Left-Wing Discussion Thread III

[The Multiversal Communist Collective]

He essentially red-baited himself by doing that.

Sort of, but he is always careful not to call himself a communist.

[The Multiversal Communist Collective]

They used the terms lower and higher stage socialism/communism. The Leninists then changed the term socialism to mean lower stage and communism to be higher. They didn't invent the idea, but simply redefined some terms for more clear usage.

From a Leninist perspective, perhaps it is clearer. However, as a Luxemburgist, I prefer Marx and Engels' original terminology. IMO, it is less cumbersome.

[Aillyria]

He essentially red-baited himself by doing that.

Sort of, but he is always careful not to call himself a communist.

He was a sabateur. His whole purpose was to draw "socialist" support (read modern SJWs and other fake socialists) for Killary the Satanist.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

He was a sabateur. His whole purpose was to draw "socialist" support (read modern SJWs and other fake socialists) for Killary the Satanist.

I don't attribute any nefarious motives to him. In a sense he is right. Socialism has been used with a variety of definitions over the years.

I mean, look, to me, socialism and communism are synonymous. However, you consider yourself to be a socialist but not a communist. Lenin, as has already been pointed out, used communism for the higher stage of socialsm.

Words are just words. Would it be better if we could agree on a shared lexicon? Yes, I think so. However, I also recognize that such a lexicon is only a pipe dream. As long as there are different people, with different ideologies, people won't be using words consistently anytime soon.

My problem with Sanders is that there are already a set of names for his perspective: social democracy, Keynesianism, and FDR's New Deal. Why use an unrelated term for an ideology which has already been labeled?

[Cekoviu]

Sort of, but he is always careful not to call himself a communist.

He was a sabateur. His whole purpose was to draw "socialist" support (read modern SJWs and other fake socialists) for Killary the Satanist.

You're starting to sound like a Trump supporter. "Killary", "SJW", "Satanist [democrats]"...

[Deads Heads]

Sanders has been calling himself a socialist since he was a young man. He simply defines socialism as FDR's New Deal.

Obviously, he has the right to call himself whatever he wants. However, he has muddled an already confusing issue.

He essentially red-baited himself by doing that.

And managed to wash the red away all at the same time as well as leave his pro-Israel politics in the dark. He basically reconstrued socialism to mean the Keynesian golden age of the West and dodged the Israel-Palestine conflict where the left leans more in support for Palestine than Israel and the misogynist-brocialist accusations. Of course actual communists aren't silent of his foreign policy, but they're communists so who gives a shit. All in all a successful enough move to get purged from the Dems. Smooth moves, Bernster.

My problem with Sanders is that there are already a set of names for his perspective: social democracy, Keynesianism, and FDR's New Deal. Why use an unrelated term for an ideology which has already been labeled?

To take socialism into any possible stretch where it's not a class struggle. In a country with as long, tedious and violent of a working class history as the United States, you have to. You can't risk an easily stirrable populace. This means, had Bernie become a president, his administration woulda had to not fuck up or go against him in its policies which in a massive country like the United States is impossible or direct the anger the same way Trump did and does, probably against the same people too to get the political right on your side too.

A hot class war on US soil would upset everything related to the United States. Nobody is used to a full-on war on US soil, first of all. Secondly, communism becoming a major global ideology again would stir the former second and third worlds. Let's just say that if America gets hit by communism, it's more likely to happen in most of the rest of the world as a result than ever in the times of the Eastern bloc, because the former international capitalist-socialist dichotomy we're all used to shatters.

A bunch of different hot conflicts would start all over the world. South Korea and Israel lose its former international backing by the United States and get run over by communists and Islamists, respectively. The Philippines and India have armies of communist rebels trying to take over. COSATU's and ANC's communists in South Africa would try to take over the unions and the leading party, while risking an invasion from Britain in an effort to regain its empire and a bloc of its own in the world. Russia, being the old leader of communists, is stirring as CPRF might be actually able to challenge Yedinaya Rossiya and people in former Warsaw Pact, Soviet and Yugoslav states start demanding communism. Europe either integrates further into a federal Europe with the rejoining of Britain or collapses into authoritarian anti-communist soon-to-be-fascist nation-states as people in former Warsaw Pact, Soviet and Yugoslav states start being loud about wanting socialism.

Britain would be the first to not stand for this, but they can't do much against United States on their own. It could rejoin EU which can be rushed into a federal Europe with the red scare that'd sweep across Europe. Alternatively, it could try to reinstate the British commonwealth as its subjects and revive the British empire. India seems a great place to start, since they seem to have a bit of a communist rebel problem. Or South Africa, whose leading party had been influenced by the South African communist party ever since. Unless Corbyn's Labour completely takes over, in which case Britain gets a Keynesian golden age out of necessity and not a military intervention. That'd be another way to keep Britain away from socialism.

Depending on whether or not the Xi administration goes full Maoist, stays as it is as a socialist-led state capitalist country, westernizes further into becoming a bigass Taiwan as a response to the European red scare or collapses into tiny bits like it used to a lot back in the day. A communist China and a communist America walk into a bar, join forces and expand. A state capitalist China wouldn't be enthusiastic about American expansion despite being socialist and would look after itself and get its own bloc to preserve a global balance, keeping Southeast Asia on its side where it can as a certain peninsula which never restored capitalism and hates everyone around it might actually become a threat. The absolute MADman has nukes and feels like getting revenge on Japan now that America is on its side. Japan is either in the bottom of the sea now or a part of Korea unless China stops it or eats it into itself.

All Russia needs to do is let the communists win in the State Duma to keep the status quo with minimal reforms. Problem arises as the communists decide to demand a transition from a westernized Russia to a communist Russia with no room for the old ruling class of career politicians, bureaucrats or security service. Old Soviet states around it start turning socialist by the minute without Russia having any control over it like it used to. Alaska is right fucking there just a few dozen miles across. It could be taken or bought or something else arranged.

Alternative history is fun sometimes.

[The Multiversal Communist Collective]

To take socialism into any possible stretch where it's not a class struggle. In a country with as long, tedious and violent of a working class history as the United States, you have to. You can't risk an easily stirrable populace. This means, had Bernie become a president, his administration woulda had to not fuck up or go against him in its policies which in a massive country like the United States is impossible or direct the anger the same way Trump did and does, probably against the same people too to get the political right on your side too.

If Sanders had become president, the U.S. would be, politically, in an unending traffic jam. He would have had both the Republicans and, perhaps to a somewhat lesser extent, the Democrats fighting against him. If, on the other hand, HRC had become president, the entire four years of her administration would be characterized by perennial battles with the Republicans, including congressional hearings. It would have made the conflicts of the Obama years seem like milk and honey.

The main problem with the United States is the United States. Until my disgusting country disintegrates into fire and ashes, both the U.S. and the world at large will be on the brink of disaster.

[Aillyria]

[qute="The Multiversal Communist Collective";p="33466452"]

Sort of, but he is always careful not to call himself a communist.

He was a sabateur. His whole purpose was to draw "socialist" support (read modern SJWs and other fake socialists) for Killary the Satanist.

You're starting to sound like a Trump supporter. "Killary", "SJW", "Satanist [democrats]"...[/quote]
While I like Trump better than Hillary, I'm far from a supporter of his. In fact, I voted for neither of them....actually, I didn't vote at all. I also include both Democrats and Republics as Satanists.

SJW is a generalized term to refer to regressive so-called "leftists" and "socialists", it's not really Trump thing.....maybe a kekistani thing though. I like the kekies, personally.

[The Multiversal Communist Collective]

SJW is a generalized term to refer to regressive so-called "leftists" and "socialists", it's not really Trump thing.....maybe a kekistani thing though. I like the kekies, personally.

