How does Marxists respond to this?

But that's the thing, Native Americans in the US don't exist outside of Capitalism, go on any indian res, especially Pine Ridge, and you'll see some of the most thoroughly lumpenized individuals the Capitalist system has to offer, Russell Means, on the other hand, is the perfect example of a political radical who used his activism as a springboard to various more lucrative endeavors, not dissimilarly from what we'll see many figures of BLM do in the coming decade.

Some might do.
The zapatistas have never been anarchists or marxists, they don't follow any ideology strictly. They are however still anticapitalists and continue to organize their communities according to Indian practices and traditions. Direct democracy and local councils with rotating members are core principles in the zapatista communities.
I fail to see how that makes them reactionary. Never have they claimed to only be fighting for indigenous people or peasants. But it is obviously true that their bases of support is almost entirely made up of peasants.

I don't think that you can apply a Western interpretation of Anarchism or Marxism to their situation since they find themselves in a different context because of colonialism and stuff.

Unspooked as fuck

What if they don't want your help?

Just like the Chicano and Black Liberation movements there were reactionary separatists who hedged their bets between between appealing to the radical Left, or appealing to the their own internal bourgeoises, they made their bet and they purged their Leftists, and looking at the sad state of groups like AIM and NOI today we can see where that got them.

Besides, who says the Left need a bunch of petite-bourgeoise social climers and nationalist separatists anyway? Black, chicano, and native proletarians will engage in proletarian struggle when the time comes, just as they always have, leeches like Means, Farrakhan, and Cleaver are just opportunists who know how to manipulate white guilt liberals with deep pockets.

I see, they actually do want marxism, they just don't know it yet, and the ones who do now are machiavellians who are perfectly aware and use their knowledge against marxism.

It's always the enemies of marxism who are actually the perfect marxists.

Uphold the immortal science of Stirnerism-Meansism with Khmer Rouge thought! All book readers up against the wall!

Do you know anything about the history of AIM? They had multiple major sectarian splits over Marxism. There were members of AIM who wanted to attach themselves more broadly to the radical Left, and there were those who wanted to be more separatist. This was a common issue in the Chicano and Black liberation movements as well, and the anti-Marxists, generally speaking, were more influenced by a sort of Garveyist thought of building up their own bourgeoise in order to match the white bourgeoise. If you're going to shill for Means at least educate yourself on the history of AIM.

The problem with many book readers is that they only read -only- when they see and hear things, they read into them what they have read in their books, they can not approach a situation without an "actually it's this and that because of my theory". They're tedious life deniers.

The indian in the article might be spookbusting, but from the perspective of what stirner called negroidity, the worship of things, of their spirits.

In the mid-20th Century the National Liberation and International Communist Movements were deeply intertwined and navigated in many of the same circles. Many people who were ravolutionary nationalists were Communists, and many Communists believed in national liberation. Just because a black person or native american reads Marx, Lenin, and Fanon doesn't mean they're prostrating themselves to muh dead white men, but it's no coincidence that both in the Global North and South the national liberation struggles that rejected Marx always inevitably turned reactionary. And another thing, why is it that the people of color who reject Marx are somehow more "real" to you then the ones who are Marxists? Have they betrays some kind of "authenticity" you think non-whites have by being untainted by "western thought", are people of color not alowed to be Marxists or Communists? Are they betraying their "heritage"?

This is one of the most singularly retarded posts I've ever read. After this no Egoist on this board should ever be allowed to discard all of Marx's writings just because he mentioned species-being in two or three random things he wrote in his 20's.

Why is reading the only activity in capitalist society that does not alienate?

Btw, don't use standpoint epistemology in an argument, it's the ultimate sign of bad faith and makes you instantly sound like a retard. Arguments don't become right or wrong because of the skin color or genitals of the people making the argument, even if every single native american hated Marxism and went full 100% neoliberal that wouldn't make them right just because of muh oppression, for the same reason that if every woman in America decided they really hated feminism that wouldn't make every argument feminists ever made wrong.

If every woman hated feminism and wants nothing more than the patriarchy, then would the person who says it is feminism that is right for them be just as correct if the opposite were the case?

When did I say that? I'm just pointing out that you've made a literal anprim-tier argument about social abstraction that isn't even consistent with Sterner, maybe more consistent with Nietzsche, probably most consistent with Zerzan.

Anybody I don't like is a reactionary : The thread

The validity of invalidity of Feminism would be predicated on how consistent it is with reality and material facts. Not the opinions of women, one way or another. Your idea of what Feminism is (the opinions of women) is what reactionaries think it is, a bunch of subjective opinions based on women's feelings, but the validity of any theory is predicated on facts and material conditions. If women are oppressed, and if society disproportionately favors men, then feminism makes sense, if this is inconsistent with reality, then there's no reason to be a Feminist, no matter what women think. This is why standpoint epistemology is stupid, and the reason Leftists don't know how to actually debate people anymore but just tell everyone they're racist instead.

