So, How Come You're Still A Leftie?

[Liberty]

Political Chic, your basic concept that all the terms are "totalist philosophies" is nonsense. Any one who thinks, after reading your comment about definitions, realizes that you will twist facts to fit your philosophy, instead of your philosophy to fit the facts, and as such will dismiss you as having anything worthy to say.

awww poor delusional baby.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Political Chic, your basic concept that all the terms are "totalist philosophies" is nonsense. Any one who thinks, after reading your comment about definitions, realizes that you will twist facts to fit your philosophy, instead of your philosophy to fit the facts, and as such will dismiss you as having anything worthy to say.

Is it my imagination, or have I yet to see one link or any reference that might indicate that you have ever done any research or reading?

Every one of your posts is some grousing version of 'Is not, is not...'

Are you still basking in the 'glory' of the great American philiosopher George Santayana having refered to you (Those who do not study history will be known as Stark-Ignorant)?

Cheer up...Christmas is coming: perhaps some kind soul will give you a library card.

 

[JBeukema]

Yeah, they weren't political geniuses like Lenin who built and empire that has stood the test of time and...

Oh, wait.

Who said I was a Leninist? More like a right schachmanite.

Oh, that's different. Utterly unworkable and doomed to failure, but different.

Do write a short essay explaining the ideology in question.

I get the distinct impression you have no idea what it is.

 

[JakeStarkey]

daveman literally has no idea.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This is both true and really ironic considering you support the Republican Party in the immediate aftermath of their tremendous failure over the last decade.

Really though, your problem is that you conflate being a leftie/liberal with being a Democrat when not only are they not the same thing but they're in opposition to each other.

Democrats do not serve the interests of leftists or the liberal agenda, they serve the interests of the monied and corporate agenda. Leftists don't support Democrats and remain leftists regardless of what the not-at-all-leftist Democratic party does.

Your question is the equivalent of asking libertarians why they're still libertarians after the Republicans started two foreign wars and increased spending... it's because they're not involved with the shitty party in the first place and what the shitty party does isn't a reflection on or in relation to what they want or do.

Interesting post.

Actually, I only post in favor of the Republicans when lefties, Democrats, say biased things about them, and I try to show that almost always the Dems are worse.

I consider myself a conservative, and vote with the party that most closely represents my views...

Your attempt to separate liberal from Democrat is a similar attempt, except that it is a distinction without a difference...as the Democrat party has been co-opted by liberals/progressives.

"...a leftie/liberal with being a Democrat when not only are they not the same thing but they're in opposition to each other."
This is totally false.

They are one and the same. Their aims, policies, methods and provenance are the same.

a. Does President Obama believe in three separate branches of government? Well, Congress refused to pass his commission idea, so in the SOTU he said he’d just use executive order to create it. And he insisted that Congress overturn the Supreme Court decision…or, I guess, another executive order?

b. Ms. Clinton: “"I prefer the word ‘progressive,’ which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century.” Hillary Clinton: I’m Not a Liberal

c. Axelrod claims the WH is Progressive...

You and I are politically similar in that we don't like either major party. For many years they both allowed 42,000 factories to move overseas and other jobs Wall Street wanted to outsource. The whores both got bought-off and now they are blaming each other for the 10% current unemployment rate. There just might be a reason that China has so much cash, its called "creating wealth", the service economy does not create wealth in the trade-balance and currency value sense of wealth.

As Care stated, we choose the lesser of two evils...

But the basis an understanding of the process, of history, of human nature.

1. Economies are global. You would agree, no?
And business is based on profit, not altruism. So, should we not expect "factories to move overseas and other jobs Wall Street wanted to outsource."

2. There are anodynes to the problem you highlight: buy stocks. Invest. Go to school and stay in school. Retrain. Move.

3. Before you get too down on the US in the world economy, "...the service economy does not create wealth in the trade-balance and currency value sense of wealth..."

Who’s the World’s Largest Exporter?
by John Murphy
The World Trade Organization (WTO) today issued its World Trade Report 2010, an annual publication that offers definitive statistics on international trade. In recent months, media reports have widely described China as the world’s largest exporter, but today’s report indicates that the United States remained the world’s largest exporter of goods and services through 2009. China has indeed overtaken the United States and Germany to become the world’s largest exporter of merchandise.
Exports in 2009, billions of U.S. dollars
Merchandise Commercial
Services Total
U.S. 1,057 470 1,527
Germany 1,121 215 1,336
China 1,202 129 1,331

Source: WTO, World Trade Report 2010, pp 28-29.

4. "...both got bought-off and now they are blaming each other..."
Really? Are you implying that they are the same?
Which is better for business, high taxes or low?
Big, high regulating government, or smaller, with less regulation?
Unemployment checks, or jobs?

Let the answer inform your vote Tuesday.


Cheer up Kyzr. America has a history of a civil religion...one which envisions the God of the Bible, one who has a hand in human affairs, and has a special affection for this nation.

 

[JakeStarkey]

PC simply emotes rather thank thinks. Totally inadequate.

 

[Father Time]

“The general idea is that it’s absolutely threatening to admit you’re wrong,” says political scientist Brendan Nyhan, the lead researcher on the Michigan study. The phenomenon — known as “backfire” — is “a natural defense mechanism to avoid that cognitive dissonance.”
How facts backfire - The Boston Globe

This is both true and really ironic considering you support the Republican Party in the immediate aftermath of their tremendous failure over the last decade.

Really though, your problem is that you conflate being a leftie/liberal with being a Democrat when not only are they not the same thing but they're in opposition to each other.

Democrats do not serve the interests of leftists or the liberal agenda, they serve the interests of the monied and corporate agenda. Leftists don't support Democrats and remain leftists regardless of what the not-at-all-leftist Democratic party does.

Your question is the equivalent of asking libertarians why they're still libertarians after the Republicans started two foreign wars and increased spending... it's because they're not involved with the shitty party in the first place and what the shitty party does isn't a reflection on or in relation to what they want or do.

Interesting post.

Actually, I only post in favor of the Republicans when lefties, Democrats, say biased things about them, and I try to show that almost always the Dems are worse.

I consider myself a conservative, and vote with the party that most closely represents my views...

Your attempt to separate liberal from Democrat is a similar attempt, except that it is a distinction without a difference...as the Democrat party has been co-opted by liberals/progressives.

