Bisexual women can be assholes too, it happens. That doesn't mean oNlY cLaSs mAtTeRs.
This event has nothing to do with her being bisexual. She show boats as she defends capital. Fuck her. I'm not less upset with her being a rotten politician because she likes women. How can this be anything besides a class issue if that's the only variable in the situation? There's no identity one can have that makes that action endearing.
She gave a blatant thumbs down on camera and shit all over working class women everywhere. It's the thumbs down that brought the attention. This is a terrible take.
https://hexbear.net/search/q/manchin/type/all/sort/topall/page/1
No they're not you're sorting by new and only looking at the front page. There are threads and posts going back months shitting on Manchin.
At the top are two little drop down boxes, switch both to "all." You're on your own after that. Also check the usernames in this thread as I'm no the person you were arguing with earlier, thanks.
I'm not engaging with you about other threads. It has nothing to do with what has been said here.
I agree, it's egregious that people can just use accusations of misogyny to defend a legislator knowingly taking a course action that will kill many thousands of women and then showboating about it.
You realize I'm not the same person you were talking to, right?
Having a problem with the idea of millions starving in the streets while capitalist sycophants scream that we're sexist for caring more about that than about defending the ghouls who are making it happen?
Yeah, I hope so lmao
Yes it's definitely just the pose by itself and not very real action that accompanied it, you are truly the master of context.
I think maybe you should log off for a little while.
Half a million people in this "country" alone are dead of covid, 70% are living paycheck to paycheck, fascist violence is at all-time highs, and millions can't pay rent. When it came to a vote on our livelihoods, a simple "no" wasn't enought for this sick fuck. She had to do a big Roman emperor thumbs down and a "let them eat cake" at the same time. There's your context. Fuck her and fuck anyone defending her.
You have the right to disengage, I suggest you use it.
So take your own advice, let go of your obsession with the last word, leave now, and be happier for it.
This is one of the worst cases of Terminally Online I've ever seen
I would. I've seen many people here come and go who use constant fighting as a form of self-harm.
Why is it a punishment for me? You're the one who seems to be having a bad time. You even said you'd be happier if you never saw me again :curious-marx:
That's something you need to believe to justify this to yourself. I'm sitting pretty with t my coffee, my weed, and a half-finished book in the other tab.
I've expressed no wish to leave, not like you. I am, by your own admission, the only one enjoying this.
Sure, but I'm the only one who actually wants to be. You're here because you feel obligated to defend your bruised ego
That's what you want, so you can't have it
Showed your hand a little early to play the Too Cool For This card now.
The fact that you were willing to engage in this protracted psychodrama is proof that you care to an unhealthy degree.
I've expressed no wish to leave. Like I said, Coffee, weed, book :comfy:
True that, in fact for some people it seems to be the opposite
Lol before covid I worked as a bouncer and that's exactly what the drunk instigators would say while we dragged them away from the fights they started.
I have literally no idea what you're trying to imply and also I don't believe you at all. Someone like you with an inability to let go of the slightest insult, real or percieved? You have "angry drunk" written all over you.
I'm now at 400 inbox replies :party-parrot:
"Better to be full of oneself than full of shit and bootleather" -Lao Tzu
I could see that if it was actually nonsense, but you are in fact full of shit and boot leather
I don't know, why don't you continue hitting refresh every five seconds for another several hours and find out?
I'll take "Sentences most often heard echoing from inside hallway lockers" for 300, Alex
Luv 2 cry bullying when nobody agrees with my shit takes and pathological hostility
I joked about a person who was inside a locker, assuming it would be me putting you there is just your subconscious manifestation of my having mercilessly dunked on you for an insane length of time.
Everyone knows Manchin is a moderate piece of garbage but people thought Sinema was a progressive that is why she is getting all the hate. It would happen if Bernie or Aoc did something blatantly against the working class. Same reason we point out Dems sucking more than we criticize the Republicans they are supposed to be on our side.
Yes I agree but compared to an old white man like Manchin people were excited to have a bisexual woman who appeared like a progressive ally to the general public at face value.
acting like straight-white-maleism is the enemy isn’t going to endear you or your ideas to said crackers.
Only making enemies with the second largest voting block in the country. What could go wrong 🤷
Plus just the fact that acting like an entire group all has the same beliefs and ideals is kinda....fucked up? I have a hundred times more things in common with the POC workers who live next door to me than I ever would to a rich white business owner or politician. This isn't a unique situation either.
What about black business owners? Surely they can go fuck themselves to?
it sure is a hell of a lot more important than someone’s gender or race in predicting their ideology and actions
"In the second study, reported in Chapter 4, we learn that Black Americans’ policy preferences—what they tell survey researchers they want the government to do in terms of spending—are also less frequently satisfied than those of any other group, though no group’s preferences win out consistently. In both these studies, Hajnal demonstrates that the win-lose gap between Black and white people is larger than the same gap between class groups, genders, ages, or religions—that race is the strongest dividing line in American politics"
rich white feminists with shit takes and it’s not because they’re white
Britain is TERF island because they're neocolonialist white supremacists.
