[ 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."
Password (For file deletion.)

Matrix   IRC Chat   Mumble   Telegram   Discord


>I thought it might be useful to sketch out some of the actual divisions in class in burgerland and the west. Tried to be as detailed yet concise as possible. Generally, I find a lot of the terminology that gets tossed around as vague. Hence this

1. Ruling class

A) Traditional ruling bourgeoisie in military manufacturing, banking, transport, and energy, along with industrial manufacturing and large retail.

B) Communicative bourgeoisie - controlling media and communications platforms, often intermeshed with finance.

C) Finance capitalists, large landlords, people involved with stock and credit markets

D) State bureacrats and technocrats. People who make a living in employment for the state.

2. Middle classes

A) Petty bourgeoisie - small landlords, traditionally self employed, small business owners.

B) Technical elite - skilled workers in information technology

C) Professional managerial class - overlaps a bit with the tech elite and state bureacrats, people who are employed to maintain the conditions under which production occurs, both at a workplace level (managers, hr) and social level (marketers, advertising, media workers, and social cause grifters).

3. Working class

Itself divided between service workers, trade and skilled workers, and other typically mindless jobs assembling or delivering some final product. Includes many gig and part time workers.

1. Lumpen

Bludgeon of the ruling class against the working and middle classes. Serves a cautionary function (if you don't work hard you'll become homeless) and is used as a terroristic social force that provides additional stress on everyday people. A bit of a pandora let out by late stage capitalist decadence.

>Remaining questions -

Out of these class forces, what sort of coalition could be built to overcome the dominance of the ruling class, to build a better system?

How might rapid changes in technology shift class relations in the west?


File: 1681248219522-0.png ( 265.56 KB , 373x409 , 4d65r7f.png )

File: 1681248219522-1.png ( 898.77 KB , 859x584 , 4d756ft.png )

File: 1681248219522-2.png ( 364.91 KB , 608x351 , 12wef.png )

File: 1681248219522-3.png ( 469.75 KB , 802x580 , 57rf6t.png )

>Out of these class forces, what sort of coalition could be built to overcome the dominance of the ruling class, to build a better system?

Start from the bottom work to the top.for all the circle jerk praise the military gets, its members are considered low status and usually treated as much. plenty of malcontents at any one time. historically veterans/ex military are tossed out like yesterdays trash(ameristan at least).



>How might rapid changes in technology shift class relations in the west?

negatively, it breeds distraction and ignorance especially with all major sites continually sanitizing any/all content


File: 1681496160319.png ( 200.99 KB , 313x343 , origins of pig apes - in t….png )

>>468572 (OP)
>Out of these class forces, what sort of coalition could be built to overcome the dominance of the ruling class, to build a better system?

none,the lot of amuritans are composed of tribes characterized by incestuous and cannibalistic tendencies.


File: 1681534160521.jpg ( 105.6 KB , 1280x720 , maxresdefault (3).jpg )

<sir, you write code or work as a security guard


If you need to build some grand pantheon to say from on high "these are the social classes", you've already failed. Social distinctions exist around interests which can be held, rather than ideas of what a "class" is supposed to be. The interests and institutions in any society are not a mystical thing. If they are large enough to be relevant, their impression will be known to everyone in the society. No amount of secrecy and conspiracy can hide an interest that seeks to command the world, and interests always have definite origins rather than ideological ones. The nobility held land and armies, and forbade the lower classes from any form of self-defense. That is what aristocracies do as a matter of course, however they are constituted.

Very large and singular loci of wealth, like large banks, constitute interests in of themselves, where the class that truly commands them in very small. The idea of a class as some hive mind has never truly existed. It is an ideal of philosophical republicanism, but in practice the republics are rife with infighting at the very top, which is reproduced all the way down to the lowest classes. Republics are maintained by fear and loathing from their foundation, and the imagined virtue of a republic is always a myth. Where the virtue actually exists, it has always been understood to exist in men, rather than in the idea of a republic itself. If the men are so vile that they would rather cannibalize anything good than cooperate even at a basic level, the republic becomes such a disaster that its removal will be most welcome. If you wanted cooperation, it would only be possible through men choosing it. No force in nature or mankind will compel cooperation, let alone insist that it is inevitable. Such theories are inherently inclined towards republican fascism, which is always a clusterfuck and the ruin of all contending interests.

So much stupidity involves keeping up the myths of a republic, which were never believed by the founders of the modern republics, nor were they believed by ancient republicans. It was always understood that republics were a compromise because no one could be a king, rather than an ideal for their own sake. That ideology was for the slaves. Those who rule in a republic have always known it was all a lie, and brag about how easy it is to keep the soldiers marching and killing like retards. They can get them to do anything for Fake Jesus.

