Bigots are not incorrect when they say this system is for them, because it is,
Not really. It’s less against them than it is against people lower on the pecking order, and that makes them happy because that means they get to shit on people, but they too get fucked by those above them. Most bigots do not live happy lives. They live in houses designed to make them sad, working jobs designed to make them feel meaningless, interacting with people through institutions designed to make them lonely.
Maintaining white supremacy requires fascism to get funded and leftist movements to get violently suppressed because people can swap out their social narratives. Bigots can learn to see the advantages of mutual aid, and then quietly bury their bigoted behavior because it would mean they get less aid.
White bigots are being tricked into believing they’re better off getting physically abused by underpaid interns in a privatized care facility than being an elder in a small multigenerational commune where everyone shares their meals and works according to their ability. It takes constant effort to keep them convinced that the first is the best they can hope for; the “only realistic possibility”.
Jesus fucking Christ with you people. A great example of a liberal who thinks that people can only see what you show them.
Material security is a fucking privilege. The fact that people are miserable doesn’t mean they aren’t privileged. And why do you think they are privileges? Hm? Where did they get the idea that they are? Is here, perhaps, good reason to think that in the white settler state? Hmmm, almost like the entire fucking country was designed to the benefit of people like them, specifically.
The amount of Canadians in this thread who pretend to not get what this place is is getting on my nerves. They know they’re miserable, nobody is having fun, they want to be secure and they know they can get that by being bigoted because that’s how they fucking got what they have.
It’s obvious that many of you warp reality to parse some sense of empathy or understanding for these people, and it shows that you clearly don’t care about the people who are victimized. Everyone has bigots in their family, you have to learn to understand they’re sad people and also that nobody is going to force them to be otherwise, they’re still a threat. This piece of shit country was about to elect an explicitly trans-genocidal PM before Trump stole the election for Carney, maybe you shouldn’t say anything about this if these people weren’t about to fucking kill you. No, they aren’t being tricked, they’re adults, grow the fuck up.
Neither a Canadian, nor a liberal, nor disagreeing with your general point that Canada is a white steller colonial project in which whites are given the role of Specialest Boys (and my country, the Netherlands, is a white colonial home base that is still enriching itself with stolen wealth).
My point is that even if they get the privileges of class traitorship, they’re still worse off than in an egalitarian society. They have less material stability too than they would have.
Do you disagree? Do you think most white people are better off in the current system than in what you hope to build?
I like calling the organized effort to prevent white people from supporting a better world a trick because if not for white people there is no narrative-backed demographic in-group that can save the status quo.
Like, suppose there was a secret ballot where people could say they would fight in support of an anarchocommunist revolution if X% of the population is also ready to fight in support of it, and where if at least Y% of the population answers Y% or less then all of them get notified. Then white people could just put X=80% and end up with a bloodless revolution (because cops aren’t going to fight 80% of the population) that makes their lives instantly better for free.
Thus the rich need to convince white people that their X should be higher and that Y never surpasses their X. And since setting X at a point where they have nothing to lose while Y is known would be enough to have a successful revolution, it takes a trick to keep white people in support of the status quo.
Unreal the amount of liberals who try to claim ownership over values they clearly don’t subscribe to; wonder where they’d learn to do that so comfortably.
Bud, that world does not exist, the one with a Canada in it does. I am not tricking anyone when I tell them that doing exactly what is currently done is going to do with it currently does. You’re working backward from a fantasy because you think that’s what “socialism” is. No, socialism is about materialism; analyzing the social relations oriented around material needs to generate cricisism and prescribed ideological solutions. These people, including yourself, live in a system where white supremacy is already the norm and is the system of power by which they experience the high standard of living they are afforded by default by being compliant with that hierarchy, willfully or otherwise.
You seriously have no idea what the hell you’re talking about, and your whatever, hypotheticals are irrelevant since they do not actually contend with the reality of what this system is, again (and honestly, shows that you have never learned about any revolutions outside of YouTube and History Channel). Do you actually think you’ve gotten to the party this late and know better than people who have fought this system for generations? Yeah bud, hey, why wouldn’t there be a fucking ballot like that in this system? Why is every major party neoliberal? Almost like there’s reasons why the current state of affairs have developed the way they have. And of course you’ve arrived at the conclusion that you do by not even reading about it, otherwise you would have used these terms that have been normal in polisci and poliphilo fields for fucking sixty years.
