Left-Wing Discussion Thread III

[Ostroeuropa]

I think most accusations of racism, sexism and "anti-western" sentiments in the left are right-wing exaggerations and fabrications, at least insofar as those are, in my opinion, extremely minoritarian problems at most. I disagree with the notion that the answer to the left's woes lies in abandoning progressivism or throwing feminists and minority activists under the bus. As far as I can tell, none of that is really a problem so long as we abandon neoliberalism and embrace popular economic policies. As far as I can tell, Jeremy Corbyn, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, Jacinda Ardern and the DSA have been more than capable of making gains without forsaking social progressivism entirely.

It's just that Ostroeuropa has a massive persecution complex. Those ideas are a fringe view in the left.

They aren't fringe, they're mainstream and actually effect policy, for example the duluth model, the legal definiton of rape in the UK, etc.
The sentencing gap between men and women is larger than the one between whites and blacks, etc.

Economic reform will probably help matters and kick the can down the road, but eventually, the sexism and racism brought about by the policies instituted by the left and the effect their discourse has had on our culture will have to be addressed.

I've heard the "It's a minority" Shpiel before, liriena, as you well know.

Tell me, do you think it's a "Persecution complex" to note that the worlds largest feminist organization supports women always having custody if they request to have it, and that this is sexist against men?

You have thought terminating cliches you rattle off to criticism, not arguments. That behavior is why this toxicity has been allowed to spread so far in the left.

Ones who actually matter and have power in institutions to enforce things like the duluth model that discriminates against men and such. Sort of like criticizing the conservative party and having a bunch of libertarians be willfully ignorant about what it gets up to and insist "Conservatives aren't like that.".
The negligible societal impact of feminists who aren't raging sexists means they essentially may as well not exist. Then occams razor comes in, don't needlessly add entities.
Those feminists like to insist they are majority (Without evidence to back that up), but usually can't point to a single feminist institution or organization that isn't rife with misandry.
So it would seem the only decent feminist is one with no power or influence, perhaps they should be kept that way then.

If your argument is that it's merely that the institutions of power warp them to always be bad, and that it's the ruling minority doing it, then why even spend a second talking or campaigning about those issues rather than focusing on changing that fact?

The article below points out there's lots of profit feminist organizations like NOW make by perpetuating conflict and inequality, so is it capitalism?

Then why would you ever talk about these issues and campaign for them before getting rid of capitalism, if you know it will make things worse?

[Cekoviu]

It's just that Ostroeuropa has a massive persecution complex. Those ideas are a fringe view in the left.

They aren't fringe, they're mainstream and actually effect policy, for example the duluth model, the legal definiton of rape in the UK, etc.
The sentencing gap between men and women is larger than the one between whites and blacks, etc.

Economic reform will probably help matters and kick the can down the road, but eventually, the sexism and racism brought about by the policies instituted by the left and the effect their discourse has had on our culture will have to be addressed.

I've heard the "It's a minority" Shpiel before, liriena, as you well know.

Tell me, do you think it's a "Persecution complex" to note that the worlds largest feminist organization supports women always having custody if they request to have it, and that this is sexist against men?

^{[citation needed]}

[Ostroeuropa]

They aren't fringe, they're mainstream and actually effect policy, for example the duluth model, the legal definiton of rape in the UK, etc.
The sentencing gap between men and women is larger than the one between whites and blacks, etc.

Economic reform will probably help matters and kick the can down the road, but eventually, the sexism and racism brought about by the policies instituted by the left and the effect their discourse has had on our culture will have to be addressed.

I've heard the "It's a minority" Shpiel before, liriena, as you well know.

Tell me, do you think it's a "Persecution complex" to note that the worlds largest feminist organization supports women always having custody if they request to have it, and that this is sexist against men?

^{[citation needed]}

Feminism has a really terrible orwellian memory hole.

Here is the start of the schism in 1986:

https://issuu.com/prenticereid/docs/fem ... _?e=1%2520

This event prompted many male feminists to split off and form the mens rigths movement.