The term regressive left is nothing more than a smear campaign by a few human hybrids of progressivism and neoconservatism. It is meant, primarily, to attack the fact that many Leftists, myself included, do not support imperialist campaigns of so-called liberation in certain predominantly Muslim countries.

[Ostroeuropa]

SJW is a generalized term to refer to regressive so-called "leftists" and "socialists", it's not really Trump thing.....maybe a kekistani thing though. I like the kekies, personally.

The term regressive left is nothing more than a smear campaign by a few human hybrids of progressivism and neoconservatism. It is meant, primarily, to attack the fact that many Leftists, myself included, do not support imperialist campaigns of so-called liberation in certain predominantly Muslim countries.

I disagree. There's regressive islamophilia among many leftists. The term is used to decry non-interventionism too, much like railing against socialism is used to decry social democracy, doesn't mean socialism isn't a thing. It's just overused.

When used appropriately, regressive left refers to a particular sort of sexist, racist left winger, who rattles off the progressive justification for their racism and sexism and doesn't have the self-awareness to notice that "It's okay to be sexist and racist because reasons" being the basis for their behavior makes them fairly despicable.

A good example is buzzfeed, which railed against women olympians being objectified, alongside running an article on the biggest bulges on male olympians, and used the justification that misandry doesn't real/doesn't count.

That's regressivism of the sort where they're either ambivalent or actively hostile to people trying to prevent anti-male anti-western or anti-white behavior and sentiment.

Similarly, it's regressivism to up and declare things islamophobic merely for critcizing repugnant aspects of the religion as it is often practiced, like homophobia and such. It's akin to Israel going apeshit and calling criticism of its foreign policy anti-semitic. I would say that Israel is routinely regressive in that behavior.

The regressive left operates as a Xenoconservative phenomanae. They would not be out of place on the issues they are regressive on in islamic theocracies, or zimbabwe. They are authoritarian conservatives for a foreign culture, and hostile to the majority culture. That is distinct from toleration. Much like the type of Christian theocrat republicans who lose their minds when christianity is insulted and want to try legislating against that, the regressive left behaves that way for Islam.

The term regressive has been used to decry non-interventionists too. Most political terms get misused. But it's a real phenomena, and arguably the dominant type of leftism today.

[Aillyria]

SJW is a generalized term to refer to regressive so-called "leftists" and "socialists", it's not really Trump thing.....maybe a kekistani thing though. I like the kekies, personally.

The term regressive left is nothing more than a smear campaign by a few human hybrids of progressivism and neoconservatism. It is meant, primarily, to attack the fact that many Leftists, myself included, do not support imperialist campaigns of so-called liberation in certain predominantly Muslim countries.

Large faction of people who use that term aren't even right-wingers (like myself), and the term doesn't specifically attack opponents the campaigns you speak of. Who it does attack are the peddlers of this aberrant hybrid of liberalism and marxism, called Intersectionality. A socially backwards ideology that is an enemy of socialism and everything else.

[The Widening Gyre]

SJW is a generalized term to refer to regressive so-called "leftists" and "socialists"

Which is ironic since the use of 'SJW' as a snarl word is a much more prevalent and potent tool of identity policing and politics than just about anything the 'regressive left' has ever done.

[Deads Heads]

To take socialism into any possible stretch where it's not a class struggle. In a country with as long, tedious and violent of a working class history as the United States, you have to. You can't risk an easily stirrable populace. This means, had Bernie become a president, his administration woulda had to not fuck up or go against him in its policies which in a massive country like the United States is impossible or direct the anger the same way Trump did and does, probably against the same people too to get the political right on your side too.

If Sanders had become president, the U.S. would be, politically, in an unending traffic jam. He would have had both the Republicans and, perhaps to a somewhat lesser extent, the Democrats fighting against him. If, on the other hand, HRC had become president, the entire four years of her administration would be characterized by perennial battles with the Republicans, including congressional hearings. It would have made the conflicts of the Obama years seem like milk and honey.

The main problem with the United States is the United States. Until my disgusting country disintegrates into fire and ashes, both the U.S. and the world at large will be on the brink of disaster.

The problem with that is Sanders being the most popular American politician even after his loss. If Sanders had become president, it would've been riskier to get him out then than beforehand with the help of the DNC, as Americans begin to see the situation getting a little better. If Sanders was removed from office after becoming president, that alone would cause the Obama era instability to only exacerbate with more riots, terrorism and crime and an armed radical left to mobilize as it rejects the cries of anti-gun liberals.

Trump is ironically the best president for America respond to this, as he doesn't have any qualms with the white supremacist terrorists he describes as 'fine people'. Just send them out to suppress the leftists, spin the facts around against them in the media and he's all set. He's got the violent, thuggish antifa caricature down and all he needs is the NRA to publish him saying "and guess what, they're now armed and dangerous" to really shake the country's gun owners. "There's a second civil war out there and guess what? We're losing!"

The term regressive left is nothing more than a smear campaign by a few human hybrids of progressivism and neoconservatism. It is meant, primarily, to attack the fact that many Leftists, myself included, do not support imperialist campaigns of so-called liberation in certain predominantly Muslim countries.

Large faction of people who use that term aren't even right-wingers (like myself), and the term doesn't specifically attack opponents the campaigns you speak of. Who it does attack are the peddlers of this aberrant hybrid of liberalism and marxism, called Intersectionality. A socially backwards ideology that is an enemy of socialism and everything else.

Here's the thing. You people keep saying Marxism is somehow involved in it and yet there's nothing distinctly Marxist about it at all. Here's some actual cultural Marxism for ya. I cannot emphasize enough that you won't find the cultural Marxist degeneracy Nazi Germany memed into existence in Marxist or any other socialist states.

[The Parkus Empire]

Why would I bother to do that when anyone who knows who he is knows that?

Why would you assume that most people know who he is? You simply quoted him.

The left tends to be more "academic" in their politics, and people who make an academic study of political theory tend to know who he is.

[Dumb Ideologies]

SJW is a generalized term to refer to regressive so-called "leftists" and "socialists", it's not really Trump thing.....maybe a kekistani thing though. I like the kekies, personally.

The term regressive left is nothing more than a smear campaign by a few human hybrids of progressivism and neoconservatism. It is meant, primarily, to attack the fact that many Leftists, myself included, do not support imperialist campaigns of so-called liberation in certain predominantly Muslim countries.

Lolwut? At least wipe the definition you just pulled from your arse before posting it.

Regressive left refers mainly to the rabidly pro-censorship culture war lot who want everything they disagree with effectively banned, whipping up social media storms based on deliberate distortions and exaggerations of what people have said in an effort to manufacture controversy and force apologies, with the ultimate aim of shrinking the window of acceptable discourse until everyone just quacks like a duck.

[The Parkus Empire]

How did you come to that conclusion?

Althusser.

[Aillyria]

SJW is a generalized term to refer to regressive so-called "leftists" and "socialists"

Which is ironic since the use of 'SJW' as a snarl word is a much more prevalent and potent tool of identity policing and politics than just about anything the 'regressive left' has ever done.

At least it is directed at an actual type of political movement, not like how the words "racism","misogyny", and "islamophobe" don't even mean anything anymore. Many SJWs would consider me a islamophobe, even though I'm muslim myself. But I, unlike the regressives, recognize the threat that middle eastern muslims pose to the west.....they simply are too socially backwards to be allowed here en masse, simple as that. The SJWs, however, love making excuses for them and refuse to face the fact that the muslim world requires a reformation to be brought into tye modern world.

[Ostroeuropa]

The term regressive left is nothing more than a smear campaign by a few human hybrids of progressivism and neoconservatism. It is meant, primarily, to attack the fact that many Leftists, myself included, do not support imperialist campaigns of so-called liberation in certain predominantly Muslim countries.

Lolwut? At least wipe the definition you just pulled from your arse before posting it.

