/edu/ - Education

>>22312
>I want bring out Carl Schmitt here for all the leftcoms and anarchists. If you have a radically open society you can easily get invaded by an influx of new people. /pol/ stormfaggot colonization of online spaces proves that anarchic environments are highly vulnerable to this type of invasion or the emergence of extremism within. Anarchist societies would not have the means to resist these invaders. Probably why the Zapatistas are scrapping their communal autonomy model because of cartels moving into Chiapas and causing trouble. The anarchist army could resist an external military force. Its been done before. But an anarchist society is prone to collapse and reversal through inability to resist demographic pressure.
What, the premier method for suppressing minorities throughout history has been the lynch mob, which has the same kind of decentralized structure as anarchist people's justice

This makes me think if it's actually that difficult of an anarchist territory that is allowed to self govern and organize but also an ML state living nearby (same national/geographic vicinity) and helping each other in terms of trading resources and the central state providing strong protection to the "free" anarchist commune or whatever. Is it that difficult to just help each other in this way?

It is the problem I am working on currently. The Euro is a good opportunity to investigate nationalism.
I have nothing printable at this stage. But it is nice to see there are some readers here.

I'm not even an anarchist but using 4chan as an example of anarchism is nonsense. A website where a few people define and enforce the rules and deliberately choose not to adapt them to a new situation is not anarchism

>>22317
MLs are determinists who believe they understand truth from an objective standpoint and have the right to lead and control others to implement this so called correct line. Anarchists aren't just another group of people who should be allowed to exist. They are heretics who stand in the way of full socialism and have to be defeated. MLs would invade an anarchist territory to "liberate" the proletariat from "infantile leftism" and impose their own worldview. They won't tolerate an anarchist territory because its existence as an alternative to state socialism undermines their ideological claims and their legitimacy to rule as a dictatorial vanguard.

>>22319
I will say 4chan was an anarchic or semi-communistic space ruled by a tyrannical mod team not a full fleged anarchism. Even if Moot was a dictator the tools available to control the site and the population are limited and with minimal rules it became an anarchic space that was highly irrational and had elements of gift exchange economies. 4chan is a site not a territory so it only serves as an ideal type. Schmitt's point is that by giving away so much freedom liberals and anarchists can't stop threats to the community like MLs or fascists from taking over. When you have a highly anarchic space its easier for bad actors to come in and wreck it which is what happened to 4chan. A small imageboard I used went private registration only after being hit up with CP spam and /pol/ invaders. Accounts and registration defeat the purpose of an imageboard. Similar to this, if anarchists want to stop bad actors from wrecking their territory they have to build structures to keep them out but these risk compromising anarchy itself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqHS52JWOrQ
>Best and Worst Anti-Communist Arguments (ft. Heitor & Flashy)
>By TheFinnishBolshevik

> Marxism and European socialism, instead of being an ideology of the proletariat, was a petty bourgeois ideology born out of a ressentiment for the bourgeoisie and the belief that the proletariat could be better managed.
This. All the major socialists, Marxists, and anarchists of the 19th century were all bourgeois and even aristocrats.

Leftists want to break free from capitalism but not from modernity’s epistemology and values. They want to be progressive but progressiveness is an integral part of bourgeois modernity. Leftists never evolved new systems but adapted bourgeois ones. State socialism is the bourgeois state applied to the problems of capitalism. Socialism and Marxism are bourgeois.

>>22312
>I found this book Black Marxism by Cedric Robinson and his thesis runs as following. Marxism and European socialism, instead of being an ideology of the proletariat, was a petty bourgeois ideology born out of a ressentiment for the bourgeoisie and the belief that the proletariat could be better managed.
This has a kernel of truth (that popular theorists of socialism were not from poor backgrounds - though that really makes sense considering that's what you'd expect of a learned person at a time when universal literacy wasn't a thing) but it makes no sense on closer inspection. How does theorizing the democratic self-management of the proletariat help the petite-bourgeoisie manage the proletariat? How is a political position that openly advocates the expropriation of all productive property a position of the petite-bourgeoisie, and which was specifically against small ownership as the solution to the social questions of their times, an ideology representative of the interests of the petite-bourgeoisie? It's not.

