Left or Right of me.

[Manfred Belheim]

What’s the mistake?

Well that it's wrong. Unless you think left wing and SJW are synonyms.

 

[Lexicus]

Well first you have to recognize that the SJW itself is something of a mythical construct invented by reactionaries.

Right, that is the main reason I am asking you to provide a serious answer.

I’m sure you encounter it daily.

I've actually largely dropped off of Facebook, so I don't encounter it as often as you might think. I do routinely encounter it on the pages of the Atlantic.

Pretty much just defense of the status quo as it exists online.

Hmm, are you familiar with Fisher's Exiting the Vampire Castle? Would you consider that to fall within anti-SJWism?

 

[rah]

SJW to me are just the next generation that grew up with divorced parents, a large education debt, without a good job that have lost any sense of humor they used to have and have figured that as long as they're miserable, no one else should be having any fun at all. .

 

[inthesomeday]

Right, that is the main reason I am asking you to provide a serious answer.

It’s quite difficult to do so, I hope you’ll understand. Addressing the SJW seriously is like writing a book report about Atlas Shrugged.

I've actually largely dropped off of Facebook, so I don't encounter it as often as you might think. I do routinely encounter it on the pages of the Atlantic.

I don’t have any social media save reddit, which hardly counts. No twitter, no facebook, no instagram, no Snapchat. But still I feel almost constantly affronted by this ideology.

Hmm, are you familiar with Fisher's Exiting the Vampire Castle? Would you consider that to fall within anti-SJWism?

I’m reading it now. It sucks.

If you’d like a more rigorous analysis from my perspective I could probably write you out a well-thought out essay in PMs but for now suffice it to say: this idea was stale when the article was written and imo boils down to precisely what Fisher wants to exempt himself of, which is class-reductionist color blind counterrevolutionary complaining.

Although you already know I wholeheartedly approve of the constant self-critical genre of Twitter leftism. So we can talk about that itself if you’d like, and its merits. It should be said I am not a humanist, while I am under the impression that you are.

 

[Archon_Wing]

now I would like to know everyone's political compass scores. I got:

Economic Left/Right: -5.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.72

I really wish they'd update it. Some answers feel very evil mustache twirling to take seriously, but I could be wrong. And I never understood the astrology one.

Economic Left/Right: 2.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.05

 

[Lexicus]

this idea was stale when the article was written and imo boils down to precisely what Fisher wants to exempt himself of, which is class-reductionist color blind counterrevolutionary complaining.

My experiences in online leftist spaces have led to the opposite conclusion, that Fisher is largely correct and the counterrevolutionaries are the identitarians. I think he states his criticism of "identity politics" as such a little too broadly but in terms of comparing internet-based forms of identitarian politics to a secular religion, he is spot-on. And he is correct that politics based purely in identity is not actually politics at all, it is a type of discourse that actually precludes the necessarily messy (but still necessary) work of organizing actual coalitions to build and exercise political power.

The Vampire Castle is a polemic, though, so if you want have a real discussion whether via PMs or here it's probably better to start with this:
https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-trouble-with-uplift-reed
That piece is about black racial politics in the US but I believe its insights can be applied to other political contexts as well.

 

[inthesomeday]

My experiences in online leftist spaces have led to the opposite conclusion, that Fisher is largely correct and the counterrevolutionaries are the identitarians.

Hm...

I think he states his criticism of "identity politics" as such a little too broadly but in terms of comparing internet-based forms of identitarian politics to a secular religion, he is spot-on. And he is correct that politics based purely in identity is not actually politics at all, it is a type of discourse that actually precludes the necessarily messy (but still necessary) work of organizing actual coalitions to build and exercise political power.

But the problem is in dismissing all intersectional thought as “being purely based in identity”. It isn’t identitarian to tell people that they’re being racist and to stop being racist. And it’s robotic emotional elitism to demand we calm down and be welcoming about it. It’s infuriating that even in the 21st century we still have to teach liberals-turned-leftists how to not be racist.

Callout and cancel culture is great! It’s the modern development of revolutionary terror. Liberals will write it off as ideological Puritanism but its so much more than that— it’s the realization of ruthless criticism of all that exists. It’s the only real way to destroy privilege.

The Vampire Castle is a polemic, though, so if you want have a real discussion whether via PMs or here it's probably better to start with this:
https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-trouble-with-uplift-reed
That piece is about black racial politics in the US but I believe its insights can be applied to other political contexts as well.

I never thought I’d see the day an article was written in defense of white savior narratives

 

[yung.carl.jung]

if I had the balls I'd be an environmental terrorist, so put me right up there with lexmex and the other hardcore pinkos

 

[Lexicus]

But the problem is in dismissing all intersectional thought as “being purely based in identity”.

Well, I am drawing the distinction between "identity politics" and "identitarians" for exactly this reason. I think there are useful ways to think about identity.

It isn’t identitarian to tell people that they’re being racist and to stop being racist.

Is it identitarian to say that it's a waste of time to organize a workplace because the workers of different races and genders will never be able to engage in collective action?

Callout and cancel culture is great! It’s the modern development of revolutionary terror. Liberals will write it off as ideological Puritanism but its so much more than that— it’s the realization of ruthless criticism of all that exists. It’s the only real way to destroy privilege.

Huh, and I guess I'm the counterrevolutionary for believing that the way to destroy privilege is through gaining and using political power to actually destroy the material and class basis of privilege. And of course the view that racism can be eradicated by "teaching people not to be racist" or writing posts on Twitter or any other social media, actually seems more like liberalism to me than my view. I believe that the task of revolutionaries - 'the left' - is to create the conditions for solidarity against the ruling class. That goal is actively worked against by those who claim the working class is impossibly divided by racial or gender conflicts of interest, moreso by those who confuse their personal prospects (or the prospects of other individuals) within the structures of capitalism, white supremacy, and patriarchy with the struggle against those things.

I never thought I’d see the day an article was written in defense of white savior narratives

Is that all you have to say? The author of the piece is not a white man, if you didn't know that.

with lexmex and the other hardcore pinkos

Man, I have to say, I'm not even that hardcore of a pinko!

 

[Ferocitus]

LEFT
Ferocitus
Owen Glyndwr
Hygro
inthesomeday
Lexicus
Ajidica
Cardgame
Hrothbern
Zardnaar
Estebonrober
AmazonQueen
shadowplay
Synsensa
tjs282
Bootstoots
El_Mac
Catharsis
Truthy
BenitoChavez
Timsup2nothin
UlyssesSgrant
rah
Bernie14
onejayhawk
RIGHT

 

[inthesomeday]

Well, I am drawing the distinction between "identity politics" and "identitarians" for exactly this reason. I think there are useful ways to think about identity.

As a function and factor of class

Is it identitarian to say that it's a waste of time to organize a workplace because the workers of different races and genders will never be able to engage in collective action?

Quite. But I’m suspicious of those who claim they’ve experienced this viewpoint. It sounds to me like the kind of boogeyman construction the SJW is for the right; the divisive identitarian. Used by class-reductionists and brocialist social democrats to maintain power within leftist movements they co-op. Those who stand to lose something from radical social progress against their own privilege.

Huh, and I guess I'm the counterrevolutionary for believing that the way to destroy privilege is through gaining and using political power to actually destroy the material and class basis of privilege.

The “gaining and using political power” bit, maybe, but only because of how it’s worded. Instead: what is the class basis of privilege? How is it reflected in the hierarchies of leftist movements populated and controlled by white men? Indeed, how do “identity politics” play into the structures of class today?

Interrogate. Self-criticize.

And of course the view that racism can be eradicated by "teaching people not to be racist" or writing posts on Twitter or any other social media, actually seems more like liberalism to me than my view.

