How do you Define Left and Right?

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.