LWDT 8: Hitting the Marx

[Philjia]

You're an authoritarian state socialist, and appalling as working against the total liberation of the proletariat is appalling regardless of your economics.

What's "anti-liberating" about their views? The point made of capitalism and progressivism being social diseases is more than a little correct, I'd say Tankistan is heading in the right direction ideologically.

All that harms none but the self is permissible, nought that restrains the pursuit of happiness is acceptable. Pleasure is the highest form of good, and the highest form of pleasure may be freedom from desire, but it is not for any state to attempt to enforce such a mindset upon it's populace, and indeed any attempt to do so is bound to be restrictive and cause far more harm than good.

[First American Empire]

Society is falling apart from capitalist entropy and both American progressivism and conservatism seem to be symptoms of this. I oppose drugs, paganism, most body modification, free love, bourgeois trends, identity politics, lewdness, and other awful problems that new progressives have a tolerant stance on while supporting equal rights to the point of heavy enforcement.This is somewhat correlated to my want of calculated authority. My views on primitive cultures consist of merciful conversion and ethnic equality, but I will not allow them to keep their reactionary identity. Modesty and partially frugal living are some core values that Americans have forgotten. And nobody is special. The only group that is an enemy is the oppressor.

My religion is not an "awful problem". Nothing you've listed is actually an "awful problem" aside from addictive drugs and maybe lewdness, depending on your definition.

People like you are a disgrace to everything the Left fights for. Reactionaries and racists like you are the one group that has no place in my ideals of a united Left.

[Soviet Tankistan]

It does when ethnofascists, anarchists, and neoliberals decide I can't talk.

Hold your views regardless, don't change them to please people.

Sound advice, although it is hard in practice. I am not a sectarian by choice, for I am very willing to work with people who have similar goals. But I have trouble finding anyone who does. I would be able to converse with almost all historical leftists even if I have vastly differing theory. The forum community is more tolerable, but they are not much more than neoleftists, albeit better than the rest. I can have peaceful disagreement, where ethnofascist and improper anarchist personalities deny that. When I claimed Marxism-Leninism is not communism but statism, that was controversial. When I claimed that religion shares many principles with not only socialism, but communism, and the two are able to coexist, I received anger and outright denial. I was called an idiot and ignorant on both counts. Later, I opined how animal products can be ethically obtained and it is not only possible, but desirable, to use ethical methods when harvesting meat. I was berated for being a murdering bourgeois supremacist. When I voiced my opposition to primitive societies, I was ill treated. Many more episodes consisted of views that many people have held before, including leftists, rage was always the reply. One day I was to be "persecuted" by one of the elites who felt threatened and offended by none other than my views, which never supported hate. I left the absolute clown show and they insulted me for sparing the absurdity.

I do not know how to explain this, but I am against modern liberal progressivism. Society is falling apart from capitalist entropy and both American progressivism and conservatism seem to be symptoms of this. I oppose drugs, paganism, most body modification, free love, bourgeois trends, identity politics, lewdness, and other awful problems that new progressives have a tolerant stance on while supporting equal rights to the point of heavy enforcement. I favor cultural preservation to an extent, valuing classic art. This is somewhat correlated to my want of calculated authority. My views on primitive cultures consist of merciful conversion and ethnic equality, but I will not allow them to keep their reactionary identity. Modesty and partially frugal living are some core values that Americans have forgotten. And nobody is special. The only group that is an enemy is the oppressor.

I have been criticized for these views, called a neo-nazi troll and right wing colonialist for approving of benevolent order and regard for all as fundamentally equal. I consider myself as not conceding to rightist and liberal decay in many ways, although the "pan-leftist" community on GP believes that I am controversial and appalling by espousing values that seek to create social unity and remove hedonistic and reactionary ideals that oppose my praxis.

Am I a rightist and anti-revolutionary? A capitalist and racist? For the record, I stand by suppression of hate and regulation of economic activities enacted with the power of the state installed by the people's strength. I seek to extinguish racial strife and old social issues that have not been resolved. Reactionary or not, which am I?

You're an authoritarian state socialist, and appalling as working against the total liberation of the proletariat is appalling regardless of your economics.

Liberation is abstract. I vouch for liberation as far as it could reasonably in my opinion. I recognize communist and syndicalism as other forms of worker liberation. As long as the small percent are dethroned and the people govern based on will, that is liberation enough. I believe that liberation must be protected.

[Nakena]

I do not know how to explain this, but I am against modern liberal progressivism. Society is falling apart from capitalist entropy and both American progressivism and conservatism seem to be symptoms of this. I oppose drugs, paganism, most body modification, free love, bourgeois trends, identity politics, lewdness, and other awful problems that new progressives have a tolerant stance on while supporting equal rights to the point of heavy enforcement.

What kind of drugs and whats wrong with paganism specifically?

Since you mentioned it by the word and not just saying "religion" or so.

[Torrocca]

I oppose drugs, paganism, most body modification, free love, bourgeois trends, identity politics, lewdness, and other awful problems that new progressives have a tolerant stance on while supporting equal rights to the point of heavy enforcement.

Literally none of these except for bourgie shit and some forms of drugs are "awful problems".

[Pacomia]

I oppose drugs, paganism, most body modification, free love, bourgeois trends, identity politics, lewdness, and other awful problems that new progressives have a tolerant stance on while supporting equal rights to the point of heavy enforcement.

Literally none of these except for bourgie shit and some forms of drugs are "awful problems".

I don't much like identity politics either. In my opinion, it's a problem, but alright.

[Soviet Tankistan]

You're an authoritarian state socialist, and appalling as working against the total liberation of the proletariat is appalling regardless of your economics.

What's "anti-liberating" about their views? The point made of capitalism and progressivism being social diseases is more than a little correct, I'd say Tankistan is heading in the right direction ideologically.

Progressivism isn't wrong, but progressivism driven by the ten, five, or one percent is little more than neoliberal tyranny. Progressivism for all is true equality. And progressivism from the ruling class, benefitting the maintenance of the social order is not.

Society is falling apart from capitalist entropy and both American progressivism and conservatism seem to be symptoms of this. I oppose drugs, paganism, most body modification, free love, bourgeois trends, identity politics, lewdness, and other awful problems that new progressives have a tolerant stance on while supporting equal rights to the point of heavy enforcement.This is somewhat correlated to my want of calculated authority. My views on primitive cultures consist of merciful conversion and ethnic equality, but I will not allow them to keep their reactionary identity. Modesty and partially frugal living are some core values that Americans have forgotten. And nobody is special. The only group that is an enemy is the oppressor.

My religion is not an "awful problem". Nothing you've listed is actually an "awful problem" aside from addictive drugs and maybe lewdness, depending on your definition.

People like you are a disgrace to everything the Left fights for. Reactionaries and racists like you are the one group that has no place in my ideals of a united Left.

I am so racist that I believe every race is equal and disagreeing is evil. I am am reactionary that I support high wages, LGBT rights, state modernization and progress of religion, hierarchy only when necessary, cohesion of all races, and public needs for everyone.

I do not believe any individual problem is awful, but everyone single one divides and destroys humanity. We're no closer to morality despite great advances. We still repeat the same actions that we condemned our ancestors for. What's changed? Technology only. But technology is not at fault, irresponsibility and harmful identity movements on every side persist. Human unity in culture and practice is the sole solution. The causes of issues were started by the elites and carried out by slaves to the masters. Modern ruling class influenced culture caused these above issues and neither faction wishes to improve the lives of over 95% of humanity.

[Torrocca]

Literally none of these except for bourgie shit and some forms of drugs are "awful problems".

I don't much like identity politics either.

Identity politics definitely have their issues, but I'd be hard-pressed to consider idpol as a whole as an "awful problem". My primary issue with idpol is how easily appropriated it is by reactionary elements, but there's nothing wrong with utilizing idpol intersectionally to reconcile the problems of a given identity with wider-scope problems, since most idpol issues stem from those umbrella issues anyhow.

