Bush Blames the Sailors

[Imran Siddiqui]

seating arrangements in some assembly 200 years ago don't reflect the left-right ideology of today. Many Europeans may have a different view of left-right but I live in the US where we have our own history.

Of course it does. The whole left-right spectrum is based on that premise. Europe and the US have different traditions. Therefore our left-right spectrums are different.

Is the "right" in these European states anti-capitalism and pro-socialism as much or more so than the "left"?

Well some of them are. The CDU (Christian Democrats) in Germany is pretty pro-socialism. Fascist parties in many states are anti-capitalism (anti-free trade).

You just said the French left were socialists so how could capitalism be left wing based on where these people sat?

Cause the capitalists were anti-tradition. You do realize in the bourgeois revolutions of the 1800s socialists and capitalists fought together against the monarchies, right? They were on the same side back then because they had a common enemy: the right-wing monarchies.

Drugs were legal in the US for more than half it's history, so I'd call that a tradition. Was alcohol prohibition left wing since it was a break with tradition?

I would think the tradition of Christian morality goes much further than simply 50-100 years of some legal drugs. After all, traditions are the passing down of culture, not simply something being legal. Both prohibiting drugs and alcohol are reactionary movements because they tried to go back to Christian (Puritan) morality.

The underlying principle of their ideology is left wing.

No, they are definetly on the side of tradition.

With my linear spectrum autocrats are at the end of the left wing and anarchists are at the right end. Would you consider Falwell and Robertson more autocratic than anarchist?

They are more autocratic, obviously. In your made up linear spectrum you can put them where you wish. In the left-right spectrum they are firmly on the right.

If the Catholic Church was/is a right wing institution, why does your spectrum have autocrats on both wings?

Why not? The left-right spectrum deals with tradition, solely. The better question is why does your spectrum have pro and anti traditionalists on both wings?

[Berzerker]

Imran -

Well some of them are. The CDU (Christian Democrats) in Germany is pretty pro-socialism. Fascist parties in many states are anti-capitalism (anti-free trade).

Maybe my questions are better suited for Europeans in the know, but is the CDU really Germany's right wing party? And being anti-free trade is not the same as being socialist, I was wondering if Europe's "right wing" parties are more capitalistic than the socialists. Pro or anti-free trade doesn't really address that question although it is an indicator of philosophy.

Cause the capitalists were anti-tradition.

But capitalism is as old as mankind and I'm unaware that French monarchs relied much on anti-capitalistic economic systems. Obviously kings could pretty much do what they wanted and that violates the notion of freedom thereby angering all sorts of people, but the economic system employed was still capitalistic in nature. Hell, capitalism, i.e., the marketplace and barter systems have been employed for eons even under monarchies.

You do realize in the bourgeois revolutions of the 1800s socialists and capitalists fought together against the monarchies, right? They were on the same side back then because they had a common enemy: the right-wing monarchies.

US capitalists allied with Soviet communists too, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Like I said, the left can have enemies on the left and that goes for the right as well.

I would think the tradition of Christian morality goes much further than simply 50-100 years of some legal drugs. After all, traditions are the passing down of culture, not simply something being legal. Both prohibiting drugs and alcohol are reactionary movements because they tried to go back to Christian (Puritan) morality.

It was several hundred years of legal drugs that continued on into US history. I don't know that Christians ever outlawed drugs except after Fabian socialism took root around the 1900's.

No, they are definetly on the side of tradition.

What tradition? While they don't agree with liberals on every aspect of the welfare state, they sure do support most of it and that isn't traditional. Or is it? If the welfare state has become tradition, then seeking to remove it is left wing? And then liberals are right wing for wanting to preserve it? That's the problem with tying "tradition" to conservatism, "tradition" becomes subjective by using different time frames. Slavery was a tradition that people from a variety of ideologies fought against, religious (social) conservatives, classical liberals (libertarians), and "progressives". Was abolition left wing even though there were right wingers on opposites sides of the issue?
It seems like you're saying the movement toward freedom is a left wing movement...

They are more autocratic, obviously. In your made up linear spectrum you can put them where you wish. In the left-right spectrum they are firmly on the right.

That was a "made-up" linear spectrum too. At least mine makes sense since I don't put autocrats on both sides.

Why not? The left-right spectrum deals with tradition, solely. The better question is why does your spectrum have pro and anti traditionalists on both wings?

