text:
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / anita / b2 / choroy / dempart / freeb / marxism / vg / vichan ]
/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect
A collective of people engaged in pretty much what the name suggests
None::DDDDA for AnarchyA FUCKING 4Anarcho-CommunismAnarcho-CrapitalismAngry CatAnprimArmchairAyy LmaoBa'athBest KoreaBlack FlagBlack Nationalist / Pan-AfricanBlack PowerBunkerismBurger BuxChavismoCheChristian CommieCubaDance Dance RevolutionDemocrapDirect XDownloading CommunismEuphoricEurocomEuropoorFeminist AnarchistFreud CigarGarl MargsGay NaziGroucho MarxismHammer and Sickle International BrigadesInternational SocialistsIslamig GommunismJuche GangKalashnikovKilling FieldsLenin HatLuck o' the IrishMaoismMutualismNational SoycialistNihilist AnarchistPiratePLAFPlease Tread On MePorkyRead a Fucking BookRethuglicanRose stands for killing RosaSandinistaSatanSnibbeti SnabSocialism StalinSyndicalismTankieTechnocrat The FedsThinkingWobblyYugoslavia
File: 02a79578c60a7b9⋯.jpg (65.47 KB, 1200x800, 3:2, web1_170426-sea-identity-1….jpg)
/idpol/ superthread-research CosmopolitanMongrel 07/06/19 (Sat) 06:09:07 No.2934649
Hey guys, after the whole amber a'lee/cth 'anti woke left' article came out the twitter left really went apeshit over it, calling her a fascist, etc.
To set the record straight on the anti idpol left, i'm doing research for a MANIFESTO blogpost on the anti idpol left, i need a superlist of all marxist, anarchist, and leftist critics of idpol (intellectuals and journalists, preferably people who have written a book). I already know about cockshott, nagle, fischer, and vivek chibber.
Also helpful: any podcasts on anti idpol leftism, youtube channels, well known public figures, etc.
if you guys have any additional suggestions please drop them here as well.
Anonymous 07/06/19 (Sat) 06:11:42 No.2934650
>whole amber a'lee/cth 'anti woke left' article
CosmopolitanMongrel 07/06/19 (Sat) 06:13:59 No.2934651
https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/07/04/meet-the-anti-woke-left/
Hmm. Trotskyist-turned-neocon website promoting anti-idpol stuff. Color me shocked.
comb through this thread >>2934519
and here's a bunch of links and shitposts:
https://leftypol.fandom.com/wiki/Idpol
Amber's ok. She's got a good line about feminists saying men are rude and explain things to them.
I listened to one episode of Anna"s podcast, Red Scare. It was the one following the Zizek Peterson debate. I didn't watch the debate, but did follow some of the debate about the debate.
On the podcast they were saying leftist critics are just jealous of Zizek because he's gets more pussy than those nobodies. Frankly I don't see how this is much different from twitter feminists writing off gamergaters as neckbeard losers who couldn't get laid.
In either case they're critical of how society is organised, but use having low social cachet as a criticism of people they don't like.
There is this little classic by eco-terrorist Ted Kaczynski, though maybe that's not an association you want to have: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-ship-of-fools
Adolf Reed is really, really good.
That was a stupid article, but Amber at least is good
I'm not surprised that chapo idiots and other radlibs try to vampire castle her. Idpol needs to be purged completely.
I read the interview with the Red Scare girls where one was talking about how much she loves Bret Easton Ellis who is a total hack who sucks. Empty-headed rich boy who got famous because of connections, now complains about SJWs all the time
File: 68ab0f33b61721f⋯.jpg (416.56 KB, 1108x1600, 277:400, ellis.jpg)
Like you've gotta be kidding:
>The conversation turns back to Bret Easton Ellis, a critic of what he calls snowflake culture, who is frequently accused of being a reactionary. 'A lot of artists either don't have any politics or their politics are retarded', says Khachiyan. 'His whole virtue as a writer is being a great stylist and a great narrator who retains plausible deniability. American Psycho has references to killing homeless black people, calling Asians "slant eyes". And a lot of these woke SJW people sincerely think he's a racist because he describes the condition… Artists are sometimes unassailable… The whole impulse to peg someone for what they are now is bizarre.'
"Retains plausible deniability." They go: oh his novels are misunderstood. No they're not. They're bad, poorly-written stories about doing blow and going to parties, and he is exactly who his characters are: a creepy ghoul with a trust fund who feels aggrieved by innumerable slights and wrongs that other people can only guess at. Ellis' main complaint is his millennial boyfriend whines too much about SJW stuff (55-year-old Ellis always mentions he's dating a millennial).
These people suck hard. The Red Scare gets suck hard too but they get a (mostly male) audience to follow by playing up rich girl decadence. Don't be a sucker.
File: 518557a303858f4⋯.jpg (59.8 KB, 900x483, 300:161, amused tito.jpg)
>'You can tell people that I'm trans', says Khachiyan,
>'I'm not trans, but you can say that just for fun.'
I find it hard to believe the girls aren't trolling the redditcels at this point.
given the combo of obvious jokes and bad takes (America isn't white supremacist? for real?) it seems pretty obvious this is about triggering twitter and growing the audience
women doing it instead of the boys is an attempt to defang some criticism too
yeah but thats when woke twitter goes on about muh WYTE wimmins. (even tho amber is a hapa, guess they couldnt tell or dont care)
Anonymous 07/07/19 (Sun) 00:22:20 No.2935200
Americans call everything white supremacist because they're self flagellating faggots.
>"Retains plausible deniability." They go: oh his novels are misunderstood. No they're not. They're bad, poorly-written stories about doing blow and going to parties, and he is exactly who his characters are: a creepy ghoul with a trust fund who feels aggrieved by innumerable slights and wrongs that other people can only guess at. Ellis' main complaint is his millennial boyfriend whines too much about SJW stuff (55-year-old Ellis always mentions he's dating a millennial).
I've only read his Less Than Zero, but that doesn't seem correct. I didn't really like the book stylistically, but in it he's quite negative toward that wealthy "trust fund kid" milieu. Also, what they're talking about is true generally (regardless of Ellis): just because something is written in a book does not mean that the author supports it. This should be obvious, but the Twitter left doesn't seem to understand it.
File: 0809e8e9e033f6a⋯.gif (2.24 MB, 608x320, 19:10, FineGlitteringBuzzard-size….gif)
I'm not trans, but if you don't refer to me as my gender of Attack helicopter you must be a Anti-aircraft BIGOT and summarily laser designated for airstrike.
Hind squad, where you at.
To further my point
>it is imperative to reject identitarianism, and to recognise that there are no identities, only desires, interests and identifications. Part of the importance of the British Cultural Studies project – as revealed so powerfully and so movingly in John Akomfrah's installation The Unfinished Conversation (currently in Tate Britain) and his film The Stuart Hall Project – was to have resisted identitarian essentialism. Instead of freezing people into chains of already-existing equivalences, the point was to treat any articulation as provisional and plastic. New articulations can always be created. No-one is essentially anything
Anonymous SAGE! 07/07/19 (Sun) 03:38:37 No.2935309
Epic, it's like I'm in 2013 all over again.
if you include people like Cockshott as examples of principled anti-idpol youre going to fuck it up because many of his social views are legitemately reactionary
The US is built by slave labor on land taken in genocidal war. On top of that there's centuries of other racism against residents and immigrants. And presently the economy is based on wage slavery in the 3rd world, while the military and intelligence community work hard toppling political leaders in non-white countries.
Calling the US white supremacist as a nation-state is pretty fucking fair.
This. He unironically endorses Puritan social values.
Evidence people went apeshit on twitter?
They aren't though, except that he sometimes white knights women. They are just not liberal.
>Adolf Reed is really, really good.
thanks, thats the theorist i was looking for
Since we're talking about research, I remember that in some threads on this matter from around two years back someone made a link between the terminology of left idpol and diversity consulting HR crap. Does anyone have any resources on this?
Marx had a black Jewish friend and he famously said some pretty awful stuff about him.
R/stupidpol had a big thread about it
I recently started listening to Red Scare and I really enjoy it tbh. Sometimes the girls hit you with a genuinely good take/analysis, but most of the time they're obviously just shooting the shit and not thinking too hard before spouting whatever contrarian takes they come up with on the fly. Overall, it's a pretty stupid show but it's just so refreshing to listen to a podcast where they're not constantly walking on eggshells to avoid pissing off some delusional retards on left twitter.
Anonymous 07/08/19 (Mon) 00:00:21 No.2935907
If you think these people are the new vanguard you're an idiot and should spend less time online
Marx's personal letters to Engels are the like 18th century version of a dirt bag left podcast.
Imagine thinking there is a difference between Bernie sanders and Elizabeth warren. Seems like we're stuck in this system. Capital is using us as its appendage
While I only have minor nitpicks on what is being said, I don't think having an interview with a site renown for right wingers rejecting idpol is going to win hearts and minds. As the comment section has proven, these people are already extremely hostile to class warfare and are just obsessed with idpol as the woke/SJW for the same reason.
What they should have talk about isn't that wokeness is bad and shit mmkay coz that is preaching to the choir but why wokeness will not fundamentally solve any problems that the Left struggles to, and that is precisely why wokeness and idpol is infecting so much of politics and discourse since now everyone can larp as some dangerous thinker or activist fighting over the greatest issues of their times. It is literally a circus for everyone to watch and squabble.
But that will shame the twitter left and spiked online readers so you can't have that…
File: 8463ecac6d79313⋯.jpg (22.1 KB, 732x220, 183:55, IMG_20190707_192641.jpg)
sounds based ill check it out
had in my mind something like "The communist case against leftism", a reference to angela nagle's "the leftist case against open borders", to capture the problems I have with all this demsoc anti-idpol stuff lately. In that article, nagle comes out with history lessons on why left wing parties of decades past had been against open borders and the implication is that only liberals could be for open borders.
