The “Left” and the “Right”

[Green_Red]

Left = labour union movements with "workers of the world, unite" type approach to politics and economics, pro nationalisation, proletarian in its origins.

Right = Upper class (landed, titled, etc. (At least historically)), capital controlling, pro privatisation, individualistic, can't afford it shouldn't have type of outlook

 

[Minimalist]

I find it very hard to relate to or understand right wing politics at all.

On the far left you have hippies, people who tie themselves to trees or throw flowers at oil rigs or whatever. Well meaning, sometimes insufferable idiots. People who should never be put in charge of anything really...but the cause is always relatable at least. It's based on wanting a system or world that looks after and provides for everyone. The biggest problem I have with the left at times is that left wing politics is a lot better at pointing out problems than it is at coming up with a solution to a problem that has any hope of working.

The problem is whenever you get loons racially abusing people, posting made up nonsense on Facebook about how evil muslims are, spouting gibberish about how there's 500,000 Hungarian criminals in London prisons, etc. Advocating Brexit because they hate foreign people and "want their Britain back", or coming up with just amazingly ignorant statements about benefits, poor people, etc. It is ALWAYS a right wing loony. You don't get this from the left, or the middle.The moderate right does nothing to address this and instead just pretends to have no association to it, but there is a very clear association.

I remember telling someone on Facebook that the reason I voted remain was purely because I didn't want to be associated with the racist nonsense that would no doubt come to the surface if Leave was to win. Nothing to do with right or left, just a decision that I couldn't vote a certain way, whether I agreed with the rest of it or not, because one of the inevitable side effects was clearly bad and wrong and would potentially be an attack on vulnerable people. They on the other hand were voting leave and just disregarded this as not being their repsonsibility in any way. They made a very articulate point about the rest of their reasoning, but this is just blatant ignorance to me. If you know something is going to happen, you cannot vote for the thing that would allow it to happen, and then just claim it is nothing to do with you.

This is like Hitler running for PM, and because you like his policy on renewable energy you decide to completely ignore the fact that he is Hitler and vote for him, then claim you are not responsible in any way for Hitler becoming PM...this is a admittedlly extreme example, but it's what the right wing is constantly bogged down by. You have Jacob Reece-Mogg, Boris, and then even to the right of that, Tommy Robinson, Farage. THe right empowers these people and then instead of addressing it, just tries to pretend it doesn't. The right empowers ideals and policies that attack the most vulnerable of people, by labelling them into negative sterotypes, then just pretends that it doesn't. Lets make every disabled person prove their disability, and also make it really hard for them to do it, and it's ok to ignore and disregard any responsibility for all the genuinely disabled people who's lives become a struggle as a result, because the reason we're doing it is because to stop all these scroungers pretending to be disabled from taking our tax money!!!!

This is nothing to do with the thread, probably

Agree with this 100%.

 

[Silva]

 

[berbatrick]

Except for Stalin, of course. But he transcended the left-right axis; he was just after power at all costs.

I know you're probably exaggerating, but I think it's interesting to see from where Stalin came and what allowed him to thrive.

The USSR was never envisaged as a lone red state in a capitalist world. The impetus behind the October Revolution came from Lenin and Trotsky, who both believed that Russia could skip or "manage" its capitalist industrial transformation under workers' rule, while the rest of Europe had its socialist revolution after WW1. (Interestingly Stalin was one of the most cautious and inconspicuous leaders then, he felt that the Bolsheviks should have be more supportive of the (unpopular) Provisional Government and less radical socialist parties.)

Of course, Lenin/Trotsky's European dreams, inspired by Marx's theory, fell flat - after the German Social Democratic Party collaborated with right-wing militias to suppress the Spartacist revolt (Rosa Luxemburg), the prospect of left-wing revolution in the advanced capitalist countries was over.

Now, you had an isolated, agrarian, and fairly un-industrialised country, with the ruling revolutionary party having fallen out with all other socialist parties, with a civil war supported by all major world powers (Japan, Germany, France, UK and US all supported the Tsarist Whites against Trotsky's Bolshevik army). This was about as far removed from an internal revolution in the centre of capitalist power that Marx envisaged. Some of the measures (like re-forming the the secret police, Cheka) I can understand given how precarious the situation was. The reinstatement of small-scale capitalism to revive an economy torn apart by almost a decade of war (Lenin's NEP).

The problem is the scale of the power given to the Cheka, the fact that they were in totally uncharted territory and could see that the NEP wasn't going anywhere utopian fast, the fact that as a war measure they had effectively destroyed the power of the very Soviets (workers' councils) which had given the support and legitimacy in 1917. They were now cut off from the people, having promised a utopian future and coming nowhere near it, had reduced (once very lively) internal party debate, and were under no democratic control.

