Cultural Appropriation

By SJW logic, "culture" is merely a social construct.

I once asked a SJW feminist bitch if they wanted to get rid of all social constructions…

Her answer? "No, we just want to get rid of socials constructions related to sex and gender"

Long-story-short: They merely cherry-pick at their convenience, whatever suits their agenda. They are A-ok with capitalism and exploitation made by women, as seen when they voted in favor of Hillary Clintcunt instead of Sanders (like him or not, he was at least a more promising chice).

Just give the middle finger to those faggots.

In reference to the OP's image: what is it people are referring to, theoretically, when they imply that anarchists are complicit in perpetuating identity politics?

Maybe Op is refering to so called "anarcha" feminists and LGBT anarchists; also called "muh feelz" type "anarchy".

Yes, they're picking and choosing which aspects of capitalism to be upset about in order to keep supporting the system of exploitation.

Only if you're intellectually dishonest to cut out "while supporting polices that fuck over the people who make those things" which signifigantly changes the reason for being upset.

It's another way to say muh anargiddes, ignoring how twitter MLs will call you a white chauvinist if you don't support PoC socdem or capitalism and how actually existing communalists work idpol into their project.

Honestly I'd respect them a lot more if they actually did want to get rid of all social constructions related to sex and gender, but they only seem to care about the ones that personally disadvantage them.

Source? I don't know of any actually existing Communalists. Sad to hear they don't read Bookchin(?)

DFNS/Rojava.

The social context in the west and in syria are so profoundly different, that it's difficult to draw concrete lessons from the DFNS experience. Identity is particularly differently conceived in what is basically a largely feudal and tribalist

I think "oppression=power+privilege" is the most loathsome, since it can be used to justify any conceivable atrocity past or future, so long as you shuffle magic invisible knapsack sigils into the correct arrangement

This hearkens to the current hot idea among promulgators of "cultural appropriation": Combine it with "muh reparashunz" to give "marginalized peoples" copyright/trademark/patent claims to folk culture.

Anarchism is the gateway through which most people enter the radical left, and as such it will tend to include the largest absolute volume on the rad left of SJWs, neopagans, conspiratards, "fug you dad :DDDD" "rebels", pretentious lifestylists, etc., washing in from the suppurating morass that is center-leftism. That said, the overwhelming majority of anarchists, like the overwhelming majority of leftists, are thankfully sane if a bit unread. 1st-prize for relative proportion of SJWs within a single radleft tendency, if I had to guess, goes hands-down to Maotism Turd-Worldism.

Attached: 6b03ab72a3e26434b391955f981a8c39e9ed9a54b4baeda569225ada2ec68cc8.png (500x500, 54.75K)

What I meant is that because all culture is now commodity it doesn't matter what kind of cultural signifiers you adopt. Culture is a product now for alienated consumers who want to feel special. The craze around idpol right now is a reaction to the globalization of culture in the economy. The obsession with cultural background on both the left and right is the last autistic reee of tribalism.

Communists cannot accept idpol because communism is supra-national, it is about abolishing present relations and those relations include the cultural not just the economic.

Group cultural identity will die on the sword of communism to make way for the cultural identity of the individual pursuing their own.

Culture is a spook.

That's because its purpose is to serve psychological goals for the people who scream about it. It is entirely egotistic in origin.

Best take in this thread. Cultural appropriation is very real, it just doesn't apply to modern western societies which cultural norms are, as it was pointed out, already commodified. The dominant culture is capitalism, as such it retains some aspects of Anglo-Saxon culture (as historically capitalism grew out of Anglo-Saxon culture), in the West at least (we all know that Asian capitalism can be different), whereas all other cultures, which we used to describe along ethnic or national lines, don't exist anymore, they are reduced to trinkets and lifestyle choices. The whole liberal concept of identity is already flawed to describe cultural expressions. A native American hundred years ago didn't "identify" as such, he just was one, his material and social conditions predisposed him to act and think in a way that is associated with indigenous culture, he didn't "choose" to identify as a native American because of muh heritage or whatever.

In my opinion there are two legit forms of cultural appropriation however:

1.) Commodification by capitalism. This is a no-brainer for communists, and by that I mean that it is especially sad to see cultural elements from cultures that historically have been fucked by capitalism being commodified. At least Western, specifically Anglo-Saxon culture grew somewhat "organically" into capitalism, while most, if not all, other cultures were subjugated by capitalism by colonialism and imperialism.

2.) Cultural appropriation through colonialism and conquest. This is mostly a historical phenomenon but can be quite brutal. An example would be Chinese abducting Vietnamese women during the Ming dynasty because they thought they were prettier, more fashionable and obedient. Another one would be these colonial corner shops around 1800-1900 were you could buy colonial goods produced by literal enslavement of entire peoples and of course genocides. This cultural appropriation has a definite psychological aspect of domination and subjugation, and a physical reality of violence - but of course has nothing to with liberal nonsense.

That doesn't change that policies such as requiring at least one woman on councils is idpol. Idpol itself isn't bad so long as it brings people into a solidarity movement against capitalism, like the Black Socialists of America or Indigenous Anarchist Federation. It only becomes a bad thing when it does the opposite, and anons are rightfully wary because in the majority of cases that is what happens in the west.

Another problem with cultural appropriation is that it comes from the same ideology as "the marketplace of ideas," i.e. treating ideas as scarce commodities. In reality of course ideas are not scarce. They can be replicated infinitely with relatively little cost. Our time and ability to engage ideas is limited, and (artificially) so is our access to some ideas (via intellectual property) but that's all. The concept of cultural appropriation operates on this understanding of discourse as a marketplace and a general awareness of imperialism, and its contradictions with reality mean that it functions as argumentum ad absurdum par excellance refuting the "marketplace of ideas" concept.

Imperialism's relationship to commodities or material resources is that dominant cultures extract resources from subordinate ones for close to nothing in return. Since the cultural appropriation narrative understands ideas as functionally equivalent to material commodities, it assumes that the same is done with a country's traditional dress as with its minerals. That is to say, according to this narrative we should see the West stealing the global south's religions and rituals, leaving them ideologically impoverished as a result of removal (this happens to the extent that art objects are stolen, but those are products of culture less than culture itself, which is a form of relations between people). What we actually see in imperialism is the opposite. Dominant cultures export their culture as vigorously as possible. These cultures are dominant because their relationship to capitalism is good (for capitalism), and the spreading of the most supportive (of capitalism) culture is very good for capitalism. Capitalism is the great destroyer of culture, turning images of culture into subectified commodities and replacing the original culture. Native cultures get destroyed, not because they are stolen, but because they are being overwritten by spectacle.

What the SJWs are doing is actually supporting capitalism's mission of destroying culture. For one, they try to isolate the ideology making it easier to contain and convert. For another, they codify native cultures as commodities ideologically (by putting them in context of the imperialist marketplace of ideas), making it easier to codify them materially since if people accept the premise they are less likely to reject the practice. Where people find something interesting and valuable in a culture foreign to them, SJWs would have that person retain their own culture, which is generally the comparatively spectacular culture of the West (vs for instance an underdeveloped country with much of its culture remaining, especially in rural areas). On the other hand, they tend not to object to a more "authentic" culture being subjected to heavy marketing from the West.

The isolationism and "keep to your own kind" mentality is also a great example of "left" liberals as fundamentally the same as the reactionaries/conservatives. They come to the same conclusions, but use different justifications. And instead of coming from a position of "well it's my opinion" or something more angry and adversarial, the radlibs are smug and sanctimonious about it. They're basically just reactionaries in denial, which makes them arguably worse. Reminds me of this old Lewis Black bit about Republicans and Democrats.

