I’m not sure about this. Again there is no universal political spectrum that maps modern American left-right political positions to 18th century America. But before the modern era dictatorships were seen as the “left wing” alternative to rule by an assembly of nobles representing only the tiny ultra rich elite.
This is an example of how the 21st century American political left-right spectrum does not map to other times and places. Almost any other time in history it would be assumed that a political essay by a self described evangelical Christian would be more likely to be “left wing” than “right wing”, it’s only in 20th century America that the evangelical Christian movement became associated with the political right
This is true, though I think it’s imporant to distinguish people who want to challenge certain social norms vs. people who want to change the underlying economic system.
The American founders were radical only to the extent that they wanted a different system of government authority, swapping out the divine right of kings for elected officials. But in regards to the economic system and property ownership, the American revolution was actually reactionary in substance. They weren’t changing the underlying system, they were just redistributing the power of the monarchy to an elected minority of white male property owners. That was a radical move in one narrow sense, but it’s too loose to be labeled as “far left”, it’s decidedly center-left.
Does this mean that you believe being against the establishment is inherently left wing? I ask because when I think of evangelical Christianity before 20th century America, I think of people and events like the Puritans leaving England in the 17th century, Martin Luther nailing his theses to a church door, and even things like Joseph Smith and Brigham Young establishing the Mormon faith even though the dominant culture they were rebelling against was Protestant rather than Catholic. The thing is, looked at from our perspective, those events seem to be about conservative backlash against a more liberal establishment. In other words, being a rebel against the establishment isn’t inherently a left wing thing according to how I look at things. More recently, the Islamic revolution in Iran is another example of the right wing being the rebels against a more left wing establishment.
That’s true to a point but it’s anachronistic to describe the founding fathers in those terms, as that kind of social-vs-political distinction (between liberal bourgeoisie who were interested in political freedoms and working class poor who were interested social reforms and changes in the fundamental economic system) wouldn’t be recognized and formalized until generations later
Some of the French revolutionaries touched on those issues in their lifetime but they were only recognized as such in retrospect when analysed by later socialist historians.
In their day the politics of the founding fathers were considered about as “left wing” and fringe radical as it got.
I think about them that way as well. I also tend to think of the end of the founding father era as the election of Andrew Jackson, with parallels to today in terms of the presidents from FDR through Obama (minus Reagan and the Bushes), with that era ending with Trump.
Even though they were starting from an obviously different starting point than FDR was when he was elected, I think the same overall term of progressive can be applied in both cases.
No I was more literal than this. Any time prior to the second half of the 20th century a self described evangelical Christian was far more likely to have left wing political views than right wing ones.
The classic example of this, is the guy who prosecuted the infamous Scopes monkey trial…
All his other political positions are squarely left of center (and share a lot with Bernie Sanders) anti-corporate, anti-imperialist, pro progressive income tax, pro safe food and drug regulations.
Got it. I need to brush up on my history. To be fair, such people are a rarity today. The only prominent person I can think of from our present times that qualifies is the recently departed Jimmy Carter.
*. At least the only prominent American. I won’t speak for other countries.
Like the saying goes: Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Pat Buchanan is a paleoconservative and so he was at odds with the military interventionism in the Middle East during the Bush administration, and so was I. I would never use him as justification or support for anything, only that on this instance we agreed with each other. And he still had some clout among conservative circles, so his view tends to matter more to people like them than if someone like me had said the same thing.
Yeah; it’s the “Did you know that the Nazis had an enlightened forestry policy” issue. It’s very unlikely for even the worst people to be wrong about literally everything, so it’s inevitable that sometimes you’ll find yourself agreeing with truly awful people. That doesn’t mean they were right about the things that made them awful, it just means that awful people will inconveniently be right about something on occasion. Often for the wrong reasons, but still.
Yes, it’s part of the problem with trying to graph every political position on a one-dimensional right-left line. You end up lumping together people who fundamentally disagree because you’ve artificially collapsed separate political axes into one.
No, they were not considered “left wing”. That term didn’t emerge until the French Revolution, a decade after the American Revolution. The contemporary term would’ve been whigs or revolutionaries.
Neither was “radical” really a thing either, at least in the thematic sense of a root-level critique of the economic system. That wouldn’t come until nearly a century later when Marx published Capital.
