Overused phrases in Marxist texts

>leftist cuck thinking that being a virgin is a negative

Take the redpill retard.

have you never noticed the emotional and physiological maturing that happens to a person within a few weeks of becoming sexually active?

>Yeah you guys come on, the world has moved on women and gays have rights now.
>Why, I see absolutely no problem with having Sharia courts in England, we're a multicultural society afterall.

I do not support multiculturalism.

>ideology
>politics
>countries
>success
>progress
>humanity
>money
>industry
>literature
>art
lmao

>I don't have anything against mandatory george harrison cisplay we're a country if retards after all

then why don't teen moms write better books

same reason you've achieved fuck all as well: poor educational standards. growing up doesn't make you talented, but it does mean you don't give off manchild vibes than anyone can sniff out a mile away.

redpilled people are either

A: Well educated people with source based opinions and veiws who understand the political spectrum or

B: /r9k/ fueled socially repressed NEETs

"The Marxist revolution is inevitable."

lol quietist dumbasses

黒人の下痢を化膿

>However, Max Stirner [followed by negative criticism]

>Tumblr far-far-leftism.
That's closet right wing tho. They're only radically left in the most superficial and least actual ways mostly.

They're the kind of people who really think left wing politics is for optimistic dreamers and will drop it when they think they're "grown up" and it not longer suits them. This is also what makes them so similar to red pills.

Tumblr-fags are not far-left, they are liberal-fundamentalists.

Nope, I'm both.

IT'S ALREADY IN YOUR MOUTH! JUST SWALLOW IT ALREADY!

C: More often than not, both.

Both sides are equally as bad. They just dismiss every argument and spout out buzzwords. Fucking hivemind mentality.

>2016
>still being a political cuck
>not being a glorious anarchist

anti-politics is still politics

Is the joke that you answer "toilet shaped" and then realize that you have neglected the ability to describe the thing except by referring to the idea of the thing itself?

...

no, Zizek has a theory that there is a correlation between toilet design and national ideology. for real.

Overused phrases in ideology

>(You), we must...

...

>bowing to the ideal of no ideal and assuming you aren't bowing
Truly the cuckest of the cucks.

What kills me are the engineer's disease "all political positions are equally bad by virtue of being positions" false equivocators.

If you feel the need to respond to every position by comparing it to another position, kill yourself.

your cool

pfffffffffffffffft most of tumblr isn't actually that far left

I've seen Zizek's movies and listen to his talks but I've never read his books. I'm looking for a book that further outlines his communist ideals. What should I get?

>privilege
>cissexual

Literally impossible. But was wrong anyway, no one that talks about pills is worth their shit.

At least one can argue with overly idealistic leftwingers most of the time. /pol/ scum, trumptards and other alt-right losers are so consumed by their bigotry that it's practically impossible to see reason.

Try me.

I'll make a statement, then you can refute it. If your refutation is a meme, you lose.

>Society as a whole benefits from lifting up its most disadvantaged members, including racial minorities.

>At least one can argue with overly idealistic leftwingers most of the time.

Empirically wrong.

> empirically
You won't mind linking us the numbers that you used to back your assertion then.

Modern western society does not benefit as a whole from lifting up disadvantaged racial minorities.

I'm going to try to skirt any talk about intelligence even though any statement I would make would be empirically backed, just for the sake of keeping this "not a meme".

Ultimately, society must 'lift up' X group at the detriment of the majority because the time and resources required to do so must be funded by the broader public.

If you're familiar with accounting or economics, the most basic equation in all of finance is P = R - C, or profit = revenue - cost

We can thus establish the cost C for the time being as the cost, financial, resource and culture based of lifting up these minorities.

So what is the revenue? The revenue should arguably be that these minorities will begin to contribute more to society and culture through broader access to education and better living conditions provided by the majority. Programs aiming to do this are affirmative action, welfare, etc.

There are a few problems with all of this, now.

1. The cost is greater than just the resources required to lift them into better conditions. Consider the image I have attached. As a result of affirmative action, white students with stronger cognitive abilities are denied spots at universities and in competitive workplaces as a result of their race. Black students of lower capabilities and competency are instead selected as a result of affirmative action programs, thereby lowering the overall quality of both the workplaces and educational institutions that feed into them.

2. The culture of X is distinct from the culture of society at large. They consider themselves an in-group amongst broader society, which contributes to destabilizing anti-social behavior. This disconnect explains the situation of social assistance programs in minority communities - they are abused and ripped from their original purpose as a temporary abstinence provider because X considers their provider the embodiment of the outgroup.

I want to make very clear that I am a social democrat - I am just an avid reader of evolutionary psychology and believe that left-wing systems are optimal only in culturally (and potentially ethnically) homogenous situations.

That being said, I believe that a conscious effort should be made to lift all disadvantaged people up - however, not to the detriment of the "advantaged" majority in a way that ultimately negatively impacts society and CERTAINLY not in a way that can be taken advantage of to no societal gain.

Sorry, here is image.

Also *sustinence not abstinence, spell check error.

>not a meme
>an avid reader of evolutionary psychology
žiggy diggy and sho on

The biggest criticism of EP is that it supports the system we already live in.

It's 2016 - stop being a radical and get a job

Or maybe get a degree that isn't in literature

Or you know that's is unfalsifiable wank.

*that it's

This

It's difficult to create a science out of studying the most complex machine in the universe and how it has adapted to every thing that has challenged it in history.

And that obviously creates problems with how strongly hypothesis within EP can be tested.

As Edouard Machery writes, however:

"There is little reason to endorse a principled skepticism toward evolutionary psychology: Although clearly fallible, the discovery heuristics and the strategies of confirmation used by evolutionary psychologists are on a firm grounding."

You really need to check your sources my friend. I respect your opinion and articulation of it, from reading this you seem like a genuinely intelligent person. My main disagreement is that there is any significant intellectual disparity between races. Much of the data from the first half of the 20th century was collected by groups with interest in asserting the civilized superiority of Europeans, the UK and its colonies one powerful example, the US also contained many who opposed civil rights on these grounds, social darwinism etc, etc. This was the era in which IQ as a measure of intellect was developed and roughly the same system is used now. I'm sure you'd be familiar with any basic arguments I make on this topic and I'm on the toilet at work so I don't have the sources for any kind of condusive argument available, but again I suggest you look at where your "data" is coming from.

Are you very familiar with Hegel, Marx, Freud, and Lacan? If not, start there. Otherwise, The Sublime Object of Ideology is probably his most "programmatic" work, as well as the most novelly theoretical.

I'd say you pass the meme inspection. Evopsych is absolutely unscientific and its persistence gives it a memelike quality, but you didn't use it to justify your arguments, so I won't hold it against you.

Ultimately your argument comes down to "if the cost of social programs outweighs the benefits of social programs, we should not institute or continue the programs." I do not agree that the cost of programs supporting social justice outweighs the benefits of those programs over time, but that is where we disagree.

Since you said this
>I believe that a conscious effort should be made to lift all disadvantaged people up - however, not to the detriment of the "advantaged" majority in a way that ultimately negatively impacts society
I think your argument is mostly a cop-out. You're implying that crippled and bumbling programs that exist in e.g. the United States today are insufficiently effective, but without an argument for why more radical programs would not improve the cost-benefit ratio (you are simply saying it is not good enough as it stands).

I say the above is a "cop-out" meaning that you don't really appeal to any alt-right positions beyond apologizing for them, but your comments about in-group culture do approach the kind of racial politics we both know you are supposed to be defending in this exercise. Let's say I take what you said at face value, and proceed from there:
It is entirely possible that through social change outgroups could be made to feel like part of the ingroup (classic example being southern European immigrants over the 20th century). Visibility, mutual respect, etc., could help transform the "abuses" you reference into contributions.

I don't intend to give a full account here of our disagreements. My point is to show that there are some points where disagreement is possible, without having to resort to meaningless catchphrases.

>Are you very familiar with a handful of obscurantists and hacks

Gladly not.

if that's what you think of the Freudo-Marxist tradition, why are you interested in Zizek?

I'm not. You've got the wrong guy.

WELL IF YOU SAY SO

He is using toilet design as an analogy for national ideologies, not claiming that toilet design actually influences or is influenced by national ideologies, you fucking sperg.

I usually prefer to think of that theory more as an illustrative joke. I really don't think toilet design has much to do with ideology.

You're right, that image is probably bunk and I shouldn't have used it.

I'm going to use IQ in an argument right now, but bear with me - I do NOT intend to use it as a measure of natural intelligence, but rather as a measure of total adult intellectual competency that DOES NOT account for educational, cultural or nutritional/biological reasons.

The % of students at Harvard of African-American descent is 6%. They are 12% of the United States population.

