Why do modern day Socialist parties favor Political correctness as weapon of choice? [Archive]

CubanDream

11th June 2014, 06:43

Isn't it obvious "CubanDream" is a fuckin troll? If I had to guess I'd say he's a 40 something racist, sexist, LGBTQ phobe Gusano living in Miami who voted for Marco Rubio, watches Fox News, owns a shitty little Cuban exile-style grocery store or cafe where elderly gusanos meet every Sunday to talk about how they're gonna privatize Cuban land and reclaim their title to it when the Castro bros croak. Stop answering his bullshit questions as if they're being asked by a sincere person.

What the F is that supposed to mean.

If you've read any of my other posts you will have noted that I support Castro, Stalin, Lenin, Mao and HO Chi Minh.

Are you sure you're not just a liberal feminist hiding behind Marxism?

CubanDream

11th June 2014, 06:44

Could you give an example, please?

Do you mean examples of parties, or Social Liberalism masquerading as Marxism.

Left Voice

11th June 2014, 06:48

I think the mistake is assuming that it is an either-or decision. Socialists must see the fight against social discrimination as integral to the fight for the working class. It would be a mistake to leave such things to liberals.

It is undeniable that the fight for social equality (LGBT rights, female emancipation etc.) have had a rough time under past communist states, but his should be understood in context. Lenin himself actually made real progress in promoting gay rights before Stalin reversed these. One of the first things that the CPC did under Mao was fight for female equality in society and within the family - much to the chagrin of many 'traditional'-minded Chinese males. The practice of paying money to a father in order to be able to marry their daughter and raise a family disappeared overnight. Suddenly, women were promoted as (relatively more) equal in society due to the destruction of the old, anachronistic patriarchal family structure that was a direct result of capitalism no longer existed. I'm no Maoist in the slightest, but you praised Mao in another thread - maybe this is food for thought.

But it is a reality that real progress for LGBT rights, female emancipation and other key social struggles has only really occurred over the past few decades. The neglect of these important issues by comrades in the past should be seen in a context where a more conservative attitude towards these issues still prevailed across the globe, and also be seen as a critical mistake by comrades in the past.

CubanDream

11th June 2014, 06:59

Why not focus more on financial equality though - because that it the REAL leveller.

Tolerance is a fine thing but being a feminist, LGBT rights supporter, religious tolerance supporter, anti-fox hunting advocate, etc etc. etc. does NOT make you a Socialist - more like a LIBERAL.

Social Liberalism does not lead on to Socialism - because it tends to head towards the demand of 'hey, if you promote so much tolerance, you should tolerate me making as much money as I like'.

Socialism needs STEEL (ie: Stalin).

STEEL is power, not fancy notions.

You see, whilst the Liberals and their Trotskyist helpers are arguing over whether to call a spade a shovel, a trowel or even a friggin screwdriver, the capitalist masters will be reveling in your own self destruction.

Socialism = REALITY plus ideology.

Danielle Ni Dhighe

11th June 2014, 07:01

All of those ideas are Liberal in nature -did you see Stalin, Lenin, Che or Chavez making that their number one platform?

Nothing wrong with those ideas, but they are not out of the book or Marx or Lenin.
The liberation of women and LGBT people is a revolutionary demand, as opposed to liberalism's demand for formal equality within an inherently unequal system.

CubanDream

11th June 2014, 07:06

What is the difference then, other than destroying capitalism.

ie: how does revolutionary LGBT rights differ from Liberal rights?

Left Voice

11th June 2014, 07:11

Liberals want LGBT rights within capitalism through reforms to capitalism. Socialists see that such inequality is inherently a result of capitalism and reforms will not change things and only revolution will.

The rub is, LGBT rights should not be ignored on the assumption that if capitalism collapses, everything else will fall like dominoes. Instead, LGBT rights should be championed as an inseparable part of the revolutionary fight for socialism.

Read up about the sexual abuse cases within the SWP in the UK if you want to see what happens when sexual equality is sidelined as a secondary issue.

Danielle Ni Dhighe

11th June 2014, 07:13

What is the difference then, other than destroying capitalism.

ie: how does revolutionary LGBT rights differ from Liberal rights?
You can't abolish sexism and homo/bi/transphobia without abolishing capitalism. Full sexual and gender liberation for all people can only happen if existing social institutions are abolished and the archaic values they represent are swept aside with them. However, there has to be an intent by a revolutionary movement to abolish all existing social institutions.

Le Socialiste

11th June 2014, 07:14

Just to be clear, are you saying you oppose women's liberation and LGBTQ struggles?

CubanDream

11th June 2014, 07:15

I AGREE that equal rights are a great thing, but why are there so many modern day 'socialists' in favor of ditching the financial equality idea for the promotion of social rights instead?

CubanDream

11th June 2014, 07:17

Just to be clear, are you saying you oppose women's liberation and LGBTQ struggles?

many times I've said things such as 'equal rights are fine/great etc..' , thus:

YES, I support equal rights.

Left Voice

11th June 2014, 07:19

^Nobody is ditching it. Socialists today instead see that they are all important components of the same fight. These issues don't exist in a vacuum, exclusive from each other.

A socialist should oppose the abuse of LGBT people, abuse of women in society etc. because they recognise that these are a product of capitalism.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

11th June 2014, 10:04

Did the past masters such as Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Chavez actually go down this route - answer NO.Here is Lenin's position on the subject (from "What is to be Done?"; note that when the work was written, "social-democracy" meant revolutionary socialism, and Lenin was part of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party; the term would not acquire its present connotations until the First World War):

"In a word, every trade union secretary conducts and helps to conduct “the economic struggle against the employers and the government”. It cannot be too strongly maintained that this is still not Social-Democracy, that the Social-Democrat’s ideal should not be the trade union secretary, but the tribune of the people, who is able to react to every manifestation of tyranny and oppression, no matter where it appears, no matter what stratum or class of the people it affects; who is able to generalise all these manifestations and produce a single picture of police violence and capitalist exploitation; who is able to take advantage of every event, however small, in order to set forth before all his socialist convictions and his democratic demands, in order to clarify for all and everyone the world-historic significance of the struggle for the emancipation of the proletariat."

The Bolsheviks fought against the oppression of Women, of Jews, of Old Believers; they abolished all imperial laws that restricted private sexual practices. Obviously Lenin was someone who did not have "Marxian Steel", probably meaning pig-headed bigotry and workerism.

Communists are the most consistent fighters for democratic rights for all minorities. In addition, we realise the role of the oppression of women, gay and trans* people etc. in the reproduction of capitalism and fight for a revolutionary women's, gay, trans*, etc. liberation.

But given that you think the gay-bashing RCPUSA is "liberal" in the sense in which you use the term - too friendly to women and minorities - I don't have much hope for you.

Oh, and by the way, financial equality has never been a socialist demand. In the era of the dictatorship of the proletariat and communism in the lower stage there is no equality, given that recompensation is ruled by wage scales in the case of the former and the principle "to everyone according to his contributions" in the latter case. In communism, there is no finance since there is no money. Socialists fight for a socialisation of the means of production - a change in the relations of production - not tweaks in the mode of distribution.

BolshevikBabe

11th June 2014, 10:14

I realize this is probably a waste of breath (or kinetic energy - this is a keyboard after all), but why do you feel the need to engage in this problematic of "political correctness" at all? Do you not recognize that immediately by adopting this narrative, you're favouring reactionary and anti-socialist conclusions? If you've read into the programs of most modern Western communist parties, anarchist organizations etc. you'd know that the left attitude towards LGBTQ+ rights, racism, misogyny etc. is fundamentally different from a "social liberal" one. In fact, you're closer to the social liberal viewpoint, since they see discrimination in terms of individualized subjective prejudice (hence the "not all men!" refrain) rather than real material power dynamics

Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant'

11th June 2014, 10:40

Sinred

11th June 2014, 10:49

I dont agree with OP. But i think i understand what he is gettin at.
Many socialists do have a postmodernist (i.e liberal) attitude towards feminism, LGBT, animal rights etc. This is incredable damaging because it attracts people who are more interested of protecting their own identity and preach about stuff like "heteronormativ attitudes" than actual class struggle.
These people are more interesting in bashing fellow socialists for having "normativ attitudes" just so they can stay in their own leftwing-PC (hate using the word, but you get it) comfort zone. Rather than organizing new people.

Off course we should support LGBT-rights and (more important) womens struggle.
But the revleft needs to stay away from the swamp of postmodernistic identity politics. Postmodernism should be shunned by the left and has nothing to do in a revolutionary movement. Period.

