AIBU politically - want to understand the left but unable to

[Linguistmum]

I know a lot of people whose view of the world is politically more left than right and I have always come along with them very well. Personally I cannot define myself as "left-wing" even though so many friends of mine are like that. I'm sure I have badly misunderstood something about what being a left-wing/liberal means. I seem to think that being liberal is about acting like that, not about honestly caring of everyone but of yourself. For me, political right is easier to understand: you basically want to succeed and everything that you do is based on optimizing the best outcome for you and your family - it can include helping others, but the goal is still to benefit from it. The political left, in turn, is confusing. Why do you want good for others, why to care about human rights, why care about minorities? And --- do you really care?
Some examples I am confused with:
-Most parents want their children to succeed. If you are politically left and liberal politically, how is it possible at the same time to 1) promote diversity and equality and 2) help yout own child succeed?

-Let's think you are a white, middle- or upper class woman and you have two lovely children. You support human rights and want more diversity in the workplace and elsewhere. You don't like social hiearches. Does that change your own actions - if your own child is applying for a job and there is another applicant of a poor background, do you think that other applicant should get the job and your child should wait for another chance?

-If competition is seen as negative, why do left-wing liberals still engage in sports where competition is the whole idea? Does it feel bad that your football team wins and the other one loses?

I know these examples might sound completely strange and out of this world. But I've been thinking of these from time to time.

If you are politically left and liberal, please explain how you see the world in these cases! Thank you in advance.

What are you even talking about @bp300?

There was even a year when Labour ran a surplus.

One year surplus in Thirteen years during the biggest economic boom in history is shocking.

@bp300

It really isn't 'nonsense', you sound like you're basing your statements on your party politics rather than data and statistical analysis. Which is a silly and dangerous thing for people to do no matter which party they tend to have an allegiance to. People who do that tend to massively lean into confirmation bias and so debating is usually fruitless - I'll leave it to some more patient posters!

@sadpapercourtesan

My father told me when I was little that Tories were people whose mothers never taught them to share. I'm starting to wonder whether he was right

I love this analogy!!

So you admit you were talking crap then when you said “Absolute nonsense, they ran a huge deficit during the biggest economic boom in history.”?

Increasing public spending during boom periods is an economic policy, not recklessness. It’s not a household budget, it’s economic stimulation.

Here’s another chart for to demonstrate things compared to former and previous governments.

@Rukaya

The political left, in turn, is confusing. Why do you want good for others, why to care about human rights, why care about minorities?

You don't understand why people care about other people, you are confused by being for human rights? Is that you Priti?

Is that you Priti? 😆

If you go with the take all you can logic then what about the times you aren't strong enough to take? Then you get screwed if everyone works like you. I'd much rather help someone now and have someone help me back later. Like a big pay it forward. And if we work together, share and cooperate, life is better for everyone.

Plus societies that are more equal have benefits even for the better off. You end up with less crime, mental illness etc when society is more equal. So the richer person ends up less like to be mugged or whatever than they would be in a less equal society.

Plus I just think that there are minimum levels that human being should have: food, shelter etc. And being very poor makes it much harder to participate in wider society, which is bad for all of us, not just the person with no money.

[quote youvegottenminuteslynn]@bp300

It really isn't 'nonsense', you sound like you're basing your statements on your party politics rather than data and statistical analysis. Which is a silly and dangerous thing for people to do no matter which party they tend to have an allegiance to. People who do that tend to massively lean into confirmation bias and so debating is usually fruitless - I'll leave it to some more patient posters! [/quote]
Not at all. It's is hilarious you accuse me of basing my statements on my party politics when I even criticised the party I voted for (the current government) for an even worse defecit than Labour. The Labour governments spending 1997-2010 was ridiculous considering the boom was artificially inflating the tax take for most of the time they were in charge. This current government spending is even worse.

Because the Labour government left us with a huge deficit. That does not explain the child poverty though. Somehow "austerity" resulted in the poorest in society getting poorer, the middle not really seeing much difference, and the richest getting richer. Surely you can understand that is a political choice not an inevitable consequence.
Similarly with covid, the poorest have got poorer as a result of job losses, the middle have been propped up by subsidies, and the rich have benefited hugely by being given contracts for things they had no prior experience in delivering. There are other possible ways of running a country.

@SnackSizeRaisin

Because the Labour government left us with a huge deficit. That does not explain the child poverty though. Somehow "austerity" resulted in the poorest in society getting poorer, the middle not really seeing much difference, and the richest getting richer. Surely you can understand that is a political choice not an inevitable consequence. Similarly with covid, the poorest have got poorer as a result of job losses, the middle have been propped up by subsidies, and the rich have benefited hugely by being given contracts for things they had no prior experience in delivering. There are other possible ways of running a country.

When you overspend by running a defecit you reduce your future consumption by having to spend the current tax revenues on repaying the bond holders with interest so there is less money to spend on public services. The bank of England could print the money to purchase the bonds but that would create inflation which would inflate asset prices making the rich richer but will also inflate the cost of consumer goods making the poor poorer.

OP hasn't been back.

Light blue touchpaper and stand well back...

Your basic problem OP is that your definition of right and left are pretty weird. And left and liberal do not mean the same thing.

If you want a fairly basic definition, the right believes in political hierarchy, a society where people have different roles and responsibilities, all working in a sense together as a whole.

The left wants to iron out that hierarchy so that insread you have evereybody with similar political power and roles, or sometimes that is from a group perspective too so different groups have equal power.

Most people are moderates really - if they are on the right they still believe in liberal democracy, which makes all voters to some extent equal. And most people on the left still believe in leadership and that there are some different roles in politics and society. So it's a matter of degree.

Both will tend to see people and society working together for the good of all, that's not a left wing idea.

Liberals, on the other hand, tend to believe in a lot of individual freedoms, either economically, or socially, or both. They often subscribe to a kind of individualism, some don't really see "society" as a thing as such.

Both left and right wing people may be liberal, or they both may not be.

Thanks to the pp who put the compass link on.

Been a while since I did it but I turned out centre-left libertarian like I always do.

The thing thats odd to me is when I look at the current 'left' they seem more authoritarian to me than the 'right'. Even thought the compass always puts the Conservatives as more authoritarian when they do a party comparison plot.

Its something which has perplexed me for a while. Same with Brexit. Apparently thats authoritarian but really to me thats more libertarian due to the democracy issue.

TDLR - I dont think anyone has a fucking clue anymore which way is up, down, left or right. The parties, me, the populous.

Erm.. Like some other posters I'm a bit bemused by your post but in general just because I'd like to think that I am a compassionate person, I would like as many people as possible to enjoy some kind of wealth and I hate to see people suffer. It seems quite simple... My own family are just a very tiny part of life.. the world... Society... Humankind... Erm everything. That's all I can say.

I have come to realise that it doesn't matter what I or the majority believes, its what the people with all the money and power believe that matters. There is so much fragmentation that all of us belive whatever we have internalised. It's all just petty squabbles, people are not going to unite, that is by design.

It's not hard to understand them.
More free shit, fuck the people who pay for it.

@vimtosogood have your feathers been ruffled?

I would rather my child be happy and to care about others, and strive for a fair opportunity for everyone, than just focus on themselves.

@LemonSwan

Thanks to the pp who put the compass link on.

Been a while since I did it but I turned out centre-left libertarian like I always do.

The thing thats odd to me is when I look at the current 'left' they seem more authoritarian to me than the 'right'. Even thought the compass always puts the Conservatives as more authoritarian when they do a party comparison plot.

Its something which has perplexed me for a while. Same with Brexit. Apparently thats authoritarian but really to me thats more libertarian due to the democracy issue.

TDLR - I dont think anyone has a fucking clue anymore which way is up, down, left or right. The parties, me, the populous.

Yes, I think that's interesting too, and I feel like it might be a flaw in the test. It does ok on the left-right axis, but I think it can be very wonky at times on the authoritarian/libertarian axis.

(Something I find interesting is the language choice with that, some similar tests call it libertarian-communitarian, which has a really different feel to it, but I think is equally accurate.)

One thing I have noticed about their methodology is there are certain things they associate indirectly with left or right, or authoritarian-libertarian, and use on the test, one example they give is attitude to abstract art, and in many cases I think that it can give very wonky results, especially when you are talking about positions that may be held by small groups of people. Sure, authoritarians like Hitler might dislike abstract art, but are they really sure there aren't other world-views that also dislike it, perhaps for quite different reasons? Or alternately, there might be some authoritarians who like abstract art, perhaps because their religion disapproves of realistic depictions.

But it is really interesting that the PC test has nothing about freedom of speech or belief. Because that does seem to be an increasingly signifcant polarisation among political parties.

@Deathgrip

In countries like America, some people die from very treatable conditions because they cannot afford health insurance.

Don’t forget the cherry on top of that shit sundae: the American government spend more per head on healthcare than we do, despite the fact we have universal healthcare.

America bashing is popular amongst self proclaimed liberals. It’s basically narrowed down regurgitated blah blah. But hey let’s all overlook where the worlds healthcare solutions are developed and tested. Do you think places like Stanford cooks ever exist in a leftist utopia. No, because they would be filled with more administrators and govt officials than doctors and researchers.

Thank you for everyone, I still haven't read all of your replies but comment on this point.

Let's start by saying that it comes naturally to me to help others. To give up my seat if a flight is oversold, to donate money to charity before Christmas. I actually enjoy having a chat with old people spending time in a local mall - I know they are lonely and I feel like a little chat delights their day. I love helping tourists to find their way.

But deep inside I still know that this is what I do when things are ok. When I have a surplus of resources. The wind changes very quickly: let's say I have to hurry to a job interview. On the way I see an old lady with Alzheimer's wandering around. Within a few seconds I have to decide which is more important: my job interview or helping that old lady. I want to help the old lady, but I want the job more. I rush further and feel bad, but this is what I do.

This is my problem with left-wing. It seems to me like the idea is to really change the structures of the society and lift the impoverished and those worse-off. But how do you do that if your own benefit always, in the end, really comes first? It does not mean that you don't care, but I believe every one of us cares a tiny bit of more of ourselves and our own family - and we end up in a world where everyone convinces they have a good will but the actions speak louder than words.

In short, I seem to think that a left-wing society would require that we should be able to make decisions in favor of others in even the most painful situations. Let the job interview go and stop helping the lady. Let our child end up in an erratic public school because we really believe in our ideals.

Op I think as someone said early on, you have a scarcity view and that's not particularly helpful. Worth looking into.

I always get frustrated when elections roll around. I have voted labour, plaid and conservative since I’ve had the ability to vote. I’m not shackled to one idea of what I think our country needs to succeed, it’s totally dependent on current affairs and their take on tackling some social issues I think a really important.

But my town/city/region seems stuck in the past, you cannot get anywhere politically because ‘bloody thatcher stole our jobs’ and it’s ridiculous. Every election time the topic of who people is voting for comes up and the same people say the same thing; labour. I ask why, ‘oh they did me well when my wife wanted to give up work in 1994’ or ‘they’re for the workers’ and when I ask what their stance is on I’ve invariably got ‘oh, umm, I don’t know’.

How can they be so blindly loyal to a party that they do not understand what they are about right now? The only conversation you will get is:
‘Voting day tomorrow, what time are you voting labour’

Do you think places like Stanford cooks ever exist in a leftist utopia.

Well no, but making money out of something is far more attractive than simply preserving life.

To some, at the moment.