Why do alt righters on /pol/ conflate liberalism with Marxism? There's a thread there right now calling Soros...

Top kek what the fuck am I reading

Marxism is a materialist philosophy you retarded liberal we believe culture is derived from material conditions not the other way around.

Same reason the left conflates conservatism with national socialism.

>Why do alt righters on /pol/ conflate liberalism with Marxism?
Because Marxism is the basis for the brand of liberalism that exists here and almost everywhere else??

Yep, exactly

...

American liberals and right wingers are actually two slightly different protestant sects. They both adhere to a sort of individualized rational protestant ethic. Liberals are obsessed with proving their personal wokeness , ie. their status as one of the elect, while conservatives/libertarians focus on the puritan work ethic and lockean propietarian morality.

Marx' actually had a quasi-nietzchean perspective on morality as a mere instrument of the ruling class. In the 20s, radical soviet artists embraced futurism and ideas that even seem proto-transhumanist by today's standards, while early 20th century anarchists, like Emma Goldman or the spanish syndicalists were big fans of nietzsche and saw the working class as the true aristocracy.

People still can't handle Marx after 100+ years, that should tell you a lot.
Any kind of cultural criticism eventually echoes his ideas, or any alternative to global capitalism. He's a top-tier philosopher man.

As far as politics are concerned in America, they're functionally the same.

Marxism is basically seen as a historical curiosity by all but a subset of political left.
"Cultural criticism" is an area bereft of intellectual thought at that.

Because they think left and right are culturally split, they aren't aware of economics.

You're delusional. They don't publicly acknowledge Marx because it's not politically smart and they're weaklings, but Marxist approaches to sociology, politics, economy etc. are as relevant as ever.

Because it's easy to have a finger in both of those pies, therefore it saves a lot of time to hate both.

Marxism is the economic side of the coin, whereas Liberalism is the social side. In modern society, the two compliment one another much more than they diverge.

As for me, I hit 'em where it hurts.

Yeah people don't realize that Marx and his contemporaries basically never made moral or ethical arguments for socialism. It's usually social Democrats who do.

>are as relevant as ever.
Once upon a time Marxism was actually relevant as an intellectual force. Sometime after it was relevant as a political force.
Neither has been the case for a very long time now.

because conservative media tells them that anyone to their left on the left-right spectrum is a marxist/socialist/communist.

Socialist ideas are gaining ever more traction as the neoliberal propaganda gets revealed as the lunacy it clearly is.

The voter base of Bernie Sanders ad public lectures by economists like Richard Wolff are but one sign of it.
The Left has been in a crisis for some time, but shit's gonna hit the fan soon enough.

>Marx' actually had a quasi-nietzchean perspective on morality as a mere instrument of the ruling class.

Marx was far from fucking amoral. The whole ideology is a secularised Last Judgement.

Coincidentally, medieval interpretations of Heaven used to envision it as some holy 'vantage point' from which one could revel at the sight of suffering/burning sinners in Hell for all eternity. Marxists essentially want the same thing, on Earth.

>The voter base of Bernie Sanders

>Socialist ideas are gaining ever more traction
Social Democrats ideas aka Bismarckism/Social Corporatism maybe.
Certainly nothing Marxist.
>The voter base of Bernie Sanders
Was largely a media spectacle. Note their irrelevance now that he decided he'd rather bow to the most corrupt Democrat figure ever.
>The Left has been in a crisis for some time, but shit's gonna hit the fan soon enough.
That's what they've been saying since the Spanish Civil War.

t. Has never read Marx

K

Hello there, pseud. Go read useless theory books by . I bet you know that you're all an act, right? You don't actually know anything and all the "theory" that you read is pseudo-intellectual mumbo jumbo. That probably makes you feel very insecure when you do think about it.

I've read the Manifesto and Capital. Do I really need to read anything more?

Guys like Sanders and Wolff are just social democrats and populists. Shit isn't bad enough for real revolution yet.

why do people even think alt-righters should be taken any more seriously than neo-nazis? it's just repackaged bullshit for the average overemotional fucktard millenial who thinks rhetoric passes for intellect.
alt right is the combination of the myopic stylings of dogmatic rationalists like harris, hitchens and dawkins and internet culture.
so they are dumber, more myopic, and should be put in gas chambers 2bh.

>Capital
I dont believe you.

>They're victims of a plot designed to keep alienated white men away from the left.
They're being played like a fiddle.

I had to read it for a university module. Some Engels too.

>browses board with the lowest average iq
>surprised to find retarded posts

I don't follow American politics in any detail but it seems to me like Bernie was just being a political realist. He managed to make Hillary promise some socdem reforms at least.

in fact, we're redpilled see the truth behind the curtain, education is brainwashing all you need is infographics and youtube vids, Milo just BTFO a feminist shit was so epic. Praise Lord KEK if you know what's good for you. the most important thing to me is seeking out things on social media regarding race, sex, or gender and then have a circlejerk about how offended we are , we are so different from tumblr, absoutely politically incorrect. white genocide is happening, see the latest disney movies``??

They are two sides of the same coin, liberals actually legitimate the marxian vision by acting the burgouise part and only making bland reactions because they don't even know what they are actually defending

>They're victims of a plot designed to keep alienated white men away from the left.
As if the left needs any help with that.
Seriously you haven't offered white men anything to benefit them since the fall of the Soviet Union.

Hillary is basically a snake so overt about it that even her supporters are aware that she can promise two completely mutually exclusive things within the same hour while intending to do neither.
No one honestly bought she would move the least bit to the left.

The alt-right is just another iteration of identity politics, people who define themselves by accidental and contingent realities such as race or nationality.
I don't know about you, but browsing neo-nazi boards is very reminiscent to tumblr radical feminist rhetoric.

The authentic left was always focused on economic inequality that grounds all other ideological forms of inequality.

Of course leftists shouldn't have a problem with alternative sexualities and gender identities, fighting against these things is pointless and reactionary - it's pretty damn obvious that sexuality is culturally constructed. We need to emphasize that these identities can't replace class consciousness though.

Because liberalism isn't egalitarian.

If you vote for politicians based on their personal integrity and personality, you might as well never vote. The system requires you to be adaptable and bend your principles if you want any chance to get to a high place in some political party.

I think you're mistaking Marxists with Capitalism

why would white men in particular be needing help? i'm assuming you're talking about the working class which includes men of all races.

being a white man in itself has zero disadvantages. it doesn't stop you from victimizing yourself like a little bitch though.

alt-right intellectual here.

A few points:

We are nothing like tumblr, they're a safe space and /pol/'s the last bastion of free speech

There are two sexes and theyre the same as to genders, man or women. Rest is mental illness.

capitalism > gibs me dat

>alt-right intellectual here.

Oxymoron

You're the one arguing the classic example of a corrupt politician, whose donations are primarily from third-world islamic dictators, represents a global leftward shift, not me.

Yeah man speak truth to power fuck giving arguments

>people on the right can't tell the difference between mainstream liberalism and communism
>people on the left can't tell the difference between mainstream conservatism and fascism

All of this is the result of the fact that digital natives are really stupid and ignorant.

>why would white men in particular be needing help?
Presumably because of the ideological lockout they're facing from Liberals and Leftists like yourself alike.
>being a white man in itself has zero disadvantages
Just like being a black man, an asian man or a woman doesn't.

>to keep alienated white men away from the left
Who is perpetrating it? Identity politics leftists, especially now, can be shamelessly abusive to white men. In my sociology class one of our readings was a clickbait article about how school shootings were straight white male terrorism.

I'm just saying what matters is the positions and reforms you represent.

The idea that good people make good politicians is pretty much bullshit. You could be the best person in the world and be a complete retard in politics.

Brilliant satire

>people on the right can't tell the difference between mainstream liberalism and communism
Imagine that.
Here i'd think it would be extremely easy to tell them apart, what with leftypol's constant bitching about how all the communist organizations they've ever been part of were fully indoctrinated in Liberal idpol shittery.

They conflate communism with the socialism of the welfare state

The welfare state is unfortunately often used by the neoliberal globalists who control it and use it to enrich themselves as a way of dividing communities, dissolving loyalties to anything but the state, and gerrymandering by outright enslaving guaranteed voters, e.g. by importing millions of illegals who immediately outbreed the native population and are detached from al tradition by default

Ancient empires used to use similar methods to control populations. The Babylonian Captivity is just one example of a long-standing policy of Near Eastern empires of dislocating troublesome subject populations so they don't rebel. When people are completely dependent on you, the government, for all their amenities and infrastructure, and completely detached from any sense of local solidarity or grassroots organisation, they are very easy to control.

The welfare state uses selective wealth distribution and population control to do this. The only social programs they care about are those which will spawn millions of new Turks in Germany, or Mexicans in the US, turning cities into ghettoized wastelands and choking out all original culture. After that, as long as the people continue to vote "Democrat," the lion's share of the money can be redistributed to the neoliberal corporatists and crony capitalist henchmen.

The whole system is given an ideological gloss by hundreds of thousands of bourgeois intellectuals who self-identify as various forms of "Marxian progressive," mostly within academia, to give the system a gloss of legitimacy and to create a neutered simulation or game into which potential critics of the existing order can be funneled. All the young people who might otherwise realise how shitty society has become are encouraged to go into the ivory tower and quibble over footnotes of Engels for a lifetime, while identifying as progressives.

This election has been a great litmus test for the practical acumen of our society's "leftists." When droves of so-called intellectuals who have spent their lives swearing by ultra-radical branches critical theory come out in support of a globalist psychopath because her opponent is a 1950s throwback in his views on women, you know the globalists have permanently enslaved "leftism" and turned it into an internal daycare centre for neutered dissidents.

/pol/ confuses the ideological screen for the monster underneath, as is reasonable to do. Arch-liberal / arch-progressive theory is now almost all vaguely Marxian (Habermas e.g.).

The white working class don't need policies that benefit them because they're white, but because they're "working class" (which increasingly means unemployed drug addicts on welfare). Republicans don't offer policies that help them, but at least they present themselves as being demographically correct.

Democrats, meanwhile, have decided to exclusively represent the interests of a radical meritocracy and non-whites. With no representation from either party, you should expect working class whites to become increasingly frustrated.

>Presumably because of the ideological lockout they're facing from Liberals and Leftists like yourself alike.
how so? be specific.
>Just like being a black man, an asian man or a woman doesn't.
you're denying the existence of discrimination against minorities?

>the groups that hold radically different viewpoints are the same because the political landscape they exist in and means of discourse they use cause them to express themselves in similar ways.
>tee hee look at how insightful and snarky I am.

The Alt-right doesn't know what it is, it's an american bastardation of different schools of thought; European New Right, Anarcho-capitalism, Neo-Nazism and ironically enough the same Neo-liberal economic policy that Soros ascribes too

>you're denying the existence of discrimination against minorities?
What minorities?
Women are 50% of the population.
Black and Asian men are a global majority.

There's no such thing as class-oriented leftism anymore. Nobody wants to hear from a poor white person when a rich black person has something to say.

i like how you quotation marked working class and not white.
>Republicans don't offer policies that help them, but at least they present themselves as being demographically correct.
i like how you imply it's good to have a subtle undertone of white exclusivity.
>Democrats, meanwhile, have decided to exclusively represent the interests of a radical meritocracy and non-whites.
what the fuck are you talking about?
democrats advocate for the raising of the minimum wage. do you just read what pol posts and not the policies of the candidates?

>fighting against these things is pointless and reactionary
It isn't pointless, and you shouldn't use reactionary as an argument. The proliferation of homosexuality and alternative gender identities is another force driving down birthrates and active fatherhood in industrialized countries. This shouldn't be very controversial.

>it's pretty damn obvious that sexuality is culturally constructed
This isn't really true either. If you believe there are no biological differences between men and women, and sexuality is all the result of brain plasticity, that's a bit nuts. The answer to nature vs. nurture is almost always both, and there are downsides to sexual liberation and tolerance. It's not rational or obvious, it's an issue of weighing against values that haven't been hip in a long time.

I would be wary of the people you're handing power to though, the kind of people who get journalism degrees and try to save the world.

Our corporate oligarchy, if it's being done intentionally. I suspect it's largely an unconscious process, however.

we're clearly talking about america you dumbfuck.

So do aspects of our culture cause people to become homosexual and trans-sexual, or not? Make up your mind

Of course your argument would automatically be more respectable if you didn't think that everything bad about our culture is the result of a vast Jewish conspiracy, but on Veeky Forums that's too much to ask.

Working class is in quotes because the people in that class are often not working. White isn't because these people genuinely identify as white.

Republicans are putting in some effort to get white votes. Overall that isn't good, because ultimately they aren't helping these voters, and ultimately I'd like our country to NOT devolve into a 3rd world hellhole where the political parties are explicitly aligned according to ethnicity.

But anyway, you're apparently more concerned with what I'm implying than what I'm actually saying, so I guess I'll just assume that you're implying that you're a postmodernist who is immune to reasonable argument.

>The proliferation of homosexuality and alternative gender identities is another force driving down birthrates and active fatherhood in industrialized countries.

So? This has absolutely zero relevance on the issue of justice.
I very much oppose this idea that creating a better society should be second to what statistically produces the most traditional families. If nation states can't properly function without certain forms of ideology, then the whole idea of nations needs to go.

In which case the white people in Appalachia face far harsher conditions than your made-up "minorities".

When you live in an echo chamber where nobody will challenge you, you don't have to care about details like that. Enemy is equal to enemy.
I understand it completely though. I've reached the point in my life where, when it comes to politics, I consider everyone else a worthless shitstain and an idiot, and at that point it doesn't even matter what they call themselves or what their beliefs are.

the authentic left is dead and buried unfortunately (or fortunately, I'm still split in this)

> it's pretty damn obvious that sexuality is culturally constructed
this is flat out wrong

lol, clear case of only being an internationalist when it suits you.

>ironically enough the same Neo-liberal economic policy that Soros ascribes too
how exactly is applying proteccionist policies neo-liberal?

>this is flat out wrong
Is it? I fully agree that there is a massive biological component, but how else can you explain that getting lewd with a qt young boy (as an adult man) was all the rage in ancient Greek society but frowned upon and in ours until recently (and still considered disgusting by most)? A part of it has to be explained by culture.

The left is dead, buried and rotting in Europe, let alone the "authentic left", one of the few countries still left with a left-wing government just voted them out.

>So do aspects of our culture cause people to become homosexual and trans-sexual, or not?
Yes they do. I said it's a mix of nature and nurture.

And I didn't say anything about a Jewish conspiracy.

>This has absolutely zero relevance on the issue of justice
There are other issues to be concerned about, and justice is a pretty gooey concept to begin with (it tends to gets tangled up in socially constructed rights). A more closely related concern here would be freedom or liberty.

>I very much oppose this idea that creating a better society should be second to what statistically produces the most traditional families
Well, the argument (if you could spare being open minded about it) is that a better society has more traditional families. Consider the Moynihan report.

>If nation states can't properly function without certain forms of ideology, then the whole idea of nations needs to go.
There's some irony here. Also, what would you replace the nation state with?

unemployment rate is 5%, what are you even saying?
>I'd like our country to NOT devolve into a 3rd world hellhole where the political parties are explicitly aligned according to ethnicity.
but they clearly aren't. they only are if you see the parties through a poltard whites vs minorities lens. try looking at their actual policies sometime.

so you admit you implied those things and therefore i can't argue reasonably? pol logic at work.

you're already admitting that sexuality is largely biological now.
Its dependent on culture if certain trends are repressed or not.
Regardless, they're still there.

How is it wrong? When we look at cultures who have completely integrated homosexual relations in their society and recognize no homo/hetero essentialism, what should we conclude from that?

Throughout history, sexual relations have taken completely different forms from the ones we are familiar with. Identities become established through discourse, which DOESN'T mean sexuality has no reality. This is the point where many theoreticians go astray, because when we get down to it, every system of truth and representation is socially constructed and reaffirmed through performative action, it's simly how human practical activity creates meaning.

the left is alive and well

it just so happens that it may be a left you dont like

The rise and resilience of Corbyn in Britain of all places speaks differently. Its not the Left thats in trouble but traditional Leftist parties which have failed and are gradually being swept aside by the likes of Momentum

made-up?
like the holocaust amirite?
are you retarded? why the fuck would i talk about blacks and asians being minorities if we were talking about the world?

>but they clearly aren't

"Liberals are baffled and infuriated that poor whites vote Republican, yet voting on tribal grounds is a feature of all multi-ethnic democracies, whether [in] Northern Ireland, Lebanon or Iraq. The more a majority becomes a minority the more tribal its voting becomes, so that increasingly the Republicans have become the “white party”; making this point indelicately got Pat Buchanan the sack, but many others make it too.

Will it happen here [in the UK]? The patterns are not dissimilar. In the 2010 election the Conservatives won only 16 per cent of the ethnic minority vote, while Labour won the support of 72 per cent of Bangladeshis, 78 per cent of African-Caribbeans and 87 per cent of Africans. The Tories are slightly stronger among British Hindus and Sikhs – mirroring Republican support among Asian-Americans – who are more likely to be home-owning professionals and feel less alienated.

The Economist recently asked if the Tories had a 'race problem', but it may just be that democracy has a race problem."

>made-up?
Yes, made-up. Like in calling over a billion people a minority because of their geographical presence.

Alt-right is /pol/. They saw /pol/ in their twitter feeds and comment sections and named them the opposition.

Corbyn has sunk the Labour party to its lowest polling in 30 years and guaranteed a 15 year conservative government.

Because Gramsci.

Were is it alive and well? Le Pen is on the cusp of being elected president in France and the Socialist-left being wiped out in Parliament.

Who gives a shit? Real change begins in a challenge to discourse which he does far more for than Blair ever managed in power

ignore /pol/ u dumbass

you might as well try to explain why foul language is rude to a bathroom wall as explain anything to that perfectly outrageous board.

The "Socialists" have not been Left Wing for a long time and Le Penn's success comes exactly from the vacuum of a real Left

>I suspect it's largely an unconscious process, however
The organizing principle of leftist thought is summed up pretty well here:

"Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real motives. They SAY they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in Western civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the leftist's real motive for hating America and the West. He hates America and the West because they are strong and successful.

Words like 'self-confidence,' 'self-reliance,' 'initiative', 'enterprise,' 'optimism,' etc. play little role in the liberal and leftist vocabulary. The leftist is anti-individualistic, pro-collectivist. He wants society to solve everyone's needs for them, take care of them. He is not the sort of person who has an inner sense of confidence in his own ability to solve his own problems and satisfy his own needs. The leftist is antagonistic to the concept of competition because, deep inside, he feels like a loser."

It's a Nietzchean slave morality. This doesn't mean mainline leftists are always wrong, but this explains some of its basic inconsistencies (its apologizing for Islam, its simultaneous support of workers and immigrants, etc.).

old left is six feet under, new left is shattering on the rocks of social media / online "activism."

the empire is crumbling, western European culture is post-apex, and the general moral quality of individuals is in a tailspin.

Conservatives try to sell capitalism without decadence, and liberals try to sell capitalism with progress, but the lack of a higher metaphysical vision about what progress and decadence actually are, the whole political ideology of progress is tearing itself apart and taking everything and everyone down with it.

:)

Jesus H. Christ

The Left is its own worst enemy.