How do you Define Left and Right?

[Antonio the Sixth]

The fundamental distinction is between those who seek to encourage and stimulate progress (the left) and those who seek to slow it down or reverse it (the right). I know the notion of progress is not very popular among the left-wing crowd in this forum, but I don't see what other notion you could base the left/right divide on. All the others that have been proposed (equality/hierarchy, liberty/solidarity, individual/collective, etc...) aren't universal but related to a specific political-social context.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The fundamental distinction is between those who seek to encourage and stimulate progress (the left) and those who seek to slow it down or reverse it (the right). I know the notion of progress is not very popular among the left-wing crowd in this forum, but I don't see what other notion you could base the left/right divide on. All the others that have been proposed (equality/hierarchy, liberty/solidarity, individual/collective, etc...) aren't universal but related to a specific political-social context.

On the whole, this though there are certain situations where a "liberal" might be put in a reactionary position and vice-versa depending on how you look at it. (I would cite the 1896 election as an example where at the same time the "left" sought to "progress" away from the stratified capitalism, and at the same time "regress" back to a much more agrarian economy)

True. Of course, defining what progress is is a very hard political task in and of itself.

[Antonio the Sixth]

     Those on the left support radical or revolutionary change to society and social order, whereas those on the right support gradual change within the current system, if any change.

That's wrong in so many ways.

[Antonio the Sixth]

     Those on the left support radical or revolutionary change to society and social order, whereas those on the right support gradual change within the current system, if any change.

That's wrong in so many ways.

     It doesn't make sense for certain elements of the Far-right, such as the Nazis, though I would tend to view that as an academic issue anyway. When we're talking about bad people, who cares what brand of bad they are?

The modern left in Western countries generally supports the opposite of "radical or revolutionary changes".

[Antonio the Sixth]

I think it's unfair to argue that only the left is interested in progress. The right wants a better world too, it just disagrees on A) what constitutes progress, and B) how to achieve progress. To the right, economic freedom is the best arbitor of change, whereas the left tends to believe that positive change can be instituted.

A truly right-wing perspective would be to deny the very possibility of progress and argue that society is better off perpetuating itself in its traditional, "natural" form. Of course, ideological lines are so blurred today that things work out a bit differently, but the importance of tradition is still a key part of right-wing thought in most countries.

[Antonio the Sixth]

     Those on the left support radical or revolutionary change to society and social order, whereas those on the right support gradual change within the current system, if any change.

That's wrong in so many ways.

     It doesn't make sense for certain elements of the Far-right, such as the Nazis, though I would tend to view that as an academic issue anyway. When we're talking about bad people, who cares what brand of bad they are?

The modern left in Western countries generally supports the opposite of "radical or revolutionary changes".

     If they support the extant order of society, as you posit, then they are obviously not left-wing in any meaningful sense.

Some of them arguably can be considered as outright right-wing, yes. Most now, roughly speaking, champion what you would call "gradual change within the current system", which is a form of progressivism. Many modern right-wing parties (chief among them, the GOP) are trying to bring about "radical or revolutionary change to society and social order"... to bring it back to the 19th Century.

[Antonio the Sixth]

     Those on the left support radical or revolutionary change to society and social order, whereas those on the right support gradual change within the current system, if any change.

That's wrong in so many ways.

     It doesn't make sense for certain elements of the Far-right, such as the Nazis, though I would tend to view that as an academic issue anyway. When we're talking about bad people, who cares what brand of bad they are?

The modern left in Western countries generally supports the opposite of "radical or revolutionary changes".

     If they support the extant order of society, as you posit, then they are obviously not left-wing in any meaningful sense.

Would you call Russian communists circa 1992 left or right wing? On the one hand they are hard core socialists. On the other hand, they were supporting the status quo.

     I would probably say that they were right-wing in the context of Russian politics, which is the important detail here. That is, left- and right-wing are constructs that need to be contextualized. There was a time when capitalism was a firmly left-wing ideology, as opposed to the then prevailing currents.

They are the "party of no" when they aren't powerful enough to advance their agenda. When they have an opportunity to implement radical things, they never miss it. Even without it, you can see that Ryan's budget proposal was hardly an example of "status quo".

[Antonio the Sixth]

     Those on the left support radical or revolutionary change to society and social order, whereas those on the right support gradual change within the current system, if any change.

That's wrong in so many ways.

     It doesn't make sense for certain elements of the Far-right, such as the Nazis, though I would tend to view that as an academic issue anyway. When we're talking about bad people, who cares what brand of bad they are?

The modern left in Western countries generally supports the opposite of "radical or revolutionary changes".

     If they support the extant order of society, as you posit, then they are obviously not left-wing in any meaningful sense.

Would you call Russian communists circa 1992 left or right wing? On the one hand they are hard core socialists. On the other hand, they were supporting the status quo.

     I would probably say that they were right-wing in the context of Russian politics, which is the important detail here. That is, left- and right-wing are constructs that need to be contextualized. There was a time when capitalism was a firmly left-wing ideology, as opposed to the then prevailing currents.

They are the "party of no" when they aren't powerful enough to advance their agenda. When they have an opportunity to implement radical things, they never miss it. Even without it, you can see that Ryan's budget proposal was hardly an example of "status quo".

     I see what you mean there. Well, I did say that the way I defined it did not apply well to those on the far-right. In order to adjust my model to account for that issue, I would posit that change as advocated by the far-right tends to be identified with the past, as opposed to change as advocated by the left. In that sense, they rationalize it as being restoration rather than change, though it certainly is still a form of change.

Well, this gets pretty close to my definition of the divide as progress/reaction.