So, How Come You're Still A Leftie?

[JBeukema]

You'd also do well to learn the definitions of both Marxist and Marxian

 

[daveman]

You're an idiot.
Read the linked section:

Social Democratic Shachtmanism

Social democratic Shachtmanism, called "Right Shachtmanism" by detractors, later developed by Shachtman and espoused by the Social Democrats USA, holds Stalinist nations to be worse than Western capitalism. As a result, adherents will often side with the U.S. government in international conflicts against Stalinist groups, such as the Vietnam War, and countries with governments seen as being under the influence of Stalinism, such as Cuba. This viewpoint was popularized within Shachtmanism in the 1960s and 1970s.

Let's click that first link:

Social democracy is a political ideology of the centre-left on the classic political spectrum. The contemporary social democratic movement seeks to reform capitalism to align it with the ethical ideals of social justice while maintaining the capitalist mode of production, as opposed to creating an alternative socialist economic system.[1] Practical modern social democratic policies include the promotion of a welfare state, and the creation of economic democracy as a means to secure workers' rights.[2]
Historically, social democracy was a form of evolutionary reformist socialism[2] that advocated the establishment of a socialist economy through class struggle. During the early 20th century, major European social democratic parties began to reject elements of Marxism, Revolutionary socialism and class struggle, taking a moderate position that socialism could be established through political reforms. The distinction between Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism had yet to fully develop at this time. The Frankfurt Declaration of the Socialist International in 1951, attended by many social democratic parties from across the world, committed adherents to oppose Bolshevik communism and Stalinism, and to promote a gradual transformation of capitalism into socialism.[3]
Social democracy, as practiced in Europe in 1951, was a socialist movement supporting gradualism; the belief that gradual democratic reforms to capitalist economies will eventually succeed in creating a socialist economy.[4] rejecting forcible imposition of socialism through revolutionary means.[4] This gradualism has resulted in various far left groups, including communists, of accusing social democracy of accepting the values of capitalist society and therefore not being a genuine form of socialism[4],instead labeling it a concession made to the working class classes by the ruling class. Social democracy rejects the Marxian principle of dictatorship of the proletariat and the creation of a socialist state, claiming that gradualist democratic reforms will improve the rights of the working class.[5]
Since the rise in popularity of the New Right and neoliberalism, a number of prominent social democratic parties have abandoned the goal of the gradual evolution of capitalism to socialism and instead support welfare state capitalism.[6] Social democracy as such has arisen as a distinct ideology from democratic socialism.

Unworkable. You expect the producers to hand over to the non-producers and be happy about it.

Instead of expecting someone else to give you money, why don't you just get a job?

 

[daveman]

You'd also do well to learn the definitions of both Marxist and Marxian

I covered that already: "Stupid".

 

[JBeukema]

You're an idiot.

Try learning to read and getting your information somewhere other than the Glenn Beck show.

Just so you know, most people like libraries and fire departments.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And I consider myself a leftist and as such don't vote for the Democrats because they don't represent my views at all. This is true of all the genuine leftists I know.

There are a lot of people out there who are loyalist to the Democratic party and think that's the same thing as liberalism, so they call themselves liberals, but that's not the case.

In the same sense, the Republican party during Bush's term wasn't particularly conservative (sure, they cut taxes, but they were also intrusive into people's private lives, dramatically expanded the federal government, spent with abandon, and a million other things diametrically opposed to conservative principles) but is just lazily labeled as such.

The conflation you made is a common one in our discourse, people use Democrat/liberal/left and Republican/conservative/right interchangeably, but they are demonstrably not the same thing.

Liberalism, progressivism, leftism, like conservatism or libertarianism, is an ideology that can be defined and demonstrated throughout history. The ideology behind leftism is not the same ideology as the Democratic party and the agenda of liberals is significantly different than the agenda of the Democratic party, in fact they're directly opposed.

I suggest perhaps you check out this thread on the subject, and how Democrats and those in power who enable them have long abandoned any significant traces of liberalism:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/139598-the-world-liberal-opportunist-made.html



This "liberal class" - those in positions of power generally in or directly tied to the Democratic party who call themselves liberal- are not actually liberals since they don't believe in, support, or act on behalf of liberal values or policies. Words have meanings. I could go around calling myself an elephant, but my mere proclamation wouldn't make it so and anyone paying any attention would quickly catch on that what an elephant is and what I am are wholly incongruous.

In the same sense that there has been a legitimate backlash among genuine conservatives against the Republican party and its abandonment of many traditional and fundamental conservative ideas, there is a legitimate backlash going on for decades now among genuine leftists against the Democratic party for the same.

A bailout for corporations who raped the economy, a bailout for insurance companies and secret quid pro quo deals with the pharmaceutical and hospital industries disguised as "health care reform" that leaves the same corrupt corporate thieves in place and just funnels them money, a refusal to restore habeas corpus, not only the continuation but the escalation of foreign wars now in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and still in Iraq (the only place they scaled down, but are still very much active in combat despite the rhetoric), the lack of respect for civil rights seen in the refusal to repeal DOMA or DADT, the continued use of Guantanamo Bay and many more secret, lawless prisons throughout the world, the indication that counterproductive and senseless federal drug laws will be enforced even if and when citizens vote directly to repeal them, the constant invocation of State Secrets to hide any government wrongdoing even if it is not in any sense a state secret, and lack of transparency generally, the use of orders to assassinate American citizens far from any battlefield without due process, I could be here all night describing all of the policies actively pursued or enacted by the Democratic party that are simply anathema to liberal values, ideology, and goals.

