Why is it so fucking hard for Red Liberals to understand that not only would ending racism, sexism, the various "phobias" and other superstructural issues under capitalism not only not create "equality" but also that it's literally impossible to fully abolish all of these things under capitalismincluding Social Democracy and that their "abolition" actually takes the form of creating new mechanisms for porky to extract profit and perpetuate exploitation? For instance, weakening borders hasn't helped strenghten internationalism among the majority but rather increase profits for the global ruling class and has in fact weakened international working class solidarity by pitting migrants against "natives" due to migrant labor being cheaper. Similarly increasing the number of "women in the workforce" only generates more competition and resentment between the sexes and reinforces negative cultural attitudes and stereotypes both hold towards each other rather than eroding them. "Liberation" following the identitarian wing of the 60s counterculture (as opposed to the class based wing that, while obviously supporting identitarian issues to a point, thought this was useless with being anticapitalist/anti-imperialist radicals) has essentially just meant a more chaotic yet at the same time more profitable world for the Ruling Class along with a higher consolidation of their State power in so called "democratic" nations due to the discord among the international workers leading to further alienation and ignorance of dialectical materialism.
Of course the "answer" isn't to go full Asserist or unironic Nazbol or whatever other shit, but it makes me very pessimistic and discouraged regarding the future of the Left that the so-called "resurgent socialists" are essentially just petit-bourgeoise college kids who are terrified to support a Socialist or Communist party and/or organization if they aren't sufficiently "woke" on social issues such as many who fled into the embrace of Syriza over the KKE despite Syriza from the outset being opportunist as shit over the KKE's more homophobic components or the criticism of the CPRF recently on Zig Forums of all places due to their perceived social conserv.atism rather than the more fair criticism of their stupid Dengist economics.
Being excessively anti-IdPol and/or class reductionist makes as little since as being a neoliberal who larps as a communist by saying "kill all wypipo" or whatever but I feel like even the term "Class Reductionist" has been made into a meaningless pejorative thrown at anyone who even dares to point out shit that has been common sense to Communist theorists from Marx to Engels to Lenin to Guevara and everyone else: Basically that, while it makes sense to support the struggles of the particular segments of the oppressed it's absolutely futile to fight for any of these things if your ultimate goal isn't destruction of capitalism or at least the acceleration of its self-destruction.
tl;dr what is to be done about red liberals and how do we combat excessive IdPol on the Left without being excessively anti-IdPol or class reductionist
I think the answer is pretty simple: they don't understand. If they did, they wouldn't be red liberals.
Austin Hughes
How do you think we should keep them from gaining a monopoly on defining what the Left is in the 21st Century? Or do you think we should even bother and let them self-immolate than try to fill the space that's left afterwards?
Camden Long
Well, the way I see it, the "left" is a pretty broad term. If I had to give my definition of what the left is it would be a political spectrum that ranges from regulated capitalism to socialism of various tendencies. So red liberals are leftists too, it's just that they aren't socialists. Someone might say these are just pure semantics on my part but I believe this position is correct. Being a leftist can range from wanting to lightly regulate capitalism to completely replacing it with proper socialism.
Joseph Jones
This makes perfect sense. Neoliberalism does not recognize the validity of other ideas, even ones that still condone the existence of capitalism, and has thus been on a constant warpath to demonize them in the minds of its constituents, if it cannot erase them entirely. It truly believes that it is the end of history.
