Left wing VS Right wing is a matter of economics, not morals. Communism is not a moral system. If an ideology is anti-capitalist then it is left wing. Authoritarianism can be left wing.
You can say authoritarianism stands in the way of progress, yet the USSR went from a country of peasants, to exploring space and going toe to toe with the strongest capitalist nation in history. I would consider that tremendous progress. That doesn’t mean the USSR was perfect, nor does it excuse the authoritarianism, but it doesn’t align with your perception of “regression”.
Communists oppose liberals because liberals are capitalists. Commies watched liberals create the most powerful racist colonial machine in human history. I don’t think there’s any envy of “personal freedom” here.
This is reductionist. Left vs Right is about societal organisation. Right wing politics believes hierarchies are natural, necessary, or both, and trying to tamper with them is bad. Left wing politics believes hierarchies are unjust or bad for human flourishing, and they should be removed. Reducing it to only one hierarchy, capitalism, leaves the door open for bad actors. A monarchist can be anti-capitalist without being left-wing.
Hierarchies are created by resource ownership. Capitalism is the current system of resource ownership. The disconnect here is coming from you thinking in the abstract, while communist perspectives are rooted in material analysis of the current world we live in.
Your proposal seems to be that we should replace the current hierarchical mode of resource ownership(capitalism) with another hierarchical mode of resource ownership(a state). This seems to not resolve the issue of hierarchies, only of the current hierarchy.
If you have even a cursory understanding of socialism/communism you understand that the end goal is a stateless/classless society. Socialism is merely the process where the resources are stripped from the wealthy and redistributed.
A hierarchy is immoral when it is triangular. That means the wealthy are a small few at the top, controlling the masses. When socialism creates a proletarian dictatorship, it flips the triangle upside down, where the masses are controlling the once powerful elites. I personally don’t have any moral objections to the masses having this power, but for those that do, they can rest assured that the end goal is for no hierarchy to exist in the end.
The anarchist method is a fantasy because it relies on a magic wand being waived where suddenly we are stateless and classless. Socialism is a scientific process and it takes time.
right, this was obviously why the soviets had to be abolished, they consisted purely of the elites. It is also why Makhnovist Ukraine had to be destroyed, because of it’s bourgeois stateness, and why so many stateless societies came from the communist revolutions, as opposed to the anarchist ones like in Rojava, which all failed. Obviously.
Nope, leftism really does start with anti-capitalism. The depravity and immorality is baked into the system of capitalism, so morality is an important aspect in these discussions, but it’s really all about money at the end of the day. The hierarchies you’re referencing that existed before capitalism were still a result of wealth hoarding, and those that opposed these hierarchies were against the mass hoarding of wealth. Does that sound familiar? It should…
Ah yes the long term damages of Eurocommunism. The reason Europeans still get to enjoy free healthcare and stronger employee rights to this day. Terrifying.
Leftism starts with anti-authority and democracy, y’know with the left originating from those opposed to greater monarchical powers in the French government.
Left/Right is intrinsically linked to social issues, not simply economics.
Left/Right is linked to social issues, because those social issues are impacted by economics. Economics always comes first my friend.
The notion that “leftism starts with anti-authority and democracy” is not really a sentiment that is supported by academic works in any capacity. It doesn’t even hold up to extremely simple scrutiny. There are plenty of conservative democracies across the world.
Economics predates capitalism. I’m not only talking about the current economic system. Regardless of our primitive past, economics is here to stay and is integral to political analysis.
Only direct democracy can bring that.
Correct, you can’t have political democracy without economic democracy, hence: communism.
Authority comes from ownership of resources. Sound familiar?
Direct democracy does not require an economic system to exist.
That’s correct, but economics DO exist and must be manipulated in order to become stateless. You can’t just waive a magic wand and create a society. It has to come from what is materially present.
Anarchists have never achieved the notion you’re putting forward. It’s never been done. Socialists/communists have had real success.
Left wing VS Right wing is a matter of economics, not morals. Communism is not a moral system. If an ideology is anti-capitalist then it is left wing. Authoritarianism can be left wing.
