The 1 word essence of the political right?

[Ironside]

While certainly insufficient, you can use one word to describe the driving word behind both liberalism (freedom) and socialism (equality) and I was thinking if it's possible to do something similar for the political right. The word I've come up with this far is values.

A strong connection with those having the right values, while the ones breaking/having the wrong values are treated harshly. A more right and wrong attitude compared to a better and worse attitude.

It's one component of the political right, of that I'm certain (it's easily seen when the "wrong" values comes up), but it's it a sufficient covering word?

Thoughts, comments?

[Greyblades]

Dunno about the rest of the world but when I think of western right wing parties I think less values and more Oblivious-Objectivists.

[Beskar]

It is good, but if you take it a step-further with a description like: Daddy-Knows-Best, it summarises it up more fully. Values only go so far to explaining it.

The political left would be more Equality. if anything, the counter of the right with Daddy-Doesnt-Know-Best.

[johnhughthom]

It is good, but if you take it a step-further with a description like: Daddy-Knows-Best, it summarises it up more fully. Values only go so far to explaining it.

The political left would be more Equality. if anything, the counter of the right with Daddy-Doesnt-Know-Best.

The counter would be more like Everyone-Knows-Best-Because-To-Say-Otherwise-Might-Hurt-Their-Little-Feelings

[Montmorency]

values.


Daddy-Knows-Best

These describe both left and right equally well.

[Ironside]

It is good, but if you take it a step-further with a description like: Daddy-Knows-Best, it summarises it up more fully. Values only go so far to explaining it.

The political left would be more Equality. if anything, the counter of the right with Daddy-Doesnt-Know-Best.

Doesn't explain say libertarians. The right got a slightly more authoritarian bend in general, but it isn't large and not universial. Besides, I'm trying to find the positive word. It is and has been appealing for a very large chunk of the population throughout history, so there's more to it.


These describe both left and right equally well.

Nah. They left is arrogant because they're better, the right is arrogant because they're right. Leads to diffferent consequences.

[Fragony]

I'd say nationalism

[The Lurker Below]

sorry, from the examples I get to see here, liberalism is not freedom, it's elected state run. socialism is party mandate state run.

the political right has been grossly redefined, and justifies no definition beyond gross.

[HoreTore]

Backwardness.

[Beskar]

The counter would be more like Everyone-Knows-Best-Because-To-Say-Otherwise-Might-Hurt-Their-Little-Feelings

:laugh4: I love it.


These describe both left and right equally well.

Left is more Rights, opposed to Values.

However, Totalitarian is on the right politically which is what I am guessing you are thinking of due to the various usurpations of power under the guise of communism, democracy and what not.

[Idaho]

Fear.

[Arjos]

Decades ago, I'd say responsibility or realism.

Today is irrationality or selfishness.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I think trying to encapsulte something so broad in one word is going end end up with inadequte results. And I think it is also unhelpful and leads to misunderstandings.

Ultimately, left, right and centre all value equality, freedom, and moral values. Their differences aren't even in their focus on these things - where they differ is about the best way to achieve them.

[Beskar]

Ultimately, left, right and centre all value equality, freedom, and moral values. Their differences aren't even in their focus on these things - where they differ is about the best way to achieve them.

Right = Racial Superiority, Economic Superiority, Patriarchal Superiority, National Superiority, Religious Superiority...
There is no equality in the right, only inequality.

Many in the right want to force inequality, such as, oppose welfare and cut taxes so they become even richer/more inequal to the poor. Jingoism and Empire Building, etc, to enforce a nations will over 'lesser' nations.

[Montmorency]

Left is more Rights, opposed to Values.

Rights are Values. Let's not fall into absurd characterizations of the Left as amoral libertarianism.


However, Totalitarian is on the right politically

You don't find it strange, compressing a plane onto a line and then a point?

[HopAlongBunny]

The beauty of each term (from the PoV of political discourse) is that they are null statements.

They commit to absolutely nothing and may be filled in on the fly.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Right = Racial Superiority, Economic Superiority, Patriarchal Superiority, National Superiority, Religious Superiority...
There is no equality in the right, only inequality.

Many in the right want to force inequality, such as, oppose welfare and cut taxes so they become even richer/more inequal to the poor. Jingoism and Empire Building, etc, to enforce a nations will over 'lesser' nations.

I find it upsetting that this is seen as acceptable, mainstream thought amongst certain elements on the left.

Just.... no.

We are supposed to be talking about values or ideals here... instead you churn out a list that is half antiquated/irrelevant prejudices, and half political/policy failings (as opposed to the ideals themselves).

I mean, "Right = Racial Superiority"?! Cool story bro... the Right advocates racial superiority in the same way that the Left advocates the extermination/subjugation of anti-revolutionary classes ala Marx's instructions (ie it doesn't).

"Economic Superiority"? No, that is not an ideal of the Right, whether we are talking neo-con or far-right. The far-right is essentially left-leaning on economic issues, and the neo-cons value equality of opportunity in terms of accumulating wealth. The economic reality of such an approach is a separate matter from the values themselves.

The Right advocates national sovereignty, not superiority, and it is largely secular so no religious superiority. If there is a mysoginist element in the Right it is fringe, and as I have said in a recent thread, supporting traditional famillies is not a left-right issue, at least not as far as anyone anywhere mainstream on the spectrum is concerned.

You have compeletely failed to grasp the difference between the Right's ideals, and what you see as the outcomes of its policies. At least I hope you have, if you actually think your average Tory voter values economic inequality in and of itself, then I don't know what to say to you.

And for what it's worth, I don't even identify with the Right in any of its forms. But you have to try to understand peoples' beliefs, and not be blindly partizan.

[Tuuvi]

I find it upsetting that this is seen as acceptable, mainstream thought amongst certain elements on the left.

Just.... no.

We are supposed to be talking about values or ideals here... instead you churn out a list that is half antiquated/irrelevant prejudices, and half political/policy failings (as opposed to the ideals themselves).

I mean, "Right = Racial Superiority"?! Cool story bro... the Right advocates racial superiority in the same way that the Left advocates the extermination/subjugation of anti-revolutionary classes ala Marx's instructions.

"Economic Superiority"? No, that is not an ideal of the Right, whether we are talking neo-con or far-right. The far-right is essentially left-leaning on economic issues, and the neo-cons value equality of opportunity in terms of accumulating wealth. The economic reality of such an approach is a separate matter from the values themselves.

The Right advocates national sovereignty, not superiority, and it is largely secular so no religious superiority. If there is a mysoginist element in the Right it is fringe, and as I have said in a recent thread, supporting traditional famillies is not a left-right issue, at least not as far as anyone anywhere mainstream on the spectrum is concerned.

You have compeletely failed to grasp the difference between the Right's ideals, and what you see as the outcomes of its policies. At least I hope you have, if you actually think your average Tory voter values economic inequality in and of itself, then I don't know what to say to you.

And for what it's worth, I don't even identify with the Right in any of its forms. But you have to try to understand peoples' beliefs, and not be blindly partizan.

This is what I wanted to say. I live in a heavily conservative state, and while there are nutjobs out there there's also plenty of people on the right that hold reasonable, nuanced opinions and that value liberty and equality just as much as the left does. Those on the right just have different ideas about what liberty and equality entails. It's not fair to dismiss the other side of the political spectrum as being wholly negative.

[Idaho]

The "right" is just the powers that be, the status quo, those who know which side their breads buttered.

When things are going generally well, they say they deserve their station in life because they are doing such good job. When things go badly they blame it all on those scruffy poor people.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The "right" is just the powers that be, the status quo, those who know which side their breads buttered.

You can't be so autistic as to define everybody else in relation to your own beliefs. The current establishment might be right-wing in relation to your personal beliefs, but most people would consider the mainstream parties to be fairly centrist.

[Beskar]

We are supposed to be talking about values or ideals here... instead you churn out a list that is half antiquated/irrelevant prejudices, and half political/policy failings (as opposed to the ideals themselves).

Yet if we look at the values, the Right is authoritarian in terms of power, may it be politically, economically or socially. Whatever the flavour of icecream, it fits to this paradigm. This is obviously on different degrees of a scale, it doesn't mean your average Tory wants to invite the Ku-Klux-klan to breakfast, that would be an idiotic extreme.

There is also left and right wing within context, however, I am talking on a context free scale. Americans see Democrats as Left-wing, even though David Cameron's Tories are more left-wing, and he is a Right-winger within the UK.


The neo-cons value equality of opportunity in terms of accumulating wealth.

