Cannibalization of Leftist Groups

Why are Leftists ideologies/organizations prone to self destructive behavior? We saw it happen during the Spanish Civil War, in the early days of the Soviet Union and, on a smaller scale, Radical Leftist groups in the West (The Weather Underground being an embarrassingly spectacular example). This sort of behavior seems to be particularly common in Western Leftist groups, why do you guys think is behind it all?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Red_Army
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asama-Sansō_incident
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Red_Army
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

it was da j 00zz

because they're demagouges

Because an ideology based on hate cannot run out of people to hate

demagogues selling rhetoric to idiots so they commit retarded acts

1.) leftists see humanity fundamentally flawed but fixable through education, coercion, whatever, etc. so long as the 'flawed' individual is willing to change. so are not for a variety of reasons.

2.) leftists all generally chase some form of utopia, but these forms all differ. utopia being utopia, something literally perfect, pretty much anything is justifiable in pursuit of it. such as mass brutalities. in conjunction with point #1 mentioned above, if change towards a utopian goal is possible, and they refuse to change, they basically open themselves to being construed as rejecting utopia - and thus must be removed. after all, there cannot be flawed individuals, individuals who have been educated and reject the "truth", in utopia.

3.) leftist utopian ideals are incredibly close to religious belief in many regards no matter how much they loathe the comparison. as such it is not surprising that they fall into the same patterns in regards to dealing with dissent.

hmm, sounds familiar. Where did I heard about this behaviour before?

> leftists all generally chase some form of utopia, but these forms all differ. utopia being utopia, something literally perfect, pretty much anything is justifiable in pursuit of it. such as mass brutalities. in conjunction with point #1 mentioned above, if change towards a utopian goal is possible, and they refuse to change, they basically open themselves to being construed as rejecting utopia - and thus must be removed

The fact that most Leftists take the "moral high ground" route aggravates this really, also makes it easier to do horrible when the person/group standing up against your goal is also a morally corrupt heathen, at least in your point of view

woops meant for

Underground movements put a premium on politically purity, because someone deciding they're not down with the politics of the group down the line may turn traitor and rat you out, and enough members doing so becomes an organizational split. This isn't merely a leftist thing, any movement that begins with secrecy (necessarily or simply as a matter of fashion) goes through this.

Today, however, it's more a matter of tradition. Those who came before performed witch hunts and excommunication, there must have been a reason, so we too will perform witch hunts and excommunication. You can see how well this sort of anachronistic political praxis goes (not well).

I though about it and I think the right also does that. The basic gist of their utopia is one where all the bad "impure" people have been removed.

>leftists

Wow this new ideology seems super interesting, weird that ive never geard of it before

imo that is only the more extreme parts of the right. the rights big, overarching fault is viewing humanity as flawed but unfixable, and therefore accepting no end of shitty standards in dealing with people, rationalizing things through half-baked determinism, and so on. ie, "people are fucked, why bother trying? just gotta look out for yourself." its is broad, but you get the jist.

>i don't understand generalizations for the sake of expediency
its probably because you were jerking off to your own ego lad

>why do people in this massive and incredibly broad spectrum of ideologies and schools of though grouped toget on an incredibly loose basis disagree with one another occassionally
Because they dont agree on things because 'leftism' isnt a thing and the whole idea of the left and right wing is an out of date oversimplification to help people who can barely read understand politics.

because its basically religion.

>generalizations for the sake of expediency
More like
>oversimplifications for the sake of being too stupid to engage with nuanced thinking

Because in order to change society, you first have to decide how and why to change it

>too stupid to engage with nuanced thinking
oh, quit projecting. come out, state your specific issue, and stop trying to drag me into the mud with you. for someone moaning on about semantics and nuance, you sure have displayed neither.

>We saw it happen during the Spanish Civil War, in the early days of the Soviet Union and, on a smaller scale, Radical Leftist groups in the West (The Weather Underground being an embarrassingly spectacular example)
Think about it a bit.
All those examples have one thing in common : they involve groups that are acting violently under threat of destruction.
That's why they are lashing out : they don't want to be the ones to shoot last, and they are staking their existence and their cause on it.
Leftist groups in more peaceful contexts are not significantly more prone to conflicts between themselves than centrists or conservatives or reactionnnaries or fascists.
I've seen troskyists, maoists, anarchists and socialtraitors cohabit in peace, and even cooperating, as long as they could all do their own thing.

because the leftists actually had ideals, while people from the right didn't care unless their personal interests were damaged

>actually had ideals
Please try and tell me that the moronic asshats in the Weather Underground actually had coherent ideals.

