The Left does have to define itself as egalitarian and cosmopolitan.
There isn't really any such thing as "leftist" economic policy, because a fascist can take any left wing economic proposal that is good, exclude minorities, and turn it into a right wing program on the basis of that exclusion.
*vibrates marxistly*
There is nothing that a facist can't ruin, sorry. "The means of production are owned by the people*
*People defined as anyone we think is the preferred race"
That fascism exists as an outside mixture of a variety of political ideologies doesnt mean those ideologies cease to exist.
"No such thing as leftist economic policy" is just bonkers.
Economic policy exists independent of ideology, and an ideological platform can adopt an economic policy, but that economic policy doesn't become left wing by its adoption by a left wing ideology.
If I ban private property and turn every company into a worker owner enterprise it sure as shit is left wing economic policy.
A Fascist can do that too. It would probably work better under a Fascist since there would be no racial tension in the worker owned enterprises. Just pure blooded Germans (or whatever) working together for the Fatherland.
A fascist can do infrastructure, that doesnt mean every infrastructure program is fascism.
That is what I'm saying. A Leftist doing worker's communes doesn't make worker's communes leftist.
Do rightist economic policies exist?
Like you said, economic policies probably come down to egalitarian vs elitist, or anti-conservative vs conservative.
I'm basically positing that right-wing ideology can incorporate egalitarian economic policy, so that isn't the real divide between right and left.
this is what right vs left is
I just provided a counterexample of a right-wing society that was worker egalitarian.
Nothing says egalitarian worker society like concentration camps working slaves to death. The notion of worker egalitarianism under fascism is literally anti-communist fascist propaganda.
Bureaucratic State Communism would be a counter-example of left-wing elitism, with the party leaders and state workers being the elites.
I assume this is the USSR and China?
I mean we already have a more accurate term for them: State Capitalist.
The Left does have to define itself as egalitarian and cosmopolitan.
There isn't really any such thing as "leftist" economic policy, because a fascist can take any left wing economic proposal that is good, exclude minorities, and turn it into a right wing program on the basis of that exclusion.
*vibrates marxistly*
There is nothing that a facist can't ruin, sorry. "The means of production are owned by the people*
*People defined as anyone we think is the preferred race"
That fascism exists as an outside mixture of a variety of political ideologies doesnt mean those ideologies cease to exist.
"No such thing as leftist economic policy" is just bonkers.
Economic policy exists independent of ideology, and an ideological platform can adopt an economic policy, but that economic policy doesn't become left wing by its adoption by a left wing ideology.
If I ban private property and turn every company into a worker owner enterprise it sure as shit is left wing economic policy.
A Fascist can do that too. It would probably work better under a Fascist since there would be no racial tension in the worker owned enterprises. Just pure blooded Germans (or whatever) working together for the Fatherland.
A fascist can do infrastructure, that doesnt mean every infrastructure program is fascism.
That is what I'm saying. A Leftist doing worker's communes doesn't make worker's communes leftist.
Do rightist economic policies exist?
Like you said, economic policies probably come down to egalitarian vs elitist, or anti-conservative vs conservative.
I'm basically positing that right-wing ideology can incorporate egalitarian economic policy, so that isn't the real divide between right and left.
this is what right vs left is
I just provided a counterexample of a right-wing society that was worker egalitarian.
Nothing says egalitarian worker society like concentration camps working slaves to death. The notion of worker egalitarianism under fascism is literally anti-communist fascist propaganda.
Bureaucratic State Communism would be a counter-example of left-wing elitism, with the party leaders and state workers being the elites.
Yeah, you'll find a lot of leftists arguing that Stalinism is a betrayal of leftist ideology for that reason, but even at best its authoritarian leftism.
This notion that there's no such thing as leftist economic policy is just galaxy brain silly.
Styrofoam Sammich on
+1
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
edited August 2019
Though on the immigration side, NZ was surprisingly easy to get citizenship once you get residency, and the difference between the two is minor.
