - so some NPOV-checking from baby-eating top-hatted capitalist types would be a great help! Please do add some comments on the definition of 'left' and 'right' from right-wing sources, if you can find any that differ from what is there already. Robin Johnson 10:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Not all bureaucrat-special-interest tax-binge leftie-loonies are equally straightforward as for their bias. Now, if you excuse me, I shall forthwith summon my Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Phalanx and see what can be done!! Justice III 17:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC) Just kidding, of course. But there are some quite reliable sources, indeed. I guess the first task at hand is to tone down references to demonising theories, then add balanced data from the other side of the fence, and last but not least add sources which could be described as more or less "independent". Justice III 20:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Article clearly biased
The article seems penned by a leftist.

Leftism should be defined as obsession with government whereas rightism is obsession with freedom. Leftists believe government is the solution to every problem and that people should voluntarily give up their individual freedom. Leftists want to write guidelines as to how people have to cross the street. Rightists on the contrary believe in freedom from government, personal responsibility.

Famous examples of left wing dictators are: Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Hitler, Castro, Kim Il-Sung. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.156.49.1 (talk • contribs)


 * Is that your idea of non-biased writing? Robin Johnson 10:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I concur that the article seems to have a leftist tilt, but to say that "Leftism should be defined as obsession with government whereas rightism is obsession with freedom." is anything but neutral. I have heard statements where both right and left are interested primarily in 'freedom'. This is silly to put in anything NPOV because virtually no one runs on a platform of saying "I want total control of your life!". The vast majority of this vs that characterizations when it comes to right-left politics are no good, because it is easy to come up with a high-profile counter-example. Athemeus 15:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The idea that "rightism is obsession with freedom" is among the most absurd things I've ever heard. Ignoring for the moment fascism, which our buddy has already indicated he thinks is left wing, the basic thrust of 19th century and early 20th century European conservatism was always that protection of the customary social order and traditional political systems was what politics should do, and that liberty was a dangerous way station on the road to anarchy.  Even the British Conservative Party in the 19th century, which was probably the most small-l liberal of parties "on the right," tended to be opposed to things like expansion of the franchise, free trade, and treating the Irish better.  On the continent, the right was characterized by monarchism and opposition to democracy and liberalism until at least the Second World War.  Was Franz von Papen a left winger?  Was Pope Pius IX and the pre-Vatican II Catholic Church?  Was Metternich?  The Tsars? The Action Française?  For that matter, can anyone describe Franco or Salazar as a left-winger with a straight face?  Why is it that before 1945, just about every group that was willing to refer to itself as "right wing" was actually explicitly opposed to liberalism and democracy? The term "right wing" was originally coined to describe opponents of the French Revolution - the "Ultras," monarchists who wanted to return to the royal absolutism of the ancien regime, were considered the most right wing group.  By our anon's views, it would appear that either a) the Ultras, as the most right wing group in early 19th century French politics, must have been the people in France most concerned with promoting liberty/freedom; or b) the Ultras, universally considered by people at the time to be the group on the far right end of French politics, were actually left wingers.  Either option is absurd, and as such, the anon's definition is absurd.  The idea of "right wing" and "left wing" has just about nothing to do with the role of the state, and if it has to do with who supports "freedom" more, the left, for all its flaws, at least has a pretty uniform history of saying it supports "freedom."  Every person who has self identified as being on the left, from Lenin and Stalin to your standard present day left liberal/social democrat, or your 19th century classical liberal, has at least claimed to be in favor of freedom.  (This is not to pretend that Stalinist Russia or Maoist China was anything but a monstrous hell hole of tyranny, just that Communist regimes have always pretended to be in favor of freedom).  Until quite recently, the vast majority of people self-identified as being on the right, including pretty much everyone I mentioned above, but also the straight up Fascist dictators like Mussolini and Hitler, have explicitly opposed freedom.  What has happened is that the old school "right" no longer really exists, and seems to have nearly reached the point of being completely unimaginable to most people (especially American right-wingers).  But the original right was only "obsessed with freedom" in the same sense that Adolf Hitler was "obsessed with the Jews." john k 01:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * And I just spent a half an hour writing a long response a probably long gone troll for no reason. It made me feel better, though. john k 01:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's clearly a futile and bizzare effort to attempt to pigeonhole right and left into one definition for *all time*, when their meanings have clearly evolved. To that point, the history of right-left ideas is a different discussion and I think is the less controversial piece of the article (excepting Hitler's orientation). For the most part I am not as interested in that as I think that the article should attempt to more clearly define current day right-left politics. Political history, while relevant, should be touched on, but elaborated elsewhere. Most people typing in 'right-left politics' are going to be looking for modern reference, not historical. Athemeus 14:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Any attempt to define "left" and "right" has to be one which can accommodate the full variety of movements which have described themselves as "of the left" and "of the right." Everyone seems to agree that a definition of "the left" should be one which includes a full range from maoism to reform liberalism.  But yet, there seems to be a strong desire to define "the right" as meaning "laissez faire liberalism."  As I've repeatedly pointed out, this is obfuscatory because it makes it difficult to understand the historical meaning of "the right", and the way the term was understood until 60 years ago, if not later.  It also makes it difficult to understand why European Christian Democracy, neo-fascist movements, and whatever remnants of the old style monarchist right still exist are considered to be "right wing" movements.  obviously the meaning of the term changes.  But for the most part it's still rooted in the meanings it took from the French Revolution.  The problem is that a lot of American quasi-libertarians are on wikipedia, and there's never been a genuine traditional right in the United States, which is perhaps why left/right distinctions didn't really appear in American politics until the New Deal or so.  The US, and the anglophone world in general, is simply not what the left/right spectrum was designed to describe.  Using the distinction between center-left and center-right parties in anglophone countries in 2006 as the basis of a definition of the idea of "left-right politics" in general is highly misleading, both in a historical sense, and in understanding the political systems of non-anglophone countries today.  As I noted above, even in present day continental Europe the kind of distinctions whereby the right is for laissez faire liberalim don't really work.  In Germany, the main right wing party is the Christian Democrats, who support a kind of paternalistic state and a significant social welfare system, but also support conservative cultural policies and the Catholic Church; the party most associated with laissez-faire, the Free Democrats, is considered to be in the middle of the political spectrum.  In France, the main right wing element is a kind of populist/bonapartist Gaullism, which also advocates a strong state that protects the welfare of its citizens.  This doesn't fit very well with a definition of "the right"="neoliberalism," either.  And that's to completely ignore the groups which are universally described as the "far right," who are generally neo-fascist.  Making this article historically based is the only way to make it comprehensible, because it's the only way to understand how laissez faire liberals, christian democrats, gaullists, fascists, old line monarchists, and clerical dictatorships are all seen as movements on the right side of the political spectrum.  Any attempt to define these terms which ignores history is bound to be misleading.  john k 16:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to add that the meanings really haven't changed that much, at least in continental Europe where they were originally used. In France, people would have no trouble seeing a deeply Catholic, xenophobic, protectionist, anti-semitic monarchist who despised the Fifth Republic and democracy in general as being on the "right," and such people, as I understand it, actually do exist here. Such groups may have no actual political strength, but then again, neither do far left groups in the United States, and we still have no trouble seeing such people as being left wingers. john k 16:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the meaning hasn't changed in Europe, but in North America it has. The article should make that distinction. The understanding of the word has changed. Period. Trying to frame it in terms that were relevant sixty years ago is fine...if you say that's what it meant sixty years ago. But if the defintion doesn't fit contemporary politics in some areas, then that needs to be said. Please note that I *never* said that history should be ignored, but it is a well accepted phenomena that meanings of words can change over time such to the point that the original meaning is not relevant. Sure, you can make the point that this is an Anglophonic centered viewpoint, but this IS English Wikipedia and thus the audience is definitionally primarily English speaking. Athemeus 19:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

