On ‘Strasserism’ and the Decay of the Left

[Theodarzna]

First, I agree with you on the major point that not all struggle is class struggle, the article overdoes that a bit. I also see what's going on in the thread regarding the article author (Malcolm Kyeyune), I'm not joining that fight, I'll just defend my position and move on.

Second, yes Strasser brothers were indeed members of NSDAP - but they were purged before the party did bad things it's famous for, because they were ideologically incompatible with Hitler. Just like not every socialist is compatible with Stalin's or Mao's version of socialism.

As for Malcolm Kyeyune calling himself a Nazi, I'm reading him differently. I'll requote relevant parts (note the bolded sentences):

Clearly he says that just like Strasserites were cast out by Hitler's Nazis, he and others like him were cast out by the PMC's left, and not that he's a follower of a group that was defeated 86 years ago.

Landless farmhands sort of (if you don't count proletariat), landed farmers not at all, at least here, not ever, including today, farmers are well off here. Anyway, isn't the cornerstone idea of leftism to eliminate these rungs, not enshrine them?

I too might agree with that, its not always entirely class struggle. However, I'll paraphrase Angela Nagle quote here “I basically feel like I’ve been asking the same question [of the left] for my entire life, which is why can’t they just advocate for economic policies that would benefit the vast majority of people and not try to socially engineer them?” given that the latter of engineering people seems to come as a precondition long before the economic bits are ever going to take place. The tenor of this thread is pretty telling of that. A farmhands pay to be increased, or just the idea of increasing the bargaining power and income of that class of people is pie in the sky, unimaginable. Yet these same people will inform us that must Abolish the Police and rebuild them from the ground up. Only after the natives have been pacified, civilized and rid of their heathenry can we have Health Care I guess, or that is the reading I get from it. People might say "We can do both" but that never seems to actually take place. Malcolm argues that the competing class interests explain why an entirely PMC formation seems incapable of making good on projects that run counter to their interests. My stance is its not always class struggle but the majority of it is.

[Endus]

I too might agree with that, its not always entirely class struggle. However, I'll paraphrase Angela Nagle quote here “I basically feel like I’ve been asking the same question [of the left] for my entire life, which is why can’t they just advocate for economic policies that would benefit the vast majority of people and not try to socially engineer them?” given that the latter of engineering people seems to come as a precondition long before the economic bits are ever going to take place.

Because;

A> this is an "I believe all lives matter" argument, which ignores the underlying inequities that are being addressed and attempts to actually protect and support those inequities, because a policy that's equally advantageous to all does nothing to address injustice, it simply rewards those already privileged.

B> All policies are "social engineering", and it's a horseshit label attached to try and impute something distasteful. Yes, there is social injustice that has been noticed, and we're attempting to engineer a solution. Your issue with that is . . . what, exactly?

The tenor of this thread is pretty telling of that. A farmhands pay to be increased, or just the idea of increasing the bargaining power and income of that class of people is pie in the sky, unimaginable.

You're imagining this. Literally making it up. While some of us (though I'm pretty sure I'm on ignore, at least) are saying exactly this.

Yet these same people will inform us that must Abolish the Police and rebuild them from the ground up. Only after the natives have been pacified, civilized and rid of their heathenry can we have Health Care I guess, or that is the reading I get from it.

Then you need to try reading what people actually write, rather than relying on your own navel-gazing fantasizing.

People might say "We can do both" but that never seems to actually take place.

Because when someone says "We should fix healthcare. We should improve wages for the working class", people like yourself quote the first sentence to ask "what about wages?", and quote the second to ask "What about healthcare?" When it's clear, if you take the entire platform into account, those questions have really obvious answers. You just don't care to engage in good faith.

[Dsonsion]

We still leave with Angela Nagle having an actual program, and you seemingly advocating capitulation for the purposes of a remittance based global charity scheme as harm reduction and just asking one segment of the working class to take it on the chin for some indefinite period of time until...... I don't know.... either their opioid fueled liquidation or something super improbable like the second coming of Jesus. So far from you, I've gotten "But that might cause harm" ignoring that the status quo causes harm, and that in general, you've not said what your counterplan is other than "Fight Globalization!" How? I don't know.

There's some plans and some actions I don't feel comfortable talking about in these forums. This fake dichotomy between the Democratic and Republican parties presupposes the need for socialistic movements to control one of the major parties to work. I'm not an expert, but that sounds a bit like good ol' Stalinism to me. I'm not a fan.

