"Frankfurt School subversion techniques"

Cultural Marxism is about inculcating proles with a "communist subjectivity," so that they are more culturally similar to what people in a "communist society" would be like: internationalist, anti-patriarchal, anti-racist, etc., etc. All of this is done so that proles can see through their false consciousness and realize their revolutionary role in the abolition of capitalism.

Because they hate reading and learning; they are openly, proudly anti-rational and only respond to buzzwords.

It weakens the gentile population of their remaining connection to the gods and leaves them spiritually powerless, hence allowing for a quick and easy Jewish takeover.

That's true.

🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧They🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧 would have you believe that North Korea is a shitty poor dystopia but really it's a nationalist workers paradise 10x more powerful than the USA thanks to glorious autarky.

Okay.

But where does desiring a Jewish-led dictatorship come into this?

Frankfurt School were Sabbatean-Frankists. They believed in "redemption through sin".

Do you really think they know? People who believe in such horseshit don't know what they are talking about and thus can't really explain it. It is just retarded hearsay.

Cranks are America's greatest contribution to human civilization.

He's not wrong. Hasidim used to live in virtual communalism. Shetls were practically communes.

Benjamin certainly was.

i don't get it.

The EU is a free trade agreement…

Karl Marx supported free trade. :^)

Checkm8 commie

me neither :(

So what this guy is saying is since communism comes from the bible and the bible is literally true and written by god himself therefore communism is the truth and the light.

Is that right?

Works for me.

eu supremacy

when germany knows what is the best for every country and every race and every culture.

you have no sovereignty

Where in the Torah does it say to abolish property?

What layer of irony are we on my dudes?

It gets even better
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_for_Cultural_Freedom

I think so.

Huh! Really makes you think, doesn't it?

The point is simple: primarily Jewish intellectuals (Western Marxists) created schools of thought, marrying Marxist philosophy with cultural studies to critique capitalist culture/society. From there, critical theory branched out to many other sub-fields also criticizing various elements of Western culture/society.

Before this of course the whole west was absolutely content, right?

Well, if by "West" you mean the States, then yes. Coasting pretty far after the war. Europe was in shambles, but they rebuilt themselves pretty quickly. But I think I know what you mean, it's the old "you see, you just NEED our failed system of beliefs with no empirical evidence to support its implementation, don't you see that all this time you haven't had it, you've been failing! So implement the system of beliefs because without it, you will perish!". It's the same bit immigrants use to justify open borders. I'm going to say that there is a slight conflict of interest, given that the same Western Marxists were expelled from Germany because they were Jewish and Marxist.

Did they say that?

A critique of capitalism, yes. It is an "out with the old" because they did not believe it to be superior (compared to their own ideology). In fact, even the memes portray some poor, shunned patronizing tone (oh, we wuz jus tryna help y'all). Thanks but no thanks.

A critique isn't the same as saying that it'll fail totally and result in the deaths of everyone. Were they big crisis theorists? Weren't they focusing on the cultural effects of capitalism?

And as for the US, post-war conditions for labour were enormously better than they had been in the past, right?

By perish, I don't mean nuclear annihilation. It means to decay as a civilization into destruction, or into a state that their system of beliefs would not allow. It is criticizing it in hopes of replacement. Otherwise you are admitting the critique is simply for the sake of critique: empty and with no alternative/replacement.
Yeah, see my first post. As I said, thanks but no thanks. Provide some substantive evidence outside of social 'sciences' and the like. The result of the fruit of their efforts has been catastrophic for the white working class, primarily in the abolition of division (or an attempt), which always means more diversity and relativist policies.
Standards of living were higher, if that's what you mean. People weren't working as hard or as long. The nation was coasting, to my knowledge.

It isn't okay to criticise something without offering a superior replacement?

The abolition of division? Do you mean they were saying that all people are the same? Source?

The Frankfurt school did this? How? Were they even pushing diversity?

Yes, post-WW2, but my understanding is that things had been quite unpleasant previously. The labour movement didn't spring from nowhere.

Generally, when you are making an argument against a certain system, you offer a replacement. This is the same issue the US ran into when they removed "dictatorships" in the ME. They offered no long-term plan to replace the regime they just overthrew and left a void. You are supposed to present your case, otherwise you are criticizing something without offering an alternative, which isn't feasible in the real world.
Division as in class conflict, the same class division that they sought to critique as "capitalist consumerism". Not that everybody is the same, but that divisions based on class are not in alignment with Marxist theory. Source material can be derived from 'History and Class Consciousness', as he was one of the first Western Marxists (also Jewish and also a champagne socialist/wealthy class elite). It outlines Western Marxist "class consciousness" pretty clearly. The abolition of divisions, primarily class, are a key point to Marxist thought. From that, it stems into other "arbitrary divisions", like sex, weight, race, etc. But the strawman is claiming that I state that they pushed for division of all kind. Rather, their efforts have been utilized to push for division of other kinds.
I didn't say they did it directly, I said "The result of the fruit of their efforts has been catastrophic for the white working class, primarily in the abolition of division (or an attempt), which always means more diversity". See for yourself: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory#Subfields. They draw direct influence from the same school of thought, because it is egalitarian in nature.
How so? What do you mean by unpleasant?

