Leftist/ rightist?

[Guest]

I have just a simple question really... <br>I have tried to look up the appropriate defenitions <br>for these political terms, and have become largely confused. <br>It seems to vary upon which type of government is in subject, and the only thing that has made sense to me when applying these terms to anarchism has been: <br>Leftism = activism , while rightism = pascifism <br> <br>Thank you to the person who sets me straight.

[Edo]

"It seems to vary upon which type of government is in subject, and the only thing that has made sense to me when applying these terms to anarchism has been: <br>Leftism = activism , while rightism = pascifism" <br> <br>Rightism is by no means pacifist. The Right, according to its spoken or unspoken belief in the survival of the most advantaged (who by being the most advantaged is defined as "fittest"), is strongly in favor of conquest and most means of doing so. It is, however (if rightism is an ideology), passivist (in the sense that it generally advocates not getting involved in a competition of this sort between two outside parties, especially when the outcome is likely to cause gross injustice.) <br> <br>Leftism... well, isn't necessarily pacifist either. It does, however, believe in actually getting involved in unbalanced conflicts if some semblance of social justice hangs in the balance. <br> <br>(This only applies to nations. Individual rightists can be activists, and vice versa. But I think it's a pretty succinct clarification.)

[Zkauba]

yeah, your right both of this terms (right/left) don't seem to be particularly intelligible when applied to anarchism. which of coarse is not very suprising as these terms are only meant to cover the spectrum of 'political' thought within a 'representative democracy'.

[Stevo]

Many argue that anarchism is off the political spectrum entirely so applying "right" or "left" to the different types of anarchism would be meaningless. I still like to think that anarchism is on the left, but for Christ's sake, look at the anarchy after leftism thread! How many posts are in it? It's got to be at least 300 by now. This issue is under intense debate.

[Guest]

About the political spectrum: It originates in the French Revolution, where those who sat on the "left" of the National Assembly, wanted greater equality, while those on the "right" wanted less equality. <br> <br>Therefore, one of the distuingishing characteristics between left and right, is equality (the left wants greater equality, the right wants less). <br> <br>The problem with this in regards to anarchism, is that the terms left and right were developed in the National Assembly, a bourgeois institution if there ever was one. <br> <br>BTW, prior to the 70s, the notion of right-wing activists, was almost a contradiction in terms. However, as a result of the 60s social struggles, undermining the legitimacy of capialism, certain sectors of the capitalist class started to fund "right-wing activism". A lot of this right-wing activism, copied left-wing strategies with right-wing messages (the anti-abortion movement is a perfect example of this).

[Morpheus]

Leftist = Pro-Equality <br>Rightist = anti-equality

[Guest]

it's hard to label anyone, but with regard to those <br>who might use the anarcho- prefix, they might be <br>divided like his: <br> <br>left: human rights <br>right: property rights <br> <br>each side has had its ideals exploited by rulers <br>who care not about ideology, but about power.

[Guest]

To further confuse the matter: Being "left-wing" does not mean you are not a racist. During the Progressive era, many so called "leftists" like Margaret Sanger were blatantly racist/eugenicist. <br> <br>There's a book that looks extremely interesting (I haven't read it yet) called "Reluctant Reformers: The Impact of Racism on American Social Reform Movements" which discusses the racism in the social reform movements of the early 20th century. <br> <br>As well in the anti-globalization movement, numerous so called leftist outfits, such as Public Citizen, and Council of Canadians, have allied themselves with far-right groups. <br> <br>http://www.tao.ca/~resist/theleftsdirtylittlesecret.html <br> <br>http://www.gebladerte.nl/30016v02.htm

[Guest]

For the REAL right, freedom comes first. <br>For the left, justice/equality comes first. <br> <br>I took this questionnaire a few days ago: <br> <br>http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/questionnaire.pl?page=1 <br> <br>Long but quite interesting. My results are: <br> <br>Economic Left/Right: -3.12 <br>Authoritarian/Libertarian: -8.58 <br> <br>So on the left/right axe I'm a bit in the center-left and I'm of course very libertarian (anarchist). About the exact opposite from Hitler, according to this test [img]/wwwthreads/images/icons/smile.gif[/img] <br> <br>I don't really have a problem with the right, I think it's sane to care about yourself too, not be obsessed all the time about the well-being of the society as a whole. The real problem is authoritarianism IMO.

[Miko]

I'm new. I scored economic Left -6.0 &amp; Authoritarian/ Libertarian -.67 just about right on the line. I've been labelled any number of things but generally not left. An interesting analysis all the same.

