Curious Socialist SJW

I feel sick just looking at it. Yuck.

Attached: y tho.jpg (1813x2111, 864.88K)

She's hot, what's her name?

Big Red.

Zig Forums takes the bait again

Attached: 4AA95E04-21E6-48F7-827A-6CBA7848BC15.jpeg (1200x800, 135.25K)

The thing you have to realize is that none of our positions come from a baseless spontaneous idea that things aught to be a certain way just because thats how they should be. There is no morality being injected to say 'this is wrong' or 'this is right', or to say that humans should be treated this way or that way just because its the right way to treat humans.

Everything stems from historical materialism, the philosophical foundation which analyzes human society through history from a materialist perspective. Which is to say, mainly, that the societies social characteristics will be based on the material conditions that society lives in, their actions will be based on these characteristics, and these actions will modify those material conditions in some way thus causing the society to change as well.

As far as your questions, ill address 2 first because it can help illustrate our line of thinking to make 1 easier to understand:
No communist says 'we should do communism'. Communism is seen as the inevitable end result of the cycles mentioned above, of society responding to its conditions, and its conditions being modified by society. Communism in its basic primitive state, known as primitive communism or communalism, is the productive and societal structure humans humans have spent most of their existence as. It is what we evolved for. It is the reason, for example, science tells us humans can only keep track of so many other humans and maintain them in their social circle. We are most comfortable living in this way.

However technology, namely agriculture, was invented, and set us off on this process. First, the extra food allowed for the capture of prisoners, and ability to keep slaves. Now one group could not just claim anothers territory or steal from them, but actually enslave them. This is the foundation of the slave system, which was the first progressive step we took on the path from communalism to communism. This takes us through feudalism, capitalism, and socialism. Socialism results in the society which finally creates the material conditions necessary for us to exist in our advanced technologically sophisticated age while structuring ourselves communally (a thing that is not possible before, because small groups are vulnerable to big groups, and as long as the ability to subjugate exists, unless the benefit of subjugating others no longer exists, the small group will not survive).
So there is no argument 'for communism', communism is just what will happen eventually.

Now as i said, there is a progression (this is where the term 'progressive' comes from) of relations of production; slave system, feudalism, capitalism, socialism; which exists between the two manifestations of humans natural social structuring and production relationship (both kinds of communism). The steps which shift one system to another inevitably are driven by conflict, as those who benefit from one system struggle to secure their place and power from those who suffer under it. The thing that differentiates those who benefit from those who dont is how you draw class lines. Inequalities between classes get worse as a system continues, building to inevitable conflict and revolutions.

Some examples of this in action. The feudal era started out with small groups warring with each other over resources. Eventually power was consolidated and such open conflict became something less common, as it was often not profitable or too risky. This resulted in interactions between groups to become more economic in nature. The conflict was still there, but it was not as onesidedly martial. The trade gave the merchant class a boost, and soon people who were not nobles, who were not depending on their distinct legal class, which gave them privileges over all lower classes, began to get quite powerful, even in some cases far more powerful than most of the nobility. The social landscape changed, where you had this class, the beourgoise, resenting the fact that despite all their ambitions, successess, and fortunes, even a bankrupt petty nobleman had special treatment, special legal protections. This is where the liberal idea of legal equality comes from. All those stories you were told growing up which featured 'nobody being above the law!' is a reflection of this. Their ethical sensibility was shaped by the social characteristics of their time. Eventually they cut off a bunch of heads and became the new ruling class. Now we enjoy equal (on paper) laws.
Because the new ruling class were merchants and businessmen who gained their power not through noble blood but through the accumulation of wealth, the nature of the system, capitalism, under them created the industrial revolution as it sought ever more wealth accumulation.
The society capitalism created, however, saw people moving more and more to cities, into great factories and closer living conditions. The social characteristics of this, social living, social working, social production, lead to the sentiment of social ownership as well, socialism, which we saw growing in the 19th and early 20th century because the great wars gave capitalists enough of a boost to dampen the downsides of late stage capitalism long enough that people did not rebel.

