The Left Isn't Going to Win This One

ToothyMaw

In this interview, the Warrior Poet Society guy (who none of you should know) and Dr. Gorka (another person you shouldn't know) talk about neo-marxists in the military. Dr. Gorka’s agenda is fairly transparent: keep the people focused on a nearly non-existent internal threat so we can redirect any doubts or critical thoughts about going to war to the trash bin. If this actually becomes an issue of contention, the left won’t win.

I’m not a soldier, and I’ve never seen combat, but I have been in a fight with an enemy that vastly outstripped my own meager martial arts skills and violence of action, and the difference between me and my opponent was equal to the difference between the left and right when it comes to the culture war.

And I got destroyed in that very brief fight.

Guy just smashed my lead leg over and over, and between each kick I just thought to myself that surely he wouldn’t smash my leg again.

But he did.

This is the state of the culture war, upon which the greater war partially rests, encapsulated by the somewhat sinister joke that is the aforementioned interview.

Getting into a war with Russia that could result in a massive number of deaths or total annihilation? Keep that open mind and talk about white rage and how it prompted the January 6th insurrection.

No socialized medicine for any of our citizens? Please complain about the audacity of people who make somewhat specious comparisons between black-on-black violence and police brutality.

Redirecting attention towards “neo-marxists” in the military, designating them as enemies for being too woke so as to direct attention away from potentially disastrous military decisions or to maintain cohesion?

How about totally disavowing neo-marxism (which is almost solely academic anyways)?

To repeat what I have said elsewhere: I get that white rage and privilege exist, and it is necessary to train our police better, but we have to fight the fascists and neo-liberals on the more important and winnable fronts - such as not getting into a massive war - and then the rest will follow.

We could, of course, be thorough by creating a well-rounded and defined political statement, flag shipped by competent, strong, and charismatic leaders that aren’t afraid to call out both fascism and neo-liberalism. But even then, we only have so much bandwidth, which should largely be dedicated to satisfying the most basic and important needs of the largest number. And if you have an issue with that you can advocate for stopping taxing the rich more than the impoverished.

Don’t mistake this post for bigotry, as I have nothing but empathy for the dejected underdog, the poorly understood minority - but I think we need to get behind a more effective battle plan against a foe unafraid to eye-gouge us to win. We have to divest ourselves of our basic human decency and desire to protect the oppressed among us to better serve ourselves (ourselves being anybody fighting this fight from the left, really). That’s just the way I see it.

Philosophim

ToothyMaw, this was kind of a rant. Your video is a link to a one sided and positively biased interview to Dr. Gorka, who was appointed as Deputy Assistant to the President and Strategist to Trump from January 2017 to August 2017. After these nine months, he resigned, and was a Fox News contributer from 2017-2019.

According to wikipedia: "In April 2021, Gorka was permanently banned from YouTube for repeatedly violating the company's policy on spreading misinformation related to the 2020 presidential election.[53][54] Gorka's America First radio show had previously been banned from the site in 2019 for copyright violations, specifically due to Gorka's refusal to stop playing the Imagine Dragons song "Radioactive" in his intro segment."

So we have a topic from a man who barely worked in the White House for 9 months, then did nothing besides be a political commentator, who ultimately was banned from Youtube for lying.

I'm not sure anything this man has to say can be considered trust worthy or notable. If you believe that neo-Marxists are invading the millitary, can you find some better citations? For example, someone who did a study on the millitary, or internal millitary reports. Otherwise, this isn't really anything worthy of discussion.

ToothyMaw

↪Philosophim

You obviously have no reading comprehension skills or elected not to read what I wrote. Nowhere did I say there were neo-marxists in the military. I said why not totally disavow neo-marxism (something I think everyone on the left should do).

ToothyMaw

↪Philosophim

Sorry for that response. Can I help you understand better what I wrote?

ssu

Please do note that this is a Philosophy Forum, so people do take marxism actually seriously, not just as a colorful swearword and totally replaceable with maoism, trotskyism, cultural-marxism or whatever. It absolutely doesn't matter what -ism it is in this type of talk, just that it hears like being bad. But it does on a Philosophy Forum. And also:

- You should be aware when people accuse the US military of marxism.

- You should be aware that Sebastian Gorka is one of looniest Trump advisors, a deputy-assistant to Trump, that there ever were. He served the Trump White House for six months (only because Stephen Bannon wanted him there). He is basically a Hungarian born television commentator who has had from the start of his career problems to get security clearance. This guy lives only in Trump world and is no kind of expert (other than that). But he pops up in the right-wing media to comment issues.

After taking that into consideration, that this is the crazy type Trump polemic that you can find there, the by all means listen what they say. Just remember the above.

Philosophim

↪ToothyMaw

Sorry for that response. Can I help you understand better what I wrote? — ToothyMaw

Its ok, we all blow some steam sometime. Yes, I didn't see precisely where you were going. Try to give me a main idea, and focus on that. You wrote more like a steam of consciousness, which is normal for many people. Try to take a step back and tell me:

What is going on in the military that you find wrong? What is the evidence for this? Why do you think this attempt in the military will fail?

In general, and this is my personal preference, I try to avoid phrases like "the left" or "the right". They're generally nebulous and open to individual interpretation. Focus on ideas. People will make their own judgement if this is leaning a political way, but on the philosophy forums, our focus should be on the ideas themselves.

ToothyMaw

↪Philosophim

↪ssu

I think I wrote clearly enough, but I'll further explain. I am against the people using the term "neo-marxist" to tar other people in the military, and think that attempting to appease the kind of people that push for the more radical leftist social ideas, such as that the January 6th Insurrection was caused by white rage, give people like Gorka ammunition - because the right has an inherent advantage when it comes to the culture war. I think we need to fight them on their more brutal terms and that the social justices will come naturally with wins elsewhere. I hope that is clearer.

ssu

What is going on in the military that you find wrong? What is the evidence for this? Why do you think this attempt in the military will fail? — Philosophim

It's basically a very old political spin both parties actually use:

In the GOP view the basic issue is that: "Look what the Democrats are doing to the US armed forces!!! OMG!""

The democrat versions is to cry out: "Look at how right-wing the US armed forces are! OMG!"

And this happens, or has happened when:

- When blacks started to serve in all military units.
- Women were allowed to combat positions in the military.
- The military changed it's stance on sexual minorities. (Don't ask, don't tell)
- some in the military have been openly for Trump. (Then naturally it was the democrats who cried foul).

You might get the drift. Any political hot potato that the military has to reflect on and there is this rhetoric that commentators can go to.

(US Navy Seals being political in Kentucky in 2017. They were punished for showing political credentials. But I guess these aren't the neo-marxists that Gorka talks about.)

Basically it's a way to suck in the military to the cultural war discourse and to try to show that the other political party is politicizing the military and in the way making it less capable. That's where it basically comes to.

ToothyMaw

↪ssu

I actually agree with you. I must have really fucked up the delivery of my ideas.

ssu

↪ToothyMaw

Hey, It's OK.

You didn't get banned, so be happy! :grin:

Philosophim

I am against the people using the term "neo-marxist" to tar other people in the military, and that attempting to appease the kind of people that push for the more radical leftist social ideas, such as that the January 6th Insurrection was caused by white rage, give people like Gorka ammunition - because the right has an inherent advantage when it comes to the culture war. — ToothyMaw

This was one sentence that had a lot of ideas. Lets break this up a bit.

"I am against the people using the term "neo-marxist" to tar other people in the military".

Who are these people that are using such a term? What do they mean by that term?

"I am also against attempting to appease the kind of people that push for the more radical leftist social ideas. One of these ideas is that the January 6th Insurrection was caused by white rage. When people go along with these claims, they give ammunition to people like Gorka. I think we need to fight
them brutally (violence?) and that social wins will just come elsewhere."

Who are the kind of people that are appeasing? Are the people we appeasing those that accuse people in the military of being neo-Marxist? Why are some people appeasing them? Are all the people who are saying "white rage" was a factor of the January 6th insurrection all "leftists"? Because I believe its a discussion between many people, not just "leftists".

