Radical Leftism

This
And honestly, fall of the soviets.

Even though the soviets was bureaucratic shit hole and hated by the leftist intellectuals around the world, normies still thought that soviets were leftist mastermind. So obviously the left loose their support after the soviets miserably failed.

Identity politics

Our guy Zizek said this

I don't have any problems with people that think differently or have different solutions to problems they perceive. My problem with the left is purely with how they act. They are bullies. For whatever reason they set the narrative in all aspects of our lives like in education and the media. If you're against gay marriage that means you hate gays, if you're against immigration at all then that means your a racist that hates brown people, if you don't support BLM then obviously you want to see innocent people get shot by police, if you're against abortion then that means you hate freedom and choice, if you're against welfare or the government redistribution of wealth that your obviously a greedy fatcat who hates the poor. To them there couldn't possible be other valid viewpoints or solutions to these problems and you're an evil person for thinking there is. We're beginning to see the backlash of this with Trump having so much support. We know he's a very flawed candidate but he tells the media to go fuck themselves and he refuses to apologize for anything. If the left continues to bully conservatives things are only going to get worse for them.

>like the soviet union where everyone is equally poor and hungry besides party members
not really... this only happened after the system collapsed in the 1990s. before then it was decent

ill add though that you're right about the party members being better off. I also agree with some of your points but I think you're exaggerating about gender and sexual discrimination because as yet we havent had a totalitarian society yet based on matriarchy or some gay elite kek. I also think you're mistaken that FDR or his spiritual successors are "authoritarian left". I assume you're assessing these people from the standard that government should be as small as possible?

>My problem with the left is purely with how they act.
Surely, you can't generalize like this. Do you actually have many experiences that confirm this? Social media and media in general are not representative of most "leftists." Nor are those vocal minorities on college campuses.

Russians. Russians mess everything up.

The problem is that you were, until now, ignorant of the intended goals of leftism. It was never meant to create stable and empowering political systems, it's an ideology of destruction.

>liberals
>radically left

The vail between sarcasm and stupidity has finally been breached

Isn't privilege just material conditions?

>Russian famine of 1921–22
>Soviet famine of 1932–33 (especially Holodomor)
>Kazakhstan famine of 1932-1933

millions of deaths were caused by the mass starvation due collectivized farming by the soviet government (and in part periodic drought in the case of the earlier famines)
periodic mass hunger in the soviet union only ended after the soviets began importing grain and other commodities after Stalin (especially after Detente when the soviets began "liberalizing" their economy, allowing for minimal operation of market forces within the soviet block). Even then breadlines and empty food distribution centers were common well after Perestroika, this trend continued during the political turmoil caused by the collapse of the Soviet Union.

You called this "decent".

What history class did you take dude?

When you care about class, you fight the few for the benefit of the many.
When you care about identity, you fight the many for the benefit of the few.

No, it's a given status that is unearned, having special rights, advantages, or immunities/rights/ that are not granted on the basis of merit but on the recipient's identity. In short, unearned status or benefits for an individual or group of people.

for example:
The current British royal family did not earn their riches, it was given to them by virtue of them being the descendants of the British royal family. Andrew Carnegie one of the richest men in American history was born to a poor family in Scotland and was a bobbin boy (the classic image of a child suffering under child labor in the early American industrial age) at the age of 13. His steel provided the social benefit of essentially being the base building material of almost all urban developments and rail lines (in general) of the United States for almost 50 years (this period includes after JP Morgan bought the company from Carnegie). All of this made Carnegie rich. His wealth and status was not a result of privileged or special allowances by some exterior entity, it was earned and was thus not privileged. This relationship between the quality of life of a person or group and how it was achieved is what one should look at to determine someone to be privileged or not. Do not fall into the trap of assuming privilege due to someone is wealthy.

It's just contrarianism.

If we were living in communism those retards would claim they're right-wing. Haha, joking, they would have been send to a labor camp to die haha.

The radicals lost out to the progressive academics who are in favor of social democracy, integration, and gradual change.

This is why modern day leftist activists campaign for things like BLM or the wage gap instead of addressing the political and economic systems which those things are a symptom of.

It became non-radical.

A mix of cold war propaganda and post-Civil Rights Movement identitaranism moved the Western left away from class struggle and toward cultural critique.

Identity politics can be worthwhile, but when examined without the context of class (that is, in the style of the toothless New Left we have today), these critiques are incomplete at best and directly pro-bourgeois at worst.

Anybody who considers Beyonce or Hillary Clinton a hero is not a leftist.

But he was privileged with the genetics and enviroment to become wealthy. You don't seriously believe in libertarian free will right?

>I don't like the left-right dichotomy

That's just code for "I'm a confused pseudo-fascist who is skeptical of capitalism but still too spooked to realize that nationalism is childish and insignificant."

Privilege theory is immaterial. It conceives of a permanent condition of status that colors all interactions with others and exists entirely independent of class. Most privilege theorists believe that social privilege overrides material standing, and that the presence of an elite is non-problematic as long as people from all social backgrounds can enter this elite.

Marxists reject privilege theory because it is narrow-focused (generally looking at individuals and their actions, rather than interactions between groups) and pro-bourgeois (a black millionaire who exploits his workers should be lauded for "making it" despite his lack of white privilege.)

In addition, privilege theorists offer no concrete solutions for how privilege can be overcome or even a metric for how privilege can be measured. Most seem to be guardedly optimistic and determinist, believing that if we "continue on this liberal path" and raise awareness of privilege, soak inequalities will disappear.

That's a narrow view of privilege. There's a reason why people throw in words like rich when it comes to cases like Brock Turner in addition to white when it comes to privilege. Being treated differently by society is material conditions, especially when such treatment results in disparities in what considers the traditional material conditions. Nor is it permanent, privilege lasts as long as their are lasting effects. I'm not even a SJW, but this is more of a know your enemy kin of thing so you don't come off like a complete retard when talking to people in real life because you can only attack strawmen and extreme examples.

What does this have to do with free will? Why do you fedoras always bring it up?

Even if everything is predestineed you were either predestined to follow in the footsteps of good wholesome True Americans like Carnegie or you weren't.

I can't predict the future, but trying to adopt übermensch virtues has to be on the right track. Me and informing you of this improves your chances, your "environment" confers you access to the internet and is one of the advantages that can contribute to success.

Free will or not it doesn't change anything.

>But he was privileged with the genetics and enviroment to become wealthy.
Then he should be fine that he's going to be above average even if he has no inheritance or capital. And if such a society still turns out to have major problems, then they'll probably go for environment next. And if such a society is still problematic even after all that, by then we'll have cloning technology and everyone will be genetically identical.

>What went wrong?
In Europe?

Nothing. Leftists are still leftists.

In America? Leftism has been dead since the 40's, so in that sense nothing's "gone wrong" since Stalin's time.

> I think you're exaggerating about gender and sexual discrimination

To elaborate -- as least in defense of my including gender and sexual discrimination -- There are plenty of examples of folks in this sector who can fit into the mentality that can lead to a totalitarian regime. the action of those who call themselves "intersectional feminists" get the term "intersectionality" and many of their base ideas from critical theory and other products of the neo-Marxist thought of the Frankfurt school of sociology and other forces behind the "new left" of the 1960s. modern feminists who take such a title are inherently leftist and typically use illiberal actions to achieve their aims. shutting down events, by force. for example the shutting down of an MRA meeting by constantly harassing them and causing an evacuation of the building by pulling the fire alarm, Constantly shutting down free speech on campuses (mostly in Britain and the U.S.) under the buzzword hate speech in opposition of to those with different political ideas, the use of doxing to get dissenters fired from their jobs, and denying the individual agency of other women, trying to force them into dependency of the "sisterhood" (here is an example of this neo-hausfrau mentality as well as feminist appropriating the definition of egalitarianism msmagazine.com/blog/2012/07/23/please-tell-me-this-is-a-joke-marissa-mayer-is-not-a-feminist/).

I include LGBT in this grouping due to recent representatives of the overall movement i.e. a small but influentially vocal minority pushing for exclusive rights for their group and using an increasingly dogmatic and violent speech/actions against their intellectual opponents, (examples youtube.com/watch?v=Zi1gortW-Zs and youtube.com/watch?v=YgQy70_LPS4)

Absolutely nothing. Leftism in the past had to be more conservative because nobody would subscribe to it otherwise. Today that is not the case.

If Leftypoltards don't wanna move ahead with the rest of the left they aren't true leftists and are actually reactionaries.

>thread gets full of """""Real""""" Leftists
How shocking!

Nothing went "wrong". What we have today is what leftist elites have been creating for decades. You can't just create a counterculture of perpetual whining and expect it not to come to this.
Stop making excuses.
You reap what you sow.

Nothing.

The same that's happening to the right, right now.

The left was beaten so hard and so bad it became an extremist parody of itself. And that somehow worked and people began coming over to the left side of the political spectrum.

Now the right is going through these same changes. Except they are metamorphosing much much faster and much much stronger.

>muh libruls
Liberalism died in the early 20th century and socialist parties overtook them. The people in America calling themselves "Liberals" are not true liberals at all as the majority do not believe in the Free Market.

"Liberal" has become a buzzword used by leftists for anyone not as radical as them or leftists behaving like idiots that they don't want to be associated with.

> I also think you're mistaken that FDR or his spiritual successors are "authoritarian left". I assume you're assessing these people from the standard that government should be as small as possible?

Authoritarianism: favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.

I saw FDR in this respect because of his outright disdain of business and the curtailing of freedoms during the economic depression of the 30s and 40s (as the domestic economy did not benefit from wartime production besides the reduction of unemployment and domestic products were sub par in comparison to previous decades, an example being some clothing being made out of cheesecloth that would not survive an washing. people endured the same poverty of the depression until 1947 in the GDP sense, and earnings comparable to the pre-depression era) FDR massively expanded the role of government in ways that curtailed economic freedom with things like the NRA, Which until it was struck down essentially created a government headed cartel of industrial concerns and could arbitrarily set prices, ignoring supply and demand, and using it's legislative power to bully non-NRA businesses. Many folks at the time feared Roosevelt was on his way to becoming a dictator, especially in the wake of the court packing plan in 1937, which would have given him and the Democratic party an unfair edge in the Supreme Court. Further, FDR was the consummate “party man”; no one questions his patriotism, but there is merit to the charge that his agenda was less about doing what was best for the nation and more about undercutting Republicans and making the Democratic Party the permanent governing majority. I cite these as elements of FDR's administration to be authoritarian, driven by a want of security and not freedom. I can excuse his wartime efforts out of their necessity for the war effort. him being on the left comes from his "freedom from want"

Because of le red scare boogeyman equating everything 'bad' with communism for decades where 'bad' is equatable with any sort of emancipatory struggle

Hark! Is that the sweet (disgusting) song of genetic determinism I hear?

It was created; it exists; it was always bad. It's the Veeky Forums of ideologies.

Identity politics over economic concerns. SJWs are shills for the 1% and they don't even know it.

>inject leftism with sjw cancer
>people get fed up with their bullshit
>people elect trump
>???
>profit

>I'm a confused pseudo-fascist who is skeptical of capitalism
Perhaps, Sigmund.
>but still too spooked to realize that nationalism is childish and insignificant."
Here you got it wrong because I do think that nationalism is stupid. The nation state has some benefits but decisions should be made - with few exceptions - at a regional or local level.
>So obviously the left loose their support after the soviets miserably failed.
I had a moment in my youth when I was somwhat interested in communism, but because of bad experience with communists and later reading Taleb (who discusses Hayek) I became more or less anti-communist.

On the other hand I wouldn't dismiss all of Marx's ideas, just the idea of a planned economy which I am not sure of is an idea of Marx. And of course the deterministic view of history, one thing that got me into conflict with online communists.

I thought that history was cyclic and historian-mathematican Peter Turchin supports that view.

> I assume you're assessing these people from the standard that government should be as small as possible?

To answer your question, I describe myself as a liberal in the classical sense i.e. before the term was appropriated by non-liberal leftists and fascists during the 1930s. I am a minarchist who holds that properly liberal society on any scale cannot function properly if government exceeds it's basic roles. I do not hold this as an axiomatic truth, I hold it as a conclusion based on evidence. If government power is to widespread -- especially in the economic sector of a society -- the society stagnates and fails to advance at the necessary rate needed for the country to maintain liberalism in all other aspects. Government's increasing use of allocating resources such examples being corporate welfare, the great society programs, affirmative action, and other such government initiatives make the use of legislative force and discrimination the only means for anyone to make it big in America. It forces newcomers out of business, it places invalids in institutions their unfit to work for, and it puts people into welfare traps, making it more fiscally preferable to not work for thousands of individuals. All in all it forces people to contend with each other in a fight for a bigger piece of the pie, which itself was taken from someone else.
Government has a role to play in civil society, it is not evil, but it must keep to it's limited role.