Surely “conscious” white allies ought to have already transcended whatever material conditions made them racist? If so then we must maintain that transcendence. If not then we must continually attack their racist tendencies.

I believe that the task of revolutionaries - 'the left' - is to create the conditions for solidarity against the ruling class.

Precisely! A crucial factor of those conditions is the destruction of power dynamics at play in the interpersonal relationships of our comrades, no? IE creating an environment wherein potential perpetrators of racism etc know that those types of beliefs are not welcome. Thus, the need for the terror.

That goal is actively worked against by those who claim the working class is impossibly divided by racial or gender conflicts of interest, moreso by those who confuse their personal prospects (or the prospects of other individuals) within the structures of capitalism, white supremacy, and patriarchy with the struggle against those things.

The keyword here is “impossibly”. I don’t believe you’ve encountered anyone who’s believed that. I do believe you’ve encountered leftists who recognize divisions that do exist in the working class and fight to overcome those by targeting the people within their movements who may be responsible for their perpetuation.

Is that all you have to say? The author of the piece is not a white man, if you didn't know that.

I mean, what I commented on was essentially the only unique take in the entire article. I don’t know anybody who’s ignorant of the way social justice has been commodified. The only remaining insight is that somehow that means we SHOULDN’T criticize white savior narratives— historical accuracy? Really? Seems like a weak justification to me. Uplifting stories are more useful and relevant. Socialist realism and so on.

What is quite fascinating is that the two articles you’ve linked me here are so different. The first uses “post-structuralist” as a pejorative, and then the second is pretty basically postmodernist.

 

[Lexicus]

But I’m suspicious of those who claim they’ve experienced this viewpoint. It sounds to me like the kind of boogeyman construction the SJW is for the right; the divisive identitarian.

I don’t believe you’ve encountered anyone who’s believed that.

Well, I have seen people state as much in rather explicit terms. It is also a key premise of the book Settlers which is, or at least was, quite popular in the "SJW" circles I ran in.

Indeed, how do “identity politics” play into the structures of class today?

I think probably most (at least, a significant amount of) identity politics today reflects a bourgeois, pro-capitalist class position.

Precisely! A crucial factor of those conditions is the destruction of power dynamics at play in the interpersonal relationships of our comrades, no? IE creating an environment wherein potential perpetrators of racism etc know that those types of beliefs are not welcome. Thus, the need for the terror.

I don't think "terror" is an appropriate approach to organizing a workplace, or a community. It is certainly an appropriate approach to signalling virtue on social media, though.

I don’t know anybody who’s ignorant of the way social justice has been commodified.

The piece isn't really criticizing the "commodification" of social justice....

Really? Seems like a weak justification to me. Uplifting stories are more useful and relevant. Socialist realism and so on.

...it's making a broader critique of stories that uplift an abstract "blackness" (and by extension, other abstract identity categories), which in fact have more to do with race realism than with socialist realism. For example the criticism of the film Selma for turning the civil rights movement into a simple extrusion of MLK's personality rather than a political movement that engaged in specific tactics to build and exercise power, in order to accomplish a specific political goal, which was the demolition of Jim Crow segregation. That has nothing whatever to do with today's "movements" that are more focused on discourse and performance than politics, which place abstractions at the center of their analysis, and which pursue abstract goals such as "the end of racism" or "the end of marginalization".

 

[inthesomeday]

Well, I have seen people state as much in rather explicit terms. It is also a key premise of the book Settlers which is, or at least was, quite popular in the "SJW" circles I ran in.

Apparently then you’re not past the construct of the SJW? If you’re willing to grant it its own circle?

I think probably most (at least, a significant amount of) identity politics today reflects a bourgeois, pro-capitalist class position.

That’s not my question. My question is essentially: how intersectional can you get? It seems not very.

Recognize that class is broader than income or occupation.

