01-16-2024, 02:20 PM
(01-16-2024, 11:20 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Pretty much. We use it as shorthand because everyone is familiar with it, but in political science it is almost universally dismissed.
To make it even more interesting, I read a paper one time thanks to a Wikipedia rabbit hole that looked at the political typologies in former Soviet Bloc countries. What was of note was that while we in western democracies have our view of right v. left, where left-wing economic views coincide with liberalism, in the former U.S.S.R. those with left-wing economic positions tend to be more of the nationalistic sort. So think of that and how it may related to the Soviet Union of old. We know from history that while they espoused the economic side of Marxism, their adherence to the liberal ideals of democracy (something Marx was a fan of) was severely lacking. It is because of this that trying to project our understanding of right v. left onto the U.S.S.R. is flawed form the start.
I think if you really break it down to its bare bones the USSR wasn't concerned with either. They were concerned with being powerful, respected and feared. Russia has always had an inferiority complex when it comes to Europe. They wanted to be part of the club and the European nations looked down on them, openly, as a agrarian, uneducated peasant land. A huge part of Russian foreign diplomacy, to this day, can be attributed to this inferiority complex. It's why Putin, and others, yearn for the days of the USSR, as it was the only time the nation was respected, albeit in a negative fashion. When you couple that with the fact that Russia never had a tradition of free thinking or even a desire to engage in liberal (in the classic sense of the world, not the US label) politics, you get this tend towards authoritarianism. Freedom is scary, as we all remember from the first months after moving out of our parent's home, especially when you have no history or familiarity with it.
(01-16-2024, 12:01 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: The left vs right debate is one that almost always lacks context. What is left or right is almost always based on a person's own biases.
A libertarian will argue that "personal freedom" is a right wing concept, but a socialist will argue that "personal freedom" is left wing. Their definitions are not similar though. A libertarian thinks "personal freedom" means doing whatever they want, whenever they want without any government institution trying to control them.
A socialist thinks "personal freedom" means freedom from the exploitation that power hierarchies create, such that each person has exactly as much freedom of will to pursue their ambitions as any other person. This second definition basically requires some sort of government intervention, as it would be extremely difficult to prevent hierarchical structures from oppressing people otherwise.
Others view leftist vs rightist as strictly a economic conversation.
At their extremes both ideologies have more in common than they would like to believe. Once you get towards the poles the behavior becomes identical, the only difference being the justification for said behavior. It's actually one of the major flaws on this board, and a microcosm of the problem we have a society at large. People are engaging in the exact same behavior they decry in their ideological opponents, but they are either blind to it or justify it. See cancel culture as an example.
The right was, correctly, up in arms about people being cancelled for things they did and said years, sometimes decades, ago. Or being cancelled for having an unpopular opinion. Yet the exact same people are now rejoicing in people losing their jobs over their stance on the war in Gaza. Sometimes for taking down posters of hostages, sometimes for expressing their opinion on Zionism, sometimes for other reasons. The justification is different, but the outcome and method is the exact same. Ans you'll find no shortage of people justifying it with the shoe being on the other foot excuse.
Quote:The one thing about left vs right that I find fascinating is that political parties/governments will frequently masquerade as left wing governments ("The National Socialist Party," "The People's Republic of China," "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea," etc), but will NEVER masquerade as right wing governments. You'll never see a political party call themselves, "The Fascistic Party of Cambodia."
I don't know what that says about the left vs right debate or what these words actually mean, but I still find it interesting.
I think a large part of that can be attributed to WW2. Far right autocracies were rightly vilified and their crimes widely exposed after WW2. The equally awful atrocities of the far left were largely hidden, overshadowed, or ignored. Let's also be honest, the West tended to not care much what happened to the people in China, the USSR, North Korea or Cambodia. Or Vietnam after we left. If you correctly equate the two, the crimes of the USSR are absolutely on par with Nazi Germany, but a person will proudly walk down the street wearing the hammer and sickle on their t-shirt. Che Guevara was a monster of a human being (and vehemently anti-homosexual btw), but the fact that his crimes are largely unknown and he is seen as a fighter against the oppression of capitalism make him an icon for left leaning younger people to this day.
It's easy to see the evils of the society you are immersed in. It is equally easy to overlook those of a society thousands of miles away. When one of the key "selling points" of that other society is focusing on the perceived evils of your own it can become a very attractive alternative. I think that's why you get the masquerade of a "Democratic People's Republic" of North Korea, and why uneducated and iconoclastic people will buy the obvious lie.
It would be very interesting though to see any self proclaimed Marxist in a western nation be teleported to the USSR or modern day North Korea. They'd be begging for a return to their home nation within a day or two.