And an article going over the history of this practice:

https://thoughtcatalog.com/janet-bloomf ... -equality/

Let’s look at the history of shared parenting. The majority of this research was conducted by historian and citizen blogger Prentice Reid. As early as 1986, the president of one chapter of the National Organization for Women, the largest feminist organization in the US, complained about the unfairness of equality when it meant giving up a traditional female privilege. Women, feminists argued, are equal, except when they are special and then equal doesn’t count and is unfair and won’t everyone please remember that men suck? In 2001, feminists refused to even sit at the table with men to discuss men and women sharing, equally, the responsibilities and decisions involved in parenting.

What is the rationale behind opposing equality? Men suck. That’s what feminist opposition to equality boils down to. How do men suck? Let us count the ways.

According to NOW’s 2005 statement opposing shared parenting, kids seeing their fathers isn’t necessarily a good thing.

Article does continue, but that's the rub of it.

It's based on the sexist assertions about violence that the duluth model posits.

Feminists insist all fathers should be denied the right to equality because some fathers might be abusive or negligent, while completely ignoring the fact that most violence against children is carried out by women.

(Article says feminists, but it's NOW, the largest organization of feminists in the US, that has used this as their argument.)

In 2009, NOW upped the ante, and declared that fathers who want a relationship with their children after divorce are really only interested in controlling the woman.

This is the fundamental paranoia behind feminist patriarchal ideology. This is the conclusion they will reach about all activity men engage in, at all times, because, as the founder of the duluth model put it:

"By determining that the need or desire for power was the motivating force behind battering, we created a conceptual framework that, in fact, did not fit the lived experience of many of the men and women we were working with. The DAIP staff [...] remained undaunted by the difference in our theory and the actual experiences of those we were working with [...] It was the cases themselves that created the chink in each of our theoretical suits of armor. Speaking for myself, I found that many of the men I interviewed did not seem to articulate a desire for power over their partner. Although I relentlessly took every opportunity to point out to men in the groups that they were so motivated and merely in denial, the fact that few men ever articulated such a desire went unnoticed by me and many of my coworkers. Eventually, we realized that we were finding what we had already predetermined to find."

Persecution complex you say.

Okay.

Point me to a single feminist organization or publication that isn't a problem. Information should be publicly available, not anecdotal.

On the race axis is less clear cut, but similar behaviors arise.

[Cekoviu]

-snip-

#1: The sentencing gap between men and women is high, and I consider it a problem. This does not prove in any way that the left is "misandrist." It shows that we need to reform courts. HuffPo, a notoriously left-wing blog, has reported on this and doesn't try to gloss over or justify it.
#2: The article you posted (an incredibly slanted one by an anti-feminist, I might add), distorts what the actual case is to make it seem like all feminists have predisposed notions about men. It appears that some of the statements by the NOW are assuming bad intentions in men, which is obviously not a good thing (stereotyping and all), but it is possible that parent who gets equal time may want to poison children's relationship with the other parent and has more opportunities to do so that way. I could see this argument used in individual cases, but I don't think the way the NOW leaders in question have expressed their ideas against shared parenting is a good one, as it generalizes and stereotypes, two things that I'm very much against as a feminist and social justice warrior, and I think people truly dedicated to sexual equality would agree.
#3: You said that NOW always supports custody for women if they want it, which isn't backed up at all by these articles, so my ^{[citation needed]} still stands.

Since you wanted some "good" feminist organizations, here are a few:
-Sociologists for Women in Society
-National Organization for Men Against Sexism
-Feminists Against Censorship
-National Assembly of Women
-plenty more, but I don't want to make my post a wall of text like yours

"On the race axis is less clear cut, but similar behaviors arise."
Right after you said "Information should be publicly available, not anecdotal," ironically enough. Examples, please.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

This is because the left is a clusterfuck of sexism, racism, and milquetoast economic reform.

Do you actually expect a communist to respond to what you wrote?

[Ostroeuropa]

-snip-

#1: The sentencing gap between men and women is high, and I consider it a problem. This does not prove in any way that the left is "misandrist." It shows that we need to reform courts. HuffPo, a notoriously left-wing blog, has reported on this and doesn't try to gloss over or justify it.
#2: The article you posted (an incredibly slanted one by an anti-feminist, I might add), distorts what the actual case is to make it seem like all feminists have predisposed notions about men. It appears that some of the statements by the NOW are assuming bad intentions in men, which is obviously not a good thing (stereotyping and all), but it is possible that parent who gets equal time may want to poison children's relationship with the other parent and has more opportunities to do so that way. I could see this argument used in individual cases, but I don't think the way the NOW leaders in question have expressed their ideas against shared parenting is a good one, as it generalizes and stereotypes, two things that I'm very much against as a feminist and social justice warrior, and I think people truly dedicated to sexual equality would agree.
#3: You said that NOW always supports custody for women if they want it, which isn't backed up at all by these articles, so my ^{[citation needed]} still stands.

