Left or right

Sadly narratives cannot be forgotten because they are how we conceive of the world and the capitalist narrative justifies oppressive practices through claims of neutrality, objectively, morality and reason. All these provide cover for existing and abusive power structures in society. Take poverty, yes capitalism has reduced poverty in some ways but international aid and development are also big factors. At the same time it is detoxing the ecological system of the only inhabitable planet, producing more than enough goods for everyone and yet still subjugating entire countries and peoples, perpetuates a system based upon being able to cost everything and all the while suppressing any counter-narrative that argue for non-captilist virtues such as social, ecological and political responsibility, caring and consideration for others, acceptance of difference and the ways in which we can construct a non-zero society.

Although capitalism has achieved a lot, it is not good enough - that's we need to change it and work towards greater changes in society to undermine the domination of elites. I don't disagree that in comparison to totalitarianism that capitalism is more respective of the individual but I reject entirely that the view of the right that we need to maintain this system and should try to prevent further change and development.

The elite (which btw includes me as white male but excludes me as gay person) and their domination is what I was referring to when I spoke of delusion, and to be clear they are delusions. Capitalism does not reward effort, it rewards networking, it rewards nepotism, is rewards asset growth and ownership, it rewards economic calculus and disregard for others. The delusion is thinking that capitalism is fair, just, inevitable, neutral and that we should finish here rather than working towards a post-capitalist system.

Capitalism has been more conducive to individual rights but that is because it is premised on atomistic self-interested economic agents who are essentially separate from all others. It ignores the ways in which we and our identities and capacities are social constructed and the domination of the capitalist ideal, the white straight male who does not have dependents and who does not depend on anyone. This ignores cultural, ethnic, sexual, gender and religious minorities who do not fit the mould yet who are held to the dominant standards of capitalism.

I'm not sure what you think I was separating - sorry if I wasn't clear. My point wasn't that we have greater rights now because the right or legislators have suddenly realised that they have been oppressing people or that this can be achieved in all societies in the same (obviously all governments and nations are historical constructs) but it has been because of advocacy that we have the laws we have now and that advocacy works in a capitalist system as long as it does not challenge the domination of economic interests. This is why people can be socially liberal (i.e. gay rights) yet still support an oppressive system (i.e. poor people need to work harder) even though the differences are only in how they are framed in relation to the dominant narrative. Giving gay people rights does not undermine economic prosperity, giving people free houses does even though free houses might be just as beneficial as gay rights for those subject the system. As for those who seek to bring about change in more oppressive states, it is arguable they need to focus on overthrowing the government because it is not as amenable to change. This does not negate the fact that it is political efficacy that has seen such a transformation in the rights of LGBTQ people in the US, Canada and Europe.

Ultimately, my point is that capitalist democracies are not something we should be content with but something that we need to challenge because it is still run according to a dominant white male capitalism narrative. That's why I found Ryu's statement about western civilisation so objectionable and why I find the right so objectionable - it's the delusional belief that capitalism is fair and just when it isn't (regardless of being relatively better than the worst kinds of government) and that we need to defend it against other people who just happen to come from other arbitrarily constructed nations that aren't "Western".

 

Hey Barbatus,

I hate to say it, but you seem to be confused. First, you seem to be mixing and matching political and economic systems. Those are two separate topics. Second, focusing on how political or economic systems have thus far been implemented as a basis for condemning their basic philosophies is a misnomer. The philosophies themselves are neither inherently bad nor good. It comes down to how people implement them. And, since people are fallible, there will inevitably be some abuse or misuse of any system implemented by people.

I have to say that a democratic system offers far more possibilities for adapting and changing as the will and needs of the people change than, certainly, any totalitarian system. The nice thing about democratic societies (or even republics, like the US) is that people can voice objections and push to implement real change.

If democracy and capitalism are so abominable, in your view, please explain what political and economic systems you prefer and which, presumably, would offer greater political and economic freedoms to the average citizen that currently available in most Western countries.

 

Hi QR,

I hate to say it (lol) but political and economic systems cannot be separated as both are ideologically based and linked. Take freedom to contract - it assumes an economic conception of an autonomous free individual who exists in a political system that has a particular economic system and a legal system which recognises and enforces it. A political system that seeks to free individuals from each other enough to make contracts is going to recognise certain legal rights held individually (rather than say at the level of a group). Thus feudalism is linked to serfdom and Putin's Russia is linked to state owned yet privately profitable companies (i.e. nepotism and corruption). Oh and nothing is inherently good or bad because they are perspectives about constructed ideas and concepts that will be good or bad according to subjective criteria rather than on the basis of any objective non-partisan view.

Also there is no such thing as the will of the people - that just obscures the fundamentally different views of those who make up a particular population. That's why over here the Tory government (although those delegates of privileged interests barely deserve the name) keeps talking about the will of the people to leave the EU when 48% totally disagreed. It would be more accurate to just refer to the referendum win by the Leave side but 'will of the people' allows the narrative to suppress those who voted remain.

