Attached: BK_H_891.jpg (934x1400, 262.63K)
Solidarity? Um, like...
kill all liberals
I wonder if my photos will ever be used on internet.
Why the fuck did people start saying folx? Is it like latinx?
All intersectionality does is ask the State to incorporate the oppressed and marginalized into the function of its structures, whereas the old solidarity implies a cross-identity coalition to abolish the system which necessitates oppression and marginalization in the first place.
The glaring contradiction, of course, is that this managed diversity robs multiculturalism of its potential to be a progressive force and creates a new form of conservatism, along with a monoculture. Each identity or cluster of identities is given their space and allowed to do whatever it takes to preserve it, and the private sector profits handsomely as massive corporations offer their commodities to these spaces in support of this task. Thus, the tools used by the myriad of identities all come from the same monopolies, making any individuality a mere narcissism of small differences, usually dependent upon who has the most money to continuously update their identities ability to present itself as unique among the ocean of the marginalized. In this scenario, multiculturalism functions as little more than an ad campaign which reassures the oppressed and the marginalized that reform of the system, and certainly not revolutionary work aimed at overthrowing the system, is necessary because Amazon Prime will sell to you no matter your creed, color, gender identity, or sexual orientation.
Intersectionality and all of these other recent debwlopments in western "leftism" are actually quite conservative. Theyre a good example of the whole Lacanian conception of a pervert as someone who may initially appear to be revolutionary but over time exposes themselves as one of the least revolutionary people imaginable because their "subversive" actions aren't oriented toward changing social structures they just get off on being subversive, so when the market gives them a cultural space and provides them the tools to do so to their hearts content they end up actually perpetuating the current social arrangement in an even more efficient manner than in an overt police state.
They basically are a socially liberal version of what Sam Hyde does
He's right tho, whenever 'left unity' is invoked it only ever goes one way.
Ok breadfag then tell me what the fuck YOU plan to do.
I was respondiong to the pic, not the poster. sage
Lol butthurt chapo faggots stay mad
Wow it's almost like putting all your time and energy into horizontalist autism makes it hard to defend yourself against state power.
It's so funny because at this point anarkiddies don't even argue that "state socialism" isn't socialism they just whine about how unfair it is that when "state socialists" seize power they don't immediately "build communusm" by getting rid of any structures which might actually make sure the revolution isn't strangled in the crib lmao
No point arguing something that has-been disproven time and again
ahem Hello lovely lady. My pronouns are he/him/his. Don’t worry, I’m not like those other cis white men haha. Cis get the bullet! Mayocide! Hehe. You should check out my reddit account. I’ve gotten a lot of karma from owning tankies and doing funny bits. But sometimes I can be a bit of a goofball troll too. Yesterday, I went on the_donald and told those chuds to post hog and they banned me haha! A subreddit enforcing its rules, priceless! Sounds like they need a safe space. Not that there is anything wrong with safe spaces though! I think I’m a lot like the twitter account dril when I troll the chuds. Have you heard of dril? That’s D-R-I-L. It’s a pretty crazy twitter account that says silly stuff that you can repeat verbatim to own people. Corncob haha! You should look it up. It’s dumb but hilarious. Whoops sorry, I shouldn’t be using ableist words like dumb. How careless of me. Anywho, have you ever heard of a band called death grips? PRETTY PRETTY NINE MOTHERFUCKER! Haha that’s a death grip lyric reference. Whoops, now everyone is staring at me because I used my outside voice hehe. What’s that? You need to go to the bathroom? If you’d like, I could follow you to make sure no chuds give you any trouble for going in your preferred bathroom because that is my chivalrous duty. Wait, where are you going?! Just a pint of mouthfeel before you go? Please ma’am, might I just have a microwatt of girldick?
