@Ruprecht your definition of left-wing ideologies as being averse to predominant social structures and right-wing ideologies as being supportive of just these doesn't lead to a conclusive method which is suitable for looking at political philosophies in the historical context and tracing their development between aristocracies and modern Western democracies. That's not impossible but your approach simply does a bad job at it.
Many famous and influential thinkers grew up in times of monarchies, emperors, kings and aristocrats or in times in which those entities existed in the recent past. And many of them opposed those social structures which were defined mostly by birthright and ultimately implemented through political authority. But this opposition simply isn't a sufficient criterion for any broad form of categorization of political philosophies, especially not within a binary system, defined by either left or right. The ideas of how to solve a commonly accepted problem are so different from each other that they completely outweigh the "common ground" (which often isn't one) as a potential grouping scheme.
And different
left and right wing ideologies inherited many of those intellectual concepts introduced or promoted by different thinkers who
all were opposed to the hierarchical structures at their time.
Some completely opposed any form of private property and favored concepts of 'public' ownership. John Locke made a strong case for homesteading, private property and individual ownership. Yet he wasn't supportive of Patriarchalism and absolute monarchy the predominant structures in the United Kingdom. But his thoughts on this topic influenced very different people and movements compared to thinkers who rejected private property concepts. Among those are libertarians like Rothbard who clearly set the path for modern 'right-wing' libertarianism in the USA.
The same idea would be opposed by virtually any part of the left in 2017 both liberals and leftist anarchists.
Part of the problem is that the assessment what actually is an unjust social structure and what advances or harms those are fundamentally different.
So even if you say it's not about what you personally think, your approach can't be decoupled from somewhat subjective judgment.
Just look at the Bastiat-Proudhon debate and their different ideas on interest and mutuality.
Or at current movements on the far "left" or "right" spectrum. Anarcho-Capitalists would claim that there is no unjust social structure in purely market-orientated voluntarism. Everybody has the same negative rights and nobody has the right to imitate force against another individual. Individual freedom is arguably maximized and authority minimized. Every contract by definition is voluntarily is mutually beneficial. They couldn't be further away from supporting our current social structures because those are dominated and determined by political authority in the hands of a government.
Yet due to their focus on private property, their rejection of economic egalitarianism and positive rights they're unanimously viewed as right-wingers.
Other forms of Anarchists who believe in the labor theory of value and concepts like ownership by abstracts like society aren't more or less against social structures as we see them right now, and they're seen as far leftists.
On a left-right spectrum applied to Anarchists, Proudhon would be somewhere in between. He believed in a social order which is based on the concept of individual ownership. However he puts restrictions onto individual ownership. He accepts that an order can emerge from naturally different positions between employees and employers who enter into a contract but he wants to see the effects of unequal ownership to be very limited.
Le Pen is much like Bismarck, in that her preference for a strong welfare state is secondary to her primary goal of ethnic nationalism, which is either a conservative or reactionary approach to the existing social hierarchy.
This isn't an axiomatic and self-evident observation. You simply say that's the case to come to your conclusion that she's a nationalist first.
She's a politician and both a strong welfare state and nationalism are in her official program. That's all which objectively can be said about it.
The same way you repeatedly made the claim that Proudhon basically was only worried about economic problems and that social equality etc wasn't a thing at that time, when in fact, he was a philosopher who wrote plenty about both subjects, even in the same books. Books on his thoughts about economics and 'the system'. It was a topic for him. He just said things you have to exclude or talk away in order to apply your flawed concept of left-right categorization and place him where you want to have him placed.
I hate this fucking bullshit game that some people on the right try to play to disassociate themselves from some of the extremists they have on their side. Spencer is far right, a fascist, a Nazi, a national socialist, whatever you want to call him. He is NOT a leftist just because he wants big government in certain areas. He's a right wing authoritarian not a right wing libertarian. Just like there's a libertarian (or democratic) left as opposed to the authoritarian left. Sadly, both sides seem to be becoming more authoritarian and less libertarian.
Yes this is obviously the intention of the article and the reason why it ends up looking somewhat goofy and awkward.
But both the write-up and the discussion about it still outline the problem of right-left thinking as the dominant way of looking at political ideologies.
It's an undeniable fact that some positions of right-wing extremists are 1:1 shared by "leftists" and there are people who self-identify as right-wingers and are typically seen as 'on the right' but in many ways couldn't be further away from those people. So if there are more important factors, why not just name them? Even specific descriptions like national socialist, libertarian socialist, liberal, constitutionalist often aren't unambiguous enough as their meaning changes over time, isn't exactly the same in every country etc. A left-right scale which is indefinitely more inconclusive really doesn't add much to the understanding of the actual political spectrum.
