Haha I'm gay AND alt-right

You may be surprised to learn that this board is not all about you.

no he's pretty self-hating

...

You may be surprised to learn that I don't care.
Thanks for the (You) anyways.

Good for you but nobody cares :^)
Nobody thinks gays should by definition be left and if you do, you're stupid.

Get the fuck off this board if you keep labeling us all as feminists. We don't need your identity politics over here it's cancer.

he hates special snowfake identity politics but he's being a special snowflake by being a gay alt-right republican when he knows deep don he's a token for teir community to push an agenda

You mean stereotypes don't apply to everyone? Color me surprised!

Milo and everyone else need to de-spook themselves.

Edit it to 'idpol is spooks'.

I never did as much. I don't care what ideology you subscribe to, whether it's communist, conservatist, liberal.
You're all morons regardless, especially since you got triggered at a joke.
Sorry your safe-space was """"""invaded"""""", reactionary scum.

Spooky.

Eh, Milo's maybe a 5 according to my gay friend so I don't think that's much of an issue. But the thought of desperate reactionaries fucking him because no pure white wife is pretty funny.

This thread now belongs to me.

neko: white women
twintails: women of colour
blonde: transwomen
guy: men

This faggot is such a fucking degenerate. There really should be a new name for people like him and those on r/The_Donald. The rational behind that "movement" is that they realized progressiveism was beginning to dominate society, and to rebel they're being conservative.

They're not really Alt-Right, they just want to preserve the most degenerate portions of Americanism. Milo shared a faggot kiss with Gavin McCuckness after saying "Fuck Islam." These people are fucking disgusting cum worshipers who have no ideological backing behind their worldview. They will have no place in the future ethnostate.

And you belong to me, my property.

I'm guessing you would teem up with other spooked people to kill other spooked people? Sounds kinda spooky.

You're right, me!

Lol I just said you need to fuck off this board if you are going to label us all as feminists.
After comparing our posts I think it's pretty obvious to point out who's really triggered here :^)

But really, we don't take kindly of identity politics over here. You'd better get used to triggering critique if you're going to stay here shitposting about feminism.

You said keep labeling us, as if I ever did.
Yeah because giving me a (You) for a joke, telling me to fuck off, talking about identity politics when it wasn't really brought up, calling me a meme (cancer, idpol, et c), and posting a dumb Mickey is totally apathetic…
Likewise, safe-space crusader.

That doesn't really make sense.

You could do it.

Uhn huh.

What you don't want to get, is that for them feminism is only a cover-up to create a neomaccarthist rhetoric, and the actual target is us, the left.

The whole point of this "pseudo-antithesis" is, since USSR is no more, to create an enemy in the left in order for them to have someone to hate.

And people of the feminist ideology help serve this to them on the plate.

I'd also like to remind you of the argument "if you are pro gender equality and don't hate trans people, you're a feminist".

You did. Just stop acting like an edgy cunt ffs. You're spooked AF.

It's a shame. We need another Mary Wollstonecraft.

I'm not saying that because everyone on the left is a feminist, clearly not, no, I'm saying "Don't hit on me silly feminists" because Milo actually doesn't like feminists.

FFS get over yourself.

i smell a mad nigga

...

You sure got them.

Allow me to clarify more.
He doesn't like feminists and he's gay, so clearly he wouldn't want them to hit on him…

I don't even know who the fuck Milo is, and I don't care tbh.
The only point I'm trying to make is that every form of identity politics is cancer, including yours.

We all want equal rights here for everyone, there are other women on leftypol who don't shitpost about feminism and that's totally fine for everyone.

I think you're spooked and don't know what leftypol is all about. You probably have a wrong idea of what the real radical left is.

I'm just going to ignore you from now on, I don't care you're making an absolute ass out of yourself.

Okay, sperg.

Also
Not an argument.
And you've really killed stirnerposting to boot.

...

...

save me from these feels, comrades

No, it's dead because you just spaz out and spam "SPOOKS" every time you see something you don't like, without ever actually conceiving an argument. It's just "You probably don't even know what leftism is, duuuh", or "you just wanna be an identity to oppress me, how dare you", or "it's a fixed idea because I say so!!!1!"