This is pretty on point but most death grips fans I've ever met were lolberts or ancaps or just edgy apolitical sam Hyde wannabes, I feel like they don't have many "woke" fans
True I'm just saying that anarkiddies at least could make the argument that they were the "tr00 socialists" when they approached it from that angle even if they were being stupid and purposefully ignorant in doing so. Now they just blatantly say they would collaborate with other socialists and will in fact work against them cuz "muh state"
*wouldn't collaborate with other socialists
It's conservative in that it's fundamentally selfish. The various tribes are balkanized due to the deconstruction of terms like "woman" and more interested in their own self-esteem than any attempt to join in coalition for a common cause. Indeed, not only can't they join forces, they shouldn't, because that would dilute their own personal cultural identity. What's left is a zero-sum politics that embraces despair, pessimism and selfishness. By seizing as much as possible for one's self and group, it exposes its complete disregard for the whole from which it has separated - for the rest of the society. Identity politics thus rejects the search for a just and comprehensive solution to social problems.
I don't really get this one tbh fam you seem like either a Twitter lib whose mad we're making fun of idpol or a Zig Forumsack who's trying to say leftism in general is stupid idk I give it a 4/10 for effort
Pretty much what happens. Was on a leftist server, 90% was left anarchists. At first it was about left unity and other more M-L types and Maoist were there but over time they eventually just started sperging on how we were big meanies.
One of them had a fucking panic attack over a labourwave thing for Castro where they didn't have an argument against him or Cuba; just called him icky ten thousand times since he didn't do full anarchy right away.
Lol they're literally just liberals
I never understood why they hate Castro. He's the only tankie leader that didn't kill godzilions.
You severely underestimate the DC propaganda machine, my friend. They will conjure death tolls like Jesus multiplying bread and fish.
Half of them are still convinced that Che personally gassed 2 billion queers despite him making a point to repudiate his homophobia and Cuba today being one of the most liberal socialist/former socialist states re: homosexuality
The other half just don't want to admit u can do Leninism without necessarily having to kill a trillion kulaks so they act like he did. It's also why anarkiddies just ignore Thomas Sankara ever existing but never shut the fuck up about Mugabe
People who bitch the most about Settlers on here absolutely have not read it or anything else Sakai has written for that matter.
This also isn't accurate anyway because Settlers isn't a particularly discussed text, even in the radist of lib caucuses.
It's pretty much just online tankies and pretty fringe Maoist groups
Gee I wonder
Also I never read me in Kampf I still get the basic point because it's simple minded nonsense that doesn't take more than 10 pages to explain and even less words to refute
The Shock of Recognition (J. Sakai) – Kersplebedeb
This is the kind of dumb shit I'm talking about.
sakxi nitpicks too much and is far too forthright in hxs conclusions
I wonder, what exactly might be a misconception that people have about Settlers? Is "there's no such thing as a white proletariat" not in Settlers? That's the main point of contention, that is the thesis statement, and it's anti-materialist and anti-Marxist.
Goddamn, the brainlets have really taken over this place, huh?
You're also actually a retard for refusing to understand one's political adversaries.
Except people here did try to read Sakai. He was undeniably shit.
Basically, that whites in the US have never really developed true class consciousness and united in solidarity with non-white proletarians because they were, at first, settlers benefiting from the genocide of Native Americans and the slavery of Africans and, later, labor aristocrats enriching themselves on imperial loot and the oppression and exploitation of colonized peoples, so they had sort of a class interest to see the bourgeois regime continued.
It's completely materialist and jives with Lenin. People just don't like it because people online are obnoxious about it. I thought the same until I read it and explored more of Sakai's work. His essay on fascism is probably the only good analysis of it as a class politic in like 20 years.
There's like one poster who actually read the book in that thread and a bunch of people posting memes and being butthurt in general.
Okay, so I'm aware that white workers in the US are beneficiaries of imperialism and slavery, and I'm also aware that they have very poor consciousness and are largely a very backwards section of the proletariat.
(In fact I don't think there's a single ML or ML-MZT or MLM who would disagree with that analysis.)
Buuut, if I understand Sakai correctly, this means that there will never be a revolution in the US that involves white workers, and that outreach to white workers is pointless, and that they should all be seen as nothing more than class enemies.
Am I wrong in that? If so, can you direct me to some passage of Sakai's which clarifies the matter?
I'd add the caveat that white people in the US are being re-proletarianized due to just how global markets and imperialism operate now but it reminds to be seen if we get a socialist product out of it or fascism. It's worth nothing both the DSA and various of right wing militia groups and white nationalist are declassed PMC's or petty bourgeois, declassed or otherwise.
He doesn't say that
From "When Class Burns Race"
Also, people agree with me in that thread, retard. More than one.
you could of made it funnier by adding comrade in here or there for some spice.
overall, I would give this a 4.5/10. Good work cumrade.
imagine my shock.
*When Race Burns Class
Look man I'm sorry you hate white people because r/socialism taught you that's what Marxism means but it doesn't mean I have to waste my time with your idpol books
Lol I like how you just telepathically know only one person tried to read it cuz they happened to be the one person defending it
I have zero white guilt. And it's not exactly a new observation that there are conflicts not only between classes but within them. It's not idpol.
Probably because they were actually able to elucidate the concepts explored in the book and not just meming.
Get fucked, faggot. It's late and I skimmed the thread. They're also the only ones able to elucidate the concepts laid out in the book.
So you don't actually give a shit about arguing for Sakai you just wanted (you)s for having an opinion different from the majority of this board on a book that you yourself said nobody even reads anyway lmao good job man
I did actually, that people misread the book and come to false conclusions. That and people dismis it out of hand cuz "idpol", which unfortunately is too typical of nuleftypol
This isn't Reddit, none of this shit matters. I also have work on the morning and I'm tired
Nice revolutionary work man
Think the thing was some poster written in Spanish of course made in the labourwave type of thing and it said something like "Fatherland or death" which makes sense since from the Cuban POV what made them special is that Cubans felt their nation was enslaved to the U.S so a sense of left nationalism has filled them since Che and Castro threw them and their puppets out and fended off the U.S
I tried to explain this but they just called it fascist ten thousand times and how they must oppose fascism and this was literally Hitler.
Pic related and been getting mileage out of it. Other issue is they let an ancap into the server who larps as an agorist and they've tolerated him a lot more then the Maoists or ML's and stalinists since "muh anarchy"
It has an interesting perspective on the formation of class in settler socities, in particular the US. That's about it, I don't have to agree on everything a specific author or tendency has on a subject to find something useful intellectually. It's just the people who meme it the most online are retarded. But the same could be said of literally any book on politics or economics. I'm mostly just annoyed at nuleftypol's averseness to intellectual challenge and growth.
I enjoyed his essay on fascism more tbh, since it basically btfo of the vulgar Marxist interpretation.
Wow what an interesting perspective lmao
A "proletariat" and "working class" are not necessarily the same thing, the proletariat is working class but not all working class people are proles. You'd know this if you weren't taught to be stupid. Unless you think labor aristocrats and the PMC don't exist then lol at your life.
This is my last response to your idiot non-sequiters. Good night.
there is no white proletariat indeed
hail Hitler, Nazi masturbation fantasy is coming
You're probably not aware Sakai makes a distinction between settler socities and say old world Europe. It's not a racial view, it's a class analysis.
Is your mother aware that I make a vie between her asshole and her pussy when I sniff one while I'm eating the other one
race war is coming buy guns
Tell my cunt boss to stop shorting my hours and maybe I could get my shit out of jail. For the Nazi masturbation fantasy,of course.
your boss is going to be the least of your concerns in the near future, being outnumbered by rabid PoC baboon apes who are very hungry and very angry 10 to 1 will be
This nigga is right. I'm poc and I can't wait to rape me some nice white girls grrr!
I’m a fascist, oppressor, class traitor and I can’t wait to murder my fellow workers in droves to support of big capital! Capitalism is ok if it’s white!
White people make up 70% of the population of the unités states and they are all labour aristocrats (which is apparently not proletariat wtf?) and class unconscious bourgeois supporters and black people must establish a black led and directed dop because they are the only class conscious people AND white people don't know better for them.
Also deport them to Europe.
Hi it's me, the edgy socialist Death Grips fan. I suggest reminding edgy right Death Grips fans, that the band is politically charged against their ideology.
From an interview with Zach Hill: "Where our heads are at is much different than most Hip-Hop and rap artist heads are at. For example we are pro-homosexual, pro-feminist and progressive. We're anti-closed mind, anti-conservative and anti-homophobe. We make aggressive-macho sounding music but we're definitely progressive."
They also have songs criticizing cops, the government and capitalism/consumerism, but i guess it's no different from your run of the mill punk band.
But Sakai literally lies, or at the very least fabricates his own version of the labour movements in America, in that book. How are you supposed to take any of what he says seriously when he openly does that?
I was on the Vaush FBI server for a while and someone had a panic attack and started fucking crying because I was talking about climate change and WWIII
Jesus that’s fucking annoying d i s c o r d
Most of leftypol are fucking butthurt crackers pissed that the majority of the honkies in this country would gladly commit genocide before revolution; they desperately seek to convince themselves this somehow doesn’t have a material basis and that honkies in settler states somehow have revolutionary potential despite evidence to the contrary.
Lurk more newfag
eternal gulag awaits
Why would you, though?
As I Fascist, I unironically enjoyed reading this article. It’s rare for me to read such a nuanced, and complex look at fascism from a leftist. Normally all you guys can do is drone on and on about how “fascism is just capitalism in decay, Hitler was just porky’s puppet, etc” It’s really quite boring, and something that obviously untrue if you actually look at history. So Sakai’s take on fascism was extremely refreshing, and I even agree with allot of what he says.
Now I don’t agree with everything he has to say of-course. He is a bit too eager to label any revolutionary movement with a middle class basis as fascist “for example, he labels Islamists as fascist, even though the B’athists are much more similar to a Arabic fascism” Though I find his idea that fascism is the middle class’s revolution against the bourgeois to be allot closer to reality than traditional Marxist thought, I still don’t think that’s the whole picture. For example i don’t fully agree with his belief that fascism is when the middle classes, and petty bourgeois, who are losing power under capitalism, rebel in order to take power for themselves. I personally don’t believe that the middle class’s revolt is something that is inherent to fascism, but is something that can arguably be the source of most revolutionary movements. “though it is true that so called failed men of the middle class made the up the vanguard of the fascist movement”
Whether fascist, or socialist, almost all revolutionary movements are started by the middle class. The working class has very little inherent revolutionary potential, not having the education, resources, or mindset to start a revolution themselves. Even the Russian revolution, the supposed “worker’s revolution” was lead by middle class men like Lenin, and Trotsky. It was a revolution that wouldn’t have been possible were it not through the arms, and training of huge deserting segments of the Russian army, and economic support from the middle class, and segments of the petty bourgeois. No matter what you believes the soviet’s intentions were, there can be no doubt that the leadership of that revolution was that of the middle class. Of course that’s not to say the working class had no part in the Soviet revolution, it obviously did, as it did in the fascist revolutions as-well. But the true string movers of that revolution were of the middle class.
Worker’s are not intellectuals, they do not spend their days in libraries, reading economic theory, and philosophy. They work, the worker’s under Czarist Russia were barely literate as is, and were simply wallowing in the mud until the middle class, and the military gave them the chance to rebel. If Lenin, and his friends had been a fascists, who exploited the situation as they did historically, the worker’s of Russia would have followed them as blindly as they did irl. They hated the miserable, slave like conditions that they lived under the Czar’s rule, and simply jumped at the opportunity to join the first powerful, revolutionary force they could find, that promised them better living conditions. They couldn’t have cared less about some obscure books written by some 19th century Jewish intellectual, they wanted PEACE, LAND, AND BREAD!
Sakai’s mistake is assuming that the origins of a revolution, completely define the ideological end goal. The fascists utilized the angry, and dying middle class, and their economic anxiety to take power “as they used the working class as-well” but taking power for the middle class was never the end goal for fascism, just a means to an end. Sure the fascist movements core was surely middle class, and most supporters almost certainly saw fascism as merely a means to improve their own economic stability, and wealth “as in all revolutions, the vast majority of people will only support change if they think it will benefit them” However the actual leaders of the fascist movements saw it as more than that, similar to how Lenin would have seen the Russian revolution as more than simply nabbing wealth.
To Mussolini, and Hitler fascism was more about improving their nations, and their people’s living standards collectively. And capitalists, communists, monarchists, trade unionists, liberals, social democrats, Jews, and others were obstacles to those goals. Obstacles that could be made subservient, suppressed. or destroyed, but obstacles nonetheless. In my view fascism is a way of viewing the world, and a set of goals rather than any set of policies. Making it more of a school of thought, or a worldview, rather than a ideology like communism, or capitalism. Fascism in short “in my view” is a belief in nationalism, beauty, Darwinism, race, social health, both traditionalism, and futurism, unity, purpose, and order. And scorns democracy, liberalism, class identity, capitalism, and communism.