I wish I had said abominable, much more provocative, but I said that it is relatively better than other systems - certainly greater legal rights within the capitalist framework is extremely strategically useful - yet it does not mean that we accept the ongoing power structures as given, as natural or as inevitable. Some sort of post-capitalist system, we manufacture enough goods for everyone (jobs are going to go anyway as robotics develops and expands, and as technology generally reduces the need for people). Primarily it'll need to be a different distributional system (maybe all online and technologically mediated?). It's difficult to conceive of a post-capitalist system because of growing up in a firmly neoliberal social system (and not being to a prophet haha) - however, post-capitalist will be what we have after the contradictions of capitalism become uncontrollable (i.e. how does capitalism deal with a population of permanently unemployed? Give them money to help keep monetary circulation going? Make all basic goods, such as a food and utilities, free?). As we are constructing society as we go we'll have to see, if I could see the future then I'd be able to give a more certain answer - but then certainty is a very modernist mindset that assumes there are concrete specific systems which will solve our problems once and for all. In reality though, constant flux and change are the order of the day and how we continually build society as we move through time.

 

I'm a pragmatist. That puts me left of center, but it also prevents me from getting too far left of center.

 

Nice. Well put.

 

^The Democratic party used to be the more conservative party, so your point on the KKK is false--the KKK stemmed from ultra-conservatism, as do most forms of ethno-nationalism. Sorry, this is a pet-peeve of mine and it's so self-defeating that I think it needs to be brought to attention.

My own political alignment is mostly centrist. Different political tests have placed me slightly to the left of center and others have placed me slightly to the right. The older I get, the more I tend to see the left and right as two sides of the same coin. Both gripe about the other as if the other is the emodiment evil and with their incompetence will destroy the world as we know it, yet both engage in the same tactics, and both are often just as ineffective at solving the problems that they set out to remedy, despite their promises. Politics, at least in the United States, has become more about spiting and crushing the "other side" at all costs more than it is about searching for actual solutions and implementing them effectively. As long as this kind of division perpetuates, we will never see an improvement in the average person's life. We will only see the back-and-forth continue, the demonization get stronger, and incompetence reign.

 

Well, I'm not sure you understood me. Fundamentally, my point was about how our understanding of the world and ourselves is mediated through society and cultural. For example, you say giving free house will not help anyone but that is only because you view things through a capitalist lens. Arguably, giving people free house would actually be far more helpful than allowing shareholders to make profit as it would provide secure accommodation for a great many people. Also you talk of 'earning' things but again that it seen through the capitalist lens that perpetuates the delusion that poor people have an equal opportunity to earn money as the wealthy which is patently untrue given the way education, jobs and qualifications are structured. (Also if you think everyone should work then you should support a state system of employment for all.)

Also identity is important (not in the ridiculous snowflake sense - which is just a way that people try to invalidate the experiences of those affect by identify linked discrimination and suppress non-dominant narratives) because identity is part of how the world is structured. By saying that the dominant culture is patriarchal and racist is simply saying that the standards of what is valuable, of what is permissible, of what goals to pursue and how lives are measured is dominated and structured by a white male perspective. Hope that's clarified things.

 

I also find it disheartening that way that some of you seem to be only capable of conversing in terms of extremes. Is the current capitalism-with-a-tinge-of-socialism that reigns in the United States "right wing"? Does being "left wing" mean that you must reject capitalism and embrace an ineffective form of Soviet totalitarian communism? I refuse to relegate capitalism to an exclusive domain of the right. Both the left and the right have their extreme forms of totalitarian government, and most of us would probably agree that totalitarianism isn't the most ideal form of governance. Because you reject anti-fa, an extremist group, does that mean you cannot identify with the left? Would that be fair to say that because I reject the KKK, I cannot identify with the right?

This may illustrate perfectly my basic problem with the concepts of "left" and "right". Once you have chosen a side, the other side becomes caricatured into its extremes and any sense of fair evaluation of the merits of both sides has flown.

 

That's the point of what I'm saying, the domination of historical narratives applies to all forms of government, they all seek to suppress counter-narratives. I speak of capitalism because that is that the form of society at present. The purpose of exposing the prejudices and power relations underpinning our civilisation is to try an change things. For example, if we recognise the patriarchal standards used or the straight standard used in determining our lives we can change things through, as we currently have done, legal rights of LBGTQ and women and followed by changing attitudes. But if we refuse to recognise the way society privileges some over others then we cannot change things.

 

^I remember reading a review of a certain American history account (cannot at the moment recall the author or the title) and while one is not obligated to view this man's history as the only correct view of American history and one is certainly welcome to question and criticize it, I was amazed at the way the reviewer almost seemed wounded by the suggestion that there was anything dark and reprehensible in the United States' past. That to suggest that capitalism isn't perfect, that America's early history included reaping the benefits of genocide and slavery is to betray the country in its current state, to hate this country, and to embrace some kind of iconoclastic liberalism that seeks to undermine what makes America great. It's this focus on extremes and the refusal to question one's own "side" that disillusions me more than anything else. I can fully acknowledge that I love this country, love democracy, and believe capitalism to be superior to communism (in a rudimentary sense) while also recognizing the flaws, recognizing the injustices, and recognizing that no one "side" has it all figured out. One of the things that bothers me the most about the extreme left and the extreme right is that they both refuse to listen.