[Pacomia]

I don't much like identity politics either.

Identity politics definitely have their issues, but I'd be hard-pressed to consider them "awful problems". My primary issue with idpol is how easily appropriated it is by reactionary elements, but there's nothing wrong with utilizing idpol intersectionally to reconcile the problems of a given identity with wider-scope problems, since most idpol issues stem from those umbrella issues anyhow.

I don't know what any of that means, but I'm just going to assume it was a reasonable argument.

As usual, I don't really know what I'm talking about, but really I just don't like when people vote for someone just because (or even partially because) they're a woman or they're gay or they're black or whatever. I used to be one of those people, I'm not proud of it.

[Nakena]

I am so racist that I believe every race is equal and disagreeing is evil. I am am reactionary that I support high wages, LGBT rights, state modernization and progress of religion, hierarchy only when necessary, cohesion of all races, and public needs for everyone.

I do not believe any individual problem is awful, but everyone single one divides and destroys humanity. We're no closer to morality despite great advances. We still repeat the same actions that we condemned our ancestors for. What's changed? Technology only. But technology is not at fault, irresponsibility and harmful identity movements on every side persist.Human unity in culture and practice is the sole solution.

That is human nature and it changes and evolves only very slowly. Even worse when systems and ideologies are actively in denial or ignorance thereof. Or even working against it.

The human race exists much longer than our still very young and primitive civilization that is only a few thousend years old.

The causes of issues were started by the elites and carried out by slaves to the masters. Modern ruling class influenced culture caused these above issues and neither faction wishes to improve the lives of over 95% of humanity.

Dangerous pitfall that is there. "All evil in the world is caused by single-factor [INSERT NAME]" is a reductionist, totalitarian approach that wont get you anywere. But in the gutter.

Or to the redpill that the "elite" are Jews, Reptilians etc.

Stuff like that is precisely why I am opposed to marxism.

[Soviet Tankistan]

I do not know how to explain this, but I am against modern liberal progressivism. Society is falling apart from capitalist entropy and both American progressivism and conservatism seem to be symptoms of this. I oppose drugs, paganism, most body modification, free love, bourgeois trends, identity politics, lewdness, and other awful problems that new progressives have a tolerant stance on while supporting equal rights to the point of heavy enforcement.

What kind of drugs and whats wrong with paganism specifically?

Since you mentioned it by the word and not just saying "religion" or so.

Drugs for any enjoyment. Alcohol is mildly acceptable legally in prevalent nations, but not where it is absent. The other major intoxicants shouldn't be welcome anywhere.

Paganism is problematic for having identity and connection to specific leaders. Christianity and Islam have very strange histories, fighting themselves and becoming distanced from their originators. They are easily manipulated and have been historically susceptible to state control. Paganism remains attached to true identity such as ethnicity, society, and highly political elites. If the state cannot manipulate the church to suit the people, it becomes a problem. In Russia, it was ignored for too long. That was intentional, for the atheists did not all see the merits of retaining a useful group loyal to a socialist church. They allowed the church to stay with the Tsarist cause. The Muslims were different though, for they were persecuted by the elites, but that is a different story.

Paganism has connection to a people while less pagan religions do not in most cases. For example, Hinduism espouses less pagan beliefs than Buddhism despite being similar in many regards. The former did not have as many ethnic extremists. And then other religions have been severed from central organization. I cannot say that Christianity is for anyone in specific, as nearly every group has some connection with it or a similar religion. Instead, there are branches denoting loyalty to an activist and not philosopher's cause. There is no shared loyalty within Abrahamic religion except to a general concept. Therefore it can be formed simply, with no inherent connection to anything. This allows moderation and state intervention. Paganism lacks this capacity often. Assuming the non-Abrahamist not a Buddhist or Hinduist, they likely make up a minority or religious folk. Minorities or radicals with a sense of identity and no cause tend to be problematic for equality.

