A 'Hard Left' view of the War in Ukraine

[Doug1943]

While I agree with most of your post, I have to take issue with this line.
The entire democrat party has been co-opted by this hard left. Though some may speak as though they’re moderate, the reality is they’re bound to these Marxist tendencies by party affiliation and political survival.

Well, yes, we do disagree. You have to distinguish between the 'Hard Left' -- and even distinguish among currents within it, who have even gotten into fistfights with each other at demonstrations! -- on the one hand, and those to their 'Right' who are influenced/intimidate by them.

I personally know academics who soft-social-democrats, and not at all Politically Correct, but who are afraid to voice their real opinions, because of loud, noisy (minority) of students and fellow academics who will then try to get them fired, or at a minimum will blight their careers.

And so I would urge you to think again about your view of 'the Left' as a hard monolithic bloc controlled by its worst part. The reason it's important to try to understand the currents, disagreements, and divisions on the Left is because in war, you see allies who may not agree 100% with you. (If we could ally with Stalin against Hitler ...) And you seek to make neutrals, neutral-leaning-towards you. And you seek to make the enemy's allies, neutral.

There are plenty of people who are Leftist at heart, but could not stomach the drift of the Left towards authoritarianism and 'Red-baiting' (as it used to be called when it was us accusing liberals of being Russian agents).

You can find some of them at this site (a very interesting on in its own right):
[ Quillette ]
Or look at this guy, who expressed his pleasure when Andrew Breitbart died 12 years ago, but is now hated by the Left because he's honest:
[ Matt Taibbi - Wikipedia ]

or this very admirable, liberal, very high-quality academic:
[Steven Pinker - Wikipedia] who says things the 'Woke' crowd hate, because they're where his research leads him. (See in particular his book The Blank Slate.)

And I should also mention the late, most lamented Christopher Hitchens, the best anti-conservative the Left had ... who, unfortunately, got convinced by the neo-Cons that invading Iraq and trying to bring liberal democracy to Afghanistan were good ideas. But he never become a conservative. None of the others are, either.

They are just the tip of the iceberg. I promise you, there are millions of people -- from liberal intellectuals, down to members of the Steelworkers Union, who have always voted Democrat, and who may well vote Democrat in the future ... but who do NOT want to 'defund the police', or cut the genitals off an 8-year old [the liberal TV host Bill Maher used to make really uncomfortable viewing for us conservatives ... but he's an honest man, and can't go along with the Woke nonsense ... good for him. And he hasn't lost his mainly-liberal audience by making fun of PC crazyiness ].

It's war. We must seek to divide the other camp, to pull some of them towards us, to make alliances where we agree on things. And remember that reality does not stand still. There will be more and more events in the future that discredit the Hard Left -- in particular, their work hollowing out the American military is going to have consequences.

We must be ready for 'Bridge at Remagen' moments and use these coming events when they happen to convince honest liberals that the people they've allowed to exert growing influence on the political nullities/career polticians who lead their party, are poison ... not just to us, but to honest, traditional liberalism (which had honorable ideals).

 

[Doug1943]

Why would anyone try to explain a bullshit opinion post which you presented.

Well, you did your best. Everyone can judge your intellect by it.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

A brilliant reply. I am sure everyone who reads this is like me ... awestruck by your towering intellect. (Or maybe it's just that everything is hilarious to you. There are such people ... continually laughing and giggling, unable to stop ... usually found in institutions.)

Well, be that as it may in regard to Otto’s outburst, I don’t think many are likely to read your long comment #37 above, which seems moreover to be totally off topic. indeed, it seems like you are purposely straying far from you own rather thought-provoking Original Post.

Your OP was actually interesting to me, and thoughtful, and I’m sorry the discussion is veering so far away from the Ukraine war and possibilities for sober right-left solidarity around this admittedly complex issue.

 

[Doug1943]

Well, be that as it may in regard to Otto’s outburst, I don’t think many are likely to read your long comment #37 above, which seems moreover to be totally off topic. indeed, it seems like you are purposely straying far from you own rather thought-provoking Original Post.

Your OP was actually interesting to me, and thoughtful, and I’m sorry the discussion is veering so far away from the Ukraine war and possibilities for sober right-left solidarity around this admittedly complex issue.

Yes, you're right. We should be talking about Ukraine, and/or the different currents within the Left. (Which are really, logically, two separate, although related, topics.)

I got diverted -- my fault -- by the fellow whose friend --- an ex=teacher, no less! -- who routinely uses the N-word. And I've been wanting to point out that people who may share his general viewpoint, even without using that word -- and let's be honest, these are mainly people on the Right -- are probably ignorant of the evidence against their views. But this was the wrong thread to put it in.

So ... let's hear your thoughts about currents within the Left, where you clearly know a lot and probably have interesting things to say. Perhaps in another thread?

On Ukraine, we probably mainly agree ... and you might like to comment, from Left point of view, on the really astounding transformation of the base of the Right on foreign policy/foreign wars, over the last two decades.

We used to be the guys waving those American flags and chanting "USA! All the Way!" and accusing your side of being "traitors".

What a switch! I'm still not entirely sure why this, and similar inversions, like reflexive hatred for big corporations, has occurred. (And of course those who know their early 20th Century history will recognize the danger of a nationalist/patriotic movement with a socialistic social program, in the context of severe economic depression and a lost war. We're nowhere near there yet, but it's a possibility.)

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

Well, yes, we do disagree. You have to distinguish between the 'Hard Left' -- and even distinguish among currents within it, who have even gotten into fistfights with each other at demonstrations! -- on the one hand, and those to their 'Right' who are influenced/intimidate by them.

I personally know academics who soft-social-democrats, and not at all Politically Correct, but who are afraid to voice their real opinions, because of loud, noisy (minority) of students and fellow academics who will then try to get them fired, or at a minimum will blight their careers.

And so I would urge you to think again about your view of 'the Left' as a hard monolithic bloc controlled by its worst part. The reason it's important to try to understand the currents, disagreements, and divisions on the Left is because in war, you see allies who may not agree 100% with you. (If we could ally with Stalin against Hitler ...) And you seek to make neutrals, neutral-leaning-towards you. And you seek to make the enemy's allies, neutral.

There are plenty of people who are Leftist at heart, but could not stomach the drift of the Left towards authoritarianism and 'Red-baiting' (as it used to be called when it was us accusing liberals of being Russian agents).

You can find some of them at this site (a very interesting on in its own right):
[ Quillette ]
Or look at this guy, who expressed his pleasure when Andrew Breitbart died 12 years ago, but is now hated by the Left because he's honest:
[ Matt Taibbi - Wikipedia ]

or this very admirable, liberal, very high-quality academic:
[Steven Pinker - Wikipedia] who says things the 'Woke' crowd hate, because they're where his research leads him. (See in particular his book The Blank Slate.)

And I should also mention the late, most lamented Christopher Hitchens, the best anti-conservative the Left had ... who, unfortunately, got convinced by the neo-Cons that invading Iraq and trying to bring liberal democracy to Afghanistan were good ideas. But he never become a conservative. None of the others are, either.

They are just the tip of the iceberg. I promise you, there are millions of people -- from liberal intellectuals, down to members of the Steelworkers Union, who have always voted Democrat, and who may well vote Democrat in the future ... but who do NOT want to 'defund the police', or cut the genitals off an 8-year old [the liberal TV host Bill Maher used to make really uncomfortable viewing for us conservatives ... but he's an honest man, and can't go along with the Woke nonsense ... good for him. And he hasn't lost his mainly-liberal audience by making fun of PC crazyiness ].

It's war. We must seek to divide the other camp, to pull some of them towards us, to make alliances where we agree on things. And remember that reality does not stand still. There will be more and more events in the future that discredit the Hard Left -- in particular, their work hollowing out the American military is going to have consequences.

We must be ready for 'Bridge at Remagen' moments and use these coming events when they happen to convince honest liberals that the people they've allowed to exert growing influence on the political nullities/career polticians who lead their party, are poison ... not just to us, but to honest, traditional liberalism (which had honorable ideals).