>Leftists falsely understood capitalism as a rationalizing force which would create a homogenous proletariat, while in truth capitalism exacerbates racial differences to manage pops more efficiently. Leftists mistake nationalism and racism as essentially reactionary, while in truth it has always played a huge and sometimes preponderant part in history.
Is the first claim even true? The way that racial antagonisms were stoked to undermine class unity has been acknowledged forever by socialists in the labor movement. The second claim is basically just the standard idpol claim, which has two sides: one, it's talking about "history" and not only the history of capitalist society, and so it's engaging in ahistorical analysis that doesn't address why national antagonisms existed in the past and compare that to why and how national antagonisms are reproduced in the present - they are very different. E.g. it's a huge difference to enslave an external population because a large part of production in your society depends on slave labor (which is high turnover and demands constant raids on external communities) and create national hostility and war this way, and the national antagonisms between colonizer and colonized nations in a global capitalist system which relies primarily on waged labor and secondarily on slave/coerced labor. But it also is mistaken if it thinks that identity struggles are able to hold their ground without challenging capitalist rule, since patriarchy, racism/nationalism, etc. are not just vestigial, irrational forms of oppression but actually complement capitalist production, reproduction, and social control, and so the active reproduction of these oppressions is sought by at least portions of the ruling class. Also the national movements within capitalism have won de jure in many cases but de facto oppression was never ended, and inequality, brutality, and poverty remain. National oppression is only relieved for the bourgeoisie.

>
Second Kolakowski's book Main Currents of Marxism makes two important claims. Terms like "materialism" and "dialectics" are not well defined leading to ambiguity and confusion
Is this true at all? Materialism is pretty much just the view that the observable world precedes consciousness, and has objective reality outside of our subjective perception of it. Maybe this idea is so ubiquitous today that it just seems silly to incorporate it as the philosophical basis of political theory, and Kolakowski wants it to be more complicated than it is? For dialectics, yes there are many definitions available but for M&E they are coming from the hegelian tradition, so it's in the sense that Hegel uses it, and also Engels lays out the main 'laws' of dialectics in Anti-Duhring so there shouldn't be confusion there, even tho yes it's inherently confusing how an idealist theory is turned into a materialist one but the name is maintained.

>This is why Lenin and the Russian Marxists misinterpreted Marx's materialism as an ontology of matter
This makes no sense, because matter was just the current way physical science saw the world. Later on we got the "everything is energy". The fact that 100 years ago materialists were using the scientific language of their day doesn't equate to that language being the defining characteristic of the philosophy, which is a broader view about the independent objectivity of reality from human subjectivity.

>Second leftist materialism is determinstic and offers a telological history in which outcomes are predetermined
This is kind of funny because determinism says "things happen based on their configuration, forces, movement, etc. and there is no room for randomness or miracles in this", which puts time going forward, whereas a telological view posits the ends as inevitable. These only line up when we look at the past, but looking at the future these are opposite stances. Also this argument is an argument against materialism as a whole, because it implicitly claims that we can't understand the world enough to make predictions of the future. Why can the world not be known through study? This line of thought is the domain of idealists and 'skeptics'. Making predictions about the future is not 'denying free will'. Men make their own history, but not as they please. We aren't imbued with divine agency that allows us to miraculously navigate outside the confines of causality, and in that sense we are pre-determined beings, but at the same time we act with a sense of agency except when specifically denied free initiative usually by other humans. What a trashy idealist 'argument' based on existential anxiety.

>
I want bring out Carl Schmitt here for all the leftcoms and anarchists. If you have a radically open society you can easily get invaded by an influx of new people. /pol/ stormfaggot colonization of online spaces proves that anarchic environments are highly vulnerable to this type of invasion or the emergence of extremism within.
Online "spaces" involve no actual space, so they can't be good allegories for physical space imo. In real societies, human people need to work, eat, and live. Where do they live? Who owns the land? What economy is there? A sudden influx of people means refugee camps with deep poverty, not simply a demographic shift in the given society. It creates a two-tiered society unless special efforts are made towards integration and rapid construction and expansion of the economy to fit these people and accommodate their needs. Also online "communities" are not real communities, they are sites of recreation and communication, but don't structure the daily lives or all round social existence of their participants. Real communities exert an influence back on their members via social meaning-making, so the inclusion of people with foreign beliefs would not necessarily simply change or corrupt the community. The community would also change them. This may result in a mixing, or in assimilation of the small amount of new members from outside, or of the minoritization of the previously predominant culture in the case of a large influx that outnumbers the old group and massively grows the society, but in that case we can see how minority cultures keep their ways alive and so again there's no reason to fear disintegration because of new people. The whole idea is based on fake "communities" that can't exert much influence on their members, in digital "spaces" that actually require no space, and to which economy is totally foreign.

>>22324
Nice crack-pipe take lol, it's almost reasonable for a moment

>>>22326
>How does theorizing the democratic self-management of the proletariat help the petite-bourgeoisie manage the proletariat? How is a political position that openly advocates the expropriation of all productive property a position of the petite-bourgeoisie, and which was specifically against small ownership as the solution to the social questions of their times, an ideology representative of the interests of the petite-bourgeoisie?
Humans aren't rational actors. I think there was a lot of subconscious guilt and resentment driving the major leftist thinkers. People often embrace self-destructive and self-sabotaging ideas and fetishize and romanticize the weak. Why would an ideology like this be promoted by people who's class origins are among the petite-bourgeoisie and the lower aristocracy?

