LWDT IX: Discussing the Left From All Engels

[Carvio Saikesenassia]

land and housing is free indeed, costs are a spook

land and housing is free?Where ,tell me where.Is this heaven?

san francisco m'sir :^)

[Salus Maior]

land and housing is free?Where ,tell me where.Is this heaven?

san francisco m'sir :^)

Then why are there a lot of unemployed people in the streets?

[Cekoviu]

san francisco m'sir :^)

Then why are there a lot of unemployed people in the streets?

That's where you can get free land and housing.

[Carvio Saikesenassia]

Then why are there a lot of unemployed people in the streets?

That's where you can get free land and housing.

this hot take went better than what i expected

[Proctopeo]

Ah, that makes sense. Reminds me of my Freegypt campaign right before Man the Guns, where for some unknown reason, the peace deal AI broke and let me take most of everything, including all of France. Now, I was the main force behind kicking Italy's ass, but still, that made no sense.

DIRECT RULE FROM CAIRO

In this playthrough, Italy and Vichy France have long since capitulated but still control almost all of Africa. Japan hecking curbstomped all of China and all of the Asian Allies. The United States had a second civil war which Douglas McArthur's non-aligned Loyalists won after losing like a million people to Roosevelt's Constitutionalists.

Also, now that both Italy and Germany have capitulated, the entire world war now revolves around... ugh... "Greater" Hungary.

MAGYAR STRONK

Really though, even with the AI improvements, I've noticed that Hungary and Romania are often much more competent than even Germany, much less Italy. I think I've once seen Germany get pushed back by the Soviets immediately, while the purge is still active, while Romania effortlessly takes Kiev.

Then why are there a lot of unemployed people in the streets?

That's where you can get free land and housing.

we live in a streetciety

[Duvniask]

It's almost like people should get real work that benefits society instead of leeching off people.

I didn't know you hated welfare so much.

No, but I am not without a sense of irony.

There is something extremely hypocritical about defending income accruing from rents and mere property ownership and then turning around to criticize welfare provisions. I would also argue there's a qualitative difference between the social safety net and, well, exploiting people's need for housing to accrue personal income.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

People should not pay rent at all, tbh.

land and housing is free indeed, costs are a spook

What do you think costs more per month? Rent, or paying back a mortgage over 30 years? Rent is, by definition, not just paying for the cost of housing, but also a large percentage on top of that for the profits of the landlord. The price of rent is decided by land value and supply and demand, not simply by offsetting the costs. Of course, mortgages are also drags on the economy, housing should not cost as much as it does.

And don’t use that asinine ancap language.

[Pasong Tirad]

Ah. That's where the new thread went.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Something I vaguely remember from reading Das Kapital about how communal land, shared between the rural working class in pre-capitalist times, was seized and privatize during capitalism's rise to dominance.

In pre-capitalist times, land was owned by noble lords and serfs worked on that land. When the Burghers tool over, land could be freely traded to anyone

Feudalism is not pre-capitalism, really. Feudalism is capitalism when you take away government oversight, in Europe's case after the collapse of the Roman empire.

I still don't understand why people think fascism is right wing

You can have a definition of the left-right dichotomy that means fascism is not right-wing. However, I don't know how you would do that.

Like, if your definition of right-wing is a smaller government and left wing is a bigger government, then it makes sense. However, that's not a very useful dichotomy, since that would place fascism on the left, even though they murdered leftists by the hundreds of thousands, and it would place ancoms on the far right, together with ancaps.

In a useful dichotomy, right-wing ideologies are about conservatism and individual responsibility, preferably under capitalism. Fascism was probably the most aggresively conservative movement in history, with a capitalist system where the individual was seen as responsible for his own fate. That's an extreme right wing ideology.

I still don't understand why people think fascism is right wing

stems from the dumb, arguably interwar cultured, left-right dichotomy used by 90% of the population where the extremes represent communism and fascism (and the center is muh liberalism)

What a convoluted way of saying that your definition of the dichotomy is used by a minimal minority of people.

But the house/apartment won't be there unless you know how to build it or can pay other people to build it. If you're paying a land-lord or land-lady for shelter, it's a good assumption that you're not capable of doing the aforementioned things. Even in more horizontal economies, the option to pay rent instead of investing in a house is a nice option to have.

