LRC being antiwar and the left wing

 

If nothing else can be said about LRC, it is truly antiwar.  And being antiwar is a truly radical and isolating position.  I would also like to note that I don't think anything I say is a logical argument, it is merely an impression I am getting.  Nor do I think anything I am saying is particularly liberterian - and some of it may even be opposed to liberterianism.

I have become convinced that leftism is nothing more than a FUBU for intellectuals, and found a way to force us to face the consequences of it.  It is an intellectual language for an intellectual class to assert intellectual will, and thus far it has proved unassailable.

As with all things with the right, it is easy and safe to deride military imperialism - but being that leftist language is the "normative" and customary / fashionable language of our time it is almost futile to try to discuss left wing violence / war mongering* .

The sad thing is, this isn't a "contradiction" (as there is no such thing) - the left is asserting leftist agendas for leftism's sake.  Which is fine, it is the language of fashion / relevancy / and power.  It can be as ruthlessly "pragmatic", "realistic", Nietzschean, and brutally efficient as it wants because it is in the position to do so - people are simply concerned with manipulaing fashionable language to their advantage, as that is what is rewarding to capable people -this is just the "nature of the beast".   Most people won't even have the antenna to hear you point out left of center left wing brutality and imperialism, as it is not profitable to someone to receive  who is in the left wing (and hence, is in a social position above yours). 

Even so called radical left winger types won't care - they can critique Bush, Hitler, The British Empire **, or corporations all they want - but you will always notice they will go light on more "mainstream" leftists (an when they critique mainstream leftist politicians it is almost always because they are being controlled by the "right wing" or aren't being "leftist" enough).

 

Every time you think you are on the same page with being "antiwar" with a leftist (ex: Iraq) see how quickly they dump you and cast you aside when you critique one of Obama's wars, or "class struggles", or "Humanitarian causes" ***.   We are mere tools to be used and disposed of by these people when it is convenient because they are in the position to do so - and this should not come as a surprise.  For those of us  who care about something that resembles antwar, antiviolence or aniimperialistic action we have to recognize one fact - we are pretty much alone (and I certainly do not mean necessarily libertarian) .  The end result is, I don't think it is wise to ever be an "ally" with the left.  Every time we just so happen to agree with a leftist - we ought to distinguish ourselves from their cause, or else you will be eaten up.

Furthermore, to compete in a system that is essentially built by this class and on this classes terms is a very difficult position to take -indeed it is a position for Sisyphus himself.  In fact, left of center power is so established; I think the left wing is almost at the point of freely admitting that academia, media, and governmental structures are built by this class and in it's favor and to oppose such things is being an irrelevant "reactionary" (and indee there is some truth to that).

This may sound bitter and cynical - and in a sense it is.  But if nothing else, I think it calls out the fundamental reality of things, and to name and identify actual problems is a power unto itself.  This is what we are really dealing with, and it is for reasons that I am alluding to is why the left is THE opposition and why we will always be on the outside looking in and considered "right wing" (which is a bad word) , "reactionary" (which is an even worse word), etc with the left. To them - at best we will be a convienient boogey man to rabble rouse, or a "usefl idiot"/ junior partner to temprorarally "ally" with.  And to bring home the point: try not to agree with the left, and when you just so happen to do so, distinguish yourself from them as much as possible to avoid being gobbled up.  This seems the best solution to an overwhelming problem.

 

*I mean there are even Maoist and Stalinist apologists for fuck sake.  And while it may not be mainstream it isn't taboo to defend them as it would be Hitler, or even Mussolini.  I know being Stalinist in today's world is heterodox, but one can still do it.

** Honestly the Brit Empire wasn't all that bad as far as Empire's go.  Also, do you think Gandhi could have practiced his non violence against Hitler or Stalin...no - this is because he was able to get Western left of center (i.e the language of power and hence high social "currency") backing.  The reality is, Gandhi was nothing more than a pawn of the intelligentsia - I am becoming coninced these types of social actions are great farces and great vanities, built for the amusment and self righteosness of left of center intellegentsia.

*** Their morals, ethics, and principles are nothing more than clever euphemisms and obscurist language to subsidies to get what they want, when they want.  There is no imperative or difference of action than them and Ghengis Khan and his men slaughtering people by the boatload to get gold and slaves - the actions and consequences are the same. The difference: Ghengis Khan actually made sense, where leftists abstract par excellence while creating "social currency" hierarchies and rabble rousing people to achieve leftists concerns and advantages.

I have become convinced that leftism is nothing more than a FUBU for intellectuals

This is like a modern day Mencken quote.

This is on par with what you stated about Austrians being painted as right wing (to an extent) due to how one percieves reality, and the Austrians being on the outside gives a better perspective, but nearly is not fashionable enough.

Not to say the leftists are not principled for their own agenda, but the language is so obscure and broad the agenda becames literally a clusterfuck of micro-agendas at once, and can become elusive when pointing out contradictions or when their stance seems to sway.  On policy this allows them to move forward in different areas, branching out, and to them the question seems to be "does the end justify the means?" where the answer is always "yes."

The language leftists may use (and this is not for your run-of-the-mill Democrat) does not reflect the layman, and as much as they can say the represent the working class or common man, the common man in reality cannot grasp what abstract political notions they are presenting to them, but they assure them it's for their benefit, they are literally the best sales people in marketing agendas, they can create the best sales pitch.  This may filter out in different ways to different people once it's proposed, but somehow it works.

The difference with those of an Austrian bend is there's not really a way of marketing it, it's simply there in the most blunt and honest way possible, the structure as it is and there's no way to progress forward into it, only to reduce it as much as possible.

When I talk to mutualists and leftists it seems like a semantics debate from the start, you need to clarify what they mean by every word so you do not get wrapped up into it and proved "wrong" because you did not understand the rules of the language.

The agenda is expansive, it's not anti-government or not exactly anti-war, you'll find many cases where as long as it's in their favor, it's good.  The principles are different.  I think the foundation itself has been "for the common good" where common and good can be whatever they want and how they want it.

I know being Stalinist in today's world is heterodox, but one can still do it.

Any Stalinist you may run into today is likely to be an old and quite poor Russian geezer. Stalinism as it exists is a sort of revolt of the old in Russia against percieved denigration of the past by precisely the kind of people you are upset about. It is a sort of Russian counterpart to Merle Haggard/'The Battle Hymn of Lt Calley'/Charlie Daniels shtick. It is quite contrarian and its whole appeal is that it's contrary to what the would-be setters of intellectual fashions think and want to impose.

http://seansrussiablog.org/2010/05/03/may-day-with-the-russian-communists/

It isn't ultimately about leftism, but about a veener of something, anything, to have as a litmus test between sophistication and its opposite — but that's just what you were saying. So in many places this is left-liberalism as we know it, but elsewhere it can be something quite dismissive of the left, the main thing is that's it's pro-Western. That's what makes you sophisticated.

Also I think the word 'intellectuals' is too flattering for these people. Solzhenitsin had a term 'obrazovanshchina' for the class of people who received an education but were still dumb as bricks, only now they were also obnoxious.

@Marko:

You're actually taking a more global view of things, and I know exactly where yo are comming from, but which for the purposes of what I discuss in the context of this site, it is almost out of anything I will want to discuss.  I am aware that to be pro Stalin is a different thing in Russia.  Unless I otherwise specify - I am talking about the West within the "Western" perspective.

There are French, German, UK, and American acamdecians that are pretty light on Stalin, and certainly one's that praise Lenin.

 

@ Bert:

The language leftists may use (and this is not for your run-of-the-mill Democrat) does not reflect the layman, and as much as they can say the represent the working class or common man, the common man in reality cannot grasp what abstract political notions they are presenting to them, but they assure them it's for their benefit, they are literally the best sales people in marketing agendas, they can create the best sales pitch.  This may filter out in different ways to different people once it's proposed, but somehow it works.

