UKC

In this age of world wide wonder and instant googling of all things, is it possible to have a reasoned discussion on any internet forum or does the medium by its nature prevent constructive conversation?

My own experience on this forum is one of closed mindedness (on my part as well, before anyone starts pointing fingers) and inability to engage without resort to ridicule. I think it is well exampled by Godwin's law. There is such an observation as Godwin's law precisely because it is such a common occurance that people use the most crystalline example of human exploitation and denial of rights and life to illustrate their point. It's like argumentative oneupmanship in the hope that the strength of example or analogy makes the stronger case. Sometimes it does and just shouting about Godwin's law or claiming unreasonable hyperbole is out of order. Sometimes it is just, I'm sure, a cynical trick to try to win an argument without recourse to sound explanation.
I also experience people of similar opinions sticking together in an almost tribal stance on every subject. Here that is seen by the way that almost every subject that involves anything other than hard facts more often than not results in the same people banded together and shouting abuse at the other band of people who have the other opinion. It's almost like internet based gang attitudes being played out.
Either way it results most of the time in a dichotomy of opinion and then people just picking sides.

So why does the medium do so badly and why do people seem to ignore what seems rather obvious and keep coming back for more? What does it say about us that we fail so frequently to be constructive in our virtual conversations?
(with irony in mind, I wonder how long this discussion will last before the seemingly inevitable polarisation, taking of sides and subsequent verbal abuse will begin?)

In reply to EZ:


That is a debate


It doesn't do "badly" - it's your own neo-fascist idea that everything you or one of your like minded ( or perhaps small-minded) fellows pronounce will be accepted as the correct view/answer. You're no better than Hitler.


q.e.d.

In reply to EZ:





Firstly, outside of peer reviewed journals, I think all those points can be made about any medium of argument. More so with verbal argument than anything you find online; just head down to your town centre tonight and I guarentee the "debate" you'll witness will be for from Socratic.

People can be closed minded; people group together in gangs; people are predisposed to pick sides and then are stubborn to change their opinion once they've picked.

Why does the medium do so badly? It doesn't. There's nothing unique about internet forums, they just reflect the way we all behave. At least they reflect for the most part how people often want to behave, when there's no one there to smash your face in if you p*ss them off.

What does it say about us? Nothing more than that everyone prefers to win an argument than lose one, if that comes at the cost of being constructive it's often a price people are willing to pay.

Ben

In reply to EZ: i happily had my mind and outlook changed or challenged on here over the years,by folk far. More knowledgeable than me.

Sadly there is a certain element that comes here not to debate,but TO BE RIGHT All THE TIME. Sadly I got mixed up with one of those last week.- won't happen again.

I still maintain that if you want it to be UKC is a g
Reay forum for learning stuff and bettering yourself.

In reply to David Hooper:
I think this is one of the key issues. It's now easy to google answers to most things, and for some people, there's a real reluctance to accept that there are other people who are far more knowledgeable than they are. I think as well there's a sense on the part of some people that the world they encounter is an accurate reflection of the whole world. One of my (few) specialist subjects is xxxxx, and I think I'm better informed than many, and I'm constantly surprised when people say 'they should be doing more research', without knowing how much research is being done - the fact it's not a feature in their world doesn't mean it's not happening.

I think as well there's a problem with people's inability to discriminate between the differing quality of information available - this is the topic of another one of EZ's threads, but I think is pertinent here. People see a website that says XX, and XX fits with their own world view, and that becomes gospel in their eyes. Whereas in fact there's a great deal of guff on the internet, much of which is thoroughly useless ill-informed tosh, and some of which is straightforward propaganda.

In reply to EZ:

Yes it is possible to have reasoned and valuable discussions of the internet -- I've had many, both on UKC and other forums. One does, at times, need to tolerate a certain amount of unproductive idiocy, but that's ok.

I suspect that people who think that other posters are not "constructive" are really just complaining that they find themselves unable to convince other people. The internet tends to be robust with direct criticism of posts and ideas, without that being leavened by the social niceties that would accompany the same in the face-to-face world, but that is in many ways a good thing, and means that an opinion has to be well argued and well evidenced to be respected.

In reply to EZ:

It doesn't actually work that way for everyone. A lot of how it works is down to your personal choice. You choose what you read, you choose how and when (and if) you reply.

I have lovely conversations, full of bunnies and fluff. I quite enjoy simply not replying at all if anyone ever gets arsy, and I am sure that I am not the only one, but of course, no one else would notice this sort of thing happening.

In reply to EZ:

One of the main issues is that whilst you can get answers to certain things on the internet, you can't get an understanding. Experience counts for a lot.

In reply to EZ:

I've had some great debates on here, and learnt a lot from them. I have even been persuaded to change my mind once or even twice. I've also had people apologise for being dicks when I've explained why their views are harmful.

It depends entirely on the people. I can think of a few people on here that I get into great discussions with. Our views are close enough to allow good communication, but far enough apart to generate debate. Other people I avoid like the black death.

In reply to EZ:

What an irony that it is you that has asked this question.

I have only just arrived at the climbing scene but I am a veteran of the forum scene. I shall elaborate;I have many interests and as such I have a respective forum for each where I can get together with likeminded folks who share my passion and from whom I can get advice and learn. For instance:
Angling/fishing - AnglersNet
Ducati Mortorbikes - Ducati.org and DucatiSportingClub
Gaming - LMZF
Climbing - not prizes here
Biking in general - GBBikers
Running - runners world
PC Building - buildyerown
Walking etc - LiveForTheOutdoors

In my 6 years plus of visiting and contributing to forums, I dont think I have ever seen a forum with so many inflated ego, argumentative, smart Alec, armchair Philosophising, self righteous, down right rude and pathologically serious people in all of them. Sure, you get some eejuts in other forums but its sometimes like Trolls Anonymous in here. The way that some have been spoken to on here by others is disgusting and if these CyberHeros had spoken to me like that in the flesh, there would have been a ruccus.

Some perfectly reasonable questions met with vitriole and venom and quite frankly, some questions in themselves are questionaable and in one instance recently, borderline racist. I dont think it helps with what appears to be little or no moderation and some behaviour here would have me banned elsewhere. I like forums as they help me in my pursuits and interests.

There appears to be a lot of well meaning likeable folks on here and I intend to stick around but I guess I will have to accept that i will be sometimes entertained, sometimes irritated, by some of the UKC nonsense.

In reply to EZ: You seem a bit narked that your enslavement video didn't promote more discussion.

But then you did start it with just a link and "discuss". I'd actually be interested to hear how seriously you take the ideas in the video. If you are willing to stand up for them, you'll surely get lots of debate.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

What exactly is a pathologically serious person like?

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

I see the irony of it being me with the question. I have I think finally noticed what a person I become on here, hence the question. I've no real experience of frequenting any other forums and so have had nothing to compare these against.

Thanks very much for your thoughts. Hopefully I may be able to give up the desire to argue on here. I had blocked all but the lifts and partners forum because of the slanging match that it is so easy to fall back in to. Giving up the argument is way harder than cigarettes. I just stopped smoking and that was that. Dead easy. Giving up the fight is far harder.

I'm certainly glad to hear that this place is uncommon in it's nature. I have used tech sites for many a conversation on irc and have never encountered any of the unpleasant attitude (that I have at times become either a victim or a perpetrator of and in no small measure in either). I honestly believed (as one might be able to see from the way the question put) that this was the common standard.

Thanks again, hopefully I'll stop joining in. I preferred myself when I wasn't on here.

In reply to EZ:

My experience is that if one treats people seriously and tries to argue a logical case most people worth listening to will do the same back. If one acts like an arse, and I freely admit I have my moments, most people will act like arses back.

In reply to TobyA:

Yeah, I though that would raise a question when i read it back as I found it difficult to articulate.

Perhaps it could be described as a person whom has a complete and utter inability to either have fun with others or to be able to poke fun at themselves. A good bit of playful banter or self deprecation.

Or is as applicable at UKC, someone who doesnt appear to be able to make a comment without quoting Scrates or Hitchens or whomever. Are you familiar with Mr Logic, in Viz?

If not, you should be, its very funny.

In reply to TobyA:


Really, I am narked that I become a product of the UKC environment almost every time I come here. That link was intended to get the usual suspects in for a fight. I'm actually almost embarrassed as I think about it that I posted it at all because the only place someone can discuss such fundamental aspects of our understanding of our worlds that we live in is going to be a defensive one and that implies that I started a fight. Good grief look at me! I am the person that I despise. And I love irony even when it's about me, and isn't that ironic.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers: You mean if you were spoken to like you are in here in a pub you would let yourself get thumped? I mean come on! Ducati Rider? Unless you've the physique of a chimpanzee you're gonna struggle to fit that trellis frame with your gut never mind pour it into a set of leathers!

In reply to Love:

Wozat?

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

Is the sort of thing you mean?

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=500968&v=1#x6825577

We all make an arse of ourselves sometimes.

In reply to The New NickB:

That's exactly what Im talking about.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers: I was just trying to be funny and act like the sort of people you were on about in a kind of ironic way. Just pulling your plonker you inline V twin lover you.

In reply to Love:

I know, and happy to have my plonker pulled, its all good fun, o'er.

But surely you cant have an inline V twin. Surely it should be V or Inline? Although strictly speaking its an L twin but I dont want to split hairs. D'oh?

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

But in that thread you reacted quite badly to someone being very unserious. I think the point I am trying to make is that it is very easy to make judgements about what others post and less easy to impartially judge our own posts.

UKC clearly has some unpleasant contributors, but the vast majority of people are just folk maybe just being a bit more forthright than they would be in person and without the subtlety of face to face communication. Sometimes people are just having a bad day.

UKC is actually pretty tame and gentle, I have not been on most of the forums you mention, but there are many that are much more aggressive and unpleasant than this one.

In reply to EZ:


This is true for sure... the result is that half the time people are reacting to you for what you said, or they think you said, on a totally different thread, months before.

Many also have a real problem reading what is typed on threads, sometimes justified by posts which are often typed quickly and are a bit ambiguous, but one of the most unpleasant aspects of forums, at least this one as I hardly ever read others, is the cliquey aspect. Nothing new though, people have been complaining about it for years.

In reply to The New NickB:

You know what Nick, you may well be probably right about the way I reacted. i was trying to be silly, I thought he was being a penis, I reacted in kind. Ill take my own medicine;

1. If he was being vindictive or an idiot and didnt happen to be playing my game how I wanted it played then I shouldn't have risen to the bait, let it wash over me and ignored it, without reacting. If this is the case then I got it wrong and apolgise.
2. If he was being silly in response to my sillyness then I clearly misread the situation and got that wrong too, ditto above.

I go out of my way not to affend or annoy others and am happy to admit when I get it wrong.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:


Isn't this just to distinguish between the Moto-Guzzi set up and the Vincent or Ducati one. I'm not quite sure which is inline, probably the former as BMWs are referred to inline flat twins, I think.

In reply to EZ:

By 'close mindedness' I presume you mean that people disagree with you ? ce la vie. If you spout bollocks then a lot of people will disagree with you.

In reply to the thread:

There should be (if there isn't already!) an internet law that says something like:

In a discussion where people are disagreeing you are likely to interpret the tone of an opponent's post as more serious and angry than is intended.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Its a good question. I dont know about MGs or Beemers. I know more about Ducs and they are referred to as V Twins or more accurately, L Twins due simply to the 90 degree arrangement (some have less such as Harleys i think) when looking at it from the side.

In reply to The New NickB:



second this comment. i sometimes lurk on imdb. that can be pure playground name calling at times. the interesting post to flame war ratio is much poorer on there. and the humour quotient also far lower- there are some genuinely hilarious contributors on here

some even intentionally so...



cheers

gregor

In reply to EZ:

Awww.... *hugs EZ*. The thing is to remember that people on here are real people, with all their funny ways, their insecurites and worrys, their doubts and their fears.

Text can come across in a very blunt way if you are not careful, so I usually try to add in some extra bits to make my non agressive meaning clear - on the couple of times that people have taken what I have said the wrong way, I've felt horrible! It usually means that you can't really correct it, either, as it just ends up muddying things even further!

But forums really do end up being a reflection of how you choose to be - I've been on here for years and tend to ignore and not really read all the really nasty stuff, and end up seeing a mixture of informative, interesting and articulate debate, filtered through my pink fluffy head! I've met some great people, been climbing with them and even married them! It really isn't all evil.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

How can a public forum be cliquey? Anyone can read and answer to anything?

In reply to tlm:

I think Bruce confuses the universal disagreement with him on some discussion topics with a clique

When in reality its just because he is so wildly wrong...



Gregor

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs: +1

I was just unfortunate enough to get embroiled in some unpleasantness with bruce(it won't happen again)and anyone who disagreed with his views were labelled a clique AND a bunch of jackels. Avoid!

In reply to tlm:

Cliquey in as much as some people actually know each other in the real world or have come to do so on the forum... The difference between reading what a person says and judging the post by post and looking who has posted and assuming it is right or wrong on that basis.

Quite a few people leaving ukc "in disgust" complain about this aspect, but it is not always evident to people who don't follow the same sort of threads. Not everybody is worried about this though, some seem to quite like to plough a lonely furrow, but some find it problematic.

There are also specific cliques, like the sports climbers, on bolting debates for example, the Scottish contingent when ever elections are coming up supporters of the SNP tend to flock together, lyrcra style road racing cyclists and so on. I'm sure you can think of similar sub groups.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


What about the Scots on here who are not in favour of Independence - for there are many. When they take that position, are they "flocking together"? Or are they just doing the same as the people on the other side of the debate, i.e. expressing indidividual opinions which happen to coincide with those of other people?

In reply to tlm:

Oh yes, that reminds me, there's also the Colonel Blimp clique, who all think the sun has never set on the British Empire

In reply to Anonymous:

No, I meant the pro independence Scots form a clique, obviously - I realise that the majority of Scots haven't made that decision yet. However whenever a Sassenach has the temerity to get involved in a thread on the subject and make unfortunate remarks, as some do, they will often be confronted by a solid sub group (clique) to put them back on track.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I can see what you're getting at Bruce, but I think you're using clique in a different way to what most people would understand it

People who are interested in a subject and have strong opinions on it will be drawn to post if it comes up; now if it was the same people snubbing you on all the different threads, then you could say there was a clique excluding you. I don't think that's the case though

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Ah, right - got you. What you mean is that by "clique", you mean a group of people you disagree with.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Clique? As in the left/liberal Guardian quoting clique? Any dissenter is by definition an Evil and "unpleasant poster"?
I have to agree with you Bruce !

In reply to Anonymous:

i think that's a pretty accurate observation...

and as "clique" carries a negative connotation, it also manages to be an ad hominem attack on anyone he disagrees with...

as well as giving an interesting insight into the workings of Bruce's mind- just failing to agree with Bruce is enough to attract a negative label from him...

cheers
gregor

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


Quite so: anyone who believes in democracy, human rights and self-determination is -- quite bizarrely -- a "Colonel Blimp".

In reply to Anonymous:

Or agree with

In reply to Coel Hellier:

What about pro and anti religious cliques? Don't they exist? or "Guardinistas" versus "Daily Mail" readers? In fact such labels are so developed for some that they don't feel the need to argue at all, they just give the tag and all those in their clique know what they mean.

Like the joke about men on lighthouse who had spent so much time together that they gave numbers to jokes. To tell a joke they just gave the number.

I was thinking more in terms of cliques that aren't so easy to define though, I never quite realised who was who but several posters complained of them when they left ukc in a melodramatic fashion some time ago.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I believe in all three, the problem is what meaning you put on words - like for example when you insisted that nazis were left wing. Words only have meaning if all concerned use the same definitions.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


you seem to be using your own special version of the word clique.
A clique is a subgroup who tend to interact far more with each other than the wider group and normally has specific roles.
The ones you describe are really just sides on a specific debate, put them on another subject and you wont find the same breakdown on each side eg I would tend to agree with Coel around religion but less so around politics.

In reply to EZ:

Good thread fella. Many good observations followed. I think one reason such phenomena sticks out is because social demographics are pretty much disposed of on a website such as UKC. So in some ways we are privilged in that we gain exposure to a very broad range of society, and yes, some of that is bonkers, sometimes brilliant. If you can't learn something on this website, you must be one smart b@stard.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


According to Bruce's dictionary:

Self-determination: The right to be told what is best for you by people who know better than you do.


Well, on economic policy (which is what I was talking about, and which is the biggest factor in most usage of the words left/right today) they were left wing. Why else did they call themselves the NSDAP (= National Socialist German Worker's Party)? Note the words "Socialist" and "Workers",and feel free to consult their 15-point manifesto on which they fought elections, in which their economic policy could be roughly described as Scargillite.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


So we're both part of the same clique, despite us crossing swords rather extensively on topics such as the Falklands and the economic policy of the Nazis? I think that's a somewhat odd usage of the word "clique", it's just we agree on some topics and not on others.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

please don't start that one again

In reply to dissonance:


Possibly, it's not that far from yours though - one aspect is mutual defence. Perhaps "clique" can have several nuances?


So would I, which is as it should be. In some ways it might be better if posts were anonymous, at least it would force people to read the texts. When someone posts anonymously how many of us try to think about who he could be? It makes life easier by reducing the need to think.

In reply to The New NickB:


Two whole very long threads last time!

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Not everybody is in a clique, being in a clique means when individual differences are sufficiently reduced as to become insignificant compared to the group interest. I'm not in a clique, of that I'm certain, and I don't think you are, on ukc that is.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Words only have meaning if all concerned use the same definitions.


Oh the irony...



Like i said above though, i can see what you are meaning, up to a point- on any given subject you can be pretty sure the usual suspects will be in attendance... Often saying the same thing as last time... Myself included...

But as others have said, thats no more than people having opinions, and the "battle lines" will be drawn differently depending on the subject. For example, i'm likely to largely agree with you on palestine and bolting, partially agree with you on crag swag, but have very different views to you on climate change and the Falklands, as we all know...

And where i do agree with you 100% is judging the post on its content rather than the author- also judging the argument on its merits rather than on any fallacies the person making it uses...

and we can see if your actions back up your words, if you reply, rather than ignoring me...



cheers
gregor

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


But if you and I aren't in it then is there really an "anti-religious clique"?

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

oh and ps-

i also agree that there *are* 'cliques'- eg the people leaving the forum you refer to- they tend to know each other off line, but even then i dont really know who they are or the connections between them other than vaguely, so i dont think they necessarily share an important point of cliques, excluding those not part of them.

anyhow,

best wishes

(sincerely...!)

gregor

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Anti religious people aren't in a clique maybe? Religious people seem to think they are though, lumped in with atheists. That would in fact fit in as being non religious is not a positive belief system at all, it is an absence of belief in the supernatural, which is something people like niggle would never accept. I wonder what happened to him?

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Hi coel,

there are the 'usual suspects' in attendance on nearly all threads on religion/dawkins/evolution however. Though not really a clique, they do tend to back each other up on the thread; if you are in the minority (and are on the wrong side of the argument... . ) then that could feel a bit indimidating, or that you are being hanged up on, I guess

Cheers

Gregor

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


Was there a question?

As I said above, I don't think everybody is in a clique... the subject seems to be sensitive for some reason.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

On reflection, no there wasn't...

Anyway, what was the 'unpleasant cliquey aspect' of the forums you referred to in your first post on the thread...? Can you give an example?

I'd assumed it was the process I'd outlined in my reply to coel, but that isn't really to do with cliques... What is it you are meaning

(Genuinely interested, not trying to points score...)

And interesting point about muffled, did he get banned...?


Cheers
Gregor

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Muffled should be niggle...!

In reply to Coel Hellier:


ah so the democratic peoples republic of Korea is indeed a democracy?


Most people consider the fact that a)the lefties in the party got massacred, literally for wanting to do some of that socialist stuff and b)that their leaders initial interest in the party was as a spy might undermine that.
Still touching to see your belief in manifestos,particularly since new labour and the tories seems intact.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


how did you manage that? Was it your secret pet name?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


nope its because you are misusing the term. To quote someone "Words only have meaning if all concerned use the same definitions."

In reply to dissonance:

Predictive text, posting from phone...

In reply to EZ:

I've learnt a lot on this forum about all sorts of things rom plastering to international economics (I've been climbing too long to learn that much more about it ). I've gained lots of insights I'd never have gained and had or read some really interesting debates.

I think 99% of folk who log on here do so because they're interested in other people's opinions. I don't believe they start from a position of wanting to ridicule or belittle at every opportunity. At the same time most folk aren't prepared to put up with arguments that are patently wrong and will counter them in a forthright manner. I see nothing wrong with that at all. In fact it's the right thing to do in my opinion.

If you find that you many disagree with your position then either debate it or ask yourself why.

Further, the fact that you have just admitted that you do doesn't really do your cause much good does it? You've just admitted to intellectual dishonesty and most who read that will remember it.

In reply to dissonance:

whilst I agree with everything you have written, can I just say, please no.....

In reply to EZ:

In the thread I started about swimsuit calendars at work, all manner of things were said of me, even a far as threatening violence. While a few now have contempt for me as a result of asking that question, I don't mind, as I can't remember who they are

I don't think it's the medium as much as it is that people are involved. We often write emotive posts and resort to all manner of logical fallacy unless we are educated in how to conduct rational discourse - it doesn't seem to be a natural trait, certainly not for myself. I try my best not to do all the things I see others doing, but often fail due to a lack of sufficient [self] education.

I notice politicians in my own country can behave appallingly when arguing, insulting each other at every opportunity.

Some online communities do manage to have quite civil discussions on many a topic, though UKC hasn't struck me as one of them.

In reply to Removed User:

Intellectual dishonesty? Sorry but I don't understand/can't work out what you're pointing to (and I'm happy to have it explained to me).

In reply to EZ:

Clique - I suffered a barrage of all the same attitude and comment from nearly every person on the thread about route hogging by instructors last March who had identified themselves as 'qualified'. That was very disheartening and so much so that it really (rightly, wrongly or unintentionally by those concerned) put me right off joining the qualified community. That was certainly a clique reprisal and it was awful to be on the receiving end. I felt as though if there were any risk that becoming that sort of person due to the training and environment of being an instructor then I certainly don't want to do it. Whether I was right to feel vilified or not it was a constant stream and I don't think at any point during that 550 post 10000+ view thread that I raised my voice so to speak. So yes cliques do certainly exist and they can be a major force for their victims' experience on here.

In reply to EZ:

There are of course other interpretations of the scenario...

And I think you are misusing the word clique too- if the same group of instructors came together on every climbing related thread and made all non instructors unwelcome, you would have a point

As it stands it sounds like you just had a robustly debated difference of opinion where your position was a minority.

Cheers
Gregor

In reply to dissonance:

In deference to New NickB I'll try very hard not to pursue this after this post! However, like Oscar Wilde, I can resist anything except temptation.


Your first point acknowledges that there was a large left component in the party that wanted to do "that socialist stuff". Having internal squabbles and putsches is quite normal for such parties (Stalin had them regularly). You are right that when Hitler purged some of those who wanted to emphasize the socialism more than the nationalism it became less full-blown socialist in its economic stance, but it was still left/centre-left and the de facto economic policies it implemented were centre-left.

On your second point, yes, Hitler did initially become aware of them when they were a small group of about 50 (then called the German Workers Party), and he (a corporal) was sent by his Army commander to report on them. He attended a talk on 'How and by what means is capitalism to be eliminated?'. During that meeting he got into heated discussions, with Hitler *supporting* the theme of the talk, and such was his passion and oratory that the group invited him to join, and he received membership card number 55.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

It's funny how some arguments just *want* to happen.... They bubble out of people despite their best efforts not to get drawn in

And you've said it all before, but it doesn't stop it happening again

Bit criticising, I guess it would be difficult for me to resist had it been about the falklands...

