/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

/isg/

>>1773793
The conscious refusal of solidarity with non-white proles and redefining "working class" to mean "white dude" definitely is on that road for the average meatloaf (brown outside, red inside) leftist

>>1773788
>redscareschizo still unmedicated
Sad.

>>1773796
Yeah it would be crazy if anyone you described believed that

>>1773845
You definitely do, since anti-idpol posters tend to treat racism, misogyny, and discrimination based on sexuality as "identity politics" rather than things that affect the working class

Ergo things only truly affect the class if they specifically affect white male hetero workers (half of all online communists)

>>1773788
Yknow I mentioned in the study Fascism thread that I think the ideological “power” of Fascism comes almost entirely from the Left. The Right is the most ideologically underdeveloped sections of the Fascist movement. I talk a bit about it here: >>1602744

But to elaborate a little bit more. I’m thinking the ideological reconstruction of Fascism was perhaps an inevitability when faced with the present crises of Capitalism as well as the weaknesses of the modern left. I think people will inevitably imagine “well what if we fused nationalism and socialism together?” I believe /pol/ even once had “social nationalist” threads and you can still find the occasional idiot saying “we can have socialism once we have a racially pure nation” or some other nonsense. However given these guys don’t have a clue what socialism is, or even what their own beliefs are, it’s the most disappointed and cynical sectors of the left that create the framework for Fascism. The Right can only ape it.

So this raises the question: where do these cynical leftists come from, and why are they driven to create Fascism? I have a few hypotheses that I think can warrant some further development. To name a few:

>The cynical left comes from a demographic majority.

There have been plenty of terrific Socialists that emerged from minority groups, from Jews in Europe to Blacks in America. The Fascists, however, seem to have always had their major figures emerge from a demographic majority. Italians in Italy, Germans in Germany, and likely White people in America. Fascist Italy did have a notable contingent of Jews, but many of those selfsame Jewish Fascists prioritized their Italianness over their Jewishness.

Now I think this feature is not insignificant. As internationalism is presently interpreted by much of the Western Left, it seems to me that “majoritarians” have the most they’re expected to give up. I don’t mean this as a boast or an insult, but Jewish people historically had very little to lose and, in some cases, a lot to gain by “giving up” the idea of the nation. And then we have to look at what Black Americans have to lose by giving up the idea of “America” and, when acknowledging how America has historically treated Black people, it’s not hard to see some of them having no issue with the trade.

This isn’t so with the “majoritarians.” A parallel would be two people from two different families coming to Atheism. The first had a family that barely attended Church and drops religion the second it becomes socially acceptable to. The second is from a family of pastors, has never once had a negative experience with his religion, and has come to be convinced of Atheism’s correctness; he’s going to struggle with that his whole life. What was as easy as changing clothes for the apathetic Christian is a Sisyphean struggle for the pious one. He’d probably still try to “make it work” or attend Church even if he doesn’t believe; he won’t be the loudest voice advocating Atheism, and in his heart he’s still likely a Christian.

I think some of these majoritarians just can’t take the plunge, even if Socialism is correct, so they try to create some kind of variant or compromise. Spurring matters on is probably some impression that the outcasts, the minority, is the loudest or leading voice of Socialism and this idea that the majority is somehow “excluded” because of it.

>The cynical left is spurred by a sense of immediacy.

I’ve met plenty of older Socialists who solemnly admitted they won’t see Socialism in their lifetime, they just “laid a brick in its foundation” as it were. I think younger Socialists might find that idea intolerable. They don’t want to be “brick layers” they want to live in Socialism in the present. Fascism is an “act first, think later” ideology. Even if you can’t establish full Socialism in the present, it can at least tempt you with the promise of power, and with that power you think you can do whatever you want, reshape society, build infrastructure, do all the little things you want to see Socialism do first.

That’s how ᴉuᴉlossnW won over a lot of leftists. He’d give them jobs. Build towns, drain swamps, design schools. Whereas before you were just theorizing on how Socialist city planning should look, now you have a tangible project to work on; Il Duce won’t limit your imagination, all he asks for is your loyalty.

>Cynical leftists are willing to settle for “good enough.”

I’d be lying if I didn’t say corporatism seems like it’d be a measured improvement over America’s current economic structure. How many people would risk life and limb to overthrow Capitalism if their employment, housing, and welfare was completely assured? I think even among Socialists, there’s some things we prioritize more than others. Some people are Socialists primarily because they want better healthcare. Some people are socialists because they want to eliminate homelessness. If these issues get resolved, then their commitment to the rest of the project may wane. Fascism can, in theory, resolve some of these issues in the lands it rules, and by doing so, nip Socialist agitation in the bud.

These are only a few hypotheses, I’m sure it can use more work, but I think it’s pointing in the right direction.

>>1773801
I would never post Naruto shit

There's this superticious belief that if all brown people went away everybody would make more money. We know that's not true because Japan us begging to invite foreigners in these days.

all fascists but azov

what’s up with peter thiel by the way, he seems to be sponsoring all the “post” left rightoid hipsters in US. I heard about him in a Chapo podcast episode and it seems like he is trying to establish some kind of weird “underground” fascist movement made up of ex “leftists”.

>>1774318
The libertarian pipeline ends at it must be the brown people's fault because it's grounded in failed thinking.

>>1773788
I don't think modern fascism has much to do with terminally online people like the groups you mentioned. So far it looks like governments themselves are calmly turning to reactionary politics and fascism in particular.
Shitposters have nothing to do with Israel's genocidal war or the increasingly reactionary nature of western, Indian, Russian governments. They have nothing to do with the fact that criticizing the now regular two minutes hate is unacceptable on most social media. They have nothing to do with the fact that arguments like "Russians/Chinese/Muslims are inherently asiatic and cannot be reasoned with, let's kill them all" are very much part of the norm nowadays.

Fascism is created by capital. The specific people are not that relevant because fascist states are slaves to capital in a way that beats even liberal ones. Fascist ideology is almost irrelevant: the number of honorary aryans changed every time Hitler needed more soldiers. It's just that people don't care, much like they don't care about Palestinians despite all the drivel about human rights.

This shit completely crashed and burned when half the retards in this developing subculture decided to cast their lot in with NFTs, now everyone associated with Yuga Labs and Miladys are destitute and have committed suicide out of despair

>>1774318
There have been some profiles of Thiel and the various causes he throws money at. Part of the problem is that the people involved usually engage in stupid long-winded obfuscation and self-congratulatory bullshit (which is unlike me… heh… ahem) while having difficulty explaining their ideas to the normies i.e. the grugs of the MAGA right. That is, they're largely overeducated, overprivileged poseurs with no real voting constituency.

Then it makes for a story in Vanity Fair etc. because "hipster pixie dream girls who went to lefty-artsy-experiment-expensive colleges and otherwise are in the NY cool scene but have fascist-theocratic politics, mama mia now that's a story!!!"

>“I’m not, like, into politics,” the writer Honor Levy, a Catholic convert and Bennington grad, told me when I called her. “I just want to have a family someday.”

>Levy, who was a leftist recently enough that she cried when it became clear that Bernie Sanders wouldn’t be the Democratic presidential nominee, is friendly with Yarvin and has had him on the podcast she cohosts, Wet Brain—“Yeah, the Cathedral and blah blah,” she said when we got to talking about political media. But she said she’d never even heard of J.D. Vance or Blake Masters.

>Levy is an It girl in a downtown Manhattan scene—The New Yorker has published her fiction; she is named in a New York Times story that tries to describe that scene—where right-wing politics have become an aesthetic pose that mingles strangely with an earnest search for moral grounding. “Until like a year and a half ago I didn’t believe good and evil existed,” she told me, later adding: “But I’m not in a state of grace, I shouldn’t be talking.” I asked if she would take money from Thiel and she cheerily said, “Of course!” She also described her cohort as a bunch of “libertines,” and on her podcast you can get a window into a world of people who enjoy a mind-bendingly ironic thrill by tut-tutting each other for missing church or having premarital sex. “Most of the girls downtown are normal, but they’ll wear a Trump hat as an accessory,” she said. The ones deep into the online scene, she said, “want to be like Leni Riefenstahl–Edie Sedgwick.”

>Like Levy, Milius is in the funny position of being at the intersection of many of these crosscurrents, having worked in mainstream politics but appearing on so-called dissident podcasts and being on the periphery of a cultural scene where right-wing politics have taken on a sheen approximating cool.

>She said she was too “black-pilled”—a very online term used to describe people who think that our world is so messed up that nothing can save it now—to think much about what it would look like for her side to win. “I could fucking trip over the curb,” Milius said, “and that’s going to be considered white supremacism. Like, there’s nothing you can do. What the fuck isn’t white supremacism?”

>“They’re going to come for everything,” she said. “And I think it’s sinister—not that I think that people who want to pay attention to race issues are sinister. But I think that the globalization movement is using these divisive arguments in order to make people think that it’s a good thing.”
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/04/inside-the-new-right-where-peter-thiel-is-placing-his-biggest-bets#intcid=_vanity-fair-verso-hp-trending_1653786d-3dee-4537-a2cf-995ee46ab24b_popular4-1

>>1774274
Nazi Germany had become the dominant force in fascism but your posts do a good job describing how fascism was much more heterogeneous, even rather amorphous, in the 1920s/early-30s. More like a collection of different movements and sympathizers.

Italy right now has fascist "successor parties" that carry the torch for ᴉuᴉlossnW’s Republican Fascist Party. Giorgia Meloni, insists that her party has moved beyond its fascist roots but her campaign borrowed heavily from reactionary populism, and her party is full of cranks and fascists, children of former ᴉuᴉlossnW lieutenants, veterans of fascist terrorist groups during the Years of Lead. All the stars are there!

>However given these guys don’t have a clue what socialism is, or even what their own beliefs are, it’s the most disappointed and cynical sectors of the left that create the framework for Fascism. The Right can only ape it. So this raises the question: where do these cynical leftists come from, and why are they driven to create Fascism?
Part of problem though is that it seems hard for political movements of any kind to sustain collective action because of how socially atomized we are. Those leftists who go on to create or revive fascism might be frustrated by that on the left, which is weakened by atomization. You know, where are the left-wing sporting clubs and boxing gyms???? This is the kind of thing they like to talk about. But it's very hard to sustain a collective project when people can't even agree on what's real and what isn't, what's true and what's false. Instead we have politics as parasocial relationships – but that's also the relationship that neo-fascist politicians (if that's the right way to describe them) have with their supporters.

The shared experience of virtual life creates different outcomes than the classic industrial workplace which produces class consciousness among the proletariat. Fascism then enters as a kind of political commodity or consumer choice you "buy into." But while the right has fared better in these conditions, it doesn't seem like these neo-fascist parties are much more effective at mass mobilization than the left is, and their shirt organizations are nothing like the ones in interwar Europe.

>Above all, the new politics is consistently informal. The mob that expressed unconditional support for Trump on January 6 does not even have membership lists. QAnon and the anti-lockdown movement are a subculture that thrives mostly on blogs, Instagram, and Facebook groups. There are, of course, more and less prominent QAnon figures — influencers, so to speak. Yet their leadership is not official or mandated by votes. Rather than a militarily drilled mass, we see a roving swarm, incited by a clique of self-selected activists.

>This informality also manifests itself economically. In the past year, Trump extorted thousands of dollars from his followers and continued to rake in funds, without ever building a clear party structure. As early as 1920, sociologist Max Weber noted how charismatic leaders did not pay their followers and backers with fixed salaries, but rather worked through “donations, booty or bequests.” Unsurprisingly, charismatic leadership was also a thoroughly unstable mode of rule: succession to the throne could not simply be guaranteed for the mob, which would now have to look for its next redeemer.

>As Riley suggests, a far more powerful precedent for our situation can be found in Karl Marx’s account of the 1848 revolution. At the revolution’s close, instead of giving in to this unrest, Napoleon III gathered an apathetic peasant population and ordered them to quell the revolution. Marx described these French peasants as a “sack of potatoes” for whom the “identity of their interests fosters no community spirit, no national association and no political organization.” And since the peasants could not represent themselves, “they must be represented” — in this case by a king.

>Rather than a politics pitting workers against bosses, structured by the capital-labor opposition, Bonaparte’s was a politics of debtors and creditors — another shared feature with the 2010s, in which private debts transferred onto public accounts fueled the American and European debt crises. Bonaparte’s peasants focused on circulation and taxes rather than on production. Instead of peering aimlessly at the 1930s, we would have to look at a much older, primal age of democracy for suitable parallels with our populist era.
https://jacobin.com/2022/12/from-bowling-alone-to-posting-alone

>>1773845
all of the most annoying posters on our board belief it

>>1774577
>all of the most annoying posters on our board belief it
Fuck off. I don't believe any of this shit.

>>1773796
>average meatloaf (brown outside, red inside) leftist
u wot m80

>>1774533
>Nazi Germany had become the dominant force in fascism but your posts do a good job describing how fascism was much more heterogeneous, even rather amorphous, in the 1920s/early-30s. More like a collection of different movements and sympathizers.

Thanks; and I'd say you've hit the nail on the head. It's also why you have these weird little events in Fascist history where, like, Jose Antonio said in one moment that the Falange "wasn't a Fascist movement" and then months later claimed it was "the only Fascist movement in Spain". The Brazilian Integralists also borrowed Fascist elements while the nuances of "Integralism vs Fascism" could lead to people claiming they're different or distinct movements.

>Part of problem though is that it seems hard for political movements of any kind to sustain collective action because of how socially atomized we are. Those leftists who go on to create or revive fascism might be frustrated by that on the left, which is weakened by atomization. You know, where are the left-wing sporting clubs and boxing gyms???? This is the kind of thing they like to talk about. But it's very hard to sustain a collective project when people can't even agree on what's real and what isn't, what's true and what's false. Instead we have politics as parasocial relationships – but that's also the relationship that neo-fascist politicians (if that's the right way to describe them) have with their supporters.

>The shared experience of virtual life creates different outcomes than the classic industrial workplace which produces class consciousness among the proletariat. Fascism then enters as a kind of political commodity or consumer choice you "buy into." But while the right has fared better in these conditions, it doesn't seem like these neo-fascist parties are much more effective at mass mobilization than the left is, and their shirt organizations are nothing like the ones in interwar Europe.


I'd say the effectiveness of Fascism or Fascism-like groups is due in part because of the nature of class consciousness versus "national consciousness." That's to say, the high point of class consciousness was when you had these huge urban centers, literal slums, where workers were living in close proximity to each other, living through shared experiences, and they had a tangible figure in the form of their boss to rebel against. Now workers commute, wages for the same job can be individually tailored (Me and my coworkers can have a difference in wages of a few dollars between us) and the actual owners of capital have occluded themselves. The relationship we have with our managers, who could be the closest approximation to the factory bosses of yesteryear, are wildly different too. Some managers basically just feel like the leader of a team, others are assholes, but I think none occupy the same space as their predecessors.

Nationalism can be seen as innate though. It comes from the shared experience of being born in a country, a citizen of that country, subject to its laws, impacted by its history, etcetera. And to a lot of people, coming to national solidarity is a lot more natural than class solidarity. When class solidarity contradicts national solidarity, as we see in a lot of the Western Left, I think the natural outcome is people going for nation over class. You could maybe see it as an outgrowth of our monkey brains. If Grug's tribe goes to war with the neighboring tribe, even if Grug despises the leader of his tribe, an even worse status is conferred on the bastard who betrays his village for the "enemy tribe."

And it's that primitivism that groups like Casapound in Italy play off of. While remembering the heroics of the Partisans who rose up against ᴉuᴉlossnW during WW2, they insist that there was equal or even greater heroism shown by the fascist loyalists of the Italian Social Republic. Even when it was clear Fascism was going to lose, they showed "loyalty" which some primitive part of ourselves can respect.

So the populist Right has broadly been successful because they're tapping into something that's already there. I've talked plenty about National Rally's success in flipping old Communist strongholds (replicated to a degree by Trump flipping the rustbelt in 2016) and that's because it comes across as a lot more natural or self-interested to associate with your nation over your class. The logic of Capitalism has reduced immigrants in Western nations to mere "competitors" for higher wages to the proles. It's hard to have class solidarity when the "fellow workers" you're supposed to associate with have a different religion, different culture, and different language from yours. There's just so many factors playing against that common status as being part of the same class that "national solidarity" looks to be the more natural expression of anger towards the deprivation enforced by Capitalism.

>>1774594
How do you solve this outside of nuking the West into oblivion and then creating a special task force to eliminate survivors?

>>1774634
NTA but the most effective method I've seen of making ppl in the majority ethnic group relate to immigrants and/or other ethnicities/nationalities is lack of housing segregation.I'm very bias but i've lived the vast majority of my life in big metropolitan areas in neighborhoods that don't really have a firm ethnic majority at all and it really does keep racsim/xenophobia down and solidarity up(Not that its perfect or anything just way better than say an all white exurb). In many ways I have more in common with urban proles in a different region of the US than I do with people who live in rural areas close to me regardless of race.

>>1773867
>You definitely do, since anti-idpol posters tend to treat racism, misogyny, and discrimination based on sexuality as "identity politics" rather than things that affect the working class
Insofar as what? I don't see it as an effective pole to organize around? That these are things that stem from class politics?

Daily reminder to please choose a better shonen from the mid 2000s to avatar fag as.

>>1774594
>It's also why you have these weird little events in Fascist history where, like, Jose Antonio said in one moment that the Falange "wasn't a Fascist movement" and then months later claimed it was "the only Fascist movement in Spain".
I was watching a doc on the Spanish Civil War recently and one of those guys, I don't think it was Jose Antonio though, popped up shortly before Franco's coup saying he believed in X, Y and Z and if that made him a fascist then so be it. Order, nation, and class collaboration type stuff. Which is something I could imagine a MAGA influencer like Jack Posobiec saying while all frothed up.

>>1774721
It's strange to me how people on leftypol talk about these movements. If you think it doesn't have anything to do with your politics, and you have nothing in common with them, that's fine. But this was also a social movement that emerged in the real world among a despised minority (which also experienced a devastating plague as they were getting going) and… they seemed to be pretty effective? From where I'm standing, they are one of the most effective social movements in recent American history, which built parallel institutions, and did its own thing regardless of what anyone else thought.

And then the Marxists who claim to have a method of socioeconomic analysis and a material interpretation of historical development to understand social conflict and social transformation just… don't have any clue about how this happened… and don't care to learn anything about it… or learn anything from it. Well, suit yourself.

>>1774634
Comments like these are why I’ve turned “don’t go fascist” into a mantra on days I’m particularly depressed.

I wish I had an easy answer but I don’t. I wouldn’t rank myself even a quarter as smart as the Socialist intellectuals of yesteryear. I don’t hate the west or the people in it. If I tried, well it’d be a half hearted act. My most heterodox view, that I’ll entertain in my most depressed moments, is that some kind of synthesis might be the only resolution that could see a kind of socialism emerge.

When thinking of Fascism and how it wrestles with Socialism, I’m reminded of the old saying: “Chaos will always beat Order, because Chaos is better organized.” We make a show of pointing out all the hypocrisy and contradictions of Fascism, but it’s precisely that chaotic and contradictory nature that may lend it an even greater coherence than can be found in Socialism.

There was some old British show, dunno what it’s called, maybe “Yes, Prime Minister”. Anyways I caught a clip of it years ago, it was these two bureaucrats arguing over some policy or another. The younger says “this isn’t right, I was brought into a government that promised to not raise taxes, now a new government put me in charge of overseeing a tax increase.” The older, wiser bureaucrat explains that he’s seen numerous governments come and go, raise taxes, lower taxes, implement reforms and undo them, and “If I sincerely believed in all those things when I did them, I would be a schizophrenic.”

There were plenty of predictions that the various Fascist regimes would turn on each other and destroy one another. The awful truth was that they could ride the contradictions of their respective beliefs unphased. It’d be like comparing a Christian that earnestly believes in the Bible and tries to follow all of it; he’s doomed to fail and will always suffer more mental anguish than the Christian just going with the flow. Fascism takes the absurd and runs with it. It’s like watching a professional race car driver that can only drive while he’s drunk. Logic dictates he’d crash or be a poor driver, but somehow he makes it work. Stranger still, he’d never be capable of the same feats sober.

Shit. I think I’m finally understanding the core of fascist thought, and it weirdly coincides with Gentile’s philosophy.

I just laugh at nazis off. Brown people beating white people in a foolish attempt at combat would be epic. Accelerate.

>>1774634
Wait until nations melt into each other.
Capitalism naturally breaks up regional and national identities as it engulfs the world in an interconnected market, making people travel, learn multiple languages and cultures while these are made more uniform by capital etc.
If national identities end up melting in the long run does to this process, fascism and ethnic will have a much harder time taking root.

>>1774778
>chaos is better organized

CPUSAS anon about to take the deleuze pill

>>1774771
>But this was also a social movement that emerged in the real world among a despised minority (which also experienced a devastating plague as they were getting going) and… they seemed to be pretty effective?
At what? Social change? Congratulations the superstructure has integrated it.
>And then the Marxists who claim to have a method of socioeconomic analysis and a material interpretation of historical development to understand social conflict and social transformation just… don't have any clue about how this happened…
So you've retreated from "this is meaningful to class conflict" to "well, they did something", as if this has any bearing outside of the historical interest you imply

>>1774634
Dear God anon! There's a westoid in your mirror right now!

