EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- How the US Turned Three Pacifists into Violent Terrorists
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Revealed: How US State Department 'Twists Arms' on Monsanto's Behalf
Popular content
Today's Top News
What's Left of the American Left?
There's no denying its historic decline, but the left does not lack for issues. It needs only organization.
"In contradiction" best describes the American left today. On the one hand, it is fragmented and dispirited, feeling itself distant from the tumble of daily US politics and acutely disgusted by its many-layered corruptions. It hardly knows itself as a part of society, so deep runs its alienation. After all, leftists, too, are affected by the mass media's wishful pretense that the American left has simply disappeared and the extreme right's paranoid caricatures that recycle 1950s McCarthyism.
An estimated 100,000 people gathered at the state capitol in Madison, Wisconsin on Saturday 26 February 2011 to protest Governor Scott Walker's budget bill that would remove collective bargaining rights from public employees. (Photograph: AP Photo/Wisconsin State Journal, John Hart)
And yet, the US left is actually quite strong and getting stronger by the minute. Very many young people find far more meaning in the left social criticisms of Jon Stewart, Bill Maher and Stephen Colbert than they do in the stale Republican or Democratic activities that those popular comedians mock. The devotees of much current popular music want and respond to lyrics rich with social criticism. The assaults of the right in the US on access to abortion, on civil rights and civil liberties, on the separation of church and state, and on immigrants, are less and less suffered in silent resentment and increasingly opposed by a revived left criticism and activism. From the mass mobilizations of immigrants to the outpouring of support for the embattled public employees in Wisconsin to the gatherings of support for Planned Parenthood, the US left's size, depth and diversity are evident.
The proportion of respondents polled about their religious affiliation who answer "none" is growing faster than any other group of respondents. As one famous philosopher wrote, "the criticism of society begins with the critique of religion." The million who marched in 2003 against the invasion of Iraq quietly persuaded a majority to make recent national polls repeated referenda against all three US wars (Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan).
The young are perhaps outraged most by the vulnerability and erosion of many social conditions they had taken for granted as permanent. Anger and activism are rising against the incapacity or unwillingness of the political establishment to restore those conditions. The radical generation of the 1960s, after middle years devoted to careers and families, is now returning to political engagement likewise to restore those conditions. That combination of rising youthful passion and political experience with mass radical action represents a potent mass base for a new US left political formation to emerge.
Organization is what the US left lacks. Not issues, not members, not a wide public audience: the US left now has all of them in abundance. Indeed, the economic crisis that exploded in 2008 – now becoming a social crisis because the "recovery" bypassed the majority that needed it most – has only enhanced that abundance. Yet, a deeply rooted and continuously nurtured aversion to unified organization undermines the US left's social influence and collective action at every turn. The decline of past left organizations – the socialist and communist parties, student groups such as SDS, SNCC, major segments of organized labor – has fostered a sense of the futility of organization. The demonization of those and other left organizations, by liberal as well as conservative voices, renders individual left thought and action sometimes acceptable but collective criticism and activity always deeply suspect.
The US left will become a political force with immense potential if it can generate and ally unified organizations able to mobilize and express their constituents' views and aspirations. Such allied organizations can enable the US left to reach and enlist the mass of the citizenry in left responses to the current economic/social crisis rather than the right responses of further social subservience to private business interests, further cutbacks of state services and employment, union-busting, etc. Only organization can yield the financial resources needed to defeat the current program of corporations and the rich that aims to return the US to the unequal income and wealth distributions of the late nineteenth century (with its concomitant politics and culture).
Solidarity – the theme of the 2011 Left Forum – was well chosen to suggest and inspire the US left's attention to this new imperative of organization.
Richard Wolff is appearing on several panels at the Left Forum 2011 conference, 18-20 March, at Pace University, New York. This week on the Guardian/UK, follow the series of articles on the theme of 'The new solidarity'
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
209 Comments so far
Show AllWhat a spectacle! A society fragmented by ever-increasing social divisions, each opposed to all the others by petty antipathies, uneasy consciences and brutal mediocrity, and all, precisely because of their mutual ambivalence and suspicion, treated (with minor formal variations) as if their very existence was a privilege that they owed to their rulers. And they are forced to recognize and acknowledge the fact that they are dominated, ruled and owned as a blessing from heaven! Situated above all these sectors are the rulers themselves, whose greatness is in inverse proportion to their number!
One of the big problems the left has in corporate controlled Amerika, is getting heard on the M$M. Two tea baggers that bump into each other on the street get full all out coverage, but 100,000 labor protestors get nary a mention on the M$M boob tube.
Aside from a few MSNBC shows, and a few NPR and PBS pieces here and there, M$M is a vast wasteland for any liberal ideas. Conservative selfishness is celebrated, while the liberal view that some things should be done for the common good of the people is vilified.
It is tough to change peoples minds when they cant even hear what you are saying.
The task of history is ... to establish the truth about this world once the otherworld has proved illusory. The immediate task of philosophy, which is in the service of history, is to unmask human self-alienation in its secular forms now that it has been unmasked in its sacred forms. Thus the critique of heaven is transformed into a critique of earth, the critique of religion into the critique of law, and the critique of theology into the critique of politics.
The MSM gave Madison all kinds of coverage. What's the problem? You want the whole newsblock? Most nights it was the lead-in story.
What are these liberal ideas you speak of that don't get attention? Look, your party has had ample opportunity to move important issues forward. Public option healthcare, ending these wars, rolling back the police-state, and bringing Wall Street criminals to justice. They didn't do any of these things because they didn't want to. These are YOUR leaders. Pile you bitching onto them, not the MSM. The MSM doesn't write the legislation nor do they do the voting.
Excuses, excuses, excuses.
What party do you assume Larsen is in? The central figures of the Democratic Party are to the right of the population on most issues--the various wars, money for social issues and education, the so-called "bailouts."
Why would the betrayal exercised by the Democratic command be a reason to not criticise news media for lying and misleading people by supporting the Dems and Pugs and *not* the left?
NC-Tom,
So true. Even on so called liberal shows. This week Bill Maher's guest panel of 3 had a Republican and a Tea Party person. 2 to 1, and the liberal wasn't all that liberal. More like a Clinton / Obama type.
We can talk about all the alternative media / social networking we want, but until we can actually get real sustained access to the large newspapers, national news magazines, and the television news and political talk shows the left is fighting an uphill, loosing battle.
take to the streets and boycot corporate dictatorship.
Is there a LEFT in the USA? If there was one, at least in significant numbers, we would have had a general strike by now and, most likely, ongoing general strikes, wild cat strikes, sympathy strikes. As things become progressively worse we can hope that so-called "liberals" become radicalized and discover/reclaim their militant working class consciousness. Forget the "middle class dream" for unending bourgeoise comforts as the ecosystems fail all around you and fight for a world of social and environmental justice for all.
We are a 'Nation of Sheep'. Just because you have 'liberal' or 'progressive' ideas doesn't mean you don't baaa as good as the next sheep. We are so used to being fleeced, I despair of any necessary reaction. A herd of sheep can trample wolves into the ground, but I've never heard of it happening.
…does any other country in the world share so naïvely all the illusions of the constitutional state without sharing any of its realities as does “constitutional” [America]?
Nicely done, BTW, Tom.
Just to let you know some of us are paying attention and understand and appreciate your work.
For a popular revolution to coincide with the liberation of a particular class of civil society, for one class to be acknowledged as the representative of the whole society, all the defects of society must be concentrated in another class, a particular class must be recognized as the general stumbling-block, embodying all the general limitations; a particular social class must be looked upon as the notorious crime of the whole society, so that liberation from that class appears as a general liberation. For one class to be the liberating class par excellence, another class must be clearly recognized as the class of oppression.
What's left of the American Left? Why, they're all here, jawing at each other. They have certain common themes in their hermetically sealed, self-regarding bubble, viz.:
There are certain common themes on this website: (i) those who are wealthy have stolen their wealth from the proletariat; (ii) both the Democrat and Republican parties are illegitimate and do not represent the people; (iii) the United States is not at all democratic (it's of course a federal republic and not a democracy ; (iv) Obama is Bush lite; (v) Bush was Hitler lite; (vi) Israel is a vile and repressive society (not wholly off the mark, but surely overstated); (vii) taxes on the rich are needed for income redistribution; and (viii) wealth derives from the proletariat's labor, not from ingenuity, creativeness, hard work or originality.
Hate to say it, but you are what's wrong with the American Left.
And, you are here doing ...what? Jawing? Moaning? Whining? Inciting?
I am so sick of this "hard work" crap.
There's usually a hard way or an easy (smart) way to do most anything.
If you're stupid enough to choose the hard way, you're stupid enough to be proud of it.
'(i) those who are wealthy have stolen their wealth from the proletariat; (ii) both the Democrat and Republican parties are illegitimate and do not represent the people; (iii) the United States is not at all democratic (it's of course a federal republic and not a democracy ; (iv) Obama is Bush lite; (v) Bush was Hitler lite; (vi) Israel is a vile and repressive society (not wholly off the mark, but surely overstated); (vii) taxes on the rich are needed for income redistribution; and (viii) wealth derives from the proletariat's labor, not from ingenuity, creativeness, hard work or originality'
That you're able to so succinctly summarize what you've learned from this site heartens me. I'm glad that you're now repeating what you have learned. You're obviously 'not one of us' _ however, you've got 'our' lessons all down pat, which means they're no longer just bouncing around in some 'hermetically sealed' echo chamber, they have broken free and penetrated the outer American world of ignorance and madness you represent.
Hello Zell,
Yes, our observer Horace has this site down pretty well, with perhaps a few exaggerations and distortions.
What's sad, though, is that he doesn't observe us talking about WHAT TO DO! And he's right about that; we compete to see who has the most clever put downs, of the system and of each other, but hardly anyone talks about DOING ANYTHING. Even now, as Richard Wolff is talking about the increase in various kinds of rebellion and of the need to organize it better, hardly anyone wants to talk about how to fan the flames. Instead, I see plenty of excuses: we don't own the media, and other such obvious drivel which people have been repeating since day one.
GOOD-BYE, my friends. Spring is here, and my job is turn garden community into all purpose mutual aid, decentralized into neighborhoods. I can't afford the time to chatter with people who don't want to talk about WHAT IS TO BE DONE.
", though, is that he doesn't observe us talking about WHAT TO DO! And he's right about that; we compete to see who has the most clever put downs, of the system and of each other"
That I can agree on and it happens on virtually every progressive/liberal blog. See my post "Posted by maxpayne Mar 14 2011 - 7:22pm" for more on this.
Hi Max,
I guess there are people who are out doing the work, and there are people who are commenting and criticizing; and there doesn't appear to be enough overlap between the two to create a sense of praxis, which is the back and forth interplay between theory and practice.
We can only hope that more people will experience a Wisconsin in their lives, so they will be drawn away from the screen to where they can see the steam rising from each others' breath.
And, oh - which post on March 14?
Regards, Laurence
Look for "Mar 14 2011 - 7:22pm" on this page. You can't miss it. Make sure you choose to display 300 comments per page so you won't have to flip pages per the default 50 comments. If you're still not seeing it, just let me know.
By the way, not all of us have to wait for a WI. I'm on my way to Quantico and DC to protest the treatment of Bradley Manning. He should be freed is my view. Another thing, this isn't too bad compared to other progressive blog sites.
You so funny. Take another Iron Cross from petty cash. You have earned it.
The point is to convey the stifling pressure that all the different social sectors exert on each other, the omnipresent apathetic ill-humor, the complacent, self-deluding narrowness of spirit, all incorporated in a system of government which lives by preserving all this wretchedness and which is itself nothing but wretchedness in office.
The proleteriat's labor is not hard work? Ingenuity never built anything, it only hired someone else to do it. Creativeness in ripping off your fellow humans is merely exploitation with it's own PR and originality usually just gets you ridiculed.
You, on the other hand, are merely a broken record of an off-key anthem shoved down the throats of anyone who can't run away.
If Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, and Stephen Colbert represent the "left" in the popular imagination, particularly that of the younger crowd, then we really are screwed. I would think there are lottery odds against the outcome that most of that crowd will even get within a country mile of any path to the genuine left, at least not without a great amount of pain and suffering first, and probably a few cataclysmic shocks as well.
