The Left? Who are they?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Does anyone here get sick of reading this silly term The left; as if in reality when two left-wingers approach each other in reality they are all chummy and agreeing, instead of being at each others throats - the Judean's people front, indeed.

So can we please stop referring to the left (and for the matter and being fair, the right). Only people who go OMG MUSLIMS!!11 or OMG BILL AYERS!!!111 should use it.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Every movement has oversimplified the truth about its opposition & made them out to be a unified front in the name of evil. While it should change, it won't.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

"I'm not a member of any organized political party; I'm a Democrat."

[Earth]

Does anyone here get sick of reading this silly term The left; as if in reality when two left-wingers approach each other in reality they are all chummy and agreeing, instead of being at each others throats - the Judean's people front, indeed.

PERFECT!

[opebo]

There is certainly no 'left' active or influential in American politics, and only very periferally so in any country's politics.

[Rob]

Option 1, because of the aforementioned factionalism. Also, I think it's important to always maintain a line between "progressivism" (usually Democratic in affiliation) and "radicalism" (anything to the left of that, and not many radicals hold elective office, lol...)

Only a dumb or a Republican would try to group Howard Dean, for example, with Michael Parenti in the "left wing."

[A18]

There's nothing wrong with including very different people in the same group. Do you think Howard Dean and Michael Parenti both belong in the class of people known as "humans"? How about "people under the age of 105"?

[Rob]

Because there's no difference between ideological groupings and physical characteristics.

[A18]

None of any relevance; and certainly, you haven't bothered to specify what that difference might be. The point is that to say that two things have something in common is not to say that they have everything in common. Obviously, any two things have differences. That's what makes them two things, rather than one.

Howard Dean and Michael Parenti have some ideological traits in common that distinguish them from, say, Rush Limbaugh. These traits make them part of "the left." Of course, they also have plenty of differences; and there's nothing wrong with coming up with more precise labels that reflect that fact.

"The left" might not be a very useful term. I suppose it depends on the context. But there's nothing intrinsically wrong with it.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

None of any relevance; and certainly, you haven't bothered to specify what that difference might be. The point is that to say that two things have something in common is not to say that they have everything in common. Obviously, any two things have differences. That's what makes them two things, rather than one.

Howard Dean and Michael Parenti have some ideological traits in common that distinguish them from, say, Rush Limbaugh. These traits make them part of "the left." Of course, they also have plenty of differences; and there's nothing wrong with coming up with more precise labels that reflect that fact.

"The left" might not be a very useful term. I suppose it depends on the context. But there's nothing intrinsically wrong with it.

No, it is completely arbitrary term used by the intellectual lazy to donate a large group of politicians, intellectuals and average people who hold a specific viewpoint in opposite to "the right". The fact that I, Karl Marx, John Zerzan, BRTD, Howard Dean, Tony Benn, Felix Guattari, Samuel Gompers, Timothy Leary and Gordon Brown belong to the same subsection of 'peoples' determined by a political affiliation that all of the above would find very troublesome (to be linked with each other, that is) shows the absolute fallacy of this judgement - especially if you taking an arch historical view. It is useful term for French Revolutionary demarkimations, but I doubt you could say there is a left anymore - especially within mainstream politics - even among the 'radical left' today there isn't really a good or unifying idea anymore; compare Zerzan to some mainstream Old Leftist for instance. Ditto for "the right" unless you hold it to mean "the forces upholding traditional patterns in society", but that is certainly not the definition commonly used at all.

However what I was getting was mainly banal pseudo-statements which crop up in rightwing speech like "The left support multiculturalism", "The Left admire X", "The Left... etc". It is amazing how low the standard of debate is in mainstream politics, I mean this board has a higher standard of debate, and that's not saying much if we are being fully honest.

[A18]

The term does not assume that your political views are homogeneous. It does suggest that there is an element of commonness.

Do you think "matter" is a foolish term? As I recall, it tends to come in a number of forms.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

The term does not assume that your political views are homogeneous. It does suggest that there is an element of commonness.

Do you think "matter" is a foolish term? As I recall, it tends to come in a number of forms.

But then you need a demarkating point for who is left and who isn't; again is really honest that:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

... are all referenced as part of the same political 'group'. Don't be daft now. Yet in the journalistic imaginations of many...

In short, why one distinctions and not another, better one. All distinctions of a large group of people are imo either a) Banal "all people need to eat", "these people have blackish skin colour" b) Arbitrary "This group of people have this identity group" - "The left" is one such distinction - btw, I've argued here before that the terms "liberals" and "conservatives" are equally annoying.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Generally just a label that can be used in various different contexts to describe various different things. It has its uses in that it's short and easy (in context) to understand, which gives it quite an advantage over most of the rest of political and sociological jargon. But context is the main thing.

