Leftist Veeky Forums

Getting pic related in the mail soon. I'll probably discuss it on leftypol though

>>not welcome: identity politics

That's cute how the left tries to think they'll ever overcome identity politics.

> We might inquire, for example, as to what remains of ileftism among revolutionaries and whether it disposes them not only to defeat but also to a nearly general hostility. A certain way of asserting a moral superiority which they haven’t earned is doubtless a quirk inherited from the left. As is the presumed ability to decreee the right way to live – the way that is truly progressive, enlightened, modern, correct, deconstructed, and undefiled. A claim to which anyone coming under its summary banishment among the reactionaries-conservatives-obscurantists will respond with thoughts of murder. Far from creating a distance, the heated rivalry of revolutionaries with the left only keeps us moored to its ground. We should cast off!

> The importance of the theme of prevailing corruption in almost all the contemporary revolts shows that they are ethical before being political, or that they are political precisely to the degree that they’re contemptuous of politics, including radical politics. As long as being of the left will mean denying the existence of ethical truths and correct for that impairment with a morality that’s as feeble as it is expedience, the fascists will continue to look like the only affirmative political force, being the only ones who don’t apologize for living as they do. They’ll go from success to success, and will go on deflecting the energy of nascent revolts back against themselves.

Slowly working through a reading list for infants, good shit so far.

His critique of opportunism isn't bad but Bordiga is just another retard who thinks the collapse of capital is guaranteed and inevitable.

I feel bad for these people.

> then you interpret religion as the "ultimate arbiter" with no biological implications
My apologies, I was vague in my explanation. What I mean to say is that today there is a vast multiplicity of competing moral, philosophical, cultural, social, political, and artistic systems. I don't necessarilythink this brings us freedom, or happiness, or even effective decision making; in fact, I would go so far as to say that the defining characteristics of modernity are confusion and alienation (not necessaritly the marxist notion of alienation).

In the distant past, because death was always on the line, the actions and beliefs of man had to allign with whatever optimized survival and reproduction. This is what I meant about nature being an "ultimate arbiter": I don't mean to imply any sentience (or even morality) on the part of nature.

I also didn't intend to imply that relgion was an ultimate arbiter in the same way nature is/was, but that religion filled the role of nature. For instance, in the distance past, if you killed your fellow tribesman, you own likelihood of starvation was increased, so tribes that abstained from wanton murder survived, and the ethics of these behaviors didn't even really need to be questioned.
But as civilization developed, so did a sort of "safety net" whereby one could murder their neighbor and not only not suffer any consequences from nature, but they may actually benefit from such a thing. So religion formed to describe and enforce behaviors which were once innately held, unquestioned.

I guess my thinking is that as civilization advances, man is increasingly disconnected from his own nature; the moral laws that our culture preach allign less and less with evolutionarily ingrained behaviors.
I'm suggesting fascism was an (almost certainly unconcious) attempt to recreate the situation of nature within the situation of a civilization.

I am a STEM-minded leftist and can't find myself at all in leftist literature

Poorly expressed, but I agree. I have a hard time imagining a radical left-wing movement not getting coopted by idpol.

The best show I've seen is /leftypol/, but they're widely reviled by internet leftists despite being much more intellectual and well read than any forum or fucking subreddit.

Instead of insulting you I'm going to say yeah I don't fully agree but I can see merit in your thoughts and respect your opinion.

>I can see merit in your thoughts and respect your opinion.
thanks!
>I don't fully agree
why not, out of curiosity? I'm genuinely interested in your perspective.

communists are liberals who try to build a liberalism where economic freedom [what you call capitalism] is not there

Fascists are liberals who take too seriously, according to liberals, the idea of a state through one ruler

>more intellectual and well read than any forum or fucking subreddit
have you seen r/Ultraleft?

If we are talking about paleolithic societies, then you must understand that religions of this nature operate on a very different level to how our modern, institutional religions operate. The advent of writing systems and their subsequent naturalization allowed for greater levels of abstraction and what we would term sophistication; it changed how people perceived the cosmos. We don't know exactly how their religions were practiced, but there is no particularly strict moral code if we are basing assumptions off of indigenous people's religion. Worship was participation based and practically focused; you would do a certain ritual to ward off a storm or for fertility, ect. The concept of doing God's will, or its equivalent, didn't develop in full until greater abstraction was allocated by basic writing systems.
I fail to see how paleolithic societies could be considered fascists in any sense. They lacked the technology and capacity to enact even the most basic hallmarks of ideology.

>economic freedom [what you call capitalism]

If you are interested in the role of religion in social systems you might be interested in the book "Big Gods"

>I fail to see how paleolithic societies could be considered fascists in any sense
I never meant to imply that paleolithic tribes were fascist, more that fascism was an (unconcious) attempt to recreate or perhaps ideologically and politically codify the "ultimate arbiter" that was natural selection/nature for paleolithic peoples.

For the sake of context, I came upon this line of thinking while trying to resolve the contradiction of my own political identity. I found that I was at some points sympathetic to fascist thinking, but at other points I found myself drawn to anarcho-primitivism. At first I was confused because the former is a modern authoritarian civilization, and the latter is an ancient anarchy, so I found myself thinking, "What could possibly be the similarity between the two?", and someo of these posts are the result of my inquiry.

>I'm suggesting fascism was an (almost certainly unconcious) attempt to recreate the situation of nature within the situation of a civilization.
Eh, you're giving too much credit to it, while fascism was particular in many ways, it nevertheless remained a byproduct of its age that arose once the more liberal versions of capitalism started to shit themselves due to their inability to tame the situation. Just look at Italy, Mussolini didn't gain power through a coup, the parties from the centre to right decided to hand it to him on a plate because of the Biennio Rosso. Same for Hitler, it's not the "gas the kikes race war now" that got him into the power, it was the failure of the "centrist" parties that let him go that far.

>being more intellectual and well read than any forum or fucking subreddit.
That's like winning Special Olympics.

Despite being one of those gay types I still believe in the big man upstairs.

I feel as though you are describing "meaning-making" by "ultimate arbiter" in a cultural context; whereas in the past religio-political administrations provided transcendent meaning or justification to cultural practices, that role has been usurped by the administrative State and its need to engender national identity in its populace. This is most noticeable in Fascism, which relies on nationalist movements to restructure and maintain its society.

>Eh, you're giving too much credit to it
Kind of, yeah. I guess my thinking is that historical movements such as fascism or marxism arise as a reaction to the social ills of their day. Just as the very first priests or soothsayers probably had no comprehension that they were "filling the void left by the vanishing of the ultimate arbiter that is nature", the minds behind ideologies might be similarly blind to their true purpose.

This is also critique of socialism.
Good book

...

Sort of. I think that the progress of civilization abolishes the ultimate arbiter, which, of course, also leads to dissolution of the meaning it made. So there's this contradiction between the meaning/morality/virtues of nature, and the meaning/morality/virtues of civilization. Structures like religion or shared myth/folklore narrow that gap between these "meanings". Fascism, then, could be interpreted as an attempt to bring civilization-meaning in line with with nature-meaning, without addressing the fundamental condition for the problem, which is civilization itself. So maybe just as socialism is (rightly or wrongly) perceived as the intermediary between capitalism and communism (in so far as it reduces the symptoms of capitalims but does not address the root issue, which is capitalism itself), perhaps fascism was like the intermediary between civilization and anarchy/nature?

Why would you have communism? That's boring.

libcom.org/library/when-insurrections-die
I'm not sure if you're going to enjoy it or not, but maybe this essay might pick your interest, it elaborates how authoritarianism(like fascism) replaces libertarianism and vice-versa.

thanks user! I've hear of Dauve before but I'd never gotten around to checking him out.

Capitalist Realism - Is There No Alternative?
By Mark Fisher

It's short, give it a read. Basically it's about how society has conditioned us to think "it is easier to imagine the end of the world, than the end of capitalism".

And note that one reason I recommend it is that it's extremely recent (2009 I think). If you want something like that.

Orwell sided with the anarchists iirc. The commies sold them out, and thus the promise of a brave new Catalan socio anarchist state got flushed.

>not allowed: [...] social democracy

U wot m8

Kim Stanley Robinsons Mars trilogy
Green anarchist revolt of Martian colony by scientists and engineers

Identity politics can never be truly emancipatory. Compare the universalist, anti-capitalist vision of the Black Panthers with the particularist, almost reactionary outlook of BLM.

t. Doug Lain

Socdems have been traitors for almost a 100 years now. See: Rosa Luxemburg
And now, socdems consistently endorse, side with, and become neoliberals (Bernie, Blair, Wim Kok etc.)

That's a myth. The Catalonian anarchists, who sat on the biggest arms factories of the country, severely neglected the war effort and even at times even downright refused to cooperate with the other forces of the republic.

A quick look at the history of the social democratic parties of Europe should answer your question.

