ITT proof that liberals viciously hate the poor

ITT proof that liberals viciously hate the poor

Other urls found in this thread:

What happens when you look for a racist boogeyman behind everything?

For example, how about you bloodthirsty bastards stop advocating military interventions against the countries those immigrants are coming from in the first place?

Oh no, no, you can't do that, you gotta offer pacifism as a campaign point for the Republicans as well, right? Because they're the Christian ones anyway, right? Because doing that would mean questioning Nobel Peace Prize Obama, and only Republicans are allowed to have opinions, right?

neogaf is so fucking terrible

The obvious solution is to refocus working class resentment away from immigrants and towards the people actually respsible for their misery: the porkies. Make sure you identify porkies as the enemy, and furthermore make it harder for porkies to take advantage of migrant workers by building a labour movement among them.

"The notion of sur­plus wage also throws new light on the con­tinu­ing ‘anti-cap­it­al­ist’ protests. In times of crisis, the obvi­ous can­did­ates for ‘belt-tight­en­ing’ are the lower levels of the salar­ied bour­geois­ie: polit­ic­al protest is their only recourse if they are to avoid join­ing the pro­let­ari­at.

Although their protests are nom­in­ally dir­ec­ted again­st the bru­tal logic of the mar­ket, they are in effect protest­ing about the gradu­al erosion of their (polit­ic­ally) priv­ileged eco­nom­ic place. Ayn Rand has a fantasy in Atlas Shrugged of strik­ing ‘cre­at­ive’ cap­it­al­ists, a fantasy that finds its per­ver­ted real­isa­tion in today’s strikes, most of which are held by a ‘salar­ied bour­geois­ie’ driv­en by fear of los­ing their sur­plus wage. These are not pro­let­ari­an protests, but protests again­st the threat of being reduced to pro­let­ari­ans. Who dares strike today, when hav­ing a per­man­ent job is itself a priv­ilege? Not low-paid work­ers in (what remains of) the tex­tile industry etc, but those priv­ileged work­ers who have guar­an­teed jobs (teach­ers, pub­lic trans­port work­ers, police). This also accounts for the wave of stu­dent protests: their main motiv­a­tion is argu­ably the fear that higher edu­ca­tion will no longer guar­an­tee them a sur­plus wage in later life.

At the same time it is clear that the huge reviv­al of protest over the past year, from the Arab Spring to West­ern Europe, from Occupy Wall Street to China, from Spain to Greece, should not be dis­missed merely as a revolt of the salar­ied bour­geois­ie. Each case should be taken on its own mer­its. The stu­dent protests again­st uni­ver­sity reform in the UK were clearly dif­fer­ent from August’s riots, which were a con­sumer­ist car­ni­val of destruc­tion, a true out­burst of the excluded. One could argue that the upris­ings in Egypt began in part as a revolt of the salar­ied bour­geois­ie (with edu­cated young people protest­ing about their lack of pro­spects), but this was only one aspect of a lar­ger protest again­st an oppress­ive regime. On the oth­er hand, the protest didn’t really mobil­ise poor work­ers and peas­ants and the Islam­ists’ elect­or­al vic­tory makes clear the nar­row social base of the ori­gin­al sec­u­lar protest. Greece is a spe­cial case: in the last dec­ades, a new salar­ied bour­geois­ie (espe­cially in the over-exten­ded state admin­is­tra­tion) was cre­ated thanks to EU fin­an­cial help, and the protests were motiv­ated in large part by the threat of an end to this.

The pro­let­ari­an­isa­tion of the lower salar­ied bour­geois­ie is matched at the oppos­ite extreme by the irra­tion­ally high remu­ner­a­tion of top man­agers and bankers (irra­tion­al since, as invest­ig­a­tions have demon­strated in the US, it tends to be inversely pro­por­tion­al to a company’s suc­cess). Rather than sub­mit these trends to mor­al­ising cri­ti­cism, we should read them as signs that the cap­it­al­ist sys­tem is no longer cap­able of self-reg­u­lated sta­bil­ity – it threatens, in oth­er words, to run out of con­trol."

Is this surprising? They are capitalists after all, neoliberals at that.


OP, why are you pointing out one turd in a pile of shit? It's a pile of shit, and everyone already knows that, so nobody really needs to look at it.

Neogaf, as absurdly liberal as many of its posters are, happens to be the only forum with any serious and active discussion of news and politics. It's better than Reddit or 4chan as well as any board here not called /marx/ or Holla Forums.

That is disgusting.

NeoGAF are arch-liberals… they've reached the same stage that almost every internet forum that some ended up being moderated by the same clique of twitteratti arrived at. I guess it shows the total failure of their ideology. I don't know. Obviously the thing in the OP is no longer recognizable as leftism.

I hate the poor. I am also a marxist and believe that the poor should rise up and fight for their class interest. there is nothing wrong with hating the poor. It's like Zizek says, "Poverty does not make nice people".

I don't think you understood him well.

A huge amount of liberals see prejudice as some kind of inborn trait that can never be unlearned.