Clinton is a corporatist, just like Obama who Axelrod represents, just like her husband was, just like most Democratic party politicians are. Yes, they proclaim themselves to be liberals or progressives to appeal (mostly but not always successfully) to the many people who consider themselves liberal but either don't know that the policies put forth by those politicians aren't liberal or those who don't care because they're actually Democrats and not liberals. But there's a simple lesson most people learn early on that applies here: don't trust what politicians say, watch what they do.

And what Democratic politicians do, what they advance, the vast, vast majority of them including the last two Democratic presidents, is not in any meaningful sense leftism. It's contradictory to the basic tenets of leftism in fact.

It may be "to the left" of what you like and support, but that's not the same thing. Lining up the primary policies associated with leftism and the policies enacted by Democrats would produce a vast disparity on most issues. I'm with you if you say the Democratic party sucks, but you're wrong if you think it's leftist.

Therefore, what the Democratic party does, the policies it enacts that then frequently fail, should have no effect on deciding to continue to be a leftist (and may even offer further support as a demonstration that non-leftist policies don't work) because they aren't a reflection of leftism. Again, it'd be like asking a libertarian why they're still libertarian after the Bush era or a Communist why they're a Communist considering North Korea - the two just aren't related.

1. "And I consider myself a leftist..."
Let's begin with the necessity for definition of terms...Leftist: socialist, syndicalist, progressive, liberal, fascist, nazi, commuist, statist, collectivist...pick your poison...now tell how you differ from the other eight. I see all as being totalist philosophies.

"How ironic that the way [H. G.] Wells refers to the fascists and Communists could apply to today’s liberals: “they embody the rule of a minority conceited enough to believe that they have a clue to the tangled incoherencies of human life, and need only sufficiently terrorize criticism and opposition to achieve a general happiness,…” And even more prescient, when we consider the current administration against the backdrop of Wells’ criticism of Soviet Communism as central-planning with “police-state thuggery.”
“The Godfather of American Liberalism”
The Godfather of American Liberalism by Fred Siegel, City Journal Spring 2009

2. "... Bush's term wasn't particularly conservative .."
No argument here.

3. "Liberalism, progressivism, leftism, like conservatism or libertarianism, is an ideology that can be defined and demonstrated throughout history."
Let's begin our argument here.
First, the classical liberalism
a. Unlike classical liberalism, which saw government as a necessary evil, of simply a benign but voluntary social contract for free men to enter into willingly, the liberalism of which you speak was of the belief that the entire society was one organic whole left no room for those who didn’t want to behave, let alone ‘evolve.’

b. “The American intellectual class from the mid 19th century onward has disliked liberalism (which originally referred to individualism, private property, and limits on power) precisely because the [classical] liberal society has no overarching goal.” War Is the Health of the State

c. After the resounding rejection of Wilson's progressivism, the progressives changed their title to 'liberal.'
“Finally, Dewey arguably did more than any other reformer to repackage progressive social theory in a way that obscured just how radically its principles departed from those of the American founding."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m.../ai_n45566374/

4. Now, that "...throughout history..."part: this is only true if history begins with the French Revolution.
The Enlightenment gave impetus to the French Revolution, which was an attempt to cast off both the oppression of the monarchy, and of the Church.

a. In France, there was the development of an apparatus of ideological enforcement for ‘reason.’ But rather than necessitate liberty, Edmund Burke was prescient enough to predict that ‘enlightened despotism’ would be embodied in the general will, a formula for oppression as in ‘tyranny of popular opinion’ or even ‘a dictatorship of the proletariat.’

b. Although attributed to Rousseau, it was Diderot who gave the model for totalitarianism of reason: “We must reason about all things,” and anyone who ‘refuses to seek out the truth’ thereby renounces his human nature and “should be treated by the rest of his species as a wild beast.” So, once ‘truth’ is determined, anyone who doesn’t accept it was “either insane or wicked and morally evil.” It is not the individual who has the “ right to decide about the nature of right and wrong,” but only “the human race,” expressed as the general will. Himmelfarb, “The Roads to Modernity,” p. 167-68

c. Robespierre used Rousseau’s call for a “reign of virtue,’ proclaiming the Republic of Virtue, his euphemism for The Terror. In ‘The Social Contract’ Rousseau advocated death for anyone who did not uphold the common values of the community: the totalitarian view of reshaping of humanity, echoed in communism, Nazism, progressivism. Robespierre: “the necessity of bringing about a complete regeneration and, if I may express myself so, of creating a new people.” Himmefarb, Ibid.

d. In this particular idea of the Enlightenment, the need to change human nature, and to eliminate customs and traditions, to remake established institutions, to do away with all inequalities in order to bring man closer to the state, which was the expression of the general will. Talmon, “Origins of Totalitarian Democracy,” p. 3-7


There are, according to Talmon, in "Totalitarian Democracy," three stages in the development of “totalitarian democracy” in the French Revolution. First, there was the Rousseauist intellectual background, which rejected all existing institutions as relics of despotism and clerical obscurantism, and which demanded a complete renovation of society so that it would be an expression of the General Will—this last being no mere consensus but an objective standard of virtue and reason that imperfect humanity must be coerced into obeying in order to enjoy a bonheur de médiocrité for which it was as yet ill-prepared.

Second, there was the Reign of Terror, when an “enlightened” vanguard of Jacobins undertook to impose the General Will—when Robespierre acted out his role as “the bloody hand of Rousseau,” as Heine called him.