Leftists believed that the industrial mode of production can be better organized and managed and Leninists claim that the proletariat has to be ruled from above by an elite. They might not be interested in establishing petite-bourgeois dictatorship over the proletariat, but they were virtually all petite-bourgeois and wanted to the proletariat to conform to their petite-bourgeois values and expectations. The workers are always talked about and managed but never exercise real power of their own and when they can only do so under the guidance of the revolutionaries and intellectuals who are not themselves workers.

A teleological worldview can be deterministic. Marxism is teleological and deterministic because it assumes developments like feudalism, capitalism, and socialism are predetermined and inevitable and communism as the end of history. Marxism is pseudo-messianic. It denies the possibility of societies creatively building their own systems outside these predetermined models. It denies particularity.

>Materialism is pretty much just the view that the observable world precedes consciousness, and has objective reality outside of our subjective perception of it.
I'm not sure this is actually correct though.

Leftists hitching their wagon to a specific philiosophy is one of the things that limited its spread. Neolibs don't really care where you stand on these issues but Marxists feel a need to assimilate everyone into their philosophical worldview. This leads to totalitarianism and is also why different left factions can't tolerate each other.

>>22326
>also Engels lays out the main 'laws' of dialectics in Anti-Duhring so there shouldn't be confusion there
There is no place in Hegel I’m aware of that Hegel names these “laws of dialectic”, sorry. It is easy to find parallels of some place in Hegel’s logic which might refer to these three “laws” but this is oversimplification. Engels does not make it simple, he simply doesn’t understand it at all, and he takes from Hegel’s logic only a very little part, not even the most important things. First you have to understand the full story, before you can simplify it. Engels did not understand it at all. I suggest you try to read/understand Hegel instead of Engels who did not understand Hegel's dialectic. His book is misleading.

Marxists don’t understand ecology. Communism is utopian. There aren’t enough resources on earth to sustain universal communism.

> Lets say your anarchist liberated zone has a large population of MLs who decide to do the coup or just convert people to MLism and change the structure to a bunkerman dictatorship.
According to anarchist logic this should be perfectly fine if everyone agrees to it. Since people consent to neolib capitalism then why do they even oppose capitalism? Anarchos claim they respect democratic consensus but actually they don’t.

>>22340
>There aren’t enough resources on earth to sustain universal communism.

Trillions of dollars are wasted every year on wasted food that no one consumed, while the millions die from hunger. Somehow people think communism is when you can get whatever you want, no matter how much, just by thinking hard enough. This has nothing to do with communism, or the communist manifesto, or any work of any real communist.
Communism is not your "think and it will exist ideology". That is the opposite of materialism

80% of the Chinese population think their country is great and will become better in the future, while almost no one in america or europe think their countries are great, much less that it will get better anytime soon.

Europe and US are just everything they can to embargo China now that it is producing the vast majority of green energy in the planet, while still investing billions in gas, oil and not renewable sources of energy. While your IMF is forcing poor countries into debt slavery and forcing then to give up all their mineral and natural resources, China can't stop pardoning loans with no interest rate, literally giving free money to Africa so it can industrialize in the first time in history.

Socialism is not about "getting all the bitches you want", is a question of life or death. People already voted hitler for power, no one can unironically believe bourgeoisie democracy is real. No one is happy, this capitalism world is shit, you need to be blind not to see the decay of late stage capitalism.

>>22341
> people think communism is when you can get whatever you want, no matter how much, just by thinking hard enough
This is what Reddit leftists think. Zoomers just want free birches and free shit. That’s what socialism is about to them. Free stuff.

>>22312
> Leftists falsely understood capitalism as a rationalizing force which would create a homogenous proletariat, while in truth capitalism exacerbates racial differences to manage pops more efficiently.
I couldn’t give two shits about “racial” stuff. Capitalism cannot stay unrestrained and MUST be regulated, otherwise it gives way for monopolies and WILL destroy free market. Capitalism and TRUE education are the only ways to liberation; whatever children are taught in public schools is COMPLETE bullshit.

anarchists believe human nature is essentially good. the biggest mistake in their entire ideology. it’s why they always fail. Catalonia got its ass kicked because they decided to run a democratic army. they thought human goodness meant everyone could agree on the best course of action and actually follow it. they didn’t think some people are cowards, some people are insane PTSD schiizos, some a blood hungry psychopaths who like to kill. So their army could never agree on anything or get anything done besides a bunch of war crimes.

