Questioner,
Come to think of it, why do you need someone else’s definition? Don’t you know already?

By stating that the right-wing is the reactionary section it leads one to think that the left must be different, thus not reactionary.
Which we all know is a lie. Or at least quite false.

If an adjective could be used for both them it should be dropped as a descriptor of both.

We have thousands of hours of left-wing party members rioting, Sorry, passively protesting. Keeping warm by burning police cars and their own neighborhood shops. Physically attacking people they just think are not like themselves.

I can not and never could see the KKK supporting Trump. He invites those Jews into his home and even his family.
‘But I can see the KKK supporting the race baiting left who are openly trying to keep the race hatred going. They benefit equally, if not more, by blacks hating whites than whites hating blacks. Hatred from one towards the other just builds the same right back from the other side.

Eduard:

You ask for a definition. The accompanying Wikipedia article is not bad, can be used for this purpose. I quote the most important excerpt here:

“Right-wing politics supports the view that certain social orders and hierarchies are inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable, typically supporting this position on the basis of natural law, economics, or tradition. Hierarchy and inequality may be seen as natural results of traditional social differences or competition in market economies. The term right-wing can generally refer to “the conservative or reactionary section of a political party or system”.

You can be viewed as a liberal in this context.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics

Oh, dear. You failed to provide a definition. In fact, you reinforced what you called my definition, and my definition alone. Classical liberalism and libertarianism both believe in less government and more individual freedom.

Edward:

Your definition of “right-wing” is wrong and only accepted by commentator Edward. For most of human history (more precisely until 1776 or 1789), there were practically only right-wing dictatorships, namely principalities or kingdoms, which usually derived their power from gods or the god. To call this royal rule “left” based on a strange idea of “right” is pure madness. Incidentally, their “dictatorship” was more or less strong because they had other princes as opponents.

Your incorrect definition of “right” fits best with classical liberalism as it emerged in the 19th century, or with libertarianism. I recommend that you study the triangle diagram that was attached to my last post again.

This is correct. In the past few decades, China has made moves in the direction of capitalism (defined as pooling people’s money in order to finance businesses) and some motion toward free markets (defined as consumer and producer control rather than central control over commerce), but they are a far distance from free market capitalism. India has made similar moves in the past few decades. These moves have made a large difference in reducing poverty.

Questioner wrote: “Right-wing dictatorships”

This is a contradiction. The right wing favors individual freedom over government control, the “anarchy” side of the center. The left wing believes in strong governments, the “totalitarian” side of center, believing that when people choose, they chose wrong every single time. Of course, governments are made up of people, who make choices.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkZcEJBcLmU#t=75 (1/2 minute, “The Giver” People choose wrong)

t-dub wrote: “The words “Left” and “Right” are constantly misused. The truth is the “Left” and “Right are very close to each other on the total political spectrum which runs from anarchy to totalitarianism.”

Actually, this is untrue. Anarchy and totalitarianism are completely opposite, extreme concepts, where the first has no governance at all and the latter has total-control governance. The political spectrum is linear, not circular. Left and right do not meet at the extremes.

“I believe the ‘new’ word for China’s economic system is ‘State Capitalism’ for anyone interested.”

Another contradiction. If the state is the capitalist, then that is just socialism.

You are probably a follower of the horseshoe theory which I don’t believe in and which I consider to be wrong. It is liberal propaganda. Left and right do not converge, but there is a transition area in between. In general, the right is spread across a wider range of political ideologies than the left. The triangle is a more accurate topology for political views than the square or the simple left-right-scheme.

Fascism is or was itself a whole, broad spectrum of political systems that is hardly reported in detail today. But you can’t go wrong if fascism is separated from the classical right (conservatism, religiously based monarchy or dictatorship, …) and left political movements (dictatorship of the lower masses) as an independent element that represents a third way. It was like that too. It uses elements from the left and right to build its political ideology.

Unfortunately, you have not commented on my assessment of the unhappy political developments in America.

https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompassMemes/comments/gb6vsx/the_triangle_is_a_more_accurate_topology_for/

If you can get 50+ years out of an airframe; one known, and widely respected, for doing massive amounts of damage, decade after decade, then maybe the amortization is worth it? If the bomber is very hard to ‘see’, and rarely nullified, maybe it’s worth it?

It’s been said that ‘quantity has a quality all it’s own’, but quality is quality, too.

CCP has implemented a ‘state-capitalism’ control structure. Which can be contrasted with a ‘crony-capitalism,’ or corporatist type structure. (like what we are sliding into, which is Amerikan Marxism
None of this is really free-market “Capitalism,” as I think most of us would envision.

There’s also the contrast between authoritarian regimes, and totalitarian regimes. (economic system aside, but everything is fully entwined.)
(It’s more easy to flip, say a Pinochet type regime, into a more representative model, as opposed to say a N. Korea or Cuba.)

Kelthuz
“Start Up The Rotors”
https://youtu.be/2180aSIlB7s
2:47

Mao would hate them.

Well, throwing political prisoners from helicopters is sooooooo 20th Century. If you want to make a ‘special’ impression on those who may oppose you then go big.

Right-wing dictatorships, which often feel bound to a higher metaphysical principle such as God, usually do not go that far (in contrast: non methaphysical Communists knows only the existence of matter as a philosophical substance). Are limit themselves to maintaining power alone and, as long as they do not rebel against the status quo, allow citizens their private freedoms. Only the political opponent is fought, often with all might.

I would not consider global power claims to be the defining characteristics of communism, otherwise America would have to be considered communist as well. Certain seems the fact that America is moving towards a one-party state. A major step in this direction was the large-scale election fraud of November 2020, which deprived Donald Trump of his election victory. We have experienced it and can testify to it.

In what ways does one-party rule (or dictatorship) in China, which makes it communist (or left-wing), differ from right-wing one-party rule (or dictators) of the past, such as Franco in Spain, Mussolini in Italy or Pinochet in Chile? In all four cases the economic system was capitalist, right?

Why? Are they going to open a space park and these rides are going to be the big attraction?

Other than amusement park rides what are they good for?

Communism in a modern sense is nothing more than a benevolent dictatorship at best. (China) At worst its just a true evil dictatorship with a long name to make the people feel happy about it, (North Korea)

As for Socialism. All governments are some degree of socialist. From 0% where no assistance for anything comes from the government all the way to 100% where everything is regulated and “free” from the government.

There is no way to do socialism wrong. Its just an opinion if you think a government is not doing enough or to much.
China is doing its form of socialism fine. Just like America and the rest of the world.

I’m thinking Blackhorse

Funny how that always happens.

Can one still speak of a communist state in China today or is that something different now? Totalitarian, of course, but maybe something else. Maybe more of a kind of National Socialism? So a mixture of right and left political elements. What do you mean?

I actually don’t think this is a bad thing… A new race for space can only push forward the future, and if capitalism really can beat the communist Chinese space program then the future is rosy.

I have absolutely no wish for the Chinese to gain superiority anywhere, socialist that I am, I also believe in democracy, but l think a bit of a space race between the west and China might be both interesting and push forward space exploration.