On ‘Strasserism’ and the Decay of the Left

[Howel]

does the opposition to lgbt marriage, refugee admission and abortion make this all right-wing ideas?

In the most of the west, yes those would make it quite hard to regard as a "pure" leftist. In South Korea, as far as my knowledge goes, not really, it is a fairly common belief there.

[Alex Moriati]

In the most of the west, yes. In South Korea, as far as my knowledge goes, not really, it is a fairly common belief there.

so a person who believes in all these things would be considered right-wing in the west solely because of the opposition to these things? the other ideas are right-wing based on that opposition?

do you have any of what political spectrum means over there? it doesn't mean these specific ideas makes this person right-wing regardless of what other things they support. it's not a binary choice where everything has to align or else they don't fit.

all i can gather from this is that you demand ideological purity and that if there's any dissent they are pretending to be left-wing.

[Machismo]

so a person who believes in all these things would be considered right-wing in the west solely because of the opposition to these things? the other ideas are right-wing based on that opposition?

do you have any of what political spectrum means over there? it doesn't mean these specific ideas makes this person right-wing regardless of what other things they support. it's not a binary choice where everything has to align or else they don't fit.

In the United States (and even Canadialand), it's largely based on a couple political stances, because people identify as such.

Also, it should be noted that several of those stances are right-wing stances.

[Alex Moriati]

In the United States (and even Canadialand), it's largely based on a couple political stances, because people identify as such.

Also, it should be noted that several of those stances are right-wing stances.

and several of them gets you labeled a communist and people threatening to report you to the authorities.

[Machismo]

and several of them gets you labeled a communist and people threatening to report you to the police.

OK, so are you saying that the person you were referring to all along was you?

You seem to be dodging that part.

He said:

Haven't seen that. Definitely haven't had anyone accuse me of being right-wing.

Have seen people claiming to be left-wing, but espousing objectively right-wing perspectives and citing right-wing sources to back themselves up whenever asked to defend themselves. If your ideas are right-wing, and you claim to be left-wing, you're just lying.

So, who is he referring to as "not left-wing?"

You said:

so you just committed what you said you don't do.

So, who are you talking about?

[Howel]

so a person who believes in all these things would be considered right-wing in the west solely because of the opposition to these things? the other ideas are right-wing based on that opposition?

do you have any of what political spectrum means over there? it doesn't mean these specific ideas makes this person right-wing regardless of what other things they support.

I used the word, "pure", for that exact reason. Absolutely, there are people who don't support every singular policy of political parties; and usually they'll have to make difficult choices on what they feel are more key to what they want to support.

What Endus is trying to describe, is a group of people, who are proclaiming to be leftists, but will never actually agree with any policy brought forth by a leftists party, at all, whatsoever.

So if those were your beliefs, change all the leftists ones to be either skirting the right wing way of doing it, or straight right wing. If at that point you still proclaim to be a leftist, that's where it gets hard to accept.

[Lynarii]

ok?

so i'm going to make some political statements here:

universal health care should be implemented for all citizens.
higher taxation for corporations.
closing tax loopholes for corporations and rich people
economic protection for those who are not able to, too old to work or are unable to find a job to provide for themselves.
higher taxation for the rich.
nationalize important industries.
ban abortion.
don't allow lgbt marriage.
no anti-discrimination laws in the labor market except for sexuality and gender.
private schools should be more strictly regulated and they should not be allowed to profit as much as they do, with the surplus being paid in taxes.
nuclear power should be the main source of energy and we should build more nuclear plants.
immigration should be based on need by the companies or for marriage purposes.
no refugee admissions at all beyond very exceptional cases.
guns shouldn't be allowed to be owned unless exceptional circumstances warrant it for a normal citizen.
you should always have to show id when you are voting.
companies should be more strictly regulated regarding pollution and penalties in case of violation should include the higher ups going to prison for an extended amount of time and the companies economic assets being seized by the state.
education should be totally free and accessible for anyone that is a citizen.

does the opposition to lgbt marriage, refugee admission and abortion make this all right-wing ideas?

No. Those ideas are not connected, each idea is either left or right on it's own merits. Actual human beings frequently vary by topic, people can be extremely conservative on some topics but very liberal on others and that's not only okay, it's to be expected.

But if someone is consistently arguing on a single side, for the majority of topics, while claiming to be on the other side? People do notice that, and it's not wrong to point that out. Especially when the person in question also makes posts talking about how wonderful it is to use bad faith arguments to mislead others.

[Macd123aw]

The left keep mocking Trump.

Without realising they got outsmarted by him and lost to him.

That's some self defeating mentality right there.

The left as a collective are pretty dumb.

[Draco-Onis]

The Republican party morphed into what it is now because it had no choice but to follow their voters or perish. Fascism was always there, certain people just knew how to stoke the flames better than others.

Unfortunately, a legitimate workers movement growing from within the Democratic party is pretty unlikely. That ship sailed long ago, imo.

I disagree if you look at the very recent past and internal reports republicans could have gone another path. We are talking about a party that once had 50% of the Hispanic vote and rising among Asian voters, they did this to themselves when they embraced the crazy during Obama.

[Felya]

The left keep mocking Trump.

Will do! My latest joke... The reason why Trump is letting Putin get away with paying to kill American soldiers, is the mouth feel. So proud of that joke, saying it a second time.

- - - Updated - - -

I disagree if you look at the very recent past and internal reports republicans could have gone another path. We are talking about a party that once had 50% of the Hispanic vote and rising among Asian voters, they did this to themselves when they embraced the crazy during Obama.

