Not sure if it is impossible but given that left wing politics is about equality and egalitarianism a regime like Stalin's did no more than paying lip service to this. It was in fact nothing more than a far right, fascist, authoritarian, dictatorship which only pretended to have the peoples' interests at heart.
General Election 2024
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
- Status
Not sure if it is impossible but given that left wing politics is about equality and egalitarianism a regime like Stalin's did no more than paying lip service to this. It was in fact nothing more than a far right, fascist, authoritarian, dictatorship which only pretended to have the peoples' interests at heart.
There were many communist regimes in Eastern Europe and beyond that were exactly the same so Stalin's Russia was not an anomaly. Hence why I said that left wing politicians tend to go mental when in power because they have a one track mind.
But none of those were left wing by any meaningful metric either. All authoritarian dictatorships with no actual equality involved. Adding the word socialist to a countries title doesn't make it so.
And other than that guy that came to power without an election 102 years ago and was pretty crazy from the get go, what would the other most recent examples be?
It's impossible to have true equality and egalitarianism unless you dissolve the concept of governmental structures, in which case you're probably looking at anarcho-communism which is wholly unrealistic as a concept.
I don't see Left-right wing as authoritarian/democratic/dictatorship concept, otherwise the whole model breaks down.
People see Libertarianism as far-right extremist, but also see Nazism as the same, and clearly they are two very different models from a governmental control perspective.
To me, the distinction is more economic and social policies that revolve around state managed economies vs market economies, the role of religion and spirituality, the role of individualism vs collective, and the dealings of private accumulation of wealth in industry and enterprise.
No definition of right wing ideologies call for authoritarianism either, it just ends up that way because of the lack of proper framework on how power should be distributed results in a vaccum of one party taking ultimate control. The same exists for Communism and far left ideologies.
If you read Marx/Engels work on this topic, as well as Mussolini's work on Fascism, you find that both sides neglect heavily on how the power framework should be managed and how transitions of power should be handled.
Communist China is a very interesting one.
It operates a Fascist pseudo-capitalistic economic model combined with an entirely Communist political system.
But there have been many far-left cranks in power that have resulted in absurd outcomes:
Pol-Pot, Ho Chi Minh and my personal favourite, that African guy whose name I remember who made it a death penalty for wearing glasses.
Tito was actually quite reasonable of the far lefties.
Right wing is inherently authoritarian because it is about the individual succeeding to the detriment of everyone else. Dictatorship is the natural conclusion of such thinking. Libertarians are just bringing the dictatorship down the scale a bit so they can be dictators of what they consider their own domain.
We don't have any real left wing governments to give as examples. We really only have central politics with some socialists bits and pieces thrown in. But it is hard to think of a government that is meaningfully left wing.
It sounded like you were talking about the present. So stalin... yeah.
From a social-economic perspective there are loads of historical examples. It just never ended up well though.
Look at Pol-Pot. He decided to really hammer down the equality side by giving everyone nothing, disbanding currency, dismantling towns and sending the populations to the countryside to all be collective farmers etc.
Far Left is inherently 'authoritarian' too, because if we look at the raw texts of the ideology, you require the absolute maintainance of ideological purity in both systemic structures and macro-behaviors. Ultimately, without control, the system falls apart entirely.
Now the question is how do you reconcile an equal distribution of power with the fact that there needs to be an entity that ensures that the ideological doctrine is maintained.
That's the horseshoe theory i.e you go so far to the extremes one way or another then you get similar outcomes. In other words an authoritarian state. It's also been discounted as a credible theory as there has never been "true" Communism, as that involves a stateless society ran from the bottom up rather than top down. The opposite of authoritarianism (the clue is in the name Communism).
Marx theory was that in order to achieve that in an industrial/capitalist society, the proletariat would need to overthrow the current ruling class and establish a "dictatorship of the proletariat" as an interim step in order to reconstruct society so that communism could be established.
All kinds of problems with that theory but the two key ones for the revolutionaries are that unless all capitalist states are overthrown, then the remaining ones will use all their resources to crush you before their ruling classes are overthrown in the same way. The other is bad actors that gain power under this "dictatorship of the proletariat" and not wanting to relinquish it. They gain control of it and make it a permanent thing. Stalin is a prime example.
Last edited:
But none of that was really left wing despite the blah blah blah. I'm not denying that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, just that left wing in any meaningful way doesn't really exists any more (if it ever did) and right wing (separate from current political parties who are or we consider right wing) is inherently dictatorial in nature but varies in application.
And another one.
Gurinder Singh Josan just announced as candidate for Smethick.
Hes another NEC disciplinary panel member who now has a seat of his own. Its just astonishing how coincidentally, all the people involved in running down the selection process until there is no time for CLPs to choose, are the same people choosing each other to be candidates in safe labour seats.
Everyone is entitled to vote for whoever they want of course, but never pretend these guys are in it for you. Because they are not.
Gurinder Singh Josan just announced as candidate for Smethick.
Hes another NEC disciplinary panel member who now has a seat of his own. Its just astonishing how coincidentally, all the people involved in running down the selection process until there is no time for CLPs to choose, are the same people choosing each other to be candidates in safe labour seats.
Everyone is entitled to vote for whoever they want of course, but never pretend these guys are in it for you. Because they are not.
Doesn't look good at all, I agree.
I notice from recent selections that being brown doesn't seem to matter too much after all. I doubt it will stop the cheap allegations from the usual suspects on here though, they will no doubt continue.
Starmer declines to say whether he wants Diane Abbott to run for election
Labour leader Keir Starmer has declined to say whether he wants Diane Abbott to run as a Labour candidate in next month’s election, while repeating that she has not been formally barred by the Labour party.
