That’s not the modern definition of “left wing”. But, even if you apply that definition, she still qualifies as a conservative because she wants to return to the old system of government, that existed before Chavez. That’s not “progress”…it’s “regression”.
And authoritarianism, is a completely separate metric to that political classification system. Any government, regardless of whether you consider them progressive or conservative, can be authoritarian or not. You can have a perfectly functional democracy, with both progressive and conservative ideas taking part in the process. This cooperation is actually considered essential to a healthy democracy.
Authoritarianism is when one side or the other decides they no longer respect the will of the people, and choose to assert their agenda by force or coercion. That can just as easily be used to enforce change, as it is to prevent it.
I think at a certain point we have to agree that the objective right or left is based on the current position of the sovereign nation in question. Progress to be made here is different than progress to be made there, things we have they don’t, etc.
If that’s what you think, then you have to admit that your definition of “left” and “right”, is meaningless. Either it applies across all instances, or it’s entirely subjective.
That’s probably because you don’t actually understand the terms you’re using. You’re getting them mixed up, which would make it rather hard to use them as defined.
The way you measure socio-political systems is typically using spectrums. There are many different spectrums used to define any given system. Technically, you are correct to say that every country is different. But how you define its position relative to other countries uses multiple axes to measure those different spectrums. And given the complexity of how all those separate lines of measurement intersect…you get a multitude of potential socio-political outcomes. Nothing is ever 2 dimensional.
Authoritarianism has its own spectrum…its own axis of measurement. It is independent of other concepts, and can be measured independently, alongside any of the other criteria.
And? She’s going to give him her peace prize, in the hopes that he will put her in charge of the country. But, he’s already said he’s not going to.
Thats what I said.
You also said she was a left-wing. That’s what we were talking about.
She is left wing, her leading Venezuela would be progress out of the authoritarianism of Maduro’s regime.
That’s not the modern definition of “left wing”. But, even if you apply that definition, she still qualifies as a conservative because she wants to return to the old system of government, that existed before Chavez. That’s not “progress”…it’s “regression”.
And authoritarianism, is a completely separate metric to that political classification system. Any government, regardless of whether you consider them progressive or conservative, can be authoritarian or not. You can have a perfectly functional democracy, with both progressive and conservative ideas taking part in the process. This cooperation is actually considered essential to a healthy democracy.
Authoritarianism is when one side or the other decides they no longer respect the will of the people, and choose to assert their agenda by force or coercion. That can just as easily be used to enforce change, as it is to prevent it.
I think at a certain point we have to agree that the objective right or left is based on the current position of the sovereign nation in question. Progress to be made here is different than progress to be made there, things we have they don’t, etc.
If that’s what you think, then you have to admit that your definition of “left” and “right”, is meaningless. Either it applies across all instances, or it’s entirely subjective.
I think it’s pretty rare to have any occurrence of the term without the context of a specific country.
That’s probably because you don’t actually understand the terms you’re using. You’re getting them mixed up, which would make it rather hard to use them as defined.
The way you measure socio-political systems is typically using spectrums. There are many different spectrums used to define any given system. Technically, you are correct to say that every country is different. But how you define its position relative to other countries uses multiple axes to measure those different spectrums. And given the complexity of how all those separate lines of measurement intersect…you get a multitude of potential socio-political outcomes. Nothing is ever 2 dimensional.
Authoritarianism has its own spectrum…its own axis of measurement. It is independent of other concepts, and can be measured independently, alongside any of the other criteria.