Is the anti-IDpol left rising?

that was a shitpost. Real talk : America is a hellish shithole and you cannot win in this game. It is designed and structured in a way where you don't get to win outside of a great depression tier economic crash and simultaneous military defeat where all the disparate groups in the country can actually be mad enough to do something. Here's the thing about idpol it's used as an effective divide and conquer tool and it's also based off of real grievances of disparate groups in a massive empire where everyone is pissed off about something and pitted against someone else.

All these groups, like Blacks, strong wamen, gays and lesbians, latinos, natives, bernie bro's, urbanites, ruralites socialists etc have fucking nothing in common outside of majority support for the democrat party in a desire to BTFO Flumpf, party loyalty and the idea that the Democrats are "left" opposing the Flumpf values or rural and suburban nativist America is right you don't get other serious options here. Strong Wamen are concerned with being careerists, gays and lesbians just want to be gays and lesbians, Blacks broadly speaking view themselves as otherized foreigners in a country that was never their own in a majority white society that they will never be dominant in and along comes the gamer autiste explaining to them that since they vote for Democrats they are then on the same team with all the other revolutionary, environmentalism and the Stalin larp while the blacks just want capitalism where they are in charge and get to be the careerists and the owners. All these groups want to be in charge and have more power for themselves, socialists want to change the system but are forced into the same "team" with everyone else to play this retarded game where porky always wins.

If you try and just be socialists and dismiss everyone else on the team you're dismissing their concerns you're not a team player and you're weakening the team you're excluding things you don't like and therefore you want the racists and nazis to win therefore you have to sufficiently accommodate all the power interests of most groups in the "left" democrat category to get anything done at that point you are fucked anyway

And why is exactly is this a bad thing? You yourself acknowledge through this that there is a lot of revolutionary potential behind these interest groups, yet you are arguing in favor of further alienating them. I never understood this fervent muh anti-idpol rhetoric around here. In my opinion, it only plays out as a lukewarm "I don't see race xDD" stance for recent polyps-turned-tankie. You have to work with and sometimes even within interest groups to actually achieve shit. Marx made this same mistake in his own time by alienating the anarchists and turning the International into his own circlejerk.

anarchists and marxists very broadly speaking maybe kinda want similar things and have a similar worldview. It ultimately doesn't matter because you can't win this game. You can have your little anarchist/marxist group but you will influence fuck all electorally on a national scale because you are pigeonholed into the democrat party weather you like it or not.

Liberals, Progressives resist# retards and interest groups want to btfo the Republicans and that's about it. Give some alms to the poor get more power and resources for their group and not have an aesthetically retarded president.

By "working" with them you gotta just shill the program you will never sell them on revolutionary change or anything like that maybe on a personal individual level its possible but you'll be shilling basic populist things everyone likes like medicare for all it is viable so you'll end up becoming a lieutenant of the democrat party that way but they already have so many people shilling that already anyway.

And when the Democrats inevitably run their shitty candidate with his shitty programme you will be asked to shill for the team, if you try and argue for Bernie Sanders or someshit (who is shitty anyway) you will be called a racist/sexist/extremist and not a team player depending on what kind of shill candidate based on poll's/focus groups/racial/demographic/swing state/donor combination the democrats will be running that time around, demshits will re-take power eventually and do some new shit that will be useless in the long run some new "reform" that sounds kinda maybe like something "leftist" in the retarded government does things sense of the word designed to somewhat appease the masses get politicians votes and kick the can down the road Fox News will call the reform communism and the end of America and the shitshow will continue forever until there is an environmental/ Malthusian collapse or a world war and Great Depression type event.

Pretty sure he was being sarcastic mods

Attached: ironic shitposting is still shitposting pony.png (534x400, 61.89K)

Then just kys lmao

idk but I sure wish idpol types had a sense of humor, at least.
It would be easier to talk to them and work out differences if they weren't prudish, mirthless, husks that pearl grip at every opportunity.

Attached: Dv7coPrXcAAIATX.jpg (605x471, 44.13K)

I don't see much of it outside of the internet.

Hopefully liberal idpol will run its course and both sides will throw it out so serious discussion can begin

You act like it's some innocent grassroots movement when it's not, it's a deliberate tool of neoliberals to beat leftists with ala 'Bernie Bros', they are never going to have a 'serious discussion'.

And there can be a rejection of that like the election of Donald Trump was a rejection against Soros, the Clintons etc

the communist internationals ended up becoming the most influential political parties in the world. there's nothing wrong with eliminating reactionary elements from your party. this is exactly how Lenin was able to catapult Russia from serfdom to space stations.
not to mention Bakunin was a reactionary retard who strawmanned Marx as a Proudhonian "big bank shill". and Marx was openly anti-slavery and a women's rights activist (before he was even a communist), and the International Department of the USSR continued to support liberal democratic countries in issues of civil rights for most of the 20th century even going into the 80s.
to act like anti-idpol is some sort of threat to communism or even egalitarianism in general is completely historically dishonest and pure conjecture at best.

add retarded to the list

I had to get myself into socialism as a former reactionary.

I’ve only ever gotten non political people into socialism.

My dude I have actually had retards calling me a racist for repeating something a racist said to point out racism. Not even like using slurs or anything, just quoting their opinions about stuff like race and Autism Level. People will get mad at me (white) for mentioning someone's race at all.

Online is worse than IRL but not always by much. There are loads of mentally unstable kiddos who are jonesing for something they can take out of context.

Attached: 1420341121362.gif (512x512, 331.65K)

I get that, and that's annoying… but so what? I don't mean this to sound flippant… but it wasn't the end of the world, you know?

I like this post particularly about the alienated reality of America, but I disagree with you.

My impression is that if you're a white man in America, you often grow up in an environment where you head is filled up from an early age with a bunch of nonsense, and people take you seriously in a way they don't for other people. As Homer Simpson said, "I'm a white male, age 18 to 49, everyone listens to me! No matter how dumb my suggestions are!"

youtube.com/watch?v=t28ZB1t6gg8

And I am a white male in America, age 18 to 49, so everyone listens to me. Of course there are annoying idpol people. There were some in the Obama years particularly who seemed to be just running an online grift. Online grievance mongers, I think. I've had some annoying encounters with people (other white people who jump at any thing perceived racist, whether it was or not), but I've also been "corrected" by people because – in retrospect – I said stupid racist shit and I got mad about it because I didn't want to acknowledge it at the time. There's a degree to which this "anti-idpol" sentiment feels like opportunism to me, because it's asking to set aside principled criticism for short-term political gains; see

I think a lot of of white guys also have good intentions, and when they get pushback for the stupid shit in their head manifesting in reality, they get frustrated. There's a temptation to wanna throw up your hands and go "fine! Geeze! If you didn't want me here then I'll leave!" and storm out in a big dramatic display.

Attached: iggy_1.gif (480x270, 422.84K)

It makes it impossible to discuss anything with them and it speaks to their judgment and choices in other contexts. I'm not personally upset or offended if that's what you're implying. It worries me seeing this kind of thing repeatedly.

Here's another example. I'm in a little socialist club that is mostly white guys. There's a Hispanic girl in there who is a bit younger than a lot of the men.

Guess what happened? The white guys started dominating the discussion periods. (Well, one guy in particular was doing it.) This happened recently, and for whatever reason she trusted me enough to confide to me about it. A caveat here is that she actually said this is worse in Democratic Party meetings. I think white guys also interrupt people a lot too because they think they know everything and their every word is insightful. The "white man interrupted by POC woman" that gets a lot of viral traction in complaints about the anti-idpol left don't reckon that white men interrupt POC women all the fucking time and the white guys don't even realize they're doing it.

Put yourself in the shoes of this girl for a second. The result was she just sat in the back and didn't say anything. I'm amazed she stuck around as long as she did.

Anyways I went to some other people in the group and proposed doing slack for further meetings; didn't say why I just proposed it and didn't make a deal out of it. Not even really progressive stack. Just regular old stack because we're a small group. You raise your hand if you want to get on stack and you want to speak. Once that happened she spoke a lot more and became a lot more confident in contributing. I think you should try to actively seek out the opinions of people like her in your groups, because people aren't usually doing that.

Incidentally, I was at another socialist meeting (Trots) who did full-on progressive stack. I was a minority in there (as a white man) and to my surprise, I got bumped up to the top of the stack because I was a new member. You also have a dedicated person taking stack (quietly, in the background) so interruptions like "ahem, excuse me, why is X talking right now?" doesn't happen. If you want to get on stack, raise your hand, otherwise stop talking.

What also tends to happen is all the white guys kind of naturally clique up, and all the women clique up. Black people clique up, etc. Then the men start to think the women are plotting their demise, and the women are sensing naked hostility from the men, so they then actually clique up and start to plot the men's demise (usually out of self-defense eventually). Anyways I'm kind of rambling.

