Is there any difference between a Communist and a Leftist?

[StudentMI]

That sounds like a contradiction to me. If the people don’t control the government the government will control the people.

It may sound like a contradiction to you but it is not. There is a difference between a liberal and a Leninist. You may not like the ideas of either (I don’t myself) but to deny the difference serves no purpose.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Of course the countries are different since he wrote in a different time in history. But what part of the descriptions in the paragraphs that I quoted are not identical to the ideology of today’s left? When giving an answer, quote from what I quoted, and then explain why you don’t believe that today’s left matches it.

I guess the issue we’re going to run into is the fact that “the left” encompasses an incredibly wide array of views.

But if someone believed in things such as a higher minimum wage, highly progressive taxation, subsidized (“free”) healthcare, and maybe even the creation of a sovereign wealth fund or a few nationalized industries, that doesn’t seem to fit into anything the then-Pope was criticizing.

Even some of Pope Francis’s statements on inequality put him firmly on the left of the US economic debate. While he is certainly not a social liberal, despite the media presentation, a US politician holding his economic views would almost certainly be branded a socialist.

As for how this stacks up against the passages you cited- the critique seems to be more against purely secular objectives in governance (takes no account of any objective other than that of material well-being), rather than liberalism itself.

 

[Cricket2]

I don’t know. But to this discussion I would like to submit the following: Can’t ALL forms of governments be good or bad depending on the leadership. I have pretty much started to question a lot of things about all governments. That said I would not want a Theocracy either, as no matter what religion the Theocracy was based on those outside of that particular Faith would be discriminated against, subject to mistreatment and marginalized.

It seems to me that were all governments get in trouble is in misuse of authority and power by the few who are put in positions of leadership. A great challenge to all leaders is not letting it get to their head, or abusing the authority they have for selfish gain. I simply want an honest government, that puts the people first (not money and personal gain for a few), protects the “widows, children, sick and weak” and does not allow persecution, slavery of any kind or abject oppression. I wish we could take the good and healthy aspects of varied governments and put them all together, and drop the rubbish in totality. Big dream I know. We are not there yet, and maybe we never will be.

People make governments evil.

 

[Tom_Baum]

If one were to look at the Book of Acts, speaking of earliest Christianity, one would find communism and as someone else pointed out, it was not forced on anyone, it was voluntary.

I am not speaking of communism as an ideology or a political movement but as how people viewed worldly goods.

 

[Tom_Baum]

Cricket2

You wrote, “That said I would not want a Theocracy either, as no matter what religion the Theocracy was based on those outside of that particular Faith would be discriminated against, subject to mistreatment and marginalized.”

Not only do I agree with you concerning a “Theocracy” but I would say that Jesus would be against a theocracy being set up in His Name, even tho the history of Christianity is filled with attempts at this, seeing as Jesus forced Himself on no one.

The radicalness and simplicity of Jesus’s message is that it is from the inside out rather than the outside in.

That was/is Jesus’s message and Jesus’s mission was/is to bring about the reconcilliation of God and man (humanity), I guess we either believe He accomplished it or we don’t believe He accomplished it, in other words, is it Good News or isn’t it?

As some put it, it is a done deal but it is still being played out.

 

[christofirst]

Is there any difference between a member of the John Birch Society and a right-wing conservative?

 

[livingwordunity]

You seem to have a political agenda, or at least a fixed belief. So why ask people what they think if you don’t consider their responses as adequate if they are not in lockstep with your thoughts? I don’t get the whole premise of the thread.

Introduction to Logic - Argumentum Ad Hominem

I. Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument. Often the argument is characterized simply as a personal attack.

A. The personal attack is also often termed an “ad personem argument”: the statement or argument at issue is dropped from consideration or is ignored, and the locutor’s character or circumstances are used to influence opinion.

B. The fallacy draws its appeal from the technique of "getting personal." The assumption is that what the locutor is saying is entirely or partially dictated by his character or special circumstances and so should be disregarded.

 

[livingwordunity]

I guess the issue we’re going to run into is the fact that “the left” encompasses an incredibly wide array of views.

But within that “array of views” are certain relativist absolute dogmas which are universally held by the left such as abortion on demand and now so-called same-sex “marriage”.

 

[christofirst]

But within that “array of views” are certain relativist absolute dogmas such as abortion on demand and now so-called same-sex “marriage”.

Not trying to get too political, but your broad statement is simply wrong

democratsforlife.org

 

[AnimalSpirits]

But within that “array of views” are certain relativist absolute dogmas which are universally held by the left such as abortion on demand and now so-called same-sex “marriage”.

Neither of those issues are inherently tied to socialist/communist policies. Furthermore, it seems like an absurd stretch to claim that all of “the left” are in favor of abortion and gay marriage (unless you are defining “the left” as “people who support abortion and gay marriage.”)

 

[Timothysis]

“Ev’rybody’s talkin’ 'bout
Bagism, Shagism, Dragism, Madism, Ragism, Tagism
This-ism, that-ism, ism ism ism
All we are saying is give peace a chance”

 

[Brendan]

… but I would say that Jesus would be against a theocracy being set up in His Name, even tho the history of Christianity is filled with attempts at this, seeing as Jesus forced Himself on no one…

Sort of. He did set up the nation of Israel as a theocracy. He only granted them a King when they complained, prior to that, it was rule by the Prophets\Judges and the Levitcal priesthood.

So it would be hard to claim that Christ would be 100% opposed to a theocracy when he set one up in the first place.

 

[Tony_the_mad]

Honestly, a question like this is going to require a lot more than just reading quick answers on a message board. If you really have a desire to understand political philosophy, rather than just make inflammatory threads on CAF, I have a lot of authors, books, and documents that I can refer you to. (I have a BA in Political Science and worked as a TA my first year of law school at a university where I lectured Modern Political Theory).

If you’re curious about Communism, obviously the first place that you want start is Karl Marx. I think that even upon casual reading you will see many stark differences between what he professes and what the modern American left stands for.

I’m not sure what you’re looking for, but if you really want to start from the ground up, you should read about the notions of collectivism and individualism, and what both of those mean. I always encourage reading up on classical liberalism vs modern liberalism (and the same with conservatism), but if you’re looking only at the context of today, that could confuse you.

If you start with Hobbes and Locke you’ll gain some perspective on the original idea behind and purpose of modern, western governments.

Thanks for this post. It was the only post that I read that honestly seemed to try to answer the original question.

It was my understanding though that communism (at least the form of communism practiced by the former Soviet Union) was only partially in line with Marxism. I remember a teacher telling me that of the 10 major precepts of Marx the Soviet Union followed 5 and the US followed the other 5. But I never followed up on that.

I agree strongly that the meanings of ideologies change with time and for that matter vary from country to country. Chinese communism is completely different from Soviet Union Communism, etc.

It also seems to me that term leftist isn’t a political philosophy at all but a nebulous term that changes. 60 years ago or so ‘leftists’ were against civil rights, and ‘rightest’ were for civil rights for African Americans in the US. Left and right vary from time to time and place to place even more than the political philosophies such as liberal, progressive, conservative, libertarians, etc.

 

[livingwordunity]

Thanks for this post. It was the only post that I read that honestly seemed to try to answer the original question.

It was my understanding though that communism (at least the form of communism practiced by the former Soviet Union) was only partially in line with Marxism. I remember a teacher telling me that of the 10 major precepts of Marx the Soviet Union followed 5 and the US followed the other 5. But I never followed up on that.

I agree strongly that the meanings of ideologies change with time and for that matter vary from country to country. Chinese communism is completely different from Soviet Union Communism, etc.

It also seems to me that term leftist isn’t a political philosophy at all but a nebulous term that changes. 60 years ago or so ‘leftists’ were against civil rights, and ‘rightest’ were for civil rights for African Americans in the US. Left and right vary from time to time and place to place even more than the political philosophies such as liberal, progressive, conservative, libertarians, etc.

All of that ignores the question of whether or not what I quoted describes today’s left. I think what’s in the quotes does describe today’s left perfectly.

 

[Tony_the_mad]

Just for kicks I will propose the following Myers-Briggs type organization of political philosophies. (This is based on a political categorization scheme I saw about 10 years ago. I added the pragmatist vs extremist dimension.) The three dimensions of this categorization scheme are as follows: (The names of the categories are made up since what the heck it is my scheme , but I think they describe the general relationship between eight different political philosophies. ) .

Pragmatist vs. Extremists
Pragmatist favor working through the system and in particularly respecting democratic principles no matter what the cost. Pragmatists are not always right; they for instance would gladly keep millions of people enslaved in order to preserve the Union.

Extremists have a ‘By all means necessary philosophy’ and may be necessary in the short run but often lead to dictatorships in the long run.

Capitalists vs Unionists
These are the ‘class warriors’. With capitalists on the side of individualism in the use of wealth and the unionists are in favor of protecting the weak from the strong at least in terms of wealth.

Moralists vs Relativists
These are the ‘culture warriors’. Moralists believe that government should at some level encourage or enforce cultural norms such as being against gay marriage and abortion. Relativists believe that government should butt out of all moral affairs. Like all of these categories most people and philosophies are a mixture of both maybe favoring regulation for some moral categories but not for others.

With that overly long introduction let me explain the difference in my oh so humble opinion not only between socialists and communists but of 6 other political categories as a bonus .

Communist (EUM)
Communists favor government control of morals and of economy and do so with a by all means necessary attitude.

Socialists (EUR)
Socialists favor government control of the economy but have an individualists view of morals. The also have a tendency of favoring a ‘by all means necessary philosophy’.

Fascists (ECM)
Fascists favor capitalism or at least allow it but want government control of culture and morals by all means necessary.

Anarchists (ECR)
Anarchist favor no regulation and the complete destruction of government as the only means possible to achieve it.

The pragmatic versions of these four are as follows.

Liberals (PUM)
Liberals believe that government has a role both in morals and in regulating the economy, but critically also believe that it should do so through democratic means.

Progressives (PUR)
Progressives believe that government should regulate the economy but stay out of personal morality. They are the pragmatic/democratic version of the socialists.

Conservatives (PCM)
Conservatives believe that government should fight the culture wars but stay out of the class wars. They are the pragmatic/democratic version of the fascists.

Libertarians (PCR)
Libertarians believe that government should protect all personal freedoms even if those freedoms are used by individuals to hurt themselves and others. They are the pragmatic/democratic version of the anarchists and differ in that the believe in some function of government in some limited cases where one person freedom directly harms another’s freedom and other basic functions of government such as firefighting, etc.

The short summary of all of this is the communists believe in some sort of government enforcement of morality/culture while socialists are more moral relativists. (If you are inclined to argue about communist carrying about morality remember that while the communist Soviet Union favored an atheistic morality it is not the only form of communism.)

The term leftist to my mind is useless since it varies from era to era and place to place but if you force me to chose I would suggest all of the ‘unionists’ philosophies can fairly safely be said to be on the left while all of the ‘capitalists’ philosophies can be fairly safely to be said to be on the right. Both ‘sides’ include ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ points of view.

Any way that is my very non-rigorous point of view.

By the way if someone has a better name for the antithesis of Capitalist, I would appreciate it. I tried Regulationalists but R was already taken .

 

[livingwordunity]

Tony the mad,

Would you mind addressing what was actually quoted in the OP and second post? Tell me what part of those quotes you believe doesn’t describe today’s left.

 

[ishii]

“Ev’rybody’s talkin’ 'bout
Bagism, Shagism, Dragism, Madism, Ragism, Tagism
This-ism, that-ism, ism ism ism
All we are saying is give peace a chance”

A Lennonist.

 

[Hobbes42]

Just for kicks I will propose the following Myers-Briggs type organization of political philosophies. (This is based on a political categorization scheme I saw about 10 years ago. I added the pragmatist vs extremist dimension.) The three dimensions of this categorization scheme are as follows: (The names of the categories are made up since what the heck it is my scheme , but I think they describe the general relationship between eight different political philosophies. ) .

Pragmatist vs. Extremists
Pragmatist favor working through the system and in particularly respecting democratic principles no matter what the cost. Pragmatists are not always right; they for instance would gladly keep millions of people enslaved in order to preserve the Union.

Extremists have a ‘By all means necessary philosophy’ and may be necessary in the short run but often lead to dictatorships in the long run.

Capitalists vs Unionists
These are the ‘class warriors’. With capitalists on the side of individualism in the use of wealth and the unionists are in favor of protecting the weak from the strong at least in terms of wealth.

Moralists vs Relativists
These are the ‘culture warriors’. Moralists believe that government should at some level encourage or enforce cultural norms such as being against gay marriage and abortion. Relativists believe that government should butt out of all moral affairs. Like all of these categories most people and philosophies are a mixture of both maybe favoring regulation for some moral categories but not for others.

