Why there is no alt-left

[BainsBane]

Trump used the term to refer to protesters against racism. There is nothing "alt" about standing up to racism. That is something decent human beings do, and the protesters in Charlottesville put their safety on the line to take a stand against White Supremacy. Heather Heyer lost her life for it, and many others were injured. There is no equivalency between that and the alt-right--who are in fact Nazis and should be referred to as such.

I find it interesting how many people around the internet are simultaneously offended by the term and eager to apply it to themselves. They didn't protest in Charlottesville and haven't tended to identify racism or the rise of fascism as points of concern. Quite the contrary.

I support the call to stop using the term alt-left, largely because it is wildly inaccurate.

Link to tweet

Where I disagree with Giordano is in the use of the term "left." People who denounce civil rights activism as centrism and Third Way have lost all rights to call themselves the left.

Trump's comments aside, what commonly has been referred to as "alt-left" or the "dirtbag left" is not left at all. Leftist ideologies, whether oriented toward Marxism or Anarchism, center around the principle of equality, on collective responsibility. The dirtbag left revolves around power and dominance of a privileged minority, who demand Democrats "bend the knee" in submission to them. It eschews class solidarity in favor of political factionalism and demands for power. Nothing about that is leftist. In fact much of what they hold up as "leftist" demands are in fact nationalist.

So why such eagerness to assume the term "alt-left" applies to them? They haven't spent the last several months denouncing the rise of fascism. They've focused their anger toward the Democratic Party. Some make endless excuses for Donald Trump, even now insisting what we are witnessing is nothing new. "Racists are people too," they proclaim. Clinton threatened war toward North Korea too, they insist, equating Trump's bellicose remarks about North Korean were no different from Clinton's statements:

When North Korea conducted a nuclear test in September 2016, she released a statement, if not quite promising “fire and fury,” that did declare: “North Korea’s decision to conduct another nuclear test is outrageous and unacceptable. … This constitutes a direct threat to the United States, and we cannot and will never accept this.”
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/08/15/hillary-clinton-promised-wars-too/

Exactly the same, for people seeking to normalize the fascist in the White House. They malign Robert Mueller, talk about how the "deep state" is out to get Trump, all in defense of the Nazi in the White House. What about that says leftist?

They call themselves left, I think, because they were once Democrats and they've convinced themselves their contempt for the Democratic Party is because it has moved to the right, even as they go out of their way to legitimize fascism. I submit it is they, and not the party, who have moved to the right. Yet like many who use terms like left and right, I am a child of the Cold War. We, however, are in an entirely different era now, with new political actors, alliances, and issues.

French commentator Yasha Monk has talked about how left vs. right are increasingly obsolete in describing contemporary politics. Divisions, he observes, break down according to nationalism vs. liberal globalism. http://www.npr.org/2017/04/24/525441567/french-presidential-election-serves-as-test-of-liberal-democracy. The linked discussion is in the context of the French election, but is every bit as relevant to our current political standoff.

This is not to say all nationalists are racists or fascists. Of course that isn't the case. But we are increasingly seeing a muddying of left-vs. right, and that may be because those terms are no longer adequate to describe the current state of American political culture.

[bettyellen]

1. All this clamor predicated on DT's lie that the anti- Nazis are not mainstream American people.

I'm certain they're not even all Dems. But within Dems it's a broad coalition. So people are scrapping over complete bullshit.
Great OP, thanks.

[BainsBane]

2. It is interesting to see people simultaneous offended and eager to include themselves

under the label.

[bettyellen]

3. Because his mind fuck is still working. Lie #1 to me is to pretend that wasn't a wise swath of

Humanity- but just the fringe. That sets up his reasonig getting IP addresses of resistance groups.
He threw out "alt-left" like a pipe bomb and it worked. It has nothing to do with this weekend- and he's happy it takes focus away from that.

[BainsBane]

4. Excellent point.

[bettyellen]

6. I really think he's framing it this way to crack down on protesters against him-

Which to me is why it's important to call out the lie. That was an incredibly diverse group- all ages colors and political leanings against those Nazis. He can't even get republicans to stick up for him today.

[JHan]

5. Agreed.

And too Far East is west, as they say.

Mounk is spot on ....