Since you wanted some "good" feminist organizations, here are a few:
-Sociologists for Women in Society
-National Organization for Men Against Sexism
-Feminists Against Censorship
-National Assembly of Women
-plenty more, but I don't want to make my post a wall of text like yours

"On the race axis is less clear cut, but similar behaviors arise."
Right after you said "Information should be publicly available, not anecdotal," ironically enough. Examples, please.

1. One reason it is high is because of stereotypes about men in the media, something not assisted by the needlessly genderized campaigning about domestic violence and rape feminists often engage in, not much different than pretending to care about crime and not shutting up about black people.

2. You asked for a citation on the organization doing that, and I provided it. It remains the case that NOW opposes joint custody as a default state, and supports women having custody when they request it. It was not mere statements, they lobbied against bills.

3. That is the conclusion that can be drawn by NOW supporting the status quo and acknowledging that its women who will get custody in the majority of cases as a result of that. The primary caregiver doctrine they support is biased in womens favor and they acknowledge it. They support a positive burden of proof being met to deny women presumed custody, and oppose a positive burden of proof being met to deny men of it.

4.
Sociologists against women issues page appears to have no mention of any mens issues. In addition, it needlessly genderizes several issues and excludes male victims. (Sexual harassment on the victims page. This one is especially glaring: "Girls View Sexual Violence as Normal") as opposed to "People do." and i'd wager it's worse for men given my experience here and elsewhere talking to men who are victims of rape and sexual violence women perpetrate, often, they are not even aware they are victims. Casting the issue in this light, given the status awarded to feminist organizations that is not given to mens issues organizations (Considered a necessary counterweight my the MRM after the failure of feminism to properly advocate for both), is an abuse of their privilege to disenfranchise men.
Specifically;

"(April 2014) – New evidence from the journal Gender & Society helps explain what women’s advocates have argued for years – that women report abuse at much lower rates than it actually occurs"

This is used by them as evidence society is sexist against women. This conclusion can only be reached on this issue as a result of ignorance, willful ignorance, or deception, as this issue is far, far more pronounced amongst male victims.

The Jennifer keys reproduction rights section contains no mention of legal parental surrender of other proposed measures.

If you fail two more on these, i'll probably have to assume you're just blind to these problems or not bothering to actually look.

- National Organization for Men Against Sexism

NOMAS Immediately flunks;

Over the last thirty-plus years of experience working with men in batterer programs – including the experience of domestic violence advocates – it is clear that men are not out-of-control, but in fact, use their ostensibly out-of control anger as a tactic to control, dominate, instill fear, and gain and maintain power over their partner.

http://nomas.org/position-statement-ang ... nce-women/

This is the duluth model. This is the most sexist view to have ever been allowed to operate in the issue of domestic violence, and has led to countless male victims being branded perpetrators, etc.

I Just now showed you that even the person who came up with this bullshit has realized it is false and based on feminist prejudice (pre-judging the situation before the facts come in.)

Feminists against censorship:
*Shrug*
If the best you can come up with is feminists trying to stop other feminists being a positive thing, I can concede that. If you all stopped eachother from doing anything at all, that would indeed be an improvement. You are right, the only decent feminist organization I've seen is one that devotes its activities to anti-feminism.

National assembly of women:
Lots of stuff about the pensions, but nothing noting the sexism against men in the practice of giving them theirs later.
Alleges the UK cuts "Target women."
This is false. They only target women in as much as they target part time workers and parents. Both of these things mostly being women is a result of anti-male sexism in society, the first due to men having very poor work-life balance due to stereotypes and discrimination against those that fail to live up to them, with women having markedly better work-life balance. (This is another aspect of feminisms failure, that it uses this issue to pretend women are discriminated against in the wage gap. You are not discriminated against because others work themselves to death for fear of not being considered a valuable part of society, but you are able to take flextime. What the cuts are bringing about is that now, we all have to work ourselves to death, because conservative capitalism is shit.)
This amounts to women losing privilege, not sexism. That does not make it positive. Whites getting shot more by cops would not be positive either, but it wouldn't be racism against them.

The second because of custody discrimination.

It also fails to note that the government completely removed all funding for male victim of rape charities, but not womens ones, something that actually is a direct attack on a gender.

You get 1/5, on what basically amounts to a technicality.
All of these flaws were extremely close to the surface, such that I can only conclude you never actually bother looking for anti-male sexism in feminist organizations because you a priori believe feminism is a good thing.
This exceptionalist mentality is the source of the toxicity of the movement, and why it has to either change, be countered, or be destroyed.

These were your best attempts, and they failed within mere minutes. If you actually took a look around instead of just believing in shit really hard, this would not have happened.

[Cekoviu]

-snip- (do you know how to consolidate posts at all?!)

1. Gendering domestic violence is a problem, as it affects about 40% of men. Sexual assault is disproportionately dealt with among women, though (the number is 6.3x the amount of men who've experienced rape in the US and 9/10 adult sexual assault victims are female*), so it's much more understandable to focus mainly on women here. The toxic stereotype of men always wanting sex is detrimental to their treatment here. Ever heard of the SJW stereotype "toxic masculinity"? That's what it's referring to.
2. I did not see anything saying they'd always support a woman who wants custody in that article or elsewhere in the research that I did.
3. Okay? I condemned this already, what else do you want? Me to lie and say "f**k it, cishet males are the most abused people in the world"?
4. The sociology group doesn't have mens' stuff because it's literally in the freaking name that it's "Sociologists for Women in Society"! They're trying to remove marginalization of women specifically in sociology, because men are not mistreated in that scientific field.

Over the last thirty-plus years of experience working with men in batterer programs – including the experience of domestic violence advocates – it is clear that men are not out-of-control, but in fact, use their ostensibly out-of control anger as a tactic to control, dominate, instill fear, and gain and maintain power over their partner.

Seems like this is worded badly -- it means that the men that use domestic violence do such, because no reasonable person would claim that every single man has out-of-control anger, especially not an organization founded by men.
Feminists Against Censorship is for feminists stopping censorship, regardless of opinion, so misrepresenting it as anti-feminist in of itself is wrong, it's more anti-SWERF specifically.
What I think is funny is that some feminists like to say that anti-male discrimination is a manifestation of misogyny while you say misogyny is a manifestation of anti-male discrimination. It's really demonstrating horseshoe theory here.
I can also only conclude you never actually bother looking for misogyny in MRA organizations because you a priori believe MRAs are a good thing. This exceptionalist mentality is the source of the toxicity of the movement, and why it has to either change, be countered, or be destroyed.
Aaaaand this is completely and utterly derailing the thread yet again. Neither of us are going to change our opinions -- you as a rabid MRA, me as a rabid SJW, so we might as well drop it. The weird thing is that we actually agree on a lot of these things, you just come to the conclusion that feminists are all evil monsters who hate men (at least, that's what I'm seeing) and I come to the conclusion that feminism is a good movement, but that we need to focus on more gender equality, regardless of whether it's men or women who need help, rather than simply putting women on equal footing with men and ignoring the issues and stereotypes men face.

*Reference for statistics

[Genivaria]

Random thought, but how do you folks feel about mandatory voting? Obviously it would require election day to be a holiday so as those who work wouldn't be penalised. Those who truly don't want to vote for any candidate can just write 'Jeb' or whatever in.

I generally support it and elections should have a holiday regardless.

[Ostroeuropa]

-snip- (do you know how to consolidate posts at all?!)

1. Gendering domestic violence is a problem, as it affects about 40% of men. Sexual assault is disproportionately dealt with among women, though (the number is 6.3x the amount of men who've experienced rape in the US and 9/10 adult sexual assault victims are female*), so it's much more understandable to focus mainly on women here. The toxic stereotype of men always wanting sex is detrimental to their treatment here. Ever heard of the SJW stereotype "toxic masculinity"? That's what it's referring to.
2. I did not see anything saying they'd always support a woman who wants custody in that article or elsewhere in the research that I did.
3. Okay? I condemned this already, what else do you want? Me to lie and say "f**k it, cishet males are the most abused people in the world"?
4. The sociology group doesn't have mens' stuff because it's literally in the freaking name that it's "Sociologists for Women in Society"! They're trying to remove marginalization of women specifically in sociology, because men are not mistreated in that scientific field.

