|
Weka posted:Nah. Just because the terms originated in revolutionary France doesn't mean the things they describe first came about there. Afaik and atleast since the magna carta England has never had an absolute monarch yet their were definitely political groups you could identify as being left or right prior to the French revolution. That's the thing, though, the concepts of left or right are useful insofar as they're at least explainably coherent ideologies (regardless of whether they are in their practicioners' minds), but the situation as existed then did not ask the same great question as exists now and a modern answer in either sense would be considered incoherent and rejected by the greater world then. That is, there are any number of peasant rebellions that would be considered "left" movements now, yes, they were explicitly movements for the working class, but the lack of direct agency of the working class in the major power struggle between the bourgeoisie and the great nobles mean that they're necessarily historical footnotes and Chumbawamba B-sides. Or viewed from the other direction, any number of attempts at noblesse oblige then which were "right-wing" then--if you take the oversimplification that supporting the more majoritarian faction is "left" and the more exclusive faction is "right"--but, like the feudal notion of a nonmonetary labor-obligation for a nonmonetary sustenance-obligation, live on the left side of self-described Communism today. Taking that oversimplification is also the root of confusing liberalism and leftism, both the majoritarian new answer once the previous question was solved, but with leftism as a counterpoint to liberalism's right.
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2021 01:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 20, 2024 06:09 |
|
|
Weka posted:It seems like you're mostly just saying political ideologies evolved over time. The opposite; I'm saying the useful portion of describing political ideologies, rather than the majoritarian-elitist or change-consistency axis you mistake for left-right, is describing which class they favor. Further, before that class is relevant in the dialect driving the era's politics (or before it exists at all!), thought about it hypothetically or nascently existing is like considering pre-Copernican tales about being carried aloft to the firmament by angels our first documented space travel. To say otherwise does nothing but create a confusion between serfdom and "from each according to his ability", a confusion of Yeltsin as a leftist and the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR as right-wingers, a confusion which inevitably sets leftism again minority cultures (whose concerns and traditions are after all minoritarian and traditional,) a confusion which underpins some of the worst parts of bourgeoisie politics.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2021 18:53
|
|