CubanDream

11th June 2014, 10:52

Communists are the most consistent fighters for democratic rights for all minorities. In addition, we realise the role of the oppression of women, gay and trans* people etc. in the reproduction of capitalism and fight for a revolutionary women's, gay, trans*, etc. liberation.

Seems pretty hard to even discuss this rationally without getting bashed.

Anyways, I can see how the oppression of women reproduces capitalist oppression, but how about for gays and trans people?

Ie:, I AGREE with you that this is bad - but how is it an economic issue?

BolshevikBabe

11th June 2014, 10:55

Ah, the spectre of "identity politics" again.

CubanDream

11th June 2014, 10:58

CubanDream - please give examples of these 'modern' Socialist parties who are somehow promoting 'PC' above, or instead of, socialism? This is your point / perspective, so I would hope you'd have specific examples of more than party or group that you've observed.

This thread is living proof. Even attempting to discuss the issue has resulted in major attack for Cuban Dream -

Even Vincent West has said that 'financial equality is not necessary', something like that anyway, I mean WFT is that all about.

Like, we can still have major wealth disparities and call ourselves leftist, socialists, communists - not where I come from, no way - small differences perhaps.

Libertarian Socialists, Trotskyists, and Left Communists seem to be the main culprits here.

IMO - Stalin had the right idea!

Hit The North

11th June 2014, 11:01

Racism, sexism, homophobia, nationalism and xenophobia are all means of dividing the working class so they can be ruled over more effectively. If you were a true Leninist then you would know this.

Meanwhile, you still haven't provided an example of a single Trotskyist organisation that puts these issues before, or separates them from, the class struggle so you come over like another socially-conservative Stalinist intent on slandering your opponents on the left.

To complain about being insulted when your very question is a veiled insult is disingenuous, to say the least.

BolshevikBabe

11th June 2014, 11:01

Well, I'm an unreconstructed "Stalinist" M-L, so you can add me to the culprits list too

CubanDream

11th June 2014, 11:03

CubanDream

11th June 2014, 11:06

good stuff, back soon :)

Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant'

11th June 2014, 11:08

This thread is living proof. Even attempting to discuss the issue has resulted in major attack for Cuban Dream -

Even Vincent West has said that 'financial equality is not necessary', something like that anyway, I mean WFT is that all about.

Like, we can still have major wealth disparities and call ourselves leftist, socialists, communists - not where I come from, no way - small differences perhaps.

Libertarian Socialists, Trotskyists, and Left Communists seem to be the main culprits here.

IMO - Stalin had the right idea!

I was genuinely asking for an example of a party / parties who brought you to your conclusions, but reads as if you think it's just a prevelant attitude in all leftists who aren't strictly M-L, is that right?
So you see the fight for economic equality / equality of outcome as the only thing socialists / communists etc need concern themselves with - don't challenge outright attacks on the rights and persons of identifiable groups because it won't get us one step closer to socialism / communism? You don't think the struggle to have us unite as a CLASS instead of being divided into this sex and that colour etc is part of the same fight for equality?

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

11th June 2014, 11:10

Even Vincent West has said that 'financial equality is not necessary', something like that anyway, I mean WFT is that all about.

Like, we can still have major wealth disparities and call ourselves leftist, socialists, communists - not where I come from, no way - small differences perhaps.

Libertarian Socialists, Trotskyists, and Left Communists seem to be the main culprits here.

IMO - Stalin had the right idea!

Wage differentials in the Soviet Union increased under Stalin. In fact official Soviet sources attacked the notion of equality - the works of Falkner-Smit and Rozengolts come to mind - in general. And they were right, as far as strict equality goes; financial equality has never been a socialist demand.

Or are you perhaps referring to the criminalisation of abortion, homosexuality etc.?

Anyways, I can see how the oppression of women reproduces capitalist oppression, but how about for gays and trans people?

The oppression of women is necessary to reproduce capitalism, to reproduce the proletariat as a labour-force. Hence the restrictions on abortion, strict gender roles, the use of women as a reservoir of unpaid atomised domestic labour and so on. The oppression of queer people is directly connected to the oppression of women - the homosexual does not reproduce, the trans* person undermines the performative gender roles that capitalism relies on and so on.

Sinred

11th June 2014, 11:11

I would however not say this problem applies to many socialists but they can definitly be found amongst some trotskists and anarchists. But most often at the mainstream leftist parties. In sweden for example, this tendency has a big influence over Vänsterpartiet (the left party), F! (Feminist Initiativ) and even the greens.
The class struggle has in these cases been replaced with "fighting normative attitudes".

CubanDream

11th June 2014, 11:34

Meanwhile, you still haven't provided an example of a single Trotskyist organisation that puts these issues before, or separates them from, the class struggle so you come over like another socially-conservative Stalinist intent on slandering your opponents on the left.

Let's start off with the Socialist Party USA then.

And nationalism? you guys seem to have a negative obssession with it - nationalism is what defeated Hitler, created the SU, Modern day Vietnam, Venezuela etc.... nationalism does NOT lead to fascism - if it does then name me ONE European country since WW2 that became fascist, perhaps Spain maybe, but that's debateable.

Hit The North

11th June 2014, 11:34

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

11th June 2014, 11:35

Let's start off with the Socialist Party USA then.

Let's not since they're not Trotskyists but some kind of weird neo-Burnhamite thing.

Hit The North

11th June 2014, 11:39

Let's start off with the Socialist Party USA then.

Reformists. What's your point? EDIT: But even taking this party as an example of what you claim, a cursory examination of their party platform shows that it is the bringing the major corporations under democratic workers control which is central to their aims. So just naming an organisation is not proof of anything. Try again.

And nationalism? you guys seem to have a negative obssession with it - nationalism is what defeated Hitler, created the SU, Modern day Vietnam, Venezuela etc.... nationalism does NOT lead to fascism - if it does then name me ONE European country since WW2 that became fascist, perhaps Spain maybe, but that's debateable.
Firstly, I argued that nationalism is a potent strategy of dividing the working class - which is, dear Stalinist, an international class. Secondly, your examples all speak for themselves :rolleyes:.

Left Voice

11th June 2014, 11:42

IMO - Stalin had the right idea!
By banning homosexuality in 1933, punishable with 5 years in prison?

Danielle Ni Dhighe

11th June 2014, 12:04

preach about stuff like "heteronormativ attitudes" than actual class struggle.
Heteronormativity is part of bourgeois society, and one cannot smash the bourgeois system without smashing all manifestations of it. By reducing everything to economism, you miss the point entirely.

Danielle Ni Dhighe

11th June 2014, 12:07

Ie:, I AGREE with you that this is bad - but how is it an economic issue?
It's a manifestation of the bourgeois system. How is that not a concern for revolutionaries who want to overthrow that system?

Sinred

11th June 2014, 13:08

Heteronormativity is part of bourgeois society, and one cannot smash the bourgeois system without smashing all manifestations of it. By reducing everything to economism, you miss the point entirely.

No.
When smashing the borgeius system the symptoms of it should slowly disappear (if the revolution manage to hold its power ofcourse).
Thinking you can change society by changing your own lifestyle is nothing but dreamy idealism. The focus should be putting differences (as identity) behind for the greater good. Fighting capitalism is fighting sexism and racism.

I also dont se how fighting against homophobia per se would be related to any socialist struggle.
Neither how homophobia would necessary be a part of capitalism (other then as ideology for some conservative bastards), western liberalism shows otherwise.
Im not to sure about the correct definitions of heteronormativity either, maybe you could elaborate?

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

11th June 2014, 13:12

Thinking you can change society by changing your own lifestyle is nothing but dreamy idealism.

And incidentally something no one suggested.

The focus should be putting differences (as identity) behind for the greater good.

That has nothing to do with socialism, that's some populist utilitarian nonsense.

Sinred

11th June 2014, 13:20

And incidentally something no one suggested.

And you suggestion to fight this would be...?

That has nothing to do with socialism, that's some populist utilitarian nonsense.

Well then, lets keep lecture the working class about their heteronormativ mistake and how we can change it...
Plus why would pragmatic utalitarianism be something bad?

Danielle Ni Dhighe

11th June 2014, 13:24

No. When smashing the borgeius system the symptoms of it should slowly disappear (if the revolution manage to hold its power ofcourse). Thinking you can change society by changing your own lifestyle is nothing but dreamy idealism.
No one is talking about "changing your own lifestyle", we're talking about women's liberation and LGBT liberation being part of the revolutionary struggle. Not one person in this thread has advocated lifestylism, so leave the straw man at home.

The focus should be putting differences (as identity) behind for the greater good. Fighting capitalism is fighting sexism and racism.
Revolutionaries are quite capable of sexism and racism, especially when they belong to dominant groups. Women's liberation and anti-racist struggle, like LGBT liberation, must be an integral part of revolutionary struggle.

I also dont se how fighting against homophobia per se would be related to any socialist struggle.
So fighting oppression based on sex and race are part of fighting capitalism, but the oppression of LGBT people isn't?

Neither how homophobia would necessary be a part of capitalism (other then as ideology for some conservative bastards), western liberalism shows otherwise.
Western liberalism is about as capable of demolishing hetero/cis-normativity as it is misogyny and racism. Not to mention, hetero/cis-normativity is intertwined with the entire system of sexism.

Danielle Ni Dhighe

11th June 2014, 13:31

Well then, lets keep lecture the working class about their heteronormativ mistake and how we can change it...
LGBT people are part of the working class. Just as women are. Just as people of color are. As revolutionaries, we understand that workers in a bourgeois society are indoctrinated by bourgeois ideology, and we don't shy away from confronting that ideology just because it might offend some workers. We're here to advocate revolutionary consciousness, not pander to bourgeois consciousness.

helot

11th June 2014, 13:32

Plus why would pragmatic utalitarianism be something bad?

Because your aim is to throw us under the fucking bus for even daring to challenge homophobia presumably because we're "divisive".

Hrafn

11th June 2014, 13:36

Sinred

11th June 2014, 13:44

No one is talking about "changing your own lifestyle", we're talking about women's liberation and LGBT liberation being part of the revolutionary struggle. Not one person in this thread has advocated lifestylism, so leave the straw man at home.
Followed by your below argument.....

Revolutionaries are quite capable of sexism and racism, especially when they belong to dominant groups. Women's liberation and anti-racist struggle, like LGBT liberation, must be an integral part of revolutionary struggle.

This is sort of what i mean. Racism, homophobia and sexism is absolutly something revolutionaris should not embrace or be a part off.
The problem here is that these people (postmodernists/queertheorists) manage to find these tendencys even when they are not there.
They activily look for them. It is painfully obvious that these people are more interested of their identity than any mass struggle.

So fighting oppression based on sex and race are part of fighting capitalism, but the oppression of LGBT people isn't?

The fight against homophobia is as much socialist struggle per se as animal liberation or fighting for the right for "Human in Animal Bodys" not to be discriminated. I agree ofcourse (at least the LGBT) but its not a inherently socialist cause. Capitalism is not based on identity.

Western liberalism is about as capable of demolishing hetero/cis-normativity as it is misogyny and racism. Not to mention, hetero/cis-normativity is intertwined with the entire system of sexism.

Sexism and racism, yes. As for heteronormativity and "Cis", thats simple. Thats because EVERY society in human history will be heteronormativ because it is human default. Your sexuality is not a choice.

If i misunderstood what you mean about heteronormativity, feel free to lecture me.

Sinred

11th June 2014, 13:50

LGBT people are part of the working class. Just as women are. Just as people of color are. As revolutionaries, we understand that workers in a bourgeois society are indoctrinated by bourgeois ideology, and we don't shy away from confronting that ideology just because it might offend some workers. We're here to advocate revolutionary consciousness, not pander to bourgeois consciousness.

Yes ofcourse, i never said LGBT should be keept apart from any revolutionary struggle. I also find it hard to believe homosexuall working class people in generall would be more attracted to fight for socialism because of arguments about crushing the heteronormativ system. How heterosexually would be a part of bourgieos consciousness is also a rather interesting argument...

"revolutionary consciousness" is about organizing people for mass struggle, not lecturing new socialists about identity politics.

Left Voice

11th June 2014, 13:52

The fight against homophobia is as much socialist struggle per se as animal liberation or fighting for the right for "Human in Animal Bodys" not to be discriminated. I agree ofcourse (at least the LGBT) but its not a inherently socialist cause. Capitalism is not based on identity.
So you on the one hand recognise that these anachronistic, misogynistic attitudes are a 'symptom of the bourgeois system', yet claim that fighting against these are 'not a socialist cause' and that identity is in no way related to the antagonisms created by socialism.

That's a difficult circle to square, to put it politely.

Sinred

11th June 2014, 13:54

Because your aim is to throw us under the fucking bus for even daring to challenge homophobia presumably because we're "divisive".

What?
If you meant postmodernists, yes i absolutly would like to throw these people under the buss because they are middle class muppets and dividers.
No doubt about that.

Sinred

11th June 2014, 13:57

So you on the one hand recognise that these anachronistic, misogynistic attitudes are a 'symptom of the bourgeois system', yet claim that fighting against these are 'not a socialist cause' and that identity is in no way related to the antagonisms created by socialism.

That's a difficult circle to square, to put it politely.

The socialist cause is to unite for real changes, not to slap other people on the wrist because they dont know what you do or because their identity is "wrong".
And the later is exactly what identity politics does when it comes to actuall results.

Sinred

11th June 2014, 13:59

We both know V, F!, and MP are hardly socialist parties.

I assume you're a fan of good ol' Frank Baude.

Fan and fan...
I do like him even thou there is a lot a dont agree with him on. Neither is he very relevant today.
Not sure i would call F! or MP for socialists either. But there are people in these movements who define themself as "socialists".
As for V i would call them socialists i guess, not revolutionarys thou.

Danielle Ni Dhighe

11th June 2014, 13:59

The problem here is that these people (postmodernists/queertheorists) manage to find these tendencys even when they are not there. They activily look for them. It is painfully obvious that these people are more interested of their identity than any mass struggle.
What does that have to do with revolutionary leftists who support LGBT liberation? Nothing.

The fight against homophobia is as much socialist struggle per se as animal liberation
Did you just compare me to a rat, rabbit, or monkey?

I agree ofcourse (at least the LGBT) but its not a inherently socialist cause. Capitalism is not based on identity.
And being LGBT isn't about "identity" just because identities have been constructed by bourgeois society based on sexual or gender orientation. Bourgeois society has also constructed identities around gender and race, but you still think anti-sexism and anti-racism should be part of revolutionary struggle. You have a double standard where LGBT liberation is concerned.

Sexism and racism, yes. As for heteronormativity and "Cis", thats simple. Thats because EVERY society in human history will be heteronormativ because it is human default. Your sexuality is not a choice.
"Heteronormativity is the belief that people fall into distinct and complementary genders (man and woman) with natural roles in life. It asserts that heterosexuality is the only sexual orientation or only norm, and states that sexual and marital relations are most (or only) fitting between people of opposite sexes."

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

11th June 2014, 14:03

And you suggestion to fight this would be...?

Organising against discrimination in the workplace, fighting for democratic rights, organising minority workers for self-defence and so on. You know, the usual.

Well then, lets keep lecture the working class about their heteronormativ mistake and how we can change it...

If you consider yourself a Leninist - as a member of the KP probably should - for god's sake actually read some Lenin, particularly his articles against workerism.

Plus why would pragmatic utalitarianism be something bad?

Because it's bourgeois supra-class nonsense.

Sexism and racism, yes. As for heteronormativity and "Cis", thats simple. Thats because EVERY society in human history will be heteronormativ because it is human default. Your sexuality is not a choice.

Oh my.

Danielle Ni Dhighe

11th June 2014, 14:06

I also find it hard to believe homosexuall working class people in generall would be more attracted to fight for socialism because of arguments about crushing the heteronormativ system.
I'm bisexual, trans, and working class. I understand the root of LGBT oppression, which can only be resolved by abolishing all manifestations of bourgeois society, which includes hetero/cis-normativity.

How heterosexually would be a part of bourgieos consciousness is also a rather interesting argument...
No one has said heterosexuality is part of bourgeois consciousness. Quit pulling straw men out of your behind.

"revolutionary consciousness" is about organizing people for mass struggle, not lecturing new socialists about identity politics.
The only ones talking about identity politics here are you and Cuban. You're the ones arguing that LGBT liberation is identity politics, when in fact it's bourgeois liberalism that pushes identity politics.

Danielle Ni Dhighe

11th June 2014, 14:07

It's been one year this month since I resigned from my previous organization because of people like Sinred and Cuban. Talk about fucking deja vu.

