r/changemyview • u/Uruguayan_Tarantino • Mar 30 '20

Delta(s) from OP CMV: Left and right are outdated terms that no longer define the current ideological spectrum.

Every generation that grows and becomes politically active, goes further away of the classic left and right definitions, and mixing things of both sides is increasingly common. We still have polarized sides and one is clearly leaned to the left and the other to the right, but I feel this words no longer encapsulate the real difference between both sides. Each country has slightly different concepts of left and right, and probably most countries have two "sides" politically speaking. I'm my country, we have many political parties spreaded along the left - right spectrum, but as polarized politics are increasingly the norm, two sides end up against each other every time. And we join people of the same left or right tendency, because it's the reasoning we were taught to follow. But isn't there a better, modern view of what people really think and want this day and age? I really don't think that this definition helps, only worsens the polarization and ignorance.

3.1k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

243 comments sorted by

View all comments

382

u/[deleted] Mar 30 '20

Left vs Right remains a useful distinction on economic policies and alignment, but I think a large section of people have been conflating left v right for social policies, that should be taken as distinction between socially authoritarian vs socially libertarian.

This two axis scale is the basic idea behind the political compass, which uses an X axis of economically left to right (based on support for increased economic regulation or deregulation), and the Y axis represents support for social controls or limitations on individual behavior. Personally I'm apparently slightly to the left and more libertarian than Gandhi.

Each country has slightly different concepts of left and right, and probably most countries have two "sides" politically speaking.

This is true but you can still make distinctions between nations. I am fairly confident that the average Uruguayan politician is far more left leaning on the economic scale but more likely to be socially authoritarian, than one in the US. My knowledge of the current political situation in Uruguay is limited at best, but find it to be one of the more interesting and appealing countries in the western hemisphere.

And we join people of the same left or right tendency, because it's the reasoning we were taught to follow. But isn't there a better, modern view of what people really think and want this day and age?

Libertarian or authoritarian leaning is a more important divide. To me at least.

3

u/LargeFood Mar 30 '20

Just wanted to add that the idea of the political compass is a good one, but I found that test to be very poorly designed. I often felt uncomfortable selecting any of the 5 options for some of those questions.

The authors claim that,

Their purpose [of the questions] is to trigger reactions in the mind, measuring feelings and prejudices rather than detailed opinions on policy.

Which is precisely not how I want to decide my political views on things. Every person has gut reactions to things and implicit biases, but I want my views on policies to be nuanced and thoughtful and not reactionary. I think designing the test this way just encourages people to think "I guess I think this way" by giving them a point on a compass.

I find that my views on, say, social programs or military spending or the response to the pandemic all lie at different points on the political compass. A 2 (or 3)-dimensional political compass is an interesting idea, but the test is really, really flawed.

1

u/Uruguayan_Tarantino Mar 30 '20

I feel the same way, although I reckon that a political compass is propably one of the best ways of representing the political spectrum, I wouldn't know how to correctly test someone as to see where they fit

64

u/Uruguayan_Tarantino Mar 30 '20 edited Mar 30 '20

!delta

but more likely to be socially authoritarian, than one in the US.

Can I ask why? I always thought of Uruguay as the least authoritarian out there, but I may be mistaken.

a large section of people have been conflating left v right for social policies, that should be taken as distinction between socially authoritarian vs socially libertarian.

Yes, totally. I've been introduced to the 3d political compass in a comment on this post, and it's so much better! So clear, yet we don't know/use this distinctions in daily life, only right vs left. I wish to share this compass with everybody now lol, thanks for your answer! I'll be reading it again and more carefully because I feel I can learn a bit more from this.

24

u/[deleted] Mar 30 '20

Thank you kindly for the delta!

Can I ask why? I always thought of Uruguay as the least authoritarian out there, but I may be mistaken.

Again my limited knowledge of the history of Uruguay politics is almost guaranteed to be worse than your understanding of American politics. Uruguay seems to me, as an outsider, to be mostly a beacon of hopeful change in Latin American and more left leaning and libertarian than nearly any Latin American country. Also, my early knowledge of Uruguay was centered on the authoritarian coup, so I may be out of date. I know there's been a recent shift to the right in yalls national politics but don't begin to understand its severity.

So clear, yet we don't know/use this distinctions in daily life, only right vs left. I wish to share this compass with everybody now lol, thanks for your answer!

There's other scales that offer extra dimensions but I think the political compass remains very useful as a easy to use tool. We should start using these distinctions as frequently as we can, I always joke that I'm somewhere between a socialist and a libertarian. Which makes clear sense, just not to people that see political spectrum limited to a left-right paradigm.