Indeed. I used to watch all three, although I find Maher far more egregious than the other two. Maher is a shill for Democrats still and Obama (still) often. If he's ever advocated for a third party it has been fleetingly brief. His stance on Israel -- well, anyone who's watched Maher knows he is right there with the rest of the U.S. Corporate and Military Government and their two-headed party. According to Maher no one but those nasty Muslims had anything to do with 9-11. His rants on the Koran (particularly abhorrent this past Friday) and Bible as being books of hate, well, let's suffice it to say, he clearly only reads the parts of these books that extremists interpret. His religion is atheism -- religion because he is as extremist in his views as any extremist Muslim or Christian of any denomination, with no respect for the views of anyone else. I turned off the show after 10 minutes on Friday. He is best friends with Ann Coulter and A. Huffington. His show is, indeed, like the Huffington Post, in that it has -- with rare exceptions -- degenerated into a Dem v. Repub/Tea Party slugfest. Maddow I consider a mainstream guest. While Stewart and Colbert can still be very funny and right on the mark, Maher is really not funny, anymore, and, like his right counterpart Dennis Miller, he truly believes he is the cat's meow. And, last, although I'm sure Maher would disagree, I don't find him anything close to politically incorrect. Take out the language (Maher always tells his guests you can say that, it's HBO, as if that was real freedom of speech) and Maher would fit in very well on at least MSNBC. Maher censors his audience -- no danger of free speech there.
Last I watched any of these were last summer, but I think you're pretty on.
Thanks Kivals. I think Stewart and Colbert are pretty funny at least when they're not trying too hard, but they are not really "Left" in their politics. I mean, "Left" of what?They seem to be sort of touchy-feely center-liberals. Center-liberalism has always militantly opposed anything to its Left, out of rabid anti-communism and in response to the long history of Red scares in Europe and America. The debate is especially intense over war issues where center-liberals often side with the War Machine. Maher is, frankly, an asshole, with a snarky mouth but not much critical thinking or perspective. He's a self-declared libertarian who spent the Clinton years attacking Clinton and various real Lefties as being too "Politically Correct" (hence the name of his show). He's just clever enough to make his own ignorance amusing, at least to some people. All of them have said, "Hey, were just doing comedy!". If author Wolfe thinks high viewing numbers for those 3 indicate something about US political opinion, I think he must be desperate, although I suppose in times like these you settle for what you can get.
As for needing big organizations, Wolfe is right. The obstacles are huge however: state infiltration, provocateurs and stings; endless debates about "process", a residue of New Left suspicion regarding leaders, all-American individualism (I can carry whatever crazy-ass sign I want to the demo, even if it's incorrect and off-topic), a tendency of pre-existing Left sectarians to get in early, split and destroy coalitions over arguments unrelated to the business at hand ("we need to sign a statement in solidarity with Mumia before we go any further - and by the way, we want your mailing list"). This on top of all the time-consuming contact work getting people to show up and do something.
It's doable, I think, but we'd all have to be willing to stay focused and keep our eyes on the prize. No easy thing that.
The bottom line is: the Left wants a million things and the Right only wants one - profit.
We want one thing. Freedom.
It is their profit versus our freedom.
"Profit" is really the drive for social dominance, for power to control and dictate to others, as a way to relate to other human beings. That is slavery. We fight for freedom.
Well now you really lost me. This is kind of late in the game, so to speak, so I'll make it short. They want the freedom to profit in any way possible. That is what liberty means to the right. What you mean by freedon, you haven't defined. I'd like to be free of their games and social constraints. But they don't care about that kind of freedom.
Stewart and Colbert, like Maher, generally only spend time in so-called "left" or "liberal" territory that the corporate plutocrats have not deemed to be off-limits. They will spend a great deal of time with sexual issues and gender issues, which apparently are considered non-threatening by the powers that be, but very little time with issues concerning health care, the right to an education, property rights, economic fairness and labor issues, the MIC, or foreign policy, including the wars.
This is because such identitiy issues gird the Right's strategy that it is not us against them, but you against me.
Interesting that the author names SDS as one example to butress his point. But one needs to only take a look at where those same individuals are today: Barbra Enrich, Hayden, Glover, the Nation, including Nichols (to name only a handful), are all great supporters of the Obama Adminstration through their pre and post advocacy of the corporate tramp. I suppose this is just another example of a call to unite under the impotancy banner of "pushing Obama and Dems to the Left." Astonishing how these recycled meme's get any traction at all...
