Against Anarcho-Liberalism and the curse of identity politics

I think you mean racism is modeled on power dynamics.
Or are you just trolling?

Exactly, if you view race as power dynamics then you are 100% idpol ffs. How could you think otherwise?

K

So having some semblance of historical and genetic literacy (not being a race realist, and recognizing the historical, socioeconomic, and ideological roots of scientific racism) is idpol?
Fuck off.

Idpol is the use of power as the defining source of oppressions, and asbribes race in power dynamics, leaving carnage for class conciousness

Power is the defining feature of exploitation and oppression. It's a necessary and sufficient condition.

Racism IS one of the ideologies used to destroy class unity spreading division based on pseudoscience and scapegoating. Recognizing, disavowing, and fighting this is inherently good for the class as a whole.

Nah mate, bad plan. how about we just ignore it and call those filthy packies that claim about there lot idpols and class traitors?!

Power is the dominant economic and hegemonic structure, not fucking race. If you use the white privilege analysis to ‘help’ you are idpol, not just disavowing racism. Anti-racism is not disavowing racism it’s goal is to destroy whiteness whatever the fuck they think that is. It’s destructive garbage

Oh, it's a Zig Forumsyp. explains a lot.
BEGONE FAGGOT

Fucking woodchipper for you.

...

That's not close to anything i said you fucking mongoloid. Did you click the wrong post?

Drop the r/socialism retardation, you call people against idpol Zig Forumsyps because they know race shaming poor people is fucking mongoloid tactics

lol

Using US idpol to shame poor whites in Europe is awesome and really working

Do you have any self-awareness at all?

> Anarchism in the UK is a joke

The only raceshaming we do around here is against Zig Forumsyp mongrels, you're not one of them, are you comrade?

I'm not the other guy, but the idea that power itself, and not the economic structure, defines exploitation and oppression is more Foucauldian than Marxist.

...

we don't want baboon

So what is race then?

It means you can dislike racism, that is not what anti-racism is, it’s power being based in race and no untangling allowed, that’s just centering whiteness which is racist obviously. Anti-racism is doctrinal like Feminism, give over with the ‘it’s just equality’ bimbo tier shit

The economic structure and social reproduction required to perpetuate it are expressions of the ruling class. The state is the instrument used to force compliance. It is the hard power that is exercised when soft power is no longer seen to suffice. Economic exploitation also has, as a necessary component, a power differential. An imbalance of power is not, however, sufficient for the exploitation or oppression to be economic in character. Exploitation and oppression can exist and have existed prior to economic relations as we understand them. Since not all exploitation is economic and since power can and does exist in non-economic forms, there is no revisionism in talking about exploitation in terms of power.
Class struggle is, after all, a form of struggle. No one would claim that there aren't also other forms of struggle however.

Honestly I think one of the most pernicious things about identity politics is that there is a sizeable element of people who genuinely desire (or at least purport to desire) a complete communist reorganization of society - real end of history shit like no borders, no money, etc. - but because they are into identity politics they do absolutely nothing but weaken, refocus, subvert, and critique other "left" organizations and movements

The problem is not that identity politicians are liberals, the problem is that communists and socialists are identity politicians.

You are obviously confused, maybe you should learn what words are before using them…
I could lend you some books if you're nearby!

Just another bunch of wokescolds.

I assume this is in response to , so I'll respond.

The power differential isn't a necessary component but rather what's judged out of the relation between capitalists and workers; that is to say, this is only necessary in the sense of it following from the concrete relations of economic exploitation, rather than being primary to exploitation definitionally, as an economic fact.

The economy is a concrete expression of our relationship with material reality, our ability to transform it, and every power dynamic also has its existence solely within how historically we have been able to alter reality to suit our needs, and not outside of that.

Power as hypostasis is a concomitant rejection of historical materialism. "Exploitation" can be reframed in terms of power, but power is not the primary relation of exploitation for a Marxist: it is rather one of surplus labor. When one speaks of "exploitation" in general or "power" in general, one is using a completely different frame of reference.

All I mean is necessary in the literal sense. There can be no economic exploitation without a power differential. In this sense, power difference is a necessary component of exploitation, since exploitation of any kind cannot take place without it.

The economy is a social relationship, not a metaphysical one. It isn't all encompassing, and it is both emergent from and dependent on the material world.

No, power, in its many forms whether it be energy, force, and so on, is part of material reality. It's an inescapable physical fact of the world.
I'm not reframing anything.
Under the same frame of reference economic exploitation is a subclass of exploitation. Economic exploitation necessarily involves a differential of power and cannot take place without it, but power difference alone isn't sufficient to cause economic exploitation or explain the economic nature of that specific form of exploitation. This is why the explanatory power of the labor theory of value is needed.

Every social relationship is predicated upon how humans can organize and structure that society materially. This interaction of human labor with the material world and its alteration of it is fundamentally economic.

We're not talking about "power" in terms of wattage but "power" in terms of human society.

One other problem with centering "power," though, is that ambiguity results, so that "power" can become a "physical fact," even when we're speaking of an interpreted social phenomenon. We can also speak about the "exploitation of women," for example, but what "exploitation" even means changes historically, which in turn arises from how humans are able to interact with and transform the environment. It cannot be understood outside that except merely ideally.

You're interpreting exploitation in terms of power, while exploitation for a Marxist is only derived from surplus labor. It doesn't exist as the economic subset of "exploitation" in general, or as the result of "power" which is some necessary component thereof. In doing so, you've abandoned materialist analysis for idealism, making "power" even a physical reality.

While I understand and appreciate what you're saying, instead of addressing my argument directly you're merely offering rebuttals of my conclusions. Society isn't reducible wholly to the economic for Marx. That's revisionism and vulgar Marxism.

The one point I think you do make that is worth addressing is on power. I'm not talking about power in the mechanical sense. Rather, power dynamics exist as a material reality in the physical world. Some people are twice the size of others. Some armies have twice as many tanks as others. Some classes have the material wealth and authority to employ groups of armed men to force compliance with batons, tear gas, and guns. These are material realities. They aren't fictions.

Furthermore, the merit of an argument doesn't stand or fall based on the words of Marx any more than it does the words of Thomas Aquinas or Mohammed. You're engaged in dogmatism, which is why you claim that anything insufficiently Marxist, in your view, is idealism and not materialism. This is in spite of the face that I'm making clearly physicalist arguments.

I am a Marxist, but I also understand that exploitation is not wholly and exhaustively defined by economic exploitation of labour as defined by Karl Marx in CotGP.
Not only can you be a Marxist without treating Marx as infallible gospel, your assertion that Marx claimed that all exploitation is the exploitation of labor was never even ever made by Marx. If you have some citations where you can demonstrate otherwise, feel free to post them. Otherwise, I'm just going to have to disagree with your reading of Marx, since you haven't really explained how anything I've said is incorrect.

You all understand that this very likely wasn't written by a marxist and most def not an idpol, right?!? How is trying to critique it on a dogmatic marxist fashion or in an anti-idpol seriously, what is wrong with you? at all worth the screen space you're giving it?

OP feels: It was supposed to be so simple…