I was allowed to vote and use social services on my restricted residency visa.
~6 years from lying to the nice customs lady about the purpose of my visit to a black passport.
The Left does have to define itself as egalitarian and cosmopolitan.
There isn't really any such thing as "leftist" economic policy, because a fascist can take any left wing economic proposal that is good, exclude minorities, and turn it into a right wing program on the basis of that exclusion.
*vibrates marxistly*
There is nothing that a facist can't ruin, sorry. "The means of production are owned by the people*
*People defined as anyone we think is the preferred race"
That fascism exists as an outside mixture of a variety of political ideologies doesnt mean those ideologies cease to exist.
"No such thing as leftist economic policy" is just bonkers.
Economic policy exists independent of ideology, and an ideological platform can adopt an economic policy, but that economic policy doesn't become left wing by its adoption by a left wing ideology.
If I ban private property and turn every company into a worker owner enterprise it sure as shit is left wing economic policy.
A Fascist can do that too. It would probably work better under a Fascist since there would be no racial tension in the worker owned enterprises. Just pure blooded Germans (or whatever) working together for the Fatherland.
A fascist can do infrastructure, that doesnt mean every infrastructure program is fascism.
That is what I'm saying. A Leftist doing worker's communes doesn't make worker's communes leftist.
Do rightist economic policies exist?
Like you said, economic policies probably come down to egalitarian vs elitist, or anti-conservative vs conservative.
I'm basically positing that right-wing ideology can incorporate egalitarian economic policy, so that isn't the real divide between right and left.
this is what right vs left is
I just provided a counterexample of a right-wing society that was worker egalitarian.
Nothing says egalitarian worker society like concentration camps working slaves to death. The notion of worker egalitarianism under fascism is literally anti-communist fascist propaganda.
Bureaucratic State Communism would be a counter-example of left-wing elitism, with the party leaders and state workers being the elites.
Yeah, you'll find a lot of leftists arguing that Stalinism is a betrayal of leftist ideology for that reason, but even at best its authoritarian leftism
China definitely goes hard into the "betrayal of leftist ideology" part
You aren't a leftist state if you are going after folks because they tried to unionize laborers.
The Left does have to define itself as egalitarian and cosmopolitan.
There isn't really any such thing as "leftist" economic policy, because a fascist can take any left wing economic proposal that is good, exclude minorities, and turn it into a right wing program on the basis of that exclusion.
*vibrates marxistly*
There is nothing that a facist can't ruin, sorry. "The means of production are owned by the people*
*People defined as anyone we think is the preferred race"
That fascism exists as an outside mixture of a variety of political ideologies doesnt mean those ideologies cease to exist.
"No such thing as leftist economic policy" is just bonkers.
Economic policy exists independent of ideology, and an ideological platform can adopt an economic policy, but that economic policy doesn't become left wing by its adoption by a left wing ideology.
If I ban private property and turn every company into a worker owner enterprise it sure as shit is left wing economic policy.
A Fascist can do that too. It would probably work better under a Fascist since there would be no racial tension in the worker owned enterprises. Just pure blooded Germans (or whatever) working together for the Fatherland.
A fascist can do infrastructure, that doesnt mean every infrastructure program is fascism.
That is what I'm saying. A Leftist doing worker's communes doesn't make worker's communes leftist.
Do rightist economic policies exist?
Like you said, economic policies probably come down to egalitarian vs elitist, or anti-conservative vs conservative.
I'm basically positing that right-wing ideology can incorporate egalitarian economic policy, so that isn't the real divide between right and left.
this is what right vs left is
I just provided a counterexample of a right-wing society that was worker egalitarian.
Nothing says egalitarian worker society like concentration camps working slaves to death. The notion of worker egalitarianism under fascism is literally anti-communist fascist propaganda.
Bureaucratic State Communism would be a counter-example of left-wing elitism, with the party leaders and state workers being the elites.