You said it when you made an offended shitpost. I'm well aware that the man would be thrown out of the church of stirner for blasphemy and witchcraft. Still, his refusal of the written word touches something that is overlooked among those who claim to free us from alienation and such, that they are in fact alienating us further, with their "theory" and abstraction.

No, opportunists who hijack a Leftist organization and then use their activist careers to get jobs and make cash are reactionary shits. We'll all be having the same pointless argument about DeRay Mckeeson in 10 years "but he evoked the Panthers in his Wells Fargo ad!!! how can you say he wasn't a true radical!!". Also, nice flag Holla Forumsintelpro :^)

"Oppression" the word that forms the ultimate horizon of feminism, that which everything is related to, has nothing to do with "reality and material facts", not even feminists claim this, a smart move, as it would mean the collapse of their ideology.

What makes you think even animals don't experience reification and abstraction :^)

What did he mean by this?

No idea. What is oppression, and is it conditional on the opinion of the person that is oppressed?

If not, then what does it matter what women want, if we can tell them what is best for them?

The lack is constitutive.

Also, what Feminists are you reading who deny that the oppression of women can't be observed in material conditions? Feminists have been applying Dialectical Materialism to Feminist critique since the early 20th Century. The true issue with standpoint epistemology is that anyone can exploit it to claim they're oppressed for any number of things without needing to give any kind of Materialist analysis of said "oppression", kind of like the claim that Marx is oppressing Native Americans because muh dead white males.

The problem with a materialist definition of oppression is the is-ought gap.

Don't be a PoMo faggot

Whether someone is being oppressed is definitely not conditioned on the opinion of anyone. Literally anyone. Not the person doing the oppressing, being oppressed, or witnessing the oppression.

It doesn't matter. Hypothetically making them aware of their oppression would be apart of them liberating themselves, but honestly I wouldn't even say it's essential to their liberation. Most women aren't Feminists, does that mean, as so many MRAs and reactionaries claim, that they don't "truly" speak for women? This is a retarded argument, and the exact reason this board rejects idpol in the first place.

Do you think people can't consciously make decisions based on how they'd prefer things to be. Christ, postmodernism truly is a vicious disease that completely erodes the mind.

Don't expect me to accept your assumptions as an a priori when you can't even explain to me what they are.

So oppression is something metaphysical, in the classical newtonian sense of a falling tree still making a bang when there is no one to hear it fall. Interesting, I hope the equations substantiating this theorem won't fly over my head.

How odd that someone who wants to liberate women finds their desires completely irrelevant. Should they be liberated from themselves them, with your mold being stamped "liberty"?

People making decisions on how they want things to be does not lead to the conclusion that The Things talk, and that which they say is "marxist feminism is right".

My tea cup doesn't talk, my table doesn't, my bike doesn't, if you do hear the material giving you commands, get yourself checked.

Material things are still formed by dialectical processes, both representing those processes and thus communicating components of the same along through subsequent processes.

Alright, be a faggot about it if you want. Let's say oppression is a series of social relations that could be broadly described as based around the subjugation and domination of one group of people by another within the realms of politics, economics, and culture, this is the broadest definition I think most people would agree with, even an idpol Liberal.

It's definitely not something subjective, that's for sure, it's definitely a set of observable social relations. Most women don't think they're being oppressed by men, most POCs aren't super #woke socially conscious campus activists, most people, generally speaking, just aren't very politically active at all. That doesn't mean they aren't being oppressed, and just because class is a social relation predicated on exploitation doesn't mean "oppression" doesn't exist in other forms, it's just that praxis based solely on cultural artifice usually leads Leftists down pointless roads (like getting mad about the new Ghost in the Shell movie whitewashing the cast).

I only want to "liberate" women insofar as I believe Leftists should negate Patriarchy, which has nothing to do with how women feel or think, but a lot to do with reeducating men and getting men to change their behavior, so I don't really know what you mean here.

"Things" act upon us far more then you naively assume, and the reproduction of ideology is a far more unconscious process controlled by objects and abstractions then you give it credit for.

You've read too much Zizek.

You haven't read enough Marx.

that's althusser tho

This just says "there's things and they happen". A meaningless truism.

This means anything and everything, which is the point exactly, it's incremental, there's always more oppressions and never enough, it's a constitutive lack culminating in the paranoid papers on film and literature that (marxist) feminists produce, only being distinguishable from the more common schizophrenic rambling by it's academic status.

There is no equilibrium of people, describing this fact with a vocabulary that invokes images of whips and chains is only substitute for the fact that they aren't really there.

It's not, oppression has a connotation that implies wrongness, this is what gives the word it's meaning. It's another common trick of the marxist and feminist vocabulary, embedding their oughts and their is'.

Let's accept for the sake of the argument that you are correct, what is to be done then? Should we tell muslim women to abandon their oppressive religion, should we tell the sexual submissives to stop wanting to be oppressed, should we tell the children to not accept bedtimes? Should we forcefully liberate them?

What I mean is the contradiction between feminists going on and on about women having no choice and then declaring their choices irrelevant.

