domain:rifters.com
But all that proves is at least one person supports both communism and BLM.
Would you expect American Communists, or indeed communists generally, to not support BLM?
At any rate, I do not draw conclusions about the ideologies of entire movements supported by millions of people from individual graffitos.
If you were persuaded that hammers and sickles were a common addition to BLM-riot graffiti, would this be weak evidence of a connection between the two movements? To be clear, the best I can do after a brief search is two instances, and the vague memories of seeing many more at the time. I'm more curious about your reasoning process.
More generally, do you think the examples linked in this comment are likewise lacking a "developed political platform"? Are those people Marxists, in your view?
On the statue of Christopher Columbus, they scrawled “George Floyd” and “BLM,” as well as rudimentary Soviet hammer and sickle images (now sometimes representing a union of social classes), and stencilled raised fists, often viewed as an emblem of Black liberation and solidarity.
...Could it be that you were mistaken, and the hammer and sickle in that first example only represented "a union of social classes"? Maybe that guy wasn't a communist at all?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
42m ago
I think that 'cultural Marxism' is not a helpful label or one that illuminates the political trend that we're criticising
Oh, I don't necessarily disagree with that, for me it's mostly a question of preserving the historical record.
Crowstep
43m ago
I think you're talking past me. The sole point I was making was that Jews are not part of the progressive stack of oppressed identities among Cultural Marxists. Whether the Jewish-Israeli lobby is particularly powerful in the US is irrelevant.
It's possible for Jews to be considered an oppressor class by these people and also have the US government be very pro-Israel, because most Democratic congressmen are not hardcore wokes, even if they do tolerate it as an ideology.
You clearly think that Jews are too influential in American politics, fine. You're not the only guy on this forum who doesn't like Jews. But your statement that they are considered part of the progressive stack with all the other intersectional identities obviously isn't true.
OliveTapenade
1hr ago
I think that someone who paints hammers and sickles and 'CPUSA' on to a block is almost certainly a communist. That imagery is pretty unambiguous.
(You can't see the BLM in that image, but the reverse of the block shows it.)
But all that proves is at least one person supports both communism and BLM. My priors on the kinds of people who go around spray-painting slogans on skate parks make me think it's quite likely that the person is an idiotic, edgy teenager with no developed political platform. At any rate, I do not draw conclusions about the ideologies of entire movements supported by millions of people from individual graffitos.
Lizzardspawn
1hr ago
Right now I am using some blue clicky mechanical chinesium made keyboard. It cost 15 euro. Not the best I have had but get's the job done. Trying to figure out how to obtain unicomp. I love buckle springs.
Lizzardspawn
1hr ago
That is why you make mosh pits. They are eternal.
OliveTapenade
1hr ago
I didn't say that it's a strawman conspiracy theory, so, well, good?
I think that 'cultural Marxism' is not a helpful label or one that illuminates the political trend that we're criticising, and I think that the widespread use of the term has more to do with a need to associate the trend in question with a historical villain than anything else (that is, what I termed 'a bugaboo' - 'Marxism' is a spooky word).
I like to use 'social justice politics' or 'progressivism' when I need to be more neutral, and I'm not above just using 'wokeness' when I think that word's not going to alienate my audience, and that seems to work fine for me. 'Cultural Marxism' just introduces too many inaccurate or confusing associations for my liking.
Now that said, yes, there were people who identified as 'cultural Marxists', and I'm happy to call them cultural Marxists. But those people are not who we mean when we talk about cultural Marxism/wokeness/SJ politics, so I don't find them that relevant to the use of the term today.
For what it's worth I am also quite happy to discard the term 'neoliberal'. I absolutely roll my eyes at and downgrade the reliability of any activists who start talking about 'ascendant neoliberalism' and the like. So let's just throw both of them out. The worthlessness of 'neoliberal' as a term doesn't rescue 'cultural Marxism'.
Mm.
So in your opinion, when some guy spraypaints #BLM, multiple hammers and sickles, and the publication date of the Communist Manifesto on a public structure, what do you think is going on in that guy's head? Would you expect the misconception he's suffering from to be common or rare?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1hr ago
the only part that I find doubtful is how by "resulted" suggests that the lineage of "woke" is entirely, or mostly, within the movement that referred to itself as "Cultural Marxism"
Well, you can follow the people who referred to their thought as "Cultural Marxism", see what they were writing later on, when "woke" became a thing, note the lack of differences between "woke", the current academic memplex "woke" is based on ("Critical Theory" as best as I can gather), and "Cultural Marxism" of the past.
but the volume of evidence is really too small for there to ever have been more than a fairly small number (on the order of a few academic groups and attached activist groupies? Perhaps 100-1000 people?).
This is exactly what we'd expect from a movement that was dismissed, on this very forum, as "just a couple of crazy kids on college campuses", until a few years ago.
is justified as a term, when the "woke" themselves see their lineage as a procession of mass movements (civil rights, LGBT etc.),
I have to stop you there, "woke" is not a term to describe mass movements. Civil rights, and LGBT are not "woke" / "Culturally Marxist" by virtue of being being civil rights / LGBT.
Then the moniker "conspiracy theory" would be appropriate on the surface. Whether one should abstain from using it because of the pejorative connotations, or push back against the pejorative connotations on account of those being obvious enemy action by conspiracies, is a separate question.
It's not a separate question. The term "conspiracy theory" is deliberately used to slander anyone believing it, the implication being that the theory is false, and the person is a paranoid schizophrenic for thinking it might be true. In colloquial usage a "conspiracy theory" has to be false or else it's not a "conspiracy theory". We could it watch in real time when 2rafa posted about how believing in WEF conspiracy theories are an "embarrassment", and how they magically stopped being "conspiracy theories", according to several users here, when I wrote my longpost about the WEF, even though I explicitly endorsed the term.
If you want to apply the label "conspiracy theory" to "Cultural Marxist" I can endorse it on the condition it is done in a way like "Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory that turned out to be 100% true", or otherwise made it absolutely clear that the theory is not false.
If you want to insist that the pejorative connotations are a separate question, then we have to come back why you insist on not calling wokism "Cultural Marxism", here too the pejorative connotations should be a separate question.
OliveTapenade
1hr ago
I would not, no.
I'm aware of that time a couple of its founders identified as Marxists, but I don't think that makes the movement Marxist.
BLM is amorphous enough that it's difficult to nail down any specific principles, but some are outlined here, and I don't think they're Marxist. Based on that page alone I think there's a clear anarchist influence on BLM, with a heavy emphasis on the abolition of punishment, end of coercion, and mutual aid, but I think that to be Marxist specifically, there would need to be something about the ownership and distribution of capital.
So, anarchist or at least anarchist-adjacent, yes, but Marxist, no.
AvocadoPanic
1hr ago
Democrats (which are very much pro Israel)
Can you point to the US anti-Israel or not pro-Israel party?
I'll conceded the Democrats are pro-Israel, I'm unconvinced they're more pro-Israel than Republicans.
What kind of single unifying culture you favor promoting here? As an outsider looking in, It makes sense for the USA to promote a unifying culture and also to stop undermining the white American historical nation and part of its unifying culture to be about the continuous American nation. I.E. White Anglo Americanism. While the story of USA will include also black experience but with much less grievances, and sure there is some room for the story of other groups. A multiethnic country which is what the USA is today, can promote a unifying culture, but will also have to promote. And plenty of grey lines on such issues, but your trajectory is not a good idea, and leads to the destruction of American culture, and towards a post-American culture.
Which is not my culture, nor my people, except in a more supra-national way, although it does benefit my people for "genocide the native people and put a lipstipc on a pig" to not be a fashionable ideology. But I object against this cultural revolution from a moralist universalist perspective too. I am not suggesting, anywhere that USA should promote other languages than English.
Saying you favor unified culture is an easy slogan, but black Americans have their own different ethnic community. They speak English. What are you going to do about it? Are you trying to force different ethnic communities in the USA to abandon any of their characteristics. You ought to target especially groups like black Americans or Jews, or Indians who are especially ethnocentric.
- It was the same with unification of various countries in Europe— the French promoted Frenchness, the British promoted Britishness, the Russians promoted Russian culture. Peter the Great was not Marxist by any stretch of the imagination. He was a Russian Czar promoting the culture of Russia.
There is no Frenchness without the French. Look, you had the opportunity to address mass migration, and you didn't. And now it seems you support displacing Americans while painting this as promoting Americanism.
I think as far as people suddenly becoming “strangers in their own land”, again, this isn’t some weird new idea that nobody ever thought about until Marx came along. There have always been subcultures and ethnic groups on the outs in any given society. It’s how a unified culture tends to work, you go along with the culture or you are at least somewhat on the outside. I and my near kin would be on the outs in lots of cultures.
People becoming strangers in their own land is the local culture and people becoming replaced. And when this happens, those doing the replacement cheer for colonizing it, including the left and fake right, who ideologically favor the native people being disminished and support cultural genocide and advocate for a culture that does not carry the heritage of the past, that has its statues replaced, schools renamed, etc.
You trying to support this as nationalism is just a complete failure to address this issue, and subversive. It basically denies what is happening because it supports it.
Also important to note that actual highly hostile cultural marxists have promoted rhetoric trying to spin cultural replacement and mass migration as something else than it is because they genuinely believed that by lying about this, they will get their way to destroy their ethnic outgroup. So they promoted dishonestly the narrative of opposing identity, while the end result was their focus was on what was destructive on their right wing outgroup identities, while enabling the progressive favored groups like Jews, Indians, migrants. Because the current trajectory is of certain people being replaced, hated and discriminated and that isn't a case of regional cultures of a nation, converging, but of the destruction of European people. Your approach is just to compromise with this and spin it as otherwise.
In regards to whether you are a cultural marxist hiding your power level, I am not saying you have that goal, and I am not saying you don't. Cultural marxism works not by only the people who promote directly racism in the left wing direction, but also people who undermine opposition to it, by promoting the acid of destruction of identities. Most cultural marxists do both and pretend they are just opposing racism, because they see as racist for their right wing outgroups to have things for themselves, being exclusive.
As for the rest, in addition to those doing so deliberately, some, because of the pressure of political corectnest which is key element of cultural marxist, address their message towards those who are less ethnocentric, and are getting screwed over because of it.
The end result of mass migration and the culture of Americans being on the out, is the promotion of a different culture, of the outsiders who replace Americans, and those of native stock who are ideologically anti-American. The unifying culture you favor is not going to be an American culture, but a new Soviet man, that is about a shared ideological vision. And even that is not going to happen, because the cultural destruction you favor, and try to spin as nationalism as usual, has as part of its dna the hostility against the ative people.
I have challenged you and others repeatedly. Look, to have equality under the law, you need to crash organizations like ADL, and to change the mentality extremely pervasive among countless fanatics, even more so of those communities, that "Jews are wonderful, and disagreement is antisemitism", Blacks are wonderful and disagreement is racism, women are wonderful and disagreement, is misogyny, etc. One needs to be critical of mgirants and of thse groups and of even people who don't belong in these groups, who have that mentality.
Generalities about equality under the law mean nothing, because you can have a lopsided system that pretends to be doing equality under the law, while pretending that groups like Indians and Jews are oppressed, while their system benefits them at the expense of others. We need substance that names names, and is specific about the coalition and how it would deal with groups like the ADL and similiar.
Because else, people who want to promote a generality that in the substance is not going to be what it claims, are going to just do that.
I think as far as people suddenly becoming “strangers in their own land”, again, this isn’t some weird new idea that nobody ever thought about until Marx came along.
The followers of Marx are the people who want to destroy reactionary people like white Americans and are promoting the idea of destroying nations while also respecting more certain nations than others. You are reversing things here and promoting a false analogy between the creation of a nation from regional cultures, to being replaced and not having a homeland.
This is incredibly radical and destructive agenda of cultural revolution. It does have historical paralels but it is of people who have been conquered by a foreign tribe, and subject to the humiliations related to that.
It actually is a key part of the far left tradition to take something and then double down to the extreme, without considering that doubling down takes something that mgiht work in one case, but be destructive in another one. In this case, nationalism reducing some regional differences which it self has its own costs, to then "destroy nations" agenda.
In the American context, the people promoting this have, as a pattern basically constantly concern trolled white Americans, with extreme intolerance, while playing dumb and tolerating far worse behavior by other ethnic communities and migrants.
Rebranding destroying ethnic communities as nationalism doesn't make it nationalism. Which is about ethnic groups which share blood, language, historical tradition and have a common conciousness.
Note, that this isn't a defense of all ethnic groups who migrated in the USA retaining their own language, tradition. Of course, I am in favor of both limited migration and migrants trying to assimiliate, which is destroyng part of their ethnic identity, at least them deprioritising the rights, but also affirming and replacing it with the native identity in part. The reason, being that a nation has a right to its own existence, and migrants are coming to either be adopted into it, or at least to coexist with it, if in small numbers. It is of course a significant harm to a nation to be replaced by foreigners. A world of people who have homelands, and they don't try to destroy others homes, and even there are some minority ethnic communities doing their own thing, but with the trend where there is migration towards assimilation and of limited numbers of foreigners being allowed to migrate, is a better working model.
This "destroy nations" idea, that is related with hardcore authoritarianism and its adherents have also commited attrocities against those who would oppose it, and ethnic communities for refusing to abandon their identity, and become new soviet men is just a bad idea that leads to inevitable disaster and a key part of the cultural marxist dna. That promoters of this idea don't want to consider the consequences of enforcing this, doesn't make them irrelevant. We know the consequences.
However sincere some adherents of this bad idea might be, they have lost to those who promote it to screw the right wing outgroup. It is used to concern troll white people which explains why its adherents are often not concerned about say banning the ADL or NAACP. Because they are comfortable with a status quo that enforces authoritarianism that doesn't allow pro white identity politics and tolerates and promotes the identity politics of such groups. And spinning this status quo as non woke (especially among cultural marxists who oppose the more mask out cultural marxist elements).
The agenda of destroying ethnic communities and opposing conservative identities and dinstiction is a vehicle for the cultural marxists who promote it to harm "reactionary" nations under their belief and agenda that all groups are equal, but some groups are more equal than others.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1hr ago
Oh, I'll happily grant that the term 'cultural Marxism' has referents. When someone like Joy Pullmann says 'the cultural Marxists', I know who she means and what they believe. (...)
By contrast, most of the people identified as cultural Marxists don't claim to be cultural Marxists. In fact, they mostly decry the term and claim that it's a conspiracy theory.
There's two problems here. Like I mentioned earlier, we've had at least a decade, maybe more, of left-wing academics writing rivers of text on "neoliberalism". No one identified themselves as neoliberal at the time, the mish-mash of ideas attached to the label often contradicted the beliefs of people who may have at one point identified as neoliberal, or were even self-contradictory in themselves. None of this stopped a huge amount of papers on the subject being published in peer-reviewed journals, so I don't see why we should be treating "Cultural Marxism" with a higher amount of rigor.
But the bigger problem is that there were people identifying as cultural Marxists. That excerpt I quoted was Emily Hicks writing about how to combine Marxism with feminism, and her answer was: cultural Marxism. Again, at that point what more do you want? You can say the term is outdated, you can say the whole thing was a marginal niche at the time, but what you cannot say is that it's a strawman conspiracy theory.
Now, back to OG Marxists, if the goal is to enforce a distinction between Marxism and the-ideology-that-shall-not-be-named, I'm happy to go along with that, but enforcing a distinction is not the same thing as denying it's existence, or that it at one point used the label "cultural Marxism" as a matter of historical record.
Suppose there is a person who is very concerned with social justice. They believe that racism and sexism are among the most serious problems facing our society, they are deeply committed to battling the kyriarchy hydra. They are interested in cultural critique, in sociopolitical theory, and have educated themselves extensively on these subjects. In my experience, such people are not particularly rare, and probably most people commenting here will have encountered several of them.
Based on you experience, how likely is such a person to be familiar with and use the term "late stage capitalism"? My experience would be that it is very likely; does yours differ?
If they do use that term, what do they mean by it?
Why does the kyriarchy hydra in the linked comic have a "class" head, and why is that head resolved into "economics" in the last panel? What sort of economics do you suppose the author intended?
That comic is from the website everydayfeminism. If I search that website for references to "capitalism", I get many, many hits. How many of those hits do you suppose involve discussion of Capitalism as a positive force in the world, versus a negative force? Why should that be?
....I've just searched "Patriarchy and late stage capitalism".
Having previously identified the socialization and naturalization of inequalities, we now look at the influence of capitalism. Although patriarchy pre-existed it - many societies were already characterized by a sexual division of labour, gender-based violence, or gender norms often privileging the male - the specific contribution of capitalism was undoubtedly the institutionalization of the devaluation of women and their work. The devalued or even unpaid domestic work, the concept of the “housewife” that accompanies it, as well as professional segregation, have their origins in the era when capitalism gradually replaced the medieval feudal system. They are thus not, as we often hear, the remnants of a dark and barbaric medieval era, but rather constitutive of the first phase of capitalist accumulation which, as we shall see, led to a phenomenal regression in the status of women.
Judging by this excerpt (or the article as a whole, I'm not your dad), what general branch of political philosophy do you think has formed the author's worldview?
The dominance approach to feminist theory arises out of a Marxian background that models gender difference on class relations. The relation between manager and worker is not just one of “difference.” The manager and worker are situated within a system of social relations that unequally distributes money, power, status, etc. Likewise, men and women aren’t just “different,” but are categories of persons – like manager and worker – that are defined in terms of social relations that position them in a complex class/race/sex hierarchy. Given this background to the dominance approach, it is useful to consider a bit of the history of the relation between Marxism and feminism.
What do you think the author means when she says that "the dominance approach to feminist theory arises out of a Marxian background"? What does it mean to "model gender differences on class relations?" Why do you suppose the author spends so much of their paper discussing Marx? Why does she believe that "Socialist feminism involves a commitment to “the practical unity of the struggle against capitalism and the struggle for women’s liberation." Why is she interested in a struggle against Capitalism, and where does Marx come in to this struggle?
This article argues that modern imagery of the Black female body exists in opposition to sexual health and sexual rights by focusing on existing representations of Black female eroticism as a legacy of colonialism. It addresses Black feminist thought on the history and contemporary use of the Black female body and offers a human rights perspective on uses of the Black female body within patriarchal capitalism.
Where is this idea of "Patriarchal Capitalism" coming from? Do you think the author developed it herself? If not, how did she come by it?
Contemporary feminism is currently at a crossroads, facing a concerted onslaught from both neoliberal and neoconservative ideologies. While these ideologies are inherently different—neoliberalism often appropriates feminist language to serve capitalist ends, and neoconservatism typically attacks feminist principles—they similarly reinforce the traditional role of families as providers of welfare. This crisis of alienation in feminism is characterized by three key factors: the gender divisions brought about by feminism’s shift to identity politics, the obscuring of feminist critique of capitalism by the spread of commercialization, and the instrumentalization of feminism in politics. These challenges have resulted in increased class antagonism and the further marginalization of lower-income women, reinforcing one another. To address this multifaceted crisis, a return to Marxist thought is deemed necessary for women’s liberation.
How can Feminism "return" to Marxism, when it never had anything to do with Marxism in the first place?
Anxiety disorders are one of the most prevalent mental disorders globally, and 63% of those diagnoses are of women. Although widely acknowledged across health disciplines and news and social media outlets, the majority of attention has left assumptions underlying women's anxiety in the twenty-first century unquestioned. Drawing on my own experiences of anxiety, I will the explore both concept and diagnosis in the Western world. Reflecting on my own experiences through a critical feminist lens, I will investigate the construction of anxiety as mental disorder in the context of neoliberal late-stage capitalism, heteropatriarchy, and biomedical psychiatry.
Where does the idea of "Late-stage Capitalism" come from? What are the other stages?
The term “late capitalism” regained relevance in 1991 when Marxist literary critic Fredric Jameson published Postmodernism or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. Drawing on Mandel’s idea that capitalism has sped up and gone global, Jameson expanded his analysis to the cultural realm. His argument was that late capitalist societies have lost their connection with history and are defined by a fascination with the present. In Jameson’s account, late capitalism is characterised by a globalised, post-industrial economy, where everything – not just material resources and products but also immaterial dimensions, such as the arts and lifestyle activities – becomes commodified and consumable. In this capitalist stage, we see innovation for the sake of innovation, a superficial projected image of self via celebrities or “influencers” channeled through social media, and so on. In this time, whatever societal changes that emerge are quickly transformed into products for exchange. Unlike those who celebrate postmodernism as replete with irony and transgression, Jameson considers it to be a non-threatening feature of the capitalist system in contemporary societies.
How can Marxist analysis "expand into the cultural realm"? If the term "late stage capitalism" were related to attempts to expand Marxist analysis in this fashion, would the prevalence of the term be some level of evidence for the memetic spread of this expansion?
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
2hr ago
Realistically, I think it's just because to conservatives of a certain generation, 'Marxism' is the scariest and most evil word available, so calling everything they don't like Marxist is just a habit. It's equivalent to the way people on the left call everything 'fascism'.
Would you classify Black Lives Matter as a Marxist movement, or no?
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
2hr ago
Yeah I saw that exact video. It's crazy to see people literally dodging death in HD on the internet.
Mass production is key, Anduril and co keep producing these shiny anime trailers and marketing gear, China puts out these big drone shows where 6,000 are flying in sync like a next level firework show. That's a real demonstration of ability.
At some point container ships are just going to vomit out tens of thousands of flying bombs and make Pearl Harbour look like a joke.
WestphalianPeace
2hr ago
Ck3's gameplay loop is kinda immersion breaking once figured out. You start seeing the same events over and over.
Two solutions
- Roleplay as your character. Instead of minmaxxing you're stats ask instead how your character would respond. Take joy in long plots to murder every single one of your rivals family before kidnapping him and making him die of old age in the oubliette.
- Set weird or interesting goals for yourself. Form the kingdom of Jerusalem and then eventually Outremer. As Norse go to India. Creating a tall Brittania with the goal not of expansion but instead of crusade to spread your dynasty everywhere. Form New England. Play a hyper tall Wales.
Of cultural note relevant to this forum specifically. CK2's After the End mod actually had a bunch of rat references. Yudkowsky founds the empire of California, founds a religion whose focus is to emphasize different teachers but no singular authoritative source, and you start with the rare artifact "Meditations on Moloch"
The CK3 mod did away with all of this and I believe the cultural uniqueness of AtE is worse for it.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
2hr ago
I think a lot of SJ positions are better described not as "culturally Marxist", but as a bizarro-world ideology created by starting with the cultural positions of Marxism (and there are quite a lot of them) and then going in the opposite direction of the traditional Western paradigm.
Tradition: "Men should be in charge of women", Marxism: "Sex divisions are a distraction and should be ignored", SJ: "Women should be in charge of men".
Tradition: "The white man is the best man", Marxism: "Racial divisions are a distraction from class struggle; be colourblind", SJ: "Whites suck".
Tradition: "White culture is scientifically superior to natives' primitive culture and we should raze the latter", Marxism: "All cultures suck and we should make a new, constructed culture designed by science", SJ: "Indigenous ways of knowing are just as valid as science; traditional Western culture should be razed".
The only real explanation I can see for this pattern is that SJ is the result of escalatory virtue-signalling oriented along the axis of "Tradition bad, Marxism good" and thus has positions that are "beyond" Marxism in some sense. I'm aware that this is a bulverism and basically calling the ideology meme cancer, and I don't like being this uncharitable, but it's honestly about all I can come up with.
jeroboam
2hr ago
I am mearly pointing out that the difference is one of degree not of kind.
Quantity has a quality all its own.
Killing 1 billion people is fundamentally different than killing 1 person, even if the method employed is the same.
jeroboam
2hr ago
I love how this war is just the US and China testing their new drone tech against proxy meat puppets.
jeroboam
2hr ago
I saw a video on Twitter where a Ukrainian or Russian guy emptied his clip at some tiny drone and then finally eliminated it by hitting it with his rifle.
In the not-so-distant future, the drones will be much smaller, much more intelligent, and much cheaper. Imagine trying to defend yourself against 10 bullet-size drones flying towards your face with a small but lethal explosive charge at the tip.
In any future war, China wins because they will be able to make 10x as many drones as the U.S. coalition. The western coalition might counter by setting up self-replicating drone factories, which would be a fun development.
Obviously assassination becomes trivial in this environment as well.
In other news, Microsoft is starting Three Mile Island nuclear plant to obtain energy for its AI systems...
I don't know for certain since I don't have the time nor resources to verify, but I do believe the ideas are a continuation from Deleuzes Societies of Control. The general idea late-stage capitalism is that capitalism controls us through various means, and there is some truth to that because of corporations we can't have any discussion we want on Reddit for example. The problem is the parasitic ideas of neomarxism has tagged along with it.
More options
Context Copy link