Message from @tela
Discord ID: 642761346919956480
In fact, maybe even more so.
Tbh I don't get the objection to being called "right-wing". Yes, fascism does not seek to be "far-right" for the sake of being "far-right", but our values such as order, tradition, and the like are rightist as opposed to the leftist values of progressivism and egalitarianism.
@The State Progressivism is stupid, but on egalitarianism, don't straw man the left; Karl Marx himself wrote extensively on why equality is too vague a goal and often counterproductive and bad to pursue, even at times considering himself anti-egalitarian. Just look at the socialist maxim; different people have different needs and different people have different abilities.
They reject hierarchy as something inherently evil, thus they are egalitarian.
Not to mention the nature of the progressivism within leftism essentially makes the left partake in a "perpetual revolution" against even their own status quo. So long as you use "leftist" language, and don't return to whatever might be perceived as "tradition", you are good. For example, there are recorded private letters between Marx and Engels where they mocked homosexual behavior, and even more radical on that question have been a few communist thinkers. For example, I do not remember the guy's name, but there was one communist in the 20s who wrote something like "if we exterminate homosexuals, fascism will cease to exist", and others have proclaimed homosexuality to be "bourgeois decadence". However, such reasoning would not work among modern communists, who now see opposition to homosexuality as "reactionary" and "bigoted". I would not be surprised if in a decade or two, the left will adopt even more radical and strange ideas and would likely condemn certain things they condemn today as "reactionary" or "bigoted" given the perpetually revolutionary nature of their ideology. However, given that nature, whatever they turn against next will not be something leftists have fought for specifically, or something perceived of as inherently leftist, such as "anti-racism" or whatever.
I know that I was kind of rambling, but do you see what I mean? @HadrianEtAntinous
Maxim Gorky is whom you are thinking of
I see what you mean.
Also, the phrase used by Trotsky is "eternal revolution" not "perpetual revolution"
Tbh I wasn't even thinking about Trotskyite theory, this is just an observation of their nature
Though I would say that the modern leftist, even if they proclaim love of Stalin, is much more similar to Trotsky than to Stalin given how Stalin would have had some qualities they'd consider "reactionary", unlike Trotsky, or at the very least Trotsky had them to a lesser degree. Nonetheless, they likely "prefer" Stalin for the sole fact that he won out in the competition for power after the death of Lenin, and then they believe, or at least claim to believe, what Stalin said about Trotsky secretly working with "fascists" to tear down Stalin as a cope.
Poop
Pee
epig
Benis
Stalin is just better material for memes. Leftists tend to actually agree more with Trotsky, being the basis of antifascist theory and all.
Well done @HadrianEtAntinous, you just advanced to level 9!
forgive me brother for i have busted
COOMER GANG
I will not be a coomer
Honestly, I disagree with the notion that there's no end in sight with the left's progressivism. I think with Foucault's invitation for us to always think about who is asking the questions and who is allowed into the discourse and his post structuralist critique of the basis of everything we have seen the peak of how far the left can go. You can't condemn more than the set of all things; there literally is no way to critique more stuff than everything. And as such, in recent years, you can see a backlash and a subversion to the eternal revolution. Most of the recent increasing degradation of culture has just been application of that theory, and seeing how that theory is losing popularity among academics, the left at large should similarly go back to normal. @The State
You can't go much further than criticizing truth itself for being too hierarchical.
@HadrianEtAntinous I do not really see much of a backlash among leftist circles to the eternal revolution. Maybe you could consider TERFs as a backlash to the eternal revolution, but I would argue they are just another branch of it, for their reasoning is entirely based in leftist thought (transgenders are men trying to oppress women in their own spaces and what not). Not to mention how they have had contradictory ideals for a very long time now and they've had enough cognitive dissonance to deal with it until now, I don't see why they won't stop. The eternal revolution is a natural extension of leftist thinking.
There must always be a social oppression to fight for them, not matter what.
i want a TLDR of this convo
n werd
Yeah, I agree they're always going to fight for something, even if that something changes or their paradigm on how changes, because if they didn't struggle they wouldn't be the left. But those changes should not be underestimated.
Indeed, I would say that with the proper adjustments, it's almost Nietzschen, almost fascistic in the continual pursuit of improvement regardless of how things are; that Evolan riding of the tiger. In fact, I find it interesting the similarities between this description of the left and various critiques I have heard of fascism; the claims that when we get power we end up running in circles continually purifying ourselves and that we're fundamentally unstable when in charge. Perhaps we share that innate ideological righteousness with left.
@yThos We're arguing about how based leftist theory is or can be.
Poop
Free him
He did nothing wrong
Nonetheless if we proclaim to desire to achieve X, we will not turn around and say X is now a reactionary relic, and then move on to achieve Y, and then turn around and proclaim that a reactionary relic, and the move on to achieve Z. We proclaim our ideals, and really the only things that change is how radical they need to be or how radically we need to act based off of our surroundings and the problems of the present, but we do not strive for perpetual revolutionary conflict against ourselves for the sake of having eternal progress.
Bruh gordon ramsay on drugs @OrthoNinten
Perhaps perhaps. We certainly wouldn't disregard our past, but I like to think we wouldn't grow complacent. We are not the left, but nor are we the right. I like to think each of us would like the next generation be more based than the last, regardless of if that's unrealistic. We just wouldn't put ourselves in continual revolutionary conflict to do so.
I mean I guess we would kind of get into a Catch 22 if we achieve total success. We would have to avoid conflict for the sake of conflict because that is stupid, and is fundamentally what is driving the left to what it has become, but we also cannot reject all conflict for that is how people grow complacent and decadent, but if we achieved total victory, there would be no need for conflict...
So I see what you mean I guess
That Catch 22 about our total victory is like one or two things I actually would agree with when it comes to critiques of us.
Maybe that should be a poll. Considering conflict is how we grow, what do we do if we win? The classical answer is that we let ourselves promptly fail so the cycle can continue, but that seems rather rarted.
Exactly