I think I’m starting to understand why I loathe the “other left”.
I mean fundamentally, they’re pretty close to my believes. They also want equality, education for everyone, are against big corporations. Yet there’s also a fundamental difference and I think I can put my finger on that. To illustrate, here’s a tweet of someone who qualifies as part of that group. The tweets around it put it into context, but that one alone practically show the difference between us. What I mainly mean is the racist part. Capitalism isn’t racist, it’s just problematic. I share the idea of capitalism being way to predominant in this world, absolutely. Single individuals or even certain groups shouldn’t be able to exert as much power as they do with their money. See for example Soros or Goldman Sachs who can influence countries. But even on a smaller scale, lobbyists heavily influence politicians whereas common folk have nothing. But capitalism isn’t racist. Looking at Europe more than 100 years back, it already existed and extremely profitable for the rich. Those who owned capital could determine who gets work and who doesn’t. It was a completely onesided display of power, even though it was a lot more homogenous than it is now. Capitalists don’t care about skincolor, not at all. All they want is success. That’s the nature of a successful person who made it big. Thinking otherwise leads to very different conclusions.
Incidentally, I also don’t think capitalism is THE evil of the world. Capitalism and democracy both shape our western world, yet they both have fundamental flaws in their current state. Democracy only represents a few, not the majority. Capitalism at its core leads to very badly distributed wealth. Yet we don’t have good alternatives. Money in itself is a good tool to trade goods. And I honestly think capitalism could work out in some way, albeit very regulated. Financial capitalism would need to be abolished altogether or at least made unprofitable. Banks in general should be a lot more regulated to not lend out money as they want to generate more. And so on
Anyway, there’s still the main problem with that line of thought like I described above: It doesn’t lead to equality. Currently the popular political believe is that of the evil white man who ruled for way too long, so we need others in power now. To have diversity. Let them be black, female, disabled, trans, gay. It doesn’t matter as long as they aren’t cis, white and male. They don’t even need to be president, other high positions are also accomplishments. They completely disregard political diversity. Well not completely, even they didn’t wanted to see the warmongering Hillary Clinton in office. Yet these very people celebrate every time a “special” person accomplishes something, as if their sexuality has something to do with it. Sure I want to live in a world where sexuality doesn’t interfere with your career, much like I don’t want the church to interfere with politics. But forcing it isn’t good either. It’s racist, sexist, ablist, etc. Exactly what they’re trying to fight.
This fight for the underdog is sickening. Helping those you deem oppressed only helps those you deem oppressed, of course. That left only thinks of good guys vs bad guys. They’re the obvious good guys, flawless in their views, others are the bad guys. Those who are oppressed need to helped. They completely miss out on the fact, that they need to identify these first. To identify them, they need to specify who is oppressed. So first you claim who is oppressed, then you identify those, then you help them. That’s exactly what I hate about that idea. It’s not really about equality, otherwise you’d just help just about anyone who needs help. It’s like telling a young white boy with alcoholic parents living in poverty “I’m sorry, we don’t have any programs for you, we can’t help you”. Just because he fits the same criteria as Trump, Bush, Gates, etc. doesn’t mean he’s as well off as them. (Mind you, it’s also mind-boggling how women who take up more than half the population are deemed oppressed. I doubt many of them feel actively oppressed in the western world.)
Extending an arm to those in need is what brings equality. It’s the very thing Jesus did. He helped others indiscriminately, not based on sex, origin or whether they were missing a limb.
But that all is pretty much the difference between my equality to theirs. Theirs is a more authorian approach, since someone has to determine whether a group is (still) oppressed or not. Praising and glorifying those who accomplished something “despite” being a women, black person, etc also implies that it is to be expected from those who aren’t of those categories. Say a girl comes out on the top of her year in mathematics, she’d be praised for that. But in the first place, she can only be praised for that, because it’s seen as a boys thing. Her accomplishment in itself isn’t any more praiseworthy as that of the boys before her, every year.