What is "idpol" even supposed to mean anymore?

Not so long ago, "idpol" used to refer to politics that aimed to replace radical materialist theory and practice with peddling superstructural cultural accommodations that leave economic structures unchanged. The backlash against idpol wasn't about dismissing race or gender issues (let alone how these could interact with class) but about ensuring the centrality of class struggle was not cast aside.

Now, "idpol" is being frivolously thrown around by all sort of drooling histrionic idiots, from ignorant underage contrarians to obvious Holla Forums renegades, who try way too hard to fit in by endlessly repeating the same string of buzzwords they barely themselves understand. Listening to those people, one would be under the impression that pretty much everything is idpol be it women fearing for their reproductive rights, blacks outraged by police brutality or third-worlders protesting neo-imperialism — as if those were not connected to class struggle.

I'm looking forward to when John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry or Friderich Engels' essay on the origin of the family are dismissed as "idpol", too.

I'm afraid the very term of "idpol" has been emptied of any meaningful content.

Other urls found in this thread:

reality.gn.apc.org/polemic/imper.htm
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Tbh, this happened ages ago.

And Holla Forums generally doesn't distinguish between identity politics and identitarianism. Which I honestly don't have a problem with, now.

This board has literally never used the word correctly and probably never will.

There's too much residue from our Holla Forums and Holla Forums influenced history.

This

Anyone that touches on superstructure at all is immediately accused to trying to use it to obsucate class.

On the subject of women's rights, is does modern feminism actually have anything of value in it? First wave was securing right to work and vote, second being reproductive rights and awareness. I'm not actually sure if there's anything new with the latest push as if there is it's burred under all the vapid bullshit.

yeah Holla Forums didn't use to be this bad though. Hopefully this is just newfags trying to fit in.

Nice idpol, kiddo.

Sure it does, but it started making money so it started focusing on frankly ridiculous things that only effect middle class white women, like sexism in video games. Instead of say the 100k untested rape kits in this country.

The real reason they hate big breasts in videogames is because they feel like it diminishes their ability to commodify their own sexuality, cant manipulate a guy with nudity if they can readily see it elsewhere, although I do believe there is some truth to it encouraging sexist additudes, but that's more to do with the flat characterization females in videogames used to have I believe.

If GG weren't s reactionary they'd have realized this battle is very similar to the battle feminists had with porn magazines and video in the 70s and 80s.

Almost the same claims were made, it dehumanizes women, in the porn case they went so far as to claim wide spread availability of porn would lead to run away increases in rape. I actually do believe porn is dehumanizing to women but it has more to do with how women are depicted and the porn industry itself than the fact they are having sex on film.

The other thing is this country still low key coverts female virginity so it's still socially acceptable to regard male sexuality as dangerous or disgusting.

It means "shit we're sick of talking about literally everywhere else we go to talk left-wing politics online or irl" and for me personally it also specifically means "burgerstan ethnic dumbfuckery I have to hear about even irl despite not fucking living there because American cultural hegemony is absolute in the Anglosphere and most leftists are middle-class students in it for fashion and social status and won't fucking talk about anything if it's not trending on twitter"

I really don't care if it's used "correctly" or if the board has a nonsensical definition or no definition. Holla Forums is not a political party, it doesn't need a serious political line. I come here to shitpost about 19th century theorists and philosophers, post and enjoy shitty memes and very occasionally even talk class struggle anonymously without 19 year olds competing with each other over how much they hate whatever ethnic group or sex or gender identity they are supposed to hate and having to worry about being ostracised because my shitty working class life doesn't give me time to or energy to keep up with whatever jargon is currently vogue on American campuses.

This topic is fucking dumb and it gets dumber every time some missionary comes here minister to the pagans. everybody has heard whatever you have to say on this topic a hundred times before and plenty of us are even sympathetic or agree with much of it but THAT ISN'T WHAT THIS BOARD IS FOR. you can talk about identity shit (especially burgerstan identity shit, which it inevitably is 90% of the time) to your hearts content literally anywhere else where left wing politics is talked about, you can even do it in real life where you might accidentally also do something actually worthwhile. so please feel free to GET THE FUCK OFF MY BOARD and go and do that instead of wasting everybody's time evangelising to a bunch of nobody anons on a bahraini sand mandala board REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

seriously, though, Engels essay on the origin of the family is arguably one of his weakest works. I agree that the shitting on idpol has gone too far though

It's very obvious that almost every topic that gets into talking about idpol is a reformed Holla Forumsack still dealing with their spooks and projecting it in a different way. It's always about liberal idpol

Also, I agree with this exactly

Instead of saying white middle class women I'm going to start saying landed white women, more materialist.

