The ideology of today’s left according to the leftists

Ms. Marina Subirats, a sociologist and a member of the socialist municipal government of Barcelona, Spain, where the Olympic Games were celebrated in 1992, recently declared to the media what is, in her opinion, the present ideology of the political left, that she proudly represents. Few times, if any, one significant leftist spoke so clearly, and in such terms that the behavior of today’s political leftists can be so perfectly understood from his speech. I think that you, readers of Turnabout, will really enjoy knowing the clear ideas of this leftist lady: “The true values of today’s left are based on a different position [with regards to the socially commited left of the past, perhaps?]: the authenticity, the acknowledgement of desire as the organizing principle of our life, the coherence of desire with action…, that is, to live without principles that are external, imposed, limiting, alien to our own needs or to our own personal truth… The moral of the left involves to take risks, to dare, to follow the personal impulses and, therefore, this line of thinking implies to develop scientific thinking that allows us to control a bit more our life conditions “. It could have been said louder but not clearer: desire, own desire, not anymore the old socialist “historic compromise with the working masses”, is the principle that organizes society, simultaneously helped by his unseparable twin, the rejection of any external principle, of any standard that is alien to oneself. And science as an element that helps them control the consequences of such devastating principles.

This is the sort of people that are leading European societies, because they are being democratically and massively voted by the working class in Europe (UK included). Common voters expect from them more hospitals, better schools, more even distribution of income, … But the basic philosophy of these rulers contains no commitments, no limitations, … only personal desire. Their own personal desire.

Going a bit further, I am amazed at how close this thinking is from that of the neoliberals that now control the US. Politicians such as European socialists and American neoliberals, that are supposed to be in the opposite sides of the political spectrum, think exactly the same. Is this the democracy of the 21st century?

27 thoughts on “The ideology of today’s left according to the leftists”

  1. This of course is the technoc
    This of course is the technocratic outlook: particular desires are what confer value, and the world is to be seen as raw material to be worked up into a technically-rational system for satisfying desires, as much and as equally as possible. “Social democracy,” what the Europeans call neo-liberalism, and American left-liberalism are slightly different traditions for implementing that outlook, whose differences are however vanishing as the outlook eats up all tradition.

    It astonishes me that certified commentators are still able to speak of a “communitarian” element in European political life, as opposed to the more “individualistic” American approach. What could conceivably be communitarian about a PC multicultural bureaucratic welfare state?

    Rem tene, verba sequentur.

    • The welfare state
      The natural morality of the norwegian people has been nearly eradicated thanks to the false “communitarian” propaganda of the welfare state ideology. So individualism and narcisissm is the true goal and result of socialist-liberalism.

      Rune Solheim, Norway

      • Rune, thank you for speaking simple truths.
        Rune, thank God you’re seeing through it all, despite the government’s attempt to clamp down on certain expressions of truth over there. Do not ever let them imprison your mind. Keep your mind, your inner thoughts, free, always, no matter what. Your country’s only hope rests with individuals like yourself who refuse to believe two plus two equals five no matter how many times the government tries to force you to accept that lie or lies equivalent to it. Some day this nightmare will end, and you, I, all of us will feel for the first time in a long time that we are emerging again into the sunshine. Turnabout and other web-sites like it came into being partly so we’d have a place to meet and to speak to each other—partly so we’d have a way of knowing, each of us, that we weren’t alone in thinking something had gone dreadfully wrong, terribly, terribly wrong. Thank you for speaking to us—your words strengthen my courage all the way across the ocean and, surely, the courage and resolve of many others who are also reading them.


        Long live Flanders!

        • “Stories like this are in Swedish newspapers every week.”
          Just now I happened across this log entry from half-a-year ago at another blog, regarding what’s been happening in the Swedish city of Malmo. (I thought of the comment by the Norwegian, Rune, which was posted here yesterday.) The entry is worth a read, as are many of the readers’ comments posted in the entry’s long thread, of which here are a couple:

          I remember an earlier post about Sweden at LGF, and managed to dig it up:
          6/14/2004: Swedish Shari’a Watch

          I actually think Sweden is leading the race to be the worst dhimmi-nation of the Western world. As a Scandinavian myself, I expect to get refugees across the border any time soon. Yesterday, one of the parties in Sweden proposed to ban “Islamophobia” BY LAW. Sweden has pretty much done this already, anyway, but why not make it formal? Two Swedish girls were sent home from school by their headmaster for the crime of showing up wearing sweaters that showed some tiny Swedish flags. (flag=nationalism=racism=Nazism, according to leftist, multicultural logic). At the same time, Swedish Universities are discussing whether burkas should be allowed on campus (not hijab, Taliban-style burkas).