Third, there was the post-Thermidorean conspiracy of Babeuf and his associates, which added to political messianism the doctrine of economic communism, thereby pointing the way to Marx. The Rise of Totalitarian Democracy, by J. L. Talmon

5. "The ideology behind leftism is not the same ideology as the Democratic party and the agenda of liberals is significantly different than the agenda of the Democratic party, in fact they're directly opposed."

Here are some of the more important aspects of all of those:
a. The Constitution is outdated and must be repolaced with a 'living Constituition.'

b. The collective, or the state is superior to the individual. There is no private property beyond the needs and wishes of the state.

c. The result of the correct governmental polices, laws, leaders will be a utopia on earth.

d. There is no aspect of the life of the citizen which is beyond the purview of the state.

6. "...disenfranchised workers toward the college-educated liberal elite, who abetted or did nothing to halt the corporate assault on the poor and the working class of the last 30 years, is not misplaced."
Absolute left-wing nonsense.
a. no one is barred from choices that will improve or destroy their lives.
b. corporations are public, and owned, almost entirely by ordinary folks:

“Exxon Mobil, in fact, is owned mostly by ordinary Americans. Mutual funds, index funds and pension funds (including union pension funds) own about 52 percent of Exxon Mobil’s shares. Individual shareholders, about two million or so, own almost all the rest. The pooh-bahs who run Exxon own less than 1 percent of the company.” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/business/02every.html

The rich folk pay almost all of the taxes, and those evil corporations?

In 2006, the oil industry paid $81 billion in income tax, and while Exxon’s earnings increased 89% from 2003 to 2007, their income taxes increased 170%. Exxon: Profit Pirate or Tax Victim?

. Exxon's tax bill breaks down like this: income taxes, $36.5 billion; sales-based taxes, $34.5 billion; "all other" taxes, $45.2 billion.” Exxon, Big Oil Profits Evil Only Until You Weigh Their Tax Bills - US News and World Report
If Exxon’s 2008 tax bill of $116.2 billion were split equally among all tax filers who pay income tax, each filer’s share would be $1,259/year. Still hate Exxon? The Tax Foundation - Number of Americans Paying Zero Federal Income Tax Grows to 43.4 Million


Friend Q, I hope you are at an early point in your journey through life, because you have so much to learn....

I want to start by addressing how you didn't address at all any of my points about the massive difference between leftism and what the Democratic party does. No response to Hedges' critique of how the Democrats have abandoned leftism for comfort, money, and power and no response to my own long list of the actions of this Democratic president and Democratic Congress that are absolutely anathema to leftism. If you're going to respond, please address them, otherwise I don't see the point in this discussion. If you want to label the Democrats as leftist and assert they're the same thing, how do you account for the fact that all of their policies aren't just not leftist but against leftism?

Your apparent definition of leftism isn't remotely accurate. To go for as uncontroversial and official a defintion as possible, we turn to the dictionary where a leftist is described as: "someone who seeks radical social and economic change in the direction of greater equality. "

Leftist | Define Leftist at Dictionary.com

I don't really subscribe to a particularly ideology, I've yet to find one that totally matches up with my beliefs, but libertarian socialism comes closest.

That's the opposite of totalitarian as totalitarianism is "absolute control by the state or a governing branch of a highly centralized institution." while the many ideologies under the umbrella of libertarian socialism call for NO STATE AT ALL and thus NO CONTROL or CENTRALIZATION at all. So it differs in the most significant and consequential way imaginable.

I don't think you know what leftism is except for a catch-all term for things you oppose. The idea that fascism and Nazism for instance, extremely far right ideologies, are leftist is absurd.

Classical liberalism is different than the liberalism I'm talking about, I assumed you knew that and didn't know we had to define our terms. You asked in the OP "So, How Come You're Still A Leftie?" Classical liberals aren't leftists, so I'm not sure why you brought that up. In terms of history, yes I was referring to since the French Revolution, particularly in America between 1870-1945.

Then you do a lot of examples of how other people who either called themselves liberals or were at one point liberals abandoned liberal principles throughout history in Europe, which I think plays more into my point than yours. Again, it's an ideology and who believes in and practices it can be judged by their actions. So from the European totalitarians onto Stalin, Mao, or anyone else of that ilk you want to mention were totalitarians who believed in supreme human authority over their populations, they weren't leftists. Communism is leftist, but has never been practiced as such, since it never gets past the vanguard stage and that vanguard then makes themselves into an oligarchy. Just as self-proclaimed conservatives have not brought on or fought for limited government the past few decades because they're not really conservative in the political sense. Again, it doesn't matter what people call themselves when we judge them, it matters what they do. Trusting a politician on where they fall on a political spectrum based on their statements rather than their actions, especially when those two are so contradictory, is foolish.

There are forms of totalitarianism that also share some aspects (mostly economic) of socialism that line up with your aspects list, but that's it. No leftist believes "There is no aspect of the life of the citizen which is beyond the purview of the state." and it's ludicrous to say so. Again, it seems you've defined leftism not as what it is but as a term to describe whatever it is you oppose. Totalitarian regimes, by their very nature, are not leftist. The economic and social conditions of an ideal leftist society give everyone equal power and do not require a state, much less state control, so an all-powerful state is common to fascism and other tyrannical forms of governance that are actually on the right-wing. There may be elements of totalitarianism in Communism when practiced, but the extent to which they are totalitarian is the extent to which they veer from leftism. Put rather simply, leftist ideology simply seeks to craft a culture of equality for all (some with an extremely open, democratic state run clearly by, of, and for the people, some with no state at all). There are valid criticism of that, but they're not found in equating it with ideologies where that is decidedly not the case such as totalitarianism with its incredible disparity in power among the populace.

