Is liberal idpol the number one threat to true leftism?

wew

Attached: 5a3a9081b0bcd5f7018b6300-750-563.png (750x563, 600.92K)

It's obvious that things are not going to be the same everywhere and the bigger treats in Eastern Europe aren't the same as in America or elsewhere.
I doubt that Eastern Europe have any mentally ill retards impairing worker's unions and leftist action. The same isn't true for America.

Those fringe internet personalities and students help shape the entire narrative. Enjoy not being able to organize because idpol retards think they are entitled to assume the control of every union out there and completely nullify any actual action in a direction that would accomplish something.

Relative to politics as a whole, they are fringe. Relative to leftism as any kind of organized movement, they hold 100% of leadership positions. The only possible ways forward are either purge and blacklist SJWs, or rebuild leftism from the ground up while ferociously blackballing them.

They are the #1 impediment, no question whatsoever.

The irony of this is that tankies are the ones who most autisticly cling to real politik but are so shit at it they alienate anyone who doesn't think Stalin dindu nuffin.

Most workers don't give a fuck about some tranny with 50 flags in their twitter bio or some students screeching about privilege from their 10k a semester campus, and counter-signalling said folks isn't going to make workers start caring about da reel laft either. What workers do care about is their rent and their wages, and if you care about the narrative go help them with that to establish the narrative instead of getting us into culture wars that no one gives a fuck about irl.
Virtually every leftist org is shit and is no longer fit for purpose, but the liberals infesting them are a symptom of this rather than the cause. If every liberal were purged they would be replaced by some other counter-revolutionary figures because virtually every leftist org has abandoned the class struggle in favor of activism of one sort or another. If we return to the class struggle and organize on a class basis for working class interests instead of the ideological activist lines that have defined leftist orgs for decades then we have either neutralized the liberal idpol peddled by liberals in existing orgs by making it irrelevant to the issues at hand or have morphed it into a tool to draw in those who would normally be swayed by liberalism into class struggle aimed at abolishing oppression instead of protesting it.
When you go on strike or try to form a tennant's union it isn't going to be some noodle armed rainbow hair who throws you in jail or harasses you without interference, it's going to be the state apparatus and the reactionaries who serve to protect porky. These are far more pressing impediments to actual class organization than the inhabitants of decrepit leftist organizations, because they are actually going to show up on the battlefield of class struggles instead of remain in bubbles where they can debate the dialectics of disney films and other such nonsense.

Attached: chadbakunin.png (2518x1024, 222.23K)

But the point is there's nothing special about idpol issues, just the behavior of people elevating it in this way. If you spend too much effort on combating idpol you may get tunnel vision and miss the harmful behavior being applied to some other set of issues.
And I'm answering that it's a related practice and that the original framing was too narrow.

Liberalism as a whole is the biggest enemy of the working class. IdPol is just a divide and conquer tactic perpetrated by porky; neoliberal college SJW kiddies are the useful idiots.

Obviously.

Look at something like (yes, I know it was pretty lame compared to wildcat unions or workplace recuperation, but still) OWS, a fresh new movement, with fresh new ground-up organization that was actually opening up a broad popular conversation across the normalfag political spectrum about financial regulation.

It was completely helpless against infiltration and sabotage by SJWs, the same will be true of any popular effort that doesn't explicitly filter them out.

OWS being derailed by SJWs is a pretty convenient story if you don't want to face the very real problems that contemporary leftist movements have.

It does if said "comrade" has a tantrum and tries to wreck the group every time some forgets that they're LARPing as a table. Or spends all the party funds on cocaine and prostitutes.

Like SJWs derailing everything.

This. The structural issues of the left's organizations and the legal system are of far more concern than the current spectacle of the sjw.

From the beginning Occupy was closer to an avant garde performance art than a class movement, even if SJWs were explicitly banned from coming in the devolution into an ineffective social club would have occurred. As I have said repeatedly the leftist orgs' susceptibility to sjw derailment is a symptom of their ailment as social clubs instead of organs of class struggle and purging SJWs will do nothing to fix this. To address this communists should organize militantly along a class basis for class issues, such organization will automatically filter out liberals unconcerned with class struggle and only leave proles whose well being depends on the success of class action.
Zig Forums calls us SJWs because we don't want to genocide anyone who isn't white and straight or establish state enforced monogamy and arranged marriages, should everyone but the unironic Nazbols who support such things be filtered out? Just like "leftist" or "socialist", "sjw" is an increasingly meaningless label that is a poor for identifying characteristics that would be helpful or harmful to a socialist movement, banning based on such a contestable standard is going to prevent a lot of proletarians from joining the class struggle.

