6 ms·

It's almost as though "left" and "right" are meaningless terms that are just use to split the people into two camps for battle against each other.

by judk 12y ago

anigbrowl 12y ago
I think they are good signifiers for significantly different economic/political beliefs. However, fanatacism in politics ends up looking pretty similar regardless of starting point.
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  I think that they are actively hurtful, they shut down rational thinking. Ideas that actually make sense tend not to cluster well along left/right axis, but are scattered all over the spectrum.
fred_durst 12y ago
It's amazing how one can take the parity achieved via competition and relay it unilaterally to the quality achieved via competition.
icelancer 12y ago
As long as "authoritarian" is part of both sides, the state is generally pleased to have both debate meaningless things.
maxxxxx 12y ago
It' not "almost as though" but they are meaningless terms (and harmful to political discussion in my view). American politics likes to force every issue into the "liberal" or "conservative" category but reality is much more subtle.
- waps 12y ago
  On the other hand, here is the Nazi's public face : http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/25points.htm http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/25points.... Read it, then tell me if you still don't understand why these people might get classified as left-wing. They implemented quite a few of these points too, by the way. You can say whatever you want about Nazi's but they are by far the most successful leftist party in history, and quite a few "left-wing" rights today were first implemented by Nazi Germany. Big example : pensions. Scholarships (of the for-the-needy kind, not for-the-really-smart kind). There's many examples. That said, it is beyond obvious that they are not comparable to today's left wing. As hard as it is to understand today, the left-wing was very much anti-immigrant in the 1930's. But it's just one of many historical facts that have changed. What I still find hard to believe, is that it's the democrats were the pro-slavery anti-black side of the aisle. Some choice cuts : (the first parts are anti-versailles, and some anti-immigration) 7. We demand that the State shall above all undertake to ensure that every citizen shall have the possibility of living decently and earning a livelihood. If it should not be possible to feed the whole population, then aliens (non-citizens) must be expelled from the Reich. (8-9 are anti-immigrant) 10. The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. No individual shall do any work that offends against the interest of the community to the benefit of all. 11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished. 12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as treason to the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits. 13. We demand the nationalization of all trusts. 14. We demand profit-sharing in large industries. 15. We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions. ...
  - maxxxxx 12y ago
    Sure, they had some left-wing traits. And they had some right wing traits too: The belief that Germany is a special country is pretty similar to today's conservatives belief that the US is exceptional and blessed by God. My point was that by figuring out whether the Nazis were left or right wing nothing is learned. There are left wing and right wing democracies and there are left and right wing dictatorships. Left wing governments have killed a lot of people and so have right wing governments.
    - the_af 12y ago
      Don't forget center-wing (is that a word?) governments, which have also killed a lot of people.
  - mpyne 12y ago
    You'll note, however, that many of those platform points were polar opposites to policies enacted in practice once the Nazis came to power. War profits continued (indeed, Nazis who tried to actually push for getting rid of the profit motive were quickly removed from their posts and marginalized). "Unearned" income continued. The Nazis even maintained the gold standard for international trade long after the other major economies had devalued their own currency, and much of the mobilization of their wartime economy came via inventive capitalist measures from the Reichsbank, Reich Economic Ministry, military-economic departments of the Oberkommandowehrmacht, and more. Likewise the trusts were not only not nationalized (at least, at any great scale), but businesses and industry were forced to join specified cartels based on their market sector. It was through these cartels that the Reich enforced economic policy. Most of the "left wing" economic policies that were enacted were emulated using good old standard "right wing" methods. Markets remained; instead of centrally planning economic output directly, the Reich simply regulated the market such as to achieve mostly the desired effect. Instead of banning refrigerators outright, the Reich simply failed to import enough iron ore to make civilian goods once the priority list for Wehrmacht and export needs had been filled. Chemical plants that were absolutely essential for the Reich's strategic needs were contracted to companies like IG Farben with profit guarantees and profit sharing agreements, methods that would be perfectly accept to almost any right-wing economist. There were state industries too (Junkers, a strategic industry expansion program, a steel/coal production cartel, etc.) so it's not as if Nazi Germany didn't have traditionally left-wing attributes to it. But nor was it lacking in traditionally right-wing attributes or methods. All of these methods were means to an end, as opposed to being taken from either a left-wing or right-wing palette of options because they were left- or right-wing.

