/idpol/ superthread-research

Hey guys, after the whole amber a'lee/cth 'anti woke left' article came out the twitter left really went apeshit over it, calling her a fascist, etc.

To set the record straight on the anti idpol left, i'm doing research for a MANIFESTO blogpost on the anti idpol left, i need a superlist of all marxist, anarchist, and leftist critics of idpol (intellectuals and journalists, preferably people who have written a book). I already know about cockshott, nagle, fischer, and vivek chibber.

Also helpful: any podcasts on anti idpol leftism, youtube channels, well known public figures, etc.

if you guys have any additional suggestions please drop them here as well.

Thanks

Attached: web1_170426-sea-identity-1200x800.jpg (1200x800, 65.47K)

Other urls found in this thread:

spiked-online.com/2019/07/04/meet-the-anti-woke-left/
leftypol.fandom.com/wiki/Idpol
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-ship-of-fools
youtube.com/watch?v=safLwed9SSo&t=618s
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

link?

spiked-online.com/2019/07/04/meet-the-anti-woke-left/

Hmm. Trotskyist-turned-neocon website promoting anti-idpol stuff. Color me shocked.

comb through this thread
and here's a bunch of links and shitposts:
leftypol.fandom.com/wiki/Idpol

Amber's ok. She's got a good line about feminists saying men are rude and explain things to them.
I listened to one episode of Anna"s podcast, Red Scare. It was the one following the Zizek Peterson debate. I didn't watch the debate, but did follow some of the debate about the debate.
On the podcast they were saying leftist critics are just jealous of Zizek because he's gets more pussy than those nobodies. Frankly I don't see how this is much different from twitter feminists writing off gamergaters as neckbeard losers who couldn't get laid.
In either case they're critical of how society is organised, but use having low social cachet as a criticism of people they don't like.

There is this little classic by eco-terrorist Ted Kaczynski, though maybe that's not an association you want to have: theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-ship-of-fools

Adolf Reed is really, really good.

That was a stupid article, but Amber at least is good
I'm not surprised that chapo idiots and other radlibs try to vampire castle her. Idpol needs to be purged completely.

I read the interview with the Red Scare girls where one was talking about how much she loves Bret Easton Ellis who is a total hack who sucks. Empty-headed rich boy who got famous because of connections, now complains about SJWs all the time

Like you've gotta be kidding:

"Retains plausible deniability." They go: oh his novels are misunderstood. No they're not. They're bad, poorly-written stories about doing blow and going to parties, and he is exactly who his characters are: a creepy ghoul with a trust fund who feels aggrieved by innumerable slights and wrongs that other people can only guess at. Ellis' main complaint is his millennial boyfriend whines too much about SJW stuff (55-year-old Ellis always mentions he's dating a millennial).

These people suck hard. The Red Scare gets suck hard too but they get a (mostly male) audience to follow by playing up rich girl decadence. Don't be a sucker.

Attached: ellis.jpg (1108x1600, 416.56K)

Attached: amused tito.jpg (900x483, 59.8K)

I find it hard to believe the girls aren't trolling the redditcels at this point.

given the combo of obvious jokes and bad takes (America isn't white supremacist? for real?) it seems pretty obvious this is about triggering twitter and growing the audience

women doing it instead of the boys is an attempt to defang some criticism too

yeah but thats when woke twitter goes on about muh WYTE wimmins. (even tho amber is a hapa, guess they couldnt tell or dont care)

Americans call everything white supremacist because they're self flagellating faggots.

I've only read his Less Than Zero, but that doesn't seem correct. I didn't really like the book stylistically, but in it he's quite negative toward that wealthy "trust fund kid" milieu. Also, what they're talking about is true generally (regardless of Ellis): just because something is written in a book does not mean that the author supports it. This should be obvious, but the Twitter left doesn't seem to understand it.

I'm not trans, but if you don't refer to me as my gender of Attack helicopter you must be a Anti-aircraft BIGOT and summarily laser designated for airstrike.
Hind squad, where you at.

Attached: FineGlitteringBuzzard-size_restricted.gif (608x320, 2.24M)

To further my point

Epic, it's like I'm in 2013 all over again.

if you include people like Cockshott as examples of principled anti-idpol youre going to fuck it up because many of his social views are legitemately reactionary

The US is built by slave labor on land taken in genocidal war. On top of that there's centuries of other racism against residents and immigrants. And presently the economy is based on wage slavery in the 3rd world, while the military and intelligence community work hard toppling political leaders in non-white countries.

Calling the US white supremacist as a nation-state is pretty fucking fair.

This. He unironically endorses Puritan social values.

Evidence people went apeshit on twitter?

They aren't though, except that he sometimes white knights women. They are just not liberal.

thanks, thats the theorist i was looking for

Since we're talking about research, I remember that in some threads on this matter from around two years back someone made a link between the terminology of left idpol and diversity consulting HR crap. Does anyone have any resources on this?

He was kicked out of a talk by trannies for some random blog. The talk was soly about economics. This shows how idpol is a problem. Like it or not, cockshoot is the twenty first century Marx and Marx said some controversial stuff about race.

Marx had a black Jewish friend and he famously said some pretty awful stuff about him.

R/stupidpol had a big thread about it

I recently started listening to Red Scare and I really enjoy it tbh. Sometimes the girls hit you with a genuinely good take/analysis, but most of the time they're obviously just shooting the shit and not thinking too hard before spouting whatever contrarian takes they come up with on the fly. Overall, it's a pretty stupid show but it's just so refreshing to listen to a podcast where they're not constantly walking on eggshells to avoid pissing off some delusional retards on left twitter.

If you think these people are the new vanguard you're an idiot and should spend less time online

Marx’s personal letters to Engels are the like 18th century version of a dirt bag left podcast.

Imagine thinking there is a difference between Bernie sanders and Elizabeth warren. Seems like we're stuck in this system. Capital is using us as its appendage

While I only have minor nitpicks on what is being said, I don’t think having an interview with a site renown for right wingers rejecting idpol is going to win hearts and minds. As the comment section has proven, these people are already extremely hostile to class warfare and are just obsessed with idpol as the woke/SJW for the same reason.

What they should have talk about isn’t that wokeness is bad and shit mmkay coz that is preaching to the choir but why wokeness will not fundamentally solve any problems that the Left struggles to, and that is precisely why wokeness and idpol is infecting so much of politics and discourse since now everyone can larp as some dangerous thinker or activist fighting over the greatest issues of their times. It is literally a circus for everyone to watch and squabble.

But that will shame the twitter left and spiked online readers so you can’t have that…

Attached: IMG_20190707_192641.jpg (732x220, 22.1K)

sounds based ill check it out

had in my mind something like "The communist case against leftism", a reference to angela nagle's "the leftist case against open borders", to capture the problems I have with all this demsoc anti-idpol stuff lately. In that article, nagle comes out with history lessons on why left wing parties of decades past had been against open borders and the implication is that only liberals could be for open borders.

Except that every argument against open borders could be applied just as well to automation. From a point of view of production instead of money(that is to say a communist point of view), any increase in labor is welcome because it means everyone gets to work less. Be it automation or immigrants, the fact that cheaper labor lowers the bargaining power of unions is exposing the contradictions of the capitalist mode of production. It'd be stupid to say a communist should be against minimum wage hikes because workers will get replaced with machines. Only a capitalist who can't see beyond money would make this argument.

Similarly, problems with the supposed anti idpol left seems to come back to their inability to break with socialism. To be an actual radical. Idpol is always seen as, to quote that article
okay sure, but communists have always seized upon distractions in order to take power. These people seem to have some notion of a purely textbook theoretical revolution(or maybe they simply don't believe in revolution), one that has never happened. Communism has always piggybacked on some other cause, and i don't see why it has to be a negative quality. I think it speaks to the communist special power, to play on the internal contradictions of a society.

