The US is Politically to the Right of [Other] Democracies

You're viewing a single thread.

231 comments

I'm not really sure about that - I'd say in the US reactionary politics is just far more overt than it is in other places that self-describes (optimistically) as "democracies."
- Not really -- MAGA-esque neofascism is just as overt in many European countries.
  What makes the Overton window shifted towards the right in the US, IMO, is that (unlike Europe) the socialist Left never got a foothold in politics at the national level. This, plus years of Cold War, propaganda, allowed collectivist ideas like nationalized industries and universal healthcare to be branded as "Soviet" and somehow Un-American.
  To this day, there are people on the Right in the US who believe that advancing any tax-paid public services is tantamount to communism, whereas in Europe there is broad support for the public sector on both sides of the political spectrum.
  
  Nationalized industry (or healthcare) is neither a leftist idea nor a collectivist one. It's merely bog-standard nationalism and perfectly compatible with concepts of "social democracy," which, if you know your history, you already understand isn't leftist at all - it was literally invented by Otto von Bismarck as a way to protect against socialist revolution.
  A leftist accepts that state-control of services is still a lot better than privatized control... but it is still a very, very distant second-best to socialized control.
  
  Yeah, nationalization can be a right-wing thing but it generally isn't. Also, I wouldn't say that control by the state is less left-wing than control via worker collectives; that's just the difference between authoritarian and libertarian socialism.
  Social democracy, as it is typically understood, is absolutely leftist since it is based around government regulation, social justice, economic equality, and a strong welfare state.
  Bismarck also didn't "invent it"; his government was more just a welfare state. Social democracy itself came about through various 19th Century thinkers, such as Eduard Bernstein.
  
  Social democracy, as it is typically understood, is absolutely leftist since it is based around government regulation, social justice, economic equality, and a strong welfare state.
  That isn't what most people consider Leftist. Leftism refers to Socialism, not Capitalism with welfare.
  Social Democracy is based on class colaborationism between the bourgeoisie and petite bourgeoisie against the proletariat, similar to fascism but without the mass xenophobia or total erosion of worker protections.
  The Nordic Countries in particular get much of their income from Imperialism, subsidizing cost of living off the backs of workers in the global south.
  
  Fair enough -- "left of centre" then, if we are defining Leftist strictly as just socialist/communist.
  
  Why would it be "left of center" if its Capitalist, not Socialist? It would be right of center.
  
  Because in the centre you have neoliberalism and so on.
  If you simply define left as anti-capitalist and right as capitalist then what's in the center?
  
  Because in the centre you have neoliberalism and so on.
  Neoliberalism is firmly right-wing.
  If you simply define left as anti-capitalist and right as capitalist then what's in the center?
  Politics in general aren't as simple as absolute values on a line or grid, trying to nail down what "centrism" is is like trying to nail jello to a tree. Everything is in motion.
  If you truly need to describe a center, it would be a mixed economy without relying on Imperialism to subsidize safety nets. Social Democracy gets close, but ultimately leans right as it can't break through that Socialist barrier while maintaining its status as a Social Democracy.
  
  I agree that the Left - Right spectrum is constantly in motion -- that's why these discussions of what constitutes what are often contentious and vary from one country to another.
  
  The Left-Right spectrum isn't in motion, countries and systems are.
  
  Also, I wouldn’t say that control by the state is less left-wing
  Control by the state is still anti-socialist - it doesn't matter how much Marxist-Lenninists protest otherwise. There is only one type of "worker's state," and that is one where the means of production is actually democratically controlled by the working class - not a pack of bureaucrat party-parasites pretending to "represent" the working class by waving little red flags at every occasion.
  Social democracy, as it is typically understood, is absolutely leftist
  There is nothing leftist about social democracy - it's warmed-over liberalism that serves no other purpose other than protecting the liberal order from working class revolt. And, like all forms of liberalism, it's proponents will happily hold hands with fascism as soon as it's precious status quo is threatened from below.
  Bismarck also didn’t “invent it”;
  "Invent" is a strong word, I suppose... but it's a question of six of one and half-a-dozen of the other. They both serve the exact same purpose and deliver the exact same result. The truth about this ideology remains the same - it is thoroughly ant-socialist and pro-capitalist... and there is nothing leftist about it except in the minds of those whose brains have been addled by "red scare" and "free market" propaganda.
  
  Ok, so if we agree to define Leftist strictly as anti-capitalist, then fine. I was using it to mean more "left-of-centre".
  
  If you are pro-capitalist you are a right-winger - no ifs, ands or buts. Not "centrist" or "left-of-center."
  There is no debate to be had here.
  
  So what's in the centre then?
  
  There is no centre - there never was. Not in a "left-vs-right" conception, anyway - there is no such thing as "half-a-socialist" or "half-a-capitalist." You're either for it or you're not.
  There is a way of visualizing a "centre," though... if you imagine the status quo as a "centre" (which also signifies institutionalized political, economic and social power) and draw a circle around it, everything inside that circle will be right-wing - everything outside it will be left-wing. This would actually be somewhat more accurate than the silly "political compass" infographics which does more miseducating than anything else.
  
