[Psudo]

JJ and his pal Luke had a fascinating debate about which ideology has more power in global society, the right or the left.

I found it fascinating first because of it's vocabulary. I have never discussed politics in terms of hegemonic orders, materialism, and class-conscience goodthink. Perhaps this is a glimpse of what I'd experienced if I'd completed a university education.

The scope of the issue being considered is a welcome surprise as well. I'm used to arguing the minutia of national or regional issues, whereas this debate attempts to answer the question of global ideological power, perhaps the largest possible question in practical politics.

Both sides also make good points. A list of points that especially delight:

Luke wrote:

the idea of the ‘middle ground’ or ‘Third Way,’ which has been advocated by leaders of the political left such as Tony Blair and Bill Clinton is the death-knell of politics. The ‘Third Way’ is an acceptance by the left of the first principle of the right, i.e. the necessity of capitalism.

In the 90s, I intuitively considered the 'Third Way' claims of Clinton supporters to be an abandonment of sense. It's reinforcing to hear that view reinforced from one who has no reason to appease me with polite lies and good reasoning behind his claims.

Luke wrote:

if you want to see what structures really matter in how we shape our reality, you’re better off looking at what isn’t being contested, rather than what is. That’s the truth behind hegemony…

It is resonantly true that what is not contested is what holds true power.

JJ wrote:

we don’t live in a “pure” capitalist economy any more than the USSR or whatever was a “pure” socialist economy.

A much under-recognized truth.

JJ wrote:

the style of capitalism we practice today is just as much an extension of liberal social theory as it is an extension of right-wing economics.

So it is!

But, overall, the presiding argument comes from JJ:

JJ wrote:

Leftists will argue that the mere survival of our capitalist economy presupposes that all politics, aside from those aggressively devoted to destroying the system, will be “right wing” in some form. But there are lots of people on the right who would say the dominance of liberal social values in all realms of journalism, education, organized labor, popular culture, the therapy industry, and public sector, and the persuasive, deeply-entrenched influence of these social values on the capitalist system, guarantees that all modern politics will be “left-wing” in some way.

It is slightly astonishing that JJ does not follow this reasoning to it's (my) conclusion (which is stated below).

And finally:

JJ wrote:

The left-wing criteria required to concede the mere existence of leftism in our society is set so irrationally and impossibly high

The right does the same thing. Think of the Austrian School of economics, or Ayn Rand.

It is neither the right-wing extreme of free-market capitalism and reinforcement of status quo social values, nor the left-wing extreme of communist economics and liberal social rules that rule this world. Both face the same limitation, that they are both advocacy for impossible extremes in a world of natural societal resistance to extremism and the governance of philosophical purity. Rather, it is compromise that is the supreme ruler of this world and any humans can possess. The mixed economy, the moderately liberal social attitude, these are the rulers of global society. It is political gravity; we do not fly from the middle, but towards it.

When we speak of great men in the history of politics, we speak of men who either moved the compromise middle by creating a new radical argument to pull against the landscape (Marx, Luther, Jefferson, etc), or one who through political influence dragged a society against that homogenizing entropic force toward a unique cultural identity (Lenin, Alexander, Lincoln, etc). But never does the world as a whole move so terribly much, even in the face of great men. It is still a world of centrist compromise, for better or for worse.

[JJ]

I think you're very obviously correct, Psudo. The world is a constant tension of competing poles of extremism that invariably bring us to compromise, if for no other reason than it's human instinct to want to avoid the sorts of clashes that would otherwise ensue.

But when you are in the world of high-level academia as Luke and I are, you're very much encouraged to think that there is no such thing as true "neutrality" or "moderation," only neutrality or moderation within the context of a specific ideological narrative. That's why Luke's thing about looking at what is not contested is such an important statement.

The extremism of today can sometimes - but not always - morph into the moderation of tomorrow. The great battle of politics is often to control the narrative that determines how we distinguish the two.

[Psudo]

I retain the same answer. In the great battle to control how we distinguish between left- and right-wing, the winner is going to be that we will stop distinguishing as they meld into a mixed system. Maybe I'm being small-minded from my limited experience, but I sincerely think it is the current moderate position that will win, not just moderation generally.

Human rights are no longer contested as the basis of legal justice; only the specific list of rights is disputed. Social liberalism in that broad sense has already won.

As for economics, communism and capitalism in their respective distilled purities are both widely discredited (rightly or not). Mixed capitalism has won. Only the precise shade remains to be determined, whether the thin controls of the US tradition or modern Hong Kong or the thicker regulations of a France or China.