#FF0000

11th June 2014, 14:13

Just so I'm clear Sinred, you're saying "don't organize around LGBT issues because postmodernism"?

Sinred

11th June 2014, 14:15

Organising against discrimination in the workplace, fighting for democratic rights, organising minority workers for self-defence and so on. You know, the usual.

Yes exactly, thats where i would put the energy. But as for "organising minority workers for self-defence" what utter nonsense. Workers should be organised no matter gender, ethnicity, sexuality etc.
Or maybe i misunderstood you, if so tell me.

If you consider yourself a Leninist - as a member of the KP probably should - for god's sake actually read some Lenin, particularly his articles against workerism.

Maybe you could recognize the difference between populism and pragmatism at the year 2014.

Because it's bourgeois supra-class nonsense.

What is borgious with organizing the masses?
Or is being theoretically right more important than actual results?
If thats the case the revleft are truly fucked.

Sinred

11th June 2014, 14:16

Just so I'm clear Sinred, you're saying "don't organize around LGBT issues because postmodernism"?

No. Organize LGBT. But do it on the basis of their class unity, not their sexuality.

Hrafn

11th June 2014, 14:16

Fan and fan...
I do like him even thou there is a lot a dont agree with him on. Neither is he very relevant today.
Not sure i would call F! or MP for socialists either. But there are people in these movements who define themself as "socialists".
As for V i would call them socialists i guess, not revolutionarys thou.

I consider V Social Democrats, and F! And MP liberals.

(Baude was quite relevant recently, what with him leaving KP because: 1. KP doesn't hate the filthy gypsies as much as he does, and 2. KP is slowly but steadily surrendering to the Feminist Threat.)

Danielle Ni Dhighe

11th June 2014, 14:17

No. Organize LGBT. But do it on the basis of their class unity, not their sexuality.
Except LGBT workers are oppressed as both workers and as LGBT people.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

11th June 2014, 14:30

Yes exactly, thats where i would put the energy. But as for "organising minority workers for self-defence" what utter nonsense. Workers should be organised no matter gender, ethnicity, sexuality etc.
Or maybe i misunderstood you, if so tell me.

Workers as workers should be organised to fight in the economic struggle and ultimately to overthrow the bourgeois state. Minority workers - and woman workers - face problems that male majority workers do not face and should be organised to fight against discrimination. Of course, the is unpalatable to you since you have compared the struggle for LGBT liberation to animal rights.

Incidentally, do you think the Yevsektsiya divided the Russian workers on the basis of postmodernism?

Maybe you could recognize the difference between populism and pragmatism at the year 2014.

"Pragmatism" like that of Bernstein?

What is borgious with organizing the masses?

What is bourgeois is talking about some supra-class "common good" that requires minority workers to forget that they're doubly oppressed.

Sinred

11th June 2014, 14:56

Except LGBT workers are oppressed as both workers and as LGBT people.

Workers as workers should be organised to fight in the economic struggle and ultimately to overthrow the bourgeois state. Minority workers - and woman workers - face problems that male majority workers do not face and should be organised to fight against discrimination. Of course, the is unpalatable to you since you have compared the struggle for LGBT liberation to animal rights..

Well i cant speak for LGBT workers myself, but...
I have a hard time believe they would prefer to organise their working class struggle from the basis of their sexuality.
Actually, i dont think any sane person would do that.

The double oppression goes for black people as well, do you think they should organize seperate from whites or focus on that difference?

Incidentally, do you think the Yevsektsiya divided the Russian workers on the basis of postmodernism?
Not on the base of postmodernism. But i do think it was wrong and secterian. Offcourse it is a question thats not black and white.
If a group of gay workers finds the easiest way to organise for class struggle is together with LGBT-people and they succed in doing so. Then by all means.
Black panthers organized on the basis of their ethnicity becuase it was the easiest way to gather black people for a socialist cause.
I just dont see how it would be relevant in a western country the year 2014 and i the focus of identity is pure idealism.
Im not half as worried about the actuall postmodernism as i am about the type off people who fall for it.

Danielle Ni Dhighe

11th June 2014, 15:06

Well i cant speak for LGBT workers myself, but...
I have a hard time believe they would prefer to organise their working class struggle from the basis of their sexuality.
As an LGBT worker, I face oppression on both counts, so of course for me the LGBT liberation struggle must be part of the broader class struggle.

The double oppression goes for black people as well, do you think they should organize seperate from whites or focus on that difference?
Actually, black revolutionary workers have historically also fought against racism in the wider revolutionary movement.

Danielle Ni Dhighe

11th June 2014, 15:10

I just dont see how it would be relevant in a western country the year 2014 and i the focus of identity is pure idealism.
Queer liberationists have actively fought against liberal identity politics, so stop saying that we advocate for them.

Sinred

11th June 2014, 15:11

As an LGBT worker, I face oppression on both counts, so of course for me the LGBT liberation struggle must be part of the broader class struggle.

So you do agree that LGBT-people should organise with heterosexuall workers in a broad struggle and thats what (in the end) is relevant?

Actually, black revolutionary workers have historically also fought against racism in the wider revolutionary movement.

Correct.

Sinred

11th June 2014, 15:12

Queer liberationists have actively fought against liberal identity politics, so stop saying that we advocate for them.

My god...
Queer theory IS identity politics.

Danielle Ni Dhighe

11th June 2014, 15:16

So you do agree that LGBT-people should organise with heterosexuall workers in a broud struggle and thats what (in the end) is relevant.
Of course. Everything I've said has put LGBT liberation in the context of the broader class struggle, not as something apart from it.

Sinred

11th June 2014, 15:24

Of course. Everything I've said has put LGBT liberation in the context of the broader class struggle, not as something apart from it.

Then we agree in practice. Not theory.
How is sexuality something forced from capitalism?

Sorry i thought you talked about queer theory. My mistake.

Tim Cornelis

11th June 2014, 15:38

What the F is that supposed to mean.

If you've read any of my other posts you will have noted that I support Castro, Stalin, Lenin, Mao and HO Chi Minh.

Are you sure you're not just a liberal feminist hiding behind Marxism?

Are you sure you're not just a Tankie? Because I'm sure.

Then we agree in practice. Not theory.

So you were opposed to all this (feminism, queer liberation) because of something no one advocates? Mmk.

Sinred

11th June 2014, 15:48

So you were opposed to all this (feminism, queer liberation) because of something no one advocates? Mmk.

(?)
Im not opposed to either homosexuals rights or feminism.

CubanDream

12th June 2014, 01:36

Let's not since they're not Trotskyists but some kind of weird neo-Burnhamite thing.

what the heck is neo-Burnhamite??:unsure:

thanks anyway

CubanDream

12th June 2014, 01:38

By banning homosexuality in 1933, punishable with 5 years in prison?

Not for that reason no, but he had the right idea in doing what it took to defeat Hitler and build up the SU, whilst pushing through communist ideas etc..

Lily Briscoe

12th June 2014, 01:59

Do you mean examples of parties, or Social Liberalism masquerading as Marxism.

I mean an example in the form of, say, an article put out by a Trotskyist organization that illustrates what you're talking about. You know, something concrete to focus the discussion around rather than really vague assertions that seemed geared toward getting a rise out of people...

CubanDream

12th June 2014, 03:03

Except LGBT workers are oppressed as both workers and as LGBT people.

But who's to say that an LGBT person is working class anyway? could just as easily be a capitalist

CubanDream

12th June 2014, 03:04

Minority workers - and woman workers - face problems that male majority workers do not face a

who's to say a woman worker is working class either, could just as easily have B-gois pretensions as anyone else

Danielle Ni Dhighe

12th June 2014, 03:06

But who's to say that an LGBT person is working class anyway? could just as easily be a capitalist
But we're specifically talking about LGBT workers.

Danielle Ni Dhighe

12th June 2014, 03:08

who's to say a woman worker is working class either, could just as easily have B-gois pretensions as anyone else
All workers are working class, even if most are currently in the sway of bourgeois false consciousness. The working class is defined by its relationship to the means of production, distribution, and exchange, not its level of class consciousness.

CubanDream

12th June 2014, 03:11

So a guy earning a salary of 200K is more 'working class' than a struggling shopkeeper who employs 2 people, and makes a profit of less than 10K/year?

