Despook me

...

Thanks, I'm really interested.

Are you claiming Gypsies are inherently bad?

You seem to be under the impression that you can, as a Marxist (a communist), hold no views that categorize certain demographics or cultures as (especially) backwards or even inherently more reactionary or conducive with class society, which is totally false.

Through discourse analysis we can uncover the fact that cultures are the cumulative result of years of nepotism or divide and conquer processes alongside one another, and that this superstructural struggle alongside production bred very specific cultures which recuperate themselves and fester themselves to sometimes even be worse than they (originally) were. Zizek, here, argues specifically about how multiculturalism, or any kind of argument coming from a muh privileged or underprivileged position, is always going to be reactionary and counter to the universal struggle of emancipation: lacan.com/essays/?page_id=454 (he literally talks about the Roma (gypsies) here).

What you must always remember is that a reactionary hatred of specific demographics is always going to be one that tries to argue its dismissal through things like "the eternal [insert identity] spirit" or "the [insert demographic] race"; precipitous conclusions that totally ignore that what is excellent in certain cultures is not at the root some immanent desire to reproduce said toxic culture, but the already existing structures that continually reshape said culture. In large part, this has its root in productive relations and historically the processes of class societal developments.

So yeah, I hate gypsies too. Fuck them. We have tons of Romani in Croatia and they're generally fucking awful, anti-social lumpens that have a culture that glorifies precarious work, though I fucking love their music: youtube.com/watch?v=o6jwvS0mHwo. None of this affects the fact that I hate them not as human beings, as a "race", a specific part of the working class, but as an inherently backwards and nepotistic culture that needs a fucking cultural revolution already.

OP here, gettimg regrets lmao

if I had gone the tankie route instead of becoming a libertarian socialist (big fan of anarcho-syndicalism and bookchin) I could've reconciled my political views with my anti-gypsy prejudice ("dude kill them for being lumpens lmao")

still on holiday, tommorow I can post it

hope I remember to do so

Make a separate post about this, it sound interesting.

ayyy my nigga

I'll keep an eye out for you.

How do you know? it's not like gypsies carry cards. If a gypsy doesn't want you to know he's a gypsy all he has to do is take a shower and wash his clothes.

They eventually ate the inductivist turkey, you know.

best post ITT

Gypsie culture is all kinds of fucked up, trying some retarded nomad lifestyle in this day and age in Europe is pretty insane. There are a few that manage to get out but they have to turn on much that defines a gypsie today and thus get hounded by their own family. In some places they manage to highlight Gypsie culture (Hungary iirc) and dissociate it from the gypsie lifestyle to a degree which helps a little.

The different languages they have are often not even written down and one is held completely secret, which leads to horrible mothertongue education. Not reading and you up.

Their culture is build on being oppressed, not giving fucks, not being staying at one place(which is a extremely shitty lifestyle in this age where without education there is literally no job for you), they raise their kids like shit(which makes many of them dumb af, or incapable of working atleast somewhat hard), have an extremely limited spooked mindset. They have no understanding of the cultures they depend on.

Combine that with levels of long term racism and opression that only jews can somewhat relate to and you get where we are now.

Imo they are a partly disfunctional culture for the western world, not on the levels that native jungle culures are disfunctional. But in a similar direction. As their identiy is build on these disfunctional parts of their culture its really hard to change and they drag each other down.

Well, it's not like every other group started any different. Gypsies that abandon their tribal ways are welcome, those who don't get sent to gulag.

This. Good post.

Hey, I rarely see Croatians over here so I was wondering if you could answer some shit.

I've recently jumped into Marxist theory and shed a lot of my socdem assumptions. My problem right now is I'm not sure what to do except to continue reading philosophy and economics. Sure, finding a bunch of interesting Marxist literature for a few kuna is a cool boon of living in ex-Yugoslavia, but the discourse is controlled by neoliberalism by all sides and there is no real leftist presence. I'm studying in Zagreb right now so I'd like to find some genuinely leftist organization to join and learn.
Basically, I wanna know how you operate as a Marxist in this country.

Seems like you're still spooked about "race realism".

