A Marxist Perspective on Women's and LGBT Oppression

...

it's pronounced nuc-u-lar

NUCLEAR FAMILY, BITCHEZ!

Jokes aside I kinda agree tho

>Michael Foucault

One of these things don't belong with the others hint: it's Foucault this will be a fun video

don't bully!!

that impairment seems to be an aversion to serious and thorough work

Okay so highlights of the video
•there's a dog that walks behind her
•she has no idea how to pronounce bourgeois (she says "boo-jah")
•she threw in Foucault's name just to sound smart. Also unironically called him Michael
•Her analysis of how women are expected to train the next generation of workers/how capitalism relies on the housewife's unpaid labour to survive is nothing new

5.5/10

...

my fav part, too. don't forget the little fucker had a cone too

plz fug off

She's perfectly capable of articulating all the phonemes needed to say those words correctly.

Well she should be able to say Michel at least.

NO SHE CAN'T!
DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT SHE IS GENETICALLY CONDITIONED TO BE UNABLE TO SAY THAT?!?!

She can say "me" and "shell" separately, tho.

She got REKT in comments
youtube.com/watch?v=cmcUcHZciFM

People ITT: Bullying a someone with a speach impediment.
Stop being a cunt and attack her opinions.

kek she deleted it like the revisionist she is.

deleted what? both the comment and vid are up

That's not the same video as in OP, fam.

What a retard. Jade's not saying this was the root cause, the entire video was all about how Capitalism produces this culture and why we should resist them both.

Typical leftypol reactionary dumbass who only hears what he needs to.

What's with all the Holla Forumsyps in the comments

The eternal stormfag is omnipresent.

American education everyone.

FOR THE LAST TIME, IT'S NOT HER FAULT

But if anyone tried to criticize her for anything other than something she has no control over, Holla Forums would have to admit that they know nothing about Marxist theory and have no rebuttal except a McTheory memetic diamat where everything is for time immemorial wholly determined by le base xDDD

The economy being "determinant in the last instance" isn't a fucking meme. What the fuck do you expect from Marxists faced with a kid who poses as Marxist but has no idea what she's talking about? Do you wan't me to write a dissertation to counter hers when a wikipedia search suffices debunking her idpol-tier shit? You can clearly see that what a charade she is just looking at her lingo, her editing, her obvious mistakes.

Nice to know where you get your arguments from.

Yes anything but her argument, god forbid you judge someone by what comes out of their mouth.

You're a reactionary dumbass ex-polyp, admit it.

i don't understand how any 'feminist' can believe in the whole trans/cis thing when it goes against literally everything that the concept of feminism is built on

ITT: butthurt broscialists

bait/10

This video was discussed on bunker bantz.

...

was it really?

They're not oppressed people, stop dividing the workers you Trotskyist piece of shit

Recognizing the struggles of women unifies the workers and radicalizes the feminists.

Don't be so harsh on her, its quite clear that shes just misdirected by the postmodern revisionist interpretation of Marxism that is prominent in academia, she should talk to working classes women instead of reading Foucault and butler

For fuck's sake at least muke admits he's shit at pronouncing things and that it's a flaw.
The memes write themselves.

wew lass

On her YouTube channel page she quotes Gloria Steinman, a someone who has ties to the Cia in the 60s

Gloria Steinemmind

Also, what a shit quote. How can emotions be radical?

Someone should link her this thread, someone post this thread on her channel

oh my

user, you are much more effective with occam's razor, and your analysis is accurate.

There's this fun tendency to use Marx to describe economic oppression in the same terms as other types of oppression. Not only is this the wrong way to read Marx, but insidiously enough, this mistake is difficult to catch until you go into the mental gymnastics of it's source material.

This chick is not good at what she does, but what she does is incorrect.

This is the primary source for her baseless dogshit. brill.com/products/book/warped

Shh…. There's no such thing as cultural marxism.

...

somebody tell him that engels and marx and is not the bible and anything outside them is not heretical

His issue isn't that she's citing someone other than Marx, but that her opinions contradict Marxist theses.

I think the time for the descriptor 'cultural Marxism' has past. We are now to the point where academics have been fully 'Leninized.' The nice thing in moving from a Marxist frame of reference to a Leninist frame of reference is that we now get to un-ironically use the term 'useful idiot' which _ALWAYS_ triggers the useful idiot.

Basically this is a repeat of playbook Comrade Bezmenov described, so in order to shatter the series of events, one must name the 'internal' jew. For the useful idiot, their identity is their idiocy, they've been deluded into never naming the philosophical jew. These people will recoil in horror, for their redpill will feel very black, do not let this unsettle you.

You know what leftypol ?
Lets simply argue with her and show her the wrongs of her ways in the youtube comment section

...

Cultural Marxism is like that old quip about the Holy Roman Empire

Neither Holy nor Roman or an empire

If anything it has more in common with Nazis etc simply replacing the white men for the jews

And just like Nazism is not socialism, cultural marxism is not marxism.

But there's no such thing as Cultural Marxism; it's just a revival of Nazi-era propaganda about Cultural Bolshevism. It's a scapegoat that exists only in reactionary's heads.

Like clockwork.

Someone has to beat it into your heads that it isn't a legitimate concept

I thought this was a great video.

She specifically defines her topic as Women's and LGBT Oppression in North America. The immediate causes of this, as different from other types of oppression towards people who don't fit gender roles and sexual norms in other locations. As she says this starts in the industrial revolution and the new methods of enforcement of the working class, which in the United States lead to the nuclear family.

Supporting the nuclear family is the most efficient for western capitalism.

Please explain how this is wrong?

I thought this was a poor video.

She specifically defines her topic as Women's and LGBT Oppression in North America. The immediate causes of this, as different from other types of oppression towards people who don't fit gender roles and sexual norms in other locations. As she says this starts in the industrial revolution and the new methods of enforcement of the working class, which in the United States lead to the nuclear family.

Supporting the nuclear family is the least efficient for western capitalism.

Please explain how this is wrong?

Oh, what a coincidence.

Also the argument that women raising children are unpaid workers is a perfectly legitimate point. You are denying half of the revolution a place by relegating them as inferior.

nice argument

Is this whole board really this retarded?

its not supposed to be a video summarization of Marxist theory you fucking twats

do you just completely ignore everything thats happened since Marx and Stalin? So Foucault and Butler are invalid? I guess Hegel, Freud, and Althusser have no place in politics?

Because letting economics dictate politics has worked out so great?

I guess your just as good as Hitler worshiping Holla Forumslacks

That doesn't stop people from following it, autismo.

Not sure if she's right, but isn't her point that all these gender norms, family unit etc. in are part of the prevailing ideology of the time and used to oppress? Essentially that they are some "nice spooks, nerd"?

Not really an idealist position.

Neoliberals like Foucault and Butler are nothing to do with Marxism. So, yes, we should ignore them.

Critical theory is incompatible with Marxism.

Why? Isn't the point of it to analyse society so we can understand why there has been no genuine revolution yet?

also throwing out Zizek just like that?

It tries to replace dialectic materialism with its own vague brand of mysticism. Suddenly class struggle isn't the center of conflict but instead a collection of metanarrarives without an objective truth. Critical theory is the source of identity politics.

She would have been better off using a text-to-speech program but then I guess we wouldn't see her face or something.

For fuck's sake.

This makes me sad that education has fallen so far.

just stop please
I'm bi and I really don't want someone like this making an impression on people.

The collection of metanarratives better describes the decentralized nature of the working class.

Identity politics help us identify who understand the objective truth of scientific materialism and who hasn't learned enough history.

What exactly do you think is the alternative?

Or do you still think socialism one country is a working idea?

