Category Archives: Marxism

A Principal Tenet of the Alt Left – Hostility to Conservatism

Abel Dean’s Alt Left group on Facebook is absolutely swarming with Trump supporters. They did a recent poll on Trump, and I was the only person in the group opposed to him. Trump is a either a conservative, a reactionary, a rightwing extremist or a rightwing populist, however you look at him. Rightwing populism is a stepping stone to fascism. You keep going rightwing from rightwing populism and you get fascism.

See that “left” in the Alt Left? It’s not there for show. We really and truly are liberals, Leftists, socialists, Keynesians, and social democrats, and we are even open to any anarchists or Communists who wish to join us. One thing we are not and will never be is conservatives.

Why in the Hell is Abel Dean’s “Alt Left” group swarming with Trump supporters? Trump is an ultra-rightwing reactionary, a rightwing populist. Rightwing populism is one step away from fascism.

One of the defining characteristics of the early Alt Left was hostility to conservatism. We are not conservatives! This was always a part of my worldview, but it took the important Alt Left thinker Ryan England to figure it out. In fact, he posited Anti-Conservatism as one of the three principal defining tenets of the Alt Left.

The ideal Alt Left person is someone who would never vote conservative or Republican even if you put a gun to their head. I am absolutely flabbergasted by all these “Left” people who think there is anything left whatsoever about this radical rightwing psycho Trump. Alt Lefties are dissident liberals and Leftists.

In the US, we came out the Democratic Party, Green Party or even further left than that. I still vote Democrat and I read Daily Kos on a regular basis. Why? Because those are my people.

Sure, they’ve gone astray somewhat, but SJWism is actually not a large part of what they write about on there. I do not think SJWism is a big movement in the Democratic Party. In parties and groups further left, of course it is. My observation is that it is Western Leftists like the Greens along with Communists and anarchists who are the wildest SJW’s of them all. In fact, PC and SJWism was birthed in US universities principally by leftwing professors, quite a few of whom had at least something of Marxist background. This movement came out of the Far Left in US universities. And any new SJW ideas or concepts seem to be coming out of the Campus Left to this very day. US universities are SJW Ground Zero.

Sure the Alt Left is not happy with the Cultural Left, but that’s not the whole Left. Our principal enemies are the conservatives, especially the Republican Party. Why all these conservatives regard themselves as Alt “Left” or left anything on Earth, I will never understand.

Now granted, this is just my view of the Alt Left, and other wings may beg to differ. In particular, the Right Wing of the Alt Left has gone all in for Trump, and that is one reason why I am dissociating myself with them. I will formally and officially renounce them in an upcoming post. They are not part of my version of the Alt Left. They can come back in the Alt Left when they decide to quit supporting Trump and Republicans, which is probably never. And if it’s never,  they are gone from my Alt Left forever.

173 Comments

Filed under Conservatism, Cultural Marxists, Democrats, Economics, Fascism, Higher Education, Left, Liberalism, Marxism, Political Science, Politics, Republicans, Socialism, US Politics

Realist Left Replies to Robert Lindsay

Originally from my own site, then a response by Realist Left here on the Alt Left page on Facebook which is reprinted below, then Lord Keynes’ response below that, the latter two of which are reprinted below in this piece. 

Robert Lindsay has an interesting post here on the Alt Left.

Realist Left (whose Twitter account is here) posted an excellent reply to this on the Alternative Left Facebook page, especially on the question of Marxism/Communism in the Alt Left:

A not-so-brief reply to Robert Lindsay with regards to the role of Communists, Anarchists, Marxists, the ‘Left Wing of the Alt-Right’, conservatives, etc. within the ‘Realist Left’ and ‘Alt Left’ in general (to the extent that we and I are a part of it).

I agree and yet also respectfully disagree.

To me, the anti-Regressive Left, anti-SJW, anti-post-structuralism/PoMo, etc. in many ways is the bait. People are sick of it from across the board, and if that means that Libertarians (cultural or ideological), populist-conservatives, moderates, or even the Left Wing of the Alt Right get attracted to it, all the better for us because that gives us a platform to listen to our economic views, which in popular discourse have been completely neglected. Ultimately though, our ‘base’ will be ‘liberal’, ‘Center-Left’, and the Non-Marxist ‘Left’.

In my experience, Communists, Anarchists, modern Marxists, etc. are a lot more trouble than they are worth. They’re tiny, and yet they’re incredibly divisive, prone to conflict and moreover give off a terrible message to anyone else given their cataclysmic human rights and economic failures.

We (or I at least) don’t want them around or to be influential, or to be the ones holding up the microphone for our groups (or at least mine). I especially don’t want them in any position of power or influence within our groups. They’re welcome to join, listen in. There’s even some room for Marxian analysis here or there when it’s interesting (and especially when it comes from those who are the most interesting and prescient, i.e. Kalecki, Baran & Sweezy). But I don’t want to hear about ‘bourgeoisie’, neo-imperialism, Labor Theory of Value or any other buzz-words and simplistic forms of analysis.

It doesn’t matter too much anyways, since most Marxists/Commies/Anarchists are themselves Regressives as well. So when the opportunity comes around to distance ourselves from Communists/Marxists/Anarchists, I’ll gladly do so. Castro is terrible; Stalin is far worse. The theory concerning the Falling Rate of Profit is wrong, and no, the Revolution is not coming.

