mikk is correct when he states: "Originally the terms came from the french parliament where the toffs sat on the right and the commoners on the left."

However, we can see who the toffs and commoners were. The toffs were the nobility and the clergy. The commoners were the rich bourgeoisie who had in most cases much more wealth than the toffs. The initial push for revolution was given by the bourgeoisie who wanted votes in proportion to their numbers in parliament. This is when the identification of revolution with left originated. Generally the bourgeoisie are no longer identified with the left.

Left and right are now both terms of opprobrium depending on who is name calling and often have little use in consideration of issues,

On the extreme left were Lenin and Stalin. On the extreme right was Hitler. Such a scale with scum on both ends can be abandoned as far as I am concerned. Left/Right has passed its 'use by' date.

left and right is easy to understand

the left takes ya oney to give to others
the right takes ya money to feed themselves

its not complicated
the one govt serfves both parties

wake up tho the revuue grab up in qld

blitzing us with cammeras to speed trap/light change/revenue raise///

after whining about the raising road toll
while skiting about the extra population ///and more..tourists

selling the states assets
after trippling the price of energy
deep into default on the clever beatie scam

now carbon tax...loll on top of everything
paid direct to the right
now having perfected their perfect global rule
via direct taxes upon the citisenry of other de facto states

with civil contract mnaritiume juristiction that has accorded the duties of the rich/death dities/tarrifs...etc upon the poor via gst and other immoral taxes on booze and everything...

now the neo tax on carbon

based on economists studies''lol..
any one can claim to be a docterate'

they got docterates for watching tv...for gods sake

lol

and still no anger
its amasing how brain dead people really are

why bother posting...

"Loony left" is a derogatory slur thrown about by the right in reference to the lefts politically correct tendencies.
Its very easy to ridicule and defame some of the more confronting leftist ideals. Like the lefts views on smacking, gender equality/neutral language, crime and punishment, vegetarianism, pollution/climate change etc. Not to mention the real loony ones into all that crystals and incense new age religion stuff.

Contrast that with the "militant left" which is the old trade union and working class left grouping. Hard, tough men and women given to drinkin an fightin and not known for their tolerance of outsiders like immigrants or uppity academics let alone hippies. But their main beef is with the boss and the workplace and the system they beleive screws them of their just rewards for their efforts.

Twenty years ago, you could hear someone's opinion on one issue and fairly accurately predict their opinion on other issues. These days, people tend to either sit on the fence or be "left wing" on one issue and "right wing" on other issues. Therefore, left wing and right wing are becoming less useful terms.

Davidf

Sorry to be a pain but Stalin was no more left that Hilter was a Social Democrat Both were Dictators and as such were extreme right.They both used the system to gain power and manipulated it from there.

Lenin was right of Marx, more moderate in his 'version' of communism

As I said in the opening true Communism never existed except in the minds of their creators, philosophers, zealots and governments have been in name only.

Don't confuse the USSR with true Communism. "genius is thinking of an ideal...being human is the mess we make of it". E.8

Dear examinator,

You wrote: “Both were Dictators and as such were extreme right.” You define right by being a dictator. Where is it laid down that left cannot be dictatorial? Like other people who use the terms left and right you make your own definitions.

Left/right have passed their useby dates. You implicitly define left by how closely Marx's prescription was followed. You have defined something called true communism.

From the Manifesto:

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
The above prescribe tyranny.

I am living in Australia and get my Social Security payments from the US. If 4 were applicable I would not.

6 pretty well eliminates freedom of expression if means of communication is centralised in the hands of the state.

'the bringing into cultivation of waste lands' I doubt that Marx had much of a notion of ecology so I excuse him for that. However, a more equable distribution of the populace over the country can only be realised by coercion.

Industrial armies mean more coercion.

Marx also advocated ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’. That stinks as much as any other kind of dictatorship.

Marx was a bigoted antisemite who prescribed tyranny and got tyranny.

There is no such thing as 'true' communism, 'true' Christianity or 'true' any other ideology or religion. They do not exist in the abstract. They exist as humans implement them. However, Stalin implemented it fairly close to Marx’s prescription.