Comment by gwd
1 day ago
Then why even bother calling it "left" at this point? Just say they're anti-monopoly. Is there really nobody on the right who are also anti-monopoly?
1 day ago
Then why even bother calling it "left" at this point? Just say they're anti-monopoly. Is there really nobody on the right who are also anti-monopoly?
Presumably because anti monopoly right is much less common? Or because the anti monopoly right is concerned with different aspects of monopoly?
If someone said they were anti monopoly, that the government should do something to prevent businesses from operating like that, I'd never expect them to be from the right to be honest.
> If someone said they were anti monopoly, that the government should do something to prevent businesses from operating like that, I'd never expect them to be from the right to be honest.
So consider several perspectives:
a. The government should be in charge of, or at least heavily involved in, planning and organizing most resources in a country.
b. The market is a good way of solving most problems, and it works best if you just leave it alone, enforcing only very minimal rules (like property ownership, contracts, and such).
c. The market can be a good way of solving many problems, if it's regulated so that it has the properties you want.
Now consider other questions: Should abortion or pornography be legal / easily available? Should we invest in a large military? Should the government actively support "diversity" programs? Should gay marriage be allowed? How should the government relate to transgender people?
There are LOTS of people who believe in c as a principle, but have very non-"lefty" opinions on the other questions. Loads of people who consider themselves "on the right" think that everyone "on the left" actually believes a, not c; and loads of people who consider themselves "on the left" think that everyone "on the right" actually believes b, not c.
My sense is actually that the reason he talks that way is to make sure that people who consider themselves "on the left" don't mistake him for being someone "on the right" (and therefore in camp b), and immediately dismiss his claims.
>My sense is actually that the reason he talks that way is to make sure that people who consider themselves "on the left" don't mistake him for being someone "on the right"
If so he has sorely missed the mark. I pretty heavily associate the phrasing "the $X left" with disengenuous right wing pundits. Knowing nothing else about the author, seeing that pop up repeatedly doesn't merely suggest that he's on the "right", but that he's writing the piece with a politically motivated axe to grind.
> My sense is actually that the reason he talks that way is to make sure that people who consider themselves "on the left" don't mistake him for being someone "on the right" (and therefore in camp b), and immediately dismiss his claims.
This is a tad naive I think. "antitrust left" is also to useful term to use to signal to the billionaire class of Democratic party that you are not their enemy. If the author actually agreed with many of the antitrust group's positions and housing policy was one of the few exceptions they disagreed on, they would shy away from using the term. The only reason you would use that term is because you want to bring disrepute to their entire platform.
These abundance folks appear to be the only hope the billionaire Democrats have after having sunk so low as to direct their media assets to support Cuomo and to pour bucketloads money into the coffers of the corrupt disgraced governor in order prevent those "wacky socialists" to gain any more traction.
2 replies →
Tbh classification that makes most sense is wealth level.
Ultra rich and very rich and rich and upper middle class and ..
Because the underlying beliefs of a 'left' anti-monopolist and a 'right' anti-monopolist are likely very different, and similarly their proposed solutions and view of an ideal society will also diverge significantly?
---
Also, it should be noted that we lack sufficiently concise but specific terms to use instead, and because alternative terms that are used are relative, and open to interpretation.
e.g.:
Many political commentators currently use the term "populist" to describe someone who's somewhat divergent from the capitalist political mainstream (and in US terms, I'd include the current Democrat establishment and traditional non-MAGA Republicans in this group). But when the term is applied to people as diverse as Corbyn, Sanders, and AOC on the one side, and Orban, Farage, and Trump on the other, it's nonsensical without much more explanation.
> Because the underlying beliefs of a 'left' anti-monopolist and a 'right' anti-monopolist are likely very different, and similarly their proposed solutions...?
Just curious, how "left" and "right" anti-monopolist solutions might be different? I mean, naturally some "left anti-monopolist" people might be in favor of governments taking over industries, but presumably that's not what most of the people in question are advocating at the moment.
> But when the term [populist] is applied to people as diverse as Corbyn, Sanders, and AOC on the one side, and Orban, Farage, and Trump on the other, it's nonsensical without much more explanation.
I don't think so. It's essentially an accusation that they haven't thought through the hard issues: they're saying "We're going to achieve X", when in fact X is simply not possible given the current state of play (or perhaps, not possible without significant negative consequences, like erosion of human rights or setting up an economic or ecological disaster further down the road).
Boris Johnson's promise to conservatives that they'd be able to "make a deal" which allowed them to trade freely with Europe while not accepting immigrants from Europe was just a fantasy. A lot of populist "progressive" politicians make similar kinds of promises.
> I don't think so. It's essentially an accusation that they haven't thought through the hard issues...
...which itself is nosensical as a generic label, without considering policies individually.
Virtually all politicians say things to help them get elected which are somewhere on a spectrum from 'a vision for the future that is unlikely to be delivered' to 'outright lie'. Of course, on the one hand, we want leaders with a positive vision for the future, which means speaking about possibilities which aren't yet realised, but when even leaders as sensible/stodgy as Starmer/Reeves are doing it ("it's all about growth"... then deliver virtually no policies to meaningfully drive growth) you can see where the growing mistrust of politicians comes from.
I'd characterise "populist" more as "willing to challenge the status quo" - where the status quo in this case is boring centerist politics that rarely/never delivers exciting or meaningful change, is more or less (depending on the country) in the pocket of big business and donors, and which has overseen a progressive worsening of financial inequality and funadamental justice over decades. Which is why the establishment are threatened and use "populist" as an insult, while "populists" are growing their support, be they on the left or right - because people are crying out for something different, even if it comes with potential downsides.
>Just curious, how "left" and "right" anti-monopolist solutions might be different?
Regulating monopolies out of existence vs deregulating them out of existence.
Both approaches have obvious situations they fail in that their peddlers are careful to frame the discussion to avoid.
Right anti-monopolistic policy: tariffs
Left anti-monopolistic policy: destroy Musk via the press/court system.
It can just be an empirical question, right?