Rightist and leftist group, whats the difference?

[gareb]

---

my professor argued that there is no difference between Classical Liberalism and Neo-Liberalism, only the the spelling she said.

there is little difference between both aside from the fact that neoliberalism is a development on the economic side of the classical liberalism. however there is a small but significant difference between both.

the social front of classical liberalism pushes for individual rights and civil liberties, and guarantees that these rights be upheld by its economic front which is the promotion of laissez-faire economics with the conviction that a limited role of the government in the economy benefits society. this means that while it advocates for a market economy with limited government intervention, it wants to leave a modicum of responsibility to the government with regards to the welfare of the people and the protection of their rights.

neoliberalism takes it one or two steps further. in both social and economic fronts, neoliberalism wants to remove the government's role altogether. no welfare funding, no socialized services(education, health, public insurance, etc.) no governmental controls of the market, etc. everything goes by the whims of the market forces. this goes by the assumption that individual rights as well as individual property rights, should not be curtailed in any manner, and that the individual impetus, in the arena of laissez-faire "survival for the fittest" scenario, will ultimately produce the greater good for all, extending the economic theory of laissez-faire into the realm of sociology.

So you are saying then that it is a rightist characteristic to be more potentially anti-statist than the left? Having mentioned the tendency of Rightist Economy to be adopting laissez-faire or the negative state principle in contrast to the left which leans more towards General-welfare and to tis extreme of a controlled economy.

it really depends on what axis we are talking about.

if by being 'statist' we are referring to the socio-political tendency of the state to be authoritarian, then being 'statist' in this sense is being 'rightist'. however, if we use the word to mean the economic tendency to lean towards being a welfare state, or oriented towards economic nationalism, then it is a leftist usage.

a note though, 'statist' (authoritarian) governments can come from either left or right. but the concept of a 'welfare state' is a left-wing development.

Which are they rightist or leftist?

AKBAYAN, NADSU, GABRIELA, ANAKPAWIS.... etc

at least those you have mentioned, every single one belong to the broad Left. within the Leftist movement are conflicting and competing ideologies and trends. in the philippines, the above-ground Left is constituted mainly by the social democratic wing and the national democratic wing.

[The_Child]

the social front of classical liberalism pushes for individual rights and civil liberties, and guarantees that these rights be upheld by its economic front which is the promotion of laissez-faire economics with the conviction that a limited role of the government in the economy benefits society. this means that while it advocates for a market economy with limited government intervention, it wants to leave a modicum of responsibility to the government with regards to the welfare of the people and the protection of their rights.

neoliberalism takes it one or two steps further. in both social and economic fronts, neoliberalism wants to remove the government's role altogether. no welfare funding, no socialized services(education, health, public insurance, etc.) no governmental controls of the market, etc. everything goes by the whims of the market forces. this goes by the assumption that individual rights as well as individual property
rights, should not be curtailed in any manner, and that the individual impetus, in the arena of laissez-faire "survival for the fittest" scenario, will ultimately produce the greater good for all, extending the economic theory of laissez-faire into the realm of sociology.


laissez-faire economics is the opposite of "a modicum of responsibility to the government with regards to the welfare of the people"
because it defeats the very purpose of free-enterprise, as Alan Greenspan said: So long as Capital is free to flow, it will tend to seek those areas which offer the maximum rate of return. (Sept. 25, 1961 Antitrust Seminar) Even a modicum of government intervention is enough to upset the natural flow of capital in the market, which is definitely a no-no in laissez-faire.


Neoliberalism is Classical liberalism, because both assumes a laissez-faire economics, or a negative state doctrine to which the only purpose of the state is to safeguard the individual rights of men. If we take away this sole purpose of government it would be anarchy.

The market forces is anything but a whim, because it is not subjective but rather objective. Thus, those who uses their minds in the market would sow its rewards, while those who do not think and yet participate in the plays of the market would definitely lose.

And yes, the idea of laissez-faire did actually trickle down to the academic perimeters of sociology. Herbert Spencer was an indirect advocate of laissez-faire, because it supplemented his "social darwinism" although his was a bit crude when contextualized on our present times. This also explains why Spencer was more famous in America during the Jefferson-Jackson times than in merry old England. The former, after Appomatox, was oriented towards a negative state doctrine, while the latter and perhaps most of continental Europe saw Socialism as an intellectual fad; the pre-marx socialism. There might actually be a difference between Classical Liberalism and Neoliberalism, but i am with the opinion, that the difference remain trivial, and that neoliberalism was merely a new name given after resuscitating classical liberalism and putting it as the doctrine that powers Globalization.
And if i am not mistaken, Neoliberalism was made famous by Thatcher and BUsh Sr.

but then again, i maybe mistaken. what do i know in the first place?

Nice reads(well for me though, it might be too simplistic for some, but i found these books interesting):

Ayn Rand's Capitalism: the UNknown Ideal
Sidney Fine's Laissez-Faire v. General Welfare, conflicts in American thought.
Frederic Bastiat's Economic Sophism


and among other things, im not an economics major neither am i sociology major.

[gareb]

laissez-faire economics is the opposite of "a modicum of responsibility to the government with regards to the welfare of the people"
because it defeats the very purpose of free-enterprise, as Alan Greenspan said: So long as Capital is free to flow, it will tend to seek those areas which offer the maximum rate of return. (Sept. 25, 1961 Antitrust Seminar) Even a modicum of government intervention is enough to upset the natural flow of capital in the market, which is definitely a no-no in laissez-faire.

you have just pointed out half of the story with regards to the inherent contradictions of neoliberalism. it was always good on paper, but the undeniable fact of the humongous state subsidies and other forms of government intervention that modern-day capitalist countries implement to keep their economies afloat cannot be kept under the rug.

Neoliberalism is Classical liberalism, because both assumes a laissez-faire economics, or a negative state doctrine to which the only purpose of the state is to safeguard the individual rights of men. If we take away this sole purpose of government it would be anarchy.

that is true. but while classical liberalism shapes the arena of individual freedom, neoliberalism polishes it even more to a point that individual rights becomes an 'end' instead of the 'means' to achieve prosperity. that is why it is of no wonder that people of the Libertarian Right, or those that espouse laissez-faire capitalism and individual rights are called Right anarchists.

and among other things, im not an economics major neither am i sociology major

i have always been under the impression that a formal academic degree is not needed for anybody to learn about anything, nor should the lack of it be used to justify apathy to pertinent social issues.

[The_Child]

you have just pointed out half of the story with regards to the inherent contradictions of neoliberalism. it was always good on paper, but the undeniable fact of the humongous state subsidies and other forms of government intervention that modern-day capitalist countries implement to keep their economies afloat cannot be kept under the rug.


not neoliberalism, but laissez-faire in general. A genuine Laissez-faire is non-existent for now, much like Communism is non-existent for now, both i personally believe, are the Utopias of the extreme right and left.
So yes, it cannot be kept under the rug, and i agree, that neoliberalism is not as free as it wants to be, more or less it resembles a mixed-economy leaning to a freer market that the usual. Its a work on progress.

but of course we should not misconstrue the idea that a negative state is anarchy. Anarchy is a step further from Libertarianism, Classical or otherwise Neo(assuming of course, that they are really different)

Robert Nozick's Anarchy State and Utopia argues among other things, the difference between libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism(Nozick is of course a Classical Liberal) This very idea, shows that liberatarianism is not anarchy, and that anarchy, specifically anarcho-capitalism, is an extreme degree away from classical libertarianism and neoliberalism.

[gareb]

Robert Nozick's Anarchy State and Utopia argues among other things, the difference between libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism(Nozick is of course a Classical Liberal) This very idea, shows that liberatarianism is not anarchy, and that anarchy, specifically anarcho-capitalism, is an extreme degree away from classical libertarianism and neoliberalism.

or perhaps they are just afraid to get what they want, knowing all too well that a purely market oriented economy is an untenable situation. because as it is, we still have not discovered any means of guaranteeing individual rights inside market economies (an essential factor in this type of economy) other than governmental protection, regulation and control; the very fuctions of this institutuion that neoliberalism wants to abolish.

i do not know, but i personally find it hypocritical when neoliberal economists push for deregulation and decontrol in favor of the private sector, and non-interference by the government as it has been seen time and time again that these private firms do not go anywhere else but to government institutions to beg for more subsidies in case of impending bankruptcies. when this situation happens, neoliberal economists prescribe large doses of public funds into the private sector and label it 'in the interest of the public'.

[The_Child]

and such is the time that they could be truly called, in the terms of Bernardo Bertolucci, The Dreamers.

Rational Choice theorists, believe, that market failure due to individual firms mistake is a smaller price to pay in contrast to the repercussions that would happen from government intervention.

Alan Greenspan, in his article, Gold and Economic Freedom, stated thereason for the 1930 disaster called the Great depression. It was the effect of government intervention in the market through the issuance of excessive paper reserves into American Banks of having to avoid political embarrassments of raising interest rates with the end of leveling interest rates with Great Britain in order to stop the loss of Gold in Great Britain. To go to the gist, the federal reserve was forestalling any future bank reserve shortages. the effect of this, although the federal reserve was sucessful, in forestalling reserve shortages and stopped the gold loss it paved way for the Great Depression. Greenspan wrote:

"the excess credit which the fed pumped into the economy spilled over into the stock market-triggering a fantastic speculative boom. Belatedly, Federal Reserve officials to attempted to sop up the excess reserves and finally succeeded in braking the boom. But it was too late: by 1929 the speculative imbalances had become so overwhelming that the attempt precipitated a sharp retrenching and a consequent demoralizing of business confidence. As a result, the American economy collapsed. Great Britain fared even worse, and rather than absorb the full consequences of her previous folly, she abandoned the gold standard completely in 1931, tearing asunder what remained of the fabric of confidence and inducing a world-wide series of bank failures. The world economies plunged into the Great Depression of the 1930's"

The great horror of government intervention.

[gareb]

true. but it was also 'government intervention' through Kynesian economics that lifted economies out of the pits, something that the a monetary policy of the classical liberals was too ill-equipped to handle.

[The_Child]

hmmm... such as?

perhaps the option for Austrian Economics was not yet on their grasps...

but still, an example would suffice...

[astroboyreal]

Rightist group - Rightists favor progress both material and social.

leftist group - who are always against the status quo, no matter what.

it seems na imo gi tira ang mga leftist group, but im sorry you missed miserably

[The_Child]

so i had an epiphany.


Belonging to the Left and Right in the political spectrum is subjective. Depending on the country or region.