Popdsopdpods0
This is a work in progress and I have to find more perspectives and insight on this so be patient
The Ruling class also includes:
Movement , anti populist, elites/PMCs
The west is made up of anti blackness structures that continue to oppress blacks in new ways since so called emanicipation. These anti blackness structures are part of the below mentioned ruling class's plan to continue to criminalize and outlaw blackness
Moreover patriarchy is directly tied to the below mentioned ruling class' and the only way to abolish patriarchy and give true equality to women is to abolish Capitalism, neoliberalism and our current apparatus
This is the political payload of idpol and I am against it: to bait the working class into supporting the class enemy while also cementing an alliance between the ruling class, the Liberal 2.0 upper middle class, and members of "diverse communities."
However, some aspects of Idpol are good because it makes the ruling class look like totally weak and foolish freaks in the eyes of the common man and common woman
“They tell us that we live in a great free republic; that our institutions are democratic; that we are a free and self-governing people. This is too much, even for a joke. But it is not a subject for levity; it is an exceedingly serious matter.”
- Eugene Debs, Works of EV Debs
Leftists and Liberals probably don't like Stoicism, and doubly so since the rightoids claim it. They believe to be stoic you never work on fixing the issues of the world and constantly only work on fixing yourself. Two of the more famous Stoics were politicians. Nelson Mandela was also a stoic. He said that stoicism got him through prison and assisted him in not hating the white minority as a whole, but instead hating the white ruling elite that were behind apartheid. This sounds pretty based and anti-idpol in my opinion
The Democratic Party, which is the oldest pro-capitalist party in the world, is essentially indistinct from the Republicans—indeed, as representatives of different factions of the capitalist ruling class, the two parties merely differ in their optics and counterrevolutionary tactics. Workers must therefore at least toy with the idea of equally and soundly rejectng both parties and to refrain from voting for either.
To be sure, the working class will never free itself from capitalist domination by voting for the latter's political representatives.
In the US, Fascism is closely linked to white supremacy and it shows itself in a lot of institutions and cultural tendencies. Fascism is the ruling class’s last resort, which it uses to try to smash all working-class organizations. (workers.org/fascism/)
It goes to show that for the Americans there's no such thing called radical leftism/anti-system stance as a result of the efforts of the ruling class successfully eradicating any trace of Communist activity from the history of the country, now it just exists as some kind of bogeyman, something scary but mysterious which nobody knows anything about.
In the UK there was something on the order of a moral panic in recent times due to the fact that it turned out that poor white kids were doing worse (worse in attending higher education) than poor kids who were of other ethnicities. (link for London figures).
Numerous explanations were put forth and some of it is in fact material differences but a portion of it (from experience) is the attitude to education. There's a strangely self-destructive hostility to education in some quarters which (if you believed in conspiracy theories) you could assume had been consciously crafted by the ruling class to stop people rising above their station.
Things such as workers unions, community firearm safety training and beginning neighborhood watches, creating solidarity with other racial groups as opposed to the constant infighting. Odd how this sort of stuff is never on the forefront of neoliberal politics, and it even appears like it threatens the ruling class…?
“A danger, however, is that, when reckoning with the past becomes too much like allegory, its nuances and contingencies, its essential open-endedness, can disappear.
Then history can become either a narrative of inevitable, progressive unfolding to the present or, worse, a tendentious assertion that nothing has ever changed, and both divesting the past of its discrete foreignness and contingency or reducing it to the warm-up act for the present are handmaidens of ruling class power.
The danger of that tendency is especially great in moments of ruling class triumphalism such as this one” Adolph Reed Jr., The South: Jim Crow and Its Afterlives (2022), chapter 5.
We can go on and on in that regard. Black Lives Matter is going to reach its own fork in the road and see which way it goes. Now, if in fact we can somehow have a stronger wing of the black freedom movement — the Black Lives Matter that’s not co-opted and then has solidarity with other serious left groups — then we got a chance to bring some serious power and pressure to bear. And that’s where the threat actually is.
The fundamental threat to the status quo is a genuine political solidarity, rooted in an integrity that calls for the transfer of power and resources.
Because in the end, the fundamental threat to the status quo is a genuine political solidarity, rooted in an integrity that calls for the fundamental transfer of power and resources, from the ruling classes to everyday people. And you always hope and pray it’s not a violent thing, but the violence is always already a part of it. Because it’s institutionalized before you even start the dialogue. Police and others are committing various kinds of violations too often. But that’s the question of the great Sheldon Wolin, his great book on fugitive democracy. He was very pessimistic about this kind of thing.
Ernesto Cortez said, well, I got to stay local; I got to stay the civic organizing. The public organizing and the political organizing has to be rooted in neighborhoods, because there’s too much money and power at the national level in the empire. That’s what the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF) is about. Jeffrey Stout has written the great classic on this, Blessed Are the Organized. That ought to be much more well read, in terms of the centrality of organizing for alternatives.
You see, the young people who are concerned about organizing, that’s the book to read. And he’s there with IAF, he’s there with those folk who are on the ground. And Black Lives Matter, magnificent organizers, they got the spirit of Ella Baker. And that’s a very different kind of spirit than the spirit of a Martin King. King is magnificent, we love him, and he gives these great speeches and things. But he’s in and out of town, Ella’s on the ground, and she’s transgenerational (former President Teddy Roosevelt talked about fighting for poc rights being a generational thing)
And she got that spirit, you can’t organize without having the right kind of spirit. You got to get your soul intact to get fortified. This ain’t no three-day demonstration, this is a year, this is a life commitment. And I think we do have a chance. Because in the end, it’s going to be as Noam Chomsky says, “On the global level, it’s internationalism or extinction.” If we don’t have solidarity around the world, then the elites at the top, with their greed, will blow up the whole planet, given the ecological catastrophe. And nationally, it’s going to be solidarity or self-destruction.
The function of the pseudo-science of Establishment economics, even more than making predictions for the ruling class (as did the Imperial Roman augurs), is to mystify and confuse the ruled class as to where their wealth is going and how it is taken. An explanation of how people can keep their wealth and property safe from the State, then, is Counter-Establishment economics, or Counter-Economics[26] for short. The actual practice of human actions that evade, avoid, and defy the State is counter-economic activity, but—in the same sloppy way that “economics” refers both to the science and what it studies—“counter-economics” will undoubtedly be used. Since this writing is Counter-Economic theory itself, what will be referred to as Counter-Economics is the practice
This is a description of our present society. We are “home.”
we now perceive something else: large numbers of people who are acting in an agorist manner with little understanding of any theory but who are induced by material gain to evade, avoid, or defy the State. Surely they have potential?
In the Soviet Union, a bastion of arch-statism and a nearly totally collapsed “official” economy, a giant black market provides the Russians, Armenian, Ukrainian and others with everything from food to television repair to official papers and favors from the ruling class.
Whiteness along with racism, and race itself are interrelated social fictions which serve a long term strategy by the ruling class of divide-and-conquer .They all have to be understood, and the ruling class has to be dismantled entirely which will cause them to no longer by extension. https://jbattalora.com/white-people-did-not-exist-until-1681/. Apartheid states makes this more obvious which includes the US until a half century ago
Populism unifies people instead of pitting them against each other. We need the radlib, representative pol minded Liberal 2.0ers (like Dr Kendi, Hannah Nicole Jones, Rachel Cargle, Cedric Robinson, the NEA) to join with Center right populists and apoliticals to take down the ruling class because the ruling class is the enemy of all those factions
The not so long history is that capital demolished the socialist movement and the trade unions in the 1970s and in the 1980s. If there isn’t anymore reason to divide the working class like pitting various groups within the working class against each other -- since the working class has lost, then the ruling class can and will grant the political demands of those who are oppressed (becoming previously-oppressed) social formations: BIPOC, women, LGBTQs, etc.
Because why would they not? There is no objective reason, in so much as the market economy is concerned, why should it not do this. Now, I want to make it clear that these political demands were/are legit in their own ways.
However that is the causal, materialist explanation for the question for why economic liberalization creates social liberalization. But I believe also that this creates "right-wing populism" and what I am describing here as a kind of psychosis:
But I don't believe that this is actually how these things work. My viewpoint is that economics are at the core and that politics, culture, etc. are all downstream from that.
The not so long history is that capital demolished the socialist movement and the trade unions in the 1970s and in the 1980s. If there isn’t anymore reason to divide the working class like pitting various groups within the working class against each other -- since the working class has lost, then the ruling class can and will grant the political demands of those who are oppressed (becoming previously-oppressed) social formations: BIPOC, women, LGBTQs, etc.
Because why would they not? There is no objective reason, in so much as the market economy is concerned, why should it not do this. Now, I want to make it clear that these political demands were/are legit in their own ways.
However that is the causal, materialist explanation for the question for why economic liberalization creates social liberalization. But I believe also that this creates "right-wing populism" and what I am describing here as a kind of psychosis:
I second the analysis that the conservative psychosis is born of the fact that, in spite of their electoral wins, the broader culture never leans in their direction.
So, they are stuck in ideology, really. Think back before that, the economic liberalization of the last half of the 20th century, capitalist regimes divided the working class along a lot of different lines, granting political and social benefits to specific groups within that class: white men of a normal Christian background basically.
Industrial shop floors were segregated with African American employees that were given lower paying jobs. LGBTQ people couldn’t be out at work, and if they were out they could not climb the corporate ladder. Women were also segregated into jobs that didn’t pay as much as unionized factory jobs for men, even though obviously women worked in these places too.
The previously-dominant groups currently declining, at least in relatively, as capitalism restructures itself.
This creates an opening for right-wing populists to divert anger from this and place it on the signifers of these changes: the many social groups that provoke the right-wing populists‘ resentment.
However this does not actually do anything whatsoever to reverse the changes since it is just focused on attacking the signifiers, as the right wingers have no class or material analysis.
Well if anything, the reaction further binds these groups who are targeted to the ruling hegemony due to the fact that the hegemony offers to protect them from the right-wing nationalist and/or populist backlash.
Judith Butler denounced antisemitic manifestations of Zionism found inside of the Trump junta. Butler claims that Steve Bannon is both a "strong Zionist" and that "his antisemitism apparently does not get in the way of his support for the Israeli state, and that his supporters in the Israeli government do not seem to mind."
Judith Butler claims that some parts of right-wing Zionism are a manifestation of white supremacy, due to the white Ashkenazi ruling class in Israel making alliances with right-wing politicians in various countries on the basis of common anti-Arab racism, anti-Palestinianism, and Islamophobia. (there is nothing wrong with Israel or any country having an Ashkenazi ruling class or having such a ruling class make bipartisan pacts with right wing politicians as long as those pacts are non hierarchical, egalitarian and NOT anti-Arab racist, anti-Palestinianism, or Islamophobic)
There is some possibility the pendulum that it will start swinging back in few years and I wish we could simply full stop in the middle where every person treats the other person as individuals but it appears like it's quite difficult to sustain that with our ruling class that wants us to hate each others guts. I believe that the ruling class will simply ride the pendulum swings and make them as extreme as they can get
Hypocrisy is a meme, utilized by people who have no power. It's not about principles - pundits and media outlets have none other than serving the ruling class - it's only about power.
It's LOL how those who define themselves as anti-system always supports the ruling class while pretending to be against it.
I think the beginning of the problem is globalization breaking down into class warfare by the ruling class as the liberal 2.0 end of history and its democratic peace was killed. This class warfare has numerous fronts ranging from the Western rural petit bourgeoisie to Eastern nations and in the south of Europe to the colonized periphery itself (definitely emergent countries such as Russia and China). Harmed the most by this warfare is the working class and the oppressed persons among them. The consequence of this, is this global class warfare by the liberal 2.0 bourgeoisie which has generated a large variety of reactions, some progressive and some reactionary.
But this is an old story even Karl Marx dealt with (he wrote more than his fair share about reactionary anti-capitalism). What I find odd here is a missing piece from when this was an issue previously. When Marxists had to do something about reactionary opposition to capitalism and imperialism, specifically in the anti-colonial struggle, the answer was easy: promote the leadership of the working class and move movements of the people leftward.
The answer here remains seemingly easy. There is one uniform type of class warfare that originates from the crisis of the 20th century's liberal 2.0-unipolar determination of imperialism. The role of the left is in moving the movements this creates leftward, arguing anything that falls short of working class leadership is doomed to be defeated by liberal 2.0ers or simply create another type of class warfare (effortlessly dinged as racial warfare thanks to the nature of the right wing populists). Anything that does not comply is left behind.
CSS: forced labor is not a defining characteristic of slavery, if he says that naked violence is one of the key elements of social death, which is slavery, and if the violence directed at Blacks is not based on, as you said, this person transgressing in some way, being disobedient in some way, refusing to consent in some way to what the ruling class thinks or does, then why is violence freely directed at Blacks? What is the reason that the non-white or the master in the master/slave relation treats Blacks violently?
It is also extremely important to note how ‘American Thought’ benefits from American imperialism and its worldwide supremacy. American imperialism helps it spread mostly through social networks, popular culture and “independent” media, imposing itself, just like the USA, as the sharia police of this little socio-political scene on the international level. Or to put it in short: The World exists only if you look at it through the eyes of the American left.
Social networks are crucial for spreading of ‘American Thought’ not only because they promote simplified expression, but also they are simplifying language itself which suits this narrative of theoretical simplification and poverty. Also, social networks allow certain academics, who have not published anything genuine or important in their lives and that cannot even grasp the basics of their own academic disciplines, to gain attention and a following just by saying “shocking things” on the Internet.
I am talking about cases such as George Ciccariello-Maher’s “white genocide” stunt or Michael Rectenwald’s stunt to get full time employment at New York University. Narcissistic need for constant attention is certainly one of the most important missions of ‘American Thought’, but unlike academia of the past it is unable to fulfil its basic social purpose: to educate and to develop theory.
Even though, one could point out that they are still developing theory that serves the agenda of the ruling class in this present capitalist epoch with its identarian and individualist discourse. Also, this narcissism is present in activist circles too and one of the worst examples of that were “thinkpieces” regarding recent murder of Heather Heyer.
By influence, leadership, and consent he means the influence of the ruling class—not the influence of one person or another, but the influence of a class—the leadership of its ideas—which is to say the idea of meritocracy, which was a very bad idea for a Marxist—and the consent of the working class to that influence and those ideas. What he sought to do was to find ways to break the spontaneous consent to those ideas.
Once he could break the spontaneous consent to those ideas, then the working class of a Western, so-called devout country like Italy would be able to see what Marxists think of as the antagonism between them and the ruling class.
Then it would move from a passive revolution to a real revolution, which would be a violent overthrow of the state. The European Gramscians actually leave out that last part, the violent overthrow of the state, but that was actually his dream.
CSS: Okay, so then we have on the one hand force and on the other we have consent. We have the force of the ruling class and we have consent, which you’re suggesting if it is withheld, if it is abrogated to such an extreme degree, there might be social and political revolution. But how does, in Antonio Gramsci’s conception, hegemony normally work in terms of the relationship between force and consent in a nominally stable society?
Related links
Comments
Post a Comment