First, because a spectrum that has autocrats on both sides doesn't tell us where non-autocrats are and turns left-right into a jumble of "he's a right wing autocrat, and he's a left wing autocrat". That's why the political compass, inspite of it's perceived flaws, makes more sense. Second, because an ideological spectrum must deal with something tangible like principles and not constantly changing "traditions". If the spectrum is ideological, then ideology is the determinant, not my tradition as opposed to yours.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Maybe my questions are better suited for Europeans in the know, but is the CDU really Germany's right wing party? And being anti-free trade is not the same as being socialist, I was wondering if Europe's "right wing" parties are more capitalistic than the socialists. Pro or anti-free trade doesn't really address that question although it is an indicator of philosophy.

Is is their 'Republicans' (ie, general right wing party). And yes, Europe's "right-wingers" are more capitalist than the left. No suprise, seeing that every country in Europe is more capitalist than socialist (all of them are dominated by market systems with private enterprises dominating trade, and have substantial rights of private property).

But capitalism is as old as mankind

No, capitalism began around 1800. Before that you had a proto-capitalism. Before that, mercantilism, etc. Perhaps you mean the 'market' has been around since the dawn of mankind?

US capitalists allied with Soviet communists too, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Allying with a country in a war is very different than joining with a group in a revolution. For one, during WW2, to use your example, we never really fought side by side with the Soviets. In revolutions you fight side by side with your fellow revolutionaries. Groups that have vastly different ideologies will NOT join together in revolt. You will never see Fascists fight along side with Communists. You simply cannot have a 'two prong' assault in a revolution.

What tradition?

Christian tradition. Moral tradition. Stuff like anti-gay legislation (defense of marriage stuff), anti-abortion stuff. All tradition and all right wing. The welfare state isn't tradition, at least not yet. One, it has really only been around for less than 100 years. Hardly enough time to grow into a tradition. Secondly, removal of that welfare state is a harkening back to an EARLIER tradition, which is 'reactionary'.

Slavery was a tradition that people from a variety of ideologies fought against, religious (social) conservatives, classical liberals (libertarians), and "progressives". Was abolition left wing even though there were right wingers on opposites sides of the issue?
It seems like you're saying the movement toward freedom is a left wing movement...

Actually those Christians that fought against slavery were considered (and still are) as left-wing Christians. Mostly because they fought the tradition.

And yes, the movement towards freedom WAS a left wing movement. Nowadays it seems the left is more concerned with equality than freedom.

That was a "made-up" linear spectrum too. At least mine makes sense since I don't put autocrats on both sides.

Yes that 'made-uo' linear spectrum created the whole idea of a left-right spectrum, so it gets infinetly more deference than yours.

And yes, your spectrum makes SOOO much sense, it puts Libertarians and Socialist Anarchists on one side and Godless Communists, Religious Fundamentalists, and Capitalist Dictatorships on the other. You got socialists and capitalists on both sides.

First, because a spectrum that has autocrats on both sides doesn't tell us where non-autocrats are and turns left-right into a jumble of "he's a right wing autocrat, and he's a left wing autocrat". That's why the political compass, inspite of it's perceived flaws, makes more sense. Second, because an ideological spectrum must deal with something tangible like principles and not constantly changing "traditions". If the spectrum is ideological, then ideology is the determinant, not my tradition as opposed to yours.

Who cares where the non-autocrats are? That isn't the basis of politics. Never has been, never will be. Autocrats, non-Autocrats, what the Hell do I care? The main point of politics throughout history has been tradition vs. non-conformity to that tradition. Autocrats have no bearing because for most of history the world was run by these autocrats. On the other hand, all of human existance has dealt with the thorny issues of tradition.

And yes, freedom is sooo tangible

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Imran -

Maybe my questions are better suited for Europeans in the know, but is the CDU really Germany's right wing party?

Nope, here in Germany the CDU ist considered slightly right of the middle, just as the SPD is considered to be slightly left to the middle.

What we consider as rightwing Parties are Parties which have Neonazi Background. Parties like the Republicans or the Nationaldemocratic Party of Germany (NDP). Those Paties often also are under close Observation from the Verfassungsschutz because of their close ties to Neonazi Groups.

What is considered left are Parties like the Greens (which rule Germany to date along with the SPD), Communist Parties and the PDS (Party of democratic socialism, which was created from the former ruling Party of DDR).
In the left Spectrum the Communist Partis and the PDS are to be considered fartest left, with the Green Party sitting somewhere between them and the SPD (closer to the SPD than to the communists however).

