How do you Define Left and Right?

[Marnetmar]

A lot of people seem to have different definitions of "left" and "right", even though the "wikipedia" definition, which I use, seems to be that the left emphasizes egalitarianism and the right doesn't.

Here in Utah, which is extremely conservative, most people I talk to measure it as the left supporting bigger government and the right supporting smaller government, effectively making anarchism extremely right-wing, yet these are the same people who support banning birth control and condom sales.

Others measure it by the economic scale, where the left supports more regulation of the economy and the right supports deregulation. With all of the different definitions out there, I thought it would be interesting to start a discussion on it.

[justfollowingtheelections]

To answer your question:

In France, where the terms originated, the Left is called "the party of movement" and the Right "the party of order."

[Marnetmar]

To answer your question:

In France, where the terms originated, the Left is called "the party of movement" and the Right "the party of order."

Are you saying that this is what you define it as or what the terms meant originally? I know what they meant originally of course, but people today seem to have a lot of different definitions, so I'm curious to hear what they are.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The fundamental distinction is between those who seek to encourage and stimulate progress (the left) and those who seek to slow it down or reverse it (the right). I know the notion of progress is not very popular among the left-wing crowd in this forum, but I don't see what other notion you could base the left/right divide on. All the others that have been proposed (equality/hierarchy, liberty/solidarity, individual/collective, etc...) aren't universal but related to a specific political-social context.

[justfollowingtheelections]

To answer your question:

In France, where the terms originated, the Left is called "the party of movement" and the Right "the party of order."

Are you saying that this is what you define it as or what the terms meant originally? I know what they meant originally of course, but people today seem to have a lot of different definitions, so I'm curious to hear what they are.

I have defined the terms in different ways in the past, but I think the above definitions are the most accurate.
The left has always believed that things are changing and as a society we need to adopt to these changes.  The right on the other hand believes things are fine the way they are.
Think of the '60s.  On one hand you had the counterculture movements, on the other hand you had Nixon who wanted to re-install law and order.

Politics are a constant struggle between the powers of progress and the powers of order.  In the end progress almost always wins but in some cases the society may not be ready for change, which stalls progress.  The reason Obama won the support of progressives was because his slogan was change.
As long as the number of progressives is smaller than the number of conservatives, the society is not ready for change.  Once the number of progressives is greater than that of conservatives on a certain issue, then it's time for change.

[TNF]

They're worldviews. Those on the left believe in changing society to create a more just social order while those on the right believe in preserving society as it is, and are skeptical of change in general.

[courts]

A lot of people seem to have different definitions of "left" and "right", even though the "wikipedia" definition, which I use, seems to be that the left emphasizes egalitarianism and the right doesn't.

on the right track there but its a little deeper than that. it's pretty much nature vs nurture. everything the left approaches is pretty much from the perspective that very little if anything is innate. we are all blank slates. everything is a 'social construct' to be relentlessly and rapidly improved upon. 'people are the same everywhere you go.' of course the right (the actual right) has always been the polar opposite of this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

no.

[Marnetmar]

Heh, I think they're ridiculous definitions myself, but trying to explain that it's not quite that simple usually ends up with me being called a communist.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

The fundamental distinction is between those who seek to encourage and stimulate progress (the left) and those who seek to slow it down or reverse it (the right). I know the notion of progress is not very popular among the left-wing crowd in this forum, but I don't see what other notion you could base the left/right divide on. All the others that have been proposed (equality/hierarchy, liberty/solidarity, individual/collective, etc...) aren't universal but related to a specific political-social context.

On the whole, this though there are certain situations where a "liberal" might be put in a reactionary position and vice-versa depending on how you look at it. (I would cite the 1896 election as an example where at the same time the "left" sought to "progress" away from the stratified capitalism, and at the same time "regress" back to a much more agrarian economy. Meanwhile the "right" sought to "conserve" the stratified capitalism and at the same time defend the "progress" of industrialization against reactionary agrarianism.)

[Antonio the Sixth]

The fundamental distinction is between those who seek to encourage and stimulate progress (the left) and those who seek to slow it down or reverse it (the right). I know the notion of progress is not very popular among the left-wing crowd in this forum, but I don't see what other notion you could base the left/right divide on. All the others that have been proposed (equality/hierarchy, liberty/solidarity, individual/collective, etc...) aren't universal but related to a specific political-social context.

On the whole, this though there are certain situations where a "liberal" might be put in a reactionary position and vice-versa depending on how you look at it. (I would cite the 1896 election as an example where at the same time the "left" sought to "progress" away from the stratified capitalism, and at the same time "regress" back to a much more agrarian economy)

True. Of course, defining what progress is is a very hard political task in and of itself.

[LastVoter]

They're worldviews. Those on the left believe in changing society to create a more just social order while those on the right believe in preserving society as it is, and are skeptical of change in general.