Christ alive I think he's about to start explaining how he's special and different! It's worse than I feared!

>>1774828
Never read him, but I hear he was influenced by Nietzsche? Might be worth a read then, I credit Nietzsche for getting me out of a rough patch in my life.

That aside, the drunk driving parallel reminded me of something I believe Trotsky once said something along the lines of “we’ve got all this great science. Mankind has figured out how to fly. Yet in spite of that, airplane pilots will still hang a rabbit’s foot in the cockpit for good luck.”

And funny enough, reading through a lot of old fascist texts and statements, and the repeated critique of Marxism is that it’s “mechanistic”. That it strips something human or spiritual from people—turns them into machines of a kind. And while it seems silly for Fascists to claim that given the industrialized genocide of the Holocaust, I can’t help but think to Trotsky’s quote about the pilot and the rabbits foot.

Yknow with this analysis, that Fascism has some kind of coherence beneath the contradictions and chaos, you can see an irony in how Hamas has supplanted the PLO and other left wing groups as the main vehicle of Palestinian Liberation. Rather than collapsing in on themselves, these right wing groups with all their idealistic worldviews have been successful in maintaining coherence, discipline, and strength where the Left floundered.

>>1774849
>At what? Social change? Congratulations the superstructure has integrated it.
Yeah but that's true for everything else too including class politics. It's mistake to view that as an indivisible remainder which can't be co-opted – I'd argue it was co-opted first.

>>1775151
>you can see an irony in how Hamas has supplanted the PLO and other left wing groups
That reminds me, I saved this paper about the decline of the PFLP that I've been meaning to read, it might be bad I dunno (or maybe… good?) but someone else might want to check it out before I get around to it.

>>1773788
refute le triangle

>>1775151
>Yknow with this analysis, that Fascism has some kind of coherence beneath the contradictions and chaos, you can see an irony in how Hamas has supplanted the PLO and other left wing groups as the main vehicle of Palestinian Liberation.

Because Israel supported it materially and as a matter of policy.

>>1775179
Never finished this on an old drive and forgot. Thanks.

>>1775168
Labor was integrated because of its failure. Identities endgame is integration

>>1775242
I could say the gay liberationists failed to make everyone queer! That was their intention. Or some of them. Recuperation is a normal process by which society recovers parts of what tried to negate it, so that happening to labor is nothing to indict them with. Identity movements have different tendencies within them too, some integrationist and some not. Andrew Sullivan, the gay Catholic conservative writer, was one of the early advocates for same-sex marriage in the U.S. and made a big part of it an attack on gay liberationists (who often rejected marriage as a bourgeois assimilationist thing).

I think everything can be recuperated by capitalism. That's the fantastic thing capitalism can do. It's like the Borg: you will be assimilated and add a little bit of yourself to it, and it changes you to serve it. Or at least can be assimilated. It doesn't matter what your subjective intentions are. But it doesn't follow for me that resistance is futile.

>>1775311
I remember someone posted the video on here ages ago and it made me kek

the crash is just the cherry on top of the absurd juxtaposition of 'ANARCHY' and 'Disney+'

I get it though, everything gets commodified, not gonna blame anarchists for this one

kind of wild how much of a flop they were. They are like the Seahawks of political movements, lots of noise but never really make it far. The only difference between them and the cowboys is that nobody has any faith in those queers.

>>1775289
>make everyone queer
Those damn queers. But after all why shouldn't we, why not turn the freakin frogs gay?

Why do so many idpolers keep coming here? Literally the only appeal of /leftypol/ is the anti-idpol, so if that's not what you like about it, why are you posting here? I genuinely don't get it

>>1775676
That said, I agree that stupidpol and ESPECIALLY redscarepod are bastions for fascist or proto-fascist tendencies. But that's not because they're "anti-idpol" it's because they are reactionary and embrace anything they perceive as anti-liberal, up to and including all forms of backwardness like ultra-nationalism, racism, misogyny, homophobia, etc.

>>1775289
So they failed to establish queer capitalism? That's crazy man. There's this guy named Carl Marks and he discovered some unique revolutionary properties of labor that can be leveraged to overthrow the master of integration! Sadly making people like the queers can just never do this. It sucks I know

>>1775676
Cultural politics is pretty universally pervasive because material politics is out of reach. Especially so for the terminally online

>>1773788
I occasionally skim those subreddits in hopes of trainspotting the latest reactionary movements, and from what I've seen nothing like what you're describing is happening. 'Patsoc' posters do exist but are a small and infrequent minority. The reality is much more mundane and depressing - the black hole of mainstream bourgeois politics and culture war is recapturing everyone's attention. Stupidpol is dominated by conservative 'anti-idpol' ragebait pieces mixed with tepid support for social welfare; most revolutionary socialist posters have moved on. Redscarepod is far more ideologically diverse, motivated more by contrarianism than anything, but many posters resent the reactionary turn taken by the podcast hosts.

There really isn't any coherent 'patsoc' ideology there, and if you try to articulate one you won't get very far. It's the same way trying to bait /leftypol/ into endorsing bourgeois revolutionaries or classical fascists doesn't work; even though they have similar politics /leftypol/ posters are motivated more by moral outrage and kneejerk anti-Western sentiment, but aren't capable of turning that into a coherent ideology and so remain 'ML' or whatever inside their minds.

>>1773796
>we gotta have solidarity with blacklegs you guise
very silly
our task is ending the labour market entirely, not ensuring this group or that has a better or worse position within it

>>1775734
I think a lot of LGBT people just wanted to live their lives without being demonized or subject to control or repression. This tension, or contradiction, continues to define sexuality under the present mode of production. It's up to you if you want to relate to it or not. You can have your movement, and I can have my movement and we'll have separate politics.

>>1775807
>You can have your movement, and I can have my movement and we'll have separate politics.

Careful, OP might think you're a fascist for separating class politics from identitarian politics

>>1773788
There should medical screening of fetuses and mandatory abortions if they are born as rightoids.

>>1775841
>eugenics but only to find weak chin genes
billions must be screened

>>1775831
In all seriousness though you engage in class politics regardless because it's in your best interest whether or not you recognize it.

>>1775856
I am always already engaging in class struggle and so on. But sometimes you just want to go out and do something a little different, my gott. Live a little.

>>1775856
>In all seriousness though you engage in class politics regardless because it's in your best interest whether or not you recognize it.
Don't people engage in it too whether or not they recognize that's what they're doing? There's the line from the Communist Manifesto that the history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggle. It's like the engine under the hood of social change. It might not be obvious, or it might be latent, and there are many ways to avoid it…. but it's still there and it's still happening even if it's not waving the same banners, and you have a worse social analysis than the fascists themselves if you don't see it (while also being self-defeatingly pessimistic).

Engels wrote about how men enslaved women with the development of private property and reinforced this social relationship with compulsory monogamy to serve as a vehicle for the orderly transfer of private property to his children. He seemed to believe that abolishing private property would lead to the ending of the oppression of women over a generation or two, but that capitalism itself would also abolish the bourgeois family for most of the population by moving production outside of the home.

But it's not like most of the men oppressing their wives then (or now) subjectively believed that they were just preserving and reproducing a contingent economic relation.

Similarly, the material developments by capitalism have freed people up to live more autonomous sexual lives. It has led to more freedom of choices. There's also a struggle that takes place and it's non-negotiable, damn whatever "the working class" (translated: the Volk) says. People will proceed with or without "socialists'" permission – they have no excuse to sit back and shred their commitments to civil liberties because they're too spicy for the ur-worker named Joe. Then we still see wealthy capitalists like Elon Musk working up a sweat about how we're not reproducing enough babies to serve as the next generation of workers for his class.

>>1775891
Ohhhh I see. You are confusing descriptive and prescriptive observations. Hence you think I am worse than nazis because I don't care. Silly you

>>1775979
>Hence you think I am worse than nazis because I don't care.
I didn't say that. Most people didn't care for most of the history of that movement, so that makes you like most people really.

>>1775681
thats the funny part too me is that stupidipol redscarepod shit is literally just stale ass conservative idpol while claiming to be anti-idpol.

>>1775751
pat-soc is closer to an aesthetic than coherenet ideology, its for people still beholden to some wierd 4chan based-cringe dialectic but at least bright enough to realize there being screwed over by capitalism. So instead of just growing out trying to be based for there online friends they attempt to have there cake and eat too by coming up with weird terminally online right deviationist shit.

>>1773796
Red-brown doesn’t exist.
The “patsocs” you whine about are in solidarity with marginalized nations. Hence why they support black nationalists and Chicano nationalists.

>>1776332
>The “patsocs” you whine about are in solidarity with marginalized nations
proof?

>>1776332
On the “red-brown” thing, I’d say it’s less a formal alliance and more confluences of interests that position some on the left and right into the same camp. The WTO protests was one example of this, and the modern struggle over Palestine can create some odd protests.

The solution is to drive all white "people" into the sea.

No clue about patsocs, sounds autistic, but redscarepod is unironically just fascist, Dasha does shows with Sam Hyde now, the whole user base is conservative radfems, who are all more racist than they think. Nothing to do with idpol it's open face slut shaming and racism.

>>1773867
You realize that Maupin openly said that those attributes affect the working class as well right? You just push for strawman fallacies

>>1776338
Yea, Nazis and Communists happen to be anti-zionists. The reasoning behind it is for different reasons.

>>1775186
They won’t. They’re glowies

>>1773788
You’re either a glowie or you don’t understand fascism because you’re a lib.
Fascism describes a situation where one section of the ruling class takes over a state and, in order to stabilize the economy, conducts destructive policies such as war and genocide. It uses identity politics to justify its destructive policies.
Eg. Israel’s genocide on Palestinians, Ukraine’s genocide on Donbass Russians

>>1776338
>I’d say it’s less a formal alliance and more confluences of interests that position some on the left and right into the same camp.
I agree with that but would extend it to this question: "who is using who and for what reason?" I'm going to sound a little paranoid, but these weird convergence groups tend to be pretty culty, with people who think "I can't be fooled, I'm onto the system's lies," and various con men who are easily fooled by other con men – and one reason for this is because cults can have members do things which they don't question and have no clue as to what or why or how to explain the ideological ju-jitsu involved, and is a low-cost way to get disreputable people to do dirty tricks or selective intrusions that others might not want to be associated with.

Remember Cynthia McKinney? I suppose she's still around but she was anti-imperialist and this and that, but also flirting with Holocaust deniers, and then you look a little more, and she was allied with a (now deceased) former CIA official who was going on Alex Jones and openly described himself as a member of the "alt-right" and promoting an initiative called "Unrig" (to "unrig the political system") to bring "alt-right" and "alt-left" together.

An early example is Francis Parker Yockey's "Imperium," which basically restated the old Protocols canards in the garb of an economic and cultural conspiracy theory rather than an explicitly racial or biological one. It has also allowed neoconservatives to pose as the ultimate anti-fascists and anti-racists.