I will not cover theological reasons unless you wish me to, for that is a whole other topic that could get long. If so, that will have to be another time.

[Cappuccina]

Hold your views regardless, don't change them to please people.

Sound advice, although it is hard in practice. I am not a sectarian by choice, for I am very willing to work with people who have similar goals. But I have trouble finding anyone who does. I would be able to converse with almost all historical leftists even if I have vastly differing theory. The forum community is more tolerable, but they are not much more than neoleftists, albeit better than the rest. I can have peaceful disagreement, where ethnofascist and improper anarchist personalities deny that. When I claimed Marxism-Leninism is not communism but statism, that was controversial. When I claimed that religion shares many principles with not only socialism, but communism, and the two are able to coexist, I received anger and outright denial. I was called an idiot and ignorant on both counts. Later, I opined how animal products can be ethically obtained and it is not only possible, but desirable, to use ethical methods when harvesting meat. I was berated for being a murdering bourgeois supremacist. When I voiced my opposition to primitive societies, I was ill treated. Many more episodes consisted of views that many people have held before, including leftists, rage was always the reply. One day I was to be "persecuted" by one of the elites who felt threatened and offended by none other than my views, which never supported hate. I left the absolute clown show and they insulted me for sparing the absurdity.

You're an authoritarian state socialist, and appalling as working against the total liberation of the proletariat is appalling regardless of your economics.

Liberation is abstract. I vouch for liberation as far as it could reasonably in my opinion. I recognize communist and syndicalism as other forms of worker liberation. As long as the small percent are dethroned and the people govern based on will, that is liberation enough. I believe that liberation must be protected.

Personally I find both the leftist and rightists of NSG to be rather cooky ideologically, in general. I've largely given up on trying to apply "political spectrum" labels to myself since I agree with and disagree with many elements of the right and the left, nor do I feel "centrism" is a very fitting one either. I hold the views I have, and people can make what they want out of that, I honestly don't give a shit.

[Pasong Tirad]

My views on primitive cultures consist of merciful conversion and ethnic equality, but I will not allow them to keep their reactionary identity.

Gross.

right wing colonialist

Hmm, I wonder why?

racist?

Most likely, yes.

I seek to extinguish racial strife and old social issues that have not been resolved.

By literally "mercifully converting" (whatever the fuck that means) """"primitive"""" cultures.

[Nakena]

*snip*

I do not believe we will come to an agreement here.

[Bear Stearns]

I do not know how to explain this, but I am against modern liberal progressivism. Society is falling apart from capitalist entropy and both American progressivism and conservatism seem to be symptoms of this. I oppose drugs, paganism, most body modification, free love, bourgeois trends, identity politics, lewdness, and other awful problems that new progressives have a tolerant stance on while supporting equal rights to the point of heavy enforcement. I favor cultural preservation to an extent, valuing classic art. This is somewhat correlated to my want of calculated authority. My views on primitive cultures consist of merciful conversion and ethnic equality, but I will not allow them to keep their reactionary identity. Modesty and partially frugal living are some core values that Americans have forgotten. And nobody is special. The only group that is an enemy is the oppressor.

I have been criticized for these views, called a neo-nazi troll and right wing colonialist for approving of benevolent order and regard for all as fundamentally equal. I consider myself as not conceding to rightist and liberal decay in many ways, although the "pan-leftist" community on GP believes that I am controversial and appalling by espousing values that seek to create social unity and remove hedonistic and reactionary ideals that oppose my praxis.

Am I a rightist and anti-revolutionary? A capitalist and racist? For the record, I stand by suppression of hate and regulation of economic activities enacted with the power of the state installed by the people's strength. I seek to extinguish racial strife and old social issues that have not been resolved. Reactionary or not, which am I?

