It often seems science and technology is only ever brought up to be demonised due to perceived danger (look at most articles on AI) or high cost (look at articles about CERN, ITER, NASA etc.)
Although there is some pro-science/tech sentiment in Silicon Valley in the West it often just seems to extend as far as the next quick buck - I mean is a new mobile app or social media network really pushing the boundaries of human knowledge/capability?
After discovering South Korean sci-fi through Netflix years ago, I was sorry to see Netflix drop this sci-fi content. Then about a year ago I read Liu Cixin‘s trilogy, his other works, and Ken Liu’s Translations and his own stories. All really good stuff that I enjoy simply because it has a different feel to it.
Years ago, I enjoyed Lem’s sci-fi for similar reasons: it had a different feel from American sci-fi.
1. The conventional, stereotypical 1-dementional European/American popular political spectrum. Here, Democrat, Green, Labor Party, and pro-socialism are generally seen as left; Republicans, Libertarian, or Liberal Party is generally seen as right. This definition is rarely used domestically, only for discussions of international politics.
2. The 1-dementional political spectrum, but with the origin (0, 0) shifted to the official position of Chinese government. Here, "left" represents supporters who favor more radical policies than the current positions of the Communist Party of China, when used in historical context, most revolutionaries are also included. On the other hand, anything less authoritarian than the current government is seen as "right", which basically refers to almost everything else, but typically describes an American liberal.
3. When describing the political stance of a public politician, a "hawk" is seen as left, a "dove" is seen as right.
4. The general cultural implications and impressions of "left" and "right" in China, it doesn't have a precise definition, but in general the "left" refers to any liberal reformist, revolutionaries, progressivists, internationalists; the "right" represents conservatism (in the sense of pro-establishment, pro-CPC), nationalism, industrialists, populism or chauvinism.
(4) is the meaning of the term in this article.
It becomes ambiguous when the official position of the establishment is historically revolutionary-leaning, and claims to follow the original ideology, then the "left" can be interpreted as either (1) supporters of current position of the establishment, or (2) revolutionaries who wish to overthrow the establishment. It gets even more ambiguous if you describe the positions in terms of civil rights, economic systems, foreign policies, etc, you'll see the terms are used in all possible and incompatible ways, which is a typical situation in a Chinese political discourse.
These people are against foreigners, for a strong police and military (in fact, some vigilantes in China seem to be directly backed up by government authorities), are racist, anti-religious, for Chinese imperialism (e.g. in the South Chinese Sea), and so on.
If you e.g. make a Youtube video criticism state policies in China, these people will try to find out who you are, your address, your family, etc., and then bundle up online to discredit you at your employer and at state authorities. Tons of death threats will enter your email inbox and they will accuse you of being a traitor to the fatherland. That's obviously right wing and fascist (coming from "fasces", the rods used to beat up people on the streets of ancient Rome).
The atrocities of communism are justified very differently, based on a fairly complex ideology. "left wing" would e.g. be if these people founded workers committees in which they'd force colleagues to discuss their "reactionary imperialist ideology" and confess their egoistic betrayals of society. It's different from "right wing" in dozens of respects, especially the justifications.
Of course, extreme right and extreme left coincide about totalitarian stances, and sometimes also use nationalism and populism to further their agenda. But they disagree about all the rest.
People in the West fail to see the obvious. Above being leftist and rightist, the few communist states there been, are militarist first, and every other *ist second.
Mussolini famously created this toxic brew when he united socialism and nationalism, calling it fascism. Mussolini was a fellow traveler with Lenin, who congratulated Mussolini when he took control of Italy.
The only contact I could find between Lenin and Italy that could be interpreted in such a way was his address to the socialist party congress in 1916, which took place after Mussolini was expelled by the party because of his interventist ideas. If you think that at least in 1917 Lenin was condemning the socialists of the II International for the same reason (supporting the war) (amid other reasons, of course) and that Mussolini rose to power in 1922, this allegation of appraisal of Mussolini by Lenin in that context sounds quite suspicious.
Mussolini was called the "Lenin of Italy". Even during his march on Rome in 1922 Mussolini continued to espress admiration for the Soviet Union in the 20s, and called Stalin a "fellow fascist".
That's what I was saying.
> Mussolini was called the "Lenin of Italy"
By whom? I'm actually interested, not trying to retort.
> Mussolini continued to espress admiration for the Soviet Union in the 20s, and called Stalin a "fellow fascist".
Not to be too blunt, but Mussolini can say whatever he wants. This doesn't detract from the fact that it's hard to believe that Lenin praised Mussolini when he came to power in Italy.
Ask any historian whether these socialist movements were part of the left in anything but name.
They are authoritarian right and aside from insane fringe movements of people with profound ignorance of history, nobody would say otherwise.