Left/Right

In the social sciences, as well as in common parlance, the terms left or left-wing and right or right-wing (and their supposed corollary the center) are a shorthand and consequently imprecise, but nevertheless useful, way of defining a position on a horizontal spectrum of political ideology (and by implication economic ideology) in the matter of how a society should be structured in terms of both procedural and authentic democracy. In other words, your view of who should have political and economic power—that is, the power to determine, ultimately, a person’s quality of life (economically, politically, and socially—authentic democracy) and how that should be effected in practice (procedural democracy)—in a society such as this one, which we may define as a capitalist democracy, will determine where you fall on this political spectrum. For example, if you are a right-wing person then your view of power in this society will be that only a minority should have power, specifically, the capitalist class and not the working classes (includes the so-called “middle class”). If you bring into the picture such other ancillary determinants of power, besides class, as race then as a right-wing person, your ideological position will be to support a racially-colored capitalist order (the supremacy of whiteness). Similarly, your view of power from the perspective of gender will mean that as a right-wing person you would support a patriarchal capitalist order.

Ordinarily, one would assume that your ideological position as to whether you are right-wing or left-wing should be a function of what your objective position is in this society: whether you are, for example, a member of the bourgeoisie or a member of the working classes, or whether you are white or black, or whether you are male or female. However, in practice, because of subjective factors, most especially a lack of political consciousness, which itself is an outcome of a variety of other subjective factors (such as family influences, age, religion, peers, level of education, and so on), this is not always the case. So, for instance, it is quite common to see working-class whites—who, incidentally, very often, erroneously believe that because of their skin color they are members of the middle class—adhere to a right-wing ideology in this country (“soda-partyers” are a good example[1]), even though, such an ideological position is not in their objective interest—meaning it does not serve their true interests in terms of both procedural and authentic democracy. Historically, the identification of this fundamental divide on how you view power first arose (in the West) and the accompanying terms left/right in the early phase of the French Revolution (which, folks, if you recall entailed a violent blood-drenched overthrow of the monarchy), specifically in the legislative body, the Assemblé of 1791, where the terms initially referred to spatial positions in the matter of sitting arrangements (and thereby reflecting by proxy ideological positions of a sort, albeit still within the spectrum of radicalism): those who were more sympathetic to the monarchic dictatorship (that is the old order) sat on the right while those less sympathetic to it—hence by implication of a more radical ideological bent—sat on the left.[2]

In terms of democracy and human rights as we understand them today, the right believes that only some in society—hierarchically demarcated on the basis of any one or more of such social structural dimensions as class, race, gender, ethnicity, religion, and so on—are entitled to them, whereas the left believes the complete opposite (that is, all human beings must have access to them) In a nutshell, the right does not believe in the equality of all human beings whatever their origins, whereas the left insists on it before all else. It is important to note, however, that from the perspective of political means there is a convergence at the furthest edges of the political extreme (ultra-right-wing and ultra-left-wing) toward totalitarianism (Nazism and Stalinism are a case in point). Yet, in pointing this out it should not detract us from recognizing that at the level of fundamental goals there is a stark contrast even between these two extremes. So, regardless of how flawed the means (the so-called “dictatorship of the proletariat”) to a civilizationally worthy end (“from each according to her/his ability to each according to her/his needs”) may be as proposed by the radical left, we should not lose sight of the essential difference between the left and the right, considered generically—that is, regardless of the factional variations within each­—in what constitutes the very essence of humanity, and civilization. Hence, whereas the latter believes that the pursuit of self-aggrandizement through untrammeled systemic greed (capitalist accumulation) is not only the epitome of civilizational achievement but constitutes a response to a genetic trait fundamental to the human species—even though completely unsupported by scientific evidence, or even religion for that matter to which the rank and file of the right is often in thrall,[3] the former, on the other hand, with science (e.g. “mirror neurons” research appears to be highly suggestive here[4])—and, ironically, even religious scriptures—providing support, argues that because human beings are social beings from birth to death, altruism is not only an essential part of the genetic makeup of the human species that guarantees its survival but it constitutes the very essence of civilization itself and the means to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all.[5] (See also Agency; Bourgeois Left; Conservatism; Meritocracy; Political Consciousness.)

