TWO INTELLECTUAL GIANTS DEBATE MARXISM

Maoism was a mistake.

Roo is doing a good job BTFO'ing this guy tbh

Those are both fake

Roo's gimmick is that he's stupid and can only explain his views in plain language.

Listen to how he explains "intersectional feminism" and contrasts it with "Marxism". "We understand multiple contradictions" - that's EXACTLY how a university academic would explain intersectionality. Roo doesn't know what he's talking about, as always.

I'm a bit divided about this. On one hand it's nice not to have a "not real socialism" SJW retard in the debate, but on the other hand he really lacks the theory outside of his Third Worldist bubble. I'd say before you become a Third Worldist you should have actually read Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Mao and then make your own conclusions of it.

Maoism = the Mormonism of Marxism

Maoism-Third Worldism: the FLDS of Marxism

Thats true but he made a good point that these intersectionalists aren't able to point to a contradiction that would be more important than the others whereas Marxism can do that. I think thats a subtle but important point.

Intersectionality isn't even about contradictions. It's about identity. A homeless disabled person might not identify as a homeless or a disabled person, but specifically as a homeless disabled person. That's literally all that it is.

But yeah, he started off by saying "Marxism is about the contradictions between sexes, races and religions", like WHAT THE FUCK.

>posting fake shit from a year ago that is supposed to be silly, but by accident rightfully shits on a trip pseud
Submit your CV to infowars.

That's because Roo is, despite being Roo, actually articulate and Vee is pretty much retarded. All Vee does lately is lose debates to people on both the right and left.

Intersectionality isn't idealist but based on material conditions, exactly like DiaMat. No one understands it in the manner you said, i.e. it's not how individuals personally identify, but their material conditions. So for instance, a disabled black woman's oppression isn't based on how they internally identify, but the identities in which *society* has placed on them.

To be fair, Anal Water actually reads. Roo doesn't read anything aside from On Contradiction, Combat Liberalism, and shitty LLCO articles.

Tell me again how Maoism is NOT just vulgar monism and essentially Spinozaist.

Hegel is not amused.

Roo believes in Cultural Marxism somewhat.

I don't see how this is very materialist, let's say there is a disabled black woman, I think it depends very much on your identity as to how you descriminate against her. Some may see the woman, some may see the blackness, some may see the disability. Of course this might be caused by material conditioning, but that's unfalsifiable.

Meh, Anal Water has read Hegel. Has he read anything else? Because most of what I read from him was very vague and confused.

Mao didn't say that.

Well that's how Roo described it. How would you say he misunderstands Mao?

All stigma arises from material conditions. Base and superstructure, ideology, whatever you want to call it. Intersectionality doesn't solely deal with perception, it also deals with the origins of such oppression. Again, you, like Roo, use a terrible critique. No one ever says material reality doesn't matter.

He has a channel where he reads and comments on shit with his friends.

Stay classy Roo.

Why does he assume theory evolves in a linear fashion, or that Maoism is somehow universally applicable?

Heck of a brainfart. "Centralism is bad because it's liberal." Tautology/10

Mao does say there is reciprocal influence but he wasn't a mechanistic dogmatist who claimed that this is in any way prescriptive. Althusser wrote a good piece about it:
marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser/1962/overdetermination.htm

My claim is that this is unfalsifiable. Just by adding that there "material conditions", which sounds almost religious, doesn't make the theories behind it sound any better. I could say "I got some awful food poisoning from the Chinese fast food place yesterday but of course material conditions matter as well." It's a non-sequitur.

I've never heard intersectionalists kicking upwards, if it was materialist than a black CEO is discriminated against less than a black factory worker, but it's always this downward spiral which turns into oppression olympics. I think in this way, it's simplistic, because a disabled homeless black transwoman doesn't accumulate "titles" like this that add up to their oppression. It's not accumulative or quantitative like that.

He's heard it from someone else. Everything Roo believes is from somebody else.

Maoism claims to be universally applicable, MLM does at least. But Roo is not a Maoist. Many people equate Maoism with peasant's war which was just a historical tool to achieve a certain goal, it's not the core part of the ideology/philosophy behind it.

I mean if Jason would just give his own personal atomic take on Marxism I'd be fine, but it's incredibly annoying how often he claims that "all those socialists don't understand Marx".

Honestly at this point Roo should just abandon the weight of Marxism and Leninism and become a black nationalist or a Ba'athist. This way he wouldn't have to worry about carrying on the baggage of Marx anymore which clearly just seems to annoy him.

Althusser is not Mao, plus he too falls into the same monistic tropes.

In what ways? Again, intersectionality is not idealist. It understands identity in a materialist manner (almost Althusserian I'd say).

Intersectionalists take class into account too, they just don't see class as the end-all-be-all the way economistic Marxists do.

No doubt.

I'm aware. "Applying Marxism to your conditions" - but not all conditions warrant Marxism, do they? We can look at Muslims in France for instance and see how, while they're living in shit they're way more concerned about the preservation of their religious traditions (hijab, halal slaughter, public prayer) than housing, employment, etc.

Personally, I think Roo should convert to Shia Islam, become a Khomenist, and "defect" to Iran.

OP was being sarcastic you hopeless sperg

Once again, Roo assumes anarchists have no theory. We do, and I highly doubt he's put in any effort to read actual anarchist thinkers.

IDPOL AND CLASS STRUGGLE ARE NOT OPPOSED FOR FUCK'S SAKE.

Ugh. I really hate this false dichotomy of class struggle vs. feminism or class struggle vs. anti-racism, etc. Why is the go-to strawman of tanks always "feminists don't care about class" or "black liberation means you think the black bourgeoisie are good"?

to be fair, that's pretty much what it is right now

Wow, no. Roo confirmed for brocialist.

