What does a leftist look like?

[huile d'olive]

So, I'm very new to marxist/leftist theory and this one thing has been very confusing for me and I see it a lot among educated and often wealthy students. Now when most people identify as feminists (I'm going to draw this parallel because I'm familiar with it and I think the issue is the same) it's expected that if you take up the "label" you must change your attitude in certain ways and unlearn things so that your actions are more aligned with your politics..because otherwise it's nothing but a label. My question is, how does this apply to leftists? Because I notice some people from wealthy, educated backgrounds calling themselves leftists but they are some of the most decadent people I've ever come across. I mean, can I purchase $1500 luxury brand items and still call myself a leftist? Can I dine at some Trump hotel? Can I display my wealth in a disgustingly lavish event, like a wedding or something? Is understanding the theory enough?

[The Feral Underclass]

Being wealthy doesn't necessarily negate your ability to be a socialist, but we are right to say that endearing yourself to a lavish lifestyle would definitely be a problem. Why would you want to do that? Why would you want to associate with people who would normally enjoy that lifestyle, when more often than not, they are direct beneficiaries of the very exploitation we stand in fundamental opposition to. I don't think this means we have to become Puritans or Luddites and shun the convenient trappings of a capitalist society -- the point is to socialise those trappings so that they can be enjoyed by everyone. Luxury communism, if you will! :p

To answer the question asked in the title, I think these are a fair representation of what a leftist looks like:



http://www.zombietime.com/reuters_photo_fraud/DSC01380.jpg

http://i60.tinypic.com/30wmnpg.jpg

[ChangeAndChance]

https://img.4plebs.org/boards/pol/thumb/1401/56/1401566934465s.jpg

[StromboliFucker666]

We look like humans. Some tall, some short. We all different skin colors and cultures. We all have different backgrounds. We all have different styles that we fit into. Just like every other group.


While yes, there are rich socialists, that doesn't negate our point. You can partake in that type of life but I would find it to by very hypocritical and it would make it harder (for me least at least) to take you seriously.

[Blake's Baby]

If socialism means anything it means we all get to have access to a lifestyle currently available only to the wealthy. It's about the generalisation of social wealth, not the imposition of austerity on everyone. There's no reason for socialists not to enjoy champagne and a luxury lifestyle. We want everyone to have that, after all.

[Slavic]

We look like humans. Some tall, some short. We all different skin colors and cultures. We all have different backgrounds. We all have different styles that we fit into. Just like every other group.


So human biased.

Some of us walk upright on our porcine hind legs and wear the farmer's old blue jeans.

[Tim Cornelis]

While I'm not personally or particularly bothered by the more tongue in cheek comments, remember that this is in the learning section.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Obviously whenever a distinct milieu emerges certain fashions emerge within it (and even more so in some of the closed cult-like sects). That's neither here nor there though, since there are a significant variety of geographically and (sub)culturally distinct "leftisms". So, like, certainly there are "in" anarchist punk fashions, and you can pretty much pick out members of Platypus if you know what to look for, but that doesn't really cut to the crux of what your post is getting at.

I think "fashion" doesn't really get at "Can you be rich, and immersed in the life and culture of the rich, and nonetheless be a leftist?"
I don't think there's a simple answer to that questions. Generally, I'm tempted to say no - that, in my practical experience, those who live like and among the ruling class and call themselves leftists tend to not be leftists at all. Deal with various NGO hacks, leftist professionals, etc. for a few years and you're likely to know what I mean.
On the other hand, that immersion is maybe more important than the question of simply having money, or an education, or whatever. I certainly know those who, having come from wealth, have immersed themselves in the struggles of the working class, and, in doing so, have (un)learned a great deal, and become sincere. That's not to say that they're not still rich, and that they are not still experiencing capitalism in a way which is fundamentally different (and *nobody* likes or trusts a rich kid who is fronting) - but that in attempting to meaningfully break with the world of pan-seared bass and $90 bottles of wine, one is likely to develop some perspective that one would otherwise lack.

I do want to take a moment to strongly disagree with Blake's Baby - the dichotomy he proposes (Luxury for All vs Austerity) utterly misses the point. The point of communism is the realization of full and unalienated human life - not "everyone gets champagne!". And, in fact, I think a great deal of the luxuries accumulated by the rich in this society are utter garbage - at best, distractions from the ennui of the pointlessness of bourgeois existence, premised on ecological destruction, and socialization into conspicuous consumption.

[Troika]

-

[StromboliFucker666]

So human biased.

Some of us walk upright on our porcine hind legs and wear the farmer's old blue jeans.

Ummm....okay then. Sorry.

[Blake's Baby]

... Champagne socialists, as they're sometimes called, can be ok, but it's very rare. I, personally, do not trust them...

I make barely more than minimum wage and I love champagne.

I don't trust Puritans who want us all to be hermits for the revolution. Fuck that with a big stick. If I can't caviar it's not my revolution (actually I don't eat caviar but what the hell).

[Troika]

-

[The Feral Underclass]

i do want to take a moment to strongly disagree with Blake's Baby - the dichotomy he proposes (Luxury for All vs Austerity) utterly misses the point. The point of communism is the realization of full and unalienated human life - not "everyone gets champagne!". And, in fact, I think a great deal of the luxuries accumulated by the rich in this society are utter garbage - at best, distractions from the ennui of the pointlessness of bourgeois existence, premised on ecological destruction, and socialization into conspicuous consumption.

Why not say everyone gets champagne? What is the actual problem with that slogan? I don't think it undermines or negates communism as the "realisation of full and unalienated human life."

[Ele'ill]

So, I'm very new to marxist/leftist theory and this one thing has been very confusing for me and I see it a lot among educated and often wealthy students. Now when most people identify as feminists (I'm going to draw this parallel because I'm familiar with it and I think the issue is the same) it's expected that if you take up the "label" you must change your attitude in certain ways and unlearn things so that your actions are more aligned with your politics..because otherwise it's nothing but a label. My question is, how does this apply to leftists? Because I notice some people from wealthy, educated backgrounds calling themselves leftists but they are some of the most decadent people I've ever come across. I mean, can I purchase $1500 luxury brand items and still call myself a leftist? Can I dine at some Trump hotel? Can I display my wealth in a disgustingly lavish event, like a wedding or something? Is understanding the theory enough?

continue to be interested in ideas and not with scene identity especially within the left

[Rafiq]

The question is not that "if I live a lavish lifestyle, can I still be a Leftist" - if one possesses this temptation in the first place, i.e. if one finds meaning in such garbage, if one sustains their life-being by flashing around trinkets, the aesthetic that conveys a lived relation between you and means by which society is reproduced, in order to derive a sense of self worth, it is not that this act in itself prevents you from being a socialist for moral reasons, it is that the very fact that this is how you express your living being makes you incapable of being a socialist.

Conversely, if one is simply capable of living "luxuriously" already, and it makes no difference, why not? The point is defining limits. To invest yourself in fine dining, and so on - it is not simply a moral question of limiting pleasures, it is an ontological question of why those are pleasures in the first place. We Communists do not see, for example, any temptation in luxury brand items upon our gaze: We are simply not "in on the secret", the tacit recognition of their 'value', not because we are Puritan ascetics, but because a Communist cannot be tempted to lust for objects whose only value is their ritualistic conveyance of power.

People do not desire, for example, the Rolls Royce for any practical reason, nor for those perverse reasons that scarcity-fetishizing pseudo-darwinist philistines like to tell us, i.e. because they convey something essentially constitutive of the individual who owns them - that they have "more resources" or any other such disgusting fucking vomit. It is because they convey ideologically the power of our existing order, they convey the magnitude to which man has conquered the hostile powers which befall all individuals to reproduce it. Such conveyances of power are not positive, but precisely negative: they represent FREEDOM FROM the spiritual destitution befallen by society, not freedom from hunger itself - freedom from nothingness, freedom from worthlessness, freedom from slavery. Communists, however, correctly approximate a newfound freedom in the struggle for the destruction of the conditions which demand this destitution as a precondition for its reproduction.

And that ultimately is what "luxury brands" and so on amount to - a ritual. We Communists can learn from history that we are not "above" rituals, indeed, rituals will be constitutive of reproducing the Communist order, the Communist movement itself, but our fetishes, our rituals are not theirs. There are definite cultural implications for Communists, even individually, that are not so much principles to be adhered to, but are inevitable conclusions of being a Communist in your heart and your bones. What this amounts to is rather simple: If you can afford it, and you can find some kind of practicality, why not? If you can afford better quality food, better quality this or that, why not? The point is that one cannot invest themselves, identify with etc. their symbolic significance in our present order.

It's not even the idea that we think doing this will abolish it, it is that this is a necessary precondition of SUSTAINING yourself as a Communist.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

In my mind, if you are upper middle class and you claim to be a leftist, you had better be using a large part of that wealth to help people.

How?

Being a socialist means recognising that individual solutions to social problems don't work. The only thing that charity etc. do is assuage guilty liberals.


Similarly, if you claim to be a leftist and are opposed to the liberation of lgbt people, women, people of color, etc. you're not worth calling a leftist. Sure, technically you may be a leftist but I don't want to associate with you. I don't want you in my social group.

That has nothing to do with the question, though.


There have been a few guys out there who claimed to be feminist in order to sexually assault women. It's fucked up. I'm not trying to compare sexual assault with economic exploitation, but both are antithetical to feminism and leftism respectively. If you live as decadently as a right-libertarian or you treat the proletariat as a conservative would, how are you any different from one of them? Because you say nice things? Because you voted for Jill Stein?

Well if you've voted for Jill Stein you probably aren't a socialist anyway. In any case, yes, someone's politics are determined by their actions, not their statements. But pretending not to have money when you do, because of some fucked-up fetishism of poverty, or worse, because of a reactionary criticism of "decadence" (does that sound familiar?) is not an action that is constitutive of socialism.

[Colonel]

That's an interesting question. As others mentioned before, it is not necessary for a leftist to live a puritanical lifestyle, and I don't judge people who can access luxuries. However, If I were such a person, identifying myself a leftist while spending a lot of money on my luxury needs, (not even sure if "needs" is a proper word here :D) I would pretty much feel hypocritical, but that's just me.

[BIXX]

Well I'm a leftist and I have really long hair and nails. People compliment me on eyes. Also my bmi is in the normal range but I feel kinda flabby. Maybe it's because I have excess skin due to weight loss. I am 5'8.

Wait a minute this seems kinda personal for a thread in the Learning forum!

I imagined you way shorter but like, angry enough to convince people you were taller.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Why not say everyone gets champagne? What is the actual problem with that slogan? I don't think it undermines or negates communism as the "realisation of full and unalienated human life."

Champagne was a bit of an arbitrary example. But, y'know, I think "Sparkling wine for everyone!" is much preferable if we want to imagine a society that has moved beyond bourgeois habits.

Though even then, I hope people do better drugs after the rev. Alcohol is kinda dumb.

(Yes, I am a recovering alcoholic.)

[BIXX]

I honestly don't understand this thread after a detailed reading. Like the question doesn't really make sense to me. Who cares what your class position is? I mean I personally don't really like rich folks but at the same time I don't think that entirely defines you, it just has a heavy influence on what does define you.

[Sinister Intents]

I honestly don't understand this thread after a detailed reading. Like the question doesn't really make sense to me. Who cares what your class position is? I mean I personally don't really like rich folks but at the same time I don't think that entirely defines you, it just has a heavy influence on what does define you.

Your relationship to the means of production can be very definitive of how you view the world, but otherwise you're right. My father went from someone who has a more working class friendly view, to letting his ownership of capital status get to his head. I also saw how it was affecting me, but I no longer will be the owner ever.

[Sewer Socialist]

I honestly don't understand this thread after a detailed reading. Like the question doesn't really make sense to me. Who cares what your class position is? I mean I personally don't really like rich folks but at the same time I don't think that entirely defines you, it just has a heavy influence on what does define you.

I think that's no different from how people here see class - the manner by which you sustain your life and what that means for your relationships to other people are a heavy influence on you. It's also important to point out that class isn't just wealth - it's primarily your relationship to other people; wealth is only a consequence of that.

To answer OP's question, I live in a sewer, eating pizza, practicing martial arts, and fighting forces of oppression. I wear a mask to conceal my identity, but my personality shows nonetheless.