Because it takes Marx's concept of class struggle, one of the most rigorous theories of social behavior, and applies it to something it was never meant to describe. Marx's theory is based in materialism and the relationships of power as they exist in the material world. Marx wrote about what's going on in reality behind the ideology. Critical theory pins the whole system on ideology. They are in no way Marxist, although they pretend to be, by sloppily applying Marx's class analysis to relations of race and gender (spooks) rather than the relations of production. This is why "Cultural Marxism" gets applied to them - they are taking the essence of Marxism and applying it to culture, which is completely nonsensical.

she's a qt

post-structuralism is not neoliberal

they are not though. They are taking Marxism and critiquing culture from that perspective. This is important because there is much less competing cultural critique. Most critique is done outside of Marxism, and completely ignores the material foundations of culture.

Critical theory critiques culture on the basis of these foundations. How is that not, by definition Marxist?

Maybe its not useful to you and it probably wouldn't be if you are already a Marxist. The critique is for people that don't understand dialectal materialism in the first place, as a tool to break down their ideology and align it with Marx.

Identity politics distract the working class and serve is a way for middle class academics to enrich themselves and preserve the status quo will pretending to be revolutionary. Class struggle is central to Marxist theory. For reason this poster says .

and continues to ensure they have no idea what it is

kek

This statement is critical theory itself.
Which is a part of
academic work is still work.

I'm all for staying true to Marx but this is the information age and ideas make a pretty significant difference, especially when they can be transmitted around the world instantly.

1/2

No, it critiques culture as culture. It ignores the base and applies the oppressor/oppressed dynamic between socially constructed identities like race. It completely ignores the material dynamic of oppressor/oppressed between the bourgeoisie and proletarians to focus on the ideological dynamic of oppressor/oppressed between, say, whites and blacks. These distinctions only exist in the first place as artifacts of history. Nothing about blackness (ethnically speaking) puts people into an oppressed class other than the history of which parts of the world dominated which other parts. An alternate universe where dark-skinned people went through a period of global colonialism that involved an institution of white slavery is possible. The reason history played out the way it did is because the material conditions set the stage the way it was (largely to do with geography and presence of resources). Critical theory ignores this.

Even though critical theorists may correctly identify "blackness" as a social construct that developed under the specific circumstances of history, they tend to miss that this blackness isn't inherent to the trait of being dark-skinned. They focus on the dynamic in ideology without recognizing it as ideology. The true function of the sort of racism inherent to the ideology of "blackness" would not be there if history had played out such that the peoples who colonized most of the world were black. Instead, "blackness" would be associated with "black guilt" like with white people.

Continuing to focus on the socially-constructed differences rather than recognize them as artificial and immaterial is counterproductive. Racism and other forms of identitarianism serve primarily to justify the class struggle. "Black people are slaves poor and miserable because that's what blackness is." It doesn't matter whether "blackness" is being defined by the racists or supposed anti-racists. Acknowledging it as a legitimate concept gives it its power. If tomorrow the bourgeoisie start exploiting left-handed people more, we would call it out as a superficial distinction that's irrelevant to productive value. That's because there's no historical precedent for it, and like it or not people tend to be irrational and like to fall back on heuristic thinking like appeals to tradition/history.

2/2

Black people aren't oppressed because they're black. They're oppressed because they're proles. They usually have it worse than the average prole because they usually have ancestors who were slaves. Their ancestors weren't slaves because they were black (mostly); they were slaves because their ancestors were slaves and their ancestors were slaves and so on. The ultimate cause wasn't that European descendants saw some black people and decided to make them slaves. They saw slaves already for sale when they visited Africa and bought them. Racism against black people wasn't the cause here (slaves were of course bought from other Africans); the cause was that the slaves were there to buy. It's just a matter of what the material conditions were. Racism against blacks and our idea of "blackness" evolved over centuries of slavery. Did racism (superstructure) feed into the exploitation (base)? Yes it did, but it wasn't the cause of the exploitation. It did not create it; it merely shaped it. Slavery did not continue for as long as it did in the United States because of how racist Americans are. Slavery continued as long as it did because of how profitable slavery is.

Meanwhile in the present, "blackness" is used to address the supposed problems of black people. This is harmful because it's misleading. Most of the racism swirling around in the superstructure relates to the lot of blacks as poor people. Supposedly they're indolent. Supposedly they have a propensity toward crime. The negative stereotypes surrounding black people also surround poor people in general. The same sorts of stereotypes surround poor latinos and white trash, though the flavor is usually different. This is because those stereotypes are responses to the same conditions and coping mechanisms common to all poor people. Liberating the poor will liberate blacks, insofar as blacks are poor, but focusing on one specific demographic of poor people ignores the material and systemic causes of those problems and leaves out the other demographics facing similar problems. And this doesn't get better when you have advocates for all the different groups. All that accomplishes is keeping people distracted. They can't see the forest (class) for the trees (identities).

Forget about dividing different identities against each other for a second - which is more effective: one large group fighting for one cause that everyone rallies behind or many smaller groups rallying for superficially different versions of the same cause, but failing to work together? Now add on top of that a conflict between these identities that are said by critical theorists to be in conflict like whites and black. They're going to impede each other and get even less done. And now add that even groups who aren't supposed to be in conflict even according to critical theorists now are because they're jockeying for who is the most oppressed in situations where this determines who gets to speak (progressive stack). Instead of a unified working class who can be effective and get what is in our interests, critical theory gives us a jumbled mess of infighting that gives Porky plenty of leeway to turn the screws tighter and tighter.

Right just like Womens and LGBT opression which is exactly the point of the video.

Yes this is exactly the point. But it does get better if you have advocates for all groups. Because what you are missing here is the psychological aspects of "Cultural" Marxism that have evolved since the 1800s. Thats the entire reason critical theory exists.

"Those" people, the majority of the world poor, on average, are unable to see the forest through the trees. Due to the psychological truama of capitalism on the working class they are literally unable to do anything but work for base survival. This is the point of globalist cultural marxism. It takes at least generation to undo the destruction of the trauma inflicted. You cant unite the working class if they are traumatized to be proud of their slavery.

wrenches to gears. exploit the flaws so they can be amended

true, but i wouldn't call these people critical theorists.

they are apologist bootlickers creating division for profit

If you look at her citations it's quite clear that she encountered Marxism through the watered down version sometimes found in academia

Dropped right there.

what is a social construct?

The goal of critical theory is to highlight precisely what you are saying. It gives material justification to free oppressed minorities so they can more effectively participate in the political process.

Focusing on the material reasons black people are poor will give us into why people in general are poor and can be correlated with other community statistics to find a workable solution that will then empower them to act politically in their own best interest.

No one has claimed that slavery existed because america was just that racist, but IT IS NOW. Some people actually believe that black people are poor because they SHOULD be slaves. Showing the true material and economic reasons behind slavery is used to explain why racism is false. Only from this point can you then understand that the lower class is not poor because they deserve it.

Similarly you cannot understand why women deserve rights if you cant understand the material conditions that led to their current social status. Holla Forums actually believes that the reason the west is failing is because women are inferior and were given the right to vote. If they understood that its actually Capitalism that is failing because its reliant on women being subservient, then they would be forced to realize there might be other historical inconsistencies in capitalism.

Again, what exactly is the alternative?
Gulags have been tried, didn't work out too well.

feels bad, tbh

No it doesn't because you aren't addressing the material causes behind their oppression. All you're doing is separating people into increasing arbitrary categories instead of attacking the base structures that support the capitalist system. All you're doing is obscuring class struggle , legitimizing identity politics , individualism, and neoliberal self-absorbed psychology. It's a Marxist's job to cut through the bullshit superstructure created by capitalism and to show the common people the true source of their alienation not to feed their delusions. That kind of reactionary drivel has more in common with fascism then it has to do with marxism. I'd prefer if you wouldn't associate critical theory and other postmodern reactionary ideologies with traditional leftist theory. It just makes us look bad and helps popularize the cultural Marxist meme.

