What qualifies as "left wing"?

[BEEstreetz]

Ok whatever is going on ^above, but OP you can't put this: "None of these because the left/right dichotomy is an illusion", option in the poll because you're a priori accepting that there will be disagreements on it. The title itself starts presumptive of the terminology being relative. Putting it as an explicit option just legitimizes it as the main narrative. Everyone else starts with an impossible to defend position.
It pre-determines the topic. Just keep that in mind for future reference because it's a common rhetorical exploitation used to manipulate debatebros.

[Umeria]

Ok whatever is going on ^above, but OP you can't put this: "None of these because the left/right dichotomy is an illusion", option in the poll because you're a priori accepting that there will be disagreements on it. The title itself starts presumptive of the terminology being relative. Putting it as an explicit option just legitimizes it as the main narrative. Everyone else starts with an impossible to defend position.
It pre-determines the topic. Just keep that in mind for future reference because it's a common rhetorical exploitation used to manipulate debatebros.

Not impossible to defend. Allowing some people to say that they don't believe in left v right does not make it impossible for those who do to explain their position.

[Diarcesia]

Ok whatever is going on ^above, but OP you can't put this: "None of these because the left/right dichotomy is an illusion", option in the poll because you're a priori accepting that there will be disagreements on it. The title itself starts presumptive of the terminology being relative. Putting it as an explicit option just legitimizes it as the main narrative. Everyone else starts with an impossible to defend position.
It pre-determines the topic. Just keep that in mind for future reference because it's a common rhetorical exploitation used to manipulate debatebros.

Saying that qualifying ideologies as "right" or "left" wing is an illusion is valid.

If a time traveler moves a chair, we might be talking about "up" or down"/"orange" or "gray" ideologies. Also analogous are maps where south is up.

[Crimson Tree]

There's also no "other" option
Or "nothing because idgaf"

Uh, not saying idgaf, I'm just trying to be facetious

[Alcala-Cordel]

There is nothing leftist about fascism. To suggest that it is, is nothing short of delusions.

And ignoring the historical facts and the quotes of the men that constructed the ideology in the first place, in order to preserve your precious Socialism isn't?

"No, don't look behind the curtain, there's nothing there. No, ignore that man behind the curtain."

As far as I care, I've branded them all as the same twisted evil ideology, and say that they can all go to hell and burn. If anything, I hope they do, heck, I'll help send them to hell myself if it's at all possible.

It might be a good idea to learn the very basics about things before you criticize them, but I can't exactly stop you.

[Shermania]

The true left is the centre-left found in social democracy in the social liberal system. The rest are all right-wing in my eyes.

(Image)

Remind me to never get into a car with you as the driver.

[The Blaatschapen]

True left wing punishes capitalists with capital punishment.

[Rusozak]

Left is a point of view, Anakin.

[Stylan]

The left refers to the left-wing of capitalism as well as non-Marxian socialists - so that means social democracy, utopian socialism, etc.

[Shermania]

True left wing punishes capitalists with capital punishment.

What a capital idea!

[Bovad]

The left refers to the left-wing of capitalism as well as non-Marxian socialists - so that means social democracy, utopian socialism, etc.

This is not even remotley correct.

[El Lazaro]

The left refers to the left-wing of capitalism as well as non-Marxian socialists - so that means social democracy, utopian socialism, etc.

This is not even remotley correct.

Astronomically hot take: Marxism is a right-wing conspiracy. I will not elaborate.

[Kasase]

Anarchism doesn't really follow the left right dichotomy at all, it is... extreme libertarianism, but libertarianism does not follow standard left right classification anarchism is simply no government, and cannot be fit into either left or right, unless you do anarcho-socialism and all it's sub-variants, so it really can't be classified as left wing. if you use the political compass then you get anarchism has being the most extreme form of pure libertarianism, not left or right.
that's just my opinion on if anarchism is left-wing.

liberalism is within the centrist range and despite leaning let a bit is not left wing. fascism is too far right culturally to come close to begin leftist in the dichotomy, although I would say it barely leans right despite it having some leftist economics, due to it not following the strictly more socialist economic models that are considered leftism by those who use the dichotomy it isn't leftist.

[Sauros]

Fascism isn't even leftist; it was produced out of Mussolini's falling-out with the left-wing in Italian politics.
Have all these people really bought into that s****y "history" book that came out in '08? The one that several top experts specializing in studies of fascism publicly criticized?

[Haganham]

Fascism isn't even leftist; it was produced out of Mussolini's falling-out with the left-wing in Italian politics.
Have all these people really bought into that s****y "history" book that came out in '08? The one that several top experts specializing in studies of fascism publicly criticized?

