What exactly is leftism?

[Telemakus]

While I feel I have certain tendencies in common with the left, I will admit that I don't really know exactly what it believes and stands for. So I was wondering: is there a concensus definition, on this site at least, as to what leftism is, and what the general assumptions of leftism are? Can you also contrast this with rightism, and mention some of the ways of thinking which are definitely not part of the left, and not tolerated in the bulk of this forum. There are more specific questions I wish to ask also, but I will ask them as they come up in the thread (if they do).

Thanks,
Telemakus.

[IllicitPopsicle]

Well, anarchism, communism and socialism are generally all considered to be "of the left," while Libertarianism, Agorism, Objectivism, Fascism, and any ideology that supports capital are considered to be "of the right."

[Telemakus]

Well, anarchism, communism and socialism are generally all considered to be "of the left," while Libertarianism, Agorism, Objectivism, Fascism, and any ideology that supports capital are considered to be "of the right."
I have heard that anarchism exists both on the right and left, and I think socialism can too. That is a very broad range of ideologies (both Libertarian and Fascist for example) that lie to the right, but it is nice that you gave a general principle which connects them. So then, what about people like primitivists, or localists who wish for a society which isn't very reliant on capital, and has collective values which may or may not be in line at all with the left. I often see these lines of thought associated with the right, too. Also, equating right with capital implies equating the left with anti-capital, which doesn't seem at all true from what I've seen, and also leaves out everything else associated with the left/right distinction.

[Optiow]

As far as I am concerned, leftism is where power is in the hands of the workers, and everything else supports elites to have the power.

I know there will be exceptions and all that, but that is what it boils down to in the end.

[Blackscare]

I have heard that anarchism exists both on the right and left, and I think socialism can too.

There are people who claim that they are anarcho-capitalists, although the majority of anarchists would argue that capital requires force to maintain property relations, and therefor some sort of coersion would exist basically meaning some sort of state also would exist. By this logic they argue that there really is no such thing as anarcho-capitalism.


Also, left & right are economic terms primarily. The left end of the spectrum is in favor of collective control of means of productive (socialism), the right believes in private control. So you can't be a right wing socialist, because then you simply wouldn't be socialist. You may be confusing the economic spectrum with the libertarian/authoritarian spectrum, which is something different.

[Telemakus]

As far as I am concerned, leftism is where power is in the hands of the workers, and everything else supports elites to have the power.

I know there will be exceptions and all that, but that is what it boils down to in the end.I think there will be far too many exceptions for this to work either. I also think that rather than specifically describing it in terms of workers and the elite, it may be better to frame it in terms of general equality/egalitarianism? I also have several (or just the one) question about equality which I'll ask later.

An example hypothetical society as an aside:
A community which is white nationalist (and all white), maybe christian, but within their society they don't really have the class divide we have now - basically lives in accordance with "to each according to his need, from each according to his ability", so equality with the workers and "elites". I don't think this kind of society is too far fetched, and may indeed exist in several places? So, what would be the leftist attitude towards this social order? It adheres to the leftist principle you outlined, and let's assume that there is no discrimination within this society, and that it also doesn't mess with the outside world (so long as they leave them alone too). Could they be considered as part of the left in any way, or would the left be at least tolerant of them?

[Blackscare]

A community which is white nationalist (and all white), maybe christian, but within their society they don't really have the class divide we have now - basically lives in accordance with "to each according to his need, from each according to his ability", so equality with the workers and "elites". I don't think this kind of society is too far fetched, and may indeed exist in several places? So, what would be the leftist attitude towards this social order? It adheres to the leftist principle you outlined, and let's assume that there is no discrimination within this society, and that it also doesn't mess with the outside world (so long as they leave them alone too). Could they be considered as part of the left in any way, or would the left be at least tolerant of them?

There were many types of utopian/non-scientific socialism before marxist socialism (even anarchism, I believe), so it's possible for someone to call such an arrangement socialism, I suppose. Certainly not Marxist though.

