Kep Enderby is a former Whitlam government minister, barrister and Supreme Court judge. He passes away on Jan 7.

"He was also prominent in the Esperanto movement and attended an Esperanto conference in Havana. Esperanto was a new language that was created in the late 19th century by Ludwik Lazarus Zamenhof to foster harmony between people from different countries. Esperanto spawned a popular progressive social movement in the early 20th century."

Link

Yet another leftie supporter of Esperanto. Why does the movement attract so many lefties? What do we need to do to attract more from the right.

After all, probably half the world's population leans more to the right than to the left. And my guess would be that there are more entrepreneurs with right wing views than left wing views. Such people could be very useful to the cause.

sudanglo:Yet another leftie supporter of Esperanto. Why does the movement attract so many lefties? What do we need to do to attract more from the right.

After all, probably half the world's population leans more to the right than to the left. And my guess would be that there are more entrepreneurs with right wing views than left wing views. Such people could be very useful to the cause.

I think there is a strong tendency to lean to the left the more educated you are (just my own observation here). I also find that I am an irreconcilable blend of "left" and "right" in most areas, so I find the notion of sidedness itself to be nonsense. Also, define "left" and "right", as these are ambiguous even if we're talking just the US/UK. I'd say more of the world leans right socially but left politically.

I myself like the idea that capitalism/free market with minimal government gives everyone a "fair shot", but they don't say the rich get richer and the poor get poorer for nothing.

sudanglo:Yet another leftie supporter of Esperanto. Why does the movement attract so many lefties? What do we need to do to attract more from the right.

After all, probably half the world's population leans more to the right than to the left. And my guess would be that there are more entrepreneurs with right wing views than left wing views. Such people could be very useful to the cause.

I'm right-wing! And I know some other users on this site who are, although it seems to me also that the left-wingers are in the majority.

sudanglo:Why does the movement attract so many lefties?

Because the right is happy with inequality, whereas the left opposes it. Juxtapose that fact with the "interna ideo" of Esperanto and at least part of the reason should be fairly obvious.

Also the fact that people of the left tend to be more intelligent and educated (objectively true, no point disputing it) may be part of it.

tommjames:

sudanglo:Why does the movement attract so many lefties?

Because the right is happy with inequality, whereas the left opposes it. Juxtapose that fact with the "interna ideo" of Esperanto and at least part of the reason should be fairly obvious.

Also the fact that people of the left tend to be more intelligent and educated (objectively true, no point disputing it) may be part of it.

that's a very nice broad brush thee has there, tomm

tommjames:

sudanglo:Why does the movement attract so many lefties?

Because the right is happy with inequality, whereas the left opposes it. Juxtapose that fact with the "interna ideo" of Esperanto and at least part of the reason should be fairly obvious.

Also the fact that people of the left tend to be more intelligent and educated (objectively true, no point disputing it) may be part of it.

I would say you go too far with the inequality statement, because right-wingers would see 100% capitalist free market/laissez faire systems as treating everyone equally. Of course this is not even close to true for many reasons, but many leftist programs intentionally treat people unequally (affirmative action), so...

Lefties say the gov't is responsible for helping the poor/needy, while righties say that is everyone's social responsibility. Both sides want the poor to be helped, just in different ways. It's more a philosophical difference of approach than a true difference in intended effect. Both models have produced a lot of good for humanity: one depends on a good government while the other depends on good rich people.

Even if the education comment is true (I think it may be), does this imply a causal relationship? There are dozens of variables here you're not accounting for, but the largest would be what field they studied. I studied engineering, and nearly every other engineering student I met was a conservative. Most engineers I know now are conservative, and I bet more engineers could get a political science/similar degree than non-engineers could get an engineering degree. I have no delusions that this data has any significance, however. Education does not correspond 1:1 with intelligence or capability. Also, I'd say there are just as many uneducated or uninformed voters voting left as right, at least in the US. I swear politics is more about good advertising than facts/positions, to the dismay of educated voters on both sides.

I'd say the most intelligent people realize that it's more complicated than "left or right", but then again I am biased since that is my opinion.

Can't we all just get along?

Is there such a thing as leftism in the USA? Everything they seem to think is left wing is neoliberal!

kaŝesperanto:right-wingers would see 100% capitalist free market/laissez faire systems as treating everyone equally

Maybe so, but this preposterous idea keeps the right in a contented state of acceptance about the things that really do cause inequality, so it amounts to the same thing I think.

As for affirmative action, the ultimate aim there is still to reduce inequalities. It's fighting fire with fire perhaps but the intention is surely what counts.

But yes I suppose I do use a broad brush, and I was fully expecting the charge. In any case my main goal was just to highlight the connection between leftist thought and some of the philosophy surrounding the Esperanto movement. I'm fairly sure the correspondence isn't entirely coincidental.

kaŝperanto:Even if the education comment is true (I think it may be)

Oh it is, believe me.

kaŝesperanto:does this imply a causal relationship?

Possibly not, but even without a detailed analysis of all the variables I think a case can still be made for it. Of course there are always going to be exceptions, and I know plenty of highly intelligent people who hold noxious, right wing viewpoints. But in general it seems to me that people who gravitate towards intellectual pursuits like second language learning just tend to be smarter and better educated. So we have a group that in general is smarter and better educated composed largely of people from another group that, again - in general, is smarter and better educated. Surely this gives a hint about something, even if it isn't in any way conclusive.

tommjames:

kaŝesperanto:right-wingers would see 100% capitalist free market/laissez faire systems as treating everyone equally

Maybe so, but this preposterous idea keeps the right in a contented state of acceptance about the things that really do cause inequality, so it amounts to the same thing I think.

As for affirmative action, the ultimate aim there is still to reduce inequalities. It's fighting fire with fire perhaps but the intention is surely what counts.

I suppose you should define what you mean by inequality. Just because I have more money or whatever than you doesn't mean there's an inequality if we both have the same chances (not saying this is the case). Be careful: "the ends justify the means" has certainly caused its share of horrors in history. Also, is it wrong to have some inequality if it makes everyone better off than pure equality? To some extent I say it isn't. While we may have the "1% problem", we also have incredibly advanced technology that very well may not exist without the environment that created this problem. This is a somewhat utilitarian viewpoint, which I dislike philosophically, but it is supportable. I would rather support something like basic income over welfare, as it is more equal and possibly less expensive.

tommjames:

kaŝperanto:Even if the education comment is true (I think it may be)

Oh it is, believe me.

kaŝesperanto:does this imply a causal relationship?

Possibly not, but even without a detailed analysis of all the variables I think a case can still be made for it. Of course there are always going to be exceptions, and I know plenty of highly intelligent people who hold noxious, right wing viewpoints. But in general it seems to me that people who gravitate towards intellectual pursuits like second language learning just tend to be smarter and better educated. So we have a group that in general is smarter and better educated composed largely of people from another group that, again - in general, is smarter and better educated. Surely this gives a hint about something, even if it isn't in any way conclusive.

If the evidence is there, it is there. There is no sense in making these claims without supporting evidence, although statistics can indeed easily be used to say almost anything. Elon Musk is a fiscal conservative, and I doubt you can make any argument that he is not smarter and/or not doing more good for humanity than most, and making gobs of money doing it. It all depends less on our system and more on the people who are given power by it. Your claim is purely speculative, there are too many confounding variables to say anything meaningful.