What does Holla Forums think about postcolonialism and the idea of decolonization?

What does Holla Forums think about postcolonialism and the idea of decolonization?
I just had the epiphany that they're reactionary ideologies because they try to defend "muh tradishons" against enlighten values, yes those values were imposed by force but that doesn't make them any bad, they're necessary to advance into socialism.

Other urls found in this thread:


In defense of the Marxist position:
They could have had technological development all they wanted, but how would they implement it? What happened during the NEP showed that the peasantry were not going to 'naturally' industrialize agriculture, many would get parasitically rich and fattened at the expense of the whole country. As Trotsky noted, the historical development of the Russian Empire was not the same as it was in the west - Trotsky even went as far as to compare the rural development of the Russian nation to that of China, rather than the west. Solzhenitsyn is right to accuse the Bolsheviks of importing "western, alien values" to Russia, and we commend them for it. Only scum fetishize old traditional bonds, "traditional" leaders like Buthelezi were on the payroll of the apartheid government while the ANC imported "alien" western ideas, the same goes for the history of virtually every other country - Saudi Arabia, Pakistan vis a vis the bonapartist secular states, and so on.

Bad, but people who turn it into guilt by association (looking at you, third worldists) are the worst revisionists of all. A nation's bourgeoisie exploits the proletariat of their nations, not the entire population.
It could have been much better than it was. Decolonisation was necessary, but also was a massive mistake in the end, as it wound up primarily funding unsustainable states which would have collapsed regardless, and also funded nationalists who abandoned their "socialist" ideals the moment a better offer came along.

We can’t allow indigenous people to have self governance because that would make them literally Nazis, instead we better force our Eurocentric ideologies on them instead ;^)


What does self governance mean? The body of the nation is nothing more than a specter. There's no collective racial will that magically unites all people in a given category

Yeh and its even worse because it masks itself as super revolutionary.

Read Fanon

Traditions and ritual contain observed data about the geology. Materialism am I right?
As we can see form post-modernism and identity politics, enlightenment values are relatively inchoate in contrast to older traditions.

Fuck off, nobody cares about some spooked existentialist and his ooga booga poetry.

Rude and racist

Holla Forums for darkies. The UK BNP plagiarised their framing terms wholesale in the 90s because they're both racial nationalisms and you end up with Hitlerism if you apply them to Europe.

Been an SJW long?

You're neglecting the fact that socialism is pretty much human nature. Also, decolonization doesn't necessarily mean kill whitey.

Morals, traditions, race, colonization, and socialist revolutions are all spooks. I am an egoist and i am happy sucking off porky

just read the fucking book you brainlet

The thing is people ITT seem to draw some dichotomy between western enlightenment values and national liberation. Where does this idea come from? Historically, in many cases, colonizers have used reactionary culture against Third World people themselves, for example in India, where the British pushed the caste system, in China, where they pushed Confuzianism and most recently in the Middle East where they promoted salafist Muslim extremism. It's incorrect to say that many national liberation movements were inherently reactionary in terms of their values, I don't think anybody would argue that Ba'athism isn't more progressive than a theocracy.

The whole rejection of an anti-colonial movement presupposes the reactionary nature of indigenous cultures, assumes that non-white people are somehow incapable of appreciating democracy, science and social justice, or that universal values are absolutely at odds with their national identity. Anybody who wants to seriously argue that Israel, which is an ethno-nationalist apartheid state, somehow embodies enlightenment values better than most organizations associated with the PLO is detached from every revolutionary activity. And yes, oppressed nations are less friendly towards capitalism, as they haven't been profiting from it at all.

Not sure if bait or Ayn Rand

That is the thing that led me to the realization.
The only people who wants pre enlighten western culture back are nazis
But when you see non western cultures in this framework you will see how reactionary they are.

Its human nature when the conditions give to it

That is beside the point. yes traditions have materialist meaning but that doesn't mean they are absolute or that they can't be disposed for something better.

No country has the need to exist
The struggle for socialism should be above any spooky idea of national liberation.

"Should be", but isn't. Name one revolution that didn't run on a national liberation platform at all.


Name one of those nationalist "revolutions" that actually achieved anything other than becoming some BRICS Banana Republic.

There is certainly a need for structure. Nations, states, and even confederations between nations provide this where communes cannot. Prove that nations and goal-oriented structures must not exist, please.

Spot on. I thought this was a good essay:


Vietnam, Korea, Laos, China, Albania, Burkina-Faso, Ethopia, etc. all ended up with a dictatorship of the proletariat. The fact that they didn't survive or went revisionist later doesn't change the fact that they could only come to power through a national liberation movement.

power or revolution is not an end to itself, dear t-34
perhaps the fact that they were of 'national liberation' explains why they went 'revisionist' so easily

How do you plan to establish socialism without seizing power?
Unlike western communist parties who love to become SocDems, Eurocommunists, identitarians, etc.? You are just simplifying everything. In none of these countries the bourgeoisie had a say in the government, there were capitalist roaders for somewhat multiple reasons. In many cases, like Cuba or the DPRK, the revolution succeeded, now, if we were to assume that even if 90% of all the revolutions failed in the end, 10% is still more than any western revolution, which is zero, nada, nothing.

I do actually think the NEP could have worked if things had been done differently. In my country a lot of the industrialisation of agriculture happened through peasant-cooperatives, mostly dairy-coops. If the NEP had focused on organising peasant communes and cooperatives, it might have succeeded.

western socialist parties went socdem precisely because they saw power as an end in itself, much like the leftist 'national liberation movements' that supported 'the national bourgeois', see New Democracy.
'Eurocommunists' were far closer to marxism than ☭TANKIE☭ communist parties anyway. if your party line is to support two exactly opposing policies as long as they were made by SU or China or whatever red-flag state, you aren't a communist but a red flag enthusiast

But that wasn't the topic at hand. My question was to you how to seize power, which you couldn't answer sufficiently, as you unironically post with a Yugo flag which was born out of national liberation.
Fuck off. New Democracy already ended when Mao died, it's just another version of the NEP. Fuck off.
wew lad. What an awful post. Eurocommunism is the most opportunistic stance you can take.

if the only way to seize power is to renounce communism or become something that is not communism under red flags there is no point to seizing power in the first place
and down the drain it went
China's NEP was the proposed set of Bukharinite market reforms that the Cultural Revolution was launched to stop
Eurocommunism, as in communism that was critical of the Soviet Union, was the only sane stance to take. Uncritically supporting something as flawed as SU is pure dogmatism, regardless of great successes on certain areas the Union achieved.

The russian revolution

Nation is not the same as state, a state can encompass many nations, nationalists just don't want to share.

Wish I had the time to read it, good contribution.

Truth is more important than machines.

The machines ARE truth.

When Israel pulled out of Gaza (in name), why did Hamas destroy the leftover greenhouses? Maybe it's because they value their Palestinian Truth over "Zionist Truth", and saw those greenhouses as scars of occupation rather than tools they could use to develop?

Safeguarding the wisdom of the past and maintaining a sense of community is more important than living in luxury.

Truth is by definition universal.

>How do you plan to establish socialism without seizing power?
That's actually the whole problem. Seizing power entails becoming the power. Look at what happened to the USSR or the Chinese Revolution. The proles of yesteryear simply became the elites of tomorrow.
Socialism without self-emancipation is moot. Those that control the state will inevitably try to use it to enrich themselves. The "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" degenerates into oligarchy, just as liberal democracy did. Though it's debatable how democratic the latter was in the first place.

Leninism sows the seeds for it's own demise, even if it's initially successful.

All truth comes from G*d. Of course truth is ultimately universal, but colonized peoples don't think like that. Also, technology takes us away from truth.

No, this isn't truth, this is your opinion.


Ask any Palestinian if there's truth in the traditions of Ashkenazi Jews. They'll tell you no.

The point is, colonized peoples see anti-colonial struggle as also being a war of epistemology. Of course the "decolonize your mind" mantra is going to be at the forefront of their political program as much as kicking out whitey is.

Talmudism is a disease.

Which again invites comparison to the NSDAP.

Like you know what that means.

The only religion at all consistent with universalist socialism is Mormonism.

This is because Mormonism believes God was once a rational man, and all humans can become gods through hard work and education. They place MAN and the betterment of MAN at the center of their religion rather than a distant God who just throws around orders and causes individuals to behave irrationally. All the same universalist teachings found in 'orthodox' Christianity also apply here. No Jew or Greek, no rich or poor, etc.

The LDS was also communist when it first started. Even today the Church holds that communism was the authentic teachings of Jesus.

But muh indigenous form of tribalism.

You do know Mormonism has a strong history of racism, right? Also, women are not allowed to hold any authority whatsoever.

