Political Theory

Re: Why does anyone here care about radical leftists?

vive la insurrection — Sun, 15 Jul 2012 16:33:40 GMT

I mean there is also the whole school of"post structuralism":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-structuralism

which is what I have been hinting at this whole time. If I were a bit quicker in the brain, I probably should have focused on that much sooner. This seems to be the main target of my ire at the moment

EDIT:

I also think I have a "Misean" like frustration with the hollow name calling like: sexist, racist, bourgoise, reactionary, etc. I am stating the foundations of much of these names is vacuous by just about any sane standard. It's just an effective "social signaling" mechanism / "secret handshake" at best. Furthermore, to hide behind such obvious emptiness is also a highly undesirable trait; so once again, those defending"morals", leaves me a bit confused as to what they're hinting at.

DOUBLE EDIT:

And to be more brute about it:

look at a left-lib board vs here. You will find more people willing to not mind them / not think they are absolute evil / hope for the best onthem/ make an effort to willingly engage than they do on LL sites on average. The willingness to talk and set up productive conversation and setting terms seems more in our court - and we can not break through their wall of sloganing, I would say by their own perhaps intentional shenanigans.

I'm telling you we could set up some criterea and do a test on this and you'll see how aweful they are to engage on average (there are a small handfull l of LL's that are enjoyable to read and are the exception).

Re: Why does anyone here care about radical leftists?

Torsten — Sun, 15 Jul 2012 16:29:39 GMT

They pretty usually even dispute that there is something like truth or at least theya re agnostic about it. Everything is relative, you know.

For me it seems as if it is built off of out of bounds skeptical critiques, psychologisms, passive aggressive behaviour, and random social signaling devices

There arguments usually start with whining about some perceived injustice, "fascism" , "racism" or some other cause celeb. Lefitism really works with a set of primitive sentiments around or against something and then a program of demands is formulated. You hardly get some more elaborate philosphy or theory going with that. It seems to be designed so that it can appeal to idiots and pseudo-intellectuals at the same time.

I think the truth claims died with hard core Marxism.

Marxist are a funny case. On the one hand they'd dispute "bourgeois" truth, on the ohter hand they come up with some scheme that enables them to "understand history" and "predict the future". And to me it seems their truth is kind of "evolving".

Re: Why does anyone here care about radical leftists?

vive la insurrection — Sun, 15 Jul 2012 16:28:02 GMT

Can you give us some examples of modern-day intellectuals who behave in this manner?

Everything I've seenor heard from Bob Black or Kevin Carson seems to work this way.

I don't know if you wouldcall this modern:

but Sartre works this way

And from the heads and tails I can make of him:

Dierrida works this way

While I find Foucault the most interesting of the bunch, I haven't seen him do much past a geneology, so he could fit under here as well

Everything I have seen or heard from Lacan would also fit

Note:

I am no expert on any of these dudes, so don't be surprised if I get refuted pretty damn quickly, in fact I kind of suspect I will. This is just how it has "hit my brain"

Re: Why does anyone here care about radical leftists?

vive la insurrection — Sun, 15 Jul 2012 16:23:56 GMT

And as I love quoting St Max, here's a couple quotes from Ego on the section of criticism, "post structuralism", skepticism:

Every one criticizes, but the criterion is different. People run after the "right" criterion. The right criterion is the first presupposition. The critic starts from a proposition, a truth, a belief. This is not a creation of the critic, but of the dogmatist; indeed, commonly it is actually taken up out of the culture of the time without further ceremony, like "liberty," "humanity," etc. The critic has not "discovered man," but this truth has been established as "man" by the dogmatist, and the critic (who, besides, may be the same person with him) believes in this truth, this article of faith. In this faith, and possessed by this faith, he criticizes.

But I distinguish between servile and own criticism. If I criticize under the presupposition of a supreme being, my criticism serves the being and is carried on for its sake: if I am possessed by the belief in a "free state," then everything that has a bearing on it I criticize from the stand-point of whether it is suitable to this state, for I love this state; if I criticize as a pious man, then for me everything falls into the classes of divine and diabolical, and before my criticism nature consists of traces of God or traces of the devil (hence names like Godsgift, Godmount, the Devil's Pulpit), men of believers and unbelievers; if I criticize while believing in man as the "true essence," then for me everything falls primarily into the classes of man and the un-man, etc.

The truth, or "truth in general," people are bound not to give up, but to seek for. What else is it but the être suprême, the highest essence? Even "true criticism" would have to despair if it lost faith in the truth. And yet the truth is only a - thought; but it is not merely "a" thought, but the thought that is above all thoughts, the irrefragable thought; it is the thought itself, which gives the first hallowing to all others; it is the consecration of thoughts, the "absolute," the "sacred" thought. The truth wears longer than all the gods; for it is only in the truth's service, and for love of it, that people have overthrown the gods and at last God himself. "The truth" outlasts the downfall of the world of gods, for it is the immortal soul of this transitory world of gods, it is Deity itself.

Only as the property of me do the spirits, the truths, get to rest; and they then for the first time really are, when they have been deprived of their sorry existence and made a property of mine, when it is no longer said "the truth develops itself, rules, asserts itself; history (also a concept) wins the victory," and the like. The truth never has won a victory, but was always my means to the victory, like the sword ("the sword of truth"). The truth is dead, a letter, a word, a material that I can use up. All truth by itself is dead, a corpse; it is alive only in the same way as my lungs are alive - namely, in the measure of my own vitality. Truths are material, like vegetables and weeds; as to whether vegetable or weed, the decision lies in me.

You believe that you have done the utmost when you boldly assert that, because every time has its own truth, there is no "absolute truth." Why, with this you nevertheless still leave to each time its truth, and thus you quite genuinely create an "absolute truth," a truth that no time lacks, because every time, however its truth may be, still has a "truth."

Free criticism busies itself with ideas, and therefore is always theoretical. However it may rage against ideas, it still does not get clear of them. It pitches into the ghosts, but it can do this only as it holds them to be ghosts. The ideas it has to do with do not fully disappear; the morning breeze of a new day does not scare them away.

The critic may indeed come to ataraxia before ideas, but he never gets rid of them; he will never comprehend that above the bodily man there does not exist something higher - namely, liberty, his humanity, etc. He always has a "calling" of man still left, "humanity." And this idea of humanity remains unrealized, just because it is an "idea" and is to remain such.

Criticism remains stuck fast in the "freedom of knowing," the freedom of the spirit, and the spirit gains its proper freedom when it fills itself with the pure, true idea; this is the freedom of thinking, which cannot be without thoughts.

Criticism smites one idea only by another, such as that of privilege by that of manhood, or that of egoism by that of unselfishness.

Re: Why does anyone here care about radical leftists?

Rcder — Sun, 15 Jul 2012 16:20:54 GMT

I belive these people are at least semi-sincere when they do this (as this is how they were brought up / trained). To call them liars would be a bit harsh. To say they are "doing" anything though,that is questionable. If anything, I tend to categorize this as a group that largely "out skeptics" themsleves from being comprehensible. It's an easy honest mistake to make.

Can you give us some examples of modern-day intellectuals who behave in this manner?

Re: Why does anyone here care about radical leftists?

vive la insurrection — Sun, 15 Jul 2012 16:13:06 GMT

No,

To be superficial, I am saying I haven't heard a truth claim. To me it is mostly doing geneologies, "deconstructions", psychologies, and showing the "absudrdity" of an action or custom at some point in history.

This line of thinking does nothing. I know there is more to it than that...but I honestly haven't seen much more.

I belive these people are at least semi-sincere when they do this (as this is how they were brought up / trained). To call them liars would be a bit harsh. To say they are "doing" anything though,that is questionable. If anything, I tend to categorize this as a group that largely "out skeptics" themsleves from being comprehensible. It's an easy honest mistake to make.

Re: Why does anyone here care about radical leftists?

Neodoxy — Sun, 15 Jul 2012 16:04:44 GMT

Vive,

What exactly do you mean? Are you saying that all leftists do is lie?

Re: Why does anyone here care about radical leftists?

vive la insurrection — Sun, 15 Jul 2012 15:50:15 GMT

I like engaging leftists (as long as they're intellectually honest) because they have a different perspective. I don't like being in an echo chamber all the time.

Honest question,

How many "radical" leftists /neo-leftists do you know that have actually made truth claims (even left liberals and soc dems have this problem, though usually they can at least appeal to some form of scientism from time to time)? For me it seems as if it is built off of out of bounds skeptical critiques, psychologisms, passive aggressive behaviour, and random social signaling devices. I think the truth claims died with hard core Marxism.

PS:

That is actually why I kind of made this thread. They can be enjoyable to engage from time to time. But in the long haul, they are the least intellectually satisfying, and get away with the most insane BS from my experience.

Re: Why does anyone here care about radical leftists?

Autolykos — Sun, 15 Jul 2012 15:32:24 GMT

vive la insurrection:
And a note on how itisn't the same type of "anarchism":

Indeed, it isn't always the same type at all. Anarcho-communists/socialists and at least some anarcho-syndicalists don't propose anything that I'd call "anarchism", because they define "the state" as something like "the ultimate instrument of class rule". By that definition of "state", a classless society necessarily has no "state". But there could certainly exist a single (and thus monopolistic) administrative apparatus that governs all of the means of production in the society (however indirectly). In fact, that's what the above types of left-anarchists desire. The irony is that this monopolistic administrative apparatus is precisely what anarcho-capitalists identify as "the state".

Re: Why does anyone here care about radical leftists?

Autolykos — Sun, 15 Jul 2012 14:14:44 GMT

I like engaging leftists (as long as they're intellectually honest) because they have a different perspective. I don't like being in an echo chamber all the time.

Re: Why does anyone here care about radical leftists?

Wheylous — Sun, 15 Jul 2012 09:55:04 GMT

Banished!

Re: Why does anyone here care about radical leftists?

Rcder — Sat, 14 Jul 2012 21:13:19 GMT

Neodoxy,

Man, this has not been my week! I meant to say Frederic Bastiat, not Say; to my knowledge Say never served in a political position. Whatever meager reputation I've had on this forum is probably gone now.

Re: Why does anyone here care about radical leftists?

Neodoxy — Sat, 14 Jul 2012 20:15:55 GMT

@Rcder

That's also where Frederic Bastiat sat. The right is where the defenders of monarchy, and the believers in state privilege and aristocracy sat. The left is where those who challenged tradition and authority sat, whether socialist or classical liberal. It's not exactly perfect, but it's a better match than the right was.

Re: Why does anyone here care about radical leftists?

Torsten — Sat, 14 Jul 2012 19:52:20 GMT

That's right, there is more then one left-right scheme in politics. You just mentioned the American one. The Europoean one puts Communists and Anarchists on the far left, while Monarchists and National Socialists would be on the far right. Liberals, Social Democrats and Christian Democrats would be somewhere in the middle, with Conservatives being a bit more right. One shouldn't forget that this is all based on 19th century schemata and I consider them anachronistic. The present political dichotomies are a bit different from the former ones dealing with certaing preferences.
global vs. regional
state sponsored/controlled vs. private initiative
egalitarian synthesis vs, organic structures.

There should be more on this to investigate.

Re: Why does anyone here care about radical leftists?

Serpentis-Lucis — Sat, 14 Jul 2012 18:00:18 GMT

@ Anenome

I see your point. The far-right (= libertarian), far-left (= Totalitarian), seems like a oversimplification however. The Left isn't statist just for the sake of being statist, they adopt Statism because they believe it best brings about the society where their values are satisfied (Fairness and such), just as the Right isn't less Statist for the sake of being less Statist. The Right see the government as a sort of infringement on family values (Something the Right are more likely to value highly), this makes them less Statist only because Statism is a assault on their value system. The Right tend to value family, purity, and authority highly. The Left tend to value fairness and harm reduction the most. People will favor the method they see as best suited to fulfilling their values, as such a Leftist could be a Libertarian if they see it as best fulfilling their values, just as a Rightist could be a totalitarian if they see it as the best way of fulfilling their values. I could go into more details if you like.

PS: I realize that I talk about what values the Left and Right tend to have, this isn't just my opinion, there was a study in moral psychology which focused on this.