From this, we can do some mathematics:

Harvard's acceptance rate is 5.5%. This is going to be a broad assumption that I'm making, but based on the status of Harvard applicants, accepted students and alumni, I will make the assumption that the majority of Harvard students have an intellectual competency level that can be roughly stated as being above 125 IQ (the 95th percentile in a normal curve with 100 mean)

African-American IQ was estimated infamously in 1994 to be 85. Bear with me - I am not going to assert any sort of intellectual superiority, just some math now:

Assuming an only White (inc. Jewish) and Black Harvard, we can plot what their proportional representation should be using normal curves:

Based on an average white IQ of 103 and assuming 85% of (white + black) is white and 15% is black (ballparked but not super important and within a decent realm of accuracy), there should be around 105x overrepresentation of whites at Harvard compared to blacks.

Instead, this figure is 7.6.

With no argument as to intellectual superiority, the key finding is that individuals of lower competency levels are given additional representation through policy.

All of what I just wrote is meant to, using better (i.e real) data convey the same argument. I know that this is just one university, but I implore you to examine and find similar trends at other top universities.

As for there existing an intellectual disparity - I believe it does exist but I do believe the evidence is tight and as a result, programs enacted to support minorities in education to get them to a higher level of competency equal to whites (should that be possible) are valid. However, their continuing validity is conditional on whether after a certain amount of time, they are shown to be effective. I think we would have the same political beliefs, I would just consider myself a bit more pragmatic.

I would just like to go on the record and state that I am Canadian, not American, and although I am a huge fan of the Canadian welfare state, I am well aware of how it is abused despite its strength, as a result of inefficiencies and leniency in its policy.

Evolutionary psychology has its issues and I believe, as Chomsky said, that without adequate confirmation it should not be used in policymaking - it is moreso a personal inclination and interest that I have, but I would not consider it wholly unscientific, especially in comparison to other fields of psychological thought (I'm looking at you, psychoanalysis!)

Here I'd like to address your post from "I say the above" to "contributions". Firstly, I'd like to know what programs you would consider more 'radical' and potentially helpful to the situation of minorities in the United States and other western countries than the ones that exist today. Secondly, under what belief are these programs to be initiated under? To implement radical policy change simply as a result of a disbelief in certain schools of thought is akin to doing the opposite - they are both unpragmatic, unreasonable and dangerous. Let's talk about the in-group and out-group distinction that we've been making. It is very difficult for me to, without reference to biological or intellectual differences between broad racial groups or EP to make a statement against radical assimilation practices. Nevertheless, I will try: this distinction is fairly ingrained into cultures of both the minority and majority. Southern Europeans in particular are a poor example because of both their shared culture and history with other white Europeans.

Ultimately, in the absence of universally accepted evidence in favor of either hypothesis, I think that the least detrimental short-term option should be deployed. However I will go as to say that I am not entirely against the implementation of broader programs to support social justice - however, I do strongly believe that their efficiency should be monitored and analyzed in a non-partisan way and rolled back in the case of their ineffectiveness.

>most successful
Can think of a few metrics off the top of my head by which this is blatantly untrue

like what?

>when the Other is too respectful for you to feed your own narcissism by mockingly rejecting it
Could you fucking not? This isn't what I come to Veeky Forums for.

Education's a big one
Prison system's another

ok

you're a fucking cuck faggot go fucking kill yourself leftist niggerlover

Hahahaha holy shit, you don't think he was actually referring to America, do you?

Don't even try my evening is already ruined.

So if I understand correctly your suggestion is that regardless of the actual potential intelligence, even if only for historical and social reasons blacks do not have the same practical intelligence as measured by our society (not to say they are naturally stupider), it's essentially just a poor logistical decision to spend more resources uplifting a small portion of society than would be gained from leaving them as they are and admitting based on measuring intelligence/social competence by existing standards? I can definitely understand and sympathize with this opinion, and I agree to a large extent, I think affirmative action is a temporary band aid that only real serves to alienate whites and blacks in very similar material conditions from eachother.

What are your thoughts on an extensive reperations program consisting not of payments to individuals but grants to schools and public development with education and development incentives offering more money for succesful operations? It would be more expensive in the short term but ultimately I think a much more effective solution.

I really appreciate your thoughts by the way. I am white but I was raised in a black part of Philadelphia so this topic is of particular interest to me, and normally with /pol/ types they refuse to engage beyond saying that IQ proves blacks are inferior. Even if it were demonstrably true that africans have lower intellect at large I'm really baffled by people who think that justifies treating them as lesser people, especially considering the sympathy these race realists usually have for even the stupid people of their own race.

>Reify/Reification
>Dialectic

>So if I understand correctly...

Yes. Although I do want to stress that I strongly believe in programs to aid the poor, especially with regards to medicine and education. I am just averse to programs dealing specifically with minority groups in a historical/racial context.

>What are your thoughts on an extensive reparations program consisting not of payments to individuals but grants to schools and public development with education and development incentives offering more money for successful operations?

It's difficult for me to say whether I support this type of program or not. In principle, I should: as I mentioned, I am in support of social justice programs being initiated with the clause that their efficiency is monitored and a decision is made to continue them based on that. After all, the point of a modern political system is to provide all citizens with a universally high standard of living, and that includes education.

However, my key issue with this lies in the fact that to a large extent, it has already been promoted:

ballotpedia.org/Analysis_of_spending_in_America's_largest_school_districts

Please note that in spending per capita on public school systems, school districts such as those of Newark, Buffalo, Camden and DC with significant minority populations (majorities in the case of Newark, Camden and DC) is the highest in the nation - yet students of color (excl. Asians) continue to struggle.

It is pretty apparent that with most types of social investment, there is a point where the principle of diminishing marginal returns really destroys any further incentive to invest - and this can and should be quantified.

Unless this extensive program is radically different from any other similar program that has already been enacted and proven to be relatively inefficient, then I would advise against it. If it IS different, then I would have greater reason to support its deployment in a monitored environment for testing purposes.

And thanks, although I don't really consider myself to be "right-wing", I have some anti-progressive thoughts that separate me from the majority on Veeky Forums so I try to articulate my beliefs as well as possible. And yeah, even though Chomsky is kind of a meme and I've already quoted him once in this thread, he has that I think is very important for "race realists" to understand: that even if there were significant racial differences in intelligence, that would not matter except "in a racist system where people are treated as representatives of their racial group and not as individuals".

>To implement radical policy change simply as a result of a disbelief in certain schools of thought is akin to doing the opposite
Exactly. I'm saying that observations of abuse in the social safety net don't substantiate arguments for dismantling it altogether. Clearly you do not personally advocate that, but you have chosen to take a position of apologism in defense of those who do.

>Southern Europeans in particular are a poor example because of both their shared culture and history with other white Europeans.
Recently. Before that they shared more history with Arabs, and before that with Near Eastern and North African ethnic groups that were displaced by Arabs.

>their efficiency should be monitored and analyzed in a non-partisan way and rolled back in the case of their ineffectiveness.
Reasonable, but do you agree that social programs with multi-generational goals far in the future can be effective? It seems to me that with short political cycles, it would be very easy for right-wing elements (perhaps this is a bigger problem in the US) to point to programs that haven't achieved their goals in the last four years as ones that need to be cut. Thus, you will find some leftists hostile to these kinds of statements because they read them as a coded threat.

>Clearly you do not personally advocate that, but you have chosen to take a position of apologism in defense of those who do.

I really just would like right-wing opinions on these things to have a certain amount of voice. I don't agree with extreme right-wing policies but I am not super-progressive either, and I think the key to reaching an effective medium is to include both competing arguments in the discourse.

>Recently...

That is very far in the past and more of a genetic element than a cultural (after all, the most resounding influence on European history has been the Italian-based Roman Empire). By the time southern Europeans had began immigrating to the United States, Italy was already a united and fully European state that had long ago been the center of the renaissance, that had produced art in the baroque, classical and romantic eras and had already involved itself heavily in global affairs as a united, quintessentially European state.

>Reasonable, but do you agree that social programs with multi-generational goals far in the future can be effective?

I can't make that judgement - that sounds more like something that should be made empirically rather than ideologically. I think that we should maintain the status quo until enough time has passed where consensus judgement will be reached on the efficacy of these programs. I do not support their immediate termination nor do I support their expansion on ideological grounds.

Zizek understands but does not provide nor intervene. It's not his job anyway

there is no 'tumblr far-far-leftism', they're basically fundamentalist left-liberals, if any things far-far-centrist.

I don't know that he necessarily is. I think the thing about zizek is that he isn't even trying to say things that can be pinned down.

>the key to reaching an effective medium is to include both competing arguments in the discourse.
While I hesitate to describe the ideal outcome as "medium" (I would prefer to live in an excellent society over a mediocre one), I couldn't agree with that sentiment more.

Personally, in the real world I see that the forces pushing in what I would describe as a libertarian or right-wing direction are quite strong, backed up with the money of corporations and billionaires, and the influence of entrenched power structures. Leftist voices are becoming louder (after decades of waning), but still have very little influence (and what influence they have is not deeply entrenched). It's easy to see why some white men are worried about blacks or women taking away their power and oppressing them, but as far as I can tell that fear is very far from reality today. Thus, I choose to add my voice to the crowd that roots for the underdog, so to speak, mitigating in some small way the imbalance in that all-important competition of arguments.

You don't have to agree with my analysis of the situation, but I'm glad that you at least want to have the conversation. It seems very unhealthy for society in general (and democracy especially) when the discussion devolves into frenzied insult-spitting, mud-slinging, name-calling, meaningless catchphrases. Looking at the US right now, I think you know what I mean.

>that should be made empirically rather than ideologically
I say the following only as a caution:
Empiricism contains an ideology. Empiricism works as the foundation of the scientific method, for example, when it studies quantities that can be measured (even imprecisely, through statistical methods which are also valid). But "social science" is completely a misnomer. While there are certainly some measurable quantities, I find that there are many empiricists who inadvisably cling to these to the detriment of unmeasurable qualities.

If we successfully transform society in a positive way, empirical metrics should reflect it (that is, we should be able to measure improvements in educational attainment, income, quality of life, etc.), but some of the individual components of that transformation could involve, for example, attitude shifts that eventually facilitate measurable improvements without contributing directly to any identified metrics.

>Evopsych is absolutely unscientific
>Evopsych unscientific
As in evolutionary psychology? Am I missing something here? What like the idea that animal BRAINS change with evolution like the rest of their body? Did you just deny evolution altogether or what are you trying to say?

Do you accept some parts of evolution but not the parts that assert that niggers in Sub-Saharan Africa are fucking retarded because they have tested IQs around 70?

Confusion of terms? I love confusion of terms!

>What like the idea that animal BRAINS change with evolution like the rest of their body?
What is scientific about that statement and how it relates to evopsych?

>Am I missing something here?
Yes.

You don't understand Marxism

Or

I'm gonna send a screenshot of your respectable argument against Marxism and send it to my Marxist buddies to have a laugh at you.

One of the reasons people like Zizek is that the man has a sense of humour, which he utilises when making philosophical points.

If you mean that he is not trying to make absolute statements, then I agree with you.
But if you mean that he is deliberately evasive, using humour as a distraction or to compensate for weakness in his arguments, then I disagree.
What you said would suggest the former, but I am not entirely sure you didn't mean the latter.

that's not evopsych son. evopsych is saying "we prefer such and such because of our savannah ancestors". it's wholly speculative and spooky. it's spookulative

>there is no 'tumblr far-far-leftism', they're basically fundamentalist left-liberals, if any things far-far-centrist.

Indeed. I find it quite irritating that these people are often lumped together with the far-left when there are some important distinctions between them.

People say they are Marxists, even though they have almost entirely abandoned the concept of class struggle. When they talk about being working class, it's largely a token gesture, or worse a "badge of honour".

At the same time they detach themselves from the white working class and the problems they face, while insisting that their 'white privilege' gives them access to the advantages enjoyed by the establishment.

The main reason they do not recognise the concerns of the white working class as legitimate is because they do not encounter them in their day to day life. The white people they know are reasonably well off and university educated. This is because the modern SJWs are almost entirely composed of cosmopolitan urbanites from middle class backgrounds; aka liberals.

In support of this, while it's possible to come to the conclusion that blacks, homosexuals etc are oppressed merely by observing society or through personal experience, but that produces arguments of a different character. When the modern SJWs discuss these issues it always includes some grand theoretical framework: the sort of thing developed in higher education rather than council estates.

wow, chill. I only mentioned the toilets first. sorry if the word order triggered you.

It's become quite bastardised, I think. It was originally just sharing information and then you decide what to do with it.

Now, if you don't make the "correct" choice you are wrong. /pol/ is a plague.

>tumblr
>left wing

He doesn't really outline anything that definite for the ideal, ever. His whole point is "there could be an alternative to capitalism", as far as politics go, anyway. He critiques ideology.

That said, for his politics, Violence is probably a decent book. The category of violence is very important to how Zizek builds his political arguments. Living in the end times ain't bad either. These light political books are fun and fast reads, so you can also just pick whatever sounds good to you.

For his ~deeper~ theory, I think the three most imporant would be like The Sublime Object of Ideology, Parallax View and that big fat Hegel book (Less Than Nothing)