« A commie reporter? Say it aint so.... | Babalu Blog - Main Page | Jimmy Carter waxes poetic about fidel »

I've always said that this left or right thing is sort of a circle - if you are too far to the left you start to border on the extreme right and if you are too far to the right you start to border on the left.

I definitely think we need new terms, or call it what it is. Chavez, Castro - Dictators, Tyrants
Bush - Republican (of sorts), etc.

By whatever philosophy people adhere to.

This is a very interesting take on the topic. Like you, I get sick and weary of labels. But before engaging in any civilized discourse with those who disagree, I try to get people to define their terms. (If and when they can.)

Historical context often seems to do the trick. If JFK or Truman were alive today, they'd be labeled right-wingers. Hitler, who's gone down in history as a right-winger, was actually a lefty, as you point out. I think "collectivists" is too exotic; to me, deep within, they're plain old marxists. Make that marxists in yuppie garb.

Marxist doesn't cut it because it is an "atheist" philosophy by its own definition. What about religious fanatics like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who wants to impose his beliefs on me and mine, for my won salvation. He's just as evil as Stalin, Hitler, Mao, or fidel.

"Collectivist co-dependents" is a suggestion. Many I run into who have that mindset seem to be nothing more than physically mature spoiled children with a desperate need to have someone else hold their hand, take care of their problems, and not stress them out by actually making them think, accept responsibility, take care of themselves.

As for conservative, I think a real conservative is one who believes if something is proven to work well through the ages and benefits society - leave it alone; "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Conservatives also tend to believe people do not need committees to come up with ideas and find solutions for nagging problems.

You put it right:
chavez (castro, zapatero, hitler, etc) force people to extremes, because they need inconditionate support; and this is true for Berlusconi too; this means that they use the force of an "idealism" more than of a pragmatic evaluations.
"Collectivism" fit this, as commie, socialist, islamist, fascist, etc.
A liberalist not, for definition.
What happens is that if you "vote" for a collectivist scheme, this wipe your right to change your mind, because the "collectivism" don't relay on your INDIVIDUALISTIC support.
It's simply a trap: avoid this crap.

sadly, labels are what america is all about.. like they would say on niel rogers, its the american f'n way.. everything needs to be categorized.. there was a time it was republican or democrat.. today you got reagan democrats, south park republicans, the list is endless.. sadly, everyone seems to feed into this.. im waiting for castro to die and regime change just as much as the next one, but i can recognize, batista was no choir boy.. hitler and polpot were pretty brutal, but so was franco and pinochet.. yeah, pinochet turned the chilean economy around, but at what price? i dont want my tax dollars squanderd away on welfare programs, but i dont want the government telling me what i can or cant do in the privacy of my home.. anyone can isolate one comment ive made and label me, and then i can counter with another one that shows the opposite..

As Ayn Rand and the Objectivists put it (I'm not an Objectivist, BTW) it's all about COLLECTIVISM vs INDIVIDUALISM.

Collectivism exemplified by the various totalitarian isms (Communism, Fascism, Nazism, and Theocracies).

Individualism exemplified by laissez-faire capitalism. But, I'd argue that it goes as far as anarchism (not an anarchist, either).

Graphically, I'd put it like this:

Coll.---------Dems--Reps-----------Indiv.

The welfare state goes right in the Democrat/Republican area. Maybe a little bit to the left of it, toward the Collectivist camp, since we're not as collectivized as Europe. See, I've started using the term already.

I have used the term "red fascist" to address extremist radicals, such as those that tout Fidel. That gets them very upset.

I wonder how the extreme left somehow stole the word "progressive" when their ideas are anything but. Communism does not imply making "progress" in any facet.

Actually the political spectrum is not a flat left right. It's 3D with the left generally favoring some personal freedom but not so economic freedom, the right which is for more economic freedom but favors some government control of personal freedom, the authoritarian which favors no personal or economic freedom and the libertarian which favors economic and personal freedom. The political spectrum is diamand shaped and can be found at www.lp.org and is called the "World's Smallest Political Quiz." Answer the ten questions honestly and it will very accurately plot you on the political spectrum. I'm hoping you all tend to favor the libertarian however.

Tomas, I almost included the Nolan Quiz in my comment. But I believe the democratic left (aka center-left) and the democratic right (aka center-right) can be included in a Collectivist ----- Individualst axis. It's all a question of degrees.

I agree that we need new labels that better describe what people really want from government. And it looks as if Collectivist and Individualist are a good start. We just need to get others to use them.

Yoan, I'm glad you added theocracies to your list of isms since I have always felt that those who practice communism, nazism, and facsism do so as if it their religion.

Back in the 1970's there was a funny article in Mad Magazine which gave all the degrees between the left and right and compared them with examples of how they thought of the same topics. I wish I still had it.

I love labels. No one label describes all of them so I need many. For example. A commie and an Appeasenik are two different things but both need to be labeled as such. Other great labels include: moonbats, nutjobs, demon cats, apologists, clintonites, regressives(progressives), tree huggers, useful idiots, apparitchik, proletariats, darwin awardee, Che-a pets, libs, and Sen. John McCain. Later

I was wonderin' when someone would mention the Nolan test. I came out a libertarian with a large conservative streak.

here's my list of terms and examples

Communist/Stalinist/Tyrant Scum: Fidel, Stalin; Mao
Pinko Come Mierda Despot: - Hugo Chavez; Daniel Ortega
Socialist/Marxist – Jesse Jackson, Maxine Waters; George Soros; Sharpton
Left wing extremist – Ted and Ned & Kerry;
Liberal – Bill Clinton; Hillary Clinton
Moderate Liberal – Joe Lieberman

Moderate – Rudy Guilliani, Arnold, Todd Whitman

Moderate Conservative: John McCain; GW Bush **
Conservative: Barry Goldwater, Jeb Bush;
Right Wing Extremist: Jesse Helms; Pat Robertson
Reactionary: David Duke; Pat Buchanan
Military Dictator/Come Mierda Despot: Pinochet
Fascist/Nazi: Franco, Adolf

** GWB is not a true conservative as evidence by his allowing government to grow as it has. Hence my putting him in the moderate category.