The correct answer, since we are talking about modern politics.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

A lot of people seem to have different definitions of "left" and "right", even though the "wikipedia" definition, which I use, seems to be that the left emphasizes egalitarianism and the right doesn't.

on the right track there but its a little deeper than that. it's pretty much nature vs nurture. everything the left approaches is pretty much from the perspective that very little if anything is innate. we are all blank slates. everything is a 'social construct' to be relentlessly and rapidly improved upon. 'people are the same everywhere you go.' of course the right (the actual right) has always been the polar opposite of this.

Alternatively, someone on the right may consider that the nurture provided by a culture and its institutions holds a deep depository of wisdom that should not be cast aside in favor of some untested dreamed-up order. 

[All Along The Watchtower]

Stratified social hierarchy at one extreme, complete social equality at the other, in general.

Of course, it's never quite that simple in the real world, and "Left" and "Right" are usually relative to specific political contexts.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Those on the left support radical or revolutionary change to society and social order, whereas those on the right support gradual change within the current system, if any change.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The left is sinister.

[Antonio the Sixth]

     Those on the left support radical or revolutionary change to society and social order, whereas those on the right support gradual change within the current system, if any change.

That's wrong in so many ways.

[Marnetmar]

Throughout the world, Adolf Hitler, Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, etc. are all classified as extreme-right, even though there are a lot of differences between the them. Perhaps a valid definition that applies to all political situations throughout the world can be created by finding what all of the people classified as "right wing" (or left) throughout the world have in common?

[freefair]

If you ask me, Libertarianism and Thatcherism are pretty radical and pro-change and progress. Hell, if you ask me, the Religious Right's desire abolish the separation of church and state, that's a radical proposition that requires a political sea change. All right wing though.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Those on the left support radical or revolutionary change to society and social order, whereas those on the right support gradual change within the current system, if any change.

That's wrong in so many ways.

     It doesn't make sense for certain elements of the Far-right, such as the Nazis, though I would tend to view that as an academic issue anyway. When we're talking about bad people, who cares what brand of bad they are?

[Antonio the Sixth]

     Those on the left support radical or revolutionary change to society and social order, whereas those on the right support gradual change within the current system, if any change.

That's wrong in so many ways.

     It doesn't make sense for certain elements of the Far-right, such as the Nazis, though I would tend to view that as an academic issue anyway. When we're talking about bad people, who cares what brand of bad they are?

The modern left in Western countries generally supports the opposite of "radical or revolutionary changes".

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

At this point, with regard to American politics at least, it is really in the eye of the beholder.  Many people in the U.S. define left and right relative to their own personal political views (i.e. they "rig" the ideological spectrum so that they are center-left, centrist, or center-right).  There is also always a danger of over-simplification (ex: the left is pro-big government on economic issues and pro-small government on social issues).  Then there is the tendency to exaggerate the extremes of opposing ideologies to make them sound more extreme than their mainstream actually is or describe them in an overly provocative manner.  Plus, you could ask 10 people to define one of these terms and get 12 answers.  Long story short, I have more or less given up on defining these terms because they've reached the point that they are more buzz words than anything else and mean very different things to different people.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I think it's unfair to argue that only the left is interested in progress. The right wants a better world too, it just disagrees on A) what constitutes progress, and B) how to achieve progress. To the right, economic freedom is the best arbitor of change, whereas the left tends to believe that positive change can be instituted.

I also tend to characterize it as the right being interested in equal opportunity and the left being interested in equal results, but I know it's easy to poke holes in that.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I think it's unfair to argue that only the left is interested in progress. The right wants a better world too, it just disagrees on A) what constitutes progress, and B) how to achieve progress. To the right, economic freedom is the best arbitor of change, whereas the left tends to believe that positive change can be instituted.

A truly right-wing perspective would be to deny the very possibility of progress and argue that society is better off perpetuating itself in its traditional, "natural" form. Of course, ideological lines are so blurred today that things work out a bit differently, but the importance of tradition is still a key part of right-wing thought in most countries.

[Gustaf]

I think it's unfair to argue that only the left is interested in progress. The right wants a better world too, it just disagrees on A) what constitutes progress, and B) how to achieve progress. To the right, economic freedom is the best arbitor of change, whereas the left tends to believe that positive change can be instituted.

A truly right-wing perspective would be to deny the very possibility of progress and argue that society is better off perpetuating itself in its traditional, "natural" form. Of course, ideological lines are so blurred today that things work out a bit differently, but the importance of tradition is still a key part of right-wing thought in most countries.

I've rarely met a right-winger who agrees with this definition of the right. I'd say that in Sweden the left stands for tradition and a nostalgic harkening back to the 70s, while the right wants to change and modernize things a lot.

I'm surprised no one has yet proposed the obvious left-wing answer - the left is whatever movement is aligned with the poorest in society while the right is whatever movement is aligned with the richest.

[DC Al Fine]

If we are going one dimensional and using American politics, far right is the top right corner and far left is the bottom left corner.