Socially Conservative Leftists

[HomelessMaoist]

I've been on the forum socialist*******, and many of the users there are nationalist or socially conservative. I was wondering if people who claim to be both left wing and socially conservative at the same time.

[Captain Ahab]

Socialist******* is full of strasserists(fascists).

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

No we can't.
Social-conservatism is nothing but upholding bourgeois culture, specifically the bourgeois family structure.
Anyone who oposes gay-rights, woman-equality and nationalism defends the bourgeois amily and bourgeois culture and is thus a reactionary.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Well you have to understand that these people are a result of their surroundings. Many people from under devloped areas have views that correspond with the backwardness of where they come from. So while we should maintain our principle on being socially leftist, we should also prevent ourselves from attacking people from a moral high ground because that does more to reveal the class position of the leftist than the error of the conservative.

[Regicollis]

I agree that progressive, civilized social norms are an integral part of a socialist world view. Just as well as economic socialism is an integral part of progressive social norms. You can't separate the two and still be ideologically consistent.

However there are many workers who combine economic leftism with social rightism. We need to procede with caution when approaching them on their social values. There is a reason why all these "blue labour" workers are alienated from the left and see us as too far out. If we focus on the economic part of socialism and get them convinced of that it'll be easier to move them towards the social side of socialism. Starting with attacking their social values will only push them away.

[Karl Renegade]

I have a lot to say about this topic, actually but I'll just keep quiet because I might get kicked out of this forum. (see Learning section, under title "Identity").

[Goblin]

I have a lot to say about this topic, actually but I'll just keep quiet because I might get kicked out of this forum. (see Learning section, under title "Identity").
Your a homophobe. Why are you even on this forum?

One can not be a leftist and socially conservative. Leftists support all oppressed peoples.

[vanukar]

Can I ask just exactly what a "leftist" is?

[Ismail]

Remnants of social conservatism exist in plenty of leftists. Durruti, for instance, was obviously a man of great influence among the Spanish proletariat (and was praised by the Soviets as well), and yet he gave his support for the burning of churches not only because they were centers of obscurantism and legitimized economic and social oppression, but also because they were supposedly dens for "sodomy." Many CNT-FAI members echoed his sentiments, as no doubt did many PSOE and PCE members as well.

Their homophobia did not make them not leftists.

The issue is that homophobia was not expressed in traditional terms unless the leftist in question was religious. Homosexuality was seen either as a mental illness (ergo outside the realm of politics) or a product of feudal and bourgeois society (ergo something to be suppressed), or both. It was linked by some to chauvinism against women and to fascism, which led to things like socialists writing about how Hitler and Co. were one big gay cabal oppressing the workers while engaging in "degeneracy" on the side.

So on the issue of homophobia it should be pretty clear that many communists will have homophobic views which must be countered. Sexism and racism are much more serious since not only is there a definite economic aspect to them, but opposition to both has been fundamental for the working-class movement since basically forever, whereas in much of the world linking equality for homosexuals with the working-class movement still needs to be done.

Socially conservative views cannot coexist with Marxism. One will need to dominate over the other.

As for bourgeois nationalism, whether expressed in "socialist" verbiage or not, that is alien to Marxism.

[Misanthrope]

Leftism is the call for a progressive drive forward, not backward, and not maintenance of current oppressive conditions.

[vanukar]

Leftism is the call for a progressive drive forward, not backward, and not maintenance of current oppressive conditions.

Most leftists are reformists or Stalinists, both of whom hold reactionary views. Don't sound like leftists to me. Or maybe the term is totally meaningless and should be discarded idk.

[Karl Renegade]

This is something interesting I just found on the internet by someone calling himself feral faun:

Like all ideologies, the varieties of the ideology of victimization are forms of fake consciousness. Accepting the social role of victim--in whatever one of its many forms--is choosing to not even create one's life for oneself or to explore one's real relationships to the social structures. All of the partial liberation movements--feminism, gay liberation, racial liberation, workers movements and so on--define individuals in terms of their social roles. Because of this, these movements not only do not include a reversal of perspectives which breaks down social roles and allows individuals to create a praxis built on their own passions and desires; they actually work against such a reversal of perspective. The 'liberation' of a social role to which the individual remains subject. But the essence of these social roles within the framework of these 'liberation' ideologies is victimhood. So the litanies of wrongs suffered must be sung over and over to guarantee the 'victims' never forget that is what they are. These 'radical' liberation movements help to guarantee that the climate of fear never disappears, and that individuals continue to see themselves weak and to see their strength as lying in the social roles which are, in fact, the source of their victimization. In this way, these movements and ideologies act to prevent the possibility of a potent revolt against all authority and all social roles.

[Ismail]

Most leftists are reformists or Stalinists, both of whom hold reactionary views. Don't sound like leftists to me. Or maybe the term is totally meaningless and should be discarded idk."Leftist" basically refers to communists/socialists, anarchists, or the most revolutionary sections of bourgeois-democrats in battle with feudalism.

Since I doubt Jacques Hérbert or Thomas Paine are going to come back to life anytime soon, it refers in the modern world to all who advocate revolution against capitalism.

[#FF0000]

Words

That's sort of a fair observation, I think, and true of a lot of things (it seems like the left in general is obsessed with victimhood).

But I think that depends on the group more than anything. I don't think a lot of LGBT groups take that angle and i wouldn't say those women in India who beat rapists with sticks are especially down on themselves for being victims.

[RedAtheist]

It depends on what one means by 'social conservatism'. There are two main definitions of social conservatism that I hear being presented. These aren't official dictionary definitions or anything, they just reflect the sentiments I hear.

1. Anti-Libertarianism: opposition to drunkeness, smoking, illicit drugs, pornography, sexual promiscuity, gambling and other 'chaotic', hedonistic behaviour.

Under this definition I would probably be classified as socially conservative, since I believe the behaviours I listed can be socially destructive and lead people to have unfufiling lives (in the best case scenario). Many of these behaviours are also propagated by some profit driven corporation so it's ironic that many socialists have libertarian attitudes with regard to such things.

I can't stand the 'I can do what I want in my personal life' sentiment that I hear in response to mere criticisms of such behaviours. I don't believe in the use of cruel, government repression against people who practise such things and fully recognise their right to 'make choices', but I want them to think about whether or not the choices they are making are good choices. This is a question that libertarian advocates of such things usually avoid, in favour of shoving the 'choice' rhetoric down our throats that I'm used to hearing from capitalism lovers.

I think the type of social conservatism that I am describing is fully consistent with socialism/communism as long as it is not aimed at a particular group (e.g. claiming that a particular race needs to be prevented from drinking alcohol, because it is more inherently prone to bad behaviour is not consistent with leftism.) I do however recognise that reactionaries pray on the sense of discomfort and emptiness many people associate with hedonistic behaviours (the sense that things are 'getting out of hand') in order to promote prejudice and more police power.

2. Anti-equality: support for racism, homophobia, unjustified patriotism, the subjugation of women and strict hierarchies more generally.

This type of social conservatism is not consistent with leftism since it seeks to maintain the division of society into levels within a hierarchy, with a powerful state or chuch at the top of the hierarchy, then white men below them, followed by white women and then children and then other races (with similar divisions existing within these races.) If you don't believe me, listen to some speeches by conservative Christian women, they just love to talk about this hierarchy and their submissive place within it (though these days they leave out the racial part.)

This form of conservatism is strongly opposed to the vision of a communist world in which human beings interact as equals, thus one cannot be a radical leftist and support it.

[Geiseric]

"Social Conservative" Is doublespeak for Closet Racist/Chauvanist, so no, you're helping the bourgeoisie when ever you help them with their cultural goals, which includes racism, and holding oppressed nationalities below whites.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

I really wish this poll was public.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

So what exactly constitutes what is "socially conservative"? This is like a poll titled "Can you be -------- and a leftist", because it's not defined what the social conservatism referred to means. What sort? Upholders of traditional family, or is it merely someone who does not enjoy in casual sex?

[Lokomotive293]

My immediate reaction was "no", but, thinking about it, we are all formed by bourgeois society, and, of all forms of class struggle, the ideological part is probably the hardest, most difficult. I want to see the person, however leftist they are, who is honest to themselves and doesn't hold any prejudicial views or ever falls back to divisive, competitive, undemocratic behavior and careerism.
Even under socialism, many reactionary views persisted for a long time.
Ideological transformation is a dialectical process, in each individual as well as within society as a whole.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Remnants of social conservatism exist in plenty of leftists. Durruti, for instance, was obviously a man of great influence among the Spanish proletariat (and was praised by the Soviets as well), and yet he gave his support for the burning of churches not only because they were centers of obscurantism and legitimized economic and social oppression, but also because they were supposedly dens for "sodomy." Many CNT-FAI members echoed his sentiments, as no doubt did many PSOE and PCE members as well.

Their homophobia did not make them not leftists.

The issue is that homophobia was not expressed in traditional terms unless the leftist in question was religious. Homosexuality was seen either as a mental illness (ergo outside the realm of politics) or a product of feudal and bourgeois society (ergo something to be suppressed), or both. It was linked by some to chauvinism against women and to fascism, which led to things like socialists writing about how Hitler and Co. were one big gay cabal oppressing the workers while engaging in "degeneracy" on the side.

So on the issue of homophobia it should be pretty clear that many communists will have homophobic views which must be countered. Sexism and racism are much more serious since not only is there a definite economic aspect to them, but opposition to both has been fundamental for the working-class movement since basically forever, whereas in much of the world linking equality for homosexuals with the working-class movement still needs to be done.

Socially conservative views cannot coexist with Marxism. One will need to dominate over the other.

As for bourgeois nationalism, whether expressed in "socialist" verbiage or not, that is alien to Marxism.
Let us add that ANY kind of nationalism is an anathema to Marxism. But I agree -- there is no way for someone to have stable political views with the contradiction of socialist and conservative views coexisting. That being said, I am sure this is a very common occurrence. People do not come to political consciousness all at once in a categorical or linear fashion. Where the political and social atmosphere is regressive, it will take great events to move people over to a Marxist view of the world.

Oh yeah. The term "leftist" is vague. I use it too. But it does not mean very much because it is a relative term. For example, given the spectrum of mainstream politics in the US today, Eisenhower would be tarred as a leftist. Even though he was a cold warrior and a running dog of US imperialism. Though no one is asking, I prefer "Marxist" or "Revolutionary," or perhaps "Communist." A leftist, as such, can have a very wide range of views.

[ind_com]

A communist can be socially conservative. This is because since we are a part of the society itself, we are likely to carry many of its reactionary values. So, it is very important to actively carry out educational movements and struggles within the communist party to combat social conservatism.

[Ostrinski]

Hell fucking no. How is this even a question?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

How do we define "Leftist" and "Socially conservative"? Many governments led by ostensibly Communist parties banned homosexuality and abortion, but does that mean that they weren't Leftist or was it that they had not bothered to develop a critical enough politics? Do we want to say that 1960s Fidel wasn't a Leftist for sending gay people to labor camps (which he later apologized for of course)? That would be a significant oversimplification of things and could throw the baby out with the bath water. Or is social conservatism just contextual, since the countries where the revolution happened were more deeply rooted in anti-homosexual cultural norms than today? That would mean that a Saudi leftist could have politics which are quite reactionary when compared with a French leftist, which also seems to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[Decolonize The Left]

It would seem difficult to me to support the emancipation of the working-class and yet also support the oppression of any subgroup of that class...

[Hit The North]

So on the issue of homophobia it should be pretty clear that many communists will have homophobic views which must be countered. Sexism and racism are much more serious since not only is there a definite economic aspect to them, but opposition to both has been fundamental for the working-class movement since basically forever, whereas in much of the world linking equality for homosexuals with the working-class movement still needs to be done.


I don't think this is true. Women had to fight for recognition inside the 19th and 20th century labour movements - and continue to do so in certain national labour movements today. Meanwhile, it was not uncommon for trade unions to exercise exclusionary practices against immigrant workers and to support employers' colour bars.

But the point isn't to engage in retrospective judgement on the faults of previous generations of workers. As has already been pointed out, people are products of their environment. Nevertheless, revolutionaries need to be at the vanguard of the most humane and enlightened ideas of the time. We cannot afford to tail-end divisive and bigoted opinion, no matter how many workers cleave to them. The point is that any revolutionaries today who take a homophobic position are placing themselves to the right of mainstream liberal opinion and are therefore not merely social conservatives but social reactionaries.

[Ismail]

I don't think this is true. Women had to fight for recognition inside the 19th and 20th century labour movements - and continue to do so in certain national labour movements today. Meanwhile, it was not uncommon for trade unions to exercise exclusionary practices against immigrant workers and to support employers' colour bars.True, by "working-class movement" I was erroneously focusing on Marx and Engels and Marxist parties and organizations. Even then, though, you had the Communist Party of South Africa declaring in the early 1920's (before the Comintern set them right) that it was fighting for a "white South Africa."

[Left Voice]

I think the big issue I would take up with people who claim that leftists can also be socially conservative due to our surroundings is the implication that we are unable to move beyond this. If our views and attitudes were exclusively shaped by the environment around us, then none of us would be leftists in the first place. It is a weak argument used to justify our own prejudices and avoid taking responsibility for them.

Now if we're talking about social conservatism among leftists in a historical context, then things are slightly different. We're talking about a different historical context where the 'battle lines' (so to speak) were different, and even the most progressive of people were still struggling to catch up with reality regarding homosexuality, multiculturalism etc. In the 19th and early 20th century, homophobia, racism and the like permeated society, and many socialists failed to recognise this discrimination because it wasn't as the forefront of people's consciousness as discrimination. We should recognise that this is something that comrades in the past failed to acknowledge, and that leftists today have no excuse to maintain these regressive attitudes. We don't live in the 19th century anymore, and people cannot use attitudes in Soviet Russia as an excuse for their own prejudices.

In a modern day context though where we are better informed and better positioned to take rational views on key social issues, it is impossible to be both a progressively-minded leftist and socially conservative.

[Geiseric]

Let us add that ANY kind of nationalism is an anathema to Marxism. But I agree -- there is no way for someone to have stable political views with the contradiction of socialist and conservative views coexisting. That being said, I am sure this is a very common occurrence. People do not come to political consciousness all at once in a categorical or linear fashion. Where the political and social atmosphere is regressive, it will take great events to move people over to a Marxist view of the world.

Oh yeah. The term "leftist" is vague. I use it too. But it does not mean very much because it is a relative term. For example, given the spectrum of mainstream politics in the US today, Eisenhower would be tarred as a leftist. Even though he was a cold warrior and a running dog of US imperialism. Though no one is asking, I prefer "Marxist" or "Revolutionary," or perhaps "Communist." A leftist, as such, can have a very wide range of views.

Black and Mexican nationalism in the U.S. should be supported by Marxists though, it has to do with class consciousness.

[Left Voice]

I would argue that Marxists should focus on breaking down the racial and nationalist barriers, rather than re-enforcing them. It can be a slippery slope towards social chauvinism.

[den röde skogshuggaren]

They can, but it's strange.

The chinese communist party was socially conservative at one point(dont know if they still are though).

[Kindness]

As others have said, leftism is an ideology based upon helping oppressed people. Social conservatism entails oppression, so it is incompatible with leftism or socialism of any type.

[Left Voice]

^The Chinese Communist Party are more socially conservative than actually communist.

[Kindness]

The Chinese "Communist" Party is not socialist or even leftist, but an essentially fascist capitalist authoritarian organization.

[Romanophile]

This discussion does make me wonder, would it be possible to have some bias against a group yet still support its emancipation ? Can one be a sexist feminist ? A heterosexist straight ally ? A racist civil rights activist ?

[Left Voice]

Maybe in the short term there could be some kind of mutual agreement to focus on the common enemy rather than fight against each other. But that would be an extremely optimistic and unlikely outcome when each side of the agreement becomes indistinguishable from the enemy, ideologically. Ultimately, sexists are the enemy of feminists, racists are the enemy of civil rights activists, and so forth.

And in the context of socialism, socially conservative attitudes such as racism, sexism and homophobia are reactionary attitudes that are inherently opposed to progressive ideologies such as socialism. They are incompatible. At some point down the line, the racists, sexists and homophobes would have to be fought against as part of the emancipation of the working class.

[Mackenzie_Blanc]

So one decides to became a radical leftist, and destroy the bourgeois way of life, but accepts social conservatism - the backwards ideology defending religion, nationalism, sexism and tradition, the old bourgeois ways. How is that not a contradiction? :confused:

[Geiseric]

Guys Racial Chauvanism does exist among many many marxists. Seriously it's a big problem, which you have to be conscious about.

[Philo]

Is it "possible" in the sense that there have been socially conservative leftists? Yes.

Is it "possible" in the sense that it is actually compatible with leftism? Hell fucking no.

[GerrardWinstanley]

I agree that progressive, civilized social norms are an integral part of a socialist world view. Just as well as economic socialism is an integral part of progressive social norms. You can't separate the two and still be ideologically consistent.

However there are many workers who combine economic leftism with social rightism. We need to procede with caution when approaching them on their social values. There is a reason why all these "blue labour" workers are alienated from the left and see us as too far out. If we focus on the economic part of socialism and get them convinced of that it'll be easier to move them towards the social side of socialism. Starting with attacking their social values will only push them away.I think we have to approach these things more critically. Stuff like the 'alienated' White Working Class is great material for Labour Party policy wonks and contrarian journalists, but it flies in the face of the fact that its only demographics that traditionally vote fascist and right-wing (the petty bourgeoisie, skilled workers, the underclass, the non-unionised working class... most of them pig ignorant) that prioritise immigration and multiculturalism and not the working class more broadly speaking.

While it's only right we should work to stop reactionaries in their tracks exploiting the grievances of racists, I don't think socialists should attempt to absorb this demographic either, because then you're inviting reactionaries to confront you on their territory (this is what the Labour Party has been doing for the past 15 years, following the BNP's lead on immigration).

[Orange Juche]

So one decides to became a radical leftist, and destroy the bourgeois way of life, but accepts social conservatism - the backwards ideology defending religion, nationalism, sexism and tradition, the old bourgeois ways. How is that not a contradiction? :confused:

So Leo Tolstoy was a social conservative and not a legitimate leftist, Christian anarchist, because supernatural beliefs inherently and in all cases equate to something conservative or reactionary... or am I just misunderstanding you wildly?

[TiberiusGracchus]

The only sense in which I could be concidered a "conservative" is that I think it's important to promote virtuous behaviour and combat nihilistic decadence. Though I think I have very little in common with conservatives on what's virtuous and nihilistic and how to promote/combat these features.

And some feminists think I'm "conservative" because I think that female gender roles and properties are in many ways (not all!) superior to male ones. I don't think feminism should focus on making women in to careeristic, competitive ego-centered individualists. Better to make men more like women. Building good relations with your children, your partner(s) and other persons is much more important than being rich, 'sucessful' and 'independent'.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

The only sense in which I could be concidered a "conservative" is that I think it's important to promote virtuous behaviour and combat nihilistic decadence. Though I think I have very little in common with conservatives on what's virtuous and nihilistic and how to promote/combat these features.

And some feminists think I'm "conservative" because I think that female gender roles and properties are in many ways (not all!) superior to male ones. I don't think feminism should focus on making women in to careeristic, competitive ego-centered individualists. Better to make men more like women. Building good relations with your children, your partner(s) and other persons is much more important than being rich, 'sucessful' and 'independent'.

Why not just chuck out gender-roles altogether and stop the casting of people into caricatures that they will have to live through for the rest of their lives?

[TiberiusGracchus]

Why not just chuck out gender-roles altogether and stop the casting of people into caricatures that they will have to live through for the rest of their lives?

I'm 100% for that.

[electro_fan]

we are all a product of capitalist society so we will always have some reactionary views whether we realise it or not.

[Owl]

American social conservatives are a few steps away from outright social fascism or theocracy. So... no, they can't be left wing.

[Owl]

This discussion does make me wonder, would it be possible to have some bias against a group yet still support its emancipation ? Can one be a sexist feminist ? A heterosexist straight ally ? A racist civil rights activist ?

I think you can. Morality can supersede learned prejudices.