/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>468454
I'm starting to think you cannot read properly. Were you dropped on your head? I didn't say it was impossible I said it was not currently feasible. But, you obviously hear what you want to hear to cross your arms and be upset. If you think we can currently over throw the capitalist order you are out of your mind, though.

It requires organized labor en mass which is currently not feasible.

>I have a further question, do you want to do wealth transfer from the bourgeoisie towards an identity group, or do you want to steal from other workers ?


Progressive income tax; Tax owners of property not people who work.

>>468455
>bro trust me it's totally possible to over throw capitalism in 2023 even though I just spent over 72 hours complaining about "liberals"

It's not being conservative to be realistic and not live in a delusional fantasy land where the soviet union 2.0 is right around the corner. Get real.

>>468462
>I'm starting to think you cannot read properly. Were you dropped on your head? I didn't say it was impossible I said it was not currently feasible. But, you obviously hear what you want to hear to cross your arms and be upset. If you think we can currently over throw the capitalist order you are out of your mind, though. It requires organized labor en mass which is currently not feasible.

Ok you want to know how i process information: This paragraph contains personal attacks, attacks against the socialist project and a defense of capital interests. So try again. I won't accept what you say if you keep repeating ruling ideology themes, in particular drop the gatekeeping against socialism.

>Progressive income tax; Tax owners of property not people who work.
How do you plan to levy taxes on the super-rich who are very skilled at lobbying for tax-loopholes, like do you have a fix for that?
Why can't those tax-revenues be used to help all people that need it, instead off only those from a single identity-group ?

On the surface it sounds like you want a soc-dem policy, which is reasonable enough, but i have to consider that you might be a crypto-neo-liberal wrecker. The reason for that is that you are trying to introduce a identitarian racial bias into leftist policies to make them fail. It might not be legal and cause it to fail in the legislative process, or it might be politically derailed because it inflames to much racial strive. The neo-liberals have a tendency to screw things up on purpose if they are forced to do things they don't want to do via democratic pressure. The neo-liberals also have a tendency to reverse social democratic reforms. Rolling back reforms that benefit all poor people is however very difficult, but a rollback that only affects a single racial identity group that's probably much easier. I could be wrong and you are not a clever neo-liberal, you could also just be motivated by racism.

Remember races are false consciousness, and that you are just saying that you don't want to help all poor people, instead you only want to help some poor people based on an arbitrary characteristic. The net-result is fewer people get help, and overall less improvement of material conditions. Hence why identitarianism is considered reactionary.

>>468463
neo-liberalism was never very realistic to begin with, but they have completely lost all realism now, they're picking fights with nuclear super-powers, risking WW3.

>Get real.
You're getting sucked into a death cult whose motto is "rule the world or die trying" and they're going to turn you into an expendable foot soldier. Being an enemy of Neo-liberalism is dangerous being a friend is fatal.

>>468470
>neo-liberalism was never very realistic to begin with
neo-liberalism restored the rate of profit, so it was realistic

>but they have completely lost all realism now, they're picking fights with nuclear super-powers, risking WW3.
I hope by "super-powers" you don't mean russia

they're actually doing pretty well, better than I expected
Russia is boggled down in Ukraine, slowly bleeding out, all without US getting its hands dirty and risking any "WW3"
The whole Ukraine affair looks to be one of the best CIA operations ever

China is complicated, if the US can provoke them into blowing their load on Taiwan while at the same time blocking their Belt and Road, it could potentially be another massive win

Also US seem to want to fight Chinese with Australian and Japanese hands

>>468470
What the fuck are you talking about?
Go back to school you god damn retard.

>>468468
It's not a defense to know what is going on. It's not a defense of capitalism to be realistic about our current situation which, incase you are unaware, is very grim. It's not a defense of capitalism to say that we can, through progressive liberal policies; while simultaneously upholding a radical line, achieve marginal gains for all people including minority communities. Again, while simultaneously demanding and agitating for the radical over throw of capitalism as an economic system.

I'm sorry that you believe that just because I am intolerant to your underhanded insults and bad faith acting that you then believe that invalidates my argument, but, I am sorry to inform you "being an asshole" doesn't make the points I am making wrong.

Just because I am a cunt about the nature of gravity doesn't make gravity not real.

>How do you plan to levy taxes on the super-rich who are very skilled at lobbying for tax-loopholes, like do you have a fix for that?

Marginally and progressively over a period of time, as long as it takes.
See this is where the actual nihilism lays in the mistaken belief that the existing powers are to strong or to immovable to do anything about. In the last 20 years leftists had made marginal gains. Even getting that husk Biden elected over trump was a good thing. Is it what we ultimately want? No, but, it's better than the alternative.