You have to see that the concept of investment is a flawed one if you want to achieve an egalitarian society. Investment leads to a snowballing effect, where people with money can make money simply by investing the money they already have. This is literally the rich becoming richer, and not really doing anything for it except having money. This is already cause for concern, but it becomes ghastly when you look at the housing market. The demand for housing is inflexible: people are by necessity forced to have shelter. So, you are not providing a free service. Providing housing, in that sense, is much like healthcare, because everyone needs it.

Rent, then, is proportional to land value. The higher the land value, the higher the price. However, land value attracts the most blood-thirsty vultures of society, whose are literally only a drain on people: land speculators. These 'individuals' buy up land and hope it increases in value so they can sell at a profit. Now, having tennants decreases the value of a property, and it causes a lot of overhead, so these land speculators do not open up their properties to tennants. This has three big effects:
1. The housing supply is limited;
2. Demand is increased simply by having speculators;
3. The land value is driven through the roof, leading to higher rents.

This leads to this graph:

This shows that rents as a percentage of income are on the rise. More and more money goes up to rent. This means that, since people cannot choose to pay rent, the disposable income of people is deminished. Another result of this is that it is a hyper-powered way of increasing income inequality. Those with enough money to buy a home can invest, paying far less for their mortgage than poorer people pay in rent. All the time, landlords are taking up a large percentage of people's income without really providing a valuable service in return.

This is the biggest shortcoming, in my opinion. Landlords don't do much to earn an enormous share of income. The services they provide, like repairs and cleaning, can be achieved at a fraction of the cost if an appartment building was held communally. The only thing they really do is have ownership of a building. Under law, they happen to own a property that is necessary for people's survival. And why do they own that building? Because they had money to invest into that building to begin with. It's the simple result of some people being so rich that they can afford to invest in one. This, together with land speculation, is the reason for high rents that excede the cost of maintenance.

If we want to achieve an equal and just society, landlords need to go. There are various solutions to the problem, and leftists will literally murder each other for saying the wrong solution to the landlord issue, but right now the most feasible thing we can do is abolish land speculation, abolish private ownership of housing, and let the state take care of home construction. That would be expensive, but it would destroy high land prices in the biggest cities. In return, people would have their houses assigned, and have to take care of the maintenance for themselves. The state has to pay some more for this, but it also frees up around 25% of people's income to invest in the economy. Especially for the poor, this could make a world of difference, and a lot of that money would be spent locally rather than going into the yacht fund of some rich trust fund kid.

Tl;dr: ownership of housing is a drain on the economy and leads to immense income inequality. Rent is a poverty tax, and a tax that is not subject to the democratic will of the majority but rather to the whims of vultures. It's a legal fiction we should do away with.

[United Muscovite Nations]

In pre-capitalist times, land was owned by noble lords and serfs worked on that land. When the Burghers tool over, land could be freely traded to anyone

Feudalism is not pre-capitalism, really. Feudalism is capitalism when you take away government oversight, in Europe's case after the collapse of the Roman empire.

Marx called, he wants you to never talk to him or his theory ever again.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Feudalism is not pre-capitalism, really. Feudalism is capitalism when you take away government oversight, in Europe's case after the collapse of the Roman empire.

Marx called, he wants you to never talk to him or his theory ever again.

I'm not talking about Marxism, and I would not pretend to. But according to my own observation, feudalism is just the end result of unrestrained capitalism, as it existed after the fall of the Roman empire.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Marx called, he wants you to never talk to him or his theory ever again.

I'm not talking about Marxism, and I would not pretend to. But according to my own observation, feudalism is just the end result of unrestrained capitalism, as it existed after the fall of the Roman empire.

Your observation is wrong and based on a lack of historical economic analysis.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

I'm not talking about Marxism, and I would not pretend to. But according to my own observation, feudalism is just the end result of unrestrained capitalism, as it existed after the fall of the Roman empire.

Your observation is wrong and based on a lack of historical economic analysis.

The origins of feudalism are historically rooted in the absense of Roman state control. After the fall of the Roman empire, land ownership was transferred from the peasants working the land to landlords by force in return for security. The landlords rented the land back to the peasants, being paid in a large amount of the fruits of the peasant's labour and their life should the landlord want to go to war. Then, the landlord did the same to the baron, and the baron did the same to the count, and the count to the duke.

Dunno, man. That looks like unrestrained capitalism to me.

And of course, during the middle ages, there were a lot of more equitable forms of land ownership among communities. But the lands owned by the nobility and the church were subject to these issues.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Your observation is wrong and based on a lack of historical economic analysis.

The origins of feudalism are historically rooted in the absense of Roman state control. After the fall of the Roman empire, land ownership was transferred from the peasants working the land to landlords by force in return for security. The landlords rented the land back to the peasants, being paid in a large amount of the fruits of the peasant's labour and their life should the landlord want to go to war. Then, the landlord did the same to the baron, and the baron did the same to the count, and the count to the duke.

Dunno, man. That looks like unrestrained capitalism to me.

And of course, during the middle ages, there were a lot of more equitable forms of land ownership among communities. But the lands owned by the nobility and the church were subject to these issues.

Only because your definition of capitalism is as simplistic as "capitalism is when private owners own things and the more private the ownership of things the capitalister it is." Neither the Roman Empire's economic system (the ancient mode of production) nor Feudal Europe were capitalist, and if you'd actually read Marx (or for that matter any economic historian) you would know the reasons why.

Capitalism does not have formal social class. Being rich did not make you powerful in Medieval Europe and it didn't necessarily make you powerful in the ancient world either.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

Marx called, he wants you to never talk to him or his theory ever again.

I'm not talking about Marxism, and I would not pretend to. But according to my own observation, feudalism is just the end result of unrestrained capitalism, as it existed after the fall of the Roman empire.

Because your opinion is so strange that I don't know if you really don't know history.
I would like to quote Lenin：
Compared with the bureaucracy caused by the medieval system, the small production and the laxity of small producers, capitalism is happiness.
------《The Collected Works of Lenin 》41 volume On grain tax 1921.04.21

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

The origins of feudalism are historically rooted in the absense of Roman state control. After the fall of the Roman empire, land ownership was transferred from the peasants working the land to landlords by force in return for security. The landlords rented the land back to the peasants, being paid in a large amount of the fruits of the peasant's labour and their life should the landlord want to go to war. Then, the landlord did the same to the baron, and the baron did the same to the count, and the count to the duke.

Dunno, man. That looks like unrestrained capitalism to me.

And of course, during the middle ages, there were a lot of more equitable forms of land ownership among communities. But the lands owned by the nobility and the church were subject to these issues.

Only because your definition of capitalism is as simplistic as "capitalism is when private owners own things and the more private the ownership of things the capitalister it is." Neither the Roman Empire's economic system (the ancient mode of production) nor Feudal Europe were capitalist, and if you'd actually read Marx (or for that matter any economic historian) you would know the reasons why.

Capitalism does not have formal social class. Being rich did not make you powerful in Medieval Europe and it didn't necessarily make you powerful in the ancient world either.

Feudal Europe was not capitalistic, and I did not claim that it was. However, if you look at the economy of the Western Roman empire in the fourth century, you cannot compare that to the ancient mode of production of the early Empire, the Republic, and the Greek city states. Similarly, the economy of Europe just after the fall of the Western empire was not yet feudal. I will refrain from calling it capitalism, and I recognise that calling anything capitalism before the 16th century is an anarchronism, but the economy of the late Roman empire and Europe just after the fall of the empire is much closer to capitalism than either the ancient mode of production or feudalism. Eventually, that system would lead to feudalism.

So, it's not capitalism, but it bears a lot of similarities, and I'd say the collection of land under that intermediate system eventually led to feudalism.

Look, we might have a slightly different view of history, but I have studied that exact period of history from a legal perspective. Don't assume I don't know history because I don't have your exact same interpretation.

I'm not talking about Marxism, and I would not pretend to. But according to my own observation, feudalism is just the end result of unrestrained capitalism, as it existed after the fall of the Roman empire.

Because your opinion is so strange that I don't know if you really don't know history.
I would like to quote Lenin：
Compared with the bureaucracy caused by the medieval system, the small production and the laxity of small producers, capitalism is happiness.
------《The Collected Works of Lenin 》41 volume On grain tax 1921.04.21

I refer you to the above point that I did not call feudalism capitalism. I called it the end result of capitalism. Now, using the term capitalism was anachronistic, but there existed a similar system in Europe at the end of the Roman empire and the start of medieval Europe, before feudalism was adopted.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Only because your definition of capitalism is as simplistic as "capitalism is when private owners own things and the more private the ownership of things the capitalister it is." Neither the Roman Empire's economic system (the ancient mode of production) nor Feudal Europe were capitalist, and if you'd actually read Marx (or for that matter any economic historian) you would know the reasons why.

Capitalism does not have formal social class. Being rich did not make you powerful in Medieval Europe and it didn't necessarily make you powerful in the ancient world either.

