Anti idpol discussion

die you jewish nigger

Attached: 1494206659634.jpg (484x461, 22.2K)

isreview.org/issue/91/black-feminism-and-intersectionality

One thing I love about intersectionality is it causes no end of butthurt to fascists.

you know what man used jewish nigger as an insult? I'll give you a clue: a man who really didn't believe feminism had anything to do with marxism

...

You know who doesn't care? Me. Marx didn't have an opinion on feminism because feminism as a movement didn't exist back then. Piss off.

So you're going to make stuff up now and dismiss any evidence out of hand yeah?

It existed at least since seneca falls 1848. And marx derided people like woodhull who were completely useless if not detrimental to socialism

She was useless for socialism because she got caught lying and manipulating which caused her reputation to be in tatters. That doesn't relate to modern feminism or all feminists. And let get this straight: Marx wasn't Nostradamus and he wasn't the be and end all of marxism. He lived 150 years ago, things move on and lessons are learned. He didn't even complete all his works. Not every leftist has follow the words of Marx to a tee, and most of them don't.

Response part 1/2

Capitalism as generalized commodity production + markets creates structural classes (including the capitalist-worker class system, plantation slavery, and contemporary systems like 1st/3rd world and "illegal immigrants") because they are more efficient at generating profit. The ideology of a stratified social system allows for what is basically just market segmentation (tailoring different commodities to different groups) which is much more efficient than trying to make people equal (in the sense of wanting the same commodities). Capitalism has no interest in social change in itself, and social change is often directly against its interests.

Social stratification has existed throughout history and capitalism has not made much of an effort to change this. Different populations were different markets that could be sold to. Some corporations target the wealthy, some target the poor, some target people in between, and some target a combination of these. Any company that has a market in a particular social stratum risks losing market share if the social hierarchy changes, so many corporations will outright fight social change, particularly that between rich and poor. Additionally, since capitalism has developed under a system of social stratification, it has built production on the assumption that poor (especially designated poor) workers will be available for cheap labor. This includes racial "inferiors" primarily. When you have a designated "lower" race in society (ideologically and/or structurally) then it's far easier to exploit them further than other groups of people because "fuck niggers lol" or "well that's just the way the system is" or "black culture is lazy and needs to bootstrap itself" etc. If such a scenario changes (as happened with the abolition of slavery) it is devastating to capitalism. Remember than in the US a civil war was fought because plantation owners (capitalists) knew their "way of life" (mode of production) was under existential threat. Thus, attempts to even out society's "structural classes" will be frustrated by capitalists whose interest are directly opposed to doing so. But that's not the end of it.

The other problem with trying to solve identitarian struggles within capitalism is that capitalism is ever interested in creating more identitarian struggles. Capitalism finds it advantageous to split people into markets as narrowly as possible, because this allows them to maximize the marketability or "appeal" of their products and move as many units as possible. In and of itself this splitting doesn't tend toward impoverishing people, but within capitalism there's a drive for high margins on commodities sold. A capitalist who can maximally exploit labor (creating poverty) will out-compete a capitalist who does not. Meanwhile, another capitalist will be eager to swoop in and sell to the impoverished market. It's the broken window fallacy - any market activity is good for capitalism (profits), including fixing problems created by capitalism. Look at the "gig economy" and other new "solutions" for poverty. This sort of thing is like cocaine to venture capitalists - find some poor people trying to figure out alternative means to survive, and buy shares so you can exploit this. And this behavior has an identitarian dimension (e.g. muh millennials) because scapegoating - blaming the people on any dimension, cultural, racial, etc. - makes it that much easier to justify. It's not the system that's the problem, it's the people.

Response part 2/2

The last thing I want to point out is that liberal capitalist "diversity" is not helpful here. I'm not even going to argue that it doesn't address these problems (it's insufficiency there should be obvious). I want to point out that its intended function isn't even to address these problems, but to exacerbate them. First of all, inclusiveness and diversity measures taken up by any company are marketing and PR first and foremost. The economic function is always more important than the ideological one (yes, the economic function relies on ideology - it's complicated). The end goal is not actually the "rainbow pyramid" with people of all colors, genders, and so on represented equally at all levels. That causes a similar problem for capitalism as building a reliable product that lasts a lifetime. You stop being able to sell things to people once the needs are met. "Social Justice" practiced by capitalism is intended to function as the yang to structural class's yin. The "reforms" here are meant to perform a conflict with social hierarchies that can be exploited for marketing. This realm is already fully commodified, and to see it in action look at every blog and news story about sexists or racists reacting to Ghostbuster or Black Panther. This dynamic isn't just well-developed; it's mainstream now. And if the conflict dries up, if people stop fighting over these "issues" manufactured to drive sales, then capitalism will lose sales. It's really as simple as that. Companies will pick sides or attempt to skirt the issue (risk aversion), or even false-flag by deliberately putting out content they expect to offend, thus driving sales. This "struggle" is completely fabricated and progress on this track is a treadmill.