I see now less of a political spectrum in a straight line but more a political horseshoe: the extremes of both sides come together to a point where they have more similarities to each other than the more moderate sides of each do.

 

Im a right of right wing person.

I grew up in a liberal state in a poor slum neighborhood and all of the liberal SJW's just made it worse, taxing out business' that just relocated to red states where taxes were lower, so we lost our jobs. We lived in dangerous crime drug infested neighborhoods and couldnt even protect ourselves legally, but the criminals all had guns. Everything had a fee attached to it or a fine. So I moved down south where taxes are low, personal freedom is greater, and job opportunities are plentiful. The fact is, in Savannah I live a better quality of life than I did in Baltimore.

I think we need a strong military, and I dont believe health care is a right, people die from shit thats a part of life, and in this country especially people bring health issues onto themselves with poor life choices. I think drugs should be legal, but if you get addicted you're on your own, tough luck nobody forced you to smoke crack.

I also think that voting shouldnt be granted to people on their 18th birthday, it needs to be earned through some sort of service like the Peace Corps, USPHS, or the Military. People should have a steak in the country if they are making decisions.

 

"People should have a steak in the country if they are making decisions."

Everyone living in a country has a stake in it.

 

I dont think that a kid out of school has the same view of it that a soldier risking their life does.

Example my sister is a drug addict that has been in and out of jail since high school. I served 4 years, 10 months in the Army, including a year of combat in Iraq. Does she a drug addicted criminal, deserve the same vote as me? I dont think that she does.

 

It's possible that our nation would benefit from having some sort of mandatory national service for all citizens (as some countries do and it need not be military), but until then I don't think it would be prudent to delineate worthiness of suffrage in this way. Voting is not a privilege, it's a right. That's one of the reasons why voter suppression is so egregious.

 

The fact that some people are against universal healthcare is mind boggling to me. If you're against everyone getting the help they need, you deserve getting a potentially terminal disease and seeing how not being able to pay for the treatment works for you. Serves you right.

I'm a centrist, I think neither extremes are good. Higher education shouldn't be free for all, but the state should DEFINITELY be encouraging more deserving students to go to college by granting them scholarships.

 

@Libertino I just dont see it that way, if people earned their rights they wouldnt be so eager to give their liberties and mine, back to the government. When you acept anything goverment run, you have to play by their rules and I dont trust the goverment to play fair.

@andimon anything universal will mean being government run and inefficient. I dont have heathcare and Im not afraid to die, everyone dies. Dont judge me because you dont know me. I saved 5 people likes as a medic one of them was a child, what did you ever do for the world?

 

Yes she does because she affected by the system of government. And a kid out of school certainly deserves a say in their future and how governmental decisions and operation will affect them. Having been a soldier does not entitle you greater rights. Being affected by the government and the state entitles you to a say. Besides a country is its people and all of them have right to have say in how the country works.

 

You can't have a state without a government. If you are so distrustful why were you a soldier for a state? And you are the one who seems to be accepting the government rhetoric about the undeserving poor. Doesn't sound like you distrust the impartiality and fairness of governments.

Inefficient by what metric? An economic one premised on profit? A healthcare one based on health outcomes? A communitarian judgement about distribution? We all contribute to the society. Do you think we have meet your conception or standards of contribution in order to count? I have as much of stake in society as you or anyone else. I don't need your approval in order to participate nor do I need to justify my participation by your standards - just as you do not need to convince me to accept your participation as valid. If not your standard then whose? There are no objective standard that can be used, they all embody normative claims about what people should be or do and they all embody power relations.

 

First I have to say I agree with the Founding Fathers that having political Parties it terrible for any Democratic Republic... and if you don't agree look at the candidates we have been forced to choose from! Why should anyone have to choose between two opposite ends of the spectrum and pick and choose based on the lesser of two evils... or when no matter who they choose there are things that person stands for that you disagree with? Welcome to the Party System, or at least that's the way is seems to me.

That being said because even in this poll it really is binary I chose Conservative only because it overall encompasses more of what I believe in than Liberal. Do I like their stand on Sexuality and Gender... NO. Abortion? ... NO for both parties. etc. etc. Truth be told I favor a cross between Constitutional and Libertarian... Smaller not Bigger Government, The Government keeping out of Everyone's business regardless of ANY belief so long as they leave others alone and most importantly that the Constitution Limit's the power of Government by explicitly stating what the Government can do and nothing more... Not as our Politicians have twisted it which is "If the Constitution doesn't explicitly say we Can't then we Can!" which would invalidate much of the Governments meddling in people's lives.

... Hopping down off the soapbox and Holding it out for the Next Opinion ...