Not necessarily. Intersectional feminists are different from liberal feminists.

Roo doesn't understand how gender roles and racial issues are issues of relations of production. Total brainlet.

Aaaand, he's angry nao.

how are they?

Gender roles have everything to do with the division of labor, i.e. separating male labor from female labor. Keeping women docile and keeping men strong/aggressive is all part of this reproduction process.

Same thing with race.

Roo confirms Anal Water's criticism that Maoist "contradictions" are really just conflicts which have nothing to do with real dialectics.

...

If you say so, but it's still unfalsifiable. You can make up all sorts of shit to explain some suppossed interwoven meta state of oppression as XYZ because it's very subjective. DiaMat doesn't predict what I'm going to buy for dinner tomorrow, hermeneutics do. I'm sure in some naturalistic analysis you can pinpoint to all the factors up to the biochemical reactions in my brain that make me buy beef instead of chickens, which is materialist too, I guess, but then you are in danger of falling into the trap of determinism.

Marxist don't do this, they don't see class as the ultimate social or cultural deciding factor on the individuals experience. It's more about the broad mass of people and the material effects on the general mass over time, it's a completely different topic from what intersectionalists investigate. Have you ever met a Marxist who thinks you should be rude to a local baker because he owns his bakery but to be friendly to a CEO because he is technically a wage laborer? Of course not.

You don't apply Marxism, it's just an analysis not a prescriptice ideology, or at least it is now since Marx died before finishing Capital Vol. IV. To get a guide to action, as Engels said, you need to somewhat add a bunch of Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, DeLeon, etc. into the mix.

Yes, and that doesn't make Marxism wrong, Marx himself said religion is the opium of the masses, one of his most famous quotes (which gets taken out of context all the time). I mean, there are plenty of Muslim communists out there…

Someone in the chat calls Roo an intellectual and Vee agrees.

He hasn't even read the thinkers he's supposed to subscribe to himself. Ask Roo to apply anything of Lenin's book about imperialism to the contemporary world. He doesn't even know how superexploitation works, actually the rate of exploitation is lower for sweatshop workers than for western workers. This is just one instance where he abandons Marx.

I'm sure there are Marxist feminists out there but have you seen the majority of feminists or black activists??

This is something that should interest you:
libcom.org/files/Caliban and the Witch.pdf

Again, intersectionality isn't about feels over reals. It's about recognizing - just as Roo said - multiple societal conflicts and how they "work together". Plus, materialism itself has its limits to what it can adequately explain.

Well, what's the alternative if we throw out intersectionality? Marxism has its own history of failing to resolve issues of race and gender. Stalin's Soviet Union, for instance, was very harsh on religious and ethnic minorities (Jews, Muslims, Koreans, Armenians, peoples of the Baltics, etc.). Even today, most ethnic and religious minorities in the former Soviet republics hold strong animosity towards Russians for this exact reason. Gender was also never dealt with and many of the gains women and sexual minorities made under Lenin were eventually dissolved under Stalin.

Other socialist states did way worse. Ba'athists (including Gaddafi) treated their ethnic and religious minorities in the same manner apartheid Israel treats the Palestinians. Muslims were targeted in China during the Cultural Revolution and saw several of their mosques destroyed.

Let's not forget the rampant misogyny in the former Soviet Bloc. Ukraine and Hungary in particular are huge bastions of the sex trade.

The problem is, French Muslims don't see their economic situation as the source of their major issues. They are much more affected by ideology coming out of their families, religious institutions, culture, etc. than they are from their experience in their shitty jobs. Most ideology is reproduced outside the workplace anyway. If the banlieue were to rise up, no doubt it would look closer to 1979 than 1917.

Completely agree, which is why Roo is a huge liability to the left. He knocks Muke for chatting with Sargon, yet has no issue talking to a rightist like Vee who openly uses alt-right buzzwords like "cultural Marxism" non-ironically.

Give them time and they'll embrace Marxism. Radicals are made, not born.

I'm familiar with Federicci BTW.

I don't think it's fair to complain about what would be considered social conservatism in 2018 when looking at the USSR. Lenin and Stalin tremendously liberated women, so did Mao, and so does Cuba today. Do you even realize how the social situation was when they took over? Both Lenin and Stalin introduced quotas where women were misrepresented, which clearly is the "intersectional" (it didn't exist at that time) approach. What kind of "gender issues" are you tallking about? Homosexuality was outlawed in a time where the entire world considered homosexuality a subset of parahilia, and it was actually legalized earlier in East Germany than it was in West Germany. And even then, Stalin never specifically outlawed homosexuality, it's just that there was need for a criminal law code after the old one from the Tsar was suspended. But for some reason people twist it in a way that Lenin supposedly supported gays whereas Stalin hated them. That's retarded.

About the ethnic and religious majorites, see, a lot of them were pretty fucking reactionary. The Ukrainian cossacks would later collaborate with the Germans, so did the Balts, and they would be even more brutal in the Holocaust then the Germans themselves. Antisemitism was a crime in the USSR.

Gaddafi, Ba'athism or Putin's Russia is not Marxist-Leninist and I don't agree with any of their shit (although I would have supported Gaddafi against regime change).

Strawman. No one wants "equality under capitalism." The whole point of fighting for things like making existing institutions inclusive is to slowly but surely give them back to the people. It's a *process* of democratization by which formerly-marginalized peoples can gain *something* of a voice, even if it's very small.

Revolutions do not happen in an instant like Roo thinks. Revolutions are long drawn-out.

when women were misrepresented* lmao

Not an excuse for racial segregation and religious discrimination. We talk about de-veiling of women in colonial Algeria, but what about the de-veiling that went on under both Lenin and Stalin in Central Asia? Certainly Muslims there may have had reactionary elements but banning the niqab and imposing Russian chauvinism is never the answer.

Classic Roo.

Excuse me, what? This is kind of funny, because most of the time there is this alt-right and Nazi talking point that the Bolsheviks were not Russians therefore they hated the Russian people. Solzhenitsyn makes the same critique. Yet I hear from anarchists that they were actually not non-Russian enough! Sounds a bit like two sides of the same coin of identity politics.

Dudeeeee, we are talking about an extremly patriachal society, women didn't always have the choice to wear the niqab. It's not "religious discrimination" since Christianity wasn't doing any better. Religion in general was seen as a reactionary element and fueling nationalism.

I don't know what this means, Stalin wasn't even Russian. Inciting people to fight for their motherland when the Nazis attack can hardly be seen as chauvinism.

Also, this is how Stalin defined nation (because you said racial segregation):
marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913/03a.htm#s1

Sounds very materialistic and not racial to me.

Russian chauvinism exists even in the former Soviet Bloc today. Ask any Estonian, Latvian, or Kazakh and they will tell you they hold animosity towards Russians. Even ethnic Tatars in both Tatarstan and Crimea think Russians are Satan incarnate due to the history. Let's not forget Muslims in the Caucus or Russian Jews who fled to the Zionist entity BECAUSE of persecution.

Religious freedom is still an issue. Muslims were a victimized people in both the Russian Empire and USSR. There's a reason why that Sultan-Galiyev asshole wanted Central Asians to form a theocratic pan-Turkic breakaway ethnostate.

Still, national dissassimilation was uncalled for. It was just apartheid, identical to Zionism, with a different pretext.

Why does he always default back to this dichotomy of 1st vs. 3rd world? "Third World people" also don't think about their economic conditions as much as they think about their families, God, honor, etc. One reason why there's very little communist activity in the Middle East, for instance, is because Arabs tend to be obsessed with family honor and see making loads of money as a means of increasing their social capital among their peers. "Allah made me rich", etc.

Throughout history jews have been kicked out of hundred's of countries and of course it's BECAUSE of Russian chauvinism.
Why did Hitler dislike jews? Because he was a Russian chauvinist.

Don't tell me you're making a Holla Forums-tier argument.

Adress the argument if you feel like replying again

Russian chauvinism is what caused the Jews to be persecuted in Russia. German chauvinism is what caused them to be persecuted in Germany. Notice a pattern here?

That depends. Some of them can perhaps be radicalized but there's also quite a few that are incredibly reactionary. Being an identitarian activist is hardly any kind of guarantee that you're going to be sympathetic towards Marxism or leftwing politics, especially now that a lot of that struggle has been co-opted by capitalism.

People in the third world "debates" with death squads, proper terrorists, proper paramilitary groups, the US military and its allies, islamic fundamentalists, drug cartels, mobs… then all of a sudden leftypol doesn't find any better than argue over two idiots debating on fuckin' youtube. Do me a favour first world, fuck off and die.

Do you keep this line on a desktop note to copypaste whenever your daily dose of shitposting is needed?

The 1st vs. 3rd world shit is getting way out of hand. Does Roo attribute EVERTHING shitty about the 1st world to "net exploitation" FFS?

please don't bully the user who cultivates the almost forgotten art of madlibs meme.

I mean, yeah it does sound like bullshit, but Roo needs to fucking make his case.

...

It's more likely that there's a problem with jewish behaviour

What did Adorno believe, Jason? Can you summarize Dialectic of Enlightenment in your own words?

So did the Roo lowkey win this or flopped?
The comment section is literally just filled with autists talking about "Helicopter Rides!!!" "Muh 100 million" "Not real communism" and "Human Nature" "Venezula" and "Not true capitalism!!"

...

Scroll through this thread and read my comments.

TL;DR - Roo was shit, as always, but the rightist was worse.

What's wrong with that, Jason?

Vee is a retard so yes, it was actually possible for Jason to come out more articulate and convincing. There were actually positive comments praising him, a commie, more than usual, so I think it's safe to say he had a pretty good go. Tho, he likely catered a bit like this user pointed out

It's bullshit, Cuba has recently cured transfer of aids between mother and child. Brazil specifically demands Cuban doctors because their own are shit.

There is a lot of criticism you could level against the Roo, but not this one. Nobody can properly respond to a random article that's thrown at you with no context.

I'm more pointing out Roo doesn't make his case beyond a terse remark.

Roo won, but he was still very revisionist.

Because gender should be abolished, isn't that what Stirner would say?

A "pan third worldist movement" wouldn't last very long. Who fucking identifies first as a "third worlder" over their ethnic, national, religious, or tribal identity?

Gender is just self-expression. Gender *rolls* are what need to be abolished.

I wouldn't be able to respond right away either, I would know it's probably bollocks because of the other information I have read about Cuba's healthcare system, so I'm not sure if I wouldn't have reacted the same way.

I think Roo puts a lot of emphasis on net extraction, there is a book out there by Anwar Shaik called "Foreign Trade and the Law of Value", also, a Third Worldist out there called Zak Cope he wrote "Divided World Divided Class" where he analyzes the economic relations. You probably can find both for free on Google.

My personal definition is a country which exports raw materials and then imports manufactured products at a higher price compared to what it would take if it would produce on its own. There is no accumulation because it's not desireable by foreign capitalists.

Go upboat this comment

Is that Pierre linking to Cockshott?

Yes

It's still a stupid thing to think Third World nations will all band together under that same banner. Usually, "pan" movements (which tend to be quite fascistic and racialist BTW) are done on the basis of race, region, or religion.

Yes. We should always be linking to Cockshott, he makes digestable videos in medium-length, and he needs subs

Yeah, but hopefully Vee's Liberalist Gypsy army doesn't flood his comments.

Well, once you believe that there are economic relations defining one's existence, you may as well call the idea of the international working class rising up against capital to be ridiculous. Note that nobody defines the Third World on a racial, cultural or religious terms, but on economic relations.

The "pan-movements" like pan-slavism are usually based on ethnicity.

Nice slur.

What "world" are Brahmins?

It is a fact that Gypsies cannot do socialism.

Nice essentialism.

Brahmin are a caste. They are part of a reactionary social order. India itself I would consider 2nd world.

Interesting sidenot though: The caste system in India was actually already in decline before the British came, and only due to the British pushing for tradtionalism the caste system was emphasized, and this is what many western people forget: Second or Third World countries are not dislodged from historical materialism, they have their own progressive struggle, but it turns out that imperialist powers like to use reactionary archaic orders to control these societies.

You can also look at the British to push for Wahabism in Arabia to fight against the Ottomans. Or the recent support of the US for Al-Qaida.

what the fuck is a "liberalist"?

user you really don't want to know…

I've heard the Zizek lectures.

My point is, is it truly accurate to paint the entirety of the Third World and its people as a monolith in regards to economic relations? Historically, many peoples of what we would call "Third World nations" have been incredibly hostile to one another. We can talk about the West propping up Islamic fundamentalism, but what about all the anti-black racism which has existed in the Arab World for centuries? Or, just the typical Sunni-Shia infighting? A Shia Lebanese prole identifies more with a Shia Iranian porky than they do a Sunni Egyptian prole, or a Buddhist Vietnamese prole. That's just how it is.

Great, a nightmare I never knew I had

is it some meaningless way to describe your political views that you'll change in a week like they're fucking hairstyles? So, like "classical liberal".

No one asked for the r/socialism debate commentary

I'm not a Third Worldist myself, but I just think Third Worldists get strawmanned quite a bit, that's why I was making a case here. Wars between Third World probably have to seen similar to all wars between proles throughout history. I think a few points have to be make to which many socialists have no answer to:

1.) All socialist revolutions succeeded in underdeveloped countries

2.) There is a specific economic relations one can't ignore. There is an argument to be made about Third World people rather going to socialism than going towards fascism (because they don't have the "glorious past" of capitalist western countries about which they could create a myth about, rather, they've been fucked by capitalism) and more willing to take revolutionary action in general. The only western country which could have a revolution is Greece, but it's very unlikely. Meanwhile, MLMs took power in Nepal.

I'm just saying there are a few arguments about this which need to be addressed and so far I havn't seen anybody doing it. I'm not a Third Worldist because I see the contraditictions of capitalism accelerating in the West as well.

That's nice. So we're not going to criticize Roo for being a sub-par communist and point out his logical mistakes?

...

oh boi

I wrote this because I didn't want to conflate "Third Worldists" as an ideology with people living in the Third World.

S-sorry

I think at this point pierre had made so many Roo memes he's just tired of disagreeing with him
also stop being a redditor

no problem, i was referring to this:

He's shown he can do better in the past but the third worldism makes him too nihilistic. So when he's in a internet talk with Dracula he gets lazy and doesn't really care.

That's why he ended with the weak
"well if you live in the first world then communism isn't really in your interest"

But what I really meant was don't shit up the thread with your incessant yammering.

Most of those "socialist" revolutions didn't succeed in building or maintaining socialism. The anti-colonial revolutions TWists like to invoke were primarily class collaborationist revolutions which received backing from the Soviets only due to the Cold War. If you want proof of this, just look at how many "socialist" Third World groups and leaders ditched socialism all together or at the very least no longer made it a defining part of their ideology after the Cold War ended.

This is way oversimplified. Third World people do romanticize a "golden age" of a pre-colonial era, hence why things like nationalism, political Islam, etc. are so popular. Hindutva is a thing propagated by "golden age Hindus". And as I've said before, go to any shariah ghetto in France and you'll find no shortage of longing for a feudal caliphate over any kind of socialism. The banlieue rises up, they attack kuffar over porkies.

Like deadass I talked to some of Roo's friends and apparently he's scared of me or some shit lmao, especially since I live near him. So I thought I'd probably stop.

So you live in the Niagara Region. Where? St. Catharines?

Yeah no thanks officer.

LOL.

For reals though, I live in the Buffalo Area, that's why.

afraid? Fucking seriously? Top shit mate

What? There's tons of liberals that subscribe to intersectional theory. I've met a couple. The two aren't mutally exclusive at all.

And I know plenty of Marxists and anarchists who subscribe to it as well.

Pierre, I wanted to tell you think for a long time, it's about that ancient Guldural Margsism vid you made. You made a mistake, Popper wasn't a positivist, he criticized them, but he was nonetheless a fedora and in fact the inspiration for Soros' Open Society foundation.

this*
I'm tired and it's late

Yeah I know, I was told that a while ago.

That's nice, but you implied that endorsing intersectionality somehow makes you different from a liberal when that isn't the case at all.

Doesn't matter, they came out on top, that's what matters. Not every dictatorship of the proletariat ends up being socialist, but sure as hell every socialist society requires a dictatorship of the proletariat in the first place.

Just because the USSR support X group, doesn't mean I have to agree with X group on everything. It still doesn't change my argument, every revolution - Russia, China, Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, etc. - happened in underdeveloped countries, this is still 100% than revolutions in developed countries. In this perspective, it doesn't matter that a chunk of other revolutions who weren't genuinely socialist failed.

youtube.com/watch?v=o57X9jHPnbc

Anal Waters needs to get a better mic and shouldn't speak like he's just recovered from a stroke, and I might listen to 90 minutes of this.

Except those regimes weren't even proletarian to begin with. They were class-collaborationist and ended up allowing for neocolonialism to come back in.

So for what need was the NEP and New Democracy? And Vietnam was never socialist, the VC were just nationalists who (shocker) used a "socialist" label to get free guns and money form the Soviets.

Socialism can only happen for reals in a highly developed nation as socialism comes out of capitalism. Just imagine if a vanguard party in 1400 tried to implement capitalism, it would have failed in no time. This is what I mean.

...

I AM NO LONGER AN EGOIST

FUCK

what are you then? You can be an egoist and still pretty much be anything else.

He's converting to Shia Islam and moving to Iran, like what Roo should do.

De Leonist

Nah like I still think Stirner is alright but I think that the ego doesn't really exist, and therefore is not that which is corporeal.

Ya ali!

t. edgy liberal and chums

I really hope you know what you're getting into if you convert. Protip: Islam isn't just a "believe and go to heaven" religion, but a "bust your ass for God" religion. Edgy teens aren't well liked at the masjid.

You all need to bug the Roo to have a nice livestream discussion with me. I can guarantee it will be fun if it happens.

Jason was thinking too much about other leftists who aggrieved him rather than engaging with the person he was actually speaking to. That's why he goes off on those rants about IDpol and first world people because he thinks Vee agrees with him and has the SAME principles, whereas Vee only agrees in the statement and not the substance.

Jason let a lot of shit slide with Vee, mainly about US imperialism and its supposedly "benign" quality compared to other empires. Another thing Jason should have listed in his "things i hate about capitalism" is how capitalism has percolated EVERY social action and has constructed identities for the sole purpose of furthering profit/productivity.

Could have also gone on about how women as a social construct also directly engender capitalism.

There's so much shit Jason could have said, my opinion of him has plummeted. He seemed more clued in with his SocorBarb debate about the kurds.

You know Jason is transphobic and tells trans comrades to kill themselves, right?

I also don't respect Anarchopac's right to live. This doesn't make me transphobic.

Why not?

Roo is a broken record at this point. You could pretty much replace Roo with a Roo robot and not be able to tell the difference. In this way, he's just like Chomsky and Zizek.

Jason just sounds like a right-winger in communist clothing to me, like his rants on IDpol are indistinguishable from the right, even as he adamantly denies the similarity. It's incredibly transparent that his disdain for IDpol is born from the same reactionary base as centrist/right-wing morons.

I'm not saying IDpol is good, I just mean that criticism should be more nuanced than "these people annoy me".

Yes. Jason's critiques of idpol are closer to Sargon or anyone form the Alt-Right than, say, those of (actual) Marxists. "Feminists are liberals", "BLM is degenerate", "why can't they be more like the noble savage Red Guard/Hezbollah/Naxal/Bolivarian fighter?". He never understands idpol as a product of late capitalism and the malaise in which it's entrapped the left for years.

Roo has even stated himself that he loves hyper-masculinity and sees no issue with it. Feminists called him out for giving such a terrible analysis of the whole thing, yet he continues. It doesn't surprise me either, since every element of Roo's persona just screams aggression. For all his talk about sympathizing with the 3rd World, he can't even sympathize with other comrades (which says to me his 3rd Worldism is most likely influenced by his anger at "1st world leftists" more so than it is solidarity with 3rd world comrades).

Forget Anal Water. Just get Roo to do a livestream debate with a leftist who is far more educated on feminism and black liberation (among other things). Watch Roo get destroyed and sink deeper into his rightism.

I'm about a half an hour in and I must say that this talk seems very inconsequential. Marxism as a whole isn't a concrete enough of a topic to have a constructive discussion on. This is especially true since one of the participants doesn't really have much of an understanding of socialism other than the Communist Manifesto and the welfare state. The only good thing that can come out of this is that some of the reactionaries watching might see that Marxism doesn't equal hyper-idpol.

Get out.

No.

And back to pol with you faggot

They are both useless in their own way.

How about no. Trying to get one over on other leftists you don't like using idpol is precisely what spoiled a lot of leftism in the west in the first place.

YOU HAD YOUR CHANCE TO PUT THE GREATEST LEFTIST THINKER OF THE 21ST CENTURY IN THE RING, AND INSTEAD PUT ROO? SHAME ON YOU

muke please just leave already.

Bump

Roo won this debate though. Throwing in some IdPol guy who will say that every single socialist project wasn't real socialism is very likely to loose.

Roo is weak on theory but he does somewhat win debates.

Muke is trash.

Muke is pretty anti-idpol. Have you seen his vids against Mexie?

Muke has reverted 180 degree in that regard, Mexie called him out on it and since then he's gone down the rabbit hole of the SJW torture chamber. He unironically has a Contrapoints poster in his room.

Someone needs to inform Roo Mao was NOT "anti-idpol" in the sense he's portraying him, nor was Mao promoting an economistic line which Roo loves to promote.

Mao rejects the 'negation of the negation' because it's idealist garbage and can't be empirically verified. Capitalism was supposed to negate feudalism in China which it didn't. This is why Mao came up with a new theory of affirmation-negation-affirmation-negation and so on. Every element is both affirmation and negation and this has been proven correct.

Hegelian dialectics are eurocentric trash.

Follow the Rooles

It did. What's Deng for, then?

I'm speaking about the time before Mao took power. In China, feudalism and capitalism existed side-by-side. The presence of capitalism didn't negate anything as Engels claimed it would. More proof Hegelianism is a racist, shit-tier ideology.

I think it may not exist in a Freudian sense, but I feel that stirners ego encompasses the whole of being, which makes it a lot harder for me to completely reject. Either way, Deleon seems cool

It’s hot garbage

JASON IS FAKING THE SUPPOSED "DEATH THREATS" AGAINST HIM.

twitter.com/BigGuyLiam/status/969316237128839168

Notice how 1. he doesn't blur out the alleged troll's number but he does blur out the actual threat (if the threat contained any personal info, why not just blur out the info while leaving the rest of the threatening message for everyone to see?) and 2. the alleged "death threat" was sent on Feb. 26, 2018; Jason made his "Muke and Dankman doxxed me" vid on Feb. 27, the vid doesn't mention any death threats, only potential threats. It could be argued Jason just found a random whatsapp message on his phone, blurred out the actual text, and proclaimed it a "death threat" just to garner sympathy for himself and animosity towards Muke.

Furthermore, doxxing in Canada is technically not illegal. It's only illegal to dox if you also urge others to use the info to threaten the target. Putting out publicly-recorded info in itself is not illegal. Saying, "send the target pizzas or a box full of fedoras" is not illegal since there's no threats of violence involved.

One other thing: Jason uploaded his "Muke doxxed me" vid right at a time when his view count was plummeting. He used to get 2k views for every vid, now he barely reaches 1k after 24 hours. What's suspicious is how his "Muke doxxed me" vid is monetized, no doubt because drama videos get a fuckton of views. (Doesn't help either that Muke's vids get more views in a handful of days than Roo's get in a handful of weeks.)

My advice to Muke would be to leave the whole incident alone, but if any of Jason's tank fanboys start harassing him to get some kind of legal advice on what to do. I'm certain there's free legal advisors in the UK.

Wanted to add: I also find it highly suspicious that the screenshot Roo used of the doxxing post indicates that the post was made Feb. 15th and was most likely deleted on the same day given what's allowed on this board. So why would Roo or his mom be receiving threats TEN FUCKING DAYS after the post was removed? Why would Roo be making a video about it almost two weeks after the fact when the whole thing is water under the bridge?

I mean, I knew Roo was schizophrenic, but geez.

To be fair, I think even most tanks think Jason is nuts

Muke's stance is a direct function of what his current social group is thinking. Jason is enough of a psycho not to care about that at all.

I hope so. Why would Jason insist Muke was the one who doxxed him when it was obviously this "Comrade Dankman" guy? Why does Roo feel the need to place Muke into the whole thing if not to get his buddies to attack him? I'm almost certain Roo is mentally unstable.

Is Roo the Molyneux of the left? No one really takes him very seriously and he's just there for meme material

I want to know how roo came to bastardize Marx so bad. I mean, hasn't he been around forever? Why is he such a revisionist still?

He can't read, he used ghostwritters for the vids he did which took actual research to do, he doesn't understand dialectics (probably still uses T-A-S to refer to Hegel or doesn't understand why there's no contradiction whatsoever between idealism and materialism), his interpretation of Mao is entirely wrong, etc.

Nobody is more nuts than the tranny activists and facebook leftists who flood this site every time that he's brought up because their so triggered they don't want anyone, anywhere, thinking anything positive about him. Like, seriously, the number of rumors and lies they spread about him boggles the mind. They have not stopped at accusing him of murder here in the past.

He's only got himself to blame for this. Every video of his is just him reading out loud a news article. Yes, Roo produces a lot of videos, yes he's on PressTV, yes he's got good equipment and a fancy intro/outro, but when you actually look at the labor going into these videos, it's minimal. All he needs to do is to get in his stupid LARPing uniform suit, read out an article, cut at the beginning and the end, and upload it. I suspect there is no more than one hour of work involved, maybe even less.

Muke is an idiot but at least he comes up with a script, ideas, etc. - at least you can say he's producing creative content. The last time I saw Roo doing this was his video about Hoxha and Mao, it was still a hackjob but he seems to at least have read Hoxha's essay for for the video.

It's almost as if mentally unstable lolcows attract mentally unstable lolcows. I don't condone this, posting claims about Roo being a rapist, murderer, anti-semite etc. is not acceptable, especially since he is economically reliant on his shitty job.

Doesn't surprise me if Roo's youtube money is how he survives, along with his shitty gas station job or whatever the fuck he has. That's probably why he's made such a big deal about his view count going down the toilet and his loss of monetization and why he uses clickbait thumbnails and titles.

Muke's problem is, he's way too wet behind the ears. Give him time and he could become much better. Roo is already an old dog incapable of learning new tricks at this point. Hence, why I want to see Roo and A.W. have a discussion on dialectics, Hegel, Marx, Mao, etc. since I know A.W. would destroy Roo and Roo would respond by going apeshit.

That's actually kind of sad.
I wouldn't even want to take this away from him. It's all he has, I bet

Roo is probably the only youtuber out there whose view count goes down as his subscriber count goes up.

33k subs. Vids have on average less than 1k views. You'd think each of those 33k accounts would watch his videos.

Err, wouldn't it be even easier to fake a threat by sending it to yourself and blur out the number?
First of, the absence of mentioning that doesn't prove the opposite. Second, if it's his mother's phone as he said, then why would it be suspicious that he doesn't check whatever shit gets sent to his mother a couple of hours before uploading (and her reading it probably also didn't happen the minute it was sent)?
Is your "argument" that it didn't happen because it isn't illegal or is your "argument" that isn't immoral because it isn't illegal? WTF.
I don't think Muke himself is involved at all in that. Either brain-damaged Muke fanboy (I repeat myself) or somebody faking to be one.