They typically value having a lesser tax burden so more for their back pocket at the expense of others in society they profit from. Causing the gap in inequality to grow larger.


The Right advocates national sovereignty, not superiority,

On the more right you go, this turns into invading other countries for Oil or territorial gains and possessions. Construction of divides between people to cause a form of inequality.


I mean, "Right = Racial Superiority"?! Cool story bro... the Right advocates racial superiority in the same way that the Left advocates the extermination/subjugation of anti-revolutionary classes ala Marx's instructions.

That's why when a certain members start bringing up the Jews, Gypsies and other minories, they all happen to be on the right of the spectrum.. maybe that is because that is the side of the spectrum which advocates these things? Do you see any of the self-confessed left wingers talking about these subjects? Usually they get accused of being minority-philes simply because they disagree with discrimination against them.

Marx advocated progression through democracy, effectively, that in a true democracy, the workers outnumber the business owners, therefore, can enforce the collective will of the people. Especially if you remember what it used to be like in Marx's time where business owners owned monopolies on the towns, enforcing a modern form of serfdom.


and it is largely secular so no religious superiority.

Yet all the religious extremists and fundamentalists are right-wing because they like to assert authority upon others and oppress them due to what it laid out by the bible/koran/torah or whatever their god commands. So that assumption is incorrect.


You have compeletely failed to grasp the difference between the Right's ideals, and what you see as the outcomes of its policies. At least I hope you have, if you actually think your average Tory voter values economic inequality in and of itself, then I don't know what to say to you.

Considering the average Tory voter is upper-class member of society looking for tax breaks for even more money, with middle-class "wannabes" who feels voting tory makes them better than the plebs, then those more clueless elements who like the more law and order authoritarian streak the Tories are meant to advocate. Then I am pretty correct.



--

In short and simplified manner, there are 3 spheres of influence. Political Power, Economical Power, Social Power. These examples are independent from context specific situations and relativeness. It is about 'Relation between self and any others'.

Political power basically looks like this:
Open* - Direct Democracy - Represented Democracy - Unequal-Powersharing - Authoritarianism
* This may-be practically impossible to achieve.

Economical Power is basically:
Fair Market** - Free Market* - Biased Market - Cartels/Monopolies - Authoritarian
*My definition may differ. Free market here represents free opportunity for economic activity due to regulation and economic rights.
** Fair Market represents equal opportunity for economic activity. I think of this as true economic freedom for everyone involved.

Social Power is basically:
Everyone Equal - In-Equal - Discriminated - Oppressed - Subjugated


Side-Note: Religion is a special case due to able to influence more than one of the above scales.



Effectively, thinking of real life examples and put them through this system, and you end up with a rather accurate scale of where everything is.

[Idaho]

You can't be so autistic as to define everybody else in relation to your own beliefs. The current establishment might be right-wing in relation to your personal beliefs, but most people would consider the mainstream parties to be fairly centrist.
The mainstream of our culture's politics is, by definition, going to be "cebntrist".

Politics is the study of power relationships. It is all about the power relations between us and others. You are in some fantasy of conservative thought where right and left are these pure notions, elements that were created along with hydrogen and carbon.

[Sir Moody]

Yet all the religious extremists and fundamentalists are right-wing because they like to assert authority upon others and oppress them due to what it laid out by the bible/koran/torah or whatever their god commands. So that assumption is incorrect.


this isn't entirely true - there are plenty of Religious kooks on both sides of the spectrum, including fundamentalists - religion is like that, one minute the person can be preaching to the socialist choir about equality to the next minute declaring homosexuals as monsters - religion produces a sort of cognitive dissonance

[Beskar]

this isn't entirely true - there are plenty of Religious kooks on both sides of the spectrum, including fundamentalists - religion is like that, one minute the person can be preaching to the socialist choir about equality to the next minute declaring homosexuals as monsters - religion produces a sort of cognitive dissonance

Correct indeed. As I mentioned in the simplified part, Religion is a special case as it does cover and effect different aspects and there is differences within religions themselves and between them. Typically though, the more right-wing elements seems to be strict adherence to rituals in an oppressive manner. For example, beheading some one for gay sex, even though they might not even be religious, as that religion outlaws homosexuality. A more left version would be "They are not our religion, they will meet whatever afterlife our lord decrees".

If you read about Jesus, you can also in manner ways view him as the first Marx. The Rich might find entering heaven like a camel through an eye of a needle. Feeding the 5000 by sharing food. Give to the poor, accept the offerings and contributions of the poor, like the old widow who could only afford a penny giving all she can compared to the statemen with golden plates and chalices. Love your neighbour...

[HoreTore]

Tiaexz, could you please point out where Marx argued in favour of "progression through democracy"?

[Beskar]

Tiaexz, could you please point out where Marx argued in favour of "progression through democracy"?

That is what is meant via "Dictatorship of the Proletariat". It means that the working class (through advantage of numbers) controls the political system. In essence, democracy.

To quote the ever reliable wikipedia:

In Marxist socio-political thought, the dictatorship of the proletariat refers to a socialist state in which the proletariat, or the working class, has control of political power.[1][2][3] The term, coined by Joseph Weydemeyer, was adopted by the founders of Marxism, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, in the 19th century. The use of the term "dictatorship" does not refer to the Classical Roman concept of the dictatura (the governance of a state by a small group with no democratic process), but instead to the Marxist concept of dictatorship (that an entire societal class holds political and economic control, within a democratic system

[HoreTore]

I think you need to read some actual Marx, at least if you want to use Marx in your arguments against Rhy...

Edit: to expand on that:

In the manifest, Marx&Engels starts by going through world history, dividing the era's into different "dictatorships of the X". When written, the current period was "the dictatorship of the burgeoise", ie. democracy(a very fitting description of the the democracy of the day). Their goal was to replace it with the dictatorship of the proletariat(through revolution of the masses).

But how exactly will this dictatorship come into being, and what will it look like? Marx doesn't say, he dies before he gets to that. That's why we commies call ourselves "Marxist-Leninists"; Marx created the goal, Lenin created the way to reach it.

Was Marx a fair and liberal-minded fellow? Definitely not. Those who opposed deserved death, whether that was anarchist traitors or whole eastern european peoples. That's a sign of totalitarianism, not democratic leanings.

[HopAlongBunny]

Hmm, I'm a little confused here.

While I understand that Marx had no qualms about revolution and violence where necessary, he was opposed to the use of terror. Where revolution was the expression of a social will, terror was the imposition of a will on society.

Totalitarianism has no qualms about terror as a method.

[HoreTore]

Hmm, I'm a little confused here.

While I understand that Marx had no qualms about revolution and violence where necessary, he was opposed to the use of terror. Where revolution was the expression of a social will, terror was the imposition of a will on society.

Totalitarianism has no qualms about terror as a method.

He opposed the terror tactics of the russian revolutionaries of the time, yes(like Bakhunin, for example). But not because it was willful killing, but because it was counterproductive. The masses needed to be rallied, then one could use violence.

Lenin was a die-hard totalitarian who had zero qualms about killing anyone and everyone who disagreed, but he too opposed the terror tactics. Stalin isn't my strongest point, but I believe he only believed in terror as a way to gain funds for the party(through postal robberies). But don't quote me on that.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Without multiquoting, I'll try and address your points.

1. If you want to go by the standard and not particularly helpful authoritarian-libertarian spectrum, the moderate left is generally more authoritarian than the moderate right, while both extremes are notably authoritarian.
2. Again, regardless of the actual results of lowering tax rates, the moderate Right believe that doing so increases individual economic freedom, that is their ideal.
3. Imperialism is by no means a logical conclusion of sovereignty, nor is their a historical basis for such a claim.
4. Racism is extremely marginalised today, and while is might have some sort of influence on the far, far-right, it also has links with the left due to the left's identification with the Palestinian cause (not that anti-semetism is in any way a natural conclusion of anti-Zionism - some people are just silly - see for example George Galloway walking out of a debate upon hearing that his opponent was an Israeli - this is outright racism).
5. Your categorization of extremists eg Al-Qaeda as right wing is incorrect, since a) it is based upon your false presumption that the Right is inherently authoritarian and b) Islamism is an entirely different ideology from Western left-right issues.

And as for your 3 scales of the various types of power, they are ridiculous.

For example with the first one, you begin with three levels describing the level at which representation takes place, then suddenly jump to "unequal powersharing"?! You go from fair with the first three, to entirely unfair. It makes no sense as a progressive scale.

