[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internets about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Matrix   IRC Chat   Mumble   Telegram   Discord


File: 1623187796461.png ( 286.69 KB , 576x566 , privilege.png )

 No.305951[Last 50 Posts]

aka /leftypol/: An Exploration into the Causes and Effects of Identity Politics.
Let's get to the bottom of identity politics, bane of the radical left and blockade to normie socialism.

ITT post about idpol and anti-idpol.
Post literature, effortposts, infographics, etc.
Post about what idpol is, the history of idpol, idpol today, the problems with it, and how to deal with it.

The point of this thread is to develop our discourse on the topic. Currently the meaning of idpol and many people's understanding of it is extremely nebulous. This is a problem for us in addressing it in general. It is a problem for the mods appropriately moderating it. It's a problem for users knowing what posts are good. Most importantly it's an obstacle to people knowing what kind of theory is sensible and based versus what is idpozzed and cringe. Most of us will agree that idpol is a problem the left deals with to some degree more or less online or in real life. It is both an inferior understanding of politics and a way of baiting people. What we sometimes don't agree on is what idpol is and how it works. That's what this thread is for: fleshing out our discourse so that we can better combat liberalism (and other right wing politics) and promote communism.
>>

 No.305953

It’s the new opium of the masses, the soul of soulless conditions and the heart of a heartless world. No I will not explain.
>>

 No.305956

Rational to cooperate with your group
>>

 No.305962

no. go away
>>

 No.305964

I define idpol as anything that proposes a theory of social history or a course of political action which does not recognize interactions between productive class as the primary motive force that explains how we are today as we are, or how we aught to change it.
>>

 No.305965

idpol is best exemplified by the progressive stack. hobbling politics with representational bullshit
>>

 No.305966

Here's my analysis:

You can't control the cultural currents of the masses, period. These things will happen, accept it.
>>

 No.305967

>>305966
so if the masses accept nationalism then you should accept it ?
>>

 No.305968

>>305962
Idpol fag detected
>>

 No.305972

what i don't like = dumb
what i like = based

that's my measure
>>

 No.305973

>>305967
Nationalism is not a culture.
>>

 No.305977

>>305973
Why not? It can be part of culture. Like you have with the opposite of nationalism, which is happening in modern day sweden
>>

 No.305981

File: 1623188547904.png ( 2.21 MB , 1956x2027 , 1623132245924.png )

To me idpol is any analysis of history or society or the economy that puts the onus souly on the hands of the individual rather than placing the onus on the natural functions and motions of history and the material causes for these motions.

It's the difference between able to understand the history and causes of slavery as the material accumulation of capital as a historical imperative and sseeing white people, or, whatever other "identity" as the root motivation of these historic motions: White ppl = bad" vs "The historical division of labor has lead to the accumulation of capital through out history that has taken the form of slavery among many other forms of domination through out history.
>>

 No.305982

>>305973
nationalism can be the preservation of culture or the desire to change it in some sort of way look at the KMT
>>

 No.305985

>>305977
Nationalism has nothing to do with cultural or identity shit but it can be part of it. Nationalism isn't combated by culture though, it's combated by telling people that imperialism is bad, taking care of our people is good.
>>

 No.305986

>>305973
It absolutely is a culture, lol. Borders and nation states were not handed down by god. They were developed historically and out of specific material circumstances.
>>

 No.305988

File: 1623188694872.png ( 608.46 KB , 894x849 , 1623188686524.png )

>>305951
Idpol is a faggy porky tool to distract from class and turn people into consoooming troons, gays, whatever. Back when porky didn't utilize these tools look how fags looked like. They literally looked like normal fucking workers, nowadays they dress up like dogs in pride parades. Porky just utilized this new tool. (no hate trans, gay, whatever comrades but this is how its used). Ever wonder why idpol obsessed fags consoom this much? So much make-
up and physical operations and much more? It is just a new tool.
>>

 No.305992

>>305986
Just because Ideology, Culture, Religion, Law, Governance are all in the domain of the Superstructure doesn't mean they're all the same.
>>

 No.305996

>>305981
>has nothing to do
>can be part of it
What the shit??

>it's combated by telling people that imperialism is bad, taking care of our people is good.

Ok but that is your preference which is nice, but quite utopian if you ask me
>>

 No.306001

>>305981
I have seen plenty of documentaries of packs of animals banding together to outcompete competitors. Seems pretty natural, and predating us as a species
>>

 No.306004

File: 1623188928298.jpg ( 222.47 KB , 1278x1181 , 1623129070807.jpg )

>>305996
You having a seizure m8?
>>

 No.306006

>>305986
So what? It doesn't make them any less real because of that
>>

 No.306008

>>305988
Except it predate homo sapiens and is perfectly natural
>>

 No.306010

File: 1623189031791.pdf ( 136.6 KB , 210x300 , cole2015.pdf )

>>

 No.306012

>>306004
No m8, you are just not a clear thinker, and contradict yourself, also you think your preferences seem to meaningful, and they are sadly not
>>

 No.306017

>>306008
Well, I was specifically talking about how the modern bourgeoisie use idpol. Should've clarified.
>>

 No.306019

>>306012
How have i contradicted myself in anyway?

Also the second reply wasn't even to the linked post which is confusing and comes off as massively skitzo.
>>

 No.306023

>>306017
Again why would you make that meaningless distinction to begin with?
>>

 No.306024

>>305951
Identity politics essentializes identity without regards to the material relations underpinning it. At best, it assimilates identities within the realm of discourse and media (not economic autonomy and security!); at worst it incites intra-class conflicts.

As leftists, we fight for the free determination of all individuals and their full emancipation from oppressive power structures. The rights of individuals to live according to their own wishes is a fundamental part of leftism.

It is for this reason that identity struggles are a particular manifestation of class struggle and identity politics as such is the neoliberal recuperation of particular class struggles at the expense of the whole class struggle, and hence, essentially conservative. Being against identity politics does not mean that oppression based on personal characteristics does not exist, but rather that fighting for the emancipation of individual identities without a class character ultimately amounts to fighting for individual emancipation, rather than emancipating the group as a whole.

Instead, we advocate for the political organization of communities on the grounds of class analysis, class solidarity, to achieve political gains and protection now, with the ultimate goal of full emancipation of all the working class.

Further reading

** Racial politics (mostly Black Panther stuff)

*** It's A Class Struggle Goddammit! - Fred Hampton (Fred Hampton was a member of the Black Panther Party who was assasinated by the FBI)

*** Power Anywhere Where There's People - Fred Hampton

*** The Panthers and the Patriots By Michael McCanne Edit
An article about the black Panthers work with the Young Patriots a group of SDS guys who reached out to white working class people in Appalachia and the Deep South
+ https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/05/black-panthers-young-patriots-fred-hampton

*** Footage of the Patriots and Panthers working together to build class consciousness
+ https://youtu.be/RPTwDO0sh-E

*** Fred Hampton's famous: "We're not going to fight capitalism with black capitalism we're going to fight it with socialism" speech
+ https://youtu.be/fJSqZrVjDds

*** Paul Robeson (Check out his Wikipage)
+ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6y-xfqP6FOE
+ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmFjjaFNHKo

** Identity politics as such

*** Exiting the vampire castle - Mark Fisher
+ https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/exiting-vampire-castle/

*** Essentialism and the problem of identity politics - Lawrence Jarach
+ https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/lawrence-jarach-essentialism-and-the-problem-of-identity-politics

*** Against Identity Politics by Lupus Dragonowl
+ https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/lupus-dragonowl-against-identity-politics

*** White purity by Asad Heider Edit
+https://www.viewpointmag.com/2017/01/06/white-purity/

*** Adolph Reed: Identity Politics Is Neoliberalism Edit
+ https://bennorton.com/adolph-reed-identity-politics-is-neoliberalism/

*** Identity Crisis by Salar Mohandesi Edit
+ https://www.viewpointmag.com/2017/03/16/identity-crisis/

*** Michael Parenti
+ https://youtu.be/n79kRP5RB2M
+ https://youtu.be/ZkttzU86CFE

** Intersectionality

Intersectionality, in summary, is a left liberal theory about the system of oppressions and how they can overlap. For example, it's different being gay and black, than those things separately. It is sometimes misconstrued as meaning solidarity.

*** I am a woman and a human: a Marxist feminist critique of intersectionality theory - Eve Mitchell
+ https://libcom.org/library/i-am-woman-human-marxist-feminist-critique-intersectionality-theory-eve-mitchell

*** The Communist Case Against Intersectionality by sev_k
+ Intersectional “leftism” is not authentic leftism. It is a bourgeois ideology that must be rejected.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vnLzfRqPS8

*** Class is More Intersectional than Intersectionality
+ https://imperiumadinfinitum.wordpress.com/2016/11/11/class-is-more-intersectional-than-intersectionality/

*** Marxism vs. Intersectionality by Jessica Cassell
+ https://www.marxist.com/marxism-vs-intersectionality.htm

*** Intersectionality: A Marxist Critique by Barbara Foley
+ https://multiracialunity.org/2018/09/26/intersectionality-a-marxist-critique/

** Privilege Politics

*** Privilege politics is reformism
+ http://libcom.org/library/privilege-politics-reformism

*** The poverty of privilege politics
+ http://libcom.org/library/poverty-privilege-politics

*** Behind the epidemic police killings in America: Class, poverty and race
+ https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/12/20/kil1-d20.html
>>

 No.306025

>>305985
>has nothing to do
>can be part of it
What the shit??

>it's combated by telling people that imperialism is bad, taking care of our people is good.

Ok but that is your preference which is nice, but quite utopian if you ask me
>>

 No.306027

>>306019
Sorry disregard my response. I don't want to touch this word salad. I was asking someone else
>>

 No.306032

>>306023
How the fuck is it meaningless?
>>

 No.306034

>>306024
Can i have ethnostate socialism?
>>

 No.306035

>>

 No.306036

>>306027
What?

How is it word salad? It's simple lol:

Idpol = "White people bad inherently"

Not idpol = "There are historical and material imperatives for colonialism."
>>

 No.306039

>>306035
What if i am african in africa?
>>

 No.306043

>>306039
then you will be critically supported if its to own the porky but at some later date when you become porky we will probably supply rebels in your country with sks to shoot you
>>

 No.306044

>>

 No.306058

>>306043
Who is "we," also how do "we" feel about closed borders of my country? Can africans freely move to europe? Can europeans move to africa?
>>

 No.306061

File: 1623189827450.jpg ( 546.73 KB , 1175x1829 , zE9fXeq.jpg )

>>305988
the problem with this definition is that it imagines that idpol is a new phenomenon that refers exclusively to left-liberalism. if McDonalds was selling the KKKLansburger and Pepsico was selling new pink "autogynephile blood" cherry pepsi to the based magapedes that would still be idpol, just as it was idpol in the 1900s when British agricultural producers put out this gem.
>>

 No.306065

>>306039
Read Kwame Nkrumah
https://www.marxists.org/subject/africa/nkrumah/1967/african-socialism-revisited.htm
The answer is no.
>>306043
Ethnonationalists in Africa have only ever been prostitutes to capital, fomenters of division, and vile genociders of proles. They are not in any way our allies, even in "practical" geopolitics.
>>

 No.306069

>>306065
So europeans and chinese can just freely migrate to africa? Open borders for africa?
>>

 No.306085

NTA
>>306058
In capitalism or in socialism? In socialism I have no issue, but then again mass migration won't really be an issue either. In capitalism the whole topic is a red herring, such things are going to inevitably occur regardless within the system as whole.
>>306069
>So europeans and chinese can just freely migrate to africa? Open borders for africa?
Why not? It's not like mass migration from capitalist economic forces and imperialism is an issue anymore.
>>

 No.306089

File: 1623190213081.png ( 173.02 KB , 571x379 , soap.PNG )

>>306061
>idpol
It really seems to be human default, and not some porky conspiracy
>>

 No.306091

>>306089
Explain, I don't get what your image for ants is proving.
>>

 No.306105

>>306085
I want closed borders like north korea. i don't give a shit about utopian future world
>>

 No.306106

>>306089
humans are naturally tribalist, naive people like yourself imagine that this somehow justifies your own particular tribalism. so you are a racist, or a nationalist, or a phrenologist, very good for you. but your own particular tribalism is no more meaningful than those who put so much value on one's self proclaimed ideology, their astrological zodiac signs, their preferred games console or operating system, whether they identify as a "yes" or a "no" in the scottish independence question, or whether the dress was white or blue. all are manifestations of that basic tribal impulse.

where porky influence comes in is in deciding to a great degree which causes are given attention and which wither on the vine. just as man has always had violence, but the invasion of iraq was clearly bourgeois power games, so too has man always had tribalism - but modern idpol, be it the neo-phrenology of the racists or the technicolor logo festival of modern corporate boards is a manifestion of the very same.
>>

 No.306112

Here is some historical reading related to identity politics from the actual radical left.

Karl Marx - On the Jewish Question (1844)
>You know who this guy is.
This text (12.2k words) deals with the contemporary topic of Jewish liberation in Prussia, and it delves into the relationship between identity and political relations. It's also a useful text for Marx in general.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/
<Feudal society was resolved into its basic element – man, but man as he really formed its basis – egoistic man.
<This man, the member of civil society, is thus the basis, the precondition, of the political state. He is recognized as such by this state in the rights of man.
<The liberty of egoistic man and the recognition of this liberty, however, is rather the recognition of the unrestrained movement of the spiritual and material elements which form the content of his life.
<Hence, man was not freed from religion, he received religious freedom. He was not freed from property, he received freedom to own property. He was not freed from the egoism of business, he received freedom to engage in business.

Alexandra Kollontai - The Social Basis of the Woman Question (1909)
>Major figure in the Russian socialist movement, was on the Central Committee, Commissar for Social Welfare in the Soviet government
This text (6.5k words) delves into the contemporary question of women's liberation at the beginning of the 20th century. It examines how bourgeois liberal forces corrupt genuine movements for liberty into further empowering the bourgeoisie.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/kollonta/1909/social-basis.htm
<Class instinct – whatever the feminists say – always shows itself to be more powerful than the noble enthusiasms of “above-class” politics. So long as the bourgeois women and their “younger sisters” are equal in their inequality, the former can, with complete sincerity, make great efforts to defend the general interests of women. But once the barrier is down and the bourgeois women have received access to political activity, the recent defenders of the “rights of all women” become enthusiastic defenders of the privileges of their class, content to leave the younger sisters with no rights at all. Thus, when the feminists talk to working women about the need for a common struggle to realise some “general women’s” principle, women of the working class are naturally distrustful.

Emma Goldman - Woman Suffrage (1911)
>Major anarchist theorist, lived in the US and later Russia after being deported there from the US, ultimately died in the Spanish Civil War
This text (4.3k words) is an anti-voot manifesto calling out the failure of "inclusion" style politics to actually liberate people, by placating them with an equal share in inequality.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/goldman/works/1911/woman-suffrage.htm
<Few countries have produced such arrogance and snobbishness as America. Particularly is this true of the American woman of the middle class. She not only considers herself the equal of man, but his superior, especially in her purity, goodness, and morality. Small wonder that the American suffragist claims for her vote the most miraculous powers. In her exalted conceit she does not see how truly enslaved she is, not so much by man, as by her own silly notions and traditions. Suffrage can not ameliorate that sad fact; it can only accentuate it, as indeed it does.
>>

 No.306133

>>306112
Based. I need to read Kollontai. I also added it to my repertoire.
I'd be nice if we had a standard copy pasta that can be pasted in situations like this.
>>

 No.306141

File: 1623191095123.png ( 4.1 MB , 2170x1262 , ec3d300efef61df771d850390c….png )

>>306094
And? The company was called out inside of China as well.
>>306105
>I want closed borders like north korea. i don't give a shit about utopian future world
North Korea isn't ethnonationalist, and it borders is a reality of the situation it finds itself in. My point wasn't utopian, it's just what socialist deveopment inevitably entails.
>>

 No.306163

>>306106
>humans are naturally tribalist, naive people like yourself…
So i am naive to not believe in utopia?

>imagine that this somehow justifies your own particular tribalism

I don't have to justify anything to myself, but like it because it seems most rational

>so you are a racist, or a nationalist, or a phrenologist, very good for you

Yes exactly

>but your own particular tribalism is no more meaningful than those who put so much value on one's self proclaimed ideology, their astrological zodiac signs, their preferred games console or operating system, whether they identify as a "yes" or a "no" in the scottish independence question, or whether the dress was white or blue. all are manifestations of that basic tribal impulse.

Absolut bulshit, this is just how you see it, not reality. But again, i don't care if you want a comunism with nintendo players, go for it

>but the invasion of iraq was clearly bourgeois power games

Not the petit burgers, also i would place the blame on american elites and their big state, much like SU occupied Afganistan. I don't support it and i don't know what this has to do with me?
>>

 No.306164

>>306141
It really seems to be human default, and not some porky conspiracy? Right

In fact US elite porky is quite pro african in this case
>>

 No.306166

>>306133
>I'd be nice if we had a standard copy pasta that can be pasted in situations like this.
Cobble some together from stuff you read or clip out some good quotes.
>>

 No.306179

>>306141
Based Kim
>>

 No.306204

>>306176
The eternal cope of the /pol/ uyguyr
>>

 No.306226

>>306204
Do you think pol care about muslim uyghurs?
>>

 No.306231

>>306226
You are a uyghur
>>

 No.306238

>>306164
>It really seems to be human default, and not some porky conspiracy? Right
What's the "human default" you are talking about?
>In fact US elite porky is quite pro african in this case
What are you talking about? Capitalists are pro-profit, that's all they actually care about at the end of the day because that's what the system forces.
>>

 No.306239

>>306231
I am not. But why would pol oppose such treatment of those people?
>>

 No.306246

>>306141
https://web.archive.org/web/20141011203315/http:/www.kcna.co.jp/calendar/2006/04/04-27/2006-0427-009.html

Forced multinationalism/multiculturalism has been a tool for genocide utilized by Imperialists, however.
>>

 No.306252

>>306238
Idpol is human default.
>>

 No.306258

>>306252
Well, when you put it like that…
>>

 No.306259

>>306252
>circular reasoning
>>

 No.306261

>>306259
It's not, that's just my empirical observation.

>>306258
Am i wrong?
>>

 No.306265

>>306246
Also communist China, CCCP
>>

 No.306268

>>306259
>Capitalists are pro-profit, that's all they actually care about at the end of the day because that's what the system forces.
>>

 No.306270

>>306261
stupidity is a human default, something you haven't grown out of yourself, for example.
But you can, if you so wish.
>>

 No.306273

>>306246
>Using an article not even supported or written by the government, but instead part of an outlet known for people writing a vast variety of articles in response to various topics
>The article itself relates to the US trying to convince South Koreans that they shouldn't unify through a specific type of multicultural argument, not that multiculturalism is by itself a bad thing.
Take off that flag.
>>

 No.306277

>>306268
That isn't a circular argument though.
>>

 No.306282

Isn't it at the end of the day something about where you draw certain lines of behavior? Example: if you remember the DSA conference that went viral because it was interrupted every few minutes asking people not to use gendered language or not clap because it would trigger sensitive people. Clearly thats too much. Yes those special needs people are going to feel alienated without all the rules. But the other way is going to be alienating to everyone else.

The focus shouldn't be on fighting where the line is drawn. But HOW it is drawn. Right now the great majority are disempowered. So the only way they see to change the world around them is by arguing about pronouns online. That is what I think everyone can agree need changing. And it necessarily begins with the workers having power over the society they're building.
>>

 No.306284

>>306282
Everyone needs a say in production not just consumption. Idpol is what happens when workers see themselves as only consumers
>>

 No.306294

>>306284
>>306282
based posts.

Another issue is that neolib ideology related to oppressed people goes unchecked and there's no coherent leftist ideology at hand to counter it.
>>

 No.306299

>>305988
This is really an exemplary post. How do you lack this much self-awareness to complain about "idpol" but than you keep using homophobic slurs, which is precisely the type of behavior that makes homosexuals turn to idpol for answers? We live in a world where dominant demographics mistreat less powerful demographics (not just based on class) and they are expected to take it. "They looked like normal workers," and who says everything has to suit your heterosexual sensibilities? I know that my views are not accepted on your little imageboard for shut ins anyways, but if there is ever going to be a socialist revolution. then the content on here is evidence that all the problems liberal "idpol" addresses is still going to be a problem, because you as supposed communists engage in mistreatment towards these demographics. So how is it solely capitalism's fault that racism, sexism, homophobia exists, if after a socialist revolution people like you are around? One day you people must realize that these issues stand on their own and can't all be reduced to class and capitalism.
>>

 No.306307

>>306299
Self-awareness is lacking in many American leftists. He just sounds like he doesn't take care of his brain. There is some truth in "In order to change the world, you have to change yourself first"
>>

 No.306311

There's nothing wrong with idpol/intersectionality as long as class politics is included. Racism/sexism/etc. doesn't magically stop existing after the means of production have been seized.
>>

 No.306312

>>306307
How do you take care of your brain, what does this mean?
>>

 No.306321

>>306311
Very true.
>>

 No.306325

>>306299
You were on the right track in general, up until this part:
>So how is it solely capitalism's fault that racism, sexism, homophobia exists, if after a socialist revolution people like you are around?
>One day you people must realize that these issues stand on their own and can't all be reduced to class and capitalism.
You're correct that the person you are responding to has internalized homophobia of some kind, and heteronormativity is a thing, despite sounding like lib pomo shit.

The point of this thread is to teach these leftists that they are right in some regards and wrong in others. Like that anon was right about some stuff, and wrong about others, so are you. I have to sleep now, but there have been readings posted if you're interested to know more.

>>306311
>There's nothing wrong with idpol/intersectionality as long as class politics is included.
Yes there is. I've linked to some articles above. Read them please.
>Racism/sexism/etc. doesn't magically stop existing after the means of production have been seized.
You are mixing things up here. One thing is not related to the other.
>>306321
No. Read the fucking articles, thanks.
>>

 No.306328

>>306312
Take care of your eyes first.
>>

 No.306333

>>306315
Fuck off polfag.

>>306321
>>306311
not by me

Individuality = the quality of being a singular person with a unique identity
Individualism = focusing on the individual as a social unit in one's sociopolitical ideology
Hyper-individualism = extreme focus on the individual as a social unit to the exclusion of others

Intersectionality "destroys individuality" in that it reduces people from their identity as a unique person to their identity as an intersection of identities (which by the way ignores the variability in their experience of discrimination - not all black people get shot by cops for instance). Intersectionality is anti-individualist, but this isn't a false dichotomy because acknowledging individuality doesn't make you an individualist, but rather denying individuality precludes the possibility of individualism. Also, opposing individualism opposes hyper-individualism but not specifically. It sweeps up other forms of individualism which aren't the same thing as the hyper-individualism of capitalist realism.


All intersectionality does is ask the State to incorporate the oppressed and marginalized into the function of its structures, whereas the old solidarity implies a cross-identity coalition to abolish the system which necessitates oppression and marginalization in the first place.

The glaring contradiction, of course, is that this managed diversity robs multiculturalism of its potential to be a progressive force and creates a new form of conservatism, along with a monoculture. Each identity or cluster of identities is given their space and allowed to do whatever it takes to preserve it, and the private sector profits handsomely as massive corporations offer their commodities to these spaces in support of this task. Thus, the tools used by the myriad of identities all come from the same monopolies, making any individuality a mere narcissism of small differences, usually dependent upon who has the most money to continuously update their identities ability to present itself as unique among the ocean of the marginalized. In this scenario, multiculturalism functions as little more than an ad campaign which reassures the oppressed and the marginalized that reform of the system, and certainly not revolutionary work aimed at overthrowing the system, is necessary because Amazon Prime will sell to you no matter your creed, color, gender identity, or sexual orientation.

Intersectionality and all of these other recent developments in western "leftism" are actually quite conservative. They’re a good example of the whole Lacanian conception of a pervert as someone who may initially appear to be revolutionary but over time exposes themselves as one of the least revolutionary people imaginable because their "subversive" actions aren't oriented toward changing social structures they just get off on being subversive, so when the market gives them a cultural space and provides them the tools to do so to their hearts content they end up actually perpetuating the current social arrangement in an even more efficient manner than in an overt police state.
>>

 No.306338

>>306337
Install gentoo
>>

 No.306355

>>306299
You misunderstand what "class" is doing here. It's not that poor people are the only valid gays or some weird shit, it's that CLASSED SOCIETY, the mechanisms of power, etc are what enables these things to exist in the first place and what perpetuates them.
Honestly, I won't do a good job explaining it. It's much better if you just read good authors and ask questions:
Read this post: >>306024 and this one >>306112
Don't listen to the retarded polfags.
>>

 No.306394

>>306105
No one cares what you want, rapemeat.
>>

 No.306399

>>306311
Except you take care of their material basis and make it a matter of getting the racist generations to die out.
>>

 No.306401

My view on idpol is that it is essentially two things. On one level it is simply a divide and conquer strategy to inhibit any form of class solidarity or organizing among the masses by fracturing it into narrow tribalistic identity categories.This is why the media and institutions, as fronts for the status quo, push it so avidly. Secondly, it is a byproduct of consumerism-induced narcissism, a form of non-productive manipulation tactic that is a byproduct of the cut-throat careerist politics of the upper middle class trying to break into the elite. The whole victim mentality is often baseless and unwarranted, but young upper middle class college students are indoctrinated into embracing it so that they have a strategy for manipulating their way into better positions of power and privilege by posturing as though society owes them something. Because the liberal class embraces this ritualized performance of victimhood, they are often rewarded for this nonproductive parasitic behavior.

Ultimately however thee main cause is that it is divisive and prevents any form or broad organizing among the masses and creates petty squabbles over nonissues for the sake of "progress" while the billionaire oligarchy continues to wreak havoc and materialize absolute domination of all spheres of political and economic power.
>>

 No.306488

File: 1623200173649.jpg ( 53.33 KB , 500x500 , artworks-000231433642-5vnd….jpg )

>https://soundcloud.com/johanarbraz/death-to-identity-politics-remix-leftpol-batko-phunklarique-dejonka

Idpol is identitarian privilege used to prevent and subvert a truly intersectional(tm) sorting of the stateless, classless, cultureless into their predetermined and essential states, classes and cultures. (see what I did there)

Everybody should change their social media profiles(capital production) to the flag(prejudicial discriminator) of the stateless, classless, cultureless minority to show our support(not solidarity) with the human race minority that doesn't get enough representation(not direct enfranchisement). Akshullay, the human race isn't a minority at all but makes up 100% of the population in some regions; studies have shown (not that either of us should read them for parsimony or rigour in design <appeal to ignorance>).

By obeying my command to do this, my social capital shall increase further which shall advance me from my lower state, class, and/or culture to a more exploitative position and thus reduce my own exploitation at your expense. Back the X! X Lives matter! (Buy my merch! Opportunism)

Or we could establish the dictatorship of the proletariat(rule by those that work/are involved with/affected by a given thing) and the international soviet(negation of false incomplete identity) by recognizing there is only one past and we all must inherit it's consequences; and only one future we must all navigate to seize it's opportunities given the totality of conditions from that one past.

The nation/grouping is vanity, there is but one Earth(Universe) in which to live. Divorcing yourself from the real universe by framing a separate identity to this introduces a logical fallacy that may justify any fallacy, horror, or criminal act.

Idpol is madness and the progenitor of madness in others.
>>

 No.306498

>>306311
>included
no, this is fascism. paying lipservice to class issues when pushing that the main problem is x group of people.

>Racism/sexism/etc. doesn't magically stop existing

if you define it as peoples personal feelings then it never will. if you define it as any ability to take serious action based on them then the only method through which oppression can be achieved is through economics. It doesnt matter if jim hates bob if jim cant do anything about it, and thats as good as human society is ever going to get.
>>

 No.306529

Did anyone post Rafiq yet
>>

 No.306641

>>306529
Wait is rafiq actually still active? I thought he disappeared with revleft?
>>

 No.306673

>>305981
to me.. I.. uhh.. my take on this is…ummm…so a materialist analysis should take into account…uhmm..

ok, you know what? Just give me the fkin SAUCE NOW PLEASE
>>

 No.306715

>>306311
This, intersectionality isn't about taking away the analytical power of class analysis but to embolden it with a fuller, more wholistic picture of capitalism. Of course a system which relies upon women for social reproduction is going to be sexist. Of course a system which exports misery and plunder to the Global South, and is born off the backs of slaves, is going to be racist. Capitalism required these oppressions in order to function, and it still functions under the same logic today. If you are to unite a global working class then you would have to speak to these oppressions, not by themselves as naturalised ahistorical aspects of their individual identify, but as a necessary and integral part of the current mode of production. Class analysis is important, but by itself it is not enough - racism, sexism, ableism etc. does not fall from the sky, nor is it an after effect, these injustices were developed in and through capitalism. Just as Marx once criticised Feuerbach for speaking of Man when he should have spoken of ‘real historical men’, so too our analysis of capitalism must speak of real historical people.

https://www.historicalmaterialism.org/articles/intersectionality-and-marxism
https://newleftreview.org/issues/i227/articles/judith-butler-merely-cultural
>>

 No.306719

>idpol thread singling out lgbt and slandering it as bourgeois
watermelon style good faith discussion right from the start, nice job /pol/ "converts"
>>

 No.306722

>>306719
remember when "lefty"/pol/ at least pretended to equate lgbt with anti-lgbt religious movements? they don't even pretend anymore, wouldn't want to upset the /pol/ack after getting them into soviet aesthetics, they're the real working class after all
>>

 No.306729

>>306722
ITT: Bunker seethe
>>

 No.306739

File: 1623209946246.png ( 243.8 KB , 953x510 , Gigachad.png )

>>306715
I love you<3
One of the best posts in the thread.
>>

 No.306741

>>306719
Pointing to the co-opting of a movement by capitalists =/= equating it with capitalists.
>>

 No.306742

>>306673
Lol, i don't have the sauce anon. I found it on anon.cafe, lol.
>>

 No.306747

File: 1623210210799-0.jpg ( 206.51 KB , 1024x682 , Pedro-Castillo-en-Carabayl….jpg )

File: 1623210210799-1.jpg ( 490.52 KB , 1080x1346 , 1622731814780.jpg )

The idea that class politics is an indivisible remainder that can't be co-opted is a commonplace notion on the left but seems deeply mistaken. Blue-collar hardhats here in the United States beat up anti-war protesters in the 60s. I think it's because they were employed in the arms industry and were materially benefiting from the war. The emphasis in what's derided as identity politics on the left after that seems like an attempt to keep a radical tradition alive on the left at all.

Also it was pretty interesting watching the Peruvian elections because Pedro Castillo is a social conservative which caused liberals in the U.S. with a cosmopolitan value structure to whine a bunch. But his rallies were rich with the cultural symbolism of the indigenous people who were his base of support. What are you going to tell them? They shouldn't do that? If you attempt to repress this, I think you'll only make it stronger. They shouldn't feel proud of their culture and identity? These are people who were colonized and oppressed for centuries by imperialism and capitalism while rich anti-communist women in Lima dye their hair blonde.

This has gotten me to start reading Mariategui, and a century ago he was writing about how the white country-club aristocrats and bourgeoisie in Peru scorned the popular and national and saw themselves as white above all else, and you could definitely not count on them being opposed to imperialism.
>>

 No.306750

>>306715
>Capitalism required these oppressions in order to function
No it doesn't. It doesn't require any other oppressions to function, much less these specific ones. The historically constructed "oppressions" are whatever scam the ruling class of the time came up with to manage the working class(es) better. The system can still function without these, and there may well be systems of oppression that serve these purposes even better (or are better suited to changing times). The intersectionality discussion is almost entirely confined to reshuffling the way that these systems of oppression work rather than abolishing the basis of the entire system (class society).
>>

 No.306753

>>306746
But the thing about identities of the oppressed though is that their anger against oppression because of their identity can be channeled against the bourgeois class. What I want to know is how do you keep out bad faith actors, like feds or black hammer? There's some people who are part of oppressed classes but fall victim to idpol over class politics, and there has to be an effective way of making sure these struggles are intersectional with class.
>>

 No.306763

File: 1623210824243.jpg ( 38.89 KB , 343x481 , 7f5255d268c0032c4bba48ee73….jpg )

>>306715
>This, intersectionality isn't about taking away the analytical power of class analysis but to embolden it with a fuller, more wholistic picture of capitalism.
Typical intersectionalist mumbo jumbo. We already have internationalism for that. Intersectionality has done zero (0) besides suck internationalism of its real-politik content and fill the hollowed out space with obnoxious PMC sophistry. Workers don't need intersectionality. Blacks need black movements, immigrants need immigrant's rights movements and we all need internationalism. No one needs this managerial cult cooked up in American law schools and sociology classes. If you're a snake-oil peddling PMC, know that we you and we know what you're all about. If you're a worker, then please do take this invitation to reconsider. You'll feel much better.
>>

 No.306783

>>

 No.306790

>>306750
If the system can function without these scams, why doesn't it? Why doesn't it do away with the dehumanisation of the Global South or the relegation of women to housework and affective roles? These relations aren't epi-phenomenal effects of class society but are a key role in capitalisms functioning. There is no reshuffling because there aren't any parallel systems of capitalism, patriarchy, heteronormativity etc. - they are different sides of the same dice.

>>306763
This is a strawman argument. Internationalism and correct intersectional analysis have a lot in common (in fact I would argue that intersectionality emerges from internationalism before it was corrupted by back-slapping liberal standpoint theorists).
>>

 No.306828

>>306790
>Internationalism and correct intersectional analysis have a lot in common (in fact I would argue that intersectionality emerges from internationalism before it was corrupted by back-slapping liberal standpoint theorists).
I also think there's a whole cottage industry of consultants in the United States who go around selling workshops and that can get pretty wacky and might be where some of the "pyramid of oppression" stuff comes from. I doubt that's so much of a problem with intersectional theory though as much as everyone being required to work as a startup entrepreneur. We don't really make anything, but there's still a ton of money circulating around the corporate sector and there's a massive class of people with sociology degrees and what are you going to do with it? Also there's that liberal individualism where because I am part of X identity that somehow gives me some kind of authority and everyone has to check their privilege around me all the time.

I haven't read much intersectional theory but I can see the similarities though. "The development of things should be seen as their internal and necessary self-movement, while each thing in its movement is interrelated with and interacts on the things around it." Likewise, if you're an internationalist and an anti-imperialist, your whole basis should start from the idea that people in different countries know what's best for their own situation, right? I'm an American but to say that Americans know what's best for everyone, or that I know what's best for everyone, is a filthy bourgeois idea that justifies our imperialism over the rest of the world. But we can't import the Chinese or Russian revolutions to America or anywhere else and expect it to work either, different revolutions have to match their respect conditions, traditions, experiences, etc. But you can see points of commonalities and where they "intersect" in other words.
>>

 No.306847

File: 1623214446023.jpg ( 193.95 KB , 1134x566 , 416e46320a6cf17.jpg )

IdPol is commodified otherness and and politics as consumption
>>

 No.306848

>>306828
>I also think there's a whole cottage industry of consultants in the United States who go around selling workshops and that can get pretty wacky and might be where some of the "pyramid of oppression" stuff comes from.
Yeah big time, the whole "White Fragility" fellowship is a big offender - breaking down racism to be a personal problem, cover-to-cover idealism and seminars which not only make people more racist but places management to be the boss of who's racist or not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kALT95W5giM
>>

 No.306862

There is no greater threat to true leftism than identity politics (i.e pseudo-leftism.) The far right is a red herring, an obvious bait, a caricature. They are the useful idiots mobilized by the super-elite to distract from the deeper scheme. The deeper scheme consists of the excess brand recognition that the falsified leftism of identity politics presents, which alienates and aggravates both the far right and the true left. It is a useful wedge, preventing the true left from fully integrating a materialist conception and antagonizing the right with its obvious absurdities and petty trivialities. Furthermore the public perception of the left is dominated by the idpol segment, who are useful idiots of the capitalist class.

The true left would do well to liquidate/gulag/reeducate/summarily execute all proponents of the reactionary and counterrevolutionary impulses of identity politics.
>>

 No.306866

>>306862
>The true left would do well to liquidate/gulag/reeducate/summarily execute all proponents of the reactionary and counterrevolutionary impulses of identity politics.
I think we can do reeducation, but summarily executing them is probably murder according to laws of various countries and we could go to prison for that.
>>

 No.306895

One of the dangers of idpol is that new identities can be produced constantly. There are as many different identities as there are nationalisms, sexualities, religions, revivalist LARP groups, fandoms, friend-groups, and divisions within all of them. There are many possible new identities, and if you reach a critical mass of people that belong to it, the identity can become a social force, and eventually a political topic. More will be made as the previous ones die or become co-opted, and I always tell myself that transracialism and interspecies marriage will become a serious political topic someday so that I'm not shocked by it.

That's how history has gone through since people could disagree in groups. People mobilize based on what they immediately know, whether it was Gamergate, Neo-Confederate "heritage", minority ethnic groups, or a new sexuality. People don't pop out with a bird's eye view of the whole, and internationalism is a project, not something immediately understood.

What's going on presently is that a particular kind of liberal/post-liberal ideology sees new identities (or at least just the new identities during its time) as something to be at the forefront of accepting and tolerating, as if to add them to a list of things to be sympathetic to. This has the role of easing the liberal's conscience by reminding him that he's an understanding person who tries his best to be fair to everyone. It gives the warmongers something to castigate some other country for. The liberal ideology itself gains from it by not stagnating and always having something to do before its completion. And it doesn't need to solve the problems effectively, but make as much drama about it as possible so that there can always be public engagement about the new "oppressed" or the new "insurgent force". If you've ever felt that, say, arguments about leaving the toilet seat down felt unbelievably petty and exhausting–especially when they ask your opinion for it–then rest assured that people will eventually get over it and find some other stupid thing to argue about. Engagement is what the liberal ideology is trying to get from idpol–the division between the proletariat is not reliable but a good bonus if it does happen.

The problem isn't identity by itself (you can't escape having an identity unless you become some kind of buddha). Nor would identity politics be a problem if it could harken it back to a material analysis. What idpol does by itself is make a politics of spite and vengeance. If you mobilize purely based on identitarian concerns, you will only be able to manifest your political actions as a war against an opposing force to you. Nationalism wouldn't be so dangerous if it didn't make us suspect racism and possible mass murders along the line if they took power. The far-right, even if it somehow excluded bourgeois involvement, are defined less by their methods and more by their sense of hatred of some thing–that's part and parcel of the identity politics they have, be it ethnicity or religion. It's difficult to tell if all identity politics necessarily culminates in genocide, but I wonder if that was out of a lack of opportunity than of identity character. John Locke, for all his faults, recognized and tried to advocate a way to control religious idpol when internal religious conflicts were happening left and right.

Communism does use identity too–we see ourselves as members of the proletariat who oppose the bourgeoisie. But that doesn't mean that killing the bourgeoisie will bring about communism by itself. You can kill all the rich shits in the world, but if you don't organize the forces of labour and start rearranging them as a dictatorship of the proletariat you'll just be left with a repeat of bourgeois ideology without the bourgeoisie (opportunistic warlords and porkies-to-become, expectations from workers that someone will tell them what to do instead of deciding themselves, etc). That's the crucial difference between idpol larp and real political struggle: the material analysis allows us to develop determinate solutions, not just empty appeals to liberation. We have grounds from which to adjust supply chains and the collection of resources, not just pursue a thirst for vengeance. Identity is only a first step in developing political consciousness. The next step is to strategize on how to apply it.

It's totally justified to find idpol and its tunnel vision (at best) annoying, and it often is counterproductive. But I think it's a better idea to pick our battles and maybe see if we can't pick up some useful allies along the way. We can save our vehemence for the bourgeoisie, and be stern but polite about idpol retards, at least if they're talking in good faith.
>>

 No.306896

>>306866
> probably murder according to laws of various countries and we could go to prison for that.
Muh laws. Do what needs to be done. A revolution is against the law. That's the whole fucking point. The whole point of revolution is to overthrow the entire legal framework of the existing society. You can't get that omelet without a few cracked eggs. In any case the most committed idpol ideologues have blood on their hands, profiting off the continuation of the conflicts they claim to oppose. They would be out of a job if racism or sexism or what have you went away. It might not be necessary to kill them but "canceling" them is not good enough, to use their phrase. Send them to the diverse and wonderful salt mines.
>>

 No.306900

>>306866
Just to reiterate there is no such thing as the crime of murder in a state of war.
>“The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual, crime.”
>>

 No.306903

If this is just going to the containment thread for all RadLibery from now on i might as well post this gem i just found just today.

https://transformharm.org/surviving-rape-as-a-prison-abolitionist/

>SURVIVING RAPE AS A PRISON ABOLITIONIST.


This women proceeds to make the argument as to why she did not report being raped TWICE BY THE SAME PERSON, mainly because "he's a fellow BIPOC individual" and because of "Her internalised whoreaphobia"

Like this is what functionally actually believing all this shit does to people
>>

 No.306928

>One of the dangers of idpol is that new identities can be produced constantly. There are as many different identities as there are nationalisms, sexualities, religions, revivalist LARP groups, fandoms, friend-groups, and divisions within all of them.
This is a good point and it underscores the essential decadence of the idpol movement and thought process. It engages in this constant process of discrimination in which ever finer categories of narcissistic self-identification are reified and made into all important political hills to die on. There are even some who make being fat an identity! And you see the never ending descent into ever more delusional abysses of narcissistic political impotence. Someone who makes being fat or whatever the existential core of their politics is beyond useless, they are actively harmful to any meaningful development. They have been incorporated in what is essentially a consumerist model of identity, viewing themselves in terms of niche issues rather than seeing the big picture, and actively opposing higher-minded aspirations for concerted mobilization.

I suspect that from a leftist perspective this is the other side of the coin that the right perceives as "degeneracy". It is counterrevolutionary to seek to make the fact that you are fat (or black or female or gay or trans or fat black female gay and trans or whatever the fuck) an all-important problem to which the great needs of the human race must be subordinate.
>>

 No.306929

>>306928
>>306895
Forgot to link the post
>>

 No.307067

>>306746
>i havent seen anyone talk about what underlies idpol.
>It's not just that companies pander to certain identities.
Have you considered the possibility that marketing could have a psychological effect on people.
You can't deny the similarities between idpol and those brands that people identify with.
Maybe Identity politics has privatized politics by making it into a commodity that panders to the particularities of people.
>>

 No.307072

>>305951
It's because lower class people are too attached to things like churches and kings and they needed cultural Marxism to get the lower class away from that stuff.
https://nypost.com/2021/05/06/what-critical-race-theory-is-really-about/
>>305951
>>

 No.307076

File: 1623224709511.jpg ( 21.79 KB , 483x695 , 1458907956170.jpg )

>>307072
>muh cultural marxism
>>

 No.307181

>>306763
>We already have internationalism for that
women are my favourite kind of foreigner
>>

 No.307254

>>306498
>if you define it as peoples personal feelings then it never will
Well that's the main difference between our sides here. Because people do want to change that, while people like you want to dismiss that. I think if you weren't part of the normative demographic you would be less inclined to chalk it up with "eh, will always exist so who cares".
>>

 No.307262

>>306896
>>306900
I'm obviously trolling, you idiot. Of course I realize a revolution is a state of war. I just think it's funny how people are running out of ideas about what to do with the idpol people so they go "uhh.. . well… let's just shoot 'em!" LOL. Maybe that'll work but, uh, I dunno
>>

 No.307282

File: 1623237165451.jpg ( 226.6 KB , 871x819 , IMG_20210204_012558.jpg )

idpol was created by the white western ruling class, to prevent the same religious conflicts in Europe to continue in the settler state America. This is also the reason why America was one of the first state to implement the first amendement of freedom of religion, because they knew that creating a religious state would only import the same religious conflict that destabilized Europe for centuries and would make the settler project alot more difficult, dividing the settlers among religious lines, and preventing class collaboration. It also created an idea of "white Lineage" instead of the feudal and aristocratic bloodlines.

Never wondered how it is so strange that for decennia the West was occupied with wars and conflict ideologically justified by religion?
>British vs Irish
>British vs Scotts
>British vs France
>France vs German
>Polish vs Russian
>Spanish vs British
>Spanish vs Portuguese

All these wars were ideologically justified by religion. But suddenly when these Europeans cross the Ocean and set foot in America all Become ""white brothers""? Where an Irish man can join hand with a British man because both were ""white"". Were a Frenchmen and German cooperate, because "white brothers have to look out for eachother" and mutual benefit? This class collaboration was only possible thanks to the identity politics of "the White civilized settlers" vs "non-white uncivilized natives and slaves".

TL;DR: Any idiot like Aimee Theroid, Angie Speaks, who completely reject Idpol because "muh class must be first" is just perpetuating white idpol, since it is the ruling ideology and ideologically the foundation of America and the west and used to reproduce and justify its social relations. Preventing talking about """IDPOL""" is just leaving untouched the concept of "white" which thus can be used for class collaboration. The best way to explain it is that "white race" is a religion, and thus has to be treated as such. Class interest must be primary, and bourgeois ideas like "white race" must be eliminated among communists and the masses. This can only be done by critiquing and exposing the lies about "white western race" and destroying them with historical and scientific facts. Aka this means to engage in, what most western """"Marxists"""" would call: "identity politics". I am not talking about Liberal Idpol who just take the concept of "white race; western civilization" and turn it upside down thus recreating race realism and social chauvinism but in the opposite sense, again creating a tool for class collaboration. I am talking about a Marxist critique of the standard western white idpol, using historical materialism to blow up its foundation and exposing its bourgeois roots.
>>

 No.307302

>>307254
Totally wrong, you assume that people want to have their victim-hood recognized. You are being manipulated by the bourgeois system, porky can handle victims, that's people who declare that they can't change the status quo. Porky can't handle an alternative that displays the power to enact real change.
The other anon >>306498
has it right:
<It doesnt matter if jim hates bob if jim cant do anything about it
That's exactly what oppressed people want, to be powerful enough that it doesn't matter what you or anybody else thinks about them.

If you have a prejudice against me, that's your problem. If you can act based on that prejudice, that's my problem. It should be obvious by now to you that capitalism creates a class society that makes it possible to act on prejudices, and that's the real problem. Prejudices reproduce them self because class society is based on oppression and it is easier to oppress if you have prejudices.
>>

 No.307312

>>306928
>This is a good point and it underscores the essential decadence of the idpol movement and thought process. It engages in this constant process of discrimination in which ever finer categories of narcissistic self-identification are reified and made into all important political hills to die on.
I agree but I think we should just break it down to the very basics. Revolutions require sacrifices and selflessness. An injury to one is an injury to all. For a revolution to be successful, the revolutionaries have to be able to put aside their own individual business and fight for others to transform society and themselves. It's a heroic act, but also not individualistic.

>Someone who makes being fat or whatever the existential core of their politics is beyond useless, they are actively harmful to any meaningful development.

I feel like you're describing a similar thing, that people are putting themselves into little individualized silos. But there was something Huey P. Newton said about gay people at the time, where he said some comrades thought they couldn't be revolutionaries. But he said, "how do I know? I don't understand everything about them, but maybe they can be the most revolutionary.: Maybe a fat person (or whoever) can be the most revolutionary. That's a different way of thinking about it, that I think is very good, where he puts his own individual whatever-ness to the side and brings up others, that anyone who is with the people can be heroes, finding the heroic quality in people whom you wouldn't normally think of as heroes or revolutionaries.
>>

 No.307327

>>307292
The fact that memes about it are being shilled so heavily in the /pol/ glowfarm makes me think, probably.
>>

 No.307333

>>307292
>Is this one of those examples of idpol by glowies to subvert radical movements?
It could glow, they might just be racist, but it's hard to tell. It would be costly to find out, and it's destructive either way, so the energies should be focused on figuring out a defense. It might be time to declare it as identitarian oppression.
>>

 No.307335

>>307292
>>307327
>>307333
If I was in a conspiratorial mood, I would probably say the movie itself is probably just meant to act as subversive idpol to attempt to create division.
>>

 No.307345

File: 1623240817942.png ( 631.35 KB , 1263x664 , were_at_a_boiling_point.png )

Idpol is not something you can properly define because it is often contextual to the situation - its placing the onus on identity rather than material conditions within certain contexts. Its inverse of course is the idea of "class reductionism" - something that only exists conceptually a lot of the time but there does exist a number of vulgar marxists who attempt to use it.

So for example, lets say gay people. As an example, gay people in the US have had discrimination in the job market for a long time, and still does in many places in the US. The material reason for why is of course that the social beliefs of the US bouj precluded gay people from being accepted within society because their cultural beliefs are downstream of the psuedo-christian Protestantism that is the progenitor of modern US culture.
Of course the idpol understanding of this scenario might be
>gay people don't get the jobs because they are lazy bums who enjoy looking at their co-worker's asses more than actually working
and the class reductionist understanding might be
<gay people have less representation in the workforce because they are part of the petite-bourgeoisie
Usually, class reductionist narratives like this tend to rely on their own cultural preconceptions in the same way that idpol does - just, with a vulgar materialist lingo applied. Cuba was for a time one such country where homosexuality was believed to be a bourgeois decadence - an artificial lifestyle developed out of the conditions of capitalist living, until further research and social sciencing in Cuba proved it to be wrong, to which Castro backtracked the policy of imprisoning homosexuals and shifted the country towards LGBTQ+ acceptance.

This example also shows that the proper materialist line is not always a purely material one - as was said by Marx and further codified by Lenin, society exists with its material base and social superstructure, and both influence each other. While it is tempting to believe solely in the material base of things, social discrimination and stratification inevitably do lead to material consequences, and as such social conditions have to be considered within a materialist perspective. Has a certain social bias elevated or lowered a group of people in the material hierarchy of things? A good example of this is apartheid states like Israel or South Africa, where social restrictions on Palestinians/blacks lead to losses of material opportunities and capacity which made them a poor underclass to be exploited by their apartheid masters. In most all capitalist countries you can usually find at least one but usually a group of people who are socially disadvantaged which has lead to their material subjugation as an underclass.

As such, it is not necessarily idpol to have considerations for people's social characteristics, as long as you can reasonably prove those social characteristics have lead to differing forms of material inequality. As was said by Engles himself:
Marx and I are ourselves partly to blame for the fact that the younger people sometimes lay more stress on the economic side than is due to it. We had to emphasise the main principle vis-à-vis our adversaries, who denied it, and we had not always the time, the place or the opportunity to give their due to the other elements involved in the interaction. But when it came to presenting a section of history, that is, to making a practical application, it was a different matter and there no error was permissible. Unfortunately, however, it happens only too often that people think they have fully understood a new theory and can apply it without more ado from the moment they have assimilated its main principles, and even those not always correctly. And I cannot exempt many of the more recent "Marxists" from this reproach, for the most amazing rubbish has been produced in this quarter, too….
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1890/letters/90_09_21.htm

Since idpol and "class reductionism" are so functionally similar, I will consolidate them to talk about this last bit. Idpol exists in a few different manifestations rather than just being one form of expression, it is used in different ways to dull consciousness and sew dissent and division between the proletariat.
It can manifest as:
Systematic, where it is used as a mode of characterization of a people to either ascribe intrinsic qualities to them or excuse facts of that group by virtue of a shared identity. Systematic idpol is often used by political groups of government organizations to demonize or lionize different identity groups to suit their political agendas, and often to carry out some material agenda to subjugate certain peoples as an underclass and sometimes marginally materially elevate their political base by said labor. Apartheid states are a very easy to understand example of this.
Interpersonal, where idpol identities are used to characterize interactions between people - usually made as a way to have other people express deference or loathing towards a certain identity group through ingrained social actions. This is usually more a personalized form of expression of systematic idpol, but it can exist independent from it, a good example being tumblerinas which expect undue social deference being given towards minority groups because of their oppression - sometimes called "the progressive stack".
Hierarchical, where identities promote certain social hierarchies based on socially held ranks of said identities. Again, usually co-dependent on systematic idpol but can exist independent of it. A good example of this is """race sciences""" which promote a certain hierarchy of humanity, usually justified on the basis of "inherent intelligence" of a given race structured so that the supposed "smartest races" are put above the "dumbest races".

All of these expressions of idpol can exist concurrently and co-dependently of one another, but also independently of each other, depending on the social structures. Most regimes which enforce an idpol agenda, however, tend to utilize all 3 to make sure that idpol is cemented in all layers of life - social, material, interpersonal, ect. Understanding these different expressions of idpol is important because they all are meant to divide the proletariat between different angles, and often it is so immersed within the societal experience of proles that they can hold these expressions without even realizing what it is. Each different form of expression has to be fought in different ways, often contextually dependent on what idpols it is trying to promote as well. This is where there can't be any one-size-fits-all anti-idpol approach, but rather well-honed instincts and material analysis which dissects the nature of how idpol is being used to divide the proletariat and how that idpol is unjustly affecting other proles.
>>

 No.307356

>>307302
It's not either or. Obviously prejudice people must be stripped of their power to not be able to exert the prejudice in a significant way, but you are wrong to assume that this means that prejudice is then limited to thought alone, just because they can't lynch someone or withhold career positions from others. It can still manifest in harmful ways socially, which has an impact on the social lives and psychology of people.

>you assume that people want to have their victim-hood recognized. You are being manipulated by the bourgeois system,

Please shut the fuck up. Some people here have their person experience and the ones of friends and family to derive from. Jesus Christ you are so silly. I know of the experiences of a Latina whose parents always told her to not let the racism they sometimes experience in day to day situations not get to her. But she, the daughter, noticed that her parents were in fact upset when such things happened. They would be more irritated, annoyed, down, whatever. This realization came to her when some racist white guy yelled racist slurs at them and her parents were still made upset by it in subtle ways. You do not know how frustrating it is when you make experiences with racism, you tell white people about it, and their impulse is to play it down or to ignore it. "You assume people want their victim-hood recognized," kill yourself you autist, that is a relevant issue as well.
>>

 No.307360

Idpol: you can criticize everyone and anyone except troons.
>>

 No.307361

>>307345
>Of course the idpol understanding of this scenario might be
>>gay people don't get the jobs because they are lazy bums who enjoy looking at their co-worker's asses more than actually working
What? Not at all. The IdPol understanding would be that people are bigoted towards gay people, because they think of them as repulsive or sinful and that such attitudes should be revoked through acceptance.

>So for example, lets say gay people. As an example, gay people in the US have had discrimination in the job market for a long time, and still does in many places in the US. The material reason for why is of course that the social beliefs of the US bouj precluded gay people from being accepted within society because their cultural beliefs are downstream of the psuedo-christian Protestantism that is the progenitor of modern US culture.

This is true, but it doesn't explain why the bourgeoisie has those beliefs. What is the material explanation for that?
>>

 No.307367

>>307361
thinking that homosexuality is repulsive, sinful, etc, is just as much idpol as liberals thinking that everything is down to individual prejudices.
>>

 No.307372

>>307361
>The IdPol understanding would be that people are bigoted towards gay people, because they think of them as repulsive or sinful and that such attitudes should be revoked through acceptance.
Those are both idpol'd understandings - it is looking at the objective material conditions of gay people and parsing why it exists through an idpol'd lens.
>but it doesn't explain why the bourgeoisie has those beliefs
The personal reason is likely that they were just brought up in such an environment.
The material reason as to why such an environment exists is that capitalism tends to reward ruthless and oppressive behavior since subjugation is a very good way to create permanent underclasses which can be exploited for labor - a good example being the Latin Americans in the US. Those people who hold these beliefs and act on them are more materially successful than those who do not, and thus they accumulate loads of capital and pass it down to their children, who hold the same beliefs as their parents, and then unto their children, and so on. A kind of capitalist sieving of cultural expressions to promote the most useful ones for capitalism's purposes.
>>

 No.307374

>>307367
Yes, it is idpol. I wasn't saying it wasn't.
>>

 No.307378

>>307361
>>307372
Read "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism"
>>

 No.307387

>>307372
>capitalism tends to reward ruthless and oppressive behavior since subjugation is a very good way to create permanent underclasses
I agree with you on that, but that diverts from your initial explanation that was linked to Christianity, doesn't it? Isn't the origins for such a belief regarding homosexuality tied to Abrahamic religions who demonized homosexuality and therefore the material explanation is not in regards to capitalism, since that didn't exist when Abrahamic religions like Christianity came to be. I am not educated on that specifically, but I'd assume it has something to do with women and men, heterosexual couples, being more useful as a means of reproducing and spreading the belief of a religion, than homosexuals, who don't get children on their own. One would want their religion to spread as much as possible, because with it comes the legitimacy and power of the attached religious institutions, who can govern and accumulate wealth as well. Just speculation on my part right now.
>>

 No.307388

I'm at work right now, weeping at all your fucking idpolers.

Fuck off back to /pol/ and /r/socialism. This is a leftist board.
>>

 No.307399

>>307378
Already read it, actually. Its not so applicable today because the prods have mutated off into 2 different directions: One the people more on the evangelical side of things that use oppression and their material advantages as an excuse to their superiority, basically a warped version of predestination, which they use to justify all of their excesses. The other is the more traditionally protestant people who extol the mannerisms of the faith and the recognition of strife as a way to be penitent for their position in life and extol the virtues of suffering while never moving to end suffering, as they have come to see suffering as a virtue itself. The former, of course, is the American conservative right, and the latter is the American liberals.
>>307387
Something important to understand that modern American religion is not even really religion anymore, there is no spirituality or belief in things greater than one's self - rather, it is the encapsulation of all things in the context of the self, the projecting of the self towards all things to make the totality of the systems all understood through a personal lens. Basically, the atomization of the idea of the greater whole into a world in which there is only individualism. No system truly exists, its just all individual actors. I'd hardly even call it Christianity anymore, it is more a kind of vulgar worship of capitalism through the aspects of Christ and God. Trying to understand it through a theological tradition of the Protestant Churches is impossible, its just too far gone to really be considered contiguous with Protestantism.
>>

 No.307406

>>307388
>I'm at work right now, weeping at all your fucking idpolers.
Worker weeping about the struggles from other workers, = SOLIDARITY
>Fuck off back to /pol/ and /r/socialism. This is a leftist board.
Hey, yes I live in the west, and we never had a succesfull revolution, unlike those "non-white" barbarians. Hmm, it definitely hasn't anything to do that I live in the imperial core that has all kind of ideological tools are created and used to facilitate class collaboration. And which I refuse to dismantle because "duuuuh IDPOL ", we need to focus purely on class. Yes I am very smart
>>

 No.307409

>>307406
Written by soy
>>

 No.307411

>>307409
Yeah, because chad is when you refuse to destroy the ideas that facilitates collaboratione with the capitalist class
>>

 No.307414

>>306311
Intersectionality is trash and you're a lib. No I won't elaborate further. Read the thread. In fact, ctrl+F for "intersectionality" because there are already good posts here about the subject.

>>306995

Most of us don't use flags because we're not obsessed with larping like tankies, but let's try to stay on topic.
>>

 No.307422

>>307414
>Intersectionality is trash and you're a lib.
<I reject ideas completely because they have been touched and recuperated by the ruling class, it is not that I study them, apply them to a violent Marxist critique and reject that which isn't historically materialist and keep that which is useful, yes I am very smart
DSA call themselves Socialists and Marxists, you also gonna reject socialism now because libs touched and twisted their ideas?
>>

 No.307426

So, okay, the first parts seem to have at least some historically valid shit in them, but the later segments go into shit, that if the documentary were not created by a black person would probably have polcels call it super le based and redpilled.

This shit is hilarious honestly.
>globohomo feminist plot against the black family
>secret pedophilia sects of elite white supremacists
>complaints about the soy and "estrogenization" of black men
>white eugenist conspiracy against the blacks
There's also a segment that says that the feds sought to deliberately promote homosexuality in black communities, with a government document cited.

Not even all of the stuff is that improbable to be true, because the capitalists and glowies definitely do go to very depraved levels to protect their interests, but, once again, this is what happens when one can't material analysis.
>>

 No.307492

>>307422
Intersectionality is flawed in its foundations, not because it has been co-opted by liberals (it's lib to begin with). Not going to retype the arguments made elsewhere ITT.
>>

 No.307511

>>307181
<We already have internationalism for that
>women are my favourite kind of foreigner
Women have always been highly active and militant in the worker's movement.
>>

 No.307532

>>307406
>Worker weeping about the struggles from other workers, = SOLIDARITY
First of all, you stupid fuck, intersectionality DOES NOT MEAN SOLIDARITY. Second, retarded ingrate, virtue signaling online IS NOT SOLIDARITY. Thirdly, folic acid deficient slurpy chugger, your retarded ideas are ACTIVELY HARMFUL to these workers you're crying about. And finally, US educated individual, carrying workers on your back reeks of white guilt and disgusting liberalism.
>>307406
>You live in the imperial core
I do not, piece of shit. And it shows that you do, because you wouldn't be crying about how workers are oppressed because they can't use their preferred gender bathrooms in park, you'd be FUCKING FURIOUS that people are talking about that shit when your countrymen, and especially comrades, are being killed by government and non governmental paramilitaries. Your disgusting american liberal white mentality reeks so much I can smell it over the decaying bodies of my comrades.
>And which I refuse to dismantle because "duuuuh IDPOL ", we need to focus purely on class. Yes I am very smart
Keep making it clear you have no idea what you're talking about. Stop insulting the people outside your fucking death cult machine that you call your country and read the fucking articles linked in this thread.
>>

 No.307713

>>307356
>It's not either or. Obviously prejudice people must be stripped of their power to not be able to exert the prejudice in a significant way, but you are wrong to assume that this means that prejudice is then limited to thought alone, just because they can't lynch someone or withhold career positions from others.

Socialists should never pander to careerists, they will always betray us, like the intelligentsia in the late Soviet Union. And the other error you make is stripping power from individuals, that is not what socialism is about. We are about changing systems, not changing individuals. You will never have a class society without prejudices no matter how many racists or other baddies you cancel. Because class society has to oppress people and prejudices like racism are just too good at that. If there is a class society and you cancel racists, they will take over your cancel mechanism and they will accuse you of racism while they them self do racist actions. They will punch you in the face with a fist and then sue you for mutilating their fist and say that it was meant as a racist hate crime.

Sorry for the rant i got side tracked a bit. Once we have a economic system without classes, prejudices loose their material basses for reproduction, because you no longer need oppressors for whom prejudices are a helpful trait. The other side of the coin is empowering people on a personal and collective level to make it very hard and very dangerous for those that want to make other people a victim. Racism strikes against easy pray, and if you do not ensure that people are too powerfull to be easy pray you are complicit in racism. If you make people powerful enough to negate racism they become too powerful to be exploited by capitalism, that's why capitalism will never be an ally.

Socialism will deliver on the power to negate racism, and we will continue the ideological battle against subdividing people into races, we have science and biology on our side, but this will not be an easy fight, prepare for a long battle.

>Please shut the fuck up.

>deflecting with a personal story
This is what right wingers do when they loose an argument, they make an emotional appeal that is packaged in a personal story. Are you a crypto right winger ? i've never seen a leftist do that.
>>

 No.307763

>>307345
>Since idpol and "class reductionism" are so functionally similar
the ideological fabrication of "class reductionism" is like idpol in the sense that the neoliberals invented it to disenfranchise Marxists.

When they say "class reductionist" they mean Marxist.
>>

 No.307807

>>307492
>it's lib to begin with
Critical Race Theory is leftist, not liberal. Intersectionality is a concept within critical race theory created by Kimberlé Crenshaw in the 1980s, after she had studied Critical Theory at Columbia University. Critical Race Theory is an outgrowth of Critical Theory which derived from the ideas of early Marxist thinkers such as Horkheimer and Lukacs.

Capital and White privilege are two sides of the same coin. One cannot fight capitalism without fighting institutional white supremacy.
>>

 No.307820

>>307406
Respond, coward. I want you to tell me that you'll read and stop saying stupid liberal shit, and top of that, I'd love if you stopped being a smug lib, had a modicum of humility and actually engaged with people instead of accusing them of being american (projection).
>>

 No.307827

>>307492
>Intersectionality is flawed in its foundations, not because it has been co-opted by liberals (it's lib to begin with)
Because it's idealist to redefine class as an identity, Class contradiction exist even when workers do not identify as such. Intersectionality fetishise false consciousness.
>>

 No.307840

>>307807
>Capital and White privilege are two sides of the same coin. One cannot fight capitalism without fighting institutional white supremacy.

Wrong. Fighting capitalism is fighting all forms of racial supremacy. Focusing on racial politics is a tool used by the ruling class to distract from class struggle
>>

 No.307870

>>307840
>Fighting capitalism is fighting all forms of racial supremacy.
You do realize that supremacy ideology from other "races" is next to non-existent correct? And please don't respond by naming me 1 backwards uyghur who thinks blacks are actually the superior race, that practically doesn't exist and isn't worth mentioning. To pretend that these concepts, attitudes and power relationships are all equally present is moronic. I don't agree with the person you replied with anyway, but this "all forms of racial supremacy" response is just as stupid at saying "both sides", when talking about Charlottesville or Antifa or some shit.
>>

 No.307878

>>307807
If it came from a university professor, she still has a job, and her brainlet theory is being taught in every university in the country, it's not "leftist."
>>

 No.307879

>>307870 (me)
PS: The person you replied to is correct insofar that the concept of "whiteness" does play a role. Not in a transcendental essentialist sense, but in the current societal configuration, given its historic context and the current relationship of white people to wealth and the superstructure.
>>

 No.307898

>>307870
>You do realize that supremacy ideology from other "races" is next to non-existent correct?
This doesn't counter anything though

>To pretend that these concepts, attitudes and power relationships are all equally present is moronic

No one argued this though.

>don't agree with the person you replied with anyway, but this "all forms of racial supremacy" response is just as stupid at saying "both sides"

wheres the lie all forms of racial supremacy today are a result of the current mode of production
>>

 No.307923

>>307870
>You do realize that supremacy ideology from other "races" is next to non-existent correct?
Incorrect
>>

 No.307929

File: 1623258671218.jpg ( 26.19 KB , 251x366 , RDT_20210608_2231382293785….jpg )

>>

 No.307934

>>307929
I don't get it.
>>

 No.307937

>>307763
"class reductionists" is a stupid name but the idea of mitigating more realistic causes of oppression to suggest a faux-material one is something that can and does happen, and it is fundamentally anti-marxist to the point that Engles wrote about how retarded people were in applying Marxist theory and only buying into the idea of everything being purely material.
>>

 No.307944

>>307807
>Critical Race Theory is leftist, not liberal.
wtf are you talking about? Critical race theory is 100% liberal and not a leftist at all. It is an outgrowth of liberal legal scholars, that applied critical legal studies to race. At its foundation it is some kind of legal realism, which tries to use bourgeois idealist conceptions of law to explain racial disparities. It is explicitly non-marxist because it is not materialist. That why it has such a close affinity with deconstructionism

I think you are confusing the philosophical contributions of Fanon to colonial, critical theory and Marxism with critical RACE Theory
>>

 No.307950

>>307879
This. “Whiteness” is a real thing but it’s not based on any concrete racial theory. Rather whiteness is an “otherness” and distinction made generally to justify mercantile slavery. Whiteness wasn’t a thing until the rise of such slavery in the 17th century. Whiteness itself grew alongside colonialism and so destroying colonialism also means destroying whiteness. If you follow it logically, the slaves and natives were colonial subjects, to be black or brown or native or whatever would have the connotation of the subjugated standing up to the rulers and masters. This is why black power means something different to white power.

The reason idpol and the culture war is not gone because the scars of colonialism are deep and have not been resolved, and especially with capitalism you can forget about getting rid of idpol and culture wars. They could only be resolved by class war and proletarian victory.
>>

 No.307961

>>307923
You are right. I take that part back.
>>

 No.307988

>>307937
>"class reductionism" is a stupid name
No it's a bad concept, it's fundamentally anti-marxist, you must be out of your mind if you think Marx or Engels would agree with you, you even used the argument from authority fallacy the wrong way.
The neoliberals use this for a 2 faced tactic. With one face they ruthlessly use it to root out Marxists like it's a McCarthyism. But when they get caught doing that, they put on the other face and they pretend to care about secondary contradictions as cover story.
>applying Marxist theory and only buying into the idea of everything being purely material.
Yes Marxism is materialist in philosophy, and yes Marxists will not accept it if you try to impose idealist ideology on them.

"class reductionism" is a neoliberal hate-label that is used as a vector to insert capitalist class interests into socialist organizations, it's purpose is to alienate the ability of leftists organization to fight for the interests of the proletariat. You can not pretend to be a leftist if you attack socialists in this identitarian way. You are not representing oppressed people by upholding this shit, you are doing the oppressing.
>>

 No.307989

>>307937
But class is the one inextricable component of all forms of oppression. Even in terms of "intersectionality" to use idpol language, class is the one factor that is connected to all others. All other forms of oppression function to maintain what is effectively always and exclusively a caste or class stratified system. Racism is partly about creating a menial labor force coded by skin color, for example, and this is most explicitly apparent with racialized slavery. Even restrictions on reproductive rights for women has the goal of regulating the socioeconomic role of women to be the childbearing caste. Subtract the structural inequalities of capitalism and these issues, if not abated completely are still significantly mitigated. It is idpol that is reductionistic, unable to see the forest for the trees and instead focusing on narrow struggles which are only strands of a larger class struggle. You can't solve any of these localized problems without factoring in class.
>>

 No.308010

>>307988
>you must be out of your mind if you think Marx or Engels would agree with you
I'm not sure where you get that idea, you might wanna read this.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1890/letters/90_09_21.htm
There is fundamentally a basis for social phenomenon to imprint material consequences by the way of the model of base and superstructure, to abstract all material consequences of the proletariat to be solely resulting from the base of society is to ignore communist theory itself, from Marx to Engles to Lenin. The actual application of "class reductionism" is fairly marginal now but if there is a viable communist coalition in the future it will undoubtedly be used as a way to wedge the proletariat no different than idpol would be, since it obfuscates itself in materialist language.
>Yes Marxism is materialist in philosophy,
Marxism is not purely material - it openly acknowledges that the material is the dominant but only one part of the wider social construction which the movement must navigate. Every communist party has inevitably had laws regarding retrograde social policies or excised reactionary elements from the movement or what have you, because many of the social aspects of life must be accounted for to secure proletarian unity as much as material assurances. Communists have always been the vanguard of social progress in human society, as it is the bedrock of strong proletarian unity.
>>307989
You speak of these things as if they exist purely in the language of the material and class when they are social products as much as programs meant to affect certain material outcomes - you cannot cleave the social aspect of racism or sexism from its intended material affect and combat purely the material one, it also necessarily must be fought on the social level, because these forms of prejudices left alone will inevitably reproduce the same material oppressions with enough time - because the superstructure too affects the base of things. These social aspects are engineered to reinforce the material outcomes, and as such for lasting victory the war must be waged on both fronts.
>>

 No.308075

also if you want a better understanding of how Marx relates the social and political to the material you should probably check out The German Ideology
The fact is, therefore, that definite individuals who are productively active in a definite way enter into these definite social and political relations. Empirical observation must in each separate instance bring out empirically, and without any mystification and speculation, the connection of the social and political structure with production. The social structure and the State are continually evolving out of the life-process of definite individuals, but of individuals, not as they may appear in their own or other people’s imagination, but as they really are; i.e. as they operate, produce materially, and hence as they work under definite material limits, presuppositions and conditions independent of their will.
[The following passage is crossed out in the manuscript:] The ideas which these individuals form are ideas either about their relation to nature or about their mutual relations or about their own nature. It is evident that in all these cases their ideas are the conscious expression – real or illusory – of their real relations and activities, of their production, of their intercourse, of their social and political conduct. The opposite assumption is only possible if in addition to the spirit of the real, materially evolved individuals a separate spirit is presupposed. If the conscious expression of the real relations of these individuals is illusory, if in their imagination they turn reality upside-down, then this in its turn is the result of their limited material mode of activity and their limited social relations arising from it.
The production of ideas, of conceptions, of consciousness, is at first directly interwoven with the material activity and the material intercourse of men, the language of real life. Conceiving, thinking, the mental intercourse of men, appear at this stage as the direct efflux of their material behaviour. The same applies to mental production as expressed in the language of politics, laws, morality, religion, metaphysics, etc., of a people. Men are the producers of their conceptions, ideas, etc. – real, active men, as they are conditioned by a definite development of their productive forces and of the intercourse corresponding to these, up to its furthest forms. Consciousness can never be anything else than conscious existence, and the existence of men is their actual life-process. If in all ideology men and their circumstances appear upside-down as in a camera obscura, this phenomenon arises just as much from their historical life-process as the inversion of objects on the retina does from their physical life-process.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm
>>

 No.308121

>>308010
>I'm not sure where you get that idea,
<The History of all Hitherto Existing Society is the history of class struggle, Karl Marx
Are you going to call Marx a reductionist too ?
>There is fundamentally a basis for social phenomenon to imprint material consequences by the way of the model of base and superstructure, to abstract all material consequences of the proletariat to be solely resulting from the base of society is to ignore communist theory itself, from Marx to Engles to Lenin.
You suck at quote mining, because this makes my point. The capitalist superstructure tries to maintain ideological hegemony and at the moment it tries to suppress class struggle with this identitarianism you are trying to push on us. Marx would have kicked you out of his book club and Lenin would have had you shot for this bastardization of Marxist theory.
>The actual application of "class reductionism"
give up making this word mean anything, it's the hate label to kick out Marxists from organizations the neolibs try to coopt with idpol
>it will undoubtedly be used as a way to wedge the proletariat no different than idpol would be
You are projecting now, you are using "class reductionism" as a wedge, you can't just accuse me of what you are doing.
>Marxism is not purely material - it openly acknowledges that the material is the dominant but only one part of the wider social construction which the movement must navigate.
This doesn't make sense. Wait are you a theorylet, that is using
material = physical and
idealist = mental
That's not what that means.
Now i don't know anymore, i thought you were a malicious neoliberal agent trying to damage this board, but i'm considering that you don't understand what materialist philosophy is. I can't also fit a philosophy crash course in this reply.
>Every communist party has inevitably had laws regarding retrograde social policies or excised reactionary elements from the movement or what have you, because many of the social aspects of life must be accounted for to secure proletarian unity as much as material assurances.
No communist party ever said that you should abandon class struggle in exchange for concessions from the bourgeoisie. The purpose of excluding Marxists (you would miss label as class reductionists) is to destroy socialist orgs with class collaborationist political lines. Don't you get it the socialists movements that won, were the ones that did not take your reactionary path. You are not defending social progress, how many time do i have to repeat this, social progress does not come in the form of political regression.
>Communists have always been the vanguard of social progress in human society, as it is the bedrock of strong proletarian unity.
It's not social progress what you are defending. You are defending reactionaries that enforce capitalist interests, what they do isn't progressive just because they invoke certain identities. Look at what they do, not just who is doing it.
>because the superstructure too affects the base of things
This does not help your case, because inventing "class reductionism" is the capitalist superstructure trying to reproduce the base of labor exploitation.
>>

 No.308136

>>308121
>Are you going to call Marx a reductionist too ?
No I'd just direct you to his own works where he says that class struggle is not just the sum of material struggle, like the German Ideology right here >>308075
<The ideas which these individuals form are ideas either about their relation to nature or about their mutual relations or about their own nature. It is evident that in all these cases their ideas are the conscious expression – real or illusory – of their real relations and activities, of their production, of their intercourse, of their social and political conduct.
<The production of ideas, of conceptions, of consciousness, is at first directly interwoven with the material activity and the material intercourse of men, the language of real life. Conceiving, thinking, the mental intercourse of men, appear at this stage as the direct efflux of their material behaviour. The same applies to mental production as expressed in the language of politics, laws, morality, religion, metaphysics, etc., of a people. Men are the producers of their conceptions, ideas, etc.
>>

 No.308139

>>308075
You left out the part where workers can have false consciousness, and that you need political theory to gain a level of insight that allows you to become class conscious. Marx wrote all his books and texts, because workers could not spontaneously know all of this. And you forget to mention that in every epoch the ruling ideas are the ideas of the ruling class. Lets make a guess, the ruling class thinks that class struggle is bad, and they spread that idea, and they can command sophisticated mental labor to do so.
>>

 No.308144

>>308139
Well I left that part out because its not particularly relevant to what I was trying to show, that being how Marx conceptualized the nature of class struggle not being purely materialist but rather dominantly material along with other considerations such as social and political, further collaborated by Engles in their correspondences as well. It's true the ruling class creates a false consciousness through the ideas and philosophies of their time, both intentional and no, but the topic of how social categories inevitably reflect themselves in the material realm is one which can be analyzed and quantified by the material method as being true, hence why Lenin made note of the fact that the superstructure does influence the base of society - as a reinforcing mechanism for the machinations of capital.

Really I don't see what you are arguing, you are kinda off in only a tangentially related topic which I think you are trying to use to imply that idpol as a whole is a false-consciousness, when idpol isn't a definite thing really. Like I said, idpol is more a situational and contextual thing, you need the correct analysis of an identity and how it affects the people to properly quantify it and address it within the movement - but to deviate from understanding how the social circumstances affect the material conditions and to instead essentialize or make vulgar materialist judgements of the class is to fall for idpol in different forms. I feel like you are kinda lost in semantics honestly.
>>

 No.308147

>>308136
For materialists ideas are material objects too, like the wall I'm banging my head against right now.
The passage you are quoting says something like brains create thought patterns based on environmental stimulus.
Marx is not endorsing idealist philosophy with this.
This is my last reply, you need to read more materialist philosophy to understand this.
>>

 No.308157

>>308147
>The passage you are quoting says something like brains create thought patterns based on environmental stimulus.
No, the passage is saying that the sum total of material production creates the basis for social relations and conceptions as a consequence of the necessarily socially collaborative structure of labor. In the German Ideology he also goes on to talk about the different human epochs like tribal relations, the slave economy, and feudalism and how their work relations through the division of labor made their societies have different social expressions from our own. This is to reinforce the primacy of how material relations are the fundamental basis for how things are shaped but that it is not the sum total of processes within society. These products of the material relationship manifests as politics, laws, morality, religion, metaphysics, ect, all of which are driving forces to how society and it's conflicts are driven, acting as smaller but relevant forces to the primary drive of conflict in civilization - class conflict.
>>

 No.308442

The youtube philosopher who dunked on Philosophy Tube made a video relevant to this topic about the philosophy of identity.

Is It Possible to Get Identity Right?
alternative title:"Philosophy of Identity: Genuine Pretending"Can we get identity right? It is a question asked by a viewer in our last video on "identity". #identity #authenticity #profilicity

We take the chance to answer some of the questions and try to address some of the interesting and important issues about identity.

A quick recap of the three concepts discussed in the last video:
1. Sincerity demands commitment to roles. The outside is real, and the inside must back it up honestly, otherwise it is considered a dishonest fake.
2. Authenticity demands the pursuit of originality. The inside is real, and the outside must be an accurate representation of it, otherwise it is considered a hypocritical facade.
3. Profilicity demands the curation of profiles. The outside is real, and the inside must be truly invested in it, otherwise it is considered a deceptive fraud.

Videos mentioned:
Identity After Authenticity: Abigail Thorn's Profile
Daoist Philosophy: Life and Death | Zhuangzi’s Butterfly Dream

Dr Hans-Georg Moeller is a professor in the Philosophy and Religious Studies Program at the University of Macau. Prof. Moeller and his colleague Prof. Paul J. D'Ambrosio wrote a book on how "profilicity" works, which is an interesting and very relatable concept, especially at today's time.
>>

 No.308444

>>307807
>being influenced by Marx makes you a leftist
No. Modern bourgeois economics also takes a lot from Marx.
>>

 No.308445

>>308442
His recent one is about wokeism. Refutes the notion of it being post modern, or cultural marxism, but rather a post-left neoliberal American civil religion. Pretty interesting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnUqrF9mAA8
>>

 No.308447

>>308442
>>308442
Everyone should just see the whole series. It's not that long and it's really good.
I don't know if he's a leftist or not, he's certainly sympathetic, but I've enjoyed all his videos a lot.

>>308445
Nice. I'm half way done his videos. I'm looking forward.
>>

 No.308452

Wokeness is the copium of the managers.
>>

 No.308456

>>308452
Also the hopium of the oppressed creature.
>>

 No.308488

>>308452
Wokeism is when i wake up.
>>

 No.308536

What truly irks me about the idpol lunacy is this idiotic "let's elect them because she's a woman!" etc mentality. I read an article about the mayoral race where I live, and there was this huge discussion about one of the female candidates and literally all she had to say was "elect me because I'd be the first woman mayor." No discussion of policies, nothing substantive: only this. There's an indescribable lunacy to such thinking, thinking which cost the Democrats the 2016 election (they ignored the fact that Clinton was a deeply unpopular candidate because she was a she) and led to the Kopmala Harris, the influence peddling mediocrity just because she's a black woman.

In a rational world anybody with the skills and right policies should be elected. This madness about voting based on identity is incredibly stupid. And it allows the status quo to sneak in their own operatives to various elections so long as they are the "first x to be y", showing how the diversity spook is manipulated by the establishment to render only cosmetic changes to the power complex without meaningfully altering its behavior.
>>

 No.308546

>>308536
Yep, and you can show how ridiculous this is by pointing to Margaret Thatcher.
Also I will plug one of these >>306112 texts again, Woman Suffrage by Emma Goldman, which goes into the same kind of lunacy. Although of course it centers around women as voters rather than women as candidates, it's a very similar phenomenon.
>>

 No.308616

>>307988
>"class reductionism" is a neoliberal hate-label
really wish people would stop conflating neoliberals and radlibs. ironically in so doing it winds up completely devaluing a term of economic analysis in favour of a more open ended one. (with the ultimate end result of ordinary whining about liberals getting a redundantly prepended "neo" like in the world's shittiest cyberpunk setting.)
>>

 No.308851

It's also worth mentioning that the whole alt-right phenomenon, incels etc, is just a logical extension and perversion of identity politics. What is white nationalism but idpol? When anything can be an identity even that you can't have sex is seen as an identification badge, a source of in-group solidarity. The result is that there is a continual pulverizing of social groupings into ever finer granular distinctions each which can only view the state of the world in terms of its own narrow problems. It's not only a game liberals play.
>>

 No.309307

>>308616
>really wish people would stop conflating neoliberals and radlibs.
radlibs support neoliberal economic policy and they support neoliberal regime change, when it promises to further radlib cultural values, (which are not progressive anymore). They do neoliberalism and that means they are neoliberals.
>>

 No.309481

>>309307
most radlibs have no conception of economic policy whatsoever. regime change tends to be the purview of neocons, not neoliberals. the great thing about the different meanings of those terms: where liberals and conservatives are usually opposites, almost all neocons are neoliberals, and a good chunk - but not all - neoliberals are neocons.

regardless, you wind up with a confusion of the inverse when you treat "radlib" and "neoliberal" as interchangable. Margaret Thatcher wasn't getting up to demand people cheer her as a feminist icon, despite being an arch-neoliberal. She would never accuse someone of being "class reductionist", which is the purview of radlibs.
>>

 No.309519

>>309307
>>309481
From what I see, radlibs don't even have to consciously support neoliberal policy, but their plan of action will always let neoliberalism win out.

If you've ever seen a radlib type in charge, the thing that they always like to focus on are "listening to voices" and "diversity" and "dialgoue" or some combination of those things. They're not necessarily bad on their own, but it's a toothless political plan for too many different reasons (disagreements within the minorities themselves, many of them don't have experience or an idea how to govern themselves, who gets chosen as the representative, is it appropriate to listen when our world is heading to a possible emergency situation, etc.,). All a neoliberal has to do is to give the appearance of backing off for a bit, let cultural inertia take over and disagreements brew, then flank these "minority voices" with their own minority representatives until radlibs are comfortably indistinguishable from regular liberals.

You see this in some of the LARPs that have happened over these past few years like with that colonized-people-only city. Radlibs can't think of a way to actually hold and keep power. Nor do they have a plan for striking at the heart of neoliberalism even if they wanted to. They don't even need to be neoliberals to support neoliberalism.
>>

 No.309535

File: 1623320621178.jpg ( 89.41 KB , 900x900 , rainbowcapitalism.jpg )

>>309481
>most radlibs have no conception of economic policy whatsoever
Oh it's OK to enact brutal austerity or privatize public industry, if you don't know about economics ? How very convenient for the bourgeoisie to have a politically active group that just adopts what ever economic policy the bourgeoisie wants.
It's basically like this if you don't side with the interest of the proletariat you are an enemy to socialists, excuses to support neoliberal policies don't exist.
>regime change tends to be the purview of neocons
but radlibs have supported regime change

I don't believe you that they are all just a bunch of idiots. If you try to convince them to support socialist economics, they won't budge, they change the topic to idpol and when that doesn't work they try to get rid of you. That is not the behavior of people that don't know any better, that's the behavior of reactionaries that have decided to sell out and everybody else be damned.
>>

 No.309567

>>309535
>Oh it's OK to enact brutal austerity or privatize public industry, if you don't know about economics
radlibs don't enact brutal austerity, nobody makes a radlib treasury minister. 95% of radlibs are twitter weirdos, "influencers" and the like who have literally zero input into economic policy. only a small number of genuine radlibs ever get elected to positions above local councils, and of those almost none get into cabinets outside weird little countries like new zealand.

this is what happens when you reduce words down to meaninglessness, you start thinking that the sheep are leading the sheepdog around and that farmer liaises with the sheep directly.
>>

 No.309569

Marxists like to pretend that idpol is nothing but a type of analysis primarily focusing on non-class factors, but this fails to address why they themselves so often side with progressive idpol forces over reactionary ones. If idpol truly was nothing but an irrelevant diversion, then marxists would be more dispersed on topics like abortion or LGBT rights and where no one really cares either way.
Since this clearly isn't the case we can conclude that despite all their posturing marxists do not actually see class as the primary driving force behind history and it is their views on idpol that ultimately unifies them.
>>

 No.309571

>>309569
class first only means other issues build on it, not that they don't exist
right wing deviations are based on bad class analysis and primitive workerism that you'd otherwise see in nazis, hooligans and skinheads
>>

 No.309573

>>309567
building on this, since i may have lost myself in metaphor:
what is radlib about anyone in government? (say) Clinton's appeal to idpol is designed to get radlib support, but she herself lacks any kind of radicalism. she's just a liberal!
>>

 No.309577

>>309567
>radlibs don't enact brutal austerity,
I admit that my wording was ambiguous, but since you are going to be a stickler, i will do that too, i technically didn't say this. They cheer on neoliberal economic policy
>>309573
the radlib act as enforcers for neoliberal policy they kick out socialists that try to defend the interests of the proletariat
>>

 No.309582

>>309569
>marxists do not actually see class as the primary driving force behind history
yes Marxists do actually see it that way
>and it is their views on idpol that ultimately unifies them.
idpol is many things, but it is not unifying
>>

 No.309583

>>309571
>class first only means other issues build on it
That's not true. For example marxists say the traditional family structure is bourgeois, women will be "liberated" after the transcendence of capitalism and eventually relieved from their duty from the extended family. Problem is there is no way to verify or infer this and yet it is in line with the progressive idpol narrative.
>>309582
>idpol is many things, but it is not unifying
It is, actually. What divides marxists are different views on the best way to achieve communism and what unifies them is that they all share the same views on idpol.
>>

 No.309601

File: 1623326437462-0.jpg ( 49.94 KB , 500x370 , gerry-adams (2).jpg )

File: 1623326437462-1.jpg ( 197.06 KB , 700x466 , 3b950227d61e99f45697a83dcd….jpg )

File: 1623326437462-2.png ( 77.9 KB , 600x174 , 530583405830495.png )

>>309569
>Since this clearly isn't the case we can conclude that despite all their posturing marxists do not actually see class as the primary driving force behind history and it is their views on idpol that ultimately unifies them.
I think the problem here is when you start thinking of politics as just a matter of "positions" on this or that as opposed to trusting theory enough to reason from it. I like to quote Engels who was linked earlier that the "ultimately determining element in history is the production and reproduction of real life" but it's not the only one. "We make our history ourselves, but, in the first place, under very definite assumptions and conditions. Among these the economic ones are ultimately decisive. But the political ones, etc., and indeed even the traditions which haunt human minds also play a part, although not the decisive one."

An example I'm thinking about here is Northern Ireland. Irish independence changed the economic life and political status of most people on the island, but not Catholics in Northern Ireland who remained subordinated to the British Empire and its colonial satraps, although their political status did change with the Good Friday Agreement after a bloody, decades-long political conflict. But Brexit has kind of messed this up, because one of the conditions of the GFA was to open up the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, which was jeopardized by Brexit which would require violating the GFA, causing hostilities to resume. So, the British are putting the customs barrier in the Irish Sea instead, which means the political status of Northern Ireland remains the same, but economically can you even really say that it's part of the United Kingdom at this point?

The economic base shifts, which will eventually lead to a rearrangement of the political superstructure, the unification of Ireland (I'm pretty sure anyways). Because the economic base is decisive.

Now political ideas and religious ideas have their influence on the course of events, and like Engels said, "in many cases preponderate in determining their form." One of the forms this conflict manifested was between Catholics and Protestants. But what distinguishes us from liberals is that they like to reduce the conflict to that. Or like "Israel vs. Palestine," the conflict is reduced to either just a racial problem or a religious problem. They've been fighting each other for thousands of years! Herp derp. forgetting that this conflict is actually pretty modern and essentially dominated by politics, and therefore, by economics. Why do the Marxists always side with the Catholics in Norther Ireland!? It's not on the basis of religion, but because the British occupation of Ireland was a political act which subordinated them to a colonized second-class status, as was the Israeli occupation of Palestine, which altered the "production and reproduction of real life" that Engels was talking about. If it was solely about religion, then we'd take the "Catholic side" everywhere, but that's not the real basis for the conflict in the first place – that's a form, unique to Ireland's particular circumstances. And while the political gains by Irish republicans in the late 20th century were limited, they did open up a new period in their history, and that cleared the way for their political and social emancipation, from a long-term historical perspective.

If that didn't happen, whose fault would it be? There was a lot of money to be made in cheap, exploitable labor in Ireland by the British ruling classes – for centuries.

By the way, Marx came to basically write off the English working class as hopelessly reactionary and that they wouldn't make much progress until they got rid of Ireland. So, if you take that long-term view, class struggle is indeed the motor force of history.
>>

 No.309608

>>

 No.309609

>>309569
>Since this clearly isn't the case we can conclude that despite all their posturing marxists do not actually see class as the primary driving force behind history and it is their views on idpol that ultimately unifies them.
Also, I feel it's very important to stress here that the Marxist view of class as the primary driving force of history is like a historical law – from the Marxists' point of view – and this is believed to be true regardless of what anyone thinks about the opinions of the people involved or positions on this or that, which overall have taken many different forms over the course of thousands of years of class struggle. We don't even have the option of transferring it somewhere else.
>>

 No.309701

>>309583
>It is, actually. What divides marxists are different views on the best way to achieve communism
maybe that's a fair assessment
>and what unifies them is that they all share the same views on idpol.
Well there might be unity in disliking idpol, but that's not what you meant to say.

Idpol is divisive, because it splits the proletariat into different groups. And id-pol-identities are class collaborationist in the sense that a capitalist can have the same identity as a worker, but workers have different identities.
The Marxists that hold socially progressive views, would not agree with radlib social views. Radlibs have more in common with social conservatives, who think that race and sexual identities are very important. That is sort of suspect to Marxists because that could all just be capitalist culture.
Marxists will tell you that social and cultural values will be shaped by the mode of economic production and social reproduction of a society.
Socialism would create a materialist social value system that is based on a more scientific trial process for finding out what kind of rules for living together have the best results. I can't tell you what that looks like but ostracizing behavior and psychological violence would not become a social convention in a materialist culture. Radlibs are not sincere when they talk about abolishing oppression, because their praxis suggest otherwise. https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/exiting-vampire-castle/
>>

 No.310312

>>309569
Those "marxists" steeped in idpol propaganda are pseudo-left fake marxists. Orthodox marxism rejects political idealism.
>>

 No.310336

>>309519
>If you've ever seen a radlib type in charge, the thing that they always like to focus on are "listening to voices" and "diversity" and "dialgoue"
The class factor of this dynamic cannot be discounted. It is always the "voices" of the upper middle class social climbers listened to, it is only "diversity" within this well-off cohort that matters, it is only "dialogue" between those who stand to profit from this arrangement. Lower working class minorities for example could care less about these issues, they want to not be poor, to fix the problems in their communities. What do they care about "inclusion" and all these empty buzzwords. Include more money into their wallets. Include functioning public education. Include safer neighborhoods.

So the self-interested class character of radlib priorities is the driving principle of their entire platform.
>>

 No.310344

>>309569
>If idpol truly was nothing but an irrelevant diversion, then marxists would be more dispersed on topics like abortion or LGBT rights and where no one really cares either way.
This doesn't make sense and I think this can only come from fundamentally misunderstanding what idpol is. Also, even by your own definition of idpol, being anti-idpol would not result in being dispersed on certain topics, it be refusing the dicotomy to begin with.
>Since this clearly isn't the case we can conclude that despite all their posturing marxists do not actually see class as the primary driving force behind history and it is their views on idpol that ultimately unifies them.
This also doesn't make sense. You can see class conflict as the primary driving force behind history while also having certain social views. These aren't in contradiction.
>>

 No.313034

Nothing personal hamburgers but It's mostly an american thing. And I'd be cool with it if this cancer didn't spread itself all over the place. The western left got infiltrated by american agents and useful idiots. They installed various elitist, pseudo-intellectual and lgbt groups to cause distortion and confusion. There is nothing the washington imperialists fear more than angry wagecucks of all colours united under a single flag ready to crush the porky. There's a reason the white house was trigger happiest during the cold war, a period when the world was closest to total annihilation. Smarten up.
>>

 No.313697

>>313655
How about if we're going to weaponize idpol against the ruling class, instead of targeting them over the various other identities they might or might not be, we be classist and treat them badly for being ruling class (which is to say, do class struggle but frame it as identitarian).
>>

 No.313709

>>313655
how come every single post made by a leftcom is always retarded?
>>

 No.313721

>>313697
>do class struggle but frame it as identitarian
what you do mean with this , can you give an example ?
>>

 No.313726

>>313655
The biggest problem with that is that it will hurt non-bourgeois members more than the bourgeoisie themselves. The latter can sit back and take a small hit to their profits or step down from public positions but still be well off. The former will be socially ostracized, will find it difficult to get a job, and will always be much more vulnerable to spontaneous outbreaks of idpol violence.

The bourgeoisie if anything is positioned in a way that they have the proletariat as human shields. From sending them to wars or taking the fall for their mistakes. Even the liberal "vote with your wallet" thing usually means that workers lose their livelihoods while the bourgeoisie can take a dip in profits for some time before they fold and actually get hurt by it. I don't know how many people are necessary sacrifices for a revolution, but I doubt that idpol will do it.

What did the whole anti-white, anti-heteronormative, anti-whatever-the-ruling-class-happens-to-be do over the last decade? Woke businessmen and socially alienated reactionaries who bought into the /pol/ shit out of spite at being called the villains of history. It almost doesn't matter if it's right, because neoliberal capitalism still stands.
>>

 No.313731

>>313721
say marxist shit but use the idpolers' lingo
>the bourgeois have class privilege and use systems of oppression to keep the proletariat poor and confined to outsider communities
>discrimination against the poor and working class is systemic - you are much less likely to be found not guilty in court, to get necessary loans e.g. for your home, or to have opportunities available if you are poor or working class
>the chains on the proletariat are invisible because they have become ingrained into our culture, and we have to unpack all the ways bourgeois privilege harms the poor and working people

>>313708

no lol
>>

 No.314130

>>313731
>workers of the world unite and seize the means of privilege
It sounds interesting, on the one hand you can back-scold the woke brigades to check their privileges, but on the other you are just one more voice in the crab bucket of the oppressed that screams about privilege. You have to compete for the same political resources as all the other oppressions.
>>

 No.316958

does this thread
https://www.leftypol.org/leftypol/res/316901.html
count as an idpol thread ?
>>

 No.316977

>>316974
Point on the doll where the anarcho-troon hurt you, anon.
>>

 No.316995

>>316983
I’m not a trap you schizo.
>>

 No.317013

>>316974
yeah yeah we all know you're very based timmy.
>>

 No.317074

>>314130
Yeah but if you actually get to talk about class it becomes clear how much more significant it is than the others. The crabs in a bucket thing works while class is sidelined because the others don't exist in any clear hierarchy of priority.
>>

 No.317175

>>317086
I think it’s because these ‘Marxists’ have conflated the social politics of their liberal circle of peers as ‘revolutionary’ without a single shred of self-awareness.
>>

 No.317217

>>317086
Social conservatism isn't 'anti-idpol'
>>

 No.317318

>>317086
>NOOOO YOU HAVE TO SUPPORT BIGOTRY IF LIBERALS ARE ANTI-BIGOTRY
Are you retarded? Y/N?
>>

 No.317323

>>317318
You are just proving my point.
>>

 No.317324

>>317086
>Yes, but this fails to explain why the social views of every marxist are practically identical.
The reason for this is that social politics is a product of material forces and economics, and our positions on these issues is a product of that. It's not the realm of "muh opinion" or whatever. It's something you can understand concretely and determine logically and scientifically.
>>

 No.317339

>>317324
>social politics is a product of material forces and economics, and our positions on these issues is a product of that
This doesn't make any actual sense. It requires that all marxists share the same socio-economic relations with other progressives yet no overlap whatsoever with non-progressives. By todays standards marxists of the 1950 would be classified today as crypto-fascists or reactionary. What similarieties do they shared with the people who say this today? Not to mention that this is a meaningless """analysis""" without any actual descriptions of the forces you talk about.
>It's something you can understand concretely and determine logically and scientifically
Science can't determine morality and logic depends axioms.
>>

 No.317448

>>317339
Marxism is also a philosophy of science. If you deny the advancements of science, you're a retard, eg LGBT being basically something you don't choose (not sure what you're bitching about tbh). It also understands the movement of society as being mostly about class dynamics. LGBT struggles and their successes at mostly no longer being killed/imprisoned in the first world must be understood under the lens of class struggle, because they were working class movements.

The fact that they are recuperated does not mean that they don't have a class character inherent in them. It's as if saying that racism doesn't exist anymore or is no longer relevant because Obama was black, meanwhile black people are massively oppressed. Racism and anti-racism have a class character too. Even racism against Obama has the same class character. Inb4 you cry because Obama is not working class, the racism itself has class character.
>>

 No.317501

>>317448
>Even racism against Obama has the same class character
Explain?
>>

 No.317531

>>317448
>You don't choose to transhumanistify yourself on discord by watching porn all day
They deserve respect but come on
>>

 No.317539

>>317531
Coomer, here, never have I once had the desire to become trans, even though I do fap to the occasional MtF or even Femboy.
>>

 No.317551

>>317501
Racism is just an expression of anti poor sentiments projected on skin colour.
Bad smell and hygiene, stupidity, and so on.
Obama is a murderous imperialist, the racism is a distraction away from him being a capitalist tool and instead towards race which is attributed with negative images of the exploited, based on slavery and poverty. It's schizophrenic in its expression, but that's capitalism for you.
>>

 No.317558

>>317551
You’re right, I haven't thought about it that way, but racism really is just projecting class relations and stereotypes as an essentialist heritage thing.
>>

 No.317641

>>317448
You are missing the point. The important part is that despite it's proposed irrelevance views on idpol (like stances on LGBT) are uniform across marxists disciplines. You say this is because of "class anylsis", but really this is just nonsensical cope since 1) class is at best only tangentially related to idpol and 2) no marxists is conducting an actual analysis into his respective stance on idpol beyond thinking it's more or less the "moral" thing to support.
>>317551
>Racism is just an expression of anti poor sentiments
By that standard jews and asians should be immune to racism. Racism originates from tribalism and that's about it.
>>

 No.317652

>>317641
Name me the racist stereotype and i will point out its class character. It is always based on class.
>>

 No.317658

>>317641
>By that standard jews and asians should be immune to racism.
Just completely wrong.
Antisemitism is largely based on their historical involvement in banking. What do these racist stereotypes have to do with any given jews actual class? Nothing.
Your problem is further that you have a very narrow view on things limited to current afairs. Learn some history.
>>

 No.318077

>>317652
What about "black women are ugly"?
>>

 No.318219

>>318077
Slave owners and their bitches had a tendency to be rather white. They set beauty standards. It follows that the slave class is perceived as ugly, deprived of self care products.
>>

 No.318248

>>317641
ay no Jesucristo! he's retarded.
I hope you drop your retarded ideas and start applying marxism properly.
>>

 No.318352

Hello I am here to be deradicalized
I heard you guys don't like shitlibs either
>>

 No.318510

>>318219
>They set beauty standards
1) Beauty standards aren't "set".
2) Asians see whites as more attractive and blacks as ugly as well
>deprived of self care products
If anything designating a race as ugly makes them more likely to buy beauty products.

Besides, do you have a single fucking source for your reasoning? Everybody can tell stories.
>>

 No.318523

File: 1623699102415.jpg ( 83.6 KB , 940x529 , 17575006_403.jpg )

>>317658
>Antisemitism is largely based on their historical involvement in banking. What do these racist stereotypes have to do with any given jews actual class? Nothing.
Anti-Semitism predates capitalism and banking in Western societies going back to the idea that "Jews killed Christ" and so on. Then anti-Semitism had an economic relationship as Jews were accountants and bankers since the Medieval period. The European monarchies needed funds to supply their claims to their crowns. So Jews became the "Uncle Tom" to serve the monarchies in exchange for religious tolerance. But the money didn't come out of nowhere but from exploiting ordinary peasants and civil classes.

So, to accomplish the objective of collecting money, Judaism for a long time was highly family oriented, so one can only convert through marriage. Thus, there was a rage from the ordinary European against the Jews. It was also a political tradition that the European monarchies would betray their Jewish "Uncle Toms" to the ordinary people every once in awhile in the name of Christianity if they couldn't repay their debts and/or the people could no longer stand the economic oppression, essentially the Christian rulers would sell out their own Jewish middlemen to create stability for the feudal system.

Thus, anti-Semitism was driven by politics and social class oppression/struggle.

Or take Germany which lost WWI. German nationalism demanded an explanation for this failure. Jews' activities clearly became a good excuse. Jews were believed to control goods and raised the price of goods when the German soldiers were starving on the front. This accusation wasn't totally false. During the civil war between the nationalists and the communists in China, capitalists in China also engaged in price gouging that partly caused the nationalists (KMT) to lose the war due to lack of supplies. The fact that Jewish merchants (although not just Jews) were involved in this in Germany was a historical accident, unfortunately for the Jews.

Since German nationalists couldn't blame themselves for their own failures after all, so they looked for a scapegoat. The Jews happened to be the one.

Externally, Germany also needed strong nationalism against the USSR's communist system and the British and French colonial empires. Germany lost all its colonies when it was defeated in World War I. German extremism and radicalism motivated and drove another round of attempted imperial expansion. Again, anti-Semitism became a tactic to unite Germans and rebuild the empire.
>>

 No.318525

>>318219
>>318510
Now that i think about it if slave owners could set beauty standards such that their slaves are perceived to to be more attractive to increase their worth.
Your just-so stories are full of shit.
>>

 No.318534

>>318510
>Let me tell you how wrong i am.
Ok, good.
>>

 No.318540

>>318523
You like to talk a lot, but you are incapable of reading consice points.
See >>317658
Racism is based on current and at most recent historic social relations.
You're whole rant is just that. A pointless rant as you fail to acknowledge what has been sad as it already addresses and refutes what you in long winded words try to say for your cope.
What a clown.
>>

 No.318543

>>318540
I'm a different anon.
>>

 No.318545

File: 1623699987219.jpg ( 85.41 KB , 1200x680 , disney_robin_hood.png.jpg )

beauty standards are timeless and immutable, set in stone by evolutionary pressure over tens of thousands of years. that's why since 1973 the number of people who want to fuck robin hood has been growing exponentially.
>>

 No.318557

>>317641
>Doesn't understand what idpol means
What exactly do you think idpol is?
>>

 No.318561

>>318545
Humans evolved but that doesn't actually influence anything we do whatsoever.
>>

 No.318567

>>318561
did you evolve to want to fuck robin hood, or to want to be fucked by robin hood?
>>

 No.318568

>>318560
I never blamed the Jews for anything really. They were scapegoated by Christian rulers.
>>

 No.318570

>>318567
You tell me, furry.
>>

 No.318574

>>318568
yes
and now there is a materialist analysis for you to read
>>

 No.318575

File: 1623701119023.jpg ( 29.63 KB , 640x480 , 32901-enz_0.jpg )

>>318570
And I'm going to tell you if you hold your breath just for a moment … I can smell the cum on it as you lean towards me!
>>

 No.318578

>>318575
You have some issues bro. Seek help.
>>

 No.318582

>>318578
the only issue i have is that the only people who'll get my reference are still in bed.
>>

 No.318585

(and the lack of sex with robin hood, but that's a universal problem of mankind, like mortality.)
>>

 No.318782

TL;DR: Identity politics is a political strategy intended to replace class politics.
Both the bourgeoisie and the proletariat are formed as necessary components of the capitalist system. Neither classes are fixed or mutually exclusive (a worker can come to own and employ capital). Despite the antagonism of each class towards one another, the interests of both are often aligned in favor of reproducing capitalism, since one group depends on the other. If capitalism is to be superseded, both the bourgeoisie and the proletariat must be overcome.
Identity politics does not function in the same way. An identity group is often defined as either fixed or mutually exclusive - white people cannot become black and gay people cannot become straight, because they are born that way. Neither identity groups need the other in order to exist. Whether or not the interests of either groups align are either coincidental or a matter of cultural struggles.
Identity politics is separated from ideological politics in that ideologies are not fixed - a christian can convert to islam, a conservative can become a liberal. Ideological politics are also a displacement of class politics, and both overlaps with and is in a constant conflict with identity politics, where one is often redefined and regulated by the other.
For example, workerism is a form of ideological politics, as it simply opposes the bourgeoisie without regard for the necessary relationship between both classes. The most radical form of workerism strives for a proletariat without a bourgeoisie, embodied by a worker-controlled state assuming the role of the capitalist and thus conceptually eliminating the capitalist class.
What both identity politics and ideological politics share in common is the absence of material relationships. For class politics, each class has a direct and necessary relationship to each other and to the system which generates them. For identity politics, any relationships which do exist are depicted as little more than conflicts of power and domination, and to change such relationships simply involves changing how one interacts with the other. Ideological politics acts as a bridge between the two, allowing class politics to be distorted into the formation of identity groups - concepts such as the lower, middle and upper classes, which aren't fixed but are ultimately constructed.
The ability to divorce identity from material relationships allows one to freely construct identity groups and group relationships, and this is where the political strategy lies. By dividing society into identity groups and pitting one against the other, class politics not only becomes displaced, but subverted entirely - one can devise forms of interaction between identity groups which conceals, imitates or appropriates the characteristics of class.
This can be seen in how nazi germany transformed class politics into a struggle between the german people and jewry. Since jews occupied both class positions (like most other identity groups), their depiction in nazi society was of assuming the negative stereotypes of both the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. That jews were historically associated with finance and were thus overrepresented in the upper classes of german society was especially conducive to such a depiction.
>>

 No.318795

>>318582
>>318585
I like the robin hood movie. I'm not a furry, but when I saw it when I was little I thought Robin Hood was attractive. I love the intro song to the movie, I sometimes play it in the mornings when I'm in a good mood.
>>

 No.318868

>>318795
Oodilali oodilali golly what a day
>>

 No.325511

File: 1624037476693.png ( 33.96 KB , 253x258 , dogquizical.png )

>>318782
> If capitalism is to be superseded, both the bourgeoisie and the proletariat must be overcome.
the proletariat has to overcome the bourgeoisie
>>

 No.325788

>>325511
In overcoming the bourgeoisie the proletariat also overcomes itself. You don't have "prole" branded on your ass. Being a prole is a class position that is defined in relation to the existence of the bourgeois. To abolish one is to abolish the other. The point is to overcome class society entirely.
>>

 No.325816

>>asians
The funny thing is that the "elevation" of "whiteness" in Asian cultures is also coming from a similar basis originally in class. Having "lighter" skin meant that the person was one who did not have to work in the fields, and this usually meant that the person was in a higher position, not part of the peasantry. The other factor that also promotes this mentality is that of the imperialism historically perpetrated onto numerous countries in that area. The "whitening" obsessions of occupied Korea's pop idols is one example of this.
>>

 No.326568

>>305962
Lib spotted.
>>

 No.326575

>>305966
Except the porky media is literally doing just that and has been since the invention of the printing press. The CIA has declassified documents showing how they infiltrated movements and pushed certain messages. It always works. Normies are extremely gullible. If they believe a particular opinion is fashionable, they'll hold that opinion.
>>

 No.326582

>>318574
>Abram
Perhaps there is a particular bias that this author holds. Perhaps I am unlikely to get any personal utility from these ideas as the author has different interests than mine and what benefits them does not necessarily benefit me.
>>

 No.326590

>>306299
>which is precisely the type of behavior that makes homosexuals turn to idpol for answers?

How's that going for you

fucking lol

Just get a fucking clue please. PLEASE.
>>

 No.326596

>>306895
>It's totally justified to find idpol and its tunnel vision (at best) annoying, and it often is counterproductive. But I think it's a better idea to pick our battles and maybe see if we can't pick up some useful allies along the way. We can save our vehemence for the bourgeoisie, and be stern but polite about idpol retards, at least if they're talking in good faith.

Spoilers: they never are. It's a hotbed of narcissism.

I'm sorry I have no time - and neither should you - for people who prioritize trying to shanghai chad into LARPing that they are stacy over the liberation of humans everywhere.

