• The Sietch will shortly be brought offline for HPG systems maintenance. Please remain calm and do not start any interstellar wars while ComStar is busy. May the Peace of Blake be with you. Precentor Dune
  • Hey (name)! This is a general announcement to all of our members that we have a growing Alternate History and Creative Writing section that is increasingly seeing new content. If you haven't taken a look lately, please do so and perhaps leave a comment or reaction if you read something you like! Let's support our writers!
  • For those of you who would like to support the Sietch financially, subscriptions are BACK. Simply click on Account Upgrades and you will be able to upgrade your account!
  • The 'Comrade' title is now available in a fetching communist red for purchase by all of you capitalists who survived the Sietch gulag during the people's revolution. And in the spirit of all communists everywhere, it was broken until the capitalist pig dogs fixed it. ;)
  • Your beloved Boot here with a confession. The Boot tangled its laces and failed to properly set up the new Comrade user title. Thanks to the kind intercession of Emperor Tippy this failure has been corrected and the new user title is now actually on sale to everybody.

The Contradiction of Equitable Leftism

Yinko

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 18, 2020
Reaction score
1,804
Intersectionality espouses that in order to achieve fair existence you have to disenfranchise the prosperous in favor of the poor. This is because they think that all social interaction is based around Power. Male and female are power plays, race and class are power plays, etc.

Here's the thing, if we were to accept that all human interaction is based on power, then wouldn't we naturally want to be winning that power game? Our group, whichever that happens to be, should be the winners, at the expense of every other group. The idea that we should try to defy nature to magically make everyone a winner despite all interaction being based on power only works in the assumption that you can both accept something as naturally inevitable and also able to be defied. A bit of a contradiction.

This all comes to a head with observed behavior of many Leftists. If the above logic was not true, if people were not seeking the advancement of their own gender/racial/political group due to a belief in the power of power then they would not be nearly as sexist, racist or broadly discriminatory as they are. They do not actually believe that people can defy nature, they do not believe that an equitable society can be achieved. They in fact believe that their own group aught to win in the end, and that they have to ensure that all other groups are undermined in that effort.

Got to love it.
 

Scottty

Well-known member
Founder
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
5,446
Pretty much the pattern with all of those Leftist ideologies. All of them.

A Communist wants all of your stuff to be shared with him. Doesn't mean he wants you to get any share of his stuff.

Al Gore wants you to stop using fossil fuels and live in poverty because The Environment. Of course that does not apply to himself - his own "carbon footprint" is huge. But That's Different. Or something.

The shitlibs who want to make it illegal for you to have guns or defend yourself, themselves live in gated complexes with 24hr armed security.

And so on.
 

ATP

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Reaction score
1,527
Intersectionality espouses that in order to achieve fair existence you have to disenfranchise the prosperous in favor of the poor. This is because they think that all social interaction is based around Power. Male and female are power plays, race and class are power plays, etc.

Here's the thing, if we were to accept that all human interaction is based on power, then wouldn't we naturally want to be winning that power game? Our group, whichever that happens to be, should be the winners, at the expense of every other group. The idea that we should try to defy nature to magically make everyone a winner despite all interaction being based on power only works in the assumption that you can both accept something as naturally inevitable and also able to be defied. A bit of a contradiction.

This all comes to a head with observed behavior of many Leftists. If the above logic was not true, if people were not seeking the advancement of their own gender/racial/political group due to a belief in the power of power then they would not be nearly as sexist, racist or broadly discriminatory as they are. They do not actually believe that people can defy nature, they do not believe that an equitable society can be achieved. They in fact believe that their own group aught to win in the end, and that they have to ensure that all other groups are undermined in that effort.

Got to love it.
Nothing new.When in old commie times in Poland people defended their churches or property,they were always accused of acting politically against people.
And f course,only high party members knew what people wonted.
As old soviet joke said - champagne is drink of soviet workers drinked only by its represantives.
 

