Reminder that the prevalence of SJWism, and the idea that it's leftist, is largely due to the CIA and other alphabet agencies.
>thenation.com
>prospect.org
>thedailybeast.com
Oppose, expose, and fight the CIA-approved game of limp biscuit known as Social Justice, which the campus 'far leftists' and cultural elites support. And never ever let righties get away with blaming it on the left.
beoump
lmao looks like they failed big time. go to any humanities department and start criticizing marx and you'll see how good they did at "completely crushing" marxism from the university infrastructure.
Go back to KUKistan, Dr. Peterson.
wtf i was lied to
see
idk what discount-store university you both went to, but I took entire classes based on marxist analysis of economic and political movements. and i 'm a fucking stemfag.
I had a sociology class for my degree during one semester and the professor shited on Marx and heavily defended Max Weber.
Sure you did. You learnt all about the racist white males Marx wrote extensively about.
tbh the discussions were mostly about how socialist revolutions in economically poor countries never seem to come from the "ground-up" working class dissatisfaction with conditions - but from someone in the intelligentsia class getting the working class riled up with rhetoric and using them as a tool to achieve larger political gains. And basically we just went through examples of how and why different revolutions occurred, and how we can frame them via dialectical terms, etc.
The day that Stalin will be praised by an uni professor is the day that you can say that marxism has taken over
Uh, that's not quite right. Any revolution has to come from the ground up. The rage that the working class feels is only directed to the proper place by the intelligentsia. For instance, in Russia, there was mass desertions, mass anger, looting, and so on. It was the Bolsheviks and the Petrograd Soviet generally which gave a voice to the working class and helped direct their anger. If by "from the group up" you mean completely spontaneous and undirected, then there has been no revolution "from the group up" in history. Of course, there are people who simply use the toppling of the old government to take power themselves instead of giving it to the working class. But saying that all the revolutions of the 20th century were illegitimate is crazy.
I never said they wre illigetimate, I said they didn't come from the working class. They always originate in, and are organized and led by, the intelligentsia class. It's not a question of legitimacy, but one of origin.
And Mao, and Hoxha
...
not really though. all stems from the anger of the proletariat. You can't have a revolution just with your intelligentsia "riling up" workers, you need the workers to be in a bad enough condition that they're willing to take a risk and support your movement too.
You're making it sound as it's just some elitist fuckers creating discontent for their own personal gain. I believe it's more organized ally of the working class helping it seize power when it rise up (for a socialist revolution that is. french revolution for example started in much the same way, but the bourgeois elite mostly didn't want to help the working class and used the people discontent to get more power for themselves).
you can argue it's all rhetoric, but I believe there is something different at it's core : it's the proletariat who revolts and initiate the possibility of changes.
so basically, using dialectical materialism as tool to explain revolutions ? and you came to the conclusions they were "created" by some elite fucker rather than redirected and taken control of ?
not sure it was that good
I highly suggest you read this article. It illustrates the situation in October, and shows that the situation is far more nuanced than simply saying the intelligentsia riled them up. Here is a quote.
jacobinmag.com
In fact, it was often the case that the rank and file as well as the workers themselves were more radical than the leadership. Lenin was very much against the July Days occurring, believing that seizing power at that stage would just be adventurism. But the workers and soldiers of Petrograd wanted to seize power for themselves, and so they started the July Days. This is just one of many examples of the leadership being quite a bit less radical than the workers themselves.
Can we please turn this into a general thread for the criticism of Identity Politics on the Left, Political Correctness, red liberalism, vulgar Marxism, opportunism etc? I've been meaning to start one but I didn't really know how to go about it without seeming like a brainlet or getting accused of being a Zig Forums fag trying to start trouble
Please post everything you've got comrades, I'll start with some classics
This is Zig Forums-tier tinfoiling
I think you're the one who needs to go back
Also, "SJW"ism is more than just the works of Steinem and Marcuse.
Disprove the evidence given or go cry somewhere else
Also the vast majority of theory that emerged from the American Left in the 1960s and 70s is shit from its first principles, regardless of who did or didn't use it opportunistically. A third of the hippies turned into lolberts, another third turned into neoliberal Democrats and Republicans, and another turned into impotent college professors in gentrified suburbs who promote voting for Hillary Clinton because she's "not as bad" as Trump
Historically, it's a mixed bag.
What "evidence"? Marcuse worked with the OSS at one point, therefore everything else he contributed was probably to advance the interests of the CIA, its successor organisation?
Do you know how stupid that sounds? Keeping in mind that most of the tenets of the Frankfurt School were established well before Marcuse etc made their opportunistic alliance with the OSS during World War II, with their post-war works simply being an extension of those foundations.
I'll give you Steinem, sure, but even there what's the conclusion? The entirety of post-WW2 feminist thought has been coordinated by the CIA?
the percent of burger universities who will lend time to that stuff is very small
A LOT of Trots became Neocons.
So the Frankfurt School was working with the OSS as early as 1933? Or was it working with the OSS since its foundations?
Can you explain this without relying on SEETHING as an "argument"
Can you actually read sources?
This is a good point as well
TL;DR there is no statistical evidence for this claim, it was all a McCarthyite smear made up by paleoconservatives in the 80s to attack the new neocons as "communist"
This. Apparently everything a person doesn't like is a shadowy CIA plot. Maybe even I am a CIA agent for saying this.
