Left-Wing Discussion Thread III

[Ostroeuropa]

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 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.

I'd argue that's merely a necessity for the way they operate due to the inadequacy of their worldview. They cannot allow debate because when they do, they lose. It is not a genuine belief in the need to restrict debate, if debate worked for their cause they'd allow it. It's merely a tool they use. It's an old tool, but it's a tool, something they adopted to pursue their actual agenda, it is not itself their agenda.

[The Parkus Empire]

Moreover, to say socialism promises any less exploitation of the environment than capitalism, is unsubstantiated. Socialism if anything sees capitalism as inefficient and socialism as much more productive and efficient. Marx saw history as a series of more and more powerful modes of production, increasing in their productive capacity, with socialism outclassing capitalism and promising a much higher yield of material gains.

[The Widening Gyre]

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.

The fact that the labour supply needs 'replenishment' under capitalism speaks volumes to how damaging its labour relations are.

Moreover, to say socialism promises any less exploitation of the environment than capitalism, is unsubstantiated. Socialism if anything sees capitalism as inefficient and socialism as much more productive and efficient. Marx saw history as a series of more and more powerful modes of production, increasing in their productive capacity, with socialism outclassing capitalism and promising a much higher yield of material gains.

Which is in part because socialism posits that exploitation is an ineffective use of resources, and that history has seen a gradual loosening of the chains of class exploitation.

[Ostroeuropa]

Moreover, to say socialism promises any less exploitation of the environment than capitalism, is unsubstantiated. Socialism if anything sees capitalism as inefficient and socialism as much more productive and efficient. Marx saw history as a series of more and more powerful modes of production, increasing in their productive capacity, with socialism outclassing capitalism and promising a much higher yield of material gains.

Presumably socialists would be more in favor of sustainable products and less planned obsolescence and such, though perhaps not.
Building a fridge that lasts a century rather than 3 years would mean less environmental exploitation.

[The Parkus Empire]

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

The fact that the labour supply needs 'replenishment' under capitalism speaks volumes to how damaging its labour relations are.

All limited supplies need replenishing.

[Aillyria]

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.

< Is socialist
< opposes affirmative action (it's racists and sexist.)
< doesn't care what sex a videogame lead character is.

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 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.

Exactly, their main opponent is free speech, which they attack aggressively and they attempt change to language to match their fictional narrative of reality. They also engage in wide spread indoctrination of youth in primary education and at uni.

[The Parkus Empire]

Moreover, to say socialism promises any less exploitation of the environment than capitalism, is unsubstantiated. Socialism if anything sees capitalism as inefficient and socialism as much more productive and efficient. Marx saw history as a series of more and more powerful modes of production, increasing in their productive capacity, with socialism outclassing capitalism and promising a much higher yield of material gains.

Presumably socialists would be more in favor of sustainable products and less planned obsolescence and such, though perhaps not.
Building a fridge that lasts a century rather than 3 years would mean less environmental exploitation.

Planned obsolescence can largely be avoided if you are willing to buy from a competitor or less glamorous brand. You can also simply legislate against it.

[The Parkus Empire]

Which is in part because socialism posits that exploitation is an ineffective use of resources,

Domestication of crops is exploitation, how is that ineffective?

[The Widening Gyre]

The fact that the labour supply needs 'replenishment' under capitalism speaks volumes to how damaging its labour relations are.

All limited supplies need replenishing.

Only when the method of utilization consumes or otherwise degrades the resource - ie exploitation.

Which is in part because socialism posits that exploitation is an ineffective use of resources,

Domestication of crops is exploitation, how is that ineffective?

Monoculture irrigation-driven agriculture is historically highly inefficient in terms of the labour and resources required to maintain it. Which is not to address the fact that plants are not people, and we're talking about labour relations.

[Trotskylvania]

Moreover, to say socialism promises any less exploitation of the environment than capitalism, is unsubstantiated. Socialism if anything sees capitalism as inefficient and socialism as much more productive and efficient. Marx saw history as a series of more and more powerful modes of production, increasing in their productive capacity, with socialism outclassing capitalism and promising a much higher yield of material gains.