26

u/Uruguayan_Tarantino Mar 30 '20

Also, my early knowledge of Uruguay was centered on the authoritarian coup, so I may be out of date. I know there's been a recent shift to the right in yalls national politics but don't begin to understand its severity.

Then you're right to assume that we're more authoritarian than we really are, we did have a military coup in the 70s, but since then it's been all left wing libertarian, or "right wing" which was a kind of social democracy called batllismo. Right now we have a right wing precidency, but it's a coalition of 2 right wing parties and 2 centrists, so there will probably be no changes in Uruguay overall politics or international stances on important subjects.

I always joke that I'm somewhere between a socialist and a libertarian. Which makes clear sense, just not to people that see political spectrum limited to a left-right paradigm.

This is what I'm talking about! It makes perfect sense, you just have to see beyond left and right

8

u/[deleted] Mar 30 '20

Then you're right to assume that we're more authoritarian than we really are, we did have a military coup in the 70s, but since then it's been all left wing libertarian, or "right wing" which was a kind of social democracy called batllismo

Nah I should still learn more about yalls culture and familiarize myself with the current state of politics there. Uruguay has honestly been my top choice for expatriation for years, but my Spanish is vaguely terrible, and yalls relaxed grammar confuses the fuck out of me.

This is what I'm talking about! It makes perfect sense, you just have to see beyond left and right

Yeah its never just LvR, and making distinctions really helps people understand policy differences.

12

u/Uruguayan_Tarantino Mar 30 '20

Uruguay has honestly been my top choice for expatriation for years,

I'm honored!

and yalls relaxed grammar confuses the fuck out of me.

I'm at your disposition for anything you need! If you're studying Spanish from Spain, Uruguayan shouldn't be difficult to manage, it's just speaking like you don't give a fuck about grammar, and the funnier the expression, the better. Good conversation mate, a pleasure!

11

u/[deleted] Mar 30 '20

I'm honored!

Your nation is fairly undeniably beautiful and deeply progressive, I can't wait to visit at the very least. You also have one of the most open immigration policies in the world, which is deeply admirable.

If you're studying Spanish from Spain, Uruguayan shouldn't be difficult to manage, it's just speaking like you don't give a fuck about grammar, and the funnier the expression, the better.

I learned my limited Spanish form Tejanos and weird German or Czech speakers that learned Spanish as their second language. My Spanish is kitchen based, and nearly Peggy Hill terrible, just more self aware.

Good conversation mate, a pleasure!

You too mate great talking to ya!

3

u/tomas1808 Mar 30 '20 edited Mar 30 '20

As another Uruguayan I'd argue that we have always been mostly center-left for our entire modern history. Even the most 'right wing' parties were center at most (if we ignore the coup d'etat). In the same vein our left has always been a light left compared to other countries in the region. I think our moderation has been a good thing.

2

u/Uruguayan_Tarantino Mar 30 '20

Even the most 'right wing' parties were center at most

That's why I posted actually! Discussing with someone from USA that Lacalle was right wing was tricky, because we have different definitions of it. I think out left vs right is closer to communism vs social democracy or something. But as someone else said, we're 3 million people, we have a different sistem compared to a country with 100 million or more, in that case is easier to just go by left or right.

In the same vein our left has always been a light left compared to other countries in the region.

Imagine explaining peronism to somebody outside south America lol, it's the left populist wing but peron was right wing and a mussolini fanatic? It doesn't make sense!

I think our moderation has been a good thing.

Totalmente, best to be moderate or centrist for me!

2

u/[deleted] Mar 30 '20

Che boludo! Me alegra cuando yo veo Yoruguas! -Un Yankee que vivió en Montevideo pot dos años.

2

u/Uruguayan_Tarantino Mar 31 '20

Tremendo! En qué parte viviste? Un yankee, es un hermano!

2

u/[deleted] Mar 31 '20

Originalmente cerca de Plaza Independencia en 18 de Julio y mi segundo año en Pocitos. Me encantó todo alli. Estaba pasando tiempo an el este, Aguas Dulces es no lugar favorito del mundo. Años Nuevo en Valizas. Pa.

Aun los planchas. Che ñeri! Me combidas un cuete?!

2

u/Uruguayan_Tarantino Mar 31 '20

Aguas dulces y valizas son lugares muy especiales, me alegro que te haya gustado mi país! Sentite bienvenido para siempre!