> have to consider that you might be a crypto-neo-liberal wrecker.


Yes I assure you that cointtel pro is targeting a basket weaving forum with less than 200 users.

>introduce a identitarian racial bias into leftist policies to make them fail.


as I have already told you several times now it only becomes an issue when you place those identity politics over class politics. Simply helping marginalized communities in small was is not that.

IT's absurd to think otherwise. To draw some hyperbole, if red lining was still a thing that was happening or segregation would you support ending segregation or would you say that "well we shouldn't inact policy that benefits JUST one group of people. Stop being perposterous.

>>468471
>neo-liberalism restored the rate of profit, so it was realistic
It wasn't realistic, what they did to restore the profit rate has caused a demographic decline which will kill profits in the future with massive labor shortages.
>I hope by "super-powers" you don't mean russia
You're delusional Russia is a nuclear super-power.
>they're actually doing pretty well
>in Ukraine
No the Neo-liberals thought they could cripple the Russians with sanctions, instead they destroyed the EU economy and cause more de-dollarization. The US lost Saudi-Arabia and India as allies. The Russians are fighting the Ukraine war as a war of attrition. It's draining the Ukrainian military power and the war-chest of the US and EU. All the while most of the world thinks the ruling class in the west are barbarians for sacrificing Ukraine for a failed attempt to own the Russians.
>China is complicated, if the US can provoke them into blowing their load on Taiwan
>Also US seem to want to fight Chinese with Australian and Japanese hands
Japan is already buying Russian crude oil above the oil-price-cap, so they're slowly pulling out of the US orbit, and won't let them selves get sacrificed. Taiwan isn't going to become another Ukraine either. They've seen how Ukraine was promised big support which never really materialized. Take a look at the real world, all of Nato failed to match Russia in industrial war production. Could you imagine the attempt of matching Chinese industrial power, which is 3x larger than that of the US. The neolibs suck at big-power-competition, they only looked up gdp figures, where Russia equals 3.5% of all the NATO countries, and they thought that's a really small number lets go get them. They never bothered to look at things like the actual industrial base that can crank out weapons and ammo. The Taiwan war won't materialize either, it's at best going to be a Taiwan blockade. The Chinese are probably clever enough to figure out which Taiwanese capitalists uphold the one China principle and exclude them from the blockade. Which means filtering out US influence from Taiwan without actually inconveniencing the Taiwanese population. Chinese sabre rattling might just be bait to make the US waste a bunch of resources on excessive military spending. The US did that to the Soviet Union, it's not inconceivable that China observed and learned from that.
The US is also massively screwing over Australia with the worst Submarine weapons deals that ever existed. I know that the Australians are massively cucked but eventually they're going to get tired of not having nice things because they have to subsidize US naval power, and they're right next to a massive economic powerhouse that is China offering all the nice things.

<State backed white supremacy is idpol.
<Deflection of attacks on white supremacy is idpol.
<Racial justice is not.
Case in point, the Texas Governor is going to pardon the murderer of a BLM protestor.
I'm sure the "anti-idpolers" will cope about how he was actually pardoned because they were afraid of BLM forming multiracial coalition kek.
Texas governor seeks pardon of man convicted of murder in Black Lives Matter shooting
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/texas-governor-seeks-pardon-man-convicted-murder-black-lives-matter-shooting-2023-04-09/