But its interesting that some of these ideas seem to have a life of their own

Which brings us into meme territory I guess

Cheers
Gregor

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

That should say, not criticising... Must stop posting from phone...!


Cheers

Gregor

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Not to get all defensive... It sure as hell came over as a clique. A small group who identify with each other because of a common interest. At the time the phrase I used was that they were all following the company line. Nor were they the majority, they were just the most ardently vocal on the thread. I think a lot of people who had opinions counter to theirs didn't maintain their voicing of those opinions because the stream of 'we all have this opinion' was constant.

I looked up clique on a bunch of different references and none implies negative connotation to the word. That appears to be idiomatic.

In reply to EZ: You do get cliques on here. However I personally believe they only do so just to wind people up. They are often over the most moronic of arguments and some people take the responses as personal attacks. Ones I can think of off the top of my head are: The old Peak(s) discussion, Whether you inform someone that you feel they are being dangerous or irresponsible, Religion, Bolting and many more.

There are so many differences of opinion on here, and like you sometimes I have felt disheartened and/or annoyed. Some of the responses I have received are just the same two people disagreing with you but doing it over and over and over - even though their argument doesn't make any sense (to me at least).

That's why I've given up trying to convince people of my thoughts and opinions and just left them to get on with it. I just ignore them now, unless I ask for peoples thoughts obviously. If I'm just telling people about something; I answer questions on it, that's it.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

But you used to be a in a "cell". How cool is that? The only cell I've ever been in is one of the ones in Fort William Police Station.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Oh come on, it's as interesting as anything else on the thread! I still see that you are desperately trying to crowbar everything into a modern and geographically rather-limited usage of certain terms - "left and right" in this case. I'm sure as a physics professor you see new undergrads explain things that make perfectly good sense from their GCSE/A level understanding of physics; but you and your colleagues will have 3 years to disabuse them of those notions and try and take them up a few levels in their understanding. Perhaps this is similar.

But maybe we should leave the Nazis aside for now, and have a related discussion on another thread. How about "The contemporary Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood: leftwing or rightwing?" or "the Communist Party of China: leftwing or rightwing?"

In reply to Richiehill:

I'm sure you didn't mean it this way, but all you seem to be saying is that you find it annoying that there are people on the internet that disagree with you...

And notwithstanding EZs claim that clique is neutral- I think most people would consider it has acquired negative connotations, even if it didn't start out with them- it could be that you are using the term clique for those that you can't get to see things your way as a way if blaming them for the ineffectiveness of your arguments...

Especially the peak/peaks thing- that's just a running joke like the grade of three pebble slab and the Dan osman speed climbing video...

Cheers
Gregor

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs: No, that's pretty much what I'm saying...

What I'm saying is it's annoying when it's only two people that just keep going, that's annoying.

In reply to TobyA:


Yep, guilty as charged. One thing we like to do in physics is be clear what our terms actually mean. Therefore I do indeed adopt a meaning of left v right that is relatively precise and clear-cut (and that meaning is about economic policy, as widely applied and understood in Europe today).

I do recognise, however, that people attach a whole range of meanings to those terms, and that they can mean different things to different people and in different times, locations and contexts (and physicists abhor terms like that! -- if a term is too ambiguous and multi-meaninged to be useful it should be dropped and replaced with something better).

In reply to Coel Hellier:


And therefore of little help in understanding the whats and whys of the Nazi party. In fact by insisting on retrospectively applying such labels its strikes me that all one is doing is taking part in modern politics - it's just labelling; American contemporary politics is obsessed with this: Obama is a "socialist" etc.


But context is everything, in the literal and the annoying sense of the word. Some of Weber's lectures and writings on this are useful as I remember it.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


which is completely irrelevant to the 1930s as the current economic policies have only been "right wing" (and even then not completely accepted by all) since approximately the 1970s. Even then its more honoured in the breach.

The Nazi initially covered nearly the entire spectrum of political thought (with just the communists being beyond the pale partly because of their desire to get rid of private property) but it was the left which was removed, violently.

While he wasnt overly a fan of capitalism that was because he didnt think it could be effectively directed for what he saw as the countries needs, which considering his military plans wasnt illogical, war economies are always tightly controlled.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

So cliquey to you, is any group who have a bit more of a bond with each other than with other people? Hmmm... the world must feel a very cliquey place to you, Bruce!

In reply to dissonance:

Oh? I thought a clique involved a bit of shutting out people who are not in the clique? Or doesn't it?

In reply to Richiehill:

But who is it who makes you read what they are saying?

In reply to TobyA:


Not at all. The fact that the Nazis came to power on a left/socialist economic program and implemented a centre-left program helps in understanding that the Nazis originated as a working-class movement who felt that capitalism was failing them and leading to mass unemployment and low living standards of the common worker. They wanted a government run in the interests of the workers, promising full employment etc. All of this is explicit and clear in Mein Kampf and in the Nazi's manifesto.

This is all standard "Old Labour" attitudes and program. It differed from the Clause 4 and Marxist brand of socialism, however, because it also embraced a highly nationalistic ideology, opposed to the internationalism of the Marxists.


Labelling them "far right" is just as retrospective and just as much playing modern politics.

In reply to dissonance:


It is entirely relevant! The Nazis originated as a working-class rejection of capitalism owing to the failures of capitalism over the great depression, etc.


That's not really accurate -- the Nazi's initially were highly left wing; as the party grew and expanded it attracted support from far left to centre-left and centrists. With the removal of some of the hard-left faction what was left was a roughly centre-left party. And in power their economic policy was indeed centre-left.

This process of far-left parties becoming more centrist to gain power and then being more centrist when in power, is common. For example most of the Labour governments that we've had have done the same (though not with violence!).

In reply to tlm: You're right, no-one. Which is why I'm not really bothered any more. I just answer questions that people have and not react to ridiculous comments that someone has just put on to get a reaction.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I think i will take new Nick B's advice.
I remember now you seem incapable of understanding what you seem to consider set in stone economic policy of the left and right is a modern phenomenon (leaving aside that it isnt even as fixed as you seem to consider) and that reducing left and right wing thought to just economics is, curious, to say the least.

In reply to dissonance:

I've not followed the argument closely, but was coels suggestion they were left wing not in itself a reaction to other people claiming they were far right wing, in the contxt of a 'left wing good right wing bad' type debate...? In which case coel was only responding within a framework someone else had already set out

Not disagreeing with your point, just suggesting context, I'm sure coel can confirm or refute as necessary,

Cheers
Gregor

In reply to Coel Hellier:


They were also virulently nationalist and racist; their economic policies reflected this in being populist. The modern ideas that are associated with the "centre-left" or indeed "centre-right" do very little to capture this.


As long as those workers were Aryan Germans.


Except the bit about Jews ruling the world of course.

And what's all this "program"? You're not American are you? Although if you were, that would give me some 'context' to your interesting continuing attachment to this nomenclature debate!

In reply to dissonance:


Commenting since this is a thread about internet forums, why the need for "you seem incapable of understanding"? Isn't it possible that you are the one lacking understanding? It seems to me that there is indeed a common strand of *economic* left v right that traces back at least to the Russian revolution and Marxist economics as a reaction to the rampant Capitalism of the Victorian era.

And nowhere did I say that all of this is "fixed"; of course economic policy evolves.


I'm doing that precisely to arrive at a fairly clear and well-defined meaning of the left-right axis. If you don't do that, the terms are so vague that they don't really mean anything, except for reflecting personal prejudice.

In reply to TobyA:


Well sure, but what's that got to do with left v right? Perhaps you want to define "virulently racist" as necessarily "far-right"? If so, that's exactly the sort of prejudice that I'm objecting to. Note, as just one example, that when the BNP does well in UK elections (gaining councillors etc) it is almost always in solid Labour constituencies.


I totally agree! I consider it ludicrous to try to sum up everything about any possible ideology on one left-right axis. That's why I am clearly and explicitly limiting that axis to one issue, economic policy and the distribution of wealth. That makes it far more useful and indeed gives it some meaning. But *of *course* there are many other labels that could be usefully applied to any party's platform.


Sure, which is why I was *very* *explicitly* limiting the comment to economic policy.

Now, if you maintain that labelling the Nazis on the economic and/or left-right axes isn't all that meaningful, then fine. But people who insist -- purely out of prejudice -- that they were "far right" are doing a Stalinist revision of history.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


Yes, exactly. The point is that people repeatedly try to re-label the Nazis to whatever they dislike, and to try to distance the Nazis from their own position as much as possible.

So, people label the Nazis "far right" to try to avoid admitting their origins as a working-class socialist movement that came to power principally because it promised the masses full employment (and, by the way, then delivered it by massive state intervention in the economy).

Another equally common and equally false claim is that the Nazis were "atheistic" or "secular", even though their ideology was steeped in religion to the extent that they even founded their own church (The "German Christians") and their own theological institutes. Again, the false claim arises purely from prejudice, trying to label the Nazis what they like least as a method of smearing both.

A third example is the claim that the Nazis were inspired by Darwin and Darwinian ideas, even though the truth is the opposite, that the Nazi despised Darwinian ideas and banned his works from libraries, and indeed that Darwinism was totally opposed to and incompatible with the Nazis religious and creationist ideology, and it was that religious and creationist ideology that led to their trying to eliminate the Jews.

In reply to TobyA:
>

Not entirely true is it? There were some fairly rum views on the left.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Well it goes back to the French revolution, where the terms emerged. However the correlation with the "right" and market economics only really took force in the 60s and then the 70s. There were substantial parts of the right opposed to capitalism since it just as much as communism, could alter existing social structures.


apart from thats exactly what you are doing by selecting a single criteria and even that is something which is not so simple as you portray, after all most on left or right are in favour of a mixed economy. Of all the criteria you could attempt to select it is probably the most useless.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


yes, you do.


you mean for a wartime economy? You might have noticed that every political system will interfere massively with the economy in times of war (large scale ones anyway).
That some politicans will promise anything to get into power, and generally the more unscrupulous/power hungry they are the more they promise isnt exactly news. So of course they promise the masses what they think will work, including in a country as badly messed up as Germany was, full employment.

In reply to dissonance:


Yes, in the same way that if you draw a continuum from white to black you get a "mixture", namely grey, for most of the continuum. It would only be at the extreme ends (total communism at one end, total libertarianism at the other) that anyone would argue for purely one or the other.


Seems to me that, on the contrary, it is the most useful, and the one most in line with the main meaning of the words as used today and as used through the bulk of the 20th C. (I accept that the words have evolved quite a bit since the original French-revolution coinage.)

In reply to dissonance:


Yes, though the Nazi manifesto was written long before the war, in the 1920s.


OK, so you're accepting that the Nazis came to power (largely) by promising the masses full employment? Good, that's a start. If you were going to write a list of characteristics typical of the left, prioritising working-class employment would be one of the first you'd write down.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


nope sorry, after all total communism ends up strangely like total libertarianism (they both have the rather idealistic views of small groups interacting and dropping off any overall structures).


its not though. Since about the 70s at best and even then it is only for some parts of the right, hence why they tend to be assigned neoliberalism, thatcherism/reaganism etc. Even then the approach was somewhat relaxed, eg the massive market intervention the USA deployed in the cold war.

In reply to EZ:

i concur...

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Only to someone with little interest in and no experience of politics.. Admit it, politics are not really your thing, are they?

In reply to Coel Hellier:

The problem is Coel, you are assigning specific modern economic views of right and left to a time when those views where not really formed. You are also being a little selective in your definition of left and right.

The 'socialism' of the Nazis owes nothing to Marx and Engels, it shares a statist totalitarian approach with the socialism of communist Russia and any other communist examples, communism which it violently opposed, even during the non-agression period.

