[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 58 KB, 640x422, 1396161357530.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4716590 No.4716590[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

What are the best critiques of identity politics and the concept of 'privilege' from a leftist perspective?

>> No.4716610

>>4716590
Dhalgren

>> No.4716625

>>4716590
Marx. Exploitation. Labour Power. James & Dalla Costa. Wages for Housework. The General Critique of Ideology.

FUCKSAKE JOIN THE FUCKING UNION.

>> No.4716631

>>4716625
It astounds me how many of these so-called 'liberal' kids are anti-union, sometimes vocally so. I mean what's the fucking point of being a leftist? Just go join the Libertarians and leave me be.

>> No.4716638

>>4716590
I've heard form some communists who say identity politics are just distractions the liberals use. And I tend to agree. (They sure are dragging these social advances out) Any progress is appreciated of course, but there isn't enough coverage of the financial ruin on tv.
And "slutwalk" is a term I only hear on this board. "Rape culture" I have heard outside of it a bit more, but "war on women" is the big media winner.

'Privilege'? The privileged are the trust fund kiddies, the born retired. They're the privileged. No there is nothing natural about arranging civilization any one way or another. I just want to do what's right for everyone.

>> No.4716641

>>4716631
>join
>libertarians
We are not a club.

>> No.4716643

>>4716631
they're cunts who just want their "fair" share of the wages of exploitation
aux armes, etc

>> No.4716647

>>4716641
It's more of a cult.

>>4716631
The decades of propaganda in schools and media have worn away a good deal of them.
Though I was able to grow out of my Christian conservative background on my own... They're just waiting for the right switch to be flicked I think.

>> No.4716650

>>4716631
Unions did it to themselves. Too many unions have been exposed publicly for corruption/greed/incompetence. Plus the Union is just another power structure and thus must be rallied against. When in reality the true menace of our time our the HOA's of the world, but todays youth won't realize it till it's too late.

>> No.4716652
File: 113 KB, 241x255, 1390608667913.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4716652

>>4716647
>cult
Its like youre not even trying.

>> No.4716654

The problem with privilege is that it runs up against a prickly wall. You should be well aware of what this is.

On the off chance you aren't I'll spell it out. Free will is a meaningless concept. If you take exception to this feel free(lel) to give me a *definition* of free will or point me towards a text that *defines* it. I can already guarantee you won't do this, because no such definition exists, because the term is meaningless.

Now the problem this causes for notions of privilege is that *nobody* deserves *anything* they get. Either you aim for complete lack of suffering(if such a thing is possible) or you admit that a normal person is *priviledged* to not be a murderer, because of the pain it causes that individual to be one.

The leftist obsession with race and gender completely misses the point. Its suffering that matters, and they will never come close to eradicating it short of inventing miracle drugs or genetic manipulation. Adversity is natural, and differences in ability also.

All that being said I don't disagree with the Civil Rights movement of course, and certain Feminist ideals, although I despise those that compare the two.

>> No.4716659

>>4716650
>...the true menace of our time are the HOA's of the world.

>> No.4716662

>>4716650
It's the common man's power structure. It's not perfect, but no institution of men is perfect. It's probably the best we'll get, though. Unless you have a better way for the average person to gain prosperity from the tight-fisted managerial class.

>> No.4716669

>>4716652
It was a one-off line.

Here (again)
There is no value to money. Paper or gold. None. Oh wait, gold conduct electricity and it's shiny. So what?

The value you and the rest of us have to place on it is all just faith based. A spook as the Stirnerists would say, and it really is. The bull of Wall Street is just Ba'al repurposed.

>> No.4716674

>>4716669
wut

>> No.4716676

You'll find the best critiques of these sort of tumblr identity politics from a critical race theory perspective. Careful you don't succumb to the oppression olympics charade though.

>> No.4716677

>>4716662
Unions have done a lot of good over the decades, but pretty much every contact I've had with them over the past few years has left a distaste in my mouth. From the person trying to unionize the fast food workers at a Wendys when I was in High School, to the union that formed for the adjunct professors at the community college, and the firefighters union during the governors election. They've all been overcome with greed to the point that they hurt their own and cause problems for everyone else. But they don't care as long as the union can line it's pockets.

>> No.4716678

>>4716669
Monsieur Papillon,

Merci pour la récommendation pour L'ancien régime et la Revolution, l'écriture éprouve une connaissance assez profonde et de plus une exactitude incommun pour le temps dans lequel l'oeuvre était crée.

>> No.4716682

Sadly I'm beginning to doubt that any such critique could have much sway in an argument. If you are a white cis male then there's automatically nothing you can say. If you are part of an oppressed group and are criticizing the ideology, than you're just an "uncle tom," or a "reactionary liberal," or some other label that basically means "traitor." At best they will tell you that you're just not educated.

What is to be done when logic fails? Disregard them, and organize. The only political groups that ever accomplish anything are the ones that stay focused and stick together. These other self-proclaimed "radicals" are more often at each other's throats than anyone else's. Just let them stew in their own juices. Consensus can still be built amongst the general public regarding economic inequality and money in politics.

>> No.4716686

>>4716677
You're generalizing, and internalizing what you've been fed by the broader social consciousness. What do you think will happen if unions go away? It's back to 80 hour weeks and dangerous conditions. Mark my words, the captains of industry and finance have gotten no less wicked and rapacious. They will squeeze and squeeze until they draw blood, and something must stand in their way.

>> No.4716687

>>4716674
Which part are you having trouble with?

>>4716678
Vous êtes bienvenu

>> No.4716690

>>4716682
The actual way to convince them is to be stereotypically masculine. Subtly treat them like they're inferior and casually question their beliefs as though you're on their side and you can start to change their minds. Their views were made by propaganda and they can be changed back the same way. They secretly want to listen to a strong person telling them what matters and how they should think, if you offer them that without telling them thats what it is you can make a big change.
The other night I got a feminist woman to tell me she thought men were disadvantaged in many different areas of life, as though it were her opinion, to which I responded that they were just weak men, and she agreed.
Their entire ideology is based off of emotion, not logic, very few of them have a background in philosophy or politics or even a cursory understanding of the matter.

They will listen to you. Its all about how you appear. Surface and emotion is everything to these people

>> No.4716691

>>4716687
all the bullshit. basically the entire post

>> No.4716699

>>4716687
random drifter from /v/ here,

what the fuck do you even understand what libertarian means?

>> No.4716707 [DELETED] 

The Fourth World War
http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/auto/fourth.html

>> No.4716709

The Fourth World War
http://mondediplo.com/1997/09/marcos

>> No.4716711

>>4716699
Someone who rejects empiricist economics, or a neoliberal.

>> No.4716712
File: 471 KB, 474x379, 1391320697359.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4716712

>>4716699
>crossboard posting
>ever

>> No.4716718

>>4716711

Nope

>> No.4716722

>>4716699
A hypocritical anarchist.

>> No.4716723

>>4716712
are you always this ignorant in the literature board?

I would have assumed you guys behave like gentlemen.

>> No.4716724

>>4716691
I'll start again. Pay attention.
There isn't any value to money. Only what we assign to it.
See?
Look at it from the other end. I don't want money. I want food, clothing and shelter. And there it is. It does take effort to make food, clothing and shelter, but that's cool, I'll go through that effort and I'll help others to get that too.

>>4716699
It's subtitle is "Socially liberal but economically conservative" And the latter is what I have a problem with since it fucks up the former no end.

>> No.4716725

>>4716718
I'm sorry, have you even read The Libertarian Manifesto? Or are you talking about leftist libertarians?

>> No.4716727

>>4716723
Hence why you should just leave

>> No.4716730

>>4716724
>with since it fucks up the former no end.

No, it doesn't. Not even a little bit. Your definition of liberal is obviously high taxes and welfare spending. Libertarianism is for small government. At its heart, you can just say that the government should only exist to protect citizens from force, fraud, and theft.

>> No.4716732

>>4716727
but you're making me stay with your increasingly banal and repulsive personality, the edge of which is like a cult.

>> No.4716733

>>4716730
http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Firefighters-watch-as-home-burns-to-the-ground-104052668.html

So who was in the wrong here?

>> No.4716734

>>4716690
I've been in enough arguments to know that this approach utterly fails to convince anyone but the weakest of the bandwagon. In any event, I'm not interested in promoting male superiority or white supremacy. Clearly certain groups have it better than others, and I see no reason to maintain the status quo. I would like to see progress, but these "radicals" trivialize the struggles of people who actually suffer from oppression and violence, like the boy who cried wolf. Moreover, they infest other movements, roll out their platform with the expectation that they'll be the center of attention, and then rail against everyone when they're not. They expect everyone to come out and support their cause, but when there's another cause, they can't be bothered.

>> No.4716737

>>4716723

Going to other boards and telling them how civilized and intelligent /lit/ is is actually just an old meme. In reality, it's /tv/ with books.

>> No.4716738

>>4716730
Libertarianism is for small *public* government or none at all, but there is no objection to privately owned government.

>> No.4716739

>>4716733

The homeowner. He even says so: "but I was wrong."

>> No.4716740

>>4716732
>still here
your fault.

>> No.4716750

>>4716734
Well we're of two minds.

I dont care about other people, thats just how I am, I don't see empathy as different than hunger. Now their caring about others is shallow and unimportant. Family, love, community can have a kind of depth, other than that its politeness and fear mixed with some warmth.

Policy is a different matter.

>> No.4716756

A nice critique.

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/feral-faun-essays#toc10


http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/wolfi-landstreicher-from-politics-to-life-ridding-anarchy-of-the-leftist-millstone

>> No.4716758

>>4716730
>you can just say that the government should only exist to protect citizens from force, fraud, and theft.
A small govt couldn't do that, hell it's huge and it doesn't want to now. Why, one might ask. Because the small govt has been replaced with a plutocracy.

>>4716722
>A hypocritical anarchist.
^

>> No.4716762

>>4716758

This guy is like the typical /lit/ poster. Everything he says sounds like something he read from a book by a much smarter person. I can't even tell if he understands half of what he is saying.

>> No.4716774

>>4716762
I tried to understand economics, but gave it up. I do understand it from a historical perspective much better.

But my point ITT has yet to be challenged. I got a "wut" and some similar fuddering, but now the thread decays into ad homs, and spirals into a thousand hurt butts ignoring any empiricism shown.

>> No.4716782 [DELETED] 

>>4716762
>He

Butterfly will quickly become a stunning example of why even intelligent women are still women, anon. Stick around.

>> No.4716787

>>4716590
Found this recently.
Seems to be a Marxish takedown of the idea of a uniform "white privilege"

>> No.4716791

>>4716650
Because other economic units has been so moral.

>> No.4716793

>>4716782
C'est une femme? Mondieu je comprends alors.

>> No.4716799

>>4716793
Oui

>> No.4716805

>>4716737
>Leon the Professional is /tv/'s Lolita
It fits!

