Left Unity - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

As either the transitional stage to communism or legitimate socio-economic ends in its own right.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By The Clockwork Rat
#14357374
Cartertonian wrote:Good post, TCR, thanks.


Cheers. It's an issue pretty close to home, so there's plenty to say.

You wrote:That said, in today's political environment I would see the hand-dirtying of theoreticians and career socialists as gesture politics rather than any sincere attempt for them, to actually understand what it is they stand for.

Indeed, and I suppose it would be more useful for others of my generation to take on board than those who have remained unsullied by labour throughout their long careers. That being said, anyone can "prove" themselves a hard worker.

That's why, from my point of view, an initative like Left Unity might work, if its core aim was to bring together all of the disparate elements of the Left and rally them around some core belief structure. Clearly I was being facetious in earler posts but yet there does seem to be a uniform 'template' to which many on the Left feel you must adhere. Perhaps it's a sign of my advancing years, but I'm getting to the stage where I want to be me, not someone or something that somebody else tells me I should be. I want to support the Left, but I'll be damned if I'm going to have to pretend to be someone or something I'm not to do it. That, I suppose, is why Left Unity appealed in principle.

As someone said to me once, the main problem is people being dicks to each other, and the solution is not to be a dick. I think a lot of people circulating the echo-chamber forget that collectivist politics are not essentially anti-individual, so it's seen that acting as the individual that you are is anti-collective, if you catch my drift.
User avatar
By Goldberk
#14357403
As someone said to me once, the main problem is people being dicks to each other, and the solution is not to be a dick


There comes a further question from this, is a tolerance of alternative views an acceptable part of socialist thought/praxis, I would say not, it is a position introduced by post-modern liberalism and assumed by much of the "left" but a fundamental betrayal of socialisms modernist setting.

collectivist politics are not essentially anti-individual,


To a certain extent, but an assault on the cult of the individual must be a key part of any socialist project.
By SolarCross
#14357409
Goldberk wrote:To a certain extent, but an assault on the cult of the individual must be a key part of any socialist project.

What is this cult of the individual? Is it another imaginary leftie construct or something real this time?
User avatar
By The Clockwork Rat
#14357411
Goldberk wrote:There comes a further question from this, is a tolerance of alternative views an acceptable part of socialist thought/praxis, I would say not, it is a position introduced by post-modern liberalism and assumed by much of the "left" but a fundamental betrayal of socialisms modernist setting.

I don't disagree; phobias and prejudices are predominantly flawed and antithetical to socialism. However, on the left we are incapable of reaching a point where they are at least internally negligible because some people do not start from a position of common courtesy.

To a certain extent, but an assault on the cult of the individual must be a key part of any socialist project.

Yes. The cult of the individual is a liberal conceit of individuals that should be torn down. We are individuals, but capitalism turns us as individuals into hyper-individualised points of consumption where personal praxis can only be exercised as ultimately financial decisions.
User avatar
By Goldberk
#14357417
What is this cult of the individual?


The conception of a person as a hyper individualised subject, separated from any social construct and interdependent relationships
By SolarCross
#14357427
Goldberk wrote:The conception of a person as a hyper individualised subject, separated from any social construct and interdependent relationships

But only lefties have this conception so this imaginary cult is just a bugaboo vainly aimed at duping people into joining the real cult of collectivism. I bet you don't catch many flies with that vinegar.

Sorry kid I ain't joining your funky slave cult.
User avatar
By Technology
#14357459
There's nothing in the definition of socialism or in being a collectivist that says you have to be a radical environmentalist and anti-industrialist. I'm pretty sure Stalin was in fact on the left.

Ultimately what the collective will revolve around is what the most influential individuals - distilling the melting pot of the masses views into coherence - say it should revolve around.
By SolarCross
#14357472
Technology wrote:There's nothing in the definition of socialism or in being a collectivist that says you have to be a radical environmentalist and anti-industrialist. I'm pretty sure Stalin was in fact on the left.

Ultimately what the collective will revolve around is what the most influential individuals - distilling the melting pot of the masses views into coherence - say it should revolve around.

They don't do that leftists have nothing but contempt for real people hence why they call them "masses" like they are just a brainless jelly to moulded to their will. The essence of socialism is sociopathy.
User avatar
By Andrea_Chenier
#14357799
taxizen wrote:They don't do that leftists have nothing but contempt for real people hence why they call them "masses" like they are just a brainless jelly to moulded to their will. The essence of socialism is sociopathy.


The "masses" are not alienated by socialism. You mistake socialism for pol potism. Socialism is the individual's emancipation from dehumanizing work structures in capitalist society. Sociopathy is the essence of randian libertarianism, really. At socialism's basis you have a positive conception of human nature, unlike the former ideology.
User avatar
By Technology
#14357817
Andrea_Chenier wrote:You mistake socialism for pol potism.


Pol Pot was socialist. Capitalists caused the Irish potato famine.
User avatar
By blackjack21
#14357828
taxizen wrote:Ukip are offering what people want and are not getting from other parties, namely a way out of the eu and less government in general and that is why their market share is growing.

Totally agree. The conservatives parties in the Anglosphere have been co-opted at their senior leadership level by the left. So I don't see any rationale for a Left Unity party. In the US, the Tea Party represents that small government libertarian force, whereas the "occupy Wall Street" types are already represented in the Democratic Party to a significant extent.

taxizen wrote:Yes the left hate you for all those things; you are the living symbol of all that is oppressive. If you want to be accepted you will have to dark up, get a sex change then become a lesbian vegan cyclist and definitely no shooting cute little animals.

Wouldn't you characterize this as the left becoming cultural rather than economic?

Cartertonian wrote:I suspect you may be right. The impression I've developed from five+ years on PoFo is that the 'intellectual vanguard' are pretty out of touch with the proletariat they purport to champion.

That's exactly it. They've gotten lost in the woods.

Cartertonian wrote:Furthermore, as I've often noted, there is a palpable rural/urban split to be considered here. If you live in a city then it's perfectly possible to conduct your affairs in a manner consistent with an eco-trendy socialist stereotype, but if you live out in the boonies like me there are certain practicalities of real life that mitigate against slavish compliance with the stereotype.

That's an important point, because the urbanist trend is toward conformity and obedience to authority. Pragmatism isn't allowed.


Goldberk wrote:I'm not sure how someone can be a socialist but not be interested in sustainability, you are right to point out that the working class isn't socialist, of course it isn't they have internalized the prevailing ideology, that of the ruling class.

The working class seeks to retain a portion of what they produce. That's their principal interest. Redistribution is always from the working class to the rich, not the other way around.

Goldberk wrote:The point of socialism is not to represent the views of the proletariat but their interests.

That contains within it the very root of aristocracy. It assumes members of the proletariat must always remain members of the proletariat, and members of the aristocracy always members of the aristocracy.

Goldberk wrote:It is also possible to live sustainably in a rural setting, but not without altering ones lifestyle considerably from the most desired type.

So is it any wonder why socialism of this sort fails to appeal to the proletariat?

Technology wrote:Marxists also think they are the only real socialists, though social democrats and progressives will also use that term.

True, but the social democrats and progressives have been substantially more successful than the "real socialists."

The Clockwork Rat wrote:To an extent, I agree. Whilst, as has been pointed out, the purpose of socialists is to "represent the interests" of the proletariat rather than to represent their views, if one is too far divorced from the working class then the attempt to bridge the gap becomes increasingly strained. A mate of mine is intellectually brilliant and will likely become a leading academic in whatever field he eventually sticks to, but admits that he is pretty disconnected from the proletariat. I'm not going to even guess a percentage, but there will be a significant number of lefties who live almost within an echo-chamber.

This is why socialism doesn't work though. It's unpopular by definition, even though it purports to look after the interests of the proletariat--supposedly the largest political class, and by extension the definition of popular.


Taxizen wrote:They don't do that leftists have nothing but contempt for real people hence why they call them "masses" like they are just a brainless jelly to moulded to their will. The essence of socialism is sociopathy.

I don't think I've heard it put that way before, but that's a fine assessment of politicians in general.

Andrea_Chenier wrote:The "masses" are not alienated by socialism.

The socialists are alienated by the masses; it's the other way around.

Andrea_Chenier wrote:Socialism is the individual's emancipation from dehumanizing work structures in capitalist society.

Right. So it has largely outlived its usefulness in the West, where that emancipation has already more or less taken place. The 90M unemployed proletariat in the United States live on welfare, not on dehumanizing work structures. That has been internalized by illegal migrant workers with no access to welfare and externalized by foreign trade, ironically, to a socialist workers paradise, China.
User avatar
By BATIK
#14358132
Can I ask a question, which I suppose does have relevance to the title. What do the socialists here, who i assume are Marxists, think of mutualism and market socialism? I have dabbled with mutualism for a bit now and I'm starting to like most of it. Would a mutualist be accepted by Marxists as leftist, with opposition to wage slavery and private property?
User avatar
By Goldberk
#14358147
What do the socialists here, who i assume are Marxists


Don't assume to much

think of mutualism and market socialism?


A possibility of progress under capitalism but not a desirable end result.

Would a mutualist be accepted by Marxists


I doubt it
User avatar
By Technology
#14358148
Mutualism is opposed to absentee private property, not private property in the means of production full stop. Marxists have long liked to appropriate Proudhon's cry of "property is theft" as a battle cry for collectivizing the means of production into public ownership, even though he had something quite different in mind.
User avatar
By DisobedientLiberty
#14368011
Personally I think the Greens are a better party to rally around if you want left-wing representation in Parliament. I can see why you might be hesitant about that given that you expressed that the environment isn't that high on your list of priorities but to that I would say that you should have a look at their policies. Their policies around the economy are broadly socialist in nature - the introduction of a living wage (Hoping to eliminate or minimise wage labour), raising taxation so as to provide a more comprehensive welfare state, focus on eliminating tax evasion/avoidance so that the rich pay their fair share, as well as offering more paternity/maternity leave, equal pay audits for large companies, and strongly support and strengthen unions, work-place democracy, and mutuals. Those are just a few of the policies I've picked out from their policies page on their website that I think might resonate with a socialist like yourself, as they did with me. Of course, many of their policies are green-focused: they want huge investment in renewable energy, an end to fracking/shale gas, etc. But the point I would make is that even if you don't care about the environment one bit, I think there's a lot the party can offer anyway. I'm eligible to vote in the general elections next year for the first time and right now I intend to vote Green, even though I'm aware that in my constituency they haven't a hope of winning - I just hope Labour beat the Conservatives. They're still scum, but they're slightly less scum than the Cons, and they have a few good policies like introducing a living wage anyway.

I'm interested in Left Unity, and I've liked their page on Facebook to try and keep up with how things go, but I'm skeptical. The British left have been a hugely fragmented movement (Popular People's Front of Judea, anyone?) and there's a lot of huge competing personalities and egos as well. I'm skeptical that any movement can bring them all together in a successful way. I'm hopeful though. Further left-wing representation in parliament can only be a good thing.

Personally, the Green party actually give me hope for the future of my country. I never thought I'd be able to say that, and I certainly can't say that it applies to any of the other parties. The impression I get from them is that they're willing to consider the immediate impacts of capitalism from a socialist perspective while also being able to look to the future from a green/ecological one, and I love that. Also all the Green members I've ever met are just lovely people!
Last edited by DisobedientLiberty on 23 Feb 2014 16:42, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Cromwell
#14368034
DisobedientLiberty wrote:Personally I think the Greens are a better party to rally around if you want left-wing representation in Parliament. I can see why you might be hesitant about that given that you expressed that the environment isn't that high on your list of priorities but to that I would say that you should have a look at their policies. Their policies around the economy are broadly socialist in nature - the introduction of a living wage (Hoping to eliminate or minimise wage labour), raising taxation so as to provide a more comprehensive welfare state, focus on eliminating tax evasion/avoidance so that the rich pay their fair share, as well as offering more paternity/maternity leave, equal pay audits for large companies, and strongly support and strengthen unions, work-place democracy, and mutuals. Those are just a few of the policies I've picked out from their policies page on their website that I think might resonate with a socialist like yourself, as they did with me. Of course, many of their policies are green-focused: they want huge investment in renewable energy, an end to fracking/shale gas, etc. But the point I would make is that even if you don't care about the environment one bit, I think there's a lot the party can offer anyway. I'm eligible to vote in the general elections next year for the first time and right now I intend to vote Green, even though I'm aware that in my constituency they haven't a hope of winning - I just hope Labour beat the Conservatives. They're still scum, but they're slightly less scum than the Cons, and they have a few good policies like introducing a living wage anyway.

I'm interested in Left Unity, and I've liked their page on Facebook to try and keep up with how things go, but I'm skeptical. The British left have been a hugely fragmented movement (Popular People's Front of Judea, anyone?) and there's a lot of huge competing personalities and egos as well. I'm skeptical that any movement can bring them all together in a successful way. I'm hopeful though. Further left-wing representation in parliament can only be a good thing.


This.

I've just left the Green Party (because I disagree with their immigration policy) but I'm still planning to vote for them; they're the only left-wing party with a hope in hell of success.
By Decky
#14368631
What does one have to do to 'be' a socialist then? I don't own a donkey jacket, I'm white, male, heterosexual, meat-eating and enjoy hunting and fishing (hence the landrover, btw)




An odd series of things to say.

To peak in the broiadest possible sense you should belive in colective ownership of the means of production distribution and exchange for the good of all.

I'm white


Why do you think that socialist parties in the UK would bar the majority of our population?

male


Why do you think that socialist parties in the UK would bar the half of our population?

heterosexual


Why do you think that socialist parties in the UK would bar the majority of our population?

meat-eating


Why do you think that socialist parties in the UK would bar the majority of our population? And anyway, how many working class vegetarians have you met?

and enjoy hunting and fishing


What has that got to do with socialism.

I mean this with no malice but you sound like a Daily Mail reader. Maybe you should meet some socialists before deciding you can't join a socialist group because they would all hate you.

You would be plesently suprised.

That whole... rant seems odd from someone usualy as even handed as you Carter. Maybe it was humour that I didn't get.
By JohnSmith
#14368669
Something has happened to the left in the last 30 years, which has weakened it considerably. Many have lost their faith, their idealism, their sense of a better future and that history was on their side. Like Christians who lose their belief in the divinity of Jesus, they have mostly ceased to believe in the teachings of Marx, or simply see them as no longer relevant. Many left wingers still have their left wing ideals, but no longer adhere to the unifying sense of utopian vision and sense of purpose that Marxism offered.

This has led to a fragmentation of the left, a loss of confidence, and a lack of vision or real sense of purpose. This continues even now that the public in many western democracies are crying out for left wing solutions, and a credible and practical alternative to the egregious neo-liberal economic dystopia which has been dominant for too long. In the UK, to give but one example, close to 70% of the population now support the renationalisation of the railways and the utilities.

This loss of faith in Marxism has weakened the left in western democracies in numerous ways. Many responded by abandoning or severely watering down their own ideals, and cravenly surrendering to – and collaborating with – the forces of the neo-liberal economic enemy. In doing so, many of these so lost touch with any left wing ideals they might once have had that they practically ceased to be left wing at all, and attracted supporters who were not really of the left either, at least not in any real sense. As left wingers lost their faith in Marx and despaired at the new neo-liberal economic hegemony, many were prepared to accept anything or anyone who seemed to be able to perhaps at least mitigate the worst evils of this new economic dystopia.Hence, what were once genuine parties of the left fell under the spell of a coterie of neo-liberal collaborators, no longer themselves truly believing in any left wing ideals they perhaps once had. And their victory grew complete when those party members who still clung solidly to their ideals began leaving in droves in disgust.

In the UK, we are obviously talking of so-called New Labour here. Many of it’s adherents – and I have encountered more lowly examples of them on other forums – whilst laughingly calling themselves “socialists” when it suits, favour the affluent middle classes over the working class, buy into the supposed ideal of home ownership to such an extent that they look down their noses at tenants and want to get rid of council housing, and express snobbish disdain for those who are happy to do working class jobs instead of climbing the greasy pole. Aspiration is the be all and end all, rather than ideals of a fair days pay for a fair days work for all. Clearly, such New Labour accolytes are not really recognisable as genuine left wingers at all to those of us with true left wing ideals.

But such economic neo-liberal collaborators who have lost any real idealism they once had – along with many of their new found supporters who never had it in the first place – are only one aspect of what has happened. Many others who have lost their faith in Marx – and this group includes me – have come to accept notions of an enlightened and guided capitalism, perhaps with public and cooperative sectors as well, but generally akin to the Nordic model. As such, abandoning Marxism, I have morphed into something much more akin to a left wing social democrat, and quite a few others have made this same political journey. Having lost our faith in Marx, yet retaining such a loathing for the econonic neo-liberal model that we cannot collaborate with it and wish to continue our resistance, we have been left scrabbling around looking for non-Marxist alternatives that work much better for their peoples than the Thatcherite one does for us. The Nordic model is like a beacon of hope, something to cling to and aim for, something into which we can still invest our ideolistic sense of mission now that our faith in Marxism has gone.

Still others on the left, who have lost their faith in Marx, and along with it their sense of hope for a better future, but who cannot either collaborate with the enemy, buy into support for the Nordic model, nor see any hope in any other alternative, have simply retreated into cynical despair and political disengagement, making the best out of a bad situation for themselves personally and their families, but ceasing political activity, often not even voting in most cases. Their loss of faith in Marx has led to the loss of their campaigning zeal and sense of hope for the future, and it’s replacement with a cynical and despairing conviction that nothing will ever change for the better, and that attempting to make it do so is a waste of effort.

And of course, there are Marxist believers still, but they are fewer in number, more fragmented, and no longer a powerful element in almost any mainstream political party anywhere in the advanced western nations. Marxist ideology appears to have lost it’s ability to inspire millions. And yet, the public at large IS increasingly moving towards the left in a growing number of areas as disdain for the free marketeers,super rich CEOs, and greedy bankers who have been seen to have done so much harm in recent years grows. What the left now needs more than anything is a new unifying idea to unite around, which we can all believe in, and which can inspire millions once more. If we can find that idea – and the prophet who can convincingly preach it – in the current climate we would see a left resurgent and triumphant. The neo-liberal dystopians would be forced to collaborate with us to have any say at all, rather than the other way around. Ideally, we need a new, telegenic and charismatic, Marx for the 21st century to appear, with a credible analysis of what is wrong and how to fix it that is adapted for a 21st century world economy. Someone that can both convince and inspire the left wing intellectual intelligentsia, yet also speak to and inspire millions of ordinary downtrodden people the world over, and motivate them to follow too.

When you are done with your revisionist history a[…]

What if the attacks were a combination of "c[…]

Very dishonest to replace violent Israeli hooliga[…]

Kamala Harris was vile. Utterly vile! https://www[…]