Brainlet here, so what is the left about?
For me it always seemed like the left was about identity politics, SJWs and stuff like that.
And if the "real" left is not about these things then how can you say that the right is about being a fascist?
Why does it seem like everything is controlled opposition to make the other side look bad?
Where is the real politics and real movement of the people?
What is the left about?
Brainlet here, so what is the left about?
Other urls found in this thread:
Oh boy you're in for a hell of a ride.
Remove the bourgeois private property relation that evolved out of European feudalism.
Remove the bourgeois.
Remove their governments and laws.
Remove the exploitative system of production necessary for sustaining bourgeois society.
Provide everyone the ability to pursue their own lives and the development of their personal abilities, such as they are, and with the control of their selves, their workplaces, and their societies.
opposition to hierarchy, illegitimate authority, and concentration of power
As marx said, "We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.”
This is the movement of the people, our goal is the equality of all. Idpol shit has too much of a grip on our political parties, but we're opposed to it for a reason - all it does is create circular firing squads while the rich laugh all the way to the bank. Institutions will always be corrupted desu - put someone in power and their interests cease to be those of the people they "lead".
ITT: Liberals. I mean, Jesus, exploitation isn't even the source of human misery.
None of this is socialism and frankly, all of that could be a achieved by a social democracy. Socialism is collective ownership of the means of production, the abolition of production for profit and the collective allocation of surplus by overcoming individualized value allocation for market exchange. This can be achieved through a vanguard party destroying the state, erecting a dictatorship of the proletariat and constructing a worker's state on top of it, with a centrally planned economy and abolition of liberal multi party democracy, replacing it with a proletarian democracy.
read a book.
should be based on CYBERNETIX
You're an illiterate.
No that's quite wrong
Left Identity Politics isn't cancerous if it is backed up by something like Anarchist's Anti-hierarchical stance(which is what Narchos actually think is the flaw) or Marxist's focus on Material Relations
Identity Politics, on it's own as it's own focus, will lead to shit like this
Also, it isn't capture the state
The Proletariat create their own state, seize state power merely refers to destroying the old state and replacing with a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, which will wither away as the bourgeoisie is crushed
Not all leftists are socialists
which is kinda of a problem with the whole idea of left unity
How so ?
Pretty much all are, but there is a difference between scientific socialism (Marxists, Marxist-Leninists) and utopian socialism. Scientific socialism analyzes the material conditions which have to presuppose an economic system in which desirable progression of humankind can be achieved, while utopian socialists ignore the fundamental economic laws that are underlying our socio-economic condition. Utopian socialists just go for the most obvious target (muh hierarchy, muh freedumz) but are unaware if the actual laws which enslave them and crushes them.
He's just mad.
Nowdays the term leftism has been completely banalised it can mean anything from liberal hillary voters and "we need more female CEOs" to stalinism.
People should avoid the term really.
The so called "real leftists" are usually socialists trying to shift the focus of left leaning politics to class struggle.
This does not mean that we are neglecting the existance of racism, misogyny and xenophoby. We are just inserting those problems in a class context and reverting the leftist discussion to the struggle.
In the tradition of the French Revolution I define leftism as a force aiming for the progression of human history, towards striving for development but reattaining our nature, smashing the mirror of the system we don't understand so we can see our very selves again.
Right-wing ideologies are either for a regression or preservation of the status quo. Following that definition, it is quite clear that Hillary is a right-winger.
Leftism is about the urban lifestyle. Identity politics is what happens when eccentrics move from the farm to the city.
You really are fucking mad that someone calls you out on your eclectic definitions and liberal utopianism, aren't you?
So while you were in school you were taught about how in the past governments were built off weird systems where certain people were legally superior to others, right? The way the Code of Hammurabi has different penalties for a slave killing a noble and a noble killing a slave, the way English aristocrats were part of Parliament hundreds of years before democracy came about, the caste system in India, shit like that. As might be thought obvious, the classes with political privilege were typically the wealthier ones.
Well, come the Enlightenment, this idea becomes totally unfashionable in the West. There's nothing that makes the nobility inherently superior to anyone else; why do they get special legal privileges? So, there's a whole bunch of political upheaval and absolutist states gradually were replaced with "democracies" and "republics" established in the name of liberty across all of Europe. Everything's great, right?
Well, not really. Some people still seem to be richer than others. And these people don't appear to be working particularly hard; they're just renting their land. What the hell is this nonsense? It should be stopped. And this is what the classical economists were leading up to…
…until Karl Marx. Karl Marx showed that the idea of separate legal classes with different levels of political privilege was still alive and well within modern, "capitalist" society; the privilege was found within the right of private property. The way production now worked was that some one or some firm would have exclusive legal right to some piece of productive equipment, and would use his "legal right" (that is, the ability to call men with guns) to ensure that anyone who had to work for him had to give him a cut of some sort. The mechanism of wage-labor was fundamentally the same mechanism at the heart of rentierism; without abolishing the former, the liberal project would be incomplete. Yet more political upheaval would be necessary to truly complete the project.
There's more reasons to be a communist outside of aesthetic aversion to the idea of class society, though. The economy created by the modern class system has all sorts of peculiar features. There are simultaneous epidemics of obesity and starvation, as well as empty houses and homeless people. A tremendous amount of potential productivity is denied to the commonwealth because some people are either unemployed or employed doing useless shit like making advertisements instead of doing useful things. The progress of the sciences is held back by intellectual property, denying people knowledge and forcing them to repeat it or sit on their hands. The climate is changing and nothing is being done about it. So on, and so on, and so on.
(Someone correct me if I'm wrong about anything in the history/moralism part)
Is this a pasta or something, i think this is incredibly good, easy to understand.
I think modern school systems are flawed in many ways, no where do they explain anything this nicely.
People of countries like Finland think the school system is good because it's free and it's better than the system in burgerland, but being better than shit doesn't mean it's good.
It's seems like it's corrupt, there is no real discussion.
The environment problems are real, but not on "we are all going to die" scale, you would think that if corporations want to make more money in the future they would stop polluting the water and the air, but it's not happening.
Most of the new science that have been made by Einstein and the scientist after him is pure nonsense. It's there to make you feel stupid. It's mostly not even real science because instead of doing science by observation they are just shiting out some math that looks like it could work, but doesn't.
The big bang, black holes and neutron stars are pure math, not science.
Scientist have never seen a black hole, they just think it's a black hole because that's what they have come up with.
Nuke stars are also false.
non-government funded science have come up with new explanations for the thing mentioned above that relies not on pure math, but observation.
I truly believe in this new wave of observation based science that gives real, understandable answers to new phenomenon seen in space.