"MOUNK: You know, whether you're a Democrat or you're a Republican, whether you in France are for the Parti Socialiste or the UMP or Les Republicains would have been decided by your stance on straightforward economic issues. If you want a slightly bigger welfare state, a little bit more redistribution, then you're on the center-left. If you want, you know, more free enterprise and a smaller welfare state, lower taxes, then you're on the center-right.

Now I think there's really coming to be this quite fundamental clash which is nicely encapsulated by Emmanuel Macron on the one side and Marine Le Pen on the other side, between people who believe that globalization is an opportunity but we need international cooperation in order to solve problems like climate change, that we should be open to the world. And people say no, the most important thing is the nation, and that stands in competition with international organizations. It has to close itself off against the world in order to have real power. It has to embrace an ethnic, cultural majority against others. And so this is what you're seeing now.

I'm a little torn about this because if a main political cleavage is between essentially defenders of liberal democracy in the current world order and ones who really want to dismantle it radically, then eventually they will sometimes win elections, and we will get real moments of turmoil like we're seeing now in the United States."

[Gothmog]

7. Sean Hannity made up this term and I am damned if I am going to use Hannity's terminology

There is no alt left and this idiotic term was made up by Hannity and RWNJ media. We should not be accepting and using the terminology originated by idiots like Hannity and the RWNJ press

[BainsBane]

8. Was it really Hannity?

Yuck.

[Gothmog]

17. What is the "alt-left" Trump was talking about?

It was hannity https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-is-the-alt-left-trump-was-talking-about/

So who uses the term "alt-left"?
It grew out of the conservative media. In particular, Fox News host Sean Hannity, an outspoken supporter of Mr. Trump, frequently references the alt-left on Twitter.

Link to tweet

?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbsnews.com%2Fnews%2Fwhat-is-the-alt-left-trump-was-talking-about%2F

Link to tweet

?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbsnews.com%2Fnews%2Fwhat-is-the-alt-left-trump-was-talking-about%2F

Link to tweet

?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbsnews.com%2Fnews%2Fwhat-is-the-alt-left-trump-was-talking-about%2F

In a November appearance on Hannity's show, former White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci said the alt-left think Trump voters "are misogynists and misanthropes and negative people."

[BainsBane]

18. So anyone who doesn't kiss his and Trump's butt

would seem to comprise the alt left for Hannity.

[Gothmog]

19. Yep

[TSIAS]

10. I thought Joy Reid made up this term?

Or was it Al Giordano or Peter Daou? I've heard about the alt-left from Neera Tanden and the like way before Trump ever uttered the term.

[BainsBane]

15. No

Don't believe everything you read on JPR.

[Gothmog]

20. don't you know Hillary is running a child sex ring at a pizza shop in DC?

This has to be true because there were six threads about it on JPR all on the same day

[BainsBane]

22. and they are about to break open the Seth Rich case anyday

and Benghazi! Still a sticky a JPR.

[lapucelle]

29. "Joy Reid...Al Giordano...Peter Daou...Neera Tanden...

and the like..."



http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/16/politics/what-is-alt-left/index.html

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/term-alt-left-came/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/01/meet-the-alt-left-the-gops-response-to-its-alt-right-problem/?utm_term=.e09f8c97d89f

[Me.]

9. KR

Brilliant as usual

[JI7]

11. they aren't the left in any way . even going after corporations itself doens't make it left

Trump does the same like when he went after the black ceo and complained about high drug costs.

what i always see is these people are upset that THEY are not the ones who are getting what they think they deserve. Trump is angry for personal reasons.

they don't support actual policies to make things fair and equal. in fact they do anytihng to avoid it when they dismiss minorites and women.

[Eliot Rosewater]

32. You wake up in my head today?

difference between liberal and progressive:

Liberal, my kind of liberal, puts social issues in positions 1-5, economic issues 6 and social issues 7-10.

Many many many, not all but many many many progressives put economic issues 1-5, claim that there is no real difference between the two issues, and the vast vast majority of progressives are, wait for it




as a ghost.


I am finding at alleged liberal social media sites, endless attacks of Hillary, her foundation, Patrick and Booker, and soon Kamala.

Can we win if we have to fight the KGB, GOP and this group of people known as "progressives?"


Disclaimer: I am a LIBERAL and I am a DEMOCRAT. I support the party, completely. I do so until the nazi fascist killers are out of power, then and only then will I want to talk about making my party more liberal.

