What is a "leftist"? A fascist? A cultural Marxist?
POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Sunday, July 27, 2025 20:01
VIEWED: 7210
PAGE 2 of 6
So there is a historically established "capitalist v anticapitalist" axis. But there is at least a few more axes of political-economic thought, one being "centralization v decentralization" and "authoritarianism v anarchy".
This has to do with SGG's reference to the term "leftist". Now there are about as many definitions of the word "leftist" as there are people who use the term, but it originally referred to anti-capitalists.
Here are some definitions of "leftist"
Quote:https://www.diffen.com/difference/Left_Wing_vs_Right_Wing So in THIS definition, "leftist" means those who believe in a strong central government.
The fundamental differences between left-wing and right-wing ideologies center around the the rights of individuals vs. the power of the government. Left-wing beliefs are liberal in that they believe society is best served with an expanded role for the government. People on the right believe that the best outcome for society is achieved when individual rights and civil liberties are paramount and the role — and especially the power — of the government is minimized.
THIS definition also defines "leftism" as a system of authoritarianism
Quote:
Because the term “left” is already widely used to denote social systems and ideologies of force (e.g., socialism, communism, “progressivism”), and the term “right” is substantially used to denote social systems and ideologies of freedom (e.g., capitalism, classical liberalism, constitutional republicanism), the best approach for advocates of freedom is not to develop new terminology for the political spectrum, but to define the existing terminology with respect to political essentials—and to claim the extreme right end of the spectrum as rightfully and exclusively ours.
https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2012/06/political-left-and-right-
properly-defined/
A different definition
Quote:
Political scientists' general consensus is that "left wing" includes liberals, progressives, socialists and communists, and the "right wing" includes conservatives, traditionalists, reactionaries and fascists. The spectrum also includes moderate, center-right, center-left, far-right and far-left politics.
https://www.reference.com/government-politics/difference-between-left-
wing-right-wing-efb4493019ba1505#
The historic roots of the terms "left" and "right" when it comes to politics.
Quote:
The left-right political spectrum was born during the French Revolution of 1789. In the French National Assembly, supporters of the king sat on the president's right, and supporters of the revolution sat on his left. In 1791, the National Assembly was replaced by the Legislative Assembly, and the seating arrangement continued, this time with moderates occupying the center seats.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sell your shit elsewhere comrade sig because you spewing bullshit about others is what you do. It's all you do.
T 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Spewing bullshit about others??? Son, that is the ONLY thing you do around here! And THAT is a provable fact!
Originally posted by THG:
Sell your shit elsewhere comrade sig, because you spewing bullshit about others is what you do.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So the interesting thing is that, while I find Marx's description of capitalism was not only perfectly spot-on and predictive of trends that we still see today, it is THIS part that I disagree with ...
Quote:I flew this past a couple of people who've actually read Marx (unlike me :embarrassed:) to make sure that I accurately described the gist of his predictions, and it's at the trend of interconnected supply-chains, internationalized finance, and globalized corporate governance where I dug in my heels.
Marx ALSO projected that true communism would only come about after the entire world was under the yoke of the capitalist. When all distinctions of religion, nation, gender, age, language, and talent were destroyed (by the capitalist) ONLY THEN would the world's workers see their common identity and revolt against the capitalist, no longer divided by artificial barriers but united in their common economic interest.
So efforts to erase distinctions among people and to eliminate any group affiliations are (supposedly) in the (short term) interests of capitalists but in the (long term) interest of the internationalized "woke" worker.
I know that I've mentioned before a conversation that I had with BYTEMITE, and the discussion came to a point where the essential conflict (for me) was the internationalized future as described by Marx (and supported by people like GSTRING and SECOND) versus the "reactionary" move towards nationalism which- presumably- is an attempt to step backwards towards the past and away from the glorious future that awaits us all* (*except the capitalist). It occurred to me that if we can't manage our economic future here in the USA, where we presumably have democracy and the freedom of the vote, how does some future "revolution" come about when the entire global population ... along with the entire communications network ... will be under the control of the elite? The idea that "revolution" would evolve out of that scenario is a pipe dream ... a case of wishful thinking on Marx's part, where he insisted on pulling a happy ending from the extremely bleak future that he predicted.
So, if anything, I'm an ANTI-Marxist, I guess, a point which those who are arguing with the cardboard cutouts in their heads fail to notice.