Scottty

Well-known member
Founder
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
5,446
Part of a discussion on another forum - but I'll just quote the following:

Poster 1:
Communism is one of the dumbest forms of society conceivable. Nazism is just as bad, and feminism has a higher death toll than both of those two systems combined. But communism is so obviously dumb. It impoverishes a nation, it empowers the particularly wicked to get into positions where they can do maximum damage, it centralizes mediocrity into the halls of power, and it is inevitably self-defeating. The fact that communism is so popular still in the modern world after all the damage it has done, is all the proof we need that influential elements in film, media and academia, which are all responsible for shaping minds, are in the hands of its perpetrators and their descendants. That is the only way that its teachings can continually be whitewashed in the minds of young westerners.

And this reply from Poster 2:

> But communism is so obviously dumb.

This is not true. Normal people really have trouble understanding that communism is quite smart and very effective in achieving its goals, which are: revenge of the wicked against humanity and creating hell on Earth. It works. Every single time it was used, it was a great success. That explains its popularity among those who aim for these goals.

> It impoverishes a nation,

Yeah, making everyone poor and miserable is part of the goal.

> it empowers the particularly wicked to get into positions where they can do maximum damage,

Precisely, that's the goal, that's how the wicked get their revenge against humanity.

> it centralizes mediocrity into the halls of power,

That's on purpose. The mediocre and the wicked want power and revenge. They promote the most incompetent and make them your boss just to spite you and signal their power. "Yes, I can really make this idiot rule over you, I have power and you do not." And they get off watching them ruin your life, because that'll teach you.

It is for the same reason they import the worst kind of Diversity and put them in your backyard, or release dangerous criminals from prison, or bus your kids to drag queen story hour. It's always the same. This is done on purpose, it is not a mistake.

> and it is inevitably self-defeating.

Just like when SJWs destroy their own companies, they don't care, as long as it makes other people suffer, that's an acceptable cost. A true communist will sacrifice everything, even themselves, to ruin your life.



As the OP said, it's all about power. Power to ruin things for others.
 

Lord Sovereign

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2020
Reaction score
3,861
Location
England
This is done on purpose, it is not a mistake.
Poor soul. It is tempting to conclude that dogma induced acts of stupidity are in fact part of an evil scheme, because the former proposition is far more frighting. Alas, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, were all true believers. They were convinced they were right, that a socialist paradise was around the corner, thus they took the road to hell and dragged their countries with them, no matter how much reality smacked them in the face or how much their people screamed for them to stop.

These are zealots who believe themselves pure. They cannot be wrong, so it must be the world that is wrong. Never has there been a more dangerous breed of human in history.
 

DarthOne

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Reaction score
5,410
Poor soul. It is tempting to conclude that dogma induced acts of stupidity are in fact part of an evil scheme, because the former proposition is far more frighting. Alas, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, were all true believers. They were convinced they were right, that a socialist paradise was around the corner, thus they took the road to hell and dragged their countries with them, no matter how much reality smacked them in the face or how much their people screamed for them to stop.

These are zealots who believe themselves pure. They cannot be wrong, so it must be the world that is wrong.
Never has there been a more dangerous breed of human in history.
Why does this remind me of something...


 

Lazer Raptor

Marxist-Lesbianist
Joined
Apr 22, 2021
Reaction score
12
Part of a discussion on another forum - but I'll just quote the following:

Poster 1:
Communism is one of the dumbest forms of society conceivable. Nazism is just as bad, and feminism has a higher death toll than both of those two systems combined. But communism is so obviously dumb. It impoverishes a nation, it empowers the particularly wicked to get into positions where they can do maximum damage, it centralizes mediocrity into the halls of power, and it is inevitably self-defeating. The fact that communism is so popular still in the modern world after all the damage it has done, is all the proof we need that influential elements in film, media and academia, which are all responsible for shaping minds, are in the hands of its perpetrators and their descendants. That is the only way that its teachings can continually be whitewashed in the minds of young westerners.

And this reply from Poster 2:

> But communism is so obviously dumb.

This is not true. Normal people really have trouble understanding that communism is quite smart and very effective in achieving its goals, which are: revenge of the wicked against humanity and creating hell on Earth. It works. Every single time it was used, it was a great success. That explains its popularity among those who aim for these goals.

> It impoverishes a nation,

Yeah, making everyone poor and miserable is part of the goal.

> it empowers the particularly wicked to get into positions where they can do maximum damage,

Precisely, that's the goal, that's how the wicked get their revenge against humanity.

> it centralizes mediocrity into the halls of power,

That's on purpose. The mediocre and the wicked want power and revenge. They promote the most incompetent and make them your boss just to spite you and signal their power. "Yes, I can really make this idiot rule over you, I have power and you do not." And they get off watching them ruin your life, because that'll teach you.

It is for the same reason they import the worst kind of Diversity and put them in your backyard, or release dangerous criminals from prison, or bus your kids to drag queen story hour. It's always the same. This is done on purpose, it is not a mistake.

> and it is inevitably self-defeating.

Just like when SJWs destroy their own companies, they don't care, as long as it makes other people suffer, that's an acceptable cost. A true communist will sacrifice everything, even themselves, to ruin your life.



As the OP said, it's all about power. Power to ruin things for others.
This is so searingly wrong in every respect I'm genuinely astounded.

If 20th Century communist parties aimed to impoverish everyone, why did Lenin launch enormous literacy campaigns and Stalin begin a campaign of crash industrialization? Why did Malenkov advocate for more consumer goods and Khrushchev do everything he could to fix housing shortages? Why did the SED repeatedly try and fix its consumer goods shortages? Why did Maoist China go through the trouble of eliminating practices like footbinding?

If 20th Century communist parties were intentionally promoting "the wicked", why was the CPSU (and its predecessors the VKP(B) and RKP(B)) so concerned about the possibility they would let in the wrong people? Why was media censored to promote "socialist morality"? Why were the sexual habits of Yagoda and Beria used in their liquidation? Why did the USSR launch campaigns against "parasitism"? Why did the USSR try and create the "New Soviet Man"?

If 20th Century communist parties wanted to put mediocre people in positions of power and leadership, again, why did the CPSU obsesses over credentials and party purity? Why did Stalin launch the Stakhanovite movement? Why was there paranoia about wreckers and saboteurs infiltrating high up positions? Why did improving your level of technical education net you a pay raise?

And if 20th Century communists truly only cared about hurting people, why did the RKP(B) implement the NEP?

If a "theory" is contradicted by all available evidence, it's a shit theory and should be discarded.
 

ATP

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Reaction score
1,527
This is so searingly wrong in every respect I'm genuinely astounded.

If 20th Century communist parties aimed to impoverish everyone, why did Lenin launch enormous literacy campaigns and Stalin begin a campaign of crash industrialization? Why did Malenkov advocate for more consumer goods and Khrushchev do everything he could to fix housing shortages? Why did the SED repeatedly try and fix its consumer goods shortages? Why did Maoist China go through the trouble of eliminating practices like footbinding?

If 20th Century communist parties were intentionally promoting "the wicked", why was the CPSU (and its predecessors the VKP(B) and RKP(B)) so concerned about the possibility they would let in the wrong people? Why was media censored to promote "socialist morality"? Why were the sexual habits of Yagoda and Beria used in their liquidation? Why did the USSR launch campaigns against "parasitism"? Why did the USSR try and create the "New Soviet Man"?

If 20th Century communist parties wanted to put mediocre people in positions of power and leadership, again, why did the CPSU obsesses over credentials and party purity? Why did Stalin launch the Stakhanovite movement? Why was there paranoia about wreckers and saboteurs infiltrating high up positions? Why did improving your level of technical education net you a pay raise?

And if 20th Century communists truly only cared about hurting people, why did the RKP(B) implement the NEP?

