Are there any far left ideologies that are neither socialist nor anarchist?

[FieldHound]

I can't imagine what this would entail, but is the whole of the far left either socialist/communist or anarchist, or are there any other theories/ideologies (however small or obscure) that you would consider to be "far left" that don't fall under either of the two?

[tuwix]

Division between left and right is very arbitrary. Originally it happened in French parliament in late 1700s where opponents to monarchy were seated on the left and monarchists on the right. Now a king is no longer issue. But the question whats is left about is still valid.

If we recognize that Stalinism, Maoism and Jucheism are left ideologies, then surely they aren't communist nor socialist ones. They've put in practice and conserved a state capitalism. As well as Leninism. All vanguard party's ideologies aren't communist nor socialist IMHO because they will reproduce a state capitalism by their 'vanguard' elites.

But the question is: they are still left or not?

[Illegalitarian]

Actually, it was the Jacobins who set on the left, and the Girondins who set on the right, I believe, who while conservative, were not monarchists.


Good question though, OP. Mutualism or other forms of anti-capitalist market anarchsim ala Tucker, Bakunin arguably, etc, I would say.

It's debatable whether or not such systems would inevitably lead to a new sort of capitalism, or whether or not they're still inherently capitalist as some argue, but at the end of the day these ideas still come from a left-anarchist tradition, though I don't think there are many mutualists left anymore.

[Redistribute the Rep]

The political term right-wing originates from the French Revolution, when liberal deputies from the Third Estate generally sat to the left of the president's chair, a habit which began in the Estates General of 1789. The nobility, members of the Second Estate, generally sat to the right. In the successive legislative assemblies, monarchists who supported the Ancien Régime were commonly referred to as rightists, because they sat on the right side. A major figure on the right was Joseph de Maistre, who argued for an authoritarian form of conservatism. Throughout the 19th century, the main line dividing Left and Right in France was between supporters of the Republic and supporters of the Monarchy.[17] On the right, the Legitimists and Ultra-royalists held counter-revolutionary views, while the Orléanists hoped to create a constitutional monarchy under their preferred branch of the royal family, a brief reality after the 1830 July Revolution.

There was more then just the Jacobins and Girondins. Monarchists and other groups sat traditionally sat on the right, and the term right wing was coined specifically to describe specifically the monarchist faction

[John Nada]

I honestly can't think of any. It's a bit like asking is there a monotheist religion that worships multiple gods.

[FieldHound]

I suppose when I think far left I think in terms of the political compass. Mao and Stalin might have been far left economically but not socially (favouring strict authority over individual liberty), whereas anarchism and left communism would be far left both economically (equality > hierarchy) and socially (individuality/liberty > authority), but I understand the terms are relative and arbritrary.

[CollectivRed]

Anarchism and socialism (if you mean Marxian socialism) are two separate leftist ideologies with their own different theories and approaches, though there is some overlap between the two in a few aspects. Anarchism can be seen as "socialist" as anarchists believe in a cooperative social ownership of property to replace capitalism, and some anarchists actually label themselves as "libertarian socialists." I think that most leftist ideologies can fall under the category of "socialist" in some sense of the word. Communism/socialism is generally associated with Marxism, but it does not necessarily have to. It also depends on how exactly these terms are defined.

[consuming negativity]

I suppose when I think far left I think in terms of the political compass. Mao and Stalin might have been far left economically but not socially (favouring strict authority over individual liberty), whereas anarchism and left communism would be far left both economically (equality > hierarchy) and socially (individuality/liberty > authority), but I understand the terms are relative and arbritrary.

the political compass is garbage

nice attempt but honestly, saying that Stalin and Hitler were socially similar and only disagreed on economics is ridiculous and basic

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Occasionally you get local movements which lack or abandon any determinate and explicit endorsement of a particular Socialist ideology, like the EZLN. Nonetheless, the content of their positions are basically socialist.

