[Potemkin]

PI there is no "New Left" or "alt Left", stop with that nonsense.

Actually, the 'New Left' was indeed a thing during the 1960s and 70s. It drew most of its inspiration from theorists such as Herbert Marcuse and other members of the Frankfurt School. Most orthodox Marxist-Leninists regarded them as heretics, since they essentially abandoned the industrial proletariat of the developed capitalist societies as a possible agent of revolutionary change, and fixed their hopes instead on the Third World peasantry and saw their task as that of leading a 'cultural revolution' in the West rather than actually fomenting a political revolution. This is where the concept of "cultural Marxism" ultimately comes from. The New Left was pretty much dead in the water by the late 1970s, and by the 1980s it was in full retreat. It has never recovered its former influence, and is generally despised by orthodox Marxists in the same way and for the same reasons that we despise 'Eurocommunism'. They are still sometimes resurrected as a bogeyman by right-wing commentators, despite the fact that the 'New Left' actually no longer exists any more, and hasn't existed for almost 40 years. Lol.

[skinster]

I just feel bad that we lost PI to this nonsense why god why would this happen to PI of all people why.

[Potemkin]

I just feel bad that we lost PI to this nonsense why god why would this happen to PI of all people why.

PI is essentially a decent, well-meaning conservative (small 'c') who hates what industrial capitalism has done to Western society over the past couple of centuries. His problem is that all Conservative (big 'C') parties nowadays support industrial capitalism; indeed supporting it is now their entire raison d'etre. Hence his interest in Marxism and revolutionary communism, and hence also his reluctance to commit himself to actually becoming a Marxist. If he had lived in Britain back in the mid-19th century, he would probably have been a member of the Young England group.

[skinster]

You missed out the part where he is also an ex-hardman.

[Potemkin]

I thought that went without saying, skinster.

[Rugoz]

I don't consider myself anything.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that all communists (or even all Marxists) have historically taken an anti-populist, anti-rural stance on these issues. In fact, I've seen a lot of communists that come very close to agreeing (if not outright agreeing) with me. This is particularly true outside the United States.

I believe the attitudes of which you speak are far more prevalent among communists in the anglo-world (and by extension the first world). I'm sure there are exceptions of course. And I have no clue as to why this is the case. But it is interesting.

The working class always has the majority. When communism doesn't happen in a democracy, communists usually conclude that their infinite wisdom must be forced upon the working class.

[LeftNationalist]

The working class always has the majority. When communism doesn't happen in a democracy, communists usually conclude that their infinite wisdom must be forced upon the working class.

In fairness, I don't think they see it that way. One of the themes found within Marxism-Leninism is the concept of the socialist vanguard - the class interests of the great masses is championed by only the most radical, class-conscious elements. In theory this is great and it's something which I would very much support, the logical need for which seems inescapable to me.

The problem is that these "champions" almost never arise from among the working classes themselves; they are bourgeois/petite bourgeois interlopers and their so-called "struggle" amounts to little more than paternalism rooted in self-servicing sanctimony. I take great exception at the idea of working class people being told the proper way to feel, particularly by those with vested interest in the preservation of the status-quo - no matter how altruistic and selfless they would otherwise outwardly appear.

I think the key to achieving revolution in these United States (and the west in general) is the mass-abandonment of identity politics - not for it to be perpetuated in a way that divides working class communities. I take exception to poor whites and poor blacks being brainwashed by the limousine left into pelting one another in the streets. And I'm not talking about bumpkins who are bigoted and wince at progress, nor am I talking about twelve white dudes in their mom's basement railing on Jews. I am talking masses and masses of workers who are given over to reactionism because they have been made to feel by a counterfeit left as if they have nowhere else to turn. And that's a fact. Trump won the presidency because one segment of the proletariat was alienated from the rest and lashed out at the establishment in a way that is more of a detriment to their own material interests than ever before.

[mikema63]

PI is essentially a decent, well-meaning conservative (small 'c') who hates what industrial capitalism has done to Western society over the past couple of centuries. His problem is that all Conservative (big 'C') parties nowadays support industrial capitalism; indeed supporting it is now their entire raison d'etre. Hence his interest in Marxism and revolutionary communism, and hence also his reluctance to commit himself to actually becoming a Marxist. If he had lived in Britain back in the mid-19th century, he would probably have been a member of the Young England group.

Look at you with the collected psych profiles.

[skinster]

Do mike next!

[Victoribus Spolia]

I think the key to achieving revolution in these United States (and the west in general) is the mass-abandonment of identity politics

Some in the Democrat party have suggested this very thing, but its going to be tough row to hoe and they are a minority.

The thing is, it is going to be tough to argue against identity politics and still support progressive social values without coming off as duplicitous and disingenuous.

