The Ideological Evolution of the Left

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

The Ideological Evolution of the Left

Postby Gloominary » Fri Jan 01, 2021 6:22 pm

How has the left evolved over the generations, since its beginning during the French revolution (altho you might say its true origins lie in antiquity, in the Mediterranean sea, in Athens and Rome)?

During the French revolution of 1789, or the American revolution of 1776, or you might say the glorious revolution of 1688, when Britannia became a constitutional monarchy, electing its first prime minister in 1721, Robert Walpole (altho Britannia was not yet a democracy, only about 3% of the pop had suffrage, still it was a beginning, or was magna carta the beginning?), what was the left?
Simply put, it was roughly libertarian, republican and capitalist.

During the 19th and early 20th century, the left evolved, it became socialist.
There were various socialisms, utopian, Marxist, national, social anarchism, social democracy and so on.

And what was socialism?
For contrast, in serfdom and slavery, the king and nobility partly or fully owned your property and your ass.
In capitalism, production was individualized, altho various voluntary collectivizations could arise out of individualization.
In socialism, production was partly or fully owned by the public.

During the 20th and early 21st century, the left evolved again, into postmodernism on the one hand, which was partly or fully subjectivist or nihilist, and into Cultural Marxism, for lack of a better term, and environmentalism on the other.
At first, cultural Marxism, or the idea women and minorities were oppressed by men and the majority, and environmentalism were peripheral concerns, the central one being class, more exclusively the working class against the middle and upperclass, or more inclusively the 99% against the 1%, but in many respects sociocultural and environmental concerns have eclipsed class for today's left.

The left has always been more or less corrupt, same as the right, same as any human endeavor or undertaking, but seems to me now more than ever, the left has been co-opted by the 1%.
Keep the working and middleclass, and now women and men, minorities and the majority fighting over scraps.
The old objective of the left was to emancipate, empower and enrich the working, and middleclass, but with all this environmental stuff becoming the central, rather than a peripheral issue, the plebs are being taught mankind is bad, and the earth good, to love their poverty, to give up their cars and meat, to live in tiny homes, meanwhile the elite live in opulence, I guess they can handle all that luxury, they earned it, we can't and didn't.
It's like the old left's goal was to become roughly equally rich, now its goal is to become equally dirt poor.

I see the left transforming yet again into a new classicism, a new sexism, racism and so on, into the very antithesis of what it was once.
All this voluntary asceticism and austerity reminds me of the medieval world, where the Popes taught the serfs those who lived in poverty in this life would be blessed in the next.
I see a new plutocracy, and technocracy rather than theocracy forming, a new serfdom, where the issue of the 1% is never addressed, or only in a superficial way, like we'll give you a few crumbs in exchange for near absolute power, and the lesser or nonissues of sex, race and environment are amplified many times over.
What I see is the upperclass ditching capitalism, or taking what works for them from both capitalism and socialism and discarding the rest, into a new covert or clandestine form of elitism.
Last edited by Gloominary on Fri Jan 01, 2021 8:38 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3293
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: The Ideological Evolution of the Left

Postby Peter Kropotkin » Fri Jan 01, 2021 6:44 pm

I was going to have a section by section rebuttal but the problems
are two folds, One, virtually every single sentence is wrong.. just flat out wrong...
and to hold a sentence by sentence rebuttal is going to take a seriously long time...
and I work in a couple of hours...

the other problem is simple, this piece, the ideological evolution of the left,
is written by someone who writes from the perspective of someone on the right...
in other words, the complaints are complaints by someone who images the left
believes in X, Y and Z.... and responds to what is in their head and not to reality
the left believes in this... which is really only something in the head of someone
on the right, it is not actually the reality of what the left believes...

in other words, I would be responding to what is in his head about the left and
and not what is the reality of what the left actually believes....

and I have written several times about what is generally believed by the left
and was told, no, that isn't what the left believes, the left believes in X, Y, Z...
which only exist in the head of the right.. I would be responding to the fantasies
of the right.. and not reality......

so in fact, there becomes no reason to respond to his post because it doesn't respond
to the reality of what the left actually believes....

the thread "the ideological evolution of the left" actually doesn't have
any basis in fact and is simply a projection of this thought about what he
thinks the left believes...not what the left actually holds to be true....

Kropotkin
PK IS EVIL.....
Peter Kropotkin
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8924
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:47 am
Location: blue state

Re: The Ideological Evolution of the Left

Postby d0rkyd00d » Fri Jan 01, 2021 6:45 pm

To sum up PK, I think you're saying you don't have time to tear down straw men all day.
"So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men." -Voltaire

"If an opinion contrary to your own makes you angry, that is a sign that you are subconsciously aware of having no good reason for thinking as you do."
-Bertrand Russell
d0rkyd00d
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2987
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 3:37 pm

Re: The Ideological Evolution of the Left

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Fri Jan 01, 2021 7:28 pm

Gloominary wrote:How has the left evolved over the generations, since its beginning during the French revolution (altho you might say its true origins lie in antiquity, in the Mediterranean sea, in Athens and Rome)?

During the French revolution of 1789, or you might say the glorious revolution of 1688, when Britannia became a constitutional monarchy, electing its first prime minister in 1721, Robert Walpole (altho Britannia was not yet a democracy, only about 3% of the pop had suffrage, still it was a beginning, or was magna carta the beginning?), or the American revolution of 1776, what was the left?
Simply put, it was roughly libertarian, republican and capitalist.

