Left and right wing countries

Watch this thread
Anonymous #1
#1
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#1
Just out of interest which countries would you consider very left/ ‘progressive’ idk if that’s the right word but hopefully you get what I mean and which would you consider the most right wing/ conservative/ traditional etc
0
reply
olivia.francesca
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
Report 3 years ago
#2
Scandinavia/Nordic countries I’d probably say is the most liberal group of countries in the world. I see the USA and Ireland as very right wing
2
reply
The RAR
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#3
Report 3 years ago
#3
Eastern Europe pretty right wing, western Europe pretty left wing
4
reply
fallen_acorns
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#4
Report 3 years ago
#4
Western Europe Scandinavia and the Anglo sphere are very left wing by global standards..

Eastern Europe, Russia and Central Asia are much more right wing. South and east Asia also.

South America is a pretty mixed bag of more and less liberal countries, and the island / micro nations all differ. Africa is the one I know least about, but my understanding is it's still pretty right wing in general. The Middle East is obviously very right wing in general.

The problem is that it's all comparative. Most countries are far more left wing then they were before, but compared to the "west" they are still politically way to the right.

It's a hard thing for a lot of people in the west to get their head around but 'far right' Nigel farage, would be a centerist/leftists in the majority of countries Around the world. Certainly in all of east asia he is entirely on the left of their politics, Middle East and Eastern Europe/Russia too..
0
reply
PTMalewski
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#5
Report 3 years ago
#5
(Original post by Anonymous)
Just out of interest which countries would you consider very left/ ‘progressive’ idk if that’s the right word but hopefully you get what I mean and which would you consider the most right wing/ conservative/ traditional etc
The left/right division is obsolete, it only functions because it's easy enough for people who don't have in-depth education in politics.

To give a few examples, the modern West's liberals or sometimes called progressive liberals are not liberal in the classical sense of the word.
They are on the left from the social-liberalism which is on the left from classical liberalism, not to mention that progressive-liberalism has elements that the classical liberalism is against and had risen from the opposition too.

Peaking of other doctrinces, today you can find countries that are conservative or ultra-conservative it terms of such things such as religion, tradition, sexual orientation etc. but are socialist in terms of economy (eg. Poland, Hungary)
Same time, you can find countries that declare being communist, but in fact they are an example of classical liberalism in economy (Peoples' Republic of China).

I don't think that the casual division on the left and right, as popularly understood, gives justice to anything in the international environment. Being from the 'Eastern' (anctualy mid-Europe) I reckon that some words don't match how do people perceive certain issues in different countries. But that's another story.
4
reply
da_nolo
Badges: 22
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#6
Report 2 years ago
#6
very left wing?
china, north korea,

left wing?
germany, u.k., russia

middl-ish?
usa-ish ... I'm not sure who is in middle anymore. its changed so much

right leaning?
south Africa (maybe-its arguable), republic of congo, hm...

very right?
Somalia

there's only one political spectrum and that's determined by how much govt. a society has.
Last edited by da_nolo; 2 years ago
0
reply
PTMalewski
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#7
Report 2 years ago
#7
(Original post by da_nolo)
very left wing?
china,
But China is very liberal, almost libertarian in terms of economy, and social policies (practically none).

They kept communist phraseology, the government is authoritarian, but in economy it's almost "do whatever you want", with taxes being either very low, or not existant at all.
The street trade is free from tax or any concessions, you can run trading post without registering a company, cash registers and you don't have to pay any tax for that. So what do you earn at a street is entirely yours and legal. This level of economic freedom has not been seen in the West since the XIXth century.

And that's probably the reason why their economy has been continuously skyrocketing for decades.

Speaking of political spectrums, these classifications are much better:

(Mind that 'liberal' on those pictures means 'classical liberal', not liberal in the modern sense!)
Image

Image

[img]
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/02/Mitchell%27s_Eight_Ways.png[/img]

Image
0
reply
da_nolo
Badges: 22
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#8
Report 2 years ago
#8
(Original post by PTMalewski)
Speaking of political spectrums, these classifications are much better:

(Mind that 'liberal' on those pictures means 'classical liberal', not liberal in the modern sense!)
I do not know enough about china to comment on its policies.

