Which of these two statements sounds more 'left-wing' to you?

[Tooting Carmen]

A sequel to my other thread.

(1) "I want to nationalise and collectivise my country's entire economy".

(2) "I want my country to be so sexually and ethnically diverse that there won't be any majority ethnic group or sexuality".

[Catarinense1998]

Very hard one. I think that the first assumption is closer to a left wing. Nowadays, you do find some people which defend both at the same time. The point is that multiculturalism and sexual freedom are not just left-wing agendas. Real liberals, in defending the freedom of the individual, and considering that he is endowed with natural rights (to seek happiness, to have private property), defends these questions as well. And liberals - true ones - usually are considred center - center-right people. As I have written, not every single feminist or LGBT people is necessarily someone willing to break up with the class society, or agree with added value theory, historical materialism, value theory of labor. I have sure that feminists and lgbt people from middle classes are not the main treats to the actual economic status quo; instead, they just want more tolerance within the society.

But, to nationalise and collectivise the entire economy is a very far left thing. However, some non leftists dictators have nationalised some companies, like Getúlio Vargas in Brazil. Now, collectivize production, as Stalin did in creating the sovkhoses and kolkhoses, you will only find in far-left political regimes. Mao also did the same thing.

Today, the chinese government does consider the chinese multiethnic society as one of the biggest positive factors of chinese society and contry. In cities like Beijing, you cand find a lot of comunist party's slogans exalting - positively - the multi etnhic society. On the other hand, Kim family's regime does consider the ethnic homogeneity of the Korean population as a positive factor in the country's social cohesion. So, there is not a single rule that fits to all cases.

[Tooting Carmen]

Very hard one. I think that the first assumption is closer to a left wing. Nowadays, you do find some people which defend both at the same time. The point is that multiculturalism and sexual freedom are not just left-wing agendas. Real liberals, in defending the freedom of the individual, and considering that he is endowed with natural rights (to seek happiness, to have private property), defends these questions as well. And liberals - true ones - usually are considred center - center-right people. As I have written, not every single feminist or LGBT people is necessarily someone willing to break up with the class society, or agree with added value theory, historical materialism, value theory of labor. I have sure that feminists and lgbt people from middle classes are not the main treats to the actual economic status quo; instead, they just want more tolerance within the society.

But, to nationalise and collectivise the entire economy is a very far left thing. However, some non leftists dictators have nationalised some companies, like Getúlio Vargas in Brazil. Now, collectivize production, as Stalin did in creating the sovkhoses and kolkhoses, you will only find in far-left political regimes. Mao also did the same thing.

Today, the chinese government does consider the chinese multiethnic society as one of the biggest positive factors of chinese society and contry. In cities like Beijing, you cand find a lot of comunist party's slogans exalting - positively - the multi etnhic society. On the other hand, Kim family's regime does consider the ethnic homogeneity of the Korean population as a positive factor in the country's social cohesion. So, there is not a single rule that fits to all cases.

The funny thing, however, is that in the modern Western Left, extremely few people except possibly within the communist fringes would ever advocate the first statement, but quite a few mainstream and far leftists alike come close to advocating the second statement.

[Catarinense1998]

The funny thing, however, is that in the modern Western Left, extremely few people except possibly within the communist fringes would ever advocate the first statement, but quite a few mainstream and far leftists alike come close to advocating the second statement.

Left and being leftist vary a lot according to the epoc and social context. Today, I think that the biggest part of the western leftist staff is about fighting for minorities, women, pro multiculturalism, and for economic help provided by the state. Hardcore ortodox comunists like maoists and stalinists dislike a lot this "new left", based on pos modernist ideals. Jean Baudrillard, one of the main post-modernist names, said that it is impossible, or unfeasibile, at the present time, of the permanence of collective projects that seek to overcome the current stage of reality, or the so-called consumer society. So, Comunists have a hard time to make these minorities and feminists follow them.