If you don't think corporations wield and exercise undue and destructive influence, then I understand why we're on such opposite ends of the political spectrum, but this really isn't a discussion of the virtues of leftism vs. rightism so that's kinda moot.

I'm just pointing out that what you're describing as leftism plainly isn't, it's your bastardized personal definition divorced from what the word means and what the ideology supports and since the gap between leftist values and policy and Democratic Party values and policy is bigger than the Grand Canyon, your posed question doesn't make sense and misses the point. The Democratic Party is fundamentally corporatist (like the Republican Party), leftism is diametrically opposed to its very essence to corporatism, so you can't equate the two.

As for the condescending final line, however kindly you phrased it, I'd just say right back at you.

There are lots of things about right-wing politics I oppose, but that doesn't mean I'll start ascribing every imaginable negative to them, ignore what the ideology actually is, and just assume if I don't like it, it's "rightist" and everyone who doesn't believe as I do is a "rightist" regardless of how much substantial difference there is between and among them. I don't agree with anarchocapitalism, neo-conservativism, or theocracy, but that doesn't mean they're all even remotely the same and to pretend otherwise would be ignorant or dishonest.

Modern leftists/progressives:

a. The Constitution is outdated and must be repolaced with a 'living Constituition.'

b. The collective, or the state is superior to the individual. There is no private property beyond the needs and wishes of the state.

c. The result of the correct governmental polices, laws, leaders will be a utopia on earth.

d. There is no aspect of the life of the citizen which is beyond the purview of the state.

So, is this you?

 

[JBeukema]

1. "And I consider myself a leftist..."
Let's begin with the necessity for definition of terms...Leftist: socialist, syndicalist, progressive, liberal, fascist, nazi, commuist, statist, collectivist...pick your poison...now tell how you differ from the other eight. I see all as being totalist philosophies.

"How ironic that the way [H. G.] Wells refers to the fascists and Communists could apply to today’s liberals: “they embody the rule of a minority conceited enough to believe that they have a clue to the tangled incoherencies of human life, and need only sufficiently terrorize criticism and opposition to achieve a general happiness,…” And even more prescient, when we consider the current administration against the backdrop of Wells’ criticism of Soviet Communism as central-planning with “police-state thuggery.”
“The Godfather of American Liberalism”
The Godfather of American Liberalism by Fred Siegel, City Journal Spring 2009

2. "... Bush's term wasn't particularly conservative .."
No argument here.

3. "Liberalism, progressivism, leftism, like conservatism or libertarianism, is an ideology that can be defined and demonstrated throughout history."
Let's begin our argument here.
First, the classical liberalism
a. Unlike classical liberalism, which saw government as a necessary evil, of simply a benign but voluntary social contract for free men to enter into willingly, the liberalism of which you speak was of the belief that the entire society was one organic whole left no room for those who didn’t want to behave, let alone ‘evolve.’

b. “The American intellectual class from the mid 19th century onward has disliked liberalism (which originally referred to individualism, private property, and limits on power) precisely because the [classical] liberal society has no overarching goal.” War Is the Health of the State

c. After the resounding rejection of Wilson's progressivism, the progressives changed their title to 'liberal.'
“Finally, Dewey arguably did more than any other reformer to repackage progressive social theory in a way that obscured just how radically its principles departed from those of the American founding."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m.../ai_n45566374/

4. Now, that "...throughout history..."part: this is only true if history begins with the French Revolution.
The Enlightenment gave impetus to the French Revolution, which was an attempt to cast off both the oppression of the monarchy, and of the Church.

a. In France, there was the development of an apparatus of ideological enforcement for ‘reason.’ But rather than necessitate liberty, Edmund Burke was prescient enough to predict that ‘enlightened despotism’ would be embodied in the general will, a formula for oppression as in ‘tyranny of popular opinion’ or even ‘a dictatorship of the proletariat.’

b. Although attributed to Rousseau, it was Diderot who gave the model for totalitarianism of reason: “We must reason about all things,” and anyone who ‘refuses to seek out the truth’ thereby renounces his human nature and “should be treated by the rest of his species as a wild beast.” So, once ‘truth’ is determined, anyone who doesn’t accept it was “either insane or wicked and morally evil.” It is not the individual who has the “ right to decide about the nature of right and wrong,” but only “the human race,” expressed as the general will. Himmelfarb, “The Roads to Modernity,” p. 167-68

c. Robespierre used Rousseau’s call for a “reign of virtue,’ proclaiming the Republic of Virtue, his euphemism for The Terror. In ‘The Social Contract’ Rousseau advocated death for anyone who did not uphold the common values of the community: the totalitarian view of reshaping of humanity, echoed in communism, Nazism, progressivism. Robespierre: “the necessity of bringing about a complete regeneration and, if I may express myself so, of creating a new people.” Himmefarb, Ibid.

d. In this particular idea of the Enlightenment, the need to change human nature, and to eliminate customs and traditions, to remake established institutions, to do away with all inequalities in order to bring man closer to the state, which was the expression of the general will. Talmon, “Origins of Totalitarian Democracy,” p. 3-7


There are, according to Talmon, in "Totalitarian Democracy," three stages in the development of “totalitarian democracy” in the French Revolution. First, there was the Rousseauist intellectual background, which rejected all existing institutions as relics of despotism and clerical obscurantism, and which demanded a complete renovation of society so that it would be an expression of the General Will—this last being no mere consensus but an objective standard of virtue and reason that imperfect humanity must be coerced into obeying in order to enjoy a bonheur de médiocrité for which it was as yet ill-prepared.

