I literally just linked you the historical definition of leftism. Those who supported the aristocracy were on the right; those who supported the people were on the left. Now tell me, do you mean to claim that Stalin supported his people, or do you agree with me that he supported only himself and his cronies? Because if it’s the latter, then by the aforementioned historical definition, he was not a leftist.
I never disputed your link on the origins of the term.
All I said is that it seems very convenient that the left cannot and never has done anything wrong other than not being left enough. You’re either completely benevolent or you’re not a leftist, by definition.
There is no act that can’t be waived away as being “not actually left-wing.”
The word dishonest implies premeditation. I don’t think today’s leftists are evil or dumb. I think the hardcore leftists are in a well-intentioned trap that creates a dangerous and frankly annoying “us vs. them” mentality in which they are convinced, beyond rationale, that they are doing good, which is all that really matters to them.
It creates a left=moral good paradigm in their heads. Where, like I said, the left can’t do anything wrong because the left=good.
I mean, look at how they talk about centrists, who are not really their enemy. They’re supposed to be the people you try to persuade, but the left has gone so religiously dogmatic that even centrists are almost as bad as Nazis (e.i. right-wingers)
Look, I’m fundamentally with you. The right-wing is capable of terrible, horrific things. They’re more dangerous historically. You’ll get no argument from me man. Some of it makes me sick. I believe that morals and values should be a part of politics too. I’m no stranger to leftism either, I was extremely interested in it for quite a while.
But I know a trap when I see it. Clearly something is going here, fucking socio-economics is becoming a religion.
That’s why I cited an objective, historical definition of leftism: so that I can say that no, the people you’re talking about are not leftists, because they don’t fit this definition. They may call themselves leftists, but that doesn’t make it so, any more than Hitler calling himself a socialist, Stalin calling himself a communist, or North Korea calling itself a democratic people’s republic makes it so.
The same goes for religion, by the way. Thumping the Bible doesn’t make you a Christian. Loving thy neighbor does.
You’re preoccupied with this French revolutionary definition of leftism as the ultimate sieve for what makes a leftist and I’m trying to make a point that today’s leftism is a movement that isn’t capable of self-criticism because it’s become a religious movement as opposed to a political one. Things change, we don’t live in revolutionary France.
I feel like we’re talking past each other here… I wish the vulkan mind meld was a real thing so we can actually get somewhere with this.
You’re preoccupied with this French revolutionary definition of leftism as the ultimate sieve for what makes a leftist
Yes, because that was before the likes of Stalin and Mao tried to appropriate the term “leftism” for their own selfish purposes.
I’m trying to make a point that today’s leftism is a movement that isn’t capable of self-criticism because it’s become a religious movement as opposed to a political one.
I’m trying to make a point that those are fake leftists.
The disagreement, as I understand it, is this: when a person wearing a label of virtue acts contrary to that label, you believe that corrupts the label, whereas I believe that makes the person unworthy of the label and refuse to recognize the person as having the label.
![The Whole Fediverse is Wholesome [fixed]](https://media.kbin.social/media/75/34/7534fdd6766a8bc7f83436386577e62a42333384f5e0e25621c1ee00ac70f675.jpg){kind=link}
I literally just linked you the historical definition of leftism. Those who supported the aristocracy were on the right; those who supported the people were on the left. Now tell me, do you mean to claim that Stalin supported his people, or do you agree with me that he supported only himself and his cronies? Because if it’s the latter, then by the aforementioned historical definition, he was not a leftist.
I never disputed your link on the origins of the term.
All I said is that it seems very convenient that the left cannot and never has done anything wrong other than not being left enough. You’re either completely benevolent or you’re not a leftist, by definition.
There is no act that can’t be waived away as being “not actually left-wing.”
What are you trying to say? That today’s leftists are dishonest?
The word dishonest implies premeditation. I don’t think today’s leftists are evil or dumb. I think the hardcore leftists are in a well-intentioned trap that creates a dangerous and frankly annoying “us vs. them” mentality in which they are convinced, beyond rationale, that they are doing good, which is all that really matters to them.
It creates a left=moral good paradigm in their heads. Where, like I said, the left can’t do anything wrong because the left=good.
I mean, look at how they talk about centrists, who are not really their enemy. They’re supposed to be the people you try to persuade, but the left has gone so religiously dogmatic that even centrists are almost as bad as Nazis (e.i. right-wingers)
Look, I’m fundamentally with you. The right-wing is capable of terrible, horrific things. They’re more dangerous historically. You’ll get no argument from me man. Some of it makes me sick. I believe that morals and values should be a part of politics too. I’m no stranger to leftism either, I was extremely interested in it for quite a while.
But I know a trap when I see it. Clearly something is going here, fucking socio-economics is becoming a religion.
That’s why I cited an objective, historical definition of leftism: so that I can say that no, the people you’re talking about are not leftists, because they don’t fit this definition. They may call themselves leftists, but that doesn’t make it so, any more than Hitler calling himself a socialist, Stalin calling himself a communist, or North Korea calling itself a democratic people’s republic makes it so.
The same goes for religion, by the way. Thumping the Bible doesn’t make you a Christian. Loving thy neighbor does.
You’re preoccupied with this French revolutionary definition of leftism as the ultimate sieve for what makes a leftist and I’m trying to make a point that today’s leftism is a movement that isn’t capable of self-criticism because it’s become a religious movement as opposed to a political one. Things change, we don’t live in revolutionary France.
I feel like we’re talking past each other here… I wish the vulkan mind meld was a real thing so we can actually get somewhere with this.
Yes, because that was before the likes of Stalin and Mao tried to appropriate the term “leftism” for their own selfish purposes.
I’m trying to make a point that those are fake leftists.
The disagreement, as I understand it, is this: when a person wearing a label of virtue acts contrary to that label, you believe that corrupts the label, whereas I believe that makes the person unworthy of the label and refuse to recognize the person as having the label.