My sense is that the precariat is also ripe for the right and that is the probable direction given the rise of nationalist populism globally in reaction to the consequences of neoliberal globalization for most people other than the top quintile, with the bulk of the gains going to the top 0.01%.
So far the so-called left seems splintered, fractured and in disarray in comparison with the simple messaging of the so-called alt-right.
Tom Hickey writes, “So far the so-called left seems splintered, fractured and in disarray in comparison with the simple messaging of the so-called alt-right.”
ReplyDeleteThis fracturing occurs because we fail to clarify what we mean by the “left.”
There are two kinds of leftists.
Group [A] leans toward socialism, financial equality, and the empowerment of workers.
Group [B] doesn’t care about the above issues. Group [B] consists of endlessly expanding mobs of freaks whose mission in life is to vilify all white heterosexual non-Jewish males in the working class.
Members of the “alt right” mistakenly see both groups as one and the same. They mistakenly see all leftists as the same.
For example, if you lean toward a socialist outlook, then “alt right” people presume that that you support militant feminism, “trans rights” madness, and #MeToo opportunism. They presume that you support weaponized political correctness, and weaponized Social Justice Warrior pathologies.
Put more simply, the "alt right" crowd equates [A]: economic leftists who are reasonable and compassionate with [B]: social leftists, who are shrill, selfish, relentless, and insane. The more social leftists are given, the louder they scream.
This false equivalence is understandable, since politicians and corporate media outlets give a megaphone to the [B] group, and encourage them to castrate males in the working class so that males cannot challenge the 1%. Meanwhile politicians and corporate media outlets censor the [A] group, again to keep the 1% in power.
This split between the two leftist groups also helps to sustain permanent war. The [A] group of leftists opposes imperialistic war, whereas the [B] group does not care about bombs and bullets. The B group is at war with white heterosexual non-Jewish males. Their war is against (non-Jewish) masculinity in the working class.
(I say “non-Jewish,” since the B group considers sexism and racism perfectly acceptable as long as it happens in Israel.)
To repeat, I say that the left is fractured by a failure to clarify the distinction between [A] economic leftists and [B] social leftists.
Many “alt right” members would agree with group [A] if they did not equate it with group [B].
Konrad,
ReplyDeleteSJW's were coined by the Democratic Party wing of the neocon elites, and have no real existence - see - The Real Dangerous Ideas
Quote:
keep noticing something peculiar lately: Even though I seem to hear constantly about the members of the “intellectual dark web” and their war on the Social Justice Identity Politics Regressive Left, I never seem to hear very much from the Social Justice Identity Politics Regressive Left itself. I know that assertion may sound a little dubious: Surely we hear all the time about White Privilege, rape culture, gender as a social construct, etc. And yet: There are dozens of well-known critics of social justice activists: Harris, Shapiro, Peterson, Brooks, Stephens, Hoff Sommers, Weinstein, Weinstein, Murray, Murray, Rogan, Chait, Haidt, Pinker, Rubin, Sullivan, Weiss, Williamson, Yiannopoulos, Dreger, Hirsi Ali. Who are their equivalents among the Social Justice Types? Who has their reach or prominence?
I recently pointed out the irony that the supposedly suppressed anti-“political correctness” position is represented at length in numerous books, op-eds, YouTube shows, and TV interviews. But it’s worth noting the other half of this: The social justice position itself is often presented to the public through the voices of its critics rather than its adherents. It’s downright peculiar: When Jordan Peterson talks about “postmodern Marxists” we don’t really hear who they are (other than Adorno, who is dead). When David Brooks or Scott Alexander have written about the silly ideas of racial justice progressives, they have done it by imagining what the activists would say, or paraphrasing. Steven Pinker’s Enlightenment Now strongly criticizes “social justice warriors” for their notions, but while he explains their beliefs he doesn’t really tell us who in particular he’s talking about.
The “SJWs” often come across as an amorphous, irrational, angry blob, which is undoubtedly how many of their critics see them. For the most part, they don’t seem to have names.
Group B is not leftist.
ReplyDeleteFor a while, economic liberals called themselves “progressives” in order to differentiate themselves from social liberals.
ReplyDeleteProgressives wanted justice and prosperity for all, not just for one sex, or one race, or one group.
When “progressives” became popular with the public, rich oligarchs used their media outlets to call all liberals “progressives.” The oligarchs did this in order to blur the difference between [1] progressives and [2] politically correct liberals.
In this way, the oligarchs keep workers in poverty. When someone calls for a progressive item like Universal Medicare, for example, the public thinks of political correctness, plus militant man-bashing and other aspects of social liberalism.
Therefore the public is lukewarm about Universal Medicare.
EXAMPLE...
Person A: I think we should have Universal Medicare and other progressive programs.
Person B: Progressive? You mean like trans-gender rights? I don't want progressive programs.