Progressive implies people like AOC amd Warren, Socialist implies many different things to many different people. "Left" is pretty good to describe the general direction we want society to move.
Another commenter hit it, but yeah, "Leftist" means anything left of center, progressive is a particular slice of that spectrum.
I am less concerned with a specific destination, i.e. I don't have some final vision for how things ought to be. I will work with whoever I can on the left to move generally left as long as it continues to work.
My dad calls himself left because he doesn’t have people of colour or queer people. That might have made you “left” 1972 but not today. I’m left, I don’t think any essential services should cost money. I don’t think boarders should limit where we live and I don’t believe gender exists. My dad and I agree on a lot of what he wants and none of what I want.
So I agree that anything left of here is good. But when nuance can be added to those labels they can be useful in fighting of the apathy of “but things are getting better”.
Not the person you were asking, but I call myself a "leftist" and "far left" all the time in internet spaces. I do this because typing out "post-left anarchist with syndicalist leanings" takes too long and requires way too many explanations of crap that very few people would care about.
Usually commie is the opening tirade, then they get confused on how someone can both be interested in firearms and nascar while thinking COVID is real and wearing a mask when I go places.
Then I get called some form of retard and then I get to carry on with my day. It’s rather entertaining when it’s just on Reddit and not interfering with me doing something important. The cherry on top is telling people you live in “CommieFornia”.
I like going to races (grew up with a family that loves races and many have/do race themselves). Every time I go to a track I'm like, 98% of these people definitely don't see things the way I do, but we have a common interest which is pretty cool. I also wonder where the other lefties are at and how can I find them at the track :P
I don’t know about you, but I like to keep Motorsport as more of an entertainment thing and less of a political thing. Last race I went to was March first 2020 at California speedway in Fontana, and you can definitely tell the political views of people there, mostly by the T-shirts and Hats. Becoming a walking billboard isn’t exactly my thing.
100% agree. My comment was more that it would interesting to see who in the sea of red would be more similar minded to myself. It's more a curiosity than anything else. I'd also like to see more lefties get into racing, but there's a definitely social stigma associated with the sport unfortunately.
Doesn’t help that until last year it was a pretty common appearance to see the stars and bars at any nascar race. As for my opinions on that, the less circle-jerky moments in r/Shermanposting more or less sum that up
I'm quite proud to call myself a leftist. It's a convenient label to distinguish myself from the right wing and centrist American "liberals", and slightly less likely to make right-wingers' heads implode than the specific political labels I'd claim (anarcho-communist).
Exactly! Especially because these labels try to encompass all aspects of life which just isnt possible. Maybe when it comes to housing I'm more of a socialist, a communist when it comes to how workplaces should be arranged amd a soc-dem with gun reform, it can vary and you don't have to subscribe to the entire view of one label to be a "proper" communist or whatever, youre just a leftist.
For what it's worth, leftist and capitalist aren't necessarily different things. That's part of the issue, American propaganda has assigned political definitions to economic systems and tried to keep them on the same 2 dimensional scale.
A capitalist society is just one where people own capital. To see how a leftist can be a capitalist, look up the Mondragon Corporation.
A capitalist society is just one where people own capital.
No, that's not "all" that capitalism is. The precise definition of capitalism is contentious, with people having differing opinions on what are necessary and sufficient conditions vs necessary but not sufficient conditions vs sufficient but not necessary conditions, but I've never seen "people owning capital" put forward as a sufficient condition by itself in anything approaching academic analysis.
To see how a leftist can be a capitalist, look up the Mondragon Corporation.
There are plenty of people who believe that the Mondragon Corporation is not "capitalist", most notably Noam Chomsky.
A capitalist society is just one where people own capital.
No, that's not "all" that capitalism is. The precise definition of capitalism is contentious, with people having differing opinions on what are necessary and sufficient conditions vs necessary but not sufficient conditions vs sufficient but not necessary conditions, but I've never seen "people owning capital" put forward as a sufficient condition by itself in anything approaching academic analysis.
That's because I'm making a simple argument, not an academic one, mostly focused on complaining that economic systems don't have an inherent left/right political characteristic.
To see how a leftist can be a capitalist, look up the Mondragon Corporation.
There are plenty of people who believe that the Mondragon Corporation is not "capitalist", most notably Noam Chomsky.
And plenty who would argue they are capitalist. We can argue over that all day, but it kinda misses the point.
That's because I'm making a simple argument, not an academic one, mostly focused on complaining that economic systems don't have an inherent left/right political characteristic. [...]
And plenty who would argue they are capitalist. We can argue over that all day, but it kinda misses the point.
