What is "leftism"?

[Angst]

I've been told before I'm a "leftist". That must mean I subscribe to the idealistic views of "leftism". Now, pray tell, what is leftism and what views am I accordingly supposed to have?

 

[Borachio]

This is like asking what a rightist is. There is no single answer.

Do you consider yourself to be "left" of centre?

edit: and are you talking about leftist (i.e. left of centre) or Leftist (i.e. far left)?

 

[Smellincoffee]

Leftism to me begins with Marxist social and historical criticism.

 

[civver_764]

I've always associated the term with an opposition to capitalism. Liberals/social democrats/center-left people/whatever you want to call them wouldn't be considered leftists.

 

[Angst]

This is like asking what a rightist is. There is no single answer.

Do you consider yourself to be "left" of centre?

I don't consider myself anything. Me being leftist is something I've been told. I'm asking what it means since I really don't know what I apparently subscribe to according to people calling me a leftist, my views leftist, etc.

I've always associated the term with an opposition to capitalism. Liberals/social democrats/center-left people/whatever you want to call them wouldn't be considered leftists.

But that's how it's used. People ascribe social democrats to leftism all the time, especially American conservatives.

 

[Borachio]

But the political spectrum covers the whole gamut from anarcho-syndicalism to fascist white supremacism. Surely you fit somewhere on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-left_politics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_wing_politics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-right_politics

Do you mean to say that nothing in any of the above links resonates with you?

 

[civver_764]

But that's how it's used. People ascribe social democrats to leftism all the time, especially American conservatives.

I've always gotten the impression they say leftist as a derogatory thing, in order to imply they are connected with communists.

 

[Ailedhoo]

Leftism is a term used on issue of the political spectrum... which has been questioned.

Ecomonically it associated with public control over ecomonics instead of private control. The method on this has been more the reason why the use of the "left-right" spectrum is questionable at best.

As for socially it is unclear: after all liberalism and socialism does issue on rights, let classical liberalism has been the root of capitalism. Similiar the exstream ends of left and right have authoriterian figures, let that makes the social issue with political power even more unclear. Hence I suggest we strive for alterative models.

 

[Crezth]

But that's how it's used. People ascribe social democrats to leftism all the time, especially American conservatives.

Yes, because the political associations of the word are (or, used to be) negative.

 

[Angst]

I like things from both wikipages and dislike things from both wikipages. But this thread isn't about me (not centrally that is) I just want to know whether I should criticize the absurd fact that people use the word "leftism" at all, or embrace it since it might just fit the things people actually call leftist.

Note how your wikipages are named "x-wing politics" and not "x-ism". There's a stark difference in the semantical burden of ... something-wing and then an idealism.

edit: wow. This was for Borachio. I'm apparently a slow typer. Sorry bout seemingly malplaced post.

 

[Borachio]

Are you a Moonbat?

 

[Angst]

According to the usage, I apparently am.

 

[Borachio]

Do you subscribe to the horseshoe theory?

Would you fit somewhere else on the political spectrum more comfortably?

 

[Angst]

I've thought about the horseshoe theory before reading about it, apparently. I don't particularly subscribe to it, but I think it has merit. The extremes in both linear directions are, after all, anarchist - the abolishment of state for the sake of individual opportunity being maximized through lack of control contra the abolishment of state for the sake of ending surpression of people and have everything be equality and noone have de jure power over others.

However, I'm not sure I even subscribe to any particular field on the spectrum you show there. I appreciate that you dug it out for me, but basically my views are too hodgepodgey to seat me gently anywhere. That's why, even though I've been suggested to enter politics due to my rabid aversion to some parts of the institutional design of Danish politics and some political views, I will never join a political party. I will have no platform, only strongly felt opinions that change as I'm more enlightened.

I'd like if someone to criticize the use of the word "leftist" though (particularly a Traitorfishian analysis could come in handy) because I know what things I apparently think when I am apparently a leftist.

 

[innonimatu]

However, I'm not sure I even subscribe to any particular field on the spectrum you show there. I appreciate that you dug it out for me, but basically my views are too hodgepodgey to seat me gently anywhere. That's why, even though I've been suggested to enter politics due to my rabid aversion to some parts of the institutional design of Danish politics and some political views, I will never join a political party. I will have no platform, only strongly felt opinions that change as I'm more enlightened.