I don't think "terror" is an appropriate approach to organizing a workplace, or a community. It is certainly an appropriate approach to signalling virtue on social media, though.

I’ve never said “let’s restructure society on terror”. I’ve said that revolutionary terror should not be discarded so easily and that it is a valuable tool in making individuals better themselves.

The piece isn't really criticizing the "commodification" of social justice....

It is at least partly. Commodification and co-option.

...it's making a broader critique of stories that uplift an abstract "blackness" (and by extension, other abstract identity categories), which in fact have more to do with race realism than with socialist realism. For example the criticism of the film Selma for turning the civil rights movement into a simple extrusion of MLK's personality rather than a political movement that engaged in specific tactics to build and exercise power, in order to accomplish a specific political goal, which was the demolition of Jim Crow segregation.

Or I suppose individuation too. Sure, legitimate criticism. Nothing new though. The thing that caught my eye is again the defense of white savior films— both of the examples provided also, hilariously, engaged in all the ills the writer indicts above.

That has nothing whatever to do with today's "movements" that are more focused on discourse and performance than politics,

Indeed a problem. Liberals and social democrats come to mind— still not the mythical SJW, though, and not those who criticize weak leftists. What’s performative about calling out racism?

which place abstractions at the center of their analysis,

Be more specific. Is class an abstraction? It’s certainly a construct. How about race? A construct, yes, but a materially present one— thus perhaps not yet an abstraction.

and which pursue abstract goals such as "the end of racism" or "the end of marginalization".

What makes these abstract to you? They are ultimate goals, yes, but attainable in the destruction of the institutions and infrastructure of racism and marginalization.

 

[Lexicus]

Apparently then you’re not past the construct of the SJW? If you’re willing to grant it its own circle?

Well, yeah. Note the scare quotes though. I use the term purely out of convenience. I haven't thought of an alternate formulation that wasn't too awkward to use.

Recognize that class is broader than income or occupation.

Elaborate?

both of the examples provided also, hilariously, engaged in all the ills the writer indicts above.

In what way?

Is class an abstraction?

Isn't, ultimately, everything an abstraction? The question is whether abstractions are being described as animate forces, as in much "antiracist" discourse today, including on the so-called left.

What makes these abstract to you?

They are talking about abstractions as if they are animate forces. It is like the War on Terror. You can't "defeat" or "end" abstractions. You can defeat material inequalities and you can change the social conditions that produce and reproduce racist attitudes. "Calling out", imo, does not really contribute to this insofar as it ultimately reaches only those already predisposed to listen. And it very readily lends itself to a toxic form of social media "politics" that really amounts to bullying, narcissism, and misanthropy.

 

[inthesomeday]

Well, yeah. Note the scare quotes though. I use the term purely out of convenience. I haven't thought of an alternate formulation that wasn't too awkward to use.

Surely there must be more precise language for those you refer to.

Elaborate?

As far as I’m concerned the ultimate synthesis of marxism and intersectionality is the understanding that the classes of people are wholly specific to include race, gender, or any other such identitarian additions.

In what way?

Glory, I felt, individuated the story to the Matthew Broderick character. It sold a co-opted white savior story to feelgood liberals.
The Free State of Jones did the same for Matthew McCaughnahay or however that’s spelled.

Isn't, ultimately, everything an abstraction? The question is whether abstractions are being described as animate forces, as in much "antiracist" discourse today, including on the so-called left.

Do you disagree that constructs like race have been materially applied into the real world?

They are talking about abstractions as if they are animate forces. It is like the War on Terror. You can't "defeat" or "end" abstractions. You can defeat material inequalities and you can change the social conditions that produce and reproduce racist attitudes.

Racism is not in the attitudes. It’s in the institutions. The attitudes just strengthen it.

"Calling out", imo, does not really contribute to this insofar as it ultimately reaches only those already predisposed to listen. And it very readily lends itself to a toxic form of social media "politics" that really amounts to bullying, narcissism, and misanthropy.

