[Preston Cole]

Maas.

Is this to say only those among the left-anarchist and libertarian anarchist camp are truly of the "left"?

Theoretically, the extreme left could stand for the complete abandonment of the state, as communism does, if we take its anti-establishment attitude to its logical extreme. The "true" leftists would be the anarchists, just as the "true" rightists would probably be the Nazis if we take the right's Social Darwinistic sympathies to the extreme. It depends on what traits of the left and right you consider to be most "representative."

Stalinism wasn't really that much to the "right" of Leninism. It was a weird combination of Marxian theory coupled with informal nationalism and formal internationalism practiced by an ugly class-repressive materialist apparatus. The right-most Marxist current would probably be National Bolshevism.

[Far-Right Sage]

just as the "true" rightists would probably be the Nazis if we take the right's Social Darwinistic sympathies to the extreme. It depends on what traits of the left and right you consider to be most "representative.

Although some consider the national cause and the state to be moving toward an almost religious and messianic/spiritual duty. Some would consider various interpretations of theocracy to be the logical conclusion of rightist thought. No Fascist state was formally a theocracy although there were certain elements of this which could be discussed in great detail in Showa Japan (I would leave this to Rei), and every folk-state in classic thinking will eventually enjoy a state religion.

[Daktoria]

Stalin ended up siding with the Bolshevik Right. This is different than the Bolshevik Left; though it should be noted that the Bolsheviks in general are to the left of most other politics.

Rather backwards claim. Bukharin sided with Stalin, and was later betrayed.

In any case, the Bolshevik Right seems to be the most liberal of the three positions.

[The Immortal Goon]

Rather backwards claim. Bukharin sided with Stalin, and was later betrayed.

It must make you feel really happy to know who Bukharin was. Congratulations.

This said, the KPO pretty much backed Stalin with few minor quibbles. The same cannot be said for the Left Opposition, which was clearly far more at odds with Stalin.

[pretty cool guy]

Some of the Zionist members didn't want to see my name on that list, so I was tied up and gagged in the Basement.

Luckily, some Bulgarian hackers freed me so I could contribute this post and my vote: other

Fight the power, Qatz! No compromise with the bourgeois crypto-zionist PoFo regime!

Stalin ended up siding with the Bolshevik Right. This is different than the Bolshevik Left; though it should be noted that the Bolsheviks in general are to the left of most other politics.

I was under the impression that Marxists rejected the left-right dichotomy as only applying to Liberal politics? Do you say "left" and "right" Bolshevism for the sake of clarity, or is this a division recognized by Marxians generally?

[The Immortal Goon]

It's accepted by Marxists. Check the links for more information.

[Daktoria]

It must make you feel really happy to know who Bukharin was. Congratulations.

This said, the KPO pretty much backed Stalin with few minor quibbles. The same cannot be said for the Left Opposition, which was clearly far more at odds with Stalin.

Did you ever consider that to be why Bukharin allied with Stalin?

Authoritarianism and tradition are the pillars of conservatism. Bukharin had no cultural similarity to Trotsky and his friends, yet Bukharin didn't support Stalin's collectivism either.

Happy? No. Bukharin just traded one dictator for another. Melancholy fits better. If Lenin delegated more to him than just Pravda, he would have been less vulnerable to dying from a stroke. Perhaps under Lenin's leadership, the Soviet Union wouldn't have become such a catastrophe. Perhaps the Germans wouldn't have been a threat either since the communists would have still been motivated. Even Zentrum might have seen hope in Russia with Bukharin still influential.

[The Immortal Goon]

Did you ever consider that to be why Bukharin allied with Stalin?

Authoritarianism and tradition are the pillars of conservatism. Bukharin had no cultural similarity to Trotsky and his friends, yet Bukharin didn't support Stalin's collectivism either.

Happy? No. Bukharin just traded one dictator for another. Melancholy fits better. If Lenin delegated more to him than just Pravda, he would have been less vulnerable to dying from a stroke. Perhaps under Lenin's leadership, the Soviet Union wouldn't have become such a catastrophe. Perhaps the Germans wouldn't have been a threat either since the communists would have still been motivated. Even Zentrum might have seen hope in Russia with Bukharin still influential.

It must make you feel really happy to know who Bukharin was. Congratulations.

This said, the KPO pretty much backed Stalin with few minor quibbles. The same cannot be said for the Left Opposition, which was clearly far more at odds with Stalin.

[Jackal]

Other.

Kasu.

[J Oswald]

Other.

Kasu.

I'm tempted to agree with this.

[Eauz]

How am I on that list? I've never supported the left.

[Smertios]

Dave is a leftist only when you rotate the spectrum

Anyway, I voted for Potemkin just because I feel he is being under-voted. Ingliz and Daft Punk are "more" leftist, in my opinion

[Rei Murasame]

I see people voting for Maas, but Maas is not actually a leftist, he is a liberal dressed in red. Maas is a guy who - in various arguments with me - has asserted the following:

• He thinks finance is vital to the functioning of the world economy and cannot be brought into check.
• He'd like to suppress worker's wages so that he can get a new kitchen put in for less than 2000 Euros. (seriously!)
• He'd like more immigration so that wages will be reduced.
• He thinks banks make the world go round.
• He thinks some regulation of banks is necessary, though. (Oh, is he not merciful? )

When I challenged him on all these, he variously called me a "xenophobic", "racist", "islamophobic", "naive", "socialist", in his retorts.

Maas is about as leftist as Peter Mandelson. Which is to say, not at all.

[Lightman]

Maas is basically the guy Slavoj Zizek is complaining about.

[Alexander]

Maas is the Dutch Igor. That is, a pseudo-left wing power-worshipper with a chip on his shoulder.

[Dave]

Sort of. Igor has an inexplicable hard-on for China and Maas has an inexplicable hard-on for Mohammedans.

[ped2000]

Political parties - a shortcut to thinking

[The Clockwork Rat]

As far as I can tell, Igor appreciates pragmatism.

[Dr House]

As far as I can tell, Igor appreciates anti-americanism.

Fixed it for ya.

[Daktoria]

Igor's a technocrat, not a pragmatist. They're similar, but technocrats don't have much appreciation for labor-intense or artistic tasks.