On ‘Strasserism’ and the Decay of the Left

[Muzjhath]

No, Endus got it completely wrong. I didn't want to post here until I saw your post praising his blatant misrepresentation. OP's quote focuses on class split in the left, not other kinds.

OP megaquote summary as I see it: (yes I've read the whole thing)
--- 8< ---
"I'm a pro-worker leftist from Sweden. After I used Marxist analysis on The Left itself (more on that in next paragraph), which is a blasphemy and sin in The Left's eyes, I've been targeted by "cancel culture", called a racist despite my father being an immigrant from Central Africa, and a Strasserite, which is ironic in itself, but also a smear used originally by Nazis.

My main point is, the left has two halves with incompatible goals, and the rift has grown so big that leftists have to choose which half's goals they want to accomplish, it's impossible to do both anymore. One half is the working class, the original left's beneficiaries. The other half is "Professional Managerial Class" or PMC, middle-class children who "finished college with good marks" but now are facing downward mobility, forced to work at Starbucks and such, becoming a part of the working class, a future they despise.

The PMC-led Left's goal is not to better living conditions of the working class, but to ensure the PMC themselves don't sink into it; hence creation of endless useless managerial positions whose only true goal is proliferation of the PMC and certainly not help to the working class.

But don't worry, the new pro-worker Left is coming and I'm a part of it, and if the PMC is our enemy, so be it."
--- 8< ---

My own take on why Strasserite smear is ironic: Strasser brothers were the Socialists of the original National Social party. Gregor was killed by the Hitlerite faction in their 1934 purge of the party, Otto fled Germany in 1933 and lived in emigration. Arguably, Nazi party stopped being Socialist when Strasserites were removed. So, Strasserite smear means "the original Socialist". The half-African Swede is indeed the original, pro-worker, leftist being denounced by his middle-class, champagne socialist, comrades.

The Swedish left has -always- been educated academics mixing with workers. It was started by academics.
From solidly middle class (or better) families.

The biggest difference today is that a factor worker in Sweden earns decent money, more on entry level than a nurse.
Thus conflicts within the party happen.

Conflicts that have always happened.

[Theodarzna]

Now, I'll agree that $30K a year for full time isn't a ton of money

In California, 30,000 a year, let's see that is 2500 a month. Let's use the "Fair Market Rent" for Stockton, granted its a year old but let's go.

Studio - $702
1-Bedroom- $826
2-Bedroom- $1,092
3-Bedroom - $1,579
4-Bedroom - $1,918

So rent alone, and assuming you intended to remain single, live solely in a studio apartment, your 30,000 a year will get you about 1700 left. In fact, by a 2019 article a living wage would need to be $30,392 per year, so its actually just under what some math wizards consider ON AVERAGE livable in California.

However, let us say they didn't have health insurance/got Medicaid and NEVER got sick and had to pay a co-pay or deductible because of our parasitic health care non-services. Let us say they have a car that never breaks down, and barely drive, lets say they but the cheapest possible food, AND they live alone in a studio in Stockton. Someone, would by all the metrics I can find, would still be under what is considered poverty in the state.

However, this all ignores the logic of sure it is not a ton of money but its definitely what it is worth logic you are seemingly exercising, why is there job worth that specific amount? Your entire point seems to be standing on a "COME ON, WE PAID PEOPLE ALMOST THE A LIVING WAGE, HOW MUCH DO WE HAVE TO PAY THEM?!" sort of case which reveals a bit more about how you are operating. Now I will grant, that is possibly not your intent, but that is how it reads from my vantage point so feel free to correct me if I am wrong in my interpretation of your words.

If you're talking about giving them competitive pay with say, traditional "white collar" jobs, then you're talking about a literal global economic transformation to how literally every country and company does business from the ground up.

I think in the age of a major city moving ahead on police abolishment, the idea that "White Collar" work deserves to be able to lead an enriched, glorified and you know dignified and secure life while this other class of workers should have been content with something that is even below what that state considers to be a living wage, granted just barely under it, but that is sort of a weird view that this form of work doesn't deserve even the exact amount statistically deemed necessary to just subsist.