You literally had to invent a convoluted scenario to describe what you think is a “trick” to describe appropriation, which is how libs ** like you** use language to rearticulate preexisting settler-colonial values through the terms of challenging political movements. No, you and every other dumbass colonizer like you is not “tricked” into supporting a system that already produces your material security through these social relations. People act in accordance with their security, bigots recognize correctly that if this system continues to their benefit, it will do so through white supremacy, heteronormativity, and settler-colonialism, as it always has and why they are benefited by it today. People like you do that, but your discomfort with the obvious immorality of such behaviour encourages you to convolute some reasoning where whatever you were taught to believe by the state is only misguided, misused, and not fundamentally incompatible with an empathetic way of life. Whether or not that this system is sustainable is irrelevant to the fact that people benefit from it now and therefore are inclined to maintain their level of material security. The only difference between you and a bigot is that they are far more comfortable with the violence of this system than you are, the values are fundamentally the same; neither of you are free of responsibility or liability for your beliefs. If you do not like the sound of that, maybe take a minute to think about this.
Go back to talking to your chud uncs at the bbq, that is clearly where you worked through these ideas.
So, according to you, it is in my best interest as a privileged white person to support the oppression of non-white people and support the status quo?
Can’t imagine why generations of people like you never achieved anything. You’re basically doing fascist propaganda for them.
Which, considering the amount of trickery going on, is quite interesting. Why wouldn’t the state let Marxists whose interpretations empower the status quo just barely dodge the axe while cutting down those whose ideas have teeth? Realistically, any current of Marxism that “has fought for generations” will have had generations of evolutionary pressure applied to it, either domesticating it (labour) or rendering it a relatively harmless pest (far-left radicals).
Tell ya what bud, you bring a citation, and I’ll read this. I know you don’t know what you’re talking about, and I’m not going to engage with you until you show that you do.
Sure, what piece of his writing? Would be very interesting to find something of his that directly addresses positionality in that way. Please, tell me where.
The physicist either observes physical phenomena where they occur in their most typical form and most free from disturbing influence, or, wherever possible, he makes experiments under conditions that assure the occurrence of the phenomenon in its normality. In this work I have to examine the capitalist mode of production, and the conditions of production and exchange corresponding to that mode. Up to the present time, their classic ground is England. That is the
reason why England is used as the chief illustration in the development of my theoretical ideas. If, however, the German reader shrugs his shoulders at the condition of the English industrial and agricultural labourers, or in optimist fashion comforts himself with the thought that in Germany things are not nearly so bad; I must plainly tell him, “De te fabula narratur!” [It is of you that the story is told. – Horace]
Intrinsically, it is not a question of the higher or lower degree of development of the social
antagonisms that result from the natural laws of capitalist production. It is a question of these laws themselves, of these tendencies working with iron necessity towards inevitable results. The country that is more developed industrially only shows, to the less developed, the image of its own future.
But apart from this. Where capitalist production is fully naturalised among the Germans (for instance, in the factories proper) the condition of things is much worse than in England, because the counterpoise of the Factory Acts is wanting. In all other spheres, we, like all the rest of Continental Western Europe, suffer not only from the development of capitalist production, but also from the incompleteness of that development.
Alongside the modern evils, a whole series of
inherited evils oppress us, arising from the passive survival of antiquated modes of production, with their inevitable train of social and political anachronisms. We suffer not only from the living, but from the dead. Le mort saisit le vif!
The social statistics of Germany and the rest of Continental Western Europe are, in comparison with those of England, wretchedly compiled. But they raise the veil just enough to let us catch a
glimpse of the Medusa head behind it. We should be appalled at the state of things at home, if, as
in England, our governments and parliaments appointed periodically commissions of inquiry into
economic conditions; if these commissions were armed with the same plenary powers to get at
the truth; if it was possible to find for this purpose men as competent, as free from partisanship
and respect of persons as are the English factory-inspectors, her medical reporters on public
health, her commissioners of inquiry into the exploitation of women and children, into housing
and food. Perseus wore a magic cap down over his eyes and ears as a make-believe that there are
no monsters.
Let us not deceive ourselves on this. As in the 18th century, the American war of independence
sounded the tocsin for the European middle class, so that in the 19th century, the American Civil War sounded it for the European working class. In England the process of social disintegration is palpable. When it has reached a certain point, it must react on the Continent. There it will take a form more brutal or more humane, according to the degree of development of the working class
itself. Apart from higher motives, therefore, their own most important interests dictate to the classes that are for the nonce the ruling ones, the removal of all legally removable hindrances to
the free development of the working class. For this reason, as well as others, I have given so large
a space in this volume to the history, the details, and the results of English factory legislation.
One nation can and should learn from others. And even when a society has got upon the right
track for the discovery of the natural laws of its movement – and it is the ultimate aim of this
work, to lay bare the economic law of motion of modern society – it can neither clear by bold
leaps, nor remove by legal enactments, the obstacles offered by the successive phases of its
normal development. But it can shorten and lessen the birth-pangs.
From Capital.
Marx addressed white European workers, people in the heart of colonial empires rather than the periphery. He presented British workers as an example of people who “have it bad” not despite the highly industrialized colonial empire that nominally exists for them, but because of it
In finding this passage I did come across people criticizing the interpretation of this that only the most industrialized people can have a valid communist revolution. It makes sense that socialist uprisings will happen in states that are experiencing lapses of control that can be filled with a revolutionary society rather than in smoothly running states.
But whether a state runs smoothly does not depend on whether it is the core of empire or the periphery. Russia itself was an imperial core, even if it was less industrialized than western European empires, it was merely destabilized by war.
So if Canada destabilizes - by collapse of global trade, by trade war with the US, by physical war with the US, by climate change, by an AI economic bubble, by successful AI automation creating an economic shock, whatever - there is space if we/you are ready to seize it.
Not really. It’s less against them than it is against people lower on the pecking order, and that makes them happy because that means they get to shit on people, but they too get fucked by those above them. Most bigots do not live happy lives. They live in houses designed to make them sad, working jobs designed to make them feel meaningless, interacting with people through institutions designed to make them lonely.
Maintaining white supremacy requires fascism to get funded and leftist movements to get violently suppressed because people can swap out their social narratives. Bigots can learn to see the advantages of mutual aid, and then quietly bury their bigoted behavior because it would mean they get less aid.
White bigots are being tricked into believing they’re better off getting physically abused by underpaid interns in a privatized care facility than being an elder in a small multigenerational commune where everyone shares their meals and works according to their ability. It takes constant effort to keep them convinced that the first is the best they can hope for; the “only realistic possibility”.
Jesus fucking Christ with you people. A great example of a liberal who thinks that people can only see what you show them.
Material security is a fucking privilege. The fact that people are miserable doesn’t mean they aren’t privileged. And why do you think they are privileges? Hm? Where did they get the idea that they are? Is here, perhaps, good reason to think that in the white settler state? Hmmm, almost like the entire fucking country was designed to the benefit of people like them, specifically.
The amount of Canadians in this thread who pretend to not get what this place is is getting on my nerves. They know they’re miserable, nobody is having fun, they want to be secure and they know they can get that by being bigoted because that’s how they fucking got what they have.
It’s obvious that many of you warp reality to parse some sense of empathy or understanding for these people, and it shows that you clearly don’t care about the people who are victimized. Everyone has bigots in their family, you have to learn to understand they’re sad people and also that nobody is going to force them to be otherwise, they’re still a threat. This piece of shit country was about to elect an explicitly trans-genocidal PM before Trump stole the election for Carney, maybe you shouldn’t say anything about this if these people weren’t about to fucking kill you. No, they aren’t being tricked, they’re adults, grow the fuck up.
Neither a Canadian, nor a liberal, nor disagreeing with your general point that Canada is a white steller colonial project in which whites are given the role of Specialest Boys (and my country, the Netherlands, is a white colonial home base that is still enriching itself with stolen wealth).
My point is that even if they get the privileges of class traitorship, they’re still worse off than in an egalitarian society. They have less material stability too than they would have.
Do you disagree? Do you think most white people are better off in the current system than in what you hope to build?
I like calling the organized effort to prevent white people from supporting a better world a trick because if not for white people there is no narrative-backed demographic in-group that can save the status quo.
Like, suppose there was a secret ballot where people could say they would fight in support of an anarchocommunist revolution if X% of the population is also ready to fight in support of it, and where if at least Y% of the population answers Y% or less then all of them get notified. Then white people could just put X=80% and end up with a bloodless revolution (because cops aren’t going to fight 80% of the population) that makes their lives instantly better for free.
Thus the rich need to convince white people that their X should be higher and that Y never surpasses their X. And since setting X at a point where they have nothing to lose while Y is known would be enough to have a successful revolution, it takes a trick to keep white people in support of the status quo.
Unreal the amount of liberals who try to claim ownership over values they clearly don’t subscribe to; wonder where they’d learn to do that so comfortably.
Bud, that world does not exist, the one with a Canada in it does. I am not tricking anyone when I tell them that doing exactly what is currently done is going to do with it currently does. You’re working backward from a fantasy because you think that’s what “socialism” is. No, socialism is about materialism; analyzing the social relations oriented around material needs to generate cricisism and prescribed ideological solutions. These people, including yourself, live in a system where white supremacy is already the norm and is the system of power by which they experience the high standard of living they are afforded by default by being compliant with that hierarchy, willfully or otherwise.
You seriously have no idea what the hell you’re talking about, and your whatever, hypotheticals are irrelevant since they do not actually contend with the reality of what this system is, again (and honestly, shows that you have never learned about any revolutions outside of YouTube and History Channel). Do you actually think you’ve gotten to the party this late and know better than people who have fought this system for generations? Yeah bud, hey, why wouldn’t there be a fucking ballot like that in this system? Why is every major party neoliberal? Almost like there’s reasons why the current state of affairs have developed the way they have. And of course you’ve arrived at the conclusion that you do by not even reading about it, otherwise you would have used these terms that have been normal in polisci and poliphilo fields for fucking sixty years.
You literally had to invent a convoluted scenario to describe what you think is a “trick” to describe appropriation, which is how libs ** like you** use language to rearticulate preexisting settler-colonial values through the terms of challenging political movements. No, you and every other dumbass colonizer like you is not “tricked” into supporting a system that already produces your material security through these social relations. People act in accordance with their security, bigots recognize correctly that if this system continues to their benefit, it will do so through white supremacy, heteronormativity, and settler-colonialism, as it always has and why they are benefited by it today. People like you do that, but your discomfort with the obvious immorality of such behaviour encourages you to convolute some reasoning where whatever you were taught to believe by the state is only misguided, misused, and not fundamentally incompatible with an empathetic way of life. Whether or not that this system is sustainable is irrelevant to the fact that people benefit from it now and therefore are inclined to maintain their level of material security. The only difference between you and a bigot is that they are far more comfortable with the violence of this system than you are, the values are fundamentally the same; neither of you are free of responsibility or liability for your beliefs. If you do not like the sound of that, maybe take a minute to think about this.
Go back to talking to your chud uncs at the bbq, that is clearly where you worked through these ideas.
So, according to you, it is in my best interest as a privileged white person to support the oppression of non-white people and support the status quo?
Can’t imagine why generations of people like you never achieved anything. You’re basically doing fascist propaganda for them.
Which, considering the amount of trickery going on, is quite interesting. Why wouldn’t the state let Marxists whose interpretations empower the status quo just barely dodge the axe while cutting down those whose ideas have teeth? Realistically, any current of Marxism that “has fought for generations” will have had generations of evolutionary pressure applied to it, either domesticating it (labour) or rendering it a relatively harmless pest (far-left radicals).
Tell ya what bud, you bring a citation, and I’ll read this. I know you don’t know what you’re talking about, and I’m not going to engage with you until you show that you do.
A citation? For what? White workers being better off in socialism than capitalism? Well I’m going to have to go with my boy Karl Marx on that one.
Sure, what piece of his writing? Would be very interesting to find something of his that directly addresses positionality in that way. Please, tell me where.
From Capital.
Marx addressed white European workers, people in the heart of colonial empires rather than the periphery. He presented British workers as an example of people who “have it bad” not despite the highly industrialized colonial empire that nominally exists for them, but because of it
In finding this passage I did come across people criticizing the interpretation of this that only the most industrialized people can have a valid communist revolution. It makes sense that socialist uprisings will happen in states that are experiencing lapses of control that can be filled with a revolutionary society rather than in smoothly running states.
But whether a state runs smoothly does not depend on whether it is the core of empire or the periphery. Russia itself was an imperial core, even if it was less industrialized than western European empires, it was merely destabilized by war.
So if Canada destabilizes - by collapse of global trade, by trade war with the US, by physical war with the US, by climate change, by an AI economic bubble, by successful AI automation creating an economic shock, whatever - there is space if we/you are ready to seize it.
De nos fabula narratur.