[melman]

12. Heather Heyer

was a Bernie supporter, a member of the IWW, and exactly the sort of person Al Giordano smears as alt-left.

[BainsBane]

16. Perhaps you could tell us what you think whether you think nationalism

vs. liberal globalism are appropriate descriptors of today's political culture?

[Jamaal510]

13. K&R

[Demsrule86]

14. I have used that term to refer to Stein voters...meaning alternative left...won't do that anymore.

As much as I dislike Stein voters and Greens in general...they are not equivalent with the alt-right.

[Tom Rinaldo]

21. Good thread for discussion. Thanks

I in particular agree with this observation; "Leftist ideologies, whether oriented toward Marxism or Anarchism, center around the principle of equality, on collective responsibility". Unfortunately there is also a fundamental defining split about how power is wielded and legitimated; with some claiming to variously be on either the Right or the Left justifying authoritarian means toward their chosen ends, be that an authoritarian centralized power structure or unchecked autonomous cells giving themselves license to act on behalf of others who have no input into their actions.

In regards to globalism and nationalism, that is a little complex. There is a hybrid of sorts loosely capsulized by the slogan "Think Globally, Act Locally ". I think there is truth in that. Because Capital can instantaneously transcend physical borders in a way that mere humans can not, those who control massive amounts of it have unique ways to simultaneously influence events in varied parts of the globe, bribing officials here, launching sophisticated propaganda campaigns there, buying an election somewhere else, and so forth.

I identify with being on the Left, and I instinctively am a globalist as I believe in the universal nature of intrinsic human rights on one hand, and in the concept of "Mutual Aid" whereby we are each in a sense "our brother's keeper". Our human commonalities across nation states overwhelm the differences that national identities define. Abstractly I embrace international cooperation and mechanisms that further it. However due to the corrosive influence of concentrated capital in the hands of a tiny elite, I am very wary of complex international mechanisms established and written by agents unduly under the influence of a tiny global elite with unique access to the halls of power in multiple world capitals. Such arrangements, because of their scope and complexity, can quickly move beyond the reasonable means of people rooted in actual communities to monitor and shape or even to object to in any meaningful way. That is where my strong believe in decentralizing power comes into conflict with modern global trade initiatives.

[BainsBane]

33. Thanks for your thoughtful response

In some ways international mechanisms have freed capital from the confines of regulations at the level of the nation state. I don't think the solution to what that means for workers in countries like the US are the simplistic solutions some politicians have offered. Failing to join TPP has not solved the problems of capital flight or outsourcing. In fact, China has responded to the void by creating bilateral trade agreements with far worse terms for workers and the environment. The battle over TPP, it seems to me, was very much backward looking, an attempt to rewrite the past, which is impossible.

Just as capital is international, so is exploitation of workers and the poor. Claims about opposition to neoliberalism ring hollow to me when the focus is entirely on the economic standing of the US middle class.The US has pushed and benefited from neoliberalism for decades now. In 1973, it installed a military government in Chile that promoted neoliberalsim--and US economic interests in particular--by selling off national holdings. That practice was replicated throughout Latin American. Yet those are the years of US middle class prosperity the people hurling neoliberal as an insult say they want to return to. Their opposition is not to neoliberalsim but the decline of American empire, to the fact that globalization has gotten to the point where the American middle class no longer reaps advantages as great as in earlier decades.

I believe what we are seeing is not anything radical at all, but rather an effort by the largely white middle class to demand that government pay attention to their interests. There is nothing wrong with that. It's a perfectly reasonable position. What is off-putting to me, and I believe ultimately undermines equality, is the way those efforts are presented in absolute terms: claims of promoting equality while demonstrating hostility to the concerns of anyone but themselves, for example. If people truly value equality, it means more than assuming that their own concerns are universal. It means a willingness to listen to others and build coalitions that include the interests of those other groups. We've seen fierce resistance to doing so. Not only that, we also are seeing an undercurrent that is seeking to roll back gains in civil rights and women's rights, under the mendacious pretext that it is somehow necessary for "equality." In such discourse, equality is not in fact equality for all but the economic interests of a minority, a minority that already averages incomes well in excess of those whose rights they demand take a back seat. As a result, I've concluded that the fundamental concerns are either political power for a particular faction and/or the narrow economic interests of one group to the exclusion of the majority. In both cases, the language of leftism serves more to obfuscate and justify than communicate or forge solidarity.

