Political purity

I have slight Asperger’s, and I am not the best at communicating my political views.

Purity test logical fallacies here, here, here, here, here

Association fallacies here, here, here

If my political views trigger or offend you in either direction, I have moderate and persuasive arguments for why I have these views that you will have difficulty debunking.   I hope that makes people who share my political views happy,  having to state my views, I enjoy the attention . There is nothing wrong with my political views,  my political views are my opinions, and they are as valid as other opinions

I want a stateless, classless, egalitarian, hierarchyless  society so keep that in mind when viewing my blog views

Why do I sound between Radically Centrist and soft Center Left /‘to the right of Jane Fonda’ (like views between Third Way and Right Center. Right Center is between Center Right and Right wing [non far right Right Wing]) on a extreme minority of issues if I am Left Wing  ?

Answer 1) Countercultural/Contrarian reasons

Because being a 4pt and or having views ‘to the right of Jane Fonda’ in a Liberal 2.0 society is counter cultural , fun, disruptive, challenges social norms and thus its more fun to be counter cultural than being mainstream 

Just like the New Left hippies in the 1960s were countercultural in a conservative society, I am a 4pt and or in rare times have views ‘to the right of Jane Fonda’ in a Liberal 2.0 society.

Like in the 1960s kids shocked their parents with long hair, promiscuity, edgy music, I embrace the 4pt and or have views ‘to the right of Jane Fonda’ as a way to shock our Liberal 2.0 overlords

It is way more fun to be a contrarianist than to be mainstream. I love taking the opposite side of some select mainstream Liberal 2.0 political views. Being different is truly liberating. 

Answer 2) Left Wing critique on Human rights

Personally and legality wise, I don’t really care about human rights since human rights are a bourgeois concept that at times are used to defend the right.  Systematically, I am morally apolitically progressive on human rights (as noted below in my Mark Twain moral evolution quote)

Human rights can be seen as per Karl Marx in a negative light “the rights of egoistic man, of man as a member of bourgeois society, that is to say an individual separated from his community and solely concerned with his self-interest”. These alleged universal rights of the abstract individual would in reality promote the interests of one particular social type; the possessive individual of capitalism. 

Not only due to the context in which these rights emerged, but also in their very form, these rights would be linked to bourgeois ideology – the ideology which the Communist Manifesto described as having drowned all emotion “in the icy water of egotistical calculation” and having ripped apart all feudal ties, leaving behind “no other nexus between people than naked self-interest”

In some ways, human rights could be seen assumed to translate the ethos of “social atomism” – an ethos which is which is blind to the class divisions that are its very social conditions for existence. 

However this article shows that Marxism finds a way to rightfully support human rights while acknowledging the early Karl Marx way of thinking on these matters

Answer 3) Post left critique on Morality

I go beyond morality . Morality is a system of reified, abstract values, values which are taken out of any context, set in stone, and then converted into unquestionable beliefs to be applied regardless of a someone’s true desires, thoughts or goals, regardless of the situation in which a person finds themself in. 

Moralism is the practice of reducing living values to reified morals, and also of considering oneself better than others because that person has subjected himself or herself to morality (self-righteousness), and of proselytizing for the adoption of morality as a social change tool.

When a person’s eyes are opened by scandals or disillusionment and they begin to dig down below the ideological surface and they received ideas that they have taken for granted their whole lives, the apparent coherence and power of this new answer that they find (whether in religion, leftism or even anarchism) can lead them to believe that they have now found the Truth (Truth with a capital ‘T’). 

Once this starts to occur people too often turn onto the path of moralism, with its attendant problems of elitism and ideology. 

Once people give in to the illusion that they have found the one Truth that could fix everything — if only enough other people also understood this Truth, the temptation for them is then to view this one Truth as the solution to the implied Problem surrounding everything that must be theorized

This leads them to build an absolute value system in defense of their magic Solution to the Problem that this Truth leads them to. At this point moralism takes over the place of critical thinking.

The main issue with Moralism is that people are exploited or dominated by capitalists (or alienated from society or from the productive process. etc.). 

The Truth is that the People must take control of the Economy and/or Society into their own control.

The biggest hurdle to this is the Ownership and Control of the Means of Production by the Capitalist Class which is backed up by its monopoly over the use of legal violence through its control of the political State. 

To overcome this people must be approached with an evangelical fervor to influence them to reject all forms, ideas and values of Capitalism and to adopt the culture, ideas and values of an idealized notion of the Working Class in order to take over the Means of Production by abolishing the Capitalist Class power and constituting the Working class power (or its institutions that are represented, or even their Central Committees or its Supreme Leader) over all of Society

This tends to lead to some type of Workerism (usually including adopting the dominant image of the working class culture i.e the working-class lifestyles), a belief in (more often than not Scientific) Organizational Salvation, belief in the Science of (the victory of the Proletariat in) Class Struggle, etc. 

Also tactics that are consistent with building the fetishized One True Organization of the Working Class to contest for Economic and Political Power. 

A whole wage value system that is built around a particular, very oversimplified conception of the world, and moral categories of good and evil are substituted for critical evaluation in individual and communal subjectivity terms

The spiral into moralism is never an automatic process. It is a tendency which naturally shows itself whenever people start down the path of reified social critique. 

Morality always involves stalling the development of a consistent critical theory of self and society. 

It short-circuits the developing strategy and tactics that are appropriate for this critical theory, and it encourages an emphasis on personal and collective salvation through living up to the ideals of this said morality, by idealizing a lifestyle or culture as virtuous and sublime. 

