I’ve also been drifting toward a power-centric view of the world, also known as left wing. (Money-centric is right wing.) For example, my view of Georgism has shifted from “obviously good idea economically” to “good idea, but those with more land will block it” to “oh, that’s why people say the only important war is class war” to “if class war is won, people can get a right to housing and healthcare, and it’s not super important which taxes it’ll be based on”. It’ll be interesting if you drift toward the left for the same reasons.
I think left = power-centric, right = money-centric is pretty inaccurate.
Neoliberalism is money-centric, but not clearly right-wing—elites from both center-left and center-right have supported it. And the tech right is money-centric to some extent, but nationalist movements are very much not. They care about preserving their nations, cultures, etc. Hence the various fights between MAGA and the tech right.
Meanwhile the left is very opposed to hierarchical power structures (like class systems or corporations), but pretty blind to the ways in which opposing hierarchical power structures itself instantiates intense power dynamics. (A classic example is Fussell thinking of Class X as transcending traditional class dynamics rather than simply setting itself up as a new ruling class.) I’d call the left “egalitarian” instead.
Meanwhile the left is very opposed to hierarchical power structures (like class systems or corporations), but pretty blind to the ways in which opposing hierarchical power structures itself instantiates intense power dynamics.
I think this is decades out of date. After Khrushchev’s secret speech came out, much more people on the left started thinking seriously how to achieve socialism without tyranny. And many people understood it earlier, too. My personal hero is Orwell, who was firmly on the left, and already in “Homage to Catalonia” (1938) he mentions the evil of Soviet secret police as a well-known fact.
I’ve also been drifting toward a power-centric view of the world, also known as left wing. (Money-centric is right wing.) For example, my view of Georgism has shifted from “obviously good idea economically” to “good idea, but those with more land will block it” to “oh, that’s why people say the only important war is class war” to “if class war is won, people can get a right to housing and healthcare, and it’s not super important which taxes it’ll be based on”. It’ll be interesting if you drift toward the left for the same reasons.
I think left = power-centric, right = money-centric is pretty inaccurate.
Neoliberalism is money-centric, but not clearly right-wing—elites from both center-left and center-right have supported it. And the tech right is money-centric to some extent, but nationalist movements are very much not. They care about preserving their nations, cultures, etc. Hence the various fights between MAGA and the tech right.
Meanwhile the left is very opposed to hierarchical power structures (like class systems or corporations), but pretty blind to the ways in which opposing hierarchical power structures itself instantiates intense power dynamics. (A classic example is Fussell thinking of Class X as transcending traditional class dynamics rather than simply setting itself up as a new ruling class.) I’d call the left “egalitarian” instead.
I think this is decades out of date. After Khrushchev’s secret speech came out, much more people on the left started thinking seriously how to achieve socialism without tyranny. And many people understood it earlier, too. My personal hero is Orwell, who was firmly on the left, and already in “Homage to Catalonia” (1938) he mentions the evil of Soviet secret police as a well-known fact.