#leftist thinkers

[blackswaneuroparedux]

His [Foucault's] vision of European culture as the institutionalised form of oppressive power is taught everywhere as gospel, to students who have neither the culture nor the religion to resist it. Only in France is he widely regarded as a fraud.

- Roger Scruton on Michel Foucault

During student protests in Paris in 1968, Roger Scruton, a francophile, watched students overturn cars to erect barricades and tear up cobblestones to throw at police. It was at that moment he realised he was a conservative.

For Scruton, he didn’t think much of Jean Paul Satre, the father of existentialism, who cobbled together the essence of his philosophy from Alexandre Kojève's reading of Hegel in his famous seminar at the Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes in the 1930s. His listeners included Bataille, Aron, Merleau-Ponty, Lacan and Simone de Beauvoir. Each of them drew something different from him. For Sartre, the idea of the self-created individual with radical freedom. Expressed very early on in La nausée, this freedom is a source of anguish for a consciousness which not only considers that the surrounding world has no meaning other than that which it can possibly confer on it, but which experiences itself as a kind of nothingness.

How, starting from such a philosophy, does Sartre arrive at the idea of commitment to revolution and socialism? It is a mystery. Scruton wrote, "According to the metaphysics enunciated in Being and Nothingness, the correct answer to the question "To what shall I commit myself?" should be: What does it matter, as long as you can want it as a law for yourself." "But this is not the answer offered by Sartre, whose commitment is to an ideal that is at odds with his own philosophy.”

With his theory of episteme, Foucault gives us a new version of the Marxist concept of ideology.

Despite what some might think, Scruton wasn’t entirely dismissive of Foucault whose thought was more subtle and interesting than Sartre’s. Scruton confesses a certain tenderness for Michel Foucault's style, for his flamboyant imagination. But Scruton does not see his archaeology of knowledge as a great innovation. According to a habit shared by many French left-wing intellectuals, like Sartre himself, Foucault intended to tear away the veils behind which the relations of domination are hidden, to unmask the deceptions of others. With Sartre, it was in the name of a vague nostalgia for personal authenticity. Foucault, on the other hand, looked for the secret structures of power behind all institutions - and even at work in language.

But the historical horizon on which Foucault projected this quest, which postulated a rupture between the "classical age" of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and the bourgeois world that would follow the French Revolution, showed that, despite his claims, Foucault had remained a prisoner of Marxism. Moreover, as Scruton would write, “his theory of episteme is a rehash of the Marxist theory of ideology. Moreover, he considers power only from the perspective of domination. “

But the main criticism that Scruton finds fault with Foucault is the one found in the post-enlightenment thinkers: relativism. If each era generates the discursive formations that correspond to its system of power, including the sciences, then truth does not exist. Everything is discourse...

Photo: Jean-Paul Satre and Michel Foucault take a stand during the Paris Student Riots, May 1968.

[menlove]

I love when people are like shocked and horrified about the latine vote always going red like. every latine in this country is gonna go "yeah?" like it's not surprising. those of us that are leftists agree that it's fucking stupid and I promise you we're more frustrated than you are, but like. never a shocking event.

[bonni]

another interesting thing is that fascism warping perceptions of artistic beauty in the regions where it flourished was and still is a very real phenomenon, but if you think that fascist art was just soooo good intrinsically and that that made it useful for indoctrinating people you've very much got it backwards (as op of that post pointed out). read Rhinoceros by Eugene Ionesco for free online

[rotzaprachim]

it is soooo funny to see fanon be reposted under uh particular contexts when this is quite literally what's going on these days with antisemitism being fine actually if it's from other oppressed people especially those in post colonial states after former imperial powers literally used antisemitism as an organizing tactic and self-legitimizing conspiracy

[glassrunner]

.

[queeraliensposts]

Y'all still thinking about that chick that had one whole blog dedicated to how much she is against "identity politics" and her being super "anti-leftist" and then having another blog all about how much she loves the cyberpunk aesthetic

um, ma'am cyberpunk as an art form and literary genre was created to criticize capitalism and class division.

[nottobeadickoranything]

Sooo, if all of the worlds most evil people despise leftism and spend billions saying its bad, and yall then go "I'm a badass, a real free thinker" and then proceed to say and think exactly what the billionaires tell you to think, how does that make sense? How are you "thinking freely" there, unless that phrase just means "white supremacy" and no one told me...

If you're such a "badass free thinker" doesn't that mean figuring out who all the worst, most damaging-to-society, outwardly-evil people are, and then doing the opposite of what they want? In this case I cant see any other path other than going left, not right. If all of the rich people are right wingers, pissing them off by being equally annoying leftists sure seems like the most logical path here. Yet your "free thinking" in reality just means "parroting the anti-leftist propaganda the billionaires spoonfed me". Please feel free to educate me on the logic here. Unless its just white/british supremacy all along, in that case, you are a coward going along with the herd, and certainly not a "free thinker" (this concept of "free thinking" is entirely bunk and anti-academia too btw, it means "thinking without facts, using white supremacist vibes over reality").