[Telemakus]

left & right are economic terms primarily. The left end of the spectrum is in favor of collective control of means of productive (socialism), the right believes in private control. So you can't be a right wing socialist, because then you simply wouldn't be socialist. You may be confusing the economic spectrum with the libertarian/authoritarian spectrum, which is something different.
Fair enough, but I think the views on this site, and the left as a whole, certainly go beyond this. Framing it terms of only collective/private control still leaves room for a huge range of ideologies, many of which would not be tolerated. If your distinction is indeed correct, what beliefs does this site in particular hold as a whole? i.e. What are the general assumptions.

[bricolage]

Well, anarchism, communism and socialism are generally all considered to be "of the left,"

Actually many anarchists do not consider themselves of the left at all; http://www.afed.org.uk/blog/historical/113-anarchist-federation-neither-left-nor-right.html

Left communists make a similar argument as well.

[Widerstand]

I heard so many (bullshit) definitions of left/right, it can get quite confusing. I think some right wing dude defined it as "left = more governmental control over the economy; right = less governmental control over the economy", which to some extent holds true, but this would exclude all state-rejective tendencies neither-right-nor-left, or maybe far right? Anarcho-capitalism is, by the way, pretty much the far right of this definition: A capitalist society with an absolute absence of regulations, or, at best, privatized juridical and executive organs. It really has nothing much to do with anarchism - but instead is an extreme form of capitalism, even though it is considered a branch of individualist anarchism by some. However, traditionally, anarchism is a spin off of communism/socialism.
Another definition I've been taught in history class once, is that the German definition of left/right traces back to the 1848 revolution, more precisely the elections it brought upon, where the Monarchists sat on the right side, and the Democrats on the left. Now I'm not sure how true this is, but it certainly is a nice anecdotal theory.

Ultimately, I am doubtful there's a satisfying answer as to what is left and what is not. Even the current "left" is split about what and what not they are. Personally, I would say the left is in general progressive and egalitarian, focused on the wellbeing of the humans, while the right is more interested in preservation of the status quo and prioritizes economic growth over human benefits - though of course that definition is grossly lacking. The most common ground of leftists (including mainstream left-wing parties here), would be the pursuit of a (more) egalitarian society, IMO.

[Revolte_Wolf]

Actually many anarchists do not consider themselves of the left at all
Left communists make a similar argument as well.


if left is talking about more freedom and rights then I dont see how anarchism can be anything but left.

I know people like to consider themselves anarcho-capitalists and even tribal anarchists (anarcho-nationalism), but thats a bunch of b.s.

[bricolage]

if left is talking about more freedom and rights then I dont see how anarchism can be anything but left.

I think the argument is that left wing and right wing represent the left and right wings of capitalism and so lots of what passes for 'left' is merely an alternative management form of capital itself;

We are neither on the left nor right of it, and calls for unity are calls to save capitalism in another guise. Only social revolution offers humanity the last chance to create a truly human society, neither left nor right, but liberated and free.

[Telemakus]

I heard so many (bullshit) definitions of left/right, it can get quite confusing. I think some right wing dude defined it as "left = more governmental control over the economy; right = less governmental control over the economy", which to some extent holds true, but this would exclude all state-rejective tendencies neither-right-nor-left, or maybe far right? Anarcho-capitalism is, by the way, pretty much the far right of this definition: A capitalist society with an absolute absence of regulations, or, at best, privatized juridical and executive organs. It really has nothing much to do with anarchism - but instead is an extreme form of capitalism, even though it is considered a branch of individualist anarchism by some. However, traditionally, anarchism is a spin off of communism/socialism.
Another definition I've been taught in history class once, is that the German definition of left/right traces back to the 1848 revolution, more precisely the elections it brought upon, where the Monarchists sat on the right side, and the Democrats on the left. Now I'm not sure how true this is, but it certainly is a nice anecdotal theory.

Ultimately, I am doubtful there's a satisfying answer as to what is left and what is not. Even the current "left" is split about what and what not they are. Personally, I would say the left is in general progressive and egalitarian, focused on the wellbeing of the humans, while the right is more interested in preservation of the status quo and prioritizes economic growth over human benefits - though of course that definition is grossly lacking. The most common ground of leftists (including mainstream left-wing parties here), would be the pursuit of a (more) egalitarian society, IMO.
I think to be fair, it's not so much that the right aren't concerned with the well being of humans, they do but they have different ideas of what will lead to well-being. But I do think you are possible correct about the right wanting to preserve the status quo, or social order, and the left wanting to remove it. This is quite a satisfying distinction for me, though I will have to clear some things up about it.

