leftism is defined by opposition to the status quo. the french monarchy was capitalist as well as the status quo at the time; we still have monarchies and capitalism is unquestionably the status quo.
opposition to the status quo is the definition of leftism, but anyone can be forgiven for not understanding this since westerners define it in the same terms as classical liberalism due to monarchies still (barely) being the status quo back then (and still existing to this day); back then, liberalism was “left” of that.
now-a-days neo-liberalism is the dominant hegemony and it’s pro-capitalist; anything to the left of that is modern day leftism.
I’m being less than 100% precise here. The line I’m drawing is that abolition of private property rights is co-terminus with abolition of capitalism.
“Ask them ‘what’s more important, human rights or property rights’. If they reply 'property rights are human rights, they’re on the right”.
e: I’m just going to add explicitly, since there’s clearly some confusion looking at the other sister comments. It’s not about monarchism or any of that. Its two things: Property rights and social hierarchies. If you want em gone, you’re on the left. from that perspective you need not change the definition of left and right in 1799 and 1848, and all the same from Maréchal to Mélenchon.
Ok, this is making things more clear, although I get the impression I’d have to know way more about the Fr. Revolution, and maybe the following period in France to actually understand it. Was it really politically commonplace already in early 19th c. to demand abolishment of property?
Wasn’t the French revolution just abolishing feudalism and the monarchy?
Under feudalism: Left is about abolishing feudalism and the monarchy. Right is about preserving them.
Under capitalism: Left is about abolishing capitalism and the bourgeoisie. Right is about preserving them.
leftism is defined by opposition to the status quo. the french monarchy was capitalist as well as the status quo at the time; we still have monarchies and capitalism is unquestionably the status quo.
You’ve just introduced a whole other definition of leftism. Also it seems to mean that no leftist society could exist in practice.
From what I can figure out, it was still in principle feudal but moving towards capitalism due to the growth of the bourgeois class. Is that correct?
opposition to the status quo is the definition of leftism, but anyone can be forgiven for not understanding this since westerners define it in the same terms as classical liberalism due to monarchies still (barely) being the status quo back then (and still existing to this day); back then, liberalism was “left” of that.
now-a-days neo-liberalism is the dominant hegemony and it’s pro-capitalist; anything to the left of that is modern day leftism.
I’m being less than 100% precise here. The line I’m drawing is that abolition of private property rights is co-terminus with abolition of capitalism.
“Ask them ‘what’s more important, human rights or property rights’. If they reply 'property rights are human rights, they’re on the right”.
e: I’m just going to add explicitly, since there’s clearly some confusion looking at the other sister comments. It’s not about monarchism or any of that. Its two things: Property rights and social hierarchies. If you want em gone, you’re on the left. from that perspective you need not change the definition of left and right in 1799 and 1848, and all the same from Maréchal to Mélenchon.
Ok, this is making things more clear, although I get the impression I’d have to know way more about the Fr. Revolution, and maybe the following period in France to actually understand it. Was it really politically commonplace already in early 19th c. to demand abolishment of property?
Who’s Maréchal?