Equality is not a Liberal value, it is a Leftist value. Inclusion was never a Liberal value at all. Both are explicitly illiberal values.
Individualism is in contradiction to collectivist protectionist Leftist movements like Feminism.
You can say that Leftism wears liberalism as a skin suit and parades it around to look like it's not collectivist, that's why Communists talk about free speech and adorn themselves with AK's when it suits them, and never when it suits not them.
Then again, that's why Leftism can wear any ideology as a fucking skin suit and parade it around to look better. Leftism wearing Monarchism was Napoleon and Bismark's State Socialism. Leftism wearing Nationalism as a skin-suit is Fascism and National Socialism. Leftism wearing religion as a skin-suit is Liberation Theology.
Leftism is illiberal and is antithetical to Liberalism. That is the nature of all principled ideologies contrasting to Leftism. All non-Leftist ideologies are arguments from principle. All Leftism is arguments from power. Leftism can infect any and all ideologies that exist without exception, because there is no principle that Leftism can't claim to hold, because it has no real principles, only arguments from power. This is why Leftism can be adapted to any system or people. Leftism in Islam is Jihadism, for example.
Equality itself is one of key aspects of liberalism and has been since liberalism came to be, including in conception of individuals as inherently "free," and "equal" to one another. Not to mention liberal "rights" and other stuff.
Only in the Rousseau-ian sense that people are born equal and then starkly vary immediately afterwards, to the point that equality is a meaningless concept in the real world, which it is.
individuals are inherently relational, that is generated by and dependent on the groups; there is no individual without the whole.
You are confusion "individualism" with "atomizaiton" which is completely wrong. Individualism is not opposition to any association with group. If that were the case individualism would have to be explicitly anti-family, and even anti-partner. The idea of a "rugged individual" settling the West with his family would be anti-individual because it contained more than 1 person. Your concept of individualism is reductive nonsense.
Nevertheless, as I've noted IDPol is victimary, with race, gender, etc being proxies for victimhood, as that's the only type of IDPol that liberalism permits. It's a mockery of giving a sh*t about one's own.
While Identity politics is mockery of actually having a duty to one's affiliate group, these are not the only allowed identities in Liberalism. Liberalism allows for any number of identiites including religion, employment, and social groups.
Leftism exploits the concept of victimhood because Leftism is built off of an oppressor-oppressed dynamic.
That only makes sense if you believe that all forms of illiberalism are "leftist," which is fundamentally nonsensical and brings into question the purpose of labeling any opposition as such; are you a capitalist? Certainly an useful way to defend the system while pretending you're opposed to it.
Leftism wearing Nationalism as a skin suit is Fascism and National Socialism because Fascism is the creation of the Leftist ideologies of Syndicalism, Corporatism, and State Socialism using Jingoism and deification of the State as it's primary methods of implementing Socialist revolution. National Socialism is that same deification of the State, but applying the deified state as the intertemporal legacy and arbiter of a racial group which has been socialized into a single synchronized socialist body politic called a "Volksgemeinschaft".
National Socialism and Fascism are illiberal because they are not only Leftist, but explicitly socialist.
Fascism is merely a reaction to liberal capitalism, and rejection of it; it's closest you'll come to right-wing in last hundred or so years. Obviously, liberalism isn't right-wing.
Fascism is not a reaction to the existence of free-markets, it is the system designed for the state to implement the socialist revolution as the deified embodiment of the nation of people, and it's systems are constructed to allow for syndicates to exist within and under it in order to bring about a relatively stable socialist order.
Where Fascism deserves praise is that it is one of the only Socialist systems outside of Keynsianism that is capable of relative stability due to the manipulation of oligarchies as controllable economic structures delivering mandated economic outcomes and protection rackets. Fascism parasitizes the syndicates for political stability, and can re-align them as needed. Keynsianism is a more stable economic solution for socialism as it focuses on making corporations/syndicates parasites of the market, rather than the state parasitizing the the syndicates. This allows the state to be seen as blameless despite having significant indirect control.
The entire purpose of liberalism is to justify capitalism and exploitation. So is modern leftism.
The purpose of Liberalism is to focus on individual liberty. Free markets operate on similar principles, but Liberalism does not exist to justify free markets. Free markets do not need to be justified, their behavior is simply understood... if you're not a Leftist.
Leftism exists only as a philosophy of War, solely making arguments form power to seize more power. It has no other purpose, and it has no principles outside of the seizure of power.
Meh, this is pointless, that is talking about "leftism" given your definition that I don't consider to be neither meaningful nor accurate. It merely serves to obscure and deflect from the subject. When I mentioned "modern left" I was talking about intersectionality and how it came to be.
My definition identifies Leftism for what it is and always has been regardless of momentary topic changes. A quest for power, a philosophy of War.
Intersectionality came to be as Leftist blowback to post-modernist dominance in Leftist intellectual thought, which had spent so much time deconstructing intellectual theories that it had not actually proven useful as an intellectual weapon until it was properly applied and weaponized in a political environment. This is why the Intersectionalists are "Applied Post-Modernists". A classical post-modernist would reject all meta-narratives, including Marxist ones. This is not politically useful to Leftists who are explicitly promoting Marxist narratives. So, Intersectionalism was invented to rally all of the different Leftist collectivist sects by mandating their co-operation, and only applying Post-Modernist and Critical Theory as a weapon against only anti-Leftist opponents.
The application of Post-Modernism and Critical Theory to Marxism, Feminism, Racialism, Transgenderism, etc was explicitly denied as "invalidating people's lived experiences", and was then used only as a weapon to deconstruct and undermine all non Leftist topical factions.
Reminder that "human rights" were invented by people that used it as a PR stunt.