Count me as a someone in this forum who thinks Labels ARE important. How many times do we the so-called enlightened folks saying blather like "I don't believe in labels" precisely because they don't like being tagged with a label that fairly characterizes their beliefs or philosophy? Lots of "Liberals" dread being tagged with that label nowadays, and many resent it. Very few embrace the label "Liberal", in the contemporary sense of the word, as opposed to a Classical Liberal in the vein of John Stuart Mill. These labels can certainly change over time or have multiple meanings, which can lead to confusion. Nonetheless, these labels serve a purpose - if used properly, they summarize a particular aspect an individuals' belief system or their worldview. These labels aren't perfect, and they surely don't define the whole person, but they are helpful in identifying what a person believes, where they are coming from, and what their beliefs or biases are.

The major problem with labels is that we can use them sloppily, or we really don't know their meanings, or we can't agree on their meanings. But these problems are inherent in language- there will always be a certain amount of ambiguity. But is anyone in here going to suggest that we abandon political terminology altogether because these labels sometimes are ambiguous or problematic?

i came at the very top of the diamond, libertarian, agreed with every statement...

There's also the issue of how terms are used in other countries and languages. Australian liberals, for example, hold conservative views in the American sense. In Spanish, the liberales are pretty darn close to American libertarians, favoring both social and economic liberty. Notice how the Cuban tyrant spews hatred against el neoliberalismo. While Spanish and Latin American libertarios are anti-capitalist anarchists (except for Costa Rica and the Movimiento Libertario, which is a free-market party). Confusing, no.

Let me clear up something: I am all for labels; I just think we need new ones that describe the beliefs better.

First off, George great topic!

I agree with Lucha Libre that labels are important. But the problem is that many of the opponents of freedom have discovered that they can manipulate the debate by manipulating language. Tell a lie enough times and it becomes truth. Bush is a Nazi. Nobody questions it. Needless to say he's not gassing Jews or attempting to conquer the world. So the word "Nazi" gets devalued. Now it's just something you throw around and nobody bats an eyelash over.

Like you George I have very Libertarian tendencies. The thing is you can't debate people who think the way liberal Americans think today. I used to think I had to refute everything they say. It just ends badly. My liberal friends no where I stand and I know where they stand.

State-ists

Individual-ists

The terms "left-wing" and "right-wing" have been thrown around so much that they have little meaning anymore. Castro isn't a "communist", he could quite easily be called a true "fascist" now (his government combines state and corporate power and oppresses the common people). Hugo Chavez is a populist a la Huey Long. Technically, of course, there's never been a communist country in the strict definition of the word, since communism is supposed to be where everyone has everything they ever need (but at the same time, they share everything, since private property doesn't exist). In other words, a fantasist utopia.

henry said So the word "Nazi" gets devalued. Now it's just something you throw around and nobody bats an eyelash over

i had a boss once, he said he never liked the way things were labled "holocaust" because it lessened the severity of it.. i remember this argument when it was used with the cuba issue.. pretty sure henry remembers it too...

I'm with Mavi; most proponents of aberrant philosophies, especially those who claim to be atheists, are the most zealous people you'd ever want to meet. It's their religious fix. Besides, man as a species everywhere he/she appears is incurably religious. Humans have the strongest propensity toward the transcendent.

For those living under oppression this is especially true ... but I digress. As for Marx, methinks that he only denied the existence of God because it didn't fit in his paper utopia ~ God got in the way of his house of cards economic theory. He expressed what a bunch of other renegade philophers already wanted to believe .... and they called it "The Enlightment" .... talk about labels.

Great topic, George!

Language is at once both a curse and a blessing. I challenge anyone to claim they've never had a communication problem. Labeling each other during a discussion is an example. Like Ludwig Wittgenstein once wrote: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." Philosophy is extreme, isn't it? On a more pragmatic level, we need language, which is no more than an elaborate system of labels. Language is organic...it changes...it's arbitrary...it is uniquely human. What would we be without language? What would we be without labels? The need to continually clarify is made necessary by the continuous tendency to muddle. George, thanks for your efforts to clarify what is continually being muddled.

Another apt quote by Wittgenstein:

"A new word is like a fresh seed sewn on the ground of the discussion."

How right you are.

Consider the words of "The Great Communicator"

Isn't our choice really not one of left or right, but of up or down? Down through the welfare state to statism, to more and more government largesse accompanied always by more government authority, less individual liberty and, ultimately, totalitarianism, always advanced as for our own good. The alternative is the dream conceived by our Founding Fathers, up to the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with an orderly society. We don't celebrate dependence day on the Fourth of July. We celebrate Independence Day.
--Ronald Reagan, 1984

I use this quote every day to close my pitiful blog that is intended for friends and family.

Jerry Pournelle, well known to computer enthusiates, science fiction readers, and co-author of 'Strategy of Technology' as well as one of the original bloggers , has created a set of axes for political thought. http://www.baen.com/chapters/axes.jpg

Explanation at: http://www.baen.com/chapters/axes.htm

I believe this will cover most of the discussions I have seen here.

[http://www.jerrypournelle.com]
[http://www.jerrypournelle.com/sot/sot_intro.htm]

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: