I mean, this is both true and pointless. Left and right are usually relative positions.
In the 18th century, abolition of feudalism was a distinctly and uniquely leftist position. Now it would be hard to find even right-wingers who are (at least formally) for feudal privileges.
That IS what it meant. And if you read conservative monarchists like Edmund Burke, and his critique of the French Revolution, the criticism he presents is that. The Right. In support of monarchy for stability, much like Hobbes’ Leviathan. Whereas classical liberalism was republican (with a little r), meaning equality under the law regardless of one’s caste position. And if you go to Marx, I mean actually read the essays he and Engles wrote, you’ll see he actually promoted democratic freedoms and worker owned coops. Not state communism. He’d have considered Leninism and particularly Stalinism and Maoism to be abhorrent. Because… hear me out here, because dictatorships are but many forms of Kingship and monarchy. Which Marx OPPOSED.
Words have meaning. People and their movements may realign, but this does not negate historical fact. The entire premise is wrong. Liberalism IS definitionally the left.
THANK YOU! There’s been a strong push as of late to make liberal mean left when it’s still conservative. Until you realize that majority of ills and problems in the USA society is because of run away capitalism and it needs to be rid of you’ll not make it too far left.
WHERE DID LIBERALS SIT IN THE ASSEMBLEE NATIONALE DURING THE FRENCH REVOLUTION? TO THE LEFT OR TO THE RIGHT???
I mean, this is both true and pointless. Left and right are usually relative positions.
In the 18th century, abolition of feudalism was a distinctly and uniquely leftist position. Now it would be hard to find even right-wingers who are (at least formally) for feudal privileges.
It’s relevant because it goes to the foundation of the word “left” and “leftism”. To claim otherwise is to misunderstand its very meaning.
TIL that only anciene royalists are right wing. You can’t claim otherwise, that’s what it means.
That IS what it meant. And if you read conservative monarchists like Edmund Burke, and his critique of the French Revolution, the criticism he presents is that. The Right. In support of monarchy for stability, much like Hobbes’ Leviathan. Whereas classical liberalism was republican (with a little r), meaning equality under the law regardless of one’s caste position. And if you go to Marx, I mean actually read the essays he and Engles wrote, you’ll see he actually promoted democratic freedoms and worker owned coops. Not state communism. He’d have considered Leninism and particularly Stalinism and Maoism to be abhorrent. Because… hear me out here, because dictatorships are but many forms of Kingship and monarchy. Which Marx OPPOSED.
Giving real “party of Lincoln” vibes 🙄
No. It’s fucking history.
You sound like a right winger trying to convince people that the Democratic Party is currently the party of the KKK.
Please read more books.
Tell me again how political movements never realign.
Words have meaning. People and their movements may realign, but this does not negate historical fact. The entire premise is wrong. Liberalism IS definitionally the left.
Liberalism has been co-opted and is in turn trying to co-opt the entire left. Modern liberalism is just oligarchy wearing liberalism’s skin.
THANK YOU! There’s been a strong push as of late to make liberal mean left when it’s still conservative. Until you realize that majority of ills and problems in the USA society is because of run away capitalism and it needs to be rid of you’ll not make it too far left.