Over the last thirty-plus years of experience working with men in batterer programs – including the experience of domestic violence advocates – it is clear that men are not out-of-control, but in fact, use their ostensibly out-of control anger as a tactic to control, dominate, instill fear, and gain and maintain power over their partner.

Seems like this is worded badly -- it means that the men that use domestic violence do such, because no reasonable person would claim that every single man has out-of-control anger, especially not an organization founded by men.
Feminists Against Censorship is for feminists stopping censorship, regardless of opinion, so misrepresenting it as anti-feminist in of itself is wrong, it's more anti-SWERF specifically.
What I think is funny is that some feminists like to say that anti-male discrimination is a manifestation of misogyny while you say misogyny is a manifestation of anti-male discrimination. It's really demonstrating horseshoe theory here.
I can also only conclude you never actually bother looking for misogyny in MRA organizations because you a priori believe MRAs are a good thing. This exceptionalist mentality is the source of the toxicity of the movement, and why it has to either change, be countered, or be destroyed.
Aaaaand this is completely and utterly derailing the thread yet again. Neither of us are going to change our opinions -- you as a rabid MRA, me as a rabid SJW, so we might as well drop it. The weird thing is that we actually agree on a lot of these things, you just come to the conclusion that feminists are all evil monsters who hate men (at least, that's what I'm seeing) and I come to the conclusion that feminism is a good movement, but that we need to focus on more gender equality, regardless of whether it's men or women who need help, rather than simply putting women on equal footing with men and ignoring the issues and stereotypes men face.

*Reference for statistics

1. The rape/sexual assault stats you use are fraudulent, and the result of gendered definitions of rape that exclude males forced to penetrate women, something that many feminist organizations engage in, and another example of the problem they pose to society.
If you check their sources, you'll also see that their sources for these stats are often departments of justice and such, and that immediately poses problems, as it perpetuates a cycle of ignoring male victims that justifies ignoring males victims, as you have basically said here.
You phrase it as "Focusing" on them being justified, but that isn't truly what's going on, it's no different to "Focusing" on black criminals, or justifying stop and search as a mentality and such.

When you DON'T rely on the justice department and instead poll the public, the number of men raped and the number of women raped rapidly begins to equalize, and consistently shows between the high 30's and low 50's of victims are male.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... or/503492/

It is not a coincidence it took an MRA to tell you this, rather than any of the feminists around you.

Here is the other issue this was done on, and processes explaining this being perpetuated:
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V74-gende ... d%208-.pdf

For rape and domestic abuse as well as all other crimes, the sentencing gap remains, and the arrest gap remains.

As for stereotypes, the feminist narrative and assertions surrounding male stereotypes seem woefully inadequate to fostering male self-improvement and respect compared to the MRM ones, and that is only to be expected, as they are constructed with womens wellbeing in mind, rather than mens. Toxic masculinity is not a good model for understanding male issues and stereotypes compared to inherent value narrative the MRM uses.

As for DV, 40% is also low, and is from the 2010 figures rather than more recent ones.
From highest to lowest, the most common forms of domestic violence by % of relationships that have it happen:
Woman on Woman
Woman on Man
Bi-directional
Man On Woman
Man On Man

By pure numbers:
Woman on Man
Bi-directional
Man on Woman
Woman on woman
man on man

The MRM supposes this is because men are often trained to restrain violent tendencies, and women are not, alongside dehumanization and devaluation of males and the lack of consideration for their wellbeing that society encourages, and the increase in figures is due to active campaigning and awareness on this issue increasing thanks in large part to the MRM grassroots and affiliated charities.

2/3 so long as you concede that you don't think the largest feminist organization in the US is egalitarian, that's fine.

4. (Sociologists) How do you know men aren't mistreated in sociology? The gender ratio of sociology graduates would suggest they are, if the logic used to campaign about STEM is used.

(NOMAS) It's not worded badly, it's the duluth model being asserted. It's flat out wrong.

(FAC) I admit that it's fine. I wouldn't call it a group combating sexism or pretending to, though.