Second, there was the Reign of Terror, when an “enlightened” vanguard of Jacobins undertook to impose the General Will—when Robespierre acted out his role as “the bloody hand of Rousseau,” as Heine called him.

Third, there was the post-Thermidorean conspiracy of Babeuf and his associates, which added to political messianism the doctrine of economic communism, thereby pointing the way to Marx. The Rise of Totalitarian Democracy, by J. L. Talmon

5. "The ideology behind leftism is not the same ideology as the Democratic party and the agenda of liberals is significantly different than the agenda of the Democratic party, in fact they're directly opposed."

Here are some of the more important aspects of all of those:
a. The Constitution is outdated and must be repolaced with a 'living Constituition.'

b. The collective, or the state is superior to the individual. There is no private property beyond the needs and wishes of the state.

c. The result of the correct governmental polices, laws, leaders will be a utopia on earth.

d. There is no aspect of the life of the citizen which is beyond the purview of the state.

6. "...disenfranchised workers toward the college-educated liberal elite, who abetted or did nothing to halt the corporate assault on the poor and the working class of the last 30 years, is not misplaced."
Absolute left-wing nonsense.
a. no one is barred from choices that will improve or destroy their lives.
b. corporations are public, and owned, almost entirely by ordinary folks:

“Exxon Mobil, in fact, is owned mostly by ordinary Americans. Mutual funds, index funds and pension funds (including union pension funds) own about 52 percent of Exxon Mobil’s shares. Individual shareholders, about two million or so, own almost all the rest. The pooh-bahs who run Exxon own less than 1 percent of the company.” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/business/02every.html

The rich folk pay almost all of the taxes, and those evil corporations?

In 2006, the oil industry paid $81 billion in income tax, and while Exxon’s earnings increased 89% from 2003 to 2007, their income taxes increased 170%. Exxon: Profit Pirate or Tax Victim?

. Exxon's tax bill breaks down like this: income taxes, $36.5 billion; sales-based taxes, $34.5 billion; "all other" taxes, $45.2 billion.” Exxon, Big Oil Profits Evil Only Until You Weigh Their Tax Bills - US News and World Report
If Exxon’s 2008 tax bill of $116.2 billion were split equally among all tax filers who pay income tax, each filer’s share would be $1,259/year. Still hate Exxon? The Tax Foundation - Number of Americans Paying Zero Federal Income Tax Grows to 43.4 Million


Friend Q, I hope you are at an early point in your journey through life, because you have so much to learn....

I want to start by addressing how you didn't address at all any of my points about the massive difference between leftism and what the Democratic party does. No response to Hedges' critique of how the Democrats have abandoned leftism for comfort, money, and power and no response to my own long list of the actions of this Democratic president and Democratic Congress that are absolutely anathema to leftism. If you're going to respond, please address them, otherwise I don't see the point in this discussion. If you want to label the Democrats as leftist and assert they're the same thing, how do you account for the fact that all of their policies aren't just not leftist but against leftism?

Your apparent definition of leftism isn't remotely accurate. To go for as uncontroversial and official a defintion as possible, we turn to the dictionary where a leftist is described as: "someone who seeks radical social and economic change in the direction of greater equality. "

Leftist | Define Leftist at Dictionary.com

I don't really subscribe to a particularly ideology, I've yet to find one that totally matches up with my beliefs, but libertarian socialism comes closest.

That's the opposite of totalitarian as totalitarianism is "absolute control by the state or a governing branch of a highly centralized institution." while the many ideologies under the umbrella of libertarian socialism call for NO STATE AT ALL and thus NO CONTROL or CENTRALIZATION at all. So it differs in the most significant and consequential way imaginable.

I don't think you know what leftism is except for a catch-all term for things you oppose. The idea that fascism and Nazism for instance, extremely far right ideologies, are leftist is absurd.

Classical liberalism is different than the liberalism I'm talking about, I assumed you knew that and didn't know we had to define our terms. You asked in the OP "So, How Come You're Still A Leftie?" Classical liberals aren't leftists, so I'm not sure why you brought that up. In terms of history, yes I was referring to since the French Revolution, particularly in America between 1870-1945.

Then you do a lot of examples of how other people who either called themselves liberals or were at one point liberals abandoned liberal principles throughout history in Europe, which I think plays more into my point than yours. Again, it's an ideology and who believes in and practices it can be judged by their actions. So from the European totalitarians onto Stalin, Mao, or anyone else of that ilk you want to mention were totalitarians who believed in supreme human authority over their populations, they weren't leftists. Communism is leftist, but has never been practiced as such, since it never gets past the vanguard stage and that vanguard then makes themselves into an oligarchy. Just as self-proclaimed conservatives have not brought on or fought for limited government the past few decades because they're not really conservative in the political sense. Again, it doesn't matter what people call themselves when we judge them, it matters what they do. Trusting a politician on where they fall on a political spectrum based on their statements rather than their actions, especially when those two are so contradictory, is foolish.

