When is a "lefty" not a "lefty" anymore?
What does Holla Forums believe are the essential things someone has to believe and support in order to be a "lefty" - what are the things where you say, "Okay, on this and that topic, leftists can have different opinions on but you're still a fellow lefty."?
Like, can you be a leftie on almost anything except for their view on women?
Other urls found in this thread:
marxists.org
moufawad-paul.blogspot.com
moufawad-paul.blogspot.com
4umi.com
atlassociety.org
twitter.com
a lefty is a lefty when he's not a righty
well you can, but I think you'd find it hard to rationalise conservative views on women without going against principles that, in turn, justify all the rest.
What specifically about women?
In capitalism there are two classes: those who work to create wealth, and those who own what the workers need in order to create that wealth.
A lefty is against this and believes that those who create wealth should own what they need in order to create that wealth.
Everything else is irrelevant.
But user, a lefty is also someone who believes that in order to sustain such social hierarchy different types of discipline are imposed upon us, physical and psychological, the latter including a series of institutional and cultural practices that blind the individual from the material reality of his circumstances and should be routinely questioned as part of a revolutionary praxis!
That would be one subset of lefties
I'm gonna guess reproductive rights, specifically the right to kill unborn fetuses.
"left" and "right" are outdated terms anyways
Some belief in the ability of the working class to attain political power, whether it takes the form of anarchism, social democracy, or the various forms of Marxism. An opposition to class collaborationism in the forms of racial, national, cultural, or any other identity. Also, a belief that wealth and class differences are, at least partially, socially constructed and liable to change. Someone who reduces politics and economics to biology or genetics, like Nietzsche or any of the Fascists, are not leftists.
...
Leftism is about human emancipation. That is all.
This is primarily an economic issue, having to do with the material conditions of society and the social relations within it. But many anons on Holla Forums—perhaps through being triggered by tumblr/reddit-style liberal identity politics—want to make leftism seem entirely and exclusively about workers seizing the means of production and “everything else is irrelevant.”
This is aspie-tier reductionism, and primitive even by 19th century standards of Marxist thought. It also means these idiots need 2 read sum theory. Material analysis is predominant and central—but to think that workers can seize the factories and the left can call it a day is utterly undialectical, utterly ahistorical and utterly naive.
You have to be against private ownership of the means of production.
Nietzsche was against biological determinism and nationalist. He was just anti-egalitarian.
He makes constant references to the body being the source of political and economic systems. He refers to "slave morality" (every left-wing ideology, even capitalism for Nietzsche since he was an aristocrat) as being the ideology of the weak in body. marxists.org
moufawad-paul.blogspot.com
moufawad-paul.blogspot.com
See above for the biological determinism. Nietzsche also advocated for a "master race" of multi-ethnic aristocrats to rule Europe. He wasn't a nationalist because he shilled for aristocracy. He was critical of capitalism's effects and wanted a return to feudal relations.
4umi.com
"slave morality" isn't "inferior morality" and Nietzsche most certainly hated the english master morality of their honor culture.
When they don't support workers control of the means of production
A lefty is not a lefty when they don't support public ownership of the means of production. The rest is detail tbh.
People fighting over which sect of leftism is duh bezt are wasting effort that could be spent on advancing leftism as a whole.
Marxism Leninism is a science. If you don't adhere to ML you are not a leftist.
for me anyone in favor of a revolution and the establishment of socialism (whether statist or not) is a leftist.
even socdems whom are neutral or supportive of a revolution can be tolerated.
for anarkiddies a "leftist" is someone who agrees with them 100% with absolutely no conflicting opinion
like poetry
ebin
of course it is, it's by a tankie
In the Genealogy of Morality and his other works Nietzsche constantly argues that slave morality comes out of slave resentment and pins the whole thing on the Jews as a race. Nietzsche obviously didn't believe in the Nazi ideology but he pretty clearly painted slave morality as inferior to master morality. I can't remember the work but he claimed to want a "new slavery" for Europe. He opposed the Paris Commune, the French Revolution, socialism, and capitalism. Nietzsche detested slave morality and saw it as inferior and was a shill for the right.
I like Marxism Leninism but you are too sectarian. Non-Marxist Leninists are leftists, just really confused ones.
Also what did you mean by this?
Socialism traditionally preaches equality of the sexes in all things, that's why there were so many women on the Soviet side in WWII.
I don't think that believing in 'gender roles' is a bad thing, there is evidence going back to the stone age that females are more suited to certain tasks in a society. But in modern times if a female wants to do something more traditionally suited to men, they are free to and I think that's awesome. But they should be considered equally with with men with gender not even being a factor in decision making. However sometimes genetics and gender just make it harder for you to get a position for example you will just be physically weaker than men in a lot of cases which is why not many women make frontline combat. They are held to the same standards as males and while some make it, it's just common sense that not as many women will pass those tests, this does NOT mean the standards should be lowered or women given different standards. This is the crux of the problem I have with a lot of the 'extreme left'
I think it's hard to be a 'leftist' without preaching equality in genders and race but that's the key word here, equality. Leftists who think women need special treatment and need to be 'held up' I think fundamentally goes against what it means to be a socialist.
These soppy SJW cunts who think people need special treatment are not real socialists, they just want an easy ride through life because they find it hard to measure up and don't want to put the extra effort in.
He absolutely hated the english culture of the 19th century and claimed its smallmindedness was one of the greatest threats to mankind. But try finding a more "master morality" culture than 19th century Britain.
Didn't he have a hard on for Greeks before Socrates,Plato and later philosophers?
Nietzsche also praised Jews frequently in his work. And he never said that slave morality was completely bad either-I.E. he had good things to say about Jesus and Socrates for their ability to defy the dominant morality even though he didn't agree with their philosophy.The point of Nietzsche was to transcend master/slave morality
...
There was still a fair bit of"slave morality" going on there. Look at the demands for hospitality and the like.
19th century Britain was the center of capitalist development. Capitalism or capitalist countries are not "master morality". They reduce people to being equal under the law. Nietzsche on the contrary denounces capitalism and praises things like the Code of Manu. Nietzsche also hated the utilitarians because they treated each person as equal in their moral. He hated the petty mindedness of the small English shopkeeper for his focus on profit AND he hated the Paris Commune and socialism, as well as anarchism. Why would he do that? He had a hard on for master morality, and that's revealed when he talks admirably about the "blond beast" and other nonsense.
atlassociety.org
He praised the Jews for being crafty enough to push their lies and being so full of hate that they could outsmart the Romans and the Germans. That's not exactly a compliment. He considers Socrates the beginning of the rot with focus on reason and considers Jesus an idiot. Nietzsche's task, as he himself says, is to create the conditions for a new aristocracy to rule Europe and create new conditions of slavery. With his weird beliefs on race and biology, he promoted irrelevant shiting only to allow that to happen. Nietzsche was an extreme right-winger and that's why Fascists were able to use his work so easily, both today and in the past.
Pretty sure that's false, mate. A lot of his work was bastardized against his intentions after his death to make it look like that, though.
How is being against socialism, capitalism, and anarchism while advocating for eugenics to create an aristocracy not extreme right-wing?
advocacy for eugenics isn't itself rightwing
a lot his anti-anarchist attacks are very poorly written out. But then again so are most people's.
Yeah I agree, but he argues AGAINST the French Revolution and argues that it was the beginning of the slave morality that swept over Europe. Nietzsche was a traditionalist and traditionalists are, by the original meaning of left and right, right-wing. Nietzsche only talks about the freedom of the individual as the right of an individual to dominate others as a member of the aristocratic class, similar to how cappies talk about individualism as being a capitalist. The attempt by scholars like Kaufmann to sanitize Nietzsche and make him a harmless individualist are just dishonest. If you read Nietzsche's books it's pretty clear that he's hard right; nearly every page confirms that.
This thread pops up pretty much every few hours, so I am forced to ask this question.
Why does it matter? We all know there is a distinction between different types of leftists. The broader leftist community recognizes there are differences. Anyone in the general community who didn't fall asleep in school recognizes there are differences. The only people who don't are the media, politicians and the right, and considering the right has a long history of being completly unable to grasp reality they tend to listen to the former far too much.
So why are you even asking this question? is it to satifsy some lingering identity issue you have ("i'm not like THOSE leftists!")? Because if you are that's just idpol, pure and simple.
so he's an anarchocapitalist
how can he be a traditionalist when he said that 90% of Western history sucked as we kept trying to escape reality (via Christianity and booze)? What was the reference point outside of might-makes-rgith esque individualism which you can supposedly see in pagan works?