There is another thing that Marx doesn't take into account, and that is the real world larger than our social/political/economic systems, and that is OUR ENVIRONMENT.
When I look at economic evolution in the REAL world, there is a parallel with the evolution of red deer in Scotland, as studied by Clutton-Brock. In that case, the male red deer get breeding privileges and so the male deer get bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger ... a rewarded genetic trend. What prevents the male red deer from becoming ginormous? TEN times the size of the female, instead of twice as large? Well, fortunately Clutton-Brock studied this herd long term, and what he found was that very large male deer required an enormous amount of food to support their extremely rapid growth, putting a strain not only on the female deer who carried them but also on local resources. During the time of the study there was a terrible blizzard which covered up the deer's food... and ALL MALES DIED EXCEPT ONE ... the puniest of the bunch, who was so small that he could survive on the same amount of food that a female could survive on. That put a big "reset" on the gene pool.
There IS something to be said for RUGGEDNESS. I know I have mentioned this many times before: "efficient" centralized production, long supply lines, just-in-time delivery, and dependence on a single currency are extremely vulnerable to shocks from the outside. It could be natural catastrophe or political upheaval or financial lock-up, but in any case the global capitalist system that Marx predicts has its own inbuilt weakness.
******
In any case ... I was thinking while I was doing dishes ... the future is
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:In 1938 the common man’s condition in the Soviet Union, Germany, or the United States may have been grim, but he was constantly told that he was the most important thing in the world, and that he was the future (provided, of course, that he was an “ordinary man,” rather than, say, a Jew or a woman). He looked at the propaganda posters—which typically depicted coal miners and steelworkers in heroic poses—and saw himself there: “I am in that poster! I am the hero of the future!”
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
But at some point the elite would have to look at the situation and ask themselves ... Why are we coddling/controlling this very large group of people that we don't need at all?
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
But as technology makes billions of people economically irrelevant, their political power is likely to shrink. For all the success that democracies have had over the past century or more, they are blips in history. Monarchies, oligarchies, and other forms of authoritarian rule have been far more common modes of human governance.
More about why Technology favors Tyranny at
www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/10/yuval-noah-harari-technol
ogy-tyranny/568330/
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
Gotta laugh. Sig posts the opinion of a French man from the mid 1800's as though it is gospel. Why, because it is a negative statement about America.
I know! That thing some people have with something they learned 40 years ago from someone who said it 100 years before that and they think it's relevant today. I want to tell them: "Get off the stage! We have a lot of great, young minds that have fresher, better ideas right now."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:YEP, those documents written in 1776 ... SO PASSE!
I know! That thing some people have with something they learned 40 years ago from someone who said it 100 years before that and they think it's relevant today. I want to tell them: "Get off the stage! We have a lot of great, young minds that have fresher, better ideas right now."
God, you're such a turd.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:YEP, those documents written in 1776 ... SO PASSE!
I know! That thing some people have with something they learned 40 years ago from someone who said it 100 years before that and they think it's relevant today. I want to tell them: "Get off the stage! We have a lot of great, young minds that have fresher, better ideas right now."
God, you're such a turd.
Yeah sig, a document created by Americans. A living document. One subject to change if deemed necessary by two thirds of the country. And to G's point, has had several amendments. 27 to be exact.
Trust me when I say the French were not involved in any of those changes. Nor were the Russians.
T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Philosopher who influenced the Founding Fathers and the Constitution. The Founding Fathers were heavily influenced by French philosopher Charles Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu when drafting the Constitution, most notably in connection with the separation of powers.
THUGGER admits it's not about RUSSIA !!! and is, in fact, a witch hunt. "Trump better be innocent of any wrong doing, anywhere, anytime."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Curiously, some of the philosophy of governance was developed in France, not England, by the above philosopher that KIKI mentioned, but if you were to read The Social Contract by Rousseau you would find a strong thread of "human rights" ("Man is everywhere born free and [but] everywhere he is in chains" relies on the concept of "natural" rights.)
The reason why that is curious is because at the time that French philosophers were developing the concepts of natural rights in conjunction with the American Founding Fathers (Ben Franklin was our ambassador to France), and the French government was providing aid to the rebellious colonialists (as a way to "stick it" to their enemies, the Brits) France itself was a strict monarchy. A monarchy which would shortly become extremely unpopular ("Let them eat cake") and convulsed in Revolution (1789) which started by lopping heads off the hated nobility but ran totally out of control, itself convulsed with internal denunciation and turmoil.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME