Are you as left wing as you think?

[Harryprice]

Interesting article here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-10633782).

I've certainly noticed a number of people who claim to be left wing while displaying right wing views.

[smudge]

Interesting article here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-10633782).

I've certainly noticed a number of people who claim to be left wing while displaying right wing views.

Would be nice to think that on a Skeptics forum ALL members would think 'outside the box', and therefore not fit into simplistic 'left' 'right' stereotypes.
It's a little bit more complicated than that.
:cheesy:

[Harryprice]

Would be nice to think that on a Skeptics forum ALL members would think 'outside the box', and therefore not fit into simplistic 'left' 'right' stereotypes.
It's a little bit more complicated than that.
:cheesy:

Why would skeptics be highly likely to think 'outside the box'?

[smudge]

Why would skeptics be highly likely to think 'outside the box'?

"The box" in this case being the traditional view of what would be considered either Left or Right wing policies. A skeptic would not blindly accept any such package of policies on the basis of them being (allegedly) Left or Right. A skeptic would assess policies individually and reach a conclusion which may or may not conform to a stereotypical view of Left/Right.

[Harryprice]

In addition to left and right I suppose there is also liberal and conservative (not the parties).

[polomint38]

Why would skeptics be highly likely to think 'outside the box'?

I personally think outside the triangle. 8-)
The so-called box everyone talks about has no firm evidence. >:-)
The triangle on the other hand was predicted by Pythagoras many years ago. ^-^

[Pebble]

I personally think outside the triangle. 8-)
The so-called box everyone talks about has no firm evidence. >:-)
The triangle on the other hand was predicted by Pythagoras many years ago. ^-^

Why not be ambitious, think outside the 'pie', since that stumped Pythagoras.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Why not be ambitious, think outside the 'pie', since that stumped Pythagoras.

Didn't stump Euclid. He made pies out of lots of triangles.

[Pebble]

Didn't stump Euclid. He made pies out of lots of triangles.

Wasn't his pie imperfect?

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Well, I've heard that it wasn't entirely rational.

[brianp]

Wasn't his pie imperfect?

No - Euclid's pies were made entirely from prime cuts.

[smudge]

In addition to left and right I suppose there is also liberal and conservative (not the parties).

Yes, did you see the Political Compass thread a while back?

Back to the point of the article. I do think there is a tendency for peoples views to drift to the right with age. Coupled with a tendency to cling on to long held 'beliefs' (belief as a property to be defended), I'm sure this can result in certain contradictions.
On the other hand, as suggested by Bragg in the article, there is also an element of simply growing up. A greater maturity of view with principals intact, if modified.


I find it easier to think outside of the pie if I have plenty of pie in me! :cheesy:

[chaggle]

Interesting article here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-10633782).

I've certainly noticed a number of people who claim to be left wing while displaying right wing views.

I have come across this many times. Many lefties are, for instance, quite racist - a quality which is often associated with the extreme right wing.

[smudge]

I have come across this many times. Many lefties are, for instance, quite racist - a quality which is often associated with the extreme right wing.

Certainly true. Sexism and homophobia are even more common. That said, all of these things are more openly prevalent on the Right.

[Bob Lloyd]

Much of the confusion about left and right comes from the strange habit of judging political stance by the position of political parties. New Labour implemented more severe Tory policies than Thatcher ever managed, and yet their supporters consider themselves "on the left". For most of us on the left, that claim is a joke.

Without some political understanding apart from the manifestos of the established parliamentary parties, political identifications swing with the opportunist best of them. Those who used to think of themselves as Liberal now see Liberal politicians swinging the Tory axe more viciously than the Tories themselves ever could.

With all the parliamentary parties uniformly supporting business against working people (witness who is expected to pay for the latest crisis) the idea that there is some realistic sense of right and left stretches credibility. To my mind, they are all very much on the right but it depends where you decide to base your particular spectrum.

Left wing politics seems to me to require a class analysis of the economic and political interests in society. The sham nature of New Labour was brought home to me when an election candidate explained to me that he wasn't allowed to use the word "socialist" because voters might not like it.