All parties, right and left promise employment, in a time of serious depression with no real state support, full employment is a vote winner. It isn't really a left wingthing in this context, the Chicago school wasn't really an issue at this time.

damn you have got me started now.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


ah yes and they werent planning from the beginning to rearm and launch attacks to regain what Hitler thought belonged to Germany?


who said largely? There were plenty more things they also promised and you still seem to be confusing manifesto promises with actual intentions.


perhaps you would but thats more a statement on your view. You might be missing the entire purpose of the welfare state though.

In reply to dissonance:


No they don't, they're almost exactly opposites.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Sure it is, it's just very different from your day-dreaming Marxist conception of politics.

In reply to The New NickB:


Why yes, as I've said about five times already, that is *exactly* what I'm doing -- I'm making it a more precise concept, as oppose to treating it as a vague concept that can mean different things to different people and at different times and in different contexts. And note that everyone else is also selective in their definition.


OK, agreed.

In reply to dissonance:


I think manifestos are indeed a good guide to ideology and what people want to do; the usual reason why manifestos are often not played out is simply the realities and pragmatics of the situation. But I don't think that they put out the opposite of what they meant in order to kid people.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


i am guessing you dont get the entire communist thing, including the intended outcome, as opposed to the actual outcomes (then the same can be said of any liberatarian ideal).
That or you are going for a simplistic idea of libertarianism and confusing the modern US variant with the wider version.

In reply to dissonance:


I judge communism as how it actually was (Soviet Union, China, etc). You're right, I don't judge it on pie-in-the-sky dreams about how it might be in the fanciful and totally non-implementable utopian scheming of ideologues. Any worthwhile way of running society has to actually work in the real world.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Selective and precise are not really the same thing, a range of sometimes conflicting ideas of left and right have evolved over time, by proponents and opponents of many labelled idiologies few relate at all to where people sat in the old French parliament. The issue has far more complexity and subtlety than you are suggesting.

In reply to the thread:

I'm missing out the nationalistic bits to highlight the socialist bits. All of this is "left wing" under any sensible meaning of the term.

7 We think that the government's first job is to make sure every citizen has a job and enough to eat.

11 That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.

12 Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as treason to the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

13 We demand the nationalization of all trusts.

14 We demand profit-sharing with the workers in large industries.

15 We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.

16 We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the immediate communalisation of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small trades people, and the strongest consideration must be given to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.

17 We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.

20 We want to change the system of schools and education, so that every hard-working German can have the chance of higher education. ... We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State.

21 The State has the duty to help raise the standard of national health ...

24 The party as such represents the point of view of a positive Christianity without binding itself to any one particular confession. It fights against the Jewish materialist spirit within and without, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our folk can only come about from within on the principle: COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD [emphasis in original.]

25 In order to carry out this program we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the State, the unconditional authority by the political central parliament of the whole State and all its organizations.

In reply to The New NickB:


For the seventh time, let's see how clearly I can state this:

I *know* that a range of conflicting ideas of "left" and "right" have evolved over time. That is exactly my point. And I *know* that the issue of how left/right is used is *way* more complex and subtle than I am suggesting.

And it is precisely because of all that -- because the terms are vague and multi-meaninged, and because different people use them in different ways -- that I am suggesting it would be far better if we clarified the usage and made it more precise and useful by restricting it to economic policy.

In reply to Coel Hellier: please expand by defining neo-liberalism and explain why this provides the best possible outcome?

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Sorry I thought you had a more nuanced argument, you want to narrow the meaning because the existing quite complicated meaning doesn't fit your world view. If only life was that simple, let's just ignore all the stuff that doesn't fit.

In reply to subalpine: Can you point out where anyone said neo-liberalism provides the best possible outcome? And in your view what is the best possible outcome?

In reply to subalpine:


"Neo-liberalism" wasn't a term I used so why should I define it? Look it up on google/wiki if you're interested. And I don't think I claimed that "neo-liberalism" (whatever that is) provides the "best possible outcome".

In reply to The New NickB:



Nope, my objection is not that left/right meanings are "complicated", my objection is that they are more or less undefined, being an incoherent mish-mash of all different sorts of meanings, chosen largely to suit personal prejudice.


Which is what most people are doing over the fact that the Nazis were originally a far-left movement who then moved to centre-left to gain mass appeal and power.

In reply to Coel Hellier: Yes, wasn't the Marxist stance 'first brown, then red'? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism

In reply to Coel Hellier:
>
So isn't the logical reaction either to abandon usage of the terms or to use them only with appropriate caveats on each occasion?

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Marx's objective - communism, was the condition that would, in his idea, come about when society had become classless. Before that, between the revolution and communism he called it socialism, and in this period there would still be struggle between classes, between the prolatariat and the bourgeoisie, and so society would still be ruled by a state. He considered the state to be the mechanism by which the ruling class dominated the others, whether before or after the revolution, except the roles would change, before the state enabled the capitalists class to dominate the working class, after roles would be reversed.

So dissonance is quite right to say that communism, the final stage when society had become classless hence without any dominant class and therefore without any state apparatus - which would have "withered away" to use Marx's words - would be just like the sort of society that anarchists were aiming at - a free, libertarian society. When Marx and Proudhon and others were debating all this in the 19th century the difference was one of analysis of the existing reality and method, not of final objective.

It's all in the books, but you have to read them.

Of course all this was the theory, I'm not saying it is necessarily right or wrong or has ever been applied in practice, which is another argument, but to discuss these sort of subjects you have to at least know the theory before examining whether it worked or not as it's the theory which establishes the vocabulary.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

You are simplifying the definition and twisting the historical context to suit your personal prejudice. The mish-mash is important.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Yep, I'd be happy with that. As was pointed out up-thread, I'm only really flagging up the left-wing nature of Nazi economics as a counter to the unthinking and misleading labelling of them as "far right".


Yes, we could do that, which is why I've repeatedly made the explicit caveat that in using left/right I'm referring only to economic policy -- though that usage doesn't seem to go down well with some here.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

By doing politics I mean getting involved, joining a party, militating, discussing issues on door steps, in markets, at meetings with people who don't agree. Taking it into the work place and facing up to the conflicts that ensue, then, for most people, fighting election campaigns, discussing policies, deciding on resolutions at congresses, in local meeting etc etc etc. "Doing politics" is not just having opinions, however important this may be, it is also trying to change society concretely, with all the compromises and disappointments that this leads to.

Such "engagement" crystallises the mind wonderfully and helps cut though the words and their misuse to get to meaning - it will enable you to see more clearly what the National Front or the nazis really are, not what they sometimes claim to be. Left and right are only labels but they have an accepted meaning, one is not more pejorative than the other depending on the views of the person using the terms - conservatives are happy to call themselves right wing just as socialists or anarchists and so on will happily call themselves left, if they feel the need to use simplifying labels, of course.

I still don't think we need to go through all this again though.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


you stated there was no similarity between libertarianism and communism. If you bother to actually look at the planned objectives though you would see a rather remarkable similarity, its just the way of getting there varies.

Now, I would agree it didnt work that way for communism but then again it wouldnt work that way for libertarianism and for the same reason, peoples individual desire for power will interfere and derail any project.

In reply to The New NickB:


So is everyone else. The difference is that I'm doing it knowingly, openly and explicitly.


The mish-mash just makes the terms useless except as propaganda. As for example when the BBC started labelling hardline communists who led the coup against Gorbachev as "far right". The terms was totally wrong, they were economically to the left of Gorbachev, but the BBC used the label purely to mark disapproval. Similarly, when Yeltsin started implementing market reforms they stated calling him "left", meaning they approved of him.

In reply to The New NickB:

Hitler himself considered economic secondary, it was simply a tool to help him produce a strong state on social Darwinist model under his control. Whilst he used the term socialism, he rejected what most people understand the word to mean, he effectively strove to find a third way, but as I say that was secondary to his ideology.

That is why economic constructs of left and right are of limited help here.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


And as I said, I judge communism as how it actually was -- in the Soviet Union, China, etc, namely huge centralised state control of everything -- and not how it might be in the pie-in-the-sky utopian dreams of Marx which took no account of human nature or reality.


I don't agree, it's the reality in practice that should be reflected in the vocabulary.

In reply to dissonance:

>> I judge communism as how it actually was (Soviet Union, China, etc). You're right, I don't judge it on
>> pie-in-the-sky dreams about how it might be in the fanciful and totally non-implementable utopian scheming of ideologues.


As I said, I judge communism as how it actually was (Soviet Union, China, etc). You're right, I don't judge it on pie-in-the-sky dreams about how it might be in the fanciful and totally non-implementable utopian scheming of ideologues.

In reply to The New NickB:


They are also very much relative terms - at the time of the French Revolution the seating arrangements of the assembly lead to the terms and corresponded to the progressive and conservative elements. Many years later we still use the terms but the contents are different - in the USA Obama was considered as "left", he would hardly be considered as such in many European countries.

Coming back to Coel's fixation, the nazis as seen in the context of Germany between the wars were most definitely on the opposite ends of the political spectrum to the Communists and the Socialists, they came from a long tradition of anti-semitic, nationalist and conservative parties in Germany so in comparative terms cannot be seen as anywhere except on the right, and the right of the right.

In reply to Coel Hellier:
Not knowingly enough Coel. It isn't just about economics.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


or they were using the original usage of left and right. Preference for maintaining traditions/social structures vs changing.
Dubious usage maybe because it would need the context applying.

In reply to KTT:

No, it wasn't.

Next question.

In reply to The New NickB:


Actually, that's another fallacy, the Nazi ideology was very different from "social Darwinism" and that was not their inspiration.


I readily accept that economic policy was not the most important aspect of Nazi doctrine, and thus that their location on an left-right economic axis is not the most important feature of Nazi Germany. As above, my stance on this point is really a reaction to labelling originated by others.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

The concepts of conservative and progressive are important in this. The examples Coel gives from Russia in the early 90s are precisely about conservative element, ie. Hardline communists, or at least the power structure that had developed under the label of communist and progressive, people who wanted change.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


And as I said, hence identical to libertarianism ideals. Ever seen them in practice?
The fact is the two extremes meet. Just like anarchism covers the entire spectrum of economic thought.

In reply to dissonance:


But if you use that definition then anyone wanting to maintain our NHS in its current model is a "right winger" and anyone who wants to radically change it, say to a system of individual market-based insurance, would be a "left winger". Which just shows why that definition is useless.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


For brainless slogan-chanting left-wingers , it means :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogeyman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incubus

The ultimate statement of evil is to put the prefix "neo" before any word, or to attach the suffix "phobia". Normally neo means something new, generally considered beneficial rather than otherwise, but in this context it denotes demonic possession. Similarly "phobia" originally meant an irrational fear of some everyday object or condition, but it now just denotes any sort of suspicion or concern about some ideas system, trend or belief for which there are freqently plenty of perfectly sensible reasons to worry about, but the person tacking "phobia" on the end wants to forbid you to think about.

They are both devices to try to shut down thought or opinions that the one applying them thinks illicit or inconvenient. The worst possible creature is a "NeoPhobe", far worse than any ordinary Nazi or even SS trooper. NeoPhobes arise from their pit of flaming coals in the morning, breakfast off the limbs of babies roasted over publicly and provocatively burnt copies of the Koran then spend 2 hours robbing the poor at the stock exchange where they wreck the economies of several small and deserving countries each day. Then they spend the next 2 hours drinking vast quantities of champagne and eating caviare, while perfecting the detailed planning for their next genocide.

Finally they put on their jackboots with the iron heels and head off out for an evening's mayhem of grinding the faces of the poor into the gutter.

Generally neo-liberals are worse than NeoPhobes, but fortunately we have heroes likes SubAlpine to protect us from these monsters in vaguely human form.

The term "neo-liberal" may once have had something to do with a particular school of economic thought (probably attributed to it by those of other schools), but of course it has nothing to do with that now. It is just the local equivalent of speaking the name of Jehova.

In reply to dissonance:


Umm, no. Has the Ron-Paul-style libertarian manifesto ever been attempted?


