rational geekery

I fear this "most rightwing administration ever" just allows us lefties to sit comfortably with our stereotypes. Take this, for example:

"The Republicans have in the past spent more on aid than the Democrats: Todd estimates that, based on past averages, the success of the Democrats in the mid-terms will cost Africa about $800 million. " @ http://www.owen.org/blog/646

Now, I think that's a pretty big deal (come to think of it, I might even post about it), but how many British lefties would know? Actually, probably a few, but there'd be a well-rehearsed retort.

I really think this old 20th century 'Left-Right' idealogical battle is something we need to grow out of - and fast - if humanity is to survive the 21st.

This 'battle' we play simply plays into the hands of those who control us.

Let's wise up and grow up...and not give up.

B4L

You are fucking joking aren't you?

Do you know anything about the Bush project in Africa? The refusal to fund any project that promotes the use of condoms (the best parctical method to fight against aids). That's rightwing idiocy in a nutshell.

Also, how much of that aid in processed through established charities (such as the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation), and how much is funnelled to the likes of Hosni Mubarak to support his undemocratic regime? Huh? (And what of the fact that Egypt is a major US Arms buyer?)

T,

It's all very well saying "the best practical method to fight against aids", but I wouldn't be here debating this if I thought it was as open-and-shut as you claim. The following article quotes a fairly substantial piece on AIDS policy in Africa and, once again, asks us to look beyond the stereotypes.

http://www.owen.org/blog/641

"Applying lessons [of condom use] from a concentrated epidemic to a region where there is a generalised epidemic was bordering on scientific insanity," says Mr Dybul. "We have not listened enough to Africans. It is tough to find one who doesn't say A, B and C is what we need."

I'm not saying the Bush administration isn't right-wing, but that's two issues already where the truth is somewhat more interesting. I'm actually interested in what's right, what works, and am less bothered about who says it.

B4L, you state : "I'm actually interested in what's right, what works..."

"Right" for whom exactly ? "Works" for whom precisely ?

At the moment - and I would be delighted to be proved wrong - I consider you simply to be an apologist and appeaser of the most right-wing prime minister we have ever had, who is so much up the posterior of the NeoCon/NuLabor agenda (eg 'Reforms' - aka Privatisation), that it is lethally embarrassing.

> “Right” for whom exactly ? “Works” for whom precisely ?

Fair enough, that's worth discussing in general. You could make a start by looking at the articles I linked to, as my initial answer to your question is "Right for Africans; works for Africans"

> At the moment [...] I consider you simply to be an apologist and appeaser [...]

OK, Richard, I recognise your eccentric and antagonistic style, but it doesn't do you any favours. Can you show me an example where I've acted as an apologist, by which I mean (and this is my definition), made excuses for someone/thing without evidence of independent thought and/or employment of evidence?

> most right-wing prime minister we have ever had

Are you the same Richard who stated "this old 20th century ‘Left-Right’ idealogical battle is something we need to grow out of", 3 comments earlier??

I thought you might pick up that, B4L (your last para) ! Fair cop - so I better qualify that :

It all depends what you mean by "Left". My definition of "Left" might be different from others...

A "Leftie" to me is essentially a democratic socialist (like Orwell, Joad etc), who passionately believed in the moral justice of the socialist cause - in opposition to the capitalist cause.

Most 'Lefties', therefore, that are mentioned above are not "Lefties" at all - they simply have a left 'take' on the capitalist cause - a leftie right-winger, if you like.

'Bliar' is not even that. He is a right-wing right-winger who is comfotable sitting at the back of an extreme right-wing penny-farting (sorry, farthing) badly-ridden by Bush - at the moment.

As to your definition of "apologist", B4L - I don't buy it.

As to describing my style as "eccentric and antagonistic", you remind me of the Soviet descriptions of their dissidents - especially the word "eccentric" - which often condemned them to 'mental hospitals' to correct their thinking. Such descriptions of people are also just ways of belittling opposing views.

For those who know me, not even very well, they know I'm just trying to honestly seek the truth - whatever that might be.

If you think I'm "eccentric and antagonistic", that's your problem - personally I don't give a shit.

I didn't complete my answer - apologies :

When I say that the old 'Left-Right' idealogical battles of the 20th Century should be ditched, I mean this :

Those battles have simply become battles between left-wing right-wingers and right-wing right-wingers...and those who seek to control us - who are 'off the Richter-scale right-wingers - are more than happy to fuel this type of bickering.

For the 21st century, we need a new 'paradigm' of thinking...to worry out an alternative to the capitalist system which enslaves us like the tentacles of an octupus.

We need to start that new way of thinking now - as a matter of extreme urgency to humanity.

Richard, I was referring to your style, not to you as an individual.

Bear in mind you introduced the "apologist and appeaser" trope, thus - as you yourself rightly say - "[Such descriptions of people are also just ways of] belittling opposing views", so I'm damned if I'm going to be painted as Mr. Nasty here. The B4L moniker does not give anyone the right to make generalised attacks based on their views of the Labour Party.

If your definition of right-wing includes anyone who's prepared to accommodate capitalism, I think that's far too strict, and renders your left/right distinctions meaningless to anyone outside this comment box. A more conventional definition of right-wing would mention things like appeals to authority, tradition, organised religion, conservatism, and so on - but you're sweeping up the whole liberal sector too, and that doesn't leave much.

> For the 21st century, we need a new ‘paradigm’ of thinking…to worry out an alternative to the capitalist system which enslaves us like the tentacles of an octupus.

I won't disagree about the second part, only about the need for any 'new paradigms' - there are all sorts of existing cooperative/mutualist/libertarian anti-capitalist movements out there, pro-state, and anti-state, and no need for 'new thought', just better advocacy.

Testing

I'd say that right-wing definitely applies to people who seek to further either capitalism or the inequities that it necessarily bring; ie. to make pre-existing capitalism more severe in it's preference for elites.

That's Bush.

I am now a major fan of Fukuyama. You can be interventionist and idealist without deeming Iraq sufficently utilitarian, both in terms of winning for us in 'the west' (a horrible term) and ordinary Iraqis.

If left and right aren't real, why does anyone bother with all this political party crap? Why don't we, like, just smoke the herb, man?

What meaning, direction or inspiration is there without qualitative moral measures?

Once upon a time, people understood clearly the difference between Protestantism and Catholicism, Zionist Christianity and Islam, Socialism and Capitalism, Communism and Fascism, Left and Right, Labour and Conservatives, etc.

People chose between these alternative politico-religious belief systems - often with a passion which fuelled many a bloody war - and still does.

Not now.

There is one system in place, to which the rest comply. It's called a global capitalist system, and it is run by those who are 'untouched' by the wars and crisis' - the master puppeteers who finance and control the system.

And I am not a conspiracy theorist...

Playing our little 'Left-Right' games play into the hands of those who control the capitalist system.

That's why we need a new paradigm - a new way of thinking. We need to wake up, wise up and grow up - fast - as a pre-condition of our (humanity's) survival. If not, we can kiss our asses goodbye.

Have we honestly looked at alternatives to the 'Gangster Capitalism' which now envelopes and enslaves us...?

No we have not...

We haven't even started to collectively understand that there are different types of Capitalism - let alone alternatives to Capitalism.

So we need a 'paradigm shift' in our thinking, on a Copernicus/Galileo sense.

I pray it may happen soon...

Well said, Richard. But as the general system is I am much afraid it cannot be changed. Everything depends on the capitalistic mentality. Everything. You imagine changing the whole thing. It would be catastrophic doubtless.

But there's always a way to change tack in the system, use it in the benefit of the great majority, that is where our attention should be aimed at. Avail ourselves of the present situation in our own benefit.

The news about planet warming are again the origin of a new attempt by the Big Capital to exploit our private economic resources. The solution they have found is: "change your car or your fridge or your air conditioner or your watever for new ones that are climate-friendly, they are dearer but that will be compensated by the saving on energy".

A twist that should be avoided by all means, in my opinion. "They" have made zillions, let them spend a part of those zillions in correcting what they have done.

Erm, I think I hear my wife calling...

Thanks enjoyed that I did.
Ole Fackytacky, like daniel bell before him were rather nice fellows were they not? Crap. Do not agree with tyger all the time but this time he shows a fair set of stripes.

As for the point above that there are different ways of capitalism : would love to have those explained to me.
Different ways to counter-balance or counter yes but Capitalism remains a one-way-steet with a very big C.
But if evidence is given for that strange comment I, as an old fart leftie, will happily back down.
Anyway thanks again : nice post and comments.

"Different ways of capitalism : would love to have those explained to me"...

Over to you, Aaron.

My days of explaining the nuances of economics are gone. It doesn't make for a very good blog. Unless of course you're Tim Worstall.

But...

Yes of course there are many variances of capitalism. One could argue there are hundreds of variants. Basically based on various levels of governmental intervention. Britain actually has one of most liberal developed economies in the world. We are happy to allow foreign companies to buy up vast quantities in the city, and out energy markets are incredibly deregulated.

No country in the world has a totally capitalist market economy. The closest was possibly the criminal economy of 1990's Russia, and the neo-liberal experimental economy of Mexico some years ago.

5/10 for that, Tyger...can anyone else do better ?