Regressive left refers mainly to the rabidly pro-censorship culture war lot who want everything they disagree with effectively banned, whipping up social media storms based on deliberate distortions and exaggerations of what people have said in an effort to manufacture controversy and force apologies, with the ultimate aim of shrinking the window of acceptable discourse until everyone just quacks like a duck.

They aren't merely censorious, that's a tool they use though. It's noticable that they are hostile to the same censorious logic they use being used for racism against whites, or sexism against males. The authoritarianism is sexist and racist in nature, not mere authoritarianism.
The logic they use is inconsistent, and their treatment of people and their statements is based on the color of their skin or their sex, up to the point its practically a trope for them to assume every political opponent is a white male because that's how their worldview works.

The regressive ideology is a system of excuses for racist and sexist behavior, and authoritarian impulses are an extension of that sexism and racism.
See also their rants about representation and such, and the recent nonsense over "mankind", alongside their routinely gynocentric campaigns on domestic abuse and such.

They behave inconsistently because they aren't genuinely held principles is the problem. Their only genuine sentiment is hostility to whites and males, and the progressive ideology provides a system of excuses for them to ignore this about their behavior and that of their peers.

You're making a mistake noting censoriousness as the common element. It isn't. Racism and sexism are. They aren't actually in favor of censorship in general, only censorship of things that serve their primary goal of hostility to whites and males.
And it's definitely hostility to whites and males rather than the crap they tell themselves. If they cared about women victims of domestic abuse, why leave out women perpetrators? Because the women victims aren't the primary concern, the primary concern is hostility to men. Even a casual attempt to actually give a fuck about women victims would have dragged this problem out, but it isn't done, despite these people routinely crowing about how LGBT inclusive they are.
The common theme is always hatred for whites and males. Censorship is one means by which they do that, but it isn't the uniting theme.

We don't need to get bogged down with these bigots over the virtues of censoring racist and sexist material, because that's where they get to pretend to be serious people as opposed to what they are, racists and sexists with an incoherent worldview. Pointing out their routine inconsistency instead is more appropriate. Ask them why their attitude to censorship only ever skews in a way that lines up perfectly with misandry and anti-white sentiment.

[The Parkus Empire]

I think a tricky thing about the private-personal distinction in property, and even about leftism preceding that development, is that human beings are the fundamental means of production.

Which is why socialist economics generally defines production as being labour (ie humans) being applied to the means of production. In the capitalist mode you cannot own labour, in terms of owning people, but you can own the means by which labour is applied to create productive activity.

This is very awkward for anyone who says the means of production should be publicly owned, and you can't really get around it without a crypto-liberal humanism which attaches a unique metaphysical significance to the individual that makes public ownership of him something reprehensible in a sort of religious way, as a metaphysical transgression

The means of production are the hinge point for socialism because it is the exclusionary force applied to it in capitalism that creates exploitation and destitution.

But "exploitation" has no negative meaning without resorting to humanism. It actually has a great deal of utility, we "exploit" much of our natural environment, that is the basis of our advancement.

[Aillyria]

If Sanders had become president, the U.S. would be, politically, in an unending traffic jam. He would have had both the Republicans and, perhaps to a somewhat lesser extent, the Democrats fighting against him. If, on the other hand, HRC had become president, the entire four years of her administration would be characterized by perennial battles with the Republicans, including congressional hearings. It would have made the conflicts of the Obama years seem like milk and honey.

The main problem with the United States is the United States. Until my disgusting country disintegrates into fire and ashes, both the U.S. and the world at large will be on the brink of disaster.

The problem with that is Sanders being the most popular American politician even after his loss. If Sanders had become president, it would've been riskier to get him out then than beforehand with the help of the DNC, as Americans begin to see the situation getting a little better. If Sanders was removed from office after becoming president, that alone would cause the Obama era instability to only exacerbate with more riots, terrorism and crime and an armed radical left to mobilize as it rejects the cries of anti-gun liberals.

Trump is ironically the best president for America respond to this, as he doesn't have any qualms with the white supremacist terrorists he describes as 'fine people'. Just send them out to suppress the leftists, spin the facts around against them in the media and he's all set. He's got the violent, thuggish antifa caricature down and all he needs is the NRA to publish him saying "and guess what, they're now armed and dangerous" to really shake the country's gun owners. "There's a second civil war out there and guess what? We're losing!"

Large faction of people who use that term aren't even right-wingers (like myself), and the term doesn't specifically attack opponents the campaigns you speak of. Who it does attack are the peddlers of this aberrant hybrid of liberalism and marxism, called Intersectionality. A socially backwards ideology that is an enemy of socialism and everything else.

Here's the thing. You people keep saying Marxism is somehow involved in it and yet there's nothing distinctly Marxist about it at all. Here's some actual cultural Marxism for ya. I cannot emphasize enough that you won't find the cultural Marxist degeneracy Nazi Germany memed into existence in Marxist or any other socialist states.

How does this art have anything to do with our topic?

I'm not saying they're using literal marxism, but a warped interpretation of it. I'm familiar enough with Marxist theory (and the fact I'm socialist) that I'd never mistake Regressivism for actual Marxism.

How did you come to that conclusion?

Althusser.

I have no idea wtf that is.......

[The Widening Gyre]

At least it is directed at an actual type of political movement

'SJW' or 'SJWism' as an epithet gets attached to everything from affirmative action hiring policies to casting a female character as a main in a video game. Socialist policies of the type you would even advocate would probably get mocked and scoffed at as 'SJWism' too.

But "exploitation" has no negative meaning without resorting to humanism. It actually has a great deal of utility, we "exploit" much of our natural environment, that is the basis of our advancement.

And of course we damage the natural environment in our exploitation, to greater or lesser degrees. Which is the point.

[Kubra]

Althusser.

I have no idea wtf that is.......

Althusser was a french marxist theorist from around the 60's.

[Ostroeuropa]

At least it is directed at an actual type of political movement

'SJW' or 'SJWism' as an epithet gets attached to everything from affirmative action hiring policies to casting a female character as a main in a video game. Socialist policies of the type you would even advocate would probably get mocked and scoffed at as 'SJWism' too.

But "exploitation" has no negative meaning without resorting to humanism. It actually has a great deal of utility, we "exploit" much of our natural environment, that is the basis of our advancement.

And of course we damage the natural environment in our exploitation, to greater or lesser degrees. Which is the point.

Should we apply this standard of yours to racist and sexist and just dismiss it every time someone uses the word because it's been used in ridiculous ways?
Or is that suddenly different.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Lolwut? At least wipe the definition you just pulled from your arse before posting it.

Regressive left refers mainly to the rabidly pro-censorship culture war lot who want everything they disagree with effectively banned, whipping up social media storms based on deliberate distortions and exaggerations of what people have said in an effort to manufacture controversy and force apologies, with the ultimate aim of shrinking the window of acceptable discourse until everyone just quacks like a duck.

They aren't merely censorious, that's a tool they use though. It's noticable that they are hostile to the same censorious logic they use being used for racism against whites, or sexism against males. The authoritarianism is sexist and racist in nature, not mere authoritarianism.
The logic they use is inconsistent, and their treatment of people and their statements is based on the color of their skin or their sex, up to the point its practically a cliche for them to assume every political opponent is a white male because that's how their worldview works.

The key distinguishing principle of the regressive left IMO is that they believe freedom is best secured by ensuring there is the least possible amount and room for debate. They are left only insofar as they're ostensibly motivated to do so by a desire to overturn an overly simplified hierarchy of oppression that they've set in amber for all time and cannot see beyond, no matter the particular case at hand, additional evidence, or wider social change that might render their assumptions invalid. It's a form of category fetishism and it's a complete methodological dead end.

[The Parkus Empire]

And of course we damage the natural environment in our exploitation, to greater or lesser degrees. Which is the point.

No, not with humans, since we can replenish the supply much more easily than with deforestation.