If a "theory" is contradicted by all available evidence, it's a shit theory and should be discarded.
Easy to answers.
Lenin promoted brainwashing,Stalin killed dozen of millions with his industralisation,Kruszczow hold people in poverty when he could made them better just by making economy normal again.
And turned living Azow sea into few dead lakes.True commie miracle.
Mao murdered 5 time more people then Japanees.
Soviet party always accused wicked of their crimes after they lost power,just like Beria case.Before that they could rape all they wonted.
NEP was just old capitalism,and Lenin must made it becouse otherwise he would lost power.Stalin end it when he could and made usual commie hell on Earth

Tell me,if commies really wonted good of people,then why they ALWAYS ended in economy disaster and mass graves ?
All available evidence show that commies never achieved their fake goals,but murder and misery.Which means,that murder and misery was their REAL goal.
 
Last edited:

ATP

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Reaction score
1,527
And even if the intention wasn't misery, what does it say of an ideology that it inevitably goes right to hell over and over again every time it is put into practice?
In Poland we were ruled by Edward Gierek from 1970 till 1980,who destroyed our economy even more then his predacessors.
He said "i always wished well" after he lost power.
We have joke about that - we wish for commie leader who wish bad,but do not succed,too.
 

Lazer Raptor

Marxist-Lesbianist
Joined
Apr 22, 2021
Reaction score
12
Tell me,if commies really wonted good of people,then why they ALWAYS ended in economy disaster and mass graves ?
All available evidence show that commies never achieved their fake goals,but murder and misery.Which means,that murder and misery was their REAL goal.
I mean, if you want to harbor the delusion that Stalin embarked on forcible industrialization to simply kill people and cause misery that's your perogative. Really I can't understand where this childish belief Marxist-Leninists were literally just seeking to make things worse for people comes from.

Edit: Is the concept of a bad person thinking they are doing good so alien to you?
 

S'task

Renegade Philosopher
Administrator
Staff Member
Founder
Joined
Aug 9, 2019
Reaction score
4,434
Location
ch'Rihan
This is going to be unpopular methinks, but Lazer Raptor is right.

Are there opportunists on the Left who utalize ideology for their own ends to amass wealth and power for themselves? Certainly, and the right absolutely has them as well.

However, as tempting as it is to ascribe malice to many on the left, doing that is stupid, blinds you to effective arguments, and sets things into a simple us vs them, good vs evil narrative that while emotionally satisfying, is NOT a good place to be. That is the EXACT same world the radical SJW left lives in, just with the two sides flipped.

Intersectionality is stupid, I'll grant, but it was not developed as a means of destroying civilization. It was created because leftist academics ran into a simple problem and came up with an overly complex solution. That problem? That people are individuals and have individual experiences in life, and thus the categories that the left used at the time, which were simply binary, did not account for how people experienced real life. The experiences of a black woman were different than a white woman. The experiences of a gay black man were different than that of a black man. Rather than take this and realize that individuals have individual lives and you cannot fit everyone into neat categories, instead they lut together the idea that identity groups overlapped, and at those overlaps (intersections) was where those specific categories.

Or in other words, they turned identity into a venn diagram where each individual can fit themselves into the overlaps and the individuals with more overlapping oppressed identities were thus more oppressed than those with fewer overlapping oppressed identities.

Thus, from this we get the progressive stack idea.

Further, look, Progressivism does have a coherant moral structure to it. Bit HAS core moral values that if you look at and study you can make highly accurate predictions of their politics and opinions. The core moral argument they hold is that Oppression is bad, with Oppression roughly being defined as the favored culture, ideals, and economic structure of the historical majority in Western Civilization. The end goal of their ideology is exactly what they say it is: to destroy the oppressive systems and liberate people to live, basically, however they want (there is an aspect of Hedonism underlying this philosophy as well, and, well, Hedonism has been the underlying philosophical system for the Left since probably the 18th century).

That their ideas and system do not work as advertised has nothing to do with these beliefs. When they say "real communism has never been tried" they are not skirting the issue, they genuinely believe that. It's an evasive answer, and they know it, but they are not lying when they make that claim. When they tear down historical statues they genuinely believe they are making the world a better place. When they cancel people they genuinely believe they are acting in the service of justice.

This does not mean they are right, or that they are good people, in fact, the fact the majority genuinely believe these ideas should be what scares folks. But it is also easy to see how they get there. It's not all at once, the underlying idea of Intersectionality is, well, it's a "no duh" propisition: different people have d8fferent life experiences, and people with multiple ways they differ from the majority will experience those differences more often and perhaps more accutely than those with fewer. This is obvious on its face... and would be a fairly harmless idea if it was not then matched with the new morality that gives prestige and power to victimhood while holding to Hedonistic values.
 

The One Char

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 24, 2019
Reaction score
219
I mean, if you want to harbor the delusion that Stalin embarked on forcible industrialization to simply kill people and cause misery that's your perogative. Really I can't understand where this childish belief Marxist-Leninists were literally just seeking to make things worse for people comes from.

Edit: Is the concept of a bad person thinking they are doing good so alien to you?
The Holodomor says hi! Monsters like you killed 100 million people.
This is going to be unpopular methinks, but Lazer Raptor is right.

Are there opportunists on the Left who utalize ideology for their own ends to amass wealth and power for themselves? Certainly, and the right absolutely has them as well.

However, as tempting as it is to ascribe malice to many on the left, doing that is stupid, blinds you to effective arguments, and sets things into a simple us vs them, good vs evil narrative that while emotionally satisfying, is NOT a good place to be. That is the EXACT same world the radical SJW left lives in, just with the two sides flipped.

Intersectionality is stupid, I'll grant, but it was not developed as a means of destroying civilization. It was created because leftist academics ran into a simple problem and came up with an overly complex solution. That problem? That people are individuals and have individual experiences in life, and thus the categories that the left used at the time, which were simply binary, did not account for how people experienced real life. The experiences of a black woman were different than a white woman. The experiences of a gay black man were different than that of a black man. Rather than take this and realize that individuals have individual lives and you cannot fit everyone into neat categories, instead they lut together the idea that identity groups overlapped, and at those overlaps (intersections) was where those specific categories.

Or in other words, they turned identity into a venn diagram where each individual can fit themselves into the overlaps and the individuals with more overlapping oppressed identities were thus more oppressed than those with fewer overlapping oppressed identities.

Thus, from this we get the progressive stack idea.

Further, look, Progressivism does have a coherant moral structure to it. Bit HAS core moral values that if you look at and study you can make highly accurate predictions of their politics and opinions. The core moral argument they hold is that Oppression is bad, with Oppression roughly being defined as the favored culture, ideals, and economic structure of the historical majority in Western Civilization. The end goal of their ideology is exactly what they say it is: to destroy the oppressive systems and liberate people to live, basically, however they want (there is an aspect of Hedonism underlying this philosophy as well, and, well, Hedonism has been the underlying philosophical system for the Left since probably the 18th century).

That their ideas and system do not work as advertised has nothing to do with these beliefs. When they say "real communism has never been tried" they are not skirting the issue, they genuinely believe that. It's an evasive answer, and they know it, but they are not lying when they make that claim. When they tear down historical statues they genuinely believe they are making the world a better place. When they cancel people they genuinely believe they are acting in the service of justice.

This does not mean they are right, or that they are good people, in fact, the fact the majority genuinely believe these ideas should be what scares folks. But it is also easy to see how they get there. It's not all at once, the underlying idea of Intersectionality is, well, it's a "no duh" propisition: different people have d8fferent life experiences, and people with multiple ways they differ from the majority will experience those differences more often and perhaps more accutely than those with fewer. This is obvious on its face... and would be a fairly harmless idea if it was not then matched with the new morality that gives prestige and power to victimhood while holding to Hedonistic values.
Cool motive, still genocide.
 

Cherico

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 12, 2019
Reaction score
17,655
As much as I hate communism the early communists had the excuse of ignorance.


