The 1 word essence of the political right?

[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 Left and right are outdated concepts anyhow imho, neither refuse democratic processes, both have submitted to the rules of majority.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.

[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 he coined the idea of Zero Defects

Or maybe could be W Edwards Deming he was another quality legend in Japan after PDCA (plan–do–check–act or plan–do–check–adjust)

Joseph M. Juran "the vital few and the useful many" and he talked on 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?


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 he was another quality legend in Japan after PDCA (plan–do–check–act or plan–do–check–adjust)

Ah, it was Deming, thanks for that.

[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.