I mean to be fair… groups that consider themselves far left also exterminate groups.
The trick is to not go too far. You wanna end up at Scandinavian liberal socialism, but not overshoot it to let’s create a famine for kicks and kill all people wearing glasses.
I think it’s necissary when talking about “left governments” to have that caveat. I wouldn’t personally consider the Khmer Rouge, USSR, or CCP, left wing but they did.
They are just different shades of authoritarianism.
I mean to be fair… groups that consider themselves far left also exterminate groups
[Citation needed]
The trick is to not go too far
Yeah, you wouldn’t want society to become TOO egalitarian and fair! 🙄
You wanna end up at Scandinavian liberal socialism
Speaking as an actual Scandinavian leftie: nope. Not good enough.
Social Democratic Liberalism (which is what it actually is. Socialism is a very different thing) is still capitalist and thus exploitative at its core.
It’s better than most, but it’s far from the utopian ideal that people from the American Left tend to think it is.
but not overshoot it to let’s create a famine for kicks and kill all people wearing glasses
You’re thinking along the wrong axis there. There’s a HUGE difference between ultra authoritarian leftism like that of the USSR and Pol Pot’s Cambodia, and libertarian (original meaning, not bastardized American definition) leftism.
It’s actually a “The end justifies the means” situation - Marxism-Leninism tries to achieve Communism (the Perfect Equality utopia) via the Dictatorship Of The Proletariat stage, a form of Autocracy, and all tries so far in the so-called “Communist” countries got stuck in that stage.
So whilst the end objective is not authoritarian, it’s used to justify means to supposedly get there which are most definitelly authoritarian though they’re are supposed to be used only temporarily
Whilst I’m pretty sure in the very beginning of the Communist Revolutions most people in it were guided by leftwing principles and trully saw the authoritarianism as merelly a distasteful temporary need, nowadays in those countries the genuinelly leftwing grand objective seems to be just an excuse to be used in justifing the continued use of authocratic power by those who hold it, rather than something those in power genuine want and expect to one day reach.
This take is too anarchy-pilled. I don’t love the idea of a vanguard party but it’s hard to honestly argue something of the sort isn’t necessary to push things along until broad cultural norms shift far enough Left to be self-sustaining.
If I could point toward actual socialist governments not based on exploitation (rather than Scandinavia) I would. But it really is just a hypothetical idea at this point.
I’ve never been optimistic enough to believe the libertarian/anarchic theories work on any scale above small communities. Anytime I discuss egalitarian and anarchic societies I can’t get beyond the point of humans are intrinsically greedy andviolent which that collapses the system.
So anything thats acturally left wing is bad? Because left wing means genuene real socialism, as in not capitalism socialism. As in the type of socialism that doesn’t require oppressing the global south (which shouldn’t even be a question).
I mean to be fair… groups that consider themselves far left also exterminate groups.
The trick is to not go too far. You wanna end up at Scandinavian liberal socialism, but not overshoot it to let’s create a famine for kicks and kill all people wearing glasses.
Is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that statement.
deleted by creator
I think it’s necissary when talking about “left governments” to have that caveat. I wouldn’t personally consider the Khmer Rouge, USSR, or CCP, left wing but they did.
They are just different shades of authoritarianism.
[Citation needed]
Yeah, you wouldn’t want society to become TOO egalitarian and fair! 🙄
Speaking as an actual Scandinavian leftie: nope. Not good enough.
Social Democratic Liberalism (which is what it actually is. Socialism is a very different thing) is still capitalist and thus exploitative at its core.
It’s better than most, but it’s far from the utopian ideal that people from the American Left tend to think it is.
You’re thinking along the wrong axis there. There’s a HUGE difference between ultra authoritarian leftism like that of the USSR and Pol Pot’s Cambodia, and libertarian (original meaning, not bastardized American definition) leftism.
deleted by creator
It’s actually a “The end justifies the means” situation - Marxism-Leninism tries to achieve Communism (the Perfect Equality utopia) via the Dictatorship Of The Proletariat stage, a form of Autocracy, and all tries so far in the so-called “Communist” countries got stuck in that stage.
So whilst the end objective is not authoritarian, it’s used to justify means to supposedly get there which are most definitelly authoritarian though they’re are supposed to be used only temporarily
Whilst I’m pretty sure in the very beginning of the Communist Revolutions most people in it were guided by leftwing principles and trully saw the authoritarianism as merelly a distasteful temporary need, nowadays in those countries the genuinelly leftwing grand objective seems to be just an excuse to be used in justifing the continued use of authocratic power by those who hold it, rather than something those in power genuine want and expect to one day reach.
This take is too anarchy-pilled. I don’t love the idea of a vanguard party but it’s hard to honestly argue something of the sort isn’t necessary to push things along until broad cultural norms shift far enough Left to be self-sustaining.
deleted by creator
If I could point toward actual socialist governments not based on exploitation (rather than Scandinavia) I would. But it really is just a hypothetical idea at this point.
I’ve never been optimistic enough to believe the libertarian/anarchic theories work on any scale above small communities. Anytime I discuss egalitarian and anarchic societies I can’t get beyond the point of humans are intrinsically greedy andviolent which that collapses the system.
So anything thats acturally left wing is bad? Because left wing means genuene real socialism, as in not capitalism socialism. As in the type of socialism that doesn’t require oppressing the global south (which shouldn’t even be a question).
LIBERALISM = REACTIONARY
SOCIALISM = REVOLUTIONARY