The key to understanding gypsies is that nobody really understands them. They are not a distinct, uniform group, but incredibly diverse. And there are a ton of Romani people all over the world – the stereotype of the Lumpen is just that, a stereotype. It has its basis in reality, but most Roma are integrated, normal citizens, often times poor and proles.

I'd go as far to say that historically Romani people are perhaps the most discriminated against group of modern history – even more so than the Jews. Millions of Roma were systematically eradicated by the Nazis as well, yet many people don't even know about it. Roma to this day are systematically discriminated against in Europe – their culture is not accepted in modern education or work, being forced into shady work to make a living, perpetually trapped in this vicious cycle where eventually you grow accepting of your role in society and embrace it.

Muh neoracism

youtube.com/watch?v=FJyDmvV5k9A

Watch this (or this move in general) and fall in love with gypsy queen and her mystic powers.

No, but seriously, have you actually interacted with Gypsies, or is your disposition based on stories and prejudices? Either way, remember, that you have to interact with every person as an individual, and not as part of a group. "Not liking Gypsies" is by itself practically meaningless.

Gypsies are allowed to do what they want because of right wing ideology, not because of it: all political correctness is rooted in identity politics, and thus idealism.

kys fam

and how this work with people who don't have a sense of individualism?

Prove me wrong.

You didn't even make a point, just shat out some retarded opinion

molyneux.jpg

Could you kindly reformulate?

I meant "not in spite of it".

You molyneux'd yourself fam.

literally not an argument

You mean if a Gypsies acts as though he weren't an individual, or yourself?

What the fuck?

doesn't really matter for my question. you are forgetting that an individual sense of self is not some objective template, chinese people are shocked when they encounter it, for example

Hes a leftcom, so he operates out of his armchair. Its not a meme man, its the truth.

All I'm saying is that you decide what to think about somebody, based on who they are and how they act, not based on their social group or identity.

I don't get how your objection changes this. If this person acts unfriendly and is unpleasant, why should you treat him like a god? This is unconnected to the question wether they perceive themselves as individuals or not, since in the end, you can and are perceiving them as a indiviudal person.

Nice

not until I was a leftist already

would've been funny if he had converted me though

Is neoracism a specific concept or something you just made up? While the leftcoms post can be debated and has some slippery slopes calling it racism muddies the water and is imo not productive.

i know the cliché, and i disregard it on a level that does not presuppose it's presentation

this does not happen as presented because there are no individuals so to speak of, containers of personality that are practically isolated in the moment.

because you probably don't understand what i'm hinting at, i'll give you an example; gangsters are often popular figures, people brag about their connections with them, speak proudly about how they're really good dudes because they once they gave them a tip, while all the while those people aren't friendly and pleasant, to the contrary, yet they don't receive the disdain that a friendly and pleasant gains through his awkwardness and spite.

judgement is ultimately not a matter of character, but of position, which is never individual

Neoracism has been a specific concept in academia forever. It's basically racism without "race realism" but "muh culture" instead

for me it's Jews

I cannot stand them and see their pernicious influence everywhere, on the left and the right

I feel paranoid as fuck but I can't help but feel that they would happily enslave, torture and kill every non-Jew on the planet

they seem to have a built in mental defense mechanism that allows them to thrive.

frankly i'd like communism if the world was comprised of just people who looked and acted like me

Ah ok, then that allegation is probably correct.

This nigga's got me one-upped: . I'd be an idiot if I were to tell you that the course of action to take is to be active; to attempt to seek out others and establish some kind of local change in positive reforms or a student's movement.

I'm not kidding when I say: bunk down, acquire literature and information and educate yourself as much as possible. Especially since you only barely got the fresh taste of materialist discourse analysis and political economy, I can only say you should focus on this.

I find it hilarious (not mockingly) when you say
because only a little further down the Marxist rabbit hole will you discover why, and also why
is consequently the case, or more precisely: why the only relatively left wing politics here (and internationally) are left-liberal.

If you want to stay in touch for the theoretical side of things I'm down to share Youtubes, Fedbooks, Tox accounts, etc. and keep up or talk about stuff.