>> No.4716808

Identity politics fractures homogeneous demographics that facilitate marketing and control, so bourgeois "leftists" hate it.

>> No.4716810

>>4716787
And I forgot the fucking link
http://richgibson.com/RacismSpector.htm

>> No.4716817

>>4716808
Identity politics fractures different proletariat groups into competing factions, so actual Marxists should hate it.

>> No.4716826

>>4716817
There's no competition going on between Native Americans and trans* groups.

>> No.4716829

>>4716817
>proletariat
proletarian

Also sections of the class ought to feel free to organise towards the unity of the class from their immediate circumstances.

>> No.4716834

>>4716829
might want to look at this
>>4716709

>> No.4716837

>>4716826
Of course not.
The competition is between men and women, whites and PoCs. Straights and gays. Working class blacks have more in common with working class whites than they do with ultra-rich blacks.
>>4716829
Sorry bout that. I was just going to say "proles" because I wasn't sure.

>> No.4716838

>>4716834
>http://mondediplo.com/1997/09/marcos
I find Marcos irrelevant to organising white collar workers apart from the one basic lesson: derive the theory from the material circumstances.

>> No.4716839

>>4716834
>Globalisation is merely the totalitarian extension of the logic of the finance markets to all aspects of life.
This is fucking retarded. I am angry at how dumb this is.

Globalization is due to technology's evolution, not fucking politics and economics. Jesus fucking balls I hate leftists and republicans

>> No.4716841

>>4716837
>Sorry bout that. I was just going to say "proles" because I wasn't sure.
prole/s works for noun or adjective

>> No.4716843

>>4716690
>>4716734
Funny you guys think you've got it sussed.

>> No.4716849

>>4716839
Technology is the tool of economics and politics, not vice versa.

>> No.4716856

>>4716839
You don't think colonialism and neoliberalism might have played a part?

>> No.4716862
File: 26 KB, 309x488, camus 001.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4716862

>>4716839
>>4716849
>muh all or nothing mentality

>> No.4716863

>>4716856
Theyre irrelevant delusions of control. Power has always ruled humanity and technology afford massive power and subsequent stratification
>>4716849
You have it backwards. See how long your precious beliefs survive the next technological paradigm shift

>> No.4716883

>>4716849
>Still no response to the fact that identity politics divides the working class

>> No.4716972

>>4716883
Actually that article was pretty good. I know the standard socialist line to women and blacks was "stop dividing the struggle", but's easy for white guys to say that and then treat both like shit and lay the blame on them. Truth, there's plenty of discrimination from the left; there has been from the beginning and there still is; I want to be a part of the left, but I don't care to waste me time with leftists who can't realize this

>> No.4716977

>>4716849
technology controls history, humans are powerless to stop it, didn't u read gravity's rianbow

>> No.4716980

>>4716977
That's a feeling, it's not a reality. Humans are very capable of stopping technology when they put their mind to it; except for specialized flexible departments, the USSR, for instance, was opposed to innovation almost everywhere because if it resulted in a higher output than quota, then that higher output would become the new quota. All advances had to come from higher up.

>> No.4716985

>>4716980
and when the soviet union couldn't keep up with the technological advances of other countries what happened to it?

is there are a literature board with smarter people on it somewhere? i'm sick of explaining basic shit to plebs.

>> No.4716988
File: 214 KB, 500x500, one day you may.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4716988

>>4716590
>What are the best critiques of identity politics and the concept of 'privilege' from a leftist perspective?

Not literature related.
Why are garbage threads like this allowed to exist?

>> No.4716990

>>4716985
>Arguing with a tripfag called "feminister"
>Being shocked by the results

>> No.4716991

>>4716985
The Soviet Union's economic and political system is mainly what hindered its technological advancement.

>> No.4716994

>>4716991
yeah, and what the fuck is your point?

>> No.4716998

>>4716994
>>4716849

>> No.4717000 [DELETED] 

>>4716994
soviet union couldn't keep up technologically because if its ideology, the ideology died off, technology kept on rolling forward. are you trolling me or just retarded.

>> No.4717003

>>4716998
soviet union couldn't keep up technologically because if its ideology, the ideology died off, technology kept on rolling forward. thanks for supporting the thesis, idiot.

>> No.4717007

>>4717003
Technology doesn't just "roll forward" of its own accord these days. It depends entirely on funding and purpose. So if a better bomb serves the interests of politics and economy, that is what is going to be developed; sole reason it is developed is because politics and economics desire it to be; there is no new significant technology that isn't preceded by their desire for it, any technology that is opposed by these forces, doesn't happen, and all technology that does happen, happens because it is desired.

>> No.4717030

>>4717007
You're talking about direction of technology, not progression of technology.
Technology will move forward in some way, always, because that is the nature of technology, unless something like a nuclear war happens.
All you're saying is that the focus of technological improvement can be directed.
You're right.
It just can't be stopped.

>> No.4717038

>>4716650
>Too many unions have been exposed publicly for corruption/greed/incompetence.
This is just what thatcher/reagan wanted you to think. and their plan worked perfectly. They privitised the planet for minority interest groups, reduced politics to a single word: freedom, and relegated notions of justice, parity, balance and equality to dirty words, vices of filthy heathens, the unemployed, students and Catholics. it was so successful that there is nos such thing as a mainstream left wing party anymore. Now everybody thinks like them.

>> No.4717043

>>4716631
Its a natural result of neoliberalism's ideological dominance and its twisted notion of freedom.

Its great as one of the ultimate manifestations of narcissism it fragments the populations political drive and reinforces the inequalities and suffering each of these revolutionary types supposedly wish to end.