There's justified suspicion over idpol causes because of how quickly the capitalist class has adapted many policies in support of it. But I think the right move is to compare these concessions to their economic counterparts. These were all made, not out of benevolent mercy or sympathy, but because capitalism had to make these concessions to keep the system going. There are some that are ultimately useful. For example, anything that lowers the rate of profit through either raising wages or minimizing labor times. While others like trade protectionism are sold as beneficial to workers but delay the inevitable and prolong exploitation.

What i'm trying to get at is that regardless of your personal stance on idpol issues. They speak to a real antagonism that exists within society. To get hegelian for a moment: the antagonism comes first, then it generates the opposing poles. First there was a very real social antagonism, and then because of this, the opposing poles of left wing and right wing emerged.
Even though left and right wing struggle is in the marxist view
it'd be a stupid position to say that a communist should simply withdraw completely from left vs right political struggles.

So that's my problem with people who call themselves anti-idpol. Not that they are, but that their reasoning for dismissing it as bad is broad enough to be applied to their own realm, especially for ones who are believing in voting their way to socialism. There are "anti-idpol" thinkers I respect, obviously zizek. Zizek's take on idpol isn't just that its a distraction however. He and his philosophical partners write entire books explaining sexual antagonisms through a communist lens. Simple lazy retreat isn't the answer, you need to bring your own theory.

Nagle also has a very broad definition of "left" to include the old New Deal-style Democrats. Okay, if that's her politics too, fine, but the Communist Party in the U.S. back in the 1930s was militantly for the rights for immigrant workers.

You should look up Emma Tenayuca and her article on the Mexican question in the Southwest. The population of undocumented Mexican workers already numbered in the millions in the 1930s, so this really a multi-generational population with deep roots in the area where they live and is a distinct community using every criteria in Stalin's work.

Today I learned that, at least going by his gravestone, Philando Castile was a fucking Hotep. Still didn’t deserve to be shot, but Jesus Christ this shit is cancer.

Attached: 03F188C9-A182-43BC-A310-DCDE555203DA.jpeg (1750x2048, 687.05K)

Amber is fucking annoying, Chapo is fucking annoying. They think they are the antidote to the woke left but they are barely distinguishable from it, they just make up themselves in jokes instead of cancelling people, the entire schtick is basically exactly the same boring holyer than thou irony. Gun grabbers, against revolution etc etc

I'm not like those other basic girls, im a cool gamer girl haha dirtbag left lol

By posting about this I'm already showing that I care to comment more than I objectively should, but I find the whole stupidpol vs. chapo beef to be basically nonsense since they all largely agree that the path to socialism in America is to vote for the Bernie Sanders man.

Anti-prostitution is the standard position on the left. It's only people who are very young/online/Americanized who believe otherwise.

Centuries aren't counted that way, 18xx was the 19th century.

Maybe they did. The convo wasn't a live interview and the Spiked journos decided what to publish.

Read what you write before you post.

Like the stupidpol people are under the impression the DSA types need to adopt a position where it's officially okay to say racial slurs and vote for Bernie Sanders and until they do they're cancelled, but the DSA people base their politics on saying racial slurs and voting for Bernie Sanders so I don't know what the substantive disagreement is. Just seems like contrived Reddit drama.

Attached: DSA.png (600x824, 537.58K)

Spiked was founded by former Trots who became hard-right libertarians btw. It's partly funded by the Kochs. I have no idea why Amber would choose to get interviewed by them unless she wanted to rustle some jimmies.

i do give them credit, i have done in other posts, they do give a voice to some positions outside of the libleft for example lexit, they do also give a fairly good run down of US politics which is good for non burgers who can't keep up, I also do agree that we should vote for the burning man, but that doesn't mean we should alongside that be anti gun, or say ludicrous shit like disarm the police, which i do believe we should do, but i literally cannot think of a way to get eviscerated as a college kid snowflake. Bad people exist in America, as someone who has been through the prison system I can tell you I am no fan of the police, but when you've spent time with 6ft 7 guys with neck tattoos who rob crack houses with hatchets as their full time job, and enjoy doing it, you realise that right now, until we have dealt with the social conditions that create crime we do need an armed response on the streets, even if that response needs to be way more heavily regulated etc

this is the response she got to the criticism of that post

Attached: D-5wOItX4AAsC8-.jpg (1145x1200, 108.71K)

Reds Care

Attached: waifu.jpeg (255x255, 26.84K)

I dunno, signal to righties that are starting to doubt bourg lies that there is an alternative?

So it’s like a comedy show, but for leftists.

They're pretty right wing. One of them mocked AOC for wanting to close ICE.

anna is openly fash, but dasha is a good girl

Paulo Freire is the author you need. Friere is a constructivist, which means he sees knowledge as socially constructed rather than as a form of information to be passed on from one person to another. What this means for revolutions is that we cannot simply tell people to "shut up and listen" as the scolds are want to do, but we must engage them in dialogue. Pedagogy of the Oppressed is a great book and really short too.

If you are criticising idpol you must primarily criticise the way they act not what they ostensibly want (equality). Once you do that you'll see that they are basically trying to enact left wing goals of equality with right wing pedagogy.

Btw, the wokescolds and the radlibs don't actually read theory or understand it.

You will do well if you read some of the authors who write about critical race studies, post modernism, etc. because you find that they are much less liberals than you think. Take bell hooks here for example. This quote actually shows that the cultural appropriation discourse actually builds into white supremacy rather than attacking it.

Attached: bellhooksteachingcommunitypage39.png (414x84, 9.67K)

Attached: NazBolFlagSimple.png (275x183, 2.65K)

This is a response to the locked thread:

The basic idea might be somewhat true but it almost inevitably leads to the kind of oppression olympics we now see all over the internet.
The biggest problem with it is that it exists within the confines of, and even plays a role in, the existing system of prejudices and oppression. Any group who are sufficiently oppressed will not even be acknowledged by the advocates of intersectionality. Even getting recognized as one of the official "oppressed identities" represents a kind of privilege. Thanks to that limitation, intersectionality can never be the kind of all-encompassing theory of social justice it claims to be.

Originally replying to
You could say this is a valuable insight, but intersectionalists usually treat it as an excuse to be reductionist the same way non-intersectional identitarians do. "Oh, you're a black disabled non-binary muslim? Here's the box with everyone else fitting that description. You are basically the same to me." It's the logical conclusion of treating people as identities and not people. They've gone from mere categories to venn diagrams. It's useful to recognize the concept of intersectionality, but it's not a sufficient criticism of the identity-box paradigm that it gets applied to. People who bring it up and talk about it all the time do so to rehabilitate shitty idpol instead of engage in reflection or critique of their ideology.

It almost exclusively has the effect of drawing finer and finer red lines around issues and encouraging gatekeeping that people can fight over.
It's not so much the intersectionality concept that's flawed, but the general idpol theory it gets applied to. If you don't think of intersectionalism in the context of idpol boxes, then the logical conclusion is that there are so many identities and so many ways they interact that dealing with every variation is an intractable problem and therefore a waste of time (especially when class struggle unites almost everyone). It's mostly pushed by people who are not working class because they need to distract people from class otherwise they'll get expelled from the left, which they see as their social club.
Maybe if you're doing some kind of analysis, but they will apply this kind of thinking to basic human interaction, which is supremely alienating.

You are talking about three different things.

Individuality = the quality of being a singular person with a unique identity
Individualism = focusing on the individual as a social unit in one's sociopolitical ideology
Hyper-individualism = extreme focus on the individual as a social unit to the exclusion of others

Intersectionality "destroys individuality" in that it reduces people from their identity as a unique person to their identity as an intersection of identities (which by the way ignores the variability in their experience of discrimination - not all black people get shot by cops for instance). Intersectionality is anti-individualist, but this isn't a false dichotomy because acknowledging individuality doesn't make you an individualist, but rather denying individuality precludes the possibility of individualism. Also, opposing individualism opposes hyper-individualism but not specifically. It sweeps up other forms of individualism which aren't the same thing as the hyper-individualism of capitalist realism.

collection of some shitposts from 2 years ago. some I wrote, other I didn't. can't recall which is which. please note I was much less read and some opinions might be shit.
#1
Intersectionality fails because it doesn't understand the problem with treating people as members of a category. Intersectionality thinks the problem is treating people as members of a category, like only looking at someone's race or gender. Intersectionality seeks to look at all the categories, so not just race and gender but also sexual orientation. Oh and gender identity. Oh and (dis)ability. Oh and age. Etc. What you end up with is a bizarre morass of people attempting to negotiate a Byzantine hierarchy that was invented in an attempt to negate the existing hierarchies. It's the product of way-too-deep navel gazing.

What intersectionality misses that leads it to this quagmire is that the problem is not treating people as members of a category, but the paradigm itself of treating people as members of a category. It looks at existing social systems, which develop to be extremely complex, and picks apart the arrangement of the system in fine detail. All you have to do is notice that the flaws being picked apart stem from not the categories as they are defined or arranged in this instance, but the notion of categorization and hierarchy based on categorization itself. While people are squabbling over the details, they accept the broader narrative that putting people in these categories is alright and they often accept not just the paradigm but the categorization given by the status quo. You see this with people who try to find positive aspects of their categories, which is really just a manifestation of the urge to jockey for a higher position in the hierarchy.

The way you dismantle the system is to destroy the foundation, the keystone, of its ideology: the notion that categorization of people by stereotypes like race or gender is useful. You don't tear down the system by criticizing the manifestation of the system, because that manifestation is largely arbitrary. If you tear it down, the forces that shape the ideology of categorization will simply come up with new versions. You can see this in action with racism - racists today have different stereotypes for other races than they did 100 years ago, meaning combating racism at the granular, detail-oriented level will just force racists to come up with new stereotypes again. You don't destroy racism by rebutting the claim that all black people waste their money on KFC and Jordans. You destroy racism (and all other -isms) by rooting out the underlying absurdity that people form abstract collectives based on these categories rather than being individuals who don't have to conform to some stereotype.

#2
Idpol 3
Left with idpol is inconsistent.

The left fights for rights for all genders, including non traditional genders.

Idpol is callout culture and fulfilling the sense of belonging in an alienated society. Ironically, it creates more alienation by making identities on the minor of differences. As a man who likes men, I don't derive my identity from my sexuality, it makes a part of my identity but how that plays out is unique to each individual. Heterophobia and homophobia are more present from people that derive their sense of identity from their sexuality. Similar in form to those who assert their "manliness" as central to their identity are critical of more feminine male people. It goes without saying, of course, that there are exceptions.

Identity politics also sucks because people cannot pigeonhole themselves to the socially and collectively described identity. What if I'm part white, part mexican, part chinese, part black. This leads to weirdness such as the chicano culture identifying strongly as mexican and "over celebrating" holidays and traditions that might not even exist in Mexico, to assert their collective identity. Many mexicans will tell you that chicano culture is vastly different than traditional mexican culture. Some many years later, inject some idpol, you get the Lantix identity which describes basically an 100% american, just a little browner. It's an identity crisis at a collective level.

This obsession with identifying yourself inevitably creates terrible identity crises. It makes hollow people that are only what their identity represents and nothing else, it victimizes and blames the entirety of another "identity" for the problems another identity face, it creates sectarianism that one identity is somehow better than another.

It also creates movements with imbecile agendas such as BLM. All cops are bastards and of course they are racist, even black cops, but the number of black deaths in the hands of cops is insignificant compared to the number of slaves in private prisons and the number of black people murdered by other black people. And calling cops racist does not fix the problem at all.

