There is a noticeable aspect of the language used when the people protest against a left-wing dictator like Lukashenko: You won’t see him identified as left-wing.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
Samizdata quote of the dayAugust 16th, 2020 |
 33 comments to Samizdata quote of the day |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
Well I’m told by the Sage of Kettering that Mr Lukashenko was a Collective Farm manager before he became President, so that makes him right-wing and a Nazi to boot, after all the Nazis kept the Collective Farms when they invaded, and they probably appointed him in the first place, what’s age got to do with it? We now know that Mr Putin has been around for a century – https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3361468/Evidence-suggests-Vladimir-Putin-immortal-thanks-Russians-discovering-secret-time-travel.html- so there’s a precedent for the President.
And Burma, d’ya ever see anyone in the media refer to the former military Junta as socialist in inspiration? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burmese_Way_to_Socialism#:~:text=The%20Burmese%20Way%20to%20Socialism%20was%20characterized%20by,in%20Asia%20into%20one%20of%20the%20world%27s%20poorest.
On a serious note, whilst Belarus is, to all appearances, a sclerotic socialist dictatorship, the President has stood against the Covid-terror in a way that makes him seem an outpost of reason in a sinking World, that is how bad it has got.
That is noticeable, what with Lukashenko being a top-right authoritarian right-wing populist dictator and stuff, that no-one’s described as being left-wing. It’s very oddm what with him not being one.
neonsnake, he is essentially a soviet remnant, complete with an actual KGB.
Perry – agreed. as best as I can tell.
So, the correct thing to be protesting against is to identify him as a terribly statist, authoritarian dictator. (who happens to lean right, in his terrible statism and dictatorship)
What does “lean right” even mean? Is he a bit Thatcherite? A fan of the Chicago Boys? Something of a Monetarist? Fiscal Conservative? Rule of Law advocate? Prone to quote Acton?
For me, it means someone that supports existing hierarchies, without challenging them (as per the original meaning of “right”), eg. the monarchy, the landowners (after the enclosures, etc).
I get that not everyone agrees with that view, but that’s ok.
For me, it means those that support the state-supported monopoly on land, banking, credit, IP, patents and security. Particularly, on security.
As I see it, both the top left and top right are morally and logically wrong. Top-Left less so, but historically, the tankies are wrong. The top-right are obviously both morally and logically wrong.
The bottom right are morally…questionable…depending on who you speak to But! sometimes Morally absolutely sound!!!
Some are really good guys, some, clearly are not. But they’re logically wrong. You can’t have capitalism” and “free markets”. They’re not compatible.
The two are logically inconsistent, so the only guys that end being both morally and logically correct, are the bottom left.
What does “lean right” mean to you?
So then the abortive 1991 Soviet coup d’état attempting to preserve the centralised Soviet Union was presumably “right wing”?
For me “lean right” either means nothing meaningful whatsoever (usually) or it means tilted towards common law classical liberalism based on severalty & rule of law.
Leftists in the media have managed to redefine “right wing” as “anything we don’t like”. Good socialists magically make the transition to the right as they fall out of favor.
(I don’t seem to able to quote stuff, so…)
Sure. In 1991, I was 14. Pretty sure my entire concentration was trying to get into Sally or Andrew’s pants.
After that, of course, yes. I’m aware that a lot of people have misread Locke, Smith etc, as being in favour of, uh, “severality”. Of course, even if that reading was a good faith correct reading, they’d still be wrong. Tucker, Proudhon, Saint Simon, even Henry George, are much closer to a more correct reading of “severality” than the bastardised, fictionalised version of Locke/Smith were.
(Smith and Locke were both of the left at least in terms of land use, which was the only monopoly relevant at the time. Potentially also in their antipathy to mercantilism)
Neonsnake – being ‘of the left’ in the UK context has meant ‘state ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange’ to most people, since the early 1900s, no? How is that consistent with either free markets or capitalism (and how are they inherently contradictory, or do you have a different definition of capitalism to me?)
As regards the original post- isn’t this just more ‘no true scotsman’ stuff?