They were trying out an entirely new economic, and govermental system and had no real idea what the result would be.

However it has been a hundred years since then, the socialist experiement has been run numerous times and has consistant bad results.

If you are a communist in the modern day well.

 

Aldarion

Neoreactionary Monarchist
Joined
Sep 16, 2020
Reaction score
1,908
Location
Kingdom of Croatia
Easy to answers.
Lenin promoted brainwashing,Stalin killed dozen of millions with his industralisation,Kruszczow hold people in poverty when he could made them better just by making economy normal again.
And turned living Azow sea into few dead lakes.True commie miracle.
Mao murdered 5 time more people then Japanees.
Soviet party always accused wicked of their crimes after they lost power,just like Beria case.Before that they could rape all they wonted.
NEP was just old capitalism,and Lenin must made it becouse otherwise he would lost power.Stalin end it when he could and made usual commie hell on Earth

Tell me,if commies really wonted good of people,then why they ALWAYS ended in economy disaster and mass graves ?
All available evidence show that commies never achieved their fake goals,but murder and misery.Which means,that murder and misery was their REAL goal.
Because stupidity is far more dangerous than pure evil. And Communism is pure stupidity.
 

Lazer Raptor

Marxist-Lesbianist
Joined
Apr 22, 2021
Reaction score
12
Further, look, Progressivism does have a coherant moral structure to it. Bit HAS core moral values that if you look at and study you can make highly accurate predictions of their politics and opinions. The core moral argument they hold is that Oppression is bad, with Oppression roughly being defined as the favored culture, ideals, and economic structure of the historical majority in Western Civilization. The end goal of their ideology is exactly what they say it is: to destroy the oppressive systems and liberate people to live, basically, however they want (there is an aspect of Hedonism underlying this philosophy as well, and, well, Hedonism has been the underlying philosophical system for the Left since probably the 18th century).
I would heavily, heavily dispute this. Take for instance, the Russian Revolution. If we look at the composition of its leadership, of its actions, and its moral ethos, hedonism does not appear as a primary factor in any respect.

At the head of the Russian Revolution was of course the indomitable Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, who was infamously a "gloomy ascetic" in his own words. Lenin did not drink, he did not smoke, and it is thought that his relationship with his wife was more a of respect between fellow activists than true romantic love. With the exception of an alleged short-lived affair with Inessa Armand (one of his more trusted representatives and confidants), he appeared to be almost single mindedly focused on reading, politics, and exercise. Lenin's greatest fictional hero and possible role model was a character from the novel What is to Be Done? Rakhmetov, a man who devoted himself to the cause with intense ardor, maintaining celibacy, scorning alcohol, sleeping in rough conditions, eating only that which is necessary to keep his body functional, and constantly exercising and reading. The book was particularly popular among the revolutionary circles of Russia, and to a degree helped shape a certain type of revolutionary. The party also contained much more chauvinist and conservative figures, like the infamous Joseph Stalin, and those as radical as Alexandra Kollontai, arguably the mother of Marxist Feminism and proponent of free love. We can thus see that Bolshevik leadership were hardly hedonistic on the whole, and it is often argued (I would say incorrectly) that the movement on the whole had a puritanical character.

Figures like Kollontai were essential in the drafting and implementation of a number of immediate reforms targeted at improving the status of women in the new society the Bolsheviks hoped to build, legalizing abortion, decriminalizing homosexuality, overhauling divorce to make it easier for both parties to file, replacing church marriages with secular marriages, and providing for the creation of state-subsidized childcare for women. In 1919, the women's department of the Communist Party's Secretariat (Zhenotdel) was founded under Kollontai and Armand, and would pursue a number of programs aimed at improving the lot of women in Communist controlled territory. Of course, what was put into place was not even close to Kollontai's full vision, seeing as it was essentially the minimum package of reforms most of the party leadership could agree on. There is no indication that most of the rest of the Central Committee were even close to as radical as Kollontai (whose radicalism in the sphere of sexual morality is sometimes overstated). Lenin would be bitterly critical of what he termed the obsession of young people with sex and sexuality instead of self-improvement and the honing of theoretical knowledge and practical organizational skills. Nevertheless, the October Revolution stirred intense moral panic amongst right-wingers in Europe and America, with titles such as The Red War on the Family ascribing the new government a state policy of free love and even the "socialization of women". Such writers were utterly incorrect, but were joined by European leftists interested in singing the praises of Bolshevik policies, thought to liberate and demystify sex while defeating pornography and prostitution, when the reality was much less uniform, and the violence and poverty of civil war era Russia hardly lent itself to grand sexual liberation. I will forgo a description of the debates on sexuality, gender, and marriage that occurred in the 1920s for the sake of time, and because they aren't particularly relevant to my overall point.