Do you mean white women who own land? I'm not sure what you mean exactly.

...

Yes, own their own homes or at least their parents do. A lot of you are too young to realize this but it makes a huge difference in your lifestyle wether or not you or your parents own their own homes, or at minimum have positive equity overall.

Assets - liabilities = equity. Is this equation ends in a negative number for you or your parents you're either poor or neuvo rich

Back to weird Twitter with ya.

it was just a joke

hey /r9k/ how you doin

Abortion is murder.

...

Okay well you tell me why you think issues that effect poor women are ignored by 3rd wave feminists such as the untested rape kits I stated before.

That was meant for the other frog poster.

How is that wrong?

My post has nothing to do with that and you know it.

Well for one it leads to dumb shit like believing getting a boner over Quite in metal gear is somehow oppressive to all womankind

Because sexuality is one of the basic drives of all humans? Deciding it needs to be suppressed is "problematic". Or as they say in China, "Eat Sleep Man Woman".

This. But identity politics actually mean something. Its when your political position is completely defined through your identity and not universalism. Every human is equal, without that universalism leftism doesnt work. Class is uniting for everyone, and we argue from that perspective.

When people claim that only they are allowed to speak on a topic, then thats idpol.
When people think their issues are unique and dont have class character, then thats idpol.
When your politics need the oppression of someone elses identity, then thats idpol.
When people claim that their culture is special and everyone has to bendover backwards to accomodate them, then thats idpol.
When people exclude others from political discussion because they dont have the right identity, then thats idpol.

There is more nuance to the depth of contemporary idpol, one really big part is blindness to the fact that socialism would actually help their individual condition. That universalism actually helps everyone, and that their conception of identity struggle is not leftist at all. There are also general issues with the concept of identity, how they are born out of alienation in the first place and molded by liberal politics. If you need personal help so a universalism is achieved then fine, but dont think you can question the universalism because of that.

And stemming from this essentially liberal, alienated politics comes a mode of activism which we despise. Like language policing, exclusion, mobbing, racialism, moralising ect.

No, that's just feminism collapsing in its own contradiction of being both sexually libertine and neurotically puritan. (Which is the result of a different contradiction, but that's another story)

It is dangerous for exactly that reason.

...

I have to say 3rd wave feminism isn't really that contradictory. They have successfully lobbied for the rights of women to sell their labor at near parity of men.

They are sexually liberal because *gasp* women have sex drives to and tell your political base they can't indulge in one of the most basic of human pleasures isn't gonna keep you in power for long.

They are puritanical only with regards to men's sexuality. Because, you're not gonna believe this, women leverage the fact that they have vaginas to get money from men.

In days past it was more important, that's why "sluts" were shamed along with prostitues, they were essentially sex scabs lowering the market value to free, or a nominal fee instead of the life long economic commitment the major of women demanded.

But women can sell their labor okay now so don't need to marry men for that. They also want to punish men for finding alternative ways of furfilling their sexual desires. He'll just look at sex workers now. Legalizing sex work should be a slam dunk for feminists considering how ridiculously exploited those women are to the point many of them are slaves. But legalized sex work would dramatically lower the leverage the monopoly on pussy give women so feminists are fine with a minority of poor women having their minds, bodies and families destroyed by the state and organized crime as long as it gets them that house and shiny car.

Why isn't class idpol?

Because class is an material relationship that you are in if you know it or not. Its independent of your insividual level of class consciousness.

So is being female or black. What's your point?

How is being female a economic relationship? How is being black an economic relationship?

What kind of theory have your read and are you even a leftist?

I'm playing devil's advocate.

Why is an economic relationship more important than a societal one? Why does it justify putting class identity above the others?