You can say authoritarianism stands in the way of progress, yet the USSR went from a country of peasants, to exploring space and going toe to toe with the strongest capitalist nation in history. I would consider that tremendous progress. That doesn’t mean the USSR was perfect, nor does it excuse the authoritarianism, but it doesn’t align with your perception of “regression”.
Communists oppose liberals because liberals are capitalists. Commies watched liberals create the most powerful racist colonial machine in human history. I don’t think there’s any envy of “personal freedom” here.
This is reductionist. Left vs Right is about societal organisation. Right wing politics believes hierarchies are natural, necessary, or both, and trying to tamper with them is bad. Left wing politics believes hierarchies are unjust or bad for human flourishing, and they should be removed. Reducing it to only one hierarchy, capitalism, leaves the door open for bad actors. A monarchist can be anti-capitalist without being left-wing.
Hierarchies are created by resource ownership. Capitalism is the current system of resource ownership. The disconnect here is coming from you thinking in the abstract, while communist perspectives are rooted in material analysis of the current world we live in.
Your proposal seems to be that we should replace the current hierarchical mode of resource ownership(capitalism) with another hierarchical mode of resource ownership(a state). This seems to not resolve the issue of hierarchies, only of the current hierarchy.
If you have even a cursory understanding of socialism/communism you understand that the end goal is a stateless/classless society. Socialism is merely the process where the resources are stripped from the wealthy and redistributed.
A hierarchy is immoral when it is triangular. That means the wealthy are a small few at the top, controlling the masses. When socialism creates a proletarian dictatorship, it flips the triangle upside down, where the masses are controlling the once powerful elites. I personally don’t have any moral objections to the masses having this power, but for those that do, they can rest assured that the end goal is for no hierarchy to exist in the end.
The anarchist method is a fantasy because it relies on a magic wand being waived where suddenly we are stateless and classless. Socialism is a scientific process and it takes time.
right, this was obviously why the soviets had to be abolished, they consisted purely of the elites. It is also why Makhnovist Ukraine had to be destroyed, because of it’s bourgeois stateness, and why so many stateless societies came from the communist revolutions, as opposed to the anarchist ones like in Rojava, which all failed. Obviously.
Removed by mod
It’s a basic fact. If you are pro-capitalism but also pro-gay you are still right wing. This is just politics 101…
deleted by creator
Nope, leftism really does start with anti-capitalism. The depravity and immorality is baked into the system of capitalism, so morality is an important aspect in these discussions, but it’s really all about money at the end of the day. The hierarchies you’re referencing that existed before capitalism were still a result of wealth hoarding, and those that opposed these hierarchies were against the mass hoarding of wealth. Does that sound familiar? It should…
Ah yes the long term damages of Eurocommunism. The reason Europeans still get to enjoy free healthcare and stronger employee rights to this day. Terrifying.
Edit: lmao they deleted their comment 🤣
Leftism starts with anti-authority and democracy, y’know with the left originating from those opposed to greater monarchical powers in the French government.
Left/Right is intrinsically linked to social issues, not simply economics.
Left/Right is linked to social issues, because those social issues are impacted by economics. Economics always comes first my friend.
The notion that “leftism starts with anti-authority and democracy” is not really a sentiment that is supported by academic works in any capacity. It doesn’t even hold up to extremely simple scrutiny. There are plenty of conservative democracies across the world.
Authority predates economics. Authority is the root of all problems, economics in a capitalist sense are designed to maintain a hold on power.
Representative “Democracies” as they exist today are not anti-authority or even really a democracy. Only direct democracy can bring that.
Economics predates capitalism. I’m not only talking about the current economic system. Regardless of our primitive past, economics is here to stay and is integral to political analysis.
Correct, you can’t have political democracy without economic democracy, hence: communism.
And economics does not predate authority. Which was my claim, not capitalism or any other system of economics.
Direct democracy does not require an economic system to exist. Democracy is something we can employ from the grass-roots, hence anarchism.
Authority comes from ownership of resources. Sound familiar?
That’s correct, but economics DO exist and must be manipulated in order to become stateless. You can’t just waive a magic wand and create a society. It has to come from what is materially present.
Anarchists have never achieved the notion you’re putting forward. It’s never been done. Socialists/communists have had real success.