Attached: brownqt.jpg (1000x1333, 179.78K)

Just fuck off

nod an arbumant xD

Attached: fmsumolyneux.png (414x441, 183.82K)

I'll agree there was a certain degree of this Astroturf-ness from the start via AdBusters, but OWS did have a coherent message, before being drowned out first by journalists' "no agreed platform" disinformation, then on the ground by wreckers.
"Intersectionality" is specifically CIA designed to crack such consensus, by wrapping SJW gibberish in a jacket of pseudo-class-consciousness.
They know they're full of shit. Call them "right-wing SJWs", and they'll immediately understand what you mean, whether or not they admit it to you. Heck, even the term "IdPol" by itself will immediately cause them to break cover in a fit of hysterical shrieking.
SJW is a sarcastic epithet, one that shouldn't have stuck around as the only name for them so long, but a less jocular alternative was never concocted, so it's the only concise term right now. It refers to a very specific clique of goons, their online offspring, and the cult of academics that influenced them, characterized by their distinctive tactics:

You're conflating postmodernism with stuff you don't like. My point isn't that these aren't actual harmful beliefs that people hold, but that you're blaming postmodernism because of popular right wing anti-intellectual narratives rather than reality.
Which postmodern critical theorists are into identity politics? Better question, which haven't explicitly argued against identity politics? In the broader discourse, people (admittedly on both sides) forget that Foucault warned against organizing around marginalized identities, because doing so only strengthens the oppression by allowing it to put its stamp on individuals. And when they blame "postmodern feminism" for the rise in inflammatory androphobic articles by radfems (the liberal answer to marxist feminism), they forget that Butler, the "leader" of the postmodern feminists, said that feminism organized around womens' interests had served its purpose.
Again this is the opposite of the truth, and comes from a popular misconception about postmodern art/literary criticism. Because postmodernists like to play with situations where reality is ambiguous, or constructed in ways that defy our preference for ordered rationality, people think they are in the same camp as modern artists like Cormac McCarthy or the surrealists, who sought to challenge established definitions of art. Postmodern writers and artists see themselves as "post-" all that, and seek to use the freedom in form brought about by the modernists to create works that are meaningful in ways that weren't possible under the past rigid rules of high art and literature. They aren't against objective meaning or the speaker's meaning, just the idea that these things are straightforward.
A broken clock is right twice a day, and this word salad contains an example of a counterproductive tendency of campus leftists that was actually influenced by postmodernism.
Privilege theory as we know it was built up by mediocre sociologists who needed to mystify something obvious in order to crank out some papers. The position of most postmodern academics has always been that the basic concept of privilege theory is correct, but that it's not generally useful as practiced. Many, if not most individuals defy easy universalizing categories like white/nonwhite, straight/gay, etc. So the role of the postmodern theorist is (oversimplifying) to challenge the idea that you can measure how privileged an individual is by ticking some boxes.

...

No, the point is that "true postmodernism" has been going on for decades and demonstrably has nothing to do with half of the shit the right brands as postmodernism. They do it because they want to attack academics while appealing to normies who see the university as a noble institution, and the word "postmodernism" conveniently sounds like a new and subversive force.

And lacked the strategy or resources to result in anything more than what it did. Saying "Wall Street is fucked up and needs to be reigned in" is a good rallying cry but lacking a plan of action and ability to execute the plan it just devolves into some performance art larping as resistance whether a particular brand of liberals are there or not.
Stop blaming everything on the feds, you sound like a tankie and ignore the deeper issues with the left, like why such liberalism is adopted on the scale it is, by placing blame solely on an outside force. The reason such consensus is cracked has more to do with the left becoming an activist led movement than the issues such activists pursue. By returning to a class movement we remove the material cause for adopting liberal positions and tactics, the focus on "activism" rather than class action. Any leftover intersectionality will be converted to something similar to what Engels wrote about in the origin book, a tool to understand how capitalism spawns and reinforces other oppressive hierarchies that communists can use to draw people away from liberalism and to a movement aimed at loosing their chains.
The people that believe whites are facing genocide because the girl they liked fucked a black guy or their sister married a mexican are more than capable of holding stupid beliefs.
That's your definition, if I was to go out to twitter I'd wager I'd get significantly different answers than that even if solely sampling the "anti-idpol left".

