re: #859 Obdicut

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’.

I disagree with all definitions of right and left being “wrong” and I disagree with there being a relevant “authoritarian” paradigm by which to define them.

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.

Actually, yes. The French Revolution was driven by civilians (the “bourgeoisie”) and had a signifanct influx of detractors from the aristocrats and the clergy (the other “estates”). There would not have been any French Revolution if it had just been for the aristocrats and the clergy.

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.

Well, you’re “very deeply wrong”, as can be seen by the current state of the Right in the US being mostly reactionaries and when they are not reactionaries pushing for a restauration instead of a revolution.

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.

Bullshit. Any state at any time in human history already has some “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.

Never said it was “preservation”. It is restauration (but going even back further past the American Revolution to the assumed ideal, which should be clear when you hear peeps like David Barton propagandizing the idea of a particular kind of Christianity having brought about the American Revolution). And that is only “revolutionary” if you concede the Iranian Revolution of 1979 was also a revolution first and foremost and not a restauration. The National Socialists also cheered 1933 as their National Revolution.

And don’t get me started on “radical”. It doesn’t have anything to do with either left or right but always both.

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

Again, I call bullshit. That’s denying the usefulness of history of thought, cultural sciences, political sciences, etc. I agree that there is no good way of objectively identifying left and right. But identification and definition on the one side and objective and subjective on the other side are completely different concepts.