As to the use of "The Left" in a certain way by rightwingers... well it's pretty obvious what that is. A bogeyman.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Generally just a label that can be used in various different contexts to describe various different things. It has its uses in that it's short and easy (in context) to understand, which gives it quite an advantage over most of the rest of political and sociological jargon. But context is the main thing.

As to the use of "The Left" in a certain way by rightwingers... well it's pretty obvious what that is. A bogeyman.

Yeah I know that. But it is really beginning to piss me off, especially when usually intelligent people do it.

[A18]

I agree that there's probably no one trait that is shared by every member of "the left." But if we define a "leftist" as someone who displays most of a number of ideological tendencies, then I don't see the problem.

Almost all categories have ambiguous boundaries. Labels' precise referents are governed by context.

Edit: Okay, Al basically stole my post. Whatever.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I agree that there's probably no one trait that is shared by every member of "the left." But if we define a "leftist" as someone who displays most of a number of ideological tendencies, then I don't see the problem.

Almost all categories have ambiguous boundaries. Labels' precise referents are governed by context.

Edit: Okay, Al basically stole my post. Whatever.

Okay then, fair enough. It is not that I am against left-right as a generalized distinction, what I am against is when it is used as a subsitute for thought.

[John Dibble]

I object to this poll - it does not provide a suitable answer to express just how much I like cheese. Anyone can say they like cheese, but for some people such as myself it's a deeply held passion.

[Earth]

The left, as a catch-all term, is useless.

[opebo]

I object to this poll - it does not provide a suitable answer to express just how much I like cheese. Anyone can say they like cheese, but for some people such as myself it's a deeply held passion.

Fattass.

[dead0man]

Is it funny that the winning option here accuses the "right wingers" of using "the left" as too broad of a term?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Is it funny that the winning option here accuses the "right wingers" of using "the left" as too broad of a term?

LOL yes. But in my defense I wasn't referring to The[/b] Right (see my first post) - which I agree is an again an annoyingly broad category; but against people who identify themselves as the 'right' as against the 'left'. And besides, I'm not against these terms, but only if they are used as shorthand.

[Scam of God]

Is it funny that the winning option here accuses the "right wingers" of using "the left" as too broad of a term?

Not particularly. In the context of American politics there really is no Left - only a vague and mushy "left" that mouths what it thinks its constituents want to hear. The Right, on the other hand, is far more well defined, since it encompasses just about everything.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Is it funny that the winning option here accuses the "right wingers" of using "the left" as too broad of a term?

Not particularly. In the context of American politics there really is no Left - only a vague and mushy "left" that mouths what it thinks its constituents want to hear. The Right, on the other hand, is far more well defined, since it encompasses just about everything.

One of the major problems is that "the left" in large parts thinks that they run things on moral fervour alone.

[Citizen James]

An artifact from the French revolution - supporters of a republic sat on the left, supporters of the monarchy on the right.

It is at best a gross oversimplification of political positions - with 'left' associated with change, and 'right' associated with maintaining the status quo.

At worst, a pathetic straw man/boogieman with no meaning whatsoever.

The Nolan-style chart may be imperfect, but it is a vast improvement over the old 1-D axis.

Further, looking at scores there is something of a trend correlating between authoritarianism and economic conservatism in American views, and it runs counter to stereotype.  (that is, the stereotype is for conservatives to be the main guardians of social freedom, but the trend runs the opposite of that).  There is a generally positive correlation between economic liberalism and social libertarianism.   In the first quadrant (where most US politicians are) there is a strong tendency for that among major candidates.   Overall, there are a smattering of people in the third and fourth quadrants (liberals and libertarians), but very few people in the second quadrant (economically liberal but socially authoritarian).

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No. It only makes sense in an American perspective where "the size of government" is seen as the major ideological determint. Which of course would make Louis XVI to the left of many of his executors.

Actually the difference between American conservatives and liberals on a very, very simple level is this (If one wanted to be genuinely accurate a whole complex essay would need to be written which would include the American Revolution and Civil War, Transcendentalism, The sentimentality of alot of American life, The initial settlement of the first colonies by the Puritans, The English inheritence especially the fear of "arbitrary government" and the wars there of the 1640s, The constant appeal of apocalyptic religion, Patters of Migration, the New Left, The Vietnam War.. and that would only be the beginning) romantic sentamentality versus Puritan Rationalism - or Modernist intellectualism vs Bourgeois Individualism - and then how these then filter down to "the man on the street". Best seen with on this forum: Generic Democrat vs Sam Spade