What qualifies as "left wing"?

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

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.

fascism corrupted capitalism for its own purposes, but given enough time, capitalism would've gradually been replaced with a caste structure, which is the end goal of fascism.

[Urlendia]

It is the wing on a winged animal that is on the left side of its body.

[Urlendia]

It is the wing on a winged animal that is on the left side of its body.

An example

[Nilokeras]

Fascism is, famously, the "third position" Which rejects both Capitalism and Marxism.

'Third position' is a moniker famously only really used after the war as an attempt to launder the reputation of fascism because of all the war and murder.

It's also totally immaterial to the actual practice of fascism, since one of the first things fascists do once in power is sideline their ideologists, with a bullet to the head. The second or concurrent thing they do is reconcile with capital and the conservative order and reassure them that the fascists are no threat.

Fascism in actual practice is the purest, most stripped of artifice expression of imperial capitalism, where the authoritarian state crushes all opposition and provides capital with a steady stream of slave labour and looted material to prop up profits and the national standard of living. This makes complete sense when you consider the natural base of fascism, which is the petit bourgeois shopowner class that depends on cheap materials and cheap labour to thrive, and which very happily also benefits the grand bourgeois magnates as well.

[Kubra]

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.

"Hierarchy? absolutely important! Most importantly, milimetre, centimetre, decametre, kilometre..."
And let's face it, this hierarchy is objectively the most superior hierarchy ever devised.

[Suriyanakhon]

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

fascism corrupted capitalism for its own purposes, but given enough time, capitalism would've gradually been replaced with a caste structure, which is the end goal of fascism.

Notably this is not something that scholars on fascism claim.

[Alcala-Cordel]

Any system that promotes hierarchy is right wing. Capitalism falls under that term, but right wing ideologies don't necessarily have to be capitalist. It is worth noting that fascism does retain many elements of capitalism, though.

To go back to the subject, anti-hierarchical ideologies (Marxism, anarchism, etc.) are left wing.

[Hakinda Herseyi Duymak istiyorum]

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.

I already failed the driver's license exam, why are you making me sad This is exactly how I think of leftist thought. I am in the place I marked on the political compass -3.13 -4.77

[Risottia]

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

fascism corrupted capitalism for its own purposes, but given enough time, capitalism would've gradually been replaced with a caste structure, which is the end goal of fascism.

Fascism was created by capitalists with the explicit purpose of enforcing the social immobility (aka caste system), typical of mature capitalism, against the "risk" of the left wing taking the power either through revolution or through elections.

[Crysuko]

As a card carrying socialist, I will never consider liberals of any kind to be left in any meaningful way. The fact that things such as universal healthcare and human rights are calle Marxist by so many in the US is just sad.

[Nilokeras]

fascism corrupted capitalism for its own purposes, but given enough time, capitalism would've gradually been replaced with a caste structure, which is the end goal of fascism.

Fascism was created by capitalists with the explicit purpose of enforcing the social immobility (aka caste system), typical of mature capitalism, against the "risk" of the left wing taking the power either through revolution or through elections.

I think it's worth highlighting that it's not a conscious caste system though - the aim is not conscious casting of material class distinctions into stone, but the preservation of a particular capitalist mode of production that ends up requiring absolute class immobility as a consequence. It's one of the big internal contradictions within fascism as practiced - a rhetorical national organicism and populism that denies the existence of distinction within nationality that clashes horribly with the need to keep capitalist exploitation running.

[Indiana Controlled Florida]

As a card carrying socialist, I will never consider liberals of any kind to be left in any meaningful way. The fact that things such as universal healthcare and human rights are calle Marxist by so many in the US is just sad.

Who is calling humans rights Marxist? And Universal Healthcare is a leftist policy, however, maybe not Marxist.

[West Islate]

i dislike how libertarianism was originally viewed as a ideology where people emphasized anti authoritarianism and individuality but is now just another fancy term for pro-state capitalist, which contradicts what many aspects that libertarianism originally advocated. so libertarianism will always be a left wing ideology in my perspective

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

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?

I do think it's fair to say that fascism is anticapitalist, but it approaches from the other side, opposing it using a reactionary critique that capitalism undermines traditional hierarchies. And yeah, for states like NK, Vietnam, Laos, etc., it's difficult to say they're on the left. NK is barely paying even just lip service to the left, with its constitutional changes. The rest, depends on whether you take the rhetoric of the state at face value.

[Rakhalia]

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?