>>468462
>If you think we can currently over throw the capitalist order you are out of your mind
Once again you go to the most extreme position of your opponent in order to justify your own. Who said anything about overthrowing capitalism? The only one who mentions it is you, because you're using it as a rhetorical tactic. It's at this point it's becoming clearer that your intentions are malicious.
>It requires organized labor en mass which is currently not feasible
You simply assert this as if it were true. Well, until you justify it I'm going to dismiss it as ideological bullshit.
>Progressive income tax; Tax owners of property not people who work
I'm surprised you didn't say "tax only white owners of property". Seems more in line with your ethos.
>It's not being conservative to be realistic
Yeah, it actually is, in the way you're using the word "realistic". That word has been turned into an ideological tool by conservatives to deflate class consciousness and tear apart socialist movements. I would tell you to read a fucking book but something tells me you're not interested in any knowledge beyond eating the trash that the bourgeoisie feeds you.
>and not live in a delusional fantasy land where the soviet union 2.0 is right around the corner
Again, no one said anything of the sort, but you keep acting as if we had in order to make us look extreme and irrational. Pure malintent.
>>468471
>neo-liberalism restored the rate of profit, so it was realistic
First, the way it restored the rate of profit was unrealistic. Neoliberalism crippled the empires ability to compete with the other great powers. Neoliberalism is dying and bourgeois politicians are now attempting to reshore industry.
Second, neoliberalism had goals other than restoring the rate of profit. The entire premise of neoliberalism was a contradiction. It's an antistatist ideology that relies on state intervention to do everything. That sound realistic to you?
The USSR managed to industrialize rapidly, but that doesn't make Soviet socialism realistic. If anything, it was a lack of realistic goals and planning that caused the Soviet elite to lose faith in the communist project and rule cynically until it's ultimate demise, under a "more realistic" socdem no less.
>>468474
>It's not a defense of capitalism to be realistic about our current situation
Once again, it definitely is in the way you use the word.
>It's not a defense of capitalism to say that we can, through progressive liberal policies; while simultaneously upholding a radical line, achieve marginal gains for all people including minority communities
Yes it fucking is. You are attempting to force us to abandon the project of organizing the working class in order to participate in bourgeois politics. This is nothing less than a defense of the status quo, a defense of capitalism.
>while simultaneously demanding and agitating for the radical over throw of capitalism as an economic system
"Upholding a radical line" and "agitating for the overthrow of capitalism" is meaningless if you have nothing to back it up, it's posturing that working class people can immediately see through. Do you think we can't smell your bullshit? This is a perfect way to discredit the socialist movement, because it's what the communists have been doing for decades in the west, even before neoliberalism took hold.
>I'm sorry that you believe that just because I am intolerant to your underhanded insults and bad faith acting
Now here's a real example of projection.
>Marginally and progressively over a period of time, as long as it takes
>In the last 20 years leftists had made marginal gains
>Even getting that husk Biden elected over trump was a good thing. Is it what we ultimately want? No, but, it's better than the alternative.
I can't find a better example of the futility of your position. No, even worse, it contradictory. You are the one being unrealistic. It's unrealistic to believe that we can achieve socialism in this way. It's unrealistic to believe that these marginal gains will somehow lead up to the workers seizing power. Yet you keep pushing it as the "realistic" position, and my guess is because it really is realistic if you don't actually have any of those goals in mind. In other words, you are little more than a shill for the left-wing of capital, acting as if you are a radical, just like every other leftist that has succumbed to capitalist realism.
>Yes I assure you that cointtel pro is targeting a basket weaving forum with less than 200 users.
Again, trying to discredit your opponents argument by going to the extreme. Who said anything about the CIA? No, you're a neoliberal wrecker because that's what you actually are. No alphabet agencies are required here. You are drowning in neoliberal ideology and can't help but try to drag everyone else down with you.
>it only becomes an issue when you place those identity politics over class politics
As we have already told you several times now, they are in contradiction. You are the only one who doesn't understand that you can help marginalized people without identity politics. You are the only one who refuses to acknowledge that a even a strictly workerist program can help marginalized people. The truth is that you think idpol is necessary just because you are a shill for idpol, simple as.
>IT's absurd to think otherwise
<I am incapable of thinking otherwise
FTFY
>if red lining was still a thing that was happening or segregation would you support ending segregation or would you say that "well we shouldn't inact policy that benefits JUST one group of people
You fucking moron. What red lining does is segregate the working class. No idpol is needed to understand this, the specific identities of the workers being segregated can be ignored. A universal working class program would be opposed to this simply because it threatens class unity. It's shocking just how limited your ability to think about class-based politics is.

>>468474
You are following the pattern of increasing the amount of personal attacks the more your arguments fall apart.

What you are actually advocating is
<liberal policies
<vooting for bourgeois neoliberal political parties that constantly shift rightwards
<political spectacle that appears radical but is without substance

Basically a continuation of everything that hasn't worked for the last 40 to 50 years, that made the left loose ground more and more. Why do you insist on trailing the liberals ? They aren't even anti-war anymore. They got really racist against Russians, and soon that will be extended to Chinese, and possibly even Mexicans. (US Mainstream media has begun drumming up anti-Mexican hate, i think because Mexico nationalized something about resource extraction). If that sticks the liberals are going to sound like Trump 2 years from now.

>achieve marginal gains for all people including minority communities
At first this sounds like a fantastic line.
But why would you single out a group called "minority communities" from "all people". Why aren't they considered as part of "all people" by default. You keep saying these suspicious things and then doubt creeps in.

The identitarian movements so far have not improved the material conditions for the people they claim to represent, so for that reason you can't make a credible claim that what you propose actually yields progress for the material conditions in the lives of people. It has created career opportunities for sell-outs and cover for actual racists, that pursue really racist goals like bringing back segregation except they use "woke" slogans now. If you search for "woke segregation", you'll find a bunch of conservatives hyperventilating, but you'll also find examples of people actually trying to recreate racial segregation in public and semi public spaces. You are seriously misjudging identitarian intentions.