I disagree that the provided classifications are accurate:
1. there is a false left vs right construct, which develops an us vs them approach to politics. in the spectrum I provided, there is no left vs right. only govt. design and quantity to how much society would rely on govt. in other words, the forms of govt.

2. those spectrums provide inaccurate descriptions. as you said, not liberal in modern sense. but not enough people study politics to understand what words describe. furthermore, some descriptions are inaccurate. for example, fascism and communism both use socialism. despite their general dislike towards each other, they both implement same practices and belong together on a political spectrum. misunderstanding between these two political styles help fuel the us vs them in point 1.

3. some ideologies and practices are neutral and can be used by any political *ism or group, as pointed out in point 2. we shouldn't restrict these ideologies/practices to a single group. instead we should identify where these practices may fit best or be used the most in accordance to a practical spectrum to identify forms of govt.
Last edited by da_nolo; 2 years ago
0
reply
username3890778
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#9
Report 2 years ago
#9
(Original post by da_nolo)
very left wing?
china, north korea,

left wing?
germany, u.k., russia

middl-ish?
usa-ish ... I'm not sure who is in middle anymore. its changed so much

right leaning?
south Africa (maybe-its arguable), republic of congo, hm...

very right?
Somalia

there's only one political spectrum and that's determined by how much govt. a society has.
how is somalia very right lmao.
Last edited by username3890778; 2 years ago
0
reply
da_nolo
Badges: 22
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#10
Report 2 years ago
#10
(Original post by CHANELDIAMONDS)
how is somalia very right lmao.
it is one nation I could think of that is closest to being in state of anarchy. however, this probably is incorrect since some forms of govt exist today and we are no longer in the 90's.
Last edited by da_nolo; 2 years ago
0
reply
Elosant
Badges: 9
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#11
Report 2 years ago
#11
The UK is pretty much becoming a facist state (the porn law, restrictions on various imageboards and the advent of the "hate speech police"). In fact there's been multiple controversial predicated solely on someone saying something that isn't necessarily an incitement of violence nor what the UK deems "hate speech", but they're censored and even confronted by police regardless. Of course if you can pass yourself off as a muslim or "sexually ambiguous" [fe]male then you'll get a pass. And then you also have the current mayor of London (a blatant diversity hire) wherein homocide rates have almost doubled since his admission and he'd rather spend (I kid you not) millions of pounds on assigning the police a colour for their personality. There's also his baseless (and by extension, slanderous) references to Trump being a "20th century facist". Excuse my catharsis, but if you'd like an exemplification of something akin to modern Soviet Russia, look no further than where you're living, that is, if you can somehow look past google literally censoring content that doesn't conform to their own political biases (check project veritas, they've literally manipulated search results post US 2016 election to ensure potus doesn't get a second term) or you can break the conditioning set by the BBC (state funded no less) and even something like GCSEs (at which age one would likely be more impressionable to politically charged doctrine). God I hated having to write essays on garbage, socialist propaganda (An Inspector Calls).
Last edited by Elosant; 2 years ago
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#12
Report 2 years ago
#12
(Original post by Elosant)
The UK is pretty much becoming a facist state (the porn law, restrictions on various imageboards and the advent of the "hate speech police"). In fact there's been multiple controversial predicated solely on someone saying something that isn't necessarily an incitement of violence nor what the UK deems "hate speech", but they're censored and even confronted by police regardless. Of course if you can pass yourself off as a muslim or "sexually ambiguous" [fe]male then you'll get a pass. And then you also have the current mayor of London (a blatant diversity hire) wherein homocide rates have almost doubled since his admission and he'd rather spend (I kid you not) millions of pounds on assigning the police a colour for their personality. There's also his baseless (and by extension, slanderous) references to Trump being a "20th century facist". Excuse my catharsis, but if you'd like an exemplification of something akin to modern Soviet Russia, look no further than where you're living, that is, if you can somehow look past google literally censoring content that doesn't conform to their own political biases (check project veritas, they've literally manipulated search results post US 2016 election to ensure potus doesn't get a second term) or you can break the conditioning set by the BBC (state funded no less) and even something like GCSEs (at which age one would likely be more impressionable to politically charged doctrine). God I hated having to write essays on garbage, socialist propaganda (An Inspector Calls).
Authoritarian maybe, hardly fascist though.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#13
Report 2 years ago
#13
(Original post by da_nolo)
left wing?
, russia
Russia is decidedly not left wing i'm afraid. These days it is a thoroughly conservative statist entity.

right leaning?
south Africa (maybe-its arguable), republic of congo, hm...
How so?


[/quote]
0
reply
da_nolo
Badges: 22
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#14
Report 2 years ago
#14
(Original post by Napp)
Russia is decidedly not left wing i'm afraid. These days it is a thoroughly conservative statist entity.


How so?
1. russia. I am referencing govt. formation which has large quantities of govt. or total govt. on left vs. no govt. on right. the provided video highlights this. having a strong desire to follow tradition (conservative) does not mean you are incapable to having a totalitarian or oligarchy style govt.
russia does not have a democracy (middle) or may be argued to be democratic socialism at best, which is still to the left (of middle).

2. south africa rep. of congo
african nations are more well known for their democracy or low quantities of govt. ironically. south africa in name and practice is a republic. republic is right of middle (as described in point 1 above. otherwise, I was guessing.
0
reply
PTMalewski
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#15
Report 2 years ago
#15
(Original post by da_nolo)

I disagree that the provided classifications are accurate:
1. there is a false left vs right construct, which develops an us vs them approach to politics. in the spectrum I provided, there is no left vs right. only govt. design and quantity to how much society would rely on govt. in other words, the forms of govt.
Spoiler:
Show

2. those spectrums provide inaccurate descriptions. as you said, not liberal in modern sense. but not enough people study politics to understand what words describe. furthermore, some descriptions are inaccurate. for example, fascism and communism both use socialism. despite their general dislike towards each other, they both implement same practices and belong together on a political spectrum. misunderstanding between these two political styles help fuel the us vs them in point 1.

3. some ideologies and practices are neutral and can be used by any political *ism or group, as pointed out in point 2. we shouldn't restrict these ideologies/practices to a single group. instead we should identify where these practices may fit best or be used the most in accordance to a practical spectrum to identify forms of govt.
(Original post by da_nolo)
1. russia. I am referencing govt. formation which has large quantities of govt. or total govt.
Spoiler:
Show
on left vs. no govt. on right. the provided video highlights this. having a strong desire to follow tradition (conservative) does not mean you are incapable to having a totalitarian or oligarchy style govt.
russia does not have a democracy (middle) or may be argued to be democratic socialism at best, which is still to the left (of middle).
Depends, what are you looking for in your classification.
I agree those are not perfect, and they don't cover everything.

If I was to make classification, I would take ... factors into account;

1. Form of government (that would also include how public administration is organised and what quantity)
2. Level of oppressiveness
3. Values
4. Economic policy

Some examples:

Modern Russia imho would be:

1. Moderately-authoritarian-statist, 2. Moderately oppressive 3. Conservative 4. Social-liberal

Modern China:

1. Authoritarian, 2. Politically oppressive, 3. Conservative 4. Classical liberal.

I put these two, to show that there are differences in Eastern Europe
Spoiler:
Show

Modern Poland:

1. Democratic-statist-populist 2. Mildly 3. Conservative 4. Socialist

Czech Republic

1. Democratic 2. Not oppresive 3. Tolerant 4. Centrist


The West in general:

1. Democratic-statist, 2. Mildly 3. Socialist 4. Centrist


Historical regimes:

PRC in Mao's times:

1. Totalitarian 2. Tyrannical 3. Incoherent 4. Communist

IIIrd Reich:

1. Totalitarian, populist 2. Tyrannical 3. Conservative 4. Socialist, war-economy

The Soviet Union

1. Totalitarian, 2.Tyrannical, 3. Conservative, 4. Communist
0
reply
da_nolo
Badges: 22
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#16
Report 2 years ago
#16
(Original post by PTMalewski)
Depends, what are you looking for in your classification.
I agree those are not perfect, and they don't cover everything.