In general, it seems that idpolers just look at superficial results and point to it as the source of the problem. Then democrats come and put a band aid on the result, without fixing the underlying problem.
#3
Identity politics is clearly divisive. If "brocialists" can't agree with "REAL COMMUNISTS®", what hope do we have for bringing in the right. Most people (capitalist left and right) are not consciously wanting to be male chauvinists, homophobic or racist. The fact that communism preaches that capitalist education has basically brainwashed us, but FAIL to recognize that homophobes etc are just products of their upbringing is not consistent. Instead of finding commonalities (like, hmm, perhaps class opression, which if you would have been paying attention was the #1 thing trump supporters were about besides muslims). Keep fighting whether trans students can use their preferred bathroom, that will teach those dirty capitalists! "B-b-b-ut you're basically a transphobe" NO! The root of opression is capitalism and the state. Our movement should not be sold to buzzfeed journalists and Hillary feminists. THAT is fake news. Milo Yanopopoalleisis is fake news. Trans bathrooms issues is fake news. Even black lives matter; so many more black people die in the hands of other black people than from cops. Many more are enslaved in private prisons. But lets protest the insignificant number that dies in the hands of cops. If you disagree, you are literally Hitler. They want us to fight for crumbs so we don't have time to take the cake. We're being duped!

#4
Look, identity politics is a crap movement. The left is against this movement as well, the media would have you think otherwise. The democrats, which are not left, more like center right, are the ones pushing this bs. Ironically, the right wingers have always been participants of identity politics with their nationalist (I'M 'MURICAN) and white supremacist bs, maybe they just don't like it when identity politics doesn't include them. If you can't see that our laws keep poor people poor, that poor people are the most vulnerable to police abuse, that our taxes get inevitably funneled back to the rich, that salaries for the 99.9% have been stagnating for the past decades, while salaries for the .1% have skyrocketed (especially when you factor in the tax breaks the rich get), that trillions are disappearing in tax havens, that corporations have more political power each year, that the government spies more intrusively on its citizens each year, that police can legally steal your shit, that politicians have legalized corruption through lobbying, then you really need to get your head out of your ass. The cost of 1 explosive shell is enough to cover the housing of someone for a year, yet the government uses our money to level the middle east with that crap. Not only is it evil as hell, it costs more on the long run when you create refugees and enemies. The typical strategy of the US to fund religious radicals to defeat other religious radicals they had previously funded is just a terrible, terrible use of our money. Here's the worst part, none of the voters have any say in the decisions being made. It literally doesn't matter what the population thinks, both the dems and the reps are wasting our money (remember that 14 trillion $ debt?) without our consent. If you seriously think Hillary was going to change anything you are deluded. Everyone thought Trump was going to "change things", that's fine, but if you still think that he cares about the 99.9% and his policies, especially the ones of deregulating companies will benefit you in any way, you truly are a slave to your masters. Whatever system we choose to build, 1. people should actually have a say in the decisions, 2. rich people shouldn't be able to buy politicians (it's absurd I even have to spell this out), 3. the system shouldn't allow people to become absurdly rich. Consider the following: to make the money bill gates has you would have to save 1 million dollars each year (assuming no interests or inflation), for 86,700 years. Some final points, climate change at this point is irrelevant, if the Earth warming doesn't kill us, then the pollution will still do. Just check out cities that have high levels of pollution, people are starting to die young. If someone on the other side of the world burns a tire, that air will eventually reach you, you dingus. On the whole trans thing, what. is. it. to. you. Let people do whatever they want with their life, it's theirs, not yours. Stop playing doctors, leave the science to the scientists and the medicine to the doctors.

#5
The effect of all this "identity politics" stuff is to dilute and weaken the left, turn women against men, turn blacks against whites, and concentrate on infighting. The emphasis on "identities" beyond class identity has done nothing but reinforce the commodity form, because those "identities" can easily be co-opted into niche markets, which can be marketed to. The exaltation of one race or gender or sexuality usually in practice involves the degradation of another. For instance, the idea that "black women have a unique worth" over and above anyone else's inherent worth, is a type of racialism. Also, the idea is outdated. If you change the economic and class structure, social relations will change, not the other way about. A totally non-racist and non-sexist and non-homophobic society with all the capitalist institutions left intact is possible, but what would that have to do with anarchism? Identity politics is fundamentally bourgeois and silly and divisive. It strengthens capitalism and consumerism, and divides the working class. Just as socialists have traditionally been internationalists, focusing on their class identities over their national identities, so they should focus on their class identities over their racial, gender, and sexuality concerns. Because an oppressor and an exploiter can be any colour, any nationality, any gender, any sexuality.

Non-white people are now integrated into the highest levels of government and business. The simplistic racial analysis doesn't hold anymore

on muslim feminists:
Modern identity politics seems to imply a kind of liberalism or individualism, more specifically a kind of separation given that one's unique individuality may not coincide with the larger whole of society. I also think that the agenda of "inclusion" functions on a very postmodern/westernized psychology. I'm a total heretic, but I pray with Hasidic women and I can tell you that they never let the presence of exclusion or gender hierarchy stop them from seeing the beauty of Creation or having direct experiences of life. Compare that to someone like Amandla Stenberg who feels she's unable to experience joy because white girls are wearing cornrows. But again, the notion that everyone can have their own unique identity seems to suggest maintaining the fragmented status of the world. Since the late 1970s with the emergence of neoliberalism and the perpetual death of radical movements and proletarian internationalism we've seen identity politics become entirely individualistic and superficial. I don't understand how "hijabi feminism", for instance, is anything but nationalist or Jucheist/Fourth Positionist (national communist), given that hijabi feminists are much more about promoting their cultures' own unique feudal garb and traditions as progressive than they are about tackling their own culture's patriarchy (which may or may not be linked with western imperialism too). French Muslims protested the burkini ban but not the French airstrikes on Syria - why? Fifty years ago it would have been the opposite

on separation of identities as being anti communism:

The fact that humans are still broken into "male" and "female" or any other gender categories is proof that struggle between genders still exists in every society where gender exists. You cannot separate gender from class as the two function in entirely the same way. Even societies/cultures where third or multiple genders existed had contradictions between them. The goal of any legitimate feminist or male feminist comrade should be a complete rectification whereby "male", "female", "genderfluid", etc. are no more, and the only thing that remains is the androgyne. That's exactly what the more radical and Marxist-influenced feminists during the Second Wave saw as the final goal (similar to the way communism seeks the complete abolition of social classes). The difference between this and the mainstream trends of feminism today is, while the former recognizes that the world is inherently fragmented by gender and seeks to rectify it so that we may go beyond its constraints, the latter recognizes the fragmentation but seeks to keep it in-place (even going so far as to say that a world broken into genders is nothing more than their "individuality"). This is arguably why so much modern feminist strains go off on the same female stereotypes which feminists of the past have struggled against, specifically the idea that women are passive and ought to be given credit for being passive and docile. It's a huge shame, really.

and finally this word salad I shat the other day on the other idpol thread (the anti-idpol is not anti-idpol)
#6
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.

Yea because getting manipulated by Spiked is sooooo much better than sending the wrong narrative

what are your plans for this info? where will you compile it?

its the kind of drama that breaks up boredom. because the only thing you can do is wait to vote for bernie.

Same thing happened with occupy wall street. contrary to the popular perception, idpol didn't wreck the movement. the movement had no substance to it, it couldn't agree on any actions or proposals, so people moved on to arguing about the messaging, the form.

I'm not referring to anti-prostitution I'm referring to him outright stating it is bourgeois to be gay

Most likely explanation is that Amber is a former Trot turned hard-right libertarian who is partly funded by the Kochs.

Very good post. Unfortunately will be ignored because for most of Zig Forums "anti-idpol" means "don't challenge my specific selective comfy idpol"

Not sure if shitposting or r/cth retard.

it's a very fine line between reasonable feminism and idealist feminism.
I realize that there is a lot of value lost by not reading someone just because they support 'x' or deny 'y'. In the case of bell hooks' wikipedia page:
idealism is a hell of a drug and not one I think I'm capable of discerning.
basically, what do I need to read to arm myself against liberalism and idealism, especially in the context of identity politics?

Equality isn't necessarily a left-wing goal. "Equality" itself doesn't mean anything without any concrete specificity as to what this "equality" entails. No one on the left would be satisfied with a form of "equality" under capitalism, which reveals the actual goal is not so much "equality" as it is socialism and the equality that economic system implies. Thinking about left-wing goals in terms of "equality" simply stinks of idealism.

Attached: 3AE9AF86-4A23-4DF2-A24A-FEB57610DEE8.jpeg (720x595, 69.75K)

Welcome to post-colonialism.

Hahaha stay salty Zig Forums

I think the salty one here is you my friend

Well at least you're not pretending to be white anymore

Not over being called a crypto racist, no.

Whatever puts you to bed at night vulgar Marxist.

shoo shoo, CIA nigger

I think the only crypto racist here is you

Lol sorry sweetly, the CIA goes after people that undermine capitalism. Not suburbanite whites that couldn’t uphold more if they tried.

But I don’t implicitly protect white supremacy like you.

Yes, pretending like racist superstructure doesn’t exist is very orthodox Marxism lol.

same place as the others: my blog. still in the process of researching. may possibly make a google spreadsheet too

"Communism is when there are black and brown landlords. And the more landlords are black or brown, the communister it is."
-DeCarl Marx, Critique of Salty Crackers

Out of curiosity, I checked that Twitter account. The theory seems to be that because of Demographics (TM), the left should ignore (implicitly racist) white workers; instead, subaltern identities will rise up against the white settlers and destroy settler-colonialism/capitalism, presumably ejecting the settlers into the sea. It'll be like Libya and the immigrant boats, but "a good thing."

You may see a resemblance between this and the Democratic Party's belief that demographics will save them. The "subalterns, rise up" theory, though, has the decency to cloak its naked idealism in Maotist rhetoric.

Where's the punch line?

Communism has only ever come to power on issues of class struggle and anti imperialism (which is also class struggle). No communist government has ever or will ever come to power by piggybacking on a movement as tiny and alien to 99% of the working class as the trans movement or some shit. Obviously we can fight discrimination against trans people, but they can never be front an center in a movement that is fundamentally about class. Nor does opposing discrimination imply that we have to tolerate petty identitarianism.

Communism is when you implicitly defend white supremacy by pretending whites aren't getting material benefits from it like being spared enslavement via prison labor, owning real estate which they can withdraw trillion in equity from and superstructure that does nothing but defend their interests.
While simultaneously acting like whites are really revolutionary t-t-t-t-they just get mislead by people like Trump. That impotent pink haired SJWs and poor Black people that hurt white people's feelings online are the real existential threat to the left and not the military/intelligence/police industrial complex that has been proven to take down left movements in the past.
And pretending that it's a huge mystery that there hasn't been any real revolutionary potential in the US even though neoliberalism has frozen real wages for 40 years. Even though it's obvious to anyone that white people with few exceptions, have sat on any nascent revolution to defend their own propertied positions.
Oh and smear absolutely any PoC that says anything about it as simply an wannabe porky.
- t. Zig Forums

Attached: tumblr_ocgg0ghQrE1ui9bilo1_1280.png (600x573, 346.33K)

Nobody is defending white supremacy or pretends it doesn't exist though. The idpol stance on it is blame whitey in general when the sole reason for it is capital.

The entire notion has the same validity as Jewish supremacy desu senpai

My aching sides
Son, that your arse is lilly-white doesn't protect you from prison labour

race essentialism is the worst,

while there is structural racism, and it's really really bad (private-prisons labour power exploitation) , any attempt of trying to fight against it is basically sabotaged by pitting poc-identity low-income against middle-income white-idenity groups. This just appears as competition for the midle-income home-owner social position in capitalism, and will fan the flames of reaction.

Besides the material value of these houses is not that big, the only thing that is big is the speculative exchange value in the real-estate market. As for a communist movement it is not our goal go after home owners, we'd be compared to wall-street using a financial crash to expropriate homeowners and kicking people on the street.

You could say that under communism a house you live in is personal property, but if you want to get rid of home-ownership all together you go for a grandfather clause, and then you get 3 generations to build a communist housing system that is sufficient for convincing the majority of people that they don't need to own a house for securing their need for shelter.

From a political strategical point of view, don't threaten the foundational needs of people.

Attached: maslow-hierachy-of-needs-min.jpg (960x720 68.99 KB, 58.01K)