Left-Wing Discussion Thread III

[S i t k a]

Heh heh.

But seriously, one of these days I should start carrying a copy of the Communist Manifesto or something around the house and see what my dad does.

Then again, he's used to my antics at this point and probably wouldn't bat an eye.

For some light reading that will get past his scrutiny, read The Conquest of Bread. Tell him it's a cookbook if he asks.

He probably won't ask. Ever since I tried to make a car out of a red wagon and a leafblower back in elementary school, I don't think anything I do has really caught him off guard.

Speaking of reading, though, I believe I did bookmark some essays on politics that someone once recommended to me. I'll look up that book as well.

EDIT: Just Googled it. A website called "The Anarchist Library" came up before Wikipedia. This oughta be good.

[Aillyria]

I've read works by Sorel (obviously), Proudhon, Bakunin, and Marx....so I know a great deal more than the basics of socialism, thank you very much. I'd say Sorel has played the same role for me as Luxembourg has for you.

Switzerland personally played a much larger role in my views than Luxembourg, but Monaco is even further down on that list.

Конечно, мы не Советы, что может дать вам эту идею?

Heh heh.

But seriously, one of these days I should start carrying a copy of the Communist Manifesto or something around the house and see what my dad does.

Then again, he's used to my antics at this point and probably wouldn't bat an eye.

I'm fortunate to have a father who shares my belief in revolution to effect change in society.

[S i t k a]

Switzerland personally played a much larger role in my views than Luxembourg, but Monaco is even further down on that list.

Heh heh.

But seriously, one of these days I should start carrying a copy of the Communist Manifesto or something around the house and see what my dad does.

Then again, he's used to my antics at this point and probably wouldn't bat an eye.

I'm fortunate to have a father who shares my belief in revolution to effect change in society.

My father likes discussing politics with me too. It's just that I'm not very good at having a conversation, especially about politics that I'm never quite sure how well I understand.

[Aillyria]

I'm fortunate to have a father who shares my belief in revolution to effect change in society.

My father likes discussing politics with me too. It's just that I'm not very good at having a conversation, especially about politics that I'm never quite sure how well I understand.

My dad and I don't agree much on politics, he pretty much sees everything as BS and is skeptical of everything. I, on the other hand, am very committed to my ideology and religion. About the only thing we agree on is that violence is useful and necessary in order to change civilization.

[S i t k a]

My father likes discussing politics with me too. It's just that I'm not very good at having a conversation, especially about politics that I'm never quite sure how well I understand.

My dad and I don't agree much on politics, he pretty much sees everything as BS and is skeptical of everything. I, on the other hand, am very committed to my ideology and religion. About the only thing we agree on is that violence is useful and necessary in order to change civilization.

I can't comment either way on the violence part. All I know is that I'd never be able to take part in such a thing, no matter what.

[Liriena]

Where I disagree with you is in the idea that the basis for far right growth lies primarily on alleged progressive bigotry on the cultural and socia level. I lean more towards the interpretation that it's the synthesis of economic anxiety, pre-existing prejudices and the failure of the liberal consensus in offering an effective response. I don't think the answer is for the left to embrace some sort of white nationalism or Western supremacism, so much as just rediscovering its economic populism and its distrust in liberal democracy. You don't need to pander to misguided prejudices and propaganda-fueled cultural resentment, specially of they are built on false premises, if you have the economic policy that genuinely tackles the real roots of the problem.

Scapegoating minority rights movements and feminism isn't worth much as a policy, imho.

You're acting like if we aren't sexist against men and racist against whites while hating the western world and portraying it as uniquely evil the only alternative is supremacism, despite knowing that isn't the position.

Sexism affects men. I've said as much more than once. As for racism... no, I don't think we are "racist against whites". We are critical of whiteness as a historically constructed phenomenon, we are critical of historically constructed injustices predicated on the hierarchization of races, but we are not specifically "racist against whites", I think, on a significant level, nor do I think we are currently specifically and purposefully targeting white people for socioeconomic marginalization out of a notion of racial essentialism and hierarchization.

