Submitted by throwaway in lobby

Quote from Ted Kaczynski's "Letter to a Turkish anarchist":

But the “democratic” system of the West has evolved mechanisms for deflecting rebellion that are far more sophisticated and effective than any that existed in the Soviet Union. It is a truly remarkable fact that in modern Western society people “rebel” in favor of the values of the very system against which they imagine themselves to be rebelling. The left “rebels” in favor of racial and religious equality, equality for women and homosexuals, humane treatment of animals, and so forth. But these are the values that the American mass media teach us over and over again every day. Leftists have been so thoroughly brainwashed by media propaganda that they are able to “rebel” only in terms of these values, which are values of the technoindustrial system itself. In this way the system has successfully deflected the rebellious impulses of the left into channels that are harmless to the system.

According to Ted, the Unabomber, movements such as non-violence, identity politics and green anarchism are deeply counter-revolutionary, and have been designed to be channels for rebellious behavior that does not hurt the powers that be. Discuss.

1

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

ziq wrote

Of course anarchism would be counter-rev in the mind of a half-baked Leninist-Maoist. His idea of revolution would be a nightmare to any of us.

4

Pop wrote

If you summarise the arguments a bit I'd give it a go but I'm not in a rush to read any zinky

1

Green_Mountain_Makhno wrote

Non-violence, IDpol and environmentalism are clearly channels for the rebellious to siphon off their energy in ways that don't hurt the state. That's why they've been "embraced" by the Dems.

1

[deleted] wrote

2

Green_Mountain_Makhno wrote

They can have non-violence, that's a stupid idea that is only there to stop any change to the current system.

IDpol and environmentalism have merit when brought forward in a radical and comprehensive ways, yes, they should be taken back and used in their true radical natures.

1

[deleted] wrote

4

autonomous_hippopotamus wrote

yeah what even is 'idpol' ? how do you pronounce it? It's sad when leftist regurgitate rush limbaugh talking points

2

ziq wrote (edited )

(Post) leftists are skeptical of identity politics for good reason.

I've noticed people that build their politics around their identities embody victim culture.

There are people on this site that literally cry 'victim' whenever someone (me) speaks ill of their chosen ideology; somehow perceiving a critique of an ideology as a personal attack because they've so wrapped their ideology up with their identity.

It means they'll never grow their politics because they've turned politics into something sacred and dogmatic as a survival mechanism. It's their social club and they'll put all their effort into defending it from the outgroup pariahs.

Anyone who disagrees with their politics may as well be telling them they have a shitty personality - to them their ideology is who they are.

3

autonomous_hippopotamus wrote

'idpol' is just such vague thing, I've never heard anyone give a coherent definition of 'identity politics' other than something tautological like 'it's politics based on identity' which probably applies to all politics.

If you want to actually make a critique, you have to be specific. For me when i hear people talk about 'idpol' first i have to decipher 1. Where they are coming from: from the left or the right? and 2. Whether they're brocialists or not.

And even when i determine the person speaking is potentially a friend, say a post-leftist who is pro feminist / anti racist etc. Alot of the criticisms of idpol can apply equally to those who don't fit the idea most people have of idpol. Just like alot of the behavior that is criticized by the anti-idpol crowd, (like performativity, disingenious callouts, language policing etc.) is equally criticized by those firmly in the supposed idpol camp.

It means they'll never grow their politics because they've turned politics into something sacred and dogmatic as a survival mechanism. It's their social club and they'll put all their effort into defending it from the outgroup pariahs.

I think that would apply to just about any ideologue regardless of whether they think intersectionality is cool or have a tumblr account.

I've noticed people who are explicitly "anti-idpol" or "anti-pc" are just as likely to take any criticism of their dogma personally as if it was an attack on them.

2

ziq wrote

Most people that profess to be anti idpol are just shitty brocialists who don't even understand the most basic postleft concepts. They use it the same way liberals use the word 'anarchy'.

2

[deleted] wrote

1

ziq wrote (edited )

I think it's been given a negative connotation by brocialists (and worse) that don't understand post-left politics and the term should be abandoned. But plenty of actual post-leftists use it in earnest as any actual critique of insular political cliques and shouldn't be tarnished for it.

2

autonomous_hippopotamus wrote

I wouldn't really agree with that argument (does the U.S. Government really support environmentalism and women's rights?).

But yes the system does seem to absorb rebellion. It's the whole non-profit industrail complex, they have figured out a way to use charity as a way not only of getting tax breaks but also of infilitrating rebellious movements and sidelining radicals and co-opting potential leaders.

1