Political Discussions
Are the terms "Right" and "Left" consistant?
Posted by Agit8r • 6/03/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: center, left, right
Supposedly the terms "Right" and "Left" originated in the French Assembly around the start of the French Revolution--according to seating position
The "Right" Feuilliants were roughly equivelent to America's Federalist (Hamiltonian) Party. They supported a hereditary dictator (King) moderated somewhat by the Assembly. They generally believed in a planned mercantilist economy that was coordinated by the King and his ministers. They believed that The First Estate (clergy) and Second Estate (Aristoi) were an effective means of maintaining a just social order.
The "Left" Girondists (or Brissotines) were roughly equivalent to the Republican (Jeffersonian--also pajoratively referred to as "Democratic-Republican" or "Democrat" Party). Most believed in a Laissez-Faire economy, in which the Assembly acted in a voluntarist manner to maintain the Rights of Man. They believed in a government of equality before the law, rather than the caprice of a monarch.
Since that time, the terms "Right" and "Left" have been ascribed to various hodgepodges of those listed traits.
Although some sources, like to list the Montagnards as the "Left", they seem to have split off from the one or both camps later on, and sat in the highest seats (radical center?) of the assembly
User Comments
-
I think that the terms today are very different than what they were centuries ago, and even so much as they are different compared to other countries.
I have begun to prefer more descriptive and definitive terms, such as conservative, liberal, progressive, etc and so forth. They seem to hold a bit more meaning, and have somewhat more finite definitions than the traditional left/right/republican/democrat labels. -
Even "conservative," "progressive," "liberal," "libertarian," and "Anarchist" are pretty vague, given their variety of meanings
"Fuedalist," "Statist," and "Minarchist," seem like more precise terms, esp. with the a further descripive term like "progressive" or "egalitarian" etc.-
In regards to Statist this can actually get mixed up as well and in many cases political scientists actually prefer the term Populist instead.
-
-
Notions of the Left and Right are really just a relic from the past. The main ideological concepts have been tested and the conclusions are that both sides had some good points, some bad, the good have generally been adopted and the bad discarded. (Although that depends where you live).
Politics today and in the future has to solve new and complex problems which are less influenced by notions of left and right ideology. -
"Politics today and in the future has to solve new and complex problems which are less influenced by notions of left and right ideology."
Right! It depends on the situation. For example, during Great Depression, FDR expanded the power of the central government in regulating the economy. During the Reagan time, the economy floated itself. Bush let the economy fail following the rule of Laissez-Faire; and today, Obama has to become Right wing politician to regulate health care, education, auto, and financial industry.
I think the only word for this is PRACTICAL. Whatever the name is, we just need to solve the problems.-
there was no Laissez Faire... it was unregualted mercantilism.
Laissez Faire was not meant to apply to corporations. Joint-stock companies under Adam Smith's system were to be run according to "strict rule and method" in accordance with their chartered purposes. Because corporate ownership is not private ownership, but collective ownership, against which the mundane exchanges that would occur between individuals can not compete.
FDR diagnosed properly (although I question his solutions) when he said that the problem was ''not that the system of free private enterprise for profit has failed in this generation, but that it has not yet been tried.'' -
I do question as well. The system had been free trade so bad before FDR. That's why we had so many monopolies before. I think it really fail for these purposes:
Free market will form monopolies so that small business can't exist, therefore creates only bourgeoisie (investor) and proletariat (workers).
Second, free trade will encourage mass product and finally overproduction. Producing too much that noone will buy will drive prices down and eliminate profits. Therefore, big corps have to cut jobs in order to survive. That is the reason for the Great Depression. -
Actually, Hoover, Coolidge and their respective congresses allowed the formation of illegal cartels that eliminated competition. Many of the large corporations (especially automakers) embraced fascism, and carried out their own effective oligopsony.
This is what FDR was referencing -
Can you tell me what is the basic mission of fascism and how is it different with capitalism or communism?
-
they actually accepted theoretical Fascism (similar to Guild Socialism from what I understand) as an ideology.
perhaps the automakers liked the notion of "a car in every driveway" -
To tuanhnguen, you actually speak in too broad a generality. Specifically during the Confederation before the Costitution there wasn't exactly free trade. Tariffs were placed from state to state and and actually caused massive stagnation which ones one of the key reasons for reforming to the constitution in the first place.
-
-
Instead of Right and Left, maybe we could use the terms Frick and Frack. I mean it would be a lot harder to get into heated discussions without laughing if you called someone a far frick winger or a frack wing nut job...-
true. and labels can be confusing
-
-
From what I have gathered, conservatives tend to believe in just about everything the founding fathers have said. As Michael Savage once said conservatives are to the right of the founding fathers and to the left of God.-
to the right of founding fathers... yes
-
the God part was kind of funny you have to admit
-
according to Jesus, God sounds sorta leftist... no?
-
Agit8r! You frick wing! or is that frackist? I dunno...
-
according to Jesus, God sounds sorta leftist... no?
I don't know about that. The Tanakh is pretty right wing -- what with all the stonings to death and battles. -
lol, I suppose it depends on one's definition of right or left... frick or frack...
-
@agit8r:
May I remind you that God doesn't tax anybody. He asks for volunteerism. May I also remind you that God isn't too fond of government, as is made clear in the book of Samuel and in the simple fact that nearly everyone he smites is a King. -
I was referring to JESUS's teachings... the guy from Nazareth o_0
-
Same guy. Ever heard of the trinity? "I did not come to replace the law but to fulfill it." God's law includes free will and occasionally devouring Kings with dogs after they violate your property rights (King Ahab.) And nothing in the New Testament interferes with civil liberties.
-
-
no opinion really
-
No no no. If you go to the Middle East, their "left-wing" is essentially Reagan style economic libertarians who support individual liberties while their "right-wing" is essentially labor-union populist liberals with a chicken crazy Islamic religious bend and vast welfare programs.
Left-wing and right-wing share only one consistency: esthetics. Left-wingers always drape themselves in progress, while right-wingers always don the robe of tradition.-
That is why I propose the adoption of the terms Frick and Frack. Now we just need to decide which is which.
-
"labor-union populist liberals with a chicken crazy Islamic religious bend"
Wilsonians? -
Not too familiar with Woodrow Wilson, but from what I do know of him that does seem to make sense.
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
