Both extremes are forms of collectivism, while the moderates of both sides value individual liberty. — Harry Hindu

That's interesting. Neither extreme can accept diverse viewpoints, so in a sense they're both collectivist in their own ways. Is that what you mean?

What actions of Stalin makes him a leftist? — Jackson

He was anti-right.

My quick & dirty:
• rightism advocates exclusive shareholder control of government, business, media and culture (e.g. oligopoly/plutocracy) mostly manifest as corporatocracy, police-statism and nationalism.
• leftism advocates inclusive stakeholder participation in government, business, media and culture (e.g. economic democracy) mostly manifest as mass solidarity struggles against (A) corporatist labor exploitation/resource depletion/malfeasance, (B) police-state surveillance/brutality and (C) nationalist 'military-keynesianism'.

Since Hayek is relevant now and Marx is really completely irrelevant, I'd want to judge leftism by how it relates to Hayek. So by his perspective, leftism is about how organized a society is top down. — frank

W.T.F. :roll:

He was anti-right. — SpaceDweller

ok

I wouldn't characterize either the PRC or USSR as ever being "representative of leftism". — 180 Proof

So they weren't even on the spectrum?

Libertarian socialist / Green movements & Human Rights activists/NGOs rather than nation-states IME represent the hard left today. — 180 Proof

Ah. Doctors without borders is an NGO I contribute to, so I'm a hard leftist.

They had devolved into dictatorships, cults of personality. — Agent Smith

No, they both began as dictatorships. Mao & Lenin, respectively.

No, they both began as dictatorships. Mao & Lenin, respectively. — 180 Proof

So, the left started off on the wrong foot.

They weren't ever leftist regimes or states.

So they weren't even on the spectrum? — frank

Both were totalitarian nationalist regimes (i.e. militarist (rightist) command economies)

Ah. Doctors without borders is an NGO I contribute to, so I'm a hard leftist.

:sweat: No, you're just an accidental (bourgeois) humanitarian.

We’re all over the place here. I thought we were talking about the left today, and not the right yesterday. Both are statist, both are authoritarian, both like identity politics, both are collectivist, yes. I appreciate the examples but I just don’t know what purpose they serve.

I appreciate the examples but I just don’t know what purpose they serve. — NOS4A2

The point is we should be giving examples of the far left that are different than examples of the far right. The examples you gave were not examples that are isolated to the far left, but shared with the far-right. Can you think of unique approaches to governance that the far left does that the far right would not do?

Fair enough. I’m not sure the far right would employ multiculturalism or socialism as state doctrine, for example.

Since Hayek is relevant now and Marx is really completely irrelevant, I'd want to judge leftism by how it relates to Hayek. — frank

See what you think of this analysis:

Hayek’s brand of free market libertarianism is embraced by conservatives and neo-liberals on the right.
Marx is completely irrelevant to Hayek and his followers because they don’t consider him an influence on their thinking. Their political philosophy is pre-Marxist The situation is quite different on the left. To the extent Marx’s specific doctrines are less relevant to them than in the past it only because major elements of his thought have been re-interpreted and incorporated into neo and post-marxist models. I would suggest that it is not possible to understand contemporary thinking on the left and far left without making your way through Marx, which conservatives from Jordan Peterson to Andrew Breitbart have recognized.

Fair enough. I’m not sure the far right would employ multiculturalism or socialism as state doctrine, for example. — NOS4A2

I think those are good points.

Marx is completely irrelevant to Hayek and his followers because they don’t consider him an influence on their thinking — Joshs

With all due respect to their genius, Hayek's views won. As we ponder where we go from here, it's Hayek we need to understand. Why was neoliberalism so devastatingly successful? What problem did it solve? What problems has it left us with?

Marx is completely irrelevant to Hayek and his followers because they don’t consider him an influence on their thinking. Their political philosophy is pre-Marxist — Joshs

Hayek is 20th Century. Marx was from a world that's gone now.

I would suggest that it is not possible to understand contemporary thinking on the left and far left without making your way through Marx — Joshs

That may be, but what relevance does the left or far left have in the world today?

Why was neoliberalism so devastatingly successful? — frank

Because it is capitalism.

Hayek is 20th Century. Marx was from a world that's gone now. — frank

Hayek may have lived in the 20th century , but his political theory is derived from philosophical ideas that are considerably older than Marx. Essentially Hayek is an 18th century philosopher in the cloak of a 20th century political thinker. Given your respect for him, I wager your own notion of the cutting edge of philosophy (and by derivation political theory) consists of figures like John Stewart Mill , Kant , Edmund Burke and Adam Smith, although you may know their ideas chiefly through contemporary interpreters on the right.

I would suggest that it is not possible to understand contemporary thinking on the left and far left without making your way through Marx
— Joshs

That may be, but what relevance does the left or far left have in the world today? — frank

Today’s political left and far left were born out of the aftermath of Hegel’s project. What also emerged from
Hegelianism was Darwin’s theory of evolution, American Pragmatism, psychoanalysis, the human potential
movement and humanistic psychology, and today’s leading approaches in neuroscience, perceptual psychology, personality theory and models of psychopathology , including analysis of autism, schizophrenia, depression, grief and ptsd.

I would include the most advanced thinking in artificial intelligence , which is a key point , because more and more you will find that ‘smart’ technology based on how the mind works will dominate the corporate world and shape its politics, and eventually the larger culture. . Those who fail to keep up with these advances in ‘mind’ technologies will fall gather and farther behind economically.
I would argue that the new thinking about intelligence as a function of reciprocally causal global integrated neural networks is incompatible with the philosophical framework that Hayek operated within. If one were to poll those at the leading edge of the field of A.I., one would find very few embracing Hayak’s brand of libertarianism , but most would align themselves with one post-Hegelian philosophy or another. This is no coincidence. Each eta of technology is made possible by a specific philosophical ground, with its own implications for political theory .

On a worldwide basis humanity is splitting f into two camps , traditionalists and postmodern globalist urbanites. there is a reason why the word’s greatest concentration of high tech companies happens to be in the most leftists cities in the world, San Francisco and Seattle. Conservative high tech is an oxymoron, like military intelligence.

Hayek may have lived in the 20th century , but his political theory is derived from philosophical ideas that are considerably older than Marx. Essentially Hayek is an 18th century philosopher in the cloak of a 20th century political thinker. — Joshs

I don't think so, but it's a moot point. His view is still the the blueprint for the world you live in.

Given your respect for him, I wager your own notion of the cutting edge of philosophy (and by derivation political theory) consists of figures like John Stewart Mill , Kant , Edmund Burke and Adam Smith, although you may know their ideas chiefly through contemporary interpreters on the right. — Joshs

I'm a fascinated, but neutral observer. I'm immune to academic retching. It just makes me feel pity.

Today’s political left and far left were born out of the aftermath of Hegel’s project. — Joshs

Marx wasn't particularly Hegelian, though. The community around him was.

What also emerged from
Hegelianism was Darwin’s theory of evolution — Joshs

How so?

If one were to poll those at the leading edge of the field of A.I., one would find very few embracing Hayak’s brand of libertarianism , but most would align themselves with one post-Hegelian philosophy or another. This is no coincidence. Each eta of technology is made possible by a specific philosophical ground, with its own implications for political theory . — Joshs

This interests me. Can you say more about the Hegelian influence on AI?

Marx wasn't particularly Hegelian, though. The community around him was. — frank

Marx was Hegelian--the concept of history as dialectical

Hayek may have lived in the 20th century , but his political theory is derived from philosophical ideas that are considerably older than Marx. Essentially Hayek is an 18th century philosopher in the cloak of a 20th century political thinker.
— Joshs

I don't think so, but it's a moot point. His view is still the the blueprint for the world you live in. — frank

I dont live in his world. You live in his world.

What also emerged from
Hegelianism was Darwin’s theory of evolution
— Joshs

How so? — frank

Darwinism as Hegelian Dialectics Applied to Biology:

https://evolutionnews.org/2020/09/darwinism-as-hegelian-dialectics-applied-to-biology/

This interests me. Can you say more about the Hegelian influence on AI? — Jackson

Today’s neural models make use of complexity systems approaches.
If you look at the model of a complex dynamical
system it is essentially a dialectical movement. Temporary states of equilibrium in a living system are followed by a disequilibrating event , and then restabilize at a higher state of organization, like a spiral.

Today’s neural models make use of complexity systems approaches.
If you look at the model of a complex dynamical
system it is essentially a dialectical movement. Temporary states of equilibrium in a living system are followed by a disequilibrating event , and then restabilize at a higher state of organization, like a spiral. — Joshs

Thanks. I don't have the knowledge about this, something to learn about.

I dont live in his world. You live in his world. — Joshs

There aren't many places untouched by his views. If you're American, you definitely live in his world. Why not look into it?

I'm not a fan boy. I'm just interested in how the world works. Aren't you?

Darwinism as Hegelian Dialectics Applied to Biology:

https://evolutionnews.org/2020/09/darwinism-as-hegelian-dialectics-applied-to-biology/ — Joshs

Oh good grief. Are you serious? Darwin was a naturalist. He demonstates the influence of Democritus in our world, not Marx.

I'm not insulting Marx by the observation that history has left him behind. It's just a fact.

Hayek may have lived in the 20th century , but his political theory is derived from philosophical ideas that are considerably older than Marx. Essentially Hayek is an 18th century philosopher in the cloak of a 20th century political thinker. — Joshs

:100:

Given your [@frank] respect for him [Hayek], I wager your own notion of the cutting edge of philosophy (and by derivation political theory) consists of figures like John Stewart Mill , Kant , Edmund Burke and Adam Smith, although you may know their ideas chiefly through contemporary interpreters on the right.

:mask:

Oh good grief. Are you serious? Darwin was a naturalist. He demonstates the influence of Democritus in our world, not Marx. — frank

:up:

Marx was Hegelian--the concept of history as dialectical — Jackson

Maybe a little around the edges.

Maybe a little around the edges. — frank

Seems to me at the core. Marx thought of himself as Hegelian.

:up:

Seems to me at the core. Marx thought of himself as Hegelian. — Jackson

He was criticized for failing to be Hegelian and he admitted it. He was more into Feuerbach than Hegel.

He was criticized for failing to be Hegelian and he admitted it. — frank

Who criticized him and for what? Marx called himself a materialist and differed only on what he called Hegel's idealism.

Isn't left and right born out of WW2? — SpaceDweller

No, much earlier. The French Revolution (1789), "left-right" refers to respective seating areas of rival ideologues in the National Assembly.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80%93right_political_spectrum

He [Marx] was more into Feuerbach than Hegel. — frank

:up: