Ehx political ideology analyze good bad transcend apples bias
I am opposed to politics that is inspired by fury, bitterness and grievances . Such resentfulness has no place in politics
The left , liberal 2.0 and the right both recognize that we have a sh*t system and cringe society, the left has the answers and explanations, liberal 2.0ers too, but the right is confused and still blaming Jews or immigration or whatever else the bourgeoise has planted as an enemy instead of themselves.
from here : "Firstly, the language of Left and Right is foreign to classical Marxism, which interpreted social contradictions in terms of objective class antagonisms, not with regard to the subjective differences of the political compass.
Secondly, Left and Right only emerged historically as the relative poles of bourgeois democracy, whose parliamentary terms only came into being and spread across the capitalist world to naturalize the bourgeois system of government.
Lastly, I emphasize how Marx’s theoretical originality manifested through a ruthless criticism of the left-wing politics of his time, namely, the various bourgeois and utopian schools of socialism and anarchism against which he sharpened his historical analysis of class society. Marxism, in my interpretation, gains its critical force by demystifying the Left’s habitual idealism, moralism, and utopianism, unhistorical tendencies marking the Left of Marx’s time and our own."
BUT as its above-linked About page states, its political heritage includes the revisionist, petty-bourgeois "New Left" movement of the 1960s-70s, which of course is associated with critical theory and idpol more generally. In other words, this organization is not genuinely Marxist and therefore by no means an authority here.
"the language of Left and Right is foreign to classical Marxism"
Even if we grant that this language is foreign to classical Marxism, this does not mean it is excluded from orthodox Marxist works—that is, those published after Karl Marx's death (1883) by great thinkers including Frederich Engels, Georgi Plekhanov, Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky, and Rosa Luxemburg. Indeed, Frederich Engels uses this language in Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy (1886):
The Left wing, the so-called Young Hegelians, in their fight with the pietist orthodox and the feudal reactionaries, abandoned bit by bit that philosophical-genteel reserve in regard to the burning questions of the day which up to that time had secured state toleration and even protection for their teachings. (bold added)
Additionally, as Vladimir Lenin writes in The State and Revolution (1917):
To the Right of Kautsky in international socialism, there are trends such as the Socialist Monthly in Germany (Legien, David, Kolb and many others, including the Scandinavians Stauning and Branting); the followers of Jaurès and Vandervelde in France and Belgium; Turati, Treves and other representatives of the Right wing of the Italian Party . . .(bold added)
Finally, in In Defense of Marxism (1939/1940) Leon Trotsky observes:
In both of the documents mentioned in the above letter, Shachtman revealed excessive adaptability toward the left wing of the petty-bourgeois democrats – political mimicry – a very dangerous symptom in a revolutionary politician! (bold added)
"interpreted social contradictions in terms of objective class antagonisms, not with regard to the subjective differences of the political compass."
The terms "left-" and "right-wing" refer not only to subjective views, which of course are ultimately rooted in the material basis of society, but also the objective function of concrete politics. I expand on this point below:
You have an idiosyncratic misconception of what the terms "left-" VS "right-wing" denote. As I explain here:
Broadly speaking, political conservatism refers to efforts to maintain (or "conserve") the status quo, whatever it may be. Since the first class societies formed some 10,000 years ago and generated widespread economic and general social inequality, conservatism has been characteristically anti-egalitarian; it has henceforth functioned to maintain this highly unequal state of affairs.
...and here:
"a political and social philosophy whose central tenets include tradition, hierarchy, and authority
Conversely, "left-wing" is defined in such ways as politics that "supports social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition to social hierarchy," "the most liberal and egalitarian element of a political party or other group," "the political spectrum associated in general with egalitarianism," etc.
To be sure, left- VS right-wing politics are contradistinguished vis-à-vis their position on equality, with the former advocating it and the latter instead promoting hierarchies.
Karl Marx’s theoretical originality manifested through a ruthless criticism of the left-wing politics of his time, namely, the various bourgeois and utopian schools of socialism and anarchism
Like all other apparently left-wing anti-Marxists, these tendencies are pseudo-leftist rather than genuinely left-wing. This quote from the World Socialist Web Site article "What is the pseudo-left?" is apropos here:
The pseudo-left is anti-Marxist. It rejects historical materialism, embracing instead various forms of subjective idealism and philosophical irrationalism associated with existentialism, the Frankfurt School and contemporary postmodernism.
The pseudo-left is anti-socialist, opposes class struggle, and denies the central role of the working class and the necessity of revolution in the progressive transformation of society. It counterposes supra-class populism to the independent political organization and mass mobilization of the working class against the capitalist system. The economic program of the pseudo-left is, in its essentials, pro-capitalist and nationalistic.