To make any useful class analysis, you ask a few simple questions about what people do. That is why the first analyses of class society in Antiquity saw the division of labor as the origin of distinctions, rather than any essence of people or a conceit about what people are supposed to be. In actuality, the class distinctions concern the functions that a class executes, rather than the men themselves. Men are beholden to these functions in order for the society to remain constituted, and all of these functions focus on locuses not just of individual men but the machines and structures they build. It's difficult to be a powerful institution without some real estate and a building, perhaps a temple, to call yours.

The technological and intellectual interest, centered around the universities, is very clearly the leading interest. This interest decides who enters the formal institutions of the state, decides what you can and cannot be in any area of employment, and is joined with the highest levels of capital. The aim of every competing faction is to control this institution or ensure they have a seat in it. Gramsci's strategy explicitly calls for this. The fascists and Nazis placed these institutions at the apex and staffed them full of fanatical loyalists. The liberals rule because they command intelligence, knowledge, and insinuate that through this they can control reality itself. The money is secondary to the function of commanding people intellectually and controlling their behavior in minute ways. Those who command the banks long ago saw that it was through science, technology, and the command of education that they would best rule. The capitalists who embraced this are the capitalists who were able to win capitalism, and have been winning for the past century. We know who won capitalism, and so much effort is spent pretending that those who win didn't win or somehow didn't exist at all. It's all mystification.

With the rise of technocracy, the old bourgeois/proletarian distinction lost relevance. The rise of technocracy is, for the most part, the victory of the bourgeois classes, which transformed into technocratic classes and managers and co-opted those of the proletarians amenable to such a world. The Nazi intellectuals at the end of the war made it clear that the result of the war had been that the bourgeois system was destroyed forever, and replaced with this thing that they cleverly obfuscated through mystification as soon as the war was over. The only people who believe in this fantasy version of class struggle are the desperate who need to believe the struggle is something other than it actually is, and that is why there is a left that habitually fights the battles of the past symbolically - because they long ago conceded that they only exist to win a seat in the new system, and didn't need the workers for anything. There is a left that understands the fallacy of this, but that part of the left has been defeated over and over again. Many who held to that faith died, committed suicide, or just gave up and accepted it was over a long time ago. All that remains is this rump of grifters that is Johnny on the Spot to kick down anything that would actually resist what rules the world, and a few intellectuals bemoaning what has become of the human project.

A true "class analysis" would require accepting the centrality of eugenics, which all of you refuse absolutely to acknowledge. To acknowledge it requires you either believe the victory of eugenics is a fait accompli, or requires you to resist every institution active today. If eugenics is truly natural, then there is never any reason to believe there can be a revolution or any change at all, and all life dies screaming forever. We know what eugenics stands for and they brag that they will make the world into a torture chamber.

The command of money is pointless when the money is fake and those who rule can print however much they like. Money is nothing but a tool to control the lower classes. The rich converted their wealth to that which will allow them to rule in the successor system, and always kept much of their wealth in some assets which were useful for ruling. The fetish for money is never as absolute as Marx claims. Most who contend for power in capitalism were not convinced that money was a fetish object at all, and that is where Marx engages in some mystification. He had to do this to sell his idea at the time, because stating bluntly what his program entailed would mean (a) it would reveal the interest Marx was actually for, which was not the workers, and (b) it probably would lead to the suppression of his work if he acknowledged too frankly what was to be done, so he expected readers to get the hints he was dropping. It's why Marxists have been habitually hostile to those who don't have an inclination to buy into his wonky thinking about humanity and society.


>A true "class analysis" would require accepting the centrality of
<something other than class
You're one of many with such theories, but the centrality of class analysis is class struggle.

While i do agree with you that the eugenics-tendency isn't dead yet and might be seeking to find other "outlets" than gas-chambers, like for example the renewed expansion of euthanasia programs is looking quite suspicious. You might also be right about there being a connection to the torturous aspects in present society that are degrading people.

However your attacks on class struggle make you look like you are trying to insert reactionary ideas. The fact of the matter is that if you abolish class society, the eugenics-tendency will become powerless. These people as nasty as they are, will become impotent containers for fucked up opinions. The problem never was that Hitler wanted to holocaust the Jews, the gypsies, the cripples, the "mechanical Marxists", … ,the problem was that he was able to get the power to do it.