[Theodarzna]

There's some plans and some actions I don't feel comfortable talking about in these forums. This fake dichotomy between the Democratic and Republican parties presupposes the need for socialistic movements to control one of the major parties to work. I'm not an expert, but that sounds a bit like good ol' Stalinism to me. I'm not a fan.

Well, you have to engage in politics to achieve political goals. So having power over a political party or both would really help in achieving political goals. Otherwise, we are waiting for the Gods to deliver us or something. If you want you can DM your position and I'll read it.

[Shalcker]

It might be a man-made decision, but guess what, we as man also have to live within realistic limits. Guess what isn't a particularly realism? Paying farmhands better because you feel sorry, because not only would that for one be completely outside of their actual worth in our labour and produce system, so you then tell the rest of society they have to foot that bill; at which point they will demand an increase to pay for said bill, and all the way up it goes, and because of inflation the farmhand makes the same as he always did. Congratulations, you inflated currency, and no gained anything.

But this is quite observably false. We have people who hold billions yet produce no inflation.

No, they will just settle at higher level of consumption. More things will get produced to satisfy their demands. In the end economy will grow.

At extreme levels they might even be able to finance research and technology that would make their job less back-breaking - or at least buy that which already exists but cannot be sustained at low prices. Then their productivity will rise and there will be less of them (demand for food isn't infinite).

I see no inherent value in keeping price of food specifically low as long as access to food is available to everyone, and suppressing wages might not even be most effective way of doing that anyway (after all, even with relatively low farm wages USA still has food stamps).

[PC2]

I see no inherent value in keeping price of food specifically low as long as access to food is available to everyone, and suppressing wages might not even be most effective way of doing that anyway (after all, even with relatively low farm wages USA still has food stamps).

You mean prices shouldn't be kept low through subsidies and importing illegal labor, right? Because other than that the goal for everything should be to reduce the cost and price of goods to as close to zero as possible.

[Theodarzna]

You mean prices shouldn't be kept low through subsidies and importing illegal labor, right? Because other than that the goal for everything should be to reduce the cost and price of goods to as close to zero as possible.

I am not saying that is a bad goal, but should it be a goal above any other goal? I think Shalcker would agree on that, that may be the goal of having food be essentially free is good sure, but is it so important that people should live in squalid poverty or strangely enough be deemed unworthy humans?

[Shalcker]

You mean prices shouldn't be kept low through subsidies and importing illegal labor, right?

Subsidies are fine. If you want to control end-point price you can intervene at any level. If you want to control farm price you're probably interested in supporting some kind of middleman redistribution/wealth extraction scheme. I guess there are corporations busy with that who can lobby for their profit margins to be better on that end.

Importing illegal labor obviously runs counter to (potential) wage increases.

Because other than that the goal for everything should be to reduce the cost and price of goods to as close to zero as possible.

I feel that keeping price at sustainable level is better long-term.

"As close to zero as possible, everything else be damned" is better only for wealth extraction by outside entities. Farming requires space, time, and effort. And i don't think wages around poverty level are sustainable.

[PC2]

I am not saying that is a bad goal, but should it be a goal above any other goal? I think Shalcker would agree on that, that may be the goal of having food be essentially free is good sure, but is it so important that people should live in squalid poverty or strangely enough be deemed unworthy humans?

No in terms of prioritizing goals I think you should prioritize your ethical standards first.

Your ethical standards > Making as much useful stuff with utility as possible > wealth creation & profit

Seeking fixed prices is highly irrational when they could be lower.

[Theodarzna]

[...]

My ultimate contention with Howel and Dsonsion is that complaints from Capital about Labour Shortages are just thinly veiled desires to enact wealth transfers from the vulnerable local working class to the well healed and well off classes above them. The best asset citizens have in this situation is our asymmetrical access to the labour market, the desire to open the borders and bring in labour is essentially robbing people of that asset and transferring its value to Capital.

- - - Updated - - -

No in terms of prioritizing goals I think you should prioritize your ethical standards first.

Your ethical standards > Making as much useful stuff with utility as possible > wealth creation & profit

Seeking fixed prices is highly irrational when they could be lower.

That is a fair viewpoint.

[arandomuser]

this is hilarious
socialism
or nationalist socialism
both have a bad track record
its not about which "brand" of socialism is better
neoliberalism is the objectively best system,
thats why neoliberalism won

[Felya]

this is hilarious
socialism
or nationalist socialism
both have a bad track record
its not about which "brand" of socialism is better
neoliberalism is the objectively best system,
thats why neoliberalism won

*shakes head rapidly* no... National Socialism, was not defeated by neoliberalism. I have a joke for you... a national socialist walks into a Russian bar... and is like... “where is the bar tender? We need food, clothes and shelter... our tanks are stuck in mud...” I’m not sure about the remaining part of the joke, but the punchline is something about Russian Socialist eating cardboard in St Petersburg.