These views really aren't that shocking. In fact if it weren't for your more blunt tone, this is pretty much what most populists in the West believe. Economic leftism with social conservatism.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

I do not know how to explain this, but I am against modern liberal progressivism. Society is falling apart from capitalist entropy and both American progressivism and conservatism seem to be symptoms of this. I oppose drugs, paganism, most body modification, free love, bourgeois trends, identity politics, lewdness, and other awful problems that new progressives have a tolerant stance on while supporting equal rights to the point of heavy enforcement. I favor cultural preservation to an extent, valuing classic art. This is somewhat correlated to my want of calculated authority. My views on primitive cultures consist of merciful conversion and ethnic equality, but I will not allow them to keep their reactionary identity. Modesty and partially frugal living are some core values that Americans have forgotten. And nobody is special. The only group that is an enemy is the oppressor.

I have been criticized for these views, called a neo-nazi troll and right wing colonialist for approving of benevolent order and regard for all as fundamentally equal. I consider myself as not conceding to rightist and liberal decay in many ways, although the "pan-leftist" community on GP believes that I am controversial and appalling by espousing values that seek to create social unity and remove hedonistic and reactionary ideals that oppose my praxis.

Am I a rightist and anti-revolutionary? A capitalist and racist? For the record, I stand by suppression of hate and regulation of economic activities enacted with the power of the state installed by the people's strength. I seek to extinguish racial strife and old social issues that have not been resolved. Reactionary or not, which am I?

You are an authoritarian leftist, and possibly a tankie.

[Maydona]

I do not know how to explain this, but I am against modern liberal progressivism. Society is falling apart from capitalist entropy and both American progressivism and conservatism seem to be symptoms of this. I oppose drugs, paganism, most body modification, free love, bourgeois trends, identity politics, lewdness, and other awful problems that new progressives have a tolerant stance on while supporting equal rights to the point of heavy enforcement. I favor cultural preservation to an extent, valuing classic art. This is somewhat correlated to my want of calculated authority. My views on primitive cultures consist of merciful conversion and ethnic equality, but I will not allow them to keep their reactionary identity. Modesty and partially frugal living are some core values that Americans have forgotten. And nobody is special. The only group that is an enemy is the oppressor.

I have been criticized for these views, called a neo-nazi troll and right wing colonialist for approving of benevolent order and regard for all as fundamentally equal. I consider myself as not conceding to rightist and liberal decay in many ways, although the "pan-leftist" community on GP believes that I am controversial and appalling by espousing values that seek to create social unity and remove hedonistic and reactionary ideals that oppose my praxis.

Am I a rightist and anti-revolutionary? A capitalist and racist? For the record, I stand by suppression of hate and regulation of economic activities enacted with the power of the state installed by the people's strength. I seek to extinguish racial strife and old social issues that have not been resolved. Reactionary or not, which am I?

While it is possible to be a social conservative Socialist, it isn't productive or practical, Socialism requires the the solidarity and emancipation of all people's and groups. By alienating people because of they do not fit into your form of the ideal citizen wont attract people your cause.

[Bear Stearns]

I do not know how to explain this, but I am against modern liberal progressivism. Society is falling apart from capitalist entropy and both American progressivism and conservatism seem to be symptoms of this. I oppose drugs, paganism, most body modification, free love, bourgeois trends, identity politics, lewdness, and other awful problems that new progressives have a tolerant stance on while supporting equal rights to the point of heavy enforcement. I favor cultural preservation to an extent, valuing classic art. This is somewhat correlated to my want of calculated authority. My views on primitive cultures consist of merciful conversion and ethnic equality, but I will not allow them to keep their reactionary identity. Modesty and partially frugal living are some core values that Americans have forgotten. And nobody is special. The only group that is an enemy is the oppressor.

I have been criticized for these views, called a neo-nazi troll and right wing colonialist for approving of benevolent order and regard for all as fundamentally equal. I consider myself as not conceding to rightist and liberal decay in many ways, although the "pan-leftist" community on GP believes that I am controversial and appalling by espousing values that seek to create social unity and remove hedonistic and reactionary ideals that oppose my praxis.

