Is there anything left of The Left?

[ioannis76]

So, based on a brief (reading Bremainers' posts is rather too cringy for me) discussion I had with TheLeft and Muizer, I was wondering what the prerequisites are for a group to call itself "Left" or "Leftist", in our Post-Soviet world.
Without too much ado, here is what got me thinking about this:

Here's my original post:

It was embarrassing to the guy who tweeted it, and to all the "sobbing" people who posted that they were "moved" by said tweet. I mean, seriously, who is moved to tears at the sight of a farming tractor ploughing?

It impresses me, though to see that you (obviously) support the Left, and are a Bremainer. Isn't the EU supposed to be the pinnacle of capitalism or something like that?

Here's the reply I got:

Oh dear. Once again we have the embarrassingly illiterate view that just because you are a lefty, you must be a Leninist or something. Does this therefore mean that because you're a right winger, you're a Nazi? Or does that strange dichotomy only work one way?

The reason why I'm a remainer is actually pretty simple. Brexit means being poorer (every single economic forecast predicts that) and having less rights (no longer able to work or travel freely in the EU). I'd have thought that a right winger would appreciate that view...

Rather rude, I 'd say, to have my position being called illiterate, without explaining what the literate position would be. The gist of it, seems to be that "you don't have to be a Leninist or something" to be lefty.
So, we have some idea of what you don't HAVE TO be. But what do you HAVE to be, in order to be a lefty? To make matters worse, for some reason, "Nazis are right wingers" (wot?), which somehow complicates things further.
As if THAT wasn't enough here's Muizer, upon my pointing out that Nazis are actually National SOCIALISTS:

Yah, which is something they called themselves, probably for propaganda reasons. As anyone with a knowledge of socialism would know 'national socialist' is a contradiction in terms.

And there goes the right to self-determination, right out of the window. It seems that if you are a right winger, you can be a nazi, and if you're a nazi, you can't define yourself as a socialist, in a (western) society where pretty much anyone can define themselves as therianthropes, butteflies, cats, dogs, and whatnot.

So, the question(s),
How does one define a left-leftist group in the modern EU (and the west in general)?
Are (or rather were) the nazis a Socialist group or not?

I read that you cannot define yourself as a nationalist and a socialist, because it's self-contradictory, but I don't see how nationalisation of the means of production internally, ie within the society a party rules, has to do with foreign policy, ie how foreign nationals are treated etc.

I considered that this would be an issue for the academy, since it's not really Brexit-related (not directly, at least).

[mishkin]

The Nordic model, the model (sorry about the redundancy) for most european socialists

The Nordic model is a term for a form of social democracy common to the Nordic countries (Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Finland).[149][150][151] During most of the post-war era, Sweden was governed by the Swedish Social Democratic Party largely in cooperation with trade unions and industry.[152] In Sweden, the Social Democratic Party held power from 1936 to 1976, 1982 to 1991, 1994 to 2006 and 2014 to present. Tage Erlander was the leader of the Swedish Social Democratic Party and led the government from 1946 to 1969, an uninterrupted tenure of twenty-three years, one of the longest in any democracy. From 1945 to 1962, the Norwegian Labour Party held an absolute majority in the parliament led by Einar Gerhardsen who was Prime Minister with seventeen years in office. This particular adaptation of the mixed market economy is characterised by more generous welfare states (relative to other developed countries), which are aimed specifically at enhancing individual autonomy, ensuring the universal provision of basic human rights and stabilising the economy. It is distinguished from other welfare states with similar goals by its emphasis on maximising labour force participation, promoting gender equality, egalitarian and extensive benefit levels, large magnitude of redistribution and expansionary fiscal policy.[153]

For more information about socialism, you can read the whole entry (socialism)

[TheLeft]

Rather rude, I 'd say, to have my position being called illiterate, without explaining what the literate position would be. The gist of it, seems to be that "you don't have to be a Leninist or something" to be lefty.
So, we have some idea of what you don't HAVE TO be. But what do you HAVE to be, in order to be a lefty?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
https://www.britannica.com/topic/socialism

Have read of that to start you off. But to boil it down to the crux, it means that you believe that production should benefit society as a whole as opposed to the "I'm alright Jack, screw everyone else" mantra of American style unregulated, hyper-capitalism.

