|
larry no!!
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2021 21:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 20:31 |
|
|
Pritchard: The Left is tactictly aligned with "woke capital" because by lessening the material realities of race, the bourgeoisie is creating the conditions for the revolutionary proletariat to emerge. Race/caste prevents the emergence of a revolutionary proletariat because it divides the working class. A diversified bourgeoisie and de-racialized working class is the precondition for a socialist revolution. Ferrinus: National oppression is a contradiction in the capitalist system that a workers' movement can and must tackle. "Woke capital" is good because it's making promises about ending racial injustice that cannot actually be fulfilled under capitalism. Only socialism can end national oppression, and socialists must be involved in "identarian" struggles .
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2021 21:09
|
|
|
forgive me, i am going to do a 2013-style d&d post where i chain-quote stuff and try to respond to it. i realise that this is contrary to cspam ethos and accept my wedgie with stoic resignationAtrocious Joe posted:I think you're right with regards to imperialist countries today. But historically, even going back to the Paris Commune, you see workers movements being propelled forward by the national liberation struggle. This is of course most apparent in colonized and formerly colonized countries, but it happened in Europe during WW2 as well. the postcolonial third-world socialist movements did indeed have large, basically identitarian motivations and this is part of the reason they were so successful - see the FNL and the FLN however, a great many of these movements are also explicitly objectivist; the entire pan-african movement and non-aligned movement based themselves off objective relations such as, well, the common situation of colonised nations. cuba offered solidarity with the ANC; the ANC with the PLO; and so on a socialist movement may be nationalist in a certain sense - because the socialists are the only ones capable of articulating a satisfying vision for national liberation - but they can never be constituted around that nationalism Ferrinus posted:1. it's very funny and sad when liberals talk themselves into opposing miscegenation or whatever, and as you note it arises from a fundamentally idealistic conception of reality in which there are eternally-existing and fundamentally immiscible static categories of things and especially of people. this is what happens when somebody correctly identifies that racism is bad but is not a marxist - they can only come up with liberal solutions to the problem, and liberalism will always loop back around to upholding racism in material terms. corbyn is a good example because in fact the opposition to corbyn was deeply antisemitic in like five different ways (including deliberately bungling the handling of legitimate antisemitism complaints in order to intensify fervor), such that even a left movement that took antisemitism as its primary issue should have supported corbyn! "antisemitism isn't a real problem" is a weak answer; "only socialism can deliver in the fight against antisemitism" is a strong answer but antisemitism specifically in the british labour party absolutely wasn't a real problem. acknowledging that antisemitism is bad etc etc only made it worse, because it looked like an admission of guilt. corbyn's labour found itself with no good answer to a situation where british jewry sincerely believed that the party was institutionally anti-semitic, because it was stuck in a situation where it was epistemically incapable of challenging that perspective! thus, not being able to properly interrogate people's positions and claims can be and, indeed, has been a major problem, and i would argue that it's an integral part of contemporary left-identitarian ideology quote:2. i believe you that nietszche rebuked explicit antisemitism, but criticism of master morality vs. slave morality and their applicability to the socialist project - which is ultimately founded on the observation that society's losers, rejects, and cast-offs in fact decisively outnumber and form the power base for the winners and heroes - doesn't really rely on nietszche's personal faults or virtues and is certainly applicable to the way some people talk about including e.g. the disabled into left organizing this does not correspond to the base of the text's rejection of nietszche. you may have a point in some situations, but i'm still talking about a specific text, where the man's personal virtues and vices are very much emphasised. quote:3. i don't think your use of "non-objective criteria" makes sense here (against the "objective" criteria of what, employment?) race, gender, ability, etc are all social constructs, but so is money; just because something has been constructed and needs to be maintained does not mean it does not enjoy full material reality and isn't capable of killing you dead in seconds. since whiteness is a property relation maintained by both concerted propaganda and police terror, organizing against whiteness/the police is not only organizing around an objective criterion but in fact has been proven to turn more people out onto the streets and with a much higher level of militancy than, say, the bernie campaign. in other words, it's no accident that the national question was deeply important to like every successful socialist project and that the russian revolution produced a union of socialist republics rather than an undifferentiated communist great russia. mao called communism a hammer used to crush the enemy; until and unless the workers' movement is able to direct its energies towards the rectification of injustices above and beyond the basic wage-labor reaction, it'll only ever win slightly better wages when i talk about objective criteria, i mean things which do not get their legitimacy from being perceived as something, but which exist in the world around me. for instance, the class system may make me feel good or bad; i can experience it in a certain way, but it's there in an objective way. there's no way to say that i am not subordinate to my boss without being factually wrong. identity is not objective in this sense; it's fluid and depends on the inner life of human beings and their self-constitution. this doesn't mean that these things do not exist, but e.g. george floyd's experience of racism and barack obama's experience of racism is meaningfuly different even if there are a great many similarities, and their ideas about what race is will be different as a result without either party necessarily being factually wrong. basing one's solidarity on something which is fundamentally inexplicable is a Bad Idea, in my opinion V. Illych L. fucked around with this message at 21:12 on Apr 26, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2021 21:09
|
|
|
Atrocious Joe posted:Pritchard: The Left is tactictly aligned with "woke capital" because by lessening the material realities of race, the bourgeoisie is creating the conditions for the revolutionary proletariat to emerge. Race/caste prevents the emergence of a revolutionary proletariat because it divides the working class. A diversified bourgeoisie and de-racialized working class is the precondition for a socialist revolution. this is succinctly put, thank you. here is where i disagree with your reading of the former (and hence where it just connects to, rather than differs from, what i'm saying): i don't think that "woke capital" is actually lessening the material realities of race, and i don't think that's what pritchard is saying either. she says repeatedly, and obviously i agree with this part, that race is both a precondition and ongoing necessity of capitalist exploitation. so "woke capitalism" can't change this, only draw attention to it, and insofar as it reduces racial inequalities in some limited areas it will only highlight them elsewhere. a unified, class conscious working class (this is pritchard's wording) is not the same as a de-racialized working class (this is something some capitalists think is achievable, but is not under capitalism)
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2021 21:22
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:larry no!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqyLJ-fWbSI
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2021 21:22
|
|
|
lol flavius dont you queue more than a day on larry for that
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2021 21:23
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:lol flavius dont you queue a three day on larry for that Don't worry, I didn't.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2021 21:24
|
|
|
Flavius Aetass posted:Don't worry, I didn't. lol you suck
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2021 21:24
|
|
|
god drat it larry
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2021 21:26
|
|
|
Flavius Aetass posted:Don't worry, I didn't. Flavius Suckass
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2021 21:27
|
|
|
free Larry
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2021 21:28
|
|
|
Since we get the anything goes modding of fyad, can we also get the random number IKs too so the dipshit mods can gently caress off after two weeks
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2021 21:28
|
|
|
while I generally disagree with using the word retard as derogatory (possibly due to having two retards [in the medical sense] in my family) I do think Larry's commitment to the bit is genuinely funny and am laughing at it out loud irl
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2021 21:31
|
|
|
indigi posted:while I generally disagree with using the word retard as derogatory (possibly due to having two retards in my family) I do think Larry's commitment to the bit is genuinely funny and am laughing at it out loud irl I mean, same, but I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do with a dude who consistently acts like a 12 year old on X-box whenever he disagrees with someone in the slightest. It's funny in a way but from the perspective of someone trying to make it so people can post in threads and have discussions about things without being driven away by toxic assholes, people like that can gently caress off.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2021 21:34
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:but antisemitism specifically in the british labour party absolutely wasn't a real problem. acknowledging that antisemitism is bad etc etc only made it worse, because it looked like an admission of guilt. corbyn's labour found itself with no good answer to a situation where british jewry sincerely believed that the party was institutionally anti-semitic, because it was stuck in a situation where it was epistemically incapable of challenging that perspective! thus, not being able to properly interrogate people's positions and claims can be and, indeed, has been a major problem, and i would argue that it's an integral part of contemporary left-identitarian ideology well, again, it was a real problem inasmuch as a few legitimate complaints about antisemitism were factually proven and magnified by their deliberate bungling at the hands of high-level labour members. obviously this was done to torpedo corbyn, but the executive decision was made that it was fine to discriminate against jews for instrumental reasons, which is of course antisemitic itself. i do appreciate that corbyn and his people were caught in a rhetorical bind because you never want to be stuck just apologizing for yourself or playing defense against an enemy's spurious accusations, but that's not the same as an actual commitment to vanquish antisemitism, which would logically entail A) purging blairites from the party and B) resisting the antisemitic conflation of judaism and zionism that features so heavily in western foreign policy quote:this does not correspond to the base of the text's rejection of nietszche. you may have a point in some situations, but i'm still talking about a specific text, where the man's personal virtues and vices are very much emphasised. there may not be much daylight between "nietszche personally hated jews" and "nietszche's