So, what happens to all the 200K that the first worker earns - yep, it goes to funding the capitalist machine, but he's like working class, or better yet, he's actually a woman, or maybe LGBQ, like that will make him more Socialist all of a sudden....I think not

Danielle Ni Dhighe

12th June 2014, 03:15

So a guy earning a salary of 200K is more 'working class' than a struggling shopkeeper who employs 2 people, and makes a profit of less than 10K/year?
Someone earning that much a year is in all likelihood in management, and thus not a worker. I would put them in the same petit-bourgeois category as the small shopkeeper, actually. For a self-proclaimed Marxist, you don't seem to understand the Marxist concept of class.

CubanDream

12th June 2014, 03:20

Manager? Not necessarily - a high end IT worker earns big bucks, plenty of other examples (sports stars, doctors, dentists, singers, engineers, etc..)

note: unorthodox statement coming up:!

Class is really defined by how much money you have (in the modern day at least) - the ball player on 1 million/yr is no longer a worker

Sinister Intents

12th June 2014, 03:22

Manager? Not necessarily - a high end IT worker earns big bucks, plenty of other examples (sports stars, doctors, dentists, singers, engineers, etc..)

Class is really defined by how much money you have (in the modern day at least) - the ball player on 1 million/yr is no longer a worker

So do I not count as petit-bourgeois for owning a small concrete business? I own and control it's means of production and expropriate a worker's labor for a profit greater than their wage. I exploit worker to stay afloat, and it's really shitty. Being a small business owner fucking sucks.

Danielle Ni Dhighe

12th June 2014, 03:23

Manager? Not necessarily - a high end IT worker earns big bucks, plenty of other examples (sports stars, doctors, dentists, singers, engineers, etc..)

Class is really defined by how much money you have (in the modern day at least) - the ball player on 1 million/yr is no longer a worker
You're using a bourgeois definition of class. Marx defined classes by their relations to the means of production, etc. A professional athlete is petit-bourgeois. So are professionals, doctors, etc. So, please, STFU about being a Marxist already.

CubanDream

12th June 2014, 03:27

You're using a bourgeois definition of class. Marx defined classes by their relations to the means of production, etc. A professional athlete is petit-bourgeois. So are professionals, doctors, etc. So, please, STFU about being a Marxist already.

Ok - so how do you define those kinds of worker as PB?

CubanDream

12th June 2014, 03:34

anyway, PB, worker, Haute-B, etc.. whatever , Cuban Dream is still learning, so please don't ban me yet!:)I'm still getting to grips with the whole Marxism v. Liberalism thing....

Danielle Ni Dhighe

12th June 2014, 03:34

Ok - so how do you define those kinds of worker as PB?
Shopkeepers and professionals were defined as petit-bourgeois by Marx. We just have types of professionals now (like athletes) that didn't necessarily exist then.

CubanDream

12th June 2014, 03:36

ok, thanks, I've just printed some pages off about the whole PB, modern day concept, back later after reading

Zoroaster

13th June 2014, 01:11

We don't use "political correctness". The far-left uses a little obscure way of proving things called "facts". You see, long ago, all the liberals, conservatives and capitalists- aw, fuck it, I give up.

Five Year Plan

13th June 2014, 01:40

Most of the more well known Socialist Parties of today (ie: the Trotskyist ones usually) make PC the number one weapon against capitalism. But, how the fig will that actually turn the world red anyhow?

Did the past masters such as Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Chavez actually go down this route - answer NO.

Basically, since when did Social Liberalism replace real Marxian Steel?

I have no idea what you're talking about when you invoke "political correctness," and am equally clueless about what groups you are referring to when you talk about "Trotskyist groups" using this supposed weapon. Could you please clarify?

CubanDream

13th June 2014, 03:16

how about 'Affirmative Action' - what do you make of that?

Slavic

13th June 2014, 03:42

how about 'Affirmative Action' - what do you make of that?

Its a band aid to address the issue of systemic racism in America against minorities.

CubanDream

13th June 2014, 07:11

How about racism against white people, both in the West and abroad?

How about female chauvanism?

Alimony? support or abolish?

How about religious freedom for sharia supporters or hard core Christians?

All of those turn the PC top on its head IMO.

How to tackle?

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

13th June 2014, 07:57

How about racism against white people, both in the West and abroad?

How about female chauvanism?

How about anti-Zorblaxianism because that exists as much as these?

Alimony? support or abolish?

Men's riii~ghts, no wait, the other one.

How about religious freedom for sharia supporters or hard core Christians?

What does that even mean?

CubanDream

13th June 2014, 08:47

How about anti-Zorblaxianism because that exists as much as these?

So I take it you've never lived as a white man in a non-white country then.

Men's riii~ghts, no wait, the other one.

How about making a coherent sentence, preferably with a point to it.

What does that even mean?

Religious freedom - yes or no?

#FF0000

13th June 2014, 10:43

So I take it you've never lived as a white man in a non-white country then.

I can't speak for other countries, but in much (virtually all) of the west, there is no anti-white structural racism. Sure, individuals can be bigoted no matter where you go, but some dude having a problem with white people cannot be weighed the same as prejudice with actual power behind it.

How about female chauvanism?

Where? What form does "female chauvinism" take? Does it change the fact that women have less access to educational resources and job opportunities, on top of the sexism women experience that don't overtly tie to their economic condition?

#FF0000

13th June 2014, 10:44

No. Organize LGBT. But do it on the basis of their class unity, not their sexuality.

Why not? They're oppressed on the basis of both -- so why not organize around both?

Slavic

13th June 2014, 12:34

How about racism against white people, both in the West and abroad?

Racism is wrong no matter the circumstance, but there is no institutional racism against whites in the West nor do I beleive abroad.

How about female chauvanism?

Doesn't exist. There isn't a single society where females are free to act fully as equals as their male counterparts let alone dominate or supress them.

Alimony? support or abolish?

As long as marriage is still utilized as an ecconomic contract within a Capitalist system, alimony is required as a social welfare to protect spouses who take up domestic labor as opposed to typical wage labour. Since domestic labor isn't compensated in capitalist countries, alimony is the next best thing to addreass this issue.

How about religious freedom for sharia supporters or hard core Christians?

They can be free to be as hardcore or fanatic as they want within the confines of their own home. If they take their bigoted and hateful stances into the public then they should at the very least be ostrichised by society at large or physically removed from the public sphere.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

13th June 2014, 15:43

So I take it you've never lived as a white man in a non-white country then.

As it happens, you're wrong, I lived in South Africa, with my pasty corpse complexion (although I looked a bit more like a prawn then), for several weeks, and have family in the country. I never experienced "anti-white racism". I experienced a lot of black and coloured people being reasonably leery of me given the structural oppression of black and coloured people, but not racism.

How about making a coherent sentence, preferably with a point to it.

I'm sorry, but words fail me. Why would we want to abolish alimony as a reform? That's MRA-grade bullshit. What's next, "male rights when it comes to abortion"? I mean good grief.

Religious freedom - yes or no?

The point is that "religious freedom" means a lot of things to a lot of people, from the freedom to practice religion without being whipped for it, which every socialist surely supports, to the liberal notion that structural oppression in "exotic" countries is "part of their culture" that shouldn't be criticised (because of course cultures develop in isolation). Obviously we don't want the bourgeois state to repress even reactionary religions, but this does not mean we abandon the political struggle against all religion and all backwardness.

CubanDream

14th June 2014, 02:54

Where? What form does "female chauvinism" take? Does it change the fact that women have less access to educational resources and job opportunities, on top of the sexism women experience that don't overtly tie to their economic condition?

How do you figure that one out - women have just as much opportunity of going to college in the West as men, what are you referring to here?

CubanDream

14th June 2014, 02:55

re: LGBT people

Why not? They're oppressed on the basis of both -- so why not organize around both?

Because identity politics is a Liberal concept.

CubanDream

14th June 2014, 02:59

As long as marriage is still utilized as an ecconomic contract within a Capitalist system, alimony is required as a social welfare to protect spouses who take up domestic labor as opposed to typical wage labour. Since domestic labor isn't compensated in capitalist countries, alimony is the next best thing to addreass this issue.

Why not just get rid of marriage and alimony then, as it is a capitalist construct, why bother reforming it and helping it to function?

CubanDream

14th June 2014, 03:03

As it happens, you're wrong, I lived in South Africa, with my pasty corpse complexion (although I looked a bit more like a prawn then), for several weeks, and have family in the country. I never experienced "anti-white racism".

I'm sorry, but words fail me. Why would we want to abolish alimony as a reform? That's MRA-grade bullshit. What's next, "male rights when it comes to abortion"? I mean good grief.

Forget South Africa, how about a country that hasn't had apartheid, say East Asian nations, you'll see a lot of social and institutional racism against causcasian people there, why don't you challenge that?

And why not just campaign for the complete abolishment of marriage then

Danielle Ni Dhighe

14th June 2014, 04:03

re: LGBT people

Because identity politics is a Liberal concept.
When we call for LGBT liberation as part of the broader class struggle, what part of that sounds like liberalism to you? LGBT workers are doubly oppressed. Ignoring that we're oppressed as workers is what liberals do. Ignoring that we're oppressed as LGBT people is what socially conservative leftists do.

Danielle Ni Dhighe

14th June 2014, 04:04

Forget South Africa, how about a country that hasn't had apartheid, say East Asian nations, you'll see a lot of social and institutional racism against causcasian people there, why don't you challenge that?
I don't know many posters on here from East Asia. Most of us are from nations where white people are the majority and are thus the perpetrators of systemic racism.

Atsumari

14th June 2014, 04:22

I don't know many posters on here from East Asia. Most of us are from nations where white people are the majority and are thus the perpetrators of systemic racism.
Japan mostly has their racism other Japanese minorities such as the Ainu and other East Asians they once ruled such as the Chinese and Koreans. When the far-right spews their shit, they preach against everyone, but the people they seem to be the most paranoid about are the Zainichi Koreans. When my grandmother was talking to my mother about marriage, she told her not to marry someone who is Chinese, Korean, or black.
Concerning discrimination against whites, this is mostly anecdotal but I have heard of many sex parlors discriminating against non-Asians because they are disrespectful towards sex workers, especially when they are drunk. Also in the red light districts of Okinawa, prostitutes would rather have sex with a dirty old man than a young, sexy, athletic soldier because they are notorious for rape and beating up prostitutes when drunk.
Also, part of the reason why anti-European/American sentiment is not as big Japan as their anti-Korean/anti-Chinese sentiment is because even though the occupation of Japan was brutal, the Americans and Australians eventually left and the Okinawans got stuck with them, an ethnic group in Japan which was not historically Japanese.
The Koreans, many of whom were imported to Japan for slave labor are still there and many of them became affiliated with the yakuza. The Chinese have been pushing their weight around which has made Japan pretty angry while America has remained an ally in all of this.

CubanDream

14th June 2014, 08:40

When we call for LGBT liberation as part of the broader class struggle, what part of that sounds like liberalism to you? LGBT workers are doubly oppressed. Ignoring that we're oppressed as workers is what liberals do. Ignoring that we're oppressed as LGBT people is what socially conservative leftists do.

LGBT'ism is a sexually based issue, NOT a class one.

Some gay people may just as easily be capitalist, b-gois, old Tory, whatever.

May as well say fat, underweight, ugly, unintelligent working class people are doubly oppressed too - why don't you say that.

Why make a special case for those that have a different sexuality?

Sounds like minority power playing to me.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

14th June 2014, 08:42

LGBT'ism is a sexually based issue, NOT a class one.

Some gay people may just as easily be capitalist, b-gois, old Tory, whatever.

May as well say fat, underweight, ugly, unintelligent working class people are doubly oppressed too - why don't you say that.

Why make a special case for those that have a different sexuality?

Sounds like minority power playing to me.

Yeah, unintelligent people are subject to structural violence against them. Or perhaps not. You're just digging yourself deeper.

CubanDream

14th June 2014, 08:46

I don't know many posters on here from East Asia. Most of us are from nations where white people are the majority and are thus the perpetrators of systemic racism.

How does being a majority automatically make you a racial oppressor anyway.

And believe me, xenophobia and nationalism rule in the developing world. Being white there is ok till you have a problem, then you are screwed, how about that, why don't you care about that issue?

CubanDream

14th June 2014, 08:47

Yeah, unintelligent people are subject to structural violence against them. Or perhaps not. You're just digging yourself deeper.

ok, so in your nation, how are LGBT people actually oppressed then?

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

14th June 2014, 08:49

ok, so in your nation, how are LGBT people actually oppressed then?

Housing discrimination, job discrimination, legal restrictions on marriage, adoption, getting beaten up, you know, the works.

CubanDream

14th June 2014, 08:52

But, anyway, most 'western' nations have anti-discrimination laws etc..

Marriage? who cares about that because a Communist should DESTROY that bgois institution anyway!

Adoption? single people can still adopt

getting beaten up? show me a govt law which allows that

Job discrimination - likewise.

housing - likewise

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

14th June 2014, 08:58

What is your nation?

But, anyway, most 'western' nations have anti-discrimination laws etc..

Marriage? who cares about that because a Communist should DESTROY that bgois institution anyway!

Adoption? single people can still adopt

getting beaten up? show me a govt law which allows that

Job discrimination - likewise.

housing - likewise

Most "Western" nations have laws against racial discrimination as well, does that mean racism doesn't exist in "the West"? As if. You're a very poor materialist if you only look at the laws, instead of the situation "on the ground", so to speak.

Where I live is irrelevant; gay and trans* people experience the same issues in every part of the world, plus additional issues depending on the level of development (up to being killed by the state).

And the comment about marriage is hilarious. We also want to abolish wage-labour so I suppose we should stop fighting for higher wages and so on.

CubanDream

14th June 2014, 09:05

still doesn't explain why you aren't campaigning against racism in other countries, against whites or non-whites but perpetrated by non-whites.

and marriage, well if many modern day Trots spent half as much time trying to convert people to their cause, as they did in pushing power minorities forwards, then you'd be getting a lot more votes already I reckon

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

14th June 2014, 09:10

still doesn't explain why you aren't campaigning against racism in other countries, against whites or non-whites but perpetrated by non-whites.

Because racism against whites doesn't exist? Of course, everyone opposes things like anti-Chinese racism in Malaysia or anti-Korean or anti-Ainu racism in Japan, the discrimination against burakumin etc.

and marriage, well if many modern day Trots spent half as much time trying to convert people to their cause, as they did in pushing power minorities forwards, then you'd be getting a lot more votes already I reckon

Who says we want votes? "Power minorities", wow. Perhaps the KPRF really is for you.

CubanDream

14th June 2014, 09:14

Because racism against whites doesn't exist?:laugh: that's gotta be one of the most idealistic posts

try living as a white guy in the slums of Lagos - let me know how that works out for you!

Of course, everyone opposes things like anti-Chinese racism in Malaysia or anti-Korean or anti-Ainu racism in Japan, the discrimination against burakumin etc.so, it's bad to be racist, but only if it's against non-whites? un-real

Who says we want votes? "Power minorities", wow. Perhaps the KPRF really is for you.I"m assuming you mean Com Party of Russia - well, they are not so bad - because in their view most Western notions of individualism are simply products of decadent, affluent liberalism

Yes, the Communist Party of Russia - the enemy of the Trot! perhaps you prefer Putin?

Devrim

14th June 2014, 09:46

Because racism against whites doesn't exist?

I think Armenians may beg to differ.

try living as a white guy in the slums of Lagos

Just as a rough estimate, how many eople would you imagine are in this situation?

Devrim

#FF0000

14th June 2014, 09:50

I think Armenians may beg to differ.

Are they discriminated against because they're Armenian, or because they're "white", though?

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

14th June 2014, 09:52

I think Armenians may beg to differ.

Are Armenians white, though? I mean, I don't think humanity can be accurately described as divided into races so that Armenians are "white" or "Caucasian"; these terms (and the associated social groups) are peculiar to the Americas, Africa and Western Europe, I would say. I'm not sure I would count as white, except if I were to move to the USA or to South Africa. The discrimination of Armenians in Turkey, Azerbaijan and so on is another thing entirely.

Danielle Ni Dhighe

14th June 2014, 09:53

LGBT'ism is a sexually based issue, NOT a class one. Some gay people may just as easily be capitalist, b-gois, old Tory, whatever.
Which is why we talk of LGBT liberation within the class struggle, unlike liberals who choose to ignore class.

Why make a special case for those that have a different sexuality?
Since when is fighting against oppression making a "special case"? That's a right-wing argument (like arguing that LGBT people want "special rights").

#FF0000

14th June 2014, 09:55

How do you figure that one out - women have just as much opportunity of going to college in the West as men, what are you referring to here?

Women are generally seen as less competent than their male peers in certain areas. A woman going for a job or going to study in a field typically considered a "man's job" have a good chance of dealing with sexist bias against them.