Clearly, I do not put Ryan England/Agent Commie in this group. He, unlike many Marxists, has actually read Capital and articulates its good points. And of course he’s not really a Marxist/Commie as we all know.

Same thing goes for the ‘Left Wing of the Alt Right’ – you’re welcome to hang around, bash Regressive Leftists, et al, but I don’t want to hear about proactive White Identity politics, minority bashing, Jooish Conspiracy, etc. There is NO place for that here. Period.

I DO want more conservatives to read things like the Realist Left / Alternative Left or at least a certain type of them. I will always be against the Religious Right (of which the Reg-Left seems like the new moral puritans), against neoconservative hawkery, and I will of course always be against the ‘neoliberalism’ or worse, libertarianism and corporatism that’s found within modern ‘Conservative’ movements.

But you have to realize, ‘Conservatism’ is a VERY malleable concept. 150-200 years ago, Conservatism was busy trying to keep the last vestiges of feudalism, monarchy and agrarianism alive and even included protectionism and industrial policies. 40-60 years ago, we had ‘Tory Keynesianism’ and Nixon’s ‘We are all Keynesian now’. I’d like Conservatism to go back to being more sensible on economic policy and perhaps better on foreign policy too as they were. They may be more socially conservative or religious than we are, but that’s okay. Conservatism will always be around, so let’s try to make the best of it, instead of ceding it to the worst forces possible.

One extremely important thing is we absolutely cannot become another mirror image of ourself. We cannot become the Alt Right to the Regressive Left. We cannot become the Communists to the Fascists. We’re basically somewhere between the center and left, and we’re non-dogmatic about what the ‘truth’ is; rather we’d prefer to intellectually be in pursuit of the ‘truth’. Let’s not become another religion or ideology as has befallen so many of the others (Marxism, Intersectionality Feminism, Libertarianism, Neoliberalism, Alt-Right and Fascism).

– Realist Left, comment here.

Lord Keynes responds below:

Yes, this more or less nails it.

In my experience, a lot of Communists/Marxists and Anarchists are already utterly indoctrinated in Cultural Leftism and SJWism and so are doubly wrong – both on their cult-like Marxist ideology and Regressive Leftism.

There is something of value in Marx’s economic thought, as I have pointed out here, but you can strip out the insightful points and reject Marxism as a political ideology.

My own final thought in this is: we need to *reclaim* the Center. The political Center – at the moment – isn’t much to boast about. It’s mainly neoliberalism and Cultural Leftism-Lite.

Leave a comment

Filed under Conservatism, Cultural Marxists, Economics, Fascism, Feminism, Left, Liberalism, Libertarianism, Marxism, Neoconservatism, Neoliberalism, Political Science, Politics, Religion, US Politics, Vanity

Filipino NPA Guerrillas in an Alliance with Duterte

TheMaker75: When the NPA was operating in Luzon and the major islands of the Visayas they actually had some power. Being relegated to Mindanao shows how far they have fallen.

Do you know if they clash or are friends with the MILF/MNLF/Abu Sayaf? I wonder if the military is letting them exist to keep the Muslims from spreading out of the ARMM. I have a very close friend from Bukidnon in Mindanao, and she says no NPA there. It’s a very secluded area with lots of coffee and pineapple farming. I’m curious as to exactly where they are.

The NPA used to keep corrupt politicians in check. The only thing to stop these scumbag Filipino politicians was the very real threat of a bullet to the head, and the NPA was very good at assassinations.

The further you get from Manila, the less you count in the Philippines. Mindanao is as far away as you can get, and I’m sure the New People’s Army is using the disconnect as a recruiting tool. In their heyday, the had a lot of control in Bicol and Pampanga. Basically surrounding Manila. They also owned the mountains of Cebu and a few towns along the coast. I’ve hiked straight across Cebu from Tuburan to Cebu City and never saw an NPA. It’s like an urban legend these days. My girl’s family was begging me not to go, as the NPA would surely kidnap me. I actually wanted to meet some, as I’m sure we would have gotten along. I even brought some Tanduay rum and knives I bought in Mandaue City to hand out, but alas, it was an uneventful hike.

In Cebu, at least the coastal towns were not fans of the NPA. The NPA would show up at your house at night and demand food and provisions. Not really the best way to win fans.

The NPA currently has a huge backlog of candidates wanting to sign up as guerrillas and it also has a backlog of people wanting to be candidates. It’s a pretty long process they have to go through to ward off infiltration and ensure loyal and committed cadre.

The NPA have always had an excellent relationship with the Muslim guerrillas down there.

As ceasefire is in effect with the election of Duterte. The NPA has actually formed some sort of an alliance with Duterte believe it or not. They are very pleased that he declared himself a socialist. The NPA’s aboveground organ gave him a list of Leftist suggestions for his Cabinet and he actually appointed a number of them. So the NPA in effect is part of the Cabinet of the Philippines government now. Duterte was apparently a politician of some sort down in Mindanao and he had an excellent relationship with the NPA when he was down there.

However, the NPA is very worried that the army which they call fascist will prevail over Duterte’s pro-NPA sentiments. Also the NPA says that the army has been violating the ceasefire mostly by doing propaganda, intelligence gathering, civic action programs, etc. in NPA areas. However, there has been no armed combat to my knowledge in six months. The NPA is also angry that the army has murdered four peasants in that six month period.

71 Comments

Filed under Asia, Economics, Islam, Left, Maoism, Marxism, Philippines, Politics, Regional, Religion, SE Asia, Socialism

Chinoys in the Philippines: Oligarchs and Revolutionaries

My association with “Chinoys” in the Philippines was a result of joint ventures. If you are doing any kind of business in the Philippines you will interact with Chinese-Filipinos whether you want to or not.

Fuji Chinese can be incompetent but their economic grip on the Philippines means that even the morons among them who would be homeless in China hold some position in the Philippines.

You realize that the head of the armed Maoist rebels called the NPA which wishes to destroy, overthrow and sweep away Chinoy rule in the Philippines is a Chinoy himself, right? His name is Jose Maria Sison, and he is one of my heroes.

The ruling class in the  Philippines is indeed stone evil, but it also includes some Malays. Aquino, Marcos and Duterte are all Malays. Much of the ruling class is actually landowning Mestizos. There are also a lot of Chinese, but Malays in the ruling class are not unknown. I have had three different psychiatrists and one physician from the Philippines, and all were Malays, albeit with Chinese in three cases or possibly Hispanic blood in one case. That’s a high-paying job. Physicians are part of the elite.

They were all staunch defenders of the Philippines ruling class, although one doctor said he went back to his home village one time, and the whole  place was run by the NPA. From 10 miles away in, it was one rebel checkpoint after another. The village itself was full of NPA walking around in broad daylight in full uniform and armed to the teeth with AK-47’s. Everybody acted like this was completely normal. The army in the area knew about the situation but had apparently simply ceded the area to the guerrilla and had decided not to go in there. Mexican standoff.

He went back and looked up his old school friends and they had all joined the armed revolutionaries. They found out he had an MD, and they asked him to join to them to be a field doctor for the guerrilla. He declined. He did not hate the NPA though. His attitude about them was more, “What do you expect? Of course we have armed revolutionary movement in our country. Why would that surprise you.”

14 Comments

Filed under Asia, Asians, Chinese (Ethnic), Filipinos, Left, Malays, Maoism, Marxism, Mestizos, Mixed Race, Philippines, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Revolution, SE Asia, SE Asians, Sociology

One Thing People Keep Forgetting: Alt Leftists ARE Leftists

From Facebook:

Dan Paton: Little do they know that if we starve enough people, we’ll have a Communist utopia.  Yes, of course. First starvation, then the Utopian Star Trek society. Because trade is no longer necessary. It all makes sense now.

Alt Leftists are not supposed to be rightwing anti-Communist fanatics. Even those of us who do not like Communism criticize it from the Left, not the Right, and even they have a certain amount of respect for it even if they think it doesn’t work. The whole “Communism starves the people” nonsense has been proven endlessly to be not true, and it’s just rightwing anti-Communist cant.

We have to keep reminding people forever that Alt Leftists are Leftists. The word “left” is not put in there as some sort of a joke. It’s real. And it says, “left,” not “right.” If you really more on the right, head on over to the Alt Right or the Republican Party, the Libertarian Party or Hell, even the DNC Democratic Party nowadays. But leave us alone please.

People just don’t get this about us, and I have to keep repeating this over and over.

I remember a White nationalist posted an interview of me saying, “Alt Left, these guys are interesting.”

This other WN said, “Meh, it’s just the same old namecalling Left. Racist, sexist, prejudiced, bigoted, homophobic, etc.”

And they other guy said, “Well, what do you expect? I mean, they ARE Leftists. But it’s a step in the right direction.”

I cannot emphasize this too many times. We are Leftists. Now we might be really, really weird Leftists, but we are still Leftists and always will be. People keep forgetting that, and we get called Nazis, fascists, reactionaries, conservatives, Republicans, bla bla constantly, and none of it is true.

As a matter of fact, one of the pillars of the Alt Left from the very earliest days is “Anti-Conservatism.” We dislike conservatism at its very core essence from
Burke to Kirk to Trump and before and beyond, especially the US conservative movement and the Republican Party.*

It’s just that we think that the Cultural Left has gone so far to the Left in their anti-conservatism that they are off in La La Land. We are on the Left, but we are not insane! And this is our main and only beef with the Cultural Left.

We hate conservatism and SJW’s! We think they both suck! We disagree that everyone needs to pick one of these terrible/insane choices. We happen to think there is a middle ground between the leftwing loons and the rightwing malignancies. But that said, we definitely hate conservatives much more than SJW’s. The conservatives are the our deadliest enemies, and there can be no peace with them, ever. The fight goes on until we take them out or they take us out. Zero sum game. I’m serious. Dead serious.

The SJW’s, on the other hand, are mostly just annoying, insect-like creatures similar to mosquitoes or gnats. Now granted, sometimes they are as bad as Alaskan mosquito swarms, but at the end of the day, it’s still just a damned mosquito, and bug spray still works pretty well. I highly recommend bug spray for both mosquitoes, SJW’s and other buzzing, swarming insects.

SJW’s are annoying pests. Conservatives are Enemy #1.

*We might be open to some other types of conservatism such as the Marine Le Pen Right in France. In fact, I would go so far as to say that Marine Le Pen is not even rightwing at all. Instead, she’s straight up Alt Left.

10 Comments

Filed under Conservatism, Cultural Marxists, Democrats, Europe, France, Left, Libertarianism, Marxism, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Republicans, US Politics

Daryl Basarab Talks Alt Left

Here.

The real group that needs to be purged is the group of people that don’t have a true sense of Marxist dialectics but think putting in a LGBT, female or minority President on its own is an accomplishment. Why is it an accomplishment to maintain the enforcing state of capitalism but with a new trendy ethnic/sexual face on it?

This applies even if you are not a Marxist. If all you are going to do is Obama/Clintonian neoliberalism + neoconservatism, albeit more progressively than the Republicans, why bother to have a gay president? Or a Black president? Or an Hispanic President? Or a Jewish President? Or a lesbian President? Or, Hell, a woman President? Or a transsexual pansexual disabled Eskimo President?

What’s the point if all they are going to do is enforce crappy policies? Why should I, a measly low income citizen who gets crapped on by every Administration, care whether it’s a woman or a queer or a Black or whatever who is screwing me over? They’re still screwing me over. Why should I prefer being screwed over by an Hispanic, a Jew or lesbian? Why would I rather get screwed over by them than by your standard White guy? What difference would it make to me in the end?

This is what the Alt Left is really all about, right here. The bankruptcy of SJWism for its own sake or as a end in and of itself.

4 Comments

Filed under Cultural Marxists, Democrats, Economics, Left, Marxism, Neoconservatism, Neoliberalism, Political Science, Politics, Republicans, US Politics, Useless Western Left

Israelis, Islamists, Hindutvadis and Fascism

William: Robert- I suppose it may be splitting hairs, but isn’t Israel about the Jewish faith? I mean it’s not like they’re all secular Jews – they’re linked by faith as much as bloodline.

Jews by blood but who have never been religious are not granted citizenship to Israel, although they are allowed to immigrate/reside there (green card equivalent).

RL: So Israel’s about the Jewish faith? “So what,” I would say. What does that have to do with anything?

William: Lindsay- I’m just saying it makes it not blatantly fash. Just kind of crypto-fash. There is a pretense not about race/bloodline.

OK, I can go along with that. I have always worried that these Lefties people calling Christian fundies Christo-fascists and the Islamists Islamofascists were going too far.

But in India, those Hindutvadis, well, they are pretty close to real deal fascism. They are not racist fascists. I suppose they are religious fascists. But the Hindutvadis are far more fascist than the Israelis or Islamists are.

There is a real question and a good debate going on regarding whether a religiously based fascism is even possible. But there was something resembling that in Croatia under World War 2. There was a racist-fascist (Nazi) regime called the Ustashe that killed Serbs, Jews, and, well, anyone who was not a Croat. However, a number of Serbs were given opportunity to convert to Catholicism and become in effect Serbs. The opportunity was given at gunpoint. It was covert or die, just like the Muslims did and sometimes still do. This would seem to be a Nazi-like regime that seemed to be based on religion at least in part.

There were also Chetniks roaming around in the mountains. These were Serbian Far Right guerrillas, often with a Serbian Orthodox priest traveling with them in the bands, who killed everyone who was not a Serb – Catholics, Muslims, etc. I believe they also fought against the Nazis though. The Chetniks would seem to be a sort of religiously-based racist fascism. There were also much more numerous Communist guerrillas roaming around the countryside at the same time, and they and the Chetniks did not have good relations.

Some Leftist theorists have recently been suggesting that the Taliban regime in Afghanistan was actually fascist in a sense, and they laid out a theory on why that was. I am not sure if I bought it though.

63 Comments

Filed under Afghanistan, Asia, Catholicism, Christianity, Europe, European, Fascism, Hinduism, History, India, Islam, Israel, Judaism, Left, Marxism, Middle East, Modern, National Socialism, Nationalism, Nazism, Political Science, Racism, Radical Islam, Regional, Religion, Serbia, South Asia, Ultranationalism, War, World War 2

“Hinduism Versus Confucianism: An Analysis and Comparison,” by Dota

Nice essay from Dota, former commenter here who now blogs at Occident Invicta with Bay Area Guy, another former commenter here.

The societies of India and China have been structured along feudal lines for much of recorded history. Despite both societies placing a premium on hierarchy and authoritarianism, their internal motivations and ethical paradigms are widely divergent. The Chinese mind has been shaped by Confucianism, whereas the Indian mind has been shaped by Hinduism.

Let’s begin by analyzing Confucianism.

Confucianism stresses social order and postulates that no society can attain political stability by precluding social stability. Confucianism views society as a massive collection of interdependent networks that are comprised of relationships on the atomic level.

The genius of the Confucian model is that it recognizes the inherently relative nature of power and how power is also a zero-sum resource. Those that possess power do so because others do not. An emperor may possess power over a subject, but that subject isn’t powerless, only merely so in relationship to his sovereign. This same subject may be a teacher and wield power over his students.

To ensure social stability, Confucius ordained that relationships be guided by the principle of ren or benevolence. This is Confucianism’s highest virtue and arguably the philosophy’s overarching universal ethic. A sovereign treats his subjects benevolently by ensuring that they are fed, protected, and generally want for nothing (materially speaking). The subjects then reciprocate with obedience and loyalty. Those in power must treat those without (in the context of their relationship) with benevolence, while the latter reciprocate with obedience and loyalty.