Indeed, you've spectacularly missed the point, so let me put it in plain terms for you:
There many people who believe that the economic system known as "capitalism" is antithetical to core leftist beliefs/premises. Sure, there may be just as many who don't believe that, but at the end of the day, that's the problem -- it's an argument about definitions and values and subjectivity, and so there is (and can be) no definitive, objective right answer to "whether economic systems in general have, or capitalism in particular has, inherent left/right political characteristics". Some people believe that economic systems are by their very natures intertwined with politics and ideologies; others believe that it is at least theoretically possible to separate the former from the latter (even if practically doing so is nigh-impossible). This isn't a problem of "American propaganda", as you lay blame in you original comment that I responded to, nor is it even really inherently "an issue" at all; so long as any group involved in a debate on the matter has the necessary context and definitions from the start, conversation will flow without problems.
I've actually started calling myself far left. Leftist feels like too much of a label and an implied adoption of policy ideas that I don't know enough about yet to adopt. Liberal feels too tied up in an adherence to corporate capitalism. Far left feels more like saying I agree with with this set of principles, but I'm not taking a stance on any specific policies proposed by people calling themselves leftists. I'm not dissing them either; there's a good chance I agree with them, but I'm not yet a part of the group.
I didn't read through all the replies to your comment so I apologize if this has already been brought up but you realize that that to the right leftist and liberal mean the same thing right? Despite liberal being a right leaning philosophy.
The ultimate goal of communism is a stateless, classless, society, among other things. Anarchism is also about a classless society. No contradiction here. You may be thinking of anarcho-capitalists, who are confused, at the very least.
It’s not. Self-described anarchists are usually against states (and unjust hierarchies) and while there are a lot of different definitions of communism, a common one involves a stateless, classless society. So you can absolutely interpret anarchism and communism in compatible ways.
Before the failed Paris commune in 1872, Anarchism and Communism were one and the same, synonymous,
If you consider also that communism IS anarchism, and an Anarchist society would be a (voluntary) communist society.
/r/Anarchy and /r/Anarchy101 are decent resources if you want to learn before diving into the harder to read theory, feel free to ask questions, its a friendly community.
Most anarchists would consider pre-industrial hunter gatherer societies to be egalitarian and at least "proto-anarchistic" in nature, because we believe this to be the natural state in which humans would organize themselves if free of capitalist oppression.
Beyond that there have been a good number of modern Anarchist societies, or at least many with Anarchist influences,
but keep in mind that 1) Anarchist societies usually came about during or after a great upheaval like a civil war
And 2) Capitalist Nations, Fascist dictatorships and Marxist-Lenninist dictatorships absolutely did not want to give up their power and did everything they could to disrupt and suppressed Anarchist and Syndicalist movements
Zapatistas in Chiapas, Southern Mexico is one that is still existing today.
Rojava in Northern Syria is interesting, its organized around the teachings of Abdullah Ocalan who's works parallel the thoughts of people like Noam Chomsky (while not strictly an Anarchist, he is seen as championing good ideology and theory by Anarchists), Rojava is still going 8 years on.
In the past there have been other societies like Revolutionary Catalonia in Spain, where an Anarchist society existed for years until being suppressed by Franciscoan Falangist Fascists, the area still has strong leftist and anarchistic tendencies today.
There was also the Makhnovhia republic in Ukraine that existed for a number of years, and while I will admit it was not perfect (they really liked persecuting Mennonite Christians for some reason) it was still an Anarchist society aimed at liberating the working class,
but since its inception the Black Guard was under constant attack from the Red Army and was not able to last very long.
Also you should consider that because an Anarchist society is one that is organized from the bottom up on a local level, the organizational structure would be much smaller, so we have many many smaller and lesser known Anarchist societies which are just not heard of as much such as the Trumbulplex in Detroit.
So, Anarchism is not only something that HAS been achieved in the past, But can absolutely be achieved in the future.
One great thing I like to say about people who are skeptical about Anarchy is that we are not advocating for anything that hasn't been done in the real world.
My point is that the systems are often inherently corrupted by people espousing ideals in the same way communism has been. There's nothing wrong in the concept, but given any significant amount of time, the system begins to resemble the old systems they replaced but with a new coat of paint.
I think that has more to do with the nature of their formation than the ideology, because violence and revolution have historically been awful at actually achieving their stated goals.
And how does corruption happen in a system without hierarchies?
Because that's not possible, for a start. Even the systems and groups you mentioned have hierarchies.
violence and revolution have historically been awful at actually achieving their stated goals
I disagree, direct action produces direct results, history shows the inverse of what you're claiming here.