There are forms of totalitarianism that also share some aspects (mostly economic) of socialism that line up with your aspects list, but that's it. No leftist believes "There is no aspect of the life of the citizen which is beyond the purview of the state." and it's ludicrous to say so. Again, it seems you've defined leftism not as what it is but as a term to describe whatever it is you oppose. Totalitarian regimes, by their very nature, are not leftist. The economic and social conditions of an ideal leftist society give everyone equal power and do not require a state, much less state control, so an all-powerful state is common to fascism and other tyrannical forms of governance that are actually on the right-wing. There may be elements of totalitarianism in Communism when practiced, but the extent to which they are totalitarian is the extent to which they veer from leftism. Put rather simply, leftist ideology simply seeks to craft a culture of equality for all (some with an extremely open, democratic state run clearly by, of, and for the people, some with no state at all). There are valid criticism of that, but they're not found in equating it with ideologies where that is decidedly not the case such as totalitarianism with its incredible disparity in power among the populace.

If you don't think corporations wield and exercise undue and destructive influence, then I understand why we're on such opposite ends of the political spectrum, but this really isn't a discussion of the virtues of leftism vs. rightism so that's kinda moot.

I'm just pointing out that what you're describing as leftism plainly isn't, it's your bastardized personal definition divorced from what the word means and what the ideology supports and since the gap between leftist values and policy and Democratic Party values and policy is bigger than the Grand Canyon, your posed question doesn't make sense and misses the point. The Democratic Party is fundamentally corporatist (like the Republican Party), leftism is diametrically opposed to its very essence to corporatism, so you can't equate the two.

As for the condescending final line, however kindly you phrased it, I'd just say right back at you.

There are lots of things about right-wing politics I oppose, but that doesn't mean I'll start ascribing every imaginable negative to them, ignore what the ideology actually is, and just assume if I don't like it, it's "rightist" and everyone who doesn't believe as I do is a "rightist" regardless of how much substantial difference there is between and among them. I don't agree with anarchocapitalism, neo-conservativism, or theocracy, but that doesn't mean they're all even remotely the same and to pretend otherwise would be ignorant or dishonest.

Modern leftists/progressives:

a. The Constitution is outdated and must be repolaced with a 'living Constituition.'

the FF:'Every nation has a right to govern itself internally under what forms it pleases, and to change these forms at its own will...The only thing essential is, the will of the nation'

b. The collective, or the state is superior to the individual. There is no private property beyond the needs and wishes of the state.

Where'd you get that idea?

c. The result of the correct governmental polices, laws, leaders will be a utopia on earth.

Who's claiming that?

d. There is no aspect of the life of the citizen which is beyond the purview of the state.

It was the liberal/progressives who passed the USA PATRIOT act?


You make up your own bullshit then ask him 'this is you?' after he already explained his views?


Are you retarded, incapable of honesty, or both?

 

[QUENTIN]

Modern leftists/progressives:

a. The Constitution is outdated and must be repolaced with a 'living Constituition.'

b. The collective, or the state is superior to the individual. There is no private property beyond the needs and wishes of the state.

c. The result of the correct governmental polices, laws, leaders will be a utopia on earth.

d. There is no aspect of the life of the citizen which is beyond the purview of the state.

So, is this you?

I seemed to answer that pretty clearly in the post you quoted.

I don't really subscribe to a particularly ideology, I've yet to find one that totally matches up with my beliefs, but libertarian socialism comes closest.

That's the opposite of totalitarian as totalitarianism is "absolute control by the state or a governing branch of a highly centralized institution." while the many ideologies under the umbrella of libertarian socialism call for NO STATE AT ALL and thus NO CONTROL or CENTRALIZATION at all. So it differs in the most significant and consequential way imaginable.

I don't believe in any state, so I obviously don't believe the state or some state-like collective is superior to the individual. Obviously don't believe the state should dictate property acquisition. I believe the existence of a government or state is a primary barrier to achieving true equality and personal freedom. And most obvious of all, I couldn't disagree more with "There is no aspect of the life of the citizen which is beyond the purview of the state." since I don't believe there should be a state in the first place to have any purview and in the meantime, the less the existing state interferes in its citizens' private lives, the better.

Now not all leftists are the same type of leftist as I am (which is why it's ridiculous to try to group all of them under 4 broad "aspects" that have nothing to do with the definition of leftism which was helpfully provided for you) but basically no leftists believe #3 or #4. You're pulling those things out of your heiny-hole rather than honestly referring to elements of what makes up leftist ideology.

So, now that I've re-answered your question for a third time, perhaps you can answer mine for the first time:

How do you address Hedges' critique of the Democratic party's total abandonment of what little significant leftism it ever had and my long list of all the significant policies pursued by this Democratic Administration and Congress that are in complete and direct opposition to leftism? How do you attempt to square that with your assertion that the Democratic party is leftist?

 

[Bfgrn]

Modern leftists/progressives:

a. The Constitution is outdated and must be repolaced with a 'living Constituition.'

b. The collective, or the state is superior to the individual. There is no private property beyond the needs and wishes of the state.

c. The result of the correct governmental polices, laws, leaders will be a utopia on earth.

d. There is no aspect of the life of the citizen which is beyond the purview of the state.

So, is this you?

WOW PC, you make a polarized argument, and try to portray it as the belief of others? Isn't that dictatorial?

b. The collective, or the state is superior to the individual. There is no private property beyond the needs and wishes of the state.

I would hope that you would be vehemently against TORT reform, because THAT is exactly why I am against it. But I am a liberal, so I must be wrong.

 

[JakeStarkey]

PC would be the state director if she could so that you could do all those things of which she states she is afraid. JB and Bfrgn have pegged her absolute divorcement from reality as well as any. She simply is wierdo portraying herself as knowledgable about modern history, culture, and political philosoophy.

 

[Bfgrn]

PC would be the state director if she could so that you could do all those things of which she states she is afraid. JB and Bfrgn have pegged her absolute divorcement from reality as well as any. She simply is wierdo portraying herself as knowledgable about modern history, culture, and political philosoophy.

So did Goethe: "There is nothing more frightening than active ignorance."

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to JakeStarkey again.

 

[JBeukema]

PC would be the state director if she could so that you could do all those things of which she states she is afraid. JB and Bfrgn have pegged her absolute divorcement from reality as well as any. She simply is wierdo portraying herself as knowledgable about modern history, culture, and political philosoophy.

So did Goethe: "There is nothing more frightening than active ignorance."

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to JakeStarkey again.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Bfgrn again.

 

[JakeStarkey]

What I find interesting is that the three of us are all over the spectrum and not in lock step.

We are able to spot PC's woeful ignorance masquerading as knowledge.

This leads me to wonder if she is truly ignorant or merely a hack for hire.

 

[Rinata]

Hasn't the OP done similar posts before?? I don't see what the purpose is.

The intention was to pose a question to the intelligent leftie, and ask same to consider that the results of leftist policies have been less than successful, and, therefore, why remain committed to a failed philosophy...

But, as I say, it was for intelligent lefties, who might just reconsider and learn from their errors...so, you can see, Rinata, the OP really wasn't meant for you.

I see. However, I feel duty bound to point out that you have never had a kind word for any lefty that I can recall. This post was just a way for you to suck in unsuspecting lefties because your acid tongue needs a workout.

 

[Rinata]

Hasn't the OP done similar posts before?? I don't see what the purpose is.

Hey, I just noticed that you changed your avatar!

Remember way back when I suggested you would?

Prescient, wasn't I?

I like this one: "Obama Rocks In His Head."

You're so desperate for praise. Everybody changes the picture in their avatar, genius!! You have no special gift. Dumb broad.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Modern leftists/progressives:

a. The Constitution is outdated and must be repolaced with a 'living Constituition.'

b. The collective, or the state is superior to the individual. There is no private property beyond the needs and wishes of the state.

c. The result of the correct governmental polices, laws, leaders will be a utopia on earth.

d. There is no aspect of the life of the citizen which is beyond the purview of the state.

So, is this you?

Honestly, I don't think this is anyone. I've never heard a person claim, or even express, any of these ides, much less all 4. You've mischaracterized your opposition. The only time I've heard anything even close to these beliefs is wacky cult leaders like Koresh or Far Far Far Far Right Extremists who want to legislate morality and see such a process as being integral to bringing about the post apocalyptic utopia of Revelations. A person who even obliquely hinted at these beliefs would find themselves deservedly mocked into obscurity.

 

[Rinata]

Political Chic, your basic concept that all the terms are "totalist philosophies" is nonsense. Any one who thinks, after reading your comment about definitions, realizes that you will twist facts to fit your philosophy, instead of your philosophy to fit the facts, and as such will dismiss you as having anything worthy to say.

Is it my imagination, or have I yet to see one link or any reference that might indicate that you have ever done any research or reading?

Every one of your posts is some grousing version of 'Is not, is not...'

Are you still basking in the 'glory' of the great American philiosopher George Santayana having refered to you (Those who do not study history will be known as Stark-Ignorant)?

Cheer up...Christmas is coming: perhaps some kind soul will give you a library card.

You are good at something. Using a lot of words that convey absolutely nothing.

 

[Bfgrn]

What I find interesting is that the three of us are all over the spectrum and not in lock step.

We are able to spot PC's woeful ignorance masquerading as knowledge.

This leads me to wonder if she is truly ignorant or merely a hack for hire.

I always took the approach to reading as a way to gain knowledge. PC reads to find ammunition for her preconceived dogma, no matter how far out of reality that is.


Reading without reflecting is like eating without digesting.
Edmund Burke

 

[rdking647]

How can any thoughtful citizen continue to support the liberal-progressive agenda?
What aspects of a failed philosophy do you not understand?

1. Shouldn’t we expect to see the cities that have had long-term Democrat governance as being utopias?
“Why is it that every Democratic run city has the highest crime rates??
For example, Detroit, whose mayor has been indicted on felony charges, hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1961. Buffalo has been even more stubborn. It started putting a Democrat in office back in 1954, and it hasn't stopped since.

Unfortunately, those two cities may be alone at the top of the poverty rate list, but they're not alone in their love for Democrats. Cincinnati, Ohio (third on the poverty rate list), hasn't had a Republican mayor since 1984. Cleveland, Ohio (fourth on the list), has been led by a Democrat since 1989. St. Louis, Missouri (sixth), hasn't had a Republican since 1949, Milwaukee, Wisconsin (eighth), since 1908, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (ninth), since 1952 and Newark, New Jersey (10th), since 1907.
Democrat run Cites lead the highest crime and murder rates

2. How about Democrat candidates running as Democrats, instead of pretending that they are conservatives? Why do they do that?

a. How bad is it for Democrats? They’re running against their own programs. ObamaCare, cap-n-tax, you name it, they’re against it now. This situation reached absurdity when five Democrat members of Congress ran ads claiming to have voted “no” on TARP. The five are Frank Kratovil (MD), Dina Titus (NV), Mary Jo Kilroy (OH), Kathy Dahlkemper (PA) and Glenn Nye (VA). The inconvenient truth is, according to FactCheck.org, “None of the five lawmakers who are running these ads is listed in the roll call vote. That’s because none of them had taken office yet.” Democrats Run From Their Record: epic fail obama Conservative Libertarian Outpost

b. If Democrats running against the White House prevail, the result could have a profound impact on the party's ability to govern. More than 30 Democrats with proven records of independence are campaigning on this theme, and scores more have started trying to do so late in the game. Even if the party maintains control of the House, it almost certainly won't have a functioning liberal majority, Democratic aides and lawmakers say. Tom Faranda's Folly: WSJ: Conservative Democrat Congressmen doing well in election run-up


c. …party officials in Washington can’t identify a single House member who’s running an ad boasting of a “yes” vote — despite the fact that 219 House Democrats voted in favor of final passage in March.
Read more: Democrats run away from health care - Jennifer Haberkorn - POLITICO.com

d. "The common wisdom holds that 'both parties' have to appeal to the extremes during the primary and then move to the center for the general election. To the contrary, both parties run for office as conservatives. Once they have fooled the voters and are safely in office, Republicans sometimes double-cross the voters. Democrats always do."
Coulter, 11-27-03


My answer…folks who want to be assured that there will be somebody (or something, i.e. government) that promises to take care of them support left-wing policies.

a. Liberal linguist Professor George Lakoff highlights this explanation, in his book “Don't Think of an Elephant!,” when he speaks of progressives framing policy in a ‘nurturing and cooperative” manner, as opposed to those mean conservatives who rely on a more competitive, ‘strict father’ rendition.

b. And even when said policies are exposed as failures, i.e., the Obama economic policies, our left-wing friends continue to argue in their favor. The answer is right here:

“The general idea is that it’s absolutely threatening to admit you’re wrong,” says political scientist Brendan Nyhan, the lead researcher on the Michigan study. The phenomenon — known as “backfire” — is “a natural defense mechanism to avoid that cognitive dissonance.”
How facts backfire - The Boston Globe


So, I understand you predicament, lefties... (but remember to pull the right lever in the privacy of the election booth.)

Why am I still a leftie?

1. Both of my Parents were married.

2. My Father served in World War II and Korea.

3. I graduated High School.

4. I serverd Six (06) Years in the United States Army (1971 - 1977).

5. I do not need to take off my socks when I count up to twenty.

6. I can and do think for myself.

7. Rush Limbaugh has a drug conviction. He had to piss in a cup during probation. He lies on a daily basis.

8. George Bush was deserter. As a vet, I tend to dislike deserters. Only thing I hate more is a Draft Dodger, like Dick Cheney.

9. I don't believe in kicking people in head, arresting reporters, outting C.I.A. Agents, or lies about W.M.D.

10. You quote Mann Coulter....a brainless twit with false boobs and no brains.

11. Bill O'Reily is a bgot. Has engaged sexual harassement of women.

12. Beck thinks god talks to him, yeah right.

13. I don't cherry pick parts of the Constitution to support and disgard the rest.

14. The Moon IS NOT MADE OF GREEN CHEESE...sorry I know you were taught different.

15. Given the choice of supporting two immoral and UN-CONSTITUTIONAL Wars or spending money to build highways, schools, and hospitals...we don't need the wars.

16. Voting for Sarah Palin is like voting the mayor of the city that was the Meth Capital of the U..S....oh yeah that WAS PALIN.

17. I do not want, need, desire, request or require any person, at any time to tell how much their version of their god loves me. Their god is in the last cubicle on the left in Sub Basment 1-A.

I do not believe in the hate of the right. I do not believe in the violence of the right.

i couldnt have said it better myself. this campaign ad explains the GOP in a nutshell
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BJfMPxQuiU&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

 

[MaggieMae]

This about covers it for me.

Proud To Be Liberal - why Liberal values are American values

 

[Bfgrn]

This about covers it for me.

Proud To Be Liberal - why Liberal values are American values

Very good link Maggie.

Here's my favorite.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But first, I would like to say what I understand the word, "Liberal," to mean and explain in the process why I consider myself to be a "Liberal"

In short, having set forth my views - I hope for all time - 2 nights ago in Houston, on the proper relationship between church and state, I want to take this opportunity to set forth my views on the proper relationship between the state and the citizen. This is my political credo:

I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, and the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, this faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith, for liberalism is not so much a party creed or a set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of Justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.

I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a super state. I see no magic to tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale Federal bureaucracies in this administration, as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and its full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.

Our responsibility is not discharged by an announcement of virtuous ends. Our responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons, that liberalism is our best and our only hope in the world today. [Applause.] For the liberal society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies. And the only basic issue in the 1960 presidential campaign is whether our Government will fall in a conservative rut and die there, or whether we will move ahead in the liberal spirit of daring, of breaking new ground, of doing in our generation what Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson did in their time of influence and responsibility.

Our liberalism has its roots in our diverse origins. Most of us are descended from that segment of the American population which was once called an immigrant minority. Today, along with our children and grandchildren, we do not feel minor. We feel proud of our origins and we are not second to any group in our sense of national purpose. For many years New York represented the new frontier to all those who came from the ends of the earth to find new opportunity and new freedom, generations of men and women who fled from the despotism of the czars, the horrors of the Nazis, the tyranny of hunger, who came here to the new frontier in the State of New York. These men and women, a living cross section of American history, indeed, a cross section of the entire world's history of pain and hope, made of this city and only a new world of opportunity, but a new world of the spirit as well.

Address of John F. Kennedy upon Accepting the Liberal Party Nomination for President, New York, New York, September 14, 1960