[Berzerker]

Imran -

No, capitalism began around 1800. Before that you had a proto-capitalism. Before that, mercantilism, etc. Perhaps you mean the 'market' has been around since the dawn of mankind?

Technically I suppose capitalism was a product of the Scots, Adam Smith et al and the "science" of economics. But yes, the market is eons old and capitalism is the marketplace.

Allying with a country in a war is very different than joining with a group in a revolution. For one, during WW2, to use your example, we never really fought side by side with the Soviets. In revolutions you fight side by side with your fellow revolutionaries.

That was a geographical limitation, not an ideological one. The point remains that ideological opponents can ally against a greater enemy.

Groups that have vastly different ideologies will NOT join together in revolt. You will never see Fascists fight along side with Communists. You simply cannot have a 'two prong' assault in a revolution.

Fascists and communists invaded Poland and were essentially allied. Rebellions are a bit different as you point out since both groups seek control of one government, but that's true for all competing ideologies. If a communist minority and a fascist minority sought to overthrow a libertarian majority, they could ally if neither could succeed alone.

Christian tradition. Moral tradition. Stuff like anti-gay legislation (defense of marriage stuff), anti-abortion stuff. All tradition and all right wing.

Anti-abortion is not traditional according to your own definition where time is the determinant, that was left up to the states and the earliest laws dealing with it were created (1870's?)because abortion was a dangerous procedure. Now, these issues are why many on the left call Falwell and Robertson "right wingers", but as I said, left wingers can have slightly different agendas and still be left wing. Social conservatives and liberals both seek to use the power of government to create a society they envision as "moral" by attacking freedom and that's why they are both left wing. If we say one is left and the other right simply because they don't agree on whether or not abortion and homosexuality should be legal, then we are missing the big picture about the nature of their philosophies.

The welfare state isn't tradition, at least not yet. One, it has really only been around for less than 100 years. Hardly enough time to grow into a tradition. Secondly, removal of that welfare state is a harkening back to an EARLIER tradition, which is 'reactionary'.

Then the GOP, Falwell and Robertson aren't traditionalists (and not right wing) because they support most if not all of the welfare state. You said the Founders were leftists for their time, did they agree on matters like slavery, homosexuality and abortion?

Actually those Christians that fought against slavery were considered (and still are) as left-wing Christians. Mostly because they fought the tradition.

Why are Christians left wing for upholding the teachings of Jesus which must be old enough to qualify as tradition?

And yes, the movement towards freedom WAS a left wing movement. Nowadays it seems the left is more concerned with equality than freedom.

That's the problem with the "traditional" left-right spectrum. The left wanted freedom, the right opposed freedom. Now the left opposes freedom and many on the right want it. Why those on the right who oppose freedom like their leftist cousins qualify as right wing just shows the flaw with this spectrum.

Yes that 'made-uo' linear spectrum created the whole idea of a left-right spectrum, so it gets infinetly more deference than yours.

The fact it makes no sense relieves it of any deserved deference.

And yes, your spectrum makes SOOO much sense, it puts Libertarians and Socialist Anarchists on one side and Godless Communists, Religious Fundamentalists, and Capitalist Dictatorships on the other. You got socialists and capitalists on both sides.

My spectrum is very simple, if totalitarianism is at the left end, then anarchists are at the right end, and where any person is on that spectrum depends on how much government intervention they want in our lives. It doesn't matter if the autocrat is religious or not, Saddam or OBL, both are autocrats. Your characterisations make no sense - capitalist "dictatorships"? Socialist anarchists? The one end = total government control, the other = no (or very little) government control.

Who cares where the non-autocrats are?

Gee, the non-autocrats? You don't see a problem with a spectrum where freedom does not exist?

That isn't the basis of politics. Never has been, never will be. Autocrats, non-Autocrats, what the Hell do I care?

So you just as soon live under Castro as in the USA?

The main point of politics throughout history has been tradition vs. non-conformity to that tradition. Autocrats have no bearing because for most of history the world was run by these autocrats. On the other hand, all of human existance has dealt with the thorny issues of tradition.

The main point of a political/ideological spectrum is to represent people and their beliefs. Claiming a Hitler is a right winger and a Stalin is a left winger leaves everyone else choosing which autocrat they'd rather be "associated" with even if they aren't autocratic.

And yes, freedom is sooo tangible

It is if you can use a dictionary.

[Imran Siddiqui]

capitalism is the marketplace.

A simplistic view of capitalism.