Except that every argument against open borders could be applied just as well to automation. From a point of view of production instead of money(that is to say a communist point of view), any increase in labor is welcome because it means everyone gets to work less. Be it automation or immigrants, the fact that cheaper labor lowers the bargaining power of unions is exposing the contradictions of the capitalist mode of production. It'd be stupid to say a communist should be against minimum wage hikes because workers will get replaced with machines. Only a capitalist who can't see beyond money would make this argument.
Similarly, problems with the supposed anti idpol left seems to come back to their inability to break with socialism. To be an actual radical. Idpol is always seen as, to quote that article
>a distraction at best, an active detriment at worst
okay sure, but communists have always seized upon distractions in order to take power. These people seem to have some notion of a purely textbook theoretical revolution(or maybe they simply don't believe in revolution), one that has never happened. Communism has always piggybacked on some other cause, and i don't see why it has to be a negative quality. I think it speaks to the communist special power, to play on the internal contradictions of a society.
There's justified suspicion over idpol causes because of how quickly the capitalist class has adapted many policies in support of it. But I think the right move is to compare these concessions to their economic counterparts. These were all made, not out of benevolent mercy or sympathy, but because capitalism had to make these concessions to keep the system going. There are some that are ultimately useful. For example, anything that lowers the rate of profit through either raising wages or minimizing labor times. While others like trade protectionism are sold as beneficial to workers but delay the inevitable and prolong exploitation.
What i'm trying to get at is that regardless of your personal stance on idpol issues. They speak to a real antagonism that exists within society. To get hegelian for a moment: the antagonism comes first, then it generates the opposing poles. First there was a very real social antagonism, and then because of this, the opposing poles of left wing and right wing emerged.
Even though left and right wing struggle is in the marxist view
it'd be a stupid position to say that a communist should simply withdraw completely from left vs right political struggles.
So that's my problem with people who call themselves anti-idpol. Not that they are, but that their reasoning for dismissing it as bad is broad enough to be applied to their own realm, especially for ones who are believing in voting their way to socialism. There are "anti-idpol" thinkers I respect, obviously zizek. Zizek's take on idpol isn't just that its a distraction however. He and his philosophical partners write entire books explaining sexual antagonisms through a communist lens. Simple lazy retreat isn't the answer, you need to bring your own theory.
>In that article, nagle comes out with history lessons on why left wing parties of decades past had been against open borders and the implication is that only liberals could be for open borders.
Nagle also has a very broad definition of "left" to include the old New Deal-style Democrats. Okay, if that's her politics too, fine, but the Communist Party in the U.S. back in the 1930s was militantly for the rights for immigrant workers.
You should look up Emma Tenayuca and her article on the Mexican question in the Southwest. The population of undocumented Mexican workers already numbered in the millions in the 1930s, so this really a multi-generational population with deep roots in the area where they live and is a distinct community using every criteria in Stalin's work.
File: 0672cd31eaecec7⋯.jpeg (687.05 KB, 1750x2048, 875:1024, 03F188C9-A182-43BC-A310-D….jpeg)
Today I learned that, at least going by his gravestone, Philando Castile was a fucking Hotep. Still didn't deserve to be shot, but Jesus Christ this shit is cancer.
Amber is fucking annoying, Chapo is fucking annoying. They think they are the antidote to the woke left but they are barely distinguishable from it, they just make up themselves in jokes instead of cancelling people, the entire schtick is basically exactly the same boring holyer than thou irony. Gun grabbers, against revolution etc etc
I'm not like those other basic girls, im a cool gamer girl haha dirtbag left lol
By posting about this I'm already showing that I care to comment more than I objectively should, but I find the whole stupidpol vs. chapo beef to be basically nonsense since they all largely agree that the path to socialism in America is to vote for the Bernie Sanders man.
Anonymous SAGE! 07/08/19 (Mon) 11:59:36 No.2936230
Anti-prostitution is the standard position on the left. It's only people who are very young/online/Americanized who believe otherwise.
Centuries aren't counted that way, 18xx was the 19th century.
>What they should have talk about isn't that wokeness is bad and shit mmkay coz that is preaching to the choir but why wokeness will not fundamentally solve any problem
Maybe they did. The convo wasn't a live interview and the Spiked journos decided what to publish.
>any increase in labor is welcome because it means everyone gets to work less
>Similarly, problems with the supposed anti idpol left seems to come back to their inability to break with socialism. To be an actual radical.
Read what you write before you post.
File: cae63ec4387c50d⋯.png (537.58 KB, 600x824, 75:103, DSA.png)
Like the stupidpol people are under the impression the DSA types need to adopt a position where it's officially okay to say racial slurs and vote for Bernie Sanders and until they do they're cancelled, but the DSA people base their politics on saying racial slurs and voting for Bernie Sanders so I don't know what the substantive disagreement is. Just seems like contrived Reddit drama.
Spiked was founded by former Trots who became hard-right libertarians btw. It's partly funded by the Kochs. I have no idea why Amber would choose to get interviewed by them unless she wanted to rustle some jimmies.
i do give them credit, i have done in other posts, they do give a voice to some positions outside of the libleft for example lexit, they do also give a fairly good run down of US politics which is good for non burgers who can't keep up, I also do agree that we should vote for the burning man, but that doesn't mean we should alongside that be anti gun, or say ludicrous shit like disarm the police, which i do believe we should do, but i literally cannot think of a way to get eviscerated as a college kid snowflake. Bad people exist in America, as someone who has been through the prison system I can tell you I am no fan of the police, but when you've spent time with 6ft 7 guys with neck tattoos who rob crack houses with hatchets as their full time job, and enjoy doing it, you realise that right now, until we have dealt with the social conditions that create crime we do need an armed response on the streets, even if that response needs to be way more heavily regulated etc
File: 7f54922faa87b46⋯.jpg (108.71 KB, 1145x1200, 229:240, D-5wOItX4AAsC8-.jpg)
this is the response she got to the criticism of that post
File: 944a8941ef7d60b⋯.jpeg (26.84 KB, 255x255, 1:1, waifu.jpeg)
Reds Care
I dunno, signal to righties that are starting to doubt bourg lies that there is an alternative?
They're pretty right wing. One of them mocked AOC for wanting to close ICE.
anna is openly fash, but dasha is a good girl
File: ba4d0c8135174f0⋯.png (9.67 KB, 414x84, 69:14, bellhooksteachingcommunity….png)
Paulo Freire is the author you need. Friere is a constructivist, which means he sees knowledge as socially constructed rather than as a form of information to be passed on from one person to another. What this means for revolutions is that we cannot simply tell people to "shut up and listen" as the scolds are want to do, but we must engage them in dialogue. Pedagogy of the Oppressed is a great book and really short too.
If you are criticising idpol you must primarily criticise the way they act not what they ostensibly want (equality). Once you do that you'll see that they are basically trying to enact left wing goals of equality with right wing pedagogy.
Btw, the wokescolds and the radlibs don't actually read theory or understand it.
You will do well if you read some of the authors who write about critical race studies, post modernism, etc. because you find that they are much less liberals than you think. Take bell hooks here for example. This quote actually shows that the cultural appropriation discourse actually builds into white supremacy rather than attacking it.
This is a response to the locked thread:
The basic idea might be somewhat true but it almost inevitably leads to the kind of oppression olympics we now see all over the internet.
The biggest problem with it is that it exists within the confines of, and even plays a role in, the existing system of prejudices and oppression. Any group who are sufficiently oppressed will not even be acknowledged by the advocates of intersectionality. Even getting recognized as one of the official "oppressed identities" represents a kind of privilege. Thanks to that limitation, intersectionality can never be the kind of all-encompassing theory of social justice it claims to be.
Originally replying to >>2935996
>What are your thoughts on Intersectionality (defined as people belonging to certain social identities generally share common oppressive experiences based on that identity by the way society views and treats them, and those identities can intersect in unique ways that aren't shared by people who don't share all the identities)? Do you think the premises is true?
You could say this is a valuable insight, but intersectionalists usually treat it as an excuse to be reductionist the same way non-intersectional identitarians do. "Oh, you're a black disabled non-binary muslim? Here's the box with everyone else fitting that description. You are basically the same to me." It's the logical conclusion of treating people as identities and not people. They've gone from mere categories to venn diagrams. It's useful to recognize the concept of intersectionality, but it's not a sufficient criticism of the identity-box paradigm that it gets applied to. People who bring it up and talk about it all the time do so to rehabilitate shitty idpol instead of engage in reflection or critique of their ideology.
>Do you think its original purpose of greater understanding of the experiences of people unlike each other in order to organize more efficiently has been successful or could at least be used that way?
It almost exclusively has the effect of drawing finer and finer red lines around issues and encouraging gatekeeping that people can fight over.
>I know it's been used to play Oppression Olympics and divert attention from class struggle, but could the theory be appropriated to serve class struggle, or are the premises too inherently flawed?
It's not so much the intersectionality concept that's flawed, but the general idpol theory it gets applied to. If you don't think of intersectionalism in the context of idpol boxes, then the logical conclusion is that there are so many identities and so many ways they interact that dealing with every variation is an intractable problem and therefore a waste of time (especially when class struggle unites almost everyone). It's mostly pushed by people who are not working class because they need to distract people from class otherwise they'll get expelled from the left, which they see as their social club.
>Is it useful at all to see groups of people in terms of ascribed or chosen identities?
Maybe if you're doing some kind of analysis, but they will apply this kind of thinking to basic human interaction, which is supremely alienating.
>>destroys individuality
>In general, how is being anti individualist bad? Hyper-individualism is one of the main evils of capitalist-realism
You are talking about three different things.
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.
collection of some shitposts from 2 years ago. some I wrote, other I didn't. can't recall which is which. please note I was much less read and some opinions might be shit.
Intersectionality fails because it doesn't understand the problem with treating people as members of a category. Intersectionality thinks the problem is treating people as members of a category, like only looking at someone's race or gender. Intersectionality seeks to look at all the categories, so not just race and gender but also sexual orientation. Oh and gender identity. Oh and (dis)ability. Oh and age. Etc. What you end up with is a bizarre morass of people attempting to negotiate a Byzantine hierarchy that was invented in an attempt to negate the existing hierarchies. It's the product of way-too-deep navel gazing.
What intersectionality misses that leads it to this quagmire is that the problem is not treating people as members of a category, but the paradigm itself of treating people as members of a category. It looks at existing social systems, which develop to be extremely complex, and picks apart the arrangement of the system in fine detail. All you have to do is notice that the flaws being picked apart stem from not the categories as they are defined or arranged in this instance, but the notion of categorization and hierarchy based on categorization itself. While people are squabbling over the details, they accept the broader narrative that putting people in these categories is alright and they often accept not just the paradigm but the categorization given by the status quo. You see this with people who try to find positive aspects of their categories, which is really just a manifestation of the urge to jockey for a higher position in the hierarchy.
The way you dismantle the system is to destroy the foundation, the keystone, of its ideology: the notion that categorization of people by stereotypes like race or gender is useful. You don't tear down the system by criticizing the manifestation of the system, because that manifestation is largely arbitrary. If you tear it down, the forces that shape the ideology of categorization will simply come up with new versions. You can see this in action with racism - racists today have different stereotypes for other races than they did 100 years ago, meaning combating racism at the granular, detail-oriented level will just force racists to come up with new stereotypes again. You don't destroy racism by rebutting the claim that all black people waste their money on KFC and Jordans. You destroy racism (and all other -isms) by rooting out the underlying absurdity that people form abstract collectives based on these categories rather than being individuals who don't have to conform to some stereotype.
Idpol 3
Left with idpol is inconsistent.
The left fights for rights for all genders, including non traditional genders.
Idpol is callout culture and fulfilling the sense of belonging in an alienated society. Ironically, it creates more alienation by making identities on the minor of differences. As a man who likes men, I don't derive my identity from my sexuality, it makes a part of my identity but how that plays out is unique to each individual. Heterophobia and homophobia are more present from people that derive their sense of identity from their sexuality. Similar in form to those who assert their "manliness" as central to their identity are critical of more feminine male people. It goes without saying, of course, that there are exceptions.
Identity politics also sucks because people cannot pigeonhole themselves to the socially and collectively described identity. What if I'm part white, part mexican, part chinese, part black. This leads to weirdness such as the chicano culture identifying strongly as mexican and "over celebrating" holidays and traditions that might not even exist in Mexico, to assert their collective identity. Many mexicans will tell you that chicano culture is vastly different than traditional mexican culture. Some many years later, inject some idpol, you get the Lantix identity which describes basically an 100% american, just a little browner. It's an identity crisis at a collective level.
This obsession with identifying yourself inevitably creates terrible identity crises. It makes hollow people that are only what their identity represents and nothing else, it victimizes and blames the entirety of another "identity" for the problems another identity face, it creates sectarianism that one identity is somehow better than another.
It also creates movements with imbecile agendas such as BLM. All cops are bastards and of course they are racist, even black cops, but the number of black deaths in the hands of cops is insignificant compared to the number of slaves in private prisons and the number of black people murdered by other black people. And calling cops racist does not fix the problem at all.
In general, it seems that idpolers just look at superficial results and point to it as the source of the problem. Then democrats come and put a band aid on the result, without fixing the underlying problem.
Identity politics is clearly divisive. If "brocialists" can't agree with "REAL COMMUNISTS®", what hope do we have for bringing in the right. Most people (capitalist left and right) are not consciously wanting to be male chauvinists, homophobic or racist. The fact that communism preaches that capitalist education has basically brainwashed us, but FAIL to recognize that homophobes etc are just products of their upbringing is not consistent. Instead of finding commonalities (like, hmm, perhaps class opression, which if you would have been paying attention was the #1 thing trump supporters were about besides muslims). Keep fighting whether trans students can use their preferred bathroom, that will teach those dirty capitalists! "B-b-b-ut you're basically a transphobe" NO! The root of opression is capitalism and the state. Our movement should not be sold to buzzfeed journalists and Hillary feminists. THAT is fake news. Milo Yanopopoalleisis is fake news. Trans bathrooms issues is fake news. Even black lives matter; so many more black people die in the hands of other black people than from cops. Many more are enslaved in private prisons. But lets protest the insignificant number that dies in the hands of cops. If you disagree, you are literally Hitler. They want us to fight for crumbs so we don't have time to take the cake. We're being duped!
Look, identity politics is a crap movement. The left is against this movement as well, the media would have you think otherwise. The democrats, which are not left, more like center right, are the ones pushing this bs. Ironically, the right wingers have always been participants of identity politics with their nationalist (I'M 'MURICAN) and white supremacist bs, maybe they just don't like it when identity politics doesn't include them. If you can't see that our laws keep poor people poor, that poor people are the most vulnerable to police abuse, that our taxes get inevitably funneled back to the rich, that salaries for the 99.9% have been stagnating for the past decades, while salaries for the .1% have skyrocketed (especially when you factor in the tax breaks the rich get), that trillions are disappearing in tax havens, that corporations have more political power each year, that the government spies more intrusively on its citizens each year, that police can legally steal your shit, that politicians have legalized corruption through lobbying, then you really need to get your head out of your ass. The cost of 1 explosive shell is enough to cover the housing of someone for a year, yet the government uses our money to level the middle east with that crap. Not only is it evil as hell, it costs more on the long run when you create refugees and enemies. The typical strategy of the US to fund religious radicals to defeat other religious radicals they had previously funded is just a terrible, terrible use of our money. Here's the worst part, none of the voters have any say in the decisions being made. It literally doesn't matter what the population thinks, both the dems and the reps are wasting our money (remember that 14 trillion $ debt?) without our consent. If you seriously think Hillary was going to change anything you are deluded. Everyone thought Trump was going to "change things", that's fine, but if you still think that he cares about the 99.9% and his policies, especially the ones of deregulating companies will benefit you in any way, you truly are a slave to your masters. Whatever system we choose to build, 1. people should actually have a say in the decisions, 2. rich people shouldn't be able to buy politicians (it's absurd I even have to spell this out), 3. the system shouldn't allow people to become absurdly rich. Consider the following: to make the money bill gates has you would have to save 1 million dollars each year (assuming no interests or inflation), for 86,700 years. Some final points, climate change at this point is irrelevant, if the Earth warming doesn't kill us, then the pollution will still do. Just check out cities that have high levels of pollution, people are starting to die young. If someone on the other side of the world burns a tire, that air will eventually reach you, you dingus. On the whole trans thing, what. is. it. to. you. Let people do whatever they want with their life, it's theirs, not yours. Stop playing doctors, leave the science to the scientists and the medicine to the doctors.
The effect of all this "identity politics" stuff is to dilute and weaken the left, turn women against men, turn blacks against whites, and concentrate on infighting. The emphasis on "identities" beyond class identity has done nothing but reinforce the commodity form, because those "identities" can easily be co-opted into niche markets, which can be marketed to. The exaltation of one race or gender or sexuality usually in practice involves the degradation of another. For instance, the idea that "black women have a unique worth" over and above anyone else's inherent worth, is a type of racialism. Also, the idea is outdated. If you change the economic and class structure, social relations will change, not the other way about. A totally non-racist and non-sexist and non-homophobic society with all the capitalist institutions left intact is possible, but what would that have to do with anarchism? Identity politics is fundamentally bourgeois and silly and divisive. It strengthens capitalism and consumerism, and divides the working class. Just as socialists have traditionally been internationalists, focusing on their class identities over their national identities, so they should focus on their class identities over their racial, gender, and sexuality concerns. Because an oppressor and an exploiter can be any colour, any nationality, any gender, any sexuality.
Non-white people are now integrated into the highest levels of government and business. The simplistic racial analysis doesn't hold anymore
on muslim feminists:
Modern identity politics seems to imply a kind of liberalism or individualism, more specifically a kind of separation given that one's unique individuality may not coincide with the larger whole of society. I also think that the agenda of "inclusion" functions on a very postmodern/westernized psychology. I'm a total heretic, but I pray with Hasidic women and I can tell you that they never let the presence of exclusion or gender hierarchy stop them from seeing the beauty of Creation or having direct experiences of life. Compare that to someone like Amandla Stenberg who feels she's unable to experience joy because white girls are wearing cornrows. But again, the notion that everyone can have their own unique identity seems to suggest maintaining the fragmented status of the world. Since the late 1970s with the emergence of neoliberalism and the perpetual death of radical movements and proletarian internationalism we've seen identity politics become entirely individualistic and superficial. I don't understand how "hijabi feminism", for instance, is anything but nationalist or Jucheist/Fourth Positionist (national communist), given that hijabi feminists are much more about promoting their cultures' own unique feudal garb and traditions as progressive than they are about tackling their own culture's patriarchy (which may or may not be linked with western imperialism too). French Muslims protested the burkini ban but not the French airstrikes on Syria - why? Fifty years ago it would have been the opposite
on separation of identities as being anti communism:
The fact that humans are still broken into "male" and "female" or any other gender categories is proof that struggle between genders still exists in every society where gender exists. You cannot separate gender from class as the two function in entirely the same way. Even societies/cultures where third or multiple genders existed had contradictions between them. The goal of any legitimate feminist or male feminist comrade should be a complete rectification whereby "male", "female", "genderfluid", etc. are no more, and the only thing that remains is the androgyne. That's exactly what the more radical and Marxist-influenced feminists during the Second Wave saw as the final goal (similar to the way communism seeks the complete abolition of social classes). The difference between this and the mainstream trends of feminism today is, while the former recognizes that the world is inherently fragmented by gender and seeks to rectify it so that we may go beyond its constraints, the latter recognizes the fragmentation but seeks to keep it in-place (even going so far as to say that a world broken into genders is nothing more than their "individuality"). This is arguably why so much modern feminist strains go off on the same female stereotypes which feminists of the past have struggled against, specifically the idea that women are passive and ought to be given credit for being passive and docile. It's a huge shame, really.
and finally this word salad I shat the other day on the other idpol thread (the anti-idpol is not anti-idpol)
idpol relies heavily on the reification of abstract identities as innate and unsolvable differences with the other. these abstract identities exist in reality as stereotypes and generalizations, but idpol plays a bait and switch, by recognizing said stereotypes exist and then making these abstract phenomena essential qualities of identities, and furthermore turns people who experience the identity abstractly (eg. experience racism) into people who are those identities (eg. the oppressed black disabled woman). in other words, it takes something that isn't actually real (a stereotype, or the generalized experience of racism), it then creates a "concrete" identity which has essential qualities, and then projects that identity to all people related to that identity (eg. anyone who is kind-of black = the black people = victim of racism), and replaces the individual experience of a person (eg. a right-wing gay man, a brown rich kid who has never known racism) with the essential qualities of the identity (gay = "progressive", brown = black = oppressed").
as a side note, this creates a host of problems, where people are not "good [minority]". a right-wing gay man, or a non-visibly gay man who is "not gay enough".
in the context of politics, it is not longer society's ills that must be remedied, but rather, an identity's idealized oppression becomes centerfold, since these people are suffering more than the rest of us, because of us.
for example, it is true that black americans have a tougher time getting into university (for whatever reason, it's irrelevant atm), therefore, we should remedy this problem with affirmative action (basically, have a quota of black people universities must reach). affirmative action's aims is to eliminate racism by giving more opportunities to black people. it aims to change the public perception of "the blacks" by making more middle/upper class blacks. even putting aside the existence of rich/middle class black people, and the problem of qualifying as black, this essentialism, "the black as an oppressed victim of racism", completely erased the individual experiences of black people. the essential quality of victim because of racism disappears the fact that most black people are poor because of the same reasons non-black people are poor. it hides by indirection that the solution cannot come from affirmative action, but rather by addressing the problems that cause poverty in the first place. put another way, it pushes away the fact that the primary limitation in this idealized black is not the fact that he is black, but rather that he is poor. affirmative action's aim is to reduce "the black man's poverty" but it misplaces the source of poverty in racism, and not in the natural consequences of capitalism. identity politics demands change since an identity group that has been made real, the blacks, are suffering more than the rest of society, because society is racist, and hence this should be remedied ASAP.
identity politics is thus a divisory ideology that separates "the blacks" from society, since the victim cannot be the perpetrator. and "the gays" from society. not only is this bigotry, it is a falsehood that any of these groups are separate from society, and the perpetrator is the victim. this is revealed in comments such as, "reverse racism doesn't exist", or the tolerance of gay people being extremely homophobic, yet the same people having unapologetic savage intolerance of even the slightest form of non-PC speech from people who are not of that identity. put another way, the segregation and immaculation of identity groups by identitarians reveal an underlying idealist (bigot) ideology.
in conclusion, identity politics is idealist, because it makes abstract qualities essential qualities, which requires people of an identity to hold those essential qualities, which then misplaces the problem as being essential to said identity (and in many cases, unfixable, like "white people are innately racist"), instead of understanding that people's individual experiences and beliefs are unique and contingent on the environment they developed (a gay man in sweden is different than a gay man in somalia). Therefore, if you wish to understand politics as they relate to identities, you must understand the material reality in which groups of people develop and avoid idealist conceptions of facets of people.
Anonymous 07/09/19 (Tue) 00:53:33 No.2936764
>Maybe they did. The convo wasn't a live interview and the Spiked journos decided what to publish.
Yea because getting manipulated by Spiked is sooooo much better than sending the wrong narrative
what are your plans for this info? where will you compile it?
its the kind of drama that breaks up boredom. because the only thing you can do is wait to vote for bernie.
Same thing happened with occupy wall street. contrary to the popular perception, idpol didn't wreck the movement. the movement had no substance to it, it couldn't agree on any actions or proposals, so people moved on to arguing about the messaging, the form.
I'm not referring to anti-prostitution I'm referring to him outright stating it is bourgeois to be gay
>Spiked was founded by former Trots who became hard-right libertarians btw. It's partly funded by the Kochs. I have no idea why Amber would choose to get interviewed by them unless she wanted to rustle some jimmies.
Most likely explanation is that Amber is a former Trot turned hard-right libertarian who is partly funded by the Kochs.
Very good post. Unfortunately will be ignored because for most of /leftypol/ "anti-idpol" means "don't challenge my specific selective comfy idpol"
Anonymous SAGE! 07/09/19 (Tue) 16:20:59 No.2937216
Not sure if shitposting or r/cth retard.
it's a very fine line between reasonable feminism and idealist feminism.
I realize that there is a lot of value lost by not reading someone just because they support 'x' or deny 'y'. In the case of bell hooks' wikipedia page:
>The focus of hooks' writing has been the *intersectionality* of race, capitalism, and gender, and what she describes as their ability to produce and perpetuate systems of oppression and class domination.
idealism is a hell of a drug and not one I think I'm capable of discerning.
basically, what do I need to read to arm myself against liberalism and idealism, especially in the context of identity politics?
Anonymous 07/10/19 (Wed) 00:39:02 No.2937446
>Once you do that you'll see that they are basically trying to enact left wing goals of equality with right wing pedagogy.
Equality isn't necessarily a left-wing goal. "Equality" itself doesn't mean anything without any concrete specificity as to what this "equality" entails. No one on the left would be satisfied with a form of "equality" under capitalism, which reveals the actual goal is not so much "equality" as it is socialism and the equality that economic system implies. Thinking about left-wing goals in terms of "equality" simply stinks of idealism.
Anonymous 07/11/19 (Thu) 05:56:51 No.2938234
File: 2ba7d78098249e5⋯.jpeg (69.75 KB, 720x595, 144:119, 3AE9AF86-4A23-4DF2-A24A-F….jpeg)
>weird reactionary, revanchist politics is woke when black/indigenous people do it
Welcome to post-colonialism.
>ITT a bunch of honkies try to defend their reactionary stance on racism and get all butt hurt when people see their "anti idpol" as implicit support for the existing white supremacy that's backed by state violence but you all wanna act is just idealist spooks inside of the head of pink haired SJWs.
Hahaha stay salty /leftypol/
I think the salty one here is you my friend
Well at least you're not pretending to be white anymore
Not over being called a crypto racist, no.
>All my critics are Nazis
Whatever puts you to bed at night vulgar Marxist.
>vulgar marxist
shoo shoo, CIA nigger
I think the only crypto racist here is you
>Let me pretend that SJWs are dividing the working class and not propertied whites
>If you call me a racists your an intelligence agent
Lol sorry sweetly, the CIA goes after people that undermine capitalism. Not suburbanite whites that couldn't uphold more if they tried.
But I don't implicitly protect white supremacy like you.
>>vulgar marxist
>shoo shoo, CIA nigger
Yes, pretending like racist superstructure doesn't exist is very orthodox Marxism lol.
CosmopolitanMongrel 07/11/19 (Thu) 07:37:54 No.2938271
same place as the others: my blog. still in the process of researching. may possibly make a google spreadsheet too
Anonymous SAGE! 07/11/19 (Thu) 10:16:40 No.2938293
"Communism is when there are black and brown landlords. And the more landlords are black or brown, the communister it is."
-DeCarl Marx, Critique of Salty Crackers
Out of curiosity, I checked that Twitter account. The theory seems to be that because of Demographics (TM), the left should ignore (implicitly racist) white workers; instead, subaltern identities will rise up against the white settlers and destroy settler-colonialism/capitalism, presumably ejecting the settlers into the sea. It'll be like Libya and the immigrant boats, but "a good thing."
You may see a resemblance between this and the Democratic Party's belief that demographics will save them. The "subalterns, rise up" theory, though, has the decency to cloak its naked idealism in Maotist rhetoric.
Where's the punch line?
>Communism has always piggybacked on some other cause
Communism has only ever come to power on issues of class struggle and anti imperialism (which is also class struggle). No communist government has ever or will ever come to power by piggybacking on a movement as tiny and alien to 99% of the working class as the trans movement or some shit. Obviously we can fight discrimination against trans people, but they can never be front an center in a movement that is fundamentally about class. Nor does opposing discrimination imply that we have to tolerate petty identitarianism.
File: 12ab340865d48dd⋯.png (346.33 KB, 600x573, 200:191, tumblr_ocgg0ghQrE1ui9bilo1….png)
Communism is when you implicitly defend white supremacy by pretending whites aren't getting material benefits from it like being spared enslavement via prison labor, owning real estate which they can withdraw trillion in equity from and superstructure that does nothing but defend their interests.
While simultaneously acting like whites are really revolutionary t-t-t-t-they just get mislead by people like Trump. That impotent pink haired SJWs and poor Black people that hurt white people's feelings online are the real existential threat to the left and not the military/intelligence/police industrial complex that has been proven to take down left movements in the past.
And pretending that it's a huge mystery that there hasn't been any real revolutionary potential in the US even though neoliberalism has frozen real wages for 40 years. Even though it's obvious to anyone that white people with few exceptions, have sat on any nascent revolution to defend their own propertied positions.
Oh and smear absolutely any PoC that says anything about it as simply an wannabe porky.
- t. /leftypol/
Nobody is defending white supremacy or pretends it doesn't exist though. The idpol stance on it is blame whitey in general when the sole reason for it is capital.
> it doesn't exist
The entire notion has the same validity as Jewish supremacy desu senpai
My aching sides
Son, that your arse is lilly-white doesn't protect you from prison labour
File: 0153275795fdaf3⋯.jpeg (58.01 KB, 960x720, 4:3, homeles-person found dead.jpeg)
File: 246dc94ee3c69fe⋯.jpg (68.99 KB, 776x429, 776:429, maslow-hierachy-of-needs-m….jpg)
race essentialism is the worst,
while there is structural racism, and it's really really bad (private-prisons labour power exploitation) , any attempt of trying to fight against it is basically sabotaged by pitting poc-identity low-income against middle-income white-idenity groups. This just appears as competition for the midle-income home-owner social position in capitalism, and will fan the flames of reaction.