Quite correct. Our words are merely commentary to ourselves that we mistake for ourselves. Except those of the ideology scientists of course, they have left the mortal plane and can be trusted as pure observants.

Which is why I don't recommend basing praxis on idpol or any identity-based oppression, it's impossible to create a politics based around différence because the multiplicity of différence can be split infinitely. Which is why Marxists place the Proletariat as the revolutionary subject of Communist revolution.

Once again, like any good Marxist who's actually read Marx I'd advocate for the negate of a specific hegemony that can be observed through social relations, and I would hope these decisions are made collectively by the proletariat itself, if a DotP decided to ban headscarfs, that's really up to them and a decision that should be made organically by the masses, but I don't know if the opinions of Muslim women, as individuals, are more important then the DotP as an organic mass which exists for the negation of Capital and create the conditions of Communism.

I'm not all feminists nigga, why are you arguing with a stawman? All I'm saying is that standpoint epistemology is stupid because something being right or wrong isn't predicated on whether they have or don't have a vagina, or whether their skin is white or black, the history of the Antebellum South was marked by multiple violent and tumultuous slave revolts, but a lot of slaves were frightened and intimidated by the prospect of freedom too, does every single one of these opinions equally matter in your mind because a black person thought it? Does every pro-life woman's opinion really matter? This is the type of retarded logic Standpoint Theory leaves you with.

You're retarded

And so goes the discussion on the question if the Proletarian Communist Revolution encompasses all the others, or if the revolution of all the others encompasses the communist proletarian revolution. There is no intrinsic difference, both define themselves as pure subjects of The Man, to both positions Being is granted through the cracking of the whip. No revolution (a future-indefinite that serves as binding to keep the ideology together and not as an actual event that is being worked towards to) can serve as a release from this, not one in which you make your pick either.

Marxists often get all mechanical when asked about the implications of their propositions, when asked about what they would do to real people, these people are then made unto unreal abstracts. "the negate of a specific hegemony that can be observed through social relations" is an imaginary machine imagined real because it appropriates the status mechanical and scientific terminology has, it's marxspeak whose only meaning is it's own confirmation.

What is so retarded about actually taking into account the people you claim to represent, instead of only taking segment of them that constitutes your supposed version of them and presenting them as the true version of the entire group?

That guy is nationalist.

The negation of capitalism is already in motion, it's the negation of the negation that communists wish to see through. You'd know this if you had any familiarity with Marx.

It's definitely the only one we can meaningfully build praxis around, and building praxis around identity usually just leads to politics of resentment or separatism. Also, most POCs, and most women, are Proletarian, a DotP would be comprised heavily of these groups and as such would be a vehicle of their political will.

Not an argument, but nice try, I'm sorry that actually ready theory hurts your head brainlet :^)

Because I'm not an idpol liberal, my politics aren't centered around people's feelings or some sense of a white man's burden, my politics are based on my own self-interest as a Proletarian, and I really could give less of a shit that a couple of black and brown people think Marx is bad because he was born in Europe.

Don't waste your time, it's just a Holla Forumsyp posing as a tumblr-tier identitarian.

It's kind of hilarious that a Holla Forumsyp spent an entire thread trying to defend idpol liberalism against a Marxist.

Injun nationalism is same bullshit as all other forms of nationalism. He even got the "cultural genocide" meme in there.

^This nigger knows what's up.

It's not meaningful at all. It is so void of meaning, that after 70 years of being told that they are proletariat first and foremost, the people of the soviet union still didn't act accordingly. Also, the will of the people is a spook, it's never what people actually want, it's what a mythical abstraction of them is supposed to want.

I'm happy you can differentiate an argument from a characterization, I'm sorry that you confuse the reciting of scripture for brain power.

So this is where it all comes to down to, there's something you want and that's where it all ends. It doesn't matter what others want, your wants should be theirs, and if they aren't, that's not even an inconvenience, their will isn't even the will of the people anyway, for to become people, they have to become you.

I like it how the anti-identitarians of Holla Forums can not view people as something else than the expression of an identity, "it's just a".

Is your argument that people in Russia have no class character? What are you arguing here?

Also, the will of the people is a spook, it's never what people actually want, it's what a mythical abstraction of them is supposed to want.

Are you saying that groups of people can't have political interests held in common? What is your central argument? What are you even saying?

Still not an argument faggot, but glad to see you still don't have a retort :^)

Yes, my politics reflect my class character, Marxism is a politics for a proletarian revolution, the reason Marxism has made sense to so many people in so many different contexts is that most of the world is under the hegemony of Capitalism, and most of the world's people are Proletarian, as I've stated before to base our politics on identity would be nonsensical because différence, on that scale, it an infinite multiplicity, whereas class creates an Evental site for actual revolution. I don't claim to be able to speak for people from backgrounds I don't come from, I'll leave that to you and your racist fetishization of Russell Means as a "pure" indigenous man untainted by the books of white men :^)

wdhmbt?

