/siberia/ - Off-topic

Because there is a vested interest in fanning the culture war to distract from class issues. So its not like there cant be progress within capitalism, the same way economically progressive policies can be pushed through, but will constantly be under siege by the capitalist class. Progressives can (and must) fight under capitalism, but there can never be final victory under it.

>>818332
capitalism is exploitation. progressivism is based upon the minimization or eradication of exploitation. they're not inherently compatible, but as the anon above has said, progress under capitalism can happen, but it will a constant, grating, iterative battle in the face of resistance from capitalists who want to maintain their status quo.

I'm so fucking tired of the culture war.

>>818333
>>818334
That doesnt make sense a society where everyones a faggot or transhumanist doesnt affect capitalism in anyway.
Capitalism doesnt care at all

>>818332
Because as soon as the bourgeoisie realised that token gestures like this weren't enough and that the demands from progressives would only grow, they swung fully behind reaction.

Moreover it is a question of disposition: progressivism is a matter of high openness and high agreeableness, while capitalism is low agreeableness and social conservatism is low agreeableness, low openness. That is to say on the level of personality capitalists loathe progressives and align more with reactionaries on average.
(And, true to this theory, you'll find that while politics polarises more by education than by wealth, with the archetypal progressive overeducated and underpaid and the archetypal reactionary some kind of petit bourgeois car dealer or landlord or other parasite)

>>818335
>Capitalism doesnt care at all
Empirically that is not true though, is it?

>>818337
>Because as soon as the bourgeoisie realised that token gestures like this weren't enough and that the demands from progressives would only grow, they swung fully behind reaction.
When did this happen?
>Moreover it is a question of disposition: progressivism is a matter of high openness and high agreeableness, while capitalism is low agreeableness and social conservatism is low agreeableness, low openness. That is to say on the level of personality capitalists loathe progressives and align more with reactionaries on average.
You just made this up
>the archetypal reactionary some kind of petit bourgeois car dealer or landlord or other parasite
But this couldnt be more wrong

>>818338
It is true.
Hatred against faggots and transhumanists existed long before capitalism
It is not inherent to or reliant on capitalism.

>>818340
Yeah, nobody claims otherwise. But the question you asked isnt wheather bigotry is exclusive to capitalism.

>>818339
Trump most obviously (it's not like the billionaires of the world have been subtle!), Johnson>Sunak>Starmer + AstroTurf ReformUK in the England, the rise of the far right more generally.

The personality thing is well documented in research. There is a good correlation between political views and big5 traits and a lot of selection effects between academia and commerce.

>>818340
It takes very different forms. See the difference between pre-2010s anti-trans sentiment (basically a variant of homophobia, pretty passive, mostly insensitive jokes) and post-2010s anti-trans sentiment (obsessive rent free movement where evangelicals fund "LGB" AstroTurf charities to try and wokewash their prejudices, actively encouraging people to rope.)

The obsessiveness is the main thing and the thing the internet serves to facilitate.

>>818332
"cultural progressivism" is not real

Because they think capitalism is bad and cultural progressivism is good which is simplistic and naive. Capitalism is historically progressive compared to feudalism and is more often than not a driver of cultural progressivism since it tends to demolish antiquated power structures like patriarchy.

>>818342
>Trump most obviously (it's not like the billionaires of the world have been subtle!), Johnson>Sunak>Starmer + AstroTurf ReformUK in the England, the rise of the far right more generally.
Parties in politics have in general started moving away from being pro-trans simply because its an unpopular policy and they hope it will net them more votes
billionaires and companies will become pro-queer again once democrats win the next presidency.

>It takes very different forms. See the difference between pre-2010s anti-trans sentiment (basically a variant of homophobia, pretty passive, mostly insensitive jokes) and post-2010s anti-trans sentiment (obsessive rent free movement where evangelicals fund "LGB" AstroTurf charities to try and wokewash their prejudices, actively encouraging people to rope.)
Again nothing to do with capitalism.

>>818346
>Parties in politics have in general started moving away from being pro-trans simply because its an unpopular policy and they hope it will net them more votes
>billionaires and companies will become pro-queer again once democrats win the next presidency.
these two ideas are in direct contradiction. do policies become popular/unpopular based on who wins elections or is winning elections based on which policies are popular/unpopular?

>>818346
Even if I granted that on the trans issue (which I don't, it's fucking moronic and assumes no element of astroturfing from the UK media - where even "liberal" papers are anti-trans because the UK's ruling class have driven themselves insane, which is why Labour threw trans people under the bus far more than the Democrats) that's only one part of social progressivism. It could not account for the leader of the Labour party quoting Enoch Powell and generally doing everything in his power to alienate Labour voters to pander to reactionaries who don't vote for him.

Musk, Theil, etc were all anti-democrat when Biden was in office. The idea that they pivot to align with the president rather than themselves try to choose the president is asinine on the face of it. You, the one true anti-capitalist, but believer we have unsullied democracy! Silly, silly, silly!

>>818347
Are you dumb? Thats not what i said.
Companies and billionaires moved away from pro-queer positions because trump administration pressured them and they want to ingratiate themselves with the current administration the next democrat administrationt will do the opposite so companies and billionaires will become pro-queer again

>>818350
Yes, yes, the puppeteer dances to the puppet's tune.

>they've turned back to reaction
<huh like the USA are very mean about trans people and UK media is schizophrenic
Wow, zero change outside the anglo world btw

>>818349
>Even if I granted that on the trans issue (which I don't, it's fucking moronic and assumes no element of astroturfing from the UK media - where even "liberal" papers are anti-trans because the UK's ruling class have driven themselves insane, which is why Labour threw trans people under the bus far more than the Democrats)
Well the biggest reason really is nobody in the uk just like transhumanists at the moment
transhumanists are just very easy to make fun of and insult and point out the ridicilousness of them ans very hard to defend or to make them appear not repulsive or weird to the average person.
>Musk, Theil, etc were all anti-democrat when Biden was in office
Musk used to bo pro-democrat aswell as pro-lgbt or atleast not against either.
During bidens terms there was a massive anti-lgbt and right wing cultural countersurge musks views were probably both genuinely affected by it aswell as seeing it as a way to gain power and influence by being part of the right-wing cultural zeitgeist at the time.
Thiel is just a right-wing libertarian he doesnt care about transhumanists at all hes also gay himself he supports republicans because they advance his material interests transhumanists are just a side-casualty of that.
>The idea that they pivot to align with the president rather than themselves
They align based on both based on both.
Their own beliefs.
And whether there is societal or material gain from those beliefs aswell as the general culture in the enviroment.

>>818351
How did the companies force trump to become anti-queer?

>>818354
Which class does Trump belong to? And members of his admin? Who financially supports them?
Conceptualising the relation between political and business elite as puppet - puppeteer is very reductive of course, but republican party is party of and for openly reactionary sections of bourgeoisee.

>>818357
>Which class does Trump belong to?
Whys it matter? Pro and trans people exist in all classes.
>but republican party is party of and for openly reactionary sections of bourgeoisee.
Okay and?

There is nothing progressive about Marxism, whose creators referred to Urnings as pederasts, Russians as a Muscovite horde, and Black people as belonging in a zoo.
Even in economic terms, Marxism did not invent anything new.

>>818359
Oh I get it, you are a uyghur whose goal is just to do epic trolling and waste peoples time

>>818384
>Mental illness under the guise of progress
Is it regressive to remind people that we cannot change our genetics at the switch of a button?

Marxism did invent a new economic paradigm of public oriented mass planning, concentrated development, welfare states, state capitalism, scientific industrial complex and other social engineering technologies. If you want to be really esoteric, Marxism is advanced feudalism.

>>818384
the sharty doesn't raid libpol enough

>>818353
The UK hates transgender people because… the UK hates transgender people. Really? That's the best you've got? It's easy to make fun of and insult transgender people and they're repulsive and weird to the "average person", yet across the developed world the UK is the only one where the centre left party is just as hostile to transgender people (if not moreso) than the centre-right or far-right one.
(In one amusing incident, Reform's justice spokesperson - backed by Farage himself after the fact - said trans female prisoners should be individually risk assessed before being put in women's prisons, which is more progressive than Labour's policy that trans women should always be put in men's prisons… not that Reform was actually trying to be progressive, they just hadn't got the memo that they could be even nastier.)

It's not like it's hard to come up with ad-hoc theories. The UK is anomalous in lots of ways! (unique levels of wage stagnation, uniquely debased press, uniquely debased political system even by bourgeois politics standards, uniquely broken economy, unique in having decided to ditch its largest trading partner for no real reason, unique in picking a 40 day dud prime minister, and with few rivals for how many prime ministers its cycled through in the last decade…)

>>818384
Even if this was true of early Marxists, it is not true of modern marxists, who overwhelmingly have progressive social views.
Liberals need to understand that communists share a more extreme version of liberal psychology. They should not be hostile. If you want to win over communists, don't try to wind them up (That'll just affirm that communism is correct while providing ammunition to little freaks who want based reactionary communism), you should point out that you agree entirely with their ends but are very pedantic about means, or give them lots of interesting little theoretical frameworks to chew over which are useful for explaining actually-existing phenomena, or point to Deng (for example) to illustrate that the two are in fact perfectly compatible. You can even wean people by pointing to the obvious ways in which Liberalism develops the means of production setting the stage for eventual communism in the very-very long run. Besides, isn't killing people awful? Some communists have fantasies of killing and crushing their opponents, sure, but not all. "You can have all that and not have to hurt anybody" would win over more people than you think - You get more flies with honey!

p.s. "more trans fighter pilots" is the most egregious one here. no! this isn't even good liberalism! the military is fundamentally unjust. the slogan of the old Liberal party was "peace, retrenchment and reform" for a reason. liberals used to understand that a standing army is a tool of kings, tyrants and despots! every penny spent on the military is a penny that would unambiguously better be allocated to tax cuts, and I can say that full-heartedly whether that's as a liberal, a social democrat, a socialist or a communist.