Feudal Europe was not capitalistic, and I did not claim that it was. However, if you look at the economy of the Western Roman empire in the fourth century, you cannot compare that to the ancient mode of production of the early Empire, the Republic, and the Greek city states. Similarly, the economy of Europe just after the fall of the Western empire was not yet feudal. I will refrain from calling it capitalism, and I recognise that calling anything capitalism before the 16th century is an anarchronism, but the economy of the late Roman empire and Europe just after the fall of the empire is much closer to capitalism than either the ancient mode of production or feudalism. Eventually, that system would lead to feudalism.

So, it's not capitalism, but it bears a lot of similarities, and I'd say the collection of land under that intermediate system eventually led to feudalism.

Look, we might have a slightly different view of history, but I have studied that exact period of history from a legal perspective. Don't assume I don't know history because I don't have your exact same interpretation.

What you're describing is a transitional period in economic history, not a separate economic system.

And no, it's not more similar to the capitalist mode of production than to feudalism or the ancient mode. Wage labor was not the primary mode of labor, nor was exchange value emphasized over use-value. Class society was much more complex and legally stratified than under capitalism.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Feudal Europe was not capitalistic, and I did not claim that it was. However, if you look at the economy of the Western Roman empire in the fourth century, you cannot compare that to the ancient mode of production of the early Empire, the Republic, and the Greek city states. Similarly, the economy of Europe just after the fall of the Western empire was not yet feudal. I will refrain from calling it capitalism, and I recognise that calling anything capitalism before the 16th century is an anarchronism, but the economy of the late Roman empire and Europe just after the fall of the empire is much closer to capitalism than either the ancient mode of production or feudalism. Eventually, that system would lead to feudalism.

So, it's not capitalism, but it bears a lot of similarities, and I'd say the collection of land under that intermediate system eventually led to feudalism.

Look, we might have a slightly different view of history, but I have studied that exact period of history from a legal perspective. Don't assume I don't know history because I don't have your exact same interpretation.

What you're describing is a transitional period in economic history, not a separate economic system.

And no, it's not more similar to the capitalist mode of production than to feudalism or the ancient mode. Wage labor was not the primary mode of labor, nor was exchange value emphasized over use-value. Class society was much more complex and legally stratified than under capitalism.

What is and isn’t a transitional period depends on which periods you classify as ‘important’. If you classify everything between Plato and the Third Century Crisis as ‘the ancient mode of production’, then economic systems that lasted two centuries are going to be transitional. However, I would describe that exact period, between one hundred years before and after the fall of the Empire, as hugely imported for how Europe would shape politically, and therefore economically.

And the class system in the later Roman empire had lost much of its stratified, codified nature. The patrician class had ceased to exist, for example, and after the Edict of Caracalla had granted citizenship to all free men within the Empire. Slavery too was on the decline due to Christian influences. The late Roman empire was vastly different from the Republic or even the early Empire.

In medieval Europe, class was stratified, but that did not happen immediately after the fall of the empire. The nobles of Europe were not the descendants of patricians. In fact, that’s my main point: I believe that the European rigid class system reemerged after a 2-century period of a non-feudal, non-ancient economy. That during this two century period, a system like capitalism, in the sense that there was a monetary economy where wage labour was common, existed, and which without regulation lead to the creation of inherited nobility because wealth meant power, and wealth was inherited.

However, it is reasonable that Marx did not comment on this, because much of what we know about the economics of the late Imperial period and early medieval period was discovered after he died.

So, in conclusion: my calling that system capitalistic was wrong and anachronistic, but there are certainly interesting comparisons to be made between modern capitalism and the transitionary period during the fall of the Roman empire. It gives me reason to believe that unrestrained capitalism will one day lead to something alike feudalism, although calling it feudalism would also be anachronistic.

[United Muscovite Nations]

What you're describing is a transitional period in economic history, not a separate economic system.

And no, it's not more similar to the capitalist mode of production than to feudalism or the ancient mode. Wage labor was not the primary mode of labor, nor was exchange value emphasized over use-value. Class society was much more complex and legally stratified than under capitalism.

What is and isn’t a transitional period depends on which periods you classify as ‘important’. If you classify everything between Plato and the Third Century Crisis as ‘the ancient mode of production’, then economic systems that lasted two centuries are going to be transitional. However, I would describe that exact period, between one hundred years before and after the fall of the Empire, as hugely imported for how Europe would shape politically, and therefore economically.

