POST COLONIAL THEORY BTFO

POST COLONIAL THEORY BTFO

catalyst-journal.com/vol1/no1/silencing-subaltern-nivedita-majumdar.html

Jacobin's new theory heavy journal isn't too bad after all.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=4Vzk5QBg9a8
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/zasulich/reply.htm).
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Did they just plagiarise Chibber?

It's kind of expanding on Chibber's work to critique other fundamentals of post-colonial theory

So post-colonialists really believe that marxism is sexist?
Wew.

Post-colonialism is a mental disorder. There's nothing good about it. It's just a way of twisting far-right racist ideas into sounding progressive.

Isn't postcolonial theory just an entire field based on blaming whitey for everything?

it's not even about blaming whitey, but about glorifying oppression and powerlessness

This basically.

Imagine White Man's Burden, but mixed with "noble savage" concepts of the east and you get post-colonialism.

The people outside of the West are every bit the childlike savages of old imperialist ideology, but being a childlike savage is a good thing because that means your culture is pure, just and authentic and non-Westerner countries would be perfect utopias if white people hadn't ruined everything ;_;

Naturally, it appeals to Western liberals and non-Western fascists in equal measure.

Never understood the appeal among liberals. I mean I know it is popular in those circles but never could figure out why.

liberalism is entirely about virtue signalling, and praising weakness.

It's what happens when you try to theorise about global inequality but you have to disregard the work of any 'dead old white guys'.

Hell neocolonialism theory was created by an African but because it's based on Marxism and Lenin (see above) that's no good.

Liberals don't want to spend hours researching the complex societal effects of colonialism and want a simple narrative.

because ideology is a source of power. Liberals need to maintain a sense of moral superiority over the left. Also, liberal cultural hegemony breeds a class of experts and curators who determine what's good and decent. See for example pop music criticism 2008-2016, ie. 'poptimism': OTT praise of multimillion dollar popstar brands disguised in post colonial buzzwords. The liberal media class has been trying to sell the idea the spectacle is 'woke' and good for you.

It's about NATIONALISM. "Muh caliph isn't really a king because a caliph isn't a king, you orientalist prick. Therefore, caliphates are socialist."

lmao do postcolonialists actually reject Nkrumah? thats embarassing

Also this:
youtube.com/watch?v=4Vzk5QBg9a8

I mean, I mostly agree with the article, but how does this btfo postcolonial theory? It just btfo's some retarded strains of postcolonialism, there is really good postcolonialism around (i.e. Fanon, Foucault etc.). I mean Fanon is even a pretty orthodox marxist.

Fanon was very anti-Marxist. If anything, his views were closer to Green NazBol or Turd Worldism.

Imagine building a career around the concept of "power" that Engels BTFO more then a hundred years ago when Duhring was spouting similar shit.

Lacan was structuralist, wasn't he?

Yes he was. He was literally a freud fanboy.

Isn't Louis "strangle humanist scum" Althusser much more to blame for idpol infecting Marxism than any of these fucks?

explain you bozo.

so you haven't read Fanon then?

Zizek has critiqued Fanon.

Isn't not reading like you do much more to blame tho?

what does this even mean? Fanon was 100% a marxist, you are just talking out of your ass

this, and also zizek speaks positively about fanon literally every time he references him.what are you talking about?

No he wasn't. He said Marxist class analysis couldn't explain the situation of colonized nations.

Yeah, and Marx said so himself as well. Marx was fully aware that he was writing in the context of an industrial society in Western Europe (see i.e. Marx talking about Russia here marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/zasulich/reply.htm). But Fanon clearly tried to develop a theory based on Marxist theory (and Fanon states this clearly in The Wretched of the Earth, for example when he's talking about 'skipping' capitalism and going directly to socialism, referencing discussions form the 2nd internationale about possible revolutions in Russia where similar ideas had been discussed).

Mao and the Chinese revolutionaries also had a very different explanation of class dynamics for China (with the peasantry being the primary revolutionary force), that does not mean that Mao wasn't a Marxist.

Seriously, I hate how some people on here are always stating a non-consensus view with such confidence ("No he wasnt a Marxist") without thinking/actually knowing the theory. It just confuses people. It's fine to go against the consensus, but if you do so you should actually have arguments.

Some Western turd positionists were influenced by it as well, like Alain de Benoist.