As for the second, apart from presuming the free market is unfair (I agree it is but you can't make such a presumption an axis for debate when only one side agrees with it) can't really set the framework for a left-right debate for obvious reasons, it is bizarre because I presumure your idea of a "fair market" is really a "biased market", and yet the free market stands between them on your scale.

And as for the third, any leftist knows that social power is merely a reflection of economic realities, hence is should note require a separate scale.

[Idaho]

The more interesting, and more voluminous of Marxist writings is about the nature of power and politics and the transition from feudalism to capitalism. The communist future stuff is overplayed.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Right = Racial Superiority, Economic Superiority, Patriarchal Superiority, National Superiority, Religious Superiority...
There is no equality in the right, only inequality.

Many in the right want to force inequality, such as, oppose welfare and cut taxes so they become even richer/more inequal to the poor. Jingoism and Empire Building, etc, to enforce a nations will over 'lesser' nations.

Now sit down, put on a dunce cap.

You are redefining the Right as something negative because you view yourself as being on the Left.

One could say:

Left = Forced equalisation of outcome, mass denial of oppertunity (so no one can outdo another), Draconian central control, proscription of certain beliefs and practices that are perceived as backward or lacking social utility.

If you want to actually discuss the Left/Right divide in philosophy you have to allow that both positions are held by the sane and rational as well as the insane.

Otherwise you're just indulging in party-prejudice for the sake of your soap-box.

Communalism would describe traditional Tory-sim, as the anti-thesis of Communism it views society as a cohesive whole composed of separate parts (as opposed to a mass who require social equalisation).

Given that Libertarianism comes from the Right you could also say "Freedom" where the word for Liberalism​ is probably "Individualism".

[Fragony]

The more interesting, and more voluminous of Marxist writings is about the nature of power and politics and the transition from feudalism to capitalism. The communist future stuff is overplayed.

Marx saw it as inevitable, it is the core of his writings. Historians even call predictionalism Marxist form, an inevitabilty of developments. Left and right are outdated concepts anyhow imho, neither refuse democratic processes, both have submitted to the rules of majority. Nothing can exist in it's pure form, there is always compromise required.

[Ironside]

Given that Libertarianism comes from the Right you could also say "Freedom" where the word for Liberalism​ is probably "Individualism".

Libertarians are a bit odd. I would describe them as anti-state conservatives that places "freedom" as their highest value. Most of them does not have liberal social values, but rather accepts them because they have to, if they should still be able to describe themself as a libertarian.


Marx saw it as inevitable, it is the core of his writings. Historians even call predictionalism Marxist form, an inevitabilty of developments. Left and right are outdated concepts anyhow imho, neither refuse democratic processes, both have submitted to the rules of majority. Nothing can exist in it's pure form, there is always compromise required.

Take a bunch of humans and their opinions will diverge into a few large blobs, corresponding to a left and a right. While the details will vary, you can still see enough general tendencies to determine what's the historical left and right. Most disagreement stems from trying to lump all the traits you dislike into the other side, while ignoring the same tendencies for your own side.

That means that the driving force is in what people are considering the most important opinions. For example, both sides want to reform and punish criminals, but the left is more focused on reform, while the right is more focused on punishment.

[Fragony]

Don't want to piss off the lefties here, but I think left and right should be replaced by a feminime and a manly aproach to dealing with things. Over here the right has adopted just about everything the left once stood for, if gay and female rights are of any concern to you you have no friends on the left as they feel respect for religion is more important, even if it's against what are really their own ideals. I don't know where I stand really so I just don't vote at all. Leaning towards the right but not enough. What I don't understand from the left is the inherent contradiction though

[Crazed Rabbit]

I think 'values' is a good term for what 'the right' would use to describe itself.


It is good, but if you take it a step-further with a description like: Daddy-Knows-Best, it summarises it up more fully. Values only go so far to explaining it.

The political left would be more Equality. if anything, the counter of the right with Daddy-Doesnt-Know-Best.

It's the "left" in the USA who are usually the nanny state party (especially with regard to soda/junk food/safety/etc.) Of course the right goes in for that with being anti-drugs (though the left isn't much better), but it doesn't seem to be such a big thing for the right.

For the right, it does seem like opposition to drugs is often based on 'values' which helps explain why (in terms of party policy) alcohol is allowed and pot is bad.

CR

[Greyblades]

Whenever I'm in doubt I allways look at akin, cheyne, Bush, Romney and Palin, then I know america's republican party are Stupid-evil (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StupidEvil).

[Fragony]

I think 'values' is a good term for what 'the right' would use to describe itself.



It's the "left" in the USA who are usually the nanny state party (especially with regard to soda/junk food/safety/etc.) Of course the right goes in for that with being anti-drugs (though the left isn't much better), but it doesn't seem to be such a big thing for the right.

For the right, it does seem like opposition to drugs is often based on 'values' which helps explain why (in terms of party policy) alcohol is allowed and pot is bad.

CR

There is a big difference between the right here and in the US. Over here in the Netherlands the right furiously anti-conservative really. Right means liberal over here. That's of course just in theory they will get in everyone's bed in practise

[Kival]

There is a big difference between the right here and in the US. Over here in the Netherlands the right furiously anti-conservative really. Right means liberal over here. That's of course just in theory they will get in everyone's bed in practise

Since when does right mean liberal in the netherlands?

[HoreTore]

The more interesting, and more voluminous of Marxist writings is about the nature of power and politics and the transition from feudalism to capitalism. The communist future stuff is overplayed.

There's Marx the economist and sociologist, and there's Marx the communist. While the latter is his own conclusion of the former, you can of course adopt the former without the latter(although I don't think you can adopt communism while rejecting his social analysis).

Marx' academic writings make up a hefty portion of the material in the disiplines he engaged in even today, he is definitely one of the greats. For example, while an economist can create theories of economic growth without employing Marx' focus on production, it's hard to to do so without being aware of that theory's existance(at least its modern form).

[Fragony]

Since when does right mean liberal in the netherlands?

Since always. I know it's confusing but the conservatives are much more leftwing than the liberals here ideologically. Remember it's the Netherlands nothing really makes sense

[Beskar]

You are redefining the Right as something negative because you view yourself as being on the Left.

That is incorrect. It is only 'negative' subjectively because I don't agree with it, it isn't a redefinition. There are which agree to those kind of views.


If you want to actually discuss the Left/Right divide in philosophy you have to allow that both positions are held by the sane and rational as well as the insane.

I never assumed the right wasn't rational. They might have numerous ideas such as some people being better than others, by genetics, lineage and a host of other reasons and they see it as their right to be above those on the hierarchy.

[Idaho]

There's Marx the economist and sociologist, and there's Marx the communist. While the latter is his own conclusion of the former, you can of course adopt the former without the latter(although I don't think you can adopt communism while rejecting his social analysis).

Marx' academic writings make up a hefty portion of the material in the disiplines he engaged in even today, he is definitely one of the greats. For example, while an economist can create theories of economic growth without employing Marx' focus on production, it's hard to to do so without being aware of that theory's existance(at least its modern form).

Marx's analysis of the capitalist process is still not been bettered in it's scope. His description and prognosis regarding capitalism is as significant now as it ever was. However the prescription of what to do was later, and in my opinion, a weak reflection of the earlier work.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I never assumed the right wasn't rational. They might have numerous ideas such as some people being better than others, by genetics, lineage and a host of other reasons and they see it as their right to be above those on the hierarchy.

You will rarely (if ever) find these ideas in the modern mainstream Right.


Marx's analysis of the capitalist process is still not been bettered in it's scope. His description and prognosis regarding capitalism is as significant now as it ever was. However the prescription of what to do was later, and in my opinion, a weak reflection of the earlier work.

I think the main problem with Marx's predictions was that he didn't see the relationship the Industrialised West would take the on with the rest of the world - through colonialism and the outsourcing of production, the Western bourgeoisie was able to thrive through a foreign proletariat. And this proletariat expressed their grievances in nationalist rather than communist terms because their imperial/industrial rulers were foreign.

One of the main appeals of the Chinese Communist Party was always that they were more nationalist than the Nationalists.

Meanwhile the Western proletariat largely disappeared as a class because they either:

a) rose to middle-class status with the need for an expanded bourgeoisie/service economy due to the massive levels of 3rd World Labour (and they were able to make this transition thanks to better education and other welfare state benefits)

or

b) were unlucky enough not to be able to take advantage of the above, lost their jobs due to outsourcing and the move to a service sector economy in which they had no relevant skills, and devolved into some sort of modern day Lumpenproletariat.

At least that is my theory on what has happened. As for the future, it is hard to tell. I don't see how there can be a communist revolution (or economic/social revolution of some sort) from the 3rd world proletariat, since their only productive forces are useless when they are isolated from the international production chain (their international investors would presumably just relocate), and they lack the infrastructure/technological development to develop their own productive forces.

Which leaves the only prospect for revolution/change coming from the West. But it seems unlikely that revolution can happen there, since the downtrodden class there is actually a minority of the population. And it's not a working-class, it's the benefit-dependent underclass, or what I have been calling them recently, the 'Lumpenproletariat' (hence my user title change not long ago, lol). I think that where Marx viewed the Proletariat as the ultimate expression of capitalist oppression, capitalism has in fact proved more oppressive than he realised. Whereas the proletariat were on the bottom of the class chain, capitalism's excesses have actually meant that it was able to discard a whole class of people and completely remove them from the chain. A people with no stake in society, the economy, or anything. That is what I mean when I talk about a modern Lumpenproletariat.

It would be pretty funny IMO if, after the failure fo the proletariat to deliver a revolution, that the Lumpenproletariat should, at the last, prove to be the true revolutionary class.

But that will only happen if they have enough influence as a class. Currently, they are irrelevant, they don't vote, they don't have a politcal party to express their grievances (the closest party to doing so is the BNP, but these guys lack any vision of where they stand in things, and see themselves as race warriors rather than class warriors, gah!). But I think they will increase a lot in the coming years as the West starts to lose its advantage in the world economy, and Western nations begin to realise they can't always have a large middle-class dependent on third world labour and wealth. That, and the fact that capitalism being what it is, the people that have work are working more, leaving less work for everyone else (I mean, notice how it used to be 9-5, I've been looking for jobs recently and its almost always at least a ten hour day). In fact I look to Japan in this regard, where I looked things up after watching a BBC documentary, and the business model they adopted from a certain American thinker post-WW2 (I am extremely frustrated here not to remember his name or find it) is effectively a model of turbo-capitalism, and what has happened is that a tiny minority of young people are taking the good jobs and working up to 18 hour days to keep them, while the rest are unemployed or working low-paid part-time jobs, unable to marry, or afford their own place to stay. Japan is just a little ahead of the West in this respect, that is the direction we are heading in, look at the number of articles all over the place about how young people here are having an extended teenage experience due to these problems.

So, perhaps Marx jumped the gun with the proletarian revolution, and it is in fact the class that even he despised and looked down upon, the Lumpenproletariat, that will deliver the goods at the end of the day.

Or maybe the technological revolution will prove to be greater than economic ones, and technological advances will have such massive social consequences that they will blow all the above out the water.

Who knows...

[Tellos Athenaios]

One of the main appeals of the Chinese Communist Party was always that they were more nationalist than the Nationalists.
One of the main appeals of the Chinese Communist Party was that at least prior to gaining power they didn't treat the Chinese like shit. They were the first to give the Chinese people, you know the actual people not just some fraction of the elite, the idea that maybe there could be a party that at least didn't get its kicks out of ritual humiliation and exploitation.

[Kralizec]

Since when does right mean liberal in the netherlands?

It doesn't. We have the VVD over here. It's right-wing liberal, largely comparable to the German FDP, and which likes to advertise itself as the liberal party. It's currently the largest party and holds the office of prime-minister at the moment.
We also have a smaller liberal party called D66 (12 seats out of 150 total), sometimes included among the left-wing parties but which really is quite centrist overall. Our resident green party (even smaller) also has some left-liberal themes, but more generally they're a loose coalition of left-leaning idealists.

...

As for the original topic, it's a tough question. If we generalise, the "moderate right-wing" politicians of different countries consist of conservatives and right-liberals. Nationalists as well. But if we want a general overarching term to describe them we'd have to exclude fascists, extreme libertarians and whatnot.

I'd go for the term "pragmatic".

Reason: it's generally how the Right of any given nation likes to advertise themselves. The Right usually argues against perceived "social engineering" of society. Likewise, they often argue against increasing taxes for higher income earners or companies on the grounds that it would be counter-productive. Regardless of the arguments for or against these political positions, it sounds like the common denominator between the various right-wing parties across countries.

[Kralizec]

One of the main appeals of the Chinese Communist Party was that at least prior to gaining power they didn't treat the Chinese like shit. They were the first to give the Chinese people, you know the actual people not just some fraction of the elite, the idea that maybe there could be a party that at least didn't get its kicks out of ritual humiliation and exploitation.

Well, you did say "at least prior to gaining power", so I can't say you're wrong.

Other than that, they gained power mostly because:
1) the KMT took the brunt of the fighting during WW2 against the Japanese
2) the USA didn't like the KMT that much, and didn't support them to any meaningful degree after the war
3) the Soviets did like Mao and his ilk, and did support them

In hindsight, seeing how the Cold War played out, I'm sure that both the US and the USSR regretted their foreign policy in regards to China.

[gaelic cowboy]

In fact I look to Japan in this regard, where I looked things up after watching a BBC documentary, and the business model they adopted from a certain American thinker post-WW2 (I am extremely frustrated here not to remember his name or find it) is effectively a model of turbo-capitalism

Hmm any chance your thinking of Philip Crosby (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_B._Crosby) he coined the idea of Zero Defects (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_Defects)

Or maybe could be W Edwards Deming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming) he was another quality legend in Japan after PDCA (plan–do–check–act or plan–do–check–adjust) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDCA)

Joseph M. Juran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_M._Juran#Japan) "the vital few and the useful many" and he talked on Cost of poor quality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_poor_quality)

These fellas all became legends in Japan for exporting there management and defect control ideas to Japan, the big laugh is that the USA had already invented and used all these in WW2. (and stupidly discarded them after but thats another story)

[Fragony]

@Kraz it is simply not true what you are saying, when people say liberal they mean the VVD. Groenlinks is well, left, and D66 is just coalition-glue without any ideas of their own. Nobody will call either liberal if you ask on the streets.

[Hax]

You mean that you​ won't.

[Fragony]

You mean that you​ won't.

Ha, both GL and D66 are as anti-liberal as my own behaviour on a saturday-night. Within no party is the resistance against binding referenda as big as it is within these 'liberal' parties, nor the absolute support for a monarchy. Greenleft are douchebags, and D66 are self-congratulating intellectualoco's who washed up on a beach somewhere and couldn't find their way back. Only the pirates, freedom party, and libertarians should be able to say the word without getting zapped by god himself

[Ironside]

As for the original topic, it's a tough question. If we generalise, the "moderate right-wing" politicians of different countries consist of conservatives and right-liberals. Nationalists as well. But if we want a general overarching term to describe them we'd have to exclude fascists, extreme libertarians and whatnot.

I'd go for the term "pragmatic".

Reason: it's generally how the Right of any given nation likes to advertise themselves. The Right usually argues against perceived "social engineering" of society. Likewise, they often argue against increasing taxes for higher income earners or companies on the grounds that it would be counter-productive. Regardless of the arguments for or against these political positions, it sounds like the common denominator between the various right-wing parties across countries.

Take 5 minutes and listen to their youth party. Pragmatic isn't exactly the word to describe them.
Besides, removing the extremes are probably a poor idea to get to the core. The commies are "more equal than others", but you can still see that equality is a driving force, even in an unequal dictorship.

Masculine and feminine has some points (fascism in particular has a very strong specific masculism, which you can often see in modern ring-wing populist parties as well), but I don't think it's all of it. The left isn't very feminine for example. It's possible it has to do more with gender roles. The right is more prone to men got their place, females got theirs, while the left is more blurry when it comes to that.

Fragony, the left are prone to root for the underdog. In the west, islam is more of an underdog than feminism currently, which is why the priorities can look odd.

The right is often fond of lowering taxes. Outside it being rich people's influence, I'm thinking it has more to with a disagreement on who and what the money is spent on rather than the taxing itself. Agreed, or it that a wrong assumption?

The role and nature of the state differs a lot between the right and the left.

The right has traditionalism (in it broadest sense) and nationalism as two major driving forces. It was those two I was thinking about when placing values as the common denominator, which also fit other common right-wing traits. Any other big descriptions that fit the right very well?

[Fragony]

I also put nationalism at #1 in my first post, no disagreement there

Edit, your assumption is right by the way

[Kralizec]

@Kraz it is simply not true what you are saying, when people say liberal they mean the VVD. Groenlinks is well, left, and D66 is just coalition-glue without any ideas of their own. Nobody will call either liberal if you ask on the streets.

