…a “right wing” or “left wing” regime? Serious question. I’m particularly interested in the opinions of “left wingers.”
43 thoughts on “Is North Korea”
Comments are closed.
…a “right wing” or “left wing” regime? Serious question. I’m particularly interested in the opinions of “left wingers.”
Comments are closed.
“Wing” suggests parliamentarian division into political trends. I’m not sure it makes sense to label totalitarian states along those lines, any more than it would make sense to try to hang “left-wing” or “right-wing” on any particular pre-feudal tribal society. Or a feudal polity, for that matter. “Wingness” is a early modern concept, really. It started breaking down about the time the Fascists started showing up.
But yes, I would call North Korea left-wing as a shorthand, the same way I’d call Maoist China “left-wing”.
Left-wing regime.
This might be a good time to look at the World’s Smallest Political Quiz on the Advocates for Small Government website. It makes sense of things like this. Both fascists and uber-communists would end up at the authoritarian point of the diamond chart.
Considering that authoritarianism is the ultimate destination of those who pursue Utopian ideals, then yeah, North Korea is left-wing.
I want to discuss the SOTU. It had high “flip strength.” I just tuned into two minutes of it where “Washington” was castigated for making every day “part of a political campaign?” Huh? Pot-kettle-don’tgothere . . . it would be interesting so see folks spin that one.
I reiterate, the distinction between a totalitarian regime of the Left and one supposedly of the Right matters only to totalitarians of the different stripes, since they worship at the same altar regardless.
distinction between a totalitarian regime of the Left and one supposedly of the Right it matters because you get to them from different places. They are both malfunctions of government, but with different causes.
North Korea is right wing. So is the regime in Tehran.
Israel? Now there is a socialist democracy. Left wing. Which is why we should support them.
North Korea is right wing. So is the regime in Tehran.
By what definition?
Bill, was Stalin’s Soviet Union right wing, too?
I think Left /Right is wrong it has more dimensions then that.
I think this left/right dimension is one of the problems in the current political climate.
I really think you should click on John K bertsons name in the above post and it makes much more sense.
The dimension I care about is statist vs libertarian.
I care far more where somone stands on that dimension than the left/right dimension.
Right wing totalitarianism is an oxymoron.
All totalitarian regimes are left wing.
Cecil, I would argue that Iran is a right wing country.
Cecil, I would argue that Iran is a right wing country.
How would you do that?
Cecil, I’m not sure if that’s true. Franco’s Spain was close to a right wing totalitarianism, at least in the European sense of “right wing” which isn’t really commensurate with the American conception. Also, some of the Mediterranean and Latin American military junta regimes, maybe Taiwan under the Nationalists. It depends on how you draw the line between authoritarianism and totalitarianism, I guess.
Here’s one: is Saudi Arabia a totalizing society? I *think* it is, and it certainly is “right wing” in any reasonable taxonomy.
I think a usefully portable definition of left-wing vs right-wing would have to rely on a distinction between value-systems reliant on traditional sources of authority and principles based on abstract, aspirational, progressive, or Whiggish goal-oriented concepts.
Because fascistic parties rely on a fictionalized ransacking of tradition to support abstracted progressive agendas, it’s easy to mistake it as right-wing, especially if you confuse purposes with trappings.
Again, is North Korea left-wing? Yes, of course – they’re reliant on a mythology which is aspirational, progressive, and explicitly Marxist.
Although in Trotskyist mythology, being a Marxist is no defense against the accusation of being “right-wing”. That’s exactly the charge they offer against Stalinist Russia.
…is Saudi Arabia a totalizing society? I *think* it is, and it certainly is “right wing” in any reasonable taxonomy.
You mean they want to reduce taxes? Smaller government?
Rand,
I’d argue your on the wrong dimension.
Where would you place Iran and Saudi on the 2 dimensional political scale?
I would call them right wing statist. Or “conservative”
Iran also has similar aspects. Both want strong military and strict laws.
I think the bottom right.
Maybe just the bottom.
Clearly they care more about strict social issues than strict economic issues so that puts them right of center in my view.
Once you get to the statist authoritarian corner there is not much difference between left and right.
What we call the right in this country has a streak of Christian fundamentalism that includes the pro-life, opposition to gay marriage, strict drug laws and a general strict lock them up view to law enforcement.
I think you could argue that prohibition was a right wing thing.
There are a lot of abuses of power that can come under this right wing heading. Read some of reason.com’s discussion of abuse of swat teams, no knock drug raids forfeiture laws etc.. The right wing side of the house also helps our friends in big business keep their power. Texas ( a right wing place if you ever wanted one) has a lot of restrictive licensing laws that are anti entrepreneur.
