A valid definition for 'right-wing' and 'left-wing'

[blah the Prussian]

not true at all.

In most places outside the USA, much of what is called Liberalism (meaning something different from american liberalism) is considered to range from center to center right. It basically means freedom above all, that is, not much State regulation, state not messing in the economy, free trade, etc. A (sometimes MUCH) milder version of what is called Libertarianism in the US.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

What is called economic liberalism is basically the economic polices most center and center right parties defend through the world. If they have conservative social intances, we get Liberal conservatism

The center left liberalism is called social liberalism, and even that is more often than not called center rather than center left

Oh, okay then. My mistake. But wait a second: classical liberalism is more extreme than Libertarianism? Do you mean something along the lines of Objectivism?

[Nobody]

Oh, okay then. My mistake. But wait a second: classical liberalism is more extreme than Libertarianism? Do you mean something along the lines of Objectivism?

No, Libertarianism is more extreme than classical liberalism. I'm not really familiar with objectivism, so i don't really know if they're that similar.

Edited May 28, 2015 by Nobody

[3Comrades]

1 problem is combining all politics around the globe and wanting one answer when many of them take right and left wings differently. 2 Also the "wings" usually imply less middle ground and the further limits of both. bringing up people more in the middle skews it so they are less "wings" and more moderates.

So in essence taking those two in mind,

Left wing- Radical and reforming

Right Wing-Conservative, Reactionary

Left wings usually want to change things, Right wings usually want things to stay traditional, but then you are applying a political generalization and wishing it to be more specific when in various places it is used and applied differently. There are no hard and fast rules, and it depends on the country and recent politics. Really, when it came from France, it just meant you usually voted a certain way. But trying to find logical fallacies to how it works is weird since it is a generality and doesn't lend itself well to specifics and is more defined by its individual usage and how they interpret that.

[blah the Prussian]

No, Libertarianism is more extreme than classical liberalism. I'm not really familiar with objectivism, so i don't really know if they're that similar.

Objectivism pretty much stipulated that no person should be forced to do anything whatsoever that is not for their own benefit. It basically pisses all over the social contract.

[Rapier]

Objectivism pretty much stipulated that no person should be forced to do anything whatsoever that is not for their own benefit. It basically pisses all over the social contract.

I know little about Ayn Rand's Objectivism, but it seems to be more libertarian than liberal. They take individual freedom to a whole different level...

[blah the Prussian]

I know little about Ayn Rand's Objectivism, but it seems to be more libertarian than liberal. They take individual freedom to a whole different level...

Yeah, it is Libertarian, which makes it close to classical liberalism; however, it is definitely opposed to Socialism, making it more towards the political right.

[Makaze]

Left as revolutionary and right as reactionary fits like a glove from where I'm standing. The left want progress, the right want regress. Nothing anyone has said contradicts that.

The right tend to favour private profit instead of public profit. Capitalism enables those motives, socialism hurts them. Add in that individuals prosper best under the devil they know and you get reactionary views. Vice-versa for the left.

Edited May 29, 2015 by Makaze

[blah the Prussian]

Left as revolutionary and right as reactionary fits like a glove from where I'm standing. The left want progress, the right want regress. Nothing anyone has said contradicts that.The right tend to favour private profit instead of public profit. Capitalism enables those motives, socialism hurts them. Add in that individuals prosper best under the devil they know and you get reactionary views. Vice-versa for the left.

Nope, try again. Your definition completely ignores Fascism. Fascism, while I do not advocate it in the slightest, is actually quite economically progressive. In many ways they are economically Socialist. However, the nationalist rhetoric of Fascism makes them more right wing than left. This political compass cannot be restricted to merely economics.

[3Comrades]

Nope, try again. Your definition completely ignores Fascism. Fascism, while I do not advocate it in the slightest, is actually quite economically progressive. In many ways they are economically Socialist. However, the nationalist rhetoric of Fascism makes them more right wing than left. This political compass cannot be restricted to merely economics.

As I said, you guys are taking ideas and applying absolutes. Some very right wing parties will have "general" left wing policies, and some very left wing politics will borrow some from the right. Stating specific cases for any party or group is implying politics works in a world of absolutes, which it does not. Left wing vs Right is a local issue and partly defined by local politics and how far each falls under the other is never an absolute.

So yes, fascism is right winged, but its economic policy is influenced (at least in some key areas) by left winged politics. This does not mean Facism is not right winged. But acting like these things are absolute and cancel each other out is more the field of Science and Chemistry and doesn't really apply to human behaviors especially politics.