  Control by the state is still anti-socialist - it doesn't matter how much Marxist-Lenninists protest otherwise. There is only one type of "worker's state," and that is one where the means of production is actually democratically controlled by the working class - not a pack of bureaucrat party-parasites pretending to "represent" the working class by waving little red flags at every occasion.
  I think you're confusing what a State is, in Marx's words. Marxism is not anti-government, or anti-central planning. Marx specifically used the term State to refer to the elements of government that uphold class society, ie private property rights. Marx was not an Anarchist, he argued against Anarchism vehemontly. Critique of the Gotha Programme is worth visiting, if you haven't already.
  It's in this manner that the state "whithers away." Not via the government intentionally eroding itself into Anarchism, but via a lack of maintenance of Capitalist institutions. Socialism appears from Capitalism, just as Communism emerges from Socialism.
  This isn't analysis unique to Lenin, this is straight from Marx himself.
  The rest of your comment is generally true though, such as analysis of Social Democracy.
  
  I think you’re confusing what a State is
  No. I'm not.
  he argued against Anarchism vehemontly.
  Yes, I know - and his arguments against anarchism is still just as as hollow as the statists that came after him.
  government that uphold class society, ie private property rights.
  Yes, I am perfectly aware of how dead wrong Marx was about the nature of the state.
  It’s in this manner that the state “whithers away.”
  There is no such thing as a "withering state" and there never will be. It's no less ridiculous and esoteric wishful-thinking than Smith's "invisible hand."
  but via a lack of maintenance of Capitalist institutions.
  As has been thoroughly demonstrated now, any state institution can easily be returned to use by capitalists - Marx was dead wrong about the state because he rejected the anarchist critique of hierarchy (the only thing the anarchists have that is really worthwile) which has, so far, proven airtight. There will never be a "lack of maintenance" of such institutions as long as hierarchical society exists - the political police in a Marxist-Leninist state will happily play political police for capitalists in a liberal society a decade later and vice-versa.
  Socialism appears from Capitalism, just as Communism emerges from Socialism.
  Not true at all - socialist movements was appearing long before capitalism did. Socialism is not a response to capitalism. It is a response to hegemony - of which capitalism, together with it's twin sibling, fascism, are merely the most immediate and modern expression.
  
  Yes, I am perfectly aware of how dead wrong Marx was about the nature of the state.
  Marx was not wrong about the "nature of a state," but used a different, non-Anarchist interpretation. This doesn't make Marx "dead wrong" for not being an Anarchist, but a separate type of Leftist with different critiques.
  There is no such thing as a "withering state" and there never will be. It's no less ridiculous and esoteric wishful-thinking than Smith's "invisible hand."
  The state whithers all the time, in the UK the Monarchy is a continuously vestigial element of their government structure. Moving through class society causes the elements of previous society to whither and decay. Socialism works the same way with respect to Capitalism, and Communism the same way with respect to Socialism.
  As has been thoroughly demonstrated now, any state institution can easily be returned to use by capitalists - Marx was dead wrong about the state because he rejected the anarchist critique of hierarchy (the only thing the anarchists have that is really worthwile) which has, so far, proven airtight. There will never be a "lack of maintenance" of such institutions as long as hierarchical society exists - the political police in a Marxist-Leninist state will happily play political police for capitalists in a liberal society a decade later and vice-versa.
  Not quite accurate, Marxism is specifically about working towards ending class society. Anarchist critique of hierarchy is idealist, it doesn't really get at the heart of why systems work the way they do.
  Not true at all - socialist movements was appearing long before capitalism did. Socialism is not a response to capitalism. It is a response to hegemony - of which capitalism, together with it's twin sibling, fascism, are merely the most immediate and modern expression.
  Not quite what I meant. Primitive Communism and systems like Owenism aren't the same as modern Socialism. Capitalism necessarily creates within it the mechanisms for moving onward to Socialism.
  
  but used a different, non-Anarchist interpretation.
  Yes. A conception of the state that camouflages the state's role as a nexus of hierarchical power.
  The state whithers all the time, in the UK the Monarchy is a continuously vestigial element of their government structure.
  A state being hijacked by a different group of elites and repurposed to serve their interests in no way signifies any form of "withering" - as you can see for yourself... the British state only grew ever more entrenched and pervasive as a result of transforming from a feudal state to a liberal one. Nothing about it "withered" in any way whatsoever. The results will be the same no matter who it is that does the hijacking nor the ideology that they profess while doing so. There is no "withering" to see when liberal states (temporarily) become fascist ones, and there was (and is) no "withering" of any kind to be seen in states run by political elites belonging to any organisation with the words "communist" or "socialist" in their gold-leaf printed titles.
  Sooo...
  Anarchist critique of hierarchy is idealist,
  ...absolutely not. The anarchist critique of hierarchy is about as unflinchingly pragmatic as political modelling gets. If I was a liberal, I'd call it downright cynical - but I won't, since I'm not. It explains why the state cannot and will never be a route to a socialist mode of production, and it has been proven ruthlessly accurate - there aren't even any "exceptions that prove the rule" around to give an honest Marxist-Leninist a sliver of desperate hope.
  For socialism, the state is a blood-drenched dead-end - only those touched by utopian delusion believe otherwise.
  Primitive Communism
  I think we can give Marx a pass for this silly idea - there is no such thing as "primitive" communism just as there is no such thing as a "primitive" - but I think Marxists themselves should let this go.
  and systems like Owenism aren’t the same as modern Socialism
  The control of the means of production was being contested by the people doing the actual work vis-a-vis the people doing the owning for a very, very long time now - long before anyone self-identified as a socialist. Just because socialists have written lots and lots of books in regards to class warfare doesn't make "modern" socialism all that unique.
  
  Yes. A conception of the state that camouflages the state's role as a nexus of hierarchical power.
  Administration isn't camouflaging anything, it is hierarchical. Marx didn't see an issue inherent to hierarchy, but class and direction of production.
  A state being hijacked by a different group of elites and repurposed to serve their interests in no way signifies any form of "withering" - as you can see for yourself... the British state only grew ever more entrenched and pervasive as a result of transforming from a feudal state to a liberal one. Nothing about it "withered" in any way whatsoever. The results will be the same no matter who it is that does the hijacking nor the ideology that they profess while doing so. There is no "withering" to see when liberal states (temporarily) become fascist ones, and there was (and is) no "withering" of any kind to be seen in states run by political elites belonging to any organisation with the words "communist" or "socialist" in their gold-leaf printed titles
  The feudal aspects of British society withered away. You're again confusing size of government with what constitutes the state.
  ...absolutely not. The anarchist critique of hierarchy is about as unflinchingly pragmatic as political modelling gets. If I was a liberal, I'd call it downright cynical - but I won't, since I'm not. It explains why the state cannot and will never be a route to a socialist mode of production, and it has been proven ruthlessly accurate - there aren't even any "exceptions that prove the rule" around to give an honest Marxist-Leninist a sliver of desperate hope.
  How exaxtly? Vibes?
  For socialism, the state is a blood-drenched dead-end - only those touched by utopian delusion believe otherwise.
  Ah, vibes, gotcha.
  I think we can give Marx a pass for this silly idea - there is no such thing as "primitive" communism just as there is no such thing as a "primitive" - but I think Marxists themselves should let this go.
  The descriptor may not have been the best, but the concept of tribal societies functioning without class doesn't mean it never happened.
  The control of the means of production was being contested by the people doing the actual work vis-a-vis the people doing the owning for a very, very long time now - long before anyone self-identified as a socialist. Just because socialists have written lots and lots of books in regards to class warfare doesn't make "modern" socialism all that unique.
  Nobody said Marx invented the concept of Socialism. Socialists have built theory over time, yes.
  
  Marx didn’t see an issue inherent to hierarchy,
  Of course not... the people's boot would never trample on the people, would it?
  How exaxtly? Vibes?
  Rejecting the idea that industrialized feudalism will, upon repressing and deprivating the working class hard and long enough, somehow lead to socialism isn't "vibes."
  Ah, vibes, gotcha.
  So you have exceptions to provide, then? Let's hear it.
  The descriptor may not have been the best,
  And you've had how many years to change that descriptor? Or is it sacrilege to touch Red Jesus' holy writ?
  
  Nationalized industry (or healthcare) is neither a leftist idea nor a collectivist one. It's merely bog-standard nationalism and perfectly compatible with concepts of "social democracy," which, if you know your history, you already understand isn't leftist at all - it was literally invented by Otto von Bismarck as a way to protect against socialist revolution.
  Nationalising industry is a very leftist and collectivist idea, the more democratic the state the more collectivist. Social democracy protects against socialist revolution by making concessions to socialists, therefore these concessions are necessarily leftist. The fact that fascists sometimes employ national industry or infrastructure is just a matter of the fact that it's more efficient, not out of leftist ideology. They know that in order to have a functioning society that brings profit to their capitalist owner friends, there need to be paved public roads and a functioning electric grid.
  A leftist accepts that state-control of services is still a lot better than privatized control... but it is still a very, very distant second-best to socialized control.
  If the state is truly democratic and acts on behalf and in the interest of the workers, it can be better than direct control by workers. I don't want my hospital workers striking for higher wages than the rest of workers out of egoism, I want the public (and thus practically through the state) to have a say on that. My best bet would be some sort of dual-power structure in which the people in general (as represented by a democratic state, including things like local councils or other regional subdivisions of the state) need to reach agreements with representatives of the workers (possibly through unions).
  
  collectivist ideas like nationalized industries and universal healthcare to be branded as "Soviet" and somehow Un-American.
  If they are so soviet, then why ~~Supreme Soviet~~ Congress doesn't legislate them into existance? Or if Soviet is so Un-American, then why America has parlaments in the first place?
  
  "sovie" isn't just a council, it's a worker's council. That's why the US institutions aren't soviets, they don't even pretend to represent the workers in particular

231 comments