Hacker News Reader

Comment by sourcecodeplz | Hacker News Reader

Just a couple of years ago. Masters.

I hate to break it to you, but thirty and sixty years ago, colleges were as full of lib as they are today, it's just that most of the radical causes they were getting behind have since had the benefit of the decades it takes to make it into the mainstream. (Or, like communism, have quietly been forgotten about.)

> I hate to break it to you, but thirty and sixty years ago, colleges were as full of lib as they are today, it's just that most of the radical causes they were getting behind have since had the benefit of the decades it takes to make it into the mainstream.

Sure, but it was the student body expressing their support (and not stomping on alternative viewpoints. It also wasn't the college administration and faculty stomping on alternative viewpoints back then.

>I hate to break it to you, but thirty and sixty years ago, colleges were as full of lib as they are today

They were full of liberals, but now they're full of leftists.

> They were full of liberals, but now they're full of leftists.

That’s not really true though. There’s a huge gap between old-school Marxism and contemporary progressivism. Classical Marxism foregrounds class; most of contemporary progressivism foregrounds race, gender and sexuality, and class issues are moved to the background.

African-American Marxist Adolph L. Reed Jr (professor emeritus of political science at UPenn), criticises “wokeness” as a capitalist scheme to distract and divide the working class-he’s definitely a “leftist”, but I don’t think he’d agree that many of the people you are complaining about really are “leftists” at all.

>Classical Marxism foregrounds class; most of contemporary progressivism foregrounds race, gender and sexuality,

I don't see any difference of substance.

The point is if one person is a “Leftist” for whom class is most important and the other is a “Leftist” for whom it takes a back seat to race/gender/sexuality/etc - then the one word (“Leftist”) is being used to mean two different things.

What do queer theory, intersectional feminism and critical race theory have in common with Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, etc? I don’t think they have much in common at all. Calling both the former and the latter “leftists” just makes the word meaningless

Whether you're talking about how much money, or what genes, or what genitals someone has, or what genitals someone thinks they have, you're still overtly concerned with what someone is and how that can be used to discriminate.

So no, I don't see any difference of substance. The terminology changes, but the substance remains the same.

Not to mention, the left also still talks about class. Remember the "We are the 99%!" craze?

> you're still overtly concerned with what someone is and how that can be used to discriminate.

But aren’t many people on the Right “overtly concerned with what someone is” and even with “how that can be used to discriminate”?

I think your definition of “Left” is too broad, because it ends up encompassing much of the “Right” in its terms.

Your response vindicates my position.

What does that mean?

You evaded my argument and tried to reframe it into a "But the other side!" conversation, which is worse than worthless because you have refused to engage in discourse.

If you won't (or more likely can't) refute my argument, it stands to reason my position is vindicated: There is no difference of substance between the left talking about class and the left talking about race and sexuality.

To put it another way, you are failing to convince me to your ideas.

You proposed a definition of “Left”. I pointed out your definition doesn’t work because taken literally it incorporates things which nobody in their right mind would call “Left”. I am engaging in discourse-I don’t feel like you are.

The "We are the 99%!" crowd were decidedly left, but that is beside the point.

I said I see no difference of substance between class, race, and sexuality insofar as politics is concerned, it's all identity politics all the way down. You have provided nothing to suggest otherwise.

> The "We are the 99%!" crowd were decidedly left, but that is beside the point.

That was more than 10 years ago though. A lot has changed in the decade+ since. 2023 “progressivism” differs in many ways from its 2011 incarnation, to the point that you have to ask if it is still the same thing, or has evolved (or been hijacked) into something else

> I said I see no difference of substance between class, race, and sexuality insofar as politics is concerned, it's all identity politics all the way down.

“Identity politics” isn’t exclusive to “the Left” however-nationalism is a form of “identity politics” too, and while there are “left” versions of it, the majority of it is usually considered “right”. White nationalism, Christian nationalism, Kahanism, Islamism, Nazism, “men’s rights activists”, “incels”, etc - all are examples of “right-wing identity politics”. So, defining “left” in terms of “identity politics” doesn’t work

You still haven't answered my argument; given you're trying to evade and reframe again, I'll assume you can't actually answer me.

I have answered your argument. The only person “trying to evade” here is you.

You keep talking about lefts and rights, while I'm saying I don't see any difference of substance between class, race, and sexuality insofar as it regards to politics.

At best you're misunderstanding, at worst you're disingenuous, and either way you aren't carrying your half of the conversation.

I’m talking about “left” because how to define that term is the topic of conversation. And I don’t see how could can define “left” without defining “right” - the two terms have always existed as a pair.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com