The Categories We Inherited
For generations, we’ve been told that politics falls neatly on a left–right spectrum. On the left are progressives, liberals, socialists, and communists. On the right are conservatives, nationalists, and fascists. The categories are so familiar that even Christians borrow them without thinking. But what if the map itself is wrong? What if the spectrum we inherited is not neutral but Marxist in origin—and by accepting it, we’re already conceding the battlefield? This piece is about breaking free from Marx’s categories. If we keep speaking in his terms, we’ll keep losing his way.
The French Revolution Frame
The words “left” and “right” come from the seating arrangements of the French National Assembly. The radicals sat on the left; the defenders of monarchy and church sat on the right. But here’s the key: both sides were statist. Both sides believed in a centralized authority. The difference was only in which elites would wield it. The “right” wanted to conserve monarchy; the “left” wanted to enthrone the revolutionary state. Neither side recognized true delegated sovereignty.
Even Edmund Burke saw this distinction. He opposed the French Revolution’s tyranny while supporting the American Revolution’s appeal to inherited rights under law. America was not demanding egalitarian chaos; it was demanding recognition of covenantal delegation.
Property as Sovereignty
At root, property is sovereignty. Where property is, there power is also. If I own my land, I decide how it is used, who enters, and how it is transferred. If the state owns my land, then the state is sovereign. If an aristocracy owns it, they are sovereign. Property disperses or centralizes power. This makes the modern labels collapse. Fascism is called “right-wing” because it honors hierarchy and tradition. But in reality, fascism subordinated property to the state. The owner kept his title, but the state set prices, production, wages, and transfers. You cannot subordinate without controlling. That is not sovereignty dispersed—it is sovereignty centralized. And centralized sovereignty is left.
The Fiction of Marxist Categories
Marx redefined the spectrum around equality vs. hierarchy. This is why textbooks today tell us: left = equality, right = hierarchy. But this is sleight of hand. Hierarchy exists in every society. India’s caste system is a hierarchy, yet it is hardly “right-wing” in the biblical sense. Communism claims equality, but immediately builds a hierarchy of party bosses, commissars, and enforcers. The question is never whether hierarchy exists—the question is whether it is delegated and ministerial or usurped and tyrannical. Once you see this, Marx’s categories disintegrate.
The Liberal Error
Classical liberalism is often treated as the opposite of tyranny. But even here, the ontology falters. Liberalism locates sovereignty in the individual, effectively making each person his own state. The result is competing micro-sovereignties that must be mediated by courts, contracts, and eventually bureaucratic machinery. Liberalism doesn’t escape centralization; it merely relocates it. The individual becomes the idol instead of the collective.
In this way, liberalism belongs on the left. It denies the ontological anchor of delegated authority. It insists that sovereignty originates in man, not in God.
No Leftism Without Hierarchy
Here’s the paradox: there is no such thing as leftism without hierarchy.
- Communism produces the hierarchy of the Party.
- Socialism produces the hierarchy of bureaucrats.
- Fascism produces the hierarchy of corporatist syndicates.
- Liberalism produces the hierarchy of courts and procedures.
Every form of leftism denies God’s delegation and therefore must create artificial hierarchies to replace it. In the end, leftism is not the absence of hierarchy, but the presence of illegitimate hierarchy.
Conservatism Is Not the Answer
Conservatism is often pitched as the opposite of leftism. But conservative simply means “to conserve.” A Soviet conservative conserved communism. An American conservative often conserves liberalism. Conservatism is relative to whatever system exists. It has no ontological anchor. That is why conservatism almost always drifts: it conserves yesterday’s leftism and calls it prudence.
Christianity as the True Opposite
The true opposite of leftism is not conservatism but Christianity. Only Christianity provides an ontological anchor for authority, rights, and responsibility. God delegates → man receives → man governs under. Property is not ultimate, but stewardship. Authority is not absolute, but ministerial. Rights are not self-invented, but derived.
This restores the true axis:
- Right = recognition of delegated sovereignty under God.
- Left = usurpation and centralization of sovereignty apart from God.
On this spectrum:
- Communism = left.
- Fascism = left.
- Classical liberalism = left.
- Conservatism = undefined.
- Christianity = right.
Breaking Free
To break free from Marx is to refuse to fight on his map. Stop saying fascism is “far right.” Stop saying liberalism is “center right.” Stop imagining conservatism as the cure. These are borrowed categories that blind us to the true battle.
The real line is simple: delegation vs. usurpation, anchor vs. autonomy, Christ vs. man.
Conclusion: Reclaiming the Ground
Marx stole the spectrum and made himself cartographer of the battlefield. It’s time to redraw the map. The opposite of left is not right in his terms; it is right in God’s terms. Delegated, ordered, and ontologically grounded authority is the only antidote to leftism. That means the opposite of a leftist is not a conservative, but a Christian.
To break free from Marx is to break free from false categories. It is to return to the Creator’s categories. And until we do, we will remain trapped in debates that always tilt leftward, because we are still arguing inside Marx’s house.
Photo Credit: Unsplash
