Marxist Texts About Fascism

The more common argument is "Fascism is just more authoritarian capitalism", and that's because it literally is. It does nothing to actually dismantle capitalism, end private property ownership of the MoP, and move towards ending commodity production and instead moves towards privatizing its own governments public services and infrastructure, having those business/factory owners who are in close relation with the government retaining private ownership over over their businesses and factories while helping enforce the wages set for their workers, and embracing (or just ignoring) commodity production as something to keep or ignore rather then eventually get rid of. At best you could say fascism is more a brutal or direct form of social democracy, and at worst the highest form of neoliberal/neoconservative collusion.

there's nothing succdem about. it's literally the culmination of conservative operation. a state which appeals to our fearful nature in order to justify privatisierung.

It depends on what you mean by "extreme." It isn't necessarily neoliberalism at its most rapacious, which is what we might think of currently as "extreme capitalism," or even the more traditional laissez-faire idea, but rather a form of capitalism where capitalists are desperate enough to resort to strongmen with a certain type of social-nationalist program (in the more literal sense of social) in the face of an economic and social chaos that threatens it. Maybe it's better said that it is capitalism driven to extremes rather than extreme capitalism, though.

Fascism is the end result of the failure of Marxist education.

Far from being the total opposition to Marxism in all ways, in marketing terms they both share numerous demographics–generally speaking–especially among their respective "intellectual" castes (the "activists" or theorists in the parties) and Fascism only emerges in cases where material analysis cannot reach the masses in terms they can easily understand.

What makes the fascist "truth" so memeable and so powerful is that it doesn't necessarily rest on concrete theory, but vague proclamations of enemies, traitors, and a coming golden age. The sad truth of the world is that this is far better at getting people motivated to support a cause than "boring" theories, no matter how correct they are.

Honestly the "superiority" of Fascism comes from its knowledge of how humans, generally speaking, think. As an example, far from Trump's failures destroying support among his base, if anything they make it more rabid in their defense of him. Similarly, the Nazis were willing to defend Hitler until the last block of Berlin had fallen while the conditions of WWI were intolerable enough to prompt a revolution.

In all honesty it's amazing that the wider left has trouble understanding this. The emphasis on theory is a good thing, in most cases, but it fails when you try to speak theory to the common people–if anything it has the reverse effect. Take, for example, leftist internationalism and opposition to "nationalism". You can quote Marx, you can talk about how the nation isn't "helpful", but the problem ultimately lies in the fact you're arguing against "the nation" as perceived by the people, and if anything the more vigorous your critique of it, the more vigorous "light" nationalists are to defend it.

Does this mean you should abandon anti-nationalism or internationalism? No. But the trap of internationalism is the same trap of "abolishing whiteness", nationalism in the common lexicon has taken the form of something akin to patriotism–it isn't merely the U.S. government you're perceived as opposing when you oppose nationalism, but the American people themselves, the entirety of their history, their culture, their values and traditions. In the end even if you show them what our government does to poor third worlders, they still wouldn't care–if anything you'd have created a monster that's openly tolerating if not celebrating the exploitation of "weaker" peoples, because the only perceived route out is hating their own people, history, and culture.

Ditto for "abolishing whiteness"; the theory itself may refer to Whiteness as a social construction, but if Joe Schmoe hears professor Shekelstein saying "the social construction of the white race has to be DESTROYED" he interprets it as what amounts to brown supremacy and deeply triggering and problematic hatred.

If you corner an army with no way out, they'll fight to the last man as no other option is available to them. If you leave them an opening or offer them a surrender, then you win with far less of a cost to your own side. The false dichotomy of leftist theory has to be defeated before Fascism can, people have to be given something to see that isn't "America loving jingoist or America hating pansy"

Attached: 1539165714503.png (756x694, 31.46K)

that is not what Adorno and Horkheimer were saying. They are saying that firms increasingly wield a sort of social control that is fascistic. Firms are driven by profit to homogenize the tastes of consumers, which potentially lays groundwork for fascism.

good post tbh

I think this is incorrect, and fascist states were much worse on this matter during World War II. Nazi Germany didn't switch from consumer production to a total war economy until 1943, well after the war had decisively turned in the Allies favor, and after the other major combatants had already switched over. This was because of the inordinate power of big-capitalist industrialists in the Nazi economy. There is a very good book about the Nazi economy called "Wages of Destruction" I would look up.

yep. just look at how much of the Nazi party involved the research gained from the advertising and marketing industry. Nazism is just a brand identity, but a small form of an infinite possibility of superficially different Fascisms.