Keep in mind rich people have never benefitted anyone other than themselves and their immediate families. They do not benefit society, or humanity in general, they only hoard and steal. So why would you want to be aligned with them on any level? We also have seen behind the curtain too many times, we all know rich people are not better or smarter than anyone, they don't ever work hard in real life (but love to say that phrase, or they think making 1 phone call = "hard work") and usually are rich from birth. Therefore, they are easily the most obvious group to taunt, ridicule and make their lives worse in any legal way, and being that the online space is the best battleground for this, being an annoying online leftist is the only logical result here that I can see when talking about "free thinking" or "rebelling against the norm".

[mostlysignssomeportents]

MLMs are the mirror-world version of community organizing

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2025/02/05/power-of-positive-thinking/#the-socialism-of-fools

In her unmissable 2023 book Doppelganger, Naomi Klein paints a picture of a "mirror world" of right wing and conspiratorial beliefs that are warped, false reflections of real crises:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/05/not-that-naomi/#if-the-naomi-be-klein-youre-doing-just-fine

For example, Qanon's obsession with "child trafficking" is a mirror-world version of the real crises of child poverty, child labor, border family separations and kids in cages. Anti-vax is the mirror-world version of the true story of the Sacklers and their fellow opioid barons making billions on Oxy and fent, with the collusion of corrupt FDA officials and a pliant bankruptcy court system. Xenophobic panic about "immigrants stealing jobs" is the mirror world version of the well-documented fact that big business shipped jobs to low-waged territories abroad, weakening US labor and smashing US unions. Cryptocurrency talk about "decentralization" is the mirror-world version of the decay of every industry (including tech) into a monopoly or a cartel.

Klein is at pains to point out that other political thinkers have described this phenomenon. Back in the 19th century, leftists called antisemitism "the socialism of fools." Socialism – the idea that working people are preyed upon by capital – is reflected in the warped mirror as "working people are preyed upon by international Jewish bankers."

The mirror world is a critical concept, because it shows that far right and conspiratorial beliefs are often uneasy neighbors with real, serious political movements. The swivel-eyed loons have a point, in other words:

https://locusmag.com/2023/05/commentary-cory-doctorow-the-swivel-eyed-loons-have-a-point/

Once you understand the mirror world, you start to realize that many right wing conspiracists could have been directed into productive movements, if only they'd understood that their problems were with systems, not sinister individuals (this is why Trump has ordered a purge of any federally funded research that contains the word "systemic"):

https://mamot.fr/@Lazarou@mastodon.social/113943287435897828

This also explains why the "tropes" of right wing conspiratorialism sometimes echo left wing, radical thought. I once had a (genuinely unhinged) dialog with a self-described German "progressive" who told me that criticizing the finance industry as parasitic on the real economy was "structurally antisemitic." Nonsense like this is why Klein's "mirror world" is so important: unless you understand the mirror world, you can end up believing that "progressive" just means "defending anything the right hates."

Historian Erik Baker is the author of a new book, Make Your Own Job: How the Entrepreneurial Work Ethic Exhausted America, which has some very interesting things to say about the mirror world:

https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674293601

In a recent edition of the always-excellent Know Your Enemy podcast, the hosts interviewed Baker about the book, and the conversation turned to the subject of pyramid schemes, the "multilevel marketing systems" that are woven into so many religious, right-wing movements:

https://www.dissentmagazine.org/blog/know-your-enemy-the-entrepreneurial-ethic/

MLMs have it all: prosperity gospel ("God rewards virtue with wealth"), atomization ("you are an entrepreneur and everyone in your life is your potential customer"), and rabid anti-Communism ("solidarity is a trick to make you poorer").

The rise of the far right can't be separated from the history of MLMs. The modern MLM starts with Amway, a cultlike national scam that was founded by Jay Van Andel and Richard DeVos (father-in-law of Betsy DeVos).

Rank-and-file members of the Amway cult lived in dire poverty, convinced that their financial predicament was their own fault for not faithfully following the "sure-fire" Amway method for building a business. Andrea Pitzer's gripping memoir of growing up in an Amway household offers a glimpse of the human cost of the cult:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/01/amway-america/681479/?gift=j9r7avb6p-KY8zdjhsiSZxYkntna5M_rYEv4707Zqqs

Amway – and MLMs like it – don't just bleed out their members by convincing them to buy mountains of useless crap they're supposed to sell to their families, while enriching the people at the top of the pyramid who sell it to them. The "toxic positivity" of multi-level marketing cults forces members deep into debt to pay for seminars and retreats where they are supposed to learn how to repair the personal defects that keep them from being "successful entrepreneurs." The topline of the cult isn't just getting rich selling stuff – they're making bank by selling false hope, literally, in Hilton ballrooms and convention centers across the country, where hearing an MLM scammer berate you for being a "bad entrepreneur" costs thousands of dollars.

Amway destroyed so many lives that Richard Nixon's FTC decided to investigate it. The investigation wasn't going well for Amway, which was facing an existential crisis that they were rescued from by Nixon's resignation. You see, Nixon's successor, Gerald Ford, was the former Congressman of Amway co-founder Jay Van Andel, who was also the head of the US Chamber of Commerce, the most powerful business lobbyist in America.

At Ford's direction, the FTC exonerated Amway of all wrongdoing. But it's even worse than that: Ford's FTC actually crafted a rule that differentiated legal pyramid schemes from illegal ones, based on Amway's destructive business practices. Under this new rule, any pyramid scheme that had the same structure as Amway was presumptively legal. Every MLM operating in America today is built on the Amway model, taking advantage of the FTC's Amway rule to operate in the open, without fear of legal repercussions.

MLMs prey on the poor and desperate: women, people of color, people in dying small towns and decaying rustbelt cities. It's not just that these people are desperate – it's that they only survive through networks of mutual aid. Poor women rely on other poor women to help with child care, marginalized people rely on one another for help with home maintenance, small loans, a place to crash after an eviction, or a place to park the RV you're living out of.

In other words, people who lack monetary capital must rely on social capital for survival. That's why MLMs target these people: an MLM is a system for destructively transforming social capital into monetary capital. MLMs exhort their members to mine their social relationships for "leads" and "customers" and to use the language of social solidarity ("women helping women") to wheedle, guilt, and arm-twist people from your mutual aid network into buying things they don't need and can't afford.

But it's worse, because what MLMs really sell is MLMs. The real purpose of an MLM sales call is to convince the "customer" to become an MLM salesperson, who owes you a share of every sale they make and is incentivized to buy stock they don't need (from you) in order to make quotas. And of course, their real job is to sign up other salespeople to work under them, and so on.

An MLM isn't just a pathogen, in other words – it's a contagion. When someone in your social support network gets the MLM disease, they don't just burn all their social ties with you and the people you rely on – they convince more people in your social group to do the same.

Which brings me back to the mirror world, and Erik Baker's conversation with the Know Your Enemy podcast. Baker starts to talk about who gets big into Amway: "people who already effectively lead by the force of their charisma and personality many other people in their lives. Right? Because you're able to sell to those people, and you're able to recruit those people. What are we talking about? Well, they're effectively recruiting organizers, people who have a natural capacity for organizing and then sending them out in the world to organize on behalf of Christian capitalism."

Listening to this, I was thunderstruck: MLM recruiters are the mirror world version of union organizers. In her memoir of growing up in Amway, Andrea Pitzer talks about how her mom would approach strangers and try to lead them through a kind of structured discussion:

Everywhere we went—the mall, state parks, grocery stores—she’d ask people whether they could use a little more money each month. “I’d love to set up a time to talk to you about an exciting business opportunity.” The words should have seemed suspect. Yet people almost always gave her their number. Her confidence and professionalism were reassuring, and her enthusiasm was electric, even, at first, to me. “What would you do with $1 million?” she’d ask, spinning me around the kitchen.

This kind of person, having this kind of dialog, is exactly how union organizers work. In A Collective Bargain, Jane McAlevey's classic book on labor organizing, she describes how she would seek out the charismatic, outgoing workers in a job-site, the natural leaders, and recruit them to help bring the other workers onboard:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/23/a-collective-bargain/

Organizer training focuses on how to have a "structured organizing conversation," which McAlevey described in a 2019 Jacobin article:

“If you had a magic wand and could change three things about life in America [or her town or city or school], what would you change?” The rest of your conversation needs to be anchored to her answers to that question.

https://jacobin.com/2019/11/thanksgiving-organizing-activism-friends-family-conversation-presidential-election

The MLM conversation and the union conversation have eerily similar structures, but the former is designed to commodify and destroy solidarity, and the latter is designed to reinforce and mobilize solidarity. Seen in this light, an MLM is a mirror world union, one that converts solidarity into misery and powerlessness instead of joy and strength.

The MLM movement doesn't just make men like Rich De Vos and Jay Van Andel into billionaires. MLM bosses are heavy funders of the right, a blank check for the Heritage Foundation. Trump is the MLM president, a grifter who grew up on the gospel of Norman Vincent Peale – a key figure in MLM cult dynamics – who tells his followers that wealth is a sign of virtue. Trump boasts about all the people he's ripped off, boasting about how getting away with cheating "makes me smart":

https://pluralistic.net/2024/12/04/its-not-a-lie/#its-a-premature-truth

The corollary is that being cheated means you're stupid. Caveat emptor, the motto of the cryptocurrency industry ("not your wallet, not your coins") that spent hundreds of millions to get Trump elected.

Tech has its own mirror world. The people who used tech to find fellow weirdos and make delightful and wonderful things are mirrored by the people who used tech to find fellow weirdos and call for fascism, ethnic cleansing, and concentration camps.

In Picks and Shovels, my next novel (Feb 17), I introduce readers to a fictitious 1980s religious computer sales cult called Fidelity Computing, run by an orthodox rabbi, a Catholic priest and a Mormon rabbi:

https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250865908/picksandshovels

Fidelity is a faith scam, a pyramid scheme that is parasitic upon the bonds of faith and fellowship. Martin Hench, the hero of the story – a hard-fighting high tech forensic accountant – goes to work for a competing business, Computing Freedom, run by three Fidelity ex-employees who have left their faiths and their employers to pursue a vision of computers that is about liberation, rather than control.

