What do you mean by left and right in political groups?

The division between left and right is very confusing. Generally speaking, the left refers to radical and the right refers to conservative.

The following is an online reference.

In traditional society, right refers to the person in power sitting on the right in court, and left refers to the person in power sitting on the left. Because the person sitting on the right has more power than the person sitting on the left, "Rightists" refers to the forces that dominate and control traditional society.

Traditional society advocates power and hierarchy, and "Rightists" are vested interests in traditional society, so they advocate sticking to the old system and continuing the traditional system; The "Left" are at the lower level of power, and their interests are suppressed and violated. Therefore, "Left" advocates change and breaks the traditional balance, which is the main force of social "revolution".

In fact, ordinary people who have no power and influence are not factions at all, but can only be regarded as "supporting the left" or "supporting the right" at most.

It should be noted that "leftist" and "rightist" in tennis have many meanings and refer to different things.

Western standards for dividing left and right factions

The slogan of the French Revolution is very beautiful, called "Freedom, Equality and Fraternity". But any exciting slogan has one disadvantage, that is, it can't stand scrutiny. Everyone's talent and living environment are different. If everyone is allowed to develop freely, their wealth and status will not be equal. If everyone wants to be "equal" economically, it will inevitably limit the freedom of the strong to protect the weak. The left and right factions originated from the French Constitutional Convention, but were soon shaped into two factions that had nothing to do with the original intention. Among them, the left supports equality, emphasizes building a welfare state, and helps the weak more through state intervention. Rightists emphasize freedom, oppose excessive welfare, support competition, oppose state intervention, emphasize the establishment of a "weak" government, and oppose excessive restrictions on the strong. But the difference between left and right is only based on the emphasis on equality and freedom. The left is more equal and the right is more free. They all have the same understanding of the basic rights of equality and freedom.

What is extreme left and what is extreme right?

The so-called extreme left is to push leftist thinking to extremes and break through the "bottom line of freedom". In order to obtain indiscriminate justice and abolish most freedoms, we must build an incomparably powerful state machine and put all people's activities under the control of the state. The so-called extreme right, if we push the correct thinking to the extreme, break through the "bottom line of equality." The opposition that the state restricts the strong is interpreted as asking the strong to control the state to bully the weak, claiming that "the state exists for the strong" (Stolypin), practicing oligarchy, and canceling all protection and freedom for the weak.

Why is the ultra-left system pseudo-fair?

The purpose of extreme left is to obtain economic justice, but because everyone's ability and background are different, totalitarianism is necessary to suppress everyone's personality and seek justice. In this way, although everyone is basically equal in economy, totalitarianism will cause inequality in power. Powerful people, call the shots, do everything they can. A lowly person can't even save his life. Those who are eliminated in the power struggle are often in a miserable situation. These guys are very familiar, and we have lived under this system for a long time.

Why is the extreme right system pseudo-freedom? Role transformation from extreme left to extreme right

That's what I want to say. As a generation in the late 1970s and early 1980s, when I was in primary school, I learned that public property was sacred and inviolable, that personal interests were subordinate to collective interests, and I was willing to be a screw and a tame tool. When I was in junior high school, I learned Comrade Deng Xiaoping's wise judgment: China can't have millionaires! In high school, everything is upside down. Some people get rich first, state-owned enterprises are sold to private individuals, and the working class has to "feed themselves". After I went to college, I was helpless. The gap between the rich and the poor in China has become the first in the world.

The key to the irrationality of the extreme right system lies in ignoring "equality of starting point". Liu Shaoqi once held the hand of Shi Chuanxiang, a dung digger, and said with a smile: "We have no distinction between high and low, only a different division of labor." The factory under the ultra-left system, although the actual control right of the manufacturer's funds lies with the director and secretary, belongs to everyone in name. Suddenly, one day, after leaving the factory, the factory director and secretary got the factory, and the retirement salary and medical security promised to the workers were all invalid, and each worker got a resignation fee of several thousand yuan. The factory director said to the workers: we don't engage in pot cooking now, but we should compete freely in the future! This is good, but is this "separation" scheme, this "free competition" that cancels all social security for the weak and all pension and medical insurance really "free competition"?

The extreme right system is often characterized by crony capitalism and oligarchy dictatorship. The models of South America and Southeast Asia can be used for reference. The far right is far from the right, but it is only a stone's throw from the far left. The extreme left and the extreme right have the same "roots". In the ultra-left system, people's property belongs to the whole people, while power belongs to the power center. It's easy to turn into a far-right system. As long as we take off the fig leaf of "owned by the whole people", we can directly rely on power to turn public into private.

Reasons for the confusion of left and right wing distribution

The origins of the left and right in Chinese mainland are different from those in Europe. In Chinese mainland, the division of factions is based on the government. Because the government has always been extremely left in history, people's thinking has an inertia: those who fully support the government are extremely left, most of them are left, and those who oppose the government are right. It can be said that before the 1990s, this division was reasonable.

But now the situation has changed and everyone has seen it. The employment problems of farmers, unemployed workers and students are basically raised by liberals. According to common sense, liberalism should belong to the right-wing camp and pay little attention to equality. But at home, even they began to pay attention to the equality issue and showed "Left". It shows that the current frame of reference has been biased to the extreme right.

The extreme left camp is split in two. Some people have stopped following the pace of change. If workers lose their jobs and capitalists join the party, it can be considered as "labor pains" and "the plan of rights and interests", but the rapid privatization of state-owned assets is very noticeable. In some areas, at the end of 1990s, the proportion of private economy was only 10%, but after four or five years, it rose to 50% to 80%. This is not the "superiority" of private economy, but the well-known division of state-owned property. No matter how superior the private economy is, it is impossible to double it in a few years. These are the basis for the ultra-left Maoists to oppose the "Deng faction".

