Was talking about this with someone today. People, especially the right-winged, will associate the so-called far left wing with Communism/Marxism. But I find it weird that any scale would just happen to have that as the far end of the spectrum. If you were to go down the scale to the very, very end, what political statement/remark would be the closest thing to the very tip of the spectrum? Something like “the robots should take over” or something?
“Everyone deserves justice, freedom and the means to live and flourish.”
The most leftist idea that I can think of is the fact, that the existence of states itself is wrong and that we as the working class should all work together to demolish every state on this planet so that the working class is finally able to live united around the world working to allow every single person to live free.
Bolo bolo!
“Property is theft” curtesy of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.
I thought property being theft was just unspoken common sense.
Definitely not common, I’m also not convinced it makes sense.
It’s a philosophically coherent argument. We won’t own people. We draw the line there. Many indigenous cultures don’t and never really have believed land can be owned. You don’t have to agree with them about that but you also can’t dismiss the concept out of hand. And if people can’t be owned, and maybe land can’t be owned, it’s not clear anything necessarily must be able to be owned. Are animals owned? Are plants owned? Are rocks owned? Largely, yes. But who allowed that? We did.
The idea of private property is an almost uniquely human idea, we have based most of our system of civilization on it, but it is not universal and is not based on any physical laws that we know of. We just like to own stuff, and we kill anyone who won’t let us or tries to tell us we don’t. And the fundamental corollary of that is that if we exclusively own something and get to decide who can and cannot have or use that thing, then that ability is deprived from everyone and everything else who is no longer able to exercise all of those rights over that thing. Sometimes that is a good thing. The tragedy of the commons demonstrates how things owned in common or public use can become quickly destroyed. By having exclusive ownership, perhaps I will do a better job of taking care of said thing and can protect it from careless use or overuse by others. Ownership can be a powerful idea, giving people equity in things that they would otherwise not be as invested in.
Strictly speaking though, property is theft. Theft from the public domain. It’s taking something out of the public domain where it naturally started, and claiming exclusive use and ownership of it on behalf of one person or group or organization, often dating back through a long series of transactions, some incredibly violent, deep into ancient history, but at the very beginning of that chain of ownership you’ll inevitably find someone using some justification like “I/we found this first” which in any given case may not actually be true, but the claim is made regardless and then used as a justification for making something private and exclusive for no reason other than that they could, and no one else was around or willing and able to stop them. Nothing and nobody gave the Earth to humankind – we took it, and divided it up amongst ourselves and continue to do so to this day. And that’s good for us, being ambitious and greedy has been good for our species in many ways, although it has also caused great strife and horror. But let’s be intellectually honest about what property rights really are and why we have them. I still think they’re mostly good, but I can also understand the point of view of people who think they’re not, or that they should be limited.
Private Property seems like a natural extension of Animal Territory ( animals fight over boundaries and expressed need for an area to roam )
- there is no territory on earth occupied by a single animal. All animals rely on others to help maintain the environment.
- How do you explain a hundred birds in a single tree, with no fighting?
- Roaming is far from universal
Crows will fend off an eagle coming into their murder area
But which crow is the owner
Just because some property can be owned does not mean all property must be owned.
Land rights are sometimes split up e.g. a wolf pack might mark and defend their territory - but this is only with respect to other wolves; they are not claiming ownership of the bird nesting areas. But a bird would not appreciate another bird taking their nest.
In all honesty the argument is silly because the concept of “ownership” has a lot of human fluff on top. Animals use a certain area. From a large territory to a single small nest.
Consider the seagull with her nest on the North side of a beautiful artificial garbage island. Her wife and her have their eggs and babies there. They do not also go to the South side of the garbage island and build (or take over) a bunch of other nests that nobody can use without paying rent. The modern human concept of property encompasses this situation. In this example we could also have the gulls refusing to fix defects in the nest while prohibiting the tenants from doing so. Does this sound like typical bird behaviour?
I think this is on the right track. I’d like to make a clarification that will probably be agreed with. (Caveat: Haven’t read Proudhon; am describing the colloquial use.) Which is that “thing” here doesn’t apply to personal items or work tools of everyday life.
When I was a kid I recall being told that under communism you didn’t own your own socks. That is not it.
“Property” certainly refers to land, infrastructure, large equipment, intellectual property, factories, buildings, large vehicles like cargo ships. You could also include housing, personal vehicles, livestock and other substantial but personal Capital as anywhere between public and personal.