For example (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/25/science/bias-persists-against-women-of-science-a-study-says.html?_r=0)

Of course, this does, in a way, go both ways. Men aren't seen as stereotypically caring or nurturing, and so might see discrimination if they were going into the field of Education. However, feminists are against these patriarchal gender roles in general, and the stereotype of "women's work" just so happens to fall in such a way that it covers some of the most insecure and poorly paid labor around.

It seems to me that you have a hella basic and extremely surface-level understanding of these issues, guy.

Danielle Ni Dhighe

14th June 2014, 09:59

But, anyway, most 'western' nations have anti-discrimination laws etc..
They also have labor laws that are supposed to protect workers, but workers remain an oppressed class. You're making a liberal argument that laws passed by a bourgeois state are as far as it's necessary to go.

Devrim

14th June 2014, 10:13

Are Armenians white, though?

http://www.google.cz/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&docid=p21sZiH0sDpbxM&tbnid=HDlYRE_YRfJPVM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pinterest.com%2Fmaraln%2F%25D 5%25BF%25D5%25A1%25D6%2580%25D5%25A1%25D5%25A6-armenian-national-costumes%2F&ei=9g-cU6CaOMTFOcrXgdgM&bvm=bv.68911936,d.ZGU&psig=AFQjCNEmc85AdciK1feJhuzDR7qhJPUeoA&ust=1402823015873081 https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR0AmARzSf0FjX9hq-oJIloxOUtnhA_tynC2r26iaDjeKGp3QK3Pw

I'd say so, yes.

Are they discriminated against because they're Armenian, or because they're "white", though?

Neither, but that is not the point.It was in response to a statement about how racism against whites doesn't exist. I can understand why people say this, but I think that it is very untrue. Of course there are people who are white who are discriminated against because of their ethnic and/or religious background. Another well known example would be Irish Catholics.

It doesn't fit in with the way those on the American left look at race where everything seems to be about colour to the point that they can end up classifying the Irish, of all people, as non-white, but then neither does reality.

Devrim

Danielle Ni Dhighe

14th June 2014, 10:19

It doesn't fit in with the way those on the American left look at race where everything seems to be about colour to the point that they can end up classifying the Irish, of all people, as non-white, but then neither does reality.
When Irish immigrants began arriving in America, nativists didn't consider them white. The same with Italians, Jews, etc.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

14th June 2014, 10:21

http://www.google.cz/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&docid=p21sZiH0sDpbxM&tbnid=HDlYRE_YRfJPVM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pinterest.com%2Fmaraln%2F%25D 5%25BF%25D5%25A1%25D6%2580%25D5%25A1%25D5%25A6-armenian-national-costumes%2F&ei=9g-cU6CaOMTFOcrXgdgM&bvm=bv.68911936,d.ZGU&psig=AFQjCNEmc85AdciK1feJhuzDR7qhJPUeoA&ust=1402823015873081 https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR0AmARzSf0FjX9hq-oJIloxOUtnhA_tynC2r26iaDjeKGp3QK3Pw

I'd say so, yes.

I mean, alright, their skin is "white" and their facial features are similar to what one might expect in Western Europe. But does that make them "white"? My point was that racial classifications are dependent on geography. In South Africa, a distinction between coloureds and blacks is made that does not exist in America, for example. If a coloured person were to go to America they would be counted as black.

When I said that there is no racism against white people I of course meant there is no racism against white people as white people. Just as there is no racism against Slavs as Slavs in Croatia, although almost every Slavic group is discriminated against - but a Serb in Croatia is oppressed because he is a Serb, not because he is a Slav.

I"m assuming you mean Com Party of Russia - well, they are not so bad - because in their view most Western notions of individualism are simply products of decadent, affluent liberalism

Right, "Western notions of individualism" like gay liberation. And "decadence" like homosexuality. Both you and the KPRF are one set of surplus African uniforms away from being stormtroopers.

#FF0000

14th June 2014, 10:40

http://www.google.cz/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&docid=p21sZiH0sDpbxM&tbnid=HDlYRE_YRfJPVM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pinterest.com%2Fmaraln%2F%25D 5%25BF%25D5%25A1%25D6%2580%25D5%25A1%25D5%25A6-armenian-national-costumes%2F&ei=9g-cU6CaOMTFOcrXgdgM&bvm=bv.68911936,d.ZGU&psig=AFQjCNEmc85AdciK1feJhuzDR7qhJPUeoA&ust=1402823015873081 Neither, but that is not the point.It was in response to a statement about how racism against whites doesn't exist. I can understand why people say this, but I think that it is very untrue. Of course there are people who are white who are discriminated against because of their ethnic and/or religious background. Another well known example would be Irish Catholics.

I feel like that's missing the point -- being "white" doesn't mean one can't be discriminated against for anything else. But white people are not, in any instance I can think of, discriminated against for being white.

It doesn't fit in with the way those on the American left look at race where everything seems to be about colour to the point that they can end up classifying the Irish, of all people, as non-white, but then neither does reality.

Devrim

Well, I think that just speaks to how weird "race" is and was in the US, where certain groups who are certainly considered "white" today, weren't at one point.

CubanDream

14th June 2014, 10:41

Quote:
Originally Posted by CubanDream
try living as a white guy in the slums of Lagos

Just as a rough estimate, how many eople would you imagine are in this situation?

Devrim

Few, because it would be untenable.

CubanDream

14th June 2014, 10:44

Since when is fighting against oppression making a "special case"? That's a right-wing argument (like arguing that LGBT people want "special rights").

Ugly people are also oppressed, don't see too many championing them though.

Kind of double standard there.

CubanDream

14th June 2014, 10:47

Women are generally seen as less competent than their male peers in certain areas. A woman going for a job or going to study in a field typically considered a "man's job" have a good chance of dealing with sexist bias against them.

Did it ever occur to that men may actually BE better at science than women - yes, it could be a real fact.

Men tend to think more categorically and step step, quite useful for science.

#FF0000

14th June 2014, 10:48

Ugly people are also oppressed, don't see too many championing them though.

Kind of double standard there.

I dunno dude I hear a lot of people complain about standards of beauty set by media.

CubanDream

14th June 2014, 10:48

It seems to me that you have a hella basic and extremely surface-level understanding of these issues, guy.

not really, I just don't buy all this postmodernist horse manure - a lot of it is only about empowering self-interest groups, merely cant.

#FF0000

14th June 2014, 10:49

Did it ever occur to that men may actually BE better at science than women - yes, it could be a real fact.

Men tend to think more categorically and step step, quite useful for science.

If men are innately good at science, what's your excuse? Because what you're pushing here isn't even remotely backed up by fact. It's stereotyping, plain and simple.

not really, I just don't buy all this postmodernist horse manure - a lot of it is only about empowering self-interest groups, merely cant.

Er, I don't buy into any of it either, nor do I buy into liberal feel-good "lean-in, equality in the board room" feminism. You realize there's more to all of this than that, right?

CubanDream

14th June 2014, 10:51

CubanDream

14th June 2014, 10:54

Right, "Western notions of individualism" like gay liberation. And "decadence" like homosexuality. Both you and the KPRF are one set of surplus African uniforms away from being stormtroopers.

Nonsense - have a look at their political platform, it's very Communist.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

14th June 2014, 10:57

Nonsense - have a look at their political platform, it's very Communist.

They support small business and a "strong Russian state". Even if we ignore their homophobia, misogyny, great-Russian chauvinism etc. they are about as Communist as Ebert and Noske.

Of course, they are also violently homophobic, as has been demonstrated to you in a recent thread. Yet you continue to champion Putin's little helpers, while denying that gay people are oppressed.

Yeah.

#FF0000

14th June 2014, 10:58

good post, and how do they say Irish are non-white, but Hispanics are:confused:

that does not make sense, what's the logic, some Liberal meanderings no doubt

"They" don't say that -- Irish immigrants in the United States were not considered White in the 19th century.

adipocere12

14th June 2014, 11:00

"They" don't say that -- Irish immigrants in the United States were not considered White in the 19th century.

Same was true of the UK. Indeed, the Irish were called "Black"

CubanDream

14th June 2014, 11:02

CubanDream

14th June 2014, 11:04

"They" don't say that -- Irish immigrants in the United States were not considered White in the 19th century.

oh, ok then, so basically it's completely irrelevant.

#FF0000

14th June 2014, 11:09

They are not perfect, admittedly, but they are a step in the right direction, way better than the general capitalist parties of the Western nations.

They support small business and a "strong Russian state".

Sounds like capitalism to me, honestly.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

14th June 2014, 11:10

They are not perfect, admittedly, but they are a step in the right direction, way better than the general capitalist parties of the Western nations.