Politics should instead draw from our conscious which reaps the moral uprightness (or at worst Vaush 'righteousness' [see Destiny subreddit for what that means]), and deep affection we should have for our universes' creator-higher power (even if G-d see Paschal's Wager, if your heart is hardened against religion/faith than just have deep affection for mother nature) . The focus should be on the bread of life , Emmanuel , Jewish Messiah, etc (or if you refuse to accept faith then look toward the stars i.e Pisces)
I am against groupthink. Groupthink is one of the worst parts of the human psyche and we should guard against it , whether it is in politics and business, consumerism, holidays etc. Who's with me?
From David French "With a striking empirical regularity, deliberation tends to move groups, and the individuals who compose them, toward a more extreme point in the direction indicated by their own predeliberation judgments. In plain English, this means that when like-minded people gather, their views get more extreme. Our arguments reinforce one another to such an extent that the entire group will sometimes become more extreme than the most extreme person at the start of the deliberation"
Liberal 2.0ers are 'ideologically possessed', and thus its a matter of ideological purity, and purity tests. There will be always be new tests of purity and righteousness, like stuff you are supposed to and not supposed to do, think or say. Since they are psychologically 'possessed' by their belief system, their self-identification and ego is dependent on passing purity tests and looking good by the metrics of their ideology.
They become self-centered, and less empathetic - more prone to dehumanization, madness, hostility, hate and fear towards those people who are not of their ideology. This leads to an us vs them mentality where outsiders are viewed by them as threats or apostates, who lack in moral worth and deserve to be berated at the very least, shamed or harmed at the very most.
It is here where confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance comes into play, to shield them from changing their minds - since their ego is resting upon their ideology like a comfort item and they are scared of losing that comfort item. So their minds filter out or conveniently reframes and information that will not conform to their ideology, and pays added attention to what information does conform to it. They interpret information either too charitably, or uncharitably, based upon that.
Thats why fine reasoned takes by people such as Glenn Greenwald, Steven Pinker, Krystal Ball, Joe Rogan and others outside of woke ideology are interpreted as dumb or malevolent, and they will look past the clear meanings of what, say Glenn Greenwald, says. So in their distorted view, Glenn Greenwald really is saying dumb and or terrible things. When they say that people like Caleb Mauphin are nazis, they aren't exaggerating - their perception of reality is so messed up, that they can't see the difference. They are living a nightmare of their own making. Its only that they take it out on others.
From Fox mid 2022 article “While Glenn Greenwald has built quite the fan base with his Substack, he also has many foes, particularly liberals on Twitter who constantly accuse him of being "right-wing" for his criticisms of the legacy media.
Greenwald calls that description of him "bizarre," particularly since he was previously the target of the right-wing Brazilian government, telling Fox Digital he can't think of any political stance of his that has changed since he was previously perceived by those same people as a leftist.
Ultimately, he thinks such labels have become "meaningless" since Trump scrambled the "ideological landscape in a very fundamental way."
Basically that is what a cult is like. In fact the Liberal 2.0ers are a cult. Anyone who doesn't agree with their views (especially to the right of them) get smeared and trashed as 'grifters', 'far right', 'alt right' 'extremists', 'tankies', 'right wing' etc. That is textbook cult like behavior and anyone who doesn't see that is a cultist themselves, plain and simple. The irony of course is the Liberal 2.0ers support ACTUAL Nazis in Azoz Battillion
That's the way that many cults do their recruiting (though I called my 2007-08 Celebration Florida church a cult so what do I know? Also I am a retroactive lukewarm fairweather fan of the Rajneesh community of Oregon and a watered down version of Jonestown so keep that in mind), they start with a small, reasonable idea that disputes a person's belief and once the victim has accepted that idea they move to a marginally more extreme idea, chaining these incremental steps together to move reasonable, level headed people constantly deeper into their belief system.
The same technique can be utilized to radicalize people, even those pesky Liberal 2.0ers, so be on the lookout for it and please use it responsibly. So yes, those leftists and lean leftists who get called 'grifters' by Liberal 2.0ers, might (a big might) have a decent chance of falling into some pipeline to the alt right, if we apply that cult pipeline theory above.
The Liberal 2.0 factions of the Democratic Party are hanging on by a thread. We need to remove the Liberal 2.0 factions of the Democratic Party’s thread .
The men and women forgotten by the DNC due to the Liberal 2.0 takeover are finally casting aside the chains of their new oppressors, like an abuse victim standing up for themselves. It takes boldness and courage to be against the highly questionable and trollish Liberal 2.0 factions that have overtaken the Democrat party. The victims need power, encouragement and to be out of hiding.
The Liberal 2.0ers smear them with these fake labels to delegitimize them since the Liberal 2.0ers are afraid at least in their mind of being exposed for the bad faith, authoritarian and occasionally wrong reactionaries that they are. Maybe Liberal 2.0ers all force themselves to have the same views so they can label any views they don’t have as these labels ‘Far right’.
This causes them to be able to stifle debate or cancel or censor, especially by simply writing that said views are Right Wing or even ‘Far right’ which delegitimizes the opposition. Labels mean nothing.
The Liberal 2.0ers in the media insist on calling any brand of ideology they don’t like as “far-right” but it is nothing of the kind a lot of the time. Far right targeting by Liberal 2.0ers is another form of command-and-control, with roots in Liberal 2.0 thinking.
The perspective that makes some non far right things seem to be “far-right” is only from other sorts of Liberalism 2.0. The proponents of Liberal 2.0 doctrines are so self-absorbed that they can’t possibly come up with another type of social organization, and their complete existence is so keyed to one form or another of Liberal 2.0 command-and-control, they see all things through the same prism. And they all descend into warfare among themselves, each believing that theirs is the “One and True Path”.
A delusion that has endured since the rise of human based governance with the organization of clans and tribes. Tough person and obedient followers.
Even some left leaning libertarians have been pushed out of mainstream left spaces by WRONGLY AND FALSELY being called ‘far right bigot’ (if those particular left leaning libertarians are far right bigots so are 70 to 80 percent of Americans, Australians and Europeans since the majority of those countries are to the right of those particular left leaning libertarians on most issues)
Those ‘mainstream leftists’ who smeared left leaning libertarians as ‘far right bigots’ are a cult
A overlooked to significant amount of what is classified as "far Right" is merely classical Liberalism. The classic "Cthulhu swims Left"/Overton window: what was overall "Left"/liberal 50 or 100 years ago is currently "conservative" or "far Right". I do loathe muddling Left and Liberal though. I think Curtis Yarvin's simplified definitions suit immensely: American/Western Left is chaos, Right is order (Carlyle), "Right is right, Left is Left", Right is the absence of leftism.
See this article on how the Liberal 2.0ers are weaponizing the term ‘far right’ to smear, censor and delegit opposition. Also see this and this
This is called Partisan tolerance.
Partisan tolerance was created by author Herbert Marcuse. Partisan tolerance demands that the enemies of the proto Liberal 2.0/Liberal 2.0 revolution must be forced into tolerance, but proto Liberal 2.0ers/Liberal 2.0ers are allowed to be intolerant against them. The reason is that there are "correct" opinions that are preferred, and "incorrect" opinions that must be challenged and defeated
Partisan tolerance is basically the same as political correctness, censorship, and cutbacks of First Amendment Free Speech rights.
Marcuse wrote that liberating tolerance would include tolerating the excesses of proto Liberal 2.0ers (and eventual Liberal 2.0) but not those of the Right and those outside the proto Liberal 2.0 (and eventual Liberal 2.0) group. Marcuse contended that the Right and those outside the proto Liberal 2.0 (and eventual Liberal 2.0) group. are deserving of intolerance.
In Marcuse’s mind, a non partisan tolerance leaves the established values intact, which leads to repressive tolerance.
So basically, Marcuse only accepted a partisan tolerance which is intolerant toward the protagonists of the repressive status quo or that promotes intolerance against movements from the Right and outside the proto Liberal 2.0 (and eventual Liberal 2.0) group , and toleration of movements from the proto Liberal 2.0 (and eventual Liberal 2.0) group
More and more Liberal 2.0 minds have been associated with an ever growing higher risk of having many types of burnout. Their brains (ie amygdala) are wired in such a way that they are more risk taking and childlike blind optimism (which leads to recklessness) toward new things than non Liberal 2.0 minds (especially Far left, Left Wing, Moderate , Conservative, and Republican brains) who are wired to be more anxious and fearful of new things.
What this means is that this mind wiring causes those Liberal 2.0ers to be more 'open' to or embracing things like mass illegal migration, Social fascism, BDS/Anti Zionism , defunding the police, no voter id laws, drag queens reading to kids ,and similar things that non Liberal 2.0ers wouldn't be open to or embrace.
This 'openness' to embrace such risky political views without fear of consequences is consistent with burnout because such behavior by liberals, while noble, burns them out quick (ie see John Edwards after his 2004 run for President or Richard Spencer for example). This article sorts of expands on that
Just because someone never met a person (like a Liberal against same sex marriage), doesn't mean they are non existent. Furthermore, going off the fact that there exists racist Republicans who are pro life, why would that automatically mean people should assume that every right winger is the same? Our first mistake is making assumptions. You don't know anything about a person just by their political orientation.
I recommend Jonathan Haidt's ted talk 'The Moral Roots of Liberals and Conservatives'. He is a moral psychologist and he explains how left, liberal 2.0 and right wing people typically have pretty different frames for understanding morality, which leads to their different politics.