>>22331
This only makes any sense if you think the marxist dialectic is identical with the hegelian dialectic. In that case it's necessary for them to be in total agreement for there to be a clear definition. But they're not the same, so if Engels lays out a clear, concise definition of what dialectics means to him, then it's false to say that materialism and dialectics are vaguely defined. Which is the case, because Engels does this. Whether or not his dialectics agrees with Hegel does not matter.

>>22312
Stalin personally walked back the position on Jews he expressed in "Marxism and the National Qestion", resulting in the creation of one of the most reactionary states in existence and genocide. While this might be understandable from a personal perspective considering what just happened at that point, a communist has no right to act like that when so much is on the line.

The party in general degraded into liberalism very quickly, Khruschev was straight up a liberal, as evidenced by his secret speech. No materialist analysis of the situation is present at all, just "Stalin was rude" and bourgeois-tier nothings about how our party will get better. Even bourgeois journalists sometimes get above this level. A thorough investigation of why exactly this happened is needed.

With that said, anarchists never managed to get past liberalism at all. For them, "freedom" is still freedom from the state, not from the forces shaping society. "Decentralization" is inherently positive for them in exactly the same way it is to liberals, and the idea of "asiatic despotism" is a massive presence in today's warmongering propaganda. People are dying because of it right now. Many "anarchists" and "libertarian leftists" have very comfortably made the migration from talking about decentralized and just society to demanding nuclear strikes on all who dare refuse American dictate. There is nothing "progressive" about anarchism, it points away from historical materialism and into idealism.

It makes perfect sense for us all to be struggling with liberalism because it is the all-consuming superstructure of capitalism. We have all internalized it very deeply, and this seems to be what Marx says with the analogy of us all being Jews wandering in the desert. We're all liberals: you, me, Marx, Stalin.

But especially the op because god damn, it would be hard to put more completely ignorant takes in one post.

I don't see any feasible way to abolish markets. Its just not doable.

>>23904
We didn't always have markets or stocks. They aren't primordial to the universe.
If you could request the goods you wanted in the first place and enjoy the security of knowing they will be there regardless of your circumstances, would you not prefer that? You would prefer it even more if this were cheaper and better in every way? That is the very simple goal. Someone could deal in the uncertain market, but you wouldn't have to and your future wouldn't be tied to a game that is rigged for the rich to get richer.

>>22313
White Supremacist gangs like the KKK were highly structured actually.

>critique of leftoid ideology
>from rightoid ideologues
XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

>>22317
Can't coexist. Well, the only example of something like this that I know of is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_and_Labor_Commune
and the soviet state eventually collectivized them.

>>22340
>There aren’t enough resources on earth to sustain universal communism.
there actually are
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2452292924000493
>Provisioning decent living standards (DLS) for 8.5 billion people would require only 30% of current global resource and energy use, leaving a substantial surplus for additional consumption, public luxury, scientific advancement, and other social investments. Such a future requires planning to provision public services, to deploy efficient technology, and to build sovereign industrial capacity in the global South.

>>24038
Thats because the KKK was founded by former Confederate soldiers.

>>22312
>Leftists mistake nationalism […] as essentially reactionary
Marxists definitely don't so this doesn't really make sense.

>This is why Lenin and the Russian Marxists misinterpreted Marx's materialism as an ontology of matter. Second leftist materialism is determinstic and offers a telological history in which outcomes are predetermined.
also fundamentally mistaken, first in thinking that its a misinterpretation, and second that its deterministic and teleological

>>22343
>Zoomers just want free birches and free shit. That’s what socialism is about to them. Free stuff.

genpol.
millennials were accused of the same thing

>>23904
Markets (in moderation and in correct time and place) are good actually

what lit is there concerning the criticisms towards the lefts relationship to it's own ideologies?

I want a thorough analysis that deconstructs the tendency towards what is basically the identification of specific ideologies and ones relationship to them

I increasingly believe this needs to be deconstructed, not in a manner that is about tearing the ideologies themselves down, but in the inherent weaknesses associated with the kind of structures that are the result of these things, particularly within one's own view and relationship to the structure that is leftism itself, the left is constantly eating itself with what I'd call the measuring of virtuous worth, splintering into all these separate ideologies and cells, this is mainly true of the intellectual left, but it doesn't seem to be entirely avoidable in the active resistant left, and the problem is that the intellectual left *should* be operating in unison with this same force in any case

I want to know if anyone has attempted to a thorough and unbiased critique of this, I consider this the largely most important and relevant approach to the most relevant self-critique of the left to actually try to do something valuable

thanks for info

The modern era is predicated upon the conquest of the natural world and the development of technology towards the "progressive" advancement of man's liberation from the tyranny of nature. This is the taproot of all environmental terrorism and climate change, and is something that revolutionary leftists seems oblivious to or unwilling to acknowledge. The advancing march of technological socio-economic development entails ecological devastation and domination for the foreseeable future.