"Ideals". How much more do I value simple biochemists, studying nutrition, than idealists!

Their "rational ideals" are nothing more than rogue chaotic brains seeking dopamine more than a practice of diet and exercise! An ape that can climb a tree has a far different vision of the world than one who never tries.

That's why every leftist movement got overtaken by spineless opportunists like Stalin and Castro right

Because they're wrong about literally everything and they know it.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Red_Army
The Japanese communist movements killed more of each other than they did capitalists.

Meant to link this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asama-Sansō_incident
Killed 12 of their own members for not being Communistic enough I guess

Their ideals were very coherent- their ideals were that it's not good to burn little girls alive with napalm.

purity spiral

>Radicals don't cooperate well with other groups
>Groups with different ideologies don't cooperate very well despite a common foe
Gee, who would have thought? Not like the same thing was valid with the White Army, or the non-communist resistance groups in Eastern Europe during ww2, or with the tensions in Franco's government between the Falange, the monarchists and the conservatives, or most of the state the contemporary Middle East is in, or a hundred more examples.

>the communists were the good guys

this tbqh

Came here to post this. This is a fascinating read: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Red_Army

*tips fedora*

How was the WU self-destructive? They were pretty coherent for a New Left group.

Also COINTELPRO was a thing

Bump

That's just Trotskyists.

They base their morals on sand. Nothing is concrete just feelings and platitudes and intentionally vague definitions of made up words. This causes confusion and a mission creep that results in authoritarian practices and purity tests.

The far-right is still stuck at even being able to organize without it becoming a freakshow of malformed goblin-children playing with toys

Wait, which one is it nigger? Are they disorganized or are there literal nazis in the white house?

Because within leftism there is a lot of theory. It is not one unified front, although at times it can be especially against fascism and capitalism.

Meanwhile rightism is much less rigid theorically, rightist theory is basically non existant. Rightism as a political grouping is FOR the defense of hierarchy and authority of the extreme minority (royal family, nobles, capitalists, religions, etc), reactionary at its core. They base themselves on feelings: muh race (Hitler), muh culture (Mussolini), muh religion (Franco), muh property (Pinochet), and so on. As a foot soldier of rightism, you are fighting for the interests of the owner class, blinded by tradition and religion you go against your own interests.

* * * * * * *

So basically rightism means being a cuck.

race is not a feeling it is a biological reality that permeates every aspect of the political and social sphere

Please stay on topic to the discussion or dont participate in the discussion. Your frustrations arent valued in this discussion.

The Right more falls in line with an authority figure early on while the Left squabbles over minor details within itself without much leadership. With the Right it's the cult of personality of the leader whereas with the Left it's the ideology that becomes a quasi-religious figure to which individuals either are following or betraying and thus need to be purged.

Also the Left due to not having an authority figure lets itself get taken over by the radical elements whereas the authority figure on the Right usually stomps down those radical elements early on - Night of the Long Knives for example.

Feminism is one of those radical elements which eats its own. They threw Senator Franklin under the bus. Google was a proud feminist company and now they are being sued by 3 feminist employees. To break from the SJW Hillary Democrats, Justice Democrats was formed to focus on issues not identity politics and they demanded one of the co-founders to step down over long-deleted misogynistic blog posts that he disavowed ages ago. This led to another co-founder stepping down and with them many supporters have stepped away as a result.

Honestly? Constant purity tests and deciding someone who isn't far enough in your direction has to go.

I mean I wouldn't call someone that murders people with their bare hands spineless.

>race is not a feeling
95% at least

>This led to another co-founder stepping down
In fairness Kyle did say that if JD ever became infested with SJW politics and went away from its original mission, he'd willingly step down. Which is a standard he kept to.

>Also the Left due to not having an authority figure lets itself get taken over by the radical elements whereas the authority figure on the Right usually stomps down those radical elements early on - Night of the Long Knives for example.
This, though there are exceptions like communist dictatorships.