Angela Nagles point, which is curiously just something cited by the OP, so not even the OP, so I am also going to ask we go back to the original topic soon, IS that the class contradiction is real. The further we move from an Open Border, the better things are for people who are maids, and materially the harder it is for people who hire maids. In Nagles perspective that should be a goal of saying a Working Class-based politics. Maids matter more than people who hire maids. Malcolm (The man who wrote the OP) is using that example to illustrate the class contradiction. The closer a political formation move towards an Open Borders position, the worse things will be for maids and the better things will be for those that hire maids. Malcolm's other observation is the high presence today in many outwardly professing "Leftist" political organizations of people who belong to, or aspire to join the class of people who tend to hire maids.

- - - Updated - - -

They would throw him aside if they didn't need him to try to make their image better in the eyes of the people. "Look, we gave these minorities significant positions in our party or other things affiliated with us, do you really think we would do that if we were nazis?", that's what they do.

You can argue an associative case but does that make anything he said wrong? Like if he said the sky was blue, is he incorrect because he worked for a think tank?

- - - Updated - - -

I... Am I missing something? Are my messages partly invisible, specifically where I continuously express that is not the problem?

If you've decided to agree with a less Open Borders policy position than I welcome your concessions to my, well, Angela Nagle's, position that I also share.

The only thing I am angry about, is that I grew up in agriculture, and then have had to spend 20 years of my adult life as a political adviser, absolutely sledgehammering again and again the thick skulled dumb politicians (and now forum people), that their little idealistic ideas about hippy commie "just throw money at it, that'll fix", does not work. Unless they are willing to go out to the public and tell them that from now on, they as the 99 % of the population are going to bankroll the 1 %, an absolutely insane project of paying farmhands such handsome wages, for a low skilled job, so that we can all feel goodie inside, then you are not fucking doing anything but harming the farming community with dipshit ideas, because you dislike the notion that we have foreigners doing it.

I feel quite rightful with being angry, that I literally have to spoon it into people mouths, as they drool idealism, that they are absolutely unaware of what effects their shit ideas will have.

I am not interested in your personal life story or whatever twists and turns of lived experience/anecdotes you have to share. That isn't really interesting to me. I am amazed that the concept of labour and its value is not understood. Either that or it's considered morally abhorrent to allow the side of Labour to have you know, bargaining power or really any power at all. My position is that it is morally good to enact policy in favour of people who work as maids, versus people who hire maids. That is intrinsically a good thing in my view, maybe you disagree, clearly, you do.

And again, you are moralizing their value, that somehow this person shouldn't be paid some number, for a fairly arbitrary reason. Because I think you and I both agree, this and that task HAS to be done by someone, we literally cannot have an entire society of billionaire financiers who create ... well who knows what they produce, but it nets them most of the money. You seem to be settling on a "This is a force of nature, this is just what these jobs are worth and if they don't like it they should work harder or be better!" position, and I am saying "Why are they worth that and why is it wrong to enact policies that grant them some morsel of power?", why you consider having the law work to create a Labourers market versus an Employers market is rather strange, arbitrary and you know classist. Because we literally will always have farmhands, and people who clean portapotties, and people who ring up groceries or whatever; so even if one individual leaves for some line of work you consider worthy and worth being glorified and enriched, someone else will have to do that work that you've marked out as unworthy.

Farmers have been the lowest rung on society, and have always been one the poorest in society, and a job everyone fled the second they could. Immigration didn't change that, it kept up with it.

Besides not being a full account of history, the fortunes of farm labourers, and farmers have a rather rich history going back through history. Immigration as a means of suppressing wages, a thing that only exists due to capitalism, as before Capitalism that was both not technically possible and also would have been viewed as daft and caused a blood peasant uprising. Pre-capitalist societies had very different social and economic arrangements. However this appeal to "It's just a fact of nature" seems to mystify and ignore the political reality of policy. I.E. that this is a man-made decision, trade policy as is immigration policy are the subject of political debate and questions of what we value. I for one value people who work as maids, you seem to place more value on those that hire maids. But this is, a political decision and within the realm of human action, not some decision by nature. As a hypothetical, the United States importing say 50,000 domestic labourers from somewhere is a political decision, the United States doesn't have to do this. There is not some inscribed tablet written by a literal God saying we need policies that make outsourcing possible either. This is essentially mystifying political questions as just acts of God, or I guess in modern day more secular terms, its the will of the 'Market'.