With that overly long introduction let me explain the difference in my oh so humble opinion not only between socialists and communists but of 6 other political categories as a bonus .

Communist (EUM)
Communists favor government control of morals and of economy and do so with a by all means necessary attitude.

Socialists (EUR)
Socialists favor government control of the economy but have an individualists view of morals. The also have a tendency of favoring a ‘by all means necessary philosophy’.

Fascists (ECM)
Fascists favor capitalism or at least allow it but want government control of culture and morals by all means necessary.

Anarchists (ECR)
Anarchist favor no regulation and the complete destruction of government as the only means possible to achieve it.

The pragmatic versions of these four are as follows.

Liberals (PUM)
Liberals believe that government has a role both in morals and in regulating the economy, but critically also believe that it should do so through democratic means.

Progressives (PUR)
Progressives believe that government should regulate the economy but stay out of personal morality. They are the pragmatic/democratic version of the socialists.

Conservatives (PCM)
Conservatives believe that government should fight the culture wars but stay out of the class wars. They are the pragmatic/democratic version of the fascists.

Libertarians (PCR)
Libertarians believe that government should protect all personal freedoms even if those freedoms are used by individuals to hurt themselves and others. They are the pragmatic/democratic version of the anarchists and differ in that the believe in some function of government in some limited cases where one person freedom directly harms another’s freedom and other basic functions of government such as firefighting, etc.

The short summary of all of this is the communists believe in some sort of government enforcement of morality/culture while socialists are more moral relativists. (If you are inclined to argue about communist carrying about morality remember that while the communist Soviet Union favored an atheistic morality it is not the only form of communism.)

The term leftist to my mind is useless since it varies from era to era and place to place but if you force me to chose I would suggest all of the ‘unionists’ philosophies can fairly safely be said to be on the left while all of the ‘capitalists’ philosophies can be fairly safely to be said to be on the right. Both ‘sides’ include ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ points of view.

Any way that is my very non-rigorous point of view.

By the way if someone has a better name for the antithesis of Capitalist, I would appreciate it. I tried Regulationalists but R was already taken .

Whoa!
Slow down there boss!

If you take a gander at Fascism (not the term bandied about nowadays by empty heads) in its doctrine, you’ll find that Fascism also means that the state controls the economy as well. It’s definitely not a lower right on an XY axi.

 

[St_Francis]

Yes.A communist admits what he is.

Many Communists have hidden their allegiance in order to infiltrate other groups and bring them further left.

As to the original question, there are leftist who have different goals. The similarity comes in because they tend to help each other out a lot so they sometimes seem to share goals.

As an example of differences, consider the division between various leftist groups when their goals conflict.

 

[Tony_the_mad]

Whoa!
Slow down there boss!

If you take a gander at Fascism (not the term bandied about nowadays by empty heads) in its doctrine, you’ll find that Fascism also means that the state controls the economy as well. It’s definitely not a lower right on an XY axi.

Why should I slow down? I have never let my ignorance stop a good argument before.

On a more serious note, that post was meant to be semi-whimsical. It was thrown together as what physicists call a Gedanken (or thought experiment). If my definition of fascism being wrong was the only problem with it I would be ecstatic. I suspect that every thing in it is at least slightly off.

My understanding was that while Nazi Germany much like the US has some things nationalized it also permitted some Capitalism where it was convenient. It seems, to me to be very similar to ‘communist’ China. (I don’t claim to be an expert, I am only telling you where I came from.) Nazism is not the only form of fascism, I know.

If I wanted to be serious about this I would have to study history and political science a lot more, but my experience as a scientists leads me to strongly believe that each of these political philosophies are not just points in this 3d space but a Venn diagram in many more dimensions with much more overlap than any one expects.

What I really wanted to accomplish with that post was to show:

1. Politics is not just a right/left thing, but is in multiple dimensions
2. Communism really is different from socialism and the left is much more broad than both of them.
3. That it is possible with some thought to try and make some sense of all the bewildering array of political philosophies by including multiple dimensions.
4. There are overlap of the various political philosophies including uncomfortable overlaps. Every good philosophy can with a minor tweak be converted into a similar evil one and vice versa. There are good and bad things about every political philosophy.

I just MAY, (MAY I tell you) have went a little overboard with being a little too specific about things I am only making reasonable guesses about and about pulling too much detail from lets say a warm and dark place.

I will never admit to any of that of course, because after all I am mad (the crazy kind of mad).