The title immediately made me think of Belinda's monologue in Fleabag, was that the inspiration? I'm just so incredibly in awe of your writing, I think you're brilliant!
“Oppression loves the concept of the natural; the “natural” body, family, population of a country.” Yes. Thanks for summing that up more eloquently than my vague inner monologue of “They say ‘natural’ like it’s a good thing… hell, cancer is ‘natural’. Why am I supposed to bow down to ‘natural’?”
"oppression loves the natural" oh my GOD this was fantastic and so insightful, what a revelation. i have endometriosis and had a doctor dismiss my pain, which was so bad i actually felt like an animal, as natural and normal. all the tests also turned up normal. luckily another doctor took me seriously, but yeah
Nice writing tbh, even though I obviously disagree with much of it. The approach to womanhood, equating "natural" with oppression, etc, reminds me of this old quote that remains as relevant as the rest of the person's writings:
"'Left' is that which has a program, for a program presupposes an intellectual, Rationalistic, and Romantic belief in the power to control reality by abstractions."
Obviously, at the root of it all - in this article especially - is individualism, belief in individual choice as be-all-end-all, and it suggests obvious friend/enemy distinction; hence decrying "anti-immigration" and, by the very nature of doing so, siding with billionaires and capitalists. But this isn't a surprise either, as leftism is, after all, fundamentally about state capitalism.
Oswald Spengler. He's been prescient about many things, though the above is mostly an analysis of (at the time) contemporary left, but it's still relevant. Much of his work isn't that dissimilar to marxist critique of liberalism, though he goes further (his critique of press is great, if a bit outdated).
Liberalism serves a purpose; primarily to justify control over society. I'm sure you're more than familiar with it, so I won't expand on that.
I don't want to make this long; different narratives, values, etc, serve different interests. Pro-immigration stance is widespread, from billionaires, to journos, academics, and politicians they fund, not to mention billions upon billions in lobbying, NGOs, etc, very few dare to even critique it in any meaningful way much less oppose it. Even someone like Elon Musk has been fairly explicit that he wants to massively increase legal immigration. So are capitalists in general, especially as capitalism depends on it for growth, in as much it depends on endlessly expanding markets & exploiting people.
Thus, in case of immigration, being in favor of it is by the very nature siding with ruling interests; whether that's by echoing their narratives, their values, and even more so, legitimizing them. In the same way as there's a social role to a woman or a man, a social role when it comes to race, etc, there are political roles as well, most notably those who align with the system and those who oppose it.
You can see the same with Israel (those in favor of it align with ruling interests), Hong Kong, China, or various countries US ravaged. Furthermore, most opposition to ruling interests gets suppressed in one way or another, primarily through censorship, especially in Europe. The use of -isms against anti-Israel protests is hardly an anomaly (though the consequences have been lesser as there's more internal support for them, such as with universities), but in fact the primary way systemic opposition gets suppressed. Every system practices it, whether that's liberal capitalism, or China, or Russia, or Iran, or even Christianity historically. Similarly, it's hardly a secret that modern left has taken on pro-system positions over and over again, sans few exceptions (E.g., Palestine), while mostly shrugging shoulders re: Lybia, Syria, etc.
To go original point: compare immigration policies in China to the west. It speaks for itself.
I’m going to be honest, I had to read this three or four times over trying to understand the connection of your comment to the original article…. After a back and forth argument with myself and much googling I may have muddled out your point. I would highly recommend making some changes to your writing to perhaps make it slightly more accessible to read. I really had to drag myself to write this response and if you’d like to have more robust discussions about your beliefs I think there are better ways you could invite that. Anyways that’s not my point, so here it is:
I perhaps understand what you’re getting at in your second comment… that ‘pro immigration policies are widespread’ and therefore bad because we live under capitalism… and because by agreeing with the “ruling class” we are supporting them.
But what gets me is your definition of ‘leftism’. A simple google will tell you that left wing politics as a whole is fundamentally about achieving social equality, and essentially being against much of hierarchical structure of society. Yes, it’s fundamentally “about state capitalism”, but in the way that it fundamentally disagrees with it.
To get to your actual point let’s talk about this: why is it bad to be ‘siding’ with billionaires and capitalists? It’s funny that this is the crux of your point, because it’s like saying that by agreeing with a murderer that some people do bad things and should be punished for that (but disagreeing on what the punishment should be, which in this case the murderer felt should be death) that I by association am as bad as the murderer.
There can be different justifications for people holding space for an idea. I can be pro-immigration and still anti capitalist, because whilst I understand that population growth is a driver of capitalism I can also recognise that immigration can ALSO be a vector for the disruption of capitalism.
If people want to move to a country because they feel that country affords people greater opportunities than others, they should be able to…. Because by allowing more people to do so, we reduce the group that falls into the global category of “someone billionaires can underpay” within capitalism and essentially push the instability of that system.
Is that the most efficient way to create instability in capitalism? No. But sometimes you take what you can get.
Additionally, I think that there is more to political roles than just ‘those who align with the system and those who oppress it’ as you’ve quite simply put it.
In many cases leftism does not align with the system, and in many cases the rightism also doesn’t, but fundamentally those two sets of beliefs are not the same just because they both in some cases disagree with the system - they are advocating for entirely different systems of their own at the end of the day.
My understanding of the left wing side of politics is that it generally supports the idea of informed choice. By pushing for social equality we also push for universal education/literacy so that people can make their own choices. Sure, people who align with the ‘left’ side of politics can be bad faith actors, in so much that the same occurs within the ‘right’ and I don’t disagree that all sides use censorship to their advantage, but leftism which is the crux of your point l is not fundamentally about that.
I highly recommend you go and read the Wikipedia definition of left-wing politics.
I have no intention of changing the way I write. As the rest of your comment demonstrates, you really aren't the target audience for it. Which is fine! There's plenty I'm not the target audience for, either.
> But what gets me is your definition of ‘leftism’.
There's a difference between values/ideals and actuality of what something is. This should be fairly obvious, especially given the system under which we live in. I do agree that opposition to hierarchies is one of things among it, but this is less to do with hierarchies and more who's at the top/trying to invert them (hence in case of communism, you get things like "dictatorship of proletariat.")
> To get to your actual point let’s talk about this: why is it bad to be ‘siding’ with billionaires and capitalists?
The issue is less about agreement, which is what you're trying to present it as, and more the role one takes upon in relation to the system; that is, legitimizing the narratives/values/ideology of the system which in turn serves to justify its actions.
Immigration doesn't really "disrupt" capitalism, the only thing it does is harm everyone involved. Whether that's due to suppression of wages, exploitation that entails, or the brain drain (at least in case of more skilled migration) which itself only brings even more harm, and let's not even get to other issues with migration, or for that matter, the environmental harm that brings, backed by very people who claim to care about environment. Hm. It'd be a surprise if this wasn't an obvious pattern stretching far into history.
Personally, I don't believe in immigration as a legitimate concept, much less a right. Even merely *internally,* immigration has acted to destroy everything in its path; from organic communities, to extended families, to severing bonds with others, all as you note, due to pursuit of "greater opportunities." Has this disrupted capitalism? Hardly, it's massively benefited it, and it's been endlessly creating commodified replacements of the real things it "disrupts," or more correctly, destroys - see fandoms, stans, therapy (a massive, growing business), along with ever growing rise of drug addicts, mental illnesses, and so forth. And this is just *internally.* In fact, the very concept of immigration is a capitalist's wet dream, because they don't have to care whatsoever about workers, about people, and whether or not what they are doing is causing suffering; because immigration fundamentally makes such workers, such people, replaceable, regardless of which country it happens in.
> they are advocating for entirely different systems of their own at the end of the day.
We're well past that point lol. That's part of the point I made: most of left and right support the system, as evident by the stance on foreign conflicts.
> By pushing for social equality we also push for universal education/literacy so that people can make their own choices.
Yeah, that's another point where the left aligns with ruling interests. Long gone are the days where leftists offered any meaningful critique of education, universities, etc, as one of the ways the ruling ideology is spread & reproduced; they are fully in line with it. Just like with "human rights" and "democracy" which they endlessly legitimize, then act shocked when libs ravage country after country. Then they continue to legitimize the concept, then act surprised again. Ad nauseum. At some point, one has to recognize reality - when someone repeatedly does things to aid the capitalist ruling class, they are doing so because they support it. They just act like bratty subs, much like some on right do with Trump/GOP. But bratty subs are still subs. We've seen this with left/dems as well, Bernie (lol, Hillary), etc. This isn't an exception, this is trend stretching far enough into past that it makes the role rather clear.