It seems to me that just as capital crosses international boundaries, so should resistance to it. I believe an insular focus on nation to the exclusion of exploitation around the world and the way in which the US has benefited from its position at the core of international capitalism is neither effective or honest.

[JHan]

34. Insightful. Thanks.

[Expecting Rain]

23. The Marxist ideology that is supposedly based on principle of equality, on collective responsibility

resulted in the mass murders of about 100 million people in the past century.

Let's not pretend this is a benign ideology.

Liberals need to stand against totalitarian evil in all its forms.

[BainsBane]

24. The ideology doesn't demand mass murder

Anymore than capitalism does, despite the fact totalitarian regimes have engaged in mass murder and even genocide under the pretense of opposition to communism, just as Stalin and Pol Pot engaged in it under the pretext of communism.

I agree that we must stand against totalitarianism and mass murder. Where I disagree with you is in faulting the ideology of Marxism for that.

[Expecting Rain]

28. And yet, a hundred million died.

The old saw that Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot are a "pretext" for communism is tiresome.

It is an evil ideology. It is totalitarianism at its worst. Do we learn nothing from history? And recent history at that.

Liberals need to stand against violent extremists on both flanks.

[BainsBane]

30. You'll have to direct me to the part of Marx

Last edited Thu Aug 17, 2017, 01:41 PM - Edit history (1)

That specifies such evil. You said the ideology itself is evil, not Stalin or Pol Pot, not authoritarianism, but ideologies are that center equality.

And what of Hitler? Is his genocide better because it was not justified through the ideology you have declared evil?

Or the hundreds of thousands who fill the mass graves in Central America? Are those deaths less consequential because those who killed them were anti-communist? Or should those deaths be interpreted as evidence of the evil of the ideology of capitalism?

This is not whataboutism. It's not an effort to diminish those deaths by pointing to others. Rather, it's to point out that men and regimes do the killing, not ideologies.

[ismnotwasm]

25. As always, beautifully articulate and a joy to read

Along with the horseshoe theory, there was something I read that I can't remember right now-- about politically ideologies given enough time slowly changing into one another--switching "sides" as it were, the identifying terms becoming meaningless

What bothers me most about the subversion of the term "left" by useful idiots, is that it has great potential to diminish a very healthy and vigorous political ideology. Whether it's around healthcare, civil and human rights, green technology, education---all the systems we have to advance are firstly, based in white male supremacy. There should be no argument about institutional racism and sexism--yet there was and is. The need to expose this wound and treat it, is crucial, yet there are those claiming the label "left" who want to ignore this, and use the same systems and fix things as they go? I never did figure out how it was suppose to work. Economics and politics are giant systems, that can be incredible complex. Throwing memes at them can inflame the internet, but where is the real change happening? It happens in the courts, and as big a buffoon Trump is, he is creating lower courts where it's going to threaten progress locally. And locally is where change starts

My youngest daughter just got a job working in animal insurance--a fairly new industry, but hot in the stock market. It is not big enough to unionize, and the need may never arise. Among the benefits she receives from a company that gives a shit about it's employees, is free, in house daycare. A well designed daycare with modern amenities. I work with people who are paying thousand of dollars a month for day care--and here comes a valid and true result of liberal politics. This didn't happen in a vacuum or because particular people were running for president-this happened because liberal values were instilled into people, and into a company. This is the result of decades of hard work. The fact that it's anomalous shows how much more work needs to be done.

[NurseJackie]

26. Perfect!

People who denounce civil rights activism as centrism and Third Way have lost all rights to call themselves the left.

People who do that are beneath contempt. I see many here who do exactly that, and I wonder why it is that such things are tolerated or normalized.

[C_U_L8R]

27. Classic positioning

Trump is trying to position ordinary constitution loving Americans as the extremists
while at the same time making his racist ideology seem normal and acceptable (fine folks).
So much of Trump's schtick seems drawn from a gimmicky how-to book from the seventies.

[lapucelle]

31. Brilliant

"People who denounce civil rights activism as centrism and Third Way have lost all rights to call themselves the left."

As do people who characterize such issues as "distractions."