• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

Leftist Discussion Thread

I considered myself a far leftist for a long time. I was heavily influenced in my formative years by libertarian socialist/syndicalist currents of thought...still am in some regards. Most of my "activist" focus was on worker & immigrant rights. In recent years I've become very politically demoralized and apathetic though.

My political role models were Emma Goldman and Eugene Debs.
 
What I would like to see is an end to this left vs right paradigm

there are at least 3 axes which are necessary to describe one's political leanings (trying to keep these as objective and free of bias as possible):

  • economic policy: right-left, or capitalist-anticapitalist, or individualist-cooperative (or my favorite, economic dictatorship vs economic democracy). basically whether you believe corporations - legal entities which only exist because government says they do - should be privately owned, by a single individual or oligarchy, or whether they should be collectively owned, either by the people who work for them or by the general public. collectivism / socialism / communism does not mean that corporations are owned by the government, that is nationalization which is another term for state capitalism.
  • degree of personal freedom and submission to authority: authoritarian-libertarian. whether you believe that the government should be able to micromanage and dictate peoples' private lives, and whether people should obey governmental authority because its governmental authority rather than because its policies and laws are in line with the peoples' own values and beliefs. if you believe that the law is always right, because it is the law, you're an authoritarian; if you understand that "legal" and "right" are not synonyms ("illegal" and "wrong" aren't either), you lean more towards libertarian. at the extreme ends, we have totalitarianism and anarchism.
  • social policy: conservative-progressive. this is one where i'm honestly a iffy on objective definitions. i actually dont think i can describe the differences without bias, so some assistance here would be appreciated (objective descriptions only! none of the "libtards r lazy [minority slur] lovers" or "[derogatory term for 'conservative' (honestly never heard any)] r all xenophobe bigots"). social policy is definitely part of one's political beliefs though. conservatism can be taken to such extremes to become regressivism, but i've never heard of an an "extreme progressivism" on the other side of the scale.
one's political leanings sum up how a person believes their society should treat its own members and how their society should interact with other societies; a person's politics tell you everything about them as a person. as for myself, i'm a socialist liberal libertarian.
 
I'm hesitatant to catageorically identify as a leftist though I am undoubtedly am. A lot of leftist ideology misses me, but I support freedom and social equality. My priority is the environment and natural world, more important than human rights or political correctness IMO.

I don't know the technical term for my beliefs, but there is a vein of anarchy in there.
 

Hey - i wanted to thank you for this link; i really like Deleuze and Guattari, and it's a well written piece. Really a good philosophical perspective on drug use, i think.

I saved this article when you posted it, and i've been travelling so i didn't get to read it until last night - but i did so on a plane last night, and it was great.
It's a good read regardless of where you are on the political spectrum.
 
No problem :) I'm kind of a theory nerd and as a drug user wanted to find theory that engaged with those kind of experiences...
 
Declaring a party is freedom of speech. Voting for a person because of their party is also a freedom of speech issue. Tell me more about freedoms you would limit.

Nope. What you are describing are forms of managing people through 'representative democracy'. Parties themselves get overtaken by hierarchical systems of management that ensure agendas are managed in favour of what the party hierarchy itself wants. In this way the freedom of the individual is limited.

Tell me about more freedoms you are in favour of limiting?
 
I would limit the freedom to be offended.

All this multi-culturism has made us pretty soft. My right not to be offended just means I can't deal with my emotions, on that level, in a productive manner. Take this new feminism wave supposedly standing for "equal rights" or the Black Lives Matter -- they go about it without any specific demands or productive demands. For instance "Black people keep getting shot by police" -- I mean do you try to legalize the crime do you run fire drills in school where they teach you to put your hands up get on your knees and wait for the officer to secure you? And this recent march on Washington is the same exact thing...I feel insecure legislate my anxiety! These women are worried about being paid less (which it's illegal to do in the USA) so they wait until Trump gets in office and express their anxiety through various signs and mucking about. It's like a protest movement that wants to stop all murders from happening it's total nonsense. Their own anxiety breeds a culture that spirals out and becomes self-conscious and completely giving into the fear. You know there was a time when Jews were hated, feared, economically disenfranchised, however they never increased crime in France. Soft the lot of us.
 
