Bill O'Reily salutes The Beach Boys :)

[pixletwin]

Every forum needs a good political laxative once in a while. 

[Heysaboda]

Wasn't Bill O'Reily the bricklayer on Fawlty Towers?  "O'Reily" men... LOL

[Menace Wilson]

And furthermore, size of government has very little to do with left-right too. You'll find many factions on the right (the Republican party in the US, for instance) who are in favor of an extremely large government. On the other hand the further to the left you go, the smaller government gets, at least as it currently operates in industrialized countries. But theoretically, you could have small governments on both sides of the spectrum, although it's only on the left where you can literally have an organized system that is run with no political power.

I know I'm going to regret this...  ...but please elaborate.  If the primary difference between conservatives and liberals isn't small vrs. large government (at least on a theoretical level), than what do you see as the difference?  If your point is that in reality there is little difference when it comes to the dems and repub parties, sadly I agree.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I know I'm going to regret this...   ...but please elaborate.  If the primary difference between conservatives and liberals isn't small vrs. large government (at least on a theoretical level), than what do you see as the difference?  If your point is that in reality there is little difference when it comes to the dems and repub parties, sadly I agree.

Thanks for asking. I'm afraid this will probably be more long-windedness but maybe you can enjoy a nice snack during it!  

The first thing that I will say just to avoid confusion is that while the Democratic party essentially espouse several of the classic liberal positions with some crucial modifications, I don't believe (and I think I've said this before here elsewhere) that the Republican party represent conservative values (I'll return to why that is a bit later). Republicans, like Democrats, mostly follow a fairly neoliberal economic program. Where they differ most significantly is typically in terms of social issues which are not really political, as far as I'm concerned. The minor differences in the other policies do make favoring one party over the other an easy decision for me, though.

Another important thing to add is that I was talking about left and right on the political spectrum and not conservatives and liberals. Liberalism, historically, is right of center. What is commonly referred to as Conservatism is, to me, a bit to the left of that. But importantly both have a lot in common in terms of internal philosophy because they both basically come from the same place - or what I really mean is that both were dramatically shaped to their commonly held terms under similar circumstances, namely post-Enlightenment nations under monarchal rule. Consequently, both sides are particularly interested in classical Enlightenment notions of freedom and liberty. In the philosophical world, it seems to me that conservatives came down harder against power than the liberals did. So, for example, you have David Hume lamenting about how "the many are governed by the few" and how "men resign their own sentiments and passions to those of their rulers." As conservatism developed, then, it typically had issues with changes being brought about by the Industrial Revolution as the division of labor of early capitalism worked to nullify free will, determinacy, and liberty. Given this background it's fairly difficult to see the connection between the Republican party and traditional conservatism as I understand it.

Liberalism, which developed out of a very similar mindset said many of the same things. Therefore, someone like John Locke who came before the French revolution but during the Enlightenment, supported rigorously the concepts of life, health, and liberty in a society where all are equal and independent. Unlike someone like Hume though, Locke like other liberals, did not come down as hard on power - believed in things like property ownership, government separation of powers, etc. You can kind of see how liberalism developed from there.

So that's how I see some of the differences between liberals and conservatives and also how I account for their fairly close place on the political spectrum. They essentially were borne out of the same mindset under similar circumstances.

I'm not sure if that answers your question though because, again, I was talking about right and left rather than liberal and conservative. And like I said, it doesn't quite account for Republicans and Democrats since both essentially represent neoliberal values rather than traditional liberal or conservative ones. But I think it's important to understand these terms because when we conflate liberalism with the left and conservatism with the right (and on the same line, conflate the Democratic party with the left or liberalism and the Republican party with the right or conservatisim) we confuse things a lot and don't quite get to what the reality of the current situation really is. But nevertheless I think it's a confusion that works to reinforce the power system as it exists now, but that's a subject for another time (and place, perhaps...).

Hope that wasn't too dreary!

[Menace Wilson]

Nope, read the whole thing!

So how do you define left and right, then?

(not arguing, just chatting)

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Nope, read the whole thing!

So how do you define left and right, then?

(not arguing, just chatting)

Happy to chat - hope it doesn't bother other people!

Left and right are, to an extent, value judgements but I think it's fairly agreed upon amongst enough people with a background in this that we can talk about it in some sort of objective way. I think that by and large, politics is more or less economics - that one's place on the political spectrum is suggestive of one's economic philosophy. For the most part, the right represents capitalism, but it encompasses a wide variety of views, either in terms of laissez-faire free market capitalism, mixed economy, neoliberalism, state sanctioned capitalism, and so on. At the extreme end of the right spectrum, you get highly authoritarian, highly militarized , fascist states. Social democracy is sort of in the middle of the spectrum or just left of centre. The further to the left you go, you get socialism, communism, libertarianism, anarchism, and so on. And this is why I suggest that you can have big governments on either end of the spectrum - you can have the kind of militaristic, corporate welfare state on the right, and you can have the state controlled socialist state on the left, though, in my opinion, the latter is really a paradox of terminology since socialism, if it functions properly, should really dissolve the state of its power which is why ultimately I made the point earlier that it is really only on the left where you get the elimination of political power.

[LostArt]

Happy to chat - hope it doesn't bother other people!

It's certainly not bothering me.  I'm really enjoying your posts.   

[Menace Wilson]

To summarize what you said:

"extreme right" = highly authoritarian, highly militarized , fascist states

"the right" = capitalism, laissez-faire free market capitalism, mixed economy, neoliberalism, state sanctioned capitalism

"the middle" = Social democracy

"left" = socialism, communism, libertarianism, anarchism


Is this "left" in sequence?  Do you mean to put libertarianism to the left of communism, and do you consider anarchism furthest left?  Interestingly, most people I know who consider themselves libertarians would say that they lean to the right, not the left.



 

[Chocolate Shake Man]

v

To summarize what you said:

"extreme right" = highly authoritarian, highly militarized , fascist states

"the right" = capitalism, laissez-faire free market capitalism, mixed economy, neoliberalism, state sanctioned capitalism

"the middle" = Social democracy

"left" = socialism, communism, libertarianism, anarchism


Is this "left" in sequence?  Do you mean to put libertarianism to the left of communism, and do you consider anarchism furthest left?  Interestingly, most people I know who consider themselves libertarians would say that they lean to the right, not the left.



 

Again, I appreciate the questions. I would say your summary is about right. The only qualification that I might make is adding the corporate welfare state to the extreme right though it really falls under the term "highly authoritarian" because what ends up happening as a result of the corporate welfare state is essentially unchecked tyrannical power that is held by the slim minority. So what you get there are societies that are highly authoritarian and, essentially, dictatorial because they are ruled by corporate power, rather than government power. So I might add corporate welfare state but really, "highly authoritarian" does the trick - it just now becomes a complex term that means a variety of things.

I didn't necessarily think of a sequence for the left. The left, as I see it, is full of different visions for the way society could work and it's hard to say necessarily which one is "lefter" than the other. Socialism is workers controlling the means of production while communism includes that but also entails what is often called a dictatorship of the proleteriat, which really isn't so much of a dictatorship. In Marx's (and Engels') vision, they saw it necessary for there to still be a ruling class but one held by the proletariat rather than the bourgeois or the petty bourgeois. Now one could say that this is somewhat problematic (and, to be honest, I think it is too, on principle) but  it is necessary to remember that probably over 90% of the population was proletariat. So basically, it's a ruling class that encompasses over 90% of the population which is a far cry less tyrannical and hierarchical than what Marx saw as a ruling class that consisted of less than 10% of the population exploiting the rest of the population. Now which one is more left than the other is ultimately hard to say - they both have the same basic economic principle with some variation in terms of how a society could be run (though that is similar too).

The point you make about libertarianism is a common one and the reason why it's a common one is because the term was hijacked and bastardized when it was transplated from Europe where it had a long and vibrant history to the United States. The term itself  dates to the mid-19th century and comes from Joseph Déjacque who used the term to distinguish his form of anarcho-communism from Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, a fellow anarchist. The two philosophical positions were similar but Déjacque felt that his form of anarchism was different enough that it needed a new name. Anarchism itself is a kind of variation on socialism and communism without the dicatorship of the proletariat. Anarchist societies would be highly organized, including socialist workers councils in industry and direct, full participatory democracy in communities. Socities would be federated, decentralized, and worked by means of free associations. Now because of the nature of anarchist philosophy, there's really no one solution of achieving such a society - it's always been a relatively open field and up for discussion. But one particular area, as it were, of anarchism was, for a long time, libertarianism. That's the history of libertarian philosophy and that's what libertarianism was both at the philosophical level and the popular level. And that's basically how it is understood everywhere outside of the United States.

In the US, the term started being used in the 1950s but at that point in the US it was simply inconceivable to imagine possibilities of that kind of a society - the ideology had already been shaped radically by the business-led ruling class. So the term meant something else - namely to let the business class do whatever it needs to do without the interference of government. Well, that of course, is nothing like what actual libertarianism is but it picked up enough steam that libertarian candidates started running on this bastardized interpretation in the 70s and it's been sort of consistent like that ever since.

[guitarfool2002]

Everything said in the last two pages - noted and appreciated!

[guitarfool2002]

Surprised this has gone so many pages.  I have more pressing business than to get upset over Rock 'n' Roll Republicans liking the BB.  Bill O can dig 'em, and we'll argue about the rest.

Anyone remember Morton Downey Jr.?  Another NY-based right winger TV show host, came up around the same time as Limbaugh.  Downey was a big Beatles and John Lennon fan, and one night (actually maybe two nights) he tore apart Albert Goldman's trash-talk bio of Lennon.   Downey had done his homework and it was a good watch.  Too bad the ciggies got him.

I absolutely remember Mort Downey! I'd watch him on channel 9 WOR out of New York on our cable system. Some of his earlier shows were as compelling and as "new" as any political talk show I've seen since, but I think he fell victim to the fame and success and became a caricature of himself rather than putting it out there in a more direct way. As soon as he inspired a home board game based on his show, it had to signal the end was probably near. You can't take a raw, powerful show and compress it into a home edition without losing focus somewhere. I used to enjoy his show, and while Mort could be annoying and could take things too far, he did do his homework and he did bring up issues which weren't talked about outside either the Sunday morning shows or the Bill Buckley-influenced classical music theme and brown sportcoat crowd. He got people interested in politics.

And this is *still* a topic of debate, maybe someone else can add to it, but Morton Downey Jr. was not only a singer (questionable results...) but he said for years he was involved in some classic early California surf recordings, including Pipeline...whether it was done in his garage as he claimed or whether he was involved in other ways, that's for the historians to debate. But it was always a claim he made.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I remember Morton Downey too but I was a child and he seemed feral and frightened me! 

[guitarfool2002]

I remember Morton Downey too but I was a child and he seemed feral and frightened me! 

 

He would get out of control at times, for sure! And he chain-smoked like a chimney and had said his coffee mug was kept filled with vodka to keep him going. One of the first shows I remember watching was an episode where his security had to physically remove a guest, and as he was being carried off this guy said things like "I'm not leaving Mort, I'm not going to go!!!" and he kicked a ladder and other things as they carried him backstage with legs kicking. Was it scripted or real? I don't know, but that made me keep watching. And another episode had Roy Ennis knocking Al Sharpton off his chair after a discussion heated up to the boiling point. Again, real or staged? In between those things it could be an informative show.

Of all the things I look for on YouTube, I have never looked for old episodes of that show. Maybe those episodes I remember are posted somewhere.

[Menace Wilson]

I remember Morton Downey too but I was a child and he seemed feral and frightened me! 

His teeth were terrifying!

[guitarfool2002]

Way off topic...YouTube is amazing. The Al Sharpton/Roy Ennis Mort Downey Jr. fight: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcOgOWLCWxw

Back on topic! It's just that I hadn't seen that clip in over 20 years and one quick search on YouTube, there it was.

[Heysaboda]

Anyone remember Morton Downey Jr.?  Another NY-based right winger TV show host, came up around the same time as Limbaugh.  Downey was a big Beatles and John Lennon fan, and one night (actually maybe two nights) he tore apart Albert Goldman's trash-talk bio of Lennon.   Downey had done his homework and it was a good watch.  Too bad the ciggies got him.

I well remember Morton, but do you also remeber Joe Pyne?  He was a major "influence" (ha!) on Morton, and the others.

Very interesting guy, Joe was!

[Awesoman]

Thanks for asking. I'm afraid this will probably be more long-windedness but maybe you can enjoy a nice snack during it!  

Ha!  Nuthin' personal with the "long-winded" comment.  I just think when you're trying to make an effective point, sometimes less is more. I do appreciate your well-thought out responses, even if I don't entirely agree with some of them.  To each his own!

[hypehat]

What he said - rockandroll, guitarfool, and The Real Beach Boy (to name but a few) always bring good stuff to the political discussions on the board because they know what's up and can back their opinions up. It's good to read well-thought and considered opinions, even if you don't agree, because it's so much better than knee-jerk asshole posting which is what these threads can turn into.

So, er, keep it up you guys!