Besides, every politics is identity politics.

You will find a qt brown gf that puts anfem's snownigger ass to shame.

Ok ONE more reply then.
That wasn't me dumbass, do you really think I'm the only one who dislikes your attitude?

And I didn't need to give another argument on that Milo shit obviously.

We need modern gulags for people like you. I'll let you be a cunt to someone else now have fun :^)

Why are you in a thread about Milo if you don't know who he is? I think maybe you are triggered…

k

This thread is pure autism. Pls continue to trigger these retards based anfem poster

Also, I work, so putting me in a gulag would not only be redundant it would also show how much of a tankie you are… Fucking reactionary, revisionist scum.

...

fuck off, anfem poster is fun

Leftypol was shit the moment it began.

top fucking kek, this board has been absolute fucking shit for almost a year now. Neither I nor anfem poster could do anything to bring the downfall of Holla Forums; you all did it yourselves by sucking up to reactionaries, allowing Holla Forumsyps to shitpost here constantly, letting your sheltered white suburban male castration anxiety and shitty Holla Forums culture guide your politics, and alienate most actual leftists and anarchists who used to post here while also alienating any other potential leftists and anarchists who may post here if the board wasn't an alt-left torture chamber.

You did this all by yourselves and I don't give a fuck anymore. /anarcho/ is better than this board anyways.

also this>>772561

Now, this thread was shitty to begin with, so I don't mind it as much, but I'm really starting to get tired of threads being derailed by antifem posters vs anfem posters. The antifem posters are usually childish as fuck, but the anfems always have to feed their autism and derail the thread even more. I'm getting pretty fed up with both sides.

I was just trying to defend a joke I made… :

n1x pls stop ruining board quality and doing shameless advertising for anarcho

I agree, but I also think that it would only be beneficial to the board to trigger the alt-left antifem crybabbies the fuck out of Holla Forums. So I'm kind of ambivalent on the issue.

And then again, it's not like Holla Forums ever has any good threads.

kys Prickly_Cucktus

how did you know

People trying to turn leftypol into plebbit, confirmed.

If you are not antifem, (As in 3rd wave, 'murican fem), why would you be on lefty?

Yeah, that conflict isn't going to enjoyable for anyone, really.

You've already established you don't like or care about leftypol, but some of us still do. It's really quite tiring to see this shit all the time.

Idpol sympathizer

Because you post with the ancom flag and actually think that Holla Forums's "quality" is being destroyed by a handful of people from the IRC, which I've always maintained is a laughable position. There are so many other things wrong with this board.

Yep, the post-left conspiracy strikes again!

Because I'm against capitalism and the State, and also against other forms of hierarchy which anarcha-feminism addresses.

I used to feel the same way but I'm jaded and have given up.

...

Alright, well, I'd still appreciate it if you didn't try to shit everything up for the people that aren't jaded as fuck yet.

It wasn't a good joke fam. I mean it's totally unbelievable anyone who wasn't drunk or desperate would try to fuck Milo.

Oh shit, they are everywhere

...

do your part user, infiltrate the irc and fight their party line

Spooky.

Yes, stop the IRC conspiracy against zoophilia and rape!

t. Prickly_Cucktus

You call yourself an egoist and yet you fail to see that you are spooked into valuing sex so much more than other interactions that you find rape more severe than say tying someone down and punching them in the face repeatedly despite that not being something they want

Ye… There is plebbit for that, you know. Don't see why you need to have this experessed here, when it's expressed everywhere else.

Unless, you want here to become LIKE everywhere else.

Did you even read Stirner?

Also never made that argument, keep strawmanning, revisionist.

kek, I'm not an egoist. I'm a nihilist

k well now you're just making shit up

Because aside from the unrelated problems with reddit's board culture: Any ideology which doesn't address ALL forms of hierarchy and seek to abolish them in parallel is shit. And if you're seriously suggesting that reddit is anti-capitalist, just stop already.

Identity is a spook.

Nice double think.