We don't know if the phone Jason alleges is his mom's isn't just his. I googled the country code of the alleged doxxer kid's number, and it says it's from the Netherlands. No idea why someone from overseas would be raking up their phone bill to make international calls/texts for the sake of trolling.

He uploaded the video on the 27th. He claimed his mom received a death threat on the 1st (yesterday). The date on the text is the 26th. Something here does NOT add up.

Again, the dates are off. If his mom received a death threat (days after the thread with the doxx was deleted mind you) and she knew it was from one of his trolls, why wouldn't she tell him? Why wouldn't she respond in an angry manner?

Again, it's highly suspicious Roo would make a video about an incident of doxxing that happened almost two weeks before. Why now?

I'm saying there's nothing in regards to legal action Roo could do against Muke or Holla Forums. No self-respecting lawyer will take a case that frivolous unless it was entirely obvious Dankman or Muke urged for others to use Jason's dox for the purpose of making violent threats towards him or his mom.

Think about it, could Roo really do much better? He never received higher education, everything hints at him grewing up amongst absolute white trash, honestly it's surprising he didn't turn towards the alt-right (I mean, he's already having no problem with some of their rethoric about Cultural Marxism, as demonstrated in this debate). I think people are just naive when they expect a gas station clerk from bumfuck-nowhere to be read up on fucking Hegelian dialectics, the problem is he's put himself out there claiming to be some great theory wiz while everybody supposedly doesn't know how to read Marx. I mean, different from upper middle class college kids like Muke Jason is an actual proletarian but at same time he's kind of an idiot.

Not going to happen because Jason knows this would happen. Over the years, he's adopted some sort of rural low cunning.

He's in it for the e-fame, just check how he panders to whatever social group he's currently in, there are barely any socialists in it, in fact, every socialist YouTuber, even Ba'atko, hates him because Muke alienated them all through sheer arrogance which isn't justified at all considered his sub-par level of theoretical understanding. At least Muke doesn't seem to be some social autist, which is what most socialist YouTubers seem to be.

The issue isn't that Roo doesn't know shit about dialectics, the issue is that he *presents* himself as having extensive knowledge on the topic when he obviously doesn't. I mean, does Roo understand the difference between Hegelian Marxism and Spinozaist Marxism? Does he understand what the Negation of the Negation really is or how it's applied? Does he understand why Mao gets written off by Hegelian Marxists as a philosophically illiterate?

Exactly. He has to admit his ignorance at some point.

Muke is a leftcom, therefore automatically dumber than Jason

A text from Europe to Canada is like, what, 30 Cent? They abolished roaming costs in the EU recently.

Who the fuck even is "Comrade Dank Man"?

Look at this:
twitter.com/MaoistRebelNews/status/957615859714940929

"ComradeDankMan" apparently outed Jason as a transphobe.

This makes me wonder if Jason doxxed himself and used the "dankman" handle to frame whoever was behind that account. Hmmmm.

It's very hard to present as confident in a debate without also overestimating yourself. Someone who is honest about his weaknesses will not be as a good a debater.

Which is why Roo chickened out of a fucking discussion with Anal Water.

Oh come on, he wasn't actually transphobic, he just misgendered Anarchopac.

*misgendered her multiple times, called for her to commit suicide, claimed she was faking her problems just to obscure Third World suffering, etc.

One other thing: where did Roo find the screencap of the leftypol thread with his doxx if the thread had been deleted days before he posted the video?

Additionally, the debates which are usually going on are supposed to cover such a broad topic, it's impossible to be fully prepared even if you were a Nobel price winner. Like, titles like "Socialism vs Capitalism" cover such an immense amount of topics, it's impossible to never be caught off guard with something you didn't expect. This is why you need to learn how to bullshit yourself through a topic you don't about, which is what Roo usually does, whereas Muke appears weak everytime he gets called out on shit.

Like, he had a debate with Coach Red Pill recently, who is a total scammer himself, and he was cornered when the topic of the causes of the Great Depression came up. I mean, of course it's dishonest to just gish-gallop towards some random historical event when you are supposed to discuss Antifa, yet it still makes you look weak when you don't know an answer. Politicians know that as well, but of course there is always the risk of the opponent actually indeed having some knowledge/sources about that topic.

Anarchopac is bourgeois. She's admitted it herself, I don't think Jason was wrong to call her out.

She said she grew up lower-middle class, only went to university because she got a free ride, etc.

She never said she grew up bourgeois.

People get told to kill themselves all the time on the internet. On imageboards "kys" is pretty much just "nice to see you too!". I'm sorry, I'm not going to go down the rabbit hole of oppression olympics, both are at fault here, Anarchopac who carries gender and sexuality in front of him like a fucking icon to score oppression points, or Roo who plays the same game but goes on about oppression Third World vs. First World - they are both obnoxious SJWs in that sense, and nobody really wants to talk to people like that because every joke, everything casual chat, every topic etc. will be used to secretly push their extremist minority view about their personal identity politics, which most people reject.

In that regard I unironically find it more pleasent to talk to a rational sceptic or a classical liberal.

Do you think Roo doxxed himself?

Doesn't her dad fund all her college adventures? I don't see how you could possibly claim to be oppressed. Like, seriously. Anarchopac is neither disabled nor is she a woman, honestly. There is nothing wrong with guys discovering their femininity, but all this "I AM WOMAN NOW MUST TRANSITION ASAP" is something I'm very critical towards, you never see this happening with transmen.

