One man’s hack-sized def. of leftism

wv wrote:

Well Beau’s notion is not how i would put it. I’d probly say something like
Leftists reject the worst aspects of capitalism, among other things. I think thats a better ‘strategic’ position at any rate. Leftists oughta think about making the tent bigger, not smaller.

w
v

I assume we’re saying the same thing, and that Beau’s definition represents the smaller tent.

You guys lost me.

zn wrote:

wv wrote:

“you can define leftism as rejecting capitalism”

Is that true of social democracy? I don’t even think social democracy is anti small business. I think that social democracy–which is left/progressive, of course–supports a mixed economy where large wealthy interests don’t and can’t dominate public and economic life.

I have recently found myself in arguments many times with righties who assume social democracy is socialism and I then have to explain the difference.

It’s funny if some leftists don’t even make the same distinction.

I may be misreading you . . . but being anticapitalist isn’t “anti small business.” At least not necessarily. Capitalism, as you know, is just one form/mode of production, and fairly recent on the scene, relatively speaking. You can have small businesses thrive in non-capitalist settings, as we had all over America before the Civil War.

I’ve used the example before. If you build custom chairs, say, for a living, don’t have employees, take care of the entire process yourself, you’re not a capitalist. It’s not a capitalist business. It becomes capitalist, however, if you purchase labor power to make those chairs for you, appropriate all the money they generate — cuz that theft is legal under capitalism — and allocate it in any manner you want. M-C-M and exchange value . . . instead of something like C-M-C and use-value, which predated capitalism.

You can also scale up business and keep it non-capitalist if no one is an employee, everyone is a co-owner, you share the fruits of your labor, etc. etc. A basic co-op or Wolff’s WSDE are examples of that.

The difference between left and right anticapitalism tends to come down to this: Is the replacement egalitarian, democratic, eco-friendly? It’s a basic assumption for leftists that the business will be non-profit too.

A right-wing anticapitalist, OTOH, isn’t going to give a damn about those things. You could be a tyrannical sole proprietor, with no leftist values/vision/moral compass, and still be anticapitalist, etc. etc.

zn wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

I may be misreading you . . . but being anticapitalist isn’t “anti small business.” At least not necessarily.

My major point is that social democracy is left by any appreciable definition but existing social democracies are mixed economies.

Just saying that the “left” umbrella is a big one and to me any adequate definition should be inclusive.

What I personally want to avoid is the clash of purists thing which as we all know haunts leftist discourse. So for me the definition should be inclusive.

There might be a time for the clash of micro-details later, but right now, in this historical moment, all allies are welcome.

…

To me, it’s not a matter of “purity” at all. There is great diversity on the left, as we all keep saying, and that includes those of us who are anticapitalists but not anti-business. We’re a part of this, too — this crazy, unruly leftist quilt.

Not saying you do this, but I’ve encountered it endlessly through the years. Even bringing up “capitalism” seems to piss some people off, and a mere critique (without a discussion of a replacement yet) elicits all kinds of accusations, the favorite being “Stalin!!”

The more mild rebukes are of the “anti-business” sort. So I think it’s a valid response to say that being full-on left-anticapitalist isn’t anti-business . . . unless that particular leftist has that stance. To me, it’s not a logical assumption to make, because there are thousands of different (non-capitalist) modes of production we could use to start and run a business, and those who do could well love the idea of commerce itself. It could be their raison d’etre, etc. etc.

I also think it’s an important distinction . . . between social democracy and socialism. The former isn’t anticapitalist. It’s mixed, as you say. The latter is, though, and by definition. It seeks to replace capitalism with economic democracy, etc.

There’s plenty of room on the left for both views, and thousands more besides.

Billy_T wrote:

zn wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

I may be misreading you . . . but being anticapitalist isn’t “anti small business.” At least not necessarily.

My major point is that social democracy is left by any appreciable definition but existing social democracies are mixed economies.

Just saying that the “left” umbrella is a big one and to me any adequate definition should be inclusive.

What I personally want to avoid is the clash of purists thing which as we all know haunts leftist discourse. So for me the definition should be inclusive.

There might be a time for the clash of micro-details later, but right now, in this historical moment, all allies are welcome.

…

To me, it’s not a matter of “purity” at all. There is great diversity on the left, as we all keep saying, and that includes those of us who are anticapitalists but not anti-business. We’re a part of this, too — this crazy, unruly leftist quilt.

Not saying you do this, but I’ve encountered it endlessly through the years. Even bringing up “capitalism” seems to piss some people off, and a mere critique (without a discussion of a replacement yet) elicits all kinds of accusations, the favorite being “Stalin!!”

The more mild rebukes are of the “anti-business” sort. So I think it’s a valid response to say that being full-on left-anticapitalist isn’t anti-business . . . unless that particular leftist has that stance. To me, it’s not a logical assumption to make, because there are thousands of different (non-capitalist) modes of production we could use to start and run a business, and those who do could well love the idea of commerce itself. It could be their raison d’etre, etc. etc.

I also think it’s an important distinction . . . between social democracy and socialism. The former isn’t anticapitalist. It’s mixed, as you say. The latter is, though, and by definition. It seeks to replace capitalism with economic democracy, etc.

There’s plenty of room on the left for both views, and thousands more besides.

My only points are that (1) I prefer an inclusive definition of left/progressives, (2) I include social democracy in the left and it is neither anti-business nor anti-capitalist (existing social democracies are mixed economies), and (3) when I personally get into discussions of what is “left” I don’t debate the details–it’s just important that it be inclusive, because (IMO) the historical moment requires it.

That’s just a declaration of how I vote on the issue of “what is left/progressive.” (IE. “What is left/progressive” as opposed to what is liberal, what is purely socialist, or what is purely anti-capitalist…the latter 2 of course being part of “what is left/progressive.”) Given all that to me the vid that opens this thread offers a definition that is too exclusive.

….

ZN,

I agree it can be off-putting to play Mayor of the Left, or Mayor of Definitions, etc.

I fall into that mistake from time to time, as you know.

;>)

I didn’t really see the video guy doing that. But I can see how you see he sees things that way. I won’t add the final see, cuz I’m trying to limit my dad jokes these days.

Billy_T wrote:

So there really is no way, IMO, to have even a mixed economy serve all. If we have it in, say, Scandinavia, it can’t also exist all over Africa, Latin America, Asia or in the good old USA. There must always be that surplus army of unemployed and radically underpaid. There must always been rampant inequality or you can’t have millionaires, much less billionaires. You have to have metaphorical trash cans and very real dead zones strategically placed, or there is no “capital formation,” much less “wealth accumulation.”

i agree with that.

Billy_T wrote:

As in, do we want to push for social democracy as a stage on the way to getting rid of capitalism entirely? Pragmatism of one sort or another may come into play here.

Or is social democracy as far as we should go?

i don’t know. but i do know that we’re currently going in the wrong direction.

wv wrote:

Is it my imagination or have you been posting more on Politics lately, Invader?
Is there a reason for that? Or am i imagining that? Do you think of yourself as a ‘leftist’ or a ‘liberal’ or just a Seahawk fan like Zooey?

it’s not your imagination. honestly? with the pandemic and the protests i’ve been leaning toward this side of the board more often lately.

i’m not particularly political. and for some of the reasons you stated. i often am conflicted between the way i would want to see things done vs being practical and trying to focus on things that are within the realm of possibility.

but also. how do you get 8 billion people to agree on a way forward? how do you even get half of them to agree on a way forward?

but then i also think does it even matter? is this planet supposed to go on forever? are humans meant to exist forever? the universe? sometimes i think i should just enjoy the world for what it is. faults and all. but then other days i think it does matter, and we should try and make this place better while we’re here. even if you can’t reach that ideal society.

i think what i would want is that we treat each other compassionately. universal healthcare. universal basic income. free education. free housing. i do think those are steps towards that. so if that makes me a leftist then i guess i’m leftist.

it wouldn’t solve everything. but then what would? again. trying to get 300 million people (not to mention 8 billion) to agree. well good luck with that. you can’t even get 30 million to agree.

i think you always have the end goal in mind. but you also enjoy the journey if that makes any sense. so even if you don’t ever reach the goal, you at least appreciate the steps it takes to get there?

so if we could get at least universal healthcare and universal basic income before i pass. and a mars landing. i’d be pretty cool with that.