Quite perceptive … and right on target / topic!

I think you may have your work cut out for you …

As do I.

We are both apparently of that older generation, and I suspect neither of us will be around to see one side or the other (social democracy & internationalism vs. hard conservatism & U.S.A. MAGA nationalism) ultimately prevail in the world. Forgive me if I have mischaracterized your views here.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

Yes, you're right. We should be talking about Ukraine, and/or the different currents within the Left. (Which are really, logically, two separate, although related, topics.)

I got diverted -- my fault -- by the fellow whose friend --- an ex=teacher, no less! -- who routinely uses the N-word. And I've been wanting to point out that people who may share his general viewpoint, even without using that word -- and let's be honest, these are mainly people on the Right -- are probably ignorant of the evidence against their views. But this was the wrong thread to put it in.

So ... let's hear your thoughts about currents within the Left, where you clearly know a lot and probably have interesting things to say. Perhaps in another thread?

On Ukraine, we probably mainly agree ... and you might like to comment, from Left point of view, on the really astounding transformation of the base of the Right on foreign policy/foreign wars, over the last two decades.

We used to be the guys waving those American flags and chanting "USA! All the Way!" and accusing your side of being "traitors".

What a switch! I'm still not entirely sure why this, and similar inversions, like reflexive hatred for big corporations, has occurred. (And of course those who know their early 20th Century history will recognize the danger of a nationalist/patriotic movement with a socialistic social program, in the context of severe economic depression and a lost war. We're nowhere near there yet, but it's a possibility.)

Yes! I will try to reply later. The wife is calling me. Our “watching TV together time” has arrived …

 

[otto105]

The late (and liberal) scholar John Flynn (discover/popularizer of the it's-all-IQ-refuting "Flynn Effect") explained it this way: there are so few responsible Black men to marry. Then the question becomes, why is that?

Not what he asserted.

Liberals have tended to favor the explanation offered by William Julius Wilson. In a 1987 study, Wilson attributed the increase in out-of-wedlock births to a decline in the marriageability of black men due to a shortage of jobs for less educated men. But Robert D. Mare and Christopher Winship have estimated that at most 20 percent of the decline in marriage rates of blacks between 1960 and 1980 can be explained by decreasing employment. And Robert G. Wood has estimated that only 3-4 percent of the decline in black marriage rates can be explained by the shrinking of the pool of eligible black men.

 

[otto105]

The government caused it. If a man lived with his family, they were cut off of government aid.

More cracker bullshit explaining.

 

[otto105]

Well, yes, we do disagree. You have to distinguish between the 'Hard Left' -- and even distinguish among currents within it, who have even gotten into fistfights with each other at demonstrations! -- on the one hand, and those to their 'Right' who are influenced/intimidate by them.

I personally know academics who soft-social-democrats, and not at all Politically Correct, but who are afraid to voice their real opinions, because of loud, noisy (minority) of students and fellow academics who will then try to get them fired, or at a minimum will blight their careers.

And so I would urge you to think again about your view of 'the Left' as a hard monolithic bloc controlled by its worst part. The reason it's important to try to understand the currents, disagreements, and divisions on the Left is because in war, you see allies who may not agree 100% with you. (If we could ally with Stalin against Hitler ...) And you seek to make neutrals, neutral-leaning-towards you. And you seek to make the enemy's allies, neutral.

There are plenty of people who are Leftist at heart, but could not stomach the drift of the Left towards authoritarianism and 'Red-baiting' (as it used to be called when it was us accusing liberals of being Russian agents).

You can find some of them at this site (a very interesting on in its own right):
[ Quillette ]
Or look at this guy, who expressed his pleasure when Andrew Breitbart died 12 years ago, but is now hated by the Left because he's honest:
[ Matt Taibbi - Wikipedia ]

or this very admirable, liberal, very high-quality academic:
[Steven Pinker - Wikipedia] who says things the 'Woke' crowd hate, because they're where his research leads him. (See in particular his book The Blank Slate.)