Besides the material value of these houses is not that big, the only thing that is big is the speculative exchange value in the real-estate market. As for a communist movement it is not our goal go after home owners, we'd be compared to wall-street using a financial crash to expropriate homeowners and kicking people on the street.
You could say that under communism a house you live in is personal property, but if you want to get rid of home-ownership all together you go for a grandfather clause, and then you get 3 generations to build a communist housing system that is sufficient for convincing the majority of people that they don't need to own a house for securing their need for shelter.
From a political strategical point of view, don't threaten the foundational needs of people.
>Communism is when you implicitly defend white supremacy by pretending whites aren't getting material benefits from it like being spared enslavement via prison labor
Nobody is pretending structural racism doesn't exist. Anti idpol is by definition anti racism. Our position is that the source of racism is capitalism, and that white workers and black workers have fundamentally the same interests. Even if racism puts black workers in a harder position, it's still the enemy of both since it divides them and makes them easier targets for porky. Furthermore white people dont benefit from racism in any meaningful sense. The more prosperous position of white workers is due to the labour struggles of the early and mid 20th century, not keeping blacks poor. The gains of white workers did not come at the expense of blacks, rather structural racism and repression prevented blacks from organizing in the same way as their counterparts. The prosperity of the white working class was in no way conditional on the misery of the black working class, therefore there is no real conflict between the two, only the false conflict manufactured by the bourgeoisie. The only way forewords then is solidarity, abolition of racial distinctions and discrimination which weakens the working class. The solution is now to bitch about whitey as if the white worker is your enemy.
File: f3cc798648afca1⋯.png (152.91 KB, 500x561, 500:561, cyanide.png)
>tfw not even lowest level is fulfilled
I defy anybody to watch just two minutes of this video and tell me that idpol isn't absolute cancer that needs to be ruthlessly purged from the left.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=safLwed9SSo&t=618s
>race essentialism is the worst,
Lol, recognizing racism is backed by the state, the base and superstructure isn't race essentialism.
>while there is structural racism, and it's really really bad (private-prisons labour power exploitation) ,
Jeepers, state enforced is slavery is bad and all but what's worse is hurting white people's feelings by bring it up. Hurting white people's feelings hurts the revolution. Kind of like you're not supposed to share your birthday wish or it won't come true!
>attempt of trying to fight against it is basically sabotaged by pitting poc-identity low-income against middle-income white-idenity groups.
Yes! Because they are the one's that are preventing revolution, or even the most basic fucking concessions that they currently enjoy. Shit rolls down hill, it's easier for propertied white people to keep unpropertied minorities as an underclass then fight the most powerful class, the bourgeoisie, ever to exist in history.
>This just appears as competition for the midle-income home-owner social position in capitalism, and will fan the flames of reaction.
Wages for ALL PROLES have been frozen for 40 years and white people don't give a fuck because they have gotten their share of increased productivity and more via real estate appreciation.
You're like those white people Martin Luther King used to talk about. Always talking about waiting, or going through democracy or legal channels. Just replace wait for revolution and democracy with vanguard party or the white working class to radicalize and its the same thing.
>Besides the material value of these houses is not that big, the only thing that is big is the speculative exchange value in the real-estate market.
Yes, and it's why white people have been able to weather skyrocketing education, housing, medical and transportation costs for the last several decades while minorities have been pushed further into poverty.
>As for a communist movement it is not our goal go after home owners,
I didn't say we should. We should support policies that make minorities homeowners. Like reparations. Rent takes up more than half the take home pay of minorities, changing that would go along way to making them precarious. It's white people's relative advantage that I seek to destroy, not the fact they own homes. That relative advantage is also what you seek to protect with all this passive aggressive obfuscation of the real politics behind racism and other identity politics.
>we'd be compared to wall-street using a financial crash to expropriate homeowners and kicking people on the street.
Lol more strawman, no one said kick white people out of their homes. Hey lets say take away their rentals though.
>You could say that under communism a house you live in is personal property, but if you want to get rid of home-ownership all together you go for a grandfather clause, and then you get 3 generations to build a communist housing system that is sufficient for convincing the majority of people that they don't need to own a house for securing their need for shelter.
I don't want to get rid of homeownership. Just it's racialized monopoly.
>From a political strategical point of view, don't threaten the foundational needs of people.
My thoughts exactly, so why do you defend the current status quo of minorities having to almost exclusively rent. Oh that's right it's because you're a white boy who wants to maintain their racialized comparative advantage by screaming IDPOL at any minority trying to win the same concessions white people already have.
They have to wait for revolution in poverty, while you get to wait for it in the suburbs.
>There's homeless white people, therefore racism doesn't exist.
Lol cry harder fash sympathizer.
>Nobody is pretending structural racism doesn't exist.
Like fun this board doesn't. They do it both by omission and dog piling on absolutely anyone that brings it up as an idpol SJW. With no push back from anyone else.
You all act like the USSR never did anything to address ethnic tensions.
>The prosperity of the white working class was in no way conditional on the misery of the black working class, therefore there is no real conflict between the two, only the false conflict manufactured by the bourgeoisie.
This false consciousness stuff has a lot of conceptual problems, the main one being that ideology is not something solely imposed on people, it's also something that people generate to explain their world. Basically what I'm saying is that people are not morally culpable for their consciousness here. Class consciousness that led to proletarian revolutions developed because workers found themselves working together on factory floors, seeing their labor produce commodities which then stared back at them and alienated from them, and seeing themselves as the same and capable of overthrowing this system via collective action – technology shaped their consciousness.
>The only way forewords then is solidarity, abolition of racial distinctions and discrimination which weakens the working class. The solution is now to bitch about whitey as if the white worker is your enemy.
I think you're setting yourself up for a nasty surprise when people don't set aside their idpol and join in a gross, idpol-free anarchist revolution. Like we can moralize about idpol but it seems like a flipside of the "check your privilege" types who think that people can just reshape their identities at will, but these identities are not shaped by people's actual choices. No one has ever successfully checked their privilege. What basically just matters is economics, and there might be actual hard economic limits approaching in the near future which means that the standard of living for most people in the developed world is going to come down no matter what. Like this kind of "rising tide lifts all boats" socialism seems like a fantasy to me
>Hurting white people's feelings hurts the revolution.
Deliberately undermining working class solidarity hurts the revolution yes.
>Because they are the one's that are preventing revolution, or even the most basic fucking concessions that they currently enjoy.
First off, that's historically not true. White workers formed the backbone of the militant labour movement in the US. Their relatively reactionary position today is a result of their integration into the hegemony and internalization of bourgeois ideology. However this didn't occur because they are white, it happened because their economic position changed as a result of struggle. Now that hegemony is collapsing, the white working class is being displaced, and they are once again becoming targets for recruitment from the left. Whites by and large aren't the propertied middle class they were 40 or 50 years ago, neoliberalism has decimated their wealth. Now is the time to capitalize on this by emphasizing the unity of interests between all workers. Demonizing them will only drive them towards fascism.
>Wages for ALL PROLES have been frozen for 40 years and white people don't give a fuck because they have gotten their share of increased productivity and more via real estate appreciation.
Utter horseshit. White workers have become increasingly dissatisfied with neoliberalism, which is why they have shown a tendency to flock to the emerging socdem wing of the Democratic party. The only thing putting them off is idpol. You seem to have this idea that white workers have come out of neoliberalism and the 2008 crisis unscathed, which is fundamentally untrue.
>Like fun this board doesn't. They do it both by omission and dog piling on absolutely anyone that brings it up as an idpol SJW.
Find me a single post denying the existence of structural racism.
>This false consciousness stuff has a lot of conceptual problems, the main one being that ideology is not something solely imposed on people, it's also something that people generate to explain their world. Basically what I'm saying is that people are not morally culpable for their consciousness here. Class consciousness that led to proletarian revolutions developed because workers found themselves working together on factory floors, seeing their labor produce commodities which then stared back at them and alienated from them, and seeing themselves as the same and capable of overthrowing this system via collective action – technology shaped their consciousness.
I totally agree. I think its obvious that the reactionary tendencies among many white workers emerged from the postwar prosperity of the white working class. For them capitalism was a system that had ensured them a great deal of prosperity, and so it was easy for them to accept its myths and narratives. What needs to be remembered is that hegemony is unstable because capitalism is unstable, and the white working class is currently in the process of being ejected from that cushy position in the hegemony. What's so dangerous about idpol here is that recently displaced middle classes tend to be a breeding ground for fascism. We need to be doing everything we can to recruit them to the left, because if we don't they will spawn a fascist movement. What absolutely won't work is idpol and tribalism, we need to make them realize their common cause with all workers regardless of race.
>I think you're setting yourself up for a nasty surprise when people don't set aside their idpol and join in a gross
It comes down to the fact that if worker's can't set aside identity politics they will be crushed by capital. Anti-idpol socialism isn't just a preference for me, its literally the only viable option.
>Utter horseshit. White workers have become increasingly dissatisfied with neoliberalism
Uh huh, is that why 40 million of them 40 for Trump, and another 40 million voted for Hillary. Oh wait Trump mumbled something about trade so that's "the real reason" they voted for him. It wasn't like there were any candidates with pro worker platforms like Jill Stein.
Oh that racial demagoguery, that was just peripheral even though his approval rating soar when ever he tries to ban Muslims or something like that.
Oh look, we have literal concentration camps that go all the way back to the Obama administration with babies being left in unchanged diapers for over 3 weeks. Oh look at all the appalled white people at this state of affairs!
Oh wait their actually ambivalent or outright hostile to people like AOC and Anarchists that tried to draw attention toward it.