Otherwise, I'm more than just naturally disenchanted by all real world politics and am already pretty busy in the communist wing of the SDP (social democrats), which is a non-officially recognized branch that sadly peddles in nothing but Yugoslav nostalgism, and it's hard for me or anyone to really do more there than spend time with what is essentially young "le wrong generation" LARPers that want a new pan-Balkan "communism" (social democracy at the barrel of an M48 with "self-managed" characteristics). I've managed to create a subgroup within that wing of the party that touts an ultra line of baseline Marxism with the most class conscious and curious members, and we try our best to do something with this wing; to at least turn it from a hobbyist clique to a proper circle of theoretical discourse.

You need to develop tolerance, like with medicines. Loop this video at maximum volume.
youtube.com/watch?v=tx9fnuVl4Dc

very common with gypsies since they don't have a strong racial identity, so discrimination against them is usually centered around "gypsy culture" – it's notable here that gypsy culture has been constructed as a target of racism and both romanticized and demonized around the time the Nazis took power and much of our current stereotypes can still be traced back to that time. Neo-racism gained popularity in the US through Malcolm X who correctly observed how the racist discourse shifted away from one focused on physical traits and instead towards one based on supposed national or cultural identity to shield itself from criticism, "Black culture" is still a socially accepted target of hate/criticism/racism today.

I_am_okay_with_this.jpg

I refuse to believe leftcoms on Holla Forums actually read theory tbh

Ok, but if you had some "friendly but clumsy" gangster, you probably wouldn't see people idolizing him, since there is much more to a gangster than just his position. I'd say, it's because of their personality and their presentation that they could even become gangsters.

But in the end, becoming a gangster or not is a choice people make themselves (most of the time) and they require certain attributrs to do it, while being a Gypsies is not "voluntary" - you were born one, since your parents were Gypsies, as were their parents, … ?An entirety different thing is when people adope and accept "premade" behaviours that are expected for people from specific backgrounds, to please their peers)

And just to clarify, when I say individual, I'm just trying to contrast it to a social or collective evaluation of people.

I can tolerate them on their own

in groups though….

"Muh" indeed.

He didn't make it up, but it was made up alright. Concepts like "neoracism" as dubbing the critique of materially-bound behavior are what we got when the left very violently ripped itself from Marxism in the late '70s. See: youtube.com/watch?v=T6Heu5TRDB8.

Hah, yeah.

Hah, nah.

Of course.

human concepts are made up?!

I breathe, toil and masturbate too, if you wanted to know.

For not to educated its people its hard to criticise or analyse culture without falling in these traps tbh Its plainly obvious that some cultures are not fitting for some specific situation(mostly cause through capitalist displacement/expansion) Like no one can deny that native cultures fresh from the jungle for all their upsides are totally incapable of creating constructive groups and families in western capitalist systems. Which makes me sympathetic to the leftcoms critique here. How do you talk in non relativist terms, respectfully about cultures and how you want to change them?

Could you explain how a policy or plan of action could look like that does not include violent assimilation and other bullshit to fix these cultures.

I am kinda slanted towards communalist strategy of top down enforced general rules while giving everyone autonomy and community to develop themselves without being forced to assimilate.

Your understanding of the left and sociology is pitiful. As I said, I don't believe leftcoms on Holla Forums actually read theory.

Neo-racism is a very accepted concept within sociology with decades of academia observing and describing it – it is neither Marxist nor anti-Marxist, just as racism is neither. You're good at making yourself sound smart, but to anybody who is only superficially familiar with what you comment on sees you know shit about what you're talking about.

for example
What about your critique of Romani culture is materialist, how is this critique sensible and useful and can you even narrow down the culture you attempt to criticize?

gypsies are sub human trash who destroyed Eastern Europe, and this is coming from a socialist. And no, it isn't poverty(like the blacks) a lot of gypsies are extremely rich.

Clan culture is way more complicated than just about being poor or rich. Tribalistic culture is a scourge that isnt unique to Gypsies.

