Left-Wing Discussion Thread III

[The Multiversal Communist Collective]

If by leftist you mean "socialist", the two are often conflated, I can assure you there is much that distinguishes me from a communist.

In my experience, most people on the right don't appreciate those distinctions.

[The Parkus Empire]

What exactly do you mean? That I didn't point out that he was a Nazi?

Yes.

Why would I bother to do that when anyone who knows who he is knows that?

[The Parkus Empire]

If by leftist you mean "socialist", the two are often conflated, I can assure you there is much that distinguishes me from a communist.

In my experience, most people on the right don't appreciate those distinctions.

In my experience most socialists identify leftism exclusively with socialism, not with forms of liberalism

[The Parkus Empire]

I think a tricky thing about the private-personal distinction in property, and even about leftism preceding that development, is that human beings are the fundamental means of production. This is very awkward for anyone who says the means of production should be publicly owned, and you can't really get around it without a crypto-liberal humanism which attaches a unique metaphysical significance to the individual that makes public ownership of him something reprehensible in a sort of religious way, as a metaphysical transgression

What? Humans aren't, in any literature I've read, considered part of the MoP in socialism.....

There isn't a real distinction between any leftist and a communist, since the left is a virtue spiral. When the centre gets renormalised to the left, "moderate leftists" don't go home, they just move a bit further left. All the "moderate" really stands for is "coward".

If by leftist you mean "socialist", the two are often conflated, I can assure you there is much that distinguishes me from a communist.

Humans are not classed as the means of production in socialist theory solely because of humanist special pleading.

[The Multiversal Communist Collective]

Why would I bother to do that when anyone who knows who he is knows that?

Why would you assume that most people know who he is? You simply quoted him.

[The Multiversal Communist Collective]

In my experience most socialists identify leftism exclusively with socialism, not with forms of liberalism

To Marx and Engels, socialism and communism were essentially identical. They appear to have used the terms interchangeably. The distinction between the two was not made until Lenin.

However, as with any terms, some people call themselves socialists but not communists.

[Aillyria]

What? Humans aren't, in any literature I've read, considered part of the MoP in socialism.....



If by leftist you mean "socialist", the two are often conflated, I can assure you there is much that distinguishes me from a communist.

Humans are not classed as the means of production in socialist theory solely because of humanist special pleading.

How did you come to that conclusion?

In my experience, most people on the right don't appreciate those distinctions.

In my experience most socialists identify leftism exclusively with socialism, not with forms of liberalism

I don't use the left-right model personally, I find such labels useless.

[The Widening Gyre]

I think a tricky thing about the private-personal distinction in property, and even about leftism preceding that development, is that human beings are the fundamental means of production.

Which is why socialist economics generally defines production as being labour (ie humans) being applied to the means of production. In the capitalist mode you cannot own labour, in terms of owning people, but you can own the means by which labour is applied to create productive activity.

This is very awkward for anyone who says the means of production should be publicly owned, and you can't really get around it without a crypto-liberal humanism which attaches a unique metaphysical significance to the individual that makes public ownership of him something reprehensible in a sort of religious way, as a metaphysical transgression

The means of production are the hinge point for socialism because it is the exclusionary force applied to it in capitalism that creates exploitation and destitution.

[Cekoviu]

Boo.

Je suis d'accord.

>diet socialism
It's not even that, it's reverse accelerationism.

More like fake socialism.

Oh, socdems don't pretend that we're socialists. Except Bernie, but he's an old man who doesn't know any better.

Oh jeez, I haven't posted in here in a while and I was reading 25 pages back when I clicked "first unread." Sorry for semi-necroposting.

[West Leas Oros]

Trump is advocating the same policies communists were in 1900.

Sure, it's a given that any communist alive in 1900 would instantly become the most ultra-left pussy hat-wearing, white genocide-advocating, frothing-at-the-mouth 21st century intersectionalist imaginable if alive today.

But that just concedes the point: communist is a personality type, not a set of policies. An intensely anti-social personality type. No movement left will satisfy it, nor even be recognised as such.

You were the only who claimed Teddy Roosevelt, Who helped spearhead the Progressive Era was right wing?

[West Leas Oros]

I don’t befriend libertarians. At least not on a political level. Personally, we could be friends, but politically, we are mortal enemies.

auth-left confirmed

I don't like Private Property. libertarians do. Right libertarians that is. I usually use libertarian to refer to right libertarians.

[Aillyria]

Je suis d'accord.


More like fake socialism.

Oh, socdems don't pretend that we're socialists. Except Bernie, but he's an old man who doesn't know any better.

Oh jeez, I haven't posted in here in a while and I was reading 25 pages back when I clicked "first unread." Sorry for semi-necroposting.

Bernie Sanders......*cringes*

You're good, I personally consider you rather reasonable.....for a SocDem.

[Bakery Hill]

Trump is advocating the same policies communists were in 1900.

Sure, it's a given that any communist alive in 1900 would instantly become the most ultra-left pussy hat-wearing, white genocide-advocating, frothing-at-the-mouth 21st century intersectionalist imaginable if alive today.

But that just concedes the point: communist is a personality type, not a set of policies. An intensely anti-social personality type. No movement left will satisfy it, nor even be recognised as such.

TIL that Trump advocates for worker control of the means of production.

[Sovaal]

Trump is advocating the same policies communists were in 1900.

Sure, it's a given that any communist alive in 1900 would instantly become the most ultra-left pussy hat-wearing, white genocide-advocating, frothing-at-the-mouth 21st century intersectionalist imaginable if alive today.

But that just concedes the point: communist is a personality type, not a set of policies. An intensely anti-social personality type. No movement left will satisfy it, nor even be recognised as such.

TIL that Trump advocates for worker control of the means of production.

Did I miss the glorious People’s Revolution again?

[West Leas Oros]

TIL that Trump advocates for worker control of the means of production.

Did I miss the glorious People’s Revolution again?

Maybe

On the subject of revolution... I did some thinking and decided to do what "centrist dickheads" do best, compromise!

In all seriousness, I did some thinking and decided that simple good bad answers are insufficient for complex subjects like revolution. I realized that it is very circumstantial. I would certainly advocate revolution against someone such as Hitler, or Pinochet. Less so on others, like say the US or UK, where reform is still a possibility, albeit a small possibility. I would support a revolution, only if the revolution could honestly say, with sure confidence, that they won't screw things up. Lenin was pretty decent, but then Stalin came and fucked it up. If we could get a new Lenin who won't let a new Stalin fuck up a new revolution, I would support that. I probably wouldn't join the revolution directly, but I might help it in other ways. TL;DR, Revolution should be used as a last resort when need be, but avoided when their are other, less destructive options. Tbh, NS is my only escape from harsh political reality, a place where I can make my ideal society without fear of being coup'd or voted out or assassinated.

[Cekoviu]

Oh, socdems don't pretend that we're socialists. Except Bernie, but he's an old man who doesn't know any better.

Oh jeez, I haven't posted in here in a while and I was reading 25 pages back when I clicked "first unread." Sorry for semi-necroposting.

Bernie Sanders......*cringes*

You're good, I personally consider you rather reasonable.....for a SocDem.

Oh, you're sadly mistaken. I am very unreasonable, forsooth.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Except Bernie, but he's an old man who doesn't know any better.

Sanders has been calling himself a socialist since he was a young man. He simply defines socialism as FDR's New Deal.

Obviously, he has the right to call himself whatever he wants. However, he has muddled an already confusing issue.

[Cekoviu]

Except Bernie, but he's an old man who doesn't know any better.

Sanders has been calling himself a socialist since he was a young man. He simply defines socialism as FDR's New Deal.

Obviously, he has the right to call himself whatever he wants. However, he has muddled an already confusing issue.

He essentially red-baited himself by doing that.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Fair point on the corruption, no country is free from corruption. However, there are plenty of countries, especially current major powers which are leaps and bounds ahead in civil liberties.

None are greater than Iceland, tho

Sure, I guess Iceland is okay. Don't see what makes it the best, but it seems pretty good.

[Aillyria]

Sanders has been calling himself a socialist since he was a young man. He simply defines socialism as FDR's New Deal.

Obviously, he has the right to call himself whatever he wants. However, he has muddled an already confusing issue.

He essentially red-baited himself by doing that.

Truer words have never been spoken!

[Webus]

In my experience most socialists identify leftism exclusively with socialism, not with forms of liberalism

To Marx and Engels, socialism and communism were essentially identical. They appear to have used the terms interchangeably. The distinction between the two was not made until Lenin.

However, as with any terms, some people call themselves socialists but not communists.

They used the terms lower and higher stage socialism/communism. The Leninists then changed the term socialism to mean lower stage and communism to be higher. They didn't invent the idea, but simply redefined some terms for more clear usage.

[Kubra]

In my experience most socialists identify leftism exclusively with socialism, not with forms of liberalism

To Marx and Engels, socialism and communism were essentially identical. They appear to have used the terms interchangeably. The distinction between the two was not made until Lenin.

However, as with any terms, some people call themselves socialists but not communists.

I don't know where you got the idea that they were used interchangeably. In any case, it would not fit Marx's immediate political goals, neither of early Marx nor late Marx.
edit: pardon my for the assumption, but did you get it from Fromm? I just assume from your age and when I suppose you politically came about, in a manner of speaking. I don't attach any judgement to the positive or negative outcome of the question.

[Cekoviu]

None are greater than Iceland, tho

Sure, I guess Iceland is okay. Don't see what makes it the best, but it seems pretty good.

It actually tried the low-taxes libertarian capitalism thing for a while.

It failed, and Iceland magically became better once they went back to Scandinavian-style social democracy. I wonder if that's because social democracy is a great system and libertarian capitalism is fundamentally flawed.

Nah, it's probably just a coincidence.

[The Liberated Territories]

Sure, I guess Iceland is okay. Don't see what makes it the best, but it seems pretty good.

It actually tried the low-taxes libertarian capitalism thing for a while.

It failed, and Iceland magically became better once they went back to Scandinavian-style social democracy. I wonder if that's because social democracy is a great system and libertarian capitalism is fundamentally flawed.

Nah, it's probably just a coincidence.

I've heard of this nonsense before and even writ something up on it, but I can't seem to find what I wrote.

But TD;LR Iceland's problems had nothing to do with "low taxes" and privatization but rather mismanagement by Icelandic banks and amassing piles of foreign debt. The government's solution however was a good one: not to bail out the banks and force everything on the taxpayer, something that the US could learn. Because of that it recovered quite quickly.

[Dumb Ideologies]

There isn't a real distinction between any leftist and a communist, since the left is a virtue spiral. When the centre gets renormalised to the left, "moderate leftists" don't go home, they just move a bit further left. All the "moderate" really stands for is "coward".

Dumb Ideologies is a pretty fanatical moderate

Occasional memery aside, not really. I'm broadly left-leaning and progressive, but I also place a lot of value on stability and order. This means there's a very high bar before I'll accept revolutionary behaviour as justified, that I'm against introducing instability through excessive immigration from less stable parts of the world, and that I'm suspicious of the more deconstructive radical end of social justice theory.

>tfw you're called a fanatical moderate and end up trying to triangulate even on that.