How to counter this argument? If you look at it really, they are a third-worldist group struggling against western-aligned imperialist forces bombing and killing them non-stop.

Other urls found in this thread:

ISIS isn't a nation

I ignore it

Because they're reactionary imperialists themselves.

You dont, its pretty legit


Fuck you tankie

Every enemy of USA is my friend

also ba'athism isn't fascism get off of Christopher hitchen's dick

We must support Hitler's Germany in their struggle against anglo imperialism

Unironically yes, bipolar world is better than world with anglo hegemony

Except Nazi Germany was imperialist aswell. ISIS arguably isn't.




Check the one with the socdem defending ISIS.

Sunni Muslim here. Fuck ISIS. They're useful idiots for western imperialism.
Hezbollah are pretty based though. I'm kinda jealous about that.

I want brainlets to leave. It's shariah, plain and simple.

Hello takfiri

Yes, hello, I am here for the shitposting and paint-huffing.

Interesting. I know this is overdone by SJWs already, but since you are an islamig gommunist fella, could you tell us more about ISIS from that perspective, pls. For example, is ISIS right or left wing?

isis is supported by western imperialists and their allies in the region, and shares many of their interests (destroying hezbollah and iran, for example)

Its like asking if orange is more banana or apple


Tbh i agree with this socdem on every his post


literally the opposite of takfir

I have no idea I don't think the regular left right thing applies. I just think they're a bunch of morons who have done more to harm the people they're supposed to support than anything else.

If only you niggers actually read up on the definition of imperialism after we having a thread like this every week. Imperialism isn't when a country engages in an aggressive war against another and/or wants to annex them. Heavily simplified, imperialism is the export of capital, be it peacefully or through war. Thus, for a country to engage in imperialism they need an economy that is developed enough to have surplus capital which it needs to spread abroad.

Why? ISIS has been implementing economic policies since 2014 or something, don't they have any tendency or leaning besides "braise alah and kil invidel :DD"?

I think most of them are just ironically shitposting

so according to you, imperialism didn't exist before capitalism

ok then, have fun with your delusions

Read upon the koran to understand their economic policies, they tried to implement all of it into reality, zakat, gold based monetary system etc…

Not that user, but ISIS fits squarely into the far right. They desire an extremely reactionary, extremely authoritarian theocratic state, a return to a mythical 'glorious golden age', and enough conservatism to drown a man in. I don't see how an Islamig Gommunist would propose a different view on ISIS, either.

In a fight between Islamofascists and neoliberals, I hope they weaken each other to the point that anarcho-
communist revolution is possible.

get a load of this brainlet

isn't that like progressive tax tbh

Thanks for the reply, it makes sense to think of it.

not sure if seriou or just trolling

Roman Empire confirmed for anti-imperialist.

Don't you think the phenomena of capital existed before it was first described by Adam Smith?

You were on point until this. Isn't imperialism primarily about IMPORTING resources? Exporting of capital is but a means to import resources.

Roman empire is LITERALLY the beginnings of western imperialism.

More like Southern imperialism amrite?

wealth tax.


African imperialism

no, it was not capitalism, it was feudalism, tribal societies and so on

lrn 2 historical materialism


Not according to your retarded definition. The Imperium Romanum was pre-capitalist, and therefore had no capital to export. Most of their conquests were about acquiring new slaves

There was a transition from feudalism to capitalism, and by the time Smith wrote Wealth Of Nations in the 1700s it was well underway. Otherwise how would he have been able to describe it if it didn't yet exist?

bretty good meme, made me chuckle

They still had capital, and capitalists. Merchants and so on. It just didn't rule everything, it wasn't the dominant ideology.

gr8 b8 m8

Are you saying that Roman empire was opposed to imperialism? Share me some of that dank shit you are smoking fam

Another one bites the dust

Are you implying ISIS is opposed to imperialism?

American imperialism maybe, but certainly not imperialism in principle, and especially not it's own brand of imperialism.

Tankies BTFOd

no there were not, there were feudal and tribal lords, capitalists get their name from an specific relation with the means of production, not from just being wealthy

good Lleninist meme, feudalism stopped being feudalism when means of production became privately owned, which caused the development of new relationships within the production method there was no inbetween. read Althusser.