I like that you defended idpol, but didn't deny that you're a Holla Forumsyp

Fantastic read, which I see went over westerncucked hubric commie mind, no surprise here.

It's always great to see people rejecting western civilization, which is what everybody should be doing, including first and foremost the west.

Especially good to see native americans do it, since among them they had much superior civilisations and cultures, which they just need to restore.

Lets gulag them

The sky is also blue

Iseewhatyoudidthere.jpg

All native Americans weren't the same tribal warrior cultures. The piquot for instance by all available accounts were paradoxically agriculturally developed AND egalitarian/communal. They were more successful than all of you marxists in that respect, actually

The way to act like a prole is to work for somebody else and receive wages. That is exactly what they acted like.

Then I hope they enjoy living under the yoke of colonialism. Joining hands with the American working class is their only hope for liberation. America is a country that is so diverse that micronationalism will get you nowhere, since it will preclude you from banding together with 95% of the rest of the population. Idpol is more effective at destroying worker's movements there than anywhere else, and that's why it's shilled for so hard there.

looks like there's a few sane people on this board after all.

...

The problem I've always had with the modern """"""""""""left"""""""""""" is how you can't really say anything that is slightly European/White/Straight dissent it is wrong because if you do you're the oppressor and your opionion should because it's Eurocentric which is ironic since a lot of the people that say this are usually anglophones and they usually don't speak any other language. This essay technically speech, but it's written like an essay basically shows that these people just don't give a fuck about whats right or wrong they only care where their opinion comes from. I'm sorry that American Indians got fucked over by Europeans, but that doesn't justify rejecting everything European. This is the reason why I refer to the current left as the """"""""left"""""""" because at the end of the day the left has managed to turn itself into the right by basically becoming cultural/ethnic nationalism is basically good for everybody, but white people. No fucking wonder that Russel Means was a member of the lolbert party.

This. They are literally fuelling white identitarianism by pushing non-white identitarianism. Dialectics in action.

...

Read the thread, it was just a Holla Forumsyp trying to fruitlessly "by your own logic" use using tumblr idpol, it was embarrassing and the argument boiled down to "but what if oppressed people don't want to get liberated!!"

read the thread

I did. Marxism is a religion, the poster wasn't wrong.

Even if he's right, all he did was make bad faith arguments, contradict himself constantly, refuse to reveal the position from which he was arguing, i.e. what they actually believed, and constantly claimed to have knowledge of "intentions" of the ideas behind the arguments he was arguing against, i.e. constant strawmans against his personal idea of what feminists and marxists "actually believe" instead of what the feminists and marxists he was arguing with actually said. He made Holla Forumsyps seem like mentally unhinged cunts incapable of speaking to people directly because they know that if they reveal their true beliefs most people would be instantaneously repulsed. Much like you now.

100% serious

There's no paradox here.

He stated clearly reasons on why western civilization is a disaster, they all flew over commie's heads and they were just accusing him of "muh culture" "idpol" and now "anti-whiteness".

Because that's what all of his arguments were predicated on. Like a typical Holla Forumsyp tbh.

Yeah but I was referring to him and to this thread as a whole.

So basically progress and technology were a mistake and we should go to back the times when every lived in primitive communism and when people killed each other in tribal wars and some tribes ate each other mostly out of material conditions so we can have a perfect society again that never existed? And yeah I know that most Indians weren't savages, but tbh it seems like that Russel Means is kind of looking at history through rose tinted glasses and ignoring every benefit of modern society/anything European in favor of something that never existed. And also before you start making appeal to nature fallacies let me just remind you that the plant pictured here is also natural.

...

So which political ideology doesn't employ the use of abstractions? Plato did it as did the Islamic philosophers and later the Renaissance, Enlightenment, and post-Enlightenment.

This is one major argument used by postcolonial theorists (especially Muslim ones) to discredit Marxism: since Marx was an {{{A$KKKeNAZI}}} white debbul, using his theories ultimately imply your mind is still colonized, because you can't return to your own heritage and must employ the works of someone from a colonizer culture.

This is one reason why RAIM stopped identifying as Marxist. They even wrote an article last year about how Mao was only a Marxist because his mind was colonized. I'm not shitting you.

...

Even worse, it's the argument of Zionists: the return to an "authentic" Jewish identity as the primary source of liberation. Zionists wanted to revive Hebrew and mass-migrate to Palestine whereas the actual Jewish proletarian Bund promoted Yiddish and localism.

Everything rests on leaps of faith, even science. Saying Marxism is a religion is meaningless and, to be frank, shows a serious lack of knowledge about philosophy.

It's especially hilarious when one considers that two of the thinkers postcolonial theory is indebted to, Derrida and Levinas, are literally Jewish philosophers working in the Jewish talmudic traditions.

Wow, amazing argumentation, as to be expected from Holla Forums!!

...

Pic related too. Literally all of these Deconstructionists were a bunch of Talmudic kabbalist jooz, and yet Palestinians and Pallyboo PoCos don't see the irony in appropriating their methods.

Not all cultures and religious traditions are consistent with the goals of communism.