The Left is Dead. I was part of the 60's Revolt. I know what that felt like. I know what I saw. I remember what we did. I feel nothing in the air at the present time that remotely resembles that time of leftist foment. It has been thoroughly and completely Co-opted. The $MSM$ has done the dirty deed. The Unions have sought only their own partisan advantage and that rendered them totally co-opted, then busted. The Left is Dead.
A radical revolution that would bring about universal human liberation is not a utopian dream for [America]; what is utopian is to envision a partial, merely political [American] revolution, a revolution that would leave the pillars of the building standing.
I was there too and it was sad to see "the revolution" dissolve once the draft was ended -- a real motivating factor in the radicalization of college students -- and in the wake of self-infatuated violent fool groups such as The Symbionese Liberation Army.
By the mid 70s, it was all gone and I miss it to this day.
ALL of the American left is intact --
If the question is, who has stolen power in America through political
violence, assassinations -- stolen elections -- and lies, then the answer
is that the right wing controls it.
This is a liberal nation -- which explains why the right has such a glaring
necessity to control all media -- from radio/TV to newspapers, mags and
publishing houses -- and libraries. Every bit of truth is a threat to their
lies.
nicely done they surveyed the 60s
analyzed where they almost lost it
and formulated the counterrevolution
1st, eliminate fairness doctrine...
get rid of independent radio and
coopt the music scene getting rid
of antiwar music... etc etc
What has killed the left, and what continues to kill the left, is the Democratic Party. In the popular imagination, the Democratic Party and its kowtowing to corporate interests and its imperialist foreign policy is what passes for "Left" in political discourse. The Democratic Party is and always has been the graveyard of progressive social movements, as it co-opts those movements for the purpose of taming and controlling them. Meanwhile, ostensible leftists shoot themselves in the foot by embracing lesser-evilism and end up supporting the Democrats with every election cycle. As long as this continues to happen, the left will never organize.
Consider the election of 2004, when a massive anti-war movement was brewing, when anti-war demonstrations could draw 100,000 people to the streets in cities like LA and New York. What happened to that movement? Well, the activists dropped everything to support the electoral campaign of John Kerry, who had voted for the war, who was calling for Bush to use more force in Iraq, and whose gestapo tore down antiwar banners at the Democratic Convention. Meanwhile, the anti-war movement lost all of its steam and died out. This is a classic example of the Democratic Party kills social movements.
The sad thing is that even otherwise sensible leftists, like Noam Chomsky, embrace lesser-evilism and tell people to vote for the pro-corporate Democrats. This illustrates the problem that the left faces. It is a huge hurdle to overcome to get people to stop supporting Democrats, and when some of the Left's own spokespeople sabotage the left by supporting the Democrats it simply kills any attempt at building a bona fide movement.
Secular errors are discredited once their sacred expressions have been refuted.
Calling for the abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people amounts to demanding people’s real happiness. To call on people to abandon their illusions about their condition is to call on them to abandon a condition that requires illusions. The critique of religion is therefore, in embryo, a critique of this vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
I actually agree with you in principle, but assert that spiritual awareness, whether within a living religion, or experienced individually, has a true benefit, even the highest benefit, for those who have been bestowed it.
Also, I may be sympathetic for calls to question, or even refute religion and its expression, but anything like 'Calling for the abolition of religion', sounds inherently dangerous, foolish and despotic if you ask me. See the Soviet Union for an example. The Church eventually rose back up with a vengeance there.
You are not agreeing with me, those are the words of Karl Marx; you are agreeing with him! My other posts are also from that link (the link provided in Wolff's article) - well worth reading, btw.
I essentially agree with main thrust of Marx's analysis of the class struggle, but disagree with the role of both Liberalism, and spirituality within Marxist rhetoric. He fails to differentiate between the good and the bad that these forces exert, and consequently, he tosses the baby out with the bath water, as the idiom goes.
Cheers Tom. My vitriolic responses to TA are towards him and others like him, who to me seem ultimately unreasonable about tempering some aspects of the socialist perspective. I am certainly no opponent of reasonable socialism, and/or social reform.
