They are funded by porkies to taint the left's image.
Great, now I'm going to have this crap in my recommended viewing list for a while.
The literal same argument can be applied to the growth of homosexuality and transsexuals.
The reason why mental illness in its true form exists outside this structure is that it's not profitable, i.e., the only profits turned from its mere existence are to proliferate it, though no one has ever said "I suffer from homosexuality" I tend to believe that homosexuals enjoy their condition. transsexuals are just a mutation of that enabled by capitalism. No one says "I enjoy being depressed" or "I enjoy having schizophrenia"
That this got you butthurt to post a paragraph is pathetic.
Are you referring to me? Because Tbh I really couldn't care less.
I already hate this guy. Wizards of the Coast (D&D publishers) only exist because they bought the IP to something popular, they're absurdly litigious for what they do and how their product works, and they keep making the product shittier with each iteration. And on top of that, the rainbow pandering bullshit gets used as a criticism shield while flooding the hobby with identity-obsessed attention whores and commercializing what used to be a pretty intimate social activity friendly to otherwise social outcasts. Wearing pride merch is shitty enough, but wearing pride merch from such a shitty company is repugnant.
Fucking this, Jesus Christ. Pic related. These fuckwits are literally acting out the straw man of the left used by people like Peterson. "Equality vs Equity" is a synonym for "Equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome" which has nothing to do with socialism.
Handwaving away arguments with smug sarcasm is not, in fact, a refutation.
Your wokeness is a state religion and you chastise the heretics who aren't worshippers. It's never surprising to see liberals throwing away their leftist values just to glorify the Church of Latter Day woketards. It is a fact that woke idpol was pushed by the US government to break up leftist protests and leftist organizations. It's also a fact that your state religion is endorsed by Porky and the US government.
Wowo you're really fighting capitalism by purchasing BurgerKingTM milkshakes and throwing them at centrist libdems like Sargon. Make sure to milkshake the anti-semite Jeremy Corbyn too, he said banks have too much power.
its not just us, its the west entirely. don't think you're exceptional.
How does the CIA having supported modern art and anti-soviet leftists mean that " today's crit theory SJWs to the PoMo continental theory gibberish" can be reduced to a CIA plot?
The soviet union was supported by a jewish banking dynasty (Aschberg's), does this mean that the soviet union was a plot created by jewish bankers?
Cultural marxism is an ideological phenomenon that is too broad, too deeply rooted and too much in tune with the zeitgeist, to be attributed to any ill-intended cabal.
Something they have miserably failed at, considering that SJW's view the U.S as the heart of whiteness in the colonialist-imperialist-white supremacist-patriachal-capitalist-neoliberal-xenophobic-ismphobic-phobicism system.
And they still don't want to revolt against it just change it like liberals. Meaning something definetly worked.
How does the CIA having supported modern art and anti-soviet leftists mean that " today's crit theory SJWs to the PoMo continental theory gibberish" can be reduced to a CIA plot? Because the two are still tightly bound together with the most modern versions of them, right up to SA being lousy with alphabet agency goons, and (as pointed out in the GamerGate propaganda pic that started this conversation) likely FBI subversion of OWS with SJWs.
Notice none of that actually challenges the transnational corporations making up the basis of capitalism today
I'm not seeing you participating in the assault on Washington either. Did the CIA cut your balls of? Did they create this board as well to divert focus from revolution to complaining about SJW's not being true communists? Might they even have created this thread to plant in your heads the idea of a CIA panopticon that will always be two steps ahead you, always rendering you impotent?
This might be true in the sense that intelligence agencies have always used internal divisions to create fractures, in the 60's they even supported maoists to create fractures in the soviet aligned communist parties. That they make use of the purity spiral inherent in marxism over who best understands marx/who is the most oppressed, does however not mean that they created it. Said by Slavoj Zizek on the capitalism incorporated broadcasting network.
We're on an incognito Mongolian shadowpuppetry forum, we know almost nothing about each other. My entire post was full of admissions, largely in their own words, that they did create it. Sure, I'll admit there's still enough national rivalry between porkies that Russia/China/Europe/USA will use parts of each others' countercultures as weapons, which is why Zizek and Cernovich are both on RT.
Also, if that was an attempt to use participation in capitalism, when capitalism is the present mode of production, as a mark of shame in the struggle against capitalism, pic related.
Hang on motherfucker, let me elaborate before you resort to accusations with subtextual ad hominem. The difference between the SJW's is that they don't advocate for the destruction of the US government, merely reform, impeachment, reestablishing, but never it's full abolition like some of us do.They rarely call out things for what they are and mostly blame problems entirely on people rather systems and the top who actually influence things. Our rhetoric is inherently different, they are not for revolution merely protest or infiltration at best.