Attached: angelica.jpg (525x700, 88.7K)

Gender is a spook. Your claim that there are two is a form of idpol.
Gender is a spook, race is a spook, countries are a spook. None of them actually exist.

Also, political positions isn't a spectrum. It's a set of attributes, some of which are gradient, some of which are boolean.

Simpletons, all of you.

Gender isn't a spook. It's just the same as sex and determined by your genes, not how you're feeling a certain day.

Abstractions don't exist per se, but they still might be useful in describing actually existing things.

This. It's time to abolish the concept of identity.

That's sex. Gender refers to the social roles attributed to/imposed on the sexes.

I had gender with your mum lmao

Attached: quote-what-is-called-objectivity-scientific-for-instance-in-which-i-firmly-believe-in-a-given-jacques-derrida-223791.jpg (850x400, 76.09K)

With no plan of action how to get such implemented or the ability to do so, demands are meaningless without such.
GG died because it had nothing besides a call against corruption in gaming with one effective campaign against advertisers. That it, like Occupy, ended up being a performance spectacle to launch the careers of culture warriors instead of a movement to further material interests isn't a coincidence, it's the natural result of activism.
Neither is claiming every anti-USSR was a fascist controlled counter-revolution because the US apparatus voiced critical support for them, not being vague doesn't make it valid.
Critical Theory and Postmodernism came from yuropoor decades before and intersectionality has its roots in black women from around the time of the 1st wave feminist pushing for white women's issues. It's ludicrous to declare all these trends to be the work of an outside force when it can be easily understood as a result of trends in academia responding to present conflicts and failures(such as the rise of fascism, the ineffectiveness of liberalism at preventing fascism, or the reveal of the USSR as highly repressive) and the nature of the academy as a conservative institution. By pinning leftist orgs adopting such bad ideas on a nefarious outside force like the feds you are absolving the leftist organizations for their poor choices by making them look like victims of a deception as opposed to willingly making tactical errors to remove the left from class struggle into the confines of the academy. In doing this you leave the weaknesses in tact for similar poor decisions to be made in the future.
There is none, socialists shouldn't pursue activism but class action. When I speak of activism I am not meaning doing anything irl at all, I am specifically referring to the existing tendency of leftists seeing themselves as a professional activist separate from the group they advocate for. Here's a good pamphlet explaining what I mean: libcom.org/library/give-up-activism
And yet it continues on and has some truth to it in terms of those uninitiated to socialism identifying as middle class or working class and making such identity a key part of themselves. The same applies to other non-intrinsic qualities, like hobbies, subcultures, or ideology which people build an identity around and engage in politics related to such.
If we are to take this idealism to be true, then why is your response to the arguments raised in groups by "pomo crit theory idpollers" to purge them from any organization rather than debate them within the orgs they are currently apart of or events they show up at? Why bother preventing them from spreading their ideology when you can debate the progressive stack in the marketplace of ideas?
If the only thing you've got are arguments, then what are you going to do when giant media platforms completely ignore or strawman socialists while giving consistent time to varying degrees of the reactionary right?
They consistently feature calls for "fair wages" or similar, "fair" itself is subjective and when calling for "fair" they are making accusations of their opponents being unfair. If your organization has clauses preventing membership from engaging in such, you will be viciously accused of hypocrisy by outside forces looking to undermine the action.

