Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Obsolescence of Political Definitions (1991)

vmchale.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 138 posts

Re: The Obsolescence of Political Definitions (1991)

#51

Post by Gormo »

dragonwriter wrote: post #36
Gormo wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that these terms do signify real, stable ideologies, but the vast majority of people are superficial trend-chasers who don't actually adhere to any stable ideology, so misuse these terms to refer to whichever tribe they emotionally associate themselves with at the moment. IMO, the current US administration seems to be the most left-wing in my lifetime, but contrived cultural wedge issues seem to have e…

> IMO, the current US administration seems to be the most left-wing in my lifetime Can you name even a single left-wing policy or rhetorical position of this administration? > but contrived cultural wedge issues seem to have eclipsed actual policy positions in most public discourse, “Cultural wedge issues” are about actual policy domains, and have a real left-right valence. > gets called "conservative" despite its po…

> Can you name even a single left-wing policy or rhetorical position of this administration?

Tariffs. Deficit spending. Federalization of law enforcement. Hyperpoliticization of social questions. Government ownership/direction of private industry.

> “Cultural wedge issues” are about actual policy domains, and have a real left-right valence.

They've not been about actual policy domains until relatively recently. These issues have been marginal with respect to actual policy considerations for decades.

> 30 years ago? The height of the neoliberal consensus when the Right leaned heavily on the cultural wedge issues of opposition to abortion, homosexuality, and affirmative action?

GOP candidates in certain regions invoked various wedge issues on the campaign trail in order to put them over the top in elections for contested seats. Upon election, they then did nothing whatsoever to shift the actual policy needle in relation to these issue, and focused precisely on "neoliberal consensus" economic issues of the exact sort that the current administration is diametrically opposed to.

> but that was pretty obviously a tactical adaptation to the immediate circumstances, not the essence of conservatism.

But no, it actually is the "essence of conservatism" where conservatism is an actual political philosophy, and not an empty term that refers to the haphazard policy preferences of whatever faction a particular political party happens to be pandering to at any given moment.

Re: The Obsolescence of Political Definitions (1991)

#52

Post by Gormo »

esafak wrote: post #49
Gormo wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Far to the left of Carter, who I'd consider a moderate conservative, and marginally to the left of the more centrist Obama. I'm construing left-wing as (a) seeing an expansive role for the state -- and in the US especially the federal government -- as being a prime mover in social and especially economic matters, (b) willingness to use political power in novel and unprecedented ways to address perceived social a…

That describes everyone from Hitler and Mussolini to Mao. They all believed in big government, and wielding it internally.

Yes, it describes everyone who aims to use unrestrained political power to reshape society, i.e. the precise opposite of what "conservatism" actually means.

Re: The Obsolescence of Political Definitions (1991)

#53

Post by esafak »

Gormo wrote: post #52
esafak wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That describes everyone from Hitler and Mussolini to Mao. They all believed in big government, and wielding it internally.

Yes, it describes everyone who aims to use unrestrained political power to reshape society, i.e. the precise opposite of what "conservatism" actually means.

No, not necessarily. Conservatives condone social engineering as long as it agrees with their beliefs; e.g., to promote specific religions, and heteronormativity. Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism#Beliefs_and_princ...

I think you are describing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_conservatism

Re: The Obsolescence of Political Definitions (1991)

#54

Post by josefritzishere »

lapcat wrote: post #3
josefritzishere wrote: post #2

This is an interesting read, and it makes me want to read more. But the intro could use some context. I have so many questions now.

> But the intro could use some context. What do you mean by that?

For example that the author is a conservative marxist writing that treatise at the time of the "August Coup" which is a pretty interesting historical event itself. It toppled Gorbechev, and Yeltsin took over. Kondylis is also more reknowned than I was aware.

Re: The Obsolescence of Political Definitions (1991)

#55

Post by MangoToupe »

The_Rob wrote: post #32

I agree with the point this article is trying to make. As political definitions change, we start to lose sight of what these terms actually mean. I believe a more helpful comparison than left vs right, is open vs closed. https://unherd.com/2018/07/open-vs-closed-rise-fall-left-rig...