This is a good point, and deserves some clarification.  The dude I sit next to at the bar and is involved in local politics / union / community center or whatever is not what I consider a "leftist" in the way I use the term, nor am I interested in "debunking" his political stance when we talk.  I am looking more at the "relevant people" within leftism, who I think use the latter types of people as tools.  It is the class the comes out of universities and produces things like "bohemians", propagandists, and high government positions. 

One may even go so far as to say that something like Keynesianism and the usual scientism (how often do leftists run behind Darwin / evolution!) is nothing more than a managment theory based on market principles on how to subsidize to get what you want to keep power within this framework.  In other words Keynesianism can even be looked at as a type of conservativism, to keep and conserve the power and values of the intellectual classes - which is kind of funny.

The agenda is expansive, it's not anti-government or not exactly anti-war, you'll find many cases where as long as it's in their favor, it's good.  The principles are different.  I think the foundation itself has been "for the common good" where common and good can be whatever they want and how they want it.

 

Another good point, and another thing that I honestly think is becoming more evidently revolting to me.  I can have sympathy for a leftist who has a genuine interest in helping the poor, ending war, or whatever; but frankly I doubt the merit of most people (particularly from the "intellectual" classes) to actually mean what they say.  I think for the most part they just like to do things like that because it "builds their social resume" so to speak.

And frankly I think these leftists are more concerned with "being artists", asserting and being an activist for "rights" for their privliged class, eating the "right kind of foods", shopping at the "right kind of store", critiquing the "right kind of people", etc.  In other words social signaling to achieve a better resume.  Anymore, I don't think "the poor" is as big of a concern as "going vegan", "x rights", or other stupid culture war stuff in which they want to insist on the "right" kind of ethics.  To me this is disgusting, but whatever. 

On a bit of an irony - thier culture is almost as much, if not more so of an egoist consumer culture (ex: "I have position X, Y, and Z isn't that cool!") than what they are trying to rail against.

If nothing else, Stirner is probably the greatest demasker of such motives and people - which is probably why he never sat so well in leftist corners anyway.

The person you described I would not consider a leftist in this context either (to your mainstream conservative or Republican, yeah), but it really does come down to this sort of intellectual and ironically bourgeoisie political activists (whether in action, or mere pen pushers of ideology).  No one can actually relate to them except the people in their class.  Though the emphasis is on those intelligentsia who seem to be working behind the scenes so to speak.

Thing is I have friends who are like this, and I know what it's like first hand to even talk politics or activism with them.  If you can figure out how to speak their language you might make it somewhere in the political conversation, if not just expect a sociological breakdown of the most mundane topics.  Sometimes it feels like a joke in itself, that you have people that literally will find the most trivial things that they see as "wrong" or "bad" and exploit the hell out of it just to make a campaign, and this seems to be their life.  Intellectual debates and endless activism, but for what?  The agenda is?  (One of my friends actually told me he felt that Ron Paul was too extreme/radical in his views, which I felt was akin to saying "He's too principled to just not give in and use the government to further his cause" - which is what he was implying, coming from a die-hard leftist).

What you said about activists only concerned about their privileged class reminds me of a George Carlin bit, I think he was talking about environmentalists who push for said policies and go out their way for the lastest green trend, but really only care about their own environment, they really don't give a shit about anyone else.  He went as far to call them "white bourgiusie liberals" which is fitting.

I guess one thing it comes down to is how much they care and whatever "principles" they have, as I said their agenda is for the "common good" which can fluctuate.  If my leftist friend said he voted for Obama because of birth control/health care, but wants to rally against him at the same time, well, fuck.  It sort of becomes a task to figure out who's sincere or not on the ever fluctuating agenda of "progress."

It pretty much turns into a giant game of political chess.

He went as far to call them "white bourgiusie liberals" which is fitting.

It's becomming one of my goals to show how their "bohemians" and their actions are nothing more than an extension, expression, and an affirmation of the bourgoise they detest so much.  And I don't mean this as a joke, but they really truly are inescapably arch capitalists in a way - perhaps because they are in power, better than even us who promote capitalism.

I think Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe, and Hayek do a good job on pointing this out to a degree.