Anarchism, Marxism and Radical Politics

[Wolter]

Also, Brie is a fucking idiot.

[Flex]

I do think blaming the far left for the right’s success is also a dead end (given that the far right consistently don’t play fair and no one left of center ever seems to realize that actually does mean just telling people to vote is insufficient), though I do not have twitter on my phone anymore to read the whole thread right now.

Fwiw, that's not really what the thread's about. It's more about understanding that people like briebrie arent illiberal leftists but left illiberals, if that makes sense (I think it makes more sense when you can read the thread, obviously).

I think it's a useful framing, if not revelatory. It helps make sense of how people can consider themselves leftists but support Putin's right wing imperialism. Because the project isnt really leftism, it's anti-liberalism.

[Wolter]

I do think blaming the far left for the right’s success is also a dead end (given that the far right consistently don’t play fair and no one left of center ever seems to realize that actually does mean just telling people to vote is insufficient), though I do not have twitter on my phone anymore to read the whole thread right now.

Fwiw, that's not really what the thread's about. It's more about understanding that people like briebrie arent illiberal leftists but left illiberals, if that makes sense (I think it makes more sense when you can read the thread, obviously).

I think it's a useful framing, if not revelatory. It helps make sense of how people can consider themselves leftists but support Putin's right wing imperialism. Because the project isnt really leftism, it's anti-liberalism.

ah. Now that I can get behind. It seems like large swathes of the online left really just hate liberals, but have no cohesive politics past that.

And, as I’ve said, Brie is a fucking moron.

[Wolter]

The worst thing, in my opinion, to happen to the online left was deciding it’s only imperialism if the US does it. I only half jokingly blame that one picture purporting to be a hot young Stalin as the first domino in that chain.

[Flex]

The worst thing, in my opinion, to happen to the online left was deciding it’s only imperialism if the US does it. I only half jokingly blame that one picture purporting to be a hot young Stalin as the first domino in that chain.

It might not even be him! So many people led down the path by their own base desires to be railed by (maybe) Hot Stalin. Now I know how the puritans felt.

[Wolter]

The worst thing, in my opinion, to happen to the online left was deciding it’s only imperialism if the US does it. I only half jokingly blame that one picture purporting to be a hot young Stalin as the first domino in that chain.

It might not even be him! So many people led down the path by their own base desires to be railed by (maybe) Hot Stalin. Now I know how the puritans felt.

Yeah, I don’t think it’s him. There are other pictures from about that time where he actually looks like a young version of, you know…Stalin.

[Dr. Medulla]

I do think blaming the far left for the right’s success is also a dead end (given that the far right consistently don’t play fair and no one left of center ever seems to realize that actually does mean just telling people to vote is insufficient), though I do not have twitter on my phone anymore to read the whole thread right now.

Fwiw, that's not really what the thread's about. It's more about understanding that people like briebrie arent illiberal leftists but left illiberals, if that makes sense (I think it makes more sense when you can read the thread, obviously).

I think it's a useful framing, if not revelatory. It helps make sense of how people can consider themselves leftists but support Putin's right wing imperialism. Because the project isnt really leftism, it's anti-liberalism.

ah. Now that I can get behind. It seems like large swathes of the online left really just hate liberals, but have no cohesive politics past that.

Like the (justifiable) criticism of the right as being driven by “owning the libs.” Entirely reactionary in all senses of the word. Similar to, perhaps, the division between those attracted to punk because it represents various principles that resonate and can be built from versus those who just hate whatever is mainstream. You’re ceding the ground to the conventional—whatever that may be—to be oppositional, no matter the issue. It’s such a defeatist position because it is rooted in never, ever winning the day, never persuading or changing dominant values. Who the hell wants to be a Washington Generals fan as governing identity?

[revbob]

Also, Brie is a fucking idiot.

I read this as Alison Brie is a fucking idiot

[Wolter]

Also, Brie is a fucking idiot.

I read this as Alison Brie is a fucking idiot

I don’t know much of anything about her offscreen, but there’s no way she’s not smarter than Briahna Joy Grey.

