Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Fried Egg]

In "The Myth of Left and Right: How the Political Spectrum Misleads and Harms America" by Verlan Lewis & Hyrum Lewis, the authors ask what is the essential difference between these two ideological groups? The answer they conclude is: nothing.

Their thesis: Despite much pretense, neither “left” nor “right” are remotely coherent philosophies. There is no foundational leftist premise from which leftist conclusions flow, nor is there any foundational rightist premise from which rightist conclusions flow. Ideologies don’t just change mightily over the long-run; they change sharply even from one election to another. For intellectually irrelevant reasons.

It is not hard to find examples of policies that have once been favoured by one side (and opposed by the other) that have switched over time. Consider global free trade for instance. It used to be thought of as something the right would advocate and the left oppose but this seems to have switched with Trump's republicans being very skeptical of global trade with the left being in favour.

But can you think of any position that has always been associated with the left or right? Is there really no coherent philosophy that underlies either the left or right?

[Sy Borg]

You have left v right - Marxism v capitalism.
You have left v right - progressivism v tradition.
You have left v right - nature v development.
You have left v right - collectivism v individualism.
You have left v right - egalitarianism v hierarchy.
You have left v right - globalism v nationalism.
You have left v right - secularism v religion.
You have left v right - interventionism v laissez-faire.

Confusion stems from treating a multi-dimensional concept as two-dimensional, as politicians, mainstream media and other corporations intend. For chattel to be easily led, you need to keep their conceptions simple and easy to manipulate.

[Fried Egg]

Confusion stems from treating a multi-dimensional concept as two-dimensional, as politicians, mainstream media and other corporations intend. For chattel to be easily led, you need to keep their conceptions simple and easy to manipulate.

Indeed. But can one also say that an individual, or even a political party at any given time, might be left on some of the axes you mention but right on others?

We can, I think, find historical examples of individuals or political parties that we tend to call "left" or "right" that would necessarily align on all the dimensions you listed in your post. For instance, the various fascist parties in the early 20th century. Although they are considered right wing (and far right at that), they would definitely fall on the left side of the "collectivism v individualism" and "interventionism v laissez-faire" dimensions at the very least.

By the way, you said: "You have left v right - nature v development." Did you mean this the other way around? I would have thought that this is more commonly thought of as the left believing in nurture and the right believing in nature but also definitely think this is one of those dimensions that could easily go both ways.

[Sy Borg]

Confusion stems from treating a multi-dimensional concept as two-dimensional, as politicians, mainstream media and other corporations intend. For chattel to be easily led, you need to keep their conceptions simple and easy to manipulate.

Indeed. But can one also say that an individual, or even a political party at any given time, might be left on some of the axes you mention but right on others?

Yes, history tells us that the Overton window is far from fixed.

My views used to be considered solidly progressive, now a number of them would be labelled "far right", although those who would claim that are using the term as an insult rather than attempting accurate description.

We can, I think, find historical examples of individuals or political parties that we tend to call "left" or "right" that would necessarily align on all the dimensions you listed in your post. For instance, the various fascist parties in the early 20th century. Although they are considered right wing (and far right at that), they would definitely fall on the left side of the "collectivism v individualism" and "interventionism v laissez-faire" dimensions at the very least.

That highlights the multiple dimensions of political preferences, which also can change due to a person's life experience.

By the way, you said: "You have left v right - nature v development." Did you mean this the other way around? I would have thought that this is more commonly thought of as the left believing in nurture and the right believing in nature but also definitely think this is one of those dimensions that could easily go both ways.

If you like, wild nature v urbanisation.

[Good_Egg]

Marxism v capitalism.
progressivism v tradition.
nature v development/urbanisation collectivism v individualism.
egalitarianism v hierarchy.
globalism v nationalism.
secularism v religion.
interventionism v laissez-faire.

Good list.

But I don't see eight independent dimensions here.

Arguably, progressivism involves a rejection of a western traditional culture that is patriotic and religious.

And laissez-faire capitalism is what you get when individuals are allowed to choose for themselves rather than being subordinated to collective pursuit of equality. Marxism is a form of collectivism, seeing the world in terms of classes.

Like brother Fried, it's not clear to me that development/urbanisation is a left/right issue as such. I would say rather that for people to live happily at high densities in cities, more government is needed than in rural farming areas. Leftist values are urban values. Rural culture is both more self-reliant (individual-focussed) and more tradition-minded.

[Fried Egg]

We can, I think, find historical examples of individuals or political parties that we tend to call "left" or "right" that would necessarily align on all the dimensions you listed in your post. For instance, the various fascist parties in the early 20th century. Although they are considered right wing (and far right at that), they would definitely fall on the left side of the "collectivism v individualism" and "interventionism v laissez-faire" dimensions at the very least.

That highlights the multiple dimensions of political preferences, which also can change due to a person's life experience.

So perhaps we shouldn't use the terms "left" or "right" to describe one's position on the various political dimensions because doing so seems to imply that being left on one dimension tends usually (or should) coincide with being left on another dimension?

I think that is what the book is essentially critiquing; that there is no reason why being left in one dimension need coincide with being left on another. There is no logical connection between them.

e.g. If I believe in collectivism over individualism, that has no bearing (logically) on whether I should favour globalism or nationalism.

[Fried Egg]

But I don't see eight independent dimensions here.

Arguably, progressivism involves a rejection of a western traditional culture that is patriotic and religious.

Actually, progressivism does not necessarily oppose religion. If your society is traditionally secular, then a progressive stance (within that society) might be in favour of religion.

And laissez-faire capitalism is what you get when individuals are allowed to choose for themselves rather than being subordinated to collective pursuit of equality.

Again, Sy-Borg didn't say laissez-faire capitalism, he said laissez-faire. Which means the government just letting the chips fall where they may. Interventionism on the other hand is not necessarily instigated in the pursuit of collectivism or equality. It might seek to impose individualism (on a population that is predisposed to be to collective) or to maintain a hierarchy that might collapse in the absence of state intervention.

The key here is to look at their essential logic of these different dimensions and if there is anything that logically connects them.

[Pattern-chaser]

But can you think of any position that has always been associated with the left or right? Is there really no coherent philosophy that underlies either the left or right?

I think there is. The basic dichotomy has always been there, I think, and remains so.

You have left v right - Marxism v capitalism.
You have left v right - progressivism v tradition.
You have left v right - nature v development.
You have left v right - collectivism v individualism.
You have left v right - egalitarianism v hierarchy.
You have left v right - globalism v nationalism.
You have left v right - secularism v religion.
You have left v right - interventionism v laissez-faire.

Yes, indeed. As has been said, this is not a list of independent qualities, but it's still a list of differences between left and right. And I think that which lies below them all is the balance between the individual and the community. The left tends to favour the community, while the right tends to favour the individual. Isn't that the basic difference between the two?

But even then, the difference is not a clear and distinct one, because the end result is a balance, not one overwhelming or even 'defeating' () the other. Balance. The only thing to determine then is the nature of that balance...

Yes?

[Pattern-chaser]

If I believe in collectivism over individualism, that has no bearing (logically) on whether I should favour globalism or nationalism.

Fair comment. But so what? Just because left and right exist doesn't mean they should account alone for all differences, and enable the resolution of all issues. Left and right do concern and consider collectivism and individualism, but they have no direct connection to globalism and nationalism, yes?

[Fried Egg]

Yes, indeed. As has been said, this is not a list of independent qualities, but it's still a list of differences between left and right. And I think that which lies below them all is the balance between the individual and the community. The left tends to favour the community, while the right tends to favour the individual. Isn't that the basic difference between the two?

What about fascism? Fascists favour collectivism over individualism. And yet we call them right wing.

Therefore, it is not true to say that the left vs right divide always corresponds to the collectivist vs individualist divide. Either that, or we would be forced to classify fascism as left wing.

So, if there is a coherent philosophy that always unites those on the left or the right, it is not a measure of where one stands on the collectivist/individualist dimension.

[Pattern-chaser]

Yes, indeed. As has been said, this is not a list of independent qualities, but it's still a list of differences between left and right. And I think that which lies below them all is the balance between the individual and the community. The left tends to favour the community, while the right tends to favour the individual. Isn't that the basic difference between the two?

What about fascism? Fascists favour collectivism over individualism. And yet we call them right wing.

Therefore, it is not true to say that the left vs right divide always corresponds to the collectivist vs individualist divide. Either that, or we would be forced to classify fascism as left wing.

Fair point. I'm thinking...

What does fascism mean?

Many experts agree that fascism is a mass political movement that emphasizes extreme nationalism, militarism, and the supremacy of the nation over the individual. This model of government stands in contrast to liberal democracies that support individual rights, competitive elections, and political dissent.

In many ways, fascist regimes are revolutionary in nature. They advocate for the overthrow of existing systems of government and the persecution of political enemies. However, such regimes are also highly conservative in their championing of traditional values.

And although fascist leaders typically claim to support the everyman, in reality, their regimes often align with powerful business interests.

Fascism is an extreme position, I think. And extremes tend to blow everything out of proportion. But when we dig down, below the bluster, the propaganda and the outright lies, we find it is the ultimate individualist doctrine. All must kowtow to the Glorious Leader. [North Korea, anyone?] So I don't think this can reasonably be put forward as part of the more rational dichotomy between left and right. I think it just describes a corrupt (?) leader with a Julius Caesar complex?

I'm fairly confident that other extremist ideologies can also be considered in this way.

[Fried Egg]

Fascism is an extreme position, I think. And extremes tend to blow everything out of proportion. But when we dig down, below the bluster, the propaganda and the outright lies, we find it is the ultimate individualist doctrine. All must kowtow to the Glorious Leader. [North Korea, anyone?]

I think you're now just pointing at one of the other dimensions that Sy borg listed and saying that fascism is right wing on the egalitarianism v hierarchy axis. Fascism still rests on a collectivist philosophy.

The point is that you could take any single political philosophical dichotomy and find that neither the left or the right has an exclusive claim to either side. At least that is the contention that the authors of this book make anyway.

[LuckyR]

It seems that Fried Egg acknowledges that the concepts of Left and Right exist but that individuals and political parties promote aspects of both Left and Right depending on the specific topic. Not only do I agree, but why would anyone assume it would be any other way? Folks basically promote their self interest which will vary from Left to Right depending, just as observed.

[Count Lucanor]

In "The Myth of Left and Right: How the Political Spectrum Misleads and Harms America" by Verlan Lewis & Hyrum Lewis, the authors ask what is the essential difference between these two ideological groups? The answer they conclude is: nothing.

They surely must have gotten something wrong. There appears to be some truth when it is pointed out that the terms left and right, as broad generalizations, cannot be used to categorize specific actions or stances as part of an organized movement that would fall under those labels, but it seems that this is not what the authors want to convey. They want to convey the notion that the way causes are brought up and issues are dealt with politically, does not merit a distinction between left and right. I will argue that, to some extent, there’s a clear distinction between the left and the right, even though these are broad umbrella terms, under which many stances, some even clashing with others, coexist. That’s because they still share some common essential aspects. The result of this is that there are many “lefts” and many “rights”, which make up the broad concepts of left and right, but you would not be able to guess how people stand on any issue, which causes they pursue, just by their identification with one of these labels. I’m quite comfortable labeling myself as a socialist, and as such, categorized as a member of the left, but that will not be enough information for anyone trying to guess how I stand on some issues, nor it will be possible to be automatically associated with the views and causes of other leftists. There is, in fact, many types of socialism, and this term itself is a big bag that holds inside of it all kinds of views. The same that can be said about people from the left, can be said about the right: you can locate them in such coordinates, but the coordinates themselves will not say how they stand on all issues, nor imply a coordinated effort as a movement. Surely, once specific, concrete organizations are constituted, and they define their principles and strategic actions, you can easily guess what their members stand for in at least most issues. With such criteria, they will be identifiable as left-wing or right-wing groups.

Their thesis: Despite much pretense, neither “left” nor “right” are remotely coherent philosophies. There is no foundational leftist premise from which leftist conclusions flow, nor is there any foundational rightist premise from which rightist conclusions flow. Ideologies don’t just change mightily over the long-run; they change sharply even from one election to another. For intellectually irrelevant reasons.

It would be wrong to pretend that there’s one philosophy of the left and a corresponding philosophy of the right. There are many views, which can be put together and broadly categorized as belonging to the left or the right.

It is not hard to find examples of policies that have once been favoured by one side (and opposed by the other) that have switched over time. Consider global free trade for instance. It used to be thought of as something the right would advocate and the left oppose but this seems to have switched with Trump's republicans being very skeptical of global trade with the left being in favour.

If one reduces his understanding of the left or the right to the dichotomy of the two-party system in the USA, too much confusion will arise. Neoliberalism was embraced by many US administrations, by democrats and republicans. In any case, the discourse of neoliberalism is one thing, the practical reality of the motivations behind policies is another. There was never neither “free trade”, nor “free markets”. The big power wanted to sell its goods in every corner of the world, so it demanded open doors and end to subsidies, tariffs and other protections, while subsidizing internal production. As soon as the scheme of “global trade” did not work out for the interests of the big power, it changed policy and discourse. Keynesianism came back, embraced by both parties. Obama, a democrat, rescued the banks in 2009, thus preserving the system in which both democrats and republicans breathe. He’s still called a leftist, a socialist and even a Marxist by clueless republicans. Interestingly, Keynesian economics often drive policies that are labeled as socialists, even though
Keynes himself denounced socialism as a bad thing.

