Is leftypol the only non-idpol leftist space left?

Other than here, pretty much every leftist space I can think of - online and off - has been infected by idpol. In terms of social media, you have leftbook, left Twitter, left reddit, all idpol-infested. Podcasts like Chapo are basically idpol (haven't heard many episodes but that's my impression). In terms of media, major leftist outlets such as Jacobin, Baffler, Current Affairs are idpol, with at best some tepid resistance to it. Left orgs like Democratic Cops of America, CPUSA, Green Party, ISO, all idpol. Antifa, idpol. Most anarchist circles, also idpol. In the US at least, I don't know about other places.

Are we surrounded? If so, how do we prevent the last non-idpol leftist space from being invaded? And how do we push back against this performative bullshit that is hamstringing the left?

Other urls found in this thread:

If you've been in a leftist organization you've known people who made you afraid to say certain things, and there's some power there so a lot of people want in on it. Idpol isn't going away because activists are shitty people who enjoy exercising control over others.

start an onion site that is run by monero (instead of FIAT from advertizing) and migrate mensheviks from here and sneks from liberty to start a publishing house that only prints subversive lit and I think you have a new platform that is Free and Easy to Use and also sustains a number of people without Necessarily Using Capitalsm™🚾alphabet soup

God I wish I could resuscitate Marx/Lenin. They'd know what to do.
I suppose, we would firstly need an actually socialist party, and the leadership would have to be firmly anti-idpol.

>>>/walmart/ is pretty safe

Stop defining your politics by opposition to idpol. You're a fucking anarchist, your politics are shit regardless. The only valid reason to oppose idpol is if you have a real theory of history, politics, class conflict, etc. If you aren't a Marxist-Leninist, you're no better than a Tumblr SJW.


They have done whole episodes criticizing idpol.

Also who gives a shit? The insane SJW crowd is already on their way out. Focus on actual problems the left is facing today rather than bullshit from a couple years ago.

Wow, what could possibly drive someone to make such an completely hamfisted generalization? Other than, you know, engaging in idpol and rationalizing/obfuscating it by painting a fringe target.

Stop posting like you are on Reddit and stop telling people to not oppose idpol. I would rather an anti-idpol anarchist than an idpol ML any day. EZ.

I was going to laugh at you and then I read the other posts.

Yet I accidently space my post. Ironic.

Okay, maybe they're more on our side, by my point stands, most left media outlets are idpol.

Certainly doesn't look that way from my perspective. If they're on the way out, name some leftist spaces that are not idpol-infested.

if chapo and jacobin are too “idpol” for you, rethink your life


Know their positions and thinking better than they do and ruthlessly criticize it and them. There's three types of identitarians: hateful, powerhungry authoritarians who don't actually give a fuck about anyone, including marginalized groups, misguided people who are trying to do good but don't realize that all problems stem from class, and people who don't really care and just want to fit in. Call out the first for what they are and break their hold on people, educate the second, and show the third an alternative way. The people who get called brocialists and take it are people who don't know theory but complain anyway.


wow you sure convinced me with those hot opinions fagtron

Insane SJWs aren't all identitarians. Simply recognizing identity over individuals and engaging in activism instead of class struggle is a problem.

Who is the author on that pdf
Polite sage

I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that Jacobin or the Baffler are "idpol" considering they have published many pieces critical of or even outright attacking identity politics. Unless of course you're one of those swarming idiots who believe taking a closer look at how capitalism might specifically affect certain groups like women or minorities to be "muh idpol".

Jacobin is definitely more class oriented of course, that's kind of the point. Nonetheless, from what I've seen they don't see idpol as much of a problem. My local Jacobin reading group is implementing a progressive stack, and there is significant overlap between them and the Democratic Cops of America which is of course idpol-central.

Lupus Dragonowl

Literally says right on the first page

Yeah I'm not just downloading random shit. Thanks for the attitude and the author name though. Skipping that shit for sure.

I'm not opposed to recognizing struggles of different groups at all, I believe in anti-racism and anti-sexism. What I am opposed to is putting performative, divisive personal particularized identity above universal struggle and solidarity. Jacobin and Baffler are somewhat critical of idpol but I think you may be too deep into it if you can't see that they are not going far enough in attacking it. It is precisely how easily it is confused with anti-racism, anti-sexism etc that makes it so dangerous and difficult to combat.

I personally don't agree with progressive stack but why do you care so much? At best it's a mild annoyance, it doesn't alter the substance of what's being discussed in the reading group. I'd rather attend a worthwhile event that has the progressive stack than a mediocre event that doesn't.

I'm just making a point how silly it is to have progressive stack in a reading group. But progressive stack in general is problematic, since its a symptom of seeing people as members some identity and not as individuals.

I don't think a single journal or newspaper out there demands ideological purity like you fucking idiots do and/or expect them to

Jacobin, to me, seems to play this endless rotation of entry liberal trash with random, non staff writers and legit good shit with others

Because it is fundamentally at odds with communism, in that it views people as inherently unequal based on their gender, skin color etc. Statistically and in general yes those groups face more oppression but things like the progressive stack essentialize and reify these identities to essentially assert a reverse hierarchy where white straight cis males are at the bottom. Yeah you can saw, aw, white male tears or whatever, but I think its shitty and a betrayal of what we believe in.

It sounds like the name of an ironic furry porno character.
Also I'm tired of people making shitty pdfs and Holla Forums acting like they are good theory and I didn't want to risk busting a vessel in my eye

was he in hufflepuff or ravenclaw

yes it does

it places liberal ideologues over actual socialists because of their skin and forces their discussion through

I think true anti-racism and anti-sexism is inherently anti-identitarian, in that it demands that people be seen and treated as individuals.

Precisely this. It's a sort of thinking where making everyone equal isn't good enough, not you have to "equalize" it even more to compensate for the outside world.

It's a famous anti-idpol essay widely posted here. His name is in the same vein as other post-leftist writers.

He was in better fiction.

I ain't feeling that. I've never seen that essay posted either.

Which I have never read Jacobin or Baffler writers do.

So it goes from them being "idpol" to them not being anti-idpol enough — you're moving the goalpost. Besides, many Jacobin articles clearly offer an in-depth critique of identity politics. See:

By the way, there are many leftist outlets associated with different tendencies that are wholly indifferent of or rabidly opposed to identity politics: Charnel-House, Chuang, Dissent, Endnotes, Historical Materialism, In Defence of Marxism, In These Times, It's Going Down, International Communist Current,, n+1, Platypus, Recomposition, Red Wedge, riff-raff, Salvage, Viewpoint or ULTRA to cite a few English-language source. To say nothing of publishing houses like Pluto Press, semiotext(e), Verso, ZED or Zero Books.

Nah, there are prominent posters on other sites who are fairly anti identity politics, like Rafiq on revleft. Also its not like Holla Forums is 100% free of identity politics either, there are a lot of nationalists and Holla Forums crossboarders here after all.

i've been to probably all of them and here they are ranked by permissiveness

0. Communist Vape Club (allows anything, Facebook)
1. brocialists and manarchists united (allows almost anything, Facebook)
2. Zizek Dank Meme Stash (lotsa feminists, but still allow a lot of stuff, Facebook)
3. leftypol (moderation is kind of all over the place, every six months, what is allowed changes)

No we still has /leftpol/.

No, it's so anti-idpol in a way it became idpol.

DANTE MUST DIE MODE: Meatspace orgs where people tell idpol wreckers to their faces that they should fuck off.

This is absolutely true. Jacobin's ability to publish absolute Tumblr-tier liberal apologia and hard-hitting anti-idpol class analysis in the same week is something anybody reading them surely has to be aware of by now.

I think the question really should be how do you shift focus from identity politics to the class politics. As I see it, the class truggle is more or less a non-problem. Very few people in Europe live in actual poverty. Especially with things such as welfare providing basic necessities such as healthcare, food, electricity. Obviously it's poverty isn't nonexistent. But people generally speaking enjoy superficial items such as the latest smart phone or a faster computer. Even though they actually do little to increase your quality of life.

Most of the problem of being poor in a modern welfare state isn't everyday poverty like in the 3rd-world, but the constant precarious danger of slipping into interminable bouts of destitution. Being able to lose your home, your transportation, access to food, or even the ability to get a job (blackballing) just because your boss randomly decides to fuck you over or some stupid accident happens that you don't have the savings/credit to cover, is real and extremely harmful.

anyway, just start your own reading group then, with booze and hookers

Well then, how about judging it by the first footnote:

No, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about how anti-idpol has become an identity of It's own. Anti-idpol isn't the same as non-idpol in the same way being an obnoxious New Atheist isn't the same as being an atheist. There are people here that call almost everything idpol even when it isn't idpol. Got personal problems? Idpol! Enjoy fun things? Idpol! Are anything but straight? Idpol! Do you have a sense of fashion? Idpol! It's just reactionary banter.

Who even gives a fuck about sjws anymore?

You do realise that Richard Seymour's one of the worst for 'intersectionality' right?

The "anti-SJW" crowd, renowned for its intellectual relevance.

Fucking brilliant record

I couldn't care less that this one contributing writer said something about intersectionality that triggered you, the fact remains that Salvage offers plenty of interesting class analysis.

You all from the "anti-idpol" crowd are not looking for proper theory, you're looking for reasons to be outraged at someone's writings being "idpol". It's become the boogeyman that you love to hate.

I'll stop giving a fuck when I stop seeing grown fucking adults chastising people for "ableism" just because somebody used the word "idiotic". I left my local socialist meet up embarrassed that this is how far things have fallen.

Annoying cringey new atheism is a liability in something like the modern 1st-world, where we live in a legally secular society (aside from a few annoying concessions like tax exemption, privileged objector status, and rapidly slapped down attempts to erode hot-button nonissues such as abortion and science education), and the task of eliminating religion is a mop-up operation rather than a war. The same is true of, for instance, antifa, given the fact that genuine fascism is the purview of a handful of suppressed fringe skinheads, so that neonazis vs. antifa comes down to two factions of street crusties squabbling over gutter turf.

That is absolutely not the case with SJWs, who have a 100% lock on every single organ of leftism as a formal political entity at the leadership and policy level. Minus the state-enforced violence (in the US at least, other countries like Canada and Britain have dabbled with legislation enshrining SJWdom into law that can withstand judicial challenges for years on end), the SJW situation is more like fighting against an upwelling fascist state or antiquarian theocracy, where even most extreme clergy massacring, fash-bombing smashie is making a positive contribution.

Until SJW rhetoric is broadly, publicly disapproved of by the majority in our orgs from top to bottom, and the SJWs have scattered, broken and terrified, theorylet "lel fedora" types are something I will HAPPILY put up with.

Name one example of this. In almost every case, identity politics actually are involved.

Salvage is Seymour's child. He set it up after being expelled from the ISN.
Partially, although the deep fug of post-2012 misanthropic leftism hangs over it.

It's not bad per say, but it's also unoriginal, smug, and basically irrelevant to any existing socialist tradition or group in the country.

I'm probably one of the posters that's most indulgent of "idpol" here. My critique of Seymour is that he latched onto it after leaving the SWP to keep his brand popular, and himself embedded within the neo-left milieu in the UK.

we must not fear. the only way to win friend

You know what people like you get?

This this this. Treat me as equal and I will return the favor.


God you're gullible. No wonder you buy into le sjw boogeyman.


Posted because the only thing that really annoys me about sjws is that they made punk hair seem wimpy. Other than that I find them easy enough to ignore.

Being against "idpol" is basically a codewort for being a fascist /poll/tard. Fuck off if basic human rights for everyone (yes, this is what it comes down to) bother you.

Go back to reddit you fucking faggot.

Go back to the chapo subreddit.

IdPol is dumb, but so is ignoring racist shit that happened in the past that still has an impact on communities today.

Ebin. What actually happens is redditfugees expect us to join in their outrage circlejerk and are aghast when we try to offer rational explanations for societal issues instead of screeching about how people are evil.
This is what liberals will never understand, because they do not even understand the context of their own belief system. We do not object to their concerns with things like racism. We object to the nonsensical post-structuralist ideology they try to draw everyone else into.

The anti idol idiots on this board are like the sjws on other boards . Annoying performative narcissism

I agree, just saying that if you want to provide a rational explanation for societal issues, one must take history into account. Luckily, most people on this board do this.

Is Holla Forums getting better and better at falseflagging?

Why would pol com here?


To confirm their Holla Forums=sjw liberals strawman

Women are the reason for so much idpol. Can you name one woman who was free from it completely?

Rosa "women's suffrage is a joke" Luxemburg.

Probably every woman who participated in a socialist revolution

Its hard to imagine that communist parties supporting North Korea and stalinism would be liberal idpollers.

Both examples are decades ago. Women have evolved into idpol sponges

Your "anti-idpol" stance sure weakens when it comes to whining about women.

there's nothing wrong with idpol as long as it isn't essentialist and prevents the agency of others, or becomes overly binary.

Dead Pundits Society podcast is good for criticism of essentialism in the left.

Also if you want to critise idpol you're going to need to be more specific, because whether you mean to or not, when you say "fuck idpol" a lot of people are going to hear "fuck your experiences of racism/sexism"

Fighting for revolution is not "whining" i would expect a leftist to know that. Also there's no such thing as reverse idpol. Being anti idpol and naming the culprits does not make you idpol yourself

A myriad of Marxist theorists from Zetkin, Kollontai or Luxemburg in the early 20th century to Jodi Dean, Ellen Wood or Roswitha Scholz in the last decade…?

Having arguments on a Mongolian throat-singing forum is not "fighting for revolution".

So BLM activists whining about white people is idpol but you whining about women definitely isn't. Of course.

Go back to the chapo subreddit


Well, welcome reddit. Now read theory

no. even Holla Forums is slowly descending into revisionist "progressivism" as it gets more and more popular.
there was literally a thread where people were defending SAlt, I predict by 2020 this place will be infested with unironic BLM supporters and rhetoric

Far as I know, Jacobin's not idpol.

I think WSWs and Zerobooks are good, too.

I don't think leftypol's the only one, but this is a real and really shitty problem.

Not that poster, but at a minimum it’s a bit different, yes. BLM members can openly call for bullshit like “death to white people” unironically without being called out for the ethnonationalism and Holla Forumstier crap they are spewing. I think we have a right to be critical of that as severely misguided. And I personally find it offensive since I oppose the same power structures they do.
So “complaining” about women have idpol tendencies (which I don’t really agree with, to be clear) is IMO just a smidge different than complaining about the idpol of something like blm. Even worse when u look back at socialists like Fred Hampton who engaged in Idpol but in a way that incorporated class and proper capitalist critique


No they don't.

How is complaining about women having idpol tendencies different from complaining about white people having racist tendencies?

How is it "idpol" if it features an anti-capitalist class-based analysis?

Dead Pundits Society is great, I've listened to every episode. If that level of being able to distinguish between legit identity-based analysis and essentializing were prevalent on the left, then I wouldn't have anything bad to say about idpol. The fact is that 90% of the idpol left does not have the sophistication to make that distinction, and are not even aware that essentializing identity is even a problem. When you criticize idpol they DO hear "fuck my experiences of racism/sexism" and that's why it is so difficult to push back against it, and why I say it has invaded almost every leftist space.

Okay there are a good number of leftist anti-idpol spaces. I think in terms of the broader left, when you include the liberal left (I know some view that as a contradiction, but bear with me), we are vastly outnumbered though, and idpol is far from being on the decline. Zero Books and the other publications you mentioned are great, but they are tiny tiny tiny compared to huge corporate liberal publications pushing out idpol every day. They have acheived a kind of cultural hegemony that dwarfs some segments of the left that are pushing back against it.


Seriously? I'm the first guy to criticize liberal bias in media but BLM were social pariahs for years, the only reason they even had any media prominence is because the news wanted a consistent source of riot porn. The majority of people don't even know that most of the police protestors were harmless (generally their plans were crashed by the dumbass uni kids) and think the Ferguson riots were a Midwestern war zone and not a few hundred people getting arrested while no one got fatally injured. Yuropoor anarkiddies would put any American antifa wiener to shame with their shenanigans.
Idpol has always been a two way street. Liberals were just smart enough to put their eggs in the right media basket, i.e. television.

Anybody can tell from miles away that you're a Holla Forumstard or used to be until you decided to switch from Hitler to Hoxha a few days ago.

I’ve personally engaged with these people, hardcore ethnonationalist SJWs. They are no different than white supremacists. They are racist and stand in opposition to everything we stand for
How did white people having racist tendencies come up? I was talking about blm. While I disagree with that statement on the ground that all “races” tend to be racist in their own ways, it is really irrelevant to this discussion
I used the word there because he fought for emancipation or blacks, just like BLM but in a manner that was pro socialist, unlike the misguided liberalism of BLM
did I get this video from Holla Forums? yes. do I occasionally go on Holla Forums? yes.
but I'm not a right-winger. I'm a leftist who's sick and tired of SJW bullshit and hollow pandering. if you were a real leftist you wouldn't be so afraid of admitting that these groups of people are an inherent wrong. you'd realize that your feelings mean nothing in the face of social reality ie the dialectic.

I should have said criticism from the left. Try going on /r/socialism and criticizing BLM. Have a stopwatch ready to record how fast you are banned. I’m not saying /r/sic is all of the left, but I know these sentiments are mirrored in many socialist orgs.
I’m not even saying this as saying I hate BLM either, I agree with their general purpose, just think some elements of it are ridiculous

I came across n wild podcast one day, where to enthusiasts of Stirner and Anarcho Communism spoke about something that struck me.

I later heard the same thing from fascists.

That things was…

Marxism is materialist (not in the Marxist sense of the term), what they mean by that specifically is Marxism defines people by their socio-economic status. You are proletariat, bourgeois, petite bourgeois, etc, all social identities based on your socio-economic status.

Rather than telling people that they aren't defined by their career, job, income, etc. Rather than telling people that their identity is deeper and richer than socioeconomic status.

IMO if we want to appeal to the 'comfortable' Marxists need to speak more about alienation, and if you're a non-Marxist speaking about the spiritual affect of late stage capitalism.

Speaking about how the forces of late stage capitalism are antithetical to family, community, self-actualization, etc.

The is signs that people are feeling it (eg. the 21st century Minimalism, Simple Living, and Traditionalist movements.)

Here's a video which I think brilliantly criticizes the culture that has emerged in late stage capitalism…

Here is the podcast I spoke about earlier…

When I speak to pro-capitalist traditionalists I tend to focus on the inescapable link between late stage capitalism and anti-tradtionalist values. That the values promoted by advertising, careerism, consumerism, materialism, are inherently linked to late stage capitalism. (As is evidenced in countries like; Japan, Singapore, and South Korea, which are held up as examples of the 'miracles' of capitalism. All those countries underwent rapid capitalist development in the 20th century, and their societies are paying the price eg. the materialism of Singapore, the superficiality of South Korean culture, and the Hikikomori and rampant lack of interesting in dating and sex in Japan.)

Definitely this. We need to simultaneously appeal to workers who are aware of the spiritual alienating rot of capitalism, but who are materially comfortable, and also appeal to workers who are getting materially shafted and are struggling to make ends meet.

Proleteriat/bourgeois is not a social identity, it is a position in a relationship of exploitation. Although I agree that with Marxism there is a social identity that goes along with it.

We need to understand how deeply identity is intertwined with every aspect of politics, and no matter how materialist we try to be, there is always an aspect of identity. The key is to shape alternative identities that don't serve capital.

That place is literally infested with idpolyps. You might as well have held up a teratoma and declared it free of cancer.

God I hate you "people." all politics is identity politics
Haul victory faggots

Very different things Holla Forums

This word doesn't mean what you think it does.

Things that aren't real and have no basis in material reality. Class isnt a spook in itself, but it is the manifestation of a spook. Race isn't a spook, it's a human attempt to interpret the material world.

Fuck you, don't leave shit like this on my posts.
Neck yourself, nigger.

If only. Someone post that video of his corpse moving.

I'm not surprised you would move away from a material explanation, idealist.
But their identity really, really isn't richer than their "socioeconomic status", or to describe a real relation, there relation to the means of production. I wont deny that people have little bits and pieces they tack on to themselves, they make a great chili, they are good with animals, they have a wife, w/e. ALL of these things are consistently shown to fall to ashes before the market, and their relations to the means of production. This is what makes the "identity" of class an actual, consistently tangible thing.

Stop posting, anytime.

Wow, it's another "everything I don't like is idpol" thread.

I haven't been taking screen caps

Class isn't a spook because it's a specific distraction of your relation to society. People can argue about who his white or what whiteness even is, but it's an objective fact whether someone owns the MoP or not. Class is only a spook in that there's nothing physically different between a prole and a booji or between owning or not owning something, but there is an objective material difference between them. Class struggle isn't identity politics, it's recognizing your position in the hierarchy and realizing that the only way to abolish the hierarchy is with other people with your position.

But that's wrong, the utter insignificance of people's various identities in the face of their relation to capital is the the fucking point, you imbecile. Your socioeconomic status is literally the thing which will impact your life most, which will consume more of your waking hours than any other thing about you if you are a worker. Marxists have for more than a century now tried desperately to wake people up to this obvious fact, and now you're telling us we should in stead tell people to go back to sleep because that is what they rather want to hear? Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.

Hey Holla Forums, whacha doin'?

it's also not that hard to just fucking ignore them

How do you ignore someone who persistently accosts you and screams in your ear at full blast?

There's a few facebook groups that are anti-idpol. That said, people losing their shit over idpol are kinda stupid. They still wanna eat the rich, if they wanna screech about racism and sexism while they do it, so be it.

I disagree


Yeah there are some very questionable ideologues here, but overall I prefer Holla Forums over reddit or leftbook.
The only small faction that bothers me here are the vocal Esperantists. Esperanto has no future in a socialist society.


Are you sure about that? In my experience the idpolers ARE the rich. Not just middle class (although a shitload are middle/upper middle class), but often they're full on ridiculously wealthy, multi million bourgeois (or at least the trust fund children of such), who want to be part of the cool kid's revolutionary club, but without putting their class interests in danger. This is why they pass off class as unimportant and/or just one of many identities.

Indeed, in the socialist future the international language will be English, just like it is now under imperialism.

Language has nothing to do with politics or economic systems. It is a natural evolving feature of human nature.
There is no value judgement in the use of English. It simply rose to the top due to material conditions. Imposing an artificial dialect will never be successful or wanted by the people.

That's factually historically incorrect. The very fact that there's single languages associated with a specific country like French or Spanish stems from the fact that the ruling class of that country imposed a specific language or dialect that lead to the death of the others. The fact that English is the international language now stems from British and now American imperialism and hegemony.
There is when that use requires the majority to speak extra time and resources learning it so that the minority can remain privileged.
Yes, I'm sure people love learning the difficult, irrational language of the global minority.

English may have been a minority language before but it is now deeply ingrained into technology, science, the internet, and modern culture. These are domains that Esperanto will never replace.
English has a rich literary history making it expressive and complex. You can't find such richness in other less literary developed languages like Latvian, Hawaiian, or Estonian, yet alone in artificial languages like Esperanto.