Actually, I remember a quote I read a while back that was like: "The Left is collective control of production, but social freedom, whereas The Right is for free/private means of production and control of social norms."
So, essentially there are then two different ways in which to be left/rightist - economic freedom and social freedom. So, Libertarian might be considered as half right and half left for wanting freedom in both areas, whereas nazism would be half left and half right for wanting control in both areas. I think communism would be left left, the American Republics are probably right right, anarchists I think would be right left.

There's also the question then of how should societies be ordered, from a macroscopic perspective - e.g what size should they be, how should they interact? And also questions of authority - what size of rulership should we have, and what is the relationship between ruler and subject? I think questions like this however are partly separate from the right/left divide (and instead are best looked at from the disinterested viewpoint of philosophy) but also partly to do with social and economics freedom, so relative to the left right divide.

Am I at all close?

[Niccolò Rossi]

Communists are not leftists.

Neither left nor right but social revolution!

Nic.

[Telemakus]

To show what I believe, by my analysis above, I would say I am for both economic control and social control, and am therefore left-right.

I essentially believe that there should be rulership, but there will not be a difference in living standards between groups of any part in this chain. Rather it would be intellectuals (scientists, philosophers etc.) in leadership positions basically doing the decision making as I feel they are the main ones who are fit to know the consequences of the various courses of action.
The people in general will keep the community spirit going, and sustainably manage production and do physical labour and other jobs which they will directly see the fruits of. I am a localist, and so think that we should form small communities, and let them have their own social values, so long as they adhere to rules about how they maintain with everyone else. These can form clusters which can then allow for larger institutions such as universities and other intellectual organisations, military (I think this would be necessary, but we would have to unify it with the rest of society so it doesn't remain the cult that it is at the moment) and thereby provide a unity between tribes in similar areas, and allow us to resolve and prevent intranational conflict.
These intellectual organisations would allow us to maintain good relations with their counterparts in other countries, as academic pursuit is quite universal, and academics are typically peaceful and non-judgmental (except of certain beliefs) which would aid peace relations, and help us to prevent any international conflict.

Would an ideology similar to this be compatible with a leftism? Which of these ideas is it alright to promote or argue for at this site?

[Zanthorus]

Left communists make a similar argument as well.

Well the AFed article is incredibly vague but if it is talking about reformism, Left-Communists also reject Maoism, Trotskyism, "Official Communism" and some parts of the anarchist movement as being part of the left of capital's political apparatus. On the other hand some parts of the article show a definite anti-"vanguardist" line which I don't think many Left-Communists would agree with either.

[Niccolò Rossi]

An example hypothetical society as an aside:
A community which is white nationalist (and all white), maybe christian, but within their society they don't really have the class divide we have now - basically lives in accordance with "to each according to his need, from each according to his ability", so equality with the workers and "elites". I don't think this kind of society is too far fetched, and may indeed exist in several places? So, what would be the leftist attitude towards this social order? It adheres to the leftist principle you outlined, and let's assume that there is no discrimination within this society, and that it also doesn't mess with the outside world (so long as they leave them alone too). Could they be considered as part of the left in any way, or would the left be at least tolerant of them?

This is a fantasy. The principle of free access ("Too each according to his needs...) relies on abundance and can not possible operate within the confines of an isolated community.

Furthermore, the idea that the working class can unite to make revolution and accomplish the construction of socialism without overcoming the prejudices of class society is an impossibility workable only in hypothetical.

Nic.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Rather it would be intellectuals (scientists, philosophers etc.) in leadership positions basically doing the decision making as I feel they are the main ones who are fit to know the consequences of the various courses of action.
The people in general will keep the community spirit going, and sustainably manage production and do physical labour and other jobs which they will directly see the fruits of.

That doesn't make you right wing. It just makes you a pig.

Nic.

[Thirsty Crow]

That doesn't make you right wing. It just makes you a pig.

