Author Topic: Leftist thread 2: the saga continues  (Read 4695 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

therealnod

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
  • Rep: 23
  • Brevity is
Re: Leftist thread 2: the saga continues
« Reply #180 on: August 17, 2022, 11:53:06 PM »
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Guys I've got a good starter for an actual discussion maybe. I've only recently been getting into my Mark Fisher (yeah I know) and something struck me, both while reading his stuff (mainly referring to the Vampire Castle essay here) and secondary literature discussing it. Some of it, including parts of Fisher's own writing, sound an awful lot like petty infighting to me, but there was an overarching theme that emerged which I really resonated with:

The left of today has lost sight of class analysis and this has paralysed it and made it easy prey for manipulation. The main reason for this (and that's what excited me) is that people aren't so much rejecting the notion of class, but that nobody knows what the word is supposed to actually mean in our world of today. We need a new and modern definition of "class" that makes it obvious that class is at the heart of ALL struggles for equality and justice.

So, what could that definition be? Or do you disagree with the argument because a) you've got a perfectly good definition already or b) class is dead to you?

I'm asking because I do agree with the argument but am not sure about what a good modern definition could be.

(Also wasn't there a thread on here a while ago that exemplifies this problem perfectly where one guy bashed on another guy about class and racism?)
[close]

This is reminding me of Thomas Frank (of the Baffler) and his book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What%27s_the_Matter_with_Kansas%3F_(book)

Thomas Frank is a sort of Social Democrat, but his point is applicable to this discussion. He basically argues that Fox News (etc.) have effectively and successfully redefined the word "class" in an effort to target and dismantle real class solidarity. Its been a while since I've read it so excuse me if I am a little off base...

He argued that conservative media had basically redefined class to purely (superficial) aesthetic qualities. They made it so to their Fox News viewers: class is NOT your economic position as a worker, but instead class is your consumer tastes and lifestyle choices.

ie) "Regular People" drink coffee and beer, "The Elites" drink lattes and wine. "Regular People" drive pickup trucks and Hummers, "The Elites" drive hybrid/electric cars. "Regular People" go to church and love their family, "The Elites" get abortions.

Its basically trying to make it so instead of class being about your economic position, class is instead about the non-traditional quality of your lifestyle and consumer habits. So even if two people are both making $50k a year, depending on their lifestyle and purchasing habits, they are a "Liberal Elite" or a regular person.

And this then applies across real economic positions. So essentially, a multi-millionaire conservative politician or TV personality is not an "Elite", BUT people who make $50k a year that get Starbucks lattes ARE a "Liberal Elit e".

You can really see this backwards mentality has expanded in the 18 years since the book. Especially with Tucker Carlson (comes from a VERY wealthy family), Trump, and all the other rich conservatives that do this fake "populism" that rallies against "The Elites" and Amazon in bad faith, while actually just hammering home social "culture war" issues to further divide conservatives from understanding class solidarity. They have no interest in actually taking on Amazon and billionaires, they just use it as a carrot on the end of the rope to double down on culture war outrage, and redirect viewers away from true class solidarity.

So again, rather than class being its true essence of workers vs. owners (proletariat vs. bourgeoisie) they have transformed it for their viewers to instead be conservatives. vs liberals.

Its definitely true, and as leftists we have to identify and address this dynamic when talking with centrists/conservatives (heck, and liberals... since they also have their own version of this to a certain extent).
[close]


Iíd say this shift in what class means is not only happening on the right/conservative side, but also on the left side.

With the rise of a left movement that is more on the idealistic side, materialistic analysis is taking the backseat. It seems nowadays itís more about an identity politics standpoint towards class and classism instead of discussing who owns the means of production and what this means for everyone selling their time and body in order to survive.

Not trying to equate left and right here - just stating that it seems the world has taken a turn away from viewing it through a materialistic lense.

Btw: great thread. Havenít read everything, yet. Left wing guy with a strong leaning towards Adorno, Freud, Marx and Debord here. Although Iím not shy of reading Deleuze, Foucault or Bourdieu
[close]
It seems you think left and right just means Democrat and Republican. One of the left's biggest criticisms of the Democratic party has been it's reliance on identity politics. In turn one of the moderates biggest criticisms of the left is that it's class reductionist. They used that very criticism on Sanders, who's at best a moderate leftist, despite him being endorsed by the person that introduced the concept of intersectionality to academia. But to be straight up about it, "no war but the class war" is not a winning message because the class war has color lines and gender lines. That's just the way it is, and trust me, you'll lose your best allies if you overlook that. The Democratic party's use of identity politics is just a cooptation of intersectionality. Intersectionality includes class analysis, it comes from it, is an extension of it. It is rooted in material analysis. There is a vast difference between it and identity politics which is why the l eft criticizes identity politics heavily. And rightly so because it's empty rhetoric and is often used to defeat leftist candidates.
[close]

You are jumping to conclusions far too quickly here. I couldnít care less about republicans & democrats. Iím not from the US and my interest in marxism is universal and beyond national politics. 
Second, if you take Marx paradigm "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" there is no need for identity politics. This already means the end of discrimination based on gender, race and whatnot. This doesnít mean, that we donít need to speak up, when discrimination now occurs. It is super important that we fight for equality. but this is not a means to an end. This is a symptom of capitalism.
Identity politics is an idealistic dead end. In the end it could also just mean that we just have a super diverse team of upper management.

@wane Brady exactly

You didn't understand a single thing I wrote. I made an explicit distinction between the material analysis of class distinctions within race and gender and identity politics, because they are different things. When you write this:
Quote
This doesnít mean, that we donít need to speak up, when discrimination now occurs. It is super important that we fight for equality.
that is in essence what intersectionality is. How do you know it now occurs implicitly without a material analysis? You can say "to each according" all you'd like, but that's not an analysis. You have to know whether or not you're actually doing it instead of just saying it If you equate that with simple identity politics...that's about as far from a Marxist understanding of the situation as you can get.

I don't know what left you are talking about that is moving towards identity politics given that I'm not sure whether or not you understand any of the terms under discussion. Who is the left? The left of what country? What do you mean by identity politics?

What I can tell you for certain is that we will have no chance at establishing class solidarity based on class alone. There are trust issues, and the reasons are obvious from a Marxist perspective.

yghartsyrt

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 150
  • Rep: 15
Re: Leftist thread 2: the saga continues
« Reply #181 on: August 18, 2022, 12:58:40 AM »
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Guys I've got a good starter for an actual discussion maybe. I've only recently been getting into my Mark Fisher (yeah I know) and something struck me, both while reading his stuff (mainly referring to the Vampire Castle essay here) and secondary literature discussing it. Some of it, including parts of Fisher's own writing, sound an awful lot like petty infighting to me, but there was an overarching theme that emerged which I really resonated with:

The left of today has lost sight of class analysis and this has paralysed it and made it easy prey for manipulation. The main reason for this (and that's what excited me) is that people aren't so much rejecting the notion of class, but that nobody knows what the word is supposed to actually mean in our world of today. We need a new and modern definition of "class" that makes it obvious that class is at the heart of ALL struggles for equality and justice.

So, what could that definition be? Or do you disagree with the argument because a) you've got a perfectly good definition already or b) class is dead to you?

I'm asking because I do agree with the argument but am not sure about what a good modern definition could be.

(Also wasn't there a thread on here a while ago that exemplifies this problem perfectly where one guy bashed on another guy about class and racism?)
[close]

This is reminding me of Thomas Frank (of the Baffler) and his book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What%27s_the_Matter_with_Kansas%3F_(book)

Thomas Frank is a sort of Social Democrat, but his point is applicable to this discussion. He basically argues that Fox News (etc.) have effectively and successfully redefined the word "class" in an effort to target and dismantle real class solidarity. Its been a while since I've read it so excuse me if I am a little off base...

He argued that conservative media had basically redefined class to purely (superficial) aesthetic qualities. They made it so to their Fox News viewers: class is NOT your economic position as a worker, but instead class is your consumer tastes and lifestyle choices.

ie) "Regular People" drink coffee and beer, "The Elites" drink lattes and wine. "Regular People" drive pickup trucks and Hummers, "The Elites" drive hybrid/electric cars. "Regular People" go to church and love their family, "The Elites" get abortions.

Its basically trying to make it so instead of class being about your economic position, class is instead about the non-traditional quality of your lifestyle and consumer habits. So even if two people are both making $50k a year, depending on their lifestyle and purchasing habits, they are a "Liberal Elite" or a regular person.