To make matters worse, for some reason, "Nazis are right wingers" (wot?), which somehow complicates things further.
As if THAT wasn't enough here's Muizer, upon my pointing out that Nazis are actually National SOCIALISTS:

*sigh*

The Nazis were as much socialists as the Democratic Republic of Korea is actually democratic, and equally about as much as Dr. Dre is actually a real doctor. Just because someone calls themselves something, doesn't mean they are. I can call myself the greatest guitar player on Earth, doesn't mean I am.

https://tuckered.co.uk/2018/10/30/th...y-specialists/
https://fullfact.org/online/nazis-socialists/

The reason why this utterly ludicrous idea that the Nazis were socialists (despite the fact that socialists were pretty much the first group of people to end up in concentration camps) was invented by the Alt-Right as an attempt to divorce their similar ideology from the ever so toxic Nazi ideology. It's a pathetically illiterate attempt at re-branding. Nothing more.

And there goes the right to self-determination, right out of the window. It seems that if you are a right winger, you can be a nazi, and if you're a nazi, you can't define yourself as a socialist, in a (western) society where pretty much anyone can define themselves as therianthropes, butteflies, cats, dogs, and whatnot.

So, the question(s),
How does one define a left-leftist group in the modern EU (and the west in general)?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

See above.

Are (or rather were) the nazis a Socialist group or not?

Absolutely, definitely not. No.

I read that you cannot define yourself as a nationalist and a socialist, because it's self-contradictory, but I don't see how nationalisation of the means of production internally, ie within the society a party rules, has to do with foreign policy, ie how foreign nationals are treated etc.

No. Because socialism is primarily a class struggle (for example: rich vs poor, or the new left, minorities vs majorities) and not about preservation of national values and ethnicity which is nationalism.

[Heathen Hammer]

The only thing you can demand from a resident of a country (whatever their skin pigmentation or ethnicity) is complying with the law of that country. But that doesn't seem to be what the white identitarians ask for.


From mongrels op: Germany synagogue shooting: Independent: Suspect 'broadcast attack livestream on Twitch' and ranted about Holocaust, Jews and immigration

(wiki) According to the manifesto, his goal had been to "Kill as many anti-Whites as possible, Jews preferred"

It sounds to me a person quite interested in preserving "white identity".

Holocaust was committed by a socialist regime, so since he mentioned that, then clearly SPD is to blame as well, at least by your own logic.

[Muizer]

I read that you cannot define yourself as a nationalist and a socialist, because it's self-contradictory, but I don't see how nationalisation of the means of production internally, ie within the society a party rules, has to do with foreign policy, ie how foreign nationals are treated etc.

Nationalism holds shared national identity is the focus of politics and overcomes anything that divides a country's nationals, wherehas socialism holds that economic classes are the focus of politics, a phenomenon that most definitely transcends borders. It should be obvious that these two are impossible to reconcile.

[Abdülmecid I]

As it's explained above, Nazism's obsession with racial classification is a direct contradiction to the leftist message of internationalism and social struggle. This is why, on theory, nationalism cannot be endorsed by a left-wing party, unless it has ideologically evolved into something completely alien to its origins or its leadership has cynically ride the horse of populism. Hitler's movement itself was always defined as the bulwark against the Communist labour movement and the Marxist trade unions. This is a valuable perk of Nazi thugs that it is still appreciated today by our modern financial elites. All these Nazi activities explain why Hitler was financed from the beginning by bankers, like Kurt von Schröder and Hjalmar Schacht, as well as by the magnates of the German industry, such as the Stinnes family, Fritz Thyssen or Emil Kirdor. Even when Hitler gained absolute power, he obediently fulfilled the promises made to his supporters, by persecuting communists, outright evaporating the labour movement and increasing the profits of German businessmen, by imposing protectionism and generously purchasing the products of the industry, using state funds. Fascism shares a similar history, as it also protected the interests of the Italian establishment, while it rose to prominence, by mercilessly crushing the socialist strikes of Biennio Rosso, despite the previous dismal failure of the police.

The right to self-determination is totally irrelevant. It refers to the people's right to decide on their sovereignty and political status, without facing any negative repercussions for their choice by the state authorities. This doesn't prevent any individual, progressive or conservative, from criticizing or ridiculing anyone adopting absurd political or ethnic identities, like simultaneously describing himself as Nazi and Bolshevik or genuinely believing that he's the pure descendant of Martian colonists. In what concerns the European Union, the center and center-left has seen the project as a positive step towards future income equality and prosperity. Less moderate leftists also aspire to a potentially reformed EU, where environmentalism, the gradual abolition of borders and social-democracy will be encouraged. I personally consider these visions rather utopian, but I can understand their reasoning, even if it's too optimistic.

