The bourgeoisie always uses some kind of elaborate orthodox social rituals to be genteel and justify themselves as...

Attached: 42bcb23696c777db7f1caffc910d33b38661242003b045406fa8a6843c5263df.jpg (450x649, 35.49K)

he's right you know

"anti racism" and tranny tolerance is the most privileged bourgeois shit imaginable

it is not rich people who have to deal with the tyranny of poc apes and drunken hiv positive psychotic tranny freaks, they come nowhere near them in their cloistered gated communities("REDDIT SPACING: THE HIGHEST FORM OF FAGGOTRY" by Vladmir Lenin)

No.

They have their own etiquette, but it isn’t sitting on the other side of the stupid culture war fence.

The new bourgeois shit is all about ethical consumption, being health-conscious and having a vague “spiritualism” that requires no actual commitments. If, in the past, the bourgeoisie wore elaborate costumes, now they wear expensive exercise clothing for basically no reason. If before they’d consume gourmet meals, now they drink organic smoothies and similar ridiculously-priced-considering-that-it’s-just-vegetables shit. Instead of their old domain of traditional religion, they’ll now take on a much looser “spiritual” approach which has neither the old ethical duties nor the potential stigma of traditional religion, while giving them the same airs of moral authority. Occasionally you’ll run into an “atheist”, but this is rarely anything more than a veneer of vulgar scientism concealing l an intrinsically idealist worldview.

You’ll sometimes get outspoken opinions about the culture war, but more often than not they just side with whoever’s winning at the moment and are otherwise wishy-washy about the whole thing.

Attached: 3BFB75BB-FD69-4DA4-B2B2-388254FB92A8.jpeg (3600x2403 1.22 MB, 1.22M)

Attached: identity theatre.png (1080x1400, 1.97M)

in the end both get the wall.

racist conservative porky gets it harder tho

Why? Why americans are obsessed over this teen angst routine?

The whole point of - at least the worst of - 'SJW' (read correctly: bourgeois neoprogressivist) logic is that identities must not be questioned but instead defended and given some kind of access to opportunities.

The Communist response to the phenomenon of differences between people is to knowingly de-essentialise individually-exclusive qualities and make them non-exclusive so that a given individual can go ahead and do what any other person can while having nothing standing in their path that anyone else would have; this is the ultimate democracy and it can only be realised through applications of technology to allow for our self-engineering, maximising what we can do at all scales of the human social world, from individuals through cities to the entirety of humanity itself. But the response of the 'SJW's is quite different, as many must know: it is a SEGREGATIONISM. It is in fact the result of a generalisation of the old ethnonationalisms to any scale and kind of grouping within our current society. For the neoprogressives, this is usually at the level of demographics who may live in the same nation.

The ground of the commons ultimately does not exist for this political ideology because it is assumed for whatever reason that people have inherent differences and are bound to interpret the world in very different ways. Some of the reasons behind this can be that 'we can assume it for now' (opportunism) or 'it's innate because of biology' (biological reductionism) or 'you'll never be able to figure out what these people mean because you're not them' (subjectivism). The very fact that we humans have the commons of reason and that reason - hence the Lacanian Symbolic order, the mess that is human society - rules over the organisation of the world for all other known qualities of matter and may even rule over itself (the latter part is Communism) is simply ignored even though those who argue it are using reason itself with the recognition that they can indeed talk to other people and even tell groups which they believe will never listen to fuck off or whatever. (Why even attempt to speak with those whom it is impossible to understand or be understood by?)

With this distancing of ourselves from the very reason that we practice, backed up by 'empirical research' which seldom discusses the particular social manifestations of phenomena that we see and is bolted on to the assumption that we can't change these qualities (the result of a toxic empiricism which treats the matter as being reduced to a fixed number of qualities which supposedly account for all kinds of being in our world), we can generate apologisms for damn near anything. This is perfect for those who seek to maintain the current order of the world with all its depravities and horrors. Things like wage labour, racism, minor attraction and whatnot aren't dependent on us at all according to the reasoning of the segregationists. Moreover, to attack these things is to mess with natural processes which will simply resurge if we try to abolish them. The bourgeois 'ettiquete' is in fact simply a result of the victory of this reactionary politics as liberals wilt and concede ground to it, knowing full well that liberalism cannot account for real social forces which distort - and at their roots lie beyond - the 'formal freedoms' guarded by ideal liberal law. Since nothing is a result of our action but governed by something external, we can't blame others and make them responsible for what they say hence we shouldn't be so critical of them. Yes, how rude of us Communists to say that people are rational and are capable of self-governance!

(continued)

The result is that from the view of the entirety of today's permissive and hedonistic right, communists are portrayed as being puritanical: we are 'anti-fun'; we 'cannot meme'; we simply 'need to chill' and accept that people want their fun. For the neoprogressives in particular, we are social conservatives who need to be dragged into the 21st century and accept the new hedonisms as being essential and difficult to shake off for people. These attitudes both rest upon misrepresentations of Communism which allege that we seek to simply censor what is billed as being natural or in other words perform Freudian repression. Of course that will lead to black markets, underground trends and all sorts! Instead, Communists seek to tackle these issues head on using reason, which is irreducible to any one person. Furthermore, its developments are also irreducible to any one person. For example, what evidence is there that someone from India or South America couldn't have come up with Hegel's dialectics or something remotely like it? How come anyone can argue about it, develop it some more and remain intelligible to anyone else? What's the whole deal with 'standing on the shoulders of giants'? Why do we have history at all? Such questions cannot be answered without ceding some sort of commons to people - a common thing available to all for them to develop.