If I was to make classification, I would take ... factors into account;

1. Form of government (that would also include how public administration is organised and what quantity)
2. Level of oppressiveness
3. Values
4. Economic policy

Some examples:

Modern Russia imho would be:

1. Moderately-authoritarian-statist, 2. Moderately oppressive 3. Conservative 4. Social-liberal

Modern China:

1. Authoritarian, 2. Politically oppressive, 3. Conservative 4. Classical liberal.

I put these two, to show that there are differences in Eastern Europe
Spoiler:
Show

Modern Poland:

1. Democratic-statist-populist 2. Mildly 3. Conservative 4. Socialist

Czech Republic

1. Democratic 2. Not oppresive 3. Tolerant 4. Centrist


The West in general:

1. Democratic-statist, 2. Mildly 3. Socialist 4. Centrist


Historical regimes:

PRC in Mao's times:

1. Totalitarian 2. Tyrannical 3. Incoherent 4. Communist

IIIrd Reich:

1. Totalitarian, populist 2. Tyrannical 3. Conservative 4. Socialist, war-economy

The Soviet Union

1. Totalitarian, 2.Tyrannical, 3. Conservative, 4. Communist
how was soviet union or 3rd reich conservative?
0
reply
PTMalewski
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#17
Report 2 years ago
#17
(Original post by da_nolo)
how was soviet union or 3rd reich conservative?
I've used a distinction between economic doctrine, and other values specifically in terms of attitude towards family and sexual orientation, but also other things such as art.

Both in IIIrd Reich, abortion on demand was illegal (it only changed after Stalin's death), homosexuals were persecuted (sent to prisons or even killed), there was also a push to marry and have regular families. Also, people who lived rather "free" personal life could get into trouble with local party activists and condemned. They were very "puritanical" in these terms.

There was also a limited number of art forms that were considered artistic and allowed. Generally speaking, Hitler dismissed modern art, and Stalin dissmissed musical ideas that were not either emerging from Russian tradition or from very old music.

I didn't call their attitude "incoherent" because it was nowhere near as incoherent as that in Maoist China, where Jian Quing claimed that women are free to have lovers, while people who were doing such things were de facto comndemned and sent to labour camps or beaten to death by party activists.
0
reply
da_nolo
Badges: 22
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#18
Report 2 years ago
#18
(Original post by PTMalewski)
I've used a distinction between economic doctrine, and other values specifically in terms of attitude towards family and sexual orientation, but also other things such as art.

Both in IIIrd Reich, abortion on demand was illegal (it only changed after Stalin's death), homosexuals were persecuted (sent to prisons or even killed), there was also a push to marry and have regular families. Also, people who lived rather "free" personal life could get into trouble with local party activists and condemned. They were very "puritanical" in these terms.

There was also a limited number of art forms that were considered artistic and allowed. Generally speaking, Hitler dismissed modern art, and Stalin dissmissed musical ideas that were not either emerging from Russian tradition or from very old music.

I didn't call their attitude "incoherent" because it was nowhere near as incoherent as that in Maoist China, where Jian Quing claimed that women are free to have lovers, while people who were doing such things were de facto comndemned and sent to labour camps or beaten to death by party activists.
1. here is where similarities and differences between political structures should be separate from societal values. such values can be applied to many forms of govt. ex: abortion being illegal can be applied in a democracy and republic. values depict more as to what a person wants - two countries can have same values but different ways to approach it.

you describe both hitler and stalin in similar fashions. this is part to my issue with other political spectrums (especially those listed in this thread) which put their political construct on opposite sides despite their govt.'s both operating in similar ways. both using socialist doctrines and even values. both being totalitarian govts.

2. if conservative means holding to tradition. then every "liberal" today will be "conservative" in 20-50 years if their political and social goals are met. that is the case to the soviet union and nazi germany. they changed more than what they held on to. eventually their standards became the norm as they held on to their own tradition.
Last edited by da_nolo; 2 years ago
0
reply
Underscore__
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#19
Report 2 years ago
#19
(Original post by PTMalewski)
I've used a distinction between economic doctrine, and other values specifically in terms of attitude towards family and sexual orientation, but also other things such as art.

Both in IIIrd Reich, abortion on demand was illegal (it only changed after Stalin's death), homosexuals were persecuted (sent to prisons or even killed), there was also a push to marry and have regular families. Also, people who lived rather "free" personal life could get into trouble with local party activists and condemned. They were very "puritanical" in these terms.
Many of these things were also the case in countries such as the UK, these aren’t signs of being on the right it’s a sign of the times.