Class isn't the only thing that matters, but it's the only tool powerful enough to build a movement from. The trick is helping people understand that whatever their identity may be, they are a worker too.
Class is powerful and has the potential to unite the many against the few. In my view working class politics naturally leads to intersectionality. Overcoming sexism, homophobia, racism etc. actively builds working class solidarity and contributes to the liberation of the proletariat.
Of course bourgeois arsewipes like Sinema benefit from bi liberation, women's liberation etc. but that doesn't mean the fight is not worth fighting. Ultimately all the bourgeoisie gains is the ability to elevate a bisexual female ghoul rather than a male straight one but on the other hand they lose an effective tool to divide and distract workers.
Historical revolutionaries have embraced the intersection between class and other forms of oppression, the bolsheviks predicted the vanguard of the American working class to naturally be the black working class who are more easily radicalized by their intersecting oppressions.
it’s the only tool powerful enough to build a movement from
Seems to be a pretty idealistic, non materialist, take.
Edit: Stonewall was a riot, non PIV fucking around seemed to have been a threat to reactionary capitalism, makes you think
Lol marx didn’t wrote about the workers because they were more virtuous than the bourgeoisie, he saw their potential for grinding the capitalist machinery to a halt
Marx did write nowhere "Only workers are able to create working movements!". However you are right that if you are talking about the real existing movement, though drawing from that theoretical tidbit the claim that was made and uplifted against being intersectional and that is based into "tricking people into acknowledging their false class conscious to see themselves as workers" is a stretch.
How is that idealist? Are you gonna argue that a workers movement isn't gonna work? Should I break out a history book for you?
It isn't materialistic cause it isn't based on historical materialism or Marxism. The claim that only class is able to create a working movement is false. Look at the peasants, look at the Nazis. Even the claim that only the working class is able to create a working movement within capitalism is false.
Why is it false? Cause capitalists, nationalists and racists are also able to create working movements and - unless you reduce your meaning of class - you ought to accept reality.
Does this mean that other movements are able to create a real existing movement which overthrow capitalism but the working class as its foundation? No, it doesn't.
It isn't materialistic cause it is a claim that is connected to little, it has a lot of weak points going for it and no historic underpinning. If you think it does, you ought to read more theory and be actually involved in practice as well (to get the theory you read).
I have no problem working together with people who have ideas like that of OP, but I have a problem working with people who have those ideas which aren't quite the orthodox Marxist view or might even be wrong revisionist readings of Marx, if they try to get hegemony by reducing the plurality of view points which actually increases the strength of the potential movement.
We have centuries in which we see that class reductionist movements have a lot of problems and are more often than not failing. Luckily who I asked whether they are sure of their thought isn't that kind of class reductionist.
Wow that was a lot of writing that said basically nothing.
If you are not able to parse that, that is on you. If you think it says nothing you might want to read more.
No you took the most bad faith reading of my comment and are actually going to argue that I'm wrong because "there have been movements other than workers movements!!!"
Yeah no shit, that isn't what I was saying. Everyone else seemed to get that other than you. To even acknowledge intersectionality kinda inherently means acknowledging movements other than class movements.
Everyone else seemed to get that other than you.
Yeah, very good faith arguing going on by you (in this and the other comments). You seem to think that your point is truth, but it isn't. How you defend it instead of broadening your thought (to understand how there can be a synthesis of movements and how these might actually be stronger than a semi-class reductionist workers movement) is nothing you do.
Were one is oppressed all are oppressed is a guiding slogan, that means you ought to look at more than just the direct class position and exploitation. If you don't you are less scientific than Marx or Engels or Bernstein.
Give me a list of real existing events ("name of event","timeframe","location") which underlie your point, that class is the thing to focus on and to trick people into accepting their role as workers. I tell you you can't.
to understand how there can be a synthesis of movements and how these might actually be stronger than a semi-class reductionist workers movement
That is what I said in my first comment. That intersectionality is important, but realizing that despite all of the different identities that are out there relating to each other as a worker ALONGSIDE our personal identities will most likely bring about real systemic change.
Give me a list of real existing events (“name of event”,“timeframe”,“location”) which underlie your point, that class is the thing to focus on
I'm not gonna do that because that's not what I said.
trick people into accepting their role as workers.
I think you're too focused on the word trick, so let me tell you now just as a precaution that I will not be waving my hands in front of people and speaking incantations to them so that they forget their identities and only view themselves as workers. I don't think that would work and I think it would be pretty alienating.
Please read Marx. You have a very bad u nderstanding of communism, capitalism, what a working class movement is etc e tc.
Please read Marx. You have a very bad u nderstanding of communism, capitalism, what a working class movement is etc e tc.
What is your foundation of Marxism? Please be specific in two things:
-
What is a specific example where you can link to a Marxist classical text that diverges from what I write and tell how it diverges.
-
Show me a classical Marxist text that only "class is able to generate a working movement"
You cant.
Show me a classical Marxist text that only “class is able to generate a working movement”
What do you mean by a working movement? Do you mean a movement that works as in is successful in its aim of communism? Or do you mean a movement solely of working class people? Either way, it is self-evident that only the working class can achieve communism, as it is the only class in whose interest it is to abolish private property.
What is a specific example where you can link to a Marxist classical text that diverges from what I write and tell how it diverges.
You wrote a whole lot of nonsense and word salad. Your thoughts are very confused. Just read Marx.
What do you mean by a working movement?
Ask OP about that, cause I use their phrasing (which is a part of why I wrote what I wrote in the first place, it is dangerously naive to narrow the situations in real existing capitalism down to easy two sides, when in fact the working class can face many specific adversaries - who will not in turn threaten capitalism itself, only the working class when it is the subject actor will + possible climate change).
In Marxist terms we got three answers, we got the answer from the German Ideology
Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.
We got Engel's who talks very specifically about the emergent proletariat as working class, which is true and focuses on them as one of the two significant in class struggle, but the proletariat as working class isn't the whole working class in itself. Even though over time the term became to mean the whole class.
The proletariat is that class in society which lives entirely from the sale of its labor and does not draw profit from any kind of capital; whose weal and woe, whose life and death, whose sole existence depends on the demand for labor – hence, on the changing state of business, on the vagaries of unbridled competition. The proletariat, or the class of proletarians, is, in a word, the working class of the 19th century.
In regards to your claim "it is self-evident that only the working class can achieve communism", this is close to Marxist doctrine, but doesn't meet it and is utopian as statement in itself.
-
not the working class can achieve communism, but the working class as subject in class struggle can achieve communism (this means there is more to it, it has to become a working class for itself -> which means movements are necessary before we get to it)
-
if it were self evident we wouldn't have to have scientific analysis to get to it and wouldn't have so many revisionists in the sense of German social democrats of 1870 and people who forget the warnings about the reaction Marx's highlighted i.e. in the Brumaire 18ths, in the manifest and also volume 1. Only with tools and the right conscious become your claim "self evident". From the basics of Marxism and historical materialism it becomes self evident, however this is not the case for people with wrong subjective conscious.
We also got a good handy phrase to see who is analyzed by Marx directly (though we can expand that a bit, like Engels did - showing that the people doing reproductive work at home are bound into the productive process):
For the conversion of his money into capital, therefore, the owner of money must meet in the market with the free labourer free in the double sense, that as a free man he can dispose of his labour-power as his own commodity, and that on the other hand he has no other commodity for sale, is short of everything necessary for the realisation of his labour-power.
This is handily used by many vulgar and beginning Marxist's to highlight how we all are part of the working class (and it is indeed a handy tool), however naively and wrong would people be, that say that this means there is only the working class (and the others, which would be the capitalists).
The factual and current class structure of societies has to be looked at not from a theoretical point of view, but from the integration of theory and empiricism - so science.
The class structure of England in 1830 was not that of England in the 1870, the class structure of England in 1970 is another beast, too. I.e. the number of workers in the sense of factory workers, changed dramatically (which means we have to look at the global capitalism now, instead of small spheres to understand the productive or exchange sphere). However the basic analysis of Marx still holds.
However the amount of classes, as well as the specific stratification of classes changed (the transnational capitalist class got more influence as example). The main contradiction between capitalists and the working class did not change much (though the class interests of quite a few of the labour aristocracy in England are bound for a few years to come, more with the interests of the national capitalists - who themselves try to keep up a bit of crumbling empire for their own gain - this means that the objective interests of the international working class has to be highlighted before the privileges of the labour aristocracy in the core vanish).
Those points aren't an answer how specific a working class movement would look like, cause the most easy thing to understand how Marx would judge working class movements is to read his articles - not books (those you should've read to have the theoretical framework) - about situations and conflicts complemented by his Critique of the Gothaer program.
There is no need to pull a Lenin and write a narrowed down version of Marx points into a book for a chapo post.
Lets quickly talk about two more things
it is the only class in whose interest it is to abolish private property.
Is very true basic Marxism and Capital. However the sentence (which is implied) naturally has to sound: Within the historically grown capitalist systems we have the class contradictions between the capitalist class and the working class, which are dominant, and within that system only the working class has an objective class interest that is the abolishing of private property.
You wrote a whole lot of nonsense and word salad
It is clear that you are not an ally of the real existing working class movement (interfering from your posts here) which will abolish the current system. Though you might become one, if you listen more to others and start collective action and soundboard your praxis with people who are actually various intersecting ways exploited by the system.
Maybe… just maybe… because China is a capitalist country ruled by capitalists?
Yeah buddy, it might be that your holy grail and conception of communism might be a bit idealist in nature.
Yeah, you really are not a communist in any sense, except a vulgar one.
The fact that after writing all this crap you think China is not capitalist tells me all I need to know.
EDIT : I feel bad for you. You need to log off, not write entire essays to random people on the internet.
The fact that after writing all this crap you think China is not capitalist tells me all I need to know.
You really don't succeed at reading. That I quote you who claims China is capitalist and say your view is reductive is not me saying China is communist or not communist or capitalist or not capitalist. You act as if there is no difference between China (2021), the Soviet Union (1924) and the USA (2021).
China is capitalist. Thats a fact. Youre so terrible at trying to sound nuanced or subtle. I can easily tell when someone is actually knnowledgable and when someone is wikipedia bullshitting their way through
Was Marx a member of the working class?
Edit about your edit; "and when someone is wikipedia bullshitting their way through" you are learning, that was rightly thrown at you not a week ago
Was Marx a member of the working class?
No, he was a member of the petit bourgeoisie. Why is that relevant here?
What criteria make him a member of the petit bourgeoisie (till 1843, from 1843 till 1849, after)?
-
-
Nope dude, not shown.
Did you know that there were feminist movements? Did you know they were more successful if they included class, but less successful if they involved only class and no gender/gender/antisexist roles?
good soundbite. Class is not a tool, and liberation is a buzzword.
Libs: blBut she eats puss! If you don't support her you are literally my dad telling me to cut my hair.
/$
For all the "I dislike class reductionism BUT" people, its so easy to stop telling on yourselves when you decide to sneak in some proxy insult at minority based movements in your advocacy for class based movements.
You literally dont have to add anything to "I think class is an important connecting aspect of the lives of all people and thats the best thing to centre a movement on", its fine like that, you dont have to do a mini rant about how people love Kamala for being a minority or some other dogshit, all it does is make you look like you have something you dont quite feel safe expressing yet.
Yeah, if you have to invoke the Khive to comfortably make the scaldingly hot take of "Class is pretty important for building movements" then I'm not sure how secure you are in any beliefs.
There are reactionaries that use the language and aesthetic of leftism to cloak their own racist or anti-LGBT rhetoric, like Caleb Maupin. They are real, and they have to be called out.
To let things slide for the sake of peace and friendship when a person has clearly gone wrong, and refrain from principled argument because he is an old acquaintance, a fellow townsman, a schoolmate, a close friend, a loved one, an old colleague or old subordinate. Or to touch on the matter lightly instead of going into it thoroughly, so as to keep on good terms. The result is that both the organization and the individual are harmed. This is one type of liberalism.
who are the kinds of people who are posting this honky bullshit on reddit? "Traditional whites"?
POV (what actually happened): this person logged into their 1 day old alt account to say that class reductionism is a figment of the imagination and rightfully got their bullshit called out and removed.
Or could it be that the site only has a handful of admins that are active at different times which makes responses inconsistent? I've seen stupid idpol nonsense also left up this week, does that mean the admins are a secret brocialist cabal? No, one of the mods or admins were probably sleeping or working or something, and missed it in the report queue. I've also seen imperialist apologia left up too, but it doesn't mean the mods or admins are secret imperialists either. If you see imperialist propaganda report it, and if it doesn't get taken down and you believe it needs to be you can DM a mod or admin. Different mods are active at different times so of course it will lead to some inconsistencies, they are human after all.
I'm not defending imperialist apologia, that obviously needs to be removed from the site too, the point of this post is to explain how reactionary content in the form of both imperialist apologia and stupid idpol can be left up without the mods being some nefarious group
So “class reductionism” is necessary to be called out, but when imperialism apologia is left unchallenged, this is fine ultimately? What a bullshit radlib take, stop talking to me you clown
Why would I appeal to the loser mods who I am an active critic of? The cracker radlibs have made it very clear this is a space for them first & everyone else last, you and them can have it. Done wasting my breath, I’m done with this site.
I think most class reductionist problems with idpol is the fact that it works.
Idpol as a wedge works really well at turning people against each other. It's been working great for decades now. And it takes way more reading than most people will ever do to realize how idenity is being used as a wedge.
No see I’m bisexual too and now that a prominent bi person has sided with the owning class I have to too. I’m turning you all in to the feds
bastards
being white is whitewashed your ethnic heritage like someone who doesn't know who their father is
