When did the Left give up its program of universal emancipation? Why is it okay for people to claim to be leftists while they keep supporting policies against the most disenfranchised?
When did the Left give up its program of universal emancipation...
It was a long process, but the 90s were definitely a final straw, this is when the mainstream socdems embraced economic liberalism(Third Way), demsocs took up the previous roles of socdems while communism was abandoned by everyone but radlib students.
What happened in 1960s that made people think they can be leftists while celebrating drowning thousands in the Mediterranean Sea?
Would you mind telling us what you consider "leftism" to be?
Like me, I dont celebrate their deaths, but I do not support mass migration. The destabalization of libya, africa, middle east, etc, and promoting mass migration to suppress first world wages only serves the ruling classes as well as fuelling the far right.
Nobody should be forced off their land by war or economics.
The program of universal emancipation. This "fuck you I got mine" mentality that you use to ignore the injustice done to refugees is a prime example of how the Left have given up on its global program in exchange of local compromises with the bourgeois. This is the politics of post-fascism, not leftism.
What? So I have to let in a ton of people into my country, supressing my shit wages even more, so a small subgroup of people from the third world can have slightly better lives for a bit, while not changing the sitation in their country of origin (arguably worsening it by means of brain drain) and worsening the one in mine? All the while this massive movement of people forces people out of their homeland and creates ethnic and cultural conflict in the destination countries? While all it does it enrich the bourgoiesie?
There was no "projected several millions of people moving out of the third world to a few select countries" pre-fascism, so calling it "post-fascist" is absolutely retarded. The few migrants that did exist, such as a chinese community in western europe, was used as strikebreakers by industrialists, and were opposed by the labour movements.
You mean by refugees?
hello Zig Forums can you please fuck off?
Large scale immigration and the modern refugee has first appeared after the redrawing of Europe following the first world war. Refugees are entitled to all the right regular citizens enjoy, they are not the cheap unregulated labour of "illegal immigrants". You are repeating far-right lies to justify your position of reaction based on an "economic necessity" that simply does not exist.
There are no infographics you absolute retard.
Most of the people crossing from libya to italia arent war refugees, they are economic migrants from african nations seeking a better life in europe. Besides the fact that they are not refugees, this also breaks international law stating that actual refugees have to stop in the first safe country they arrive at. Going from subsaharan african through all of africa, to italy with the end goal somewhere in northern europe, is not allowed.
There are very few syrian refugees. If you stuck your head out of your ass and out of the window you would know most migrants coming in arent fucking refugees, but economic migrants.
I didnt post any infographics. I just thought you made a typo.
If you've given up on universal emancipation you're not a leftist anymore desu, even if you call yourself one.
What are you even saying here? The 'program of universal emancipation' is the expansion of wage labor and the equalization of wages across the global proletariat? You're gonna have to be a bit clearer, because this doesn't sound like any sort of 'leftist' program I've ever heard of.
I'm saying that if you are not for the emancipation of the refugees you are not for universal emancipation and therefore not a leftist.
It depends what you mean by emancipation.
Some people think emancipation means making refugees do miserable slave labour in Europe or the US.
I would say that helping them stay in their own country and make that a better place to live is emancipation.
How is granting asylum to refugees considered 'emancipation'? They would still be required to sell their labor power, and would be subject to all the laws and contracts of a capitalist state.
If you are arguing for equal citizenship rights for migrants, that's hardly a 'leftist' position, it's just common-sense liberalism.
A lot of people are still haunted by spooks like "muh state" and "muh race".
OP have you stopped beating your wife yet?
Help! I can't hold all these liberal buzzwords
Zig Forums can have entire pages of conversation that concists entirely of buzzwords.
The move to id pol was a move away from embracing a universal revolutionary subject, and instead embracing the particularism of the individual identity.
Just because you don't speak the language of Leftism does not mean that those are empty words. Try reading some of the leftist intellectuals and you will pick up the jargon in no time.
And "muh labor regulations that improve material conditions"
the nigger and the cracker have no interests that are markedly different from one another.
What the fuck are you talking about you pretentious cunt?
1919. Read chapter 4 of Society of the Spectacle.
The term as OP is using it comes from Zizek. I don't know why OP thinks 'the left' has abandoned it, unless he thinks spooked liberal socdems or the spooked red conservatives on here and Zig Forums represent any significant current within 'the left.'
What happened in 1919?
they killed Rosa. and most importantly, I copy-paste two theses from the chapter
The historical moment when Bolshevism triumphed for itself in Russia and social democracy fought victoriously for the old world marks the inauguration of the state of affairs that is at the heart of the modern spectacle’s domination: the representation of the working class has become an enemy of the working class.
