Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Fried Egg]

Not so, in the UK. The miner's strike of the early 80s was so divisive that there are still families sundered by disputes over Thatcher and her policies. This was definitely a left-wing thing at the time.

This is actually a classic example of the left and right shifting ground over time. It was the right that didn't wanted to close down coal mines in the 80's. Now it's the left.

I don't think this particular dispute had a lot to do with coal. It was more about the power of working people to participate and contribute to the governance of our country; it was to destroy the unions and the power they had. ... Which makes this detail a derail, so I'll shut up now.

I was being somewhat glib, I know the reasons for wanting to shut/keep open the mine back in the 80's are very different the reason for wanting to open/prevent the opening of coal mines now (on both the left and right).

However I do think it is interesting, when one puts the intentions aside (which I know is very difficult for you lefties to do! ), that the actual policies towards supporting coal mines have switch around on the left and right.

[Count Lucanor]

I’m under the impression that the size of the sample that you’ve been using to characterize the left and the right is quite small. From the top of my mind, I could list a good bunch of people that I would put on the left or the right, but would not fit your description. It seems that your idea of a leftist fits into the kind of people that some once defined as imbued with “pathological altruism”, or simply excessively idealistic people, while a right-winger would be just someone with a pragmatic and realistic approach to issues. I wouldn’t put myself on the idealistic camp, yet I have no doubt that I sit inside the leftist quadrant. The left or the right simply cannot be reduced to one particular attitude; they are broad categories that encompass many views.

Yeah, well, very few people would accept or admit that they were idealistic, easily swayed by apparent good intentions, even if they were. Just like very few people would admit that they are motivated by selfish aims, would tend to frame their beliefs and aims in terms of being for the social good.

Yes, I admit it is a very broad generalisation and no doubt there are many people who wouldn't fit that distinction. But as a general tendency that I've observed in many people, I stand by it.

So then you have effectively reduced even more the criteria for characterizing the right and the left: a mere psychology of motivations. That’s even less useful, not even as a general tendency. I don’t know what motivates Slavoj Zizek, Noam Chomsky, Jordan Peterson, Rupert Murdoch or Yanis Varoufakis to take the stances they take, but it’s obviously not relevant for deciding if one should place them at the right or the left. And rather than giving any importance to whether people call themselves idealistic or pragmatic or selfish, it would be more appropriate, if we want to understand in which political or ideological coordinates we can place them, to look at the evidence of what ideas they actually embrace and what actions they promote.

BTW, idealism (which is much more than just “good intentions”) is observable in both the left and the right, as it is with pragmatism. Jordan Peterson is a good example of an idealist in the right, who thinks the realm of ideas, psychology or human nature drive social and economic changes. Most neoliberal economists make a career out of abstract mathematical models that have no bearing in practical reality. As an economist, Varoufakis has more feet on the ground than his neoliberal counterparts. Gender and transgender ideology? Entirely reactionary and appropriately labeled as an idealist deviation on the left. We could go on and on…

[Fried Egg]

I’m under the impression that the size of the sample that you’ve been using to characterize the left and the right is quite small. From the top of my mind, I could list a good bunch of people that I would put on the left or the right, but would not fit your description. It seems that your idea of a leftist fits into the kind of people that some once defined as imbued with “pathological altruism”, or simply excessively idealistic people, while a right-winger would be just someone with a pragmatic and realistic approach to issues. I wouldn’t put myself on the idealistic camp, yet I have no doubt that I sit inside the leftist quadrant. The left or the right simply cannot be reduced to one particular attitude; they are broad categories that encompass many views.

Yeah, well, very few people would accept or admit that they were idealistic, easily swayed by apparent good intentions, even if they were. Just like very few people would admit that they are motivated by selfish aims, would tend to frame their beliefs and aims in terms of being for the social good.

Yes, I admit it is a very broad generalisation and no doubt there are many people who wouldn't fit that distinction. But as a general tendency that I've observed in many people, I stand by it.

So then you have effectively reduced even more the criteria for characterizing the right and the left: a mere psychology of motivations. That’s even less useful, not even as a general tendency. I don’t know what motivates Slavoj Zizek, Noam Chomsky, Jordan Peterson, Rupert Murdoch or Yanis Varoufakis to take the stances they take, but it’s obviously not relevant for deciding if one should place them at the right or the left. And rather than giving any importance to whether people call themselves idealistic or pragmatic or selfish, it would be more appropriate, if we want to understand in which political or ideological coordinates we can place them, to look at the evidence of what ideas they actually embrace and what actions they promote.