No, the meaning hasn't changed in North America, because there's never been a Catholic, xenophobic, protectionist, anti-liberal, anti-democratic, anti-semitic, monarchist right in North America. The basic point is that the term "right wing" was developed during the French revolution to mean "monarchistic opponents of the French Revolution", and that this was the primary meaning of the term for the first 156 years of its existence. I would add that the English wikipedia, while geared towards an anglophone audience, is not supposed to show a bias towards anglophone understandings of international concepts. At any rate, my point is not to exclude laissez faire liberalism from an understanding of what "the right" means. Obviously today laissez faire liberalism does tend to be seen as a phenomenon of the right. It has certainly not been considered an idea of the left for a very long time. The point is that we can't provide definitions of the right which equate the right with laissez faire capitalism. Sure, definitions change. But groups which are not laissez faire liberal, and which are, in fact, quite opposed to most of the ideas of laissez faire liberalism, have always been seen as part of the right, and continue to be seen as such, even if they're a lot less prominent than they used to be. Saying that "the right"="laissez faire liberalism" is wrong - the right is a lot broader than that, and always has been, and at one time "laissez faire liberalism" was pretty clearly seen as not a phenomenon of the right at all. A definition of the right which excludes the traditional right is obviously flawed. Any definition we give of the right has to be one which allows Metternich and Chateaubriand and Paul von Hindenburg and Charles de Gaulle and Konrad Adenauer and Francisco Franco and George W. Bush and Margaret Thatcher and Salazar and the Action Française and William F. Buckley and Benito Mussolini and Otto von Bismarck and the Comte de Chambord to all be included in some way or another (Hitler too, but I know how you all get when he gets included on the right), just as any worthwhile definition of the left ought to be able to include Robespierre and Danton and Benjamin Constant and the Frankfurt liberals of 1848 and Louis Blanc and Marx and Engels and Gladstone and the Dreyfusards and Lenin and Stalin and Friedrich Ebert and Léon Blum and FDR and Attlee and Khrushchev and Mao and Castro and LBJ and Pol Pot and Harold Wilson and Willy Brandt and Bill Clinton and Tony Blair. A worthwhile article will not define "the right" in a way that only includes Margaret Thatcher and William F. Buckley, just as a worthwhile article would not define "the left" as including only Bill Clinton and Tony Blair.

I am not trying to deny that there are elements on the right which have been in favor of laissez faire liberalism. This has been true in England at least since the Second Reform Bill; it's been true of the United States as long as left right distinctions have been made (which is perhaps only since the New Deal or so); it's to some extent true of continental Europe since World War II (although categorizing Gaullism or Christian Democracy as laissez faire is arguably problematic). But it is not true of even most of the groups that have worn the label of "right wing" throughout the history of the term, and it is not even true of all groups that consider themselves as on the right today. As such, it is simply an unacceptable way of defining the right. john k 23:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I can agree with this. I suppose my concern is that from that point that any definition is going to be so broad as to almost certainly be vague beyond usefulness. I'm just wary of villifying either right or left with the outdated. And, yes, wikipedia articles should of course be international; I'm just saying that given the primary audience there are things of greater and lesser relevance, but perhaps I'm just being presumptious. Athemeus 02:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * In terms of the "outdated," I'm not sure that really works. There are still revolutionary communists; there are still crusty anti-semitic monarchists.  Both are easily recognized as being on the left and right, respectively.  These groups obviously aren't as significant as they once were, but a full range from revolutionary communist left to crazy ass reactionary monarchist right still does exist in the world at large.  Any definition of what the left and right are has to take into account the history of the terms, or it won't make any sense.  The problem with definitions that identify the right with classical liberalism is that it basically implies that all political movements accept liberalism as a premise.  But this isn't true, and never has been true.  On both left and right there have always been explicitly anti-liberal political movements.  Our definitions of the left do a decent job of realizing that the left cannot be identified with reform liberalism, that there is a whole world to the left of reform liberalism which has to be considered when defining what "the left" is.  Most of our definitions of the right fail to do the same thing, and accept classical liberalism as the standard of what "the right" is.  Note that when exceptions to the various examples I cite below are listed, they almost always have to do with exceptions within the left, not exceptions within the right.


 * In terms of the definition, I think what needs to be done is to recognize that there are various clearly understood sub-groupings which are generally understood as belonging either to the left or the right. Communism, socialism, social democracy, anarchism (traditionally understood), and reform/left liberalism are generally recognized as being on the left.  Classical/right liberalism (and its crazy ass offshoot, libertarianism), traditional conservatism, christian democracy, clericalism, "reaction", gaullism, monarchism (in republican countries, at least), and fascism are generally understood as being on the right.  There is no real coherence to either tendency, and we are doing a disservice to readers to pretend there is.  "Left" and "right" are at least as much a matter of self-identity as they are of any kind of integral belief system, which is why there's no good way to define the two based on integral belief systems.  john k 10:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I can agree that there is no coherence and that it is more a matter of self-identity. This route in general would be more helpful for a reader. Athemeus 13:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This article is extremely biased and in need of a major overhaul.Redlock 00:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Self-reference
I see no self-reference in this article. I am removing the tag, but if anyone sees any self-reference, please restore the tag and indicate where the article needs to be repaired (or better yet, fix it yourself). --Buckyboy314 00:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

"Meaning of the terms" section, redux
Since I'm back on this article, I thought I'd go through the "meaning of the terms" section, once again, and demonstrate how inadequate it is...so, here goes again:


 *  Fair outcomes are left; fair processes are right. Classic liberalism is process-based, an example being the free market. Robert Nozick is one of the 20th century theorists who emphasised this distinction between "historical" and "end-result" principles (Anarchy, State, and Utopia, New York, 1974, pp. 153-155). On the other hand, adherents of modern liberalism such as John Rawls (A Theory of Justice, Cambridge, 1971) argue for classically leftist policies using process-based reasoning, while some neoconservatives favour the use of military force to establish democracy as an end result. Among the politicians who support this distinction is Australian Labor Party ex-leader Mark Latham. 


 * This definition only works for a distinction between left liberalism and classical liberalism, not for one between "the left" and "the right" as a whole. Fascists and traditional conservatives have never had much interest in fair processes.  Traditional conservatives have been interested in old processes, whether they are fair or not.  Fascists have generally been concerned with justifying explicitly unfair processes in terms of the needs of the nation, or whatever.  "Fair outcomes" works a bit better in terms of defining the left as a whole, but I think it's still a bit problematic to apply it to Stalinism or Maoism.


 * I have a problem with this in general, because "what is fair?". If what was fair was obvious, it would show no real need for something like a Judiciary system. Fair is too relative. And the thing is, those who were interested in old processes probably believed it was fair in so far as the only fair thing was to give to those who deserved (IE them). Athemeus 02:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm...yes. It seems to me that for this definition to work, one has to accept that this means "fair" from the POV of Mark Lathom (or some other independent observer), rather than from the people who are themselves holding opinions.  john k 10:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The fact that you may disagree with Mark Latham (not Lathom, BTW) doesn't make im uncitable. In fact, this is one of the few precisely-cited claims in the list. - Jmabel | Talk 05:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 *  Rejecting the inequality that results from the free market is left; accepting it is right. Generally, the political debate is about the extent to which the government should (interventionism) or should not (laissez-faire) intervene in the economy in order to benefit the poor. The Nolan chart proposes this as one of its axes of distinction between left and right. However, state intervention does not necessarily imply redistribution of wealth or egalitarian policies: some types of intervention such as most government intervention on behalf of business interests are more opposed by the left than the right. 


 * This is a bit better. But it does ignore large swathes of the left.  The idea of the "social market economy" pioneered by Christian Democrats in the 50s had to do with the state mitigating the inequalities of the free market, without turning to class warfare and state ownership of the means of production, as favored by the left.  And while the European left has rather abandoned some of that latter, that doesn't mean that the European right has come to embrace the inequalities of the free market.  This doesn't apply very well to fascism, either, or to the views of the pre-Vatican II Catholic Church (which, in Rerum Novarum, rejected both socialism and laissez faire capitalism), or to paternalistic toryism.  john k 00:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 *  Preference for a "larger" government is left; preference for a "smaller" government is right. Large and small here refer to policies and attitudes, although the number of government employees is often used as an indicator. Some, noting the existence of such factions as the authoritarian right, libertarian socialists, anarchists and the old right, see this as an entirely separate political axis, perpendicular to the left-right one.


 * This one is blatantly absurd, as even the current article admits. Fascism and quasi-fascism, and the authoritarian conservative regimes of the 19th century, quite nicely put the lie to any claims that "small government" is any kind of integral part of the meaning of "right wing." john k 00:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I would agree this one is silly, but I would point out the counter-argument that 'right wing' groups that grow government have willfully excluded themselves or are not 'true right wing'. Athemeus 02:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * But that really doesn't work. The right wing, as originally understood, wished to have autocratic government by an absolute monarch.  Not only was this the basic meaning of "right wing" for a long time, groups like that which remain in existence are still universally considered to be "right wing".  This argument, so far as I can tell, generally only works for the United States since the New Deal, and only makes sense when you exclude, for instance, the reach of law enforcement from being part of the "size of government." john k 10:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh it certainly doesn't hold against the quick example of US government now, which has grown under a univerally understood right-of-center eye. What I'm pointing out is there are those that say this is 'right' or that is 'left' primarily on economic terms and those that do so primarily on social terms, or rather that the weight of issues on each component varies. And again, this is a situation where the original meanings taint things. Monarchists would certainly label certain governments as 'leftist' that are universally accepted as right. Athemeus 13:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it holds in terms of the professed beliefs of US political parties, I guess, rather than the way policies actually turn out. At any rate, I agree partially, but in terms of the "original meanings tainting things", I'm not so sure that they do.  Old school traditional conservative monarchists, for instance, generally accepted the Nazis as being allies on the right, even if they also saw that the Nazis were anomalous in many ways.  And traditional conservatives generally made their peace with right liberals at about the same time that right liberals started being perceived as "on the right."  Of course people at the far ends of the spectrum tend to view things in a distorted way - crazy right wingers are going to see the mainstream right as virtual traitors to godless bolshevism, and godless bolsheviks actually called Social Democratic parties "Social Fascists" for a while.  My problem is more with a limited sense of a political divide encompassing only different varients of liberalism.  The view from the margins is bound to be distorted.  But the view from the center should not involve simply cutting off and ignoring large segments of the political spectrum. john k 23:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I would argue that a small or large government is neither left nor right, but that there are groups out there who think that a government should be as large as it needs to be and those who think that it should be as small as it needs to be. It's not really a matter of left or right politics but a matter of Bureaucracy. 124.169.17.215 (talk) 10:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 *  Equality is left; liberty is right. Two writers who characterise the distinction along these lines are Norberto Bobbio and Danielle Allen. In his book Left and Right: The Significance of a Political Distinction, Bobbio argues that the only valid difference between left and right is people's attitude to the ideal of equality, as only the left wants to protect or promote equalities and only the right wants to protect or promote inequalities. (Left-wingers and right-wingers alike tend to speak in favour of both equality and liberty - but they have different interpretations of each of the two terms.)


 * I've already discussed this one. The original understanding of left and right was generally that the left supported "liberty" and "equality" and the right supported "order" against both of these ideas.  And the right tended to support "order" over "liberty" for quite a long time, and one can certainly still find groups that consider themselves to be on the right which maintain the same preferences - hell, one can find elements of this within pretty much any mainstream right wing party today, I think.  Support for "liberty" simply cannot be seen as an integral element of the "right" (although perhaps support for some sort of "equality", to a greater or lesser extent, can be more clearly perceived as unifying the right left.)


 * I can only disagree in the strongest terms. Are you saying that modern day China is right wing? It's hard to say they support liberty while at the same time censoring media constantly. The ability to speak out against the government or practice religion freely is basically non-existent there. There are several modern 'left leaning' countries that have progressively taken steps towards limiting citizen actions, morality of such decisions aside. I could also further argue that Marxism necessitates some curtailment of liberty. And as you pointed out earlier, equality becomes problematic in Maoist and Stalinist regimes. I don't think either side can claim this here.Athemeus 02:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think I was saying that modern day China is right wing. What I'm saying is that far right wing movements can be easily just as opposed to liberty as far left wing movements can be.  This is a liberalism/anti-liberalism issue, and I don't think either left or right can claim liberalism for its own.  Both left and right have liberal and anti-liberal elements within them, and always have. Within a liberal context, ranging from, say, a party like the French Socialist Party on the left to, say, the US Republican Party on the right, I think it's hard to point to either side having much of a monopoly on "liberty".  I would say that it is more accurate to say that left liberals and right liberals tend to disagree about what kind of liberty to be most concerned about. But these differences tend to be much less great than the differences that all liberals have with either Stalinism, on the one hand, or the traditional right and fascism on the other. john k 10:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this hits on part of the problem, being that was have 'classical liberals' who in a way seem to have jumped ship. At one point they were clearly left, but in the modern day, many self-identify with the right. Athemeus 13:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure they've been clearly left since at least 1830. Conservative liberals like François Guizot were clearly on the center-right during the July Monarchy, for instance, and the same can be said of the National Liberals in Germany a bit later.  The right side of the political spectrum in a place like Britain was always liberal.  It's only since World War II, though, that such views became the dominant voice of the right.  Before that, there were always quite loud, and often fairly respectable, voices on the right side of the political spectrum that were anti-liberal (except in England and other anglophone places, where just about everyone has been liberal for a long time).  What World War II did was discredit the anti-liberal right, except in the Iberian peninsula, where it lingered on for a few decades more.  john k 23:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * John K is mistaken. There were strong anti-liberal, authoritarian elements on the British right both before and after WWII.  In the 30s, a large section of the Tory Party sympathized with Fascism.  In the 60s, it was under Labour governments that Parliament reduced censorship, legalized gay sex, legalized abortion, liberalized divorce law, abolished conscription, etc.  The Tory government of the 1980s was seen as very centralizing and was quite willing to use the police to crush strikes, to use legal threats to try to prevent publication of books etc.  Its authoritarian anti-terror laws were frequently opposed by Labour (though Labour has since has supported and extended them...). -17:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 *  A secular government is left; a religious government is right. This distinction is highly relevant in the United States, India, the Catholic countries in Europe, (where anti-clericalism characterises the left), and to some extent in the Middle East.