Attached: Lewis Black on the difference between Democrats and Republi.webm (320x240, 1.07M)

No there isn't retard. If one of these well off suburban/gentrified fags stops listening to rap music and eating ethnic food is he any better now for no longer being a "cultural appropriator"? The problem isn't what fucking food they choose to eat.

The reason for being upset is their politics. Their music and food tastes are completely immaterial.

That's an if that doesn't happen irl. What actually happens irl is all the poorfags get kicked out or bombed while yuppies selling what the poorfags made at inflated prices to other yuppies while making sure the poorfags can't afford their own shit.
Which I clearly said by "while supporting polices that fuck over the people who make those things" you illiterate fag. The point is show that capitalism is responsible for the insult and injury of getting your shit commodified and sold by motherfuckers who push for you to get fucked by capitalism and the state. If socialists don't engage the victims of gentrification on their concerns regarding this shit, it's going to be sjws controlling the narrative and they're going to use it to avoid blaming capitalism.

Attached: dumbfucklumpen.png (468x603, 404.12K)

People's tastes change all the time. Fashions and fads come and go.
And the problem still isn't 'cultural appropriation' in any conceivable sense but rather, commodification and class
And you still haven't explained what you think cultural appropriation is or why it's bad you stupid fucking cow.
You're changing rhetoric from "cultural appropriation is shit" to "gentrification is shit". I won't disagree with the latter. Are you still claiming that cultural appropriation is real or not? If you're worried about SJWs controlling the narrative, then stop using cultural appropriation as a talking point because that is one of the ways SJWs use to shift conversations from the topic of class.

It's played out the same for decades, the proles innovate while the porky takes and fucks them over.
That was my point you fuckwit.
I did in my first post itt, read before getting butthurt.
In I said that "cultural appropriation" is a method of pushing nationalism by sjws that mirrors the aut-right and ignores how culture actually works, hardly an endorsement of such beliefs. The nugget of truth within these charges of "cultural appropriation" is class struggle, in that the working class who creates culture has it taken from them while getting a kick in the ass by the people profiting from what they made. People are rightfully angry with that, and it's understandable in our liberal propaganda drenched world that such anger is expressed in a useless way like "cultural appropriation" rather than linked to capitalism and used to fuel a socialist movement.
It's a term that is already widely used and it's far easier to hijack the narrative than to try to start from scratch. If in using "cultural appropriation" to communicate to proles that "cultural appropriation" is a problem with capitalism and that it's the fault of the white man they don't see rather than the kid down the block, I'll suffer through using the term.

Attached: 522796.gif (500x270, 975.19K)

What does this even mean? Has football been stolen from the working class because of the profits made of football by footballers and TV channels?

That the ones who create culture aren't the ones who profit from it in capitalism. Even if you get extremely lucky and see some money from it, what you get pales in comparison to what studios or labels make from your work.
Yes.

So in communism, the concert venue, studio, label, production team etc etc will be paid far less than they are now, so that Justin Bieber can get a larger share of the profits?

22 people are playing football, two players slam into each other, they both accuse each other of breaking the rules, one of them is working class, the other is bourgeois. The working class player tells the bourgeois player that because he is working class, he owns the game of football and with that the rules of football, then another working class player voices his opinion that since he is working class as well, he can do similarly with his property, he offers to sell the game of football to the bourgeois player for 20$. The bourgeois player refuses the 20$ offer and instead comes up with an offer of his own, he is willing to exchange the working class property that is the game of football with the bourgeois property that is the game of golf. Then one lumpen quickly grabbed the game of football and ran of with it, leaving all the players empty handed.

You are right up there with the ancaps in the twilight zone.

Profit won't exist and art will no longer be commodified in communism. This means art isn't controlled by labels or other distributors and artists control what is done with their work.
No one owns Football the sport, what is owned are the venues that Football is played in and the channels Football is broadcast.

Then let's say the artist uses this control to decide to commodify their work and sign up to a label, what then, would he be stopped, and therefor denied of this control over what is done with his work? You can't simply say "he can't, because in communism you can't", that would be a tautology.
So it hasn't been stolen. Just like LG and Jim didn't steal this post from me.

