Why is it so hard to get someone who is into identity politics to become a marxist?

Why is it so hard to get someone who is into identity politics to become a marxist?


They just see me as a white muh privilege male who wants to oppress them…

if they don't read marx out of intellectual curiosity they're faggots

this is what you tell them and flip them the finger yelling "READ MARX YOU STUPID CUNT" every time they try talking to you again

Keep sucking dat liberal cock

You're dying alone, then?

...

...

Simple.
They don't want real change.
They just want something to believe in.
Someone to tell them they are good people, even if all they see is skin colors and sexes.

It's actually relegion. Opium.

Does it matter? You won't be able to regret it.

Maybe because identity trumps class universalism and always will.

its because to most liberals worker issues are invisible. it's not obvious that workers are oppressed today since most people in the first world have jobs that aren't uncomfortable. they live lives where the most pressing oppression is that of racism or sexism.

and its true that those issues should be dealt with. but understanding how workers are oppressed is not something that's as easy to see as say, racial discrimination is.

of course, when you tell someone what they believe is most important is not what's most important, they're going to respond negatively as well. look at how this board reacts to people who claim identity is the most important trait of an individual. people go berserk.

Not only belying the fact that one only so often identifies with class, the reason leftypol doesn't into idpol, or at least the Marxists, is because they want to aggrandize class struggle and collectivise so hard against what they merely perceive as rich yuppies. They want to create a capitalism without capitalism so that workers, regardless of identity, still produce for the "common good" of society. See, for Marxists, everybody is equal, but some are more equal than others.

Everyone dies alone.

t. Holla Forums

Because idpolers seem to fall into two groups

Right-Wing - A lot of idpol uses outright right-wing thinking and you're just barking up the wrong tree. You're not going to get to people who frame everything in terms of identitarian national struggle. White nationalists will think you're secretly on the side of the Jews and brown people, PoC will think you're secretly on the side of the evil white men, so on and so forth.

Narcissistic Liberals - These people are only into "activism" to feel good about themselves and impress their friends. Dry economics totally kills their buzz man.

>>>/liberalpol/
It's a good place to discuss how culture and social structure comes out of the nether and is in no way influenced by material reality.

Yeah, no wonder Marx still believed in the left v. right dichotomy.

...

Yeah, that's about your level.

What I'm saying is that our culture and social structure is formed by material reality, and a large part of that is the way in which we produce and distibute the goods and services people need to survive. You're going to find it very difficult to fight the social injustices you see if you regard them as simply the result of attitudes or culture and not the result of larger, systematic political-economic forces.

They think they're politically knowledgable, but all they do is spew empty rhetoric about rights. They'll write off marxism because they are in fact completely ignorant about it while saying shit like "it works on paper" "it's been tried and failed" etc.
They actually know fuck all about politics, the modern left is in omni-shambles since the fall of the soviet union.

...

You're right.
We shouldn't appeal to worker's "rights".
Rather worker's self-interest is the way to go.

I don't think it is in many workers self interest to violently overthrow the current system.

Why not?

Is it not in the worker's self-interest to own and control their own workplace democratically and share the profits amongst them rather than have it taken away from them and given to some fat-cat shareholders?

ie socioeconomics

It is in every worker's (and arguably everyone's) long-term interest to overthrow capitalism.

Its not in the workers self interest to increase their chance of death by several orders of magnitude for an unknowable amount of time.

You're just looking at the endgame and not what it would take to get there

You're right, fam. I have finally seen the light. It's far better to get the workers to all jack off to spooky concepts of "national unity" so they can learn to love their exploitation.

I wasn't saying anything bad about socioeconomics.

Makes you……

…..Think……

Which is the kind of logic you can use to never accomplish anything.
Of course it's a risk/reward thing, and as workers get poorer and poorer while the fat-cats rake in all the dough, the rewards begin to outweigh the risks further and further.

That's how the common man will look at it.

But you don't understand.

You got it, fam.

There is no third option. The rest are just dolled up class submission.

Because 100% capitalism and 100% communism are the only conceivable realities.

Now you're getting the hang of it.

Of course it doesn't have to be violent to begin with, but once people realize that the corporate fat-cats would sooner use violence than make even small concessions, chaos breaks out.

This is how the common man will look at it.


Yeah, that's pretty much true.
How would you mix two things that per definition cannot exist at the same time?

No, I've known that most of the regulars to this board have very shallow beliefs for a long time.

Okay. What is the middle-ground between owning something and not owning something?

Concessions have been made throughout Americas history.
Capitalism with a reasonable social safety net has worked pretty well so far. No gulags which I think is cool.

Possession

How is "possession" different from "ownership"?

What's the difference between private and personal property?

And huge mass-strikes and even violence preceeded them.


The rich have still gotten richer and the poor comparatively poorer even in social democracies like Scandinavia. The tendency is clear; the system cannot hold forever.


What is possession? Is it both ownership and not ownership? If so, how so?

This is true.
THE CREATURES OUTSIDE LOOKED FROM PIG TO MAN, AND FROM MAN TO PIG, AND FROM PIG TO MAN AGAIN; BUT ALREADY IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO SAY WHICH WAS WHICH.
:^)

Ownership, use and extraction of surplus value.

Now answer the question.

But not mass murder
But we still have the highest standars of living in history.

Western democracies exist because of revolutionary terror during the French revolution, so even "mass murder" may indeed grant one a lot of conscession, depending of course what one means by this.

This is shifting the goal-posts though. Violence and mass-murder is not necessarily the same thing.


So? Ancient Egypt with slaves could have said the same thing.

relative immiseration makes us poorer, because our purchasing power decreases.

Also, remember that much of this can only exist because we have Asian authoritarian capitalism, where people work for what amounts to slave-wages to produce cheap shit for us, with a totalitarian state looking over their shoulder.

Which has been in decline for decades, a decline that has sped up since 2008.

I meant in regards to "chaos breaking out"
Which ideology produced that totalitarian state?

The poor have more ammenities then ever.

Marxism-Leninism.
Did it stop being totalitarian when it transformed into capitalism? Have there never been capitalist totalitarians? Are you conceeding the point that we're dependent upon what amounts basically to slave labour in order to maintain our standard of living, when we still have to have the share-holders get richer and we only get bread-crumbs?


The same could have been said during feudalism.

"Look, you have a plough with steel now and a bunch of knights protecting you! You didn't have that before! Clearly feudalism is awesome!"

I don't think I ever denied that, they are not the only thing keeping the system afloat though.
But not about any attempt at communism

Thus… It's in the worker's self-interest to sieze the means of production as this system cannot uphold itself forever.


As much as I absolutely abhor both the USSR and the PRC, this is the ONE thing they can brag about.
People had much more ammenities and services available to them in the USSR than in imperial Russia; hell, the USSR gave them their entire industry and electrical network.

Creating industry and products was not a problem for the USSR, it was more a question of how the resources were spent, how wealth was created and who owned and controlled what that turned the USSR into a big non-socialist piece of fail.

Amenities that they're losing.

This isn't the 60s or 70s, you can't pretend that this isn't a system in decline and that social democracy hasn't failed and given way to neoliberalism.

I think that's exactly what he's going to keep on pretending because he's a natcuck idiot.