Thoughts on the tamil tigers?

thoughts on the tamil tigers?

"Left-wing" nationalism was a mistake.

Shit tier. Another armed rabble with no purpose beyond continued existence.

u wot m8?

...

Enver Hoxha was an Albanian nationalist. Do you have a problem with him?

"Nationalism does not conflict with internationalism. Mutual help, support and alliance between countries and nations–this is internationalism. Every country has its borders, and every nation has its identity, and revolution and construction are carried on with the country and nation as a unit. For this reason, internationalism finds its expressions in the relationships between countries and between nations, a prerequisite for which is nationalism. Internationalism divorced from the concepts of nation and nationalism is merely an empty shell. A man who is unconcerned about the destiny of his country and nation cannot be faithful to internationalism. Revolutionaries of each country should be faithful to internationalism by struggling, first of all, for the prosperity of their own country and nation."
- KIM JONG IL

"Nationalism in the human world and group instinct in the animal kingdom are like gravity in the domain of material and celestial bodies. If the sun lost its gravity, its gases would explode and its unity would no longer exist… This is the nature of matter. It is an established natural law. To disregard it or to go against it is damaging to life. Similarly, man's life is damaged when he begins to disregard nationalism… for it is the gravity of the group, the secret of its survival." - MUAMMAR GADDAFI

Literally the most classcucked, reactionary "people" on earth. There are 1.5 billion of them and I hope they get nuked into oblivion.

Smelly, worthless, street shitting pajeets

Even Kerala?

So basically feels > reals. Get rid of your fucking spooks.

Kerala was only able to get the stuff because 1/3 of it's income comes from money sent from people working overseas, like my country, the UK. I will not tolerate that shit

...

B-but they take their poo to the loo!

I never had anything against Indians until I started dealing with them daily.

A race of smelly, awkward, rude, scheming beta males. They're basically just retarded Jews.

Has this board lost all perspective? Last time I checked, communist and socialist movements were much stronger in India than in the West and they haven't watered themselves like their Western counterparts.

That and the Indian Constitution even declares itself as "socialist", again how many western countries do so? See pic related.


Thanks for the insight Holla Forums but having been to India, my bourgeois relatives over there are smug about their "western" toilet as are anybody else who can afford them, everybody else has to put up with squat toilets and many dream to have a real toilet. Some villages even put money together to have at least one "western" toilet as a sign of pride.

Really mate? Most Indians in the UK are Panjabis and Gujaratis, I've only met like 3 Keralans in my 30 years here. Kerala is a product of good governance, but yes many other Indians do indeed send their money home, but most don't. Who the fuck wants to move back to that hell hole, only the ones with dying parents and shit send their money back.


It's not your money, I thought this was a leftist board, you know, labour is entitled to all it creates, unless you're brown apparently.


It's almost like I'm on Holla Forums, but to be fair Indians do love to scheme and fuck each other over, Indians are socialites and very self conscious, they go about this by achieving it no matter the drudgery involved as well as backstabbing and sabotaging others if it'll give them leverage.

It's Holla Forums, newfag

Now you're getting it. In communism Indians will be the untouchables, living like dogs in thier shit covered streets. Brown people not allowed in communism

Lol

The nation, the country, is only an abstract, moralistic concept that was given rise due to capitalism. It is a fixed idea perpetuated by the media that we consume, but in all honesty it is nothing. They are just borders on a map that determine what is a nation and what is not. Free yourself from this narrow mindset of us versus them. The cause for the liberation of the proletariat has no borders.

The proletariat is a spook.

Show me a prole.

Proletariat is the name used to define people who are submitted to wage labor in order to live. There is no higher meaning to it. It just a word to define something. A nation on another hand has no basis in anything.

Not even on his side but you know he can just as easily define a nation right? Saying it is a group of people with a shared culture united under one government and bla bla bla.
This doublethink is concerning.

Spooky.

I just see people.

By whose standard? Whose culture? How is it necessary in anyway to furthering the cause of communism which Nazbols claim constantly. There is no fixed definition. Only like I said a vague, moralistic concept.


You see people. There are people who work for wages because they have no other form of sustenance. We assign the word "proletariat" to define it. Just like we assign the word "chair" to a object we use to sit on.

Tamil Tigers were effectively the only place the USSR and USA could agree on how to create regional instability to continue the spread of warlords and proliferation of the opium trade.

Now they are just a bunch of crazy motherfuckers wandering around innawood or innamountain and involved in the trade of women, opium, heroin/equipment to produce heroin, arms trafficking, and a few other things.