Imperialism isn't the imposition of capitalism and just the imposition of capitalism, Imperialism is the imposition of an specific mode of production over another, imperialism is done by a dominant class over a dominated one, capitalism has absolutely nothing to do with this definition

ISIS is imperialist on the basis that it is an organization that wants to impose certain mode of production over others, a mode of production includes a material base as well as an ideological superstructure. ISIS pretty much has their own materialist base and ideological superstructure, and they pretty much want to impose this onto others

you 3rd worlders are fucking retarded

you are fucking retarded

it doesn't matter if it happened at different points in time, what matters is how each economic center transform from feudalism to capitalism, as soon as the means of production became available for wealthy merchants to obtain, they didn't have to rely on the power of kings and monarchs, which resulted in the dissolution of feudal power

there is no inbetween, even economic centers of europe transformed first, these economic centers transformed from feudalism to capitalism

well no not exactly because the left has a material analysis

but ISIS is actually in the right according to neoliberalism; they are acting in justified self defense

when will the tattoo meme end?

There was a lengthy period of time where feudal lords and kings would do business with merchants. Over time, probably because of the way capital accumulates, the merchants became more wealthy than the lords and kings, which came to a violent head during the French Revolution when the new wealthy bourgeoisie class took over the State.

The USSR absolutely did oppose imperialism in principle.

Now, it could be argued that it practiced a form of imperialism in spite of this stance, but it would still be in spite of its anti-imperialism.

ISIS isn't an anti-imperialist power hypocritically practicing it. They have no stance against imperialism in general principle, they want Americans out, but only so they can exercise their own form of imperialism and aren't shy about acknowledging this, as can be seen in their propaganda.

Fair. The USSR tried very hard to hide and justify its imperialism, while ISIS doesn't.

so i guess the consensus is 100% /ourguys/?

Naw, they're just a another gang of fascists.

That doesn't matter, we are not discussing the dia-mat process that enabled the abolition of feudalism as the ruling mode of production, what we are discussing is the concept of a transitional period between feudalism and capitalism. I claim this period doesn't exist for a very simple reason, this being that there were only two ways in which you could relate to the means of production. either you were a slave, living inside the feudal lands, under the control of a religious authority, or you were a wage labourer, working under the authority of the bourgeoisie, who didn't had any clerical or religious muh privileges.

the specific differences between the specific relationships to the MoP of a slave and a wage labourer makes us easier to distinguish when feudalism transformed into capitalism

Merchants becoming wealthy by exchanging commodities that were produced via slave labour, using the means of production owned by the monarchy, isn't the same mode of production as merchants obtaining means of productions themselves and paying a wage to workers to produce these commodities

There is no in between transitional period, during the Industrial revolution either you worked as a slave in a feudal workshop owned by the feudal landlord, which was supported by an specific ideological superstructure, this being a religious one, (which again confirms you were under feudalism). Or you were a wage labourer, who was not subject to the religious authority of the monarch who received a wage in exchange of your labour and were "free" to sell your labour somewhere else.

What does this have to do with the original conversation? easy, a feudal state can absolutely be imperialist, even if they had no capital or capitalism

this means ISIS is imperialist, stop being retarded


The left must support Iran in their struggle against western imperialism and ISIS

thinking of joining isis to own the libs

this but unironically

Totally agree.

Not even really true, but I'll grant it for the sake of argument. But even if we accept this that doesn't mean that there wasn't a transition period for the region/world as a whole.


The left must work to build resilient local communities

ISIS are US/Israel/Saudi created opposition used to destroy Arab secularism and Pan-Nationalism for geopolitical advancement.


Why is it always so hard for you guys to see that you're using the same word but are actually talking about two different things? Lenin wrote about imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism. Export of capital (instead of export of commodities), extraction of wealth from the periphery to the core, etc. That kinda shit. Other people mean offensive wars, military occupation, annexation of territory, etc. when they say "imperialism". In one sense, imperialism existed prior to capitalism. Using another definition of the word imperialism, it didn't exist before capitalism had reached a certain stage of development.

All people do on this board is to argue about correct and incorrect definitions of words, instead of the actual ideas. It's so dumb.


t. alphabet soup

is usually a pretty good counter

not seen a take this hot in a while tbh

Nah it's not directly taken from the quran and there are tons of economic problems they don't even touch on. They're basically the Ron Paul memers of the Muslim world

Just say colonialism and everyone will know what you mean

I remember someone posting parts of this to Holla Forums and getting a bunch of lolbert dipshits to unironically endorse its message. Basically "they have all the right ideas it's too bad they're brown"

But they aren't though

IS is a sick joke, the people who join it are trash.