The one caveat I would add to all of these points is that volatility can be friendly to capitalism. It allows for some people to jump in and grab new markets, so there will often be risk-tolerant companies who are comfortable with social upsets. However, these will usually be either young fast-growers (see: twitch, reddit) or well-established horizontally-integrated titans with excess money to burn (see: google). Most companies are not this risk tolerant and will fight changes on those grounds. And companies that rely on production being made obsolete technologically (see: fossil fuel industry, entertainment industry) will either avoid risk or support the old social hierarchies. Only if they feel like they're failing and have little to lose (see: Hollywood), will they risk taking the reform side of things (hoping the social capital they buy offsets any backlash) and even still probably not trying to change much, instead just giving lip service.

"I don't want wimmin playing vidya" is what most people think GG was, and it eventually got completely taken over by alt-righters looking for the wayward young men to give the Jordan Peterson treatment.

itt nazbol general

I believe the question being discussed here is Marxism not leftism. Of course not all leftists follow Marx. Self-described Marxists probably should at least attempt to.

lowqualitybait.jpeg

We should put more efforts on combatting capitalism.

Attached: 1515470298067.jpg (300x300, 24.57K)

Lmao no one needs to "follow" him. Marxism is not a religion. Think for yourself instead of unquestioningly regurgitating what a guy said 150 years ago.

...

I'm not a Marxist, but what is the point of being a Marxist if you don't take anything away from Marx? Religious devotion is not the only way to "follow" someone.

Replying to people on twitter isn't harassment you moron.

That’s this entire board

I've never seen a marxist on here who blindly follows Marx. I've been told a thousand times not to bother with the communist manifesto right away because it's outdated

How is "follow" the same as "blindly follow"? Quit moving goalposts.
It's not outdated so much as specific to a particular, brief movement as opposed to generally applicable as the name implies. That's very different from "Marx is obsolete."

Class is an identity.

Attached: 1431909389488.jpg (308x450, 24.36K)

Ok, you can't possibly be serious.

Can you prove it isn't?

intersectionality is what happens when libshits don't know about linear algebra because they hate numbers.

How about you prove it is first?

it is, but it isn't in the marxist paradigm.
you can consider yourself working class, but what you feel about your class is irrelevant in terms of your relation to the means of production - which is what determines your class status in the marxist paradigm

idpol is the number one threat to leftism

M-L summed up in a nutshell.

Can you prove there isn't a teapot orbiting Mars?

Which is why Marxism is stupid.
Apparently some kid with a lemonade stand is on the same level as George Soros and the Koch brothers, while someone earning 6 figures as a manager is the same as a minimum wage fast food employee.

literally a movement based around gamer identity, it's the worst kind of idpol

the point is that capitalism is not a living entity seeking to preserve itself but a chaotic phenomenon in which the only real motivator is profitability, and as such acts to gradually break down the very structure that sustains it

show me where marx said that material divisions do not exist within classes

Right around the part where his only consideration of "class" is "who owns the means of production".

are you really this fucking dumb, marx even wrote about a petite bourgeois, such as someone who owns a small shop, who is obviously not "on the same level" as someone who owns a bank but they still own private property and so have the same relationship (class) to the means of production, consumption etc

So… you're agreeing with me that Marx is a fucking idiot.

Doesn't have to be.
Very much like how life is a chaotic phenomenon in which the only real motivator is reproduction. Trends emerge out of chaotic systems, and trends that sustain the system will be more successful in that system. Given that intelligent and rational actors (capitalists) have any degree of awareness and control at all (they have quite a lot actually), it's even easier to adopt trends that promote the system upon which one's existence is based.
That is true, but until it causes its own destruction we have to consider how it sustains itself. You sound like you're just repeating talking points without considering the full context. The contradictions of capitalism mean inevitable failure, but that doesn't mean that until that point the system and its proponents won't trend toward behavior that keeps the system running as long as possible.

Gamergate was based on wanting to remove people who were materially disrupting an industry from outside, against the interests of the producers and consumers. The idea that which industry it was should invalidate it is lifestylism.

youtube.com/watch?v=SzRIad8y7-k

Here's some idpol

fun is Idpol remember that

So clearly, you don't fall into those idpol spooks of "Bourgeoisie vs. proletariat", right? :^)

motherfucker can you even read

not necessarily

idealism

if that was true then america would still have powerful unions and jim crow

the point of gamergate was to mainstream the alt-right by harnessing the resentment of the "traditional" gamer (straight white guy) at being displaced by new consumers with different demands

if it was game developers organising themselves, or even buyers going after steam or whatever, then I'd be right behind it

Here's your (you), kiddo. Don't spend it all in one place.