The first project of the Constitution of the French Fourth Republic also referred to the 1793 version of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen. The 1793 document was written by Jacobins after they had expelled the Girondists. It was a compromise designed as a propaganda weapon and did not fully reflect the radicalism of the Jacobin leaders.
From 1791 to 1793, the Girondins were active in the Legislative Assembly and the National Convention. Together with the Montagnards, they initially were part of the Jacobin movement. They campaigned for the end of the monarchy, but then resisted the spiraling momentum of the Revolution, which caused a conflict with the more radical Montagnards. They dominated the movement until their fall in the insurrection of 31 May – 2 June 1793, which resulted in the domination of the Montagnards and the purge and mass execution of the Girondins. This event is considered to mark the beginning of the Reign of Terror.
The trial of the 22 began before the Revolutionary Tribunal on 24 October 1793. The verdict was a foregone conclusion. On 31 October, they were borne to the guillotine. It took 36 minutes to cut off 22 heads, one of which was already dead. Charles Éléonor Dufriche de Valazé had committed suicide the previous day upon hearing the sentence he was given.[17]
This is utter nonsense is damn near all ways.
Equality is not a Liberal value, it is a Leftist value. Inclusion was never a Liberal value at all. Both are explicitly illiberal values.
Individualism is in contradiction to collectivist protectionist Leftist movements like Feminism.
You can say that Leftism wears liberalism as a skin suit and parades it around to look like it's not collectivist, that's why Communists talk about free speech and adorn themselves with AK's when it suits them, and never when it suits not them.
Then again, that's why Leftism can wear any ideology as a fucking skin suit and parade it around to look better. Leftism wearing Monarchism was Napoleon and Bismark's State Socialism. Leftism wearing Nationalism as a skin-suit is Fascism and National Socialism. Leftism wearing religion as a skin-suit is Liberation Theology.
Leftism is illiberal and is antithetical to Liberalism. That is the nature of all principled ideologies contrasting to Leftism. All non-Leftist ideologies are arguments from principle. All Leftism is arguments from power. Leftism can infect any and all ideologies that exist without exception, because there is no principle that Leftism can't claim to hold, because it has no real principles, only arguments from power. This is why Leftism can be adapted to any system or people. Leftism in Islam is Jihadism, for example.
Only in the Rousseau-ian sense that people are born equal and then starkly vary immediately afterwards, to the point that equality is a meaningless concept in the real world, which it is.
You are confusion "individualism" with "atomizaiton" which is completely wrong. Individualism is not opposition to any association with group. If that were the case individualism would have to be explicitly anti-family, and even anti-partner. The idea of a "rugged individual" settling the West with his family would be anti-individual because it contained more than 1 person. Your concept of individualism is reductive nonsense.
While Identity politics is mockery of actually having a duty to one's affiliate group, these are not the only allowed identities in Liberalism. Liberalism allows for any number of identiites including religion, employment, and social groups.
Leftism exploits the concept of victimhood because Leftism is built off of an oppressor-oppressed dynamic.
Leftism wearing Nationalism as a skin suit is Fascism and National Socialism because Fascism is the creation of the Leftist ideologies of Syndicalism, Corporatism, and State Socialism using Jingoism and deification of the State as it's primary methods of implementing Socialist revolution. National Socialism is that same deification of the State, but applying the deified state as the intertemporal legacy and arbiter of a racial group which has been socialized into a single synchronized socialist body politic called a "Volksgemeinschaft".
National Socialism and Fascism are illiberal because they are not only Leftist, but explicitly socialist.
Fascism is not a reaction to the existence of free-markets, it is the system designed for the state to implement the socialist revolution as the deified embodiment of the nation of people, and it's systems are constructed to allow for syndicates to exist within and under it in order to bring about a relatively stable socialist order.
Where Fascism deserves praise is that it is one of the only Socialist systems outside of Keynsianism that is capable of relative stability due to the manipulation of oligarchies as controllable economic structures delivering mandated economic outcomes and protection rackets. Fascism parasitizes the syndicates for political stability, and can re-align them as needed. Keynsianism is a more stable economic solution for socialism as it focuses on making corporations/syndicates parasites of the market, rather than the state parasitizing the the syndicates. This allows the state to be seen as blameless despite having significant indirect control.
The purpose of Liberalism is to focus on individual liberty. Free markets operate on similar principles, but Liberalism does not exist to justify free markets. Free markets do not need to be justified, their behavior is simply understood... if you're not a Leftist.
Leftism exists only as a philosophy of War, solely making arguments form power to seize more power. It has no other purpose, and it has no principles outside of the seizure of power.
My definition identifies Leftism for what it is and always has been regardless of momentary topic changes. A quest for power, a philosophy of War.
Intersectionality came to be as Leftist blowback to post-modernist dominance in Leftist intellectual thought, which had spent so much time deconstructing intellectual theories that it had not actually proven useful as an intellectual weapon until it was properly applied and weaponized in a political environment. This is why the Intersectionalists are "Applied Post-Modernists". A classical post-modernist would reject all meta-narratives, including Marxist ones. This is not politically useful to Leftists who are explicitly promoting Marxist narratives. So, Intersectionalism was invented to rally all of the different Leftist collectivist sects by mandating their co-operation, and only applying Post-Modernist and Critical Theory as a weapon against only anti-Leftist opponents.
The application of Post-Modernism and Critical Theory to Marxism, Feminism, Racialism, Transgenderism, etc was explicitly denied as "invalidating people's lived experiences", and was then used only as a weapon to deconstruct and undermine all non Leftist topical factions.
Reminder that "human rights" were invented by people that used it as a PR stunt.
https://archive.ph/XpY2R https:// en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Girondins