Welcome to The Duncan Trussell Family Hour Center for Self-Optimization

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
ChairmanLMAO

we need a New Left

442 posts in this topic

I'm so sick of seeing prominent leftists putting all their energy into where people take shits and bashing white people. 

As a young(ish) white male, the first time I ever encountered self-hating whitism was in a Michael Moore book. It made sense, he basically said that most of the world's ills were due to old white men. I don't agree with that now, there are evil, selfish people of every shade all over the Earth. It has become the prevailing opinion among leftists, and I think has galvanized young white men into the alt-right. It's pretty annoying to be born into a world that blames you for everything bad that ever happened, and that your opinion is irrelevant. It's not surprising that these guys are drawn to a philosophy that empowers them.

The whole "trigger warning" thing just painted a giant target on the left's underbelly that these guys gleefully exploited. Remember when it was right-wing religious types who were obsessed with policing language? And leftist thinkers like George Carlin tapped into a wave of subversion by using banned language?

If there's one thing the alt-right has achieved is distilling conservative politics back to its core principles. Before is was hijacked by religion. Imagine if the left banded together and started working toward ending war, poverty and pollution again. These issues never went away, and are far more pressing than inventing new fucking pronouns.

7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are the goals of the left?

I think there was a long time when society needed the left to fight for rights. We won most of those fights and that's why women and black people can vote, and gay people can get married.

I think drug legalization, fighting poverty, and protecting the environment are the big fights the left needs to focus on. Anybody want to disagree or add to that?

What's the narrative of the human race, or at least the western world? I think it should be the things I mentioned above, plus trans-humanism, post-scarcity, and interplanetary living.

Can the left tackle this? Again, anybody want to disagree or add to this?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say ending war/violence is the #1 goal of the left, IMO

Sadly Trump was ostensibly the anti-war candidate, but we'll see how that pans out

Edited by ChairmanLMAO
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ChairmanLMAO said:

I would say ending war/violence is the #1 goal of the left, IMO

Yeah that's got to be the worst thing we consistently do, with decades of repercussions every time.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pretty crazy, looking at the anti-war movement in the 60's over ONE WAR... now it's just a given that there be at least a couple of wars on the go at any given time. Almost like racial and gender divisions are being stoked intentionally... or is it just a result of 21st Century personal identity obsession? 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ChairmanLMAO said:

I would say ending war/violence is the #1 goal of the left, IMO

Sadly Trump was ostensibly the anti-war candidate, but we'll see how that pans out

I argued with Duncan before the election that if Trump won then it would mean the left would have a reality check and might actually be anti war again.

There is the old adage, that those on the right live in 'reality' while the left seem to be more hopeful of the potential of what we could be. Both are needed.

Lately the left in the US has become totally deluded. (Forgive my sweeping generalisation) 

What does the establishment left stand for? Tech billionaires? Hollywood? Corporations?Banks? Virtue signalling? (ie 'I'm not a racist/sexist/homophobic ect - so I vote Democrat)... or simply an anti Trump vote 

You might argue that was what Hillary represented (not the left) but this is who the DNC chose and rigged the primary for. Also who the left as a whole blindly supported. 

The left are deluded to think that Hillary was a liberal vote just because she was a woman. In the UK we have a female Conservative party leader is on the right but she is still more liberal than Hillary!

Trump is an important reality check for everyone. Especially the left.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are people who are trying to do exactly what you describe , they're just small-timers like Dave Rubin , Sam Harris , Gad Saad , Josh zepps etc

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few (very ignorant) people conflate Western civilization or capitalism with 'Europeans.' While it is true that capitalism is a uniquely European phenomenon, there are many whites who oppose it. Many people of European descent have opposed slavery as well. [But let's be real, capitalism is slavery with extra steps.]

Historically speaking, Europeans have been enslaved and oppressed by other Europeans (e.g. the persecution of pagans, ancient Rome, capitalism today) and Europeans have even been enslaved by Africans (like during the Barbary slave trade) and so on. The inherently evil European collaborating to oppress all non-Europeans is a canard, and very few people sincerely believe it. 