“In all previous revolutions,” wrote Rosa Luxemburg in Die Rote Fahne of December 21, 1918, “the combatants faced each other openly and directly, class against class, program against program. In the present revolution, the troops protecting the old order are not fighting under the insignia of the ruling class, but under the banner of a ‘social-democratic party.’ If the central question of revolution was posed openly and honestly — Capitalism or socialism? — the great mass of the proletariat would today have no doubts or hesitations.” Thus, a few days before its destruction, the radical current of the German proletariat discovered the secret of the new conditions engendered by the whole process that had gone before (a development to which the representation of the working class had greatly contributed): the spectacular organization of the ruling order’s defense, the social reign of appearances where no “central question” can any longer be posed “openly and honestly.” The revolutionary representation of the proletariat had at this stage become both the primary cause and the central result of the general falsification of society."
From here flows the later betrayals and confusions as to the nature of revolution and the revolutionary subject. So now 'revolution' is a word used in advertising.
OK, so what happened in 1927?
It's not the markedly different interests, it's the markedly different abilities.
because they have personal problems with queers, gay people and women out of ignorance on one side, and on the other side a bad organization in what they call "SJW" liberal agenda out of inexperienceand also ignorance on radical left, radical feminism and mostly out of immaturity which drives the "identity politics divides the left" side even more REEEEE about it. An example of this is the call out culture and such, poor moves from the left that create conflict within it. The solution is to introduce liberal sjw into radical leftism and feminism, and to make the incels get past their prejudice against feminists and queers, which are probably from a gamergate/right wing background.
Agreed with her essential sentiment, but the exact moment of betrayal can be pinned down far more precisely to four years earlier: August, 1914, when the Second Internationale choked in what should have been its moment of final victory, a general strike for international solidarity and peace against the bloody maw of capital on the scale of world revolution, instead acceding to the greatest and most pointless slaughter of workingmen in history, World War 1:
Still can't get over your little meme war, eh?
i meant that those on the left who are against what they vulgarly call "SJW" usually come from a gamergate (gamers feeling opressed by sjw, resulting in the creation of antisjw and skeptic comunities) or right wing backgrounds. I hate that bullshit meme war as much as the next guy those, but it brought consequences that need to be aknowledge in and out the political landscape of the internet
I think most of the actual left are against SJWs.
I would argue it just highlighed an existing tension and made it more public by putting faces and names to the people at the edge of the dividing lines.
Like all flavors of SJW, 3rd-wave feminazis are sexists, moralists, anti-intellectuals, and worthless parasitic con-artists. Everyone hates "feminists".
The skeptic community arose out of opposition to religious fundies trying to teach creationism as science in burger schools. I don't think you know what you're talking about tbhfam.
The skeptic community's unflinching opposition to mystical thinking driven by blind faith eventually put them in opposition to a group of SJWs called "Atheism+", resulting in what is commonly regarded as a direct predecessor of GG.
That's true, but are you making a point that I'm missing here? Atheism+ basically just went on to become SJWs or disappear in a poof of irrelevance.
you would be surprised to see what true radical feminism, and by that i mean feminism with a libertarian/marxist/socialist point of view could bring to the table. I dont really like the direction of LIBERAL (bernie, obama voters u know what i mean) feminism, but as i argued before i dont think the solution is to discredit and forget feminism and queers, that would only give strenght to their opressions. All opression is related, capitalism in conjuction with patriarchy leads to women doing unpaid domestic labour and to have lower wages, ect. The actual solution is to introduce radical left views into them, so that we can all act as comrades on a working class struggle, while also demolishing all forms of oppresion thanks to the newfund well read wave of feminism if you will.
yeah but you cant deny that since the events of gamergate, kekistan, "trump mania" the skeptic community shifted to satisfy the audience im talking about.
fuck off sjw
As far as my knowledge goes radfems are some of the most moralistic, censourous etc people out there. I am not sure why it would be in any of our self interests to ally ourselves with such people
More like their audience shifted and with them the economic incentive for what sort of video to make.
the man portrayed isnt even a leftist as such, its a clear depiction of a centre-leftist. this image right here represents the problem, you must not let centre left or liberal feminism if you will, represent feminism and queers as a whole. These people are not class counciouss, what they want is a utopian capitalism where theres no oppression on identity and racial issues, our job is to introduce them furthermore into the left, not to demonize them as our enemies. Would you consider a manipulated class uncioncious workingman as enemy? No, you need to see them as potential comrades
What? Really, what? Every single law that explicitly repressed women has been gone for upward of 50 years now, younger generations of women are out-studying men in school and out-earning men in the workplace. "Your revolution" is old news, all that's left of feminism is the thing that killed it, wearing its skin like a suit.
Oh, wow, so homosexuals are de-facto feminazi pets now. Just like how, when backed into a corner by the legitimate arguments of MRAs, feminazis will flip the argument around to all of those issues actually being caused by "benevolent sexism" and "toxic masculinity", absolving feminazis of all responsibility or even complicity in favor of the omniescent "patriarchy".
nono, radical feminism is a very broad term these days. By that i meant feminism which sees women struggle from a libertarian (anarcha-feminists) marxist (marxist feminism) ect point of view. These are true comrades, just focused on two fronts if you will, the workers struggle, but also the women and queer struggle. One doesnt have to prevent the other, they can coexist and complement each other. See the black panthers, who were about negro oppression, but also collaborated with socialist orgs if im not wrong
have you ever stopped to think about whether the specific way in which you think about and advocate for things may not the the most optimal approach possible
im open to criticisms, but i dont understand what you are trying to say there, could you go on?
That never happens. All that happens is the class struggle gets co-opted by idpol.
Point me to a law, to anything legally EXPLICIT that can be done under capitalism to further the "women and queer" "struggle" today in any remotely civilized country.
The only form of idpol that exists today is that which can be IMPLICITLY concealed amongst the non-idpol oppression inherently required for capitalism to function. We have reached victory to the maximum extent possible within capitalism, decades ago.
The only legitimate struggle today is for socialism, period.
you dont understand, by law black people arent opressed either, but suffer from police brutality and face much more brutal judgments in the court. To only see the only legal side of things is to blindfold yourself for the sake of your own prejudices. You probably have bad experiences with women or dont talk too much with them, because i can tell you cant recognize what it is that make them feel opressed.To give you a quick example, women are subject of power dinamics continiously in their daily lives, this might even fool you to belive that they are inherently docile, but its just how society generally shapes them. Parents do not treat women as they treat boys. They are rigourosly shaped to be objects of beauty to please society, it seems as if its an inherent goal of theirs, but its not. i can give you more examples if you want
When you define [group]'s struggle so narrowly that it becomes synonymous with one way of looking at things, e.g. gender equality = women's interests = feminism, you close off the potential for criticizing that movement, much like how a one-party state won't allow criticizing the party, because criticism is considered to be equivalent to opposition and undermining. It's a system of power that attracts people who want to wield that power and you'll end up with fucked situations. Let's consider the thesis of this post
The problem with this is that the "women/queer struggle" has been largely appropriated and commodified by corporations. When some company sponsors a pride event and collaborates with a group it creates a conflict between the marxist/anarchist tendencies and the gay rights focused tendencies. Capitalism will tempt every special interest by showing how their issues can be solved in capitalism, and any "allies" who join the cause only for that reason will abandon the organization when their concerns are addressed.
There's also just inherently a conflict when for example a wealthy businessman wants to join the org for personal PR. The gay rights wing wants to allow him to join because of the resources he brings, but he's not remotely a socialist, causing the socialist wing to balk. This puts them at odds over how to run the org and manage resources. Ultimately, the businessman can use his clout to steer the org away from its socialist leanings and capture whatever radical potential it once had.
im aware that a lot of idpol advocates can be very inmature and unable to organize, thats exactly why i argue that we need them to be introduced into the radical left, instead of picturing them as cartoon villains. The false concious worker also prevents our organization, but that doesnt make him our enemy.
and I agree with your essential sentiment, I've read Trotsky's "War and the International" and Rosa's Junius Pamphlet on the matter, but I was simply more hopeful about the Russian revolution
There are actually a handful of explicit legal things but they're pretty minor and one of two things. Either the kind of shit that's used specifically as wedge issues and so will never be resolved (e.g. abortion having ridiculous restrictions being something that parties can fight over endlessly) or loads and loads of unimportant shit that's codified in law because there's little reason to change it (e.g. free the nipple).
a very interesting argument, but i disagree. Firstly i tried to make a difference between centrist leaning feminism and radical feminism by the definition if you can call it that i gave here>>86566, so that we can critize and argue about them separately. If i generalized feminism with queers its for the sake of speed, not to inhibit criticism. Taking into account the very lefty views of radical faminisim as i defined, i belive that it would be impossible for capitalism to get advantage from these views, since they are fundamentally anticapitalists. This differs from "centrist feminsism", which capitalists do take advantage of
that is why i belive the solution is the radicalization of the centrists
True, but what race are the majority of victims of police brutality, and the majority of low-income people in jail? White.