Am I a rightist and anti-revolutionary? A capitalist and racist? For the record, I stand by suppression of hate and regulation of economic activities enacted with the power of the state installed by the people's strength. I seek to extinguish racial strife and old social issues that have not been resolved. Reactionary or not, which am I?

While it is possible to be a social conservative Socialist, it isn't productive or practical, Socialism requires the the solidarity and emancipation of all people's and groups. By alienating people because of they do not fit into your form of the ideal citizen wont attract people your cause.

What about when outsider/marginal groups are used as a wedge against the proletariat. You notice how during revolutions and mass movements, the outsider/marginal groups tend to side with the establishment?

[New Rothera]

You notice how during revolutions and mass movements, the outsider/marginal groups tend to side with the establishment?

Do you have any examples of this happening? I'm genuinely curious about this.

[Bear Stearns]

You notice how during revolutions and mass movements, the outsider/marginal groups tend to side with the establishment?

Do you have any examples of this happening? I'm genuinely curious about this.

Three come to mind:
English Civil War: Irish Catholics side with the English monarchy
American Revolution: blacks and Indians side with the British
Austria-Hungary: all minorities side with the Emperor over the disparate nations they live in

[Pacomia]

Do you have any examples of this happening? I'm genuinely curious about this.

Three come to mind:
English Civil War: Irish Catholics side with the English monarchy
American Revolution: blacks and Indians side with the British
Austria-Hungary: all minorities side with the Emperor over the disparate nations they live in

Actually, many Indians sided with the Americans, and blacks were slaves, so what else could they really do?

[Nakena]

You notice how during revolutions and mass movements, the outsider/marginal groups tend to side with the establishment?

Do you have any examples of this happening? I'm genuinely curious about this.

Syrian Civil War

[Pasong Tirad]

Do you have any examples of this happening? I'm genuinely curious about this.

Syrian Civil War

I'm assuming you mean the Kurds? Fair enough, I suppose. It's a lot more nuanced than just "Kurds side with Assad" though.

[Nakena]

Syrian Civil War

I'm assuming you mean the Kurds? Fair enough, I suppose. It's a lot more nuanced than just "Kurds side with Assad" though.

Actually no.

I mean the various religious minorities that would be slaughtered as heretics by a potential homogenous islamic tyranny by sunni majority.

[Maydona]

What about when outsider/marginal groups are used as a wedge against the proletariat. You notice how during revolutions and mass movements, the outsider/marginal groups tend to side with the establishment?

There is so much strong with this statement it's mind boggling actually. But I guess i have to respond.

Your claim that "he outsider/marginal groups tend to side with the establishment" is completely and direly wrong because it implies that some how marginalized groups are some how outside both the proletariat/bourgeoisie classes, which needs elaboration.

You give these examples

Three come to mind:
English Civil War: Irish Catholics side with the English monarchy
American Revolution: blacks and Indians side with the British
Austria-Hungary: all minorities side with the Emperor over the disparate nations they live in

Breaking these down by example you say the Irish Catholics sided with the English monarchy during the English civil war which is true.However, their motivation wasn't driven by having a different a class interests both rather it was a vain attempt to preserve their religious rights which the Cromwell was looking to do away with. Plus this is the late feudal/early mercantilism era in Europe, so these wars were more motivated (but not entirely) by religious convictions rather than class distinctions.

The American revolution was a bourgeois revolution and was a class war but not between proletariat/bourgeoisie but the American bourgeoisie vs the British bourgeoisie/And nobility. Notice how after the war and with the early American government only wealthy property owners had any influence within the system. Common people, Slaves and outsiders chose sides not out of any class interests but out of what each side was offering them.

This last one is just straight up false, Austria-hungary was tearing itself at the seams even before the first world war. The spring of nations during the 1840s almost saw that entire empire fall apart but was only held together through brutal repression. A lot of the oppressed people's within Austria Hungary formed their own national councils to combat the central government through legal means, by no standard were the the majority of the nations subservient to the emperor loyal to him.

These were really bad examples and I can conclude you don't know what you're talking about.