What is "leftism"?

[Traitorfish]

Just wondering, but does this mean Murray Rothbard was a leftist?

edit: ^ He didn't challenge authority so much as want it reorganized.

I did wonder what implications this formulation might have for right-libertarians. I think that Civver is ultimately right that a critique of the state without a critique of authority-in-general is ultimately a critique made from within the terms of an authoritarian world-view, and doubly so when (as in most strains) the state is still embraced as a defender of private property and thus the defender of non-state forms of authority. Most right-libertarians are to all intents and purposes private-sector authoritarians.

There's a fair argument that some of the most radical forms of right-libetarianism, such as Rothbard's, do tend to strain against this, and at times appear to approach those strains of individualist and market anarchisms that do naturally find their home on the far-left. The key, I think, is the move to insist upon a consensual and voluntaristic model even for property-distribution, which leads one to what you might awkwardly call an "individualist socialism".

However, this is a very peripheral strain, despite the great hordes of anti-state fascistoids proclaiming themselves to be "anarchists", and most who follow that road any distance find themselves identifying with individualism or mutualism rather than with "anarcho-capitalism"- even if they don't always throw away all their old books- so I don't know if there's much point in trying to puzzle out some conception by which "anarcho"-capitalism might be rehabilitated as "left-wing".

Some good reading on the whole issue can be found here, in both the quoted extract and the response.

Paleoconservatives are quite critical of authority but are considered Righty, so that wouldn't cut it I think.

I don't think that they are, not to any meaningful extent. They're critical of certain configurations of political authority, but so is everyone. They have absolutely nothing to say about the boss or the landlord, the father or the husband, the priest or the "community leader", all of which are highly significant forms of authority. They don't even really have any real critique of the state, and judging by their enthusiasm for drug wars, border fences and the state ownership of female reproductive organs, tend to trust it a hell of a lot more than they trust any actual human being. They just don't like the federal government telling them what to do, and that has nothing to with being critical of authority.

 

[Cutlass]

To be fair the right in this country has embraced some kind of reactionary anarcho-capitalism, not traditional conservatism, which tends to imply the maintenance of traditional values, methods and institutions. So-called conservatives in the United States seem disposed to do away with plenty of traditional values, methods and institutions in their desperate quest to return to some kind of idealized past, among those constrictive and evil institutions being the American government.

I think that greatly overstates the extent to which traditional conservatives have ever been "conservative". If you think of conservatism in terms of the preservation of what is, in general not many conservative leaders do that. There is always elements of changing things, usually changing them in manners that benefit themselves at the expense of others. And in that respect modern American conservatives are right in the same type. Africans and Asians were not always "lesser peoples who needed a guiding hand/firm rulership", but in making that the status quo of beliefs, it justified what White leaders wanted to do. And that is just one example. Essentially, most traditions and traditional beliefs come from some leader changing what had been tradition up to that point in some way that they, for whatever reason, including their own biases, wealth, or power, they felt was better. Serfdom had to originate someplace. So did slavery, so did male dominance of females, so did the many expansions of the powers of lords, so did an infinite number of other things that conservatives later came to view as "the right way to do things because we've always done them that way".

 

[potatokiosk]

Just wondering, but does this mean Murray Rothbard was a leftist?

No. The "anarcho-capitalist" ideology upholds the absolute authority of property owners (depending on what the person espousing the ideology considers a legitimate claim to ownership) establishing a hierarchical relationship between people with little property and people who own lots of property.

 

[Tahuti]

Just wondering, but does this mean Murray Rothbard was a leftist?

Murray Rothbard did advocate being allied with the New Left in the 1960s, and quite a few strains that could be called "Anarcho-Capitalist" certainly have a more left-wing self-image than a rightist one.

I don't think that they are, not to any meaningful extent. They're critical of certain configurations of political authority, but so is everyone. They have absolutely nothing to say about the boss or the landlord, the father or the husband, the priest or the "community leader", all of which are highly significant forms of authority. They don't even really have any real critique of the state, and judging by their enthusiasm for drug wars, border fences and the state ownership of female reproductive organs, tend to trust it a hell of a lot more than they trust any actual human being. They just don't like the federal government telling them what to do, and that has nothing to with being critical of authority.

I was more referring to paleoconservatives in general, not just the US kind. For example, US paleos are quite often very Christian but European ones often oppose Christianity for being authoritarian. Its true that, as you implied, paleoconservatives view authority as unavoidable, but that's something different than not being critical.