Neither labels nor commodities would exist. Did you even read the wikipedia article on communism before coming here?
I can because profit, property, and commodities don't exist in communism.
In terms of labor being stolen, yes it has. It isn't the owners who maintain the stadiums and man the broadcasting, even the players or talking heads don't actually own the product.

That's magical thinking. Something will not be non-existent in communism, because in communism it doesn't exist. It's like saying I have a spaceship that can travel through space, because it's a spaceship.
Then what is actual ownership, how is this conception of ownership relevant to actuality, when did the players and talking heads actually own the product, that was then stolen from them? Furthermore, how does this relate to football being stolen from the working class?

...

No, you're trying to shoe in capitalist social relations into a situation where they do not exist. Property, profit, and commodity doesn't exist in communism because communism specifically abolishes them. If you're going to continue to shit the place up at least read the wikipedia article on communism.
Ownership of property
The owners of property are the ones who reap the benefits of it, regardless of work put in.
They didn't, professional sports as it exists is a capitalist phenomenon
labor
The working class builds and maintains the infrastructure, as they receive a fraction of the value produced they are having their labor stolen from them.

Correct.

I have a cardboard box, it is my spaceship, it can travel through space because that's what spaceships do. I'm not making this up, just read up the wikipedia page on spaceships; it literally says that spaceships can travel through space.
Another tautology.
Do you own this website? Do the retarded own the care homes? Do the homeless own the bridges they sleep under?
How many values do you have right now?

Let's rephrase it without the cappie propaganda. If you're trying to donate your artwork to the king for peerage with the lesser nobles, and THERE'S NO KING OR NOBILITY, how's that gonna work?''

Now, if someone kidnaps you and drops you in a remote wilderness location, which of these trees, bears, etc are you going to try to exchange the little slips of paper for goods and services with, and how's that going to go?

If you wake up tomorrow, and the entire human population has vanished, but all the material crap is around and all the doors are unlocked, what are the nonmaterial social conventions going to do, exactly? Money, law, etc - where'd it all go?

You can't trade artwork to the king for gain in a nonmonarchy because it's a nonmonarchy. You can't trade money to squirrels in the wilderness because it's a nonmonetary environment. There won't be a whole lot of profit in a postcommunist society because it's scenario #2, the postapocalyptic world where there is no one to honor your spooks, but with other people.

I mean, don't get me wrong; you could whip out a computer printer right now and print yourself a bunch of paper slips with pictures and numbers on them. Most people skip it because there's no point, though. And the "special" paper slips work about the same in squirrelland, postapocalypta, and communism (or postcommunism).

Getting there yet? Because, yeah, there's technically a brief risk of communist-agorist living in the ten minutes or so before someone says "fuck it, I'll just whip out a gift economy with these unowned, open-access MoP," but it's expected to delve into postcommunist society pretty damn swiftly. That's the postapocalyptic world, but with others playing in the now-unowned shell of the old, too.

My spaceship can travel through space, because its a spaceship.

The difference with today's non-monarchies and your idea of communism is that it can be verified whether there is a monarch or not, when a monarch is not-present this is not because the country is a non-monarchy. That would be like saying that a country's inhabitants are poor, because its a poor country. Or that a country is ruled by a dictator, because its a dictatorship.

Please explain to me what you see as tautological reasoning, and how it differs from your reasoning here.

'A communistic society is a society that follows communistic principals' is not anything but a statement of definition. While a country's inhabitants are not poor because it is a poor country, it is defined as a poor country because its inhabitants are poor. It cannot be defined as a poor country if its inhabitants are rich, and it cannot be defined as a communistic society if it does not follow communistic principals.

You are trying to play a game and I am not buying it. Your statements seem ludicrous because you reverse them to create circular logic. You are the only one stating them in this way.

Attached: SJWCIA.png (1000x600, 310.96K)

shiggy