I want reddit to leave.

...

nuclear
nu cle ar
new clee urr

Lot of brocialists in here… really putting the Holla Forums in Holla Forums tbh

Fair enough I should have been clearer. What they miss is that "blackness" is socially constructed out of the material conditions and not the ethnicity itself. The association with particular traits is just a coincidence of history. The associations are due to the particular population having been reduced to slavery for generations, rather than something intrinsic to biology such as skin color.

Focusing on the material reasons black people are poor will give us into why people in general are poor and can be correlated with other community statistics to find a workable solution that will then empower them to act politically in their own best interest.
You fucker, the solution is socialism. We can argue about whether we want revolution or reformism or whatever and still be socialists. What you are saying is instead of liberating the poor we need to liberate [insert interchangeable minority group here]. You are describing working within the superstructure instead of cutting through it to the base like says.

And that's irrelevant to black people being poor. Racism doesn't cause poverty. Poverty is a result of black people having a bad starting position in a system where there's almost zero mobility. The relationship between racism and poverty is almost exclusively that racism is a reaction to chronic poverty. Racists see that black people are chronically poor and, unable to see the systemic cause behind it, conclude that there's something wrong with black people.

Use the tribalism to our advantage long enough to turn the people getting shit on against the bourgeoisie. Revolutions do not require the entire population to be on board, just a significant minority. Once the revolution is done with, educate people about the finer points of class. No amount of theory in the hands of the average person will help (even if it's relevant theory, which critical theory isn't) unless it pertains to how to replace capitalism with socialism.

Only for trivial stuff like when some low-level civil servant was born. Anything more controversial should be verified beyond Wikipedia.

So breaking down their racist ideals would be a way to radicalize white racists and unite them with poor blacks, who are already generally against the capitalist hierarchy. Education will bring these two classes together causing them to realize they are getting equally fucked by the same elites. If you cant convince them its because of the psychological trauma(pride) I mentioned earlier, in which case education will "get" their children just like pol fears.

You could do this, but every time it happens it leads to socialism in one country, which is then heavily exploited by global corporations(see: Venezuela) until it is sucked dry.

Marx would be the first to tell you that the reason the USSR failed is because tribalism or feudal peasants are too uneducated to make the transition to communism. Socialism must be global and implemented in the most advanced capitalist society or it will be opposed and squashed out by that society.

True communism is global.

the real content of the proletarian demand for equality is the demand for the abolition of classes. Any demand for equality which goes beyond that, of necessity passes into absurdity
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch08.htm

Unironically using "brocialist" is an insult like leftypol isn't a proud brocialist board.
So where did you wander in from Tumblr, Reddit, maybe one of those sjw Facebook pages?

He who recognises the class struggle must also recognise that in a bourgeois republic, even in the freest and most democratic bourgeois republic, “freedom” and “equality” never were, and never could be, anything but an expression of the equality and freedom of the commodity owners, the equality and freedom of capital. Marx, in all of his writings and especially in his Capital (which you all recognise in words ), made this clear thousands of times; he ridiculed the abstract conception of “freedom and equality” and the vulgarisers, the Benthams who closed their eyes to the facts, and he revealed the material roots of these abstractions.

Under the bourgeois system (i.e., as long as private property in land and in the means of production persists) and under bourgeois democracy, “freedom and equality” remain purely formal, signifying in practice wage-slavery for the workers (who are formally free and equal) and the undivided rule of capital, the oppression of labour by capital. This is the ABC of socialism, my learned gentlemen—and you have forgotten it.
marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/jun/23.htm

The philosophy of the anarchists is bourgeois philosophy turned inside out. Their individualistic theories and their individualistic ideal are the very opposite of socialism. Their views express, not the future of bourgeois society, which is striding with irresistible force towards the socialisation of labour, but the present and even the past of that society, the domination of blind chance over the scattered and isolated small, producer. Their tactics, which amount to a repudiation of the political struggle, disunite the proletarians and convert them in fact into passive participators in one bourgeois policy or another, since it is impossible and unrealisable for the workers really to dissociate themselves from politics.
marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/nov/24.htm

Critical theory doesn't break down racism. It turns into a supernatural force that exist beyond the material conditions of class. It reinforces racial problems by making them a force outside of class struggle. It doesn't help when followed of these reactionary schools of thought go around talking about " cis white hetronormative patriarchy" like it isn't a conspiratorial world salad. Similar to most Zionist conspiracy theories spread by white nationalists.