So yes, I view all of these persons mentioned above through that political lens, I mean heck, I'm wearing a "Rearden Steel" baseball cap right now for Pete's sake (Objectivist, not Austrian economist, don't worry, I'm squarely in the Chicago School of economics)

>the pure innocent leftism was inject with SJW cancer by some alien entity
>implying SJW cancer wasn't created by leftism

Wew lad.
Yes, the 1% are taking advantage of this but don't pretend leftist are innocent little babies.

But material conditions don't refer to how others perceive you. Immaterial social conditions can be incredibly important (rich people can still be affected by homophobia or sexism) but exist independently of class.

Tell me how "SJW"ism is incompatible with leftism when most "SJWs" don't believe in capitalism.

Maybe it's you who isn't leftist enough.

Leftists aren't still leftists in Europe. Across the Cold War, radical movements went comatose (as in Italy, Spain, and Germany) or fell back to milquetoast social democracy (as in France and Britain.)

Europe is full of so-called socialist parties, but very few of them see socialism as even a distant objective.

The failures of the Soviet Union lead them to focus on issues of identity rather than class.

trump didn't win the election though

Yet.

Yes, that's why Bernie calling himself a socialist was a major talking point on the campaign trail.

It's also why the """""socialist""""" party in France has forced through labor reforms detrimental that a anti-worker despite all the protesting.

Sure is great to have mainstream parties advocating for means of production to be owned by the workers.

Dumbass.

I took your image seriously till i saw it was made by lefty/pol/

Whats wrong with that image? Though a bit broad it is generally what those groups believe.

Why old-school leftists hate identity politics when it's so much more effective than old class struggle bullshit?

Effective at what?

At getting leftists into positions of power in society.

It failed pretty hard at that.

>Yes, that's why Bernie calling himself a socialist was a major talking point on the campaign trail.
It's controversial to be called a socialist in America because of the Cold War. This is why socialists have had to call themselves Liberals in America.

>It's also why the """""socialist""""" party in France has forced through labor reforms detrimental that a anti-worker despite all the protesting.
So socialists don't actually care about the workers they're supposed to be protecting? Not helping your case.

>muh memes of production
All those groups you classify as "liberals" (SJWs, anyone who makes the left look bad) are all Marxists. Not a single one of those feminist, racial liberation or queer liberation groups support the free market or free trade. All those ANTIFA or anarchist groups love that shit you people consider "muh liberal idpol".

How so?

During the Cold War, the establishment was divided between conservatives and liberals. Now it's only liberals. It's similar in Europe, where even supposedly conservative leaders like Angela Merkel and David Cameron enact policies initially defended by far-left activists like open borders and gay marriage and concede most moral authority to the left.

The only place in the Western world where the left doesn't have absolute power is in Eastern Europe and Latin America, curiously, the only places where they still cling to a class struggle paradigm, though at least in Brazil this is also changing.

>I can arbitrarily define things as I want

Oh, why didn't you just say you were retarded?

You can't reduce egalitarianism to a statement about law and force, while disregarding economic power.
If the resources are allocated in a market they will disproportionally go to the parties that wield economic power and the control of the global economy will therefore stay in the hands of those with vast amounts of capital.
Egalitarianism is not about some vague sense of non-discrimination, it's about breaking down these sorts of power structures.

Leftypol aren't true leftists.

Nobody outside fatass Leftypol reactionaries and redditors cry about "muh identity politics"

>How so?
Lets use the academy as an example. What do people mean when they say the left has taken over the academy? Do they mean that they have reorganized them in a more cooperative fashion making unions unneeded, broken the academic publishing racket allowing knowledge to spread freely, or drastically lowered their costs allow more people to attend? No. They would point to stupid student event #213 or say they control the world of ideas.

Now these ideas couldn't change the academy in the ways I mentioned. They couldn't do anything about the college adjunct situation. Couldn't stop the downfall of unions. Couldn't kick start a new cooperative movement. Couldn't stop numerous left wing politicians from taking neoliberal stances as the more astute on the right have noticed econlog.econlib.org/archives/2016/06/neoliberalism_t.html. Volumes of intellectual hatred had little to no effect on the US's foreign policy or things like the Washington Consensus. The anti war movement has been mostly a non factor. They couldn't stop various parts of their precious New Deal from being ripped apart. They couldn't stop the waves of privatization, deregulation, or even gentrification. The drug war rages on. In many places like Wisconsin they suffered huge losses. There foes are so powerful that they can bend states to their will through ISDS (wolfstreet.com/2016/04/07/colombia-pays-the-steep-cost-of-so-called-free-trade/). They have been unable to do anything about rising income inequality. Occupy was a fucking joke. The current progressive candidate in the US is a neoliberal hawk.

Luckily they are not judged in such a manner or seen as failing in multiple ways thanks to the magic of identity politics.

It's only more effective because it's half-baked liberal goals are easier to achieve

>Nobody outside fatass Leftypol reactionaries and redditors cry about "muh identity politics"
Except for /pol/ and muh altright

How are they not? They're pretty hard left

Open borders is liberal capitalist position that brings cheap and pliant workers to nations whose proletarians have the gall to demand livable wages

Libtards who read Marx=/=true leftists

leftypol and /pol/ are closer than they think.

They aren't true leftists. Racism and sexual discrimination are very common there. Also they dismiss tons of legitimate leftist stuff as "idpol". They are true reactionaries who want the left to be stuck in the 20's.

>my god, someone was sexist/racist on an anonymous imageboard!
>>>/tumblr/

REMINDER

Racism/sexism have never been part of the left and never will be. You cannot call yourself leftist but use n****r and f*****t. It's demeaning to the African Americans and LGBT who are mostly on our side.

I'm just glad your brand of reactionary leftism is dying off. The left needs to move forward, not be stuck in the 20's forever.

>>>/leftypol/

Also if you want an example of a real leftist discussion forum check out Revleft. Leftypol is just a bunch of /pol/tards who think they're leftists.

...

>never been part of the left
You're one of those fuckers that goes on r/socialism to complain that "spook" is a racist term. You're on fucking Veeky Forums, if your social justicey friends were 100% honest they might seem racist too.

Remember, race is a spook and it's all bantz mate, don't write off a board because a select few people said edgy pejoratives that almost everyone uses here.

Revleft is just a bunch of people quoting and counterquoting books written by Marxists and no independent thought.

It is well known that leftism failed when the Jews left.

>no independent thought.
There is some but it is mostly used to shit on other left wingers and they keep deleting older threads/content. Libcom.org is far better.

Honestly most of Veeky Forums is a reactionary cesspit, Veeky Forums and Veeky Forums are the only boards i browse here.

Better than leftypol which is a bunch of edgy /pol/tards who just wanna be contrarian to their edgy /pol/tard friends.

>Revleft is a good place for leftist discussion
Next thing you're gonna tell us is that r/socialism has good moderation that doesn't ban anyone who disagrees with them on the sacred cow of feminism.

FEMINISM IS PART OF LEFTISM. FEMALE LIBERATION IS PART OF LEFTISM

Why do you lefty/pol/tards not get this? It's not the fucking 20's anymore. We are not the right, we move forward.

Okay, provide your definition of racism for me.
As a test

>Inb4 racism = prejudice+power

Hating someone because of their race.

The Soviet Union didn't exist in 1921, and had only just formed in 1922.
The 1932-33 famine had varied causes.

Alright you can be reasoned with, but the reason why /leftypol/ is like this is that modern leftism is ever consumed by tribalism, if we keep dithering about problems already solved and make someone saying "faggot" on a Laosan bead mural forum a big deal then the bourgeoisie will never be toppled.

Just gonna leave this here...

power+privilege=racism

Bait

Privilege and power are synonyms in that worldview though

In the west, I think they just kind of ran out of legitimate stuff to fight for. Combine that with unhealthy levels of self-interests and you have a lot of hypocritical Don Quixotes charging at giants of their own making.

>Injecting SJWism with SJW cancer
Your post doesn't even make sense, leftypol

What went right?

>He uses a one-dimensional model for a multi-dimensional matter and defends it

>radical

Radical implies violence, and fervent belief in a "pure" ideology.

>leftism

The left-right dynamic is a relic of the French Revolution and should be done away with, it's a detriment to modern politics.

>Radical Leftism
You mean Anarchist?

lol
even in Europe the left pretty much converted to that pro-atlantist pro-capitalist pro-globalism civil rights obsessed socialist "left" who doesn't give a flying fuck about the traditional economic classes the left used to care about

/leftypol/ is an image board, and part of imageboard culture is saying "edgy" stuff like faggot and nigger in a non-serious manner. As far as I've seen genuinely racist, misogynistic, or homophobic views are not accepted there.
Which I've never seen be widely accepted there.

Anyway, how the fuck can they be reactionaries? Why do they want to return to, 1920s super capitalist anti-leftist America?