The women of Computing Freedom – a queer orthodox woman who's been kicked out of her family, a Mormon woman who's renounced the LDS over its opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment, and a nun who's left her order to throw in with the Liberation Theology movement – are all charismatic, energetic, inspirational organizers.

Because of course they are – that's why they were so good at selling computers for the Reverend Sirs who sit at the top of Fidelity Computing's pyramid scheme.

Hearing Baker's interview and reading Pitzer's memoir last week made it all click together for me. Not just that MLMs destroy social bonds, but that within every person who gets sucked into an MLM, there's a community organizer who could be building the bonds that MLMs destroy.

[historicity-was-already-taken]

I hate what the Israeli government is doing but I'm scared of contributing to the rise in anti-semitism in the US. I'm not Jewish and not super keyed in to anti-semitism. Obviously, anyone talking shit about the Jewish people is someone I should fight, but there are things I should watch out for even when they say "Israel," right? What kind of rhetoric should I be on the lookout for?

What makes this hard, is that there is no collective Jewish take on this. There are some Jews who would tell you that any criticism of Israel is inherently anti-Semitic. There are other Jews who would tell you that Jewish support for the modern state is antithetical to the values at the core of our ethics and faith.

Both of those types of Jewish thinkers follow this blog, as do Jews holding views everywhere in between.

So what I'm going to tell you isn't The Jewish Stance on this, but the stance I've developed as a Modern Jewish historian who also happens to be a Jewish person with leftist politics.

Here is a list of narratives and rhetorical patterns to watch out for:

-individuals or spaces which view jews as inherently unworthy of trust, and require them to consistently prove that they are a "Good Jew"

-rhetoric which continuously singles out Israeli human and civil rights abuses, while failing to hold other states committing equal or much larger scale abuses to the same standards

-speech which implies that the Jews can fit neatly into the role of "white colonizer"

-visual languages which super-impose Nazi imagery over Jewish symbols

-Blood Libel rhetoric, which accuses Israel of using the blood or murdered Palestinian babies for its bread, or harvesting Palestinian organs for the black market. This type of rhetoric has been circulating the western world for literal centuries, and it always ends with Jews being expelled and/or burnt at the stake.

And this is kind of where the classic "I can't define it but I know it when I see it" porn definition comes in. Sometimes someone screaming about "The Zionists" is someone deeply disturbed by, say, the frankly fascistic behavior of Israelis in West Bank Settlements. Sometimes, that person is furious that Jews are asking them to critically examine the role of any or some of the above elements in their speech regarding Israel and Israelis.

Some Jews will weaponize a lot of our traumatic past to silence other Jews, and say that by writing this I am no better than the Jewish Police who rounded up their people for the Treblinka transports. Other Jews will say that by writing any of this, I'm silencing necessary speech regarding the war crimes in Gaza and that I'm complicit in the ongoing ethnic cleansing of Palestinian civilians as a result.

But this is my basic, 101 level response, and it's not going to change.

I really, truly, appreciate your how deeply you care about grasping these issues. If you have any follow-up questions I'd be happy to answer them under similar understandings of username exclusion.

[kick-a-long]

I don’t know if anyone else feels this, any other minority group or anything, but one thing that makes me far angrier at the left and I think makes them hate Jews and Zionists in particular more openly and aggressively than other political groups, is that the left feels a kind of ownership of Jews culturally.

Like they own Jews and our opinions and great thinkers. Jews are foundational to leftist culture and theory so we’re theirs. that jews should suffer for their greater plans. Like, right wing antisemites are dicks but they don’t broadcast so obviously and openly, they don’t yell at Jews as often in public, they dog whistle to attract more ppl and keep the zog stuff to more private content. Leftists really think that they own Jews in their movement and any Jews that don’t want Israel wiped off the map and replaced by yet another conservative Muslim ethnostate must not be a “real Jew” like the Jews they claim as one of their many welcomed types of people.

I’m sure black ppl feel this sometimes or ppl with intersections of identities that make leftist treat them like they’re disposable if they don’t repeat the company line?

[romanceyourdemons]

these days film is such an established cultural fixture that virtually every artistic and political leaning interfaces with film in some way, but in the 1910s-30s film was new and niche enough that it was generally associated with a single group in each film industry, and it’s interesting to see how that plays into the skeletons in the closet of the film world.

in europe, the birthplace of the moving picture, film was an intensely innovative artistic technology, and as such it was largely associated with avant-garde artistic groups. in italy that artistic movement was futurism, which, innovation- and masculinity-obsessed as they were, infamously threw their lot in with the fascists as a movement, and italian film made the smooth transition to being almost exclusively fascist propaganda, with cabiria (1914) standing as the unfortunate but indisputable gem of early italian filmmaking. by contrast, in germany the primary avant-garde artistic movement was german expressionism, which attracted many jewish, queer, and mentally ill artists, as well as many who sympathized or were artistically interested in them. as such, early german film experienced a hard reset in the mid-30s, with the traditions of early greats like metropolis (1927) transplanting wholesale to america as a new, more italian-style tradition of greats like the triumph of the will (1935) muscled into the void.

on another hand, in america, birthplace of the movie, film arrived on the west coast not as a new technology but as an entertainment technology, and as such it interfaced smoothly with the existing entertainment infrastructure, both on the artists’ and the audience’s side. vaudeville-trained audiences looked for newer and bigger visual spectacles, which could only be provided by a corporatized film industry with lots of capital and a willingness to cater to the lowest common denominator of audience interest and belief. as a result, the hugely innovative cornerstone films of the early american film world were largely either deeply conservative and bigoted (the birth of a nation (1917)) or fundamentally rooted in vaudeville and minstrelsy (the jazz singer (1927)).

on a third hand, china received film technology fully developed from europe and america the same way europe received printing from china in the 15th century. as a result, film was intrinsically western, smacking slightly of colonialism, and the only people who had both knowledge of and interest in filmmaking were paris-educated to some degree—in a similar way and to a greater extent than running a newspaper, making film was a behavior of anti-traditionalist leftists. i have not seen a single pre-1966 chinese film that is not consciously leftist, progressivist, feminist, and anti-traditionalist, and i’ve seen the names of some of china’s most significant revolutionary thinkers and actors in the credits. and so, put bluntly, this means that most of the pillars of early chinese film were hunted like dogs by three governments in a row before being posthumously rehabilitated in the mid 1970s. by that time most of the pillars of early european film were dead, blacklisted as fascists and collaborators, or retired in america, and most of the pillars of early american film were getting bit parts in the worst slop movies you’ve ever seen in your life. interesting stuff!

[ptsilencedhill]

Every person I thought was a leftist Thinker on this website has managed to come full circle into “black people aren’t oppressed and make up their problems” ��women’s rights haven’t mattered since they got the right to vote, so shut up you feminazi” “these revolutionary movements are totally a bunch of whining liberal college kids who think it’s a fad”

[jewish-mccoy]

Can we talk about how fucked up it is that Jews and Israelis have no safe spaces online? And if we dare complain, we’re told we’re whining and other groups have it worse.

And no one seems to either notice or care. The pro Palestine movement is infested with antisemitism. Leftist spaces are infested with antisemitism. It’s impossible to engage with the pro Palestinian movement because to do so, they demand you denounce Israel’s existence and make you be their token Jew. Like no? The fuck gives you the audacity?

I’m tired of walking on eggshells around leftists for fear of being called a colonizer or a genocide apologist because guess what??? It doesn’t fucking matter what I say, you’re gonna do it anyway, because I’m an evil Jew!

I could talk till I’m blue in the face about cease fires or how Hamas is purposefully putting civilians in harms way, but the second I do, people are like “oh you mean Israel. Israel is the problem.” Actually, you fucking black and white thinker, ISRAEL IS NOT ALWAYS THE PROBLEM. Israel has done fucked up things. So has every fucking country on earth. But the news is dominated by “Israel is awful” and “wipe Israel off the map.” Why do you think that is.

IT’S ANTISEMITISM. It’s just that simple. Really fucking is.

And because the movement keeps flooding Jewish tags on tumblr with antisemitism, I am gonna tag this so the “river to the sea” people ACTUALLY ADVOCATING GENOCIDE can have their safe spaces (Jew free spaces) interrupted. I’m tired of taking the high road.

You all would rather side with terrorists than Jews. That’s how bad the leftist problem with antisemitism is. Terrorists who admit to using rape and murder and torture ON CIVILIANS as tactics. That’s how much you fucking hate us. Well, tough fucking luck. We’re here and we’re not going anywhere. Am yisrael chai, fuckers.

[psychotrenny]

While "Leftism" is a useful enough shorthand to describe a general tendency within a specific political context, it means absolutely nothing on it's own. Like you can use it when you want to quickly and broadly place something as "progressive", advocating more rapid and radical social changes in order to progress society away from its current set of contradictions. This has meaning when you can contrast it with "rightists", who could (depending on the specific context) seek more incremental change, preservation of the status quo or a retreat to a more entrenched version of it.

There are a number of ways in which one could employ these terms too. Like you could use it to describe those who exhibit these tendencies within a broader group or organisation, such as calling Bernie Sanders part of the "left wing" of the contemporary US DP while Leon Trotsky was a "leftist" within the CPSU of the mid 1920s. It could also describe individuals or organisations within a broader milieu (such as a nation's political scene); Noam Chomsky and Michael Parenti are both broadly "leftist" thinkers of the 21st century USA while the GPUS and PSL are both "leftist" parties within the same context.

As you can see from these wildly varying examples, terms like "leftists" are inherently vague and not always useful. A lot of examples of what people call "leftist infighting" are groups with inherently irreconcilable ideologies that just happen to fall, under current conditions, within the same broad political tendency; it makes no sense to talk as though that sort of "left unity" is inherently desirable or even possible. And "Leftism" certainly isn't an ideology in of itself, but merely a way of classifying them. Your ideology can make you a "Leftist", but "Leftism" cannot be your ideology.