Thing is fascism is opposed to capitalism, and the degree of opposition to capitalism is, according to most people who describe themselves as leftist, the benchmark of leftism.
That does not mean that fascism is leftist, but it does mean that using a position on capitalism as the measurement of leftism is deeply flawed. (this also, even .ore absurdly, applies to feudalism)

But then if you go back to a more originalist conception of leftism, opposition to hierarchy, you get another problem.
Societies based on anticapitalistic "leftist" platforms are often the most hierarchal in the world today, even more so then corrupt "capitalist" systems like we have in the US, and the less corrupt a capitalist system becomes, the less hierarchal it is, as you can see fro econ freedom indexes.
So is capitalism more left wing then it's ostensibly leftist alternatives?

[El Lazaro]

Fascism isn't even leftist; it was produced out of Mussolini's falling-out with the left-wing in Italian politics.
Have all these people really bought into that s****y "history" book that came out in '08? The one that several top experts specializing in studies of fascism publicly criticized?

Thing is fascism is opposed to capitalism, which, according to the definition used by most people who describe themselves as leftism is the benchmark of leftism.
That does not mean that fascism is leftist, but it does mean that using a position on capitalism as the measurement of leftism is deeply flawed. (this also, even ore absurdly, applies to feudalism)

But then if you go back to a more originalist conception of leftism, opposition to hierarchy, you get another problem.
Societies based on anticapitalistic "leftist" platforms are often the most hierarchal, even more so then corrupt capitalist systems like we have in the US, and the less corrupt a capitalist system becomes, the less hierarchal it is. So is capitalism more left wing then traditionally leftist alternatives?

Yes, many leftist revolutions have been dishonest/hypocritical, and ultimately terrible at realizing any of their goals. Next question?

[Shermania]

Fascism isn't even leftist; it was produced out of Mussolini's falling-out with the left-wing in Italian politics.
Have all these people really bought into that s****y "history" book that came out in '08? The one that several top experts specializing in studies of fascism publicly criticized?

Thing is fascism is opposed to capitalism, which, according to the definition used by most people who describe themselves as leftism is the benchmark of leftism.
That does not mean that fascism is leftist, but it does mean that using a position on capitalism as the measurement of leftism is deeply flawed. (this also, even ore absurdly, applies to feudalism)

But then if you go back to a more originalist conception of leftism, opposition to hierarchy, you get another problem.
Societies based on anticapitalistic "leftist" platforms are often the most hierarchal, even more so then corrupt capitalist systems like we have in the US, and the less corrupt a capitalist system becomes, the less hierarchal it is. So is capitalism more left wing then traditionally leftist alternatives?

I'm not sure where you get the idea that fascism is opposed to capitalism. There tends to be a lot of cronyism under fascism, but that's hardly the opposite of capitalism, and generally private industry does pretty well in fascistic regimes.

[Page]

Fascism isn't even leftist; it was produced out of Mussolini's falling-out with the left-wing in Italian politics.
Have all these people really bought into that s****y "history" book that came out in '08? The one that several top experts specializing in studies of fascism publicly criticized?

Thing is fascism is opposed to capitalism, and the degree of opposition to capitalism is, according to most people who describe themselves as leftist, the benchmark of leftism.
That does not mean that fascism is leftist, but it does mean that using a position on capitalism as the measurement of leftism is deeply flawed. (this also, even .ore absurdly, applies to feudalism)

But then if you go back to a more originalist conception of leftism, opposition to hierarchy, you get another problem.
Societies based on anticapitalistic "leftist" platforms are often the most hierarchal in the world today, even more so then corrupt "capitalist" systems like we have in the US, and the less corrupt a capitalist system becomes, the less hierarchal it is, as you can see fro econ freedom indexes.
So is capitalism more left wing then it's ostensibly leftist alternatives?

Fascist opposition to capitalism stems from an entirely different place than leftist opposition. The leftist position is that the surplus value produced by workers is stolen by the ruling class, and therefore the working class should organize and rightfully seize the means of production. The fascist position is that all things must serve the state, and therefore the owning class should not be allowed to profit from business that is detrimental to or not beneficial to the state. But fascists are totally okay with the surplus value of labor being stolen from workers.

Fascism opposes capitalism like ISIS opposes al-Queda; there is a context that cannot be left out.

[Nilokeras]

But then if you go back to a more originalist conception of leftism, opposition to hierarchy, you get another problem.

Your brain on US politics, folks - it makes you come up with totally nonsensical ideas like 'originalist' conceptions of 'leftism'.

If you asked the 'left' of the French revolutionaries if they opposed hierarchy they would look at you like you had sprouted a second head. They didn't see their politics in terms of hierarchy because that wasn't a lens that they used to examine society. If you asked people like Lafayette, their goal was to rationalize the political order to reflect natural hierarchies and remove arbitrary and backwards political structures, not abolish them entirely.

[Haganham]

Thing is fascism is opposed to capitalism, which, according to the definition used by most people who describe themselves as leftism is the benchmark of leftism.
That does not mean that fascism is leftist, but it does mean that using a position on capitalism as the measurement of leftism is deeply flawed. (this also, even ore absurdly, applies to feudalism)

But then if you go back to a more originalist conception of leftism, opposition to hierarchy, you get another problem.
Societies based on anticapitalistic "leftist" platforms are often the most hierarchal, even more so then corrupt capitalist systems like we have in the US, and the less corrupt a capitalist system becomes, the less hierarchal it is. So is capitalism more left wing then traditionally leftist alternatives?

I'm not sure where you get the idea that fascism is opposed to capitalism. There tends to be a lot of cronyism under fascism, but that's hardly the opposite of capitalism, and generally private industry does pretty well in fascistic regimes.

Fascism is, famously, the "third position" Which rejects both Capitalism and Marxism. Private industry does well under fascism not because fascists are unopposed to capitalism, but because fascists permit private industry, and give it monopolistic and coercive power, in exchange for it's furtherance of the states interests.

Fashism rejects the core characteristics of capitalism; Private property rights, competitive markets, voluntary exchange, and wage labor. Instead they advocate economic nationalism, state managed economies, public private partnership, and property and labor seizure under national interest.

Ultimately fascism is opposed to to capitalism because it rejects the idea that individuals have rights that supersede the power of the state to manage industry in the national interest. Businesses are not something owned by private parties for their own profit, but managed by them, their ownership subject to their furtherance of the state's interests, in return for which they are given coercive power.

[Haganham]

Fascist opposition to capitalism stems from an entirely different place than leftist opposition.

When you define leftism as

To be left-wing, one must at minimum believe that capitalism ought to cease to exist.

that nuance is lost. Leftist opposition to capitalism becomes a tautology
Per your definition fascism is left wing.

[Risottia]

Thing is fascism is opposed to capitalism

Sure.
Did Mussolini or Hitler abolish the private property of the means of mass production? Or stock exchange markets? Or banks?
Hell no.

[Emotional Support Crocodile]

The main unifying feature of the political left, is a fondness for berets.

[Czardas]

The left is a priori:

• revolutionary (as opposed to reformist)—tears down existing systems, rather than perpetuates them
• materialist (as opposed to idealist)—focuses on reality as it exists, rather than reality as it "should" be
• progressive (as opposed to reactionary)—an agent of change, rather than a force that reacts to change
• radical (as opposed to superficial)—centered on the base of society, rather than its superstructure
• proletarian (as opposed to bourgeois)—for the benefit of the workers, rather than the bosses

The various intra-left arguments focus on a few other divisions not addressed here: the merits of various theories of labour and value; internationalism vs. "socialism in one country"; vanguardism vs. mass line; what type of organisation should be the basis for establishing dual power; who said what about which party cadre in 1954; and, sometimes, whether any of these categories are even real. Practically the only points of agreement are:

• All of "the left" agrees that fascism is not leftist. Fascists will also probably beat you up if you call them leftists. The claim that fascism is left largely comes from a population of centrists who are, themselves, otherwise indistinguishable from fascists (fishhook theory real)
• All of "the left" agrees that capitalism is bad. We can't quite call the left anticapitalist simply because there are a variety of social democratic parties, mostly in Latin America, who argue that the form of capitalism they installed/wish to install is genuinely revolutionary and represents a progressive force towards socialism. The merits of this point of view are debated extensively.
• No one on "the left" really cares that much about the French Revolution, apart from this one girl I know who I put up with mostly because she's hot and smarter than me
• No one on "the left" likes the US Democratic Party, or any of its "center-left" counterparts in first-world countries. Not that very many other people do either, admittedly
• Most people on "the left" do not consider the term leftist to be descriptive enough, preferring the terms socialist/communist/anarchist, as appropriate

The short version of this post is that it depends on the context, but in most contexts (outside terms like, as above, "center-left", or "left wing of capital" etc) it's easy to identify if one accepts that set of binaries as valid, and if not, maybe the real left was the friends we made along the way or something.

[Najairadarethu]

There are dozens of political theories and position associated with the left, and you won't be able to sharply define a concept that has been established as a quite fuzzy one for more than a century. Whenever you try to come up with some clear-cut definition, others will object for very good reasons and you'll be back to square one.

Czardas outlined a few basic concepts all leftists might have in common, but I'm not even sure; perhaps it’s more a matter of non-overlapping overlaps between the various left-wing traditions, i.e., all pairs of any two leftist theories or traditions have something in common, but not necessarily the same thing with any random third theory or tradition.

However, many leftists seem to share certain psychological patterns. They have a penchant for emancipation, whether their own or that of others, especially if they can make out any sign of "oppression"; they have an urge to seek the moral high ground; they mostly think they are usually morally and factually in the right, because they base their opinions on the right beliefs and therefore do not need detailed knowledge or understanding of the things they are judging. The moral high ground often serves as a compensation for inferiority in other respects, such as power, economic resources or any other form of capital in the broadest sense.