My greatest wish for 2019 is that someone manages to make a unique and interesting analysis of ☘️idpol☘️ instead of the same boring bullshit I happen to stumble upon every other day.
I'm doing this, please stop beating me over the head about it like the other factions do about there shit
Anarchism is against all oppression, including that of women, LGBTQ+ and racial minorities. For those anarchists on this board, I don't see how you think these can be "thrown away". No doubt SJWs aren't actual leftists and are ultimately regressive, but the causes they're ostensibly fighting for aren't the problem.
MLs can ignore this post I guess
You can be against idpol without capitulating to conservative social views or reactionary idpol
No, the problem is that they're missing the forest for the trees. Idpol issues are functions of capitalism. In order to meaningfully fight the identitarian oppression that exists in the industrialized world today, you have to fight capitalism. This is because discrimination has become almost wholly implicit - that is, it's a result of individual discretion of people in power. Public officials like cops and judges, employers, and vendors have the authority to discriminate against people according to their own judgment. You don't have laws against misegnation or allowing slavery. You just have biased people (who will always exist no matter what you do) exploiting positions of power. The focus of SJWs is completely on the wrong thing, and it's a massive waste of time and energy trying to find ways to attack these problems from the angle of identity and bias rather than the angle of systemic power. Moreover, as long as systemic power exists it will encourage this kind of discrimination (porky loves market segmentation, and having populations of "undesirables" is great for cheap labor).
To a lesser degree, bigots will also encourage capitalism (since the system allows them to discriminate if they acquire even a little power). Culture is downstream from material relations, though, so the notion that attacking waycism and m'soggyknees undermines capitalism is weak at best.
Read Haider. While the idpol conception of 'white privelege' is completely idiotic and wrong, educating white workers to reject what WEB Dubois called the "wages of whiteness" and what anti revisionist communist Noel Ignatiev called "white skin privilege" is critical: "White supremacy is the real secret of the rule of the bourgeoisie and the hidden cause behind the failure of the labor movement in this country. White skin privileges serve only the bourgeoisie and precisely for that reason, they will not let us escape them. But instead, pursue us with them through every hour of our life, no matter where we go. They are poisoned bait. To suggest that the acceptance of white skin privilege is in the interests of white workers is equivalent to suggesting that swallowing the worm with the hook in it is in the interests of the fish. To argue that repudiating these privileges is a sacrifice is to argue that the fish is making a sacrifice when it leaps from the water, flips its tail, shakes its head furiously in every direction and throws the barbed offering."
What exactly is the distinction here? Because based on your post there isn't one.
Reminder that workerism is a form of idpol and the goal of the communist movement is universal emancipation, not the reproduction of alienation.
In idpol theory white privilege confers benefits on white people that they should be willing to give up to further racial equality. Also implicit in the idea of 'white' privilege as opposed to white skin privilege is the idea that there is, in fact, some kind of white race when in reality race is a spook. The notion of 'white privilege' being beneficial is idiotic because as Dubois and Ignatiev noted, these supposed privileges are small concessions that pale in comparison to the exploitation of white workers. Therefore these privileges are ultimately harmful to workers and should be cast away out of self-interest.
The difference I see you arguing here is one of degrees at best, and when you say… It just sounds like an argument in favor of the former justified as being different based on just the assertion that it's different. I don't see the fundamental difference in the claim here.
That's just false. Idpol types are the most likely to tell you race is a social construct in my experience. For left wingers it's just assumed.
According to this framework it's still beneficial relative to what non-white people have so I still don't see the disagreement with the SJW argument in practice.
The former reduces the goal of black liberation to inclusion within existing structures since it sees the benefits of whiteness as desirable and sees no structural reason for their existence beyond racism. If those benefits were, in reality, meager scraps thrown to one section of the working class to encourage chauvinism among them, then the demands of black people (and specifically working-class black people, the black bourgeoisie is the enemy since they'll argue in favor of the former view unless they're class traitors as a way of negating radical struggle) must be extended to the overthrow of the whole existing social and economic order, since securing the benefits of whiteness is systemically impossible within capitalism, which has imposed them specifically to prevent its own destruction and sabotage solidarity.
I should add also that for black workers to magically become white in the second view would still not be desirable as it wouldn't address their class concerns and would, as with the case of the Irish, explored by Ignatiev in a book length work, would be offered to them as a way to buy them off while some other group is oppressed.
This stupid statment can only be this dogmatic & stupid if written by a chan user.
In general the anti-idpol stance seen on imageboards is understandable since a) it's a reaction to progressivism with little to no class content b) there isn't much to achieve in the west anymore. However, saying: is retarded. Would you really not remove the laws about throwing homosexuals from the roof in muslim countries if you had a chance? In general I can agree that workers' movement should not be concern itself with this as much as it does now, but people should be freely allowed to engage in identity-based movements outside of workers organisations as long as they're not directly antagonistic against the communist movement itself(which, for example, pretty much excludes nationalist idpol). Also reminder Lenin legalised homosex in Russia(an ultra-conservative country, no less), USSR was also the first Euro country to legalize abortion, both moves qualifying as gay and feminist idpol.
Who will supply your fursuits and rainbow dildoes in a worker controlled society? Furfags NEED hedonistoc consumerism to enable their lifestyle. Again, if you are a pro-gay furry liberal, then so be it, but youre simply not compatible with anti-capitalism
How is it a strawman? OP says "LGBTQ+, anfems, etc are only concerned with enabling their lifestyle […] If you're one of those people, fine, but you're not anti-capitalism"
That is basically exactly what I said. I admit that I only inferred that by 'their lifestyle' you meant sinful hedonism but your argument is basically identical to what a bible-bashing boomer would give so I thought it was a safe assumption. Sorry that the implications of your post make you sound stupid.
Do they not have any recreational activities in full communism? Whatever hobby you're into, I could make the same argument. If socialism can't provide three square meals a day then yeah, fursuits probably aren't a priority, but if that's the case the revolution was clearly a miserable failure anyway. But even under capitalism, most furry art/suits/writing/whatever are made by sole workers freelance, which as any egoist will know is completely non-exploitative.
Sorry I made the incredibly spooked statement that 'if you think LGBT people can't be TRUE and HONEST leftists, you're still just as infected with idpol as whoever you criticise'.
Identity is reactionary, and prevents human achievement.
Wrong The goal of communism is the Nietzchean New Socialist Man The reason why Marx sided with the prolertariant was because he realized that their struggle is what will ultimately lead to the realization of this ideal
In the the DotP and the earlier stages of Communism, it is true that "He whom does not work, shall not eat" will apply, but by the later stages, people would be motivated to work without the barrel of a gun behind them.
This is exactly the sort of person who's attracted to "communism" not because they realize the issues with capitalism, but because it gives them refuge for being a freak. As if this dude has anything in common with a nurse who works 10 hours a day, or a truck driver, or a construction worker. Funny how you choose to express your opinions through mass-marketed cartoon animals, because you use those as your identity. Anfems and all the other idpol people use ideological communism as a means of advancing their identity issues. They can't really explain how a money-driven system ends up abusing most people and unfairly distributes resources, they're mostly concerned with their secondary agenda.
This is why you are not anti-capitalism, because your identity needs capitalism to exist. Only capitalism could distribute resources in such a retarded way that we favor dildoes over malaria treatment. You don't actually care for ending that system, you just like communism because it's not those ebil conservatives criticizing you for being a faggot.
Marxism is pornographic by nature, like pornography it is incremental, there must always be more, more oppressions, more -ism's. Capitalism is merely the canvas, the projector screen. Capitalism didn't do anything, those who prefer anal penetration to a life on the mission do. You're among those.
This. I hate “anarchists” who use idpol. They’re essentially socialists who are too edgy to consider themselves socialists. The first thing that you should liberate is yourself from spooks.
idpol, despite if you agree or disagree with it, has been absorbed by corporate culture and re-purposed to serve said corporations. Corporations themselves do not care whatever the fuck message they put out, just as long as it caters to what a population cares about. If XYZ is what the consumers care about, then corporations are pro-XYZ. Look at the recent Kaepernick and Nike stuff, it is undeniable that capitalists will attach themselves to any "idea" as long as it sells products. Thus, Nike is supportive of Colin Kaepernick and is against 'discrimination', not because Nike actually gives a shit, but because Nike wants to sell shoes to people who care about Kaepernick.