[qqueenofhades]

What do you think of the movement to vote "uncommitted" in the primary? Personally I think it's a good idea as a protest vote, while not "allowing Trump to win" since it's, ya know, the primary. You're voting for "the Democrat you want to be the candidate for president" not who you actually want to be president. Most of the arguments I've seen against it seem to forget primaries exist...

Well, since you came to me and presumably do want my honest opinion on this topic, I'll share it with you. However, this will also be very blunt and candid, including some things which I haven't yet said in the 4+ months since the whole Israel/Hamas situation kicked off, and therefore also frustrated. This frustration should not be read as/taken as being directed at you personally, but since you're the conduit for this question, that's just something I want to highlight.

So. Why should you vote for Biden in the primary, and not "uncommitted" or whatever else?

First of all, what I desperately want to ask all these self-righteous VOTE UNCOMMITTED IN THE PRIMARY TO SEND BIDEN A MESSAGE types is: what exactly the fuck do you want this message to be, and what action do you expect Biden will take as a result? Is this actually based on an expectation of what he can/and or will actually do, or is it just a froth of misguided Online Leftist "rah rah this Bad Thing Happening Is All Biden's Fault," as we also notably went through when Roe was overturned by the Trump-stacked SCOTUS selected precisely for the purpose of overturning Roe? My god, the amount of bad "THIS IS BIDEN/THE DEMOCRATS' FAULT" posts that appeared, and are still circulating on the particularly idiotic corners of this site. Nothing could ever be Trump/the Republicans' fault in that case; it was the same old same old "DEMOCRATS DON'T CARE ENOUGH TO STOP THIS!!!" puerile fantasy. That's what we are getting now with Israel/Hamas. This isn't Hamas's fault for attacking Israel on October 7 (god forbid; the online left loves Hamas) and it isn't even the state of Israel and Netanyahu's fault for responding with full-scale genocide on Gaza. Or it is, somehow, but not so much that Biden personally couldn't magically reach in and stop it "if he really wanted to." I'm sick and fucking tired of this bullshit sixth-grade bad-faith disingenuous approach to playing Super Moral Social Justice Yahtzee and refusing to acknowledge the thousands of complex factors at play, especially when it involves blaming literally anyone other than Biden, personally (just like the Trump cultists, for whom "IT'S BIDEN'Z FAULT" is the beginning and end of their political theory, just like the Online Leftists). I'm sure this will get me called a genocide apologist by the Very Smart Moral Twitter Thinker types, but I don't think "Biden has failed to magically single-handedly solve this crisis, which stems from one of the most major and long-running issues in post-WWII and indeed pre-WWII world history, in four months" is actually a good reason to vote against him.

Likewise: withholding your vote might make more sense as a strategy if Biden was still only blindly supporting Israel and refusing to do anything to pressure them, which is demonstrably untrue. I know it's hard for some of these people to actually read the news and/or anything outside their ultra-curated Twitter feed, but it's been well-reported and well-documented that he is. If the US was directly involved in the bombing campaign on Gaza, sure, tell Biden that you will vote uncommitted to increase pressure on him to pull out. None of that is actually true, and the "information" about Biden's action in re: Gaza on both Twitter and Tumblr is basically just entirely malicious lies. So again: what message are you sending when you decide to be all precious and announce you're not voting for him? You don't want him to pressure Israel? You're willing to blow this up entirely and increase the media nonsense about BIDEN WEAK DEMOCRATS DIVIDED and give Trump an opening to exploit? You really want to announce to the Trump/Putin/Netanyahu axis of evil that their anti-Biden propaganda is working (since all three of them are working as hard as they fucking can to get Biden out of office, and as someone who opposes all three of them, I think this is a good idea to vote for Biden!) and they need to hammer harder on this wedge issue? Because that's all your oh-so-moral Uncommitted vote is doing. It's not a protest. It's not leverage. It is the withdrawing of leverage. If you want Biden in office so he can be pressured to listen to you and take action that you agree with, you will vote for him. Yes, in the primary. Yes, when it's not directly against Trump.

You want a ceasefire, you say? GREAT! WE ALL WANT A CEASEFIRE AND/OR ACTUAL PEACE AND RECOGNITION OF A PALESTINIAN STATE! That's in fact why you should be busting your fucking ass to make sure Biden gets re-elected, and to give him a strong show of support in the primary. Biden is the only candidate with a credible long-term (and like, baseline functional sane adult) plan for Gaza. Biden is the one who has been pressuring Netanyahu in every single contact to tone it down and stop acting like an insane murderous maniac and therefore torching any remains of sympathy for the attack Israel suffered in October. Biden is the one who has his entire diplomatic team working on high-level contacts with the Israeli government and the Hamas representatives via Qatar, while sufficiently threatening Iran to back down from frothing at the mouth to destroy Israel (once again, just like the rest of the antisemitic western left). Biden is the one who is pushing for this not to be World War III, and yet we get Baby's First Social Justice Activist screaming at him for being GENOCIDE JOE and blaming him personally for not, as I keep putting it, shapeshifting into Netanyahu's body and making this stop. "He should publicly call for a ceasefire!" Or, and this is just a suggestion, he should DO HIS FUCKING JOB and continue to work on serious problems that don't have instant socially media marketable catchphrases and won't come with instant gratification. Also, please tell me how you plan to get both Hamas and Israel to accept the same terms for a ceasefire, abide by it, and do exactly what Big Daddy Biden told them, because you, the dedicated anti-western anti-imperialist, think that's the best course of action?