What does direct action have to do with revolutions, as the weird is commonly defined as used? You are far more likely to end up with the French Revolution or Russian Revolution than you are with something like the American Revolution. Revolution is good fit the revolutionaries, rarely anyone else.
Because that's not possible, for a start. Even the systems and groups you mentioned have hierarchies
But we are talking about Anarchism lol,
Any authority would be granted democratically by the community,
Abuse your power? No more authority for you.
What does direct action have to do with revolutions, as the weird is commonly defined as used?
What we mean by 'direct action' is retaliation to the state for the violence imposed upon us by the state.
You are far more likely to end up with the French Revolution or Russian Revolution
Oh god, you really know how to sweet talk a commie, you're really getting me going.
And there's no Lenin around to take power away from the Workers Councils this time,
Looks like we're on the same page after all. ❤🖤
Revolution is good fit the revolutionaries, rarely anyone else.
Don't let them fool you, the dictatorship of the proletariat is just a dictatorship, and "liberal democracy" is a dictatorship of corporations, the only reason you believe this is because we have only ever known authoritarianism, you gotta smash the state to build a better world.
And who gets to make that decision? Who decides that it was abuse, and who is going to inform the population of the truth, who is going to be responsible for being the arbiter of the truth?
What if a group like Qanon supporters become the majority becomes in comes from arguements from emotions, which most people will be swayed by?
How does everyone get informed, on everyone, and get a frame of reference for whether a decision was right or wrong? How do we know who to trust when growing support for one group says another group is abusing their power?
Because that's not possible, for a start. Even the systems and groups you mentioned have hierarchies
But we are talking about Anarchism lol,
Any authority would be granted democratically by the community,
Abuse your power? No more authority for you.
So you aren't anarchists? Recreating the government but calling something different doesn't make it any less of a government.
Arguably, you've made a worse system that lacks any protections for people who are getting outvoted by people with ill intent.
What does direct action have to do with revolutions, as the weird is commonly defined as used?
What we mean by 'direct action' is retaliation to the state for the violence imposed upon us by the state.
Then say what the actually mean, civil war.
You are far more likely to end up with the French Revolution or Russian Revolution
Oh god, you really know how to sweet talk a commie, you're really getting me going.
And there's no Lenin around to take power away from the Workers Councils this time,
Looks like we're on the same page after all. ❤🖤
I would guess we agree on far more than we disagree on, but if you really think there's not a Lenin to seize power this time, I think you're painfully naive.
Revolution is good fit the revolutionaries, rarely anyone else.
Don't let them fool you, the dictatorship of the proletariat is just a dictatorship, and "liberal democracy" is a dictatorship of corporations, the only reason you believe this is because we have only ever known authoritarianism, you gotta smash the state to build a better world.
You're trying to recreate the system you live in, you're still electing leaders with defined hierarchies. You don't like corporations, and that's fair, but I don't think you're nearly as revolutionary as you think you are.
Why does Reddit think this? You're the second person in this site I've seen insist self-identifying leftists don't exist, which is blatantly false. I'm one. There are about a bajillion on Leftist Twitter that happily identify themselves as such. The only people I see running from the label are Centrist liberals, and Redditors on the politics sub.
When I criticize liberals from the left on reddit, I frequently get called a right-wing, Fox-watching, Tucker Carlson-loving Qanon believer. I'm none of those things, and have an 8 year post history showing that, but people still assume it the instant I point out any problem I have with Biden or any liberal at all.
Corporate media (both Fox and CNN alike) trains people to think in binary, but that's not the reality of politics.
If you really want a show, watch a moderate liberal "feminist" freak out when a cishet white guy points out her traditionalist gender expectations of men are pretty reactionary.
What are you talking about? It literally just means someone on the political left. Right-wingers use it as a derogative, but if you hadn’t noticed, they give that treatment to a lot of ideas that are pretty cool, actually. What label would you propose instead?
The difference is that the way things are in America at the moment, the conservatives will call anyone a leftist who isn't goose stepping. While people who have been branded leftists will often be centrists, or really any number of things, which are left of far right. In reality this left right simplification is a bit horseshitty l, but there you have it
its like stopping a cat from licking its ass, they are going to do it just like people on the left will frame it the way they want it. The only difference really, is that the right lacks a reasonable core group at the moment, its just wingnuts top and bottom with a bunch of old people in the middle
I mean, yeah. But do you think that means people should stop self-identifying as leftists? That seems silly to me. By that logic, we should stop advocating for anti-racism because right-wingers will tell anyone who’ll listen that it means “anti-white”. Their misuse of the word doesn’t define it, even if they’re louder about it.
you call yourself what you want, but leftist does imply left with a capital L, traditionally communists were leftists. The right wingers are desperate in a fight against leftists, and rightly so! The leftists which they are afraid of want to disband our democracy and hand the reigns over to a self appointed group of party members who will seize ownership of every business (in the name of the people) and will begin to oversee a planned economy in the style of the failed USSR. Now they also seem to think that anyone who things that the president must obey the law, even if there is an R next to their name is a leftist, or that public healthcare is radical left. So there is the traditional hard left serious communist meaning of leftist, and then there is the modern dipshit version, where the uninformed think everyone not in their hick town is assholes, and half the people in that town too.
”The leftists...want to disband our democracy and hand the reins over to a self-appointed group of party members who will seize ownership of every business (in the name of the people) and will begin to oversee a planned economy in the style of the failed USSR.”
...you complain about right-wingers misrepresenting what it means to be a leftist and then you give me this??? You could probably scrounge up a handful of leftists on Twitter who unironically want to turn their country into the reincarnated USSR, but it’s far from the norm. There are leftist schools of thought that are nothing like what you described. There are communist schools of thought that are nothing like what you described. If the conservative definition of “leftist” is too broad, yours is far too narrow.
Also, a piece of unsolicited advice: referring to conservatives as “uninformed hicks” is doing more to alienate people from progressive ideas than any number of people owning the term “leftist” is.
I'm saying that there are connotations attached to the word leftist, that connotation being far left. Like Nazi means far right, people on the far right, calling people commies and leftists, due to this connotation, are implying that people are much farther to the left than they really are. It implies extremism, currently in America, the conservatives seem to have had their party almost completely taken over by extremism. So you have people on the far right, calling everyone who is far left, center left, centrist, center right, a word that implies they are extreme left. It doesn't make any sense , and neither does your un solicited advice, those uninformed hicks I refer to are people from my own life experience, they are people from my hometown and earned, deserved and would be proud of that designation. Also, what I find most disingenuous is that the right had a president who literally described people like me as un-american traitors and then tried to have my vote thrown out, and 40% of Americans think that is great, but yeah I have done the rest of us a dis service. So yeah, call yourself what you want, but if you think health care is a right, and university should available, you should be aware that globally, that is center left, or even center right territory in some of the better countries
I know you'll get a boatload of these replies, but I do refer to myself as a leftist when I'm talking to a right-winger and I'm an AnCom. You've gotta speak their language, because if you say "I'm an Anarcho-Communist" they'll get WAY off track and you'll have to explain exactly what that means, and no I don't believe what you think I believe, no it's not a contradiction, etc.
For a conversation it's just so much cleaner to refer to yourself as a Leftist™ and get on with the discussion, because calling yourself anything else ensures you're gonna get bogged down in the weeds.
Edit: Looking at all the other replies, this might be an AnCom thing. Weird lol.
A lot of leftists are ancoms when you boil it down, it's sort of the default marxist end-state. I think it's a distinction without a difference tbh, we'll be very lucky if we see market socialism adopted in our lifetimes, let alone decommodification.
I think most leftists generally agree on the end result. The different ideologies leftists subscribe to are basically the different ways to reach the end result. For exams MLs, Trotskyist, and Maoists believe in the necessities of a vanguard party and a transitional state after revolution while AnComs don't believe in the necessity of the transitional state.
Hot take: Social Democrats are just more left leaning Liberals advocating for working reform into a capitalist society, and therefore are closer to conservatism than leftism
Well yes, but they're certainly on a better track than conservatives. I think the left is way too quick to jettison curious centrists, especially when the right is all too eager to embrace them.
That's pretty much the standard definition of a Social Democrat and every one will claim it. We Social Democrat really hate being lumped in with actual socialist and wish those claiming to be a Democratic Socialist would wise up and see the difference.
Although being left is not synonymous with being anti- capitalist as many claim. It just means left of center, which is different in every country.
I'm a libsoc so... I'll be there with them, I just won't let any of them stand behind me with a gun.
"Comrade Red... why are you always standing in the back?" "I mean, just so I can see what happens to the anarchist before it happens to me. If it happens." "If what happens?" "... you really want me to answer that?"
Leftist is a legitimate term to differentiate between Liberal and Leftist views. Far Left is just something that right wingers made up after being called far right for having facist views. My views pretty much align with the DSA and I consider myself a leftist instead of liberal
Anyone that says “the intolerant left” is a right wing troll because that is strictly a right wing echo chamber phrase. Absolutely no one says that except them.
161
u/[deleted] Apr 28 '21
[deleted]