During the 19th and early 20th century, the left evolved, it became socialist.
There were various socialisms, utopian, Marxist, national, social anarchism, social democracy and so on.

And what was socialism?
In serfdom and slavery, the king and nobility partly or fully owned your property and your ass.
In capitalism, production was individualized, altho various voluntary collectivizations could arise out of individualization.
In socialism, production was partly or fully public.

During the 20th and early 21st century, the left evolved again, into postmodernism on the one hand, which was partly or fully subjectivist or nihilist, and into, Cultural Marxism, for lack of a better term, and environmentalism on the other.
At first, cultural Marxism, or the idea women and minorities were oppressed by men and the majority, and environmentalism were peripheral concerns, the central one being class, less inclusively the working class against the middle and upperclass, or more inclusively the 99% against the 1%, but in many respects sociocultural and environmental concerns have eclipsed class for today's left.

The left has always been more or less corrupt, same as the right, same as any human endeavor or undertaking, but it seems to me that more than ever now, the left has been co-opted by the 1%.
Keep the working and middle classes, and now women and men, minorities and the majority fighting over scraps.
The old objective of the left was to emancipate, empower and enrich the working, and middleclass, but with all this environmental stuff becoming the central, rather than a peripheral issue, the plebs are being taught mankind is bad, and the earth good, to love their poverty, to give up their cars and meat, to live in tiny homes, meanwhile the elite live in opulence, I guess they can handle all that luxury, they earned it, we can't, didn't.
It's like the old left's goal was to become roughly equally filthy rich, now its goal is to become equally dirt poor.

I see the left transforming yet again, into a new classicism, and a new sexism, racism and so on, into the very antithesis of what it was once.
All this voluntary austerity and asceticism reminds me of the medieval world, where the Popes taught the serfs those who lived in poverty this life would be blessed in the next.
I see a new plutocracy, and technocracy rather than theocracy forming, a new serfdom, where the issue of the 1% is never addressed, and the nonissue of sex, race and environment are amplified many times over.
What I see is the upperclass ditching capitalism, taking what works for them from both capitalism and socialism and discarding the rest, into a new covert form of elitism.

The cynical side of me sees it as mere Political struggles and plays for power.

The left claim they want to solve or abolish "Slavery", "Racism", "Classism", "Sexism", or whatever is trending among the morally righteous at the time.

However when presented with real-world problems and solutions, they balk, ignore 'hard' decisions that would actually confront the problems, and backpedal to the Status Quo.


They are happy to virtue-signal, to vie for points among the cultural elite and upper-class dilettantes.

They are fluff, and have no real power or force in them, similar to how the BLM and Antifa movements are nothing without the DNC backing them, lawyers blocking them from jail, encouraged by the MSM, and George Soros funding them with billions of dollars. It's not about the actual ideological "movement" or what they propose, but rather about what practical political effects they have against those on the 'Right'.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4396
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: The Ideological Evolution of the Left

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Fri Jan 01, 2021 7:36 pm

The Left always need an ideological straw-man to battle against. For the last 100 years, it is Nazi-Hitler-6-million-Jews. That has held strong as the metaphysical whipping-boy. If you are not one of them, then you are a "Nazi", even though you're nothing of the sort. They need to reduce everything down to black-and-white ideological constraints, to paint themselves as the heroes, when in fact they are the villains.

Their ideology is not strong, but weak, not permanent, but everchanging. Today it is about Transexual-Rights, tomorrow it will be back to Racism, the next day it will be back to Environmentalism, and the next day after that sounds like a good day for Classism. Everything is always an emergency. The world is always about to End. It is always "the fight for history", even though they have been the same for Millenniums now. They literally repeat the same garbage from generation to generation to generation, century to century to century. What they believe is "new", has already been cycled for thousands of years. They say nothing new, because they refuse any historical context or anything resembling Permanence.

They are Temporal, Temporary, fleeting, momentary.


The Left's greatest historical moments, is Patricide, when the French public killed their own kings and queens, or when Brutus killed Caesar.

The Left is represented ideologically by a child's hatred for his/her own parents.

By contrast, I would argue the Right is represented ideologically by a child's love for his/her own parents.



Leftism is about Rejection of Nature, and rejecting your Genes.

Rightism is about Acceptance of Nature, and embracing your Genes.



This seems the case for thousands of years of human history.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4396
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: The Ideological Evolution of the Left

Postby Zero_Sum » Fri Jan 01, 2021 8:02 pm

It's hilarious really, they think they're fighting for justice, world peace, equality, or some shit when in fact they're playing exactly into the international oligarchy's hands, they're a lot like a violin so easily fiddled. Then again, a majority of them are a bunch of drug addict mindless consumers nowadays so it's exactly what you would expect out of their political movement.

They're so mindless that they'll accept whatever propaganda narrative the elites put out there because they have an inability to think for themselves independently and their entire thinking is built upon emotional appeal which is easily manipulated.

Literally a movement populated by sheep and the amusing part is that they can't comprehend that they're all being brought to a slaughterhouse at a future date. They think salvation is right around the corner because that's what they're constantly told, but really in fact it is their own damnation. You really can't fix stupid.

