“New World Order: Are We Still Talking About Left and Right-wing Politics?”

Greetings, esteemed individuals. I am Meritokratias, an advocate of meritocracy, and I have been graciously invited to compose an article; thus, I am here to provide an introduction of myself.

In addressing my initial topic, I aim to critically examine certain prevailing perspectives. With the emergence of the new leader, the United Kingdom is experiencing a transformation reminiscent of the situation under Starmer. Does this indicate the ascendance of right-wing ideology in the United States alongside a pronounced leftward shift in the United Kingdom? Irrespective of one’s viewpoint, it is incontrovertible that we are presently experiencing a period of significant political tumult, during which novel ideas are indeed emerging. However, what precisely do the terms ” left “ and “ right ” represent? In truth, a vast majority of individuals, approximately ninety-nine percent, remain notably perplexed.

In contemporary discourse, political ideologies classified as “left-wing,” exemplified by entities such as the UK Labour Party and the US Democratic Party, may increasingly be perceived as right-wing. The newly appointed leader also aligns with the right wing; however, in a comparative analysis, they espouse certain leftist principles. This complexity elucidates the prevailing ambiguity.

To return to foundational concepts, the terminology of left-wing and right-wing politics originates from the French Parliament, wherein the Jacobins and the Girondins occupied opposing sides, thus leading to the respective nomenclature. The left advocates for the welfare of the underprivileged population, while the right has historically embodied the interests of royalists aiming to preserve aristocratic governance, though it has gradually integrated democratic principles. The advent of Marxism subsequently propelled sociology to delineate social classes with greater precision, accentuating the distinctions between “providers of productive capacity” and “owners of productive capacity.” The left champions labourers and labour unions, whereas the right endorses employers, manufacturing entities, and commercial enterprises.

With the advancement of Marxist sociological theories, it is evident that the left fundamentally aims to promote social mobility. The left is characterised as a conflict theory, which posits that society should be segmented into distinct segments, and conflict is employed to allocate social resources—an ideology referred to as Critical Theory. In contrast, the right opposes the notion of social mobility, advocating the perspective that individuals within society function as interconnected components within a machine; should one component shift, the entire machine risks malfunctioning. Consequently, the right champions the preservation of existing structures and resists excessive social mobility, perceiving competition as a potentially harmful influence; the most stable society, from this viewpoint, is one that is structurally cohesive and guided by governmental authority, with monopolies maintained by private enterprises.

However, should one have engaged in the discourse surrounding “sustainable social movements” during the preceding era in Hong Kong, it would be evident that the original left, which championed the cause of the common people, subsequently transitioned to advocating for minority groups. In later developments, this ideological shift gave rise to the formulation of Critical Race Theory (CRT), which fundamentally repudiates Critical Theory (CT). Proponents of CRT contend that individuals identified as white inherently assume the ofrole an oppressors, while affluent individuals of African descent are categorically deemed oppressed solely based on their racial identity. In essence, CRT challenges the tenets of CT, positing that a significant error must exist within CT, as the principal conflict has shifted from class-based struggles to racial disparities. This can be attributed to a straightforward rationale: sustainable social movements ultimately create their own complexities. Nevertheless, as the adage suggests, one may tend to overanalyse, and it is unnecessary to specify identities; the implications are universally comprehended.

Nevertheless, the aforementioned issues are intrinsically associated with right-wing ideologies. Firstly, the advocacy for racial equality does not stem from collective welfare but rather is orchestrated by multinational corporations that dictate public discourse, marginalising individuals whose expressions diverge from this particular ideology. The implementation of racial quotas in employment also derives from these substantial enterprises. Additionally, feminism has been advanced by significant corporations; the inclusion of transgender individuals in the gaming sector, the casting of historically inaccurate characters in cinematic productions, the representation of historical figures as women, and the commemoration of influential female figures—all of this is championed by large corporations that restrict discourse, either through the media they generate or the platforms they maintain. Furthermore, medical professionals conducting gender reassignment surgeries are frequently employed by major corporations, with the requisite medications produced and marketed by these entities, often subsidised by government funding.

Every link in this chain reflects the influence of large corporations that sponsor social movements, determine the nature of truth, identify what requires fact-checking, and supply the essential resources, medications, and technologies.

Hence, the term “left” appears to lack substantive leftist elements. Individuals are effectively regarded as resources. A proverb from our Chinese counterparts that resonates with me is: individuals represent a wealth of resources; each person constitutes a valuable asset, consistently utilised by large corporations.

In reality, what benefit does the pursuit of democracy provide? The park was initially governed by the authorities, but following the advent of democratic participation, it became solely regulated by legislation enacted by the council. Nonetheless, the park has since ceased to exist due to the encroachment of large corporations that acquired land for development purposes. Consequently, the only remaining recreational space in the vicinity is a diminutive section located within a shopping mall. Legislation serves merely as a reference; in practice, it is the stipulations of the’ private area” established by corporate management that dictate usage, unencumbered by legal constraints.

What is your stance on the internet? Do you perceive it as a platform of freedom? Do you believe that you are exclusively bound by the laws of your own nation? It is pertinent to note that Facebook is operated by a large corporation, Instagram is governed by a substantial entity, and numerous other platforms are also under the control of significant corporate bodies. In the event of transgressing a boundary, do you anticipate a fair trial? Will a jury be present? Will there be an avenue for a defense? Will you begin with a presumption of innocence? It must be noted that a subordinate employee of the corporation possesses the authority to ban, judge, and cancel your account. Are you afforded the opportunity to defend yourself? They have access to your messages and may choose to disregard your concerns; they are unlikely to escalate your situation to a higher authority simply at your request.

The concept of left-wing ideology is not applicable here. Consequently, the differentiation between left and right has become devoid of significance. In my forthcoming article, I shall examine the implications of the emerging world order.