Nigga neoliberalism has been destroying worker gains for 40 years. I've been hearing this stupid shit from white apologists for that long. Oh white people really unhappy with Regan, Bush I, Bush II etc. Every fucking time they vote for the same liberal bullshit. At least Democrats fucking lie to their base about their neoliberalism, white people froth at the mouth to uphold white supremacy and will sell any worker rights that aren't nailed down as long as black people get it worse.
What's horseshit is that someone white people are different "this time". Oh and the polls show Trump has a good shot at winning 2020. So much for all this white disaffection for neoliberalism
>Deliberately undermining working class solidarity hurts the revolution yes.
>Hurting white people's feelings = hurting the revolution.
I guess white people voting for neo liberals to protect their housing value doesn't do anything to hurt the revolution right?
*Uh huh, is that why 40 million of them voted for Trump
>Find me a single post denying the existence of structural racism.
>There's not such thing as lying by omission.
>There's not such thing as dog whistles like IDPOL!, if you can't find a single post that literally says "I deny systemic racism" I win.
>Uh huh, is that why 40 million of them 40 for Trump, and another 40 million voted for Hillary. Oh wait Trump mumbled something about trade so that's "the real reason" they voted for him. It wasn't like there were any candidates with pro worker platforms like Jill Stein.
Right because blacks came out in their millions to vote for fucking Jill Stein.
>Oh that racial demagoguery, that was just peripheral even though his approval rating soar when ever he tries to ban Muslims or something like that.
That's not peripheral, it's a direct consequence of the internalized bourgeois ideology of all American workers, but especially white ones. I'm not denying reactionary and racist tendencies among white workers, my point is that these tendencies can only be overcome by appealing to the common interests between white and black workers. This is a dangerous time, when the displaced white middle class will be courted by fascism. The ONLY way to defeat it and capitalism is to win them over. Saying that it won't work is at odds with the facts, since the socdem candidates like Bernie have found broad appeal across racial lines. This is proof that only a worker-centric message can unite the two.
And where are all the black votes for socialists? You're talking as if there is some great revolutionary consciousness among black workers when in reality they've been voting for the same neoliberal democrats that rust belt and union whites have been voting for. Ask a black person how they feel about Bill Clinton or Obama they'll probably say they love them even though they're getting fucked by them.
What lying by omission? Find me a single poster on here who won't enthusiastically recognize the existence of structural racism and affirm their opposition to it. You're just a braindead Sakai-tier radlib identitarian who can't comprehend that your interests are the same as people's who are a different colour than you. Try reading some actual black Marxist theory for a change…
>"And we understand. You know a lot of people have hang-ups with the Party because the Party talks about a class struggle. And the people that have those hang-ups are opportunists, and cowards, and individualists and everything that's anything but revolutionary. And they use these things as an excuse to justify and to alibi and to bonify their lack of participation in the real revolutionary struggle. So they say, "Well, I can't dig the Panther Party because the Panthers they are engrossed with dealing with oppressor country radicals, or white people, or hunkies, or what have you. They said these are some of the excuses that I use to negate really why I am not in the struggle."
>We got a lot of answers for those people. First of all, we say primarily that the priority of this struggle is class. That Marx, and Lenin, and Che Guevara end Mao Tse-Tung and anybody else that has ever said or knew or practiced anything about revolution, always said that revolution is a class struggle. It was one class–the oppressed–those other class–the oppressor. And it's got to be a universal fact. Those that don't admit to that are those that don't want to get involved in a revolution, because they know that as long as they're dealing with a race thing, they'll never be involved in a revolution. They can talk about numbers; they can hang you up in many, many ways, but as soon as you start talking about class, then you got to start talking about some guns. And that's what the Party had to do."
t. Fred Hampton
>You're just a braindead Sakai-tier radlib identitarian who can't comprehend that your interests are the same as people's who are a different colour than you.
This same stupid ass idealist fucking strawman. No nigga, I can't comprehend white people who are PROPERTIED to the tune of trillions of dollars and cashing out that equity to even more TRILLIONS of dollars every doing anything but protecting the status quo.
And yes because of a lloooooonnnggg history of colonialism, Jim Crow, Red lining, Drug War and Prison slave labor, white people are the only ones with property.
>b-b-b-b-b-b-but if we criticize white people they'll turn fash. Look at how socialist they can be when someone palatable is put in front of them like Bernie.
LMAO, Bernie's foreign policy is that OF A FUCKING NEOCON!
He's fucking Lyndon Johnson 2.0. Yeah, he'll push for labor concessions domestically, but he'll push the shit in of every brown prole overseas.
You kidding with this, you uphold BERNIE SANDERS as proof white people can turn left!
Nigga white people have been fascists since the fucking 60's.
You're some dumbass Chapo listening that thinks white people largely absolved themselves of racism because they were alive when the Civil Rights act was passed. That shit was passed INSPITE OF WHITE PEOPLE. And it was an explicit strategy to campaign for change IN SPITE OF WHITE PEOPLE.
White people WILL NEVER BECOME REVOLUTIONARY without the destruction of white supremacy first. It's kept them unrevolutionary since this land got first colonized lol.
>And where are all the black votes for socialists?
>The experiences of political agitation of blacks and whites are totally equivalent guise.
All the black socialists have been suppressed. And white people are AOK with it. Look at all the fucking Black Lives Matters leaders that "committed suicide". They weren't even fuckign socialists, they just wanted a basic concession, have the police violently oppress us as little as white people. And white people absolutely lost their shit. You had WHITE 3 percenters beating feet down there to suppress the black uprising. When's the last time BLACK people have come outta fucking nowhere to help cops suppress a labor or police brutality demonstration?
>whites
>spared enslavement
>owning real estate
Whites are an ethnic group of ambiguous and changing definition*, slaves and landlords are classes. Your post is like saying rectangles can't be blue since you have seen many blue circles.
If you don't want them to get a higher viewcount, make that a webm.
>white people who are PROPERTIED to the tune of trillions of dollars
If only there was a political theory about people with private property 樂
*And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth. Benjamin Franklin
File: 6bea12d07deabb1⋯.jpeg (118.05 KB, 720x899, 720:899, A96811A2-F456-4AA0-91AE-A….jpeg)
File: 99e45f2a5abc481⋯.jpeg (113.86 KB, 720x730, 72:73, 62F3EA07-84F6-4A59-B905-2….jpeg)
It's a cabal of Gonzaloites and radlibs who believe in woke ethnostates.
It's a weird mashup of the half-remembered """Maoist""" ideology of a glorified Peruvian drug cartel with woke burger and leaf social media "politics" with no consistency or theory beyond what gets you the most likes and shares from contrarian white guilt liberals.
And thus we get this where we pretend that we're ever going to deport nearly all of the Western Hemisphere's 1 billion population back to the old world, and act like everyone in said old world just popped out of the ground in their current homeland and that, for instance, most of western and Central Europe wasn't once Celtic lands conquered and settled by the Romans and Germanic tribes, nor will you hear them claim that the Japanese need to give their islands back to the Ainu, because such opinions wouldn't gain them social media credit, and what's even the point of politics if it doesn't gain you the respect and approval of a bunch of sanctimonious windbags on the internet in a pointless wokeness rat race with each other?
>Whites are an ethnic group of ambiguous and changing definition*, slaves and landlords are classes. Your post is like saying rectangles can't be blue since you have seen many blue circles.
WHITE PEOPLE ARE BEING PAID TRILLIONS TO BE RACIST
How is that '''ToTaLlY ImPoSiBiLe" because some idealist metaphor about blue triangles and purple dildos.
Is it possible to define a race, then payoff said race so they won't fight capitalism, and tell said race if they don't stop minorities from trying getting out from even worse oppression they won't get their payoff anymore.
White people have and will fight to the death to defend white supremacy. They will fight to keep their 100k in housing appreciation and 500k 401k and they don't give a fuck about workers, even themselves, as long as they have that.
>If only there was a political theory about people with private property 樂
This is a new wrinkle. Homes are personal property that produce profits and money like private property. And many white people have straight up rentals, and with rent as high as it is they are petite bourgeois. The entire financial system is built to favor them as well, so un propertied white people aren't being completely unreasonable in their belief that they could "climb the property ladder" in the future.
>WHITE PEOPLE ARE BEING PAID TRILLIONS TO BE RACIST
Damn dude, where do I get my racism bux?
Buy a home, if you're white you're way more likely to have the equity in a previously owned property to do so.
Dude, like all the real estate being owned or having equity being drawn from is totally not making white people anti-revolutionary and racist. Nuh-uh, just gotta word it right to make them give up their entrenched economic position lol.
Also, this is literally just near-Hotep tier black nationalist bullshit with a very, very thin layer of "Marxist" paint. You conflate an ever thinner and smaller caste of propertied suburbanites with white people writ large, while also pretending that people of other races can't or don't have this sort of property investment. Tell me, why do you think a black bourgeois or suburbanite is "revolutionary", while a white wage worker who rents is somehow invested in the capitalist system?
Come join me in the rust belt giga nigger
I'm white and I dont own property. In fact, most of this property you're putting so much ideological stock into is little more than a debt trap.
>No nigga, I can't comprehend white people who are PROPERTIED to the tune of trillions of dollars and cashing out that equity to even more TRILLIONS of dollars every doing anything but protecting the status quo.
White workers aren't propertied by definition you twat. If they were then they wouldn't be working class. Your position only makes sense if you unironically believe that there are no white workers.
>You kidding with this, you uphold BERNIE SANDERS as proof white people can turn left!
Says the guy who cited Jill Stein as an example of a "leftist" candidate. The fact is that Bernie, AOC, etc. all represent the re-emergence of the worker's movement in the US for the first time in 40 years. Obviously it hasn't fully developed yet, and so it expresses itself as social democracy rather than proper socialism. However its the first seed from which a proper socialist movement will grow, just as the communist movements of Europe emerged from more moderate movements like the Chartists and Luddites. The presence of millions of white people in this socdem movement is proof of the possibility of them taking up a position alongside blacks in the new worker's struggle, just as they did in the past.
>White people WILL NEVER BECOME REVOLUTIONARY without the destruction of white supremacy first.
White supremacy is a product of capitalism, and capitalism can only be overthrown through a strong and united working class. In other words, racism can only be defeated through socialism, and socialism can only happen through solidarity. Solidarity and idpol can't coexist, therefore idpol is reactionary.
>All the black socialists have been suppressed. And white people are AOK with it.
So are black people. In 99% of cases blacks are just as complacent as whites.
>if you're white you're way more likely to have the equity in a previously owned property to do so.
That just means that whites are more likely to be labour aristocrats and petty bourgeois. In other words, their reactionary tendencies come from their class position, not their race. Not only this but there are millions of white Americans who don't own homes and are thoroughly working class.
This tbh
>Also, this is literally just near-Hotep tier black nationalist bullshit with a very, very thin layer of "Marxist" paint.
Pul-leaze, you just say that because you're spooked by white spooks. For a board that says racism doesn't matter, or will be completely subsumed by a class war, all you honkies sure get riled up at anyone that criticizes them.
>You conflate an ever thinner and smaller caste of propertied suburbanites with white people writ large,
It's not small, and the majority of homeowners are white, and they have by far the largest amount of equity in real estate.
>while also pretending that people of other races can't or don't have this sort of property investment.
I don't, it's just neglibable, I know plenty of black homeowners and petite bourgeoisie that are MAGA supporters. It's just that they became homeowners INSPITE of racism, not because of it like white people. The difference being is because property ownership is so racialized it neutralizes revolutionary sentiment in non propertied whites as well.
Need proof? Trapeze on down to /pol/, ask how many of them are homeowners. The vast majority are precious as hell, much less homeowners, with a 1% that are actually petite bourgeoisie. There's no black equivalent to /pol/ much less TWO of them on both 8chan and 4chan AND GAB AND several dozen think tanks AND Trump etc, etc.
The class traitors are white people. Sorry if that hurt your spooked feelings.
>I'm white and I dont own property. In fact, most of this property you're putting so much ideological stock into is little more than a debt trap.
Does your family own property? Did white people vote in Trump….Bush II…. Bush….Regan? Why'd they do that? They were all unabashed neolibs? Were they just stupid, or were they doing it to protect their own short sighted self interests?
Average white family equity is 100k vs 3k for blacks. That's the reason why the state preys on blacks and not whites, not because you personally don't own land nimrod.
*The vast majority are precarious as hell
>It's not small, and the majority of homeowners are white
It doesn't matter if the majority of homeowners are white. What matters is whether or not the majority of white people are homeowners.
>It's just that they became homeowners INSPITE of racism, not because of it like white people.
Lmao do you think that porkies just handed a middle class existence to white workers on a silver platter? How do you think the white working class became middle class? Was it just given to them? Of course not, they formed militant labour movements and fought for it, and it didn't come at the expense of black people, but at the expense of the bourgeoisie. The exclusion of blacks from a middle class existence was the product of racism to be sure, but their exclusion wasn't a product of the progress that white workers made.
>The fact is that Bernie, AOC, etc. all represent the re-emergence of the worker's movement in the US for the first time in 40 years.
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Once one of them cancels student debt all those white millennials are going to become Reganite Republicans.
Oh wow, Medicare for all, you mean the thing that EVERY FUCKING FIRST WORLD COUNTRY ALREADY HAS. Wow, real socialist project you got there.
I'm not spooked I'll support any worker concession they MAY produce, and eat my goddamn keyboard in penance.
But more than likely you're going to get some cucked Obamacare style compromised to all hell concession and have it taken away in the next Republican administration.
Didn't you claim that Jill Stein was revolutionary or something? Because the black caucus of the Green Party voted *against* their anti-capitalist amendment. And even if you don't think Sanders is revolutionary enough, the Black Belt was completely in the pocket of *Clinton*. So, yeah, muh black and brown people are completely revolutionary so long as you ignore all the times they're reactionary, liberal, and motivated more by superficial, symbolic cultural issues rather than class consciousness, which is the case far more often than not.
>>If only there was a political theory about people with private property 樂
>This is a new wrinkle.
Are you retarded on purpose?
>The entire financial system is built to favor them [whites] as well
There are people that live in countries that are almost 0 % black. Are you saying that these countries have a different economic system?
I don't think most decolonialists actually want to deport the non-indiginous populatio back to europe, the political demands are just what everyy communist should support, things like returning land, reparations, etc.
However they still insist, at least rhetorically, to make 'decolonialism' front and center of their revolutionary movement, and yeah that is just woketardery meant to be as contrarian and edgy as possible.
Most of the very, very rich people in this country are white, which skews the numbers. I don't think most white people have anything close to 100k in equity. You know, the average income is also supposed to be nearly $60k when according to the SSA's own numbers, 78% of American workers earn less than that.
https://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/netcomp.cgi?year=2017
Learn to read m8. I'm not saying that Bernie and AOC are revolutionaries or socialists, I'm saying that their social democratic movement is the first worker's movement in the US in 40 years. Revolutionary movements with proper class consciousness never emerge fully formed from nothing, they emerge as utopian, idealist, etc. and develop through struggle into a real revolutionary force. The movement that AOC and Bernie represent is the first foundation on which the 21st century worker's movement will be built, and the presence of whites in this movement even at this early stage indicates that they will be an active part of it.
>Didn't you claim that Jill Stein was revolutionary or something?
No, I said she was also talking about unfair trade deals like NAFTA. Trump talking about NAFTA is what white racist apologists always trot out as a rational to why so many white people voted for Trump, an unapologetic racist.
>Because the black caucus of the Green Party voted *against* their anti-capitalist amendment.
And 40 million people voted for Trump, more voted for Bush 1 and 2, Regan, Nixon etc. Black people can be anti-revolutionary too, but to up hold some nobody caucus in some nobody party is just laughable.
>And even if you don't think Sanders is revolutionary enough, the Black Belt was completely in the pocket of *Clinton*.
No it wasn't, Clinton got the lost turn out of her base. And WHITE REPUBLICANS have been Gerrymandering districts and stripping black people of votes FOR 40 YEARS. So eat a dick you spooked white supremacist fuck. Go back to /pol/ and turn as fash as you can, IDGAF!
> So, yeah, muh black and brown people are completely revolutionary so long as you ignore all the times they're reactionary,
I didn't ignore it, you just got so butt hurt about someone saying mean things about your white spook you just assumed it.
>which is the case far more often than not.
lol no, hey where's the equivalent of "Black Lives Matter" from white people? It's not like cops don't shoot white people right? It's like white people want a comparative advantage, and not necessarily a reduction in state oppression. hmmmmmm but how could that be!
>There are people that live in countries that are almost 0 % black. Are you saying that these countries have a different economic system?
Nigga, it's already been proven that whites have far easier access to credit and are far more likely to already have property. Holy shit, just STFU already you fucking dunce. Capitalism doesn't operate along an orthodox Marxist paradigm, it's MORE than capable of treating some proles better than others.
*No it wasn't, Clinton got the lost because she couldn't turn out her base.
You realize that a key part of the Democrat base was unionized white workers in the rust belt right? Part of the reason why they lost in 2016 was because they failed to mobilize this demographic.
>>>If only there was a political theory about people with private property 樂
>>This is a new wrinkle.
>Are you retarded on purpose?
Fine, then every home owner is a petite porky. They buy homes at lower prices, then sell them at higher owns, all built by workers getting paid peanuts.
It all happens in slow motion over the course of years but regardless the dialectics are the same. I think it's a little more nuanced but whatever.
>You realize that a key part of the Democrat base was unionized white workers in the rust belt right?
You do realize that unions have been irrelevant since at least the 80's right? You do realize unions are irrelevant because of white people voting for neolibs for 40 years right?
I don't understand your reasoning. You consider white support for the Republicans to be proof of their reactionary tendencies, and white support for the Democrats doesn't change this. At the same time, you insist that blacks are revolutionary despite the fact that they almost universally vote Democrat. This doesn't make any sense. So voting Dem is revolutionary when blacks do it but not when whites do it?
Just answer the question: Are you saying that these countries have a different economic system? Yes or no.
Btw. even though there is anonymity between ordinary posters interacting with each other, mods can see what else you have posted, so I suggest you drop the charade.
Okay, let's get one thing straight. Most people do not vote in this country. If "did not vote" was a candidate, they would have won in a landslide for just about every election in living memory.
And I'm not talking about Clinton vs Trump, I'm talking about the primary. Overwhelmingly, black people voted for Clinton. Far from being revolutionary, they don't even have a particularly strong or consistent support for left-liberalism. Yeah, a majority of whites who voted at all voted for Trump, but it's not like voting for the blue neoliberal imperialists rather than the red neoliberal imperialists means you're about to go lead a communist revolution.
But yeah, sure, Black people are the most revolutionary and class conscious group ever just so long as you ignore the mountains of evidence to the contrary and pretend that the entire black population was in the Black Panthers.
>I don't understand your reasoning. You consider white support for the Republicans to be proof of their reactionary tendencies,
>and white support for the Democrats doesn't change this.
What?! No. Democrats are neolibs. Neoliberalism at least nominally, protects propertied white people's interests.
>At the same time, you insist that blacks are revolutionary despite the fact that they almost universally vote Democrat.
The black vote is so stupendously suppressed via gerrymandering, ex-cons barred from voting, and just straight fraud that the black vote is not indicative of probably anything.
Regardless blacks vote for dems for a varitey of reasons that have nothing to do with the support of neoliberalism. For one Dems straight out lie to them, blacks often don't have the resources or education to follow the actual policies dems enact. Blacks are spooked by racist republicans who DO WIN when dems lose, and many republicans are barely a step away from advocating apartheid, so blacks are arguable forced to vote dem.