None of the examples you gave are the Left. At least use examples of the SDS instead of fucking liberals

This. The only attempt in this thread so far to understand leftism from the inside out instead of using the topic as an excuse to whine about “le left has no ideas even though my only experience with leftist politics is through Hoover scholars and smug editorials in the National Review.”

The basic difference is that leftist ideas tend to involve engineering social change, while rightist ideas focus on preservation of natural order. You can’t “do” laissez-faire policy, because its prescription is inaction and its premise is that things run best left to their own devices. Change comes only insofar as you dismantle forms of order that come from “unnatural” sources—be it government, false idols, or rowdy underclasses.

>They base themselves on feelings: muh race (Hitler), muh culture (Mussolini), muh religion (Franco), muh property (Pinochet), and so on. As a foot soldier of rightism, you are fighting for the interests of the owner class, blinded by tradition and religion you go against your own interests.

And yet those "feels" carry much, much more sway with the wider populace than what some autistic kraut (redundant I know) said about a man's "relationship to the means of production".

Really, how is the Left not embarrassed by its repeated failure to appeal to the "dumb, Bible-bashing, inbred, sister-fucking, meth-smoking, racist, all-around-backwards proles" that it ostensibly claims to represent?

only post with a clue

its about having to function illegally, meaning conspiring was the only way, which creates a paranoid atmosphere

There are some on the left who actually find it appalling that well-to-do coastal leftists are so quick to talk down to lower-class people when their elite manners don’t align with what’s fashionable.

Aside from the rosiest of rosebros, many believe that it’s not a zero-sum choice between bettering the lives of marginalized racial and sexual identities without being condescending toward the white Christian poor. Some of us, even, believe in *asking* people what their interests are, instead of acting like we know what’s best for people whose experiences differ from our own. Even if differences arise, respect matters.

But that’s a much more localized kind of ideal politics than people are used to, given how local news is withering while national cable stations are struggling to compete with BuzzFeed and Breitbart.

Race is partly biological reality, but white and black are not for example. When talking about race we can speak at a continental and regional levels. Germans, French, Spaniards, Italians, many people within one country, culture and ethnicity, but with varied genetic heritage depending which part of their country they're from. There is no pure race except rare cases such as remote people groups like Abos.

I never criticized such people as you describe. I never denied those feelings don't carry sway or are not important. My point is that those feelings are used by the owner class to divide the working class among racial, cultural, religious, and even political lines. You're on a history board, this should be pretty obvious by now.

Its too late to write a descriptive post about it, I really recommend reading pic related, it'll explain it much better than I ever can

>not muh troo left
good god, just listen to yourself

This. I'd rather starve because the government tries collectivising the agriculture again.

They are idealists
Idealists don't like to compromise.
No compromise means extremists are the most vocal ones.
Extremist being the most vocal ones means the people listening will probably either become counter-extremist or extremist themselves.
A bunch of extremists means a lot of blood is going to be shed.

thats funny beacuse all the successful agriculture sectors at collectivised in the west by now,

It's almost as if they have a bigger commitment to their perception of truth than any sort of group of people.

That's retarded. There are plenty of Nazi's who would rather be a ditch digger in Nazi Germany than a doctor in the U.S.

>your a cuck if you don't want to destroy your own nation and race on the behalf of lazy subhumans
this is what leftypol cucks actually believe

>This

why are you samefagging, leftypol shill?

>found out the hard way that protesting didn't work
>went underground
That isn't a sigh of self-destructiveness. If anything WU was the most stable organization in the New Left era that it retired itself

Yea, not before trying to pull a fast one on the Radical Left and bringing them all together so they can crown themselves the leaders of the above ground Left, they were rightfully run out of town before they all either faded into irrelevancy or turned themselves in to the authorities. Also, taking a shit on the Black radical movements when they needed all the support they could get despite saying that fighting for oppressed blacks was a cornerstone of their beliefs should've been the first indication that they were only in it for themselves. They should've all done hard time just for being a bunch of retarded, backstabbing cunts

Pretty good man.

a clash of egos, that's all and that's how it always will be

capitalism is right because it's about how to maximize profits (and the maximum is one and only one) while any flavor of socialism is about how big the entitlement should be

Damn good take. People forget that being in communist, anarchist, and even sometimes SocDem/DemSoc organizations was in itself a crime during much of the 19th and early 20th century.