Tosh, you can't have a taxpayer-funded welfare state with anarchy, since you need a centralised state to arrange it. Thus anarchism is incompatible with many (indeed most) economic models.

In reply to Simon4:

As ever Simon, five minutes inside your head is an interesting, if slightly puzzling experience.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


So what vocabulary could we use at the beginning of any political struggle? Would we all just mumble and hope the other mumblers had understood?

If you look at history you will be forced, I think, to conclude that the word leads the realisation - Voltaire, Rousseau and many others came before the French Revolution, Marx and Lenin before the Russian one and so on throughout history.

As a scientist do you come to conclusions, just like that, out of the air, then fit the words to your "discovery" or do you start with a theory, the word, then attempt to prove it by experiment?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Asserting that it is "most definitely" true is neither and argument nor evidence. Large chunks of the NSDAP manifesto are posted above -- it if very clearly an economically left platform with a large amount in common with other left-wing factions such as the communists (of course the communists and the Nazis diverged markedly over nationalism).

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


The Soviet and Chinese communist models lasted many decades, quite long enough to see what the actual product of those systems would be like and was indeed like.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


and what do you think the outcome would be? You can start just by looking at regulation.


You might want to go and read up a bit on anarchism.
Whether it would work or not is far more debatable (in many cases again i think human nature will get in the way) but its rather more complex than your view would suggest.

In reply to The New NickB:


I like his Neophobe. Surely, under his definition, neo being bad, that is the left wingers? Shouldnt it be neophobephobes?

In reply to The New NickB:


But that BBC (and other) usage of left and right at that time was very dubious, more spin than exact use. It was based on the idea that change is always progressive, but this is only true if all agree that the new system is a progress on the old one! Otherwise the use of the term "reaction" would have been more exact as those in favour of returning to capitalism could not be seen as providing a progress, only reverting to the pre-communist situation.

Overall left and right should only be used as descriptive labels, when they are used as propaganda tools, based on the notion that left is nice and right is nasty, then they are being stretched to far, I think.

In reply to dissonance:

>> Has the Ron-Paul-style libertarian manifesto ever been attempted?


Umm, very nasty I expect, but I haven't really considered it because I consider it too batty to be worth considering.


No thanks, it's another thing too batty to be worth considering. Sorry, my politics is grounded in pragmatics and reality, not airy-fairy dreaming about ideologies that can't be implemented and would be disastrous if they were implemented because they are totally alien to human nature.

In reply to dissonance:


I've always found this view very odd, and quite different from reality. To put it to test, do you think that if you spoke to a convinced anarchist, living in a rural community in Cornwall he or she would come across as being of a similar mentality and political outlook to a National Front skinhead drinking a pint of lager after having laid in to a bunch of "Pakis" with a basecball bat on Clapham Common?

In reply to Coel Hellier:


you might just want to apply that to the Nazi manifesto then. You know to see which bits of it actually got implemented and which didnt?
Since it does give a rather good indication of was actually intended vs what was promised in order to get some votes.

In reply to Simon4:

"Neo" means new, as in neolithic - new stone age.

In reply to dissonance:


First, the Nazi economic policy was indeed centre-left in practice (massive state intervention and borrowing to fund full employment, along with a war machine).

Second, your "what was actually intended vs what was promised in order to get some votes" is cynical, and indeed a rather self-serving excuse of "they didn't actually mean it" when anyone points to their left-wing economics.

[I get the same from religious creationists by the way, whenever I point out the clear evidence of the religious and creationist nature of Nazi ideology, the reply is always "well, they didn't actually mean it, they were just saying it to be popular".]

Indeed, if you look at most British Labour governments they have, in practice, been more centrist and centre-left than the left-wing nature of their manifestos and than their activists might like. That is just the pragmatic realities of being in power and getting things done and the necessary compromises that entails. Afterall, plenty of Labour governments have been elected on Clause 4, but none have attempted to implement it. That does not mean they were not "left" and it doesn't mean they were only kidding people to get votes.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


What scientists do is fit their vocabulary to reality, how things actually are, not how they might wish things to be. (Scientists also like clear and well-defined meanings, so would abhor the current usage of left/right as too undefined.)

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I am not going to defend the exact BBC use, at least in part because it was twenty years ago and I don't sufficiently remember the detail, but you are right change isnt always progressive. The sort of absolutes that Coel seems to like dealing with around this subject really don't help.


You are not going to stop that happen, plenty people use both as an insult.

In reply to Coel Hellier: I seem to remember you've argued this point several times before. Your definitions might be logical but they aren't widely used so of limited value.

And you might like to look at others that argue that the nazis were left wing and wonder if you want to be in their company

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Perhaps some "scientists" are not suited to politics then, as politics is not a science?

I suspect that any "good" scientist would understand that to categorise political movements on a single axis is impossible, and also realise that left and right are only broad terms that cannot be defined on one factor - economics, for example. Others may even be able to grasp the pragmatic reality which shows that electoral programs and manifestos may not always reflect the underlying objectives of some political movements? No candidate is going to say "My aim is to screw the workers and make as much profit as possible for those who are buttering my bread.", for example.

There is a famous letter written in the 18th or 19th century by an MP from a rotten borough in which he says something like "I was elected by paying you to vote for me and ever since I have acted solely in my own interests. This is what I did before and intend to do again... etc". Someone may know the exact text, but it is not something that would be said today thanks to universal suffrage.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

So a "left wing" anarchist is at the opposite side of the circle to the "right wing" authoritarian thug. Why do you think this makes your point?

In reply to Postmanpat:

The proposition was that extremes meet.

In reply to The New NickB:

Wired.

To.

The.

Moon.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Exactly!!! Which is why I am trying to confine the left/right axis to a *one* issue, namely economic policy, while also explicitly stating that that one issue is not the only relevant or important aspect of a political movement.


They could easily be defined by one factor, economics, if that is how they were defined. You may not like that way of defining the terms, but that doesn't mean it could not be done.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Yes, so why why does showing that two opposite extremes don't meet show that other extremes don't meet.

Do you really not get it or are you just teasing?

In reply to Doug:


The terms are in any case so ill-defined that they are already of limited value.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I described the two political extremes, libertarian commune dweller and nazi yob... clealy they don't meet... If they did it would be quite unpleasant for the lefty, skinheads might well like bashing a few hippies when they'd finished on Clapham Common.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


They are well enough defined for most people, you're the one who seems to be having a problem.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

No, you didn't describe THE two political extremes. You described two political extremes.

Let's try some other extremes: Left wing Anarchist commune dweller and right wing rural small State libertarian.
Right wing authoritarian boot boy, left Statist boot boy.

Each of which pairs have more in common with each other than with Michael foot , Margaret thatcher, David Cameron or ed milliband.

But you were just teasing I know.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: Just remind me how did the good old soviet union deal with homsexuals, jews, arty types and people who wanted to live by their own rules?

let me guess, you'd say with the greatest care and compassion, after all building all those gulags couldn't have been cheap could it?

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers: Well said that man.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


no but the libertarian free marketer would probably get on quite well with the anarchist commune dweller and enjoy a spirited debate around the best way to achieve a very similar aim.

Likewise the nazi yob would have a lot in common with some of black bloc thugs although admittedly they are likely not to get into a debate but just enjoy trying to batter each other senseless.

In reply to dissonance:

You're confusing me there, but to you and PMP etc, I realise that not everybody will use exactly the same examples of extremes of left and right, if they did the two terms wouldn't need to exist because it would mean everybody had identical political views, but I think most would find it difficult to show that their two extremes really "met", in the sense were on the same wavelength.

There's another way of seeing this question of left and right - take a look at countries where they often form coalition governments... When they do generally left parties get together with other left of centre ones and right with right of centre, there's little difficulty for people in these countries to understand the procedure, to the point that if ever a coalition that includes parties traditionally seen as on opposite sides is formed it results in much comment. So outside this sort of sex of angels debate real people know well enough what left and right means

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


That's simply not true, there are many people saying similar things so me (e.g. http://www.politicalcompass.org/ ) and plenty of people saying that the fascist movements cannot easily be placed on a simple left-right axis (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum ). You are being highly simplistic if you think the simple labels left v right are clear and meaningful.

In reply to dissonance:


That is because both of those are far right (absence of centrally imposed rules and order), so it would be no surprise if they got on quite well.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


wrong.
You really could do with reading some basic political theory.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


well yes. You seem to take the most chilled out example on the left and the bully boys of the right.
However if you take the anarchists you get the full spectrum from left to right with the most extremes meeting up, mostly differing on how to get there and the details of how to stay there.


well considering the likelihood the party on the "opposite side" would be their main opponent it would raise a fair few eyebrows. Of course they will go into alliance with the parties closest to them first since it will require the least compromise.
However if you take Israel, for example, it can have some rather interesting alliances.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Sure, and I'm willing to bet that if you took the summary of the NSDAP manifesto posted above, and gave it to people without telling them where it came from, most people would say it is very clearly left wing.

Come on, how else would you label: policy of full employment; worker profit-sharing in large corporations; abolishing income from capital (allowing only income from labour); confiscation of profits made during war; land redistribution, with the state taking land for the workers; abolition of rent on land and abolition of profit from buying or selling land; generous old-age pensions; nationalisation of all trusts; private interests subjugated to the common good; strong central authority to impose all of this, over-ruling private interests?

In reply to dissonance:


And you really could do with realising that a lot of "basic political theory" is just people trying to argue their own particular hobby horse.

And the above was not wrong, an anarchistic commune style of living is "right wing" under any sensible definition. (I do realise that many people have non-sensible definitions.) That follows because if it is a true anarchy then there is no central state to set up taxation and wealth-distribution and a welfare state, etc, etc.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


yes, it is clear from you and Bruce. A superb example of the extremes of left and right meeting.


No, really it isnt. Under your definition Marx was right wing.

In reply to dissonance:


I'm pretty centre, to centre-right.


You haven't given your definition. Anyhow, all people who have tried to implement Marx have had huge central state control dictating most areas of life. That is far-left. That huge central control was recognised as necessary for his doctrines by Marx. That makes him far-left. Now, he then argued that the need for it would fall away over time, because he thought that people would voluntarily be communist and thus not need the central control. But all the evidence says he was wrong on that, and that the only way of having ongoing communism is to have an ongoing central state enforcing it. And that makes him and it far left.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


correct, I was talking about yours.


I think you are confusing far left with communism. Some flavours overlap but not all.

In reply to dissonance:


Israel is a bit of a special case, it is hardly a normal peacetime situation. During WW2 Churchill had no difficulty being allied to both the USA and the USSR... all in an alliance against the extreme right nazis. None would have denied this at the time.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


You really can't accept that people involved in real life are perfectly aware that manifestos are little to do with reality, can you?

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Under your ridiculous definition it may be, but that just shows how out of touch you are!

In reply to dissonance:


Do you have the impression that Coel and I agree on this subject then? If so then it's fairly clear that your definition of "agree" is as odd as his definition of left and right

In reply to Coel Hellier:


They are only doing that according to your definition of left and right! Why not come up with two different words "splot" and "gibble", for example, and say that the Nazi's were far more splot than many realised, and not actually very gibble at all. That would be much clearer.

I'm trying to learn Finnish at the moment, there are some parts of the language which are patently ridiculous; case declension applies to the adjective as well as the noun in a sentence. Why? It's completely unnecessary. "-ssa/ä" is the 'in' suffix for example. Why do I need to add that to the adjective as well as the noun? The room might be red, but you are only in the room, not in the red. So basically all the Finns who speak their language are wrong, because it's vague and ill defined. I shall speak Finnish *my* way, and they can just all change!

In reply to TobyA:


A definition that wasn't originated by me and which is fairly widely accepted to be sensible and useful, and which has a lot going for it.

I do accept that other people prefer to define them with a confused mish-mash of several different and largely unrelated topics, and which is applied largely owing to personal preference.

Can anyone give a succinct, clear and coherent definition of "left" v "right" that works better than mine?

