What did he mean by this?

yup, this is the biggest problem in the idpol part of the left

instead of rejecting the racialist worldview of neo-nazis, they simply seize it for themselves

"leftists" is a fucking meaningless term anyway you nonce. at least say what you mean.

Not sure how much simpler I can put it. Stop dressing up your desire for an ethno-state in Marxist terms.

...

...

Is is a rhetorical question about retarded idpol being a loser, or an actual fucking question?

what are you so upset about?

Sound like anyone else we know?

it's not satire though, you can tell when it's being serious

people acting as though the word "leftist" carries some super secret meaning specific to their individual beliefs. it means nothing and never has.

ok then
they can still fuck off though

Has coolguy been dead long enough for us to bring him back or do we need to wait another decade?

Take that back. GMIL is written by, for, and about the anglophone wanky student left. The guys at Worker's Spatula know virtually everything about Turkey and Germany, and it's likely that some references go over your head if you are a Yank or Brit.

is that you Phil?

so let's say the "black belt" gets independence

what then? what happens if capitalism gets implemented? what happens to whites in the south?

I don't know. I'd like caturday to make a comeback first. Retro memes are the future.

Who cares, it's antiimperialist.

This is absolutely false. Anti-imperialism without socialism only empowers the ruling class of colonized countries.

Doesn't balkanization just weaken the struggle against capitalism?

see this shit kids, this is why you don't take Lenin's fantasies serious

I mean, if you're an organization who's goal is a sovereign nation in America's Black Belt, that's cool, I support (even if it'll never happen). probably a poor idea to be deliberately inflamatory with your goals though.

Then why do twitter tankies keep supporting reactionaries because of "anti-imperialism"?

The fall of the eastern bloc and China morphing into omega capitalism is a better reason for that than twitterfags.

Because twitter tankies only care about abolishing US/Western hegemony

Socialism is less important to them

great idea, what could ever go wrong.

The same thing that happened when Vietnam got its independence.

Bundists gonna Bund: ciml.250x.com/africa/zimbabwe/zimbabwe_statement_comintern_sh_12_12_2012.html

honestly this is a major reason why I'm not in a ML burgerland party

The key word in his post was socialism anyone can support this or that bourgeois leader in a colonized country. Sometimes its necessary like when an imperialist country attacks a neocolonial country ruled by a bourgeois nationalist class but you should want it to go beyond just a bourgeois anti-imperialist struggle. Lenin said that without the struggle against opportunism and here he means anti-socialist/revisionist junk the struggle against imperialism was just empty words.

What's immensely frustrating about that is even if what she is saying is true, efforts to seize/overthrow the capitalist state are the only way to smash either. Making a difference only serves to divide efforts and waste time.

christ at those clowns claiming the name of the Comintern

...

...

I'm convinced at least 80% of her followers are thirstfollows

pol hasnt been satire for years

Ya I feel you tbh but It's still not a bad article tbh

narchos are just as bad. look at /r/anarchism for some immediate examples. hell, Bookchin got so triggered by their idpol self-centered bullshit that he left to found his own ideology.

Wouldn't an independent black ethnostate also create a white ethnostate? If your goals are in line with those of white nationalists then you aren't a leftist.

No, seriously, what the hell did she mean by this? Is the horseshoe theory true?

Wait what the fuck is a "structural class." ?

Can someone define this? Seriously, I see these kind of stupid retorts, but they never explain what they mean by their own definitions. This is a meaningless term.

"race in itself is a structural class." What the fuck is the point of this statement? Someone decode this please, for the love of god.

This. Living int he south the last thing we need is more segregation. I wish these idiots would open a history book or engage in struggle beyond virtue signaling.

they say big smart words to make it sound like they have a point. If you ask them to define it and explain their points clearly they start to glorious uprising I find

fucking dumbass me.chim*p out

This has to be feds r…right?

What did he mean by this?

in case anyone thought WorkersSpatula was kidding

twitter.com/WorkersSpatula/status/839295021807353857

Isn't class struggle by its very nature anti imperialist

it's an old Communist Party USA and Comintern theory

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_self-determination#American_Communist_support

marx2mao.com/Other/CR75.html

Would it still be imperialist if we called it socialist Amerikkka?

America is too an imperialist name, we have to abolish all traces of european names in geography to truly free the masses.

Wew he got triggered pretty well, now accuses all that oppose him off racism like the good idpoler that he is.