Where can I read more leftist thought along the lines of George Orwell, Noam Chomsky (but only Manufacturing Consent), Theodor Adorno (but only culture industry), and Christopher Lasch? I want to understand how the American left has been co-opted by corporate interests while remaining attached to progressive values and the image that comes with it.

>The commies sold them out
It's bad to use such generalized terms ITT, since for example trot POUM was on the side of narchos.

Succdems aren't leftists. They're slightly left centrists.

> I think that the progress of civilization abolishes the ultimate arbiter, which, of course, also leads to dissolution of the meaning it made
I disagree. Since there was human culture there has been justifications for it, most of which until very recently was religious for it was tied to a certain understanding of the universe. X is done this way because heavenly/spiritual Y or so forth. I am sure that at its very basest form, cultural practices were directly influenced by nature in terms of practicality or efficiency, but I doubt that it had much direct sway past these budding stages. Even paleolithic societies would not have seen nature itself as the primary source of meaning.
>So there's this contradiction between the meaning/morality/virtues of nature, and the meaning/morality/virtues of civilization
How are these meanings any way different? I don't see them as exclusive or even separate entities. Civilization codes the same cultural practices under different justifications, is all. It is no longer "this is what we do to achieve harmony with the objective order of the universe", but rather "this is what we do because we are [nationality]". It is another framework, but it provides the same thing. Nationalism doesn't have a well-defined doctrine like an organized religion may have, but its spiritualization of the nation-state is effective for meaning-making purposes. That is the way our current understanding of the world is framed: through national and cultural identity and the replication of those respective identities.
> Fascism, then, could be interpreted as an attempt to bring civilization-meaning in line with with nature-meaning
I think all administrative states do this, it is just more overt in fascism. The state outlines its idea of the Nation, the model citizen so to speak, and gives meaning to its attributes: "do this because it is prosperous for our society".
>perhaps fascism was like the intermediary between civilization and anarchy/nature
In what sense? Can you point to a historical example?

But the left is stuck with identity politics. I don't see them overcoming identity politics any time soon.

Jean-Claude Michea I think has some stuff translated into English. He's like a french Lasch, but better imo. Also, he's super into Orwell.

You'll probably enjoy Situationists like Guy Debord and Raoul Vaneigem among others. They dealt a lot with modern culture under capitalism and the ruling class coopting radical ideas to suit their own agenda.

I should have said leftist theory instead of literature but thanks anyway

Does Michea write in English or have good English translations?

>despite being much more intellectual and well read than any forum or fucking subreddit.

He's french but he himself translated Lasch into french.

I believe "Realm of the Lesser Evil" is available in English.

>checks out r/ultraleft
>literally r/fullcommunism tier, nothing but autistic memes and no-true-scotsman tactics
>its another forum for special snowflake leftists
I hope this was a joke comment.

>not welcome: social democracy
>right wingers allowed!

wtf?

Why was the right-wing, nat-soc/fasc thread deleted by moderator hours ago but this is up

>people who believe that social organization can be described and prescriptively implemented as a form of technology
Else
>utopian teenagers who believe that suffering is somehow avoidable

Veeky Forums is or should be an apolitical board. Take this shit to /pol/ (where your thread will be shitposted to death and you know it) or Veeky Forums (I've never been there so idk)

You're being discriminated against.

Ironically the /leftypol/ threads on /pol/ get left alone but the occupants end up eating themselves arguing about primitivism or something equally as stupid.

You've got to be careful with the Situationists, they themselves came to the conclusion that the methods and conclusions they developed weren't just completely fucking useless but they actively contributed to empowering the spectacle.

Which is why you read late Debord and the stuff he did with that Italian dude, I forget his name.

Commentary on SoS > SoS

because it was not about literature

the dude asked for recs, is this board not for that?

If you watch the great film "Grin Without a Cat" by Chris Marker you'll see that the left in the west has been doing this for a very long time.

>tfw fascist
>tfw like Marker

It's so I don't get accused of the usual "haha leftist need their safe space xd" accusations. I have a personal grudge against socdems, nothing personell.

>muh fukuyamaist post-ideological board
Almost all philosophy is political, brainlet.

Because it was just the usual "muh judeo bolsheviks" instead of actual discussion. Too bad it got deleted, I wanted to post a refutation of one of the infographs.

I wanted someone to refute Carl Schmitt's argument about Hobbes being a dirty libcuck

>Almost all philosophy is political
I've always hated this claim, so many teachers make the same claim about education and then force children to read incredibly boring books like Of Mice and Men or The Crucible.