I think the particulars of what Stalin did were because of him, the purges were the result of his paranoia, the return to social conservatism: the recriminalisation of homosexuality, toughened divorce laws, and pro-family/motherhood propaganda, was definitely his personal choice, but the collectivisation and rapid industrialisation were actually Trotsky's policies that he appropriated. Maybe some ruling dispensations would have re-delegated actual power to the Soviets and peasants' councils after the war, maybe some would not have set insane work or food targets, maybe some would have given consideration for the workers on whose behalf they were ruling. But I can't imagine any such massive unprecedented transformation would have been "nice" under any ruler. Indeed, everywhere from Europe itself to the colonised 3rd world, the move away from feudalism has always been bloody in various degrees.

 

[berbatrick]

 

[Tarrou]

It is quite hard to define and also a bit subjective, as it covers so many different aspects of society. It's kinda strange that for this one thing we've decided that something or someone has to be either or. Clearly people, governments and states can be left on some issues and right on others, which is probably the most sensible way to be.

If we get too far one way or the other, stuff tends to go a bit wonky.

 

[Raees]

Left = labour union movements with "workers of the world, unite" type approach to politics and economics, pro nationalisation, proletarian in its origins.

Right = Upper class (landed, titled, etc. (At least historically)), capital controlling, pro privatisation, individualistic, can't afford it shouldn't have type of outlook

Very simple to say the working class is all left - don’t think it is as simple as that. Working class makes up the extreme right in a number of movements.

 

[Raees]

For me left and right is simply too narrow a spectrum to encompass all the various schools of political thought which exist out there and it is often just misused to put various opinions under one umbrella term.

I for one don’t think we’ve ever seen a truly extreme left wing government and I believe the USSR model of communism was corrupt from the very start as it was very much ‘some people are more equal than others’ and the leaders of various communist regimes held more dictatorial power than seen in more extreme right wing models which goes against the very principle of communism. I do not think humans are capable of executing the perfect communist government as is envisaged by theory. They’re simply too wild and selfish by nature to create and maintain such a system without letting it become corrupt in a short space of time - practically it is impossible to run without a divine selfless authority in charge of it all to ensure it runs smoothly and fairly. Therefore I don’t buy it that guys like Stalin were champions of the left... he was more like an emperor who wielded his power to execute a particular economic model rather than an icon of an extreme left wing political philosophy.

In my book the left would be associated with the belief system that everyone regardless of their creed is inherently equal, all boundaries are man-made and thus there should be a human brotherhood without boundaries and that brotherhood should extend to animals who are part of the same ecosystem as us and therefore they should have to the best of our ability as much rights as us to enjoy the fruits of the earth. Where there are any injustices which prevent the equal enjoyment or access to a universally accepted ‘acceptable’ standard of life then those barriers should be eradicated or certain legal constructs put in place such as taxation to ensure that there is a more equal society. It would legally prevent religion for example playing a role in governing the affairs of man as many religions could directly confront and prove to be a barrier to the equal treatment of citizens on a number of issues. The left would need government to play a huge role in enforcing these norms by setting up society in a very exacting manner which is highly controlled from the outset.

Now some would argue taken to its extreme conclusion - it is inevitable that in order to put such a system in place, violence would have to be used and it is without a doubt that in practice that is exactly what has happened. I’d argue that the moment one pursues a path of violence, they automatically forfeit the right to be part of the extreme left as they’ve fallen into the trap of belittling fellow humans for believing something different and automatically assuming that certain lives are less precious or obstacles than others. In order to achieve a true left wing government - it would have to be done through peaceful means IMO. But the problem is how realistic is that? Which is why I don’t think a true extremely left wing government is humanly possible.

I’d associate right wing governments with the belief that it is okay for some people to be seen as better than others, it is okay for certain people to enjoy a better standard of life than others - this is a more natural state of living as in nature there are all sorts of inequalities and man being an animal in nature should accept that this is the case and make the most of his situation rather than expect the state to better his cause for him. They would argue that we have been created in a way where we are all unequal and it is not the governments role to eradicate those inequalities. I think things like racism, intolerance of other people’s beliefs stem from this underlying belief that right wingers just don’t particularly care about injustices which are there in society rather than it being a case of - being a right winger means you have to be racist and intolerant of others. I just think it means they’re more laissez faires about it all. I’d associate a right wing government with believing it is okay to putting the interests of nation first rather than buying into a concept of internationalisation which is a natural follow on from the belief it is okay to put yourself first and maximise your own individual potential rather than waste resources on improving the fortunes of every individual in society or the wider world. They’re very capitalist in the sense that there should be no restrictions on how much money each individual can make and wouldn’t want to play a role in ensuring there is fair redistribution to ensure everybody enjoys a good standard of living.

I think these are the main qualities I personally would associate with the two branches and any other differences may not be a case of being left v right but would fall into a different spectrum with different labels.

 

[KirkDuyt]

Right means giving in to the shortcomings of being human. Left means aspiring to be better.

