• Welcome to DOSBODS

     

    DOSBODS is free of any advertising.

    Ads are annoying, and - increasingly - advertising companies limit free speech online. DOSBODS Forums are completely free to use. Please create a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

     

Sign in to follow this  
TheBlueCat

The New Divide - Not Left & Right

Recommended Posts

Like pornography, we all know it when we see it, but can we define it? Owen Jones is clearly on one side and Nigel Farage is clearly on the other, but of what exactly? A few ideas:

Identity politics seems to be mostly on one side but there's some of it on the other for sure.

A general liking/disliking for enlightenment values maybe?

A belief in the magic money tree is in the mix, but then there's plenty on both sides who go for that one (e.g. Trump & Saunders both seem to think it's real).

Family values? Maybe if the family isn't a traditional western nuclear family?

Any other ideas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Chewing Grass said:

Money/Corporations on one side and small businesses and the plebs on the other side.

Democracy means that enough people have to be bought/controlled for the money/corporations to feed off and keep power.

This was the same over 100 years ago till the end of WW1 when they lost control of Russia to communism.

They had to buy people off after WW2 as they were shitting themselves over communism so we got the NHS and the social.

This was when the Labour Parties cover was first blown as they only did enough to fend off communism, bought up failing industries and left the bankers and private corporations alone.

Labour/Conservative = same thing with different PR.

Top analysis. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Chewing Grass said:

Money/Corporations on one side and small businesses and the plebs on the other side.

Democracy means that enough people have to be bought/controlled for the money/corporations to feed off and keep power.

This was the same over 100 years ago till the end of WW1 when they lost control of Russia to communism.

They had to buy people off after WW2 as they were shitting themselves over communism so we got the NHS and the social.

This was when the Labour Parties cover was first blown as they only did enough to fend off communism, bought up failing industries and left the bankers and private corporations alone.

Labour/Conservative = same thing with different PR.

Neolibs versus The Rest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 'war' has never been against the working class or the upper class. It's about the destruction of the middle class. Credit has Masked this for a while but it is all slowly coming to a head. If you take out a dam, the water doesn't rise to the lake's previous level. This is where the west is at with some people too stupid to see the end result and others too powerless, all aided by a complicit media and financial sector. In short it's globalists v the middle class...

Visionaries were nearly always middle class. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

It's multi-dimensional.  There's no single axis with all the left stuff on one side and all the right stuff on the other..  e.g.

Cultural.  Left is Progressive,  Right is Conservative.

Economic.  Left is centralised, public ownership,  Right is decentralised, private ownership.

Rights:  Left is restrictive and authoritarian, Right is freedom of the individual.

The left/right political paradigm is more a result of game theory than anything else. There will always be a near 50:50 left/right split because political discourse always focuses on the controversial issues which by definition are the ones with a near 50:50 split. Non controversial issues ( such as should the police be privately owned or publicly owned ), are never debated because the vast majority agree with one side, so both parties, or groups of parties in proportional representation systems, follow the majority view.

Sadly, as a result of the media ( including social media these days ), and ever more cynical political campaigning which splits the public into groups to be courted with specific policies, we've lost the intellect and nuance from political debate, and replaced it with identity politics,  mudslinging and character assassination.

This in turn drives away many genuinely talented, well informed, principled people who might otherwise consider getting into politics, ( with a few notable exceptions ), and leaves those who's motivations are more narcissistic or otherwise self-serving.

In an ideal world, politicians would be people who'd spent most of their lives living in the real world, thinking and learning about how life works, and only entering politics later in life once they'd arrived at a solid set of beliefs and policies to improve things. These views would comprise policies across the traditional political spectrum, and ideas from the many great thinkers outside of politics entirely.

They'd then run on that platform, their ideas would be thoughtfully debated and discussed, winners chosen, and losers would gracefully accept defeat, to reconsider their ideas based on the feedback from the people.

Hard to see how we might get to that point, though a start might be to beef up freedom of speech, privacy and defamation laws, so both public and private individuals can say what they think without attracting endless torrents of hatred and person abuse, or being permanently exiled from the public debate through censorship and de-platforming.

For example, what if there were something equivalent to the small claims court for defamation, along with some kind of easy, cheap enforcement mechanism, so if someone on twitter called you a nazi or a bigot, they'd have to prove within 30 days that you were a member of the Nazi Party, or that you were intolerant of opposing ideas, else they have to delete the tweet, publish a retraction and pay you £100 plus legal expenses?  If they're a published journalist or have more followers, the settlement goes up. 

Maybe that's going too far.. any new laws would require serious thought, but something along theses lines might be required to bring some civility and rationality to the discourse.