Prior to the 1900s, didn’t classical liberals advocate for free trade while the landed gentry and the Tories in Parliament often fought it – often but not always? Disraeli ‘dishing (not fisting, thanks autocorrect…) the whigs’
In neonsnake’s world leftist immediately become rightists once they achieve power, because from then on they are supporting the existing hierarchy, themselves. Similarly the former rightist become leftists, since they are challenging the existing hierarchy.
“Leftists in the media have managed to redefine “right wing” as “anything we don’t like”. Good socialists magically make the transition to the right as they fall out of favor.”
Rightists define “left wing” as “anything we don’t like” too. Everyone does that.
For example, is radical Islam left wing or right wing? It’s religious, traditionalist, has a rigid moral code, opposes social liberalism, dislikes tax collectors, is sexist, homophobic, insists on maintaining traditional family structures and social hierarchies… It’s classic right-wing authoritarian in its attitudes. But we associate it with the left, because we don’t like it.
Mostly they’re just labels to distinguish “us” from “them”.
“Neonsnake – being ‘of the left’ in the UK context has meant ‘state ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange’ to most people, since the early 1900s, no?”
No, not universally. This is the problem Neonsnake is referring to – political divisions occur along more than one axis, and there are a whole range of policies and positions that have at various times been associated with either the ‘left’ or ‘right’. So, for example, a lot of people I know associate ‘the left’ primarily with support for the welfare state and the NHS. They regard all that talk about ‘ownership of the means of production’ as solely for the ideological extremists of the ‘far left’, and most people who think of themselves as ‘on the left’ have no truck with it.
Politics is a maze of constantly shifting definitions, and half of political difference is just people with different definitions talking past one another. ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ depend on what period in history you’re talking about (and even in the 20th century, Arthur Scargill’s ‘Left’ was very different to Tony Blair’s), and who you’re talking to.
“(and how are they inherently contradictory, or do you have a different definition of capitalism to me?)”
A lot of people think of ‘capitalism’ in terms of protectionism, exploitation of the poor, callous and selfish profit-hungry greed – the stereotype. While I’d define it as allowing the means of production to be owned by people other than the producers, most people wouldn’t know what that meant. We all have our own definitions.
That is because Blair was a fascist ( private means of production, big government direction of private individuals, but would allow some free market methods because it brought nice tax revenue), Scargill was closer to traditional Communist with a preference for government ownership of production and big government direction. Both lefties.
The right wing on the other hand gave up religion and economic freedom and now has nothing left but worship of government……
Nullius – just please go away. You are just messing about (as you always do) and I do not believe I am the only one who is tired of your constant trolling.
Mr Blair may indeed have been more moderate than Arthur S. but that does not mean that the definition of “left” or “left wing” had changed – it had not changed. Nor was being a leftist a 100 years ago fundamentally different from being a leftist now. Nor a 150 years ago – people understood what the uprising in Paris was, it was not really just anti Napoleon III – it was leftist, i.e. it was both hostile to large scale private property in the means of production (a moderate leftist seeks to ever increase regulations, a more extreme leftist seeks to get rid of large scale privately owned farms, factories and so on) and hostile to the social (cultural) basis of such a private property based society – hostile to the family (the Fabians were attacking that long before the Frankfurt School did) and all other cultural institutions and traditions upon which private property based society is based.
It is true that 200 years ago a few free market people insisted on calling themselves “on the left” (Frederick Bastiat even sat on the left hand side of the French National Assembly – amongst all the socialists), but this was a silly gesture – and was known to be so. Saying “the left say they stand for liberty, I stand for liberty – therefore I am on the left” leaves out that what the left mean by “freedom” (and what the left have always meant by freedom – even during the French Revolution 250 years ago) is freedom to LOOT.
LOOTING, taking the stuff of other people or organisations, is key to the left – whether it is done by the state (redistributive taxation) or by mobs (such as “Black Lives Matter”) is the basic foundational principle of the left.
Whether it is a National Socialist stealing wedding rings, or a Jacobin robbing a Church, this is what being a leftist is about.
And what they can not steal – the extreme left DESTROYS, on the grounds of “if we can not have it – no one will have it”. Hence “Black Lives Matter” who burn what they can not loot.