There's a reason you dont read about champaign conservatives secretly paying extra taxes of giving all their money away. You do read about champaign socialists who secretly evade taxes or what not. That's simply because being left is harder, because it goed against the inherent greed of our species.

I honestly think left is objectively "better" than right.

 

[Lentwood]

It’s interesting that a fair frw posters have commented the “left”/“right” spectrum is too narrow a concept to be meaningful

I believe at least economically it’s a pretty good fit. If you’re on the left of centre you broadly believe the Government does a better job of allocating resouces than markets, and vice versa

The extent to which you believe Governments or markets should allocate these resources defines your position on the line. If you believe literally ALL resources should be centrally distributed you’re far Left and if you believe the markets should operate totally free of all restrictions, regulations and controls then your far Right. Most people obviously fit somewhere between the two but it still works fine as a concept.

I for example, believe Govs. are better at allocating resources where there is a certain level of “public interest” and therefore transport, healthcare, education etc...should be run by the State. At the same time, I am not against individuals being free to profit from risk-taking and innovation in other sectors, although I would implement stricter policies to ensure markets always remain competitive and cannot be dominated by a handful of identikit behemoths

Personally, I believe Capitalism and free markets work great for kick-starting agrarian/fuedal economies but as Corporations gain more power, market share and wealth, “true” free markets succumb to exist and instead Corporations rather than markets become truly responsible for allocating resources and being driven predominantly by profits, this is bad for the individual, Society and the planet as a whole

 

[rcoobc]

Left is collective
Right is individual

That's about it really.

 

[rcoobc]

I feel like the dividing line between left and right does a lot of damage.

One of the only good things about brexit is how the debate doesn't fall down party lines. Another good thing could be that this could be the end of the conservative party

 

[Silva]

Middle East infowars compass

 

[Silva]

 

[nimic]

I know you're probably exaggerating, but I think it's interesting to see from where Stalin came and what allowed him to thrive.

The USSR was never envisaged as a lone red state in a capitalist world. The impetus behind the October Revolution came from Lenin and Trotsky, who both believed that Russia could skip or "manage" its capitalist industrial transformation under workers' rule, while the rest of Europe had its socialist revolution after WW1. (Interestingly Stalin was one of the most cautious and inconspicuous leaders then, he felt that the Bolsheviks should have be more supportive of the (unpopular) Provisional Government and less radical socialist parties.)

Of course, Lenin/Trotsky's European dreams, inspired by Marx's theory, fell flat - after the German Social Democratic Party collaborated with right-wing militias to suppress the Spartacist revolt (Rosa Luxemburg), the prospect of left-wing revolution in the advanced capitalist countries was over.

Now, you had an isolated, agrarian, and fairly un-industrialised country, with the ruling revolutionary party having fallen out with all other socialist parties, with a civil war supported by all major world powers (Japan, Germany, France, UK and US all supported the Tsarist Whites against Trotsky's Bolshevik army). This was about as far removed from an internal revolution in the centre of capitalist power that Marx envisaged. Some of the measures (like re-forming the the secret police, Cheka) I can understand given how precarious the situation was. The reinstatement of small-scale capitalism to revive an economy torn apart by almost a decade of war (Lenin's NEP).

The problem is the scale of the power given to the Cheka, the fact that they were in totally uncharted territory and could see that the NEP wasn't going anywhere utopian fast, the fact that as a war measure they had effectively destroyed the power of the very Soviets (workers' councils) which had given the support and legitimacy in 1917. They were now cut off from the people, having promised a utopian future and coming nowhere near it, had reduced (once very lively) internal party debate, and were under no democratic control.

I think the particulars of what Stalin did were because of him, the purges were the result of his paranoia, the return to social conservatism: the recriminalisation of homosexuality, toughened divorce laws, and pro-family/motherhood propaganda, was definitely his personal choice, but the collectivisation and rapid industrialisation were actually Trotsky's policies that he appropriated. Maybe some ruling dispensations would have re-delegated actual power to the Soviets and peasants' councils after the war, maybe some would not have set insane work or food targets, maybe some would have given consideration for the workers on whose behalf they were ruling. But I can't imagine any such massive unprecedented transformation would have been "nice" under any ruler. Indeed, everywhere from Europe itself to the colonised 3rd world, the move away from feudalism has always been bloody in various degrees.

Very good post.

Left is collective
Right is individual

That's about it really.

So fascism and Nazism were left-wing ideologies? Not having it.

 

[SquishyMcSquish]

Left: sharing and caring.
Right: every cnut for himself.

The Black Book of Communism (a read I suggest to anyone here that wants to generalise the left as the caring side) suggests that over 94 million people directly died as a result of communist (far left) rule. For such caring, lovely people the left do have this unfortunate habit of consistently stumbling across causing untold misery and suffering, they're even more effective at it than the far right.

