/lit/ - Literature

>>16147182
>No, neolibs focus on race
Not any of the previous anons but i have to disagree on that one chief.
There are a lot of lefties that do indeed fall into that and for me its countless the amount of times i see people on social media (mostly white women) that larp as being leftist and "woke" but play with the concepts of race just as much as a white supremacist does. These are the people that invent whole jargons like "white privelege", "black culture", "cultural apropriation", endlessly fetishizing the black man on interracial relations etc.

These people literally play with the same building blocks that any racist does but use it to gain power and extract surplus value in other ways, instead of using it to claim to be of the superior race they use it to gain authority over who's being racist or not, who is morally right, who is the oppressed minority that can have a opinion based on his race etc.
I dont think it has anything to do with the doctrine of leftism itself, but it is often a plague that attaches to it in reaction the the more racist right, and drags it down from its original purpose.

>>15106712
Not that much but sentences like that are proof you indeed lack mental capacity to look into those studies and find why they are rich.
>>15106723
God, do i really need to explain to you why i did a stupid simile scenario to show you how retarded your question with rich people was?
I thought you got the idea after some anon pointed out the joke, but your peanut sized brain cant still understand. You really are an idiot. And there is no point of going further with this discussion, i already gave you all the sources to dismantle your naive assumptions.