You know all this Nullius – you know it very well, and you are pretending you do not know. This is why I am politely asking you to please go away.
Mr Ed – I know you are being sarcastic, but the danger of sarcasm, when dealing with a population that has been so indoctrinated, is that the words are taken literally.
Your last paragraph (on a serious note….) is very good.
Perry – the examples of the twisting of language, in order to twist the perception of reality, are extreme and constant.
Take the example of Amazon’s “Jack Ryan” series.
One of the enemies of “Jack Ryan” is the government of Venezuela, and Venezuela is correctly shown as a land of hunger and misery.
However, in Amazon’s version of the universe the government of Venezuela is CONSERVATIVE – and socialism is the answer to the problems of Venezuela. They INVERT REALITY – not just on Venezuela, on everything.
Amazon is owed by Jeff Bezos – the richest man in the world. He made his money BEFORE Amazon started pushing socialism
Why does Mr Bezos do this (and no one say “he does not know” – of course he knows, just as he knows the total evil that the “Washington Post” spits every day – and he owns that as well). Why does Mr Bezos do this? Why?
And it is not just Mr Bezos – it is almost every large Corporation on the planet.
They are all pushing evil (objective evil – which does not change with time or place – contrary to the lies of Relativists), they are destroying the very society that has enabled them to live in such comfort.
Why? Why are they doing it? Why are people such as Mr Bezos destroying the world that has allowed them to live so well?
What is their motive? And do not tell me it is “to make money” – the entertainment industry knows that pushing leftist doctrines does NOT increase profit margins (rather the contrary).
They are pushing Collectivism out of PRINCIPLE – Satanic principle, but principle.
But WHY?
Why are they working so hard to destroy the world? Why?
Au contraire, Nullius, we recognise radical Islam as having an obvious conflict with the proclaimed beliefs of its PC protectors and we from time to time point that out. It is routine on the right to remark that the left would find living under Sharia law peculiarly offensive in its public stance (not just in reality, as living under Stalin would have been to them). It is routine on the right to remark that if the PC were sincere, they would repeatedly be uttering ‘islamophobic hate speech’ themselves.
We are well able to grasp these not very subtle distinctions. We can laugh at “Real Housewives of ISIS” – and at the PC’s dislike of the sketch.
I suspect Lukashenko doesn’t buy into feminism, gay and trans rights, black lives matters, abolishing borders, ‘human rights’ and all the other associated hobby horses of the western left. Therefore despite his economic Brezhnevism the western left don’t like him.
I wish the Belarusian people good luck in removing him. In doing so I hope they keep their borders closed to western ngos, think tanks, mass media, World Bank and IMF types etc.Because these people just export garbage and poison societies.
Kudos to the admin – I can quote!
Jon – Yes. I do agree. I think it’s inarguable (much to my distress!) that that’s the commonly held definition of “of the left” (I’m unclear about the timings, I suspect it’s probably later, but it doesn’t detract from your greater point in any way).
However – I would assert, with some confidence, that a majority of people believe that the political spectrum has only one axis – left to right.
Social liberals sit on the left, social conservatives on the right. Before anyone starts, I’m talking about “stereotypes”.
Fiscally, the more “free market types” are stereotypically considered of the right, no? And *state* ownership of production is “of the left” – precisely as you say, in common parlance, and in common thought. I 100% agree.
I assert – and most people here understand this, I’m doing a bit “suck eggs”, I know – that the political spectrum has two axes. I normally use the Political Compass when demonstrating, as it’s easier for the, uh, uninitiated to grasp.
But. What seems to happen is that people *still* think that there’s only two positions – but now it’s bottom-right or top-left. The extreme of the bottom right would be Anarcho-Capitalists. The extreme of the top left would be the Stalinist, the Maoists. “Tankies”, in colloquial terms, referring to the tendency to “send in the tanks” from the ultra-authoritarians.
(I won’t go into it now, unless asked to clarify, but my disdain for the top-left is…not small)
In terms of capitalism/free markets – yes, we all have different definitions.
I’ve come to realise that I’m an extremist in terms of free markets. I want no tariffs. I want no state protection for IP. I want no state-protected protectionism whatsoever (I’d be prepared to have a discussion on the *order* in which to remove those protections, in order to preserve human life and dignity, but that’s another story).
