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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.