This is not to say that I think they are equally bad or that there should be a “united front” or some non-sense like that.
It just seems like the traditional left / right distinction, even when extended by the authoritarian / liberal axis doesn’t seem to reflect political opinions a very well anymore (and maybe never did).
As a shower-thought I recently considered “rooted” Vs. “mobile” as less ideologically loaded and more descriptive terms of the actually different mind-sets people seem to have. This seems to fit to many aspects of the ideological divide found in today’s world.
Any other suggestions?
P.S.: of course just inventing new terms & definitions doesn’t change anything (and NewSpeak is certainly a danger), but keep using outdated and overloaded terms is also not the solution.
the way i see it, you could just break it down to a simple state where you either think all people are of equal value, or you think only a handful few are of equal value. which makes it pretty one-dimensional. left vs right. all the layers in-between are dramatized excuses and rationalizations of either position.
This might sound a bit like semanics, but David Graeber has been making the argument that in many ways perceived equality rather leads to a conservative mind-set (think: “all equal before god”, or “all have to work for their food”, or “all debts have to be paid”…); while thinking of human beings as so unique that they can not be compared to each other (i.e. not equal in any sense) does not.
It’s a bit counterintuitive at first, but there is some historical evidence for this where societies explicitly striving for equality became very conservative and often quite inhuman as well.
So is your solution some kind of tribalistic fascism, where forget equality, instead inequality is enforced? If society wants to get conservative and keep inequality enforcing fascists out of it, it does not seem too bad. That is pretty much the concept of any and every community, no matter which camp.
You are either jumping to absurd conclusions or trolling :-/
I think you know me enough to know that I am not trolling. I am just being curious here, and trying to expand on the comment you made above. What are the kinds of conclusions I can derive from the parent and your comment?
“From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs” for example does not imply individual equality at all, quite the contrary in fact…
Edit: Thinking of humans in terms of “value” (equal or not) already dehumanizes them IMHO, thus what can be used to compare humans to make them somehow equal?
Humans being compared in terms of what they bring on table, to me, looks like a capitalist and hierarchical kind of element. But it is also a primitive way of distinction used since cavemen learnt to quantify things. I think there are a few things that simply go the way of capitalism naturally, even if one does not like it. At some point, anyone would see either of two similar people, that
beingbring less to the table, as a liability.Unless we are talking pure survival situations, education and culture (i.e. non natural traits) influence strongly what is perceived as “valuable” contributions though. Just look at the recent discussion about “essential jobs” and how badly they were valued in terms of salary and social recognition before the pandemic (and still are).
by equal value i did not mean equality. i think it’s important to make the distinction between equality and equity.
edit; i love this meme: