It could be in the History forum

[al Roumi]

Also, since the left is closer to anarchy, and the right is closer to totalitarianism...

Its not quite such a simple sliding scale now is it.

[Beskar]

Its not quite such a simple sliding scale now is it.

In the historical sense, it was. For example, the Spanish Civil War.

Spanish Anarchists (on the left) versus Conservative Dictatorship led by Franco (on the right)
Libertarian Forces versus Authoritative Forces

Further to the left meant more liberty, more freedoms, rights, and measures against authority, such as the separation of powers, to the point to basically anarchy, in the sense of no authoritative forces.
Further to the right meant more restrictions of freedoms, rights, and measures of authority, such as enforcement of serfdom, feudal rights, totalitarian powers.

The rise of the left in Europe resulted in the breakdown of many monarchies and feudal states into constitutional monarchies (such as Britain), Republics (such as France), etc.

Communism in those stages meant something else compared to the USSR, which was a left-backed revolution which was perverted from within. More accurate version of Communism would be the Paris Commune or the Communist forces of Spain. Since the USSR was perverted by ursurper powers from within, it shifted across to the other side of the spectrum and onto the right, and kept the name as merely a guise.

This gets more confusing in international debates as America has this perverse scale based on economics and not authority.

[Rhyfelwyr]

In the historical sense, it was. For example, the Spanish Civil War.

Spanish Anarchists (on the left) versus Conservative Dictatorship led by Franco (on the right)
Libertarian Forces versus Authoritative Forces

This is only one particular example, and even then I think you are simplifying things too much. The Spanish Republicans were a mix of everything from anarchists to authoritarian communists (some groups even taking orders from Moscow), to nationalists that wanted freedom from Madrid.

Further to the left meant more liberty, more freedoms, rights, and measures against authority, such as the separation of powers, to the point to basically anarchy, in the sense of no authoritative forces.
Further to the right meant more restrictions of freedoms, rights, and measures of authority, such as enforcement of serfdom, feudal rights, totalitarian powers.

But only when talking about the situation in Spain. The exact opposite is true in other cases.

I'm not trying to drive the line that people on the left want big government and want to steal our freedoms. The point is just that the left and right have at different times stood for authoritarian measures, and other times they haven't.

Probably the thing that confuses this issue most is the fact we put market liberals and fascists under the one label of being 'right-wing'. Remember, to people in the 30's/40's, fascism was seen as the 'third way' to drive a middle ground between the excesses of communism/capitalism.

The rise of the left in Europe resulted in the breakdown of many monarchies and feudal states into constitutional monarchies (such as Britain), Republics (such as France), etc.

In what way could the events of the seventeenth century in Britain be said to have been lead by the left? There was no such things at that time (apart from fringe groups). Even Marxist historians portray Britian's constitutional monarchy as a result of a bourgeoisie revolution.

Communism in those stages meant something else compared to the USSR, which was a left-backed revolution which was perverted from within. More accurate version of Communism would be the Paris Commune or the Communist forces of Spain. Since the USSR was perverted by ursurper powers from within, it shifted across to the other side of the spectrum and onto the right, and kept the name as merely a guise.

While some people might apply to no true Scotsman fallacy here, I tihink you have a fair point. However, I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation of what communism is. Marx called for a lot of measures that seem out of touch with your views on the left and individual liberty, for example he called for the extermination of minority ethnic groups that might be anti-revolutionary. He was also very critical of the more moderate forms of socialism and even the likes of Robert Owen (might actually have been Engels that spoke out against him) since he thought they only delayed the revolution.

This gets more confusing in international debates as America has this perverse scale based on economics and not authority.

I would say ideology is the best way to measure things, and even then it would require far more than one straight line from left-right. I don't even know why we feel this need to ram everything into one nice and easy black and white worldview, if you think about it its pretty ridiculous to think politics will ever be that simple.

[Beskar]

I'm not trying to drive the line that people on the left want big government and want to steal our freedoms. The point is just that the left and right have at different times stood for authoritarian measures, and other times they haven't.

It depends on context and points of view plus other things getting mixed up left right and center. The basics of authoritarian measures is the concentration of power to the elite few (or one), opposed to the diffusion of power to the greater number.

Probably the thing that confuses this issue most is the fact we put market liberals and fascists under the one label of being 'right-wing'. Remember, to people in the 30's/40's, fascism was seen as the 'third way' to drive a middle ground between the excesses of communism/capitalism.