Benevolence is often strictly interpreted as each party honoring their respective obligations. It would be unjust for a wife to expect her husband’s kindness if she herself were disobedient. Conversely it would be unjust for a husband to demand his wife’s obedience if he himself failed in his husbandly duties. We see a glimmer of this idea even in Western tradition. Plato argued that interdependence was at the heart of justice, and that social order was maintained when members of social classes refrained form crossing lines.

Confucianism’s approach to social justice is not dissimilar to other Eastern philosophies. The primary aim here is to ensure the prevention of abuse rather than empowering the disenfranchised (a preoccupation of modern day social justice). Sumeria’s Ur-Nammu famously proclaimed that: “The orphan was not delivered up to the rich man; the widow was not delivered up to the mighty man; the man of one shekel was not delivered up to the man of one mina.” Not unlike other ancient societies, the Chinese also believed that class structures were an inherent feature of any civilized society, as men of greater talent would naturally rise above their peers. The ancients thus focused their energies on ensuring that men of ability did not use their powers unjustly against those lodged beneath them in the social order.

Before we move on to discussing Hinduism, a few comments are in order pertaining to the success of feudalism in China. It is my opinion that feudalism was wildly successful in China for the same reasons that the Catholic Church was successful in Europe. The Church absorbed some of the most talented men in society by giving them an avenue to express their talents. Such men could not ascend in a strictly feudal order despite their talents and thus gravitated towards the church.

The Chinese state implemented that very approach and absorbed men of resource into its ever growing bureaucracy. This also had another unexpected benefit – it prevented the formation of a class of dissidents that could prove to be a source of agitation. I believe the Communist Party of China absorbs talent in such a manner even today. Men who wish to ascend the rungs of power often choose the political route (via the party) as opposed to the riskier route of commerce.

Hindu society, like its Chinese counterpart, was similarly structured along feudal lines. There is, however, one key difference in their underlying composition – Confucianism stresses the interdependence of relationship networks, whereas the Hindu caste system is the world’s oldest pyramid scheme.

As we are well aware, a pyramid structure is one where every level attempts to profit (by exploitation) off the labor of the level below, and so it goes all the way down until one reaches the base – the most crucial level and also the most exploited. Pyramids are inherently unstable and one way to ensure their longevity is by means of force. Individuals must be coerced to remain at their stations so that the structure may endure. This method leaves the structure vulnerable to rebellions and a constant tension between the levels. This point is obvious from British history alone where Barons often clashed with the monarchy.

In order to allay this source of instability, some pyramids permit upward mobility. But this makes the crucial base unstable by putting it in a constant state of flux as individuals at the lower stations climb up and leave their former stations vacant. This problem is alleviated by constantly recruiting newer members into the base so that there is always a base available for exploitation.

The genius of the Hindu caste system is that it combines both the aforementioned approaches. Hinduism forbids caste mobility in the current life, thereby ensuring the perpetual hegemony of the upper castes. However, in order to prevent tension, Hinduism allows caste mobility but only through rebirth/reincarnation. This system ensures that the lower castes are given some hope of improving their station in the social order so long as they serve the interests of the upper castes in the current lifetime. It is karma, the cosmic recruiter, that ensures that the base will always remain staffed with compliant serfs.

The ultimate difference between Hinduism and Confucianism is that the former is an escapist religion whereas the latter is at its core an ethical philosophy. While many a Westerner would disagree with the ethical rules of Confucianism, it is impossible to deny the ethical focus of this philosophy. Ethics reside within the horizontal space between individuals. Any ideology or mode of thought that attempts to address this space is ethical in nature, even if we may disagree with the rules that regulate this space and by extension the human relationships bound to it.

By contrast, Hinduism addresses a very different space: the gap between man and the universe (cosmic order). The goal of Hinduism is to escape the world and become liberated from karma once and for all. Karma and Dharma are cosmic forces that to the best of my knowledge have no equivalent in Chinese philosophy; the focus of the latter being on social and ethical matters as opposed to metaphysics.

To illustrate this point, consider the life of an ascetic. Hinduism places a great degree of value on the ascetic lifestyle. But the man who renounces the world resides in (to quote Arthur Danto) a space “beyond good and evil.” In such an environment, an agent’s actions have no moral content. A hermit who lives outside society will always act in a morally neutral way. The closest analogy to this in Chinese philosophy is the Taoist wanderer, who is essentially a loner. But the wanderer is not seeking escape from the world, merely freedom from discomfort and anxiety that plague those that haven’t discovered the way (Tao).

Confucianism on the other hand, by its very essence, rejects the ascetic lifestyle. Man’s place is rooted firmly in society, for as Confucius put it: “One cannot herd with the beasts or flock with the birds. If I am not to be a man among men, then what am I to be?” It is this space that Hinduism ultimately seeks release from. Consider the following illustration from India’s Bhakti tradition:

In the basic story, Tiruppan grows up as part of an ‘untouchable’ panar caste of bards and minstrels in a town near the temple of Srirangam, arguably the most revered of all Vaisnava pilgrimage sites and indisputably the single most important temple for Srivaisnava devotees. From the moment he is able to speak, Tiruppan sings beautiful songs praising the qualities of Rangi (or Ranganatha), the form of Visnu worshiped in the temple of Srirangam just across the river from his home town.

Every day he travels to the south bank of the river and sings from a distance to his beloved Rangi. Tiruppan yearns to see the image of his beloved but is unable to enter the temple due to his ‘untouchable’ status. Eventually, the beauty of his songs and the intensity of his devotion awake the compassion of Rangi, who comes in a dream to the Brahmin priest of Srirangam and tells him to bring Tiruppan into the temple on his shoulders.

The priest goes to get Tiruppan, but he refuses to come, saying, “How could you do such a thing with me, your slave, who belongs to the class of untouchables?” In another version, he states, “How can I step with my feet on to the holy temple of Ranga?” And the Brahmin replies, “Never mind! You can go [sitting] on my shoulders.” In yet another version, Tiruppan is so insistent that he cannot come to the temple because of his low birth and sinful life that the priest must physically force him onto his shoulders.

Eventually, Tiruppan enters the temple riding on the shoulders of the Brahmin priest, and gazing at Rangi in devotional ecstasy, he sings ten verses of praise describing the God from foot to head. These are the very verses that are still remembered and recited today in the Srivaisnava community. The story concludes with Tiruppan miraculously uniting with and disappearing into the image of his beloved Rangi.

This story illustrates how a man can close the gap between himself and the divine (Tiruppan and Rangi) whereas leaving the glaring gap between individuals (Tiruppan and the Brahmin priests) unaddressed.

This brings me to the final point of this essay. What is Hinduism’s overarching ethic? Western civilization’s universal ethic is moral universalism, and Confucianism’s is Ren (benevolence). It is my view that Indian civilization is unique precisely because it failed to do something which other advanced civilizations have done: produce a universal ethic. This view was shared by three individuals whom I have listed here in chronological order:

  1. St Francis Xavier
  2. Max Weber
  3. Dr Ambedkar

Francis Xavier, the Spanish missionary, made a series of observations about Indians that are quite illuminating. It is obvious that he did not think too highly of Hinduism, but it is one particular interaction that I wish to draw your attention to – a conversation between Xavier and a group of Brahmins:

When Xavier asked a group of Brahmins to summarize what Hinduism stood for, he was told that their gods “required two duties of those who desired to go to them hereafter, one of which was to abstain from killing cows because under that form the gods were adored; the other was to show kindness to the Brahmins, who were the worshipers of the gods.”

Max Weber arrived at a similar conclusion when he stated:

“There is no universal ethic but only a status and professionally differentiated dharma according to caste”

The Religion of India the Sociology of Hinduism and Buddhism

Dr Ambedkar’s observations in his book The Riddles in Hinduism were identical to Weber’s. The very first chapter, The Difficulty in Knowing Who Is a Hindu, is centered around an attempt to define some common ethic or even creed that binds Hindus together. Ambedkar arrived at the conclusion that one is a Hindu precisely because one is born into the faith and not due to any universal ethic that binds individuals together under a set of agreed-upon moral rules.

Just as it is impossible to practice larceny in a culture that has no concept of private property, similarly it is impossible to practice intolerance in a culture that believes in nothing. I suspect this is the secret of Indian ‘tolerance.’ Tolerance can only be measured in opposition to what one cannot tolerate. The act of enduring what one cannot tolerate is in effect practicing tolerance. It is only in this context that tolerance acquires a moral quality. One however cannot practice tolerance when one subscribes to no real beliefs whose limits can be tested. The Indian approaches the world with extreme apathy and conflates his indifference for tolerance.

In conclusion, the difference between Confucianism and Hinduism can be observed in their differing worldviews despite some overlap in social conventions. Hinduism’s focus is on mystical objectives, as it dismisses reality as we understand it as illusionary. Confucianism’s focus is squarely on this world, and its chief emphasis is social and political harmony.

217 Comments

Filed under Asia, Catholicism, China, Christianity, Culture, Ethics, Guest Posts, Hinduism, India, Jurisprudence, Left, Maoism, Marxism, Metaphysics, Philosophy, Political Science, Regional, Religion, Sociology, South Asia

A Marxist Alt Left Critique on the Modern Left

From Facebook:

Well I’m basically Marxist myself, and I don’t really recall references to patriarchy or white supremacy in Marx’s writings. Patriarchy Theory was crapped out by one William Fourier, of whom Marx was a critic. Marx and Engels strayed into feminist territory a bit, with ideals the later would explore a bit more in The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State.

But forms of socialism that emphasized race or nationalism they would have considered “reactionary.” They said next to nothing about racial and sexual identity, and it came down to later “Marxist-feminist” theorists to hash out what has since become the dogma of the Far Left on those matters, which is generally inapplicable and puritanical. Marxist Feminism was very marginal in both feminist and Marxist circles well into the 1960s.

I chuckled at the guy who said that patriarchy and White supremacy were more effective impediments to revolution than police repression. I can’t help but wonder how many “angry white dudes” who are really angry at their economic prospects, or lack thereof, have been put off of Leftism in the last forty years due to how anti-White and anti-male it’s become.

Leftism today is exactly what Marx was critical of in his own time: romanticization of some idealized past or foreign culture. In a lot of ways, this is what the Alt-Right has become also, only it’s their own feudal past rather than some African or North American society onto which they’re projecting their own disdain for technological society. As to the Woman Question, idealization of women typifies repressive and puritanical eras like both Queen Victoria’s and our own.

Male feminism reeks of a desire for young male radicals to regress to a childlike state where Mommy knew best, and Mommy was revered as nurturer. This is basically what I was in my late teens and early 20s, and it’s attractions are for males who have not fully matured and still tend to project maternal archetypes onto women as a whole. Once such men start actually getting some tail, they move on into adult forms of sexual (yes, sexual) relations and leave feminism behind.

Historical materialism and scientific socialism were critiques of “socialists” who idealized either their own pasts or some other culture’s. Pretty much what the Left has been since 19th century Romanticism was resurrected on such a massive scale by the 1960’s Flower Power movement.

Immaculate.

57 Comments

Filed under Conservatism, Economics, Feminism, Gender Studies, History, Left, Marxism, Modern, Nationalism, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Revolution, Sex, Socialism

More Marxists Against the Alt Left

Well, against my Alt Left anyway.

This is from Lost Generation, a reddit purportedly about the economic troubles of the Millennial Generation, but which seems to be populated mostly by Marxists for some odd reason.

All of the usual charges that get leveled against me by the Hard Left types are here: I’m a racist, sexist, fascist, crypto-Nazi Alt Right guy masquerading as being on the Left. What’s ridiculous is that I hate all of these people and have never felt at home at any of their websites. I am usually appalled by their racism, sexism, fascism, Nazism, etc. and I really cannot stand most Alt Right sites for similar reasons.

There is just about no one I hate as much as fascists, and I’ve never found a racist website where I felt at home and was not bothered by their hard racism. I also hate Nazis. And one of the main reasons that I hate the Manosphere so much is  because it is so misogynistic and sexist. In other words, I cannot stand sexist Manosphere sites. They’re awful and it’s their misogyny that I hate so much. I love women, I don’t hate them.

All of the attacks on me and my ideology are italicized.

Here’s the critique:

digdog303: Why isn’t there any alt-left?

Get_Erkt: I saw some dudes using that, but they seem keen to ignore everything we’ve learned in the past 100 years about how patriarchy and white supremacy/ imperialism are more effective impediments to revolution than police repression. Like they’re mad they might have to stop macking on comrades or share the spot light with others, and they think socialism means having a PS4 pro and $4K TV.

SayingStuffOnReddit: Ugh, exactly this.

I found this guy’s WordPress blog the other day, first one I’ve seen that was an “Alt Left” blog. He regularly bans people for very petty things, and it’s always race-related. He’s always hurling racially or religiously charged insults at people who say the slightest thing that makes HIM uncomfortable, and he always points out how someone is “ARAB” or a “JEW” even if there is zero evidence of them being that, it’s like “Hey, I think you look like you’re from X, so I’m going to call you a name associated with that area of the world.”

It was fucking ridiculous. Very little discussion of actual socialist theory and a whole lot of whining about “SJWs” and “feminism” while not really putting forth anything that really distances his views from a typical Alt-Righter.

For a self proclaimed Leftist (he had pictured of Stalin and Lenin, for example) it is pretty disgusting to see this kind of crap being spread as “valid” forms of agitprop for “socialism.”

Dude identified as a “race realist” and basically spews Nazi propaganda 50% less of the time than an actual fascist would.

I mean, I hate being called a brocialist, because I’m not one, but I’ve had people irresponsibly throw this at me when I’ve tried to critique Identity Politics and such in good faith. This guy, however, totally fits the bill and totally showed me why the term exists and is used as an insult to begin with.
They want “liberation,” but just none of that icky stuff that has to do with race, gender, or anything outside of class.

It is truly strange and something I cannot remotely relate to. I can only imagine that his “activist” group (if he even has that) is just a bunch of angry White dudes, which, in spite of me being a White male, I simply can’t get down with.

I live in a predominantly Black area, and this kind of shit would never fly in public, it is the product of upper-middle class White folks playing the role of revolutionary from their gated-in communities in the ‘burbs.

I hate sounding so condescending too, because I know it isn’t helping, but sometimes people really do need to meet you half way, and this guy is one of them; he’d do better to just shut up and read a book than spew more of this incoherent “Alt Left” bullshit.

pikapizza: The double-edged sword of the Internet is that it gives any idiot or socially-marginalized weirdo a voice. Embracing the ‘brocialist’ smear (anyone to the left of Hillary = hates women and likes the KKK) because you found one such idiot or socially- marginalized weirdo is not the way to go.

SayingStuffOnReddit: I don’t embrace it as a smear, I was just saying that I now understand why people might so easily sling it around when people like that guy are basically fascists appropriating left-wing aesthetics and terminology.

pikapizza: People using that epithet aren’t thinking of this guy. The whole ‘class politics = racist and sexist’ meme only got traction because millions of young Americans weren’t doing what they were told and started voting for the evil brocialist Bernie instead of the devout feminist and anti-racist progressive Hillary.

They have in mind the 22 year-old college student who has the disgusting, privileged audacity to think economic justice might be more important than smashing the patriarchy, and insults like this are their way of telling him to fuck off, that left-wing politics are not for him, and to go vote for Trump.

SayingStuffOnReddit: I know what you’re talking about, but I’ve seen it used in many other forms than the one you just mention. I was citing one instance.

