Wikipedia introduces the subject like this…

“The meaning of the terms ‘left’ and ‘right’ in a political context has changed radically over time. The Right is generally against intentional political, economic and social change, the Left is in favour of it.

The Left broadly identifies itself with the interests of the masses, while the Right is seen to favour the interests of the established propertied classes.”

(For a more detailed definition, history and dissection of the political spectrum, visit Wikipedia Left-Right politics.)

This definition makes a good starting point. It describes the tension between two opposites…those who want to share the world’s resources more evenly, and those who don’t…most traditionally the haves and the have-nots.

But modern political polarities cannot be limited to the economist-blinkered perspective of supply and demand of goods; nor the rights and methods for transferring ownership – be they bureaucratic, reformist or militaristic. Long-term, we also cannot ignore the accumulated effects upon…

  • our societal environment
  • our natural environment

Collective acquisition and redistribution are ingrained in human survival patterns and expectations, varying upon history, traditions and beliefs. Private acquisition and ownership are a more of an instinctive necessity, an area which is pinpointed within all religious teachings for special attention.

The ME position

Every being, at the root of its consciousness, instinctively divides the world into two parts: the me and the not-me.

Driven to survive in bodily terms, the me must gather resources from the not-me, creating a circle of ownership which it then defends (and tries to enlarge) by whatever means it can.

This is the basic standpoint of the ‘Right’, its logic accesses the primitive in us, and is particularly favoured by those who have more, or want more, and who feel justified in the use of force (aggression and subservience) to strengthen their position.

Examples of Rightist regimes:

  • Red China under Mao Tse Tung
  • America since World War II
  • Germany under Hitler
  • The USSR under communism
  • The Catholic Church through till the 19th Century
  • The colonial empires – Roman, British, Spanish.

…proponents all of the blood-stained roads to riches.

The WE position

Taking a personal position supporting the ‘Left’ can come from a range of perspectives depending on the understanding of each individual, and on the value they recognise in cooperating for the common good.

Maturity in people goes through stages:

  1. Child – others need to take care of everything at first,
  2. Youth – starting to take responsibility for some things,
  3. Adult – begins to take on the care of other people,
  4. Elder – as well, they take responsibility for issues concerning their community + the land + the future.

At each of these stages the benefits of sharing has a different significance to the individual, putting them into a different relationship with those around.

The maturity of the Elder (as above) should be the basis for representing the position of the ‘Left’. However, in our present society the majority of people do not reach that level of maturity and the potential for a truly cooperation-based society therefore remains unattainable.

Indeed, giving the vote to pre-adults unduly biases polling outcomes against that possibility.

 Examples of Leftist regimes:

  • Cuba under Castro
  • Tibet under Dalai Lama (pre-Chinese)
  • Theravadan Burma
  • Australian aborigines (pre-European)
  • Celtic Europe (pre-Roman)

The Centre position

There is no natural position between ME and WE. The political Centre, or the notional Third Way, is no more than the current philosophy of compromise, based upon generalized self-interest, media propaganda and economic concerns.

This so-called Centre is populated by parties who are characterized by their leanings. In other words the direction of change which they advocate as a mean of improving the society at large … by promoting active self-interest, or wider egalitarianism.

In Conclusion

In societies that favour the values of the ‘Right’, the eat-or-be-eaten approach gradually drives the social order increasingly into the chaos.

Eat-what-you-kill and enjoy the feast; or share-what-you-kill and enjoy the company?

Ross Scholes occasionally writes along these lines for YOUSAY NZ, a New Zealand based website dedicated to bringing Democracy back to the community level.

Author: Ross Scholes
Article Source: EzineArticles.com
Programmable Multi-cooker

Tagged with: • • •

Filed under: political blog

Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!