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

There is no 'right' vs. 'left': it is the oligarchs against the rest

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 89 posts

Re: There is no 'right' vs. 'left': it is the oligarchs against the rest

#61

Post by DFHippie »

CTOSian wrote: post #24
fortran77 wrote: post #3

Not completely true. Some of the wealthiest people in the US are very progressive.

those people's "left" ideology is more like fashion trend. As progressive, well, when you don't have any financial issues you can pretend you are uber-ecologist eg. buying expensive organic food instead of canned/frozen sh*t for the plebs

Your straw man looks very fierce and imposing, but this is argument by assertion. If self-identified progressives find the goals and actions of Bill Gates, say, to be congenial, what does it matter that you believe his heart isn't in it? -- it's "more like a fashion trend", as you say.

It is very easy to convince yourself that someone else's actions are insincere. If this -- your own belief supported by your desire to see them as horrible people -- suffices for you as evidence, why should anyone attempt to argue against you?

In other words, there isn't much value in "fashion" or "virtue signaling" accusations except in preaching to the converted.

Re: There is no 'right' vs. 'left': it is the oligarchs against the rest

#62

Post by ivoras »

macspoofing wrote: post #11
ivoras wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really, extremely depends on how you define "progressive" and then you get to the left Vs right narrative which inspired this article. To oversimplify greatly to the point of banality, if rich person A says "I'll be on the left" and rich person B says "I'll be on the right", and both actively pump money into their respective campaigns, what do they have in common?

No true Scotsman right?

It's more like it's closer to the baser parts of human nature to put self-interest first. We might talk "left or right" till the cows come home but I'm fairly certain that when push comes to shove, we'll find more important things to discuss.

Re: There is no 'right' vs. 'left': it is the oligarchs against the rest

#63

Post by dgregd »

HissingMachine wrote: post #13

There have been numerous articles and columns written about the dangers of rising populism in Europe, yet here is a respectable voice advocating populism as the solution for US. So which is it, the solution or a danger?

Regarding housing problem in the US, well known here on HN patio11 has a simple solution: build homes [1]. Does this mean that he is a populist? Or do politicians just call themselves left-wing or right-wing, and in reality both of them represent the interests of landlords, as the article suggests?

I don't known which articles and columns you read. But I am from this European country with rising populism. In my opinion, things are going in a better direction than in the times of non-populist government. The current government fulfills promises and pays broad social benefits, but at the same time this populist government has reduced the budget deficit.

[1] https://twitter.com/patio11/status/939581079328919552

Re: There is no 'right' vs. 'left': it is the oligarchs against the rest

#64

Post by majewsky »

gwm83 wrote: post #51
arkades wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why limit the comment to modern philanthropy? I doubt anyone, in meaningful numbers, has ever sought to undermine their own position in society. That would include anyone nominally seeking to “change things for the better.”

Anyone, or in meaningful numbers? I'm not sure you can specify both. I "earn" around $400k USD per year and give away nearly all of it other than my housing and food.

That's not really pertinent to GP's question because giving away that money does not really "undermine [your] position in society". In fact, it could elevate your status because you can boast about all your philanthropy, just like Bill Gates' public image has improved since he stepped down as Microsoft CEO.

Let's assume (without loss of generality) that your $400k income is from a salaried job at some company. Suppose that there is an NGO fighting to abolish said company on moral grounds. Would you be willing to donate your money to that organization?

Re: There is no 'right' vs. 'left': it is the oligarchs against the rest

#65

Post by JohnStrangeII »

HissingMachine wrote: post #44
JohnStrangeII wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your definition is wrong. Populism is a political strategy based on the oversimplification of issues, inventing scapegoats, and generally appealing to popular "bar talk" as offering solutions to problems that are in reality way more complex. Other symptoms of it are an unwillingness to make compromises, not listening to experts, alluding to conspiration theories, an alleged fighting against the elites and for the "co…

Part of populism is also claiming to be neither left or right on the political spectrum because it can be both or neither, a good example of this is Five Star Movement from Italy. But what is mostly common with populist movements is the appeal to the common man and blaming elites. So how the author of this article isn't advocating for populism is something someone needs to explain to me.