And let's face it, the majority of Russians have been brought up under communism or the disaster afterwards, thus unexposed to individualism - the liberal mantra.

The KPRF is a capitalist party. Their programme is a plan for the development of the petty business sector in Russia.

And what do you mean by "individualism"?

Devrim

14th June 2014, 11:13

"They" don't say that -- Irish immigrants in the United States were not considered White in the 19th century.

I don't think this is true though. I think this is the American left projecting its current thinking into the past. Certainly the Irish in the nineteenth century were not part of the dominant group, but I don't think that people at the time would have seen them as 'not white'. They would have seen them as 'papists', and 'non-native', but I don't think that they would have classified them as 'not white'.

Devrim

Devrim

14th June 2014, 11:15

When I said that there is no racism against white people I of course meant there is no racism against white people as white people.

Yes, I know. I just think that it is something you have to be very clear about.

Devrim

CubanDream

14th June 2014, 11:16

Here's their platform, democratic socialist perhaps

KPRF

Party program

Under the present conditions in the Russian Federation, the Communist Party believes it is necessary to:[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_the_Russian_Federation#cite_not e-kprf.ru-18)

Stop the extinction of the country, restore benefits for large families, reconstruct the network of public kindergartens and provide housing for young families.
Nationalize natural resources in Russia and the strategic sectors of the economy; revenues in these industries are to be used in the interests of all citizens.
Return to Russia from foreign banks the state financial reserves and use them for economic and social development.
Break the system of total fraud in the elections.
Create a truly independent judiciary.
Carry out an immediate package of measures to combat poverty and introduce price controls on essential goods.
Not raise the retirement age.
Restore government responsibility for housing and utilities, establish fees for municipal services in an amount not more than 10% of family income, stop the eviction of people to the streets, expand public housing.
Increase funding for science and scientists to provide decent wages and all the necessary research.
Restore the highest standards of universal and free secondary and higher education that existed during the Soviet era.
Ensure the availability and quality of health care.
Vigorously develop high-tech manufacturing.
Ensure the food and environmental security of the country and support the large collective farms for the production and processing of agricultural products.
Prioritize domestic debt over of foreign (to compensate for household deposits, burnt in the disastrous years of "reform").
Introduce progressive taxation; low-income citizens will be exempt from paying taxes.
Create conditions for development of small and medium enterprises.
Ensure the accessibility of cultural goods, stop the commercialization of culture, defend Russian culture as the foundation of the spiritual unity of multinational Russia, the national culture of all citizens of the country.
Stop the slandering of the Russian and Soviet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union) history.
Take drastic measures to suppress corruption and crime.
Strengthen national defense and expand social guarantees to servicemen and law enforcement officials.
Ensure the territorial integrity of Russia and the protection of compatriots abroad.
Institute a foreign policy based on mutual respect of countries and peoples to facilitate the voluntary restoration of the Union of States.

The party is in favour of cooperation with the Russian Orthodox Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Orthodox_Church).[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_the_Russian_Federation#cite_not e-22) Unlike the Communist Party of the Soviet Union after 1956 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Personality_Cult_and_its_Consequences), the CPRF celebrates the rule of Joseph Stalin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin).[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_the_Russian_Federation#cite_not e-23) The party supported a ban on the "promotion of non-traditional sexual relations to minors",[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_the_Russian_Federation#cite_not e-24)[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_the_Russian_Federation#cite_not e-25) mostly named a ban on "homosexual propaganda to minors" in Western media.[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_the_Russian_Federation#cite_not e-26)
en.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_the_Russian_Federation#cite_not e-baijp245-11)

CubanDream

14th June 2014, 11:18

The party supported a ban on the "promotion of non-traditional sexual relations to minors",[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_the_Russian_Federation#cite_not e-24)[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_the_Russian_Federation#cite_not e-25) mostly named a ban on "homosexual propaganda to minors" in Western media.[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_the_Russian_Federation#cite_not e-26)
en.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_the_Russian_Federation#cite_not e-baijp245-11)

This does not count as 'gay bashing' by the way.

#FF0000

14th June 2014, 11:20

I don't think this is true though. I think this is the American left projecting its current thinking into the past. Certainly the Irish in the nineteenth century were not part of the dominant group, but I don't think that people at the time would have seen them as 'not white'. They would have seen them as 'papists', and 'non-native', but I don't think that they would have classified them as 'not white'.

Devrim

No, they would have to fill out census papers and that kind of thing as "Irish" and not "white", iirc. Same for Italians, Jews, and certain Eastern European ethnicities. I mean, I don't think this is a "leftist" thing, because I've had plenty of centrist and conservative history teachers who've touched on this fact in American history as well.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

14th June 2014, 11:20

This does not count as 'gay bashing' by the way.

Oh yes it bloody well does. Do you support such a ban?

"Democratic socialist" is what sots-dems who try to be edgy call themselves. The entire programme is social-democratic to a truly staggering extent, along with misogynist, chauvinist and so on.

CubanDream

14th June 2014, 11:23

Minors do not need sexual propaganda, whether hetero or other.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

14th June 2014, 11:28

Minors do not need sexual propaganda, whether hetero or other.

So do you support bans on "homosexual propaganda"?

Sperm-Doll Setsuna

14th June 2014, 11:44

Minors do not need sexual propaganda, whether hetero or other.

You do realise that this "propaganda" is an excuse to blanket ban all information thereto related, right? It's basically that classical conservative religious movement to ban any mentions of sex due to paranoia that it makes people impure.

If you were to be consistent, then no children's programming would ever feature a couple in a relationship, heterosexual or otherwise, as this is sexual propaganda, no school would ever talk about reproduction or sexual education whatsoever, because that is sexual propaganda.

tl;dr, arguing with trolls, useless, etc.

Danielle Ni Dhighe

14th June 2014, 11:45

Ugly people are also oppressed, don't see too many championing them though.

Kind of double standard there.
Ugly people are systematically oppressed? You know, I think the poster who called you out as a troll a few days ago was right.

Danielle Ni Dhighe

14th June 2014, 11:46

Come on, admins, restrict this fool to OI already.

Left Voice

14th June 2014, 11:53

Stop the extinction of the country, restore benefits for large families, reconstruct the network of public kindergartens and provide housing for young families.
Nationalize natural resources in Russia and the strategic sectors of the economy; revenues in these industries are to be used in the interests of all citizens.
Return to Russia from foreign banks the state financial reserves and use them for economic and social development.
Create conditions for development of small and medium enterprises.
Ensure the accessibility of cultural goods, stop the commercialization of culture, defend Russian culture as the foundation of the spiritual unity of multinational Russia, the national culture of all citizens of the country.
Stop the slandering of the Russian and Soviet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union) history.
Strengthen national defense and expand social guarantees to servicemen and law enforcement officials.
Ensure the territorial integrity of Russia and the protection of compatriots abroad.
Institute a foreign policy based on mutual respect of countries and peoples to facilitate the voluntary restoration of the Union of States.

Reading their party platform, they are evidently nationalists who wish to maintain the Russian bourgeoisie. These reactionary policies stand out like a sore thumb.

They want to maintain the Russian state. They want to strengthen nationalism, strengthen Russian culture in opposition to 'foreign' culture, oppose initiatives against the Russian state (essential for efforts towards international socialism), and they also respect the integrity and sovereignty of other bourgeois states.

If there was ever a proletarian revolution in the flavour of the October Revolution, the CPRF would be the first in line to oppose this. They are the definition of reactionary. Evidently Russian nationalists who fight for the Russian bourgeoisie. They would be active opponents of international socialism, as it would be a threat to their Russian nationalism.

They are no communists. You need to do more than nationalise industries and wave a red flag to be a communist.

Devrim

14th June 2014, 12:04

No, they would have to fill out census papers and that kind of thing as "Irish" and not "white", iirc. Same for Italians, Jews, and certain Eastern European ethnicities. I mean, I don't think this is a "leftist" thing, because I've had plenty of centrist and conservative history teachers who've touched on this fact in American history as well.

The 1890 census (the last of the 19th Century with the most options for race) had the following choices; white, black, mulatto, quadroon, octoroon, Chinese, Japanese, or Indian. There is nothing to separate the Irish from other whites here.

Anyway, I don't imagine that there weren't things that were not specific to them. I am old enough to remember NBNI in the UK.

What is a leftist thing though is the whole notion of 'whiteness' as it is used in the US left today.

Devrim