Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall
I don't agree with this. The current paradigm has the labour parties aligned on the left. So spending that supports unions or government employees is left wing.
I guess at the end of the day, you could argue that the "true" left means only spending on social programs and environmentalism, but at the end of the day left/right wing is just a made up term anyways. And what "left wing" - in its initial and purest sense as it originated in the French Revolution - truly means is opposition to existing institutions without any specific ties to any ideologies. Theoretically, the left wing should be in a constant state of change. As ideologies that used to be left wing get their own embedded institutions, the left wing should turn on those ideologies and take a newer stance pushing for individual freedom from those institutions.
The idea that you are "left wing" merely because you oppose one set of institutions (big business, the church, ect...) with your own institutions (unions, environmental/human rights lobbyists, etc) is incorrect.
|
Not really.
You can't on one hand suggest that "left wing" has a fluid definition and on the other try to define "left wing" in its most original form possible (which also happens to be incorrect).
Left wing, originally, was against the monarchy, religion, and an economic system purposefully designed to make the rich richer and the poor poorer (sound familiar?). They were for democracy and secularisation. Suggesting that left wing is actually just against any institution at all isn't based on any historical fact or observable truth.
Though evolved, "left wing" still holds many of the same motives it always did. And certainly, by today's definition, someone who is against big business/the church and for worker's rights and human rights would be considered "left wing," regardless of whatever definition you're using (though I would recommend using today's definition today).