On ‘Strasserism’ and the Decay of the Left

[PC2]

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

I thought economic liberalism was conservative but if it is progressive then that's cool too, either way it is pro-capitalism.

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.

Well I disagree with neoliberals on a couple issues and i'm not sure that their ideology even desires "balance", usually ideologies have priorities that can be ranked in terms of less or more importance.

[JohnBrown1917]

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.

You're confusing liberals for the left-wing, they are not the same.

- - - Updated - - -

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

Liberal conservativism is a geniune idealogy that has a lot of support around the world.

[Felya]

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

Economic liberalism is misusing liberal, the ideology, with liberal the extensive application.

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.

Because it requires a little bit of thinking, beyond catch words. It’s a way to disguise corporationist, under the American, Democrat version of liberal. ACA is an example of economic liberalism, as it tries to achieve near universal coverage, through corporate providers. It’s why the American liberal looks so much like a conservative and people like Bernie are extremes.

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

It does it’s job, as far as rhetoric is working.

- - - Updated - - -

Liberal conservativism is a geniune idealogy that has a lot of support around the world.

Yeah, but it’s not really liberal or progressive. It’s quite literally every single thing that Bernie supporters stood against in the Democratic Party. It’s a tiny bit surprising you are not more opposed to it... I thought this might be something we agree on. /shrug

- - - Updated - - -

I thought economic liberalism was conservative but if it is progressive then that's cool too, either way it is pro-capitalism.

It is conservative, the term is simply an oxymoron. It’s just corporatism...

Well I disagree with neoliberals on a couple issues and i'm not sure that their ideology even desires "balance", usually ideologies have priorities that can be ranked in terms of less or more importance.

What’s the difference between trickle down and government enabled trickle down?

- - - Updated - - -

You're confusing liberals for the left-wing, they are not the same.

Same way that a chicken is not the same as a bird.

[Jastall]

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.

- - - Updated - - -


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?

The Strassers disagreed with Hitler on economic issues more than anything else, not on racial issues, and Nazis are especially infamous for their racial politics and the crimes engendered by such, and gross antisemitism (da jews control the banks! etc.) is part and parcel of Strasserism. George Strasser in particular was practically Hitler's number two until the politicking around who gets to be Chancellor in 1932/33 pushed him from the NSDAP. By any sane measure, that makes him and anyone who identifies with his ideas a Nazi as far as I'm concerned, or close enough that the difference is as nitpicky as the one between, say, a Trotskyist and a Stalinist; they can both be identified as Communists even if one ideological current displaced the other.

[JohnBrown1917]

Same way that a chicken is not the same as a bird.

In the same way liberalism and the various left-wing ideealogies are opposing idealogies.

[Felya]

In the same way liberalism and the various left-wing ideealogies are opposing idealogies.

What are they opposing? The what or the how?

Edit: You do understand that left wing refers to a scale? The fact that the scale has gradients, doesn’t negate which side it resides on.

[JohnBrown1917]

Yeah, but it’s not really liberal or progressive. It’s quite literally every single thing that Bernie supporters stood against in the Democratic Party. It’s a tiny bit surprising you are not more opposed to it... I thought this might be something we agree on. /shrug

Since when does my opinion affect whether its an idealogy or not?

- - - Updated - - -

What are they opposing? The what or the how?

Yea, gee, I wonder why a right-wing idealogy that strongly supports capitalism would stand opposed to the sort of idealogies that oppose capitalism.
Or do you just ignore the various policies pushed by liberal parties around the world?

[Felya]

Since when does my opinion affect whether its an idealogy or not?

What?

Yea, gee, I wonder why a right-wing idealogy that strongly supports capitalism would stand opposed to the sort of idealogies that oppose capitalism.

Again, what are you trying to say? Since you missed my edit... left wing refers to a side of a scale. A scale containing gradients, doesn’t nullify where the gradient resides in relation to the middle of the scale.

[JohnBrown1917]

What?

What indeed, how did me saying liberal conservatism is not an oxymoron lead to you thinking i'm defending it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_conservatism

Again, what are you trying to say? Since you missed my edit... left wing refers to a side of a scale. A scale containing gradients, doesn’t nullify where the gradient resides in relation to the middle of the scale.