By the 1930s Stalin and his carefully created cadre of loyalists were in total control of the Communist Party, and he had begun the Great Break in the economic sphere. During the Stalinist period, a notable rollback of previous policy in regards to women and sexuality was undertaken. In 1930, Zhenotdel was declared to be no longer needed and was abolished, homosexuality (which had never been liked among the Bolsheviks) was recriminalized in 1934, and "bourgeois deviancy" could now get citizens sent to a gulag for years of forced labor. In 1936, the Soviet regime recriminalized abortion and tightened restrictions on divorce (as well as punishments for not paying alimony), again with harsh prison sentences, declaring that it too was no longer needed in socialism (the actual concern was a drop in birthrates), and Pravda editorials and propaganda sung the praises of motherhood and the nuclear family. At the same time, dramatically heightened censorship of the arts and literature moved to impose codes of "socialist morality", suppressing discussion of topics like sex, and did away with modernism ("bourgeois formalism") and more experimental art. Thus Soviet policy continued on two tracks, one in which women were to become "full and equal citizens of their country", one in which they were to be loyal, caring mothers with lots of children, yet in both tracks neither men nor women were allowed to freely discuss matters of sexuality or of pleasure.

One can argue from this that Bolshevism was inherently puritanical, or that Stalin betrayed the cultural agenda of October, but I don't think you can make the case that Bolshevism was inherently hedonistic. Some have attempted to contrast the "Old Left" of the Bolsheviks with the sexually libertine "New Left" emerging in the 1960s, but I think this categorization ignores the diversity in both Bolshevik and "New Left" thought regarding sexuality.

I'll cut myself off there though, I believe I am rambling a bit, and I apologize for the length of this response. I could gone on to discuss Soviet labor policy and the fight against "parasitism", or made a snippy response quoting Lenin's views on a topic, but I wanted to make a good faith attempt to reach out and explain why I think the position of "the Left" in the 20th century in regards to hedonism is a lot more diverse and contradictory than you seem to believe.
 

S'task

Renegade Philosopher
Administrator
Staff Member
Founder
Joined
Aug 9, 2019
Reaction score
4,434
Location
ch'Rihan
I'll cut myself off there though, I believe I am rambling a bit, and I apologize for the length of this response. I could gone on to discuss Soviet labor policy and the fight against "parasitism", or made a snippy response quoting Lenin's views on a topic, but I wanted to make a good faith attempt to reach out and explain why I think the position of "the Left" in the 20th century in regards to hedonism is a lot more diverse and contradictory than you seem to believe.
This is a fair point, and I should have been more narrow in my application of the term "leftism". When I was writing there, I was thinking of the Western / American Left, and would make an argument that the dominate form of Leftism in the United States is heavily predicated upon Hedonism.

I would also say that while Lenin and Bolshevism may have not been, I do think that Hedonism in some respect underlies Marxist thought in general. Marx himself was a bit of a hedonist, and the Socialist Utopia that the left in general strives for appears to be heavily founded on the underlying ideals of Hedonism (ensuring that everyone lives their chosen lives of maximum personal fulfillment).

Regardless, Hedonism is certainly and underlying philosophy of Wokism, which is the primary form of leftism this thread is about. ;)
 
Top Bottom