 * This one's fairly good, and applies fairly well throughout the history of the term. It isn't always salient, and one can certainly find secular governments on the right.  It is rather hard to find an explicitly religious or theocratic political movement which has seen itself as being on the left, though.


 * There were the 'Jesus communes' in the US during the times of the counter-culture. Athemeus 02:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I suppose. It doesn't quite work out.  I think it tends to work better when looking at Catholic countries.  Almost always there's a clear political divide where the left is anti-clerical and the right supports the Church.  I think one can extend this and see it in operation elsewhere.  And I think it is hard to find a left wing movement which advocates a government based on a specific religion being in charge, even if one can certainly find religious left-wingers. john k 10:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 *  Collectivism is left; individualism is right. However, emphasis on personal freedom was one of the hallmarks of the 1960s counterculture, which is typically classed as left, and in religious/secular conflicts, secularists usually promote individual liberty and freedom of religion over collective, common religious values.


 * Once again, doesn't take into account explicitly anti-individualist movements on the right - neither fascism nor the traditional right had any truck with individualism.


 *  Innovation is left; conservatism is right. Although in some countries 'right' and 'conservative' are used loosely as synonyms, this aspect gets little attention in discussion of the left-right axis. The American left writer Eric Hoffer was one of those who emphasised it.


 * This kind of works, in some limited contexts, but is too vague to have much meaning. In traditional states, this is certainly true.  The extent to which this idea can be applied to the politics of a country like China or the Soviet Union in its last years is more problematic.  Were free market reformers in the latter on the "left" and Communist hard liners on the "right"?  This is a distinction that only makes sense in a state still dominated by traditional elites.  Once you get explicitly left wing movements in power remaking states, the right can be just as much in favor of innovation as the left can.  There's also the issue of what might describe as "reaction" - the desire to go backwards towards a perceived or real state of things in the past, as, for instance, the desire of Ultras to reverse the effects of the French Revolution.  This is very much not small-c conservatism.  But it is certainly a phenomenon of the right, by any understanding of the term. The right can favor change just as much as the left can, it's just usually going to be different kinds of change.


 * I would say that as written this shows clear POV, Innovation is up to the individual, it can be encouraged or discouraged by the state, but if a person believes that they have found a better way with the tools and knowledge they have then they will implement their way, it may never be "officially" recognised by the state even if widely adopted by the people, look at the French language there are words invented everyday (as in all languages) by innovative people that would never be accepted by the conservative Académie française, but innovation is an individuals idea and saying that Innovation is the opposite of conservatism is false, a conservative wouldn't be opposed to new ideas per se but would perhaps require a higher standard of testing before implementing it. 124.169.17.215 (talk) 10:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 *  The idea that law dictates culture is left; the idea that culture dictates law is right. This formulation was put forward by US Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan.


 * As I've said before, I'm not sure what this means. If it's going to stay, it needs to be elaborated on.  I assume this goes back to Burke, and to the whole "man is perfectible"=left, "man is fallen"=right idea... but as it stands, confusing.


 * I would interpret this as meaning that Law dictates Morality is left, Morality dictates Law is right. Meaning that those on the left think that if something is legal it is morally justifiable (if growing Marijuana is legal then it is morally justifiable, if there are no laws against Child pornography then it is morally justifiable), whilst those on the right think that if it is immoral it should be illegal (If smoking or drinking alcohol is illegal then it is morally reprehensible, if there are laws against speeding then speeding is morally reprehensible). So, for example, countries with a strong religious element (such as the Middle East and the U.S. of A.)would be Right-leaning where as countries without a strong religious element (Japan, China, Russia) would be Left-leaning in this context. It could be merged with A secular government is left; a religious government is right. for simplicities sake. 124.169.17.215 (talk) 10:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 *  Support for national independence, autonomy and sovereignty, especially for smaller groups is left; support only for established states and governments is right. Certain groups may be considered terrorists by the right but freedom fighters by the left. Movements of the right usually support the sovereignty of their own state, and oppose its erosion. In Europe, support for the European Union came traditionally from the left, and defence of national sovereignty from the right.


 * This one is kind of lame. It applies fairly well in certain circumstances, but not in others.  Stalin tried to crush Ukrainian nationalism.  Crazy right wing Ukrainian nationalists rallied to Hitler in 1941.  I think this might be improved by saying that the issue is not so much when one is talking about national independence, autonomy, and sovereignty for oneself, but rather the same for others.  But it still doesn't necessarily work that well.  What about all the leftists who opposed the 1999 Kosovo campaign as interfering with the sovereign rights of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia?  I'm not sure how well this works as a general principle.


 *  Internationalism and cosmopolitan attitudes are left; national interests are right. Economic nationalism is found on both the left and the right.


 * True in some ways, although 19th century conservatism was often quite cosmopolitan (Holy Alliance and such). In the first place, the right was composed of elites, who generally had more cause and ability to be cosmopolitan than a factory worker, or whatever.  Also, in the early 19th century, there was a sense on the right that governments and traditional elites internationally need to ally together to protect themselves from the people.  once the right starts to embrace nationalism in the mid to late 19th century, this distinction makes more sense, although I'd prefer removing "cosmopolitanism," and leaving it just with "internationalism". Also, isn't "cosmopolitan" often just a euphemism for "Jewish" - I'd prefer not to leave that suggestion open.


 * Also, isn't "cosmopolitan" often just a euphemism for "Jewish" I have never heard it describe that way, if you read the article on cosmopolitanism it would explain that it simply meant that there are a large number of people with different socio-economic, political, religious and ethnic backgrounds in the same area. I would include protectionism in the definition of the right so change it too: Internationalism and cosmopolitan attitudes are left; national interests and protectionism are right. 124.169.17.215 (talk) 10:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 *  Diplomacy is left; military force is right. This formulation was proposed by the political philosopher Charles Blattberg. (Blattberg 2001, p.20 et.seq.) 


 * Seriously lame. The Communards (who wanted to fight on against Germany) were on the right, then, and the monarchist assembly at Versailles (which negotiated a humiliating peace) on the left?  In some situations, this works, but in some situations, just the opposite is true.  It depends completely on the context. john k 00:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 *  The idea that human nature and society are malleable is left; the idea that they are fixed is right. This is an example of the "nurture or nature" argument. It was proposed as a definition of the left-right dichotomy by Thomas Sowell.


