How do you deal with libertarians who think liberal identity politics is the same as marxism?

I try to table valid criticisms of market fundamentalism and inefficiencies of capitalism and I just get called a "SJW". Dafuq?

I don't even want to bring identity politics into it. Apparently calling someone a Social Justice Warrior is a valid argument in defence of free market.

That's a complete characterization. If you go on /leftypol/ a good amount of them hate SJWs.

Marxism= wants to reduce work hours so workers (white males from germany at that) aren't alienated and can institute themselves in historical subjectivism and zeitgeist

liberals = wants to destroy white men and """empower""" women

user, have you even read Marx???

Your picture and your comment are wrong for two or three reasons each.

Men are being genocided by women? Also, marxists want to empower the workers, men as well as women. If you see a "marxist" trying to convince you more female CEO's is positive or some shit, they are to be shot on sight.

yeah I get that

but I'm just saying don't blame people for conflating them with marxism when they do it themselves

people in this thread need a helicopter ride

>Marxism= wants to reduce work hours so workers
Read marx

It is not the same in that Marx spoke about class and now the modern iteration of "Marxism" is replacing class with race and creed. So I can see the similarity people are seeing.

Well what the fucks the point of being a Marxist if all you want is reduced work hours? We've had that shit for years.

You're presenting a simplified version of your poisonous ideology and you fucking know it.

OP here,

are there any noob friendly books/essays that gently introduces Marxist analysis (dialectical materialism)?

It's more about hating bad SJWs.
These people /pol/ find do not invalidate these causes by themselves, rather they weaken it by offering examples of where things could go wrong. This obviously happens because in these circles there is no way anymore to practice any sort of censorship, there is no way to tell to annoying people to just shut up and assist the cause from behind the scene. It was possible to do so in Europe 50 years ago, when there were still communist political authorities, but now it's the far west, so who the fuck are you to tell me to shup up? That's the logic.
I wish these people could just find the dignity of admitting their own impossibility ofncontributing to the cause publicly, and voluntarily hide.

That crazy red-haired feminist who screamed "YOURE OPPRESSING ME" and the Hugh Mungus one did more damage than any recent CIA psy-op.

liberal identity politics is the strategic outgrowth to the failure of pure marxism of the late 20th century. instead of class identification via the haves and have-nots fiscally, the shift went to the oppressed and the oppressors via identity markers and, now, "identifications," all which is to say - while idpol and marxism aren't synonymous, they are at the very least retarded siblings.

/pol/tards thinking that the white man is the most capable human but is still being genocided are hilarious.

Yeah, that guy is an idiot. Marxists want to establish collective worker control of the means of production. In a broader sense, we want to dismantle any institution which grants coercive power to a priveleged class over an oppressed class, and that's where the cultural marxism comes in. Marxists can and have been anti-white in the sense that there is a white ethno-class occupying most of these hierarchies, but this is a mistake. There is nothing about whiteness that makes someone inherently an oppressor, and 90% of whites will benefit or at least not suffer from dismantling those same structures. The tumblr liberal version of this view is totally detached from the theory and so has no such anchor to prevent it from getting out of control.

Moderate libertarian/classical liberal here. Many of those people are alt-rightists who have deluded themselves into thinking that they are libertarians. If you hear someone talk about "cultural marxism" it means there's about at 99% chance that he has spent a lot more time thinking about alt-right conspiracy theories than thinking about any sort of libertarian concepts. If you press many of those sorts of people you'll find that they're ok with some sort of supposedly-temporary authoritarianism to sort out racial and cultural "problems", and then we'll supposedly bring in the libertarian stuff. Of course, this is absurd. Not only is it absurd, it's the same thing that the Bolsheviks and Mao supporters did.
So in short, they are not actually libertarians. I know that runs the risk of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, but fuck... if we define a libertarian by political positions, they don't qualify, since they're willing to use authoritarian means to get to their so-called "libertarian" society.
And don't even get me started on the Hoppeians, and Pinochet meme kiddies... they are just flat out mentally ill.

It's simplified, yes, and also one aspect of a biggers system. What I'm trying to convey is that the view of Marxism as an ideology of gender, both by any liberal presenting itself as a marxist and any reactionary criticizing that aspect or interpretating marxism as a social liberation front is evidence of ignorance towards marx's works (note: Marx's original works, not the elasticity presented by ideologies that are not Marxists entirely). Marx thought is a system of critical economy, not a posse for gender equality or ethnic liberation (if you read Marx and Engel's essays of Latin America you'll see that they were quite rascists themselves). My point, user, is read Marx and the criticize it. Don't let your perjurdice towards a group fog your critical thought.

but the founding assumption of this entire political ideology assumes there is no human nature. that at the core, everyone is all about cooperation. it's untenable. it's why there have been zero successful communist countries in history.

Said by someone with no idea what Marxism is

>that at the core, everyone is all about cooperation.
Aren't actual communists the living proof of either
A) the absence of a human nature
B) the possibility of tuning a existing human nature to the communist ideal?
Why is your concept of human nature true and their concept of human nature false?
And what about all those examples of human behaviour that are perfectly ingrained in the capitalist society that have to be basically forced on the worker?
At the end of the day, when you look at the big numbers, very few intersctions wih the free market are serene ones, and the only source of stability comes, more often than not, from the monopoly on violence. Should this fact be ignored? Isn't the fact that most people on Earth are miserable a reason good enough for us to criticize this system and find new ones?

I would not dignify Marxism by comparing it to something as tangible and natural as in-group preferential behavior.

But 9/11 was actually a conspiracy. It was almost certainly the Saudis and Israelis. They caught a bunch of Israelis in a van full of explosives with big Arabic letters painted on it in New York on the same fucking day that the towers went down.

You believe in the Law of Value but you can't believe in a false flag? ffs people.

That's not a founding assumption, rather a conclusion drawn in the wake of Derrida which has haunted Marxism ever since. The way I see it, there are valuable insights to be derived from recognizing the limits of human nature as an explanation for our behavior, but the tendency has been to take it too far. Any attempt to characterize trends in human behavior is therefore seen as at best a futile effort, and at worst an attempt to exert control. The usefulness of this information in determining which anti-egalitarian behaviors need to be contended with or potentially accommodated and which are artifacts of oppressive systems which will fall away as those systems are dismantled is totally lost. What is clear is that, to whatever extent humans do need to compete with one another, it doesn't extend to every aspect of life, and where the arenas differ between cultures is a clear indication of which can be dismantled. Marxism must therefore proceed stepwise, dismantling the most harmful structures first and proceeding as it becomes appropriate to do so.

huh? if people don't understand basic terms and get tricked into thinking marxism means "more female ceos" then it's their own damn fault for never reading a fucking book in their life

The idea is not incongruous, or funny. The idea is that Western civilization has been infected with a series of idiotic cultural memes which are resulting in its self-destruction. Secular Liberalism and Egalitarianism, combined with the Anti-Nationalism of the post-WWII era have essentially made the demographic replacement of whites inevitable. It doesn't matter how intelligent or capable a people are when their values have been replaced with self-destructive ones. The high-minded ideals of progressiveness and hedonism FEEL good. They FEEL moral. They FEEL beneficial, but in fact, these things destroy societies. As the birthrate drops due to sexual liberation, the collapse of the family and general alienation from social responsibility, the welfare state necessitates an influx of new bodies to pay into the ponzi scheme that is civic society and social security. That means immigration, which means replacement.

This replacement is happening. Sweden has already crossed the tipping point of nonwhite births, in one or two generations it will be a majority brown country. The same will be true in Germany, France, etc in very few years. The same is already true in the United States.

Once a people are denied a homeland, the only direction they can go is down. Regardless of who precisely you blame this decline on (the jews are popular, I'm told) it is happening, and it is essentially unstoppable. Secular liberalism will be remembered by whatever mongrel-race emerges from this century as a culture-death disease that destroys civilizations, and will be rightly shunned by all people who do not want to share a similar fate.

Fortunately for us, Secular Liberalism is not Marxism. Unfortunately for us, the 80 IQ garbage pickers flooding Europe are not intelligent enough to understand Marxism. As the thin crust of white American Socialists recently found out, nonwhites don't actually care about high-minded Socialist ideas, they care about gibs, and they will vote for someone who hates them if it means they'll get their slice.

Marxism is shit for different reasons
How "hardcore" and "super srs" the old left was doesn't make a difference to me

actually marxism isn't even really about cooperation, it ultimately comes down to this belief that everyone is an extreme minmaxer and will sacrifice freedom and individual choice in exchange for an extra 2 loaves of bread and roll of toilet paper at the end of the week, it assumes are extremely economically rational, which doens't make sense at even a cursory glance, otherwise every worker on the planet would go to college and get a masters in finance instead of going home and drinking beer. marxism is stupid, but not because it assumes everyone can cooperate, but because it assumes everyone values a couple extra shekels over personal autonomy

>otherwise every worker on the planet would go to college and get a masters in finance instead of going home and drinking beer.

Which is what mostly happens in Europe, where everyone, almost everywhere, can go to university for free. Apparently most people actually value hanging out with friends drinking beer that much.
I'm pretty sure that in Europe there would be even less students attending university if food and rent become guaranteed by the govenrment.
Going to university will teach you that 90% of students, rspecially in STEM departments, take up these fields because they don't want to get stuck with a shitty job for the rest of their life. Driven people are rare.

This is the dumbest shit I've ever read. You have to define personal autonomy in autistically rigid economic terms to reach this conclusion. The end result of Marxism will be much greater leeway to go home and drink beer, or do whatever other damn thing you please that isn't some fucking business venture.

>drive people are rare

which is why it's important to let those autistic freaks of nature soar and bring humanity up with them instead of forcing them down into the factory with the rest of the plebs, long live capitalism, fuck marxism

Well, no, the end result of Marxism will be nothing, because Marx was wrong and there is no revolution coming. Capitalism has won decisively and finally. But ideally the end result of Capitalism will be an economy of such scale that the cost of living in leisure will be reduced to the point of triviality.

but then how is that different from what we have now? you can shitpost all weekend and i can spend my three day weekend working on an app, then when i end up with more money than you, you'll get all buttblasted and start calling to redistribute the wealth i created, fuck off marxist faggot

nah idpol is working towards frictionless capitalism and therefore anti-progressive and anti-marxist

go look at the media representation of minorities circus. liberals imagine themselves "fixing" racism by convincing disney or whatever that it's profitable to have more black leads in movies. the hidden implication is that the concept of equality needs to be justified by corporate profit and cannot exist outside capitalism. the utopian end-game is corporations becoming "socially aware" and fixing the world for you as you tweet your approval. this entire liberal-sjw ideology is bonkers and incompatible with marxism.

exactly, all the rich jews in silicon valley are constantly taking about guaranteed basic income and shit, it's only a matter of time before they just throw free gibs over the wall to the morlocs outside the facebook compound, work will eventually be only for driven people who want to do it, rather than forcing bland normies to slave away at jobs they suck at

The difference is that everyone will be able to do it and live without fear that the capitalist machine will wrench it from their hands you dumb nigger.

You're making a common mistake: you're conflating marxism with perfect egualitarianism.
Even under communism you still need CEOs, and you still need janitors. There is still place for these people, in fact they would be necessary and highly valued.
Also under communism luxury can still be achieved: there is a difference between personal and private property, which means that these incentives are still compatible with these ideologies, but not at the expense of other people's lives. It's a limitation on their freedom, but not a radical one.

Good.

the marxists of history did a lot more "wrenching from hands" than any capitalist you silly fool

>that everyone will sacrifice freedom and individual choice in exchange for an extra 2 loaves of bread and roll of toilet paper at the end of the week

you've just described modern china

>voluntary transactions
>wrenching
The only people stealing anything from me work for the government, and the only people voting for them to steal more are Leftists.

>Even under communism you still need CEOs, and you still need janitors.

did u even read the fucking manifesto u god damn homo, marx even talks about how in communism there won't be division of labor anymore and we'll all be dilettante faggots doing a bunch of different shit poorly

At least you're honest about it. It's not often that we get honest leftists admitting that they desire the extinction of the white race.

Don't worry I'd sure your gay social experiment will work better when the continent is covered in inbred Somalians. We all remember the great triumphs of African Socialism.

don't believe the propaganda there are plenty of loafers in china

>there is a difference between personal and private property
There actually isn't, the distinction is totally arbitrary, and was fabricated to justify theft in such a way that it didn't threaten potential revolutionaries. There is no rational basis for the supposed distinction at all.

Dude that his late stage communism (or as /leftypol/ would say, fully automated luxury gay space communism) that's shit we'll get in 2000 years if we last that much without collapsing. Until then we will still need people to manage factories, and other people cleaning them. There is literally no way around it.

These necessities can be still confronted in a manner that is different than the capitalist one.

i like that your bugbear is race mixing but your choice of insult is "inbred"

Private property are those properties that are necessary for production. A factory is private property, a book isn't.
The compulsive sharing that was typical in the USSR stems from thr fact that their communism was based on (until the '50s) an outsated, still developing economy: people had to share houses because there were literally not enough houses.

Being unable to grasp these distinctions should not be a point of pride, they should be rather be considered as a excessive tendency to dogmatism.

Non-leftists in this thread, how do you feel about the following statements?

>1. Capitalist class relations perpetuate eliminable forms of human suffering.
>2. Capitalism blocks the universalization of conditions for expansive human flourishing.
>3. Capitalism perpetuates eliminable deficits in individual freedom and autonomy.
>4. Capitalism violates liberal egalitarian principles of social justice.
>5. Capitalism is inefficient in certain crucial respects.
>6. Capitalism is environmentally destructive.
>7. Capitalism has a systematic bias towards consumerism.
>8. Capitalist commodification threatens important broadly held values.
>9. Capitalism, in a world of nation states, fuels militarism and imperialism.
>10. Capitalism corrodes community.
>11. Capitalism limits democracy.

The end of capitalism will also be nothing because its currently chugging its way very nicely toward destroying the environment in such a way as to render complex human society impossible.

This. The only place that has a chance of not being shit is the Americas. Europe will be a Muslim caliphate in a few decades, European culture will be destroyed.

>These necessities can be still confronted in a manner that is different than the capitalist one.

but why? why bother? even if capitalist is abolished you still won't get any pussy and you'll still be a wage cuck doing unskilled job, fuck off faggot

Somalia is a perfect example of a libertarian economy.

Corporations own the government. Wall Street holds the strings of the hand that wrenches. But that's just the icing on the cake, the real wrenching is the absurd difference between the value you produce for a company and what they pay you for it. You don't have any choice there, that's how companies make literally any money. Try to negotiate higher and they'll get someone else. You can start your own company, but the failure rate is absurd, and by definition not everyone can be an owner - there would be no one left to do the work. Of course, you've probably been fooled into believing that what the owners do is worth what they bleed you for. Take the REAL redpill, see the little man behind the curtain for what he really is.

this is an 18+ website

>The end of capitalism will also be nothing because its currently chugging its way very nicely toward destroying the environment in such a way as to render complex human society impossible.

except that pollution is drastically reduced from the early days of capitalism, and there are more and more sources of renewable energy, so this argument that capitalism is bad cuz "muh environment" is pretty weak since some dickhead like elon musk is going to come with a solar charging house any minute now and then what are you going to say? oh by the way, check out stalinist russia and maoist chinas record on the environment

>It doesn't matter how intelligent or capable a people are when their values have been replaced with self-destructive ones.
The fuck is this bullshit supposed to mean? If you perpetuate self-destructive values, you aren't that intelligent.

weak shit, finish your bachelors and grow up, kid

>You can start your own company, but the failure rate is absurd
You know, that might help to explain why the companies that succeed have to get a high profit from their employees...

it's literally impossible for your employer to stay in business unless he gives you less than you give him. every day you give someone $10 and get $1 back and you're all happy because you made a "voluntary transaction". then you go home and defend this absurd arrangement on imageboards.

Intelligent people can be short-sighted, especially with the current climate of dishonest media and pop-culture

Yeah, there are a lot of explanations for crimes of all sorts.

Why would intelligent people engage in dishonest media and pop-culture?

tell me this bro, how much "surplus value" do u suppose is extracted on every bigmac a high school dropout prepares? do you suppose if they threw the owner in a gulag and let the high school drop outs run the operation and keep all the "surplus value" they would suddenly be living like kings? there is barely any profit in businesses like that for the owner to live a middle class life after taking all the risk of setting up a business which u even admit is extremely risky, how much high do u suppose the standard of living will go up if every employee at burger king gets an extra nickel per big mac and an extra dime per super sized soda?

kek

Lol, how about the fact that oil lobbies constantly induce representatives even at state and local levels to introduce economic legislation that makes renewable energies artificially more expensive than fossil fuel sources. Also, your argument is fallacious. Lets compare Stalinist Russia and Maoist China's environmental records with other, capitalist economies at similar stages of their industrialization and I guarantee you'll find those environmental records are almost exactly the same. Thats the problem with not understanding Marxism (and, for the record, I am not a Marxist), is that he never believed that third world shitholes should use marxist terminology to cover their economic regimes of command controlled industrialization. If you can't see that our current economic ideology is destructive environmentally, then there is no point in having this conversation because we live in separate realities.

>introduce economic legislation that makes renewable energies artificially more expensive than fossil fuel sources

so you're saying regulation is killing innovation but you think living under communism is the answer? weh lad, i gotta stop arguing with retards on the internet

Do you really think that most companies are criminal organizations, in the moral sense?

And yet, the superior white man, despite his remarkable intelligence, let those "idiotic cultural memes which lead to his self-destruction" settle in his country.

McDonald's does exploit its franchise "owners" tremendously, yes. Big fish, little fish. If we cut out the thousand middle men in the McDonald's ponzi scheme, you would be surprised how much would make it into the hands of those "teenagers," at least half of whom I see are 30+. Fortunately for everyone, I doubt that chemically-treated worker-chow will survive the revolution, and they'll be able to move on to something less degrading.

I don't think that any actual victims of actual genocide have ever said the words "we are being genocided", let alone from the comforts of their own home while experiencing neither pain nor fear for their lives. This is definitely the most comfy genocide in history, you should count your blessings.

Did you even read my post? I specifically stated I'm not a Marxist. But, again, you do not actually understand communism if you think it involves legislation of any kind. A Marxist economy would essentially be socially anarchist you drooling moron, and based on democratic prouduction according to need instead of fueling abitrary growth for the abstract profits of the capitist class.

uhh, people pay the franchise fees so they don't have to do all the branding and promotion themselves, duh

the new star wars trailer just dropped, but i have to wait till december to see the movie!

i'm being so genocided right now

oh its look its old "that's not real marxism" one again lolll

>implying capitalists and libertarians dont do the exact same thing when you point out how their ideological assumptions never hold up in practice

That's why there is a difference between theoretical discussion and political action. But the only real expressions of Marxist economics are spontaneous democratic worker uprisings, strikes, and cooperatives. All this vanguard party bullshit like you see in Stalinist/Maoist models is still just state capitalism. Marxist economics would look very close in practice to the social anarchism of revolutionary Barcelona for instance. Whereas libertarianism would look closer to Somalia.

Yes, and rent land from McDonald's on which to open them, allowing Ronald and pals to ensure that any and all profits above the bare minimum needed for survival end up in their pockets. Then if the franchise goes "bankrupt" and can't pay its rent, they find a new "owner" to scam on the exact same piece of property. Your local McDonald's has probably gone through dozens of victims unseen in the time you've lived there.

well guess what, you're free to open a burger king or a pizza hut instead if you don't like the terms offered from mcdonalds, or don't franchise at all and start your own restaurant from scratch, that's the beauty of the free market you god damn faggot

To gurantee everyone food, shelter, health coverage, education and a life free of exploitation and alienation. I don't care if it won't help me get a gf, I'm more interested in giving everyone the chance of living a at least tolerable life. Past that treshold everyone should be on their own and, as usual, the great men will succeed, but only past that treshold.

the problem is marxism is it's an "ought", workers "ought" to do this, and "ought" to do that, but for some reason no one does, even christian morality is more reality based than this marxist bullshit

we already have that now u stupid faggot, ever heard of EBT? Section 8? FAFSA? The ACA? Oh, right, you haven't because you're some bourgeois nerd who doesn't know any working class people other than your maid, fuck off.

The other franchises do it too, and if you start your own restaurant, the banks have you covered. Not all of them are as ruthless as McDonald's, but all of them are leeches which produce nothing but a blight on human dignity. And they've got assholes like you to defend them all day because you either dream of being one of them, or are so indoctrinated that you can't see five inches in front of your own face.

>complains about the banks giving people access to capital

dude u are a fucking retard, take some econ and business classes and get a clue

Thats literally just not true. Look at the history of organized labor in America. Almost every single major strike occurred spontaneously amongst workers who had no knowledge of socialist or marxist theory, they just knew they were being exploited. Even when Marxists were around, they were a tiny fraction of the workers involved. Just because you don't know anything about the history of labor uprisings doesnt mean its all Marxist bullshit, its just that you dont give enough of a fuck about your own exploitation and like being oppressed by people that dont give a fuck about you beyond turning you against everyone else that theyre oppressing.

just because marxism was a failure in america doesn't mean those people didn't have some kind of ideology, most of them where first generation europeans who had experience with trades using guilds to limit the labor supply, more over man of them were socialists or anarchists, finally a lot of them were quite frankly racists and excluded people of color from those jobs in order to limit the pool of available labor, i'm sure i know more about labor history than you do, come at me, faggot

Kek

"Most" of them definitely were not instead of in isolated, smaller scale strikes limited to a few thousand workers within a local industry. And yeah, plenty of unions were racist, and there were plenty that weren't. In fact, it would often be with the coming of a Marxist organizer that race barriers to union membership would be eliminated, if they hadnt been already. Lets also talk about how capitalists would bus in immigrants or black folks to strikebreak because they knew that they could exploit ethnic hatreds among poor folk competing for the same artificially poor wages and scarce resources. If you look at the major strikes consisting of hundreds of thousands of workers, they were often striking against the advice of union leaders.

Im going hiking but fuck you I'm right. At least youre not totally hopeless though

Just have the balls to say you're a sexually insecure racist.

Both are Communists. There is no difference between them.

I am proud to not be associated with modern women.
And racism is natural. There is a hierarchy with white men like me on top

>Look at the history of organized labor in America. Almost every single major strike occurred spontaneously amongst workers who had no knowledge of socialist or marxist theory, they just knew they were being exploited.

>implying the labor movement had the same goals as the socialists involved in the labor movement did
>implying the labor movement wasn't a massive failure for socialists because workers just wanted to work for change within the capitalist system.