“If you’re a university student and you’re not a communist, start worrying. And if you’ve left university and you’re still a communist, start worrying,” someone once told me. In my case, there was no cause for anxiety. At university, I initially drifted into a lukewarm flirtation — including a bizarre and mercifully brief championing of Joseph Stalin — with left-wing ideologies. Over time, this gradually dissipated as my innate conservatism asserted itself. The process was accelerated by my mounting distaste at the rigidly dogmatic, judgmental and morally inconsistent nature of those who had set themselves up as the guardians of what was supposed to be the truth and ideological purity. It came as a bit of a shock to realise that traditional liberal thought was as unwelcome in left-wing circles as it was in right-wing ones.
During the late 1980s, it was relatively easy to affix “left” and “right” labels on people. The more you were opposed to apartheid and supportive of the underground liberations movements, the more left you were. It went without saying that any support for the ruling National Party made one a right-winger, although in reality merely to question the correctness — moral or otherwise — of the direction the Struggle was taking made one a suspected rightist during those McCarthyist times.
All this begs the question: Do the terms “left-wing” and “right-wing” have any applicability in South Africa today, 15 years after the demise of apartheid? Indeed, do they have any applicability anywhere, now that international communism has been so thoroughly defeated and discredited? Finally, some would argue that the distinction between “left” and “right” was always as meaningless as it was artificial, and should be jettisoned.
Andrew Kenney, writing in the February 5 2005 issue of The Spectator, argues the latter case rather persuasively. Just what exactly distinguishes a left from a right point of view, he asks? If it is related to state control of the economy as opposed to the free market, then how does one explain right-wing regimes like Nazi Germany and apartheid South Africa, where the economy was heavily state-controlled? If being on the left is to be internationalist in outlook, why is there such opposition to globalisation in traditional leftist circles? Why was it Oswald Moseley, leader of the British Union of Fascists, who was so vociferous in advocating a massive increase in public spending when this was supposedly a socialist leftist concern?
An extraordinarily successful intellectual sleight of hand by those considering themselves of the leftist persuasion has been to position themselves as the voices of justice and human rights, the champions of the weak against the tyranny of the strong, and the implacable opponents of racism and colonialism. In debunking this, Kenney cites the example of Pol Pot in Cambodia, whose extreme version of communism resulted in acts of genocide proportionally on a par with Hitler’s. These crimes, it hardly need be said, elicited a fraction of the moral outrage that resulted from the United States’ vastly lesser misdeeds in Vietnam.
The left’s inconsistency goes beyond mere silence in the face of atrocities by those not on its ideological hit-list. There are numerous examples of its spokespeople openly acting as apologists for tyrannical regimes, be these Lenin and Stalin’s USSR, Mao’s Red China, Castro’s Cuba or Ho Chi Minh’s Viet Cong. Today, one sees consistent solidarity shown by left-wing academics, politicians and journalists for radical Islamist movements (British MP George Galloway and former London mayor Ken Livingstone are two especially egregious examples, but there are countless others). As a result, Israel and the United States are more hated on the left than Al Qaeda and its gruesome proponents. All too clearly, if there is a difference between left and right, it has nothing to do with opposition to oppression and injustice.
Since reading Kenney’s article, I have wrestled unsuccessfully with the question of how to distinguish between “left” and “right” modes of thinking and behaviour, because notwithstanding his arguments, I remain convinced that there is such a distinction.
One theory I mulled over was that it is perhaps characteristic of the right that it supports traditional religion and the norms and values it encapsulates whereas the left rejects it. Once could cite in support of this such historical examples as the White faction in Russia and the Nationalists in Spain in those countries’ respective civil wars and also our own “Christian National” apartheid regime. That being said, why was Nazi Germany, surely the quintessential tyranny of the right, so overtly opposed to traditional religion (including the “Jewish disease” of Christianity?).
Another possible distinction is that rightists are essentially conservative, suspicious of change to the existing order, whereas leftists tend to be iconoclastic, forever seeking to usher in new and supposedly more advanced norms and institutions. Plausible as this seemed at first, it fell to the ground when I considered how intolerant the left can be when its own basic assumptions are questioned, how very thoroughly it closes ranks to quash heretical views and how dissident voices are sidelined and discredited.
