ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
No bio...
User ID: 626
Sure, but that still means credit goes to Stalin, no?
Granted, they did do the Nazi thing of rounding up co-ethnics and shipping them off to concentration camps in Siberia
By contrast, there's a country in the Near East- the ethnicity of its founders even had 'nazi' as part of their name- that despite its small size actively sends armed 'settlers' into a combat zone to displace the natives there, spends a great deal of treasure doing this, and the people that do those things have a TFR above 2. That just ain't a thing the average communist does.
Because they don't have to. Russia / the USSR is a different creature, but the Soviet satellite states were so ethnically homogeneous, they'd give the average Californian a stroke. And come to think of it this might even apply to the USSR, give or take minor Soviet Republics being flooded with ethnic Russians to maintain control, it's not like you were free to travel around that country. As for TFR, I think my generation is the last above-replacement one.
Yeah, he should get some credit for that. It's more than you can say for Republican Spain, or even modern progressives.
a total lack of emphasis on family formation and children
I was just a baby at the time, but that seems a bit off. My parents told me the message at the time was "the family is the basic cell of a society", and other such slogans that you could easily mistake for coming from the Tradcath sphere.
I don't think the USSR was a particularly feminised society.
As feminists (and even superficially non-feminist women) will tell you, even today's society isn't. The USSR definitely did have a short stint of the sort of progressive craziness we are facing right now, which Stalin had to cut short, when he realized it's ruining the country, and he might have a war or two to fight.
Liberalism is not a dictatorship of the working class; liberalism is a codified cease-fire between groups that naturally seek to become dictatorships to let them exploit their resource surplus
That's the Superbowl ad of liberalism that it purchases to try to sell itself. What liberalism actually is, is a silent conspiracy of lizardmen to sell you for a slave, while pretending this is what you wanted all along.
Liberalism is what a dictatorship of the working class looks like when it goes through gender affirming care.
No. Otherwise it would mean you've just become about as literal Nazi as possible in a world where the Nazi party is no longer around.
…did you ever?
I did. The whole reason I got into /r/SSC and The Motte is because I thought they represented a chance for dialogue between the two sides, and a chance for each of us to say "I guess they make some good points sometimes", come together, and either forge a common path, or at least forge a pact to purge the crazies on each respective side. All I got for the trouble was "not good enough" said in so many ways, and a litany of denials that there's anything wrong with the progressive side, and that if I think otherwise, it's because I'm being uncharitable.
Now... you know me (and I know me), I know I'm prone to sperging out at times, but I was actually trying, but at this point, why bother? This isn't even accusatory, I know your heart's in the right place, but I know that you and people like you are incapable of stopping the things I find offensive and distasteful that come from your side, so why should I police mine?
If you're really curious about what I think about actually supporting actual Hitler, than I'm against it and don't find it acceptable, but the point is you don't get to tell me what constitutes supporting Hitler.
The question is whether you are particupating in the "who whom" yourself.
Not "did people who are freaking out about this have anything to say about the comments on Charlie Kirk"?
Joke's on you, most of this applies to modern liberals as well.
Now I have to disagree with our vice president here, I don't think it is pearl clutching to oppose support of Hitler.
I probably should write something more elaborate, in the spirit of cjet's post, but I'm sorry I cant be arsed to take any of this seriously anymore. I believe all this is, in fact, pearl clutching, that there is no actual moral outrage expressed by people trying to make a mountain of this particular molehill, and it's just a cynical attempt to make the outgroup jump through the ingroup hoops.
I refuse, and I will need material evidence that anyone is actually bothered by any if this, before addressing it seriously.
Top level comment is filtered.
Those are exactly the same things that, for instance, conservatives seek to obtain. Does that make conservatism a form of Marxism?
There is a sense in which feminism, among other priorities, seeks to redistribute various goods in society towards women, on the premise that the current distribution favours men in a way that is both unequal and unjust. But to say that that shows some connection to Marxism obviously proves too much.
I agree, but you'll notice that the comment I was responding to didn't say "Not all redistribution is Marxism." It said "What is feminism redistributing? Reproduction? Family? Male attention? Social status?", implying that it's ridiculous to say feminism redistributes anything material, or worse that the opposition to feminism stems from a desire to force them to reproduce. The implication itself would have been bad enough, but the immediate change of the argument upon the slightest amount of questioning is even worse.
Any movement advocating any action whatsoever is going to demand some kind of redistribution, because action is inherently redistributive - action requires resources, and resources need to be distributed from somewhere.
You're the one proving too much. Even within feminism, there were postulates that didn't require redistribution, like lifting restrictions on access to bank accounts, various trades, or property.
Social status?
Yes. Also jobs, influential positions in institutions, government contracts, and public resources.
I haven't heard that specific one. While it wouldn't surprise me if someone did say something like that, it's not exactly hard to come up with examples that would contradict, unless the revolution is supposed to happen all by itself.
Frankly, MAGA has a lot more in common with fascism than being right-wing nationalist.
Taking Eco's definition
Most left wingers have a lot more in common with fascism, if you take Eco's definition.
but I don't see what anyone else gains.
I'm at a loss myself, but I think the status thing might be a big part of the equation. Some people built their entire philosophy around "Uncle Roy is wrong".
Not "just", "partially inspired by", the same way it was by Marx.
Someone should have probably said that when cultural Marxists started calling themselves that.
I don't think it's quite so bad as you say. I wasn't referring to 19th century industrialists when I said "liberal", I was referring to the American center-left of the 1960's, the architects of the Civil Rights Act.
Critical Race Theorists were explicitly opposed to them, claiming that the liberal / center-left approach doesn't go far enough. A lot of their ideas gained prominence recently in the forms of BLM, DEI, "racism = prejudice + power", "colorblind racism", etc. These people's scholarly lineage draws a straight line through generations of Marxist thinkers, and straight back to Marx himself.
You can call it a bastardization of his thought, if you want, I think Marx himself told one of his descendants "bro, if this is Marxism, than I'm not a Marxist", so it wouldn't even be the first time it happened. But your uncle is straightforwardly right about DEI, and your denials are just inadvertant gaslighting. Like, some of these people literally and explicitly called themselves "cultural Marxists".
It's fair to say that the CRA is central in the history of social justice activism, right?
Sort of. There was a whole conflict between the liberals that actually made the CRA happen, and Critical Race Theorists, who had a much more radical vision, and were salty about the liberal one winning out.
The latter aren't likely to say nowadays (they did in the past though) that they the CRA was bad, because that would make them even less popular than they are now, but they will put out memes that go directly against the philosophy of the Civil Rights movement (for example seeing "there is only one race, the human race", or "I don't see color" as expressions of racism).
But that's because they by and large ignored it--a quick search through Google books isn't digging up anything by Adorno, Fromm, Habermas, Horkheimer where they even mention it. They would probably have thought it was a fine thing, in the sense that people generally think "oh, that sounds good!"
No, not really. Like I said, Critical Race Theory thinkers studied directly under them. It would be bizarre if they never heard of their theories, and took no inrerest in them. I think the most reasonable interpretation of their silence is complete approval of the crazy woke theries you claim they would have opposed.

It's very rarely "just a joke" in the sense that it has other meanings and functions. It is very often just a joke in the sense that the accusations tossed at the people making the joke are false, and the accuser usually knows that in advance.
More options
Context Copy link