If you are saying that capitalism is the freedom for one person to trade with another, free from any state interference – then I support your definition of capitalism, and also the thing itself.
However, I assert that what we “call” capitalism is not that – I assert that it’s tied up with rules, regulations, interferences from the state, that *prevent* two people from doing that, unless you have the required certificates, the registered patents.
Further, I assert that because of all of this, these statist permissions, the owners of capital, who have lobbied for all of this, are increasing inequality. If the state protections were removed, then…well…they’d have to perform actually productive labour, wouldn’t they? Instead of living off of rent-seeking, usury etc.
Now imagine removing those protections – what would happen? Well, the workers (not the state!) would own the means of production. This would translate into efficiences, lower costs, etc etc. Meanwhile, the workers would approach earning the full product of their labour, and would be able to circulate that money into the economy. Costs would come down, for everyone, and we’d “approach” a more equitable way of life.
“Severality” would cease to be an issue. It would naturally disappear, as people learned to perform productive work, instead of earning off the work of others.
The “best” of the bottom-rightists believe that if you protect property rights, then you protect people (in particular, the most vulnerable). Those folk, they’re the “Sometimes! Aboslutely morally sound!” that I referred to up above.
That’s certainly the position of Thomas Sowell – that property rights are most valuable to people with little property, and are least needed by those with much property, because the rich can buy the protection they need and can survive the losses a theft imposes. And, of course, the general anti-economic effect of higher crime rates, like that of any other downturn or disaster, hits the poor most because they are nearest the margins.
As regards the OP quote, Thomas Sowell once joked about the MSM’s incessant talk about the far right and never the far left (from memory, probably not word-perfect):
Some time commentator on Samizdata replied to one of NiVs comments, that it was classic ‘whatabout fuckery’ ( or words to that effect). Good to see, some people are reliable.
I occasionally wonder how you, NiV actually arrive at a decision, about … anything.
But again you are incorrect. ‘radical Islam’ is not ‘classic right-wing’, it is classic totalitarian.
You associate Islam with the left, I don’t. And it might be worth pointing out here, that it is people who might be considered ‘on the left’ who have allied themselves ( or, think they have allied themselves ) with Islam.
Islam of course, holds a different attitude to such people.
Once again, No. You might do that, but many don’t.
Speaking for myself, I don’t like Islam because it is an expansionist, immoral, aggressive, murderous ideology.
I also oppose ‘the left’ because it is an expansionist, immoral, aggressive murderous ideology.
But I understand the two are different threats.
Islam is not “on the left” (or indeed on the right) in any useful meaningful way. In truth, I don’t think I have ever met anyone face-to-face who puts Islam anywhere on the left-right spectrum (as indeed they should not).
I’m only passingly familiar with Sowell, and probably all of that is via other people quoting him, so I’m second-guessing his motives; but if his defense of property is motivated by the “little guy”s right to his house, tools, shop, (and toothbrush 😉 ) etc, then I agree with him.
That was how I took NiV’s statement – it’s associated with the “left” because it’s stereotypically the “left” who stand up for Muslims? Rather than the ideology itself being one or the other (or neither). Perhaps I misunderstood, though.
neonsnake: “it’s associated with the “left” because it’s stereotypically the “left” who stand up for Muslims?”
Or, it’s the ‘left’ that actually classify Muslims as victims in need of assistance? Either way, Islam ( the doctrine ) and adherents to the ‘radical Islamic doctrine’, are happy for them to do so, as it provides a ready made fracture in Western society to shove their prise bar in and lever hard.
neonsnake: “stereotypically the “left” who stand up for Muslims?”
Thinks of Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell, both generally accepted to be ‘on the left’, who are directly although not solely responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of moslems.
I agree with that – I might substitute the word “liberals” (in the US sense) for “leftists”, but it’s likely a distinction without a difference in the context of this conversation – I certainly know what you mean and agree with it.
May I assume that “generally accepted” comes with an implied 😉 ? Given the current Overton window (and that of the time, I think), I’d place Blair in the top-right box.
(and there, kiddies, is how you piss off both the “left” and the “right” in one sentence!)
But yes, light-hearted word-play aside, I 100% agree with that as well. A google of “new labour anti-islam” may prove interesting to you – they were f’ing terrible – even more interesting (I think) is the battering they get from, say, Tribune mag – a hard-left publication. It’s not just the “right” that were calling them out on it.
Crikey, APL! Would ya look at that?
We’re in agreement on not just one, but two things!
😉
“Some time commentator on Samizdata replied to one of NiVs comments, that it was classic ‘whatabout fuckery’ ( or words to that effect). Good to see, some people are reliable.”
As I’ve explained numerous times, my issue is the way nearly every example of authoritarianism held up for a two-minute hate here is a left wing one, or one associated with the left. It makes it impossible to determine from the post alone whether it’s the authoritarianism that’s the problem, or only left-wing authoritarianism.
The reaction every time I mention it confirms it’s the latter.
“But again you are incorrect. ‘radical Islam’ is not ‘classic right-wing’, it is classic totalitarian.”
It’s classic right-wing totalitarianism. It’s in the top right corner of the Nolan chart. They’re called “religious conservatives” for a reason! But nobody round here ever calls it right wing. In the context of the head-post, that’s ironic.
Fundamentalist Islam is more right-wing than Lukashenko is left-wing. Lukashenko is certainly a totalitarian dictator, but after spending half an hour searching for anything identifiably left-wing (or right wing) about his policies and failing (past association with the Communist party could easily have been because that was the fastest road to authoritarian power), I can certainly see why people don’t mention it.
“Islam is not “on the left” (or indeed on the right) in any useful meaningful way.”
That depends on our definition of left/right. If we don’t have a common, coherent definition, then all discussion of left/right is meaningless. But then why complain that Lukashenko is being identified as a dictator (the important bit) but not a left-wing one? Why does it matter? What does it mean?
One viewpoint on it is that people’s views on economic and social freedom can vary independently. The left are socially liberal but economically authoritarian. The right are socially authoritarian but economically liberal. Islamic fundamentalists have little to say on economic matters – they oppose usury and excessive taxation, but are not known for getting violent about it – but they are heavily into enforcing social norms.
Another view (from the OED definition, according to Wikipedia) is that ‘right-wing’ can generally refer to “the conservative or reactionary section of a political party or system”. Conservatism is a political and social philosophy promoting traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilization. In political science, a reactionary or reactionist is a person or entity holding political views that favour a return to a previous political state of society that they believe possessed positive characteristics that are absent in contemporary society. Islamic fundamentalists are all about promoting traditional social institutions (religious ones especially), enforcing traditional social values, and returning to the Golden Age of the Caliphate and universal religious faith.
There are classic ways of defining “right-wing” such that fundamentalist Islam is clearly a right-wing authoritarian ideology. So why should calling them “right-wing” arouse any controversy here? We’re not taking sides on the left/right axis, but the authoritarian/libertarian one, right?
The head post identifies a tendency on the part of the left to mention a totalitarian’s left/right alignment when it is to their advantage, and not when it’s not. I’m simply observing that it’s a universal human tendency. And I’d argue that it would be better if we never mentioned it than that we always should. It’s not relevant whether they’re left-wing or right-wing. The only thing that should matter to us is that they’re authoritarian, and we oppose all authoritarians irrespective of whether they are on the left or right.
But the arguments that erupt every time I say so suggest to me it’s not true. It matters more to some people here whether the left or right has the advantage. Which makes this post a case of the pot criticising the kettle.
“That was how I took NiV’s statement – it’s associated with the “left” because it’s stereotypically the “left” who stand up for Muslims?”
Indeed.
NiV, you’re having a similar reaction (I think) as I had the other day, when people talk about “freedom of speech”. I rarely see people defend “freedom of speech” for those things that they *actually* disagree with – or that they’re prepared to say they disagree with. Likewise, the reaction every time I mention it goes someway to confirming that people are only defending “anti-woke” speech.
I saw your reply, but only several days later. I felt no desire to drag the topic to the top of the replies section again, but in my view the difference is that you don’t *need* to state *every single time* that you’re an atheist, as that’s reasonably well-known, and you would do so if questioned by a newbie. People stick up for the stuff that agitates them, in general.
I’m under no illusions, incidentally, that most of the stuff I stick up for is stuff I agree with – the old thing of “Yeah, but, neon, you would say that, wouldn’t you?” – and probably don’t get agitated to stick up for stuff I don’t agree with.
Interesting chart! I like it. It’s based on the Political Compass rather than the classic Nolan chart, which I personally feel makes it easier to read.
Amusingly enough, I guess, it places me inarguably on the right! I veer between Mutualism and Individualism.
I’m confused as to why pure “Anarchism” is so far to the right – in the sense of “Anarchism-without-adjectives” – given its famous antipathy towards private property.
Neither are necessarily true (which I know you know)
No? The OP suggests otherwise. It’s the “left-wing”-ishness that’s the issue, not the “authoritarian”-ishness.
Do we all agree that the BNP were a bunch of…uh, I’ll watch my language, what with it being before the watershed…”wrong’uns”?
And yet I’ll note that they’re of the left, economically. Without putting huge amounts of thought into it, lets’ stick them two to the left of the central y-axis on your chart, and, say, two down from the top. Fair? Within a darts-throw? And yet, people will call them “hard-right” – because of the racism, nationalism and so on.
Commonly, the vast majority of people consider there to be only one axis – left to right. If you’re of the left, then the left are “moral” (trying to help the little guy), and the right are “immoral” (propping up the evil, waistcoated, monocled caricature from the Monopoly set).
Or, if you’re on the right, then the right are “logical”, what with capitalism having done hard yards to bring up the standard of living since the industrial revolution, inventing things like washing machines and dishwashers, which reduces the amount of “unpaid labour” that women (!) do, and giving everyone more free time. Yay! I’m totally in favour of that!
But still. The “left-right” spectrum is not the correct axis to be getting agitated about. It’s the “authoritarian/libertarian” axis that has produced all the wonderful inventions when it’s moved “downwards” towards liberty – the freer we are, the more wonderful stuff we can invent, and the freer the market, the easier it is to access this stuff, since competition drives prices down and makes them more affordable.
In what way?
250 years ago, the right to LOOT was held by those who had better armies, or better arms. The right to LOOT was held by those that the state and/or monarchy granted that right to. It had nothing to do with justice, or actual morality, and everything to do with heredity, monarchy, or having an “in” for the “ear” of the state.
Bastiat was correct to sit on the left, since he opposed those who thought that “right” came from monarchy or heritage. The “right” only accepted that was handed down to them.
“Left and right” have since been muddled, and I understand that. But the original “left” were, undoubtedly – correct.
It’s not dissimilar to the haciendas in South America. If you view the “landowners” (ie. the Spanish/Portuguese conquerors because they had better weapons) as the rightful owners, because they beat you off your land, then you are a servile worm.
That’s not actually true. It’s not difficult to classify a set of policies as “leftist” based on its adherence to Marxist principles.
No shit Sherlock 😉
Nope. The quote is entirely about how the left used the term left & right.
Seriously? 😆 The whole point is to highlight the selective use of ‘right’ to mean ‘bad’, thus a bad dictator cannot be described as left in the modern media because left means good, and you can’t have a good dictator. Or something like that.
“It’s not difficult to classify a set of policies as “leftist” based on its adherence to Marxist principles.”
If that’s the definition you pick, sure.
However, most people don’t know anything about Marxist principles, and wouldn’t recognise what was actually ‘Marxist’ and what was a later invention. The doctrines and beliefs of the left has changed over time. The left has spintered into dozens of variants. And most people accept some bits of what Marx said and not others. Do you “adhere to Marxist principles” only if you adhere to all of them? (Then there are no leftists.) Or do you “adhere to Marxist principles” only if you adhere to any of them? (Then everyone is a leftist.)
Marx never said anything about ‘Black Lives Matter’, or ‘Feminist history versus the Patriarchy’. Are they “leftist”?
But I suspect you’re defining it the other way round. ‘Marxist principles’ are defined as ‘what leftists believe’, and mutate as the left do.