>Money is nothing but a tool to control the lower classes

You seem to agree with Marx who said "Money is the command of labor-power"

>The rich converted their wealth to that which will allow them to rule

Marx makes the case that the means of production are the key for power. I think that reality proves him correct, the Chinese are the ascending power and they primarily focused on the means of production, while the western capitalists focused on a plethora of other means, that as it turns out don't measure up. For example CIA tricks like color revolution as a means of subversion, are yielding less influence than the shiny stuff from Chinese factories and international infrastructure construction projects.

>Marx had ulterior motives

So you're a time-traveler and a mind-reader ?

Sometimes i enjoy your rants and find useful nuggets of information in them, but
>class struggle bad
>marx bad
yeah that aint it.


uyghur, learn to fucking read. You're just autistically recapitulating the same tired point. You don't know anything about what a class even is, which is a trait of the autistic ideology.


Class struggles exist, but they do not conform to this narrative of classes as essences that just-so exist. Marx saying this is combining his usual rhetoric with knowledge that was common at the time. The chief relationship most people had was with the institution that paid them - that they were employees before they were citizens of a nation or members of a race. People certainly understood what race and nation meant, and the belief that nations and races struggle was commonly accepted as a historical reality. The reality of any struggle in the 19th century is that struggle was between definite actors - actual human beings, or named institutions - and not about a war of essences in some Hegelian struggle to resolve contradictions. The Hegeloid poison is part of the narrative of fascism. Marx himself is not stupid enough to actually believe this autistically, and he is perfectly aware of the Hegelian trap. The struggle of classes made sense as a narrative to a lot of people, because the capitalists and landlords certainly saw their interests as opposed to the workers and tenants, and both capitalist and worker (and Marx very pointedly) saw the lumpen as their chief enemy. It was the lumpen who were openly exterminated in peacetime, and this was the threat held over the workers - that they would become us. Struggles between nations or races were understood as things coming out of a history, rather than some just-so story. The stories about the glory of war were always the faggotry of a warrior aristocracy and their enablers. The Americans fighting in the Civil War knew that they were being made to die for a bunch of fucking horseshit that should not have been allowed to happen, and wouldn't have happened if it weren't for the slave power's hand in finance.


File: 1681580797722.jpg ( 41.43 KB , 636x382 , gag-reflex.jpg )

>Class is an essence
Marx defines class as relation to the means of production. No spooky essences.

>that they were employees before they were citizens of a nation or members of a race.

This is ok but it neglects to mention that many people don't consider them selves as members of a race, it's not universal. I'm growing increasingly frustrated by the attempts at erasing non-racialist world views.

>People certainly understood what race and nation meant, and the belief that nations and races struggle was commonly accepted as a historical reality.

First a little bit of a nit-pick but Marxists don't think that nations struggle with each other, but rather that states do.

You loose me completely if you don't treat human races as false consciousness. Contemporary race-concepts were invented in the 17th century by slave merchants who needed an excuse to label people as cattle. And today it's mostly become a method for political divide and conquer, and in the US in particular it's also a super-structural mechanism for kidnapping people and forcing them into super-exploited prison-labor.

>knowledge that was common

You can appeal to common sense all you want, unless you can refute decades worth of genetics research that rules out the possibility for human subspecies: Race = racist believes without substance. I'm growing increasingly tired of people trying to feed me this putrid nonsense.

>not about a war of essences in some Hegelian struggle

I'm not a Hegelian. IHMO most of the useful Hegelian concepts can be had on easy mode with set-theory without the philosophical mind-warp. So… i don't really feel like i should respond to this, because it's not directed at me.

>the lumpen-question

I'm not really sure where you're going with this. I think the lumpenproletariat has a progressive role to play, by squatting in speculative real-estate until the hedge-funds decide it's too much of a hassle to fuck with housing and move on to something else.


>the lumpen-question
I'm not really sure where you're going with this. I think the lumpenproletariat has a progressive role to play, by squatting in speculative real-estate until the hedge-funds decide it's too much of a hassle to fuck with housing and move on to something else.
Not the anon but cringe. Lumpen are class enemies


Everything you write presumes class exists as a narrative, an idea, unmoored from what a class actually is. There is no class without a functioning institution doing things, and the institutions in any society are things which can be known. Everything you write is consciously supplanting the actual actions with a story about what the classes are "supposed" to be, which will always lurch behind anything that really happens.

