Online Journal
Front Page 
 Special Reports
 News Media
 Elections & Voting
 Social Security
 Editors' Blog
 Reclaiming America
 The Splendid Failure of Occupation
 The Lighter Side
 The Mailbag
 Online Journal Stores
 Official Merchandise
 Join Mailing List

Analysis Last Updated: Dec 6th, 2007 - 01:35:45

The great social-political divide: Left or Right
By Gaither Stewart
Online Journal Contributing Writer

Dec 6, 2007, 01:33

Email this article
 Printer friendly page

ROME -- After the fall of Soviet Communism some political scientists came to believe that the terms Left and Right no longer made sense, that they were actually the same. Before his death in 1980 former Communist Jean-Paul Sartre went so far as to speak of Left and Right as �empty boxes,� as if they had been buried by Stalinism. Other political thinkers began using in their place terms such as progressive and conservative.

Though the Democratic and Republican parties in the United States contain both, a little of this, a little of that, with the result that both parties are the same, no political movement with a genuine ideology is and can be both Left and Right. Some positions and values can be exchanged and integrated in diverse systems, but there is after all a limit. For example, war cannot be peace.

In these times these two words are often considered old-fashioned. They shouldn�t be. Besides they are not as old as some would like us to think; the two words were in vogue from the French Revolution up until a few years ago when at the onset of the American counter-revolution they became somewhat politically incorrect.

The terms Left and Right had a geographical birth, originally in reference to the seating arrangements in the French Chamber of Deputies after the revolution. They have been used in European parliaments since. Popular or not, politically correct or not, the Left/Right classification reflects what I see as the fundamental polarity in social-political thought.

The two simple words work fine. They distinguish an entire Weltanschauung, the vision of life and social relations of human beings.

Before the French Revolution society was divided vertically. Power was at the top, and filtered down, down, down through the hierarchy to the voiceless peasant-slave, thus facilitating the rise of history�s despots. Though weaker from Power�s point of view, the horizontal Left-Right division was more democratic, intended to limit and control Power.

Peter Kropotkin notes in his The Great French Revolution that the whole of France was then divided into two hostile camps: on one side those who possessed property, on the other, those who possessed nothing -- the rich and the poor. Just as property holders and the landless, Left and Right are by definition mutually exclusive.

Diverse criteria distinguish between the two visions of life. The Right defends the status quo and is defined as conservative or reactionary. Right believes in the superiority of its cultural heritage. Right defends traditions, the past and the nation, and as a consequence, militarism, individualism and more recently anti-Communism.

The Left, reformist or revolutionary, stands for emancipation from the chains of the past, libertarianism and innovation. For example, emancipation from the binds of organized religion. Though not universally true, especially in Europe religion is generally considered Right and atheism, Left (symbolically the good are seated on the right of God; the evil on His left).

War obviously belongs to the Right. The position on war of America�s Democratic Party today is a Right position, as is its position on social justice. Right positions inevitably result in clash, in war and increased social injustice. The pro-war position of European Social Democracy at the outbreak of World War I led directly to its decline and the predominance on the Left of the Bolsheviks and thus to the birth of Stalinism.

War is no minor political oversight, a slipup, a boo-boo, as American Democrats must by now know. War is historically all-determinant. War has already destroyed the foundations of the American republic and undermined American democracy itself.

Equality and inequality -- one or the other

Norberto Bobbio (1909-2004), Italy�s leading political philosopher, determined that the major distinction between Left and Right is the relationship of each with equality. Bobbio�s book, Destra e Sinistra (Right and Left), is a key reference for this article.

Though not every social-political view can be classified as Right or Left, Left as a rule tends toward everything that strives for equality among men; Right tends toward inequality. Or, expressed more forcefully, Right favors forms of hierarchies dividing men.

This distinction on the issue of equality is clear, uncompromising and on target.

Yet French revolutionaries themselves were hard put to come out unequivocally for equality even in their Declaration of the Rights of Man. But when the popular revolution forced the new government to finally proclaim equality in the Preamble to the (new) Constitution, the Revolution flung defiance in the face of all of the powerful royalty of Europe.

It�s one or the other -- Left or Right. They are not interchangeable. Despite Right�s frequent claims that it too is �Socialist� and despite Hitler�s appropriation of the word in National Socialism, and despite Left�s frequent electoral claims that it too is moderate middle of the road, both ideologies if they are genuine are one or the other.

Neither Left nor Right can be middle of road.

Some political philosophers like to describe the basic dichotomy between the two with the categories Progressive and Conservative. Those common words are not satisfactory. The words recall Sartre�s empty box; Right can be progressive on certain limited themes, while Left to achieve and maintain political power easily becomes conservative as seen in the Left of America�s Democratic Party or often in European Socialism. Again, the extreme Right of Nazism and Stalinism used the word Socialist freely and, in the end, created parodies of socialist states.

Today, Left considers the Center a disguised Right; the Right believes the Center is only a cover for the Left. And it is true; the Center or the Third Way is often a cover for one or the other. Often the Third Way is labeled a �conservative revolution� as if the ambivalent Third Way could prevail over genuine Left or Right. For in the long run, the Center also is obligated to assume positions reflecting either Left or Right.

One or the other, Left or Right, predominates in a given society in a given moment, though one does not eliminate the other. Times change but the basic dichotomy remains.

In Italy, the Right of Mussolinian Fascism fell and after World War II the Left predominated -- though the imperialistic USA in the post-war never allowed it to govern Italy. In the confusion of post-war Italy, both the neo-Fascist Right and the ex-Communist Left came to assume Center positions in order to emerge from political oblivion.

Like Washington, the European Center today is crowded by survivors from Left and Right hanging onto crowded political life rafts.

The worst and most blatant and disturbing example of ignoring the obvious is the USA, the world�s most powerful country controlled by a one-party system, where the very words Left and Right are shunned.

Nevertheless, America�s Republican and Democratic parties stand comfortably shoulder to shoulder on the Right, bolstered by religious extremists and a myriad of secret militias -- those in the woods and those abroad like Blackwater -- and the usual flag-waving patriots.

In order to devaluate the other, each party has devaluated itself.

The result is that today America�s two parties are interdependent, one on the other. They have exchanged political and social values as if they were merchandise. The two-component one-party system on the basis of the great euphemism, democracy, now a fa�ade, fake and mendacious, today heads the great American Counter-Revolution.

The one-party system and mainstream culture have meanwhile coined less threatening words for Left such as: �Alternative� or �Indy,� which is America�s Left. The active Left. Independent bookstores and publishers. Alternative press and culture.

Gaither Stewart is originally from Asheville, NC. He has lived his adult life in Germany and Italy, alternated with residences in The Netherlands, France, Mexico, Argentina and Russia. After a career in journalism as a correspondent for the Rotterdam newspaper, Algemeen Dagblad, he began writing fiction. His collections of short stories, "Icy Current Compulsive Course, To Be A Stranger" and "Once In Berlin" are published by Wind River Press. His new novel, "Asheville," is published by He lives with his wife, Milena, in Rome, Italy. E-mail:

Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal
Email Online Journal Editor

Top of Page

Latest Headlines
The politics of anti-Semitism: Zionism, the Bund and Jewish Identity politics
A generous offer to the Palestinian refugees?
The planned collapse of America
The great social-political divide: Left or Right
CFR used John Edwards & Jack Kemp to trash Putin
Tarring with the same brush
Colonising a metaphor
Separate but unequal in Palestine: The road to apartheid
The right to our land must be restored
The empire�s operatives exposed: The Krongards, 9/11, and Blackwater/Iraq
A financial system under siege
Bulletins from the Titanic
The American empire is falling with the dollar
Stock market mayhem and Bush's moral swamp
Paulson's $100 billion Bankers' Bankruptcy Bailout Fund
Housing flameout; California falls into the sea
Futuristic revolt in Poland
Hard times for Sarko, le Roi de France
Recess games
Venezuela fears military aggression from the USA