Hacker News Reader

Comment by boredumb | Hacker News Reader

Left and right are incredibly well defined and understood if people are being genuine. Left wing politics generally believe that the government and central planning are good in varying degrees, right wing politics generally believe that government is a necessary evil and should be given as little responsibility as possible with economics and social planning.

With that aside, they were socialist revolutionaries. Terms are only imprecise because of people trying to redefine it when it's inconvenient for their views. Whether it's in the original interpretation in europe, they literally killed their russian royals... or in the modern interpretation of the word they were socialists who believed in the power of the state and central planning as being tenants of a good society.

View on HN

> Left and right are incredibly well defined and understood if people are being genuine.

Confidence and insulting the integrity of people who would dare disagree does not make this true.

edit: also this makes theocracies left-wing?

>Left wing politics generally believe that the government and central planning are good in varying degrees, right wing politics generally believe that government is a necessary evil and should be given as little responsibility as possible with economics and social planning.

Under this definition, the Drug War is left-wing, as are restrictions on access to abortion or contraception, restrictions on children's attendance or participation in beauty pageants or drag shows, and restrictions on either public nudity or traditional religious garb. Now if you really believe all of those policies are left-wing, fine, but I think it's not as simple as you want to make it seem.

Also there is currently no left wing in the US. What's often called left by the right is people who disagree with them.

What we actually have is a supermajority who believe in typical US values like publicly funded education, providing modest social safety nets and one person one vote. A small minority on the far-right leaning towards secession. And a small minority on the left so disenfranchised that their well-meaning causes like unionization and protecting the environment are portrayed as little more than punchlines on the evening news.

Which brings up the importance of media in political discourse. In journalism, one always punches up, doing investigative reporting on politicians, religious leaders, titans of industry, etc. Propaganda punches down at immigrants, the poor, the less fortunate.

Which means that we also don't have news in the US, just infotainment that endlessly distracts and denies. A handful of outlets like FSTV and Public Television try to get at the truth, but have such small viewerships that they're tolerated so the big players have something to point to as alternative. Which is by design, to suppress any left-leaning sentiment among voters.

Edit: video by Matthew Cooke supporting my claim: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JiEdui05BeY

From Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics respectively:

Left-wing politics describes the range of political ideologies that support and seek to achieve social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition to social hierarchy. Left-wing politics typically involve a concern for those in society whom its adherents perceive as disadvantaged relative to others as well as a belief that there are unjustified inequalities that need to be reduced or abolished. Left-wing politics are also associated with popular or state control of major political and economic institutions.

Right-wing politics describes the range of political ideologies that view certain social orders and hierarchies as inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable, typically supporting this position on the basis of natural law, economics, authority, property or tradition. Hierarchy and inequality may be seen as natural results of traditional social differences or competition in market economies.

Sorry, but no. Those things used to be like that, but they aren't any more. It seems even ironic(no doubt you didn't mean it as such). Let me give you Poland as an example where the "right wing government lead by an ex-banker" has established the biggest system of social benefits we've ever had in the country(and won its second election as a result). Why are they considered right wing? Because they are social conservatives, pro religion in schools, against "lgbt culture", abortion etc. Then there is one of the oldest parties of the "left" (descendants of the old communist regime). Despite a lot of talk about social equity, "working people" etc, when they did rule the benefits available were one of the lowest since the transformation (that however may have been more a function of them being a band of thieves rather than ideology, but I digress), at the same time that "left" party had many people in there that used to be openly homophobic not that long ago. These are just two examples which many people will no doubt a lot to add to. Also, why are those terms of left/right so meaningless in my country today? Mainly because two opposing camps now are not divided between left and right, but those that don't want the thieves to get back in power(even if they disagree with a lot of actual policies of the ruling party at least most of them are not thieves), and the other camp that is convinced the ruling party tries to establish a fascist dictatorship so they prefer pretty much anything else. There are more nuanced points to make, but this is the gist of it.

In a sense you can see it applied to the entire EU. Social conservatives are described as fascist, homophobes etc while the other side is portrayed as horribly corrupt, inefficient, nepotic. And both sides of course say the other is the one that breaks the rule of law(which they both do). The economic policies disappear in all of this.

> Left wing politics generally believe that the government and central planning are good in varying degrees, right wing politics generally believe that government is a necessary evil and should be given as little responsibility as possible with economics and social planning

Sorry, no. You're cherry picking the aspects of left-right that make for a favorable argument. In a different context, one could point out how leftists favor decentralization while rightists are fans of centralized control. Rather than getting bogged down in painting with a broad brush, just so the two contemporary "left" and "right" teams can duke it out over who gets to take blame/credit for the past, it's better to stay focused on specific beliefs and dynamics.

I agree that in this case, the revolutionaries are appropriately described as leftist. However once they've taken power and become entrenched, it's appropriate to describe those attempting to preserve the status quo of that power structure as reactionaries - just as it would be appropriate to describe any group (rightist or different leftist) attempting to overthrow that leftist-branded power structure as revolutionaries.

Another definition is that the left wing generally believe that a society's wealth should be more evenly distributed to those of the right. This can be done by taxation not necessarily by socialist central control. Also the right wing can believe in the inherent superiority of one section of society, e.g. a class or a "race".

>Also the right wing can believe in the inherent superiority of one section of society, e.g. a class or a "race".

That would make Marxists the right winger then?

Why? Are you saying Marxists believe the work class are inherently superior as opposed to just being oppressed?

Yes, at least if they read Marx's own works.

And these are...?

I am not sure what are you confused about: who are Marxists who read Marx's works? It's literally the definition. Or what works are by Marx? He is not Banksy, is he? Attribution of his works is well established.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com