"...a leftie/liberal with being a Democrat when not only are they not the same thing but they're in opposition to each other."
This is totally false.

They are one and the same.

Their aims, policies, methods and provenance is the same.

a. Does President Obama believe in three separate branches of government? Well, Congress refused to pass his commission idea, so in the SOTU he said he’d just use executive order to create it. And he insisted that Congress overturn the Supreme Court decision…or, I guess, another executive order?

b. Ms. Clinton: “"I prefer the word ‘progressive,’ which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century.” Hillary Clinton: I’m Not a Liberal
Hillary Clinton: I’m Not a Liberal

c. Axelrod claims the WH is Progressive:

[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/j4PxJ4uH-t4&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/j4PxJ4uH-t4&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

So to prove that the Democrats represent liberals you quote a person who says the white house is turning progressive and find a quote from Hillary saying progressive does not equal liberal.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Look, don't equate critical thinking with PC.

 

[daveman]

Who said I was a Leninist? More like a right schachmanite.

Oh, that's different. Utterly unworkable and doomed to failure, but different.

Do write a short essay explaining the ideology in question.

I get the distinct impression you have no idea what it is.

A very short essay:

Communists are stupid.

The end.

 

[daveman]

daveman literally has no idea.

And the day just wouldn't be complete without Fake Jake's knee-jerk, unthinking rah-rahing of leftist ideals.

 

[QUENTIN]

Interesting post.

Actually, I only post in favor of the Republicans when lefties, Democrats, say biased things about them, and I try to show that almost always the Dems are worse.

I consider myself a conservative, and vote with the party that most closely represents my views...

Your attempt to separate liberal from Democrat is a similar attempt, except that it is a distinction without a difference...as the Democrat party has been co-opted by liberals/progressives.

"...a leftie/liberal with being a Democrat when not only are they not the same thing but they're in opposition to each other."
This is totally false.

They are one and the same.

Their aims, policies, methods and provenance is the same.

a. Does President Obama believe in three separate branches of government? Well, Congress refused to pass his commission idea, so in the SOTU he said he&#8217;d just use executive order to create it. And he insisted that Congress overturn the Supreme Court decision&#8230;or, I guess, another executive order?

b. Ms. Clinton: &#8220;"I prefer the word &#8216;progressive,&#8217; which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century.&#8221; Hillary Clinton: I&#8217;m Not a Liberal
Hillary Clinton: I&#8217;m Not a Liberal

c. Axelrod claims the WH is Progressive:

[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/j4PxJ4uH-t4&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/j4PxJ4uH-t4&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

And I consider myself a leftist and as such don't vote for the Democrats because they don't represent my views at all. This is true of all the genuine leftists I know.

There are a lot of people out there who are loyalist to the Democratic party and think that's the same thing as liberalism, so they call themselves liberals, but that's not the case.

In the same sense, the Republican party during Bush's term wasn't particularly conservative (sure, they cut taxes, but they were also intrusive into people's private lives, dramatically expanded the federal government, spent with abandon, and a million other things diametrically opposed to conservative principles) but is just lazily labeled as such.

The conflation you made is a common one in our discourse, people use Democrat/liberal/left and Republican/conservative/right interchangeably, but they are demonstrably not the same thing.

Liberalism, progressivism, leftism, like conservatism or libertarianism, is an ideology that can be defined and demonstrated throughout history. The ideology behind leftism is not the same ideology as the Democratic party and the agenda of liberals is significantly different than the agenda of the Democratic party, in fact they're directly opposed.

I suggest perhaps you check out this thread on the subject, and how Democrats and those in power who enable them have long abandoned any significant traces of liberalism:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/139598-the-world-liberal-opportunist-made.html

The legitimate rage being expressed by disenfranchised workers toward the college-educated liberal elite, who abetted or did nothing to halt the corporate assault on the poor and the working class of the last 30 years, is not misplaced. The liberal class is guilty. The liberal class, which continues to speak in the prim and obsolete language of policies and issues, refused to act. It failed to defend traditional liberal values during the long night of corporate assault in exchange for its position of privilege and comfort in the corporate state. The virulent right-wing backlash we now experience is an expression of the liberal class&#8217; flagrant betrayal of the citizenry.

The liberal class, which once made piecemeal and incremental reform possible, functioned traditionally as a safety valve. During the Great Depression, with the collapse of capitalism, it made possible the New Deal. During the turmoil of the 1960s, it provided legitimate channels within the system to express the discontent of African-Americans and the anti-war movement. But the liberal class, in our age of neo-feudalism, is now powerless. It offers nothing but empty rhetoric. It refuses to concede that power has been wrested so efficiently from the hands of citizens by corporations that the Constitution and its guarantees of personal liberty are irrelevant. It does not act to mitigate the suffering of tens of millions of Americans who now make up a growing and desperate permanent underclass. And the disparity between the rhetoric of liberal values and the rapacious system of inverted totalitarianism the liberal class serves makes liberal elites, including Barack Obama, a legitimate source of public ridicule. The liberal class, whether in universities, the press or the Democratic Party, insists on clinging to its privileges and comforts even if this forces it to serve as an apologist for the expanding cruelty and exploitation carried out by the corporate state.

The death of the liberal class cuts citizens off from the mechanisms of power. Liberal institutions such as the church, the press, the university, the Democratic Party, the arts and labor unions once set the parameters for limited self-criticism and small, incremental reforms and offered hope for piecemeal justice and change. The liberal class could decry the excesses of the state, work to mitigate them and champion basic human rights. It posited itself as the conscience of the nation. It permitted the nation, through its appeal to public virtues and the public good, to define itself as being composed of a virtuous and even noble people. The liberal class was permitted a place within a capitalist democracy because it also vigorously discredited radicals within American society who openly defied the excesses of corporate capitalism and who denounced a political system run by and on behalf of corporations. The real enemy of the liberal class has never been Glenn Beck, but Noam Chomsky.

The purging and silencing of independent and radical thinkers as well as iconoclasts have robbed the liberal class of vitality. The liberal class has cut itself off from the roots of creative and bold thought, from those forces and thinkers who could have prevented the liberal class from merging completely with the power elite. Liberals exude a tepid idealism utterly divorced from daily life. And this is why every television clip of Barack Obama is so palpably pathetic.

...

