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

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.