Obsessing over muh colonial eurocentricism is id-pol cancer.


for that matter

woah I was totally on his side but then you made a an inaccurate mockery of what he said and now I'm totally into BLM and checking my white privilege

Stop spacing like that. Shits hard to read

Really, obsessing over the legacies of past wrongs is racist as hell. Like, if one race is fucking over another one *right now*, that's one thing, but most of these activists are fighting to right wrongs that happened tens or hundreds of years ago. Shit like reparations for slavery in the US (even though there is not a single person alive today who has owned or been a slave), or white people getting kicked off of the farms they were born and raised on in South Africa, or this shit how "english being the universal language is eurocentric"
It doesn't fucking matter. It was wrong in the past, now it just is. It would wrong more people to "fix" what happened in the past than the legacy of that wrong hurts now.

Agreed. The internet, Christianity, the calendar, and the metric system are all Eurocentric, yet suggesting it be replaced is ridiculous.

Socialism is eurocentric, it was cooked up by a bunch of white cis European dudes. Socialism is racist!
I seriously can't wait until this idpol trend dies so I won't feel like putting a 12-gauge in my mouth every morning.


I am a brainlet when it comes to history so please don't bully, but I remember that the french revolution tried to change the calendar too for some reason or another. It got flipped back within one or two years because it was such a massive headache for literally everyone for no real benefit.

Theory is great and all and it's a good way to guide praxis, but you also have to take into account actual human behavior, like how most people don't want to uproot and overturn absolutely everything for no fucking reason beyond that some meanies in the past used to use that same stuff.

Exactly. Replacing the calendar with a new one just because you hated Roman imperialism is useless and will not be popular.
Replacing English with Esperanto is equally pointless. Everyone already speaks English and no one wants to be the first to learn a made up zionist language.

We need to focus on class issues and ignore this extra id-pol cancer.

People act like Esperanto is any less Eurocentric just because it's name sounds Hispanic and the idiots who say this shit are teenage burgers who think that Spanish people are brown.
It was made by taking elements from many *european* languages. It's even more Eurocentric.

Exactly. Esperanto is Eurocentric and spoken by self-hating whites. It has no place in leftist politics.

I mean it's a neat little language, and I can see it being used in public once leftists really start to organize and realize that it's a dumb as fuck idea to do that online (hello NSA, FBI). Plus it's easy as fuck to learn.

That's really all I see for it.

Esperanto is like a mixture of Mexican and Russian. It has too many cognates to be a useful secret language. Even Dothraki would be a better choice than Esperanto.

Esperanto has no use, its community is filled with identity pol cancer, and Stalin was right for getting rid of it. We need to be realistic and organize with major languages like English, Russian, Chinese, and German.

The problem with picking a language that is extremely easy to learn to use as your secret language is that it is a language that is extremely easy to learn. If all leftists started talking in esperanto to keep their meetings as secret, then FBI would take a four week course to learn it too. We may as well speak pig latin to each other.

I agree with you, but if there ever comes a time when Socialism pulls it's head out of the anus of idpol for long enough for counterrevolutionaries to be a real concern, a secret language would be a good idea. It would need to be a minor language as not to be understood, Russian and Chinese wouldn't work (not to mention they'd make you look even more like a filthy commie)

The only advantage I see to it is that having a common language with your comrade that is not understood by the out-group creates stronger cadres and communities.
For example, Esperanto was popular with syndicalists in the early 20th century. Even the Esperanto speaking mayor used it to communities during the Spanish Civil War, until the fascists shot him.
In Yugoslavia, Tito an Esperantist got into power with the support of Esperanto speaking comrades.

Just remembered, the Jews in burgerland had Yiddish to connect them to their socialism.

right, but the FBI would also spend four years to learn an incredibly complex language, or just get a translator. The language isn't really to obfuscate from them, it's to obfuscate from citizen counterrevolutionaries.

I doubt the average worker has time to learn a random ass language. And no working class black woman is going to learn Esperanto, a zionist language made by a Jew in Poland in the 1800s. It's an absurd thing to even suggest.

>not wanting to revive the metric calendar, metric clock, and switch the international language of commerce to lojban.

Zamenhof invented Esperanto in 1887, the same year he left the Zionist movement.

No place is free from what you're infected with OP.

No, IDpol pits comrade against comrade. IDpol is a deliberate divide and conquer strategy, designed to fracture the left. We cannot win if we are broken into a thousand factions.


Nice post, comrade.

Read Kaczynski


Zamenhof was working on Esperanto for decades before he published it. It is a complete zionist project. Zionism and the left do no mix.

Wow, a ☭TANKIE☭ actually said something intelligent for once.

I know the Socialist Equality Party remains anti-idpol hardliners. Too bad they're also sectarian as fuck Trots.

ben shapiro the bunkerman

It's still spoken by a minority of people, while there's huge amounts of research in German and Russia that an anglophone has never seen.
So does French, German, Russia, etc. That's a point in favor of learning to language, but not one in favor of it being the global one.
It's not about it being colonial eurocentricism, it's the fact how it entirely the global language because of American hegemony. People would not be learning English if it wasn't the superpower. It's inherently unfair and unequal for most people to have to learn some native language instead of a neutral language intentionally designed to be easy to learn for everyone. Esperanto might not be it, but an IAU will be a necessity for the future socialist world.

It's not because English is eurocentric or because it has a colonial past, it's because it affords a few very immense privileges while fucking over the rest. It's not like I'm saying people should start learning Occitan because French has a shitty history, I'm saying if you want to speak in the global language that shouldn't be some empire's native language.

No, the vast majority of the world does not and many speakers of it can't speak it well, which puts them in an inherently inferior position to native speakers.
How many times are you going to peddle this barely disguised anti-semitic myth?

It has nothing to do with fucking eurocentrism, and it has nothing to do with Spanish. Fucking read a book.

First you were saying that's not a bad thing
Now you're just making shit it.

Mexican is not a language and that's not even remotely true. It's vocabulary is taken from most main Euro languages while it's grammar is unique.
Ironic coming from the tánkie.

You mean English? Esperanto isn't for people who can speak the their regional language, it's for people who want to communicate internationally, and you're saying that a random average worker in Asian, Latin America, or Africa should spend that extra time and money into learning English just so you don't have to learn a new language.
What's him being a Jew have to do with it?

Your entire post is just one association fallacy. You use the same retarded reasoning a Holla Forumstard would, i.e. Zamenhof is a Jew therefor his creation is bad

Honestly, Esperantists are obviously creepy liberal id-pol cultists.
This entire post reeks of brainwashed cult of personality. Stop defending Zamenhof. He created Esperanto under the influence of Zionism. Being against Zionism is not anti-semetic.

English, regardless of what you say is already the international language. You can travel to any country in the world and easily find English speakers.
I can probably spend hours in the center of Tokyo, Buenos Aires, or Paris and never find an Esperanto speaker. English won. English works. Leftists have no reason to embrace Esperanto or any other made up language.

I don't particularly care about Zamenhof, I care about the IAU.
where are da proofs billy. Just because he was a Zionist at one part of his life, when Zionism wasn't the crypto-fascist ideology it is now but instead a genuine attempt to solve the Jewish Problem, doesn't somehow mean everything he ever did has something to do with it. How can an internationalist language have any connection to Zionism?
No, it's not, but using Zionism they way you use it is just like the way a Nazbol uses it, i.e. as a way to pretend their antisemitism is actually just a political position.
I never argued it wasn't, I argued it shouldn't be.
So did French, Latin, Assyrian etc.
By what standard?
Indeed, everyone knows Leftists don't care about equality or internationalism. They just care about defending the status quo, especially when it works for them.

Most Unions tend to be anti idpol unless they want something out of management, so there is that.

Problem is, the larger left has completely abandoned labor in general. The average leftist today believes that all manufacturing jobs should just go to third world countries and be preformed by wageslaves, which they justify because wageslavery is "better" than their previous (and clearly unimportant) indigenous lives. Then they turn around and hypocritically say that we should stop using gas because it hurts indigenous peoples in the third world. Really it's just a means to enshrine the status quo, most leftists today are upper middle class people who aren't into populist conservatism. Pic related.

For as shit as Trump is he proved that there is a large segment of society wanting economic populism. In fact Trump's #1 campaign issue, and still his biggest issue in office, is trade policy. That is the biggest vector for the left to rebuild itself on because it's where regular people will cut through all the idpol bullshit and vote in their narrow economic interest.

Most Unions tend to be anti idpol unless they want something out of management, so there is that.

Problem is, the larger left has completely abandoned labor in general. The average leftist today believes that all manufacturing jobs should just go to third world countries and be preformed by wageslaves, which they justify because wageslavery is "better" than their previous (and clearly unimportant) indigenous lives. Then they turn around and hypocritically say that we should stop using gas because it hurts indigenous peoples in the third world. Really it's just a means to enshrine the status quo, most leftists today are upper middle class people who aren't into populist conservatism. Pic related.

For as shit as Trump is he proved that there is a large segment of society wanting economic populism. In fact Trump's #1 campaign issue, and still his biggest issue in office, is trade policy. That is the biggest vector for the left to rebuild itself on because it's where regular people will cut through all the idpol bullshit and vote in their narrow economic interest.

Zionism was always a fascist ideology. Stop rewriting history.
What is Esperanto? Modern Hebrew? These are languages with the goal of uniting colonized people in a new Jewish State.
I just fucking said it. English is used in every country by everyday people. No one uses Esperanto. No one will learn Esperanto or any other IAU. Esperanto never spread because it was a stupid reactionary idea.
Esperanto has nothing to do with internationalism and marxism. Esperanto is a failed idea of the 19th century. Sure, it looks pretty on paper. But it is no realistic and the results would be sinister.

Nationalism isn't the same as fascism. Zamenhof later realized that nationalism wasn't the answer.
That's even more insane than people saying Esperanto is Illuminati/Freemason plot to build a new Tower of Babel and force humanity into a one world government.
No, used by educated/wealthy urbanites. Go into the countryside of any third world country, shit, even first world countries and see if anyone can adequately communicate in English with you.
That's just factually incorrect. It's nowhere near the international language but that doesn't mean no one speaks it or that it won't be adopted in the future.
It did spread, and the only thing reactionary is your persistent support of imperialist languages. Esperantists have always been apart of the Leftist movement.
Except the fact that many internationalists and Marxists learned and advocated it.
Yes indeed, humanity being able to easily speak to each on on equal footing is very sinister.
I wonder where I've heard this before.

Meant to say:
I wonder where I've heard this before.
Yes indeed, humanity being able to easily speak to each on on equal footing is very sinister.

most burger leftists*
FIFY and get your shit straight

Most burger "leftists"*

In theory, they're very serious issues. In point of practical fact, legal victories by the fundies are invariably short-lived, and 90% of the media attention wasted autistically shrieking in chorus with them would be better spent elsewhere.

Oh please.

Can we at least establish a definition of what id-pol ACTUALLY IS?

Lets list strategies to purge and prevent idpol and sjw from joining and ruining the leftist organizations we work within. There's been a lot if these troublemakers lately, so lets operationalize the threads into material action:

1) ignore: dont respond in any way to their projects and protest plans and liberal queers for queer porky CEO style potlucks etc. Note their criticisms but do not react in any way.

2) run class focused revolutionary actions in a professional enough way that they tag along and do not leave resources, funding, time for their shit.

3) maintain a majority vote that will not pass any of their privelege stacks donations to liberal feminist stuff etc

Anyone have more ideas how to Keep Out The Liberal Divisionists?

I honestly think that finbol's video on idpol establishes a good definition

These arent communist you retard, these at the very most are light socdems, theyre not leftists theyre liberals, learn the difference and despook yourself, now get your shit straight

Social Justice Warrior-ism. Or, the total disregard of class-based ideology in favor of a racial-based one. Symptoms include hyper-individualization of people, accepting class divisions as an unfxiable aspect of industrial society, and assuming all white people are always inherently racist unless they apologize for their race. If it sounds like Holla Forums shit, it is. Idpol is Holla Forums but with nonwhites in place of whites.

I'm actually pretty sympathetic to Israel, but… If you have even the tiniest anti-Zionist bone in your entire body, reading about those people will make your blood boil. They are every ridiculous Holla Forums stereotype made flesh.

It's essentially race, gender, sex etc. essentialism along with identity focused struggle. The idea that if you're a certain identity you must have these specific traits and experience these certain things, and that struggle is and must be identity struggle. The see oppression in the sense of one identity oppressing another, white against black/minorities: white supremacy; cis masculinity against femininity/trans: patriarchy. To be an ally the individual must abandon their oppressor identity, while being a traitor is the individual abandoning their oppressed identity.

It's closer to de-individualization, and thinking class is just another axis of identity.

English is more logical than French, German, Italian or Spanish.
t. frog.

This. I was in Hamburg for the G20, and I was no banner, graffiti or slogan about work, no "Solidarity with the Chinese workers", pleas for a worldwide reduction of work hours, or anything.
However, the people there were very supportive of LGBTW in Turkey and Russia.

t. Zamenhof on why he refused to join an organization for Jewish Esperantists, 1914

Wow, what a complete and total Zionist.

He may have changed his mind, but Esperanto began as a zionist tool. Just because the creator of this tool regrets his invention decades later, cannot refute the nationalist nature of Esperanto itself.

How the fuck can a language designed to overcome linguistic barriers between people be described as "idpol"…? I swear to God, this word really doesn't even mean anything anymore.

Can you explain to us why Esperanto is a "Zionist tool" without resorting to shabby guilt by association?

tfw no unabomber gf

Esperanto is supported because it isn't an evil imperial language like Russian or Chinese, yet Esperanto is eurocentric, making it a combination of the worst traits of imperialism.

Instead of a eurocentric approach, to make a real international language, you need to mix Swahili, Spanish, Russian, Arabic, and Chinese together. That way, no one group has an advantage.

Esperanto was created with the idea of uniting the Jewish people under a single Zionist state and making them all learn an "international language". As we know, most Jews at the time lived in Europe, so Esperanto was a compromise.
The goal was to establish Esperanto in Israel and eventually force Europeans to learn this zionist cultural invention in order to gain legitimacy. This way Israel would lead the world towards this international Abrahamic brotherhood of peace. All the while, sweeping the local Arabs under the rug.
Esperanto was thought of originally as a language of European imperialism. It is not the language of the left and Stalin's biggest mistake was trying to learn it. He at least made up for it by purging it from the Soviet Union in 1937.

Just adopt japanese as the international language. There are only a couple of million native speakers on one island so it's not imperialist.

But this is bullshit you just pulled outta your ass. Esperanto was never devised as a "Zionist" language to be used in a future Israeli nation-state, it was always designed to be an international auxiliary language to overcome linguistic differences. Your Holla Forums is showing. Show me evidence to the contrary.
By the way, Zamenhof was only part of a (non-political) Zionist movement for 5 years. He even published an article explaining why he thought Zionism couldn't actually solve the problems faced by the Jews a few years after he quit.

If you're going to pick a real language, why not just go oldskool and do Latin?

Anime and manga are not written in latin.




This is dumb as hell. Why wouldn't the Persians just teach themselves Arabic? It's the language that most muslims regardless of ethnic background will already have some level of familiarity with and some of their greatest literary works are already written in Arabic.

is this an american thing? The only thing I've ever heard "spook" used to refer to that wasn't a ghost was a colloquialism for a spy/intelligence agent

Esperanto is supported because it's easy, logical, and mostly culturally neutral. Russian and Chinese isn't bad because they're imperialist, they're bad because they're difficult, non-logical, non-neutral languages that inherently give a minority a privileged position.
Only the vocabulary, which is pretty irrelevant considering most people already speak or have some education in a European language. It's not perfect but it's the only viable IAL today.
There's very little advantage for a European anyway. Most words will appear completely foreign. Nor do the Chinese and Japanese seem to care anyway.