>>818352
people are talking about their own countries instead of countries they dont live in and thus have less knowledge about

>>818406
Okay and what does any of this have to do with capitalism

>>818411
I could tell you, but then I'd have to shoot you.

>>818389
Yeah, but Cuba became capitalist.

>>818406
I didn't expect to see a serious answer. Thx!

>>818332
>Why do so many leftists believe
idk, because they are stupid? name some people. shame them. tired of the vagueposting.
>cultural progressivism is incompatible with capitalism?
it obviously isn't incompatible.

Anyway, just because cultural progressivism can be co-opted by the bourgeoisie, does not mean it should be opposed as essentially bourgeois. Not that you were saying that. Do you think that? I certainly hope not.

>>818332
this is why there should be a robust anti-pride movement in the LGBTQIA+ community to establish a solidarity not based on corporate pride but class struggle

>>818419
To say that Cuba is capitalist now is ridiculous. They liberalized specific aspects of their economy, but it's still overwhelmingly a centrally planned economy. It still has the highest percentual worker cooperative workforce in the world; the state still the Communist Party still has the veto power over firms; the state still imposes price caps on basic necessities and directly controls the distribution of many items; and so forth.

>>818440
>anti-pride movement in the LGBTQIA+ community
Oxymoron. The word LGBTQIA+ itself sounds bourgeois.

>>818440
No, this is retarded. The LGBTQ movement is perfectly compatible with communism. It's a healthy movement in Cuba.

>>818446
Thou art full right friend! we shold out-root all Frankish sway on English, for it sweggeth townish.

>>818450
I don't get it, but why can't we just say "sexual minorities" instead of "LGBTABCD123+++"? The word "sexual" can be used in the context of both sex and sexual orientation. That's much better than trying to include everyone in an acronym.
The only problem is translation into other languages.

>>818393
A thread has been created from this post
>>>/leftypol/2900346

>>818446
it's an acronym, not a word, and it's not bourgeois, it has no class content, it only has identitarian content. Like the word "Christian" only refers to someone's religious identity, they may be of any class. Same thing here.
>>818447
that's not a pride movement, that's just solidarity between LGBTQIA proletarians. It is actually a perfect example of pro-solidarity anti-pride. What use is identitarian "pride?" We should have pride in our accomplishments, but identity is not an accomplishment. It is not a bad thing either. Nobody's bad for being LGBTQIA, but it shouldn't be seen as a pride worthy accomplishment. It can definitely be seen as marginalized, and worthy of solidarity on that basis, and part of the class struggle to the extent that there are LGBTQIA workers, but really there is no "pride" needed. I don't even understand the use of "proletarian pride" I am very anti-pride because it has no real positive content for any liberation struggle. The struggle is for liberation, not for "pride"

>>818496
>I don't get it, but why can't we just say "sexual minorities" instead of "LGBTABCD123+++"?
because asexual and nonbinary people aren't really sexual minorities. if anything they reject being part of sexual categories. and intersex people are actually just biologically rare, but it isn't a sexuality either. And if you just say "sexual minorities" reactionaries get to counter with "ummm pedophiles are sexual minorities are you including them?" and other bad faith arguments… but they were gonna do that anyway.

>>818496
Obvious and simple reason: because people have already standardised on LGBT or variations thereof. the important thing about a standard is that it's a standard, not necessarily that it's the best one.
More complicated reason I explain purely because I find it interesting: As a general rule people don't like to say "sex" if they can avoid it.
(hence the general drift from "sex" to "gender" even independent of rising awareness of transgenderism, and the shift from "transsexual" to "transgender", and of course "gay/lesbian/LGBT" beating "homosexual/homosexuality", though in that case aided by the alternatives also being shorter and snappier.)
You could fix that by making an acronym, but SM is too close to S&M and any other set of words you grab will run into problem one: we already have a standard acronym.

As to the point of the other post: French terms generally sound posh in English, while Germanic ones sound common. If we're going to penalise words for sounding "bourgeois", lots of French-derived terms (including "bourgeois" itself) will have to be "out-rooted".

>>818502
The point of pride is surely to emphasise that something isn't shameful when there's an underlying presupposition that it is. e.g. if someone is in the closet out of shame, it's useful to see other people with functioning lives go "not only am I gay, not only am I not ashamed of being gay, I'm proud of being gay". The pride is more stated and signalled than necessarily felt.
(In a more progressive society where that's as silly as Victorian prudishness, it'd just be something of an artefact title.)

>>818503
Did I not express myself clearly? "Sexual" also refers to SEX (gender). How can an interSEX be excluded from that term?
>And if you just say "sexual minorities" reactionaries get to counter with "ummm pedophiles are sexual minorities are you including them?"
To begin with, I don't understand why you want to include people with libido issues (asexuals) in the category of sexual minorities, even if the roots are the same. I’m not a moralfag, but I don't think paraphilias (aka fetishes aka kinks) belong under the umbrella of sexual minorities.

>>818507
Your mind should be put in a jar and studied.

>>818393
>Is it regressive to

everything that people say on this site is regressive. every discussion is armchair intellectuals marching backwards full speed ahead and getting dumber by the second.

>Why do so many leftists believe cultural progressivism is incompatible with capitalism?

because capitalism is effectively just private sector authoritarianism. under a capitalist system you don't have any rights at work, you don't have any kind of leverage at work, you have bosses and they have bosses and there's a whole chain of command all the way up to the owners/ceos and they are all completely unaccountable and you must do what they say at all times, the place you work in and the computers and the software and the tools and the machinery and the office chairs and the file cabinets and the red swingline staplers and all the other things you use for your work are all company property and you don't control any of it, the company knows who their competitors are and what options you have for other sources of employment at any given time, they know exactly what options they have when it comes to replacing you at any given time, they know exactly how much you earn after taxes and what kind of house you live in and what kind of car you drive, they know you have a mortgage and a car loan and bills and expenses and maybe even a few kids at home who are depending on you for everything, they know how precarious your position is and how disastrous it would be for you to lose your job and how sickeningly terrified you are of that eventuality, they know exactly how much wiggle room they have with what few flimsy legal protections you do have, they know that are just a person and you don't have a legal department like they do and you don't have the time or the money to hire lawyers and file lawsuits and spend years of your life arguing in courtrooms, they know that even if you did sue them and win that you would effectively be blacklisted from any future employment in your career field and no company would ever hire you again, and they know that you know all of this too. and this is where you spend most of your waking hours, 9:00 am to 5:00 pm monday through friday and maybe weekends too, this is the bulk of your life and the time you have to yourself after work you are physically or mentally exhausted and you don't have the energy to do much else but eat dinner and have a few drinks and watch tv or play videogames, and all of the money you earn that doesn't toward paying your loans and your bills or putting away in your savings you spend on buying things you need, or things you don't need, from a handful of other unaccountable private companies which are huge monopolies that have no real competition and they spy on you and know everything about you and can sell you low-quality mass-produced garbage at exorbitant prices because they know you have no other options and that you are spiritually broken and don't really care anymore. this is essentially just 1984 with winston working his soul-sucking job at the ministry of truth and standing in line in the commissary as they dump a ladle full of putrid grey slop onto his tray and listening to the other identically-dressed drones babble on about some insipid bullshit and going home to drink his rotgut in front of the telescreen and everything he says and does is being monitored every minute of every day, only it's under the guise of the so-called "free market" and instead of the thought police taking you to jail where you get beaten and tortured by the guards and get branded an enemy of the party and rendered an unperson if ever you get out of line, you get fired from your job and then you lose your home and your car and your family and you default on your debts and your child support payments and then the regular police take you to jail where you get beaten and raped by the inmates and get branded a deadbeat and a convict and rendered an unperson if you ever get out of line.

>>822703
This has nothing to do with "cultural progressivism"

>>822705

do you not see the connection between regular mainstream cultural majority working people being deprived of basic human dignity and autonomy, and marginalized cultural minorities being deprived of their dignity and autonomy? or the whole ingroup-vs-outgroup dynamic at play and how the mainstream cultural majority and their ingroup status and the limited privileges that it provides serve as a very effective form of leverage for cajoling them and manipulating them and keeping them in line and even turning them into a mercenary army against the aforementioned outgroup, and that the outgroup simultaneously serve as a very convenient lightning rod for the ingroup's dissatisfaction? or how behavioral conformity is a key component of any kind of authoritarian system, including capitalism, and that to control people and exploit them and enslave them and advertise to them and mass-market products and ideas to them, you need them all to look and behave and think alike, or at the very least be easily categorized?

you've got westoid pedantic neckbeard thinking that operates on rigid predetermined paths and separates everything into neat discrete categories and never dares to connect dots or color outside the lines or see the wood for the trees. you've got to get out of that, forget about the rules, tear up your books and throw out the pages, run naked through the streets screaming and throwing your feces at people and smashing windows on police cars, be wild and free and let your imagination soar.