Are Saudi taxes high? I don’t know, its clearly not the biggest issue in the house of Saud. they clearly have a thriving oil business, but they are really restrictive on social issues, stoning for adultery etc….
There are a lot of abuses of power that can come under this right wing heading. Read some of reason.com’s discussion of abuse of swat teams, no knock drug raids forfeiture laws etc..
So when Janet Reno burned down the compound in Waco, she was part of the right wing?
Supposedly they are a Stalinist totalitarian regime. So that would make them left wing. If you define left/right wing as an economic axis between a planned economy and a free market, they are a planned economy, so they are left wing as well.
They are quite different from a Soviet Union style regime however. They are more akin to an absolute monarchy. In the Soviet Union, or even China, the leader was elected internally by the Communist Party, under a one party system, while in North Korea succession is hereditary.
In that action she was in the totalitarian statist corner of the spectrum. If you want to cherry pick examples I could ask was Bill Clinton a right wing when he signed welfare reform?
I really really don’t like the left/right distinction because it’s the wrong dimension. I much prefer the leave me alone vs mess with me dimension.
Given the choice of voting left/right I almost always vote for the one with the more economic liberty. My life choices are pretty normal
so for me personally their is more value in economic freedom than in lax drug laws and gay marriage so I vote for my own best interests.
George W was basically the worst of the right wing, expand the coercive power of government while only doing lip service to reducing the overall size of governement. Can you say GWB was for Smaller Goverment?, by your recent comments you must place him as a left wing radical.
I’ve been reading your blog for a long time and I hope you are just sparing for the fun of it, you are not one of the people I would have expected to “not get” the Liberty/Totalitarian dimension of government?
George W was basically the worst of the right wing, expand the coercive power of government while only doing lip service to reducing the overall size of governement. Can you say GWB was for Smaller Goverment?, by your recent comments you must place him as a left wing radical.
I think that George Bush acted mostly as a “moderate” Democrat. If he’d been a Democrat, the Dems would have been cheering much of his policies.
Rand,
Another way to look at it…
If the compound in waco was an Islamic Madras would Waco have been left or right wing?
In any case Waco is a tough one, I could easily argue both sides.
It was clearly poorly handled, and I believe that people should have the right to religious freedom, but does that include polygamist sex with little girls? Given that administrations honesty can I even be sure that was happening?
(I personally think polygamy should be banned because its very destabilizing to society as it leave a core of poor young men with no hope and no chance to find a mate. This creates unrest wherever it is.)
Paul, do you think the ATF is in the business of regulating religion, polygamy and pedophilia? What happened at Waco had nothing to do with polygamist sex with little girls, that was a post hoc justification – and even if that had been the case, I fail to see how burning down the compound helped those girls in any way.
My memory of the waco situation is somewhat fuzzy and I was too lazy to do proper research to debate here.
The AFT raid that kicked it off was wrong on many levels.
Clearly the thing that set off the confrontation was Totalitarian actions by the ATF. Rand did not comment on how it got started, he commented on how Janet Reno handled the resulting standoff.
I would make very different arguments about how it got started than how it ended. The ATF should not even exist.
But given that the government ends up in an armed standoff situation how do you handle it? Clearly one needs to have a rule of law, the validity of the law that started Waco is dubious at best.
I think that this is the primary area where libertarian is not the same as anarchy. There should be a strong rule of law and a strong police and defense force, there should just be many fewer laws.
I still ask if it had been an Ismalmic Madras all other facts being the same would that change the left/right view?
I think the Waco cult should have been shutdown, just not for ATF reasons. Thus one can argue different sides.
As far as I can tell “left wing” regimes are entirely theoretical. As soon as a regime that soi disant academic leftists are willing to label “left wing” actually puts their policies and plans into action, and you get the inevitable resulting disaster and tightening repression, it gets relabeled “right wing.”
Come to think of it, their “right wing” regimes are equally theoretical. They tend to cry alarum at the tendencies and warning signs of a theocratic regime that they see — OMG! Gay marriage is a debatable proposition!?! Can the cattle trains and gas chambers for homosexuals be far behind? — but I don’t think there’s been an actual First World example of their prototypical theocracy since, roughly, Philip II of Spain died in 1598. The best modern example of the much-feared “right wing” regime would be Iran, I guess. But strangely enough, leftists don’t seem to have much trouble with Iran. Their minds are hard to decipher sometimes.
OK. I’ll bite.