Not all cultures and religious traditions are consistent with the goals of Catholicism.

Not all cultures and religious traditions are consistent with the goals of my investment fund.

Not all cultures and religious traditions are consistent with what I like.

When we're talking about communism, we're talking about a collective *project* consciously being built by the masses. See how fucked up it all becomes as soon as building communism turns into herding cats because "muh culture muh religion muh tradeeshun"?

loled

He's completely right here

read the above quote.

When we're talking about Christianity, we're talking about a collective *project* consciously being built by the masses. See how fucked up it all becomes as soon as setting up a parish turns into herding cats because "muh culture muh religion muh tradeeshun"?

This is why the oak gets the axe, Sven.

There's a reason why communism emphasizes the struggles of the proletariat above everything else, including muh tradeeshun: as soon as you abandon the proletarian subject you're essentially left with mythologies. Claiming Native Americans, tribal Africans, Muslims, Orthodox Jews, or the Amish are "socialist already" (with the conclusion being that communism for them isn't necessary as their original societies have no or minimal contradiction) is 100% pure idealism.

Why is that bad?
Benjamin wasn't a deconstructionist tho.

He was proto-deconstructionist. It's all a bunch of kabbalah bullshit anyway.

If he's right then why wasn't he capable of actually presenting an argument, all he did the entire debate was throw around strawman arguments and argue at me about what he think Marxism is, as opposed to actually arguing with me and what I was saying, besides, how was all of his abstract talk about culture and identity not based on confirmation bias and circular logic? All he did was try to catch me in "gotcha" questions using tumblr arguments about Marxism not being intersectional while I painstakingly tried to explain to him multiple times that I reject idpol.

The point is that since everything already hinges on faith, calling something a religion because it hinges on assumptions is meme tier. You might just as well call liberalism, fascism, feudalism, traditionalism and everything else a religion and call yourself a centrist with a big brain. But there is a problem with that too: if you do that, you end up being a liberal again

How is this mechanical in any way lmao

It's funny that Palestinian post-structuralists reject Marx for being Jewish when some of their biggest influences, Derrida, Bejamin, and Levinas are all highly traditional Jewish thinkers, far more so then Marx, did you literally not read the posts?

There's a reason why Christianity emphasizes the struggles of Jesus Christ above everything else, including muh pagan social structure: as soon as you abandon the salvation subject you're essentially left with mythologies. Claiming Albigensians, Norse pagans, Muslims, Orthodox Jews, or empathetic atheists are "saved already" (with the conclusion being that Christianity for them isn't necessary as their original societies have no or minimal sin) is 100% pure idealism.

He seems to continuously argue that anything anyone else besides him thinks is an attempt by other people to "impose" things on him. Feminists want to "force" him to be feminist, Marxists want to "force" him to be marxist. At least I'm assuming he's the same Holla Forumsyp samefaging as a third-party observer now that he does want to continue the earlier debate.

It makes you wonder why kebab intellectuals don't just retreat back into traditional Islamic methods of exegesis instead of piggybacking off the epistemology of their {{{Zionist occupiers}}}. Don't Muslims have a highly complex way of interpreting Hadith in order to pick out which ones are real or fake?

I've actually wondered this a few times in the past, the simplest answer is probably just that in South Asia and West Asia, where post-colonialism got it's start, the educational systems and university curriculums were highly influenced by the UK, and it was a time when Derrida, Foucault, and Gramsci were all the rage, so it was a fluke, but ironically a fluke itself born out of the circumstances of colonialism.

Another thing: Why do you think Marx wrote that a communist society isn't a state of affairs to be established? We can't foresee the future, neither in regards to technology nor to organisation.

We can observe the contradictions of class society. If they are to be negated, which they will if you accept the assumptions of dialectic, class society will be negated. So, what is going to happen to people? Well, who the fuck knows? It will be determined by the proletariat, not by shitposters on leftypol or academics in the educational institutions.

I don't really care about that, his criticisms of Marxism was on point.

Because Marxism appeals to itself as a "materialist" philosophy, but its attempts to address the operation of future societies results in nothing, but pure idealism; that's all it is, a reversion of Marxism. Marx's analysis of society, and the developing modes of production were based on the scientific and historical evidence of that time, in short it's an out dated form of analysis.
Marx never turned Hegel on his head, he turned himself on his head, and stared at Hegel's sexy legs while he was talking.

yes
doubt it, the proletariat aren't the revolutionary class anymore.

He seems to be obsessed with "but what if these people don't want communism", without taking into account that people's wants are always already conditioned by the language and society we find ourselves in. When Republicans on Obamacare want to repeal Obamacare because they don't know Obamacare is in fact the ACA they depend on, would it help their situation to grant them their wishes?

Muh what people want is right

Marx never said "communism is inevitable", only that the actions of the proletariat COULD (not will) bring about an end to class society. Romanticizing about "the future" is only something a legit Marxist would do in terms of brainstorming the state of affairs after the revolution takes place. Oh hell, we don't even know what a future "dictatorship of the proletariat" would look like in that we don't know if it will be the USSR 2.0 (centralized planned economy) or something closer to Catalonia/Rojava.

But what was the argument nigga?? What. Was. It??

No, thinking you can predict the future based on the past and present is literally the Marxist definition of "idealism", and exactly what Marxists avoid, what we call for is the negation of the current state of things.

Okay, now we're getting somewhere, what do you propose?

Once again, you're going to want to elaborate on this bucko

I'm going to ask this too. If not for the proletariat, then whom/what? The lumpen? The "precariat"? The noble savage indigenous people whose culture is too speshul for HistMat to understand?

I mean that's why this whole thread devolved into bickering, almost everything they argued boils down to "but what if oppressed people actually really like being oppressed?" and then tried to defend standpoint theory and use tumblr-tier arguments of muh dead white men, it was a real shitshow. it's always fun to argue with people who refuse to reveal their actual positions, because you know whatever they're hiding is so bad they're ashamed to admit it openly, the ultimate sign of bad faith.

No, I'd say the proletariat. That would be my answer.

Also, good dodge, glad to see you're as evasive as ever.

No, I'm in agreement with you. I'm the poster who engaged with you about PoCo and {{{jooz}}}.

sorry, I thought it was the Nazi trying "turn it around on me", they seem to only be able to argue in ellipticals

Also, I'm not gonna lie famiglia, I've been home all day sick with a cold arguing with this Holla Forumsyp, and while it's become strangely addictive I'm also starting to reach peak levels of delirium.

Rest well comrade. Drink tea and eat some vegetable soup.

I say that this guy is fucking retarded and im glad he is dead. Its like fundies saying "gawd didnt make no vakseens so I wont use em".

It's literally:

And yes, this is the exact same argument Zerzan makes.

Thank you gomrade!

Zizek addresses this in his talk on hegelianism. He makes the point that the colonizer wiping out the colonized's culture and replacing it with their own is a complete myth, and that colonizers actually want to keep the colonized in their traditional, backwards ways since they're easier to dominate. Think about how most great anti-colonial leaders were educated in the west and gained most of their knowledge which enabled them to win through western paradigms. Meanwhile indigenous epistemology hasn't done shit.

Easier to dominate, and patronize. Yes, I've seen the talk you're referencing and even though I don't agree with Zizek entirely, he is correct by pointing out the use of "authentic" culture to the colonials. White South Africans justified the apartheid system by claiming universal suffrage would force indigenous blacks out of their traditional way of life and into modernity. I've seen Zionists make similar arguments regarding the Palestinians, that Arabs "don't want democracy" and giving them democracy would be de facto oppressive (Assadists say the same thing regarding Syria).

Well, that explains a lot

That's the best meme ball hands down.

and how will the Marxists go about the negation of the current things? The point is that you can't just spout this shit while ignoring the intersection of the multiple aspects of society that overlap with each other in relation to Capitalism. What exactly has to be negated, what should be kept, and in what way will you bring about this change? If the left doesn't want to address the real threat that revolutionary ideology places on revolutionary practice, then it's just going to be doomed at bringing the same mistakes as Lenin's conception of the vanguard did–that is past history.
Isn't it kinda obvious? The scientists, and technicians of today are making capitalism more and more unbearable as time progresses, they're the revolutionary class of today as they're the ones driving the contradictions of capitalism, not the proletariat.

You're forgetting why Marx and Engels declared the proletariat revolutionary. Let me lay it down for you:

1. Proles were the people on whose labor society depended. A scientist and dream up gadgets all day, nothing will be built without a laboring workforce.

2. The nature of their work was collective, hence proles were already conditioned into socialism. Compare with scientists and programmers who usually work alone and are narcissistic as fuck.

3. Proles had a vested interest in ending capitalism. Silicon Valley elites do NOT.

Do you see this graph right here? The Hilary campaign released it during the elections so they could talk about Flint, Michigan. Do you notice anything suspicious about it? I'll point it out, it's a completely random and arbitrary cross section of a bunch of random things that can literally all just be explained by Capitalism. And yes, while not all matters of race and gener can be reduced to matters of class a large number of the material conditions of their exploitation and the institutions that reproduce this state of hegemony are all class related. And, as I've pointed out, the whole reason to treat class as our point of departure is that the binary of Bourgeois and Proletariat creates an Evental site for revolution, identity politics is an infinite multiplicity, it's everything and it's nothing, it's fat people being oppressed by the thin, it's white people claiming to be oppressed by black people and Jews, you can't build meaningful praxis on that, most of these things only really make sense to tackle on an interpersonal level, unless, as is the case of Black people in America, or Palestinians in occupied Palestine, or Black people (again) in South Africa, there's a clear history of colonialism/settlerism.

What the fuck are you talking about. Like Silicone Valley? They make up 2% of the US economy you mongoloid, just because dickless NeoLiberals and ancaps worship the soles of their feet doesn't mean they're the driving force of capital, let alone an entire new class formation, most of them are just petite-bourge at best.

tl:dr intersectionality is a buzzword fam, read Marx

Intersectionality is going the way of the dodo anyway. At this point, most of the radical left is too embarrassed by the academic left's meddling with the 2016 election to keep embracing it.

based Stalin knows not to finger the trigger until the target is within his sights. Good fire arms discipline, evidence of competence

bretty much, but that intersectionality chart always gives me a good harty kek

THIS is the main issue with idpol: you can't build a socialist revolution out of arbitrary identities and groups. I love Althusser as much as the next comrade, but his students/disciples done goofed when they declared the proletarian subject (and thus any chance for revolution to grow INTERNALLY within the system) for "outsiders", i.e. people who were marginalized because they didn't reproduce capital in a way that was useful to the system, thus giving them the ability to act as a sabot and "stop" the reproduction of capital by attacking from the outside.

*declared the proletarian subject dead and replaced it with "outsiders"

...

That about sums it up tbh

...

Holla Forums once again proving they have no idea what they're talking about.

Baptizing old school cultures as "communist" or "communalist" is pure idealism.

True. I wouldn't expect Holla Forums to know what the various forms of communism were. They'd still blame all their problems on jews just like how SJWs blame white people.

Marx used the Native American cultures to develop his ideas of what communism might look like, although he never quite got it down as he died before writing Vol. 4 of Capital. Read the Ethnological Notebooks.

I'll read one page of Das Kapital this week if you can tell me where that man (Sankara)'s name comes from originally, without using a search engine

Burkina Faso?

Oh boy. I wish i'd included some terms if you got it wrong.

No its from India. Adi Sankara the great Advaita Vedanta Mystic/Teacher

...

Maybe you should have specified which Sankara.

Yep, that about sums it up tbh

I was seriously forreal going to read one page from Das Kapital at random this week, but you guys failed me.

I said where did the name Sankara come from, its not an african word which i assume you were all aware of. Maybe I should have said, "where does this surname hail from?"

Probably should have said that, though you would have still gotten it wrong :/

Why does that matter, anyway?

Also, reading a single page from a book at random only makes you more of a retard.

What was the point you were driving at besides being insufferably smug? Also, why would anyone on this board care if you read a random page out of Kapital?

because its amusing how ignorant most people are of little things like ancestry or cultural origins.

because its funny how ignorant most people are of little things like ancestry or cultural origins (for instance the swastika can be found in every ancient culture on the planet). And I was being ironic, you fags say to read theory and I always say that Marx is a fag and doesn't deserve my time. It was all in jest

Yeah, gee, why don't most people know the origins of foreign names?

I don't think you know what irony is m8

because they live in the anglosphere and are autistic and self centered, don't value other cultures and don't care about world history and/or never received a classical education/lack critical thinking skills/lack a basic understanding of linguistics

nah

Then they can enjoy dying of small pox. The dialectic of history is merciless. It has destroyed thousands of cultures over the course of human history. Indigenous people need to either embrace true communism or die.

Nationalists are very predictable.

Blaming Althusser for SJWs is like blaming Tupac for Iggy Azalea.

Are you the same guy who just posted Debord quotes? If that's the case you're a fucking retard for hating on Marx and should listen more to Debord

It seems like this entire thread was just a Holla Forumsyp trying to "by your own logic" Holla Forums, if he had just stuck to his own opinions he might have actually stood a chance, as it stands all of his posts read like incredibly smug self-satisfied word salad.

Aren't blacks in america and south africa perfect examples of how not to do it? The leadership all had socialist leanings, but the movement was identiterian. Mayor civil rights victories where had, but south africa ended up as a shithole where workers are worse of than under apartheid, and the over all material conditions for blacks in america seem to not have changed all that much.

Also I made this picture.

The anti-apartheid struggle itself was heavily left-wing, with unions and commies playing a significant role. It was only after regime change that the ANC sold out and everything went downhill after that.

no refunds :^) lol

youtube.com/watch?v=vWunOSVaqAI

tell them they can keep even more casino profits under communism.

Like most anti-colonial movements (including China and Vietnam) there were both Liberal and Communist wings to the ANC and the movement at large. Google Chris Hani, he was a Communist, deeply inspired by Fanon, before he was assassinated by a Polish neo-nazi he was probably the single biggest political leader in the movement, but you have to remember that by the time South Africa ended Apartheid the Soviet Union was already gone, and with it most commies in the ANC were left with their dicks waving in the wind, zero material support. As for Mandela, before he was arrested he was a radical, but certainly not a leader or ideologue within the party, it was during his imprisonment that a Huey P. Newton style cult of personality was built around him, and once he was released a leadership role he was unprepared for was thrust upon him. He never had any strong opinions or beliefs, so when power in the party shifted to the Liberals he just went where the wind blew.

that's what I'm saying. The problem was not the lack of socialists in the movements, both the american civil rights and south african liberation movement had socialists as an important driving force, but at the end of the day it was not a socialist movement, so it failed to produce long term meaningful change.

This is why we detest PoMos.

Isn't that the same woman who cursed Noam Chomsky to die

Kalika/Neakita is trans.

Personally i don't give a fuck. Does this sound harsh? I dunno. People in the "indigenous liberal" movements seem to just be tacitly "on the left" so they can manipulate the feelings of whites that are gullible enough to take "personal responsibility" for colonialism and racism.

To be completely honest with you, I don't consider people like this "Left" and I consider these kinds of groups to be almost anti-Left in some cases.

There is far too many "muh decolonization" types in the anarchist movement right now that I could point to to prove my case. They almost seem to reduce anarchism to this kind of religious confession where we "cleans ourselves" of "sins of the past" and talk about how whitey is gentrifying everything and can't do anything good while native people are literally the bees knees and poop pots of gold.

If they don't put up some ridiculous fight like the capitalists I guess I'm cool with people living how they want within reason.

I like elements of liberal society, i just don't like how liberalism has limits. I think communism helps address liberalism's faults much better.

If someone doesn't want to speak English or whatever, or retain their native language, sure, i get that, but some of the more "tribal" Leftists go beyond the pale for me, to a point where they also want to bend other people to their own culture and upbringing as well.

I'm very much a "don't fuck with me and I won't fuck with you" kind of guy when it comes to that stuff.

lmao more like spooked AS fuck. Are you kidding? This entire fucking green text is literally 'muh culture' 'muh heritage' only if you're a Native American. It's just easier to sympathize with due to colonialism, but damn if I don't find this completely fucking spooked as shit. This to me is no more outdated and archaic than Jews, Christians, and Muslims celebrating their delusional traditions as well. Again, just my personal opinion here, but these people are all equally spooked in their own unique ways, I might even be myself, who knows, but this is downright ridiculous.

Oh, ok.
Isn't that the same woman who cursed Noam Chomsky to die?

It is youtube.com/watch?v=B32lZsrJ_aQ

It obviously didn't work

hhahahahahahha

I can't place my finger down on the politics of people like Neakit or Chaya Bat-Tzvi. I think they both peruse this board, I even considered for a moment that it might have been one of them who started this thread, but I can't figure out their politics, seems like a weird mix of anarcho-primitivism, Jewish and Islamic mysticism, Pol Pot apologetics, anti-civ anarchism, Evola, Frankfurt School crit theory, and some Maoism, of the old school anti-revisionist variety (Panthers and Weather Underground). I actually like them and their presence, it adds variety to the Holla Forums ecosystem, but I do feel like a lot of their stuff is needlessly opaque, and like most post-Left anarchism and a lot of Maoism, it's dancing on the razor's edge between the ultra-left and pure reaction.

Broadly speaking though, I think they're just more interested in being edgelords then anything else.

Based Russell sees western civilization for what it is and does not want the next iteration of it which changes nothing except that factories are collectively owned.

Feudalism -> capitalism -> communism. The only difference between each stage is that they gradually offer more liberties to its slaves, none of them offers freedom. "It's all the same song", as Russel said.

Even through it seems Russel speaks as a member of hunter-gatherer community, native Americans had in their pre-colonial history great agrarian, non-exploitative, spiritual, non-destructive to environment civilizations like Maya. And people like him wants to restore it and then go from there and modernize it. THIS is the correct answer to capitalism, and what everybody should be doing. European countries could be inspired by their noble cultures like for example Al Andalus, ancient Rome etc. or just create completely new one like N S Germany.
Commie won't accept that there are more ways out of capitalism that are better than communism so they just mumble that Russel meant "muh culture", "muh micronationalism", "muh deeply triggering and problematicness".

It would be just as impossible for Native Americans to return to a pre-colonial state of Being as it would be for White people to return to a pre-Capitalist one, nor do I think most people would sign up for it either. An user argued earlier on in this thread that there's no such thing as a "proletarian subject", that the proletariat will never act the way Communists want them to, but I'd argue that there really isn't a true "indigenous subject", this native man Means keeps talking about just doesn't exist, just like the pure Aryan of the white nationalist it's just hyper-alienated lumpens and social outcasts fetishizing their own imaginary origins, whether Russell Means, or Afrocenterists, or Decolonial Theorists like it or not they're all already interpellated within the Capitalist system, it already structures their logic and limits the possibilities of their praxis. This is the reason most anarcho-primitivist thought, when taken out of context, just sounds like Nazi bullshit, because it kind of is tbh. I'd say an actual honest to rights "return" is far more impossible then an honest to rights sublation of Capitalism, I also think even if a "return" was possible it would be infinitely less favorable anyway, and unlike anprims most people just don't find modern science or technology or convenience inherently alienating, least of all Russell Means, he was literally a fucking business man and a card carrying member of the Libertarian Party, we're not just throwing around memes when we accuse him of being a petit-bourgeois social climber, he was the Eldridge Cleaver of AIM.

Maoists are like this too. Makes sense once you know Mao was a Taoist/Buddhist.

If you think historical materialism can't be easily applied to Native American history then you're out of your mind

...