And that somehow changes how liberalism is seen as a right-wing or centrist idealogy?


You should probably maybe read up on what liberalism is,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

or what the various left-wing idealogies stand for,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy



How is supporting big bussiness in the way liberals parties do in any form or way left-wing? When do they choose the workers over the rich?

[Endus]

The Strassers disagreed with Hitler on economic issues more than anything else, not on racial issues, and Nazis are especially infamous for their racial politics and the crimes engendered by such, and gross antisemitism (da jews control the banks! etc.) is part and parcel of Strasserism. George Strasser in particular was practically Hitler's number two until the politicking around who gets to be Chancellor in 1932/33 pushed him from the NSDAP. By any sane measure, that makes him and anyone who identifies with his ideas a Nazi as far as I'm concerned, or close enough that the difference is as nitpicky as the one between, say, a Trotskyist and a Stalinist; they can both be identified as Communists even if one ideological current displaced the other.

The fact that anyone is seriously making a "No, these were the good Nazis" argument, Christ on a stick, that's everything you need to know.

[Jastall]

The fact that anyone is seriously making a "No, these were the good Nazis" argument, Christ on a stick, that's everything you need to know.

I could almost buy that line of argumentation if one were talking about Speer, who until fairly recently WAS considered the "good Nazi" in historiography. Times changed and most are now far more critical of him and rightly so, but it's still fairly common to see people espouse Speer's own version of himself so I could perhaps excuse the error as ignorance.

But Strasserism? Literal Nazism but with more state control over the means of production and redistribution of capital? Pioneered by a guy who joined the NSDAP only shortly after Hitler himself? Like, c'mon man, nobody hears about that shit without having some knowledge about Nazism, its ideology, its personalities and its ideologues. You can't claim ignorance at that point, if you identify as a Strasserist, you must be fine with being called a Nazi just as a Maoist must be fine with being called a communist.

Anyway as I suspected this thread swiftly became a total shitshow and probably got Theo banned yet again. I'll not even attempt to entertain the various delusions and demagogueries that are flying around here. When someone tries to shove a Nazi's opinion on "leftists" in our faces and then rules lawyers their way out of actually explaining themselves, I call bullshit and I bow out.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Is it pretty impressive that I have a 100% track record of correctly identifying Theo posts just from the post title alone?

"Liberals are dying out!" "Liberals are doing the wrong thing!" "Liberals are fighting among themselves!" "The left is destroying everything you know and love!" "The left is the cause of every single war in the last 100 years" "The left will tax every single possession you have then tax you for breathing" "The left is pure evil and has signed a contract with satan"

There seems to be this almost impressively aggressive and absolute obsessive hatred Theo has for the left in general. She dresses it up in fine clothes, pretends that her posts are legitimate and pure hearted political discussion. But she only ever really responds to people she agrees with in the thread. Everyone else she either screams "Get back on topic or I'm going to report you" or waves her hand with a single sentence at arguments that completely deflate whatever garbage article she posts.

That Theo (among many other posters here) is not permanently banned is just proof that MMO-C moderation is completely fine with people who post aggressively hostile and click baity titles that are only meant to garner negative responses and heated arguing. You can call it what you want, you can label it as refined political discussion. At the end of the day, posts like this are garbage only meant to demean others, insult others, and attempt to bait people into breaking forum rules. What do we call that kind of post? Well it's a word that's not allowed, but you get the idea.

But I reiterate, that this continues month after month seems like a glowing endorsement from MMO-C for allowing shit posters who constantly break the rules. Even if they receive temporary bans, they're back a week later doing the exact same thing, and are allowed to do so for quite some time before ever receiving punishment. Which, once again, is temporary.

[Felya]

What indeed, how did me saying liberal conservatism is not an oxymoron lead to you thinking i'm defending it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_conservatism

Dude... the fact that it has a wiki page, does not mean it’s not an oxymoron. This describes an oxymoron:

Liberal conservatism is a political ideology combining conservative policies with liberal stances, especially on economic, social and ethical issues, representing a brand of political conservatism strongly influenced by liberalism.

...

And that somehow changes how liberalism is seen as a right-wing or centrist idealogy?

Changes what? Liberal, right-wing? WTF?

You should probably maybe read up on what liberalism is,

Would you care to show me how I’m wrong or link pages you might have read, but don’t seem to understand. What’s the difference between a centrist and a liberal conservative? Don’t give me wiki links... show me you have a clue what you are talking about.

How is supporting big bussiness in the way liberals parties do in any form or way left-wing? When do they choose the workers over the rich?

When they are neoliberals? WTF?

[Cynep]

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

By "her" you mean Theodarzna, not Malcolm Kyeyune, right? I got your point, but by "this thread" I meant not about the OP personally, but about ideas in the article she quoted: Malcolm believes there is a schism in the left.

- - - Updated - - -

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 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.

The second word in the title is not Strasserism, it's ‘Strasserism’ in quotes. You must have missed my post where I answered this already. This one. Malcolm Kyeyune is a leftist who got on PMC's bad side, like Strasserites got on Hitler's bad side. He's a leftist being smeared with a word originally used as a smear by Nazis, not a Nazi himself. That's why he's saying "Strasserism does not actually exist <..> but we exist".

I agree with the rest of what you said though.

- - - Updated - - -

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!

Nice table. Can you link equivalents from previous elections please? UK Conservatives took a lot of worker vote from Labour in their last election (which is OP's point), did the same happen in USA or it's only happening in Europe?

Speaking of "RaCe", Malcolm Kyeyune is a half-African Swede. I don't think he was focusing strictly on internal details of USA in his article.

- - - Updated - - -

You're confusing liberals for the left-wing, they are not the same.

I'm from Europe, we're not "confusing liberals for the left-wing" here. In Europe liberals are "centre-right". More to the point, did you just classify "Professional Managerial Class" as Liberals and worker class as left-wing? Should true leftists separate themselves from PMC, in your opinion?

- - - Updated - - -

The Strassers disagreed with Hitler on economic issues more than anything else, not on racial issues, and Nazis are especially infamous for their racial politics and the crimes engendered by such, and gross antisemitism (da jews control the banks! etc.) is part and parcel of Strasserism. George Strasser in particular was practically Hitler's number two until the politicking around who gets to be Chancellor in 1932/33 pushed him from the NSDAP. By any sane measure, that makes him and anyone who identifies with his ideas a Nazi as far as I'm concerned, or close enough that the difference is as nitpicky as the one between, say, a Trotskyist and a Stalinist; they can both be identified as Communists even if one ideological current displaced the other.

The fact that anyone is seriously making a "No, these were the good Nazis" argument, Christ on a stick, that's everything you need to know.

Good arguments. My point is different though. I'm saying that Malcolm Kyeyune is a leftist who's being portrayed by PMC as "bad", not that Strasserites were "good".

[Machismo]

By "her" you mean Theodarzna, not Malcolm Kyeyune, right? I got your point, but by "this thread" I meant not about the OP personally, but about ideas in the article she quoted: Malcolm believes there is a schism in the left.

- - - Updated - - -


The second word in the title is not Strasserism, it's ‘Strasserism’ in quotes. You must have missed my post where I answered this already. This one. Malcolm Kyeyune is a leftist who got on PMC's bad side, like Strasserites got on Hitler's bad side. He's a leftist being smeared with a word originally used as a smear by Nazis, not a Nazi himself. That's why he's saying "Strasserism does not actually exist <..> but we exist".

I agree with the rest of what you said though.

- - - Updated - - -


Nice table. Can you link equivalents from previous elections please? UK Conservatives took a lot of worker vote from Labour in their last election (which is OP's point), did the same happen in USA or it's only happening in Europe?

Speaking of "RaCe", Malcolm Kyeyune is a half-African Swede. I don't think he was focusing strictly on internal details of USA in his article.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm from Europe, we're not "confusing liberals for the left-wing" here. In Europe liberals are "centre-right". More to the point, did you just classify "Professional Managerial Class" as Liberals and worker class as left-wing? Should true leftists separate themselves from PMC, in your opinion?

- - - Updated - - -



Good arguments. My point is different though. I'm saying that Malcolm Kyeyune is a leftist who's being portrayed by PMC as "bad", not that Strasserites were "good".

Yes, alt-righters love to push such a narrative.

[Endus]

The second word in the title is not Strasserism, it's ‘Strasserism’ in quotes. You must have missed my post where I answered this already. This one. Malcolm Kyeyune is a leftist who got on PMC's bad side, like Strasserites got on Hitler's bad side. He's a leftist being smeared with a word originally used as a smear by Nazis, not a Nazi himself. That's why he's saying "Strasserism does not actually exist <..> but we exist".

The obsession with the professional managerial class is, frankly, weird as fuck. It's just the latest acronym you folks have come up with to point a finger at as the boogeyman du jour. And Kyeyune's thesis on that point is hard-right bafflegab nonsense. Pretending it's in any respect left-wing is revisionist. He's arguing that not only are class divides inevitable, they're exclusionary, and it is not possible to even consider the needs of anyone outside of your own personal economic class, let alone to actually enact policy to address the needs of more than one class at a time.

That's not left-wing.

And frankly, I don't agree with your summation. He isn't rejecting the label. He's choosing to wear it. While making vague and toothless threats to a generic and unspecific enemy.

[JohnBrown1917]

I'm from Europe, we're not "confusing liberals for the left-wing" here. In Europe liberals are "centre-right". More to the point, did you just classify "Professional Managerial Class" as Liberals and worker class as left-wing? Should true leftists separate themselves from PMC, in your opinion?

Europe barely has any left-wing parties actually in power that have not been taken over by neo-liberals. Look at the UK labour party, now that Corbyn is gone they have gone back to Blairite centrism.


Amd yes, the left-wing ideals are way a lot better for the conditions of the working class than any liberal or hard right policy would be. Is the working class itself left-wing? No, that is not how it works. The overwhelming majority of any country is working class, if only the world did work like that where people would be aware of our class-based society.

[arandomuser]

Europe barely has any left-wing parties actually in power that have not been taken over by neo-liberals. Look at the UK labour party, now that Corbyn is gone they have gone back to Blairite centrism.


Amd yes, the left-wing ideals are way a lot better for the conditions of the working class than any liberal or hard right policy would be. Is the working class itself left-wing? No, that is not how it works. The overwhelming majority of any country is working class, if only the world did work like that where people would be aware of our class-based society.

and tthey went from boris having 60%+ approval rating to being even with boris

again the whole premise of the article is the working class somehow supported left wing economics and if liberals just didnt mention "identity politics' they would win
but if look at reagans landslide win 2 terms in a row thats just false

[Cynep]

The obsession with the professional managerial class is, frankly, weird as fuck. It's just the latest acronym you folks have come up with to point a finger at as the boogeyman du jour. And Kyeyune's thesis on that point is hard-right bafflegab nonsense. Pretending it's in any respect left-wing is revisionist. He's arguing that not only are class divides inevitable, they're exclusionary, and it is not possible to even consider the needs of anyone outside of your own personal economic class, let alone to actually enact policy to address the needs of more than one class at a time.

That's not left-wing.

From my PoV, it's merely the topic of this thread, not really an obsession. It's an interesting new (for me) perspective on this phenomenon I was noticing myself: slow gradual creation of job positions that essentially do nothing, specific-industry-wise, for the organization they're in. It's not as prevalent here, especially since life got worse after 2014; but in the West it's still going strong, there are mentions scattered everywhere over the years about pointless administrator jobs being added and burdening the budgets.

So yes, call that my bias: I dislike non-contributing pencil pushers And Malcolm's article gives a possible explanation why they're proliferating - according to him, they have a sociopolitical force behind them. Just like bureaucrats create more bureaucracy, pointless managers create more pointless managerial jobs.

Would you view ensuring that managers and workers enjoy equal quality of life as left-wing? Or middle class should live better? An office pencil pusher vs farm hand, to use an example from this thread - the office job is easier and requires less skill, should it pay more?

[Felya]

An office pencil pusher vs farm hand, to use an example from this thread - the office job is easier and requires less skill, should it pay more?

Isn’t that a different problem? What justifies the salary of the employee? In US, a pencil pusher gets paid more than migrant farm hands, because if the pay justified the labor, the pencil pusher wouldn’t be able to afford the product.