You guys are so retarded.
this is Zig Forums-tier shit lol
Again, the intellectual foundations for Marcuse' works (and the wider Frankfurt School) were established well before Marcuse and other started working for the OSS.
archive.is
Also, its basic historical fact that much of the neo-conservative movement was concentrated around the magazine Commentary which moved abruptly from the "left" it was always a bastion of the Cold War "left" to the right during the 60s
en.wikipedia.org
Still not totally convinced that the New Left was totally an op. It largely wasn't Marxist, but actually did have leftist leanings and economics (in spite of its dual focus on social politics).
Read the PDF (or even just the summary at the end), the statistical basis for the "NeoCons are ex-trots" claim is nonexistent. If you want to cherrypick Schachtman or Burnham as evidence of ⛏️rotskyist radicals turning reactionary, I hate to break it to you but there were a fuckton more in the Stalinist CPUSA. As for reading the theory of Permanent Revolution as some kind of imperialist manifesto I don't know what to tell you.
What do you mean by "totally" an op? It's completely sufficient for alphabet soups to fund and support the most useless, most eye-off-the-ball, most mentally ill lefties. They can do their thing in good faith and unaware of the advantage they've been given. That'll fuck things up down the road just fine.
This
That's quite pathetic tbh
This
Your brilliant argument has convinced me.
As if to pretend that Lenin never wanted Stalin to be removed of his position as Gen. Sec. and that they were in perfect agreement against ⛏️rotsky on most, if not all, issues. ☭TANKIE☭s are the most gullible retards out there.
The problem that user has with you is not that the sources didn't happened but how you use those sources to make your conclusion
Adorno was CIA
This is what happens when "intersectional feminism" is allowed to control discourse. Take a good look. I'm fucking sickened.
I do agree that anti-fascist activism shouldn't come with a 15 year charge but it makes me wonder if these people have even contemplated the fact that inevitably there will be pushbacks and consequences. Did they really believe that CNN line which didn't last long that people would see them as being akin to WWII vets?
How are any of those radlib talking points in conflict with the platform of the US Democratic Party. Explain this to me, please.
You can't really have this discussion without looking into the Rockefellers and the Ford and Arcus foundations. This leads you to the Jesuits and the Rothschilds and soon you start sounding like Zig Forums.
What started as a CIA-approved plan to divide the left by making it stupid instead produced masses of government-funded stupids enforcing stupid on other people and turning the education system stupid. This may have been an intentional scam by corporate interests or foreign intelligence agencies to leech off the government and build a private army of people stupid enough to follow their orders.
My sociology professor pretty much butchered Marx in class and constantly shat on him saying Weber was better
Wait, people take Weber seriously? The guy that said that capitalism emerged because of 'the protestant ethic'? Really?
Idealism is pushed on people for materialist reasons. The powerful don't believe in it, but they sure want you to believe in it.
You do realize the OSS had a lot of socialists in it right?
Weber was anti-capitalist. His only argument against socialism was the lack of technology to make it happen in his time.
Come the fuck on, mate
Everything? Are you being obtuse on purpose?
Got any more trashy apologetics for scum?
I'm just going to presume you are a radlib and wish to divert and avoid further discussion. Which is fine. Bye.
Not to defend plebbit but what the fuck user?
No exclusively but screaming muh homeless is such an easy thing.
The fundamental part of that image is thw post about the couple who seppukued
Something tells me you are a Zig Forumstard whose leftism ends at complaining about idpol SJWs. People being homeless and people killing themselves because they can't afford services are part of fundamentally the same problem.
Yes they are. I'm just saying is much more "sloganish" to scream about homeless. I did specify that it wasn't exclusively a radlib talking point.
I mean, I wouldn't trust someone just because he saying this about the homeless.
I think this is a matter of burger education. For example, in Brazil, you have to know the cliff's note version of Marx to graduate from our high school.
Weber was a socialist thought, just not a Marxist.
Zizek is a uni professor.
Where's the vid from?
The left existed before Marx, you know that.
All politics are sloganish. Or are you going to tell me "From each according to his ability" or "Practice is the criterion of truth" are not waxing poetics in the slightest ?
He's right you know
Is the source of problem the homeless people have a lack of shelter or is the source of their problem that the police are bothering them?
Yeah. Esoteric Marxists need to end their existance tbh.
The dumbing-down aspect of anticommunism is to prevent people from thinking critically about what happens around them. This makes it possible to subvert society without subjugating it.
The key thing about SJWism IMO is that there's a demand for you to understand other people's plight. And there's a plethora of different plights you're supposed to understand. It's a ridiculous and overwhelming amount of information about the "correct" way to behave and most of it doesn't actually affect any of the people it's supposed to help anyway.
You don't have to understand someone's problems to have solidarity with them, to respect them, to tolerate them, to work with them. People will organically learn about each other by working together. The demand for orthodox study and orthoprax social behavior is an attempt by academic shits to assert authority over people's every day lives.
This is so fucking cringeworthy, and it's the sort of content that people adhering to other political traditions love to find, because they can display it to portray us as crazy/whacky.
Bless you!
Seriously. It shouldn't take a lot of self-awareness for one to realize that they sound less like Lenin and more like Jim Jones.
Although we do live in a world where sparrows are "public animals of capitalism" and Lenin has a mausoleum, so maybe it's too late for me to point out how some ☭TANKIE☭s see communism as a religion.
You know how I know you are a reactionary faggot?
Let me guess, something about how don't literally need to know Marx to pass high school.
I graduated from high school without understanding imaginary numbers, it doesn't change the fact it was part of the curriculum, smart ass.