I need to leave now so I can't give a satisfying answer, but the main issue with critique of culture is that culture as a term is not only poorly understood, but also poorly defined. It's more ideological than useful to describe reality.

Not only is there no universally agreed upon definition of what makes up a culture, only a loose collection of attributes (religion, cultural norms, music, language and so on) which are highly divergent even within one culture itself, furthermore the categorization of these attributes is usually dependent on the point of view of those doing the criticizing. Take the US and its relationship to the Middle East as a painfully obvious example: The Middle East is an incredibly diverse region, but generally reduced to a few "cultural identifiers"; women are oppressed, they're poor and backwards, not open to or compatible with Western society and so on… because of religion, education and what not, all boiled down to their "toxic culture" as the answer to these problems.

Ultimately, this poorly defined culture is then used as the scapegoat for all supposed issues – completely denying the materialist reality or ideological and psychological influences outside the cultural realm that affect individuals and groups of people. Very undialectical, you see.

Seems like an issue where a lot of great theory can still be written.

Consider my fedora tipped.

My simple answer comes in the form of what not to do: 1) assume that a pure change in productive relations to be the only thing necessary to change cultural clashing in the common fabric of socially unwritten rules is not a solution, comes close to the "economic reductionism" Marxism is frequently smeared to be and ignores the also now very materially-shaped ideological structures that serve to keep backwardness alive regardless of how far the social commons develop, and 2) that suggesting that we need more "tolerance" of obviously antagonistic culturally-bred behavior like (ironically or unironically, please ironically) suggests because then we act like our cushy, remote and materially better off asses would also plan for little more than self-applied increases in tolerance.

The general outline of what my praxis would involve is to build a proper emancipatory movement along class lines and to involve this movement in the immediate development of universal principles of what our Sittlichkeit should look like, since even if gypsies burn the most tires per capitate and are loud, they're still majority working class men and women like all of us.

youtube.com/watch?v=p4YJAs6Cv9I

If you want a Marxist writer, I believe Etienne wrote about neo-racism a fair bit.

quick Google search found this 204racethought.wikispaces.com/file/view/Balibar Is There a Neo-Racism.pdf

Demagogue.

>cultures are the cumulative result of years of nepotism or divide and conquer processes alongside one another, and that this superstructural struggle alongside production bred very specific cultures which recuperate themselves and fester themselves to sometimes even be worse than they (originally) were.
>what is excellent in certain cultures is not at the root some immanent desire to reproduce said toxic culture, but the already existing structures that continually reshape said culture. In large part, this has its root in productive relations and historically the processes of class societal developments
Watch the video I linked or read PDF related; the crux of Vivek's Marxist critique of postcolonial ideology is just as applicable to the concept of "cultural intolerance" and the class roots the imanence any culture has and why it is not exempt of critique along the lines of allegations of racism.

Most importantly, in this same book, he tells us how academic discourse is so divorced from Marxism and the shadow of dialectical materialism and political economy that modern sociology can often be painted with the same critique Marx had of economics in his day: that it is a profoundly bourgeois and self-defeating field not worthy of being considered a science, because it attempts to construct meta-narratives in a particular field inside the much more universal sphere of matter, which is why virtually no sociology ends up advocating (just like almost no economics does) for a violent change in the material base of society. Sociology is then relegated to the same ranks as economics: a field that merely analyzes things within the confines of bourgeois society, commentates on this society alone and brings us symptom-relieving solutions while only symbolically paying service to the human condition as historically informed.

I also insist once again on to take a proper look at the Zizek article on multiculturalism I posted.

