>>145683I already gave you the simplest possible answer in my prevous posts. I can't just say "leftism is when you XYZ" because there are different ways to understand the left.
The term "left" is defined based on who identifies themselves and others with it. But the term was used differently in the past. Relative to left of the past, the left of today would be considered the part of the right. Therefore, from a this perspective, the left no longer exists.
I'm willing to accept the other perspective, but then I'd be forced to accept that Marxists and those adjacent aren't on left, even though they were in the past. They wouldn't even be far-left anymore because there is no continuum between their political position and that of the contemporary left.
This is because the vast majority of the contemporary left implicitly accepts that there is no alternative to capitalism. This is true even when they claim to be anti-capitalist, socialist, communist, anarchist, whatever. None of them have a coherent political strategy to offer, and instead choose to tail the progressive bourgeoisie. In other words, they share the same political orientation as the right, and only really differ on some social and cultural issues.
For example, let's examine someone like Paul Cockshott. Obviously he's not right-wing, so would you consider his political project to be left-wing? If so, then what it means to be left-wing is bullshit. The left ultimately seeks to preserve the existing mode of production. Cockshott is actively seeking to supercede the existing mode of production. How can they both be left-wing if they have completely different political visions?