The liberal class no longer holds within its ranks those who have the moral autonomy or physical courage to defy the power elite. The rebels, from Chomsky to Sheldon Wolin to Ralph Nader, have been marginalized, shut out of the national debate and expelled from liberal institutions. The liberal class lacks members with the vision and fortitude to challenge dominant free market ideologies. It offers no ideological alternatives. It remains bound to a Democratic Party that has betrayed every basic liberal principle including universal healthcare, an end to our permanent war economy, a robust system of public education, a vigorous defense of civil liberties, job creation, the right to unionize and welfare for the poor.

...

The liberal class is finished. Neither it nor its representatives will provide the leadership or resistance to halt our slide toward despotism. The liberal class prefers comfort and privilege to confrontation. It will not halt the corporate assault or thwart the ascendancy of the corporate state. It will remain intolerant within its ranks of those who do. The liberal class now honors an unwritten quid pro quo, one set in place by Bill Clinton, to cravenly serve corporate interests in exchange for money, access and admittance into the halls of power. The press, the universities, the labor movement, the arts, the church and the Democratic Party, fearful of irrelevance and desperate to retain their positions within the corporate state, will accelerate their purges of those who speak the unspeakable, those who name what cannot be named. It is the gutless and bankrupt liberal class, even more than the bizarre collection of moral and intellectual trolls now running for office, who are our most perfidious opponents.

This "liberal class" - those in positions of power generally in or directly tied to the Democratic party who call themselves liberal- are not actually liberals since they don't believe in, support, or act on behalf of liberal values or policies. Words have meanings. I could go around calling myself an elephant, but my mere proclamation wouldn't make it so and anyone paying any attention would quickly catch on that what an elephant is and what I am are wholly incongruous.

In the same sense that there has been a legitimate backlash among genuine conservatives against the Republican party and its abandonment of many traditional and fundamental conservative ideas, there is a legitimate backlash going on for decades now among genuine leftists against the Democratic party for the same.

A bailout for corporations who raped the economy, a bailout for insurance companies and secret quid pro quo deals with the pharmaceutical and hospital industries disguised as "health care reform" that leaves the same corrupt corporate thieves in place and just funnels them money, a refusal to restore habeas corpus, not only the continuation but the escalation of foreign wars now in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and still in Iraq (the only place they scaled down, but are still very much active in combat despite the rhetoric), the lack of respect for civil rights seen in the refusal to repeal DOMA or DADT, the continued use of Guantanamo Bay and many more secret, lawless prisons throughout the world, the indication that counterproductive and senseless federal drug laws will be enforced even if and when citizens vote directly to repeal them, the constant invocation of State Secrets to hide any government wrongdoing even if it is not in any sense a state secret, and lack of transparency generally, the use of orders to assassinate American citizens far from any battlefield without due process, I could be here all night describing all of the policies actively pursued or enacted by the Democratic party that are simply anathema to liberal values, ideology, and goals.

Clinton is a corporatist, just like Obama who Axelrod represents, just like her husband was, just like most Democratic party politicians are. Yes, they proclaim themselves to be liberals or progressives to appeal (mostly but not always successfully) to the many people who consider themselves liberal but either don't know that the policies put forth by those politicians aren't liberal or those who don't care because they're actually Democrats and not liberals. But there's a simple lesson most people learn early on that applies here: don't trust what politicians say, watch what they do.

And what Democratic politicians do, what they advance, the vast, vast majority of them including the last two Democratic presidents, is not in any meaningful sense leftism. It's contradictory to the basic tenets of leftism in fact.

It may be "to the left" of what you like and support, but that's not the same thing. Lining up the primary policies associated with leftism and the policies enacted by Democrats would produce a vast disparity on most issues. I'm with you if you say the Democratic party sucks, but you're wrong if you think it's leftist.

Therefore, what the Democratic party does, the policies it enacts that then frequently fail, should have no effect on deciding to continue to be a leftist (and may even offer further support as a demonstration that non-leftist policies don't work) because they aren't a reflection of leftism. Again, it'd be like asking a libertarian why they're still libertarian after the Bush era or a Communist why they're a Communist considering North Korea - the two just aren't related.

1. "And I consider myself a leftist..."
Let's begin with the necessity for definition of terms...Leftist: socialist, syndicalist, progressive, liberal, fascist, nazi, commuist, statist, collectivist...pick your poison...now tell how you differ from the other eight. I see all as being totalist philosophies.

"How ironic that the way [H. G.] Wells refers to the fascists and Communists could apply to today&#8217;s liberals: &#8220;they embody the rule of a minority conceited enough to believe that they have a clue to the tangled incoherencies of human life, and need only sufficiently terrorize criticism and opposition to achieve a general happiness,&#8230;&#8221; And even more prescient, when we consider the current administration against the backdrop of Wells&#8217; criticism of Soviet Communism as central-planning with &#8220;police-state thuggery.&#8221;
&#8220;The Godfather of American Liberalism&#8221;
The Godfather of American Liberalism by Fred Siegel, City Journal Spring 2009

2. "... Bush's term wasn't particularly conservative .."
No argument here.

3. "Liberalism, progressivism, leftism, like conservatism or libertarianism, is an ideology that can be defined and demonstrated throughout history."
Let's begin our argument here.
First, the classical liberalism
a. Unlike classical liberalism, which saw government as a necessary evil, of simply a benign but voluntary social contract for free men to enter into willingly, the liberalism of which you speak was of the belief that the entire society was one organic whole left no room for those who didn&#8217;t want to behave, let alone &#8216;evolve.&#8217;

b. &#8220;The American intellectual class from the mid 19th century onward has disliked liberalism (which originally referred to individualism, private property, and limits on power) precisely because the [classical] liberal society has no overarching goal.&#8221; War Is the Health of the State

c. After the resounding rejection of Wilson's progressivism, the progressives changed their title to 'liberal.'
&#8220;Finally, Dewey arguably did more than any other reformer to repackage progressive social theory in a way that obscured just how radically its principles departed from those of the American founding."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m.../ai_n45566374/

4. Now, that "...throughout history..."part: this is only true if history begins with the French Revolution.
The Enlightenment gave impetus to the French Revolution, which was an attempt to cast off both the oppression of the monarchy, and of the Church.

