That's why I cited an objective, historical definition of leftism: so that I can say that no, the people you're talking about are not leftists, because they don't fit this definition. They may call themselves leftists, but that doesn't make it so, any more than Hitler calling himself a socialist, Stalin calling himself a communist, or North Korea calling itself a democratic people's republic makes it so.

The same goes for religion, by the way. Thumping the Bible doesn't make you a Christian. Loving thy neighbor does.

[–] chomskysfave5@lemmy.film 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You're preoccupied with this French revolutionary definition of leftism as the ultimate sieve for what makes a leftist and I'm trying to make a point that today's leftism is a movement that isn't capable of self-criticism because it's become a religious movement as opposed to a political one. Things change, we don't live in revolutionary France.

I feel like we're talking past each other here... I wish the vulkan mind meld was a real thing so we can actually get somewhere with this.

[–] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

You’re preoccupied with this French revolutionary definition of leftism as the ultimate sieve for what makes a leftist

Yes, because that was before the likes of Stalin and Mao tried to appropriate the term “leftism” for their own selfish purposes.

I’m trying to make a point that today’s leftism is a movement that isn’t capable of self-criticism because it’s become a religious movement as opposed to a political one.

I'm trying to make a point that those are fake leftists.

The disagreement, as I understand it, is this: when a person wearing a label of virtue acts contrary to that label, you believe that corrupts the label, whereas I believe that makes the person unworthy of the label and refuse to recognize the person as having the label.