Attached: iggy_2.gif (480x270, 3.81M)

It's the other way around. Pandering to identity politics for personal gain is extremely easy, overcoming them for the sake of principle is grueling.
You don't realize how fucking braindead identitarians are until you're the one they're pretending to represent. I've been bitched at for being "homophobic", and when I point out that I myself an a homosexual, they accuse me of having "internalized homophobia" or outright lying about my sexuality–they mistreat me for being gay because I disagree with them! When I try to explain to them that capitalism has a thousand times more negative impact on my life than anti-gay sentiments, they lose their shit and drop the discussion. When I point out that I have mental issues save the jokes lurking Zig Forumsacks and that socialism would make life for the disabled profoundly better while political correctness only serves to trivialize their problems, they lose their shit and drop the discussion. I can't even describe how fucking pissed I was when I heard that the Democrat Cops of America tards were union busting–FUCKING UNION BUSTING AS "SOCIALISTS"–because of tenuous claims of "ableist" language. Not even actual mistreatment, just some fucking words. That I was not personally there is why I am here typing this and not in prison for violent crime.
The reason these people are so insufferable and counterproductive is as simple as it gets: they are not working class. More often than not these mentally weak dipshits are petty-bourg kids with ruling class affiliations, mostly through family. Politics to them is nothing more than a game to inflate their own egos.

Particularism is bourgeois. Period. Not only will liberals also get the bullet, they may even be first in line.

Attached: 7b5e78f6847535c3652484b22d4fbd4b0ae3f84d548bcb8905a55adcd9cd4fbf.jpg (640x537, 54.59K)

I read this post several times in the hopes that I wouldn’t be strawmanning it but honestly all I got out of it was the typical Occupy/Good white ™️ BLM supporter message:
I mean you really gotta still be living mentally (maybe before then) in the Obama years to think everyone takes your opinion seriously just because your a white man. Really, the notion that we will learn anything profound as members of a “dominant group” by just shutting up and allowing people from marginalized backgrounds to speak is inane. And, that’s because people don’t actually know what they want—you really do have to put on the glasses in Zizekian terms to see things clearly, it isn’t something that comes from some invisible osmosis of folk knowledge that some people may have access to and others don’t.

Reading through the dreck of post-modern post-colonial identitarian nonsense, I can hardly entertain the idea that whatever you consider the default “white guy” ideology is hardly more absurd than what’s forced into the heads of “people of color”.

I’ll be a bit racy here in saying that default centrist white liberalism is actually closer to Marxism in holding that the rise of the Eurocentric enlightenment along with capitalism and its spread to the world (via colonialism) have ultimately been progressive. Perhaps identitarians will be closer on other issues but in general they hold a reactionary worldview that wishes they could erase 500 years of history and recede to some traditionalist utopia that the white man trampled on.

Again, I said “perhaps” because when it came to Syria blacks were far more pro-war than whites—for the first time ever. Looking at #Resistance reacts to the Trump drawdown it’s looking like that isn’t just an anomaly but that pro-war is becoming an important tenant of a kind of identitarian internationalist liberalism forming its identity around “resistance” to Trump. With #Russiagate its becoming clear that this warmongering chauvinism isn’t just a problem of backstabbing democratic elites in the pay of corporate America but something rotten at the grassroots.

Few people seem to be able to admit that when it comes to the issue of war, Trump and his racisr supporters were ultimately far less vociferous and dangerous than the Democratic social-imperialists. Even when it comes to the most profane of profanities for left-liberals, the Republican Party, it can hardly be assumed that greater judgement I automatic on the basis of skin color. 1/3 of Hispanics support the GOP, one opinion poll has found that possibly 30%+ of blacks like Trump.

On that basis alone it would seem that the notion of some inside knowledge common to non-whites, a point liberals often make with their long-winded rants about how changing demographics means Democratic Party superiority forever, is really just not present.

And reading your follow up post it would seem to me that’s exactly your point. Cliqueishness is one thing but the fact that Americans socialists feel that one group being disproportionately being represented in debates means other groups lose I think is a sign of political immaturity. They implicitly assume that the truth is dependent on who you are and not what you say.

The idpol critique of anti-idpol always seems to come down to the fact that even if identities shouldn’t matter they still matter. This reasonable argument is then paired with the unreasonable position that the answer is to institutionalize said identities (which inevitably aims to maintain them) or to treat them differently in practice.

Needless to say, I wasn’t convinced by the problems you outlined in your posts that the answer to said problems is to allow in anti-Marxist ideologies and positions to deal with said problem. That is ultimately the end-goal of pro-idpol types, and I’ve seen that many times. Ultimately, it usually leads to tailing the latest trends in liberalism and nuclear group meltdowns

Did it occur to you that this is a function of encouraging people to speak in general instead of specifically encouraging minority groups to speak? Because based on your description the only thing about the scenario involving race is the perception that race was a factor. You mentioned that she was relatively young for the group, which seems more significant considering how much weight gets put explicitly on the importance of experience and knowledge.

I have anecdotal experience with non white folks being strident and confident as well as timid, just like white folks. When a white dude interrupts anybody else that's fodder for outrage. When anybody else interrupts anybody else (especially if they're interrupting a white dude) it's not support for your point so you ignore it. People are prone to ignoring and talking over each other in general. Problematizing and focusing on one group doing it doesn't make it a white dude problem, just introduces confirmation bias. Taking your weird didactic tone comes off as an attempt to spur anger and validate your assumptions.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (579x371, 443.75K)

That's what happens when you form a "club" instead of an org.

Then explain to me why I should listen to you.

I think you should really focus on what's happening in front of your own eyes and the people immediately around you. I don't even know what to do about abstractions like "more blacks support war in Syria" or something like that, or "30%+ of blacks like Trump" which seems unlikely to me, or particularly relevant.

Let me tell you a story. Before I was ever interested in anti-capitalism I was involved in gay rights campaigns. I remember sitting in a bar talking to a straight guy ("ally" would be the terminology) who had been disinvited from attending the LGBT group on campus. He wondered whether it was something to do with him being straight. In any case, he had a lot of resentment about this, and I'm gay so I thought I'd lend him a friendly ear. When I started talking with him more, though, he started explained at length about why he thought black homophobia was the big problem (he was white) and how we all really need to get our act together and fight black homophobia. We can't make any progress as long as there's all this black homophobia. His evidence for this was polling data from California which showed that black voters voted at higher rates than whites to repeal same-sex marriage rights in 2008, a ballot proposition known as Prop 8.

Now, what is my point here? Well, he was right – blacks voted at higher rates for Prop 8. But it was only by a few percentage points, so in terms of the overall population they probably didn't have a decisive effect on the outcome. In any case, it wasn't the black community writ large that put the damn proposition on the ballot – but the evangelical churches and with a lot of funding in particular from the Mormon church in Utah. Politically speaking, making a big deal out of black homophobia (which I'm not saying is not a problem) particular by white gay rights activists is a dumb strategy that will backfire, because the *political base* of our enemy – our enemy's organizational and funding networks – was concentrated in the white evangelical community ala the Religious Right; which is a political organization that had mobilized to try and stop us. The actual *vote* was of third-order importance. It was not where the real battle was taking place.

So like I said, so what if "more blacks support war in Syria"? For one, I have no idea if that's true. But more importantly, how is that where the political terrain is decided? My friend in the bar, he would not think that criticizing black homophobia was any different from criticizing white homophobia. It was just as bad, in his view. Making a distinction here, to him, would be like idpol (we didn't use the term "idpol" then but it's the same debate). However, the distinction mattered because there are – as the SJWs like to say – differences in the distribution of power in American society.

Basically what I'm saying is that "anti-idpol" sentiments often seem like a retreat from engaging in real politics and with actual human beings and how power is really distributed. Now if there's an "anti-idpol" Marxist organization you'd like me to join, please direct me to one, because that's all I have to say.

Attached: giphy.gif (500x264, 499.35K)

When I was going to Trot meetings (before reading any books), initially we had no stack. People would interrupt each other a fair bit and some would dominate discussion. We adopted a plain stack (actually a queue, a stack is "first in last out") and that was that. "Progressive stack" is COINTELPRO, a speaking queue is a common sense solution if you are in a meeting with more than a handful of people. It will easily solve any issues of people dominating/speaking out of line.

So you should be a posadist at this point.

Go back to Twitter you fucking slag.

Oh I'm not done, actually. Two more things.

You know what we did about those evangelical funding networks and political organizations? We fucking destroyed them, and we won, nation-wide.

Secondly, your anti-idpol Marxist organization will have to be located in the U.S. South.

Now I'm done.

Vulgar internet atheism "destroyed" those networks… and they got replaced with plain fascism. You didn't accomplish shit, you Democrat shill.