I am not going to explain Marx and basic socialist theory to you. We live in a class society and that has to end with socialism. The basis of opression is allways economic opression and that would end with socialism. You social relationships are nice for you but unimportant as a whole and unimportant for your class. The only reason they are relevant is when they create exclusion and inequality within the proletariat. But modern idpol is not a out equality but about either exclusion and domination, not about class solidarity. So its straight up reactionary or liberal.

The very same feminists who applaud art in which women are sexually degraded in the most obscene forms are the ones that cry hatred of women over boobs in video games being too big. It is not that they are puritanical only to male sexuality, they are puritanical to sexuality that exists in the same cultural sphere but outside of their own ideological confines, which can best be described as a virtual realm of fantasy. This is why they abhor housewives, while lauding BDSM sex slaves which are an extreme, theatrical version of the submissiveness of a housewife as empowerment through sexuality.

This characterization of feminists as pure calculating economic beings plays into the commonsensical view of humans as market actors, with all that which does not appear as such being merely a facade of the game-theory actor. I see no evidence for this.

Indentiy in so far as its exploitative, is rooted in class, people hate women because they used to do a shit ton of free labor in the past that kept capitalism going, and blacks were chattel slaves, which is free labor and sex and you can kill them as soon as they are no longer profitable to you. Now that they can sell labor on parity with everyone else it pisses people off because they believe that surplus labor could go to them like it did in days past. If there wasn't a belief that these identities could be exploited for surplus labor the material basis for bigotry toward them wouldbe lost

My evidence is their complete failure to meaningful address issues that effect poor women, like legalization of prostitution. Feminists are calculating though, they are a political body, you can't get anywhere without being calculating.

Also your analogy to rational market actors is bogus. People don't act rational on markets due asymmetrical information and opportunities. Not because they are emotional haha

...

BSDM is a fetish borne from the guilt of exploiting others, while white landed women are proles they often hold white collar positions and often act as proxies to the will of the bourgeois. Having to lay off a good employee or evict a needy family eats away at them and they find the faux punishment in BDSM cathartic. BDSM was always big amount landed white males for the same reason, now that more women are acting in the interest of porky it doesn't surprise me that same sexual fetish is becoming appealing to them.

If you can provide me evidence that the natural state of man is that of the game-theory market actor, and that all that does not confirm to this is a matter of inefficiency without begging the question, I'll be very interested. If this were correct, then every ideology would collapse, because everyone would know that it is all a facade for purely economic interests making using ideology as such useless.

Feminists are calculating in the use of their ideology, they aren't calculating in the sense that they know very well that all that they claim to believe and stand for is actually a ploy in a game theory setting.


BDSM is borne out of guilt as a mechanism of control, not out of guilt for true misdeeds. It is the victims of abuse whom it inhibits, not their abusers. It was big among landed white males largely due to practices at the boarding schools they were sent to, the fact that they live of their tenants does not determine their psyscho-sexual realm.

I said the game theory rational actor idea was baloney. Sorry if I was not clear.

Feminists who come from academia, are almost all landed petite bourgeois. So they have the same class interests as the white landed women they primarily appeal to. Sorry someone that educated knows what they are doing, they wouldn't be so consistent in produces theory that serves their bourgeois pay masters and appeals to their landed white female base.

Practically all support for issues effecting poor women are supported by feminists and activists outside of acedemia.

What does this even mean?

Americans don't go to boarding school, and there are way more female dominatixs than male. Sorry 50 shades of gray became a cultural touchstone because of women's increasingly growing role as proxies for porky.

Academic feminists are the most left-wing of feminists, it are those outside of academic feminism who engage in the pop-culture watered down feminism that speaks in PR-speak and spouts platitudes of stronk womyn. These do not serve capitalists at all, the diversity committees, gender quota's and other forms of rent seeking are a drain to any business.

Regardless of that, you are begging the question by assuming that they are acting as conspirators, setting up a faux ideology to increase their own wealth because they aren't adherents of (your version) of marxism. The logic here is fundamentally flawed, on the same base, I could indict marxists on working on behalve of ISIS because they too would like to end american presence in the middle-east.

The guilt of not being good enough, of displeasing the parents (or others in positions of authority), of being the cause of what is done to you.


There are more female domitraxs due to supply and demand. For submissive women it is much easier to find a dominant man than vice versa. Sexuality is determined well before people take on an economic position, usually in the early teens.

that's what you get when you go on Holla Forums and try to make them come here with nazbol memes.

i'd sage but this thread is better than anything on the front page rn.