BTW, idealism (which is much more than just “good intentions”) is observable in both the left and the right, as it is with pragmatism. Jordan Peterson is a good example of an idealist in the right, who thinks the realm of ideas, psychology or human nature drive social and economic changes. Most neoliberal economists make a career out of abstract mathematical models that have no bearing in practical reality. As an economist, Varoufakis has more feet on the ground than his neoliberal counterparts. Gender and transgender ideology? Entirely reactionary and appropriately labeled as an idealist deviation on the left. We could go on and on…

I would firstly just say that it seems that you are re-framing my categorisation from intentions vs incentives to idealism vs pragmatism.I think that whether you're preoccupied more with intentions or incentives, either one could be thought about in theoretical or practical terms.

For instance, we could talk about the idea of a "minimum wage" and we might consider the implications of such a policy by considering the incentive structures it would create purely in a theoretical way (i.e. without attempting to collect and analyse the data) - as a "right winger" is often prone to do. My contention is that most people on the "left" would over value the good intentions of such a proposal (i.e. to increase the living standards of the poor) whilst simultaneously assuming that those who opposed it must only do so for selfish reasons (because why wouldn't you want to help the poor?)

But of course, I would not suggest that any of the "big thinkers" on such issues would ever rest on such a superficial analysis (although how much some people just become good at providing post hoc rationalisations for believing in ideas that just sound good / opposing ideas that sound bad is a matter for debate). However, for most ordinary people, I wonder how far they really do get beyond such simple ways of looking at things. Many people just want to (or be seen to want to) "do the right thing", "be kind" and "help the downtrodden", etc. Furthermore, they often assume good intentions lead to good results.

Really it comes down to this: what do you believe shapes human behaviour more? The intent behind the institutions (and other social structures) in which they operate or the incentive structures that they lead to.

This is why "leftists" tend to be so suspicious of free markets. They are told that they don't need to rely on the good intentions of individuals or companies operating in a market economy because the incentive structures (put in place by the institutions of the market) will ensure that, in pursuing their own best interests, they will inadvertently help fulfil the common good. Problems that arise with market outcomes a right winger will likely look to tweaking the incentive structures whereas a left winger is pre-disposed to want to throw the whole thing out, or at least introduce well intentioned institutions to regulate it), because they simply don't trust people acting in their own interest or institutions that aren't explicitly well intentioned.

But then again, we have a supposedly right wing government in the US massively limiting free trade and the markets whilst being opposed by the left wing parties who favour global free trade. I would be inclined to think that Trump's tariff policies are motivated more by (what he sees as) good intentions than a consideration of the incentive structures they will create.

By the way, I'm advocating for my argument but I'm only tentatively advancing it. I wouldn't say that I'm completely convinced by it, just wanting to throw it out there for discussion.

[Count Lucanor]

We humans each have a view of the world, and that view - implicitly or explicitly - includes an answer to the question "why do other people hold different values from the values I hold ?"

Framing political subjects in terms of moral values is one way to look at issues that affect society, but certainly not the only one.

Some people adopt the easy derogatory answers "Because they're evil" or "Because they're stupid or ignorant". And the observable fact that a higher proportion of left-leaning people choose "evil" and more right-leaning people choose "stupid/ignorant" is interesting, and calls out for explanation.

Maybe some people do one thing or the other, but it’s not something that defines if someone belongs to the left or the right. A true observable fact is that it is a trope of right-wing argumentation that communists and socialists are evil. What was mccarthyism if not the witch hunt against the evil reds? Of course, you can certainly get similar accusations coming from leftists against the right, but ultimately what this shows is that debates between the two sides tend to resolve towards ad hominem atacks, each side accusing the other of standing for evil. The other accusation of “stupid/ignorant”, interestingly, it has been my experience all my life that it is one of the features most commonly attributed to right-wingers by the left. It’s supposed to be the reason why many respond with the accusation of the left being elitist, and why this then becomes a typical anti-intellectualism from the right.

[Sy Borg]

In the new McCarthyism, we have Nazis under the bed rather than Reds. Their Marxist heroes like Mao, Lenin, and Stalin are fine in their eyes, but Hitler is the epitome of evil. This is a product of Marxism's Long March Through Institutions, a planned campaign that has been in train for decades and bearing significant fruit. Now you have people claiming Musk and Matt Walsh are Nazis, which is insane. Or rather, these are inexcusable and cynical smears. Throw enough mud and some will stick.

