Ardsgaine
Active Member
OLI had said at one time that perhaps we should have a discussion of terms and sort out how we're using right-wing vs left-wing. The terms are probably too tainted by common misuse to be untangled at this point, but I will attempt to explain how I see the spectrum.
Some people favor a two-dimensional approach to the spectrum, measuring it on two axes. One axes measures their attitude towards the use of government coercion, and the other measures whether they favor coercion more for social issues (abortion, drugs, etc), or for economic issues (welfare, business regulation, etc).
That's the approach used by the inventors of the World's Smallest Political Quiz. The result is a grid shaped like a diamond. Those who are most against the use of government coercion are labeled libertarian, and fall at the top point of the diamond. Those who completely favor government coercion in economics, but not in social issues fall on the are left-liberal, and fall on the left point. Those who favor coercion in social issues, but not in economics, are right-conservative, and fall on the right point. Those who are completely in favor of government coercion are labeled authoritarian, and fall at the bottom point. (Visit the site, take the test and you'll see how it works.)
In my opinion, the difference between being right-conservative and left-liberal is non-essential. The differences are very important to those engaged in that debate, but as far as I'm concerned they're just selling two different types of poison, and poison is poison. A pox on both their houses. The important difference is between those who believe in individual rights, and those who don't.
The doctrine of individual rights was born in the political philosophy of John Locke. He was the inspiration for our Founding Fathers. The system he created is sometimes called liberal democracy, but it's probably more precise to describe it as constitutional republicanism. In the Nineteenth Century, people who advocated the Lockean system were variously referred to as liberals, republicans or democrats. The economic system that results from this political system is capitalism.
During the course of the Nineteenth Century a new philosophy of government arose which had its origins in Plato's Republic, Rousseau's Social Contract and Hegel's Introduction to the Philosophy of History. This philosophy was centered on the good of society as a whole, and not on the good of the individual. In varying degrees, it denied the doctrine of inalienable rights and advocated the use of coercion against the individual in order to achieve some common good. The variants of this philosophy can be referred to collectively as socialism.
During the 19th Century, socialism was considered left wing, and liberalism was the right wing. When facsism arose out of the dust of WWI, the Marxists began to refer to it as right wing, simply because it was explicitly anti-communist. In fact, fascism was also opposed to Lockean liberalism and considered it as much an enemy as communism. Fascism had its roots firmly in Hegelian philosophy, as did communism, and both are variants of socialism. On the political graph, the fascists would be firmly authoritarian, insignificantly right-leaning only because they don't advocate the nationalization of all private property.
That's the philosophical/historical case against fascism being a right wing philosophy. Now let me offer a graphical demonstration of where I'm at with this. Take the graph that is displayed on the Smallest Political Quiz web site, and rotate it ninety degrees to the right. Now the left/right line is the authoritarian/libertarian axis with the left being authoritarian and the right being libertarian. That is the situation as it stood in the 19th Century.
In the twentieth century, as socialist ideology came to infiltrate every corner of society, the ideal of individual rights was submerged, and the conflict came to be seen as being between two variants of socialism. In some countries, the conflict is between two very authoritarian forms of socialism, but in the US the forms (liberal vs. conservative) are less radically authoritarian. Unfortunately, it seems like the two conspire to push us ever closer to an authoritarian state.
Some people favor a two-dimensional approach to the spectrum, measuring it on two axes. One axes measures their attitude towards the use of government coercion, and the other measures whether they favor coercion more for social issues (abortion, drugs, etc), or for economic issues (welfare, business regulation, etc).
That's the approach used by the inventors of the World's Smallest Political Quiz. The result is a grid shaped like a diamond. Those who are most against the use of government coercion are labeled libertarian, and fall at the top point of the diamond. Those who completely favor government coercion in economics, but not in social issues fall on the are left-liberal, and fall on the left point. Those who favor coercion in social issues, but not in economics, are right-conservative, and fall on the right point. Those who are completely in favor of government coercion are labeled authoritarian, and fall at the bottom point. (Visit the site, take the test and you'll see how it works.)
In my opinion, the difference between being right-conservative and left-liberal is non-essential. The differences are very important to those engaged in that debate, but as far as I'm concerned they're just selling two different types of poison, and poison is poison. A pox on both their houses. The important difference is between those who believe in individual rights, and those who don't.
The doctrine of individual rights was born in the political philosophy of John Locke. He was the inspiration for our Founding Fathers. The system he created is sometimes called liberal democracy, but it's probably more precise to describe it as constitutional republicanism. In the Nineteenth Century, people who advocated the Lockean system were variously referred to as liberals, republicans or democrats. The economic system that results from this political system is capitalism.
During the course of the Nineteenth Century a new philosophy of government arose which had its origins in Plato's Republic, Rousseau's Social Contract and Hegel's Introduction to the Philosophy of History. This philosophy was centered on the good of society as a whole, and not on the good of the individual. In varying degrees, it denied the doctrine of inalienable rights and advocated the use of coercion against the individual in order to achieve some common good. The variants of this philosophy can be referred to collectively as socialism.
During the 19th Century, socialism was considered left wing, and liberalism was the right wing. When facsism arose out of the dust of WWI, the Marxists began to refer to it as right wing, simply because it was explicitly anti-communist. In fact, fascism was also opposed to Lockean liberalism and considered it as much an enemy as communism. Fascism had its roots firmly in Hegelian philosophy, as did communism, and both are variants of socialism. On the political graph, the fascists would be firmly authoritarian, insignificantly right-leaning only because they don't advocate the nationalization of all private property.
That's the philosophical/historical case against fascism being a right wing philosophy. Now let me offer a graphical demonstration of where I'm at with this. Take the graph that is displayed on the Smallest Political Quiz web site, and rotate it ninety degrees to the right. Now the left/right line is the authoritarian/libertarian axis with the left being authoritarian and the right being libertarian. That is the situation as it stood in the 19th Century.
In the twentieth century, as socialist ideology came to infiltrate every corner of society, the ideal of individual rights was submerged, and the conflict came to be seen as being between two variants of socialism. In some countries, the conflict is between two very authoritarian forms of socialism, but in the US the forms (liberal vs. conservative) are less radically authoritarian. Unfortunately, it seems like the two conspire to push us ever closer to an authoritarian state.