Attached: JC.jpg (1440x810, 325.64K)

Not to the absurd degree of burgerstani grievance academics, but reminder continental philosophy too was substantially promoted by the CIA as part of an effort to crowd out hardline socialists from academics and politics.
I agree blame exists on both sides, but without massive amounts of funding poured into them, IdPol wouldn't have had such a powerful presence. The greatest danger is specifically the fact that such people aren't recognized by leftists as enemy agents, like a disease failing to elicit an immune response.
That doesn't really fix the problem, in that people from the same class, but lacking in (or opposed to the idea of!) class consciousness will dilute the direction of any effort.
Also:
>every single fucking shallow lifestylist "cause" mentioned in that article, whether or not they were strictly examples for the sake of argument
Holy shit the '90s British left was putrid cancerous trash
That spook seems mostly confined to places like England, where it's more a relic of the precapitalist divide between nobility and commoners.
The problem isn't just their ideology, but their behavior. It's like the difference between armchair nazis giving speeches, and neofash actually carrying out pogroms.

Also, of course, since what we're talking about is inside left activist orgs rather than the broader public sphere, where their class collaborationist rhetoric runs directly contrary to the stated partisan purpose of the org, it's a bit like an atheist group ejecting religious members point blanc.
Honestly, by most historical standards of enlightenment philosophy, the existence of media monopolies with any significant editorial control that are large enough to encompass basically the entirety of public discourse, whether giant newspapers or SNSs like Facebook, count as censorship inb4 Jim Profit Thought. That's the basis behind ideas like media nationalization, the fairness doctrine, and the equal time rule. Opening doors is wholly unlike closing them, for free expression.
That's just rhetorical puff. Union negotiations are about what we can get versus what our plausible threats make them willing to surrender, really politics in its most mechanistic form.

…
You're giving academics way too much credit, dude. This is a group of people who have had their "genius" validated by society with a Ph.D. As such they are largely incapable of mastering subtlety, much less intentional obscurity. If someone thought they could argue that feels>reals on a physical level, they would publish that if only for the notoriety, not try to somehow dogwhistle it with continental philosophy.

That's impossible to prove and relies on whatifism. What we can see is that what predated the prevalence of liberalism in socialist orgs was a retreat from class struggle to enter the academy and the arts, the result of which shifted focus away from proles as a class being revolutionary and to a social club mentality where leftism is something you did not out of material interest but because of morality or some other spook. It is this that liberal idpol was allowed to spring and the purge of liberal idpol leaves the situation open for a similar group to take root and focus on issues other than class, such as feel-good anti-imperialism or performance artistry against the more egregious issues brought on by capitalism. Only by returning to explicitly socialist class movements can we find ourselves organized in a way to abolish capitalism, anything else will keep us out of the class struggle and spinning our wheels over stupid shit.
If you see the bulk of sjws or liberals or anyone but the aut-right as enemy agents rather than confused proles then you've reached tankie tier delusion. If we get a class movement going we're going to get workers on board, a lot of them will be spooked to hell and we're going to have to work with those proles instead of relying on the tiny amount of anti-idpol socialists or even just socialists. By working within an explicit class movement we work together regardless of social views and build a radical base of workers ready to revolution, we're not going to get anywhere near that if we start a purity test most workers are going to fail because of spooks.
It's very strong in burgerland, where quite a few people will identify as "middle class" or "working class" or some weird hyphen class. In all cases it is an identity and translates to culture and politics like bougie niggas or blue collar rednecks.
Neofash are in the streets and they're attacking us while the cops watchor participate because they're allied with them. At this point that's more direct damage than any individual liberal idpoler or liberal idpol organization has been able to do.
So we shouldn't have debate between alleged socialists in socialist orgs? That goes way beyond democratic centralism in regards to organizational control fam.
We're not getting any doors opened for us, the law isn't on our side and isn't going to be fairly applied to us. As such I see no reason to value speech as an absolute good and have no problems advancing communism with whatever tactics are necessary.
And can be considered a "baseless accusation" to "use resulting outrage to overwhelm a target" and "accrue social power before any defense can be marshaled". If you're going to codify such standards into organizational rules then you're going to get called out for breaking them if even a wisp of hypocrisy is assumed.

Attached: chillyalunya.png (609x869, 694.43K)

Whose asshole did you pull that out of? Intersectionality was created accidentally by a lawyer in the eighties.

Du Bois.

Ah yes, W.E.B. Du Bois famous screed against the problematic cis-het white male shitlords. How could I forget?