Fascists and communists invaded Poland and were essentially allied. Rebellions are a bit different as you point out since both groups seek control of one government, but that's true for all competing ideologies. If a communist minority and a fascist minority sought to overthrow a libertarian majority, they could ally if neither could succeed alone.

Fascists and Commies in Poland didn't fight side by side. They invaded a seperate half. I'd serious doubt Fascists and Commies would ever fight side by side.

Then the GOP, Falwell and Robertson aren't traditionalists (and not right wing) because they support most if not all of the welfare state.

Yet they are reactionary on social issues. You can be left on some issues and right on others, you know?

You don't see a problem with a spectrum where freedom does not exist?

If you really want to be somewhat technical, you could say non-traditionalists want freedom from tradtion. But I won't base an entire spectrum on 'freedom'. What about the ideas of equality (which some consider equally valid)? And who decides what is freedom or not? Communists have a different defintion.

The main point of a political/ideological spectrum is to represent people and their beliefs. Claiming a Hitler is a right winger and a Stalin is a left winger leaves everyone else choosing which autocrat they'd rather be "associated" with even if they aren't autocratic.

So? Extremes of either position (left or right) end up autocratic. I think that is a good lesson.

Your characterisations make no sense - capitalist "dictatorships"? Socialist anarchists?

Capitalist dictatorships: China, Chile (under Pinochet)
Socialist anarchists: Um... the political movement of 'anarchy' (see Ramo)?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I'd serious doubt Fascists and Commies would ever fight side by side.

Maybe against an alien invasion threatening the extermination of humanity.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Technically I suppose capitalism was a product of the Scots, Adam Smith et al and the "science" of economics. But yes, the market is eons old and capitalism is the marketplace.

Capitalism is not the marketplace, nor was it an invention by any one person. It just sort of came together over time, evolving out of feudalism. That the market is central to the capitalist mode of production doesn't mean where ever you find a market you find capitalism, anymore than saying wherever you find a tree you find a forest.

Locke, Smith, Ricardo, Say, etc. were all observers and commentators (though adding advice here and there).

Imran, capitalism had to exist prior to 1800, since England's American colonies were practicing capitalism since the 17th Century, even if we had a mercantilist master abroad.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Maybe against an alien invasion threatening the extermination of humanity.

since England's American colonies were practicing capitalism since the 17th Century, even if we had a mercantilist master abroad.

I'm not sure I'd call the colonial economy as being capitalism. It may have been the closest to capitalism that the world had come in that time, but the mercantalist master does weigh very heavily on that.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Maybe against an alien invasion threatening the extermination of humanity.

And I could even see those fascist bastards collaborating.

since England's American colonies were practicing capitalism since the 17th Century, even if we had a mercantilist master abroad.

I'm not sure I'd call the colonial economy as being capitalism. It may have been the closest to capitalism that the world had come in that time, but the mercantalist master does weigh very heavily on that.

Well, consider that the colonies were fundimentally different from most other European colonies. We weren't created to plunder the natives, but to create goods for sale (granted, they were raw materials). This is the fundimental essense of capitalism, creating goods not be used by the creator or his/her master for immediate use, but to be sold. Granted, the cottage industry was huge in the colonies, but the bulk of the economy was geared around the market, as opposed to being an adjunct. Even slavery here was different from slavery in the Spanish and Portugese colonies, again, being used to extract resourse to be sold, rather than gold itself for the kings' coffers.

England was still largely feudal, even if the capitalist mode of production was a large and growing portion of the ecnoomy. Certainly she persued mercantilist policies, but the economic relations in the colonies was still largely capitalist.

[Imran Siddiqui]

We weren't created to plunder the natives, but to create goods for sale (granted, they were raw materials). This is the fundimental essense of capitalism, creating goods not be used by the creator or his/her master for immediate use, but to be sold. Granted, the cottage industry was huge in the colonies, but the bulk of the economy was geared around the market, as opposed to being an adjunct. Even slavery here was different from slavery in the Spanish and Portugese colonies, again, being used to extract resourse to be sold, rather than gold itself for the kings' coffers.

I think all the 'granted' and minor exceptions push it from being capitalism, but it's close enough I guess so if you wanted to you could define it such (I just won't ). Even though goods were created (or extracted) to be sold, they were to be sold to the mercantalist master, which makes a difference. The market for most goods went in that one direction, with no choice to go elsewhere and with a price somewhat fixed.

But like I said, it's close... I'll label it proto-capitalism and you can go with capitalism. Fine by me .

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Maybe against an alien invasion threatening the extermination of humanity.

Are you referenceing what I think you're referencing?