Ultimately, most people - and this does not require a great education to learn - understand politics first as people. For most people, "politics" for them is entirely at a local level, in what relationships they can actually affect. The idea that normal people had any participation in the state was always a fantasy, and normal people knew it from the start. You'd have to believe in the pretenses of liberal democracy to believe your version of class struggle, which no one did. Liberal democracy didn't exist in Marx's time, and so when Marx describes the classes in his time, he does not need to say "this is the grand theory that I and I alone can know". The classes contending in institutions were known to anyone and, at the time, there weren't people brazen enough to tell people to ignore what was in front of them. Marx would understand the classes by their praxis and what they do to maintain themselves - he describes it as a "class-for-itself", whereas the workers were at his time a "class-in-of-itself" - that they existed as a thing and the labor relation was well known, but the labor relation was not one the workers chose. The workers had no institutions of their own, and were mediated through this civil society that was entirely controlled by the bourgeois professions. The workers as workers had no legal or political representation except on the terms the bourgeois allowed, which were always about dragging the workers into the domination of the bourgeois. Marx suggests superficially that the workers need their own institutions, but in practice the Marxists insert themselves, since the workers will not on their own terms enter civil society, and couldn't participate at that level. The workers who tried found out that they weren't actually allowed to win.

Also funny you cite genetics - literally a pseudoscience - as your argument for race-theory. You don't even comprehend that you're recapitulating the Nazis' race theory with a liberal mask. Again, you have to take it for granted that race is politically relevant and that the conceits of eugenics for "race betterment" are naturally and eternally valid. Before eugenics fully seized the state, race in the political sense was seen as a feeling and a historical reality, and understood as that. It referred not to a genetic pseudoscientific essence or some ststistical calculation, but a geneology of who was whose parents. That's all it meant, and you called people from this place / tribe a race, and had concepts of which groups intermingled and broad groups which were well understood. No one is seriously confused about what a "white" person is from the 18th century on, in the sense that the white, black, and east-Asian races were understood as distinct things. It gets fucked up because some retarded Krauts wanted to steal valor and say they were Persians or something stupid, since their shit nation were nothing but a bunch of drunken snowuyghurs. "Aryan" entered the lexicon not as a racial term but a linguistic term, and this idea was picked up to build up the race-science ideology which mystified something that was actually very basic.
Scientifically, "race" was always a nebulous category. This whole position you espouse demands that you believe in perfect, absolute taxonomies, which implies a eugenic attitude towards the race is a natural state of affairs. The ordinary people did not see race as this kind of absolute pseudoscience, in the sense that it was casually referred to. Scientifically, it was well understood that making grand claims about what a race is and isn't was not substantiated by any evidence, and were almost always self-serving philosophical conceits by retards like Kant. The eugenists needed those claims to be true, which is why this stupid narrative about race-science was created - to advance the eugenic creed. The idea of an ethnostate premised specifically on eugenic race-theory only came into being with the Nazis, and the pro-Nazi element in America has always insinuated Americans were actually Krautoid fags. This was encouraged to annihilate any understanding the Americans had about themselves, that would have diverged from the imperial eugenics religion of Galton.

You don't know anything about anything and you should be ashamed for continuing this eugenic creed talking point, but you refsue to even acknowledfge a single thing that is inimical to the eugenic creed.


As for "merchants inventing race", it did not require indoctrination to convince people that races existed. What was new was the idea that race was politically relevant, and this idea did not appear overnight or in the form of today's eugenic race-science. The African slaves and natives of North America weren't just different "race-essences" but came from a completely different history and background. Their societies were constituted in very different ways, and very likely they were physiologically distinct which would have meant differing mental states in some way. The idea that this was an absolute and politically relevant is a specifically eugenic claim - the black slaves were different in history and their thought, but this was not seen in of itself as the justification for slavery. It only gradually emerged that the justification for slavery shifted from history, religion, and practical expedience, to claims about African intelligence and a built-in servility. Obviously enough black slaves were rebellious that an ideology had to be imposed and enforced very violently, and the black ex-slaves had to be conditioned by exemplary violence to maintain the racist system. The extent of violence to uphold the eugenic race claims is always understated, and treated as a just-so story, where the state and dominant institutions are totally neutral or positive influences. This is the unyielding technocratic faith in institutions that were enshrined with an "above-the-law" status, very specifically in the eugenic forms of technocratic rule. The eugenists are the people who believe laws are only for the lower classes, who have an essentially Satanic moral and political view.


File: 1681658244513.png ( 62.26 KB , 512x512 , joe-headpalm.png )

>as your argument for race-theory. You don't even comprehend that you're recapitulating the Nazis'
<The Nazis were opposed to race theories

what ?


You're not opposed to race-theory, you're fake-opposing while cleverly enabling the eugenic core of the belief. It's the "fake egalitarianism" smear you piggers like to use.


The right wing of capital is autistic
The left wing of capital is schizophrenic

Unique IPs: 9

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [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 ]