And I should also mention the late, most lamented Christopher Hitchens, the best anti-conservative the Left had ... who, unfortunately, got convinced by the neo-Cons that invading Iraq and trying to bring liberal democracy to Afghanistan were good ideas. But he never become a conservative. None of the others are, either.

They are just the tip of the iceberg. I promise you, there are millions of people -- from liberal intellectuals, down to members of the Steelworkers Union, who have always voted Democrat, and who may well vote Democrat in the future ... but who do NOT want to 'defund the police', or cut the genitals off an 8-year old [the liberal TV host Bill Maher used to make really uncomfortable viewing for us conservatives ... but he's an honest man, and can't go along with the Woke nonsense ... good for him. And he hasn't lost his mainly-liberal audience by making fun of PC crazyiness ].

It's war. We must seek to divide the other camp, to pull some of them towards us, to make alliances where we agree on things. And remember that reality does not stand still. There will be more and more events in the future that discredit the Hard Left -- in particular, their work hollowing out the American military is going to have consequences.

We must be ready for 'Bridge at Remagen' moments and use these coming events when they happen to convince honest liberals that the people they've allowed to exert growing influence on the political nullities/career polticians who lead their party, are poison ... not just to us, but to honest, traditional liberalism (which had honorable ideals).

Geezsus, now on to conserasplaining crap.

 

[Doug1943]

Quite perceptive … and right on target / topic!

I think you may have your work cut out for you …

As do I.

We are both apparently of that older generation, and I suspect neither of us will be around to see one side or the other (social democracy & internationalism vs. hard conservatism & U.S.A. MAGA nationalism) ultimately prevail in the world. Forgive me if I have mischaracterized your views here.

Well, yes. (And I was a very serious Marxist for the first 20 years of my adult life, taking an active part in the Civil Rights movement in the South in the 60s, spending time in military prison because of my political beliefs -- which led me to do stupid things ... and I know -- still am in contact with -- many hardline Marxists with very honorable ideals. So I don't demonize the Left. Especially since I know that few people's political ideas are fixed for life.)

However, I don't think that either social democratic internationalism or MAGA nationalism is going to be the future of the US. I think that the whole world, with the US in the forefront, unfortunately, is going to have some severe 'stress tests' in the fairly near future, and that the America we have known during our lifetimes -- even the America that goes back to the Revolution -- will not survive them. (I've recently been reading a biography of Augustus Caesar, about the end of the Roman Republic -- not the Roman Empire, which people usually focus on -- and the parallels are eerie.)

 

[Doug1943]

Yes! I will try to reply later. The wife is calling me. Our “watching TV together time” has arrived …

I know the problem, or perhaps I should say, the situation. I can usually get out of programs about the Royal Family, but not good BBC documentaries, which fortunately are fairly frequent.

 

[B. Kidd]

I give no quarter to fools. The seeds of this war were planted by their messiah back in 2014 and now has been propagated by his sycophant Biden.We are on the verge of WW3 because emotionally driven morons can't see past their own feelings to make sound judgements. If you don't want to see a regional war metastasize into a global nuclear conflict, stop stoking the Ukrainian military with arms and money.Zelensky is thug in his own right. The faux cry of defending democracy makes my blood boil.YooCrane is not even a democratic state, they are single party autocracy.

Now you have China siding with Russia. And if it comes down to us vs them, there will be no winners.

^^^^^^^
What he said.

 

[otto105]

Well, yes. (And I was a very serious Marxist for the first 20 years of my adult life, taking an active part in the Civil Rights movement in the South in the 60s, spending time in military prison because of my political beliefs -- which led me to do stupid things ... and I know -- still am in contact with -- many hardline Marxists with very honorable ideals. So I don't demonize the Left. Especially since I know that few people's political ideas are fixed for life.)

However, I don't think that either social democratic internationalism or MAGA nationalism is going to be the future of the US. I think that the whole world, with the US in the forefront, unfortunately, is going to have some severe 'stress tests' in the fairly near future, and that the America we have known during our lifetimes -- even the America that goes back to the Revolution -- will not survive them. (I've recently been reading a biography of Augustus Caesar, about the end of the Roman Republic -- not the Roman Empire, which people usually focus on -- and the parallels are eerie.)

The Civil Rights movement wasn't a Marxist movement. That assertion casts serious doubt on your claims of being one.

 

[Doug1943]

More cracker bullshit explaining.

Otto ... you probably lack the necessary self-awareness which is so valuable among political people on both sides, but here is some advice: take a Left/Right subject where my side disagrees with yours ... and do some reading about it, really bone up on the facts.

Pick one where you start from a pretty strong position ... say the question of a National Health Care program, where most activists on my side pretend to have the pure Libertarian Free Market line on all government welfare programs in general, although almost all of our base is perfectly happy with the 'welfare state' programs like Social Security, Workmen's Comp, etc that we already have.

In other words, find an issue where you can exploit the contradictions among the enemy, as Chairman Mao advised. I suspect you're not much of a reader, but have a shot at this essay:
[ ON CONTRADICTION ]

Once you're read up on it, write a short essay in defense of, say, ObamaCare and post it here. If you're unsure about your grammar and spelling, get someone who's ok on these things to read it first and offer corrections. Then argue your side on this site, using the information you have gathered.

Here, I'll give you a reference to a fairly reliable, accessible source which will get you started:
[ Affordable Care Act - Wikipedia ]

 

[otto105]

Otto ... you probably lack the necessary self-awareness which is so valuable among political people on both sides, but here is some advice: take a Left/Right subject where my side disagrees with yours ... and do some reading about it, really bone up on the facts.

Pick one where you start from a pretty strong position ... say the question of a National Health Care program, where most activists on my side pretend to have the pure Libertarian Free Market line on all government welfare programs in general, although almost all of our base is perfectly happy with the 'welfare state' programs like Social Security, Workmen's Comp, etc that we already have.

In other words, find an issue where you can exploit the contradictions among the enemy, as Chairman Mao advised. I suspect you're not much of a reader, but have a shot at this essay:
[ ON CONTRADICTION ]

Once you're read up on it, write a short essay in defense of, say, ObamaCare and post it here. If you're unsure about your grammar and spelling, get someone who's ok on these things to read it first and offer corrections. Then argue your side on this site, using the information you have gathered.

Here, I'll give you a reference to a fairly reliable, accessible source which will get you started:
[ Affordable Care Act - Wikipedia ]

Sure, the PPACA which largely a Heritage idea from the 1970's to create competition among HC companies.


But sure, you go find a paper from Mao on it.

A libertarian approach to healthcare is what everyone had 100 years ago and people rejected it.

 

[Doug1943]

Sure, the PPACA which largely a Heritage idea from the 1970's to create competition among HC companies.


But sure, you go find a paper from Mao on it.

A libertarian approach to healthcare is what everyone had 100 years ago and people rejected it.

Read my post again. I think I didn't make my point clearly.

 

[otto105]

Read my post again. I think I didn't make my point clearly.

No, you were somewhat clear on some idea banging around your head.

You just can't seem to get socialism/communism worked in right when trying to discuss anything.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes, it's a bit tricky. But then so is trying to 'define' 'Right', 'Left', 'liberal', 'conservative', etc. Like some Supreme Court justice once said, it's hard to define, but you know it when you see it.

Here are a couple of tests: no 'woke' person can answer them honestly -- (and probably even non-woke Leftist can't either, but let that pass -- these tests catch the essence of 'wokeism')

(1) Imagine you're walking down a lonely street at night and hear footsteps behind you, turn around, and feel relieved to see that the people behind you are not young Blacks. Yes or no?

The most extreme 'woke' person will have to say 'No!' ... and then be drowned out by the imaginary laughter of everyone reading their response. So they just dont' answer at all. The less extreme won't answer, since they know their answer will be the same as every other sane person, which is 'Yes'.

(2) Suppose the United States had to accept 50 million new immigrants, chosen at random, but could chose the countries they came from.