It is hard for a purely materialist worldview to truly analyze fascism, since fascism itself is not a set of economic polices like communism. Since economics is simply the means to a end in the pursuit of the prosperity of the nation, and it’s people. Due to this both liberal, and Marxist intellectuals have trouble defining what fascism exactly is. So they simply try and frame it as a tool used by something they do understand, like capitalism. Or they try and frame it purely under the dynamics of class warfare, like Sakai. Fascism however does have several ideologies that can be analyzed much how you can analyze any other ideology “I.e a set of coherent policies” such as moderate Hitlerism, Strasserism, Mosleyism, Eco Fascism, Falangism, etc but when analyzing these ideologies it is always important to keep in mind the world view these ideologies all share, which simply means that they are different ways to reach the same goal.
I also disagree with Sakai when it comes to a few points when it comes to the economies of historical fascist nations. I disagree with him on the his point that fascism relies upon subjugating others to work. He makes the point that women were enslaved under historical fascist regimes, and compares them to Islamists in this regard, when that was simply not the case. For example more women worked under Nazi Germany “even before WW2” than they did under the Weimar, and women were often celebrated as being just as important as men “they were the one’s who brought the future of the nation into existence after all” they were encouraged to be mothers, but were not forced to be, they could choose. And women played a very important part in fascist industry during WW2.
I also disagree with the point that fascism is completely parasitic, relying upon taking slaves, and plunder from neighboring countries in order to survive. This is a misconception brought about through both the German’s lack of natural resources during the war, and war propaganda. First of all this ridiculous notion that fascism was about to completely collapse from debt “using others people’s money and all that” and so the fascist nation’s decided to plunder other countries, is completely absurd. All the gold teeth, jewelry, and paintings in the world are not paying for the costs of advancing a army of millions of men through enemy territory, and are certainly not paying for the cost of running a industrial nation. The fascist states had perfectly functional economies before the war, and would not have lasted as long they did if they hadn’t. What the fascists “most specifically the Germans” did loot however, were raw materials. Germany simply did not have enough lumber, oil, and rubber within its borders to sustain its gargantuan war machine. Though this was a matter of geography, and not economic policy. The Germans did loot huge amounts of oil, rubber, timber, and iron from the USSR, and other places. Yet even then it was not a net gain, only necessary to maintain the war effort. The fascist economies also did rely upon both paid foreign workers, and slaves during the war. But only during the war, when a huge chunk of their working class had to be made into soldiers. It was basically economic realpolitik, utilizing every resource in sight to try and ensure victory. And was never meant to be a permanent state of things.
Anyway I still enjoyed the article, I just don’t think it got everything right, and it lacked a little self awareness.
If you can you should. I know joking about mass murder of kulaks is funny and all of that but this isn't even w moralfag thing it's something Lenin himself and Stalin both believed in. If you have to do shit like that then so be it but if the material conditions or luck make it so substantial gains can be accomplished with minor violence do that too because it will behoove you in the long run
Wat If i want to drink the blood of the petty bourgeois?
You have to be a materialist about things. There's no doubt that the initial revolutionary scenario will require a certain degree of violence but once you're actually in power you have to be careful and think things through. Obviously you have to severely limit and repress the bourgeoise and if there simply is no other way to do this than to get rough from time to time so be it but if there are other avenues you take those first because they usually make things on the whole flow a lot smoother.
Stalin for instance purged several NKVD members who were leading his purges because they were intentionally being excessive in order to create a chaotic situation in the CCCP and stoke counterrevolution
This is the problem I have with leftism it's too strict and regimented when it comes to thinking.Once you become a leftycuck you have to take on tunnel vision and analyze everything from that perspective. I have a very broad brain and that's why I will stick to my custom right wing nihilism ideology because nihilism allows for a broad range of possibilities including but not limited to Marxist analysis of the econmy and social relations. I've seen variations of that soiboi a thousand times now.
I've seen dozens of Matt Christman npc clones. Same look same cadence same irony fag outlook same brand of leftism only Chapo fags are talented because they are actually funny the millions of clones they produced arent as funny.
And you say left wing logic is stale and boring wewee at least get into some kind of esoteric mysticism or something man this is some Sargon of Akkad tier philosophy
It's not that it's that my brain is too broad and complex to contain just one school of thought I absolutely allow for whatever influence there is to influence me.
There is nothing wrong with striving towards distinctness and being unique being a special snowflake is not a bad thing.
Never change, Zig Forums. Never change.
Hitler was actually pretty moderate in comparison to many of his fellow NSDAP members. For example he allowed many of the old Weimar institutions to continue to exist, simply incorporating them into the Reich. And was relatively chill when it came with dealing with both both the bourgeois, and communists. Believing that the former could be made subservient, and the latter could be made into Nazis in time. Many other Nazis wanted to start a great purge, destroying all remnants of the old society in a great cleansing of fire, and blood, that would have surely left millions dead, and then replacing every single institution with a Nazi party organization. A day of the rope if you will. While Hitler was more focused on improving the living standards of his people, rather than completely changing German society. Hitler was of the belief that there was no need to simply purge everything and start fresh. Since you could simply subvert society through education, and propaganda instead, while slowly making the various institutions more and more ideological, and slowly wrapping the coils around the power of the bourgeois. All in all, Hitler was a reformer who believed that old institutions, and people should be changed slowly, and peacefully, rather than a true revolutionary who destroys society, and then builds something new atop the ashes. So he’s a moderate relatively speaking, in fascist circles.
You're talking about fascism like it runs contrary to the power of the bourgeoisie, and yet there's nothing about the history of any fascist country that indicates this. Any members of the NSDAP who actually wanted the total destruction of the old order were Long Knived – and it could not have been any other way, as fascism has an built-in need to bond powerfully with the conservative and reactionary elements existing in society before its own rise.
I would recommend you read this article written by a Marxist, and then my posts in response to it.
The bourgeois only really began to “support” the fascists when they had actually taken power, basically going along with the flow in order to not be replaced. They much preferred the much more pro capitalist, conservative movements. It was the fascists who exploited the conservatives, reactionaries, and bourgeois, not the other way around. Saying that fascists needed to bond with conservatives, and reactionaries in order to rise. Is similar to saying that that communists needed to bond with petty bourgeois, and military institutions of the state to take power. You’re confusing things that are exploited for revolutionary goals, with the source. Long Knives was basically the purging of the much more extreme Nazis, who were threatening a coup because Hitler had “sold out” by not immediately purging everything.
Fascism isn't contrary to the bourgeoisie, in the end, but most Marxists have fascism's original base in the petty bourgeoisie and certain lumpen elements. The parties representing the bourgeoisie's interests are generally liberal; fascist parties are not what they prefer but the "method of last resort," so to speak, against socialists, communists, and a rebellious working class.
That’s not true. Big landowners were using blackshirts as thugs to beat up socialists and rural workers in the Po Valley as early as 1920. Many founding members of the fascist party left shortly thereafter, denouncing fascism as a tool of the establishment. Fascism must adapt to the political space that is open for it, because it has never been strong enough to take power on its own. It’s middle class base can’t hope to resist both the workers and the capitalists simultaneously, and so they have to pick a side. Because siding with the bourgeoisie is both more amenable to their ideology, and the quickest route to power, they always side with the established elite against the people of the nation they supposedly love. The bourgeoisie for their part have no problem with making whatever minor changes are demanded of them, and any fascist who demands more radical change gets purged like the Strasserites. This is the reason why every fascist movement in history has either become a tool of the elite or remained irrelevant.
Coming back to this. No, he doesn't
It wasn’t until after the Nazis took over the government in 1933 that Big Business backed them
Radical Islamic fundamentalists like ISIS are fascist movements and the class background of the inner cadre of these groups just strengthens this analysis.
Also, you seem to not know of the multiple strikes and sabotage that the German working class implemented in defiance of the factory overseers attempts to implement Taylorism on the shop floor.
Also, you might as well read the essay a friend wrote on the subject recently
Strasserism vs "Strasserism": Turning Over the Right Rocks …