Neither was “radical” really a concept in the sense of a root-level criticism of economic systems. Economics was in its infancy, liberalism was just getting off the ground, true radical critiques wouldn’t emerge until Marx, nearly a century later. Yes they were certainly considered to be traitors, rebels, upstarts, innovators, and in modern times we conflate that with “radical”, but they weren’t radical in any real critical sense. They were all about preserving private property and exploiting workers, they just wanted the laws to be chosen by white property owners rather than a British king, they were substantially reactionary not radical.
You’re going to have to take that up with Gordon Wood 
. A pretty good book by the way. Whether you end up agreeing with it or not, it is at least thought-provoking. Of course he is mostly arguing that the American Revolution ultimately had radical effects, not necessarily that the revolutionaries were mostly radical.
Of course those particular terms weren’t in use, but I disagree with the idea that it doesn’t even make sense to talk about left wing or progressivism being a thing until the French Revolution. Looking at the government as set up by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, it’s clearly a departure from other places at that time, even England. Yes, they were wealthy, white, property owners as well as slave owners. But if they were reactionary, then what does that say about Andrew Jackson, who (barring the efforts of Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt), set back the efforts of the founding fathers for around 100 years, until FDR was elected? IMHO the founding fathers were progressive, especially when contrasted to Andrew Jackson and the POTUSs that came after him. It’s just that they were starting from a place much further to the right than where we are at today. IMHO we have to judge people by their place and time, not just by modern standards. And by the standards of their place and time, the founding fathers were indeed leftist and radical.
You should read the Bill of Rights of 1689 sometime.
Of course not hence the quotes around “left wing”. But just because those words had not been invented it didn’t mean there wasn’t a concept of a political spectrum with the pro-monarchy pro-status quo on the “right” side and democratic/republican reformers on the “left” side. And the founding fathers were absolutely on the far far left of that spectrum, revolting against the British crown and establishing a democratic republic was utterly out-there and fringe political position.
What didn’t exist was the idea (that is central to the modern idea of left wing politics) of a division between “political” reforms (e.g. freedom of speech, democracy, etc) and “social” reforms (workers rights, welfare, redistribution of wealth). That distinction would have to wait for Marx, et al.
Like people have said, there are multiple axis. I know the authoritarian/libertarian and left/right axis are mostly used, but I’m sure there are other axis as others have said.
To me leftism is about egalitarianism both socially and economically. Leftists want a more fair and inclusive society with redistribution of wealth and power throughout society as well as protections for the vulnerable. The right wants a more hierarchical society with more benefits for those at the top and less help and protections for those at the bottom.
The tactics you list are good, and thats partly why I made this thread. I just don’t see the modern far left on the forefront of fighting for justice. The way I see it the modern far left is embracing and enabling far right fascism in at least 3 different ways.
-
Sitting out elections due to purity politics or accelerationism, making it easier for far right politicians and their center right enablers to win elections.
-
Refusing to address serious concerns about immigration and crime in europe and the lack of integration among people from cultures that are more oppressive of marginalized groups, driving people into the arms of the far right and their center right enablers who they feel will address the issues.
-
Supporting far right wing fascist groups like Islamic extremists (the red-green alliance) because they see them as anti-western.
Its just sad. The far left went from being the most brave people at the forefront of fighting for justice, equality and egalitarianism; to being a bunch of communal narcissists demanding people tell them how amazing they are while they support fascism in various ways.
Don’t have much to add except to point out that communists in the 20th century were definitely way up there when it came to raising mass literacy rates.
That’s more a factor of industrialization than any specific form of government. Peasants don’t need to be able to read labels, factory workers do.
Because that’s how Communism is spread, by written material passed from one adult to another. Ideologies that spread “horizontally” that way tend to be very pro-literacy, since it benefits them. You can’t read Communist literature if you’re illiterate, after all.
Ideologies primarily spread “vertically”, being handed out from authority figures (like priests) or parent to child generally either don’t care or are actively hostile to reading since reading can undercut them. Thus, the Right’s indifference or outright hostility to literacy and reading.
Not so much, though: communist governments seem to have done better at mass literacy on average than other contemporary governments, irrespective of industrialization status. (For example, in communist-run state governments within India post-independence, as opposed to states where the CPI/M/etc. weren’t in power.)