And finally blacks vote dem because they're not revolutionary, BUT are not ACTIVELY thwarting revolution like WHITES ARE.
Again, show me the black equivalent of /pol/, of Trump (as in the candidate got elected), of Turning point USA, of Fox News. Doesn't fucking exist whitey. Maybe you could argue that blacks would just become the new whites, and that's actually an argument that I'm sympathetic to, but I'll be damned if I'll let you revisionist argue that whites are keeping revolution from fomenting now.
>This doesn't make any sense. So voting Dem is revolutionary when blacks do it but not when whites do it?
I never said that. Like ever.
*but I'll be damned if I'll let you revisionist argue that whites aren't keeping revolution from fomenting now.
>Just answer the question: Are you saying that these countries have a different economic system? Yes or no.
Same system, but used to TREAT DIFFERENT PROLES DIFFERENTLY. You do realize that the state can fuck over some people harder than others right?
You do realize a bank and lend to some people and not other right? Even if they are both proles?
>Btw. even though there is anonymity between ordinary posters interacting with each other, mods can see what else you have posted, so I suggest you drop the charade.
I know that, I couldn't care less about social climbing or building a consensus on this board. I post multiple times because I have thoughts after I post. I'd reedit old posts to keep it from looking like multiple people if I could.
I do this because I enjoy seeing the cyrpto fash sympathies come out of leftypol anons. And bashing white people for being provable reactionary pieces of shit for 100+ years is GUARANTEED REPLIES
>The black vote is so stupendously suppressed via gerrymandering, ex-cons barred from voting, and just straight fraud that the black vote is not indicative of probably anything.
Except if you break down the statistics, blacks still overwhelmingly support the democrats.
>For one Dems straight out lie to them, blacks often don't have the resources or education to follow the actual policies dems enact.
So if black support for the Dems and neoliberalism can be chalked up to propaganda and deception then why can't white working class support for Republicans be explained in the same way? Why is one false consciousness but the other is the product of a genuinely reactionary character?
>And finally blacks vote dem because they're not revolutionary, BUT are not ACTIVELY thwarting revolution like WHITES ARE.
The Dems and liberalism in general are actively thwarting revolution, and black support helps them do it.
>Again, show me the black equivalent of /pol/, of Trump (as in the candidate got elected), of Turning point USA, of Fox News.
It's called liberal idpol, and it infests the American left and black politics. Obviously it's not as reactionary as /pol/, but it's just as bourgeois and just as opposed to Marxism.
>same system
And the system is capitalism. Since you admit that both the ethnically homogeneous and the heterogeneous country have capitalism, you also admit by logical implication that if tomorrow all racism vanished in the heterogeneous country, that would not make capitalism go away; and to you it would be the most important and happiest thing you can imagine, meaning you admit to not having an anti-capitalist position. Pointing at some country and saying it is ethnically pretty homogeneous and that therefore there is nothing that could be fundamentally criticized about it – yes, they do have classes and human sacrifice to appease their gods, but it's all one big happy family (bonus points for not being white) – is about as far from the left as one could get.
Anonymous 07/12/19 (Fri) 00:25:28 No.2938779
I love her stupid face
File: 56716a5375e38bb⋯.jpg (68.71 KB, 743x1024, 743:1024, class-identity-diagram.jpg)
Look at the diagram in (pic) to understand the objection to identity politics
As as far as people flipping out about the picture with the white identity-group & dead hobo, not having any privilege goes, is because of the cultural hierarchies that are being justified with claims to victimhood. Black identity-group people are statistically more likely to being victimized based on structural racism, however in the particular case a white-identity-group person can also be a victim while a black identity-group person can be an oppressor. Pointing this out breaks mechanism for cultural hierarchy, and that is what the conflict is about in this comment thread is about.
Further more race-indentity does not seem to have biological reality, and the vast majority of people have mixed ethnic heritage, even if this isn't always apparent, which is why most ethnic categorisations aren't accurate either. This leaves race-identity as an identity based mostly on some arbitrary body features, as a category this originated from the slave trade centuries ago. I see no reasonable case to accept categories tailored to slave merchant interests. This is where the accusation of race essentialism comes from, you cannot fully explain stuff with this category. The power dynamics here are the same ones that can be found in clan-society powerstruggle, in more ethnically homogeneous regions of the world these battles tend to be replicated based on religous-identity groups.
You could look at some other random biological feature like body height, and then you can find out that tall people are more likely to hold positions of power, you could also create a identity around that and crusade against discrimination based on heightism, demand a equal distribution of positions of power for short and tall people, we could have battles about cultural hierarchies and privileges based on height as well. We could even point out that Americans are relatively tall compared people living in most other regions of the world and attempt to explain imperialism with that. The fact is that there is a limited amount of political energy and we need it for class-struggle. If you doubt the priority of class then go compare the life expectancies of people based on class. the money privilege gap is deadly.
As for the discourse the personal insults are a sign of lacking argumentation.
To be fair communists have so far failed at comprehensively explaining how they will prevent structural racism, you can make the argument that Soviets were an order of magnitude less racist than for example Americans, and while the lower inequality and the lack of formal class society certainly did help with that, it might lack persuasiveness.
So the proposed diversity quota solution by liberals are flawed in 2 ways, they lead to bad representation where minorities are over-represented, and diversity can be gamed by what counts as category for a diversity quota. You could argue that wee needed a diversity quota for people with blond hair and green eyes, if you happened to have blond hair and green eyes to rig the selection process for a desirable position in your favour. However this is not futile because the material reality of this, is clan society power-struggle for the purpose of creating advantage for the in-group members at the expense of the out-group members of the clan, and this is a detectable pattern, now mind you that this is a fight against discrimination based on what people do and not based on what people are (doing vs being, big philosophical fight…) it is much easier to reduce racial bias when you focus on action, rather than being.
Just have a cybernetic direct-democracy (aka read Paul Cockshott) with some quotas based on regional areas that have had long-term problems with structural racism and all should be good. Plus add in universal living wages, worker-coops, high national & local investment to an eventual digital labor credit society and all will fall into place.
Even if Bernie won and there was a wave of AOCs following him into congress, they'd pass a bunch of half measure shit and get stymied by lobbyists and the feds. But what you said reminded me of something…
>Oh wow, Medicare for all, you mean the thing that EVERY FUCKING FIRST WORLD COUNTRY ALREADY HAS.
Yeah, the US really is lagging behind the rest of the world, with a disgruntled working class who's clearly fed up with the people in power, despite the huge land area and plentiful resources. The people are worn down from being used and abused, and are sick of being dragged into wars that help none of them and have a huge cost. Kind of reminds me of a certain other country about 100 years ago.
>To be fair communists have so far failed at comprehensively explaining how they will prevent structural racism, you can make the argument that Soviets were an order of magnitude less racist than for example Americans, and while the lower inequality and the lack of formal class society certainly did help with that, it might lack persuasiveness.
The anarchist argument is that biases like racism are only able to actualize when there's a hierarchy, when someone has power over someone else, i.e. judgment is up to personal discretion. This is a spectrum regarding how prevalent authority roles like this are, and how much power they have. The answer isn't so much "how do we eliminate this" but "how do we minimize this," since the former is probably next to impossible unless you have a society with no hierarchy at all.
>So the proposed diversity quota solution by liberals are flawed in 2 ways, they lead to bad representation where minorities are over-represented, and diversity can be gamed by what counts as category for a diversity quota.
It also papers over the problem. Putting women in the boardroom doesn't take women off the street corner, but people think it's a win.
>You could argue that wee needed a diversity quota for people with blond hair and green eyes, if you happened to have blond hair and green eyes to rig the selection process for a desirable position in your favour. However this is not futile because the material reality of this, is clan society power-struggle for the purpose of creating advantage for the in-group members at the expense of the out-group members of the clan, and this is a detectable pattern, now mind you that this is a fight against discrimination based on what people do and not based on what people are (doing vs being, big philosophical fight…) it is much easier to reduce racial bias when you focus on action, rather than being.
Reminder that if you do a completely identity-blind assistance program for poor people, you will disproportionately help whichever groups are disproportionately poor in exact accordance with that disproportion. That doesn't answer for things like social mobility (which is a product of structural racism), but it's a clean solution to the problem of generational poverty. Structural racism affecting social mobility is, I argue, a product of bias and authority, and therefore will always exist where there is authority. To really drive the point home, black Americans have been shown in various studies to, on average, be biased against black Americans. Even if you put members of the in-group in a position to judge, you can't be sure it will help. The problem of structural racism is more the structure than the racism.
Never a huge fan of idpol tbh
File: f6b632b461b2d89⋯.png (36.22 KB, 800x600, 4:3, worker nigga.png)
Here's a shitty graph I made as comparision
File: dd06ff3c7ff6ff9⋯.png (20.4 KB, 800x600, 4:3, shit.png)
>Just have a cybernetic direct-democracy (aka read Paul Cockshott) with some quotas based on regional areas that have had long-term problems with structural racism and all should be good. Plus add in universal living wages, worker-coops, high national & local investment to an eventual digital labor credit society and all will fall into place.
That is true, however for political reasons you might want to have my proposed pattern detection system, for faster results and thus lower internal tensions.
>when there's a hierarchy
keep in mind that money is a hierarchy too.
>I argue, a product of bias and authority… The problem of structural racism is more the structure than the racism.
the underlying problem is exploitarianism, (surplus generated by workers does not return to society but can be privatized) If you attempt to abolish authority and structure you'll end up with the tyranny of structurelessness
>keep in mind that money is a hierarchy too.
No shit? I'm not arguing for market socialism or something.
>the underlying problem is exploitarianism, (surplus generated by workers does not return to society but can be privatized) If you attempt to abolish authority and structure you'll end up with the tyranny of structurelessness
Authority and structure are two different things. Being against structural racism and the particular structure of authority that enables it doesn't mean you're against any kind of structure. The critique is that you have to address the problem at a structural level, not that structure itself is a problem.