It's almost as though "left" and "right" are meaningless terms that are just use to split the people into two camps for battle against each other.

by judk 12y ago

It's almost as though "left" and "right" are meaningless terms that are just use to split the people into two camps for battle against each other.

anigbrowl 12y ago

I think they are good signifiers for significantly different economic/political beliefs. However, fanatacism in politics ends up looking pretty similar regardless of starting point.

TeMPOraL 12y ago
I think that they are actively hurtful, they shut down rational thinking. Ideas that actually make sense tend not to cluster well along left/right axis, but are scattered all over the spectrum.

fred_durst 12y ago

It's amazing how one can take the parity achieved via competition and relay it unilaterally to the quality achieved via competition.

icelancer 12y ago

As long as "authoritarian" is part of both sides, the state is generally pleased to have both debate meaningless things.

maxxxxx 12y ago

It' not "almost as though" but they are meaningless terms (and harmful to political discussion in my view). American politics likes to force every issue into the "liberal" or "conservative" category but reality is much more subtle.

waps 12y ago
On the other hand, here is the Nazi's public face : http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/25points.htm http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/25points.... Read it, then tell me if you still don't understand why these people might get classified as left-wing. They implemented quite a few of these points too, by the way. You can say whatever you want about Nazi's but they are by far the most successful leftist party in history, and quite a few "left-wing" rights today were first implemented by Nazi Germany. Big example : pensions. Scholarships (of the for-the-needy kind, not for-the-really-smart kind). There's many examples. That said, it is beyond obvious that they are not comparable to today's left wing. As hard as it is to understand today, the left-wing was very much anti-immigrant in the 1930's. But it's just one of many historical facts that have changed. What I still find hard to believe, is that it's the democrats were the pro-slavery anti-black side of the aisle. Some choice cuts : (the first parts are anti-versailles, and some anti-immigration) 7. We demand that the State shall above all undertake to ensure that every citizen shall have the possibility of living decently and earning a livelihood. If it should not be possible to feed the whole population, then aliens (non-citizens) must be expelled from the Reich. (8-9 are anti-immigrant) 10. The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. No individual shall do any work that offends against the interest of the community to the benefit of all. 11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished. 12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as treason to the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits. 13. We demand the nationalization of all trusts. 14. We demand profit-sharing in large industries. 15. We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions. ...
- maxxxxx 12y ago
  Sure, they had some left-wing traits. And they had some right wing traits too: The belief that Germany is a special country is pretty similar to today's conservatives belief that the US is exceptional and blessed by God. My point was that by figuring out whether the Nazis were left or right wing nothing is learned. There are left wing and right wing democracies and there are left and right wing dictatorships. Left wing governments have killed a lot of people and so have right wing governments.
  - the_af 12y ago
    Don't forget center-wing (is that a word?) governments, which have also killed a lot of people.
- mpyne 12y ago
  You'll note, however, that many of those platform points were polar opposites to policies enacted in practice once the Nazis came to power. War profits continued (indeed, Nazis who tried to actually push for getting rid of the profit motive were quickly removed from their posts and marginalized). "Unearned" income continued. The Nazis even maintained the gold standard for international trade long after the other major economies had devalued their own currency, and much of the mobilization of their wartime economy came via inventive capitalist measures from the Reichsbank, Reich Economic Ministry, military-economic departments of the Oberkommandowehrmacht, and more. Likewise the trusts were not only not nationalized (at least, at any great scale), but businesses and industry were forced to join specified cartels based on their market sector. It was through these cartels that the Reich enforced economic policy. Most of the "left wing" economic policies that were enacted were emulated using good old standard "right wing" methods. Markets remained; instead of centrally planning economic output directly, the Reich simply regulated the market such as to achieve mostly the desired effect. Instead of banning refrigerators outright, the Reich simply failed to import enough iron ore to make civilian goods once the priority list for Wehrmacht and export needs had been filled. Chemical plants that were absolutely essential for the Reich's strategic needs were contracted to companies like IG Farben with profit guarantees and profit sharing agreements, methods that would be perfectly accept to almost any right-wing economist. There were state industries too (Junkers, a strategic industry expansion program, a steel/coal production cartel, etc.) so it's not as if Nazi Germany didn't have traditionally left-wing attributes to it. But nor was it lacking in traditionally right-wing attributes or methods. All of these methods were means to an end, as opposed to being taken from either a left-wing or right-wing palette of options because they were left- or right-wing.