This is Leftist

[BainsBane]

57. "You seem to believe it's impossible to be to Hillary Clinton's left on any issue."

Last edited Tue Aug 26, 2014, 03:01 AM - Edit history (3)

Riiight. That's why I posted Marx and Tithi Bhattacarya. I can conceive of no political spectrum in which Clinton is not it's furthest left.

If you mean for Rand is to the left of Clinton, you are factually wrong. US libertarianism is a right-wing ideology, not a leftist one. It is focused on the individual over the common good. That is well to the right of the Democratic Party and much of the GOP. As for his anti-interventionist views: Isolationism is not an inherently leftist position. Either the left or the right can be isolationist. The Nazi sympathizers in the UK and US were isolationist, while the Communist Party set aside it's opposition to capitalist states for the purposes of defeating fascism. There is no rational analysis in which the Hitler apologists can be conceived of as to the left of the CP simply because they opposed US or British involvement in the war. The same goes for Paul on Iraq. It's a position, not an ideological orientation. One can oppose foreign intervention from either left-wing or right-wing perspective. One can oppose the security state from a left or right-wing perspective. Rand does it from the right. That really shouldn't be very hard for an adult to understand.

What I have to wonder is why people feel compelled to invoke a racist shit bag like Paul to advance an anti-interventionist position? Why can't a person simply say I oppose foreign intervention in Iraq and NSA surveillance? What compels them to invoke an ultra reactionary to support that position? There is no logical reason to do so. If anything it undermines their argument rather than advances it. They must have other reasons for promoting him.

I suspect it is not simply his anti-interventionist views that they support. Anyone who could favorably write his name without becoming physically ill, I suspect, shares more than an issue or two in common with him. In fact, I suspect his opposition to civil rights, women's rights, and LGBT rights is a plus for some. The reactionary dribble that is passed off as "leftist" around here is bad enough. Now this crap about Rand is the fucking limit. Some people who run around claiming to be leftist are anything but. I have had enough of the bullshit. I am no longer sitting back while they advance one right-wing, pro-capitalist position after another and accuse those of us who think anyone but the privileged few matter are "centrist." They have gone too far with this Paul shit and revealed too much of who they really are.

The problem is those focused entirely on self have no ideological rudder. They don't read Marx or much of any political economy or theory. They see themselves as embodying the left and anyone who disagrees with them is something other than leftist, That is not an ideology, or at least not a leftist one. It could be seen as a right-wing Ayn Randian individualist ideology, but they don't claim it as such. Their views are based entirely on ego over knowledge, over history and political economy. It is empty nonsense. That has led to all manner of distortion so that right-wing views are proclaimed as "leftist." Just because someone who posts on DU likes guns doesn't make that view leftist. Just because someone thinks white men are oppressed doesn't make white male supremacy leftist. They are fundamentally reactionary ideas that promote capital and the interests of the few over the common good. That is by definition right-wing. The political spectrum is not relativist. Marxism represents the left. That is the rudder by which proximity to leftism is gaged. One need not use labels of left and right, but if one does, they must have meaning.

To call this OP juvenile is ridiculous. You obviously didn't bother to read it, and clearly you aren't interested in any of the ideas about capital, social reproduction, or neoliberalism. That is leftism, and it doesn't interest you. There is some sophisticated analysis is Tithi's piece in particular, yet you engage only on the level of fantasy presidential politics and call me juvenile? Get a grip. You have no idea what you are talking about.