Prolifers for example care more about the birth of a unborn kid than they do about a woman’s well being. In Texas, the abortion ban doesn’t even make exemptions for cases of rape. I’d say those are all pretty annoying things.
None of this stuff make a person bad. They grew up in a different way, for whatever reason they have a different understanding of the world and most vitally they have a different set of moral standards and view of what state should be. Also, be careful of a strawman. Do conservatives truly believe that racism doesn't exist? Some people can't understand because they’ve dismissed all these conservatives as bad
The discourse is in a strange state right now where a lot of times the more clear a trend is, the less allowed you are to articulate what is actually occurring. Like, the left-identitarian embrace of racial segregation is very obviously happening, but I won’t critique them because I don’t want to be called a racist or bigot and I am not too diff than them in some ways, see here, here for instance
It's mandated to a degree at workplaces, colleges, and lefty organizations. But you can't acknowledge it. It is all about plausible deniability. “how can it be happening if nobody(approved sourcesTM only) has heard of or mentioned it?” Any person spreading “misinformation” is only a conspiracy theorist trying to slow down their Liberal 2.0 agenda. The majority of people wouldn’t vote for this type of shit if they were honest and open about it so it needs to be dismissed as “rightwing talking points”.
But I don't believe that this is actually how these things work. My viewpoint is that economics are at the core and that politics, culture, etc. are all downstream from that.
The not so long history is that capital demolished the socialist movement and the trade unions in the 1970s and in the 1980s. If there isn’t anymore reason to divide the working class like pitting various groups within the working class against each other -- since the working class has lost, then the ruling class can and will grant the political demands of those who are oppressed (becoming previously-oppressed) social formations: BIPOC, women, LGBTQs, etc.
Because why would they not? There is no objective reason, in so much as the market economy is concerned, why should it not do this. Now, I want to make it clear that these political demands were/are legit in their own ways.
However that is the causal, materialist explanation for the question for why economic liberalization creates social liberalization. But I believe also that this creates "right-wing populism" and what I am describing here as a kind of psychosis:
I second the analysis that the conservative psychosis is born of the fact that, in spite of their electoral wins, the broader culture never leans in their direction.
So, they are stuck in ideology, really. Think back before that, the economic liberalization of the last half of the 20th century, capitalist regimes divided the working class along a lot of different lines, granting political and social benefits to specific groups within that class: white men of a normal Christian background basically.
Industrial shop floors were segregated with African American employees that were given lower paying jobs. LGBTQ people couldn’t be out at work, and if they were out they could not climb the corporate ladder. Women were also segregated into jobs that didn’t pay as much as unionized factory jobs for men, even though obviously women worked in these places too.
The previously-dominant groups currently declining, at least in relatively, as capitalism restructures itself.
This creates an opening for right-wing populists to divert anger from this and place it on the signifers of these changes: the many social groups that provoke the right-wing populists‘ resentment.
However this does not actually do anything whatsoever to reverse the changes since it is just focused on attacking the signifiers, as the right wingers have no class or material analysis.
Well if anything, the reaction further binds these groups who are targeted to the ruling hegemony due to the fact that the hegemony offers to protect them from the right-wing nationalist and/or populist backlash.
On conceding to the right
It's mind blowing how Liberal 2.0ers and even some fellow Leftists don't realize that by them being so fearful of even talking about or being associated with some, basically neutral issue, like a meme, subculture, scene or social space online that the right wing has even so much as slightly tried to associate itself with, that they are literally ceding ground and surrendering said issue to the right.
The right wing hardly has to do any effort to take over something that it seems, just make the vaguest gesture that said issue is their turf and culture war obsessed Liberal 2.0ers immediately hand it over to them because they are obsessed with appearing ‘pure’ and free of anything even vaguely "problematic".
The entire premise of our liberal 2.0 capitalist society is that issues get passed onto the discourse, our collective enlightenment class project where an individual person is able to take a stand and speak truth to power.
So in places where there are injustices in the world, the discourse, our speech, and self-known moral values could step in to fill in the gap. Its all premised on the notion that there is no true opposing class interest or need for material, structural changes to our society’s pillars i.e. production, that may requisite more than only moral invocation.
Liberal Capitalism: End of history. The system is as good as it is going to get, we only need brave people to morally scold the right people into behaving the right way - which is born out of “critically examining their ‘white privilege’ and boosting the views of people of color” or “don’t allow violence in the hip hop culture anymore” depending on where on the liberal 2.0 spectrum that you happen to fall on, and what’s trending in the spectacle this week. Whatever radical rhetoric borrowed from the academic world these moral invocations consist of, whatever latent ethno-nationalist ways of thinking (“our spaces”) some readers may balk at, these calls still are feeble, liberal 2.0 and are created to maintain the status quo.
See here for some more points I made on right wing talking points
Comments
Post a Comment