ming.

Introduction

In my academic work, I have utilised the terms "left" and "right" to articulate my ideological perspectives. In this paper, I aim to provide a comprehensive analysis of the distinction between left and right, focusing primarily on economics. Through a rigorous examination of my personal thought process, I will present a well-defined ideological stance, offering readers a clear understanding of my perspective. To ensure a comprehensive grasp of my ideological standpoint, I will define the concepts of left and right in the realms of sociology, economics, and politics. By employing a singular, overarching idea, I aim to clarify the differentiation I draw between one or the other. The accumulation of wealth and power by certain individuals has detrimental effects on society, as they prioritise their own interests without considering the well-being of the broader population. This ongoing cycle of exploitation and expropriation inflicted upon the public by the private class results in the perpetuation of a relentless cycle of inequality and suffering commonly referred to as class tension. The concept of class struggle has been a prevalent and recurring theme throughout the course of human history. Examining both ancient feudal societies and modern capitalist societies reveals a consistent presence of underlying tensions and conflicts between the public and private classes.

The Body

The origins of the private class are not easily traced to a single moment in time. However, it is believed that it emerged independently in various societies around the same period when these societies adopted farming and domestication. These two processes result in a significant surplus. As a matter of course, the societies required a method to effectively organise and distribute this surplus. Although I lack expertise in archaeology and history, I propose a theory that draws parallels between the emergence of economic private classes and the ascent of private political classes, such as those seen in monarchies. It can be argued that both monarchies and wealthy individuals shared a common approach. They sought to persuade the general population that it was their responsibility and obligation to manage the affairs of the nation and the economy, all in service of a force beyond the influence of the general population. Such as a deity that they believed had bestowed them with divine authority or a select group of individuals who claimed superior knowledge and power. Knowledge and power that were usually said to have come from a deity anyway. After acquiring power, whether it be political or economic, the sociopolitical and economic system in the society in question begins to evolve through its own unique dynamics and influences. As time passes, the class tension I previously discussed becomes increasingly evident and frequently results in conflicts and power struggles.

In my perspective, the existence and prevalence of a private, wealthy class within a society is what characterises economic rightism in its entirety. When examining capitalism, slavery, or feudalism, one can observe a recurring pattern of inequality and the consolidation of wealth among a select few. The existence of a private economic class strongly suggests the existence of a "private government." This "private government" functions with a focus on serving the economic elite, often due to the significant financial influence and control that the wealthy exert over political systems and decision-making processes. This form of government often employs sophisticated methods of social manipulation to persuade the public that their policies serve the greater good. This often comes with a strong sense of nationalism. The private government persuades the public class that the current system is superior and that those around them are experiencing hardship. It becomes quite straightforward to accomplish when the economic elite possesses significant influence, power, and control over the means of communication. Through the utilisation of various communication channels, the narrative can be skillfully managed and influenced to align with the preferences of the economic private class. Depending on the context and viewpoint of the observer, this operation in which the private government acts in the interests of the private economic class may go by a variety of names. Some may argue that this situation could be labelled as a plutocracy or oligarchy, given the evident concentration of power and wealth in the hands of a select few. Although these terms may be considered valid, they pertain to a narrower scope and hold less significance in the broader context of a private system within a society. Oligarchy refers to the phenomenon where a small group of individuals wields an excessive amount of power and control. Plutocracy refers to the phenomenon where those who possess significant wealth hold the influence to shape policies and decisions in a manner that benefits them.

In the 20th century, there was a term called "social fascism" that was briefly utilised to provide a more precise characterization of the nations that identified as "social democracies." It was employed to illustrate the lack of correlation between increased social benefits and a society's moral compass or sense of justice. It highlights the ongoing presence of oppression in society, particularly in the exploitation of the third world for the benefit of the privileged class. In order to clarify the concept of social manipulation and political dominance in favour of the wealthy, it becomes evident that the term "social fascism" serves as a fitting descriptor. In the realm of social "democracies", there exists a phenomenon where the governing bodies may, at times, present a facade of prosperity within their borders while clandestinely engaging in practices that exploit and suppress the majority of their citizens for personal benefit. In a similar vein, the Nazis, also known as the National Socialist German Workers' Party, cunningly presented themselves as socialists and employed manipulative propaganda to mislead the German population. Or the way in which monarchs of ancient kingdoms employed the concept of divine rights to rationalise their authority and uphold control over their subjects. Or the way in which the United States justified to the public the necessity of the genocide of Native Americans, the enslavement of Africans, and the war crimes committed against other nations in the name of national security and global stability. Or how propaganda and misinformation have been used throughout history to manipulate public opinion and maintain control over the masses.

In my perspective, social fascism represents the ideology of the social and political "right." Leftism and rightism, in the West, are often seen as distinct ideological positions that encompass a range of personal beliefs, including attitudes towards sexual relationships, reproductive rights, and individual freedoms. Nevertheless, the controversy surrounding these individual liberties is deliberately fabricated to incite discord among the general population and prevent any potential uprising against the privileged elite. This motive underlies every aspect of rightism. Rightism can be defined as an ideology that places a higher emphasis on the interests and power of the private class compared to the public. A "rightist" society will go to great lengths, even resorting to deception, to uphold and perpetuate the power of the privileged class.

Defining leftism has become quite straightforward. It is an ideology that promotes the prioritisation of public interests and power over those of the private class, with the ultimate aim of eliminating any social class divisions. Leftism is frequently regarded as a critique of imbalanced power structures and a demand for a fairer allocation of resources and opportunities. Some individuals may perceive leftism as a novel concept, aiming to improve upon established ideas that continue to be effective. In my opinion, this perspective lacks foresight and fails to give due consideration. Leftism aims to create a society where exploitation, inequality, and injustice are not prevalent. This is accomplished by eliminating the novel concept. This concept revolves around the notion of classes. Throughout the course of human history, there has been a notable absence of social classes, and it is conceivable that we could once again embrace such a state. Leftism aims to eliminate social classes and create a society free from exploitation and class conflict.

In the field of economics, socialism is often regarded as synonymous with economic leftism. In essence, the general public, rather than a small number of people, makes economic decisions. The variation in appearance can be quite significant, contingent upon the particular execution and political ideology of those on the left who hold positions of authority. Nevertheless, the fundamental principle remains unchanged: the elimination of the privileged class and the implementation of a democratic work environment. In a leftist society, the sociopolitical structure is characterised by its focus on the public class and prioritising the interests of society as a whole over those of individual private entities. This sociopolitical framework can be accurately described using the conventional definition, although this term has often been misapplied to different systems. It is referred to as "social democracy."

In Conclusion

Within the basis I have employed, it is necessary to further clarify the differentiation I make between the left and the right. The concept of left can be understood as favouring the interests of the general public, while the concept of right can be understood as advocating for the interests of the private sector. I employ my own constructed definitions of these terms in order to enhance their comprehensibility. The conventional interpretations of numerous terms in the realm of politics and economics frequently fall short of capturing the intricate complexities and subtle nuances of the tangible world. When words transition from academic usage to colloquial language, their meanings often become less vibrant and significant. It is worth mentioning that the terms used to describe "left" and "right" are arbitrary. It is equally plausible that the left could have been the right, or any other term. This paper aims to offer a glimpse into my thought process and shed light on the intricate realm of sociology and its various ideologies. Given the various applications of the terms "left" and "right," their meanings can become intricate and convoluted.