Both the far left and the far right are very good at putting the blame for their plight on a certain class of people, and both then systematically set about murdering anybody who they considered part of that class. Murder the Jews, murder the landlords, murder the kulaks, murder the gypsies, on and on. They're why your life has been hard, they deserved to be eradicated, it's their fault. They have been living the good life while you've been suffering so it's only fair.

Both the left and the right have nasty, extremist sides to their ideologies and this is proven by history. So neither can be called oversimplified as being the good guys, or the nice ones who want to share. It seems people like to imagine that simply because they identify as left wing, they are better, less violent, more selfless than those on the right. But plenty on the other side feel the exact same way and that can easily lead to dehumanising people because you view yourself as morally superior to the other side.

 

[berbatrick]

The Black Book of Communism (a read I suggest to anyone here that wants to generalise the left as the caring side) suggests that over 94 million people directly died as a result of communist (far left) rule.

http://www.spectrezine.org/global/chomsky.html

Like others, Ryan reasonably selects as Exhibit A of the criminal indictment the Chinese famines of 1958-61, with a death toll of 25-40 million, he reports, a sizeable chunk of the 100 million corpses the "recording angels" attribute to "Communism" (whatever that is, but let us use the conventional term). The terrible atrocity fully merits the harsh condemnation it has received for many years, renewed here. It is, furthermore, proper to attribute the famine to Communism. That conclusion was established most authoritatively in the work of economist Amartya Sen, whose comparison of the Chinese famine to the record of democratic India received particular attention when he won the Nobel Prize a few years ago. Writing in the early 1980s, Sen observed that India had suffered no such famine. He attributed the India-China difference to India's "political system of adversarial journalism and opposition," while in contrast, China's totalitarian regime suffered from "misinformation" that undercut a serious response, and there was "little political pressure" from opposition groups and an informed public (Jean Dreze and Amartya Sen, Hunger and Public Action, 1989; they estimate deaths at 16.5 to 29.5 million).

The example stands as a dramatic "criminal indictment" of totalitarian Communism, exactly as Ryan writes. But before closing the book on the indictment we might want to turn to the other half of Sen's India-China comparison, which somehow never seems to surface despite the emphasis Sen placed on it. He observes that India and China had "similarities that were quite striking" when development planning began 50 years ago, including death rates. "But there is little doubt that as far as morbidity, mortality and longevity are concerned, China has a large and decisive lead over India" (in education and other social indicators as well). He estimates the excess of mortality in India over China to be close to 4 million a year: "India seems to manage to fill its cupboard with more skeletons every eight years than China put there in its years of shame," 1958-1961 (Dreze and Sen).

 

[SquishyMcSquish]

http://www.spectrezine.org/global/chomsky.html

Even if this article is true in its assertion (that a capitalist India is responsible for more deaths than communist China) it still wouldn't change the overriding fact that both the left in the right throughout history have caused suffering, thus to label either side nice or selfless would be a gross oversimplification. I don't think many people would argue that capitalism doesn't have a very significant death toll of its own, and nobody is about to defend the death toll caused by the far right. The point being that neither ideology is lacking blood on its hands, and neither should be considered as pious or pure.

I have my doubts about the article though (will have to research more in to how they're actually attributing blame for deaths) especially as it's by Chomsky.

 

[rcoobc]

so fascism and Nazism were left-wing ideologies? Not having it.

Really this is where the left-right idea breaks down quickly.

According to the political compass, Hitler is fairly central on the left right spectrum, although obviously extremely authoritian. Just think about that for a second. Everyone's standard definition of a "far-right" group.. is actually not far right.

If by "far right" we mean "authoritarian" right, then Nazis are far right.

But I think it's more complicated.

Nazis are wrong whatever we call them

 

[KirkDuyt]

The Black Book of Communism (a read I suggest to anyone here that wants to generalise the left as the caring side) suggests that over 94 million people directly died as a result of communist (far left) rule. For such caring, lovely people the left do have this unfortunate habit of consistently stumbling across causing untold misery and suffering, they're even more effective at it than the far right.

Both the far left and the far right are very good at putting the blame for their plight on a certain class of people, and both then systematically set about murdering anybody who they considered part of that class. Murder the Jews, murder the landlords, murder the kulaks, murder the gypsies, on and on. They're why your life has been hard, they deserved to be eradicated, it's their fault. They have been living the good life while you've been suffering so it's only fair.

Both the left and the right have nasty, extremist sides to their ideologies and this is proven by history. So neither can be called oversimplified as being the good guys, or the nice ones who want to share. It seems people like to imagine that simply because they identify as left wing, they are better, less violent, more selfless than those on the right. But plenty on the other side feel the exact same way and that can easily lead to dehumanising people because you view yourself as morally superior to the other side.