>> No.4717045

>>4717030
Technology which does not intensify power or produce profit will not likely move forward substantially, and technology with is unhealthy for either of these things will probably see eradication effort that will lead to regressing of extinction of said technology unless significant resistance is met.

>> No.4717049

>>4717045
>regression or extinction

If you truly think technology can move forward against the grain of economics or politics, please consider planned obsolescence.

>> No.4717054

>>4716972

That isn't the 'line towards women and blacks', the socialist perspective, generally speaking, integrates gender and race into the structure of class society.

My personal view on it is that these groups are important, but they have a tendency to degenerate into particularism, hierarchy and prejudice. But if you don't like the way the left operates, but want to be part of it, then join and change it, anything else sounds like an excuse.

>> No.4717060

>>4717038
David Harvey rights about this shift in values rather well.

I will say that were there is smoke there is fire and the union movements confused stance on socialism was one of the big ills that caused their fall. Demarcation and other inter labour conflicts greatly diminished their social standing amongst the people, especially in the UK.

>> No.4717061

>>4717045

Don't bother arguing with him, he's a technocratic retard high off of the smell of his own bullshit.

>> No.4717063

>>4717054
>That isn't the 'line towards women and blacks', the socialist perspective, generally speaking, integrates gender and race into the structure of class society.
In theory, sure.

>My personal view on it is that these groups are important, but they have a tendency to degenerate into particularism, hierarchy and prejudice. But if you don't like the way the left operates, but want to be part of it, then join and change it, anything else sounds like an excuse.
I am a part of it, but I'm not going to bother changing assholes who want to silence me.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/12/swp-rape-implosion-why-i-care

>> No.4717065

>>4716782
butterfly is obviously a guy taking the piss

>> No.4717074

>>4717054
I think the larger issue facing femminists is that their movement is dominated by wealthier and or public sector working/supported women whose mentality and interests are removed from those they claim to represent.

>> No.4717075

>>4717045
Doesn't the Soviet example prove that even if nationally a technology can be stifled, globally progress will continue, eventually making that position obsolete?

>> No.4717080

>>4717063

Who's been trying to silence you? Are you a member of the SWP?

By the way, I find Laurie Penny's tone and ignorance to be tedious, so I dingied the article, but I know the story.

>> No.4717084

>>4716782
>>4717065
Butterfly is just anon with a flashy name.

>> No.4717087

>>4717075
The policy of the USSR was NOT intended to stifle technology; the policy was merely clumsy. We function in a global economy now, so economics being more international than even politics, are more and more the deciding factor; if a particular state's politics resists economics, it will probably be broken down eventually, yes.

>>4717080
You are. You don't recognize the shit that comes with being a woman as separate from the shit that comes with being a man, and you take umbrage at women talking about it because it's supposed anti-man worker to do so, or it's supposedly anti-white worker for black people to talk about the black experience.

>> No.4717089

>>4717060
>the union movements confused stance on socialism was one of the big ills that caused their fall.
this was very much lenins prediction about unions. ultimately unions are based on compromise and no matter how powerful they get they cannot create a workers state, unless your a syndicalist. Lenin argued that by directing proletarian energies towards short term goals they undermine the revolution and are a negative force.

>> No.4717097

>>4717089
I agree reformism and social democracy are dead ends and the 1970s conclusively demonstrated this. In regards to unions in general how else are we to raise class consciousness and most importantly prepare workers for the task of self administration without the union movement?

>> No.4717098

>>4717089
Yeah, but Lenin was for a "state capitalist monopoly" where strikes are illegal, so of course he'd say that.

>> No.4717108

>>4717087
>The policy of the USSR was NOT intended to stifle technology; the policy was merely clumsy. We function in a global economy now, so economics being more international than even politics, are more and more the deciding factor; if a particular state's politics resists economics, it will probably be broken down eventually, yes.
If you change what you originally said to just economics, I will be satisfied.
Also, I was the person who liked the "white skin privilege" article, and I am not >>4717080
My concern with the "white privilege" rhetoric is that it is most often describing examples of class privilege. Using white privilege, or male privilege, or anything like that is fine, as long as it applies to hillbillies and white trash.
As for silencing, I have no problem with women bringing women's issues to light, my problem is when those same people who promote equality ignore, ridicule, or even protest attempts to bring men's issues to light.

>> No.4717114

>>4717097
>how else are we to raise class consciousness
well, lenin argued that, left to their own devices, the proletariat can only develop trade-union consciousness, which is fundamentally different from class consciousness and cannot create a revolution and a workers state. Lenin argued that a cadre of class consciousness revolutionaries needed to be created to overthrow the government and create a dictatorial 'transitional' state which would educate the proletariat. i dont exactly agree with the last part, but i do agree that trade unions prevent revolution and that smaller groups of dedicated revolutionaries 'leading' the initial stages of the revolution are necessary.
>prepare workers for the task of self administration
Lenin's transitional dictatorship was also meant to teach the workers how to do this. i dont agree though, and would instead put forward that decentralized modes of production in which the workers have direct control over the factories they are working in will in time create a better system. pre-existing trade unions can, of course, help with this.
>>4717098
i thought having a coherent set of views was a good thing?

>> No.4717119

>>4717108
>If you change what you originally said to just economics, I will be satisfied.

But that's not true. The internet was not created by economic demand, it was created by state demand.

>As for silencing, I have no problem with women bringing women's issues to light, my problem is when those same people who promote equality ignore, ridicule, or even protest attempts to bring men's issues to light.

There aren't really a ton of men's issues, as a sex. There's paper abortions and some stuff like that, but otherwise, not much.

>> No.4717121

>>4717114
>i thought having a coherent set of views was a good thing?
Not coherent when you're saying that stuff is a paradise for workers.

>> No.4717123

>>4717114
Why cant these cadres simply radicalise and adapt existing unions from the get go?

>> No.4717126

>>4717087

I'm not. I'm saying that discrimination against women has its root in class society, much like discrimination against blacks and any other marginalised groups, including poor whites. I'm saying that you do not need an entirely different logic to understand the oppression of women, and saying that doesn't mean I'm silencing you, it means I'm suggesting that you consider the root causes of these problems, as well as the nature of the socialist movement itself.

I'm not trying to silence you, I'm disagreeing with you. I'm doing the opposite of trying to silence you.

>> No.4717128

>>4717119
>There aren't really a ton of men's issues, as a sex. There's paper abortions and some stuff like that, but otherwise, not much.
Don't make me do this.
I don't want to play the "who is more oppressed" game.
Generally, socially, men have the advantages. Men are seen as better leaders, etc. It's unfair, and it needs to be dealt with.
Legally, women have advantages. Custody battles are most often cited, but things like difference in jailtime for identical crimes is also an issue.
If you want, I have dozens of examples complete with sources.

>> No.4717130

>>4717123
>Why cant these cadres simply radicalize and adapt existing unions from the get go?
Lenin would argue that because the administration of a union is always going to be primarily concerned with the short term interests of its members, and because these unions are many and diverse, radicalizing them is difficult as it involves convincing the leadership and membership to abandon their short term goals, the whole reason they created and joined the union. and radicalizing a sufficient number of unions in a useful period of time is simply far to difficult, and prone to failure, as the unions can equally be de-radicalized by the evil and conspiring forces of social democracy.
>>4717121
Lenins paradise for workers was meant to come a good 50 years after the actual revolution, once the centralized state had used a planned economy to remove scarcity in most goods and to educate the entire proletariat.

>> No.4717133

>>4717126
That's no reason why discrimination against women would suddenly and totally cease in a socialist society. It would be mitigated, but I don't believe for an instant that there wouldn't still be fucked up shit happening.

>> No.4717139

>>4717128
Jail time is true. I'm not sure about custody where all things are equal, especially since my dad won a custody battle against me mom for me because he had a stable income; I was with her for a while because he didn't ask for a battle, but when he did, he won. Furthermore I don't think kids are property; it should be solely up to the kids, and they should be able to change parental custody whenever they wish, and we should move toward a post-family society.

>>4717130
>Lenins paradise for workers was meant to come a good 50 years after the actual revolution, once the centralized state had used a planned economy to remove scarcity in most goods and to educate the entire proletariat.
A giant corporation will fix those things?

>> No.4717149

>>4717130
That is a very interesting argument althought it seems terribly vulnerable to abuse by authoritarians and power hungry

>> No.4717151

>>4717139
>A giant corporation will fix those things?
im not entirely sure what your criticizing, if you calling a Leninist dictatorship a giant corporation then that's a very flawed viewpoint. the Leninist state is not driven by the profit motive and (technically) does not exploit the workers. also corporations rarely subscribe to communism and try to build a workers paradise.
if your saying that a giant corporation will create a workers paradise than....... thats just like.... your opinion.... man

>> No.4717154

>>4717149
>it seems terribly vulnerable to abuse by authoritarians and power hungry
it very much was, just look at Stalin. getting over that flaw is arguably the primary challenge of modern Leninists and commmunists as a whole

>> No.4717170

>>4717139
>Jail time is true. I'm not sure about custody where all things are equal, especially since my dad won a custody battle against me mom for me because he had a stable income; I was with her for a while because he didn't ask for a battle, but when he did, he won. Furthermore I don't think kids are property; it should be solely up to the kids, and they should be able to change parental custody whenever they wish, and we should move toward a post-family society.
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/08/22/the-bias-against-u-s-fathers-in-custody-and-child-support/
Jail time and custody are just the first two that popped into my head. If you want more, I have them.

>> No.4717178

>>4717154
Have they come up with any particularly sound arguments of late? Also any idea on why trotskiests seem to been so prone to sectarianism?

>> No.4717190

>>4717038
Wow, leftists and their neoliberalism-conspiracies.

>> No.4717199

>>4717190
Take a look at the transformation of the Labour Party, such a big platform change is bound to stir up this kind of thinking

>> No.4717210

>>4717133

Old attitudes last a long time, but the progress made in the last hundred years is due pretty much entirely to the development of industrial society, and changing economic conditions. Who's to say what form social relations would take in a legitimately socialist society, but seeing as all oppression, in my view, has an ultimately economic cause, it actually is a reason why discrimination would cease. Not overnight, but substantially faster than at present. After all, once women are completely emancipated under capitalism, they are still just units of labour in the impartial eyes of the market.

>> No.4717213

>>4717190
Neoliberals are not leftist.

>> No.4717221

>>4717210
See, that's what I never got.
If it's true that women are paid less then men for the same skills and experience, why would anyone possibly hire men?

>> No.4717228

>>4717221
Holy fuck, are you mentally lost?

>> No.4717233

>>4717228
>Not getting it
I'm saying that claiming that women are paid 75 cents on the dollar is economically crazy.

>> No.4717274

>>4717038
>reagan

Reagan was a lifelong union member and supporter, even serving multiple terms as the president of his union. I think you've been watching too much Jon Stewart anon.

>> No.4717277

>>4717274
Yeah of the screen actors guild, regardless take a look at the huge shifts in platform in other western countries some of the the biggest neoliberal and anti union reformers were people from that very background

>> No.4717278

>>4717277
>some of the the biggest neoliberal and anti union reformers were people from that very background

And what conclusions do you draw from this?

>> No.4717388

>>4717087
>You don't recognize the shit that comes with being a woman as separate from the shit that comes with being a man

This borders on essentialism. There is no 'male experience' or 'female experience' that can be held up next to one another and compared for injustices. As such, comparing "being a woman" to "being a man" is impossible because there is no actual unified "being a woman" or "being a man." There are only individual experiences, ever changing contexts, etc. So every comparison must be amended with "for some people, in some contexts" in order to be accurate.

>> No.4717413

>>4716699
>random drifter from /v/ here
>from /v/ here
>/v/ here
>/v/

Oh boy.

>> No.4717427

>>4717388
Eh, it's capitalism. Opression in capitalism follows a standard model, with small divergences. That's why unions in Pakistan and Norway mobilize for the exact same shit.

>> No.4717430

>>4717427
Are you responding to the right person? "It's capitalism" doesn't really address what I said.

>> No.4717491

>>4717430
Go away Foucault.

>> No.4717639

Read DuBois' "The Souls of Black Folks" for proof white privilege exists

>> No.4719816

>>4717639
>Publication date, 1903
>Existed ever = exists now

>> No.4719827

>>4717151
Lenin himself called his system "state capitalist monopoly". Instead of a board of directors, you had the party.

>>4717210
Women will never be emancipated under capitalism.

>> No.4719853

>>4719816
>if it possibly doesn't exist then it necessarily doesn't exist
Please pay attention.

>> No.4719859

>>4717639
DuBois and every single Black author ever. You'd think Whites would just look around them and wake the fuck up but they get yelled the same thing every year for over 200 years and they're still to stupid to listen and/or figure it out.

>> No.4719873

>>4719853
DuBois' book was offered as proof that white privilege exists.
It is not proof that "white privilege" currently exists.
As has been stated before in this thread, Class privilege in America explains much more of the problem than "white privilege" does, and the majority of the remainder of the issue can be better explained by "racial majority privilege" since it applies to Chinese people in China as much as it does whites in America.

>> No.4719883

>>4719859
>Nothing has changed in the last 200 years
>I have never read Thomas Sowell.

>> No.4719896

>>4717388
Would you say that there are no uniquely female experiences? No uniquely male experiences? Cause I'd say you're wrong. I don't know if you could really construct a female or male identity out of those unique experiences because the degree which those unique experiences matter to each individual is varied. If you just stick with man and woman as physical roles rather than social ones it becomes less messy. Because when you try to define men and women by their social roles you end up having to create litmus tests to prove you're a man or a woman which is just bizarre to me.

>> No.4719907

>>4719883
>I believe everything Thomas Sowell has written

>> No.4719913

>>4719907
>Thomas Sowell does not fall under the category of "every single Black author ever"

>> No.4719923

>>4719873
>Class privilege in America explains much more of the problem than "white privilege" does
They necessarily exist together in all of the Americas. White privilege is a form of class. The color-line hasn't changed, despite concessions from the ruling capitalist (white) class.

>> No.4719937

>>4719923
>They necessarily exist together in all of the Americas. White privilege is a form of class. The color-line hasn't changed, despite concessions from the ruling capitalist (white) class.
If it doesn't apply to hillbillies and white trash, it's not white privilege, it's class privilege.

>> No.4719955

>>4719937
You realize that you're implying racism has never existed because there were always poor light skinned people, yes?

>> No.4719962

Irony

The people who can lounge around complaining about 'privilege' are some of the most privileged motherfuckers on earth

How about instead of imploring others to check their privilege, you shut the fuck up and do something productive with yours?

Lazy, talentless shits

>> No.4719977
File: 83 KB, 600x579, you think this is....jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4719977

>>4719962
>Irony

>> No.4719981

>>4719896
>Would you say that there are no uniquely female experiences? No uniquely male experiences? Cause I'd say you're wrong.

Of course I don't believe in them. There's absolutely no reason to. Even experiences which are exclusive to biological females (such as menstruation) are experienced by each biological female *uniquely*. This is all rooted in the basic principle that every living thing (every thing that can be said to have an 'experience' of life) has an unknowable, unique experience that is in no way experienced by anything else.

Consider the infinitesimal physiological factors involved in the composition of a human, and then consider that human's individual position in space and time at a given moment. Just one slight variation in any of these factors and the experience is different. Now consider that no two humans are composed in the same way physiologically (think numerically in terms of size, function, chemical levels, neurotransmitters, etc.) nor can two humans take up the same position in spacetime.

The conventions we use for basic categorization (male/female, animal/human, bird/fish, whatever) are only convenient taxonomies which mislead more than they help. If we were capable of better memory storage, we'd be fine calling one "person" 3445245823449483A and the other 345724852945245245EEE4354, because we could better account for the proper uniqueness. Because we lack that capacity, however, we naively try to boil vaguely defined social expressions in terms of myriad physiological factors. And none of this is to say that there aren't similarities between individuals, because obviously there are plenty of similarities which led to this organizational process. But the further you cut, the more different everything is. And it's complicated and intimidating to most people.