(Original post by PTMalewski)
There was also a limited number of art forms that were considered artistic and allowed. Generally speaking, Hitler dismissed modern art, and Stalin dissmissed musical ideas that were not either emerging from Russian tradition or from very old music.
How is that a sign of being on the right? If anything it shows how omnipresent the state was which is a sign of being on the left.
0
reply
PTMalewski
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#20
Report 2 years ago
#20
(Original post by da_nolo)
1. here is where similarities and differences between political structures should be separate from societal values.
They can't. Politicians often identify themselves as left or right depending on the societal values, so do voters identify them.

(Original post by da_nolo)
such values can be applied to many forms of govt. ex: abortion being illegal can be applied in a democracy and republic.
That is correct, and that is why assumed that political attitude of countries should be classified to at least 4 factors, that is a form of government being a separate factor to others, same as societal values are separate from economics doctrine.
I have also made a distinction between the form of government and being tyrannical. Even democracy can be tyrannical.


(Original post by da_nolo)
values depict more as to what a person wants - two countries can have same values but different ways to approach it.
How so? I don't see, how can you approach the same societal result if two countries have completely different societal values.


(Original post by da_nolo)
you describe both hitler and stalin in similar fashions. this is part to my issue with other political spectrums (especially those listed in this thread) which put their political construct on opposite sides despite their govt.'s both operating in similar ways. both using socialist doctrines and even values. both being totalitarian govts.
Yes. The main difference between IIIrd Reich's system and The Soviet system (during Stalin's rulings), was that IIIrd Reich considered German nation to be superior, while Soviets believed that different nations are equal, and that Nazis had no problem with societal classes, while the Soviets targeted higher classes, although inevitably created classes of their own.


(Original post by da_nolo)
2. if conservative means holding to tradition.
I don't think that vocabulary definitions are always useful in terms of political science.


(Original post by da_nolo)
then every "liberal" today will be "conservative" in 20-50 years if their political and social goals are met.
Not necessarily, if we redefine what conservative means in terms of politics.
The press of the West often refers to Polish government as being right-wing or conservative, because of their societal values, while in terms of economics they're socialists (even though they don't say it).
Imho, 'conservative' now is usually someone perceived as someone who follows traditional Christian values, or a XIXth century style conservative.

(Original post by da_nolo)
that is the case to the soviet union and nazi germany. they changed more than what they held on to. eventually their standards became the norm as they held on to their own tradition.
(Original post by Underscore__)
Many of these things were also the case in countries such as the UK, these aren’t signs of being on the right it’s a sign of the times.
As I said earlier, I dismiss the left-right division.


(Original post by Underscore__)
How is that a sign of being on the right? If anything it shows how omnipresent the state was which is a sign of being on the left.
There is no left or right! The spectrum is multi-dimensional!
The Soviet Union in Stalin's times was totalitarian, tyrannical, conservative in terms of societal values, and communist in terms of economics.
And if you insist to classify things as you do, you will have to fight political scientists, as some claim that left-right division is rubbish, while those who don't, insist that Nazism was right-wing because it arose from right-wing values.

There is generally a lot mess done to all the terms. Liberals for example. The current "Liberals" have not much to do with classical liberals.
The original core-assumption of liberalism is that people can be wrong, therefore the state can be wrong, therefore anything that is not absolutely sure, and absolutely necessary to be handled by the state, should be totally free from any interference from the state. That is why it was called liberalism, after the word liberty. Free from state oppression. Free to have your own opinions whatever they are, free to do what you want as long as you don't do damage to the freedom of others.
All those modern "liberal" progressive policies to promote that or other views are a betrayal to liberalism in it's classical sense.
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Year 12s - where are you at with making decisions about university?

I’ve chosen my course and my university (21)
30.88%
I’ve chosen my course and shortlisted some universities (26)
38.24%
I’ve chosen my course, but not any universities (3)
4.41%
I’ve chosen my university, but not my course (3)
4.41%
I’ve shortlisted some universities, but not my course (4)
5.88%
I’m starting to consider my university options (9)
13.24%
I haven’t started thinking about university yet (1)
1.47%
I’m not planning on going to university (1)
1.47%

Watched Threads

View All