And this then applies across real economic positions. So essentially, a multi-millionaire conservative politician or TV personality is not an "Elite", BUT people who make $50k a year that get Starbucks lattes ARE a "Liberal Elit e".

You can really see this backwards mentality has expanded in the 18 years since the book. Especially with Tucker Carlson (comes from a VERY wealthy family), Trump, and all the other rich conservatives that do this fake "populism" that rallies against "The Elites" and Amazon in bad faith, while actually just hammering home social "culture war" issues to further divide conservatives from understanding class solidarity. They have no interest in actually taking on Amazon and billionaires, they just use it as a carrot on the end of the rope to double down on culture war outrage, and redirect viewers away from true class solidarity.

So again, rather than class being its true essence of workers vs. owners (proletariat vs. bourgeoisie) they have transformed it for their viewers to instead be conservatives. vs liberals.

Its definitely true, and as leftists we have to identify and address this dynamic when talking with centrists/conservatives (heck, and liberals... since they also have their own version of this to a certain extent).
[close]


Iíd say this shift in what class means is not only happening on the right/conservative side, but also on the left side.

With the rise of a left movement that is more on the idealistic side, materialistic analysis is taking the backseat. It seems nowadays itís more about an identity politics standpoint towards class and classism instead of discussing who owns the means of production and what this means for everyone selling their time and body in order to survive.

Not trying to equate left and right here - just stating that it seems the world has taken a turn away from viewing it through a materialistic lense.

Btw: great thread. Havenít read everything, yet. Left wing guy with a strong leaning towards Adorno, Freud, Marx and Debord here. Although Iím not shy of reading Deleuze, Foucault or Bourdieu
[close]
It seems you think left and right just means Democrat and Republican. One of the left's biggest criticisms of the Democratic party has been it's reliance on identity politics. In turn one of the moderates biggest criticisms of the left is that it's class reductionist. They used that very criticism on Sanders, who's at best a moderate leftist, despite him being endorsed by the person that introduced the concept of intersectionality to academia. But to be straight up about it, "no war but the class war" is not a winning message because the class war has color lines and gender lines. That's just the way it is, and trust me, you'll lose your best allies if you overlook that. The Democratic party's use of identity politics is just a cooptation of intersectionality. Intersectionality includes class analysis, it comes from it, is an extension of it. It is rooted in material analysis. There is a vast difference between it and identity politics which is why the l eft criticizes identity politics heavily. And rightly so because it's empty rhetoric and is often used to defeat leftist candidates.
[close]

You are jumping to conclusions far too quickly here. I couldnít care less about republicans & democrats. Iím not from the US and my interest in marxism is universal and beyond national politics. 
Second, if you take Marx paradigm "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" there is no need for identity politics. This already means the end of discrimination based on gender, race and whatnot. This doesnít mean, that we donít need to speak up, when discrimination now occurs. It is super important that we fight for equality. but this is not a means to an end. This is a symptom of capitalism.
Identity politics is an idealistic dead end. In the end it could also just mean that we just have a super diverse team of upper management.

@wane Brady exactly
[close]

You didn't understand a single thing I wrote. I made an explicit distinction between the material analysis of class distinctions within race and gender and identity politics, because they are different things. When you write this:
Quote
Expand Quote
This doesnít mean, that we donít need to speak up, when discrimination now occurs. It is super important that we fight for equality.
[close]
that is in essence what intersectionality is. How do you know it now occurs implicitly without a material analysis? You can say "to each according" all you'd like, but that's not an analysis. You have to know whether or not you're actually doing it instead of just saying it If you equate that with simple identity politics...that's about as far from a Marxist understanding of the situation as you can get.

I don't know what left you are talking about that is moving towards identity politics given that I'm not sure whether or not you understand any of the terms under discussion. Who is the left? The left of what country? What do you mean by identity politics?

What I can tell you for certain is that we will have no chance at establishing class solidarity based on class alone. There are trust issues, and the reasons are obvious from a Marxist perspective.

Dude, chill! No need to be aggressive. You are the one coming with this Ąyou are confusing this with republicans vs democratsď stuff.
I donít think intersectionalism is the way. But, Iím too tired of inner-left discussions about the right way. If you manage to get people understand the foundation of capitalism and help them organize - more power to you.
But Iím not interested in a discussion that is lead the way you are leading it.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2022, 01:38:50 AM by yghartsyrt »

therealnod

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
  • Rep: 23
  • Brevity is
Re: Leftist thread 2: the saga continues
« Reply #182 on: August 18, 2022, 01:49:49 AM »
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Guys I've got a good starter for an actual discussion maybe. I've only recently been getting into my Mark Fisher (yeah I know) and something struck me, both while reading his stuff (mainly referring to the Vampire Castle essay here) and secondary literature discussing it. Some of it, including parts of Fisher's own writing, sound an awful lot like petty infighting to me, but there was an overarching theme that emerged which I really resonated with:

The left of today has lost sight of class analysis and this has paralysed it and made it easy prey for manipulation. The main reason for this (and that's what excited me) is that people aren't so much rejecting the notion of class, but that nobody knows what the word is supposed to actually mean in our world of today. We need a new and modern definition of "class" that makes it obvious that class is at the heart of ALL struggles for equality and justice.

So, what could that definition be? Or do you disagree with the argument because a) you've got a perfectly good definition already or b) class is dead to you?

I'm asking because I do agree with the argument but am not sure about what a good modern definition could be.

(Also wasn't there a thread on here a while ago that exemplifies this problem perfectly where one guy bashed on another guy about class and racism?)
[close]

This is reminding me of Thomas Frank (of the Baffler) and his book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What%27s_the_Matter_with_Kansas%3F_(book)

Thomas Frank is a sort of Social Democrat, but his point is applicable to this discussion. He basically argues that Fox News (etc.) have effectively and successfully redefined the word "class" in an effort to target and dismantle real class solidarity. Its been a while since I've read it so excuse me if I am a little off base...

He argued that conservative media had basically redefined class to purely (superficial) aesthetic qualities. They made it so to their Fox News viewers: class is NOT your economic position as a worker, but instead class is your consumer tastes and lifestyle choices.

ie) "Regular People" drink coffee and beer, "The Elites" drink lattes and wine. "Regular People" drive pickup trucks and Hummers, "The Elites" drive hybrid/electric cars. "Regular People" go to church and love their family, "The Elites" get abortions.

Its basically trying to make it so instead of class being about your economic position, class is instead about the non-traditional quality of your lifestyle and consumer habits. So even if two people are both making $50k a year, depending on their lifestyle and purchasing habits, they are a "Liberal Elite" or a regular person.

And this then applies across real economic positions. So essentially, a multi-millionaire conservative politician or TV personality is not an "Elite", BUT people who make $50k a year that get Starbucks lattes ARE a "Liberal Elit e".

You can really see this backwards mentality has expanded in the 18 years since the book. Especially with Tucker Carlson (comes from a VERY wealthy family), Trump, and all the other rich conservatives that do this fake "populism" that rallies against "The Elites" and Amazon in bad faith, while actually just hammering home social "culture war" issues to further divide conservatives from understanding class solidarity. They have no interest in actually taking on Amazon and billionaires, they just use it as a carrot on the end of the rope to double down on culture war outrage, and redirect viewers away from true class solidarity.

So again, rather than class being its true essence of workers vs. owners (proletariat vs. bourgeoisie) they have transformed it for their viewers to instead be conservatives. vs liberals.

Its definitely true, and as leftists we have to identify and address this dynamic when talking with centrists/conservatives (heck, and liberals... since they also have their own version of this to a certain extent).
[close]


Iíd say this shift in what class means is not only happening on the right/conservative side, but also on the left side.

With the rise of a left movement that is more on the idealistic side, materialistic analysis is taking the backseat. It seems nowadays itís more about an identity politics standpoint towards class and classism instead of discussing who owns the means of production and what this means for everyone selling their time and body in order to survive.

Not trying to equate left and right here - just stating that it seems the world has taken a turn away from viewing it through a materialistic lense.

Btw: great thread. Havenít read everything, yet. Left wing guy with a strong leaning towards Adorno, Freud, Marx and Debord here. Although Iím not shy of reading Deleuze, Foucault or Bourdieu
[close]
It seems you think left and right just means Democrat and Republican. One of the left's biggest criticisms of the Democratic party has been it's reliance on identity politics. In turn one of the moderates biggest criticisms of the left is that it's class reductionist. They used that very criticism on Sanders, who's at best a moderate leftist, despite him being endorsed by the person that introduced the concept of intersectionality to academia. But to be straight up about it, "no war but the class war" is not a winning message because the class war has color lines and gender lines. That's just the way it is, and trust me, you'll lose your best allies if you overlook that. The Democratic party's use of identity politics is just a cooptation of intersectionality. Intersectionality includes class analysis, it comes from it, is an extension of it. It is rooted in material analysis. There is a vast difference between it and identity politics which is why the l eft criticizes identity politics heavily. And rightly so because it's empty rhetoric and is often used to defeat leftist candidates.
[close]

You are jumping to conclusions far too quickly here. I couldnít care less about republicans & democrats. Iím not from the US and my interest in marxism is universal and beyond national politics. 
Second, if you take Marx paradigm "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" there is no need for identity politics. This already means the end of discrimination based on gender, race and whatnot. This doesnít mean, that we donít need to speak up, when discrimination now occurs. It is super important that we fight for equality. but this is not a means to an end. This is a symptom of capitalism.
Identity politics is an idealistic dead end. In the end it could also just mean that we just have a super diverse team of upper management.

@wane Brady exactly
[close]

You didn't understand a single thing I wrote. I made an explicit distinction between the material analysis of class distinctions within race and gender and identity politics, because they are different things. When you write this:
Quote
Expand Quote
This doesnít mean, that we donít need to speak up, when discrimination now occurs. It is super important that we fight for equality.
[close]
that is in essence what intersectionality is. How do you know it now occurs implicitly without a material analysis? You can say "to each according" all you'd like, but that's not an analysis. You have to know whether or not you're actually doing it instead of just saying it If you equate that with simple identity politics...that's about as far from a Marxist understanding of the situation as you can get.

I don't know what left you are talking about that is moving towards identity politics given that I'm not sure whether or not you understand any of the terms under discussion. Who is the left? The left of what country? What do you mean by identity politics?

What I can tell you for certain is that we will have no chance at establishing class solidarity based on class alone. There are trust issues, and the reasons are obvious from a Marxist perspective.
[close]

Dude, chill out. No need to be aggressive. You are the one coming with this Ąyou are confusing this with republicans vs democratsď stuff.
I donít think intersectionalism is the way. But, Iím too tired of inner-left discussions about the right way. If you manage to get people understand the foundation of capitalism and help them organize - more power to you.
But Iím not interested in a discussion that is lead the way you are leading it.
In what way was that aggressive? And how is it that I'm leading a discussion? I didn't start this thread. You can be as not interested as you'd like. I happen to feel the need to point out the differences between what are moderate positions that get characterized as leftist and actual leftist positions. Think about this, though: you wrote that you are "tired of inner-left discussions about the right way" (whatever that means). You are saying this is not the right way and you're tired of it in a leftist discussion.

Have whatever discussion you want to have. Be as uninterested in ones you don't want to have as you want. Thanks for letting me know

yghartsyrt

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 150
  • Rep: 15
Re: Leftist thread 2: the saga continues
« Reply #183 on: August 18, 2022, 02:19:56 AM »
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Guys I've got a good starter for an actual discussion maybe. I've only recently been getting into my Mark Fisher (yeah I know) and something struck me, both while reading his stuff (mainly referring to the Vampire Castle essay here) and secondary literature discussing it. Some of it, including parts of Fisher's own writing, sound an awful lot like petty infighting to me, but there was an overarching theme that emerged which I really resonated with:

The left of today has lost sight of class analysis and this has paralysed it and made it easy prey for manipulation. The main reason for this (and that's what excited me) is that people aren't so much rejecting the notion of class, but that nobody knows what the word is supposed to actually mean in our world of today. We need a new and modern definition of "class" that makes it obvious that class is at the heart of ALL struggles for equality and justice.

So, what could that definition be? Or do you disagree with the argument because a) you've got a perfectly good definition already or b) class is dead to you?

I'm asking because I do agree with the argument but am not sure about what a good modern definition could be.