Did you just make this up or did someone else and you just decided to repeat it?

Japanese is supremely retarded; possibly more so than English.

Zamenhof had that same idea and then realized Latin is extremely complex and not remotely easy to learn.

It's an antiquated derogatory term for blacks in the US.


No esperanto is supported because it was just the first auxlang to not suck 100% (like volapuk) and over 100 years it has developed an autistic cult following.

No the grammar is 100% european, the only grammatical resemblances to non-european languages is coincidental or because they're just common features among all languages.

Read these esperantists:

Now it's not like I hate the language, but holy shit there's so much bullshit I hate when people misrepresent it. 90% of people who promote it do not acutally speak it, and I know this because barley anyone actually does speak it and there is very little literature to actually practice it. You can't learn a language effectively in your bedroom, knowing ~1000 words isn't anywhere close to fluent. Also, most of the resources for it fucking suck. Dictionaries don't list important shit like verb transitivity and often the writers are just making up translations as they go along. Trying to read esperanto written by non-anglophone is a clusterfuck because everyone has a different idea of vocabulary and grammar. It's flexibility is really its downfall because everyone just uses it their own way, not in any communication standard.

I am very glad that this turned from a basic shitty anti-idpol thread to a good one about esperanto, good job guys

What's a better artificial language?

tlhIngan. Qapla'!


Holy shit imagine being this retarded


Volapuk also had a big following and people realized it sucked. The reason people like Esperanto is because it's good much more than it sucks, while the alternatives really suck.

The biggest aspect of Esperanto's grammar is it being agglutinative, which is decidingly non-Indo-European.
The vast majority of their complaints is nitpicking or arbitrary opinions. Rarely do they mention how these faults make the language less capable of what it aims to do, and it's true, these faults do exist; Esperanto isn't perfect, but it's good enough and the best chance there is at an IAU.
Just because they don't speak it fluently doesn't mean they don't speak it or have actually learned it.
Mine does. Besides, proper transitivity isn't really important, it's grammatically required but people can and should just ignore it.

Lojban is literally autism: the language. It looks and sounds horrible, like a fucking machine designed it and it's a pain in the ass to actually understand how it works because they decided to autistically name all parts of the grammar something else while caring more about the theory behind it then it actually being functional. Also no one fucking speaks it.

I still like the idea of making languages based on theory, specifically to optimize them:

As opposed to a hideous mess like Esperanto, which still somehow combines all the kludgey flaws of something like English, while inheriting Romance Language monstrosities like male/female/neuter genders for every imaginable word.

Like what?
What the fuck? That's absolutely not true. Formally it has one suffix to optionally mark a noun as being female; there is no actual grammatical gender.

Kial vi parolas pri aferoj vi ne komprenas?


Mind sharing comrade?

They're not nitpicky at all. Look at how fucked up the accusative is. It's used for some verbs, but prepositions for others, and some prepositions are even modified in meaning by the accusative. The vast majority of sentences in a language are transitive, so being able to correctly use it is a pretty big deal. Yeah sites like Lernu try to hand wave it away by giving a few examples, but when you actually start to dig into the language and notice no one actually has any steadfast rules for how to use it, it becomes a nightmare. Zammenhoff's "it only has 16 rules!" is complete bullshit, the devil is in the details.

See this is one of my biggest gripes with Esperanto, whether or not you should ignore or change parts of the grammar is subjective. I'm sure there are purists over at Lernu who'd pop a vein telling newbies to leave out required parts of grammar. Esperanto feels less like a cohesive language and more like a dialect continuum, with everyone choosing their favorite features and leaving out the ones they don't like. I bet in the above you'd tell me to just leave out the accusative all together because its not that important anyways. It's hard to learn a supposedly international language when everyone has a personal dialect with different fundamental rules than me.

But esperanto is just common european conland #2. At least Interlingua can be understood by romance speaker who've never even heard of it, esperanto tries to be too cosmopolitan and ends up being a fucking mess. Just because a few dozen random words of its vocab comes from greek or german or whatever doesn't really help a speaker of that language; out of needing to know thousands of words it's just spitting in the ocean. Esperanto should have taken the most popular languages by number of speakers and systematically derived vocab from that. Interlingua is at least has a consistent and predictable vibe to it.

Ya know, if the EU or whatever decided esperanto was going to be an official language I'd shut up and learn it, and if a natural languages had all these flaws I wouldn't even mind because it's just the product of evolution. But esperanto is a planned language, there's no reason why it should have so many flaws that could easily be done away with.

Exactly. Latin would be a better choice than Esperanto. However this comrade sums it up nice and loudly:
English has already won the battle.

I am so happy that the Persians moved on from this stupid experiment. Imagine an Esperanto speaking Muslim country. It would be the laughing stock of the civilized world.

And most people already speak English!
Esperanto and most romance languages are pretty retarded, to be honest.
So he was an idiot that couldn't learn Latin and now the rest of us have to suffer?

How is this wrong? Esperanto is inherently a Victorian aged anti-socialist language. Stalin rightfully purged the revisionist counterrevolutionary movement leaders inside the USSR because they were a threat to the revolution.

Finnish is fucking European and some would argue that Turks are European too. Esperanto's grammar being based on Turkish or Hungarian does not change the fact that most of its vocabulary sounds like a drunk Russian trying to speak with Mexicans.
So is Esperanto, tbh. Esperanto, lojban, Klingon, modern reconstructed Hebrew, etc are not real languages. They will have no purpose after the revolution.


Check this shit out
If you analyze the accusative it's not actually an absolute accusative, it more or less takes the place of a necessary preposition. That's why you can use transitive verbs without it by using "al" or why it's meaning can change with additional propositions or why the accusative is in sentences without objects.
That's not a bad thing if it's still intelligible. It makes perfect sense for a logical language to evolve more logically. People no longer use ĥ because it was a retarded letter, they don't automatically mark female nouns with male being the default, they turn adjectives into verbs instead of using "esti" etc.
You could leave out the accusative if you just use "al" all the time, but to leave it out and assume the word order conveys the meaning would be very problematic considering the word order is supposed to be free and many speakers don't use SVO.
I've never noticed people using different fundamental rules.
But the thing about Interlingua is it literally has nothing going for it other than being intelligible by romance speakers, it's not designed to be logical or even international. Esperanto's vocabulary is messy but it's to such an extent that it makes it look unique, and not like someone keeps forgetting whether they're speaking in French, Italian, or Spanish.
The thing is, the vocab is really not that important. Most words are going to look foreign to most people, but that's okay because that's how learning a new language is like, besides the agglutinative nature makes it easier to learn new ones, particularly ones directly related to it. There's a connection between bovo, bovino, bovido, bovaro, bovisto, etc., as opposed to head, cow, calf, herd, rancher.
That's true, more reforms should be encouraged and illogical features should be changed or removed. Particularly the pronouns being extremely incomplete.

That's just not true.
They don't have three different writing systems and a language where every single verb has 4 different ways to say it to express how polite you're trying to be.
He did learn Latin, that's how he realized how difficult it was.

Is that why so many Socialists have learned it and there's even a specific far-left Esperanto association? How the fuck can a language be anti-socialist?
I didn't know a specific language leads to counterrevolution and revisionism. Stop being retarded, Stalin purged them like everyone else to strengthen his hold on power.
I said non-Indo-European, and as in belonging to that language family.
Zamenhof knew neither.
Hot opinions bro.
There's no such thing as an real or unreal language, if it exists it's real.
Because everyone will be forced to learn and speak English, is that right?

Estonian and Latvian are much richer than English. English is suitable only for business, for everything else it is sub-standard.