The really terrible thing is that they're going to drag the rest of us down with them, which is fine I guess, if they want to open Pandora's Box and unleash chaos everywhere through their own stupidity at the very least we'll be that much closer to collapsing the entire United States and world, when that happens the real fun begins. The elites of course will believe they're winning, that is until billions of people around the world start hunting them down like dogs one by one. I for one can't wait for judgement day, there is a lot of rotten wood that needs to be thrown into the huge dumpster fire of this world.
User avatar
Zero_Sum
Special Commisar Joker
 
Posts: 4099
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm
Location: The People's Republic of the U.S.S.A - My pronouns are 'Fuck You'-

Re: The Ideological Evolution of the Left

Postby Meno_ » Fri Jan 01, 2021 8:46 pm

Gloominary wrote:How has the left evolved over the generations, since its beginning during the French revolution (altho you might say its true origins lie in antiquity, in the Mediterranean sea, in Athens and Rome)?

During the French revolution of 1789, or the American revolution of 1776, or you might say the glorious revolution of 1688, when Britannia became a constitutional monarchy, electing its first prime minister in 1721, Robert Walpole (altho Britannia was not yet a democracy, only about 3% of the pop had suffrage, still it was a beginning, or was magna carta the beginning?), what was the left?
Simply put, it was roughly libertarian, republican and capitalist.

During the 19th and early 20th century, the left evolved, it became socialist.
There were various socialisms, utopian, Marxist, national, social anarchism, social democracy and so on.

And what was socialism?
For contrast, in serfdom and slavery, the king and nobility partly or fully owned your property and your ass.
In capitalism, production was individualized, altho various voluntary collectivizations could arise out of individualization.
In socialism, production was partly or fully owned by the public.

During the 20th and early 21st century, the left evolved again, into postmodernism on the one hand, which was partly or fully subjectivist or nihilist, and into Cultural Marxism, for lack of a better term, and environmentalism on the other.
At first, cultural Marxism, or the idea women and minorities were oppressed by men and the majority, and environmentalism were peripheral concerns, the central one being class, more exclusively the working class against the middle and upperclass, or more inclusively the 99% against the 1%, but in many respects sociocultural and environmental concerns have eclipsed class for today's left.

The left has always been more or less corrupt, same as the right, same as any human endeavor or undertaking, but seems to me now more than ever, the left has been co-opted by the 1%.
Keep the working and middleclass, and now women and men, minorities and the majority fighting over scraps.
The old objective of the left was to emancipate, empower and enrich the working, and middleclass, but with all this environmental stuff becoming the central, rather than a peripheral issue, the plebs are being taught mankind is bad, and the earth good, to love their poverty, to give up their cars and meat, to live in tiny homes, meanwhile the elite live in opulence, I guess they can handle all that luxury, they earned it, we can't and didn't.
It's like the old left's goal was to become roughly equally rich, now its goal is to become equally dirt poor.

I see the left transforming yet again into a new classicism, a new sexism, racism and so on, into the very antithesis of what it was once.
All this voluntary asceticism and austerity reminds me of the medieval world, where the Popes taught the serfs those who lived in poverty in this life would be blessed in the next.
I see a new plutocracy, and technocracy rather than theocracy forming, a new serfdom, where the issue of the 1% is never addressed, or only in a superficial way, like we'll give you a few crumbs in exchange for near absolute power, and the lesser or nonissues of sex, race and environment are amplified many times over.
What I see is the upperclass ditching capitalism, or taking what works for them from both capitalism and socialism and discarding the rest, into a new covert form of elitism.



But then, what else is left viable if neither the right, left or something like the one in the middle?

That perhaps the reason for the futile nihilistic overbarance that betakes society at large, shadowing an indisputable stasis, making some indistinct noises to back up into some form of reactive type of governing like a pseudo aristocratic techno world led by the likes of Bozos?

It appears as a backup into a cul-de-sack.
That is the patent form of a derived neo-naziform.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 8071
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: The Ideological Evolution of the Left

Postby Gloominary » Fri Jan 01, 2021 11:48 pm

Peter Kropotkin wrote:I was going to have a section by section rebuttal but the problems
are two folds, One, virtually every single sentence is wrong.. just flat out wrong...
and to hold a sentence by sentence rebuttal is going to take a seriously long time...
and I work in a couple of hours...

the other problem is simple, this piece, the ideological evolution of the left,
is written by someone who writes from the perspective of someone on the right...
in other words, the complaints are complaints by someone who images the left
believes in X, Y and Z.... and responds to what is in their head and not to reality
the left believes in this... which is really only something in the head of someone
on the right, it is not actually the reality of what the left believes...

in other words, I would be responding to what is in his head about the left and
and not what is the reality of what the left actually believes....

and I have written several times about what is generally believed by the left
and was told, no, that isn't what the left believes, the left believes in X, Y, Z...
which only exist in the head of the right.. I would be responding to the fantasies
of the right.. and not reality......

so in fact, there becomes no reason to respond to his post because it doesn't respond
to the reality of what the left actually believes....

the thread "the ideological evolution of the left" actually doesn't have
any basis in fact and is simply a projection of this thought about what he
thinks the left believes...not what the left actually holds to be true....

Kropotkin

But I'm not a rightist, think of me as a paleo-leftist, I think libertarianism was a good idea, and I think social democracy was a good idea, where the left went wrong is with germ, gun and mind-control, with some, but not all of this green and postmodern stuff, its obsession with identity politics and its insistence on mass migration, its cozying up to the establishment, to the four bigs: big brother, big business, big pharma and big tech, the globalists and multinationals.
I don't want to see the left continue to be co-opted.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3293
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: The Ideological Evolution of the Left

Postby Gloominary » Sat Jan 02, 2021 12:16 am

Urwrongx1000 wrote:
Gloominary wrote:How has the left evolved over the generations, since its beginning during the French revolution (altho you might say its true origins lie in antiquity, in the Mediterranean sea, in Athens and Rome)?

During the French revolution of 1789, or you might say the glorious revolution of 1688, when Britannia became a constitutional monarchy, electing its first prime minister in 1721, Robert Walpole (altho Britannia was not yet a democracy, only about 3% of the pop had suffrage, still it was a beginning, or was magna carta the beginning?), or the American revolution of 1776, what was the left?
Simply put, it was roughly libertarian, republican and capitalist.

During the 19th and early 20th century, the left evolved, it became socialist.
There were various socialisms, utopian, Marxist, national, social anarchism, social democracy and so on.

And what was socialism?
In serfdom and slavery, the king and nobility partly or fully owned your property and your ass.
In capitalism, production was individualized, altho various voluntary collectivizations could arise out of individualization.
In socialism, production was partly or fully public.

During the 20th and early 21st century, the left evolved again, into postmodernism on the one hand, which was partly or fully subjectivist or nihilist, and into, Cultural Marxism, for lack of a better term, and environmentalism on the other.
At first, cultural Marxism, or the idea women and minorities were oppressed by men and the majority, and environmentalism were peripheral concerns, the central one being class, less inclusively the working class against the middle and upperclass, or more inclusively the 99% against the 1%, but in many respects sociocultural and environmental concerns have eclipsed class for today's left.

The left has always been more or less corrupt, same as the right, same as any human endeavor or undertaking, but it seems to me that more than ever now, the left has been co-opted by the 1%.
Keep the working and middle classes, and now women and men, minorities and the majority fighting over scraps.
The old objective of the left was to emancipate, empower and enrich the working, and middleclass, but with all this environmental stuff becoming the central, rather than a peripheral issue, the plebs are being taught mankind is bad, and the earth good, to love their poverty, to give up their cars and meat, to live in tiny homes, meanwhile the elite live in opulence, I guess they can handle all that luxury, they earned it, we can't, didn't.
It's like the old left's goal was to become roughly equally filthy rich, now its goal is to become equally dirt poor.

I see the left transforming yet again, into a new classicism, and a new sexism, racism and so on, into the very antithesis of what it was once.
All this voluntary austerity and asceticism reminds me of the medieval world, where the Popes taught the serfs those who lived in poverty this life would be blessed in the next.
I see a new plutocracy, and technocracy rather than theocracy forming, a new serfdom, where the issue of the 1% is never addressed, and the nonissue of sex, race and environment are amplified many times over.
What I see is the upperclass ditching capitalism, taking what works for them from both capitalism and socialism and discarding the rest, into a new covert form of elitism.

The cynical side of me sees it as mere Political struggles and plays for power.

The left claim they want to solve or abolish "Slavery", "Racism", "Classism", "Sexism", or whatever is trending among the morally righteous at the time.

However when presented with real-world problems and solutions, they balk, ignore 'hard' decisions that would actually confront the problems, and backpedal to the Status Quo.


They are happy to virtue-signal, to vie for points among the cultural elite and upper-class dilettantes.

They are fluff, and have no real power or force in them, similar to how the BLM and Antifa movements are nothing without the DNC backing them, lawyers blocking them from jail, encouraged by the MSM, and George Soros funding them with billions of dollars. It's not about the actual ideological "movement" or what they propose, but rather about what practical political effects they have against those on the 'Right'.

I agree, the majority of politicians on the left are shills, but so are the majority on the right.
Overall, the right appear to be a bit more authentic these days.
Wall street has taken note of that, the left has become their favorite.
If the people have any sense, they'll turn away from the establishment and pick populist candidates.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3293
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: The Ideological Evolution of the Left

Postby Gloominary » Sat Jan 02, 2021 1:31 am

Urwrongx1000 wrote:The Left always need an ideological straw-man to battle against. For the last 100 years, it is Nazi-Hitler-6-million-Jews. That has held strong as the metaphysical whipping-boy. If you are not one of them, then you are a "Nazi", even though you're nothing of the sort. They need to reduce everything down to black-and-white ideological constraints, to paint themselves as the heroes, when in fact they are the villains.

Their ideology is not strong, but weak, not permanent, but everchanging. Today it is about Transexual-Rights, tomorrow it will be back to Racism, the next day it will be back to Environmentalism, and the next day after that sounds like a good day for Classism. Everything is always an emergency. The world is always about to End. It is always "the fight for history", even though they have been the same for Millenniums now. They literally repeat the same garbage from generation to generation to generation, century to century to century. What they believe is "new", has already been cycled for thousands of years. They say nothing new, because they refuse any historical context or anything resembling Permanence.

The same could be said about the right.
The old right was conservative, monarchist, feudalist or mercantilist, the new right is largely libertarian, republican, capitalist, at least in rhetoric/theory.

McCarthyism was an attempt to scapegoat the left comparable to Naziphobia.

The Left's greatest historical moments, is Patricide, when the French public killed their own kings and queens,

Did America not turn its back on its king during the declaration of independence, did Britannia not turn its back on its king during the glorious revolution?

or when Brutus killed Caesar.

Actually Julius Caesar was a radical democrat, if you will, a member of the populares, one of the three major Roman parties, along with the optimates (republicans) and equites (libertarians), he was fighting to overthrow the republic of his day.
Brutus was a republican, an optimate.
He came from a long line of tyrant slayers.
His ancestors slew the last Roman king five centuries earlier leading to the foundation of the republic.

The Left is represented ideologically by a child's hatred for his/her own parents.

By contrast, I would argue the Right is represented ideologically by a child's love for his/her own parents.



Leftism is about Rejection of Nature, and rejecting your Genes.

Rightism is about Acceptance of Nature, and embracing your Genes.



This seems the case for thousands of years of human history.

I don't see it that way.
A society is more like a group of distant relatives and friends at best, with no living common ancestors, they should elect their leaders.
Or a business, the leader performs a service, in exchange for votes/money.

In a society founded on democratic principles, an elitist is the revolutionary, the one fighting against the natural order.
Last edited by Gloominary on Sat Jan 02, 2021 2:17 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3293
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: The Ideological Evolution of the Left

Postby WendyDarling » Sat Jan 02, 2021 1:41 am

I agree that all political parties are bad for citizen's business, lead to focused corruption, and this corporatism that is pulling all the strings.

Democracy, the vote, needs restructuring and let's dispense with governments where parties even exist.

And if citizens insist on keeping the parties, have their candidates sign contracts to uphold their platform agendas or be tried for fraud.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #2/2

"facts change all the time and not only that, they don't mean anything...."-Peter Kropotkin :evilfun:
"I can hope they have some degree of self-awareness but the facts suggest that
they don't..... "- Peter Kropotkin
. :evilfun:
"you don't know the value of facts and you don't know the value of the ‘TRUTH”... " -Peter Kropotkin :lol:
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 8311
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: The Ideological Evolution of the Left

Postby Gloominary » Sat Jan 02, 2021 2:34 am

Zero_Sum wrote:It's hilarious really, they think they're fighting for justice, world peace, equality, or some shit when in fact they're playing exactly into the international oligarchy's hands, they're a lot like a violin so easily fiddled. Then again, a majority of them are a bunch of drug addict mindless consumers nowadays so it's exactly what you would expect out of their political movement.

They're so mindless that they'll accept whatever propaganda narrative the elites put out there because they have an inability to think for themselves independently and their entire thinking is built upon emotional appeal which is easily manipulated.

Literally a movement populated by sheep and the amusing part is that they can't comprehend that they're all being brought to a slaughterhouse at a future date. They think salvation is right around the corner because that's what they're constantly told, but really in fact it is their own damnation. You really can't fix stupid.

The really terrible thing is that they're going to drag the rest of us down with them, which is fine I guess, if they want to open Pandora's Box and unleash chaos everywhere through their own stupidity at the very least we'll be that much closer to collapsing the entire United States and world, when that happens the real fun begins. The elites of course will believe they're winning, that is until billions of people around the world start hunting them down like dogs one by one. I for one can't wait for judgement day, there is a lot of rotten wood that needs to be thrown into the huge dumpster fire of this world.

Yea it's sort of amazing what the duopoly keeps doing to the masses, yet they remain loyal to it.
Every year we have less negative, and positive rights, and the elite have more.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3293
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: The Ideological Evolution of the Left

Postby Gloominary » Sat Jan 02, 2021 2:40 am

There's only one crisis, that the people keep losing their positive, and negative rights.
They use these fake crises, whether it's the war on terror, or the war on viruses, to take our rights.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3293
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: The Ideological Evolution of the Left

Postby Gloominary » Sat Jan 02, 2021 4:05 am

Meno_ wrote:
Gloominary wrote:How has the left evolved over the generations, since its beginning during the French revolution (altho you might say its true origins lie in antiquity, in the Mediterranean sea, in Athens and Rome)?

During the French revolution of 1789, or the American revolution of 1776, or you might say the glorious revolution of 1688, when Britannia became a constitutional monarchy, electing its first prime minister in 1721, Robert Walpole (altho Britannia was not yet a democracy, only about 3% of the pop had suffrage, still it was a beginning, or was magna carta the beginning?), what was the left?
Simply put, it was roughly libertarian, republican and capitalist.

During the 19th and early 20th century, the left evolved, it became socialist.
There were various socialisms, utopian, Marxist, national, social anarchism, social democracy and so on.

And what was socialism?
For contrast, in serfdom and slavery, the king and nobility partly or fully owned your property and your ass.
In capitalism, production was individualized, altho various voluntary collectivizations could arise out of individualization.
In socialism, production was partly or fully owned by the public.

During the 20th and early 21st century, the left evolved again, into postmodernism on the one hand, which was partly or fully subjectivist or nihilist, and into Cultural Marxism, for lack of a better term, and environmentalism on the other.
At first, cultural Marxism, or the idea women and minorities were oppressed by men and the majority, and environmentalism were peripheral concerns, the central one being class, more exclusively the working class against the middle and upperclass, or more inclusively the 99% against the 1%, but in many respects sociocultural and environmental concerns have eclipsed class for today's left.

The left has always been more or less corrupt, same as the right, same as any human endeavor or undertaking, but seems to me now more than ever, the left has been co-opted by the 1%.
Keep the working and middleclass, and now women and men, minorities and the majority fighting over scraps.
The old objective of the left was to emancipate, empower and enrich the working, and middleclass, but with all this environmental stuff becoming the central, rather than a peripheral issue, the plebs are being taught mankind is bad, and the earth good, to love their poverty, to give up their cars and meat, to live in tiny homes, meanwhile the elite live in opulence, I guess they can handle all that luxury, they earned it, we can't and didn't.
It's like the old left's goal was to become roughly equally rich, now its goal is to become equally dirt poor.

I see the left transforming yet again into a new classicism, a new sexism, racism and so on, into the very antithesis of what it was once.
All this voluntary asceticism and austerity reminds me of the medieval world, where the Popes taught the serfs those who lived in poverty in this life would be blessed in the next.
I see a new plutocracy, and technocracy rather than theocracy forming, a new serfdom, where the issue of the 1% is never addressed, or only in a superficial way, like we'll give you a few crumbs in exchange for near absolute power, and the lesser or nonissues of sex, race and environment are amplified many times over.
What I see is the upperclass ditching capitalism, or taking what works for them from both capitalism and socialism and discarding the rest, into a new covert form of elitism.



But then, what else is left viable if neither the right, left or something like the one in the middle?

That perhaps the reason for the futile nihilistic overbarance that betakes society at large, shadowing an indisputable stasis, making some indistinct noises to back up into some form of reactive type of governing like a pseudo aristocratic techno world led by the likes of Bozos?

It appears as a backup into a cul-de-sack.
That is the patent form of a derived neo-naziform.

My recommendation is people support 3rd parties and independents.
Support real social democrats, whose priority is uniting the 99% and going after the 1%, and/or real libertarians and nationalists.
Establishment republicrats/libcons are corporatists, chickenhaws, global, progressive and scientific authoritarians, but it's worse than that, they mean to transition us from a crony capitalist socioeconomy to a neofeudalist socioeconomy using covid, among other crises, as their pretext.
This is what I mean by the new left, a global, progressive and scientific feudalism as opposed to the old national, conservative and theocratic feudalism.
The old left are national libertarians on the one hand, and national social democrats on the other.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3293
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: The Ideological Evolution of the Left

Postby Gloominary » Sat Jan 02, 2021 4:22 am

WendyDarling wrote:I agree that all political parties are bad for citizen's business, lead to focused corruption, and this corporatism that is pulling all the strings.

Democracy, the vote, needs restructuring and let's dispense with governments where parties even exist.

And if citizens insist on keeping the parties, have their candidates sign contracts to uphold their platform agendas or be tried for fraud.

Right, support independents, or 3rd parties as a necessary evil until parties can be abolished.
Until we turn our backs on the establishment en masse, we'll keep heading down the same tyrannical path.
And I agree what you said about candidates signing contracts to uphold their platform.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3293
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: The Ideological Evolution of the Left

Postby Gloominary » Sat Jan 02, 2021 2:04 pm

The 1st left, that developed in the age of reason and enlightenment, was largely libertarian, republican and capitalist.

The 2nd left, that developed in the 19th century, was largely libertarian or at most anti-discrimination, not reverse discrimination, democratic and socialist.

The 3rd left, that developed in the 20th century, was largely postmodern.

The 4th left, that also developed in the 20th century, is what I want to explore and contrast with the 2nd left.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3293
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: The Ideological Evolution of the Left

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Sat Jan 02, 2021 2:15 pm

Whatever the "Left" is now, they have reversed on Free Speech and the First Amendment. Whereas it used to be the most valuable aspect and defining mechanism of the Left, that has dissipated and rotated.

Free Speech is now a matter and core value of the Far-Right.


The Left matches the China Communist Party and their totalitarian approach to culture, society, and politics: No Questioning the ruling power, under any circumstance. Shutup and Obey.

Gloom, you see this in your recent threads, Socialism and Scientific Authoritarianism.


Youtube censorship, Twitter censorship, Facebook censorship, not allowed to question Covid, 2020 Election, Russiagate, CCP concentration camps, Free Hong Kong, etc.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4396
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: The Ideological Evolution of the Left

Postby Gloominary » Sat Jan 02, 2021 8:17 pm

I think I should try coming up with something more bipartisan.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3293
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: The Ideological Evolution of the Left

Postby Gloominary » Sat Jan 02, 2021 8:40 pm

Urwrongx1000 wrote:Whatever the "Left" is now, they have reversed on Free Speech and the First Amendment. Whereas it used to be the most valuable aspect and defining mechanism of the Left, that has dissipated and rotated.

Free Speech is now a matter and core value of the Far-Right.


The Left matches the China Communist Party and their totalitarian approach to culture, society, and politics: No Questioning the ruling power, under any circumstance. Shutup and Obey.

Gloom, you see this in your recent threads, Socialism and Scientific Authoritarianism.


Youtube censorship, Twitter censorship, Facebook censorship, not allowed to question Covid, 2020 Election, Russiagate, CCP concentration camps, Free Hong Kong, etc.

In the anglosphere, from the new deal to Jimmy Carter, the left were fiscally social democrat, but socioculturally centrist or libertarian.
Now they're fiscally centrist or libertarian, but socioculturally progressive authoritarian.
They've gotten more moderate fiscally but more extreme socioculturally, which's unfortunate.
I'm talking more about the mainstream left in the anglosphere not the fringe.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3293
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: The Ideological Evolution of the Left

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Sun Jan 03, 2021 12:38 am

Free Speech is quite easily divided between left & right.

The Left traditionally apply Free Speech to politics, while The Right traditionally apply Free Speech to religion. This means that the "Right" represents Protestantism, and the "Left" represents innate Rights protected by the State and Constitution.

The Left has slowly moved away from innate Rights and Constitutionalism, toward "Hate Speech" and not hurting anybody's feelings, because they gained more and more political power. To the point now, right now in January 2021, where they gained control of the Mainstream Media, tort and leverage it to its fullest, and no longer have any use for Free Speech as an innate Right. Now, instead, it is much more useful for the Left to abandon Constitutionalism (which they have), in favor of Communism (which they have, sold out to China), because they have tasted the effects and results of reversing on their core-value. Why protect Free Speech, when it offers no more political power, but just the opposite, selling it out to corporations one-by-one (Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, Google, etc etc.) is immensely more popular, profitable, and powerful?


The Right generally has not had the same use and utility for Free Speech, because the Right traditionally has kept Free Speech as a means to: 1) Separate Church and State, 2) protected Freedom of Religion (Christianity), and 3) prevented another mainline religion (Judaism/Islam/Easternism) from competing against Christianity in general and in culture, for example, leading to the rise of Mormonism and Evangelicalism across the United States.

So now, while the values are inverted, twisted, and destroyed, only those on the Right who maintain Traditional (ie. Conservative) values, can offer protection of what has classically been and defined as "Free Speech".

The Left have destroyed themselves in the long-run, for this betrayal of core values. They don't even try to pretend anymore. And they don't need to. They simply banish/censor/exile/spike/blackout anything they don't like, and especially anything that threatens their rising and corrupt political takeover.


Covid SCAMdemic and the 2020 Election Steal are only the tip of the spear of what's coming next from this Sellout.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4396
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: The Ideological Evolution of the Left

Postby Gloominary » Sun Jan 03, 2021 2:18 am

Basically there's 3 schools of leftist thought.

17 and 18th centuries: Libertarianism/Republican Capitalism.

19th century: Global & Progressive Authoritarianism/Democratic Socialism.

20th century: Postmodernism

Basically there's 3 schools of conservative thought.

Ancient: National, Conservative & Pagan Authoritarianism/Monarchical Feudalism.

Medieval: National, Conservative & Abrahamic Authoritarianism/Monarchical Feudalism.

Modern: National, Conservative & Scientific Authoritarianism/Dictatorial Corporatism.

There's also various hybridizations of these schools, for example Libertarianism/Democratic Socialism or Global & Progressive Authoritarianism/Republican Capitalism, but the hybridization that stands out for me is the one the deep state wants for the west, and that's global, progressive & scientific authoritarianism/feudal dictatorship.
Socioculturally it's ultra-left, fiscally and politically it's ultra-right.
For the east perhaps a more national & conservative rendition of scientific feudal dictatorship.

I believe constitutional monarchy and republicanism will probably fall within the next century or two.
The Roman Republic lasted about 5 centuries.
I'm not expecting our republics to last longer than theirs.
Constitutional Monarchy began in 1688 in Britannia, I think it'll end before 2188.
Pockets of resistance could survive for much longer, nonetheless just as the previous millennium saw the gradual withering away of spiritual selfdom, I believe this millennium will see the gradual rise of scientific serfdom, totalitechnocracy or totalitranshumanism, whichever term or portmanteau you prefer.

I'm also expecting a 3rd dark age to begin during the 2nd half of this millennium, similar to both the bronze age collapse of the 2nd millennium BC, and the iron age collapse of the 1st millennium AD.
After that, if new frontiers open up during the 4th millennium in outerspace, cyberspace, underwater or wherever, the left could make a comeback.

I believe we're heading for a scientific age, where state atheism, rather than religious freedom, monotheism or paganism becomes the norm.
What will follow the scientific age, I'm not sure.
Perhaps a naturopathic age, if you will, or a philosophical age, or a hyperscientific age, or a return to a pagan or monotheistic age, I have no idea.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3293
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: The Ideological Evolution of the Left

Postby Gloominary » Sun Jan 03, 2021 3:19 am

Socialism began largely as a revolt against the upperclass, partial in social democracy and total in Marxism.
But by trying to make it more about the working class against the middleclass, women and minorities against men and the majority and sustainability or degrowth on the one hand, and scientific authoritarianism on the other, the upperclass are trying to co-opt it.
If the 1% manage to fully co-opt it, it'll be mostly or wholly compatible with corporatism, and serfdom, even complimentary.

One kind of elitism is in your face, another is covert.
Christianity at its core, unlike Judaism and Islam, was egalitarian and progressive
Judaism and Islam stand for law and order, Christianity for chaos and grace.
Christians didn't deny badness, evilness, sinfulness or wickedness like progressives do, but they forgave it.
And the rich were to give nearly everything they had to the poor.
At first the elite felt threatened by it, but unlike progressivism, Christianity is apolitical and pacifist, if only the masses genuinely adhered to it, while the elite only feigned to, the masses were unlikely to revolt.
In this way, Christianity was able to be co-opted.

That's how the elite survives, what they can't beat they join, or rather they try to gain control of and lead the opposition if necessary, or manufacture it from scratch.
Some socialists see through it, they prefer older, more authentic, grassroots socialism, but many don't.
In time, I think the elite will succeed in totally neutralizing, and castrating socialism.
This inverted, topsy-turvy socialism, together with scientism, technocracy, corporatism and feudalism, will in time, conquer much of the world morally, metaphysically and materially.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3293
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: The Ideological Evolution of the Left

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Sun Jan 03, 2021 7:16 am

Gloominary wrote:That's how the elite survives, what they can't beat they join,

That's the bottom-line really.

The Elitists are desperate to survive and hold power. With Trump and the rise of Populism/Nationalism, they are scared shitless. So they are flocking to the Far-Left New self-proclaimed Elitist groups, such as Facebook, Twitter, Technocrats, who push for radical "Progressivism" and Scientific Authoritarianism (even though Science doesn't actually back them). With BLM and Antifa as brown-shirt street thugs, Enforcers, they are building a new political power bloc.

I would consider Corporate Totalitarianism as a form of Neo-Feudalism, by the way. The plebs are Serfs, with no actual Freedom. These are not free people are marks of a 'free' society. Freedom and Liberty, Libertarianism, is on the way out, almost completely destroyed. Republicanism is almost destroyed as well.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4396
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: The Ideological Evolution of the Left

Postby Gloominary » Sun Jan 03, 2021 1:19 pm

Right, they try to co-opt whatever threatens them they can't destroy.
Not just socialists but libertarians and conservatives.
These people are corporatists, classical liberals are against corporatism, so they try to get them focused on other things, like reducing or eliminating social welfare, which's what neoliberalism is.
Even if you're a libertarian, should corporations who've profited immensely from corporatism, force or fraud not be broken up or have some of their wealth redistributed to society in proportion to their corporatism?

Conservatism is more compatible with their corporatism than libertarianism and socialism, because conservatism holds the rich and powerful generally deserve it, however one thing they don't like about conservatism is its ethnocentrism and nationalism, because these people, the globalists, the heads of the banks, multinationals and international organizations, have no loyalty to anyone or anything but themselves, and many of them are Jews, so they've tried their best to denationalize and deracinate conservatism, which's what neoconservatism or zioconservatism is, they want strong borders for Israel, just not for the US, Canada or the UK.
The war on drugs and terror are frauds, and there's nothing conservative about that, about working with drug dealers and terrorists, at least in theory.
Even under conservativism, the rich and powerful are supposed to have some obligation to the poor, but these people don't want any obligation, that's at least in part why the poor grow poorer every year, it's next to impossible for younger generations to own anything, altho the masses may be partly responsible for that too, there's no question the game is rigged in all sorts of ways.

So as we can see, neoconservatism, neoliberalism and neoprogressivism if you will are frauds.
The people have to wake up and realize those in charge have no ideology, or their real ideology is kept party concealed because it's hostile to them, they have to abandon the so called center in droves, which has long since been bought and paid for by the globalists, the banks, multinationals and international organizations.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3293
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: The Ideological Evolution of the Left

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Sun Jan 03, 2021 1:43 pm

Gloominary wrote:Right, they try to co-opt whatever threatens them they can't destroy.
Not just socialists but libertarians and conservatives.
These people are corporatists, classical liberals are against corporatism, so they try to get them focused on other things, like reducing or eliminating social welfare, which's what neoliberalism is.
Even if you're a libertarian, should corporations who've profited immensely from corporatism, force or fraud not be broken up or have some of their wealth redistributed to society in proportion to their corporatism?

Libertarianism is already essentially defeated, because there's no coming back from Big Government. There's no method of reversing or traveling to the past, Small Government.

At this point, as mostly Libertarian-identifying, I would side with whatever coming power can protect Free Speech and basic Constitutional/Human Rights. So if a Corporation, new small government, or even a foreign power could offer this, then I would be attracted to that. But I don't see that coming. It will most likely be a Private enterprise, like 'Trump' corporation, that could compete against other corporations, and retain some semblance of Classical Freedom/Liberalism/Libertarianism.

A side-step would be renouncing youtube/facebook/twitter/google for bitchute/duckduckgo or other tech platforms that revert to more Right/Conservative/Traditional, or at least Constitutional values.



Gloominary wrote:Conservatism is more compatible with their corporatism than libertarianism and socialism, because conservatism holds the rich and powerful generally deserve it, however one thing they don't like about conservatism is its ethnocentrism and nationalism, because these people, the globalists, the heads of the banks, multinationals and international organizations, have no loyalty to anyone or anything but themselves, and many of them are Jews, so they've tried their best to denationalize and deracinate conservatism, which's what neoconservatism or zioconservatism is, they want strong borders for Israel, just not for the US, Canada or the UK.
The war on drugs and terror are frauds, and there's nothing conservative about that, about working with drug dealers and terrorists, at least in theory.
Even under conservativism, the rich and powerful are supposed to have some obligation to the poor, but these people don't want any obligation, that's at least in part why the poor grow poorer every year, it's next to impossible for younger generations to own anything, altho the masses may be partly responsible for that too, there's no question the game is rigged in all sorts of ways.

So as we can see, neoconservatism, neoliberalism and neoprogressivism if you will are frauds.
The people have to wake up and realize those in charge have no ideology, or their real ideology is kept party concealed because it's hostile to them, they have to abandon the so called center in droves, which has long since been bought and paid for by the globalists, the banks, multinationals and international organizations.

That's right, people may have to pick-and-choose corporations, based on moral values, which is increasingly the case.

That's also why corporations are now 'advertising' with "progressive" moral-authority campaigns, like showing a mixed-race husband and wife and kids, in a Cheerios or Oreos commercial. It's blatant.


If a Corporation can match Libertarian values, then so be it. That's kind of why I believe this Trump Populism is so powerful, because it is offering a release-valve for the building pressure, of all the Classical Liberals that need somewhere to funnel to.


Elon Musk is the best example of where Libertarians/Conservatives/Classical Liberals must go. If people want to retain their values, based on freedom, then they need to gain Corporate power and sponsorship to keep and retain previously taken-for-granted freedoms.

Freedom has never been "Free", but now the cost is rising exponentially, and many people are losing their freedoms (like massive state-sponsored DNC censorship on youtube/facebook/twitter/google).
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4396
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Next

Return to Society, Government, and Economics



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users