Saint Aquinas

4y

99% of leftists are just privileged suburbanites who want to look cool. Just look at the people in the politics section. They want fame and attention not actual change and debate.

red eagle

4y

This girl told me that big leftists like the one u see online are the political equivalent of evangelists lmao and I agree

ARCADE GOON

4y

So many of them will just bicker on and on about who to accept as part of their "side" and talk about revolutions, like overthrowing the King and establishing an independent United States

Newsflash a******s: there is no revolution The British crown will rule forever There will always be a tea tax forever and nobody will throw it out of the Boston harbor to kickstart anything

Most people don't actually give a s*** about changing the entire structure of our system u dingus. But instead of bringing these people on their side, the liberals would rather alienate them more and more

First Oliver Cromwell wasn't good enough, than royalists aren't good enough, and finally, it won't be good enough unless you believe in a bullshit republican independent federalist USA utopia freed from the United Kingdom which one hundred percent won't work and exist lol gtfo here

I said my piece

Saint Aquinas

4y

99% of leftists are just privileged suburbanites who want to look cool. Just look at the people in the politics section. They want fame and attention not actual change and debate.

HFM

4y

What do you think Libs want? Communism? Socialism? Libertarianism?

Saint Aquinas

4y

99% of leftists are just privileged suburbanites who want to look cool. Just look at the people in the politics section. They want fame and attention not actual change and debate.

necromancer

4y

another issue with the left is that we tend to look at groups like collective monoliths instead of diverse groups of individuals with their own experiences and opinions on topics

i believe there is no such thing where one individual can represent an entire community, and there is even no such thing as a fully “united” community in itself

the articles above kinda describe this phenomena, and these are written by mainly POC marxist a***ysts

krishna bound

4y

I went ahead and read the links you posted, which I appreciate it, because I don't read a lot of modern stuff on this topic since almost everyone who touches it is either A) faux-liberal or B) insanely toxic (or as it tends to be, both). I like this topic a lot and think it's important, and it's an uncomfortable topic, which is why it doesn't get discussed a lot - at the end of the day, many leftists don't want to discuss it BECAUSE it's outside the overton window; thus, they can get s*** for it, and can't reap the communal clout like they can by, idk, saying s*** everyone agrees with like "who else hates the american government? fellas???" or "maybe corporations shouldn't oppress people...what a wacky idea... heh, i bet no one will agree this this controversial opinion!". stuff like that is low-brow and shouldn't even register. it's these actual uncomfortable conversations/ideas which should instead define discourse.

That said, I genuinely would like to see more de-constructive or actually biting/controversial takes on this. I think the Viewpoint & Intercept takes are very standard - they're basically just saying very agreeable things. The other articles (the one on Fanon & from ThirdRail) are a bit more interesting. That said i dont really agree with some of the stuff said there - but I think the perspectives are interesting nonetheless.

commonwrongdoer

4y

SAY HIS NAME

ARCADE GOON

4y

So many of them will just bicker on and on about who to accept as part of their "side" and talk about revolutions, like overthrowing the King and establishing an independent United States

Newsflash a******s: there is no revolution The British crown will rule forever There will always be a tea tax forever and nobody will throw it out of the Boston harbor to kickstart anything

Most people don't actually give a s*** about changing the entire structure of our system u dingus. But instead of bringing these people on their side, the liberals would rather alienate them more and more

First Oliver Cromwell wasn't good enough, than royalists aren't good enough, and finally, it won't be good enough unless you believe in a bullshit republican independent federalist USA utopia freed from the United Kingdom which one hundred percent won't work and exist lol gtfo here

I said my piece

necromancer

4y

Thank you for checking this stuff out, because deep, deconstructive discourse should happen among leftists, I hate that discourse is centered around streamer feuds, who gives a s*** about that, or inflammatory twitter hot takes. We should focus on stuff like this, which causes us to self-reflect much more as individuals, and we can learn more about each other and share the knowledge amongst others.

krishna bound

4y

It's not really a secret on this site that i'm not really a leftist by traditional means but i have more sympathy toward left economics and more "orthodox" ideas; I tend to be sympathetic to a lot of post deconstructionist/post-structural stuff philosophically. I think it's important to engage with this stuff and general discourse even if i'm not fully in the direction of people im talking with

necromancer

4y

Of course, you're one of my favorite users in this SXN, you think a bit more abstract compared to the average "dime-a-dozen" leftists I see, and are more willing to talk deeper than the usual platitudes you hear over and over again.

