Some Descriptions of the Alt Left on the Net

The Alt Left is just the Alt Right, except they like Mao way more than they like Hitler.

Sort of correct.

The Alt Left are basically Alt Right Communists.

Sort of right.

The Alt Left is the left wing of the Alt Right.

Sort of, yes.



I would imagine an “Alt-Left” would go beyond and be above that, putting class struggle over identity politics without using “class above all else” to shut down any debate over racism/sexism/etc. A Left that didn’t think accusing people of racism is enough to dissuade them from voting Trump/UKIP/Le Pen/et al but actively sought ways to persuade those with racist tendencies to not be racist.

A Left that was able to inform the working class that the Alt-Right and Far-Right are bad news for the working class as a class – as well as the well-documented ways they are bad news for various oppressed demographics. Finally, above all else, a Left that rejected the loopy elements of Identity Politics (as commonly found in academia particularly in the US but an issue in the UK as well, especially with the NUS) and injected some much needed rationality into the debate.


Aren’t the Alt Left just social democrats who are critical of immigration? Something like that.


Seems like there are already people self-describing as the ‘Alt-Left’ in the sense of being the ‘leftwing of the Alt-Right’ — from what I’ve seen, social democratic on economic matters, very hostile when it comes to Identity Politics, feminism, etc., occasionally antisemitic.

Probably one of the best definitions so far.

There’s definitely a return to imagined Christian values/hetero nuclear family at core …you could have an Alt-Left that did that too I guess if you really wanted.

There are Alt Left people pushing exactly this. And anyone into traditional morals or traditional values with Left economics would absolutely be welcome here.

I think the Alt Left is the left wing of the Alt Right. That is how it seems to me anyway. Where the Alt Right embraces fascism, they embrace concepts like Maoism.

That’s about it.

Having said that, I think there’s space for some form of Leftism that is skeptical of both market and state but doesn’t sign up to any of the current far Left ideologies. And has good memes.

Sort of, yes.

Again, it’s just a liberal guy who is a White Nationalist. It’s basically the leftwing of the Alt-Right as the blog itself says or some kind of lite version of Nazbol with emphasis on the Naz and not a whole lot of Bolshevism.

Discussing Rabbit’s page. Nazbol Lite is a pretty good way to describe Rabbit, too.

Class Left is better. Or Classical Libertarians. Or Class Realists.

Classical Libertarians no; Class Left and Class Realists are both perfect. We are “class reductionists.”



We’re back to “we want a UKIP of the left” again.

A UKIP of the Left would not be a bad thing. It would seem to be an Alt Left project.


Filed under Anti-Racism, Britain, Christianity, Civil Rights, Conservatism, Cultural Marxists, Economics, Europe, Fascism, Labor, Left, Liberalism, Libertarianism, Maoism, Marxism, Political Science, Politics, Racism, Regional, Religion, Republicans, Socialism, US Politics, White Nationalism

6 responses to “Some Descriptions of the Alt Left on the Net

  1. Great descriptions. From where did they originate?

    You’d be surprised (or not) how many “far right nationalists” act like Maoists or Marxists. They don’t realise they are, or wouldn’t admit they are, but they are. We have some in Australia and they’re carrying on the Australian bush-Maoist tradition, albeit with a strong anti-immigration bent.

    I view the alt-left as corrected Left wing politics. Left wing politics with reality booted into it, in order to sustain the kind of society that people of the Left would want to create.

  2. James Schipper

    Dear Robert

    The alt-left is certainly not communism. One problem with communism was that it really didn’t recognize countries, religions, nations and races. Class was everything, as expressed in Marx’s dictum, “Proletarier aller Länder, vereinigt euch”. This was one of the weaknesses of communism. People are never just proletarians. They are citizens of countries, members of nations, religions and races. There never was just a pure proletarian, but there were only German and French proletarians, Catholic and Muslim proletarians, white and black proletarians.

    Trotsky was once asked whether he was Russian or Jewish. He replied, “Your question is mistaken. I’m neither. I’m a social-democrat.” Some communists may indeed have been totally free from patriotic, nationalist, religious or racial sentiments and have become totally ideological, but most of us can’t be that intensely ideological.

