No one understands what either one actually means, which in a way is fine, because neither side does even a reasonable job of describing a complex political beliefs. People select one to identify as the good guy, label the other the bad guy, and then dig in. I take issues with the authoritarians on both sides of this false dichotomy. Tankie, nazi, imperialist or neo-nazi, I don’t care which side of the political spectrum they believe they identify with; fascists can fun off.
One means kings, one means no kings. We use the term Right to describe a set of political beliefs in which a societal elite rules and power & ideas flow from the top down. The further right you go, the smaller & more exclusive the elite gets, the steeper and stricter hierarchies get. The Left describes a set of political beliefs in which rule is shared or replaced with self rule, hierarchies are shallow or non-existent; power & ideas flow from the bottom up. The further left you go the less you’re willing to compromise on those points and the more you start to see economic power as equivalent to political power.
This is the intended dichotomy, yes. My point was that it is not understood correctly by a majority of people, and a systems intent doesn’t matter if it’s used differently.
And my original point was that, even in a king less eliteless system, with power flowing from the bottom, the system is still susceptible to corruption via authoritarianism. The beliefs that lead to this just come from a position of “what’s best for all happens to be painful for the few.” At some extremes, these beliefs can be used to justify oppression as equally as a merit-based, right wing authoritarian system.
Those aren’t leftists, they’re tankies
Wanting full control in the hands of the state is still a set of beliefs aligned with the left, even if it is fascist authoritarianism.
If the state controls the means of production, then the workers don’t. Full stop, no matter how much Bolsheviks want to argue with you about it.
Some people treat Left and Right as more akin to conferences that your sports team joins than actual descriptive terms for political beliefs.
That’s because they are.
No one understands what either one actually means, which in a way is fine, because neither side does even a reasonable job of describing a complex political beliefs. People select one to identify as the good guy, label the other the bad guy, and then dig in. I take issues with the authoritarians on both sides of this false dichotomy. Tankie, nazi, imperialist or neo-nazi, I don’t care which side of the political spectrum they believe they identify with; fascists can fun off.
One means kings, one means no kings. We use the term Right to describe a set of political beliefs in which a societal elite rules and power & ideas flow from the top down. The further right you go, the smaller & more exclusive the elite gets, the steeper and stricter hierarchies get. The Left describes a set of political beliefs in which rule is shared or replaced with self rule, hierarchies are shallow or non-existent; power & ideas flow from the bottom up. The further left you go the less you’re willing to compromise on those points and the more you start to see economic power as equivalent to political power.
This is the intended dichotomy, yes. My point was that it is not understood correctly by a majority of people, and a systems intent doesn’t matter if it’s used differently.
And my original point was that, even in a king less eliteless system, with power flowing from the bottom, the system is still susceptible to corruption via authoritarianism. The beliefs that lead to this just come from a position of “what’s best for all happens to be painful for the few.” At some extremes, these beliefs can be used to justify oppression as equally as a merit-based, right wing authoritarian system.
What leftist philosophy accepts a fascist government in charge? And don’t say nazis
Bolshevism came damn close.