When it comes to religion, the baby is the bath water.
Sadly, most religions are an attempt at delineating and codifying spiritual sentiments and experiences. This often ends up establishing false beliefs, heresies, and heretics... i.e. those who its deemed ok to cheat, exploit, enslave, torture and kill. I'm not a fan of organized religion, only of the need for religious tolerance, and the appreciation of spiritual values, which more or less could be considered 'principles upon which a moral system may be based' in secular terminology. Like it or not, subjective values are synonymous with spiritual values, and we are all inherently subjective, limited, and imperfect beings, requiring our beliefs to function in any way.
I no longer understand the need for tolerance of religion. It is a delusion, pure and simple, and any other delusion, rightly shown to be a delusion, is not tolerated, especially if it causes harm to others, in general. We might tolerate one whose delusion affects only themselves, to a point. But religion's delusion is not so benign.
If one wants to argue that the delusional basis of religion is not proven, one must provide some evidence of the delusion's existential basis. Religion does not, but demands the delusion be accepted without proof as the basis of the delusion, itself.
I wouldn't be so intolerate were not religions hell-bent on basing the truths and laws of secular society on their delusion. That makes it dangerous.
Further, I disagree that subjective values are synonymous with spiritual values. Subjectivity is, ultimately, a difference in perspective, which may be spirituality based, but it is not necessarily so. The whole field of economics and political science may be classed as subjective, since most tenets derive not from empirical fact, but the mindset and functional thought processes - faith - of the interpretor, but there is nothing inherently spiritual about these interpretations.
Spirituality, is, on the other hand, I'll grant you, subjective by definition.
re: "I no longer understand the need for tolerance of religion. It is a delusion, pure and simple, and any other delusion, rightly shown to be a delusion, is not tolerated, especially if it causes harm to others, in general. We might tolerate one whose delusion affects only themselves, to a point. But religion's delusion is not so benign."
The problem is when we try to define what it is. I believe it is sufficient, and intrinsically necessary to allow people to decide how they wish to interface/interact/react to the highest realities, and toughest questions that exist in life. When we take away, or forbid (i.e. remove tolerance for) anything, we suddenly limit the possibility of what life may actually be for someone. Just as you and I would likely agree that we are sickened by the state deciding all of these terrible politicies *for our benefit* or *in our best interest* (lol), so we cannot represent that which becomes a terrible censoring of others' consciousness and lifestyle choices, because we say they can't know what they're possibly thinking...
For me, the freedom of religion means that no politician should or can legally make legislation based on moral concerns, only on practical considerations. I know many here think I wish to appeal to sentiment.... but only in regard to activating the populace, not on how a government should be administered.
re: "I wouldn't be so intolerate were not religions hell-bent on basing the truths and laws of secular society on their delusion. That makes it dangerous."
I agree, but assuming we, or whoever is in control knows the highest truth, and wields its 'in our interest' is very dangerous as well.. Far more dangerous imo.
re: "Subjectivity is, ultimately, a difference in perspective, which may be spirituality based, but it is not necessarily so. "
I agree, not necessarily so. But if someone tells you it is for them, its not possible to say that it isn't, at least with any objective authority. That was the essence of my point. So we're not in disagreement here.
You assume there is an "highest truth." Your delusion is as severe as the religionists.
That is why we are most definiltely in disagreement.
Since there is no highest truth, any attempt to "wield it in (anyone's) interest" is doomed to failure.
Spirituality's subjectiveness does not make subjectiveness spiritual. That is the fatal flaw in your logic.
re: "You assume there is an "highest truth." Your delusion is as severe as the religionists. "
Strawman.
1. I make a logical conclusion, there is a highest truth.
2. I deduce furthermore, logically, that no one person, nor one political party can declare what what that highest truth is.
3. Any government that that seeks to contradict 2. must be autocratically, or theologically inclined.
re: "Spirituality's subjectiveness does not make subjectiveness spiritual. That is the fatal flaw in your logic."
That isn't even close to what I said. I said if a person (a subjective being) holds something to be of spiritual value to them, then there is no possibility for another (a subjective being) to objectively deny this. You appear to be deliberately trying to confuse the issue here.