Even though I am an anarchist, I kinda dislike the kneejerk fear reaction amongst us when it comes to deconstructing uncomfortable topics like idpol and stuff, my main issue with modern anarchism is the white guilt/white savior complex in the majority of western anarchists that causes nothing substantial to happen, and it's why I enjoy stuff like "Lines in the Sand" by Peter Gelderloos, which talks about this. This is what I believe Marxist a***ysis has done well in (Fanon, etc), deconstructing this specific social construct as "colonialist".

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-lines-in-sand#toc3

Synopsis

4y

damn another instance of a motherfucker having absolutely no clue what they are talking about. you hate to see it

krishna bound

4y

Thanks man, I appreciate it. I think the issue is that many people have subsumed ideas which are ideological into identities; the kneejerk reaction is because because can't disassociate discussion of a topic from discussion of themselves (and moreso sometimes, that individual debaters also cannot diverge their criticisms of movements or ideas from criticisms of the people within said movements or believers of said ideas). That itself is something which basically follows a mainstream lineage of Christianity (and early Judaism) within the west. It's a cultural conditioning which has remained relevant for a long time, and people seem to be unable to breakway from. Some people (like Mark Fischer among others, or even I guess Debord) seem to think this is a result of capitalism, but I don't actually know that it is fully - I think there's an aspect of it promulgated because it's almost a survivalist reactionism within the context of predatory capitalism for sure, but I also think that it's a learned behavior in certain cultural contexts. Engels wrote about identitiarianism in tribal contexts preceding capitalism (among other things), and not only does it arbitrary identification precede industrialization, but it also only occurs in some societal contexts. You have some cultures in history where the literal only "active" divide was caste for example (and not every society thought of such as a defensive mechanism).

I think this also ties into your second post about class reductionism. I think it's honestly ridiculous you even need to specify this (not you for saying it, but that it is a serious thing people will accuse you of). The entire point of Marxism recognizes fundamental differences between individuals and the selfishness of belief and power - hence why it fits so well with deconstructionism - the entire point of the ideology is thus to aim (or I guess if you're going by original orthodox theory, just that this would happen inevitably) to remove power structures so these ideas/beliefs do not actively heed anyone else in their own. Like, I've said it before and gotten s*** for it, when we talk about things like racism or homophobia, let's be real about why its an issue - nobody cares (or should, rather) if someone is racist or homophobic in a vacuum if they're just in their room yelling at a wall. The societal issue with these beliefs is that people can be in positions of power where they can structurally act on their beliefs to advantage or disadvantage others using capitalist mechanisms. If actual communism ends up destroying racism because of eroding identities (which I don't think it will as per Engels but it is in the manifesto for example) I think that's fine, sure, but the idea that that's why people should be communists/marxists/etc is ridiculous. The reason people should believe these things is because without power structures in place, who tf cares what beliefs people have if there's no apparatus of enforcement or universalization of a concept. This is why I think the idea of class reductionism as a shaming concept is so dumb; even class reductionists want to "solve" all other issues. It's just that they don't think that these issues can be solved by focusing on these issues - they want to fix the structures that cause these issues to actually be problems. If you want to create a society where people can't have certain ideas or hold certain beliefs - even if said beliefs are "hostile" - then logically reform can only be inherent to the current system so go be a liberal.

I want to add this is why I genuinely believe conservatives should embrace marxist ideology. If you want to "preserve your culture" or "conserve your identity" (whatever that means lol), then why do you want a structure in place which inherently creates conflict to prevent such a culture from stabilizing or existing to begin with? Nothing ever stops being in flux under capitalism. Also, if the existence of your belief is predicated on the non-existence of other beliefs, you're just an idiot - a system where beliefs can exist that are conflicting without a system that springs or profits from said conflict is obviously superior - and obviously less utopian than the idea of a system where only one belief exists.

Gonna end the wall of text here but did you see the reading recs I left in that one thread that got deleted? I'm fascinated by the history that much of the lineage of Black Conservatism in the US actually originated in Leftism/Marxism from the 1900s

SCOUSER

4y

Well maybe America is stupid asf but elsewhere in the world liberals believe in economic liberalism, being of course socially liberal but also pro market, free trade, limited government. Whereas social democrats come from a socialist tradition and are supposed to be more concerned with income redistribution and economically to the left of liberals.