Horseshoes:
The difference is finding the explicit root of the problem (Such as poor work-life balance) rather than vaguely waving your hands and saying patriarchy. Misogyny has been almost eradicated from society, what remains is misandry and blowback from refusal to admit feminists misdiagnosed how sexism works.

"I can also only conclude you never actually bother looking for misogyny in MRA organizations because you a priori believe MRAs are a good thing. "
I personally lobbied this forum to ban AVFM as hate speech. (Notably, AVFM is poorly received by the majority of MRAs, and I can even prove it is a majority rather than merely saying "Most MRAs aren't like that.")

As for derailing, identity politics is a major part of left wing politics in the modern day. Failure to account for intersectionality, and specifically intersectionality that is welcoming of the MRM, will lead to the failure of left wing economics.
The multitude of factors that lead to male homelessness and such, reducing drug usage, improving education, all of these things can't be done through a purely tax and spend mindset that is blind to culture.

No left wing government that isn't at least receptive to the MRM will succeed in its policy goals, it will merely piss money up the wall, further womens privilege, and ultimately deliver the capitalists a proof of concept that left wing governments fail to deliver.
In addition, the cuts are directly relevant to left wing economics.

FINAL EDIT:
Gallo's excellent thread on equal rates of rape and the legacy of Mary Koss (feminist) on this issue covers it better than I can.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=422054&hilit=controversial+opinion+galloism

(Do not post to bump.)

[The Widening Gyre]

As for derailing, identity politics is a major part of left wing politics in the modern day. Failure to account for intersectionality, and specifically intersectionality that is welcoming of the MRM, will lead to the failure of left wing economics.
The multitude of factors that lead to male homelessness and such, reducing drug usage, improving education, all of these things can't be done through a purely tax and spend mindset that is blind to culture.

I think it says a lot that you're here preaching about the futility of a 'tax and spend' political agenda to a left wing discussion thread audience.

[Ostroeuropa]

As for derailing, identity politics is a major part of left wing politics in the modern day. Failure to account for intersectionality, and specifically intersectionality that is welcoming of the MRM, will lead to the failure of left wing economics.
The multitude of factors that lead to male homelessness and such, reducing drug usage, improving education, all of these things can't be done through a purely tax and spend mindset that is blind to culture.

I think it says a lot that you're here preaching about the futility of a 'tax and spend' political agenda to a left wing discussion thread audience.

It's futile without intersectional approaches yes, and I kind of think it's probably futile in any case in a capitalist system, though social democracy deserves to be at least tried in the modern era before more radical changes to systems like syndicalism.

A tax and spend policy that was blind to mens issues or race issues or womens issues would spend money inefficiently, and not resolve the issues effectively, and may well simply further inequality in society along demographic lines, depending on the viewpoint of the people controlling it. We might see policies adopted to combat poverty that work fine for whites but don't work for black people, and this would subsequently leave many whites thinking they were simply lazy or whatever. I'd argue this basically already happened, and provoked the resurgence of the ailing right wing republican party in the US, specifically based on the impression that the democrats were just throwing money at scroungers.

[The Widening Gyre]

It's futile without intersectional approaches yes, and I kind of think it's probably futile in any case in a capitalist system, though social democracy deserves to be at least tried in the modern era before more radical changes to systems like syndicalism.

Why? Shouldn't the long history of social democracy's decline in the 20th century that you've decided to ignore in favour of focusing on very 21st century trends say something about the necessity of not falling into the trap of capitalism with the parking brake on?

[Albrenia]

It's futile without intersectional approaches yes, and I kind of think it's probably futile in any case in a capitalist system, though social democracy deserves to be at least tried in the modern era before more radical changes to systems like syndicalism.

Why? Shouldn't the long history of social democracy's decline in the 20th century that you've decided to ignore in favour of focusing on very 21st century trends say something about the necessity of not falling into the trap of capitalism with the parking brake on?

What are we counting as social democracy's decline, in this case? Not trying to argue a point, just curious.

[Ostroeuropa]

It's futile without intersectional approaches yes, and I kind of think it's probably futile in any case in a capitalist system, though social democracy deserves to be at least tried in the modern era before more radical changes to systems like syndicalism.

Why? Shouldn't the long history of social democracy's decline in the 20th century that you've decided to ignore in favour of focusing on very 21st century trends say something about the necessity of not falling into the trap of capitalism with the parking brake on?