Edit: Although I will say Public vs Personal profit is missing important aspects of both economically.

Edited May 29, 2015 by 3Comrades

[Makaze]

I wasn't applying it to just economics. A political ideology doesn't have to be either wholly right or left. You can be socially left and economically right, right within your family but left within your community. Whatever mix you choose. It doesn't matter whether a separate system is right, left, or some mix. That's not the question. We're here to answer: What do right and left mean? What criteria do we use to determine if it is to the right or to the left?

Reactionary v. Revolutionary seems to work better than anything else. If it is reactionary, it is to the right. If it is revolutionary, it is to the left. Socially, economically, personally, professionally, publicly. Is there a reason this cannot be applied to every area?

Edit:

Edit: Although I will say Public vs Personal profit is missing important aspects of both economically.

What are you thinking of?

Are you referencing Horseshoe theory with that post?

Edited May 29, 2015 by Makaze

[blah the Prussian]

I wasn't applying it to just economics. A political ideology doesn't have to be either wholly right or left. You can be socially left and economically right, right within your family but left within your community. Whatever mix you choose. It doesn't matter whether a separate system is right, left, or some mix. That's not the question. We're hear to answer: What do right and left mean? What criteria do we use to determine if it is to the right or to the left?Reactionary v. Revolutionary seems to work better than anything else. If it is reactionary, it is to the right. If it is revolutionary, it is to the left. Socially, economically, personally, professionally, publicly. Is there a reason this cannot be applied to every area?Edit: What are you thinking of?Are you referencing Horseshoe theory with that post?

Really, it also depends on what you define as revolutionary. Revolutionary denotes an overthrowing of the old system, but there can be a reactionary revolution, like in Iran.

[Makaze]

Progression v. Regression, if you prefer. Conservative v. Liberal. Same meaning. I just reread your posts. Did you answer the question? What criteria do you think determines whether something is Leftist or Rightist?

Edited May 29, 2015 by Makaze

[Rapier]

Yeah, it is Libertarian, which makes it close to classical liberalism; however, it is definitely opposed to Socialism, making it more towards the political right.

Actually, being opposed to socialism does not mean it is right-wing. Some ideologies within the same wing can conflict with each other, like right-wing liberals and right-wing conservatives, or libertarians and right-wing conservatives.

Also, since you said liberalism is incompatible with conservatism: It isn't. One of the fathers of conservatism was a liberal conservative himself (Burke):

Conservatives typically see Richard Hooker (1554-1600) as the founding father of conservatism, along with the Marquess of Halifax (1633-1695), David Hume (1711-1776) and Edmund Burke (1729-1797)

source

@Makaze

Ok, let's go with these definitions. Right-wing: Reactionary, left-wing: Revolutionary. These definitions are questionable because right-wing ideologies can attempt to revolutionize a government incompatible with their ideals, and the left-wing may sometimes find it is better for their interests to keep the situation in a status quo. Sometimes the right-wing seeks revolution, sometimes the left-wing seeks to maintain the status quo (communism is like this, after achieving power). After all, it makes no sense to be revolutionary when you're the one in power...

Also, from the same link I've cited, conservatism is not necessarily reactionary.

Conservatism as a political and social philosophy promotes retaining traditional social institutions in the context of the culture and civilization. Some conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others, called reactionaries, oppose modernism and seek a return to "the way things were".[

Edited May 30, 2015 by Rapier

[Makaze]

You're right. I didn't think it through. I didn't really believe it, either. I think I just wanted an answer. I feel that deep down, people tend to be conservative on both sides of the fence. They get a set of views, left or right, almost universally taken from their environment, and stick with what they know largely because it's what they know. Is it correct to call someone left-wing when they are doing the same thing the right-wing are doing, for the same reasons?

What kind of answer are you looking for? A conceptual one, or a dichotomy that is not false?

Side note: Does your post count as commentary?

Edited May 30, 2015 by Makaze

[Rapier]

A conceptual one, I suppose. Like "right-wing: reactionaries, left-wing: revolutionaries" one, except without counter-examples.

And I guess my post serves as a commentary, but it was necessary to speed up the discussion. My first post addresses both views, this one and the one that says leftism is colectivism and rightism is individualism. I've asked around and I've been told (by these people who believe what I said just now) that conservatism can also vary toward the left-wing, as much as liberalism can also vary toward the left-wing. I think I'll need to dig content like a mole in order to figure this out.