If what is contested rules, the current polar extremes never can win. That being the case, with both extremes being doomed failures, how can either be said to have greater global hegemony? Dead is dead.

I see, for the foreseeable future, the two poles drawing further and further inward until... I don't know what. Until their indistinguishable, until a new radicalism appears on the scene as Communism once did, until politics is a debate over absurd trivialities.

[Ombrageux]

A lot of this stuff about "left" and "right" is just pointless semantics. Yes, if "Right" is defined as the various sects of North American market fundamentalists that have no virtually no appeal in the wider world, then yes, the "Left" dominates. If we defined "Left" as only the unredeemed revolutionary Marxist micro-groups of the world (and even they have declined massively) then the "Right" is preponderant.

The world, notwithstanding Hollywood other American entertainment's efforts to supplant other cultures, is for the most part not North American. In most of the world including Latin America, Europe, Russia, South Asia, East Asia and much of Africa the "Left" meant all those who stood against capitalism. It could mean revolutionary Marxist-Leninists (whether Trotskyists and Titoists (independent) or Maoists and Communists loyal to Beijing and Moscow) or those who believed that capitalism could be reformed out of existence. This included most importantly German Social Democrats, British Labour (Fabians), the French Socialists, the Eurocommunists of Spain, Portugal and Italy. Significantly, the vast majority of countries who became independent of Western colonial empires initially claimed or hoped to become "socialist" (Senegal, Ghana, India, the Arab states, Vietnam, Indonesia and on a related vein, China and most of Latin America).

No significant group or party in the developed world today can even conceive - let alone aim for - capitalism's end. In that sense the Left is well and truly dead and the defenders of capitalism have won quite completely (at least for now). This has been assured by the failure of Third World communist states (self-inflicted or not), the Soviet Union's failure (done in by isolation and the arm's race), the reconciliation of British, French and German democratic Left's with capitalism, and the decline of mass Communist parties in much of Europe. Today, the only people of any note discussing the end of capitalism are Hugo Chavez, the Communists that rule some Indian states, and a few Western intellectual superstars with their student fan bases. The Left no longer exists.

All this isn't to say that the market fundamentalists have been doing well. The global financial-economic crisis has given a good thrashing to what remained of their appeal after the Bush years. This is not very interesting, however, because those who believe that old-age pensions, universal healthcare, assistance for unemployment, housing, child rearing, education (and so forth) should not be guaranteed have never been a serious force in politics except in the United States of America. And even then, it has always been the idea of the society reduced to the market that has appealed in America, a notion "libertarian" Republicans have been ready to abandon very quickly when in actual power (for the sake of welfare for their corporate sponsors, the electoral appeal of the welfare state even in America, and their infatuation with foreign crusades). In this market fundamentalist sense then, why talk about the "Right" at all? They don't exist except in Republican ad campaigns and irrelevant think tanks (and online activists..).

[Zipperfish]

I agree. I'd say the current left-right imbroglio hides the issues more than anything else. It's a matter of some vitriol in the US right now, though I'd be hard pressed to name another country where the two major political parties are so close in their policies. What is more interesting than there petty squabbling is the things on which they agree, that aren't being discussed.

Maybe it's like Coke and Pepsi--the more similar two products are, the more they have to proseletyze the "brand" over the substance. And the marketers at these companies, I'm sure, have long ago forgotten that there are other soft drinks on the market.

[Ombrageux]

Well, in Europe the left-right divide as been fading for a long time and is now close enough to gone. In Britain and France the most enthusiastic privatizers have been the Labor Party and the Socialists. The British Conservatives are now "Green" while right wing Nicolas Sarkozy has plundered the French Left of its "best and brightest" to form his government. I am not as familiar with the situations in Germany or Italy but there too the difference between a muddled christian democratic and muddle social democratic rule is not so clear.

The difference in the U.S. is that for all the "partisanship" they don't really have political parties. Nor is there electoral accountability given the dispersion of power (unlike in the UK, Canada or France, where the buck literally stops at the PM/President's desk, in the US any national politician can pass it on infinitely to an uncooperative President/Congress/Senate/Supreme Court/State government..). There is precious little a Majority Leader, Whip, Party Chairman or even President can do to compel anyone to do anything. In this situation, an "R" or a "D" doesn't mean a whole lot.

[BartSimpson]

The fundamental differences between left and right are not going to be moderated. Those differences can be summed up in that those on the right see individual rights as immutable and inherent and are exercised witout infringing on the rights of others, the left, on the other hand, sees rights as ever-changing things that flow from the power of government which takes its authority from the collective and not from individuals. The left also sees rights as being able to compel action on the part of others.

President Obama illustrates the modern left ideology quite well.

Quote:

But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties.

Quote:

Ultimately, though, I have to side with Justice Breyer’s view of the Constitution—that it is not a static but rather a living document, and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world.

Given these statements (and others) Obama makes it clear he does not consider individual rights to eclipse collective rights. On the right, we see individual rights as paramount. We see people as having a right to self defense that eclipses the desire of majorities to ban self defense. We see people as having a right to say what they want even though it may be offensive (a position the left used to have 40 years ago when it was convenient for them). We see people as having a right to their property and wealth while the modern left considers such rights as an impediment to their goals.

These issues cannot be moderated by either side. What we have right now is a fragile understanding. With the economy of the US on the rocks and getting worse (despite pronouncements to the contrary) the desires of the right and left will necessarily come to conflict as the left sees a need for confiscatory policies and the right sees a need to end or suspend such policies.

When govenrment simply doesn't have enough money to function the debate will become whether that government should be pared down to preserve individual rights and wealth or whether indiduals holdings should be seized for the collective interest. There can be no compromise.

[Ombrageux]

BS - And in your estimation the Republicans govern in a less "governmental" manner? If not, than what does your ideology have to do with actual political practice?

[JJ]

Ombrageux, I think you're missing one of the big points of the original debate.

I readily concede that capitalism has won, and thus all politics are economically right today.

However, the crusading strength of social liberalism over the decades has also left an equally powerful legacy in determining the style of capitalism we practice. And as I said, even if we discount brazenly welfare state initiatives like EI or income assistance, our capitalist economy is still forced to make peace with all sorts of weird counter-intuitive state initiatives like affirmative action, bilingualism, blind immigration, etc, that exist only to appease liberal moral sentiment.

It's almost unthinkingly taken for granted that the rejection of pre-1960s morality was a good thing, and that our society thrives today with its newfound (and state assisted) tolerate of things like divorce, racial diversity, gender equality, children's rights, etc, as well its rejection of traditional taboos regarding dress, language, work, and so on. But collectively, these beliefs represent a hegemony just as strong as that of capitalism. The only difference is that they represent a hegemony over the social realm, rather than the economic.

Today's leftists and libertarian right-wingers are too obsessed with capitalism to have any frame of analysis for understanding the social realm. And only in the magical United States, with its famous immunity to the western world's larger political trends, is the social realm still even considered a legitimate political arena for politics in the first place. But even then, they are fighting a losing battle against a pretty strong elite consensus.

[BartSimpson]

Ombrageux wrote:

BS - And in your estimation the Republicans govern in a less "governmental" manner? If not, than what does your ideology have to do with actual political practice?

I never said "boo" about Republicans so kindly retract your 'BS', mkay? And then go reread the posts that preceeded mine.

We're discussing the political left and right. In terms of political parties those lines are blurred and where the discussion here did not speak to party politics then neither did I.

[Ombrageux]

BS - "BS" is shorthand for your name and is no way directed at the quality of your posts. The first post discusses "Left" and "Right" in terms of really existing political entities. IE, "Left" (anti-capitalism) and "Right" (market fundamentalism) "decline" or "have hegemony" depending on whether governing groups and oppositions can be said to be part of either group. There is no use talking about it in the abstract, divorced from all reality as it practiced. That is, unless you are mainly interested in philosophy, not politics.

JJ - I would actually agree with you that, at least in theory if not always in practice, the 1960s "New Left's" values can actually be said to be hegemonic in Europe and Canada. This is not the case in the United States of America, where as you have noted, whether children should be informed by Intelligent Design, whether homosexual life destroys society, and whether abortion constitutes a Holocaust are still controversial issues. Nor is it the case in most of the rest of the world, where homosexuality, women's and minority rights are often far from respected.

Even in Europe, however, it is hardly as if drugs, gay marriage, women's equality, positive discrimination (and indeed race relations in general) can be considered to be "resolved" issued completely by the "New Left".

I must take issue with your use of the term in this way however. The "New Left" was exclusively associated with the Democratic Party in the United States of America, but not necessarily with Europe's (or the rest of the world's) left wing parties. Your definition of "Left" is therefore not very useful outside of post-Sixties North America. The traditional "Left" is a term useful for all those who imagined and aspired to a post-capitalist society from nineteenth century London to twenty first century Seattle.