Nic.
Now c'mon, he/she's just expressing his/her opinion, no need for instant name calling and denouncing.
Telemakus, your vision is very, VERY vague.
When you advocate philosophers' and scinetists' rule, you are basically positing the need for a formal apparatus of rule (be it class rule or bureaucratic rule) - i.e. the state. In my view, this is in conflict with your "localism": After all, who will make the rules that small communitiy members will "adhere to...about how they maintain with everyone else"?

I don't agree that a special, privileged caste of philosophers' should function like that. Instead, I would advocate a sort of a dual power system - soem agencies of the state should be kept, but workers' autonomous bodies of (self)governance should exist by all means. The interaction and cooperation is vital, IMO.

[Telemakus]

This is a fantasy. The principle of free access ("Too each according to his needs...) relies on abundance and can not possible operate within the confines of an isolated community.
Are you suggesting that that it is impossible to get resources sustainably to the whole world at all, or that an isolated community can't sustain itself? Well, either way I disagree.


Furthermore, the idea that the working class can unite to make revolution and accomplish the construction of socialism without overcoming the prejudices of class society is an impossibility workable only in hypothetical.
I'm not too sure what you mean there :S


That doesn't make you right wing. It just makes you a pig.I'd like you to please explain why, and why I must be so necessarily.

Also, what alternative do you propose?

[Telemakus]

Now c'mon, he/she's just expressing his/her opinion, no need for instant name calling and denouncing.
Telemakus, your vision is very, VERY vague.
When you advocate philosophers' and scinetists' rule, you are basically positing the need for a formal apparatus of rule (be it class rule or bureaucratic rule) - i.e. the state. In my view, this is in conflict with your "localism": After all, who will make the rules that small communitiy members will "adhere to...about how they maintain with everyone else"?

I don't agree that a special, privileged caste of philosophers' should function like that. Instead, I would advocate a sort of a dual power system - soem agencies of the state should be kept, but workers' autonomous bodies of (self)governance should exist by all means. The interaction and cooperation is vital, IMO.
I know my picture is very vague. I haven't done a whole lot of study in politics or economics or anything, so I can't really get any more specific. I can only really look at things from a philosophical perspective.

I don't think it is necessary at all that we have academics in power. What use has an intellectual in an indigenous tribe? I think we should leave tribes basically to continue to act as they wish, because we often don't know why things are like that, and may damage the order by changing them. However, if it is clear than in a particular community there is widespread exploitation, it may be necessary to step in.

As for the paradox about localism, think of it as different levels of organisation. The earth is essentially a community of communities, so they must necessarily adhere to certain rules. We can therefore draw a parallel between the relationship of citizen to community and community to earth, keeping in mind that the citizen is also part of the earth.

Obviously I am very influenced by Plato.

[Niccolò Rossi]

that an isolated community can't sustain itself?

I didn't say that an isolated community could not sustain itself (It's evident today that some hunter-gatherer societies still manage to do so). I said that an over-abundance of use-values necessary to sustain free-access (ie. the watchword of distribution in communist society) is impossible in an isolated community.


I'm not too sure what you mean there :SI'm not sure how I can put it more simply...

The working class is the only class capable of overthrowing capitalism and constructing communism.

The working class possesses this ability due to the position it occupies in the process of social production.

The weapon the working class posses to excercise this power is it's solidarity, ie. its ability to unify in common struggle.

This means in struggle, workers must confront and overcome the prejudices which posion this unity as a class.

So the idea that workers can unite to make world revolution, only to retain the racial prejudices in your hypothetical is a fantasy.


Now c'mon, he/she's just expressing his/her opinion, no need for instant name calling and denouncing.

Maybe not. Unfortunately, once upon a time when I was much younger, my views were not indifferent to these. So obvious reasons I don't take kindly to them.


I'd like you to please explain why, and why I must be so necessarily.

Because they are anti-worker and elitist.


Also, what alternative do you propose?

The dictatorship of the proletariat. All power to the workers councils.


Obviously I am very influenced by Plato.

A little work that I found very influential was Hal Draper's 'The Two Souls of Socialism' (http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1966/twosouls/index.htm). You should read it. I would highly recommend it.