philosophy functionally reproduces antisemitism" but i do think there is some. this is kind of like how david icke, whenever asked, emphatically repeats that, no, he's talking about actual lizard men, not jews, the reptoids are really here, it's not a metaphor! therefore there is a sense in which icke is not antisemitic, but, there is another source in which he is quote:when i talk about objective criteria, i mean things which do not get their legitimacy from being perceived as something, but which exist in the world around me. for instance, the class system may make me feel good or bad; i can experience it in a certain way, but it's there in an objective way. there's no way to say that i am not subordinate to my boss without being factually wrong. identity is not objective in this sense; it's fluid and depends on the inner life of human beings and their self-constitution. this doesn't mean that these things do not exist, but e.g. george floyd's experience of racism and barack obama's experience of racism is meaningfuly different even if there are a great many similarities, and their ideas about what race is will be different as a result without either party necessarily being factually wrong. basing one's solidarity on something which is fundamentally inexplicable is a Bad Idea, in my opinion here's the thing: the basic economic wage-labor relation is not an objective criterion by the terms you're setting out here, because value itself only obtains from a constant process of collective perception and (re)evaluation. your boss's power over you is socially constructed; only pieces of paper or bits of electric charge record the "power" he supposedly has over you, and that power can only be enforced by other people who believe in its validity. this is not actually any more "objective" than a cop's right to kill you at his discretion several times now you've gestured at the way that liberal theories of identity end up arriving at this model of total mutual intelligibility, like i can simply never understand and never feel solidarity with someone of a different race or gender or what have you. and certainly some people wrongly believe this. but this is a product of liberalism, not a product of identity politics, because the only materialist way to understand identity is as something which is produced and reproduced by collective social action, just as the value of a commodity is
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2021 21:35
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:lol you suck all larry had to do was type some asterisks and he could have declared his surrender to me without also making all his friends sad. this is really his fault at this point and you all need to have a talk with him
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2021 21:37
|
|
|
Flavius Aetass posted:I mean, same, but I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do with a dude who consistently acts like a 12 year old on X-box whenever he disagrees with someone in the slightest. It's funny in a way but from the perspective of someone trying to make it so people can post in threads and have discussions about things without being driven away by toxic assholes, people like that can gently caress off. yes officer i understand you had to shoot him, but consider the fact that everyone hates you
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2021 21:38
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:yes officer i understand you had to shoot him, but consider the fact that everyone hates you ___________/ 
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2021 21:40
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:all larry had to do was type some asterisks and he could have declared his surrender to me without also making all his friends sad. this is really his fault at this point and you all need to have a talk with him https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqyLJ-fWbSI
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2021 21:42
|
|
|
More like flavius retard (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2021 21:42
|
|
|
Algund Eenboom posted:More like fl*vius retard fixed (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2021 21:44
|
|
|
i really like this because on one hand you've got the "anti-idpol leftists" basically typing out instagram infographics about identifying toxic people and cutting them out of your life, and on the other hand it turns out that simply nothing is more important than being allowed to Say It, whatever It happens to be in the current context. sorry, fellow communists, but i have to take this one for the team in the name of free speech
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2021 21:46
|
|
|
 already i'm set, someone briefly explain what this thread is supposed to be about because i only ever seem to notice it when the mods tie larry up blindfolded to a post and shoot him mid-smoke
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2021 21:46
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:i really like this because on one hand you've got the "anti-idpol leftists" basically typing out instagram infographics about identifying toxic people and cutting them out of your life, and on the other hand it turns out that simply nothing is more important than being allowed to Say It, whatever It happens to be in the current context. sorry, fellow communists, but i have to take this one for the team in the name of free speech youre such a loving weenie
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2021 21:51
|
|
|
Office Pig posted:
its where communists dunk on the lib-minded
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2021 21:52