The term gets thrown around because it's slowly becoming evident that it is extraordinarily difficult to even touch on these topics in a rational way without getting forcibly sucked into a rhetorical trap.

Post-structuralism, the liberal anti-materialist ideology currently dominant in academia, was left to flourish by anticommunist government for a reason. It's a singularity of pretentious obscurity that makes it impossible to meaningfully discuss anything. Liberals are literally obsessed with taking any political clique farther left than theirs and warping it into another social justice advocacy group that worships the American Democrats.

idpol is anything that threathens white straight male 'leftists' fragile egos

Yes its good for leftism when we build up pseudo enemies and use "white strait men" as a derogative. Its just mindless hating on identities instead of good critique of capitalism and the current reality.

capitalisms current reality is white supremacy, heteronormativity and male supremacy. You can't truly be against capitalism while ignoring its pillars

See

They are not pillars. Capitalism works just fine with a diverse and homosexual elite, or goal is to create unity of the proletariat, treating every white worker as some extension of the white elites is disengenous. Also not every where is the USA, in Europe sexuality is no longer relevant for politicians in many places.

We dont fight solely against the current form of capitalism, we fight against capitalism as a whole.

Feminists and /r9k/ sound more and more alike every day.

women queers and people of color are having opinions! how horrible!

Doesnt free them from having their shit opinions criticised.

Don't call me a queer, you fat cunt.

Luckily for you, OP, every other ostensibly leftist internet forum absolutely loves to talk about cis-het white male muh privilege.

t. white, straight passing queer

You imagine yourself to be on the intellectual side of the fence while falling back on disingenuous, intellectually dishonest posturing. This sort of thing happens all too often with people who insist that we discuss race and gender.

regardless of how much you keep throwing other queers under the bus, homophobes aren't going to accept you

Idpol idiots never manage to stay on target and allways need to bring in some supposed conflict.

isn't your refusal to acknowledge white supremacy intellectually dishonest as fuck?

Case in point: . These retards argue exactly like Holla Forums does. As soon as they get cornered on a particular point they try to pretend that the argument was really about something else all along.

The bourgeoisie family is a pillar of the capitalist system and is threatened by queer sexuality

Fantastic post

maybe at some point in the past but capitalism evolves. Being gay doesn't make you a radical, not when capitalism turns your identity into another demographic to sell shit to.

99% of the time you can replace 'idpol' with 'empathy and basic human decency' without changing the meaning of the statement

capitalism tries to assimilate queer sexuality within existing bourgeoisie norms, but it remains a cause of tension. anti assimilationist queers remain a threat to the system, something which you can't say of imageboard posters who insist on using homo and transphobic slurs

don't fucking kid yourself, capitalism hasn't been afraid of queer radicals for decades.
Also those "existing bourgeoisie norms" aren't really relevant to modern capitalism anymore because of how the system is constantly evolving.
Even if you destroyed the family unit (which we should) it wouldn't end capitalism by itself.

Subcultures are not revolutionary, the proletariat is. You will nsver manage to conquer some identity for socialism, in the end the message is proletarian equality not trying to define and defend some identity. Also you are showing why identity based politics is shit. Evading all fundamental criticism with " acknowledge x " screeching.

No it doesn't.

FTFY

...

Destroying the family unit only serves to hurt the workers. Reducing the overall population is part of Porky's plan as they lead us to slaughter. We leftists should be producing families of our own, on that note.

you can still have children without getting married ya dumb mormon.

capitalist family unit != human reproduction

Idpol is fair nomenclature. I see no significant difference between white, male, female, nonwhite, etc idpol.

They all make assertions of victim-hood that necessitates some kind of remuneration. Claims of genocide, oppression and mistreatment abound. However, comparing the validity of these claims in reference to the different idpol groups is purely subjective dick-measuring. Is the holocaust worse than American slavery? Chinese Slavery? Arabian slavery? The Armenian Genocide? Is it worse to treat people who are different to you poorly and better to treat people who are similar to you poorly? Are they the same?

Because that works out so well for the inner city children, right?


That's five years in the Gulag.

extramarital sex isn't the reason why inner city children have problems. The reason is they have no support .

