Why the fuck is State Capitalism classified as Left-Wing?

Why the fuck is State Capitalism classified as Left-Wing?

Actually the better question to ask is why are Tankies considered Left-Wing?

How can we talk about left and right without bring into play idpol?

I never brought up idpol, I brought up the fact that Capitalism is Capitalism.

The left wing was originally Literally Bourgeois Democrats so clearly these things have a bit more wiggle room than Your Preferred Flavor Of Socialism Only

Left-wing is one of the most meaningless terms out there. I used to see it as synonymous with some vague notion of "progress" but now it's just empty black text. It has so many wildly different connotations for so many people that it's impossible to know what you mean.

The most broad definitions reduce it to "pro-hierarchy" vs "anti-hierarchy". State capitalist seems pretty hierarchical

Because if only left communists are considered left then you've not got many people. Taking it further, if everyone not left is right then you may as well give up now.

Because autists think that there's a difference between "state capitalism" and communism, even though there isn't.
Communism == "state capitalism".

LEFT WING OF CAPITAL

The fact of the matter is, only on Holla Forums is the utterly reductionist dichotomy of "left = anti-capitalism, right = pro-capitalism" valid. Any actually educated individual in the realm of politics, from Zizek to Rancière and to Chomsky, understands that the left and right dichotomy is much more animated than that, and no, it has nothing to do with popular standards like in America where Obama is far left.

Social democrats are, for all intents and purpose, left wing. This is because the left and right divide starts how one approaches the status quo (whether it is pictured as capitalism or not), be it by desiring to reform it to better meet the needs of the disenfranchised (social democracy) or by outright wanting to topple it (communists, anarchists). While still very vulgar, pic related shows how the left-right dichotomy operates. In this way, Stalinists are indeed left wing because even if what they end up creating is capitalism ("state capitalism" is redundant) while calling it socialism, they create it with the intent of serving a common good.

That's a fair assessment to be completely honest, I suppose what perplexes me is the sense that it's in the same realm as Anarcho Craps in that hierarchies are still present.


Pretty much this.


That's disingenuous, Communism as described in the context of Classical Marxism is nothing like State Capitalism at all.

State capitalism isn't 'left-wing' but that doesn't mean tankies aren't left-wing unless they view state capitalism as the end goal.

Can we move beyond the left-right spectrum?

Lel when you get into everything that gets called heirachy that might be the only definition LESS broad than "my branch of socialism is left wing and everyone else is right wing revisionists/opprotunists/red fascists"

A great many branches of communism are nothing like classical Marxism. Marx was a brilliant economist not a prophet from God it's okay to disagree with some of what he said.

Why are socdems left wing? Why are social liberals? The answer is that "left wing" is a very vague term and that literally anyone who pays any attention to social equality as a desirable thing is lumped into the category.

If you think things get less broad when they get less specific, then I think you're just confused. The hierarchal definition is the most broadly-encompassing one as well as the most long-used one.

By broadening what is opposed you narrow what is supported.

The question in OP wasn't framed in terms of support or opposition. There was no moralizing in my response. I just said that hierarchy is a broad axiom to use, and under that one state capitalism falls under the "more hierarchy" side. I have no idea where your contention is.

I find that most of the Marx-worship that gets done in the academy isn't really due to the perfect infallibility of Marx.

It's mainly just that 99.999…% of the people who came afterward (up to and including Engels) were total fuckin units who had no idea what the man was on about, and just used his work as a convenient springboard to talking about their own stupid bullshit.

My contention is that it declares an entirel half of the red/black divide not left wing.

How else do you get to communism?

You can't pre-suppose your axioms and say that my axiom is wrong for disagreeing or resulting in a different conclusion.

A definition of left-wing that means 90% of historical use of the term left-wing was wrong is not very useful.

But my definition isn't anachronistic at all. The original use around France meant pro-monarchy (pro-hierarchy) and anti-monarchy (anti-hierarchy). Of course capitalism is a hierarchy to dismantle, and it's possible to say that state capitalists with the intent of dissolving the state at a future date were leftist in their pursuit, but that doesn't make that interim stage not a hierarchy (and a strong one at that).

jesus christ this is the dumbest thing i've seen all day.

socdems are in no way shape or form left-wing, every single time a socdem party ever held power it betrayed the working class, from ww1 to tsipras.

everything on your "right wing" column is simply neoliberalism. the idpol it uses doesn't make it a separate ideology, it is in it's essence a laissez-faire economic model, within which different groups of capitalists use different spooks to appeal to the masses so they can accumulate more capital. in the end, everything you've listed on the right can be summed up by the sentence "neoliberalism is a great model, all our problems actually stem from x" and where x replace immigrants for fascists, lack of tradition for conservative liberals, lack of progressiveness for social liberals, taxation for "an"caps etc. while by this definition alone socdems could be considered left-wing, it's been proven historically countless times that socdems will always betray the working class in the end, and that's why they were ousted in the 3rd international

a left-wing response to the above is that "neoliberalism is non-sustainable by itself, and must be replaced". this is the position even a revisionist like zizek clearly states. so the real theoretical split in the left comes here, between anarchists and marxists. all further splits are in essence revisionism that accounts for praxis as theory, and will dissolve over time.

trotanalysis.txt

yes they are all neoliberal you dumb fuck. read a book ffs

...