You read that a bio a bit more, too, and the guy's speciality was "cognitive strategy" during the dirty war against communists in El Salvador.

<You know, listen, we *all know* the WORKERS don't like to hear about that idpol crap, and they DEFINITELY don't like hear about the GAYS. We're on the same page here, you and me… and we both know those leftists are not really going to make the revolution happen but… when you're at the meeting with these so-called communists (because y'know, we're the real ones), if you hear anyone talking about that stuff, let me know, what are their names? Take some notes so we can get them out of the movement when it's time – and we'll be in the center of the party and become world-historic figures.

And then the mark goes out and writes those names down on his own initiative and gives it back to his handler and didn't know he was being used like that. And then those names he wrote down end up in a right-wing death squad list and shots ring out one night.

>>1774274
>>1774594
Y'know I mentioned I was reading "The Coming American Fascism" in the Study Fascism Thread, and this particular part stood out to me, from the section "Why Fascism instead of Communism?"

>The driving force of any national undertaking may be called nationalism, patriotism, love of country, consciousness of kind, and loyalty to kind, or by any one of countless other terms or phrases. The reality which unites and animates a group in a feeling of solidarity, and in an enterprise of common interest, is too traditional, too universally felt and manifested, and too inevitable, to call for any attempt at exact definition. Communist Russia operates as a nation, and is driven by the dynamic force of national patriotism, or love of country and loyalty to kind, quite as much as any fascist country, or any liberal country in time of war. Little need be said by way of attempt to explain why and how this force will animate an American fascism. The generative sources of this force are inherent in every nation. It is necessary only to tap them and provide an orderly system through which they can flow. We do not need communism to get the forces of nationalism, and communism cannot provide a substitute for those forces.

>Now communism professes to derive its driving force from the will of the workers to overthrow the rule of the owners of property, and substitute that rule with the dictatorship of the proletariat. As a matter of fact, of course, communism in operation has been a series of phenomena whose driving force has been derived from two main sources: First, the personal motivations, too complex always for brief analysis, of the initiating leaders-motivations springing from a sense of frustration under the existing order, feeling that this order was evil, and the love of power common to so many strong men; and, second, Russian patriotism, which was captured and mobilized by these initiating leaders of communism, exactly as French patriotism was captured and mobilized by a Corsican second lieutenant of artillery and soldier of fortune.

>The class war, the classical myth of communism, like every other war, has been the war of one crowd against another. There is nothing much to starting or keeping up a war any more than there is to starting and keeping up a fire. It needs only the first spark and then plenty of fuel. The Communist ins, in Russia, have fought, and continue to fight, the outs. The ins of Russia would incite the outs of other countries to espouse the faith of the communist international and fight the ins of their respective countries. All this is simple. But nowhere is there apparent any significant manifestation of the driving force of a proletarian will to fight as proletarians, whether in Russia or anywhere else. Russia presents the spectacle of a national government on the defensive, just as do Britain, Germany, Japan and Italy, not the spectacle of a proletariat on the warpath against the capitalists of the world.

>The choice between fascism and communism, then, turns largely around the questions of the inevitability and desirability from some assumed standpoint of the class war myth as a rationalization of what is just a war between two crowds, and, of course, of this war as an event. Here it may be said that the best way to start a revolution or civil war in the United States is not to use the Marxian class war myth. But more important still it may be said that it is not necessary to have a civil war in order to effect a social revolution. These two considerations seem rather effectively to eliminate communism as a desirable choice for any one who has not already been "converted" to communism.

>Those who have not been converted to communism will do well to ask themselves these questions: Is such a war a necessary means to the end of a social order which will afford the people as a whole a better average life? Is such a war a necessary means to a good end for me as an individual?

>The answer to the second question, of course, depends largely on who I am, or whether I should be among the liquidators or the liquidated. To answer the first question affirmatively, it must be assumed that a proletarian party will have the will to start such a war, the might to win it, and the competence, after they have won it, to run things more efficiently than the leaders or managers of the class they have liquidated could run things.

>It is the last of these assumptions which is most open to challenge. The assumptions that a proletarian communist party can mobilize enough proletarian wills to fight the Marxian battle on the inspiration of the class war myth, and develop enough might to win the battle in the advanced industrial countries, can plausibly be ridiculed in the light of present indications. But no impregnable argument can be founded on such ridicule, for the wills of the masses can conceivably be changed quickly and galvanized into action for the pursuit of the maddest objectives-witness the Crusades.

[…]

>At this point a word should be said to refute a commonly made communist argument that most of the middle-class executives, experts, white collar workers, farmers and small enterprisers would go over to communism in the course of the class war and thus escape liquidation. This argument runs counter to any expectancy based on experience. When a fight starts, the lines between friend and foe are tightly drawn, and it rarely happens during a war that any significant number of those on one side of the line go over to the other. It is not in the nature of most people, especially most members of the middle classes, to prove turncoats in a fight. The longer and harder the Marxian class war, the greater would be the solidarity of the enemies of the communists. There is, of course, no doubt in any mind which thinks straight on this subject that a large percentage of the non-owning, non-managing, and non-enterprising workers would, in the United States, side in the Marxian war with the owners, managers, and enterprisers from the very start. Most of the American workers would side with the managers and enterprisers because of the force of tradition or attitudes formed by education and long habit and, also, because of the prestige or moral authority which the managing and owning classes deservedly enjoy in the United States where their competence is demonstrably superior to that of the elite of the Czarist regime of Russia.

[…]

>The unifying principle of national fellowship already exists. Unlike working class or proletarian class consciousness, it is not something which exists only by virtue of a logical classification of men into owners and workers. This Marxian classification is entirely valid for purposes of logic and definition. But it is a classification which no more creates two separate class consciousnesses or class identities for purposes of common thought and action than the division of all mankind into red heads and non-red heads.

[…]

>Obviously, the more inclusive the unifying principle, the more conflict is avoided and the greater cooperation is achieved. Nationalism would be more inclusive in the United States than any formula of unity based on race, religion, profession or tastes. As Americans, we are all of one nationality, though not of one race, religion, profession or set of cultural tastes. Of course, a perfect internationalism would be still more unifying and inclusive. This consideration leads many humane minds to aspire to a social formula or unifying principle which would include all mankind or transcend national limitations. Here the inevitability of some limitation to the inclusiveness of a formula of social organization and operation is largely a matter of traditional imponderables and problems of sheer administration. If the world were to go one hundred per cent Communist or one hundred per cent Roman Catholic, any attempt at international unity would necessarily founder on the rocks of group traditions and in the complexities of administration, for which neither an international Communism nor an international Christianity would prove a solvent.

>>1776445
https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/1577194-oblivious-woman-in-glasses-playing-video-games
The know your meme page disagrees with those people, and we all know the basedpilled morons have more sway than random eastern european yokels.

>>1776445
No data for Belarus because they still live in communism

>>1776342
>Tor ip
Of course

>>1776487
>we all know the basedpilled morons have more sway than random eastern european yokels.
Are you serious right now? Some terminally online "basedpill" loser has more sway than eastern Europeans who compared their material conditions from socialism to capitalism? This needs to be repeated, touch grass.

Bump

Holy shit touch grass

>>1774533
<She also described her cohort as a bunch of “libertines,” and on her podcast you can get a window into a world of people who enjoy a mind-bendingly ironic thrill by tut-tutting each other for missing church or having premarital sex. “Most of the girls downtown are normal, but…
Salò is about these people, btw
>>1774274
Excellent post. I really like how you laid this all out. Specifically the hastiness of socialists (especially American ones) to get something done (usually something that benefits them directly). Maturing as a socialist is understanding that we're all in hell and to "do communism" means to pick up a plastic dinner fork and start digging a tunnel with a bunch of other losers (the majority of the world's population ;) to mention Salò again, the original ending was going to be a red flag waving in the wind with "love you" as text over it. Of course, this was only a "reward" for the carnage you have to go through in the film itself. I think that was the point he was trying to make.

Boring OP >>1773788
Go watch anime

Lukacs, The Destruction of Reason
>In contrast to Germany, the U.S.A. had a constitution which was democratic from the start. And its ruling class managed, particularly during the imperialist era, to have the democratic forms so effectively preserved that by democratically legal means, it achieved a dictatorship of monopoly capitalism at least as firm as that which Hitler set up with tyrannic procedures. This smoothly functioning democracy, so-called, was created by the Presidential prerogative, the Supreme Court’s authority in constitutional questions, the finance monopoly over the Press, radio, etc., electioneering costs, which successfully prevented really democratic parties from springing up beside the two parties of monopoly capitalism, and lastly the use of terroristic devices (the lynching system). And this democracy could, in substance, realize everything sought by Hitler without needing to break with democracy formally. In addition, there was the incomparably broader and more solid economic basis of monopoly capitalism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_in_My_Eye_(book)
>My insistence upon the nonimportance of ideology indeed rests squarely upon this point: that most of the fascist intellectuals were reacting to the uprootedness and social disintegration of the particular moment, and with each change in the face of this state of affairs they were in large part forced to repudiate most of their former ideology. Weight is given to this observation by the fact that early fascism included an amalgam of expressionists, anarcho-syndicalists, futurists, Hegelian idealists, theoretical syndicalists, nationalists and, in the case of the Spanish Falange, intellectual anarchists.
>[…]
>But the final reason why the importance of ideology in fascism must be denied is the fact that it exists in more than one form. In fact, historically it has proved to have three different faces. One “out of power” that tends almost to be revolutionary and subversive, anticapitalist and antisocialist. One “in power but not secure”—this is the sensational aspect of fascism that we see on screen and read of in pulp novels, when the ruling class, through its instrumental regime, is able to suppress the vanguard party of the people’s and workers’ movement. The third face of fascism exists when it is “in power and securely so. ” During this phase some dissent may even be allowed.

>>1776445
>>Now communism professes to derive its driving force from the will of the workers to overthrow the rule of the owners of property, and substitute that rule with the dictatorship of the proletariat. As a matter of fact, of course, communism in operation has been a series of phenomena whose driving force has been derived from two main sources: First, the personal motivations, too complex always for brief analysis, of the initiating leaders-motivations springing from a sense of frustration under the existing order, feeling that this order was evil, and the love of power common to so many strong men; and, second, Russian patriotism, which was captured and mobilized by these initiating leaders of communism, exactly as French patriotism was captured and mobilized by a Corsican second lieutenant of artillery and soldier of fortune.
Yo uh, as a bisexual transhumanist why is this so gay? like this is so fucking gay lmfao do they realize how gay they sound?

>>1773791
Thread should have ended here.

I mean you're right. I think idpol is important for any labor movement regardless if communist or not. Identity politics is just a different dimension of liberation than of the working class.