view the rest of the comments
UK Politics
General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
go explain that to basically all the big auth-left countries in the 20th century; China, Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia and North Korea. (EDIT : missed the obvious, USSR)
They did famously right wing things like nationalising all industry, killing landlords and capitalists, and banning religion.
I do try to explain that to them and people never listen.
If your definition of leftism is "it's good when we brutally murder the ~~filthy foreigners~~ kulaks!" then you've completely lost the plot.
The left right axis isn't about "left good, right bad". If you look at the things I posted, and try to determine if those are actions that have political motivation on the right, left or center.
Most of those things are bad (nationalising all industry is a mixed bag, and open to long ass discussions many people have had in the past). However, they are aimed at reducing the income disparity or restricting captialist actions. They fit on the left, or at least, are not centrist, nor right wing. The way those actions were carried out are through authoritarian regimes with police state like apparatuses to enforce them.
In terms of the political compass, the USSR is not lib left; it was far too socially restrictive, thus, there is a mixture of authoritarianism and left wing economic policy.
These are historic facts and analyses that are corroborated. They aren't nice things, but it's how it is.
Leftism is for liberation. That's what it always was about. A lot of dishonest, self-interested people have tried to convince us it's about something else but that's because they're afraid of losing their political or economic status if we actually understood and united in our common interests.
Yes, the left is anti-capitalist but historically it's also always been anti-authoritarian--with the notable exception of the Bolsheviks and those who followed their example. Once you realize that despite their power and prominence, they fundamentally don't fit with other left movements, the left as a cohesive ideology makes a lot more sense.
The political compass is a useful way to navigate the contested narratives around left and right but ultimately it is an illusion. Auth-left is just a different flavor of right-wing movement where they prefer the state's boot to a capitalist's. It's not leftist anymore than it would be to fire all of the CEOs and rehire people of color to fill their roles.
Starmer is not as pro-state domination as those people but he's also not as anti-capitalist. So ultimately he's one more in a long line of leaders who uses leftist energy and organizing to get into power and then betrays their interests for his own ends.
OK. And out of the historical parties in power in the UK for the past hundred years, where does the Labour party lie?
I'm not the most well-versed in UK history but I do believe at one time the labor party was more of a left party. And they certainly do have more left members. I just don't accept that label for Starmer after the way he has governed.