[Redistribute the Rep]

I honestly don't understand this thread after a detailed reading.

I was hoping it would turn into everybody describing their own appearance.

[Sinister Intents]

I was hoping it would turn into everybody describing their own appearance.

I'm extremely thin, 5'6" tall, have long light brown hair, ????, profit.

[Faust Arp]

If I am of any indication, leftists look like hipster cavemen.

[Comrade Jacob]

In my case: Long black hair, pale skin, black make up, band t-shirts, black big boots and a black trench coat.

[willowtooth]

I think being leftist makes you less likely too buy jewelry and fashion and luxury garbage, since its mostly just status symbols. You wear them too show off your wealth and too put others down for being poor, things like xbox's tv's and washing machines wouldn't be considered a status symbol, unless your buying a new TV that costs more than the average salary in country...... every three months.

So naturally you stop buying gold watches and top of line fashions. Not because of peer pressure or too "align with your politics" but because you naturally just don't want too show off your wealth. So I doubt there's any serious leftist who has a closet filled with the latest designs, or a collection of $100,000 diamond watches. Why would you spend money buying the newest fashion trends, if not too show off your knowledge of fashion, and too show others how much money you have, and truly believed that measures how much better you are then everyone else.

That being said a little jewelry never hurt anyone, if your talking too a stranger having a ring or a simple gold watch makes you more trustworthy, so that you don't seem like homeless crazy drug addict. If your going too protest or preach about politics and your in stained ripped unwashed clothes people might runaway and probably wouldn't take you seriously. As opposed too if you were wearing even just a hundred dollar suit.

besides nothing helps out a punch more than a nice set of rings

[MarxSchmarx]

Moved from learning to chitchat

[John Nada]

Statistically, the median leftist looks about like this:
http://www.signalfire.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/31-vzgnrns2-Mao_VJ_2494106f.jpg
Metaphorically, in the global north the left looks like this:
https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2013/03/lenin.jpg&w=480

[StromboliFucker666]

I was hoping it would turn into everybody describing their own appearance.

Black hair, brown eyes, 6'2, average sized, long hair, a beard in my personal case

[motion denied]

This is me, except that I have a stronger hammer and sickle game going on.

http://www.upscalehype.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/David-Beckham-Olympics-UpscaleHype-4.jpeg

I'm probably prettier though, and taller and buffer and wealthier and play better football. Also probably a better Spice Girl all around.

[Asero]

Statistically, the median leftist looks about like this: [picture]

lol i wish

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

i wear horrible faded cargo shorts and jeans and collect weird charity shop and brutal death metal band t-shirts. i tend to go for sheer, honest durability when i look at consumer goods so i guess i do tend to go for having fewer, fairly expensive things that last for ages since i'm lucky enough to be able to save a bit sometimes. I like to think i've got an aesthetic going on despite not going outside enough to really inflict it on anyone.

[Redistribute the Rep]

This is me, except that I have a stronger hammer and sickle game going on.

http://www.upscalehype.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/David-Beckham-Olympics-UpscaleHype-4.jpeg

I'm probably prettier though, and taller and buffer and wealthier and play better football. Also probably a better Spice Girl all around.

This is what I imagine Luis Henrique looks like

[Ele'ill]

and every time he is done talking to you he adjusts his cufflinks and hands you his business card

[∞]

in my case, pashtun features and polo shirts.

[Hatshepsut]

We all know that a leftist looks like the fella with the conical nose and fedora in the Spy vs. Spy comics from Mad Magazine. Either the black or the white one. :grin:

[Guardia Rossa]

Is there any problem in over-rejecting brands? I buy everything I can without brands and what I can't have without I attempt to remove - with varying results, from success to the utter destruction of said object.

Is this some kind of fanatism? :lol:

EDIT: I also have some fetishism with military gear, black/grey colors...

EDIT2: Omg if I didn't hear Rammstein I would think I'm a Fash

[Synergy]

Is there any problem in over-rejecting brands?

If you don't hand-weave all your own clothes then you're a hardcore right-winger. BTW, I called Marx on the phone and he confirmed this so it's canon.