Ultimately if you feel bullied by antiracists you ought to self-evaluate, no? Those predisposed to listen are indeed the ones meant to hear. Callout culture is in the interest of— for lack of a better word— purging problematic elements from spaces meant to be progressive and inclusive.

 

[Gori the Grey]

You are, all of you, either to the left or the right of me. You know who you are.

 

[Hrothbern]

And he is correct that politics based purely in identity is not actually politics at all, it is a type of discourse that actually precludes the necessarily messy (but still necessary) work of organizing actual coalitions to build and exercise political power.

It's all a bit different in the various countries ofc.
In NL:
With ofc a dozen parties to choose between, covering much better the left-right axis and the north-south axis of the political compass and more aspects as singular choices....

It's not only making coalitions, the practical politics to get things done, to some degree more difficult.
If the style of promoting, of profiling those points is too edged, it is precluding people to vote on you: not because they disagree that much on what you say, but because they disagree with the supposedly attached importance, or emotional weight, because of how you profile on it.
For many people it pushes away the other points of your political program that they find equally or more important.
In a political party you just cannot behave on a single issue like a movement of that single issue, because that goes at the expense of a wholesome and balanced political program of a political party.
You end up in a cacophonic Babylon and lose your overall party strenght and overall party identity.
Having movements feed into your political party is great. Not being able to handle the difference in a balanced way, being their amplifier only, is irresponsible to all other points of your program.

What I really do not like about confusing single issue thinking with what is needed for a political party on the left, is that for example property thinking is pushed out of the internal debate and the public profile.
Not that I believe that has much weight in mainstream US, Canada, Australia, etc voters. But it does have more weight on this side of the pond.
Completely normal and by a broader public as non-radical perceived property thinking by the left in the 50ies, 60ies, 70ies, on social housing, public companies (public transport, utilities, etc) was pushed out by the progressive wave on personal identity liberation starting in the 60ies and over the decades following more and more dominating the discussions within the left, with a lot of tweaking of the soft aspects of the wellfare states here in West Europe.
Nothing wrong with those improvements, adapting to general societal changes, as such. Most topics are now secured in laws good attached to the massively improved constitution in 1983. Even our most liberal-right governing party with our PM Rutte would be considered a heretic, if not (almost) a commie in the US, in the GOP AND mainstream Dem. party, on points like LGBT, abortus, euthanasy, feminism, anti-discrimination, social wellfare, whatever.

And every inch of the way counts on property.
Wealth tax... get on with it... even small steps make clear what you stand for.
The prime factor of Lean Manufacturing, the prime reason for its succes, is that you do not aim for the perfect solution (as technicians always seem to be inclined to). You aim for just "good enough" + the process to improve.

And I write now this post because with my morning coffee I saw an article on reigning in real estate speculating in Amsterdam in English (lazy me) pushed by our Green-Left party and Socialist Party, controlling Amsterdam.
That speculating at the expense of the social housing volume in Amsterdam, now at still 40%, enabling a teacher, a hotel receptionist, a fire man, etc to live in the town where they have a job.
Social housing is my pet.
I spend many years in the community activist actions to "encourage" our local and national government to buy houses from investors and convert them into social housing. My old neighborhood reached 72% social housing. and a fine place to live. I can attach pictures for people that think that social housing always end up in a deplorable mess. This is absolutely not the case here in Amsterdam. But you have to govern that !... and not neglect it once build.

Anyway, on the back of the "third wave Labour", the neo-liberal wave, the "identity" Babylon fragmenting of the left (sorry for that)... property thinking diminished from the agenda
=> less money for new social houses building, with an increasing population. The perfect recipe to increase the prices of the existing houses. The perfect recipe to disconnect the older part of the population having a house from the ones that "missed the boat" and the starters. The perfect recipe to bind the house-owners to the right-liberal parties.