I don't necessarily disagree with that assessment, just wanted to correct your definition of populism by a more adequate one that is based on indicators of tendencies. There is no problem identifying right wing and left wing positions or discerning different brands of fascism, populism, socialism, etc. The people who claim that these positions cannot really be distinguished any longer are usually trying to push some sort of extremist agenda. A typical example are the recent "alt right" (= run off the mill Fascism, nothing special about it) attempts to promote the absurd and historically false claim that the German Nazis were left wing, because they choose the phrasing "national socialism". Of course, there are also similar attempts by populists to re-appropriate terms like "populism", that's not very surprising.

Anyway, I'm glad the thread has been flagged.

Re: There is no 'right' vs. 'left': it is the oligarchs against the rest

#66

Post by rv-de »

Ididntdothis wrote: post #5
colordrops wrote: post #2

And it is the job of the oligarchs to use their resources (e.g. think tanks, regulatory capture, political parties, media empires, etc) to convince the rest that it's "right vs left".

This Chomsky quote comes to mind “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum....”. The sad part is that a lot of people seem to be addicted to the right vs left thinking. A while ago I listened to a radio interview with an author whose thesis was that modern philanthropists allow change only in a way that…

Most development aid is also philanthropy of that kind. Supporting countries in ways that keeps them from getting up and standing on their own legs, distorting the economy in the disfavor of local merchants and industries.

Re: There is no 'right' vs. 'left': it is the oligarchs against the rest

#67

Post by nightwing »

surak wrote: post #43
nightwing wrote: post #28

Rich vs poor is even less meaningful divide than right vs left. For instance i am not rich but my goals are much better aligned with goals of rich people like Elon Musk and Aubrey de Grey, than with any of poor people. The solution is not to take money from the rich, but to make the government more transparent and more inclusive. Now we only can vote for unknown bundles of policies in the form of people, and rich peo…

In principal e-voting to increase transparency is a nice ideology, but how would you engage the people over time? I'm afraid this would rather cause an increase in fake news and the likes. The obvious case is the Brexit vote, that gave the people two options: a remain (no change) and leave (open ended in terms of how).

With e-voting can keep mostly the same system we have now, but augment that with two small changes. 1) you can change your representative at any time, which changes the weight of his vote, 2) you can overrule your representatives vote on issues you care about.

In this way there won't be a situation like Brexit because after initial open ended vote people can participate in subsequent votes too, and can eventually decide that they don't want Brexit or want it even without any trade agreements.

Fake news, (or rather people not smart enough to distinguish fake news), will remain a problem, but democracy uses assumption that most people are smart enough, if this assumption is not true then oligarchs buying politicians is actually useful to the society, but i don't think this is very likely.

Re: There is no 'right' vs. 'left': it is the oligarchs against the rest

#68

Post by vixen99 »

Ididntdothis wrote: post #5
colordrops wrote: post #2

And it is the job of the oligarchs to use their resources (e.g. think tanks, regulatory capture, political parties, media empires, etc) to convince the rest that it's "right vs left".

This Chomsky quote comes to mind “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum....”. The sad part is that a lot of people seem to be addicted to the right vs left thinking. A while ago I listened to a radio interview with an author whose thesis was that modern philanthropists allow change only in a way that…

'to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion' which is certainly now a widespread phenomenon cheered on by a seeming majority. In the UK these days, having the 'wrong opinions' albeit politely expressed can now land you with a criminal conviction or at the least, apprehension in the cells.

Re: There is no 'right' vs. 'left': it is the oligarchs against the rest

#69

Post by majewsky »

PaulAJ wrote: post #56
davesmith1983 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This Chomsky quote comes to mind “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum....”. The sad part is that a lot of people seem to be addicted to the right vs left thinking. What this is more broadly is the Overton Window. There is "acceptable" topics that can be broached. As for Right versus Left, well th…

I just tried that 8 Values thing. Interesting, but it depended too much on existing buzzwords and quotes, and contained a number of false dichotomies. E.g. "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs". If you didn't know the quote then it might sound like a good description of a modern welfare state, so only people with strongly libertarian views would reject it. However most people who reco…

I noticed the same about false dichotomies, particularly on the question of open borders.

> We should open our borders to immigration.

This would be a definite "No" to me, but I still answered with "Weakly agree", because otherwise it puts me in the strong-borders faction, which I definitely don't belong into. I don't want open borders right now, but I want the world to evolve into a state where we can have open borders 50 years from now.

(If you consider that outlook crazy, remember that it took Europe 50 years to get from WW2 to open borders under the Schengen treaty.)

Post reply on HN