They just incorporated weberian aspects to Marxist sociology
Wait until they find out about Kracauer

Dummy, the point is that the Marxists were primarily wealthy Jews. Not that they would run the joint, although the Old Bolsheviks were disproportionately Jewish until Stalin took them out.

www.google.es/amp/www.newsweek.com/2016/01/08/big-pharma-heroin-white-american-mortality-rates-408354.html%3Famp%3D1

theoccidentalobserver.net/2017/05/17/opiates-death-on-the-prescription-plan/

Catastrophic? Laughable. If I were you I'd be way more worried about what your beloved capitalism and your eternally liberal government are doing to the hwhiteman than what some nerdy kikes had to say about arts and culture decades ago, boy.

Cultural Marxism as a concept is an absurd german relic inhereted by paleoconservative burgers to justify their powerlessness in front of the horrors of homosexusuality, feminism, and most importantly, the emptying of churches. Usually with fake quotes and ( ( ( them ) ) )isms, cause christians gonna christian. If you choose to believe the failures of progressive culture are more of a threat to your working class than their sistematic elimination by their unquestionable masters then be my fucking guest. But I'll concede at least you admit you don't buy that they were a bunch of avil marxists orchestrating the end of hwhipipo.

You don't think class conflict arises naturally?

Can you cite sources for the Frankfurt school applying Marxian class analysis to sex, weight, race, gender, or anything like that? Or sources for anyone doing so. I don't see how it could work.
Do you mean 'class is a division, so other divisions will naturally follow'?

So they didn't advocate any of this, but they led to it anyway? Which of the Frankfurt schools' ideas indirectly led to whatever diversity policies are devastating the working class? Just saying 'they're egalitarian' doesn't help.

How does creating divisions other than class division further socialist aims? Won't it lead to the proletariat squabbling over non-issues which will distract them from class?

Industrial hellscapes, satanic mills, machine gunning striking workers.

The communistic elements of Judaism are mostly found in Oral Torah (Talmud + Zohar), although the Written Torah does say you're supposed to ensure all the poor are taken care of and leave commonly-held fields so the poor can still eat.

Also, Lurianic kabbalah posits a theory of history similar to HistMat sans the hard determinism, which is where Benjamin drew his inspiration.

Yes. The US has become majority non-white, as of total births recently (www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/06/23/its-official-minority-babies-are-the-majority-among-the-nations-infants-but-only-just/). Pushing for lax border policy because we are all human beans, etc., or female empowerment because women=men, or affirmative action policies because evolution doesn't exist/have any impact on people has been destructive for the white working class.
However, pointing out pitfalls on one side of the spectrum does not dismiss or deny other downfalls. You have not even heard of my stance on opiate abuse, yet you assume I tacitly support it because you think I am a capitalist?
I am. That is why I am not a capitalist because they are anarchist and follow immigration platforms pushed for by egalitarianism, which I do not support.
Well, the "powerless" could destroy every idea you just put forth by tomorrow if they put their minds to it. Every muslim woman and child, every faggot, every socially undesirable person could vanish if it was deemed a national effort. Kind of like how grorious nippon just… vanished.
Fake quotes? But they actually were Jews.
You voluntarily enter into employment. They aren't your master. Define master. A master is separate from a boss because you have the freedom to leave the rule of their iron fist if you deem it so. And the result of some boycott you initiate would push the "master" out.
No. Their ramblings about "art and culture" have been utilized to put forth what I mentioned above.

When did the Frankfurt school ask for this?
Does mass migration benefit the proletarian or the bourgeois?
Why would socialist subverters want to bring in economic migrants?

You glossed over my point entirely. I will repeat myself: The abolition of divisions, primarily class, are a key point to Marxist thought. From that, it stems into other "arbitrary divisions", like sex, weight, race, etc. But the strawman is claiming that I state that they pushed for division of all kind. Rather, their efforts have been utilized to push for division of other kinds.
You also go on to say: Do you mean 'class is a division, so other divisions will naturally follow'?
Not necessarily, but my guess is that other disenfranchised "have-nots" observe the "liberation of the proles from their classes" and champion movements for themselves. So workers free themselves from their chains, blacks see this and do the same from their boogeymen, females from their own, obese people from their own, etc. Fundamentally, it is critical theory extended to various egalitarian schools of thought, NOT that critical theory was necessarily a prediction of all those egalitarian philosophies, but that it was a precursor.
Now you're getting it.
Marxist system of beliefs that are unfounded and without evidence to support their implementation. Primarily, critical theory. For more, see: archive.is/YzkIS.
The first is an aesthetic critique, it literally means nothing. A factory isn't supposed to be sunshine and roses. Satanic mills? You mean it was like hell? They aren't capturing you and forcing you to work. Again, I think you are upset with health code violations, which have since been fixed, than "capitalism". Machine gunning, as in executions? Source.

I don't think you can pop right into a dialogue and raise concerns without first reading the other posts I have made. I take not to directly avoid that strawman you are pushing onto me. This board should have IDs so you can follow along, as I don't blame you if you think I am one person each time. I quote my response: The abolition of divisions, primarily class, are a key point to Marxist thought. From that, it stems into other "arbitrary divisions", like sex, weight, race, etc. But the strawman is claiming that I state that they pushed for division of all kind. Rather, their efforts have been utilized to push for division of other kinds.
See: archive.is/YzkIS.

sage

I wasn't aware of the "employment police" that force you to become 'x'. Unless you think voluntary means something else. My definition is: done, given, or acting of one's own free will. Or are you absolving yourself of all agency and claiming you are some slave to a psychic elite, forcing you to be a prole?

">>1809283
The abolition of class is. What's your source for the rest?

This wild is speculation. What happened to empiricism? Do blacks or gays need academic theory to question their treatment by society?

If someone else does questionable things with your thought, you are to blame?

You can't cite health codes for prewar industrial capitalism. You should look at factory reports if you care about the plight of the white worker.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre
ctrl-f "death special"

The worker is coerced into working, how else will he eat? Do you think European peasants voluntarily traded bucolic life for them, their wives, and their children working 12 hour shifts in dangerous factories?

Shameless self-plug:
youtube.com/watch?v=X_y0LxcANic

The Frankfurt School were not trying to destroy western culture, but gather its utopian sparks. And none of them gave two shits about idpol.

In a genuine free market you can work for yourself without regulations stopping you.

Everything is owned. Unless this is a C4SS free market.

So that pic, and you by extension, admits that cultural marxism are nonsense, as the progressives influenced by Critical theory are just that, people that were influenced by it. There is no evil kike cabal (besides Israel, which, need I remind you, is the ley financer of the new right around the world and the internet), which is and has always been the point of Cultural Bolshevismus. Good.

They aren't your master. Define master.

Tired argument, but if you don't work, you don't eat, and your boss will know and exploit this, specially if you function in a difficult market. I can not decide I don't want to work if I want to eat, and this, wealthy individuals will always have our fate in their hands. In capitalism, they are indeed your masters.

Rest of your post is idpol gargle, as economic measures by your non-masters are what push mass emmigration and if people would not profit inmmensely from diversity (cheap labor) it would not happen. Progressivism and diversity are only on the rise cause they're profitable, and since it makes money, your masturbatory fantasy purges will not happen.

i got as far as the first use of font

There is none, the point isn't that…"fundamentally, it is critical theory extended to various egalitarian schools of thought, NOT that critical theory was necessarily a prediction of all those egalitarian philosophies, but that it was a precursor."
You keep on pushing the strawman that they wrote of 'x', but I am not claiming that. Those philosophies are inspired by critical theory, that's the point.
Yeah, that's why I prefaced it as a "guess". Because there is no "metric for oppression" because there is not such thing as oppression, only the rule of the mighty and the woes of the weak.
Blacks and gays are treated as they are because they are weak. Then they preach for the divisions separating them as other groups of people to be broken down.
Critical theory, yes. Not "you" as in a person. Again with the strawman that the Jewish Western Marxists were feminist vegans.
That was what I thought you were referencing. Then, you turn the burden of proof onto me. You should cite the "factory reports" to prove "satanic mills" are as you describe.
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre
That isn't an execution, that is an incident that sparked, culminating in loss of life. It is not as common as you made it out. I thought it was some annual occurrence. All in all, have even one thousand people died by "machine gunning" deaths?
Sounds like a personal problem. Nobody is supposed to give you food. You aren't entitled to food or anything else you didn't earn. That is not the definition of coercion. You voluntarily enter into employment.
Why have children if you can't afford to feed them? This is the old "oops I fucked up and made bad life decisions, now let's say I'm forced into decisions while absolving myself of any foresight I might have had".

Class consciousness is identity politics.
Marxism is not viable or feasible as a system of beliefs and it has been summarily rejected by the West. The patronizing "we are just trying to help" is something the West can go without.

Yes. Nobody is claiming otherwise. You hold onto the strawman so tight that if I asked you to cite a single post where I claimed otherwise, you would not be able to. I have repeatedly stated that they were not 'x', but that "the abolition of divisions, primarily class, are a key point to Marxist thought. From that, it stems into other "arbitrary divisions", like sex, weight, race, etc. But the strawman is claiming that I state that they pushed for division of all kind. Rather, their efforts have been utilized to push for division of other kinds."
I am not also claiming some "evil kike cabal". In fact, you are the first to mention it, as I have not made reference to it once. I only stated that the Western Marxists were driven out of Germany because they were Jewish and Marxist.
I also never made a statement on behalf of Israel. Again, you are the first to mention it. You also assume I support Israel or that I am neo-conservative. Again, learn to debate. Try posting where I make such claims to attack me based on that character instead of conjuring one up.
Israel did was created in the 40's. Bolshevism predates Israel, but many Old Bolsheviks were Jewish. Marx himself was ancestrally Jewish.
You still haven't defined master. A master has dominion over his slaves. You are not a slave. Victimizing yourself without actually providing evidence or elaborating on definitions isn't a good point for your argument. You are not entitled to food. It isn't just going to fall into your lap, you are going to have to exert energy.
Pot calling the kettle black. Class rivalry is operating on identity.
True, also because it provides a new voter-base.