All I'm familiar with in detail is his "Eschatology versus teleology: suspended dialogue between Derrida and Althusser", but I know he falls in the same tightly knit clique of Badiou-Zizek-Zupancic, whom all categorically shit over modern sociological discourse for the same reasons I outlined before. Because they're Marxists.

you would, to the contrary, they often act like that, it's that superficial irony that hold greats power, the affable monster, he's affable to you, which makes people feel rewarded, that they're sharing the aura.

it's not a choice, nothing is really. the illusion of choice and consent, the idealized market conditions imposed on humanity, are a figment of capitalist ideology which marxist still hold dear to. gypsies aren't merely born with a hollow label, gypsy is what they understand, what they think, what they live, it's a completely different sense of being, to treat them as if they were yourself or your peers is an anthropomorphism into a specific place of humanity that is mistaken for the "species" itself.

the separation of the individual and the "social and collective", our true selves and it's statistical modelling, is in my view a 19th century mind model that stems from scientific methodology, of clusters, diagrams, classes, pie charts and structures, foucault wrote about it extensively, if you understand him you might get what i'm hinting at. this creates an alienation between ourselves and our map, we cannot be both and a model that makes us both is intrinsically flawed and this is why i disagree with scientific racism.

If it makes you feel better, I don't like Indians. They usually smell weird and 75% of them work out in khakis and polos.

neo-racism =/= identity politics

To boil everything that deals with identities or the ideological realm down to identity politics fundamentally misses the point and is just a stupid Holla Forums circlejerk. Etienne Balibar, as I said, is an influential writer when it comes to neo-racism and I'd recommend anyone to pick him up. It's hilarious how you went on this tirade against modern academia and identity politics because I brought up neo-racism, a concept no Zizek will rally against. The topics are unrelated and you're an idiot

I only know of a few really well-off Indian students here in Rijeka doing polytechnic studies and they all looked generic, but if the more preacious Indians tend to wear khakis and polos they're most likely my niggas because that's all I wear too (unless other stuff happens to be cheaper at the thrift store).

Indians are fine, never had a problem with them. Sikhs and Hindus are bro tier.

Gypsies will need to be assimilated under socialism. They're a useless bunch of brigands.

This sounds a lot like scientism, overgeneralising the statistics on the individual and thus making horrible choices that deny and hamper the agency of the individual to enact change, leading to static idealistic worldviews incapable of dealing with the reaction it creates. Or maybe I am just misunderstaning you.

It's incredibly basic materialist discourse analysis AKA Marxism.

Marx (in)famously wrote on the subject of culture using this very essential Marxist philosophical method on subject of Judaism and Jewish culture (while being an ethnic Jew with many Jews in his family) here: marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/. The exact same general conclusion can be pulled from any culture, and any post-capitalist paradigm will necessarily precipitate the abolition of cultures, or at least cultures as we know them, because all cultures are dependent on specific productive relations to find a justification or even the resources to constantly recreate, reenforce and readopt themselves. This is not because we want it to be that way, but because we are materialists who have concluded that things do not exist in a vacuum or without being a consequence of prior elements.

Never implied as such, but I drew in the relevance of the latter to the former in the assumptions it makes.

later on
Zizek, the man famous for insisting that everything, from the sexual, cultural and racial, is political.

I'm well aware of Holla Forums's reductionist and impulsive use of "idpol" as a buzzword to describe any situation in which the issues of the particular are dismissed as such, but you're being a lazy faggot here who uses this board trend to not reply to my other post (which was too long to post in one) and to be a demagogue (again).

was meant for

I have a Sikh co-worker, and we slap the bantz around regularly. At one point I was accidentally blocking his way in an aisle and he jokingly said I must be racist and called me KKK. I told him he'd best watch his tongue or he'd might get a burning cross on his lawn. Nigga just laughed it off.

I won't add anything useful to the conversation, but you seem like a pretty cool guy.

i'd definitely have a beer or two with you and talk about commie shit, since i kinda come from the same ex pol background.

Most left-coms probably got pissed off by various aspects of all the other sects, so they decided to identify with the group whose really only over-arching idea (that would connect say the councilists to the bordigists) is to critique everything from a comfy armchair.

youtube.com/watch?v=JOkzV9CEjcE

There's no running from the spook, OP

Read Max.

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-the-ego-and-his-own.pdf

If you're lazy use this audio book:
archive.org/details/the_ego_and_his_own_1111_librivox/theegoandhisown_00_stirner.mp3

Then move to Marx.

Thats all you need tbh. Also you haven't fully dropped your spooks, they might come out when you least expect it, you never know.

Which franks adventure was this? I barely remember.

why even live?

Third one.