Source
r/PoliticalPhilosophy•
Upper-Basil

Why do we divide politics in left vs right?

-- does the "left" vs " right" represent the natural evolution of human politics /the range of our possible political indications/inclinations(atleast at our current point in society[like idk if politics would change in like multi planetary or far future civilizations or w.e so just mean currently atleast]) since I know other countries also have left&right(or atleast we discuss it in those terms), or why do we organize politics into these left vs right groups of policy/opinions... does the policies that represent the left /right "have" to be that way, like would the policies the left thinks always become policies of the left or could they also develop on the right, and why or why not?

The reason I'm asking is because these concepts of left/right Democrat/Republican feels really confusing & unnecessary to me right now as I think I'm feeling like i don't fit into either category anymore & I dont understand why we have to have these like sides & what they mean...I feel like the most reasonable position is not on a side, that like no one side is right or wrong about everything or most things* in certain contexts one side or another has the mostly right view, but this isnt weighted more or less toward one side or another&on many issues its like a combination, like the truth is nuanced &the right & left both have truth to what their saying but it's too simplistic only to see it that way & the truth is a nuanced mesh of points from both sides& requires a nuanced solution... its like when I look at certain issues & the common rhetoric on each side both sides have points & sentiments that seem right but also some that seem wrong(on the same issue)& so it's basically like both& neither are right & the solution that each side poses isnt usually nuanced enough to be quite right becuase it seems the solution requires honoring the valid sentiments (&discarding the invalid ones)on both sides.

--Does organizing politics into these left vs right /us vs them groups just leads to too simplistic & closed minded intolerant views & policies. -- Do the inherented biases & assumptions that come from being associated to a party or side, & all of the "spinning that's done to fit circumstances with narrativs that align with those sides, just limit how much progress it is ever possible to make? --why couldnt we just focus in the issues individually without these left/right groupings of what you have to think or at the least vote for, couldn't so many more bils be passed if congress was not divided by left or right but just people who were voted in by their views alone & many which overlap more their indivisually thought out views where there wouldnt be pressure associated with having to stay within the views of a party?

Idk if I'm missing something obvious but idk I just feel confused & this is where im at & what I've got. Thanks:)

Posted Oct 8, 2020, 5:01 AM UTC

6101
Vix_Cepblenull•

So short answer as to why we divide among left right is because of the French Revolution. Representatives of the estates general when they were called to Versailles by the King ended up sectioning themselves based specific policy preferences/goals. Just as then as is no, it’s not binary and never has been. It’s more of spectrum with people in coalition with the overall party but have specific disagreements in the absolute. The perfect example of this is that Joe Manchin and Ed Markey belong to the same party, but you would be very hard pressed to see them agree on anything beyond certain things dealing with healthcare or labor policy. Partisanship in recent decades have become turbocharged. these spats over left/right distinctions with ideological purity taking preference over bipartisan reciprocity are now the unfortunate norm when it comes to America’s two parties.

8
Equality_Executor•

I think you're misunderstanding because you don't see the entire picture. In US politics the "left" isn't really the left, the democratic party are made up of mostly neo-liberals with a few socdems. The word "liberal" itself no longer means what it used to in the US, so you'll see some people refer to what it used to mean as "classical liberalism". See the wikipedia article on "Liberalism" here. How much of the description of that fits both parties in the US? It doesn't explicitly state this in the article, but I generally think of classic liberalism as (varying levels of performative/attempted) democracy within capitalism.

Liberals as a whole are centre/right. The dead-ends of the sepctrum have fascism on the far right, and communism on the far left. In my opinion the left doesn't start until you get into anti-capitalism, because as "socialist" as a liberal can get with their policy they will always fall under classical liberalism. Just to be clear: socialism and communism are different. Communism is a fully classless and moneyless society. Socialism is the transitional period between capitalism and communism, not "medicare for all" or "no guns". I can explain this in a little more detail if you wish.

The whole idea of how the democratic party in the US is "the left" is a result of the media and it's limiting effect on the window of discourse. The people in power (not politicians) love that your choices are between two people that will not really change things for them. If you want to start thinking differently about politics in the US, my first suggestion would be to stop watching mainstream media. Chomsky had a lot to say about this if you're interested.