Just stop memeing and read shit: anarchistnews.org/content/against-identity-politics-0

Being against identity politics doesn't mean dismissing real oppression on the axis of identity with, "LOL IT'S JUST SPOOKS JUST GET OVER IT YOU FUCKING LIBERAL LOL >NOT JUST REALIZING THAT THE IDENTITY THAT IS CONSTANTLY REIFIED IN BEING RECOGNIZED BY THE OTHER ISN'T ACTUALLY REAL".

The problem with identity politics is that it reproduces the logic of racism, sexism, etc. by reifying identity rather than seeking to abolish it. Identity politicians use oppressed identities as a tool to create in and out groups, to further their own political aspirations. It has little to nothing to do with actually seeking to liberate people from oppression. At best, it creates micro-hegemonies ("safe spaces") where one can feel safe and important and powerful, while nevertheless still being marginalized and easy to control.

Okay.

I have much to learn about Sternposting.

...

You'd do better to read that book again, my property.

...

What is this? Did Holla Forums find some new obscure fetish to be afraid of?

We've already had this argument, and you lost. Repeating yourself loudly and often enough does not make you right.
Clearly, no, there are indeed politics which aren't built on subjective phenomena.

Crafty linguistic juggling we've come to see as a standard postmodernist MO. Equating "identity" in the sense of the ego with "identity" in the sense of shared interests along the lines of certain groups you fall into being fundamental/independent from material conditions and class rule

Mother of all strawmen. Nobody's arguing it's supposed to be a "fixed idea." Hell, this doesn't even make sense as an epithet outside poststructuralist/deconstructionist crackpottery. There is, however, the need to adapt our program to the fundamental, stable objective factors of our objective situation (which change over time!) if we hope to be realistic in theory and program. If you want eternal life and rivers of milk and honey, you're better off with a referral to your local religious specialist. If you want to feed the revolutionary effort with post-scarcity economic theory and fucking fairy dust, the university may be a better place for you.

Holla Forums is fine, it hasn't gotten shitier, it isn't shit.

kek

I think they've just jumped to the conclusion that sex should be only for procreation and shouldn't be enjoyed.

That is very zoophobic of you, you excellent brocialist. #NotMyComrade

Good lord. There has to be some crazy level of masochism going on there.

Thing is, she didn't "lose". She only refused to accept any of the antithesis.
There is this idea of "winning" an argument, that I can't realy get.

So, Pol created the world of 1984… Makes sense to me.

I'd only a snake.
..
We're talking /monster/, right?

he's a specist.
Spooekd into thinking humans are somehow more capable of "consent" than other animals

I'm not arguing subjective phenomena as the basis of politics. The eye cannot see itself. But what is it the eye cannot see? If you could see your Self, it would be an object. And once it is an object, it is a reflection, mirrors unto mirrors, windows upon windows.

How does this relate to politics? Well, I'm glad you asked. Think of this then: a stranger may cheat you but only a brother or a comrade may betray you. The existence of such conflicts bespeaks the presence, not the absence, of a political community.

did you come up with that all on your own?
If so, that's pretty impressive.

Also yes you are supposed to be arguing that. A spook is necessarily a fixed idea. Read Stirner.

There comes a point in an argument where one party either has to concede his position or be intellectually dishonest. That party has lost the argument.

Why would you a cold-blooded animal? It would feel like fucking a raw thawed out piece of chicken.

Pretty spooky.

This, and it treats identity oppression as fundamental (existing in its own right, ex nihilo, or as purely a result of individual/collective consciousness) rather than a result of observable, objective material conditions, and it grossly exaggerates identity oppression to aggressively frustrate these attempts of ours to study and solve it materialistically.
This is true of both "left" and right varieties. The alt-right's eager insistence on restricting immigration and offshoring is a cudgel against those who dare to ask why it is immigration and offshoring feed the neoliberal order - and, moreover, WHO they feed.
I tried to read your article, but couldn't get past its glib insistence that intersectionality is an effective theoretical response to idpol.

That was my first post ITT. I'm not the guy yelling everything is a spook.I'm taking up the burden of presenting actual arguments since he had to go and pick this fight fucking again.

See, that is what intellectual dishonesty looks like.

No, "you" 're wrong because a spook is a fixed idea and nothing more.

That is what a boring post looks like.