I don't think you understand the revolutionary importance of marx's thought. what he did was apply materialist science in sociology and history, the same way it's applied on physics and math. he was in no way infallible, but his materialistic take on dialectics and human nature and history is probably on par with the invention of calculus on the historical significance scale, even though his genius will be so openly admitted thousands of years from now


i only argue on /marx/. people on leftypol (like you) are generally uneducated on both leftist theory and economics. your shitposting shouts "prideful idiot"

I disputed one badly-written claim in your post with exactly the amount of effort it deserved.

says the Trot

Oh word, you learned your definitive and totally applicable definition of "neoliberalism" from reading leftist theory? You've been reading a chapter of Marx that's clearly been excised from my copy

Okay nevermind the problem here isn't disregarding existing examples of leftism it's instead "well the reactionaries were left wing because they wanted to stop the king from making peasant hunting illegal."

...

Need the version that also has "does not exist because authoritarianism is an inherently left wing ideology."

Yes, a materialist science to sociology and history was revolutionary and is actually already recognized as such in history departments around the world. However, his specific materialist sociology and history came to several conclusions I don't think are very well supported and these conclusions are what are generally referred to as "orthodox/classical marxism."

gtfo kid. read some marx and come back to me


the only leftists i've met who have actually ever read theory are trots. im not a trot though, its just my shitpost flag

jesus


like what? i know they're not generally supported because ideologically, the post-modernist neoliberal model of "we've reached the end game" etc is being pushed for obvious reasons. what exactly do you think marx was wrong about theory wise? im not talking about his guesses of revolution happening in germany or the uk first etc, im talking about his theoretical thesis of historical materialism and class struggle

Statelessness just seems to come out of nowhere with no backing. Frankly I think it's ultimately to blame for a lot of the problems socialism has faced because why bother putting together theory on how to organize the state (where many of the problems that have arisen might get pointed out ahead of time) if that shit's not long for this world anyway.

you cannot have statelessness unless there's abundance of every possible resource m8. how will you produce medicine and do cancer research with 0 infrastructure and logistics on a bigger scale? communism will come, but it's a long way down the road.

you havent met many leftist then lmao.

except i live in the country with the strongest m-l party in the world

Oh I don't mean "under Marx's conception of history I'm not sure how statelessness is supposed to originate" I instead question it's inclusion at all. Nothing else he wrote does anything to convince me the next stage of society will include statelessness.

it's a logical conclusion, since exploitation as a concept is part of today's ideology. once all false consciousness is firmly eradicated, and goods exist in such abundance that infrastructure planning on a global scale isn't needed in such a huge degree, there is no reason for a state to exist

qed :1)

the state literally exists for 2 reasons: to make sure capitalist ideology is firmly rooted out of the populus and to provide logistics until post-scarcity is achieved.

i live in greece mate. do you not know the kke?

doesn't surprise me

These political charts are getting a little out of hand

Better question for discussion:

Is state property privately or publicly owned, or is it something else entirely, or can it be both?

Does it simply depend on the extent to which the state is controlled by the people?

Or is it something else?

What kind of an argument is that supposed to be?

But if we do, we'll end up with Stalinism and we can't have that, can we?

...

You are not supposed to. It's too authoritarian

There is no "pubic" ownership when it comes to MoP, only social and private. And it is always both. The question are the dominant economic relations.

To oversimplify: if the state is democratic, if the general population (we can limit population to workers) has the right to appoint and depose its representatives (or simply murder them; yes, I'm Stalinist), as well as directly intervene in decision-making, then state property is not private property, but social.

"Control by people" is a bit too vague.

Because its effectively controlled by the state.

Right wing gives rights and responsibilities to the individual.
Left wing gives rights and responsibilities to the centralized controlling authority.

...

control by the people=

Control by consensus untainted by private media monopolies

t. Lenin

Lol how delusional is the guy who came up with that?

ya pretty much

not an argument

any people with primo mspaint skills wanna just source this quote and turn it into a png to spam at tankies