That's kind of a generalized modern problem, isn't it? Or at least I feel it too!

Are we too demanding? Or are we just yet another iteration of the "young rebels" like those of 68, and all the "rebellions" before? But I'm not exactly young anymore, yet I still don't like the compromises necessary to make politics.

Ah, the world.... even when you think you finally understand it, you're at a loss as to how you want to go about changing it! Must be some kind of character effect only some of us get, because there's plenty of militant people out there. Lack of ruthlessness or of blind faith, those are serious defects for someone who wants to do something political, I'm afraid.

Anyway, sorry, I really don't have anything to add to the thread but further questions.

 

[Angst]

That's kind of a generalized modern problem, isn't it? Or at least I feel it too!

Are we too demanding? Or are we just yet another iteration of the "young rebels" like those of 68, and all the "rebellions" before? But I'm not exactly young anymore, yet I still don't like the compromises necessary to make politics.

Ah, the world.... even when you think you finally understand it, you're at a loss as to how you want to go about changing it! Must be some kind of character effect only some of us get, because there's plenty of militant people out there. Lack of ruthlessness or of blind faith, those are serious defects for someone who wants to do something political, I'm afraid.

Anyway, sorry, I really don't have anything to add to the thread but further questions.

Questions are good.

Your point about lack of ruthlessness or of blind faith - lack of zeal and militancy, even - is my issue exactly and it is why I do not wish to go about politics as a living. I might yell a bit whenever I have the opportunity, but that's about it.

 

[innonimatu]

But the problem is that politics are advanced by a mix of that: someone ruthless in command, lots of others blindly trusting and following. Not necessarily blind in the choice of strategy, in the choice of political affiliation; but blind in following some group tactic once committed. Yes, it's a very... communist idea, I know. But political change, what we call revolutions, always require this mix or ruthlessness and faith. It's not a communist thing, it's a thing about the requirements for political change, whether to the "right", the "left", or wherever.

The rest of politics... it's management. Influence trafficking, minor adjustments, running the existing system. That which repels so many people for seemingly lacking "soul", passion, principles. That management is what we have today. We, so many of us among the politically unengaged, despise that. So we refuse to take part in that. But we also refuse to lead others towards changes. And we refuse to be led. And despite all those refusals we are the dead weight that keeps the political management (of which we want no part!) employed. We are the silent majority that gives the politics we like to be proud to despise all the support they have and need.

Management is the norm, revolutions an exception. Petty as "management politics" seem, that's where a difference can be made most of the time. Perhaps we shouldn't despise it? Perhaps there might be value in trying to change the system from within? This cynic here has been wondering whether he should be less cynical and more practical. Or at least more active. Even if it means participating in those unappealing politics.

And why is it that this very real, timeless even, fundamental split in politics (revolutionary vs. managerial) never shows up on "political charts"? It's more useful than "left" vs. "right". And it's not the same as conservative vs. liberal.

You know who I'd like to also hear from in this thread also? Out members from Singapore. That's a state that has even been since independence under that mix of capitalism and social democracy that is the perfect example of "managed politics". They seem to hate it. But are most people even there really tired of being managed?

 

[Core Imposter]

Leftism is the tendency to ignore all practical considerations in the pursuit of obtaining personal comfort and power by endorsing coercion.

Example: President sees trend to fiscal catastrohe but igores it in order to pursue an advantage towards reelection and personal prestige by villianizing productive individuals and endorsing the confiscation of their property despite the fact that said confiscation does nothing to avert said catastrophe.

 

[Angst]

Hm. That's weird MisterCooper, I don't see myself supporting any of that.

 

[Lord of Elves]

Leftism is the tendency to ignore all practical considerations in the pursuit of obtaining personal comfort and power by endorsing coercion.

Actually, no, that sounds strikingly like libertarianism. Or as we called it before Rand, anarcho-capitalism.

Do you subscribe to the horseshoe theory?

Would you fit somewhere else on the political spectrum more comfortably?

According to that I am a "communitarian".