William Reyes
tell those fags a tranny told them they're retarded and should chug bleach there's no solution for any of those identity issues if not approached as a class issue no matter what identity a bourg has, they need to get the rope indiscriminately if there's some jackass takes by socialist or communist parties, well shit, but as long as they forward the class struggle, it's the only real and sufficient foundation to resolve further social progress for identity groups
Owen Butler
Okay but I didn't say "let's not call them Leftists" I said how do we stop them from getting a monopoly in the public mind on what is considered Left, particularly in America where there hasn't really been a Left to speak of for at least 40 years
Based Stalin tranny
Leo Roberts
Zizek says that when you are confronted with Fascist views, from persay, a Nazi, you should not engage with the individual arguments of the Nazi. You should not debate with the idea that they are partially true and partially wrong, as a liberal would. You should, instead, throw the base of the argument out. I am pretty sure you can find this video on youtube with "Zizek on arguing with Nazis and Fascism". How you would do this would be as so. A Nazi tells you, "Jews control the money, Jews are having sex with our women, etc…". Instead of saying, "Well yes they do this but it isnt bad" or "it isnt so bad", you instead say something like "It doesnt matter how many Jews control business or how many women they are fucking, or how you say etc… is happening. Your beliefs are still entirely made up before hand. Your beliefs in the evil jews are made up to justify class collaboration, and all of your other fascist beliefs. The "evidence" of the evil jews and whatnot are entirely unrelated to their judaism where it is "found", and in most cases evidence can not be found." Basically, instead of changing the bathwater around the shitty baby (the Nazi), you just throw out the shitty baby with the bathwater, because you should know that he will keep on shitting in the water, creating "evidence" where there is none. You need to create the debate around the true source of the arguments which is NOT the evidence (as they have none), the true source of the arguments is the Nazi itself. I guess I thought about Zizek daying this because it connects to redliberals/liberals/anticommunists/etc… The things they say are often blatantly untrue, stereotypes, etc… seemingly based around some ""central"" concepts. I put central in quotes because it is almost impossible to nail down what a liberal ACTUALLY believes in.(spoiler alert, nothing other than Capitalism) These "central" concepts might be anything as pretty as "peace" or "the environment". They might even be as seductive as "the working class". Thwy mgiht be more repulsive, such as "the white race", "the niggers", "welfare queens", etc…. It doesnt really matter how variably exact or unexact the concepts are. What matters is that these are the concepts people will run around with, and many people will make the mistake of debating only with the evidence for these concepts, when they should really be debating with the ideology behind the concepts. When a liberal says "We need equality for women in the workforce to combat the patriarchy/inequality", the socialist should say something like "Equality among women in the workforce is only shifting their exploitation from the home to the workplace. Where a women is exploited to raise children in one home, a woman is now exploited in the workplace, and often then later at home. All that has been done is that women are now exploited in a more acceptable manner. This transportation of exploitation only really achieves one thing, and that is the concealment of the true axis of the woman's exploitation, and that is the functions of class under Capitalism." You could (and would) go on further, but I hate these longwinded quotes. I really want to hammer home the need to squash the core ideas behind the arguments. You could have stayed forever with a feminist liberal, arguing about the need for more working women, and you would meet endless arguments about happiness, wealth, philosophy even!
Hudson Butler
You could argue forever each point, but these points will forever stand because they are generated by their ideology, in this example that "Women should, like, enjoy wage labour". It is more of a cultural argument based on the underlying Capitalist, liberal ideology more than it is an actual argument for women's liberation. Because, really, why should women do wage labour? It sucks! Everyone thinks it sucks! Some prefer it to being at home, and thats great for them, they should have the opportunity to do so, but we shouldnt fight for or against it as better or worse, when we can instead argue for it being more of the same. Now, to end this (perhaps wildly unclear) post, I want to list some things that I would NOT apply this argument to, so that its actual, functional use can be discerned. If someone told me "Women should have the right to work", I would not argue against that. We need as many workers on our side as humanly possible, and women working has an actually appreciable effect for gaining them rights. In a way, Socialism is the natural outcome of people working and wanting their rights, so I support people fighting for their rights, it gives people a more revolutionary spirit. People who have fought for rights are willing to fight for more. Really, one of the main issues I would say we face is that many feel that the bourgeois system successfuly gives them their rights, and thusly they dont see the need for class struggle. Destroying this idea would be a great success for us, and it is one of those "central concepts", namely "Capiyalist democracy". In the same vein, I would agree with ideas like "We should raise the minimum wage." I hope these examples serve to make it clear how this argument is significant. Does anyone disagree with what I am saying? I think there is room here for reasonable disagreement. I am not entirely certain of the veracity of every claim I have made, just mostly certain