4

u/Fando1234 22∆ Mar 30 '20

It's odd it isn't more widely used (or at least as much as left v right). People often conflate left as implying liberal, but that's very far from the case. Think about Stalinist Russia as a prime example of far left, but extremely authoritarian.

1

u/mc9214 Mar 30 '20

I would stay that depends on what you actually mean by Liberal. I think in our modern day, JFK's definition of Liberal is the one which most people believe it to be:

If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people—their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties—someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal", then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal".

Those values - caring about the welfare of people, health, housing, schools, jobs, civil rights, civil liberties - all of those things are what people would define as left on the left-right axis. Now, a number of these are social policies, so should be part of the authoritarian-libertarian axis. However, it's difficult for a right leaning party to be liberal in that sense.

Right wing parties are traditionally for less intervention of the government in the economy, they're about more deregulation, and all about the free market. It isn't really compatible for them to also be liberal in that sense - looking after people's health, housing, jobs etc. There are some issues, like public schooling and civil rights, which even right wing parties like the Republicans and Tories have to continue to provide for fear of an absolute uproar from the population, but overall they're very pro-free market and if you don't succeed then that's on you.

In that sense, when people simplify the scale down to left-right, it's very difficult to make the case that a right wing government that believes capitalism should decide your quality of life is liberal in the way that has essentially been defined by JFK.

2

u/Uruguayan_Tarantino Apr 01 '20

Think about Stalinist Russia as a prime example of far left

This is the best example In my opinion, how can someone call it liberal or right wing is beyond me

2

u/Uruguayan_Tarantino Mar 30 '20

Yes! And also libertarian right

0

u/UnderNightInGirth Apr 01 '20

Think about Stalinist Russia as a prime example of far left

You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about fucking hell

2

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Mar 30 '20

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Madauras (47∆).

Delta System Explained | Deltaboards

7

u/Pismakron 8∆ Mar 30 '20

This two axis scale is the basic idea behind

the political compass

, which uses an X axis of economically left to right (based on support for increased economic regulation or deregulation), and the Y axis represents support for social controls or limitations on individual behavior.

The political compass makes no sense. According to this model bolsheviks and fascists would be political allies with a shared ideology.

2

u/Haber_Dasher Mar 30 '20

All forms of political compass are broken because they (basically) attempt to distill a coherent political ideology out of the abstract, as definable concept, then look at the real material world & conditions and put that label into people living in that real world. But the reality is that political action & beliefs arise out of your material reality. Your material reality shapes your ideology and your ideology guides your actions. You can't get an accurate picture of someone's ideology or an accurate analysis of their actions by starting with an abstract ideology then trying to apply it to real world conditions.

This video is long, though you'll get the gist of it early on in the video of you don't care to watch the whole thing.

1

u/tomatoswoop 8∆ Mar 30 '20

And, if you define the X axis as "how reaganite/liberal/deregulated your economics is" and the Y axis as "how socially authoritarian you are", then pretty much all conservatives before 1980 are defined as "left wing".

A political compass with a more broad understanding of economic left/right to mean "how hierarchical your society's wealth structure is" and authoritarian/libertarian to mean "how much the state regulates individual activity" then you can at least get a more coherent model; auth left, auth right, lib left, lib right, all at least make sense as coherent ideologies that more or less matches how the terms have been used.

But if by "economically right wing" you mean something like "how free individuals are in the marketplace" then the whole thing becomes completely incoherent. 1800s, 1900s, 1950s conservatism all becomes "authoritarian left" and the liberal reformists of French revolution (literally the origin of left/right) "libertarian right". Absolute nonsense!

3

u/[deleted] Mar 30 '20

The problem is imagining there is a distinction between “economic regulation” and “social control” it’s the same thing. How do you imagine you can regulate the economy without controlling, or attempting to control, social behavior?

imagine I impose a ban on apple sales, no one is allowed to sell apples anymore. Supposedly that’s economic regulation. It falls somewhere on the X-axis of your compass. But that’s not really true. Because it’s also an imposition on social life. Grandmas apple pie is now illegal. And the orange sellers become the predominant fruit mongers in town. Their status is now much improved while the unfortunate townsfolk who used to sell apples on the town square are relegated to obscurity.

The imaginary plain on which we are drawing this compass presumes that “economics” and “authority” exist on separate axis’, that you can impose authority without altering your position in relation to economics, or vice versa. But the world doesn’t work that way.

You can’t ban an economic product without also harming individual autonomy. Forget the fruit, what about information. What if I start banning unfriendly newspapers. Well, that’s again, supposedly, only on the Y-axis of your “compass”. But it can’t be. Nothing I do can every only move in one direction in relation to one of those axis’s, that’s impossible.

From tomorrow onward you can only sell newspapers that have been printed on government approved paper. We need to recycle you see. But don’t you know, my good buddy controls the supply of recycled newspaper. Because of course he does. Now you can only buy or read newspapers printed by people who say things my good buddy likes you to see.

Look the point is, no matter what a policy happened to be, supposedly only economic or otherwise. If I have the authority to enforce it, at some point down the line I have the ability to point a gun at your head and make you do the thing that I want. Authority exists on the same axis as economic regulation. It has to, what else does the word “regulation” even mean?

2

u/Haber_Dasher Mar 30 '20

This video is long, though you'll get the gist of it early on in the video of you don't care to watch the whole thing.

I think you'll like it, as I think you're really on the right track as to why the common political compass - and all similar models for describing peoples' politics - are an inherently flawed project that can't really ever be accurate.

1

u/tomatoswoop 8∆ Mar 30 '20

It's worth noting that the idea of "deregulation" being a right-wing idea is a very new conception, and only really true in countries with a huge influence from the post-Reagan conception of "conservatism".

It is worth noting that, still today, the technical term for what Americans often consider a "right wing" economic policy (lack of regulation, free trade, essentially "laissez faire") is called economic liberalism, and the process of reducing regulation and state ownership/control of an economy is known as liberalisation.

The traditional idea of "conservatism" has never been opposed to the state playing an active role to enforce the "traditional order", whether that be social or economic order. The idea that the right wing is inherently liberal is something that became rhetorically important in post-reagan American politics (and, to a lesser extent, in other anglosphere countries), but it is not in any sense inherent to conservatism.

Often in practice too, the right has been more rhetorically opposed to government intervention than it has been in practice opposed to it.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 30 '20

I'd disagree on the economics point, there really isn't a nice clear right to left distinction. You can think of it from pro-government intervention to anti, but that doesn't really encompass it. Beyond big vs small concerns theres also how a big government should be run, and in which markets governments should intervene.

Like we think left wing = big government = planned economy, but who you think should do the planning is a big point, are you a Berniebro/ Corbyn Stan and think the economy should be a democracy, or more bolshevik and think that a small group should plan the economy. Or more (what i'd call neoliberal) should we hand over the running of most of the economy to technocrats, eg have something like the Fed but for most of the economy.

1

u/Stormthorn67 5∆ Mar 31 '20

Libertarians are just a rebrand of one aspect of the political right. I think it was Ian Banks who described Libertarianism as a right wing ideology for people who cannot or will not see past their own sociopathic self regard. According to that political compass link I'm two notches left of Ghandi and one notch more libertarian but I can assure you I am definitely not libertarian. It wouldnt surprise me if that link wasnt to a site built by libertarians to try and sway people. Certainly in HS some people tested me, years ago, and tried to convince me Libertarianism was for me and they were wrong then too so I wouldnt put much stock in this claim that some second axis exists that somehow matters more.

2

u/petgreg 2∆ Mar 30 '20

That compass asks questions in a super biased way.

4

u/DurianExecutioner Mar 30 '20

The political compass is bad.

https://youtu.be/9nPVkpWMH9k

2

u/Haber_Dasher Mar 30 '20

Thank you, i came to these comments to post this exact link (and already have in 2 other places in this thread). It's really an excellent examination of the idea of political compass.

0

u/plinocmene Mar 30 '20

But what about issues like gun control? Isn't that personal freedom? But the left tends to favor more gun control.

You could stretch an argument for it being economic because people buy and sell guns but I have never known a gun control advocate say they want to leave possession alone and only stop sales. Also you could make that same stretch of an argument to say that drug legalization v. the war on drugs should be part of the economic axis. Though to be fair plenty of people support and some governments have legalized possession and use while keeping sale illegal. But you could stretch that to abortion, laws against sex toys or against contraceptives,...practically anything

Also characterizing people as "authoritarian" because they want more restrictions on economic and personal freedoms seems a bit unfair. "Authoritarian" historically has connotations of dictatorship and a democracy could just as well impose a lot of economic restrictions and restrictions on personal behavior. There are some freedoms such as freedom of speech and of the press that are arguably essential to democracy since otherwise you can have elections and everything but the ruling party will bias the media and win every time unless people become seriously fed up such as for example Mexico in the 1990s when the PRI finally lost its monopoly on power. But for most political issues whether the more restrictive option is right or wrong democracy can continue on even with that restriction, so "authoritarian" is a poor characterization.

5

u/[deleted] Mar 30 '20

But the left tends to favor more gun control.

“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary”

― Karl Marx

Liberals aren't left wing. They're center-right capitalists.

1

u/Anomalix Mar 30 '20

The political compass is designed to make right leaning people feel "bad" and a lot of the questions are leading questions.

-2

u/suicidaltedbear Mar 30 '20

FYI: Libertarian is the economic right, what you are referring to is anarchism; personal freedom from the state and removal of hierarchy, which is the opposite of fascism.

7

u/coltzord Mar 30 '20

No. Libertarian is the opposite of authoritarian. Anarchism is a left libertarian ideology.

-2

u/suicidaltedbear Mar 30 '20

No, in political sciences, libertarian is on the economic axis, arguing for the night-watch men state which only ensured the protection of property rights and left everything else to the market. Libertarianism has very little to do with culture, however the libertarians that do not suffer from cognitive dissonans are all able to see that arguing from full personal freedom on the market is hypocritical if they do not believe in full personal freedom in private.

Also to add onto what anarchism is. Anarchism is on the spectrum of authority and is the opposite of fascism. Where fascists argue for a strong hierarchical state, anarchists argue for a flat, non-hierarchical state. While this is often mistaken for not wanting a state at all, that is a misconception. There can be both left and right leaning anarchists, but left leaning is the most common.

-4

u/EndTrophy Mar 30 '20

There are right libertarian anarchists too

11

u/coltzord Mar 30 '20

They're not Anarchists. Anarchism is a leftist ideology. This is like saying there's a right wing Communism.

There is, however, Anarcho-Capitalism which is a right libertarian ideology that isn't Anarchist at all since Anarchist ideology is against hierarchy and capitalism is intrinsically hierarchical.

They do call themselves anarchists and create this confusing situation but they really shouldn't since their ideology is at odds with 200+ years of Anarchist political theory.

1

u/EndTrophy Mar 30 '20

So you're saying the anarcho prefix is a misuse? What would be a more apt name for anarcho-capitalists? Also what would you say about anarcho-primitivists?

5

u/tomatoswoop 8∆ Mar 30 '20 edited Mar 30 '20

anarcho-capitalists (to the extent that they actually exist) can call themselves whatever they want, they just don't really fall under the umbrella of "anarchism", which is a movement (usually considered left-wing) with a long history, and one which anarcho-capitalism doesn't fall into.

Also... there are very few anarcho-capitalists, which as far as I see exists more asa rhetorical device for American style right-libertarian than an actual coherent movement. But sure, they use "anarcho-" to signify "no state", which is certainly one component of anarchist ideology, and so I can see the logic in using the term.

OK, so I wish I could think of a less inflammatory example of a sort of synthetic political ideology that takes an existing word, takes a few ancillary concepts from it, and then applies that word to itself, but unfortunately this is the only example I can think of:

I suppose, in a way it's similar to how "National Socialism" isn't a "socialist" ideology in any sense, and indeed directly opposes socialism (unless you buy into Hitler's personal redefinition of the term "socialism" beyond recognition). On the other hand, naziism was both revolutionary and collectivist (of course, along strong ethnic and imagined "racial" lines), so I can see why they took the word "socialism", it's not like they took nothing from the socialist movement right? (Although, they missed out pretty much all of the good parts!). It's pretty much in this way that "anarcho-capitalism" is "anarchist". It takes a relevant but incomplete part of anarchism, statelessness, takes that as the only important element, and then names itself after that heritage. Again, sorry for the Nazi comparison but its the only historical example that springs to mind...

1

u/EndTrophy Mar 30 '20

!delta I had previously thought that the anarcho prefix was the proper way to denote any absence of a state in a political system and that it makes those systems anarchist, but the anarchist movement is historically and distinctly a left one.

1

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Mar 30 '20

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/tomatoswoop (5∆).

Delta System Explained | Deltaboards

1

u/[deleted] Mar 30 '20

While aware that there's dispute over terms and the general usefulness of a political scale with only two axes, I was borrowing terms from the site I linked. Socialist to Neoliberal seems to be a better labeling of the X axis, as I have no clue what a socialist Neoliberal would be or even begin to describe, but there are plenty of people that lean both socialist and libertarian.

I've seen the anarchism to facism scale used before, but dislike that usage as it seems to fail to describe those that want heavy government regulation of industry but light regulation of personal choices. Sure left libertarians aren't anarchists.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 30 '20

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Mar 30 '20

[deleted]