[smudge]

Much of the confusion about left and right comes from the strange habit of judging political stance by the position of political parties. New Labour implemented more severe Tory policies than Thatcher ever managed, and yet their supporters consider themselves "on the left". For most of us on the left, that claim is a joke.

Without some political understanding apart from the manifestos of the established parliamentary parties, political identifications swing with the opportunist best of them. Those who used to think of themselves as Liberal now see Liberal politicians swinging the Tory axe more viciously than the Tories themselves ever could.

With all the parliamentary parties uniformly supporting business against working people (witness who is expected to pay for the latest crisis) the idea that there is some realistic sense of right and left stretches credibility. To my mind, they are all very much on the right but it depends where you decide to base your particular spectrum.

Left wing politics seems to me to require a class analysis of the economic and political interests in society. The sham nature of New Labour was brought home to me when an election candidate explained to me that he wasn't allowed to use the word "socialist" because voters might not like it.


The Labour party has not been socialist (or on the Left) for a long time. I've never had any illusions that it is. We do not have to define our politics in relation to the narrow constraints of Labour/Tory though.
I do find it depressing that most debate revolves around these similar centre parties.

[alganbagerap]

It used to amuse me greatly, when the vendors would yell "Socialist Worker"; to wave my Torygraph and reply "Capitalist Bastard"

Yeah, childish.

[Croydon Bob]

It used to amuse me greatly, when the vendors would yell "Socialist Worker"; to wave my Torygraph and reply "Capitalist Bastard"

Yeah, childish.

But funny.

The old joke about the SWP was that none of them were workers and they weren't a party. Their "socialist" status was arguable. I did meet one once who wasn't a student; honestly I did.

Getting slightly back on topic: "Left" and "Right" describe political positions in 18th century France. They are totally inadequate to describe modern politics. The idea that libertarian capitalists and fascists both sit on the right together is as daft as the idea that a stalinist and anarchist are both very similar.

Racism has been mentioned and I would suggest that it does not fit into a traditional left/right spectrum at all. The British Union of Fascists was founded as a split away from the Labour Party. Large donations were made to Mosley by the Daily Mail and by the Transport and General Workers Union. Most recent BNP voters have been disaffected Labour voters, not Conservatives. Other "isms" such as sexism don't much respect traditional political cliches either.

[Tony Williams]

This reminds me of those self-assessment computer programmes we looked at not long ago.

My views on specific issues are scattered all over the political spectrum. I therefore thought I would turn out on average to be in the centre, but to my surprise was on the left.

That possibly said more about the programme than it did about me.

[Harryprice]

Many people like to think of themselves as 'left wing' because it makes them appear concerned about those less fortunate than themselves. And some undoubtedly are truly concerned. But in the privacy of the polling booth I suspect many people still vote for their own best interests.

[Bob Lloyd]

The old joke about the SWP was that none of them were workers and they weren't a party. Their "socialist" status was arguable. I did meet one once who wasn't a student; honestly I did.


That's odd because of all the left groups, their organisation has always been based on workplace organisation, and they've always been active in supporting rank and file union activity. And they're certainly the largest non-socialdemocratic left party in the UK.

As for their politics, it's very clearly socialist. It's easy to dismiss the left-right spectrum as if they are all the same and pro-capitalist social democrats do have a lot in common. But as for Moseley, he dropped out of the Labour Party after his odd version of Keynesianism wasn't adopted and formed the New Party. It then moved rapidly to the right as it was more and more influenced by fascist ideas. In any case, he wound up the New Party and it was the youth section that became the core of the BUF. That's a far cry from claiming, as you do, that it was a breakaway from Labour. It wasn't. No surprise of course that the Daily Mail backed Moseley or that racists in the T&G did.

No surprise either that the BNP pick up disaffected Labour voters who are racist and want New Labour to gallop faster to the right than they are already doing. But they also pick up the overlap with UKIP and the very right-wing of the Telegraph camp. If you appeal to the lowest prejudices of the electorate, you end up being ruled by them. That's why all the social democratic parties now are trying to legitimise racist attitudes.

[smudge]

That's odd because of all the left groups, their organisation has always been based on workplace organisation, and they've always been active in supporting rank and file union activity. And they're certainly the largest non-socialdemocratic left party in the UK.

