A valid definition for 'right-wing' and 'left-wing'

[Rapier]

Since this is a theme I know nothing about, I'll refrain from adding commentaries about them. My posts will only contain questions, since my purpose here is just to read what more experienced people have to say, then see if it is reasonable.

Which is the correct definition for the right and left wings? Is Nolan's diagram right? Is the revolutionary x reactionary dichotomy the right one? Why? I am a complete amateur in politics, and I've asked these questions to other people, yet their answers haven't been able to properly cease my doubts. The predominant answer to the question is that the left-wing is colectivist and the right-wing is individualistic, but that line of thought brings another question: How can conservatives be colectivists in some cases?

[Riobhain]

Right Wing is more conservative in policies, while Left Wing is more liberal.

[Life]

In Israel, left-wing means that you're for a two state solution (AKA you're OK with Arabs slaughtering you) and right-wing means Israeli preservation (AKA let's go murder all of Gaza).

Yep.

[Skynstein]

IMO, right-wing advocates economical liberalism and social progress balanced with traditions. Left-wing advocates state intervention in the economy (because it deems the laws of the market as not enough to provide economic freedom) and rupture with traditions.

Fascism is generally regarded as ultra right-wing but could also be considered its own thing outside the spectrum. In Nazi Germany for example, the economic system was capitalist but, opposite to what right-wingers would defend, there was hefty public investment (funded by shady means of course, like extorsion of Jewish citizens). Communism is ultra left-wing, but with regards to customs certain communist countries were quite conservative.

"Size of state" is a very general thing. In both fascism and communism, the state is as large as it can, but in different ways. Fascism was still capitalist and repelled communism.

Edited May 27, 2015 by Cerberus87

[Sentacotus]

Fascism is generally regarded as ultra right-wing but could also be considered its own thing outside the spectrum. In Nazi Germany for example, the economic system was capitalist but, opposite to what right-wingers would defend, there was hefty public investment (funded by shady means of course, like extorsion of Jew citizens). Communism is ultra left-wing, but with regards to customs certain communist countries were quite conservative.

Actually Nazi Germany's economic system was more socialist/capitalist. In other words businesses did what the Nazi party told them to do and they got to keep their profits otherwise they would be killed.

[Rapier]

In a way, I don't see much difference between nazi economical system and soviet economical system. The only real difference is that in the former, businessment got to keep their own private companies, while in the latter these were taken by the state. Yet in the end, businessmen in nazi Germany were submissive to the State's every command, so it is possible to affirm the State controlled the economy as much as a communist system does, anyway.

I also don't see how capitalism is inherently right-wing and socialism is inherently left-wing. There are left-wing capitalists out there, if I recall correctly the North American left-wing fits this criteria. It -seems- to me that the only difference is that the left-wing prefers a social democratic view of capitalism, rather than a laissez-faire view, but I may be wrong.

[Skynstein]

Actually Nazi Germany's economic system was more socialist/capitalist. In other words businesses did what the Nazi party told them to do and they got to keep their profits otherwise they would be killed.

I underlined the most important part. That's what defines a system as capitalist.

The economic intervention in nazism wasn't motivated by economics, but by their warped ideology.

[Sentacotus]

I underlined the most important part. That's what defines a system as capitalist.

The economic intervention in nazism wasn't motivated by economics, but by their warped ideology.

Point is it wasn't a totally free-enterprise economic system that people claim. Its not like businesses could freely buy and sell whatever goods and services they wanted. The Nazi party had control over what was going on. In a purely capitalist system that wouldn't be the case.

[Rapier]

The economic intervention in nazism wasn't motivated by economics, but by their warped ideology.

How wasn't the economic intervention in communism also not motivated by their warped ideology?

[Skynstein]

Point is it wasn't a totally free-enterprise economic system that people claim. Its not like businesses could freely buy and sell whatever goods and services they wanted. The Nazi party had control over what was going on. In a purely capitalist system that wouldn't be the case.

I suggest reading this article: http://www.nazism.net/about/nazi_ideology/. Nazism's "socialism" was mainly a tool to attract working class support:

The Nazi's use of socialist rhetoric appealed to disaffection with capitalism while presenting a political and economic model that divested "socialism" of any elements which were dangerous to capitalism, such as the concept of class struggle, "the dictatorship of the proletariat" or worker control of the means of production.

Also, the definition of capitalism from Marxists.org:

The socio-economic system where social relations are based on commodities for exchange, in particular private ownership of the means of production and on the exploitation of wage labour.

Those elements effectively existed in Nazi Germany. Who could hold the means of production is a different question, as the party infiltrated its kin in large German companies and provided them with all the advantages they could. Yes, there was state intervention, but not in the keynesian nor marxist sense.

How wasn't the economic intervention in communism also not motivated by their warped ideology?

It was complete state planning and management of the economy, in theory not motivated by race, for example. In nazism there's a theoretical racist and supremacist element that makes it a warped ideology, which is absent from communism. In nazism, a Jewish person couldn't own a business; isn't that warped? Communism may be "warped" in an economic sense, but if that's the case I could say classical liberalism and neoliberalism are, too, as any economic theory that "doesn't work" is warped. Politically, communism didn't do nice things, but we're discussing economics.

Edited May 27, 2015 by Cerberus87

[Sentacotus]

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that as much as private ownership and retention of profits is a part of capitalism so is the freedom to choose what goods and services to buy/sell. Go ahead and try to start a Yamaka shop in Nazi Germany circa 1940 and say that it is a capitalist system. You would have a bullet in your head courtesy of ol Adolf. That is what fundamentally separated from being a "pure" capitalist system.

Part of private ownership is the ability to choose what to do your business in and how to run it but in Nazi Germany you don't have that ability.

Edited May 27, 2015 by LordTaco42

[Rapier]

I understand where he's getting at. In an imaginary slide bar with degrees of capitalism, Nazi Germany is closer to the field of restricted market with heavy State intervention, than the old 'n gold capitalism commonly known. Because even if the State did not have the ownership of business, it controlled business with heavy intervention.

Also, the definition of capitalism from Marxists.org:

I will not enter in the merit of discussing the ideology by itself, but that definition is highly questionable because it is loaded with an evaluative meaning, since it paints capitalism with a negative light with terms like exploitation of wager labor. I can accept this as a marxist definition of capitalism, but not as the definition of capitalism.

Here is the definition of capitalism from a dictionary:

An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development occurs through the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

It explains what capitalism is about without words loaded with evaluative meanings.

[Skynstein]

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that as much as private ownership and retention of profits is a part of capitalism so is the freedom to choose what goods and services to buy/sell. Go ahead and try to start a Yamaka shop in Nazi Germany circa 1940 and say that it is a capitalist system. You would have a bullet in your head courtesy of ol Adolf. That is what fundamentally separated from being a "pure" capitalist system.

Part of private ownership is the ability to choose what to do your business in and how to run it but in Nazi Germany you don't have that ability.

Drug dealing is outlawed in the USA. Are the USA not a capitalist country?

(what's "Yamaka"?)

It explains what capitalism is about without words loaded with evaluative meanings.

I think that, as ideological as the marxist definition is, it's more "complete" in a distinct way because it makes explicit mention of the labor relations, which are different from mercantilism and feudalism.

Edited May 27, 2015 by Cerberus87

[Sentacotus]

Drug dealing is outlawed in the USA. Are the USA not a capitalist country?

(what's "Yamaka"?)

The USA isn't a pure capitalist country. No country really is. It has a mixed economy.

A yamaka (spelling?) is a religious hat commonly worn by Jewish males.

[Rapier]

Problem is, a definition needs to be accepted by a majority in order to become valid. From what I know, the marxist definition isn't accepted by a majority. Therefore, it is not a valid definition for what capitalism is. Yet it can be used to define capitalism purely through a marxist perspective, sure.

The one I picked from the dictionary is far more neutral and more accepted worldwide, so I think we should work through that one.

[Skynstein]

The USA isn't a pure capitalist country. No country really is. It has a mixed economy.

A yamaka (spelling?) is a religious hat commonly worn by Jewish males.

Outlawing certain economic activities doesn't mean the USA isn't capitalist. The basics are still there.

Also, welfare state =/= socialism. Cuba is socialist. France isn't.

Problem is, a definition needs to be accepted by a majority in order to become valid. From what I know, the marxist definition isn't accepted by a majority. Therefore, it is not a valid definition for what capitalism is. Yet it can be used to define capitalism purely through a marxist perspective, sure.

The one I picked from the dictionary is far more neutral and more accepted worldwide, so I think we should work through that one.

Wiki's definition (which also results from a consensus) doesn't invalidate the marxist definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism. It explicitly mentions wage labour. You could argue "exploitation" is a negative term, but not necessarily so.

Not to mention most further definitions of capitalism stem from the original marxist definition, with varying means of erasing and/or replacing its ideology with a more "neutral" one, as much as it's possible to be truly neutral. Every definition cites "means of production", which is a marxist concept.

Edited May 27, 2015 by Cerberus87

[Sentacotus]

Outlawing certain economic activities doesn't mean the USA isn't capitalist. The basics are still there.

Also, welfare state =/= socialism. Cuba is socialist. France isn't.

No but the US does other things that prevent it from being "pure capitalist" government regulations, minimum wage, taxes being higher on corporations than other companies, small business grants. And if we are trying to define "pure capitalism" then outlawing certain economic activities would make a state not purely capitalist. A pure capitalist system would have zero intervention what so ever (which doesn't exist).