I only hope that chinks won't become a new world hegemon
non-alphabetic languages are the purest retardation there is

on the other hand English is pretty comfy, tho it needs some work in phonetic department but at least it is not as bad as frogspeak

Barring world war 3 there will never be another global hegemon. If things don't continue down the current path then everything will regress to being a multi polar system. This is good for socialism.

Chinese isn't all bad. The new Bopomofo system replaces their hoary old hieroglyphics with a cutting-edge 37-glyph phonetic script that is arguably superior to our Latin script. IMHO all writing systems should be phonetic

People learn English because English has inherent value.
No one will learn your anti-communist language just because it's slightly easier than Chinese or Russian.
People who push Esperanto are worse than trots. You really make the left look bad.

Given the amount of people here who sincerely believe that racism against "people of color" still exists past the 60's, I'd say that even Holla Forums is not immune from SJW garbage

Are you saying that racism against "people of color" doesn't exist but racism against "people of no color" does?

someone has to go outside

Given that many prominent leftist groups openly talk about excluding and shutting up white voices, I'd say yes, it absolutely does. And unless this is rectified quickly, the left is going to lose whatever remaining sane voices it has to the far right, and public opinion will go along with it.


There are prominent leftist groups?

if this is true maybe white people are actually a problem lmfao

But why the fuck wouldn't you be nice to white people? Why would you single out any race for exclusion and then act surprised when they get mad for being excluded?

you mean the "sane voices", which you implied to be white leftists who apparently are one offence from turning into fascists?

you complain about progressive stack but you apparently believe sane voices are being silenced by minorities speaking first, you're essentially justifying progressive stack by implying a white voice is more capable. Its that implicit bias that progressive stack is supposed to rectify. Just saying.

White voices are not more capable, they are equally capable. The voice that applied first to speak should be allowed to speak first as nobody else should have any more (or less) of a right to speak then they do.

right, but are we really on the precipice of a massive fascist movement arising from spurned white leftists who had to wait their turn to talk?

I am not aware of any major leftist organization that just flat out doesn't let white people speak on the basis of their skin color. I'm not some big fan of progressive stack but honestly how people treat it here it seems like they're just mad they don't get to speak first. You can say "oh well that should apply to everyone", and that's not wrong, but to say that this is somehow evidence of "reverse" racism or something is just so ridiculous.

I'm jumping in here, I wasn't part of any arguments before or anything, so just take this on its own. But I don't think we are on the precipice of a massive facist movement because of spurned leftists. Most leftists, barring a few exceptions, will not swing all the way to the far far right because someone hurt their fee fees. However, the majority of people are not leftists; the majority are either politically ignorant, "radical centrists", or right wingers (not saying that any of those individually are bigger then the left, but, combined, non-leftists are going to make up a bigger share then leftists due to centrists and non politicals. Just like non-right wingers make up a bigger share then right wingers.)

These other groups, who generally don't know or understand leftist theory and are only skimming their knowledge about this stuff off the surface, ARE liable to run to the right after seeing something that is (or at least, they percieve to be) against their self interest such as a progressive stack. Moderate right wingers dive straight into pro-white idpol and centrists dip their feet into alt-lite, just to get away from a group that is stating that their opinions are inherently worth less then someone else's opinion. This is a perfectly understandable reaction.

To resort to an extremely clumsy analogy, if there was a utopian enclave that would shower you in hot girls/guys, candy, alcohol and chocolate fountains, but the first time you walk in the gate you get sprayed in the face with ice cold water by a broken firehose and forced back out again, most people would not investigate further and would simply decide they hated that place with the stupid firehose that sprayed them for no reason. It's not unreasonable to say that we should focus on getting that firehose fixed so that people aren't so repulsed by us for no reason. People who are already inside the enclave chowing down on booze and chocolate aren't going to think that the broken firehose is the biggest deal, and in fact it somewhat helps, maybe it keeps fascists out with the rest of them or something. But it also fucks us over in that it keeps turning opinion against us in the outside world until it reaches a boiling point.

There's not really anything we can do about that firehose though. We can't stop infiltration by cointelpro without the masses and the masses won't join because of cointelpro spraying a hose at them.

Good analogy, except beyond the firehouse there is only alienation, infighting, and despair.

Personally I think that the progressive stack symbolizes something more deeply wrong with the left than just a gatekeeping mechanism. Like you said, it implies that some people's opinions are worth more than others (by virtue of characteristics about themselves they can't change) and that's not very cool.

Because Arabic is an imperialist language

I'd argue that getting rid of the accusative an other absurd nonsense like adjective having to agree with their nouns is worth the price of free word order. It simplifies the grammar and standardizes the way people speak, I think esperantists greatly over estimate how amazing the human brain is at learning languages, if you speak an SOV language it's not hard after a few days of practice to start speaking SVO.

Yeah but they're not officially codified into the language though, it's shit that a learner has to pick up on and learn to ignore the official rules. None of your posts are in beginner grammar books or websites. Again it's no different than with a natural language, but since esperanto isn't a natural language I shouldn't have to learn extra rules or changes that contradict what every grammar resource tells me is correct.

Except when you tell me that people leave out required transitivity conjugation and ignore entire letters. :^)

And yet esperanto also fails on both counts, as listed above. Also I have no idea why you keep bringing up that it's agglunative, it's not that amazing a feature. No one argues that finnish is more logical than other languages because its agglunative, and agglunativity is on a sliding scale, all european languages like to glue words together. There's nothing more logical or easier writing "hundodomo" as opposed to "dog house".

And again goes back to my central point: Esperantists are so fucking autistic they reject all logical changes to the official grammar. Ido's changes should have been incorperated into esperanto, but they weren't. You're even arguing that a lot of "nitpicks" aren't a concern because most speakers change things anyways, yet all learning materials keep teaching the same shit from 100 years ago. Esperanto is stuck spinning its tires in mud because everyone sees the obvious changes that should be made but there's no Académie française equivalent to but them into action. Any actual reform we had a chance at died with Zammenhoff.

That's pretty impossible because it assumes all languages are monolithic. Let's say we want english to be phonetic. Whose dialect are you gonna pick? Everyone would have a hissy fit if their dialect wasn't chosen and have to learn how to spell in a way they don't speak, the current english system does a great job at representing everyone equally horrible.

I think progressive stack is meant to empower voices that normally have been trodden upon. Its definitely a liberal concept, but I don't think its an abomination. Definitely should be retooled somehow, what that may be i honestly couldn't say.

also I definitely see your point, I just loathe when people on here act like white people or whatever are like one slight away from joining the KKK or whatever.

there is some hyperbole here regarding this sort of thing, but its only wrong by degree not by substance. if your political discourse centres essential identity (and, in the case of the west and especially burgerstan, does this almost to the exclusion of everything else) and positions these identities as antagonistic then I don't really know what else you could possibly expect. Eventually the group you've been telling for decades not to think about race catches on to the fact that everybody else is thinking about race and acting in what they see as their "racial" (or ethnic or whatever term you prefer) interests and that those interests are often unabashedly opposed to their own.

Shaming and pooh-poohing "white" identitarianism while condoning or encouraging such from other groups is all fine and dandy when economic times are reasonably good and those people are comfortable enough to not seriously engage with politics. Once that changes and people have a reason to be political, and the only tool presented to them is the identity hammer with a little tag on it that says "no white people", well, they're going to pick the hammer up anyway and if you get a critical mass of people who do so and are engaging politically through a constructed "white" identity, then nobody is going to like the results.

There are already homographs (different words that are spelled the same) and homophones (different words that are pronounced the same). It's true that switching to a phonetic writing system wouldn't do anything about homophones, but it would completely eliminate homographs. That's a strict improvement.

The progressive stack is inherently flawed, because its entire concept is tailor-made to propel powermongers, psychopathic social climbers, egomaniacs, con-artists, entryist wreckers, and undercover saboteurs into positions of power.

There is simply no better mechanism I can imagine to destroy the leadership of an organization. Especially within an ideology like leftism, founded on ideals of egality, fraternity, and liberty.

Yes. I was sure i was one of the only few non-idpol leftists in the world until i found this.


You do know right that the "progressive stack" was specifically used to kill Occupy Wall Street?

The fact is there, there's a whole bunch of ultra-left activists out there who do not give a single fuck about class or socialism and are only interesteded in race or gender issues, I'm not saying that race or gender shouldn't be a part of the struggle btw.

It's obviously a pseudonym. I think it's by the same guy who did the new English translation of the Ego and Its Own. He's a post-leftist

This is the word

Yeah, I'm familiar with its history. Concern for idpol is a subject open to legitimate debate, but the real problem people are the ones who simply want any wedge issue to nose their way into a position of influence. The main reason such people are so loud about idpol isn't because they care about it, but because (combined with things like the progressive stack) it's a far better "in" than class issues, due to its vague definition and remit.

I'll bite the bait. What is necessarily wrong with BLM? As far as I know the worst problem it has are the grifters like DeRay Mckesson and Shaun King who try to make a career out of it at the expense of accomplishing anything

BLM was good in theory, but even ignoring the shitlibs, Tumblrinas, and oppression olympian idpol lunatics that infested it, their praxis was generally awful:
Much like OWS, I admit some of this was out of BLM's hands due to the media (either journos themselves, or the types of personalities that filled up the PR arm of BLM), but the majority falls squarely on the shoulders of the activists themselves.

Michael Brown dindu nuffin though!

Problem here is that the entire reason these fiascos blew up to begin with is because they weren't sympathetic. Clear cut cases don't stick in people's minds. News media wants reports to be uncomfortably ambiguous to stir up drama. Liberal betas get a treadmill for their high horse and the rightards can touch themselves to TV footage of black lumpens vandalizing property.
All of the well-meaning activism has happened for decades, even at the 2015 riots. The simple fact of the matter is that no one fucking cares because police abuse is a room elephant. If BLM wasn't an orgy of postmodern embarrassment, none of us would be talking about it.

America is fucked. Period. If leftists in the US want to get people on board, they have to point straight to the bottom and offer a way to build back up. Appealing to popular politics is a fool's errand.

No, because Nazi posters are still tolerated.

Instead of railing against idpol why not just implement a white leftist space instead? It will be closest thing to what you want. POC will never give up the entitlement, to get anything done you need to filter that shit out.

the primmie so retarded even primmies hate him? no thanks

>>>Holla Forums

maybe the MTWs are right

White people are the biggest idpolers out there though.


Pretty much. There are some individualist anarchists and egoist anarchists on tumblr.

I don't think that is accurate, the vast majority of the cases of black people being shot by the police which BLM rallied around were pretty egregious cases of police misconduct and not in any way justifiable. Like where I'm from there was a black kid running around naked (probably high on something), he ran towards the cop and was shot dead. How could he be armed or pose a threat if he's naked? That is fucked up no matter how you put it and if you disagree the problem is probably with you, not with BLM.

I wholeheartedly supported BLM (and marched with them several times) up until like a year ago. They definitely have bought in to liberal idpol, or at least major segments of their leadership has. They lack an anti-capitalist critique. Their narrative is problematic that ONLY black people get shot by the police, which is not true (50% white and 25% other races according to Washington Post study), and I think sticking to this narrative is pointlessly divisive when police brutality should be a unifying issue. I don't know if they're rallying around the shooting of Daniel Shaver but it wouldn't surprise me if they didn't emphasize it much because he's white - they certainly have ignored other cases of white or brown people being shot by police cause it didn't fit their narrative.

Agreed that BLM at least got people talking about it but at the end of the day they're running up against the fact that a significant portion of the population does not give a shit about police brutality towards blacks or anyone else, and will "back the blue" no matter what even when you have clear video evidence of murder (as in the Daniel Shaver case). Between conservative fucks on one side and liberal idpol fucks on the other side, I agree that America truly is fucked. Overall the conservative fucks are more of a problem, being reactionary, but the liberal idpol is pouring fuel on the fire. And like I was saying in the OP, leftist spaces are increasingly infected by this liberal idpol (do they even count as leftist anymore if they become too infected?). So yeah, things are looking pretty shitty in the states. We need to re-build leftism from the ground up but I'm afraid this idpol thing will have to run its course and I don't know how long that will take.

Capitalists have no rights.

This, and its also like the total political incarnation of how liberal capitalist society functions on spectacle. Like basically the vast majority of these liberal idpolers aren't interested in this stuff for substantial political reasons like someone in the unionist movement might be - IE building sincere inclusive solidarity and power. They engage with this stuff i think because its like the political equivalent of how most people engage with the news, its hyper-moralist and hyper-intensified and the way it functions is by appealing to the core immovable values and emotions that people have. So sort of how the news allows people (regardless of political orientation) to look at X and Y happening, and then feel bad or good about it to the extreme (look at how the media covers donald trump for example, or how conservative media portrays obama), idpol liberalism functions in the same way. Its a surface level engagement that is self-justifying because it appeals to emotions and your pure empathy without asking much else of you. Its an easy engagement - "how can be wrong when racism and sexism are so clearly unjust?" With the rise of social media I think this has become even more inflated and outrage culture is just being fueled and fueled on most sides of the political spectrum pandering to purer and purer moralism which produces nothing ultimately. The pure moralism of it is why things like occupy and BLM don't really achieve anything, because moralism triumphs over praxis and substantial understanding of what is happening aside from the moral aspect, and then it achieves nothing. And then like you said it also leads to people taking advantage of the situation to inflate their own ego's and then disregard criticism based on buzzwords and appeal to identity moralism.

I have tried having discussions with these people about class and stuff and they sincerely don't get it. It's one thing to disagree with my views or whatever but like I criticized somebody for hailing Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi as strong women online and after explaining my views (basically we shouldn't support them just because they're a woman when they don't even support healthcare are raising wages, etc. or hillary silencing bills rape accusers, all things that affect women disproportionately) their first reaction was telling me to take my "political arguments" somewhere else since I'm a white man and women's issues don't concern the politics of a white man and that politics weren't welcome in the space of womens issues. Likewise I had an argument with a girl I know who is "politically active" and constantly sharing her opinions online, after she complained that amazon selling healing crystals is cultural appropriation of witchcraft, which is also a term invented by racist white male anthropologists (i swear to god im not making this up). I basically got her down to admitting that someone buying a healing crystal has no substantial material effect on anybody, and that witchcraft is psuedoscientific and is unjustified so why should anyone bother wasting their time on this issue. So she literally admitted "it doesn't affect anybody at all and has zero material impact on the lives of anybody" in those words, but then said that she wouldn't drop it because we need to respect people's FEELINGS about it. I go to an insanely liberal university in montreal thats stereotyped as having an insane amount of idpol art students and stuff and so I have had a lot of interactions with these people and I've come to realize that its not worth engaging with anymore outside of a leveled discussion in an academic situation that specifically calls for discussion about it (e.g. me and other philosophy students get together and discuss marxism sometimes). they pretty much cannot be reasoned with. Like i said above a bunch of times its pure emotional moralism and sees itself as self-justifying, you can't bother having a discussion about it unless they sincerely want to know about your own views in the proper circumstances. These people will grow up and eventually lose their importance in the political sphere, and become disengaged from politics in any real way much like the hippies of the 60's did, because they don't actually have principles that guide them that they are committed to. Its a surface level engagement with politics that wont last, its alienating to people because of how exclusionary and aggressive the language and strategy is, it fails to accomplish anything, and it will therefore cannibalize itself into obscurity at some point.

He's not a primitivist, and if other primitivists hate him it's precisely because he's not retarded. He's incredibly well-educated and articulate, and his critiques of industrial society are very materialist.

Sounds about right. Even if you can get them to acknowledge class, its just as another form of identity

Man these post make me sad :(