>> No.4720007

>>4719955
I'm not saying that at all.
There used to be segregation laws. Those applied to blacks and not whites, therefore they were an example of white privilege.
I'm saying that almost every example I've seen where someone has said "this is white privilege", and was talking about something currently going on in America, it was something that applied to lower class whites as much as it did blacks.
There are generally two exceptions to this.
1. something is a "racial majority privilege", where it would happen if you were in the majority no matter which race you were, eg. Chinese in China.
2. An actual case of white privilege. The only example I've found that isn't explained by class or majority is when real estate agents show fewer houses to black couples than white couples. But this does not hold true for asians, so it's a bit disingenuous to call it "white privilege".
If you have other examples, please, I would love to hear them.

>> No.4720020

The best critique of privilege is its own ridiculousness. The best example is micro-aggressions, an entire concept that only exists because of privilege discourse.

>> No.4720035

>>4720020
"Microaggressions" are legit, though. I probably wouldn't call them "aggressions", and I'd likely widen the umbrella beyond race and gender divisions to just everyday interactions with people, but the idea of small prejudiced action is very real and often hard to call out because of how fleeting it is.

>> No.4720048

>>4720035
>widen the umbrella beyond race and gender divisions to just everyday interactions with people
Exactly.
The way micro-aggressions are presented unnecessarily essentializes race and gender.

>> No.4720056
File: 84 KB, 500x363, costanza.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4720056

>>4716590

Why are nonwhite rightist ethnic-identity types often supported by the left?

>> No.4720116

>>4720007
If you want an example, companies have proven the consistently hire persons based on racial and ethnic lines in favor of Whites. Whites with "white sounding" names and criminal records are exponentially more likely to get a second interview and job than someone with a "foreign" names, moreso if they are brown/black. Brown/Black people with "white" names are just as likely to get interviewed as Whites with "white" names when they correspond with the hiring party over the phone, but are exponentially less likely to get another interview/the job once they're revealed to be brown/black skinned. They do this study every 4 years and the results are always identical.

The problem, as I see it, is that just because White persons are also victims of class war that this means there isn't still a White component to class in the States, but I think that needs to be questioned when Blacks and other minorities as a group have a larger percentage of impoverished and underprivileged persons than Whites. So 20% of Whites are underprivileged compared to 40% of Blacks, that might be numerically more Whites but Blacks as a whole are more impacted, especially since they only make up ~13% of the total population and Black communities have never stopped been segregated into ghettos unless they happen to access the middle class. Note I'm just illustrating my example, those aren't the actual numbers, which allude me, but Blacks are still at the bottom in terms of employment, home ownership, and household income.

>> No.4720129

>>4720056

Because the left are just as racist as the right but too afraid to admit it.

>> No.4720130

>>4720056
They aren't, not rightest ones, unless you mean supported by Bolsheviks, in which case it's the same reason bourgeois democrats propped up fascism.

>> No.4720135

>>4720056
Example?

>> No.4720152

>>4720135
Commie alliance with black nationalism, ect.

>> No.4720160

>>4720135

Is it generally criticized that group identity is practically almost the norm among Blacks and Mestizos?

Is it generally criticized when Whites engage in group identity politics?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say no to the former, and yes to the latter.

>> No.4720161

>>4720152
>Black Nationalism
>Rightist

No. What? No.

>> No.4720169

>>4720161

>Racial Nationalism
>Not right wing social policy
>Do you even definitions?

>> No.4720177

>>4720116
Your example of hiring is a good one. I would like to see those studies, but I believe you. Sowell claims that this disparity disappears when criminal record checks are used, but I can't find a source for this, so I'll concede that point
The problem with the second point is that this lumping together of whites under "white privilege" completely ignores that 20%, and also ignores the fact that it doesn't hold true for asians. I'm not saying that there aren't general things that are problematic in American society for Blacks. I'm saying that "white privilege" implies something that all white people have that other races don't, and there aren't enough examples of that for that term to be useful in the way it's used now.
tl;dr I'm not saying that any of the problems facing the black community are not problems, I'm saying the term "white privilege" obfuscates the issue.

>> No.4720179

>>4720161
Which racial nationalism are rightest by your definition?

>> No.4720180

>>4716590
Here you go OP
http://attackthesystem.com/canning-reactionary-leftism/
http://attackthesystem.com/should-libertarianism-be-cultural-leftism-without-the-state/

>> No.4720184

>>4716590

Think about this: being alive is a privilege.

>> No.4720189

>>4720169
the relationship between leftism and nationalism is much more complicated than that. look at the IRA or basque nationalists, for example: both are staunchly leftist movements. fundamentally, the fact that the left can accept some nationalisms without compromising its ideological integrity is because of different sets of power relations are at play, a fact that reactionaries typically fail to grasp

>> No.4720198

>>4720169
>>4720179
Yes, because the Black Panthers, a Maoist (Ultra-Left) movement... is actually Right Wing.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

>> No.4720200

>>4720189
Basque isn't really left-wing
http://roarmag.org/2011/02/i-shit-on-all-the-revolutionary-vanguards-of-this-planet/

IRA is not leftist, they're quite frequently hardcore Catholics

>> No.4720207

>>4720198
Maoism is authoritarian, not leftist. Black Panthers were often run basically like a gang, that's as right-wing as you get.

>> No.4720209

>>4720189
Exactly. Black Nationalism is based on creating their self-determination and social solidarity in the face of White Nationalism, which is based on exploitation and genocide on a color-line.

>> No.4720211

>>4716590

none, it's a waste of time. become a nurse or something that helps society.

>> No.4720217

>>4720207
You can't be serious.

>> No.4720221

>>4720209
Actually....

>Muhammad's pro-separation views were compatible with some white supremacist organizations in the 1960s.[21] He allegedly met with leaders of the Ku Klux Klan in 1961 to work toward purchase of farmland in the deep south.[22] He eventually established Temple Farms, now Muhammad Farms, on a 5,000 acres (20 km2) tract in Terrell County, Georgia.[23] George Lincoln Rockwell, founder of the American Nazi Party once called Muhammad "the Hitler of the black man."[24] At the 1962 Saviour's Day celebration in Chicago, Rockwell addressed Nation of Islam members. Many in the audience booed and heckled him and his men, for which Muhammad rebuked them in the April 1962 issue of Muhammad Speaks.[25]

>> No.4720227

>>4720217
I am. Lenin called leftism "childishness" and "infantile". In Spain, the USSR was, as Orwell put it, "on the right" of the antifascists, with Republicans and democrats and the bourgeoisie, and the Marxists and anarchists were "on the left".

>> No.4720228

>>4720217
Anything that has failed and been proven retarded was never leftist, never thought of being leftist and never could even have been leftist, comrade. Now pick up that can.

>> No.4720231

>>4720200
how orthodox or consistent they are in their leftism is a secondary issue. truth is that they've espoused leftist agendas as a major part of their movement and it isn't in conflict with their ethnic particularism. ethnic particularism or nationalism isn't necessarily oppressive: it can be egalitarian, if it's deployed in opposition to ethnic oppression. same applies to indigenous peoples, for example.

i'm intrigued, though: what's your agenda in this debate?

>> No.4720237
File: 199 KB, 920x627, maoism is best ism.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4720237

>>4720228
>Anything that has failed
>Maoism
>failed

Image the highest shelf possible: that is where this kek is.

>>4720227
>I am.
Seek help.

>> No.4720242

>>4720228
Lenin said he wanted "state capitalist monopoly". Feel free to explain how that is leftist.

>>4720231
Their consistency is very much the issue. If you're consistently right-wing but espouse leftism, it doesn't really matter.

My agenda is to expose hypocrisy in the self-proclaimed left.

>> No.4720262

>>4720198

You do know that you can be left-leaning on socio-economic equality, but right-leaning on racial identity? Example: South African Communist Party, Nation of Islam, BP and all that jazz.

>> No.4720267

>>4720242
>hypocrisy
Then you're an idealist. Hypocrisy doesn't matter except to the extent it retards further self development of the revolutionary power of the entire working class. Ideas don't matter, collective power matters.

>> No.4720281

>>4720207
>Maoism is authoritarian, not leftist.

It was both m8

>>4720237
>backyard furnaces
>Red Guard chaos
>Four Pests campaign

Mao's achievements are undeniable but his time in power often seems like one farce after another.

>> No.4720284
File: 122 KB, 654x420, Xingu.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4720284

>>4720242
Do you feel that the explanation provided in this post >>4720231 of leftism's relationship with nationalism is not acceptable, then? Would you consider a typical indigenous rights organisation right-wing, since it promotes the interests of a particular ethnic group?

>> No.4720302

>>4720177
>I'm saying that "white privilege" implies something that all white people have that other races don't

It's not even that whites "have something," more so that whites "don't need anything else." To use the hire rate example again (I'm afraid I don't have a link or written source for this, it's something I haven't looked up in a few years and am too lazy to netsearch-fu), for minority persons to be hired they have had to prove themselves to be above and beyond superior (honor student, extracurrics, volunteering, whathaveyou), where Whites can scoot in on less than desirable attributes. Minorities with the same "failings" don't even get a first phone call. So that's White privilege, and it doesn't mean that it happens -every- time, just that it statistically happens too often to be coincidence, especially when you consider that there are people -still alive- that remember going to lynchings, collecting body parts, taking photos next to brutally, horribly murdered men, women, and children, and thinking this was a grand old tyme. Heidegger's worst gift to us was introducing the idea of zeitgeists, which people take as meaning history has walls and paradigm shifts, instead of being a continuous process.

And when we say Whites we should clarify, "White" is (despite reactionary nonsense) tenuous. Historical non-White Europeans such as Irish and Italians have been successfully accepted as White but they're still less privileged as a whole than their WASP associates because of historical racism, yet they increasingly are assimilated into White identity and reap the benefits. In the same way, "Asians" have increasingly been able to access capital in ways other minorities have been unable to, but that applies almost exclusively to Far-East Asians, not South-East Asians (interestingly we have a color-line here as well).

>> No.4720311
File: 903 KB, 499x371, EveryThreadEver.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4720311

Can you faggots provide some definitions on what you believe the right and the left to be? Cause I'm seeing some pretty heterodox defs on here.

>> No.4720323

>>4720207
it isn't authoritarianism vs freedom, bruh. that's a rothbardian thing plz don't do that
bordiga is a leftcom but he's more leninist than lenin

>> No.4720342

>>4720302
>It's not even that whites "have something," more so that whites "don't need anything else.
So it's not so much a "privilege" on the part of whites, but a "failing" in the treatment of other races.
Framing it as a "privilege" implies that it's something that should be "taken away" from whites in order to increase equality, rather than something that should be extended to other races.

>> No.4720378

>>4720267
There is very little collective power from the hypocritical left, it is the power of few over many.

>>4720281
>It was both m8
Authoritarianism is hierarchy taken to its absolute end.

>>4720284
Indigenous rights group is not the same as a (insert race) nationalist group.

>> No.4720390

>>4720378
>Indigenous rights group is not the same as a (insert race) nationalist group.

How so? They are both basically ethnic particularism. What is the fundamental difference?