Then again, the "right/left" divide is very simplistic. It's a more fundamental set of ideological differences than a spectrum. At best the right/left divide is a highly generalized heuristic.

the political compass is garbage

nice attempt but honestly, saying that Stalin and Hitler were socially similar and only disagreed on economics is ridiculous and basic

The political compass is overly simplistic, although to be fair I don't think he explicitly compared Stalin and Hitler.

[consuming negativity]

s/he didn't, but the creators themselves make the comparison in their analysis section:

In our home page we demolished the myth that authoritarianism is necessarily "right wing", with the examples of Robert Mugabe, Pol Pot and Stalin. Similarly Hitler, on an economic scale, was not an extreme right-winger. His economic policies were broadly Keynesian, and to the left of some of today's Labour parties. If you could get Hitler and Stalin to sit down together and avoid economics, the two diehard authoritarians would find plenty of common ground.

http://politicalcompass.org/analysis2

[FieldHound]

the political compass is garbage

nice attempt but honestly, saying that Stalin and Hitler were socially similar and only disagreed on economics is ridiculous and basic

It's obviously limiting but is an improvement on the usual left-wing dichotomy. Stalin and Hitler are closer on their attitudes towards authority than, say, Stalin and Kropotkin. The old right-left model is redundant, saying that you're "left-wing" means pretty much nothing nowadays. And to argue "oh, Pol Pot and North Korea are just dressed-up right-wing" is no different than those right-wingers that claim that Hitler and nazism is left-wing because they "nationalised socialism" or whatever. The authority/individual liberty, economic equality/hierarchy way of describing things is, whilst obviously being an imperfect generalisation, a vast improvement.

[Tim Cornelis]

First, the 'individual liberty' thing irks me. I certainly doubt left communists, especially Bordigists, would employ that phrase in service of their politics. But the left-right spectrum already takes into account these. At least, I regard it as being about social equality, with the far-left emphasising egalitarianism and the far-right emphasising social hierarchy, discipline, etc. (Incidentally, I do place Juche on the far-right).

[Illegalitarian]

There was more then just the Jacobins and Girondins. Monarchists and other groups sat traditionally sat on the right, and the term right wing was coined specifically to describe specifically the monarchist faction

I was thinking the term formed during the days of the National Assembly/Convention, my bad

[Blake's Baby]

First, the 'individual liberty' thing irks me. I certainly doubt left communists, especially Bordigists, would employ that phrase in service of their politics...

Quite right, Left Communists reject the 'libertarian/authoritarian' dichotomy. Despite the fact that the majority of Left Communists are 'libertarian communists' by the definitions of people who accept the notion, it's a label other people apply (or deny) to Left Communists, not one we tend to take on.

...
But the left-right spectrum already takes into account these. At least, I regard it as being about social equality, with the far-left emphasising egalitarianism and the far-right emphasising social hierarchy, discipline, etc. (Incidentally, I do place Juche on the far-right).

A lot of Left Communists (and the Impossiblists) also have the conception of 'the left wing of capital' - expressed by the SPGB as 'left wing, right wing, it's the same capitalist bird'. By this logic, Stalinists, Trotskyists and even some Anarchists are capitalism's left wing while conservatives, monarchists and fascists would be its right wing.

Meanwhile, removed from this long left-right spectrum, are 'revolutionaries' who are divided between Marxists and internationalist Anarchists. We don't figure as 'left/right' - the term 'Communist Left/Left Communist' is entirely historical, dating from before 1928, when there was a real workers' movement (and still-living ComIntern) to be 'the left' of. There is no such thing now; some 'Left Communists' are happier calling themselves 'Internationalist Communists' or even just 'Communists'.

Of course, no-one else knows what these terms mean. Anyone from Sparts to Stalinists can call themselves 'Internationalists' or 'Communists'.

[The Idler]

To the OP, Benjamin Tucker and GDH Cole.