Liberals and social democrats are generally in different political parties in countries with multi party systems. I know this is even true in Canada with the Liberal Party and NDP for example

Womanpuncher69

4y

maybe im misreading the culture part wrong but wouldn't communism also be in flex, like there would be contradictions in communism as there is in capitalism, as socialism/communism would solve the contradictions in the capitalism but in communism there would arrive new contradictions that would need solving, or am I just misunderstanding dialectical materialism ?

Synopsis

4y

There would be contradictions but they might not necessarily be antagonistic. IE they could be resolved within the system

The contradictions of capitalism cannot

Womanpuncher69

4y

maybe im misreading the culture part wrong but wouldn't communism also be in flex, like there would be contradictions in communism as there is in capitalism, as socialism/communism would solve the contradictions in the capitalism but in communism there would arrive new contradictions that would need solving, or am I just misunderstanding dialectical materialism ?

krishna bound

4y

Thanks man, I appreciate it. I think the issue is that many people have subsumed ideas which are ideological into identities; the kneejerk reaction is because because can't disassociate discussion of a topic from discussion of themselves (and moreso sometimes, that individual debaters also cannot diverge their criticisms of movements or ideas from criticisms of the people within said movements or believers of said ideas). That itself is something which basically follows a mainstream lineage of Christianity (and early Judaism) within the west. It's a cultural conditioning which has remained relevant for a long time, and people seem to be unable to breakway from. Some people (like Mark Fischer among others, or even I guess Debord) seem to think this is a result of capitalism, but I don't actually know that it is fully - I think there's an aspect of it promulgated because it's almost a survivalist reactionism within the context of predatory capitalism for sure, but I also think that it's a learned behavior in certain cultural contexts. Engels wrote about identitiarianism in tribal contexts preceding capitalism (among other things), and not only does it arbitrary identification precede industrialization, but it also only occurs in some societal contexts. You have some cultures in history where the literal only "active" divide was caste for example (and not every society thought of such as a defensive mechanism).

I think this also ties into your second post about class reductionism. I think it's honestly ridiculous you even need to specify this (not you for saying it, but that it is a serious thing people will accuse you of). The entire point of Marxism recognizes fundamental differences between individuals and the selfishness of belief and power - hence why it fits so well with deconstructionism - the entire point of the ideology is thus to aim (or I guess if you're going by original orthodox theory, just that this would happen inevitably) to remove power structures so these ideas/beliefs do not actively heed anyone else in their own. Like, I've said it before and gotten s*** for it, when we talk about things like racism or homophobia, let's be real about why its an issue - nobody cares (or should, rather) if someone is racist or homophobic in a vacuum if they're just in their room yelling at a wall. The societal issue with these beliefs is that people can be in positions of power where they can structurally act on their beliefs to advantage or disadvantage others using capitalist mechanisms. If actual communism ends up destroying racism because of eroding identities (which I don't think it will as per Engels but it is in the manifesto for example) I think that's fine, sure, but the idea that that's why people should be communists/marxists/etc is ridiculous. The reason people should believe these things is because without power structures in place, who tf cares what beliefs people have if there's no apparatus of enforcement or universalization of a concept. This is why I think the idea of class reductionism as a shaming concept is so dumb; even class reductionists want to "solve" all other issues. It's just that they don't think that these issues can be solved by focusing on these issues - they want to fix the structures that cause these issues to actually be problems. If you want to create a society where people can't have certain ideas or hold certain beliefs - even if said beliefs are "hostile" - then logically reform can only be inherent to the current system so go be a liberal.

I want to add this is why I genuinely believe conservatives should embrace marxist ideology. If you want to "preserve your culture" or "conserve your identity" (whatever that means lol), then why do you want a structure in place which inherently creates conflict to prevent such a culture from stabilizing or existing to begin with? Nothing ever stops being in flux under capitalism. Also, if the existence of your belief is predicated on the non-existence of other beliefs, you're just an idiot - a system where beliefs can exist that are conflicting without a system that springs or profits from said conflict is obviously superior - and obviously less utopian than the idea of a system where only one belief exists.

Gonna end the wall of text here but did you see the reading recs I left in that one thread that got deleted? I'm fascinated by the history that much of the lineage of Black Conservatism in the US actually originated in Leftism/Marxism from the 1900s