Don't you see how the racial version of marxism being taught in racial studies could turn very bad, very quickly? Historically marxists started conflicts because they believed they were oppressed. Couldn't the same think happen with black people rising up against white people or even worse Jewish people (Go look at the racial composition of the Forbes 500).
It's like they don't realize saying one group oppresses another creates racial division and hate.
read the FAQ & lurk more, faggot
This isn't new you stupid fuck
i would say racist mysticism has just about nothing to do with marx tbh
forgot shitposting flag
There is no such thing. Even liberal college professors just talk about a few marxist concepts as a lead-in to how postmodernism fixes everything he supposedly got wrong.
I'm not big on postmodernist literature. I've only just begun studying Marxism so to me it's sort of like a class based argument Marx would make except centered around race. These people don't really care about class.
you don't know Marx, faggot.
Is it not an argument that the proletarians are oppressed by the bourgeois? Perhaps I worded that incorrectly. Do you just call them facts here?
4/10 better luck next time
Marx in the most hideous of reductions identifies that class relations are exploitive to proletariats and says it's in the prole's best interest to overthrow the burgeoise ending class struggle. Marxism is not about generally opressed groups overthrowing the opressor because of moral reasons, a racial version of marxism makes no sense as marxism is about class rellations and goes in real deep to argue why and how those relations are excellent. Any racial insurection based on oppression is not marxist by any means in fact marx belived most opressive relations in society were part of the class struggle or burgeoise ideology.
Nazis belived aryans were being oppressed by jews and came up with all their bullshit, they are by no means marxist.
Oh thank you for the clarification.
/thread
I'm out.
yes, but Marx doesn't blame it on class in and of itself.
he argues against the system that causes it to happen in the first place.
How the fuck do you go from "racism is only a problem if racists can act on their racist beliefs" to "capitalism is what allows them to act on their racist beliefs?"
How are black people oppressed today? They have a lower standard of living than whites, they are harassed by the police, and they are politically disenfranchised. The destruction of bourgeoisie democracy, even if it doesn't make everyone start singing kumbaya, eliminates these sources of oppression. If you eliminate class completely, you can't have all the black people stuck at the bottom.
Where did he get this logic? he who has the money, has the power to discriminate. No he who has the pairs of hands and will has the power to discriminate. Power is power regardless of whether it is punished.
You have to be a special kind of stupid to read what I wrote and think I asked how blacks are oppressed.
You think racism wasn't around pre-agriculture?
Literally no such thing.
the original form of identity politics, the one that spawned the rest of them, was the identity politics of the worker as practiced in the productivist states of Russia and China. the mechanisms of 'privilege' are eerily similar to the mechanisms of 'class background' in maoist and stalinist parties. It definitely wasn't Marx' idea, see Critique of the Gotha Program. Our job isn't to glorify the proletariat, but to abolish it.
And what if they end up there anyway in a post-class society?
What would their subjugation consist of and how would it be enforced?
Read Racial Capital, Volume I, fag.
LMFAO NICE DUBS Holla ForumsRO SHADILAYYYYYYYYYYYY!
It wasn't, for one thing because pre-agriculture no one would ever encounter anyone from another race.
It wasn't
I fucking hate autistic people
Marxism is about economics and class, not race. Just because someone claims one group of some sort is oppressing another group of some sort does not make it "Marxist". When people two hundred years ago said slave owners were oppressing slaves, that wasn't "Marxism".
Moreover, what matters is if the claim of oppression is true or not. If the claim is true, then it is not the person pointing out the oppression that is creating racial division and hate. It is the oppression doing that.
With no subjugation. That was my point.
Racism isn't even as old as agriculture. Religion, language, citizenship all divided people but those were permeable lines. It was all about how you were raised, not who your biological great grandparents were. The grandkids of freed slaves in Rome were simply Roman, regardless of which continent their grandparents came from. A Jew who converted to Christianity was simply Christian. And the development of racism is simply weird because there was no framework in which it was considered natural. They had to come up with bizarre theology about how the sin of not being Christian was passed down to decedents but somehow not erased by baptism, so people who only recently converted were more impure.
I would argue the opposite, that racism was far more intense and divisive at the time, slicing its way into far tinier groups than at present, barely a level above tribal clans. What's truly recent is the idea of racism espoused by whole areas (Norman, Saxon, Celtic, etc.), then nations (UK, France, Germany), then regions (Western Europe, Mediterranean, Scandinavia, Balkans), then agglomerated continents (Europe, Asia, Africa).
That's the real reason racism isn't sustainable, is that if admitted to public discourse, ethnostate would endlessly beget ethnostate, ultimately grinding the edifice of global civilization down to jumbled pebbles.