[Fried Egg]

I never really addressed this point:

In general, leftism encompasses all progressive tendencies, advocating for social change to improve society as a whole, addressing inequalities and injustice with a spirit of solidarity. It generally emphasizes the collective well-being as a means to achieve individual progress. It therefore criticizes capitalism and its social and economical hierarchies, favoring the marginalized groups over the privileged ones. OTOH, right-wingers tend to preserve the status quo as established by the ruling class and emphasize individualism as the means to achieve collective progress, minimizing the role of solidarity and regarding inequality and injustice as the result of individual failure and the work of nature.

Firstly, all progressive tendencies are on the left? That surely can't be true, can it? If one lives in a secular society, those advocating for people becoming more religious could be seen as progressive. If one lives in a socialist society, those advocating for free markets could be seen as progressive. Those seeking to maintain the status quo in the above societies as conservative. Either those advocating for a more religious society, or market based economy would be classified as "left wing" or else we have to accept that the right is sometimes the force for progress/change.

Concerns over inequality is a left wing essential? It's too ambiguous. I would say right now that the left are against equality of opportunity and the right are in favour of it. Quite the opposite from how it tended to be seen 50 years ago. Instead the left tend to favour equality of outcome now.

Injustice? I can't see how that is an essential concern of either the left or the right. Everyone believes they are making society more just.

Collective well being as a means to achieve individual progress vs Individualism as a means to achieve collective progress is an interesting one. But I think that the religious right would be better seen in the first category rather than the second. And, as I've pointed out already, fascism is a collectivist movement which normally gets labelled as far right.

All this really just illustrates the meaningless of "left" and "right". You couldn't drop in to a society in any particular time and place and make any inferences as to what an individual believes if they told you they were left or right wing.

[Pattern-chaser]

However I do think it is interesting, when one puts the intentions aside (which I know is very difficult for you lefties to do! ), that the actual policies towards supporting coal mines have switch around on the left and right.

Interesting? Maybe so. I think, between now and then, we have become more globally aware of the consequences of burning fossil fuels. And back then, in the UK at least, there was a class war being waged on our streets, and Thatcher won, by employing the police and armed forces to put down their own fellow workers. Different times, as you say. Interesting, and maybe just a little heartbreaking, depending on your left/right orientation, I suppose?

[Pattern-chaser]

In the new McCarthyism, we have Nazis under the bed rather than Reds. Their Marxist heroes like Mao, Lenin, and Stalin are fine in their eyes, but Hitler is the epitome of evil. This is a product of Marxism's Long March Through Institutions, a planned campaign that has been in train for decades and bearing significant fruit. Now you have people claiming Musk and Matt Walsh are Nazis, which is insane. Or rather, these are inexcusable and cynical smears. Throw enough mud and some will stick.

Mao, Stalin, and Hitler, were each personally responsible for the deaths of millions, as Churchill was too. Millions of living breathing people were murdered on their orders. Such conduct is repulsive to all decent people, of the left, and the right too. Any and all whose behaviour even drifts in that direction should probably be opposed wherever possible.

[Good_Egg]

But then again, we have a supposedly right wing government in the US massively limiting free trade and the markets

There is a distinction between means and ends. Believing in free trade as an effective means to some end (whether that's lifting a developing country out of poverty or making America great again) is different from believing in free trade as an inherently good thing.

This seems to me an example where the 1-dimensional left-right model is inadequate.

In the triangle model, you have the authoritarian left in one corner, the authoritarian right in another corner and the libertarians in the third corner.

For the authoritarians, international trade is something that a government can encourage or restrict as they see fit according to whether it advances their goals in any particular situation. For the libertarians, any two people have a moral right to voluntary exchange of goods, and "free trade" is just this right applied at the level of nations. It is good-in-itself.

Should the triangle be a square ? (So that the model includes left-libertarian and right-libertarian corners) ?

Or an equilateral triangle (with the libertarian corner neither left nor right) ?

Or is libertarianism inherently right-leaning, so that the appropriate model is a right-angled triangle with the authoritarian-right and libertarian corners lined up on the right-hand side of the page ?

Politics as geometry...

[Pattern-chaser]

I never really addressed this point:

In general, leftism encompasses all progressive tendencies, advocating for social change to improve society as a whole, addressing inequalities and injustice with a spirit of solidarity. It generally emphasizes the collective well-being as a means to achieve individual progress. It therefore criticizes capitalism and its social and economical hierarchies, favoring the marginalized groups over the privileged ones. OTOH, right-wingers tend to preserve the status quo as established by the ruling class and emphasize individualism as the means to achieve collective progress, minimizing the role of solidarity and regarding inequality and injustice as the result of individual failure and the work of nature.

Firstly, all progressive tendencies are on the left? That surely can't be true, can it? If one lives in a secular society, those advocating for people becoming more religious could be seen as progressive. If one lives in a socialist society, those advocating for free markets could be seen as progressive. Those seeking to maintain the status quo in the above societies as conservative. Either those advocating for a more religious society, or market based economy would be classified as "left wing" or else we have to accept that the right is sometimes the force for progress/change.

Concerns over inequality is a left wing essential? It's too ambiguous. I would say right now that the left are against equality of opportunity and the right are in favour of it. Quite the opposite from how it tended to be seen 50 years ago. Instead the left tend to favour equality of outcome now.

Injustice? I can't see how that is an essential concern of either the left or the right. Everyone believes they are making society more just.

Collective well being as a means to achieve individual progress vs Individualism as a means to achieve collective progress is an interesting one. But I think that the religious right would be better seen in the first category rather than the second. And, as I've pointed out already, fascism is a collectivist movement which normally gets labelled as far right.

All this really just illustrates the meaningless of "left" and "right". You couldn't drop in to a society in any particular time and place and make any inferences as to what an individual believes if they told you they were left or right wing.

I think it's fair to observe that, traditionally, left and right were revolutionary and reactionary, respectively. As the Count said. We can dispute the details, of course, but these were common understandings. Are they no longer so?



I think it's also fair to observe that the Count offered generalisations for consideration. Very often, generalisations have counter-examples, but they mean little. Generalisations are like Occam's Razor — if they work *most* of the time, that's as much as we can hope for. To undermine a generalisation, we need to show it's right less than half the time.

[Pattern-chaser]

Politics as geometry...

Yes, good idea; good illustration. But must you limit us to 2D shapes? How about 3D shapes like cubes, or the like? Or impossible (in RL) 4D 'volumes', or worse?

Yes, I'm playing, but my point is real and (I hope) useful. You're quite right to shy away from simple binary dichotomies, I think. How many 'dimensions' does human politics have? I'm not sure if an answer to that question actually exists, but I'll bet if it does, that it's a figure much larger than any of us expected.

Perhaps we should stick to plain old left and right? No, we shouldn't. Only joking.

[Fried Egg]

I think it's fair to observe that, traditionally, left and right were revolutionary and reactionary, respectively. As the Count said. We can dispute the details, of course, but these were common understandings. Are they no longer so?

I think these common understands are common here in the west where the establishment has largely been (historically speaking) market driven and religious. So the anti-market activists and the secularists were seen as progressive. But in the Soviet Union, the pro market activists were the progressives, as were the religious (as the establishment was anti market and anti religion).

So I'm not sure you can say the left is always progressive/revolutionary and the right is always conservative/reactionary unless you define it that way. And if you do, the being left and right has nothing to do with policy or how you think society should be organised. It is just a matter of whether you want to broadly change or preserve the status quo (what ever that might happen to be).

I think it's also fair to observe that the Count offered generalisations for consideration. Very often, generalisations have counter-examples, but they mean little. Generalisations are like Occam's Razor — if they work *most* of the time, that's as much as we can hope for. To undermine a generalisation, we need to show it's right less than half the time.

Yes, he offered generalisations to my request for examples of specific policies or positions that are, in their essence, left or right wing. And I think it could be argued that his suggested generalisations are highly context dependent.

For example, if you favour structuring the rules of society around Islamic teachings (sharia law), are you a progressive or conservative? If you believe that in a theocratic country such as Iran, you are a conservative. If you believe that in the UK, you are a progressive. So does that mean that the advocates for sharia law are left or right wing?

[Count Lucanor]

I would firstly just say that it seems that you are re-framing my categorisation from intentions vs incentives to idealism vs pragmatism.I think that whether you're preoccupied more with intentions or incentives, either one could be thought about in theoretical or practical terms.

For instance, we could talk about the idea of a "minimum wage" and we might consider the implications of such a policy by considering the incentive structures it would create purely in a theoretical way (i.e. without attempting to collect and analyse the data) - as a "right winger" is often prone to do. My contention is that most people on the "left" would over value the good intentions of such a proposal (i.e. to increase the living standards of the poor) whilst simultaneously assuming that those who opposed it must only do so for selfish reasons (because why wouldn't you want to help the poor?)

But of course, I would not suggest that any of the "big thinkers" on such issues would ever rest on such a superficial analysis (although how much some people just become good at providing post hoc rationalisations for believing in ideas that just sound good / opposing ideas that sound bad is a matter for debate). However, for most ordinary people, I wonder how far they really do get beyond such simple ways of looking at things. Many people just want to (or be seen to want to) "do the right thing", "be kind" and "help the downtrodden", etc. Furthermore, they often assume good intentions lead to good results.

Let’s revisit your main distinction between the left and the right: “The left over emphasise the importance of good intentions and under emphasise the importance of incentives. The right doing the opposite.” This is not a dichotomy, obviously, as “good intentions” does not oppose “incentives”, in fact, you can think of incentives as a well-intended motivation to achieve desired results. This cannot be what distinguishes the left from the right. There’s no reason to suppose that the right does not value intentions as much as the left, even if the right valued incentives a lot. But there’s no reason to believe that the left does not value incentives, either. The example that you use, minimum wage, has been shown to be considered an incentive as aggregated demand: people can spend more and make the economy more active, which benefits all. Take any proposal and you will find that both the left and the right will see it as well-intended or not, because it is either aimed at achieving a positive result or aimed at harming people. You can take the proposal to not have a minimum wage and say that the right will over value its good intentions of enhancing productivity, reducing conformism, laziness, and so on.

Really it comes down to this: what do you believe shapes human behaviour more? The intent behind the institutions (and other social structures) in which they operate or the incentive structures that they lead to.

This is what is known as the false dilemma fallacy. It doesn’t have to be one or the other, as I just explained.

This is why "leftists" tend to be so suspicious of free markets. They are told that they don't need to rely on the good intentions of individuals or companies operating in a market economy because the incentive structures (put in place by the institutions of the market) will ensure that, in pursuing their own best interests, they will inadvertently help fulfil the common good. Problems that arise with market outcomes a right winger will likely look to tweaking the incentive structures whereas a left winger is pre-disposed to want to throw the whole thing out, or at least introduce well intentioned institutions to regulate it), because they simply don't trust people acting in their own interest or institutions that aren't explicitly well intentioned.

Well, actually, it makes more sense to think that leftists don’t think the “free market” effectively works for the well-intended purpose that right-wingers claim, even with the well-intended institutions they put in place to push such policies. Or that leftists don’t think there are real “free markets” at all. OTOH, from the right it is often claimed that “human nature” prevents people from looking after anyone but themselves, selfishness and greediness cancel cooperation, and so we could also say that’s why right-wingers are suspicious of policies based on principles of solidarity, even though leftists see them as an incentive structure as well.

But then again, we have a supposedly right wing government in the US massively limiting free trade and the markets whilst being opposed by the left wing parties who favour global free trade. I would be inclined to think that Trump's tariff policies are motivated more by (what he sees as) good intentions than a consideration of the incentive structures they will create.

That’s only if you believe there was “free trade” to start with, but there has been for years plenty of skepticism about the reality of such idealized market conditions, which belong more to the realm of discourse and propaganda. From Bretton-Woods to the Nixon shock, to the Reagan shock, to the Trump shock, there has been a global finance structure designed to benefit the US and keep it as the global hegemonic power. There’s apparently a geopolitical and economic rationale to Trump’s “trade war”, which has been explained by economists, so I will not get deep
into that, but the point is that it’s not simple as “the left wants free trade now and the right doesn’t anymore”. You will find people from both sides taking either extreme or nuanced positions, either in support or opposition to Trump’s actions.

[Fried Egg]

Let’s revisit your main distinction between the left and the right: “The left over emphasise the importance of good intentions and under emphasise the importance of incentives. The right doing the opposite.” This is not a dichotomy, obviously, as “good intentions” does not oppose “incentives”, in fact, you can think of incentives as a well-intended motivation to achieve desired results. This cannot be what distinguishes the left from the right.

I never phrased it as any kind of binary distinction, or to suggest that people on the left never think about incentive structures or that those on the right don't think about intentions. So the rest of your post is basically taking down a straw man and I need not respond to it.

