I can’t identify myself as a ‘leftist’, if for no other reason because of leftism’s classic infatuation with ‘work’ and with the silly belief in an ideal “worker’s state” as the endpoint of human history.
That’s not completely what the left is about. That’s a straight old school definition of Left. The left at this point is anti fascism/exploitation whether it’s government or corporate (I know, what’s the difference, right?)
These ideas are better explained in Bob Black’s short essay [url http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/bob-black-the-abolition-of-work]“The Abolition of Work,” or in the longer “Anarchy After Leftism.” I generally agree with his definition of labor as “compulsory production,” and agree that is behind much of the worst aspects of 21st century life.
His piece reads like tongue in cheek and even says he’s Serious and joking… although what he’s going on about is Utopian communism. Even though he tries to trash Karl Marx by incorrectly explaining communism in certain spots. (Communism doesn’t operate under bureaucrats it operates on the will of the citizen, there is no panel or board or superior panel that makes decision, that is socialism and not the same as communism.)
Now, if by leftist you mean “egalitarian,” I’m closer in spirit to that, but, when making judgment calls, I never assume that someone’s status as either a privileged majority or oppressed minority should take precedence over their individual merit.
Then that would make you no where close to Egalitarian… At least when it comes the supreme court vote.
As to conspiracy theory - well…for the major ‘conspiracies’ like the ‘9-11 inside job’ theory, Hanlon’s Razor explains my stance on all that stuff pretty well (that is, “never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”)
So you think al queda was stupid and not actually mad at the ‘Great Satan?’
And I’m not sure it’s just naked paranoia that I feel the government does apparently “nice”, ethical things as a means of ‘damage control’ to keep from being criticized for more unpopular actions.
What? Seriously, do you know how silly that is? “Oooh we’ll get the supreme court to throw the queers a bone that way we can get the senate to impose martial law in the nation…” It doesn’t work like that. the branches are separate for a reason. Now, if you have a situation like W had where the congress is stacked in your favor and you can get enough appointees on the supreme court that lean in your favor, I could see a situation like the one yer talking about because all of the branches would be tilted in favor of one party and would effectively destroy the checks and balances but that’s not the situation. and if it was the situation they certainly wouldn’t have to appease the masses to do what they wanted.