Forbes gave a list of the richest people in China in 200 1 year. There are various lists in Chinese mainland, but this one is useless. According to this ranking list, the police in China check down one by one, and the rich go to jail. I can count them one by one: Yang Bin, ranked second, miraculously "allocated" 3,000 mu of land with a profit of more than 7 billion, and was arrested in Jilin as the chief executive of the DPRK Special Administrative Region. Yang Rong, who ranked third, "stumbled" in Brilliance's friendship of power and money. Go to jail. You don't need to give many examples to know which group of people "got rich first".

The extreme left is divided, and many people can be classified as extreme left and extreme right. The ultra-leftists known as Maoists have lost their actual political power and turned to the Internet to become another kind of opposition. Now some netizens see that both the extreme left and the extreme right are criticizing the government, and take it for granted that the rulers are centrists, but they are not. Another point that cannot be ignored is that many ultra-left factions have transformed into nationalist factions. I think their transformation is to avoid facing domestic practical problems. Scold Japan and the United States for being so relaxed and safe, without any judgment. China did the right thing! How can it be so difficult to talk about domestic problems?

Intellectuals who discuss false questions

Many intellectuals turned their eyes to Taiwan Province Province. They think that we should first develop the economy with enlightened autocracy, and then transform to democracy, taking the "road of Taiwan Province Province". Xiao Gongqin, a neo-authoritarian, said with emotion that in the 1980s, all intellectuals were radical Democrats, and no one listened to me. But after 1989, intellectuals finally became deep, wise and mature. I think we might as well change these commendatory words. Intellectuals become indifferent and cynical. Take Huawei in North Daqing as an example. In the past, they would go to the streets for the benefit of workers. Now, even if the workers go on strike, they will not make do with it. Students will think that the workers asked for it. At present, the economic situation of intellectuals is the best in history. Moreover, students in Tsinghua of Peking University are blessed and can go abroad if they are unhappy!

China intellectuals have no special advantages except "hard work". However, there are many shortcomings, and it is not uncommon for intellectuals to cling to power, talk empty, plagiarize and be shameless. Now more and more intellectuals are independent and face the reality, but I still want to say a few words. Some kind, independent and scholarly intellectuals in China have another feature, that is, they like "daydreaming".

How to "daydreaming"? When power was rapidly corrupted, China began the "primitive accumulation" of exchanging power for money. Scholars began to dream that the emergence of "middle class" would "bring" democracy and free market economy to China. When Hong Kong returned to China. Scholars began to fantasize that the "multi-party system in Hong Kong" would "popularize" the mainland. When workers are laid off one after another and the polarization between the rich and the poor is serious. Scholars will think that the economic growth under the "authoritarian system" will be an insurmountable short-term stage of "democratization". They never want to fight for their rights and interests, promote the democratization of the system and attack social injustice. Will freedom, democracy and justice fall into the hands of the people like a pie in the sky with "economic growth"? Looking far away from Europe and America, and close to Taiwan Province Province and South Korea, the democratization process is condensed with blood and tears, and good things will not patronize the sleeping nation. Where can we get democracy if we don't pursue it? Where can we get freedom if we don't pursue it? Where can there be equality without calling for equality? Trying to wait for the system to "follow suit" after economic development, a joke, didn't you see the canals dug by others themselves? If you don't dig ditches, water will only drown people.

The phenomenon of intellectuals in the late 1990s is called "the dialogue between liberalism and the new left". It seems to be similar to the left-right dialogue abroad. But for what? China Taiping and so on? China is too free? Few people in China can understand the "postmodern" exposition of the "new left". Think about it, too. Can you talk to someone who doesn't have enough to eat about losing weight? Liberalism is also facing the accusation of "talking less about justice" and has been transformed. Li Yining, who was once all-powerful, was accused of defending the powerful. When people pay more and more attention to the poor, the significance of talking about shares, market competition and MBA has obviously faded.

I don't think the current "dialogue" is meaningful at all. There is no "need for dialogue" between the left and the right. It is meaningless to discuss whether China is more free and less equal or less free and more equal. What we really need to do is to establish the "bottom line of freedom and equality". In a society that is neither free nor equal, what is more or less?

It may be too late to stop the extreme right.

What is the biggest economic phenomenon in China at present? I think it is "privatization". The Internet has long been outspoken about this, and some newspapers are even more courageous and dare to call it "the privatization process". In reality, most media should cover up some things, in other words, what are "restructuring", "reorganization", "demutualization" and "encouraging private elements". Actually, it all means the same thing.

I will not talk about how to "stop" privatization. Long-term extreme left leads to unrestricted power. Similarly, this kind of power has been "marketized", the people with power have been "capitalized", and the people have no right to restrict it. Interests and unrestricted power have contributed to the shift from the extreme left to the extreme right, which is unstoppable. In the case that privatization cannot be stopped, what intellectuals should call for is to ensure that this "privatization" can be as fair as possible. Don't privatize: the secretary of the factory director gets the factory and the workers are laid off at one time. Then everyone began to "compete on an equal footing" in a "fair market". This separation will only lead to social unrest and economic recession. Similar examples can be seen in the privatization of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. Eastern European countries with fairly fair share of separation rebounded immediately after a short-term decline, while countries that did not do well, such as Russia, created financial oligarchs and monopoly groups, and the economic decline took a long time to gradually pick up.

At present, the key to privatization is to establish a fair "separation" strategy before the separation of state-owned assets. However, judging from the current economic proportion, nearly half of the state-owned assets have been divided, and the discussion on the "separation" strategy has not yet begun.