>almost all philosophy is political
Almost no serious philosophy is, microbrainlet.
Marker is a genius. Have you seen Sans Soleil?

Also
>Fukuyama
>apolitical
You fell for the meme unironically

Identity politics is simply the continuation of the most basic Marx' idea about class struggle. Let's divide the society along the certain line and ask for the "just" relationship between them! The problem is, the line is actually arbitrary. Why class struggle and not gender, race, sexual orientation, weight, intellect or whatever? You can find oppressors and oppressed anywhere as long as you look for "justice". It only leads to egalitarianism, and thus egalitarianism is the heart of the leftism. It cannot be hoped to be cut off.

I've seen nearly all of his work that's available int he Internet, outside some of his early stuff like Helsinki olympics (YT has really choppy version of it)

Amazing director and poet. Last Bolshevik, Level 5, 2048 are my favorites. Le Joli Mai and SS are great too!

It's funny I consider myself a somewhat cryptofascist but can't really identify with many of the fascists on this site because they are anti-intellectual. They don't seem to realize that racism isn't as central as the romantic humanism. To me Bolshevism is materialist/technocratic while fascism is ethno-poetic.

>because they are anti-intellectual
They aren't, they just aren't interesting in the hundredth thousandth paper published on the sexuality of Shakespeare, or how if we deconstruct Nietzsche he was totally a left-wing socialist by adjunct professor U-lock.

No I'm serious, have you spent time on /pol/? They are the brown shirts at best, and I would rather speak to the SS or the Thuleans for that matter.

I spend most my time in /pol/ when I browse Veeky Forums and I have regularly good arguments and discussion about modern foreign politics or news in there. Much like any board, has its bad and good. like Veeky Forums.

Fascism is the result of a century of royalist reactionaries failure to counter the revolution. It looks farther back to the "Pax Romana". It's not even honestly Spartan.

He seems new. IDpol under anarchism would melt into regional norms, same as any theism unhitched from a central church authority.

It's a critique of Marxist-Leninist statists

They didn't sell them out, they slaughtered them and effectively handed victory to Franco. Tankie principals of keeping the revolution from happening overrides even victory. Crazed idiots.

>socialist using "human nature" argument
what is this?

There is just a lot more of the bad there I guess it is too much for me. It's like /b/ in a lot of ways. I haven't been on /b/ in years though.

>Communism is literally human nature.
Typical commie brainlet. I guess hierarchy and capitalism are alien invaders from outer space?

It's better on a busy news day with relevant news. Like attacks in Syria or some foreign politic change. Ideology threads are decent too, whenever it's slow hours

What is it that draws you towards fascism? For me it is basically a Romantic outlook. When I was younger I was a big supporter of Tibetan nationalism and so nationalism generally was sympathetic to me I think.

It is essential to Marxism that there are only two classes and that they are economic ones. Anything else will detract from the proletarian solidarity necessary to actually achieve a revolution. Idpol is a bourgeois defense mechanism -- capitalism protecting itself by dividing the potentially revolutionary class.

"Justice" is a concept of liberalism -- i.e., capitalism's spiritual disguise and the ethos of bourgeoisie everywhere. Marxists ought not to have truck with moralists. They seem incapable of helping themselves, though; they seem to lack any non-moral fire.

Capitalism is the Jewish stereotype on a colossal scale. Hierarchy is based in heroism, the capitalist merit system rewards servants and merchants.

>idpol under anarchism would melt into regional norms
How absolutely utopian of you friend.

I'm really enjoying Adorno and Horkhemer

Reminder Christian Socialism has been the only successful socialist movement, for any revolution to succeed you need to abandon the atheistic Fabian influence and return to the voluntary socialism of Maurice.

How has Christian socialism been successful????

I live in a socialist mess of a country which made me lose faith in the democracy, ignorant and detached masses will only drive a country to shit.

Ever heard of the Hutterites or Amish?

Without a centralized authority no theism or semi-theism stands a chance. The good in it will be retained, the irksome left out.

Hahaha. You measure success in a funny way
And they shun capitalism and authoritarianism in their communes, do they?

>Hahaha. You measure success in a funny way
Hundreds of communes that have survived many generations, you wouldn't call that successful? meanwhile your atheistic Kaliflower, Kommune, etc. didn't even last a single decade.

Seriously, lefties are so bad at Socialism.

>And they shun capitalism and authoritarianism in their communes, do they?
Yes, the means of production and exchange is regulated by the community.

Can anyone rec good translations of Marx, also, what to read before Marx? I know Hegel, not sure what else

t. fledgling leftist