"anit-idpol" does not mean "against idpol"

i feel the one thing that splits leftypol from other leftist groups is it's discussion of idpol. i think it's important to clarify the stance of anti-idpol. obviously it rejects the bourgeois idea of idpol as if gay rights were sponsored by pepsi. but i believe most leftist outside the sphere stand for this as well. i mean to state that being anti-idpol simply means that putting idpol above all else is unhealthy as it pushes away the notion that "capitalism is bad". It is also moot as almost all idpol related problems are the result of capitalism.
with all that said i do think it's important to instate that idpol related problems are still important problems (atleat with regards to how they relate to capitalism and socialism and what not). it's not that idpol should be ignored its that idpol should be answered with a more marxist analysis.

Attached: 5f94a7e3bbcb144406230d247c2cc30b023d26e5 (1).jpg (998x621, 166.03K)

Other urls found in this thread:


In most other places people willfully misinterpret the prioritizing of class as "class reductionism," denial of identity issues, or outright bigotry. It's almost completely transparent as a psyop by saboteurs from the alphabet soup to get the left to talk about anything but class struggle.

It does, though. It's in the name.

Identity politics are inherently right-wing. Racism and sexism are forms of idpol. There is no "split" regarding idpol, just dipshits that want to push reactionary anti-egalitarian, anti-universalist, idealist, essentialist garbage and call it progress.

Idpolers are to be shot. This is not a debate.

Attached: 141737c333f3161550472704647785a33b381a036796a5cdc072042eb0164096.png (706x694, 497.55K)

Class above all else, it's all a product of class.

this sounds conspiratorial

i'm not against that i'm simply saying why do idpol politics have to be ignored can't they be assessed with marxist values

idpol is idealism, basically. see:
if it isn't idealism, it's pure ideology. that's not to say that we don't support people's right to exist. but we don't miss the forest for the trees, pic related.

Attached: 7347beebbd08d345fd76a5d610fa442909214e26e3ef13068c14455fda32f65f.jpg (2036x3051, 968.68K)

not to say that i'm doubting you but can you explain how idpol is idealist?
are you trying to say that sex and race aren't real?
if such a thing like materialist feminism can exists i don't see the harm in applying it

Sex and race are ideological categories. Racism and sexism are a product of beliefs about these things, not material causes. Racism isn't because of skull shapes. Sexism isn't because of genitals. The conflict doesn't have a material base in the same way the concepts that it centers around do. With class, the conflict is based in the material relationship, not the identity of classes, but the way they interact.

You have a tank in your name but both Lenin and Stalin supported the notion of a black belt nation. Supporting an independent black nation, that's what both of them did. You need to get over this childish phase of yours.

Capitalism is racist and misogynist, Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin, all recognized this.


yea now explain to me how supporting views in favor of progressing policies that are against these notions bad. (again if they are not supported by capitalism and so forth)

basically this, get rid of capitalism and one step closer to equality.

Lmfao, this isn't an "old mistake" bro, you completely reject the progressive character of nationalism of the oppressed, you're completely revising the line of Lenin and Stalin, 100%. You'd rather completely set aside the marxist principles on national liberation than just maybe say, "okay, let's address racism and sexism".

They are supported by capitalism. Remove the material basis and they lose their support structure. Going after the ideology instead of the material factors is what makes it idealism.

Stalin also lobbied for the creation of Israel. How did that turn out, and what did it reveal about the "progressive character" of nationalism of the oppressed?

when talking about women's and black people's liberation we should always insist that revolution and socialism is part and parcel of this, and they cannot be separated. However, we also DO need to combat the ideology, the base leads the super-structure yes, but not only economic changes by itself will be enough, the base and super-structure have a dialectical unity with each other, they reinforce each other, therefore it is extremely important to struggle with the population and to actively combat racism and sexism in culture and among cadres.

You're a fucking idiot. Also, that was a correct decision to make at the time you're taking that policy completely out of context, here educate yourself: theredphoenixapl.org/2011/06/30/the-soviet-jews-zionism-israel/

American blacks are spread out and now an integral part of capitalist american life.do you not know how to reply correctly?

That's not identity politics because it stems from class.

Hey newfag, if you click the number at the top of a post, you can link to that post.

Attached: newfag guide.png (536x113, 7.7K)


Is that ad-hominem supposed to be an "argument"?

How's Zimbabwe doing?

All these people have different definitions of it, some define "IDPOL" as being an ultra-left on the national liberation question (e.g. believing that white workers can't/won't work with the black working class for revolution), some other define as simply addressing the effect racism has on the black working class lol.

first off i said polices that aren't in support of capitalism (or atleast meant that).
second how can policies that are against an idealist thought (racism and and sexism as you said here ) be idealist it self (again if it's not in the name of capitalism)

i can get behind that but that still doesn't mean one can't support the struggle to end sexism and racism

you know i kinda just asked why idpol can't be viewed though a Marxist lends, but this thread already kinda does that. so yea it's possible

I guess that and patriotism are annoying words I'll have to shit myself over until I die

It's still important to note that those things have to come second on the organizing to do list, not at the same time.

A comrade wrote a pretty good blog post about idpol

stop shilling ur articles

actually that one wasn't me

Why though?

idpol relies heavily on the reification of abstract identities as innate and unsolvable differences with the other. these abstract identities exist in reality as stereotypes and generalizations, but idpol plays a bait and switch, by recognizing said stereotypes exist and then making these abstract phenomena essential qualities of identities, and furthermore turns people who experience the identity abstractly (eg. experience racism) into people who *are* those identities (eg. the oppressed black disabled woman). in other words, it takes something that isn't actually real (a stereotype, or the generalized experience of racism), it then creates a "concrete" identity which has essential qualities, and then projects that identity to all people related to that identity (eg. anyone who is kind-of black = the black people = victim of racism), and replaces the individual experience of a person (eg. a right-wing gay man, a brown rich kid who has never known racism) with the essential qualities of the identity (gay = "progressive", brown = black = oppressed").
as a side note, this creates a host of problems, where people are not "good [minority]". a right-wing gay man, or a non-visibly gay man who is "not gay enough".
in the context of politics, it is not longer society's ills that must be remedied, but rather, an identity's idealized oppression becomes centerfold, since these people are suffering more than the rest of us, because of us.
for example, it is true that black americans have a tougher time getting into university (for whatever reason, it's irrelevant atm), therefore, we should remedy this problem with affirmative action (basically, have a quota of black people universities must reach). affirmative action's aims is to eliminate racism by giving more opportunities to black people. it aims to change the public perception of "the blacks" by making more middle/upper class blacks. even putting aside the existence of rich/middle class black people, and the problem of qualifying as black, this essentialism, "the black as an oppressed victim of racism", completely erased the individual experiences of black people. the essential quality of victim because of racism disappears the fact that most black people are poor because of the same reasons non-black people are poor. it hides by indirection that the solution cannot come from affirmative action, but rather by addressing the problems that cause poverty in the first place. put another way, it pushes away the fact that the primary limitation in this idealized black is not the fact that he is black, but rather that he is poor. affirmative action's aim is to reduce "the black man's poverty" but it misplaces the source of poverty in racism, and not in the natural consequences of capitalism. identity politics demands change since an identity group that has been made real, the blacks, are suffering more than the rest of society, because society is racist, and hence this should be remedied ASAP.
identity politics is thus a divisory ideology that separates "the blacks" from society, since the victim cannot be the perpetrator. and "the gays" from society. not only is this bigotry, it is a falsehood that any of these groups are separate from society, and the perpetrator is the victim. this is revealed in comments such as, "reverse racism doesn't exist", or the tolerance of gay people being extremely homophobic, yet the same people having unapologetic savage intolerance of even the slightest form of non-PC speech from people who are not of that identity. put another way, the segregation and immaculation of identity groups by identitarians reveal an underlying idealist (bigot) ideology.
in conclusion, identity politics is idealist, because it makes abstract qualities essential qualities, which requires people of an identity to hold those essential qualities, which then misplaces the problem as being essential to said identity (and in many cases, unfixable, like "white people are innately racist"), instead of understanding that people's individual experiences and beliefs are unique and contingent on the environment they developed (a gay man in sweden is different than a gay man in somalia). Therefore, if you wish to understand politics as they relate to identities, you must understand the material reality in which groups of people develop and avoid idealist conceptions of facets of people.

The "race question" in America is almost entirely a class question, because black people were explicitly defined as slaves, and latin american immigrants were explicitly defined as this kind of quasi-serf specifically because of their legal status meaning they can be paid pennies compared to a native laborer needing minimum wage generally. Almost everything in the white identity politics milieu is about preserving that class status for as long as possible once the government decided it was going to pursue integration; the white idpol voters in Trump's base and the GOP don't see themselves doing the jobs of the Mexicans or the black people, because they almost always have jobs, property, retirement, and so on, and want to jealously guard their status and wealth in a competitive environment. Absent the still-existing class divide between white and colored Americans, the white identity politics narrative in America loses almost all of its appeal, except to a degenerate section of NutSacs that even Trump country despises. That's what has been happening, it's mostly boomers and the NutSac crowd of degenerates that is keeping white idpol alive.

The mere fact of doing something "in the name of" is idealism.
The same way one religion can oppose another religion. Opposing something doesn't make you the complete inversion of it.

good article. touches on some things that I wrote about in my word salad: (OP,
I took a while to write it, you better read it, or I will loose my shit thanks.)
some highlights of the article:

What are the class derived proletarian groups in the United States today?
I think it's the service industry workers, the industrial workers/ truckers, the quasi-feudal Mexican serf, and the family farmer.
I'm going to lump in the it workers and the waiters in with service industry. From looking at this it doesn't seem like much of a racial divide with the exception of the quasi-serf.
However living and working conditions very greatly from the city to the diam areas and there is still a aspect of housing segregation.
There is a divide with the labour aristocrat silicon valley priest and the trashman and maid who cleans their houses and lives in a shanty or a trailer in another part of the county.

what if this is an undesirable end for most people and that they would like to keep around the notions of their racial identities. what then?

those are spooks bro

it's like saying people want to stay religious. if they understood their religion to be fictitious, they would stop being religious and stop desiring it's reproduction. Likewise, if people understood race (or identities) as they are, they would stop desiring it's reproduction. in simple words, they would be anti-scientific.

Classless society is an undesirable end?

Attached: 1558878204586.jpg (700x810, 31.66K)

Idpol is a form of idealism. Most problems stem from not being aggressively anti idealist

The problem with idpol is that it sees cerian minorities as having the same interests counterposed to other groups. For example, it sees gay people having different interests to straight people. But we understand as Marxists that no matter gay or straight, the common enemy is the bourgeoisie.

There is identity-based analysis that falls under Marxism that isn't 'idpol', such as understanding that the ruling class uses race to divide and oppresses people of colour (and in turn excuse oppressing whites or whatever the majority is). This IS NOT IDPOL. This is a Marxist analysis of race relations.

Being class reductionist completely misses key understandings of how the bourgeoisie divide the working class.

Attached: 3zairw3gnmq21.jpg (960x882, 55.83K)

Next you'll be telling me that secret mass surveillance "sounds conspiratorial".
Of course there are conspiracies going on! You don't threaten whistleblowers with death unless you've got something to hide.

If most people are like Zig Forums, then I guess we're all just fucked. We'll get slaughtered en masse by autonomous drones while we fight among ourselves about which color proles are most oppressed.

why isn't this je w ish roastie banned?

it's not in the name trollfaggisng roastie. he just explained it. the extreme left has to get people like this out or they wil troll the left into further oblivion. get the idpol scum out. start banning neoliberal infiltrating ki kes and stop banning the people tryig to help IF YOU CAN BELIEVE IT THEY HELP THE ZO GPOL

anyone who replied in the negative to this has to be run out. look at these scum trying to idpol neolib him out. ban the ki ke Zo g s from communism

Ironically the phrase "class reductionist" is one of the tools used by the bouregoisie to divide the working class.

Yeah a ruling class conspiring to divert people's attention away from analysing class relations, is rather expected, making this a plausible scenario.
Just pointing out that it's conspiratorial is not a refutation, because all ruling classes conspire to stay in power.
The subjective categories used in id-pol are not compatible with materialism, because materialism comes out of modernity and the enlightenment, it's a project aimed at reducing specific human bias, to approach objectivity, so preferably one would avoid personal attachment to the area of study, id-pol is driven by personal attachment to such an extend that the people involved interpret intellectual disagreement as personal persecution, and react in ways like companies defending their brand image. The "id-pol-crowd" operates like an intellectual inquisition, that defends it's class privilege above all else, which could be seen very clearly in the instance where Cockshoot wasn't attacked for his polemic against gender identity, but for his Talk on the law of wages. Apparently this youtube.com/watch?v=85tYfXYmzJY was transphobic. This particular instance adds to a growing body of empirical evidence for the class reductionist position.

it does though. Thats why its called antiidpol

Attached: thinking.jpg (600x832, 55.01K)

Where is the st in that statement


Let me just say I agree with your post, we need to analyze racism and sexism, and doing so isn't "IDPOL".

But I HATE the term 'class reductionist', because racism and sexism are existent *because* of class relations, they are not in the least bit in anyway separate from class.

We do need to diverge from class analysis to address racism and sexism, we need to intensify it to do so.

We do NOT* need to diverge from class analysis to address racism and sexism, we need to intensify it to do so.

why must I live among boons and tolerate their boonery