No, that's you reading your Whig history into places it doesn't belong.

Marx's critique of political economy described a divergence between production and use, because commodities are produced based one exchange values, not their actual utility. This leads to the antisocial trend of innovation for its own sake, the favoring of luxury commodities over necessities, and the squandering of labor in creating new needs to satisfy capital's necessity of expansion.

No where do Marx or Engels ever describe communism as a land of more material goods. Communism is human labor self-directed and self-actualized, and not directed by the misanthropic forces of political economy.

[The Parkus Empire]

All limited supplies need replenishing.

Only when the method of utilization consumes or otherwise degrades the resource - ie exploitation.

Using a resource always degrades or consumes it.

[Ostroeuropa]

Only when the method of utilization consumes or otherwise degrades the resource - ie exploitation.

Using a resource always degrades or consumes it.

Knowledge.

[Cekoviu]

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.

Truer words have never been spoken.

[The Parkus Empire]

Moreover, to say socialism promises any less exploitation of the environment than capitalism, is unsubstantiated. Socialism if anything sees capitalism as inefficient and socialism as much more productive and efficient. Marx saw history as a series of more and more powerful modes of production, increasing in their productive capacity, with socialism outclassing capitalism and promising a much higher yield of material gains.

No, that's you reading your Whig history into places it doesn't belong.

Marx's critique of political economy described a divergence between production and use, because commodities are produced based one exchange values, not their actual utility. This leads to the antisocial trend of innovation for its own sake, the favoring of luxury commodities over necessities, and the squandering of labor in creating new needs to satisfy capital's necessity of expansion.

No where do Marx or Engels ever describe communism as a land of more material goods. Communism is human labor self-directed and self-actualized, and not directed by the misanthropic forces of political economy.

Marxian theory of history is definitely a form of Whig history, which is wholly understandable as he is intended to be a correction of Hegel's errors and biases.

Marx's major critique of the bourgeoisie is certainly a mirror of the bourgeoisie's critique of the aristocracy: that they are an unproductive class (Veblen focuses much more heavily on this, though). And nothing is more bourgeois than Marx's obsession with "utility". If there is a Marxian critique of capitalism's senseless production, it is because there is not "utility" in what is produced. Marxian Whig history is, unlike Hegel, certainly not Enlightenment Whig history, but it is the Whig History of the Manchester Liberals and utilitarians.

[The Parkus Empire]

Using a resource always degrades or consumes it.

Knowledge.

On the contrary, the march of science shows that new knowledge is frequently produced at the expense of prior knowledge.

[The Parkus Empire]

Which is not to address the fact that plants are not people

And here is the hidden humanist special pleading.

[Ostroeuropa]

Knowledge.

On the contrary, the march of science shows that new knowledge is frequently produced at the expense of prior knowledge.

How long did that one take you? Fair enough.

[The Parkus Empire]

On the contrary, the march of science shows that new knowledge is frequently produced at the expense of prior knowledge.

How long did that one take you? Fair enough.

No long, since I know the definition of "knowledge" is extremely contentious in philosophy and has been for thousands of years. I also know that knowledge is not a raw resource in Marxian theory, but a product which can and does become obsolete.

[The Widening Gyre]

Which is not to address the fact that plants are not people

And here is the hidden humanist special pleading.

I didn't realize it was 'humanist' to state that humans are not photosynthetic sedentary organisms.

[Trotskylvania]

No, that's you reading your Whig history into places it doesn't belong.

Marx's critique of political economy described a divergence between production and use, because commodities are produced based one exchange values, not their actual utility. This leads to the antisocial trend of innovation for its own sake, the favoring of luxury commodities over necessities, and the squandering of labor in creating new needs to satisfy capital's necessity of expansion.

No where do Marx or Engels ever describe communism as a land of more material goods. Communism is human labor self-directed and self-actualized, and not directed by the misanthropic forces of political economy.

Marxian theory of history is definitely a form of Whig history, which is wholly understandable as he is intended to be a correction of Hegel's errors and biases.

