Technically speaking, it IS a linguistic drift, as the first liberals where the French revolutionaries (later known as "Left wing"). But they were "liberals" in comparison with the monarchy at the time. As time went on, these people though "well... it seems pretty good right now. We don't need any more freedom than this" and became the conservatives "right wing", whereas the more extremists became the new "left wing".
But all that was about social freedom. None of those parties knew or though about economic freedom. That would only come later with Adam Smith and the Industrial Revolution, creating capitalism and free trade, instead of a government trying and failing to make a good economy.
That creates a round peg, square hole situation, where saying "left" and "right" to fit into "liberalism" and "totalitarianism" and it doesn't match. So some people tried to create other models, such as the horseshoe theory ("the further the ideologies go from the centre, the more they resemble each other".
Today we have the Nolan Chart, that divides the economic freedom and the social freedom into 2 axis, and the ask the questions: "how much should the government control how you make and spend money?" and "how much should the government prohibit you from doing what you want?"
Usually political parties fall into 2 categories.
The first (in this case, the liberal party)goes for "lots of social freedom. Gay marriage and marijuana legalization. No much on economic liberty. You gotta buy local, let's protect our industry!"
The second is the opposite (the conservatives). Low social but good economic freedom."No gay marriage or smoking dope. We don't care if you import your food from China".
The other 2 are harder to come by as political parties. Who would vote for a party that tries to prohibit everything? A government like that usually is a dictatorship.
On the other hand, a libertarian party doesn't have strength because libertarians don't care about politics or voting. They just want to be left to their on devices "don't bother me and I won't bother you".
In the end, it sums up to how much freedom you want in your life. A liberal, in the post-industrial revolution sense, wants more freedom. Socialists want the government to take care of their lives through the welfare state. Conservatives want the government to uphold traditional values.
And to close this lesson, Communism is EVIL. It ignore the individuals wants and needs turning the individuals into cogs "for the good of the society", forgetting that society is the sum of individuals with wants and needs.
0
@Mindbird, @lesserevil and @TangoXrayActual
Sorry for the late reply.
Technically speaking, it IS a linguistic drift, as the first liberals where the French revolutionaries (later known as "Left wing"). But they were "liberals" in comparison with the monarchy at the time. As time went on, these people though "well... it seems pretty good right now. We don't need any more freedom than this" and became the conservatives "right wing", whereas the more extremists became the new "left wing".
But all that was about social freedom. None of those parties knew or though about economic freedom. That would only come later with Adam Smith and the Industrial Revolution, creating capitalism and free trade, instead of a government trying and failing to make a good economy.
That creates a round peg, square hole situation, where saying "left" and "right" to fit into "liberalism" and "totalitarianism" and it doesn't match. So some people tried to create other models, such as the horseshoe theory ("the further the ideologies go from the centre, the more they resemble each other".
Today we have the Nolan Chart, that divides the economic freedom and the social freedom into 2 axis, and the ask the questions: "how much should the government control how you make and spend money?" and "how much should the government prohibit you from doing what you want?"
Usually political parties fall into 2 categories.
The first (in this case, the liberal party)goes for "lots of social freedom. Gay marriage and marijuana legalization. No much on economic liberty. You gotta buy local, let's protect our industry!"
The second is the opposite (the conservatives). Low social but good economic freedom."No gay marriage or smoking dope. We don't care if you import your food from China".
The other 2 are harder to come by as political parties. Who would vote for a party that tries to prohibit everything? A government like that usually is a dictatorship.
On the other hand, a libertarian party doesn't have strength because libertarians don't care about politics or voting. They just want to be left to their on devices "don't bother me and I won't bother you".
In the end, it sums up to how much freedom you want in your life. A liberal, in the post-industrial revolution sense, wants more freedom. Socialists want the government to take care of their lives through the welfare state. Conservatives want the government to uphold traditional values.
And to close this lesson, Communism is EVIL. It ignore the individuals wants and needs turning the individuals into cogs "for the good of the society", forgetting that society is the sum of individuals with wants and needs.