Sure, but you’d have to accept that it’s all relative. A left-wing position in Saudi Arabia is not necessarily a left-wing position in the USA.
Left/Right originated as change vs. conservatism, but with the rise of the revolutionary right-wing (fascists) and ideological reactionaries, it has morphed to generally mean Anti-Hierarchy vs. Hierarchy.
Most prominent in this is in economics - those who are ideologically left support systems which, in theory, do not lend hierarchical power to any given individual or class. Those who are ideologically right support systems which unambiguously do. As such, ideologies which aim to reduce economic hierarchy - from Social Democracy seeking to lessen the coercive aspects of capitalist wealth, to Marxist-Leninists asserting that state socialism totally is above board and not a vanguardist power play, to full-on-ancoms seeking a society from each according to their ability, to each according to their need - are left. Ideologies which seek to preserve or increase economic hierarchy - neolibs at its most mild, ancaps, fascists, and corporatocrats at its most severe - are right.
It’s just f’ed up that economically left and economically right nation-states are in joint agreement of wanting all of us in the LGBT+ community to die.
I agree that its realitive, but tbh it kinda seems like you took “Left is inherently good, right is inherently bad” and then defined around it. Communism (or more specifically, Stalin) is slavery to the state, and thats definitely a heirarchy and definitely left wing.
Sooooo you’re both right. According to MLs, there must be a “transitional socialist state” to guide society to communism, which is supposed to be a stateless society with a gift economy instead of market economy.
Of course in practice they never get past the transitional phase. Anarchists often criticize these countries as being “state capitalist”, in the sense that the state takes the place of the previous capitalist class, and continues the business of exploitation as usual.
Many ancient (pre-roman) societies could be described as communist (primitive communism). Some communes are also obviously pretty close (but must survive within capitalist societies, so it complicates things).
Honestly, this whole “what team are you really on?” discourse is kinda annoying.
Like, can anyone properly define left, center, and right?
Sure, but you’d have to accept that it’s all relative. A left-wing position in Saudi Arabia is not necessarily a left-wing position in the USA.
Left/Right originated as change vs. conservatism, but with the rise of the revolutionary right-wing (fascists) and ideological reactionaries, it has morphed to generally mean Anti-Hierarchy vs. Hierarchy.
Most prominent in this is in economics - those who are ideologically left support systems which, in theory, do not lend hierarchical power to any given individual or class. Those who are ideologically right support systems which unambiguously do. As such, ideologies which aim to reduce economic hierarchy - from Social Democracy seeking to lessen the coercive aspects of capitalist wealth, to Marxist-Leninists asserting that state socialism totally is above board and not a vanguardist power play, to full-on-ancoms seeking a society from each according to their ability, to each according to their need - are left. Ideologies which seek to preserve or increase economic hierarchy - neolibs at its most mild, ancaps, fascists, and corporatocrats at its most severe - are right.
It’s just f’ed up that economically left and economically right nation-states are in joint agreement of wanting all of us in the LGBT+ community to die.
I agree that its realitive, but tbh it kinda seems like you took “Left is inherently good, right is inherently bad” and then defined around it. Communism (or more specifically, Stalin) is slavery to the state, and thats definitely a heirarchy and definitely left wing.
I mentioned that Marxist-Leninists (‘Communists’ in common parlance) are ideologically left, even though in practice their system is dogshit.
There is no state in communism.
Except every time we tried communism, there was a state. And don’t “Not trye communism” me, its communism as practiced.
Sooooo you’re both right. According to MLs, there must be a “transitional socialist state” to guide society to communism, which is supposed to be a stateless society with a gift economy instead of market economy.
Of course in practice they never get past the transitional phase. Anarchists often criticize these countries as being “state capitalist”, in the sense that the state takes the place of the previous capitalist class, and continues the business of exploitation as usual.
Many ancient (pre-roman) societies could be described as communist (primitive communism). Some communes are also obviously pretty close (but must survive within capitalist societies, so it complicates things).