Class ared
paleolib and bhlib
The sidebar agrees with you:
A user is considered "right-wing" if:
mlattov
They oppose social democratic programs from the right, or
They are national chauvinists and/or they express support for the ruling class against the interests of the working class, or
They believe in any kind of identity politics, esp white idpol, or
They hold reactionary social views by the standards of 90s, or
They are a radical feminist,
Or they're post-leftists who align with the GOP politically.
KaliYugaz
Marxist-Leninist ☭
2y
That's still not what materialism means. Nerds and jocks have different physiques and social roles too, but that doesn't mean there is a necessary material conflict between them.
Now, if the nerds and jocks, or blacks and whites, or men and women, were organized into conflicting political factions that fought over the control of resources, then you'd have material politics by definition.
But if it's not a class conflict, or at least a conflict that has a class character, then it isn't a leftist politics, it's simply realpolitik between different groups of bourgeoisie. That is, it's right-wing.
0
Reply
thet1nmaster
2y
The "nerd and jock" analogy is top notch. I didn't think of it.
"Material politics" aren't for a pedestal. The term refers to nothing by its own. It's defined negatively. All it means is a politics without idealism. Material politics is politics that is not infected with ideology. This is very broad. All politics, even bourgeois politics in reality though not in appearance, are material. Taking big decisions and moving the legwork of administration that this requires is a mammoth task that is never done because of any kind of ideology. It's always done because of some kind of actually existing interest. Marxist politics are always material, but the overwhelming majority of material politics aren't Marxist.
I'm just restating what you said in length.
Materialist" the way we use it here isn't just a synonym for "to do with physical reality" or "empirically verifiable". On such a basis you could make the argument that race is "material" because the genes that determine skin color and the fact of geographic ancestry are physically real, but that would be utter nonsense.
Radical feminism is an identitarian movement that seeks to organize people with particular biological features to sieze power. Its whole ethos is basically analogous to "nationalism for women", the way they talk about the world and the kind of policies they advocate (separatism == "self-rule", political lesbianism == "our kind should only date each other", anti-trans politics == "the foreigners/mongrel peoples are invading our spaces and committing crimes and making us less pure") make that super obvious.
Some of our interests may align at times, but ultimately we can't consider you guys to be leftists any more than we can consider hoteps to be leftists.
Edit: paging /u/vmarssmarterthanme so they can see this answer
exh app radlib ‘far right’ views use in my blog
anti anti orthodox
nz lack of jws 02 upsetness
good pre 2000s were ie 1980s 1950s
want your view changed on this I'd recommend Jonathan Haidt's ted talk 'The Moral Roots of Liberals and Conservatives
stupidlol or pcm equal thing nature not equal
https://medium.com/illumination/the-case-against-equity-11a750d9a9fd
tucker carlson redirct stuff from left
pcm segrgetage thing
MSNBC host Joy Reid claimed Tuesday on her show “The ReidOut” that there was a “very small degree of difference” between Holocaust denier Nick Fuentes and the Republican Party.
While discussing the dinner at Mar-a-Lago attended by former President Donald Trump, rapper Kayne West and Nick Fuentes, Reid said, “You know, some people come out and say, well, that’s horrible, you know, and say he’s a terrible person. They don’t want to talk about Trump. They say, but Trump’s not an antisemite. They carve out of that. Trump is not a bad guy. He shouldn’t have had him at the table.”
She continued, “But the problem is, the rest of what Fuentes just said — to me, that doesn’t sound any different than fundamentally what the party platform is. They don’t believe in elections. They don’t necessarily like the idea of democracy. Mike Lee said democracy is a bad idea. They don’t like the idea of women controlling their bodies. They clearly wouldn’t mind having a dictator because they don’t think that elections matter. They think they should just decide who the president of the United States is. They hate the culture. They’re angry that the culture is too friendly to LGBTQ people
https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/zbbiut/should_you_separate_the_artist_from_the_art_one/ so much for ‘its not my job to educate you’
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/4112158/posts
My favorite redditors: sack0fd3mon (Chloe)
so many reasons to oppose pick reaon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_war#Drugs
Some writers and scholars have said that culture wars are created or perpetuated by political special interest groups, by reactionary social movements, by dynamics within the Republican party, or by electoral politics as a whole. These authors view culture war not as an unavoidable result of widespread cultural differences, but as a technique used to create in-groups and out-groups for a political purpose.
Political commentator E. J. Dionne has written that culture war is an electoral technique to exploit differences and grievances, remarking that the real cultural division is "between those who want to have a culture war and those who don't."[22]
Sociologist Scott Melzer says that culture wars are created by conservative, reactive organizations and movements. Members of these movements possess a "sense of victimization at the hands of a liberal culture run amok. In their eyes, immigrants, gays, women, the poor, and other groups are (undeservedly) granted special rights and privileges." Melzer writes about the example of the National Rifle Association of America, which he says intentionally created a culture war in order to unite conservative groups, particularly groups of white men, against a common perceived threat.[40]
Similarly, religion scholar Susan B. Ridgely has written that culture wars were made possible by Focus on the Family. This organization produced conservative Christian "alternative news" that began to bifurcate American media consumption, promoting a particular "traditional family" archetype to one part of the population, particularly conservative religious women. Ridgely says that this tradition was depicted as under liberal attack, seeming to necessitate a culture war to defend the tradition.[41]
Political scientists Matt Grossmann and David A. Hopkins have written about an asymmetry between the US's two major political parties, saying the Republican party should be understood as an ideological movement built to wage political conflict, and the Democratic party as a coalition of social groups with less ability to impose ideological discipline on members.[42] This encourages Republicans to perpetuate and to draw new issues into culture wars, because Republicans are well equipped to fight such wars.[43]
https://www.reddit.com/r/askgaybros/comments/3a7o6o/what_do_you_think_about_the_gay_shame_movement/
stupidpol wiki sociolisgy race essential add positives leftvwing race reasm
muslim adl condemned https://www.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/z7vdob/kanye_west_walks_off_interview_at_timcast/
https://www.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/wykplx/new_study_helps_pinpoint_the_key_differences/
fr Most European countries have government established Christian churches. Are they all Christian nationalists?
stipidpol all left are secret ruussia trolls shitlibssay all people i dont like are russian spi4s
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/4109861/posts
https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompassMemes/comments/za01gl/kanye_goes_full_authcenter/
Comments
Post a Comment