That is exactly how politicians degrade: People who are good at the intended function of politicians (leaders) are crowded out by people who are good at the selection process for them (social climbing parasitic non-ideological chameleons).
Many of the most powerful capitalists are avowed students of Marx. They know full well how the system does and doesn't work.
Unions are the first step to coops, which are the first step to eliminating capitalists. The 1970s tipping point was an us-or-them dilemma, neoliberalism was the only possible choice for capital to survive the onward rush of socdem reformism.
GG was majority leftist for nearly a year. Echoing the A+/Slymepit debacle within leftism that immediately preceded it, and the earlier implosion of OWS, GG easily could've formed the nucleous of a dedicated anti-SJW leftism. The formation of the alt-right happened later as a result of GG fizzling out from eceleb/attentionwhore drama in GGHQ, which combined with Reddit modcucking KiA forced most anti-SJW discussion to Zig Forums.
Actual gamers (devs and players alike) of the AAA/hardcore genres SJWs are laser-focused on have always been racially diverse clear to the 1970s, and remain as male as ever (>95%), with the only real demographic change being increased numbers of 18-35-year-olds as boy gamers became dads.

As for the ONLY games western girls and women ACTUALLY play, socialshit/mobileshit? SJWs never, ever bitch about them, it has only been the "problematic" oldschool gamers of the sort that fill GG's ranks that have pushed back against scammy pay2win pyramid scheme gambling cowclickers with organized outcries and binding legal reforms.

And what about the only vidya market in the world with a healthy segment of legitimate games dedicated to girls and women, including far more women devs, amateur devs who aren't filmschool dropout indieshitters, uninteractive non-games unpretentiously segregated from real games, and artistic freedom to fearlessly tackle intense or controversial subject matter? That would be the SJW hate-magnet that is Japan, which GG has upheld as a case study for everything the SJWs pretend they want, but done right.

Oh shut the fuck up. Leaving aside the fact that GG did engage in exactly this (corruption, blackballing, blue unions, NDAs, embargos, false advertising, preorders, day-1 DLC, DRM, abandonware takedowns, pay2win, no refunds, paid mods, etc.), that was merely fighting routine industry misconduct. The SJW threat, with its moral panic pseudoscience, poses the possibility of effectively criminalizing vidya and destroying the industry, much as the redbaiting CCA did to American comics in the 1950s.

Here's your (you), kiddo. Don't spend it all in one place.

That is exactly how politicians degrade: People who are good at the intended function of politicians (leaders) are crowded out by people who are good at the selection process for them (social climbing parasitic non-ideological chameleons).
Many of the most powerful capitalists are avowed students of Marx. They know full well how the system does and doesn't work.
Unions are the first step to coops, which are the first step to eliminating capitalists. The 1970s tipping point was an us-or-them dilemma, neoliberalism was the only possible choice for capital to survive the onward rush of socdem reformism.
GG was majority leftist for nearly a year. Echoing the A+/Slymepit debacle within leftism that immediately preceded it, and the earlier implosion of OWS, GG easily could've formed the nucleous of a dedicated anti-SJW leftism. The formation of the alt-right happened later as a result of GG fizzling out from eceleb/attentionwhore drama in GGHQ, which combined with Reddit modcucking KiA forced most anti-SJW discussion to Zig Forums.
Actual gamers (devs and players alike) of the AAA/hardcore genres SJWs are laser-focused on have always been racially diverse clear to the 1970s, and remain as male as ever (>95%), with the only real demographic change being increased numbers of 18-35-year-olds as boy gamers became dads.

As for the ONLY games western girls and women ACTUALLY play, socialshit/mobileshit? SJWs never, ever bitch about them, it has only been the "problematic" oldschool gamers of the sort that fill GG's ranks that have pushed back against scammy pay2win pyramid scheme gambling cowclickers with organized outcries and binding legal reforms.

And what about the only vidya market in the world with a healthy segment of legitimate games dedicated to girls and women, including far more women devs, amateur devs who aren't filmschool dropout indieshitters, uninteractive non-games unpretentiously segregated from real games, and artistic freedom to fearlessly tackle intense or controversial subject matter? That would be the SJW hate-magnet that is Japan, which GG has upheld as a case study for everything the SJWs pretend they want, but done right.
Oh shut the fuck up. Leaving aside the fact that GG did engage in exactly this (corruption, blackballing, blue unions, NDAs, embargos, false advertising, preorders, day-1 DLC, DRM, abandonware takedowns, pay2win, no refunds, paid mods, etc.), that was merely fighting routine industry misconduct. The SJW threat, with its moral panic pseudoscience, poses the possibility of effectively criminalizing vidya and destroying the industry, much as the redbaiting CCA did to American comics in the 1950s.

It's not, GG is anti-idpol

Attached: images (69).jpeg (513x286, 15.27K)

Did you even read Marx?

Attached: horse sip.jpg (500x734, 53.12K)