What qualifies as "left wing"?

[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.

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

Stalinism was put into praxis by Mao and Hoxha in the name of "anti-revisionism" and it shows. It is merely an "unofficial" ideology in the sense of it was not intentionally made by the person in question, but its followers and disciples followed their ideas, making it an ideology. Stalinism is the ideology, the plans, and the worldviews of Stalin.

[Laasmistan]

Social democracy and everything left of it I'd say.

[Technoscience Leftwing]

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.

Stalinism exists, and Trotsky's The Revolution Betrayed details how it differs from Leninism in practical politics:
* Instead of a world revolution, the idea of ​​a powerful superpower comes to the fore. Those tsars and emperors are being rehabilitated that contributed to the centralization and strengthening of the state apparatus, and many tsarist commanders are being rehabilitated, including those who participated in the suppression of popular uprisings (like Suvorov). Against cosmopolitanism, the idea of ​​patriotism is put forward, and even the superiority of everything domestic over everything foreign.
* In family policy, there is a revenge of traditionalism: maintaining the authority of parents against criticism from young people, the ban on abortion and divorce, Victorian abstinence, encouraging large families, separate education in schools. Atheistic propaganda is curtailed, the state becomes somewhat friendlier to the church.
* Xenophobia manifests itself in suspicion of foreigners and national minorities: if under Lenin a foreign communist was perceived as a brother, then under Stalin he begins to be perceived as a spy; natives of peoples oppressed under tsarism are beginning to be replaced in the bureaucratic apparatus by Great Russians from the countryside, and this policy is encouraged from the very top.

This is recognized not only by critics of Stalinism, but often by the supporters of the Stalinist parties themselves, and this is precisely what attracts many in Russia to the Stalinist parties (“Lenin and Trotsky were emigrants and cosmopolitans, and Stalin is an etatist and patriot, and this is his advantage”) . For the same reason, the Stalinist parties easily became allies of the ultrapatriotic parties in the 1990s, and today many of their activists have adopted positions of defencism, social chauvinism, statism (even the statism to the bourgeois state with tsarist sympathies). Although there are also left-wing Stalinists, supporters of modernity and emancipation, and they try to dissociate themselves from these brown defects, they are a minority.

[Johill]

Leftism, I feel like, is an umbrella term that boils down to several key points: the structure of societal hierarchies and order, a distrust of free markets and libertarianism, a favourable impression of the utility of Government, a unique interpretation of history that involves focusing [primarily] on power, oppression, and human relationships, a general reformist or revolutionary view of contemporary society, a general distrust or distaste of orthodox religion, an attraction towards collectivism, and the belief that society ought to work towards equitable outcomes for all rather than equality of opportunity. Moreover, leftism seems to be broken into different categories: economic leftism, social leftism, religious leftism, cultural leftism, academic leftism, political leftism, and extreme leftism.

So then, what ideologies fit into those categories:
Extreme Western Liberalism (modern day only);
Communism, Marxism, Leninism, Maoism, etc;
Socialism;
Multiculturalism;
Fascism;
and others.

Thus, my definition of general leftism is as follows:

Leftism is the belief that history has been, primarily, a story of oppression by colonial powers, a belief that society is inherently a patriarchal, white institution, a belief that religion negatively effects individuals more than it benefits them, a belief that corporations and businesses have little morality and are eager to exploit the working class (a distrust of capitalism and free market economies), the belief that the marginalised and minority groups in society require protection through legislation and that and the belief that society ought to aim for a world of equitable outcome rather than of equality of opportunity.

Some may argue that Fascism doesn't fit into that definition. To that, I say: wrong.

Fascist speakers and leaders (such as Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo) all espoused the same ideas: a distrust of free markets, an attraction towards collectivism, a favourable impression of the utility of Government, the belief that the peoples of Europe and Asia were oppressed by foreign powers (European or Jews, it doesn't matter), and a revolutionary view of society.

When fascism was implemented in Germany, Italy, and, to a lesser extent, Japan, what happened:
Massive expansion of Government;
Effective State Control of the Market;
Imperialist policies disguised under liberation or revenge on foreign oppressors;
A restructure of societal hierarchies.


If that isn't fascism, then I don't know my left from my right.

[Free Logathia]

I'd say that anything to the left of social democracy easily counts as left-wing (social democracy itself is a grey area in my opinion, I'd say it depends). Regretably that does include Stalinists, Maoists etc, because they at least claim to aspire towards communism in some form, so I'd say that they count as "left-wing" also, despite the totalitarian tendencies of those ideologies.

[Zanderlock]

The "Left Wing" is a fixed piece of metal to the west side of an aircraft that is ESSENTIAL for the aircraft to maintain flight. I hope this clears it up

[Juansonia]

The "Left Wing" is a fixed piece of metal to the west side of an aircraft that is ESSENTIAL for the aircraft to maintain flight. I hope this clears it up

Helicopters can fly without left wings. Checkmate, Communists!

[Laasmistan]

I'd say that anything to the left of social democracy easily counts as left-wing (social democracy itself is a grey area in my opinion, I'd say it depends). Regretably that does include Stalinists, Maoists etc, because they at least claim to aspire towards communism in some form, so I'd say that they count as "left-wing" also, despite the totalitarian tendencies of those ideologies.

I'd say social democracy definitely counts. It's still left-leaning, even if not necessarily on the socialist and/or communist left.

[Pirusavia]

The "Left Wing" is a fixed piece of metal to the west side of an aircraft that is ESSENTIAL for the aircraft to maintain flight. I hope this clears it up

Helicopters can fly without left wings. Checkmate, Communists!

Neither with right wing, this is clearly centrist propaganda

[Concejos Unidos]

Leftism, I feel like, is an umbrella term that boils down to several key points: the structure of societal hierarchies and order, a distrust of free markets and libertarianism, a favourable impression of the utility of Government, a unique interpretation of history that involves focusing [primarily] on power, oppression, and human relationships, a general reformist or revolutionary view of contemporary society, a general distrust or distaste of orthodox religion, an attraction towards collectivism, and the belief that society ought to work towards equitable outcomes for all rather than equality of opportunity. Moreover, leftism seems to be broken into different categories: economic leftism, social leftism, religious leftism, cultural leftism, academic leftism, political leftism, and extreme leftism.

So then, what ideologies fit into those categories:
Extreme Western Liberalism (modern day only);
Communism, Marxism, Leninism, Maoism, etc;
Socialism;
Multiculturalism;
Fascism;
and others.

Thus, my definition of general leftism is as follows:

Leftism is the belief that history has been, primarily, a story of oppression by colonial powers, a belief that society is inherently a patriarchal, white institution, a belief that religion negatively effects individuals more than it benefits them, a belief that corporations and businesses have little morality and are eager to exploit the working class (a distrust of capitalism and free market economies), the belief that the marginalised and minority groups in society require protection through legislation and that and the belief that society ought to aim for a world of equitable outcome rather than of equality of opportunity.

Some may argue that Fascism doesn't fit into that definition. To that, I say: wrong.

Fascist speakers and leaders (such as Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo) all espoused the same ideas: a distrust of free markets, an attraction towards collectivism, a favourable impression of the utility of Government, the belief that the peoples of Europe and Asia were oppressed by foreign powers (European or Jews, it doesn't matter), and a revolutionary view of society.

When fascism was implemented in Germany, Italy, and, to a lesser extent, Japan, what happened:
Massive expansion of Government;
Effective State Control of the Market;
Imperialist policies disguised under liberation or revenge on foreign oppressors;
A restructure of societal hierarchies.


If that isn't fascism, then I don't know my left from my right.

You take a reductive view. Are Christian socialists, anarchists or communists not on the left, because they have positive views of religion? Are left-anarchists not leftists because they take a dim view of government? Are market socialists not on the left, since they're for markets? How about individualist anarchists and egoists, who are not collectivists by any means?

[Johill]

Leftism, I feel like, is an umbrella term that boils down to several key points: the structure of societal hierarchies and order, a distrust of free markets and libertarianism, a favourable impression of the utility of Government, a unique interpretation of history that involves focusing [primarily] on power, oppression, and human relationships, a general reformist or revolutionary view of contemporary society, a general distrust or distaste of orthodox religion, an attraction towards collectivism, and the belief that society ought to work towards equitable outcomes for all rather than equality of opportunity. Moreover, leftism seems to be broken into different categories: economic leftism, social leftism, religious leftism, cultural leftism, academic leftism, political leftism, and extreme leftism.