The real difference between the left and the right are who holds power. The farther left you go, the more the power will be in the hands of the proletariat. The farther right you go, the more the power will be in the hands of the capitalist class. Where the power rests seems to be determined by how unified the proletariat are against the capitalist class.

2
subheight640•

I never like this take. Left and right are defined by the status quo of the government, relative to one country. It's not useful to define left/right by some Western European standard. In terms of the status quo, in terms of the path the left has to take, the American democrats are certainly pushing in a particular political direction. That direction of course is left.

Therefore to label the democrats as "center right" isn't particularly useful for any American. Instead it's just a display of Eurocentric bias. In practice such Eurocentric bias helps further dis-unify the American left. Thanks.

Under the same logic I suppose you can call the Hong-Kong protestors right wingers because they espouse liberal values.

1
Equality_Executor•

I never like this take. Left and right are defined by the status quo of the government, relative to one country. It's not useful to define left/right by some Western European standard. In terms of the status quo, in terms of the path the left has to take, the American democrats are certainly pushing in a particular political direction. That direction of course is left.

So you and I are talking about two different things. I'm defining the political spectrum in its entirety. You're defining the contemporary political climate in the US, which only occupies a small section of the spectrum.

Therefore to label the democrats as "center right" isn't particularly useful for any American. Instead it's just a display of Eurocentric bias. In practice such Eurocentric bias helps further dis-unify the American left. Thanks.

It is useful for any American that actually wants to understand why the division seems useless, like OP.

Under the same logic I suppose you can call the Hong-Kong protestors right wingers because they espouse liberal values.

I consider them centrist/centre-right, just like any other neoliberal. I'm pretty sure the protestors in Belarus are as well but I admit I don't know as much about that as I do HK.

1
subheight640•

Sounds pretty stupid to me to divorce the context of politics, from the political spectrum. Under your absolute classification system, you would call the Left of the French Revolutionary right wing liberals.

Well if the classification was "absolute", you're absolutely wrong. Let's define the center as in the context of the French Revolution as was originally intended. Then the US Democrats are assuredly to the Left of the original French Revolutionary Left.

Instead even you buy into the idea of the relativity of the political spectrum, because at the very minimum our political spectrum's center position has been changing over time. It's not much of a leap then to say that the center also changes as a function of space.

Finally words are about communication. When an American talks to other Americans, he well understands that the vast majority of all Leftists cooperate with the Democrats, including self-declared socialists such as Alexandria Cortez and Bernie Sanders. To call the Democrats "centre right" is also absolutely wrong, because there are leftist Democrats in elected office right now of the same kind as European leftists.

1
Equality_Executor•

Sounds pretty stupid to me to divorce the context of politics, from the political spectrum.

I'm saying that the political climate and spectrum are two different things and that the political climate will fit within the spectrum somewhere. If you don't do that then how could you know and understand what is possible within politics outside of the current political climate? Are you saying it's okay to look immediately left and right of your current position, but not much further?

​

Under your absolute classification system, you would call the Left of the French Revolutionary right wing liberals.

If you consider that communism existed hundreds of years prior to that then what would you call them from a purely outside perspective? What would you call them now considering you are aware of what communism and fascism are? Don't get me wrong though. I am at least vaguely aware of the historical context and know and understand how French Revolutionaries were probably seen at the time.

Let me ask you this. If I said I was in favour of a completely moneyless and classless society, what would you call me considering people in the US are currently calling Biden a socialist (and if you don't think that's true then take whoever you think is the farthest left in US politics as an example)? Most people don't even understand the difference between "socialist" and "communist". So, would that make me a "super duper heavy duty industrial sized socialist?", or would you claim that I don't exist, despite us having this conversation?

​

Well if the classification was "absolute", you're absolutely wrong. Let's define the center as in the context of the French Revolution as was originally intended. Then the US Democrats are assuredly to the Left of the original French Revolutionary Left.

I don't really see them as absolute but until we discover something farther to the left or right of communism and fascism respectively I will see those as the ends of the spectrum. What I'm saying doesn't make taking something as your current perspective (or you redefine it as "center" as you've done) and figuring out where whatever you're comparing it to is to the right or left of that impossible and I do that myself regularly. I just also understand where both fit on the full spectrum.

​

Instead even you buy into the idea of the relativity of the political spectrum,

Instead of what? Isn't relativity what you're arguing should have exclusivity when thinking about political position?

because at the very minimum our political spectrum's center position has been changing over time.

The centre of the political climate has been changing over time, yes, my point is that it's been shifting left or right on the full political spectrum.

It's not much of a leap then to say that the center also changes as a function of space.

If you do that then that's probably okay for you. Not everyone thinks of it that way though. I understand what you mean though.

​

Finally words are about communication. When an American talks to other Americans, he well understands that the vast majority of all Leftists cooperate with the Democrats, including self-declared socialists such as Alexandria Cortez and Bernie Sanders.

I am a natural born US citizen that lived there for ~30 years of my life (a vast majority of it). I am fully aware of how americans talk to each other about politics in the US. Any self respecting communist knows that AOC, Sanders, or any US politician is not capable of being an actual socialist because they are liberals. They were elected to a political office and so they are beholden to that office and will work within it's confines. Revolution outside of "political revolution" as they call it, is not a possible outcome for them. Also, I'm pretty sure the actual label for them is social democrat or socdem, and I'm also pretty sure they describe themselves as such and "socialist" to them is just a shorter way of saying that.

To call the Democrats "centre right" is also absolutely wrong

Its only "wrong" if you refuse to consider the full political spectrum. That's okay I guess but to anyone that does you will just seem ignorant.

because there are leftist Democrats in elected office right now of the same kind as European leftists.

But a lot of Europeans also understand that those "European leftists" are only "leftists" within the current political climate and they are not actual socialists.

1
geirmundtheshifty•

Let's define the center as in the context of the French Revolution as was originally intended. Then the US Democrats are assuredly to the Left of the original French Revolutionary Left.

I don't think you realize just how far "left" some of those revolutionaries were.

1
geirmundtheshifty•

the American democrats are certainly pushing in a particular political direction.

I dont think thats entirely accurate. The left wing of the party pushes in that direction, but a lot of the party often just pushes for the status quo. And sometimes even a push to the left of the status quo really only looks that way from a short term perspective. Clinton would not have seemed very left wing compared to pre-Reagan politics, for instance.

I do agree in general that you have to look at these things on a country by country basis. But there is also value in looking at them from more global, historical basis. Especially if you want to get some perspective on how seemingly disconnected political issues can be considered left or right wing.

1
Upper-BasilOP•

Sorry for delay but yes if you could explain more id love to understand this idealogy( that i'm hearing alot but not quite grasping) ... Im trying to understand the end goal?... is it communism instead of socialism? Or socialism? Or something else entirely and if so what ??

I guess I am always so confused by all of the animosity towards capitalism, so im interested to here why you think this cant be salvaged and/or shouldnt be... like I can definitely understand that there might be some issues with it how it's done today or whatever, and I dont know too many people that would ever argue that we should just have totally unregulated capitalism, but to me it's like, well it's like this i guess... maybe this is weird, but whenever I am thinking about things like political issues and government or economic systmes and rights and responsibilities and whatever I tend to always find myself imagining humans outside of a government/social/civilized society context, I guess in like a natural/pre government basically cave man or tribal group existence, and i think about what would be my rights and responsibilities and what makes sense...so like everyone has the basic fundamental right to pursue whatever endeavors they want to pursue or need to for survival, they dont owe anyone else anything but it doesnt seem right that they can take away or interfere with others rights to do the same and pursue their own survival and endeavors. If imagined in a tribal context than the same basically applies, in a tribal sense it would seem that tribe members have some responsibilities to the tribe but that seems to be a choice/a natural one given the small nature of tribes. Once you get to larger and larger groups/stationary villages and ultimaltey cities etc, it would seem that the responsibilty aspect goes from essentially the responsibilities to keep everyone in the tribe fed and warm and safe etc would shift away again, like in say a small village of a few hundred people or something, it would seem that your "responsibilities" toward everyone else(atleast maybe other than your family if there is a nuclear family in this type of setting) would essentially boil down to your role in that group- like if you are a hunter or a farmer or gardnner or whatver, youre responsibility is to provide food for youre village, while someone else might be a builder and build homes for the community & thats their responsibility/service, someone else may sew clothes or teach children or provide security from certain dangers, etc etc etc. And that basically seems like what would be the case in a huge country this large- youre career is your service to society, it makes sense that we care for the people who are unable to work whether thats bc they are elderly or disabled or whatver, it makes snese that we have systems in place so that everyone's basic needs are met as a given. I dont think a capitalist or non socialist system makes it so that we cant provide basic needs for everyone, and I feel like capitalism is the natural/original system of humans-- they would trade goods or services for goods or services and now we do essentially that for money... capitalism is the only system that can actually generate any wealth it would seem like, and its brought nations and people out of poverty more than any socialist system has... so while i think we certainly neeed to ensure everyone is taken care of and to ensure that regulations are in place for businesses etc, I simply dont get wh y capitlism gets so much hatred and why wed need to have communism or socilism of whatver in order to realize a fair system. I dont see why someone people who put in the work or some get lucky shouldn't be able to make more money if they want to put the effort in, as long as everyones basic neeeds are met... im aure maybe im mising something and im sorry for right a novel but id like to understand this capitalism issue and also just this idealogy your saying in general! Thx

1
Equality_Executor•

There is a 10k limit to comment replies, so you'll have to forgive me making multiple replies. I've also cut text from where I've quoted you, please assume that I am responding to everything within what I've quoted including the cut text.

1/2

Sorry for delay but yes if you could explain more id love to understand this idealogy( that i'm hearing alot but not quite grasping) ... Im trying to understand the end goal?... is it communism instead of socialism? Or socialism? Or something else entirely and if so what ??

So the end goal is a classless and moneyless society. This is the simplest definition of communism. By classless it is meant that there is no unnecessary hierarchy or power structures, everyone is equal as far as their subjugation to/freedom from class dominance (oppression) goes. By moneyless it is meant that there is no method for an individual to accumulate power to the point where they may find themselves in a separate class to anyone else (which would allow them to express class dominance over them). "Money" in this context is capital (or even money used as capital), which in capitalism is upheld by the concept of private property.

If the above is the goal, then the method in which to achieve that goal is called socialism. One of the purposes of socialism is to make some initial changes so that society can undergo a cultural shift away from the concept of property (you might have heard the initial changes described as "the communal ownership of the means of production" - I interpret that as getting everyone to a point so that they can stop caring about property/ownership).

I'm sorry to have to explain it all that way, I just like to be clear. In short the goal is to create a society where oppression not only does not exist, but also can never exist, and people can experience true freedom.

​

I guess I am always so confused by all of the animosity towards capitalism,

There are a lot of reasons, the main one is that oppression is inherent in a capitalist system. "Money implies poverty" - Iain M. Banks. Another thing that goes along with that is that capitalism is alienating. One thing that you can see very commonly between a lot of wildlife, is that they will try to help one another, at least within the same species. Well if you take that idea and apply it to humans, it's called humanity. Capitalism forces people to go against their humanity because everything can be translated into money, even time, so any time you spend even thinking about helping someone else is time that you could have used to help yourself, even if it isn't necessary and you know that it isn't necessary, it's still possible to help yourself by accumulating more money. With money, there is no ceiling to how "secure" you can be. Another thing is that money ends up replacing most of our motivation to do anything at all. Do you want to do anything for the sake of doing it or do you want to do it because it is financially beneficial to you? How much of your life is spent doing one or the other? You could argue that you need money to do things for the sake of doing them, but why the extra step? It forces every single person at some point to do things for the sake of gaining money so that they are able to. That, to me, is not freedom and especially because not everyone can gain enough money to be able to do what they like.

so im interested to here why you think this cant be salvaged and/or shouldnt be...

Within our current liberal democracy, anything granted can similarly be stripped away. You can look back through history, even prior to liberal democracy, and see the way power has made to and fro changes to how the rest of society lives. "Worship God this way, not that way", was a big one in Europe for quite a long time. After the stock market crash of 1929, the laws enacted to protect people from that happening again were repealed over time, just in time for the housing market crisis of the mid 2000s. Many prominent supreme court decisions seem to be under threat right now with the appointing of this new justice. You'd think that the "right thing to do" would be pretty easy to decide on, so why all this to and fro? It's because most decisions in politics aren't about whats right or wrong, it's about who benefits or becomes more or less free or oppressed. Do we want to trust our freedom or our future with that?

whenever I am thinking ----- I tend to always find myself imagining humans ---- in - a - cave man or tribal group existence,----- right that they can take away or interfere with others rights to do the same and pursue their own survival and endeavors.

Why think about things like this when you know that "survival" shouldn't be an issue with our current level of technology and production? Fighting for survival has only ever existed for humanity in it's infancy because human cooperation has carried us past it time and time again throughout history, despite capitalism and it's predecessors. If there is a fight for survival today then it is among individuals by circumstance or those who belong to societies who have been subjugated by capitalist oppression, not shared by humanity.

If imagined in a tribal context than the same basically applies, in a tribal sense ------------------------- I feel like capitalism is the natural/original system of humans-- they would trade goods or services for goods or services and now we do essentially that for money...

The way you talk about tribal culture makes it seem like you subscribe to a belief in what is "human nature", which is an idea that I disagree with totally. It only takes one outlier to to prove it's non-existence and I'm sure there are many examples. One that I can think of off the top of my head is what was written back to the Spanish royal court in 1493 by Columbus. He described the indigenous peoples he encountered in the Americas as having no concept of property, and willing to help him by giving him and his men all that they needed to survive freely, with no expectation of anything in return. I suggest you read any works by anthropologists who have studied various tribal cultures around the world. From the primitive communism article on wikipedia:

Egalitarian and communist-like hunter gatherer societies have been studied and described by many well-known social anthropologists including James Woodburn,[9] Richard Lee,[10], and, more recently, Alan Barnard[11] and Jerome Lewis.[12] Anthropologists such as Christopher Boehm,[13] Chris Knight[14] and Jerome Lewis[15] offer theoretical accounts to explain how communistic, assertively egalitarian social arrangements might have emerged in the prehistoric past.

1
Equality_Executor•

2/2

capitalism is the only system that can actually generate any wealth it would seem like, and its brought nations and people out of poverty more than any socialist system has...

Early stages of socialism actually emulate capitalism, because the changes need to come slow for people to adjust and for culture to shift. Even so, I'm pretty sure the USSR, at least prior to Stalin's death, did a lot for it's people. Mao and Thomas Sankara are other good examples. Even being liberal/social democrat, Evo Morales was recently vindicated via democratic election after a coup that removed him from power last year. There are even articles today that particularly point out how much China's economy has "lifted people out of poverty". From 1981 to 2015 China's poverty rate went from 88% to 0.7%. The problem with capitalism is that the people are beholden to it. You give a "poor" subsistence farmer electricity and running water, but then he has to sell his crops to pay for it when his life was just fine and they were completely content with their lives prior to that. Capitalism doesn't necessary "lift people out of poverty" as much as it assimilates them into a lifestyle common under capitalism. Don't get me wrong, we should be improving the way we live as humans, but not in a way where anything is expected in return for it because then it almost seems like we're enslaving people in a way, instead of granting them more freedom.

​

so while i think we certainly neeed to ensure everyone is taken care of and to ensure that regulations are in place for businesses etc, I simply dont get wh y capitlism gets so much hatred and why wed need to have communism or socilism of whatver in order to realize a fair system.

I think I responded to most of this already above, I just wanted to separate it out as to not appear as I'm rehashing anything.

I dont see why someone people who put in the work or some get lucky shouldn't be able to make more money if they want to put the effort in, as long as everyones basic neeeds are met...

There is nothing to say that this isn't possible under communism. The only thing you cannot do is exert class dominance over others.

im aure maybe im mising something and im sorry for right a novel but id like to understand this capitalism issue and also just this idealogy your saying in general! Thx

It's perfectly alright. If you'd like to ask questions in a respectful way and can take on the mentality of a student that is ready to accept what they are told and is ready to learn then I suggest r/Communism101 or r/Socialism_101. Please heed my warnings as they are quick to ban people, and please understand that this is to shut down trolls and to keep the community there fit for purpose.

1
geirmundtheshifty•

Theres a lot of history behind the division youre talking about and the creation of political parties. If you want to get a grasp on the history that shaped modern politics, I would highly recommend listening to the Revolutions podcast. Each season covers a modern political revolution, starting with the English Civil War and ending with the Russian Revolution (the last season is still ongoing).

The series covers the birth of modern republicanism, democracy, liberalism, conservatism, reactionary politics, socialism, etc. While it doesnt go all the way to contemporary politics, you can see how all of these political movements started, why different countries have different connotations for words like "liberal," and why parties are pretty much ubiquitous in modern democracies.

I know its a bit silly to recommend an entire podcast to answer your question. And there are other comments that give an adequate brief answer I suppose. But your comment seems to me to indicate that youre really interested in this, and like with many political questions, the best way to understand it is to get a grasp on how this state of things came about.

2
Upper-BasilOP•

Thank you! I love podcasts so this will definitely go on my list of what to listen to next/I might try it out on my drive later today haha it sounds super interesting!

1
DreadPirate27•

The western form of debate encourages two clear cut sides. It’s a cultural thing but you could probably go even deeper historically and just say these are remnants like many things of tribalism.

The American system is one that encourages duopoly, though Washington warned against it, while systems of other nations encourage a plethora of parties like that of Israel. You reference the legislature and that institution has bred itself to be one that favors various types of majority, you don’t have to look to ancient history in 2016-2018 the majority was held by the GOP in both the house and senate and they failed to pass much legislation. You’d be correct in pointing out within each party there are multiple coalitions, each with their respective leader and voting bloc. The problems in the US legislature are more systematic than party based, too many shenanigans regarding the passing of legislation. The gamesmanship has been out of hand since the days of LBJ. Americans however, are not all humans, in fact they are far from it.

I’d look to other countries particularly non-western ones, you’ll see that the form of debate that the society partakes in will drive the political system. Rhetorical studies would also help understand the various theories and styles of debate.

Just to finally reiterate you can get deep into rhetoric, debate, studies of tribalism and hierarchical systems but I wouldn’t recommend Reddit be the place you do that.

1
catycatx•

I think rather than seeing it a pair of opposites, it is more helpful to look at it as a spectrum and to accept that no one is purely on the left or purely on the right, but somewhere in between. And of course, if you take a political compass test you'll see that there is a vertical axis as well, which measures how large of a state we want, from authoritarian to libertarian. I agree though there is so much more polarization in the Democrat-Republican distinction, perhaps as a cultural difference. Yet I think the left-right/ libertarian-authoritarian distinctions are still good for assessing US politicians, particularly in the early stages of the elections when you have many more candidates on each side.

1
LucretiusOfDreams•

You should read Brian Patrick Mitchell's Eight Ways the Run the Country.

1
USoverthem•

The fact of the matter is, there is a glaring chasm between the two sides of the aisle: one side is for liberty, justice, and America, and the other side is for tyranny, injustice, and anti-America. As long as that stark divide remains there is no middle ground and the two sides will be relegated to their respective corners.

-10
catycatx•

Not sure that it is as black and white as that

4
USoverthem•

It’s pretty basic stuff actually

-1
catycatx•

Yes the US political system is over-complicated and creates the right environment for polarization, but ideologically speaking republican theory has its good parts. In particular, I've always found the idea of citizenship as a duty rather than as an entitlement quite valuable as well as the concept of freedom as non-domination. In the current state of affairs, however, I'm inclined to agree that there is a greater evil, but that is not to say the Democrats are purely on the side of justice.

1
USoverthem•

The democrats aren’t at all on the side of justice. They’re on the side of injustice, tyranny, and America hating.

0