Serban V.C. Enache
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Authored by Serban V.C. Enache via Hereticus Economicus:
I employ the word “cucked” with the meaning: person, group, or movement who was defeated in a particularly ridiculous manner.
In this RT piece ‘Obsession with extreme PC behavior is a hindrance to the progressive movement,’ the author writes the following:
“This is not to say that it’s unimportant to respect an individual’s preferences when it comes to things like using preferred pronouns — but the left needs to realize it can do all that without becoming a caricature of itself.”
Even when they criticize the Identitarian left, they still try and disculpate themselves. It’s quite sad to see women and men having been reduced to pansies by PC culture. I also like some of the stupid leftists in the comments section, insisting that the only left they recognize is Marxism, and insisting that what the Scandinavians have is “socialism.” What those countries have is social democracy! Those countries still have usury, rent-seeking, private property, and idle shareholders. I don’t think any of these gits read Das Kapital [I know I didn’t in my foolish days as a loud mouth, stupid SJW] or any criticism of Karl Marx’s ideas that didn’t stem from republican and market libertarian outlets. Proudhon is a good place to start on that.
When the so-called progressive leftists [social democrats] criticize ID politics, but then end up adopting the same PC idea – they are betraying the fact that what really pisses them off is not the ridiculous and arbitrary PC culture, but that it garners bad PR with voters at grassroots, limiting their ability to obtain votes. There is no progressive left in the West! They’re all cucked to the Nth degree. The only socialist systems, during the 20th century, which proved viable from an economic perspective, were two: [German] National Socialism and National Communism. I don’t care how much it upsets people across the political spectrum, facts are facts. The Nazis took a battered, humiliated, starving Germany and in 5 years time transformed it into a military and economic superpower, the nr 1 superpower in the world at the time. To sum up the ‘magic’ formula: stopping land and financial speculation + deficit spending to develop the real economy.
National Communism closely resembles German National Socialism, except for a few things. Its social policy wasn’t based on eugenics and it had full collectivization. That’s pretty much it. National Communism had nothing to do with the deranged anarchist, feminist, liberal, libertarian, globalist discourse we see on the left today. The USSR didn’t practice or promote free trade or free movement of labor between itself, its satellite states, or partner nations. Homosexuality was decriminalized, but sexual ‘exploration’ [of any type] wasn’t pushed on children. National Communism had none of this gender-fluid nonsense, hedonism, super-abortion propaganda, or misandry. And even though state atheism was the norm, state authorities and media treated God and the Church with a lot more respect than today’s media and culture, and the family was protected. The Soviet system of National Communism would have succeeded by an entirely different order of magnitude, had its political elites not abandoned the Nation-wide Automated Economics Control System [OGAS] project in favor of Liberman’s [market profitability] reforms. Once the communist block nations adopted [Western-inspired] market reforms and or [Western-approved] austerity plans, the rot was firmly set in.
I wish to quote a line from a Romanian movie from ’71 – back when Ceausescu was signalling his change in country affairs, promoting nationhood [instead of denigrating it like the left does today] and leaving behind the dark days of Bolshevism and foreign governance. First, some background to the movie scene. During a party assembly, an engineer [original member of the party and loyal] is attacked by the organization’s ideologues for speaking against the construction of a new factory. The engineer in question cites technological and logistical arguments to justify his position. But that doesn’t satisfy the sycophants and the regional chief. After being grilled with straw men and ad hominems, the engineer is asked how is socialism to be achieved and if he believes that the individual member of the party has to abide by the majority’s decision. He answers, “Socialism is built through the application of the highest conquests of science and through the people’s heroism and sacrifice. Yes, a party member must accept the majority’s decision. But in matters of science, the notion of a majority is without sense!”
In conclusion, as far as so-called left-wing politics go, there’s nothing cheaper than a social democrat trying to rebrand social democracy into socialism. The former is establishmentarianism, and today it suffers a lot from mental illness, greed, materialism, outright hypocrisy and cowardice – just like their mainstream ideological counterparts, but to a higher degree. Actual socialism, on the other hand, is revolution, either via coup d’etat or civil war; but it sure works when put into action right. Politically incorrect, but true.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Respect of pronouns can only be earned through the honesty of those who declare their pronoun and only then they themselves must accept the reality of said title. To be fluid in preference and person and to ultimately make the rules up as you go is at best childish, at worst avaricious and neglectful, two characters unbecoming in polite society. Only when a persons stands and respects their own views (faults and all) and is accepting of others can we respect the name another chooses for themselves.
And if you don’t respect ppl’s ever-changing pronouns, you’re denounced as a bigot, and the activists rally to get you fired and unhireable. They want Gov sponsored chaos.
Bezmenov pointed out the methodology decades ago.
https://youtu.be/5gnpCqsXE8g
Amazingly incoherent. Create straw men and knock them down. Socialism can defined in many ways and is a very broad river. For me, socialism is the idea that government policies are set for the well being of all citizens to balance tge power of thepredators and criminals that dominate, for example, the political-economy of the USA. The right in the US opposes and has opposed ANY check on the power of oligarchs–they desire an utterly fantastical system of the free market something that does not exist today, has never existed before and can never exist in the future without apolitical… Read more »
You should extend that label to the democratic socialists of America as well.
There are many broad ideologies out there and many off shoots, but those offshoots never were put to the test, or if they were, they failed miserably. There was a world of free trade during the 19th century and it wasn’t pretty for the working classes.
Your definition of socialism is quite personalized and vague. If a word is allowed to mean anything, then it ultimately ends up meaning nothing. The Left sold out to the CIA long decades ago. If anybody is strawmanning here, it’s you.
Most definitions of socialism are vague or wholely inaccurate. A core tenet of socialism that is often cited is a core tenet of fascism, namely state control. Yet if one was to read the works of Marx, firstly the argument is economic, not social and even if it was there is nothing to limit ones choice to live their life their way. It merely dictates an equalized share of product and product and a shared government (something closer to true democracy). The government is effectively an expanded bureaucracy, but the government is ultimately minimal with everyone having a duty to… Read more »
National Socialism and Italian Fascism were two different things. The first years of Italian Fascism, the Gov spent pursuing laissez-faire policies, hoping that will get the economy out of the depression. The Gov also pursued a strong Lira strategy and kept to a metal standard. Bad policies, and the Gov barely got involved in capital-labor disputes. Only after Mussolini understood that laissez-faire was getting the country nowhere, did he embrace Keynesian economic policy. The Nazis made no such mistakes with regard to economic policy. The people didn’t have a say under the rule of communist parties. In fact, the Bolsheviks… Read more »
As someone who has lived under Ceausescu’s regime, the goods times and the austerity years, and the post 1989 social democracy system, I can tell you that the difference is huge, night and day. Social democracy is not socialism, it’s just breadcrumbs for the plebs, and the biggest social democrats are filthy rich and have no stake in their countries. They send their children to study abroad. They visit doctors in foreign countries when they are sick. They buy luxury items at home and abroad. But they love to play the role of Robin Hood.
Your average progressive shouts ‘tax the rich, so we can afford health care, education, and infrastructure.’
Ayn Rand would be proud. As this rhetoric perpetuates the mythology that rich people are the affluence of society, as if the Gov’s currency grows on rich people, as if rich people print money, not the Gov.
Here’s an example of leftist fervor and propaganda from Caroline Orr: “Tulsi Gabbard is not Anti-War, but a nationalist who’s in bed with dictators’
https://arcdigital.media/tulsi-gabbard-is-not-anti-war-660e7d1e4ce1
The only thing that is wrong with “socialism” is, that it keeps interfering with capitalism and it’s unfettered greed.
And the goals of social dems is to put a more humane face on our overlords.
As Robert Pfaller notes: Until the late 1970s, all “Western” (capitalist) governments, right or left, pursued a Keynesian economic policy of state investment and deficit spending. (Even Richard Nixon is said to have once, in the early 1970s, stated, “We are all Keynesians”). This lead to a considerable decrease of inequality in Western societies in the first three decades after WWII, as the numbers presented by Thomas Piketty and Branko Milanovic in their books prove. Apparently, it was seen as necessary to appease Western workers with high wages and high employment rates in order to prevent them from becoming communists.… Read more »
If these democratic socialists like the Scandinavian system so much, why don’t they eliminate the minimum wage and strengthen unions?
Selective ‘socialism’ much?
There is one company today who practices socialism, namely that the people own the means of production. That company is Huawei! It is owned by its workers and they all have a say in the decisions of the direction the company should move in. And yes, Huawei clearly works.
If socialism can be achieved only via coup or civil war, then most of its effort goes into clearing the dead and the ruins. Nothing can really be reached with either civil war or revolution. It will take a will to throw out the profiteers and usurers. Yes. And the corrupt politicians. But socialism really has to be instituted by people themselves by creating factories and enterprises that enact a sociallist structure in fact. The real mistake of all modes of government is the frantic attempt to define it as a closed, fully definable order, that is an ideology. .… Read more »
The United States was birthed through revolution. Please don’t be naive. Nothing good comes without struggle.
What an embarassing pile of mindless prattle. Bad author, zero intellectual effort. oops Duran, find real writers.
Real writers? You mean those who champion no-borders, Gov sponsored gender fluidity, and caviar socialism?
A couple of things here. People often conflate socialism with communism. They are not the same. Communism is based on Marxism. Marx stole most of French socialist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon’s ideas and twisted them. Proudhon’s socialism was co-operatives replacing capitalists, while Marx saw the co-operatives as a stepping stone to state ownership. Proudhon and other French socialists referred to Marx as “the tapeworm in socialism”. So when a socialist says the worker should own the means of production, he means just that. The state is not the worker. I would add, that Proudhon saw Marx’s communism as the oppression of the… Read more »
Any good links to recommend? Legit question.
We must instigate a more complete disillusionment of power and politics and set so many records straight.
Cuckoldry. Cutting off your balls even when you haven’t any. An absurd obedience for little reason or gain. Christ if you were to really pathologise it you’d swear so many are diseased.
«It’s quite sad to see women and men having been reduced to pansies by PC culture.» Rather, it’s quite sad to see a piece like that being published on the site of a journal like the Duran. But alas, it seems to be less an anomaly that I’d have supposed when I subscribed – perhaps time to cancel ?…
Henri
The Duran publishes different POVs, as does any publication that doesn’t subscribe to groupthink.
If you don’t like it, don’t read it.
Gheorghe Gheorghiu Dej said, “Before being a Communist, I’m Romanian.”
If you don’t stand for something You fall for everything!