Edited by MvR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The Left-Right one-dimensional paradigm has always been nonsense, even more so, now that parties are essentially brands that pursue the most popular votes, rather than be driven by any fundamental doctrine.

Communism ain't Nazism, but they have plenty in common, but are allegedly at opposite ends of the spectrum.

I prefer a 2-axis description, Authoritarian vs Libertarian, and Centralised Economy vs Free Market.

NQdx4CZ.png.3dd089890ef87d0ca7c1ec657ae699c8.png.b772f9898d545f6b59d730c94d940cb0.pngwhat-is-libertarianism.png.f2847a9c8a7c82235ad4c32b60d0563a.png.e46f1febec0dcd0d73ca0e522f902236.pngleft-right-diagram.png.3e1fb09e4358fce80243295d967f31cf.png.4804e854a445ac13ed55ae9a72486e61.png

Edited by Happy Renting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Right never discuss the events of 2008. You'd have thought they of all people would be motivated to explore and debate capitalism's greatest failure. The wholesale lack of interest tells you everything you need to know about their intellectual seriousness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, zugzwang said:

The Right never discuss the events of 2008. You'd have thought they of all people would be motivated to explore and debate capitalism's greatest failure. The wholesale lack of interest tells you everything you need to know about their intellectual seriousness.

The problem was the state socialised the debt. It wasn't capitalism. Banks should have failed.

Banks knew they wouldn't be allowed to fail, which introduced the moral hazard that we still live with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, Happy Renting said:

 

NQdx4CZ.png.3dd089890ef87d0ca7c1ec657ae699c8.png.b772f9898d545f6b59d730c94d940cb0.png

 

This diagram seems a bit forced. Looking at Nationalism for example, it should really be the opposite of "Globalism", ( or "Imperialism", depending on your point of view ), since in it's current form, it's really just the idea that the nation state is the most suitable way to delineate different democratic bodies and government jurisdictional limits.   And why is National Socialism on the opposite side to Fascism?

Edited by MvR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, MvR said:

This diagram seems a bit forced. Looking at Nationalism for example, it should really be the opposite of "Globalism", ( or "Imperialism", depending on your point of view ), since in it's current form, it's really just the idea that the nation state is the most suitable way to delineate different democratic bodies and government jurisdictional limits.   And why is National Socialism on the opposite side to Fascism?

Also, syndicalism is a big feed into fascism and national socialism but they are about as far apart as it gets on that schematic.

That looks like bollocks to me. Over the last 15 years of doing this test it places me at the crossover of Liberalism, Social Democracy, Statism and Authoritarianism whatever the fuck that means. Slap bang in the centre of Modern Progressive (which doesn't contain Progressivism!)

Edited by Panther

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Panther said:

Also, syndicalism is a big feed into fascism and national socialism but they are about as far apart as it gets on that schematic.

Good spot..  Also, I reckon if you ran Mussolini's Fascist Manifesto past the average far left/progressive activist without showing them the title of the document, they'd probably agree with most of it. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist_Manifesto

Quote

Politically, the Manifesto calls for:

  • Universal suffrage with a lowered voting age to 18 years, and voting and electoral office eligibility for all age 25 and up;
  • Proportional representation on a regional basis;
  • Voting for women (which was then opposed by most other European nations);
  • Representation at government level of newly created national councils by economic sector;
  • The abolition of the Italian Senate (at the time, the Senate, as the upper house of parliament, was by process elected by the wealthier citizens, but were in reality direct appointments by the king. It has been described as a sort of extended council of the crown);
  • The formation of a national council of experts for labor, for industry, for transportation, for the public health, for communications, etc. Selections to be made of professionals or of tradesmen with legislative powers, and elected directly to a general commission with ministerial powers.

In labor and social policy, the Manifesto calls for:

  • The quick enactment of a law of the state that sanctions an eight-hour workday for all workers;
  • A minimum wage;
  • The participation of workers' representatives in the functions of industry commissions;
  • To show the same confidence in the labor unions (that prove to be technically and morally worthy) as is given to industry executives or public servants;
  • Reorganization of the railways and the transport sector;
  • Revision of the draft law on invalidity insurance;
  • Reduction of the retirement age from 65 to 55.

In military affairs, the Manifesto advocates:

  • Creation of a short-service national militia with specifically defensive responsibilities;
  • Armaments factories are to be nationalized;
  • A peaceful but competitive foreign policy.

In finance, the Manifesto advocates:

  • A strong progressive tax on capital (envisaging a “partial expropriation” of concentrated wealth);
  • The seizure of all the possessions of the religious congregations and the abolition of all the bishoprics, which constitute an enormous liability on the Nation and on the privileges of the poor;
  • Revision of all contracts for military provisions;
  • The revision of all military contracts and the seizure of 85 percent of the profits therein.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Happy Renting said:

The problem was the state socialised the debt. It wasn't capitalism. Banks should have failed.

Banks knew they wouldn't be allowed to fail, which introduced the moral hazard that we still live with.

Going by the diagram it was more like Anarcho-Collectivism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What matters is what and who you are able to vote for.

Surprising that they don't have plain Conservatism, Labourism, LibDemism, Republicism and Democratism in any of those boxes in the diagrams.  To establish where the various main parties stand and what they stand for - wherever there's the most votes, power and money from one day to the next seems to be a reasonable guess.  All over the place and all simultaneously standing in several different places and all in the same place all at one and the same time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s very simple. There’s us, and there’s them. What’s good, is good for us, and it may or may not help them. What’s bad, is bad for us, and if it helps them, it’s because they are them. Us aren’t organised and are split into many factions. Them have an overarching plan with influence everywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Happy Renting said:

The problem was the state socialised the debt. It wasn't capitalism. Banks should have failed.

Banks knew they wouldn't be allowed to fail, which introduced the moral hazard that we still live with.

Lehman Brothers was allowed to fail. When Bear Stearns threatened to do the same pandemonium ensued. It was only then that Bernanke and Paulson realised the systemic nature of the crisis. Had they failed to intervene the rest of the plates would have come down together and industrial civilisation would have ended in September 2008.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
57 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

The Right never discuss the events of 2008. You'd have thought they of all people would be motivated to explore and debate capitalism's greatest failure. The wholesale lack of interest tells you everything you need to know about their intellectual seriousness.

Lets just be grateful that most of the the claptrap about risk takers and entrepreneurs that accompanied the triumphalist financial capitalism in the decades preceding the the GFC of 2008 has largely dried up.

Basically current British politics is an argument between two parties which are essentially flogging two broken models about how to run a country's affairs. The Labour one hit is sell by date in 1979 and the Tory one in 2008 ironically under a neoliberal Labour government.

Most politicians in the west are completely bankrupt of new ideas.

Edited by Virgil Caine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

Lehman Brothers was allowed to fail. When Bear Stearns threatened to do the same pandemonium ensued. It was only then that Bernanke and Paulson realised the systemic nature of the crisis. Had they failed to intervene the rest of the plates would have come down together and industrial civilisation would have ended in September 2008.

As I recall it  Bear Stearns failed first and Lehman's second. It was the fear of the others going the same way taking down the whole banking system that prompted the bailout . There was a serious danger that some very rich people would lose all their money. Luckily the toiling masses were there to rescue them

Edited by Virgil Caine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
47 minutes ago, MvR said:

 

This diagram seems a bit forced. Looking at Nationalism for example, it should really be the opposite of "Globalism", ( or "Imperialism", depending on your point of view ), since in it's current form, it's really just the idea that the nation state is the most suitable way to delineate different democratic bodies and government jurisdictional limits.   And why is National Socialism on the opposite side to Fascism?

I don't agree with all the labelling.  But the 2-axis breakdown is still more illuminating. Try fitting them coherently onto a purely Left-Right axis!

People seem to have wildly differing opinions about what Fascism is.  I think Mussolini coined the word Fascista (Fascist) , but his definitions are rather vague and unhelpful.

Perhaps the clearest is “The definition of fascism is The marriage of corporation and state ”, which is close to Hitler's National Socialism, but doesn't actually tell you much.

A similar quotation "“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power" is allegedly a false attribution to Mussolini.

Edited by Happy Renting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

Lehman Brothers was allowed to fail. When Bear Stearns threatened to do the same pandemonium ensued. It was only then that Bernanke and Paulson realised the systemic nature of the crisis. Had they failed to intervene the rest of the plates would have come down together and industrial civilisation would have ended in September 2008.

The US allowed many banks to fail. In the UK the taxpayer bailed them out.

It is arguable that banks took dangerous risks becasuse they expected to be bailed out if they got into trouble - hence the moral hazard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Virgil Caine said:

Lets just be grateful that most of the the claptrap about risk takers and entrepreneurs that accompanied the triumphalist financial capitalism in the decades preceding the the GFC of 2008 has large dried up.

Basically current British politics is an argument between two parties which are essentially flogging two broken models about how to run a country's affairs. The Labour one hit is sell by date in 1979 and the Tory one in 2008 ironically under a neoliberal Labour government.

Most politicians in the west are completely bankrupt of new ideas.

The Corbynites could disarm the Hard Left accusations by making a Green pivot. I have to confess my own lefty sympathies are motivated more by Jane Jacobs, Brian Arthur, Limits to Growth, Peak Oil etc. than Marx's dialectic materialism.

Labour need to start talking about the Deep Left in the way that Ocasio-Cortez is doing in the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.