 * This one is a fairly standard one, and ought to be discussed.


 *  The idea that human beings are naturally good is left; the idea that they are naturally evil is right. Here the left holds that evil and suffering are the products of an unfair society which should be fixed, while the right holds that they are inescapable elements of the human condition.


 * This one is basically similar to Sowell's, I think. But, again, this is a standard understanding of the issue, and ought to be discussed.


 * I reject this one, because it begs the question, "What is good and what is evil?". That goes to a philosophical depth well beyond the scope of this topic. Athemeus 02:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's a silly argument, but it is a real idea that has frequently been discussed as a basic hallmark of the division between left and right. And by "what is good and evil," I think the clear answer is "man is naturally evil" basically means "man is in a fallen state due to original sin." "Man is naturally good", or, at least, the idea that evil and suffering are products of an unfair society which can be fixed, goes back to Locke and the tabula rasa. john k 10:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This would hold, as long as there are no atheists on the right, which there are. Athemeus 13:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I don't think it should be suggested that this is a be all and end all.  One should also note that there are plenty of people on the left who are Christians, and perhaps even believe in original sin.  john k 23:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

What I would suggest, I think, is that we basically eliminate this section, and replace it with discussions of individual issues, and how they are generally seen to fit into the left right divide. For instance, laissez faire capitalism could be discussed, and we could note that 1) the socialist left has always vehemently opposed it; 2) the social liberal left has had mixed feelings about it, both supporting the idea of the free market and the invisible hand in principle, but unwilling to accept ; 3) Conservative liberals (or classical liberals, or liberals of the right, or however you want to describe it) have tended to be the strongest supporters of laissez faire; 4) paternalistic conservatives (Tory Chartists, Christian Democracy, the pre Vatican II Catholic Church and so forth) have frequently seen laissez faire as a violation of the duty of the strong to protect the weak, and have advocated modifications to a basically capitalist system to mitigate its harshness; 5) fascists respect the free market within limits, so long as businesses are doing what is good for the state; 6) reactionaries have often seen the free market as a way of destroying the traditional privileges and society of orders which they see as the most important part of society. Antisemites within these kinds of groups (as well as some fascist groups) have a tendency to see capitalism as a tool of the Jews.

The advantage of such an approach, I think, is that it doesn't imply that left and right are defined by one's position on a single issue like capitalism or "liberty" or demcoracy or whatever. What the left and right are defined by is always contingent on the issues of a given society at a given time. An approach that looks at various concepts and the way different groups on the left and right have viewed them would go much further towards giving a sense of what the common ground is, and where the differences are, and would avoid the problem of elevating left liberal/right liberal distinctions into the be all and end all of the left-right political spectrum. john k 00:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Did you have any thoughts about this last? john k 10:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It would be *much* better to take certain issues and describe where they typically fall on the spectrum and then point up how that goes among various subgroups. The only caveat being that I fear something like that could not be forged without going through many fires. Athemeus 13:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It would certainly be a lot of work, but I think it would be worth it if it improves the article and gets rid of the junk that encrusts it. I'd suggest the following topics, as a start:
 * the free market/capitalism
 * "liberty"/liberalism
 * "order" (the catcwhord of the 19th century conservative)
 * "equality" (socialism should probably be included in the discussion here, but we should note the different kinds of equality that have been advocated - legal equality vs. economic equality)
 * nationalism
 * corporatism and fascism
 * organized religion, established churches
 * international affairs
 * monarchy, aristocracy, and the old order (and, as a counterpoint, the French Revolution)
 * anti-semitism and racism
 * marxism-leninism
 * international relations


 * These would seem to be the central points, but I may have forgotten something. john k 23:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I would add:
 * Collectivism
 * Social responsibility and personal responsibility

Communism could be discussed external to Marxism, potentially. I also have a big problem with the equality bit as well, because as I stated before, it's relative to the view point. There are many situations where one side contends there is no equality and the opposing side refutes that an inequality exists. An equality discussion would have to take careful elaboration of viewpoint/counter-viewpoint. I think anti-semitism and racism doesn't belong. Sure, the Nazis were anti-semetic, but why can't that go under fascism? Also, how is international affairs different from international relations? And is that even relevant? There are certain protectionists and xenophobes on both sides. Nationalism also seems irrelevant to a degree. Almost all political groups and parties tap national pride as a rallying point. Athemeus 23:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

In terms of racism and anti-semitism, the latter, at least, has been a major feature of lots of different right wing movements, not all of them fascist. Anti-semitism played a major role in the Dreyfus Affair, which was a key moment in the development of the political spectrum of early 20th century France, for instance. It should also be noted that racism has generally been explicitly opposed by socialist and communist movements, which view race as a false consciousness. I think racism and anti-semitism is a topic of sufficient importance in terms of the political development of Europe as to be worth discussing. Did I separate international affairs and international relations? That was an accident, due to loose thinking on my part. In terms of protectionists and xenophobes on both sides, sure. But there's other things to consider - internationalism in the world Socialist movement, for instance. john k 22:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid (afraid because I'm strongly leftist, myself) that even leftist movements have been racist on more than one occasion; the Socialist Worker's Party in Austria's first republic comes to my mind, which employed antisemitism often... &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 10:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm willing to consider seeing this all very differently organized but, given that these definitions are well-cited either to significant writers or significant political figures, they belong, and I think there is a usefulness to placing these different views of the left-right distinction in a list so that people can see the range of views in one place. - Jmabel | Talk 05:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Burke
From the article "The idea that law dictates culture is left; the idea that culture dictates law is right. This formulation was put forward by US Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, but is prefigured by Edmund Burke." How was this prefigured by Burke? I'm unaware of him ever using the terms "left" and "right". - Jmabel | Talk 21:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Similarly "Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France criticized the Left as excessively rationalistic and disrespecting of the wisdom of tradition." He criticized the revolution in general, but at the date he was writing, much of what would come to be referred to as "the left" had not yet emerged. His criticism was aimed at the likes of Mirabeau and Lafayette, hardly "the left" (although the same criticism could certainly be leveled against the left). - Jmabel | Talk 21:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess the problem, once again, is the one lifted by User:Intangible's trollish edits, concerning the non-revelancy of left & right. The left-wing, of course, already existed at Burke's time, although it has, since, changed a bit. So has the world with it... But The Mountain was clearly to the left of the Girondins. Tazmaniacs 11:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I rather agree, although it should be noted that Mirabeau and Lafayette were certainly to the left of Burke. john k 12:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, at the date he was writing, the Girondists and the Mountain were at least two years in the future. Many consider Burke's work prescient, but presumably not so prescient that his words were intended primarily to criticize groups that had not yet formed. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Dispute
This article is marked as "totally disputed". That means, among other things, that it is considered factually inaccurate. What, precisely is factually disputed. - Jmabel | Talk 05:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Good-Evil
Instead of the word evil, which leads to that pesky ethical debate, I would suggest using the term 'flawed.' I'm not much of a citer, but I am certain it has been used in that context, suggesting that human nature isn't malevolant, rather that it is inherantly unsustainable (to some extent). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.126.41.182 (talk • contribs) 24 August 2006.
 * Certainly in terms of the conservative view of human nature, "flawed" is a far more correct word; I have now substituted in. In terms of this meaning that there will always be some evil in the world, I thing "evil" is the correct word. - Jmabel | Talk 04:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