[Dr. Medulla]

This could go in a number of threads, but seems an extension of the most recent posts here. Reading the Naomi Klein essay (posted in the Conspiracy thread), I was introduced to the idea of diagonalism, wherein people reject conventional spectrum political ideas/positions and end up at contemporary fascism. It seems to describe, among others, the very-online-leftists who embrace Putin, Tucker Carlson, and other fascists.
https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/q ... speticism/

[Flex]

This is a great piece on the Far left to Far Right pipeline: https://inthesetimes.com/article/former ... hoe-theory

It mentions this move is sometimes erroneously referred to as "horseshoe theory" (the idea that the extreme ends of the political spectrum are indistinguishable from each other) and I've probably used the term myself for lack of a better articulation of whats going on, but it's a characterization that's really more about dismissing left wing politics from the center so it's not great. This piece, I think anyways, does a good job explaining what's really going on with some of these folks and why the trajectory is always left-to-right (you never see the far right move left, or seem indistinguishable from a marxist-leninist or whatever, as one would expect of "horseshoe theory" was what was really going on).

Anyways, good piece.

[Dr. Medulla]

This is a great piece on the Far left to Far Right pipeline: https://inthesetimes.com/article/former ... hoe-theory

It mentions this move is sometimes erroneously referred to as "horseshoe theory" (the idea that the extreme ends of the political spectrum are indistinguishable from each other) and I've probably used the term myself for lack of a better articulation of whats going on, but it's a characterization that's really more about dismissing left wing politics from the center so it's not great. This piece, I think anyways, does a good job explaining what's really going on with some of these folks and why the trajectory is always left-to-right (you never see the far right move left, or seem indistinguishable from a marxist-leninist or whatever, as one would expect of "horseshoe theory" was what was really going on).

Anyways, good piece.

Very good conversation piece. For what it's worth, this observation—“People go where people accept them, or are nice to them, and away from people who are mean to them”—is where I lean, especially as it gets magnified by social media. In this, I'm recycling Richard Hofstadter's belief that status anxiety motivates such turns to authoritarian politics. A combination of evolving politics on the left that makes left-liberals no longer the ass-kissed darlings and an edgy option on the right that shares the scorn of the more identitarian left and you get the makings of a hot new romance.

I'll also chip in that for the most part I think the horseshoe theory just gets misapplied. It's a critical tool more than a handy overview. You use it with very specific questions in mind. For example, the status of the individual, where extreme left and right do share a view that individual rights should be subservient to the interests of the group (tho how group is defined differs), whereas liberalism occupies the opposite side. It doesn't mean that Communism and fascism are exactly the same, only that on that particular issue you can see common perspectives derived from a critique of liberal democracy. So horseshoe is fine, but use it judiciously.

[revbob]

This is a great piece on the Far left to Far Right pipeline: https://inthesetimes.com/article/former ... hoe-theory

It mentions this move is sometimes erroneously referred to as "horseshoe theory" (the idea that the extreme ends of the political spectrum are indistinguishable from each other) and I've probably used the term myself for lack of a better articulation of whats going on, but it's a characterization that's really more about dismissing left wing politics from the center so it's not great. This piece, I think anyways, does a good job explaining what's really going on with some of these folks and why the trajectory is always left-to-right (you never see the far right move left, or seem indistinguishable from a marxist-leninist or whatever, as one would expect of "horseshoe theory" was what was really going on).

Anyways, good piece.

Very good conversation piece. For what it's worth, this observation—“People go where people accept them, or are nice to them, and away from people who are mean to them”—is where I lean, especially as it gets magnified by social media. In this, I'm recycling Richard Hofstadter's belief that status anxiety motivates such turns to authoritarian politics. A combination of evolving politics on the left that makes left-liberals no longer the ass-kissed darlings and an edgy option on the right that shares the scorn of the more identitarian left and you get the makings of a hot new romance.