The VVD has, with some success, tried to monopolise the label "liberal". Nevertheless, if we look at the political ideology of D66 (and a few members of the Greens), they certainly qualify for the label.


Ha, both GL and D66 are as anti-liberal as my own behaviour on a saturday-night. Within no party is the resistance against binding referenda as big as it is within these 'liberal' parties, nor the absolute support for a monarchy. Greenleft are douchebags, and D66 are self-congratulating intellectualoco's who washed up on a beach somewhere and couldn't find their way back. Only the pirates, freedom party, and libertarians should be able to say the word without getting zapped by god himself

Support for the monarchy?
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

The only part that's even more against the monarchy is the Socialist Party.

You have a point about the referendum.

The pirates, the freedom party (assuming you mean the PVV) and libertarians are living jokes, and should be zapped by god himself for saying any word whatsoever.


Take 5 minutes and listen to their youth party. Pragmatic isn't exactly the word to describe them.
Besides, removing the extremes are probably a poor idea to get to the core. The commies are "more equal than others", but you can still see that equality is a driving force, even in an unequal dictorship.

Which youth party?

I was talking about general rethoric and how right-wing parties tend to advertise themselves. Personally I find it hard to find any other common denominator for right-wing movements.

Pragmatic - wether they are (classical) liberals or conservatives, right-wing parties tend to advertise themselves as the ones who're willing to take the "tough decisions", to do what's necessary to keep the economy running in good shape. Even for classic Italian fascism the label applies, since their economic policies were of a mixed character and not dictated by strict ideological views, and publicly claimed to be the "third way" besides capitalism and socialism.
I admit that the term doesn't capture all parties and movements as there are some right-wing groups which advocate strictly ideological positions (i.e. the tea party), but I think it covers most of the moderate right-wingers.

I don't think "values" is a good term because without an adjective the term is meaningless. Liberals and conservatives generally don't agree on socio-political issues (gay marriage, euthanesia etc.) but often have a common economic agenda. On the other hand, there are also socially-conservative movements that are included among the right which have populist ideas when it comes to economic policies.

[Fragony]

Yes absolute support for the monarchy, they belong to the inner circle that benefits from appointings from the crown despite the lack of democratic musscle, especially judges and mayors. They may once have been against monarchy, but there isn't anything in D66 that is in concert with it's founding principles, fashion item for self-cngratulating NRC-next readers. D66 even came with the proposel to name a gracht in the name of Willim de Snelle (damschreuwer, prins zoef, gaat ie met kilo aan medailles, kan zo aan de slag op een italiaanse cruise) in honour of his abdication

[Ironside]

Which youth party?

All of them? I would classify most if not all youth parties in Sweden as scary. The reason is because they're running full on ideals and nothing on the pragmatism.


I was talking about general rethoric and how right-wing parties tend to advertise themselves. Personally I find it hard to find any other common denominator for right-wing movements.

You find any good clear cuts to divide it further then?


Pragmatic - wether they are (classical) liberals or conservatives, right-wing parties tend to advertise themselves as the ones who're willing to take the "tough decisions", to do what's necessary to keep the economy running in good shape. Even for classic Italian fascism the label applies, since their economic policies were of a mixed character and not dictated by strict ideological views, and publicly claimed to be the "third way" besides capitalism and socialism.
I admit that the term doesn't capture all parties and movements as there are some right-wing groups which advocate strictly ideological positions (i.e. the tea party), but I think it covers most of the moderate right-wingers.

A wish for "Tough decisions" fits better then pragmatism in that case. Long running ruling parties are often pragmatic by experience and moderation through pragmatism is quite normal for any party.


I don't think "values" is a good term because without an adjective the term is meaningless. Liberals and conservatives generally don't agree on socio-political issues (gay marriage, euthanesia etc.) but often have a common economic agenda. On the other hand, there are also socially-conservative movements that are included among the right which have populist ideas when it comes to economic policies.

It's not fully the values themselves (albeit words like moral is very, very common) but rather the relation to them. A stronger wish for unity at the cost of a larger condemnation towards those who breaks this unity. Village mentality.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Or maybe could be W Edwards Deming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming) he was another quality legend in Japan after PDCA (plan–do–check–act or plan–do–check–adjust) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDCA)

Ah, it was Deming, thanks for that. :bow:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Marx' critique of capitalism as practiced in the early middle 1800s is a powerful commentary. Child labor, 70-hour weeks, company stores etc. were all, ultimately, exploitative to the point of being abusive. Nor was "informed consent" really possible for the labor force of the era.

With his emphasis on the dialectic as the sweeping tool for explaining history, however, Marx falls into a classic trap of academic thinking -- failing to account for change and/or the impact of his own critique. Capitalism, for Marx, had to continue to act as some great ogre and be felled by violence to yield the radiant future. He never really accounted for reasonable people thinking, "yes, there is some abuse and it needs to stop. Now how do we improve things without tossing out the child along with the dirty water." Its a variation on the "either-or" fallacy to assume that things will either change the way/direction you think they should or they will never change. Marx is FAR from alone in this flaw to his thinking. It is a hallmark of academe.

Really, Marx could stand as a poster child for the entire critical project. They can and do expose flaws and gross inequitites in the current modus vivendi, but they generally screw up by the numbers when trying to "answer" the problems identified by their critique.

[HopAlongBunny]

Seamus and Gelatinous display an interesting point. Yes capitalism reformed, so the inevitable violent overthrow was unnecessary; Marx was wrong in marking revolution as necessary. But did capitalism "reform" or was it just pushed to change its tactics where regulations were imposed?

Where regulations do not exist or are not enforced, the capitalist enterprise is a fair reflection of exactly what they were in the 1800's; child labour, working hours in the 80+ range, no health and safety considerations...etc. Does capitalism reform or merely adjust to the "situation on the ground" and follow only what directives it must?

[HoreTore]

That the third world is poor makes is relatively rich. If the potential in the third world was released, and that part was as productive as the first world, our relative wealth would shrink, while our absolute wealth would increase.

It's a fallacy that one mans riches depend on another mans misfortune. One man being raised from poverty to riches benefits everyone else too. A poor man is an unproductive man; an unproductive man is a waste of valuable resources. And our wealth is upheld by human resources, not natural resources.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Militant Communism... would certainly serve third world countries who are under the yoke of western corporations and puppet governments supported by western interests and governments.

I don't think militant communism would help those countries much. By Marx's own words, they lack the developments that would, in theory, allow a socialist system to work in the first place. In the end they would probably go down a Mugabe-style road.


With his emphasis on the dialectic as the sweeping tool for explaining history, however, Marx falls into a classic trap of academic thinking -- failing to account for change and/or the impact of his own critique. Capitalism, for Marx, had to continue to act as some great ogre and be felled by violence to yield the radiant future. He never really accounted for reasonable people thinking, "yes, there is some abuse and it needs to stop. Now how do we improve things without tossing out the child along with the dirty water." Its a variation on the "either-or" fallacy to assume that things will either change the way/direction you think they should or they will never change. Marx is FAR from alone in this flaw to his thinking. It is a hallmark of academe.

I think these things are true of certain Marxists, but not Marx himself. He was well aware of (and had plenty of dialogue with) a whole host of people and movements that attempted to address the abuses of capitalism without resorting to violent revolution. In his writings, he frequently addresses the likes of the Saint-Simonians, Owenites, Chartists etc. In fact, the latter example there is particularly significant, since Marx himself said that unlike in Europe, Britain's suffrage laws would allow for the working-classes to achieve real political representation through a democratic system. Marx wasn't the blinkered radical many of hs followers became.

[Rhyfelwyr]

And our wealth is upheld by human resources, not natural resources.

I remember you saying something similar to this before - you realise that you are taking a distinctly un-Marxist approach here?

Marx argued that fertile land was akin to capital, the very source of all bourgeois wealth, and also called natural resources were in themselves a means of production (he used fish as an example here, IIRC).

[HoreTore]

I remember you saying something similar to this before - you realise that you are taking a distinctly un-Marxist approach here?

Marx argued that fertile land was akin to capital, the very source of all bourgeois wealth, and also called natural resources were in themselves a means of production (he used fish as an example here, IIRC).

I do, and that's an objection I have with several other 18th/19th century economists(like Smith).

Marx does have a focus on production over trade though, which is what I take from him.

[HoreTore]

Exactly! So, then, Marx was correct: until the entirety of the human race has moved beyond the need to exploit others for personal gain (as a first option, by preference!) Capitalism is a flawed institution. I'll agree with you, HoreTore, that this can be better fixed by the first world having some sort of ethical socialist enlightenment that is non-violent, but from the point of view of those living in, say, Latin America, a militant communist revolution surely seems like a good idea. I certainly can't blame them.