          Swedish national radio is broadcasting an Islamic sermon – in Swedish – every morning. Some city councils have suggested major Islamic holidays should be public holidays. At the same time, one of the anti-immigration parties in Sweden has asked for UN observers to monitor the Swedish elections, as they are attacked with molotov cocktails by ultra-lefties, denied ads in major newspapers, get their voting slips stolen etc., etc. Maybe Sweden will need international monitors, just like fellow banana republics such as Zimbabwe? Swedish mosques, of course, openly incite violence and even genocide of Israelis and Jews.

          Most Swedish newspapers have closed their readers’ discussion forum on the internet, after one paper was convicted of racism as a couple of anti-Muslim immigration comments were allowed on their forum. Swedes who want to discuss what is happening in their country have to visit forums in Norway or Denmark.

          The legal age for marriage in Sweden is 18. However, immigrant girls (read: Muslims) have been “allowed” BY LAW to marry at the age of 15. Some would call that apartheid, but hey, everything for multiculturalism. That’s only the beginning, though. It gets worse: Swedish authorities have allowed that young immigrant girls can be sent off to their parents’ country to be married even BEFORE they are 15 years old. If they are pregnant when they return, the father will automatically earn a residency permit to Sweden (and by extension the EU) for “family reunion”. All a Muslim male has to do to get into Sweden – legally – is to have sex with a CHILD. Is that disgusting or what?

          I’m one of the thousands of swedes who has fled Malmo. It’s a nightmare.

          Another thing worth mentioning is that a PUBLIC SCHOOL in Malmo has decided to have arabic as first language! This must be unique in the western world.

          Worth mentioning is also the fact we in sweden are so tolerant we even put people in jail for not being tolerant enough. This is not a joke. It’s the truth.

          Also, if you join the biggest (legal) party that is against this mass immigration you risk being kicked out of the union, sacked from your job, being terrorised by left wing extremists etc.

          The only hope I have is that foreign journalists writes about this. The media in sweden is extremely political correct and the government has with a hate crime law practically forbidden free discussion on the internet. Some discussion forums exists where the server is in the US or somewhere else where the swedish government cant close it down. But of course, these discussions never reach the majority. Only people aware of the problems find these sites.

          Long live Flanders!

          • Fjordman (at Blogspot) is an
            Fjordman (at Blogspot) is an example of the offshore Scandanavian resistance Fred mentions. See for example the pieces on violence against Swedish women and feminism. It seems that the problem of rapes and other attacks by Muslim immigrants on Swedish women is being covered up (the background of the perps isn’t revealed), denied (“it’s a statistical artifact caused by women’s greater willingness to come forward”), or spun as an indication of how patriarchal and misogynistic Nordic society is so more multiculturalism (e.g., more Muslim immigration) is needed.

            Someone should put together a page that catalogs weblogs and other sites like this. Or has it been done already?

            Rem tene, verba sequentur.

          • I don’t know the relevant per
            I don’t know the relevant percentages of muslim populations in Scandanavia. Are they low enough that such nonsense as you recount has no practical consequence? After all, one can be quite tolerant of a virus if it is confined neatly within a test tube.

            France and Germany don’t have that luxury. Their muslim populations are large enough that indulgence has a certain danger in it, particularly in France, which has a history of aggressive secularism (hence, their law banning the hijab and other displays of religious character in public schools).

      • Norwegian women are forcing innocent Moslem men to rape them
        “The natural morality of the Norwegian people […]” (—Rune)

        Speaking of “the natural morality of the Norwegian people,” by the way, I hope everyone realizes it’s the fault of Norwgian women that that they’re being raped by Moslem immigrants. Yes. It’s their own fault, for not dressing as modestly as women in Moslem countries. What did anyone expect these poor Moslem men to do? They had to rape them, don’t you see! What other choice did they have? None. Any of us would have done exactly the same in their place, faced with a woman or teenage girl not wearing a burka or ankle-length skirt. Let’s blame the culprits—the so-called “naturally moral Norwegians”—and not the victims, the poor persecuted Moslem immigrants.