Totalitarianism, as per Arendt, was but the ideological manifestation through unlimited state terrorism of this conquest of nature turning inwards against human nature, which is but a product of the natural world itself, to dominate and recreate man's spirit and condition for the establishment of the next stage of evolutionary or ideological world history. Modernity is entirely built upon man's emancipation from the natural world, even when this pursuit of emancipation entails the complete domination and rewriting of the human condition and the evolutionary residuals of the natural world that shapes and defines it.

Either we totally deindustrialize and depopulate, or the world will witness a level of complete ecological catastrophe seen only a handful of times in its history, and in the off-chance humanity doesn't go extinct with this inevitability, it will undergo technological enslavement and reconstitution of the human condition towards a trans if not post-human course of history.

The only path forward and away from either collapse or enslavement that I remotely envision is the grasping and full fulfillment of man's true nature and soul, and from that it's connection and symbiotic relationship to the divine and subsequent animal kingdom. What Hubble demonstrated of the Heavens; we must do to the depths of man's psyche towards the obtainment of a new Ultra-humanism as the final bulwark against ecological annihilation and/or nihilistic post-human world domination.

Robinson is very good. Although he's mainly known for his Racial Capitalism thesis, which often gets simplified as "capitalism hurts black people more", when in fact it situates 'racialisation' and 'classification' as two prongs of the same hydra, his stuff on meta-marxism is very good. An Anthropology of Marxism is sublime in this respect:

“Finally, this litany of the historical achievements of preeminent individuals and classes tended towards the evisceration of social, political, and intellectual achievements stemming from the less conspicuous
or unremarked-¬upon masses. In much of the Marxian imagery, slaves contributed nothing to revolutionary thought or organization; neither did serfs, peasants, or women from any class or strata. As Kautsky had presumed, the history of socialism could be traced and reconstructed through the genealogy of radical elites situated at critical junctures of economic formation and disturbance” (p.15)

The critique of elitist Marxism also puts me in mind of Ranajit Guha's work on peasant rebellions. A lot of Marxists and even Gramsci to an extent often classify peasant or subaltern riots as spontaneous uprisings (which of course need an education leadership in the form of the leftists!). For Guha, it is logical that any peasant uprising must have occurred either through rational planning (as no peasant would risk their entire livelihood unless they had weighed up the cost/benefit of rioting and/or a last 'desperate, way out of an intolerable condition of existence’ .

In terms of lessons on praxis, I think it calls for the end of the armchair or newspaper seller Marxist, who waits for the revolution to happen and then assumes they will be able to lead it as such.

Read Eric Voegelin. He is the best conservative of 20th.

to approach the question, we must first understand what "leftism" is. leftism has its historical origins in 1789, where the national assembly was divided, between monarchists on the right, and revolutionaries on the left. in 1791, the legislative assembly maintained the same structure, between "innovators" on the left, moderates in the centre, and conservatives on the right. during 1793, members of the right then moved to the centre (a familiar tale). in 1794, members of the far left were subsequently removed. following the restoration of the monarchy in 1814-15, the political tribes re-formed, with monarchists on the right, constitutionalists in the centre, and "independents" on the left. the terms "right" and "left" began to be codefied under this context, with relative positions such as "far left/right" and "centre left/right" being based on position.

after 1848, left and right were more broadly attributed to political ideology, with the socialists and the reactionaries comprising a mutual opposition, represented by the red and white flags. it was formalised under the third republic, where during 1871-81, they established all positions, from the "centre-left/right" to the "radical left/right". later, and as early as 1931, the right were openly challenging the left-right distinction, while the left promoted it (a current challenge we have today between "politics" and populism). only in the 30s, did "right" and "left" gain common usage in the UK as well, brought about by the spanish civil war.

the first leftists were liberals; bourgeois revolutionaries (liberalism being "founded" by john locke ~1690 - with edmund burke subsequently "founding" conservatism in 1790). in the french left, there is the movement toward anarchism, given from proudhon's influence, which still obviously resembles rousseau's original concern of property. anarchism develops further and comes into conflict within the first international against marxists, where they are expelled in 1872. this split occurs just at the moment that political "positions" are being established, and this represents the contemporary situation - we know that anarchists have an authentic relationship to "the left", but do marxists?

as far as i can see, marx has always been more politically inspired by britain than france, with the most notable "utopian socialist" robert owen having importance to marx, with his notion of labour vouchers even possessing theoretical continuity in marx's "critique of the gotha programme (1875)". it was a supporter of owen; john goodwyn barmby, who is also credited as the person who coined the term "communism" for popular understanding, with marx later attributing "communism" as owen's own position - as we might read in "post-ricardian social criticism (1863)". in this text, he also situates owen against the french utopian socialists. marx's political economy is also expressly british, with smith and ricardo as his greatest influences (the LTV). marx and engels for example, both attribute the theory of surplus value to smith. marx also attributes his theory of labour power to thomas hobbes' "labouring power".

