[ExI] the myth of the US "liberal media"

[Stefano Vaj]

2011/7/12 Richard Loosemore <rloosemore at susaro.com>
> Communists (= dictatorship of the proleteriat, state ownership of the means of production, violent overthrow of the bourgoisie, etc etc) are as far to the left of "hard left progressives" as "hard left progressives" are to the left of Ollie North.

Really? Or simply somewhere else.

> Most Americans are so thoroughly brainwashed by right-wing propaganda that they genuinely *believe* that anything non-conservative is basically in the socialist/communist/Trotskyist/Maoist nexus.

Or perhaps the axis right-left has always been a rather stupid and
confusing way to classify political families, except perhaps in the
immediate aftermath of the French Revolution.

This is by no means less true for the "right" than for the "left".
Does the "right" want the government to control the business or the
business to control the government? Does it want a stronger, more
authoritarian government or goes for "rugged individualism" and
personal rebellion thereto? Does it support, as a class, landed gentry
against capitalists, or old money, or (would-be) self-made men,
tradition-fostering peasants or bigot micro-bourgeosie? Is it in
favour of free trade or of nationalist protectionism? Is it
imperialistic or would like to keep its community isolated from the
rest of the world and left to its own way-of-life? Is it in favour of
eugenics, or would like to bomb abortion clinics and genetic
laboratories altogether?

If, as it is the case, the answers to such question wildly vary
depending on areas and eras, I wonder if the concept itself of "right"
makes any sense.

Even seeing Robin Hood himself as left-wing is problematic, because he
embodied the individualistic, feodal and populist reaction of old
Saxon rulers, Vandea-style, against the new, more "progressive" and
centralised, government model of the Normans. Which of course included
a higher taxation, exactly what is anathema to today's US "right".

--
Stefano Vaj