(Also wasn't there a thread on here a while ago that exemplifies this problem perfectly where one guy bashed on another guy about class and racism?)
[close]

This is reminding me of Thomas Frank (of the Baffler) and his book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What%27s_the_Matter_with_Kansas%3F_(book)

Thomas Frank is a sort of Social Democrat, but his point is applicable to this discussion. He basically argues that Fox News (etc.) have effectively and successfully redefined the word "class" in an effort to target and dismantle real class solidarity. Its been a while since I've read it so excuse me if I am a little off base...

He argued that conservative media had basically redefined class to purely (superficial) aesthetic qualities. They made it so to their Fox News viewers: class is NOT your economic position as a worker, but instead class is your consumer tastes and lifestyle choices.

ie) "Regular People" drink coffee and beer, "The Elites" drink lattes and wine. "Regular People" drive pickup trucks and Hummers, "The Elites" drive hybrid/electric cars. "Regular People" go to church and love their family, "The Elites" get abortions.

Its basically trying to make it so instead of class being about your economic position, class is instead about the non-traditional quality of your lifestyle and consumer habits. So even if two people are both making $50k a year, depending on their lifestyle and purchasing habits, they are a "Liberal Elite" or a regular person.

And this then applies across real economic positions. So essentially, a multi-millionaire conservative politician or TV personality is not an "Elite", BUT people who make $50k a year that get Starbucks lattes ARE a "Liberal Elit e".

You can really see this backwards mentality has expanded in the 18 years since the book. Especially with Tucker Carlson (comes from a VERY wealthy family), Trump, and all the other rich conservatives that do this fake "populism" that rallies against "The Elites" and Amazon in bad faith, while actually just hammering home social "culture war" issues to further divide conservatives from understanding class solidarity. They have no interest in actually taking on Amazon and billionaires, they just use it as a carrot on the end of the rope to double down on culture war outrage, and redirect viewers away from true class solidarity.

So again, rather than class being its true essence of workers vs. owners (proletariat vs. bourgeoisie) they have transformed it for their viewers to instead be conservatives. vs liberals.

Its definitely true, and as leftists we have to identify and address this dynamic when talking with centrists/conservatives (heck, and liberals... since they also have their own version of this to a certain extent).
[close]


Iíd say this shift in what class means is not only happening on the right/conservative side, but also on the left side.

With the rise of a left movement that is more on the idealistic side, materialistic analysis is taking the backseat. It seems nowadays itís more about an identity politics standpoint towards class and classism instead of discussing who owns the means of production and what this means for everyone selling their time and body in order to survive.

Not trying to equate left and right here - just stating that it seems the world has taken a turn away from viewing it through a materialistic lense.

Btw: great thread. Havenít read everything, yet. Left wing guy with a strong leaning towards Adorno, Freud, Marx and Debord here. Although Iím not shy of reading Deleuze, Foucault or Bourdieu
[close]
It seems you think left and right just means Democrat and Republican. One of the left's biggest criticisms of the Democratic party has been it's reliance on identity politics. In turn one of the moderates biggest criticisms of the left is that it's class reductionist. They used that very criticism on Sanders, who's at best a moderate leftist, despite him being endorsed by the person that introduced the concept of intersectionality to academia. But to be straight up about it, "no war but the class war" is not a winning message because the class war has color lines and gender lines. That's just the way it is, and trust me, you'll lose your best allies if you overlook that. The Democratic party's use of identity politics is just a cooptation of intersectionality. Intersectionality includes class analysis, it comes from it, is an extension of it. It is rooted in material analysis. There is a vast difference between it and identity politics which is why the l eft criticizes identity politics heavily. And rightly so because it's empty rhetoric and is often used to defeat leftist candidates.
[close]

You are jumping to conclusions far too quickly here. I couldnít care less about republicans & democrats. Iím not from the US and my interest in marxism is universal and beyond national politics. 
Second, if you take Marx paradigm "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" there is no need for identity politics. This already means the end of discrimination based on gender, race and whatnot. This doesnít mean, that we donít need to speak up, when discrimination now occurs. It is super important that we fight for equality. but this is not a means to an end. This is a symptom of capitalism.
Identity politics is an idealistic dead end. In the end it could also just mean that we just have a super diverse team of upper management.

@wane Brady exactly
[close]

You didn't understand a single thing I wrote. I made an explicit distinction between the material analysis of class distinctions within race and gender and identity politics, because they are different things. When you write this:
Quote
Expand Quote
This doesnít mean, that we donít need to speak up, when discrimination now occurs. It is super important that we fight for equality.
[close]
that is in essence what intersectionality is. How do you know it now occurs implicitly without a material analysis? You can say "to each according" all you'd like, but that's not an analysis. You have to know whether or not you're actually doing it instead of just saying it If you equate that with simple identity politics...that's about as far from a Marxist understanding of the situation as you can get.

I don't know what left you are talking about that is moving towards identity politics given that I'm not sure whether or not you understand any of the terms under discussion. Who is the left? The left of what country? What do you mean by identity politics?

What I can tell you for certain is that we will have no chance at establishing class solidarity based on class alone. There are trust issues, and the reasons are obvious from a Marxist perspective.
[close]

Dude, chill out. No need to be aggressive. You are the one coming with this Ąyou are confusing this with republicans vs democratsď stuff.
I donít think intersectionalism is the way. But, Iím too tired of inner-left discussions about the right way. If you manage to get people understand the foundation of capitalism and help them organize - more power to you.
But Iím not interested in a discussion that is lead the way you are leading it.
[close]
In what way was that aggressive? And how is it that I'm leading a discussion? I didn't start this thread. You can be as not interested as you'd like. I happen to feel the need to point out the differences between what are moderate positions that get characterized as leftist and actual leftist positions. Think about this, though: you wrote that you are "tired of inner-left discussions about the right way" (whatever that means). You are saying this is not the right way and you're tired of it in a leftist discussion.

Have whatever discussion you want to have. Be as uninterested in ones you don't want to have as you want. Thanks for letting me know

LOL whatever.

therealnod

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
  • Rep: 23
  • Brevity is
Re: Leftist thread 2: the saga continues
« Reply #184 on: August 18, 2022, 02:47:47 AM »
As Hegel said to Marx
Quote
LOL whatever.

therealnod

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
  • Rep: 23
  • Brevity is
Re: Leftist thread 2: the saga continues
« Reply #185 on: August 18, 2022, 11:12:38 PM »
If you don't like something just call it communism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_B1g7mjT1PA

Landmine

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 298
  • Rep: 155
Re: Leftist thread 2: the saga continues
« Reply #186 on: August 21, 2022, 07:13:16 PM »
Those mega dork PatSocs/NazBols at the Center for Political Innovation had their big cosplay opening ceremony then called it quits like 3 weeks later, and somehow think they "contributed a great deal to the development of American Socialism"



Get fucked

therealnod

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
  • Rep: 23
  • Brevity is
Re: Leftist thread 2: the saga continues
« Reply #187 on: August 21, 2022, 07:31:19 PM »

weon

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • SLAP Pal
  • ******
  • Posts: 1057
  • Rep: 212
  • todo gratis todo gay
Lil' Wayne is more core than Jaden Smith.
Damn. Chico of Chocolate now Pyramids of Giza. What the hell is going on?

therealnod

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
  • Rep: 23
  • Brevity is
Re: Leftist thread 2: the saga continues
« Reply #189 on: August 21, 2022, 10:19:47 PM »
Probably has to do with this:

https://medium.com/@cpimembersspeakout/caleb-maupins-former-comrades-speak-out-his-abuses-must-stop-4167bc1c2c
That's not shocking. My guess is that in six months or so Maupin will be a right wing conspiracy theorist trying to convince impressionable bible study girls to spank him twice a week until he finally forms his cult and they all move into a compound. Between now and then he'll make several appearances on The Jimmy Door Show to "tell my side of the story."

DaleSr

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • SLAP Pal
  • ******
  • Posts: 3495
  • Rep: 1029
Re: Leftist thread 2: the saga continues
« Reply #190 on: August 21, 2022, 11:01:47 PM »
Maupin always gave off fed vibes, but it turns out he's just a creepy little freak instead.

Landmine

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 298
  • Rep: 155
Re: Leftist thread 2: the saga continues
« Reply #191 on: August 22, 2022, 08:04:46 AM »
Man that's some true manipulator shit.  I hope someone kicks his teeth in.

Klaus Schwab

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
  • Rep: 4
Re: Leftist thread 2: the saga continues
« Reply #192 on: August 24, 2022, 06:05:51 PM »
What we need most right now is no less than 100% compliance from ze global population.  It is ze only way.

therealnod

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
  • Rep: 23
  • Brevity is
Re: Leftist thread 2: the saga continues
« Reply #193 on: August 25, 2022, 12:10:46 AM »

pugmaster

  • Trade Count: (+4)
  • SLAP Pal
  • ******
  • Posts: 3151
  • Rep: 816
  • Overweight and Underprepared
Re: Leftist thread 2: the saga continues
« Reply #194 on: September 19, 2022, 08:25:18 PM »
My first thought was to post this in the "things that make you laugh" thread, but the more I thought about it, I thought this would be a better place for it.

https://www.cnn.com/markets/fear-and-greed?utm_source=business_ribbon

This seems like a piece from the Onion or maybe The Daily Show... I can't believe this is a real thing.

Really speaks to how profoundly fucked up this whole deal is. Lord have mercy.
I like my women the same way I like my personified cups of coffee...black...strong...and proud.

°No puedo hacer que aplauda, ​​pero puedo hacer que haga "whoo"!

therealnod

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
  • Rep: 23
  • Brevity is
Re: Leftist thread 2: the saga continues
« Reply #195 on: September 20, 2022, 01:28:43 AM »
This is how many people view the economy. Not as the management of resources, but as a series of crooked lines tied to investment behavior. I really like the junk bond performance tracker...just about says it all.

newguy

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 487
  • Rep: 31
Re: Leftist thread 2: the saga continues
« Reply #196 on: September 23, 2022, 03:32:54 PM »
Watching MAGAcommunism tools fail to convince trump fans on truth social is fun

DaleSr

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • SLAP Pal
  • ******
  • Posts: 3495
  • Rep: 1029
Re: Leftist thread 2: the saga continues
« Reply #197 on: September 23, 2022, 03:48:15 PM »
Watching MAGAcommunism tools fail to convince trump fans on truth social is fun

Bro i thought being anti pc and throwing gay people and minorities under the bus would be enough to win over people whose brains have been melted by a lifetime of anti communist propaganda???
Hinkle can eat shit

Deputy Wendell

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • SLAP Pal
  • ******
  • Posts: 1524
  • Rep: 193
  • "Aw hells bells, they even shot the dog."
    • outgunned and overwhelmed avatar image
Re: Leftist thread 2: the saga continues
« Reply #198 on: September 23, 2022, 03:51:20 PM »
"So many Black Lives Matter flags in unaffordable apartments where Black family homes used to be."




IusedToSkateMore

  • Trade Count: (+18)
  • SLAP Pal
  • ******
  • Posts: 2582
  • Rep: 858
  • Bronze Topic Start Bronze Topic Start : Start a topic with over 1,000 replies.
Re: Leftist thread 2: the saga continues
« Reply #199 on: September 26, 2022, 03:07:21 PM »
https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/xo1amq/patriot_front_called_911_when_their_cars_got/

fucking patriot front losers. old video but worth watching

that's what these fuckers do, go rile shit up and play the victim.
stay high, lay low

DaleSr

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • SLAP Pal
  • ******
  • Posts: 3495
  • Rep: 1029
Re: Leftist thread 2: the saga continues
« Reply #200 on: September 26, 2022, 03:19:26 PM »
https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/xo1amq/patriot_front_called_911_when_their_cars_got/

fucking patriot front losers. old video but worth watching

that's what these fuckers do, go rile shit up and play the victim.

The ole Andy ngo model

wane brady

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • SLAP Pal
  • ******
  • Posts: 3468
  • Rep: 179
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Leftist thread 2: the saga continues
« Reply #201 on: September 26, 2022, 03:43:35 PM »
they got washed when they tried to march in philly.. fuck em

DaveFuck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • SLAP Pal
  • ******
  • Posts: 3745
  • Rep: 434
Re: Leftist thread 2: the saga continues
« Reply #202 on: September 26, 2022, 06:28:18 PM »
they got washed when they tried to march in philly.. fuck em

bouls came out of a box truck when it was dark out and barely even marched down a busy street....then got sent right back to that box truck

them bouls SCARED
What's bigger the Jeremy Wray roof gap or the Dan Corrigan tooth gap

wane brady

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • SLAP Pal
  • ******
  • Posts: 3468
  • Rep: 179
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Leftist thread 2: the saga continues
« Reply #203 on: September 26, 2022, 07:39:02 PM »
nut ass bouls pussy fr