I have been debating the Alt Right all week, but I still hold that the left is more of a threat to our culture than the right ever could be

For the readers, sorry for the absolute bad English I’m going to use, but I’m going to write something anyway. If you don’t understand, just ask, and I’ll try to clarify what I said.


For the person that started this conversation: Sorry man, but certain parts of your initial post really doesn't make much sense.

The first thing you have to do to let it make more sense is define “left” and “right” and define the attributes you give to them to define them as a group. This might seem super obvious in your head, but I can tell from experience a lot of people have different ideas about the terms “left” and “right” (because these terms are seriously abstract by themselves). In the old days (during the French revolution) the left and right were defined by “progressives” and “conservatives”. Those that actively tried to progress society into a new form OR those that tried to conserve society in the way it was. People that identified with either progressive stance were seated on the left, while people that wanted conserve the king, feudality and wanted to go against the ideas of enlightenment were seated on the right.

Today however, the idea of “left” and “right” is used in many aspects of life. You can be talking about economics (for instance) where most of the time a “laissez faire” or “free market” way of thinking about things is put in the right bracket, while more state intervention and in its extreme form (the planned economy or a more extreme form of socialism) is put on different points of the left side of the axis.

This also illustrates the problem with “left” and “right” as a term to be used as someone everyone understands. I don’t know where you live, but in political systems with a proportional voting-system you usually have more parties that sit in government. Countries like that are for instance: Holland, Belgium, Germany, … . Here different parties have to make coalitions to get to +50% of the seats to create a government that is legit to rule the country. In these countries “left” and “right” are more blurry then in countries that have a 2 or 3 party system where the case is clean cut. For instance, European Liberals are in many ways super progressive when it comes to moral and ethic dilemmas. They are pro gay rights, pro abortion, pro euthanasia, … , pro womens’ rights. Certain people would put them on the “left” because they are progressive. But when we look at their economic programs they embrace “free market capitalism” and depending on the country, the time, the people that are seated in these parties they can be absolute libertarian or pro-state-intervention only when absolutely needed. This for a lot of people would place them on the right. So you see that this one ideology can mean several things depending on what notion you use to define “left” and “right”, we are just not in the French revolution anymore. In countries that have a proportional system, you will often still find conservative leaning parties seated on the right tough and progressive leaning parties seated on the left. But all of these parties have other spearhead ideas and then embrace other ideas to give a more full party program. Nationalists (for instance) can embrace nationalism as their most important idea, but if they want to answer more questions that turn up in society (like economical once) they will have to embrace a view on economics that they identify with. That is for instance the reason why certain nationalist parties are considered “left”-leaning (believe in social security, believe in bigger government, believe in higher taxes bracket) while others are considered “right”-leaning when people analyse them on axis that is defined by economics.

So not defining them (when you use them) kinda brings you in troubles right away. The world just ain’t binary, it’s way more complex and nuanced. If you are going to use these abstractions, it could be people just agree or disagree with you, but once you go in depth there is a chance that you and the person you are talking too have different ideas in your head on which you base your argumentation. Which creates for very fuzzy conversations really quickly.


Some of your points:

[b]"They actually run academia"[/b] ... ? I don't know what your country you are living here, but I can tell you that's simply not true over here. I won't discuss the idea that you will find certain fields of academia where there is a disproportional high amount of people that consider themselves on the left. However "they rule academia" has this underlying suggestion that they are dominant in all fields of academia. A while back I had a similar idea proposed to me by someone else on youtube, who gave me the following website to drive a more nuanced version of your point home:

https://heterodoxacademy.org/the-problem/

The website deals about how certain universities (and fields in that university) have become closed to new ideas. It's a website that is used by several people to point to what they consider "the left". But the website itself is less concerned with terms like "the left" or "progressives" or "marxists" or whatever other buzz-word people seem to get an emotional reaction too. Anyway, according to this source there are universities that definitely have a problem with not being open to ideas and where this concurs it's a problem. However the entire field didn't turn "red" or "yellow" yet (the colors they use to indicate problems). So the idea that the problem is a problem that is so large that they "run" academia is kinda strange and hyperbolic. That doesn't mean that there is a problem in general with close mindless at schools and specially in certain fields of social studies this can be a problem.

If you look at “sociology” for instance there is a good chance of finding professors that go to the right. But when it comes to “economy” (which also belongs to the social field) the overall dominance is still found in a more free market leaning economy (which for a lot of people is not attached to the abstract term “left”).

[b]“The push propaganda through social sciences”[/b], sure… this exists. But it’s not “the norm”. I’m not saying it’s not a problem where it exists, but again, it’s way more nuanced then that. Sociology (as an example) is still a field tries to be empirical, and I don’t know any field in science in general that has to have such a good detailed, outlined framework before they start researching anything. A lot of social-studies with empirical data work a little bit like (this is a pure abstraction btw):

1. Formulate hypothesis

2. Create a really well founded map on how you are going to do your research. This is before you did anything. If you fail in providing this framework your data and everything else will not be read by anyone that is serious about this field.

3. Collect data and keep to your framework

4. Formulate the conclusion that flows from the data

5. Formulate your own conclusion

I read an investigation about people that have been born in my own country but derive from parents that migrated over here. These “new” civilians were measured and researched for all kinds of thraits by the researchers. They formulated a conclusion that comes from the data (part 4) which is supposed to be free of biases (which is extremely difficult to do, you have to stay with the data) AND THEN they go to part 5 and make a different chapter in which they formulate their own opinion which usually moves to a new “hypothesis” that they want to research in the next field.

Take this abstract framework in account, and look for instance at any published paper in sociology and apply it. If the researches is renowed and respected he/she will make a devision between what they themselves think and what they themselves measured within their framework. They also have to be critical towards themselves, because social sciences just ain’t like “correct” sciences (math, physics, etc). And they too have to answer to discussions of validity. And the best studies therefore don’t produce “propaganda” but produce data is valid for argumentation.

[b]“ Karl Marx is the # 1 most assigned economist”[/b], … I’m really wondering where that comes from. I mean? Where do you get this from? Maybe in the part of the world you reside and get your information from Marx is mentioned often. And Marx definitely made an impact but I don’t see how he would be the number 1 assigned economist? Even if that would be the truth, you should give me the theories Marx wrote on how to actually structure a nations (or humanities) economy? Because Marx (for as far as I’m aware of) didn’t do such a thing.

Marx maybe mentioned by a lot of people, but most of them have no clue what he wrote either. When it comes to political-activists or those that criticize Marx, I often see them refer to the “Communist Manifesto”. However, this is pretty lazy. It’s like when you have to read a book in school, and you don’t like doing so, so you picked up the most easiest read. (For me, that was “Animal Farm” by George Orwell and “The birds” by A. Hitchock, 100 pages of easy material to digest). But Marx actually has 2 big things going on:

1. His economical writings: which are a criticism of classical economy. (The full title of Capital is: “Capital: A Critique of Political Economy”) It doesn’t provide a framework for a new economic model, but it critiques the economic model that was laid out by thinkers like A. Smith, D. Ricardo, etc. . He was trying to show what the consequences are if you let this model do its thing, why wage-laborers pull on the short end of the rope and how power relations work in capitalist societies. It’s a 19th century book, so it doesn’t hold any views on new elements (like social-democracy) that kicked in later after his dead. So when you read it, you have to read it in it’s time frame.

2. Political writings: We can have a discussion about if “Capital” is or is not “political”. For me “Capital” is a political book. But it’s not the ultimate propaganda piece. It does incorporate certain biases but it still tries to analyses the capitalist mode of production within Marx his time period. When I talk about “political” writings I’m talking about writings like the “Communist Manifesto” that contain very little to no empirical analyses but actively advocate for revolution. For Marx (and many other thinkers, no matter where you are situated on the political spectrum) this usually breaks down to a critique of what they are openly against and a model they want to promote. For Marx there is this romantic view of the “Paris Commune” and “Communism” as a whole. He also delivers a prophetic idea which according to his believers, marked out a progression that should be “inescapable”. You can’t escape from the progress towards a socialist system (and eventually communism) … it’s “predetermined”. A foolish idea that has been proven wrong and many Marxists have been struggling with ever since.


So when you talk about Marx, you have to consider if you are criticizing the mode of productions of a capitalist system OR if you are discussing politics. Most ideas of “planned economies” where popularized and worked out by thinkers as “Lenin”, and not by “Marx”. And even within Marxism there is load of discussion on how to organize economy OR society. Again… it’s nuanced, it’s complex and it’s far from binary.

I just don’t understand your argument, neither do I see it as a problem. After the collapse of the markets (+/- 10 years ago) there has been a search for why this might have happened. At that point people had to look to writers that analyse “crisis”. It’s pretty easy to end up with Marx from that point he’s just a bit more known then the Austrian school in most parts of the world. Misses and Hayeck have an entire different view on why crisis happen and why they can be severe.


[b] we are the most anti-freedom of speech generation[/b], Where do you get that from? Isn’t this like more hyperbolics? Is this a conclusion you get from personal experience? Where are the sources for this claim?



I also wonder how many people really read the “Frankfurt School”. I tried to read Adorno and also Marcuse a while back. But it’s pretty heavy literature. I fear most people will do what this 80s british sketch sets out really well:

[youtube=https://youtu.be/iDJeTnLKLEI]

LOL. You’re not even amusingly ignorant.

Much of the alt right are an actual threat to people’s lives. Some are actual Nazis.

Heather Heyer rings a bell?
Charleston church shooting ring any bell?
Louisville, Kentucky shooting ring any bell?


Sis, when was the last time any “left” member organized murder of people based on “left” principles?I just have to laugh.

This is the political world according to youtube:

Where culture controls economics rather than the other way around, where academia has more power than business and where campus social justice warriors represent the entire political left.

In the real world: the actual US president spouts far right conspiracy theories, neo liberalism further strengthens its strangle hold and worth inequality continues to explode.

The issue isn't the political system or the perceived moderation of one side versus the other, the issue is when certain conditions allow a rapid and unchecked swing toward an extreme. While we can mostly argue (validly, I think) that capitalism is a better model than communism for the way the world is today, if you take the left to its extreme you send people to the gulags, and if you take the right to the extreme, it's the death camps. At that point, arguing about the merits of an economic model is largely moot.

Rather than rally behind one side or the other and cheer it on as we would a football team, we should instead be vigilant for the conditions that precipitate an avalanche.

Can you prove any of what you just typed?