I also take issue with the notion that somehow the "New Left's" concerns (while laudable) can be considered "opposed" to capitalism. There was nothing more positive to capitalism's development than allowing women to join the workforce and halt the irrational practice of keeping Black Americans in a permanent state of underdevelopment, marginalization and uneducation.

[BartSimpson]

Ombrageux wrote:

BS - "BS" is shorthand for your name and is no way directed at the quality of your posts.

So noted, thank you. Feel free to just call me 'Bart' in the future, okay?

Ombrageux wrote:

The first post discusses "Left" and "Right" in terms of really existing political entities. IE, "Left" (anti-capitalism) and "Right" (market fundamentalism) "decline" or "have hegemony" depending on whether governing groups and oppositions can be said to be part of either group. There is no use talking about it in the abstract, divorced from all reality as it practiced. That is, unless you are mainly interested in philosophy, not politics.

Then, again, I'd still be talking about 'left' and 'right' absent party lines because there are right-wing conservative Democrats and left-wing liberal Republicans and, in respect to the fact that this is a Canadian site and the forum is NOT the US Politics forum then my mentioning US political parties would be inappropriate.

Also, given that I find the Canadian Conservative Party to be about equal to the US Democrat Party in terms of left-right orientation I'd be obliged to mention Canada's center-left Conservatives and left-of-center Liberals and far-left NDP, which would have me come up short in the discussion of 'right and left'.

[bootlegga]

I don't think either one really has hegemony over the other, but rather that the pendulum ebbs and flows one way and then the other, in essence, balancing each other out.

The 80s, for example, was a great decade was a great time to be on the right, from Reagan, to Thatcher to Gordon Gecko (Greed is good!), the 80s were dominated by the right. The 90s saw it flip and the left came into its own, with Clinton, Blair and Chretien. Right now, I think the world is slowly shifting left from the right that dominated the world scene since 9/11.

Of course, depending on your POV, some countries are always to the left or right in that nation's viewpoint. Canada always seems to the left when compared to the USA no matter who's in office, but maybe not always when compared to the UK.

Ombrageux wrote:

BS - "BS" is shorthand for your name and is no way directed at the quality of your posts.

I thought he meant it the other way too Bart...

[BartSimpson]

Ombrageux wrote:

There was nothing more positive to capitalism's development than allowing women to join the workforce and halt the irrational practice of keeping Black Americans in a permanent state of underdevelopment, marginalization and uneducation.

I disagree with you on the advent of women joining the workforce.

I'm not against women's rights, mind you, but I'm also not going to gloss over the effects of women moving into the post-WW2 workforce.

It was one of the worst aspects of capitalism.

Women joined the workforce and, more or less, doubled the available labor supply for employers. The immediate net effect was that the effective cost of labor was lowered by half (supply and demand).

At the dawn of the 20th Century a working man's daily wages commonly had to be enough to support himself, his wife, and his children. When women joined the workforce the economy adjusted until, at the end of the 20th Century, it commonly took two incomes to accomplish what had previously been accomplished with one.

Granted, adding women to the workforce led to capitalis's greatest-ever orgy of growth and profits. The CEO's who pocket billions in bonuses every year do so on the backs of two-income families.

With women becoming financially independent (not necessarily a bad thing, mind you) another net effect has been the decline of the family. Women who have their own money are more able to leave a marriage if they want to. And a working mother necessarily equates to absentee parenting and latchkey children.

On the topic of "the irrational practice of keeping Black Americans in a permanent state of underdevelopment, marginalization and uneducation" it seems that the institutionalization of these practices is no longer the domain of the entrenched, white oligarchy, but of the popular black American culture.

It is a sad truth that forty-two years after the death of Martin Luther King, Jr. that the "man" keeping the black man down is, himself, black. Jim Crow was never a better oppressor of blacks than is the popular black culture of gun-toting rappers, drug-addled whores, and scheming charlatan clergymen.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Bart- that was so right on the mark it's scary. Another point was, with women allowed to join the workforce it gave them the freedom to not have to marry just to survive financially.
But I do agree wholeheartedly that inviting women into the mainstream workforce just provided another group of people for big business AND government to exploit.
The fact that women can be part of the mainstream workforce is a positive when you look at in in the context of equality. But it has become a negative these days because a woman pretty much HAS to join the workforce just so the family unit can survive financially, with the downside being lower birth rates, less parent involvement with more strangers imparting THEIR values on other people's children, and mis-placed values.
Ironically, it's no longer a freedom but a necessity, which dispells the illusion of freedom completely.