Might I offer the scandinavian model to the world? ~;)

A little exploitation is fine by me, really. There must be a certain degree of inequality, as there must be a reward for progress. The key for me is the degree. You can say it's wrong for the capitalist to take 99 dollars for every 100 dollars produced by his worker, but that doesn't mean you automatically have to hold the opinion that the capitalist should gain nothing and be removed. It's possible to want the worker to keep 5, 10, 50 or 70 dollars without favouring a bloody revolution and complete overthrow of society.

You don't have to see things as either black or white if you don't want to.

As for the third world, my opinion is that they must be allowed to develop their own industrial sector, instead of depending on natural resources and outsourcing. Nor can they have just any industry, they must have the kind of industry that gives innovation and high wages(ie they need to produce golf balls instead of baseballs). I would of course prefer it happening through democracy, but China is a clear example that it can be done outside democracy. Basically, the third world needs to do what we did in the 50's and 60's, with toll barriers and heavy state involvement. The biggest problem as I see it, is that we do not allow the third world to follow the policies that made us rich, they are forced to follow the policies we employed after we got rich.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Might I offer the scandinavian model to the world? ~;)

A little exploitation is fine by me, really. There must be a certain degree of inequality, as there must be a reward for progress. The key for me is the degree. You can say it's wrong for the capitalist to take 99 dollars for every 100 dollars produced by his worker, but that doesn't mean you automatically have to hold the opinion that the capitalist should gain nothing and be removed. It's possible to want the worker to keep 5, 10, 50 or 70 dollars without favouring a bloody revolution and complete overthrow of society.

IMO that is an inadequte response to the issue. The redistribution of wealth will only reduce material inequality. What you need is the redistribution of the means on production.

Marx obviously wanted the means of production placed under the state's control, but I disagree with this. It would be much better to give every individual a portion of the means of production, whether it be in the form of land, natural resources, or productive resources. Since wealth is generated by the means of production, this would reduce material inequality in the same way redistributing wealth more directly would. But it would also have much greater social implications - it would end the alienation of the worker from his labour, end the social divisions of the employer/employed, and give every worker a reason to invest in and improve his work (since he would no longer simply earn whatever was given him).

[HoreTore]

IMO that is an inadequte response to the issue. The redistribution of wealth will only reduce material inequality. What you need is the redistribution of the means on production.

Marx obviously wanted the means of production placed under the state's control, but I disagree with this. It would be much better to give every individual a portion of the means of production, whether it be in the form of land, natural resources, or productive resources. Since wealth is generated by the means of production, this would reduce material inequality in the same way redistributing wealth more directly would. But it would also have much greater social implications - it would end the alienation of the worker from his labour, end the social divisions of the employer/employed, and give every worker a reason to invest in and improve his work (since he would no longer simply earn whatever was given him).

My response to that is:

Why not do both, to some degree?

[Rhyfelwyr]

My response to that is:

Why not do both, to some degree?

Well, why take half-measures?

What I'm advocating is a lot more practical than socialism, since changes can be implemented within existing businesses, rathern than having to abolish them. We even have some precedents for this sort of system, so it's not just some outlandish or idealistic theory. Waitrose, John Lewis etc... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lewis_Partnership)

[HoreTore]

Well, why take half-measures?

when taken to their extreme, most ideologies tend to be mutually exclusive. Our current system has its benefits, I think we should try to keep them.

Alienation is a major problem, not just for social reasons, but for productivity as well. But if the worker keeps more of the produce of his labour, will that not lower his feelings of alienation?

[a completely inoffensive name]

I don't agree with using the word "values" to describe right wing ideology at all. In fact I think a lot of the words tossed around have been garbage.

Values is not exclusive to the right. All beliefs stem from values. There are basic premises that everyone picks for themselves to base their view of reality on that they chose to believe in. That there is merit in them and that they have value.

I was going to actually list the other words here but then realized many came out from Tiaexz's butt, by which I mean most of what he has said is ****.

After a little thinking of my own, the best word I could come up with to describe right wing ideology is continuity. The best word to describe left wing ideology is progression. To elaborate upon this, I want to clarify that continuity does not exclude change and progression does not entail progress. In a sense they seem like synonyms which accurately describe the end goal of all parties involved, which is to achieve some state in society that is better than what we have experienced in the past (looking back fondly on the past by conservatives doesn't violate this, they simply are looking even further back to even worse times in their view). But more obviously, if you view things as a two dimensional plot with time as the x axis and "liberty/freedom" as the y axis, the leftist has no problem with drawing a piece wise function but the rightist wants to see a continuous function across the entire domain.

[Fragony]

Not progression but idealism, misguided idealism I would say. It's idealism that makes the left fall absolutely in love with an ultra-conservative desert-ideoligy because they think they can do it better

[a completely inoffensive name]

Not progression but idealism, misguided idealism I would say. It's idealism that makes the left fall absolutely in love with an ultra-conservative desert-ideoligy because they think they can do it better

The modern US libertarian is nothing but idealism in raw, youthful, misguided form. It doesn't work Frag, sorry.

[Fragony]

The modern US libertarian is nothing but idealism in raw, youthful, misguided form. It doesn't work Frag, sorry.

Sure that's also idealism, I consider myself to be a libertarian but know it's impossible. Going for 'as much as can be done realistically'. Something the left should also do

[a completely inoffensive name]

Sure that's also idealism, I consider myself to be a libertarian but know it's impossible. Going for 'as much as can be done realistically'. Something the left should also do

What says they don't? What can be done realistically is different depending on your measurements. It may seem silly in hindsight to think that large numbers of Muslims would be able to integrate into Western European society and culture, but before multiculturalism began it's all a mystery as to the what if.

[HoreTore]

What says they don't?

Don't take away Frag's homemade image of what "the left" is about.

"Take away a man's life-lie, and you take away his life".

[Fragony]

What says they don't? What can be done realistically is different depending on your measurements. It may seem silly in hindsight to think that large numbers of Muslims would be able to integrate into Western European society and culture, but before multiculturalism began it's all a mystery as to the what if.

But multiculturalism is idealism, the left thought they could build a perfect society, integrating islam is nothing but a challenge for hardcore lefties. They never question the idea itself, es muss sein

[a completely inoffensive name]

But multiculturalism is idealism, the left thought they could build a perfect society, integrating islam is nothing but a challenge for hardcore lefties. They never question the idea itself, es muss sein

You are still missing the point through Frag. Both the right and left have idealism prominent within them. You could maybe argue that the left exhibits this characteristic quality more openly but you can not say that idealism is a unique one word description of the left.

[Fragony]

You are still missing the point through Frag. Both the right and left have idealism prominent within them. You could maybe argue that the left exhibits this characteristic quality more openly but you can not say that idealism is a unique one word description of the left.

Of course it isn't. Other ideals though, the right values individualism and the left collectivism. Both are ideals, but if you ask me who is more uncompromising about it or even physically violent I won't have to think very long

[Kralizec]

Marx' critique of capitalism as practiced in the early middle 1800s is a powerful commentary. Child labor, 70-hour weeks, company stores etc. were all, ultimately, exploitative to the point of being abusive. Nor was "informed consent" really possible for the labor force of the era.

With his emphasis on the dialectic as the sweeping tool for explaining history, however, Marx falls into a classic trap of academic thinking -- failing to account for change and/or the impact of his own critique. Capitalism, for Marx, had to continue to act as some great ogre and be felled by violence to yield the radiant future. He never really accounted for reasonable people thinking, "yes, there is some abuse and it needs to stop. Now how do we improve things without tossing out the child along with the dirty water." Its a variation on the "either-or" fallacy to assume that things will either change the way/direction you think they should or they will never change. Marx is FAR from alone in this flaw to his thinking. It is a hallmark of academe.

Really, Marx could stand as a poster child for the entire critical project. They can and do expose flaws and gross inequitites in the current modus vivendi, but they generally screw up by the numbers when trying to "answer" the problems identified by their critique.

I never read Marx' works myself, but I did read a modest amount about his ideas in secondary sources, and in the past I argued a lot with bona fide marxist on another internet forum I used to visit (incidentally, that was also primarily a gaming forum).

What I understand is that in Marx' view, the political developments are entirely dictated by underlying economic factors. "Ideologies" (a term he coined) like liberalism and conservatism were just smoke and mirrors as far as he were concerned. His economic theory on the other hand, was not an ideology but a scientific theory. According to him.

