OK, so how do you explain every other country where the left is more successful despite having “left minorities out of the process”, the way you gringos define it, to a much greater degree? Why haven’t people in Latin America also organized like that?
Because the US is a colonial settler state and there's always been a white supremacist bias. The whole point of Settlers addresses that there was never really a true white proletariat in the US which has stifled the left. You see the same in Australia, in Israel, in South Africa, in Northern Ireland.
I attacked guys who would be offended by you not preemptively defending the idea of porn from the get-go. If that’s what a right-winger would say, then I can’t really say I disagree with them on that one.
It's about phrasing. That's all I'm saying, man. I'm gonna be suspicious of someone saying something leftist but using right wing language to describe it.
The whole point of Settlers addresses that there was never really a true white proletariat in the US
But the US was one of the places at the forefront of the industrial revolution that spearheaded capitalism. That's akin to saying a lot of early capitalism mostly developed without a proletariat. How is this not incompatible with a Marxist analysis of history? How do you even explain the development of capitalism like this?
You see the same in Australia, in Israel, in South Africa, in Northern Ireland.
One of these is not like the others. I don't see why South Africa's interests wouldn't be aligned with the third world's, considering how it's a poor country on the periphery of global capitalism. I don't even think the whites there make first world money considering how much poorer it is than Latin America.
Also Southern Ireland is richer and benefits more from global capitalism than the North by a lot, so by your logic it should be much less possible for the Catholics to be a true leftist proletariat today. I question your choice of examples.
I’m gonna be suspicious of someone saying something leftist but using right wing language to describe it.
And I'm supposed to be understanding of you not being able to take what people say at face value because of cultural signifiers. Amazing.
But the US was one of the places at the forefront of the industrial revolution that spearheaded capitalism. That’s akin to saying a lot of early capitalism mostly developed without a proletariat. How is this not incompatible with a Marxist analysis of history? How do you even explain the development of capitalism like this?
Seriously, Settlers is worth a read. Whiteness is a murky concept and has always changed, so whatever constitutes whiteness has redefined based on whatever's demographically expedient. So the working class has often been immigrant or people of color to keep them from developing class consciousness, and the white working class has always been defined as being Not Immigrant so that further stymies organization.
And I’m supposed to be understanding of you not being able to take what people say at face value because of cultural signifiers. Amazing.
No, amigo, because we're at a crossroads where the right often coopts language of the left for recruitment purposes and it's easy for us to get infiltrated. Why wouldn't I be suspicious?
Seriously, Settlers is worth a read. [...] Not Immigrant so that further stymies organization.
I appreciate that you're being nice to me but the people who like this book are generally very far outside of my Overton window so I'm probably not gonna read it.
we’re at a crossroads where the right often coopts language of the left for recruitment purposes
Actually I think it's because in a process analogous to me saying coomer, they saw some leftoid use terminology that makes it easier to put some thought they had into words in a way that's instantly recognizable to the average person, so they just use it for convenience's sake. Because they don't think that using supposedly leftist words is going to convert people to leftism. Go figure 🤪
I appreciate that you’re being nice to me but the people who like this book are generally very far outside of my Overton window so I’m probably not gonna read it.
What do you mean?
Actually I think it’s because in a process analogous to me saying coomer, they saw some leftoid use terminology that makes it easier to put some thought they had into words in a way that’s instantly recognizable to the average person, so they just use it for convenience’s sake. Because they don’t think that using supposedly leftist words is going to convert people to leftism. Go figure 🤪
I'm referring to right wingers who are literally trying to pipeline leftists to their side, I've definitely seen them try to coopt language. Coomer to me is steeped in such toxicity that it's hard to extract it because I only ever see it used by chuds.
You know, people who want to be aesthetically left because it's trendy but who will in practice look for every reason they can find to excuse themselves from actually being a leftist in concrete terms. I just generally don't trust them, just like how you don't trust stupidpol. I have people who I have more respect for, so if I'm going to read theory I'm going to prioritize them.
I’ve definitely seen them try to coopt language.
Even if you told me they said they were doing this in no uncertain terms I'd think they were probably fucking with you. I think the idea that this could even be a viable political strategy is beyond absurd. People can't be just bewitched by words like that, and I think rightoids generally know this.
lmao imagine thinking that Settlers is an aesthetically left book, are you kidding me?
They're definitely not fucking with me, I've seen this shit in real time. I don't know how things are where you are, but in the US they're trying to coopt left language.
Everyone is always telling me Sakai is a based Maoist and so I gotta respect him. Plus even if it's not, come on, you know radlibs exist and they're the primary fans of the book.
About the second bit, I think everyone always coopts everyone else's language because that's just how communication works. If a right wing guy develops a worldview that has leftist characteristics, I just thank God that he's not more right wing. That's how this issue works for me. Even if they think they're doing that I don't think you should be worried.
So you're just gonna dump on something you never read even though it answers like 90% of your questions in this thread?
I know how communication works, I know how words get used, but what you seem to deny is that the right wing is literally coopting language for the purposes of recruitment
Well that is my impression of it which is why I don't plan on prioritizing it.
Look, I just opened up a pdf of it and it seems more Maoist and less radlib than I expected, which is still not my thing but I feel like I might get something out of it. I might read it eventually, but I'm very lazy for reading so it's not likely I'll get there. This quar I only got through like four books in all the time I've been stuck at home, and none of them were very long or hard. I'm sorry I was a jerk when you were so nice to me, that was uncalled for.
I mean, okay, you don't have to read it if you don't want, but don't mischaracterize it, especially not to others who should be reading it. I have a tough time getting through theory myself so I don't blame you. But it's worth a look if you want to understand why the US never had an effective class consciousness in its proletariat, and it explains that it's not because of identity politics.
Theres cultural signifiers and then theres just straight up pepe-speak, and the determination with which you defend your pepe-speak as innocuous is a little disconcerting.
Because the US is a colonial settler state and there's always been a white supremacist bias. The whole point of Settlers addresses that there was never really a true white proletariat in the US which has stifled the left. You see the same in Australia, in Israel, in South Africa, in Northern Ireland.
It's about phrasing. That's all I'm saying, man. I'm gonna be suspicious of someone saying something leftist but using right wing language to describe it.
But the US was one of the places at the forefront of the industrial revolution that spearheaded capitalism. That's akin to saying a lot of early capitalism mostly developed without a proletariat. How is this not incompatible with a Marxist analysis of history? How do you even explain the development of capitalism like this?
One of these is not like the others. I don't see why South Africa's interests wouldn't be aligned with the third world's, considering how it's a poor country on the periphery of global capitalism. I don't even think the whites there make first world money considering how much poorer it is than Latin America.
Also Southern Ireland is richer and benefits more from global capitalism than the North by a lot, so by your logic it should be much less possible for the Catholics to be a true leftist proletariat today. I question your choice of examples.
And I'm supposed to be understanding of you not being able to take what people say at face value because of cultural signifiers. Amazing.
Seriously, Settlers is worth a read. Whiteness is a murky concept and has always changed, so whatever constitutes whiteness has redefined based on whatever's demographically expedient. So the working class has often been immigrant or people of color to keep them from developing class consciousness, and the white working class has always been defined as being Not Immigrant so that further stymies organization.
No, amigo, because we're at a crossroads where the right often coopts language of the left for recruitment purposes and it's easy for us to get infiltrated. Why wouldn't I be suspicious?
I appreciate that you're being nice to me but the people who like this book are generally very far outside of my Overton window so I'm probably not gonna read it.
Actually I think it's because in a process analogous to me saying coomer, they saw some leftoid use terminology that makes it easier to put some thought they had into words in a way that's instantly recognizable to the average person, so they just use it for convenience's sake. Because they don't think that using supposedly leftist words is going to convert people to leftism. Go figure 🤪
What do you mean?
I'm referring to right wingers who are literally trying to pipeline leftists to their side, I've definitely seen them try to coopt language. Coomer to me is steeped in such toxicity that it's hard to extract it because I only ever see it used by chuds.
You know, people who want to be aesthetically left because it's trendy but who will in practice look for every reason they can find to excuse themselves from actually being a leftist in concrete terms. I just generally don't trust them, just like how you don't trust stupidpol. I have people who I have more respect for, so if I'm going to read theory I'm going to prioritize them.
Even if you told me they said they were doing this in no uncertain terms I'd think they were probably fucking with you. I think the idea that this could even be a viable political strategy is beyond absurd. People can't be just bewitched by words like that, and I think rightoids generally know this.
lmao imagine thinking that Settlers is an aesthetically left book, are you kidding me?
They're definitely not fucking with me, I've seen this shit in real time. I don't know how things are where you are, but in the US they're trying to coopt left language.
Everyone is always telling me Sakai is a based Maoist and so I gotta respect him. Plus even if it's not, come on, you know radlibs exist and they're the primary fans of the book.
About the second bit, I think everyone always coopts everyone else's language because that's just how communication works. If a right wing guy develops a worldview that has leftist characteristics, I just thank God that he's not more right wing. That's how this issue works for me. Even if they think they're doing that I don't think you should be worried.
So you're just gonna dump on something you never read even though it answers like 90% of your questions in this thread?
I know how communication works, I know how words get used, but what you seem to deny is that the right wing is literally coopting language for the purposes of recruitment
Come on, it's not like that. I got limited time and energy. I'd rather prioritize things I'm interested in.
Right
It sounds like it is because you shit on it and implied it's woke radlib shit. It's not even a hard book to get through, man.
Well that is my impression of it which is why I don't plan on prioritizing it.
Look, I just opened up a pdf of it and it seems more Maoist and less radlib than I expected, which is still not my thing but I feel like I might get something out of it. I might read it eventually, but I'm very lazy for reading so it's not likely I'll get there. This quar I only got through like four books in all the time I've been stuck at home, and none of them were very long or hard. I'm sorry I was a jerk when you were so nice to me, that was uncalled for.
I mean, okay, you don't have to read it if you don't want, but don't mischaracterize it, especially not to others who should be reading it. I have a tough time getting through theory myself so I don't blame you. But it's worth a look if you want to understand why the US never had an effective class consciousness in its proletariat, and it explains that it's not because of identity politics.
No one else is looking at this thread anymore, it's been 1 ~ 2 days lmao.
There's still upvotes happening, I ain't been doing them. Also you will at some other point in your life I assume talk to someone about Settlers.
OK, sounds fair
Theres cultural signifiers and then theres just straight up pepe-speak, and the determination with which you defend your pepe-speak as innocuous is a little disconcerting.