My mistake. "Traditionalist" probably isn't the best word to use since Traditionalists usually are spiritualist. I'm just trying to emphasize the point that Nietzsche praised aristocracy and pre-capitalist systems.
Kinda.
He most certainly does not argue for the traditional State, and pushes away from the traditional "herd" mentality sort of thinking.
Like I've said countless times dude, he's against the capitalist state but for aristocracy. He associates the "herd" with socialism and capitalism. That makes him a right-winger, he wasn't an anarchist or against authority at all. The Confederate States of America and George Fitzhugh criticized capitalism and socialism but weren't left-wing either.
He sounds pretty spooky
I don't see how his neo feudal world could compete with capitalism
It wouldn't and actually bringing that shit back is impossible, that's why he was adopted by the Fascist and Nazi movements. They were the most regressive and so used him as propaganda by selectively quoting him. I don't believe that he actually was a Fascist, a Nazi, or anti-semitic, but Nietzsche wasn't a nice guy and opposed to our political movement.
Fair enough. Still worth looting his ideology though.
Educate yourself.
It's not reductionism, but simple efficiency. To make ANY changes you need power. I.e. control over the means of production. It doesn't matter what you are fighting for. The first step (provided, you actually support democratic decision-making) will always be one and the same.
Therefore, unless we are faced with very obvious and very easy to solve problem, we should concentrate on this one thing (MoP). Yes, this makes the rest of the Left effectively irrelevant for the time being.
It's pretty interesting I admit, but it's mostly just useful to see how the right-wing thinks. There have been some attempts by anarchists to retcon Nietzsche as an anarchist, but ultimately as someone sympathetic to Marxism-Leninism I think that ultimately fails. It has too much spooky shit. Early Marx deconstructs a lot of what Nietzsche seems to believe, along the lines of "everything you believe is natural or individual is just a collective ideology and artificial!" line. I don't know if others would agree, but that's how I interpret it and it fascinates me.
I think his talk on the importance of will is still worth looking into and the value of self-determination is something that the left could probably do with picking up again.
I agree. I think some of stuff about enjoying the body and giving oneself to pleasure and pain without fear via the eternal return is an interesting thought experiment. Leftists too often associate leftism with asceticism, aka I don't fancy or nice stuff or being poor is objectively good, and Nietzsche could help with some of that.
More often than not, Academia was indeed a bourgeoisie "conspiracy" and only widenened the gap between the working class and bourgeoisie "liberals" who want a bigger piece of the poisoned cake.
I'm not the only one reading the Last Man to be someone stripped of will rather than someone who is some biologically inferior trash then? I sometimes feel that the endless bread and circuses is something that is literally designed to produce exactly that.
What is idpol anyway? Since I came to Holla Forums (a week or so ago) I've seen that term a couple of times but don't know what it means.
Identity politics/identity political (person)
meaning someone who is focused on the identities of people rather than the systems by which they engage in.
Identity politics. It’s used in a more or less interchangeable way with “social justice,” of the “SJW” variety.
We hate it because it’s more often than not liberal bullshit. (But a lot of anons get triggered by anything that mentions race or gender as a subject worth examining and start sperging out in a Holla Forums-like manner.)
btw I'm the user who argued that Nietzsche is a biological reductionist and has been responding all this time. Forgot to flag
The Last Man is pretty interesting. He's described as a man who doesn't want leaders and doesn't want to rule, and the last men just "huddle for warmth". I don't think this was meant as a biological thing, it's just a (in my opinion) caricature of left-wing philosophies that want to abolish war/class distinctions, so according to Nietzsche we would be lacking will or drive, as he sees lives as essentially class exploitation. He makes the Will to Power aka domination the essence of material reality.
It's generally a term that means focusing on race, sex, or sexuality instead of class issues. Liberals (aka capitalists) who are super anti-racist or are for gay rights but against left-wing economic issues are idpol. That doesn't mean that we are racist or anti-gay, but we understand the root cause of these things in a different way from idpol.
* as he sees life
Oh, and the society of the Last Man would be what we seek according to Nietzsche, a society without extreme exploitation.
I kind of get that. It seems almost like the usual "every generation is just getting lazier :^((" reactionary argument but it's not quite that. I rather find that it can still be read in a different way and is perhaps what has become of the neoliberal establishment which is decidedly not leftwing. Though it may just be as you describe it.