And the class system in the later Roman empire had lost much of its stratified, codified nature. The patrician class had ceased to exist, for example, and after the Edict of Caracalla had granted citizenship to all free men within the Empire. Slavery too was on the decline due to Christian influences. The late Roman empire was vastly different from the Republic or even the early Empire.

In medieval Europe, class was stratified, but that did not happen immediately after the fall of the empire. The nobles of Europe were not the descendants of patricians. In fact, that’s my main point: I believe that the European rigid class system reemerged after a 2-century period of a non-feudal, non-ancient economy. That during this two century period, a system like capitalism, in the sense that there was a monetary economy where wage labour was common, existed, and which without regulation lead to the creation of inherited nobility because wealth meant power, and wealth was inherited.

However, it is reasonable that Marx did not comment on this, because much of what we know about the economics of the late Imperial period and early medieval period was discovered after he died.

So, in conclusion: my calling that system capitalistic was wrong and anachronistic, but there are certainly interesting comparisons to be made between modern capitalism and the transitionary period during the fall of the Roman empire. It gives me reason to believe that unrestrained capitalism will one day lead to something alike feudalism, although calling it feudalism would also be anachronistic.

Wage labor was not common in the mode that we mean it today and, again, use-value was emphasized, not exchange-value. The economy of the late empire to the collapse became more and more localized and based on subsistence.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

What you're describing is a transitional period in economic history, not a separate economic system.

And no, it's not more similar to the capitalist mode of production than to feudalism or the ancient mode. Wage labor was not the primary mode of labor, nor was exchange value emphasized over use-value. Class society was much more complex and legally stratified than under capitalism.

What is and isn’t a transitional period depends on which periods you classify as ‘important’. If you classify everything between Plato and the Third Century Crisis as ‘the ancient mode of production’, then economic systems that lasted two centuries are going to be transitional. However, I would describe that exact period, between one hundred years before and after the fall of the Empire, as hugely imported for how Europe would shape politically, and therefore economically.

And the class system in the later Roman empire had lost much of its stratified, codified nature. The patrician class had ceased to exist, for example, and after the Edict of Caracalla had granted citizenship to all free men within the Empire. Slavery too was on the decline due to Christian influences. The late Roman empire was vastly different from the Republic or even the early Empire.

In medieval Europe, class was stratified, but that did not happen immediately after the fall of the empire. The nobles of Europe were not the descendants of patricians. In fact, that’s my main point: I believe that the European rigid class system reemerged after a 2-century period of a non-feudal, non-ancient economy. That during this two century period, a system like capitalism, in the sense that there was a monetary economy where wage labour was common, existed, and which without regulation lead to the creation of inherited nobility because wealth meant power, and wealth was inherited.

However, it is reasonable that Marx did not comment on this, because much of what we know about the economics of the late Imperial period and early medieval period was discovered after he died.

So, in conclusion: my calling that system capitalistic was wrong and anachronistic, but there are certainly interesting comparisons to be made between modern capitalism and the transitionary period during the fall of the Roman empire. It gives me reason to believe that unrestrained capitalism will one day lead to something alike feudalism, although calling it feudalism would also be anachronistic.

In the 15th,14th century, some cities along the Mediterranean (such as Venice) had sparsely sprouted capitalist relations of production, but the capitalist era began in the 16th century.The era you are talking about is far from the upper capitalist era. It can only be said that capitalist relations of production began to emerge.Most importantly, the country's economy at that time consisted mainly of agriculture and handicraft industry, with a small proportion of Commerce. The proletariat is mainly attached to the feudal monarch or landlord.The reason why capitalism is called capitalism is that capital is important. Capitalists have the means of production, while the relationship between the proletariat and capitalists is employment.
Only when the social and economic structure changes after the great voyage, can the era of capitalism really come. Even so, the feudal relationship still existed for a long time, until the feudal forces in modern Europe completely withdrew from the stage of history.After the destruction of the Western Roman Empire, the Frankish kingdom was established, and then Europe was in a split stage. There were feudal nobles and churches of all sizes.Except for the city states, capitalism has always been negligible

[Stylan]

I have a question for all the leftists here, at least those that support LGBT rights and such and support racial equality. How do you reconcile these two when the black community is immensely "homophobic" and "transphobic?" I mean, leftists seem to love racial equality, yet they also support LGBT rights, so how do you put two and two together?

[Cekoviu]

I have a question for all the leftists here, at least those that support LGBT rights and such and support racial equality. How do you reconcile these two when the black community is immensely "homophobic" and "transphobic?" I mean, leftists seem to love racial equality, yet they also support LGBT rights, so how do you put two and two together?

How are those supposed to be contradictory?
Black people should have the same rights as white people, and neither of those groups have the right to discriminate against gay and trans people. Where is the problem here?

[Stylan]

I have a question for all the leftists here, at least those that support LGBT rights and such and support racial equality. How do you reconcile these two when the black community is immensely "homophobic" and "transphobic?" I mean, leftists seem to love racial equality, yet they also support LGBT rights, so how do you put two and two together?

How are those supposed to be contradictory?
Black people should have the same rights as white people, and neither of those groups have the right to discriminate against gay and trans people. Where is the problem here?

Because leftists never seem to criticize that aspect of black culture. And they also seem to believe blacks are exempt from criticism.

[Cekoviu]

How are those supposed to be contradictory?
Black people should have the same rights as white people, and neither of those groups have the right to discriminate against gay and trans people. Where is the problem here?

Because leftists never seem to criticize that aspect of black culture. And they also seem to believe blacks are exempt from criticism.

k lol

[Ostroeuropa]

I have a question for all the leftists here, at least those that support LGBT rights and such and support racial equality. How do you reconcile these two when the black community is immensely "homophobic" and "transphobic?" I mean, leftists seem to love racial equality, yet they also support LGBT rights, so how do you put two and two together?

How are those supposed to be contradictory?
Black people should have the same rights as white people, and neither of those groups have the right to discriminate against gay and trans people. Where is the problem here?

There's a difference between rights and empowerment.
You cannot rightly demand "representation" of the black community while also selecting how that community is represented in order to prevent homophobic black people being empowered to be represented.

While you're right that it's not inconsistent to support their civil rights in some senses, if you include representation and empowerment, then it is contradictory. You're either nor really representing black people by excluding black people who represent them more realistically, or you're harming LGBT people by giving homophobes a megaphone.

It'd be like "We're representing Black people by putting Republican Black people into our institutions.".

If you're dealing with strict legalistic rights there's no contradiction. The problem comes when you begin the power+privilege garbage and using that as an argument for why we need more of a particular demographic in a particular institution of power to represent them. You can't do that while simultaneously deciding for them what kind of representation you think they should have, because at that point you're not really representing them and their views.

Like, if a television channel decides they need a muslim comedian so muslims are represented, and they rule out 9/10 of them for being homophobic, they're not representing muslims. They're representing a particular ideology under the cover of representing muslims, and in the process telling muslims how they should think instead of telling muslims they are welcome to be represented.

You see something similar with "Representing women" or "Empowering women". Despite women being the majority of opponents to abortion rights, you rarely see pushes to empower women to voice those views on the grounds that they are excluded from doing so for being women. You see an acceptable spectrum being forced on the demographic where they are either apolitical, or openly progressive.

This is less "representation and empowerment" and more an enforced normative system. "This is what a woman is (A feminist)" "This is what a black person is (A BLM type)", and so on. It's more about controlling those groups and how they think of themselves and how others perceive them than actually empowering them to make that decision on their own. This also insulates the ideology in question because it allows them to pretend that opposition to this process is opposition to the group they are pretending to represent.

Like if I decided "We need to represent black people" and then only ever selected MRAs, then told you you were a racist for pointing that out, or a racist for not supporting the MRM. Meanwhile, i'm constantly telling black people that to be sufficiently black and not a stooge for white people, they need to join the MRA.

There's a very obvious contradiction between empowering minority communities and empowering LGBT communities because of this. You cannot empower minority communities, or they'll be homophobic and you'll have shorn up opposition to LGBT rights, instead you control the minority communities self-perception, others perception of them, and define what is and is not "Being black" on their behalf. By controlling what is "being black" you can then pretend to represent them and pretend that opposition to you doing so is racism.

If it were about empowering minority communities we'd see a lot more homophobic minorities being championed by the progressive left as potential candidates for representing the community, but they can't do that, because of the contradiction inherent in their stances.

Similarly you're not going to see demands for the voices of conservative or anti-feminist or anti-abortion women to be pushed more into the mainstream so that women are empowered. Because it's not really about empowering black people or women, it's about empowering progressives and gaslighting people who point that out by pretending you're not doing a political power grab but instead "representing demogaphics".