/lgbt/ - LGBT

>>8309
the professional managerial class does it again

>>8309
I remember when I was banned om the queer thread many, many moons ago by a non-queer mod for daring to complain about the pink bourgeoisie. Then there are articles like this where any sense to hide their class interests (i.e. failing to mask it with identiterian interests). The foremost divide is along class, everything else comes after.

>>8311
>>8312
The new Stonewall chair is Kezia Dugdale, who utterly flopped with the PMC (and everyone else) when she was leader of Scottish Labour.
(She did so badly that the Conservatives became the second biggest party in Scotland!)

Britain cannot adequately be explained by the class interests of the bourgeoisie as-such alone. Britain is a semi-feudal shithole where solid chunks of its economy are in fake markets created by and regulated by the state. Britain would be a much better country if it were run by the international bourgeoisie instead of its weirdly parasitic, reactionary ruling class and to a lesser extent, boomer pensioner landlord class. The Conservative party itself, the natural party of the bourgeoisie, is at deaths door now because it pivoted from serving the class interests of the bourgeoisie to the class interests of reactionary pensioners and a handful of government cronies only.

Dugdale falls closer to PMC than bourgeoisie, incidentally. She has bounced around politics and NGOs but never run a business or been exposed to the market. Her behavior can still be explained by class interests (she wants to keep her nice NGO job and add "did a good job" to her CV for the next one, Stonewall wants to stop being punishment-beaten by the UK establishment for being pro-trans.)

>>8349
>international bourgeoisie
So….. an oligarchy.

>>8349
holy fuck leftards are so annoying. no uygha a rich country thats had fully developed capitalism for over half a century and was one of the pioneers of neoliberalism isnt fucking "semi-feudal" jackass. also the middle classes are just the lower end of bourgeois society. bourgeois doesnt just mean the monopoly man!

>>8369
all bourgeois are international once they get big enough

The LGB"T" always has and always will prioritize cis kweers over transsexuals. All cis people are the same regardless of who they fuck.

>>8371
You realize that you need solidarity to survive right? Like in literal terms. You need cis allies.

>>8370
Ruling classes and the international bourgeoisie are both reactionary.

>>8369
odd reply
yes: britain would be better run by foreign oligarchs, if that's how you're putting it.

>>8370
a country with a literal monarchy where the ruling class are deeply intermarried and impenetrable is best described as semi-feudal.

the idea britain pioneered neoliberalism is also basically a misnomer. in British terms, real neoliberalism has never been tried. Other than some token moves in finance and the airline industry, the vast majority of industries were not deregulated, and firms were generally privatised into highly regulated sectors roleplaying as a market, cut out to give jobs to (who else) parasitic golden-boys who couldn't actually cut it in the real world! Thatcher pioneered the vibes-based part of it and the reactionary security-state parts of it, sure, but Britain would sooner go "socialist" (with their boys on the planning committee, naturally) than allow the free market to upset the social order. even the so-called bourgeois democracy is a joke - Americans get more political input at elections than Britons have been allowed after they misused the privilege in 2017.

it should also be noted that britain is an actively undeveloping country, having undergone the longest wage stagnation since the 1700s, totally stagnant productivity, and a GDP per capita that'll be overtaken by fucking Poland by the end of the decade.
no subject matter knowledge, no right to speak.

>>8382
shut the fuck up pseud. your definition is so retarded it would disqualify neoliberalism's strongest soldier, fucking pinochet, of being a neoliberal lmao

also feudalism isnt "when monarchies", jfc. capitalism can take many forms, whatever helps the accumulation and flow of capital, the existence of a monarchy doesnt negate this bc thats not what separates feudalism from capitalism lol

>>8382
hello i think this site is cool.

>>8382
>>8349
The main characteristic of capitalism is that all production is geared towards commodity production and the existence of a monarchy doesn't change that. Have you even read Capital volume 3?

>>8311
They're just lavender compradors, not really different from pink, Black, Red and Brown compradors.

>>8382
>>8349
There needs to be a different word for imperialist countries like "co-semi-feudalism" or "co-colonialism". It's true that these countries create and perpetuate regressive structures but the material base is in the colonies and so on.>>8312

>>8384
My definition in no way disqualifies Pinochet, who deregulated and privatised many sectors and while he often sold state assets to allies, on the whole he exposed the economy to more market discipline than before. This is not true of Thatcher, Major or Blair, who preferred state-direction role-playing as the market.

The key point that I have tried to emphasize is that the UK is NOT acting in a way that helps the accumulation or flow of capital, that this is a result of its own anomalous social structure, and that if Britain were run in such a way it would be less reactionary than it is now.

>>8389
Let's try this: insofar as the UK is oriented towards commodity production, and insofar as services are taken to be a commodity, a disproportionate share of commodity production in britain is effectively produced for the state, to state specifications, not for a market. This is papered over with role-playing.