White privilege most assuredly has been a thing, though it's more accurately 'white wealthy straight male privilege' and today is far less relevant but wealth privilege in general is what most everyone still ignores today. Really, anything to redirect anger over economic woes inherent to the system the planet has to live by whether by consent or force, and away from the ruling class, is just fine by those with the only privilege worth discussing. So you redirect anger towards some vulnerable population. Whether that takes a bile-spewing authoritarian populist who blames foreigners or a lot of division among racial lines that pits working class white and non-white citizens of the same nation against each other, what do they give a shit? It doesn't affect them.

You're not one of them! You never will be. It doesn't matter how many Oprahs or Koch Brothers there are, or that you might happen to look like them. They are not your people. 

10 hours ago, ChairmanLMAO said:

I would say ending war/violence is the #1 goal of the left, IMO

Capitalism is what thrives on poverty, exploitation, environmental degradation, and war. One cannot expect to eradicate a cancer by wishing away some dead tissue while leaving behind the destructive, rapidly multiplying cells and continuing to expose oneself to carcinogens.

I mean, private property itself (capitalism) is enforced violently in the first place, is what creates artificial scarcity which causes needless criminal activity, and things like wars, conflicts, private prisons, harmless substances being illegal, and chattel slavery are and have been economically motivated/territorial endeavors.

Edited by Sea_Bastion
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Sea_Bastion I agree with your observations, but I don't think the new left narrative should be to eradicate or replace capitalism.

Inequality is fine by me. Poverty is not. You can have Inequality without poverty. I like it when we jam together capitalism, democracy, and socialism. Unbridled capitalism is slavery and we're headed more and more towards that. It's raised up as a virtue, but it's not. Money is the real power right now and we need the left to fight it.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@pattmayne You can't simultaneously have capitalism and socialism. By definition, that's impossible. Capitalism is aggressively anti-democratic, and entails private ownership over the means of production whereas socialism is worker control over the means of production. Worker co-operatives can exist despite a capitalist state actually, but artificial capitalist poverty will still affect the poorest workers in any society dominated by private ownership and capital accumulation. Money alone is simply not the issue.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Sea_Bastion Maybe "socialism" is the wrong word? What is it called when we tax everyone, but tax the rich more, to pay for social/common services such as Healthcare and welfare, or even basic/guaranteed income?

I tend to agree with your perspective but for the sake of this thread I don't think our ultimate idealism applies. What should The Left be fighting for? What should the narrative be? We want specific things to define a movement. Things we can really fight and argue for, ways to transform present reality.

Re-write drug laws. Reduce inequality. Individual environmental battles and solidarity with environmental movements. A stronger anti-war movement. More access to education. These are tangible things that can help to define a movement.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Land tax! Tax the property of the rich

Fuck socialism if it means taxing people who don't earn enough. I think even a $50000 salary is modest compared to the vast wealth of the billionaires on the planet.

If we move to socialism the same assholes will be in charge and the main problem with capitalism is Central banks. If we got rid of them then the middle classes and below would be much more wealthy. It would take a huge adjustment period though.

You could try close tax loopholes for corporations and the rich but there is always the risk they move abroad.

But a land tax in the home country will make land cheaper as people will sell if they cannot afford the taxes. Exceptions should be made for those who farm the land and maybe some other exceptions.

Why not tax multi million dollar properties with a $10000 a year tax?

Edited by nondual
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, pattmayne said:

@Sea_Bastion What is it called when we tax everyone, but tax the rich more, to pay for social/common services such as Healthcare and welfare, or even basic/guaranteed income?

Capitalist concessions.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Sea_Bastion said:

Capitalist concessions.

What do you propose? Is there a concise message you want to share that you think people might act on?

I'm not arguing against you, but the point of this thread is a New Left, which needs tangible goals and a narrative. Big complaints about the capitalist system are correct and valid, but what are our goals?

Imprtant: We can correctly complain and vaguely speculate about better tomorrows while the vampires make very decisive decisions about how to spend our hard work. They win. They win. They win. What are our goals?