Honestly, yeh, I don't believe social democracy will work.
But I think it's probably got to be tried before people will back anything more radical, and in addition, a social democratic government can set up systems that can be transfered quickly to a radical set up, and we probably do need state socialism and public funding for some sectors like health, education and such.
Nationalizing utilities on the grounds of luke warm social democracy and then when this fails to deliver, turning them over to the unions rather than privatizing them, etc.

[The Widening Gyre]

Why? Shouldn't the long history of social democracy's decline in the 20th century that you've decided to ignore in favour of focusing on very 21st century trends say something about the necessity of not falling into the trap of capitalism with the parking brake on?

What are we counting as social democracy's decline, in this case? Not trying to argue a point, just curious.

Mostly the decline of the postwar model of social democracy common in Western states in the 70's and its collapse and then replacement with the Third Way-ists over the course of the 80's, 90's and 2000's.

Honestly, yeh, I don't believe social democracy will work.
But I think it's probably got to be tried before people will back anything more radical, and in addition, a social democratic government can set up systems that can be transfered quickly to a radical set up, and we probably do need state socialism and public funding for some sectors like health, education and such.
Nationalizing utilities on the grounds of luke warm social democracy and then when this fails to deliver, turning them over to the unions rather than privatizing them, etc.

The earlier discussion of Allende should prove just how treacherous a praxis that is.

[Ostroeuropa]

What are we counting as social democracy's decline, in this case? Not trying to argue a point, just curious.

Mostly the decline of the postwar model of social democracy common in Western states in the 70's and its collapse and then replacement with the Third Way-ists over the course of the 80's, 90's and 2000's.

Honestly, yeh, I don't believe social democracy will work.
But I think it's probably got to be tried before people will back anything more radical, and in addition, a social democratic government can set up systems that can be transfered quickly to a radical set up, and we probably do need state socialism and public funding for some sectors like health, education and such.
Nationalizing utilities on the grounds of luke warm social democracy and then when this fails to deliver, turning them over to the unions rather than privatizing them, etc.

The earlier discussion of Allende should prove just how treacherous a praxis that is.

So what would you do?

[Lalaki]

I'm solidly center-left.

I support:
-Universal health care
-More protections for labor unions
-Increasing the minimum wage
-Guaranteed child care
-Paid family leave
-Campaign finance reform
-LGBTQ+ rights, women's rights, protecting minorities from discrimination, etc.
-Immigration and relaxing (but not opening) border controls.
Pretty much any initiative you'll find in a socially democratic party in a western democracy, I'll agree with.

I oppose:
-Laissez-fare capitalism
-Communism, authoritarian variants of socialism, and other far-left ideologies
-Populism, as espoused by politicians such as Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen, and Juan Melenchon (what with him pushing Euroscepticism and other divisive stances). I'm ambivalent on Bernie Sanders' political style, even if I agree with most of his actual policies.
-Any mixture of religion and politics
-Discomfort with change if it can't be justified by plausible arguments.
-Anti-patriotism. I certainly oppose chauvinism and aggressive nationalism (i.e. Donald Trump), but there's nothing wrong in my eyes with being proud of one's country.

[The Parkus Empire]

The argument is that it "Came out of" the left, and that's absolutely true.
Giving it its own special category is fine with me, especially if the left wants to disown it (A fine and good thing) even if I have to chuckle at the audacity of calling it "Far-right" and think that's unjustified.

The argument is that it "Came out of" the left, and that's absolutely true.

Okay. Had to look back to the original post to confirm.
Turns out I was mistaken and that the original claim was:

Fascism came out of the far left, historically speaking. Mussolini for example was formerly socialist, and fascism as a movement came out of syndicalism.

So that's my bad.

Mussolini for example was formerly socialist

True.

and fascism as a movement came out of syndicalism

Also true.

You're very gracious.

[The Parkus Empire]

Yes, necessarily

Good luck proving that.
Seriously these manholes you set up for yourself are not difficult to avoid.

It's not hard to prove at all, quoting Marx and Engels. Marxism is innately internationalist, seeing the common struggle of the class the focal concern, with national interests and so on as ways of setting the proletariat against itself. Marxism is innately secular, since it is materialist and sees religion as a fantasy which the plebs use as a form of escapism. Marxism is innately feminist, because the beginning of class oppression is placed at man's oppression of woman.

