Alright I’ll be the resident Liker Of Bad Things. Peter’s point is about how the left-right terminology comes from the French Revolution and was about support of or opposition to monarchism. They’re rejecting the left-right dichotomy as something that isn’t inherently about communism in any way. Personally, I think it’s hard to argue that the communists wouldn’t fall on the far left of the spectrum, but I could also place where my favorite Toy Story character would be on a political compass. Doesn’t mean I should. My read is that Peter is rejecting the political spectrum similar to how we reject r/PCM. Hakim has a good video on why abstract political philosophy models are not materialist and do not describe communist politics well. I’m reading this as similar.
TLDR this is Peter getting frustrated with anarchists and libs larping as leftists on Twitter. In case it wasn’t obvious, they would not draw a distinction between those two groups. Their points tend to be less coherent on Twitter because their communication style is to say counterintuitive things and then clarify until they make sense.
He's wrong because the left right dichotomy isn't about and never was about monarchism, that's just how it manifested in those specific conditions.
The left right dichotomy is about class, with the furthest left point representing the supreme victory of the working class over the ruling class and the furthest right point representing the supreme victory of the ruling class over the working class.
This dichotomy manifests itself differently based on the current conditions of the era. Under late feudalist conditions it was anti-monarchy, and now it is not, but it is the same thing it has always represented -- class struggle.
Left/right dichotomy is used to describe a lot things including the divide between young hegelians and old hegelians, which per Coffin's post, that would make Marx "Not A Communist".
Yeah it’s hard to be coherent when the words “leftist”, “communist”, and “anarchist” are all mutually exclusive. Peter doesn’t like anarchists is my point. It’s bullshit but whatever
No idea. It would be funny if the whole “you’re not a true Marxist” thing started because he started reading Lenin and got annoyed with himself for being Wrong or whatever. I dunno I’ve read Lenin and a bit of Marx and I still call myself an anarchist even if I think I’m less utopian than the average anarchist. Their whole take seems like a ludicrous waste of time tbh
Thank you...I can at least understand his viewpoint now. The modern era has liberals calling themselves conservatives, fascists calling themselves libertarians, social democrats calling themselves democratic socialists, et Al.
I'm not saying we should be happy about it but it's not really any one individual actors responsibility for the fact that words don't mean what they mean anymore.
Their points tend to be less coherent on Twitter because their communication style is to say counterintuitive things and then clarify until they make sense.
You mean say contrarian bullshit and then ramble on a bit?
Alright I’ll be the resident Liker Of Bad Things. Peter’s point is about how the left-right terminology comes from the French Revolution and was about support of or opposition to monarchism. They’re rejecting the left-right dichotomy as something that isn’t inherently about communism in any way. Personally, I think it’s hard to argue that the communists wouldn’t fall on the far left of the spectrum, but I could also place where my favorite Toy Story character would be on a political compass. Doesn’t mean I should. My read is that Peter is rejecting the political spectrum similar to how we reject r/PCM. Hakim has a good video on why abstract political philosophy models are not materialist and do not describe communist politics well. I’m reading this as similar.
TLDR this is Peter getting frustrated with anarchists and libs larping as leftists on Twitter. In case it wasn’t obvious, they would not draw a distinction between those two groups. Their points tend to be less coherent on Twitter because their communication style is to say counterintuitive things and then clarify until they make sense.
He's wrong because the left right dichotomy isn't about and never was about monarchism, that's just how it manifested in those specific conditions.
The left right dichotomy is about class, with the furthest left point representing the supreme victory of the working class over the ruling class and the furthest right point representing the supreme victory of the ruling class over the working class.
This dichotomy manifests itself differently based on the current conditions of the era. Under late feudalist conditions it was anti-monarchy, and now it is not, but it is the same thing it has always represented -- class struggle.
Left/right dichotomy is used to describe a lot things including the divide between young hegelians and old hegelians, which per Coffin's post, that would make Marx "Not A Communist".
:curious-marx:
Yeah it’s hard to be coherent when the words “leftist”, “communist”, and “anarchist” are all mutually exclusive. Peter doesn’t like anarchists is my point. It’s bullshit but whatever
didn't he used to be an anarchist?
No idea. It would be funny if the whole “you’re not a true Marxist” thing started because he started reading Lenin and got annoyed with himself for being Wrong or whatever. I dunno I’ve read Lenin and a bit of Marx and I still call myself an anarchist even if I think I’m less utopian than the average anarchist. Their whole take seems like a ludicrous waste of time tbh
Thank you...I can at least understand his viewpoint now. The modern era has liberals calling themselves conservatives, fascists calling themselves libertarians, social democrats calling themselves democratic socialists, et Al.
I'm not saying we should be happy about it but it's not really any one individual actors responsibility for the fact that words don't mean what they mean anymore.
You mean say contrarian bullshit and then ramble on a bit?
that's how you get the clicks! :bait: