New Left Watch

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Crossover post from AAD

This thread is dedicated to the absurd folly of the New Left and their modern followers. The more I think of it, I consider their influence on politics to be entirely negative or almost entirely so. The cult of sincerity, of 'THE NEED FOR PRINCIPLES', and of course the fetishization of revolution all date in their contemporary forms from the 60s and 70s (of course all these things in general have long origins in politics, perhaps dating from Romanticism which the New Left and counterculture clearly borrowed so much from, but the particular iterations you see now have roots in that period. Exhibit A: Occupy Wall Street. Exhibit B: Bernie Sanders for President! (Sanders, of course, being an ex-hippie)). This is, to my technocratic soul, a bad thing. So I've created a watch thread to ridicule it.

To start off, and going back to the 70s, here's an article on the Black Panthers: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/25/whitewashing-the-black-panthers.html. I recommend you read the whole thing, but here's just one quote and not the worst of it

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Also many of those involved are now, how predictably, university professors or involved in academia in some way. A good argument for firebombing academia tbh.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm not sure if the Black Panthers can be considered representative of the 1970s New Left, let alone its modern incarnation.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I'm not sure if the Black Panthers can be considered representative of the 1970s New Left, let alone its modern incarnation.

Thing is, similar groups - by which I mean 'had an almost nihilist hard on for political violence' rather than in other respects - existed on the fringes in quite a few countries, and there was often a lot of (misguided) sympathy for such groups in the more 'mainstream' elements of the New Left.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm not sure if the Black Panthers can be considered representative of the 1970s New Left, let alone its modern incarnation.

Thing is, similar groups - by which I mean 'had an almost nihilist hard on for political violence' rather than in other respects - existed on the fringes in quite a few countries, and there was often a lot of (misguided) sympathy for such groups in the more 'mainstream' elements of the New Left.

Definitely.

For the record, my point here certainly wasn't to jump in defense of the New Left, of which I'm not particularly fond. It's just that, from reading Gully's premise, I was expecting something else.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

What I will say is that on this matter - as on so many other contentious issues of the 1970s - Network is spot on.

[Torie]

How much of the New Left, when it comes to the sort of thing described above, can just be attributable to young people, or older people who never "grew up," a phase that they go through, until they mature, get less personal pleasure in street action, and so forth, and move on in life, and out of politics, or into politics that actually has some realistic programmatic agenda? With respect to Occupy Wall Street, when participants were interviewed about what they really wanted, to be charitable, it was mostly rather vague.

I distinguish this to street action that was specifically programmatic, and serious, and needed, such as the anti-war and civil rights movement. Granted, that was not "New Left."

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Does the fact that on tumblr recently I saw somebody in all seriousness describe Hitler as 'someone who believed very deeply in inequality and privilege' count for this thread?

[DC Al Fine]

Does the fact that on tumblr recently I saw somebody in all seriousness describe Hitler as 'someone who believed very deeply in inequality and privilege' count for this thread?

That has to be the most creative way to describe Nazism ever

[Mechaman]

Does the fact that on tumblr recently I saw somebody in all seriousness describe Hitler as 'someone who believed very deeply in inequality and privilege' count for this thread?

That has to be the most creative way to describe Nazism ever

Well, they couldn't call him "evil".  That would be an offensive slur towards murderers, rapists, warmongers, wall street bankers, and trial lawyers.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Crossover post from AAD

As this is a bashing thread I present Tariq Ali on Greece: www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n15/tariq-ali/diary

There's a lot to say here, but the main question is one: Why does Tariq Ali still have a job as commentator? He's basically been wrong about everything and has little intellectual curiosity beyond that which confirms his own viewpoint, so why do people keep giving him a platform? It's like in journalism or punditry there is no punishment for just being wrong.

[pbrower2a]

Does the fact that on tumblr recently I saw somebody in all seriousness describe Hitler as 'someone who believed very deeply in inequality and privilege' count for this thread?

Hitler did so believe and put his beliefs into reality to the extent possible, did he not?

[dead0man]

When I wore a watch I wore it on the left.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Does the fact that on tumblr recently I saw somebody in all seriousness describe Hitler as 'someone who believed very deeply in inequality and privilege' count for this thread?

Hitler did so believe and put his beliefs into reality to the extent possible, did he not?

The problem with describing Hitler that way isn't a problem with accuracy.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Does this count?

[dead0man]

I wasn't sure if that was real or not, so I Googled and it seems that it is.....why do people do that to themselves?  Do what you like, don't worry about what other people think.  (and if one needed proof that feminism, when read incorrectly can emasculate men....this be it)


(and his watch is on his left too)

[Antonio the Sixth]

This guy probably means well, and, as a man who tries to be careful not to involuntarily contribute to patriarchy (and doesn't always succeed), I've got to sympathize a bit. Still, I can't believe he's fallen into the obvious trap of thinking that conforming to gender roles is always wrong. That's the same bullsh*t idea that leads some morons to say a woman can't be a feminist and wear dresses or like fashion. Feminism is about freeing you from gender roles, not forcing you out of them (unless these gender roles are inherently oppressive).

[Marokai Backbeat]

I wasn't sure if that was real or not, so I Googled and it seems that it is.....why do people do that to themselves?  Do what you like, don't worry about what other people think.  (and if one needed proof that feminism, when read incorrectly can emasculate men....this be it)


(and his watch is on his left too)

Dude if you thought that was too difficult to believe you should read this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Part of me still doesn't even believe that story for that paragraph alone. But it's hard to tell these days.

[Antonio the Sixth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Part of me still doesn't even believe that story for that paragraph alone. But it's hard to tell these days.

Well, if it's open marriage presumably it works both ways. It's a pretty bad role model and it definitely creeps me out, but hey, to each their own.

[dead0man]

That actually makes more sense.  If he's into seeing his wife happy, and that's what makes her happy, more power to him.  I, like most men, think it's freaking insane, but he doesn't seem as crossed up about it as guilt trip BBQ "man".

(to be fair, I could only read so much of that......it's.....not an easy read)

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I'm going to attempt to kill with silence the (repulsive) article that Marokai linked to and explain what I mean about the Hitler thing. Understatement isn't always a bad thing--famously it's key to some forms of comedy, to name the most obvious example--but when it's deployed with the kind of glurgy earnestness that it was in this case, it's hard not to suspect that this person is minimizing Hitler's atrocities by talking about them in the same terms as obviously much more minor problems. Furthermore it's hard not to come to the conclusion that a discourse of oppression entirely centered around concepts like 'privilege' is completely insufficient to discuss much of anything seriously and implicitly encourages this kind of vapid thinking. This is a generation of activists who can be confronted with the example of a regime that killed millions and millions and millions of people and without a hint of irony describe the man at the center of it as having 'believed in privilege'. The profound lack of historical awareness (and awareness that a difference in degree can be so enormous as to become a difference in kind) inherent in a statement like that doesn't come from nowhere. Personally I think that the quote in DC Al Fine's signature, despite its unfortunate source, has it more or less right: It comes from a pathological desire to avoid anything smacking too much of a serious belief system--a belief system like Judaism or Christianity or Marxism that provides some of the language with which these sorts of things were traditionally discussed and through which they were traditionally understood--in favor of a constant reaffirmation of not being that [small-c] 'conservative', not being that 'old-fashioned', not being that 'boring'. 'Don't trust any episteme over thirty', dontcha know.