re: #855 000G

I’m not sure what criteria you’re using for ‘relevance’. There is no good definition of ‘left’ and ‘right’, but one way they are defined is definitely right-wing being more authoritarian and left-wing being more anarchic. It is a false definition— as are all definitions of ‘left’ and ‘right’.

Both the French and the American revolutions were driven by civilians

Actually, no. The French Revolution had a lot, a lot a lot, of aristocrats as its main adherents and leaders. In addition, the minor clergy were some of the most important supporters, at least during the early time period.

The book “Citizens” gives a very good overview of the French Revolution.

I think the Wikipedia article definitions of left and right are rather accurate, saying that left-wing politics implies “support for social change with a view towards creating a more egalitarian society” and that right-wing politics implies “support for social stratification with the preservation of traditional social orders and values.”

Well, you’re very deeply wrong, as can be seen by the current state of the ‘right’ in the US, which is pushing heavy change of traditional social orders or values. That is basically a definition of ‘right-wing’ through the medium of ‘conservative’, which only works if you’re already starting out in a system with ‘traditional social orders and values’ in place. The desire to turn the US more theocratic is not in any way a preservation of anything, but a revolutionary, radical idea— and it’s one of the main aspects of the ‘right’ in the US at the moment.

There is no good definition of ‘left’ or ‘right’ beyond self-identification of individuals.