>it only becomes an issue when you place those identity politics over class politics
That's what always happens. Even now the overall message that you sending is that economic reforms must wait. The left has been told for decades to wait. It's not credible anymore.

>>468478
>If that sticks the liberals are going to sound like Trump 2 years from now.
Considering that the Democrats have chosen to keep most of Trump's policies, this isn't so far off. But shitlibs will still defend Biden as "the most progressive president since FDR".

>>468477
So if you don't want to abolish capitalism but you also don't want to make meger reforms then what the fuck do you want?

>You simply assert this as if it were true. Well, until you justify it I'm going to dismiss it as ideological bullshit.

What the fuck are you even talking about? I am talking to a dumb fuck; Organized labor is the basis of marxism. Unless I am talking to that retard Eugene….

>Yeah, it actually is, in the way you're using the word "realistic"


At this point I have no idea what you want or what positions you hold, but, please cont to be a retard and babble about nothing I will cont with my points; The onus is on you to demostrate how it is feasible if you are making the claim that we need to over throw the system of capital and, again, given the state of organized labor in the united states today we are arguably further away from that than we were 100 years. But please keep clinging to your pie in the sky bullshit.

>Again, no one said anything of the sort, but you keep acting as if we had in order to make us look extreme and irrational. Pure malintent.

You haven't actually said anything at this point. You refuse to acknowledge any points I am making and you just write off hyperbole and ad-hom as if there isn't valid underlying points behind them. You are just an intellectual coward.

Now I am not even sure what the hell you want, but, I am sure you will cont to pussy foot around that too.

>>468476
>Omg guys. If you don't roll over an die when an armed mob attacks you, you're a racist
Get fucked and thank God for Abbott

>>468474
>Even getting that husk Biden elected over trump was a good thing. Is it what we ultimately want? No, but, it's better than the alternative.
mask off

>>468480
>So if you don't want to abolish capitalism
Never said this. The point is that you're acting like we want to immediately abolish capitalism in order to argue that we're unrealistic.
>but you also don't want to make meager reforms
Again, never said that. The point is that the reforms we want are done with the intention of strengthening and uniting the working class while also showing them that we are on their side. By contrast, your obsession with reform is standard left-liberal policy to deflate working class consciousness.
>What the fuck are you even talking about? blah blah blah Eugene
I'm asking you to justify why organizing the working class is unfeasible. You simply assert that it's true without any justification at all.
Okay, how about this: we should first start by helping workers organize. I'm sure that's too "unrealistic" for you, so please explain why.
>You refuse to acknowledge any points I am making
>hyperbole and ad-hom as if there isn't valid underlying points behind them
You are just an intellectual coward
More projection.
>Now I am not even sure what the hell you want
A universal and internationalist working-class program, to organize and empower the workers, so that they can one day seize power and dominate global capitalism.

>When over five thousand women took to the streets of Santiago to protest Salvador Allende’s Popular Unity government on December 1, 1971, their March of the Empty Pots and Pans signaled the beginning of a mass opposition movement and prompted the later formation of Feminine Power, a multi-class organization that played a critical role in paving the way for the military coup in 1973. Drawing on extensive interviews with leaders and participants, Margaret Power tells the story of these right-wing women, examining their motives, the tactics they employed, and the impact of their ideas and activity on Chilean society and politics.

>The ability of the right to exploit established ideas about gender, Power argues, was key to the opposition’s success, and she explores how conservatives appealed to women as wives and mothers to mobilize them. Power also pays attention to the earlier history of these efforts, including the formation of Women’s Action of Chile in 1963, and to the support provided by the U.S. government. The epilogue examines right-wing women’s reactions to the arrest of Augusto Pinochet in 1998 and their role in the elections of 2000. By focusing on the women who opposed Allende and supported Pinochet, this book offers a fresh look at the complex dynamics of Chilean politics in the last half of the twentieth century.

<B-B-BUT MUH WHAMEN!! CAN'T BE REACTIONARY!!
I'm telling u fags without w*men there would have been no fascism, no wars, no plagues, no misery.
The Old Testament at least got something right (never trust a w*man). The Jews knew their shit, okay

>>468482
You faggots are literally useless

>>468483
So tell me what you want exactly. Since you seem to want to avoid the question like water trying to get nailed to a wall

>I'm asking you to justify why organizing the working class is unfeasible.

I said currently you fucking pea brained ninny. You have to build it and work towards that, but, in the mean time we can also simultaneously do what we can to help people through liberal reforms.

You never answered if you would support de-segregating or not.