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Can you actually show me examples of this? I don't remember that, and calling Yeltsin "left" for following the neo-liberal path of market reform (actually resource capture, but leaving that aside for the moment) is odd.

I'm remember the coup plotters being described as hardliners, meaning regime conservatives, but I don't think I've heard them being called "far right". I listen to mainly BBC World Service News these days and thinking about it they don't so often use left and right labels beyond perhaps European election coverage.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


No because they don't try to encapsulate clear and coherent ideas. I don't see what is so troubling about that. Can you clearly define "pop music" or "western philosophy" or "classical art"? We can give rough definitions, but I'm sure an expert on any of them will point out examples that don't fit easily.

In reply to TobyA:

The problem is that they do pretend to encapsulate clear and coherent ideas but what they are actually trying to do is force disparate and often contradictory ideas into artificial and necessarily inaccurate groupings.

I don't agree with Coel that we should therefore take one aspect of these ideas and regard them as the sole "definition" but I do think that the standard usage is not only too vague, it is positively misleading and should therefore be abandoned.

In reply to TobyA:


This was a long time ago now, and before the automatic internet-caching of just about everything. On a quick google I haven't found evidence from the BBC itself (though I distinctly remember it from BBC news at the time), however, here are some examples:

"Reformers' worst fears realized in right-wing coup" ... "The country was taken over by staunch right-wingers -- ostensibly led by Gennady Yanayev, Mr. Gorbachev's vice president and a relatively faceless politician here. But Mr. Yanayev was overshadowed among the plotters by the most powerful right-wing Soviet leaders -- including the Prime Minister Valentin Pavlov and the heads of the KGB, the Interior Ministry and the Defense Ministry."

Baltimore Sun August 19, 1991
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1991-08-19/news/1991231009_1_gorbachev-uni...

"Yeltsin spearheads left-wing walkout"
Washington Post, Jul 13 1990
"Yeltsin made a theatrical walkout from the landmark Communist Party Congress ..." "... announced their intention to launch a rival left-wing party ..."

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1290&dat=19900713&id=vwdPAAAA...

Here's something more recent from The Independent:

"To the end, Valentin Ivanovich Varennikov was a believer in an uncompromising Communist Russia ... as deputy defence minister and commander of Soviet ground forces in August 1991, he was one of the leading figures in the abortive plot to overthrow Mikhail Gorbachev ... By mid-1991, as the country sank into chaos, a move by right-wingers to topple the regime became ever more probable."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/valentin-varennikov-soviet-gen...

And here from 1990 is an article objecting to this sort of usage, which shows it was common enough to object to:
"Is Boris Yeltsin really a `leftist'?"
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1876&dat=19900724&id=MbApAAAA...

In reply to TobyA:


What is "troubling" is that you get some people calling Yeltsin "left" when on any sensible usage he was "right" of the communists, etc etc. The words are near useless if they are this confused and used that badly.

That's ok with me, so long as everyone realises that calling the Nazis "far right" is just a reflection of personal dislike of them, and doesn't say anything meaningful about reality or about the nature and policies of the Nazis.


Music that is popular.


Philosophy originating and predominating in in Western countries.


Art in the style of past European cultures.

Can you give a similar straightforward statement about left v right?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Sure I can, just as many Labour voters didn't actually expect Clause 4 to be implemented by a Labour government (though many would have liked it).

The fact is, though, that the Nazi manifesto was far-left and their actual economic policies in power were centre-left. (A bit like most Labour governments!) How you get from there to "far right", other than by personal prejudice, beats me.

In reply to Coel Hellier: Aren't they classified as right-wing on the basis of being aggressively and militaristically nationalist? I don't think their economic policies are generally considered.

In reply to MG:

Yes, but are these characteristics exclusive to "right wing" regimes?

In reply to MG:


And on what basis, other than personal prejudice, is being "aggressively and militaristically nationalist" classed as "right wing"?

It is exactly that sort of prejudice that I am complaining about, with "left wing" defined as "things I like" and "right wing" defined as "things I don't like". Hence the coup against Gorbachev being "right wing", meaning "I don't like it".

In reply to Postmanpat:

It seems to me when it comes to nationalism/militarism/racism etc we should abandon "left" and "right" and designate by reference to marching styles.
So we would have "storkers" and "non storkers". Much more accurate then left and right.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I don't think the nationalistic element is generally present in left-wing regimes, at least in principle.

For example, the USSR was aggressively and militaristically supportive of the global proletariat, which you will understand is quite different.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I don't see it. I think most people would express dislike both Nazi Germany and the USSR but would still see one as ultra-right and the other as ultra-left.

In reply to MG:

So we're agreed that being "aggressively militaristic" doesn't equate to "right", since the USSR and Mao's China were exactly that.

So does "nationalism" equate to "right"? Hmm, don't think so, since that would, for example, make the SNP "far right" because they want to be independent, even though their economic policies are roughly centre-left.

I think that nationalism is best considered to be something distinct to location on a left-right axis. The whole problem here is that we take very different things (economic left v economic right; aggressive militarism v peaceful coexistent; nationalism v internationalism) and try to squash them all down onto the same axis, even though they are largely unrelated and different.

In reply to Coel Hellier: The problem is not really one of definition but that the terms are used in several ways - economically right/left wing being different to nationalistic (right) and communist (left), which are different again to authoritarian vs libertarian. Generally the meaning is clear from the context.

For the Nazis I guess economically central(ish), nationalistic, militaristic and authoritarian begins to capture the situation better than simply left or right. Similarly you could describe other regimes. But if you are to use just one word, left and right are about as good as you are going to get.

In reply to MG:
Some it is eg. Venezuela, North Korea, Some it is when necessary eg.USSR. Others it probably isn't. Difficult to distinguish between the quest for global communism and the quest for Soviet domination.
Much the same could be said for nominally "right wing" countries.

In reply to MG:


But for a lefty who adopts "left" = "things I like", "right" = "things I don't", they tend to regard the USSR as meaning well and aiming for what is best, even though deeply flawed in implementation. Thus the USSR and Marxism gets accepted as "left" because at least their intentions were good (see up thread for various communist sympathisers dreaming about what true communism would lead to, with all the nasty stuff falling away, and complaining that I'm totally misrepresenting communism by not understanding that).

The Nazis of course didn't mean well (except for their narrowly-defined own), so are not excused in the same way.

In reply to MG:


Agreed.


In restricting the use left/right to economic I fully accept as a corollary that the left/right label will then not necessarily be the most salient or useful description of a regime.


Not so sure. With the Nazis I'd suggest that "violently nationalistic" is far more descriptive and meaningful than either "left" or "right". Admittedly that's two words.

In reply to MG:


Utter nonsense.

At certain times during its history, the leadership of the USSR pursued quite virulently anti-Semitic policies (ever heard of the Doctors' Plot, and the campaign against 'cosmopolitans'?). At other times, it was quite chauvinistically pro-Russian.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

That's probably true but I don't think it is the way "left" is used in general discourse. Here I think it refers to largely to a economic system which strives for something like "each to his needs", be this good or bad (e.g Cuba, USSR, formerly China). "Right" seems to generally refer to authoritarian, militaristic, often expansionist political systems (Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, various South American 1980s regimes). If there is confusion it is probably that the terms are often seen as opposites, when they are not really as used.

In reply to Anonymous: "...at least in principle"!!

In reply to Coel Hellier:


ah the classic "lefty" insults. You do know many "lefties" have f*ck all time for the USSR? I know this doesnt meet your right wing good left wing bad view but seriously.


if you mean me i was simply pointing out the stupidity of your position. By using your criteria Marx was a right wing, in that what he wanted matched your no state criteria
Would it get there, nope but then neither would the right wing libertarians who what want to achieve the same end but by different methods. The approach of going private business would end the same way as communism did, with a few special interests groups gaining power.

That you are lobbing accusations of communist sympathiser around hows that it is as pointless discussing politics with you as it is with bruce.

In reply to dissonance:


Sure, and many did, at least in principle.


I meant more Bruce Hooker and New NickB, but still. Anyhow, if you think that my position is "stupid" then maybe it is you that is stupid?


And I explained above why this is wrong. Marx wanted a huge centralised state to impose this "no state" utopia; and that was an inevitable and necessary feature of his system (whether he realised it or not). It is that that made him left-wing.


My accusation of communist sympathiser was aimed primarily at Bruce, who (correct me if I'm wrong) was strongly pro-communist for much of his life, and still has sympathies in that direction.

In reply to dissonance:


By the way, the "methods" that one finds acceptable and wants to use go a long way to defining the differences between people, between left and right.

For example, if you asked people whether they wanted a peaceful country in which everyone was prosperous and happy then politicians across the spectrum would say "yes please". It's thus the methods that people think will lead to progress that are the main defining factor.

Marx's methods were massive centralised state intervention and control of just about everything; that made him far-left.

In reply to Coel Hellier: Can you give examples of countries you regard as far-right? You seem to oscillate between using the economic system and degree of state intervention in general as your measure.

In reply to MG:


An example of a fairly-right country would be the Cayman Islands (no income tax or corporation tax or capital gains tax, for example). I don't think there are many far-right countries, because populations tend to prefer more social protection, so vote for it given the choice. There are ultra-right politicians such as Ron Paul, but they don't get much ballot-box support (America is fairly right, of course, with far less social protection than would be accepted by European electorates).


OK, though the primary target of state intervention is usually economic life.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Surely many countries in Africa would be "right" under you definition, with perhaps the most extreme being Somalia or somewhere, with essentially no government at all?

In reply to Coel Hellier:


leaving aside the simplistic reliance on the state as being the controlling factor of being left wing. This is a somewhat different argument than your a commune is right wing.

In reply to MG:


But there are lots of people wandering around with guns telling you what to do, and in a pragmatic sense they are the local "government", since they get to say what happens.

A far-right state at least needs a minimal state with a police-force to enforce the law etc, even though a far-right state would see its scope limited to a few roles like that, with no social welfare intervention.

In reply to Coel Hellier: Ron Paul isn't ultra right...

he's minimal government, in fact almost the purist libertarian..

Wanted minimal troops outside of the US, but by ultra right I think that means a social heirarchy.. which is not Ron Paul.. well for me anyway.

Its all a bit confused nowadays anyway.. A friend in the US said the other day 'I always think of the conservatives as the liberal party'.. which we all laughed at.. but in many ways they can be. They do argue minimal government intervention.. but only when it suits them, socially they do like to intervene.. abortions etc..

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Where would you put Japan on your left / right axis?

In reply to Coel Hellier: Well I think do now understand what you are trying to use these words to mean now after numerous threads! However, rather than trying to use left/right as replacements for authoritarian/libertarian, why not just use authoritarian and libertarian, which are both well understood!? Left/right maybe rather loosely defined words, but trying place a further meaning on them is surely just going to confuse matters more, given the already extensive record of them being used in other ways.

In reply to MG: And I am not sure the authoritarian/libertarian axis is a particularly useful one given that practically all developed countries are clustered around the middle these days.

In reply to dissonance:


First, it was an anarchist commune that I said was "right wing", and it seems to me that it would have to be, if one thinks through the consequences.

What would a state consisting solely of anarchist communes be like? How would these communes trade with each other? Would there be a supervising authority for their trades? If so, it isn't "anarchy"; if there weren't then it would be the epitome of a free market, with people free to make deals if it suited them.

Suppose a child of a commune got cancer, would there be state-provided hospitals, supported by general taxation controlled by a central state? If so then it isn't "anarchy". If not, then what would there be? Privately run hospitals that that commune could pay to send their kid to if they had the money? If so, then that is the epitome of a right-wing market system.

Ditto universities. Ditto a road and railway system. Ditto a water supply. Etc etc.

One presumes that (being anarchic) people would be able to leave a commune and team up with whoever they wish? In which case, such forming of "companies" is the epitome of right-wing free enterprise.

Suppose one commune is really capable and gets wealthy and rich; another commune is run incompetently and its children are starving and the commune can't afford to educate them. Does a central authority then step in and redistribute wealth? If so then it isn't "anarchy", if not what happens? Do the children just starve, do they depend solely on charity from the richer commune? If so, this seems to me the epitome of a far-right state.

So, please explain how a nation of anarchic communes actually works that is in any way "left wing". It seems to me that it could only be right-wing.

In reply to IainRUK:


Which is exactly what ultra-right means (at least what many people mean by it!).

In reply to Coel Hellier: Wiki...

"Far-right, extreme right, hard right, radical right, and ultra-right are terms used to discuss the qualitative or quantitative position a group or person occupies within right-wing politics. Far right politics involves support of strong or complete social hierarchy in society, and supports supremacy of certain individuals or groups deemed to be innately superior who are to be more valued than those deemed to be innately inferior.[1]

The far right's advocacy of supremacism is based on what its adherents perceive as innate characteristics of people that cannot be changed.[2] This has sometimes been confused with criticism of behaviours such as laziness or decadence, which may lead people to end up in comparatively inferior situations.[3] The centre right - unlike the far right - claims that people can end their behavioural inferiority through changing their habits and choices.[4]

The original far right, which emerged in France after the French Revolution, refused to accept the French Republic and supported a counter-revolution to restore the French monarchy and aristocracy.[5] The far right is commonly associated with persons or groups who hold extreme nationalist, xenophobic, racist, religious fundamentalist or reactionary views.[6] The most extreme-right movements have pursued oppression and genocide against groups of people on the basis of their alleged inferiority.[7]"

As said its all confusing now anyway.. and really there is a big difference between social conservatives and fiscal conservatives.. hence why the republicans are fighting so much..

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Good examples, except both of yours about Yeltsin was whilst he was leading a radical faction within the USSR - they are from 1990 - pre- the end of the Soviet Union. Again, within that system to call his liberal faction the left and the regime hardliners "right" makes some sense, although if I was writing about that period now I might pick other words. I doubt you'll find many references to Yeltsin being on left once he was prime minister of Russia.

In reply to MG:


Excellent! Note that the way I use the words is the way that those who generally call themselves "right" use them. If you take any of the "right wing" think tanks and policy units they would think about themselves in these terms.

The difficulty is that what self-labelled "right/centre-right" people mean by the words is not what self-labelled "left" people mean by them (the main problem being that to the left "right wing" is simply a term of abuse, not a term aimed at illustrating or understanding concepts).

In reply to The New NickB:


I don't really know enough about Japan to know, I'd guess roughly centrist.

In reply to MG:


I would strongly disagree with this because to claim so would be to equate all leftwing traditions with Marxism, which historically isn't true. It's important to understand how the rise of nationalism through the 18th and 19th century was a radical and emancipatory concept, perhaps even more than it was a conservative notion. It's important to try and understand how differently people saw the world before modern times; social position in relations to king and God, rather than to such a vague and ethereal idea as 'nation'.

In reply to EZ: May I suggest that both 'left and 'right' on this discussion go back and read the OP. Remarkably prescient I think!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

>> an anarchistic commune style of living is "right wing" under any sensible definition.

>Under your ridiculous definition it may be, but that just shows how out of touch you are!

i suspect Coel would agrees with Murray Rothbard:
'Economically, anarcho-communism is an absurdity. The anarcho-communist seeks to abolish money, prices, and employment, and proposes to conduct a modern economy purely by the automatic registry of “needs” in some central data bank. No one who has the slightest understanding of economics can trifle with this theory for a single second.'

and this:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4fe_1337551169

In reply to Oceanrower:

Seems totally wrong to me. There is perfectly reasonable and polite discussion going on.

In reply to TobyA: Historically maybe but for all of the 20th century and still today extreme-left=communism. I accept there are examples where this has been mixed with nationalism such as N Korea and possibly China, but generally the aim, at least in principle, has been some sort global equality.

In reply to Oceanrower:

Not at all. Generally quite civilized, not clearly aligned along doctrinaire lines and at least one person acknowledging that they now have a better understanding of the other's point of view.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Well they wouldnt work full stop but leaving that aside.
If you are redefining right wing to only mean free market and, for example, not requiring private property then you might have a point but since that would render your definition even more meaningless than before its not worth bothering with.

In reply to Oceanrower: have i missed the verbal abuse?

In reply to MG:

but then some on the right would claim the same aim, but by using the markets to balance it. Likewise the extreme left includes anarchists as well not all of whom are overly fond of their neighbours.

In reply to dissonance:

Well that comes back to the definition of "right", doesn't it. I don't think Hitler had any intention of global equality!

In reply to Coel Hellier:


This isn't true. If I tell you Finland has three right-wing parties, Kokomous, Keskusta and Perussuomalaiset, I'm giving a vague sketch of their political positions. To expand on that, we could say Kokomous is a centre-right party close to the business sector and with an urban base; not dissimilar from many European centre-right parties liked the CDU in Germany. Keskusta is the former Agrarian League and still has its base in the rural areas, but is now also a centre-right party, not dissimilar from many Christian Democrat rightwing parties across Europe. Perussuomaliaset are a populist-right party, and many argue far-right. I see the modern PS as actually split between one trend coming from its history as a rural populist party and second trend which is much closer to far-right anti-immigrant parties across Europe. Anyone with even a passing interest in politics will be able to read those uses of the term "right" and then have some idea what sort of policies each of those parties are likely to propose. It's not an insult, its an identifier.

Why don't you define from a set point if you find this all so difficult? You could say "the Nazis were far-right, therefore political movements that either themselves draw directly from that tradition or that at least resemble the Nazis in many ways could be called far right"?

In reply to MG:

Forgotten about the USSR again, have we?

In reply to MG:


i did say some. Likewise some of the communists etc when it came down to it werent overly bothered about the equality among men but rather more so in the stuff they could loot.

In reply to Anonymous: No. Try logging in with a user name.

In reply to dissonance:
Likewise some of the communists etc when it came down to it werent overly bothered about the equality among men but rather more so in the stuff they could loot.

Those would be the human ones

In reply to dissonance:


Well, again, explain to me how this anarchic-commune society would actually work. Would a commune have its own property, its own farm land? If so, there you have private property. Or could any other person/commune come along and stake an equal claim to any land?

Could one commune sell land to another? If so, there you have private property. If not, who is going to stop them, and if there is an authority that stops them then it's not really "anarchy".

Could one family decide to leave a commune, set up on its own, and barter or buy property? If not, if someone would stop them and tell them they couldn't, then it's not "anarchy". If they could then it's private property.

Again, I repeat, explain to me how this actually works -- it seems to me that once you think about it any "anarchy" system would inevitably be quite far right (absence of a controlling state doing all the things like wealth distribution that left wingers generally want a state to do).

In reply to EZ: Wow, this has evolved in a strange way from the OPs first point.

again it wouldnt.
If you actually think about it properly it wouldnt work for the right either, since the more powerful communes would go shopping without worrying about payment.
However I am not quite sure how you see communes trading land as suddenly becoming private property, perhaps it would help you if you consider them very, very small states.

In reply to TobyA:


You can't define a line with one point, you need two (at least). And the trouble with your statement is that, on economic policy, many of the parties that most resemble the Nazis are usually called left or far left.

In reply to MG:

I agree that is what most people think when they say far left or extreme left.


For some idealists that might be the aim but states tend to start acting like state reasonably soon regardless of what ideology they claim to be based on. This is a fundamental question of International Relations, and why, within IR, Realism and Neo-Realism as schools of thought remain so influential even after 80 years. Realists argue that the international system is one of anarchy, and therefore states within it are in a zero sum game against each other. Therefore it doesn't matter what ideology a state claims to hold, the environment they are in forces them to act in certain ways to ensure their own survival. Hence ideologically Venezuela and Iran have no common ideology, and very little connections to each other beyond the fact that they are both in competition with the USA and this pushes them together: alliance building or bandwaggoning - call it what you will. I'm not a Realist because I think it's more complicated than that, plus the Realists have utterly failed to predict accurately - but I'll leave all that for another time!

In reply to MG:

'The plans differ; the planners are all alike'

In reply to dissonance:


Which is why even the ultra-right such as Ron Paul advocate a state able to enforce contracts and the rule of law.


Perhaps if you considered them as extended families then you'd see how their property is "private" property?

In reply to TobyA:


Yep, you give it to 'em! No messing about

Coel probaly already speaks fluent Finkish - a language of his own definition that Finns should speak if only they were more rational.

In reply to EZ: The problem with trying to discuss these sort of things is that most people are quite offended by so called conspiracy theories. Nobody wants to think of themselves as a slave or one of the controlled masses or a sheep or anything and get quite upset when accused of such. There's loads of people on this forum that agree with the general gist of what you post but can't be bothered with the insults when trying to argue such things. I guess when you are trying to convince people of these things and get so much abuse it's easy to lose the plot and start throwing insults back and behaving somewhat irrationally.

If you want to talk about this stuff try to use mainstream sources to back up your claims, don't rely on Internet conspiracy videos. They have a very specific agenda, are rarely factually correct and are always scorned upon. Don't get drawn into pointless arguments about some specific point of a post, if someone challenges what you've written you will or won't resolve it in one or two replies, anymore than this just makes the thread boring. If someone calls you a name the best way to get revenge is to ignore them, there's nothing more tedious than reading people call one another names on the Internet. If a reply seems patronising or sarcastic assume it isn't.

It's possible to have some really good debate on this forum but you just have to know how far you can push things and find ways of explaining things that doesn't get peoples backs up. I'm not 100% on this but I seem to remember a phase where Woolsack was being constantly ridiculed for claiming the twin towers was an inside job, a totally obvious fact that people just won't believe. He (or she) changed their posting style and to me now seems highly respected on the site. I don't know if you remember mystery toad? He seemed to have very similar views to Woolsack and the tinfoil hat wearing brigade, acted like an arse and seems to be the only UKCer to get a lifetime ban.

I like your posting style and prose and think you argue your case well, just except that some people will act like dicks whatever you do.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


ah so alongside right and left wing you are redefining "extended family".
Ambitious i guess but makes it somewhat difficult to follow.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Who says there needs to be a line? I can describe to you what a banana is without putting it on line going from banana to apple. I can tell you what a plantain is and tell you in the all the ways its resembles a banana and the few aspect in which it differs.

Seriously Coel, you're not doing much to help breakdown the stereotype of natural scientists all being Mr Spock clones, joylessly trying crowbar everything onto some sort of axis of description. Or finding something interesting, killing it, and pining it to a card to be classified with an impressive sounding latin name!

In reply to subalpine:

Err, Yes. Try the first reply. Or was that irony? Hard to tell on a forum.

In reply to TobyA:
>(In reply to Coel Hellier)

it's easy to fool a linear thinking scientist

In reply to Oceanrower: sorry, i've got my Philip-blocker script on

In reply to Oceanrower:


nah havent heard any verbal abuse and it would be a tad stalkerish and freakish if EZ had.

In reply to TobyA:


Fine, if you don't want a line, ok with me.


All this started (several threads ago, I must admit!) as a reaction to other people using "left" and "right" as though they formed a line and saying things like "The Nazis were far right" as though there was a line and the Nazis were at one end of it.

But I was actually quite interested in MG's suggestion that the labels "left" and "right" don't actually form a line, despite appearances.

So if we agree to abandon such a line as uninformative that's totally ok with me. [However, I do consider that the concept of an **economic** line is actually quite useful, and using the words "left" and "right" to denote the ends has some merit.]

In reply to dissonance:


What's to stop an actual extended family setting themselves up as a commune? If you allow that you allow private property.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


That is painfully evident But I beg to give up trying to explain, left and right are fairly vague terms defined on the basis of a number of factors, economic, social, degree of belief in authority, individual freedom, collective freedoms (trade unions etc) conservative values, race and so on.. You don't get it but I don't think you really try... You are simply doing what you accuse others of doing - desperately trying to discredit what most regard as left wing values by pretending that fascists are on the left.

To give a real example, Le Pen's platform in the recent elections, both written and spoken used many references and propositions that were word for word the same as many standard left values but few people in France are naive enough to believe that the FN has moved from far right to far left. It did however enable her to gather 18% of the vote, attracting many working class voters, those at the bottom of the ladder who are being the hardest hit by the recession. Hitler did the same... neither were being honest, it's called populism or demagogy and has been part of politics since the Roman Republic.

In reply to Coel Hellier: where does neoliberalism or anarcho-capitalism come on your economic line?

In reply to Coel Hellier:


so if i am getting your logic if it allows any part of your definition of the right then its right?
Well the communes could also chose to share land and hence that rules out the right wing.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Oh I do get it, I just think that that's a hopelessly bad way of "defining" terms, and leads to a huge amount of personal prejudice in how they are applied.


I actually think that fascists methods are best though of as on an orthogonal axis. E.g. http://www.politicalcompass.org/ It isn't me who is expecting all relevant aspects of an ideology to be reflected in the "left/right" labels. It so happens that the Nazis were on the left and used fascist methods; it could equally happen that people on the right use fascist methods (perhaps Chile under Pinochet is an example).


A dangerous admission!


So perhaps they were always far left?


Ah, the old "they didn't mean it" excuse to ignore inconvenient facts. That's just what the Christians say when I point out that the Nazis were thoroughly religious and theistic, and, for example, that Nazi concentration camp guards were overwhelmingly Christian.

In reply to dissonance:


Nope.


No, that doesn't rule out "right wing" so long as they are doing it voluntarily and are not being forced to do it by a central authority.

A central concept in right-wing thought is that of a "company", whereby people voluntarily choose to pool resources and share ownership in the "company" because they consider that the collaboration will benefit themselves and all other share holders.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


actually its a central concept in only some forms of right-wing thought and isnt limited to right wing thought.
Aside from anything else that "company" can become a country state. Its happened before.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


I'm repeating myself, but so are you so never mind, what you do not seem to grasp is that Marx didn't try to impose anything, he proposed a model of society, in particular of 19th century capitalism but he started before, which used class relationships as the driving force of history.. He didn't impose the prolatariat revolution he explained why he thought this was inevitable and what well meaning people should do to encourage it and create the conditions that would lead, after a period of class struggle called "socialism" to a harmonious classless society without a coercive state in which all peoples and races would live happily with a general standard of living that was acceptable and egalitarian, and which he called "communism".

It was this last objective that defines him as "left wing", even though it was never achieved as conservative forces have never allowed it time to grow, and also because of what many think are internal errors in his model.

Fascists did not aim at a harmonious society, but one of racial war based on hatred and conquest, imposing one nation, the master race, on all the world... which defines them as "right".

In reply to Coel Hellier:


I plead guilty to this, your honour, although "most of his life" is flattering me a little.

In reply to dissonance:


I'm not aware of any right-wing think tanks or policy units which would not allow companies, indeed they seem to be the very essence of a right-wing economy. But you're right, they are not limited to right-wing thought.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


You're right, Marx himself didn't, some of his followers did.


Well, you know, while things are not perfect, we're not far off that in much of Western Europe, Scandinavia, etc. Though we don't call it "communism".


Under *your* definition of "right", one which amounts to "what I dislike"!

In reply to Coel Hellier:


thats because you are confusing the current neoliberal western trend with right wing.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


I suspect I'm not the only one spluttering as I read this.

In reply to dissonance:


I'm merely using the term "right wing" sensibly.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


of course you are. Have you thought of transferring to the business school and explaining to everyone the error of their ways?

In reply to Coel Hellier:


And vice versa, you use "lefty" as an insult yourself, as does Postamanpat (I think) occasionally, or if not an insult as a pejorative word. There is not much wrong with this unless one is unhappy with the reality of one's politics (excuse the "ones" but "your" would have been ambiguous). I don't take the term lefty as an insult, even if I doubt that I merit the compliment these days, and if you or PMP are called right wingers it shouldn't be taken as an insult either, purely descriptive.

In reply to Anonymous:

I don't imagine many people read things and splutters so you might be. Pop a name on the end of your posts, old chap, then we'll know who splutters. Don't worry, it doesn't have to be your real name or even the one that you're banned under, just a moniker.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


I don't think I've done that, and I don't think of left wingers that way. I think there is a lot to be said for the left-wing perspective, and though on balance I consider that a centrist or centre-right policy is overall best, that in itself entails a lot of left-wing influence.


Actually, I'm pretty happy with the modern world in Western Europe today, I think we have things pretty good, certainly better than any other location or time.

In reply to dissonance:


I'd have thought that a business school would be the place most likely to have long ago adopted the sort of usages I have, don't you think?

In reply to EZ:

In my professional capacity, the company I work for run a lot of very big internet forums (amongst other things). I've come to the conclusion that an internet forum turns many seemingly normal people to complete a*rseholes - behind the semi-anonymous safety of a computer screen people seem to behave in manners they'd never dream of face to face. I think it's a case of only people with extreme views bother to get involved, with the inevitable descent into name-calling.

Especially amusing are the people posting about "I AM THE CUSTOMER", where as in fact they are the product that the website sells.

In my opinion, forums as they stand are rarely worth the effort it takes to police them into something useable.

In reply to subalpine:

I don't underestimate the difficulties of setting up a free commune, even more so on the national level. Worker control was tried in Yugoslavia and involved works committees, elected managers and all sorts of elected bodies at municipal and regional level but it all fell apart, with a little help from it's friends, at Tito's death.

Whatever, I wasn't suggesting it as my solution to the world's problems, just as an example of a left wing project.

In reply to EZ:


Hahahahahaha. I go climbing for a day, then forget to have a look for another half a day and low and behold the thread is a complete hijack by... wait for it... by a bunch of the usual suspects. Hahahaha

I think my addiction is gone Thanks guys and if it's possible... happy arguing!

In reply to EZ:

Do you go around constantly giggling uncontrollably in real life too?

In reply to EZ:

tbh, ironically, this has been just about the most good natured, civil and even informative thread i can remember on ukc for a while. the "usual suspects" may be in attendance, but there would appear to be an ample supply of tolerance and engagement in the substance of the debate, and very little in the way of abuse

cheers
gregor

In reply to Coel Hellier:


i would hope not while there are more useful terms, neoliberal etc etc that are available.

In reply to MG:

Actually yes, with a big bag of (sorry this isn't the pub I know) wtf being expressed at the same time!

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Sorry no_more_scotch_eggs. I didn't actually read the debate as it was so far off topic and not a discussion I came here for so I had no idea it was well mannered for a change.

In reply to dissonance:


I think it could work but it would involve a more complex system than Coel has suggested. In French the idea is called "autogestion" which doesn't seem to have an English translation - worker control is too limited. Gaddafi tried to devise a version of it in his little green book, Tito did in Yugoslavia, and Mao did in China at times. Often the theory fell foul of reality and the main problem is that in a world controlled by far more organised states, who quite naturally do all they can to bring down such models that may well appeal to their own populations.

Basically there is a complex system of regional and devolved assemblies which replace the central state. In most case a certain level of private property still exists but generally the means of production are owned by the community - either municipal commune, or independent bodies controlled by the workers committee. There would also be methods of appeal, a justice system and so on. Not the free for all of a liberal capitalist system, and no concentration of capital in a few wealthy hands - all the factors that make this a left system rather than a right one.

Obviously there are difficulties, all this could work for small and medium companies but heavy industry or high tech concerns requiring years of effort before the products could be sold might pose a problem... on the other hand for the majority of countries in the world the system could work quite well, if it were allowed to, of course, which history show us is somewhat unlikely!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Just for the record, I agree that the system Bruce describes sounds left wing rather than right, however it is not at all "anarchy" since it involves an extensive control network.


I think it overly cynical to suppose that the system would work well and be popular except that "they" won't allow it. More likely, people simply don't like that level of control of their lives.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Few others seem to have difficulty in believing that Hitler lied to reach his ends!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


I have no difficulty accepting that Hitler might lie when it suited him, but that's very different from saying that his whole world-view as expounded at length in Mein Kampf is a lie. There he seems to be pouring his heart out, with way too high an opinion of himself and the rightness and necessity of his views to do anything except say what he thinks.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


The difference being that it is "control" that they exert themselves, on a daily basis. The people who do object to this system are the sort of dynamic, but often rather selfish, people who think that their efforts and energy should give them a much larger share of the cake - which they can have in a capitalist system but not in a self governing one... one system would be called left by most whereas the capitalist, laissez faire system would be seen as right wing.

You are wrong to say I use this as an insult though, it is just descriptive. When I call someone a right winger (if I did) I would just be saying that he was someone whose political views favoured a particular system that favoured self valorisation rather than egalitarian distribution. There are arguments in favour of both systems, especially at present with little in the way of valid and credible left wing options on the table.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Forgive me for joining the hijack on 'my own' thread...

I thought it was quite simple what was left and right. Isn't it liberalism and conservatism relating specifically to the amount of intervention the government has in the lives of the people? If so then surely laissez faire having no artificial tariffs would be commonly a leftist approach?

In reply to EZ:

I've confused myself, it seems. By my own reasoning laissez faire would be conservative! Damn.

Am I not right about the left/right thing being liberal/conservative government?

In reply to EZ:


Yes, intervention to control the economy and to redistribute wealth and to fund a welfare state are "left" whereas leaving people alone to succeed or fail is "right".


Errr what? Nope, that's "right".

In reply to EZ:


Not really, though it depends on what you mean by those terms. Whether "conserving" something is left or right depends what you're conserving. And a very liberal (meaning not regulated) market economy is "right".

In reply to Coel Hellier:

So these Nazis that you say been Christians, how does that work?

Cos the way I see it the followers of the dude wouldn't be doing any of that stuff, Same with so our so called Christian leaders and their prayer breakfasts who like to drop depleted uranium all over the parish in their phony wars, they aint anything of the sort, just another misappropriated tag.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Time for a new thread. What the hell does "liberal" mean. Might as well drop that together with "left" and "right"

In reply to johnj:


Wouldn't they? They believed that they were doing their god's work by doing that stuff. Through large swathes of history Christians have been waging wars and killing people when they thought their god wanted them to. Only a small fraction of Christians have been pacifists.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Well yes, If you've really read and digested any of that stuff, without any shadow of a doubt any true disciple would have to be a pacifist. Therefore the large swathes of wars you talk about haven't been anything to do with Christianity, just people duped into some satanic blood letting to pacify those ancient cults.
So If we're going to set some standards terms the same criteria should be applied to all, not just those that we resonate with.

That's it from me, keep up the good work y'all X

In reply to johnj:

Ohh! One of my other favourite UKC topics! One of the few other things I actually know something about! You don't 'drop' depleted uranium - it's just an inert metal. You make bullets out of it and fire them at things, normally armoured things. As the DU bullets go through the armour, they "self-sharpen" and the DU dust produced by that is a) highly flammable, causing flash fires - which is why tanks hit by DU look like they have been hit by an explosive round and b) not super healthy if you breath it in - although not nearly as dangerous as many presume that something with the word "uranium" in its name must be.

In reply to johnj:


Would they? Large numbers of people have had different ideas about what a "true" Christian would believe, hence why they have had many wars against each other and why they are split into many different churches, factions and cults.


As with communism, I judge Christianity as how it actually is, not how some people claim it should be. Christianity is as Christianity does. Communism is as communism does. </forest-gump> If you think it should be different, feel free to go and persuade all the Christians.

In reply to TobyA:

Do you know if they've figured out why lots of babies in parts of Iraq have been having birth defects yet, whether it's from DU or from the oil fires, a mixture or something else? Just wondering really.

In reply to Postmanpat:


surely depends on the country you are in eg for some inhabitants of the USA i believe it translates as communist.

In reply to EZ:

I feel like i've learnt a little bit about the world and about being human to some degree from online forums, it can be interesting/enlightening to get different perspectives.

Tim