[quetzalcoatl]

Maybe, I think it's primarily caused by the state of continental philosophy, which has coincided with a spectacular decline in Western academic standards. At the same time there is a refinement of their theories alongside an increasing degree of hostility to those ideas that now has them on the defensive.

In my opinion the Alt-Right is the beginning of a New Sincerity or post-ironic politics. The Left cannot shoot them or barricade them because they do not have any alternatives themselves except rootless anti-fascism hysteria, so in many ways the trolling class have become masters of the incoming zeitgeist.

Au contraire, the alt-right is the ultimate affirmation of Derrida, et al. They have fashioned a notional reality, and by force of will have enshrined it as the new consensus. The idea that they have some kind of respect for a reality that exists outside their minds is rather laughable. At any rate, this is precisely what trolling is all about: undermining the perceptual foundation of existing consensus. What could be more continental than that?

(That being said, they are still assholes.)

EDIT: Your point about "rootless anti-fascism hysteria" has merit. The left needs to lay down some markers about what an actual fascist agenda would look like, so that they can properly react at the proper time. People being diasppeared? Political opponents rounded up and segregated into stadiums, etc? Dudes in three-cornered hats storming the legislature? Don't cry wolf too many times, folks. Ultimately, your predictions will come true, but will anybody still be listening?

[Political Interest]

Zizek is very astute in his analysis. The left in most Anglo-Saxon and even European countries do not appeal to the vast majority of the population. If they ever want to achieve anything they will have to appeal to them, but that is not really their aim. Most leftists want to work in identity politics and advance the status of women, ethnic and religious minorities but not really create a workers republic. A socialism of the majority that is not free from systemic racism and white privilege does not interest them. This is why no Western leftist would ever want to see the founding of American communism because it would still be a "white" communisn. It is quite telling that they very rarely discuss concrete proposals for how to revolutionise Western countries. There are no discussions of what to nationalise or how they will achieve socialism. In most cases it is just cultural politics.

No one in the white working class is going to find cultural politics appealing, especially not if leftist narratives present them as somehow more privileged than others. Additionally, most of these hipster leftists want open borders that will lead to the demographic marginalisation of the white working classes.

[Rich]

The left needs to lay down some markers about what an actual fascist agenda would look like,

The left needs to realise that there is no such thing as Fascism. Its a vague, and illusory category. It was invented as a category, as was the equally illusory "imperialism" to sustain the left's already existing mythical categories: Capitalism, the international Bourgeois and the international Proletariat.

Marx was absolutely right that pure idealism will get you no where. Idealism always has to be combined with economic / basic social interests. Marx was also wrong however, there is no international proletariat sharing any significant economic interest. And note how Marxists contradict themselves on "Imperialism". They are no better than Donald Trump or Boris Johnson another of our new breed of "conservative", "authentic" bullshitters. Sometimes they say that Imperialism allows the national Bourgeois to buy off the national proletariat, hence its in the interests economic interests of the national proletariat to ally with its national Bourgeois, and sometimes they say its a con by the national Bourgeois over the national proletariat.

And can some one explain to me how race quotas, aka affirmative action are in the economic interests of the White working class?

[anna]

Most leftists want to work in identity politics and advance the status of women, ethnic and religious minorities but not really create a workers republic.

Worker's republics are only for homogenized white people?

How does equal access under the law work for women and minorities in a white workers republic?

[Political Interest]

Worker's republics are only for homogenized white people?

How does equal access under the law work for women and minorities in a white workers republic?

No, they are not only for homogenised white people.

But remember, in all cases where socialist states were successfully established there was barely any identity politics.

The revolutions were based on the vast masses of the people. There was some level of identity politics in the Russian revolution but nothing on the scale that exists among Anglo-Saxon socialists where race is the be all and end all of their efforts.

Lenin wanted socialism in Russia and that was his foremost aim. Race relations were not his main concern.

If socialists want to be successful in an American or British context they must abandon identity politics and embrace class narratives that can engage the vast majority of the working classes.

Systemic inequality and white privilege can never be destroyed while America remains majority white. It is a pointless battle because the ethnic majority will always hold certain privileges and more power. It is just a demographic reality.

[quetzalcoatl]

The left needs to realise that there is no such thing as Fascism. Its a vague, and illusory category. It was invented as a category, as was the equally illusory "imperialism" to sustain the left's already existing mythical categories: Capitalism, the international Bourgeois and the international Proletariat.

Fascism illusory? That's a bizarre notion. You could plausibly argue that fascism was a particular movement unique to a particular time and place, but not that it never existed. I suspect the involuntary citizens of the Belgian Congo might have disagreed about the existence of imperialism.

I don't know if the "international proletariat" is an actual thing or not, but yeah that would be imaginary. Whatever you prefer to call it, the oligarchy that runs the modern world holds no allegiance to national boundaries.

[anna]

No, they are not only for homogenised white people.

But remember, in all cases where socialist states were successfully established there was barely any identity politics.

Because historically, these were all in racially homogenized countries, yes? So really, there can't be a categorical comparison with the U.S.

If socialists want to be successful in an American or British context they must abandon identity politics and embrace class narratives that can engage the vast majority of the working classes.

You can't compare the U.S. and Britain, either. It doesn't work. The history of slavery in the U.S. changed everything. Our border with Mexico changes everything.

Systemic inequality and white privilege can never be destroyed while America remains majority white. It is a pointless battle because the ethnic majority will always hold certain privileges and more power. It is just a demographic reality.

Well, yes. That's pretty much the point I'm making. The U.S. is steadily losing its white majority (that's what scares/motivates the Trump base), and it's only a matter of time. But systemic inequality cannot be destroyed in a free society, it can only be mitigated. We aren't, and hopefully never will be, a totalitarian state.

[The Sabbaticus]

So to prove that you don't just imagine a convenient position for your ideological opponents...

...you're going to just imagine a convenient position for your ideological opponent?

Where did I say that you voted for Hillary? I remember you stating something about wanting to find some buried-under-the-rubble American Marxist somewhere. Or was it a Maoist? And your ambiguity for where it concerns Oregan secession speaks volumes in the thread itself.

The point that I was making is clear: you suggested that 'reactionaries' didn't know that Zizek was voicing the general consensus on the Left, whereas the current consensus on the Left overwhelmingly supports Hillary and what she stands for.

In my opinion, putting this up does little but show how disconnected reactionaries are from reality in that they think this will be novel to anybody on the left. The straw man that reactionaries built would not agree, but who really would argue with this on the left?

This is not the first time you've ascribed 'convenient positions' to your 'ideological opponents'.

[Pants-of-dog]

I still do not understand why some people think Hillary Clinton and her supporters are "the Left".

[anna]

I still do not understand why some people think Hillary Clinton and her supporters are "the Left".

All they have to do is be more left than right.

[quetzalcoatl]

All they have to do is be more left than right.

The bar for being on the left isn't all that high, it seems. Being opposed to reforming (cutting) Social Security makes you part of the wild-eyed left in the US.

[anna]

The bar for being on the left isn't all that high, it seems. Being opposed to reforming (cutting) Social Security makes you part of the wild-eyed left in the US.

It depends whose lens is doing the filtering.

To the far right, a centrist is flirting with communism.

[The Immortal Goon]

And does that not prove what I was saying at the beginning?

When it was pointed out that Zizek was expressing a pretty standard leftist view, despite the fact that reactionaries used strawmen arguments to deny this. The reactionaries decided to counter this by using strawman arguments to tell leftists that they, by implication, did not actually think Zizek was correct.

My actual citations in defence of my own ideology being dictated to me were countered with a vague denial and nothing more.

When a White Knight appeared, it was to parse out what I meant by leftist.

At no point was the ridiculous premise effectively countered; the reactionaries are to tell us--the left--what we believe so that they can act startled by a leftist saying something they didn't pin upon us, and then deny that we should be allowed to disagree with what they told us that we must adhere to in order for their ideology to make sense.

