My sense is that a modern left would have to emancipate itself both from classical Marxist and from intersectionalist grand narratives/explanatory models.
Systems theory is what is being widely rejected, and for good reason. There are many situations where the systemic explanation works (at least partially), but if all you see is systems of power, you end up becoming blind to the human realities and moral choices on the ground.
Here's the moral universe most people live in, the world they believe in:
Rapists and murderers are, barring exceptional circumstances, in a very straightforward way fully responsible for their own crimes. They're not victims of the structure of society, they're Bad People. Cowardice and power-seeking are character flaws, nd not working on those flaws, indulging in them, usually isn't mental illness or an epiphenomenon of systemic injustice, it's a personal choice of Evil over Good. When Bad People get into positions of power, bad things happen, not because power always advances its own interests, but because Bad People abuse their power.
While this way of thinking makes people somewhat blind to the systemic factors that often *are* involved, imo it's also deeply right. It makes total sense that they reject 'Behold the violence inherent in the system!' as a catch-all explanation.
When I make choices, I treat myself first as free subject and only *then* reflect on systemic limitations, ways to overcome them and ways in which they might be absolute. Similarly, when I judge other people's choices, I treat them as free subjects first and *then* decide whether to give them some leeway for their circumstances.
One huge philosophical problem with the materialist inversion (das Sein bestimmt das Bewusstsein) is that it leaves no room for a subject capable of self-knowledge or moral choice. In an ontology that privileges the systemic, white people just *are* their group interests as capitalists are avatars of capital. The limits of the language game of a given class are the limits of its world. False consciousness is all there is.
Who's the 'you' making the decisions if your consciousness is determined by your relationships to the means of production? It's all just a huge bundle of contradictions and always has been.
Imo if the left wants to rescue the mission statement of 'fighting against systemic injustice' and not alienate people who conceive of themselves as more than puppets of the material forces of history, it has to have a place for the individual, the *genuine* individual, not the 'historical agent of change', in its world picture.
(Don't expect you to agree, I just felt the need to write this out)
Idea that right-aligned young men don't associate with the left because they are afraid that he left won't trust them ... seems confused.
It would be useful exercise to consider where opposite side comes from. From where I stand, position of sort-of right-adjacent white male, it is more of a question, do I trust the left?
After reading this essay about heroism, the vibes I have is the author did their best to convince me that the left should trust and let white men int the proleterian anti-oppression-of-diversity revolution, too. But if I don't want a revolution of any kind?
Truth to be told, I don't believe the leftist framework of oppression is a good model of most economic or cultural conflicts. As it is a wrong model, many attempts to "solve oppression" have a habit of turning into more but different kind of oppression.
I mean, you're the philosopher, but it seems to me given the margins of most modern elections it's mostly about pulling off 2% or so from the opposing coalition. Intersectionality has the weaknesses you cite--as many people have an 'oppressor' identity as an 'oppressed' one, so the sword cuts both ways. But it's entirely possible Trump will screw up so badly the Democrats will win by a huge margin in 2026 or 2028, and we'll all be reading articles on the premature funeral of 'woke' as companies fire every white man outside the executive suite.
Ironic misandry seriously damaged my self-esteem and probably had a huge role in permanently turning me off the left. But if it organized 10,000 women angry with their boyfriends to become feminists and vote Democrat, well, isn't that a trade the left should take?
I have to say, while there are a lot of risks and difficulties to being gay and I won't say I understand all or even most of them, you don't have the problem of trying to enter into relationships with someone who is fundamentally unlike you and whose interests are fundamentally different, and in many senses opposed to yours. There's always a certain degree of natural antagonism between the sexes, and you can always mine that for political points.
My sense is that a modern left would have to emancipate itself both from classical Marxist and from intersectionalist grand narratives/explanatory models.
Systems theory is what is being widely rejected, and for good reason. There are many situations where the systemic explanation works (at least partially), but if all you see is systems of power, you end up becoming blind to the human realities and moral choices on the ground.
Here's the moral universe most people live in, the world they believe in:
Rapists and murderers are, barring exceptional circumstances, in a very straightforward way fully responsible for their own crimes. They're not victims of the structure of society, they're Bad People. Cowardice and power-seeking are character flaws, nd not working on those flaws, indulging in them, usually isn't mental illness or an epiphenomenon of systemic injustice, it's a personal choice of Evil over Good. When Bad People get into positions of power, bad things happen, not because power always advances its own interests, but because Bad People abuse their power.
While this way of thinking makes people somewhat blind to the systemic factors that often *are* involved, imo it's also deeply right. It makes total sense that they reject 'Behold the violence inherent in the system!' as a catch-all explanation.
When I make choices, I treat myself first as free subject and only *then* reflect on systemic limitations, ways to overcome them and ways in which they might be absolute. Similarly, when I judge other people's choices, I treat them as free subjects first and *then* decide whether to give them some leeway for their circumstances.
One huge philosophical problem with the materialist inversion (das Sein bestimmt das Bewusstsein) is that it leaves no room for a subject capable of self-knowledge or moral choice. In an ontology that privileges the systemic, white people just *are* their group interests as capitalists are avatars of capital. The limits of the language game of a given class are the limits of its world. False consciousness is all there is.
Who's the 'you' making the decisions if your consciousness is determined by your relationships to the means of production? It's all just a huge bundle of contradictions and always has been.
Imo if the left wants to rescue the mission statement of 'fighting against systemic injustice' and not alienate people who conceive of themselves as more than puppets of the material forces of history, it has to have a place for the individual, the *genuine* individual, not the 'historical agent of change', in its world picture.
(Don't expect you to agree, I just felt the need to write this out)
Men morals and the left. Ready to talk about your embrace of “porn” yet? No? Ok. I’ll keep waiting.
Idea that right-aligned young men don't associate with the left because they are afraid that he left won't trust them ... seems confused.
It would be useful exercise to consider where opposite side comes from. From where I stand, position of sort-of right-adjacent white male, it is more of a question, do I trust the left?
After reading this essay about heroism, the vibes I have is the author did their best to convince me that the left should trust and let white men int the proleterian anti-oppression-of-diversity revolution, too. But if I don't want a revolution of any kind?
Truth to be told, I don't believe the leftist framework of oppression is a good model of most economic or cultural conflicts. As it is a wrong model, many attempts to "solve oppression" have a habit of turning into more but different kind of oppression.
I mean, you're the philosopher, but it seems to me given the margins of most modern elections it's mostly about pulling off 2% or so from the opposing coalition. Intersectionality has the weaknesses you cite--as many people have an 'oppressor' identity as an 'oppressed' one, so the sword cuts both ways. But it's entirely possible Trump will screw up so badly the Democrats will win by a huge margin in 2026 or 2028, and we'll all be reading articles on the premature funeral of 'woke' as companies fire every white man outside the executive suite.
Ironic misandry seriously damaged my self-esteem and probably had a huge role in permanently turning me off the left. But if it organized 10,000 women angry with their boyfriends to become feminists and vote Democrat, well, isn't that a trade the left should take?
I have to say, while there are a lot of risks and difficulties to being gay and I won't say I understand all or even most of them, you don't have the problem of trying to enter into relationships with someone who is fundamentally unlike you and whose interests are fundamentally different, and in many senses opposed to yours. There's always a certain degree of natural antagonism between the sexes, and you can always mine that for political points.