As you say, he did not believe that the capitalist mode of production could give concession after concession in regards to child labour, safety standards for workers etc. It goes against the direction that the capitalist mode of production dictates, and therefore such a strategy would only enhance the tensions in the end. Related, but more fundamentally: he did not foresee that in the political systems which existed then (and largely endure to this day) universal suffrage would be possible.

Communists/socialist writers after him have pointed out that he was wrong in that, and argue that the "capitalist elite" gave the lower classes voting rights, as well as social security and whatnot (Bismarck's introduction of social security for 65+ seniors in Germany is an often cited example) in order to diminish the likelyhood of a socialist revolution. And there is a kernel of truth in that.

Lenin was, I think, in many ways a very perceptive man. The reason why he thought a "worker's vanguard" (i.e. the Party) would be necessary was because the populace at large would never advance beyond what he called "trade union consciousness" in a system that was too democratic. They would simply settle for fair wages, decent safety standards and so on and not pursue a truly socialist/communist society.

[Furunculus]

Right = Racial Superiority, Economic Superiority, Patriarchal Superiority, National Superiority, Religious Superiority...
There is no equality in the right, only inequality.

i'm disappointed Tiaexz, you really need to read the Righteous Mind by Haidt.

i consider myself firmly on the right and yet cannot recognise the above as any value-set i would ascribe too.

[Fragony]

i'm disappointed Tiaexz, you really need to read the Righteous Mind by Haidt.

i consider myself firmly on the right and yet cannot recognise the above as any value-set i would ascribe too.

I don't understand the verdict either, wall-post required

[Beskar]

i'm disappointed Tiaexz, you really need to read the Righteous Mind by Haidt.

i consider myself firmly on the right and yet cannot recognise the above as any value-set i would ascribe too.

If it means anything, I don't consider you under any of those terms or considered you that kind of 'Right'. I would describe it as more you mislabelling yourself, which makes you more 'Wrong'.

I couldn't resist...

But best way to see left-right in my opinion is the distribution of power. Are people more equal (left) or are they more inequal (right).

[Fragony]

Why would anyone want more inequality, unless one is a total psychopath.

[Greyblades]

This is baseless conjecture that I pieced together from reading these forums, but I think those who want inequality are people who think they would benefit from inequality.

A good percentage of the USA's republicans', and UK's conservatives for that matter, voters are the rich who want power over everyone else and the middle class who want there to be as many benefits as possible so they can enjoy them when they become super rich themselves.

That most of them will fail and in the process have propped up they same people trying to keep them in thier place makes it kinda sad really

[Husar]

Why would anyone want more inequality, unless one is a total psychopath.

Why would anyone not want more inequality as long as they end up on top?

[Fragony]

Why would anyone not want more inequality as long as they end up on top?

I won't deny that some people have such a mindset, but I don't think that can't be attributed to either spectrum. See it like this, is it fair to tax someone who makes a million with the same percentage as someone who makes 50.000. Does he get anything extra for it or is he just forced into paying more for the exact same thing? Lefties want his money because he has more of it, and that's about it. The guy who makes a million gets nothing extra in return, so how is it justified in any way.

[Husar]

I won't deny that some people have such a mindset, but I don't think that can't be attributed to either spectrum.
It's a human thing and it is present in all of us. That's why I try to get above you all the time, honey.


See it like this, is it fair to tax someone who makes a million with the same percentage as someone who makes 50.000. Does he get anything extra for it or is he just forced into paying more for the exact same thing? Lefties want his money because he has more of it, and that's about it. The guy who makes a million gets nothing extra in return, so how is it justified in any way.
What? The guy who makes a million gets a lot extra, of course it's fair to use the same percentage, it's even fair to use a slightly higher percentage. If you make 50000 a year and pay 10% tax you have 45000 left, if you pay 10% of a million you have 900000 left, that's more.

If you want to discuss a really moral question in this regard then let's discuss how it can be that people who work hard every day to dispose our waste, a vital service for any functioning city society, can get a really low income. And where is the additional value in the work of someone who works maybe a few hours more a week but earns a million a year? They say because he's the only one who can really do the job but then when he fails and the company goes down he gets even more money, so how is that justified? If managers were paid for their performance, they shouldn't get anything for failing and there shouldn't be companies in bad shape that pay their managers a lot of money.

Some say managers get a lot of money because they have a lot of responsibility but then in many cases they are not held responsible if they're high enough in the food chain. The least thing they can do is pay a percentage of their earnings to society, like anyone else does.
And these high earners can still afford a lot more than low earners because the percentage of their income that is taken up by expenses such as food and other things vital for life is lower. And it's probably still lower even if they dine at expensive restaurants.

There's nothing unfair about taxing people at the same percentage. In the worst case it's unfair to the low earner because if you tax him at 35% like the high earner, he lacks the money to buy food or pay his rent. That's why taxes go up if you earn more in the first place, because your basic needs become easier to satisfy if you earn more and as such you are able to pay more taxes easily and still having more money at the end of the day than lower earners.

And the benefits of paying high taxes are better education, better infrastructure and so on. People who earn more and thus pay a higher total amount in taxes benefit from that because they still have a lot of money left which they can and do invest into businesses and other activities which benefit from these improvements in infrastructure and education.
Additionally one could say that taxes are a way to give back to society for putting you in such a good position in the first place because no matter how hard you worked for it, not everyone who works really hard achieves a high position. I heard some people are even turned down because others don't like their name, regardless of how good their work is. So don't tell me it's all about your own work.

[Fragony]

'There's nothing unfair about taxing people at the same percentage'

There is imo because people who earn more are still stuck in the same traffic jams, just like people who earn less are, but they have to cough up hundrends of thousands instead of thousands. The government should establish a better quid pro quo if they want more money. And it really doesn't apply for me myself I won't benefit from it. Better to stop wasting tax-money on prestige projects like the EU, immigration and development-aid for dictatorships. Should save us a few, or better a lot, of billions.

[Husar]

There is imo because people who earn more are still stuck in the same traffic jams, just like people who earn less are, but they have to cough up hundrends of thousands instead of thousands.

And people who earn less are still stuck working eight hours or more a day while they only get thousands instead of hundreds of thousands of Euros a year, how is that fair then? If someone gets a million a year for working ten hours a day then if I get only 100k a year I should only have to work one hour a day, right?



The government should establish a better quid pro quo if they want more money. And it really doesn't apply for me myself I won't benefit from it. Better to stop wasting tax-money on prestige projects like the EU, immigration and development-aid for dictatorships. Should save us a few, or better a lot, of billions.

Why don't we just dissolve the governments completely? Why do we even have governments? It's almost like things constantly deteriorated since the Stone Age.

[Fragony]

And people who earn less are still stuck working eight hours or more a day while they only get thousands instead of hundreds of thousands of Euros a year, how is that fair then? If someone gets a million a year for working ten hours a day then if I get only 100k a year I should only have to work one hour a day, right?




Why don't we just dissolve the governments completely? Why do we even have governments? It's almost like things constantly deteriorated since the Stone Age.

Dissolving the government is kinda the point. Do you need any government to feel pity for the bum on the street. You will probably dress up your humanity in christianity when asked why you give him a few coins but that doesn't rid us of what is inheritantly wrong in the first place. And yes that's absolutely a stupid thing to say as it won't work. But getting as close as possible isn't such a bad thing.

[Husar]

Dissolving the government is kinda the point. Do you need any government to feel pity for the bum on the street. You will probably dress up your humanity in christianity when asked why you give him a few coins but that doesn't rid us of what is inheritantly wrong in the first place. And yes that's absolutely a stupid thing to say as it won't work. But getting as close as possible isn't such a bad thing.

If you believe that fewer laws are a good thing you might as well believe in Santa Clause. Take the horse meat as a simple example, without laws and controls the companies wouldn't even have to declare what's supposed to be inside a lasagne and noone would stop them from selling you harmful, cheap stuff because I doubt you have the chemical knowledge to find out for yourself. And the problem is that this does not apply just to lasagne but to almost every field and aspect of life. If your laws are simple, they are abused by almost everyone because as we established earlier, people always want to get an advantage over other people.
At some point in history humans figured out having a central body that regulates life a bit to make it more fair and stop people from bashing eachother's head in over issues is a good idea. Making things simple doesn't work for the same reason communism doesn't work: human nature.
You can base your laws on common sense and interpretation but then you need courts to replace all the government you just removed because these courts will have to decide about all these little issues and interpretation problems that come up, else you just get a ton of abuse and interpretation for people's own advantage.