However, it is now a new thing in the leftist staff. Eric Hobsbawm, a good marxist historian, noted that in the XX century there were three moments of Marxism crisis. The first, in the 1950s, was caused by the emergence of the welfare state (golden age) that placed in the field of liberalism the possibility of a society of democratic expansion of universal rights with an important role of the state. This crisis was not decreed by the difficulties of socialism, on the contrary, socialism proved to be potent and won the war, despite the difficulties that would occur later. The second begins exactly with the crisis of socialism itself in the early 1960s, with the big split in the comunists world (ortodox ones loyal to Maoist China and revisionist ones loyal to Soviet Union). And the third with the collapse of Eastern Europe and the end of the Soviet Union.

[Tooting Carmen]

bump

[coolfrenchguy]

the first one is collectivist,yes for sure it was one of the main line in USSR but i'am pretty sure than if you dig enough you will find in other politicals system similar form
for example in israel the kibboutz were collectivists at there beginning evolving slowly on an other form
but indeed you could to be reasonably left-wing and nationalist or patriot without falling into the path of the national-socialism of adolf hitler,is more a way of protectionism after that,there is many settings to adjust with more or less nationalism or socialism but the idea stay the same of a collective force of work for the interest of all,indeed it's not new,you contribute to the society by a mean,by your ability to do something and in counterpart the society or the cell,the structure redistribute to you under different forms in exchange, protection for example or health care, it was the case in the european middle-age with the vassality,ok there is a ton to write about it,but it was working more or less
but the main core is pretty well established since a while,but at the moment than the capitalist system hydra began put in place by the wealthy merchants of venice,all the previous main core of the feodal collectivism became biased,,falling,creating a disbalance between the richiest and the poorers,loans,debts etc...followed by the different forms of politico-economical systems to the worse and the more equilibrate ,left-wing not completly even it was been and still being the main classes struggle ideology of the left-wing

the second one is more feminazis sjw mindset,indeed the sjw feminazis are not really left-wing, i know pretty well different form of political systems until anarchy,and seen under the strict political science even they share some elements they don't fit completly with jean jaures,for that read or reread jean jaures ,because aside there fights for the lgbtq rights, i haven't heard the usual left-wing criticism of a uncontrolled liberal society and his critic of the financial markets,the extreme poverty(13% in usa)the exploitation of the childrens for example in some parts of the world,like india for ex,things that the real left-wing does amid other criticisms,many writers like thoreau the father of the modern ecology are really forgotten by these fake left-wingers,but if you want ,you could considerate the second more mondialist and more open to some rights,but to my eyes it's just a bunch of opportunists and completly unconnected with the strikes of the end of the 19th century,early 20th,in europe and in usa

but towards the actual climax saying than the second could be considered more "left-wing" camouflage,but if you scatch well you'll see more a liberal mindset disguised with the clothes of socialism;without any form of animosity against anyone,but, ok you want sex-change,right what is the coast of a total transformation,very expensive,it's more capitalist-liberal oriented by the way of a bank loan or whatever(i know i said bullshits on purpose) than left-wing castrist mindset where you should work like a pig for a miserable salary for the good of the collectivity, in a castrist society,your forget your bimbo boobs and your siliconised lips,and your sexual preferences are even criminalised,ok the extremier forms of socialism were machist,patriarcal, viril ,"male" ,and certainly not feminist as we heard since some years

[The Lawspeaker]

2. 1. is a position that can be held by patriots who do not want to seek the wealth of the nation being plundered to serve foreign interests.

[Bakha]

Left wing is a broad term. So I would say the first sentence sounds radically socialistic, like a classical socialism doctrine we have seen in the Soviet Union. That doctrine was based on economic Marxism. 2nd sentence is purely 21st century degenerative sjw Frankfurt school cultural-marxistic. As obvious, cultural-marxism is based on cultural socialistic degradation of capitalist society as their primary method to destroy capitalism.

[Tooting Carmen]

2. 1. is a position that can be held by patriots who do not want to seek the wealth of the nation being plundered to serve foreign interests.

Most patriots wouldn't advocate a wholesale collectivised command economy though - just certain key industries and services being in public ownership.

[The Blade]

Second one by far, as no right wing person or even a centrist would say it. It is totally disgraceful, by the way.