As I said in my very first phrase, I was referring to the particular comments _here_, not everything 'progressives' and 'leftists' do. These categories are so vaguely defined that you can say anything you want about them without risking meaningful confirmation or contradiction.
Slagging on Marcuse, I believe, is beating a very dead h…
As I said in my very first phrase, I was referring to the particular comments _here_, not everything 'progressives' and 'leftists' do. These categories are so vaguely defined that you can say anything you want about them without risking meaningful confirmation or contradiction.
Slagging on Marcuse, I believe, is beating a very dead horse; I suppose one might get some random flies out of the effort, but is it worth it? Have you actually made your way through _One-Dimensional Man_?
To my perhaps poor degree of perception, 'Left' and 'progressive' have not been defined around here in any way that imposes a rational framework on the content of the ideologies in question. Instead, what seem to be similar but hostile tribes are alluded to -- for example, the characters in your academic squabble, where the 'abuse of power' has little nothing to do with ideological principles and characteristics and everything to do with petty rank-pulling and bullshitting in a naturally repulsive academic environment. I admit that the false assertion 'rightist equals psychotic', credentialized by some of the squabblists, must have gotten one subtribes's pants wet, because an authoritarian institution was putting down a different subtribe, but that's not my fault. The fact remains as I said: the categories so defined do not mean much of anything outside of the accidents of style, manners, accent, locale, and so on.
Short form: if you won't define 'the Left' I can't argue with you. Unless you want to use my definition, which I'll be glad to supply; but I don't think you'll like it.
My reading about the history of the Left/Right nomenclature indicates that it began in the ancient world, when infantry warfare began to be organized into formations such as the phalanx. The most important man on a line confronting the enemy was the rightmost, because his position was generally the key to the line; if he fell, the line could be rolled up. Hence the position became an honor representing the military virtues. Primary leaders arrogated the convention to their own advantage. Hence, by the time we get to 1789, the King of France and his friends were on the right. Those who were not on the right were those who were left. By this time the Right was the party of war, mastery, authority, power, private wealth, and the aforesaid military virtues. The Left were those who were left, that is, people who were not interested in war and mastery, but (in theory) those who preferred peace, freedom, and equality. As you note, these principles often appeal to business people, as well as other types, or at least they did in the initial stages of the emergence from classical slavery and feudalism.
I concede that others do not use the terms in this way. They lump hippies, Stalin, Thomas Jefferson, and Carlos the Jackal together on the Left, and an equally disparate gang on the Right, mostly according to decor and style rather than any sort of serious principle of ideology.
As I said in my very first phrase, I was referring to the particular comments _here_, not everything 'progressives' and 'leftists' do. These categories are so vaguely defined that you can say anything you want about them without risking meaningful confirmation or contradiction.
Slagging on Marcuse, I believe, is beating a very dead horse; I suppose one might get some random flies out of the effort, but is it worth it? Have you actually made your way through _One-Dimensional Man_?
To my perhaps poor degree of perception, 'Left' and 'progressive' have not been defined around here in any way that imposes a rational framework on the content of the ideologies in question. Instead, what seem to be similar but hostile tribes are alluded to -- for example, the characters in your academic squabble, where the 'abuse of power' has little nothing to do with ideological principles and characteristics and everything to do with petty rank-pulling and bullshitting in a naturally repulsive academic environment. I admit that the false assertion 'rightist equals psychotic', credentialized by some of the squabblists, must have gotten one subtribes's pants wet, because an authoritarian institution was putting down a different subtribe, but that's not my fault. The fact remains as I said: the categories so defined do not mean much of anything outside of the accidents of style, manners, accent, locale, and so on.
Short form: if you won't define 'the Left' I can't argue with you. Unless you want to use my definition, which I'll be glad to supply; but I don't think you'll like it.
My reading about the history of the Left/Right nomenclature indicates that it began in the ancient world, when infantry warfare began to be organized into formations such as the phalanx. The most important man on a line confronting the enemy was the rightmost, because his position was generally the key to the line; if he fell, the line could be rolled up. Hence the position became an honor representing the military virtues. Primary leaders arrogated the convention to their own advantage. Hence, by the time we get to 1789, the King of France and his friends were on the right. Those who were not on the right were those who were left. By this time the Right was the party of war, mastery, authority, power, private wealth, and the aforesaid military virtues. The Left were those who were left, that is, people who were not interested in war and mastery, but (in theory) those who preferred peace, freedom, and equality. As you note, these principles often appeal to business people, as well as other types, or at least they did in the initial stages of the emergence from classical slavery and feudalism.
I concede that others do not use the terms in this way. They lump hippies, Stalin, Thomas Jefferson, and Carlos the Jackal together on the Left, and an equally disparate gang on the Right, mostly according to decor and style rather than any sort of serious principle of ideology.