[Aexodus]

Abdul’s 90% right in his post, but I wanted to point out that Irish Nationalism is an example of socialists - Karl Marx and Engels themselves in fact - embracing nationalism because it was in opposition to what they considered capitalist imperialism. A similar trend can be observed in the Middle East.

[Abdülmecid I]

This is now an obsolete view, which was based on the (rather fragile, in my opinion) reasoning of establishing nation-states being a necessary step towards the socialist revolution. It was often described as a temporary and opportunistic alliance between nationalist bourgeois and socialist workers, in order to overthrow the backwards, aristocratic establishment of the empires. It persisted well into the 20th century, as an opposition to colonialism, which was considered as the strongest obstacle preventing Africa or the Middle East from endorsing socialism. It was a pretty naive and simplistic approach, but its most moderate forms technically didn't violate the principles of leftist ideologies. Nowadays, it's much less widespread and is usually limited to nations, who are either discriminated against, like for example the indigenous Indians in Latin America or whose independence movements have been historically linked with progressive ideas and the struggle against a supposedly imperialistic and authoritarian state, like the Basques, Catalans and (at a lesser extent, since the Good Friday Agreement) Irish.

[Gromovnik]

It's always funny when someone hates socialism, then claims nazis were socialists. Just a random, unrelated observation.

[Ludicus]

To complicate things unnecessarily: in our post-soviet world-China-both capitalist and communist, China overtakes US in rankings of world's richest people - The Guardian
---

Because socialism is primarily a class struggle (for example: rich vs poor, or the new left, minorities vs majorities) and not about preservation of national values and ethnicity which is nationalism.

Well,for us- P. socialist Party ( socialist and democratic) ethnicity isn't relevant. Democratic socialism is a movement for freedom, social justice and solidarity;the idea of democracy is based on the principles of freedom and equality.But we are patriots, we love our country.
For us, it is only possible to speak of democracy if people have a free choice between various political alternatives in the framework of free elections.
-----
What about the communists? let's keep in mind that the communist anti-colonialism necessarily implied national self-determination.As they used to say here," recognition of the right to an immediate independence of the peoples subjected to the Portuguese colonialism"
When a communist Party declares, "The April Revolution, following the heroic military uprising of the Movement of the Armed Forces (MFA) on April 25th 1974, followed immediately by a popular uprising, realized profound democratic transformations —political, economic, social and cultural— that, rooted in the affirmation of national sovereignty and independence, opened the perspective of a new period in the history of Portugal and had important international repercussions"... well, what is that supposed to mean?
I know them - and I have some doubts about communist's commitment to internationalism.Ideologically? yes...theoretically.
Communism is in decline.

[Coughdrop addict]

It's always funny when someone hates socialism, then claims nazis were socialists, while at the same time fapping to nazis 24/7. Just a random, unrelated observation.

And 99% of the time they don't even know what Socialism is. Similar to other things and people they hate, their leaders long ago decided that the less their voters know about these topics (beyond that they are inherently bad for...reasons) the better.

[Diamat]

Nationalism holds shared national identity is the focus of politics and overcomes anything that divides a country's nationals, wherehas socialism holds that economic classes are the focus of politics, a phenomenon that most definitely transcends borders. It should be obvious that these two are impossible to reconcile.

Empirically speaking, this has not been the case. For the most part, nationalism and socialism have gone hand-in-hand. This was the case in the Soviet Union, the various people's democracies, and of course in Nazi Germany as well. Now you might say, "that was not socialism!" But if you do that, you're rather easily dismissing a long history of the "socialism" concept and its multiple interpretations. Just to give an example from Soviet orthodoxy: the national and the class struggle can indeed merge into one. The Soviets thought that a socialist country opposing a capitalist country is a form of class struggle. As a result, the people of that socialist country were required to do everything possible in support of their motherland and thereby wage class struggle against the class enemy in the West.

[Akar]

If you think the Soviet Union was an accurate representation of socialism then you are sorely mistaken. You are equivocating Marxist-Leninism with modern day socialism which is basically like comparing Medieval England to the modern day English Monarchy. Socialism is inherently about rejecting nationality and race and embracing the equality of the classes. The end goal of socialism and communism is the destruction of nationalism and replacing it with a global equality among the people. "The Soviets" are a piss poor representation of what the modern socialist or communist wants and at this point are basically just used as a straw man by people who can't differentiate between the USSR and any other possible implementation of socialism.

[Muizer]

Empirically speaking, this has not been the case. For the most part, nationalism and socialism have gone hand-in-hand. This was the case in the Soviet Union, the various people's democracies, and of course in Nazi Germany as well. Now you might say, "that was not socialism!" But if you do that, you're rather easily dismissing a long history of the "socialism" concept and its multiple interpretations. Just to give an example from Soviet orthodoxy: the national and the class struggle can indeed merge into one. The Soviets thought that a socialist country opposing a capitalist country is a form of class struggle. As a result, the people of that socialist country were required to do everything possible in support of their motherland and thereby wage class struggle against the class enemy in the West.

There is of course an important difference between the concepts of an ideology on the one hand and how people interpret and apply those concepts in practice. For instance, all Christian sects as far as I know say they base themselves on the bible as the word of God. They would have taken offense if you told them they didn't. And that's where I think framing national socialism as a socialist movement breaks down: If you told a Nazi's they weren't true to socialist principles they would not care, because they weren't ever trying to.

[Heathen Hammer]

You do know that Dr Dre isn't a real doctor, right? And that Carlsberg probably isn't the best lager in the world?

You see the thing is, is that just because something is called something... sometimes... it isn't that at all. This is called Marketing.

Either, Obvious Troll is being obvious, or you could really do with a history lesson.

Nah, they were socialists because their economic program was socialist. Also since you asked us for a history lesson, here goes.

And 99% of the time they don't even know what Socialism is. Similar to other things and people they hate, their leaders long ago decided that the less their voters know about these topics (beyond that they are inherently bad for...reasons) the better.

The only difference between Lenin and Hitler was that latter had better sense of aesthetics. Their economic policies were identical.

[Heathen Hammer]

Who does it belong to, then? Who do the other continents belong to?

I assume he means corporations and corrupt government officials, at least given how modern left is subservient to these two groups.

You may want a few econ/history lessons (you know, from educators rather than youtube pundits); Nazis did not push for collective worker ownership of the means of production. Krupp was very much owned by the Krupp family, not the workers.

You mean like Lenin during NEP? It seems we are about to enter into "real socialism has never been tried" levels of silliness.

[Heathen Hammer]

Without a doubt, NSDAP was a garden variety socialist party. The whole "National-Socialism isn't socialism" propaganda, um... burp, is mainly damage control on behalf of modern left.
The funniest part is that left still idolizes Lenin - not only despite numerous crimes against humanity and famines, but also the fact that his economic ideas were almost identical to those implemented by socialist Austrian painter some time later in Germany. Krupp's factories were indeed privately owned - kinda like means of production during Lenin's NEP.
Essentially notion of Reich not being socialist ignores pretty much every aspect of history and ideology, from Engels himself to examples of various socialist regimes employing extreme nationalism.

[The spartan]

You mean like Lenin during NEP? It seems we are about to enter into "real socialism has never been tried" levels of silliness.

No? I am talking about the literal concept of Socialism, not whatever "gotcha" point you think you have.

Or, if we want to cut the crap we can just get to quoting Hitler himself:

'Socialist' I define from the word 'social; meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.
-Speech given on December 28, 1938

"Socialism" in the phrase of "National Socialism" never had anything to do with what we would consider "Marxism". It was more or less a branding technique in the mess of multi-party organizations that existed in the Weimar Republic. Especially after the Night of Long Knives, when the Nazi party was fully consolidated under Hitler, "National Socialism" meant whatever the hell Hitler wanted it to. But in terms of the principles of Socialism: collective ownership, anti-bourgeoisie, etc. Hitler couldn't have given a toss. The German bourgeoisie did just fine under Hitler (as long as they were ethnically German).

[Heathen Hammer]

As far as Marx and Engels were concerned Hitler was a socialist. "Negation of capitalism" and all that.
His actions were identical to contemporary socialist leaders of his time - Lenin, Trotsky, etc.
Extreme nationalism has been employed by socialist regimes(conventionally recognized as such) as well.

[The spartan]

I don't think Marx or Engels knew about Hitler even existing. But no, anything that is "against Capitalism" isn't automatically Socialist and Hitler repudiated Marx (you know, a Jew) on multiple occasions. Nazis weren't even for getting rid of Capitalism, they were for getting rid of Jews, who they claimed were responsible for "Capitalism" (and Communism, btw). As said before, the Krupp family still enjoyed their immense wealth and for-profit venture just fine in Nazi Germany.

You are realllly struggling here.