"Bro" is such a bizarre slur. It's short for "brother" as in brotherhood. As in fraternity. Is the use of "bro" as a slur supposed to imply that fraternity is a bad thing? What's the proper alternative supposed to be, solitude and alienation? Or is it the fact that brotherhood and fraternity are masculine and men are bad?

are you proud yet

...

That's not what critical theorists do in practice though. They amplify the divide by describing the dynamic as one of oppressor/oppressed between whites and blacks which is already the dominant liberal narrative. Critical theory is just liberalism on steroids with some marxism bits Frankensteined on randomly.

Please. Stop it. Get some help.

To whom are you referring?

It's more of the fact that bro is masculine. If a bunch of guys are gathered together to do something to these kind of liberal idpolers that come up with terms like this then it's something inherently negative and sexist. It's really misandrist if you think about it. I'm sure they'd be screaming misygony if we called their brand of "leftism" "Siscialism" or something gendered like that .

If you are an stupid speaker of the english language and for "freedumbs", I think the correct spelling is "Socilism".

Are you kidding? That's exactly the opposite of what it does. Racism WAS a supernatural force until it was called out by critical theorists for being rooted in contradictions in material history.

Its not a fucking conspiracy, just like above it puts name to the face of the problem, and shows how its rooted in materialism. There is a white patriarchy, and discovering the causes of this culture to be based in material circumstance rather than absolute is precisely the point. This is radical, as in to the root, the opposite of reactionary.

or in pol terms
you don't NOT name the Jew when its the Jews.

A spade is a spade.

Critical theory is Marxist.

wrong
critical theorists do not

the media does

I think she means "cis"-ilism

Going from run of the mill bigotry to "cishet white patriarchy" is the exact opposite of tying bigotry to materialism.

W E W
W E
E W
W E W W E W
W E
E W
W E W

Critical theory isn't Marxist. It disregards the most important aspect of Marxism. Dialectic Materialism. There isn't a "white patriarchy" and you're demonstrating exactly what were talking about obscuring class struggle behind a conspiracy theory. Capitalism doesn't exist to support a white male patriarchy. Capitalism exist to produce more value for capitalist. "Patriarchy" was tool that has basically been discarded in the West. This obsession with arbitrary characteristics of the wealthy elite is reactionary is any right wing theory which I consider all forms of post modernism and critical theory to be.

I'm sorry is it not the case that white males are the ruling class as a result of the situation of western europe against the sea and the rise of male dominated tribes due to agricultural reform and sedentary lifestyle?

Does someone have to bring that up every single time they want to talk about Womens rights?

yes, by the west, and in many countries it is still up for debate or on the ballot this year.

So again, how is this a problem? because it doesn't effect you personally? It doesn't fit into your ideal revolution?

Foucault wasn't a critical theorist you fucking Neanderthal, he's placed in structuralist/post-structualist camps

Back the fuck to /r/socialism with you

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_materialism#Luk.C3.A1cs.27_contributions

I guess I have to pick my words carefully to cater to your autismo if we are going to get this across.

First of all this is the case in most of the world. But if you really believe your country is liberated, then suspend disbelief by imagining the past. Women's equality is a movement that highlights the *historical* oppression of women by those in power who happened to be *historically* white males.

If this is done with a Marxist perspective, as done in the OP, one would generally highlight how those power structures are a results of the constraints Capitalism puts on material reality.

This new understanding unites the two opposing classes.

No dipshit, the ruling class is defined by relations of production, not race and gender.

and the relations of production don't favor one race or gender?

how fucking dense are you

No you retard. The overwhelming majority of whites and men are working class. It doesn't matter how many people who superficially resemble them are in the ruling class - they're still being exploited. These distinctions are arbitrary and holding them up like you're doing only works to Porky's advantage because it divides the working class.

In the Frankfurt tradition, no. Bullshit like "critical race theory" is just an ass pull like the Laffer curve.

No kidding.

this where I get to say that ``as a working class member of an oppressed sexual minority`` I wish these aspiring activist careerist college kids would find some other group of poor schmucks to "help".

The Marxist view on women is everyone gets an equal share (About 1/1 ratio)

In order to figure out what to do with the extras I suggest that or a few work as public whores. I'm sure we will get enough volunteers to even out the excess.

The rest will be divided up based from your ability to put up with their whining, and according to your need for pussy.

Kmere Rouge did similar with their arranged marriages.

Thank you this is a really good point.

I don't see it that way at all.
How does it only divide the working class? Again it does precisely the opposite, by demonstrating that being male and/or white should not get you certain muh privileges within society as opposed to someone who is female and and/or colored and that those differences are social constructs that are reinforced by the environment of western capitalism, thus dissolving the boundaries unites the workforce.

It is true that Porky will use this information to sell a false narrative to the weak and put them on a pedestal on world media. Thats why you have super fat neckroll womyn with dyed hair screaming about castration on TV, because controversy is profitable, but thats not what feminist critical theory is about.

I think you are falling for a meme.

m8…

Fuck off faggot

Because we don't live in a patriarchy and capitalism does not need the patriarchy to function anymore.

youtube.com/watch?v=cmcUcHZciFM

The Gattungswesen (species-essence), human nature of individuals is not discrete (separate and apart) from their activity as a worker; as such, species-essence also comprises all of innate human potential as a person. Conceptually, in the term "species-essence", the word "species" describes the intrinsic human mental essence that is characterized by a "plurality of interests" and "psychological dynamism", whereby every individual has the desire and the tendency to engage in the many activities that promote mutual human survival and psychological well-being, by means of emotional connections with other people, with society. The psychic value of a human consists in being able to conceive (think) of the ends of their actions as purposeful ideas, which are distinct from the actions required to realize a given idea. That is, humans are able to objectify their intentions, by means of an idea of themselves, as "the subject", and an idea of the thing that they produce, "the object". Conversely, unlike a human being, an animal does not objectify itself, as "the subject", nor its products as ideas, "the object", because an animal engages in directly self-sustaining actions that have neither a future intention, nor a conscious intention. Whereas a person's Gattungswesen (human nature) does not exist independent of specific, historically-conditioned activities, the essential nature of a human being is actualized when an individual—within their given historical circumstance—is free to sub-ordinate their will to the external demands they have imposed upon themselves by their imagination, and not the external demands imposed upon individuals by other people.

...

That's entirely the wrong way to look at it. "Privileged" demographics don't get special benefits. They're exploited like everyone else in the working class. When some demographics get shit on worse because they're minority groups that can't raise much of a fuss, that doesn't mean the majority group(s) suddenly have some special benefit. Focusing on muh privilege rather than worse exploitation is just going to foster envy from working class people who have it worse and indignation from the "privileged" people. Black people getting disproportionately killed by police is a problem in itself. White people not getting killed by police as frequently is not a problem. Focusing on muh privilege rather than strife is looking for a population where the problem doesn't exist and saying "this is the problem!" I don't think it's possible to be more counterproductive without directly oppressing people.

Academic feminism is usually worse than tumblr feminism because its flaws are less obvious.

Who is this we?

YOU don't live in a patriarchy?

again

this is something many people have to deal with

the ruling class consisting of white men does not mean that all men are part of the ruling class

the illusion of meritocracy keeps the white man of the working class down by keeping them under the belief that those who are ruling earned it and that if they just try harder they will "make it", and reinforces concepts like "niggers are lazy"

rather than shitposting you should have explained him how capitalism does indeed function patriarchic to adress his point

i'm not going to intervene into your discussion and tell you why you both are fgts, but you gotta fix your attitude

I hate to break it you because I know it'll blow your bigoted mind but I'm not a straight white male. Modern day western society isn't patriarchal. Patriarchy has been dying since feudalism and it's been essential dead in the West for like 20 years. I'm not going to accept your original sin bullshit that the average white male is "privileged". It's reactionary nonsense and had nothing to do with marxism which is based on class not on arbitrary identity groups.

No but when you say here
that is the situation being described. The quote is not "the ruling class are white males," it is "white males are the ruling class." The former is applying a descriptor (white and male) to a particular group (ruling class). The latter is describing a demographic (white males) as being the same as that group (the ruling class). In the former "white male" is an adjective, while in the latter it's a noun denoting the group of people described by "white male".

Not sure what you're responding to here. This is true but meritocracy in itself has nothing to do with race. The racist conclusions are a product of meritocratic ideology, an unmeritocratic system, racial trends within that system, and a tendency toward heuristic pattern recognition.

Yes! and that system is capitalism!
Racism is a product of capital.
Sexism is a product of capital.

Destroying racism and sexism through public critique and political discourse is essential to uniting the working class.

...

how about you actually try formulating an argument, maybe even base it on marxist feminism and some classical literature instead
this is really just sad and pathetic to watch…

No shit.

And the way to do that is to tell the people who have it the worst that the working class people who have it less bad are the ones who are muh privileged? Rather than telling them the bourgeoisie are muh privileged? How does this unite the working class, and who do you think the enemy of the working class is?

Am I confused or weren't you the poster who said that socialism has to take in the most powerful countries or it will get stomped out by them?

no its to highlight to those that are muh privileged that those muh privileges are superficial and keeping them from seeing
when your identity is not based on a superficial false freedom you will align your identity with others who also lack true freedom, the exercise of checking muh privilege causes those who felt entitled or deserving of the unbalanced rewards for their work to recognize the ladder for what it is.

Of course this only works if you aren't a reactionary twat about it.

themselves + idealogy

that was Marx

lmao, the future of the American Left is going to be Obama's daughters and Jeb Bush's grandsons discussing how oppressed they are by the dwindling white minority at a Democrat fundraising gala on Martha's Vineyard

It's over lads. An honest to goodness sjw is posting here thinking that their shit opinions belong here. I warned everyone about advertising on reddit and Facebook. Look at this unadulterated cancer.

jump off a building

youtu.be/IfboWYnIarE?t=2m32s

haha oh wow

how do you keep people away from marxism Holla Forums?

i can't let them have her

Nigga show them actual marxism instead of this bullshit.

All this proves is that she does actually understand marxism to an extent. Notice though how she follows it up with "Marx was very intersectional."

...

It's just not cute when she says something like "bourgeoise relations of capital produce virtual patriarchy through colonisation of proletarian bodies".

The problem with marxism and sjw'ism is that it creates one dimensional people who are just a pain in the ass to be with it.

*barf*

but seriously
priveleged people don't have "unbalanced rewards" you faggot. they're exploited like everyone else and do not see the value of their labor. niggers getting killed by pigs doesn't mean whitey magically has some benefit now. that's bad enough but then there's this
you motherfucker the whole point of leftism is that workers are entitled to the value of their work. proles get less than this regardless of their identity politics. you are overtly telling people to abandon the central thrust of leftism.

...

n1x has been trying to attract them.

Every post leftist needs to be permanently removed from the board, imo.

I can't blame you, given his cliques active sabotage. Shame really, Bob Black has some wonderful writings on feminists and how they're a bunch of dickheads.

I hate that guy. Honestly sometimes I wish he actually committed suicide instead of coming back and bothering us. Is it more is he actually becoming a bigger idpoler is time goes on?

I play the fall of the USSR tbh fam.