I think the ones I suggested are good ones, but I'm open (eager) to hear more. Remember, they want our goals to be vague and our arguments to be correct while we lose.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, nondual said:

Fuck socialism if it means taxing people who don't earn enough. I think even a $50000 salary is modest compared to the vast wealth of the billionaires on the planet.

What socialists condemn is the capitalistic mode of production itself. Socialism is not 'taxes'. I've explained countless times that socialism is a democratic and egalitarian alternative to the capitalist mode of production and not simply higher taxes on capitalists (who actually would not exist under socialism to begin with) or on society in general.

You can tell welfare and similar programs are capitalist concessions if you've ever been on unemployment or food stamps because your benefits are contingent on your employment status and you are very much encouraged by the system to get a job. You are monitored by the capitalist state and the benefits you receive are not permanent and not enough to live on alone for most people, certainly not if any sort of standard of living is at all a remote goal of yours.

With an unconditional basic income, by contrast, you don't need to have a specific disability to receive a stipend. It does not matter if you are unemployed, or why, and you are not monitored by the DES to make sure you're searching for work. It is a modest stipend which every citizen gets regardless of income or anything, hence 'unconditional.' Such a program is neither 'from the state' nor a form of welfare but rather a benefit derived from being a member of society. Capitalism with basic income would be a lot better than capitalism without it, but it still isn't socialism either. 

Edited by Sea_Bastion
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Sea_Bastion said:

With an unconditional basic income, by contrast, you don't need to have a specific disability to receive a stipend. It does not matter if you are unemployed, or why, and you are not monitored by the DES to make sure you're searching for work. It is a modest stipend which every citizen gets regardless of income or anything, hence 'unconditional.' Such a program is neither 'from the state' nor a form of welfare but rather a benefit derived from being a member of society. Capitalism with basic income would be a lot better than capitalism without it, but it still isn't socialism. 

Not from the state? It comes from being a member of society?

So the money comes from thin air? No taxes? 

Who's handing out the money and where does it come from?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is degenerating from the New Left topic. Weren't we talking about strategies and behaviors? Goals?

This is why we lose, folks!!

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, pattmayne said:

What do you propose? Is there a concise message you want to share that you think people might act on?

Even just understanding exactly how the swindle that we call capitalism functions is crucial. Many people don't. They accept it as some ubiquitous, transhistorical human tendency when it is simply one way to arrange human economic activity. They mistake the particular for the universal. Once people understand how the system works, we can look at alternatives which range from anarchism and socialism, to Georgism and primitivism, as well as communism or resource-based economic models.  

It is more important to establish that there are alternatives that are both advantageous and feasible. Because that does not appear to be the case; that all we have here is expecting different results by doing the same thing albeit by arguing that we should tweak this here and that there.

7 minutes ago, pattmayne said:

This is degenerating from the New Left topic. Weren't we talking about strategies and behaviors? Goals?

This is why we lose, folks!!

Uh....no. We lose because of everything I've been attempting to explain. Because merely focusing on identity politics and calling oneself 'the left' without understanding the historically leftist roots of systems like socialism which are actually about some shit, is the equivalent of doing nothing.

Edited by Sea_Bastion
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, nondual said:

Not from the state? It comes from being a member of society?

So the money comes from thin air? No taxes?

What do you think the government is? You can't have a society without something like a state.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you want something more radical? Please, propose some kind of action or goal. People have been correct slaves for decades.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure where the breakdown in our communication lies. People are talking about wanting to end war and violence. I explained that at the core of those things is a particular economic system, which will continue to produce such results as long as it remains. A single individual can't solve such a monumental and systemic issue by simply stating a goal. People must first understand why things like poverty and violence exist to begin with. You can't just wish it away. I am trying to help with that first crucial step, which you appear to want to pretend is irrelevant for some reason.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, CaptainBeyond28 said:

Kill whitey

Your trolling is not helpful. Do you actually have something meaningful to add here?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Sea_Bastion said:

What do you think the government is? You can't have a society without something like a state.

The government is the problem. Not capitalism itself.

The system is corrupted by those at the top

So we switch to socialsm run by the political elite puppets? Terrible idea

END THE FED, and land taxes are ways to save us from our own destruction

Edited by nondual
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0