And tbf “smashing the patriarchy” and “economic justice” have to go hand in hand. I don’t see them as at odds with one another, that’s all I was saying. Hillary supporters obviously can’t make the connection there, and doubly so for the right wing. People like Robert Lindsay see them as “polar opposites” which really just shows his lack of understanding of what actual feminists (the socialist ones, at least) believe. Instead, he lambastes caricatures of what feminism actually is or just takes pot shots at random individual actors without grappling with any real ideas.

He and his ilk spend more time talking about what a woman decided to wear to a “Slut Walk” than what her views are on “patriarchy,” how she might define it, and why she came to such an event in the first place. In a way, he doesn’t “dismantle” feminist critiques of society; he inevitably proves their legitimacy.

pikapizza: But they clearly don’t go hand in hand. We’ve just witnessed an election where the self-described feminist and standard bearer for progressive Identity Politics in the US was also a multimillionaire, staunch neoliberal and hardline imperialist who openly spoke for the interests of business and the very wealthy. Her campaign overtly used gender politics to dismiss economic justice as a sideshow issue (if not a sneaky cover for the Left’s closet racism and sexism) and smear any criticism from her left as veiled misogyny.

This is the new political reality. Thinking you can ignore it and keep on pandering to identitarianism with ‘oh, that’s not MY kind of feminism!’ or whatever is quite stupid.

SayingStuffOnReddit: Dude whatever i’m not gonna argue with you about the importance of gender and race and its relationship to class.

There’re books that talk about the significance of these, even when people try to insist class is some kind of “be-all” “end-all.”

If your idea of progressivism is “don’t talk about gender or race,” and you essentially equate any discussion of gender or race as “Identitarianism” then you’re just driving away people.

I feel like we’re talking about two different things, and you seem to be insisting that I’m promoting some kind of neoliberal Identity Politics. That’s not the same as taking an intersectional approach where we acknowledge that class is the key unifier of all oppressed identities.

Furthermore, Hillary isn’t nor has she ever been the “standard bearer” for progressive anything.

That is catering to and propagating neoliberal media narratives and ultimately capital interests.

There’s many different angles one can discuss gender and race, which I’m completely fine with so long as they’re rooted in anti-capitalist critiques.

Get_Erkt: Brosocialism existed before Sanders but referred to men who didn’t care about women’s issues, like whether we ought to discipline or expel men who preyed on women from socialist organizations. There were several high profile cases of rape cover-ups in Leftist organizations recently, but marginalizing women and relegating them to “women’s work” was something even the Panthers and Soviets were guilty of.

Patriarchy was the first form of economic class and exploitation, but brosocialists don’t want to hear it. Our organizations aren’t dating services, and comrades are held to a professional, disciplined standard of behavior in our personal interaction, but brosocialists don’t want to hear it.

The people who used Clinton’s gender as a lasso or whip against opponents were cynical opportunists. Clinton is no friend of women or anyone. But the Left has to struggle against internal sexism and racism nonetheless because we are products of a racist, sexist society and understanding the struggle revolving around class is only the first step to liberation. Patriarchy and White supremacy/settlerism/imperialism are manifestations of class across physical human characteristics.

pikapizza: Brocialism has been around for awhile, sure, but it’s never had that sort of narrow definition. It’s always been an ideological pejorative for any left-wing politics critical of or hostile to Identity Politics (you can be a woman and be a brocialist). So it was very much consistent and predictable that it was picked up by the Hillary campaign. The ruling class’ embrace of ‘Leftist’ Identitarian ideology and politics in support of imperialist policy, state repression, curtailing civil freedoms, divide-and-conquer political strategies et al. has been ongoing for many years.

And Clinton’s Identity Politics were only cynical opportunism if you’re still clinging to shitty and delusional assessment of Identity Politics that hasn’t moved past the 1960’s where racial and gender politics are still radical and revolutionary and haven’t been thoroughly integrated into modern bourgeois ideology and the daily functioning of big business and liberal bourgeois democracies.

It’s based on this completely unfounded premise that there is some secret and intrinsic connection between Identity Politics and the Left when the plain reality is that these are basically right-wing, anti-Marxist conceptions that dovetail perfectly with neoliberal politics and ideology. A right-wing multimillionaire shill for Wall Street like Hillary becoming the standard bearer for Identity Politics isn’t an aberration or a ploy, it’s a perfectly logical outcome.

SayingStuffOnReddit: There is an Alt Left, but it’s basically a bunch of “left” wingers in denial of their White Nationalism. They claim to be separate from the Alt Right, but it’s all propaganda that any well read socialist can point out.

An easy one is they have a distaste for “Cultural Marxism” in common with Alt-Righters.

Yet nobody seems to want to admit that “Cultural Marxism” is just a nice dog whistle for actual Nazi propaganda that was used during WWII.

It’s just that back then, it was called “Cultural Bolshevism“.

It’s funny how much this phenomenon has in common with the modern Alt-Right as well. Any symbols representing the authorities of the current prevailing order, if disrespected through art or expression bring shame and derision from the Alt-Right types, yet these are the people who are supposed to be the “revolutionaries” and “rebels” of the current time.

You’d think a bunch of revolutionaries would be more interested in disrespecting and subverting authority than supporting (let alone protecting) it.

60 Comments

Filed under Capitalism, Conservatism, Democrats, Economics, Fascism, Gender Studies, Left, Marxism, Nazism, Neoliberalism, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Revolution, Sane Pro-Woman, Socialism, US Politics, Useless Western Left, White Nationalism, Whites