Confusion over Political Terminology

Right vs. Left

Political jargon in the US (and many other parts of the world) has become so distorted that it is nearly impossible to make sense of. For instance consider the term “right-wing” - this is a term used quite frequently to describe a wide range of social and political positions, which may often be disparate, such as fascism and libertarian capitalism. Conversely the term “left-wing” is used to describe an incredibly diverse range of political affiliations ranging from the US Democratic Party to Marxism (ideologies which appear similar only to the politically naive).

In order to accurately describe political positions a new, more accurate terminology must be used. The best system I have found for making accurate descriptions of political positions is the political compass – www.politicalcompass.org. On their website it is stated, “On the standard left-right scale, how do you distinguish leftists like Stalin and Gandhi? It's not sufficient to say that Stalin was simply more left than Gandhi. There are fundamental political differences between them that the old categories on their own can't explain. Similarly, we generally describe social reactionaries as 'right-wingers', yet that leaves left-wing reactionaries like Robert Mugabe and Pol Pot off the hook.”

The political compass system consists of 2 intersecting axes. The vertical axis is a spectrum between authoritarianism - governmental control exercised by dictators, bureaucrats, representatives, monarchs, etc. (top) and libertarianism – no external governmental control but instead democratic control by the people (bottom). The horizontal axis is a spectrum between capitalism – the system based on private ownership of production and competitive economics (right) and socialism – the system which advocates even distribution of goods/services and ownership of production by workers or communities (left). While I am somewhat critical of the website for questions used to determine positions on the left-right/top-bottom spectrum and some of their categorizations (was Gandhi a leftist? I think of him more as a somewhat apolitical social activist; can libertarian capitalists really be considered “libertarian”? Proponents of libertarian capitalism generally do not advocate direct democracy and capitalism allows for concentrations of wealth which inevitably results in concentrations of political power, i.e. plutocracy – a definite form of authority), overall I think the 2 axis system is the best for determination of political position.

Further Confusion – Labels

Popular labels are also a source of confusion. Take the term “socialism” which is used, again, usually by the politically uninformed, to describe a wide array of positions ranging from any type of market (capitalist) economic system that employs any central planning or social safety nets (nationalization of certain elements of infrastructure [health care, police/fire, energy, water treatment, schooling, etc.], welfare, social security); to authoritarian, completely state owned and controlled economies. In reality the end goal of modern socialism has always been an egalitarian and cooperative system in which production and society itself is democratically controlled by workers and community members; the previous mischaracterizations of socialism are a) descriptions of modern, first world, capitalist systems that employ government regulation and social safety nets, and b) a failed theory of how to transition an isolated feudal or proto-capitalist country into a socialist country implemented by many nations, e.g. Russia, Cuba, China, etc. Socialism is also sometimes used to denote a transitional period between feudalism or capitalism and communism though not by any major, founding theorists. The terms communism and socialism are most often used synonymously.

Another oft-abused term is fascism. This particular epithet is often bandied about carelessly to describe any type of authoritarianism or government control, when in fact, authoritarianism is but one aspect of fascism. Fascism is best described as the combination of authoritarianism, nationalism, militarism, racialism and nativism. In addition historical fascism has been characterized by several, usually concurrent traits, most often: anti-communism, anti-liberalism, anti-internationalism, anti-intellectualism, cultural conservatism - including close relationships with conservative religion, indoctrination in state obedience, social Darwinism, promotion of eugenics, corporatism, and opposition to multi-culturalism (often manifested as state-sponsored hatred of a scapegoat groups –  ethnic groups, religious groups, people with a certain skin color, sexual orientation, etc.); in place of multi-culturalism fascists advocate assimilation, racial purity and national identity. Proponents of fascism claim that by creating strong national unity, corporatist organization and military-like discipline, fascism will lead to peaceful collaboration between classes and acceptance of class roles. At least in theory fascist regimes have opposed the excesses of capitalism and promote their system as a third way between Marxist socialism and “supercapitalism” – a decadent form of capitalism. Fascists commonly appealed to the middle class strata of the working class and small business owners claiming that they would promote and protect their livelihood while opposing “big business” and communism. Historically fascism has resembled the welfare state system – a capitalist economy with social safety nets in place to combat poverty, lack of healthcare, etc.; but fascism (as in the combination of authoritarianism, nationalism, militarism/imperialism, racialism or nativism) can opportunistically latch onto any economic system.

Fascism has as its goal hegemonic empire via violent suppression and imperial conquest. Some pro-capitalist commentators and authors have argued that fascism is a form of socialism – often citing the National Socialists German Workers’ Party (Nazis) of Hitlerite Germany – this is, again, a mischaracterization – the Nazis opportunistically adopted the term socialism due to the fact that it was the most popular of the populist movements of the time. German fascism adopted elements of what is generally considered to be “leftism” (again a useless descriptive term), i.e. welfare state reforms, and combined it with capitalist market economy, but it was vehemently anti-Marxist and anti-communist. Incidentally Marx is widely considered to be the father of modern socialism. It should be noted that disingenuously adopting popular terms is relatively common; another example of this guise is the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) – a single party state that is not a people’s democracy nor a republic. Interestingly, many state socialist regimes and fascist regimes have had similar attributes, even though these state socialist regimes vehemently opposed fascism.There are two fundamental differences between fascism and socialism: socialists advocate direct democracy by workers and community members whereas fascists advocate top down authoritarian control of society; socialists advocate transferring the means of production out of private capitalist ownership and putting the workers themselves in possession and control of them, whereas fascists advocate corporatist organization where either private capitalist owners or the state still retain control of the means of production but workers (in theory) have representation through their corporate body. Historical fascism could be characterized as an authoritarian and socially conservative form of the welfare state. Conservative pundits often purposely conflate the welfare state model with fascism for propaganda purposes, even though fascism entailed much more than a welfare state economy.

Today fascism in its historical form has become increasingly rare – only being espoused by fringe groups. A new term, neo-fascism, has fallen into popular usage as a description of a political tendency that contains the essential elements of fascism but which has moved further toward unregulated capitalism and has eschewed the least socially acceptable traits such as eugenics, overt racism and authoritarianism, instead adopting a gradual repeal of civil liberties, veiled or overt classism and nativism or cultural assimilationism.

The term liberal is multivalent; it can apply to economic or sociopolitical positions and is therefore quite confusing. Economic liberalism is a capitalist philosophy that espouses a laissez faire (government hands off) form of capitalism, whereas a social liberal is one who champions equality, civil rights and liberties, democracy, etc. Classical liberalism is a general term that encompasses both of these concepts but is a philosophy that began in the 18^th century, therefore, its proponents had a whole different view of capitalism (being relatively benign at the time and better than feudalism in several ways). In America the term "liberal" (or liberalism) generally means one who advocates social liberalism and regulated capitalism, i.e. capitalism with protections such as nationalized infrastructure and social safety nets like welfare, food stamps and medicaid, etc.  The newer term “neo-liberal” describes an economic philosophy promoting laissez fair free trade capitalism in which corporations and governments collude in order to achieve maximum trade and profits (for the corporations).

Social conservatism is the opposition to social change or social liberalism; conservatives are wary of social change due to religious views or just a general fear of change (fearing that a breakdown in social mores will lead to chaos and disregard for law or morality). A fiscal conservative is someone who believes government spending should be minimal and they often oppose social safety nets like welfare and programs to help impoverished people. Neoconservative, or the shorter variation, neocon is a newer term that describes a position much different than traditional social conservatism or fiscal conservatism. Neoconservatism is a view that embraces the spirit of classical liberalism - democracy, laissez faire capitalism, equality, etc. - and promotes the active spreading of the classical liberal model in order to revolutionize the world; this spreading is to be done by any means necessary including military intervention and regime change, hence the association of the term with hawks like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Neoconservatives are typically okay with the existence of limited mixed economy capitalism (capitalism with protections) and are supportive of free trade. The term paleoconservatism describes a position that is more akin to social and fiscal conservatism, which places importance on limited government, laissez faire capitalism, anti-federalism (the view that the states should have equal or more power than the central or federal government), and opposition to imperialism/intervention.

The term anarchist is commonly used in the US as a synonym for chaos or disorder - a pejorative usage coined by opponents of anarchism in the 19th century. Anarchism is actually a centuries old political philosophy which considers the state (external government) to be an illegitimate, destructive and corrupt form of authority. Most anarchists advocate direct democratic associations as an alternative to external government. There are various tendencies within anarchism some being social (socialist) and others being individualistic or capitalistic; most social anarchists do not consider capitalist anarchism to be a true form of anarchy. The most familiar and the most active form of anarchism, historically and currently, is social anarchism, otherwise known as libertarian socialism (or communism) - a more broad classification - and anarcho-syndicalism if emphasis is placed on the role of worker organizations to bring about revolution and order. This form of anarchism is best understood as a type of democratic socialism or communism which opposes the state in all its forms; some social anarchists refer to their philosophy as "radical democracy".

The term radical is associated with any political position which diverges from traditional political positions - this term is most commonly used by those on the left end of the political spectrum (socialists, communists and social anarchists).

Class

Class labels are also used carelessly which renders class labels extremely ambiguous. Often politicians speak of the working class referring to “blue collar” workers (those who sell their physical labor to employers). Working class or proletariat (the French term for working class used by Marx) is actually a Marxian term referring to all workers who sell their labor (mental or physical) to employers, so the usage referring to “blue collar” workers is erroneous. Politicians and commentators may also refer to stratum within the working class such as lower class or middle class, etc., which leads to further confusion and leads some to believe that their interests are fundamentally different than other working class individuals and that so-called upper class folks are part of the same monolithic class system.

The only way to properly understand the differences between classes is to view them from a Marxian perspective which divides classes into two groups – the working class (or proletariat) and the employing class (AKA ruling class or bourgeoisie). When class-based society is analyzed from the Marxian perspective the fundamental differences between these two classes are laid bare – the working class is comprised of individuals that sell or, more accurately, rent themselves and their labor to the employing class, which do not sell their labor but profit off of the labor of the working class. The employing class occupies the highest rank in workplace hierarchies for they actually own the workplace, therefore they control and dictate how things are to be ran or delegate this task to higher paid wage earners – managers. The petit or petty bourgeoisie are capitalists who own small businesses and employ others to work for wages or salaries. The petty bourgeois often work alongside their wage-laborers but hold most of the authority and control; they also garner more in pay as they set their own income. The petty bourgeois usually do not make enough of a profit to re-invest a significant amount in constant capital (machines for production, land, buildings, etc.) to make it into what would be considered the bourgeois class and remove themselves from actually taking part in production. An example of a petty bourgeois capitalist would be a doctor who owns a small clinic. The self-employed are neither in the working class, petty bourgeois class, or ruling class; they occupy a position in the social strata similar to that of the working class - they own their own constant capital but are out-competed by the petty bourgeois and bourgeois who employ others and extract surplus value (the difference between a worker's wage and what they produce, a profit).

Nationalism

This term can mean a belief in national superiority over other nations. Racialists use the term to denote not only superiority of the nation-state but also the racial and cultural majority within that state. Nationalism can also be a term used for an ideology in support of national liberation. For instance, Irish Nationalists support a united Ireland - Northern Ireland's independence from the UK.

When it comes to political or socioeconomic labels care must be taken to use these labels appropriately; do not trust that those on television or the radio or even in office are using these terms in a fair and accurate way.