I made it through about two lines of the above post, but my "incoherent bullshit" metre was going off the charts.
What a load of nonsense.

I knew this thread would be a magnet for reactionary trolls.
These women are worried about being paid less (which it's illegal to do in the USA) so they wait until Trump gets in office and express their anxiety through various signs and mucking about
"These women..."
Righto mate. :\
 
Well you didn't argue even the first two lines you just said bull shit.

Then you go on to quote "These women" like I was some kind of ignorant monster. If you'd like I can change it. "Those women" (whom don't get paid equally). But again your sensitivity is overriding a fairly small pretty simple argument and just saying "bull shit". You did more for my argument than I could have with that. Thank you.
 
I have no political label but i am far left of the major political parties in Australia and tbh have zero faith in any of them. Unfortunately revolution wont come in my time but as inequality grows it surely will eventually. People will take back what the super rich have basically stolen. History shows this time and time again.
 
Nope. What you are describing are forms of managing people through 'representative democracy'. Parties themselves get overtaken by hierarchical systems of management that ensure agendas are managed in favour of what the party hierarchy itself wants. In this way the freedom of the individual is limited.

Tell me about more freedoms you are in favour of limiting?
This
 
It's kind of crazy how there were all these articles about how the conservatives were done and the Republican Party was in dissaray. When all is said and done the democrat party isn't even a national party anymore, but a coastal party. They went all in with this identity politics stuff and calling all precieved opposition racists, homophobes, alt right, deplorables, etc. Guess it didn't work. I'd love for them to fracture into the liberal democrats and like the progressive party. Where the democrats espouse the ideals of John Kennedy/classical liberalism. That would be something I could see myself getting behind. Especially a Dixiecrat that respects states rights and the second amendment.
 
The DNC fucked themselves when they made themselves into a less bigoted version of the GOP, a bunch of right wing conservative authoritarian neoliberal neocons, the exact same as the GOP just not as extreme and not bigoted. They really destroyed themselves when they shafted their progressive base and millions of independents by fucking sanders out of the nomination. Now progressives are fighting to take back the Democrat party and make it into an actual second party instead of a GOP clone. It'd be nice to have an actual leftist libertarian major party but I'll settle for a centrist party, anything that isn't more right wing conservative authoritarianism.
 
Well you didn't argue even the first two lines you just said bull shit.

Then you go on to quote "These women" like I was some kind of ignorant monster. If you'd like I can change it. "Those women" (whom don't get paid equally). But again your sensitivity is overriding a fairly small pretty simple argument and just saying "bull shit". You did more for my argument than I could have with that. Thank you.

Which argument? All i see are juvenile stereotypes.

-"Soft"
-"Multiculturism" (whatever that is)
- the stuff about "these women" and their pay (?) makes no sense at all. You seem to think protests require "demands", which is a pretty fundamental misunderstanding; this isn't a hostage situation - it is millions of Americans (and others around the world) making their voices heard, and saying clearly to Trump and his cronies that they will fight back against discrimination and abuse.

One thing that is heartening to me about the last couple of weeks is that many of the people claiming some kind of shared victory, with Trump's win (namely the so-called "alt-right")

The "alt-right" is an online phenomenon, and will continue to remain one as long as it isn't acceptable to spout the vitriolic bile these people do, in public.
It's not acceptable, which is why the main players in this are shadowy, if not completely hidden (or they're smug attention-whore provocateurs)
There's been a big effort on the part of many of these people to push fascist discourse into mainstream acceptance - but they've not succeeded, and they won't succeed. Why? People are pushing back.

Firstly, note the far right tearing each other apart with infighting - and (with a little help from anti-fascist activists) doxxing one another - and outing each other as hypocrites (or outing each other as profiting from peddling neo-nazi propaganda).

So - your anonymity cannot be ensured if you propagate fascism.

Secondly, let us remember that Martin Shkreli fellow copping a face full of faeces (and other anti-fascist confrontations).

So - your safety cannot be ensured if you propagate fascism.

Thirdly - and much like the previous point - was another goose-stepping clown getting biffed in the face twice on the day of Trump's inauguration.