I have never seen ANYTHING productive come about from the idpol sphere, and on the contrary have seen it repel and repulse people who wouldve been good marxists, and act as a memetic virus to poison the well against socialism.
>>

 No.335063

>>326596
>I have never seen ANYTHING productive come about from the idpol sphere, and on the contrary have seen it repel and repulse people who wouldve been good marxists, and act as a memetic virus to poison the well against socialism.
So what's the " memetic vaccine" ?
>>

 No.335081

Identity politics in the modern sense only makes sense in societies where eugenics is enshrined and conscious segregation into social castes defined by "civic worth" is practiced in every minute way possible. Its growth is a sign that eugenic thinking is increasingly dominant; and this is why "idpol" is most prominent among those whose thinking is particularly eugenic, the fascist right and American progressivism and a large part of those who were once "liberal". It is far less pronounced among those who are less eugenic in their daily behaviors, or whose eugenism is at least muted for some reason or another.
The LACK of "idpol" among minority groups as a discernable trend should be very telling. There's a whole lot of black people who have no solidarity with their tribe, or little solidarity. What solidarity exists is almost entirely due to there being an actual history within the black race, and the existence of explicit racist laws practically forcing a shared existence of some sort.
There is a difference between blocs of people who were brought together for an actual historical reason that correspond to a racial origin, and "idpol" which is a very artificial construction. Hitlerian idpol faggotry was the first real blow against the actual historical construct of krautland, replacing it with a "Germanness" more amenable to eugenics (and the foreign financiers who made the Nazis big). The Nazi treatment of the whole society pittted German against German, and openly used "muh nation" to keep people satisfied with the arrangement by finding some other races to shit on even more than the eugenic society made them shit on each other. The whole thing rests on maximizing misery, except for those people who are drunk enough to enjoy the cheap thrill idpol delivers to the reptilian brain. As with Americans, the people promulgating this stuff have nothing but contempt for their "white brethren" and revel in the total struggle of all against all taken to its logical conclusion. It's an insane and stupid world-system kept in place by an extreme use of force. It isn't even the same thing as the usual things you see associated with racism, like imperial conquest and colonization. It's the purest stupidity of race-science distilled, a kind that only makes sense in a eugenicist society where every petty distinction is used to divide a populace against itself, and force a social ordering mandated from a central institution above the society. It's why you don't see anything quite like it in the past. You can find racism, imperialism, bigotry of the worst sort, but you don't find the most craven "idpol" faggotry until the past century.
>>

 No.335109

>>335081
Based eugenics autismo. Intersectionality corresponds quite nicely with nationalism of the 19th and early 20th centuries also.
>>

 No.335137

>>335109
There was a difference with the nationalist movements of the 19th century, in that there were actual racial/ethnic blocs that were forming nations. Idpol is more akin to the American experience, in which race was used as a legal category to denote a class distinction. It starts appearing when you have a whole social order based on segregating not just races from each other, but the whole society is sorted by grades of "civic worth" and this expectation is drilled into all participants of society. Such an environment was and is fertile ground for something like the KKK (based again on the historical legal distinction of slavery and attempts to re-impose it). The fascists were about eugenics and slavery much like the KKK / Confederacy, and so their nationalist appearance was the same sort of shit. In the end, fascism subordinates the actual nation under the cartel that rules the state. It's a mistake to interpret fascism as "ultra-nationalism", especially when its objective was always global domination of the world by the fascist (eugenics) ideology above any fidelity to "nation", which would become more and more antiquated (just as it did for us). Fascism was really the end of nationalism as the major force in geopolitics, and the rise of intensely ideological superstates which the democratic nation-state was subsumed into.

My understanding of intersectionality is that it is a legal theory. It only "makes sense" with a wonky interpretation of liberal laws for protected classes. The idea that different "axes of oppression" are a thing would be utterly alien to pretty much anyone until the neoliberal period. Oppression is oppression, not a mystical feeling to be adjudicated in a courtroom setting. It exists precisely because the "protected class" laws were made intentionally weak, in an environment of at-will hiring and more or less mandated permanent unemployment. You couldn't actually do anything about the law or the people in charge though. The acceptance of this intersectionality shit is an admission of the utter impotence of those left formations that tout it, and just how far gone we are when it comes to any sort of labor rights and labor's power. They can't even bring themselves to question the Malthusian logic where too many people are after too few jobs, and the jobs are intentionally kept in short supply to create the environment where people will kill each other over a shitty Wal-Mart job.
>>

 No.335162

>>335137
Surprisingly cogent take.
>>

 No.335209

>>335137
I was thinking of intersectionality and modern idpol as occupying the same function as early nationalism did. Back in the day nationalism was a progressive, even left wing ideology that worked to give form and justification to the modern bourgeois state. Now that the nation state has been subsumed by the world market and modern imperialism, a new ideology is needed. It also has the exact same class character as nationalism of old. OG ethnonationalists are in character more similar to royalists, Bonapartists etc. How the modern idpol will turn to its opposite remains to be seen, but I'm convinced the ultimate death struggle will be fought between the workers movement and the idpol faggots.
>>

 No.336514

>>335209
There's not a genuinely progressive bone in intersectionality. Most of the race-discourse of the past 40 years was calculated to reverse the long-run trend of integration, or control integration in a way that would favor the rich, while retaining the ability to pander to whites with petty distinction. There was the risk for a while that white people were no longer having it in the same way, so it was necessary to find the most craven of the white race and coddle them, encourage their stupidity. Intersectionality and "wokism" is the flip side of that false debate, with a predetermined conclusion. It's not meant to actually improve the conditions of anyone, since it's premised on the belief that only the "worthy" of the oppressed groups have any sort of future. So much of the intersectional movement has been backsliding on things that were, in the 80s and 90s, not far out there at all. For example, there was an actual debate about prisoner rights and what we were going to do in the prison system, but Reagan and Clinton wanted to expand the prison system and privatize it, and so this giant "tough on crime" movement was inserted into the mass media and we're supposed to believe it is a good thing when Bill Clinton executes a retarded man. It's so over the top and sadistic, and intersectionality doesn't really question why that happened. It's designed so you don't question that.
>>

 No.336521

"idpol" is a keywork closeted nazis and duginists from this shithole site use to silence PoC, nothing more nothing less
>>

 No.336528

>>336521
I would agree, it's utilized by people who latch onto a confused understanding of the situation and seek to advance a reactionary agenda. There is an actual identity politics though, and there is a reason why that manifests in a particular way over the past century - as I mentioned, it is the mentality of a society in which people are pitted against each other in Social Darwinian competition as a fundamental social rule.
>>

 No.336536

>>336528
They're not confused, they're mean intentioned crypto-fashs trying to spread their agenda
>>

 No.336539

>>336536
I mean there are confused people who want to make sense of the world, and the crypto-fash latch on to that to sell fascist bullshit (all ideology trends towards fascism in a society where eugenics is everywhere enshrined, fascism is the "only natural system" in such a world).
>>

 No.336703

File: 1624590025986.jpg ( 58.06 KB , 400x467 , 33a03170c0cc46c286801f0476….jpg )

>>336521
>"idpol" is a keywork closeted nazis and duginists from this shithole site use to silence PoC, nothing more nothing less
>>

 No.340116

>>335209
>I was thinking of intersectionality and modern idpol as occupying the same function as early nationalism did. Back in the day nationalism was a progressive, even left wing ideology that worked to give form and justification to the modern bourgeois state. Now that the nation state has been subsumed by the world market and modern imperialism, a new ideology is needed. It also has the exact same class character as nationalism of old. OG ethnonationalists are in character more similar to royalists, Bonapartists etc. How the modern idpol will turn to its opposite remains to be seen, but I'm convinced the ultimate death struggle will be fought between the workers movement and the idpol faggots.

Interesting theory, this could be, although i want others to weigh in as well.
>>

 No.340129

>>336521
Honestly I would take you more seriously if you stopped using PoC to represent minorities as you sound just like the Segregationists back in the Jim Crow South. But Liberals are just racists as the people they pretend to hate, and are fascists who rather keep their pet minorities on a leash to parade around to show how "Progressive" they are.
>>

 No.340158

I wrote a post once about the dialectics of identity politics and somebody capped it, I would like it plz if that person still has it
>>

 No.340173

File: 1624726185352.png ( 171.62 KB , 430x459 , pokekamon.png )

>>340129
>who rather keep their pet minorities on a leash to parade around to show how "Progressive" they are.
So like minority Pokemon ?
>>

 No.340181

>>340173
That's one way of putting it yes. I was going with the literal pet analogy of them being like dogs to be shown off. Then have their pets attack their political enemies and get praised for defending their oppressors.

Which is why I don't listen to liberals when they are trying to defend Black people in America for example. They go out of their way to categorize them as a Person of Color. You know who else did that you guessed it the Segregationists calling themed Colored Person/People. Different Time just repurposing the terms to sound "Progressive".
>>

 No.340219

>>317641
People don’t understand that IdPol is expressed by fascists and conservatives too.
>>

 No.340682

File: 1624741314452.jpg ( 57.66 KB , 720x785 , Your brain on Pol .JPG )

>>326582
Literally picrel
>>

 No.351871

>>306024
should be added to the sticky thread or /edu/
>>

 No.351877

>>340173
Exactly like pokemon. They even have their pet minority identities battle with the oppression olympics nonsense they pull.
>>

 No.352855

>>306995

Still no Arguments
>>

 No.352905

File: 1625282732397-0.jpg ( 206.51 KB , 1024x682 , Pedro-Castillo-en-Carabayl….jpg )

File: 1625282732397-1.png ( 360.39 KB , 721x365 , 534895034850.png )

>>335137
>My understanding of intersectionality is that it is a legal theory. It only "makes sense" with a wonky interpretation of liberal laws for protected classes.
I like the point about legal theory here. American legal theory comes from 18th-century mechanical materialism where everything in the universe is held up to be like a big clock and all the elements can be managed and predicted in a precise and perfect manner. Related: "rule of law." But while the marginal utility of complicating the legal system with new laws and regulations is positive in the beginning, eventually it becomes so fat and inefficient that no one but a lawyer can understand the legal documents. It's a highly commercialized and industrialized system which is having similar problems to an extremely bloated and inefficient bureaucracy.

Same with Brexit in the U.K., the MPs had only a short amount of time to read thousands of pages of documents before approving or disapproving. But most just skip it, and there's no way the public was going to read the whole thing. There's rapidly increasing entropy in the system in terms of both information and material (expenses) while the marginal utility of creating new laws is negative. In other words, the system is like an outdated machine that consumes more input than the output it produces.

>>335209
>How the modern idpol will turn to its opposite remains to be seen, but I'm convinced the ultimate death struggle will be fought between the workers movement and the idpol faggots.
Too binary. I think they'll interpenetrate each other in interesting ways. The Peru election here is interesting because Pedro Castillo is a social conservative in some ways, and his supporters are young people, rural farmers and copper miners and indigenous people and his rallies were rich in cultural symbolism and demands for respecting their cultural rights. Is this idpol? Fujimori meanwhile had more support among the whites who dress and act exactly like Yuppies with condos in Miami and identify more with that then their own country.

I also think some anons here seem to desire to flatten differences between people, like where we achieve power by smashing everyone into a homogenous and disciplined movement of identical "workers" with the same values to contrast with the atomizing and fluid nature of capitalism. And there may very well be reactionary elements in these things we're talking about, including idpol of the purported left, or within specific communities. But before you do anything, I think you have to study why this reactionary element exists – perhaps even the necessity of it given a certain point in time – which then allows you to offer constructive solutions (using Marxism) instead of sanctimonious preaching of abstract dogmas to them. I think that would just be like imposing "Marxism" as another "ism" onto people. And that comes with the implication of some ruling hierarchy that everyone must conform to. What "Marxism" seems to be, the more I read about it, is like an integrated basis for social science and political strategy that's going to vary in different places.

There is no Marxist nation or Marxist community. Marxism must always be adapted to the particular, and that's something that is understood in the theory but hasn't really been practiced in reality for awhile until relatively recently.
>>

 No.353028

>>352905
>American legal theory comes from 18th-century mechanical materialism
You are just pulling this out of your ass, American legal theory is a derivative of the many different colonial powers, but it also has adopted a surprising amount of native tribal law and generated a lot of novel legal concepts. However none of it is materialist, like all legal systems it's thoroughly idealist. Conceiving and building a materialist legal system both in theory and praxis is certainly on the socialist todo list, but so far that hasn't been realized.
>Related: "rule of law." But while the marginal utility of complicating the legal system with new laws
the marginal utility ? are you trying to smuggle in capitalist value theory through the back door

>I also think some anons here seem to desire to flatten differences between people, like where we achieve power by smashing everyone into a homogenous and disciplined movement of identical "workers" with the same values to contrast with the atomizing and fluid nature of capitalism.

We want freedom from identitarianism, for your kind to stop gaslighting people and help the bourgeoisie rule by divide and conquer. And what's up with the percussive analogies like "flattening" and "smashing" ? Should i accuse you of trying to steam-hammer people into preformed identitarian stamped shapes and press-force them through identity-extrusions to fit your prejudiced hatreds of the lower classes ?

>The Peru election here is interesting because Pedro Castillo is a social conservative in some ways, and his supporters are young people, rural farmers and copper miners and indigenous people and his rallies were rich in cultural symbolism and demands for respecting their cultural rights. Is this idpol? Fujimori meanwhile had more support among the whites who dress and act exactly like Yuppies with condos in Miami and identify more with that then their own country.

You have to stop projecting your own racism onto other political movements. You are like a ghost from the Victorian era that is looking at the rest of the world like it's a strange zoo.

>Marxism must always be adapted to the particular,

No Marxism must be adapted to material conditions, but otherwise Marxism is in the universalist tradition of the enlightenment. Particularism would be a regression to pre-modern forms of society like what was practiced by feudal monarchies.
>>

 No.354813

>>317652
Asians have small penis
>>

 No.354829

>>354813
Stems from colonialism and the patriachal structures of the invading europeans. Simple and very petty ruling class ideology of emasculation of subjogated people.
>>

 No.354842

>>353028
>We want freedom from identitarianism
How is identitarianism holding you back? Your efforts to tell people to shut up and stop talking about oppression is bound to fail, because oppression always breeds resistance.
>>

 No.354932

>>354842
Identitarianism is oppressing the economic left, it's about politically persecuting the people that defend the economic interest of the workers.
Its about dividing the working class, distracting them with infighting, rendering them impotent in the face of vicious class war by the bourgeoisie.
Identity politics has become pre-fascistic enforcement of class collaboration-ism on behalf of corporate domination of the human species.
Mark fisher called the mechanism of identitarian political persecution: "The Vampires’ Castle"
<It specialises in propagating guilt. It is driven by a priest’s desire to excommunicate and condemn, an academic-pedant’s desire to be the first to be seen to spot a mistake, and a hipster’s desire to be one of the in-crowd.
You are part of the vampires castle.
>Your efforts to tell people to shut up and stop talking about oppression is bound to fail, because oppression always breeds resistance.
This is the most dishonest and vile thing in this thread. You just told people to shut up about identitarian oppression
Let me explain by quoting some more Fisher
<The danger in attacking the Vampires’ Castle is that it can look as if – and it will do everything it can to reinforce this thought – that one is attacking the struggles against racism, and sexism. But, far from being a legitimate expression of such struggles, the Vampires’ Castle is best understood as a bourgeois-liberal perversion and appropriation of the energy of these movements.
You are not defending anybodies struggles, you are not representing anybody who is oppressed. Identitarians like you are enforcing the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie in the most cynical way possible. And you are actively helping the oppression of those that you pretend to defend, people like you burn the credibility of struggles of minorities and the oppressed, because you use it for your own selfish advancement. The way this form of politics is reproducing it self is by first sacrificing people to the capitalist machine, then, when they cry out in pain and try to politically organize, identitarians like you suck out all the political energies to reinforce the neoliberal system that kills them. The system will continue to sacrifice people, then funnel their rage into reproducing their torture chamber. It's cruel inhuman and deserves nothing else than condemnation.

Identitarianism is the expression of neoliberal political domination.
Identitarianism is oppression.

You are a social predator and your disguise has failed, now fuck off.
>>

 No.354959

>>306024
>>351871
>should be added to the sticky thread or /edu/
Yes
>>

 No.355690

>>306252
The idea of "human default" or "human nature" itself is reactionary, and anyone making claims based on that should be immediately IP banned.
>>

 No.356144

>>306034

Fuck off and die
>>

 No.361649

File: 1625671828048.jpg ( 80.07 KB , 773x563 , Tampereen_suurlakkokomitea….JPG )

>>352905
>Too binary. I think they'll interpenetrate each other in interesting ways.
Perhaps. In my country - Finland - the workers movement was almost uniformly behind national independence, and actively pursued it both under the Tsar and after the Bolshevik revolution, yet they also completely rejected the nationalist ideology. The cause of Finnish independence for the workers was completely internationalist to it's core. This is paradoxical to libs who can't into dialectical thinking, but in reality completely logical and harmoneous.

>The Peru election here is interesting because Pedro Castillo is a social conservative in some ways, and his supporters are young people, rural farmers and copper miners and indigenous people and his rallies were rich in cultural symbolism and demands for respecting their cultural rights. Is this idpol? Fujimori meanwhile had more support among the whites who dress and act exactly like Yuppies with condos in Miami and identify more with that then their own country.

I see no contradiction here. I would not be surprised if the indigenous people are a teensy weensy bit "socially conservative" themselves. Internationalism is precisely not a erasing of all differences, but meeting people where they're at in order to build a common workers movement. Yes, in practice the workers movement does take on a militaristic "uniform" aesthetic and language, but that is almost a strategic necessity. Actual minority members don't actually need to see their own little symbol added to the red flag or whatever. They know who they are, who their reps are, and what the organization is that they stand for. Local exceptions may apply.

It's the people who try to push their own idea of "inclusivity" or "intersectionality" - idea which almost always is completely artificial - to the fore of the movement that are the problem. They are much closer to the right wing yuppies than they are to the actual workers movement.

>But before you do anything, I think you have to study why this reactionary element exists – perhaps even the necessity of it given a certain point in time – which then allows you to offer constructive solutions (using Marxism) instead of sanctimonious preaching of abstract dogmas to them.

If I read you correctly, you're worried that I preach abstract theory to some minorities that are enthusiastic idpollers, if I'm anti idpol myself. I don't. First of all, actuall working people tend to be highly suspicious of that shit on their own, completely regardless of race or gender. But when it comes to actual practical issues that have to do with their identity, I shut up and listen. It's petty bourgeois idpol as indepent ideology I think we need to fight against.

>I think that would just be like imposing "Marxism" as another "ism" onto people. And that comes with the implication of some ruling hierarchy that everyone must conform to. What "Marxism" seems to be, the more I read about it, is like an integrated basis for social science and political strategy that's going to vary in different places.

Based and Marx-pilled.

>There is no Marxist nation or Marxist community. Marxism must always be adapted to the particular, and that's something that is understood in the theory but hasn't really been practiced in reality for awhile until relatively recently.

Again, you are preaching to the choir, my man.
>>

 No.361688

>>354842
Because identitarianism is inherently bourgeois and by necessity requires conditions which support bourgeois ideology to exist. Any identitarian movement that isn't wholly committed to abolishing the identity in question is reflexively supportive of the status quo and therefore reactionary. Furthermore, since the bourgeoisie controls the creation and dimensions of these identities, by extension they control the political ideology of that movement. Just take BLM for example.

Workers' movements threaten the bourgeoisie. Your crappy identitarian fan club sells tshirts.
>>

 No.361689

>>305973
LMAO what? Culture defines nationalism. Just because you dont like it doesnt make it any less real
>>

 No.361697

>>361689
>Culture defines nationalism
How
>>

 No.361717

>>361697
Nationalism is build upon culture. How do you set apart people 1 from people 2 right across the border? Promote whatever culture is present in your land so you have a proper ideological casus belli to rule over a group of people within your borders.

But it can go other way around too. Nationalism can become culture itself, like havent you been to a pub that has shitton of flags in it? People probably didnt put them there because of a political motivation. They probably use their nationhood as a part of their cultural identity.
>>

 No.361722

File: 1625673683906.png ( 643.28 KB , 1830x2048 , 6z5gm6b4nu871.png )

Talking about idpol, what does /leftypol/ think about gender abolitionism?
>>

 No.361729

>>361722
It’ll probably be a thing, but also who cares.
>>

 No.361733

>>361722
Retarded
>>

 No.361822

File: 1625676138968.jpg ( 117.71 KB , 640x918 , Castlevania2SimonsQuestnes.jpg )

>>354932
>You are part of the vampires castle.
Is that a Castlevania game? Do I also get a witch's cauldron or get to experience lucifer's renaissance?

>And you are actively helping the oppression of those that you pretend to defend, people like you burn the credibility of struggles of minorities and the oppressed, because you use it for your own selfish advancement.

My selfish advancement? On an anonymous imageboard? I'm not even namefagging or flagfagging. This must be a vampire's castle because you're seeing monsters everywhere. But I'm not sure how much power Mark Fisher's whole overrated metaphor had in terms of what powers this castle can impose on people other than criticizing celebrities and creating a bad atmosphere on Twitter.

>>361688
>Any identitarian movement that isn't wholly committed to abolishing the identity in question is reflexively supportive of the status quo and therefore reactionary.
For one, it's very hard to do that when people are faced with the threat of actual physical violence on account of race, gender or nationality – if what you're doing is asking them to abandon inter-communal solidarity that they lean on to resist that stuff. But I also think it's simply not true that "identitarians" try to keep people in their identities as the purpose is to overcome oppression, not to maintain it, and that's true even if demands are articulated through identity. You can't understand Malcolm X without thinking about his identity, or Che Guevara's loyalties to an interconnected Latin American family. And their identities were not static, they changed over time as they politically developed. I think what are usually called "identities" are often the political forms where major contradictions in the system are located (race, gender, nationality, etc.) and the recovery – by rejecting capitalism – of one's identity restrained by capitalism has powered revolutions in history more than bargaining for better wages has.

Communism has to be based on what unites us, but I think the only way to really do that is to look at people who are NOT LIKE US who are struggling, get past our own individualist mindsets, and see their struggles as our own.
>>

 No.361882

>>361722
Gender role abolition sure. But there is significant scientific evidence (you know, the basis of a lot of the discussion of the transgender phenomenon) that indicates there is some kind of internal psychological-biological constellation of traits that at least relate to gender identity. Obviously this is something that is heavily socially conditioned, but that doesn't mean there's no biological component either. We shouldn't treat people differently according to gender but that doesn't mean we should assume it's purely a social construct.
>>

 No.361930

>>361722
We are definitely going to do unisex toilets for new construction, with lots of individual stalls that are fully equipped and spread out all over, so nobody ever again gets the idea that we need bathroom theory. The small amount of piping that can be economized with group toilets isn't worth the bickering. But the word "gender" that's politically loaded now, can't use it anymore, we begin with gender-abolishing the word "gender".

We are not doing clothing or toy ideology, toy makers and fashion people got to figure that out for them self's. They are going to get a set of economic constraints, a minimum bar for technical quality as well as health and safety rules, but for the rest they figure out what people like. There can be local dress codes but we are not scaling this up to the institutional level.

We are not going to abolish any hobbies, the fuck ? nobody cares if people do their hobby wrong.

We are also going to use the secular principles of separation of state and religion and apply that to identity too. All the identitarian factions are reactionary as fuck and none of them gets to use the power of the state to bully people with their shit.
>>

 No.362705

>>335209
>I was thinking of intersectionality and modern idpol as occupying the same function as early nationalism did. Back in the day nationalism was a progressive, even left wing ideology that worked to give form and justification to the modern bourgeois state. Now that the nation state has been subsumed by the world market and modern imperialism, a new ideology is needed. It also has the exact same class character as nationalism of old. OG ethnonationalists are in character more similar to royalists, Bonapartists etc. How the modern idpol will turn to its opposite remains to be seen, but I'm convinced the ultimate death struggle will be fought between the workers movement and the idpol faggots
That's exactly how I've seen it since the start of this mess.
>>

 No.362779

>>335209
Very interesting take.

>>352905
>Too binary. I think they'll interpenetrate each other in interesting ways.
Nah. Liberal idpol is way too unaware of class or materialism for that matter. Saying class struggle and idpol will interpenetrate is like saying young earth creationism and biology will interpenetrate. They are too at odds at a fundamental level.
>>

 No.362939

>>361822
>For one, it's very hard to do that when people are faced with the threat of actual physical violence on account of race, gender or nationality

They aren't faced with violence because of imaginary labels, they're faced with violence because they're poor.

>But I also think it's simply not true that "identitarians" try to keep people in their identities


You're wrong.

>the purpose is to overcome oppression, not to maintain it, and that's true even if demands are articulated through identity.


If their identities are the reason they're facing oppression as you said, then maintaining those identities means maintaining that oppression.

>You can't understand Malcolm X without thinking about his identity


Most of his life was characterized by a series of false consciousnesses, including the bourgeois imposed "Negro," which he abandoned for the Nation of Islam scam, which he in turn abandoned when Elijah Mohammad turned out to be a charlatan and his "Islam" a dime-store knockoff. His "identity" was fucking hogwash, like all "identities."

>I think what are usually called "identities" are often the political forms where major contradictions in the system are located (race, gender, nationality, etc.)


I really wish you weren't so fucking retarded and I hope one day you'll stop wasting your life defending bourgeois marketing demographics.
>>

 No.368908

Shut the fuck up you giga-faggot
>>

 No.368945

File: 1625965082334.jpg ( 227.42 KB , 691x950 , meposters-0003-0721.jpg )

>>362779
>They are too at odds at a fundamental level.
I guess I have a more expansive view of "identity politics" which is bigger than liberalism. This isn't abstract either. I don't think you can understand the Iranian Revolution without reference to the pride Iranians felt in an Islamic identity and its revival as a source of resistance. That actually happened and the working class was the backbone of the revolution and paralyzed the monarchy with nationwide strikes.

>>362939
>They aren't faced with violence because of imaginary labels, they're faced with violence because they're poor. Again, false dilemma. Like the truth could be "both." It could be contradictory, but the contradiction is in the essence of the thing.

>You're wrong.

I could be wrong.

>His "identity" was fucking hogwash, like all "identities."

Malcolm X had a quote I liked: "A race of people is like an individual man; until it uses its own talent, takes pride in its own history, expresses its own culture, affirms its own selfhood, it can never fulfill itself." I believe that the black people of the world will achieve this.

>I really wish you weren't so fucking retarded and I hope one day you'll stop wasting your life defending bourgeois marketing demographics.

I just don't care, really. They're going to try and market something to X group? Okay. But who cares? I don't watch T.V. or pay attention to these ads. Does that mean you should just give up your identity because some company is trying to use it to sell you beer? It's a foolish way to think about the world.
>>

 No.368956

File: 1625965763449.jpg ( 95.03 KB , 834x958 , Froleytia Capistrano.jpg )

>>306673
Froleytia Capistrano from Heavy Object

Pro tip: in the future, search Google for image whenever you want to know the source of an image
>>

 No.368959

>>305966
are you retarded?
>>

 No.369185

>>361722
Had me going until the "professions and hobbies". Lads and lasses have the right to enjoy "boys/ladies nights out" etc.
>>

 No.373278

Oh my god tankies are so stupid. dude you seriously cant think of race and class at the same time?

identity politics is not race essentialism at all and it certainly takes class seriously. Do you know how the term 'identity politics' originated. It was originated by the combahee river collective. You can read the combahee river collective statement yourself and see that class was certainly on the agenda. If you truly want to unite a very diverse working class youre going to have to understand identity politics. At least read what it is…not just regurgitate right wing misconceptions of identity politics or liberal misuses of it.
>>

 No.375296

>>373278
>identity politics is not race essentialism
show me a single idpol group that is trying to abolish their racial classification
>>

 No.375360

File: 1626206696020.png ( 805.87 KB , 1689x2094 , 59175da90f2698c7383c0aeb56….png )

>>373278
This is not a tankie vs anarkiddie argument. It's a communist vs liberal argument.
>>

 No.375387

>>373278
why do you cling to something that the establishment already absorbed already?
>>

 No.375397

This imperialism meme is clearly used against communist regimes like China and now Cuba. Its idpol if not thoroughly materialist and related to porky class interests.
>>

 No.375432

>>375387
Why are you people so dense? Not the other Anon, but we believe that in this current society these identity specific issues can't be solved and that abolishing capitalism would be a necessity. Simultaneously a socialist revolution alone would not solve all of those other problems relating to certain groups as well. Hence why we don't see class as the end all be all (inb4 liberal suck my cock). I already made a thread before and asked how problem X, Y, Z regarding whatever group would be solved after a socialist revolution and got not a single good answer. I honestly would not cling to "idpol" if I got a good answer how these issues solely rely in class and would be solved with a socialist revolution alone.
>>

 No.376216

>>375432
>how problem X, Y, Z regarding whatever group
expand, I want to call you a retard but maybe there are genuine idpol problem that wouldnt be solved through a true worker democracy after communist revolution. I just cant see one.
>>

 No.376220

>>375296
>show me a single idpol group that is trying to abolish their racial classification
Good point. What makes the proletariat revolutionary is that its all encompassing through its common ownership and is self abolishing accordingly
>>

 No.377771

Is the problem with idpol is that it gives a progressive character to capitalism and liberalism's fundamentally anti masses/popular politics? Because you cannot work through or lobby liberal institutions on a mass basis, you must instead organize in ways that reward their expansion
>>

 No.377907

>>375296
Christians. Muslims. Gays. Feminists.

>>361717
Explain Belgium.

>>355690
All humans share some traits, like wanting to live in a safe place with a low criminality and not a shithole, or wanting a confortable modern house and not a sack.
The need for safety and confort, for instance are common to all humans. It's in our nature, like it or don't.
There is a reason why every single group of people, everywhere on the planet and at all ages made a religion. Our brains are made in a way that give us a need for purpose, for a greater explaination.
There is a reason why they also organized in tribes/clans/nations/whatever. Our brains are made to think in term of "us" and "them". It take effort to overcome that and only genetically engineering ourselves will change it.
>>

 No.377935

>>377907
>Christians. Muslims. Gays. Feminists
None of these have a struggle that concludes with self abolition.
>>

 No.377942

>>377907
>Christians. Muslims. Gays. Feminists.
Are you literally retarded?
>>

 No.377954

>>376220
Exactly. Any group whose ultimate aim isn't self abolition is suspect at best, especially when it comes to identity groups created by bourgeois ideology, like "white people" or "black people."
>>

 No.377960

>>377935
>>377942
>that is trying to abolish their racial classification
>>

 No.378169

>>377960
I'm confused. These aren't racial classifications.

I also want to add, the history of democratic struggles (called tasks of the bourgeois democratic revolution by Lenin) doesn't have anything that features the goal of self-abolition. It's about being free x. The proletariat is about the end to the need for work.
>>

 No.378357

File: 1626306595538.jpeg ( 3.05 MB , 1800x1322 , diogenes.jpeg )

>>377907
>wanting a confortable modern house and not a sack.
>>

 No.378523

IDPOL ceased to be a positive movement that set out to teach tolerance and acceptance some time around 2012 .

Now tolerance and acceptance are dirty words to liberals and IDPOL is all about scapegoating some identities while promoting the superiority of other identities.

They have , by salami slicing , became Nazi-like in their hate of anyone outside of their accepted in-group identities. And it happened ever so slowly , one small justification or equivocation at a time , with each one building on the last one , until a massive change came about without anyone ever noticing.
>>

 No.383857

File: 1626539356608.jpg ( 23.74 KB , 505x508 , FB_IMG_1626537766067.jpg )

>>

 No.387272

an anarchists shilling for idpol what a surprise
>>

 No.387372

>>

 No.387384

>>375397
>This imperialism meme is clearly used against communist regimes like China and now Cuba.
Neither Cuba nor China are imperialist, and neither are "regimes" , why are you using glowy talk ?
>Its idpol if not thoroughly materialist and related to porky class interests.
The theory of Imperialism is indeed materialist, but it is not id-pol those are mutually exclusive.

>>378523
>IDPOL ceased to be a positive movement that set out to teach tolerance and acceptance some time around 2012.
You think it wasn't rotten before 2012 ?
I'm curious as to why you think that, you can find criticisms of Idpol reaching as far back as the 1980s. You could say that they lacked the power to be as destructive as they are now and maybe had to be more restrained. But clearly the identity centric theories are fundamentally broken.
>>

 No.387912

>>306299
Maybe one’s use of language doesn’t need to cater to the homosexual identity 24/7.
Get over yourself.
>>

 No.387916

>>375432
I don’t care about your identity problems. Buy a gun.
What matters is economic self interest, and by extension collective class interest.
Nothing more. Nothing less.
>>

 No.387938

>>335063
Rejecting idpol ‘Marxists’, queer theorists and ethnonationalists of all stripes from socialist organizing for starters. Basically the entire ‘progressive(TM)’ stack.
>>

 No.387947

>>387938
and of course reactionary idpol, such as anti queer faggots
right? :-)
>>

 No.387950

maybe you, poster number >>387912, should stop being such a faggot.
>>

 No.387957

>>387912
why does it have to cater to your hetero identity, subhuman?
>>

 No.387974

File: 1626716655271.png ( 143.31 KB , 784x920 , 569-03495-0345.png )

The "anti-idpol" left wants a kind of vulgar "True Marxism" to remain a vague, never-to-be-actualized, never to-be-questioned *thing* that they wave around, which stands for their (understandable) but ultimately reactionary hatred of everything as it is. But there are communists in governments right now, and they actually exist. There's your "true Marxism," and their relationship to these groups is dependent on those groups' relationships to their struggles, which they are conducting.

>BLM's statement noted that the Cuban people are "being punished" by the U.S. government because the nation has maintained its commitment to "sovereignty and self-determination." "United States leaders have tried to crush this revolution for decades." "Instead of international amity, respect, and goodwill, the U.S. government has only instigated suffering for the country's 11 million people—of which 4 million are Black and Brown."


>The Official IG for the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation recalled that Cuba has "historically demonstrated solidarity with oppressed peoples of African descent" and supported liberation struggles in several African countries.
>>

 No.387982

>>387974
But have you stopped beating your wife yet?
>>

 No.387987

>>387982
when will you stop being a subhuman?
>>

 No.387988

>>387982
No, nor will I stop
>>

 No.387994

>>387938
Yea seems like a good way to isolate yourself and become a sect disconnected from the masses obsessing over peripheral issues rather than class struggle.
>>

 No.387996

>>387982
Why yes, I am an English football fan, how can you tell?
>>

 No.388001

File: 1626717201517.jpg ( 43.68 KB , 600x933 , 240.jpg )

>This is really an exemplary post. How do you lack this much self-awareness to complain about "idpol" but than you keep using homophobic slurs, which is precisely the type of behavior that makes homosexuals turn to idpol for answers? We live in a world where dominant demographics mistreat less powerful demographics (not just based on class) and they are expected to take it. "They looked like normal workers," and who says everything has to suit your heterosexual sensibilities? I know that my views are not accepted on your little imageboard for shut ins anyways, but if there is ever going to be a socialist revolution. then the content on here is evidence that all the problems liberal "idpol" addresses is still going to be a problem, because you as supposed communists engage in mistreatment towards these demographics. So how is it solely capitalism's fault that racism, sexism, homophobia exists, if after a socialist revolution people like you are around? One day you people must realize that these issues stand on their own and can't all be reduced to class and capitalism.
>>

 No.388002

>>387994
socialism in one brain
>>

 No.388003

>>377907
Not even Belgium can explain Belgium.
>>

 No.388124

>>308616
Underrated post.
>>

 No.388142

>>387994
>rejecting peripheral issues over class struggle
>obsessing over peripheral issues rather than class struggle
I don't get it, how does one become the other?
>>

 No.388165

>>388142
You play the idpol game in any way you will eventually be in. Lenin hand-waved freud's theories as bourgeois distraction while concentrating on the work still aiming to understand the world and the humans in it (correct position), now imagine if he called for a ban of every Marxists trying to understand the human mind in his organization while writing entire essays about how communists shouldn't believe in psychology because it would mean they are degenerates trying to fuck their mothers (incorrect position, maybe no USSR)
>>

 No.388287

>>388165
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but it seems you're actually retarded.
>>

 No.390577

>>305966
retarded take
>>

 No.390604

>>387974
Silly BLM, elections are over.

>>388003
Exlain Switzerland, or the Russian federation, or India.
>>

 No.390674

>>383857
remove everything except classism and this picture would be 100 percent accurate
>>

 No.390676

>>387974
BLM gets money from the Ford Foundation

So there's your "idpol left" for you.
>>

 No.391261

It will eventually consume the American left too, because American (and other northern-european and anglo) society is fundamentally obsessed with the idea of race and ancestry.
>>

 No.391523

>>391261
This is an essentialist misunderstanding , the race idpol is manufactured by the capitalist spectacle, it isn't organically generated by society.
>>388124
No it's fair to consider radlibs to be part of the neoliberal spectrum because the identities are structurally class collaborationist. The identities negate class distinctions, you can't tell whether some body is a capitalist or whether somebody is a worker based on their identity. It's not just bad from a class struggle point of view to define people by their identities, it's also morally wrong: You should only define people by their own actions not a identitarian association, because that's the only way to avoid creating prejudices.