In some ways I’m a “left-winger”, who on balance likes Obama and thinks Republican harping about deficits and big government is hypocritical nonsense. (Bush spent like there was no tomorrow, Cheney tortured; no bigger government than that.). I despise Fox news. So yeah, I have some good lefty cred.
But, I also want lower deficits, more free markets (not the corporate lobbying that locks in place crap business models, which seems the Republican / Democrat definition of “free market”), less regulation, greener technology, more technology, and space exploration and commerce. I want my government more open, effective, transparent and accountable (transparency is something where Obama is actually helping, and is an area where I actively work). I actually think it plays important good roles in areas where markets can’t/won’t, especially in supporting basic science, education, and public infrastructure.
So North Korea. Left and right is meaningless there. It’s a regime that craves power and only power like all totalitarian regimes. Like Hitler/Stalin, the left/right issue in a state like N. Korea is nothing but a little bit of packaging over a horror show.
So why ask this question?
Right wing totalitarianism is an oxymoron.
All totalitarian regimes are left wing.
Was the Pinochet regime left wing, or right wing? How about present China, if you live in a special economic zone? Is it left wing, or right wing? The difference between authoritarian and totalitarian can be pretty slim at times.
The Pinochet regime was right-wing, but it wasn’t totalizing as I understand the term – it was a classic authoritarian regime. In fact, Jean Kilpatrick’s famous essay about authoritarian regimes and totalitarian regimes was an argument in favor of the Pinochet government because it *wasn’t* totalizing, IIRC. China, I think you can argue, is now a left-wing authoritarian regime, having transitioned to that state under Deng in the late Seventies.
Also, I think people are stealing bases with this Waco business & using state violence as a standard for totalizing tendencies. State violence is a necessary, but not sufficient element for a totalizing regime. It also requires an ideology which puts state ideology in a position of ubiquitous primacy, displacing private concerns. Thus “totalizing” – the concerns of the state are absolute, rather than limited in its scope. This makes it difficult for right-wing regimes to totalize, but easy for left-wing regimes, because idolism of the state naturally lends itself to totalizing in a way that most non-theocratic traditionalist ideologies do not.
BTW, Rand, I’d note that the Saudis don’t get excited about low taxes because traditionally they haven’t paid them, as they’re an oil-tick kleptocracy, and oil revenues have normally paid all expenses of the state. In the long term, and possibly in the medium term, this is obviously not something that can last. I don’t *think* the Saudis have gotten to the point where they need to start taxing their subjects, but it is out there.
And again, “right-wing” isn’t necessarily economically libertarian, in fact the European definition of right-wing is quite orthogonal to that concern. Traditionalism is a far more universal definition of “right-wing”, I think. Which begs the question of whether the United States tends left-wing or right-wing. I’m inclined to say “left-wing”, but fusionism makes that a difficult argument to sustain.
I’m a left-winger and actually appreciate Rand’s interest in this topic, even though to date I don’t agree with any of his viewpoints. But I’ll accept that he’s actually sincere in his question, and looking for honest debate. Believe it or not I would like to find a common vocabulary for talking about this subject.
Reading these comments I get the impression that Rand and others here interpret “right-wing” as meaning “small government”. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong. This seems like a rather convenient interpretation, because any government action — good, bad, or indifferent — can then be described as “left-wing”, and the absence of that action becomes right-wing by default.
By this definition I guess it makes sense that Stalin can be left-wing right alongside Hitler. But government action on its own is not equivalent with totalitarianism. Let’s talk for a moment about Scandinavia. I travel there a lot on business, and I’m really hard-pressed to say that when I’m in Sweden or Finland I feel like I’m in a fascist country. Honestly — would you?
It seems to me that graphing left vs right is entirely too simplistic. And so I ask whether you and your readership can accept a Cartesian graph that would at least have — in addition to an X axis with left vs. right, big government vs small government — a Y axis with democracy vs authoritarian. In this graph we can at least make sense of the fact that Sweden is a big government democracy.
There are at least two, and possibly three, dimensions to the political graph. Moral freedom versus repression, economic laissez-faire versus planning, and arguably centrist versus decentralising. As noted above, the USA tends to be laissez-faire and centrist – restrictions and licensing to make new startups difficult in some states. Sweden – planned economy, moral freedom. American Bible Belt – moral repression, laissez-faire, centrist. China – planned, centrist, moral repression. All these are arguable, but one sees the point – no?
Actually, perhaps make the cube a hypercube – free speech versus thoughtcrime. This axis might not be orthogonal, though.