Yeah, you'll find a lot of leftists arguing that Stalinism is a betrayal of leftist ideology for that reason, but even at best its authoritarian leftism.
This notion that there's no such thing as leftist economic policy is just galaxy brain silly.
You can't ignore the half century of Western leftist philosophers supporting USSR policy. Unless you want to go the "no true leftist" route.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
The Left does have to define itself as egalitarian and cosmopolitan.
There isn't really any such thing as "leftist" economic policy, because a fascist can take any left wing economic proposal that is good, exclude minorities, and turn it into a right wing program on the basis of that exclusion.
*vibrates marxistly*
There is nothing that a facist can't ruin, sorry. "The means of production are owned by the people*
*People defined as anyone we think is the preferred race"
That fascism exists as an outside mixture of a variety of political ideologies doesnt mean those ideologies cease to exist.
"No such thing as leftist economic policy" is just bonkers.
Economic policy exists independent of ideology, and an ideological platform can adopt an economic policy, but that economic policy doesn't become left wing by its adoption by a left wing ideology.
If I ban private property and turn every company into a worker owner enterprise it sure as shit is left wing economic policy.
A Fascist can do that too. It would probably work better under a Fascist since there would be no racial tension in the worker owned enterprises. Just pure blooded Germans (or whatever) working together for the Fatherland.
A fascist can do infrastructure, that doesnt mean every infrastructure program is fascism.
That is what I'm saying. A Leftist doing worker's communes doesn't make worker's communes leftist.
Do rightist economic policies exist?
Like you said, economic policies probably come down to egalitarian vs elitist, or anti-conservative vs conservative.
I'm basically positing that right-wing ideology can incorporate egalitarian economic policy, so that isn't the real divide between right and left.
this is what right vs left is
I just provided a counterexample of a right-wing society that was worker egalitarian.
Nothing says egalitarian worker society like concentration camps working slaves to death. The notion of worker egalitarianism under fascism is literally anti-communist fascist propaganda.
Bureaucratic State Communism would be a counter-example of left-wing elitism, with the party leaders and state workers being the elites.
Yeah, you'll find a lot of leftists arguing that Stalinism is a betrayal of leftist ideology for that reason, but even at best its authoritarian leftism.
This notion that there's no such thing as leftist economic policy is just galaxy brain silly.
You can't ignore the half century of Western leftist philosophers supporting USSR policy. Unless you want to go the "no true leftist" route.
We don't ignore them, we argue about it all the time among ourselves. Seriously, go to a DSA meeting some time.
I hope everyone appreciated me undefining leftism as a whole instead of defining it for the US; I'll stop now.
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
I honestly have no idea what Jephery is doing, outside of what feels like a bizarre way of attempting to establish the idea that Leftism doesn't exist.
The Left does have to define itself as egalitarian and cosmopolitan.
There isn't really any such thing as "leftist" economic policy, because a fascist can take any left wing economic proposal that is good, exclude minorities, and turn it into a right wing program on the basis of that exclusion.
*vibrates marxistly*
There is nothing that a facist can't ruin, sorry. "The means of production are owned by the people*
*People defined as anyone we think is the preferred race"
That fascism exists as an outside mixture of a variety of political ideologies doesnt mean those ideologies cease to exist.
"No such thing as leftist economic policy" is just bonkers.
Economic policy exists independent of ideology, and an ideological platform can adopt an economic policy, but that economic policy doesn't become left wing by its adoption by a left wing ideology.
If I ban private property and turn every company into a worker owner enterprise it sure as shit is left wing economic policy.
A Fascist can do that too. It would probably work better under a Fascist since there would be no racial tension in the worker owned enterprises. Just pure blooded Germans (or whatever) working together for the Fatherland.
A fascist can do infrastructure, that doesnt mean every infrastructure program is fascism.
That is what I'm saying. A Leftist doing worker's communes doesn't make worker's communes leftist.
Do rightist economic policies exist?
Like you said, economic policies probably come down to egalitarian vs elitist, or anti-conservative vs conservative.
I'm basically positing that right-wing ideology can incorporate egalitarian economic policy, so that isn't the real divide between right and left.
this is what right vs left is
I just provided a counterexample of a right-wing society that was worker egalitarian.
Nothing says egalitarian worker society like concentration camps working slaves to death. The notion of worker egalitarianism under fascism is literally anti-communist fascist propaganda.
Bureaucratic State Communism would be a counter-example of left-wing elitism, with the party leaders and state workers being the elites.
Yeah, you'll find a lot of leftists arguing that Stalinism is a betrayal of leftist ideology for that reason, but even at best its authoritarian leftism.
This notion that there's no such thing as leftist economic policy is just galaxy brain silly.
You can't ignore the half century of Western leftist philosophers supporting USSR policy. Unless you want to go the "no true leftist" route.
This statement is rather broad. Who are the leftist philosophers and what policy are they supporting?
On the more broad topic at hand, I am not well versed in the politics of socialism, communism, or leftism. I do however find myself curious about it because I look at the manner in which we operate now in America and the whole system looks flawed and unable to sustain itself. I am interested to see how people push on some of the ideas surrounding leftism in the US. Hopefully it will track better than the last time this topic was presented.
I honestly have no idea what Jephery is doing, outside of what feels like a bizarre way of attempting to establish the idea that Leftism doesn't exist.
Demonstrating the extent to which this ends up as a kind of no-true-scotsman argument where I have my definition of "left" and all the other examples of people who also called themselves "left" don't count because they don't agree with my definition.
Basically the entire argument becomes difficult as pinning down what actually counts as "left" is not exactly agreed upon.
I'd just say there's socially left (feminism, gay rights, minority rights) and economically left (welfare, universal healthcare, high taxes for the rich.) These tend to intersect, but not necessarily. The economically left tend to sneer at the social left as "identity politics". The socially left tend to get annoyed at the economically left because of the "don't worry about racist police violence, it will all be solved after capitalism is abolished" thing they do.
I'd just say there's socially left (feminism, gay rights, minority rights) and economically left (welfare, universal healthcare, high taxes for the rich.) These tend to intersect, but not necessarily. The economically left tend to sneer at the social left as "identity politics". The socially left tend to get annoyed at the economically left because of the "don't worry about racist police violence, it will all be solved after capitalism is abolished" thing they do.
Is there a prominent leftist in the US that fits this description? It hasn't been my experience, not that they don't exist and a little bit of it may be my biggest exposure to leftist ideas are from poc.
I'd just say there's socially left (feminism, gay rights, minority rights) and economically left (welfare, universal healthcare, high taxes for the rich.) These tend to intersect, but not necessarily. The economically left tend to sneer at the social left as "identity politics". The socially left tend to get annoyed at the economically left because of the "don't worry about racist police violence, it will all be solved after capitalism is abolished" thing they do.
Is there a prominent leftist in the US that fits this description? It hasn't been my experience, not that they don't exist and a little bit of it may be my biggest exposure to leftist ideas are from poc.
I'm basing this on people I've interacted with online, not "prominent people."
It's quite possible and common to be both economically and socially left.
the whole libertarian-authoritarian axis was invented by libertarians to make socialism sound bad and has absolutely nothing to do with real politics. nobody has ever actually believed in "authoritarianism" except maybe the actual joseph stalin
I might say it's ideologically incoherent to not be both economically and socially left, which is a distinction I don't really like to begin with because those are deeply interconnected spheres of society not so easily distinguished
I might say it's ideologically incoherent to not be both economically and socially left, which is a distinction I don't really like to begin with because those are deeply interconnected spheres of society not so easily distinguished
It might be incoherent but it's also extremely common.