As you see, the progression of systems, the effect of the material conditions on society, and the changes society has on its material conditions, create a series of progressive steps. Capitalism was good when it was an advancement over feudalism, but it is bad now for numerous reasons. Socialism is good now, but it too will need to give way to communism one day. Yes, even slavery was good in its time, because it was the step that came after what was before, and before what came after. There is no eternal ethical praise or condemnation, only what makes sense to the society at the time, as it drives ever forward.

Now as far as your first question. When ever people make claims that some identity group is being opressed or has privledge or such, how do they justify these statements? What evidence do they provide? It almost always involves some economic measure. They will prove certain group is having problems because those people, when taken as a group, are averaging less in one thing or another.
Identity politics is a liberal idea, because it effectively embraces the liberals idea that legal equality is equality full stop. This is a reasoning pushed by the rulers under capitalism, so they can say 'we are all equal now so my abundances are just because of my own personal virtues and skill!'. Likewise, to maintain the idea that legal equality is equality, to explain any discrepancies they must invent some sinister force which is actively and destructively sabotaging the system which would clearly result in paradise for all otherwise. There is where ideas of racism, sexism, and other things grow from. The reason there are not fewer female CEOs is because male CEOs are conspiring against them! The reason there are fewer female coders is toxic male environment! The reason there are more blacks in prison is because they are disproportionately targeted!
But what are all these things? The complaint is that classess are skewed, when the real goal is abolishing class entirely! What purpose then is served by focusing on these claims, not even to the point of questioning their validly or accepting them, when it is all moot in the context of obtaining social equality?

Social equality, says the materialist, is when there are no legal classes, as the liberal revolution brought us, to make all equal in law, and when there are no production classes, as socialism brings, to make all equal in production. You see untill production equality is accomplished, legal equality exists only in theory.

It must be stressed, the stance is not 'these things are less important', its that 'these things do not exist, it is a statistical trick, misrepresenting class struggle as something else to lead people away from class struggle'. There are of course people who are racist, and sexist, but these things alone do not cause any problems, it is only social inequality that causes problems. The poor black woman is not suffering from being black or from being a woman, she is suffering from being poor. If she was socially equal, it wouldn't matter what other people thought about her being black or being a woman because her security and quality of life would be assured regardless and she could simply tell them to go fuck themselves.

Now, as you might recall, i said communism is inevitable. In fact this progression will occur regardless of if there are any communists, any historical materialists, or anyone even noticing it occurring. Why bother ourselves with it then?
These transitions are always violent, you will never see a ruling class give up power willingly. Revolutions create instability, which generally make life crappy for a while. The purpose then, is to try and mitigate things. The longer it takes to change, the harder the change will be. After the change, the more people who know what the next step should be the less likely missteps which will inevitably collapse on themselves and revert (fascism for example) but only after even more periods of suffering are. It is therefore fully justified by ones own self interest, and people acting in their own self interest is one of the things historical materialism counts on.

before* the great wars

One point that has not thusfar been addressed is the reason for ignoring identitarian causes. The short answer is that they lead nowhere. Feminism will never topple the "patriarchy," because the supposed patriarchy is nothing but a vague concept. Minorities will never be made "equal" to the problematic cis-het white male shitlords, because the equality that intersectional liberals strive for is a fluid statistical abstraction between ill-defined identity groups. You can't defeat immaterial concepts such as gender and race except by acknowledging that you really don't need to.

Another reason to ignore identitarian causes is that those causes are ultimately predicated upon false opposition. There is nothing definative about being a woman that puts a person's interests at odds with a man or vice versa. The same is true of races and other such identity groups–they do not describe a set of interests that are held by individuals who claim them. Thus, engaging these false oppositions does nothing but to reify divisive concepts and to obfuscate the actual social forces that are at work.

One more thing, you talk about how ignoring identitarian issues isolates them. Nothing could be further from the truth. Minorities can see that the economic structures in place run contrary to their own interests just as well as everyone else can. They do not need to have everything couched in terms of their struggle or blamed on a racist, sexist, ableist, neurotypical, evil big bad. In fact, it's insulting. Furthermore, they are also capable of recognizing that racism/sexism/transphobia are not what keeps making their rent go up or what keeps their employers from offering health care coverage. I suspect that is why organizations that are dedicated to social justice tend to be so lily white.