Okay, but class is an identity,

in the sense that politics ("the history of all hitherto existing society as the history of class struggles") is the culmination of identity interests into collective decisions;
the proletariat's interest is, or should be, to seize the factors of production and reproduction—only through revolution, through collective decisions, may we achieve our aims. The coincidence of the changing of circumstances and of human activity or self-changing can be conceived and rationally understood only as revolutionary practice.

Confusing names with things is belief. Any reified concept of the Unique's pursuit of his own is a spook.

Class is an objective relationship to objective things. It is in no sense whatsoever a social construct like gender, race, etc. which are all at least partially so. It exists and operates at a more fundamental level than all of language and culture (remove these and class remains.)

Yes, class can be considered in determining "who you are," but this is where the similarities end. It is not useful to call it an "identity" unless you intend to mean "identity" in precisely this limited sense. Which as we've seen, you do not. The very nature of "proletarian interests" stands foundationally at odds with that of "gay interests," "women's interests," and so on.

bunkermag.org/social-justice-social-democracy-reactionary-bonnie-clyde/

But so is identity. Self-knowledge cannot be achieved through mere introspection into my own (the significance of the atman and single absolute-self as separate from the phenomonological world), feelings, foibles, habits, likes and dislikes, capacitiesa nd so on. You cannot imagine the single self and reach any important conclusions because you do not exist in isolation from other selves (or in isolation from nothingness) and your introspection must of necessity be based on an examination of your relationships with others. The knowledge it commands means that of man's genuine reality—of what is essentially and ultimately true and real—of mind as the true and essential being.
Class is a social construct, in that circumstances are changed by men and that it is essential to educate the educator himself, in that all social life is essentially practical, in that all mysteries which lead theory to mysticism find their rational solution in human practice and in the comprehension of this practice, in that it remains largely an artifice of a given society ("Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guildmaster and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, that each time ended, either in the revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes").

...

To say that class isn't social is to deny the history of existing struggles.

Actually, it's Hegel.

Never once done that myself. I agree with the Stirnerposters breddy often though. Could you perhaps be thinking of yourself calling everybody permavirgin sperg dweller pissbabbies whenever they trigger you with logic?
++good crimestop, pic related.
So I don't have a point or my points are crappy? Make up your mind and get back to me.
Do you want your group to receive special treatment, or be treated equally to others? If it's the former, I don't take it as personally and angrily as you try to make it look like everybody who disagrees with you take everything, but I'm not interested in being more oppressed any more than you or anybody else, or by you or anybody else.
What specifically are you referring to? We've already lost autist, bullying, empowering, GOTY, harassment, homophobic, left, woman hater, progress, racist, respect, right, social justice, trolling and upgrade. I'd prefer not to render any other terms meaningless.

if I repeat it enough times it will be true

t. polyp anphlegm man wymyn

On fucking topic for once: Milo is an attention whore and like most alt-rightards insufferably smug and is almost certainly just as profit-motivated as Anita Sarkesian or any of the other assclowns on the other side of the puppet show. At least he's out of the closet, that's one thing he's got over his followers.

I don't do that?

Likewise, person.

My group? I am nothing but myself.

A spook is a fixed idea.

Not an argument.

The manifesto is more polemical poetry than theory, targeting a very broad, lay audience. The theory itself fundamentally diverges from mysticism - such a lens is useful only for neatly packaging the ideas.
Certainly the precise form class takes, and how it may be described, is a product of human endeavor. Hunger, too, is something altered daily by and inseparable from human activity, out of which cultural superstructures emerge (regional/cultural cuisine and homogenous processed/packaged alike, motivated at all scales by subsistence, convenience, resources, utility, preference, etc.) With this low bar, we can label hunger a social construct as well. This is silly. Hunger, while alterable by human activity (eating, CNS stimulants, marijuana, etc.) remains a fundamental, irreducible facet of life and human experience built directly upon material conditions (metabolism.)
That the individual does not exist in a vacuum and cannot achieve introspection without inherently dealing with his subjective relationships to other individuals is supposed to prove that identity is an objective phenomenon? You haven't made an argument here. If anything, you have proven my own point.
As long as you're open about rejecting materialism wholesale.

Not an argument.

Also see:
Do you accept or deny this?

Which is why we are marxists and not hegelians.

You're right, I can't prove that you're the person who responds to criticism of posts with the exact same repetitive rhetoric, style and flag as yours.
Nice obfuscation. At least you have good taste in art. The style is good but short tails on catgirls always seem off to me for some reason.
Except your idpol group is on the flag from your other post or the person's post with the same writing style as yours that you're defending to like it's yours but it's not and el-oh-el I guessed wrong so you win. And every damn post whoever that mysterious user has made with your exact same writing style and gramattical errors and arguments, has been something to the affect that we need more vaginas because vaginas and pay attention to vagina because vaginas are important and somebody was oppressed a hundred years ago on the other side of the damn planet and therefore somebody looking at you funny is le exact same thing and we need to purge whoever it was. your next line is that I'm mad because unlike you I actually put some effort into my shitposting
I don't think you've got that right. Most of my knowledge of Stirner is through social osmosis from this site and wiki, but I believe the term 'spook' refers to an abstract concept that has no more meaning or substance than that which we collectively give it.
if I deny it's an argument enough times it won't be an argument.

Didn't Milo say that underage sex is good for gay teenagers?

lmao top tier, comrade

You completely misunderstand what is meant by esse est percipi, and that, if mind can be modelled by matter, matter must be possessed of every intricate modality of mind. Nothing has been achieved by your reduction of things to material, and since the phenomena of self-consciousness are richer and more intrinsically intelligible than the normal repertoire that we ordinarily ascribe to matter, it would be matter that is thereby reduced. The demotion of object Egos by subject Egos inevitably leads to a life-and-death struggle. The flawed, imperfect universality where every subject desires sovereignty only for himself (the second occurrence of the variable not being independently quantified) necessarily corrects itself in the unflawed universality where every subject recognizes and promotes active universality in every subject, where all men equally recognize and co-operate with one another.

Your argument's crux is the very misunderstanding of the above and I'm not going, in regards to your reasoning, be particular about the arguments you present since you still think I'm arguing for subjectivity and not the subject in-itself.

Identity is not subjective.

And that's why you will always be bad Marxists.

I'm not saying I'm not the person with a flag (here lemme put it on to help you), but I've never resorted to calling anyone criticizing me a virgin or talk about sex in such a vulgar way.

Though I do like semen. Semen is yummy.

I am a feminist, but not all feminists are me. Hence I am nothing but myself.

"Man, your head is haunted; you have wheels in your head! You imagine great things, and depict to yourself a whole world of gods that has an existence for you, a spirit-realm to which you suppose yourself to be called, an ideal that beckons to you. You have a fixed idea! Do not think that I am jesting or speaking figuratively when I regard those persons who cling to the Higher, and (because the vast majority belongs under this head) almost the whole world of men, as veritable fools, fools in a madhouse. What is it, then, that is called a "fixed idea"? An idea that has subjected the man to itself. When you recognize, with regard to such a fixed idea, that it is a folly, you shut its slave up in an asylum. And is the truth of the faith, say, which we are not to doubt; the majesty of (e. g.) the people, which we are not to strike at (he who does is guilty of — lese-majesty); virtue, against which the censor is not to let a word pass, that morality may be kept pure; — are these not "fixed ideas"? Is not all the stupid chatter of (e. g.) most of our newspapers the babble of fools who suffer from the fixed idea of morality, legality, Christianity, etc., and only seem to go about free because the madhouse in which they walk takes in so broad a space?"

My making gramatical errors cancels out my argument which was totally based on her making gramatical errors and not her making the same gramatical errors as the person she claims to not be. Top kek indeed, comrade.

Again, I've not done that.
Nice spook.

Anycase, goodnight naïve realists. May you find the power of dialectics sooner rather than later, and stop being reductionist.

Comrade, I thought you did that intentionally, like for comedic effect.

In the hundred and some years since Materialism and Empirio-criticism was published, materialism has become more - not less - vindicated by the progress of science.
Aside, of course, from absolutely all scientific achievement post-enlightenment.

You have already admitted you disagree with the very philosophical foundation of leftism. I don't see what more there is to discuss here.

youtube.com/watch?v=oJhHwspZGcg

Not really, faggot: Where there is power there is resistance.

