Israel-Hamas War 2023

[Barrister]

Do try to argue that in regards to how communist ruled China views Republic of China.

That's very much a leftist government using nationalist arguments against a plucky underdog right wing government.

With regards to Stalin, you don't get to pick and choose what you define as a leftist leader based on how much you like them. A communist is a leftie, if you don't see that then you're really out in the weeds.

China doesn't have a left-wing government, nor was Stalin a left-winger.  Those are bad examples.  Early Soviet Russia and the early first French republic provide plenty of examples of genuinely left-wing government engaged in oppression, and there are numerous others.

I agree that the Gaza War is a clash of two far-right governments.

Look, I've lived through the opposite of this example - "Hitler was a left winger!  It's right there in the name, National Socialist Party!"/

Culturally and philosophically Hitler was in the right-wing tradition, and Stalin (and Mao) are in the left wing tradition.  It certainly is a failing when you try to boil everything down to a 2-dimensional axis, but it is what it is.

Obviously democrats of both the left and right should reject authoritarians such as Hitler and Stalin, but we can't fall into Josquis-like thinking where our own "side" is the source of all goodness and light, and therefore anything evil is automatically from the other side.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Stalin was concerned with some of the class consciousness stuff of left wing politics literally his entire life. It is far too easy to make the claim he "became a fascist" in power. He became an absolutist leftist, they exist, and have existed.

Stalin even sent his own son to die in the war and didn't want him treated any differently than a regular soldier (and his son did in fact die in the war--being captured and Stalin refused to negotiate for his release.) That is not the actions of a man who doesn't have some level of philosophical sincerity about classless egalitarianism. It is hard to find examples of far right dictators who don't adopt monarchical forms of favoritism / protectionism for their offspring.

[Barrister]

Stalin was concerned with some of the class consciousness stuff of left wing politics literally his entire life. It is far too easy to make the claim he "became a fascist" in power. He became an absolutist leftist, they exist, and have existed.

Stalin even sent his own son to die in the war and didn't want him treated any differently than a regular soldier (and his son did in fact die in the war--being captured and Stalin refused to negotiate for his release.) That is not the actions of a man who doesn't have some level of philosophical sincerity about classless egalitarianism. It is hard to find examples of far right dictators who don't adopt monarchical forms of favoritism / protectionism for their offspring.

Stalin was a left-wing authoritarian.  Lots of examples of those in history.

Obviously Stalin and Hitler saw something of themselves in each other (Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact) - but also saw themselves as diametrical opposites (which is why Molotov-Ribbentrop lasted all of two years).

[DGuller]

I'm really puzzled by the notion that Stalin was anything other than left-wing.  For one, even among the factions of the Communist Party, he wasn't on the right-most end, and even the right wing of the Communist Party was still very much on the left.  Yes, there were people in the Communist Party more to the left than he was, until they were shot, but it was Stalin that was behind everything that was done to the Russian society in their first three decades of communist rule.

I suspect that part of the reason for the notion is the perception that Stalin was a brute, contrasted with the towering intellectuals that he defeated and shot.  While it's true that he was less of an egghead, he was definitely capable of having ideas so stupid that only smart people would believe.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Also let's be clear, leftists have been trying to find ways to "disown" Stalin since at least the 1940s (Orwell famously). A lot of these posters smugly pretending Stalin wasn't a leftist are recycling shit their commie professors probably said in college 20-50(in grumbler's case) years ago.

[crazy canuck]

There is a very basic and true classification of far left and far right.

Far right uses the excuse of racial/cultural superiority to be cruel and oppressive to others. The left uses the excuse of economic justice to do the same.

It is pointless to go beyond that because at the end of the day these ideologies are both made for and more importantly by people who consciously or otherwise are looking 6obd3t the status quo on fire for their own benefit.

I think you will find this interesting. It is the Globe explaining from an editorial point of view the difficulties of defining what "far right" means.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/standards-editor/article-what-do-journalists-mean-when-they-use-the-term-far-right/

[Razgovory]

If Hitler was a Palestinian would his Palestinian Worker's Party be considered Left-Wing or Right-wing?

[Valmy]

Also let's be clear, leftists have been trying to find ways to "disown" Stalin since at least the 1940s (Orwell famously). A lot of these posters smugly pretending Stalin wasn't a leftist are recycling shit their commie professors probably said in college 20-50(in grumbler's case) years ago.

Well rightists have likewise been finding ways to disown Hitler and Mussolini. They weren't anarcho-capitalist libertarians so clearly socialists! I guess if we go by that logic France, the UK, and the United States in the 1930s were also socialist states. Everybody was a socialist state!

Yeah just because somebody is ideologically similar to you doesn't mean they are evil pieces of garbage who will use the ideology for evil ends. Your ideology won't inevitably lead to goodness and light because people are involved.

[HVC]

There is a very basic and true classification of far left and far right.

Far right uses the excuse of racial/cultural superiority to be cruel and oppressive to others. The left uses the excuse of economic justice to do the same.

It is pointless to go beyond that because at the end of the day these ideologies are both made for and more importantly by people who consciously or otherwise are looking 6obd3t the status quo on fire for their own benefit.