The end of the alleged line of reasoning that we Communists supposedly hold lies with Freudian suppression rather than repression, the former being the favourite tool of the reactionary: we supposedly seek to kill various groups and the programme of abolishing the conditions for these identities to arise is nothing short of genocide in the name of a deeply-backwards ideology - for example, the supposed anti-homosexual pogroms in Cuba. This straw man could not be more wrong! All things are on the table but some are much more favourable than others. Communists don't seek to brush things away and ignore them but to hold them as things which we can use only in particular circumstances even if we'll never use them again. Our disgustingly-sexual culture, for example. We see no reason to uphold it nowadays because of how limiting it is in terms of the real choices that one may have when faced with these social expectations and real people manning the tools which draw us closer to this ideal of society (wow! Social forces are objective and 'formal freedoms' aren't realised in practice? Who knew?) and it is unlikely that it will lead to some sort of liberation, though it is not the worst and most subjugatory practice that may exist. Moreover, Communists tackle the ideologies and (psychoanalytic) pathologies of these practices. Why be a hedonist and defend this hedonism alongside its specific manifestations? There is a distinctive masochism about it: a love of being unable to overcome it, a love of the symptoms - and if it really is owed to some external force, most often a big Other, all the better for this line of reasoning since there is no working alternative! This is nothing but uncritical stupidity for a Communist.

(continued again)

But most importantly, what these people defend is the maintenance of the spaces of private property, in which an owner can do anything without being questioned about it. If one wants to toy about with the world - including the social structures of our species - for any reason, all they need is some sort of way of claiming it.

Liberal society is the last society which allows for these spaces of masturbation and childlike play; the promise of liberal society is to generalise private property. But in practice, we know exactly what happens: people are denied these spaces in certain ways. The most key denial in bourgeois society is that of changing the social field beyond cosmetic and/or interpersonal matters. The bourgeois class viciously protects its monopoly over the organisation and reorganisation of society and the abolition of class, unified only in class-based aspects such as this one even if factionalised in every other way. The bourgeoisie, knowing full well that any and all struggles and consumer identities are ultimately permissible, will do whatever the fuck they want. Proletarians have this dream of exclusive space (set aside for individuals and particular groups but crucially not as a place for the commons) dangled in front of them; in other words, we are persuaded to want our own designated 'thought-shitting' streets. While we are sold sandbox games such as Minecraft and Garry's Mod, we allow the bourgeoisie to treat our entire society as their sandbox. For them, we are nothing more than objects in a multiplayer game; they are the players. For reactionaries in general this game isn't something that we lowly objects can change; the neoprogressives in particular would like us to be more tolerant of being thrown around and remaining as effectively being objects. Again, their empiricism only grounds this: we are said to be animals who can only act in ways which are reducible to heuristics which are capable of being mapped in entirely formalistic logic. Communists must oppose this tendency towards depravities, making people accountable for whatever it is that they pursue so that they may, guided by reason alone, critically evaluate these matters. We are obliged not to concede ground for the sake of bourgeois 'etiquette' so that peop

Anyone knowingly upholding the reasoning that defends private property must, come revolutionary times, be sent to the wall.

(continued further)

I wish to add that people say that they are not engaging in doing anything when taking part in activities related to consumer pursuits. This is stupid, for all things are contemplated using reason which is indeed intersubjective. Moreover, it is also been done to the neglect of other things and it reproduces an attitude which will have real social consequences by way of it being spread. No man is an island or a 'beautiful soul', separate from the world in which they live. It is the world that we change, and we must take control of this change.

Furthermore, the illusory social concern of the seemingly more radical bourgeoisie is simply misguided and often degenerates into the same Other-worshipping ritualism which we are familiar with, particularly when it comes to LARP cults such as Satanism and many others. Communists are obliged to recognise that these too have real social effects.

Where do you live?

I live in a 'first world' country but this should not matter. I have observed these movements and their 'permissivism' or whatever we'll call it. I have already discussed it at length; one can see these trends on this very website, even this particular board! Here, unbridled contrarianism is king and there is not an ounce of criticism among many of the contrarians. To be a simple contrarian requires nothing more than making a rule out of subverting a given set of rules regardless of the choice; there is no need for a subversion of subversion - i.e. changing the very standards or set of rules which one wishes to hold or subvert, a dialectical negation of negation of changing the standards. That means that all the 'BTFO LIBRULTARDS TROLOLOLO STYLE' dumbfuckery doesn't change shit, nor does the crude and stupid 'communism' of many of the youths browsing this board. But this contrarianism is the ultimate example of how capitalism is so permissive.

Hi Rafiq

And? What's the significance? I am not Rafiq, as it happens, but if I was, what would be the difference? Think before you type and bump threads, thank fuck this one isn't terrible.

I'm against social justice as a concept from a philosophical view and I don't agree with some of their praxis, but if you're just complaining because you want to run around calling people the n-word and deny the west isn't racist and sexist as fuck, then go away.

I was just saying hello, and I literally saged Lad, not everything has to be an effortpost.