The title immediately made me think of Belinda's monologue in Fleabag, was that the inspiration? I'm just so incredibly in awe of your writing, I think you're brilliant!
yes it is!!! thank you 💗💗💗
“Oppression loves the concept of the natural; the “natural” body, family, population of a country.” Yes. Thanks for summing that up more eloquently than my vague inner monologue of “They say ‘natural’ like it’s a good thing… hell, cancer is ‘natural’. Why am I supposed to bow down to ‘natural’?”
💗
Your writing is absolutely stunning ❤️
thank you !! as is yours!
absolutely beautiful read
thankyou 💫💫
"oppression loves the natural" oh my GOD this was fantastic and so insightful, what a revelation. i have endometriosis and had a doctor dismiss my pain, which was so bad i actually felt like an animal, as natural and normal. all the tests also turned up normal. luckily another doctor took me seriously, but yeah
Nice writing tbh, even though I obviously disagree with much of it. The approach to womanhood, equating "natural" with oppression, etc, reminds me of this old quote that remains as relevant as the rest of the person's writings:
"'Left' is that which has a program, for a program presupposes an intellectual, Rationalistic, and Romantic belief in the power to control reality by abstractions."
Obviously, at the root of it all - in this article especially - is individualism, belief in individual choice as be-all-end-all, and it suggests obvious friend/enemy distinction; hence decrying "anti-immigration" and, by the very nature of doing so, siding with billionaires and capitalists. But this isn't a surprise either, as leftism is, after all, fundamentally about state capitalism.
Interesting read, nevertheless.
I’m really confused by what you mean, to be honest - whose quote is that? and why is it automatically siding with capitalists to be pro-immigration?
Oswald Spengler. He's been prescient about many things, though the above is mostly an analysis of (at the time) contemporary left, but it's still relevant. Much of his work isn't that dissimilar to marxist critique of liberalism, though he goes further (his critique of press is great, if a bit outdated).
Liberalism serves a purpose; primarily to justify control over society. I'm sure you're more than familiar with it, so I won't expand on that.
I don't want to make this long; different narratives, values, etc, serve different interests. Pro-immigration stance is widespread, from billionaires, to journos, academics, and politicians they fund, not to mention billions upon billions in lobbying, NGOs, etc, very few dare to even critique it in any meaningful way much less oppose it. Even someone like Elon Musk has been fairly explicit that he wants to massively increase legal immigration. So are capitalists in general, especially as capitalism depends on it for growth, in as much it depends on endlessly expanding markets & exploiting people.
Thus, in case of immigration, being in favor of it is by the very nature siding with ruling interests; whether that's by echoing their narratives, their values, and even more so, legitimizing them. In the same way as there's a social role to a woman or a man, a social role when it comes to race, etc, there are political roles as well, most notably those who align with the system and those who oppose it.
You can see the same with Israel (those in favor of it align with ruling interests), Hong Kong, China, or various countries US ravaged. Furthermore, most opposition to ruling interests gets suppressed in one way or another, primarily through censorship, especially in Europe. The use of -isms against anti-Israel protests is hardly an anomaly (though the consequences have been lesser as there's more internal support for them, such as with universities), but in fact the primary way systemic opposition gets suppressed. Every system practices it, whether that's liberal capitalism, or China, or Russia, or Iran, or even Christianity historically. Similarly, it's hardly a secret that modern left has taken on pro-system positions over and over again, sans few exceptions (E.g., Palestine), while mostly shrugging shoulders re: Lybia, Syria, etc.
To go original point: compare immigration policies in China to the west. It speaks for itself.
I’m going to be honest, I had to read this three or four times over trying to understand the connection of your comment to the original article…. After a back and forth argument with myself and much googling I may have muddled out your point. I would highly recommend making some changes to your writing to perhaps make it slightly more accessible to read. I really had to drag myself to write this response and if you’d like to have more robust discussions about your beliefs I think there are better ways you could invite that. Anyways that’s not my point, so here it is:
I perhaps understand what you’re getting at in your second comment… that ‘pro immigration policies are widespread’ and therefore bad because we live under capitalism… and because by agreeing with the “ruling class” we are supporting them.
But what gets me is your definition of ‘leftism’. A simple google will tell you that left wing politics as a whole is fundamentally about achieving social equality, and essentially being against much of hierarchical structure of society. Yes, it’s fundamentally “about state capitalism”, but in the way that it fundamentally disagrees with it.
To get to your actual point let’s talk about this: why is it bad to be ‘siding’ with billionaires and capitalists? It’s funny that this is the crux of your point, because it’s like saying that by agreeing with a murderer that some people do bad things and should be punished for that (but disagreeing on what the punishment should be, which in this case the murderer felt should be death) that I by association am as bad as the murderer.
