What is 'left'?

What is 'left'?

What is 'leftism'? Who 'leftist' is?

Serious answers, plx.

Other urls found in this thread:


Anarchism, Socialism, Communism to put into simple terms.

Fair compensation for work.

a general distinction of people and ideologies that support popular power, the general welfare, individual liberties, collectivism, and communism.

So nazis are leftist?

NazCUCKS more like.


The article: jacobinmag.com/2014/04/capitalism-and-nazism/

so liberalism is leftist?

Does this negate their massive state employment programs and centralized bank?

statism has nothing to do with left/right division, state is only means to an end, not the ultimate goal

moreso than monarchism.
these days though it's not because of it's conflicts with popular power and communism.

Socialism is not when the government does things.

Also, why american left is so often individualistic and liberal?

It used to be in the French Revolution. Now it's the establishment, and the new capitalist ruling class uses it to maintain its power.

because the american left got cucked in the 70s.

I don't see this, oppression of peasants in feudalism was significantly lower than opression of workers in capitalism.

That's why old, reactionary right, before French Revolution, was in fact closer to common goal with new, revolutionary left like anarchists, communists and syndicalists.


because once you taste freedom it's hard to go back

Oppression can be defined in any number of ways. Peasants were slaves. Proletariats are just poor. Peasants had land (until the enclosure movement), Proletariats had nothing. Peasants were literally subject to another kind of law, proles had legal equality.

During the French Revolution, the so-called "left" represented the bourgeois ideology that resulted in the intensification of exploitation and oppression of the majority of society, ordinary peasants and workers.

Also, Leninists appealed to the tradition of the French Revolution, to the club of the Jacobins, not to contemporary communists and the most people's parties, unlike the communist left and anarchists. And their actions, after they created a bureaucratic class, also resulted in an increase of exploitation and oppression.

Anything that's left of center in a society. If you mean far left, anything that's left of center left.

What's center?

To be honest, I don't see American society as free. I would prefer to live in Eastern Europe if it was richer, than in US, because what's happening in US is fucking absurd and people mentality is for me not to comprehend.

The group that desire to abolish the capitalism.

It is a social relationship where someone dictate and control someone else life and labor for his own gains and profits

The link between the 2 here is a Capitalist link, a guy Capitalize on someone else to gain profit
{Markets, government, Banks, Debts etc…} are not capitalism they are just under it's umbrella.

Its relative to the society you're in

Eastern Europe is far more rundown and corrupt than the US

So, is (anarcho)primitivism left?

Is the most extreme reactionary ideologies, as neoluddism, or neofeudalism left?

by all means go join them in the sun in eastern europe

Sounds like socialism to me.

But people are nicer and more helpful to each other, and society is more concertned about common good than individual liberties.

Well that's not true, they're "gangster capitalism" run amok there. There's less solidarity there than in the US in fact. Have you ever actually been to Eastern Europe?

I usually travel to Ukraine, and wish them their economy will be better, and wish they can resist and maintain their lifestyle from cultural colonization. ;_;


common good is a spook

you're spook

Yeh it is leftist position.

Here the state took the place of the capitalizing force, the state capitalized on it's subjects.
Read Pannekoek or any LeftCom for that matter.

your mum's a spook

It's socialism bub.

its crap bub


did workers control the means of production in a democratic fashion? replacing one master with a different master doesn't make it socialism.

I stated my argument already, will you present thesis or just be another meme spouter?
Prove to me that is socialism.

aka tyranny of the majority, but "no masters" right? haha

Is this leftism?

All real world examples of socialism match it, therefore it's socialism. Your "perfect infalliable real in my mind socialism" doesn't exist.

the state =/= the people

the people democratically elected the state

It's still not the people

Yes it is.

democratic elections in Weimar's Republic? :O

No it has authority over the people.

That's socialism for you.

No it isn't.

You keep saying that but it won't make it so.

This argument is filled with so much fallacies i don't know where to start…

1-You agree with my definition of both capitalism, and socialism, you just want to call state capitalism as socialism
2-Following this logic opposing "socialist regimes" is a still leftist position.
3-You say that socialism is as a theory exist independent of these state capitalist regimes.
here you admits that these states are not socialist, and are in fact state capitalist.

Nig How about you grow up and read some real theory?

You are trying to redefine socialism to fit your world view. We've had real world examples of socialism.

Here you are already agreeing to the world view of socialism and that it was not these state capitalist regimes

WOW NIG read logic for dummies or something

Not an argument.

Back at ya bucko.
Not being under tyranny doesn't sound like a type of tyranny but I guess some in the findom bdsm community would consider socialists absolutely abhorrent.

and they suck

You will always be under tyranny of the majority and eventually tyranny of the state. Come home left man, AnCap awaits.


I already archived this thread.

M U H R O A D S !

I hardly see how having all my needs met and being free to pursue my own passions is tyranny, but, if I ever get bored of smoking joints while painting landscapes in between one hour weekly workshifts at the factory (2037 and we still haven't fully automated yet) I'll come spend the majority of my day each day working to create excess that I can buy a fraction of back from the boss while following corporate regulations more restrictive than any law. Sounds good.





tyranny of the majority

that's a nice dream



How is a voluntary act of mutual aid tyranny? It's voluntary.

I joined in late. Are we talking about the USSR? I had just assumed.


That is truly one of the most non argument i have ever seen
Stop living.

They're symbols of a marxist attempt to reach socialism which failed to reach socialism.

completely unrelated, wrong post?


Living in a commune. In a communist society. This is voluntary. It is the choice of each individual there. They could just leave.

The USSR failed because instead of giving the workers the reigns of their own fate and ownership of the means of production, they put them in gulags.


literal non argument, circular logic user.

wow nigga whcha doin?

Each individual there is ruled by tyranny of the majority. They just pray they are part of the majority.

The USSR failed because workers had no incentive to work, aside from not being shot I guess. But fear will only go a certain way.

It's not my fault socialism is a failure. Go blame the socialists.

Only tankies are leftist. Everyone else dies.

You can't even prove it with out accepting my definition to be the correct one.

You are engaging in so many fallacies and making a joke of yourself.

They have absolute individual and collective autonomy. If political power must exist in some form, the options are limited between either a minority or the majority. A voluntary society where a minority who dislikes not having the right to own wage slaves allows these people to go live in the woods.

The USSR I'm fairly sure did not abolish currency. Isn't that supposed to be your great motivator?

what did he mean by this


You were posting hammers and sickles n shit right?

And if the majority of the commune vote to make wage slaves out of the minority of the commune but they did it democratically what's the answer? "You can't do that"?

Currency is not a motivator.

In the attempted creation of a new class society with a new ruling classes they would be treated by the rest of the world as you would expect anybody who attempts to "destroy society and remake it where we're gods and the masses are our slaves!" would be treated. Violently.

So all everyone needs to do is read the theory? This sounds like a genius idea, I don't know why nobody has ever tried it before.

and the outside actors go all the way down I guess huh? So communism only works if you have an outside force willing to commit violence against you if you democratically vote to do something they don't agree to?

that's one hell of an ideology. and that's tyranny.

You don't need to read theory to recognize a portion of a commune going "hey we're going to restructure society and now you all work for us" as an immediate threat.

If by something you don't agree to you mean "conquer and subjugate" sure. It's a tyranny of fighting back against tyranny.

Judging by this thread I could live with that.

Everyone is so obsessed with conquer. Is it a bdsm thing?


it could be any amount of things that trigger outside actors to intervene. the point is your only counter against tyranny from the inside is tyranny from the outside.

it's a lose lose.

And how should we respond to these sorts of threats if not with real self defense?

You're starting to sound like an imperialist now.

It doesn't need to be solely an outside force. The subjugated people themselves would quickly notice their situation, going from members of a commune to employees of a corporation or something like that, and strike back against their new democratically elected ruling class.


and if they didn't?

but they are the majority, they democratically took control

You're presenting me with a question that is essentially, "what if a more than half the world decided to make wage slaves of the other half of the world and they didn't notice or do anything to stop it" so I'd say, they would quickly become a small minority in this impossible to avoid capitalism scenario I'm given. As once the inevitable capitalism begins, the wealth will "trickle up" to a small minority and stay there for generations.

If it's in just one commune then I go back to the other communes intervening. As liberators.

bad fractions

so the prerequisite for communism working is to have it already working somewhere else so it can step in and stop people from voting themselves out of communism?


As well as to be successful, it also needs to be around somewhere to be able to fail.

Again your idea of this inevitable failure is "what if suddenly most of the people just started capitalism up instead and nobody is allowed to do anything to stop them because they don't notice it happened in this scenario" in which case I present the counter point. "they change their minds"

Big government type stuff.

So for example one of the core tenets of Socialism is that the government owns the means of production not private citizens.

We're already living in the capitalism future.

How do we know we are living in capitalism?

Check the cost of a mobile phone or computer. If the common man can afford then you are living in capitalism.

The future hasn't happened yet liberal.


communism was tried back at the cave man stage, we've advanced past that.

Actual Nazis are, Hitlerists arent

Wew lad

Not industrial communism.

tried many times in europe, didn't seem to catch on

Those silly marxists


Post more like that pic
I need phone papes