[Theobalt]

It originates in the French Revolution, where those who sat on the "left" of the National Assembly, wanted greater equality, while those on the "right" wanted less equality. <br> <br>To be more exact, the left wanted change, and the right wanted no change. Progressives vs conservatives. <br> <br>From that point of view, communists in Russia were conservatives (right) since they were happy with what they had, and the religious right in the US are progressives (left) since they want change. <br> <br>Following how you define left and right, everyone can be sometimes on the left, sometimes on the right, sometimes outside... <br> <br>And we didn't consider the fact that using only one axis is obviously not enough.

[Pomegranate]

to me right means supporting the current order while left means opposing it. anarchists are necessarily leftist when compared to most political folks. when talking about other anarchists, i consider the capitalists righties because they too want to preserve the current system. <br> <br>

[Din]

[color=green]To be more exact, the left wanted change, and the right wanted no change. Progressives vs conservatives.</font color=green> <br> <br>Well, here, I would have to disagree with both you and pomegranate. It is true that those who sat on the left of the national assembly generally wanted change, but it was not change for its own sake. Clearly, they had specific ideas as to what should be changed. Likewise, those on the right did not merely want just any status quo to remain in place - they wanted a specific status quo around. <br> <br>I do not think it would be accurate to describe the religious right in the USA as being progressive - if only because there is more reasons to aspire for change aside from any supposed progressive attitude. In particular, there are those who dislike the status quo because they wish to turn the clock backwards instead of forward. <br> <br>Anarchists being on the Left, I would not think it accurate either to describe the Left as synonymous with Progressivism. After all, many anarchists did and still do aspire a return to an idealized past - most notably, Leo Tolstoy, but also the contemporary primitivists. Anarchism, as a philosophy, has generally been ambivalent towards change, modernism, technology, industry, and progress - which are all traits that Socialism, in contrast, have glorified. Of course, if one associate Socialism and only Socialism as being Left, then anarchists are not left but "post-left"... but that's a wholly different issue. <br> <br>If and when anarchists or socialists acquire their ideal society, whatsoever it may be, it would be misleading to think that they would have change seat with the right-wingers who would then seek to change the society into something else. While the Left and Right distinction is extremely limited, it is generally thought that the Left comprise of the various Libertarian and Socialist schools of thought, including Anarchists, Marxists, and Social Democrats; while the Right comprise of the Liberals and various Conservative school of thoughts, including the Fascists, Fundamentalists, and Neo-Liberals. The term "Old Right" actually refers to the Classical Liberal isolationist minimal state position. The Religious Right of the USA, being neo-conservatives, are considered as being the "New Right" - and both Old and New Right have as disputes with each other as the more well-known distinction of Old and New Left have with another.

[disease_of_ease]

this is a little off-subject, but FYI, on the topic of the conservative right in america... if anyone is looking for an interesting subject to read up on i suggest looking for a book called "the churching of america." the authors' last names are finke and stark. the book basically compiles data from historical records and documents to show how the united states has become increasingly more religious since it first became a country. <br> <br>a lot of conservatives in america are hardline christians who claim that america has become "too secular" and lost it's sense of moral duty over time. this book does a great job of providing almost indisputable evidence that this has not been the case; that if anything the religious right has grown more powerful since the 18th and 19 centuries. <br> <br>goes to say that the so-called conservative right is not necessarily a group that supports conserving present institutions or "moving backwards." a lot of times these groups will become nostalgic for a past that never really existed.

[Din]

[color=green]a lot of conservatives in america are hardline christians who claim that america has become "too secular" and lost it's sense of moral duty over time. this book does a great job of providing almost indisputable evidence that this has not been the case; that if anything the religious right has grown more powerful since the 18th and 19 centuries.</font color=green> <br> <br>Correct. Politically, the change is described as a shift from an Old Right position of minimal state liberalism to the New Right position of neo-conservatism, of which fundamentalism is considered part of. The turning point is generally considered to be the Civil War, though it would not be until a good century later that the neo-conservatives became the dominant thumping force that it is today. In between, of course, was the cretin universally known as Franklin D. Roosevelt. <br> <br>[color=green]a lot of times these groups will become nostalgic for a past that never really existed.</font color=green> <br> <br>Correct again. Such is the case with the Nazi Germans, the Christian Fundamentalists, and even some Anarchists. Hence, the term - an idealized past. As opposed to a real past.