I'll also chip in that for the most part I think the horseshoe theory just gets misapplied. It's a critical tool more than a handy overview. You use it with very specific questions in mind. For example, the status of the individual, where extreme left and right do share a view that individual rights should be subservient to the interests of the group (tho how group is defined differs), whereas liberalism occupies the opposite side. It doesn't mean that Communism and fascism are exactly the same, only that on that particular issue you can see common perspectives derived from a critique of liberal democracy. So horseshoe is fine, but use it judiciously.

I still think most people who flip tend to do it for personal selfish financial reasons.

[Dr. Medulla]

This is a great piece on the Far left to Far Right pipeline: https://inthesetimes.com/article/former ... hoe-theory

It mentions this move is sometimes erroneously referred to as "horseshoe theory" (the idea that the extreme ends of the political spectrum are indistinguishable from each other) and I've probably used the term myself for lack of a better articulation of whats going on, but it's a characterization that's really more about dismissing left wing politics from the center so it's not great. This piece, I think anyways, does a good job explaining what's really going on with some of these folks and why the trajectory is always left-to-right (you never see the far right move left, or seem indistinguishable from a marxist-leninist or whatever, as one would expect of "horseshoe theory" was what was really going on).

Anyways, good piece.

Very good conversation piece. For what it's worth, this observation—“People go where people accept them, or are nice to them, and away from people who are mean to them”—is where I lean, especially as it gets magnified by social media. In this, I'm recycling Richard Hofstadter's belief that status anxiety motivates such turns to authoritarian politics. A combination of evolving politics on the left that makes left-liberals no longer the ass-kissed darlings and an edgy option on the right that shares the scorn of the more identitarian left and you get the makings of a hot new romance.

I'll also chip in that for the most part I think the horseshoe theory just gets misapplied. It's a critical tool more than a handy overview. You use it with very specific questions in mind. For example, the status of the individual, where extreme left and right do share a view that individual rights should be subservient to the interests of the group (tho how group is defined differs), whereas liberalism occupies the opposite side. It doesn't mean that Communism and fascism are exactly the same, only that on that particular issue you can see common perspectives derived from a critique of liberal democracy. So horseshoe is fine, but use it judiciously.

I still think most people who flip tend to do it for personal selfish financial reasons.

Perhaps for those who can actually turn it into a good income—Taibbi or Wolfe, for example—but the average person likely doesn't see a change in their income.

[revbob]

This is a great piece on the Far left to Far Right pipeline: https://inthesetimes.com/article/former ... hoe-theory

It mentions this move is sometimes erroneously referred to as "horseshoe theory" (the idea that the extreme ends of the political spectrum are indistinguishable from each other) and I've probably used the term myself for lack of a better articulation of whats going on, but it's a characterization that's really more about dismissing left wing politics from the center so it's not great. This piece, I think anyways, does a good job explaining what's really going on with some of these folks and why the trajectory is always left-to-right (you never see the far right move left, or seem indistinguishable from a marxist-leninist or whatever, as one would expect of "horseshoe theory" was what was really going on).

Anyways, good piece.

Very good conversation piece. For what it's worth, this observation—“People go where people accept them, or are nice to them, and away from people who are mean to them”—is where I lean, especially as it gets magnified by social media. In this, I'm recycling Richard Hofstadter's belief that status anxiety motivates such turns to authoritarian politics. A combination of evolving politics on the left that makes left-liberals no longer the ass-kissed darlings and an edgy option on the right that shares the scorn of the more identitarian left and you get the makings of a hot new romance.

I'll also chip in that for the most part I think the horseshoe theory just gets misapplied. It's a critical tool more than a handy overview. You use it with very specific questions in mind. For example, the status of the individual, where extreme left and right do share a view that individual rights should be subservient to the interests of the group (tho how group is defined differs), whereas liberalism occupies the opposite side. It doesn't mean that Communism and fascism are exactly the same, only that on that particular issue you can see common perspectives derived from a critique of liberal democracy. So horseshoe is fine, but use it judiciously.

I still think most people who flip tend to do it for personal selfish financial reasons.

Perhaps for those who can actually turn it into a good income—Taibbi or Wolfe, for example—but the average person likely doesn't see a change in their income.

Sure, but they just need to believe that it can improve their situation.