If the race was 1 on 1, Jeb would have been the nominee. Trump won, because 20+ candidates were fielded by GOP. Up until about Nevada, majority of Republicans agreed with Democrats that Trump was just a crook.

[Mihalik]

What the fuck is "The Bellows"?

Also why is Tankie so mad?

[Draco-Onis]

If the race was 1 on 1, Jeb would have been the nominee. Trump won, because 20+ candidates were fielded by GOP. Up until about Nevada, majority of Republicans agreed with Democrats that Trump was just a crook.

But during the Obama years the GOP made it fertile ground for someone like Trump to be accepted by the base by supporting conspiracy theories not mention embracing racism and they always dream about business men being better leaders. I don't think Jeb would have won maybe another candidate because anti establishment was pretty strong in 2016.

[Mihalik]

The left keep mocking Trump.

Without realising they got outsmarted by him and lost to him.

That's some self defeating mentality right there.

The left as a collective are pretty dumb.

125K Americans dead.

40k falling I'll every day.

20 million unemployed.

Something like 40% of private and business renters won't be able to pay rent tomorrow.

Russians paying bounties for American soldiers.

Americans banned from international travel for the foreseeable future. (I live in Spain, I'm trying to get my parents a family emergency visa to get them out of the US get them over to Europe.)

And the list goes on and on. Sooo much winning. So smart. So clever.

[Machismo]

The left keep mocking Trump.

Without realising they got outsmarted by him and lost to him.

That's some self defeating mentality right there.

The left as a collective are pretty dumb.

There's a lot to laugh about.

He's a racist dipshit. It's astounding that people support a racist dipshit with such glee.

[Underverse]

The left keep mocking Trump.

Without realising they got outsmarted by him and lost to him.

That's some self defeating mentality right there.

The left as a collective are pretty dumb.

Outsmarted? Even Trump didn't want to win. He was just using his candidacy as a publicity stunt to fuel his brand. Did you see his face after he won? I guess he outsmarted himself too.

I agree though that the collective left is pretty dumb - generally, like most collectives where people are dragged down to the lowest common denominator. Still, I'd rate them significantly higher than the collective right, which has proven itself to be astonishingly handicapped.

[Theodarzna]

Thanks for the article, I engaged with it in good faith to be mostly a one-sided perspective. I'd add it felt a little edgy and excessively focused on class reductionism.

I had a more pleasant time reading Angela Nagle's article on immigration. While I find it strange that she decided to focus so much on immigration as one of the root problems, I appreciate the fact that she alluded to globalisation as the original cause of it. Though she seems ambivalent while saying that people as leftists should stop globalisation (which they have no power to do right now) they should also oppose immigration (to an extent). The practical outcome of that position is that people from the exploited nations are gonna get doubly fucked and the effects of globalisation are gonna be even more pronounced, in the short term.

Also, I was not particularly fond of her twisting of Marx's words to support her position, as she quoted his very valid appreciation of Irish immigration to England (which in no way decried immigration itself but the ruling class's exploitation of that social situation) to somewhat assume that Marx would be anti-immigration. That's this close from taking Marx's words in bad faith.

Thanks for reading it.

First, I think Angela Nagle's position on the immigration question makes more sense in the context of power. To use a different political example; the issue of immigration is akin to the issue of "Defund/Abolish" the Police. While sure in an ideal world it would work out in a way say, in accordance with theory X, Y, or Z, but that isn't who decides how these issues play out. One can be well-meaning with Open Borders idealism, but the simple fact is the people with actual real material power are the Jeff Bezos type crowd and they will decide ultimately what that means. The same goes for the debate about Immigration; the reason for fighting immigration is that the reason for doing so is to ensure the power of labor within one's own country, which is functionally achievable for a left-wing movement and labor power can allow other political projects to move forward. People from other nations will have to fight their own bougie class; which is actually what Marx called for. I.E. A Marxist in good conscious can't be down to sacrifice the working class in one country for the short term benefit of other proles who cannot meaningfully politically do anything. Doing so has only strengthened capital not weakened it.

Second, I guess see first, she hasn't twisted anything; at least no more than anyone else tends to do. Basically, given a complete lack of any political power to enact anything substantive; is support for Open Borders more or less (This is basically the Elizabeth Warren position) just a give away to capital given an inability to ever achieve any other meaningful changes for labor relations. Much as abolish the police, when its oligarches deciding the nature of that abolition is fairly irresponsible given that it will just end up being privatiziation.

[Felya]

support for Open Borders more or less (This is basically the Elizabeth Warren position)

Could you clarify? What do you mean, “more or less”?

[Machismo]

Nothing says sanity like Trumspters appealing to Nazism and Marxism in the same breath... but for the other guys.

[Felya]

But during the Obama years the GOP made it fertile ground for someone like Trump to be accepted by the base by supporting conspiracy theories not mention embracing racism and they always dream about business men being better leaders. I don't think Jeb would have won maybe another candidate because anti establishment was pretty strong in 2016.

True, but I think Jeb acting like anti establishment with a country drawl, would have worked better than Trump’s version with a NYC accent. It’s what prognosticators were saying about GOP likely candidate.

[Theodarzna]

The Republican party morphed into what it is now because it had no choice but to follow their voters or perish. Fascism was always there, certain people just knew how to stoke the flames better than others.

Unfortunately, a legitimate workers movement growing from within the Democratic party is pretty unlikely. That ship sailed long ago, imo.

That is a weirdly essentialist view like those certain demographics are innately fascist is; I don't know that seems to be very essentialist. What about the Republican Parties voting Demographic is essentially destined for Fascism versus say the Democratic party?