[Trotskylvania]

Mostly the decline of the postwar model of social democracy common in Western states in the 70's and its collapse and then replacement with the Third Way-ists over the course of the 80's, 90's and 2000's.



The earlier discussion of Allende should prove just how treacherous a praxis that is.

So what would you do?

Abolish capitalism.

Social democracy failed because it could not be afforded. The tendency of the rate of profit to fall, coupled with the system of managed exploitation under social democracy, produced systemic crisis across the west. The power of labor was at it's highest, the economy was in widespread distress, and even the state sector was feeling the pinch.

Nationally managed capitalism reached a crisis point, and only two roads were possible. The first was the crisis continuing until revolution occurred, and in the context of the 1970s, with the widespread cuts to militaries, police and public infrastructure across the 70s, pushing even those bulwarks of the state into militancy, there was a nonzero probability of enduring another period of 1920s/30s labor militancy.

The other alternative was austerity, and the breaking of national capitalism for a global capitalist market, allowing capitalists to restore profitability, and break labor at the wheel.

[Sanctissima]

Good luck proving that.
Seriously these manholes you set up for yourself are not difficult to avoid.

It's not hard to prove at all, quoting Marx and Engels. Marxism is innately internationalist, seeing the common struggle of the class the focal concern, with national interests and so on as ways of setting the proletariat against itself. Marxism is innately secular, since it is materialist and sees religion as a fantasy which the plebs use as a form of escapism. Marxism is innately feminist, because the beginning of class oppression is placed at man's oppression of woman.

Eh, the latter was moreso a later development. Although considering how it was a natural progression from Marx's critical theory, I suppose it more or less makes Marxism innately feminist, as you say.

[Sanctissima]

So what would you do?

Abolish capitalism.

Social democracy failed because it could not be afforded. The tendency of the rate of profit to fall, coupled with the system of managed exploitation under social democracy, produced systemic crisis across the west. The power of labor was at it's highest, the economy was in widespread distress, and even the state sector was feeling the pinch.

Nationally managed capitalism reached a crisis point, and only two roads were possible. The first was the crisis continuing until revolution occurred, and in the context of the 1970s, with the widespread cuts to militaries, police and public infrastructure across the 70s, pushing even those bulwarks of the state into militancy, there was a nonzero probability of enduring another period of 1920s/30s labor militancy.

The other alternative was austerity, and the breaking of national capitalism for a global capitalist market, allowing capitalists to restore profitability, and break labor at the wheel.

That's all well and good, but if your next step is to replace it with Communism, or some derivative thereof, you're really just replacing a run-down wheel with a broken, rotted one.

[The Parkus Empire]

No one who has read Tocqueville (quoted below) can fail to see Marxism as the fulfillment of the liberal value of equality--not necessarily a valid fulfillment by liberal standards, but certainly a fulfillment of sorts.

The gradual development of the equality of conditions is therefore a providential fact, and it possesses all the characteristics of a divine decree: it is universal, it is durable, it constantly eludes all human interference, and all events as well as all men contribute to its progress. Would it, then, be wise to imagine that a social impulse which dates from so far back can be checked by the efforts of a generation? Is it credible that the democracy which has annihilated the feudal system and vanquished kings will respect the citizen and the capitalist? Will it stop now that it has grown so strong and its adversaries so weak? None can say which way we are going, for all terms of comparison are wanting: the equality of conditions is more complete in the Christian countries of the present day than it has been at any time or in any part of the world; so that the extent of what already exists prevents us from foreseeing what may be yet to come.

[Baglande Anded]

National Socialist

[The Parkus Empire]

It's not hard to prove at all, quoting Marx and Engels. Marxism is innately internationalist, seeing the common struggle of the class the focal concern, with national interests and so on as ways of setting the proletariat against itself. Marxism is innately secular, since it is materialist and sees religion as a fantasy which the plebs use as a form of escapism. Marxism is innately feminist, because the beginning of class oppression is placed at man's oppression of woman.

Eh, the latter was moreso a later development. Although considering how it was a natural progression from Marx's critical theory, I suppose it more or less makes Marxism innately feminist, as you say.

It's quite explicit and elaborated in The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State: "The first class opposition that appears in history coincides with the development of the antagonism between man and woman in monogamous marriage, and the first class oppression coincides with that of the female sex by the male."