marx's "scientific socialism" fights many enemies, including "reactionary", "utopian" and "bourgeois" socialism. it also fights against anarchism, quite directly (a legacy further continued under the leninist revision). i can find no certain source of when "marxism" became associated with the "leftist" tradition, especially since it only seems to be a criticism, rather than continuation, of what came previously - while anarchism and liberalism have a direct claim to the theoretical and political project of the enlightenment. the american revolution was expressly lockean, with jefferson revising locke's famous maxim, "life, liberty and the pursuit of property", while the terroristic french revolution was rousseauean, emphasising humanism.

i would say then that the reason why anarchism and liberalism have this interaction is due to them sharing the same tradition, while marxism does not partake in this history. this is why leftism and marxism are seemingly antagonistic.

leftism then is the revolutionary spirit of bourgeois society, which stretches back to the birth of capitalism (~1490?), and the protestant reformation (1517). the reformation catalyses capitalism in northern europe, which imperially expands (~1580). the first joint-stock company recognised is in england (1551). the first "corporation" was the east india company (1600). the first issue of "copyright" was given for the KJV bible (1611). the english civil war (1642-1651) and glorious revolution (1688) lead to locke's liberalism (1690). further enlightenment leads to revolution (1776-1789). napoleon is usurped by britain (1815) as britain leads the industrial revolution further (…1840).

in 1848, there is widespread revolt and the publishing of the communist manifesto. the first international is founded in 1864 in london. capital vol. 1 is published (1867). 5 years after, the bakuninists are expelled (1872). the second international was founded in 1889, and the anarchists were expelled in 1893. the anarchists were obviously not welcome in the third international (1919 comintern). ex-trotskyists like james burnham help found the CIA in 1947 to oppose eastern communism. later, the "new left" of 1968 has dominated ever since (with the CIA's cultural subversion, such as promoting psychedelic drugs, abstract expressionism and "western marxists" in the frankfurt school). marxism itself becomes a relic, while the bourgeois revolution rages on, with liberalism being the truly radical heir.

in my conception: modernism, leftism, capitalism and protestantism are all part of the same zeitgeist, and so share the same historical destiny. this is also why i think "left-wing" causes like sexual and gender identity take on a protestant form. leftism is also religious and sectarian.

as for "criticising" leftism, there are only a few sober thinkers who attempt to deconstruct its integral modernism. there is alain de benoist, a leader of the "european new right", who sees that the notion of human rights legally abolishes collective self-determination by inventing the "individual". "national anarchism" attaches itself to this concern, by advocating for collective rights over individual rights. some marxists are also good on this, like althusser, whose theory of interpellation sees that the subject is a construction of the state. paul cockshott also deconstructs subjectivity by pointing toward its fragile historicity.

another critic is alexander dugin, who is obviously very well-known. the issue with dugin however is that he copes with religion rather than being nietzschean. there is also curtis yarvin. his diagnosis is nominally correct - especially his position that leftism is a mutation of protestantism, but after he became a face-fag, he hasnt really developed his thought at all.

if i were to offer my own criticism, i would say that humanism, beginning in the renaissance, is the root of it all (this is also guenon's position of when traditional christendom became modernism) - deconstructing the anthropocene is deconstructing capitalism (as per savitri devi's "impeachment of man"). hitler's vegetarianism and ecology was a first step into bringing us into a more holistic view.

another criticism i have is that the individual subject remains as yet, incompletely radical. individualism (leftism) always serves an ultimate despotism, as we might read in marquis de sade; if pleasure and pain are ends of the same circuit, who gets what? libertinism becomes authoritarianism, even as we see in the structure of sexuality, which in BDSM, reveals the "bondage" of liberty, and its bureaucracy. anarchism has a similar paradox, where rebellion becomes conformity to a new, permissive master. this was also lacan's general criticism of the new left. the limit of the subject is within its own structure however, since for it to be recognised, it must be known by an other. no man is an island, and so on. poststructuralism also has its relevance.

a theory of politics which i find interesting is todd mcgowan's, where he applies hegelian and psychoanalytic terms to the left and right. in his worldview, leftism is tied to the irreducible subject, which as per lacan's criticism of decartes, is an "I", but not yet an identity (ego). at the moment that the subject becomes identified ("I" am X), it is recurred into positivity and so an intrinsic antagonism, while the subject in itself remains an internal negativity, and so displays an infinite openness. in hegelian terms, this is the difference between identity (A) and difference (not-A). identity, as per the "law of contradiction" defines its identity as a negation of negation: (A = not, not A). this underpins the law of identity: (A = A) = (not, not A). So too, the egoic self depends on non-self, just like in buddhism. in social terms, we only gain our personal identity in being recognised by others.