.

Hmm.. I thought it was based on jumping on any and all disputes and causes that they decided they could get a headline or some publicity from. Mainly, the SWP are good at getting their banners on telly and in photo's.
They are very much a top down organisation, nothing grass roots about them. Students suit them because they are young, enthusiastic, and keen enough to 'do as they are told'. Most will be (quite rightly) sick of being told to "hold this banner and shout this slogan" in a few years. A shame realy, as I'm sure many well meaning, bright young people are turned off politics for life.
As Croydon Bob suggested; Socialist (maybe) Worker (don't make me laugh) Party (hmm...).

[Croydon Bob]

That's odd because of all the left groups, their organisation has always been based on workplace organisation,

That may have some theoretical truth but has never been actually true in practice. Of the trotskyist left, the SWP have always been the least workplace-based. The WRP and Militant were more so in the past (although half the WRP's members were actors, which was weird), the AWL/Socialist Organiser and the (ex-Millie) Socialist Party are better workplace and Trade Union based now.


and they've always been active in supporting rank and file union activity.

True, but so is what Smudge said.


And they're certainly the largest non-socialdemocratic left party in the UK.

Are they? (Not sarcasm, genuine Q). I'm not up-to-date on this stuff. In the 70s the IS/SWP were probably just about the biggest left grouping outside of the CPGB (but totally dwarfed by the CPGB). In the 80s and early 90s they were much smaller than Millitant. The fact that they stand in elections behind front organisations makes it hard to judge how big they are. Now that that the SWP are no longer part of Galloway's Respect, which is the larger? Surely the SSP was much bigger than the SWP before it split? Or do you not count Respect, the SSP, etc?


As for their politics, it's very clearly socialist.

I agree. But lots of people on the left have not agreed over the years. The various CPs generally denied that any of the trots were socialists. The other trots tended to be fairly scathing about the SWP's childish approach to complex issues and dismiss their position on most issues as not being "proper" socialism. Personally I've never managed to get too worked up about whether the USSR was a "corrupt workers state" as Ted Grant wanted me to believe, or "state capitalism" as Tony Cliff wanted me to think. Both phrases have their uses in an argument. But Cliff was very naive; I remember, for instance, him supporting a dodgy Russian party that swiftly turned to the "far right" and expressing complete surprise at this. Everyone else saw it coming, even me.

I
t's easy to dismiss the left-right spectrum as if they are all the same

Sorry, that wasn't what I meant. I'm not saying that they're all the same (although I agree it is more-or-less true of the Tory/Lib/Lab parties) I'm just saying that it is all a bit more complicated than a line or even a square chart can cover. And I certainly don't agree with that dumb thing about the far-right being the same as the far-left. But there are certainly policies that some of the so-called left have in common with the so-called right, and vice-versa. Issues like Republicanism/Monarchists can divide the whole supposed political spectrum except the "far left". Ted Grant, one of the greatest political thinkers of the 20th century, dismissed the issue of gay rights as a "diversion" from the class struggle; I therefore find myself closer to David Cameron on that particular issue.

[Bob Lloyd]

CB:
I agree that the Trotskyist left in the 70s was remarkably sectarian but in my experience, the IS/SWP had serious workplace organisation with industrial work a priority. The other groups such as Militant (inside the LP), the WRP, the WSL, etc, were incredibly small, very loud and focused on each other.

No other group produced rank and file newspapers, organised industrial conferences, nor coordinated actions between workplaces, nor even published very much material that was of any real use. Part of the reason of course was size. The SWP was, and is, by far the largest and so has resources to do more on a national scale.

Students of course are attracted to revolutionary politics so all Trot groups recruit them. But it's a long way from using them as puppets to hold placards.

The issue about the state capitalism debate is interesting because all of the economic history of the last two decades has demonstrated very clearly that the analysis was very consistent. There is a lot of material by Chris Harman (now alas deceased) and Alex Callinicos, but also non-SWP authors such as Brenner, Arrighi, Richard Wolfe, David Harvey, and others, that show the analysis was very sound indeed. Even the work on the permanent arms economy stands up remarkably well, despite needing some additional work.

The theoretical contribution made by SWP theorists is pretty impressive compared with the largely sectarian contributions from the other groups. Are those other groups even still around? The CPGB disintegrated pretty soon after it voted it's own paper out of existence as being boring. Are there any remnants of Militant still left in, or even outside, the Labour Party? - it's hard to see who they could possibly recruit to left wing ideas.

[smudge]

Students of course are attracted to revolutionary politics so all Trot groups recruit them. But it's a long way from using them as puppets to hold placards.
.

If you attend/have attended any major demonstration on the (for want of a better word and in it's widest sense) 'Left' for the last 20 years you will see SWP members distributing pre printed banners (with SWP logo prominent) to any and all demonstrators who will take one. These people are rarely SWP members, most have never even read a copy of Socialist Worker, most are not even 'Trots'. Most are young and are there because they support the cause of the demonstration. These kids are oblivious to the manipulations of the Party faithful.
The prominence of these banners gives the idea the SWP is much bigger than it actually is. This is obviously SWP policy and effective in giving the (false) impression of dominance.
You will also witness tiny groups of SWP organisers (with extra banners available for the gullible!) whipping up kids into specific behaviour (stand here, shout this, push this way, throw this, get hit by that cop, you first), very easy to do in a crowd of passionate, often angry, people. Easier still when dealing with well meaning youngsters.
I find this patronising, manipulative, 'policy', rather reminiscent of the way foot soldiers were treated in WW1;cannon fodder. As then, the Generals are safe, high on a hill...

[panama]

The various socialist parties of the seventies and eighties, each trying to outdo each other for the purity of their political thought...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUBAx8jbYNs

[Croydon Bob]

The various socialist parties of the seventies and eighties, each trying to outdo each other for the purity of their political thought...


It's funny because it's true.

[Drop Bear]

Would be nice to think that on a Skeptics forum ALL members would think 'outside the box', and therefore not fit into simplistic 'left' 'right' stereotypes.
It's a little bit more complicated than that.
:cheesy:


I must admit, I don't have a lot (OK any) interest in trying to tell others how they should think.

I reject all ideologies as flawed and consider true believers of any kind naive and potentially dangerous,but especially Utopians. Don't care if they're away-with-the- fairies-Socialists or a perpetual adolescent of political philosophy,a Libertarian..

Not sure if I fit into a single box:I'm a skeptic ,a radical distrusting all forms of authority, and a pluralist,plus a variety of other things, some of them rather unpleasant.

[Bob Lloyd]

If you attend/have attended any major demonstration on the (for want of a better word and in it's widest sense) 'Left' for the last 20 years you will see SWP members distributing pre printed banners (with SWP logo prominent) to any and all demonstrators who will take one. These people are rarely SWP members, most have never even read a copy of Socialist Worker, most are not even 'Trots'. Most are young and are there because they support the cause of the demonstration. These kids are oblivious to the manipulations of the Party faithful.
The prominence of these banners gives the idea the SWP is much bigger than it actually is. This is obviously SWP policy and effective in giving the (false) impression of dominance.
You will also witness tiny groups of SWP organisers (with extra banners available for the gullible!) whipping up kids into specific behaviour (stand here, shout this, push this way, throw this, get hit by that cop, you first), very easy to do in a crowd of passionate, often angry, people. Easier still when dealing with well meaning youngsters.
I find this patronising, manipulative, 'policy', rather reminiscent of the way foot soldiers were treated in WW1;cannon fodder. As then, the Generals are safe, high on a hill...

Yeah, I've been there and done that. On demonstrations, often the SWP organised the coaches, put out the publicity, provided stewards, coordinated contact between various groups such as trade union branches, and generally provided practical support. Of course their placards had their name on it. Just as the placards provided by other organisations had their names on their own too. I think you are reading manipulation into actions of support and their politics.

It's certainly true that in the most important labour disputes of the late 60s such as Trico (76), Fords (68), Grunwicks(76-78) (all of which were vital in forcing employers to accept the Equal Pay Act of 1970) the SWP played a major organisational role, and far from manipulating behind the scenes or hoodwinking people, they were very open and clear in their practical support. Their politics were never hidden.

It's easy to see conspiracy in any expression of practical solidarity but in my experience, the SWP were always very clear and open about their politics. That's not the same by any means for those organisations of the far left who had pursued a policy of entrism into the labour party. In almost all cases, they were not able to organise openly and their presence on demonstrations was therefore sometimes far more covert, not to say hidden and even absent. That certainly explains why the SWP consistently appeared much bigger than any alternatives but it was also a reflection of the size of their membership, which grew largely because of their practical support for industrial struggle.

[Croydon Bob]

Yeah, I've been there and done that. On demonstrations, often the SWP organised the coaches, put out the publicity, provided stewards, coordinated contact between various groups such as trade union branches, and generally provided practical support. Of course their placards had their name on it. Just as the placards provided by other organisations had their names on their own too. I think you are reading manipulation into actions of support and their politics.

It's certainly true that in the most important labour disputes of the late 60s such as Trico (76), Fords (68), Grunwicks(76-78) (all of which were vital in forcing employers to accept the Equal Pay Act of 1970) the SWP played a major organisational role, and far from manipulating behind the scenes or hoodwinking people, they were very open and clear in their practical support. Their politics were never hidden.

It's easy to see conspiracy in any expression of practical solidarity but in my experience, the SWP were always very clear and open about their politics. That's not the same by any means for those organisations of the far left who had pursued a policy of entrism into the labour party. In almost all cases, they were not able to organise openly and their presence on demonstrations was therefore sometimes far more covert, not to say hidden and even absent. That certainly explains why the SWP consistently appeared much bigger than any alternatives but it was also a reflection of the size of their membership, which grew largely because of their practical support for industrial struggle.

I agree that there was/is "no conspiracy" regarding the SWP's activities. But they do use front organisations all the time, to stand in general elections, the ANL, etc, etc. It's fantasy to suggest that they played any organisational role during the Grunwick dispute, all they did was turn up and secondary picket. It's dishonest and sectarian to try to pretend that other organisations on the far left were, or are, more covert than the SWP. For more than 20 years in Union elections SWP candidates have claimed to be "grass roots" and suchlike, making no mention of their true politics. While other leftist candidates would admit their membership of Socialist Organiser, Militant, etc.

For many years the SWP was the most prominent grouping on the left because it owned a printing press that used to print Private Eye and used the profit to produce loads of papers, placards, posters and other things that begin with a "p" probably.

I've no idea who the biggest Trot faction are nowadays, but Militant (as the "Socialist Party", not to be confused with the Socialist Workers Party, Socialist Party of GB, Socialist Labour Party, etc), even though past their peek, still control Trade Unions such as the PCS. The SWP didn't even have a single member in the NUM during the Miners Strike of 84/85. They've never had the industrial muscle of the rest of the left, appealing primarily to Middle Class lefties such a students.

[Bob Lloyd]

For more than 20 years in Union elections SWP candidates have claimed to be "grass roots" and suchlike, making no mention of their true politics.

Sorry but in my experience that is blatantly untrue. When I was involved in trade union activity, they always made a point of declaring their politics loud and clear, a fact that made other candidates very uneasy. In fact, if any SWP member had behaved the way you describe, their own branch would have thrown them out.



For many years the SWP was the most prominent grouping on the left because it owned a printing press that used to print Private Eye and used the profit to produce loads of papers, placards, posters and other things that begin with a "p" probably.
It was a commercial print shop and I think even printed the Morning Star. But it was never making money which was why it was sold in the early 90s. It is far more likely that the income for the SWP came from their membership and paper sales.



The SWP didn't even have a single member in the NUM during the Miners Strike of 84/85. They've never had the industrial muscle of the rest of the left, appealing primarily to Middle Class lefties such a students.Again, this is very wide of the mark. I was in Oxford in the mid 80s and was involved in some support activities for the miners. Around one hundred miners stayed in the town for a few days and amongst them were at least twenty SWP miners. I'm sure other towns had similar delegations going around.

Thanks for the interesting take on the far left. I think I'll leave it there.