I know you're making a generality, but the Khmer Rouge made a point of going after minorities. Lefties can use race and nationalism as a rallying point too.

[Valmy]

If Hitler was a Palestinian would his Palestinian Worker's Party be considered Left-Wing or Right-wing?

Depends on how was doing the considering obviously.

In my mind a left-wing Palestinian is trying to find class solidarity with oppressed Israelis to overthrow the false consciousness capitalist structure which is causing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A right-wing one is looking for Palestinian unity in an ethnic conflict.

But you have that whole intellectual structure of a colonialist settler state stuff that clouds the waters. I think that doesn't hold up for the most part as there had been Jewish Palestinians before Zionism and the majority of Jewish Israelis have West Asian/North African origins.

[Valmy]

There is a very basic and true classification of far left and far right.

Far right uses the excuse of racial/cultural superiority to be cruel and oppressive to others. The left uses the excuse of economic justice to do the same.

It is pointless to go beyond that because at the end of the day these ideologies are both made for and more importantly by people who consciously or otherwise are looking 6obd3t the status quo on fire for their own benefit.

I know you're making a generality, but the Khmer Rouge made a point of going after minorities. Lefties can use race and nationalism as a rallying point too.

Well right. People are imperfect so will allow their biases to influence their supposed ideology. Stalin certainly did that in spades.

Likewise we see the radical feminist, men-are-the-oppressing-class, political-lesbianism, blah blah types happily grabbing on reactionary biases when it suits their struggle to liberate women from evil trans women male infiltration and domination. And then we see conservatives happily echoing these radical feminist all-men-are-oppressors talking points in their anti-trans stuff to.

Everything gets messy once people get involved. So you see Stalin doing things that, theoretically under his ideology, he should not be doing and start thinking "hey...maybe he was actually a fascist!!!" or whatever.

[Barrister]

There is a very basic and true classification of far left and far right.

Far right uses the excuse of racial/cultural superiority to be cruel and oppressive to others. The left uses the excuse of economic justice to do the same.

It is pointless to go beyond that because at the end of the day these ideologies are both made for and more importantly by people who consciously or otherwise are looking 6obd3t the status quo on fire for their own benefit.

I know you're making a generality, but the Khmer Rouge made a point of going after minorities. Lefties can use race and nationalism as a rallying point too.

Stalin was such an interesting example here.  Ethnic Georgian, but he felt the socialist project would be best if everyone adopted Russian language and culture so brutally repressed ethnic minorities.  Not because he was a Russian chauvinist, of course - but because it would further advance communism.

[Valmy]

Stalin was such an interesting example here.  Ethnic Georgian, but he felt the socialist project would be best if everyone adopted Russian language and culture so brutally repressed ethnic minorities.  Not because he was a Russian chauvinist, of course - but because it would further advance communism.

One that just so happen to be the same ideology of Tsarist Russia thus coincidentally happening to feel familiar and what everybody was taught to believe anyway.

[DGuller]

To answer Jacob's question more seriously, I think the defining difference between the right and the left is that the right defers to the natural order of things, as it would be without extensive social structures, while the left tries to engineer societies to be better.  The natural order tends towards "might makes right", or put a lot of emphasis on "us vs. them", which is probably what all animals default to on an instinctive level.  The left considers the natural order to be undesirable in many ways, and strives to devise ways to right the wrongs introduced by it.  Of course, it doesn't always do good job engineering the solution, you don't need a license to be a social engineer.

There is no right or wrong to the philosophies, except when they go to extremes.  I'm sure most humans don't want to live by the same rules that animals live by in the jungle, because it doesn't seem like a good life.  On the other hand, social engineering isn't always getting us in a better place:  natural order evolved into what it was for a reason, so you have to think twice before you put in place what you think is an improvement.

[Josquius]

Like

Do try to argue that in regards to how communist ruled China views Republic of China.

That's very much a leftist government using nationalist arguments against a plucky underdog right wing government.

With regards to Stalin, you don't get to pick and choose what you define as a leftist leader based on how much you like them. A communist is a leftie, if you don't see that then you're really out in the weeds.

China doesn't have a left-wing government, nor was Stalin a left-winger.  Those are bad examples.  Early Soviet Russia and the early first French republic provide plenty of examples of genuinely left-wing government engaged in oppression, and there are numerous others.

I agree that the Gaza War is a clash of two far-right governments.

Look, I've lived through the opposite of this example - "Hitler was a left winger!  It's right there in the name, National Socialist Party!"/

Culturally and philosophically Hitler was in the right-wing tradition, and Stalin (and Mao) are in the left wing tradition.  It certainly is a failing when you try to boil everything down to a 2-dimensional axis, but it is what it is.

Obviously democrats of both the left and right should reject authoritarians such as Hitler and Stalin, but we can't fall into Josquis-like thinking where our own "side" is the source of all goodness and light, and therefore anything evil is automatically from the other side.

It's interesting how pointing out stalin was dubiously left wing means i believe every dodgy left wing figure ever cannot possibly be left wing.

Again. I'm not the one with these black and white blinkers here.