Not necessarily. Fascism was a different animal in some ways, but in many ways, it was an updated version of what occurred in the past. Opposed to the absolute monarchy of the Kaiser based on blood, they replaced the blood element with loyalty to the party and the cult fever. So while it makes a marked contrast on this, in many ways, Hitler was simply a neo-absolute monarchist in practice.

In what way could the events of the seventeenth century in Britain be said to have been lead by the left? There was no such things at that time (apart from fringe groups). Even Marxist historians portray Britian's constitutional monarchy as a result of a bourgeoisie revolution.

Since the bourgeoisie were the left of the aristocrats and was more based on wealth opposed to blood-line. it was indeed a change from the left. Through the time periods, there has been a shift to what was deemed left and right, and not a universal constant with what we could do now a days. Any moves towards diffusion of power comes from the left, the concentration of power comes from the right. A true centre would simply be "Keep things the same".

I would say ideology is the best way to measure things, and even then it would require far more than one straight line from left-right. I don't even know why we feel this need to ram everything into one nice and easy black and white worldview, if you think about it its pretty ridiculous to think politics will ever be that simple.

I only said the axis was based on anarchy - totalitarianism as the two extremes of left and right (liberty and authoritarianism). I didn't say that historical axis factored in anything else.

Yes, you can place additional axis and factors, however, I was only talking about the historical usage of the scale.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Not necessarily. Fascism was a different animal in some ways, but in many ways, it was an updated version of what occurred in the past. Opposed to the absolute monarchy of the Kaiser based on blood, they replaced the blood element with loyalty to the party and the cult fever. So while it makes a marked contrast on this, in many ways, Hitler was simply a neo-absolute monarchist in practice.

Sure it had elements of the past regimes, but fascism was also in a way based on many left-wing ideas, hence the 'third way' idea. For example, both the fascists and communists agreed that society was divided into set classes, fascism was simply a different response to the issue. Because Marxism was purely materialistic, it put the international class struggle above everything. But with the fascists belief that material views of history were not sufficient, they also had their belief in the nation, and so used national governments to govern in the best interest of all classes eg corporatism.

Obviously, the free-market 'right' would reject all the above ideas on class. Hence why fascists were very critical of the international capitalist class (dominated by the Jews!), and had hardline protectionist measures that were clearly not in the spirit of captalism.

If anything, I would say fascist ideology has more in common with the left than the free-market right.

Since the bourgeoisie were the left of the aristocrats and was more based on wealth opposed to blood-line. it was indeed a change from the left.

The Marxist view of this period of history (17th century, just to remind everyone since its not in the quote) is no longer taken seriously, neither is the Whig view for that matter. Left/right dimensions simply don't work. Otherwise, how do you explain the fact that both the nobility and peasantry were largely on the side of the King, if the king is supposedly to the 'right' of the gentry, who themselves were largely for Parliament?

The Kings measures were hardly capitalistic. In fact, it was Parliament that pushed the enclosure issue and dispossessed the people on common land. Hence why the only groups that could really be termed left wing (mainly the Diggers) were actually far more open to a settlement with the king than the mainstream Parliamentarians.

Through the time periods, there has been a shift to what was deemed left and right, and not a universal constant with what we could do now a days. Any moves towards diffusion of power comes from the left, the concentration of power comes from the right. A true centre would simply be "Keep things the same".

So why have regimes that use left-wing ideology overwhelmingly promoted centralising measures in government? What about the historic parties in Britain, where Labour promoted nationalisation of industries, and the Conservatives tried to strengthen the local levels of goverment and give them greater independence from the centre?

I only said the axis was based on anarchy - totalitarianism as the two extremes of left and right (liberty and authoritarianism). I didn't say that historical axis factored in anything else.

Yes, you can place additional axis and factors, however, I was only talking about the historical usage of the scale.

Anarchy is not the extreme left and more than totalitarianism is the extreme right.

Anarchy and totalitarianism are concerned with the power of the government. The concepts of left and right wing are concerned with ideology. The government is simply a means that can be used to promote these ideologies.

North Korea is left-wing in ideology yet totalitarian. The Tea Partiers are right-wing in ideology yet they libertarian views come close to anarchy.

[Beskar]

...If anything, I would say fascist ideology has more in common with the left than the free-market right.

Sure, if you charge on through not actually taking in my context.

So why have regimes that use left-wing ideology overwhelmingly promoted centralising measures in government? What about the historic parties in Britain, where Labour promoted nationalisation of industries, and the Conservatives tried to strengthen the local levels of goverment and give them greater independence from the centre?

