americana

3y

Love reading this

Mango

3y

So many dumb things about this post that I'm reeling.

What was "western leftism"? The New Deal? Was that Marxism? As far as I'm concerned, Marx is a critique of capital. The New Deal was the minimum concession to conserve capitalism. It did good stuff. Some people got cut out of it. It didn't reorient the relationship between labor and capital. Labor was then gutted in the 70s and 80s. The government as an institution for social alleviation has withered since.

Various leaders of social movements were literally assassinated prior. Socialist leaders outside the US were also literally assassinated. But sure, it was "cultural Marxism" not capital in crisis exporting labor and gutting unions with an iron fist. What does anarchism have to do with this? You're saying a lot of words and talking about a lot of history without appearing to have the slightest grasp of it.

Mango

3y

So many dumb things about this post that I'm reeling.

What was "western leftism"? The New Deal? Was that Marxism? As far as I'm concerned, Marx is a critique of capital. The New Deal was the minimum concession to conserve capitalism. It did good stuff. Some people got cut out of it. It didn't reorient the relationship between labor and capital. Labor was then gutted in the 70s and 80s. The government as an institution for social alleviation has withered since.

Various leaders of social movements were literally assassinated prior. Socialist leaders outside the US were also literally assassinated. But sure, it was "cultural Marxism" not capital in crisis exporting labor and gutting unions with an iron fist. What does anarchism have to do with this? You're saying a lot of words and talking about a lot of history without appearing to have the slightest grasp of it.

Womanpuncher69

3y

what do u mean social phenomena? cause u can relate race based oppression back to economics as well

krishna bound

3y

I don't want to be misinterpreted here and end up with a ban, because it's treading on a bit of a thin line of being very easily misinterpretable. I also don't want to sound like I'm repeating stupid "cultural marxism" talking points from someone like Joe Rogan or Peterson or something, because that's not really the case. I'm basically talking about how marxist scholarship lead to revisionism in academia, and thus the rise of things "theory" academia (note; this is not at all about CRT or that type of "critical theory" stuff, that is a different discussion completely), which from there ended up promoting a more existentially anarchic view of how social relations work - that is, not literally of course, but philosophically if you look at ideas espoused in regards to politics by the originators of anarcho-communism and then apply that to social structures rather than to economics (not dialectically with it), you'll notice a strong overlap/correlation of fundamental logic. Now, of course none of this has anything to do with actual marxism - that's literally the point, it has nothing to do with marxism but is an attempt by academia to build off of marxism in nonsensical ways, but the issue is that not only was this widely popular, but also extremely palatable - especially since (as something not actually marxist) it does not require any form of class conscious or acknowledgement inherently - and has remained in academic and academic-adjacent conscious since. For people saying this stuff has nothing to do with marxism, again, that is LITERALLY the point. This stuff which has nothing to do with marxism but academically cites marx defines much of the philosophy of american and european self-identified leftists.

krishna bound

3y

We're talking about two different things. You're correct about everything you're saying. I'm simply talking about how the ideology espoused by self-proclaimed leftists in the US & EU came to exist in its current form, and the issues derived from that. This isn't about jordan peterson arguments or about a "cultural marxism" conspiracy in terms of conservative talking points. It's about why leftists in the US are just spicy liberals and not actual maoists, baathists, etc. and the roots of this phenomenon philosophically. Nothing I've been talking about has anything to do with the very obvious suppression of real leftism in the world by capitalist powers. Of course I'm not denying that.

necromancer

3y

Moving singularly from structual change/abolishment to the cultural front (and eventual neoliberal co-optation) was the worst mistake leftists ever made. Even on the cultural front, s*** never changed, capitalism kept on going. Who gives a f*** about "positive representation" when people are dying and structural oppression never changed. Who cares about RATM when the machine never got destroyed?

necromancer

3y

Is this supposed to be a shot at the Frankfurt School?

I think they did good work.

krishna bound

3y

I don't want to be misinterpreted here and end up with a ban, because it's treading on a bit of a thin line of being very easily misinterpretable. I also don't want to sound like I'm repeating stupid "cultural marxism" talking points from someone like Joe Rogan or Peterson or something, because that's not really the case. I'm basically talking about how marxist scholarship lead to revisionism in academia, and thus the rise of things "theory" academia (note; this is not at all about CRT or that type of "critical theory" stuff, that is a different discussion completely), which from there ended up promoting a more existentially anarchic view of how social relations work - that is, not literally of course, but philosophically if you look at ideas espoused in regards to politics by the originators of anarcho-communism and then apply that to social structures rather than to economics (not dialectically with it), you'll notice a strong overlap/correlation of fundamental logic. Now, of course none of this has anything to do with actual marxism - that's literally the point, it has nothing to do with marxism but is an attempt by academia to build off of marxism in nonsensical ways, but the issue is that not only was this widely popular, but also extremely palatable - especially since (as something not actually marxist) it does not require any form of class conscious or acknowledgement inherently - and has remained in academic and academic-adjacent conscious since. For people saying this stuff has nothing to do with marxism, again, that is LITERALLY the point. This stuff which has nothing to do with marxism but academically cites marx defines much of the philosophy of american and european self-identified leftists.

Mango

3y

Politics has become cultural since it was divested from the material. That's not a specific symptom of "leftism" in the US, a movement so ill defined in this conversation that it's hardly worth talking about.

You simply do not have a materialist view of reality. You can't have real Maoists and Baathists here, period. Our would be revolutionaries were literally martyred. The National Guard quashed the Battle of Blair Mountain with relative ease. Our revolutions were never socialist ones. The idea that it's because the mindset is wrong is idealist drivel. The conditions were wrong. The odds too great.

Gaddafi was a borderline nonsensical crackpot. Hell, Islam was central to his project for some time. He did a lot of good for Libya anyway. Look at the actual bodies these "socialist" revolutions conquered. They were very weak and in crisis. Now, the US does have weak institutions now, but it also does not seem plausible for a barracks socialism like Gaddafi instituted by coup. This place is f***ing huge. That's like its defining historical characteristic. Our military as a radical socialist entity? Preposterous. That's even beyond the logistics of not being assassinated or interned in this panopitcon.

And this is even a level too grounded when you consider how economy is globalized and even the "communist" countries were forced in the same general neoliberal direction around the same time. I'm really not concerned with the cultural bubble on the husk of economic injustice. Once the worker isn't exploited, they will no longer be the victim. Prejudice will no longer be systemic, period.

Womanpuncher69

3y

i know among Maoist they have this concept of proletariat feminism and outright reject liberal feminism. So would you think this would be like a correct application of marxism to a social. phenomena or that marxism should just not be applied at all in this case ?

krishna bound

3y

I'm going to be completely honest, I don't know enough about what Mao said in very strong detail on that subject, so I don't want to talk about something I don't know a lot about it in this context. I'm not super well informed on it, so if you have reading recommendations I'd appreciate it.
I should say more generally I don't think application of Marxism to social phenomena is inherently a bad thing, but if Marxism is built on dialectics, then obviously the extension of it to that phenomena needs to follow that too. If that just can't be done, then just coherently it shouldn't be applied.
What happens too often imo is in the application to social phenomena, the focus shifts solely to social phenomena, where that social concept then becomes like the sole means of extrapolating further theory from. On the other hand, if you get too far into deconstructionism (obviously not inherently marxist, but a lot of those scholars were marxists), you can end up dissecting dialectics too far to point you invalidate the dialectic to begin with by simply invalidating both ends of it.

gabapentin

3y

obviously when you look at this you feel that the guy is a total idiot

and i do think he doesn't really understand what he's talking about

but also, he's unintentionally brushed up against a truth with regards to nazism, marxism, and their relation to the political world of the 21st century

obviously, the nazis were not "socialists" (meaning marxists, or left-wingers more broadly)

but just as obviously, the nazis were a reaction to the popularity of marxism in political currents

to the extent that marxism is indeed predicated on an "oppressor narrative" (which is obviously reductive but is good enough for government work/this exercise), nazism took advantage of the people's inchoate understanding that they were under someone's heel and injected "identity politics" (another reductive phrase) into that narrative

hence the famous phrase "antisemitism is the socialism of fools"

there's a reason so many former reds became brownshirts or blackshirts

This is complicated by the fact that Nazism was also influenced by American race science of the late 19th and early 20th century

In this context, it's clear that NAZISM is actually the deformed offspring of Madison Grant and red socialist impulses

Since standing in opposition to Nazism has become the central moral narrative of the post-1945 west, it is socially incumbent to develop an ideology that is the inverse of Nazism

Since Nazis and Communists were mortal enemies, it's natural for people to utilize the left as the instantiation of modern antifascism

But because Nazism is the b****** child of progressive eugenicist race scientists from a century ago, a focus on race with precisely opposing beliefs becomes essential

How can we fight Nazism, the weaponization of "IDPOL," without employing "IDPOL"

Thus "class reductionism" (i.e, Marxism) is injected by "left IDPOL" to produce the modern left, and hence the tension between the "class reductionist" impulse and the "idpol" (ethnically invested) impulse

Basically we're shadowboxing against Hitler, Jim Crow and Madison Grant

Womanpuncher69

3y

I dont really know if Mao really said much about it, but I was talking more about the Maoist movements writing on it. I havent read much I've only read one text "Women at the Highest Level" due to some random person just give it to me, it was originally published in the Struggle Sessions publishing s***.

The text essentially talks about raising women to becoming good communist, enemy of women is capitalism-imperlaism not other men, how sexism against women is portrayed by both men and women for example men not trusting women to be in leadership postions and from women using their identity to dodge criticism, debunking the supposed "feminine nature", and what men can learn from women due to the unique oppression they receive due to their gender from patriarchal feudal relations, and more that I cant remember off top of my head. That the only way to liberate women is with their participation within the socialist revolution.