Marx's major critique of the bourgeoisie is certainly a mirror of the bourgeoisie's critique of the aristocracy: that they are an unproductive class (Veblen focuses much more heavily on this, though). And nothing is more bourgeois than Marx's obsession with "utility". If there is a Marxian critique of capitalism's senseless production, it is because there is not "utility" in what is produced. Marxian Whig history is, unlike Hegel, certainly not Enlightenment Whig history, but it is the Whig History of the Manchester Liberals and utilitarians.

This is complete nonsense.

Marx did not seek to correct Hegel, but to radically negate him. With the negation of idealism for materialism also comes the negation of a telos for history.

Marx never refers to the bourgeoisie as an unproductive class. That would be literal madness; they made bourgeois society in their own image by universalizing the relations of their class and negating the old aristocracy. The bourgeoisie are the indispensable mediators of capital, and wherever you have the existence of capital there will be a bourgeoisie to direct and mediate it. Marx condemned those who thought that there could be capitalism without capitalists as utopians

Whig history is teleological and idealist. The materialist conception of history negates teleology. There is neither a direction nor a rudder in history.

[The Parkus Empire]

And here is the hidden humanist special pleading.

I didn't realize it was 'humanist' to state that humans are not photosynthetic sedentary organisms.

It is unless you strictly mean in material composition. In which case, there is no ontological distinction between humans and plants or vacuum cleaners or ore.

[Deads Heads]

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!"


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?

Just speculating on what might happen if things had gone a way they didn't and trying to find meaning to why things happened like they did.

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.

I said that anti-sjws say Marxism is involved in regressive leftism, not how right or wrong of an interpretation of Marx it may be. It's the 'cultural marxism' epithet whose Marxism in any way at all I'm contesting. There is nothing distinct in Marx & Engels' writings compared to other socialists or non-socialist ideologues which would imply a specifically Marxist nature of any kind to 'regressive leftism' whose leftism is, too, not an actual, existent thing. It's a slander of leftism overall, as it's not primarily asserted by the left but the right.

There being leftists that buy into an anti-leftist meme is nothing new. It's called being an uncle Tom and everyone does it in their respective social group, including leftists.

Althusser.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Althusser

[The Parkus Empire]

Marxian theory of history is definitely a form of Whig history, which is wholly understandable as he is intended to be a correction of Hegel's errors and biases.

Marx's major critique of the bourgeoisie is certainly a mirror of the bourgeoisie's critique of the aristocracy: that they are an unproductive class (Veblen focuses much more heavily on this, though). And nothing is more bourgeois than Marx's obsession with "utility". If there is a Marxian critique of capitalism's senseless production, it is because there is not "utility" in what is produced. Marxian Whig history is, unlike Hegel, certainly not Enlightenment Whig history, but it is the Whig History of the Manchester Liberals and utilitarians.

This is complete nonsense.

Marx did not seek to correct Hegel, but to radically negate him. With the negation of idealism for materialism also comes the negation of a telos for history.

Marx never refers to the bourgeoisie as an unproductive class. That would be literal madness; they made bourgeois society in their own image by universalizing the relations of their class and negating the old aristocracy. The bourgeoisie are the indispensable mediators of capital, and wherever you have the existence of capital there will be a bourgeoisie to direct and mediate it. Marx condemned those who thought that there could be capitalism without capitalists as utopians

Whig history is teleological and idealist. The materialist conception of history negates teleology. There is neither a direction nor a rudder in history.

I'm sure you know what I mean by "productive" here. It doesn't mean furthering the ultimate realization of communism, it means material production. Capital absolutely posits the role of the capitalist in production as basically working a magic trick: he imposes two dissonant values on the same thing, and pockets the difference.

Marxian history is most certainly determinist.

[The Widening Gyre]

I didn't realize it was 'humanist' to state that humans are not photosynthetic sedentary organisms.

It is unless you strictly mean in material composition. In which case, there is no ontological distinction between humans and plants or vacuum cleaners or ore.

So plants and vacuum cleaners and ore and people are all used in the same way?

[The Parkus Empire]

It is unless you strictly mean in material composition. In which case, there is no ontological distinction between humans and plants or vacuum cleaners or ore.

So plants and vacuum cleaners and ore and people are all used in the same way?

No, they are all exploited in different ways.