- - - Updated - - -

If I'm being honest, I think it has something to do with the anxiety caused by the realization that "white" people will no longer be a majority in the United States. I also think it has to do with the extreme anti-communist propaganda that's been manufactured here since the end of the second world war and the realization that the U.S. will no longer be the sole super power in the near future but one of many (if that at the rate we're going). All of these things on top of an ever diversifying population (not entirely a "White People" issue. There are plenty of Black Americans are hostile to immigration from the Southern Americas) allows people like Glenn Beck to peddle the insane ramblings of people like W. Cleon Skousen, or Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham to regurgitate white replacement propaganda on Fox News.

Is every Republican voter susceptible to this propaganda or have the kinds of concerns that I outlined? No, but enough of them do to the point that it's profitable for Fox News to give voice to propaganda of this nature and for their viewership to gobble it up and dominate the ratings for close to two decades. It's why the Tea Party was ushered in by protests accusing the President of being a Muslim socialist from Kenya, climate change being a hoax (with the Second Amendment being the correction), and national healthcare creeping us step by step towards 1984. Trump, the Alt-Right, and QAnon are not new issues plaguing the United States. The conspiracies, the superstitions, blatant racism, and historical revisionism in this country has always existed along the fringes and even in the mainstream of American politics. It's to the point where the Republican platform is so incoherent that the only thing that they all agree on is their disdain for Democrats. It's a party that would elect a reality tv star with no political experience and never served in the military to the presidency and defend him from any and every criticism from Democrats and Republicans alike. They manage to do this while cutting taxes for the ultra wealthy, gutting the affordable healthcare act while blocking a replacement, wage trade wars with tariffs that raises prices on the working class, and provide large sums of stringless cash to corporations with no way to see who got what.

Meanwhile, "tankie paleo-conservatives with terf characteristics" are more concerned with the shortcomings of the Democratic party and Pepsi flying LGBT flags during pride month or Kapernick kneeling for the flag. It's the biggest fucking swindle of all time.

First, I don't necessarily think you are entirely wrong, and I appreciate the fairly nuanced answer. Obviously we don't agree on all of that, but I think a good portion of that is correct actually.

Second, As for my signature, "Tankie Paleo-Conservatism with TERF characteristics / Socialism with My Chemical Romance characteristics. Caramelldansen Nationalism. MySpace was the Garden of Eden, Aimee Terese was right about Warren." followed by a link to an image of Brittney Venti with a nerf gun in front of a North Korean flag is not likely the most serious thing in the world. Also I don't think I've commented on Kapernick, or cared about him, I do think the imagery of Pepsicola flying a Pride Flag is a strange message, like how the 1619 Project lady got sponsored by Shell Oil.

[Muzjhath]

Besides not being a full account of history, the fortunes of farm labourers, and farmers have a rather rich history going back through history. Immigration as a means of suppressing wages, a thing that only exists due to capitalism, as before Capitalism that was both not technically possible and also would have been viewed as daft and caused a blood peasant uprising. Pre-capitalist societies had very different social and economic arrangements. However this appeal to "It's just a fact of nature" seems to mystify and ignore the political reality of policy. I.E. that this is a man-made decision, trade policy as is immigration policy are the subject of political debate and questions of what we value. I for one value people who work as maids, you seem to place more value on those that hire maids. But this is, a political decision and within the realm of human action, not some decision by nature. As a hypothetical, the United States importing say 50,000 domestic labourers from somewhere is a political decision, the United States doesn't have to do this. There is not some inscribed tablet written by a literal God saying we need policies that make outsourcing possible either. This is essentially mystifying political questions as just acts of God, or I guess in modern day more secular terms, its the will of the 'Market'.