And this is nothing if not a demonstration of who the hegemony favours. The left is the opposition to this hegemony, and always has been. Despite your obsession with telling us what we believe, we are not so easily led.

[The Sabbaticus]

Yes, Anna. I hope you've read what The Immortal Goon is telling you. Despite your obsession with telling 'them' what 'they' believe, 'they' are not so easily led.

Meanwhile the Left-liberal centre in Europe has been the 'hegemony' for the last couple of decades, as the Left-liberal centre has been the prevailing 'hegemony' in the States.

[Pants-of-dog]

Left liberal centre is a contradiction.

Sabb, H. Clinton and her supporters are not the left. They are centrists who pay lip service ro some progressive causes, as long as those causes do not threaten the status quo. This is why they support, for example, upper class feminism but do not support indigenous sovereignty.

[quetzalcoatl]

Think of it this way, Sabb:

Liberalism is the dominant ideology of the West. Liberalism has two faces: a conservative face, and a progressive face. Liberals accept free market ideology, the rule of law, and obeisance to a democratic republic.

You are a liberal. Clinton is a liberal. Mitt Romney is a liberal. Bernie is a liberal.

Hitler was not a liberal. Lenin was not a liberal. They were radicals - which is to say they did not in principle accept the legitimacy of the existing political structure.

Trump is not a radical, at least by intention. It is not his intention to destroy the system that swept him into power, although he could possibly end up doing so, wither through incompetence or malice.

A Trump Troll is a pseudo-radical without the courage of his convictions. He wants to deliver a blow to the system, without damage to his own interests.

[The Immortal Goon]

Though this has always been the case, this thread is a particularly striking example of rightest liberals using their own hegemony as a cudgel to demand that we are adherents to their hegemony too, and it's impossible to be otherwise.

But it is, and some of us are on this board.

[Albert]

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.

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.

To my surprise almost 50% of USA have proven that they have abandoned that thinking and way of looking at things. It came as a shock to a lot of people because one way of another they have not been exposed to this. Particularly I believe this is due to political correctness, that did not allow this change of thought enter public awareness.

Basically we have half of the country that to large degree has left progressivism, then another half who still think and functions in it. These are majour cognitive diffirences in ways the two see the world. And it is more shocking to the progressives cause they never imagined the other existed on such scale. Yet it did, it was just suppressed by the state.

[quetzalcoatl]

All politics is identity politics. People are going to organize themselves on the basis of some perceived shared identity. It could be ethnic. Or it could be regional and religious, like southern evangelicals. One thing I understand very well, however. The US has missed the last exit ramp - there is no turning back now.

And no, I am not talking about the election of Donald J. Trump. The last exit was passe in 2009, when Obama allowed the criminal class to escape punishment for the crime of the century. He lost his chance to be another FDR, and to save capitalism one more time.

Sanders was already to late to have any chance of controlling the damage, even had he won. Read this, please.

"People are treated badly become bad people (as a group. Yes, you are a special flower and it didn’t happen to you OR if you were one of them, you would be the exception. You’re special. I know.)

People are unhappy or happy with leadership based on whether they perceive things as getting better or getting worse. It is not based on absolute standards, it is based on what they expect the future to be like.

Right after the Versailles treaty, Keynes was able to predict the gross outlines of history right thru to World War II. He said “well if you do this to Germans, they aren’t going to put up with it forever and it will enable the rise of really nasty people.”

You had to be a special sort of idiot, or a partisan fool, not to see it coming once someone like Keynes had explained it to you (and many others knew it as well.)

If you will not live in something fairly close to reality, reality will clock you upside the head for it eventually. As individuals we may dodge this, we often do, which is why individuals often live in denial.

As societies, no. The bill is always paid, and it is always paid in full. It’s just usually not paid by the people who wrote checks based on other people’s bodies."

Now get ready to pay the bills written by people like Clinton and Trump.

[Albert]

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.

For example take an issue like migration. There different ways to approach this. These different approaches will come to organize into conceptual groups. If we loose understanding that we are just different groups looking at the same issue in reality but from different perspective, then we are in trouble and lost in identity politics.

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.

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.