5 ms·

> In left-right politics, left-wing politics are political positions or activities that accept or support social equality, often in opposition to social hierarc

> In left-right politics, left-wing politics are political positions or activities that accept or support social equality, often in opposition to social hierarchy and social inequality Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics vs. > Right-wing politics are political positions or activities that view some forms of social hierarchy or social inequality as either inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable, typically justifying this position on the basis of natural law or tradition. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics Which one seems to be more favorable to enacting your statement: > exterminates and enslaves minorities The equality faction or the hierarchy faction? Here is an analogy: You can claim yourself to be a pacifist (left wing) all you want. But if your actions are aggressive and cause war (right wing), then you aren't a pacifist, even if you claim to be one.

mcantelon 12y ago
>In left-right politics, left-wing politics are political positions or activities that accept or support social equality, often in opposition to social hierarchy and social inequality Yes, and these are the positions Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot took. They killed people using the justification that the people they killed were standing in the way of these ideals. The next demagogue to rack of a massive body could could come from either the left or the right.
pdonis 12y ago
Ok, so by this definition, Stalin was certainly not left-wing, since he exterminated and enslaved minorities, which you appear to agree is not supportive of social equality. Yet Stalin is used in the same Wikipedia article as an example of left-wing activities. Also, if pacifism is left-wing, then the Obama administration is certainly not left-wing or anything close to it, since he has repeatedly authorized military action. I suppose you could finesse this point by saying that neither major party in the US is left-wing by your criterion. But trying to apply this more generally, for example to claim that Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc., were not "really" left-wing, looks a lot like a "no true Scotsman" argument. In fact, by the pacifism criterion, I'm not aware of any government or political movement that has ever been left-wing; the closest thing to it would be some religious orders, like the Amish, who really do try to be pacifists. (Some people would put the Quakers in this category, but the Quakers have always flavored their surface pacifism with a strong pragmatic streak; they sold gunpowder to Washington's army during the American Revolution, for example.) But this makes "left-wing" a basically useless term, not to mention that you would have to explain to an awful lot of people that they have been using it wrong for a long time, since most people apply the term to Stalin, as I noted above, as well as Mao, Pol Pot, etc. Finally, if left-wing means supportive of social equality for everyone, then once again, there are hardly any true left-wingers and never have been. Take trade unions, for example: yes, they're very supportive of social equality for their members, but are they equally supportive of social equality for management? Not to mention social equality for people who are not members but would like to learn one of the trades that are unionized? In my experience, unions do a very poor job with things like apprenticeship programs, because training new members means less job security for existing members. Similarly, central planning in economics, which is supposed to promote more economic equality, ends up giving special privileges to the planners and those who are closely connected with them (like large financial institutions); witness the huge bailouts of investment banks after the crash of 2008, while ordinary people got foreclosed on. The closest thing to true left-wingers by this criterion are left-libertarians or anarchists (which, to be fair, the Wikipedia article does mention).
- Intermernet 12y ago
  Please note, I'm not arguing your overall point, I agree with it completely. This comment is really just nit-picking over terminology. I'm pretty sure that Stalin has been post-categorized into the "Left-Wing" camp as he stood for "Socialism". That one label is about the only thing about Stalin that could be classified as "Left-Wing". There has been an enormous amount of jostling amongst all "Left-Wing" political parties (globally) since then in order to differentiate themselves from Stalin. "Socialism" is now very different from Stalin's view of it, just as "Liberalism" has now been watered down to mean anyone who isn't on the extreme right. Arguing left vs right is not the way to view this problem. Seeing through the emotive labels and debates, and analyzing the actual behaviour will show you that personal power is the driving motivator, not any political ideology. According to Plato "The measure of a man is what he does with power". Most of our world leaders at the moment aren't measuring up.
  - BugBrother 12y ago
    >> "Socialism" is now very different from Stalin's view of it Didn't released documents after 1989 show that most of the West European communist parties took orders directly from Moscow/Stalin? IIRC, it was a big shock that the reason the Italian communist party was so reasonable after WW II was because it was orders from Moscow. (Stalin wanted to split Europe in two.) I remember that the Swedish communist party used to be staunch Stalinists until Moscow told them he was wrong. Is that where the different view of Socialism came from? :-) (The Swedish communists (SKP/VPK/V) claim to have stopped taking orders in the 1960s and have been critics of Soviet since 1989.)
    - Intermernet 12y ago
      Considering that Stalin died in 1953, it's improbable that he had any influence on the communist parties of Europe during the 80's. I'd also refrain from conflating the "communist" parties from Europe with "Socialism", despite the obvious, ideological connections. Times had changed, labels were still being re-used.
  - pdonis 12y ago
sbmassey 12y ago
The extermination of minorities is a very popular tactic amongst people supporting social equality. Just look at the French revolution, for an explicit example, if you don't think Pol Pot and the other communists are really left wing.

mcantelon 12y ago

>In left-right politics, left-wing politics are political positions or activities that accept or support social equality, often in opposition to social hierarchy and social inequality Yes, and these are the positions Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot took. They killed people using the justification that the people they killed were standing in the way of these ideals. The next demagogue to rack of a massive body could could come from either the left or the right.

pdonis 12y ago

Ok, so by this definition, Stalin was certainly not left-wing, since he exterminated and enslaved minorities, which you appear to agree is not supportive of social equality. Yet Stalin is used in the same Wikipedia article as an example of left-wing activities. Also, if pacifism is left-wing, then the Obama administration is certainly not left-wing or anything close to it, since he has repeatedly authorized military action. I suppose you could finesse this point by saying that neither major party in the US is left-wing by your criterion. But trying to apply this more generally, for example to claim that Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc., were not "really" left-wing, looks a lot like a "no true Scotsman" argument. In fact, by the pacifism criterion, I'm not aware of any government or political movement that has ever been left-wing; the closest thing to it would be some religious orders, like the Amish, who really do try to be pacifists. (Some people would put the Quakers in this category, but the Quakers have always flavored their surface pacifism with a strong pragmatic streak; they sold gunpowder to Washington's army during the American Revolution, for example.) But this makes "left-wing" a basically useless term, not to mention that you would have to explain to an awful lot of people that they have been using it wrong for a long time, since most people apply the term to Stalin, as I noted above, as well as Mao, Pol Pot, etc. Finally, if left-wing means supportive of social equality for everyone, then once again, there are hardly any true left-wingers and never have been. Take trade unions, for example: yes, they're very supportive of social equality for their members, but are they equally supportive of social equality for management? Not to mention social equality for people who are not members but would like to learn one of the trades that are unionized? In my experience, unions do a very poor job with things like apprenticeship programs, because training new members means less job security for existing members. Similarly, central planning in economics, which is supposed to promote more economic equality, ends up giving special privileges to the planners and those who are closely connected with them (like large financial institutions); witness the huge bailouts of investment banks after the crash of 2008, while ordinary people got foreclosed on. The closest thing to true left-wingers by this criterion are left-libertarians or anarchists (which, to be fair, the Wikipedia article does mention).

Intermernet 12y ago
Please note, I'm not arguing your overall point, I agree with it completely. This comment is really just nit-picking over terminology. I'm pretty sure that Stalin has been post-categorized into the "Left-Wing" camp as he stood for "Socialism". That one label is about the only thing about Stalin that could be classified as "Left-Wing". There has been an enormous amount of jostling amongst all "Left-Wing" political parties (globally) since then in order to differentiate themselves from Stalin. "Socialism" is now very different from Stalin's view of it, just as "Liberalism" has now been watered down to mean anyone who isn't on the extreme right. Arguing left vs right is not the way to view this problem. Seeing through the emotive labels and debates, and analyzing the actual behaviour will show you that personal power is the driving motivator, not any political ideology. According to Plato "The measure of a man is what he does with power". Most of our world leaders at the moment aren't measuring up.
- BugBrother 12y ago
  >> "Socialism" is now very different from Stalin's view of it Didn't released documents after 1989 show that most of the West European communist parties took orders directly from Moscow/Stalin? IIRC, it was a big shock that the reason the Italian communist party was so reasonable after WW II was because it was orders from Moscow. (Stalin wanted to split Europe in two.) I remember that the Swedish communist party used to be staunch Stalinists until Moscow told them he was wrong. Is that where the different view of Socialism came from? :-) (The Swedish communists (SKP/VPK/V) claim to have stopped taking orders in the 1960s and have been critics of Soviet since 1989.)
  - Intermernet 12y ago
    Considering that Stalin died in 1953, it's improbable that he had any influence on the communist parties of Europe during the 80's. I'd also refrain from conflating the "communist" parties from Europe with "Socialism", despite the obvious, ideological connections. Times had changed, labels were still being re-used.
- pdonis 12y ago

sbmassey 12y ago

The extermination of minorities is a very popular tactic amongst people supporting social equality. Just look at the French revolution, for an explicit example, if you don't think Pol Pot and the other communists are really left wing.