Underlined:
Before capitalism there was mercentalism. The heyday of the triangle trade. Slave labour.
Befote that a lot of peasants were the closest thing to slavery in all but name (serfs)
Before that Romans did lots of huge slave plantations that out competed family farms.

I don't know where you get underlined idea from

[Theodarzna]

Underlined:
Before capitalism there was mercentalism. The heyday of the triangle trade. Slave labour.
Befote that a lot of peasants were the closest thing to slavery in all but name (serfs)
Before that Romans did lots of huge slave plantations that out competed family farms.

I don't know where you get underlined idea from

A rather a mistake of how people tend to view history.

Let us start with the peasantry and the idea of serfs, much of which is later reinventions:


The corrected view; accounting for a lot of research on the subject and digging more deeply; the feudal relationship worked mechanically different because of the nature of the patron-client relationship that defined their life. Namely, the rank above them owing duty and services to the peasants as well as peasants to the person above them. Plus the much shorter work schedule to pay rent and bills and taxes, coupled with church mandated holidays, a greater degree of self-government than most Americans or Europeans enjoy now, it wasn't exactly the stuff of your typical high school textbook.

Mercantilism is not demonstratively different from Capitalism. Heck, there is an ongoing debate over if the two are the same thing, one is transitory to the other, etc. Mercantilism preceded capitalism for example. The Romans, being an Empire relied a lot on slavery, fancy that. So did primitive tribes to some extent. My case wasn't that slavery didn't exist before Capitalism, my point was that immigration as a solution to not wanting to pay workers was not a thing before Capitalism because that isn't how economies tended to work. A big case is said medieval societies because say in Europe wasn't happening because market economies like today's didn't exist. In an age dominated by trade guilds and patron-client relationships, such ideas of "Well I don't want to pay these peasants this much so I'll change the laws to bring in cheaper peasants" just as mechanically feasible both because the relationship between a landed person and a serf both didn't involve paychecks and him or her actually paying them for services, the relationship was not akin to an employer-employee relationship and the function of a Lord wasn't the same as a CEO until the advent of Capitalism.

[Dsonsion]

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.

Yeah, what you say could already be deduced from Nagle's article. Although there's a couple of other reasons you may already know, the one I want to stress is that without permissive borders there will be no remittance to the third world countries whose wealth the rich nations extract, which will result in worsening living conditions for their poor population. You can't really be for the workers in spite of the workers. The "Strasserite" position is a declaration of incompetence in terms of communicating with the workers the need for international solidarity (an optics issue), while my position is about real material conditions of people in the world. "International Solidarity" should not be an empty slogan.

Exacerbating imagined differences between groups of working class plays into the hands of nationalism like very few other things, and while that strand of socialism is a weak minority, nationalists have a lot more power to divert the discourse.

[Howel]

If you've decided to agree with a less Open Borders policy position than I welcome your concessions to my, well, Angela Nagle's, position that I also share.

I guess that is the final concession that you just straight up are utterly unwilling to even address that notion. I'll take that as a submission of complete and utter incapacity to formulate a defense against it. Feel free to address it, until then I am frankly not interested of hearing a peep out of you.

I am not interested in your personal life story or whatever twists and turns of lived experience/anecdotes you have to share
That isn't really interesting to me. I am amazed that the concept of labour and its value is not understood. Either that or it's considered morally abhorrent to allow the side of Labour to have you know, bargaining power or really any power at all. My position is that it is morally good to enact policy in favour of people who work as maids, versus people who hire maids. That is intrinsically a good thing in my view, maybe you disagree, clearly, you do.

I am fully in the know of labour value. You might wanna check up what it is for farmhand work, because it sure as shit ain't something that suddenly plummeted with immigration. While you are at it, check how farmers are doing, you know being in so much constant debt, that they are close to holding the record for strokes and heart attacks from the stress that it induces; but hey, just pay farmhands more, you can survive a stroke more to make Theo feel good about poor neglected farmhands.
My only view is that you are talking so much utter bullshit, about a topic that you have not the faintest idea about and that your idealism wouldn't enrich a single fucking farmhand, but instead bankrupt several farmers. Again, let the commies do a round two of telling farmers how to do agriculture, because they know better from their office thousands of miles away, worked great the first time.