Im talking from an economic standpoint. Stalin was an insane dictator, him murdering all dissidents has very little to do with the economic principles of communism. The fact communism doesnt work is because humans need incentives to perform. In all communist countries the rulers enrich themselves to a point where they're not actually left wing anymore. Rightwing Rigtes never have rulers that are secretly very lrft wing and share their wealth in secret.

 

[Synco]

The Black Book of Communism (a read I suggest to anyone here that wants to generalise the left as the caring side) suggests that over 94 million people directly died as a result of communist (far left) rule.

For such caring, lovely people the left do have this unfortunate habit of consistently stumbling across causing untold misery and suffering, they're even more effective at it than the far right.

In the end, your generalisation is not different from the one you criticise. The problem is the label itself. "Left" has meant an awful lot of things for several centuries, and all these grand, all-encompassing labels are quite useless to accurately describe the multitude of things that fall under them. You get the Red Khmer and the fight against child labour under that label. You get both violent state authoritarianism and resistance against it.

That's why that moniker means little to me, you can find the most horrible things under it, as well as the most noble intentions, thoughts and actions. Sometimes they even appeared together in a contradictory fashion. Although it's not surprising that in a world largely built on power, gained and secured by the ability to excercise violence, the variants complicit with these principles were the more successful and popular ones over history.

The only way for me to adhere to a left tradition after the 20th century is to focus on the aspect of emancipation, without regard to ideological self-stylisation of the various actors. That way, the dividing criterion isn't some broad label, but the question of serious attempts on emancipation from intolerable circumstances without creating new kinds of oppression, and effective prevention of the worst in the meantime (which is often dirty business). You'll have historical and present-day leftists on both sides of that dividing line.

Mind what's totally missing in my post is any reference to right, center, and loony politics, so the whole thing is a bit lopsided.

 

[Cheesy]

So fascism and Nazism were left-wing ideologies? Not having it.

To be fair, Nazism was only really 'collective' for particularly groups of people, with the rest not only left to fend for themselves but actively crushed and oppressed by the state. In that sense it could be perceived as individualistic, even if that individualism was expressed in a collective manner. Although obviously the Nazis tried to act as if they were operating under some pretense of collectivism even if they weren't.

 

[SquishyMcSquish]

Im talking from an economic standpoint. Stalin was an insane dictator, him murdering all dissidents has very little to do with the economic principles of communism. The fact communism doesnt work is because humans need incentives to perform. In all communist countries the rulers enrich themselves to a point where they're not actually left wing anymore. Rightwing Rigtes never have rulers that are secretly very lrft wing and share their wealth in secret.

This is wrong. It's pretty tiring watching the crimes of the far left being purely attributed to mad men at the helm. Every single nation which has been led by the far left has seen people commit unspeakable crimes in the name of that ideology.

The far left (just like the far right) whips up a frenzy against class enemies, it seeks to attribute blame and dehumanise certain people because they are betrayers of the people. It isn't just the likes of Stalin and Mao who despised certain classes, this is a problem which infests the far left as a whole. Someone else suggested it, but go visit places on the internet where people on the far left gather and you'll see that they mirror much of the same bitterness and potential for evil as those on the far right.

 

[SquishyMcSquish]

In the end, your generalisation is not different from the one you criticise. The problem is the label itself. "Left" has meant an awful lot of things for several centuries, and all these grand, all-encompassing labels are quite useless to accurately describe the multitude of things that fall under them. You get the Red Khmer and the fight against child labour under that label. You get both violent state authoritarianism and resistance against it.

That's why that moniker means little to me, you can find the most horrible things under it, as well as the most noble intentions, thoughts and actions. Sometimes they even appeared together in a contradictory fashion. Although it's not surprising that in a world largely built on power, gained and secured by the ability to excercise violence, the variants complicit with these principles were the more successful and popular ones over history.

The only way for me to adhere to a left tradition after the 20th century is to focus on the aspect of emancipation, without regard to ideological self-stylisation of the various actors. That way, the dividing criterion isn't some broad label, but the question of serious attempts on emancipation from intolerable circumstances without creating new kinds of oppression, and effective prevention of the worst in the meantime (which is often dirty business). You'll have historical and present-day leftists on both sides of that dividing line.

Mind what's totally missing in my post is any reference to right, center, and loony politics, so the whole thing is a bit lopsided.

I don't disagree, of course the simplistic battle of left vs right is one colossal generalisation. Look at this very thread, people have completely different definitions of what that it actually means to be on the left or the right.

My point is that neither side (however you define it) can be described as wholly good or evil, and those who are extremists on both sides can be extremely dangerous people.

 

[berbatrick]

Really this is where the left-right idea breaks down quickly.

According to the political compass, Hitler is fairly central on the left right spectrum, although obviously extremely authoritian. Just think about that for a second. Everyone's standard definition of a "far-right" group.. is actually not far right.

If by "far right" we mean "authoritarian" right, then Nazis are far right.

But I think it's more complicated.