a. In France, there was the development of an apparatus of ideological enforcement for &#8216;reason.&#8217; But rather than necessitate liberty, Edmund Burke was prescient enough to predict that &#8216;enlightened despotism&#8217; would be embodied in the general will, a formula for oppression as in &#8216;tyranny of popular opinion&#8217; or even &#8216;a dictatorship of the proletariat.&#8217;

b. Although attributed to Rousseau, it was Diderot who gave the model for totalitarianism of reason: &#8220;We must reason about all things,&#8221; and anyone who &#8216;refuses to seek out the truth&#8217; thereby renounces his human nature and &#8220;should be treated by the rest of his species as a wild beast.&#8221; So, once &#8216;truth&#8217; is determined, anyone who doesn&#8217;t accept it was &#8220;either insane or wicked and morally evil.&#8221; It is not the individual who has the &#8220; right to decide about the nature of right and wrong,&#8221; but only &#8220;the human race,&#8221; expressed as the general will. Himmelfarb, &#8220;The Roads to Modernity,&#8221; p. 167-68

c. Robespierre used Rousseau&#8217;s call for a &#8220;reign of virtue,&#8217; proclaiming the Republic of Virtue, his euphemism for The Terror. In &#8216;The Social Contract&#8217; Rousseau advocated death for anyone who did not uphold the common values of the community: the totalitarian view of reshaping of humanity, echoed in communism, Nazism, progressivism. Robespierre: &#8220;the necessity of bringing about a complete regeneration and, if I may express myself so, of creating a new people.&#8221; Himmefarb, Ibid.

d. In this particular idea of the Enlightenment, the need to change human nature, and to eliminate customs and traditions, to remake established institutions, to do away with all inequalities in order to bring man closer to the state, which was the expression of the general will. Talmon, &#8220;Origins of Totalitarian Democracy,&#8221; p. 3-7


There are, according to Talmon, in "Totalitarian Democracy," three stages in the development of &#8220;totalitarian democracy&#8221; in the French Revolution. First, there was the Rousseauist intellectual background, which rejected all existing institutions as relics of despotism and clerical obscurantism, and which demanded a complete renovation of society so that it would be an expression of the General Will&#8212;this last being no mere consensus but an objective standard of virtue and reason that imperfect humanity must be coerced into obeying in order to enjoy a bonheur de médiocrité for which it was as yet ill-prepared.

Second, there was the Reign of Terror, when an &#8220;enlightened&#8221; vanguard of Jacobins undertook to impose the General Will&#8212;when Robespierre acted out his role as &#8220;the bloody hand of Rousseau,&#8221; as Heine called him.

Third, there was the post-Thermidorean conspiracy of Babeuf and his associates, which added to political messianism the doctrine of economic communism, thereby pointing the way to Marx. The Rise of Totalitarian Democracy, by J. L. Talmon

5. "The ideology behind leftism is not the same ideology as the Democratic party and the agenda of liberals is significantly different than the agenda of the Democratic party, in fact they're directly opposed."

Here are some of the more important aspects of all of those:
a. The Constitution is outdated and must be repolaced with a 'living Constituition.'

b. The collective, or the state is superior to the individual. There is no private property beyond the needs and wishes of the state.

c. The result of the correct governmental polices, laws, leaders will be a utopia on earth.

d. There is no aspect of the life of the citizen which is beyond the purview of the state.

6. "...disenfranchised workers toward the college-educated liberal elite, who abetted or did nothing to halt the corporate assault on the poor and the working class of the last 30 years, is not misplaced."
Absolute left-wing nonsense.
a. no one is barred from choices that will improve or destroy their lives.
b. corporations are public, and owned, almost entirely by ordinary folks:

&#8220;Exxon Mobil, in fact, is owned mostly by ordinary Americans. Mutual funds, index funds and pension funds (including union pension funds) own about 52 percent of Exxon Mobil&#8217;s shares. Individual shareholders, about two million or so, own almost all the rest. The pooh-bahs who run Exxon own less than 1 percent of the company.&#8221; http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/business/02every.html

The rich folk pay almost all of the taxes, and those evil corporations?

In 2006, the oil industry paid $81 billion in income tax, and while Exxon&#8217;s earnings increased 89% from 2003 to 2007, their income taxes increased 170%. Exxon: Profit Pirate or Tax Victim?

. Exxon's tax bill breaks down like this: income taxes, $36.5 billion; sales-based taxes, $34.5 billion; "all other" taxes, $45.2 billion.&#8221; Exxon, Big Oil Profits Evil Only Until You Weigh Their Tax Bills - US News and World Report
If Exxon&#8217;s 2008 tax bill of $116.2 billion were split equally among all tax filers who pay income tax, each filer&#8217;s share would be $1,259/year. Still hate Exxon? The Tax Foundation - Number of Americans Paying Zero Federal Income Tax Grows to 43.4 Million


Friend Q, I hope you are at an early point in your journey through life, because you have so much to learn....

I want to start by addressing how you didn't address at all any of my points about the massive difference between leftism and what the Democratic party does. No response to Hedges' critique of how the Democrats have abandoned leftism for comfort, money, and power and no response to my own long list of the actions of this Democratic president and Democratic Congress that are absolutely anathema to leftism. If you're going to respond, please address them, otherwise I don't see the point in this discussion. If you want to label the Democrats as leftist and assert they're the same thing, how do you account for the fact that all of their policies aren't just not leftist but against leftism?

Your apparent definition of leftism isn't remotely accurate. To go for as uncontroversial and official a defintion as possible, we turn to the dictionary where a leftist is described as: "someone who seeks radical social and economic change in the direction of greater equality. "

Leftist | Define Leftist at Dictionary.com

I don't really subscribe to a particularly ideology, I've yet to find one that totally matches up with my beliefs, but libertarian socialism comes closest.

That's the opposite of totalitarian as totalitarianism is "absolute control by the state or a governing branch of a highly centralized institution." while the many ideologies under the umbrella of libertarian socialism call for NO STATE AT ALL and thus NO CONTROL or CENTRALIZATION at all. So it differs in the most significant and consequential way imaginable.

I don't think you know what leftism is except for a catch-all term for things you oppose. The idea that fascism and Nazism for instance, extremely far right ideologies, are leftist is absurd.

Classical liberalism is different than the liberalism I'm talking about, I assumed you knew that and didn't know we had to define our terms. You asked in the OP "So, How Come You're Still A Leftie?" Classical liberals aren't leftists, so I'm not sure why you brought that up. In terms of history, yes I was referring to since the French Revolution, particularly in America between 1870-1945.

Then you do a lot of examples of how other people who either called themselves liberals or were at one point liberals abandoned liberal principles throughout history in Europe, which I think plays more into my point than yours. Again, it's an ideology and who believes in and practices it can be judged by their actions. So from the European totalitarians onto Stalin, Mao, or anyone else of that ilk you want to mention were totalitarians who believed in supreme human authority over their populations, they weren't leftists. Communism is leftist, but has never been practiced as such, since it never gets past the vanguard stage and that vanguard then makes themselves into an oligarchy. Just as self-proclaimed conservatives have not brought on or fought for limited government the past few decades because they're not really conservative in the political sense. Again, it doesn't matter what people call themselves when we judge them, it matters what they do. Trusting a politician on where they fall on a political spectrum based on their statements rather than their actions, especially when those two are so contradictory, is foolish.

There are forms of totalitarianism that also share some aspects (mostly economic) of socialism that line up with your aspects list, but that's it. No leftist believes "There is no aspect of the life of the citizen which is beyond the purview of the state." and it's ludicrous to say so. Again, it seems you've defined leftism not as what it is but as a term to describe whatever it is you oppose. Totalitarian regimes, by their very nature, are not leftist. The economic and social conditions of an ideal leftist society give everyone equal power and do not require a state, much less state control, so an all-powerful state is common to fascism and other tyrannical forms of governance that are actually on the right-wing. There may be elements of totalitarianism in Communism when practiced, but the extent to which they are totalitarian is the extent to which they veer from leftism. Put rather simply, leftist ideology simply seeks to craft a culture of equality for all (some with an extremely open, democratic state run clearly by, of, and for the people, some with no state at all). There are valid criticism of that, but they're not found in equating it with ideologies where that is decidedly not the case such as totalitarianism with its incredible disparity in power among the populace.

If you don't think corporations wield and exercise undue and destructive influence, then I understand why we're on such opposite ends of the political spectrum, but this really isn't a discussion of the virtues of leftism vs. rightism so that's kinda moot.

I'm just pointing out that what you're describing as leftism plainly isn't, it's your bastardized personal definition divorced from what the word means and what the ideology supports and since the gap between leftist values and policy and Democratic Party values and policy is bigger than the Grand Canyon, your posed question doesn't make sense and misses the point. The Democratic Party is fundamentally corporatist (like the Republican Party), leftism is diametrically opposed to its very essence to corporatism, so you can't equate the two.

As for the condescending final line, however kindly you phrased it, I'd just say right back at you.

There are lots of things about right-wing politics I oppose, but that doesn't mean I'll start ascribing every imaginable negative to them, ignore what the ideology actually is, and just assume if I don't like it, it's "rightist" and everyone who doesn't believe as I do is a "rightist" regardless of how much substantial difference there is between and among them. I don't agree with anarchocapitalism, neo-conservativism, or theocracy, but that doesn't mean they're all even remotely the same and to pretend otherwise would be ignorant or dishonest.

 

[bucs90]

The CIA defines anarchy as a lawless condition in the absence of government. The Innuendo is clear.

The following are the left-leaning liberal welfare democracies in the world:

Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Republic of Ireland, Italy, Finland, France, Germany, New Zealand, Norway, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States,Uruguay.

Conservative to Ronald Reagan, anyone recalls, is pro-Social Security, and not for giving all the money to the Wall Street Bankers and Brokers who caused the mess in the first place.

China, Chile, Albana, Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaraugua, Bolivia, and others tend to socialist or communist governments. Sweden is also thought Socialist.

All in common, they tend to be advanced as opposed to the right wing, free-market types on nations such as Haiti, or anything in East Africa. China seems to have the more superior model of a developing nation. The population of earth, in fact, more readily thought socialist, if at all developed. The nations across North Africa fit in.

And so, Anyone sees what. . . .well

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Great Alaksan, Real Americans: Know enough to vote against Tea Party lunacy of Palin and Miller. Again, likely anyone sees. . . .Well!)

Saudi Arabia is a "liberal" country? I think the women would beg to differ.

China is a "liberal" country? I think the children forced to work for $1 a day would have a different opinion.

 

[JBeukema]

Oh, that's different. Utterly unworkable and doomed to failure, but different.

Do write a short essay explaining the ideology in question.

I get the distinct impression you have no idea what it is.

A very short essay:

Communists are stupid.

The end.

What does communism have to do with anything?

 

[JBeukema]

And I consider myself a leftist and as such don't vote for the Democrats because they don't represent my views at all. This is true of all the genuine leftists I know.

There are a lot of people out there who are loyalist to the Democratic party and think that's the same thing as liberalism, so they call themselves liberals, but that's not the case.

In the same sense, the Republican party during Bush's term wasn't particularly conservative (sure, they cut taxes, but they were also intrusive into people's private lives, dramatically expanded the federal government, spent with abandon, and a million other things diametrically opposed to conservative principles) but is just lazily labeled as such.

The conflation you made is a common one in our discourse, people use Democrat/liberal/left and Republican/conservative/right interchangeably, but they are demonstrably not the same thing.

Liberalism, progressivism, leftism, like conservatism or libertarianism, is an ideology that can be defined and demonstrated throughout history. The ideology behind leftism is not the same ideology as the Democratic party and the agenda of liberals is significantly different than the agenda of the Democratic party, in fact they're directly opposed.

I suggest perhaps you check out this thread on the subject, and how Democrats and those in power who enable them have long abandoned any significant traces of liberalism:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/139598-the-world-liberal-opportunist-made.html



This "liberal class" - those in positions of power generally in or directly tied to the Democratic party who call themselves liberal- are not actually liberals since they don't believe in, support, or act on behalf of liberal values or policies. Words have meanings. I could go around calling myself an elephant, but my mere proclamation wouldn't make it so and anyone paying any attention would quickly catch on that what an elephant is and what I am are wholly incongruous.

In the same sense that there has been a legitimate backlash among genuine conservatives against the Republican party and its abandonment of many traditional and fundamental conservative ideas, there is a legitimate backlash going on for decades now among genuine leftists against the Democratic party for the same.

A bailout for corporations who raped the economy, a bailout for insurance companies and secret quid pro quo deals with the pharmaceutical and hospital industries disguised as "health care reform" that leaves the same corrupt corporate thieves in place and just funnels them money, a refusal to restore habeas corpus, not only the continuation but the escalation of foreign wars now in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and still in Iraq (the only place they scaled down, but are still very much active in combat despite the rhetoric), the lack of respect for civil rights seen in the refusal to repeal DOMA or DADT, the continued use of Guantanamo Bay and many more secret, lawless prisons throughout the world, the indication that counterproductive and senseless federal drug laws will be enforced even if and when citizens vote directly to repeal them, the constant invocation of State Secrets to hide any government wrongdoing even if it is not in any sense a state secret, and lack of transparency generally, the use of orders to assassinate American citizens far from any battlefield without due process, I could be here all night describing all of the policies actively pursued or enacted by the Democratic party that are simply anathema to liberal values, ideology, and goals.

Clinton is a corporatist, just like Obama who Axelrod represents, just like her husband was, just like most Democratic party politicians are. Yes, they proclaim themselves to be liberals or progressives to appeal (mostly but not always successfully) to the many people who consider themselves liberal but either don't know that the policies put forth by those politicians aren't liberal or those who don't care because they're actually Democrats and not liberals. But there's a simple lesson most people learn early on that applies here: don't trust what politicians say, watch what they do.

And what Democratic politicians do, what they advance, the vast, vast majority of them including the last two Democratic presidents, is not in any meaningful sense leftism. It's contradictory to the basic tenets of leftism in fact.

It may be "to the left" of what you like and support, but that's not the same thing. Lining up the primary policies associated with leftism and the policies enacted by Democrats would produce a vast disparity on most issues. I'm with you if you say the Democratic party sucks, but you're wrong if you think it's leftist.

Therefore, what the Democratic party does, the policies it enacts that then frequently fail, should have no effect on deciding to continue to be a leftist (and may even offer further support as a demonstration that non-leftist policies don't work) because they aren't a reflection of leftism. Again, it'd be like asking a libertarian why they're still libertarian after the Bush era or a Communist why they're a Communist considering North Korea - the two just aren't related.

1. "And I consider myself a leftist..."
Let's begin with the necessity for definition of terms...Leftist: socialist, syndicalist, progressive, liberal, fascist, nazi, commuist, statist, collectivist...pick your poison...now tell how you differ from the other eight. I see all as being totalist philosophies.

"How ironic that the way [H. G.] Wells refers to the fascists and Communists could apply to today&#8217;s liberals: &#8220;they embody the rule of a minority conceited enough to believe that they have a clue to the tangled incoherencies of human life, and need only sufficiently terrorize criticism and opposition to achieve a general happiness,&#8230;&#8221; And even more prescient, when we consider the current administration against the backdrop of Wells&#8217; criticism of Soviet Communism as central-planning with &#8220;police-state thuggery.&#8221;
&#8220;The Godfather of American Liberalism&#8221;
The Godfather of American Liberalism by Fred Siegel, City Journal Spring 2009

2. "... Bush's term wasn't particularly conservative .."
No argument here.

3. "Liberalism, progressivism, leftism, like conservatism or libertarianism, is an ideology that can be defined and demonstrated throughout history."
Let's begin our argument here.
First, the classical liberalism
a. Unlike classical liberalism, which saw government as a necessary evil, of simply a benign but voluntary social contract for free men to enter into willingly, the liberalism of which you speak was of the belief that the entire society was one organic whole left no room for those who didn&#8217;t want to behave, let alone &#8216;evolve.&#8217;

b. &#8220;The American intellectual class from the mid 19th century onward has disliked liberalism (which originally referred to individualism, private property, and limits on power) precisely because the [classical] liberal society has no overarching goal.&#8221; War Is the Health of the State

c. After the resounding rejection of Wilson's progressivism, the progressives changed their title to 'liberal.'
&#8220;Finally, Dewey arguably did more than any other reformer to repackage progressive social theory in a way that obscured just how radically its principles departed from those of the American founding."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m.../ai_n45566374/

4. Now, that "...throughout history..."part: this is only true if history begins with the French Revolution.
The Enlightenment gave impetus to the French Revolution, which was an attempt to cast off both the oppression of the monarchy, and of the Church.

a. In France, there was the development of an apparatus of ideological enforcement for &#8216;reason.&#8217; But rather than necessitate liberty, Edmund Burke was prescient enough to predict that &#8216;enlightened despotism&#8217; would be embodied in the general will, a formula for oppression as in &#8216;tyranny of popular opinion&#8217; or even &#8216;a dictatorship of the proletariat.&#8217;

b. Although attributed to Rousseau, it was Diderot who gave the model for totalitarianism of reason: &#8220;We must reason about all things,&#8221; and anyone who &#8216;refuses to seek out the truth&#8217; thereby renounces his human nature and &#8220;should be treated by the rest of his species as a wild beast.&#8221; So, once &#8216;truth&#8217; is determined, anyone who doesn&#8217;t accept it was &#8220;either insane or wicked and morally evil.&#8221; It is not the individual who has the &#8220; right to decide about the nature of right and wrong,&#8221; but only &#8220;the human race,&#8221; expressed as the general will. Himmelfarb, &#8220;The Roads to Modernity,&#8221; p. 167-68

c. Robespierre used Rousseau&#8217;s call for a &#8220;reign of virtue,&#8217; proclaiming the Republic of Virtue, his euphemism for The Terror. In &#8216;The Social Contract&#8217; Rousseau advocated death for anyone who did not uphold the common values of the community: the totalitarian view of reshaping of humanity, echoed in communism, Nazism, progressivism. Robespierre: &#8220;the necessity of bringing about a complete regeneration and, if I may express myself so, of creating a new people.&#8221; Himmefarb, Ibid.

d. In this particular idea of the Enlightenment, the need to change human nature, and to eliminate customs and traditions, to remake established institutions, to do away with all inequalities in order to bring man closer to the state, which was the expression of the general will. Talmon, &#8220;Origins of Totalitarian Democracy,&#8221; p. 3-7


There are, according to Talmon, in "Totalitarian Democracy," three stages in the development of &#8220;totalitarian democracy&#8221; in the French Revolution. First, there was the Rousseauist intellectual background, which rejected all existing institutions as relics of despotism and clerical obscurantism, and which demanded a complete renovation of society so that it would be an expression of the General Will&#8212;this last being no mere consensus but an objective standard of virtue and reason that imperfect humanity must be coerced into obeying in order to enjoy a bonheur de médiocrité for which it was as yet ill-prepared.

Second, there was the Reign of Terror, when an &#8220;enlightened&#8221; vanguard of Jacobins undertook to impose the General Will&#8212;when Robespierre acted out his role as &#8220;the bloody hand of Rousseau,&#8221; as Heine called him.

Third, there was the post-Thermidorean conspiracy of Babeuf and his associates, which added to political messianism the doctrine of economic communism, thereby pointing the way to Marx. The Rise of Totalitarian Democracy, by J. L. Talmon

5. "The ideology behind leftism is not the same ideology as the Democratic party and the agenda of liberals is significantly different than the agenda of the Democratic party, in fact they're directly opposed."

Here are some of the more important aspects of all of those:
a. The Constitution is outdated and must be repolaced with a 'living Constituition.'

b. The collective, or the state is superior to the individual. There is no private property beyond the needs and wishes of the state.

c. The result of the correct governmental polices, laws, leaders will be a utopia on earth.

d. There is no aspect of the life of the citizen which is beyond the purview of the state.

6. "...disenfranchised workers toward the college-educated liberal elite, who abetted or did nothing to halt the corporate assault on the poor and the working class of the last 30 years, is not misplaced."
Absolute left-wing nonsense.
a. no one is barred from choices that will improve or destroy their lives.
b. corporations are public, and owned, almost entirely by ordinary folks:

&#8220;Exxon Mobil, in fact, is owned mostly by ordinary Americans. Mutual funds, index funds and pension funds (including union pension funds) own about 52 percent of Exxon Mobil&#8217;s shares. Individual shareholders, about two million or so, own almost all the rest. The pooh-bahs who run Exxon own less than 1 percent of the company.&#8221; http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/business/02every.html

The rich folk pay almost all of the taxes, and those evil corporations?

In 2006, the oil industry paid $81 billion in income tax, and while Exxon&#8217;s earnings increased 89% from 2003 to 2007, their income taxes increased 170%. Exxon: Profit Pirate or Tax Victim?

. Exxon's tax bill breaks down like this: income taxes, $36.5 billion; sales-based taxes, $34.5 billion; "all other" taxes, $45.2 billion.&#8221; Exxon, Big Oil Profits Evil Only Until You Weigh Their Tax Bills - US News and World Report
If Exxon&#8217;s 2008 tax bill of $116.2 billion were split equally among all tax filers who pay income tax, each filer&#8217;s share would be $1,259/year. Still hate Exxon? The Tax Foundation - Number of Americans Paying Zero Federal Income Tax Grows to 43.4 Million


Friend Q, I hope you are at an early point in your journey through life, because you have so much to learn....

I want to start by addressing how you didn't address at all all of my points about the massive difference between leftism and what the Democratic party does. No response to Hedges' critique of how the Democrats have abandoned leftism for comfort, money, and power and no response to my own long list of the actions of this Democratic president and Democratic Congress that are absolutely anathema to leftism. If you're going to respond, please address them, otherwise I don't see the point in this discussion. If you want to label the Democrats as leftist and assert they're the same thing, how do you account for the fact that all of their policies aren't just not leftist but against leftism?

Your apparent definition of leftism isn't remotely accurate. To go for as uncontroversial and official a defintion as possible, we turn to the dictionary where a leftist is described as: "someone who seeks radical social and economic change in the direction of greater equality. "

Leftist | Define Leftist at Dictionary.com

I don't really subscribe to a particularly ideology, I've yet to find one that totally matches up with my beliefs, but libertarian socialism comes closest.

That's the opposite of totalitarian as totalitarianism is "absolute control by the state or a governing branch of a highly centralized institution." while the many ideologies under the umbrella of libertarian socialism call for NO STATE AT ALL and thus NO CONTROL or CENTRALIZATION at all. So it differs in the most significant and consequential way imaginable.

I don't think you know what leftism is except for a catch-all term for things you oppose. The idea that fascism and Nazism for instance, extremely far right ideologies, are leftist is absurd.

Classical liberalism is different than the liberalism I'm talking about, I assumed you knew that and didn't know we had to define our terms. You asked in the OP "So, How Come You're Still A Leftie?" Classical liberals aren't leftists, so I'm not sure why you brought that up. In terms of history, yes I was referring to since the French Revolution, particularly in America between 1870-1945.

Then you do a lot of examples of how other people who either called themselves liberals or were at one point liberals abandoned liberal principles throughout history in Europe, which I think plays more into my point than yours. Again, it's an ideology and who believes in and practices it can be judged by their actions. So from the European totalitarians onto Stalin, Mao, or anyone else of that ilk you want to mention were totalitarians who believed in supreme human authority over their populations, they weren't leftists. Communism is leftist, but has never been practiced as such, since it never gets past the vanguard stage and that vanguard then makes themselves into an oligarchy. Just as self-proclaimed conservatives have not brought on or fought for limited government the past few decades because they're not really conservative in the political sense. Again, it doesn't matter what people call themselves when we judge them, it matters what they do. Trusting a politician on where they fall on a political spectrum based on their statements rather than their actions, especially when those two are so contradictory, is foolish.

There are forms of totalitarianism that also share some aspects (mostly economic) of socialism that line up with your aspects list, but that's it. No leftist believes "There is no aspect of the life of the citizen which is beyond the purview of the state." and it's ludicrous to say so. Again, it seems you've defined leftism not as what it is but as a term to describe whatever it is you oppose. Totalitarian regimes, by their very nature, are not leftist. The economic and social conditions of an ideal leftist society give everyone equal power and do not require a state, much less state control, so an all-powerful state is common to fascism and other tyrannical forms of governance that are actually on the right-wing. There may be elements of totalitarianism in Communism when practiced, but the extent to which they are totalitarian is the extent to which they veer from leftism. Put rather simply, leftist ideology simply seeks to craft a culture of equality for all (some with an extremely open, democratic state run clearly by, of, and for the people, some with no state at all). There are valid criticism of that, but they're not found in equating it with ideologies where that is decidedly not the case such as totalitarianism with its incredibly disparity in power among the populace.

If you don't think corporations wield and exercise undue and destructive influence, then I understand why we're on such opposite ends of the political spectrum, but this really isn't a discussion of the virtues of leftism vs. rightism so that's kinda moot.

I'm just pointing out that what you're describing as leftism plainly isn't, it's your bastardized personal definition divorced from what the word means and what the ideology supports and since the gap between leftist values and policy and Democratic Party values and policy is bigger than the Grand Canyon, your posed question doesn't make sense and misses the point. The Democratic Party is fundamentally corporatist (like the Republican Party), leftism is diametrically opposed to its very essence to corporatism, so you can't equate the two.

As for the condescending final line, however kindly you phrased it, I'd just say right back at you.

There are lots of things about right-wing politics I oppose, but that doesn't mean I'll start ascribing every imaginable negative to them, ignore what the ideology actually is, and just assume if I don't like it, it's "rightist" and everyone who doesn't believe as I do is a "rightist" regardless of how much substantial difference there is between and among them. I don't agree with anarchocapitalism, neo-conservativism, or theocracy, but that doesn't mean they're all even remotely the same and to pretend otherwise would be ignorant or dishonest.

Very well said. While I doubt we agree no all details of all matters (specially since you identify as something close to a libertarian socialist while I find the closest match to be social moderate/right social democracy, which would seem to suggest you're somewhat more libertarian than myself on the Nolan Chart), I can pretty much ditto just about everything there.


I'll have to keep an eye out for your posts in the future, if you continue to be so so sensible and eloquent- and far more patient and tactful than myself.

I'm curious as to what authors you might suggest as being similar to yourself in your views.

 

[bucs90]

Do write a short essay explaining the ideology in question.

I get the distinct impression you have no idea what it is.

A very short essay:

Communists are stupid.

The end.

What does communism have to do with anything?

Our current president appointed a self-confessed communist as his Green Jobs Czar? And our current president put a Christmas ornament of communist dictator Mao on his White House Christmas tree. Hints of communism can be seen throughout this White House and it's past 2 years in office.

 

[JBeukema]

1) Communism has nothing to do with what the loon and I were discussing

2) While the man in question calls himself a communist, his actions show him to be, like Maxine Waters, something much more like a democratic socialist. Take for instance, the clear will and intent to use the machinations of the existing State as opposed to violent overthrow of the same and the creation of a new State under the direction of the revolutionary vanguard. it's also clear that they have little to no intention of ever seeing communism in practice, preferring to establish themselves as the new ruling class. We saw the same with Stalin.

3)While Mao's early writing were communist in tone, his New Democracy seemed, when I read his words some time ago, to be much like social democracy or democratic socialism. His reign quickly became first bureaucratic collectivism and then outright oligarchy with the Party becoming the ruling class, indistinguishable from the russian czars, European nobility, or the rulers of any given occupied colony. Whilst the rhetoric might have been communist, his actions and the system he and his soldiers put in place were anything but. This is a common trait amongst revolutionaries, which is a large reason Schachtman and others opposed such revolutionary movements, as those who seized power inevitably do like those before them and seek to make secure their grasp upon it. Indeed, given a proper Marxian understanding of human history, nothing else can truly be expected.

 

[bucs90]

Van Jones: "Sometimes you have to drop the radical pose to achieve the radical ends", I think was the exact quote.

He basically explained that if you want the end result of radicalism, you must drop the radical pose and act like a moderate.

He fooled a lot of people.

 

[daveman]

Do write a short essay explaining the ideology in question.

I get the distinct impression you have no idea what it is.

A very short essay:

Communists are stupid.

The end.

What does communism have to do with anything?

Did you read your own link? Are you that ignorant about your own belief system?

Shachtmanism is a critical term applied to the form of Marxism associated with Max Shachtman. It has two major components: a bureaucratic collectivist analysis of the Soviet Union and a third camp approach to world politics.

Communists. And therefore stupid.

 

[daveman]

1) Communism has nothing to do with what the loon and I were discussing

You mean except for your belief system, right?

 

[JBeukema]

You're an idiot.
Read the linked section:

Social Democratic Shachtmanism

Social democratic Shachtmanism, called "Right Shachtmanism" by detractors, later developed by Shachtman and espoused by the Social Democrats USA, holds Stalinist nations to be worse than Western capitalism. As a result, adherents will often side with the U.S. government in international conflicts against Stalinist groups, such as the Vietnam War, and countries with governments seen as being under the influence of Stalinism, such as Cuba. This viewpoint was popularized within Shachtmanism in the 1960s and 1970s.

Let's click that first link:

Social democracy is a political ideology of the centre-left on the classic political spectrum. The contemporary social democratic movement seeks to reform capitalism to align it with the ethical ideals of social justice while maintaining the capitalist mode of production, as opposed to creating an alternative socialist economic system.[1] Practical modern social democratic policies include the promotion of a welfare state, and the creation of economic democracy as a means to secure workers' rights.[2]
Historically, social democracy was a form of evolutionary reformist socialism[2] that advocated the establishment of a socialist economy through class struggle. During the early 20th century, major European social democratic parties began to reject elements of Marxism, Revolutionary socialism and class struggle, taking a moderate position that socialism could be established through political reforms. The distinction between Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism had yet to fully develop at this time. The Frankfurt Declaration of the Socialist International in 1951, attended by many social democratic parties from across the world, committed adherents to oppose Bolshevik communism and Stalinism, and to promote a gradual transformation of capitalism into socialism.[3]
Social democracy, as practiced in Europe in 1951, was a socialist movement supporting gradualism; the belief that gradual democratic reforms to capitalist economies will eventually succeed in creating a socialist economy.[4] rejecting forcible imposition of socialism through revolutionary means.[4] This gradualism has resulted in various far left groups, including communists, of accusing social democracy of accepting the values of capitalist society and therefore not being a genuine form of socialism[4],instead labeling it a concession made to the working class classes by the ruling class. Social democracy rejects the Marxian principle of dictatorship of the proletariat and the creation of a socialist state, claiming that gradualist democratic reforms will improve the rights of the working class.[5]
Since the rise in popularity of the New Right and neoliberalism, a number of prominent social democratic parties have abandoned the goal of the gradual evolution of capitalism to socialism and instead support welfare state capitalism.[6] Social democracy as such has arisen as a distinct ideology from democratic socialism.