        Long live Flanders!

        • so now liberalism has come full circle…
          For some time now, feminists have been arguing against making any sort of connection between how a woman dresses, and incidences of rape, and have been quick to shout down anyone who dares raise the subject (and woe betide anyone who suggests that a young woman not dress too provocatively when going to the nightclubs, or frat parties, lest something unfortunate happen – or better yet, encouraging young women not to go to such places. BTW, I’m not denying a rapist’s responsibility for his actions; I’m simply noting that feminists won’t even allow consideration that a woman might choose courses of action in terms of dress, and where one goes, which might prevent such tragedies, in some cases.)

          Until now, when immigration brings men from cultures where women are held in quite low esteem – now, when immigration of non-Western Third Worlders may be threatened by people recognizing the implications of the incompatibility between our society’s values (such as they are) and those of incompatible immigrants, now, finally, suggestions that women act like ladies again, come forward…

          So, it would appear that, in Norway at least, unbridled immigration enthusiasm – and dhimmitude – apparently outrank feminism, for those of us keeping score…

          Meanwhile, next door in Sweden, ignorant leftists are complaining about a supposedly racist new ice cream bar, called Nogger Black, ignoring the fact that “Nogger” means or is derived from the Swedish for “nougat”, since these ice cream bars have a nougat centre, and that there’s been another “Nogger” bar made by the same company for many years, which is chocolate flavoured – this new one is called “Nogger Black” simply because its colour is black instead of brown like the last one, and is apparently (shudder) black-licorice flavoured – see the company’s webpage here.

          • Let other royals follow her lead
            Queen Margarethe’s statements aren’t perfect by any means, but in my opinion are major news and a huge step in the right direction, one which ought to serve as an example to other monarchs and princes. Compare her words with what we’ve heard from King Albert, Queen Beatrix, Queen Elizabeth, and Prince Charles on the immigration crisis: they’ve said nothing … NOTHING … about ancient communities being invaded with incompatible immigration in ways they didn’t ask for and don’t want; about social fabric disrupted; about traditional populations pushed aside and replaced with alien ethnicities and foreign cultures even as they are forbidden to publicly oppose any of what’s going on, on pain of humiliation; dawn police raids and searches; ever-present threats and warnings from police and from arrogant, politicized bureaucrats; fines; loss of job and pension; trial; jail; potential ruin and personal and family disgrace. It’s happening right now to Nick Griffin, Cambridge University graduate and head of a legitimate U.K. political party, no less!.

            This notion that a constitutional monarch has no business speaking out on controversial issues surely must be hogwash. Where can people turn when abandoned by their élites, if not to their monarch? A hereditary monarch is like a nation’s father or mother. It would be as if George Washington were still alive and we could appeal to him when our government turned its back on us.

            A monarch speaking out is not the same as him waving a sceptre and giving orders. Rather, it is merely taking the side of the nation when no one else will. It is putting people to shame, people with power to act, who should act, and don’t. When no one else will listen to reason, the monarch can speak. When Denmark’s Jews were ordered by the invader to wear the yellow star didn’t the King say, “I too shall wear the yellow star”? Danish Jews, to paraphrase scripture, lifted up their eyes unto their King, from whence cameth their help—little enough help though it was, considering what lay in store, but the King took their part and who could shut him up? Who can tell a king to keep quiet? And can’t a king or queen today take the part of people being choked by the immigration crisis?

            Long live Flanders!

          • agreed, Fred…
            … praise God, for giving Queen Margarethe courage which no other European monarch has…

          • Queen of Denmark is different
            Her Majesty Margrethe,is very different person;I have get official correspondence from Denmark government.
            She is more religious than usual Monarchs and Aristocrats in Europe, who are by most part very influenced by Illuminists and Positivists philosophies.
            She is existentialist(Gabriel Marcel and Emmanuel Mounier style),she translated John Tolkien into Danish,and discussed by mail with him,when she was very young.
            She changed usual motto from Royal Family:Love from people is my strenght(from Illustrated Despotism times),into Love from Lord and people is my strenght,a change ilustrating certains traditions must to be changed!.
            She is patron from Danish Bible Society,them distributed Bibles to immigrants and to citizens in telephone guide.
            She converted to Henryk,his husband to Lutheranism.
            There no another similar monarch as her AROUND THE WORLD,except in Ethiopia…

      • Kjell Magne Bondevik
        What is your opinion on him?.
        And on Jostein Gaarder and his friendship with Patriarch Bartholomews?.
        And on

    • Is it rational to order the w
      Is it rational to order the world to satisfy, within a “technically-rational system,” any desire that happens to occupy a person’s mind or heart?

      IMHO, if liberalism is superficially “rational” in that sense, it is based on a premise that is absurd on its face.

      As for “American left-liberalism” being a “tradition” for implementing this outlook, how far back are you looking? Certainly, since the 60’s this has been the case. But, arguably, before that decade, leftism was essentially grounded in economics and class conflict, was it not? Did not the left despise the bourgoisie for precisely that reason, that it existed simply to satisfy its own banal desires, without concern for the larger society (while accumulating disposable income at the expense of labor)?

      • I call it “technically-ration
        I call it “technically-rational.” It’s against reason of course, but it’s in line with modern thought so you can’t laugh it off as just dumb.

        It seems to me American left-liberalism is a logical continuation of the liberal tradition in general, which I think in turn is the most fitting form for modernity to take in politics and morals. If there weren’t something in it that corresponds to broad and deep tendencies in modern life and thought why would very different traditions like American liberalism and the European left, not to mention the whole of mainstream religion, all ended up in the same place, so much so that to most educated well-connected people in responsible positions today any other outlook is basically inconceivable?

        It’s a mistake to underestimate the opposition. Conservatives do that and that’s one big reason why they lose.

        The pre-60s Left was not just a matter of economics. There’s plenty of precedent for atheism, free love, libertinism, the abolition of nationality and whatnot.

        Rem tene, verba sequentur.

        • I understand your point about
          I understand your point about the “technical-rational,” which I take it refers to the implementation and administration of liberal premises. Any premise, however absurd, can be administered under a patina of rationality.

          I tend to distinguish between the historical “Left” (which has clearly lost in the history sweepstakes) and liberalism, which is much more insidious, deceitful, and pervasive. I view the Left as being straightforward, honest, and wrong, and in this context I view the Left as communists and socialists. Liberalism is neither straightforward nor honest, and can occupy positions of influence anywhere, including among conservatives or within so-called conservative religious denominations (L Auster is good at pointing out these fifth columns of thought within conservative circles).

          As for taking liberalism seriously, I do, in several ways:

          1. It clearly is the dominant ecology of thought that pervades our society, being taken within certain circles as the norm for sanity; and

          2. It is highly destructive and poisonous, and will therefore have devastating effects, both upon individuals and communities; and

          3. Liberalism’s own poison will insure its self-destruction, and, being vacuous, it will leave no capital on which its successors can live (quite unlike traditional societies).

          However, you are quite right, I don’t take liberalism seriously as an intellectual enterprise; in fact, I think it’s absurd (and I’m confident that will be judgment of history).

          • “Technically-rational” wasn’t
            “Technically-rational” wasn’t intended to refer to the implementation of liberal premises so much as to ways of thinking that view satisfaction of desire as the sole rational purpose of action so that thought becomes simply a means of devising efficient ways to bring about what one wants.

            It seems to me the historical Left like classical liberalism is a less developed form of what we have now. If you do away with God so that human will and maybe human perceptions and formal rationality become the sole standard for what passes for goodness it takes quite a while — centuries — for the implications to work themselves out. In the meantime you’ll have temporary configurations that seem quite different from what the final result of the basic decision is going to be.

            As for liberalism as an intellectual enterprise I agree that at bottom it makes no sense but there’s enough there so that it — like modernity generally — can be the dominant mode of thought among intelligent educated well-placed people for centuries. That’s not nothing.

            Rem tene, verba sequentur.

          • “As for liberalism as an inte
            “As for liberalism as an intellectual enterprise I agree that at bottom it makes no sense but there’s enough there so that it — like modernity generally — can be the dominant mode of thought among intelligent educated well-placed people for centuries. That’s not nothing.”

            I don’t know if you’re referring to the past or the future. If we date liberalism from the French Revolution, then it has lasted for centuries, but primarily as a parasite upon and in opposition to traditional communities. Once those traditional communities have been gutted, it’s my feeling that liberalism won’t last for centuries, but will consume its own young in a quick and hapless death. Witness how quickly liberalism is consuming the social capital of the British.

            One need only look at the postmodernists for clues as to the directions liberalism will take in the absence of any attachment to a traditional or grounded society.

          • I recommend to all George Wil
            I recommend to all George Will’s column of today (4.17.05). He discusses Pope John Paul II, European demographics and the emptying of the European continent, and the lack of transcendence in European society (all in 600 words).

            His conclusion is expressed by George Weigel, whom Will quotes: Europe will not survive as a civilization in the absence of the transcendent markers provided by Christianity. The converse: naked Liberalism is not feasible or workable as a governing principle for a civilization.

  2. So, What is your Ideology?
    If you are anti-Modernist,and you stand against feudal class/are you propaleolitic,no a joke there are people with this ideology/,but hates to left,libertarians,neocons,fascists,neoliberals,etc. what is your political creed? And you are prolife? catholic? what is your thinking about protestants in USA and Spain,please in case you respond to it give answers to USA and Spain,no a general type “I dislike them”,”Everybody are my brothers if they are paleocon”,because protestantism in europe is very different to USA variety.

  3. Bin Laden a toy for Spain children
    From same country producing shameful CDs making jokes from victims from 9/11 comes it, (I feel ashamed to be from Spaniard descent)Among other dangerous toys the Union of Consumers of Valencian Comunity (UCE) has asked for to the Territorial Service of Consumption the retirement of several toys to consider them dangerous and to fail to fulfill the European norm, among them a singing doll that imitates to Osama Ben Laden and goes equipped with pumps, grenades of hand, machete-swords, pistols and mortars. In the list of potentially dangerous toys is a cane to fish of Chinese manufacture that contains real hooks, a grenade of hand that serve to fill up it of water, a doll skater with the seal of the UE supposedly falsified, videogames without labeling and a movable telephone which it uses the image of a baby like promotion, among others.

  4. Leftist Ideology
    “The moral of the left involves to take risks, to dare, to follow the personal impulses and, therefore, this line of thinking implies to develop scientific thinking that allows us to control a bit more our life conditions”

    The incoherence of this phrase would be helpful to point out. Presumably the writer means “involves taking risks,” maybe. “This line of thinking implies to.” One does not imply to but from. So how do leftist morals imply scientific thinking? Assuming scientific thinking allows us to control a bit more of our life conditions, how do leftist morals, as opposed to traditionalist thought, allow us to control a bit more of scientific thinking?

    I am weary of questioning this incoherence. But maybe the author is willing to defend it. I am sorry for being so rigorous. I appreciate the author’s comments and the opportunity to help him, or in his view, to help me. I can be pretty goofy myself, so please don’t take my comments personally. We are engaging in an intellectual discussion, not name-calling.

    • Don’t forget, not all of us here are native English speakers
      I think we have to remember that some who’ve been commenting here are from countries where English isn’t spoken. The original of that statement by that Spanish woman doubtless was in Spanish. Someone (maybe RamonR?) rendered it as English—which is a good thing, since now we can discuss it, as we get a really good look at those whom we disagree with.

      “If a tree falls and an expert doesn’t hear it, is there a sound?” Yes, the sweetest, most melodious sound in all creation: the sound of entropy being brought clanking, screeching, grinding to a halt.

      • Espana
        I am chastised thanks to the observant Mr. Scooby. Incredible that desire could ever be conceived as a goal. It is so hideous an idea I cannot imagine how it could become substantial in a Catholic country such as España. Recall the recent bombing in Madrid by you know who, the same or similar syndicate that gave us 9/11.

        All of which is why I insist we need to employ maximum military effort in the Middle East and establish, even involuntarily, a “rented” frontline base. Yes we should draft loudmouths such as me even though I need pills and can’t endure vigorous training, not that that makes me less able to die. Even better, let’s round up the illegals and stick them on the front lines. I suspect illegal immigration would become drastically reduced.

        Spain is an example of extreme stupidity we see here in America. After the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, who could vote for Kerry?

  5. UN Survey

Comments are closed.