There can be different justifications for people holding space for an idea. I can be pro-immigration and still anti capitalist, because whilst I understand that population growth is a driver of capitalism I can also recognise that immigration can ALSO be a vector for the disruption of capitalism.
If people want to move to a country because they feel that country affords people greater opportunities than others, they should be able to…. Because by allowing more people to do so, we reduce the group that falls into the global category of “someone billionaires can underpay” within capitalism and essentially push the instability of that system.
Is that the most efficient way to create instability in capitalism? No. But sometimes you take what you can get.
Additionally, I think that there is more to political roles than just ‘those who align with the system and those who oppress it’ as you’ve quite simply put it.
In many cases leftism does not align with the system, and in many cases the rightism also doesn’t, but fundamentally those two sets of beliefs are not the same just because they both in some cases disagree with the system - they are advocating for entirely different systems of their own at the end of the day.
My understanding of the left wing side of politics is that it generally supports the idea of informed choice. By pushing for social equality we also push for universal education/literacy so that people can make their own choices. Sure, people who align with the ‘left’ side of politics can be bad faith actors, in so much that the same occurs within the ‘right’ and I don’t disagree that all sides use censorship to their advantage, but leftism which is the crux of your point l is not fundamentally about that.
I highly recommend you go and read the Wikipedia definition of left-wing politics.
I have no intention of changing the way I write. As the rest of your comment demonstrates, you really aren't the target audience for it. Which is fine! There's plenty I'm not the target audience for, either.
> But what gets me is your definition of ‘leftism’.
There's a difference between values/ideals and actuality of what something is. This should be fairly obvious, especially given the system under which we live in. I do agree that opposition to hierarchies is one of things among it, but this is less to do with hierarchies and more who's at the top/trying to invert them (hence in case of communism, you get things like "dictatorship of proletariat.")
> To get to your actual point let’s talk about this: why is it bad to be ‘siding’ with billionaires and capitalists?
The issue is less about agreement, which is what you're trying to present it as, and more the role one takes upon in relation to the system; that is, legitimizing the narratives/values/ideology of the system which in turn serves to justify its actions.
Immigration doesn't really "disrupt" capitalism, the only thing it does is harm everyone involved. Whether that's due to suppression of wages, exploitation that entails, or the brain drain (at least in case of more skilled migration) which itself only brings even more harm, and let's not even get to other issues with migration, or for that matter, the environmental harm that brings, backed by very people who claim to care about environment. Hm. It'd be a surprise if this wasn't an obvious pattern stretching far into history.
Personally, I don't believe in immigration as a legitimate concept, much less a right. Even merely *internally,* immigration has acted to destroy everything in its path; from organic communities, to extended families, to severing bonds with others, all as you note, due to pursuit of "greater opportunities." Has this disrupted capitalism? Hardly, it's massively benefited it, and it's been endlessly creating commodified replacements of the real things it "disrupts," or more correctly, destroys - see fandoms, stans, therapy (a massive, growing business), along with ever growing rise of drug addicts, mental illnesses, and so forth. And this is just *internally.* In fact, the very concept of immigration is a capitalist's wet dream, because they don't have to care whatsoever about workers, about people, and whether or not what they are doing is causing suffering; because immigration fundamentally makes such workers, such people, replaceable, regardless of which country it happens in.
> they are advocating for entirely different systems of their own at the end of the day.
We're well past that point lol. That's part of the point I made: most of left and right support the system, as evident by the stance on foreign conflicts.
> By pushing for social equality we also push for universal education/literacy so that people can make their own choices.
Yeah, that's another point where the left aligns with ruling interests. Long gone are the days where leftists offered any meaningful critique of education, universities, etc, as one of the ways the ruling ideology is spread & reproduced; they are fully in line with it. Just like with "human rights" and "democracy" which they endlessly legitimize, then act shocked when libs ravage country after country. Then they continue to legitimize the concept, then act surprised again. Ad nauseum. At some point, one has to recognize reality - when someone repeatedly does things to aid the capitalist ruling class, they are doing so because they support it. They just act like bratty subs, much like some on right do with Trump/GOP. But bratty subs are still subs. We've seen this with left/dems as well, Bernie (lol, Hillary), etc. This isn't an exception, this is trend stretching far enough into past that it makes the role rather clear.