You come off exactly like the type of self-assured condescending white guy your seem to think every other white guy is, and you're not better than that just because you aim your bullshit firehose at other white guys.

The dude you're responding to was pointing out that you're treating these identity groups like monoliths when they're not. Splitting people up like this to begin with was a project of the ruling class to divide people, treating them like voting blocs for decades for the purposes of marketing campaigning and discussing issues still is a project of the liberal establishment to do the same, particularly to stifle unity. You make his point for him with your analysis of the prop 8 vote.
Except you're making entirely the wrong distinction. You actually made the right one in the first bit I quoted - it's the organizations that are the problem instead of the people. But then you forget about that somehow and say that what really matters is the white and black distinction, even though the difference between a shitty evangelical church for black people and a shitty evangelical church for white people is what exactly? Are you trying to say "I dunno how the fuck the black vote ended up that way! We all know the shitty evangelical churches are the white ones and the black ones did nothing wrong ever!" or what that unintentional? Regardless of their funding, black or white or hispanic-predominant churches are going to influence the voting of their members (and yeah black Americans tend to have stronger community ties).

You bring up points and then just move on to something else like you think showing you're familiar enough with the subject to talk about it is enough when it isn't. You have to weave the ideas into a coherent point, and the details you bring up to demonstrate that you're sophisticated and nuanced thinker contradict your thesis, and blatantly. Your race theory is Zig Forums tier and by the evidence of yourself you've demonstrated is based entirely on projection.

I don't think (well at least I hope) the point for most people is not to just completely insulate themselves from orgs with idpol elements to them.

Personally, I view liberal idpol as just as reactionary as white idpol, if less harmful. My general attitude irl though is that I understand why a lot of minorities find it appealing, and enforcing a "hard line" against it is counter productive, just like enforcing some PC speech code is counter productive. What we should be doing is making people feel like their particular issues are being heard, and you're not gonna do that by exploding at anyone who starts bitching about cultural appropriation. What is important is to keep counter productive and reactionary ideas from taking over leadership or letting them grow into a part of organizational culture.

I vent about idpol on the internet because weeding it out of the Leftosphere irl is so fucking exhausting work.

Attached: DpQ9YJl.png (700x700, 20.78K)

I don't think addressing the particular concerns of a group is necessarily identitarian, as that implies more a worldview centering around some ascribed identity.

Some concerns, like cultural appropriation, are inherently identitarian, however, and really only the professional-managerial class and artists, both of which can use their cultural backgrounds for career purposes, are extremely concerned about it. That is, if you have very many people expressing such views, to the point that it does become a semi-frequent subject, it's likely the organization is appealing to such types and not the working class as a whole.

Christ, their faces. Reminds me of a bit from Four Lions

We need more movies like Four Lions tbh. Absurd comedy may be the only way to capture certain aspects of ideology. That or some kind of horror.

I agree with this.

I'm just frustrated with people who take this uber-left anti-idpol line and then show a picture of black women interrupting Bernie Sanders. And I'm the opportunist? Sanders is just another social democrat. Opportunists to the left of me, opportunists to the right, and I'm stuck in the middle here in Zig Forums

Power. And how these organizations are constituted and politically organized in the United States.

People just use it as an example of identitarian wreckers that everyone can recognize. I never supported Sanders, but it's obvious what was happening there.

That's what you're hung up on? Those women who interrupted him aren't comrades either. It's a well-known and direct counterexample to your assertions about white men not listening to WOC. It's no more valid than your anecdote, but you still find an excuse to dismiss it by deflecting as if the point was to endorse the white man's politics rather than illustrate the social dynamic.
Playing up being a centrist isn't going to endear you to the left my dude.

Hard to get much vaguer than "power." Being able to sway your congregation's vote seems like power to me, unless there's some essence of blackness that means black churches can't have whatever "power" is.
Yeah, and like I said treating people like blocs and reinforcing those delineations contributes to the status quo re: demographic composition, and like the other guy said that process is breaking down now (thank fuck).

Yes, because liberals are not Marxists. We want them to fuck off, and to have our political goals usurp theirs. They are wrong and retarded.

A greater problem seems to be the lack of party structure and discipline, with cliqueism, spontaneousism, and so on and so forth, being the main guiding principles instead of solid Marxist theory

Tbh, most women's issues, and issues with blacks are often class related.
The Wage Gap is for the employers to extend the reserve army of the poor, and have a section of the proletarian to fall back upon, Domestic abuse situations, and indirectly reproductive rights, are caused by alienation coming from the capitalist relations of production.
The Issues with blacks are mostly caused by the further developments within the bourgeois state.

good post

Yeah, this the is why prima facie the whole intersectionality thing is so dumb. The most important factor is usually ignored or downplayed and I've never once seen it portrayed as the medium or the context through or in which these other things operate.

The problem with pointing out the importance of class is that inevitably, you're going to meet some people that don't understand that having your feelings hurt is not a societal issue. I don't mean cultural criticism, I mean literally, when liberals get mad about dumb shit.

THERE'S A WAR ON CHRISTMAS

No, it isn't. I'm saying this as someone who has been vocal anti-idpol since at least OWS. I always feel that we're growing and gaining a voice, but then something happens that makes me realise we're even more outnumbered than we were before.

The reason it always feels like we're growing is because many, many leftists "age out" of identity politics at some point. It doesn't take much brain or much irl organizing to notice how destructive it is, and as stubborn as some people can be in resisting this, they always end up admiting that it at least should have some restrictions placed upon it so it doesn't get out of control.

But the problem is that, by the time they notice this, new people have come in. A new generation of kids who are now college-aged start to grow political, and their first instinct is to take the social justice issues they were raised with and take it to radical extremes. When they join left-wing groups or spaces they feel like it's their duty to be as aggressive in pushing these radical identitarian politics as they can be. By then, the generation that has just come to its senses on identity politics is already preoccupied with other concerns like their families and careers, and they're not going to play tug-of-war with teenagers and people in their early 20's who think they know everything. We've been in their place before, and we know better than to get into shouting matches with them.

To illustrate this, just think of the Occupy generation. They all left feeling disillusioned, cheated by divisive identity politics and performative politics, and wanting to choke the Ketchups of the world with their bare hands. This was reflected on the left-wing zeitgeist of the time (2012-2013 were the years of the "it's there an anti-identity politics backlash coming?" think pieces on left-wing publications). But now the generation that has gotten in through Sanders, through Chapo Trap House and the Democrat Cops of America, who were mostly too young to have experienced that, are the ones taking the lead, and they're pushing more identity politics than ever.

These kids too will eventually realize how stupid they're being, but by then too they'll be outnumbered. Because of that, in order for the cycle to be broken, Socialists need a huge demographic shift. Enough of flooding our organizations with 21 year old students of middle-class backgrounds who only know identity politics because they live otherwise safe, sheltered lives. Bring in adults with genuine economic and union grievances and radicalize them, and create an atmosphere where young newcomers feel that their main duty is to learn and grow with the experience of others.

Most of this idpol shit is pushed by trannies.

That's not how generations work. The dumb shits pushing idpol in the left wing today are the exact same people who ruined the Occupy movement years ago. Disillusioned ones just gave up on mainstream politics entirely, or caved to peer pressure and became liberals.

This. Kick out the boomers.

Eh, I have mental issues too.
Keep your head up, faggot.

the crux of idpol is that social justice can be achieved independent of economic justice, therein revealing it's class character and reformist nature

Or maybe they've grown up in a different cultural/group environment where communication is more boisterous. You seem to automatically assume that because they where a different sex and ethnicity than her, that sex and ethnicity somehow came into play. I don't understand why a new member of the group suddenly gets to define how interaction occurs against the already established members who are used to the group norms. If I go to a death metal concert and complain it's loud and I get pushed in a mosh pit, it's my problem because I didn't adapt to the group's method of communication. If I go to a formal debate and complain that the moderator won't let me monologue over my allotted time, it's my problem not theirs.
Well if she never mentioned it to them how the fuck are they supposed to know? Why are you assuming that it must be because the new member is not a white male that they are doing this? I don't understand how anyone can preach inclusivity while being exclusive to someone because they happen to be a part of a majority demographic, and that somehow the majority demographic has an inherent lack of insight into anyone else's viewpoints. As stated, you're just trading one type of discrimination for another and all it does is piss people off because you're putting words in their mouths and thoughts in their heads for behavior they might not even realize they're doing.

Attached: 1504669716-1.png (778x802, 222.68K)

...

There's this idea among socialists that all these idpolers are supposedly proper leftists who got misled or someshit. Idpoler's get exactly what they wanted. It's not as if hurr here I was agitating for gay rights when I really wanted Marxism Leninism. All those people did their idpol and got the results they wanted to get by organizing agitating and doing propaganda Blacks got de-segregation and better treatment they were being led mostly by religious figures and black nationalists and yet leftists seem to think that this was about leftism when it wasn't women got the right to vote and work and be seen as equals and get treated better they never wanted Marxism Leninism and don't give a fuck about it. Gays wanted marraige equality and to be treated better they don't give a fuck about MArxism Leninism like you think Tim Cook gives a fuck about socialism Trannies wanted to be treated better and not be seen as mentally ill and have better meds they don't give a fuck about Marxism all these idpolers probably admire Tim Cook and Jobs and hate Lenin and Marx.

fucking lmao.

well it's not like they were entirely successful They were marginally successful . Hence black idpol is still a powerful thing with the BLM's and other shit which will keep happening until they think they have full equality

yeah and if you explain to them while they'll never get that under capitalism they will happily accept.
it's apparent to me you grew up in some white part of the country and never interacted with any black people. most of them are highly critical of the libdem party system and wholly demoralized and disenfranchised. if you explain to them Marxist critiques of political economy they will happily jump ship on BLM. most of them already know they'll get nothing out of the electoral system.

this
this capital-critical mindset is even more common among non-voting blacks much like non-voting whites, both of whom are much more likely to actually be working class.

ok.

lol ok go and explain it to them

it's not that simple for any political group in this country and you know it.

Trump didn't even win a majority.

doesn't matter. near 50% of the vote is quite a feat for any Republican. Obama won by a substantially more significant margin than Clinton.

implying that you can just shill it enough and they will turn to Marxism just because they be black and oppressed and shiet. Implying they just lack the educashion. For one Most blacks do not give a fuck about Marxist goals at all secondly and the most important here you don't have an organization or political party to organize around and do the shilling and agitating so it's entirely a moot point. You think that blacks and Appalchian rednecks and other shit would be the groups most open to Marxism (because poor) and they jsut lack the correct ammount of shilling and education but in practice all the shilling and organizing is concentrated in urban university centres and everything on national level is a democrat party subsidiary

it's not a question of the objective reality of being a black person it's a question of their own cultural zeitgeist, which is perfectly in favor of Marxist ideals.
they literally fucking do

say something of value instead of stereotyping all black people as retarded genocidal nationalists. even if they all are they can be converted. recall AfroPlasm.

...

But I'm not. There's no such thing as all black people, all black people doesn't exist all black people like most people in general want to live work and watch football. If a leftist organization/political party existed you would have an office building in the bad poor black neighbourhood that would have meetings and distribute flyers and other shit so you would get some black people there getting "educated" about Marxism since there is no such building and no such organization you can larp about liberating muh blacks, muh latinos and muh gays and all the other magical radlib groups who are apparently so open to Marxism who should just get and shilled enough (and yet the shilling never happens)

...

Not him but who in your mind in America is open to Marxism?

yes it is

wrong

there is no such thing as being open to Marxism. Everyone is open to Marxism. It doesn't matter because things don't happen on their own. To get Marxism you need a party so you either have to make a non shitty socialist party which will require a lot of effort and is extremely difficult to do or you shill it hard enough in the Democrat party or both to even decide on a strategy you need an organization of some kind sicne current Marxist and Demosoc organizations are shit you either change them or make new ones

The idea is they have to exist and keep pushing their interests until they have equality and are seen as normal members of society by most people. In Brazil they had all the rights but now Bolsonaro get's elected and takes away all their rights since this can always happen they continue existing.

I see what you're trying to say, but isn't there a difference of degree?
It would seem that people's environment tends to dictate how open they are to new ideas on the topic.

We live in society.

I knew that Brazil is political nightmare but why can't you guys simply follow countries like china and russia - outlaw gay stuff in TV, parades and have police brutally beat psychos attacking fags? God-fearing grandma sleeps well, crime drastically decrease and you can lift ban in a decade or two when people stop caring so much.

trends don’t matter to him because he’s a retarded absolutist on every topic. most likely, it’s the effect of having the cognition of an autistic pedo. these people are mentally ill and you should ignore them.

Why? Are you suggesting that people rotate partners within a community?

Faggots voted for Bolsonaro

You do realize you don't have to be in a state(or church) recognized marriage to be in a monogamous relationship

Tumblr-tier SJWs can't ever seize power, because they alienate people too much. Trite bullshit is too exhausting. They also take over movements with any potential and wreck them, and actual socialists who care more about solving poverty than getting revenge on whitey are smeared as "brocialists".
The right hugbombs any alienated leftists and even alienated liberals, hoping to recruit them. Essentially, socjus empowers the right more than it empowers the people it claims to care about.

There is no such thing as "women's suffrage" in current times, not in the west. Young women have it much easier than young men. The fact that you even dared to put that up there next to black liberation (which is mostly related to economic liberation) shows how far gone and institutionalized you are.

Idpol is a classic 'divide and rule' move.
The objective is to split the left into hundreds of bickering factions that will be so busy fighting each other to have any energy left to fight the 1%.

This is how they broke up occupy wall street. They sent in agitators to push idpol ideas and ideas like the progressive stack till the whole thing collapsed in a mess of infighting.

Idpol and its advocates are the enemy that needs to be fought.

Attached: horizontal-hostility.jpg (541x212, 55.07K)

It also needs to be pointed out that objecting to police violence targeting black men, and supporting women's reproductive rights is not idpol. Because some people have the idea that idpol is just any form of "social justice" for the benefit of any group of people that may fall under but are not specifically workers (eg blacks and women). Or worse, they think class is just one more identity that socialist claim is a bigger deal than others.

Women's rights, and anti racism are not idpol, insofar as the demands are for the material benefit of working class people to bring them closer to class parity. No laws applying differently to a black worker than to a white worker.

Identity politics is, as you say, divide and conquer, when various demographics feel the need to flaunt their identity as a woman, african-american, transgender person. To feel, "Yes, I too can become a capitalist exploiter." It is bourgeois individualism as expressed by working class. An individualism that does not seek fulfillment in self understanding in the midst of camaraderie, but instead, in the attention of others and the potential to lord over them.

I've got a Zig Forums-tard buddy who I'm slowly getting through to. It's funny because he's one of the few people I've been able to soften up by going full ☭TANKIE☭ "Stalin dindunuffin" and talking about shooting every last banker. I've gotten him pretty positive towards planned economy. Still have to do something about his retarded ass anti-semitism. Anti-semitism truly is the socialism of the fool.

"why is it okay for a white protestant to exploit you but not a diaspora jew?"

Marx himself was anti semitic, as were Proudhon and Bakunin and even Kropotkin.

Why does the left place anti racism on such a pedestal? Is this what you people call "pure ideology"?

I agree. Calling Lasalle a Jewish Nigger was his greatest critique of capitalism.

Attached: benis.png (264x191, 5.93K)

Is there a reason you put race on such a pedestal? Shouldn't the focus always be on class?

Because the problem isn't "jewish bankers" the problem is bankers. Replacing jewish vampires with "muh pure aryan" vampires entails a progress of precisely nil for the international proletariat.

Anti-racism is just a consequence of the realization that race is a spook, a distraction, and the concept is nothing but a roadblock for the final victory of communism.

We live in one of the more secular countries. Theology doesn't really play into it. It's more a question of him frying his brains on Zig Forums memes. We are literally talking about a guy who hopped on the Trump hype train despite not being a burger, so that'll give you some idea of his level of political education.

The thought has crossed my mind that I'll probably have to shoot him given a revolutionary situation, but in the meantime I'd rather prod him until he realizes how retarded he's being by spamming him with Stalin memes until he's a reliable part of no-theory footsoldier gang. Given that the revolution will necessarily be comprised of a lot of people I might personally deem distasteful, and the fact that he's not actively organized with any nazis I haven't felt it necessary to disassociate just yet.

This is only a problem if you ever deal with socialists online, this place vastly overestimates the damage the "sjws" do to leftist movements, maybe because some people only engage with idpol-obsessed right-wingers who set the discourse.
Like, SJWs are only a problem that exists in right-wingers heads, they are fucking insignificant, we have 10 daily threads about how "the left needs to get rid of idpol" when that's not the biggest issue we're facing at all.

It depends on where you live. Especially in the US, they're very much a problem for the left in both the practical and theoretical sphere. Personally, I think there's an underestimation of how much damage they do. Maybe there isn't an underestimation here, but on the left as a whole there's generally a blasé attitude, from denial that they exist (either at all, or in significant number) to a basic acknowledgment coupled, however, with the suggestion that you're guilty of some phantom evil for forcing that acknowledgment.

Just because you talk like an unbearable fagot doesn't make you a gay rights activist.

Reminds me of a criticism the African Renaissance Monument got (which got contracted out to a North Korean company). An African sculptor should have designed it! Said an African sculptor.

👏 MORE 👏ARYAN 👏 BANKERS 👏

Go back to your mongrel bpard you faggot

Sieg dab