Left and right wing economics weren't an actual codified concept at the time, fucking hell. "The Wealth of Nations" came out in 1776 (literally the book on capitalism and America are separated by a few months. Wild fact I just learned), and of course Marx didn't drop Capital until 1867. Trying to even apply our modern understanding of right/left wing to this situation is like using completely different units of measurement and saying they're the same. He might as well have said:
It was a rebellion against the established order (the monarchy) to form the first liberal democratic state (based on a slave economy). The dynamics weren't dissimilar to socialist revolutions in the following centuries, just now the established order is the liberal democracies that the monarchies transitioned into (either peacefully or through violent insurrection).
So not at all leftist as we mean today, but leftist in the sense that they were against the monarchy which I believe was the initial use of the term in France? Supporters of the status quo stood on the right and the supporters of the transition to liberal democracy stood on the left.
There couldn't have been any conceptualization of that.
Trying to even apply our modern understanding of ethnicity to this situation is like using completely different units of measurement and saying they’re the same.
Left and right wing economics weren't an actual codified concept at the time, fucking hell. "The Wealth of Nations" came out in 1776 (literally the book on capitalism and America are separated by a few months. Wild fact I just learned), and of course Marx didn't drop Capital until 1867. Trying to even apply our modern understanding of right/left wing to this situation is like using completely different units of measurement and saying they're the same. He might as well have said:
Would be about as logical.
It was a rebellion against the established order (the monarchy) to form the first liberal democratic state (based on a slave economy). The dynamics weren't dissimilar to socialist revolutions in the following centuries, just now the established order is the liberal democracies that the monarchies transitioned into (either peacefully or through violent insurrection).
So not at all leftist as we mean today, but leftist in the sense that they were against the monarchy which I believe was the initial use of the term in France? Supporters of the status quo stood on the right and the supporters of the transition to liberal democracy stood on the left.
Left and right wing economics are modern ideas; there is no timeless logic underlying them and their substance does not recur throughout history.
Take the Romans, for instance. They just didn't know any better! It was a different time. The idea of equality hadn't been invented yet.
Whiteness either, so we got a north african emperor. Just wish they'd never left England or the world would be a better place.
There couldn't have been any conceptualization of that.
Trying to even apply our modern understanding of ethnicity to this situation is like using completely different units of measurement and saying they’re the same.