I get that Holla Forums likes to be racist with words like this, but all humans are apes and related to chimps. If a phrase like this is going to get wordfiltered, you might as well wordfilter nigger as well since at least nigger is inherently tied to a specific race.

Sage for offtopic

The wordfilters aren't because they're offensive or whatever, it's just to trigger Holla Forumslacks for keks and force them to expand their vocabulary. Most anons don't use any of the filtered words often enough for it to be more than a minor annoyance.

cringe every time i see this

This. Pathetic

Just how many """communists""" are just edgy liberals?

I know that's a common insult around here, but that's literally what this is.

I don't think people like that actually exist outside of Holla Forums and middle schools.

What about OP?

Post-structural gobbldygook.

Please, for the love of god, tell me that this is satire. It can only be satire, right?

What are you talking about the south is the least segregated part of America, the blue north, ironically, is the most.

Not if it aims at the creation of a working class empire :^)

AH HAHAHAHA! Even your own camp is becoming racially conscious. And when it is inescapable to even you that niggers and spics want to unconditionally kill your white asses you will abandon this leftist bullshit or die. Half of us used to be leftists. Most young people are. The difference between us and you know is that we understand that whites are the only fucking people on the planet that try to discard racial tribalism and that they will fucking eat us if we don't organize racially as well. See ya on Holla Forums in 6 months.

That's just you needing to go outside then

kek, checked

Do you even know any non-white people? They are actually pretty much just normal people. You idiots base your whole world view off anti*white tweets and tumblr posts. Maybe actually go outside and you'll realize most minorities have no desire to harm you.

So you do recognize that the alt-right is just a mirror image of the idpol left. Does't that make you question the path your going down?

Lots of people came here from Holla Forums actually.

So what, a black ethno-state carved out of the USA? Good luck with that.

I cannot see how this would be possible without a Nazi masturbation fantasy/ethnic cleansing.

Where the fuck do you think you are?

Wordfilters are newfag traps

The SJWs have their heads so far up their idealism that they are literally trying to create a seperate nation to ship black people off to like some 19th century throwback. They have absolutely no self-awareness.

It's a deliberate way to conceal the sheer analytical poverty of such thinking, and a hardly unique one at that.
See for instance: philpapers.org/archive/SHATVO-2.pdf

1: There are arbitrarily many definitions of "class" that strictly include Marxian class
2. Then we can choose some suitably weak such definition to include a list of qualities {X_1, X_2, … X_n …} with, say, X_1="race"
3. We will label this "structural class" to avoid ambiguity
F. We proceed to deliberately exploit this ambiguity and equivocate the two, selectively and implicitly assuming that valid conclusions about class then necessarily apply to "structural class" as well
C: Therefore racial antagonisms are fundamental to the structure of society, and as such an end to class antagonisms isn't really a true emancipatory horizon for all people

Basically it equivocates two different concepts with some ad hoc qualifier. Clearly "race" is not an objective relation to the productive forces in society, and therefore is not a class in the Marxist sense. But they would certainly like to treat it as such, and to argue further as though they had proved it to be one.

It's a motte and bailey because when challenged that race is not a class, they can retreat back to the (true) statement that they're not talking about Marxian class, but something else entirely. When that discussion is over they can go right back to implicitly treating it as one, and "proving" that racial antagonisms are not emergent properties of material contradictions and must be separately addressed.

It's a particularly pernicious strategy because it's so difficult to explicitly refute. You can't simply point out they're using the "wrong" definition, because there are no wrong definitions in themselves. You'd have to specifically identify the part of the argument where they conflate the two and point out why the conclusion about Marxian class fails to generalize to X_i. Say, if they're using "capitalism's survival is dependent on exploitation of the proletariat" to mean "capitalism's survival is dependent on racial exploitation," the counterexample could be a homogeneous ethno-state. BUT that ethnostate would either do, or be subject to, imperialism, likely involving other ethnicities. So then you have to talk about the principles governing a racially homogenous world, going further into "speculation and hypotheticals" while being beaten with the "real, lived experience" they insist is epistemologically muh privileged over the objective. And in the time it takes you to do that, they've repeated the basic formula above five more times. It's almost like the dialectic's answer to "what is the most effective way to argue?"