Nazis are wrong whatever we call them

Hitler wasn't a fan of free market, but he was enthusiastic privatiser and explicitly repudiated the socialists within his national socialist party.

Capitalism and Nazism
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/04/capitalism-and-nazism/


Going by the Marxist definition, capitalism is the system of private ownership of the means of production (going along with rapid technological changes and global spread), in which case Hitler was strongly capitalist.

 

[hobbers]

This is wrong. It's pretty tiring watching the crimes of the far left being purely attributed to mad men at the helm. Every single nation which has been led by the far left has seen people commit unspeakable crimes in the name of that ideology.

The far left (just like the far right) whips up a frenzy against class enemies, it seeks to attribute blame and dehumanise certain people because they are betrayers of the people. It isn't just the likes of Stalin and Mao who despised certain classes, this is a problem which infests the far left as a whole. Someone else suggested it, but go visit places on the internet where people on the far left gather and you'll see that they mirror much of the same bitterness and potential for evil as those on the far right.

Also the structure of these 'utopian' societies makes it easier for the most nefarious and treacherous people to exploit the system and gain power.

 

[Green_Red]

Very simple to say the working class is all left - don’t think it is as simple as that. Working class makes up the extreme right in a number of movements.

there is no simple answer to this question though is there. You're right, its a generalisation, but I don't have time to write a dissertation on it for you. The Extreme Right is just a popular way to describe the Facist movement, in reality it has little to do with right and left in the context of the the op really.

 

[SquishyMcSquish]

Also the structure of these 'utopian' societies makes it easier for the most nefarious and treacherous people to exploit the system and gain power.

Yeah, I mean people talk about communism failing because Stalin happened to be this horrible individual, but communist rule across the world had a habit of attracting similarly nasty individuals.

From China to the USSR, to Ethiopia, to Korea, China, Cambodia etc ... that's a lot of regimes to simply be unfortunate enough to fall to nasty individuals. At some point you surely have to be looking at something being fundamentally wrong in your ideology that leads to this, rather than simply repeating 'that wasn't real communism' a million times till you get it right.

 

[psychdelicblues]

I know you're probably exaggerating, but I think it's interesting to see from where Stalin came and what allowed him to thrive.

The USSR was never envisaged as a lone red state in a capitalist world. The impetus behind the October Revolution came from Lenin and Trotsky, who both believed that Russia could skip or "manage" its capitalist industrial transformation under workers' rule, while the rest of Europe had its socialist revolution after WW1. (Interestingly Stalin was one of the most cautious and inconspicuous leaders then, he felt that the Bolsheviks should have be more supportive of the (unpopular) Provisional Government and less radical socialist parties.)

Of course, Lenin/Trotsky's European dreams, inspired by Marx's theory, fell flat - after the German Social Democratic Party collaborated with right-wing militias to suppress the Spartacist revolt (Rosa Luxemburg), the prospect of left-wing revolution in the advanced capitalist countries was over.

Now, you had an isolated, agrarian, and fairly un-industrialised country, with the ruling revolutionary party having fallen out with all other socialist parties, with a civil war supported by all major world powers (Japan, Germany, France, UK and US all supported the Tsarist Whites against Trotsky's Bolshevik army). This was about as far removed from an internal revolution in the centre of capitalist power that Marx envisaged. Some of the measures (like re-forming the the secret police, Cheka) I can understand given how precarious the situation was. The reinstatement of small-scale capitalism to revive an economy torn apart by almost a decade of war (Lenin's NEP).

The problem is the scale of the power given to the Cheka, the fact that they were in totally uncharted territory and could see that the NEP wasn't going anywhere utopian fast, the fact that as a war measure they had effectively destroyed the power of the very Soviets (workers' councils) which had given the support and legitimacy in 1917. They were now cut off from the people, having promised a utopian future and coming nowhere near it, had reduced (once very lively) internal party debate, and were under no democratic control.

I think the particulars of what Stalin did were because of him, the purges were the result of his paranoia, the return to social conservatism: the recriminalisation of homosexuality, toughened divorce laws, and pro-family/motherhood propaganda, was definitely his personal choice, but the collectivisation and rapid industrialisation were actually Trotsky's policies that he appropriated. Maybe some ruling dispensations would have re-delegated actual power to the Soviets and peasants' councils after the war, maybe some would not have set insane work or food targets, maybe some would have given consideration for the workers on whose behalf they were ruling. But I can't imagine any such massive unprecedented transformation would have been "nice" under any ruler. Indeed, everywhere from Europe itself to the colonised 3rd world, the move away from feudalism has always been bloody in various degrees.

Sounds almost right wing.

 

[KirkDuyt]

Yeah, I mean people talk about communism failing because Stalin happened to be this horrible individual, but communist rule across the world had a habit of attracting similarly nasty individuals.