Anarchopac himself has admitted that this is probably caused by his upbringing in his family, like toxic masculinity (yet her dad funds all her stuff), and if that's true I'd recommend a normal therapy first before the decision to transition, because I'm not sure if she even has gender dysphoria, considering she was labeling herself as "agender" for a while. I'm not being transphobic here, I genuinely think in good faith that a transition would not be good for Anarchopac's mental well-being in the future.

Marxist Memes doxxed him years ago. He didn't do it himself, but he had a fair share of videos out there revealing small bits about his occupation or town, it probably wasn't hard to doxx him. Kiwifarms might have done it, they have a huge thread about him.

I have actually read a couple of stories of butch women who mistook their nonconformity with dysphoria and rushed through mastectomies, eventually regretting it. So rushing the transition (though eventually regretting it).

Being sexist for the moment, maybe it is because they attain the masculine affect of bottling up your internal struggle in stead of the more hysterical feminine quality that needs the world to know about the pain they feel, which the mtf appropriately display.

That could be true, but I wouldn't rule out a false flag here. Roo wanted sympathy and attention, and an excuse to attack Muke.

Uni is cheap in the UK so it's not all that far off to assume a working class man could afford to fund his daughter's PhD.

What makes one a woman or disabled?

False dichotomy. Abusive parents can still materially support their kids.

You can't transition until you've had the normal therapy.

you guys need to go back to you-know-where and stay there

Good. Anarchopac should die.

>>>/lgbt/
Muke should be looked at and not heard, Unruhe should be heard but not looked at.

What's xir disability?

Nutter

...

Misgendering is reactionary.

Even if it wasn't it's just douchy.

Like it says more about the person doing the misgendering.

Agreed. TERFs get the wall.

yet that is the main audience of leftypol, trans bashing stalinists case in point this entire fucking thread

Supporting capitalism is reactionary. Socialism isn't a social club. If you are a freak with no friends you shouldn't be involved in it.

Trans is anti-capitalist.

blah blah blah idpol blah blah blah fighting for the basic right to exist = liberalism blah blah blah i'm very smart anarchism is dum

No it isn't. There isn't a single identity out there that is inherently anti-capitalist.

Proletarian?

dude…

I guess being black is supporting capitalism too, stop using red paint to cover your reaction

Missing the point
He's saying an identity like being black or trans is not inherently anticapitalist and can be absorbed into capitalist society

he's not saying that and that argument your using to cover up his reaction is shit as well

The working class is real outside of cultural constructs

Race and gender are very "real" in the sense that they have real-world meaning.

Gender doesn't exist user. The closest analogues are sex, sexuality and appearance, in descending order of similarity and importance. In truth, what most people mean when they say gender is a mixture of sex, sexuality and appearance. But this mixture doesn't exist biologically.

Christ there's some proper idpol scum in this thread. It's nearly as big a shithole as twitter.

Good post

So as long as society sees them as existing, they are material.

...

2420543
You're trying to get it, but you're not getting it.

Gender and race aren't any less material than class given that they have social significance.

...

1000 years of gulag, we will keep you alive with machines just so you can stay in the gulag longer.

Explain what an "identity" is.

I'll be brief. Proletarian refers to someone's class in the Marxist sense, which expresses a relation to the means of production. This relation is not dependent on someone's subjective evaluation of the situation, their self-image, and so on. It is objective. If you have to sell your labour to live, you are working class, proletarian. You enter the market with your labour power to sell as a commodity to the owner of the means of production. This is the key defining aspect of capitalism, and the more general it is the more closer you are to fully developed capitalism.

If you can live of incomes generated by your ownership of some kind of capital, you are bourgeois. This might be houses you rent out, or income from stocks. Again, the objective relation to the means of production is key, not what goes on in the mind of the bourgeois, legally recognized by bourgeois property rights. Sidenote: the correct usage of petit bourgeois is someone who owns the means of production, which he himself works to generate his income, maybe together with an employee or two.

Identity on the other hand is dependent on the subjective self-image of the person being examined. If you say that proletarian, working class, etc. are just an identity, you are fundamentally undermining Marxist analysis. The whole point is that the prole cannot simply wake up one day and decide no longer to identify as a prole - no, he has to go out and sell his labour power or he fucking starves, self-image be damned. Class is a relation to the MOP that the working class should be conscious of and try to overcome, not something they should embrace or celebrate as an identity.

They probably mean identity as in self-image. That is, if you don't have self-image X, you are not X. If you have it, you are. This applies to mainstream discourse about being gay (minority view: acts are this or that, not people, but I digress). So, you can be a virgin who has never even kissed somebody, and still be straight or gay. It also applies to mainstream talk about politics, you are politically this or that just by believing in it. It's just something in your head. More practically-minded people would connect the notion of political identity with acting in the world out there, which can be as simple as giving some money to a cause. It has no effect in the real world if you strongly feel about some issue, but then don't do anything about it.

Being a worker is a role you have to perform and a situation you are in, a relation you are in with capital, irrespective of what you think of yourself. You don't choose it and can't dream yourself out of the situation. You don't choose what attracts you either, but you can choose to act on it or not. How would you choose not to act as a worker? "Dear employment-office guys, I may appear nineteen on paper, but on every level except physical I'm retirement-age and also a landlord. So if you aren't bigots, you should give me lots of money for doing nothing."

Vee is annoying to listen to his voice is too high pitch to make it through the whole video, give me a quick rundown

You do realize that Holla Forums believes in the exact same thing, just inversed?

Did you just blow in from stupid town?