though if I had to choose one I'd probably prefer the extremely racist 30s democrats who passed the new deal rather than the slightly less racist modern democrats who will wear a rainbow pin in june and cut medicaid
your understanding of political divisions is deeply informed by whatever your actual politics are
if you're a libertarian you think the available political positions are "i believe in freedom" vs "i believe in small government"
if you're a socialist you think they're "i believe in labour and equality" vs "i believe in capital and elitism"
if you're a catholic reactionary you think it's "i believe in personal virtue" vs "i believe in post-modern moral degeneracy"
so any argument about what the division actually entails is basically just an argument about which political position is correct. which is socialism, obviously
though if I had to choose one I'd probably prefer the extremely racist 30s democrats who passed the new deal rather than the slightly less racist modern democrats who will wear a rainbow pin in june and cut medicaid
The racist 30's Democrats never had to worry about Fox News, or Mitch McConnell. They wouldn't have an improved performance with those circumstances.
if you want to understand your own ideology consider not what you believe, but the boundaries of what you find it reasonable or acceptable for anyone to believe
though if I had to choose one I'd probably prefer the extremely racist 30s democrats who passed the new deal rather than the slightly less racist modern democrats who will wear a rainbow pin in june and cut medicaid
If you think the 30s were slightly less racist you might want to do a little more research. Also uh so much for being coherant about social issues
Alt post: Hi everyone who claimed that the left would totally never abandon civil rights issues for economics!
if you want to understand your own ideology consider not what you believe, but the boundaries of what you find it reasonable or acceptable for anyone to believe
If you want to put those beliefs into action, consider settling for something rather than ending up with nothing. Ideology isn't a sport we view from the sidelines, it's to make a world a better place.
it's also worth keeping in mind how many people vote solely based on local issues, i.e. jobs, and don't really give a shit about the underlying political philosophy except as a convenient crutch for whatever their personal axe to grind is. i'm pretty sure that's actually just most people
the whole libertarian-authoritarian axis was invented by libertarians to make socialism sound bad and has absolutely nothing to do with real politics. nobody has ever actually believed in "authoritarianism" except maybe the actual joseph stalin
I can agree that the use of "authoritarianism" is obviously loaded but its worth understanding ideologies in terms of how they value central control.
though if I had to choose one I'd probably prefer the extremely racist 30s democrats who passed the new deal rather than the slightly less racist modern democrats who will wear a rainbow pin in june and cut medicaid
The racist 30's Democrats never had to worry about Fox News, or Mitch McConnell. They wouldn't have an improved performance with those circumstances.
So the Democratic Party of the 1930s was not an organized political party in the sense we would understand it. It was at least two different political parties:
1) The traditional Democratic Party, with its foundation in the South and built mostly on white supremacy this was a conservative party open to some economic progressivism, but none on racial justice.
2) Northern labor and midwestern farmers, who were desperate for help. This group had a lot of black people in it. Wanted a lot of economic progressivism and obviously was pushing for racial justice.
The second was the dominant faction, but it needed the first to actually pass anything, thus our conception of "racist 30s Democrats." But that was a median vote thing.
Anyway, this setup created a natural tension, black people started demanding civil rights, the Dixiecrats walked out. Truman and JFK/LBJ managed to keep the whole mess together for a couple elections, but when the Democrats passed CRA and VRA and the Fair Housing Act at LBJ's urging (with the help of some northern Republicans), that was the last straw and the Dixiecrats finally bailed for the actually conservative party and that rat bastard Nixon. He thought he could control white supremacy, they took over the party, and now we have a reactionary mess on the right and everyone from like, Bill fucking Kristol to DSA in opposition.
Which in some ways is recreating the whole situation.
It's not that there's not an American left, but there are structural problems with the setup of the American government that prevents the American left from ever attaining a majority on its own. And at the moment it seems like a good sized portion of the American left isn't interested in coalition building. You can obviously interpret the other way that no one's really interested in forming a coalition with the left, but I think that's not really true and would point to Warren as someone who is not a leftist (in that she's a capitalist) but is interested in building a coalition with the left to achieve some mutually shared goals.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Like, I think the closest we ever got to an actual left wing majority in the Congress was the radical Republicans.
Who became pro-business conservatives in pretty short order in addition to abandoning their radical stance on civil rights as soon as they started to lose vote share, which was almost immediate. Like US Grant only won by 5% and might have lost the white vote in 1868.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
the whole libertarian-authoritarian axis was invented by libertarians to make socialism sound bad and has absolutely nothing to do with real politics. nobody has ever actually believed in "authoritarianism" except maybe the actual joseph stalin
I can agree that the use of "authoritarianism" is obviously loaded but its worth understanding ideologies in terms of how they value central control.
fair enough. i haven't thought about the question super deeply
Because if everyone to the left of The GOP since Reagan is "the Left," the term is meaningless
what is the GOP other than the landed gentry, neo cons, the alt right wearing suits, the ride or die part and the old school forgotten. Because it is rather obvious as I said the Democratic party is going to the left leaving the centralists behind. But the GOP seems to be going through change but to what? As much of it seems really quiet about it?
Because if everyone to the left of The GOP since Reagan is "the Left," the term is meaningless
what is the GOP other than the landed gentry, neo cons, the alt right wearing suits, the ride or die part and the old school forgotten. Because it is rather obvious as I said the Democratic party is going to the left leaving the centralists behind. But the GOP seems to be going through change but to what? As much of it seems really quiet about it?
What would you define as a centrist position the Dems are leaving behind?
Because if everyone to the left of The GOP since Reagan is "the Left," the term is meaningless
what is the GOP other than the landed gentry, neo cons, the alt right wearing suits, the ride or die part and the old school forgotten. Because it is rather obvious as I said the Democratic party is going to the left leaving the centralists behind. But the GOP seems to be going through change but to what? As much of it seems really quiet about it?
just a thought: is the GOP going through change or are they just molting
Because if everyone to the left of The GOP since Reagan is "the Left," the term is meaningless
what is the GOP other than the landed gentry, neo cons, the alt right wearing suits, the ride or die part and the old school forgotten. Because it is rather obvious as I said the Democratic party is going to the left leaving the centralists behind. But the GOP seems to be going through change but to what? As much of it seems really quiet about it?
What would you define as a centrist position the Dems are leaving behind?
The Nancy Pelosi thread answered this
A good question Lanz as I said eras of political change are never smooth nor clear
though if I had to choose one I'd probably prefer the extremely racist 30s democrats who passed the new deal rather than the slightly less racist modern democrats who will wear a rainbow pin in june and cut medicaid
The racist 30's Democrats never had to worry about Fox News, or Mitch McConnell. They wouldn't have an improved performance with those circumstances.
So the Democratic Party of the 1930s was not an organized political party in the sense we would understand it. It was at least two different political parties:
1) The traditional Democratic Party, with its foundation in the South and built mostly on white supremacy this was a conservative party open to some economic progressivism, but none on racial justice.
2) Northern labor and midwestern farmers, who were desperate for help. This group had a lot of black people in it. Wanted a lot of economic progressivism and obviously was pushing for racial justice.
The second was the dominant faction, but it needed the first to actually pass anything, thus our conception of "racist 30s Democrats." But that was a median vote thing.
Anyway, this setup created a natural tension, black people started demanding civil rights, the Dixiecrats walked out. Truman and JFK/LBJ managed to keep the whole mess together for a couple elections, but when the Democrats passed CRA and VRA and the Fair Housing Act at LBJ's urging (with the help of some northern Republicans), that was the last straw and the Dixiecrats finally bailed for the actually conservative party and that rat bastard Nixon. He thought he could control white supremacy, they took over the party, and now we have a reactionary mess on the right and everyone from like, Bill fucking Kristol to DSA in opposition.
Which in some ways is recreating the whole situation.
It's not that there's not an American left, but there are structural problems with the setup of the American government that prevents the American left from ever attaining a majority on its own. And at the moment it seems like a good sized portion of the American left isn't interested in coalition building. You can obviously interpret the other way that no one's really interested in forming a coalition with the left, but I think that's not really true and would point to Warren as someone who is not a leftist (in that she's a capitalist) but is interested in building a coalition with the left to achieve some mutually shared goals.
Another way to put this is that, firstly, all political parties are coalitions of various different groups working together. This is true, really, of every political organization. Two people organizing together is two people compromising, In that sense a definition of ideology does not map cleanly onto party. "Is this party left?" should be answered with "Well, what part of it?".
And secondly, any conception of american parties (and thus american political coalitions) has to deal with the fact that a huge chunk of the US electorate (a good ~30% these days) are white supremacists and vote accordingly. And those people are voting for someone and organizing under some banner. And these days, conversely another big block of voters (when they are allowed to vote anyway) are people who are opposed to that ideal by virtue of being the targets of it. And these kind of divisions also map only loosely onto other political ideologies. Ethnic-based progressive policies are pretty fucking popular with the white supremacists and a lot of minority voters can be quite conservative on many fronts.
The intersection of various political issues means divisions are never clean. And that's not even touching on regional issues and divisions, which can also make for strange alliances.
Posts
I assume this is the USSR and China?
I mean we already have a more accurate term for them: State Capitalist.
Yeah, you'll find a lot of leftists arguing that Stalinism is a betrayal of leftist ideology for that reason, but even at best its authoritarian leftism.
This notion that there's no such thing as leftist economic policy is just galaxy brain silly.
I was allowed to vote and use social services on my restricted residency visa.
~6 years from lying to the nice customs lady about the purpose of my visit to a black passport.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
China definitely goes hard into the "betrayal of leftist ideology" part
You aren't a leftist state if you are going after folks because they tried to unionize laborers.
You can't ignore the half century of Western leftist philosophers supporting USSR policy. Unless you want to go the "no true leftist" route.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
We don't ignore them, we argue about it all the time among ourselves. Seriously, go to a DSA meeting some time.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
You can keep going, but if you refuse to consider who or what holds the authority in a society, you can only go so far.
This statement is rather broad. Who are the leftist philosophers and what policy are they supporting?
On the more broad topic at hand, I am not well versed in the politics of socialism, communism, or leftism. I do however find myself curious about it because I look at the manner in which we operate now in America and the whole system looks flawed and unable to sustain itself. I am interested to see how people push on some of the ideas surrounding leftism in the US. Hopefully it will track better than the last time this topic was presented.
Demonstrating the extent to which this ends up as a kind of no-true-scotsman argument where I have my definition of "left" and all the other examples of people who also called themselves "left" don't count because they don't agree with my definition.
Basically the entire argument becomes difficult as pinning down what actually counts as "left" is not exactly agreed upon.
Because if everyone to the left of The GOP since Reagan is "the Left," the term is meaningless
Is there a prominent leftist in the US that fits this description? It hasn't been my experience, not that they don't exist and a little bit of it may be my biggest exposure to leftist ideas are from poc.
I'm basing this on people I've interacted with online, not "prominent people."
It's quite possible and common to be both economically and socially left.
Nah, many of them shifted right because whenever they went left they got blocked.
It might be incoherent but it's also extremely common.
if you're a libertarian you think the available political positions are "i believe in freedom" vs "i believe in small government"
if you're a socialist you think they're "i believe in labour and equality" vs "i believe in capital and elitism"
if you're a catholic reactionary you think it's "i believe in personal virtue" vs "i believe in post-modern moral degeneracy"
so any argument about what the division actually entails is basically just an argument about which political position is correct. which is socialism, obviously
The racist 30's Democrats never had to worry about Fox News, or Mitch McConnell. They wouldn't have an improved performance with those circumstances.
If you think the 30s were slightly less racist you might want to do a little more research. Also uh so much for being coherant about social issues
Alt post: Hi everyone who claimed that the left would totally never abandon civil rights issues for economics!
If you want to put those beliefs into action, consider settling for something rather than ending up with nothing. Ideology isn't a sport we view from the sidelines, it's to make a world a better place.
I can agree that the use of "authoritarianism" is obviously loaded but its worth understanding ideologies in terms of how they value central control.
So the Democratic Party of the 1930s was not an organized political party in the sense we would understand it. It was at least two different political parties:
1) The traditional Democratic Party, with its foundation in the South and built mostly on white supremacy this was a conservative party open to some economic progressivism, but none on racial justice.
2) Northern labor and midwestern farmers, who were desperate for help. This group had a lot of black people in it. Wanted a lot of economic progressivism and obviously was pushing for racial justice.
The second was the dominant faction, but it needed the first to actually pass anything, thus our conception of "racist 30s Democrats." But that was a median vote thing.
Anyway, this setup created a natural tension, black people started demanding civil rights, the Dixiecrats walked out. Truman and JFK/LBJ managed to keep the whole mess together for a couple elections, but when the Democrats passed CRA and VRA and the Fair Housing Act at LBJ's urging (with the help of some northern Republicans), that was the last straw and the Dixiecrats finally bailed for the actually conservative party and that rat bastard Nixon. He thought he could control white supremacy, they took over the party, and now we have a reactionary mess on the right and everyone from like, Bill fucking Kristol to DSA in opposition.
Which in some ways is recreating the whole situation.
It's not that there's not an American left, but there are structural problems with the setup of the American government that prevents the American left from ever attaining a majority on its own. And at the moment it seems like a good sized portion of the American left isn't interested in coalition building. You can obviously interpret the other way that no one's really interested in forming a coalition with the left, but I think that's not really true and would point to Warren as someone who is not a leftist (in that she's a capitalist) but is interested in building a coalition with the left to achieve some mutually shared goals.
Who became pro-business conservatives in pretty short order in addition to abandoning their radical stance on civil rights as soon as they started to lose vote share, which was almost immediate. Like US Grant only won by 5% and might have lost the white vote in 1868.
fair enough. i haven't thought about the question super deeply
what is the GOP other than the landed gentry, neo cons, the alt right wearing suits, the ride or die part and the old school forgotten. Because it is rather obvious as I said the Democratic party is going to the left leaving the centralists behind. But the GOP seems to be going through change but to what? As much of it seems really quiet about it?
What would you define as a centrist position the Dems are leaving behind?
just a thought: is the GOP going through change or are they just molting
The Nancy Pelosi thread answered this
A good question Lanz as I said eras of political change are never smooth nor clear
Most of the world population lives under authoritarian regimes, so no.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Another way to put this is that, firstly, all political parties are coalitions of various different groups working together. This is true, really, of every political organization. Two people organizing together is two people compromising, In that sense a definition of ideology does not map cleanly onto party. "Is this party left?" should be answered with "Well, what part of it?".
And secondly, any conception of american parties (and thus american political coalitions) has to deal with the fact that a huge chunk of the US electorate (a good ~30% these days) are white supremacists and vote accordingly. And those people are voting for someone and organizing under some banner. And these days, conversely another big block of voters (when they are allowed to vote anyway) are people who are opposed to that ideal by virtue of being the targets of it. And these kind of divisions also map only loosely onto other political ideologies. Ethnic-based progressive policies are pretty fucking popular with the white supremacists and a lot of minority voters can be quite conservative on many fronts.
The intersection of various political issues means divisions are never clean. And that's not even touching on regional issues and divisions, which can also make for strange alliances.
Is this type of comment helpful at all on defining the Left in the USA?
Which countries are you considering authoritarian?