Gee. Why is it that inner city children from single parent households have no support? Is it because the media and the government has normalized the practice of extramarital sex and shat all over the family unit as a product of "DA MAN!" instead of embracing it as a part of a productive civilization?

You're eating Porky's shit again.

how the fuck has the fucking government normalized extramarital sex?

No, it is because they, and everyone around them, are poor. Lose the idealism if you want to see how shit works.

ebin

Go to any public school and look up their sex-ed curriculum.


Of course everyone suffers in poorer areas but not everyone suffers equally. Single-parent households are worse off than normal families and the shitty economic situation is made worse under these arrangements. But we need to help Porky destroy the family unit because it, somehow, destroys the capitalist system (wtf?).


I never said that. "not a thing" does not mean "not affected by a thing".

Sex ed in America is shit for a million reasons but normalizing extramarital sex is not one of them.
I just want you to know you sound like a republican right now dude.

So-fucking-what? The nature of the problem is still poverty, the cause of the problem is still capitalism, and the solution to the problem is still socialism.

this right here buddy

The structure of the dominant family unit is always determined by the mode of production. The nuclear family is a phenomenon that is almost entirely unique to the capitalist economic center and is sustained only by temporarily high wages that are bouyed by imperialism.

You're right. It is just a coincidence that Porky is teaching sexual liberation to the youth at younger and younger ages while also selling lots and lots of sexual commodities.

I don't see how this is possible since Republicans are fags who love sexual proliferation.

That is the most flagrant example of idpol being used as obscurantism that I can recall.

Republicans are a tiny cadre of plutocrats and their legion of extra-chromosomal Holla Forumstards.

Maybe there are so many single parent households amongst the poor due to the fact that the poor are more heavily policed and incarcerated at a higher rate. Maybe the root of the problem lies within the material conditions these families find themselves in. Nah they just aren't thinking the right ideas and schools need to teach abstinence only.

That QT with the camera tho

Empathy and basic human decency is caring about the troubles an INDIVIDUAL faces and showing solidarity with them. It's not looking at people like fucking statistics and = saying to whites "You might've had a hard life, but it would've been harder if you're black. You don't get to talk about this subject since your muh privileged mind has nothing valid to say" or saying to blacks "I don't care how good your life has been or how much support you've gotten, you're automatically a victim and your opinion is worth more to me". A decent human being doesn't care about statistics, they care about people, and care about helping everyone in general. All SocJus does is focus on a few "marginalized" groups and try to equalize them, making sure the poor ones are treated equally as terrible as the other poor people, and that there's a equal demographic representation with the ruling class.

If you've been brutalized by the police because you're black, or attacked by bigots because you're gay, I'll care, I'll also care if you're white and been fucked over by your boss or if you're a straight male who's been fucked over by alimony and child support and has had his kids taken from him. I'm not going to express different levels of care because of you're fucking identity, because I look at people as individuals, not as fucking statistics.

I hate muh privilege theory precisely because it casts the centrality of class struggle aside. You'd know had you bothered to even read the post in its entirety rather than jump to the posting form armed with your hilarious "go back to tumblr xD" sick burn.

Good for you. Now go talk about gender and race in one of the countless forums dedicated to them.
>>>/out/

Are you jealous that we got so many blacks? Are you liberals going to call them "Uncle Tom"? Accusing them of voting against their interests? Well guess what: the normal black population is fed up with BLM thugs.

I can't wait until this is actually Holla Forums. Watching their descent from stormfags to Young Republicans has been a riot.

I was a stormfag until I learned about economics and am now in favour of a strict meritocracy. There are blacks who are actually proud Americans and pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Those are good patriots. And for the ghetto blacks we just need a strong police force. I learned that meritocracy is better than white nationalism, but only if you get rid of welfare.

Research the Keynesian consensus.

You're an exact specimen of the "anti-idpol" moron described in the OP.

I don't need to research anything. A guy on youtube told me everything I need to know about black welfare queens.

Everything is related to class. Football is related to class struggle. That does not mean that we need to create top-ten goalkeepers lists.

FUCKING THIIIIIS

They are liberal, and really liberal in name only since much rehetoric is female supremacy. There hysterica over sexism in videogames is rooting in the theory that all men are rapists and that all sexual relationships under patriarchy is rape. That's the kind of unglued theory that lies under these campaigns.