Also, the Nazi war machine was basically tapped out for manpower from day one of the war. They were only able to even grow the economy after that point at all through invasions, looting the industries of occupied countries, and importing millions of slaves to bolster the domestic economy. The Nazi economy was quite literally unsustainable.

Myself: I see fascism as a kind of insane and metastatic reaction to capitalism in crisis that is counterproductive in many cases to the more liberal elements of the bourgeoisie. Like a grotesque parody of imperialism and capitalism. But in any case, most fascist regimes were just proxy states for the U.S. government in the Cold War. The ones in Italy and Germany I see as like experiments that got carried away – like an infected zombie escaping from the lab and infecting a society. They also burn out, and the project collapses before the imagined-for fascist future ever arrives. Can you imagine a Nazi victory and seeing a reconstituted European order except they're all fascist states? It doesn't work. It'd just be endless war and bloodshed for eternity.

What that kind of New Order would actually look like in reality, I think, is a victorious Germany becoming "post-Nazi" like a Latin American junta. Once the Bolshevik menace is out of the way, the bourgeoisie would have no need for Hitler and his cronies.

America loving communist?

Attached: 118914-a-monument-of-the-soviet-army.jpg (1170x570, 117.73K)

Not Marxist, but Arendt's Origins of Totalitarianism is still incredible

Thank you

Yes and no.
As a marketer, Fascism's strength comes from its ability to advertise itself in an extremely powerful way that the left just can't (in its current state) or won't (based off of active decision making by leftists) and undeniably fascism understands how to actively appeal to people.

However to reduce Fascism to a "just" is ignoring the extreme complexity of its demographics and what motivates people to become fascists. It is at once an aesthetic, and a material reaction to pain–ever see someone stub their toe on a desk and smack it out of instinctual rage? That right there, to some extent, is the seeds of fascism in the human psyche. Yet to reduce it to just reactive rage, similarly, ignores how it fuses what appears to be conservatism and socialism (if only aesthetically) and why people would find such a contradictory fusion appealing.

You don't have to "love" America, hell Zig Forums seems to despise "America" half the time, but you HAVE TO understand how it's viewed before discussing it.

Let me put it like this, there was a christcom somewhere either on here or Zig Forums that made some "OC" which seemed to be a picture of Jesus over a burning America and the phrase "God DAMN America!" superimposed over it. This meme was stupid, needlessly combative, reinforces the worst stereotypes of the left, and yet the first reply I saw to it was how it looked "great".

See, that's the problem right there, it gives my side ammo, it's a tone deaf and blatant theft of Christian aesthetics that would offend normie Christians as well as, well, anyone who didn't actively hate America. That shit gives *my* side ammo, and we have a million examples of it–perhaps most notorious being Vice's now edited article titled "We should blow up Mt. Rushmore."

See, while Marxists may critique nationalism as a scientifically defined method of political organization and the unity of people into one capitalist civic state given a name and potentially shared history, to normal people the definition is far more vague, and in America encapsulates myths ("the founding fathers, the American dream, freest country in the world") people (the pilgrims, immigrants in the gilded age, pioneers) and socio-cultural history (taming the west, the war for independence, the civil war, so on) and to attack American nationalism is perceived as attacking all these other things they find as valuable or hold some sympathy for. It doesn't help matters that the most vocal critics of nationalism in the west also appear to be the worst kind of transnationalists (to use a term defined by Orwell) and rather than abjuring nationalism altogether, appear to instead hold loyalty to something completely foreign to their present society.

It's bad enough to criticize something people hold sentimentality for, it's even worse to do so while giving off the impression of being "unfair".

Instead of thus being an attack on the government for the people, the trick of critiquing nationalism is that it turns attacks on nationalism into attacks on the people themselves whilst the government sneers from the periphery.

Call the founding father slave owners, and you insult them–it doesn't matter how "fair" your criticism appears to be, to the average person you reduce the men who fought for our country to be independent from foreign rule into "JUST slave owners", the achievement of the mythologized "David vs Goliath" struggle of not merely the fathers but the early American people is thus reduced into the "battle of rich monsters and your stupid fucking great grandfather to give power to wealthy proto-liberals."

1/2

Attached: 1532711218246.png (960x488, 311.43K)

Naziposter is that you?

precisely
here is relevant Adorno and Horkheimer if you haven't read it already
marxists.org/reference/archive/adorno/1944/culture-industry.htm

In the modern age, Patriotism is synonymous with Nationalism, the polarization of political rhetoric has ensured that there can be no patriotism without it being construed as nationalism and vice versa.

What Fascists and Fascist-Sympathizers understand, even if its only implicitly, is the mythological presentness and stability of patriotism. It provides the myth of unity, sure, but it also infuses every landmark, every house, every institution, every neighborhood, with a kind of anima, it tells the mind "this land is mine and my neighbors are myself", it's both a kind of self-esteem as well as a pro-social empathy. Patriotism holds sentimental value to a great many people sure, but that value at times transcends sentiment and constructs both an identity, moral law, and a mental "placement" of an individual in their relation to the world.

"But why can't class solidarity replace patriotism" you may ask? Such a thing is easier said than done, and in a world ruled absolutely by apathy and cynicism, it would be far easier to construct a new identity on TOP of an old one than for it to destroy and replace it.

The paradox of Trump's supporters and western populism as a whole, is that they are not opposed to Marxism in terms of economics, and that many of them take an anti-corporate stance, while defending at times the globalist forces they claim to oppose. Strangely enough, leftists seem to sneer at Trumpist "stupidity" that they would confuse the left as something pro-corporate and pro-globalist, I've yet to see a single leftist ask the question that a dozen businesses would if the consuming public assumed they were the exact opposite of what they really are:

"What is so wrong with our strategy that they confuse us for our competition?"

Most importantly, attempts to replace patriotism with class solidarity instead leads to a retreat into the worst kinds of nationalism. Rather than the increased preaching of the reality of America's manifest destiny actually creating a people that reject national identity in favor of class identity, but instead it has transformed suburban milque-toast patriots into the most violent kind of darwinian nationalists, asserting that the natives would've done the same given the chance (indisputably true) and that the world's ruled by the strong and we should have no sympathy for weak parasites who "lost" (immoral and false)

Recontextualize attacks on nationalism and propagandizing class solidarity in a manner that leaves no room for an anti-patriotic assertion, and you'll see far more success than under current circumstances.

Attached: 2g2s13jp25h11.jpg (818x1024, 84.09K)

Now that you mention it, the revolutionary left is really bad ad opticsfagging compared to fascists.
The far-right is somewhat capable of holding their spaghetti. Most Zig Forums kiddos have a very clear idea of which historical figures and political brands are repulsive to normies, and thus how they should talk to people.

Communists on the other hand, seem to spend comparatively more effort trying to rehabilitate despised dictators, etc. Instead they should be shilling Subcommadante Marcos like fascists shill Pinochet.
And also learning how to dog whistle.

I've heard numerous people called that title, I might be one of them. Care to link me to one of this "naziposter"'s posts?

As one final addendum, I'd say that you can't just slap George Washington's face on the Soviet Flag and say "there, we created patriotic socialism, it isn't working", it's akin to a "Hello fellow kids" joke–again, tone deaf and useless.

You have to both know your audience, and have real sympathy for them. The reason Zig Forums memes work is because of the idea of the shared struggle between the creator, poster, and potential viewer. They don't speak of "Whites" as a face, or an image, or a set of policies, or even a culture but as a lived reality.

You win when it suffuses your language so much that you almost don't notice when you slide it into the wider context of the conversation. Your country needs to become your lived reality, and rather than speaking of the problems of a vague class, all the issues of capital can be given the impression of the transnational national problem.

It's easier than ever in a globalized world to rally people against the bourgeois–these are rootless cosmopolitan rich kids that sell out their countrymen for an extra dollar while making the lives of third worlders an absolute hell. These monstrous bastards murder innocent children, they turn our flag into a symbol of terror, and stole the institutions our forebears founded out from under us, and WHY did they do this?

Because of pure, human greed. They're ticks sucking on the vein of the American people, they rip the union of states and peoples apart, they've dismantled the liberties our forefathers enshrined for us systematically bit-by-bit, they've taken American pastures and towns and turned them into polluted wastelands, they've pushed the worst kind of sicknesses on us and said we should thank them every step of the way.

They're the gods of their own perverted, self-aggrandized little world, the kings of a country that drove it's last petty dictator fleeing from its shores and will do so again as long as the American people still draw breath.

Words like that would move people, and similarly destroy all notions of leftism as subservient to a foreign people, class, or group. If leftists spoke like that, then Zig Forums would not exist as it does today.

It's the most petty kind of nationalism to jerk over historical figures. The past weighs the left down like an albatross: its symbols pay homage to it and carry its weight.

Perhaps most unique to fascists, is that for all their nationalism, for all their worship of the familiar over the alien, their symbolism rarely routes itself in what is established and understood nationally, if it does it's only a tangential relation. Many of their symbols, however, are powerful, they stand out like a bloody fist in a tide of placid apathy. The swastika, though feared, is more powerful than any other symbol in politics. Similarly, the mystical black sun also carries weight.

What should the symbol of a newer and revived left be? Well, most likely countless new symbols and colors can be useful, even if they lack any historic significance.

So on and so on, the new would be superior to the old in any and every way.

Attached: 500_F_208674585_zhut1b09hbjLiBGlgIyCfp6F7G5iUpwJ.jpg (500x400, 20.37K)

No one says "fascism is just more extreme capitalism". The Marxist take is that it's the ultimate stage of evolution of capitalism, when the bourgeoisie mobilizes the most reactionary elements of society to defend itself from the revolution. That doesn't mean it will go full ancap. Indeed some social concessions are expected to placate the masses. Even though historical fascist regimes have been pretty fucking capitalist anyway. The Nazis invented the modern concept of privatization and Francoist Spain went full neolib. Italy might be the only exception but I don't know much about it.

What about the plain red flag.
It's fairly recognizable, yet vague enough not to invoke any previous specific state projects.

The problem with the plain red flag is that it's, well… plain. Symbols must be bold and also must be replicable, to be replicable they must be placeable.

Just as the 48 laws of power insist that you be bold in everything you do, even if it's mistaken–and just as Machiavelli insists that taking a stand is better and endears you to more people than remaining neutral in all matters, a symbol similarly gains its power by how many eyes turn to view it, how many hands eagerly try to scribble it, and how it stands against its environment.

In a crime ridden urban hellscape, a splash of red on a wall won't do much–and these days even the most offensive statements blend in with typical graffiti. A school getting evacuated because someone drew a Swastika on a bathroom door? That's symbol power right there.

Thus have a symbol, one that can be easily and quickly replicated–it's far better than a color. Then infuse that symbol with power by having its "birth" be something striking: the blood of a martyr, or an explosion, or even something as simple as painting it everywhere so those who view it, know it was done with intent to say SOMETHING.

Come to think of it, a red comet is likely the best symbol of the ones I mentioned. It's relatively simple: a star with streaks behind it–and red stars have been used by marxist movements before–and you could easily spray paint it on a prominent landmark to draw eyes to it.

Attached: 6688_-_flag_gundam_sieg_zeon_zeon.jpg (1920x1080, 2.22M)

Interesting assertion to make even as right-populists in Hungary are dismantling workers' rights as we speak. Trump didn't only win because of the wall, only de-economized neets on 4chan think that. He wouldn't have won without liberal economic policies and concessions to "job creators". His supporters in the real world screech incessantly about how taxes are theft and socdem welfare is satanic. Opposing nebulous "globalist corporations" does not make one anti-capitalist, it just means they support the national bourgeoisie over international ones. You are not wrong about how the left should be more patriotic in its rhetoric, I agree with that, but you are ignoring economics a lot. Ask the average Trump supporter what he thinks about the more nationalist socialists like Commandante Marcos or Castro, and they will likely say "well maybe they aren't CUCKS, but they still follow a failed economic theory that only works on paper!" Just changing aesthetics won't magically make the left win. Some people will just never join us because of class interests. Most have anti-communist brainworms that go beyond distaste for anti-nationalist rhetorics. That's why theory is still massively important. No, most people aren't "basically communists, but put off by unpatriotic rhetorics". I'd like for that to be the case, but no.

Liberal economic policies simply aren't a winning strategy in the american political landscape anymore–now, while his economic policies ARE liberal, what pushed him to victory was his heavy stance on nationalization, especially to rust belt workers. These people didn't vote for him because they thought he'd deregulate the economy, but because they thought he would take a strong protectionist stance and that industrial jobs would return to the U.S.

Almost no one in the modern U.S. starts off as "anti-capitalist", generally speaking the divide is between NeoConservative or NeoLiberalism with maybe Social Democracy or libertarianism thrown in the mix somewhere. However, certain economic positions you may take originally lends one to be more conducive to an anti-capitalist stance later. The failure of socialism in the U.S. isn't because of actual, instinctual hatred of what Socialism really is, but because of fear and hatred of it's popular image: Venezeula, The U.S.S.R., so on.

I doubt most Trump supporters know who Commandante Marcos even is–secondly, the reason Zig Forums can look to Pinochet as an idol and meme him, is because of the perception of him fixing Chile's economy and turning it into a prosperous country. Cuba is not prosperous, at least not compared to the U.S. or other Western States, and it doesn't get across the "feeling" or carry the "perception" of prosperity.

Anyone expecting a magic victory is deluding themselves–however where Aesthetics are actively harmful to what you're trying to "sell," they must be changed, and expecting to win based off of theory alone is an exercise in futility.

We'd like to believe that given the choice between something "rational" and something "irrational" people would choose the rational option, but if what's rational has no aesthetic or emotional appeal, one may be shocked to find large swathes of people–if not the majority–choosing the irrational.

I've heard a lot of leftists state that if only people "really understood" what leftism was, they would support it wholeheartedly. Well that simply isn't true. I've read my fair share of left wing theory–Bookchin, Trotsky, Marx–and I've spent a lot of time debating with Leftists enough to "absorb" their beliefs through argument, I know that the USSR was a National Capitalist state and what leftists mean when they say it, I'm under no delusion that any prior state could be called "leftist" yet again, I'm still not left wing.

Why? Well call it petty, but I just don't like leftists very much and the stereotype of the howling "SJW" is off-putting enough that I don't want to publicly associate with any left wingers. In fact, I must confess that if there's any group I seem to have an abiding hatred and loathing of, it's left wingers–hypocritical or based in ignorance this hatred may be, it exists nonetheless.

Most people aren't "basically communist" but their understanding is incomplete and their perception is clouded by popculture. The seeds, however, are still there: the hatred of corporations, the dislike of income inequality, the anxiety over the economy, it's all still there.

One of the chief problems, if not THE chief problem, is rhetoric and aesthetics. If half the communist movements in third world countries spoke about their peoples' history, traditions, and culture like they speak about them in the U.S., they wouldn't even get off the ground.

Attached: 1535132828493.jpg (825x1200, 144.42K)

Oh you're that guy. Forget that I said anything.

Attached: ef39f5dcc3503623deb3d665f4e618620ff252f9cbc7786fcfffb8e4dae0d0c9.jpg (255x213, 16.44K)

If you can't accept that people are going to judge you in ways you perceive unfairly and that this will negatively affect a wider movement, then you can't do much to organize positively.

Attached: 1535034610481.png (438x396, 247.61K)

the whole point of this board is to subvert the exact norms in leftist groups that attract tumblr. we are the anti-idpol left. nothing less, nothing more.

Maybe we should listen to what this guy has to say. We don't have to agree with him 100% but he does bring up some good points. It's rare that someone outside comes to engage with us in an honest way.

Regarding the symbol though, I favor the plain red flag. No fist, no star, no sickle and hammer. Just simple elegant red.

This board has no real "point" nowadays, it's a shrinking faction of the anti-idpol left. Being anti-idpol was only really contentious several years back.

find me one place outside this shithole that isn't like r/socialism

r/stupidpol

terminal autism

See, here's the problem with your subversion–not to say it's a bad thing–but you committed the dual sins of having no strategy and no tactics.

What's the purpose of this board? If I asked you this question, chances are your answer would be different from the one given to me by others.

Is it for fun? To subvert the IdPol left? To organize leftists globally? To subvert capitalist society? To overcome Zig Forums?

How do you define identity politics, and at what point will you claim victory? This is one of the most basic rules of power: define an obstacle, define what overcoming it will be, then make plans for short term successes and then finally end those plans once you reach a certain condition of "success".

This board doesn't have a "purpose", it's a collective of disparate leftists united by vague sentiment. Our culture is inundated, sadly, with miracle sentiment, we portray the rich and powerful as having "that one lucky break" that lead to their success, or inventing some simplistic thing that earned them millions, rarely do we ever see them setting goals, accomplishing them, all with a strict endgoal in sight.

For a board that opposes Zig Forums it's committed the same cardinal sin as Zig Forums: it has no strategy. Granted, Zig Forums had a bit of one–it's stupid but it was still there: get some populist elected and hope to Christ he makes our country "white" again (whatever that entails). It's a dice throw, but at least that's still an action even if it's ruled entirely by chaos and chance.

You want to "subvert the idpol left"? Then come up with a God damned plan. Not vague sentiment, not vague calls of "organize the working class", but concrete plans of action with a goal in sight.

Here's one for you–and it's well within your power to make this a thread on this board–why not make the first plan in your grand strategy overcoming Zig Forums? Say that you want more active posters than Zig Forums gets.

Okay, now that you have that somewhat concrete idea, how are you going to reach it? How much do you want to grow per month? How do you expect to grow the number of active posters? Do you want to reach out to new people, or encourage lurkers to post? Will you advertise on other lefty forums? Or maybe public forums unrelated to leftist politics?

Once you reach more active posters than Zig Forums, what then? If you do nothing, then you'll quickly sink back into irrelevance, push those posters to something new–be it the creation of a new online organizing platform for leftists, a new party, or even operations to spread understanding of basic Marxist principles to wider people (pamphlets work wonders, believe it or not)

Attached: 1530053465454.jpg (960x1280, 164.11K)

that's not a political group, that's another Zig Forums

1. anti-aesthetics on the left
most of the anti-aesthetic and anti-traditional stuff you see on the left in developed countries is a product of bourgeois radicals who status-signal by contrasting their "correct" views with the "incorrect" views of real working people, due to racism, homophobia, not accepting trans people, not wanting mass immigration, etc.

SJWs, political correctness, etc - it's all status signalling among the bourgeoisie.

this filters down into the working class only insofar as the left-wing of the bourgeoisie often assumes leadership roles within working class politics due to the fact that they're more educated, more articulate, and have dispensable income so they can afford to spend time engaging in pet political projects. these people are the Victoria Woodhulls that the original socialists and communists tried to expel.

2. the appeal of fascism
The appeal of fascism, like you wrote, is largely in its aesthetics. the irony here is that the most powerful expression of fascist aesthetics, ideology, and political organizing came from NS Germany. The roots of their success lay in both adapting or outright copying tactics and aesthetics from the far-left. Hitler's idea of mass marches as a propaganda tool, for example, originally came to him when watching a Communist march. He writes about this in Mein Kampf. Likewise, Hitler understood that the Socialist/Communist movement gained followers because it had an army of agitators and public speakers willing to promote the cause. Marxist theory played relatively little role in building a popular movement. The NSDAP's flag was also partially inspired by the left, which is why Hitler chose the color red. Their use of the word "comrade", likewise. Hitler knew that to achieve a revolution he needed to tap into the broad masses of working people - not university professors or the chamber of commerce. Some of Hitler's speeches about this theme are really quite brilliant.

So then, why is the modern left so utterly fucked and anti-aesthetic. Why does it alienate more people than it attracts? Again, look at my first point. Much of the modern left is dominated by status-signalling middle class people who want to gain credibility by showing how much better they are than ignorant proles and lumpens. Look at the LGBT movement. Studies have been done showing how homosexuals, as a rule, tend to be far more affluent than average. The LGBT movement is a middle class phenomena, since working class people (gay or straight) are primarily concerned with the difficulties of daily life and not rainbow parades.

We used to have strategy and tactics and they worked insofar that our ideas have been taken up quite widely and there are popular revolts that shun the sort of things we were against.
You guys fucked up thinking that spreading your board culture would take over the world, all that happened was you ended up flooded with retarded boomers. That's because you're newfags.

KYS retarded redditor, the other poster asked for a page that wasn't idpozzed to the nines, and I provided one. Politically we've got far more traction than the absolute joke that is the internet.

This is no surprise, Socialism as it exists in the reality of modern american political discourse is as a means for the middle class to prop itself up and avoid its oncoming proletarianization. It isn't "working class" but rather a means for people more affluent than most to live their unsustainable lifestyles in what they hope to be perpetuity.

What a wonderfully vague statement just dripping in self-aggrandizement.

There is no "we", there's a you. I doubt you did much–and this is no insult towards your character, but a suspicion based entirely on the type of person who uses "we" frequently enough–and I also very much doubt Zig Forums did something. The phrase

Is also vague, no explanation is given for what these "popular revolts" manifested as, and "things we were against" is so obscure as to basically be a non-description.

I don't doubt that there's been some explosion of anti-idpol sentiment on the left, SJWs are shockingly easy to hate and the rise of the internet far right certainly is cause for concern and anger among the far left. However you cannot point to specific strategies and actions taken by Zig Forums that lead to this, it was nothing beyond an explosion of sentiment, a feeling that erupted from angry left wingers, and it's quickly dissipated once the initial momentum wore off.

Attached: 1531439928274.jpg (1189x671, 228.04K)

Neck yourself you pretentious and wordy cunt. There's zero substance to what you're typing and all you do is handwave away everything true that I've said as "woulda happened anyway". Dumbass chimp.

This is called "moving the Overton Window." But I don't think this actually works very well for the right, because it requires a bunch of different self-interested people all coordinating together to keep the whole trick going. It basically functions as a conspiracy. When the wires get crossed, they hit the rocks or get deplatformed very fast. Look at what has happened to the alt-right over the past year.

It's also a weird strategy to rely on grifters to somehow get your views out there, especially considering they don't usually appeal to normies; most people on Youtube who follow Gavin, Lauren Southern, and so on are just 4chan Nazis. They're after money, not any real political movement. That's why they're so obsessed with stunts over actually getting out the vote. Sargon said the n-word too many times and lost his Patreon, Laura Loomer got kicked off Twitter for general racism, Milo Yabbadabbodoo got discovered to be a pedo and was obliterated from every platform, Gab is on the rocks because it created an atmosphere that turns people into mass murderers, and so on. It's an embarrassing strategy overall, especially considering they can just look at the successful Euro Nazis and how they do shit.

You'd have to say something first before you say something true.

As an addendum I never accused the board of "doing" anything but rather that it didn't do anything.

Finally, you still haven't explained what those supposed "popular revolts" were or how Zig Forums was responsible for them. You really should learn to take criticism friend.

Attached: 1529000824563.jpg (549x664, 326.07K)

Why would I waste time effortposting to an irrelevant ideology represented by some smarmy retard?

That's not true at all. Extremely wrong. LGBT people are not more affluent than average – they are actually less so. Most pride parades are largely working-class people. Where I live (Texas) my local pride parade is heavily people of color (Hispanic mainly) who are not particularly wealthy or anything. I think you are basing your impression off of a media-generated image and not the reality.

Attached: pride.jpg (1200x791, 207.2K)

No, there are a lot of studies that confirm this. Homosexual couples are on average noticeably more affluent than heterosexual couples.
paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2017/08/29/class-and-the-lgtb-lobby/

Read the comments questioning Cockshott's assumptions in that article. He's talking about gay men specifically – you wonder if there is some self-selection going on since professional gay men are more likely to be out and will participate in such studies. Then he said the "LGBT movement is a middle class phenomena." But then what about transgender people and lesbians? Some studies show LGBT people more broadly defined have much higher food insecurity and poverty rates than the cis, hetero population:

theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/03/the-myth-of-gay-affluence/284570/

Anecdotally, as someone who hangs out in gay bars and goes to pride parades, the idea that this is a middle-class phenomenon is laughable to me.