As someone who keeps tabs with gunrunners and occasionally sells designs to people in the region of the TT's, they are a massive pain in my fucking ass.

By whose standard, whose culture? Under what authority?

Do you question the standard, culture, and authority of naming a chair a chair? The fact there are people who work for wages is a given. The concept of a nation, a country is assigned value the same way paper money is assigned value, except using the media as its backing instead of gold.

Yes I do. Under whose standard, whose culture, what authority that a chair is a chair? And people who work for wages is a "proletariat"?

In fact, you think the concept of chair and proletariat are a given, while nation and money are not.

You are spooked and just focus on calling other spooks while ignoring your own spooks.

A shared language and history for exemple. I wish you applied such skepticism to the concept of proletariat.

You know that there are people who are discriminated based on the criteria of "nation", and that claiming it doesn't exist isn't enough to erase such discrimination right? I'll let you google what a war of national liberation is by yourself.

So, my upper class friend's mother who is a doctor and makes over 10k€ a month working in a clinic in southern europe is an opressed prole?

basically this

They are just names to define something. They have material justification and is not an abstraction like say money or nation.

Money on the other hand has value because people perceive worth from it. In reality it is just paper or some metal. A nation is a concept the same way.


A kingdom fits within you definition. I still don't see how the nation state is anything other than a vague, concept reinforced only by media.


People assign value to the concept nationality, but doesn't mean it is there.


Not all proles are oppressed by definition.

And a kingdom can overlap with a nation.

A nation-state is not necessarily a nation.

So what's the usefulness of the concept? If we're going to dumb things down to the point they're useless then a nation is a mere etnolinguistic group of people. There, your objective concept of a nation. Do you want one for race, gender, etc?

Nope, there are material justification behind both nation and money, just as chair and proletariat.

In reality, a chair is just a piece of wood, and a proletariat is just a dude.

Come the fuck on.

You do realise that the Tamils homeland is divided between Sri Lanka and India, where in India the Tamils do have their own state and autonomy.

India should have annexed Sri Lanka and sided with the Tamils in joining the two regions into a single authority, but they decided work with the Sri Lankan government instead.

Dude, give me some examples. This is your free reply. What justification does a nation have, but in written ideas on a piece of paper that says that they are one by the perceived value of others? On the off hand "proletariat" is just word to define something. The word money is used to describe objects you use to purchase something. The word "money" exists to define it, but I am saying that the perceived value is not there.


I am talking about the assigned VALUE to such concepts that influences people to behave a certain way. Don't give me this whole objective/subjective ridiculousness. These things exist only vaguely by value that people give to them and I am saying that they don't matter and without this perceived value would not exist.

A nation objective exists the same way a chair and a prole does.

To distinguish itself from other nations.

The word nation is just a word to define something.

Like how chair and proletariat make you behave in a certain chair. You hear a chair and you want to sit on it, you hear a prole and you think he's oppressed by bourgeous.

B-but that would mean everything is a spook.

There's actually nothing wrong with being spooked.

Like Nietzche said, nihilism is a stage, you are supposed to get spooked and find your own meaning in a meaningless universe, be it sex, nation or economics or war.

I don't think this is what Stirner meant though. How can everything be a spook? What are the specification for a spook? I thought it was just fixed, abstract ideas that dominated how you act.

You hear "nation", and? Nothing. Perhaps a flag, but a flag is not a nation. A nation isn't defined by anything material; at best a language, which itself was enforced by state power; which leads us back to a class society; and so on.

A nation is an imagined community. It doesn't exist like a chair – or a proletarian. A proletarian is defined by their material existence, and so is a chair. This is the essence of the complaint: you can show people a worker, a proletarian, by going out into the world, same as you can find a chair to sit on. But you cannot go and find a nation, have it brought in front of you. It remains an abstraction.

Yes? Hoxha is a meme and sucked.

Tamil nationalism strengthened communal divisions in the working classes of Sri Lanka and India and provoked fratricidal communal warfare on the island nation. Tamil nationalism was a petite-bourgeois roadblock to the class unity of Tamil and Sinhalese workers. The task of internationalists is to unite the workers of communities in South Asia with each other and the the international working class against imperialist war and capitalist exploitation.

...

Any art from the Terran Empire from Star Trek? Or Helghast? How about Brotherhood of Nod?

Not quite, proletariat includes the unemployed as well.

Or Cybrans. Or Terran Republic. Or the Peacekeepers from Farscape.

...