How?

The definition of identity politics: a tendency for people of a particular religion, race, social background, etc., to form exclusive political alliances, moving away from traditional broad-based party politics.
By its definition, identity politics also includes economic status, too. By berating "porky", you are demonstrating that which you despise. Might just be holier-than-thou, which is tribal human behaviour, so I am not surprised as I am the same.

Nobody had ever criticised anything before the Frankfurt school?
How can you hold them talking about culture and capitalism responsible for everything you dislike? Which theorists who were influenced by them are responsible?
I'm not seeing a causal chain here.

So you better stop complaining about your betters bringing migrants into the country.

You pretty much state that what happened with their ideas wasn't their intention. How am I strawmanning you? You're holding ideas responsible for the use others make of them, I don't think that makes sense.

Does anyone but you disagree with me about working conditions in industrial capitalism?

You know there are a lot of workers? If they use their might to take private property you're fine with it?

What are the enclosures? Either way, I suppose you don't care so much about the white worker when it's the 'free market' devastating him, huh?

...

Who berates capitalists? We berate capitalism.

Class isn't an identity you dim wit

Again, not the assertion. You really need to stop latching onto things I never said. The Western Marxists were more influential, not that nothing else ever existed. I'm going to start asking you for quotes. Quote me where I said that.
Quote me where I said that.
Mentioned above, critical theory has influenced many other philosophies, like gender studies and feminist studies primarily because it is a popular extension of Marxism to cultural studies, which is egalitarian in nature.
Except the nation is the mighty. They can easily repel the migrants. That's the point.
Marxism extended to cultural studies was the goal. From that, critical theory has been extended to other philosophies. I am not claiming they are what they influence, but that those who found common ground with them did so based on egalitarian philosophies, such as dismantling divisions (one was class, the other was sex).
They are not alive, so obviously they can't have intent. Quote me where I said that. The entire assertion is that the Frankfurt school is Marxism+cultural studies, resulting in critical theory (to name just one concept) which has been utilized to other fields of cultural studies/analysis. Equality of the sexes was NOT their intention, but class abolition was (as they were Marxist). Reread my posts and find a single quote where I claim "the intention of critical theory was to, originally, fight for equality of the sexes/races/weight/etc.".
Stop shifting the burden of proof.
Sure. If they can and want to. But the boundary between public and private is arbitrary, and those that notice that will reject to the destruction of small businesses and trade.
Elaborate, I don't understand. Physically? It's an example, I don't think they are confined to 'x' location.
I am not a capitalist, though. Quote me where I state that I am. I am against poor life choices, like having kids you can't feed.

Not really relevant to the point; dismissed.

Who is "we"?

Then the bourgeoise don't exist as a group of people.

class is based on factual material conditions, not ideology.

Identity is not dependent on ideology. Ideology is simply a code of beliefs. Identity may or may not fulfil an ideology. Class, itself, is an identity, formed with a group of people (in your case, the lower class versus the upper class). When you talk of "worker revolution", that is identity politics.
Define identity, define ideology, define identity politics. I think we are operating on different definitions.

fuck off you anti-Semitic fascist

Identity is based entirely of self constructed narratives and perception. It's a spook in the first degree. One's class is based on material relations to the modes used to replicate society.

Saying class is an identity is like saying that people that wear blue shoes is an identity. Or that shirt wearers are an identity. Identity isn't based on material facts, only perceptions.

Read a book.

This is the important part. What influence did the Frankfurt school or even socialist thought of any sort have on gender studies or feminism? Did the Frankfurt school even put a heavy emphasis on egalitarianism?
Hasn't feminism always been a mostly upper class thing?

The rulers obviously don't want to do that, if they're rulers they must be most mightiest of all.

How is dismantling sex difference is the same thing as the proletariat seizing the means of production? One of these requires transhumanism, the other requires societal shift. Equality in socialism would mean equal opportunity without the imbalances caused by private ownership of the means of production. Women would still be the only ones capable of childbirth and so on.

How so? You know what we mean when we say 'private property', right?

I've never heard anyone claim that industrial capitalism led to good working conditions, especially right wingers.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure

You're rotten through with their logic. What are you?

