Great British New Left

Self Insert "People can really believe anything these days!" - Ismism This page is meant to represent MrNoNonsense's political views. Please do not make any major edits without their permission.

Great British New Left
The Workers councils, the members of committee, the acting premier, and the trade union congress has deemed you a traitor to the state. your 4-star apartment awaits for you. I'd say do not resist, but we know you won't.
Basic Information
Aliases	Marxism-Post-Corbynism Wishful-Thinkingism Hauntological L/Acc Militant Tendencies Second Coming Armchair British Revolutionary User Aliases (add if you want) Nouvelle Union Populaire écologique et sociale but in the UK Champagne Socialist Opportunistic Revisionist Rightist Reformist Petit Bourgeois Opportunist Bourgeois Rightist Renegade Fellow Renegade Armchair High Kautsky with Bri'ish characteristics Ultimately one of the least annoying Brits I know (jk you're awesome sauce.) True Socialist from sweet Manchester Narco-Labourism Robbery on steroids Corbyn and Fisher’s Intelligent Love Child The secret second leader of the Artel Gang Future-Oriented Labourism
Alignments	Left Unity  Communists  Culturally Revolutionary Futurists  Socialists  Democratic
Ideological Influences
Influenced by	Jeremy Corbyn Tony Benn Antonio Gramsci Rosa Luxemburg Vladimir Lenin Mark Fisher Yoda8soup Guy Debord Jefbol (Partially ) HelloThere
Influenced	The Artel Gang

"emancipatory politics must always destroy the appearance of a ‘natural order’, must reveal what is presented as necessary and inevitable to be a mere contingency, just as it must make what was previously deemed to be impossible seem attainable."

Mark Fisher

The Great British New Left is a theoretical Marxist and Fisherite Movement advocated by MrNoNonsense involving the Technological overthrow of the British Government by Any and all means. These beliefs are largely centred around the British Labour Party, which it sees as a sufficient host to supply the movement. Culturally, the movement advocates for a complete Separation of the Church of England from the state, the Advancement of worker's condition through body augmentation , and the reform of sensationalized media. Socially, the movement advocates for a new social path, reconciling the Cultural left movement of the day to form a new, technologically oriented counter-culture movement, and economically, it takes a Planned Market approach to socialism, seeing the market not as a way to make capitalism 'friendlier', but as a way to enhance the condition of the working class in the new society until markets can be done away with.

The little ideology sprite things: (/////)

I'll write about my influences from Fisher, Gramsci and Debord at a later date.

Beliefs

Economic Policy

Taxation

Taxation must be punitive on the upper class in society. Taxes will be separated by goal; some taxes will exist for the purpose of revenue, and other taxes will exist for the purpose of restricting usage (I.e carbon taxes, taxes on dangerous narcotics and other drugs). Both taxes will be utilised to stagnate the growth of private industry in to fit rigidly in line with the New Economic Policy, which will see limited private industry flourish within state bounds for the purpose of developing the industrial conditions needed for a proper socialistic revolution.

Government Spending

Most Social Care and welfare institutions would be brought under state control- in the early days, private healthcare and private education will exist and flourish for the purpose of temporarily creating a gap in quality of care between the two (the government will pay for attendance of these institutions if it is ruled this level of care is required), but eventually the National Healthcare Service will be expanded and it's private shares will be bought off.

Case Study: Alleviating The Cost Of Living Crisis

Starting hypothetically tomorrow, the movement would immediately remove the ban on onshore wind farms, institute a windfall tax to pay for new green energy infrastructure, and begin the nationalisation of the small gas companies that have been cooperating with Putin's russia. They would then start instituting further taxes on BP and Shell, and use the income generated from that to start a green new deal, providing a revitalisation of the energy industry, supported by the nationalisation of United Utilities, which should ease the burden on the people suffering the most from the crisis.

Social Policy

The Rights of an Individual

The Equality acts protections do not go far enough in ensuring the safety of Transgender and Genderqueer individuals from discrimination. Womens-only training courses will be offered in the short-term to culturally move the myth that women are less skilled than men, and an enforced elimination of the gender pay gap in state institutions will be implemented. Reported cases of pay gaps will be taken seriously, and will be a topic that can be addressed with the relevant union (likely the TUC, which will become an empowered organisation.)

The Blue and The Black

Alternative Right and Alternative Lite discourse ignores basic biological factual information. It ignores the inherent fact that 'Nature', as it so seeks to appeal to, is a phenomenon. It is not fact. What is natural is simply what has changed, and what will likely change again. This 'State Of Nature' they pray to like a false deity is as nonexistent as their perceived supremacy. As File:ContraPointsism.png Someone else wisely put, 'When someone attacks someone specifically, they are not to be persuaded, they are to be defeated'.

The Pink, and it's relation to the Yellow

'Social Justice Warriorism' is a uniquely false notion. Truly, there is no unified movement that makes these people one group, merely innocent people who have been misled and polarised by an aggressive capitalistic media state. Capitalism created this movement to counter it's own creation, the aforementioned alternative lite. The fight between the two was created to serve capitalism, to sell a t-shirt, a bumper sticker, or a subscription service. Put simply, it "is not a collection of images, but a social relation among people, mediated by images.”

The Church

I am no longer a Catholic. The Church as an institution, and all churches as institutions exist to prolong their own stays, and create fanatics complicit in their own subjugation. Morality is a myth propagated by church institutions on the simple basis of "they have always been propagated". While morality can serve the state in some instances, in most circumstances all it does is highlight the hypocrisy in the oppression of the ruling class that demonised the labour movements of the day as "immoral" and "godless". Short-term the state shall be secular, long term atheist, and end term godless entirely.

Case Study: The Culture War

The Culture War is produced as a byproduct of Capitals insistence on this fight between two sides, both blinded to the truth of the matter. They are being puppeteered, funded by each other, by corporate opposition, with the unified goal of marketeering around the conflict. Capital doesn't get involved in this dispute, after all, "The role of capitalist ideology is not to make an explicit case for something in the way that propaganda does, but to conceal the fact that the operations of capital do not depend on any sort of subjectively assumed belief." Capital does not need to partake directly, but merely hint that they have taken a side to appeal to a certain audience, and profit massively. Truly, the brunt of the issue is, WE have been fooled by this narrative. It is US who are taking the blame for their misdeeds. Because a nation divided over whether or not a drag queen should be reading to children (Which by the way, who the fuck cares), is NOT divided over whether or not Capitalism has a right to exist at all.

Foreign Policy

Preface: The Nation

I would like to start this by stating what i believe to be a non-contradiction. I detest the nation. I detest the nation-state. In spite of this, i am a nationalist, and i actively support nationalists and nationalism. How, you may ask? Simple. The way the world has evolved, the way the situation in which we live has developed, the nation is nothing short of a complete and utter requirement. Otherwise would be, i believe, as far as the current system dictates, Currently impossible. Thoroughly. In fact, I believe the nation is such a requirement that I believe that to be a nationalist is the only viable option as of here and now. Ideally, a nation would not exist, but ideals are idealised, and the cold, bitter reality is that to survive in a world of wolves feasting on weak carcasses, to be proud of yourself is an option to which no alternative exists. The nation, despite it's socially constructed nature, is needed. In essence, to this part, I am simultaneously an Alternate Globalist and a Universal Nationalist. Make of this what you will, Being either puts you in my favour.

The People

Ethnicity, however, is not. What truly separates man from itself? It's shared culture and experiences? Or do you believe that the root cause of separation runs skin deep, that one pigment is 'better off' than another. Truly, the only thing that seperates man in observable science, is the labels we have attached to ourselves, to describe certain behavioural similarities in groups. Harmless, of course. But it has the potential to cause unspeakable harm, segregation, enslavement, inferiority in numbers, terrorism, genocide, and mass death in the name of one group over all the others. But for now, all this potential for misery remains locked away behind one powerful single word. 'British'. 'Frisian'. 'French'. Let us keep these words the same for now, and pray to above that they will never again activate to violent effect.

The Great Political Binary

West, East. Rich, Poor. First, Second and Third. Both corrupted by the very nature of the ideals that their ancestors tried to instill onto them. The Americans have taken the role of the British Empire, flipping places to their side on the very whim, revelling in pure unadulterated capitalism leaving nothing but waste and despair in their path. The Russians, the Chinese, have inherited the legacy of their founding autocracy, truly, the spirit of tsar and emperor never left the two countries. With such a large number of people and land respectively, Autocracy comes geographically natural to the two powers, leaving the world in a standoff between worse and worse yet, mediocre and deathly. What is right is sacrificed in the name of who is on our side, and who isn't. I want britain to play no further part in this charade.

Case Study: Ukraine

Imagine yourself being a Ukrainian refugee. Starving, Hopeless, alone. Forced to leave your home because of circumstances out of your control. Now imagine yourself being a citizen of Donetsk or Donbas. Similarly, you are in destitution by an incompetent puppet government paraded by Putin's autocratic regime. But you are not ukrainian, no. You speak russian, and you live a russian life. To you, to be Russian is not a question of being allied to Putin's regime, but simply being who you are. I refuse to support Putin's illegal invasion into Ukraine, but similarly, I refuse to allow for the oppression of the russian minority within Ukraine. Universal Nationalism is universal. If a group wants freedom, and can prove so, it must be granted. Of course, i wish for this to be under a different russian government, but Ukraine's hand in this issue has gone far enough. Ukraine has tried and failed multiculturalism. Should ukraine be punished for any action? No, they are being invaded. In conclusion, Russia's war in ukraine comes first, Russian people's right to whatever sovereignty they want will, and I mean will, come afterwards.

Civic Policy

The Government

The primary goal of a governmental system should be to serve the people. This remains true even after my rereading of Lenin's State And Revolution; the state exists to serve the working class. Society will be governed largely by workers councils (likely organised under the TUC or a similar more state run institution) that will make local decisions for business and local areas, essentially embodying Lenin's original idea for democratic centralism, while also emphasising the importance of workers co-operatives in the new society. Long term, unions will be phased out as the state itself will be representative of it's people, but this will be done peacefully. Every arm of government will be subject to critique by any citizen, and this will be co-ordinated via these worker's councils.

The People

The idea of the people controlling the country in bourgeois democracy is a laughable notion- the bourgeois know what they did when they created representative democracy- they created a system in which people would be discouraged from seeking other options, and no change would be possible because no major party wanted change. They created the ultimate parasite- a system where nothing could fundamentally change. This is not democracy, this is a dictatorship. This is a rule of the Neoliberal Capitalist Realism for the benefit of the front bench, who line their pockets with gold. No more! The only way the people can be truly represented is with a system governed by them on the local level, but representing them on the executive level- a proletariat democracy, if you will.

Case Study: The Houses Of Parliament

Parliament, immediately, would be digitalised. In-person meetings would be restricted to times of emergency, and PMQs, voting on bills, and parliamentary discussion will all be conducted online. Then, the house of lords would be abolished completely, replaced by a house of workers, the individual councils that governs Britain, their numbers as large or as small as is liked- these councils will not be ruled by individual representatives, but would rather submit their opinions on votes digitally in council meetings that can be attended by anyone online or in person. The institution of "parliamentary members" would be completely reworked- these individuals would now serve in a house of representatives by the edge of a knife, at the whim of the people who voted for them. the decision to vote them out would be as simple as an electronic vote. using electronic voting, safeguarded by harsh penalties for electronic electoral interference, all votes would be conducted in much quicker fashion. as a result, representatives would not be expected to serve full terms, creating a dynamic in which the people hold at their disposal the complete control over who represents them in government. All of this would be overseen by a vanguard party which would be neatly divided into factions- whichever of these factions leads at any given time would be irrelevant as all conditions presented by the factions will have been overseen and voted on by all other members.

Cultural Policy

Preface: On Culture

Culture does not exist. As a concept, a culture is completely made up. Yet a culture is not something that can be done away with as it's development is simply how human beings function, and it is expressed differently in every single individual. As a result of this, culture will be defined by the state and used to it's maximum potential- the most creative, the most exciting, and importantly, the most new, a culture can possibly be.

Neo-Proletkulk

Proletkult was an interesting channel for analysing culture and art and how the two interacted, and it's ideas were worth investigating, but it did not go far enough. The Proletkult should use it's research into art and culture to encourage the rewriting of cultural norms and art boundaries; it should have become a new expression for culture instead of being satisfied with making culture 'flashier'. Proletkult as a concept should embrace an ever changing new, and use it to engage in exciting developments with art, history, culture and the way we see these things develop. moreover, proletkult should have had more power in deciding how these things looked- this should never come to the point where proletkult dictates how culture should look, like with all arms of government Proletkult would govern at the whim of it's members, who could be completely anyone in a profession it covers. Through a state-run avenue for cultural expression and innovation, development of these ideas will undeniably thrive as they did in Soviet Russia's early years.

Reading List

I've Read more than this, this is a WIP. This is written in the order I read them.

Manifesto Of The Communist Party

Best described nowadays as a communism primer, nothing more. I didn't understand it the first time I read it, so I re-read it two years ago. 8/10.