I do think it's fair to say that fascism is anticapitalist, but it approaches from the other side, opposing it using a reactionary critique that capitalism undermines traditional hierarchies. And yeah, for states like NK, Vietnam, Laos, etc., it's difficult to say they're on the left. NK is barely paying even just lip service to the left, with its constitutional changes. The rest, depends on whether you take the rhetoric of the state at face value.

Rhetorically, fascism uses anti-capitalism as a tool, that's true -- though this is generally down to the propensity of fascism to pick up socialist-leaning rhetoric, something Parenti touches on in Blackshirts & Reds. But as far as fascism's productive modus operandi goes, it's effectively a deeply socially-regimented capitalism. After all, what makes the fascist firm, the fascist boss, and fascist capital accumulation any less capitalist than how it functions under liberalism? Is it because fascists are nominally meaner and more authoritative in how they go about it? This doesn't seem like a decent enough explanation. Does it dissolve the boss-worker relationship which serves as the fulcrum of all capitalism? Of course not.

So is fascism, in its essence, a capitalist ideology? Certainly.

[Drongonia]

So is fascism, in its essence, a capitalist ideology? Certainly.

Yes, it is. Under most forms of fascism, capitalism would certainly look much different than it does today. For example, the authoritarian state is much more well-placed to stomp on big business for whatever reason, whether that be for the sake of workers or to push an agenda.

But people who say fascism is leftist are just Ampol brainrotted. Okay, most fascist platforms support Universal Healthcare. Big whoop, so does half the world.

[Noob Topia]

The line is so thin between what is left and what is right its easier to just not answer

[Pirusavia]

The desire for equity, justice, and the reasonable balance of opportunities, rights, and duties for all people.

[Pirusavia]

So is fascism, in its essence, a capitalist ideology? Certainly.

Yes, it is. Under most forms of fascism, capitalism would certainly look much different than it does today. For example, the authoritarian state is much more well-placed to stomp on big business for whatever reason, whether that be for the sake of workers or to push an agenda.

But people who say fascism is leftist are just Ampol brainrotted. Okay, most fascist platforms support Universal Healthcare. Big whoop, so does half the world.

The reason why a lot of countries, no matter left nor right, look upon universal healthcare is because it is a populist, catch-all policy. However, its nature of seeking equality to medical access makes it a left-wing populist policy.

If you lead a political party, make universal healthcare the main policy and I guarantee you'd easilly win the elections. We've seen that case with UK Labour winning the post-WWII elections with its NHS program, instead of the Tories who bragged about the glory of the nation.

[Pangurstan]

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.

communism is right-wing under this definition

[The Planet of Marx]

I have chosen the following:
* Social Democracy
* Market Socialism / other non-"full communist" socialism
* Anarchism
* Full Communism / Marxism
These concepts advocate the protection of the poor from the intrigues of the ruling class (from capitalist monopolies and from state dignitaries).

Well, I didn't include others. Fascism does not serve the people, but the magnates of capital like Krupp and Thyssen, so this is an ultra-right ideology. Liberalism is left only in comparison with fascism, and in itself it preaches competition with the ruin of the weakest, at least in Russia, right-wing liberalism during the "shock therapy" of the 1990s was just that. Stalinism clogs the left ideology with right-wing remnants (great-power chauvinism, xenophobia, patriarchy). Libertarianism preaches competition with the survival of the fittest, and does not even try to take into account the interests of the majority of the poor who lost in the competition (unlike leftist anarchism).

Leftism is not an illusion, it is simply multi-vector. It is a commitment to social protection, internationalism, secularism, technological progress, revolution and emancipation.

Stalinism doesn't exist and is merely Marxism-Leninism which by the way was coined by Stalin, and it isn't chauvinistic, xenophobic, or patriarchal.

[Pirusavia]

"Stalinism" refers to the policies that Josef Stalin enacted during his tenure as the Premier of the Soviet Union. It's as simple as that.

[The Planet of Marx]

"Stalinism" refers to the policies that Josef Stalin enacted during his tenure as the Premier of the Soviet Union. It's as simple as that.

Well it's nonsense. Simple as. As much so as Trumpism or Trudeauism.

[Picairn]

Stalinism doesn't exist and is merely Marxism-Leninism which by the way was coined by Stalin, and it isn't chauvinistic, xenophobic, or patriarchal.

Google Stalin's antisemitic "rootless cosmopolitan" campaign.

[Poliski]

What leftism is depends on who is asked and where they draw the line of left and right. Socialists see leftism as the divide between socialism and capitalism. More socially focused people see it as the divide between progressiveness and conservatism. Conservatives see leftism as any change that they disagree with.