What do you people have against idpol? it's simply being against racism, sexism, transphobia etc which do still exist

what do you people have against idpol? it's simply being against racism, sexism, transphobia etc which do still exist.

if we don't stand up for these groups they gp tp the right wing and liberals.

Attached: Lux.jpg (183x237, 27.39K)

it's not about ignoring racism, sexism and other such things as much as it is acknowledging that they are taking place in a larger conflict between capital and labour; the meaningful basis of racism is in the socioeconomic distribution of wealth, access to resources, etc. rather than in the cultural notion of racial superiority. if whites and blacks were materially equal the cultural basis of racial superiority would break down because theres no longer obvious visible "proof" of the superiority, now they'd have to resort more to psuedo-science rather than self-obvious truth. likewise for sexism, the subordination of women began with private property and cannot truly end without its abolishment. the struggle for equality is, i think, absolute, and equality means equality in every way, not just economically but socially as well. but we need to understand that the struggle for social equality does not take place in a vacuum, and can never be meaningfully achieved because thee most powerful social divider has been - and until its gone always will be - capital.

please keep this to the idpol superthread dude/

I think Zizek made comments on this, he says that the egalitarian social cause is compatible with neoliberalism and so isn't radical/revolutionary.

based first post

I think the end goal is the tolerance of difference, not the pursuit of equality.

pic related. trying to “stop racism” is a fool’s errand. it’s literally impossible.

Attached: 4D1F1470-86CF-4371-9429-EEA99ED0C495.jpeg (940x788, 128.24K)

racial prejudice has been suppressed over time though, it's clear that representation is changing people's ideas about others.

Workers are a bigger group, and where they intersect the worker identity is the one that most represents their position and relations in society.

People are class first; sex, ethnicity, religion, what-have-you a distant second. This is an observation, not wishful thinking to ignore idpol.

sure, but asking to eliminate racism entirely to a 0% so we can live in a utopia where everyone classcucks each other with “respect” is liberal nonsense. it’s not leftist

leftism is liberalism

Its not about ignoring discrimination, prejudice and the various faces of oppression faced by the most vulnerable in society, as communists we must be their foremost advocates and defenders against fascists and other capitalist running dogs. The question of anti-idpol hinges however on the essential recognition that we cannot and should not organise around these identity issues since it is an idle struggle that will never on its own uproot capitalism, only the class struggle actually threatens capital and has to be the core of organising workers of every colour, gender and sexuality around. It is the only genuine road to liberation and the only one worth pursuing.

only in this politically retarded country it is

No. Leftism is nothing but edgy support for liberalism. It has no meaning, it defines no moviment, ideology or political programme. There is no meaningful difference in the actual ideas of the group of people called "liberals" and the group of people called "leftists" - indeed, they are often largely the same group; while "liberal" can have a broader sense that includes non-leftists, there are no leftists who are not liberals that accept the label of "leftist".

There is some truth to this - I think it would benefit people if they highlighted difference in their thought: marxist and anarchist are more clear than "leftist"


To espouse socialist ideas of any sort, but to call oneself a leftist, is to subdue one's personal support of socialism to a greater "leftism", which is largely liberal; and in that, one becomes a supporter of liberalism foremost.

It may the the product of a confused mind that sincerely believes socialism to be good and liberalism to be bad, but the end result is upholding liberalism, not socialism or anything else.

This is nonsense, liberalism is rightist and reactionary, it is far from being on the left/leftist.

You mean liberal like the values/goals behind the French Revolution like “Liberty, Equality and Fraternity?” If so I don’t see the problem here…

It is not subdue but to elevate, in the sense that socialism will succeed where liberalism has failed.

What is the difference between leftism and liberalism?

You just asserted that the thing which is not left is "right". That's a tautology. You can do that with anything. Witness: liberalism is leftist, therefore it is close to being on the left.

Well, I don't mean it strictly like that, but you do have a point. Yet modern society, in most of the world where it is not socialist, espouses liberal values (whether it actually upholds them is a different matter). Socialism certainly does not seek to defend the liberal status quo, neither is it simple as being liberty-equality-fraternity liberal.

Then you should not group yourself with the liberals who support the liberalism status quo that, in your words, "has failed".

those groups are rightwing and liberals so thats irrelevant.

IDpol was just a way for porky to expand markets. Supporting IDpol is supporting capitalism

Liberalism is a pro-capitalist political philosophy developed to advance bourgeois class interests and oppose feudal, monarchist and absolutist political forces. Leftism is the designation for political philosophies and movements on the political left which is a historically relative designation of politics that is radical, universalist and egalitarian. Hence in the 1700s liberalism was on the left, opposing the monarchist status quo, advocating capitalism, free trade, free markets, legal equality, etc, and now lies on the right representing the status quo of capitalism. Meanwhile the contemporary left is communism which opposes it and advocates socialism, abolition of private property and social equality.

Setting aside that the very idea that political philosophies are orderable on a line to which you assign left and right extremes is dumb, the US Democratic Party would be considered leftist by some, with the Republican Party being its rightist counterpart. If I put the centre arbitrarily somewhere between them, if you label yourself a leftist you have to accept that you are on the same side as the Democrats.

As you say, its arbitrary, so why would I have to accept I'm on the same side as anyone? To some people the american republican party is leftist, does that mean that republican politicians and voters have to accept they are on the same side as american democrats, the greek communist party, and the icelandic green party?
Left and right are directions, so in an individual sense the centre lies wherever your own politics are with people either being in the centre with you or to the left or right of you respectively.
However when we try to to analyse or make sense of the political landscape we should make an effort to look at it from an impersonal view, ie rather than setting the 'centre' where one is, one should place the 'centre' at where a given society is. As such in our current capitalist society those trying trying to abolish and go beyond capitalism (radicals, ie. communists) lie on the left and those who seek to preserve it (reactionaries, ie. liberals, fascists) lie on the right.

You would have to accept that, to people who think the centre is between Democrats and Republicans, when you say you are a leftist they take it as you announcing support for the Democrats. And they aren't wrong in understanding this way, not any more wrong than they would be by putting the centre in any other arbitrary point.

The biggest political identifications in the US are Democrat and Republican. Each thinks of itself as correct, and from an impersonal view each thinks of itself as being on one side with the other being across the centre. I happen to agree, if we are to use the dumb idea of aligning politics on a line.

What places the centre at the division of supporting or opposing capitalism? Communism is a fringe movement with no relevance or even organisation in the US and in most of the Western world. Some would put the centre at supporting or opposing government-funded healthcare, with the left being in favour and the right being against, and that would be a far more relevant division of today's American society.

You haven't answered my question, only repeated yourself.
So what? Why does this mean the centre of politics is between them? Why not between the German CDU and SDP? Or between the Chinese Communist party and United Russia?
Because capitalism is the contemporary status quo, and as explained before the left is defined as the radical political philosophies intending on moving beyond the status quo, which in 1800 was liberalism for example and today is communism.
You seem very confused and narrow minded in your view of politics, which is understandable since you're obviously a burger with no understanding a broader historical or political context than your presidential elections. I recommend picking up a book and reading it.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (326x499, 238.95K)

I'm not the one you were talking to, but my issue with reducing all political positions to a left/right "axis" is that it ultimately seems to view political differences as differences in degree as opposed to differences in quality. If we go by the "classical" French-Revolution-Era definitions of left/right, where left=more progress and right=less progress(or even regress), then it would seem that all "communism" means is just "super-progress." Similarly, people might interpret left/right to indicate degree of state intervention in the economy, so that "the more stuff the government does the socialister it is", or, as you've pointed out, degree of "egalitarianism." This misses the point that communism isn't "more government" or "more progress" or "more equality" - it entails a qualitative break with capitalism, not merely a "progressive" or "state-heavy" or "egalitarian" way of managing it. Perhaps one could say that "left" and "right" are distinct categories, but this has other issues (is centre-left in the same group as the centre or the left? is it its own group?) The left/right division sounds too much like a line, which implies that between any two points, there are all the other points "in-between" (but what is "between" communism and capitalism? it makes no sense), which is why I think such axes are only (somewhat) meaningful within any given category, so one can speak of the left and right wings of capital, for instance, but communism would not be there (and conversely people sometimes speak of left and right wings of communism).

Sure, politics can't be reduced to left-right because it isn't that simple and it inevitably leads to brainlet tier understanding, but while trying to explain what the left is to a brainlet stuck in that one-dimensional mode of thinking I tried to present the left as something that is historically and socially relative, hence the references to the left being liberals in the french revolution and the right being monarchists. This is the opposite of it being a matter of degree or linear progress, but precisely the dialectical progress of large 'bumps' where society changes qualitatively, not that communism is intensified, 'more progressive' or otherwise downstream from liberalism, but rather is to capitalism as liberalism was to feudalism, a movement for a radical break to go beyond the current stage.

no retard. liberalism literally implies centrism by its actual definition. this is not leftism. by your retarded logic National Soycialism is leftism.

Burgers detected


all politics is identity politics

I'm only against identity politics in its strictest sense - that is, an actual politics which puts an identity or pantheon of identity-centered views at the center of its program. It's common practice to shunt any critical approach to racism into the category "idpol" in an effort to paper over the reality of those things. There are a lot of things wrong with the notion that we have to educate the masses to be ultra-tolerant and open to the right feelings and ideas, but that has nothing to do with putting identity at the center of a political program.

Honestly the anti-idpol we need is resistance to white identity politics, since it is way more virulent and effective than any "multicultural, cosmopolitan" identity politics. The only thing the latter has going for it is that it is in line with the growth of global liberal capitalism, but the former is a huge stumbling block to historical truth and meaningful critical theory. Fortunately leftypol (and it's weird to say this) tends to be pretty good about this, due to reaming the /polacks that come around.

politics by definition is the practice of policy making. where is the identity involved in laws against armed robbery, murder, and rape?

don't use the r-word please, it's offensive to some.

i was only pretending


It hurts the movement because 90% proles hate faggots and refugees.

I'm someone who got the r-word growing up far more than most, and I'm not offended by that. This country really is politically and ideologically retarded, like it is exhibiting signs of mental defectiveness and engaging in extremely maladaptive behaviors that do nothing good for anyone and have slowed our ability to have anything like a decent world. I imagine if it were for such habits being ingrained in the political system, the life of those people who are actually mentally retarded or defective in such way, the people who have a reason to actually hate the r-word, would be a lot better, because instead of being shunted into remedial classes and left to rot, they could have something resembling an actual life and something like dignity.

fuck niggers

fuck women

fuck trans mutants

they can go straight to hell for all I care

An immutable fact about them, you'd say? They're inherently endowed with hatred, and it didn't come from anywhere at all?

it came from observations
basic aristotelian logic
fags take/give it up the ass, therefore they're filthy
women can't work especially hard labor jobs, therefore they're useless, only good for breeding
trannies want you to respect their attack helicopter identity, so they're fucking mentally ill

society doesn't indoctrinate them to hate, if that's what you're implying
on the contrary, it indoctrinates them to accept faggotry, feminism, mutants

People hate idpol because, rather than standing against bigotry ALONGSIDE class conflict, instead it often overwhelms any sort of class-struggle, filling once socialist movements with capitalist progressives.

racism, nationalist/ethnic identities and other forms of sectarianism shaped the current world into what it is.
sexism had some influence on today's societies.
transphobia and homophobia are absolutely irrelevant not only historically but even today in every part of the world that isn't western.

be patient with him. he is a slogan regurgitator- the most common Zig Forums-tard profile. Very few of them can form coherent ideas not based around superficial concepts. Some people says it's racism. But believe me, it's pure stupidity.

t. pol
this merits no argument, and furthermore, you're a fucking idiot

Good take