Homage to Catalonia

While Orwell accurately describes his experiences, he does so in a pompous and arrogant way- as though he is above the syndicalists for having retrospective on revolutions. Doesn't bode well for his later work. 5/10.

History of the Russian Revolution

For an active participant Trotsky is very good at making an objective statement of the facts of the revolution. I received this book as a loan from a friends mother, who was a huge Russophile. 9/10 for history, 7/10 for ideological connotations.

Capitalist Realism: is there no alternative?

The first book that actually made me take a step back and think about politics. Reading this, I questioned almost everything I had been taught. Further readings of Fisher only made it more apparent that I had gone too far down the rabbit hole to return to Democratic Socialism. 10/10.

The State and Revolution

Lenin articulates his frustrations with contemporary socialism very well here. Furthermore I believe his solutions are pragmatic, workers soviets before october were effective, and his other proposals (The Vanguard, namely) are still relevant today. 8/10.

Relations

I've gutted this so i can begin to add people onsite.

100% Invited to the coalition

• Rocksism - There is a unique history to anarchism on the wiki, I'm sure you would agree; of course, I've never found myself particularly partial to the ideas of anarchism, but as far as the wiki is concerned, there is a legacy to it. Airisu left, O'Lang retired and Ashley is gone. You are the lost generation of PCB leftwing anarchists. And the massive amount of influence that I have taken from your page? I feel comfortable saying that you are the best anarchist on PCB currently, hands down. Economically, you can just take all I said about Yoda and just magnify it. I just might read synthesis anarchism.
• Sundog - The Bolshevik movement must accept both the writings of Bogdanov and Lenin to even hope of surviving. We both use Proletkult, and although my use of it is driven by my desire to create an ever-progressive march forward using state run culture and arts facilities to do it, we both use it in the same way and both see it as the driving force behind our beliefs. The man i recommend to you is one Mark Fisher. In any event, you are overwhelmingly correct. I prefer my post-postmodernism to metamodernism though since Postmodernism is the vehicle through with capital today acts and defends itself.
• Bernheism - Ah, you. Onlookers viewing in may wonder why I'd even bother placing someone who seems so contrary to my beliefs so close to the top, but that is a surface level analysis. The truth is, Henderson is a man who understands the system in all it's diversities. Henderson understands how capital uses culture to manipulate society, yet he wants to utilise it instead of break it. He knows how the media creates spectacles to breed conformity and hysteria with the end goal of profit, but he seeks to enhance this function instead of eradicate it. He knows capital reinforces its own critique, Henderson would be the first one out at a leftist protest selling Guevara T-shirts. It was when you had put as a title "Realism forevermore" that I properly understood exactly why I like your ideology so much- we share the same analysis to the letter. You and I are playing the same game, except one of us wants to destroy it, and one of us wants to own it. Let's play together. You'll be spared when it all comes crashing down around you. Let's have some fun.
• Psychocommunism - The apprentice. I don't disagree with you on anything, whatsoever. Our one disagreement is on the labour party, so instead of showering you with the praise I shower you with every day, I'll address that. Labour was born from a cultural movement. It was born from the disgruntled working people, and if manoeuvred right, we very much could purge the factions and return it to it's days of glory. My reason for doing so is that the revitalisation of the Labour Movement would be a great place to then implement cultural reform, as PART of labour reform. Moreso, that party's ghosts have been expunged, Hardie's influence over labour has been exorcised. Cut out of our own party. Through Hardie, this party is the birthright of the working people. We can take it back. We must take it back.We will take it back.
• Post-Camelism - Ah, camel. You lovable scamp. You bastard you. I have attempted to justify my entryism before in ways that have proven so futile that I myself have found myself starting to reject the practice, as you know of course. But I will attempt to explain my entryism here. The proletariat as it currently exists in Britain believes, falsely, that the party that economically represents them is the Labour party. For the people of Britain, it is easier to imagine the conservatives becoming a socialist party than for another socialist party to exist. Does it not logically follow, then, that if the Labour and Co-Operative party led a vanguard for the British people, at least for those people, it would be less of a stretch than the rise of a new party? One of the biggest problems that Galloway's workers party faces is that the left in britain often disagree with his conservatism, which means the only votes he can really get are muslims upset about Palestine. Britain's material conditions forbid any party from claiming the mantle of the working class because of the usurpation of Labour, what I propose is fuelled by democratic nostalgia for certain, but is also, at least partially, a pragmatic decision. Although, as I say, I'm beginning to have my doubts. Camel, you're fantastic. If it weren't for you, I don't know what I'd even believe in. Our debates have been some of my personal favourites. Keep being that strange Ohioan androgynous queen that all of those girls at the mental hospital think you are.