In the process this demonizes everything else as being either evil perversions or evil temptation

One natural emphasis of this then becomes the petty, continuing attempt to enforce the boundaries of virtue and evil by policing the lives of any person who claims to be a member of the in-group sect, while self righteously denouncing out-groups. 

Like, in the workerist milieu, this means attacking any person who doesn’t sing the praises of the virtues of the working class (or one true form) organization or to the virtues of the overbearing image of the Working Class culture or lifestyles (like beer drinking as opposed to drinking wine, rejecting hip subcultures, or driving a Nissan instead of a BMW). 

The goal, is to maintain the lines of inclusion and exclusion that are between the in-group and the out-group (the out-group is variously portrayed in highly industrialized countries to be the Middle and Upper Classes [Petty Bourgeois and Bourgeois], or the Managers and Capitalists big and small).

Living up to the standards of morality means sacrificing specific desires and temptations (regardless of the your situation that you may find yourself in) in favor of virtue rewards 

Don’t ever eat meat. Don’t ever drive SUVs. Don’t ever work a 9–5 job. Don’t ever scab. Don’t ever vote. Don’t ever talk to a Right winger. Don’t ever take money from the government. Don’t ever pay your taxes. Don’t ever etc., etc. 

Not a very appealing way to go about living your life for any person that is interested in critically thinking about the world and evaluating what to do for oneself.

Going beyond Morality involves constructing a critical theory of a person’s self and society (always self-critical, provisional and never totalistic) in which a defined goal of ending a person’s social alienation is never mixed up with reified partial goals. 

It involves emphasizing what we have to gain from radical critique and solidarity rather than what we must sacrifice or give up in order to live virtuous lives of politically correct morality.

Hard Atheism and the Ethics of Desire: An Alternative to Morality by Joel Marks may provide some alternatives for morality

I support a prideful sense of self empowerment while going beyond morality as I mentioned above

However my conscious, me supporting some aspects of Common good Constitutionalism and religion views on morality balances this out to where I am Left wing on morality

Answer 4) I support some aspects of Post Left Anarchism 

Post Left Anarchism promotes a critique of Anarchism’s relationship to traditional Left Wing politics, such as its emphasis on class struggle, social revolution, labor unions, and the working class. 

Answer 5) Some of views may crossover into Tankie territory since I support slight ideas from Marxism Leninism and Post Dengism (which are Tankie ideologies).  See here for more on Tankies. Tankies can also be seen as ‘so far left they’re right’.  see horseshoe effect for more on that

Answer 6) Because political purity is a myth.

Every fellow Left Winger and also Liberal 2.0er has non Left wing and non Liberal 2.0 views on rare issues. There is too many examples to list. I am not immune to this since I am a mere mortal

I put out so many views in this blog by the law of averages there will be some non pure i.e non Left Wing views here and there.

Answer 7)  I am part Militant Democratic Moderate (i.e Radlib-Post Conservative Populist). 

We need healthy ideas from the left and right to unite us. People should build strategic alliances with political, cultural and ideological opponents

Militant moderate is Vital center. Radical middle. Trying to find political solutions to close the red state/blue state divide, that uses distinctive sensibility and policy orientation of a militant moderate: pragmatic, reformist, nonideological, empirically minded, and skeptical of many liberal and conservative pieties.   

On a very few issues I am Militant Moderate, but on a few other issues I fuse Militant Moderation with Democratic Centralism . 

Democratic centralism is a practice in which political decisions are reached by voting processes are binding upon all of the members of the political party. It practices electing leaders and officers, determining policy through free discussion, and decisively realizing this through united action. It has also been practiced by Center Left Social Democrat parties as well.   Basically a more Left version of Liberal Conservative Populism

Answer 8) I could be described as a double fishhook theory triangulation Centrist (extreme upper center). 

The Triangulation part presents a position as being above or between the, in my case Center, Far left and Far right (or "wings") of a democratic political spectrum. This involves adopting for myself some of the ideas of my political opponents. The logic behind this is that I take credit for both takes credit for the opponent's ideas, and insulates the triangulator from attacks on that particular issue.

Answer 9) My mottos are. “Not left, not right but Forward”. “Beyond/transcend the left and right but against the center”. “Reject the left and right”

Answer 10) I am a Left Libertarian. So I am Anti statist.

Answer 11) I used to be a Cruzite as I mention here. So I am still growing as a Left winger (baby steps/training wheels)

Answer 12) Because Liberal 2.0ers always challenge our social norms this has forced a good, decent thoughtful person (ME) into an uncertain state where I may not be Liberal 2.0 friendly or even Progressive lean Liberal 2.0 friendly to Liberal 2.0ers and even some Progressives lean Liberal 2.0ers . 

Liberalism 1.0 morphing recently into Liberalism 2.0 and kicking out people who don't pass their purity tests create a counter productive environment where people like me are pushed further away from being Liberal 2.0 friendly or even Progressive lean Liberal 2.0 friendly.

Answer 13) I am wary of going left on things that can lead to a Slippery Slopes so I tend not to support such leftist ideas which I feel can lead to a Slippery slope

This is because I feel slippery slopes take things way way too far, including into the Liberalism 2.0 stratosphere

It is obvious that Slippery slope is real.  Social and political changes happen in gradual steps, not at once. Whether it's the military/political situation revolving around Germany in the 1930s or whatever is happening currently with corporate race/sex b8ing, this all happens gradually. 

People who supported early changes might disagree with what comes next, but there are always new people who are looking to make new changes, using the previous changes as justification to do so.

See here for more