If they could create separate identities for workers and capitalists so that it doesn't negate class, we could maybe reconsider assigning radlibs to the neoliberal spectrum. Even with that improvement, identitarian thinking would still remain degrading and tendencially prejudicial.
>>

 No.391550

>>391523
>the neoliberal spectrum
Please stop this idiocy, you are diluting a useful word to complete meaninglessness. Neoliberalism is a specific economic ideology used to justify offshoring, globalization, and financialization in response to capitalism's crisis in the '70s. It's not whatever the fuck aspect of capitalism you don't like. Just say capitalism itself if that's what you want to critique.
>>

 No.391569

File: 1626847780747.png ( 623.32 KB , 400x2102 , zizek_money.png )

>>

 No.391642

File: 1626852976951.jpeg ( 63.38 KB , 1027x384 , Epie5WUXMAAF9b2.jpeg )

Can you explain me why some "comrades" have an understanding of colonialism that has more to do with Gnosticism than Materialism?
Why colonialism has become the original sin ?
I often here even smart fellows end up in the rabbit hole with some spooky shit on "muh ancestors" "muh white people" "muh post colonial identity".
Why is colonialism worse than say slaves societies which non european countries had?
Every system (feudal, clan, slave ecc.) Has been imposed through conquering, war, competition, capitalism did the same. Colonialism is a consequence of capitalism.
>>

 No.391659

>>391550
Nah, it's uniquely neoliberal because it erases class distinctions and antagonisms and instead "fights for the dignity of ALL humans, regardless of race, sex, class, etc etc". Before, capitalist ideology was very self-aware of class antagonism. Now, saying worker, employee, owner, boss, etc is almost a dirty word.
Managers are there to make you flourish as much as possible, instead of telling you what to do. Etc etc. This is all neoliberalism.
>>

 No.391670

>>391642
It's white patronizing of "uncivilized" eg orientalism, but made woke and internalized.
Zizek has a hilarious video where he demarcates west Europe from east Europe. He says "on this side (the west) women get raped, it's horrible. But on this side (the east) women get raped but they like it". Something to that effect. idk I find it useful to think about this internalized noble savage shit.
>>

 No.391778

>>

 No.391796

>>391642
This just sounds like a repackaged Christian concept of original sin…
>>

 No.391797

>>391642
Also what non-European civilizations had chattel slavery? Mine did have something askin to serfdom.
>>

 No.391803

>>306299
>"They looked like normal workers," and who says everything has to suit your heterosexual sensibilities
Just what the fuck does a gay man look like?
Is it San Francisco gay club circa 1990?
Is it "wear the rainbow patch" says porky?
Pretending that "homosexuals turned to idpol for answers" is disingenuous at the very best. Closer, rather, idpol is some disgusting bureaucracy that is absorbing every group of people that an American focus group traditionally wouldn't like.
Further to you last point, "racism, sexism, homophobia" are social constructs which will exist as long as race and gender exist. The problem with capitalism is that business have repeatedly been shown to inflame racial tensions more often than they alleviate. The number of Americans that hate Mexicans because they drive down wages is absurd.
>>

 No.392612

>[SOCIP / second-order critique of identity politics] exercises the liberal impulse to avoid situational judgment by applying rules that achieve “neutrality” through their sheer rigidity. Here, the virtue of SOCIP’s rule — that we should always reject identity as an important political consideration — is the way that it lets us disclaim responsibility for any particular injustice it creates by appealing to the greater good of fidelity to the rule. The logic here is identical to what we encounter with most liberal discourse rules. For example, the liberal rule of “identitarian deference” tells us that we should always defer to the judgment of people who belong to oppressed groups; the rationale is that even if this leads to bad outcomes on occasion, the greater good of respecting and empowering the oppressed in this way justifies rigid fidelity to the rule. In both cases, SOCIP and identitarian deference try to feed the messy world of politics into a supposedly neutral, rationalistic conflict-resolution machine of rules and procedures.
https://www.carlbeijer.com/p/the-second-order-critique-of-identity
>>

 No.394100

>>306746
based effort post, I will reflect on this thanks
>>

 No.400380

Communism is by itself a form of identity politics though
>>

 No.400382

>>392612
Only good thing to come out of the Bellows fiasco.
>>

 No.404580

>>400380
Communism is the goal of class struggle
>>

 No.404873

>>306024
We should sticky this somewhere. Also gather more and better sources.
>>

 No.404917

Bump you
>>

 No.405288

>>391569
You're a fucking retard
>>

 No.405860

>>305967
Yes but not because the masses accept it, but because nationalism is the b word which I will not utter.
>>

 No.406146

>>405288
got to keep the grift going, only the top tier of activists got houses in white upper class neighborhoods
>>

 No.426298

>>404873
>We should sticky this somewhere. Also gather more and better sources.
Yes we should compile this into a document of something
>>

 No.427112

>>308447
I think he is definitely leftist. He brings up a Marx a lot and looks at capitalism with critical lense.
>>

 No.427127

>>305981
So it always evolves into historical materialism or even class reductionism?
>>

 No.441726

>>427127
>So it always evolves into historical materialism or even class reductionism?
yes, although we call "class reductionism" Marxism, you know it's very rude to use these right wing slurs
>>

 No.441982

>>406146
>got houses in white upper class neighborhoods
>white
How is that relevant? It's such a dumb point I've read a couple of times. If you move anywhere you clearly do it because of the house/apartment, the region, family, job. It's close to irrelevant what race your neighbors have, so why would the BLM org founder give a shit about that? Additionally there are far more white people and also very few wealthy black people, making the likelihood of ending up in a black wealthy neighborhood much more slim. It's such a silly argument you could only come up with when you project your racist attitudes towards others.
>>

 No.448080

>>308445
interesting video, but if it's a religion it's not secular though
>>

 No.448089

>>375370
In practice, "class first" becomes "class only". At least be honest about that if nothing else
>>

 No.448090

>>362939
How exactly does one "maintain identities" in practice?
>>

 No.448336

>>448090
The material and cultural conditions which give rise to them have to be maintained. Separation from other identity groups is also a factor, otherwise uncontrolled development or hybridization might develop which can lead to shifts in identity away from what is ideal to the bourgeoisie. Basically, keep people stuck in the same place, doing the same things. Identity politics relies on whatever given identity for political support and cohesion, and the nature of identities is to change over time, so to have any kind of longevity requires protecting the conditions which create that identity in the first place.
>>

 No.448465

not a day goes by that I don't see in my social media feed "BIPOC single mom/transgender swer/autist can't afford rent, sent to venmo" and it really pisses me off that people are suckered into that idpol bs tbh
>>

 No.450770

>>306024
<The bourgeois-identitarian left knows how to propagate guilt and conduct a witch hunt, but it doesn’t know how to make converts. But that, after all, is not the point. The aim is not to popularise a leftist position, or to win people over to it, but to remain in a position of elite superiority, but now with class superiority redoubled by moral superiority too. ‘How dare you talk – it’s we who speak for those who suffer!’

<But the rejection of identitarianism can only be achieved by the re-assertion of class. A left that does not have class at its core can only be a liberal pressure group. Class consciousness is always double: it involves a simultaneous knowledge of the way in which class frames and shapes all experience, and a knowledge of the particular position that we occupy in the class structure. It must be remembered that the aim of our struggle is not recognition by the bourgeoisie, nor even the destruction of the bourgeoisie itself. It is the class structure – a structure that wounds everyone, even those who materially profit from it – that must be destroyed. The interests of the working class are the interests of all; the interests of the bourgeoisie are the interests of capital, which are the interests of no-one. Our struggle must be towards the construction of a new and surprising world, not the preservation of identities shaped and distorted by capital.


<If this seems like a forbidding and daunting task, it is. But we can start to engage in many prefigurative activities right now. Actually, such activities would go beyond pre-figuration – they could start a virtuous cycle, a self-fulfilling prophecy in which bourgeois modes of subjectivity are dismantled and a new universality starts to build itself. We need to learn, or re-learn, how to build comradeship and solidarity instead of doing capital’s work for it by condemning and abusing each other. This doesn’t mean, of course, that we must always agree – on the contrary, we must create conditions where disagreement can take place without fear of exclusion and excommunication.


<We need to think very strategically about how to use social media – always remembering that, despite the egalitarianism claimed for social media by capital’s libidinal engineers, that this is currently an enemy territory, dedicated to the reproduction of capital. But this doesn’t mean that we can’t occupy the terrain and start to use it for the purposes of producing class consciousness. We must break out of the ‘debate’ set up by communicative capitalism, in which capital is endlessly cajoling us to participate, and remember that we are involved in a class struggle. The goal is not to ‘be’ an activist, but to aid the working class to activate – and transform – itself. Outside the Vampires’ Castle, anything is possible.


How do we break out of the set up of identitarian communicative capitalism ?
>>

 No.450777

File: 1630761277508.jpeg ( 232.67 KB , 1305x669 , media_E94thWtVQAANqMS.jpg….jpeg )

Since when did it become derogatory to be class reductionist.
>>

 No.450806

>>450777
>Since when did it become derogatory to be class reductionist.
I don't think it is, but some people use it when they try to purge Marxists from organizations
>>

 No.450823

File: 1630789276348.gif ( 2.54 MB , 498x498 , trololololo.gif )

>what's wrong w idpol
based on this thread nothing. most of the reasons given in this thread are either nonsensical or contradict eachother. i also see people stress material conditions or whatever as though thats the only explanatory mode because it just is ok

real reason: beyond what can be done economically, there's not much else left. sure there are racial biases in dating or employment or whatever, but theres no real method of resolving something like that. it's too abstract. this is the only real problem, and it is not a global one (though perhaps today it is). you can't change peoples dispositions that easily, certainly not just by talking to them. they will always have these biases. it is no surprise that such concerns which have no concrete modus operandi often devolve into such abstract metaphysical discussions. people just end up arguing about ideological artefacts and pretend they lead to any real world shifts
>>

 No.450824

File: 1630789712252.jpeg ( 63.84 KB , 507x680 , 1619972328052.jpeg )

>>450823
note also that on the other hand, many people confuse idpol in itself with the current psychosis which riddle people where such abstract idpol issues. what we have here is a crisis of attention. really, it is about why this stuff dominates political discourse the way it does, and the most probable answer is corporate interests
>>

 No.450825

>>450824
*with such abstract idpol issues
>>

 No.450836

>>450823
seriously read the articles in this post:
>>306024
>>

 No.450939

>>

 No.451115

>>450836
>>306024
>but rather that fighting for the emancipation of individual identities without a class character ultimately amounts to fighting for individual emancipation, rather than emancipating the group as a whole
unless this is vague wording, it is an obvious category error. im assuming it is the former and this was an elaboration on your part: >>306333. in which case, looking closer, i was wrong in saying the points are contradictory as perhaps what you meant was the hyper-individuality described in the text. either way, it is a poor, abstract direction from which to analyze things. even if one may slice the individual into multiple facets, no doubt their economic conditions should be primary (seeing as it structures your necessary daily behaviours towards sustenance, as well as the entertainment you consume ergo social relations you have). it's not a problem of "individualism", but rather self-reflection. amending this, we see it is much more a problem of focus. the point about being a pervert is true though. especially with issues of transgenderism, people have been psyoped into thinking it matters. unless you are dysphoric it matters much less than is apparent. what mostly matters is that states do not make legal access to HRT more difficult, and transhumanists can find shelter (the latter problem is much more symptomatic of our economic system with prejudice being the particular tools to instantiate it). gender dysphoria isn't revolutionary; it's a mental illness that makes several people suffer. at best, that transitioning (and for that matter, gay marriage) is popularly suggested is symptomatic of deterritorialization of gender roles. all of these ideas would be nonsensical 80 years ago. the real force here lies within advances in technologies, not that some people do stuff different from the norm lol. in either case, all of these identities just get incorporated into capital at large, like you point out. it doesn't touch deeper, more fundamental problems at all. unless identity politics is structured around making a particular non-economic demographic in itself revolutionary, this is not a global criticism of the problem though
https://www.marxist.com/marxism-vs-intersectionality.htm
>This is a profoundly idealistic approach which is based on the idea that in order to change society, you need to change people's views first—or even worse, that by changing “discourse” you can transform reality
what i said
>The truth is that the dominant ideology in a class society is that of the ruling class. The ideology of the people who carry out revolutions, the exploited and oppressed masses, is imbued with all the reactionary ideas and prejudices imposed by the ruling class. It is in the course of the struggle to transform society that people (in large numbers) become transformed and change (to a large extent) their points of view
intentionally vague to hide that this doesn't cover all prejudices per se, for instance, soviets recriminalizing homosexuality under their rule
>The class nature of bourgeois justice cannot be reformed out of the court system as long as it rests on a capitalist foundation
sure
https://imperiumadinfinitum.wordpress.com/2016/11/11/class-is-more-intersectional-than-intersectionality/
>The Left as it exists currently is extremely guilt-ridden and moralistic, often ashamed of and apologetic for its class struggle orientation. As a result, even socialist organizations end up chasing after single-issue causes and demographic-specific oppression issues not merely with equal emphasis, but actually with greater emphasis than a class struggle focus
yes
>It’s not black-and-white: raise demands, or never raise them. It’s about frequency and proportion — how much do you raise them, how much time and space and focus do you give them
then we are in agreement
https://multiracialunity.org/2018/09/26/intersectionality-a-marxist-critique/
that race is just class that is given a particular aesthetic paint for capitalist paint is low hanging fruit. you can't do this for homophobia or transphobia, and can from my current perspective, can barely do it with sex. sex based oppression has its origins in agriculture, not capitalism (i feel as though when i get to reading dialectics of sex, if i agree with the points, my position here would only be more extreme), though i do believe technologies should ameliorate it. in either case, imply talking about it wont do shit
>>

 No.451116

>>451115
*particular aesthetic paint for capitalist profit is low hanging fruit
>>

 No.451117

>>451115
>hyper-individuality
is just regular individualism from the POV of collectivism.
>>

 No.451118

>>451117
feels like individualism vs collectivism is just a recapitulation of liberal talking points. all of us here are presumably of the working class. a dictatorship of the proletariate should be in our individual interests. the problem is that "individualism" is often tied to hollow ideals such as the american dream (which overestimates the ergodicity of our current economical system) all in order for us to accept exploitation and work our hardest in the rat race without question. it's something that only makes sense to the (petite) bourgeoisie. either way, it isn't "the cult of the individual". if it was, we'd be living in stirner land lol
>>

 No.465982

bump
>>

 No.465989

File: 1677077066287.jpg ( 128.82 KB , 931x1081 , IMG_20230222_124506.jpg )

>this man appears out of nowhere
>tells you tapwater is fine to drink
>but says he needs to inspect your butthole for systemic racism
What do?
>>

 No.465993

Just a thought:
All throughout written history there were plenty of gays in various societies, but you never hear anything about men claiming to be women.

Anyway, I was generally neutral about this whole thing, until it grew into a literal rainbow imperialism, "we must bring trans rights to the savages", propaganda of "rainbow" militarism etc.

Is there a study about class and income composition of the rainbow movement?
>>

 No.465994

>>465993
Men play-acting as women? That has a lot of precedent, including a vain quest to transform yourself for real.

Men actually believing by "the science" they are women? That is a wholly newfangled thing and part of the transhumanist mind rape of the American slave. Back in the 1950s they bragged that they would make men gay to control the population. The whole thing is eugenics pure and simple - one of the great markers of eugenics' victory, played out in every day practice of those who are to be humiliated. The assignment of sexual orientation as a social identity has always been intended to mark the men who are unfit for mating and not really men, or adults at all. It's a gigantic lie, a way of laughing at the fools of the human race, and making sure no one ever forgets it. They insinuated literally everything about me, even though my interests alternated between the same thing most boys are interested in and wanting nothing at all to do with any of it.

Anyway, "idpol" has always been a red herring, a talking point lifted by rightoids as a way to make a narrative about the left that has nothing to do with what the race question originally referenced. It is of course the race question that was most important. Sexual politics is not a politics of identity, but a politics of eugenics and who is allowed access to a club where the good sex is available. The purveyors of "identity politics" behind the curtain made it clear that their wish was to forestall the possibility of a leader among the black race rising that would be a true oppositional force, especially if that leader were capable of initiating or joining a broader movement against the ruling oligarchy. This is what motivated the people around Nixon to promote the lines that they did, which eventually were intensified by Reagan. The focus on identity was strongest on the right before the left followed suit. The problem with the left is that they simply abandoned their base in labor, and the selected elites of the minority groups were promoted as a way of paying them off. Behind it is the promotion of "black capitalism", among other things, that Nixon offered as an alternative to any form of socialist thinking. They didn't like that the civil rights protestors were asking for more goodies and openly doubted the victory of capitalism. It should be remembered that up until Reagan, there was a doubt of capitalism surviving at all. It seemed like the agenda was just depopulation. Reagan didn't really "win for capitalism", but sold the death and terror and found a critical mass of Republicans that were always for that at heart. It's strange to think unless you live in their world, but there are Republicans who actually think they're the good guys and it's the Democrats aiding and abetting the chaos in the country. They're the target audience for the stupidest conservative mystifications, the people dumb enough to actually believe the lines they're given. They'll believe anything that is put in front of them, even obviously contradictory things. Eventually they got the liberals to do likewise, but that didn't happen in earnest until Obama.

The kvetching about "idpol" is entirely a white-centric narrative. Nobody but certain white people think about this matter in the frame that is presented in this narrative, and it's not even all white people. A lot of white people either laugh at political correctness and tokenism, or basically stopped caring about race and wonder what the big fuss is about asking people to be nice. This narrative is entirely for the edification of white people who want to posture about bullshit - so basically a signal to progressives that it's okay for them to be racist, so long as they put up an offensive "woke" veneer. Progressives have always been eugenicists at heart, and that's been the core of the racist revival. The long-term strategy was to shift the older racism, which purported to defend white solidarity as a country and society, to pure eugenics, where "white identity" would be taken up by the people who are the first to attack other white people, who have no concept of a solidaristic politics at all. The Reaganite narrative was, in short, weaponized autism. Bill Clinton had no problem with racism, because he knew the typical Democrat was as bigoted and racist as anyone else, and he's a Southern good old boy, but even he had to be a bit surprised at how far the racist current in America went, and how successful the narrative was at motivating a certain sort to say the stupidest shit. Obama played up the backlash to all of that for all it was worth and enjoyed seeing the plebs tear each other apart, feeding this narrative every chance he got - and since the Republicans wanted to fight culture war all day every day, they readily took the bait and created the narrative of the 2010s. This is what helped make Trump a thing - because the typical conservative is so brain-rotted and stands for nothing, so all Trump has to do is make enough noises and encourage his base to have a gigantic pigger moment.
>>

 No.465995

>>465993
i think indians had third gender but its not important
>>

 No.465998

>>465993
Rainbow imperialism is one of the reactionary outcomes that resulted from identitarianism.

If you are looking for the initial flaw in gndr-theory, the kernel of reaction at the bottom of a theory tome, it's that it has no opt-out. Everybody gets stamped with a gndr-identity whether they want one or not. If you didn't self-identify, you'll probably got stamped with something like "çishet"

It negates the very concept that you can say "nope this doesn't apply to me"

The reason is also clear, this is about cultural power that seeks to make you a cultural subject, that gets subjected to the cultural hierarchy and its rules.
And since this is a type of cultural-power that revolves around identity, you aren't allowed to not have an identity, because that's what is making you a subject (as in subjected to their power).

Every type of cultural power tries to do similar stuff. In the past you had religious theocracy that was very big on sectarian-identity and not allowing people to opt-out. There also are differences, the identitarianism of today is mostly secular, they usually don't make any overtly supernatural claims. The No-Opt-out stuff is more common than you think, it's really difficult to opt out from race-identities for example.

I think it plays a role in imperial consent manufacturing too. If people can opt-out from this stuff, then empire loses it's cultural legitimization. If people can claim that they don't have a gndr-id than the empire can't claim to rescue it by imposing imperial domination. It's like in the past when empires claimed they had to conquer other people to save their souls from false gods, bring them civilization, democracy freedom and human-rights.

That shit is very flexible, and tends to re-invent it self. Maybe we have to make anti-imperialism an identity, maybe that fixes it. At the very least it would be mildly funny if they tried to claim to be an anti-imperialist empire.
>>

 No.466002

>>465998
Outside of some extremely online spaces and certain cult-like atmospheres, basically no one cares about being "cishet" or the pantheon of genders. So far as it has a use, it's about making some excessively weird and awkward, precisely because it marks the people who are into it as "other" and makes them more alien to normal people who believe a man is a human with a functional penis and a woman is a man with a functional vagina, uterus, etc. Even people in the "queer" world know when to cut the bullshit and talk about men and women like reasonable people do. It's an exercise in making people comply with something insane, as a way of propping up this whole sexual politics that came in with eugenics. (Isn't it funny how everything we're made to care about comes back to eugenics in one way or another?)

Like I said though, sexual politics has nothing to do with identity or the race-science that it was pointing to, or at least it is not directly spawned from identity. It may derive from a whole philosophical view in which ideas are constructed by thought leaders, and this it shares in common with race-science essences that are unmoored from historical investigation. The Nazis were really funny with this - the appeal of race was made on historical and cultural grounds, but then their concept of being "German" or any other race was turned into a parodic form, where the races are just in conflict with each other for some inexplicable reason. The Nazis of course would tell you why they had a long-standing enmity with the Jews and with "Judeo-Bolshevism", but the Nazi was also projecting the very project he was engaged in and claimed it was actually a Jewish conspiracy, and made moral equivocation with the Jews to say Germans should be dirtier if they want to win. The Nazis did the same shit with other races, whether it was to put them down or flatter them. They made a moral equivalence with the Americans, saying that by waging war against the Slavs, the Nazis were just like Americans waging war against hte Indians. This lazy moral equivalence is how they corrupt a country they want to eliminate and "Germanize" it, and this idea was seeded by the Nazis themselves, in an attempt to sell pro-Nazi ideology to Americans who were amenable to it. That the Slavs had long-standing peace with the Germans and had done literally nothing to them, and the Indians were constantly in conflict with the white settlers and had a truly incompatible social system that would see the settlers as a threat no matter what overtures were made, is neither here nor there. You could make a moral argument about whether the American colonists should have been there in the first place, since almost immediately the Indians went to war with the intruders and were not interested in stopping raids. But, this is what Nazis do - they remove historical nuance while claiming they're totally traditional, and it's a bunch of gay shit. It's the mentality that works on a coper looking for any excuse to be a warmongering jackass. Some intellectuals will claim we only disdain the Nazis because they lost, and if they won they would have "civilized" the Slavs, but this mystification doesn't change that it was entirely a war of choice for the Germans, violating a condition of peace and understanding willfully and for explicitly Social Darwinian purposes. The Americans had no such excuse that they were going to civilize or uplift the natives. American and English records regarding the natives simply want them dead as soon as possible, which was a great difficulty to accomplish in those times. The natives didn't want to be civilized in that way because they saw their way of life as perfectly fine and saw the white man as sick and depraved. The Nazis were reliant on a collaborator fifth column for all of their wars, and they had such a fifth column in America that was wisely suppressed during the war. There were no such collaborators among the Indian tribes who would carry out eugenic dictates on the reservations and abase themselves before the white man as shamelessly as the Germanic compradors would sell out their people for the eugenic creed, as eugenics always does. The entire Nazi war plan was premised on finding other degenerate screaming retards who agreed with their stupid philosophy and insisting that everyone has to follow it. The moment they encountered a country that didn't have this element or suppressed it, they were quickly undone and exposed as the losers they always were. If you're going to talk a bunch of shit about a holy race war, you had better fucking win, and the rest of the world should take it seriously instead of mystifying these assholes. If only we drove a stake into their hearts so they wouldn't come back.

Anyway, the rage over "idpol" around here is typically incoherent, because they aren't interested in actually engaging with the substantive matter or history involved. It's just a way to say "I don't like these people" and terminating thought about why this happens and why identity was chosen in the way that it was. To think about it would make clear the eugenic implications of how we are made to talk about race, sex, history, philosophy, and the whole situation. They cannot allow any criticism which attacks the mighty eugenics, unless it reduced to a sop about eugenics being mean. The philosophical origins of eugenics must be made a verboten topic, lest there be a public outrage that such stupid people are allowed to insinuate who gets to live and who must die.
>>

 No.466003

>>465995
Some of them had something like that, but the idea that there was some kind of homogeneous culture among American indians is nonsense and an example of trying to project modern ideas onto the past.
>>

 No.466007

>>466003
It's not just that none of them had "something like that". It's that the term was entirely a neologism and doesn't line up to any custom the natives possessed. They had words to refer to men as fags or homosexuality as a concept, none of them complimentary. There's been a subculture which is into that sort of thing and there wasn't a particularly strong moral stigma towards homosexuality, beyond the typical disgust that exists virtually everywhere (yes, including the Greeks and the Romans - homosexuality was an aristocratic vice). The transhumanist chaser is an old trope for all the reasons you can expect. It's like a girl, except "she" is hyper enthusiastic, just like you, and is eager to give exactly what you want as far as any fetish or weirdness. It doesn't actually work that way but that's the trope that is played with. It's really perverse and shouldn't be encouraged, but then, none of the homosexual shit should be glorified, and no one was asking for that until the 1990s started the current offensive. It's a disease, an affliction, and should never have been recognized as anything else. No man is happy like that. It's better to be totally ignorant of sex than to be that.
>>

 No.466009

>>466007
>It's a disease, an affliction, and should never have been recognized as anything else. No man is happy like that. It's better to be totally ignorant of sex than to be that.
Nah, I don't buy this. There is obviously homosexuality in human populations as a sexual attraction phenomenon. Not just because a homo can't get puss, but because he is sexually attracted to masculine characteristics.
Also, homosexuality in Greece was not only an aristocratic thing. I guess that's what obsession with athletics does to you.
>>

 No.466010

>>466009
Homosexuality is a thing everywhere, but it was never given social approval or encouragement. It was always a thing that was shameful for a man to admit, and there was a certain acceptance for men who were on top or doing it as a power play. There are some famous homosexuals in history but their proclivities were downplayed as much as was possible - for examnple, for most of the Caesars, only passing reference is made for any homosexual encounters or preferences they had. Nearly all of the Caesars would have enjoyed the, ahem, "finer things in life". Galba was known to be gay and childless, but he doesn't last long. Hadrian was almost screamingly gay. My pet conspiracy theory is that there was a homosexual line of succession for all of the "good emperors", each taking their chosen successor as a partner / ward. There is evidence of this between Trajan and Hadrian which is downplayed because Trajan was considered fucking awesome, and between Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius, which Marcus mentions in his personal writings as a very unpleasant experience. Marcus was believed to detest all things sexual, and while the formal story is that he sired as many children as possible with his wife out of pure obligation, the rumor going around is that the wife slept with whomever and Marcus looked the other way.
>>

 No.466012

>>466010
>Homosexuality is a thing everywhere, but it was never given social approval or encouragement.
Doesn't mean society should repress gays tho, as in make them take drugs to "cure them".

>My pet conspiracy theory is that there was a homosexual line of succession for all of the "good emperors", each taking their chosen successor as a partner / ward.

Funny, I had the same thoughts upon learning every Antonine emperor except Marcus had no biological heir.
But dismissed it as a gay conspiracy theory.
>>

 No.466014

File: 1677119248599.jpg ( 31.99 KB , 574x552 , 20230222_192653.jpg )

>>

 No.466105

File: 1677260124829.jpg ( 123.02 KB , 792x1024 , 1677251442125270m.jpg )

Reminder: these people grow up in the most socially permissive society in the world. Not only are people given the freedom to act fags, both in the spiritual and (less important) carnal sense, but we actually like them run around and claim they're being genocided or having their 'personhood denied' or whatever.
The problem is gen Xers, raised by boomers, who themselves turned out and raised a millennial and zoomer generation of people maldeveloped and stunted in every way. Growing and expanding societies don't act like this - only those in terminal decline. (This would never happen in Beijing)

There's a sort of intergenerational and society collapse in real time - pic related just one small manifestation out of many. I really feel bad for people who live in the west, which is increasingly a corpse. It's more ironic when people in the western-rooted left cheerleads the fall of the west while imagining it will be anything other than a hellish experience and outcome for them.

And all for fake and ghey abstractions like muhequality and muhidentity. But I get it also, since the leftbot teleology *sounds* so nice.
>>

 No.466106

>>466105
>@proton.me
confirmed glowies
>>

 No.466147

>>306008
Ok? Male otters literally rape and abuse female otters purely out of enjoyment. Should we do that too? Stop projecting your political ideals onto nature you idealist fag
>>

 No.466149

>>466105
Gender is fake and gay but also people should be able to wear whatever they want at least with out being obscene.
>>

 No.466157

>>306299
>and who says everything has to suit your heterosexual sensibilities?
My brother in Christ homosexuals and bisexuals are over and misrepresented in Marxism. They are not an alternate form of reproduction. They are not even an alternate structure of reproduction such as polygamy. Heterosexuality is literally the defacto method of reproduction. “Heterosexual culture” is not an abstraction nor does it define human reproduction. The “culture” will always exist in some shape or form BECAUSE ITS LITERALLY BASED ON THE WAY HUMANS BIOLOGICALLY REPRODUCE. marx and Engels literally said that human reproduction was the very basis of everything they proposed. Communists need to understand that the gays and the lesbians are not an alternate form of reproduction, nor are they an alternate strategy in reproduction. They quite literally are just people who are attracted to the opposite sex for individualistic reasons entirely
>>

 No.466198

>>466149
Wear whatever you want. It's not as if America has strict dress codes. This isn't Iran. It's just you, once again, acting like a histrionic fag.
>>

 No.466203

The really funny thing is when tiny sectlets act like engaging with *them* is the mark of non sectarian praxis.

In reality, engaging with joe shmoe, the normal guy who has a normal job, is non sectarian praxis. This is exactly what the Rage Against the War Machine types attempt to do. Leftoid sects are too busy holding circle jerks for college students with hormone imbalances. Then they wander why they are irrelevant (except in the cosmic drama playing out in their minds). For them, talking to normal people about their concerns and being anything other than a massive faggot is a sign of muhfascism.
>>

 No.466312

>>466198
Why are you so aggressive all the time?
Relax, anon, kek.
I was just pointing out the fact.
>>

 No.466359

>>466105
>Growing and expanding societies don't act like this - only those in terminal decline. (This would never happen in Beijing)
i unironically wonder what trans rights are like in places like china or cuba, from what i've learned the trans flags and stuff plastered everywhere is a very western thing
>>

 No.466361

>>466359
If you are talking about the western style identitarian lobby groups, those are likely suspected of being fronts for organizations like the CIA, and will probably not get anywhere near Chinese policy making. This is a direct result of the western woke-imperium joining hands with neocon full frontal imperialism, in recent years.

As much as identitarian politics is forced into the western political sphere it seems like a niche topic in China. I found a few official statements that China would not copy the western method of social progress, and do something else that was "more efficient".

I don't know what that means, and you have to consider the geo-political context too. Western liberals are displaying a type of imperial arrogance when they declare that their ideas about culture and social norms are universal. These statements could just be the typical discrete Chinese way of saying "mind your own business".

I guess that if you want to understand the Chinese cultural sphere you probably have to engage with it until you can absorb enough of their cultural categories. You should not project your cultural categories on other societies, because you're unlikely going to understand anything.
>>

 No.466365

File: 1677532520362.jpg ( 59.36 KB , 704x471 , glowcord.jpg )

the new glowcord guidelines

<We consider hate speech to be any form of expression that either attacks other people or promotes hatred or violence against them based on their protected characteristics.

<We consider the following to be protected characteristics: age; caste; color; disability; ethnicity; family responsibilities; gender; gender identity; housing status; national origin; race; refugee or immigration status; religious affiliation; serious illness; sex; sexual orientation; socioeconomic class and status; source of income; status as a victim of domestic violence, sexual violence, or stalking; and weight and size.

socioeconomic class and cast are "protected characteristics"
class struggle is hate-speech now

Cast is a feudal relation, so they aren't just reactionary for enforcing domination through capitalist class society, they are backwards compatible with previous class societies as well.
>>

 No.466369

White supremacists, homophobes, etc, are identitarians with the backing of the ruling class and the reason their victims turn to identitarian styles of rhetoric and are trapped in identitarian conflicts is because of our absence failure and destruction. We are to blame for any of them who have been entrapped in that style, and more importantly and brutally, in that conflict.
Though prior to this flogging I will be fair and acknowledge that there are gay rights identitarian influencers with backing of the ruling class as well, but they exist to control the form of the rhetoric and conflict and amplify it, but crucially, they are not the genesis of identitarian conflict.

But anyway, how the fuck can you retarded catastrophist tailists see people fighting for their basic freedoms and call them the death of the left? The left has been in tatters since cointelpro and it was pathetic and weak and loathsomely managerial before that too. We've done nothing but get gaped by the british empire and industrialists and the mercenaries and propagandists and spies and gangsters they fund for the past 100 years LMAO no one needs to "follow us" we need to criticize ourselves and our worthless forms and learn from the few times we did things right, like the cultural revolution (which still fell to the Dengoid revisionist scum, anyway). And we need to learn from the civil rights movement, it's mistakes and successes.

And most importantly we need to learn from those who fight without guidance or a greater philosophical scheme, their wisdom gained from earth, from humus, from humiliation. And then we need to look at the whole picture, and connect their wisdom and means of survival and resistance to the whole of the historical movement against the predator classes, that is the only place that worthless intellectuals like us shine, when we humiliate ourselves and learn from those we consider beneath us, and then and only then, attempt to teach them. And not teach them to blindly follow us, and let us handle everything, but to connect with each other, to forgive and understand each other so that the resistance they offer can become more complex and unified and stronger, and the alternatives they can create for themselves more reliable and resistant to attack from the predator class. Teach them that what they've always suspected is true, that they can lead themselves, they are morally justified and materially capable of leading themselves, whenever and if ever they follow us, that is the only thing we should lead them towards, each other and the strengths hidden within their relationships to each other, that strength obscured by the predator classes through violence and traumatic conditioning.

Stop hating on everyone for "doing it wrong" and git gud so you can do something actually valuable for them, so they will actually want to follow your lead because you aren't just another retarded idealist wannabe manager influencer pundit. Stop larping like the soviet union is still around and you're a party official, you have no authority and no one respects you, and everyone is correct in holding this disrespect and disdain for you and identifying you as yet another wannabe fucking retail manager HR bitch douchebag.
>>

 No.466379

File: 1677571704911-0.jpg ( 60.96 KB , 953x808 , Woke-Imperium.jpg )

File: 1677571704911-1.pdf ( 634.85 KB , 232x300 , Woke-Imperium.pdf )

>>466369
The liberal identitarians aren't any less ghoulish than the conservative ones.
They're callous careerists that jumped into bed with the neocons.

<The advocates of American primacy within the United States foreign policy establishment historically rely on prevailing ideological trends of the time to justify interventionism abroad. The new ‘woke’ face of American hegemony and projects of empire is designed to project the U.S. as an international moral police rather than a conventional great power—and the result is neo-imperialism with a moral face.


<This is an iterative and systemic process with an internal logic, not one controlled by a global cabal: when the older rationalizations for primacy, hegemony, and interventionism appear antiquated or are no longer persuasive, a new rationale that better reflects the ruling class norms of the era is adopted as a substitute. This is because the new schema is useful for the maintenance of the existing system of power.


<The rise of a ‘woke’ activist-driven, social justice-oriented politics—particularly among the members of academia, media, and the professional managerial class—has provided the latest ideological justification for interventionism, and it has become readily adopted by the U.S. foreign policy establishment. These groups now have an even greater level of symbiotic relationship with state actors.


<Professional selection and advancement under these conditions require elite signaling of loyalty to ‘progressive’ universalism as the trending state-sanctioned ideology, which further fuels the push towards interventionism. This combination of factors encourages a new institutional and elite consensus around trending shibboleths.


<The emerging hegemonic posture and its moral imperialism are at odds with a sober and realistic appraisal of U.S. interests on the world stage, as they create untenable, maximalist, and utopian goals that clash with the concrete realities on which U.S. grand strategy must be based.


<The liberal Atlanticist tendency to push moralism and social engineering globally has immense potential to create backlash in foreign, especially non-Western, societies that will come to identify the West as a whole with niche, late-modern progressive ideals—thus motivating new forms of anti-Westernism.


https://peacediplomacy.org/2022/06/27/woke-imperium-the-coming-confluence-between-social-justice-and-neoconservatism/
>>

 No.466380

>>466369
>the death of the left?
the identitarians aren't left at all, they are affluent people who despise and deride working class people.
The aura of liberation and inclusion is nothing but false pretense, they ruthlessly exclude and subjugate anybody who tries to do anything that might improve material conditions.

>we need to criticize ourselves and our worthless forms and learn from the few times we did things right, like the cultural revolution

The overwhelming majority of people in china think the cultural revolution was a big mistake, self criticize about that.

>that is the only place that worthless intellectuals like us shine, when we humiliate ourselves

No none of that pathologically deranged bullshit, do you really think people will be drawn to learning a little bit of Marxist theory if they have to humiliate them-selves in order to do it ? Stop trying to make leftist spaces unbearably psychologically hostile to the masses, leftist spaces should be inviting.
>>

 No.466381

Did identity politics destroy leftist movements?
with Norman Finkelstein

https://invidious.snopyta.org/watch?v=Jb9pGWQf4iY
>>

 No.466382

>>466369
>Definitely not part of atonement cult
>>

 No.466383

>>466369
Please go back to Leftypol. There are important discussions being had there, about which your valuable insights are needed
>>

 No.466385

>>466369
>The cultural revolution was a positive step in the right direction.
>>

 No.466386

>>466365
LOL HOLY FUCK
>You must respect your boss kiddo sorry.
>>

 No.466387

>>466385
>Let's just keep having internecine violence and civil wars until our braindead fantasy utopia actually works
>>

 No.466401

File: 1677631005655.jpeg ( 348.91 KB , 1280x720 , Sparta.jpeg )

According to Aristotle in the IV century BC women in Sparta owned 2/5 of all land.
According to Plutarch in the III century at the time of the failed reform attempt (land redistribution) of king Agis women owned most of the land. They (except for his mother and grandmother who were also killed with him) opposed the reforms.

One of the next kings Cleomenes took lessons from this and didn't try to use legal means like his predecessor - he used military dictatorship (mercenaries) to kill all the ephors (who killed Agis), exile some large landowners and expropriate their lands, and force the rest to "voluntarily" donate some part of their property following his example. He completed the reforms of king Agis (land redistribution, debt jubilee). He also carried out his reforms under the guise of a "restoration" of the ancient Licurgian constitution (hello Octavian!). He also freed 6000 helots (for a price, according to Plutarch he collected 500 talents from them which is insane and reminds me of the late roman empire).

After Cleomenes was defeated in the battle of Selassia, Antigonus of Macedon restored the old regime and brought back the exiles.

Just two decades later tyrant Nabis would make the rivers flow with blood…

TLDR: feminists BTFOd, class still trumps all in the final analysis.
>>

 No.466402

Seriously Sparta is like a genius retarded brother in the Ancient Greek world. In the archaic period it was at the forefront of the social change - First (in the world!) written constitution, the reforms of Licurgus. Then it's like it enters hibernation for five centuries or so, ignorant of everything that goes around (the Age of Tyrants, the rise of democracy). And just as the rest of the Greek world calms down too, Sparta suddenly wakes up and becomes a vehicle of a fucking revolution with Nabis freeing slaves left and right.
>>

 No.466566

>>466369
Whenever I hear
>uhhhhh lgbt is just being co-opted by bourgeois. A-actually it’s only a small part of it!!!!
>if you focus too much on it YOU are actually doin a heckin identitarianism
I instantly discard the argument. LGBT and all other political and identity movements that exist today are thoroughly liberal and bourgeois in nature. It’s literally impossible for these people to say
<yeah homosexuality isn’t bourgeoisie but the current culture surrounding it is
Shit like this is what convinces me that LGBT is some subversive liberal movement. They literally attach themselves like a parasite onto homosexuals
>>

 No.466655

>>466369
There is a dual game played with the struggles of historically oppressed groups. One is that the people see themselves suffering and have been fed an idea that being in the right in-group is necessary to survive depopulation, and they desire legitimacy in that view of society. You then pick winners and losers among the struggling, and most of them wind up losers and left behind. The supposed "dominant group" is not really motivated by white supremacy in the older sense, where it invoked a sense of white solidarity that never actually existed, but is motivated purely by in-group membership and a sense of entitlement (while this group attacks others for being "entitled" to basic things like not being attacked on sight). The entire argument is pushed by a very narrow interest that laughs at how easy it is to get the little people to attack each other. Every time you contribute to this farce within its terms, you make the problem worse, but because there are no other ideas but eugenics and depopulation that are admissible as "real", you can't really resolve the struggle of one group against another, because it's not intended to be resolved. It's the culture wars taken to their logical conclusion; a struggle of all against all.

Go to most of those oppressed groups and ask them what they think, and they'll be among those who rail against eugenics, because they're more obviously targets of eugenics. It's why they're still seeking to tell you that they've been genocided all this time and they're exasperated at people who don't seem to get that the mainstream of America are little better than the oppressed minority in the minds of the rulers. It should be obvious, but once eugenics is questioned too much, the line is crossed. Only a hated minority is permitted to even suggest eugenics is bad, and if these people ever gather a following, they're already marginalized so they will be quickly neutralized. Those in the oppressed group that hope to keep their head down have the warning of what happens if thou doth protest too much. This is why you get black people who are surviving saying "some uyghas just have to go to jail", knowing that the prisons are concentration camps. They chose what side of the war they're on because they know who is going to lose, and they hope to survive depopulation somehow. That's all that is left.

You can go to the oppressed minority groups and listen to them, and see if they have a valid complaint. Usually they do, and they're not into the "idpol" talking points at all. It's not about that and never was. It doesn't follow that historically oppressed activists are always losers or that they identify with an impossible fight against the Satan.

Since I'm not in any party and have no place in politics, I can say this. I'm telling you all this because I'm sick of the posturing while you all ignore what is omnipresent and the chief struggle in life - the struggle for life itself against eugenics. Until there is a force opposing eugenics except the inertia of the people, there is no politics worth mentioning. Politics in the meaningful sense is only available to a small group in the world, who have already moved to a global political integration. The politics of the nation-state is the politics of keeping the serfs in line, and trying to work through the nation-state is no longer a road to anything. With the death of the nation-state, the democratic idea in its recognizable form no longer has any meaningful expression. What remains is updating the human subjects to get that democracy is dead, dead, dead. You can't go on as if the democratic norms are still in force. A society where you are declared insane at will and Oceania has no law cannot be meaningfully democratic for long. The last vestiges of democracy are being crushed handily in the past decade.
>>

 No.468133

>>387957
it's not catering to anything, faggot

stop caring about words and focus on real problems
>>

 No.468135

>>466149
It's funny to think gender was meant to be "abolished" but now twitteroids stockholm syndromed themselves into viewing gender stereotypes positively, now we have nonsense like "non-binary" as a result
>>

 No.468191

CPGB just dropped their position on gender.
Radlibs and Nugender cultists go mental lmao.
Shock horror, a Materialist Marxist analysis of gender comes up with the exact same position all actual Communist parties have to this issue. It's anti-materialist liberal woo.
>>

 No.468197

File: 1680314314373.png ( 1.4 MB , 896x1715 , 1679585735757945.png )

I would say idpol is irrelevant if it wasn't for all the fractures and dissent it continually creates for no discernible benefit for the cause, which over the years has led me to believe that it is, indeed, just cointelpro ammunition

if their tactics 60 years ago consisted of exploiting personal grievances/aspirations and the slow and inefficient yet cultish decision-making processes of socialist organizations, it's obvious that they have added identity politics to their tool-chain

another thing that I have noticed is that me most people that I interact with, either online or offline, are amoral, but not because of some ideal or conscious choice. I don't know if it is that capital has decided to destroy it's own morality, or if life has become so hard that people can no longer afford morals, or if it's both, or neither. someone has probably wrote a book about this or about why the same generation is producing both incels and transhumanists at the same time - but I'm not going to read it - because I know that whatever explanation they came up with, it's probably bullshit
>>

 No.468199

>>305951
IdPol is a way for disenfranchised, weak-minded, psychologically underdeveloped, fearful people to subdue themselves to an identity so that it will amend their feeling of self-worthlessness by fusing their personality into something much bigger & (presumably) more competent ‒ a group, a living mechanism where everything is clear & all interactions between the parts of the same group are always predictable. & since an idpol'd individual doesn't exist as a personality but as a representative of a group, they feel every attack on the identity group as an existential threat to their being too!
This is why you can get easily teared apart by a frenzied mass of idpolbots if you say something that is damaging to the well-being of their identity group in any way & this hivemind will never think about the trueness of your claims because their truth is only that they are the subordinates of the group & so the better they feel themselves against the environment as a group ‒ the better is their existence. This narcissism has verified its destruction potential time & time again ‒ all for the desperately needed psychological status quo.

What makes idpol such a favourite tool of the economical & political elite is that literally anything that can be described about a person (their praxis, hobbies, states of being, responses to situations, physical/psychical attributes, spoken languages, granted citizenships (the so-called nation), financial position, any kind of background, the role in biological or societal reproduction of population (sex or gender), you name it) can also be used as a base for an identity.
You like to wooooooooork in IT? Bam! You now have a way to belong to an identity of software people/people of software!
Oh, you like dogs? Boom! You can now depose yourself to a dog people/people of dogs identity!
Wait, maybe you like the simplicity of the more primitive nature combined with hatred towards humankind? Heh, you've been granted access to the ecofash camp. Enjoy!
Or you're a single mom?; A professional thief?; A disabled person in some way?; Are you german?; Were your parents of mixed race?; Is it true that you lived 30 years in Singapore?; Were you a victim of child abuse?; Oh, you like the LotR universe?; Is this genre of vidya your favourite?; You like roller skates?; What about your style?; Do you support the liberal party of the government you live under? Oh, you think that's your government, hah, okay okay fine sure I've got it stop screaming @ me pls woah calm down okay~; etc etc etc etc are just a tiny set of potential identities for a person to dissolve themselves into.
So, an identity is an own, private, alienated, enclosed group that always has a natural demand for distancing itself from all of the other groups, or else this identity will shatter & cease to exist, &, as mentioned earlier, nobody in that group wants that to happen or else the striking weakness of one before the behemoth of our politeconomical socio-cultural system will crush the psyche of the individual yet again, which will force that person into a yet another (or the same) way of escapism.

The divide & conquer strategy, as you have already guessed it, is built right on top of this phenomena. & it has worked without any particular hiccups for millenias, & even manages to tighten its grip onto human society even harder every year. But, as we know, the start of the first imperialist meatgrinder has also caused an extreme upsurge of a type of idpol that is called patriotism/chauvinism/nationalism in the empire of russia, & it was keeping its' spirit in the minds of the people right until the June offensive of 1917 *wink-wink*, so maybe, just maybe, if somebody will survive the upcoming WW3 then they will get an idea that people shouldn't build identities to carry themselves in life naturally against the other identities, or, if they must form one, then they should build it @ least on the fact that all of them are the same conscious beings, & their existence in the universe is, inherently, communal.


Source of the ideas: Erich FrommEscape from Freedom
‒ that Frankfurt scholar of Freudo-Marxist wizardry & his colleagues literally predicted that despite the stronk positions of cummunist & succialist parties, the german proletariat WILL NOT fight against fascists taking state power. The report was released in 1932. & considering that the most terrifying fact for the antifascistic people of german culture @ the time was that after the 1933 you're now either a nazi or you're not german, /ourjewishuyghur/ comrade Fromm has hit the fucking nail perfectly.
>>

 No.468200

>>468197
>another thing that I have noticed is that me most people that I interact with, either online or offline, are amoral, but not because of some ideal or conscious choice. I don't know if it is that capital has decided to destroy it's own morality, or if life has become so hard that people can no longer afford morals, or if it's both, or neither.

Well ruling classes always try to shift the moral center to coincide with their special interests. So that everything they find beneficial is treated as moral and everything that doesn't is treated as immoral. If they succeed in doing that most people kinda just disconnect from morality. People don't uphold rules that only places a burden on them without given them anything in return.

Many people think about morality as a prohibition on power. So you are able to act, but your moral code prevents you from acting. While this kind of morality certainly exists, it's usually the exception. Very frequently morality tends to be a permission or enabler for actions that people usually wouldn't do on their own.
CarefreeWandering did an interesting video on this topic if you are interested
https://invidious.snopyta.org/watch?v=QdsDzZDMzKM
>>

 No.468209

File: 1680366360575.jpg ( 1.05 MB , 1125x2109 , 1641863903866.jpg )

another thing that I have noticed is that the people pushing this stuff are also proponents of the unequal exchange theory. you are going to have a hard time finding someone in the productivity differences side of the debate advocating for identity politics. it is curious how the people that want to sow dissent between movements in developed and undeveloped regions also want to waste resources and alienate people through idpol

so besides the two obvious and probable explanations (that they are either idiots or saboteurs) it could also be that, convinced of the sterility of workers' movements in the developed world, these people are basically just trying to sabotage developed countries as a whole, using idpol there as one of many tools to create artificial antagonisms. the only remaining question would be why are they peddling this decadent bullshit in my third world shithole
>>

 No.468210

>>468209
I noticed that too. The Idpol - unequal exchange theory correlation is real. Although one has to say that not all unequal exchange theorists are Idpol pushers.

Marx's view on this is that people only every accept economic theory that is most in line with their interests. So we gotta figure out who's interests align with uneq-ex.
>>

 No.468212


>>468209
>productivity differences side
depends on what you mean by productivity

if you mean the army of marketeers and CEOs in the west are more "productive" and that's why they capture a bigger share of the value added, then I don't accept such "productivity differences"

If you mean productivity that can be measured in physical units, then that is another matter

anyway, you need to explain differences in wage levels in the service sector in the core and periphery
why is a bus driver gets paid more in Germany than in India? Must be because he transports more people or something..

Also what about transfer prices of multinationals?
>>

 No.468213

or if we're talking about my field of occupation, why am I getting paid less as a sysadmin in the periphery compared to the west?

why is the business of codemonkey outsourcing so profitable? why can't westoids code their shit themselves?
>>

 No.468214

File: 1680375911486.jpg ( 227.05 KB , 1419x1884 , 20230314_183017.jpg )

Haha this thread is all just huwiet bois booty bothered that black people *gasp* are starting to notice that they're being systematically oppressed.
Y'all want to pretend that because the class differentiator is based on looks it's somehow not real.
Absolutely fucking idealist, you should all hang yourselves.
>>

 No.468215

>>468214
3/10

Are you even trying?
>>

 No.468216

File: 1680376743360.jpg ( 882.58 KB , 2000x1000 , gangster-rappers.jpg )

>>468214
>systematically oppressed
they oppressed?

maybe, just maybe, negroids are "oppressed" not as n-words, but as poor ass n-words
>>

 No.468217

File: 1680382142808.jpg ( 73.9 KB , 900x933 , fred h.jpg )

>>468214
>are starting to notice
Starting to ?
So before the idpol-shit took over politics nobody noticed ?

https://www.lfks.net/en/content/fred-hampton-its-class-struggle-goddammit-november-1969
>>

 No.468221

>>468191
Link it
>>

 No.468225

>>468217
You're feeding the trolls, but, none the less, black people still face unique forms of social pressure that only they experience, but, yes, it's still class struggle being the central focal point of any analysis that will bring freedom from these forces.
>>

 No.468227

File: 1680405038759.jpg ( 46.37 KB , 620x484 , 57fiq6.jpg )

>>468217
If you think he didn't think racism wasn't real think again crypto fash tankie.
Y'all never quote MLK because he plainly addressed racism.
>>

 No.468228

>>468217
>It's only about class.
<Killed because the booj feared a black up rising.
Maybe Fred Hampton was wrong about his class reductionism.
>>

 No.468230

>>468228
>Ignores the original rainbow coalition that Fred was working toward, which included the White Panthers.
uyghur, you're not as well versed in history as you think
>>

 No.468232

>>468230
How come the FBI didn't kill anyone leading the white part of the coalition?
>>

 No.468233

>>468230
>The FBI murdering Hampton wasn't racist because he was working with some white people.
The amount of history you have to ignore to believe this is astounding.
>>

 No.468234

>>468232
Because they weren't as charismatic or popular. Try living in 2023 btw
>>

 No.468235

>>468234
Oh is that what it was. Had nothing to do with racial animus from the recent ending of Jim Crow huh?
>>

 No.468236

<Detailed original sourced essay on how chattel slavery didn't end until 1940. But continued on as debt peonage.
Is this historic materialism, or idpol leftypol?
>>

 No.468237

>>468235
No, it was directly tied to him wanting to build a broad, non separatist coalition, midwit. Similar to Malcolm X, who was assassinated after he embraced a multiracial coalition strategy. There were plenty of other black separatists in the era, namely Malcolm's assassin's from the Nation of Islam. Moreover, Hampton was from Chicago, which didn't have Jim Crow laws. Perhaps you should finish your bachelors degree before you try debating people here…
>>

 No.468239

>>468236
Go cry about this bullshit somewhere else. No one cares and it's not relevant in 2023. It only serves as virtue signaling ammo to make you feel morally superior. I'm sure your faggy low t college professors will be impressed by your psuedo radical self righteousness though.
>>

 No.468242

>>468225
>black people still face unique forms of social pressure that only they experience
and why this should be my problem fag? I must've missed when leftists were supposed to be emotional tampons for every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, 'Nature Cure' quack, pacifist, and feminist
>>

 No.468243

>>468236
>chattel slavery
>debt peonage
by this logic antique slavery never ended too lol

if didn't notice fag, our whole economy is built on "debt peonage"
>>

 No.468244

File: 1680437033410.png ( 54.35 KB , 1246x567 , class analysis.png )

>>468225
>You're feeding the trolls
Sorry about that
>none the less, black people still face unique forms of social pressure that only they experience
This has 2 problems:

(1)
Races aren't real in a materialist sense. Biological reality only sees the existence of different phenotypes, but those don't qualify as a subspecies (which is the more scientific word for "races"), and the underlying biological machinery is nearly indistinguishable for all human phenotypes. (Zoology and taxonomy is also sometimes guilty of miss-classifications of the same type, so it's understandable, why this confusion is so widespread, but it's still not an excuse)

It is not possible to justify racial subcategories in materialist theory. From a materialist point of view you can talk about racism and other racialist thinking happening in the heads of people and how that affects their actions. But you can not adopt those categories and definitions for a materialist description of the physical reality of bodies walking around in spacetime. There's just people made of atoms.

The Idea of human races/subspecies the way it is understood today originated as an apologetic for the slave-trading capitalists in the 17 century, who wanted to sell people the same way animal live-stock is sold. So it's very old bourgeois ideology and it shall not be allowed into the materialist theory complex.

Maybe this is difficult for you to process, so i shall give you a personal anecdote to make my position more relatable. I grew up without being introduced to the concept of races. There were kids on the playground that looked different from me but everything else was pretty much the same so the differences only registered as cosmetic, analogous to the same model of car with a different paint-job. When i was first confronted with the concept of racial divisions i was almost an adult with somewhat developed rational thinking faculties. At that point i also had consumed some quantity of scientific education, which corroborated my views. For a very long time i thought that the race-talk was a cultural expression that had escaped my grasp. Analogous to people that post frog-pictures online, who aren't really saying that they are amphibious creatures. Even today i can't entirely shake the feeling that it's all an elaborate practical joke. Consider that if you can't convince people like me that escaped the racial indoctrination process, maybe your views are wrong.

(2)
I don't believe you, that racism is causing identity-unique experiences. You can talk to many different people and find recurring grievances related to various types of mistreatment, without ever having to deploy racial categories. So you can't really assert that experience is the only way to gain knowledge about this phenomenon. You are really pushing buttons of even mildly scientific minded people if you assert that there is no objective reality to a phenomenon, only experiential reality. I will grant you this one concession that escaping the stereotyping habits of people is particularly troublesome in the racialist dimension. It seems that non-racialist interpretations of reality are far away from general acceptance.

If you make a Marxist class analysis then the bourgeoisie in the US is fanning racial divisiveness as a means of divide and conquer of the population in North America. That's the instrumental utility for the superstructure, that's why racism and various forms of racialism reproduce them selves. If you can't kill it at that level you can't kill it at all.

An identity-centric view also allows for affluent people to claim victim-hood, which serves them as a cloak for predatory behavior. So at the core of identity politics sits a very reactionary monster. In order to fix this you have to imagine class analysis as a scissor to cuts every identity in 2.
>>

 No.468245

>>468228
>Maybe Fred Hampton was wrong about his class reductionism.
Hampton had correct theory.
If he had survived he would have become America's Lenin.
>>

 No.468246

File: 1680437472478.jpeg ( 21.43 KB , 474x718 , doubt.jpeg )

>>468245
>If he had survived he would have become America's Lenin.
>>

 No.468247

It's simple really. If blacks (or any other minority group) think that their characteristic of being a particular racial phenotype is more important than their characteristic of being wageslaves - then they should go form their own racial movement or whatever.

As a worker I'm not obliged to sympathize with your racial, sexual, yada-yada problems. Because I don't give a fuck, I can only sympathize with your wageslave problems.
>>

 No.468248

>>305967
No, you should promote it
*Like every socialist country*
>>

 No.468249

>>468248
>*Like every socialist country*
*Like every socialist country that collapsed*
>>

 No.468250

>>468249
>Socialism is when youre ghey and live in an affluent country. The gheyer you are and more affluent your country, the more socialism you are
>>

 No.468251

File: 1680438660540.jpeg ( 37.86 KB , 622x350 , loli rosa.jpeg )

>>468250
>Socialism is when you collapse into ethnic conflicts
Luxemburg wiped the floor with Lenincel
>>

 No.468252

File: 1680440729522.jpg ( 1.87 MB , 1413x2000 , 1672441983152427.jpg )

>>468212
>unequal exchange is true because of my personal definition of productivity
>I don't accept […]
who cares. if you had a solid point, you would post constant and variable capital figures and prove that there isn't a difference in productivity

>why is a bus driver gets paid more in Germany than in India?

marginal labor cost. which is to say, opportunity cost as defined by novozhilov, which in turn come from the comparative advantages in productivity:
>Two men can both make shoes and hats, and one is superior to the other in both employments; but in making hats he can only exceed his competitor by one-fifth or 20 percent., and in making shoes he can excel him by one-third or 33 percent. will it not be for the interest of both, that the superior man should employ himself exclusively in making shoes, and the inferior man in making hats?
>[…] high-and low-wage economies often have different technologies. Activities like textile production and heavy engineering are among the first that newly industrialised countries move into. These are therefore the ones in which they have the greatest comparative advantage, and it is this comparative advantage rather than low wages that explains their exports. The low wages paid in the Indian aircraft industry have yet to threaten the jobs of aerospace workers in Seattle.
>>

 No.468254

>>468252
>if you had a solid point, you would post constant and variable capital figures and prove that there isn't a difference in productivity
lmao
please post constant and variable capital ratios in Indian and US service sector fag

>marginal labor cost

>opportunity cost as defined by novozhilov
>comparative advantages in productivity
neolib marginal productivity theory
fascinating
no wonder that shit collapsed lel

>high-and low-wage economies often have different technologies

please tell me what "different technologies" an Indian bus driver uses fag

>who cares

yeah, exactly
who cares

I don't accept your "theory" that more money paid = more productivity, if your faggot ass CAN'T MEASURE PRODUCTIVITY NOT IN MONETARY TERMS

please explain to me why am I getting paid less as a sysadmin than my westoid counterpart even tho I manage the same stack
>>

 No.468255

File: 1680445108246.png ( 3.59 MB , 1334x1916 , 1677016621290544.png )

>>468254
>neolib marginal productivity theory
kantorovich actually. it's part of the ltv and just math

different technologies -> higher productivity in some activities -> higher opportunity costs for other activities. it is almost as if the price of commodities came from the aggregate of all the commodities in a national economy (capital vol. 3, production prices)

>please explain to me why am I getting paid less as a sysadmin than my westoid counterpart even tho I manage the same stack

if the work was exactly the same (regardless of your location, time availability, etc), capital would have already moved to those low-wage economies (this is in fact happening). but assuming that some part of the work can't be replaced by sysadmins abroad, the difference in wages probably comes from opportunity costs: even if the expensive sysadmin isn't particularly productive, his wage is influenced by the wages in the extraordinarily productive sectors
>>

 No.468256

>>>/leftypol/468254
>lmao
so you can't. actual evidence is below the revolutionary elucidations of the unequal exchange theory, right?
>>

 No.468258

File: 1680447023361.jpeg ( 28.09 KB , 474x340 , lmao.jpeg )

>>468255
>kantorovich actually. it's part of the ltv and just math
nothing is "just math"
math model either corresponds to reality, or it does not


>it's part of the ltv

it's not
it's part of the "objectively determined evaluations" which are derived from the marginal productivity of factors

>it is almost as if the price of commodities came from the aggregate of all the commodities in a national economy (capital vol. 3, production prices)

theory of prices in vol 3 contradicts ltv in vol 1

>if the work was exactly the same (regardless of your location, time availability, etc)

Location? fag we're talking about networks here

>capital would have already moved to those low-wage economies (this is in fact happening)

now decipher your dogmoid ramblings to me in practical terms

disparity of wages in my country's service sector compared to the west is not getting smaller

>even if the expensive sysadmin isn't particularly productive, his wage is influenced by the wages in the extraordinarily productive sectors

fascinating

so your whole theory of "marginal productivity" flies out of the window lol

unless you claim that the whole service sector of a country gets paid less because of a lesser productivity in the steel industry or something kek

>>468256
>so you can't. actual evidence is below the revolutionary elucidations of the unequal exchange theory, right?
"actual evidence" is that I get paid less for the same type work with the same technology stack fag

it is YOU who can't fit the empirical data into your bullshit theory
>>

 No.468260

>>468255
>different technologies -> higher productivity in some activities -> higher opportunity costs for other activities
also novozhilov and CEMI faggots defined "productivity" as a contribution to the maximization of the "social utility" function

which was, you guessed it, a subjective utility function lmao

how the fuck can you aggregate individual utilities into "social utility" function that you can then "maximize" and so calculate "productivity of the various factors" was never of course answered kek
>>

 No.468262

>>468258
negation is not an argument, try again
>>

 No.468264

>>468262
what's your objective function that you measure productivity and calculate opportunity costs against?

I would liek to see you tell a bangladeshi textile worker that she gets a pittance of what a marketeer that sells what she produces gets because she is just that less productive kek

>don't u see stupid prole, it's just your "comparative advantage" to slave away for pittance
>>

 No.468266

to any lurker interested in the debate, imagine the following situation
sector A is extraordinarily productive
sector B is not
the more productive sector A is, the more you have to consider if resources assigned to sector B wouldn't be better spent in sector A. this isn't a problem exclusive to capitalism, kantorovich and later novozhilov explained this problem, because it concerns planning, for example. it's just another aspect of the resource allocation problem

capitalism solves this problem through planning to some extent, but also through incentives: supply and demand. marx was going to elaborated on this in the manuscripts for the third volume of capital, particularly in chapters 9 to 12. but you don't really need to read that much to deduce that economies with higher constant capital concentrations, and thus higher productivity, will have higher wages as a whole

>>>/leftypol/468264
note that you haven't reformulated your previous non-arguments, so I assume you concede those

the question is wrong, and to answer it would be an implicit agreement on your disingenuous premise that you can't use money as a measure (for some reason that you haven't disclosed besides appeals to emotions) and that you can't measure productivity, or that kantorovich marginal labor value draws from the same axioms as bourgeois marginalism

you are making plain misunderstandings, false implications, etc. etc. that would take various paragraphs to explain, probably to be dismissed by "lol, lmao" and an even more retarded position (one liners where you claim a bunch of stuff without proof or elaboration).
>>

 No.468269

File: 1680465406354.jpg ( 72.55 KB , 600x769 , c62.jpg )

>>468239
>>468244
>Races aren't real in a materialist sense.
But racism is. This is like saying monarchs weren't real because divine right isn't materialist. Like no shit Kings weren't chosen by God, it was the ideological superstructure of their rule.
>>>468237
Hampton and the Black Panthers were plagued by racist police brutality from the beginning. It's why they infamously armed to fucking begin with.
>Hampton was from Chicago, which didn't have Jim Crow laws.
So what? Chicago was some kind of multicultural haven even. On top of being a reactionary, you speak authoritatively about burgerland when you clearly haven't set foot in it.
There were several race riots in Chicago during Hamptons' time. But you're accusing me of not knowing history? Get rekt.>>468243
>>468239
>Want to unpack historical materialism of blacks being bought and sold as human slaves all the way until the 1940'?
>IDPOL, LIB, CRY ME A RIVER, REEEEEEEEE
Please go back.
>>

 No.468270

>>468244
>I don't see race therefore racism not real.
Not THIS is liberalism.
>>

 No.468271

File: 1680465712552.jpg ( 72.55 KB , 600x769 , c62.jpg )

*badly fucked up the formatting and it muddled my points
>>468244
>Races aren't real in a materialist sense.
But racism is. This is like saying monarchs weren't real because divine right isn't materialist. Like no shit Kings weren't chosen by God, it was the ideological superstructure of their rule.
>>468237
Hampton and the Black Panthers were plagued by racist police brutality from the beginning. It's why they infamously armed to fucking begin with.
>Hampton was from Chicago, which didn't have Jim Crow laws.
So what? Chicago was some kind of multicultural haven even. On top of being a reactionary, you speak authoritatively about burgerland when you clearly haven't set foot in it.
There were several race riots in Chicago during Hamptons' time. But you're accusing me of not knowing history? Get rekt.
>>468239
>Want to unpack historical materialism of blacks being bought and sold as human slaves all the way until the 1940'?
>IDPOL, LIB, CRY ME A RIVER, REEEEEEEEE
Please go back.
>>

 No.468274

>>468266
>sector A is extraordinarily productive
>sector B is not
first, in what units do you measure "productivity"?
second, sector B is the same in the west and in the third world with roughly the same capital to labor ratio
and yet in the west it captures a bigger share of the value added
explain this fag

>this isn't a problem exclusive to capitalism, kantorovich and later novozhilov explained this problem, because it concerns planning, for example

except, first, kantorovich and novozhilov used utility function, which doesn't exist in reality, to calculate their marginal productivity

second, they in general used factor productivity theory, which is your basic ass marginal productivity theory

here, let me spoonfeed to you a basic conceptual difference retardoid:
LTV - average values
marginalism - limit values

>it's just another aspect of the resource allocation problem

it's not a "resource allocation problem" when you maximize a non-existent objective function retard, and threat labor like any other input

labor can be used to create any other inputs, the reverse is not true
Strumilin pointed this out in the discussions about optimal planning, and in a numerical example illustrated how you can arrive at retarded "optimal" results if you treat labor like any other input

>supply and demand

what determines exchange ratio when supply and demand cancel each other?

>note that you haven't reformulated your previous non-arguments, so I assume you concede those

I don't concede shit faggot
you haven't addressed my points so I don't see the need to "reformulate" them
my point stands

>the question is wrong, and to answer it would be an implicit agreement on your disingenuous premise that you can't use money as a measure (for some reason that you haven't disclosed besides appeals to emotions)

if you measure productivity in money, then your "theory" is just a tautology "paid more because more productive and more productive because paid more"

Again, explain basic observable fact of life:
same work - different pay

>or that kantorovich marginal labor value draws from the same axioms as bourgeois marginalism

kek how is this not marginalism when he even fucking uses utility function, only it is even more retarded aggregate "social" utility function

let's compare, shall we?
marginalism: factor productivity is a marginal contribution of a factor to the maximization of the firm's utility function
kantorovich theory of prices: factor productivity is a marginal contribution of a factor to the maximization of a "social" utility function

gee, nothing to see here kek

only difference is that kantorovich uses linear programming to maximize this non-existing "social" utility function, and marginalists assume that this maximization happens through the market
>>

 No.468276

>>468269
>>468271
>But racism is.
Next time read the rest of the comment:
Quote from: >>468244
<From a materialist point of view you can talk about racism and other racialist thinking happening in the heads of people and how that affects their actions. But you can not adopt those categories and definitions for a materialist description of the physical reality of bodies walking around in spacetime. There's just people made of atoms.

>>468270
>I don't see race therefore racism not real.
>Not THIS is liberalism.
You're just straw-manning the original post.
>>

 No.468277

>>468276
This just an arbitrary restriction intended to frustrate discourse. Like trying to talk about feudalism without talking about kings, because kings don't exist materially in that they are ordained by God.
>>

 No.468278

>>468266
>it's just another aspect of the resource allocation problem
you would have an ACTUAL resource allocation problem only if you have the end vector of products, not some pulled out of the ass utility function

against this vector you can maximize by using linear programming, mixed-integer programming, heuristic algorithms, whatever your computational resources allow you
>>

 No.468279

>you would have an ACTUAL resource allocation problem only if you have the end vector of products
that's why I actually like Glushkov's planning process - it begins from determining what products people would like to have, irrespective of the available resources, and the whole optimization is carried out in a dialog process by using limited available resources to maximize this end vector and the end vector is only reduced when there is no further optimization possible by using computational algorithms and there are no further optimization proposals

it actually integrates the conflict of consumers (the end vector) with producers (limited resources) into the planning process itself, so that it becomes obvious to everyone "no optimization proposal for a bottleneck resource - reduced end vector" and so political pressure in a democracy on bottleneck enterprises would be immense
>>

 No.468280

tho there is a problem of time constraints - Glushkov wanted yearly prolongation of plans with various planning horizons (1,3,5,10 years), and considering that every optimization proposal can be a complex technical modernization project and that we can assume a fair amount of political bickering around proposals or the lack thereof, it follows that the planning process would need to be constant - after yearly prolongation, planning process needs to continued for the prolongation in the next year
>>

 No.468281

File: 1680477190973.png ( 85.93 KB , 640x493 , 1675435991017116.png )

>>468277
I think people more intened to divert the conversation in a more productive direction as conversations revolving around abstract ideals like race, and gender and such ever actually get further than liberal reforms because, ultimately, the emancipation of the working class from the institutions of capitalism is the emancipation of these minority groups.Dispite the vocal minority of retards on here I take it as a given that all people ar included in the fold of the working class; As long as you have nothing to sell but your labor.
>>

 No.468282

>>468279
>so political pressure in a democracy on bottleneck enterprises would be immense
that's also why you need actual democracy for planning system to work - in oligarchy like in ML states the influence of producers far outweighs the influence of consumers, so the preferred solution for balancing the plan would be to reduce the end vector, not to force an optimization proposal
for the reverse to be true (preferred solution - optimization proposal) would require consumers having far more influence over producers, which is possible only in democracy
>>

 No.468283

>>468274
>In fact, the concept of differential costs and full production costs represent a generalized expression of the law of labor value. According to this concept, prices that balance the need for, and the production of, each product are always derived from the value of the final social product. The law of minimization of labor costs for the required output can be realized only if prices are proportional to differential costs per unit of product, i.e., partial derivatives of the conditional minimum of the value of the social product with respect to the production of the given commodity.
>The study of demand does not contradict Marx's theory of value. On the contrary, the concept of socially necessary labor presumes the conformity of the production of the product of this labor to social wants. Thus, the study of wants does not lead in any way to a decline of the labor theory of value in the USSR and to its replacement by the theory of marginal utility
if only there was a way for society to communicate it's needs
if only there was a commodity that could be exchanged for all the other commodities. if only we had that, your entire argument would be wrong. the other point that you are trying to make is that constant capital doesn't increase productivity which doesn't even need to be addressed

>second, sector B is the same in the west and in the third world with roughly the same capital to labor ratio

higher opportunity costs thanks to sector A. it is a really simple concept

you are trying really hard to use linear terminology which is cute, but these are much more fundamental concepts

>I don't concede

>you haven't addressed my points
plain negation isn't a point. if you want to be addressed, make an actual argument
>>

 No.468297

>Have a Marxist conception of identity/gender/race
>Get banned from pretty much every "Communist", "Socialist" community on the internet
>Norm Finklestein says essentially the exact same thing
>"OMG HES SO SMART"

I literally don't get it. Also it's fun to know that most Western Leftists now just outright reject Marxism for Liberalism because of feels.
>>

 No.468299

>>468297
socialist groups are called cults for a reason you know. get a reputation, become one of the left's popes and they will uncritically accept anything you say
>>

 No.468302

>>468299
The thing is, they don't listen, Finklestien would get cancelled in any non M-L left org for his positions especially on Idpol, they cheer people like Finklestien, Reed Jr, DeBoer etc but then completely ignore everything they say and if you repeat what they say, you get cancelled for being a "TERF" or whatever.
>>

 No.468305

>>468297
>Have a Marxist conception of identity/gender/race
Hahaha my sides, do anti-idpolers really?
>>

 No.468310

>>468305
Which type of idpoler are you anon?
The self hating whiteoid?
The manipulative diva?
Both?
>>

 No.468318

>>468305
Identities are just ideas in the heads of people, that are derived from personal experience, not measurement of objective reality. It was an error in judgement to ignore that distinction.
>>

 No.468319

>>468310
Don't forget the Gender Obsessed troon.
>>

 No.468321

as someone who has been on leftypol since 2016
1. leftypol has never had a good or cohesive critique of idpol as much as it likes to think it has.
2. anti idpol is an idpol position and being obsessed with minorities is no different to /pol/tards even if you do it in a vulgar patsoc way with marxist dressing
3. Most anti idpol literature is garbage. I sincerely tried to engage with it and it’s just badly written. Most of it is clearly written from the conclusion trying to find an intellectual reason for a gut reaction. The majority is written by cishet white men with occasional token mentions outside of that demographic and occasional laughable rebrandings of people like Fred Hampton to “anti idpol”. I usually don’t mind this but on this subject the lack of knowledge of oppression really shows.
4. Marginalised people are often the most politically radicalised and anti idpol suggests we ignore the simple fact that capitalism hurts other people more than others. I genuinely can not understand the mindset of “we should ignore the concerts of people worse off than us”. The Democrats failed women by not protecting abortion. The Soviet Union was the first country to make this a right, I see zero reason not to capitalise on women’s concerns here but so many people would consider this idpol when it broadens the support base.

I won’t lie and say I’m not biassed as a queer person but I’ve always seen leftypol’s position on idpol as a historical relic that people refuse to surrender due to tradition. I’m sincerely sorry if this sounds aggressive and I’m not 100% unmoveable on this, this is just what observing Leftypol for years led me to.
>>

 No.468323

>>468321
>please repeat critiques of idpol for the millions times
Here have this copy pasta:

Identity politics essentializes identity without regards to the material relations underpinning it. At best, it assimilates identities within the realm of discourse and media (not economic autonomy and security!); at worst it incites intra-class conflicts.

As leftists, we fight for the free determination of all individuals and their full emancipation from oppressive power structures. The rights of individuals to live according to their own wishes is a fundamental part of leftism.

It is for this reason that identity struggles are a particular manifestation of class struggle and identity politics as such is the neoliberal recuperation of particular class struggles at the expense of the whole class struggle, and hence, essentially conservative. Being against identity politics does not mean that oppression based on personal characteristics does not exist, but rather that fighting for the emancipation of individual identities without a class character ultimately amounts to fighting for individual emancipation, rather than emancipating the group as a whole.

Instead, we advocate for the political organization of communities on the grounds of class analysis, class solidarity, to achieve political gains and protection now, with the ultimate goal of full emancipation of all the working class.

Further reading

** Racial politics (mostly Black Panther stuff)

*** It's A Class Struggle Goddammit! - Fred Hampton (Fred Hampton was a member of the Black Panther Party who was assasinated by the FBI)

*** Power Anywhere Where There's People - Fred Hampton

*** The Panthers and the Patriots By Michael McCanne Edit
An article about the black Panthers work with the Young Patriots a group of SDS guys who reached out to white working class people in Appalachia and the Deep South
+ https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/05/black-panthers-young-patriots-fred-hampton

*** Footage of the Patriots and Panthers working together to build class consciousness
+ https://youtu.be/RPTwDO0sh-E

*** Fred Hampton's famous: "We're not going to fight capitalism with black capitalism we're going to fight it with socialism" speech
+ https://youtu.be/fJSqZrVjDds

*** Paul Robeson (Check out his Wikipage)
+ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6y-xfqP6FOE
+ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmFjjaFNHKo

** Identity politics as such

*** Exiting the vampire castle - Mark Fisher
+ https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/exiting-vampire-castle/

*** Essentialism and the problem of identity politics - Lawrence Jarach
+ https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/lawrence-jarach-essentialism-and-the-problem-of-identity-politics

*** Against Identity Politics by Lupus Dragonowl
+ https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/lupus-dragonowl-against-identity-politics

*** White purity by Asad Heider Edit
+https://www.viewpointmag.com/2017/01/06/white-purity/

*** Adolph Reed: Identity Politics Is Neoliberalism Edit
+ https://bennorton.com/adolph-reed-identity-politics-is-neoliberalism/

*** Identity Crisis by Salar Mohandesi Edit
+ https://www.viewpointmag.com/2017/03/16/identity-crisis/

*** Michael Parenti
+ https://youtu.be/n79kRP5RB2M
+ https://youtu.be/ZkttzU86CFE

** Intersectionality

Intersectionality, in summary, is a left liberal theory about the system of oppressions and how they can overlap. For example, it's different being gay and black, than those things separately. It is sometimes misconstrued as meaning solidarity.

*** I am a woman and a human: a Marxist feminist critique of intersectionality theory - Eve Mitchell
+ https://libcom.org/library/i-am-woman-human-marxist-feminist-critique-intersectionality-theory-eve-mitchell

*** The Communist Case Against Intersectionality by sev_k
+ https://archive.org/details/bourgeois-culture/The+Communist+Case+Against+Intersectionality.mp4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vnLzfRqPS8

*** Class is More Intersectional than Intersectionality
+ https://imperiumadinfinitum.wordpress.com/2016/11/11/class-is-more-intersectional-than-intersectionality/

*** Marxism vs. Intersectionality by Jessica Cassell
+ https://www.marxist.com/marxism-vs-intersectionality.htm

*** Intersectionality: A Marxist Critique by Barbara Foley
+ https://multiracialunity.org/2018/09/26/intersectionality-a-marxist-critique/

** Privilege Politics

*** Privilege politics is reformism
+ http://libcom.org/library/privilege-politics-reformism

*** The poverty of privilege politics
+ http://libcom.org/library/poverty-privilege-politics

*** Behind the epidemic police killings in America: Class, poverty and race
+ https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/12/20/kil1-d20.html
>>

 No.468324

>>468321
I don't know about most of what you mention. my position is as shallow as not my problem, I don't care, and, if pressed on the subject, trans women are ugly. I'm only interested in socialism because I want a higher wage and I don't like the fact that someone is getting rich from my work
note that you used abortion and not, say, pediatric HRT, as an example of something that broadens the base and can be capitalized (i.e. benefit the movement). is historic trivia (legalization in the USSR) the only difference you see between these two "idpol" issues?
I do think that these things should be considered strictly in cost-benefit terms. and while I don't see a benefit in completely embracing identity politics, I don't see much value in going the extra mile to reject them either
>>

 No.468351

File: 1680624982874.jpg ( 58.41 KB , 680x1019 , 501.jpg )

>>468321
I would take it further to say that hating minotiries IS idpol and not anti-idpol even if right wingers and other vulgar leftists want to depsrestly paint it as the later, but, none the less I think that honest critiques of idpol usually revolve around liberalism and Marxism and, as has been pointed out in this thread, what separates the two. To mean a revolutionary, or, a marxist/leftist/etc etc is seperated from a liberal by their position on class. A leftist understands class as the central antagonist for the problems we face. That is not to say that we should ignore the issues of minorities. Hell, supporting those issues can and does generate support for anti-capitalist narratives and ideology, but, it becomes idpol when the centrality and focus of class politics becomes lost; It then becomes liberalism and I think that is what an honest, leftist, critique of idpol actually looks like. It's not really about ignoring the issues of minorities, but, understanding that all social issues and political issues are out growths of the economic system of capitalism and class politics.
>>

 No.468357

>>468351
I could agree with this if
>we should'nt ignore the issues of minorities
actually focused on the issues, and observes a strict prohibition on referencing identities.
The point of anti-id-pol is to get identities out of the political discourse and make the material issues take center stage.

For example you can bring up a topic like police violence in the US, we all know who is disproportionately affected by this, but you can't say it out loud. If identity references are not taboo, you get overrun by liberal performative commodities that displace actual politics, where politicians and shills make a big spectacle while behind the scenes they double the police budgets for means of violent repression.
>>

 No.468358

File: 1680631822527.png ( 821.94 KB , 768x1024 , 1677812448549379.png )

>>468357
Nah, I disagree with that. The goal of anti-idpol discourse has always been, at least to me, to put class analysis at the forefront of political discourse and to examine and understand relationships in society through that lenses. Including minority issues.

The issue is that, while yes you are correct, liberals take advantage of not having an anti-idpol dialogue out of the gate, on the same coin, we lose a massive swatch of support from minorities if we do not at least listen to their grievances.
Grievances, again, as I said, that are part of the working class manifold anyways.
>>

 No.468359

>>468358
I've honestly never met a POC person who themselves wasn't a raging manipulator that wanted to be treated as a one dimensional assemblage of oppressed identities
>>

 No.468360

>>468358
>we lose a massive swatch of support
All the people that prioritize the material issues will stay.
You will also gain new supporters that are at present being driven away by id-pol.
The people that only care about the identitarian culture elements those will fuck off, and that's the point.

The identity reference taboo is not optional, it's the core principle of effective politics.
>>

 No.468368

>>468357
>you can't say it out loud.
this will only obfuscate your point and alienate people. keeping liberals out might take actual work (effort) but seems better than botching your discourse to play their idpol/anti-idpol game

>>468360
>All the people that prioritize the material issues will stay.
and a new cult is born
I mean, it could work, depending on the number of people you win over the people you lose. I'm assuming you are american or talking about a hypothetical american organization. where would you center your efforts then? I mean, concretely; labor unions? the only alternative I see to minority issues would be to build a labor movement from scratch
>>

 No.468369

>>468368
>this will only obfuscate your point
Trust me the people who are affected by a material issue they will understand you, they don't require any references to their identity. All the other people who aren't directly affected, they don't need to understand or really take notice. They only need to not be opposed. If you say that you want to reform the police to make it use less violent methods, most people will just nod along "less violence sounds good", giving you passive consent, that's all it takes.

>keeping liberals out might take actual work (effort) but seems better than botching your discourse to play their idpol/anti-idpol game

No forget it, wasting that effort on a futile attempt to tame the tribal idpol-madness causes people to burn out on politics. We're way better off with an id-pol taboo, that will make it possible to have an authentic political discourse again, you know where people debate policy, political strategy and so on. We've tried the idpol stuff and the result was nothing but neo-liberal spectacle without any concrete material gains.

Besides the liberals are a lost cause, they think you are a spy if you suggest it's better to make peace with the Russians and seek ways to get along with the Chinese. They want to go down with the empire, i don't really understand why, maybe it's racist hatred or maybe they can't let go of the idea of spreading their cultural values with imperial firepower. Regardless what drives this insanity, we don't want to get dragged down with them. Also they are breaking with liberal principles, they want to regulate the behavior of individual people to an unbearable extend, while they are trying to impose harsh material hardship on people. They will get badly burned for that politically, and we definitely don't want to stick around for that.

>prioritizing the material issues is a cult

fuck off with that nonsense.

>I mean, it could work, depending on the number of people you win over the people you lose.

You'll probably have a net gain. So many people checked out of politics when discussions about concrete things were replaced with an intangible identity discourse.

>where would you center your efforts then? I mean, concretely; labor unions? the only alternative I see to minority issues would be to build a labor movement from scratch

I would go for a multi-pronged approach
labor unions
anti-war movements
fights for civil liberties
democratization of technology
fights for universal healthcare and affordable housing
In the US specifically there will be a real chance to win over a lot of people in the military, once the US bourgeoisie starts picking fights they can't win.
>>

 No.468370

>>468369
>most people will […]
and if you assumption is wrong you would be alienating the majority every time you tried to touch a minority issue. but if you had decided to, say, only mention the problem of police brutality when addressing black audiences, your self-censorship thing would only give your organization trouble, as you would have communicate this internal policy indirectly to not mention race

>where people debate

if you have people that want to disrupt your organization, they are going to find stupid things to endlessly debate about, be it idpol or something else, it's the most basic cointelpro tactic. you are still going to have to spend time and effort filtering these people

>prioritizing the material issues is a cult

alienating everyone but the dozen or so of people that agree with you is a cult. it was a joke

I'm not telling you to adopt idpol, my point is that publicly and openly opposing idpol is just as (if not more) counter-productive. but if know you are right, go and put your ideas into practice
>>

 No.468371

>>468359
>>468359
There's people that believe the earth is flat because of their own personal experience.
>>

 No.468372

>>468371
Your snarky and faggy clapback just reinforced my point. Thanks
>>

 No.468376

>>468372
It wasn't a clap back you dumb fuck.
God damn this board is filled with retards. It's an analogy you stupid faggot.
>>

 No.468377

>>468370
Identity politics is alienating for most people, the political left that's actually left has shrunk the more it leaned in to it.

And it is easy to understand why people leave when things turn idpol. Identitarianism is a neo-liberal recuperation mechanism to neutralize political organizations. Organizations that shift from dealing with the actual problems that people face to the identitarian scheme end up selling out the people they pretend to fight for. Political struggle turns into Political spectacle.

The first thing the identitarians do when they gain power in an org is that they try to shut up all the people that try to fight for the material cause, because that harms the career prospects of the sell-outs, so it is fair to say that identity politics functions like a censorship mechanism and getting rid of it represents an expansion of liberties not a restraint.

As far as minority problems are concerned, we can separate the material issues from the idealist identities. There is no need to have endless debates about idpol, you only need a general rule that says: No references to identities, you simply treat every identity as if it was a slur, you can only refer to people as human beings, problem solved. If you look at the track record of actually delivering improvements to the material conditions of people, every idpol movement either failed or made it worse. You have to be able to learn from mistakes. There's no point in having politics if you don't achieve betterment for the people.

>only mentioning the problem of police brutality isn't enough

That's true the US also needs a prison reform, a drug-law reform , an election participation reform , fixes for systemic biases, … etc. But the most pressing issue seems to be the state violence, so that's where you start, the biggest pain-point comes first.

As far as your public face is concerned you put the material cause in the center, but you do have to be upfront about rejecting identitarianism. You don't want to appear deceptive and you want to attract the people that care more about the material issues then the identities.

The sad thing is that most of the id-pol-wrecking isn't even cointelpro, the wreckers usually are sell-outs or just narcissists that want to be the center of attention. Leftist carders used to chew out corporate goons in street fights. Now we're too timid to tell a bunch of assholes to fuck off.
>>

 No.468379

>>468376
>I'll make nonequivalent analogies so i can score points in an internet debate, then name call when I get called out

Like I said, idpol is a tool of manipulators and narcissists. You'd be a better fit for leftypol, but would probably run afoul the faggy mods there. Only so much room at the top of leftoid ideo-cults.
>>

 No.468381

>>468377
>Identity politics is alienating for most people,
Nah, just settlers that benefit from it's continued obscuration.
>>

 No.468382

>>468377
>The first thing the identitarians do when they gain power in an org is that they try to shut up all the people that try to fight for the material cause, because that harms the career prospects of the sell-outs, so it is fair to say that identity politics functions like a censorship mechanism and getting rid of it represents an expansion of liberties not a restraint.

Been part of several leftist orgs across several countries and yep, this happens literally every fucking time. The entire org becomes mental health support group for wrecker BPD Idpol freak who forces everyone to submit to talking about Trans rights or whatever. People who push back against it, are called reactionaries and are forced out. Every time I notice a BPD Idpol wrecker enter a org, I just basically sitback and Michael Jackson popcorn gif, because it always turns into a fucking shitshow.
Sadly these freaks are like moths to flames to any space where they can play the professional victim
https://gwern.net/doc/psychology/personality/psychopathy/2020-ok.pdf
>We investigate the consequences and predictors of emitting signals of victimhood and virtue. In our first
three studies, we show that the virtuous victim signal can facilitate nonreciprocal resource transfer from
others to the signaler. Next, we develop and validate a victim signaling scale that we combine with an
established measure of virtue signaling to operationalize the virtuous victim construct. We show that
individuals with Dark Triad traits—Machiavellianism, Narcissism, Psychopathy—more frequently signal
virtuous victimhood, controlling for demographic and socioeconomic variables that are commonly
associated with victimization in Western societies

I think honestly one of the biggest things leftist orgs fail at is professionalism. A professional org would not let these wreckers destroy things and would quickly root them out, but because Western Leftist orgs are little more than Autist/BPD support networks/Social clubs, it allows the wrecker to fucking destroy. Notice these BPD Idpol freaks don't seem to destroy Unions? Because Unions are serious organisations.
>>

 No.468383

>>468381
Low t fag with nothing going for them except self righteousness
>>

 No.468384

>>468379
How was it wrong you smooth brained little faggot?
You realize that just because you experience something personally that doesn't make it reality right? That is the point I was trying to make. Do you think that personal experience = fact?

Hmmm? Are you just being salty so you refuse to admit you were wrong or are you honestly this stupid?
>>

 No.468385

>>468377
The left is also shrinking and turning away epople because of retards like you who flat out refuse to do anything to support unique issues found in minority communities because you don't actually care about those people. You don't have to make those issues the center of your organization, but, you actually are racist faggots, so, even the concept of helping get african americans out of poverty comes off as "alienating" to you. You are a faggot and I hope your whole family dies.
>>

 No.468386

>>468385
>even the concept of helping get african americans out of poverty comes off as "alienating" to you
I want to help wageslaves out of poverty

I have no intention of helping "african american" millionaire gangsta rappers to get out of "poverty"
>>

 No.468387

>>468386
>Every one who is black is a millionair gangster rapper

Spoken like a true racist. Might as well start writing minstral cartoons while you are at it.

Would you support a reparations program for black communities?
>>

 No.468389

>>468387
>Spoken like a true racist.
Yeah, whatever. I don't care about blacks as an ethnicity.

>Would you support a reparations program for black communities?

Of course not.
I don't support any reparations for anything that happened beyond a single generation. That is a lib talk.
>>

 No.468390

>>468389
>Yeah, whatever. I don't care about blacks as an ethnicity.

Salty because he knows I'm right.

>I don't support any reparations for anything that happened beyond a single generation. That is a lib talk.


This is the same logic dumb ass liberals get caught up on; It's either one or the other. You are nothing more than an ideologue larping as a revolutionary. You can infact push for reforms under a liberal government and push for a greater revolution at the economic level of society. You're such a dumb fuck, dude, it really is amazing.
>>

 No.468391

File: 1680730925621.jpeg ( 62.62 KB , 1280x720 , uwotmate.jpeg )

>>468390
>Salty because he knows I'm right.
I'm not "salty" and you're not right.

>You are nothing more than an ideologue larping as a revolutionary.

I'm not a "revolutionary".

>You can infact push for reforms under a liberal government and push for a greater revolution at the economic level of society.

kek, good luck with that
>>

 No.468392

>>468379
>>468382
The manipulation and psychology angle rings true, i definitely have to take that into consideration more. Arguing with the proponents of identitarianism definitely can feel like it's just a rhetorical game to them.

>>468381
You are of course ignoring all the people that don't fit into either of your race identity categories that are being left out. The no-identity approach is definitely better and less alienating.

>>468385
It has to be stated clearly that identity politics is not about actually helping people, because it never has any beneficial effects that help working class or poor people. It's just a neoliberal recuperation mechanism that enforces the status quo, and that's why people are alienated by idpol.

When you say unique issues that affect certain identity groups, I take it that's code for the problems of people who are already very affluent and or part of the capitalist class. That's not the project of the left. I think you are a reactionary that's trying to sneak in class collaborationism on the back of accusations.

You sound very dishonest because helping people get out of poverty is a universal goal of anybody that can still be counted on the left. Inserting racial identitarianism into poverty alleviation that's a tactic the ruling class uses to prevent solidarity among poor people. They create like different ranks of poors based on identitarian racial divisions. So that poor people from one racial-id group are slightly less poor than the other and thus are pitted against each other to fight for slightly better scraps. Do you not understand this dynamic ?, or is this like ruthless malice ?

>You are a faggot and I hope your whole family dies.

You have a screw loose, we're just having a disagreement in an online forum, there are no stakes, we're not in the polit-buro crafting policies, this level of enmity is uncalled for.
>>

 No.468393

The main thing idpol has accomplished is been making racism cool.
>>

 No.468394

File: 1680749644627.gif ( 28.15 KB , 312x312 , spooky silly skeleton.gif )

>>468387
>Spoken like a true racist.
lol you don't even know how many layers of spooks you're operating on.
>>

 No.468395

>>468394
Screeching about racism is the only ammo fags have. No one cares anymore, except imagine conscious corporations. They're on your side ig
>>

 No.468396

>>468382
>Notice these BPD Idpol freaks don't seem to destroy Unions? Because Unions are serious organisations.
This is such a great point and I'm going to bring it up all the time from now on. It's the same reason unions don't adopt "consensus" decision-making bullshit.
>>

 No.468397

>>468395
>>468394

>Literally saying all black people are gangster rapper millionaires doesn't constitute racism.


How fucking dumb can you possibly be?
>>

 No.468399

>>468397
>Imagining things
>Insane levels of hyperbole
Lol comrade. Your satire of an idpoler fooled me for a second
>>

 No.468400

>>468399
You realize there's nothing that anyone could actually say to you that could constitute something racist right? At what point would you consider some one to be actually racist?
>>

 No.468402

>>468400
Yawn. Go back to reddit. Upvoots await you there. Otherwise, noone here cares about your existential faggotry. Actual nonwhite people especially aren't impressed, Timmycel.
>>

 No.468404

File: 1680810038536.png ( 14.17 KB , 829x447 , gaslighting.png )

>>468400
You appear as a puritan looking for a way to get a purity-spiral going.

The thing is that technically race-ism means looking at the world through a race-based lens, and that's what identity politics has done to the left, insert a hole bunch more race-based thinking, where there was none previously.

Before the id-pol wave hit, it was common to see that kind of thinking as prejudiced, as something bad, because you failed to evaluate the individual person on their own merit.

So from that point of view, identity politics is racist gaslighting.
>>

 No.468409

>>468404
the other three make sense but gaslighting doesnt actually fit there
anyways, most "politics" in current year is just gaslighting
>>

 No.468411

>>468409
I see what you are getting at, but if you count the pseudo-left identitarians as part of the racist axis , then their accusations of racism are accusing others of what they are doing, which technically qualifies as gaslighting.

I have seen some of these people try to implement racial segregation, so it's not entirely theoretical to consider these people at least crypto racist.

All that said I don't really care much about this point because it largely is a technicality and the first three points are sufficient to break the authority from identity mechanism.
>>

 No.468418

>>468411
From what I understand, gaslighting is a sort of manipulation of one's perception of reality, so it can't really serve as a synonym for hypocrisy. But regardless, I agree that idpol can be used to gaslight people.
What you call "pseudo-left identitarians" are only pseudo-left in the sense that the left, as it was understood by the moderns, does not exist anymore. It is an ideological remnant of the new left, which had succumbed to capitalist realism due to their failure to create new social relations. What followed was their absorption into the Democratic party (which makes sense since it was always the party of racial politics) and subsequent mutation into the left wing of neoliberalism. The extreme moralization that defines this pseudo-left is secretly an admission of defeat.
It's not really that genuine leftist movements are corrupted by idpol, but that the repeated failure of leftist projects tends to cause such movements to degenerate into idpol. The rightists who criticized the OWS protesters for not knowing what they want were correct in a sense, as their project was incoherent and its failure birthed the sort of idpol that servants of the Democrats are known for today.
My point here is a loose extrapolation of what Walter Benjamin meant when he said that every failed revolution is followed by the rise of fascism. The impotence of the left is a problem of practical and theoretical poverty. It's good that most leftists aren't willing to repeat some of the older historical failures of the left, following the legacy of the new left, but they lack a decent interpretation of that history. Without one, there will never be an anti-idpol left. Otherwise it's likely that the left will end up repeating some of the mistakes of the Bolsheviks in an attempt to break free from this malaise.
>>

 No.468427

>>468404
As I said, there's nothing wrong with supporting minority communities (which are part of the working class) because, whether you like reality or not, they have been marginalized. Not only is ignoring that shit not going to do us any favors, but, it actively keeps the boot on these peoples necks. You're avoiding the question arguing semantics.

People used to think the earth, funny enough, was flat. People used to think a lot of thinks, anon. But we have come to develop a deeper understanding. The liberal world view that we are "all the same bro" actually comes from post soviet 90's propaganda about a united world order and people that was actually spurred forth by the capitalist class in the wake of the collapse of the soviet union and the end of history. You are actually playing directly into their hands by supporting that narrative. As I said, we have developed a more nuanced understanding of racism as time has progressed and history has cont'd to march forward.

I agree we should evaluate people individually on their own merit, but, that doesn't mean that certain groupings of people don't face different issues than other groupings of people. Black people have 1 dollar to every 100 dollars a white person has in the US because of centuries of segregation, red lining, slavery, etc etc etc. These are historical facts and the only thing that is racist is trying to, literally, white wash these facts and paper over them and implying they are not important or not worth our consideration.

If anything, again, tactically they are and, furthermore, again, it is not idpol to understand and push against these things. It's only idpol to place these issues over our class solidarity which we all share in common as working people. A fact you keep ignoring, btw.
>>

 No.468430

"Anti-idpol" is really deflection from real existing state violence backed idpol. i.e. white supremacy. Criticizing white supremacy is genuine materialist attacks on idpol. While "anti-idpol" is in reality the most insidious form of idpol.
Anyone that says otherwise, like the people ITT are just spooked CHUDs who are too emotionally stunted to understand that they are no in fact not the most oppressed of people simply because they have to show up to work everyday.
Yes, black people are in fact enslaved because they are black. It's backed by centuries of history. And you'll never see any of these cowardly CHUDs mouthing off in public because they have no allies among the proletariat. Just fringe dead enders like themselves who can only amass any sort of support on the internet.
>>

 No.468431

>>468427
I am going to assume you are a certain poster on this board, who has posted about this topic in multiple threads.
I think it's pretty clear at this point that you are conflating anti-idpol with racism and oppression in a way that can only be the result of either stupidity or manipulation.
In every thread you post in, you act as if its a cardinal sin to try and understand and solve the problems of marginalized people through a universal, class-based political programme.
I admit, some of your critics are insensitive to such matters, and I am against that. But your reply here was quite revealing considering the poster you responded to. It shoed that you twist and distort and manipulate opposing views with bullshit like:
>Not only is ignoring that shit not going to do us any favors
As if anon argued for such, or is just ignorant to begin with.
>The liberal world view that we are "all the same bro"
As if anon implied that everyone is the same.
>we have developed a more nuanced understanding of racism
As if anon is too stupid to understand racism.
>that doesn't mean that certain groupings of people don't face different issues than other groupings of people
As if anon said anything to the contrary.
>it is not idpol to understand and push against these things
As if anon actually believes such a thing.
Do you really think we're all idiot conservatives and libertarians that have no concept of social injustice?
The only one who appears to be incapable of reconciling anti-racism with anti-idpol, in this thread and in others, is you. Anon is completely right, you appear to be very dishonest, and for good reason. You've created a false dichotomy that pits the working-class position against the marginalized one, and constantly argue against anyone who thinks that the two can often be identical.
I agree with you completely, there's nothing wrong with supporting minority communities. Except, for some odd reason, you seem to strongly believe that being anti-idpol and pro-worker is somehow the opposite. It's suspicious to say the least.
>>

 No.468432

>>468430
See this is the other side of the coin; When you start talking about who is "more" oppressed that is when you start diverting away from class analysis. Everyone is oppressed under capitalism. Some in more ways than others and some not so much. We all are thrown to the winds of economic anarchy. It isn't about who is "more" oppressed it's about how we can escape the influence of capital all together. That doesn't mean that we can't help lift people up on the way there, though.

>>468431
See you are projecting though. You are seeing what you want to see because me not mentioning class based politics and the over throw of capital does not mean I do or do not support it. Obviously I do, but, you have to realize that over throwing capital is something we are very far away from, thus, gaining rights and better living conditions under capitalism for workers and minority workers is more tenable and realistic currently. You are mistaking me not mentioning one thing for not supporting it which is not the case.

>Do you really think we're all idiot conservatives and libertarians that have no concept of social injustice?


Never said this either. Why do you keep putting words in my mouth anon?
>>

 No.468433

>>468432
>See you are projecting though
You have no fucking idea what this word means.
> You are seeing what you want to see because me not mentioning class based politics and the over throw of capital does not mean I do or do not support it
No, I am pointing out a pattern of behaviour: anons argue in favour of a universal class-based program, and you argue against them for not sufficiently considering the plight of the marginalized.
>Obviously I do, but, you have to realize that over throwing capital is something we are very far away from
Ah, and now we see what's really going on here.
Exactly who mentioned overthrowing capital? Pro-worker policies could range from something as simple as raising the minimum wage, to universal healthcare, to full employment, and so on. Yet you immediately jump to the most radical position in order to juxtapose such a far-off goal with your own position, or as you said:
>gaining rights and better living conditions under capitalism for workers and minority workers is more tenable and realistic currently
Who exactly argued against improving the living conditions of workers under capitalism? Not to mention that you specifically noted "minority workers", I only presume to contrast with "regular workers", who you heavily imply would not benefit from a universal working-class programme, as if that is somehow "exclusionary", am I right?
Again, this is clearly either a case of stupidity of malicious intent.
>Why do you keep putting words in my mouth anon?
Now, you are the one guilty of projection here. All I did was wonder out loud why you make so many ridiculous arguments. No, you are the one putting words into our mouths, acting as if we are arguing for something we are not. You are a hypocrite.
>>

 No.468439

File: 1680951589249.jpg ( 39.78 KB , 318x473 , howtoliewithstatistics.jpg )

>>468427
>Black people have 1 dollar to every 100 dollars a white person has
You know when a white person dealing with crushing poverty has ridiculous statistics like this shouted at them as if they describe all persons instead being explicitly described as average values, they struggle to take you seriously. You really shouldn't speak in measures of average value without making it clear what they are if you want to be taken seriously, it makes you sound like a deluded schizo having a psychotic break from reality to anyone not living within the comfortable average value you're using.
>>

 No.468440

>>468427
>As I said, there's nothing wrong with supporting minority communities
Idpol movements only claim that they help people, but they don't actually do that.

For example there were big protests against police brutality, and when the dust settled the idpol-pseudo-left supported a twofold increase of police budgets for means of violent repression .

The reality is that identity politics is neo-liberal spectacle to distract people from the politics that matter that actually have an effect on their lives.

You have to stop perpetuating this lie that idpol helps, because it really doesn't.
>>

 No.468441

>>468427
>People used to think the earth, funny enough, was flat.
No actually most people in history didn't think that, flat-earth theory was a dogmatic theocratic doctrine. The Idpol movements are beginning to have similar organizational structures.

One could say that idpol is organizing like a secular theocracy, so maybe it's the same kind of people doing repeating this historic shit, but they dropped the supernatural claims to make it less obvious what they are doing.
>>

 No.468442

>>468427
> People used to think a lot of thinks, anon. But we have come to develop a deeper understanding
Idpol is idealist obfuscation of material reality.
it's purpose is to hide class reality, and a bunch of other stuff.

You don't have a deeper understanding, you just fell for more sophisticated Bullshit.
>>

 No.468443

>>468441
>flat-earth theory was a dogmatic theocratic doctrine
It doesn't even rise to the level of that, the idea that there was ever widespread belief in a flat world is just a dumb myth perpetuated by people trying to jerk off modernity. The fact that the world was round was obvious to all coastal civilizations when sailing beyond the horizon. Aristophanes even calculated the circumference of the Earth a thousand years before the European dark ages.
>>

 No.468444

>>468427
>I agree we should evaluate people individually on their own merit, but, that doesn't mean that certain groupings of people
You can't have it both ways.

Besides you can do the thing where you only evaluate people individually on their own merit, and take their life circumstance into account. There is never any need to resort to identity grouping.

Rich people can't be oppressed, even if they share an identity with people that frequently are oppressed.
Poor people can't be the oppressor, even if they share an identity with people that frequently are doing the oppression.

The only reason to keep the identitarianism around is to confused this, and to give rich people a justification-excuse to kick down towards the poor.



>identy-group A people have 1 dollar to every 100 dollars a idenity group B person

If you really cared about reducing wealth inequality, you would simply group people by their wealth, and then all the poor people can unify their struggle against the rich.

If you group people by identity, there's going to be rich people in every identity-group that put the breaks on political motions towards reducing wealth inequality.
>>

 No.468445

>>468427
>It's only idpol to place these issues over our class solidarity which we all share in common as working people. A fact you keep ignoring, btw.

Identity groups are cross-class, meaning there are people from every class in identity groups. If an organization centers on identity, you break class solidarity. If id-pol-orgs try to engage in class struggle, all the people in the identity-group, who have an upper-class status are going to try to sabotage you if you try to do something that goes against their class interests. The id-pol-centered orgs hence can only engage in struggles that exclude class struggle, because their members have conflicting class interests.

If you want class solidarity you have to center on class, and that means that this dynamic inverts.
You get an organization that has many people from different identity groups who all share the same class interests, but have conflicting identity interests. That type of organization is only going to be effective for class struggle.

If you want class solidarity you break solidarity with identity and vice versa.
>>

 No.468446

>>468430
By that logic Barack Obama who lived a live of privilege, that enabled him to gain wealth and power, is an oppressed slave, but some random homeless person who lives in a tent struggling to meet survival needs, is the great oppressor, just based on external appearances.

You identitarian types say things that collide head on with reality. I know that you probably aren't just a troll looking to rile up a bunch of Marxists and socialists, but i can't fathom how you managed to believe this shit. Are you unable to look beyond mere appearances ?

The only way that this makes sense is because it's self serving in some way, if you really cared about people that got fucked over and cast into the abyss, you wouldn't try to invert objective reality.
>>

 No.468447

File: 1680958942130.png ( 83.54 KB , 256x300 , 1677127463021695.png )

>>468445
I mean, this actually makes a little sense, but, also most people in black communities are not porkies. At most there is a larger base of petty bourgeois, but, this is, also found in white communities too. In any identity group you are going to face push back from wanna be porkies, but, I still find it hard justifying that the minority being glow uyghurs means we shouldn't push for better means of living for the majority of minority groups.

Also, you can focus on class and one groups identity with out focusing on the intra class of sed identity as a whole, what I mean is, you can help black people while still focusing on working class solidarity and interest. The two are not mutually exclusive. i think you think that minority porkies have much more influence then they actually do when in reality since most minorities are poor they are more likely to side with working class interest anyways.
>>

 No.468448

>>468447
>better means of living
(1) Why not just expand that to all the people living in bad conditions regardless of their identity ?

If you make identity-specific policy you create new political battle-grounds. Because if you make specific policies for every identity-group you create material incentives for each identity group to fight for its narrow identity group interests. That will undermine class solidarity because it will enable the capitalist class to play the workers in each identity group against the others. The capitalists will give one identity group a little better wages and working conditions just to sow enough mistrust and division to impede solidarity amongst workers as a class.

The capitalists didn't invent this, divide and conquer is an ancient strategy. Idpol movements are just super vulnerable to this. It's unbelievably bad strategy.

There is one more thing, in every identity group there are affluent upwardly mobile people who think they have been cheated out of becoming a billionaire big bourgeoisie, and they want to mobilize political capital to improve their personal odds of reaching the big bourgeois sky-castle. And that has nothing to do with the socialist project. This is just one more interest-group that is present in all id-pol-movements that clearly is incompatible with socialism, and i don't understand why you want to hold on to the identitarian structure if it means in turn that you have to get rid of all these people whose political goals are diametrically opposed to yours ?

if you reply you absolutely have to answer the question in Line (1).
>>

 No.468449

>Hello, based department. Dr. Finkelstein speaking
>>

 No.468450

>>

 No.468451

>>468448
>(1) Why not just expand that to all the people living in bad conditions regardless of their identity ?

because something like that is not currently feasible. No politician is going to go for something like that. It's the difference between baby steps and taking one giant leap.

You don't seem to understand that abolishing capitalism is not currently possible.
>>

 No.468452

>>468439
Never mind the fact that these statistics are basically lies in this context.
The reason why the wealth gap is so big here is because white people make up most of the capitalists. Get rid of the upper classes from these stats and the gap is significantly smaller.
It's all booj talking points.
>>

 No.468454

>>468451
>You don't seem to understand that abolishing capitalism is not currently possible.
Error reactionary neoliberal T.I.N.A ideology detected. (There Is No Alternative)
If you try to justify the status quo, you are wrong by definition.
If this is your premise everything you say can be dismissed.

I have a further question, do you want to do wealth transfer from the bourgeoisie towards an identity group, or do you want to steal from other workers ?

So I'm basically asking you if you are a racist social-democrat or a racist neo-liberal.
>>

 No.468455

File: 1680973427160.jpg ( 74.36 KB , 990x760 , thatcher-getty.jpg )

>>468451
>It's just not realistic you silly commies! Sorry, but there is no alternative to capitalism. That's just reality, deal with it!
Spoken like a true conservative.
>>

 No.468456

>>468427
Racism literally doesn’t exist outside verifiable material proof. All of your “nuanced” theories are really just meant to strengthen the ideological grip of racism. They serve to solidify racism and simulate victories against it
>>

 No.468462

>>468454
I'm starting to think you cannot read properly. Were you dropped on your head? I didn't say it was impossible I said it was not currently feasible. But, you obviously hear what you want to hear to cross your arms and be upset. If you think we can currently over throw the capitalist order you are out of your mind, though.

It requires organized labor en mass which is currently not feasible.

>I have a further question, do you want to do wealth transfer from the bourgeoisie towards an identity group, or do you want to steal from other workers ?



Progressive income tax; Tax owners of property not people who work.
>>

 No.468463

>>468455
>bro trust me it's totally possible to over throw capitalism in 2023 even though I just spent over 72 hours complaining about "liberals"

It's not being conservative to be realistic and not live in a delusional fantasy land where the soviet union 2.0 is right around the corner. Get real.
>>

 No.468468

>>468462
>I'm starting to think you cannot read properly. Were you dropped on your head? I didn't say it was impossible I said it was not currently feasible. But, you obviously hear what you want to hear to cross your arms and be upset. If you think we can currently over throw the capitalist order you are out of your mind, though. It requires organized labor en mass which is currently not feasible.