Nic.

[Telemakus]

Maybe not. Unfortunately, once upon a time when I was much younger, my views were not indifferent to these. So obvious reasons I don't take kindly to them.How similar were they? What changed them?


Because they are anti-worker and elitist.
Elitist? Probably. Anti-worker? I don't see why.

Is it not elitist in a sense that communists pay greatest attention to the writings of Marx and other intellectuals in forming their ideas? I think that whether you like it or not it will always essentially be the intellectuals who decide how things are to be organised and run as they are the ones with the capacity to understand it. I hardly suggest taking power from the general populace (there need to be several checks to prevent corruption from arising) and rule and social organisation will always be done in the interest of the community, future generations, and the world as a whole.

Or perhaps I am too prejudiced against the majority of humanity in thinking that most people would be less capable? All of my experience thusfar has backed up what I'm saying, but I may be overlooking something major.

Do you agree with leadership in any way at all, or do you think power in all areas should be divided equally between all community members (or something to that effect)?


For now I'll read the work you linked, and some others recommended by this site.

[La Peur Rouge]

Is it not elitist in a sense that communists pay greatest attention to the writings of Marx and other intellectuals in forming their ideas?

How is reading communist/socialist theory elitist?

[BLACKPLATES]

No. Fascism is NOT socialism, and there is NO left form of it. Fascism is state capitalism, or statism. To try to simplify that, Socialism is a system wherein the workers, who are the primary producers, also own the means of prodcution (the factories, the mines, the wheat fields etc.,) for the benefit of all. Resource allocation and economic policy are decided on democraticaly. this is collectivism. In a fascist system (the NAZIS's) for instance, the state owns the means of production, or subisdizes the capitalists to produce, and steals the labor of the working classes, for the benefit of the capitalists. Socialism is public investment for the public good. fascism is public investment for private gain. When the US govt rescues failing investment banks on wal st with public money, and allows the capitalist owners to keep the profits while abandoning workers, cancelling their pay and forclosing on their debt, (public debt, private profit) that is a very fascist policy. it is nowhere NEAR socialism

[Telemakus]

How is reading communist/socialist theory elitist?
My point was poorly expressed. Nic said rulership/leadership by intellectuals (scientists and philosophers) was elitist, so I suggested that in a sense this already occurs and is embraced because intellectuals are largely in charge of ideas. Why is the explicit control by this group as I outlined elitist, but implicit control is not elitist? This I think is what I was trying to ask.

My point may still be poorly expressed. I'll have to think it through more, and investigate other thinkers who said similar things (I can think of a couple quotes - one from Nietzsche that philosophers have the greatest Will to Power, one from Keynes about social order essentially being shaped by the great thinkers).

[BLACKPLATES]

I know my picture is very vague. I haven't done a whole lot of study in politics or economics or anything, so I can't really get any more specific. I can only really look at things from a philosophical perspective.

I don't think it is necessary at all that we have academics in power. What use has an intellectual in an indigenous tribe? I think we should leave tribes basically to continue to act as they wish, because we often don't know why things are like that, and may damage the order by changing them. However, if it is clear than in a particular community there is widespread exploitation, it may be necessary to step in.

As for the paradox about localism, think of it as different levels of organisation. The earth is essentially a community of communities, so they must necessarily adhere to certain rules. We can therefore draw a parallel between the relationship of citizen to community and community to earth, keeping in mind that the citizen is also part of the earth.

Obviously I am very influenced by Plato.
"The earth is essentially a community of communities, so they must necessarily adhere to certain rules"

Unfortunately Telemachus, "the Earth" cant enforce its "rules' in any way that would facilitate meaningful government. I think we started off long ago as a patchwork of small communities, and the long bloody history of humanity has been that each of these small communities is swallowed into a great monolpoly. This is the dynamic of "free market" capitalism. Ultimately (if it didnt collapse and explode at unpredictable intervals) it would end in a static global supermonopoly. In your idealized world of small city states ruled by platonic philosopher kings, what would prevent this inevitable drive toward monopoly? you could make a rule to that effect, but tyrants dont obey rules, they make rules for others to obey. its not enough to say this point "i havent worked that out yet" . In all of human history it hasd not been figured out

[Telemakus]

No. Fascism is NOT socialism, and there is NO left form of it. Fascism is state capitalism, or statism. To try to simplify that, Socialism is a system wherein the workers, who are the primary producers, also own the means of prodcution (the factories, the mines, the wheat fields etc.,) for the benefit of all. Resource allocation and economic policy are decided on democraticly. this is collectivism. In a fascist system (the NAZIS's) for instance, the state owns the means of production, or subisdizes the capitalists to produce, and steals the labor of the working classes, for the benefit of the capitalists. Socialism is public investment for the public good. fascism is public investment for private gain. When the US govt rescues failing investment banks on wal st with public money, and allows the capitalist owners to keep the profits while abandoning workers, cancelling their pay and forclosing on their debt, (public debt, private profit) that is a very fascist policy. it is nowhere NEAR socialism
I think this may be a bit unfair - I'm sure nazis and fascists think that their form of social order is ultimately the best one for the people as a whole, not just for some small group.
As for democratically deciding things, as I mentioned a few times I have a problem with this because I think ultimately there are only a relatively small number of people in society who have the knowledge and reasoning abilities to know what should be produced but that they must take into account the needs and well being of the rest of society (there will be equality of physical ownership I think, but not so much in decision making). To use an example from Plato, we do not decide what to do when someone is sick democratically, but take advice from a medical professional who has the most ability in this area, and also wishes for the patient to return to health.

I'll repose a question from earlier - what do you think of, and where does it fit on the left/right spectrum, of a society which internally adheres to the "to each.../from each..." principle and so does not have this exploitation of the majority for the sole gain of a minority, but is also very nationalistic - to the point that it is strongly cultural and traditional with collective goals, and does not allow people from other races/cultures to become part of the community? You can probably think of various other hypothetical social set-ups which agree with collectivism but not with many other principles typically associated with the left.

[BLACKPLATES]

I wasnt making a point of comparative fairness about the Nazi's . I was responding to a statement you made about there being (you supposed) left fascists. There arent. That would be a parodox, like saying "I suppose there are above-ground subterranean caverns"..it cant be...the only issue here is not understanding what subterranean means. As for being "fair and balanced" to Fascists, Im not. Not all ideas are worth equal consideration. I understand you are attempting to be expansive and "platonic" with this argument, but this is not the place (or the correct thread) to defend fascists.

[Telemakus]

"The earth is essentially a community of communities, so they must necessarily adhere to certain rules"

Unfortunately Telemachus, "the Earth" cant enforce its "rules' in any way that would facilitate meaningful government. I think we started off long ago as a patchwork of small communities, and the long bloody history of humanity has been that each of these small communities is swallowed into a great monolpoly. This is the dynamic of "free market" capitalism. Ultimately (if it didnt collapse and explode at unpredictable intervals) it would end in a static global supermonopoly. In your idealized world of small city states ruled by platonic philosopher kings, what would prevent this inevitable drive toward monopoly? you could make a rule to that effect, but tyrants dont obey rules, they make rules for others to obey. its not enough to say this point "i havent worked that out yet" . In all of human history it hasd not been figured out
On a global scale, you're right that there can not be a single governing body, beyond global groups which may try to maintain peace (something like the UN). What I meant was that there will still be rules between communities - I'm thinking of something like maintaining peace between communities based on mutual benefit; a Nash equilibrium of sorts.

Yes, there would be an inevitable drive towards monopoly and tyranny, followed by revolt of the workers, which Plato himself outlined. I don't think it is possible for any stable global social order to arise in the long term. However, as far as I know small communities have existed in history over many thousands of years, only being torn apart in more recent times with the advent of imperialism from Christians and, later, capitalists. So it seems like something which can last a fairly long time and is worth aiming for.

Perhaps the extremely advanced technology we now possess will lead to new solutions for keep things running and preventing monopoly? But as you said, I haven't figured that out yet.

[NGNM85]

The state of being a leftist.

......Just kiddin'!:D

'Left' is a very broad tendency encompassing a number of political and philosophical positions. typically, Leftists are proponants of social change or progress, they tend to care about the downtrodden and minorities, they place a greater emphasis on fairness and equality, and they tend to be less nationalistic or tribal. The Left includes Centrist Leftists, moderate Leftists like Greens/Liberals/Progressives, and radical Leftists like Communists and Anarchists.

[Telemakus]

I wasnt making a point of comparative fairness about the Nazi's . I was responding to a statement you made about there being (you supposed) left fascists. There arent. That would be a parodox, like saying "I suppose there are above-ground subterranean caverns"..it cant be...the only issue here is not understanding what subterranean means. As for being "fair and balanced" to Fascists, Im not. Not all ideas are worth equal consideration. I understand you are attempting to be expansive and "platonic" with this argument, but this is not the place (or the correct thread) to defend fascists.
I know I don't have the correct understanding of the left/right - that is afterall why I made this thread. I only meant to be "fair" to the fascists so that I would be as clear about the distinction as possible, because I don't think what you said applies to all nationalists etc.

[BLACKPLATES]

Nationalism is anti democratic, and therefore it is a Right wing principle. Nationalism as i think you descibed it ( basically some kind of socialist-like state that excludes on the basis of some religious or ethnic bias which you didnt name) would absolutely be reactionary and to the right, not to the left. The universal Left attitude toward such nationalism is hostile.

[Telemakus]

The state of being a leftist.

......Just kiddin'!:D

'Left' is a very broad tendency encompassing a number of political and philosophical positions. typically, Leftists are proponants of social change or progress, they tend to care about the downtrodden and minorities, they place a greater emphasis on fairness and equality, and they tend to be less nationalistic or tribal. The Left includes Centrist Leftists, moderate Leftists like Greens/Liberals/Progressives, and radical Leftists like Communists and Anarchists.
This is basically the intuitive notion of leftism that I had in mind.

When you say social change/progress, should I read that as "social change or progress which is aimed at caring for the downtrodden, promoting fairness and equality, and being less nationalistic/tribal.", as opposed to social change in general (which may be either left or right focused)?

For contrast, would rightism then encompass ideas like promoting the development of the ~strong, denial of equality and not necessarily being fair to everyone, being more nationalistic and tribal?

So, my proposal for of communities which pursue their own goals and cultures is a rightist idea, and giving extra privileges to intellectuals would also be rightist.

To be leftist, would there have to be an active restriction of power by anyone who would naturally gain it in some area if left unchecked?
Does leftism promote the removal of any cultural practices which are specific to groups of people based on their heritage?
Are ideas like pan-nationalism and self-determination of racial/cultural groups rightist, leftist, both or neither?

I think everyone should be helped to live happily and be generally fulfilled in life, but I don't think I believe in equality. However, I'm not sure what exactly equality is, so...

precisely, what does equality imply? Does it suggest something about some inherent property of all humans (I am familiar with this idea from Christianity, but don't see how it makes sense in a secular world view) or is it more about how we should treat people and order society, i.e. be nice and respectful towards everyone no matter what group they belong to or other traits of the person, and give equal access to everyone (to a degree)?

Another question/analogous situation - what would be leftist and rightist approaches to education?
If we pay more attention to academically gifted children, would that be a rightist approach? Would a leftist approach be to give all children the same education and make sure everyone keeps up, or would it be more like helping all children develop at their own pace giving equal time to all children?

I apologise for the bombardment of questions.

[Telemakus]

Nationalism is anti democratic, and therefore it is a Right wing principle. Nationalism as i think you descibed it ( basically some kind of socialist-like state that excludes on the basis of some religious or ethnic bias which you didnt name) would absolutely be reactionary and to the right, not to the left. The universal Left attitude toward such nationalism is hostile.
By nationalism I basically mean the forming of collective goals and practices in society based on a shared heritage/ethnicity. It would, or at least could be democratic so long as all members of the community are of the same nationality.

If such a community shows no hostility or other threatening behaviour, why would they be treated with hostility?

What is wrong with exclusion? Sorry to re-use this example again, but for example an advanced education program (e.g. university) requires students to obtain high marks or show aptitude in some other way, and excludes everyone else. There are many other examples of exclusion present in society which if we didn't adhere to, at least generally, would lead to huge inefficiency. To what degree should we be allowed to exclude people from participation in aspects of society?