And again, you are moralizing their value, that somehow this person shouldn't be paid some number, for a fairly arbitrary reason. Because I think you and I both agree, this and that task HAS to be done by someone, we literally cannot have an entire society of billionaire financiers who create ... well who knows what they produce, but it nets them most of the money. You seem to be settling on a "This is a force of nature, this is just what these jobs are worth and if they don't like it they should work harder or be better!" position, and I am saying "Why are they worth that and why is it wrong to enact policies that grant them some morsel of power?", why you consider having the law work to create a Labourers market versus an Employers market is rather strange, arbitrary and you know classist. Because we literally will always have farmhands, and people who clean portapotties, and people who ring up groceries or whatever; so even if one individual leaves for some line of work you consider worthy and worth being glorified and enriched, someone else will have to do that work that you've marked out as unworthy.

I've not marked it as such. Society has, for literally its entire existence. If you somehow think, that is some grand conspiracy, some grand injustice, feel free to feel that way, but it is not going to change that no matter politics, no matter culture, no matter national location, no matter historical time setting, no matter if it is rice or beef, they have never had any greater worth than what has been set.

However this appeal to "It's just a fact of nature" seems to mystify and ignore the political reality of policy. I.E. that this is a man-made decision, trade policy as is immigration policy are the subject of political debate and questions of what we value. I for one value people who work as maids, you seem to place more value on those that hire maids. But this is, a political decision and within the realm of human action, not some decision by nature. As a hypothetical, the United States importing say 50,000 domestic labourers from somewhere is a political decision, the United States doesn't have to do this. There is not some inscribed tablet written by a literal God saying we need policies that make outsourcing possible either. This is essentially mystifying political questions as just acts of God, or I guess in modern day more secular terms, its the will of the 'Market'.

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.
If you are such a fan of maids, you might not want a fair system. As someone that comes from a country that has one of the lowest income inequalities, I'll tell you, you can count the amount of maids that exists here, on your hands. Because guess what, once everything is fair and equal, maids are such an utterly foreign concept, because they are not at all worth the price you would have to pay for the little amount of work they actually do. Meaning they'd at best be a rich person status symbol; which leads into some very interesting notions of glory in the job place, being a literal prop.

You are right that the US have no obligation to let anyone immigrate, whatsoever, I won't contest that notion. That it would likely cause certain problems (one I have adressed six times as an example) is another thing. You know, that and that kind of isolationist policy, tends to have certain side effects on global political position as well.

[Draco-Onis]

Yes, noted Half-African super Nazi, I for one am really excited for the fresh diverse face of Nazism.

/s

Fun fact a lot of Jews supported Hitler many served in his administration including scientists in his chemical weapons programs. Your race doesn't shield you from supporting Nazism there were even slaves that supported slavery you of all people know this yet still spew this garbage.

[NED funded]

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.

Leaving the left vs right narrative here do people here genuinely think this is a good thing??

Like the "pro-worker" narrative of Trump literally turned out to be empty promises and incompetence?? Like hello where is the wall?? Where are the manufacturing jobs?? Instead we are left with a recession and the hundred thousand or something that died from COVID-19 not to mention an inability to do anything about the riots or anything in general.

Oh well that sure triggered the libs you got us!!

- - - Updated - - -

My only input wrt article is the weird fixation over online stuff. This person is swedish so its fine if that is their exposure to the US but ask any normal person who this Angela person is and they probably dont know, heck I had to google her and apparently her most important contribution is about an online forum

I hate leftists as much as the next guy but this dude is living on the internet with most of his takes.

Also its kinda ironic that this article reads like one of those pointless infighting things the author complains about " the problem of the left is clearly those other leftists". Things never change I guess ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Oh well while the leftists are discussing the merits of adopting white supremacists views Joe Biden will make some actual progress

[Felya]

They would throw him aside if they didn't need him to try to make their image better in the eyes of the people. "Look, we gave these minorities significant positions in our party or other things affiliated with us, do you really think we would do that if we were nazis?", that's what they do.

The entire concept of the red pill is written by a trans woman, yet is commonly used to attack trans people. Stop it...

[Felya]

What are you even talking about?

The term “Red Pill” that is used by alt right, that attacks trans people, is from the film Matrix. The writer of that film, that the writer of that term and concept, is a trans woman her self.

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

As in, you can be the very thing these people hate and they will steal your work without blinking...

[Felya]

Ok? How does this relate to my post at all? The only reason they have him is because he's a minority they can display to look tolerant.

Yes, and just like my example of something they use for their benefit, but would toss aside:

They would throw him aside if they didn't need him to try to make their image better in the eyes of the people.

As in, they can point to the person who created the term Red Pill, as if using it implies they accept trans people. When in reality, they would rather this trans person didn’t exist, which would then mean their term wouldn’t exist.

[Felya]

Can you just stop talking about obscure terms as if people are meant to understand your cryptic shit? I don't know nor care what a red pill is.

Uhm... didn’t realize the matrix was obscure... alrighty then... shouldn’t have asked, but what ever...

[unfilteredJW]

Can you just stop talking about obscure terms as if people are meant to understand your cryptic shit? I don't know nor care what a red pill is.

Red Pill is no where near obscure a term.

[Felya]

I told people who he is and why the Sweden Democrats accepted him to their totally independent think-tank. He's affiliated with the far right and theo is trying to play him off as being leftwing.

Thank you, that was appreciated.

Edit: Forgot smiley face...

[Ivanstone]

This is an international forum. Not an american forum. If I started using terms that are used in swedish politics you'd not understand them either.

Its a widely watched movie and its even fun to watch. You should check it out. Also thanks for pointing out that right wing Swedish politics has their own CandaceOwensBenCarsonHermanCainWhoeverElse who's willing to shuck and jive for them.

[unfilteredJW]

This is an international forum. Not an american forum. If I started using terms that are used in swedish politics you'd not understand them either.

You could have spent this time learning instead of complaining, but you chose not to.

Says a lot.

[Machismo]

Yes, noted Half-African super Nazi, I for one am really excited for the fresh diverse face of Nazism.



/s

In all seriousness, this discourse reminds me of Amber Lee Frost describing someone kvetching "What if pepe, Trump voters want to join our labour union" to which she said "Well, then you've won.... congrats"

But, it's literally a story about him supporting Nazism...

[Shadowferal]

Except it isn’t only used in the US. It’s a widely used term in the English speaking political world by alt-right types. And since this is an English language forum...

And here I thought "American pop culture" term...
Quite frankly I'd think about taking the blue pill if my mind could get to the 80s.
This decade has begun on such a sucktacular note, I don't believe anything will make it better.

[Theodarzna]

Theo is citing a swedish guy active in politics here in sweden. I told people who he is and why the Sweden Democrats accepted him to their totally independent think-tank. He's affiliated with the far right and theo is trying to play him off as being leftwing. He's fearmongered about Muslim immigrants making sweden criminalize being LGBT among other things if they are allowed to come here.

He was expelled from the party he was affiliated with in 2014, due to his support for violent extremism. Then in 2020 he joined up with totally independent think-tank oikos that was founded by Mattias Karlsson, who was second in charge in the sweden democrats, who have a foundation that stems from nazism.

And yes, it is an obscure term.

I'm not passing him off as anything, I am going by what Malcom Kyeyune has said about himself, he asserts his position is Marxism. As the OP article, I wrote of his goes, his entire position is that there really is no room for Marxism within a largely P.M.C affiliated conventional political parties and so will work with a think tank to spread the ideas to people more interested in listening. Getting say conventionally Right-Wing people to embrace Karl Marx you'd THINK was the goal. But maybe you are more for cultural affect and this is more a social club.

So the only person presenting Malcom Kyeyune as a Leftist, is Malcom Kyeyune. And your deflection from what is written to "He works for this think tank at some point" is kind of a big distraction from the actual point he made. So I am going to take it you concede his point is true then? Or do you have a comment on his point? Or is this just a, His friends aren't popular with my group so he's bad and not popular!

- - - Updated - - -

Fun fact a lot of Jews supported Hitler many served in his administration including scientists in his chemical weapons programs. Your race doesn't shield you from supporting Nazism there were even slaves that supported slavery you of all people know this yet still spew this garbage.

Well, Malcom Kyeyune has asserted his position is Marxism, it is on you I'd say to prove otherwise. Malcom Kyeyune is the one stating he is a Marxist, not me.

By the way, here is his personal blog, and twitter, so if you can find him advocating for Nazism, feel free to present your case.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, what you say could already be deduced from Nagle's article. Although there's a couple of other reasons you may already know, the one I want to stress is that without permissive borders there will be no remittance to the third world countries whose wealth the rich nations extract, which will result in worsening living conditions for their poor population. You can't really be for the workers in spite of the workers. The "Strasserite" position is a declaration of incompetence in terms of communicating with the workers the need for international solidarity (an optics issue), while my position is about real material conditions of people in the world. "International Solidarity" should not be an empty slogan.

Exacerbating imagined differences between groups of working class plays into the hands of nationalism like very few other things, and while that strand of socialism is a weak minority, nationalists have a lot more power to divert the discourse.

Remittance payments is hardly a solution to global poverty. How we get to, it being acceptable for the upper class to exploit labour, suppress wages in one country, is actually a good thing because the new exploited labourers get some of the material wealth that would have gone to this or any countries local working-class instead going to an imported labourer for a roundabout global charity is plainly daft. Like, for one the only person being penalized for the rich nations wealth extraction is those nations poor people, and the beneficiaries are its well off a class of Capital. You seem to have articulated a position that it is okay, and just for the P.M.C class to both enjoy the enrichment of cheap labour and exploiting a never-ending wage suppression on the Working Class on the grounds that its part of some global push for justice via a global charity scheme through remittance payments. So the class of people get to double-dip, they both get to be enriched BY that wealth extraction and also materially enriched by your remittance global charity system to compensate and the losers are just some other part of the Working Class whom must take it on the chin as an act of "Solidarity" when it is nakedly just one class enriching itself twice over off of a situation.

Maybe I'm misreading you but that seems really wild.

[Endus]

Well, Malcom Kyeyune has asserted his position is Marxism, it is on you I'd say to prove otherwise. Malcom Kyeyune is the one stating he is a Marxist, not me.

In his own words;

As I have said, nobody remembers Strasser brothers, and “Strasserism” is not a serious ideology anyone holds today. But we exist. We, forgotten friends and discarded comrades shall soon return to rattle our chains. What alienated us from the left was not racism, nor malice, nor bloodthirst.

Clearly and explicitly self-identifies as a Strasserist.

From Wikipedia on "Strasserism";

Strasserism is a radical mass action[not verified in body] worker-based tendency within Nazism,

Literally a Nazi movement, and part of Nazism.

So;
1> Malcolm Kyeyune self-identifies as a Strasserite
2> Strasserites are Nazis
3> Therefore, Kyeyune is self-identifying as a Nazi.

That's straight deduction from crystal-clear premises that are either historical fact or explicitly stated by Kyeyune himself.

Maybe you want to argue that he's wrong about that identification? I don't see a reason to not take him at his word.


Further, on the "leftist" assertion you made; he explicitly states that he is alienated from the left wing. His views also involve a strictly exclusionary approach to class struggle, where amelioration of class divides is ideologically impossible and a ridiculous goal, because self-interest is all that there is. This is not actually a left-wing point of view. It is distinctly right-wing, as it seeks to maintain and defend existing class divides. His entire premise in the entire thinkpiece is a condemnation of the left wing for being left wing and thinking class divisions are unnatural affectations.