Pretty sure economic status is reality, not influenced by your "perception". If by any perception, then any information analyzed by the brain is subject to your own arbitrary interpretation, thereby making it a "spook". That is also not the definition of what an identity is. It is not self-constructed. Ethnic origin is not "self-constructed". By definition, sex is not able to be bent by the individual: you are born that way. Class and economic status are not permanent, but they are a separation of groups.
No, it isn't Define identity, define class. I defined identity above, you did not. Class is defined as: a social division based on social or economic status. It does not necessarily have to be material, or corporeal, although it can be (in regards to wealth status). "Replicate society". Elaborate. Society already exists for social divisions to exist within society. Nothing is being replicated.
No, that is what people wear, not a class. A class is a social division based on social or economic status. It isn't related to fashion. A more apt analogy would be those who can afford to wear shoes and those who can't. They are divided groups of people.
Not entirely. Do you merely perceive yourself as being poor? It is a reality.
"dude read books I agree with"

Critical theory influenced many other philosophies and other "oppressor vs. oppressed" narratives, like feminism or gender studies. See: archive.is/OYFM6.
In relation to class and the abolition of arbitrary institutions, like traditional family units, which maintain hierarchies in Western culture. Marxism IS egalitarian in that it states hierarchies must be abolished, specifically class division.
You can say the same when you see how many Marxists were upper or middle class.
Yes, because, in the US, they get their votes from minority groups as they vote Democrat more often than not (Hispanics and blacks).
The dichotomy between the oppressed vs. the oppressor. Haves vs have-nots. Male muh privilege versus bourgeoise luxury. I never said they are equivalent, but that they are both derived from concepts like critical theory. I'm just repeating myself, try reading my links and following the footnotes, they cover the points raised and how Western Marxists observed Western culture and brought forth Marxist critiques, which leaked into other cultural studies (under the same format).
No such thing exists unless you can somehow reveal how exploitation and the unjust extortion of your surplus labour was ever in your own possession for it to be stolen when you voluntarily enter into a contract.
Not what I am claiming.
Define private property.
Okay, let's say it is the worst thing in the world. You never enter into a debate and ask the other guy to provide your evidence. That isn't how it works.
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure
Ah, I see. So how are they slaves, though?
Sorry, but identity politics for the bourgeoise.

...

Yeah, that was the quote. It isn't accurate. Class is not necessarily material. Socially perceived classes are not defined by the lack/abundance of some corporeal 'x'.

Are those exclusive to socialism? Exploitated/exploiter seems more socialist to me.

Extended, multi generational households, you mean? Or nuclear families?

Marxists want to change the mode of production, feminists usually want mild reform.

Okay, you win.

Quote me where I said that. Find a post where I made that. You are the first to mention socialism, as I have never mentioned it or made exclusive statements on its behalf. I ask you to find that post.
You are the one making an exclusive statement on behalf of socialism. Stop pushing your strawmen on me and find the post where I made that. Implications aren't good points, you're just making assumptions.
A family unit has only one definition: male/female romantic culmination resulting in childbirth. The female raises the child and the male is the breadwinner.
The entire point I have been trying to drill home is that the WM critical theory leaks into other studies in format only, not as an exact replica, primarily because they also seek to abolish division/perceived oppression (which usually doesn't exist beyond the hierarchies which cannot be removed).
Do you object to the statement? I can back it up: college.usatoday.com/2016/11/09/how-we-voted-by-age-education-race-and-sexual-orientation/.

>Do you object to the statement? I can back it up: college.usatoday.com/2016/11/09/how-we-voted-by-age-education-race-and-sexual-orientation/.
No! Delete this!!

In my haste I forgot.

Read a fucking book, my dude

I repeat my point earlier: "dude read books I agree with".
Families cannot be started with the same sex. Two spermatozoa cannot fertilize one another. Likewise, the family unit operates just the same. The second half is how it manifests in human societies.

You aren't really making a point for or against the information and you haven't presented any counter-evidence, so you cede any stance you might have had for/against my point.

I repeat my earlier point: "Read a fucking book, my dude". This isn't a political issue, you're just wrong. Extended families have been the norm until last week or so.

I already said so, didn't I? You've proved that the brown people support theDemocrats, what else is there to discuss?
How can we prevent this socialist takeover?

I never said it was necessarily a political issue; I was discussing its definition. You realize that an extended family includes the same aunts and uncles… who utilize procreation, which is what I am arguing for.
More foreign aid and welfare.

I'm pretty sure he means a history book you brain damaged human defect.

Extended families are within the point I was making, which was to highlight how the definition of males and females.
The definition of males and females (also extends to extended families) isn't a "historical issue", as it is not prone to change in order to necessitate a historical topic. But I'm sure coming into the conversation and leaving it off with an insult really is conducive to the discussion and makes the opposition sure to weigh your argument as you do theirs: logically.

...

Usually when you completely derail the point of discussion, you don't defend your point. That means you willingly cede any stance you might have had because you refuse to engage beyond "lololo reaction dot jiff" posts.

The whole concept of Cultural Marxism stems from an older conspiracy theory pushed by actual Nazis. Back in the late nineteen thirities, the Nazi elite were accusing members of the following groups of people of being "National Bolshevists."
- Painters
- Writers
- Musicians
- Film makers

They called these people "degenerate artists" who would bring down Civilization in some manner. It's really nothing new. The difference between then and now was that it was harder to turn the public against artists. Now that we have the internet, your average pol/warrior can post a video for millions to see.

10 Soros Bucks have been deposited to your account, "comrade"! ;)

sauce on this? maybe sone cimparative lit?

As opposed to the illegitimate Nazis, the faction that weren't huwhite males "zomg nazis".

Stop backpedalling.
Is not an extended family and does not explain traditional gender roles well. Read a book. find one by a far right traditionalist if you must. Read the definition of socialism while you're at it.

Nah, Benjamin has a text describing capitalism as an all-encompassing religion…

You can find so-called "Communistic Elements" in most holybooks just as you are able to make parallels with a post-industrial world and a pre-industrial world. For the most part, you can cherry pick these things.

By "actual Nazis", I meant historical Nazis. There is no such thing as a legitimate Nazi. I was merely making the distinction between the more modern conceptualization of Nazism and that of traditional German Nazism.

Socialism is an umbrella term that refers to a host of ideologies that differ in many ways. The difference between different forms of "Liberalism" are differing in the same principle.

Family unit can be applied to the line that created the parents in-question. How do you think they exist? That is my point.
Males are superior in certain aspects and, thus, flock to those roles, naturally. Physically speaking, they are superior and will provide for the family. They are not as empathetic or as caring as women, as males are more aggressive. They are more willing to work to provide in difficult jobs, whereas females are more compassionate and empathetic. They are maternal, so to speak.

If it doesn't have social ownership of the means of production it isn't really socialism.

You know we're talking about history, right? Do you think I'm implying that there were no gender roles? I'm not.
Do you think women in the past did nothing but raise children? You're projecting your mental image of the 1950s backwards. Stop.

"Actual Nazis" sounds like a sensationalist buzzword more than anything else. They weren't just Nazis, they actually were Nahtzees. They attacked degenerate music, like jazz, as being "negroid music". Or other forms of aesthetic relativism as being an attack against the traditional form of art. Like Picasso's work versus Bierstadt's work.

Then why discuss "traditional gender roles". The natural flow has resulted in females pursuing career paths/life choices with what I have outlined.
Cite me a single matriarchal society where females were the chiefs that has survived the test of time and is worthy of first-world status (the kind of place you want to immigrate to).
You're projecting your mental image of the 2000s backwards. Stop

That can't exist. The moment somebody decides to start a small business, they are removed from the definition. The people can never fully control the means of production because that is an idea, not a concept that can be implemented and actually has a track record of empirical evidence supporting its self-sufficiency. It is always paralleled with a state manipulating markets.

Women in the past worked in the home, and even in the fields, depending on how rich they were. The home in the past was not like the home now. Things further back were different again.
2modern4me. You've got a blinkered outlook.

I'm not implying anything like that.

But I'm not. Read a book.

Again, you're so stuck in the present that you can't imagine anything different.

Out of necessity, sure. I have never contended that, I thought your point was to highlight how females are more suited to hunting and gathering, or working to earn while males rear the children (somehow).
Yes, I did not think you meant archaic roles. They are not as relevant as our modern applications.
I understand that now and withdraw the point.
Well, the above point is valid because it is truthful. Cite a documented case of what you describe.

...

Almost as if, like, material conditions shape things, or something.

The USSR.

Here's a challenge for you: find a post where I defend capitalism and say that it is the ideal system to have because it is superior. Go on, I'll wait……

How are you defining capitalism?

What system do you want, then? If you do not have an alternative to a proposal, you are in no position to complain about pragmatism.

Not really material conditions, but a lack of civilizational advancement. If by material conditions, you mean the technology available to the people, then yes. Many luxuries were not offered or available.
It's because it isn't relevant. I don't discuss archaic interpretations when they have been replace or upgraded.
A state and currency cannot be communist. And the people did not own the means of production, the state did. The individual was not able to produce anything.

For you, the end goal is all women sitting at home doing nothing at all?

Now more women are in the workplace than in the 50s, and that's not advancement? How do you tell what is and isn't advancement?

I'm bored now.

That's a really vague term. If it extends to technological advancement, I fail to see how that is material. Scientific advancement is not "material".
Birth and raise children.
I mean penicillin and radio. Not affirmative action programs.
Try reading a book, duh.

Marcuse DID write about idpol though.

What is it then?

Realizing concepts are not "material". They can be, but it isn't exclusive.

They aren't just concepts through. What scientists are discovering are inherent mechanisms of the material universe.

To use your example of penicillin and radio these are not just ideas, they're things that actually exist. We're not just imagining the radio waves that make so much of our technology work.

Natural phenomena are not always material. Evolution is not "material".
Radio waves are not material. Penicillin is. Gravity is not material. GPS isn't, either. Is energy material? You have just defined matter.

...

Except both of them were AGAINST the shlock capitalism produced and sold as "culture".

Really.
The biological transformation of creatures over generations is not material. Can you tell me which part is the immaterial part?
Is it the genetic information passed down? Or is it the mutations? No, that can't be right those are definitely material.

So fill me in. What's happening here that's not material?

Yes, actually.
Anything physical is material. Which includes things like energy, like radiation, like natural phenomena such as gravity.

You mean the organisms themselves? You are just describing biotic matter. The genes themselves consist of matter, yes. Your point is everything is everything.
So the point is "matter=material". You have just described the physical universe. Or, a broad term.