[1]. I am using the term “soda-partyers” derisively to refer to the so-called “Tea Party,” a populist right-wing Euro-American working-class movement financed by big business (such as the Koch Brothers) whose members are more likely to drink soda than tea (given their diet) and who not only lack a proper comprehension of the U.S. constitution—assuming they have ever looked at it—but lack a proper understanding of the significance of the historical event they have named themselves after, the so-called “Boston Tea Party.” That event (incidentally, named after the fact by historians), was primarily an outcome of an intra-class (not inter-class) struggle between domestic capital and foreign capital (and it had little to do with democracy per se as we understand it today). On the last point, see endnote no. 2 on p. 21 of my book United States Relations with South Africa: A Critical Overview from theColonial Period to the Present (New York, NY: Peter Lang, 2008). For more on the right-wing activities of the Koch brothers follow these two links: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12334757 and http://www.elegantbrain.com/edu4/classes/readings/depository/misc/koch_brothers.pdf

[2]. Those of you who may be familiar with terms such as liberal, progressive, conservative, fascist, reactionary, red, populist, socialist, communist, and so on, will find it easier to understand what left and right signify. Liberals, progressives, Greens, Reds, feminists, socialists, populists, revolutionaries, Marxists, and communists fall on the left of the spectrum, while chauvinists, conservatives, neoconservatives, Nazis, racists, jingoists, reactionaries, sexists, the so-called "alt-right," and fascists fall on the right. Here is another way to look at this matter: at one time, the right was opposed to the War of Independence, or the abolition of slavery, or the civil rights movement, or the women’s movement, or the trade union movement, and so on. It is important to emphasize, however, that left/right are not absolute water-tight ideological categories; rather they signify a preponderance of ideological proclivities. So, here is a question for you: Ideologically-speaking what are you? A progressive? Why? Or a reactionary? Why? Always be very careful of taking up positions on social and political issues that are supported by the corporate media. Learn to march to the beat of your own drummer—that is what critical thinking is about.

[3]. It is most ironic indeed that in United States (and in much of the rest of the West) where Christianity is the dominant religion, ardent Christians tend to be on the right. Yet, the life history of Christ clearly shows that he was a revolutionary who spoke truth to power. In other words, ideologically he stood on the left because he stood on the side of the oppressed, the poor, the downtrodden. He was not a conservative! Consider these two well-known quotes from the Bible:

“For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.” Then the righteous will answer him, “Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?” And the king will answer them, “Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.” ( Matthew 25:35-40)

Woe to you who make iniquitous decrees, who write oppressive statutes, to turn aside the needy from justice and to rob the poor of my people of their right, that widows may be your spoil, and that you may make the orphans your prey! (Isaiah 10:1-2)

(Note: the difference between the left and the radical left in capitalist societies is that the latter, unlike the former, considers the overthrow of capitalism as a legitimate part of the authentic democratic agenda.)

[4]. What are mirror neurons? Follow these links to find out:

http://www.elegantbrain.com/edu4/classes/readings/depository/misc/mir_neur.pdf

http://www.elegantbrain.com/edu4/classes/readings/depository/misc/mirror_neurons.pdf

[5]. An alternative approach to comprehending the difference between the left and the right is to not only recognize that, in objective terms, capital—which represents the interests of a minority—belongs on the right and labor (which represents the rest of us) is on the left, but to analyze every major struggle to advance procedural and authentic democracy in this country from the perspective of a left versus right standpoint. So, for example, these have all been part of the political agenda of the left, from the perspective of the history of this country (listed in no particular order):

· the enactment of the Bill of Rights;

· the abolition of slavery;

· the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment;

· universal suffrage;

· free universal access to schooling;

· access to publicly-funded higher education (such as this school);

· the right to form trade unions (to protect members from super-exploitation);

· protection of civil rights;

· the eight-hour work day;

· minimum wages;

· safe working conditions;

· labor laws to protect children from exploitation;

· social security;

· access to universal health care;

· unemployment insurance;

· regulations to protect consumers from unsafe medical and other consumer products;

· progressive taxation;

· free universal access to public libraries;

· free universal access to public parks;

· regulations to safeguard the environment (access to clean air and clean water);

· regulations to secure the safety of the food supply;

· regulations to secure safe air travel; and so on.

How about making your own list; and then figuring out where you belong: on the left or the right of the ideological spectrum?