If that's marxism, I am not a marxist.

Which quite aptly describes the alt-right's own pathological sort of subjective idealism.

I'm with my transhumanist comr8. I'll also add that i think most of leftypol are not only feminists, but that they're anti-anti feminists as well but don't like to admit it.

I don't think that means what you think it means

If you say so :^)

Okay, Marx.

Racialism has never been argued alongside immaterialism…Racialism has always for the right been argued as a real threat.
You seriously think NRx is as sophisticated as George Berkeley???

Would you mind uploading your cute catgirls folder somewhere

He's a house faggot

ok pal

Yes, power presupposes resistance of some sort. But to shape this resistance into a useful, effective form, we must understand, as correctly and scientifically as possible, the nature of the "power" we deal with.

counter-currents.com/2016/04/1488-is-the-gateway-drug-to-the-alt-right-not-the-other-way-round/
The lay members of any movement are unsophisticated. Look at the SJWs on tumblr and the like. I'm addressing intellectual foundations here.
The alt-right correctly identifies an antagonistic relationship between different nationalities, socially constructed "races" and cultures. They correctly identify that in the present climate, immigration is a benefit to the immigrant and a detriment to the native people (in the form of depressed wages, monopsynistic labor markets, etc.) But they believe these factors are natural products of and inherent battlegrounds to a fundamental racial/national/cultural antagonism which itself transcends time, space and material conditions. This is an idealist conception of history.

We by contrast view these antagonisms as the result of a more fundamental one which in turn depends directly on objective material factors.

If there is no need, as you argue, to anchor these phenomena to such factors, what need is there to establish workers' control of the means of production in the first place?

Point blank, will you or will you not affirm workers' control of the means of production is a necessary goal of the left?

No. You're not alt-right.

At the very most you're anti muslim because they will throw you off a tower.
Being anti SJW and co just comes with the territory since they distribute the (((inclusive))) poison the jews peddle.

You just want to live in the soiled west because it lets you be a faggot and lets you indulge in your death sex addiction.

You're an avatar of death that cannot procreate as long as you shoot your cummies into mouthes and anal cavities.

It's simply not how life works out, unless you're one of those people who breed STDs in their rectums.

I just noticed that I'm on leftypol, here I was thinking I was on pol.

Who cares about the quality of your board? Not I.

Keep on trucking, OP.

Both Milo and the OP are not special tbh

ie Real products. Now you're contradicting yourself.
The alt-right never argues, nor has the intellectual foundations as you call it, that the world has no existence independent of sensations or ideas.

i. e. it is not subjective idealism

Cf:

Do you even know how antithetical race realism is to subjective idealism? Seriously, you can't just sweep everything under the philosophical rug you don't agree with because you think they're stupid.

Maybe some other time….It's kinda big and I should be in bed.

More postmodern linguistic juggling as identified here
Materialism and idealism are meant here in their broad, dichotomous sense. They are idealist in the sense that their concept of race is immaterial and essentialist, i.e. they only address the material factors of human diversity (genetic variation and its emergent properties, material aspects of culture) inconsistently, unevenly and pseudoscientifically in service to an idealist, essentialist conception of race. That they routinely make, accept and tolerate empirically false claims on this basis, because empirical reality is a tool firmly secondary to their racialism to be discarded the instant the two diverge.
Yes, I of course understand their idealist position and yours are pretty different and oppose one another. But let's not get pulled off on this superficial tangent of yours and lose the actual point. I bring up the alt-right in response to your
In this case, the alt-right is a resistance to a certain power. We'd both agree they have shoddy intellectual foundations and the mostly well-intentioned among them cannot hope to produce genuine solutions. Thus we see that the automatic, undisciplined resistance to amorphous, nondescript "power" is in itself useless. Resistance to be useful and effective must achieve a genuine consciousness and correctly understand the nature of the power it opposes. As in physical science, constructing models with predictive capability is not an optional activity.

"Are natural products of" means "are necessarily results of".

Is there any other conception?

Say it's a social construct/spook and disregard it?
Make predictions and conclusions about the individual on the level of specific genes and their health and social correlates, using race heuristically as various loose statistical collections of these genes, rather than as some absolute, and apply evolutionary biology correctly rather than Holla Forums's pseudoscience to better use the model?

Really anything that doesn't hold race is some immutable, absolute fact of the universe in itself is an "other conception."

Marxists are idealist in the sense that their concept of class is immaterial and essentialist, i.e. they only address the material factors of production (capital and its emergent properties, land, labour, entrepreneurship, material aspects of history) inconsistently, unevenly and pseudoscientifically in service to an idealist, essentialist conception of class…

As is the left a resistance to the power of a bourgeois order…

It seems more like you're doing postmodern linguistic juggling to suggest everyone who isn't a determinist is an idealist.

This thread is shit, and everyone in it should die

Also, how can you say resistence to a certain power
and then go on to say it's amorphous and nondescript?

Again, you're just sweeping everything under the philosophical rug to say "oh yeah, we need reason and objectivity" but it's completely empty posturing, as in physical science, constructing models of conception and "genuine consciousness/solutions" of being for-itself.

I have no idea what you're talking about so I'm going to attempt to make myself clear.

Every concept is an idea, of something that is out there (or not at all), it's never the thing in itself. Disregarding such as idealism, can therefor be applied to anything. Unless you mean idealism in the sense of something being un-marxist, as is often done, and which creates the illusion that marxism is somehow "the real stuff", because it describes itself as so.

But that's wrong.
Class is completely determined by one's relationship to the productive forces. It's a precise definitional shorthand for this relationship. It neither exists nor is conceived of in any other form within Marxist theory.
Race to NRxers is a priori. It determines, rather than is determined by, material conditions.

Yeah, obviously. I thought that was pretty implicit in "where there is power there is resistance." The alt-right is a counterexample of sorts to that maxim's implication by itself creating positive social change without a "correct" theoretical framework. I'm getting the sense you're not really reading what you reply to anymore.

"Certain" here means "some" or "arbitrary," not "definitely known." The fact that they don't understand this power is the point.

I don't think anyone sees historical materialism as a deterministic theory. Not all law-governed processes are deterministic. The quantum theory and statistical mechanics certainly aren't.

you need a gun because you have a small benis :-DD

A definition being more clear and simple doesn't make it any more real or meaningfull. Believing that it does, is some straight up idealism.

I'm really tired, and stupid anyway, and I suspect the same of you.
That's what I said.

Also, yes, I agree. But non-economic phenomena are not uniquely determined by the economic structure and non-economic forces can and do play a role in shaping the forces of production (the superstructure), where historical materialism is not deterministic to the point where individual agency is left out.

Because if it was suc h a deterministic pattern towards socialism then there is no need to struggle against capitalism in the present.

Also sorry for calling you a faggot
and misunderstanding…

Ah, the classic "everything marx said was true, but we need to make it true to be true". The self-fullfilling prophecy that can't even fullfill itself.

I disagree with marx about a few things, like lumpenproles and LTV….

I see, Marx was firmly 19th century in his thinking and the lumpenproles don't really fit into the leftist sentiments of today and LTV is just firmly debunked.

The flaw in the logic is still there though, marxian class determines pretty much everything, but only according to the predictions of marx if they follow the teachings of marx, never reaching TrueMarx communism each time they did.

Again, long as you're upfront about the fact you're arguing against marxism itself.

Woah woah woah no. No.
I said that "class" is nothing whatsoever more or less than a convenient shorthand for a material phenomenon. I'm saying nothing about clarity making an argument more correct.

I just said historical materialism is not deterministic.

Le ebin "good on paper but doesn't work irl" meme.

Yeah, yeah. I know. That's what I'm saying…

So im curious, are you an academic, or more of a hobbyist/activist?

You did do such, even if it wasn't intended or realised. The problem we're going to run into in this discussion, and discussions with most marxists, is that they can't distinguish their self-referrential terminology from the broader, actual, implied meaning of the term and concept of class, they truly believe that this is deemed non-existent by defining it as a technicality in the marxist machine, they mistake the map for the territority.

Marxism isn't as much a political ideology, as it is a dialect and a mode of thinking, this is where it departs from leftism in general, it is it's salafism, a language consisting of few but phrases.

It's like there is a fundamental disperancy between the language, ideology and logic we form and the things we attempt to capture and describe with them.

The latter. I dropped out of school…. :

He's attempting best identitarians at their own game, and it seems to be working.

By who and what exactly?
I would like to know for research purposes.

If you shoot somebody because they are black, or because they make a different sound when farting than you, you are oppressing on the axis of identity.

No, you just straight up misread my post and are trying to cover your ass. The one in question was
Here we were clearly discussing Marxist theory as per which I restated here.
"Precise definitional shorthand for X" is unambiguous. It means "we have chosen to call all X and nothing but X by this name, for convenience of referring to X." There was, again, nothing about clarity making an argument more correct.

No, that's you.

Again, fundamental misunderstanding on your part. Nobody is defining away questions/arguments. That's not what a definition is/does. That wouldn't make sense. And it is in no sense a technicality - it is, once more, a label we put on the fundamental concept of the theory, because that fundamental concept is so damn important.

Enjoy being gassed silly homo.

God, you leftists and this constant race baiting is just vomit inducing. I'm from Holla Forums and I have no problem with gays or "jews", just Zionists and Islamists. He's about as uncle tom as the white people are that support BLM, Israel, Saudis, Pakis, and whatever other nigger countries out there that receive free food from the UN that puts local farmers out of business.

Well that makes you the first Holla Forumsyp i've seen with that opinion. How do you stand that board, seeing as every Holla Forums visitor only ever seems to == REEEEE!!!1!1!1 == at Jews and "degeneracy", and claim that as a valid argument?

...

Lmao this coming from a pollyp

catposter confirmed for NEET

Didn't this guy complain at the White House press conference about Twitter taking away his blue check mark?

but I work
so it would just be NET

It was censorship on Twitter, in general.

oh yeah, I forgot

meme this

"Serious issues like feminism"

NOW THAT'S WHAT I CALL A PUNCHLINE!

...

Everyone also has an ideology that follows them, runs around in their mind and forms the scope from which they examine phenomena.
Yours must be transposition of neuroses to shitposting.

You're missing the point.
Blanket assertions without justification or critical examination are what drive ideology.
Subjective beliefs are a different matter.

Nice arm chair analysis.
I would suggest coming up with a diagnosis after examining more than one post, but feminist I'm familiar with have never been known for rigor.

god damnit. I just want to die.

sage for offtopic.

I keep meaning to get around to reading it, but it seems like it could be really depressing.

Cf:

Also ironic that you say "would suggest coming up with a diagnosis after examining more than one post" but then only look at the thesis before attributing it to ideology.

Unrelated to all the hate you're getting, but what's that pic from? One-piece swimsuits are quality.

There are over 200 replies to this. What the fuck is wrong with you guys?

Fucking /r/socialism is legitimately better than this.

STOP REPLYING TO Holla Forums

Don't leave town, the inquisitors will call on you sometime next week.

If this thread was completely filled with /r/socialism posters(instead of only half or so) it would be much bigger and with much higher percentage of unironic replies. The difference is that /r/socialism has mods protecting the fee-fees of innocents retards, so we can hardly compare on the normal grounds

Conflation of identity politics and social stratum.
The self-image is what makes up identity politics.
What we are aware of or not is irrelevant in this instance, and what you're speaking to pertains more to how self-identity is constructed. The end result is the realm of identity politics.

The "thesis" is put as a truism that cheapens its complexity. I stand by my assumption.

And you still haven't ultimately rejected the truism.
Cf:

And you are wrong here.
What you are aware of changes policy, what you are not aware of changes policy.

You do realize this is what you guys get mad about when people call social democrats communists right?

breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29/an-establishment-conservatives-guide-to-the-alt-right/

I'm not seeing anything that really adds to what you were saying.
You just reiterated the same point.

You're still conflating how identity is constructed with the outcome.

I know, but that's really your problem at this point.
Did you not know that all truths are tautologies?
And you're conflating ideology with assertion, which it is not.

...

Except It's really not, because I'm not the one making assertions.

Yes, but none of your posts really addressed my point, which is what I was getting at.

I never said it was.
I don't know where you got that.
What I said was
Key word was "drive"