What does it mean to be "left" politically?

[unbeliever]

I've been having a debate with some of the other forum folk about what "left" means when it comes to politics.

I always thought it meant socialist, but clearly it does not mean that to everyone.

I'm not getting any satisfactory answers.

 

I'd appreciate some opinions as I genuinely want to know.

 

 

Update:

 

Should have posted this at the beginning. Could have saved some time.

 

From the OED (my bold):

socialism, n.

...

2. Freq. with capital initial. A theory or system of social organization based on state or collective ownership and regulation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange for the common benefit of all members of society; advocacy or practice of such a system, esp. as a political movement. Now also: any of various systems of liberal social democracy which retain a commitment to social justice and social reform, or feature some degree of state intervention in the running of the economy.

Edited November 16, 2015 by unbeliever

[L00b]

To my mind, it means

 

in support of the state assuming ever more responsibilities for personal matters

in support of the state dictating ever more aspects of corporate matters

in support of a strongly prescriptive wealth redistribution model

with little comprehension (or acceptance, same outcome) of the inherently capitalist principle (greed) that underpins socio-economic activity and development in both national and international contexts

 

Socialism in practice (as e.g. practiced in France in the period 1981-1995) ticked all of those boxes. Note that I distinguish that implementation from theoretical/academic-grade Socialism (which is pretty much utopian, same as theoretical/academic-grade Communism...because Real World™ wherein no country, company or person lives in an international theoretical/academic-grade vaccuum).

 

Short version:

 

to the left, State is (or should be) responsible for -and does (or should do)- just about all, you need not worry about a thing (with the obvious benefits and inconveniences that situation attracts)

 

to the right, State is (or should be) responsible for -and does (or should do)- just about sod all, you're on your own (with the obvious benefits and inconveniences that situation attracts)

Edited November 13, 2015 by L00b

[unbeliever]

To my mind, it means

 

in support of the state assuming ever more responsibilities for personal matters

in support of the state dictating ever more aspects of corporate matters

in support of a strongly prescriptive wealth redistribution model

with little comprehension (or acceptance, same outcome) of the inherently capitalist principle (greed) that underpins socio-economic activity and development in both national and international contexts

 

Socialism in practice (as e.g. practiced in France in the period 1981-1995) ticked all of those boxes. Note that I distinguish that implementation from theoretical/academic-grade Socialism (which is pretty much utopian, same as theoretical/academic-grade Communism...because Real World™ wherein no country, company or person lives in an international theoretical/academic-grade vaccuum).

 

Short version:

 

to the left, State is (or should be) responsible for -and does (or should do)- just about all, you need not worry about a thing (with the obvious benefits and inconveniences that situation attracts)

 

to the right, State is (or should be) responsible for -and does (or should do)- just about sod all, you're on your own (with the obvious benefits and inconveniences that situation attracts)

 

 

That's what I thought. It's a euphemism for socialist.

But nobody who describes themselves as "left" will give me a straight answer like yours.

Edited November 13, 2015 by unbeliever

[ghost rider]

How does wealth redistribution actually work anyone?.

[Orzel]

How does wealth redistribution actually work anyone?.

 

Give us all your money and we squander some, frivolously spend as much as we can, pay ourselves and our mates. You can have rest if there is any and you qualify.

[colinsdog]

How does wealth redistribution actually work anyone?.

 

higher taxation and more money going to everyone rather than the chosen few.

[unbeliever]

higher taxation and more money going to everyone rather than the chosen few.

 

The "few" aren't "chosen". They're selected in an essentially darwinian manner.

 

I'm don't have a huge problem with the more successful being sent a bigger tax bill. I don't see the need to hate them at the same time.

Accuracy matters. You're not talking about aristocrats.

Edited November 13, 2015 by unbeliever

[lottiecass]

Dennis Skinner,the beast of Bolsover could be a left winger?

[colinsdog]

The "few" aren't "chosen". They're selected in an essentially darwinian manner.

 

I'm don't have a huge problem with the more successful being sent a bigger tax bill. I don't see the need to hate them at the same time.

Accuracy matters. You're not talking about aristocrats.

 

Not hating. But if you think the rich are chosen in a darwinian manner you need a reality check.

 

---------- Post added 14-11-2015 at 00:38 ----------

 

E.g. you have no idea what you are talking about.

[I1L2T3]

That's what I thought. It's a euphe

mism for socialist.

But nobody who describes themselves as "left" will give me a straight answer like yours.

 

I gave you a straight answer on the other thread. I see myself as being left of centre but not a socialist. I see myself as being a social democrat.

 

You have bizarrely started a poll on it because you can't compute this, choosing to ignore a whole wealth of resources on the internet that could help you understand.