>You are just an intellectual coward

Yeah ok whatever helps you sleep at night

>A universal and internationalist working-class program, to organize and empower the workers, so that they can one day seize power and dominate global capitalism.


Wow we want the same thing, but, what we want and how to achieve it are two different things. They don't just come out of nowhere. They take years. even decades. Have you ever tried to organize working people en mass? Seriously? There's nothing wrong with utilizing the system in the mean time.

>I the meantime, we just have to support swisscheese brain democrats and globohomo oligarchy
fuck off back to reddit, libshit shill

>>468477
Systematic rebuttals against all those points. Pretty good post.

>>468487
We hate u and I can’t wait til your class is liquidated

>>468481
>Driving around trying to start shit is self defense!
/pol/yp detected.

>>468490
>Bro lemme tell you the revolution is coming I just have to make my 1000000000th post on leftypol!

Completely worthless. I bet you don't even lift. Kys

>>468493
What class is that?

>>468496
> What class is that?
Definitely not prole

>>468487
>So tell me what you want exactly
I literally just did that. If you want me to list off specific policies, I also did that. I'm not holding your hand, scroll up and read.
>I said currently you fucking pea brained ninny
Yeah, and I'm still asking you to justify it.
>You have to build it and work towards that, but, in the mean time we can also simultaneously do what we can to help people through liberal reforms
It's quite telling that you refer to "liberal reforms" and not "socialist reforms". Probably because you aren't a socialist. No, liberal reforms won't help the working class, nor does the working class want them. What benefits the working class is anything that strengthens the bargaining position of labour. Full employment is the simplest example of this, and far from anything liberals could ever dream of in current year.
>You never answered if you would support de-segregating or not.
Yes I did, I directly responded to it, you just refused to read my post.
>Wow we want the same thing
No we fucking don't. You want liberal reforms, you want idpol, you want radical style without substance, you want to split the working class into subgroups rather than support them as a whole.
>There's nothing wrong with utilizing the system in the mean time.
In the way you're trying to do it, yes, there is something wrong with it. You want to use the system to co-opt the left and placate the workers.
>>468496
>all my critics are crazy ultraleftists because they don't care for my incrementalist idpol bullshit!
Watch as this guy trots out the same line over and over again.

>>468498
>I literally just did that. If you want me to list off specific policies, I also did that. I'm not holding your hand, scroll up and read.


No you didn't. You have no plan you have nothing. You have no understanding other than "lol over throw capitalism bro" You have no idea, fundamentally, what you want.
Then you shit on people like me who have come to the unfortinant conclusion that it isn't in the cards, YET, but, we can do things while we work towards it. It's not fucking mutually exclusive; the two.

You are just a complainer. A worthless no one who will fade into obscurity and do nothing of note in the grand scheme of things.0

>It's quite telling that you refer to "liberal reforms" and not "socialist reforms".


There are no socialist reforms. Socialism is not a reformist ideology.

>Yes I did, I directly responded to it, you just refused to read my post.

No you didn't. I don't recall it at all. If I missed it please point it out to me.

>In the way you're trying to do it, yes, there is something wrong with it. You want to use the system to co-opt the left and placate the workers.

No I don't you fucking skitzo retard. You are making that up to justify your do nothing attitude. How am I, one person, even capable of that? How is that possible? Explain how your logic works? Are you seriously implying that the meer act of desegregation is "co-opting the left" and "placateing" works. That doesn't even mean anything. You have no idea what you are talking about.


You are a muppet.

>Watch as this guy trots out the same line over and over again.


It's not incrementalist and it's not idpol. You are worthless kts

> it isn't in the cards, YET, but, we can do things while we work towards it
Like Vote for Biden bc orange man bad and support le heckin wholesome Ukraine. Also tax le rich!

>>468499
>No you didn't
>You have no plan you have nothing
Translation:
<I can't read.
Thank you for conceding.
>You have no understanding other than "lol over throw capitalism bro"
Yawn, same bullshit line over and over again. It's getting tiresome, anon.
>Then you shit on people like me who have come to the unfortinant conclusion that it isn't in the cards
I'm shitting on you because you're maliciously misrepresenting, dismissing, ignoring and twisting our words however you see fit to justify your worldview.
>There are no socialist reforms. Socialism is not a reformist ideology.
As I expected, you are not a socialist. You know nothing about the socialist movement, its history and its purpose. Yes, there are socialist reforms. There are reforms that strengthen the socialist movement. There are reforms that strengthen labour relative to capital. Your inability to think in these terms betrays your lack of interest in socialism.
>No you didn't. I don't recall it at all.
>>468477
The next time you respond to one of my posts, try actually reading it.
>You are making that up to justify your do nothing attitude
Even more projection.
>How am I, one person, even capable of that?
Never said anything about that.
>Are you seriously implying that the meer act of desegregation is "co-opting the left" and "placateing" works.
Never said that, in fact I said the opposite of that, but you can't read.
>It's not incrementalist and it's not idpol.
<NUH-UH!
Damn, you really convinced me.

>>468502
>I'm just gonna copy and paste everything you said now even though I have not actually said anything of value.

Eugene you need to go back.

>Yawn, same bullshit line over and over again. It's getting tiresome, anon.

You haven't said what your position is. I keep asking and you keep saying "yes like I totally did" but you can't even point me to a link that shows where you did. You are just a lying faggot and you should frankly get banned at this point.

>I'm shitting on you because you're maliciously misrepresenting, dismissing, ignoring and twisting our words however you see fit to justify your worldview.I'm shitting on you because you're maliciously misrepresenting, dismissing, ignoring and twisting our words however you see fit to justify your worldview.


WAAAAAAAA I CAN;T HANDLE BEING CALLED MEAN NAMES ON AN ANONYMOUS IMAGEBOARD=

Fucking cry more about you little faggot.

>As I expected, you are not a socialist. You know nothing about the socialist movement,


Socialism isn't when you implement national health care eugene. Socialism is a revolutionary ideology that seeks to put control of the work place in the hands of the working class. You are stupid.

>>468503
>you should frankly get banned at this point
Sorry anon, this isn't your .ogre hugbox, you can't ban people for wrongthink here. Stop posting for a bit, maybe play a video game, drink an iced tea, whatever helps you cool off and think straight again.
>You haven't said what your position is.
Yes I fucking have. Reading through my posts again, I admit there are some parts I did not explain, and I'm sorry for that. But other parts I have repeated numerous times, which you refuse to inquire more into, instead just saying over and over again "you have no position, you want immediate revolution". So I'll explain it in full detail this time.
I want a universal and internationalist working-class program in order to organize and empower the workers so that they can dominate and one day overcome global capitalism. I want to bring it about with an independent socialist party, whose primary function is to help the working class organize and provide a viable post-capitalist vision of society, while also putting pressure on the bourgeois parties with the goal of implementing universal policies that empower the working class, such as full employment, universal healthcare, reduced working hours, higher wages, etc.
>Socialism isn't when you implement national health care eugene. Socialism is a revolutionary ideology that seeks to put control of the work place in the hands of the working class
Again, you don't understand what socialism is. You just trot out the vulgar definition of "seizing the means of production".
There are two parts to socialism. First and foremost, socialism is a political movement. It is political because it seeks to help the workers seize power, to dominate capitalism. Second, socialism refers to the socialist mode of production, wherein the allocation of surplus is determined by political decisions. In one sentence, a socialist movement seeks to both constitute the workers into a class that can seize political power, while also realizing the socialist mode of production.
You need to understand the political utility of implementing policies such as universal healthcare, or others like cutting the working hours or full employment. You need to understand how these things give legitimacy to socialists, weaken capital and empower the workers. These basic reforms give the workers more bargaining power relative to capital, and the more bargaining power they have, the more they can demand from capital, with the threat of seizing power if capital refuses to deliver. The more legitimacy the socialists have, the more they can guide the working class into bringing about their vision of a post-capitalist society.
This is politics 101. A socialist movement doesn't magically sprout out of the ground. People have to see some real, tangible proof that the socialists want to empower the workers.
The irony here is that you are the one who doesn't have tenable position. Your mind is so deep in the capitalist realist hole that don't understand how socialists can operate politically, you don't understand how the workers can actually seize power. So it's not surprise that you relegate yourself to "liberal reforms" and "helping marginalized communities", like every other shill for the left-liberal establishment.

>>468482
>Thinking Biden is better than Trump is fascism.
Whew doggie, you sure showed that strawman what for!

>>468506
Nice strawman

>>468506
I didn't call you a fascist. That's your projection of your own knee jerk reflex to describe everything you don't like as fascist, i.e., a strawman.

What you are, in fact, is a useful fool for bossbitch democrats and the globohomo oligarchy they serve.

>>468509
>Half a shit sandwich is better then eating a whole shit sandwich.
>Look everyone, this guy loves shit sandwiches.
Literally the argument you crypto fash trot out everytime. Go back to disc0rd where you came from and where this actually impresses underage readers.

>>468510
>everyone I don't like is fashist
>muh trots
cringe post

>>468510
>t. Blue Guard
Remember that time ordered a military withdrawal from Syria and bunch of 3 letter agencies just ignored him, or when he had meetings with Putin and the media said he was somehow a Russian agent, or how he started no new wars, etc etc.
Do I wish Trump would have completely shunned neocon ghouls like John Bolton and technocrats like Fauci. Ofc, but to say that it was Trump propelling the US into the current situation and not extant actors in the American imperial state is just disingenuous
>Omg, they're all the same!!!!!
Must be very difficult to maintain cognitive consistency when the people who promote your favored faggy social agenda are also the people propelling the US toward spasms of violence as it gracelessly declines on the world stage and disintegrates at home.

>>468509
>unironically using globohomo
only literal retards think globalization is a new thing (and inherently negative by the way). here is what someone wrote 175 years ago, in a text that (you), the illiterate imageboard expert, obviously didn't read
<The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of Reactionists, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilised nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature.

>>468514
Lol, fuck, I forgot who I was talking to. Your such a disingenuous little faggot, insufferably whining on because people are using the wrong words.
<You're the real Marxist that really understands capitalism. I'm just a dumb chud
Happy?

>>468514
>The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country.
consumption maybe, but not production, as characterized by the world division of labor today, more than 100 years after Marx died

>>468514
Haha this really triggered the recovering /pol/ tankies ITT.

>>468523
>everyone I don't like is /pol/
go back

So i watched this https://invidious.snopyta.org/watch?v=oHsIn9bAzAU debate on the Katie Halper show between lets say "id-pol professors" and Norman Finkelstein. Norm did a great job critiquing id-pol but i thought he was kinda soft on them.

There's a way of analyzing what people say by focusing primarily on 2 things
<what's being defended
<what's being attacked

What stood out to me was that the "id-pol professors"
they attacked "class reductionists" (which just means Marxists and Socialists)
they defended protecting "elite super rich people" from identity oppression.

That means they use id-pol as a method of gate-keeping against socialism.
They want to use the political energies of the proles to defend capitalists who will never reciprocate.

I can't help but see this as a pull towards a reactionary direction.

Karl Marx once said
<‘The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles’
which for socialists means he had very advanced class consciousness
and for identitarians it means he was a reductdoodle

When id-pol debates like this happen, there's one aspect that always ends up being ignored, and that's people who don't want to be categorized or don't want to identify with anything, are mercilessly negated, and the political disenfranchisement is absolute.

I wonder if I could have my cake and eat it. Be a right wing media grifter, but literally just engage in Marxist takes.
It seems when it comes to Idpol, being a Marxist is literally a far-right position according to Libs.

>>468569
Maybe if you can center on class politics you can gain support from people across the cultural spectrum. You should probably avoid using the bourgeois political left-right divide to understand politics. I think that would be limiting your self to cultural preferences of different bourgeois factions.

We may have to update our labels, because liberals are not liberal anymore, their focus is almost entirely on regulating the individual, they seem to be increasingly opposed to granting people more autonomy over their immediate environment, bodies, minds and personal possessions.

The liberals are also no longer championing social progress. For example there has been a huge regression in terms of prostitution. The liberals of the past used to agree with socialists that women ought not be forced to rent them selves out as prostitutes to affluent men. The people who see them selves as liberal today will explode in rage if you suggest that they can't command sex with money.

I'm also suspicious about other social theories from the liberals, i think it's going to be used to attack reproductive-rights for women. G-theory for example is minimizing the focus on the reproductive aspects of sexuality. This is certainly very convenient from the perspective of somebody trying to cloak their attacks on female reproductive rights. If womanhood is no longer defined by reproduction than the protections for womanhood will no longer cover reproduction.
The material explanation for this development might be that capitalism is attempting to commodify human-gestation. So that affluent bourgeois women no longer have to bare children but can rent surrogate wombs for that. Wealthy women will no longer need the protection of female reproductive rights to have autonomy over their bodies. They might even come to see it in the opposite light. The physical demands of pregnancy are a big disadvantage in the game of capital accumulation, and bourgeois women might see access to "womb-services" as a way to gain more "bourgeois-equality" compared to bourgeois men.

Socialists and people who used to be considered left would obviously be opposed to turning proletarian women into living gestation-pods for bourgeois spawn. But the liberals will likely champion this the same way they regressed on prostitution. I foresee surrogate womb services as a kind off 24/7 bio-factory job. The bourgeoisie obviously want to have control over the gestation process so that it's optimized. I picture women strapped to medical chairs with bio-sensors with intravenously administrated nutrient fluids, wearing virtual reality goggles.

I've considered re-labeling the liberals as alternative-conservatives, but alt-con isn't very catchy. It might be more accurate to see it as a third direction in the cultural domain. So maybe it's, Left Right Third. Maybe identitarianism is a cultural particularity of the Third, as a type of extremism.