Invited to the coalition

• Venatrixism - Such a shame that Mr Boleque turned you into a liberal, get well soon lucy <3
• Dankeism - Utopians, utopians everywhere! Accept that you won't be able to achieve anything by using their apparatus! I might be aligned towards being anti-praxis these days, but I can't stand here and watch you stumble through social democracy! You can aspire to more, you just need to have faith in our ability to do so! The working class doesn't have to beg when it can bargain. Think on it.
• Nuriskianism - I'm more left-quarkist than you, smh 🚬
• HelloThere314ism - I feel as though there isn't much I can really say, I'm on a time constraint here so I'm going off of part one of "Stirner's new critics" and the info off of your page. As per usual, I love your anti-essentialism. Anti-Essentialism should be the basis of most ideological thought, and escape from the comforts of the "Spiritual" are priority. Of course, there is no point in me restating that I don't understand enough about Stirner, but from what i've read of SNC, he does seem to make a degree of sense. Also, although it's not to my preferences, communism of the abolition of social mediation is very, very commendable. While I still lean on the establishment of a new system, I agree with your stance on it being a societal issue worth devoting that much time to. All in all, you are very knowledgeable, you inspired me to read more theory, and you're still just a very chill guy. With most people, I have times where I doubt their knowledge on a topic, I don't really think I've ever had that with you.
• Meowxism - The degenerate aspects of your personality (a strong opener, I know, but I mean what I say here as a compliment) indicate a step in the right direction, yet I sometimes feel as though the root of your progressivism stems from a more liberal progressive past point as opposed to some revolutionary queer liberation. The outcome, of course is the same so this is a bit of a nitpick. I feel as though your analysis is undercut by a dislike of vague "revisionism", which I commented on when I was a democratic socialist. My statement then, that revision is the basis of science, still remains relatively true to my current opinion of your ideology. Marxism-Leninism is a dated interpretation of how the material conditions of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat should look, and for alternatives, perhaps it would be worth reading some early Lenin. Marx, again, is outdated in his hegelian dialectics, and to "revise" so to speak, this, would allow for a much more nuanced analysis. Material conditions, and the general idea of Oppressor and Oppressed, of course, remain true, but I know you can broaden your horizons beyond that. In summary, you're better than this, but this in of itself isn't the worst.

Invited to the coalition with skepticism

• Neo-Glencoeism - I had already held you to your former insert's standards last time i wrote this, so i will not inhibit my criticisms once again with that little disagreement. Outside of what i did used to agree with, you have maintained the culturally progressive politics that allow me to tolerate any right wing tendencies, and I respect that your current ideology is much more mature in it's belief than it's predecessor. However, you have become something idolized by the right as what 'a leftist should look like', which is a hilarious notion, i am sure you will admit.
• Liberal Feudalism - I have to say, in the state I see this page there isn't much to like. In terms of economics there's something of a lacklustre commitment to antiquated ideas of "distribution" and feudalism that I just simply don't see as viable in today's society. Civically, most of the fat of monarchy and confederation can be trimmed to make way for something more ergatocratic, but I suppose I take what I can get. As I've discussed with you, you're really, in this state something of a cultural nostalgic without any of the analysis. However, having said that, I feel that your next ideological endeavor will be much more... interesting.

Would have better luck joining the BNP

• Ziółkowskiizm - 'Irredentism for me, but not for thee.'
• Charming Romanticism - Sorry dawg I'm afraid the nazi race and ethnicity classification is rooted in false sciences based on coincidences, and I'm afraid that there is no (hau)(o)ntological basis for the belief in hyperborea or any of the other esoteric nazi ideology. I can respect esoteric thought due to it's efficiency as a method of control, but that's like, basically it in terms of props I can give you. Any philosophical figures we may share are probably just because we interpret them differently. I'm sorry, messard, but fuck your beliefs dawg.

Comments

HelloThere314 - Add me?

Venatrixism - add me

• You're quick man

Neo-Glencoeism - add me please

• - Okay, but don't wipe me from your comments this time :D
  • I will add once I find time and motivation to do so
    • I get that
•  BERNHEism - Add me please.
• Vistulism - add pls comrade
•  Meadowsin's Basilisk - add me? :)
• Brazilian Liberalism - Guess who changed his beliefs and wants to be added?...
  • Not you, hopefully.
    • Brazilian Liberalism - Can you add me at least? :)