So then, what ideologies fit into those categories:
Extreme Western Liberalism (modern day only);
Communism, Marxism, Leninism, Maoism, etc;
Socialism;
Multiculturalism;
Fascism;
and others.

Thus, my definition of general leftism is as follows:

Leftism is the belief that history has been, primarily, a story of oppression by colonial powers, a belief that society is inherently a patriarchal, white institution, a belief that religion negatively effects individuals more than it benefits them, a belief that corporations and businesses have little morality and are eager to exploit the working class (a distrust of capitalism and free market economies), the belief that the marginalised and minority groups in society require protection through legislation and that and the belief that society ought to aim for a world of equitable outcome rather than of equality of opportunity.

Some may argue that Fascism doesn't fit into that definition. To that, I say: wrong.

Fascist speakers and leaders (such as Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo) all espoused the same ideas: a distrust of free markets, an attraction towards collectivism, a favourable impression of the utility of Government, the belief that the peoples of Europe and Asia were oppressed by foreign powers (European or Jews, it doesn't matter), and a revolutionary view of society.

When fascism was implemented in Germany, Italy, and, to a lesser extent, Japan, what happened:
Massive expansion of Government;
Effective State Control of the Market;
Imperialist policies disguised under liberation or revenge on foreign oppressors;
A restructure of societal hierarchies.


If that isn't fascism, then I don't know my left from my right.

You take a reductive view. Are Christian socialists, anarchists or communists not on the left, because they have positive views of religion? Are left-anarchists not leftists because they take a dim view of government? Are market socialists not on the left, since they're for markets? How about individualist anarchists and egoists, who are not collectivists by any means?

If you'd read my post properly, then you'd realise that I didn't even use religion as a category when mentioning fascism. You don't have to have all the categories to qualify as leftist, just some or most of them.

However, your argument for Christian Socialists and Communists make no sense. If they're socialist, they're on the left. Also, communism is, ideally, a world free from religion. Moreover, anarchism is a view on authoritarianism. It's not inherently left or right, since you can be anarcho-capitalist and anarcho-communist.

[Concejos Unidos]

=
If you'd read my post properly, then you'd realise that I didn't even use religion as a category when mentioning fascism. You don't have to have all the categories to qualify as leftist, just some or most of them.

However, your argument for Christian Socialists and Communists make no sense. If they're socialist, they're on the left. Also, communism is, ideally, a world free from religion. Moreover, anarchism is a view on authoritarianism. It's not inherently left or right, since you can be anarcho-capitalist and anarcho-communist.

Definitions of political beliefs, ultimately, are going to be based on the people who espouse them. Your definitions fall apart, because for nearly all of your purported characteristics of leftism, there are self-identified leftists who vehemently reject them. You can say that you don't need to meet all your criteria to be leftist, but your anti-religion criterion makes no sense if there are religious socialists who call themselves leftists, your collectivist criterion makes no sense if there are individualist anarchists who call themselves leftists, your pro-government criterion makes no sense if there are anarchists who call themselves leftists, etc. Your definitions are based more in what seems to be a very skewed view of the left rather than a true understanding of the diverse beliefs on the left.

[Johill]

=
If you'd read my post properly, then you'd realise that I didn't even use religion as a category when mentioning fascism. You don't have to have all the categories to qualify as leftist, just some or most of them.

However, your argument for Christian Socialists and Communists make no sense. If they're socialist, they're on the left. Also, communism is, ideally, a world free from religion. Moreover, anarchism is a view on authoritarianism. It's not inherently left or right, since you can be anarcho-capitalist and anarcho-communist.

Definitions of political beliefs, ultimately, are going to be based on the people who espouse them. Your definitions fall apart, because for nearly all of your purported characteristics of leftism, there are self-identified leftists who vehemently reject them. You can say that you don't need to meet all your criteria to be leftist, but your anti-religion criterion makes no sense if there are religious socialists who call themselves leftists, your collectivist criterion makes no sense if there are individualist anarchists who call themselves leftists, your pro-government criterion makes no sense if there are anarchists who call themselves leftists, etc. Your definitions are based more in what seems to be a very skewed view of the left rather than a true understanding of the diverse beliefs on the left.

