The Bolsheviks' Playoffs started already in the 1920's

[Eusebio]

Thats a good question.

Anarchist dont fit into spectrum because they are neither capitalist or socialist, also they are neither individualistic or collectivist. They are whatever they want, hence anarchism. Pretty much only thing they can agree is that they are anarchist.

Catholic reactionaries predates political revolution that took place in France. They are feudalistic (socialism can be said to be modern feudalism, there are a lot of similarities). This is similar question like asking where does medieval guild system belong on political spectrum or hunter-gatherers. They dont, they predate it.

So when I bring up two ideologies which contradict your simplistic conception of the political spectrum you handwave them away by saying they don't count with special pleading. OK.

Anarchists are variously individualist and collectivist as their type is, but all of them are on the left. Individualist anarchists such as Lysander Spooner were members of the First International alongside socialist and labour parties.
Catholic reactionaries are in fact around today (I've argued with them on the internet), and even outside them conservative/traditionalist Catholic ideological thinking heavily influences the right wing in many countries, e.g. the next Chancellor of Germany.

"Right = individualist and Left = collectivist" doesn't make even the most basic sense when you look at political history or current politics.

 

[diegosimeone]

The political spectrum of left and right is extremely vague, inefficient and not representative of real life politics. I don't get why people are so caught up with it.

Left and right is mostly economic policy terms nowadays,. Left = more taxes, right = less taxes. Left = more trade unions, right = less trade unions.

So as everything stems from economic discussions, it seems fair for people to assume that collectivism = left and individualism = right.

But going further than economy in the left and right is meaningless and creates unnecessary discussions that lead nowhere.

 

[Eusebio]

Left and right is mostly economic policy terms nowadays,. Left = more taxes, right = less taxes. Left = more trade unions, right = less trade unions.

So as everything stems from economic discussions, it seems fair for people to assume that collectivism = left and individualism = right.

Yes, I pretty much agree that it's economic policy which is the main dividing line between left and right, at least in European democracies due to the strong history of the labour movement here. But in places like Turkey with secularism, India with communalism or the United States with race are all powerful features of the left/right divide. And historically, if you think back to the French Revolution and its aftermath the left was motivated by a philosophical attack on the privilege of throne and altar more than it was by economic policy.
(Also it's not quite correct to paint this in terms of "collectivism" and "individualism": one can have more individual freedom with a safety net paid by taxation than having to work two jobs as a wage labourer.)

Overall what defines the left is the push for more equality in every sphere; what defines the right is the preservation of hierarchy in response. Economics is generally the focal point of this debate as most of our inequality in social life is economic, but the link between higher taxation and advocacy for same-sex marriage is equality, and the link between traditional gender norms and opposition to trade unions is hierarchy.

 

[Calad]

So when I bring up two ideologies which contradict your simplistic conception of the political spectrum you handwave them away by saying they don't count with special pleading. OK.

Anarchists are variously individualist and collectivist as their type is, but all of them are on the left. Individualist anarchists such as Lysander Spooner were members of the First International alongside socialist and labour parties.
Catholic reactionaries are in fact around today (I've argued with them on the internet), and even outside them conservative/traditionalist Catholic ideological thinking heavily influences the right wing in many countries, e.g. the next Chancellor of Germany.

"Right = individualist and Left = collectivist" doesn't make even the most basic sense when you look at political history or current politics.

Anarchist cannot be on the left, because they dont want any kind of state. Left is more state control, taxation, regulation, benefits and social programs. At the best claiming anarchist being on the left is contradictory.

I may wave hand, while you dont even bring an argument. Instead of you offer some historical figure, which I should study instead of you explaining.

Catholic reactionaries believe in society that existed before political parties, the Papacy, the monastic system. If you put the Papacy on political spectrum where would it go? To the far right? Is Pope far right character? He is definitely not centrist, neither leftist! As you can see, that doesnt make any sense. It is like trying to make Ming dynasty fit on political spectrum, or Emperor of Japan. Doesnt fit.

Catholic parties often go right because they are conservative, and belive in order. Be it sex control or some other old tradition like monarchy.

 

[Henry IX]

Anarchist cannot be on the left, because they dont want any kind of state. Left is more state control, taxation, regulation, benefits and social programs. At the best claiming anarchist being on the left is contradictory.

I may wave hand, while you dont even bring an argument. Instead of you offer some historical figure, which I should study instead of you explaining.

Catholic reactionaries believe in society that existed before political parties, the Papacy, the monastic system. If you put the Papacy on political spectrum where would it go? To the far right? Is Pope far right character? He is definitely not centrist, neither leftist! As you can see, that doesnt make any sense. It is like trying to make Ming dynasty fit on political spectrum, or Emperor of Japan. Doesnt fit.

Catholic parties often go right because they are conservative, and belive in order. Be it sex control or some other old tradition like monarchy.

You seem to be confusing left-wing with Leninist vanguard communism. In modern Western European terms left-wing tends to support higher levels of government welfare (with the higher taxes required for this), higher levels of government intervention in the economy (generally in the form of regulation), greater legal protection for the environment and individuals, less government interference in private morality and less government surveillance and policing. All of these are generalities, and most specific left-wing parties differ from these in at least one attribute.

As such, most Western European centre-left parties are much more likely to support individual freedom (such as gay marriage, anti-surveillance legislation and bills of rights) than their right-wing equivalents, who generally support decreased oversight for powerful groups such as secret services, police, military and corporations.

Totalitarian governments tend to fit poorly on the left-right axis, as their behaviour rarely matches their ideology.

 

[pharaomatic]

Anarchist cannot be on the left, because they dont want any kind of state. Left is more state control, taxation, regulation, benefits and social programs. At the best claiming anarchist being on the left is contradictory.

And still anarchism is traditionally a leftist ideology and anarchist are usually leftleaning in most senses.

This is like saying the earth is flat because I cannot see it curve.

 

[Calad]

And still anarchism is traditionally a leftist ideology and anarchist are usually leftleaning in most senses.

This is like saying the earth is flat because I cannot see it curve.

Yeah, traditionally earth is flat but that doesnt make it true, same goes with anarchism.

 

[pharaomatic]

Yeah, traditionally earth is flat but that doesnt make it true, same goes with anarchism.

Political ideologies are not about truth, they're about the world you wish to create.

Still, when talking about them, having at least a minimum of knowledge on the subject helps.

But if right wing bolstering, poorly disguised as analysis is your point, then it is ofc totally irrelevant.

 

[Calad]

Political ideologies are not about truth, they're about the world you wish to create.

Still, when talking about them, having at least a minimum of knowledge on the subject helps.

But if right wing bolstering, poorly disguised as analysis is your point, then it is ofc totally irrelevant.

Says person who uses flat earth as an argument.

Did you learn that at Harvard?

 

[pharaomatic]

Says person who uses flat earth as an argument.

Did you learn that at Harvard?

Since you ask, no, but amongst other things I went to high school where I learned the basics about political ideologies. That would do you good too.

Anyways, this is degenerating rapidly, not gonna continue this, enjoy.

 

[Nykyus]

I read Sadul Jacques "Notes on the Bolshevik Revolution"

Dear friend,
The dictators of the proletariat have left Petrograd. Trotsky - in Brest, Lenin went to Finland to rest for a few days. Russia does not seem to have suffered since their departure. Both of these people are truly the soul of revolution. They are wonderful people of action, leaders of a crowd that I have not yet seen. They were able to win and hold, despite all the slander, in the most difficult conditions, amazing authority. They possess supremely all the qualities and shortcomings of great political and religious leaders — iron will, incredible endurance, enthusiastic conviction, faith that shifts mountains and breaks all barriers. Trotsky, a man of an exceptionally lively and flexible mind, happens or knows how to be dull, when it is needed, when he feels that discussion should not be allowed, because discussion is doubt, and the doubt of the commander ends in defeat of the troops. I imagine that the students of Luther, supporters of Robespierre, the old guard of Napoleon did not have such a blind faith in their idol, as much veneration as they are in relation to Lenin and Trotsky Red Guard, sailors and workers who make up the main and solid core of Bolshevik forces.
Trotsky often tells me how deeply he is impressed by his unselfishness, absolute devotion to his leader, who are shown to him by his disadvantaged friends, and what strength this love gives him. When he speaks of his fiery and selfless fighters, his voice, so often mocking and sharp, softens. Some kind of tender feeling encompasses him, which is very rarely seen in this nervous, cold and gall person, whose satanic grin sometimes makes me shiver. For Trotsky's soul is filled with bitterness, contempt and, I can say, hatred of the ruling classes. Truly, I am convinced that these two people, exceptional, if not great people (by themselves, their success will allow the bourgeois courtesan, as they call history, to call them such), operate today from the highest motives. People often ask me whether, in my opinion, Lenin and Trotsky love power for the sake of power. With regard to Lenin, no doubt is unacceptable. Power for him is not an end in itself, but only a means to bring Idea to victory. And it also seems to me, no matter how noticeable is the pleasure that Trotsky feels from his power, that he would not have left it behind him if he had to serve a different cause than Bolshevism.
But the crowds that set in motion very quickly smashed their dearest idols. How many more months will the dictators of the proletariat stand? They can be ruined by an unexpected turn of events, a crisis of transport, supplies, unemployment, a gap in negotiations and the ensuing offensive, who knows what else?

 

[Nykyus]

Today, the prevailing opinion in Russia is that Trotsky, a Judeo-Freemason, destroyed the good old Russia, destroyed thousands of Russians. He is a demon of revolution. Paid by the West
They write about Stalin that he received Russia with a plow and left it with an atomic bomb.
The head of the Levada center, Professor Lev Gudkov in an interview with Radio Liberty, held in February 2017, said that Stalin's rating among the Russian population was higher than the rating of the current President Putin and reached 58%. And the popularity of Stalin's personality is actively growing among the youth of Russia.

 

[Nykyus]

However, I believe that the achievements listed below. This is not the merits of Stalin, and the merits of Lenin and Trotsky

The October Revolution won an 8 hour day. Today, the working day increase.
The October Revolution guaranteed pensions to workers. Today, the retirement age is gradually rising around the world. There are calls for the abolition of pensions.
The October Revolution eliminated the homelessness that existed in the Russian Empire.
The October Revolution banned prostitution.
The October Revolution eliminated unemployment.
The October Revolution guaranteed universal free education and free use of kindergartens. Today this order is gradually being canceled.
The October Revolution guaranteed free medicine.
The October Revolution gave the right to free housing.
The October Revolution gave women the right to paid maternity lea

The Comintern Anthem

 

[th3freakie]

However, I believe that the achievements listed below. This is not the merits of Stalin, and the merits of Lenin and Trotsky

The October Revolution won an 8 hour day. Today, the working day increase.
The October Revolution guaranteed pensions to workers. Today, the retirement age is gradually rising around the world. There are calls for the abolition of pensions.
The October Revolution eliminated the homelessness that existed in the Russian Empire.
The October Revolution banned prostitution.
The October Revolution eliminated unemployment.
The October Revolution guaranteed universal free education and free use of kindergartens. Today this order is gradually being canceled.
The October Revolution guaranteed free medicine.
The October Revolution gave the right to free housing.
The October Revolution gave women the right to paid maternity lea

We need them back, comrade!

 

[Sabotage13]

Thats a good question.

Anarchist dont fit into spectrum because they are neither capitalist or socialist, also they are neither individualistic or collectivist. They are whatever they want, hence anarchism. Pretty much only thing they can agree is that they are anarchist.

What a load of crock, most anarchists were socialists who rejected private property and capitalism.

"Property is theft" for example was coined by Pierre Joseph Proudhon, one of the most well known anarchist thinkers of his time.

 

[Yakman]

However, I believe that the achievements listed below. This is not the merits of Stalin, and the merits of Lenin and Trotsky

The October Revolution won an 8 hour day. Today, the working day increase.
The October Revolution guaranteed pensions to workers. Today, the retirement age is gradually rising around the world. There are calls for the abolition of pensions.
The October Revolution eliminated the homelessness that existed in the Russian Empire.
The October Revolution banned prostitution.
The October Revolution eliminated unemployment.
The October Revolution guaranteed universal free education and free use of kindergartens. Today this order is gradually being canceled.
The October Revolution guaranteed free medicine.
The October Revolution gave the right to free housing.
The October Revolution gave women the right to paid maternity lea

The Comintern Anthem

that's a kinda lame anthem.

 

[Sunforged General]

Winning side always attracts opportunist, but what I meant that even if you align ideologically perfectly, there is still very high chance you will be purged. This is what happened to almost every old bolsheviks. Socialism is a totalitarian ideology, and naturally there can be only one top dog in such a system.

A good example is modern feminism (if you take it as a left-ideology). They are all smiles and sisters but when it comes to power all gloves are off.

The reason why this happens always with leftist, why they attract barbarians, is because they cannot be wrong. Because they cannot be wrong, the most ruthless person will prevail. Feminist dont really discuss problems of their ideology, Leninist did but then Stalin put an end of that nonsense.


Right! = capitalism, individualism
Left! = socialism, collectivism

Now I dont know what you mean by rightist. I think Facism and Nazism were left-wing ideologies, to make this clear. Some right wing dictatorships were collectivist (nationalism), but not socialist (peasants could own land). This is the major difference.

If you were the best farmer in socialist system, well you clearly exploited someone, or you met your quota too early and couldnt profit from it. In capitalist system, sure you might be very poor by our standards, but you could improve legally your status by yourself, which was not possible in socialist systems.

Fascism and Nazism are on the right wing of the political spectrum. Historians and political scientists agree.

https://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=AwrE19f16ctc308AhB5XNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE0MG9ya3MxBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDQTA1OTlfMQRzZWMDcGl2cw--?p=political+specrum&fr2=piv-web&fr=yfp-t#id=0&iurl=https://sepetjian.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/left_right_political_spectrum_011.jpg&action=click

 

[HuzzButt]

Nope, Finland willingly and knowlingy declared war on the USSR.
Revisionism is a terrible practice.

 

[HuzzButt]

that's a kinda lame anthem.

QFT? Yakman is right

 

[Cavalry]

Anarchist cannot be on the left, because they dont want any kind of state. Left is more state control, taxation, regulation, benefits and social programs. At the best claiming anarchist being on the left is contradictory.
.

That's the centralized state, a form of state organization, not left or right. Major states both left or right go more state control and taxation too.
It is now universal accepted that centralized state is good for both left and right.
Can someone tell what is the communists' point of view on the political spectrum?
For communist to different themselves vs other it is easy. Major factories belongs to the State (or workers), then it is communist. Otherwise it is not.