Now, people think buying Nike means you support Kaepernick, while boycotting Nike means you don't support him. The message has been lost, all that is left is consumerism, which drives profits up. Similarly, Burger King has put out ads about the pink tax. BurgerKing doesn't care if women pay more, in fact they would probably try to exploit that. But they can use topical issues like "gender equality" to try to get people to buy Burgerking food. Support feminism? Against the pink tax? Why don't you show us your brave position by purchasing a WhopperTM!
Thus, idpol is not anti-capitalism, because really all it is can be summed up as consumerism. Zero action, zero productive conversations, just buying useless shit to signal to everyone else. That's why most anarkiddies are really just red liberals who come from white, upperclass homes. It's a method for them to not feel guilty about having a such a coddled life.
Here's an excerpt from r/anarchism:
Breaking it down:
Anyone who thinks there won't be some organization run by the people is a fucking idiot.
simultaneous amongst all races, but only whites are guilty of this somehow. A BLM activist threw a brick at a 92-y/o hispanic and sent him to the hospital, but this isn't racism according to anarkiddies.
oh no, people have dogs as pets and eat cows. The horror!
probably the biggest example of how anarkiddies and idpolers come from upperclass homes, and don't know one fucking thing about the working class. A lot of people, both from rich countries and poor countries, care deeply for their faith. The poor especially turn to religion as a form of community support and organization. However, anarkiddies regularly throw any other religion under the bus in order to help muslims. The poor in society have to bear the burden when muslim immigrants come in, who rape and murder the native population. Anarkiddies side with the muslims over the working class every time. Same thing with specieism. The poor love dogs, and don't give a shit about veganism. They are struggling to find enough to eat, of course they don't care.
This is why the leftist community is splitting pretty hard right now. The nazbol/tankies are warming up to the fascists, who are starting to disavow capitalism. Meanwhile, the progressive liberal anarchists are cozying up to the Neo-liberal corporations, because those massive power structures support progressive causes.
I started this thread mostly as a shitpost, but again, you cannot be anti-capitalist if you believe in idpol. Look at where idpol gets the anarkiddies, they care about useless stuff like specieism. What the fuck does a working class person care about that?
Ignore what things are, and just call them what you want them to be.
So if I'm a furry that means inherently that I don't know what it means to work for a living? You think you know what anti-capitalism means but you're so blinded by your spooks you can't understand anyone but a gruff, masculine, normie blue collar man being a worker. You treat him as the default and not just another example of worker.
I'm becoming increasingly more convinced that threads like these are made only to stir up shit rather than foster conversation. What is it about discussions around identity politics that makes otherwise sensible people shut off their brains? How I view idpol is, if you're someone that actively refers to themselves as "anti-idpol", chances are you aren't actually against identity politics, rather you're part of the problem. Everyone's stance on identity should be a personal matter and identity politics shouldn't even exist. Let's say you're someone who's "anti-god", well, trying to ban worship of god because god is an evil psychotic dictator is pointless because god cannot be scientifically proven to exist in the first place. Even if you are an atheist, by arguing against god in this way you are more or less legitimizing god as an actually existing entity. Identity is different, for example, someone is without a doubt a gamer if they play video games regularly. Though the gamer identity does exist, what being a gamer supposedly entails (such as gamer "culture") does not, either you play video games regularly and are a gamer or you don't and aren't a gamer. Because of this I see being pro- or anti-gamer as stupid because whatever is tacked on to the gamer identity beyond playing video games only exists insofar as those who are pro- or anti-gamer construct it to further their own goals (video game industry vs. morality police and the Jack Thompson/Anita crowd). Being a worker overlaps with identity to some degree and so the worker identity exists too, but focusing on the identity aspect of workers is just as stupid. When I see language and symbols that do nothing beyond glorifying workers I roll my eyes, it's essentially socialist idpol (and y'all don't need me to comment on anti-worker beliefs). It's worth mentioning that fighting against people trying to forcibly impose their personal beliefs on others isn't the same as fighting against the actual beliefs. In this way though I'm against identity politics, I could care less if some idiot thinks having European/African heritage is an amazing achievement. As long as they aren't pushing to legislate new Jim Crow laws or enforce POC-only "safe spaces" on public property, why should I give a fuck? I'm sure you can find retarded beliefs in almost anyone.
A governing/administrative body is not the same thing as a state.
Being a furry means that you build your identity around what makes your dick hard. That alone means that your opinions should be ignored.
ZOMG two diametrically opposed camps independently came to the conclusion that the mass migrations of impoverished people caused by capitalist imperialism are bad things! Clearly, they are fundamentally identical. Idiot.
This might shock you, but I play a different persona on a mongolian goat-wool knitting circle than in real life. Sometimes I even make posts that aren't identifiable as me being a furry at all! Classic toupee fallacy.
And yet you identify as what you do on the internet. Unfuck yourself.
I identify as a lot of things fuckwit, did I say furry was my only or even most important attribute? You just sperged out about it because I happened to land on a furry react at random from my folder. You're the spooked one here my friend. I like to prance around barking like a dog because it pleases my ego, what's your excuse for being a salty faggot?
The problem itself with idpol is not that it attacks racism/xenophobia/etc (as any rational person should), but that it exclusively focuses on social justice and thinks there's nothing wrong with capitalism, merely creating a distraction from what matters most: class warfare.
Most feminists are liberal and think, somehow, more female in high powered positions (CEOs, politicians, etc) is somehow good for all women, regardless of income status. In essence, it's bourgeois as it comes.
This is why everyone despiss turd wave feminism, because it completely ignores class struggle and subscribes to neoliberalism (Tatcher, Clinton, etc). If they were the kind of feminists that Emma Goldman or Rosa Luxemburg were, or even proletarian feminists like the kurd fighters, then I'd have no problem calling myself a feminist.
Feminists and SJWs are their own worst enemies.
or vice versa.
so its the "hey Tyrone come bang my wife" the ideology?
If an anarchist school of thought doesn't uphold the basic idea of being against social oppression, then calling itself "anarchist" is meaningless.
people like you make me ashamed of being anarchist
I identify as someone who lives in a free country, disband the NSA and give me affordable health insurance or else you're a bigot!
Can you explain why?
Personally, I think only white men should live and reproduce asexually. By mitosis.
I've read some of the old school anarchists, and it is a more 'I hate everything' than 'opprshun bad' I'm talking about the guys marx called 'barracks communists' and I respect those ppl.
Standing against stuff like apartheid, segregation, systematic racism, xenophobia etc? That's fine, because they are mostly entangled with class struggle.
Coddling up feminists with their victim complex and the LGBT/BLM unwarranted self importance syndrome? Fuck that. I'm not a goddamn whiteknight.
As a matter of fact, of all "oppressed" groups, women are the ones I give negative fucks about.
The problem here is that fascists and tankies, especially maotists have a brainlet misconception of capitalists. Usually along the lines of "rich people" or "highly placed people", rather than the proper "those who own the MoP". As such, they're incapable of fighting capitalism beyond random flailing.
"Anti-idpol" is pretty unambiguously targeting the use of identity in politics, rather than identity itself, although attacking spooks is certainly helpful to our cause. Even "anti-identitarian" has a clear political focus. Careful bruh, you're veering dangerously close to "class is an identity" territory While true, and other poster deserves your chiding, the distinction between government and state is a pretty arcane point of socialist theory. Ask yourself whether the Redditer who wrote that boilerplate understood the distinction?
Reminder that, while I would personally classify both as strains of feminism, Goldman and Luxemburg both decried the self-identified feminist movement of their time as inherently class collaborationist, calling their own sexual fairness activism the women worker movement.
Can you tell me where I defended BLM or the modern LGBT and feminist movements? I don't really have a response for this post because it isn't critiquing anything I actually said.