Its one thing for someone to 'self-identify' with something, and another to actually be it. I think I remember Hitler calling himself a saviour of the German peoples, only to end up killing heaps of them in a stupid war, hunting down and massacring ethnic minorities who were German citizens, etc. Objective facts always trump subjective opinions.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Definitions of political beliefs, ultimately, are going to be based on the people who espouse them. Your definitions fall apart, because for nearly all of your purported characteristics of leftism, there are self-identified leftists who vehemently reject them. You can say that you don't need to meet all your criteria to be leftist, but your anti-religion criterion makes no sense if there are religious socialists who call themselves leftists, your collectivist criterion makes no sense if there are individualist anarchists who call themselves leftists, your pro-government criterion makes no sense if there are anarchists who call themselves leftists, etc. Your definitions are based more in what seems to be a very skewed view of the left rather than a true understanding of the diverse beliefs on the left.

Its one thing for someone to 'self-identify' with something, and another to actually be it. I think I remember Hitler calling himself a saviour of the German peoples, only to end up killing heaps of them in a stupid war, hunting down and massacring ethnic minorities who were German citizens, etc. Objective facts always trump subjective opinions.

We are living in a vibeocracy and the metavibe does not care about your facts.

[Johill]

Its one thing for someone to 'self-identify' with something, and another to actually be it. I think I remember Hitler calling himself a saviour of the German peoples, only to end up killing heaps of them in a stupid war, hunting down and massacring ethnic minorities who were German citizens, etc. Objective facts always trump subjective opinions.

We are living in a vibeocracy and the metavibe does not care about your facts.

Whine and cry leftist. lol

[Engadine Mcdonalds 1997]

Political ideologies in general are stupid and cringe. No I will not further elaborate.

[Concejos Unidos]

Definitions of political beliefs, ultimately, are going to be based on the people who espouse them. Your definitions fall apart, because for nearly all of your purported characteristics of leftism, there are self-identified leftists who vehemently reject them. You can say that you don't need to meet all your criteria to be leftist, but your anti-religion criterion makes no sense if there are religious socialists who call themselves leftists, your collectivist criterion makes no sense if there are individualist anarchists who call themselves leftists, your pro-government criterion makes no sense if there are anarchists who call themselves leftists, etc. Your definitions are based more in what seems to be a very skewed view of the left rather than a true understanding of the diverse beliefs on the left.

Its one thing for someone to 'self-identify' with something, and another to actually be it. I think I remember Hitler calling himself a saviour of the German peoples, only to end up killing heaps of them in a stupid war, hunting down and massacring ethnic minorities who were German citizens, etc. Objective facts always trump subjective opinions.

Objective facts...like your subjective opinion?

[Johill]

Its one thing for someone to 'self-identify' with something, and another to actually be it. I think I remember Hitler calling himself a saviour of the German peoples, only to end up killing heaps of them in a stupid war, hunting down and massacring ethnic minorities who were German citizens, etc. Objective facts always trump subjective opinions.

Objective facts...like your subjective opinion?

My subjective opinion? Are you kidding me? I stated facts. I didn't rattle on about an opinion (except for my first post which mixed opinion with fact), I merely stated the information that I've gathered through my lifetime and experience, as well as through reading and studying history and/or clinical studies. Why is it that whenever I'm winning an argument, the opposition starts insulting me? Pathetic.

[Picairn]

-snip-

"Fascism is leftism". The same braindead take regurgitated over and over. "Collectivism", "expansion of government", and "control of the market" are not exclusively leftist - right-wing authoritarian dictatorships shared those characteristics, and even liberal democracies for the last two (post-WW2 Keynesian consensus for example). To what degree do these characteristics categorize themselves into left and right wing?

[Concejos Unidos]

Objective facts...like your subjective opinion?

My subjective opinion? Are you kidding me? I stated facts. I didn't rattle on about an opinion (except for my first post which mixed opinion with fact), I merely stated the information that I've gathered through my lifetime and experience, as well as through reading and studying history and/or clinical studies. Why is it that whenever I'm winning an argument, the opposition starts insulting me? Pathetic.

Learning about political science from clinical studies...ok. Dude out here doing RCTs to determine the therapeutic dose of nonsensical definitions of leftism.

[Dumb Ideologies]

I for one am always highly convinced by people who repeatedly state that they're winning the argument, say those who disagree are "crying", that they should be uniquely trusted because they "read" (no details of what they've read, or what they learned from it) and who contend that their personal experience is of a higher objective order than the feelings-based experience of ordinary humans.

Expertise and authentic intellectualism just bleeds through the screen.

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

Leftism, I feel like, is an umbrella term that boils down to several key points: the structure of societal hierarchies and order, a distrust of free markets and libertarianism, a favourable impression of the utility of Government, a unique interpretation of history that involves focusing [primarily] on power, oppression, and human relationships, a general reformist or revolutionary view of contemporary society, a general distrust or distaste of orthodox religion, an attraction towards collectivism, and the belief that society ought to work towards equitable outcomes for all rather than equality of opportunity. Moreover, leftism seems to be broken into different categories: economic leftism, social leftism, religious leftism, cultural leftism, academic leftism, political leftism, and extreme leftism.

So then, what ideologies fit into those categories:
Extreme Western Liberalism (modern day only);
Communism, Marxism, Leninism, Maoism, etc;
Socialism;
Multiculturalism;
Fascism;
and others.

Thus, my definition of general leftism is as follows:

Leftism is the belief that history has been, primarily, a story of oppression by colonial powers, a belief that society is inherently a patriarchal, white institution, a belief that religion negatively effects individuals more than it benefits them, a belief that corporations and businesses have little morality and are eager to exploit the working class (a distrust of capitalism and free market economies), the belief that the marginalised and minority groups in society require protection through legislation and that and the belief that society ought to aim for a world of equitable outcome rather than of equality of opportunity.

Some may argue that Fascism doesn't fit into that definition. To that, I say: wrong.

Fascist speakers and leaders (such as Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo) all espoused the same ideas: a distrust of free markets, an attraction towards collectivism, a favourable impression of the utility of Government, the belief that the peoples of Europe and Asia were oppressed by foreign powers (European or Jews, it doesn't matter), and a revolutionary view of society.

When fascism was implemented in Germany, Italy, and, to a lesser extent, Japan, what happened:
Massive expansion of Government;
Effective State Control of the Market;
Imperialist policies disguised under liberation or revenge on foreign oppressors;
A restructure of societal hierarchies.


If that isn't fascism, then I don't know my left from my right.

breaking: anarchocommunists, zapatists, free market socialists, conservative socialists not leftist, neoliberals, paleocons leftist according to forum poster

[Heloin]

If that isn't fascism, then I don't know my left from my right.

You don’t seem to know a lot about anything so yes, I’d get a second opinion if you gave me simple directions down the street.

[Kubra]

Leftism, I feel like, is an umbrella term that boils down to several key points: the structure of societal hierarchies and order, a distrust of free markets and libertarianism, a favourable impression of the utility of Government, a unique interpretation of history that involves focusing [primarily] on power, oppression, and human relationships, a general reformist or revolutionary view of contemporary society, a general distrust or distaste of orthodox religion, an attraction towards collectivism, and the belief that society ought to work towards equitable outcomes for all rather than equality of opportunity. Moreover, leftism seems to be broken into different categories: economic leftism, social leftism, religious leftism, cultural leftism, academic leftism, political leftism, and extreme leftism.

So then, what ideologies fit into those categories:
Extreme Western Liberalism (modern day only);
Communism, Marxism, Leninism, Maoism, etc;
Socialism;
Multiculturalism;
Fascism;
and others.

Thus, my definition of general leftism is as follows:

Leftism is the belief that history has been, primarily, a story of oppression by colonial powers, a belief that society is inherently a patriarchal, white institution, a belief that religion negatively effects individuals more than it benefits them, a belief that corporations and businesses have little morality and are eager to exploit the working class (a distrust of capitalism and free market economies), the belief that the marginalised and minority groups in society require protection through legislation and that and the belief that society ought to aim for a world of equitable outcome rather than of equality of opportunity.

Some may argue that Fascism doesn't fit into that definition. To that, I say: wrong.

Fascist speakers and leaders (such as Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo) all espoused the same ideas: a distrust of free markets, an attraction towards collectivism, a favourable impression of the utility of Government, the belief that the peoples of Europe and Asia were oppressed by foreign powers (European or Jews, it doesn't matter), and a revolutionary view of society.

When fascism was implemented in Germany, Italy, and, to a lesser extent, Japan, what happened:
Massive expansion of Government;
Effective State Control of the Market;
Imperialist policies disguised under liberation or revenge on foreign oppressors;
A restructure of societal hierarchies.


If that isn't fascism, then I don't know my left from my right.

The funny part is you nearly wholesale dispensed with *your own* given definition in order to make this latter distinction, and did so largely by constructing a new mostly unrelated one.

[Technoscience Leftwing]

Leftism, I feel like, is an umbrella term that boils down to several key points: the structure of societal hierarchies and order, a distrust of free markets and libertarianism, a favourable impression of the utility of Government, a unique interpretation of history that involves focusing [primarily] on power, oppression, and human relationships, a general reformist or revolutionary view of contemporary society, a general distrust or distaste of orthodox religion, an attraction towards collectivism, and the belief that society ought to work towards equitable outcomes for all rather than equality of opportunity. Moreover, leftism seems to be broken into different categories: economic leftism, social leftism, religious leftism, cultural leftism, academic leftism, political leftism, and extreme leftism.

So then, what ideologies fit into those categories:
Extreme Western Liberalism (modern day only);
Communism, Marxism, Leninism, Maoism, etc;
Socialism;
Multiculturalism;
Fascism;
and others.

Thus, my definition of general leftism is as follows:

Leftism is the belief that history has been, primarily, a story of oppression by colonial powers, a belief that society is inherently a patriarchal, white institution, a belief that religion negatively effects individuals more than it benefits them, a belief that corporations and businesses have little morality and are eager to exploit the working class (a distrust of capitalism and free market economies), the belief that the marginalised and minority groups in society require protection through legislation and that and the belief that society ought to aim for a world of equitable outcome rather than of equality of opportunity.

Some may argue that Fascism doesn't fit into that definition. To that, I say: wrong.

Fascist speakers and leaders (such as Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo) all espoused the same ideas: a distrust of free markets, an attraction towards collectivism, a favourable impression of the utility of Government, the belief that the peoples of Europe and Asia were oppressed by foreign powers (European or Jews, it doesn't matter), and a revolutionary view of society.

When fascism was implemented in Germany, Italy, and, to a lesser extent, Japan, what happened:
Massive expansion of Government;
Effective State Control of the Market;
Imperialist policies disguised under liberation or revenge on foreign oppressors;
A restructure of societal hierarchies.


If that isn't fascism, then I don't know my left from my right.

The main difference is that the left stands for the happiness of the majority, and the right (including the fascists) for the happiness of a small elite, to the detriment of the happiness of the majority.

For the right, the idea itself is a dream of hierarchy, a caste order according to Nietzsche. The victory of his nation or country over the whole world does not at all imply for the fascist the assimilation of the conquered nations into the victorious nation on equal terms. Some of the conquered ethnic groups are destroyed, others are reduced to slaves, others to "little brothers" in the empire, but the hierarchy is preserved. It is the same with classes - "the unity of the nation" does not at all mean for the fascist the abolition of the division into owners and workers, commanders and executors. The unity for him lies in the fact that workers and performers meekly obey the bosses, just as the legs obey the head in a single organism.

The Left has a vision of a society without dominant and oppressed nations and classes. Not "restructuring of hierarchies", but their erasure, through the involvement of all comers in self-government, and through the equal protection of all from poverty through a public ration or allowance (UBI). Not a revenge of weak countries over strong imperialists, but a single planet Earth without countries and nations, inhabited by equal earthlings. At the same time, without barracks depersonalization: with the possibility for a person to choose between different forms of leisure and work, if they do not cause real harm to others.

But at the same time, the dream of the left is faced with the enormous backwardness of the technologies and culture of those societies where the left makes revolutions and comes to power. Therefore, distortions arise: bureaucracy, nationalism, barracks depersonalization. For the left, these are hindrances, troubles, like flies in soup for a cook. And for the right, these flies are much more expensive than the soup itself, for them the hierarchy is valuable in itself, and the regulation of the behavior of the lower classes in favor of the tops of this hierarchy.