This is the basic purpose of much traditional antifascist activism (going back to the 1920s) - is basically, that anyone spouting fascist rhetoric will have to risk violence to do so.
The basic premise of anti-fascist actions is that aggression towards fascists is self-defence, because fascism is - at it's core - a conspiracy to murder.

Now, i'm not saying whether i think that is right or wrong - i'm simply pointing out the philosophy of anti-fascist action, because it seems to be taking off Stateside.

The question is, how many of the keyboard warrior bigots of the "alt-right" are going to be brave enough to withstand physical attack when they appear in public?

I would hazard a guess at "not many". Especially after this week's bit of biffo and shit-slinging, and the doxing of neo-nazi internet radio 'personalities'.

So...where does that leave us?

Oh yeah - an estimated (conservative estimate) 2.9 million Americans took to the streets on 21st to voice their opposition to a deeply misogynistic sociopath being sworn-in as US President. Hell - in DC, the "women's march" reportedly couldn't go ahead, because the crowd was so big, it filled the entire route the march was supposed to take

You can mis-categorise the purpose of the marches all you like, but get back to me when you have 2.9 million fascists proudly expressing themselves without fear or guilt :)

What were you saying about being soft? Speak for yourself.
 
Last edited:
fucking on point spacejunk.

I am a hard left, so much so that I'm a little ashamed of being right handed. Australia's political situation currently is pathetic and I grow more enraged by the day at the soulless monsters that populate the LNP. Their complete disrespect for their constituents really highlights that toxic 'born to rule' mentality and the expenses scandal/Centrelink travesty show that they don't give a solitary fuck about the people they're paid to represent.
 
Which argument? All i see are juvenile stereotypes.

-"Soft"
-"Multiculturism" (whatever that is)
- the stuff about "these women" and their pay (?) makes no sense at all. You seem to think protests require "demands", which is a pretty fundamental misunderstanding; this isn't a hostage situation - it is millions of Americans (and others around the world) making their voices heard, and saying clearly to Trump and his cronies that they will fight back against discrimination and abuse.

- Not internally stable
- multiculturalism "the presence of, or support for the presence of, several distinct cultural or ethnic groups within a society."
- Let's say it wasn't about "equal rights & pay" it's just about being heard and saying we don't like our President. Just like the Tea Party. A display of an irrational fear of the Other. Or anxiety.



You can mis-categorise the purpose of the marches all you like, but get back to me when you have 2.9 million fascists proudly expressing themselves without fear or guilt :)

What were you saying about being soft? Speak for yourself.

You sound exactly like the alt-right, in the virtue of being feared. You want everyone and anyone to be accepted but you can't accept the mirror image.

The thing behind multiculturalism is the idea that generally people of other ethnic groups aren't already accepted. So, naturally, our anxiety of being labeled a biggot or alt-right facist condemns us to never truly look in the mirror. They say "learn our language" I say "Accept their language and culture". Same annoyance. Both want a Wholeness but going about it by mucking about with cardboard signs.

Even being indirectly called soft set off a reaction where I have to defend my own strength. Don't worry, I'm mooshy!
 
The thing behind multiculturalism is the idea that generally people of other ethnic groups aren't already accepted. So, naturally, our anxiety of being labeled a biggot or alt-right facist condemns us to never truly look in the mirror
This doesn't make any sense at all.
"The thing behind multiculturalism is the idea that generally people of other ethnic groups aren't already accepted"
What do you mean by "the thing behind multiculturalism"?

" So, naturally, our anxiety of being labeled a biggot or alt-right facist condemns us to never truly look in the mirror"

Naturally? Who is anxious about labels? I'm certainly not afraid to "truly look in the mirror", so please don't include me in your comments about "us" and "we". I can't relate to - or understand - what you're saying at all.
I honestly can't make any sense of your posts.
 
- Not internally stable
- Let's say it wasn't about "equal rights & pay" it's just about being heard and saying we don't like our President. Just like the Tea Party. A display of an irrational fear of the Other. Or anxiety.

Rich white men who traditionally have been in power vs a disenfranchised group traditionally marginalised, often in extremis. Totes equivalent 8)
 
Top