I've said only that I think the left place too much emphasis on intentions and not enough on the incentives, and vice versa for the right. Of course, every policy one advocates for has a purpose, a desired goal that the advocate hopes to achieve. But not all will go on to really consider the incentive structures that their policy will create.

I'm not sure I know what left and right is, or rather that our ideas as to what is left and right seems to vary with time and with context. So how can I attribute different ways of thinking to either the left or right if I can't even define them?

The main thing I take away from the book "The Myth of Left and Right" is the problem of tribalism. If you believe in one thing that happens to be championed by one party or the other, there is no logical reason (necessarily) to believe anything else that party stands for because there is no single underlying philosophy that connects it's policy proposals.

[Count Lucanor]

I never really addressed this point:

In general, leftism encompasses all progressive tendencies, advocating for social change to improve society as a whole, addressing inequalities and injustice with a spirit of solidarity. It generally emphasizes the collective well-being as a means to achieve individual progress. It therefore criticizes capitalism and its social and economical hierarchies, favoring the marginalized groups over the privileged ones. OTOH, right-wingers tend to preserve the status quo as established by the ruling class and emphasize individualism as the means to achieve collective progress, minimizing the role of solidarity and regarding inequality and injustice as the result of individual failure and the work of nature.

Firstly, all progressive tendencies are on the left? That surely can't be true, can it? If one lives in a secular society, those advocating for people becoming more religious could be seen as progressive. If one lives in a socialist society, those advocating for free markets could be seen as progressive. Those seeking to maintain the status quo in the above societies as conservative. Either those advocating for a more religious society, or market based economy would be classified as "left wing" or else we have to accept that the right is sometimes the force for progress/change.

Concerns over inequality is a left wing essential? It's too ambiguous. I would say right now that the left are against equality of opportunity and the right are in favour of it. Quite the opposite from how it tended to be seen 50 years ago. Instead the left tend to favour equality of outcome now.

Injustice? I can't see how that is an essential concern of either the left or the right. Everyone believes they are making society more just.

Collective well being as a means to achieve individual progress vs Individualism as a means to achieve collective progress is an interesting one. But I think that the religious right would be better seen in the first category rather than the second. And, as I've pointed out already, fascism is a collectivist movement which normally gets labelled as far right.

First of all, I said “in general”, so I don’t pretend it should be taken as a rigid demarcation of what constitutes the left and the right. I still stand by my initial observation that these are broad categories that encompass many views. That’s why I personally prefer to leave out these labels when trying to analyze political issues. Secondly, again, you’re approaching the subject with a mind setup focused on isolated concepts or issues, so you say “this measure belongs to the left and this other one belongs to the right” or “this cause is not exclusive of the left”, etc. Actually, you will need to look at several clues to begin to identify ideological sides, and there’s also a historical development of ideas that produced the basis for our understanding of key terms, such as progressiveness. So it would be very hard to sound convincing as a progressive if one promotes state-sponsored religion against secularism, or by going back to Neoclassical economics, or explaining social inequalities as the result of individual failures, or survival of the fittest, etc. But again, these may be useful clues, yet not so rigorous demarcations. Examples with nuances abound. “Social justice” was a key doctrine of the Catholic church (at least before the Polish pope), which supposedly accounted for its leftist tendency of “clerical socialism”, also known as liberation theology. But it also inspired the Christian-democratic parties(now renamed as People’s Party) in Europe and LATAM, more often characterized as centre-right organizations. Interestingly, they are somehow politically aligned with social democrats, supposedly centre-left, for their stance on reformism. At the same time, because of reformism, social democrats have clashed with Marxists and revolutionary socialists. Marx denounced clerical socialism and all other forms of bourgeois socialism.

So, in the end, what good purpose do these left and right labels serve in political analysis. Practically none. They are usually exploited to put political enemies conveniently inside an ideological framework that is easy to attack. So you’ll hear talk like “you and your evil leftist Maoist totalitarian friends that promote violence and work to undermine civil political discourse” and that sort of talk.

All this really just illustrates the meaningless of "left" and "right". You couldn't drop in to a society in any particular time and place and make any inferences as to what an individual believes if they told you they were left or right wing.

I wouldn’t say meaningless, but as for the second sentence in that paragraph, it is exactly what I said in my first post. So I guess we are more or less in agreement.