Further, while economic failure is a catalyst, it is not the reason the far-right is growing, the far-left also exists but the problem is the lefts endorsement of progressivism and subsequent misandry, anti-white, anti-western rhetoric, alongside Islamophiliac tendencies.
The left can crawl over the finish line with economic populism, for a time, but that would merely kick the can down the road. Eventually these issues will need to be addressed.
It isn't pandering to misguided prejudice, that's precisely what the progressives are doing with their support for feminism, and propoganda-fueled cultural resentment of the west is in full swing.

Mmm... not a fan of the non-sequitur in the underlined. That some progressives may be misguided in their worldview does not preclude the far right from also being misguided.

For someone on the left side of the spectrum, you have a very disturbing tendency to be excessively generous towards the far right worldview and take it at face value, imho

Your response is a non-answer, and falls afoul of the usual problem the progressives have.
"Literally everyone is saying i'm naked, including Nazis, therefore i'm wearing clothes and everyone is a Nazi."

I guess this is the part where you start arguing against your straw progressive and just handwave away what I actually believe so you can go on to make yet another fiery accusation against the enemy in your mind?

Abandoning progressive bullshit does not mean we're "Pandering to prejudice" or endorsement white supremacy or any of that crap you mentioned.

Sure, in theory, not every anti-progressive person ever is just pandering or endorsing white supremacism. The problem is that that theory gets harder and harder to believe when it seems like every single "moderate", "skeptic" and "classical liberal" figure, given enough time, eventually becomes just a gateway to far right doctrine with no self-awareness and no apparent commitment to really challenging the status quo beyond crying about how SJWs ruined their favorite hobbies and why we should totally take "race and IQ" as a serious and legitimate debate topic.

Not everyone isa nazi dude,

Chocolate por la noticia. I'm looking at a non-nazi right now, am I not?

you're just butt naked. This non-response of yours did not actually do anything to engage with the criticism offered, instead up and deciding to fight an imaginary enemy,

You mean like the "progressives" you see everywhere all of the time destroying everything you love and who you blame for everything wrong in the West?

and in doing so, brushing off criticism of the lefts misandry, anti-white, anti-western, and islamophiliac problem.

I'm not "brushing off" the criticism. They are all serious accusations that you throw around regularly and with a straight face, and you evidently put a lot of thought and care into them. My disagreement is not just a casual dismissal.

You see misandry. I don't, at least not on a significant level.
You see anti-white racism. I don't.
You see "anti-western" sentiments. I see a necessary critique of our own history and its contemporary consequences, and a bunch of people who are taking it as a personal affront and blasphemy. History doesn't care about how proud you desperately need to be about the "ideals" of a past you had no part in or how uncomfortable you feel about the not-very-pretty causes and consequences of that past.

Your nonsense about the far-right growing due to lack of populism also doesn't fly, because across europe, far-right parties adopt wildly different economic platforms, ranging from borderline ancap to totalitarian socialism. The unifying feature is they offer a remedy to the progressive movement and its negative effects. It's true that populism could probably pry enough people off to begrudgingly vote for a Sanders, but like I said, that only kicks the can.

They offer a remedy to anti-establishment sentiments in the form of a comforting answer ("It's not our own people's fault, but the social outsiders' fault!"), an answer that appeals to our long-cultivated in-group biases.

Again, you are acting like the decision to support the far right is inherently rational and well-founded in a practical, realistic worldview. The anxiety many people in the West feel is real and is born from real problems, but the far right's diagnosis of those problems' is a lie.

Feminist women didn't destroy your safety nets, your education systems, your healthcare systems, or made your wages stagnate. Progressives who support Muslims' right to exist and worship peacefully did not usher in deindustrialization and ballooning debt. Black Lives Matter isn't to blame for opioid addictions, and immigrants didn't cause widespread corruption and lack of representation in the political system. LGBT+ rights group didn't make housing prices skyrocket.

You're not suffering because you are white and those in power hate you for it, and when some far right dipshit tells you that it's all because the West has become anti-white, consider the fact that they have been saying the exact same bullshit since long before "progressives" came along with the Duluth model and affirmative action at the BBC. And consider who they always blame.

UKIP is another example of progressives suppressing debate. Many UKIPpers are labour.

They were... and then many of them returned to Labour last year.

"Economic populism"?
You're not genuinely evaluating the situation, you're just repeating ideological and baseless assertions

Yeah, I'm repetitive, you say as you make the exact same argument about how progressives hate white men and the far right is correct in its cultural analysis you've been making for a couple of years.

other progressives have, because they cannot bare to actually admit their critics have a point, and so they seek an explanation, even a shit one that doesn't make sense, to the rise.
Actually take a step back and evaluate them genuinely, don't just repeat waffle.

I love the implication that I'm just a mindless drone who can't think for himself because *gasp* I disagree with you.

In process of repeating that waffle, you fell afoul of this;

"Just like nazis and the far-right!" In the process, routinely screaming that "The only game in town to beat us is the far-right! No other opponents exist!"

*fart sound*

Seriously, way to miss the mark there. Do you really believe my worldview is so simplistic that everyone I disagree with is far right to me?

At the risk of being a bit too inflammatory... you don't know shit.

Peronism and Kirchnerism? Not even remotely far right, yet I oppose them.
Macri and Cambiemos? Not far right, yet I oppose them.
Hillary Clinton? Definitely not far right, yet I disapprove.
The LibDems? Not far right, but not that big a fan beyond their electoral reform stuff.
Silvio Berlusconi? An asshole, to be sure, but not necessarily far right.
Assad? Not a fan, but he ain't far right.
Merkel? Definitely not far right, even though I wouldn't vote for her.
Macron? Same as above.
Temer? Not far right. A right proper douche, but not far right.
The Amazing Atheist? A toxic idiot, but not necessarily far right.
Dave Rubin? Gateway drug to the far right, but not far right himself.
Ben Shapiro? Definitely not "alt-right", but also definitely someone that should be stuffed in a locker.
Ann Coulter? A bad joke, but not far right.

Dude. You're part of the problem. You're part of the reason people join the far-right.

Actually... funny story, but it turns out I might actually have the strange ability to make some right-wing people consider voting for Trotskyists even though I'm not a Trosko myself.

You just told them its the only alternative to progressive sexism and racism is "White supremacy."

Did I, though?

I mean, it does often seem like anti-progressives are quite intent on making white supremacism or its softer versions the only alternatives, but I recognize that stuff is almost never that bipolar in real life.

Well then fuck, they're sure gonna take that alternative aren't they? Better that than anti-whiteness.

Ostro, if you are so desperate to have an excuse to vote for Nigel Farage or join the BNP, you can just do it. You don't have to spend all this time talking to yourself while pretending you are talking at me about how it's cool to vote far right if you feel like the alternative is "anti-whiteness".

Do you think i'm white supremacist?

No, even though you sure like to make excuses for white supremacism and try to frame it as a rational belief.

Then you know full fucking well that there's other alternatives. I wish you progressives would cut this shit out, you're dividing society into two camps of bigots and pretending egalitarianism doesn't exist.

And I wish you'd figure out whether you want to pluralize or individualize this discussion, because you are all over the place.

This bullshit you were spoonfed and ate up readily is exactly that, bullshit.

Spoonfed by who?

Come on, tell me who indoctrinated me. Give me names, specifics. Come on, do your own long-distance diagnosis of my own poor widdle self's indoctrination. I'm just dying to have my political journey through the years splained by someone thousands of miles away.

Hey. You're the problem.
Stop it.

No u

[Crazed Pirates]

later...

"Dad, I think I accidentally defected to the Soviet Union or something last night."

Конечно, мы не Советы, что может дать вам эту идею?

Of course you are not councils.

[Bakery Hill]

Being morally opposed to nationalism is fairly anti-Marxist.

And you say that as a non-Marxist and a non-communist talking to a guy who has been a Marxist and a communist since 1968?

Follow your own bliss, but please lay off the trolling.

Mate I don't give a fuck who you are, when you're wrong you're wrong.

[Bakery Hill]

It's a colourful way of saying that you're too black and white in your thinking, not an ad hominem attack.

Sick in the head means I engage in black-and-white thinking?

No. My opposition to nationalism comes from Rosa Luxemburg, perhaps the most fervent opponent of nationalism among the early communists. I am a Luxemburgist and, in many respects, I think like her.

Many people in this thread claim to be communists or socialists. Yet, they don't even know the basics.

Yeah Lenin disagreed with Rose Luxemburg on the national question, and he knew quite a bit about Marxism. You're a condescending elitist who knows far less about Marxism than a fair few regulars to this thread. Debate or go away, stop whinging and bignoting yourself.

[Thermodolia]

displacing is horrible. generally speaking it's still better than murder. Then again, I don't actually agree with Proctopeo on zionists having a better track record of civil rights. I just hate Islamism on principle.

I hate all forms of political and cultural nationalism, including Islamism, Zionism, and American exceptionalism.

No no you don’t support Islamists just when they go again the US.

[Thermodolia]

Only a sith deals in absolutes.

Isn't that statement in and of itself an absolute?

Maybe we are all sith?

[Thermodolia]

It's a colourful way of saying that you're too black and white in your thinking, not an ad hominem attack.

Sick in the head means I engage in black-and-white thinking?

No. My opposition to nationalism comes from Rosa Luxemburg, perhaps the most fervent opponent of nationalism among the early communists. I am a Luxemburgist and, in many respects, I think like her.

Many people in this thread claim to be communists or socialists. Yet, they don't even know the basics.

People I give you the no true Scotsman!! Or communist if you prefer

[Dumb Ideologies]

Sick in the head means I engage in black-and-white thinking?

No. My opposition to nationalism comes from Rosa Luxemburg, perhaps the most fervent opponent of nationalism among the early communists. I am a Luxemburgist and, in many respects, I think like her.

Many people in this thread claim to be communists or socialists. Yet, they don't even know the basics.

Yeah Lenin disagreed with Rose Luxemburg on the national question, and he knew quite a bit about Marxism. You're a condescending elitist who knows far less about Marxism than a fair few regulars to this thread. Debate or go away, stop whinging and bignoting yourself.

Mr Baker, do you not know how highly anti-intellectual it is not to cede to dubious, poorly made arguments from someone loudly and repeatedly touting their credentials?

I say this not only as a forum user, but also as Max Barry, Karl Marx, and the goddess Athena.

[Cekoviu]

I hate all forms of political and cultural nationalism, including Islamism, Zionism, and American exceptionalism.

No no you don’t support Islamists just when they go again the US.

I've noticed a disturbing trend among leftists in that they support (or make excuses for) pretty much anything the US doesn't like. Hezbollah, North Korea...

[Ostroeuropa]

No no you don’t support Islamists just when they go again the US.

I've noticed a disturbing trend among leftists in that they support (or make excuses for) pretty much anything the US doesn't like. Hezbollah, North Korea...

Its due to the neocons fucking with the spectrum and lazy partisanship.

Ex-trotskyites and leftists disillusioned with the left joined the right wing (Hence neo-con.) and brought with them the platform of interventionism and a modified version of world revolution (World Democratic Revolution.)

Bush was surrounded by neocons who kept pushing that idea, hence the war on terror, war in iraq, etc.
Paleocons at the time were in hysterics that the left wing had co-opted the right wing.

A few years later, people come to associate interventionism with the right wing, and adopt the right wings old bollocks of defending traditional culture and religiosity despite its negative effects, but only for foreigners. They assume that because the "Right wing" looks at Islamic culture and says "This is regressive, we need to intervene and make it better." that it must be "Left wing" to say "Nuh uh, we should keep it as it is, traditional cultural values!" rather than acknowledge the left wing won the argument on international interventionism and is now snatching defeat from the jaws of victory by not recognizing the neoconservatives as being conservatives with some socialistic values.

The Neocons began in the 60s over leftists who were pissed the democrats weren't hawkish about Soviet style communism, hence the number of trotskyites in it.
The term "neoconservative" refers to those who made the ideological journey from the anti-Stalinist left to the camp of American conservatism.

But modern left wingers rarely acknowledge the intellectual origins of the neocons.

In negative terms, it also neatly explains why the Bush administration and the modern republicans didn't give a fuck about massive state intervention in the economy to fix it, and did the bailouts.
Because they aren't really conservatives in a lot of senses, and have origins in the far-left.

[Pilarcraft]

I've noticed a disturbing trend among leftists in that they support (or make excuses for) pretty much anything the US doesn't like. Hezbollah, North Korea...

Its due to the neocons fucking with the spectrum and lazy partisanship.

Ex-trotskyites and leftists disillusioned with the left joined the right wing (Hence neo-con.) and brought with them the platform of interventionism and a modified version of world revolution (World Democratic Revolution.)

Bush was surrounded by neocons who kept pushing that idea, hence the war on terror, war in iraq, etc.
Paleocons at the time were in hysterics that the left wing had co-opted the right wing.

A few years later, people come to associate interventionism with the right wing, and adopt the right wings old bollocks of defending traditional culture and religiosity despite its negative effects, but only for foreigners. They assume that because the "Right wing" looks at Islamic culture and says "This is regressive, we need to intervene and make it better." that it must be "Left wing" to say "Nuh uh, we should keep it as it is, traditional cultural values!" rather than acknowledge the left wing won the argument on international interventionism and is now snatching defeat from the jaws of victory by not recognizing the neoconservatives as being conservatives with some socialistic values.

The Neocons began in the 60s over leftists who were pissed the democrats weren't hawkish about Soviet style communism, hence the number of trotskyites in it.
The term "neoconservative" refers to those who made the ideological journey from the anti-Stalinist left to the camp of American conservatism.

But modern left wingers rarely acknowledge the intellectual origins of the neocons.

In negative terms, it also neatly explains why the Bush administration and the modern republicans didn't give a fuck about massive state intervention in the economy to fix it, and did the bailouts.
Because they aren't really conservatives in a lot of senses, and have origins in the far-left.

OK but this might come off as a shock, but as someone who isn't quite familiar with American politics, particularly the weirdness of the spectrum here, what exactly is a paleocon? or a neocon? I mean, i get that they're conservatives, but what do each of these ideologies entail?

[Cekoviu]

OK but this might come off as a shock, but as someone who isn't quite familiar with American politics, particularly the weirdness of the spectrum here, what exactly is a paleocon? or a neocon? I mean, i get that they're conservatives, but what do each of these ideologies entail?

Paleocon as I understand it means a conservative who is libertarian in terms of government, but not socially liberal like right-libertarians. It's the "states' rights" crowd.
Neocons, on the other hand, are classic Bush and McCain-type conservatives who love wars and imperialism. They are the less crazy of the two.

[Ostroeuropa]

Its due to the neocons fucking with the spectrum and lazy partisanship.

Ex-trotskyites and leftists disillusioned with the left joined the right wing (Hence neo-con.) and brought with them the platform of interventionism and a modified version of world revolution (World Democratic Revolution.)

Bush was surrounded by neocons who kept pushing that idea, hence the war on terror, war in iraq, etc.
Paleocons at the time were in hysterics that the left wing had co-opted the right wing.

A few years later, people come to associate interventionism with the right wing, and adopt the right wings old bollocks of defending traditional culture and religiosity despite its negative effects, but only for foreigners. They assume that because the "Right wing" looks at Islamic culture and says "This is regressive, we need to intervene and make it better." that it must be "Left wing" to say "Nuh uh, we should keep it as it is, traditional cultural values!" rather than acknowledge the left wing won the argument on international interventionism and is now snatching defeat from the jaws of victory by not recognizing the neoconservatives as being conservatives with some socialistic values.

The Neocons began in the 60s over leftists who were pissed the democrats weren't hawkish about Soviet style communism, hence the number of trotskyites in it.
The term "neoconservative" refers to those who made the ideological journey from the anti-Stalinist left to the camp of American conservatism.

But modern left wingers rarely acknowledge the intellectual origins of the neocons.

In negative terms, it also neatly explains why the Bush administration and the modern republicans didn't give a fuck about massive state intervention in the economy to fix it, and did the bailouts.
Because they aren't really conservatives in a lot of senses, and have origins in the far-left.

OK but this might come off as a shock, but as someone who isn't quite familiar with American politics, particularly the weirdness of the spectrum here, what exactly is a paleocon? or a neocon? I mean, i get that they're conservatives, but what do each of these ideologies entail?

A paleocon is far more isolationist and focused on theocratic laws.
A neocon is much more interventionist and is sometimes ambivalent about theocracy, though in practice republican candidates appeal to both camps by pushing interventionist theocracy.

[Ostroeuropa]

OK but this might come off as a shock, but as someone who isn't quite familiar with American politics, particularly the weirdness of the spectrum here, what exactly is a paleocon? or a neocon? I mean, i get that they're conservatives, but what do each of these ideologies entail?

Paleocon as I understand it means a conservative who is libertarian in terms of government, but not socially liberal like right-libertarians. It's the "states' rights" crowd.
Neocons, on the other hand, are classic Bush and McCain-type conservatives who love wars and imperialism. They are the less crazy of the two.

"Love wars and imperialism" is uncharitable.
They believe in spreading democracy by using both hard and soft power, and often point to the successes in rehabilitating Germany and Japan as model examples of the efficacy of the tactic.

In practice, declaring wars to install democracies calls the vultures down, and if there's a war going on, corporate interests will utilize that to try and exploit the war for their own interests, but this isn't part of neocon ideology, it is a failing of theirs to recognize that threat and do something about it.

This ideological failure to account for corporate interests and imperialism means the ideology is, in practice, imperialist. But they don't love imperialism, merely don't adequately account for it and as a result become a vehicle for it.

To harp on a point again to draw the similarity, it's similar to feminists not loving misandry, just merely being a vehicle for it due to ideological inadequacy to account for reality and the dynamics in play.

[Taihei Tengoku]

No no you don’t support Islamists just when they go again the US.

I've noticed a disturbing trend among leftists in that they support (or make excuses for) pretty much anything the US doesn't like. Hezbollah, North Korea...

Americans are far too pacifist to shoot these kinds of people, and so nice they even let domestic terrorists teach law

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Yeah Lenin disagreed with Rose Luxemburg on the national question, and he knew quite a bit about Marxism. You're a condescending elitist who knows far less about Marxism than a fair few regulars to this thread. Debate or go away, stop whinging and bignoting yourself.

What a convenient posting: Using an ad hominem attack to cover up your own lack of knowledge.

You accused me of not being a true Marxist because I did not accept liberatory nationalism.

First, you know I am a Luxemburgist. Second, you were obviously unaware, despite whatever you may now claim, that Rosa vigorously opposed nationalism.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Mate I don't give a fuck who you are, when you're wrong you're wrong.

What you believe is your business. What you say to me becomes my business.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

I've noticed a disturbing trend among leftists in that they support (or make excuses for) pretty much anything the US doesn't like. Hezbollah, North Korea...

I don't care about which countries the U.S. does not like. I care about which countries the U.S. abuses or invades.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Paleocon as I understand it means a conservative who is libertarian in terms of government, but not socially liberal like right-libertarians. It's the "states' rights" crowd.
Neocons, on the other hand, are classic Bush and McCain-type conservatives who love wars and imperialism. They are the less crazy of the two.

Paleocons are like Patrick J. Buchanan, who is an admitted white nationalist. He worked in the Nixon administration and is now a pundit.

Neocons are pro-American and pro-Zionist military hawks who have wide-ranging views on other issues.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Yeah Lenin disagreed with Rose Luxemburg on the national question, and he knew quite a bit about Marxism. You're a condescending elitist who knows far less about Marxism than a fair few regulars to this thread. Debate or go away, stop whinging and bignoting yourself.

What a convenient posting: Using an ad hominem attack to cover up your own lack of knowledge.

You accused me of not being a true Marxist because I did not accept liberatory nationalism.

First, you know I am a Luxemburgist. Second, you were obviously unaware, despite whatever you may now claim, that Rosa vigorously opposed nationalism.

Bourgeois national independence movements are a major step in Proletarian revolution.