Ok you want to know how i process information: This paragraph contains personal attacks, attacks against the socialist project and a defense of capital interests. So try again. I won't accept what you say if you keep repeating ruling ideology themes, in particular drop the gatekeeping against socialism.

>Progressive income tax; Tax owners of property not people who work.

How do you plan to levy taxes on the super-rich who are very skilled at lobbying for tax-loopholes, like do you have a fix for that?
Why can't those tax-revenues be used to help all people that need it, instead off only those from a single identity-group ?

On the surface it sounds like you want a soc-dem policy, which is reasonable enough, but i have to consider that you might be a crypto-neo-liberal wrecker. The reason for that is that you are trying to introduce a identitarian racial bias into leftist policies to make them fail. It might not be legal and cause it to fail in the legislative process, or it might be politically derailed because it inflames to much racial strive. The neo-liberals have a tendency to screw things up on purpose if they are forced to do things they don't want to do via democratic pressure. The neo-liberals also have a tendency to reverse social democratic reforms. Rolling back reforms that benefit all poor people is however very difficult, but a rollback that only affects a single racial identity group that's probably much easier. I could be wrong and you are not a clever neo-liberal, you could also just be motivated by racism.

Remember races are false consciousness, and that you are just saying that you don't want to help all poor people, instead you only want to help some poor people based on an arbitrary characteristic. The net-result is fewer people get help, and overall less improvement of material conditions. Hence why identitarianism is considered reactionary.
>>

 No.468470

>>468463
neo-liberalism was never very realistic to begin with, but they have completely lost all realism now, they're picking fights with nuclear super-powers, risking WW3.

>Get real.

You're getting sucked into a death cult whose motto is "rule the world or die trying" and they're going to turn you into an expendable foot soldier. Being an enemy of Neo-liberalism is dangerous being a friend is fatal.
>>

 No.468471

>>468470
>neo-liberalism was never very realistic to begin with
neo-liberalism restored the rate of profit, so it was realistic

>but they have completely lost all realism now, they're picking fights with nuclear super-powers, risking WW3.

I hope by "super-powers" you don't mean russia

they're actually doing pretty well, better than I expected
Russia is boggled down in Ukraine, slowly bleeding out, all without US getting its hands dirty and risking any "WW3"
The whole Ukraine affair looks to be one of the best CIA operations ever

China is complicated, if the US can provoke them into blowing their load on Taiwan while at the same time blocking their Belt and Road, it could potentially be another massive win

Also US seem to want to fight Chinese with Australian and Japanese hands
>>

 No.468473

>>468470
What the fuck are you talking about?
Go back to school you god damn retard.
>>

 No.468474

>>468468
It's not a defense to know what is going on. It's not a defense of capitalism to be realistic about our current situation which, incase you are unaware, is very grim. It's not a defense of capitalism to say that we can, through progressive liberal policies; while simultaneously upholding a radical line, achieve marginal gains for all people including minority communities. Again, while simultaneously demanding and agitating for the radical over throw of capitalism as an economic system.

I'm sorry that you believe that just because I am intolerant to your underhanded insults and bad faith acting that you then believe that invalidates my argument, but, I am sorry to inform you "being an asshole" doesn't make the points I am making wrong.

Just because I am a cunt about the nature of gravity doesn't make gravity not real.

>How do you plan to levy taxes on the super-rich who are very skilled at lobbying for tax-loopholes, like do you have a fix for that?


Marginally and progressively over a period of time, as long as it takes.
See this is where the actual nihilism lays in the mistaken belief that the existing powers are to strong or to immovable to do anything about. In the last 20 years leftists had made marginal gains. Even getting that husk Biden elected over trump was a good thing. Is it what we ultimately want? No, but, it's better than the alternative.

> have to consider that you might be a crypto-neo-liberal wrecker.



Yes I assure you that cointtel pro is targeting a basket weaving forum with less than 200 users.

>introduce a identitarian racial bias into leftist policies to make them fail.



as I have already told you several times now it only becomes an issue when you place those identity politics over class politics. Simply helping marginalized communities in small was is not that.

IT's absurd to think otherwise. To draw some hyperbole, if red lining was still a thing that was happening or segregation would you support ending segregation or would you say that "well we shouldn't inact policy that benefits JUST one group of people. Stop being perposterous.
>>

 No.468475

>>468471
>neo-liberalism restored the rate of profit, so it was realistic
It wasn't realistic, what they did to restore the profit rate has caused a demographic decline which will kill profits in the future with massive labor shortages.
>I hope by "super-powers" you don't mean russia
You're delusional Russia is a nuclear super-power.
>they're actually doing pretty well
>in Ukraine
No the Neo-liberals thought they could cripple the Russians with sanctions, instead they destroyed the EU economy and cause more de-dollarization. The US lost Saudi-Arabia and India as allies. The Russians are fighting the Ukraine war as a war of attrition. It's draining the Ukrainian military power and the war-chest of the US and EU. All the while most of the world thinks the ruling class in the west are barbarians for sacrificing Ukraine for a failed attempt to own the Russians.
>China is complicated, if the US can provoke them into blowing their load on Taiwan
>Also US seem to want to fight Chinese with Australian and Japanese hands
Japan is already buying Russian crude oil above the oil-price-cap, so they're slowly pulling out of the US orbit, and won't let them selves get sacrificed. Taiwan isn't going to become another Ukraine either. They've seen how Ukraine was promised big support which never really materialized. Take a look at the real world, all of Nato failed to match Russia in industrial war production. Could you imagine the attempt of matching Chinese industrial power, which is 3x larger than that of the US. The neolibs suck at big-power-competition, they only looked up gdp figures, where Russia equals 3.5% of all the NATO countries, and they thought that's a really small number lets go get them. They never bothered to look at things like the actual industrial base that can crank out weapons and ammo. The Taiwan war won't materialize either, it's at best going to be a Taiwan blockade. The Chinese are probably clever enough to figure out which Taiwanese capitalists uphold the one China principle and exclude them from the blockade. Which means filtering out US influence from Taiwan without actually inconveniencing the Taiwanese population. Chinese sabre rattling might just be bait to make the US waste a bunch of resources on excessive military spending. The US did that to the Soviet Union, it's not inconceivable that China observed and learned from that.
The US is also massively screwing over Australia with the worst Submarine weapons deals that ever existed. I know that the Australians are massively cucked but eventually they're going to get tired of not having nice things because they have to subsidize US naval power, and they're right next to a massive economic powerhouse that is China offering all the nice things.
>>

 No.468476

File: 1681052121174.jpg ( 115.13 KB , 1179x1161 , 1680300985728610.jpg )

<State backed white supremacy is idpol.
<Deflection of attacks on white supremacy is idpol.
<Racial justice is not.
Case in point, the Texas Governor is going to pardon the murderer of a BLM protestor.
I'm sure the "anti-idpolers" will cope about how he was actually pardoned because they were afraid of BLM forming multiracial coalition kek.
Texas governor seeks pardon of man convicted of murder in Black Lives Matter shooting
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/texas-governor-seeks-pardon-man-convicted-murder-black-lives-matter-shooting-2023-04-09/
>>

 No.468477

File: 1681055527867.jpg ( 38.09 KB , 324x499 , capitalist realism.jpg )

>>468462
>If you think we can currently over throw the capitalist order you are out of your mind
Once again you go to the most extreme position of your opponent in order to justify your own. Who said anything about overthrowing capitalism? The only one who mentions it is you, because you're using it as a rhetorical tactic. It's at this point it's becoming clearer that your intentions are malicious.
>It requires organized labor en mass which is currently not feasible
You simply assert this as if it were true. Well, until you justify it I'm going to dismiss it as ideological bullshit.
>Progressive income tax; Tax owners of property not people who work
I'm surprised you didn't say "tax only white owners of property". Seems more in line with your ethos.
>It's not being conservative to be realistic
Yeah, it actually is, in the way you're using the word "realistic". That word has been turned into an ideological tool by conservatives to deflate class consciousness and tear apart socialist movements. I would tell you to read a fucking book but something tells me you're not interested in any knowledge beyond eating the trash that the bourgeoisie feeds you.
>and not live in a delusional fantasy land where the soviet union 2.0 is right around the corner
Again, no one said anything of the sort, but you keep acting as if we had in order to make us look extreme and irrational. Pure malintent.
>>468471
>neo-liberalism restored the rate of profit, so it was realistic
First, the way it restored the rate of profit was unrealistic. Neoliberalism crippled the empires ability to compete with the other great powers. Neoliberalism is dying and bourgeois politicians are now attempting to reshore industry.
Second, neoliberalism had goals other than restoring the rate of profit. The entire premise of neoliberalism was a contradiction. It's an antistatist ideology that relies on state intervention to do everything. That sound realistic to you?
The USSR managed to industrialize rapidly, but that doesn't make Soviet socialism realistic. If anything, it was a lack of realistic goals and planning that caused the Soviet elite to lose faith in the communist project and rule cynically until it's ultimate demise, under a "more realistic" socdem no less.
>>468474
>It's not a defense of capitalism to be realistic about our current situation
Once again, it definitely is in the way you use the word.
>It's not a defense of capitalism to say that we can, through progressive liberal policies; while simultaneously upholding a radical line, achieve marginal gains for all people including minority communities
Yes it fucking is. You are attempting to force us to abandon the project of organizing the working class in order to participate in bourgeois politics. This is nothing less than a defense of the status quo, a defense of capitalism.
>while simultaneously demanding and agitating for the radical over throw of capitalism as an economic system
"Upholding a radical line" and "agitating for the overthrow of capitalism" is meaningless if you have nothing to back it up, it's posturing that working class people can immediately see through. Do you think we can't smell your bullshit? This is a perfect way to discredit the socialist movement, because it's what the communists have been doing for decades in the west, even before neoliberalism took hold.
>I'm sorry that you believe that just because I am intolerant to your underhanded insults and bad faith acting
Now here's a real example of projection.
>Marginally and progressively over a period of time, as long as it takes
>In the last 20 years leftists had made marginal gains
>Even getting that husk Biden elected over trump was a good thing. Is it what we ultimately want? No, but, it's better than the alternative.
I can't find a better example of the futility of your position. No, even worse, it contradictory. You are the one being unrealistic. It's unrealistic to believe that we can achieve socialism in this way. It's unrealistic to believe that these marginal gains will somehow lead up to the workers seizing power. Yet you keep pushing it as the "realistic" position, and my guess is because it really is realistic if you don't actually have any of those goals in mind. In other words, you are little more than a shill for the left-wing of capital, acting as if you are a radical, just like every other leftist that has succumbed to capitalist realism.
>Yes I assure you that cointtel pro is targeting a basket weaving forum with less than 200 users.
Again, trying to discredit your opponents argument by going to the extreme. Who said anything about the CIA? No, you're a neoliberal wrecker because that's what you actually are. No alphabet agencies are required here. You are drowning in neoliberal ideology and can't help but try to drag everyone else down with you.
>it only becomes an issue when you place those identity politics over class politics
As we have already told you several times now, they are in contradiction. You are the only one who doesn't understand that you can help marginalized people without identity politics. You are the only one who refuses to acknowledge that a even a strictly workerist program can help marginalized people. The truth is that you think idpol is necessary just because you are a shill for idpol, simple as.
>IT's absurd to think otherwise
<I am incapable of thinking otherwise
FTFY
>if red lining was still a thing that was happening or segregation would you support ending segregation or would you say that "well we shouldn't inact policy that benefits JUST one group of people
You fucking moron. What red lining does is segregate the working class. No idpol is needed to understand this, the specific identities of the workers being segregated can be ignored. A universal working class program would be opposed to this simply because it threatens class unity. It's shocking just how limited your ability to think about class-based politics is.
>>

 No.468478

>>468474
You are following the pattern of increasing the amount of personal attacks the more your arguments fall apart.

What you are actually advocating is
<liberal policies
<vooting for bourgeois neoliberal political parties that constantly shift rightwards
<political spectacle that appears radical but is without substance

Basically a continuation of everything that hasn't worked for the last 40 to 50 years, that made the left loose ground more and more. Why do you insist on trailing the liberals ? They aren't even anti-war anymore. They got really racist against Russians, and soon that will be extended to Chinese, and possibly even Mexicans. (US Mainstream media has begun drumming up anti-Mexican hate, i think because Mexico nationalized something about resource extraction). If that sticks the liberals are going to sound like Trump 2 years from now.

>achieve marginal gains for all people including minority communities

At first this sounds like a fantastic line.
But why would you single out a group called "minority communities" from "all people". Why aren't they considered as part of "all people" by default. You keep saying these suspicious things and then doubt creeps in.

The identitarian movements so far have not improved the material conditions for the people they claim to represent, so for that reason you can't make a credible claim that what you propose actually yields progress for the material conditions in the lives of people. It has created career opportunities for sell-outs and cover for actual racists, that pursue really racist goals like bringing back segregation except they use "woke" slogans now. If you search for "woke segregation", you'll find a bunch of conservatives hyperventilating, but you'll also find examples of people actually trying to recreate racial segregation in public and semi public spaces. You are seriously misjudging identitarian intentions.

>it only becomes an issue when you place those identity politics over class politics

That's what always happens. Even now the overall message that you sending is that economic reforms must wait. The left has been told for decades to wait. It's not credible anymore.
>>

 No.468479

>>468478
>If that sticks the liberals are going to sound like Trump 2 years from now.
Considering that the Democrats have chosen to keep most of Trump's policies, this isn't so far off. But shitlibs will still defend Biden as "the most progressive president since FDR".
>>

 No.468480

>>468477
So if you don't want to abolish capitalism but you also don't want to make meger reforms then what the fuck do you want?

>You simply assert this as if it were true. Well, until you justify it I'm going to dismiss it as ideological bullshit.


What the fuck are you even talking about? I am talking to a dumb fuck; Organized labor is the basis of marxism. Unless I am talking to that retard Eugene….

>Yeah, it actually is, in the way you're using the word "realistic"



At this point I have no idea what you want or what positions you hold, but, please cont to be a retard and babble about nothing I will cont with my points; The onus is on you to demostrate how it is feasible if you are making the claim that we need to over throw the system of capital and, again, given the state of organized labor in the united states today we are arguably further away from that than we were 100 years. But please keep clinging to your pie in the sky bullshit.

>Again, no one said anything of the sort, but you keep acting as if we had in order to make us look extreme and irrational. Pure malintent.


You haven't actually said anything at this point. You refuse to acknowledge any points I am making and you just write off hyperbole and ad-hom as if there isn't valid underlying points behind them. You are just an intellectual coward.

Now I am not even sure what the hell you want, but, I am sure you will cont to pussy foot around that too.
>>

 No.468481

File: 1681059622740.jpg ( 303.91 KB , 1080x1388 , IMG_20230409_235835.jpg )

>>468476
>Omg guys. If you don't roll over an die when an armed mob attacks you, you're a racist
Get fucked and thank God for Abbott
>>

 No.468482

>>468474
>Even getting that husk Biden elected over trump was a good thing. Is it what we ultimately want? No, but, it's better than the alternative.
mask off
>>

 No.468483

>>468480
>So if you don't want to abolish capitalism
Never said this. The point is that you're acting like we want to immediately abolish capitalism in order to argue that we're unrealistic.
>but you also don't want to make meager reforms
Again, never said that. The point is that the reforms we want are done with the intention of strengthening and uniting the working class while also showing them that we are on their side. By contrast, your obsession with reform is standard left-liberal policy to deflate working class consciousness.
>What the fuck are you even talking about? blah blah blah Eugene
I'm asking you to justify why organizing the working class is unfeasible. You simply assert that it's true without any justification at all.
Okay, how about this: we should first start by helping workers organize. I'm sure that's too "unrealistic" for you, so please explain why.
>You refuse to acknowledge any points I am making
>hyperbole and ad-hom as if there isn't valid underlying points behind them
You are just an intellectual coward
More projection.
>Now I am not even sure what the hell you want
A universal and internationalist working-class program, to organize and empower the workers, so that they can one day seize power and dominate global capitalism.
>>

 No.468486

>When over five thousand women took to the streets of Santiago to protest Salvador Allende’s Popular Unity government on December 1, 1971, their March of the Empty Pots and Pans signaled the beginning of a mass opposition movement and prompted the later formation of Feminine Power, a multi-class organization that played a critical role in paving the way for the military coup in 1973. Drawing on extensive interviews with leaders and participants, Margaret Power tells the story of these right-wing women, examining their motives, the tactics they employed, and the impact of their ideas and activity on Chilean society and politics.

>The ability of the right to exploit established ideas about gender, Power argues, was key to the opposition’s success, and she explores how conservatives appealed to women as wives and mothers to mobilize them. Power also pays attention to the earlier history of these efforts, including the formation of Women’s Action of Chile in 1963, and to the support provided by the U.S. government. The epilogue examines right-wing women’s reactions to the arrest of Augusto Pinochet in 1998 and their role in the elections of 2000. By focusing on the women who opposed Allende and supported Pinochet, this book offers a fresh look at the complex dynamics of Chilean politics in the last half of the twentieth century.


<B-B-BUT MUH WHAMEN!! CAN'T BE REACTIONARY!!

I'm telling u fags without w*men there would have been no fascism, no wars, no plagues, no misery.
The Old Testament at least got something right (never trust a w*man). The Jews knew their shit, okay
>>

 No.468487

>>468482
You faggots are literally useless

>>468483
So tell me what you want exactly. Since you seem to want to avoid the question like water trying to get nailed to a wall

>I'm asking you to justify why organizing the working class is unfeasible.


I said currently you fucking pea brained ninny. You have to build it and work towards that, but, in the mean time we can also simultaneously do what we can to help people through liberal reforms.

You never answered if you would support de-segregating or not.

>You are just an intellectual coward


Yeah ok whatever helps you sleep at night

>A universal and internationalist working-class program, to organize and empower the workers, so that they can one day seize power and dominate global capitalism.



Wow we want the same thing, but, what we want and how to achieve it are two different things. They don't just come out of nowhere. They take years. even decades. Have you ever tried to organize working people en mass? Seriously? There's nothing wrong with utilizing the system in the mean time.
>>

 No.468490

>I the meantime, we just have to support swisscheese brain democrats and globohomo oligarchy
fuck off back to reddit, libshit shill
>>

 No.468491

>>468477
Systematic rebuttals against all those points. Pretty good post.
>>

 No.468493

>>468487
We hate u and I can’t wait til your class is liquidated
>>

 No.468494

>>468481
>Driving around trying to start shit is self defense!
/pol/yp detected.
>>

 No.468496

>>468490
>Bro lemme tell you the revolution is coming I just have to make my 1000000000th post on leftypol!

Completely worthless. I bet you don't even lift. Kys

>>468493
What class is that?
>>

 No.468497

>>468496
> What class is that?
Definitely not prole
>>

 No.468498

>>468487
>So tell me what you want exactly
I literally just did that. If you want me to list off specific policies, I also did that. I'm not holding your hand, scroll up and read.
>I said currently you fucking pea brained ninny
Yeah, and I'm still asking you to justify it.
>You have to build it and work towards that, but, in the mean time we can also simultaneously do what we can to help people through liberal reforms
It's quite telling that you refer to "liberal reforms" and not "socialist reforms". Probably because you aren't a socialist. No, liberal reforms won't help the working class, nor does the working class want them. What benefits the working class is anything that strengthens the bargaining position of labour. Full employment is the simplest example of this, and far from anything liberals could ever dream of in current year.
>You never answered if you would support de-segregating or not.
Yes I did, I directly responded to it, you just refused to read my post.
>Wow we want the same thing
No we fucking don't. You want liberal reforms, you want idpol, you want radical style without substance, you want to split the working class into subgroups rather than support them as a whole.
>There's nothing wrong with utilizing the system in the mean time.
In the way you're trying to do it, yes, there is something wrong with it. You want to use the system to co-opt the left and placate the workers.
>>468496
>all my critics are crazy ultraleftists because they don't care for my incrementalist idpol bullshit!
Watch as this guy trots out the same line over and over again.
>>

 No.468499

>>468498
>I literally just did that. If you want me to list off specific policies, I also did that. I'm not holding your hand, scroll up and read.


No you didn't. You have no plan you have nothing. You have no understanding other than "lol over throw capitalism bro" You have no idea, fundamentally, what you want.
Then you shit on people like me who have come to the unfortinant conclusion that it isn't in the cards, YET, but, we can do things while we work towards it. It's not fucking mutually exclusive; the two.

You are just a complainer. A worthless no one who will fade into obscurity and do nothing of note in the grand scheme of things.0

>It's quite telling that you refer to "liberal reforms" and not "socialist reforms".



There are no socialist reforms. Socialism is not a reformist ideology.

>Yes I did, I directly responded to it, you just refused to read my post.


No you didn't. I don't recall it at all. If I missed it please point it out to me.

>In the way you're trying to do it, yes, there is something wrong with it. You want to use the system to co-opt the left and placate the workers.


No I don't you fucking skitzo retard. You are making that up to justify your do nothing attitude. How am I, one person, even capable of that? How is that possible? Explain how your logic works? Are you seriously implying that the meer act of desegregation is "co-opting the left" and "placateing" works. That doesn't even mean anything. You have no idea what you are talking about.


You are a muppet.

>Watch as this guy trots out the same line over and over again.



It's not incrementalist and it's not idpol. You are worthless kts
>>

 No.468501

> it isn't in the cards, YET, but, we can do things while we work towards it
Like Vote for Biden bc orange man bad and support le heckin wholesome Ukraine. Also tax le rich!
>>

 No.468502

File: 1681088462318.jpg ( 286.48 KB , 1365x1050 , Luxemburg next to Lassalle….jpg )

>>468499
>No you didn't
>You have no plan you have nothing
Translation:
<I can't read.
Thank you for conceding.
>You have no understanding other than "lol over throw capitalism bro"
Yawn, same bullshit line over and over again. It's getting tiresome, anon.
>Then you shit on people like me who have come to the unfortinant conclusion that it isn't in the cards
I'm shitting on you because you're maliciously misrepresenting, dismissing, ignoring and twisting our words however you see fit to justify your worldview.
>There are no socialist reforms. Socialism is not a reformist ideology.
As I expected, you are not a socialist. You know nothing about the socialist movement, its history and its purpose. Yes, there are socialist reforms. There are reforms that strengthen the socialist movement. There are reforms that strengthen labour relative to capital. Your inability to think in these terms betrays your lack of interest in socialism.
>No you didn't. I don't recall it at all.
>>468477
The next time you respond to one of my posts, try actually reading it.
>You are making that up to justify your do nothing attitude
Even more projection.
>How am I, one person, even capable of that?
Never said anything about that.
>Are you seriously implying that the meer act of desegregation is "co-opting the left" and "placateing" works.
Never said that, in fact I said the opposite of that, but you can't read.
>It's not incrementalist and it's not idpol.
<NUH-UH!
Damn, you really convinced me.
>>

 No.468503

>>468502
>I'm just gonna copy and paste everything you said now even though I have not actually said anything of value.

Eugene you need to go back.

>Yawn, same bullshit line over and over again. It's getting tiresome, anon.


You haven't said what your position is. I keep asking and you keep saying "yes like I totally did" but you can't even point me to a link that shows where you did. You are just a lying faggot and you should frankly get banned at this point.

>I'm shitting on you because you're maliciously misrepresenting, dismissing, ignoring and twisting our words however you see fit to justify your worldview.I'm shitting on you because you're maliciously misrepresenting, dismissing, ignoring and twisting our words however you see fit to justify your worldview.



WAAAAAAAA I CAN;T HANDLE BEING CALLED MEAN NAMES ON AN ANONYMOUS IMAGEBOARD=

Fucking cry more about you little faggot.

>As I expected, you are not a socialist. You know nothing about the socialist movement,



Socialism isn't when you implement national health care eugene. Socialism is a revolutionary ideology that seeks to put control of the work place in the hands of the working class. You are stupid.
>>

 No.468504

>>468503
>you should frankly get banned at this point
Sorry anon, this isn't your .ogre hugbox, you can't ban people for wrongthink here. Stop posting for a bit, maybe play a video game, drink an iced tea, whatever helps you cool off and think straight again.
>You haven't said what your position is.
Yes I fucking have. Reading through my posts again, I admit there are some parts I did not explain, and I'm sorry for that. But other parts I have repeated numerous times, which you refuse to inquire more into, instead just saying over and over again "you have no position, you want immediate revolution". So I'll explain it in full detail this time.
I want a universal and internationalist working-class program in order to organize and empower the workers so that they can dominate and one day overcome global capitalism. I want to bring it about with an independent socialist party, whose primary function is to help the working class organize and provide a viable post-capitalist vision of society, while also putting pressure on the bourgeois parties with the goal of implementing universal policies that empower the working class, such as full employment, universal healthcare, reduced working hours, higher wages, etc.
>Socialism isn't when you implement national health care eugene. Socialism is a revolutionary ideology that seeks to put control of the work place in the hands of the working class
Again, you don't understand what socialism is. You just trot out the vulgar definition of "seizing the means of production".
There are two parts to socialism. First and foremost, socialism is a political movement. It is political because it seeks to help the workers seize power, to dominate capitalism. Second, socialism refers to the socialist mode of production, wherein the allocation of surplus is determined by political decisions. In one sentence, a socialist movement seeks to both constitute the workers into a class that can seize political power, while also realizing the socialist mode of production.
You need to understand the political utility of implementing policies such as universal healthcare, or others like cutting the working hours or full employment. You need to understand how these things give legitimacy to socialists, weaken capital and empower the workers. These basic reforms give the workers more bargaining power relative to capital, and the more bargaining power they have, the more they can demand from capital, with the threat of seizing power if capital refuses to deliver. The more legitimacy the socialists have, the more they can guide the working class into bringing about their vision of a post-capitalist society.
This is politics 101. A socialist movement doesn't magically sprout out of the ground. People have to see some real, tangible proof that the socialists want to empower the workers.
The irony here is that you are the one who doesn't have tenable position. Your mind is so deep in the capitalist realist hole that don't understand how socialists can operate politically, you don't understand how the workers can actually seize power. So it's not surprise that you relegate yourself to "liberal reforms" and "helping marginalized communities", like every other shill for the left-liberal establishment.
>>

 No.468506

>>468482
>Thinking Biden is better than Trump is fascism.
Whew doggie, you sure showed that strawman what for!
>>

 No.468507

>>468506
Nice strawman
>>

 No.468509

>>468506
I didn't call you a fascist. That's your projection of your own knee jerk reflex to describe everything you don't like as fascist, i.e., a strawman.

What you are, in fact, is a useful fool for bossbitch democrats and the globohomo oligarchy they serve.
>>

 No.468510

File: 1681107135237.jpg ( 83.5 KB , 453x604 , CrappyDesign-12ctuy8.jpg )

>>468509
>Half a shit sandwich is better then eating a whole shit sandwich.
>Look everyone, this guy loves shit sandwiches.
Literally the argument you crypto fash trot out everytime. Go back to disc0rd where you came from and where this actually impresses underage readers.
>>

 No.468511

>>468510
>everyone I don't like is fashist
>muh trots
cringe post
>>

 No.468512

>>468510
>t. Blue Guard
Remember that time ordered a military withdrawal from Syria and bunch of 3 letter agencies just ignored him, or when he had meetings with Putin and the media said he was somehow a Russian agent, or how he started no new wars, etc etc.
Do I wish Trump would have completely shunned neocon ghouls like John Bolton and technocrats like Fauci. Ofc, but to say that it was Trump propelling the US into the current situation and not extant actors in the American imperial state is just disingenuous
>Omg, they're all the same!!!!!
Must be very difficult to maintain cognitive consistency when the people who promote your favored faggy social agenda are also the people propelling the US toward spasms of violence as it gracelessly declines on the world stage and disintegrates at home.
>>

 No.468514

>>468509
>unironically using globohomo
only literal retards think globalization is a new thing (and inherently negative by the way). here is what someone wrote 175 years ago, in a text that (you), the illiterate imageboard expert, obviously didn't read
<The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of Reactionists, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilised nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature.
>>

 No.468515

>>468514
>Calls themselves Marxist
>Can't distinguish quantitative and qualitative
>'Hey here's a quote from Marx commenting about this at the start of the phenomenon's development'
>'No more needs to be said chud'
>Puts head back in sand
>>

 No.468516

>>468514
Lol, fuck, I forgot who I was talking to. Your such a disingenuous little faggot, insufferably whining on because people are using the wrong words.
<You're the real Marxist that really understands capitalism. I'm just a dumb chud
Happy?
>>

 No.468518

File: 1681137777342.jpeg ( 6.75 KB , 480x360 , oh my.jpeg )

>>468514
>we have intercourse in every direction
>>

 No.468519

>>468514
>The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country.
consumption maybe, but not production, as characterized by the world division of labor today, more than 100 years after Marx died
>>

 No.468520

File: 1681139732212.jpg ( 46.47 KB , 736x862 , 4071d667fae30cd0e003c165f9….jpg )

>>468514
>gets offended
>provides no real evidence
>quotes epic beard man
>leaves
>>

 No.468523

>>468514
Haha this really triggered the recovering /pol/ tankies ITT.
>>

 No.468537

>>468523
>everyone I don't like is /pol/
go back
>>

 No.468545

So i watched this https://invidious.snopyta.org/watch?v=oHsIn9bAzAU debate on the Katie Halper show between lets say "id-pol professors" and Norman Finkelstein. Norm did a great job critiquing id-pol but i thought he was kinda soft on them.

There's a way of analyzing what people say by focusing primarily on 2 things
<what's being defended
<what's being attacked

What stood out to me was that the "id-pol professors"
they attacked "class reductionists" (which just means Marxists and Socialists)
they defended protecting "elite super rich people" from identity oppression.

That means they use id-pol as a method of gate-keeping against socialism.
They want to use the political energies of the proles to defend capitalists who will never reciprocate.

I can't help but see this as a pull towards a reactionary direction.

Karl Marx once said
<‘The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles’
which for socialists means he had very advanced class consciousness
and for identitarians it means he was a reductdoodle

When id-pol debates like this happen, there's one aspect that always ends up being ignored, and that's people who don't want to be categorized or don't want to identify with anything, are mercilessly negated, and the political disenfranchisement is absolute.
>>

 No.468569

I wonder if I could have my cake and eat it. Be a right wing media grifter, but literally just engage in Marxist takes.
It seems when it comes to Idpol, being a Marxist is literally a far-right position according to Libs.
>>

 No.468606

>>468569
Maybe if you can center on class politics you can gain support from people across the cultural spectrum. You should probably avoid using the bourgeois political left-right divide to understand politics. I think that would be limiting your self to cultural preferences of different bourgeois factions.

We may have to update our labels, because liberals are not liberal anymore, their focus is almost entirely on regulating the individual, they seem to be increasingly opposed to granting people more autonomy over their immediate environment, bodies, minds and personal possessions.

The liberals are also no longer championing social progress. For example there has been a huge regression in terms of prostitution. The liberals of the past used to agree with socialists that women ought not be forced to rent them selves out as prostitutes to affluent men. The people who see them selves as liberal today will explode in rage if you suggest that they can't command sex with money.

I'm also suspicious about other social theories from the liberals, i think it's going to be used to attack reproductive-rights for women. G-theory for example is minimizing the focus on the reproductive aspects of sexuality. This is certainly very convenient from the perspective of somebody trying to cloak their attacks on female reproductive rights. If womanhood is no longer defined by reproduction than the protections for womanhood will no longer cover reproduction.
The material explanation for this development might be that capitalism is attempting to commodify human-gestation. So that affluent bourgeois women no longer have to bare children but can rent surrogate wombs for that. Wealthy women will no longer need the protection of female reproductive rights to have autonomy over their bodies. They might even come to see it in the opposite light. The physical demands of pregnancy are a big disadvantage in the game of capital accumulation, and bourgeois women might see access to "womb-services" as a way to gain more "bourgeois-equality" compared to bourgeois men.

Socialists and people who used to be considered left would obviously be opposed to turning proletarian women into living gestation-pods for bourgeois spawn. But the liberals will likely champion this the same way they regressed on prostitution. I foresee surrogate womb services as a kind off 24/7 bio-factory job. The bourgeoisie obviously want to have control over the gestation process so that it's optimized. I picture women strapped to medical chairs with bio-sensors with intravenously administrated nutrient fluids, wearing virtual reality goggles.

I've considered re-labeling the liberals as alternative-conservatives, but alt-con isn't very catchy. It might be more accurate to see it as a third direction in the cultural domain. So maybe it's, Left Right Third. Maybe identitarianism is a cultural particularity of the Third, as a type of extremism.

If you want to go a step further you might want to try to create a proletarian culture, that has a focus on creating cultural norms that expand the culturally acceptable autonomy of the proletariat and diminish the culturally acceptable autonomy of the rulers.
>>

 No.468612

>>

 No.468733

Look, I’m gonna level with you here. Like the vast majority of leftists who have been minted since Occupy Wall Street, my principles, values, and policy preferences don’t stem from a coherent set of moral values, developed into an ideology, which then suggests preferred policies. At all. That requires a lot of reading and I’m busy organizing black tie fundraisers at work and bringing Kayleigh and Dakota to fencing practice. I just don’t have the time. So my politics have been bolted together in a horribly awkward process of absorbing which opinions are least likely to get me screamed at by an online activist or mocked by a podcaster. My politics are therefore really a kind of self-defensive pastiche, an odd Frankensteining of traditional leftist rhetoric and vocabulary from Ivy League humanities departments I don’t understand. I quote Marx, but I got the quote from Tumblr. I cite Gloria Anzaldua, but only because someone on TikTok did it first. I support defunding the police because in 2020, when the social and professional consequences for appearing not to accept social justice norms were enormous, that was the safest place for me to hide. I maintain a vague attachment to police and prison abolition because that still appears to be the safest place for me to hide. I vote Democrat but/and call myself a socialist because that is the safest place for me to hide. I’m not a bad person; I want freedom and equality. I want good things for everyone. But politics scare and confuse me. I just can’t stand to lose face, so I have to present all of my terribly confused ideals with maximum superficial confidence. If you probe any of my specific beliefs with minimal force, they will collapse, as those “beliefs” are simply instruments of social manipulation. I can’t take my kid to the Prospect Park carousel and tell the other parents that I don’t support police abolition. It would damage my brand and I can’t have that. And that contradiction you detected, where I support maximum forgiveness for crime but no forgiveness at all for being offensive? For me, that’s no contradiction at all. Those beliefs are not part of a functioning and internally-consistent political system but a potpourri of deracinated slogans that protect me from headaches I don’t need. I never wanted to be a leftist. I just wanted to take my justifiable but inchoate feelings of dissatisfaction with the way things are and wrap them up into part of the narrative that I tell other people about myself, the narrative that I’m a kind good worthwhile enlightened person. And hey, in college that even got me popularity/a scholarship/pussy! Now I’m an adult and I have things to protect, and well-meaning but fundamentally unserious activists have created an incentive structure that mandates that I pretend to a) understand what “social justice” means and b) have the slightest interest in working to get it. I just want to chip away at my student loan debt and not get my company’s Slack turned against me. I need my job/I need my reputation/I need to not have potential Bumble dates see anything controversial when they Google me. Can you throw me a bone? Neither I nor 99% of the self-identified socialists in this country believe that there is any chance whatsoever that we’ll ever take power, and honestly, you’re harshing our vibe. So can you please fuck off and let us hide behind the BLM signs that have been yellowing in our windows for three years?
>>

 No.469876

File: 1686005019360.jpeg ( 108.35 KB , 700x1050 , inquisition.jpeg )

At Oxford students now live in fear, they think cancelling each other will help them get ahead

<Even basic human connection is tainted at Oxford. Every student will at some point inevitably learn what’s known as a “hack” is, and realise that they did not make an enthusiastic new friend (“We should do coffee sometime, yeah?”), but in fact, the entire interaction was designed to get your vote for whatever minor position they may be running for that term. The coffee will never happen, and you won’t hear from them again until they pop up in your messages, asking for your vote.


<It’s been said that at Oxford “You don’t have friends, you have alliances”. However, even those are shaky at best. Whilst I imagine the nature of this has been the same for many years, it is certainly worse in ways today. At parties and events, people live in fear of something they say or do being recorded. This is more than just the effects of the internet age - it is well known that certain people, especially in student politics or journalism, often secretly audio record the entire evening in the hope of catching someone out.


<The worst part is that it doesn’t matter who it is they catch. People have publicly “cancelled” their closest friends, and even their partners. Furthermore, nothing is off limits to be used as material. Family issues, mental health, relationships - all of it can and will be used against you.


<Concerningly, some people do not even feel bound by the truth. They know that there is nothing their victim can do, and trying to do anything would just draw more attention to the claim, alongside requiring lengthy battles and lawyers not all students can afford. The process is the punishment, and the evidence will live online forever. And thanks to a popular anonymous Facebook page (the content of which is controlled by a few with vested interests), attacks can be made anonymously too.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/21/oxford-university-students-intolerance-free-speech/

This is even more hardcore than i thought.

Unique IPs: 239

[Return][Catalog][Top][Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]
ReturnCatalogTopBottomHome