Albert wrote:Have you ever wondered how you view "reactionaries" might be not all that correct. And you are just getting lost in identity politics, most useless kind of politics.
Sure. That's why I read, re-read, and work through things I don't feel like I have a handle upon. Even when I do, I keep reading until I can actually use what I have learned.
Albert wrote:A lot of lefties who are progressive, be they of liberal types or radicals are flipping out right now. Because the current reality can not be addressed with their "ways" or political convictions. Like progressive notion of cultural plurality. Is actually a failure. This a lot of people see now and have abandoned.
Liberals are not leftists. Some liberals may not be happy with the results that
I all but predicted as early as last May. I don't know why you'd think I'd be "flipping out right now," about been having proven correct.
Nor why this would make my ideology, "a failure," by virtue of being correct.
It seems to me that you don't understand leftism and instead are using the dominant liberal ideology to enforce its own existence.
Albert wrote:The way I see it, different political identities form because there different ways and approaches to dealing with current situations presented in reality in our time.
Have you ever wondered how you view "reactionaries" might be not all that correct. And you are just getting lost in identity politics, most useless kind of politics.
The way I see it, left, right, centre or whatever. Are basically people who seek to address the current reality in different ways. In the end we are all dealing with the same thing.
This is typical liberal thinking, that people's ideas are all correct and that we can just come together to make harmony of them we can change material reality. In fact, the opposite is true: material conditions affect how we understand and interact with our world.
We leftists are
not liberals.
Albert wrote:The liberal progressive had "suprisingly" failed because they had demonized the opposition. Ostracizing them as if they do not live in modern reality, ironically their reality in their mind was popped big time a week ago.
And the liberal conservative had "surprisingly" won because they had demonized the opposition. Ostracizing them as they do not live in modern reality, ironically their reality in their mind succeeded big time a week ago.
Very nice. You're both liberals using liberal thinking. Again, leftists
aren't liberals.
Albert wrote:This a lot has to do with PC. Because through this measure they had attempted suppressed different thought and perseptions arrising. Contrary to liberal thinking as PC is itself.
"PC," is the demand of the individual liberal to be protected from the mass of liberals who themselves claim to be the individual liberals demanding protection from the mass of liberals.
It is nothing more or less than the same ideology that Reagan demanded was followed in creating, "safe places," for Christians in public schools; of generations of white Americans demanding that blacks could not be included in discourse; of Douglas and other blacks cooperating the ideal to include blacks; nor of British protestants demanding Catholics not be allowed to contaminate their ideology; nor of the Catholics themselves demanding that the ideology actually included them.
It is, and always has been inherent inside of liberalism.
Again, we leftists, presuppose, as Marx says, the existence of a revolutionary class that can actually counter the ideology itself.
Where does liberalism come from?
Marx wrote:The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance. The individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think. Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch. For instance, in an age and in a country where royal power, aristocracy, and bourgeoisie are contending for mastery and where, therefore, mastery is shared, the doctrine of the separation of powers proves to be the dominant idea and is expressed as an “eternal law.”
The division of labour, which we already saw above as one of the chief forces of history up till now, manifests itself also in the ruling class as the division of mental and material labour, so that inside this class one part appears as the thinkers of the class (its active, conceptive ideologists, who make the perfecting of the illusion of the class about itself their chief source of livelihood), while the others’ attitude to these ideas and illusions is more passive and receptive, because they are in reality the active members of this class and have less time to make up illusions and ideas about themselves. Within this class this cleavage can even develop into a certain opposition and hostility between the two parts, which, however, in the case of a practical collision, in which the class itself is endangered, automatically comes to nothing, in which case there also vanishes the semblance that the ruling ideas were not the ideas of the ruling class and had a power distinct from the power of this class. The existence of revolutionary ideas in a particular period presupposes the existence of a revolutionary class; about the premises for the latter sufficient has already been said above.
If now in considering the course of history we detach the ideas of the ruling class from the ruling class itself and attribute to them an independent existence, if we confine ourselves to saying that these or those ideas were dominant at a given time, without bothering ourselves about the conditions of production and the producers of these ideas, if we thus ignore the individuals and world conditions which are the source of the ideas, we can say, for instance, that during the time that the aristocracy was dominant, the concepts honour, loyalty, etc. were dominant, during the dominance of the bourgeoisie the concepts freedom, equality, etc. The ruling class itself on the whole imagines this to be so. This conception of history, which is common to all historians, particularly since the eighteenth century, will necessarily come up against the phenomenon that increasingly abstract ideas hold sway, i.e. ideas which increasingly take on the form of universality. For each new class which puts itself in the place of one ruling before it, is compelled, merely in order to carry through its aim, to represent its interest as the common interest of all the members of society, that is, expressed in ideal form: it has to give its ideas the form of universality, and represent them as the only rational, universally valid ones. The class making a revolution appears from the very start, if only because it is opposed to a class, not as a class but as the representative of the whole of society; it appears as the whole mass of society confronting the one ruling class.
Alis Volat Propriis; Tiocfaidh ár lá; Proletarier Aller Länder, Vereinigt Euch!
- By QatzelOk
- By Tainari88