Also unrelated to the women topic I do feel that many communists tend to be mechanical in there application of materialism. Especially in the superstructure-base topic where many put an overemphasis on the base and completely forget that the superstructure also does effect the base as well just a lesser degree, and if u agree with Mao the secondary (superstructure) can became the principal at certain points as he argued that it does during the cultural revolution.

krishna bound

3y

The identity politics discussion is hard to talk about because it takes a lot of different forms. In a very general "influential" sense, it's prevalence is debatable. There's some truth to the fact that "extreme" identity politics discourse doesn't really exist outside of like, twitter/youtube/reddit/tiktok/etc, but a form of what is commonly considered identity politics definitely exists as a fabricated version promoted by large conglomerates, academia, the media, and (to an extent) the government, which then trickles its way into the overton window of discussion as people begin to discuss it or identify with its themes/topics. It's true that in the wider scheme of things identity politics is a massive infectant in leftist circles, but leftist circles are already a fringe, so you're really talking about a fringe of a fringe - yes, the DSA exists for example but who gives a s*** about them besides other people on the left, even with their issues and the like, they're barely influential except for echoing the calls which exist elsewhere - i.e. supporting LGBT stuff because LGBT stuff already exists in politics. None of the "fringe" DSA ideas exist outside the DSA influentially at all, so the identity politics stuff that exists there is just a reflection of it existing elsewhere the same way. In a more hyper general sense though, "identity politics" meaning less the internet stuff and more "politics as defined by cultural parties" definitely exists more prominently, but it's not what people generally refer to when they use the word.

krishna bound

3y

That’s interesting, I’ll have to read more about that because it’s just not a topic I’m super knowledgeable about. I guess very generally, ive found feminist topics really interesting. Idk if you’ve ever read like radfem literature before, but I remember finding it really hard to argue with a lot of feminist critiques of political ideologies back when I read them; only tangential at best I remember very particularly there was a feminist critique of John Rawls and the veil of ignorance which I was fascinated by, I wish I remembered the author’s name. I would have to wonder what they would think about this stuff. I’ve read different feminist critiques (and endorsements) of socialist/communist ideologies before and the consensus is all over the place, it’s incredibly dense. What I’ve always found most interesting is that much of radfem literature doesn’t deny the existence of something like “feminine nature” (only the male interpretation of feminity), but rather embraces it in a somewhat abstract sense, which makes it often hard to pair next to a lot of other ideologies compatibly. Sorry to detract there but interesting subject lol

krishna bound

3y

You're missing the point I've been making throughout the thread and gravitating toward confronting me in terms of what is/isn't valid ideologically when this isn't an ideological debate. I haven't even really disagreed with you in terms of most of the actual ideological points you're making, but again, we aren't talking about the same thing. I'm not talking at all about leftism as a real ideology or in terms of dogma or science. I'm talking about "leftism", two completely different ideologies which essentially share the same word.
Yes, I am completely aware about what you're saying and also about the viability of leftism based on environmental/historical modern conditions. Nothing I am saying denies that or has anything to inherently do with that besides the fact some people who call themselves "leftists" still like to cite marx every now and then.
The literal entire point of what I'm saying is where the lineage of "leftism" comes from in this environment where leftism does not exist, given that very obviously "leftism" != leftism. My only point beyond that is marxism as a science should still be open for debate and not understood as sanctimonious, and the idea that in a place where real leftism didn't manifest - assuming even if it is the case the conditions are simply not sufficient - that "leftism" could come to textually replace in modern understanding what ideology was prior called leftism until the same scientific method essentially emerges under a new label, is not impossible.
I am literally only arguing about definitions, understandings, and ideas, not about ideologies, meanings, or politics. Basically the entire point of what I'm saying is that it's possible for Leftism to have lost meaning in definition, and even if Marxism as a science is to be fulfilled in understanding, it does not need to inherently be under the name "Leftism" or "Marxism" or use the same terms. or even follow the same identifications or historical associations.

krishna bound

3y

To take a cue from Zizek for an second, the problem with language is that it’s mired in not only mutual understanding but correlation of words to concepts of which are simultaneously temporal but also need be historical. It makes conversations like this entire thread basically fruitless because the lack of mutual consensus on what words mean or how they interact only abstractly understandable. Obviously when like, idk, Marx was writing Kapital he was not thinking “oh man now this is leftism”. But retroactively it’s easier to umbrella group post-ML or ML-derivative ideologies as “leftist” simply because of (theoretical) root epistemology or overlap. I’m not really saying it in terms of self-identification historically but rather the umbrella term of what we now consider to populate “left” ideology not in an American political compass understanding but because we lack accurate words to refer to ideological umbrellas without causing a further s***storm over grammar (for example, you could replace leftism with ML, and the historical reference may be the same, but then someone may point out later Marxist scholars dropped Lenin, so then claim the lineage isn’t the same). This is why I also said earlier in the thread people unfortunately do not get to self-define what words mean and don’t mean throughout any interaction or exchange; if I say the word “leftism” and it’s understood a certain way (obviously a hardcore internet Maoist will read any paragraph in this thread differently than a moderate conservative) the imprint will only be understood through the respective relative understanding of terms and connected histories. So I just have to grapple with the best words we have for referring to things more abstractly, especially since the topic of the thread and it’s reference is just as generalized