Like. I mean. As vice president and now as president, Biden is actually one of the least foreign-intervention-happy leaders the US has ever had. He was originally against the Abbottabad raid to take out Osama bin Laden in 2011; he wound down the overseas drone assassination program (at which the Online Leftists screamed bloody murder at Obama, ignored in Trump, and then refused to give Biden any credit for ending) to almost nothing, he pulled the US out of Afghanistan, and even though he's been supporting Ukraine in its fight against Russia, he's also been extremely slow and cautious (in my opinion, too slow and cautious) at giving them all the military hardware they need, even before this latest blockade of aid in the House by Putin's favorite little bitch Mike Johnson. He has already presided over a historic shift in US policy toward Israel, in terms of conditioning the use of lethal aid, imposing reporting requirements, starting to criticize them publicly, and calling for the recognition of a Palestinian state and more humanitarian aid to get into Gaza. Yet in the Online Leftists' mind, because he is not personally out there Captain America-ing away the Israeli bombs and/or calling for Israel to be totally destroyed "from the river to the sea" as the Tumblr activists are fond of using no matter how often Jews ask them to stop, there is nothing he's actually doing! GENOCIDE JOE!!!!! Like, I thought the anti-western anti-American crowd thought all overseas American influence was evil (but all overseas Russian and/or Chinese influence is fine). When Biden actually doesn't recklessly intervene in foreign conflicts like Kennedy/Johnson/Nixon/Reagan/Bush 1/Bush 2/pretty much every American president in the latter half of the twentieth century, you'd think that would get him plaudits? NAH.

"Biden should stop selling Israel weapons without Congressional approval!" Okay, sure, he should. Which he did one time, and he also repeatedly promised to veto and/or not pass any only-Israel aid package that didn't also help Ukraine and Taiwan. He's also not beholden to the frothing antisemitic Online Leftists position that Israel should just lie down and let all of its citizens be killed and its state wiped from existence. Like. We also remember that Jewish voters exist in America, right? And that Jewish lives are something which are repeatedly and demonstrably under threat in the rest of the world, including from Hamas and the Houthis (who are genuinely terrible people and the western left's warm embrace of them as principled anti-Israel actors is all we need to know about their inherent brainrot and moral vacancy). We know that maybe going full masks-off antisemite (which Biden isn't going to do anyway, for any number of reasons) isn't the greatest plan and nothing to which you should be conditioning your vote? Likewise, please tell me how you plan to make Congress (especially the GOP-led clown car House) "do what Biden wants," since you're still beholden to that being the be-all-and-end-all of moral action? Or how you account for Congress at all, and not just think The President is An Almighty King?

Aside from all this, I am sick to my fucking back teeth of the Precious Moral Princesses (gender neutral) who have spent four years lying about everything Biden has done. We had the personally blaming him for Roe ending (he could unilaterally overturn SCOTUS if he really wanted!) We had the endless bashing about student debt, only to ignore him actually making the most major effort to forgive student debt in all the post-Reagan years. We have had a complete ignoring and/or distortion of his domestic policy accomplishments, which are some of the most momentous since FDR and LBJ. We have had an utter ignoring, revision, and downplaying of the damage Trump did in one term and how very much worse his second would be. We have had to endure "WELL YOU CAN'T ASK ME TO VOTE FOR BIDEN" at every single second for every single thing, because this is such a terrible onerous thing to ask them to lift one single fucking finger to give us some more time to come up with a better solution. And yet, as astutely pointed out by one of my anons yesterday, they utterly don't care whether the obvious outcome of this action is to help Trump get back into power. Apparently that's not a moral reach too far, but straining their delicate tender moral sensibilities to fucking do the goddamn bare minimum to help us out -- both in America and around the world -- no, no. We can't have that.

Like. These people allegedly want a ceasefire, and they want it to come about by asking literally nothing more of them then posting snide anti-Biden diatribes on social media. That's the extent of the effort they're willing to put in. They can't even trouble themselves to take the first step of voting for people who want to address this crisis in a constructive way. So yeah, I have a hard time believing this is anything deeply felt in regard to opposing genocide, and just wants what makes them look morally superior. Also: I don't care if your feelings are genuinely pure and strong and you obviously oppose what's happening in Gaza (we all do!) and want it to end. In that case, why the fuck aren't you throwing your support (yes! Even in the primary!) behind the one guy who's actually working to fix it and not just posting empty platitudes on Twitter? It likewise does not excuse you from the harmful consequences of your rhetoric and actions, if you decide that the best way to act on your deep-seated and genuine desire to stop the genocide is just to blindly bash Biden all day every day. Not voting for Biden in the primary does not excuse the fact that this election is against Trump and everything horrible that he represents, and that we are in this situation largely because the online left has learned literally fucking nothing from 2016 and is eager to do it all over again. Not voting for Biden in the primary does not give you a special Gold Star Moral Activist sticker announcing that you were too virtuous to engage in the process now, but if you're sufficiently placated, you maybe will do it in November. Miss me with that bullshit. I've spent eight years pleading with people to help us fix this mess, by -- yes! engaging with the flawed process that makes partial changes!!! -- and all I hear is that same fucking nonsense. That is a large part of why this response is so steamed.

Anyway. In short, I don't think voting "uncommitted" is a good idea, I think it only helps Trump in the short and long term, I think it protests nothing, I think it represents the same old tired anti-voting schlock that I have had more than fucking enough of, and I don't endorse it by any means. However, you will see that while I can strongly and unequivocally give you my opinion that it is a bad idea, I cannot actually reach through the screen, take control of your body, and force you to obey me one way or the other. So maybe, just maybe, Biden can't do the same with Netanyahu. Weird.

[bitchymanlet]

Is Erwin Leftist or Fascist?

I'm basically expanding on what I've already posted on twitter about this.

The fandom seems to be pretty split on whether Erwin would be a Jaegerist or not—I've even seen fans going so far as to say he'd be a Trump supporter in the modern day. These could just be trolls or ignorant teenagers (both?) spewing this bs, but let's be clear,

Overthrowing the government does not indicate leftist or right-wing policy.

One of the most common rebuttals I see to the argument that Erwin is fascist is: "But he overthrew the government!" My guess is they think of revolutions by the people, such as the French and Russian ones, which were progressive, left-wing. But fascists do hostile takeovers too, such as the Blackshirts in Italy, and the January 6th Insurrection (the latter being a failed attempt at one).

Instead of using Erwin's staged coup as evidence that he is leftist, let's look into the reasons why he's Not Fascist.

He values intellectualism. We see in the text that Erwin supports and sees the value in Hange's titan research, and he believes the people deserve to know the truth, ie freedom of press—he was kept in the dark about the truth of their world, and he spent his whole life seeking the truth so that it could be shared with everyone. Fascists don't want thinkers, they want obedience.

Erwin allows those below his station to speak and think freely. We see how Levi, his subordinate, speaks to him informally and to other high-ranking military officials right in front of Erwin, but Erwin doesn't reprimand him or even punish him for his transgressions, because he respects him (an uneducated riffraff from the underground) as an equal. He allows 15 year old fresh out of the Cadet Corps Armin to speak up about his hunches, make suggestions, and he even let Armin give more experienced Scouts orders during their most pivotal battle in the history of the Survey Corps. He encourages his Scouts to question what they're fighting for and who their true enemies are rather than flat-out telling them. Unlike Fascists, he doesn't seem to enforce social hierarchy or genetic superiority of any kind.

He doesn't demonize The Other or motivate his soldiers with fear. He's doesn't rally his soldiers by proclaiming that humans are superior to titans and that they must crush them to assert humanity's dominance and superiority—he doesn't possess a hatred for titans like Eren does. He sees them more as obstacles to finding the truth. A core belief to fascists is proving that they are the chosen ones who will beat down the inhuman degenerates beneath them. He shows no sense of innate superiority.

We can't say for sure if he would be a Jaegerist because he died before all of that, but it is extremely unlikely given his aforementioned anti-fascist qualities. Why would he ever fall for Eren and Zeke's plot? Erwin is certainly smarter than Eren, but Zeke is a competent leader and strategist himself. However, what Zeke lacks that Erwin didn't is Hope. Erwin didn't give up on humanity like Zeke did, instead he valued and sought after knowledge. He saw failures and tragedies as learning opportunities and steps to a better outcome. Suffice it to say, he's not hateful or nihilistic enough to be on either of the Jaeger brothers' side, he'd think of a better solution than revenge or no babies.

So we can deduce that he is not a Fascist.

But is he a Leftist?

Back to the coup de'tat, Erwin staged it not to subjugate civilians, execute his opposers and instate military rule (what fascists do), but to live on to find the truth. That was it. Being a Scout granted him the freedom to venture outside of the walls and to learn more about their world and about the titans. If the Survey Corps dissolved and he got hanged, then the truth would possibly never come to light. The previous government would execute people for trying to leave and seek the truth. Erwin elevating Historia as the rightful monarch and, as a result, the people learning that the former monarch was a fake and that they have been lied to was just a nice bonus. Not why he did it.

There's little evidence for his personal political beliefs, as much of his character arc revolves around him Getting Closer To The Truth. If he were a leftist, he would show support for the common man's struggle and a disdain for the ruling class (like woke class-conscious king Levi). If his coup were politically motivated (in a progressive way), he would have started a revolution to free the people from the king's tyranny, he might have even called for the eradication of the crown altogether and touted democracy and the redistribution of wealth. Instead, he showed uncertainty and remorse for his coup, not confidence that he'd done the right thing for humanity's sake.

Again, Erwin was only saving his own skin so that he could find out what was in Eren's basement. He didn't feel strongly about dismantling the system and creating a more equitable government, which would be leftist. Rather, he feels more comfortable with upholding the status quo while also maintaining individual liberty.

Ergo, based on canon events, I don't think Erwin is a leftist or a fascist, I think he's a liberal.