How do you Define Left and Right?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I'm surprised no one has yet proposed the obvious left-wing answer - the left is whatever movement is aligned with the poorest in society while the right is whatever movement is aligned with the richest.

Ah, well, we can't be having even a trace of Marx's ghost here, can we.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

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.

You can value tradition and still work towards improving the social condition, though.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     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.

[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.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     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.

     The GOP doesn't seem to be championing any type of change, really. One of the prime complaints lodged against them is that they have no ideas other than opposition to the Democrats.

[DC Al Fine]

     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.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     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.

[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".

[Associate Justice PiT]

     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.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

It depends on the time and the place in which it is used.

[courts]

It depends on the time and the place in which it is used.

not really. the only exception as has been pointed out may be the soviet union given how bizarrely socially conservative the stalinists and a lot of the hardline were.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

If it means anything it is the pendulum between Egalitarianism and Individualism on one side and order and hierarchy on the order. Of course, those values I have stated can be quite contradictory in practice (on both sides not just that of the left) but we are here talking about ideals so...

[Zuza]

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.

By the way during Perestroika hardline communists were called "rightists" while Perestroika supporters were "leftists". But since 90s communists are always labeled as the left (though they changed only slightly and typical Russian communist is still very conservative and traditionalist). Probably it is a good example of how definition of leftism and rightism depends on context.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Throughout the world, Adolf Hitler, Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, etc. are all classified as extreme-right, even though there are a lot of differences between the them. Perhaps a valid definition that applies to all political situations throughout the world can be created by finding what all of the people classified as "right wing" (or left) throughout the world have in common?

What the right-wing has in common for the most part is opposition to the left - the left being ideas about progress in creating a new order based on equality and being unshackled by tradition.  The complication comes from the fact that in the postWW2 era the right sometimes ends up seeking to change governments and cultural institutions away from a program that was left-wing to some degree but is now 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.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     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.

     I suppose so, though I'm not a fan of progress as a notion. It seems so...teleological.