>The state infiltrated social justice movements like they do every anti authoritarian movement even right wing ones so niggers and fags need to STFU about being shot and enslaved by the state and being a facto underclass. Lol more whitetarian burgers need a good fascist takeover before they'll ever shut up about their white spooks.
So it's for me to snitch on you and get your anarchist ass thrown in jail? I'll get elevated status with the state that I can consume later.
So it's okay to buy child sex slaves? Hey it's equally unethical right? No different than buying a fair trade orange amirite? Going to pay your mom to fuck an HIV positive man right now.
"The neoconservativism within the Left that seeks to discount the cultural can only always be another cultural intervention, whatever else it is. And yet the tactical manipulation of the distinction between cultural and economic to reinstitute the discredited notion of secondary oppression will only reprovoke the resistance to the imposition of unity, strengthening the suspicion that unity is only purchased through violent excision. Indeed, I would add that the understanding of this violence has compelled the affiliation with poststructuralism on the Left, that is, a way of reading that lets us understand what must be cut out from a concept of unity in order for it to gain the appearance of necessity and coherence, and to insist that difference remain constitutive of any struggle. This refusal to become resubordinated to a unity that caricatures, demeans, and domesticates difference becomes the basis for a more expansive and dynamic political impulse. This resistance to ‘unity’ carries with it the cipher of democratic promise on the Left."
–Judith Butler, Merely Cultural
There is no such thing as ethical consumption under capitalism≠All consumption under capitalism is equal The point of TiNSTaECuC is that there's no way to change all negative aspects of capitalism through ethical consumption or subversive control of the economy. For instance veganism often claims to be more eco friendly but for vegetables to be harvested multiple animals die in order for the crops to be protected and manufactured, often vegan products are made by corporations which still pollute and kill animals. It's purpose is to dispel the falsifiable liberal ideal of non violent change. This also doesn't mean you can take the rule to the extreme and start hiring hitmen willy nilly the opposite is true in fact, have no hopes in capitalism and be cautious of everything you do regardless of how it seems.
What you autists need to remember is that intelligence agencies don't create these figures and movements; they simply support and encourage dissidents or rival factions that already exist within the Left. Muh crit theory Frankenfurter School academics weren't invented, they were merely encouraged and given platforms by the CIA in order to score points against their geopolitical enemy. Likewise, factions within the RCP and other domestic communist movements already existed, the feds just leveraged their existence by encouraging plants to start struggle sessions and arguments that led to denouncements and splits.
Their differences of opinion are not de facto invalidated by the fact that they were "supported" by alphabet soup agencies. If you want to go down that rabbit hole, pretty much every socialist/communist movement was given aid or support by spooks of some kind. Because that's what intelligence agencies do - bet on both sides so they have leverage regardless of who wins, in order to maintain hegemony and the status quo.
Dismissing entire schools of thought solely because of alleged ties to spooks (without having actual arguments against them) is more an indictment of the impossibility of socialist democracy than anything.
Lol, white burgers desperately trying to protect white supremacy by gas lighting. Average assets of a white family is 100k vs 4k for black family. Is that fact a part of a religious belief system too? All of them? Was Martin Luther King and Malcom X Feds too? What about the black guy that said he got beat up by his boss I met at the EEOC? Fed too? Lol no, your white supremacy is supported by the state via redlining, job and education discrimination, credit, and the Federal Reserve putting trillions in equity into the pockets of landed white people. Your waifu deserved it. SEETHING
And yet so many workers lives have be uplifted by this exact kind of activism while you philosophical masterbate to diabetics.
There are a variety of reasons to condemn such behaviors, but "it involves participating in capitalism" isn't one of them, because EVERYTHING ANYONE DOES, at all times, is participation in capitalism, until capitalism is no longer the dominant mode of production.
Leaving aside the fact that they were not only brought to prominence as porky ops, but continue to this day to receive the overwhelming majority of aid, operating hand-in-glove as puppets of porky, our primary slam against them is they for are the most part not anticapitalist. Period.
These two facts, their position as porky's primary instrument of disruption within the left now, and their not being leftists at all, mean they must be treated as an alien element, purged root and branch from leftism.
That one quote in an image was not the sum of Stokely's political thought unfortunately. He got spooked as fuck not long after that.
The context following the soundbite you're probably referring to: lib.berkeley.edu/MRC/carmichael.html The man was dealing with a system of explicit, legally enforced racism and colonialism, not wholly tied to capitalism, which could be and was tackled under capitalism. He was and remained a lifelong personal friend of communists low and high around the world.
I will grant, however, that he did at times dip into the sort of unsavory separatist positions peddled by screwballs like Malcom X and Louis Farrakhan.
Zig Forums would not allow me inside the ethnostate and would call me mixed instead of white. Milkshaking obese centrist edgelords is nice political theatre but it's still just political theatre. Doesn't change the fact that capitalism is in bed with culture warriors, or the fact that culture warriors are propped up by the US government. see
MLK was assassinated because he was a communist with a message for all working people and not just poor blacks. Malcom X was in bed with rightwingers like George Lincoln Rockwell.
This is just Zig Forums rhetoric but you replaced 'da joos' with 'da mayos'. Who's white, by the way? What about discrimination against italians and Irish workers that happened in the past? What about asian americans having higher incomes than white americans, guess we gotta gulag all asians now right?
Gang warfare exists because it is propped up by the CIA drug trade. You fell for the distraction that it's whites vs. blacks in america. The black community, instead of blaming the US government for flooding their communities with crack and gang warfare, blame Irish autoworkers thousands of miles away.
The solution is to attack capitalism. It is not to crumble into sectarian racial infighting.
But how do you feel about leftoids adopting the "so funny XD irony" Zig Forums meme aesthetic?
If they're going to appropriate the LOGIC aesthetic then that makes it easier for us to argue against them with actual logic, since they at least support the premise unlike now where they think logic is a white supremacist colonial western construct and argue based on the received wisdom of lived expierence.
He became a full on black nationalist when the panthers collapsed (and for a bit while he was still with them).
Simple, hard hitting propaganda is more effective, unfortunately. Rational, long-form arguments only work on other critical thinkers, and that's if the other critical thinkers are arguing in good faith.
Radlibs will disavow leftism in favor of being woke, every time.
This isn't entirely bad though I've met some fine black nationalist socialist who share the same ideas, you just gotta convince them it's not whites who are the one's directly responsible.
Yeah, but the closest thing to a simple way of wrapping up this grammar school math I can think of, is something along the lines of the old "rising tide will lift all boats" line, along with pleas for class unity in the face of divisive idpol that does none of us any good.
Really, I think the best approach is just to keep hammering on the fact that more cishethuwitemaledevils are shat on than anyone else by basically every type of oppression, but what this means for minorities is that they have hundreds of millions of potential class allies in every fight against oppression they're waging.
I don't think you grasp the difference between relative proportions (a greater proportion of blacks are poor) and absolute numbers (a greater number of whites are poor).
Again, my point is that idpol-blind reforms, while they will help a larger number of whites, due to the disproportionate unfairness of much oppression, will they will also help a disproportionate fraction of blacks.
Where are you even getting these confusing numbers? There are a lot more than black or white 50,000 households in the US.
Slavov Zizek describes this as the "supposed otherness" from Lacan that is a strawman that validates your own views by his existence. You need to name actual politicians, philosophers, or activists that embody this whitetarian that supposedly exists.
Look in the second link, "Households by Race and Hispanic Origin of the Householder", and see the total nationwide figures for the year of the Federal Reserve article, 2016. 16,733 black and 99,400 white households. Multiply by the numbers from the Fed's article (.19 & .9, respectively), and voila.
Does this also apply to the "anti-idpol social democrats" who also fit the bill of being supported by the agency and crypto-capitalist?
Show me where the CIA, FBI, State Department, etc. are supporting or actively taking part in the advancement of proletarian class consciousness and anti-identitarianism with the specific aim of creating disruption and disunity within the left.
Again, I'm confused. There's gotta be at least 30 million households nationwide. Are these just the numbers that were surveyed?
Read the Excel spreadsheet if you like. There were a total of 125,819 American households in 2016, including the aforementioned numbers for black and white. The smaller numbers are those with a net worth of $0 or less, based on the percentages in the Fed's article.
Ah, I see your confusion. These numbers are in thousands, see the note at the top. So there were ~125,819,000 total households in 2016.
Ah, yeah, I just went back to check. What an idiot.
If we are going to take these as evidence that sjws are a cia psyop, why is reformism not treated the same way? Seems the agency didn't care about muh poc or muh practicality so much as they cared about pushing the left into particular forms of praxis and politics, namely electoralism and anti-ussr.
Yes, if only the Brezhnev-era Comintern was able to operate freely in NATO countries without significant ideological or cultural opposition, we would surely have communism by now.