If you want to go a step further you might want to try to create a proletarian culture, that has a focus on creating cultural norms that expand the culturally acceptable autonomy of the proletariat and diminish the culturally acceptable autonomy of the rulers.

Finkelstein's definition of woke

https://invidious.snopyta.org/watch?v=EsffmdaoqZc

Look, I’m gonna level with you here. Like the vast majority of leftists who have been minted since Occupy Wall Street, my principles, values, and policy preferences don’t stem from a coherent set of moral values, developed into an ideology, which then suggests preferred policies. At all. That requires a lot of reading and I’m busy organizing black tie fundraisers at work and bringing Kayleigh and Dakota to fencing practice. I just don’t have the time. So my politics have been bolted together in a horribly awkward process of absorbing which opinions are least likely to get me screamed at by an online activist or mocked by a podcaster. My politics are therefore really a kind of self-defensive pastiche, an odd Frankensteining of traditional leftist rhetoric and vocabulary from Ivy League humanities departments I don’t understand. I quote Marx, but I got the quote from Tumblr. I cite Gloria Anzaldua, but only because someone on TikTok did it first. I support defunding the police because in 2020, when the social and professional consequences for appearing not to accept social justice norms were enormous, that was the safest place for me to hide. I maintain a vague attachment to police and prison abolition because that still appears to be the safest place for me to hide. I vote Democrat but/and call myself a socialist because that is the safest place for me to hide. I’m not a bad person; I want freedom and equality. I want good things for everyone. But politics scare and confuse me. I just can’t stand to lose face, so I have to present all of my terribly confused ideals with maximum superficial confidence. If you probe any of my specific beliefs with minimal force, they will collapse, as those “beliefs” are simply instruments of social manipulation. I can’t take my kid to the Prospect Park carousel and tell the other parents that I don’t support police abolition. It would damage my brand and I can’t have that. And that contradiction you detected, where I support maximum forgiveness for crime but no forgiveness at all for being offensive? For me, that’s no contradiction at all. Those beliefs are not part of a functioning and internally-consistent political system but a potpourri of deracinated slogans that protect me from headaches I don’t need. I never wanted to be a leftist. I just wanted to take my justifiable but inchoate feelings of dissatisfaction with the way things are and wrap them up into part of the narrative that I tell other people about myself, the narrative that I’m a kind good worthwhile enlightened person. And hey, in college that even got me popularity/a scholarship/pussy! Now I’m an adult and I have things to protect, and well-meaning but fundamentally unserious activists have created an incentive structure that mandates that I pretend to a) understand what “social justice” means and b) have the slightest interest in working to get it. I just want to chip away at my student loan debt and not get my company’s Slack turned against me. I need my job/I need my reputation/I need to not have potential Bumble dates see anything controversial when they Google me. Can you throw me a bone? Neither I nor 99% of the self-identified socialists in this country believe that there is any chance whatsoever that we’ll ever take power, and honestly, you’re harshing our vibe. So can you please fuck off and let us hide behind the BLM signs that have been yellowing in our windows for three years?

At Oxford students now live in fear, they think cancelling each other will help them get ahead

<Even basic human connection is tainted at Oxford. Every student will at some point inevitably learn what’s known as a “hack” is, and realise that they did not make an enthusiastic new friend (“We should do coffee sometime, yeah?”), but in fact, the entire interaction was designed to get your vote for whatever minor position they may be running for that term. The coffee will never happen, and you won’t hear from them again until they pop up in your messages, asking for your vote.

<It’s been said that at Oxford “You don’t have friends, you have alliances”. However, even those are shaky at best. Whilst I imagine the nature of this has been the same for many years, it is certainly worse in ways today. At parties and events, people live in fear of something they say or do being recorded. This is more than just the effects of the internet age - it is well known that certain people, especially in student politics or journalism, often secretly audio record the entire evening in the hope of catching someone out.

<The worst part is that it doesn’t matter who it is they catch. People have publicly “cancelled” their closest friends, and even their partners. Furthermore, nothing is off limits to be used as material. Family issues, mental health, relationships - all of it can and will be used against you.

<Concerningly, some people do not even feel bound by the truth. They know that there is nothing their victim can do, and trying to do anything would just draw more attention to the claim, alongside requiring lengthy battles and lawyers not all students can afford. The process is the punishment, and the evidence will live online forever. And thanks to a popular anonymous Facebook page (the content of which is controlled by a few with vested interests), attacks can be made anonymously too.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/21/oxford-university-students-intolerance-free-speech/

This is even more hardcore than i thought.