ExtraCoronas wrote:The degree to which a society censors itself is the degree to which the society doesn’t trust itself.
Let’s translate that.
The degree to which government and government-aligned institutions censor the citizenry is the degree to which the government and such institutions don’t trust the citizenry. And the degree to which the individual citizen accepts this censorship is the degree to which that individual citizen agrees they are not trustworthy.
I remember a time when the Left was against censorship and against big government/institutional authority. I wonder what happened? I think the Left was a political power game and only cared about such things in order to weaken the current non-Leftist powers, and now those powers are weak the Left has no intention of continuing to adhere to its old noble maxims.
Does anyone think left and right still mean anything in politics? I’m genuinely curious.
I remember these times too, and tend to insist - whether prudently or foolishly - that these times have not changed, but people have begun to misuse the terms i.e. the "authoritarian left" are no leftists.
I find myself asking the question of what power does to a political "wing".
In a "chicken or egg" kind of way, is it the case that gaining power turns one authoritarian or does becoming authoritarian gain one power?
Either way, however, due to the origin of the terms "right" and "left" wing, my afore-mentioned insistence holds true.
The problem of the left is that, as the voice of change from the status quo advocated by the right, once the change has been realised -
it becomes the new status quo. The successful leftist thereby becomes a rightist. An unsuccessful leftist could in theory be as authoritarian as they like, but this will hold no sway as long as they have no power. Authoritarianism becomes a realised problem only once it is adopted by the powers that be, and the support of the powers that be are (by derivation) those on the right.
So you see, the left effectively advocating censorship are in power, and are thus right. However as long as they still identify with their former underdog status in favour of change, even after the change has occurred, they are incorrect to do so.
Left and right still mean something in politics if one is faithful to the origins of the terms. The irony of me, as a leftist "of old", appealing to tradition in this way is not lost on me, but in practice one may be left wing in some ways and right in others. When it comes to definitions, I find myself to be highly conservative, a right wing authoritarian - surely this is the whole point of definitions: to remain steadfast or else we no longer remain on the same page when it comes to meaning. To change the meanings of words is arguably inevitable, but to the degree that this is allowed is the degree to which meaningless or at least confusion is permitted.
The confusion that you are voicing is a result of changing definitions being permitted. Do we allow the definition of left to be inverted with the right? I've come across many people who do so, and find themselves changing from leftist to rightist, but for now I refuse to do so. Either we all change to the same page or we all remain on the same page, or left and right will continue to not mean anything in politics.