Tzaddikim are not gods. I'm well aware of where Smith got this idea from and he's wrong.

In Judaism, our relationship with HaShem is what Marxists would call "dialectical". We affect G*d and Creation as much as G*d affects us.

Anyone who believes this crap should realize the Mormons have their own church hierarchy, basically modeled after Rome, and the higher-ups (who are unbelievably rich) railroad their followers' lives down to a T. Not communist/not anarchist/not leftist.

But muh victims of genocide and colonization


But muh true socialism

What does it say about this board that our best namefag Excluding Hoochie is a literal Naziposter and our worst is a pol pot loving jew

Shabbat ended a few hours ago, dummy. Our days start at sundown.


Unironically still the cream of this mongolian throatsinging competition of a board?

Because the board has been degenerating for a while now and people blaming BO for this because they seek to blame some outside force instead of their own failures. Also, Chaya is honestly a lot better than Hoochie or Afroplasm because she's actually entertaining and reads. I still don't understand what this Naziposter is all about.

nazi poster = nrx entryist

Why is he considered this? He seems socialist to me. I haven't heard him talk about how great feudalism is.

That's how entryism works. I for one think that socialism is an interesting mode of though and analysis. But I would not consider myself to be one. It does not address the social problem in any fundamental way. The contradictions of capitalism and the resolution of such under socialism themselves lie on a base upheld by even deeper contradictions which can be essentialized as two competing forms of information; genes and memes.

Yes, socialism does addres the social problem on a fundamental way. For one it stops the consumerist based lifestylism that is so rampant in modern times. You'd know this if you read a book.

consumerism rests upon that same contradiction I alluded too. the production of commodities cannot occur if society breaks down.

Too bad westerners didn't impose enlightened values at all: they imposed unenlightened/reactionary values like capitalism (as opposed to peasant/agrarian socialism), democracy (as opposed to enlightened despotism) and racism and nationalism (as opposed to cosmopolitanism). Even more so they revived forgotten conservative traditions of the colonized natives.

I do agree that post-colonialism/national liberation is mostly reactionary not only because they uphold their pre-colonial conservative traditions but also because they adopt western reactionary values of capitalism, democracy and nationalism. It would have been much better if the colonized natives had fought not for independence/separation but for full integration as equal citizens of each of their respective european colonial empires just like black people did in the US and South Africa. This is not to say that national liberation can only be bad.

Absolutely nothing wrong with eating the meat of persons that naturally or accidentally died and bad persons (like murderers) that needed to be killed (just remember to cook it right), it's much more ethical than to kill and eat innocent animals.

This. The British re-discovered "The Laws of Manu" (a highly classist and racist book, now praised by Evolian neo-fascists) forgotten by the Indians and used it as the basis for the law code of colonial rule of India.

Mate, there are diseases that you can only get by cannibalism.

I think it is a pretty big simplification to say that postcolonialism is just about returning to "muh traditional values", although there certainly is a tendency to this kind of glorification of indigenous cultures and peoples in the postcolonial field which is of course highly reactionary.
However, imo postcolonialism is also about how the end of colonialism hasn't led to the end of exploitation of the former colonies. After all, the ruling class barely changed after the independence of the colonies in Latin America. Now, instead of them being exploited and pillaged by the colonial powers, they are being exploited by multinational companies in the name of capitalism, like Coca-Cola draining the wells in Chiapas for example.
Ultimately, I think that postcolonialism without a critique of capitalism is basically worthless.


Just take a look at how western powers pretty much revived political Islam. Before the 1970s, Muslims hated their traditional culture. Just take a look at pics of Egyptian women during the Nasser era and compare them to images of Egyptian women 30 years later. Same with Afghan women. Same with Tunisian women.

Islam wasn't always as nasty as it is in the Middle East currently. You've heard of the Islamic Golden Age, right?

Islamic Golden Age had more to do with economics, much less to do with the actual teachings of Islam. Plus most of the scientists and philosophers at the time were lukewarm Muslims, secular, or Jewish or Christian.

The "Naziposter" just pretty much seems to have an orthodox Marxist viewpoint I think the name is ironic or something.

Judaism is an ethno-cult which still holds the belief in an infinite God's supremacy over the universe. In Mormonism God has no intervention over the world at all and is more like a laissez-faire daddy figure who just gives you some comfort all while allowing you to chose your own destiny and elevate yourself to godhood. If that's not the very crux of Enlightenment humanism I don't know what is.

the only true revolutionary act