Tell friend idpol is a distraction

Who was right?

idpol is all this board talks about im sick of it

i really don't care about your dumb argument

Fuck you, niggerbrains.

nice idpol

your friend is right.

You were. Idpol causes even more tribalism.

idpol is a non-issue in a true communist state.
You were correct.

Is there any sort of backup for that claim except 19th century literature? I mean, considering a communist society didn't exist on this planet so far.

Depends of your definition, nature and nurture are a dichotomy that eventually shape who you are

I do not have any literature, but if you'd look at world around you, you'd realize that idpol is invention of late-capitalist society. It's problem of western countries and worst korea. Feminism in places like middle east is still movement for equality.

This is partly true as the contemporary IdPol (feminism, LGBT, muh refugees) is clearly a result of capitalism, or however, an indication how liberal capitalism can hijack IdPol for D&C.

On the other side, however, IdPol is almost as old as civilisation itself, just the identities that are fought for are changing throughout history - while nation, gender or race are pretty modern identities, people used to fight for their religious community, tribe, clan or language group and bonded to their identy not unlike a postmodern feminist.

i find that most people do not understand what idpol is, and when you ask them to stop using it, the get confused and just scream at you for being a "liberal".

please provide evidence for this

...

it literally didnt exist before

Idpol is bad, but its not a distraction and your argument was bad.

Idpol is bad because it reinforces the hierarchies of capitalism. It takes race/gender as fact and seeks to integrate the racial hierarchy into idealist liberalism.

Who cares if people treat each other the same, if billions are on the brink of starvation.

seconded

nigga shut the fuck up

This is why you guys are a fringe group of loons like Holla Forumsyps just on the opposite corner. You always always overstate your case.

If billions were literally on the brink of starvation, then capitalism would be on its last legs. Capitalism doesn't work if it starves everyone to death. There are millions on the brink of starvation, and there are billions of very poor people on low calorie diets who work in shitty conditions, but there aren't billions of people who haven't eaten for weeks and are about to die if socialism doesn't save them. If this were true, a spontaneous global revolution would be right around the corner.

Meanwhile, in reality, most people in first world countries even the poor are no where near starvation conditions. In third world countries people are just smaller and dumber because of what capitalism has done to them, but most Indians and Africans are not starving.That's a retarded Oxfam strawman vision of the third world. Persistent consistent mass starvation would lead to the collapse of capitalism. This is not how capitalism works.

You overstate your case so bad you end up undermining your own arguments (like Holla Forums and its superhumanly competent subhuman joooz). If billions were going to starve soon, then capitalism would be near its end (and you've been saying that since you started, and we haven't even got into the declining rate of profit stage yet). If capitalism worked like that how the fuck would it consistently extract surplus value? The capitalists know that it's going too far to extract everything above reproduction, so they need to redistribute a little extra to pacify things, which is what they actually do, and more so now than in Marx's time. Security is really important to capitalists. The real bourgeoisie are not Randian Objectivists. That's just a religious superstructure element that is designed to make sure that the most radical petite bourgeois element that could throw their lot in with either class align their love of freedom with the haute bourgeoisie instead of the proletariat.

you're retarded for numerous reasons

the first two hits on ddg say that starvation/malnourishment affect 750-850 million people and is directly responsible for killing 3 million children a year

aside from that everything you said about capitalism shows how massive an idiot you actually are

read a book nigger

Never said billions were on the brink of starvation. I thought I was being clear, but I was painting a hypothetical about the future where racism has been done away without doing away with race (impossible). How will this new post-racist racial society deal with the influx of a hundred million refugees from south east asia as islands and coastal regions sink beneath rising oceans? What about the massive droughts that are becoming more and more common in some of the previously most productive farmland?

People generally don't die directly from starvation, they die of disease related to malnutrition. Persistent consistent starvation is a matter of course for capitalism.

Capitalism can certainly work if people starve to death after their contracts are over (see early imperial plantations in the americas)

Rate of profit has declined, the mass destruction of WW2 slowed down the decline of the rate of profit, but its falling every decade and the next wave of automation is going to fucking destroy profit.