[Cynep]

this is hilarious
socialism
or nationalist socialism
both have a bad track record

This thread is not about National Socialism, it's about "The Left" becoming more concerned with middle class "pointless administrator" protection instead of worker class protection. So workers will have to look somewhere else. I think this idea has some merit, even if it's not 100.0% true.

[Machismo]

This thread is not about National Socialism, it's about "The Left" becoming more concerned with middle class "pointless administrator" protection instead of worker class protection. So workers will have to look somewhere else. I think this idea has some merit, even if it's not 100.0% true.

It's an attempt to pander to Actual. Fucking. Nazis.

The OP is a national socialist, and is trying to be disingenuous about her motives. She does that a lot.

[Endus]

This thread is not about National Socialism

Strasserism is the second word in the title. Strasserism is a subset of the Nazi ideology; the Strassers were literally formative leaders in the Nazi Party.

So you're wrong; it's been about Nazism the entire time, and a bullshit attempt to equivocate that with "the left".

it's about "The Left" becoming more concerned with middle class "pointless administrator" protection instead of worker class protection. So workers will have to look somewhere else. I think this idea has some merit, even if it's not 100.0% true.

It isn't a binary.

That's the part that makes the entire argument complete bullshit. It's a false dilemma when the reality is that you don't have to pick which class you improve conditions for, in the first place. Government can do more than one thing at a time.

[arandomuser]

This thread is not about National Socialism, it's about "The Left" becoming more concerned with middle class "pointless administrator" protection instead of worker class protection. So workers will have to look somewhere else. I think this idea has some merit, even if it's not 100.0% true.

Again whats "working class"
Seems like dems still reach out to the service workers, nurses, temp workers
GOP got the "middle class" which is 50-100k income, those are your union factory worker people
So this whole nation of "just focus on ClaSs NoT RaCe"
seems to ignore that the actual working class still sees the dems as allies, and the middle class is mostly well off and likes republicans because they want lower taxes/less diversity.
But also the great thing that the 2018 midterms showed us is dems can pick into the middle class base by running on neoliberal economic policies with left wing social policies and win over suburban districts that won us the house and national popular vote by 9 POINTS!

[Milchshake]

Again whats "working class"
Seems like dems still reach out to the service workers, nurses, temp workers
GOP got the "middle class" which is 50-100k income, those are your union factory worker people
So this whole nation of "just focus on ClaSs NoT RaCe"
seems to ignore that the actual working class still sees the dems as allies, and the middle class is mostly well off and likes republicans because they want lower taxes/less diversity.
But also the great thing that the 2018 midterms showed us is dems can pick into the middle class base by running on neoliberal economic policies with left wing social policies and win over suburban districts that won us the house and national popular vote by 9 POINTS!

America does this weird thing.
You're working class, if you wear Mossy Oak and drive a truck.

Never mind the truck is the 65k Super Duty option. Used to primarily haul around "toys".
Basically your Daddy owns the local Chevy dealership or State Farm office. Which in the exurbs or "rural" America, makes you the equivalent of landed genrty. And they still consider you working class, because no college degree is required to work for your parents franchise.

If the Dems want to break the right wing in the US. Congress should pass a law allowing for factory direct sales of vehicles.

Smash the dealership oligarchy.

[PC2]

this is hilarious
socialism
or nationalist socialism
both have a bad track record
its not about which "brand" of socialism is better
neoliberalism is the objectively best system,
thats why neoliberalism won

Yeah that's because neoliberalism is about economic liberalism(conservative) and social liberalism(progressive) but not to the point of wokeness. They basically get the best of both worlds without descending into tribal politics.

[Felya]

Yeah that's because neoliberalism is about economic liberalism(conservative) and social liberalism(progressive) but not to the point of wokeness. They basically get the best of both worlds without descending into tribal politics.

The bold is an oxymoron... you can’t be icy hot...

[Endus]

The bold is an oxymoron... you can’t be icy hot...

The theory is that loosing the shackles on business is "economic liberalism".

The problem isn't so much that it's a contradiction in itself, it's the idea it can somehow be partnered with social progressivism. It cannot. They are directly, immediately antithetical. Any steps taken to protect the people from the predations of businesses and the wealthy is a move against economic liberalism. Any move to loosen those restraints is a move against progressivism.

You can try and balance the two, but the idea that you're upholding the tenets of both? Complete horse shit.