Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
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).
|
I didn't suggest the definition was fluid, only that the organizations and potentially ideologies they support are fluid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
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.
|
I disagree somewhat. The left wing was also opposed to the many institutions that supported the institutions in power at the time.
They were definitely for democracy. However, they would also be opposed to secularist groups who supported the ruling institutions, of which there were and are many.
They also promoted secularism of government, which is totally different than supporting pure secularism. The initial left wing supported freedom of religion, not atheism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
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).
|
I don't disagree. Once again, the term left wing has now just become part of the left/right dichotomy and often holds little resemblance to its initial intention.