The community I described would probably justify their exclusion on the basis that people with different backgrounds will weaken the cohesiveness of the group - I'm not making any claims as to whether or not this is true, but if they wish to operate like this I don't see why they shouldn't be able to. It doesn't really hurt anyone, or at least I can't think of how it does.

[Niccolò Rossi]

What changed them?

There are two levels I suppose. One being a better theoretical understanding, ie. the nature of communism, how and why the working class is it's sole bearer. The other is the reality of working for a living and getting over being a spolit, 'gifted' student who's entire fucking political outlook is informed by teenage angst.


Or perhaps I am too prejudiced against the majority of humanity in thinking that most people would be less capable?

Perhaps indeed...


Do you agree with leadership in any way at all

I think the question is meaningless.

Nic.

[Saorsa]

Rossi:
Communists are not leftists.

You call yourself a 'Left' Communist...

[Kayser_Soso]

While I feel I have certain tendencies in common with the left, I will admit that I don't really know exactly what it believes and stands for. So I was wondering: is there a concensus definition, on this site at least, as to what leftism is, and what the general assumptions of leftism are? Can you also contrast this with rightism, and mention some of the ways of thinking which are definitely not part of the left, and not tolerated in the bulk of this forum. There are more specific questions I wish to ask also, but I will ask them as they come up in the thread (if they do).

Thanks,
Telemakus.

There is no such thing as "leftism" there are various ideologies and theories which occupy the "left" part of the political spectrum, which in general is defined by a tendancy to favor change and revolution.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Rossi:

You call yourself a 'Left' Communist...

Yes, a left communist, not a leftist...

The Communist Left is a historic current and 'Left Communism' has a historic meaning.

Nic.

[9]

Yes, a left communist, not a leftist...


tbh, I think it is mostly a petty, self-aggrandizing semantic distinction that reflects really poorly on left communists. It is basically analogous in content to the way "ultra-left" is used as a pejorative - an easy way to denounce and dismiss groups or positions or tactics you disagree with, without that pesky business of having to actually debate the ideas on their merit, because suffice it to say, "they're standard leftist ideas". I just don't see what constructive or useful purpose the term has, other than as a really confusing catch-all for "things modern left communists disagree with".

[black magick hustla]

tbh, I think it is mostly a petty, self-aggrandizing semantic distinction that reflects really poorly on left communists. It is basically analogous in content to the way "ultra-left" is used as a pejorative - an easy way to denounce and dismiss groups or positions or tactics you disagree with, without that pesky business of having to actually debate the ideas on their merit, because suffice it to say, "they're standard leftist ideas". I just don't see what constructive or useful purpose the term has, other than as a really confusing catch-all for "things modern left communists disagree with".


tbh leftism means something very specific to some anarchists and leftcoms. it mostly means either parliamentary struggles, or single issue campaigns. things we clearly reject. i think it is a useful term inside left com circles although not necessarily outside them.

[Niccolò Rossi]

tbh, I think it is mostly a petty, self-aggrandizing semantic distinction that reflects really poorly on left communists.

I disagree. I think the distinction is very real and it important to point out.


It is basically analogous in content to the way "ultra-left" is used as a pejorative - an easy way to denounce and dismiss groups or positions or tactics you disagree with, without that pesky business of having to actually debate the ideas on their merit, because suffice it to say, "they're standard leftist ideas".

Whilst I think it's certainly possible to use 'leftism' as dismissive/a pejorative, this is not my intention. The term and our usage of it is grounded in actual analysis. Of course it is only shorthand, challenging the content of leftism is essential, not doubt, something a label can't replace.


I just don't see what constructive or useful purpose the term has, other than as a really confusing catch-all for "things modern left communists disagree with".

Evidently not all, the bourgeoisie has right-wing and 'moderate' factions aswell. Besides that, you don't have to be in the camp of the bourgeoisie to disagree with. Opportunism, centrism, voluntarism, sectarianism are all illnesses which can infect proletarian organisations and movements.

Nic.