There may be a few different axes of that graph, but I’d contend a few quadrants of that graph never made much sense – how could an economically planned state run by the government have moral or political freedom, when no one but the state bureaucrats have the resources to publish their opinions and no private centers of power/influence can exist? Without competition, no choice is available. It might be what the left is going for, but it’s never where they end up.
Certain axes are necessary but not sufficient conditions for ending up somewhere on the other axes.
I would contend that economic freedom is a necessary precondition for personal political freedom – if you only have what the state issues you, and your job is the one that the state assigns you, then what do you have to be personally free with?
————-
I don’t think left-right divisions are entirely explanatory either. There do seem to be distinct philosophical/political/religious tribes though that form alliances to compete in elections.
Preferences along each of these axes could probably bring out the divisions between the tribes – have you ever noticed that book reviews on amazon for entertainment are usually unimodal, but reviews for books of even mild political orientation show bimodal distributions?
I wonder if you could bring out multimodal distributions with a detailed enough survey and enough axes?
I suppose one way to analyze dictatorships is what sort of political tribe would try to solve for that state of affairs? Every tribe has a sort of unifying vision (of various degrees of absurdity) of what the world should be like.
When you look at a place like Iran in that light, I’m not entirely confident that a subsection of the religious-conservative tribe might not try for that, if the demographics were in their favor.
On the other hand, if you look at the Soviet Union and other spinoff states like North Korea, “scientific” central planning was the original rationalization for the revolution. End the chaos of the market! Crush the parasite burgeousie, sweep the merchant middle class aside and liberate the oppressed workers. (But also kill off the inconvenient “rich peasants” who managed to “betray” their “social class”.) Thoughts like these have been knocking around the left-wing since at least the French revolution, maybe before even that.
Fletcher, it looks like you’re making an n-dimensional model where n is the number of subjects you feel important, yet the axis is still measuring increasing/decreasing personal freedom.
I think that George Bush acted mostly as a “moderate” Democrat. If he’d been a Democrat, the Dems would have been cheering much of his policies.
You’ll find a lot of conservatives who recall that the Bush clan, despite GWB’s Texas creds, is primarily New England, blue-blood Democrat and that the main distinction between them and the Kennedys is that one is Irish-Catholic and the other WASP.
The part of this debate that depresses me too much to participate is the unexamined assumption that it’s the nature of your government that essentially determines the character of your nation.
Well, Carl, they have the monopoly on the use of force. It’s the same way that a hostage-taker defines the character of a hostage situation. I agree — it’s hardly uplifting.
Titus, do you suppose the Obama Administration is explained by the simple fact that they mistook an o for an a in your first sentence?
Hrm. Rand, was this what you were asking about in re: whether North Korea was a left-wing regime, and the question of racism’s wingness?
I kind of had that sort of thing lurking at the back of my mind, although I haven’t really thought about the North Korean example in particular. There are plenty of universalist, nominally anti-racist folks out there who are thundering hypocrites when it comes down to brass tacks.
Yes. At some point I was going to do another follow up, but I was curious to see where the discussions went first.
Titus, the point (at least to me) is that there are different sorts of personal freedom. Moral (particularly with regard to personal relationships) and economic being the two most obvious ones.
Certain parts of the USA, for example, are economically laissez-faire and morally restrictive. Sweden is probably the exact opposite; California may well be freedom-oriented on both axes, China is restrictive on both.
Yes, all the axes are measures of personal freedom in one sphere or another.
Aaron, I did say that the various axes may not necessarily be orthogonal. Freedom of speech combined with a completely centrally-planned economy is probably rather unlikely, for example.
Left wing. But as others have said the scales a problem.
It’s as bad as trying to map Left-Right onto US politics from the perspective of a European where Obama would be centre-right – certainly more right than, say, Tony Blair.
I think that George Bush acted mostly as a “moderate” Democrat. If he’d been a Democrat, the Dems would have been cheering much of his policies.
And zing! Another humdinger!
Sweden is probably the exact opposite
Sweden is a really odd case as it is pretty conservative in some things socially and very open in others. Likewise it’s more business friendly than many people realise, especially in the high tech industries. They also took a very pragmatic and sensible approach to dealing with the near collapse of their banking sector in the early 90s.
But mapping European politics onto any kind of matrix including the US is practically impossible as your starting point is significant more “left” than most of the most “radical” American politics.
If moral repression = right wing, then PETA and the Canadian Human Rights Commission are right wing.
Pinochet is right wing if you go by this model:
Left wing = collectivist authoritarian
Right wing = noncollectivist authoritarian
Under that model, Hitler and the Iranian government are lefties, and wife-beaters are right wing.