So, is idpol good or bad? The left is pretty divided on this issue so I thought I'd ask you lot.
So, is idpol good or bad? The left is pretty divided on this issue so I thought I'd ask you lot
Bad. Divides workers against each other and focuses on petty bullshit instead of the root of racism and sexism.
Identity is retarded. It separates people based on arbitrary shit instead of actual interests in real matters.
Do other places not complain about us anymore?
No, it's not. Those who promote idpol aren't left-wing by definition.
Imagine my shock
IdPol is basically a buzzword at this point, you need to be more specific to get any kind of decent response. Zig Forums has a ridiculously inconsistent definition of IdPol once you get past the "idpol bad" line, no one agrees on what it means and it's used more often than not just to signal general annoyance with western left-liberal speech policing and insufferableness which is fine and good but then depending on who you ask that can mean anything from "i shouldnt be gate-kept from socialism because im white wtf" (obviously true and an example of a disgusting excess of liberal infected western leftism) to "black people are culturally reactionary and their music should be banned, gay people are mentally ill and too weak to fight in the revolution" (literally just reactionary IdPol but somehow more acceptable than liberal IdPol around here)
Identity gives you personhood and is actually pretty important for people, largely. We should by all means use people's identity to help them come together to recognize what we have in common while also allaying the ever present worry about "the other group". The bigger the identity group that we can get people to identify with, the better.
However, the politics of oppression that surround it are a serious mistake that confuses the vector of oppression with the source of the oppression. This is "identity politics" which is literally designed to make people stop thinking about how oppression actually works and instead just focus how make person feel bad.
Even liberals are starting to realize idpol is a bad idea: twitter.com
Read Exiting the Vampire Castle by Mark Fisher: opendemocracy.net
Imagine MY shock
But many identities are fictional and prescribed as means of attack, for example Zig Forums calling everyone they don't like a "jew". Being a "jew" in the sense of religion or cultural heritage is vastly different than Zig Forums's "jew" of white skinned person who isn't "white" and wants to destroy "whites".
literally all politics is identity politics
there is no white proletariat read settlers by j Sakai Ra.ce war now bye bye boons to society
I must have struck a nerve
liberals only started disliking identity politics when wypipo started playing it
we're literally gonna send all of you to the zoo, be prepared
here is your zoo master and lion tamer you're all going to the zoo
And fuck will smith
Your sporadic incel terror is the last gasp of reactionary boomer politics. Your relevance in the world is declining proportionally to every dead boomer
You're such big pussies. You live in total affluence inundated with entertainment and pleasure that Roman emperors didn't experience you have never experienced war or poverty and then glorious uprising and go full ISIS mode at the mere thought that minorities get a slice of that pie
indeed we don't want to live among you apes
back to the jungles Mutumbo
Back to mommy's basement incel
fuck off there is no white proletariat
Race war is cumming
Can't wait to see your white unity collapse when Russian refugees flood the world after that fuckup of a country finally descends into a civil war
You should hope the mods ban you before your retarded threats are reported
The biggest "identity group" is being part of the working class because the vast majority of the population has to sell their labour to pay the bills. End of the story.
I don't give a fuck if your tampons are being taxed 5% like toilet paper instead of 0%. I don't give a fuck if the hormonal pills for your feminine penis are hard to get. I'm just tired of everything being so fucking expensive, and everything else that doesn't harm my neighbor being illegal for stupid puritanical reasons, and you should be too.
I don't want to stress about how I'm going to pay my food, rent and rates this month, and wonder if I will have enough money left to drink a few beers with my mates during the weekend, just like you. I'm tired of being hassled to get/work at a boring useless job to pay the bills, just like you.
We all have to face this shit. I don't give a shit about upper-middle class Asian Muslim trans struggles, because I'm not part of that crowd. I'm just a guy who has to partake in wageslavery in order to earn the right to live, and I think we should all have better working conditions, that's it. Who cares about the specifics? Don't most women, blacks, Muslims, Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Asians, Hispanics, Maghrebis, Africans, Inuits, Palestinians and trans people have to work too?
Seeing a nazi and a maoist fighting is like seeing two retarded iguanas trying to get the last piece of carrot
i agree with him but he is too dumb to realize
Identify are pretty much the literal definition of spooks. They are only things we can each other. Man, woman, white, black, gay, straight are only words. People need to stop with the idpol nonsense and start believing in individualism.
idpol is bad it gives more attention to identity and less attention to the worker's struggle
Identity politics is shit on unanimously here.
I'm pretty confident that OP is just bait
The real ascencion is realizing that all identities are fictional and that we must yet continue to lead fictional lives and revel in the absurdity.
Did you read the rest of my post?
A vector for capitalism to attack people through.
A vector that capitalism acts through.
I already answered that.
retarded schizophrenic faggots who should get gulag'd, possibly a product of cappie media consumerism and alienation
might be a last attempt to de radicalize the left
scissoring and sucking dick isn't an identity
might be a last attempt to de radicalize the left
better not be used but it is a necessity to unify and fight under the flag of race if you are oppressed because of it
yes if it is for unification, nationalization, fighting for peoples right, anti imperialism, etc no if it is for starting a war because some guys did bad things 1000 years ago
women shouldn't be excluded because the enemy can use them and women are a very important element of society but the current feminism and ""woman rights"" is just some first world problem shit that ultimately serves the interest of porky.
Socialism can only happen in a traditionalist ethnostate; it is necessary to purge Jews and homos from your homeland before any real proletariat democracy can be established
socialism is not when people are nice to each other and you are a sociopath and an autist if you think people can only get along if they are of the same ethnic group.
also that would be some real tough shit to implement with all of the creaturas in burgerville.
Sorry, but I wanted to rant, and your distinction between "vectors" and "sources of oppression" isn't that clear. I mostly agree with you, even though the
have its limits.
I agree in principles and try to do this when I talk to leftists IRL, but in the end, people need to join the multicolored and multifaceted people who are angry at Capital for messing with their lives equally, instead of nodding after you acknowledged their little own individual struggles and go back to complain about how X subset of workers is more oppressed than Y subset of workers, because that's what happens a lot of times in practice.
Most of the (white) leftists I know who are into this idpol shit were the ones for whom it took 4 or 5 weeks to realize the Yellow Vests are a genuine proletarian movement. At first they were all like "oh, they are reactionaries" or "oh yeah, they should stop driving diesel cars, it's too polluting!", and then they realized old white boomers can be poor and angry too. Most of them are poor artsy-types or students who are eternally sad that brown people have difficulties paying their rents due to gentrification, just like them and boomers. It's getting ridiculous. Some are more exploited than others, but in the end we are all in the same shit. The era of idpol is over. /r/stupidpol will break into the mainstream and that's long overdue.
Idpol is for gay honky faggots.
Think it is pretty bad, it is used by porky to divide and conquer the workers.
That is both the more women/poc drone pilots lib-shtick and the white identity fags.
Identity =/= individuality. My preferences, skills, friends, etc are specific to me. They are mine. They don't have to put me into a box called identity.
Class isn't an identity. It's a material relation. Getting people to "identify with" their class is silly. We should instead try to get people to drop identity altogether.
No, on the contrary, they should construct their identity around these very material conditions so we can get rid of all this special snowflake idpol shit.
The point of ancom user is that it is really hard to do, because being black or being a woman is a distinctive feature for most people, features they got at birth, and it defines them socially or whatever. But guess what, they are all fucking wageslaves just like you and I, so why not be angry against those who are making money on our backs together? They don't because most people aren't redpilled about economic determinism and universalism, sadly, so they lose themselves into disgusting Anglo liberal propaganda. It's all so tiresome.
Sure, that's fine.
When I say
I'm largely referring about the importance of making people recognize their shared humanity for the sake of developing beyond our current fractured identities of nations, races, ethnicities, etc. With nobody and nothing else except our species to seriously gauge against, it is difficult to see the huge number of similarities for the few differences separating us, and most of those differences are literally, totally, imaginary.
I don't disagree with your rant, I agree with it entirely, I'm just saying that we do need to be a bit more careful in our analysis if we're going to take an anti-idpol stance seriously.
I'm going to half agree to that. Identity isn't the same as individuality, and while most parts of individuality does also have a part to play in someone's identity, both are important in a person's life. You dont' always get to choose every aspect of your identity, and whether or not you want to be identified as such doesn't change the fact that you can be targeted for being part of that identity as someone else decides, which can have serious effects on your life.
geez man there's so many variables to this white supremacy thing, not only must you be white but if you are a gay or a socialist your blood instantly becomes tainted, it really sucks, they should fix that shit
Man, I really want to change this picture up a bit.
Isn't idenity material relation? Isn't it true that black people are jailed more by the state, while a lot of research shows they don't commit crimes anymore than anyone else. Even if you don't believe that they get longer harsher sentences for the same crimes as other races.
Is this a material difference relative to other races, maybe not to the means of production, but say the market? Or at least the state itself, or the over all superstructure.
Identity is delusional. It's a made up narrative you construct about yourself.
Except there isn't any material basis for that discrimination. It's based on the subjective perception of a person's characteristics usually in relation to the interpreter's own delusional fantasy about themselves.
Identity has no material basis.
Class is far more important than identity politics with the latter often used to mask the former. But still racism is bad, mkay.
Hell the fuck no. Black people are generally poorer than whites (and asians) therefore suffer more prejudices.
Real proletariat democracy isn't possible under any sort of "state" whatsoever.
Being able to determine something from ocular functions does not mean it's subjective.
Yeah, you're right, but that's not what is happening. If you look at someone and think that you can discern deep or meaningful truths about them based on their appearance alone you aren't just "determining something from ocular functions," you're subjectively interpreting the significance of superficial characteristics. That is subjective.
Can we keep in mind that identity is also something you make up about someone else? So many people in this thread seem to think the answer to identity politics is "bro just dont think you're things" while ignoring the fact that the vast majority of what identity politics focuses on is how other people are identifying you.
Various forms of identitarian attack absolutely exist. If you're gay, it doesn't matter whether or not you "identify" as a homosexual when someone who hates teh gay finds out you're at a gay bar. They're going to apply prejudices against you and act in that way. This is something that the majority of Zig Forums doesn't address in its critique of identity politics is that the reason they (theoretically) exist is because the right wing by and large already plays by the rules of identity politics and applies them to other people.
Our critique should not, can not simply rely on telling people "don't identify as stuff" because that is worse than useless, that is writing off sexism, racism, homophobia, etc and is going to actively push people away. We need to tell people that the best way to fight against people who are going to engage in attacking their identity isn't by playing their game but instead by taking away the power of those who can make identity politics happen.
Incorrect, blacks really do commit a lot more crime than whites and asians, especially violence and/or rape. Easy to google. Now WHY that is the case is another question entirely.
They get jailed more for weed than whites tho.
No you don't. You need to purge the bourg. Why do asserist-types always focus on ethnic cleansing and other cultural garbage when they are supposedly also leftists?
As long as we don't confuse identity and identity politics…
Posession, use, dealing…? Wouldn't be too surprising, though, criminal history and poverty correlate with blackness, unfortunately, so ceteris paribus the probability of dealing with a repeat offender or multiple crimes (usually violence-related) is higher. I wouldn't focus too much on that, though. On the specific juridical process, I mean.
I agree with him, though, and "cleansing" doesn't have to be cruel or violent. In the end it's a grave injustice, not to say politically inexpedient in the long term, to try to forcefully integrate what cannot - and oftentimes doesn't *want* to - be integrated.
That's fucking retarded, you can get rid of the rich without targeting just the jews for whatever retarded reason, you can also not give a shit about homosexuals.
I hate idpol because when ever it's brought up we start talking about this stupid shit.
First off, I don't agree that "rich" is necessarily a synonym of "capitalist". Second, the predominance of jews within the ranks of the global financial elite is a fact which cannot simply be handwaved away, especially from a Marxist point of view. Third, disdaining homosexuality (which carries great social and medical ills) is by no means a right-wing monopoly, as you should know from the SU.
Then fuck off.
Steven Universe is pro gay tho
On the contrary. Peaceful segregation would be most beneficial for all parties involved, it is precisely the hallmark of imperialism to want to unite diverse peoples under one power center. Hence: (racial) integrationalism = imperialism.
NazBols co-opting the anti-idpol position, what is the fix here anons?
No one would be under imperialism in a socialist country, no need to segregate anyone, they can leave if they want but "peacefully" segregating them makes no fucking sense.
How is integration imperialism? In Rwanda, the Belgians gave the native people identity cards to separate the different ethnic groups, this lead to the genocide. In South Africa, the white colonists had put the native Africans on separate land keeping then away from the whites. In the US, native americans were forced off their land to allow the spread if settlers. Notice these are all examples of imperialism and segregation.
The axis capitalism-socialism is orthogonal to the question of imperialism. As soon as you have one power center imposing itself on disparate elements (nations, peoples, races) you have an imperium, by definition, which isn't even necessarily a bad thing.
Why doesn't that make sense to you? Isn't peaceful segregation much preferable to violence?
no problem then
Incorrect. The Belgians were merely administratively documenting the status quo, or are you implying that Hutu and Tutsi sprang into existence with their arrival?
First, there were almost no black natives in South Africa prior to the arrival of the British, due to geographical reasons - the bantus came later, attracted by news about the fertile lands to the south. Second, it's not about mere geographical, but POLITICAL segregation, i.e. every party having their own sovereign state. Interestingly, this solution was even tried one time (Bantustan).
After centuries of cruel, bloody warfare from both sides. Or many sides, to be more precise, after all the "indians" were wsging wars between themselves for centuries. Still, the same as above applies: ghettoization != segregation.
No, those were examples of ghettoization, i.e. the physical separation of constituents within the SAME political entity.
This thread is making me prefer idpol.
This is a pile of steaming bullshit to such a degree I don't even know where to begin.
The Bantustans were meant to be separate political entities.
Exposure to settler colonialist "leftism" will do that to you.
It's indeed a mindfuck, or a "redpill", if you prefer. But it's absolutely true, just look it up - there were no large-scale black populations in SA before the British arrival.
Yes, unfortunately it didn't pan out. It would have been a much better way into the future than what SA is now, rapidly descending into ever more violence and poverty.
Their ancestors migrated to SA during the late 17th century, i.e. very recent (en.wikipedia.org
Another good article: en.wikipedia.org
That's not counted as very recent, that predates the slavicification of Novorossiya for example. Stop trying to use it as some silver bullet that makes colonialism acceptable.
Late 1600s is later than the arrival of the British, which was the original point.
Colonization != colonialism. Colonization is simply a fact of history, a natural human tendency.
There's no reason to prefer idpol just because 2/3rds of Zig Forums are literally retards.
The Khoikhoi have lived in the cape area 2000 years before the arrival of Europeans.
The Zulu Clan was founded in 1709 (the people that they came from had been there 100 years prior). British colonisation started in the 1820s. That's more than 200 years. They didn't "arrive because of the british".
Then why are you bringing it up then lad?
That's true, and regarding the (Khoi)San I correct my earlier statement, although they aren't black/bantu and did not play an important role for racial politics kn SA (largely due to their small numbers and them living on the fringes of the arid regions).
They do, it's just less loud since we don't pose any real threat right now.
We're only good to complain about when they need scapegoat
Building on Dutch, i.e. obviously European, foundations laid from the early 1600s.
Bantu tribes like the Xhosa only learned of the existence of fertile lands south of the deserts after the arrival of white settlers. Pretty uncontroversial.
It just spiralled from the original discussion which was about the question if racial integrationism is imperialist or not. I affirmed: wanting to integrate races is by definition and ipso facto imperialist. The other user (you?) denied that.
Literally impossible to do if the people in question do not want to leave.
>it is precisely the hallmark of imperialism to want to unite diverse peoples under one power center. Hence: (racial) integrationalism = imperialism.
First, that is not what imperialism is. Second, do you think the SU didn't have separate republics?
This is not imperialism.
No, but every example of segregation has led to ghettoization.
Also, your whole argument in this thread about ethnic violence is garbage. Ethnic violence is almost always a symptom of political and economic instability or is the byproduct of conflicts regarding economic resources. The Soviet Union was made up of varying ethnicities, cultures, and republics and experienced none of the wide spread violence you are talking about until it became economically unstable far later on.
That's not what imperialism is. Imperialism is something very specific.
I don't share Marx' definition of imperialism. Regarding the other points, let's continue tomorrow, wagecuckery calls.
If you do not accept idpol, you will be overcome by those that do.
Good. Let's let this thread die.
kys sakaist porky
Hello, Black Red Guard.