But can you think of any position that has always been associated with the left or right? Is there really no coherent philosophy that underlies either the left or right?

In general, leftism encompasses all progressive tendencies, advocating for social change to improve society as a whole, addressing inequalities and injustice with a spirit of solidarity. It generally emphasizes the collective well-being as a means to achieve individual progress. It therefore criticizes capitalism and its social and economical hierarchies, favoring the marginalized groups over the privileged ones. OTOH, right-wingers tend to preserve the status quo as established by the ruling class and emphasize individualism as the means to achieve collective progress, minimizing the role of solidarity and regarding inequality and injustice as the result of individual failure and the work of nature.

[Count Lucanor]

In "The Myth of Left and Right: How the Political Spectrum Misleads and Harms America" by Verlan Lewis & Hyrum Lewis, the authors ask what is the essential difference between these two ideological groups? The answer they conclude is: nothing.

They surely must have gotten something wrong. There appears to be some truth when it is pointed out that the terms left and right, as broad generalizations, cannot be used to categorize specific actions or stances as part of an organized movement that would fall under those labels, but it seems that this is not what the authors want to convey. They want to convey the notion that the way causes are brought up and issues are dealt with politically, does not merit a distinction between left and right. I will argue that, to some extent, there’s a clear distinction between the left and the right, even though these are broad umbrella terms, under which many stances, some even clashing with others, coexist. That’s because they still share some common essential aspects. The result of this is that there are many “lefts” and many “rights”, which make up the broad concepts of left and right, but you would not be able to guess how people stand on any issue, which causes they pursue, just by their identification with one of these labels. I’m quite comfortable labeling myself as a socialist, and as such, categorized as a member of the left, but that will not be enough information for anyone trying to guess how I stand on some issues, nor it will be possible to be automatically associated with the views and causes of other leftists. There is, in fact, many types of socialism, and this term itself is a big bag that holds inside of it all kinds of views. The same that can be said about people from the left, can be said about the right: you can locate them in such coordinates, but the coordinates themselves will not say how they stand on all issues, nor imply a coordinated effort as a movement. Surely, once specific, concrete organizations are constituted, and they define their principles and strategic actions, you can easily guess what their members stand for in at least most issues. With such criteria, they will be identifiable as left-wing or right-wing groups.

Their thesis: Despite much pretense, neither “left” nor “right” are remotely coherent philosophies. There is no foundational leftist premise from which leftist conclusions flow, nor is there any foundational rightist premise from which rightist conclusions flow. Ideologies don’t just change mightily over the long-run; they change sharply even from one election to another. For intellectually irrelevant reasons.

It would be wrong to pretend that there’s one philosophy of the left and a corresponding philosophy of the right. There are many views, which can be put together and broadly categorized as belonging to the left or the right.

It is not hard to find examples of policies that have once been favoured by one side (and opposed by the other) that have switched over time. Consider global free trade for instance. It used to be thought of as something the right would advocate and the left oppose but this seems to have switched with Trump's republicans being very skeptical of global trade with the left being in favour.

If one reduces his understanding of the left or the right to the dichotomy of the two-party system in the USA, too much confusion will arise. Neoliberalism was embraced by many US administrations, by democrats and republicans. In any case, the discourse of neoliberalism is one thing, the practical reality of the motivations behind policies is another. There was never neither “free trade”, nor “free markets”. The big power wanted to sell its goods in every corner of the world, so it demanded open doors and end to subsidies, tariffs and other protections, while subsidizing internal production. As soon as the scheme of “global trade” did not work out for the interests of the big power, it changed policy and discourse. Keynesianism came back, embraced by both parties. Obama, a democrat, rescued the banks in 2009, thus preserving the system in which both democrats and republicans breathe. He’s still called a leftist, a socialist and even a Marxist by clueless republicans. Interestingly, Keynesian economics often drive policies that are labeled as socialists, even though
Keynes himself denounced socialism as a bad thing.

But can you think of any position that has always been associated with the left or right? Is there really no coherent philosophy that underlies either the left or right?

In general, leftism encompasses all progressive tendencies, advocating for social change to improve society as a whole, addressing inequalities and injustice with a spirit of solidarity. It generally emphasizes the collective well-being as a means to achieve individual progress. It therefore criticizes capitalism and its social and economical hierarchies, favoring the marginalized groups over the privileged ones. OTOH, right-wingers tend to preserve the status quo as established by the ruling class and emphasize individualism as the means to achieve collective progress, minimizing the role of solidarity and regarding inequality and injustice as the result of individual failure and the work of nature.