Time To Abandon The Terms "Left" And "Right"

[deke t lefel]

Since the collapse of sur-real Communism, tell me, which relevant force on the Left excludes believers by its statute?

And which force excludes, for instance, the middle classes? I know for a fact that some heavy-duty millionaires are supporters of the Left. By comparison, I would consider working class people voting for the Right - in any shape - a déclassé position...

the point was that the left and right in politics have polarised and are still moving further apart

 

[deke t lefel]

No, it can not, by definition!!!

if left wing is defined as the classless and stateless society of pure communism, then fair enough, although there is a certain amount of relativism when it comes to left-right definitions

the liberal nationalism of the French Revolution is usually described as left wing nationalism, also Stalin's nationalism and Tito's nationalism etc.

 

[Proper Tidy]

Why shouldn't anyone then say that neoliberalist policies are left-wing or progressive due to their suppression of nationalism/national development?

Because what are their motives in opposing nationalism? The motives are the removal of hindrances to the movement of capital and labour - to aid a globalised free-market agenda which will widen inequality; their enemies are the organised working class, the unions etc.

How could that ever be characterised as left-wing?

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

Because what are their motives in opposing nationalism? The motives are the removal of hindrances to the movement of capital and labour - to aid a globalised free-market agenda which will widen inequality; their enemies are the organised working class, the unions etc.

How could that ever be characterised as left-wing?

Doesn't that mean there are left-wing national struggles?

 

[gorski]

if left wing is defined as the classless and stateless society of pure communism, then fair enough, although there is a certain amount of relativism when it comes to left-right definitions

the liberal nationalism of the French Revolution is usually described as left wing nationalism, also Stalin's nationalism and Tito's nationalism etc.

Tito had internationalism on his mind and suppressed any kind of nationalism with deadly force if necessary... until he was old and weak...

Stalin - equally...

French Revolution didn't have the rights of the French at heart [or American one, at that] but the rights of Humans as such.

Confusion, indeed...

 

[gorski]

the point was that the left and right in politics have polarised and are still moving further apart

How is that an answer to my Q?

 

[gorski]

Why shouldn't anyone then say that neoliberalist policies are left-wing or progressive due to their suppression of nationalism/national development?

Cause they have no idea whether they are coming or going...

 

[butchersapron]

sex arrogance

 

[Proper Tidy]

Doesn't that mean there are left-wing national struggles?

Yes, absolutely.

Nationalism in its truest sense means a belief in history as a struggle between nations and peoples - an ideology of the right.

However, struggles for national liberation are not necessarily nationalist. It's just that some people fail to distinguish this.

 

[kyser_soze]

As I proposed earlier, the initial ideas were exclusion

v. inclusion

.

Petrification of the world, in accordance with the "natural order of things" [attempt at a-historicity] v. creativity and imagination, i.e. we make ourselves and our world

.

Domination and exploitation

v. abolishing of those structures, institutions and processes towards putting everybody in the same position, to live off of their own labour, with meaningfully equal opportunities towards development, equal rights and duties towards each other

.
​

Along with the point in the OP, I agree with this. I still think the tendency toward labelling everything x/y is the prime limitation on further development - even here all you're doing is providing an analysis of the underlying assumptions of the principles and ideas of the labels left/right, rather than providing an alternative to it. Unless that's what you've got lined up next.​

 

[deke t lefel]

French Revolution didn't have the rights of the French at heart [or American one, at that] but the rights of Humans as such.

Confusion, indeed...

maybe........

the French Revolution started with the formation of the National Assembly by the Third Estate with the purpose of creating a French constitution

soon after, The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen was written and was heavily influenced by liberal political groups who's ideas were based on Enlightenment principles - the rights of women were excluded from the Declaration

the French Revolutionary Wars that followed led to heightened French nationalism to protect the rights of the revolutionary underclass

so is it fair to say that nationalism that arises out of a threat from another country to wage war, in order to remove the rights of an underclass, is left-wing nationalism?

 

[gorski]

No, just people who are not yet aware of their Human interests... i.e. poor sods who have de-classed themselves, as it were...

Nationalists talking of "their country" should be taken seriously at their word and checked for growing claws and fangs...

Women had to fight longer for their rights to be recognised and enforced, indeed. However, the universalisable principles at the root of Modernity made them possible... Counter-revolutionary movements, ideas and orders notwithstanding... Also, notwithstanding the opportunism of Conservatives, for instance, allowing those interests [women to vote] "in" and relying on those votes to keep them in power for quite a while.

It makes a good point for my first paragraph...

 

[Random]

Nationalism in its truest sense means a belief in history as a struggle between nations and peoples - an ideology of the right.

However, struggles for national liberation are not necessarily nationalist. It's just that some people fail to distinguish this.

No, it's more that what is 'left' or 'right' has changed over time.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

poor sods who have de-classed themselves

sometimes better off that way

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

Yes, absolutely.

Nationalism in its truest sense means a belief in history as a struggle between nations and peoples - an ideology of the right.

However, struggles for national liberation are not necessarily nationalist. It's just that some people fail to distinguish this.

It just seems like one is bound to become the other one.

 

[deke t lefel]

No, just people who are not yet aware of their Human interests... i.e. poor sods who have de-classed themselves, as it were...

Nationalists talking of "their country" should be taken seriously at their word and checked for growing claws and fangs...

Women had to fight longer for their rights to be recognised and enforced, indeed. However, the universalisable principles at the root of Modernity made them possible... Counter-revolutionary movements, ideas and orders notwithstanding... Also, notwithstanding the opportunism of Conservatives, for instance, allowing those interests [women to vote] "in" and relying on those votes to keep them in power for quite a while.

It makes a good point for my first paragraph...

humans living together in peace, with equality between and respect for each others communities, without unnecessary boundaries or national borders is desirable

how to achieve that situation is debatable........

most of the nationalism that developed from the seventeenth century onwards was either due to the dissolution of an empire or as a reaction to discrimination by a ruling empire

it would seem that at least the latter could be justified as a reasonable (left wing) attidude by the residents of a geographical area

if empires are allowed to expand without adequate resistance from within, this usually leads to excessive warfare with other empires with similar expansionist policies

if empires are broken down from within into smaller nations, isn't that desirable even if as a consequence, undesirable borders and boundaries are created in the process?

 

[gorski]

No, modern states were the expression of Capital, i.e. bourgeoisie's interests for a unified market, with all that it entails.

Empires in the feudal sense don't enter into this in any serious and meaningful manner.

 

[deke t lefel]

The creation and definition of most modern nations occurred after world war in the early part of the twentieth century

war was mainly due to expansionist policies by empires, most of the time to secure or protect capital, however the three main empires in existance prior to world war collapsed after becoming morally and financially bankrupt, with no outright victor

capitalism would work most efficiently in a single market with a single state, so, on balance, how does the creation of many nations throughout the world benefit right wing capitalism?

 

[gorski]

Whoa... Nope, on all counts....

As for world beng unified under one Lord... or was it one Law [???] - where are you getting your news and literature?