Terms of Political Economy (Left and Right) Aren't Endearing

Socialists and about anyone can crash an economy. I think people tend to lose sight of political and economic facts in the political dialectic occasionally, the terms left and right are fairly tired and overused. They are relative to the time and people disagree about their meaning. They are not rigid designators such as the phrase ‘red apple’ that is easier for anyone to recognize (within a dozen or more varieties of ‘red apple’. National economies and trans-national corporations are things for themselves that are self-standing. Many continue to function unimpaired by local political leadership changes.

Instead of using left and right as terms representing major political differentiation, words describing the philosophy of political economy such as corporatism, socialism, reformed capitalism and free enterprise, ecological economics etc. would be more useful and accurate for the electorate. Left and right- a two-handed approach -is overly simplistic. China might use wealth anispotropic, bifurcated neo-egalitarian trans-national corporatism/communism regarding Wall Street partnership hybrids.

Creating vast bureaucratic ossifications might render ecological economic policies difficult. Bureaucracies and socialists tend toward vast left-wing crunching of free enterprise with non-creative repression. The difference between corporatism- the unification of government and corporate leadership, that was the policy of the Nazi government of Germany, is little different from that of socialism and communism, except in situational ethics. Neither is designed to reinforce egalitarian democracy through free enterprise and moderated capitalism to assure that no citizens are exploited viciously, the ecospheric health is restored and continued etc.

In modern urban society the vast concentration of citizens saturated with socialization media makes individualism and creativity challenging. One may be free to adopt the prevailing social technology and serve to develop the transistor plus line, amoral norms and social passivity as a producer and consumer, yet that vast left wing corporatist enterprise promotes in own values and through Wall Street and the shadow banking system are about as inflexible as bureaucracies regarding mass infrastructure change and egalitarian distribution of wealth as a resource that individuals may find useful for creativity and production.


Communism and corporatism are unsustainable forms of government as they repress creativity, individual initiative and promote non-creative souls to political leadership. I hadn’t realized that ecological economics is as revolutionary (or evolutionary) as it is; it is based on the principle of global resource sustainability while most political economy isn’t. In order to have sustainability and stay out of the trap of destroying the creativity and freedom of the citizens, ecological economics requires sustainable individual creativity as well. Traditional government forms eventually over-consume resources and repress individual creativity, while ecological economics cannot if it is to work

If the global economy is to transition to sustainability through national leadership societies and borders should stabilize. Mass migration harms the marginal citizen creators far more than aloof insiders in the top 50% of income earners. A transition to ecological economics discretely with well-informed political leadership (or well advised at least) should go ahead through good economies and bad since the declining health of the ecosphere requires invention, production in new forms and support for vital human interests in a better way than exists presently.