See the american constitution, it's not very detailed and people discuss it endlessly and just the second amendment keeps people and courts busy as it can be interpreted in at least a dozen different ways. The result is that you have half-bans, full bans, no bans depending on where in America you go and everybody thinks their interpretation is correct. Additionally you have conflict and people who threaten to kill or sue anyone who seriously challenges their interpretation. I'm not sure that's a desirable situation for every single aspect of life in a society.

Americans are proud to have such an interpretation-heavy system of laws, yet loathe the amount of lawyers and legal bickering as well as the stupidity like having to write "Warning! Hot!" onto a coffee mug, but can you really have one without the other as long as humans are involved?

[Fragony]

It's no road to perfection it's a flawed idea. But it's a flawed idea that is better then other flawed ideas. There is a lot wrong with it, no question there I will admit any but it's still a better idea

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That the third world is poor makes is relatively rich. If the potential in the third world was released, and that part was as productive as the first world, our relative wealth would shrink, while our absolute wealth would increase.

It's a fallacy that one mans riches depend on another mans misfortune. One man being raised from poverty to riches benefits everyone else too. A poor man is an unproductive man; an unproductive man is a waste of valuable resources. And our wealth is upheld by human resources, not natural resources.

Specifically, our purchasing power would fall whilst the cost of goods would rise (more demand for the same product). As a result, our economic prosperity overall would diminish, even as our numerical "wealth" increased.

It also IS true that you can only get rich off the backs of others - economics is trade, getting wealthy using trade means buying low and selling high - creating a surplus from the transaction which you can then use for something else.

[Husar]

It's no road to perfection it's a flawed idea. But it's a flawed idea that is better then other flawed ideas. There is a lot wrong with it, no question there I will admit any but it's still a better idea

You think spending half your life in courtrooms because anytime you clash with someone over anything the issue has to go to court is a better idea? Or do you prefer the approach where you have to fight your neighbors to the death over who gets that tree between the two houses?

[HoreTore]

Specifically, our purchasing power would fall whilst the cost of goods would rise (more demand for the same product). As a result, our economic prosperity overall would diminish, even as our numerical "wealth" increased.

It also IS true that you can only get rich off the backs of others - economics is trade, getting wealthy using trade means buying low and selling high - creating a surplus from the transaction which you can then use for something else.

Hah! Not likely.

You can't "sell high" unless you've got a buyer. The richer people get, the more buyers we get. We also get a lot more products, since ore people are producing stuff, thus decreasing costs.

The zero-sum game is the greatest lie told in history. Henry Ford proved that beyond doubt.

[Husar]

The zero-sum game is the greatest lie told in history. Henry Ford proved that beyond doubt.

I (dis)agree. It's true that everyone can become richer and have more by trading, but in the human mind it's still a zero sum game because we rate ourselves in relation to others. I won't be highly regarded for having a yacht if everybody else has 5 yachts because in that case a yacht is not a sign that sets me apart as being rich and successful. In fact with that one yacht I might count as poor in my country because the value that makes you poor is set to be when you earn less than 1/5th the average wage or something like that, it's not a hard value. So overall you may be fine but that doesn't mean you will be happy or regarded as worthy as long as you don't have more than most others.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Hah! Not likely.

You can't "sell high" unless you've got a buyer. The richer people get, the more buyers we get. We also get a lot more products, since ore people are producing stuff, thus decreasing costs.

The zero-sum game is the greatest lie told in history. Henry Ford proved that beyond doubt.

No because:


I (dis)agree. It's true that everyone can become richer and have more by trading, but in the human mind it's still a zero sum game because we rate ourselves in relation to others. I won't be highly regarded for having a yacht if everybody else has 5 yachts because in that case a yacht is not a sign that sets me apart as being rich and successful. In fact with that one yacht I might count as poor in my country because the value that makes you poor is set to be when you earn less than 1/5th the average wage or something like that, it's not a hard value. So overall you may be fine but that doesn't mean you will be happy or regarded as worthy as long as you don't have more than most others.

This.

Beyond that - you're talking about luxury gifts, XBoxes, TV's... Try looking at bread, in a lot of Western countries you have families with two TV's who struggle to feed themselves. This is the same as last time, where you fall back on possessions rather than essentials like food and fuel. THOSE things always have a buyer, and the seller always looses out until it gets to retail where the merchant makes a profit. You forget, I grew up in farming, if the Western world is so bloody marvelous and we're all so wealthy why do most farmers need to be subsudised?

I'll tell you why, because the merchants buy low and sell high, they extract more than their fair share and make the rest of us poorer.

[HoreTore]

I (dis)agree. It's true that everyone can become richer and have more by trading, but in the human mind it's still a zero sum game because we rate ourselves in relation to others. I won't be highly regarded for having a yacht if everybody else has 5 yachts because in that case a yacht is not a sign that sets me apart as being rich and successful. In fact with that one yacht I might count as poor in my country because the value that makes you poor is set to be when you earn less than 1/5th the average wage or something like that, it's not a hard value. So overall you may be fine but that doesn't mean you will be happy or regarded as worthy as long as you don't have more than most others.

I'm a commie, since when did peoples happiness matter to me?

All that matters is material improvment. Nothing else.

(and I'm not really joking either)


And you do agree with my previous posts btw, my statement was that relative wealth would decrease, while increasing absolute wealth, which is what you described in your post ~:)

As for PVC; my standard example on economic matters is the farmer-miller-baker-example. When I have I talked about non-essential items? I've also made the point that depending on resources(like farming) makes you poor, while depending on industry(including trading) makes you rich. Why are you arguing against me, really?

And one last thing: farmers should quit their non-stop whining. Not really relevant to this discussion, but I think it should be said more often.

[HoreTore]

I think you're all wrong.

Don't you make me fall in love with you :sweetheart:

I have no objection to the rest of your post though. I'm a reformist socialist after all. I want to expand on what you wrote though: the problem isn't just "the perfect system"(utopia), I believe even wanting a perfect system is a negative. The goal should be "workable with more pro's than con's, and in need of constant improvement" IMO.


Again: I humbly offer the Scandinavian model to the world :smash: Talk to the Danes and Finns, they've done it without oil!

[HoreTore]

We have a fundamental difference then! I believe a perfect system can be achieved, but that such a system can only be brought on by the vast bulk of the people making a conscious choice to be less ignorant, less trusting of government, and far hungrier for the truth. Perhaps most importantly, people would need to become wise--by which I mean they would have to learn to abandon their own viewpoints, and examine the world as though it was the first time they had ever seen it. The economics are of no consequence (although I personally would prefer a Socialist system similar to the Scandinavian model), because a nation run by good people will make good decisions.

So the real question becomes, how do you make good people?

Fundamental difference? Perhaps not...

This perfect system you talk of, how badly do you want it? Do you want it to the point of forcing it through? Do you want it so badly as to completely disregard the current society as "unworkable"(or similar)?

If your answer to those two are "no", and you also prefer a gradual(reformist) change instead of sudden(revolutionary) change, our views are pretty much aligned I'd say. I agree with your paraphrasing of Montesquieu(how could I disagree with the French?), but I also believe that the virtues he believed in are ones we already possess, as our democracies are rock-solid and have endured a centuries already...

[HoreTore]

I would not call it unworkable, but I would call it inadequate. I think the entire system in this country needs an overhaul, from the bottom to the top and the top to the bottom. However, I also believe in non-violence (except for self-defense, of course), and I also believe that you can't just tell people what to do. From an ethical point of view, I find as much fault with our system as any in the history of the world. The reason it is tolerated is because we've all been bought off by trinkets and stuff. The left vs. right economic argument is nothing but quibbling over things and how best to distribute them. I think that argument is inconsequential when compared to the bigger problem of people being greedy assholes.

Well, then we differ again ~;)

I wouldn't go so strongly against the status quo, but then again we do live in different countries, so that may be the difference... Also, my world-view centers around the economical aspects in society... I'm a material man. You others are hippies.

[HoreTore]

Don't get me wrong, I like living comfortably. Even though I'm below the poverty line right now, my needs are more than met. Capitalism has its benefits, and material things are totally required for a good life. The problem is when the quest for more things (or even Capital, if you will...) overtakes respect for the Golden Rule.

When I want to improve the material standard, it is not because of the material itself, but rather the things that come with it. Longer life spans, higher education, space colonization and so on.

And spread as evenly as possible, of course. No point having one guy living to be 120 while everyone else dies at 50...