That's precisely my point. All scientists do is describe and analyse natural phenomena that already exists. They don't conjure things out of thin air.
In terms of a noun, yeah. But in the sense of "material conditions" it's an adjective, and that's how it's defined in the dictionary.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm describing. Now you're starting to get it.

That is an all-encompassing term. It defines our entire existence. We were talking about a specific thing. I might as well say "yeah, within the observable universe". No shit. My point was that inspirations and innovations lead to improved quality of life. This includes the entire Universe, too.

It is not but. It does not include immaterial like abstract concepts or social constructs. It exclusively deals in the self-evidently material.

But that's not an argument.
It absolutely is a broad term. But this is no crime, if we're to have a comprehensive vocabulary there needs to be broad terms as well as precise ones and there are times when a broad term is the most relevant. As was the case when user brought up "material conditions" to begin with.

If you're going to backpedal on your point that scientific advancements are not material conditions after realizing you didn't even understand what "material conditions" means then just own it. You said something stupid, you got called out, happens to the best of us.

the person you're arguing with has an anti-philosophical mindset and is suffering from MATERIALIST brain AIDS and autism. i would stop while you are ahead

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Bolshevism

pardon?
Yes.
I never made the point that broad terms are not necessary. I said that specifics are required when discussing specific things. It is not an accurate representation as it is all-encompassing and cannot be classified as wrong by any stretch of the imagination. Material conditions requires the Universe to be as it is, which it, most certainly, is.
It obviously is; I even said "If by material conditions, you mean the technology available to the people, then yes. Many luxuries were not offered or available."
I thought you meant physical things, like penicillin or other antibiotics. They are "material". Nobody denies that. But the action of innovation, itself, is not material. Unless the chemicals of the brain are to be included, in that case it is material because somebody founds the concept. And the concept exists in the Universe, so it is always technically material.

no

This gets me every time.

Please tell me this isn't real.

I'm pretty sure the man in the video is a Christian pastor.

Part II is just these lads whining about EU regulations and blaming it all on the Franks:
youtube.com/watch?v=_I4CVx2IZR0

Here goes something that's been going around 4/pol/.

"Not fake because it was in a book by a former FBI agent in the 60s".

Sorry, I should also say that these are the Communist Part of the USA's goals.

youtu.be/PWHaHgSWU0w?t=268
That's where you're ignorant of econophysics, kiddo

Cockshot is a TERF.

was this pun worth a post

Number 42 is literally how the U.S.was born though.

No, he really is a TERF. He affiliates with RadFems.

Wut?

lol if anything they should blame Derrida and Foucault.

Is the so-called left-postmodern idpol present in Europe as much as the US, at least, prior to the Muslim migration waves? I feel like the identity politics stuff that right-wingers complain about grows more out of critical race theory and its descendants than the Frankfurt School, though maybe critical race theory is in fact inspired from the Frankfurt School (though idpolers are probably too stupid to read them so I doubt it).

Critical race theory basically rejects liberalism for lack of race-consciousness, emphasizes storytelling etc. as "other forms of knowing", features gender/race essentialism, conceives of white skin as equivalent to a property right, supports black nationalism, etc.

it seems more like the kind of thing that could only come out of the mind of bourgeois black racial activists than jewish subversion

Nigger read Brave New World or something. Their idea is:
"Jews and Guldural Margzizm spread fun and corrupt people's moral fibre. People then become completely consumed by hedonism and pursuit of cummies, becoming the ideal goy-animals who can be controlled with promises of cummies."

I've never understood this idea. Adorno was pretty reactionary about cultural stuff and a bunch of these people would probably like minima moralia if it was attributed to Olaf Notajewsson

Adorno and Benjamin would be alt-right favorites if they weren't 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧(tribe members🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧) and anti-fascists.

This is your brain on Holla Forums.

You're the same troll as te guy in the "way to go, Holla Forums" thread, aren't you?

The man himself didn't get it either.

Not that fucking pic again.

That retard literally just copypasted the results of the first page of results of a Google Scholar search for "cultural Marxism". And I encourage everyone to read those books, and see for themselves cultural Marxism is not the shit that rightwing useful idiots are peddling.

user, rightwingers can't even pronounce those names, let alone read them, let alone understand them.

I don't know why they keep focusing on Frankfurt school so much when we have the 45 goals of communism which more clearly depicts exactly what is happening in the West and is actually in US congress.

The sooner it collapses, the sooner we have communism.

...

Richard Spencer is a fan of the Franks:
youtube.com/watch?v=-G_eLMkJkNw

I feel like this guy couldn't get anymore brainwashed if he lived in North Korea.
I really hate living in this country sometimes….

Fuck, can't believe I left his userpic out.

Which guy? We're talking about a lot of morons here.

...

Hey Holla Forums, you thinking what I'm thinking? What if we rewrite critical theory books and attribute them to fake alt-right personas? if we don't turn Holla Forumstards marxist we will at the very least make them nazbol

Except the strawman of "the Western Marxists were vegans who wanted to ban white males" is not something anybody believes in. Or at least anybody who can defend their points. It is very easy to find the lowest hanging fruit and extend that argument to everything else.
The primary point is the following: archive.is/YzkIS.
It is simply the same old anti-capitalist (and the traditions of capitalist Western world) Marxism implemented by Jewish Marxists into cultural studies, to "try to understand the complexity of power in contemporary society and to make it possible to criticise what, cultural Marxists propose, appears natural but is in fact ideological."
From there, critical theory has leaked out into other facets, such as feminist studies and gender studies in an attempt to analyze the traditionalist culture and its effect on the identity in question.

This.

You're missing a few steps there.

Tell that to Holla Forums.

also there's nothing "ideological" about it, class is material. This is fact.

Kind of a tall order. Wouldn't it be easier to simply rename the author, remove any incriminating intros, prologues etc., and if eneded, do a search & replace?

That's the thing with reactionaries in general, and fascists in particular. The former, beside usually being dimwitted, also has the tendency to argue in bad faith (libertarians deserve a special mention on this) and unwillingness to change opinion. The latter abandoned any attempt at dialogue whatsoever. Both of them eagerly believe in these "strawmen", or pretend to believe in order to keep the collective hatred and indignation up.

I know, dear user. I have said so dozens of times these past few years across the internet. But the ones who understood it and were brave enough to admit it changed their view are precious few. I guess i should have written my message in a pic so I could just repost it elsewhere too.

And race, gender, etc. aren't?

Whatever color your skin is or whatever you have or have not between your legs is entirely divorced from the whatever bullshit identity is made up to go along with it.
Any special affinity between a kid from Oakland and Obama because of the color of their skin is entirely imaginary. Your material relation to whether or not you have to sell your labor to survive isn't.

youtube.com/watch?v=a_qO9EnvNLs

Class is not an identity, it is an observation of how a person relates to the means of production. As a concept it is rooted in theories of how society works at the core, which assume that human beings are a species of organisms with a need to survive and thrive. While no philosophy is strictly scientific, even when concerned with science itself, some ideologies are more realistic than others.

Race is also an observation of how a person relates to the dominant structure of power.

Same with gender.

These relate to the dominant ideology, which is not the same as class dominance. Post-structuralist concepts of power like "heteronormativity" are simply incompatible with "old left" concepts because they reject economics as relevant.

Do it.

We don't reject economics. We just see economic class as a factor in the general structure of power. Marxist analysis is considered "old left" for a reason and if anything the 20th century should prove why standard Marxism is highly outdated.

Ideological hegemony among communists has never exist, the practical politics of Eastern dictatorships were not "standard" by any means, something even their proponents would admit (seeing it instead as being more developed or suitable for a given nation).

The idea that Marxist philosophy died out from lack of merit is naive at best and Machiavellian at worst, unless you actually think the Anglosphere didn't spend nearly a decade trying to squelch leftist thought across the globe, both domestically and by meddling in foreign affairs. Post-structuralists filled the gap because their academic competition was getting arrested for wrongthink, and left to flourish because its staunchly anti-Marxist, anti-materialist ideas are fully compatible with capitalism.

Now, is any philosophy objectively wrong? Of course not. I'm not going to complain about intellectual dishonesty while rejecting others' right to an opinion. But it remains a simple, inexorable fact that socialists and communists don't share the social justice concepts of oppression and marginalization, even when they support movements like gay rights, and there's not much you can do about that.

and where do these structures of power come from, in your opinion?

Much of human behavior is sporadic. There is no reason to think one can pinpoint the "origins" of said hierarchies with 100% certainty.

Are people not organisms with a need to survive and thrive? Do tell.

The idealist fears historical materialism

Humans aren't robots. Again, there are multiple factors which contribute to human behavior, some which we can never fully understand.

Not idealism, skepticism.

What constitutes a hierarchy or power structure in your opinion? What do you think it means to have power over someone else?

Whatever it is, it's certainly not rooted primarily in economic class. Class is as much of a social construct as race or gender/sex.

no because class is the result of materialist factors while gender and race are idealist concepts that exist within the superstructure.

And we believe there is such thing as an objective reality that doesn't really give a fuck what you think of it. Class as a concept is based off of the assumption that human beings are not magical.

You're free to disagree, but it sits with me pretty well.

Untrue. Gender and race are just as material as class since all three are social relationships.

Gender and Race are not material because they do not originate in material reality. To say that these things are materialist implies that they are biological, which I really hope you're not.

Neither does class.

Class isn't biological.

Race and gender are not related to the mode of production, which is the crux of how a society operates by managing the material resources people need to survive and grow. Whoever controls this social relation controls all others by proxy.

Unless you are arguing in favor of bioessentialism, which is pretty hilarious.

I'll take "what are the means of production" for 300 Alex.

What makes means of production more material than culture?

Physical objects are not feelings.

But why reduce everything to means of production?

Because reduction is an important analytical tool.

So your race changes going from a black dominated society to white? Or asian?

That's stupid

...