To these people, murdering those who can never be saved is the moral thing to do.

You alienate people and wind up with Trump because people accept racism to spite you.


It was a liberal position at first

It's not even the mods so much as the cadre of posters who are most active.

NeoGaf is driven by 25-30 year old young professionals, enormously male but disproportionately non-white, who enjoy the benefits of capitalism but are conscious enough to oppose the Republican Party.

w/r/t "whip used to cow the white man"

He means they were used as strike-breakers and to weaken the power of the workers to the bosses. It was in fact existing social and economic racial division and the weakness of the law's ability to protect blacks that fractured labor's power and turned them against their natural allies.

Yeah but (I can't believe I'm saying this) in 2016?


yeah no


What's old is new again I suppose

But really, social liberalism has greatly fallen out of fashion, at least if it questions the logic of capitalism.

We live in a world of ultra-yuppies.


He meant that we should be realistic about what poverty does to people and not romanticize or sweep bigotry under the rug if it comes from refugees. the same thing applies to the working class at home as well.

once an identity fag, always an identity fah



For natural resources that return a rent, you can still relate that to labour in a way. Look at how Ricardo treated rent from land. (Pieces of land of different quality require different amonts of work. The farmer working on the shittiest land still needs to cover his costs, and it is this in Ricardo which determines the price of the product. So the labour inputs still rule the price here, though it's at the marginal inputs.) Of course, a meme philosopher who is on cocaine 24/7 would fail to make that connection.

Zizek on the edge of becoming a Mautism-Third-Worldist?

Christ, what an asshole. As if people who study history ever expected an amazing salary. Students in general have time and energy to protest, they less likely to have kids for instance. A protest against crushing student debt is not the same as a protest for a gigantic salary.


I think Cinema Robert legit has something wrong with him. Like a real, actual mental illness but all the sycophants he surrounds himself with are too scared to tell him to get help.

I agree he's a cunt but to you have a formal argument against what he's saying?

Every revolution based around the people that didn't devolve into fascism?

He didn't say Facism, he said ones that didn't sour into something negative.

Pretty much. /r/PoliticalDiscussion, /r/UKpolitics and NeoGaf have to be the most fucking pretentious liberal communities i've ever experienced in my life.

It's what happens when you get a whole bunch of communities filled with 20 something snobby urban professionals.

NeoGaf has to be the fucking worst though, I was a long time poster and got banned for daring question HillGaf. Now I'm going to have to wait for the fucking 6 months it takes for them to approve new accounts to actually debate these smug Liberal fucks.


The mods are definitely on their side. NeoGaf has one of the most fucking aggressive idpol elitist mod teams on the internet. Dare question Liberalism and their beliefs and you are on a one way street to bansville.

His commentary is on point though if you read it as an explanation for the mixture of discontent and apathy that occurs as a reaction with Bourgeois social change.

He's also not apriori condemning the purpose of student protests, but pointing out their wider circumstances. A lot of students seem to have naturally adapted to the idea of debt repayment. What they can't stand is not having the job to make the payments.



Ugh the ideology.

is this tweet trying to prove that priced things become more desireable than unpriced things?

"Decadent elites", as a rule, don't do shit. They don't have to. By definition, they are at the top of whatever system is supporting them so there is no pressure for change. They sometimes can profess "progressive" because there is no risk for them in doing so - but if there's any "shoving forward" of culture, you can bet it will only be (and has typically been) for the benefit of a small minority at the top.

But really, what is there to say to that? I'm not a Rousseaufag regarding the people as some kind of post-industrial noble savages with innate goodness. From a Marxist perspective, we know that the "ordinary normal people" of the working class aren't saints. Proles like us can be parochial and prejudiced and suspicious and ugly. But the working class is also the only class with the potential to change things, the only group where the contradictions and oppressions of the system can drive them to make change. So like it or not, that's what we have to work with and there's no guarantees - but we have a lot of history to show us what NOT to do if we get the chance.

The surplus wage meme is retarded. First world wages aren't higher because the porkies threw them a bone from their international exploitation. They're higher because porky couldn't pay less no matter how he tried. If the surplus wage is a real thing, then please tell me how it works, as all third-worldist shitters can ever say is muh imperialism.

Name one movement of the people that wasn't ruthlessly sabotaged or attacked? Elitism is much worse than simply being smug and the gross decadence is repulsive for many more reasons than morality.
It actually the opposite. Although you might contend that most great theorists were 'elites,' most social movements that pushed most of the changes were filled the lower classes. Twelve to now eight hour work day, five day work week, labour day, minimum wage, and other benefits and so on, were all legislated become of immense pressure from the workers. Worker societies when they could exist were often noted for their progressive values, even in a state as oppressive as Stalinist U.S.S.R.
While we're at it, fascism was mostly supported by the petit-bourgeoisie that was looking to restore their wounded ego after WWI. The people were simply dragged into it against their interests, as usual.
He would support the Tsar, he's fucking Kerensky. No, this cunt is Kornilov.