Speaking to BBC Radio Scotland, he told listeners “Diane Abbott has had the whip returned to her, no decision has been taken to bar her from standing and the NEC will come to a decision in due course.”
Asked if he would like her to be a candidate, Starmer added: “Ultimately, that will be a matter for the NEC but no decision has been taken.”
Shadow science secretary Peter Kyle was asked about the situation while appearing on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme, and said:
This looks like Abbott won't be selected.
Labour leader Keir Starmer has declined to say whether he wants Diane Abbott to run as a Labour candidate in next month’s election, while repeating that she has not been formally barred by the Labour party.
Speaking to BBC Radio Scotland, he told listeners “Diane Abbott has had the whip returned to her, no decision has been taken to bar her from standing and the NEC will come to a decision in due course.”
Asked if he would like her to be a candidate, Starmer added: “Ultimately, that will be a matter for the NEC but no decision has been taken.”
Shadow science secretary Peter Kyle was asked about the situation while appearing on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme, and said:
Pressed on whether he was suggesting that Abbott wasn’t fit to stand as an MP again, Kyle said:
Martin Forde KC has also spoken to the BBC about the row surrounding her selection. He told listeners:
---
This looks like Abbott won't be selected.
Some of it is racism. The forde report states clearly that the abuse of Diane abbot was rooted in racist tropes, but its mostly factional stuff. The labour right have always had one focus, not just under starmer, but at all times, and that is attacking the labour left. Its all they really know how to do.
Starmer is surrounded by them, and hes only been a party member for 10 years, and an MP for 9. There are real problems with some of his choices, but here I think its more his political inexperience, allowing these people to take control of the narrative.
Its important too, more important than internal fighting.
We have just witnessed what happens when a bunch of equally corrupt people get the levers of power. You get michelle mone making hundreds of millions and then leaving the country.
People that would behave like this lot are, so openly, will be just as bad given the opportunity. Remember, luke akehurst could be an MP for 30+ years as a result of this. Does anyone think this lot would not skim as much as they can?
With the energy company being an investment in private business, openly saying they want more private involvment in NHS and so on, their own policies create a space for wild, unfettered corruption. A space that people this blatantly dodgy will take full advantage of.
They are going to win the election by default. The sensible approach would be to keep that majority to a minimum and hope some of these smaller parties and independents can at least hold them to account a bit.
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...g-black-figures-criticise-labour-diane-abbott
Open letter says party’s inability to make a decision on Abbott’s future is example of systemic racism
Leading Black British actors, professors, authors and broadcasters have urged Labour to “rectify and reverse” the “disrespectful” treatment of Diane Abbott or risk losing the backing of the party’s most loyal supporters.
But nah, no racism here folks, just cheap allegations from the usual lot causing trouble.
Open letter says party’s inability to make a decision on Abbott’s future is example of systemic racism
Leading Black British actors, professors, authors and broadcasters have urged Labour to “rectify and reverse” the “disrespectful” treatment of Diane Abbott or risk losing the backing of the party’s most loyal supporters.
But nah, no racism here folks, just cheap allegations from the usual lot causing trouble.
Starmer took questions after his speech on green energy in Scotland. Here is GB News contribution:
Chris Hope of GB News asks Keir Starmer “What if the wind stops blowing? Will the lights turn off?”
Chris Hope of GB News asks Keir Starmer “What if the wind stops blowing? Will the lights turn off?”
I think some of their focus is on winning elections rather than just sticking it to the left wing of the party.
I was a memeber of labour when kinnock said that too.
It was a lie then, and it is now. The people that rise to the top of the labour right define themselves by their hatred of the labour left. They happily trashed the party in 2017, an election labour could have won, because the man at the top was the manifestation of everything they hate.
It's good that the people on the left of the party seem able to rise above that this year...
Every bit of this stuff is self-inflicted by the labour right, and starmer for allowing it.
You get this right? That it is the people giving each other safe seats that are the problem, not those pointing out that it is a problem.
I think you're being a bit blind to things, to be honest.
They hold every aspect of power in the party. No one is forcing them to do this. No one made them treat Diane Abbot like they have, or suprious candidate rejections to make way for them to put themselves in these seats.
It is all on the people in control of the party.
There is no one on the left with any influence in labour operations any more. None at all.
Some of the selections would say otherwise, Akehurst is just one notable example but he's already lost in two attempts to become an MP. He has ridiculous baggage given how outspoken he is on social media.
There just isn't an objective case for him being selected on merit or standards. The NEC has always been a battle ground for factionalism and unfortunately it's at the heart of a lot of decisions. Starmer in this has very limited control.
Some of the selections may be wrong, some of the de-selections (if you can call it that when the candidates hadn't technically been selected) may be for spurious reasons, sure. My point was in response to the claim that the 'Labour right' have only ever had one focus, that being to get at the 'Labour left' when it seems there is a pretty clear focus on being elected as well. You can forget Starmer and the current situation if you like, but going back to the Blair years (I'm too young to remember a previous Labour government, Thatcher was the first PM I remember) there is a clear focus on winning elections.
I think the factionalism is a fairly severe conceit within the Labour party but it's absolutely a both sides issue.
That makes no sense at all really, does it.
Diane Abbot had the biggest Labour majority in the country. If it was about winning, the surest guaranteed seat they could have was leaving her to represent the same people that voted her in, last time with 30,000+ majority and 80% of the vote, for over 30 years.
Iain Dale has been stood down for the tories. 
The demographics are changing there and I'm pretty sure a lot of people want new blood. I'm often in Hackney and it's changed a lot. Funnily enough London Labour website still has Shaheen as Chingford candidate but no events planned yet for the new selection. I'm going along to see Faiza this evening to hear what she has to say.
- Status