Yes the US is mostly capitalist but definitely not purely capitalist.

Edited May 27, 2015 by LordTaco42

[Skynstein]

No but the US does other things that prevent it from being "pure capitalist" government regulations, minimum wage, taxes being higher on corporations than other companies, small business grants. And if we are trying to define "pure capitalism" then outlawing certain economic activities would make a state not purely capitalist. A pure capitalist system would have zero intervention what so ever (which doesn't exist).

Yes the US is mostly capitalist but definitely not purely capitalist.

I'm sorry but we're walking in circles here. Look at all the definitions of capitalism me and Rapier posted and try to deduct exactly "where" capitalism is incompatible with state intervention and labor rights. Welfare state is no less capitalist than a liberal state. They're both capitalist, because in both the means of production are owned by private entities, which is what makes a state a capitalist one. The difference is where and when the state is allowed to act. There is regulation in liberal capitalism, it's just that it's "self-regulation". Neither is "pure". "Pure capitalism" doesn't exist. The concept, reduced to its bare minimum, is that which we have shown in this thread.

Edited May 27, 2015 by Cerberus87

[Sentacotus]

The question was what is defined as a ultra right wing and ultra left wing.

Bottom line:

Extreme right wing (otherwise Libertarian/Capitalist) means little to no government involvement in the economy period and regulation is kept to a minimum if there even is any.

Extreme left wing (otherwise referred to as Socialist/Communist) means that the state or government controls a majority of the economy if not all of it and there is more regulation.

The more state intervention that you have in the economy results in a less capitalistic economic system because limits and regulations are imposed less choice and freedom is given to those that run the businesses. Likewise a more capitalistic economy has less limits and regulations imposed by government and more freedoms and choices given to individuals and the businesses they own.

EDIT: Last time I'm posting in this topic I've kinda said my piece and where I stand. I respect all of your opinions and I hope I helped shed some light on the OP's question.

Edited May 27, 2015 by LordTaco42

[Nobody]

I've never seen anyone defining capitalist as a sinonimous to liberatarianism... As far as i know and have always heard, libertarian economic beliefs are an extreme of capitalism. Like, just because the Austrian school of economics is capitalist, it doesn't mean that Keynesians aren't either. I agree with the people saying that left wing policies can (and should, imo. Every sucessful left wing government accepted capitalism rather than tried to end it) be capitalist.

Edited May 27, 2015 by Nobody

[blah the Prussian]

Well, how I would explain it would be to have two axioms, one for economics and one for politics/social. This way you can account for issues like Fascism being "last in economy and right in policy" as Mussolini said. Now, in general Right wingers are for more state control in politics and social issues (pro life, against gay marriage) while for less intervention in the economy; for leftism, the opposite is true. Now, there are some odd groups out there, like neo reactionaries, who most American conservatives would disagree with largely as they are complete mutters who like Feudalism and make monarchism everywhere look bad, but that's basically it. It's pretty much an issue of how much power does the government have to do what.

[Rapier]

My problem comes from seeing right-wingers that have no wish for more state control in politics and social issues, like right-wing liberals. The counterexample puts in doubt the axiom that right-wing: more state control in politics and social issues. From my experience, conservatives fall into this category, though, yet it can't be used to generalize the right-wing in a whole (unless there are studies showing most of the right-wing approve such control).

I'm beginning to think it is more sensible to just address ideas and -isms instead of making sense of right/left wings.

Edited May 28, 2015 by Rapier

[Life]

A yamaka (spelling?) is a religious hat commonly worn by Jewish males.

Yarmulke and skullcap.

[blah the Prussian]

My problem comes from seeing right-wingers that have no wish for more state control in politics and social issues, like right-wing liberals. The counterexample puts in doubt the axiom that right-wing: more state control in politics and social issues. From my experience, conservatives fall into this category, though, yet it can't be used to generalize the right-wing in a whole (unless there are studies showing most of the right-wing approve such control).

I'm beginning to think it is more sensible to just address ideas and -isms instead of making sense of right/left wings.

Wait wait wait. Right wing liberals? Those two are just mutually exclusive. If someone claims they are a right wing liberal, that's a lie.

[Nobody]

Wait wait wait. Right wing liberals? Those two are just mutually exclusive. If someone claims they are a right wing liberal, that's a lie.

not true at all.

In most places outside the USA, much of what is called Liberalism (meaning something different from american liberalism) is considered to range from center to center right. It basically means freedom above all, that is, not much State regulation, state not messing in the economy, free trade, etc. A (sometimes MUCH) milder version of what is called Libertarianism in the US.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

What is called economic liberalism is basically the economic polices most center and center right parties defend through the world. If they have conservative social intances, we get Liberal conservatism

The center left liberalism is called social liberalism, and even that is more often than not called center rather than center left

Edited May 28, 2015 by Nobody