I'm curious to know what the cultural undercurrents are behind the left. There was the whole commie thing back in the 20th century that coincided with the rise of scientific advancement (nuclear bombs, modern ships, moon landings, assembly line, etc). With tech rising, are we dealing with scientist's disillusionment and overestimation of their abilities, and this cannot sustain itself, or do you think it's more inevitable that we should be some highly scientific planned economy?
EDIT: For simplicity, use "Left" as in ideas that approach the left-most extreme on the political spectrum.
The "left," either in America or internationally, is not a stoic block of voters with lockstep views.
One only has to look at the infighting among current Democratic candidates or the wildly varying responses and takeaways to the Labor blowout in the UK to see this in action.
Tell me your specific principals, then. Like don't say you think it's a better future for your kid. If you want to save the manatees (pun intended), donate money or work for an NGO.
FUCK MANATEES like most residents of Florida they are just lazy blubber cows
Well everyone in the USA is part of "the left" from the viewpoint of Islamist parties in the middle east....
CRE is right, the OP needs to be a little more specific. It gets old hearing people use the term "the left" or "the right" in a broad way as it is an overly simplistic view on politics, especially on the international level. If you're talking about just the US or another specific country, then we can discuss the ideological views and differences. Probably better to just name the parties. For example, what many would consider "right wing" parties in Europe are further to the left on the political spectrum than the Democrats in the US are. Another way to look at it is: the Conservative Party in the UK would be considered "left wing" in American politics.
Also the political spectrum is almost completely opposite when comparing North America/Europe and Asia. In Asia the political parties that are considered "right wing" are in favor of state interventionism, favor planned economies, and are generally opposed to free trade. In China, despite being a one-party state, CCP members who were for market reforms were referred to as "the left wing" of the party while old the Maoist Guard was often considered the "right-wing/conservatives" of the party. In Japan, the "right wing parties/conservatives" also support a planned economy, state interventionism, and in many cases are strong environmentalists.
The political spectrum changes from country to country. So it's difficult to answer the original question as to "what the cultural undercurrents are behind the left" as you haven't really defined what "the left" and "the right" are. The world isn't black or white when it comes to politics.
To answer your other question "that its inevitable that we should be some highly scientific planned economy?" I think we are in many ways already past that point. A lot of the modern technology we use came from the military and US Federal Gov R&D programs. A few other examples of US federal government central planning include: The Interstate Highway, The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), the modern US agricultural sector, and the panama canal. Every single US state government preforms central planning at the local level in one form or another.
most leftists follow some sort of heterodox economics. the heterodox are known for being against the application of mathematics and statistics to their analysis (marxism, austrian school, etc.), so no, there is no scientific anchorage at all, its more argumentative than anything else. but if you are saying left as in democrat there are some pretty orthodox economists (who follow the neoclassical model applying econometrics as a foundation to prove or disprove their hypotheses) who support the party and made important contributions to the academy i.e. Krugman, even though he's been getting more biased as time passes, and most of Obama's economists as well. the dem candidates today are a shitshow, though
EDIT: after reviewing the question i realised my answer went off on a tangent. i'm hungover af sorry
The elevation of science has been a continuing trend for many hundreds of years (see Renaissance, Enlightenment, etc.). For some on the left, it's the panacea and a near-religion - see climate change. If anything, I think there's more of a reliance or belief in scientists' abilities than ever before - I think this is true even if the left is correct in believing most of the right rejects most of science.
While the left believes the right rejects scientific facts and widely held theories, it seems they do this on the economic side of things. I think there's a hubris among those who believe there's an extremely equal economic system we can build that also doesn't strangle all growth. Unfettered capitalism has many flaws (we need to prevent monopolies, can't let companies dump nuclear waste in rivers, etc.), but a planned economy would never work, nor would many of the current presidential candidates' plans result in a strong economy. Unequal sharing of blessings vs equal sharing of miseries.
It's this kind of false equivalency which gives religious nutjobs a leg to stand on. "Science" is not a religion. Science isn't anything concrete. "Science" in this sense, is the idea that we can test hypotheses rigorously and come to an answer. Science is the idea that even if we don't know it, the universe works according to set laws and those laws can be discovered. Science, briefly, is the idea that we must take nothing on faith, that knowledge and wisdom are earned and not granted.
Religion, at it's core, is the idea that thinking is unnecessary, that you have been gifted all you need by a higher power whose means and methods are unknowable. Inquiry and the search for knowledge are meaningless. To say that science is a "religion" is to demean the concept; it's done to make the ignorant religious feel better about their essential kow-towing to celestial dictatorship by equating their own cowardice with the intellectual bravery and dynamism of a worldview which demands rigorous proof before acceptance.
Lol this is patently false. You sound like someone who went to church as a tot, didn't like what they were saying, chose to "backslide", and then became an atheist, with a closet full of punk rock tees and black eyeliner.
Religion at it's core is any practices set around certain beliefs. There are many religions that do not interpret the world as imbued power from a single heavenly diety.
You seem to think that doing something in the name of science is 100% scientific, even if it's clearly passion, and not all that scientific at all.
The first use of the scientific approach came in the socratic method, which led to the realization that humans are not perfect, and the only way to ascertain knowledge lost is to ponder the workings of the world, which led to the scientific approach.
What many on the left do is use science to judge the ethical nature of human behavior, not to understand the world. This passion mixing with science is not scientific.
What I sought to obtain is opinions on whether there is a scientific reason humans should organize in a socialist system and left leaning ideals, or is it simply passion.
The comments above me do a really great job at defining “left” vs “right” in a more international context. Also describing how science has become almost a religion in of itself, although it’s less based on faith (as most religions rely largely on faith) and more based on seeking an understanding. Read a few books on quantum physics and you’ll see there’s an admission of a lack of understanding, even at the highest levels.
I think your general question is if the American Democrat (left on our political spectrum) largely believes in the progress of science as a higher order over the progress of economics? I don’t think those two cannot coexist. I largely think we can all be better off. Being rich in 1600 is still (mostly) worse than being lower middle class in America today.
Quantum physicists, when they admit they don't know things, are very keen to continue research and find more things out. This curiosity, the drive to get closer to the truth is what makes science an admirable profession. This didn't used to be a left-vs-right issue. Society-wide ignorance is being normalized, aided and abetted by traditional and social media, and we haven't begun to reap the real consequences.
Completely agree with your statements. That is what is driving me to make a switch, curiosity mostly in the realm of artificial intelligence. Quantum computing is interesting, as is quantum physics. The thought experiments are amazing.
I agree with most of what you said, but society-wide ignorance has been a problem since the beginning of humanity. One could argue that the mere existence of religion is a testament to the ignorance of man. I'd say the climate is far better for scientists today than it was in the dark ages where the church would poke your eyes out if your discoveries and theories didn't fall in line with the theology.
The big difference between now and the past is that social media and the internet gives everyone a massive platform to spout their ignorance. The idiots have always been there with us, its just that they now have the means to share their stupidity with the world.
I’ve never heard of the lefts manifest destiny, what does that mean ?
It means nothing... OP should have used term "manifesto" instead of "manifest destiny" because that would actually fall in line with what he is discussing.
The term "Manifest Destiny" was used in the 19th century to describe the belief that the US settlers were destined to expand democracy and capitalism during the westward expansion of the USA.
Yeah that’s the definition I know, is the lefts “manifesto” a common term? I’ve never heard that either
It's just a mocking nod to the progressive's determination to change the country.
“No thefts of free will reported."
How can you have a proper discussion if you project all opinions into left or right? I can understand that you can never meaningfully discuss matters without reducing the complexity by some degree. But using the 17th century British parliament's geographic division to talk about modern western politics is pretty ludicrous
Quaerat excepturi suscipit praesentium sequi dolor. Et doloremque ipsa vero voluptates quas rerum et. At vitae porro totam totam.
Dolorem omnis qui dolorum cupiditate sequi magnam. Perferendis blanditiis sequi quia consequatur et consequatur aut. Suscipit culpa voluptatem debitis non fugiat. Cum sint occaecati sed officia.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Enim et sint ducimus temporibus ea officia. Quia ex incidunt qui voluptatem eum inventore laborum. Id ut voluptas molestiae molestiae ex rerum maxime. Impedit labore delectus repellat nulla officia. Distinctio fuga repudiandae necessitatibus ipsa odit doloribus iure. Amet odio nemo modi labore dicta.
Qui omnis minus enim. Est id nobis et facilis voluptatem ea error. Cum quidem delectus sint voluptatem enim deserunt fugiat.
Quos culpa qui est eos. Alias nihil assumenda reprehenderit sed explicabo est et. Accusantium fugiat adipisci ut est nisi. Est eligendi harum architecto.
Occaecati repellat sint ullam sed in ut et. Explicabo incidunt et quo. Autem officiis tempora illo.