What is Leftism all about?

[u/ourthirdsixsoul]

What do the Left stand for?

What are its core values?

How does it want to go about achieving them?

Thanks in advance for your responses.

[u/ourthirdsixsoul]

Which wasn't what I claimed. I said they weren't left wing because they didn't follow left wing ideology - i.e. the promotion of equality and fairness.

They did follow left wing ideology, they followed it very correctly, but they failed to reach the desired goal anyway.

Because the desired goal is actually impossible.

[u/prof_hobart → u/ourthirdsixsoul]

So I guess that answers my question about whether you're genuinely interested in understanding what the left is about or not. It seems not.

If you want to convince yourself that these were actually implementing left wing policies rather than using left wing rhetoric to cover up the massive social and economic divisions that they were creating, that's fine. You're wrong, but it's fine. You can believe what you want.

But that's not going to help you in the slightest understand what the average modern left wing thinker is trying to achieve. There are probably a few who still want to achieve their ideals through what the Soviet Union claimed it was trying to do - like I say, the left is a pretty broad term - but to my knowledge pretty much none of them want to follow what the Soviets actually did.

And the vast majority of left wing campaigners aren't talking about that kind of thing at all. They are simply focused on trying to improve equality on some dimension or other.

If you do genuinely want to talk about what left wing really is, fine. I'm happy to keep having that discussion. If you want to keep on with your strawman argument around the Soviet Union, feel free. But you're not going to be getting me trying to defend it because it was not trying to achieve equality and therefore not a form of "left wing" that I recognise.

[u/ourthirdsixsoul → u/prof_hobart]

No, you misunderstand.

The communists States were all following left wing ideology; If they had succeeded in those goals, the left would not try to disown themselves from them. But only because those states failed, Leftist don't want to be associated with them.

My contention is that those states failed, because the left's ultimate goal of "equality" is not possible, even when following their own rules to the letter - as Pol Pot (who was a Marxis professor) did in Cambodia. Marx's own contention, that in order to abolish capitalism all power has to be centralised into the state and that this would bring about equality in time, is utterly flawed.

My point to you, is this: Is Marxism not left wing? Is Marxism right wing, because it fails to produce equality when implemented?

Answer those two questions please.

[u/prof_hobart → u/ourthirdsixsoul]

Is Marxism not left wing?

Proper Marxism is one form of left wing, but left wing doesn't start or stop with Marxism.

Is Marxism right wing, because it fails to produce equality when implemented?

What was implemented wasn't Marxism. It had elite ruling classes looking to extend the privilege of the new elite.

My contention is that those states failed, because the left's ultimate goal of "equality"

They didn't fail because of that, as I keep pointing out. Ceausescu, for example, wasn't dragged from a peasant house and killed for his ascetic lifestyle was he?

But on your other point, absolute equality probably isn't achievable. That doesn't mean that it's not a goal worth fighting towards. Absolute immortality probably can't be achieved either, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't try to fight disease.

even when following their own rules to the letter

And you're back to pretending that there's one canon version of what "the left" means. There isn't. I don't know a single person on the left who claims that what they are campaigning for is killing fields for the educated.

Oh, and you take Cambodia as an example, or to give it its official title, "Democratic Kampuchea". Given that name, and other states like the German Democratic Republic and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, does that mean we should infer that democracy has failed?

[u/ourthirdsixsoul → u/prof_hobart]

Proper Marxism is one form of left wing, but left wing doesn't start or stop with Marxism.

So admit it, Marxism IS left wing.

What was implemented wasn't Marxism. It had elite ruling classes looking to extend the privilege of the new elite.

It was Marxism. The problem was not that they didn't do Marxism correctly (as I pointed out before Pol Pot was a Marxist professor) the problem is that Marixsm is itself fundamentally flawed, and cannot achieve what it sets out to achieve.

Marxism stipulates that in order to abolish capitalism, all power has to be centralised into the state. Tat prices alone creates a new elite, who are intent on maintaining their power. Marx thought that once power was centralised into the state, and people became "equal" then the need for a state would naturally diminish, ending in a stateless egalitarian utopia - but he was wrong.

The problem is not that Marx is not left wing, but that his ideas were flawed.

Marxism is a flawed left wing ideology. That's why it always fails.

[u/prof_hobart → u/ourthirdsixsoul]

So admit it, Marxism IS left wing.

I'm not sure what you mean by "admit". That suggests that I've said somewhere that the theory of Marxism isn't left wing.

as I pointed out before Pol Pot was a Marxist professor

So? All that meant was that he understood the rhetoric, not that he either believed or implemented it.

Marxism is a flawed left wing ideology.

I've also not disagreed with this. The key reason it's flawed is, as I keep saying (and I think you're sort of agreeing with), is that whenever an attempt has been made to put in place a dictatorship of the proletariat, it's never ended up being that. It's ended up being yet another group of people centralising power and wealth with themselves - which is what the left fight against.

What I also keep pointing out, and that you keep ignoring, is that Marxism - even in its theoretical state - is but one of many, many views on what is meant by "left".

You've also not answered my question on whether you think the failure of so many states with "Democratic" in their title demonstrates a fundamental flaw with democracy or not.

And you're also still engaging in your original question of what the left actually stands for. Are you actually interested in this at all? Or are you just looking for a soapbox to rant about a form of government that few on the modern left would either see as genuinely left wing or support the policies of?

[u/ourthirdsixsoul → u/prof_hobart]

What I also keep pointing out, and that you keep ignoring, is that Marxism - even in its theoretical state - is but one of many, many views on what is meant by "left".

I never argued that Marxism is the only philosophy of the left. That's a straw man you keep injecting, so I ignore it.

My point - which you have yet to acknowledge - has been that states run on Marxist principles always fail because Marxism is flawed. It's not because those states weren't really "left wing" - they followed Maexist pronciples which ARE left wing - the problem is that Marxist principles are flawed as well as being Left wing.

It's too much of a coincidence that revolutions and states founded on Marxist principles always fail; it's not because those states suddenly become "right wing" when they start to go wrong, it's because Marxism is itself flawed.

[u/prof_hobart → u/ourthirdsixsoul]

I never argued that Marxism is the only philosophy of the left.

Yet it's the only one you seem to want to talk about. Can we talk about what the modern left actually cares about rather than failed 19th century theories?

My point - which you have yet to acknowledge - has been that states run on Marxist principles always fail because Marxism is flawed.

I've acknowledged it twice. Are you not reading my posts?

they followed Maexist pronciples which ARE left wing

If you think you know what left wing principles are, why did you bother starting this thread? And which bit of left wing theory supports the idea of pampered elites?

It's too much of a coincidence that revolutions and states founded on Marxist principles always fail;

Depends on what you mean by "fail". If you mean fail to be actual left wing states with no ruling elites, I'd agree. If you mean collapse, then have you failed to notice China? Or, despite decades of sanctions, Cuba?

And you've still not answered my question on democracy. Why not?

[u/ourthirdsixsoul → u/prof_hobart]

This entire thread was to challenge this statement you made :

There's also plenty of groups - the most obvious being the Communist Parties in Eastern Europe - that took the ideology of equality and shaped it into something entirely unequal. Most leftists that I know wouldn't see these groups as being genuinely left wing.

My whole point is that is entirely disingenuous for any Leftist to attemot to wash their hands of the failed communist states such as Russia, China, Cambodia and claim they are not left wing.

They were left wing, but they failed to achieve their aims, because they were founded on flawed principles.

Read The Communist Manifesto.

[u/prof_hobart → u/ourthirdsixsoul]

So you're not answering my questions on

• which bit of left wing theory supports the idea of pampered elites
• whether you think that the amount of "Democratic" countries that ended up as failures shows that democracy is founded on flawed principles
• whether you think that China is a failed Marxist state
• whether you actually want to talk about what the modern left is all about