Strawmen are fun, but you've dodged the question. If we are going to take these as evidence that sjws are a cia psyop, why is reformism not treated the same way? The agency was willing to support socdems against the USSR and radical leftism at home, so why do sjws get all the ire while reformists get ignored or even supported?
One, the original meaning, refers to people willing to use government and other mechanisms of the current system as a means (one among many) of dismantling capitalism, achieving socialism, and winning goodwill for such causes by decreasing the harm done capitalism does in the meantime.
The other refers to people that unironically believe "muh mix of both systems" is an ideal end-goal in and of itself, superior to pure socialism or "pure" capitalism. Those are the Rosa stabbers, because they (like SJWs) avowedly oppose the aims of socialism, and openly support capitalist ones, to the point of willingness in the most extreme circumstances to kill for their pathetic ideals.
My chosen praxes for achieving socialism are irrelevant to whether or not I am a socialist, a question decided entirely by my theoretical stance.
You at least strongly suggested that blindly supporting red fash was a prerequisite for socialism.
I will concede, however, that there have been instances where authentic socialist tendencies did receive aid from porky, but these were done not with the goal of disrupting broader left activism. Rather, as in Rojava, this is invariably done with the sole intent of using them as a weapon against geopolitical rivals that are common enemies to the left.
Remember that what I condemned SJWs for wasn't their backing (nor even their original creation) by porky. Rather, it was their not being socialists. Their nature as enemy catspaws only further damns them.
And again you've dodged. If we are to condemn sjws for not being real socialists (as well as a cia op), why does this not extend to reformists who were similarly backed by feds to combat the anti-capitalist left and whose proposals are fully compatible with capitalism? Answer just this question.
>why does this not extend to people that do not share your socialist ideology and are an entirely separate group from you who were similarly backed by feds to combat the anti-capitalist left and whose proposals are fully compatible with capitalism? I never said it didn't
And do we judge the sjws and reformists status as not socialist based on what they claim is their ideology or based upon their praxis?
If merely their praxis was wrong (and it is), that would simply mean they would have to alter their praxis. If, however, they forthrightly admit to having goals diametrically opposed to our own (which they are), that means they fall into the same ranks as any other political opponent.
Do they? I assume that the sjws you've been pontificating about are the ones who claim to be some sort of socialist rather than the yaaas queen liberals who are still mad about hilldawg losing. Are the former comrades or crypto-liberal wreckers looking to make the left capital friendly? Hold up here You realize that political opponets include those whose praxis is different from yours? If it did not, then the anarchists and social democrats would have never split the 1st international over the question of (proto) syndicalism or electoralism as the praxis to employ. Social-democracy and Anarchism in the International Workers Association is a very good account of this.
Calling oneself a socialist isn't enough to fall within the category. They explicitly deny the primacy of class, and the material basis on which class is inherently dysfunctional. Beyond fundamentally different aims and outlook, they are often embarrassing basic bitch kiddies clinging to lamestream conceptions of socioeconomics characterizing socialism as when gubmint does stuff, capitalism as when people buy and sell stuff, not understanding what property is, etc. Yeah, fair point. Perhaps a better way to put this is that they are not comrades or allies at all, but intentional class traitors knowingly fighting against our goals. As such, we can not work with them (let alone allow them inside our orgs) beyond the same realpolitik issue-by-issue logrolling we do with generic libs/cons/centrists, or even nazis.
I agree, which is why I apply the standard to reformists and find they come up short. Do they? I've heard quite a few say class is the reason for exploitation but still wind up endorsing shit praxis. If it isn't enough just to say you're a socialist then claiming class as the primary point of conflict isn't enough either, what matters is your praxis. I argue this also applies to reformists, whose view on class ignores the role hierarchy (in this case positions of power within the state) plays in class struggle. The focus on electing socialist politicians has historically resulted in socialist politicians maintaining the state, often against the working class, because it is in their interest as ex-workers who may not be proper bourgeoisie but are not proletarians in the same vein as police officers. This misunderstanding of class is as harmful to the goal of abolishing capitalism as anything the sjws possess. This also applies to the reformist. Hell it's where such notions come from, with the socdems including leninists declaring their reforms socialism. You are wrong, neither the sjw or reformist are intentional class traitors, they are unintentional class traitors whose well-intentioned praxis ends up hindering the emancipation of the proletariat. This is worse than a knowing wrecker, because they earnestly believe they are aiding the proletariat with counter-revolutionary praxis like more women representation or workers sitting on boards.
If you talk to them long enough they usually out themselves by admitting to a position that's incompatible with socialism. It becomes obvious if you talk to these people long enough that they are in fact simply rebelling against their parents by becoming what their parents hate - not actual socialists, but an image, a caricature of socialism.
And how is this worse than the other fags who paint their capitalism red?
Ask them if they think explicit idpol that was legislated out of existence decades ago is still an issue, and if implicit idpol that persists strictly due to capitalism will matter under socialism, you know, the "my revolution/your revolution" bullshit. >socdems including leninists declaring their reforms socialism. I could just as easily declare all violent revolutionaries to have as their motivation perpetual war and tyranny for the sake of sheer bloodshed, holding it to be a superior state compared with peace. Just as with reformists, this is historically true for the least scrupulous specimens such as Leninists, but not necessarily so. Reform of a system you aim to dismantle is not a goal, and the structure of the system itself is irrelevant to your goal, as such irrelevant to your ideology.
Indeed, other forms of participation in capitalism that all socialist tendencies aside from ragtag innawoods partisan bands and LARPers or citizens of severely failed states necessarily must do, including selling their labor power to porky, and buying alienated commodities, clear up to obeying the speed limit and paying taxes, paint sole refusal to fight the system via parliamentary electoralism as arbitrary and nonsensical lifestylism, IMHO.
I will, however, concede that a fuzzy area can exist between praxis and ideology, inside activism itself. For instance, use of inner/outer vanguard parties by Leninists and SJWs, or a culture of witchhunts over political correctness from hearsay accusations by SJWs and Leninists, which are corrosive to ideological integrity.
They do not understand what class is, understand what class is and reject its validity as a concept, or explicitly align themselves with porky against the insufficiently woke CHUD masses in a perversion of elitism.
No problems, how about I start with everyone besides me in this thread. Ruh roh, what's you obscurantist charlatan have to say about that!
It doesn't matter to the person getting the boot if the law explicitly or implicitly gets them crushed, they've still got someone on their neck. The difference between implicit and explicit is meaningless outside of lawyers arguing, the mooslim ban from burgerland was clearly designed to ban mooslims despite the thin pretense of being unbiased. If such things are legislated with explicit intent, then we are in a position no different in real terms if they openly name the targets they want to go after. Given the conceptions most people on this site have of socialism, commissar or socdem rep jeff hating niggers wouldn't be much different than cop or boss jeff hating niggers from the pov of jamal. And you'd find yourself in the company of the bourgeoisie and other historical ruling classes that were overthrown. I'm sure the leninists or labor parties didn't have becoming executors of capitalism was a goal, but the means they employed led them to that point. When you employ electoralist means, you're going to get electoralist results which are people who have a vested interest in maintaining the capitalist state and this interest overrides their loyalty to the proletariat. If you don't want to end up maintaining capitalism then you have to use means consistent with socialism. Reformists do not understand what class is, understand what class is and reject its validity as a concept, or explicitly align themselves with porky against the insufficiently practical prole masses in a perversion of elitism.
…what is even the difference?
There isn't, yet we see the sjws get the lion's share of ire while other reformists are ignored or even critically supported.
Do we though? Aren't Sanderistas shat on?
Not near to the degree as the sjws. Given that sanders is currently on the campaign trail and saying all kinds of socdem shit you'd figure we'd see one thread shitting on him but apparently some fag with 1.5k subscribers on yoohoo is more noteworthy.
Lol where's the lie? Nick Land already knows it's true
SJWs are CIA pawns whose purpose is to deliberately screw people's perceptions about what is the left and turn people away from leftism, they are not even leftist by any stretch of the imagination. Other reformists are people who try to get stuff to lessen the burden of the working class, like raising minimal wage, welfare, free college, you know basic Keynes. IMHO it's understandable that sjws get all the flack given that they are literally enemies of the left posing as leftists while other reformists are basically just "leftists" who realize that no revolution will happen any time soon, so they have to play the democracy game scam as best as they can while people don't wake up.
You can't seriously pretend that banning slavery, segregation, redlining, and other such practices didn't greatly reduce their resultant poverty and oppression of such groups (and, as an indirect result, the population as a whole) under capitalism. Even the most vulgar concrete progress toward socialism, such as eliminating bosses, would eradicate nearly all of the current camoflage behind which implicit idpol to hides. As I said, the same complaint could be applied to violence and espionage, as contrasted with wholly positive and inherently socialist praxes such as mutual aid and parallel power. In spite of this, much like violent revolution, parliamentary reformism via participation in the same government as porky is at times necessary for most any socialist movement to succeed, in addition to those other praxes. …necessarily nor in practice prescribe any unique position on theory, unlike SJWs, who from the very start advance fundumentally different objectives.