todd syncretises this into two further categories; phallus and (symbolic) castration. phallus, briefly, is the general condition of masculinity, which seeks to preserve the ego, by denying the subject. this is why right-wing politics is identity politics, which particularises (objectifies) people into contradicting categories. this, todd identifies, with schmitt's friend-enemy distinction, where an in-group and out-group is identified, and determined (this also describes right-wing comedy, which is outwardly, rather than inwardly mocking). todd's response is an appeal for castration, where one recognises the failure of his own identity. this, todd identifies with alienation, and thus by a constitutive negativity; we identify with what we are not. this is universalist, by a self-otherness (such is hegel's view of the absolute). comically, this produces self-deprication.

the failure of the right then, is that they do not criticise themselves, since they do not see the "other" as constitutive of their identity. the racist, for example, needs a race to oppose, to give himself identity. the most basic right-wing orientation then, is antisemitism, where the jew is not just a projection of everything we dislike, but the very identity the christian has appropriated. antisemitism begins in christianity because christians claim to be the "real" jews. in this, one hates what he is in himself, like the closeted homophobe, or the BBC addicted chud. todd's point is that one must submit to the other in themselves.

a criticism of todd's leftism is that he still makes exception for "progressive" identity politics. he claims for example that BLM was "universalist" without much proper theoretical justification (he also thinks that egalitarianism means we all win together, or we all fail together; like how he says that even though the covid vaccines were bunk, he would have forced them on everyone anyway, to make it "equal" - this to me is just a rabid case of "current thing" conformism, which is genetic to leftists).

now, i have my own perspective on BLM; that the purported universalism of "all lives matter" encompasses "all", yet in itself, obscured the whiteness of its essence. to speak in universal terms is to speak in "white" terms, the same way it is to speak in cisheteronormative terms - which is why unveiling the particularity of the universal is so triggering to cisheteronormative white men, such as the trauma of being called "cis"; the violence of the act is in confronting the otherness of ourselves.

for example, when one is made othered, he submits to this identity, while the non-othered exist in ignorance of themself. the othered person then, as per the master-servant dialectic, now takes the superior position of confronting themselves, while the master becomes dependent on the other (like the racist). once the universal is entered into its abstract particularity, it is condemned for its namesake (such as Christ being the incarnation of the invisible God). knowledge, in this case, is castrating, since it "reveals" finitude by an objectification. phallus seeks to objectify, but resists its own objectification.

this is why all political "neutrality" is right-wing, since it attempts to deny itself by occupying the universal position. the right want to be racist, but deny their racism, and so on. the first step in progress then is confronting oneself. the right must admit their racism, and then, either embrace it or reject it. as malcolm x said, an honest racist is better than a lying liberal, and so we see the best of all possible worlds being one of universal confession. the biblical vision of progress is given, as the descent of sin into the seeds of love. my ultimate criticism of the left then, is that there is no "universal". unity is dialectical; it is the tension held between two opposing forces, like ionic bonds between atoms.

a truer example of a "progressive" universality (via non-identity) is zizek's example of LGBT+. zizek sees that the (+) is itself the liberating negativity (a "surplus" which cannot be integrated into the "all" - the lacanian "not-all"). non-binary gender identity may also suffice, since it confronts an either/or with "neither". this denial however cannot be interpreted as its own identity, but a lack of identity. the (+) occupies the open space of queerdom, which i also identify with the heterosexual subjectivity of homoeroticism, which is "neither" straight or gay (such is the visage of "the beautiful boy", with the femboy filling this spiritual role today). this is why heterosexuality is immanently progressive as compared to homosexuality, which is a pure identity, and so cannot escape itself. a popular fetish in gay communities is the the idea of "turning" a straight man gay, so as to "reveal" this immanence. this to me is the intrinsic queerness of heterosexuals which homosexuals perceive in us, and so are envious of (just as they are envious of youth and its spoiled mysteries). homosexuals and transsexuals to me represent an intrinsic conservatism then (the LGBT "identity"), while heterosexuals are uniquely open (the queer non-identity).

>>22320
> MLs are determinists
Historical Materialism isn’t determinist.
Likelihood =/= predetermined

>>22359
You type like you're 13 years old. Stop watching JReg videos. I'll give you a very gentle piece of advice: PTSD is not schizophrenia, and neither conditions emerge arbitrarily, or 'from birth' as you imply.

i've re-written my post, since the mods only prove my point, by censoring my heresy. i'm offering a short transcendental critique:

robespierre once declared, "no freedom for the enemies of freedom", which is identical to a popperian maxim - no tolerance for the intolerant. this has its inherently bourgeois dimension, as per marx's description of primitive accumulation, entailing the deracination, yet reterritorialisation of labour, under private appropriation. we are made to be "free", even under penalty of death (this is also general imperial policy, like how taxation is a policy put onto colonial subjects, to demand payment via debt - this is our "original sin" as slaves to profit). lenin once said something similar; "those who do not work shall not eat". yet, are the starving allowed to leave for better lands? no.

it used to be common for criminals or dissidents to be exiled - but with capitalism, fixed territories gained economic primacy, and so nation states, like factory or school walls, didnt just keep people out, but kept people in. prison sentences get longer, as more labour is extracted (and so the state manufactures crime to harvest more slaves). the leftist foresakes the swift justice of execution, and prefers the indefinite cruelty of human farming. this has its inherently capitalist form - and also a protestant one. catholics used to force a "confession" from criminals so as to be able to forgive their souls, before their body was destroyed. today, the catholic confession has turned to a protestant grace by faith; an internal condition, which we call "rehabilitation".

the leftist seeks to redeem the soul of the criminal by "re-educating" them, and disciplining the body by labour - which was a theological device used by american slavers. the public "debt" of crime turns to private profits, as the spectacle of justice becomes the bureaucracy of conversion, as we may read in orwell's 1984. the body is easy to control, but the mind is the jewell which is sought to be possessed. "sola fide" is the sentiment; one is saved by faith, directly contraposed to good works.

the resolve of leftists is the same as that of christian faith; let Jesus into your heart, or else… these tactics are exactly those which police use for gaslighting the public - "we're here for your safety", so submit, or else. it is naked hypocrisy in power, like masked protestors having state protection, claiming to be rebels against the system. yet, as figures like guy debord, jacques lacan or jean baudrillard understood perfectly well - rebellion is conformism. the aesthetic angst of leftism is the cultural commodity of our age. we can see this well enough in everyday life; no one is more "basic" than someone who has dyed hair, a tattoo and/or a piercing. this is the impotence of individualism.

[…]

there is no separation between religion and politics then; churches and sects are the form of capitalist franchises, which all worship the same God, under different forms of commercial engagement. the church becomes the "party", all with the sola scriptura of leftist prophets - its like anything; you dont have to read the holy books to still have faith in your heart.

to return to the original critique; the clause of leftism is transcendental (or a priori). to have freedom, one must agree to the terms of freedom; this is a notion of a social contract, most especially shared with conservative imagination (where "trust" or "credit" serves as the terms). the difference however is that the right exclude those who disagree, while the left seeks to convert them. the left cannot conceive of genuine difference (formal contradiction), but only shadows of the monad; this is deadly universalism.

zizek speaks proficiently of the difference between fascism and communism being one principally based in particularism and universalism. the fascist excludes, while communism includes the excluded. but then we return to the original position. may i leave the communist utopia to settle for something less? not at all - and this is the nightmare; that i am forced to be free, or else. this is precisely the logic of capital as marx communicates primitive accumulation - and so leftism has continuity, without transcendence, of this form of justice, tied to protestantism. this is also why LGBT issues are of a purely protestant determination.

my criticism then, is that the left fails to transcend its bourgeois terms, which mirror capital, in freeing commerce, by a simultaneous arrestment of labour (in a society where we are not even able to die). the left conceive of freedom unfreely, while the right preserve a certain wilderness in their conception (absolute negativity).
"progressive" christians try to theologically erase hell, when hell is the objective form of God's freedom and justice. so to say, when there is no hell, there is only hell. that is the failure of the leftist concept. this is also just the failure of monism, which has not yet graduated to dualism. the right, as i see, have a concept of dualism, while the left attempt to collapse duality into unity. this is why the left cannot conceive of formal difference, and so try to relate everything back into a singular substance. what hegel gets right that marxists get wrong, is seeing the inherent contradiction in things. freedom must include our freedom to be unfree; man must fall from paradise.

>>24233
What has he said that was wrong?
If he sounds immature for saying this then I hate to know what your preference of what's correct is.

>>22324
Thats why some anons say they're communists, not leftists.

Leftism is just a farce, just no different from right is so far

>>24250
Why do you elevate his idiocy? "PTSD schizo" isn't a real thing, for starters as to what's 'wrong'. My 'preference for what's correct' is analysis beyond the equivalent of what a 13 year old boy would type as a means of 'analysis' in a youtube comment section.

>>24249
are you 'psikey' on twitter?

>>24322
Ah. I thought you meant his critique of anarchy relying on "muh goodness of human nature".

But for real though, most psuedo intellectualism is often from those older than you think.

I like how people always assume online that anything that sounds wrong is written by a child.

I find far more farcical opinions on boomer chat spaces