Labour also did regionalism and devolution which the Conservatives opposed, there would be no Scottish parliament under the Conservative government. Also, nationalisation of industries was also promoted by Winston Churchill (in specific, Oil). Nationalisation =/= centralisation, it depends on how they are set up and structured, as technically, they would be also in the hands of the people, opposed to the individuals. Which would assist in bringing about economical democratisation.

Anarchy is not the extreme left and more than totalitarianism is the extreme right.

In the context I was referring to, yes it is.

Anarchy and totalitarianism are concerned with the power of the government. The concepts of left and right wing are concerned with ideology. The government is simply a means that can be used to promote these ideologies.

Yet, different ideologies rate differently on the scale in reference to power of government, etc...

North Korea is left-wing in ideology yet totalitarian. The Tea Partiers are right-wing in ideology yet they libertarian views come close to anarchy.

North Korea is a despot totalitarian state and nothing more. Just because it calls itself the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" actually means it democratic nor a republic. With the Faux-King Kim, taking the mantel-ship from his father before him, and his son taking the mantel-ship after him.

Tea Partiers on the otherhand are interested in the dismemberment of the state, but their ideology also actually causes an increase in authority elsewhere, as they want to actually also remove the safeguards which protect peoples freedoms as well. The dystopian future which the tea party want to bring about is hyper-capitalism as depicted in 'Jennifer Government' and Robocop, where corporations own and supply everything, unfettered and unchecked.

[Brenus]

“They were victories for the glory of Mother Russia?”
Mother France. French pilot. Killing Nazi War Machine. Good thing.

“Victories? Isn't that kills?”
Yeap. But Pilots speak like this.
I give you that my grandfather in blowing up trains probably killed more Germans than most of pilots but it is less “glamorous".
Or a obscure machine-gunner...

[Meneldil]

Beskar, you seem to have a quite biased definition of the left, which more or less comes down to

"Good things = left / bad things = right". This is up in pretty much any way. Even though I'm a die-hard leftist, things certainly aren't as simple as that. Nor can they be summarized into some general rule such as "the left is closer to anarchy, and the right is closer to totalitarianism..."

For your informations, anarchy isn't a leftist ideology. Right-winged anarchy exists. It is the most extreme form of individualism and free-marketism. Stirner's egoism hardly classifies as a leftist ideology. The same applies to some of Nietzche's writings. Though Right-wing anarchism isn't really remembered nowadays it certainly was a quite widespread ideology in the early 20th. Many romantic writers who found some appeal in fascism and nazism were in fact former right-winged anarchists (in France, you have Louis-Ferdinand Céline for example). As for Proudhon, one of the first person to theorize leftist-anarchism, he'd probably qualify as a fascist nowadays (mainly because of his views regarding jews, foreigners and women).

As for totalitarianism, it certainly isn't a caracteristic of the right. The French Revolution was certainly totalitarian. People who opposed the ideology of the current elite in power were hunted down, exiled or assassinated : monarchists, feuillants, members or the clergy, girondins, and lastly jacobins. Political commissars were sent throughout the country to make sure the population was "taught" how to enjoy their "newly discovered freedom" (by using violence if needed). Opposition newspapers were forbidden. State propaganda was commonly used. All in all, Revolutionnary France wasn't all that different from Lenin-era USSR (which was also a leftist totalitarian regime).

Later on, the French 3rd Republic would also qualify as a light-totalitarian leftist regime. Not because it was a single party dictatorship (even though the country was clearly dominated by the Radical Party), but because the Elite tried to enforce the republican ideology onto everyone. Religion was banned from school, regional languages were forbidden, official History was written in a way that casted light on the Revolution (while the Ancient Regime was described as an era of darkness and tyranny). Everything had to be impregnated by republican ideas : school, work, and even your household.

To conclude, there are many definitions of what's left and what's right, but the one your using is certainly new to me, even though I've studied political sciences for 6 years or so.

“[B]
“Victories? Isn't that kills?”
Yeap. But Pilots speak like this.
I give you that my grandfather in blowing up trains probably killed more Germans than most of pilots but it is less “glamorous".
Or a obscure machine-gunner...

Well, that's certainly is because pilots were seen as the last "knights", duelling honorably in the air while footmen were getting slaughtered on the ground. Though that might have been true during WWI, it certainly wasn't anymore during WWII, yet the term "victories" stayed.