What you don't talk about on the campaign trail (i.e. LGBT rights, feminism, black lives matter, refugees, Trans-bathrooms, etc), will still come out when your asked point blank on the stump, and that is where it matters in the end. The white working class now sees itself in the paradigm of identity politics and is thinking of its collective interests, beyond mere class considerations, and they want to see their values protected by someone who believes them. If a politician doesn't , and this comes out when they are asked a tough question, and they proceed to go on about "loving everyone" and "showing equal rights for all" and other vacuous platitudes, they will fail to make hay with the WWC. Those days are done.

I just cannot imagine a scenario where the White Working Class returns to the Left except by its own diassociating with its historic values: i.e. the WWC must become less religious, less patriarchal, less proud of its ethnic heritage and less patriotic before it would return to the Democrat party en masse. This is a likely future reality, but not for awhile and barring any major societal changes.

[Potemkin]

Look at you with the collected psych profiles.

Most people are relatively easy to 'read', Mike (including myself, I have no doubt). We like to think of ourselves as International Men of Mystery whose profound thoughts are opaque to everyone else, but this is usually far from the case. Most people have relatively simple and transparent motivations and attitudes. The ones who don't are usually just trying to hide something, and once you discover their secret, everything fits into place. This should not surprise you, Mike - after all, humans have evolved over countless millennia to be social beings who are, to a great extent, transparent to other humans in their society. Our faces have hundreds of small muscles whose only purpose is to reveal our emotions to others, often involuntarily. Human society only functions precisely because we can 'read' each other easily.

[LeftNationalist]

Thanks for your reply, VS. You've made some good points.

...the WWC must become less religious, less patriarchal, less proud of its ethnic heritage and less patriotic before it would return to the Democrat party en masse. This is a likely future reality, but not for awhile and barring any major societal changes.

And this is where I begin to differ from most revolutionary leftists, the bulk of whom view the aforementioned "values" as a socially engineered means of precluding class-consciousness and working class unity. Such reactionary ideals don't exactly aid the revolution, that's for sure, and I've already touched on the ways in which the ruling class can directly play on such to benefit/empower themselves. I'm going to be extremely simple here: I think a lot of the modern left has put the cart ahead of the horse here. I see the reactionism more as a symptom of a deeper, underlying cause. Imagine a patient in a hospital: if all the doctor did was poke and prod, ceaselessly irritating the festering wound, the patient would want nothing to do with hospitals or doctors.

The truth is that there exists plenty of commonality between the workers - commonality rooted in social class and material interests. The problem is that this country is entirely devoid any actual, rooted left-wing dialectic and has been for decades.

[Victoribus Spolia]

I think a lot of the modern left has put the cart ahead of the horse here. I see the reactionism more as a symptom of a deeper, underlying cause. Imagine a patient in a hospital: if all the doctor did was poke and prod, ceaselessly irritating the festering wound, the patient would want nothing to do with hospitals or doctors.

This is an interesting suggestion and I would love to see how it would look in practice and in the face of some Reactionary cross-examination by a grizzled old union-worker still wearing his grease-stained MAGA hat from elections long-past.

Perhaps you should start a new thread where you make some proposals and paint PoFo a picture of a non-identitarian pro-rural leftism that can stand up to Reactionary nationalism. I am doubtful of your success, but would love to see the attempt nonetheless and will come with an open mind.

Keep me posted.

[Political Interest]

PI there is no "New Left" or "alt Left", stop with that nonsense.

Alt Left is merely a way to classify the newly emergent leftism that has appeared over the last two years or so. The New Left had a major influene on Western and global leftism. Most of the ideas held by leftists in the US and UK are basically New Left ideas, I'd say. I think that it was really a re-emergence of the indigenous Anglphone leftist tradition and a rejection of the imported Bolshevik tradition from Russia.

Actually, the 'New Left' was indeed a thing during the 1960s and 70s. It drew most of its inspiration from theorists such as Herbert Marcuse and other members of the Frankfurt School. Most orthodox Marxist-Leninists regarded them as heretics, since they essentially abandoned the industrial proletariat of the developed capitalist societies as a possible agent of revolutionary change, and fixed their hopes instead on the Third World peasantry and saw their task as that of leading a 'cultural revolution' in the West rather than actually fomenting a political revolution. This is where the concept of "cultural Marxism" ultimately comes from. The New Left was pretty much dead in the water by the late 1970s, and by the 1980s it was in full retreat. It has never recovered its former influence, and is generally despised by orthodox Marxists in the same way and for the same reasons that we despise 'Eurocommunism'. They are still sometimes resurrected as a bogeyman by right-wing commentators, despite the fact that the 'New Left' actually no longer exists any more, and hasn't existed for almost 40 years. Lol.

I think it is the other way round. I think orthodox Marxism (Stalinism) became irrelevant in the West by the early 1970s. An indigenous Western Marxism had developed in America, Europe and England by this time. Quite frankly a lot of Western Marxists were never really comfortable with the Soviet type of communism. They could not come to terms with authoritarianism because it was so contrary to their internalised cultural liberalism. The mass defections from the Western communist parties after Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968 are examples of this. In all honesty, can we really imagine a middle class university communist paying a visit to Moscow, living there for a year and coming back home and thinking this was the best future? They probably would find it alien and oppressive, if not terrifying.

I think this cultural difference could have influenced the development of New Left ideas, which is essentially a Western Marxism and a product of Western conditions. Its no surprise they found some common cause with Maoists.

I just feel bad that we lost PI to this nonsense why god why would this happen to PI of all people why.

You've hardly lost me. I support what is essentially a socialist economic system with strong market elements, isolationism/anti-imperialism in foreign affairs. I just disagree with the social agenda of the left.

PI is essentially a decent, well-meaning conservative (small 'c') who hates what industrial capitalism has done to Western society over the past couple of centuries. His problem is that all Conservative (big 'C') parties nowadays support industrial capitalism; indeed supporting it is now their entire raison d'etre. Hence his interest in Marxism and revolutionary communism, and hence also his reluctance to commit himself to actually becoming a Marxist. If he had lived in Britain back in the mid-19th century, he would probably have been a member of the Young England group.

Thank you, Potemkin. I've never been that keen on centrist conservatism because I feel that it will always produce the capitalism which is anti-conservative. But, at the same time I cannot accept the left as it is in the West today or the far right because of it's racism.

I enjoy the cinema and culture of the Soviet Union and find it very interesting. It looks so conservative and straight forward. The paradox is that none of the left in any Western country want to create a country that looks anything like the USSR.

[Conscript]

Is it possible to be a right-wing Marxist? I've been called this, though I don't consider myself a Marxist and definitely don't consider myself right-wing.

Because I advocate for rural America, common folk, the peasantry, I am called "reactionary" and "right wing". I don't adhere to Marx's view that urban people will lead the revolution and that rural people are lumpenproletarians who contribute nothing of value.

But because I advocate for an end to exploitation while promoting a form of left nationalism, social justice, wealth redistribution and total nationalization/collectivization I am called a "Marxist" (by people who have no clue as to what Marxism actually is).

I have no real political label that fits - no party, no political home.

I feel the greatest enemy of the rural, fly-over-country types is the republican party because they exploit their values (and lack thereof), beliefs and reactionism for political advancement while doing nothing to help these people. I don't understand how rural people could ever be right-wing. I can't tell you how badly I hate the right-wing for their deregulation, pro-corporation, and aggressively capitalistic policies and rhetoric.

I despise the democrats for exploiting minority urban people and social minorities while doing nothing to help these people. I don't understand how social minorities could ever be "liberal".

I despise urban and suburban white people for their smugness and gross over-privilege; they virtue signal from their ivy league schools and gated white enclaves; so-called "intellectuals" have established themselves as "moral vanguards", and are rife with self-importance while producing nothing of actual value. They have entrenched themselves in culture, the arts, education, media, entertainment, and the bureaucratic establishments. They control the narratives - they disseminate identity politics by which division is perpetuated among proletarian ranks. And they attack working class whites, call them "privileged" by which they implicate all whites with themselves (as a shield for themselves..."we're in this together - we're all privileged") - which forces the white commoner on the defensive and pushes them even further into reactionism. No, YOU'RE privileged. All whites need not be overcome - it's nowhere near that difficult you self-righteous, non-producing cretins. You'll find no safety in numbers here; only YOU need be overcome.

It is my sincerist hope that one day rural whites lay aside their reactionism and wake up, join forces with the urbane non-whites and other social minorities, and bring justice to these urban and suburban types who perpetuate privilege and injustice and love the smell of their own flatulence.

You can call me a "right-wing Marxist" if you want. For a time I called myself a "left-nationalist" and still prefer that term. I am not concerned with being labeled, or changing my views in adherence to a tribe or faction. But I would like to find those of similar passions, to have a political "home", so to speak. A party to support - even in another country.

Where is Rei anymore?

There's no such thing as a right wing Marxist (except this old conservative Marxist poster named Vera Politica I guess). You can be an orthodox leftist, 'tradical', or 'brocialist aka refusing to subscribe to social liberal and new left developments following the 60s. You can be a third positionist, a nazbol, strasserite, distributist, etc. although this is more or less taking influence from Marxists just to develop something squarely in opposition to them and rising tides of liberalism that ends up digging its own grave in modernism and creates a pissed off working class to the detriment of the nation and a folk-like cultural way of life

You are better off taking the class war to the conservative party, fulfilling trump's promise of creating a right wing workers' party, and solving the racialized class issue on the basis of the national self determination today's Marxists have disposed of. Something as far out as that will happen sooner than the white working class and heartland folk at large joining with minorities. Yesterday's base for a labor movement is today's base for a national one, after all. That's why the revolutionary left has all sorts of third worldist deviations to explain its post cold war failures and appropriations by left liberalism

There's a reason we have a cultural war, not a class war. There's a reason we never developed a labor party or 'socialist' economy despite having such a militant historical labor movement. It's the politics of race, always has been. We are a postcolonial liberal democracy and I see no evidence that eurocentric Marxist ideas of class struggle will ever take hold in America as frustration with liberal capitalism mounts.