From China to the USSR, to Ethiopia, to Korea, China, Cambodia etc ... that's a lot of regimes to simply be unfortunate enough to fall to nasty individuals. At some point you surely have to be looking at something being fundamentally wrong in your ideology that leads to this, rather than simply repeating 'that wasn't real communism' a million times till you get it right.

Communism is shite, so is the extreme left, that's not my point. Communism doesnt work because it's not compatible with humanity, but in the end left comes down to spreading resources and right comes down to more individuality. One is idealistic, the other is more self serving.

Im no communist nor even a socialist, but the idea behind leftism is more idealistic than the idea behind conservatism. Surely you can agree on that?

 

[SquishyMcSquish]

Communism is shite, so is the extreme left, that's not my point. Communism doesnt work because it's not compatible with humanity, but in the end left comes down to spreading resources and right comes down to more individuality. One is idealistic, the other is more self serving.

Im no communist nor even a socialist, but the idea behind leftism is more idealistic than the idea behind conservatism. Surely you can agree on that?

The extreme left is a part of the left though, right? We don't just wave away the far right and their actions because its extremism. Hence why when you say left = niceness and right = selfishness or some variation of that I can't agree, because the left are very capable of being violent and hateful, just towards different groups.

I really don't think it's as simplistic as that. For example, as has been stated plenty in this thread you can't simply define right vs left on their economic policy. Traditionally though, the right have believed that society requires order and class in order to function, in order for civilisation to be maintained. The modern right also regularly defend free speech, which is pretty idealistic. Then you have other values such as maintaining strong family unity, the free market, free trade, love and loyalty to your nation, loyalty to monarchy .. etc etc. There are plenty of 'idealistic' values/beliefs that have been traditionally associated with the right, in fact its arguable that the modern left is more pragmatic than the right, which now relies more on emotive arguments. Plenty of people on the right wing have lots of very strong ideals.

It completely depends on how you view the right and the left, as has been said over and over in this thread it's just a far too simplistic way to actually see things. The definition has consistently shifted throughout history and still has very different meanings depending on what country you live in.

 

[KirkDuyt]

The extreme left is a part of the left though, right? We don't just wave away the far right and their actions because its extremism. Hence why when you say left = niceness and right = selfishness or some variation of that I can't agree, because the left are very capable of being violent and hateful, just towards different groups.

I really don't think it's as simplistic as that. For example, as has been stated plenty in this thread you can't simply define right vs left on their economic policy. Traditionally though, the right have believed that society requires order and class in order to function, in order for civilisation to be maintained. The modern right also regularly defend free speech, which is pretty idealistic. Then you have other values such as maintaining strong family unity, the free market, free trade, love and loyalty to your nation, loyalty to monarchy .. etc etc. There are plenty of 'idealistic' values/beliefs that have been traditionally associated with the right, in fact its arguable that the modern left is more pragmatic than the right, which now relies more on emotive arguments. Plenty of people on the right wing have lots of very strong ideals.

It completely depends on how you view the right and the left, as has been said over and over in this thread it's just a far too simplistic way to actually see things. The definition has consistently shifted throughout history and still has very different meanings depending on what country you live in.

I dont think we actually disagree on most points, when I read your posts. Left and right go much further than just economic policy.however, the first post you replied to was meant only to illustrate that.

I do think that emphasizing loyalty to your own country above all others is self serving in principle. But thats a different story.

 

[Carolina Red]

Stalin & Mao were far left

I think the argument could be made that totalitarianism combined with state capitalism is “far right”.

 

[SquishyMcSquish]

I think the argument could be made that totalitarianism combined with state capitalism is “far right”.

Forced collectivisation causing mass starvation coupled with the targeting of the intellectual/land owning classes/nationalists (or anybody who might just disagree with left wing economics) = far left. Kulaks were murdered en masse simply because they were an impediment to a possible socialist utopia, so their deaths were considered as for the greater good. Both the far right and the far left are willing to sacrifice a great deal of lives in order to achieve what they consider the perfect world.

The left can be totalitarian as well, that is not solely right wing. Nobody would describe either communist China or Russia as far right, unless the aim was to remove the far left of any historical guilt for past crimes.

 

[Carolina Red]

The left can be totalitarian as well, that is not solely right wing. Nobody would describe either communist China or Russia as far right, unless the aim was to remove the far left of any historical guilt for past crimes.

Maybe just nobody you’ve ever paid attention to, but it reality, many people did just that...

The term “Red Fascism” was actually created in the 1930s to refer to Stalinism. It was also eventually applied to Maoism.

