I’m simply asking this question because of Lemmygrad.ml existing, and that there isn’t a far-right equivalent of it yet. If Lemmygrad has any standing for its right to exist under free speech, where is the line drawn for other extremist political ideologies? If Holodomor skepticism is allowed, then what stops Holocaust skepticism? (as it is generally accepted the Holodomor was man-made). I’m simply wondering what gives far-left politics a right to promote such extremist views in the Fediverse, when their far-right counterparts would be Defederated in minutes.
What does “far-left” mean to you, then? If someone with views entirely counter to progressive ideas just calls themselves “far-left” while spewing hateful garbage, do you just accept that they are part of the left?
Politics isn’t team sports. Your political association is defined by your views, not by what side you claim to be on.
Then it’s just a “no true Scotsman” argument.
There are plenty of examples of leftist governments who were openly hostile to minorities.
This is like saying “No true Scotsman was born and raised in Istanbul, speaks only Turkish, and has never even visited Scotland or ever mentioned being intereted in doing so.” For example, the “National Socialists” were not actually socialists even though they used socialist-like policies exclusively on an ethnic national basis, and no one serious is arguing that they were on the left. The left wing represents social equality and progressivism, while the right wing represents tradition and hierarchy. This has been the understanding of these terms since they were invented during the French Revolution.
And the left wing politicians during the French Revolution never prosecuted minorities in the name of the republic?
Damn, what happened to the entire Occitaian culture?
Oh wait, it was deemed an enemy of progress.
If you want to use that definition of left right from the French Revolution, fine, are they not “left” when they literally sat on the left side of the National Assembly?
Interesting point you bring up. You are absolutely correct about the consequences of the revolution and the involvement of hierarchical thinking of the Parisians towards the other ethnic groups around them. The Parisians who went and carried out the genocides may have believed that their actions conformed to “Liberty, fraternity, and equality” of the French people, but I’m not sure it was the logical conclusion to the ideology of the revolution, or the left. Looking back from my modern perspective completely out of context I would say these actions went against the professed ideology of the revolution before reality came in and complicated everything.
What I’m saying is that the left is the idea of progressivism and social equality, while the right is the idea of hierarchy and tradition. Actors who intend for progressivism and social equality can, due to the various pressures of the real world, can end up taking right wing measures as above. If someone supports the idea of tradition and hierarchy in the first place, I would not consider them left wing regardless of how they label themselves.
I can respect that.
Not really. If someone says “I am a woodworker” but you never see anything they make from wood, they have no woodworking tools, they don’t know about woodworking techniques, they don’t attend a woodworking club or job or class they’re just… not a woodworker.
People who claim to be leftists without doing the required actions aren’t leftists. Liking the aesthetics isn’t enough.
So was the USSR not a leftist government?
I feel like we’re going into the semantics of who is a “true” leftist.
Sorry I missed this.
I feel like this is potentially a bait post but if I steel man you for the sake of civility and learning:
I am not the most knowledgeable about the USSR, my grandparents came from occupied poland and thus had certain opinions, that’s a large part of my exposure and likely biases me. That said, the revolutionary movement and corresponding government seems to have gone through many phases, and have expressed various degrees of leftism at various times. Was assassinating lots of people, forcibly occupying people, collaborating with nazi germany, and engaging in genocide very leftist? I would say definitionally no. Even for the time there was considerable pushback from other leftist personalities and organisations.
On the other hand for many, many people there was massive increases in freedom, prosperity, and rights compared to tzarist russia. Including my grandmother, who was allowed to hold a technical office job! wow! (until she moved to Australia and was forced to work in a factory and be treated like an idiot. Not wow).
This seems like one of those situations where trying to fit something into a simplistic box will inevitably break down. I feel comfortable saying the USSR accomplished both wonderful and terrible things, that overall it was probably better than tsarist russia but it fell short of the ideals that founded it.
If I met someone who say volunteered to feed the homeless, agitated for unionism at work, volunteered to educate disadvantaged people, but also thought I should be executed as a social deviant (I’m mega queer) I would probably call them leftist even while I thought they were massively misguided and extremely dangerous. I’ll note I’ve never actually met anyone like that though.
Let us know when the ussr is doing anything modern. You just keep moving the goalposts.
It was not.