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:well, again, it was a real problem inasmuch as a few legitimate complaints about antisemitism were factually proven and magnified by their deliberate bungling at the hands of high-level labour members. obviously this was done to torpedo corbyn, but the executive decision was made that it was fine to discriminate against jews for instrumental reasons, which is of course antisemitic itself. i do appreciate that corbyn and his people were caught in a rhetorical bind because you never want to be stuck just apologizing for yourself or playing defense against an enemy's spurious accusations, but that's not the same as an actual commitment to vanquish antisemitism, which would logically entail A) purging blairites from the party and B) resisting the antisemitic conflation of judaism and zionism that features so heavily in western foreign policy your prescription is entirely in line with what the actual labour leadership tried, which did not work. at all. you are simply uninformed here, and your objections are neither novel nor especially constructive. in fact, i would posit that your attempt to dodge the basic charge that i make as basically an admission that you have no answer to it, preferring to return to what amounts to explaining away the issue. re: the wage-labour relation is an objective criterion because you can say things about it which are common and universalisable truths; i can meaningfully define what it means to be proletarian to a completely different extent than i can meaningfully define what it means to be black, because what it means to be black is defined as a matter of identity and self-constitution. a police officer can kill some "hoodlum" like floyd; killing obama is entirely off the table. thus, being killable by cops is not a universalisable part of blackness in the USA, much less in general. this doesn't mean that we shouldn't mobilise against the killings of people like floyd, or that we should ignore the clear racial aspect of it! i am simply objecting to a fairly specific mode of politics. the point about mutual unintelligibility is that it is true. based on the theoretical underpinnings that i mentioned earlier, it's a perfectly coherent world view, and one which (generally not explicated in that precise way) has a lot of purchase in contemporary anti-racist circles. it just happens to be a dead end. if you disagree with this, you'll have to take up an actual argument there - i'm happy to discuss why i define it that way and why i think it's a reasonable definition
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2021 21:55
|
|
|
the modding itt is dire and totally counterproductive
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2021 21:56
|
|
|
indigi posted:I do think Larry's commitment to the bit is genuinely funny and am laughing at it out loud irl I, what? bit?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2021 21:59
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:the modding itt is dire and totally counterproductive I'd be happy to listen to your suggestions, but so far reflexively defending the most toxic posters whenever they get probated for acting like an rear end in a top hat isn't very convincing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2021 22:05
|
|
|
Flavius Aetass posted:I'd be happy to listen to your suggestions, but so far reflexively defending the most toxic posters whenever they get probated for acting like an rear end in a top hat isn't very convincing. assign an ik or something, what you're doing now is just getting people angry and distracted whenever you intervene
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2021 22:06
|
|
|
Flavius Aetass posted:I mean, same, but I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do with a dude who consistently acts like a 12 year old on X-box whenever he disagrees with someone in the slightest. It's funny in a way but from the perspective of someone trying to make it so people can post in threads and have discussions about things without being driven away by toxic assholes, people like that can gently caress off. idk maybe let one of the other 21 members of the mod force handle this since you seem so easily flustered, I'm worried your finger might slip and hit the ban button when you meant to reach for your probe button. then we'll never be able to have a fruitful and productive discussion 
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2021 22:08
|
|
|
Office Pig posted:
its a thread about marxist theory, the lf of yore, and general meta-discussion of cspam. it’s the masonic lodge of the subforum
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2021 22:08
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:your prescription is entirely in line with what the actual labour leadership tried, which did not work. at all. you are simply uninformed here, and your objections are neither novel nor especially constructive. in fact, i would posit that your attempt to dodge the basic charge that i make as basically an admission that you have no answer to it, preferring to return to what amounts to explaining away the issue. i'm pretty sure that neither "purge the blairites" or "go even harder against israel" happened under corbyn, and in fact that corbyn blocked an attempt to get rid of tom watson. i thought that, like bernie, corbyn was disappointingly passive and friendly in the face of obvious hostile, bad-faith treatment by his fellow politicians. am i misinformed? obviously it's quite possible that no particular comms strategy would have worked, but blaming corbyn's downfall on being too friendly to identity politics doesn't make sense to me anyway, the exact criticisms you make of blackness as an identity can rebound easily onto being a proletarian. a line cook just turns in work for pay at the orders of their boss... but so does a pro athlete or an actor. there are commonalities but also sharp differences between how being a worker shapes your social world just based on the specific nature of your job (and whether you're doing it in the first or third world...!), never mind such things as your race or gender. coming at it from the other side, you can't possibly pretend that obama's treatment by other politicians and the populace as a whole wasn't hugely inflected by his being black, or that you can't connect the utter social abjection of a black victim of police violence (which could even include, say, that one professor whose name i forget) with the searing indignation across the country that one of Those People was sitting in the white house. i really, really want to hammer the point home, though, that the fundamental underpinning of marxist economic analysis, the value of the commodity, is itself a collectively-generated social construct, both objective in the sense of having a potentially deadly material weight but also subjective in the sense of being evaluated ad hoc by combined human action. these things can't be separated from each other; your relation to your boss is not "objective" in a way that floyd's relation to chauvin was somehow not as to the mutual unintelligibility thing, we obviously agree that it's bunk. what i'm saying is that it's not actually a part of identity politics, but a bog-standard consequence of liberal idealism which also manifests in e.g. the conviction that all those twitter naysayers could never possibly understand elon musk's brilliance
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2021 22:09
|
|
|
THS posted:its a thread about marxist theory, the lf of yore, and general meta-discussion of cspam. it’s the masonic lodge of the subforum i'm silvio berlusconi ama
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2021 22:09
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:assign an ik or something, what you're doing now is just getting people angry and distracted whenever you intervene Yeah, we don't like you, and we're not going to start liking you any time soon. You've kind of painted yourself into a corner here, if you want to keep playing at being thread cop, you don't have much of a choice but to be an adversarial rear end in a top hat. Extending you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you don't just perversely enjoy spoiling things for us, find someone else to do the job.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2021 22:11
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:i'm silvio berlusconi ama post you're dick
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2021 22:12
|
|
|
Mr. Lobe posted:Yeah, we don't like you, and we're not going to start liking you any time soon. You've kind of painted yourself into a corner here, if you want to keep messing around with this thread, you don't have much of a choice but to be an adversarial rear end in a top hat. Extending you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you don't just perversely enjoy spoiling things for us, find someone else to do the job. I mean, if the problem is that you don't like me probing Larry et al for calling people retards I can really only say you can gently caress off too and continue to do it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2021 22:13
|
|
|
Flavius Aetass posted:I mean, if the problem is that you don't like me probing Larry et al for calling people retards I can really only say you can gently caress off too and continue to do it. Hey why does he call you that
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2021 22:15
|
|
|
Mr. Lobe posted:Hey why does he call you that I don't know but for real I'm not going to be persuaded to just let one thread be special and use slurs and abuse people because... ??? I still haven't heard a single reason why a mod should be allowing Larry to post the kind of things he does.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2021 22:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 20:31 |
|
|
Ferrinus posted:i'm pretty sure that neither "purge the blairites" or "go even harder against israel" happened under corbyn, and in fact that corbyn blocked an attempt to get rid of tom watson. i thought that, like bernie, corbyn was disappointingly passive and friendly in the face of obvious hostile, bad-faith treatment by his fellow politicians. am i misinformed? obviously it's quite possible that no particular comms strategy would have worked, but blaming corbyn's downfall on being too friendly to identity politics doesn't make sense to me what i was talking about was the "all antisemitism is unacceptable, the other people are worse, only we can answer the issues of race" - i.e. "only socialism can deliver in the fight against antisemitism". purging the internal right wouldn't have worked precisely because several key spokespeople of the labour right happened to be fairly prominent jewish MPs. however, if we're not going to be able to discuss the example i could bring up examples from the french anti-police violence protest movement of the past couple of years if that's better for you quote:anyway, the exact criticisms you make of blackness as an identity can rebound easily onto being a proletarian. a line cook just turns in work for pay at the orders of their boss... but so does a pro athlete or an actor. there are commonalities but also sharp differences between how being a worker shapes your social world just based on the specific nature of your job (and whether you're doing it in the first or third world...!), never mind such things as your race or gender. coming at it from the other side, you can't possibly pretend that obama's treatment by other politicians and the populace as a whole wasn't hugely inflected by his being black, or that you can't connect the utter social abjection of a black victim of police violence (which could even include, say, that one professor whose name i forget) with the searing indignation across the country that one of Those People was sitting in the white house. please show your work here, i legitimately do not follow. quote:as to the mutual unintelligibility thing, we obviously agree that it's bunk. what i'm saying is that it's not actually a part of identity politics, but a bog-standard consequence of liberal idealism which also manifests in e.g. the conviction that all those twitter naysayers could never possibly understand elon musk's brilliance my point is precisely that contemporary left-identitarianism relies on and assumes this to a large extent, and not just a subset of liberal idealism. in fact, my point is that identity politics as i initially defined them are essentially liberal idealism and therefore do not constitute a reasonable way forward for the left V. Illych L. fucked around with this message at 22:20 on Apr 26, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2021 22:18
|
|