Women’s March on Washington Opens Contentious Dialogues About Race: Concerning "White Allies"

[JohnnyMo]

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51679655]It's not the proletariat (working class) against the bourgeois (middle class) anymore.[/QUOTE]

The middle class was never really the enemy of the working class in Marxist thought. They may not be slaves to the system in the same way the working class are, but they don't typically directly oppose them. The bourgeois as "middle class" is an artifact of non-Marxian language in which it typically refers to the middle class. The bourgeois that Marx describes, that opposes the middle class, are the capitalist class: the people who own the means of production and use it to extract value from the labor of others which they keep for themselves. Most of the middle class do not qualify.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51679655]The time marx lived in class was clearly defined and social mobility was low. Social mobility (while shitty in UK and US - worse than Pakistan...) is better now, so people move between traditional working class and traditional middle class. Due to automation and other things we (UK, US, most of europe) have moved from primary and secondary (blue collar and stereotypical working class jobs) sectors to tertiary and quaternary sectors.
[URL="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britain-now-has-7-social-classes-and-working-class-is-a-dwindling-breed-8557894.html"]This link discusses a study suggesting the original classes are no longer relevant[/URL][/QUOTE]

Sure, classes have changed with the times, but nothing in that link supports your claims that his stuff about class isn't really relevant anymore. Nothing fundamentally about the struggle he described has changed. Capitalists still control the means of production and use it to extract labor from the working class, who need the system to desperately to be able to opt out.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51679655]We have class but our classes aren't the same as the classes in Marx time and his solution for giving all the power to the working class is totally insane.

We need fairer distribution of wealth and smaller disparity in compensation for work but Marx's solutions taken as they are are outdated and extreme. I'm pro socialising things people absolutely need but something which is neglected (by marx and other far left peeps) is the idea that privatisation can be used to adsorb and mitigate risk. That said I do consider myself fairly left wing.[/QUOTE]

That wasn't really Marx's "solution," that was his prediction for what was going to happen. He didn't think it was a bad thing, I'm sure, but it was later Marxist thinkers who really turned it into ideology. I don't think of myself as a socialist so I don't disagree that socialism is not necessarily a good place to be, but I think there are elements of Marxist thought which are pretty indisputable, like class struggle being a very real and powerful impact on society.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51679655]Marx's views on class are from a different time and are too simplistic.[/QUOTE]

They need to be modified, but I think the overall lessons are still very applicable. I think it's very hard to describe Marx's views as simplistic, however. Have you ever taken a look at Das Kapital?

[Guriosity]

[QUOTE=LtKyle2;51679579]Incredible. Modern social justice becoming a pissing match of who is the biggest victim.

Past leaders must be turning in their graves right now.

[editline]16th January 2017[/editline]

Although its funny to see white liberal women have their privilege check turned on them.[/QUOTE]

This happens on the right too. Its like not the position a person holds determines any thing but the type of person that determines if they're a problem or not.

According to hemlock theory, its this idiotic behavior is classified as being bigoted and oppressive.

[editline]16th January 2017[/editline]

[QUOTE=CasualTR;51679600]Its a wonder why movements such as these struggle to gain media attention when they turn on each other, fundamentally dividing and weakening the movement.[/QUOTE]

What ends up happening is the groups split and divide and fight each other. Group A fights group B. Then Group B wins. The next step is a new split. So group B become group B1 vs group B2. Rinse repeat.

It generates an atmosphere of permanent hostility, hiearchary, war and oppression.

For the idiots enjoy ideas structure d to appeal their horrid behavior.

[CarnolfMeatla]

Damn, there is a lot of womansplaining going on.

[Tamschi]

[QUOTE=nVidia;51679415]Then i probably had a misunderstanding of the word.
But there is [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Marxism#Neo-Marxist_Feminist_Therapy]Neo Marxist Feminist Therapy[/url] (i'm not making this shit up) that aligns a bit better with what i was after.[/QUOTE]

Judging by that page, Neo-Marxism is an expansion/corruption of Marxism into non-economic social issues not at all described in Marx's work.
Likewise, this particular version of 'feminism' is intersectional feminism, which doesn't necessarily work like the 'plain' version since (it says) it doesn't exclusively focus on women's issues.

The paragraph you linked seems pretty cultish outside of that too:
Isn't psychotherapy normally supposed to help you become aware of your own issues (whatever they are), and not to point you in a specific preconceived political direction?

Anyway, I don't think it's without merit to examine the effect [I]availability[/I] of education and mental health care have on class mobility, looking at the USA for example where that can very strongly differ despite the country's economy being fairly strong.
However, I'm pretty sure that's something Neo-Marxism mostly doesn't care about at all. To me it seems to, for the most part, take issue with the contents of that education, which while it should be open to criticism regarding its informational merit, should stay [I]far[/I] away from the identity politics (a lot of?) these people want to insert instead of constructive criticism.

In other words: This seems to be yet another collectivist stream of thought that wants to rewrite publicly available knowledge in its own image.

[Fulcrum]

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;51679724]The middle class was never really the enemy of the working class in Marxist thought. They may not be slaves to the system in the same way the working class are, but they don't typically directly oppose them. The bourgeois as "middle class" is an artifact of non-Marxian language in which it typically refers to the middle class. The bourgeois that Marx describes, that opposes the middle class, are the capitalist class: the people who own the means of production and use it to extract value from the labor of others which they keep for themselves. Most of the middle class do not qualify. [/quote]
Well you are right there, tbh I'm sure marx would count most of the middle class as being among the proletariat.
The thing is though the reason those capitalists can extract profit from others work is the risk involved. If they are making an investment into obtaining and maintaining the means of production then there is a chance they would fail (80% of start ups fail apparently) so they take that profit to compensate for that risk and to further invest in their company. (this isn't entirely true but this is why, in my mind people are justified in taking profits from others work)

In the ideal world (as marx predicted) there would be enough to go around and people could make enterprise and the risk would either be negligible or of no consequence. In the real world is a person buys a load of machines, they either use their own money (opportunity cost), take a loan (they have to pay interest) or make the machine from scratch (in which case the workers profit from the capitalists work); to compesate for those losses the capitalist extracts value, sucks to be the worker, moreso if theres nothing in place to ensure worker rights, living wage, good mobility, safety but that capitalist is going to extract the value.

[quote]
Sure, classes have changed with the times, but nothing in that link supports your claims that his stuff about class isn't really relevant anymore. Nothing fundamentally about the struggle he described has changed. Capitalists still control the means of production and use it to extract labor from the working class, who need the system to desperately to be able to opt out.[/quote]
Ah I agree here, people should have the right to opt out. Current system is open to and encourages exploitation, people have to work, so the people offering the worst jobs can afford to pay less. I think if the only way to make someone do a job is the threat of starvation or violence (through lack of money) then the job really ought to be made more attractive.

[quote]
That wasn't really Marx's "solution," that was his prediction for what was going to happen. He didn't think it was a bad thing, I'm sure, but it was later Marxist thinkers who really turned it into ideology. I don't think of myself as a socialist so I don't disagree that socialism is not necessarily a good place to be, but I think there are elements of Marxist thought which are pretty indisputable, like class struggle being a very real and powerful impact on society.[/quote]
I believe one of the reasons Marx wrote the communist manifesto was the aim to influence peoples political views, wouldn't this indicate the presence of an ideology which would also be present in his later work? He predicted it but he also strove toward it.

I believe there is a "class struggle" but its not exclusive to capitalism and probably goes back to when we first became sedentary (possibly before), the priestesses, scribes and kings would extract value from the work of their slaves; the usurers, trades people and land owners would extract value from their labourers. Not exclusive to capitalism and won't go away even if we manage to achieve postscarcity at which point capitalism will be unnecessary there will still be conflict between class, defined not by resources or wealthy but by social status, skill, genetics.

[quote]
They need to be modified, but I think the overall lessons are still very applicable. I think it's very hard to describe Marx's views as simplistic, however. Have you ever taken a look at Das Kapital?[/QUOTE]
Yup, used to think I was a marxist (probably from lack of understanding of it), then considered myself a socialist, not sure what I am now but I definitely think we need more socialisation of amenities and utilities.

I think exploited worker vs exploitative capitalist is too simplistic. Today we have cooperatives, we have a sophisticated state which is "owned by the workers and the capitalists", we have welfare, we have union representation and worker power, we have state enforced worker rights, we have capitalists who try to better their workers lives, we have board representation and social mobility (comparatively better than then) allow workers to become the capitalist. Maybe its the same wolf in different clothing but I genuinely think the capitalism we have today is different from then so the people in the system and the dynamic between them is different. As I've said before I don't think exploitation is the only motive for capitalism and I don't think people are necissarily exploited so much, I happen to love my job, I'm not paid that well but nobody in the company is, some of the workers have nicer cars and a nicer house than the boss does. Maybe marx was talking about a worst case scenario from capitalism or maybe he'd argue that it would end up being that "bad capitalism" anyway.

[Guriosity]

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51679981]Well you are right there, tbh I'm sure marx would count most of the middle class as being among the proletariat.
The thing is though the reason those capitalists can extract profit from others work is the risk involved. If they are making an investment into obtaining and maintaining the means of production then there is a chance they would fail (80% of start ups fail apparently) so they take that profit to compensate for that risk and to further invest in their company. (this isn't entirely true but this is why, in my mind people are justified in taking profits from others work)

In the ideal world (as marx predicted) there would be enough to go around and people could make enterprise and the risk would either be negligible or of no consequence. In the real world is a person buys a load of machines, they either use their own money (opportunity cost), take a loan (they have to pay interest) or make the machine from scratch (in which case the workers profit from the capitalists work); to compesate for those losses the capitalist extracts value, sucks to be the worker, moreso if theres nothing in place to ensure worker rights, living wage, good mobility, safety but that capitalist is going to extract the value.

Ah I agree here, people should have the right to opt out. Current system is open to and encourages exploitation, people have to work, so the people offering the worst jobs can afford to pay less. I think if the only way to make someone do a job is the threat of starvation or violence (through lack of money) then the job really ought to be made more attractive.

I believe one of the reasons Marx wrote the communist manifesto was the aim to influence peoples political views, wouldn't this indicate the presence of an ideology which would also be present in his later work? He predicted it but he also strove toward it.

I believe there is a "class struggle" but its not exclusive to capitalism and probably goes back to when we first became sedentary (possibly before), the priestesses, scribes and kings would extract value from the work of their slaves; the usurers, trades people and land owners would extract value from their labourers. Not exclusive to capitalism and won't go away even if we manage to achieve postscarcity at which point capitalism will be unnecessary there will still be conflict between class, defined not by resources or wealthy but by social status, skill, genetics.

Yup, used to think I was a marxist (probably from lack of understanding of it), then considered myself a socialist, not sure what I am now but I definitely think we need more socialisation of amenities and utilities.

I think exploited worker vs exploitative capitalist is too simplistic. Today we have cooperatives, we have a sophisticated state which is "owned by the workers and the capitalists", we have welfare, we have union representation and worker power, we have state enforced worker rights, we have capitalists who try to better their workers lives, we have board representation and social mobility (comparatively better than then) allow workers to become the capitalist. Maybe its the same wolf in different clothing but I genuinely think the capitalism we have today is different from then so the people in the system and the dynamic between them is different. As I've said before I don't think exploitation is the only motive for capitalism and I don't think people are necissarily exploited so much, I happen to love my job, I'm not paid that well but nobody in the company is, some of the workers have nicer cars and a nicer house than the boss does. Maybe marx was talking about a worst case scenario from capitalism or maybe he'd argue that it would end up being that "bad capitalism" anyway.[/QUOTE]

Try mutualism. From what I under stand its a series of collective s working within the capitalist system, subverting it and taking over.

[Spazi]

This is the sort of thing people refer to when they say "SJW"

Basically prove how oppressed and disadvantaged you are in order to gain power in the social context and get to silence those who you don't like.

[Guriosity]

The difference between a SJW and an activist: An activist tries to get a ramp added to a building for easier wheelchair access. The SJW tries to get the stairs removed because they might offend people who can't use them.

[1239the]

I honestly don't get why this is news. No one person is in charge of organizing this protest, it's a grassroots deal. Just because some people made a Facebook and one of them makes a retarded post, means that now no white people are invited? There's been territorial idiots in every movement since the idea of protesting began, no one really gave them attention until now, now it's like 'the SJWs are taking over'.

[dewd11]

The original post wasn't even a big deal or inflammatory? It was literally just "This has been going on for a while thanks for waking up, familiarize yourself with the movement before acting thank you."

[JustExtreme]

[QUOTE=1239the;51681373]I honestly don't get why this is news. No one person is in charge of organizing this protest, it's a grassroots deal. Just because some people made a Facebook and one of them makes a retarded post, means that now no white people are invited? There's been territorial idiots in every movement since the idea of protesting began, no one really gave them attention until now, now it's like 'the SJWs are taking over'.[/QUOTE]

SJWs is just a term like "hipsters" used to deride or silence those its used against without any actual tangible argument or criticism. It's pretty sad really considering that people that are quick to label others racist, for example, often face similar criticisms.