The type of feminism 3rd wave feminists spout would keep women subjected by capital forever.

Oh yes they do, they create a larger labor pool with their women's liberation. Women are exploited by capitalism because they have babies, labor and risk that is completely not paid for by capitalists. No feminism wants paid daycare, which surprise make capitalist exploitation of women all the easier since they are able to work while their children are held in what's essentially a warehouse getting a fraction of the attention they would if women could get what they really want and that's the ability to raise their children themselves. Bouns points, the children are often alienated from their moms since they never spend time together making it easier for capitalists to cultural condition them their needs instead of what the parents want.


They act in the interests of the bourgeois. That's not a conspiracy and I spelled out already how their ideology serves porky and consistently neglects poor women, since poor women and porky have next to no over lapping interests.

Come up with a convincing answer as to why sexism in videogames is so much more dominant in the cultural zeitgeist than legalizing sex work.


This is wrong, Marxist want an end to capitalism not simply an end to American hegemony.

ISIS is an accending bourgeois faction and pretty clearly now a proxy of US foreign policy. If anything ISIS could be laid at the feet of capitalist and feminists since it's the by product of the US support the f the Saudi royal family.

I rarely see feminists criticize American foreign policy of Wassabiism which contributes tremendously to oppression of women in the Middle East hmmmmm wonder why

What kindof leftist wants it made legal for Porky to exploit more women?

Because you don't care about what serious feminists might have to say and limit your feminist readings to those liberal boogeymen you love to hate and can use as strawman material later on. I have never met anyone sincerely identifying with feminism that wasn't also critical of US foreign policy. But why read socialist feminist literature when you could just whine about Sarkeesian on a Mongolian throat-singing newsgroup all day long, right?

Yeah we should lock them up in porky's prisons where they can really earn him the big bucks.

OR we can solve the problem of poverty so that women don't end up having to sell their bodies.

they're already being exploited. Bringing sex work into the legal sphere helps protect them from abuse. If sex work is illegal it gives cops a free pass to harass prostitutes whenever they want and makes sex workers much less likely to report crimes against them because they could be sending themselves to jail in the process.

You can't do that overnight. Legalizing prostitution is a temporary solution but it's also necessary to keep people safe.

No to be a good feminist you need to be a socialist.

Women engaged in illegal sex work are helpless, their boss can basically do what they want with them without fear of repercussion. If sex work is legalized, then regulations can be introduced and organization of the workforce can be promoted.

It's like with drugs. We don't support legalization because we love cocaine but because we believe it's the best way to deal with associated issues (addiction, crime, etc).

Not sure what point you're trying to make. Nowhere in my post do I argue that "to be a good feminist you also need to be a liberal" — in fact, I claim the exact opposite.

Yeah dude women totally have no desires or interests outside of child rearing.

The bourgeoisie are obviously going to ensure only the blandest and most unthreatening representatives of any given movement or ideology are given airtime. same applies to feminism, Represented in the public imagination by Beyoncé and Emma Watson.

Counterpoint to OP: I live in burgerstan and can tell you, right now, that the only thing keeping Holla Forums from looking like r/soc is the whole anti-idpol shtick. There is no way to discuss anything relating to race, gender, or any other form of identity-based politics (AKA IDPOL FOR SHORT) in the USA without someone latching on and screeching autistically, as if to signal to other idpollers that this is now a place for them to screech their autism as well. Even if you remain principled and don't address, you still get bullshit like BLM rushing onto Sanders's stage and Amanda Marcotte calling Sanders a sexist. The only solution is to 1-sidedly, without nuance, shout them down over and over again until you have a reputation for not being welcoming.
I keep seeing OP's perspective posted repeatedly, and I think that those who support it either don't get it, are pseudo-intellectuals who get a kick out of momentarily feeling superior to people over meaningless pedantry, or are COINTELPRO. Especially with retards like Afroplasm, the SJW annil, the black flaggot, and other newcomers with the influx from Reddit as this place grows at record pace, we need anti-idpol board culture now more than ever.
Plus, I always, always see people strawman those who say that they're against idpol, saying that "being against x" == "being for y", which is ridiculous and does not follow. I'm against feminism because the discourse underlying it is liberal and has never been anything else, but I'm not for "men's rights". I believe in equality for everyone, which is not feminism.
None of those things are connected to the class struggle. More often than not, they are calls to class collaboration - the feminist movement was mainly middle class and led by rich bourgeois feminists, struggles against police brutality on the basis of race were led by black shop owners (petty bourgeoise), and third world "anti-imperialism" has always been coopted immediately afterwards by the leading national bourgeoisie for their own benefit (see: Nasser, Mugabe, Assad, etc). Tankies are hotbeds of idpol, for the record.
The only truly anti-idpol stance is to fight state power directly on the basis of state power itself being as illegitimate as private property.
This was to liberate the slaves from the exploiting power of the slave owners and constituted action against analogues to state and capital. You didn't see him go on about "slave culture" and whites being the problem, did you? Definitely not idpol.
A) that's a book specifically on anthropology
B) the full title is "The Origin Of The Family, Private Property, & The State" - obviously not idpol

Are you being this disingenuous because you have an ulterior motive for making an obviously shit thread like this, OP?

The last of these is not like the others. Fuck off with your MRA shit lmao

Because police brutality is a black issue. This is the problem with identarian concerns.
It's almost as if a movement about changing the economic system that dominates our lives is focused on economy. So strange.
I have never once seen a reasonable person when it comes to abortion, black people, etc… Please link, unless it is stupid meme tier shit like, "abortion should be legal"I.E. no shit

...

I haven't read something so shallow in a while. You honestly sound like some vulgar Marxist who just read up about socialism on Wikipedia and believes anything that isn't a soot-covered coal miner couldn't possibly be related to class struggle.


While this is mostly true historically, it doesn't in any way negates the possibility of a socialist feminism. Late 19th and early 20th century anarchists and communists like Emma Goldman were among the firsts to support access to birth control.


This is straight-up wrong and makes very little sense even in theory. Were the Black Panthers "petit-bourgeois shop owners" now?


"Co-opted" as in "emptied of their substance" — the problem isn't anti-imperialism in itself but how it is appropriated and manipulated by local ruling classes.

My biggest problem with idpol, is as if everyone doesn't have an interest in not supporting racism, sexism etc… It implies that only individual groups and group-traitors can be allied. As if we all don't have a selfinterest in not supporting baseless spookfests, which always turn on themselves. Nazis trying to decide who's really white anyone?

Police brutality is obviously not a uniquely black issue but the way class, race and policing interacts means poor black people usually experience the issue in a particular way. Which is why blacks are also more likely to overtly protest it — and we should see that as an opportunity for agitation and radicalization, not for whining about idpol.


Do you seriously believe reproductive rights are not related to economics?


Have you tried reading actual books instead of Blogspot entries or Facebook rants?

ITT brocialist vs SJW "socialists"

Come home white man, Holla Forums wait for thee.

I said "please link", as I realize there are probably good writings about this, that are more than the simple, "Conception=/= alive". So, no, my understanding isn't Facebook.
Reading the rest of your post, I'm not sure if we disagree on anything.
Yeah, while idpol suggests we agitate for black people, or some other arbitrary person, instead of agitating against a problem itself. It's like people here who agitate for workers instead of against Capitalism. They don't understand, or care for, the problem itself, only how it affects a singular group.
Reproductive rights can be related to economy, sure. I don't see how abortion is related to economy, big daycare, big diaper want more kids? Or more likely is it a religious base. I Iove tacking issues to Capitalism as much as the next guy, but you could live in a socialist society with racism, sexism etc… So I don't have any problem with dealing with these issues, but only as they apply outside of economy, as I don't see how we can stop capitalist exploitation within Capitalism.

Not at all what I said and I'm not even a Marxist. You then turned around and rephrased the issues in a way which did tie them to class struggle. You absolutely should fight for households' access to family planning, and only for that - never for "reproductive rights". You absolutely fight for inner-city-dwellers' freedom from police harassment - never for "black power". You absolutely should fight for third-world communities' ability to protest global inequality - never for "anti-imperialism". Even if the content of what is originally demanded is the same, the phrasing and connections matter, not because words themselves intrinsically matter, but because PoMo idpollers have made them a point that matters (ironically and not entirely unlike how they've made any address of issues on even the most vaguely identitarian lines an impossibility).
And we live in a different time now. Those days are never coming back, and there was a good post (you can find it on the booru) on how the feminist movement never actually won anything, on how what transpired had more to do with the internal movements of the system anyways. To put it my own way, it's akin to a cargo cult of class struggle, without any of the substance.
Both Malcolm X and the broader movement at large for a long time upheld this model. The Black Panthers were always a minor part of the movement in comparison, only remembered particularly well because of the radical measures they took. At the time, there were no PoMo idpollers, so it made no difference how identitarian they were (and they were never particularly identitarian as a whole, even if prominent members were). In the end, they would have been just as effective at the time and been resisted to being coopted by bourgeois elements such as Beyonce and BLM if they had stuck to a hard-line materialist message.
No, it's anti-imperialism itself. You should read this article: reality.gn.apc.org/polemic/imper.htm
I'd go even further and argue that "anti-imperialism" was never anything more than the Kremlin's signalling system to direct useful idiots, and even that "saving grace" for tankies is gone now. Moscow is full-on neoliberal. Anyone who calls themselves an "anti-imperialist" today needs to be kicked until they read proper theory (no, Lenin and Stalin do not count - they are trash tier).

Holla Forums has always belonged to the brocialists - we've dealt with SJWs in the past, we'll deal with them again. Holla Forums are right wing SJWs and mostly self-hating mongrels. Go away.

i object to calling Holla Forums right wing SJWs because that implies that regular SJWs aren't right wingers.

Good point

which is?

Proudhon, Marx, Bakunin, Pannekoek, Rocker, Kropotkin, DeBord, etc. If you want a better-written Marxist theory of imperialism, Luxemburg's works (although she's also Second International like Lenin). Leninism has serious problems from the start as a theoretical standpoint (it derives a lot of ideas uncritically from Chernyshevskii's nihilism and is frequently positivistic, although this latter point is common to the simplified "Marxism" finding original expression in Kautsky), but these pale in comparison to the hilariously twisted deviations made under Marxism-Leninism (the state ideology of the USSR, not what Lenin wrote). Basically anything but Leninism. Second Internationalists should be read critically. In anarchism, anything with the branding of post left is probably trash. There are PoMo currents like the anarchist side of communization theory which have points to offer, but I'm unsure so far. I'm only partway through "A Thousand Plateaus", so I'm waiting to pass judgement on PoMo and post-structuralism as a whole (I'm already wary of it, seeing what it's done to the broader left, but it seems that we can't pretend that it didn't happen - I also have yet to read Zizek's replies to DeLeuze's critiques of Lacan).

I wasn't trying to be equivalent. I was trying to give race and sex specific examples. Obviously having a shitty boss or being exploited isn't as bad as a cop beating you bloody and throwing you in jail.

To elaborate, it's completely irrelevant if a cop attacked you because you're black or just because he's an asshole, or if a group of thugs beat you up because you're gay or because you were around. The motives are irrelevant, because there's only one solution that matters and motives are irrelevant to it.

Also, it's very intellectually dishonest to disregard men's specific issues, that are quite commonplace, by calling it "MRA shit"

The problem is that many make it race specific: their problem isn't specifically police brutality or the PIC, but that blacks are specifically targeted. They care about the institution being racist and not that the institution exists at all. These positions are much more common than the reverse because they aren't dangerous to the system, so they are allowed. This is why idpol is so commonplace and why it's so dangerous: it's effectively or literally cointelpro.

I said a select few feminists have true solidarity with all women and support legalized sex work and persecuting real penis in the vagina rapists instead of extending the definition of rape to encompass anything that prevents landed white women from commodifying their pussy but they are about as rare as unicorns.


AAAHAHA

Now I know you're a liberal. All those Clinton and Bernie supporters all called themselves feminists, and if you think Bernies foreign policy was any different than clintons guess again. I'd give proofs but Bernie was so fucking loath to talk about foreign policy it's nearly impossible, fucker loved him some Israel, I'm actually glad he lost the more I learn about him.

...

I support leagalization of sex work for the same reason I support weed leagalization. Under the capitalist mode of production it's the most humane thing to do.

Fucking REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEÈEEEÉEEEĒ