WHERE ARE THE MARXISTS?

this is literally Peterson's level of logical reasoning behind his position so it pretty much works

Attached: 1532150349670.jpg (1106x1012, 90K)

that's everyone who studies politics you dummy

actually it came from Zizek indirectly arguing that he doesn´t know any marxist, or those who call themselves marxist haven´t even read him.

Zizek is such a CHAD

Say what you will about these 3 but they sure as aren't idpol

Stop treating politics like some form of corruption hentai

I guess I'm a Marxist and a Nazi. Am I a pedophile because I've read Lolita?

A lot of people would seem like a chad beside Peterson.

Only if you fapped

Peterson is simply too stupid to understand and articulate his own intuition so he takes positions of phony shitposting like explaining postmodernism.
I think Peterson wants to point towards the commonality of postmodernists and Marxists that they both are left-wingers. And with that they serve the left affects which fetishize destruction of the existing orders.
At least they both share their hate for liberal cucks. This simpleton of a jungian just doesn't get that the only widely held alternative to cuckoldry is anti capitalist left wing stupidity.

I didn't but I don't lie some parts got me tingly.

in the universities, in teaching positions

Attached: costanza.jpg (250x250, 10K)

Who?

Based

who else converted to Zizekism last night?

You speak like a recovering peterson fan.
What pervades modern academia is not a Marxist influence

It's a semantic difference really or a matter of categorization if you will. Marxism has evolved into the new left paradigm of intersectionality, now Zizek considers these people heritics at best but only maybe 5% of those who call themselves socialist or whatever are old school marxists. 95% of that movement are corporate sponsored SJWs. Marxism as Zizek understands it is dead so it's a not a good criticism and btw a point Peterson has made in the past.

>Yea Forums ladies and gentlemen

What does he even understand by Marxism?

I am well-read in six different languages, have understood Plato, Dante, Descartes, Russell, Joyce, modern biochemistry, intricate legal codes and even Godel (albeit in a 'pop science' manner, since I don't have all the math), and yet not for a second did I hear Zizek clearly expressing what kind of Marxist he is. All he did was say he reverted back to Hegel or something, name-dropping his main influences without any clear exposition of the main tenets of his thought.

I believe Peterson is not a rigorous intellectual, but at least he's clear and doesn't talk in continental philosophy lingo, except when speaking about psychoanalysis, which is a pseudoscience worse than astrology.

Do continentals ever have an argument other than 'you didn't understand this' or 'you have to read that'? This is why I can't stand continental philosophy debates. I grew up listening to Russell vs. Copleston on the existence of God. Watching continental philosophers mumble sophistically about unexplained concepts is a pain in the ass for me.

Here's what an actual debate sounds like:

youtube.com/watch?v=hXPdpEJk78E

Stop gaslighting

I can't stand analytical garbage because it just erodes the ability of the human being to possibly give a shit. Anal phil only finds answer to questions nobody cares about. Also there is no such thing as monolithic "continentals".

t. someone who knows more in more fields than you do.

>Anal phil only finds answer to questions nobody cares about

What answers has it even found? Philosophy is not in the business of finding answers.

Furthermore, you seem to be under the old misconception of taking analytic philosophy to be the linguistic philosophy that was going on at Oxford in the 50's. It has changed a lot since then.

I don't think you know as much as a you think you do.

>Also there is no such thing as monolithic "continentals".

There isn't, but the term has its usefulness.

he's right tho

he's literally a hegelo-lacanian, he's the worst individual to defend marxism possible

Why Peterson couldn't just name the Frankfurt school and it's main theorists? Some of them are even still alive, and they are factually the founding fathers of neo-marxism. Not to mention their direct followers. Is it because they are mostly Jewish and Peterson have some form of mental-lock when talking about Jews? Or because he actually didn't bothered himself reading anything beyond 20-something pages of communist manifesto.

he only knows about Derrida and Foucoult, and I don't believe he has read either one of them.

because he knows he's an unread retard and naming people would just give more room for ziz to run laps around him exposing him as even a bigger brainlet charlatan

How the fuck can you go to a debate with most prominent "marxist" and be this unread? This shit is extremely telling in my mind. The wallet will be heavier with some 40k American rubles, audience will cheer to every shit anyway, so why even bother reading something. I'm not even that much interested in marxism and I think I've read more about that crap than Peterson.

Is zizek IDW now? Will he be on rogan?
I didn't watch the debate, when is there a release with proper audio like a podcast?

Oh fuck why didn't you tell me? I read Mein Kampf once oh god oh fuck

Why do continental philosophers call themselves by their religious affiliations?

In analytic philosophy, we have epistemologists, ethicists, utilitarians, verificationists. We don't have russellians, strawsonians, dennettians, searlians, churchlandians...

In other words: people are called by what they do or the theories they defend, not by the sacred authorities they follow.

Because his whole thing about cultural marxists(which is what he tended to refer to as 'marxist' in general) is that they are the pop-culture SJW American liberals. He can't name any of those in response to that question because at this point he was beginning to understand that they meant different things and suspected that Zizek would immediately shut him down if he did that. He later tried to reiterate his point and kind of explain why he uses this colloquial definition of marxist when he asked him about the 'why preach marxism instead of zizekism' question. His point is that what majority of people refer to as marxism is not the academic definition of the word.
If someone is watching Zizek they may think that this whole thing is not that bad but if they start googling marxism they will almost inevitably end up getting results of the neon haired tranny SJWs who are often referred to as marxists(especially by the right) which would be bad not only for someone like Peterson but also to Zizek because neither of them want to send people to these lunatics.
I thought this was a good question but unfortunately Zizek forgot to properly address it because he had like 20 other things he wanted to say there.

and they're not frankfurt
you are a Fucking dumbass. First, I have no fucking clue what you mean by "neo-marxism" I think you just mean Western Marxism. And the Frankfurt school thinkers were some of the most critical people of "identity politics" consumer culture and all of that. Meanwhile, in the USSR, in philosophy departments a lot of analytical philosophy was mostly read and concentrated on. The Marxism that you, Peterson his faggot followers describe just doesn't fucking exist.

this really should have been obvious from the start of the Peterson-phenomenon: he will talk at lengh and in at least some depth on individual thinkers he partially agrees with and connect their thoughts into his own patchwork-philosophy, whereas when he talks about the big other he believes he is opposing (postmodernism, marxism and naziism) he sticks to vague, abstract generalities - the switch in approaches betrays his ignorance.

Continental philosophy is based on reading texts by previous philosophers in a long line that constitutes a "tradition". There are continental school of thoughts like phenomenology, existentialism,post-structuralism or object oriented ontology but these lines are blurry, because everyone reads everyone.

>And the Frankfurt school thinkers were some of the most critical people of "identity politics" consumer culture and all of that.
Marcuse played both sides of that field.

>owned

Attached: Dialectic.png (498x516, 436K)

So you think that the whole issue is between using the term "marxist" in it's true academic value? That the Peterson is pretty much helping himself by calling cultural/neo-marxists (who admittedly use the teaching of Marx very vaguely, ie: exchange of working class for minorities and identity politics) just "marxists"? I could agree on that. Correct me, if I misunderstood you.

>First, I have no fucking clue what you mean by "neo-marxism
And you are calling me a dumbass. You are either unread or you are playing dumb Loki's wager. Go google it.
>And the Frankfurt school thinkers were some of the most critical people of "identity politics"
No, they weren't. There were some inclinations to that, but there were also actual full-blown Zionists in that group, which is as hardcore as identity politics can get. Others played both sides. Peterson is probably wrong by calling this crap "marxism", but that doesn't meant that the whole new left theorem/framework & neo-marxism doesn't exist.

It's also one of the reasons for their unbearable writing style. Reading strings of names with -ian attached is pretty tiring.

>So you think that the whole issue is between using the term "marxist" in it's true academic value? That the Peterson is pretty much helping himself by calling cultural/neo-marxists (who admittedly use the teaching of Marx very vaguely, ie: exchange of working class for minorities and identity politics) just "marxists"? I could agree on that. Correct me, if I misunderstood you
Yes. Peterson himself gets into this at 2:16:40, here telling Zizek that to him he is a strange Marxist and asking why does he still 'promote' marxism and how it could lead young people astray via antifa-like wankery
youtu.be/WGRC5AA1wF0?t=2h16m40s

The lobsters at the bottom of the dominance hierarchy tend to have severly decreased brain sizes amongst other things, here we are presented with concrete proof that this can also happen within human hierarchies.

Peterson probably, dude was about to get on his knees for the sniffing trash man.

Peterson was clearly running on fumes trying to comprehend Zizek's points but it still seems to me like he won since Zizek basically conceded that capitalism is the best possible system right now.

>You speak like a recovering peterson fan.
Half right. I used to be sympathetic towards him, and still think he used to be better. Honestly his raw beef diet probably did a number on his mental functioning. But I was never a "fan", because his capitalist apologetics was always pleb-tier even when his social science was at a higher level (before the initial gender scandal and even in the first few long form interviews he did after that)

>What pervades modern academia is not a Marxist influence
Lol. I mean it's obviously not an orthodox Marxist influence, but if you don't know how Trotskyism seeped into both left and right circles in the west, using Stalinism as a tool to represent itself as the "true resistance to communism", then you're not woke.

Neoconservatism is an offshoot of trotsky's international revolutionise. The vast majority of neoliberal *and* neoconservative voices from the early 2000s, Christopher Hitchens and Tony Blair for example, had involvement with, not just Marxist, but specifically *Trotskyite* groups in their youth. In many cases, this involvement was extensive.

Jordan Peterson will never critique this because his own beliefs are in large part derived from the same source.

In academia, whether individual academics acknowledge this influence or not, there are either leftists who are working under a Trotskyite revision of socialism (which of course divorces itself from Marxism considered in its historical form) or right wingers, liberal or "conservative" (classical liberal), who are again working under the same Trotskyite revision of Marxist doctrine, as filtered through neoconservatism (which is essential Leo Strauss + Trotskyism.)

This influence is so pervasive that people who previously would have been welcomed into the left with open arms are now decried as "strasserites", which is to be understood as simply meaning "not a trot."

Pic very much related and honestly do some googling around about this stuff yourself. It's a fascinating history very far removed from "cultural Marxism" conspiracies

The ideology of woke capital= 19th century Fabian Socialism + 20th Century Trotskyism. It's really that simple

Attached: IMG_3664.jpg (750x553, 86K)

>And you are calling me a dumbass. You are either unread or you are playing dumb Loki's wager. Go google it.
user..neomarxism pretty much doesn't mean anything. So far there wasn't any authority that said "this is neomarxism and it's different from marxism this way".

>loki's wager
Yeah, no.

Imagine actually thinking trots are popular within the Left. Although it is interesting to see a new boogeyman to be scared off.

Not really, if anything he merely said capitalism is the best system that holds actual global relevance. He is merely saying that the cold war was won by the US, not that this discredits communism but merely that new ways of analysis are necesary to defeat capitalism, which he considers a necessity due to the limits of 'the magic of the free market' as some liberals like Pete Buttchug would say.
He also allowed for non-liberal market economies like how China does it while adding the caveat that we mustn't forget the faith of the worker under such a system and how it might lead to stalinist isolation of the government to the workers.

That is not what loki wager means, so far you and Peterson has actually yet to name someone that does the things you are saying

I just repeatedly did. Neo-marxism, new-left and it's roots with Frankfurt school are that thing. You playing all "but this is not exactly it" change exactly nothing.

Again Neo-marxism isn't even a thing, nor do these neo-marxist that you complain about actually do anything marxist. Name-dropping Loki wager which is about defining something, which not only that you didn't do by providing examples, but projecting onto what you think other people are doing.

>New Left
Oh please not only is no one talking about it in the first place, but even the New Left themselves made clear to dissociate themselves with marxism

>Neo-marxism isn't even a thin
The neomarxists obviously claim it isn't but anybody outside the academic groupthink doesn't find it hard to see the link

Now this is gaslighting

>Neo-marxism isn't even a thing
That is only your opinion which I sincerely doesn't care about. Nor I care about your appeal to authority. Outside of academia echo-chambers, oh yeah it is a thing.
>Oh please not only is no one talking about it in the first place
Like that means something.
>New Left themselves made clear to dissociate themselves with marxism
Like that means something. This is quintessential moronism like "I'm not a racist, but..." now we have "I'm not a marxist, but..."
>you complain about
I didn't complain about nothing itt.
>by providing examples
I did provided you with plethora of examples.

If your whole shtick is that neomarxists/newleft are not marxists, then yes, they are not and it is wrong to call them such. It is however completely adequate, if not probably 100% academically correct, to call them with that "neo" prefix, as it was explained itt before.

>Neo-marxism isn't even a thing
It is a thing, but in reality "neo-marxists" are just some irrelevant heterodox economists like Baran and Sweezy

>This is quintessential moronism like "I'm not a racist, but..." now we have "I'm not a marxist, but..."
They also did stuff and methods without any attachment to the labour movement like leftists before and fought for non-class causes. It quacks AND walks like a duck

>I did provided you with plethora of examples.
You haven't even provided shit senpai.

>to call them with that "neo" prefix, as it was explained itt before.
And as people have already explained it you, something cannot be called neo-X if they weren't calling themselves X or doing X stuff in the first place. Facts don't care about feelings sweetie.

I don't see how it matters. The "real" marxists let's say, also hate white men and love transsexuals, that's a lot more important than class struggle for the vast majority of "REAL" marxists today.

>something cannot be called neo-X if they weren't calling themselves X or doing X stuff in the first place
What "they" are calling themselves is absolutely irrelevant. I can call you a faggot and I would be probably very much right, but until there is an evidence of you sucking dicks, it won't be real. However, if I know you are sucking dicks on daily basis, talk about sucking dicks frequently and read the works of the greatest dick-suckers in history, then I will be pretty right to call you a neo-dicksucker.
>They also did stuff and methods without any attachment to the labour movement like leftists before and fought for non-class causes
Yes, so? That is the whole deal because they are not "marxists".
>You haven't even provided shit senpai.
>post examples
>does it
>I don't like those examples
Stop being a woman.
>sweetie
You need to go back.

Yeah I'm not talking about leftypol or bunkerchan, or whatever autist-hole you people are currently identifying as "the Left".

In the real world, where people wth real influence live, in university leftist societies, leftist publishing presses, leftist orgs like the dsa, trots and fabians have the discourse with an iron grip.

Things can be called whatever people want. Outside academia a lot of people noticed that the focus shifted from class to race and gender and etc. So they called them 'neomarxist' or whatever similar term and will continue to do so. You don't have a monopoly on the use of language.

>However, if I know you are sucking dicks on daily basis, talk about sucking dicks frequently and read the works of the greatest dick-suckers in history, then I will be pretty right to call you a neo-dicksucker.
So you can label anybody if you can project with no evidence? I rest my case

In the real world trots and fabians are as influential as leftypol or bunkerchan. Fabians already lost control of the UK Labour Party.

Attached: 1534782826523.jpg (324x271, 16K)

>Things can be called whatever people want
Sure and my point is that people do are wrong and fucking retarded.

>So you can label anybody if you can project with no evidence?
You regularly like to play stupid or you have issues with reading comprehension?

>the light at the end of the tunnel is a train
>people cheer

the guy tells you that we are all doomed and you fucking cheer, what the hell does one need to say to put the whole room into a disturbing silence? have we become numb to everything?

the debate was more a spectacle than anything else, people just needed something to cheer for or boo against in their life so they paid for a ticket or watched the debate online and will watch the videos or make videos how one destroyed the other

>Philosophy is not in the business of finding answers
>this brainlet meme again
>under the old misconception of taking analytic philosophy
Not that guy but I'm taking two philosophy courses right now and we're reading recent texts (from no earlier than the 80s other than Anscombe) and it is pretty much shit. Ordinary language philosophy failing to get into metaphysics in one class and Bayesian evidence bullshit in the other.
>reddit spacing
>Yes, so? That is the whole deal because they are not "marxists".
What is your definition of neo-Marxist if it literally isn't a Marxist?

We all find it very easy to see the similarity between marxists and progressives, if you don't see it that's fine

That seems to be you thing so my bad if i stepped over your toes

Similarities != equivalence retard

>What is your definition of neo-Marxist if it literally isn't a Marxist?
So in your world neo-nazis are literally nazis? Even though they push things that would make Hitler raise his eyebrows and their ideological doctrines are very different than of those of actual German national socialists?

>literally no u "argument"
Yea Forums would probably be more of your liking.

You're being pedantic little faggots. Everyone knows what Peterson means when he says Marxists.

Thanks for teaching me a new phrase, but I'm afraid it doesn't apply. You are just desperate to somehow stuff the word "Marxism" into the label for a crowd that doesn't care much about Marx, that's all.

>crowd that doesn't care much about Marx
Who cares about a crowd though. As long as it's ideologues use Marx as baseline to build their ideology, it is very valid to call them as such. Obviously not "marxists" as Peterson incorrectly does, but "new left" or "neo-marxists" is completely adequate.

>neo-nazis are literally nazis
Even they mimic Nazi in rhetoric and actions sure.

>Yea Forums would probably be more of your liking.
Coming from the retard that don't know how categories work, don't you mean /pol/? Oh wait by my bad maybe both boards are the same to you.

hence the neo prefix. You can get very mad about this but people are going to continue to use the term because we see the continuity between progressives and marxists. It's the exact same type of people attacking society, they've just changed their tactic

>As long as it's ideologues use Marx as baseline to build their ideology, it is very valid to call them as such.
That would be perfectly reasonable, but only if it was true and Marxism really was the baseline for Foucalt and his ilk.

Marxists who I would call Marxists (who call themselves Marxists mind you) push for things that Marx actively hated all the time, what the fuck are you talking about? They still claim to have class-based politics, just like neo-Nazis have anti-Jew Hitler worshiping politics.
Do you actually think that neo-Marxists are in any sense Marxists or are you just making the dumber version of the claim Kaczynski made about leftists abandoning Marx for other politics, but maintaining previous outlooks/social desires?

>It's the exact same type of people attacking society
As someone from a former communist country, I can tell you they are the exact opposite kind of people (as the "pro-gay" people evolved from anti-communist dissent). Even from the physiognomic, socio-economic or age structure POVs they are the exact opposite.

The neo prefix means that it is the newest iteration of current thing, not something is already similar to the thing itself retard. If you used the prefix quasi, then maybe you would have a point but it seems like you just don't know how English works

>the newest iteration of current thing
the thing being people attacking society, shilling for revolution

>Even they mimic Nazi in rhetoric and actions sure.
They really don't, not by a long shot. But please do illuminate me how would Hitler react to widespread white nationalism which is an integral part of today neonazi ideology. He would puke his mustache away. And that is only one thing out of many differences.

For all of Frankfurt school, Marx is a baseline. They usually also added what Marx opposed - identity politics. We could probably debate that all what today's neomarxists are in reality doing is exchanging oppressed working class with oppressed identity groups and then falling into that vortex of intra-identitarian politics, thus mitigating by sacrifice of Marxist hierarchical structure.

I am from former soviet bloc as well. There is a slight divide that gets bigger or smaller reacting to current events, but I can guarantee that regular progressives and neomarxists usually roll together. You can see that nicely with Pirate political parties, where both of these kinds shake hands on daily basis. How is that possible? Well, the baseline is same.

Countries that actually had communism are a different matter because it became the state. In America for example the sort of people who were communists in the 20s are now intersectionalist Progressives(they may have marxist tendencies but race and gender are more important than class now)

>In the real world trots and fabians are as influential as leftypol or bunkerchan.
They're certainly losing ground. But usually it's ground lost to fascists.

>Fabians already lost control of the UK Labour Party.
Yeah I fucking wish bro. I'm cautiously optimistic about Corbyn for various reasons, but the man is constantly walking on eggshells because even in his own movement, he still relies on people who can easily be described as Trots. So what you're describing is Fabians losing ground to Trots, only inevitably to lose ground to the fash because Corbyn is straddled between irreconcilable interest groups. I mean, it's still absolutely a push in the right direction and I hope he becomes PM (I live in the U.K. so I'll be voting for him), but the real problem is that leftist orgs rely on support from students and former students, who have been absolutely blasted by woke capital propaganda, and are basically incapable of representing working class interests.

Like I said earlier, it's not about what people profess to be, very few people profess to be trots or fabians, but if you trace the lineage of their talking points, you don't arrive at Polyani or Lasch or any of the people the left should be listening to, you arrive at Trostsky, and, even more commonly, at Bentham and Mill.

>people attacking society, shilling for revolution
So neo-revolutionaries? Retarded for different reasons but okay.

>please do illuminate me how would Hitler react to widespread white nationalism which is an integral part of today neonazi ideology
I can't speak for your idol retard. But if you really think and can argue that those 'Nazis' don't mimic Hilter then sure they aren't real Nazis I guess

>I can't speak for your idol retard.
>everyone I disagree with is a nazi

Attached: (you).jpg (243x207, 7K)

>he still relies on people who can easily be described as Trots. So what you're describing is Fabians losing ground to Trots
Yea I definitely don't think you know what Trots means anymore since Corbyn's posse are Bennities

neomarxists, because they have the same sort of analysis ie. oppressor class vs victim class. It's all just leftism and has been going on forever, but neomarxism as a term seems to make you guys assmad so we'll keep using it

Look who is the one failing to read. If those people that you whine aren't actual nazi really don't actually say or do nazi shit then yea they aren't a nazi.

>ie. oppressor class vs victim class
It isn't an explicit marxist thing to have that dichotomy. Revolutionaries back from the French Revolution often use that dichotomy too.

>For all of Frankfurt school
Those aren't neo-Marxists though... They are Marxists.
>neomarxists are in reality doing is exchanging oppressed working class with oppressed identity groups
WHO ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? You seem to referencing sjws who don't get much of their theoretical backing from the frankfurt school (certainly not Marx), and conflating them with the frankfurt school.
If you want to say "these people are the new version of Marxists" Then you're making Kaczynski's point.
If you want to say that the frankfurt school was "neo-Marxist" despite being called that by no one and simply calling themselves Marxists without that prefix, then why aren't you just calling them the Frankfurt school?

>In America for example the sort of people who were communists in the 20s are now
Dead. Plus USA never had a relevant labour movement.

It most certainly is. That is not to say that everyone in the social sciences and humanities are a bunch of orthodox, practicing marxists, but his pervasive influence and the influence of his (expressed) 20th century disciples is undeniable. There are whole critical theory departments. You literally cannot separate any academic critique of anything from its marxists presuppositions. This is neither a secret nor is it surprising if you have spent any time in proximity of the modern academy. The only mistake is to believe it is conspiratorial or under-wraps in any way. Everybody reads Marx in the academic humanities.

I don't buy what seems to be Peterson's argument that these people are neo-marxist because they desire a universal equality, and a sizable chunk of then identify as Marxist. It does read to me as an extremely heavy-handed moralizing with a desire for authoritarian control. The Marxism seems more an extension of their misguided moralizing rather than the other way around.

Attached: Screen Shot 2019-04-20 at 9.19.23 AM 1.png (2880x1800, 2.15M)

t. PhD student in the humanities, btw

The US had many communist academics and the CPUSA. Some time around the 60s, the sort of young radical person who would have been a communist started being an antiracist, or feminist, or something like that. There was plenty of crossover of course and there are still communists today, but these present communists will always defer to race and gender politics if they butt up against them.

> I can guarantee that regular progressives and neomarxists usually roll together
I'm talking about literal Marxists, that used to kill, torture and whatnot back in the days and those who support it. Not some vague, ghostly mememarxists.

>You can see that nicely with Pirate political parties
Liberals that categorically refuse to cooperate with communists and have highly negative perception of the preceeding regime.

KOLTORAL MARTZISM *sniff sniff* AND SO ON AND SO FORT. MEESTER PEETERSEN,*sniff sniff* WOULD YOU LET ME *sniff sniff* FACK YOUR DAUTER? I WOULD LAV TO FACK YOUR GIRL, PLEESE.

Didn't see the debate. Please tell me they at least talked about the influence of heterodox or say vulgarized marxism on modern identity politics. That's what I would call their common ground.

The name of the Marxist: Slavoj Žižek!

Frankfurt school was/is one of the pillars on which new left stands. If the rainbow has five different colors, then the existence of those colors on their own doesn't debunk the existence of the rainbow itself. So if Frankfurt schools can be understood as one of those colors, then yes, there is a rainbow out there too - neo-marxism/new left/whatever the name. I do agree with Ted that these people are tied to Marxism, but what I am aiming at is that those groups are more widespread across political scene and contain more political groups which follow Marx to various degree and with various accents. And as can be seen in European politics, with EU itself etc.

>I'm talking about literal Marxists, that used to kill, torture and whatnot back in the days and those who support it.
They are dying kind here. Old people and remains of previous regime. However even with those is a rather significant overlay - for example, last week the local Pirate party was called out by our communist party that they are "stealing from their program", which they absolutely do, for example with extra taxation of empty housing.

>Liberals that categorically refuse to cooperate with communists and have highly negative perception of the preceeding regime.
They mostly do (not all of them by far) but that doesn't say anything about their ideological baseline, which derive a lot from Marx. Never underestimate people's ability to find conflict in even seemingly similar ideas.

They didn't really talk WITH each other, as much as ramble AT each other
There was like 8 minutes of actual interaction
It was shitty

Then I won't go see it. Thanks for saving me the time. Sad to see that capitalizing on political antagonisms is all that matters nowadays

>jumble of words vaguely related to what I asked in hopes people won't realize that you still haven't even vaguely defined your position
I'm done

>Frankfurt school was/is one of the pillars on which new left stands
Which again the New Left might be founded by one Frankfurt school member but it explicity rejected marxism and fought for non-marxist goals.

This is the communist version of motte and bailey. In non-SJW spaces they love going "oh those SJW retards are just liberals they have nothing to do with us, what we care about are the pure economic class issues not oppression olympics and other radlib nonsense" but then you go and look for online communist communities and literally every single one of them out there spends more time talking about LGBTQIA+ issues, has trannies blogging and posting pictures of themselves and everyone else jacking off to the """cuties"""", and all the other radlib garbage commies claim has nothing to do with them. And the ones who do only care about class issues and ignore the background noise are discredited as class reductionists or brocialists. I don't understand what's even the point of this blatant propaganda is. Even if someone does literally fall for it, they'd go and look for leftists spaces to find out more, only to get drowned in SJW radlib faggotry wherever they go. Even shit like leftypol and stupidpol, places all the other e-lefties look down on as chud zones, are basically tranny safe spaces.

>Yea I definitely don't think you know what Trots means anymore since Corbyn's posse are Bennities
I can see why you see it that way because I wasn't specific enough. Corbyn's immediate circle consists of Bennites, but Corbyn is not in the position he's in because of his immediate circle. He relies on support from a multitude of electoral groups, a major component of which is the youth vote.

I can only go off my own experience here, but very few young labour supporters I've met (and most of my friends and even just acquaintances are labour supporters) even know who tony benn is, or what a Trotskyite is. But they all espouse the same talking points, have extremely limited anti-war commitments, are shitting the bed over brexit. And if Corbyn were to push the boat any more than he's already doing on any of these issues, he'd lose them. That's what I mean, theres only a limited sense in which the Labour Party has been changed by Corbyn's victory. At the ground level the same old tensions and contradictions are playing out.

(I am aware I'm using words like fabian and trot a little too loosely to capture the political tendencies I'm talking about, but I think those generalisations still work pretty well to describe what I'm trying to describe)

>They are dying kind here.
So is Marxism for the past three decades.

>However even with those is a rather significant overlay
>Posts irrelevant policy, that would be acceptable by everyone from the left, the "far right" or center
No.

>They mostly do (not all of them by far) but that doesn't say anything about their ideological baseline, which derive a lot from Marx.
What does it derive from Marx?

>it explicity rejected marxism
I would dispute that. Orthodox marxism yes but marxist weltanschauung as such? Hell no.

Any relevant names or political parties exceeding 5% of votes?

Communists are less idpol than pure idpollers but this is mostly true. C Derick Varn is great though.
>are basically tranny safe spaces
There is literally nothing wrong with this though, would you have us posting nigger and kike just to court /pol/ users?

How can they be a trot if they don't know what a Trotskyite is. As to whether they know Benn is irrevelant since Corbyn is remixing Bennism in the 21st century. What talking points are you complaining about?

As to whether Corbyn's effectiveness. I wouldn't too hung up on the young voters leaving Labour since for now they have nowhere else to go anyway. As long as Corbyn's domestic policies are solid and is neutral enough to have Remainers and Leavers complaining that he is one of the other, he can portray himself as the compromise candidate. Even in polling Labour remains relatively consistent compared to other parties, even with the CUK split.