On the other hand, while “property is theft” does not disallow personal items, that only goes so far as what one can reasonably use. Hoarding up valuable items is not appreciated. And it would certainly not be allowed to claim
The tragedy of the commons demonstrates how things owned in common or public use can become quickly destroyed.
False. Invite you to further investigate both the historical basis of that idea and any contemporary example you can find.
Capital which is publicly owned can be and often is well managed. There are all sorts of structures to get this done. Depending on the context, the people involved can have their pick. If you heard a public good you appreciate — a school, road, software, utility like power or water, library, museum, park, transit system, hospital — was getting “privatized”, how do you expect the experience to be? Generally it fucking sucks. Whereas when the opposite happens it’s generally awesome.
I disagree.
I’m perfectly fine with that.
Don’t worry, you can keep your razors and brushes. :)
What about “Theft is Property”?
(Das Format dieser Flasche / Ist wie geschaffen für meine Tasche)
“I’m doing the no poop challenge until Luigi is free!”
Jokes aside… it depends on how you define left/right. Political behaviour and ideology aren’t just a simple axis, not even two; they’re multidimensional. And, for me, if I’m forced to analyse it 1D, it’s all about how you distribute power: the left wants to spread it as much as reasonably possible, the right wants to concentrate it.
So, for me, the most left-wing thing someone could say is simply “nobody should have more power over another than the other has over them”. Or something like this. Note how this encompasses rather well both anarchism and Marxism.
I don’t entirely agree with it but I heard once that the left wants powerful people to work in a context of commensurate accountability, whereas the right wants powerful people to be safe from accountability.
I’d say the first one is lefter than the second, but you can still go further left: instead of having commensurate accountability for powerful people, have no powerful people at all.
That’s a very rudimentary anarchistic concept but power is so inherent to human relationships that anyone would either quickly abandon it or find themselves very frustrated.
If you are interested in a short and easy to read article that goes through the whole idea of “no powerful people”, look up Freeman’s Tyranny of Structurelessness. A classic text particularly among anarchists.
I am confused by the question.
The Left is defined by an understanding that
- the interests of capital and workers are opposed
- this an irreconcilable difference
- The working class can and should organize itself to eliminate the capital class, instituting
democratdemocratic control
The whos, hows, whens, wheres and whatsafters are the details that divide the Left.
The left has been substantially defined by Marxist and other communist ideas. The only other other broad tradition are anarchists. And most left anarchists are influenced by communism if not communist also themselves.
“the robots should take over”
Which one do you mean?
- robots should take over repetitive, boring, dangerous labor that nobody wants to do so everyone’s time can be freed up for work and other activities we prefer to do = luxury space communism
- robots should take over control or decision making power = right wing technocrat
robots should take over repetitive, boring, dangerous labor that nobody wants to do so everyone’s time can be freed up for work and other activities we prefer to do = luxury space communism
“Iain M Banks’ The Culture is the best possible civilisation”.
I am not sure that either #2 or #3 are universally accepted by those who consider themselves ‘left’.
If #2 isn’t true, how can #1 be true?
As to #3 not being true… that’s just a Negative Nancy.
A person with any beliefs can describe themselves with almost any label. I can call myself a Brony even though I’ve never watched My Little Pony, don’t know anything about it, I’m no Bro, and don’t intend to change. But would I be accepted by the other Bronies?
In other words, those people are wrong. They might be proto-leftists. :) Or just libs.
Re 1 & 2, just because there are differences and conflicts does not mean they are unmanageable or irreconcilable.
3 is just sounding no-true-Scotsman.
These conflicts are irreconcilable because it is the nature of the relationship. This is the concept of “class war”. It is inherently violent.
People who are pro capitalist are not on the left.
They might be liberals. Liberalism is not a left wing project.
Far from being no-true leftists, there are many millions of leftists globally. Every one of them works in their way for the abolition of capital.
Whether you agree with the ideas or not is no issue here. The question is where they are characteristics of the Left. If you disagree with the ideas, you are not on the left.
I’m can’t come up with an absolute upper limit but one of the more notable takes I’ve heard recently is ‘no personal ownership of cars.’
Yeah, I guess that’s pretty left-wing. It would vastly improve the world we live in, though.
I can see that being an ultra corporate enshittification take, too.
No personal ownership of cars. You must purchase a non transferable license that gives you the opportunity to benefit from the use of a Tesla^TM vehicle. Available in 12- or 24-month periods.
I’m sure most would say that political thought is too complex to build it down to that simple of a spectrum. Even in the colloquial scale I’d say there are many schools of socialism, but the “furthest left” in the real world might be anarchism. Beyond that, to use your example, would probably be a Utopian version of the matrix.