No. The "anarcho-capitalist" ideology upholds the absolute authority of property owners (depending on what the person espousing the ideology considers a legitimate claim to ownership) establishing a hierarchical relationship between people with little property and people who own lots of property.

All anarchist forms of socialism and direct democracy in general enshrines the absolute authority of the simple majority. Having persons calling the shots over another is quite inevitable in a world in which people choose to live packed in one place known as cities in which they do not know each other, so any political ideology is basically a case of pick your poison.

 

[Global Skeptic]

One could try.

What are these universal ethical principles?

They are properly not existing in any functional form. It appears Kohlberg made a study of observation(stages 1 to 5) and then added some rationalistic/idealistic idea to the study(stages 6/7).

In Stage five (social contract driven), the world is viewed as holding different opinions, rights and values. Such perspectives should be mutually respected as unique to each person or community. Laws are regarded as social contracts rather than rigid edicts. Those that do not promote the general welfare should be changed when necessary to meet “the greatest good for the greatest number of people”.[8] This is achieved through majority decision, and inevitable compromise. Democratic government is ostensibly based on stage five reasoning.

One way to understand stage 5 is that it appears to be ethical subjectivism and relativism; i.e. "as holding different opinions, rights and values". It appears rights are a inter-subjective construct; i.e. "through majority decision, and inevitable compromise".

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

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?

Leftism is a term used by simpletons who like to put their political grievances into a single term since politics makes brain hurts.

Example

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

 

[Borachio]

They are properly not existing in any functional form. It appears Kohlberg made a study of observation(stages 1 to 5) and then added some rationalistic/idealistic idea to the study(stages 6/7).

One way to understand stage 5 is that it appears to be ethical subjectivism and relativism; i.e. "as holding different opinions, rights and values". It appears rights are a inter-subjective construct; i.e. "through majority decision, and inevitable compromise".

Hmm. It's an interesting framework that should enable people to step back a bit from "politics" and get a proper view of what's going on.

I'd not come across Kohlberg before. Thanks.

 

[Traitorfish]

I was more referring to paleoconservatives in general, not just the US kind. For example, US paleos are quite often very Christian but European ones often oppose Christianity for being authoritarian. Its true that, as you implied, paleoconservatives view authority as unavoidable, but that's something different than not being critical.

I can't say that I've encountered the term "paleoconservative" outside of an American context.

All anarchist forms of socialism and direct democracy in general enshrines the absolute authority of the simple majority.

I don't think they do. If anything, the emphasis in most contemporary anarchist currents lies to an impractical extent on unanimity.

 

[ComradeDavo]

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?

I would say as someone who is most definetly a 'leftist' it means to support a strong wealfare state, to support government regulation in the ecomnomy, to support to varying degree's wealth redistribution (via varying methods, depending on the kind of leftist you are) and generally to support civil liberties, decmoracy and personal freedom's (though this isn't the case in some of the Marxist or 'Iron Socialist' forms of leftism).

Leftism to me begins with Marxist social and historical criticism.

No, thats communism and some forms of socialism. There's alot more to the left than that.

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.

Nope, i'm certainally leftist and I am not opposed to capitalism in general, though I do want it heavily regulated.

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.

 

[Traitorfish]

No, thats communism and some forms of socialism. There's alot more to the left than that.

Marxism is a body of theory and criticism, it's not a political commitment in itself.

 

[ComradeDavo]

Marxism is a body of theory and criticism, it's not a political commitment in itself.

My point still is that there's far more people on the left who are not Marxist than who are.

Hence why I disagree with saying that Leftism 'begins with Marxist social and historical criticism' because most on the left have formed their opinion/standpoiints seperately from Marxism.

 

[Traitorfish]

I took it to be a genealogical claim- that all contemporary "leftist" thought is in some way a descendent of and/or response to Marxism, which is a pretty reasonable claim.

That's not to say that I agree with it, mind- Marx himself was still responding to Proudhon, Owen and other thinkers who were identifiably "leftist" even by contemporary standards, so I think it's drawing the line at least fifty years too late.

 

[ComradeDavo]

I took it to be a genealogical claim- that all contemporary "leftist" thought is in some way a descendent of and/or response to Marxism, which is a pretty reasonable claim.

From that perspective maybe.

That's not to say that I agree with it, mind- Marx himself was still responding to Proudhon, Owen and other thinkers who were identifiably "leftist" even by contemporary standards, so I think it's drawing the line at least fifty years too late.

Agreed.

 

[Tahuti]

I can't say that I've encountered the term "paleoconservative" outside of an American context.

If by Paleoconservatism, we are to understand a general support of local government as a political ideal, Europe is quite numerous in these sort of things.

I don't think they do. If anything, the emphasis in most contemporary anarchist currents lies to an impractical extent on unanimity.

Yet consensus is exactly what is needed to prevent direct democracy from becoming oppressive.

 

[Traitorfish]

If by Paleoconservatism, we are to understand a general support of local government as a political ideal, Europe is quite numerous in these sort of things.

As I said, a preference for local authorities doesn't imply any criticism of authority as such, just of certain configurations of political authority. The contention that "small-government conservatives" take with centralised government isn't that it represents an authority, but that it represents a rival to the authority of the father, the husband, the landlord, the employer, the pastor and the "community leader". Authority is not the problem, but non-traditional authority.

There is, to but it very bluntly, no "critical attitude towards authority" implied in the claim that the state has no right to stop you raping your wife.

Yet consensus is exactly what is needed to prevent direct democracy from becoming oppressive.

That's certainly the argument.

 

[GhostWriter16]

The key, I think, is the move to insist upon a consensual and voluntaristic model even for property-distribution, which leads one to what you might awkwardly call an "individualist socialism".

However, this is a very peripheral strain, despite the great hordes of anti-state fascistoids proclaiming themselves to be "anarchists", and most who follow that road any distance find themselves identifying with individualism or mutualism rather than with "anarcho-capitalism"- even if they don't always throw away all their old books- so I don't know if there's much point in trying to puzzle out some conception by which "anarcho"-capitalism might be rehabilitated as "left-wing".

OK, now you are confusing me.

My understanding of anarchism is fairly limited, and my understanding of Rothbard is limited to a few online articles (Which is enough to know he was not a left-winger in any sense) but I don't get what you're getting at here. To me, whether the government protects your property claim or some private protection agency does, to me the implications are the same, I own X, you trying to take X from me that's an aggression against my property and I can thus use force to stop you from taking it from me, because that's part of the non-aggression principle, I can use force to stop you from using force against me. To my knowledge, left-libertarians would agree with this, but would disagree that I actually own anything, and so would claim that theft should not be a crime. To me, this doesn't really make any more sense than saying murder should no longer be a crime, I think what socialists object to is more how property is distributed, rather than the fact that I can stop you from taking things from me. But I'm definitely clueless here, some enlightenment would be appreciated.

Why does property need to be "Voluntary"? If I own something, the majority shouldn't be able to make me give it up. That just sounds like government again, not libertarianism.

 

[civver_764]

If you're interested, this faq gives a very comprehensive answer on the topic. It's a bit of a long read though.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Personally, I'm more interested in the question of "was Stalin a horrible Judeo-Bolshevik or a glorious destroyer of Judeo-Bolsheviks?"

 

[GhostWriter16]

It is indeed a long read, but I don't mind that It may take me awhile though, so if you could give me a "Quick summary" I'd appreciate it.

 

[Tahuti]

As I said, a preference for local authorities doesn't imply any criticism of authority as such, just of certain configurations of political authority. The contention that "small-government conservatives" take with centralised government isn't that it represents an authority, but that it represents a rival to the authority of the father, the husband, the landlord, the employer, the pastor and the "community leader". Authority is not the problem, but non-traditional authority.

There is, to but it very bluntly, no "critical attitude towards authority" implied in the claim that the state has no right to stop you raping your wife.

Like I said earlier, I do think that paleoconservatives are much more critical of authority than standard conservatives of David Cameron variety, and simply support local government more deeply rooted in tradition, both because it is much easier to depose such forms of authority and despite their pessimism in authority, still very much believe it is necessary.

It is indeed a long read, but I don't mind that It may take me awhile though, so if you could give me a "Quick summary" I'd appreciate it.

Well, I don't know whether this faq points it out, but simply put, Murray Rothbard and Proudhon aren't really that different from each other. Both support a free market free of government intervention. The difference is vocabulary and motivations: Proudhon, being a poster child of left wing anarchism, believes unfettered free markets (which he calls "mutualism") to be the key to equality, or "socialism". Thus, he opposes what he calls "capitalism" (which Murray Rothbard would call "corporatism") which sustains the current wealth inequities. So both believe roughly the same thing, but Murray Rothbard applies the term "capitalism" on what Proudhon would call "socialism" and vice versa.