Remember postmodernism is first and foremost an anti-Marxist philosophy

The basic question is whether oppression of a socially defined group presupposes oppression of an objectively defined group, or vice versa. It's another face of the classic materialism vs idealism. And idealists can always, ALWAYS outmaneuver us in open terrain, before wryly jabbing at the """rationals""" failure to build a cool, fun, exciting theory like them.

Wot

It sounds like he just pulled that out of his ass, but it's really
in action.

Further proof """M"""-"""L"""s are weak on theory

How do you even get into Hoxhaism without reading his theory? Is there something in the southern psyche that's very pro-bunker?

He literally responded to every tweet i'd ever made flaming me. Like on totally unrelated shit just called me "a muh privileged white dude with no female comrades."

Then he made like four tweet about how comparing ethno-states for the oppressed and alt-righ racial separatism was a white male viewpoint.

Then they started arguing with cptcoherence (another leftypol guy) about how nationalism is actually good.

Total fucking spergout, it was hilarious.

Memes and Ismail autism.

Looks like we misjudged his autism for satire. How much you want to bet it's a white guy?

as long as races exist they will give rise to different classes, due to natural inequalities inherent to population groups and historical conditions

Sad but true. A lot of people, including self-identified Hoxhaists, don't know much about Hoxha's works outside of le epic bunkerman memes.

As for Ismail and the vast majority of /Marx/ those guys are Brezhnevite-style revisionists who think any country that flies a red flag is socialist. They'll admit that Stalin wasn't the complete retard and villain that Khrushchev made him out to be when pressed but they never seem to notice that the vast regimes they support are anti-Stalinist.

Their really middle of the roaders who lean towards the Trotsky-Khrushchev axis when pressed and then towards the side of Stalin and Hoxha when its convenient. The problem isn't just specific to /marx/ but also common on left-book and reddit.

Like how you can praise Castro, Kim Il Sung, Honecker and Mao in the same breath as Hoxha is beyond me. He thought all those guys were hucksters and enemies of socialism, not just people who had deviated a bit but were otherwise all right.

Never post again

Go read them and tell me that their view of the Stalin period and much of their outlook in general are dissimilar in a major way. There wasn't anything in the Secret Speech that Trotsky himself wouldn't have wrote. How do you explain that the "de-Stalinization" period also turned into the absolute shitshow that it did?

My biggest criticism of Hoxha is the cost-ineffective way of building all those bunkers. Earthbags, man! Earthbags!

Is this some secret Trot triggering ammo leftypol hasn't exhausted yet?

If Hoxha didn't blow all of the money on bunkers, how based could he have been?

He could have built them with sandbags and plaster, so several million more bunkers based.

Khrushchev didn't dismantle bureaucratism or oppose "socialism in one country." He didn't put forward a program of socialist internationalism that recognized capitalism's contradictions could only be resolved, and the revolution completed, on the global stage. He didn't apply that understanding of permanent revolution to the decolonizing "third world" or make policy accordingly.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaceful_coexistence

Khrushchev didn't dismantle bureaucratism or oppose "socialism in one country." He didn't put forward a program of socialist internationalism that recognized capitalism's contradictions could only be resolved, and the revolution completed, on the global stage. He didn't apply that understanding of permanent revolution to the decolonizing "third world" or make policy accordingly.

I would think not, since it's a simple critique of Stalinist repression. For all the mileage you get here, you could just as well partition the world of politics into "nazis" and "anti-nazis" and treat that division as its most fundamental question. I wonder where Bernie Sanders falls between the Stalin-Trotsky-Churchill axis and the Hitler-Mussolini axis? Because that's clearly the most insightful question a Marxist can ask.

^This. You can't even get a sentence in, and the pomo cunts have already pre-emptively shot a quad equivocation combo in your face and posted a fedora picture.

I find it really easy to see how absurdly their arguments are structured. I mean I see it in real time, It's not a puzzle I have to dwell on it in any way, which makes me wonder how people can fall for it in the first place. It seems that some people have a strong inbuilt tendency to assume that words that sound similar must be close together in meaning somehow and naming concepts the same must mean they share something more than just the name. As if naming a ship Queen Victoria made it in anyway similar to the person. Truly magical thinking.

glad to see him exposed

tankie twitter is so fucking pathetic. just full of impotent freaks lashing out and threatening to execute anyone who dissents. if anyone of these fools ever gets near power they'd make Stalin's Russia look like a paradise.

It's a timeless cognitive bias