how can you be a leftist and a misanthrope at the same time?

[Chingaquedito]

leftists always appeal to the will of the people, but average person doesn't care or give a shit about all that

the average person doesn't care about social causes, or the collective welfare, or even defending their own rights. they just put their heads down and go on with their lives,

that's the main reason why i started to distance myself from left wing groups. i realized that demonstrations, press releases, and statements were just a waste of time because nobody cares about that shit

also, as an incel it seems to me a waste of time to spend too much time and effort looking for the collective welfare, when humans have a strong tendency to create hierarchies and marginalize those who are different, and in this case, you will always be a victim, no matter what side you choose, you're always going to be treated like shit by other human beings just because of your poor social skills/incel features

 

[Hoor Al-Ayn]

To answer the title, you can't, the only socialist I can think of that was close to a misanthrope is Philipp Mainlander.

There's no point caring about a human race which doesn't care about you. Let someone else worry about advancing collective welfare, we don't have any skin in the game for now.

 

[Excalibur]

Misanthropic Socialist is an oxymoron. Socialism is humanist through and through and has from the beginning been about improving the human condition, defending human rights, collectivizing humanity ect.

A true misanthrope either supports totalitarian aristocracy in which he and a few like-minded individuals rule over the normie cattle masses or individualistic anarchy in which it is every man for himself.

 

[WeirdPanda]

A true misanthrope either supports totalitarian aristocracy in which he and a few like-minded individuals rule over the normie cattle masses or individualistic anarchy in which it is every man for himself.

Asking whether you can be a leftist and a misanthrope at the same time is like asking if you can be a leftist and nihilist at the same time. Essentially you come around to the conclusion that to sustain a "totalitarian aristocracy" you'd need to reinforce the formation of an intellectual elite so that you could control the "normie cattle prole masses" into becoming war fodder and a controlled unpriviliged workforce majority. That would require a level of natalism which is certainly not a misanthropic ideal to uphold.

You could also argue that individualistic anarchies would just devolve into tribal society with warlords and slaves and all the like. And we just come back to what we stated before about a level of human life worth being needed to keep that around. You'd be putting values on human lives which would justify them being sold or genocided or negotiated with and whatever.

I personally think that for a misanthrope all lives should technically have the same value or no value at all. That could either come through the destruction of hierarchies or the extinction of humanity. I'm up for both, both the annihilation of humanity and the destruction of all hierarchies sound like good ideas to me.

TLDR; Leftists advocate for total equality, and misanthropy advocates for the opposite. They're more similar than you'd think. Just one is optimistic and humanist while the other is pessimistic and anti-humanist.

 

[Chingaquedito]

Asking whether you can be a leftist and a misanthrope at the same time is like asking if you can be a leftist and nihilist at the same time. Essentially you come around to the conclusion that to sustain a "totalitarian aristocracy" you'd need to reinforce the formation of an intellectual elite so that you could control the "normie cattle prole masses" into becoming war fodder and a controlled unpriviliged workforce majority. That would require a level of natalism which is certainly not a misanthropic ideal to uphold.

You could also argue that individualistic anarchies would just devolve into tribal society with warlords and slaves and all the like. And we just come back to what we stated before about a level of human life worth being needed to keep that around. You'd be putting values on human lives which would justify them being sold or genocided or negotiated with and whatever.

I personally think that for a misanthrope all lives should technically have the same value or no value at all. That could either come through the destruction of hierarchies or the extinction of humanity. I'm up for both, both the annihilation of humanity and the destruction of all hierarchies sound like good ideas to me.

TLDR; Leftists advocate for total equality, and misanthropy advocates for the opposite. They're more similar than you'd think. Just one is optimistic and humanist while the other is pessimistic and anti-humanist.

 

[Blackpill Monk]

A true misanthrope either supports totalitarian aristocracy in which he and a few like-minded individuals rule over the normie cattle masses or individualistic anarchy in which it is every man for himself.

A true misanthrope will be a racial determinist darwinistic

 

[Wizardmaxxer]

What about anarchism

 

[eye4139]

What about anarchism

though leftists will disagree with this, anarchism is fundamentally anti-lefist.
the true distinction in the political spectrum is state and anti-state. left wing people advocate for more state the more left wing they are.
the hobbesian myth of Homo Homini Lupus is the leftist basis for the justification of political authority, the state. it rests upon a fundamental distrust of individual human effort and mind.

 

[Hoor Al-Ayn]

What about anarchism

anarchism relies fundamentally on trusting human beings, so it could never be misanthropic

though leftists will disagree with this, anarchism is fundamentally anti-lefist.
the true distinction in the political spectrum is state and anti-state. left wing people advocate for more state the more left wing they are.
the hobbesian myth of Homo Homini Lupus is the leftist basis for the justification of political authority, the state. it rests upon a fundamental distrust of individual human effort and mind.

I'm not an anarchist but it seems most anarchists in history have identified with the left (Makhnovschina comes to mind). You can define left or right however you want, but it seems more common to define it as pro capitalism vs pro communism, hence why fascists and alike call themselves "third position" ("Neither capitalism nor communism"), the other common way to define it is progressivism vs conservatism.

 

[eye4139]

anarchism relies fundamentally on trusting human beings, so it could never be misanthropic

I'm not an anarchist but it seems most anarchists in history have identified with the left (Makhnovschina comes to mind). You can define left or right however you want, but it seems more common to define it as pro capitalism vs pro communism, hence why fascists and alike call themselves "third position" ("Neither capitalism nor communism"), the other common way to define it is progressivism vs conservatism.

>most anarchist have identified with the left
most self identified "anarchist" are oxymoronic and morally disgusting.
they, the left wing "anarchist", are anti-capitalists, i.e. anti individual control of property, in favor of collective control. they essentially believe in a collective mind, a general will of some sort, which must be infallible and always right. it is a totalitarianism enforced by the collective against the individual, because the collective will is always right thus any individual dissent must be wrong and rectified by the collective. It is irrelevant whether they profess hate towards the state as it is now, because in their system, the mob becomes the state, defined as the apparatus for compulsion and coercion.
their rejection of private property is an attack on self ownership and negative liberty itself.
aside from the obvious moral issues with such system, it is also incredibly inefficient and unstable which is why there's never been an attempt at establishing ancom that lasted for more than a few years.

>you can define left or right however you want but it seems more common to define it as pro capitalism vs pro communism
which is pretty much what I have said. Capitalism is the rejection of the state, public, intervention in the private affairs.
The communists' idea of "freedom" is of a more rousseau-ish character whereby you are free in participating in the collective, and if you don't follow the "general will", you must be "forced to be free". if you notice, any leftist, communist, socialist, and the such, always and without exception advocate for more state intervention. never mind their fairy tales of the state "withering away" after enough dictatorship has been enacted. theirs is a fundamentally totalitarian ideology. it is collective vs individual.

>progressivism vs conservatism
the issue stands in what one is trying to conserve. in conserving the natural order founded upon natural law and rights, one is technically a conservative, and yet one will find himself in bitter disagreement with modern self-professed "conservatives"

 

[eye4139]

TLDR
left wing "anarchists" are retards and glorify the destruction of negative rights

 

[|R12|]

TLDR
left wing "anarchists" are retards and glorify the destruction of negative rights