Norman Thomas (leader of the Socialist Party of America in the 1930s and 40s):
"Such is the logic of totalitarianism", that "communism, whatever it was originally, is today Red fascism"

Bruno Rizzi (founder of the Communist Party of Italy) in 1938:
"Stalinism [took on] a regressive course, generating a species of red fascism identical in its superstructural and choreographic features [with its Fascist model]"

Otto Rühle (founder of the Internationale magazine):
“The struggle against fascism must begin with the struggle against bolshevism...Russia was the example for fascism…. Whether party ‘communists’ like it or not, the fact remains that the state order and rule in Russia are indistinguishable from those in Italy and Germany. Essentially, they are alike. One may speak of a red, black, or brown ‘soviet state’, as well as of red, black or brown fascism.”

The New York Times in 1939:
"Hitlerism is brown communism, Stalinism is red fascism...The world will now understand that the only real 'ideological' issue is one between democracy, liberty and peace on the one hand and despotism, terror and war on the other.”

 

[SquishyMcSquish]

Also, yes the USSR relied upon state capitalism and heavy industrialisation, because it is simply an economic impossibility to reach a communist utopia without doing so. The biggest lie they sold their people was that 'we need to do this, so that tomorrow we will have this' but of course they were never going to get close to what they actually wanted, because it was a ridiculous dream. The end goal was still communism, that was the ideology they were working towards, state capitalism was merely the vehicle with which they felt they could get there.

Also, the far left are very good at distancing themselves from failed regimes after they prove to be a disaster, but also fantastic at taking credit when these regimes are enjoying brief periods of success. There were plenty of examples of Western academics declaring that Marxist classless society had been achieved (Alexander Wicksteed), with others like Bernard Shaw talking up how great the gulags were for the inmates and Joseph Freeman waxing lyrical about how he had never seen such unity and equality in his lifetime. I seem to remember plenty of smug articles from socialist intellectuals holding Venezuala up as an example of a successful socialist economy, then it collapses like the rest and suddenly it becomes a game of who can claim it wasn't real socialism/communism the fastest.

 

[SquishyMcSquish]

Maybe just nobody you’ve ever paid attention to, but it reality, many people did just that...

The term “Red Fascism” was actually created in the 1930s to refer to Stalinism. It was also eventually applied to Maoism.

Norman Thomas (leader of the Socialist Party of America in the 1930s and 40s):
"Such is the logic of totalitarianism", that "communism, whatever it was originally, is today Red fascism"

Bruno Rizzi (founder of the Communist Party of Italy) in 1938:
"Stalinism [took on] a regressive course, generating a species of red fascism identical in its superstructural and choreographic features [with its Fascist model]"

Otto Rühle (founder of the Internationale magazine):
“The struggle against fascism must begin with the struggle against bolshevism...Russia was the example for fascism…. Whether party ‘communists’ like it or not, the fact remains that the state order and rule in Russia are indistinguishable from those in Italy and Germany. Essentially, they are alike. One may speak of a red, black, or brown ‘soviet state’, as well as of red, black or brown fascism.”

The New York Times in 1939:
"Hitlerism is brown communism, Stalinism is red fascism...The world will now understand that the only real 'ideological' issue is one between democracy, liberty and peace on the one hand and despotism, terror and war on the other.”

The communist regimes rose off the back of far left ideologies, and therefore the far left has to own the consequences. Just because the reality set in (like it always does) and they had to rely on state capitalism to build an economy and totalitarianism to create collectivisation doesn't mean that they should be branded right wing. Shock horror as people don't want their land and wealth seized, and farmers don't want to change their age old, successful methods in favour of left wing voodoo agricultural plans.

Also, I'll say it again but the murder of the land owning and intellectual classes within communist regimes was a direct result of far left ideology. Classicide is an act which the far left has committed repeatedly. Plenty of historians have even argued that the Great Leap Forward was outright genocide in an effort to quickly reach a communist utopia.

 

[Carolina Red]

The communist regimes rose off the back of far left ideologies, and therefore the far left has to own the consequences.

The originator of an ideology bears responsibility for someone bastardizing it later in history?

That makes no sense. It’s akin to blaming Lincoln for Trump.

 

[Wibble]

In the main we are all social democrats with the degree of social support and market regulation being the points of difference between right and left.

If Corbyn gets in we aren't going to see the rise of Communism, just a slight rolling back of some things towards a previous state of affairs most likely.

The worrying thing about the Tories is that they seem to want move very far right, even further than has happened already, and that might seriously impact ordinary people far more e.g. health funding and employment rights.

 

[SquishyMcSquish]

The originator of an ideology bears responsibility for someone bastardizing it later in history?

That makes no sense. It’s akin to blaming Lincoln for Trump.

They all knew that they would have to go through a period of state capitalism/heavy industrialisation in order to reach their goals. The end goal of these communist regimes was still communism, the suffering and elements of capitalism were seen as something worth tolerating in the short term. The likes of Trotsky weren't foolish enough to believe that people would give up their wealth, or that the peasantry would wander starry eyed in to collectivisation.

Even if you somehow absolve all guilt because 'oops, it went wrong again!' the targeting of intellectuals & land owners was something that the far left were absolutely responsible for because of their ideology.