What matters isn't slinging guilt around to squabble for Olympic Gold, but about fixing problems and helping people. There is only one problem that can be directly attacked through plausible calls for reform, rather than utterly impractical, perpetual, self-justifying witchhunts and thoughtcrime inquisitions.
So how does that square with this argument (from this post)?
How do you bring the idpol liberals into the fold without them disrupting the stauch anticapitalist stance? These are the people who are going to vote to allow in a porky because of his ability to fight for the idpol cause despite being against the socialist one.
Also keep in mind that if black people are disproportionately in prison or targeted by pigs, then fixing those problems (even in a "colorblind" way) is going to disproportionately help black people.
why would they disrupt our anticapitalist stance if we introduced them into proper socialism?
Oops, meant as:
You say that like handing out pamphlets is going to make them spin on their heels and give up the politics they've held onto and advocated for years.
its not about a disproportionate help, its about a very bad proble. Any solutin will obviously heavily help opressed communities, but that doesnt have to mean that their stabilization will deteriorate, in this paritcular case, white people's condition, its just that the contrast will be erased
would you provide me the sources of the stament regarding white people being opressed?
i mean by police and the law system
to defend my stance i bring up this data sentencingproject.org
Whites are still the overwhelming majority of the population, statistics aren't fucking rocket science.
why would queer, women, muslims or other oppressed communities surrender to your their own causes and endure opression just because you arent able to empathize with them and for the sake of a rushed uprising, which is not coming in the near future
Yes. What I'm saying is that because the discriminatory treatment that still exists is almost entirely the kind allowed by class society, if you fix that shit (the underlying problem) then whomever was hurt worst has the most burden relieved. So why even attempt to come up with an identity-targeted reform to paper over the fundamental problem when you can just fix that and get rid of the discrimination?
But you're missing the fundamental point. It's not a problem specific to black people. It's a problem for poor people generally, and the reason black people get it worse (proportionally to population) is because a higher percent of them are in the poor communities. What this user is saying is that if you just try to fix "black people's problems" then you're ignoring the system as a whole and the structure that allows the discrimination to exist in the first place. It's not a matter of groups X, Y, or Z being better or worse, just that some groups have more structural power (because of capitalism) and that anybody with a position of power is prone to abuse it (and the position is prone to attract the people who want to abuse it).
It's not a matter of empathy. It's a matter of being a radical (searching for the root cause and seeking to change that) vs. being a liberal (treating a symptom and assuming that the fundamental system is good rather than the thing that gives rise to the symptom in the first place, and that instead it's bad actors, guilty parties who are misusing a basically good system).
that graphics, if it can be trusted, only further prove my point. white people are the 62.06% of the population, black people are 12.1 of the population, the inequality is clearly visible taking into account these numbers. This graph doesnt also consider the states were black people are more numerous, stretching the chart to states where they are not as present
You remember what I said, right? That this isn't something unique to blacks or whatever, but something that hurts vast numbers of all comrades, regardless of race or other identity.
Holy jesus damn you dumb shit motherfucker.
Socialism IS THEIR CAUSE. If police brutality wasn't happening, that would help black as well as white. If people weren't forced to beg for jobs and face firing or paycuts at will from porky, that would help women as well as men. If neoliberal imperialism and human rights arbitrage weren't happening, that would help 3rd-worlders as well as 1st-worlders. None of us are the perpetrators, we are ALL VICTIMS OF CAPITALISM.
I myself like Marx am a reformist, insofar as functioning parliamentary democracy is in operation. My praxis is to enforce reforms that weaken and restrict capital, while bolstering and freeing labor. If, in the unlikely event the voting booth shuts down, we are forced to engage in (violent or nonviolent) revolution, it should be on the most favorable terms possible for us, and for the briefest possible duration before a return to orderly democracy.
sorry, it might be because of english not being my mother language, but i cant understan what you mean in the first point. i totally agree with you in the second point, I should've argued better. but economic issues arent my only concern, as they affect how people see the black race, and to that, i bring up this argument,
Ok, question: is white people being incarcerated a problem? Or more broadly, are people over-incarcerated in general regardless of race?
i know what you are saying, its a systematic problem of poverty, but what im trying to argue is that i dont belive theres nothing wrong on addressing these problems right now togheter with workers general struggle, since it would minimize the amount of suffering these people have to endure
and by poverty y also mean capitalism. i thik i can anwer you as well with my previous statement
How exactly does BLM screeching autistically about racial oppression, help to fix police brutality, or generational poverty? How does guilt-mongering racist rhetoric about "white tears" and "white privilege" help fix problems and improve peoples' lives?
What's needed is to attack the underlying problem, fix the broken system, and help all people, not incite racial emnity.
OK, here's a simpler version. Class society and capitalism specifically put some people in power over others. Because some people are biased they will use that power to discriminate. This is "implicit" discrimination as opposed to "explicit" discrimination which is written down in the laws. Implicit discrimination must be allowed to happen in class society because the people with power must be allowed to act with discretion (cops picking suspects, judges deciding sentences, employers choosing who gets hired, and so on). Reform can't change the fact that these roles are based on personal judgment and are necessary to capitalist society. The result is implicit discrimination can't be solved without removing capitalism.
I addressed this here
Above in this post I explain why this can't work, and I already argued here here and here that including these issues alongside anti-capitalism is self defeating. You can still address these problems within an anti-capitalist framework but the issues have to be discussed as functions of capitalism rather than issues that exist in and of themselves, because in reality they only exist as functions of capitalism. Treating these problems on their own is a liberal mindset that will attract liberals and certainly won't turn liberals into socialists.
i admit, you just conviced me. but i still belive that the solution lies in the education of these liberals, we can convince them just as you conviced me.
i finally agree, but only if under these parameters
Just to be crystal clear, reform as a tactic is still valid, if done with the intent of restricting and eliminating these roles, rather than merely pretending the problem lies somewhere other than the fact these roles exist.
In the 1960s, western governments dumped Nazi war criminals from the prisons to the streets to "fight communism," in no small part by impersonation and derailment. In the '70s, the nazi oberlieutenant responsible for overseeing the ethnic cleansing of all of eastern europe was made head of the UN. Then, well, Reagan-Thatcher and its crimes…
It's not, but the bit above will explain who the posters on this board really are.
Hence my quote here
A good rule of thumb is "don't fire the first shot". Porky has to be the one to refuse a democratic mandate, porky has to fix or shut down elections when public opinion runs contrary to them, porky has to respond to peaceful strikes with violence, and if war breaks out porky has to be the one that comes to the bargaining table begging for terms.
It's entirely plausible (and preferable!) that things could peacefully proceed all the way to socialism within or alongside the parliamentary framework, it's hardly even unprecedented, given cases like Hungary in 1919 and 1949. If our new parallel system is built up, while the old system is crippled and sidelined, the point of transition could be like the death of TV/radio in favor of online distribution: Not even a war, just a rebirth.
Actually you undermine your own case here. Refugees often aren't entitled to all those same rights - but one of the major rights removed from them is the right to seek work. Often refugees are held on a Tourist-style residence permit where working would be grounds for severe punishment or deportation, precisely to counter the political concern that they'll be working.
You've made a decent argument for why attacking the symptoms rather than the cause might be an issue.
What you have NOT done is answered the issues surrounding, you know, whether the Left is a bunch of reactionary fuckwits which make nazis look appealing on humanitarian grounds. Right now, there's a thread about prostitution - and the board abandoned the workers' struggle in its entirely to engage in jack-the-ripper style condemnation of unworthy social classes. There's a guy ranting about "pedos" in every fucking thread, then ascribing peoples' sexual orientation on the basis of whether they inform her or him that they are, in fact, a dumfuck.
Frankly, at this time, I'm WAY more likely to critique some idpol group on universialization-versus-special-rights than I am on the basis that they're not adequately far-right, I mean, "socialist" enough, and you've provided no reason whatsoever why my response to "I'm a communist" shouldn't be to shoot them in the face and consider it defending my community from far-right authoritarianism with idpol-based violence characteristics.
That's missing, and you've got nothing so far.
it's not exact, and plenty happened between 1919 and 1927 in terms of the ebb tide of the revolutionary worker's movement including failed uprisings in Germany, a massive coal strike in Britain, the massacre of the Shanghai commune, and the death of Lenin. The first world war should be conceived of as a turning point, and once the (counter)revolution was complete ~1924, we might say the society of spectacle began in full earnest (e.g. radio and film, proliferation of Communist parties subjected to the Comintern, senseless economic growth)
Those people would all find themselves expelled from any actual communist org within minutes.
Thank you for your words of encouragement.