    There is therefore no getting away from identity politics. If you believe, as I do, that the welfare state should stop at the border, then you are already practicing identity politics because you are distinguishing not on the basis of class but on the basis of citizenship and residency. Those who are citizens or residents of the country can benefit from the welfare state, those who are not can’t. That is clearly identity politics.

    What the alt-left should oppose is not identity politics as such but the practice of identity politics to the exclusion of class politics by the left and the exploitation of identity politics by the right. Ultimately, the main beneficiaries of identity politics are the plutocrats because it allows them to exploit diversity to undermine egalitarian politics. When people worry mainly about Muslims or blacks, they will worry less about capitalists.

    Let’s use an example. There is a company with 5 owners and 95 employees. The 5 owners are all white, and of the 95 employees, 60 are white and 35 are black. The owners treat all their employees badly, but they make sure that all the foreman are white. As a result, there is an attempt to unionize the employees. However, the owners successfully resist that by appealing to the racial sentiment of the white employees.

    Indeed, if it is white versus black, then it can no longer be employee versus employer. That is essentially what the Republican Party has done. It serves the interests of the richest 5% by practicing fraudulent identity politics so that ordinary whites will resent more the non-white minorities than the rich minority. As Paul Krugman formulated it, they harvest white resentment for the benefit of the wealthy.

    Alt-leftist in Western countries should adamantly oppose mass immigration since it is never beneficial for the masses because it means that immigrants will compete with domestic workers and because the diversity that immigration brings will inevitably undermine solidarity. However, opposition to immigration is also a form of identity politics because it distinguishes on the basis of those who are in the country and those who are not.

    Let’s therefore not pretend that we can eliminate identity politics. Instead, we should practice the identity politics that benefits the majority of the citizens of the country and is not an attack on the majority. The identity politics of the right is an attack on the economic majority, and the identity politics of the left is an attack on the white, (cultural) Christian majority. The new left and the old right are objective allies. Both should be opposed.

    Regards. James

    • Identity politics can be minimised by not creating identity divides. The notion of ‘whiteness’ didn’t really exist in Europe as it did in America, because Europeans up until recently didn’t have to differentiate themselves from their neighbour by RACE. Americans did due to the presence of black slaves.

      Pluralism creates identity politics, because identity changes from an unanalysed assumption to a point of difference. People who live in an ethnically homogeneous country will less likely identify as a specific race, because there is no utility in doing so. Likewise, if people of a gender aren’t politicised, then the difference in genders remains an unanalysed assumption rather than a point of difference. Gender remaining an unanalysed assumption isn’t necessarily totally positive. We can see that men are more assertive about their heterosexuality, as a point of differentiation from being a poof. The rich will display overt signs of affluence to differentiate from the middle class. The other defines the self.

      So identity politics must therefore be trait of a diverse society, and you can’t simply say to people to stop practising it.

      You’re also right about the new left and the old right being allies. The new left (reg left) create the ideological and moral climate to allow the wealth few to import as many competing workers as they like, and to oppose trade barriers. This has been so effective, that in Australia, Australians will actually attack those who suggest that foreign Chinese millionaires outbidding us at auctions aren’t doing us a favour. This extreme opposition to anything which could be construed as xenophobia is really helping the growthists and the property ponzi scheme. You can’t even argue for sensible population policy anymore, or affordable housing, without being called a xenophobe.

  3. Yee

    Robert would have made a fine communist in China or a supporter if he doesn’t want to give up religion. Left economics, tolerant on culture and racial.

    In China, culture and racial issues are considered “internal conflicts among the people”, to be tolerated and seek common grounds.

    According to Mao, there’re two kinds of conflicts in a society.

    One is called “conflicts between people and the enemy”, which means those have fundamental interest opposite to the people.

    The other is called “internal conflicts among the people”, which means people have different ideas, but have same fundamental interest.

    You’re supposed to identify the fundamental interest and unite all people to fight your enemy opposite to it. Unite people by acknowledge and tolerate differences and seek common grounds among ourselves.

    • This is why China is a rising powerhouse. The West doesn’t have a well defined sense of who “the people” are, so conflicts between the people and the enemy, and internal conflicts are seen as being the same thing. Each internal faction claims to be “the people” and the other just doesn’t belong.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s