Left politics is ultimately, in our current society, about money and property.... improving that is faciliating your values and convictions.
Identity politics as main Course of your dinner is what is left over when you have no money.

Here that morning coffee article on that inch improvement in Amsterdam.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...dam-seeks-to-ban-buy-to-let-on-newbuild-homes

Amsterdam has drawn up plans to ban the rental of new-build homes on city land, as part of a spate of policies to combat spiralling house prices, housing shortages and over-saturation of tourism.

The plan from its housing chief states: “Investors are buying Amsterdam homes more and more frequently, intending to rent them out. This means that ‘normal’ house-buyers have less of a chance in the housing market, and Amsterdam is not happy with this.”

 

[rah]

A hum. LIST

 

[Lexicus]

Surely there must be more precise language for those you refer to.

Probably. But I'd rather not name people's actual names here.

As far as I’m concerned the ultimate synthesis of marxism and intersectionality is the understanding that the classes of people are wholly specific to include race, gender, or any other such identitarian additions.

I believe that you mean this.

Glory, I felt, individuated the story to the Matthew Broderick character. It sold a co-opted white savior story to feelgood liberals.
The Free State of Jones did the same for Matthew McCaughnahay or however that’s spelled.

Haven't seen either one so unprepared to argue about it.

Do you disagree that constructs like race have been materially applied into the real world?

No, of course not, but that racism has been aplpied materially to the real world hardly means that "racism" is an animate force in history or that "ending racism" is a real political goal.

Racism is not in the attitudes. It’s in the institutions. The attitudes just strengthen it.

So do you believe that you can dismantle racist institutions by 'teaching people not to be racist"?

Ultimately if you feel bullied by antiracists you ought to self-evaluate, no?

I've never felt bullied by antiracists because I'm far too arrogant a pighead to get emotionally affected by anything strangers tell me on the internet. But I've seen them bully other people and I've seen groups and spaces get destroyed because of it. I've watched groups and spaces splinter because people held positions that were sincerely regarded as genocidal by one another. That is literally the opposite of what the left should be doing, which is creating the conditions for solidarity, as I said. "cancelling" people because they used the word "dumb", because they're not sufficiently anti-Zionist, or because they haven't ever heard of some obscure theory text from the 1930s is counterproductive nonsense, period.

As a side note, "if you feel bullied by antiracists, you ought to self-evaluate" does not inspire confidence in the ability of the self-described anti-racists to self-evaluate.

Those predisposed to listen are indeed the ones meant to hear. Callout culture is in the interest of— for lack of a better word— purging problematic elements from spaces meant to be progressive and inclusive.

And my view is that such purging is incompatible with accomplishing real political change. It's also incompatible with meeting people where they are and then educating them

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Higher appreciation for abstract art=more liberal

Modern reactionaries have been denouncing "degenerate" modern/abstract art for as long as it has existed. You don't see it quite as much anymore (at least in public; in more private/anonymous right-wing spaces you will see it much more readily) since educated and civilized people associate those attitudes with the Nazis.

the opposite is true

even on this board we have one user who repedeatly spreads Paul Joseph Watsons videos, especially his "opinions" on modern art

in general the ignoramus attitudy of "my 6 year old son could have done this" / "most modern art is trash" has become more popular, probably mostly due to how "modern" art is represented in media

That’s where cultural Bolshevism/Marxism comes from! The nazis called art made by Jews or postmodernists cultural Bolshevism because they were... afraid of it? Who knows.

art manifests in societies by influencing opinions, norms, morals, ways of thinking. they shape a society regardless of its affinity for the higher arts, simply by altering the discourse of what can be displayed, or what can be called art/culture. the nazis simply did not want these influences to spread.

and they were right about "degenerate art" being so incredibly strong. probably no one influenced the future of the arts as much as marcel duchamp / early 20th century avant gardists / 1920s expressionism / surrealism. those ideas echo in everything from pop art to performance to sculpture to room installations to provocative art and really everything else.