4 ms·

Could you clarify what you mean without using the words right, left, or neoliberal? All of which are extremely vague.

onethought 5y ago
Not the OP but, Right: conservative. Policy designed to preserve corporate interests and wealthy elite. Often masquerading as “looking after the middle class” - when really at best they get some trickle down benefits. Selfishly You should be right leaning if you are a significant owner of capital or have a very high chance of that (they will convince you that everyone has this chance). Left: Progressive (in that it looks to reform the existing structure). Policy design to assist the working class (wage earners). It typically looks to take from corporates/wealthy elite and redistribute. Selfishly You should be left leaning if you don’t own significant capital and derive most of your income from wages. Unselfishly you should err on the side of the left as it is aiming for a “greater good”.
- refurb 5y ago
  This seems to the world view of the Democratic Party as described by the Democratic Party.
  - onethought 5y ago
    Not American, so I wouldn’t know. But from outside the Democratic Party looked more right than left. Though I guess it’s mostly left of the republicans.
- Auracle 5y ago
  That’s a pretty biased interpretation.
  - QuercusMax 5y ago
    Care to elaborate? Seems pretty accurate to me.
    - hutzlibu 5y ago
      It basically oversimplifies "right" to selfish ideology and "left" to ideology of "greater good". For once I would argue, it is for the greater good, if "selfish" individual rights are increased - and apart from that, I think using the left right spectrum is not very helpful for anything, but dividing society into tribal thinking.
      - onethought 5y ago
        Capitalism, or more specifically inequality created the tribes. Denying their existence is to purposefully avoid looking for a solution. It’s not an ideology of greater good. I mean it literally in the utilitarian sense: left thinking, focusing on improving the plight of wage earners literally effects more people and is a greater good. Improving/preserving wealthy elites will naturally benefit fewer people. These are facts, with evidence. I can go deeper if you find this simplification too blunt. It isn’t overly simplified it. It describes what the left right spectrum means, and yes I’m applied a value judgement, but I can back up my value judgement with facts. I’m not an extremist in my views though, and I will accept democratic processes, and there is benefit to floating around the spectrum, rather than committing to a single point.
        hutzlibu 5y ago
        "Improving/preserving wealthy elites will naturally benefit fewer people. These are facts, with evidence" You are implying, that it is a fact that right leaning people want to preserve wealthy elites. But this is not, what I heard from right leaning people as their goals. "Capitalism, or more specifically inequality created the tribes." And I believe, tribes existed way before capitalism. So I believe, that you are indeed quite extremist in your ideology, if you know as a fact, that left is good and right is bad. There are many, many different contradicting views and concepts on the right as well on the left. To some I agree, to many I do not. But as an example, the nazis are considered quite right usually. But it is nationalsocialism. The concept of the greater good for the people (of one race). So they are left then? I rather think the whole left right concept is flawed and not helpful.
tmnvix 5y ago
Yes, left and right are used in many different senses. They're impossible to pin down as they mean different things to different people. I sometimes think it's useful to consider political ideologies as existing somewhere along a spectrum of collectivist to individualist. Communism would be far to the collectivist end of the spectrum. Socialism less so. Most neoliberals wouldn't subscribe to an extreme form of libertarianism as they are predominantly concerned with free market capitalism. But neoliberalism is definitely on the individualist end of the spectrum. An example would be promoting privatisation and discouraging government (collective) ownership. Personally, I think that a mix of individualism and collectivism is best, and this is indeed what you'll find in many places (including, to a large extent, the US). From this perspective, you can't call yourself both the "extreme centre" and neoliberal. It would be like calling yourself "extreme centre" and socialist.

Not the OP but, Right: conservative. Policy designed to preserve corporate interests and wealthy elite. Often masquerading as “looking after the middle class” - when really at best they get some trickle down benefits. Selfishly You should be right leaning if you are a significant owner of capital or have a very high chance of that (they will convince you that everyone has this chance). Left: Progressive (in that it looks to reform the existing structure). Policy design to assist the working class (wage earners). It typically looks to take from corporates/wealthy elite and redistribute. Selfishly You should be left leaning if you don’t own significant capital and derive most of your income from wages. Unselfishly you should err on the side of the left as it is aiming for a “greater good”.

refurb 5y ago
This seems to the world view of the Democratic Party as described by the Democratic Party.
- onethought 5y ago
  Not American, so I wouldn’t know. But from outside the Democratic Party looked more right than left. Though I guess it’s mostly left of the republicans.
Auracle 5y ago
That’s a pretty biased interpretation.
- QuercusMax 5y ago
  Care to elaborate? Seems pretty accurate to me.
  - hutzlibu 5y ago
    It basically oversimplifies "right" to selfish ideology and "left" to ideology of "greater good". For once I would argue, it is for the greater good, if "selfish" individual rights are increased - and apart from that, I think using the left right spectrum is not very helpful for anything, but dividing society into tribal thinking.
    - onethought 5y ago
      Capitalism, or more specifically inequality created the tribes. Denying their existence is to purposefully avoid looking for a solution. It’s not an ideology of greater good. I mean it literally in the utilitarian sense: left thinking, focusing on improving the plight of wage earners literally effects more people and is a greater good. Improving/preserving wealthy elites will naturally benefit fewer people. These are facts, with evidence. I can go deeper if you find this simplification too blunt. It isn’t overly simplified it. It describes what the left right spectrum means, and yes I’m applied a value judgement, but I can back up my value judgement with facts. I’m not an extremist in my views though, and I will accept democratic processes, and there is benefit to floating around the spectrum, rather than committing to a single point.
      - hutzlibu 5y ago
        "Improving/preserving wealthy elites will naturally benefit fewer people. These are facts, with evidence" You are implying, that it is a fact that right leaning people want to preserve wealthy elites. But this is not, what I heard from right leaning people as their goals. "Capitalism, or more specifically inequality created the tribes." And I believe, tribes existed way before capitalism. So I believe, that you are indeed quite extremist in your ideology, if you know as a fact, that left is good and right is bad. There are many, many different contradicting views and concepts on the right as well on the left. To some I agree, to many I do not. But as an example, the nazis are considered quite right usually. But it is nationalsocialism. The concept of the greater good for the people (of one race). So they are left then? I rather think the whole left right concept is flawed and not helpful.

tmnvix 5y ago

Yes, left and right are used in many different senses. They're impossible to pin down as they mean different things to different people. I sometimes think it's useful to consider political ideologies as existing somewhere along a spectrum of collectivist to individualist. Communism would be far to the collectivist end of the spectrum. Socialism less so. Most neoliberals wouldn't subscribe to an extreme form of libertarianism as they are predominantly concerned with free market capitalism. But neoliberalism is definitely on the individualist end of the spectrum. An example would be promoting privatisation and discouraging government (collective) ownership. Personally, I think that a mix of individualism and collectivism is best, and this is indeed what you'll find in many places (including, to a large extent, the US). From this perspective, you can't call yourself both the "extreme centre" and neoliberal. It would be like calling yourself "extreme centre" and socialist.