This article
Is vague as heck and has no reference to what country it is talking about or what era. It sounds like it supposed to be about the U.S. since the turn of the 20th century. Is this correct? Whis key   Rebel  lion  02:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Who says that classical liberalism is 'right'? And what has classical liberalism to do with neoconservatism? Actually nothing. This is original research. Whis key   Rebel  lion  03:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

This article is horrendous. It is super biased. It is off-the-wall with lack of fact. It is sourced nowhere. If it isn't cleaned up soon I'm going to nominate it for deletion. Whis key   Rebel  lion  03:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Equality/Liberty paragraph
I put back the paragraph beginning with (the proposed explanation) "Equality is left; Liberty is right". This was not unsourced, as it gives the names of two writers who have used this definition, and explains Bobbio's reasoning for it. It is not POV, either: reporting on Bobbio's POV is not breaking NPOV rules itself. The other claim in the edit summary was that it is "untrue": if you read the paragraph in context, this section is not supposed to be a list of facts, but a list of supposed or proposed definitions for or differences between 'left' and 'right', and this is a well-known one. Robin Johnson (talk) 08:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It is not properly sourced as it doesn't include page numbers. This article not only pushes pov and doesn't clearly state that it is pushing pov, it mixes issues up to no end. It is so scrambled that the only solution to it is either a total rewrite or a deletion. It has been marked for clean-up since January 2006, over 8 months!


 * This section is outrageously inaccurate:


 * Fair outcomes are left; fair processes are right. Classic liberalism is process-based, an example being the free market. Robert Nozick is one of the 20th century theorists who emphasised this distinction between "historical" and "end-result" principles (Anarchy, State, and Utopia, New York, 1974, pp. 153-155). On the other hand, adherents of modern liberalism such as John Rawls (A Theory of Justice, Cambridge, 1971) argue for classically leftist policies using process-based reasoning, while some neoconservatives favour the use of military force to establish democracy as an end result. Among the politicians who support this distinction is Australian Labor Party ex-leader Mark Latham.


 * Classical liberalism, an event in the U.S. that was happening in the 18th and early 19th centuries, was the left of it's time. And yet is used in a comparison as if it were the right. It sought fair outcomes through process, namely the constitution. And what has classical liberalism and it's use of law, got to do with neoconservatives and their tyrannical military force. The classical liberals were distinctly against standing armies, never mind imperialism. It was the right of that time that wanted unfair economic control over it's own populace. This section is factually off-the-wall. You can't just use sources that are biased unless you announce it in the intro of the article. (Not if the entire aticle is biased.) The reader needs to know that this article is biased to the modern left. And since it is also often based on nonsensical non-fact, the reader needs to know that also.

Whis key   Rebel  lion  20:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, it's nearly impossible to edit this section to correct it's inaccuracy as it's premises are nonsensical. This section based on a comparison of Fair outcomes and fair process needs to come out of the article. Sorry. Whis  key   Rebel  lion  21:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the term "classical liberalism" is that we have all of these basically libertarian Americans involved in Wikipedia who will not allow the term to refer to (duh) the classical era of liberalism. They insist on claiming the term for themselves, on the basis that a small number of citations can be found for authors who use it that way. Which muddies the water no end.

I agree that down at least until the mid-19th-century, all liberalism would be considered part of the left. Somewhere in the latter part of that century, as "left" came increasingly to refer to socialism, that identification became problematic. Certainly almost no one post-WWI would refer to laissez faire capitalism as leftist in the present tense.

On the rest of this: I agree that many generally respected authors' efforts to define "right" and "left" are not their finest moments. Both concepts fall more into the "I know them when I see them" category, and reductionist definitions are generally weak. Still, the views of the likes of Norbert Bobbio or Eric Fromm are notable, even if you and I don't think that in this case they are very deep.

As for weak citation: if you feel, for example, that a more precise citation of Bobbio is needed, you might take on the legwork to find it. But, assuming that you agree that his views are accurately described, I find it disingenuous to say that you want to remove it from the article because the citation is imprecise. If we removed everything with imprecise citation, we'd have to remove the majority of Wikipedia. Take, for example, the article on Sonny Terry, where I believe you and I have crossed paths before. No one, including you and me, has provided any citations there, precise, vague, or otherwise. Do you think the article should be deleted? - Jmabel | Talk 17:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I will once again beat my hobby horse about "liberty is [on the] right." Up through World War II, most explicitly right wing political movements would have explicitly denied any concern with liberty. Such a definition is completely historically illiterate, whatever we think of whether classical liberalism is on the right or left. Conservatism and its help mates are clearly on the right, and there were tons of right wing movements that had no interest in either liberty or equality. john k 17:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "Beating a hobby horse". That's a ridiculously mixed metaphor.  I apologize to everyone for metaphor abuse.  john k 17:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Liberty is left; Security is right
The left prefers trading protection for freedom while the right favors trading freedom for security.

Who wrote this stuff? There's no source at all in this one. This sounds like something that someone came up with off the top of his head. In this Bush Adminstration one can say that The left prefers trading protection for freedom while the right favors trading freedom for security. (I'm not left or right but a straight-down-the-middle US-type-libertarian anarchist.) I don't go for trading my freedom for anything. Aside from all that, one could also argue that the right protects certain liberties more often, and the left protects other liberties more often. And the left and the right both fight against the protection of liberties at the same time, sometimes the same liberties sometimes different ones. As a matter of fact they both worked pretty well together recently to hijack all our liberties. See Patriot Act. ''Oops. Forgot to read the legislation before I signed it. Ah, well. I did remember to up my salary another 25 grand this year, though. That little oops'' has cost us every single one of our liberties. And it may take another revolution to get them back. Whis key   Rebel  lion  23:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The Patriot Act is 174 pages. Can you blame them for not reading it? --Armaetin 00:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Mostly, I can blame the administration & the Republican congressional leaders for slamming it through without giving people time to read it (a good staffer absorbs something like this in a few days, given a chance) at a time when the House was out of its chambers due to an anthrax scare. But I can blame the lot of them for voting under those circumstances. But isn't this rather getting off topic? - Jmabel | Talk 08:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Liberal Bias
I deleted the entire "Definition of Terms" part because it showed a clear liberal bias, with extremely unbalanced statements framing the article to clearly proselytize liberalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mdwall (talk • contribs) 14 October 2006.

Far right = left????
Political compass On the website Political compass it is argued that parties labelled as 'far right' are actually more leftist than most modern main stream parties. 'Far right' cannot be correct as a nomer because advocating government control (far left) cannot be a polar opposite to advocating government control (far right).

Actually, communism (government control) is the polar opposite of the free market ideology. Communism is primarily an economic ideology whereas fascism is a social ideology. They are not, nor have they ever been (except in rhetoric) polar opposites. The term 'far right' therefore is incorrect and used by parties identifying themselves as 'left' to discredit the 'right'. Unfortunately for them, fascism is all about state control (if not state ownership of the means of production, then certainly state control of them).

Political compass argues that advocates of state control all belong on the left.

It introduces 2 axis: -an economic x-axis (horizontal) where communism (state control) and free market ideology (no state control) are polar opposites -a social y-axis (vertical) where authoritarianism and libertarianism are polar opposites.

--82.156.49.1 04:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Advocating government control can in fact be an opposite of advocating a different type of government control. The two groups may want the government to control different things, and they may wish to achieve opposite goals. "Government control" is a method, a means to an end. Ideologies may have opposing goals, while using similar means to achieve them.


 * The Political Compass model is interesting, but has a number of major flaws. For example, the "left-wing", which is supposed to represent state control of the economy, includes the ideology of anarcho-communism, which wants to abolish the state along with private property. Conversely, "free market ideology" always needs a state to define and enforce property rights. -- Nikodemos 03:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

There was a time when "left wing" meant something, but that time is now long past. Left wing, like "far" right, have become meaningless, and are usually used as insults. Rick Norwood 13:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The Party of the European Left certainly doesn't use the term "left-wing" to insult itself... -- Nikodemos 03:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Nor Spain's Izquierda Unida. Nor The Nation magazine in the U.S. when it calls itself "the flagship of the left.". - Jmabel | Talk 19:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe they are masochistic, who knows Agrofelipe (talk) 19:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

A better descriptor
I have long had a problem with the Left-Right axis, believing that it is inadequate for explaining political realities.

Let us assume, for argument's sake, (momentarily, at least), that politics is mankind's expression of an innate desire to achieve the greatest good for the largest number of people.

It is surely obvious that the world then divides naturally into people who think other people should, as far as possible, be allowed to make their own decisions, and also have the capacity (for example monetary, and political) to do so, and those who think that other people should, as far as can be acheived, do as they are told.

Those who fall into the latter category are often careless of other people's ability to do as they are told, because coercion will simply be employed if their co-operation is not forthcoming.

Thus Stalinism and Nazism are virtually interhcangeable political systems, both with mock parties, repressive state terror, centralised economies, disdain for generally accepted moral imperatives, and so on.

In this regard, the only really important descriptor, as regards an understanding of how generalised well-being is best created, is therefore "liberal" versus "authoritarian", and this divide reappears constantly throughout history.

Beneath these basic divisions, mankind appears endlessly inventive in creating political models (and excuses) to support one viewpoint or the other, some of which are considered on "the Left" and some on "the Right".

Beyond this rather sterile debate, of course, we really need to get into a discussion of why anyone would choose the unpleasant option of authoritarianism, given that it invariably also means vastly greater amounts of human suffering.

The answer always appears to me to be a mixture of a conviction that it provides for efficiency of production, but perhaps most often it offers huge personal power for those "inside" the system.

Stephen Yolland www.decisionsdecisions.com.au


 * At least part of what you are expressing is the Popper/Arendt theory of totalitarianism, which has its own article, but is only tangentially relevant to this topic. You might also want to see political spectrum. - Jmabel | Talk 21:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Meaning of the terms
It seems like most of the controversy about this page relates to this section. But it seems that this reflects different people reading the section differently. The opening para of the section makes it clear (and I've made this clearer) that the bullet points allude to a list of defintions that have been proposed by political scientists and others. Preferably, then, each definition should be cited, and there could be a sentence or two showing exceptions to the definition. If no source can be cited for a definition, it shouldn't be there. BobFromBrockley 16:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge proposal

 * Strong object to merging Left-wing politics and Right-wing politics in here. Not only is there plenty of scope for three high quality articles on each topic, merging would result in one very long article. DWaterson 23:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong object for reasons stated above. Alan Liefting 22:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

agreed. Keep this diverge, let's not merge!

I also think the articles should be merged. Evrenosogullari 12:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I dont think it should be merged - H4eafy 19/2/07


 * Does this mean that the merge proposal tag can come off the articles? BobFromBrockley 15:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No merge!!! It would be way too long of an article. - Libertyville 12:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Relativism and Universality
''With respect to personal and moral values, Relativism is left; Universality is right. [citation needed] It is common for leftists to not believe in the concept of universal truth, while this is often a fundamental principle for rightists. By not accepting universal truth as believable, leftists believe that various subjects mean different things to different people, and all are equally correct.'"
 * Where the first part of this statement makes the claim that moral universalism is right, where moral relativism is left, the rest of it, specifically in regard to "universal truth", seems rediculously vague. Is this to say that, generally speaking, leftists are Solipsists, where rightists generally believe in a physical reality independent of personal perception, or that materialism is a rightist stance, where philosophical idealism is a leftist stance? Where it does seem that the main statement that this is trying to make is talking amout stances on morality, which I have heard applied as moral relativism is left, where moral universalism is right, albeit primarily from self-identified rightists, the whole part about universal truth seems to be in need of revision. 66.24.235.78 04:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * On a side note, it would also seem that, generally speaking, the right (or at least U.S. neo-conservativism) tends to favor punitive responses to criminal behavior, where the right (or at least U.S. liberalism) tend to generally favor rehabilitative responses (bear in mind that this is a generalization). If so, those holding a system of retributive justice may see rehabilitation as a sign of not holding a person responsible for their behavior, and as a reflection of moral weakness. Whether or not moral relativism is generally a left stance, and moral universalism is generally a right stance, however seems open to debate. 66.24.235.78 04:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * As per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Left-Right_politics#Meaning_of_the_terms_2 above, I propose that all of the definitions flagged as needing citations should be removed in a couple of weeks, unless editors can add some references. BobFromBrockley 16:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * To be honest, the entire article needs to be ripped apart and rewritten from scratch with references; at the moment it's a textbook case of POV and OR all the way through. I'll do this within the next couple of days, if no one disagrees. Wal  ton  Vivat Regina!  15:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is absurdly framed and US-centric
Apparantly the left favours 'economic interventionism' i.e. central planning, which should come as something as a shock to anarcho-syndaclists. The same goes for the old 'human nature' argument.

This is really nothing more than a comparison of American Liberal and Conservative ideologies, not a useful analysis of the terms 'left' and 'right'

Damburger 22:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * We're doing our best. It's extremely difficult to present a coherent analysis of terms as broad and ill-defined as "left" and "right", and even more so to ensure a genuinely international scope. In the end, how do we write intelligently about terms that classify figures as diverse as Stalin and Gandhi, or Hitler and Ronald Reagan, under the headings of "left" and "right" respectively - and more importantly, how do we find reliable sources with which to do so? Any help would certainly be appreciated. :-) WaltonOne 18:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Certainly no socialist in my country would say that they are in favor of individual liberty and free markets, it would be like calling muslim to a catholic. Agrofelipe (talk) 16:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality
I tagged the "meaning of terms" section (with the best tag i could find, but i bet there is one better) because of it's biased definition of "the right". The right is not inherently supportive of the higher social classes, rather its policies might benefit them more in relative or absolute terms or specific right-wing governments have done so. Also, "the right" is not meant to maintain inequalities between people (the goal is equality of oportunity, after all). A better description would be that the left attempts to eliminate these inequalities. Pointing out the left's action seems more reasonable than pointing out an inaccurate right's inaction.