Three choices -- all the people being t indigenous (ie, with ancestors going back a couple of hundred years or more) inhabitants of

(1) European countries
(2) East Asian countries (Korea, Japan, China, Vietnam)
(4) Latin America
(3) Sub-saharan (ie Black, not Muslim-majority) countries, and/or the Black nations of the Caribbean.

For even more revealing fun, put the areas into rank order.

Which would you choose? or would you be indifferent to the choice?

Again, the 'woke' would have to either claim they would like 25 million more Black people, or refuse to answer the question. As I said, the worst thing about 'woke' is its increasing the tendency to force people to lie about reality.

I, as a Rightwing fascist homophobic transphobic racist fundamentalist anti-democratic embodiment of Pure Evil, will happily say that (1) I would feel relieved (just like you) and (2) that my choice of continental area would be (1) [European] with (2) [Asians] running a very close second, and (3) getting a look in .... and all possibly switchable depending on what I've been reading recently re immigrants bringing their culture with them vs the rate of assimilation to (traditional) American values re. law-abidingness and hard work.

My concern would be how easy they would assimilate to becoming 'Americans' in the traditional sense. (And for our libertarian friends, don't automatically and optimistically assume that hard-working law-abiding Asians will just naturally keep those qualities in a disintegrating society. Look how the Japanese treated the Chinese not so long ago.)

Fifty years ago I might have been indifferent, being (1) on the Left then, and (2) living in an era in which our school system indoctrinated the youth in how lucky they were to be living in the best country in the world.

Neither are no longer the case, thus my caution on which population sub-groups we should enlarge.

How about you?

The problem with "you know it when you see it" is that people don't put any effort into knowing what something is, they just know it. It goes from using the word "woke" badly to simply making up their politics to fit their fantasy world.

What people think of as "woke" isn't "woke". However they're going to keep using their ignorance to make this word what they think of as this word by sheer constant usage.

 

[Doug1943]

The Civil Rights movement wasn't a Marxist movement. That assertion casts serious doubt on your claims of being one.

No, it wasn't, nor did I say it was. Please try to read things more closely. But Marxists, not just me, took part in it -- to their credit. (Martin Luther King's close advisors were CP dues-cheaters.)

When I was doing voter registration in Tennessee in the summer of 1964, everyone -- that is, all us white college kids -- was some sort of Leftist, maybe just a liberal, but also further Left. Several were 'Red Diaper Babies', as we called kids whose parents were in, or had been in, the CPUSA.

Nothing wrong with that. In fact, honorable. Not the kind of movement conservatives would instinctively join, although as others will no doubt say, the Republican Party voted in favor of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in greater numbers than did the Democrats.
(In the House, 82% of Republicans voted for it, against 69% of the Democrats; in the Senate, 80% of the Republicans voted for it, as against 63% of the Democrats.

The Democrat "anti's" were all Southern racists, but the Republicans included some Goldwater libertarian purists who believed that businesses should be able to hire, and serve, whomever they wanted.

And in fact, for whatever motivation, it was the CPUSA who were the most prominent champions of Black rights during 1930s. Credit where it's due.

Read about the "Scottsboro Boys". [ Scottsboro Boys - Wikipedia ] (This Wiki article is poorly edited -- it repeats itself. But it has the facts. Conservatives in particular ought to read it, to get some context for the present.)

 

[Doug1943]

No, you were somewhat clear on some idea banging around your head.

You just can't seem to get socialism/communism worked in right when trying to discuss anything.

Hmmm.... give me an example. (I don't actually understand your sentence, really, but I think you're trying to say that I don't use these words correctly... is that it?)

These two words are used, often in a confused, inconsisten way, to refer to several different things. [A hint for clear thinking: when referring to social/political phenomena, avoid the use the 'to be' verb. Example: don't say "socialism is..." but rather "people use the word 'socialism' to refer to ...." This is not a Rightwing partisan talking point ... it's good advice to anyone who wants to think clearly, and not original to me. (Look up Alfred Korzybski. You don't have to go all the way with him to benefit from his key insight: [ Alfred Korzybski - Wikipedia ]

Anyway how do you use these words? Set me straight.