Left and right have no real meaning. They only identify directions. Let’s consider the three definitions I identify and how we use those terms nowadays:
Left: anti-authoritarian, Right: totalitarian
Left: collectivist, Right: individualist
And the most useless definition, which is also the most used:
This one is great, as it has no real meaning! It depends on time and place, and doesn’t give any value to a discussion. Here’s a good Roderick Long’s quotation:
"Is it merely, as Spencer supposes, the natural human tendency of “undeveloped intellectual vision” to classify phenomena according to “external resemblances” instead of “intrinsic structures”.
I think that if we keep using those terms, we will classify phenomena according to “external resemblances” instead of “intrinsic structures”, and that mean that we will be exposed to demagogic attacks from everyone (media, politicians and most people), as they can fit our ideology in any of both packages.
I always use “leftist” instead of “liberal.” It’s an improvement over their capture of the word, although not ideal. I don’t think collectivist is going to catch on.
This is a common misconception. Most people who are on the “left” want bigger, more totalitarian, statist government. On the other hand, people on the “right” generally want smaller government, so they are the ones who are anti-establishment.
Left and right have meaning in a majority-take all voting system. One can only be to the left of the right. It is a purely relative measure that has no meaning outside of a voting system.
Your change/not change idea is used among Leftists. While revolutionaries would be on the left, reformists, social democrats etc would be on the right. But that idea doesn’t really apply outside of Leftist ideology.