 * I agree. Additionally, the claim that the meaning of left and right have changed radically is suspect. The original left of the French Revolution was recognizably left (radical left, I mean). They implemented price controls and outlawed "hoarding" (whatever that is). The declaration of the rights of man, enacted during the relatively moderate phase of the revolution, included the "right to work". Rousseau, the revolution's guiding philosphical light, felt that the overall impact of science had been negative, and that civilization had corrupted men by placing them in competition with one another. He imagined returning to a pre-industrial golden age during which mankind lived in harmony with one another (a complete fantasy, of course).


 * In other words, all the tics of the present day radical left were present then. Someone above made the claim that the Jacobins were "capitalists", which is just bizarre. In fact, around the time of the insurrection of the Paris Commune (the municipal government of Paris) in 1792, the word "capitaliste" was used by the Jacobins (and the left in general) as a term of reproach. The word "communism" originated as a direct reference to this left-controlled Paris Commune of 1792. The word was coined around 1840 by members of the various secret revolutionary societies in Paris. One of these, the "League of the Just," changed its name to the "Communist League" and issued its Communist Manifesto, penned by Marx and Engels. In other words, it's a straight line from the left-wing of the French Revolution to the anti-capitalism of today. TimSheehan 11:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There is an element of truth in what you're saying, and yet the article is basically correct. It's true that the Jacobins exhibited some tendencies towards anti-rich populism and economic interventionism in 1793-1794, but their rule was too brief and chaotic and it was the general anti-monarchist and anti-aristocratic pathos of the revolutionaries as a whole that remained entrenched in political discouse and continued to define the left during the following decades. Rousseau was admired for his social contract theory, but even the Jacobins (nay, even the Hébertists) never dreamed of restoring his nobly savage "golden age", and were firmly opposed even to the equal redistribution of property, let alone common ownership. The price controls and anti-speculation measures were tactical responses to a desperate economic and military situation, not implementations of their theoretical social ideals.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 23:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As for "communism", the term refers to common (Latin communis) ownership and control of the means of production, certainly not to "politics Paris Commune-style". That said, left-wing radicals during the 19th and 20th centuries certainly were inspired by the tradition and precedent of sans-culotte radicalism. But the French revolution in turn was inspired by the American one. Yes, there is a "straight line" - and it runs from the struggle for democracy and human rights to the struggle for socialism, though many may not be happy about that. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 23:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and believe that it must be re-written. The definition of the "right" is very bias and is un-encyclopedic. Surely there must be some way to make this neutral.

Workers' Self-Management
There isn't a single left-wing political ideology that doesn't put emphasis on workers' self-management. The only left-wing ideology that accepts employment is social-democracy, which is more to the center. Democratic socialism may accept it, but it seeks to terminate it once the capitalist society becomes a communist society. This part of the article is properly sourced and should be kept. 201.9.36.184 21:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "Workers' self-management" versus the "right to pay wages" doesn't define a clear spectrum. It's more of a single (dubious) point: that the left seeks to eliminate the payment of wages, which, if true, is a particular instance of the more fundamental idea of economic intervention vs. non-intervention. To restrict the "right to pay wages" would require legal intervention because the payment of wages is nothing but an agreement between two parties. TimSheehan 07:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no spectrum, its a clear disjuncture, and about who controls what in society. The "left" and "right" don't exist on the same terrain in terms of this issue. The idea that this is "economic intervention" is another disjuncture. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a point of view that comes from a capitalist perspective. According to anarchism, without government, society would organize itself organically in a way that would priorize workers' self-management, so as to prevent conflict between employer and employee. Anarchism is clearly anti-capitalism and, at the same time, against the very existence of government. "Workers' self-management" versus the "right to pay wages" is a classification that can be applied with even more accuracy to ALL left-wing and right-wing ideologies than, say, economic intervensionism, which is at odds with anarchism. Other left-wing ideologies accept economic intervensionism as long as it produces equality among the population. What about land ownership? That's an agreement between which parties? Without government, there wouldn't be land ownership, which is one of the pinacles of capitalism and right-wing ideologies. 201.9.89.99 15:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and by the way, workers' self-management doesn't necessarily require intervention from government. It only requires that workers themselves form a cooperative. The number of cooperatives is increasing, especially in South America. 201.9.89.99 21:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

As long the state allows it, of course. But I will say that phenomenon is only happening in Venezuela and Argentina. Agrofelipe (talk) 04:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that is not a god distinction between left and right - many left-wingers defend an economy ruled by "experts", not by the workers themselfs, and some right-wingers (like the distributists) defend a society of small property owners--194.65.151.50 12:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Though I don't seem to remember any left-winger defending an economy ruled by "experts", you could still be right. But these are the exceptions. Every single left-wing that I've read about puts an emphasis on workers' control of the means of production. In revolutionary anarchism, through a revolution. In mutualist anarchism, through the formation of cooperatives. In democratic socialism, through democratic means. In marxism, through a revolution followed by the dictatorship of the proletariat, that will give rise to a society without classes or the state. Only in social-democracy can we see something resembling an economy ruled by "experts", and even so, it is only if it promotes equality and it is in the interests of the working class (in theory), because social-democracy still accepts the free-market, much like social liberalism. In social liberalism, the market is free, but the government uses taxation in the interests of the general population, with public schools and health care.
 * Right-wingers that defend a society of small property owners still defend the right of the employer to pay wages, which, again, proves this argument as a good distinction between right and left. Distibutism is not right-wing. It was created as a "third way". It has aspects of both capitalism and socialism, much like mutualist anarchism.
 * This article is written mainly through a capitalist perspective. I'd appreciate if you people would let some distinctions that come from a left-wing perspective to be kept, so as to balance everything. 201.9.23.173 14:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you are missing the entire point with all this "workers management" straw men. Any serious socialist I have read believes in a centralized socialist state making economic and political decisions for all of society, from Marx to Castro.

This dictatorship of the proletariat is just other name for the socialist state in its transition to the communist society.

In any case workers management is still a loose term without a clear definition about how the managed property will be acquired and how the rights of each individual will be respected, I could argue that workers management is just an illusion that leads to mob rule without individual liberty.

Capitalist that defend a society of small property owners, like Thomas Jefferson, argued for a society of self-managed people as oppose to state collectivization or mob rule. Agrofelipe (talk) 04:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Culture and Law
The article has "law dictates culture" on the left and "culture dictates law" on the right. Although I generally find this to be true internationally, the left-wing in the United States differs. The left-wing in the United States idealizes fighting "unjust" laws. Makes it a bit ironic that a US Senator put forward this idea, but wouldn't it be wise to add a note there about that? I'm not trying to introduce United States bias in the article, but in avoiding American bias, we shouldn't exclude left-right politics in the US entirely. A fair and international discussion on politics should include the situation in the US as well as every other nation. --Armaetin (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I actually think it's a typical American description, and it's not an accident that a US senator put it forward. I suppose they were thinking of gay marriage or something: "Our culture says marriage must be heterosexual, but the liberals want to change that by law (because they're dictators and commies)". Outside of America and possibly the UK, such arguments are still very uncommon, and both leftists and rightists tend to see laws as determining practice (not "culture") and as being determined by fairness or utility (not "culture").--91.148.159.4 (talk) 18:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)