Oddly, the article doesn't discuss the terms "open" or "closed" at all, much less what makes them uniquely resistant to be coopted and bastardized.

Edit: apparently that is in "part two" which isn't linked anywhere

Re: The Obsolescence of Political Definitions (1991)

#56

Post by jrm4 »

Nailed it. Many, if not MOST "political debates" you see can probably be deflated by just clearly having each side define their terms.

E.g. Capitalism is often either "people making favorable trades" or "exploitation through decreased liability for big money investors" depending on.

(and please, don't get me started on "woke." Sigh)

Re: The Obsolescence of Political Definitions (1991)

#57

Post by jrm4 »

amradio1989 wrote: post #19

I’m starting to think political definitions only have use as propaganda. Definitions are definite, yet political definitions are anything but. In the US, much is made about “the left” and “the right”, but we can hardly describe what these things mean. “The left” is simply more liberal than I, while “the right” is more conservative than I. On what issues, no one knows, because we hardly ask. The point, I think, is sim…

:)

Definitions are rarely definite if we're even discussing them.

Re: The Obsolescence of Political Definitions (1991)

#58

Post by jrm4 »

dijit wrote: post #42
amradio1989 wrote: post #19

I’m starting to think political definitions only have use as propaganda. Definitions are definite, yet political definitions are anything but. In the US, much is made about “the left” and “the right”, but we can hardly describe what these things mean. “The left” is simply more liberal than I, while “the right” is more conservative than I. On what issues, no one knows, because we hardly ask. The point, I think, is sim…

I'm not sure I agree here. There are "right wing issues" and "left wing issues" and there is friction between them. What concerns me most is political "slurs" where everyone forgets the meaning of the term but constantly throws it around as if it's just a bad word. Then the conversation just goes off the deep end as soon as they're invoked. "You're a wokie" or "you're a fascist"; as if either of the people using thos…

"Woke" is perhaps the freaking platonic ideal of what this article criticizes.

I'm black. It once was just a mostly fun little word that meant "Hey man, are you paying attention to the world around you?"

And today it is completely without concrete meaning. For the left, it's kind of whatever, because it's responding to what it is for the so called right -- literally nothing more concrete than "what I don't like right now that might be associated with any group possibly considered a minority."

Re: The Obsolescence of Political Definitions (1991)

#59

Post by Pxtl »

pessimizer wrote: post #47
Pxtl wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I think we've all seen the term "socialism" prettymuch destroyed into having no coherent meaning beyond "when government does stuff" for as long as I can remember, for example. I mean, I've seen people decry market-oriented solutions to problems (eg congestion pricing) as "socialism" which is broadly hilarious.

> "socialism" pretty much destroyed into having no coherent meaning beyond "when government does stuff" for as long as I can remember This is actually the best definition, for certain values of government. What's bizarre is that a bunch of people gave communists ownership of the definition of socialism. The communists who never even described it specifically, just refer to it as a mythical state that spontaneously oc…

But by the all-encompassing definition you have here, having a military is socialism. Paying bus fare is socialism. Running elections is socialism.

I'd argue that such a definition of socialism is so expansive as to be worthless.

Re: The Obsolescence of Political Definitions (1991)

#60

Post by bee_rider »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #40
bee_rider wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Realistically the mainstream Democratic Party is liberal in the sense that you use it; the US is a fundamentally liberal place, a lot of Republicans are as well. Even the idea of “banning free speech” that you mention is implemented in a liberal fashion in the US. There are rarely calls for the government to actually ban speech via laws. The ground where that’s fought is actually “should private companies broadcast/h…

> The framing you quoted (“these liberals who want to ban free speech”) is often used by one side to pitch the other side as falling outside the traditional liberal consensus. I disagree, at least a bit. I think "liberal" here is just used as "the bad tribe". It's not saying that they're not living up to their values, it's just saying that they're "them" .

I can definitely see how what I wrote was unclear there, sorry. Inside the quotes, “liberal” was used in the sense that skrebble was using it inside their hypothetical quote, so, basically a faction of team-blue. Afterwards my intent was to continue using it in the way that he (outside his hypothetical quote) and I (everywhere) had been using it, related to the philosophy of liberalism. I’ll try to edit it for clarity, sorry…
Post reply on HN