All in all, I’m at sea on this whole question. Can anyone out there help me out?
You raise very important questions in an interesting well-thought out article. You make very vague allusions to the supporting of underground liberation movements necessarily making you “left-wing” which means that supporting the NATS makes you, well, right wing and this makes me a little curios about something.
Will you suffer me to ask you a personal question: Are you saying that you supported the ANC when it was an underground movement? That would be a very bold claim to make.
Reminds me of Lyndall Beddy who claims to have “sheltered” her employees and collegues in her house back then. Bizarre indeed!
I hope my tone does not seem offesnive (it’s very hard to moderate one’s tone when writing here, especially if you have, like me, been circumscribed within a particular box).
Raelly, I find your entries very interesting and your writing is succinct and incisive even though I don’t always agree with you. You’re one of the few bloggers here who are true thoughleaders.
xcuse the spelling. I hastily posted without checking but, you get my drift
The “left and right” is in reality a retro-fit from a factual positioning of people in the parliamentary system. Supporters of the “status quo” would sit to the right of the King,Queen or President while the opposing parties would sit on the left.
Over the years this has been embedded in political thinking. In other than the 2 party democratic systems (mainly Anglo based), a “centre” has been created.
The old apartheid system did not have a left (as associated with socialism or communism). Hence –in the Anglo thinking- the DP, opposing the ruling party, was classified as “left”.
After 1994, the real “left” (socialist and communists) came into the SA parliament and unseated the DA as the most “left” party. The ANC being “left” has transformed the DA to a “right” party by sheer lack of a strong conservative wing in Parliament. The funny thing is that the DA has hardly changed its constitution and goals.
“Left” and “right” in politics is circumstantial and relative. It can change if there is a vacuum on either side. Hope that helps you catching the floating “lefts” and “rights” in politics.
“If you are not a liberal when you are under 25 you have no heart, if you are not a conservative when you are over 35 you have no brain”
The original quote is something like the above.
The Left and Right distinction is only really relevant in terms of economic position.
Check out this interesting poll and their articles on this debate:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/
or if you want a US breakdown:
http://www.politicalquiz.net/
You need an authoritarian (statist) / libertarian axis to gauge social positions (role of state).
See how their own analysis/research indicates that many “leftist parties” are today actually right of the economic spectrum (UK labour / EU governments / US candidates) indicating how much of the conventional wisdom these days are pro market economy. Also note how authoritarianism has increased because of CT legislation.
At the end of the day practical politics and the realities of managing a country/government/economy makes utopian ideologies very difficult to cleanly implement.
In fact you can argue in many advance western democracies people vote more based on “management styles” than fundamental ideological differences.
It is always interesting to see how people claim to speak to the original pure form but then as soon as they start thinking things through change to adapt to realities… look at the libertarian debate that includes views ranging from social libertarians (state has role in ensuring econ equality) to anarcho capitalism (market anarchy).
This is a very interesting topic. It leads to another question: Why is being left wing undisputably cool but being right wing politically unmentionable? (Please note I support neither extreme). Let’s take communism and fascism as a starting point. Communism is trendy – Che Guevara T shirts, Soviet jeans, Mao jackets …and much of the current government thinking is still the product of ‘reformed’ or realistic communist doctrine. Yet Stalin and Mao together killed more of their own citizens than Hitler killed Russians or Tojo Chinese. Communism was a far longer scourge over almost 90 years than fascism was in its brief existence ended in 1945. Yet not too many would wear a Mussolini T-shirt (I use him as an example of a fascist largely free of the racism of Nazism) and anyone starting a fascist student movement at a university would simply be met with amazement and hilarity….Are they really that different?
Good question, David. Conventional wisdom has Left and Right at each end of a linear scale. However, a better representation is to take the ends and join them together, making a circle. The ‘join’ now represents “total government” and the opposite side of the circle represents “minimum government” – surely a more realistic picture. This view would confirm the idea that in practical terms, there isn’t much to differentiate between Left and Right.
Another view is that right-wing policies emphasize the role of the individual, while left-wing policies instead place emphasis on the collective.
If the underlying philosophy of the Left is “From each according to ability, to each according to NEED” then perhaps the philosophy of the Right might be “From each according to ability, to each according to MERIT”…
None of which really answers your question.
An enigmatic comment from Mao Zedong on the difference between left and right-wingers (speaking of Richard Nixon in 1972) …”I like dealing with right wingers. At least they say what they really mean. Left-wingers say one thing, and mean something completely different…” (let’s perhaps open the Chomsky, Pilger and Fisk archives for some empirical proof?)
Accepting that words have precice meanings only in the mind of the individual using them, and meanings develop through usage, my understanding is as follows.
‘Left’ and ‘right’ represent attitudes, not ideologies, and are akin to the more descriptive afrikaans terms ‘verlig’ and ‘verkramp’.
One can be extremely verkramp (conservative, dogmatic, fundamentalist) about any ideology.
The ruling class obviously have both the power and incentive to maintain the status quo, whatever that may be, and communist hard liners who rule with intolerance of dissent are then ‘right wing’.
Those who advocate a more enlightened (verligte )approach are inevitably NOT the ones in power!
Left wingers oppose the status quo in the name of justice and equality, and if successful and become the rulers, their moderation evaporates and they don’t stay ‘left’ for long.
The reason why socialism is associated with ‘the left’ is because those veing for power do so from a platform of advocating ‘greater social justice’ as this stance will inevitably enjoy popular appeal.
As Benzol indicates, the terms are relative rather than specific.
The reality of ruling elitisim is necessarily ‘right wing’ and can exist under any political system.
Some thoughts on the subject.
Left and Right are assumed to be synonymous with Liberal and Conservative and with Socialist and Capitalist. What we really have is hybrid. Look at some of the main (simplified) characteristics :
Liberal : One who can see the other persons point of view.
Conservative : One who cannot see the other persons point of view.
Socialist : Collective freedom (= no freedom) and collective accountability.
Capitalist : Individual freedom and individual accountability.
Add to this some additional human characteristics and what you get is typically a person who chooses whether to see your point of view or not, depending on his vested interests and a person who demands individual freedom, but chooses collective accountability, eg by way of “Limited Liability”.
So the terms Left or Right really has no meaning when applied to majority of individuals.
David,
I read your blogs with interest because, no matter the subject, you always slip in, at the most sensitive point, some or other comment that seeks to equate Israel and its puppy the USA with Good and everyone and everything that contradicts this impression as Bad.
To call George Galloway and egregious example of an apologist for a tyrannical regime is just silly. He is, to many, one of the few more or less honest politicians and speaks his mind. And please be advised, Israel and the USA are hated more than the Al Qaeda and its proponents not because of people like George Galloway, but because honest people in Israel and the USA are actually telling the world about the atrocities committed by both those countries – atrocities to which they were witness. The torture photographs showing detainees being sodomized and raped at Abu Ghraib are the latest gruesome revelations. The use of phosphorous weapons against women and children and IDF snipers shooting children in the back are others.
I enjoyed the rest of the article though.
Broadly speaking, left means a wider distribution of wealth and authority, while right means a concentration of wealth and authority.
What Stalin and Pol Pot did was to distribute wealth more widely in their countries, but to concentrate authority in their own hands. Hence they were on the left in terms of wealth, but on the right in terms of authority. The Nazis and Fascists were on the right in both cases.
Israel is an interesting case because when it was established its government was clearly on the left in terms of wealth (its two dominant parties Mapai and Mapam, were both socialist) but very much on the right in terms of authority (militarism, racial discrimination and so on). However, over time the left gradually faded away.
The reason why the Western European left tends to support the rights of Muslims (and of all other immigrants) is simply that promoting individual rights broadens the distribution of authority; that’s why the right is so hostile to Muslims (and other immigrants). Note that in the Middle East, the Left is usually hostile to Islam (sometimes so much so that Left movements are slaughtered).
The idea that Left and Right are meaningless terms is, of course, an idea of the Right in power (because the Right wants to discourage people from thinking in these terms) which is why you found the concept in a magazine of the Right.
It is certainly a complicated problem. It is perhaps useful to distinguish between political liberalism and economic liberalism. This of course runs the risk of just introducing an endless cascade of variables and axes along which to map out the relative right or leftness of people and regimes. But, as Thatcher showed it is indeed possible to be politically on the right and economically liberal. While it remains true that left wing and right wing are perhaps little more than tendencies relative to the status quo, those tendencies are perhaps best described as tending to entrench power in an elite that is nationalistically or ethnically or religiously conceived (right) or to entrench power in an elite that is articulated in terms that emphasize more ‘enlightened’ values such as equality and rights. The point I am trying to make is that in effect both can look exactly the same, all that changes is the language in terms of which the elites articulate the legitimacy of their monopoly on power. This makes it different to measure the difference between left and right in terms of the effects on societies, but easy to measure it in terms of how they go about securing the means to produce effects in societies. Just a guess.
To me Lee Hall makes sense: starting at 1200 and determining this to be neutral/middle of road then go right for “Right wing” and left for “Left wing” and the excercise meets at 0600 where Marx and Nazis meet ie as equals.
Instead of Left and Right why not examine each situation and analyse for “correct or wrong”, better than knee jerk reactions that follow your choosen ideology.
I.e., a personal situation: am anti taking life except when others lives are in danger so am against the death penalty as well as abortion. Mankind, sorry Peoplekind are fallable so disagree with anything that cannot be reversed if a mistake was made and exercutions and abortions are not reversable.
Brent
David
Your answer is that there is and can be no fixed single definition of the left and right wing view because both vary in place and time. The terms in fact describe different positions at different times in different societies. Early ‘socialists’, for instance, were against ‘state spending’ because it was historically associated with the extravagances of kingship; and early ‘nationalists’ were ‘left wing’ believers in peace and the universal brotherhood of man, because they saw the idea of ‘nationality’ as fostering a contented humanity united in its differences, rid of the injustices resulting from dynastic rule over ‘subject’ multinational empires.
In other words, it is the question and the search that are misguided because they try to tie down abstractions – our use of language – not realities.
Along with this, one must remember that no ideological position is more ‘true’ than any other. All are theories and exploited for selfish interests. There is no reason to believe a govt. is ‘left wing’ and progressive because it or its supporters say it is.
However, more generally, I agree there seems to be a ‘bedrock’ right and left ‘outlook’ in people. Some of my friends are innately ‘conservative’ and others ‘progressive’ (in my eyes) – though whether that is nature or nurture, who knows?
Beyond that I can give you a very helpful perespective ( or ‘definition’, if you insist) that should help you. It is in my next post, as space is running out here.
David (part two)
This comes from David Vital’s fine book, A people apart. Note how long and discursive it is: it is not specific, and avoids seeing the matter as a ‘political’ slogan or position. Yet it strikes as generally correct of a ‘left’ view since, say 1789, and still for our times:
“I have not ventured a definition of ‘left’, but I have found no better term to indicate an approach to social and political matters that presupposes need to pass control of the exisitng socio-politico-economic order into new and nominally(which is not always to say, actually) more numerous hands; a belief that the social order as a whole is in fact amenable to rational and purposeful control; and a conviction that, once the dust has settled, the new order will prove to be better than the old for all concerned and the cost,if any, justified.”
The ‘definition’ goes on beyond this. But on my point, note how a scholar’s explanation differs altogether from the cynical simplicities of politicians.
Well done really good reading. To top that it is wonderful to see contribution from sane commentators. Most of whom may have been in the same boat.
As I understand it ‘right’ and ‘left’ both spring from the same type of personality, a personality that is definitely inclined to coercing others into sharing its point of view whether the point of view is ‘left’ leaning or ‘right’ leaning is actually irrelevant.
There is in fact no such thing in practical terms as “Left Wing” & “Right Wing” for the simple reason that definitions vary often to the point of polar opposites. For example a given group of Right Wingers & Left Wingers will both want freedom & self determination but often attempt to find such by adopting radical or authoritarian ideologies thus compromising the freedom they seek & further rendering such terms as obsolete. Furthermore: these terms are often used as pejoratives by those who aim to discredit their opponents. Those seeking to maintain their privileged status will call their opponents Right Wingers or Left Wingers depending on which term works better to demonize the opposition. Vice versa: those struggling for freedom will call the various regimes which oppress them as Right Wing or Left Wing depending on which term is best suited to mobilize mass action against the repressive regimes. The political spectrum as used in the modern era is in fact a fraud aimed at dividing people into polarities & to pull them into false debates in the name of control.