Do people like Gorka really need ammunition, or will they just be contrary and make up accusations for money regardless? Does the fact that someone will use your words against you, mean you should speak what you consider true or right? Just some questions to consider.

ToothyMaw

"I am also against attempting to appease the kind of people that push for the more radical leftist social ideas. One of these ideas is that the January 6th Insurrection was caused by white rage. When people go along with these claims, they give ammunition to people like Gorka. I think we need to fight
them brutally (violence?) and that social wins will just come elsewhere." — Philosophim

I didn't even say that, you didn't even quote me, you just made that up.

ToothyMaw

↪Philosophim

I didn't say anything even remotely like that, and I don't understand why I'm being misrepresented.

Same goes for you,

↪ssu

ssu

I'd say sometimes there are these excesses of cancel culture or political correctness or whatever.

One hardly should think these show a real genuine culture change has happened in such large hierarchial organizations as the armed forces. Or in how university and academics work. Yes, those well reported excesses do show aspects of the present public discourse and views held especially in the media.

I didn't say anything even remotely like that, and I don't understand why I'm being misrepresented.

Same goes for you, ↪ssu — ToothyMaw

I'm not accusing you of anything.

So what was your real question?

ToothyMaw

↪ssu

What are you even trying to contribute other than the very trite kind of attitude so commonly fostered by these types of forums - which is to say condescending, pedantic, and unwilling to be even remotely gracious towards someone making a genuine attempt at starting a conversation. I put myself out there, you could at least try to understand what I wrote.

ssu

↪ToothyMaw

No really, what on Earth are you trying to say?

People aren't getting your point. So that I'm so stupid.

Philosophim

I didn't even say that, you didn't even quote me, you just made that up. — ToothyMaw

I'm just trying to piece together what you were trying to say. Relax. I'm not here to hurt you, honestly. If I was wrong, please correct me. Try taking one idea per sentence. When you blend a bunch together, its difficult for other people reading to understand what you're saying. Often when we write, its clear as day in our heads. But, when we type it out, sometimes it doesn't come out as we wanted. Its something we all learn from each other. Just try again.

L'éléphant

↪ToothyMaw
No really, what on Earth are you trying to say? — ssu

He is talking about how the government tries to stir the public's attention to the domestic (internal) problems, while talking about going to war on the global scale. Internal affairs as diversion, so the government could focus on going to a massive war with another country. Or talking about domestic culture conflicts while dodging the scrutiny on the lack of socialized medicine. ETC.

ToothyMaw

↪L'éléphant

So I'm not fucking crazy; my point is indeed obvious. Thanks.

Philosophim

↪ToothyMaw

my point is indeed obvious. Thanks. — ToothyMaw

No, it wasn't. L'elephant is a person who is within more of the far right culture, so he's probably heard something similar to what you were stating. For a person who is unfamiliar with that culture, it was hard to decipher. When we speak within a culture, we can say much while saying little. When outside of that culture, we have to say much to say little.

He is talking about how the government tries to stir the public's attention to the domestic (internal) problems, while talking about going to war on the global scale. Internal affairs as diversion, so the government could focus on going to a massive war with another country. — L'éléphant

Sometimes government do this, but I don't see any evidence of this within the last 15 years. Trump, Obama, and Biden despite what you personally think of them, were not war mongers.

Or talking about domestic culture conflicts while dodging the scrutiny on the lack of socialized medicine. ETC — L'éléphant

This is more accurate. I believe this is mostly because its what people care about more. When people vote, you need them impassioned and willing to come to the booth. Not enough people are excited over socialized medicine. Look at Bernie Sanders. He didn't quite win the Democratic nomination. Its not that government seems to actively be keeping it down, its that people are not actively interested enough, or demanding enough for it. If anything, I would say its the wealthy who would have to pay for it, who have spent a lot of time and effort convincing the culture that it would be wrong for them.

ToothyMaw

No, it wasn't. L'elephant is a person who is within more of the far right culture, so he's probably heard something similar to what you were stating. For a person who is unfamiliar with that culture, it was hard to decipher. When we speak within a culture, we can say much while saying little. When outside of that culture, we have to say much to say little. — Philosophim

I am not inside far-right culture and never will be, but I suppose I can't expect everyone to be as familiar with this kind of stuff as I am; I watched John Lovell so the rest of us wouldn't have to - and I think the guy is either an idiot or a troll.

Sometimes government do this, but I don't see any evidence of this within the last 15 years. Trump, Obama, and Biden despite what you personally think of them, were not war mongers. — Philosophim

But they kind of were (and are).

I mean, Biden's administration wouldn't even condemn the killing of children in Palestine. And we gave weapons to Saudi Arabia to bomb Yemen. And all three droned the shit out of civilians. At the very least the last three presidents were outright criminal when not given to incompetence - incompetence that might itself be considered criminal.

Btw, this whole "the military has gone woke" thing is not contained to YouTube. It seems to me that this could only get worse, but I will be pleasantly surprised if it doesn't catch on.

ToothyMaw

↪Philosophim

This study done by Pew, and this study done by Pew, demonstrate that single payer healthcare has significantly more bipartisan support than, say, the agenda of Black Lives Matter. Assuming that the relevant politicians elected actually represent their constituents with respect to these two issues, there is good reason to believe that bipartisan support for landmark legislation is still important for getting said legislation passed even with today's more cohesive parties. In fact, even if the left is mostly homogenous with respect to supporting something like BLM, they have more of an advantage with the socialized health issue, being as it would be a landmark law, which typically require more minority votes. If we wanted to pass a landmark law about, say, reigning in the militarization of police, that would be more difficult due to the necessity of bipartisan support.

Not to mention BLM's agenda is a little vague, so it's difficult to know what we're getting behind.

This is more accurate. I believe this is mostly because its what people care about more. When people vote, you need them impassioned and willing to come to the booth. Not enough people are excited over socialized medicine. — Philosophim

I think that that is wrong. People don't need to be wrapped up in critical race studies debates, for instance, to be incentivized to vote in their own self-interest.

ssu

↪L'éléphant

↪ToothyMaw

Ok, I got it.

I would argue that this is how modern political parties who depend on the outrage factor to get people to vote for them operate. Now I don't want to be trite, but this is the way political parties do it: getting your supporters to be angry about the other political side is crucial, especially when you don't have much actually to give your voters. And yes, you can say it is a great way to distract public discourse from bigger issues. It's basically populism 1.0.

Remember Colin Caepernick?

He actually started his protest by sitting on the bench and it took two weeks for the media to notice this. Then a veteran Green Beret advised him to take a knee as obviously just sitting on a bench can be interpreted as rude ignorance or indifference, not as if you would be protesting something. But then Trump picked the issue in a very Trumpian way with demanding that the players who kneel during the national anthem should be fired and encouraged fans to walk out. And media limelight was focused on the issue creating a media frenzy. And Trump got what he wanted.

Perhaps political experts have a name for this, but basically it's about capturing the public discourse and to get your voters closer to you using values. It's designed so that the other side simply has to take the other side of the argument, like with freedom of speech in this case. George Bush senior did a similar operation with demanding that burning the US flag would be a criminal act.

And lastly, it's easy talk. It really doesn't have much to do with the budget or with government instititutions, it's this kind of talk that keeps people interested. It's the kind of meaningless value-talk that doesn't really change how the government and the political machine works. The military going all neo-marxist or woke will capture some interest as it is such a bizarre accusation. Or something similar.

I think that that is wrong. People don't need to be wrapped up in critical race studies debates, for instance, to be incentivized to vote in their own self-interest. — ToothyMaw

Do notice that many Americans don't know how terribly expensive their health care system is (compared to any other system in the World) and assume that everything the government does, will end it up in an even more fucked up system. So better to have the present system, at least.

Socialism is a swearword, as you know. Single payer system is socialism, as the American view goes. So it has to be bad. Just like neo-marxism.

Philosophim

↪ToothyMaw

Thank you for sticking with it TootheyMaw, I think I understand your stance better now. I do agree in the context of a survey, people have bipartisan support for health care, but like SSU noted, in the context of political moments that drive people to vote, a Trumpian view captures the attention more than healthcare. Is this the way we should operate? Ideally, no. But is it the way a lot of us operate? I think so.

I really agree with SSU's last post, so nothing else to add here.

ToothyMaw

↪ssu

I consider myself a libertarian socialist, so I agree that "neo-marxist" or "socialist" shouldn't be treated like swearwords, but actual neo-Marxists are few and far between, and I don't think that they have any clout, so we should just disavow them imo; their ideas, and the ideas of many on the left in the upper academic echelons, have no chance at finding purchase with the average person and just weigh us down. They are dead weight.

like SSU noted, in the context of political moments that drive people to vote, a Trumpian view captures the attention more than healthcare. — Philosophim

Do notice that many Americans don't know how terribly expensive their health care system is (compared to any other system in the World) and assume that everything the government does, will end it up in an even more fucked up system. So better to have the present system, at least. — ssu

So, what? We just play the game on their terms? That'll be a loss every time; the right is overwhelmingly willing to sacrifice just about anything to win. They see what works and exploit that until they win - with no thought to decency. That was Trump's strategy, and if Trump had been even remotely intelligent we would soon have seen someone taking a third term in the white house.

NOS4A2

First and foremost, become an independent. Gather with people of like mind instead of like affiliation.

Avoid authoritarianism and make freedom a guiding issue. The American left was on the correct side of every issue wherever it chose to defend and advocate for freedom and against authoritarianism.

Ditch the European socialism for something more American, like Georgism. It was a big mistake to propagate the Euro-brand of socialism when there is a rich history of American leftism worth remembering.

Quit playing identity politics. It is just as superstitious and divisive as when the right uses it, and for the same reasons.

Avoid methodological collectivism because it leads right back into authoritarianism.

ToothyMaw

↪NOS4A2

I guess I agree with some of that. But why not model our government after what we know works and results in the most happiness (social democracy)?

As an aside: it's starting to feel like everyone who is commenting feels the need to flex:

Avoid methodological collectivism because it leads right back into authoritarianism. — NOS4A2

NOS4A2

↪ToothyMaw

I wasn’t intending to “flex”, just to offer my opinion.

I guess I agree with some of that. But why not model our government after what we know works and results in the most happiness (social democracy)?

The utilitarian concern is the problem to begin with because it sacrifices individual happiness for collective happiness. One exists, the other doesn’t. One can be attained, the other cannot.

ToothyMaw

↪NOS4A2

But the happy collective is composed of happy individuals; if the collective is happy in general so are the individuals making it up. If you think that there is a literal manifestation of the collective that is an entity that is happy to the detriment of the individuals making it up...I don't know what to say.

NOS4A2

↪ToothyMaw

If you mean most of the collective will be happy, you’re speaking of a majority, not the collective as a whole. So, again, you’ll need to sacrifice individual happiness to reach your goal, and crack a few eggs to make an omelette. To achieve this, your regime will be unjust.

ToothyMaw

↪NOS4A2

From that I gather that you weren't originally talking about the general individual happiness, you were talking about sacrificing the happiness of a few in order to make the majority, not collective, happy. You should use those words, not "individual happiness" and "collective". You made it sound like you were making a more theoretical argument, not a practical, or even mathematical, one.

Yes, it can be wrong to sacrifice the happiness of an individual to make the collective happy, I agree, but I would also analyze it on a case-by-case basis. It might be unjust, it might not. If, for instance, the amount of suffering reduced by torturing somebody causes an amount of happiness that exceeds the suffering by a huge amount elsewhere...it still shouldn't be done. Everyone should have the right to not be tortured as a rule, else we live in constant fear of being sacrificed for the majority's happiness.

So yeah, I actually agree with you, N0S.

The Left Isn't Going to Win This One

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions