No.9[Last 50 Posts]
Since we're all comrades here, and it's a common goal for us to achieve obligatory equality; what do you think of the SJW agenda?
No.10
I think it is idealist, ridiculous, and serves the bourgeoise.
No.11
I agree with you, a lot of this serves a particular group, and will not benefit humanity as a whole. Being a communist, some people expect me to be another common socialist, like the horrid CPUSA. But i explain to them what our agenda consist of and they're appalled that I'm not some kind of edgy dictator
No.13
>>11It seems like many communist party websites tend to have a lot of information devoted to SJW issues. It's quite irritating.
No.17
Self defeating middle class distraction shit.
Who cares about breadlines when you can concentrate on the rights of your imaginary sexuality?
No.18
>>13What if the whole SJW thing is a plot to make communism look bad?
No.19
>>18Could be. I bet there is some significant effort to associate it with communism by saboteurs of the movement and reactionary propagandists.
The term cultural marxism coming into the public vernacular recently, perhaps it wasn't entirely accidental.
No.24
>>19> I bet there is some significant effort to associate it with communism by saboteurs of the movement and reactionary propagandists. Yeah, for sure it is. I know this is going to sound a bit stupid, but you just have to look at /pol/ and not only /pol/ but the entire 4chan, that has seen the SJW as a representation of all the left, but they are wrong terribly wrong.
Its sad to see when people talk about their political views and they tend to be more left-winged than they think, but they doesnt see it, and then they vote some right-wing party that will not benefit them in anyway. Or at least is hat happens in Spain.
No.58
libfag from /pol reporting in.
People think SJWs are liberals because they are the dominant voice of the social "liberal" or "democrat" party in the majority of western countries.
If smart marxists want to change that, they have to oppose SJW propaganda just as hard as the right wing and antifeminists do.
No.59
>>9It genuinly is not representative of equality, feminism, or really anything SJW's actually say they stand for.
No.60
>>11God i hate the CPUSA. I joined and basically evey single news letter ive gotten has just told me to vote democrat. Its fucking embarassing.
No.91
>>9Equality for women is fine, allowing homosexuals to marry and live happily is fine, and if transexuals want to live their lives as the opposite sex they were biologically born as is fine - as long as they do not impose themselves on others.
Social Justice Warriors are a product of the free market and the media. Largely as a result of the postmodernity, markets can now commidify identities and profit off of that. Now you can sell pro-SJW flags, buttons, etc. It's just another thing to turn into an industry and a profit market.
In addition, they serve as a distraction to class conflict. If you can encourage people to identify as anything other than working class (which itself has become a stigma term) then they won't be aware of their actual oppression.
As a result, capitalists not only reduce the chance of class consciousness from occuring, they even profit from it on top. Same thing with the underclass - the "working class" can look down and vent their frustrations downwards, not upwards.
Marxist Feminists do have a point. I remember one describing women as being the takers of shit - a man comes home and takes out his frustration on his wife. There's many other Marxist Feminists that do have a good point about women's role in capitalism.
In short - SJW are essentially a product of the free market that distract from class consciousness and promote identity politics outside of the class system.
No.95
File: 1411505969556.png (282.16 KB, 315x433, 315:433, Destroy_the_old_world_Cult….png)
Degenerate
No.98
It all comes back to the marxist freedom principle, "Freedom is the right and capacity of people to determine their own actions, in a community which is able to provide for the full development of human potentiality. Freedom may be enjoyed by individuals but only in and through the community."
(Yes, I'm aware Stalinism deprecates it as a borgeoise pervertion/degeneration but we're marxist here, right?)
No.107
>>98You have to consider the poltical lines that SJW principles lead to. Sex-based lines, race-based lines, etc. It really runs counter to Marxist poltics.
It's also decadent and idealist and individualist IMO.
>StalinismHere we go…
No.123
An offshoot of third wave feminism that everyone would have been better off without it existing. Especially actual feminists defending their cause.
No.187
Honestly, I despise it. In actual practice 'intersectionality' seems to invariably mean that class comes last, if it is ever discussed at all.
SJWism does nothing but divide the working class. Protests and organisation becomes stillborn because organisers insist on a comprehensive "anti-oppression policy" that basically involve berating ordinary, well-meaning people for being oppressors. It's one thing to expect participants to treat one another decently, but SJWism goes well beyond that and actively alienates whites and white men especially. I saw it at Occupy. People are told that they're oppressors and wow, big surprise, suddenly they're not so keen on sticking around.
No.196
>>9SJW identify real problems and offer useless liberal solutions. Anytime a Marxist stands up to their idiotic worthless non-revolutionary mentality and proposes real solutions they shout them down calling them cis-sexist. Retarded 1st world Marxists jump all over them and back them up because their too busy "tailing" peripheral issues rather than leading.
>>107Kill yourself Trotsky. There is no Stalinism, is Marxism-Leninism. Only Trots use the word Stalinist.
No.198
>>196Dammit guys, how did you understand it was me?
No.211
>>196I was referring to use of the word Stalinism the post which I was replying to.
No.230
I personally don't care if others want to make an ass of themselves they have the right to. I just don't want to be told how to live my life.
No.233
>>230To let things drift if they do not affect one personally; to say as little as possible while knowing perfectly well what is wrong, to be worldly wise and play safe and seek only to avoid blame. This is a third type.
No.236
>>107Acknowledging that private property causes problems in the realm of sex, race etc. is not counter to Marxism.
We just evaluate those other forms of oppression within the framework of a critique of private property.
We should openly declare that racial oppression, heterosexism, transphobia etc. have links to private property. We should expose all types of oppression that results from capitalism.
The only problem with "SJW"s is that they often don't critique capitalism at a fundamental level.
No.237
>>107Stalin was a reactionary on social issues.
> Doctor's plot > Ban on homosexual marriage > Racial policies discriminating against ethnic minorites No.238
>>236Transphobia has literally nothing to do with private property.
No.242
>>238Look at the instances of homophobia and transphobia. In the US and see what causes these feelings. Most of it stems from religion; it was seen as an abomination of God. Despite religion having a lesser influence on our lives, the tradition and conventions from that period still remain with us now.
Religion can be used to create conflict between genders and sexualities. It's a distraction from the true nature of class conflict. It's just another means of repression to mask the actual nature of capitalism.
No.246
>>236That's far from the only problem with SJWs.
No.277
while i agree with most of the basic sjw things like gay rights and a type of feminism they really get bogged down in identidy politics and liberal tactics
No.320
>>9Its madness. What is the end goal? There are two camps, people who are so fucking far out that their plans could never come to fruition, and people who are just slightly modified versions of mainstream liberals. The result is, a bunch of angry young kids who should be fighting the system go into this, and they come out defenders of the status quo or hopeless idealists.
The point of the SJW phenomenon isnt to push a particular ideology, you can oppose it all you want. The point is to give the illusion that these topics are worth having positions on. Transrights and and all that shit are fine and good, but right now they couldnt be more irrelevent to the big picture.
We have all but openly declared class warfare. A surveilence state. Rising poverty. Depleting resources. Ecological disaster. These are the issues we need to be tackling.
>>58No fuck off. All opposing their Agenda does is reinforce the idea that the stupid bullshit they whine about is worth arguing about. We dont need to take a radical position on bourgeoise pre-approved questions. We need to start asking the right questions.
No.324
>>58Whats with all the /pol/tards pretending to read Evola lately?
No.332
>>18>>24Howdy, I'm more Libertarian with conservative values, but I believe this is totally the case. The exact same reputation-attacks are what occurred against the Tea Party. I've met a lot of people in various tea parties - of the ones that were religious, they were hardly religious. But the mainstream media and politicians kept calling them religious extemists and, remarkably, that's what they've become. At this point, people are too embarrassed to associate with the tea party, so moderates avoid it.
The EXACT same thing happened with Occupy Wall Street. The movement was the perfect chance for liberals and conservatives to lay aside differences, and say "We have many disagreements on what we don't like, but we all loathe the banking sector." I was astounded any reporter would be against banking reform… but ALL of the right-wingers were, and ALL of the left wingers didn't talk about the movement so much as simply how stupid the right-wingers were. It was a subtle, divide-and-conquer attack.
>>91I believe most people agree with most of this. Where our opinions obviously diverge is I believe that I would call the current system crony capitalism - I don't think the current system is due to the free market. And we all know that the media acts as a government pawn. I believe that politicians probably actually benefit MORE than businesses - if cap and trade had passed, sure, it would be harder for small businesses to compete with GE, but Al Gore would have nearly become a billionaire (thank you climategate).
I think the root cause is allowing politicians the power to control business. It's easy to imagine, and I know from people that I know - if you own a company, you might not feel good about yourself if you supported a politician so that they would protect you from competitors - but - and this is important - if you DON'T become corrupt, then the guy that does pay off politicians WILL get the trade advantage, and you might lose your business and all of your employees. NOT joining the crony capitalist system becomes a non-option.
>women as being the takers of shit - a man comes home and takes out his frustration on his wifeLost a lot of respect for you on that one, though. That's quite an assumption.
>>320I agree with
>>58Right wingers should also reject the christian coalition. Then you would have a lot of moderates or quasi-moderates willing to make actual progress on issues. I'm opposed to Obamacare, but if the nation wasn't split, maybe we at least wouldn't have Shit-tiercare.
Trouble is, the masses are too uneducated for this to be possible - they simply don't care enough to educate themselves.
No.334
>>332Thanks for being respectful
No.335
>>334Np - I try to frame things in my mind as - most people have the same basic morals and principles, so most people will agree on what they want to change. A lot of differences simply lie in the solutions.. which is problematic, but the way the media polarizes groups.. it's like they try to turn every damn thing into a fucking football game with hardcore fans on both sides.
Fact is, we both want the majority of people to live long, happy, and healthy lives. We don't need to spill blood over how to get there, although we might need to live in separate communities, haha, for logistical reasons.
No.348
>>238/Marx/ is barely even leftist. I feel like this board is just a bunch of Tankies. I thought all of the "hurt durrr feminazi" stuff would be confined to /pol/
Private produces certain gender roles in society. Challenging those gender roles goes against the notion of the division of labor that capitalism has created. Transphobia is very much a result of private property.
I don't get the whole "it isn't important right now" logic. Why can't you advocate more than one political issue at a time? There's no reason to say you can't advocate socialist revolution and also transgendered rights under capitalism, unless you have a remarkably short attention span you can do both. The int reason people in this thread are saying it's not important is because they clearly hold transphobic views. In which case you're re-enforcing oppression and you're a reaction fuck.
No.349
No.352
>>348What's wrong with gender roles?
No.355
>>352It places people into predetermined boxes based on something as superficial as biological sex.
It stifles the freedom of the individual to live life how they choose.
I don't even know why I have to explain this on a leftist board.
No.356
>>348It says a lot about you that you're so very concerned about the vanishingly small minority of the population that identify as trans.
No.358
>>356You think because most people are cis-gendered that means transgendered people don't deserve equality?
Once again, why do you consider yourself a leftist if you're clearly a rightist?
No.359
>>355Eh, I don't think its even that bad. Even transsexuals want to fit into the role of the other gender, which affirms the gender roles.
No.362
>>359Gender isn't about wanting to "fit" into a role, though. It's much deeper than that.
For example, we don't really have determined gender roles for the "third gender." Third gendered individuals feel like they fit into a third category distinct from the male-female binary. India kind of has a third gender category, but it's a little different than what I'm talking about.
No.368
>>358Nice try, whiner. My point is not that these groups do not deserve to be treated fairly. It's that I object to the huge amount of over-emphasis that these "causes" get amongst leftists, including supposedly radical leftists, in comparison to class and economic inequality.
Activism today requires an absurd degree of purity that very few people are actually able to achieve. Not to mention the fact that many chapters of Occupy literally spent more time debating the wording of their "anti-oppression policy" and reminding heterosexual white people that they are oppressors than they did fighting for economic justice…or any actual political change whatsoever.
Identity politics is a dead end for Leftism. It encourages narcissism, division and whining rather than effective action. Sincere and well-meaning people are alienated from left-wing politics because of shrill, bourgeoise university students droning on about "micro-aggressions."
No.370
>>368Okay, I'd agree with you that it's overemphasized in comparison to class analysises, and I agree that bourgeois "leftists" won't fundamentally criticize capitalism, and that's a problem.
As socialists, our first critique must always come from a private property angle. It doesn't mean we should denounce the cause from transgender rights, we should be very much for it.
No.373
>>362I just cant bring myself to care about that. Seems like much ado about nothing.
What does the end-game of your ideology even lead to? What would the world where that ideology is no longer needed be like?
No.374
>>370Look, if it was a question of voting on the question of whether women, gays and nonwhites should have equal rights then I would obviously vote "yes, of course they should be treated fairly." But I'm fed up with being treated like a child that doesn't know right from wrong. Protests that have literally nothing to do with gays or race or women's rights get hijacked by attention seekers that have to put in the 2 cents about how "this is an intersectional movement, we do not tolerate hate speech, safe spaces, blah blah blah."
People try to dismiss concerns about SJWism by saying that it's confined to Tumblr. It's not. It's in universities and most activist groups I see in the area. It prevents cooperation and mass participation because everyone is expected to agree completely on every single issue, or they're not welcome to help on unrelated issues.
No.375
>>373It might not matter to you, but it does matter to people who are transgendered.
It's difficult to conceive of a world where gender roles are eliminated because we've always lived in a world with them. Regardless, I think if people want to do something and it doens't harm others then depriving them of the right to be who they are is a great injustice.
No.377
>>374I agree with you that sectarianism is bad. I just think dismissing the transgender rights movement is harmful to our cause.
I think an appropriate reaction is to simply bring a Marxist perspective to the whole debate. I think privledge theory is a little off. Do white people have privledges black people do not enjoy? Sure. But simply acknowledging privledge doesn't solve anything. We remove those privledges by eliminating private property.
The problem with what everyone here is referring to as "SJWs" is that they're Capitalists who believe in idealism as opposed to materialism.
No.381
>>377Bringing a Marxist perspective doesn't get you anywhere because then you're just "mansplaining" and talking over POC/women/trans people. I repeat, this is not just a tumblr thing. It is really fucking common in universities and activist groups. People literally refuse to read Marx, or even acknowledge that he had some good ideas, because "he was a straight white male and we should be reading postcolonial queer theorists instead."
Much of mainstream Leftism as it currently exists is actively hostile to the white working class, and especially men.
No.382
>>381I'm pretty active in my Universities leftist political circles and nobody refuses to read Marx because he was a straight white male.
The left should be hostile to patriarchy, it always has been.
No.383
No.384
>>382What the fuck are you on about? I'm not complaining about left-wing groups being anti-sexism.
No.385
>>384You're claiming the same type of thing that MRAs claim when they think feminism is anti-white/anti-man
No.391
>>385Oh ffs, you do realise that "you're saying something vaguely similar to a group I don't like" is not actually a valid counter-argument, right?
You can deny it all you want, but the simple fact is that there are feminists that hate men and race theorists/activists that hate whites. It's not a trivial number of either group. And it is a problem for any sort of left movement in Western countries to alienate a large segment of the working class population.
No.398
>>391Except you're saying the same thing that the right does when it refers to those who criticize patriarchy and racism. Feminism is not "man hating" and race based theories are not "reverse racism" leveled on white people. Don't take criticisms of societal constructs so personally. There's nothing wrong with saying the power structure is predominantly white and male, and that white makes often hold the most reactionary views in our society. You shouldn't feel alienated because we point that out
No.399
No.400
>>399tfw all of these guys could be right
No.401
>>400MRAs infecting my left
No.405
>>404I lol'd at that picture but feminism is a positive thing for Marxism
No.406
>>405Yep, that's for sure, but SJW have nothing to do with feminism nor Marxism
No.410
>>399top kek
gbt /leftypol faggot
No.413
Two things:
1. the modern SJW "movement" (As people call it) are nothing more than Nazi 2.0, the fact that they hold Women as "superior" is just a dead fucking give away.
2. Any one calling this "cultural marxism" has no idea wha tthe fuck Marxism is, nor do they actually know what the fuck these SJW's stand for (number 1 btw)
thus, SJW's are nothing more than Nazi's, if not those, they have a very skewed superiority complex, and need to be stomped the fuck out
No.414
>>398You are misconstruing what I'm saying. Repeatedly. And, assuming that you're not a complete idiot, that makes me think that you're doing it on purpose.
I am NOT complaining about feminist or race theory. I am complaining about the behaviour and attitudes of MANY leftist activists who treat white men with suspicion and hostility, or at best as ignorant children that need to be educated for their own good. That's not comradely, it's alienating.
No.444
>>413> Nazi 2.0This post is the dumbest thing I've read in a long time.
No.449
Decent post about it:
>>>/leftypol/488
No.460
>>449> Some people get turned off by demanding political equality > Therefore, we shouldn't talk about political equality If somebody is turned off by the notion of LGBT rights, then they're certainly too reactionary to begin to discuss class struggle.
No.461
>>449Your reservations about intersectionality stem from your heterosexism. We should bring the topic of class to the forefront of these discussions, but there's nothing wrong with discussing issues like LGBT rights and racism under capitalism.
(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) No.468
>>461>>460Good job imagining my "real" motivations and beliefs. You are clearly extremely out of touch with average working class people. Good luck building a revolutionary movement filled with yuppie liberals.
No.480
>>461> User was Banned for this Postmarxist-leninist hug box intensifies. I like how responding to a thread on intersectionality with a dissenting opinion gets you banned. What's even the point of having the thread in the first place?
(Awaiting my inevitable ban)
No.483
>>468The average working class person is currently less receptive to Marxism than the legalization of gay marriage. I don't see how that's particularly out of touch. Our job should be to focus on class struggle, but a lot of the posts in this thread are /pol/ levels socially conservative
No.484
>>480There's a point beyond which we oughtn't need suffer it.
No.485
>>484I'd agree with banning people based on un-Marxist SJW stuff, but Marxist Feminism is a thing, and believing that we should advocate for stuff like gay marriage and transgendered rights as well as class struggle isn't anti-Marxist. We have the time to do both.
No.486
>>485It may be Marxist in name, but it seems non-Marxist in content. The other thing is that these issues are not simply a question of equal rights, which of course are desirable. However, with the way they are being used and presented nowadays, I think they are harmful to the socialist movement. Actual feminism is important, but a line is transgressed when it becomes a Trojan horse for disruption and subversion of the socialist movement and alienation of Marxism from the broad masses.
I think some degree of ideological purity is very important nowadays. We should be vigilant to avoid degenerating into SJWs.
No.487
>>486So it comes down to banning people for disagreeing with them? This board is going to forever be slow if you get banned for being anything other than an anti-feminist marxist-leninist
No.488
>>483Oh fuck off you retard. The average working person is very receptive to discussions of economic inequality but is completely alienated by shrill SJWs screeching about rape culture, heteronormativity and microaggressions. I never suggested that socialist movements should tolerate abusive or hateful behaviour. I never suggested that gay rights were not worthwhile. That is not what is in dispute here. The point I am making is that American leftists' pathological obsession with identity politics, and the insistence on putting it at the forefront of all activism, is deeply alienating to most working class people.
No.490
>>487
>This board is going to forever be slow if you get banned for being anything other than an anti-feminist marxist-leninistThat's not my intention. I just want to preserve a certain degree of correctness in the general ideological atmosphere of this board. I'd rather have Nazis and ancaps here debating Marxism itself rather than SJWs trying to inject their toxic bullshit and pollute the perceived meaning of Marxism. But you may have a point. I'll think about what you said.
No.491
>>488Talking about economic inequality and Marxism are not the same thing. Bourgeois liberals talk about economic inequality all the fucking time, but they don't tackle the notions of alienated labor and the elimination of private property.
> retard> getting this mad No.492
>>490I sort of get that angle. It would be bad policy to just have thread after thread about rape culture and the likes when it isn't a strictly "Marxist" theory. I still think there's space for the discussion of stuff like feminism and sexuality within Marxist circles though, especially on a thread related to SJWs.
No.499
It's probably been implied before but a large issue of the identity politics bubble is that the rivers that are created for people looking for a change or caught up in frustration flow to either SJW types/"liberals", or after seeing that and going "what the fuck" -> the "right wing" which then explains to them that what they saw as the problem was in fact "marxism" or socialists and "feminists" etc. (which leads to funny phenomena such as (in the case of sex-negative feminism, which SJW mostly seem to stand for) both the rivers creating more or less a version of the same puritanism/old values)
These two sides then play ping-pong with each other into eternity while we're still ruled by the same class, even in some cases the same people and the same money, that never gets touched.
There might be true believers, but I honestly do believe the origin of it stems directly from (as has been noted elsewhere) cointelpro in the past.
Other than that, I find myself pretty much in complete agreement with
https://8chan.co/marx/res/121.html#q379 No.510
>>58What is this "Iron Pill" shit all about?
No.513
>>499I mostly agree. One thing to point out to others is that opposing SJWs doesn't automatically put you into the radically opposing camp, nor the reverse. We should find the correct line, even if it falls outside of the mainstream dichotomy.
No.561
File: 1411907440044.jpg (494.24 KB, 1417x860, 1417:860, difference between sociali….jpg)
Know the difference
No.566
I think that the SJW agenda has effectively killed the left, cut its body into a billion pieces with identity politics.
Bayard Rustin's criticism of affirmative action is still 100% relevant.
No.567
>>566I think affirmative action is a logical response to certain racist structres.
It doesn't solve the root of the problem, but it isn't intended to solve the root of the problem.
The problem with identity politics is that it often isn't radical enough (never tackling issues like class struggel) . But I still think it's useful in some ways.
No.568
>>355>It places people into predetermined boxes based on something as superficial as biological sex. I think biological sex is only truly superficial for a relatively small group of people in either sex. At this point, I don't believe that nursing and childcare is female dominated and engineering and programming male dominated
only because of social conditioning.
No.569
>>567>identity politics>But I still think it's useful in some ways.Could you explain further?
No.571
>>401>>399>>385>MRA boogieman>maletears.jpgAssuming this is same anon, you're making it hard to take you seriously.
No.573
>>399I like how she had to put "Look, SWEETIE" in front of the class statement to make it sound unreasonable.
No.575
>>405Anything good that feminism has done for working class women is a byproduct of things it did for rich women. It might even have been bad for working class women in the long run now a poor family can't survive on one income.
No.577
>>491>> retardTRIGGER WARNING FOR ABELISM No.595
>>444Considering you prob havent even read up on basic Feminist theory (Modern ones that is), you have no right to defend these supremecists.
No.633
>>575> having this amount of lack of faith in working class women. > not recognizing that sexism hurts the workers more than any other class No.712
>>355Biological sex is hardley superficial, evolutionary psychology has plenty to say empirically on just how non superficial it really is.
Sure there are outliers in the gender binary, but there is a very real reason why most genders seem pretty clear cut regardless of what society you are observing.
No.725
>>399fucking r/anarchism/
No.727
I stand for many the same thing as them(mainly the mainstream issues they tackle: LGBT issues, abortion, and whathaveyou) but either the way they broadcast their message or maybe just the entire way they tackle them irritates me.
It doesn't help that they take on campaigns that as a socialist I see as the problem of capitalism and turn the issue on it's head quite often.
No.734
SJW IS Marxism
No.736
>>734Nah, they would be far less annoying if they were
the lack of a proper analysis of society in their activism leads them to the weird kinda liberal victim worshipping as the answer rather than a marxist view of the oppressed
No.738
>>9It's capitalist degeneracy, just like homosexuality.
No.739
>>11Ugh I know how you feel. Check out our tumlbresque communist party.
http://communist-party.ca/ No.743
>>738Homosexuality is not caused by capitalism, it's not our fault shit like tumblr and pride happened, we just wanted equal treatment
No.745
>>743No, but modern homosexual culture is definitely capitalist is nature
No.746
>>745>homosexual culturethere isn't a universal
homosexual culture I can only assume you mean gatherings like
pride or some such which are hardly a fair representation of us
No.749
>>355Biological see I'd not even remotely superficial.
No.750
>>746Then do something about it. Ad it stands now they represent homosexuals and they will until the non decadent guys get them to shut the duck up
No.756
>>746Even if it isn't "universal" meaning all the same everywhere, there is still of course some elements of the culture which involve homosexuality. The ideas we have about homosexuality are cultural. Consider the difference between Western liberal countries and Islamic countries in terms of the role of homosexuality in the culture, both in terms of ideas about it and homosexual activity itself. There are clear cultural differences here. Both sides might naively think that their own cultural view is not cultural, but instead natural, or "closer to the real natural truth" than the other side, but we can't truthfully say they aren't cultural views. In the West we have certain cultural ideas about homosexuality, and I would say that many of these could be considered decadent or bourgeois for the reasons given above.
No.757
>>756Oops, thought I was in the other thread. Still, what I said mostly applies here.
No.759
>>756Well…yes, you're correct but I wasn't exactly referring to western culture, merely challenging that there is a homosexual culture that directly represents homosexuals
also, you believe homosexuality is bourgeois because of differing cultural opinions in islamic countries, I don't understand this or perhaps i'm simply not understanding your point.
No.767
>>759
>you believe homosexuality is bourgeois because of differing cultural opinions in islamic countriesThat's not what I mean. I mean that the role of homosexuality in both societies are both "cultural" meaning that there in in fact a "homosexual culture" in the sense that each culture has different ways of addressing and thinking about homosexuality. This was a response to the assertion that were was no "universal homosexual culture". Even though there is no universal homosexual culture, because culture isn't generally universal, there is still homosexual culture that we can discuss; lack of universality doesn't exempt it from analysis. I think that they way we think about homosexuality in the West, especially but not certainly not exclusively with LGBT activists and SJWs, often uses metaphysical, individualist, and idealist ideological frameworks. I think we should think of homosexuality and sexuality in general from a dialectical materialist point of view, rather than a metaphysical idealist point of view.
No.780
>>198Trotsky Trotsky Trotsky Trotsky Trotsky Trotsky Trotsky Trotsky Trotsky Trotsky Trotsky Trotsky Trotsky Trotsky Trotsky Trotsky Trotsky Trotsky Trotsky Trotsky
No.1042
SJW's and liberal feminists are capitalists, they're part of the problem. That said I think the relationship between Marxists and Marxist feminists is important especially since they haven't lost sight of what the fight was originally all about.
No.1045
File: 1413946557497.png (364.59 KB, 607x750, 607:750, 765_415139795218783_193573….png)
I'm a Communist and I think SJW's suck.
No.1114
Despite how I'm sure I'll get called a brocialist, (I'm looking for a red fedora just to piss people off.) I actually agree with sjw on a lot of things, just not their angle.
I do think sex is a struggle for power. I cannot say it'll always be that way, material conditions change a lot. But as it stands TODAY, relationships are a class war and the women are the lumpen bourgeois of it. I say petty bourgeois because they have more social standing in court, in the formation, but don't "own" the means of production. Perhaps labor aristocracy is better here. The fact is regardless of the "rape culture" there is also a very vivid "cunt culture" that treats men like shit for no reason, and establishes a society that thinks it's healthy for women to expect expensive rings, flamboyant rituals called marriage to make them feel like a Disney princess, but a man expecting a normal, monogamous relationship is self-entitlement.
I openly disagreed with my brother Jason Unruhe over the fat positive aspect of sjw. He proclaimed they are denying basic science. They said no such thing. We know fat is unhealthy, but it's nearly unavoidable in the first world. Obesity is rampant, and it is disgusting and stupid to shame people for their weight when it has become the majority. It's just another way to exalt the upper class who can afford health, or spend all their time being healthy and don't grow any sort of character. Fat positive's heart is in the right place if misguided in the means. I think we should push for publically available gyms, artificial pricing on food to make healthy food cheap as balls and fast food a luxury.
I think racial minorities and trans tend to get thrown under the bus a lot in the sjw community. We quickly ignore the plight of blacks, Muslims, and transgendered. Ever been to a dating site? Such "progressive" women are racist as fuck, and despite being "sex positive" have the nerve to call trans-men or trans-women freaks. While I only care about gender from a purely biological standpoint and think "gender identity" actually hurts the medical, psychological, and other human studies fields by humoring gender binary, I can also see their alienation and it disturbs me. Their choice to appear more feminine or more masculine to such extremes is well within their right. I don't think such things would even happen or at least as much were the alienation of people diminished along with less crap food fucking with our hormones.
No.1115
>>461>>480I'm in somewhat agreement. However, it's not about "Marxist place that hurts my feelings". Quite the opposite, someone obviously doesn't stop to think if they can't even manage to practice Marxism on a little 8chan group, what makes them equipped to tlk about revolution at all? What's their excuse? "Mu'h property?"
Banings are a form of discrimination and hate-crime as well. At best, it's petty bourgeois to be a moderator. Controlling a confined means of production to extract wealth, notoriety, and privileges at the expense of others. Sure no moderator, hell, no web admin here could be compared to Moot or Mark Zuckerberg, but than your employer isn't comparible to Bill Gates. Doesn't mean they haven't done something criminal or unforgivable.
Moderators are counter-revolutionary kulaks.
No.1124
>>1115People take bannings so seriously it seems. I admit though that I have gone at least slightly overboard in the past. So I think I'll probably generally tone it down a bit henceforth.
No.1127
>>743I normally post on /pol/. Do any of you find it weird That only 2 years ago, Tumblr was nothing more than the largest unregulated p0rn and gif dump on the net before turning into SJW central in the blink of an eye. I wonder if it has something to do with the Yahoo buyout, or…what I found on /pol/ just now (screenshot enclosed).
No.1129
>>1127Whoa, that's actually makes a lot of sense. Let's see how things go after she wins. If SJWism dies down, it might be evidence for it.
No.1146
>mfw I actually find myself agreeing with Jim Profit
No.1147
>>1114good points.
>>1115get a dynamic ip you baby lmao
No.1154
>>1114>considers fat shaming worse than grocery ghettos for the poorI really hate you children.
No.1235
>>1129>>1127And just think of it: Before Obama was elected, pop culture was anti-racist black culture. Back in the 2000s, remember?
No.1244
>>1235I wonder if the Democratic party will eventually gain a monopoly over political system by defeating the Republicans. After all, they each represent certain sections of the capitalist class, but as capital becomes more and more concentrated and monopolized, maybe one party will win out in the end.
No.1254
File: 1415012311804.png (252.52 KB, 1163x816, 1163:816, book_gottfried_feder_haddi….PNG)
>>413>1. the modern SJW "movement" (As people call it) are nothing more than Nazi 2.0SJW has nothing to do with "Nazism" or "National Socialism" and you make all Marxists look stupid by posting that kind of crap. The #1 most important idea in "National Socialism" or "Nazism" was the idea of "freeing the proletarian workers and the middle classes from the shackles of debt interest slavery" and "eliminating incomes unearned without work" as is explained in the central Manifesto of National Socialism (Nazis) which was written by Gottfried Feder in 1919 which you can read for free at the amazon.com link below:
http://www.amazon.com/Manifesto-Abolition-Enslavement-Interest-Gottfried-ebook/dp/B009Q85R32/Gottfried Feder not only wrote that ^^ book but he also wrote the 25 point NSDAP program which was what got the NSDAP elected in to the German parliament, so you could definitely say that Feder was the most important economic theorist in Nazism from 1919 to 1941 or so. So if you want to learn what the real (actual) original German "Nazis" really believed in their own words then you have to read that Gottfried Feder book because this book is much, much, *MUCH* more important than Mein Kampf as Feder's publishing of this book was the initializing force that directly led to the founding of the DAP by Anton Drexler, Gottfried Feder, Dietrich Eckart and the rest (this was before Hitler had even joined the party).
The tl;dr of Nazism or "National Socialism is that Gottfried Feder and Dietrich Eckart are for Naziism what Karl Marx and Engels are for Marxism, whereas the "Strasser Brothers vs Hitler" conflict in NatSoc is similar to the Trotsky vs Stalin conflict in Marxism, and the Nazism sees "incomes unearned without work" (such as incomes earned from loaning out money at interest or speculating on the stock market) as being "parasitic" incomes that need to be removed in the same way that Marxism wants to remove the bourgeoisie. The fact that Jews and Bankers and Gypsies were over-represented in the area of "incomes unearned without work" (i.e. loaning out money at interest) led to them being targeted by the National Socialists of that time period but you have to understand that the intellectual justification for targeting them was Feder's economic theories, similar to how Marx-Lenin's economic theories led to the Kulaks being targeted.
No.1258
>>1254Interesting, especially the comparison between the Strasser brothers, etc.
Overall your posr makes sense and yeah people should maybe avoid calling SJWs Nazis. It just helps to discredit them given the popular (possibly incorrect) ideas about Nazis.
No.1259
>>1258On that note, imagine if Trotsky had been purged like he was, but on the other hand Hitler and the right-wing faction had also been purged instead of the Strasserites. And they ganged up together on Britain and France and the USA… That would be a very interesting alternate history.
No.1260
>>1259Strasserism is still right-wing, racist, and ultra-nationalist.
Trotsky would have been just as likely to declare war on Strasserist Germany as Hitlerist Germany.
Never view fascists as anything other than scum.
No.1266
>>1260I kind of feel like fascism is closer to socialism than liberialism. What do you think?
No.1267
>>1266neither are even close to socialism
and frankly fascists are more dangerous
No.1270
>>1266I don't see how it's closer. Both are bourgeois ideologies, the difference being that fascism is the last resort and is an open dictatorship which crushes Marxism as well as liberalism.
Marxists defend bourgeois-democratic liberties insofar as they give room for the development of the workers' movement. Liberalism upholds said liberties so long as they keep the bourgeoisie in power, whereas fascism crushes them.
No.1276
>>1270Well it has a lot of socialized industrires, disdain for "undeserved profit", the idea that labor should benefit the society, and has a strong central government undertaking some economic planning. I feel like in that way it's building the foundations for socialism. Lenin said fascism was capitalism in decay, and didn't Marx say that as capitalism develops (decaying is the end stage of developing) that the foundations for socialism would be simultaneously built?
I get what you mean about the liberties. But I sort of think the transition from fascism to socialism would be easier than the transition from liberalism to socialism.
No.1277
>>1267Maybe closer in the dialectical sense though.
No.1280
>>561>churchill>anti fascistif anything churchill was one of the worst fascists who ever have lived.
and where are che, fidel, luxemburg & liebknecht etc?
No.1281
>>1276What Nazis say and what they do are two different things. The Nazis crushed the labor movement, and their "planning" had nothing in common with what the Soviets did.
I don't see how it'd be easier to transition either. In both cases (bourgeois democracy and fascist dictatorship) a revolution is required, and in both cases you'd need to expropriate capitalist property which is untouched under both systems.
These two books should give you a decent idea of the reactionary nature of fascism:
*
http://bookzz.org/book/981420/378c5d*
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1ZP6ZurgOg-RTZHdy1TenpmREk/editIf anything transition was more difficult because of the wartime damage.
>>1280Churchill was many things (rabid anti-communist, anti-semite, racist, etc.) but he wasn't a fascist. When Nazi Germany was becoming a threat he was smart enough to realize that the British bourgeoisie couldn't "come to terms" with Nazism and force it to march eastwards to attack the USSR, and that the Nazis would attack the West first.
And for all his inveterate hatred of Bolshevism, "If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons."
But yeah calling him an anti-fascist is still pretty silly. He did admire Mussolini throughout the 20s, as did FDR in the 30s.
No.1282
>>1281Also while we're on the subject, the Nazis actually involved themselves in privatization, see: www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf
No.1285
File: 1415257935784.jpg (258.9 KB, 1163x816, 1163:816, book_gottfried_feder_haddi….jpg)
>>1254>The #1 most important idea in "National Socialism" or "Nazism" was the idea of "freeing the proletarian workers and the middle classes from the shackles of debt interest slavery" and "eliminating incomes unearned without work" as is explained in the central Manifesto of National Socialism (Nazis) which was written by Gottfried Feder in 1919>>1258>>1259If anybody here wants to read Gottfried Feder's book on "National Socialist" economic theory you can download it for free at the link below (this book is more about the left wing "Strasse" kind of National Socialism and it is purely economic theory and the entire book is pretty much free from racism). Start reading at around page 22 where it says "Mammonism is the heavy, all-encompassing and overhwelming sickness…." Here is the link:
https://7chan.org/lit/src/Feder-InterestSlavery-trans_Hadding_Scott.pdf No.1286
No.1308
>>1127tumblr was known fo rbeing full of hipsters 2 years ago. there was a /b/ raid in 2012. not too much of a switch from "fucking hipsters" to "social justice warriors"