So Yahoo is right wing

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/editorial/f..._ukienews.html

[Dante Hicks]

I don't like Tony Blair. I must be right wing.

[MrPeach]

Tony Blair is right wing. Does that mean he doesn't like himself?

[Chrism]

Alternatively they could all be people from the left who think Blair's gone too far towards the right...

[Proteus]

Compulsory ID cards, massive reductions in civil rights, imprisonment without trial and the privatisation of nationalised industries have always been central tenets of Left Wing policy.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Proteus

Compulsory ID cards, massive reductions in civil rights, imprisonment without trial and the privatisation of nationalised industries have always been central tenets of Left Wing policy.

Indeed, although I disagree on the privitazation one. However I think its a gross oversimplification of the political spectrum to claim that someone who opposes them is 'right wing'. Dante probably considers himself left-wing and I doubt he supports these particular policies.


not that the terms left/right wing have any real meaning anyway.

[acropolis]

i wonder if this poll was put up in the SA forums or where:/

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Indeed

I'm pretty sure he's being sarcastic.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I'm pretty sure he's being sarcastic.

The statement seemed pretty accurate to me. The societies in the 20th century which I think would have been most likely to implement policies like "Compulsory ID cards, massive reductions in civil rights, and imprisonment without trial" are all ultra left wing (in as much as the term has meaning); soviet russia, cuba, nazi germany, north korea etc etc. Its a pointless arguement until someone actually defines 'left' and 'right' wing' though.

[Churchil5]

perhaps not so much (being sarcastic) I dont know whether to vote blair or not. i dont like the fact that everytime a new government comes in, for the first three years at least start by undoing whatever the last government did, making no real progress. Then when someone else comes to power- they spend the first three years or so undoing what the last one did and start to implement the stuff they had in the first place.

For this reason i dont like change. but then, I'm not going to be found on a website showing support for the guy blair either.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Churchil5

perhaps not so much (being sarcastic) I dont know whether to vote blair or not. i dont like the fact that everytime a new government comes in, for the first three years at least start by undoing whatever the last government did, making no real progress. Then when someone else comes to power- they spend the first three years or so undoing what the last one did and start to implement the stuff they had in the first place.

Its pretty good in the sense that it means nothing ever really gets done (or at least gets done quite slowly), which I think is a very positve thing given that 99% of proposed new ideas are terrible, and almost everything the government has actually done in the last 20 years has made things worse.

[Churchil5]

/me conceeds

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Its pretty good in the sense that it means nothing ever really gets done (or at least gets done quite slowly), which I think is a very positve thing given that 99% of proposed new ideas are terrible, and almost everything the government has actually done in the last 20 years has made things worse.

would you really contend that the people of the UK are worse off than 20 years ago?

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Yes, but depends.

Clearly technology has move forward but that is hardly down to whether the Government was righty or lefty is it?

What would you suggest have been the major improvments in the last 20 years, aside from worse education, health , transport, greater social division, massive rise in Crime and social instability, the world becoming a generally worse place to live?

four of those are largely due to immigration, and for the immigrants quality of life is light years better than it was before.

the world is not a worse place to live.

video games were just not that great before 1984.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

The societies in the 20th century which I think would have been most likely to implement policies like "Compulsory ID cards, massive reductions in civil rights, and imprisonment without trial" are all ultra left wing

As you say, you need to define the term left-wing in a realistic sense before you proceed, but as T&F has already mention most (in a simple numeric sense) countries which have implemented the above policies have been traditionally termed "right wing".

However, I'm not sure what international concerns have to do with the question. In British politics, the policies you mention are generally advocated by the right, or supported by right wing parties, etc. I know you work to a different definition of right/left to the conventional so I'm not sure this really means much to you tho.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by JTheGayC

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/editorial/f..._ukienews.html

"Of the 8,088 who voted in the poll"

What exactly is the point of this thread?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

"Of the 8,088 who voted in the poll"

What exactly is the point of this thread?

That Yahoo are the enemies of the revolution by daring to publicise articles which make our beloved leader look unpopular.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

That Yahoo are the enemies of the revolution by daring to publicise articles which make our beloved leader look unpopular.

Shooting their families is too good for them.

Under 6,000 people thinking Blair should go as the result of a totally unscientific online poll is not a news story, and is about as worthy of it's own thread as my armpit is.

I'm not really sure it actually makes Blair look unpopular (although he undoubtedley is atm.) except to very stupid people.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I know you work to a different definition of right/left to the conventional so I'm not sure this really means much to you tho.

Why bother trying with someone who can clearly not contribute anything to any debate on ideology?

Nodrog's argument is essentially just a slightly more sophisticated, polar-opposite version of 'youre all ****ing fasciscts!!!!!'

In my mind, Liberalism is neither left-wing nor right-wing; Nod's mistake is in believing it to be the latter. Conservatism presumably doesn't exist in Nod's mind, or is at least a left-wing ideology.

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Which 4?

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

worse education, health , greater social division, massive rise in Crime and social instability

i guess it's five but social instability and social division look the same to my untrained eye

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by acropolis

i guess it's five but social instability and social division look the same to my untrained eye

I'd say those two were a lot better in many respects from twenty years ago, but it would depend on what was meant by 'social division.'

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

In my mind, Liberalism is neither left-wing nor right-wing; Nod's mistake is in believing it to be the latter. Conservatism presumably doesn't exist in Nod's mind, or is at least a left-wing ideology.

The meaning of the 'conservatve' ideology is largely culture. In America the term would probably be refer to a set of fairly right-wing beliefs, but in the UK I'd put it somewhere left of centre. The american Democrats are probably more rightwing than the UK conservative party for example (no party which supports socialised healthcare and the welfare state could ever claim to be right wing).

(not that right/left wing has any real meaning)

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

The meaning of \vonservatism' is culture. In America the term would probably be fairly rightwing, but in the UK I'd put it somewhere left of centre. The american Democrats are probably more rightwing than the UK conservative party for example (not that right/left wing has any real meaning)

You're talking about Conservatism with a little c, Nod.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

You're talking about Conservatism with a little c, Nod.

Ok I dont understand what youre saying, or what the term means then. If you mean 'resistance to change' then its not intrinsically on any side the political section (can we use the word awing?)

I edited my last post to make more sense.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Ok I dont understand what youre saying, or what the term means then. If you mean 'resistance to change' then its not intrinsically on any side the political section (can we use the word awing?)

I thought you were saying that Conservatism is a relativistic concept with no actual indepedant ideological status.

btw, I find the idea that just because a party politically supports an idea, this neccesitates that it actually fully agrees with and supports it on an ideological level rather humourous. I mean, parties have to work based on practical political circumstances, Nod. Sophisticated analysis and all that.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

I thought you were saying that Conservatism is a relativistic concept with no actual indepedant ideological status.

It is a relativistic concept. The political ideology of a 'Conservative' encapsultes something fundamentally different in the US than it does in the UK.

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

btw, I find the idea that just because a party politically supports an idea, this neccesitates that it actually fully agrees with and supports it on an ideological level rather humourous. I mean, parties have to work based on practical political circumstances, Nod. Sophisticated analysis and all that.

I define parties by their (proposed and actual) actions; what they 'actually' believe seems a matter of irrelevant metaphysics.

[queball]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

The meaning of the 'conservatve' ideology is largely culture. In America the term would probably be refer to a set of fairly right-wing beliefs, but in the UK I'd put it somewhere left of centre. The american Democrats are probably more rightwing than the UK conservative party for example (no party which supports socialised healthcare and the welfare state could ever claim to be right wing).

(not that right/left wing has any real meaning)

In what sense do either party support the welfare state? Apart from being in government and not abolishing it. Did Thatcher support the EU? etc

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

It is a relativistic concept.

No it isn't. It is an ideology just as much as Socialism, etc is, with fundamental tennets, etc.

Here might be a good place to start. (Although don't take eveything in there as gospel by any means.)

Originally Posted by Nodrog

The word 'Conservative' means something fundamentally different in the US than it does in the UK.

No it doesn't. Not that much, anyway.

Even if it did, it still wouldn't mean that Conservatism doesn't have a definite ieological structure.

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Parties are defined solely by their actions, what they 'actually' believe is a matter of irrelevant metaphysics.

You determine a party's ideology by their actions, not their ideological belief?

What?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

You determine a party's ideology by their actions, not their ideological belief?

I think the point is that if I'm an anti-racist by philosophical leaning but spend my days beating up gypsies and spitting on Chinamen, it's reasonable to call me a racist.

Obviously there is context to all actions which one needs to asses.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I think the point is that if I'm an anti-racist by philosophical leaning but spend my days beating up gypsies and spitting on Chinamen, it's reasonable to call me a racist.

Oh, come on, that's a ridiculously extreme example. Of course there is a point where ideology and actions come into total contradiction.

But to say that The Tories aren't Conservatives because they don't intend to dismantle The NHS tommorow is roundly absurd. Such a position can obviously be defended both/either on ideological grounds, (I.E, a 'limited', more privately influenced NHS is better - a perfectly Conservative position.) and/or simple political pragmatism on their part.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by queball

In what sense do either party support the welfare state? Apart from being in government and not abolishing it.

Is this a joke or are you serious?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

But to say that The Tories aren't Conservatives because they don't intend to dismantle The NHS tommorow is roundly absurd. Such a position can obviously be defeneded both/either on ideological grounds, and/or simple political pragmatism on their part.

While I don't like to agree with Nod on issue of definition, I'd tend to say that Conservatism is a useless term ideologically speaking.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

Here might be a good place to start. (Although don't take eveything in there as gospel by any means.)

An ideology defined purely in terms of its relation to the status quo is fundamentally relativistic due to the status quo being different in all cultures. There are no fundamental tenets of Conservatism relating to actions or abstract belief structures - everything about it as a political ideology by definition varies depending on the society it exists in. Neophobia is an attitude, not a political position.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I'd tend to say that Conservatism is a useless term ideologically speaking.

If we're speaking of it's inherent descriptive usefulness, then it's much better than many others, such as 'Socilaist'. (How would you define people like The Tories, etc, btw.)

Or are we doubting that Conservatism actually exists again?

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

You determine a party's ideology by their actions, not their ideological belief?

What?

How else are you going to determine it? Telepathy? All you can know about a person comes from observation of their actions - this remains unchanged when scaled up to describe a group or political party. Postulating some kind of abstract belief system that can be known independent of its adherents actions is metaphysics and has no place in a pragmatic and practical down-to-earth political discussion.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

Or are we doubting that Conservatism actually exists again?

Well, increasingly the term socialist has become devalued in descriptive value. But if I say "He's a socialist" then you'll have a vague idea of what I'm talking about.

With "conservative" I really would have no idea. Socially conservative? For the welfare state (one-nation conservative)? Against (Thatcherite)?

[queball]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

How else are you going to determine it? Telepathy? All you can know about a person comes from observation of their actions - this remains unchanged when scaled up to describe a group or political party. Postulating some kind of abstract belief system that can be known independent of its adherents actions is metaphysics and has no place in a pragmatic and practical down-to-earth political discussion.

This is silly. There's some sort of limited trust involved. Anyone who isn't autistic can get an idea about someone's beliefs and values. Behaviorism is dead y'know.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by queball

This is silly. There's some sort of limited trust involved. Anyone who isn't autistic can get an idea about someone's beliefs and values. Behaviorism is dead y'know.

The BNP arent racist because it says on their website "We are not racist" under the "What do we believe?" section.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

An ideology defined purely in terms of its reference to the status quo is

It isn't defined purely in terms of the status quo. It is influenced by national circumstances (Any ideology formed in part around concepts like tradition has to be, by default.), but that could reasonably apply to most ideologies.

Did you actually read the article? The bits about fundamental principles regarding the family, tradition, social preservation, individual responsiblity etc? (You could also have added patriotism, liberty, freedom, deference, but not subservience to authority, belief in institutions fostering good society, etc.)

These are all fundamental Conservative principles, and are not relativistic - they are shared by Conservatives the world over.

Neophobia isn't conservatism, btw. Most Conservatives believe in steady reform, where desirable -another thing that distinguishes them from Libertarians, incidentally - not hating any innovation, which would be more associated with extreme Conservatism.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

How else are you going to determine it? Telepathy?

You're creating a fundamental problem where none exists.

Firstly, anaylsing their core ideological base would be a place to start. Conservatism for The Tories, for example, which stresses that state provision of services is generally undesirable, and should be limited or abolished where possible - the Conservatives work within this general principle, but occasionally need to make pragmatic concessions.

If you accept that parties don't exist in a political vaccum, and are not solely influenced by ideological purity, but also the need to stay politically relevant and win votes, (Which I can't think anyone would reasonably contest.) then judging their fundamental motivating ideologies sloely on their current political positions is retarded.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

IDid you actually read the article? The bits about fundamental principles regarding the family, tradition, social preservation, individual responsiblity etc? (You could also have added patriotism, liberty, freedom, deference, but not subservience to authority, belief in institutions fostering good society, etc.)

These are all fundamental Conservative principles, and are not relativistic - they are shared by Conservatives the world over.

These properties of Conservatism are accidental; if "tradition" did not consist of them then Conservatives would not favour them, by definition of the term.. Most conservatives the world over have similar principles because most cultures have similar traditions. They still arent inherant to the ideology though - someone in China could call themselves a Conservative if they favoured Chinese tradition, which is probably vastly different from Western tradition. However, someone in China calling themselves a Socialist would probably still have to believe in similar sorts of things to a Western socialist.

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

Neophobia isn't conservatism, btw.

Course it is. Any belief system based around tradition for the sake of tradition involves neophobia. On a more experiential note, it will generally be people who call themselves Conservatives that oppose anything new/interesting.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

Did you actually read the article? The bits about fundamental principles regarding the family, tradition, social preservation, individual responsiblity etc? (You could also have added patriotism, liberty, freedom, deference, but not subservience to authority, belief in institutions fostering good society, etc.)

These are so bland to make them practically worthless.

Based purely on those principles, pretty much everyone I've ever met is a conservative. Conservatives might place more emphasis on the family (or patriotism whatever that is) than I would, but I'd agree with the vast majority of the above principles (apart from arguably deference).

[queball]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Is this a joke or are you serious?

Serious I'm afraid.

Originally Posted by Nodrog

An ideology defined purely in terms of its relation to the status quo is fundamentally relativistic due to the status quo being different in all cultures. There are no fundamental tenets of Conservatism relating to actions or abstract belief structures - everything about it as a political ideology by definition varies depending on the society it exists in. Neophobia is an attitude, not a political position.

Everything is relative in some sense. MM-style real politics works in paradigms like "post-Thatcherite consensus" rather than metaphysics.
And yeah, "neophobia", or giving due respect to tradition, seems more a matter of attitude and reason than politics. Except that attitude is a part of politics. That's what all this is about in a way. If you look at it through idealism and autistic ideology, there are conflicting beliefs and agendas. If you look at it a bit more humanisticly, it's about different views towards the same situation.

Originally Posted by Nodrog

The BNP arent racist because it says on their website "We are not racist" under the "What do we believe?" section.

But presumably you'd say racism is purely linguistic . I doubt the BNP would (immediately) campain for any law that specificly mentioned race, so it must be meaningless.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by queball

Serious I'm afraid.

Then I'm not sure what to say. The fact they havent made any moves to get rid of it (not "scrapping it overnight" as someone strawmanned earlier on) seems like pretty definitive support of it to me.

Originally Posted by queball

But presumably you'd say racism is purely linguistic . I doubt the BNP would (immediately) campain for any law that specificly mentioned race, so it must be meaningless.

No I wouldnt

[queball]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Then I'm not sure what to say. The fact they havent made any moves to get rid of it (not "scrapping it overnight" as someone strawmanned earlier on) seems like pretty definitive support of it to me.

No real moves towards making it fairer or simpler, open admission that it's a dismal failure, etc. Labour tend to focus on proposing new schemes, while the Tories would go for gradual phasing out, I guess. I predict you'll say the Labour policy is still essentially welfare statish or something.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by queball

No real moves towards making it fairer or simpler, open admission that it's a dismal failure, etc. Labour tend to focus on proposing new schemes, while the Tories would go for gradual phasing out, I guess. I predict you'll say the Labour policy is still essentially welfare statish or something.

I don't think it's even vaguely realistic to say that except under perhaps Thatcher the Tories have done anything even vaguely approaching "phasing out the welfare state". Up until Thatcher, the notion of a welfare state was fundamentally part of the Tory platform.

[Phang]

nod: massive underfunding to recude the organisation to a farce and then never increasing spending to useful levels and finally bringing in large-scale PPP projects doesn't sound especially much like a pro-public healthcare sort of scheme to me :confusicus:

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Phang

nod: massive underfunding to recude the organisation to a farce and then never increasing spending to useful levels and finally bringing in large-scale PPP projects doesn't sound especially much like a pro-public healthcare sort of scheme to me :confusicus:

NHS spending under the Tories pretty much rose above inflation all the time.

(This wasn't necessarily a conscious decision though, often it was demographic stuff, etc but still).

[queball]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I don't think it's even vaguely realistic to say that except under perhaps Thatcher the Tories have done anything even vaguely approaching "phasing out the welfare state". Up until Thatcher, the notion of a welfare state was fundamentally part of the Tory platform.

Sure, but what's their postion now?
I'm trying to draw a distinction between the idea of giving money to anyone who pretends not to earn enough, and the idea of using government apparatus to facilitate charity, training schemes, etc.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by queball

I'm trying to draw a distinction between the idea of giving money to anyone who pretends not to earn enough, and the idea of using government apparatus to facilitate charity, training schemes, etc.

Well the former is merely a straw-man and everyone supports the latter.