/marx/ - Marxism

Nazbol is a joke by bored/ disillusioned Russian Intellectuals to mock the stupid "Nazis= Communists= Totalitarians" framework set up by Western Liberals in the Cold War. If you've ever taken a good look at Dugin's website, you'll know the guy is out to lunch. The sum of their worldview is "fuck it".This is what happens when socialist construction is reversed and oligarchy sets it, deep nihilism sets in. Do you ever wonder why every young white male has a copy of Zarathustra almost standard issue? It's not edgy or rebelious, it's a guide to etiquette.

Certain hooligans and kids might take it a bit far, weither they know it's a joke or not. In Russia, before socialist construction, there is a rich veins of irony that touches on the tradition of the "Holy Fool". They don't need to be in on the joke to keep it rolling, and that's the beauty of it. People in Russia have almost nothing else to do but get wasted and do edgy stuff to get a rise out of people.

Socialism is anti-nationalistic/proletarian internationalist. The working class is international. Socialization of labour in the era of imperialism collapses the borders for capital and leaves them only to prevent the mobility of labour or guarantee it's precarity. The proletariat exist as an international class. This makes any nationalist type of socialism on the same level as the utopian/paternalistic kind Marx liquidated in the Manifesto.

National Socialism itself was a power grab by German Heavy Industry Capital. The SA, which Strasser was regional head of, had almost no other purpose than to attack working class organizations.

He's a good work on it: http://digital.library.pitt.edu/u/ulsmanuscripts/pdf/31735066228812.pdf

>>2961

first off, kill yourself you idpol addicted liberal SJW faggot

Secondly, you have not read nietzsche. He was if anything anti-racist, for example when asked his thoughts on jews and anti semites he responded

"The anti semites should alll be rounded up and shot"

>>3012

I see, brilliant. Where does class come into play in this "theory", because your rather ridiculous worldview does not belong anywhere near marxism without being the result of class struggle, and if it is the result of class struggle, then what purpose is there for discussing it or 'adressing' it?

>>3013

You can analyse the relations of production from a Marxist perspective. Marxism is not limited to class, theoretically. Politically however, it's a different story. The stuggle over material conditions (control over thereoff) is the class struggle, as opposed to the struggle over legislative representation (liberalism). Class Struggle is control over production and the struggle to change the material conditions of production in all regards. Take for expample the price of food, which is the material condition for reproduction of labour power. Gender roles are another one, it is where the sexual division of labour take place.

Bourgeoisie women different in their regard as their reproductive role is the reproduction of property. Proletariat women reproduce the abstract labour power that forms the reserve army of labour. There's a qualificative difference in role in production with regards to class that you're ignoring and I think in perpetuating your shallow analysis your damaging communism's vaunted reputation for liberation of females and you're a political illiterate for continuing to do this for MOGAI. If the NPA can fight a guerilla war against the gov't and not be necklords about it, you have no excuse.

>>3015

I said neither of those things, but since you didn't understand I need to clarify.

Reproduction of property refers to the heritable aspect, as in the basis for the entitlement is continued within the bourgeois family. The bourgeoisie women reproduces the basis for property as an institution. Women are not a means of the production, but the role of women in society is a component of the means of production as it applies to the creation of the reserve body of labour which is the basis for the wage.

This is why Marxists impose the absolute inheritance tax.

I don't see how this is hard.

>>3016

>This is why Marxists impose the absolute inheritance tax.

No that has a rather obvious reason.

You seem to hold an antinatalist position.

>>3017

I think the point is to break the economic basis of the family as a unit

That's not an unreasonable assumption to say I am anti-natalist because my position from a standpoint of anti-patriarchy and anti-colonialism does a lot to make it indistinguishable, as the reproduction of labour power takes a very specific case within this context and it is admittedly difficult to conceptualize any other way. I do not hold this position or anything Malthusian, my position is for the abolition of the family, it is the Marxist one with consideration of discoveries in genetics that show patriarchy's reactionary nature and why feminism is essential to the revolutionary project.

>>3017

If that's too long for you.

"I love you child because you came out my balls" is getting taken to the chopping block by any means necessary.

Same with the idea of "White People".

Speaking of which, I just got banned AGAIN from /leftypol/ for saying white people shouldn't exist. They are stupid enough to think that it's impossible to eliminate white people without firing a shot. Why do you think "cucking" is a thing? The difference between genocide of PoC and white genocide is that the genocide of PoC involved people actually being murdered as per the definition of the term, whereas White People actually think their Aryan Princess getting blacked or brown people coming into their countries is even in the same zipcode as a systematic slaughter.

>>3020

iunno, they actually have something to say, unlike the sjwredditkillyourself posters that make up the backwards section and just hate what I have to say because they take it personally because white people are mega fragile like that and can't think about their own mortality in a productive capacity

It might be stupid, but it's still something.

>>3027

White people are a position on the hierarchical structure of racism. It isn't racist to say white people are different. Colourblindness, on the other hand, is, because you are assuming you have knowledge of what it's like to be PoC based on the assumption that they are identical to yourself. It isn't even non-egalitarian from a materialist standpoint.

>>3046

It really is.

Colour-blindness may be progressive if your standards are still in the mid-twentieth century. When Reactionaries can claim that scrapping affirmative action is anti-racist on that very basis, it probably is. The bar is not set very high for white people. If you insist on having such a low political level and cannot reflect properly in considering the racist attitudes one may have without selfrighteousness.

Racism is about actually listening to PoC and their experiences of racism instead of quoting the dictionary as if makes you an authority on something which cannot be experienced by whites.

https://whitestudiesblackstudies.wordpress.com/2008/02/20/racism-without-racists-an-analysis/

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/culturally-speaking/201112/colorblind-ideology-is-form-racism

http://www.tolerance.org/magazine/number-36-fall-2009/feature/colorblindness-new-racism

Human beings are distinguished based on historical processes of production, these historical processes are themselves each distinct, this is Marxism 101. To say they aren't is a rank liberal fiction.

When you think about whiteness, consider that white people in the 19th century would recoil in abhorrence at sharing any association with the wretched and degraded creature that passes for a white today. Neo-Nazis cannot begin to fathom the insult that the corrupted spawn they cultivate would be to their ancestors, as they do not possess a historical consciousness. So remember that the white race declared themselves historically doomed by their own admission and consigned themselves to fall upon their own sword long before our heroic cadres prepped the first bull.

>>3058

That's all well and good, but why would anyone outside your cult buy this bullshit?

I mean, if the meaning of words is irrelevant, than why don't we start defining the third reich as communist?

Whites can't experience racism? Tell that to the whites in South Africa and zimbabwe who are experiencing ethnic genocide.

>>3065

You can define the Third Reich as Communist if you want to and it's kind of obvious that you would love that, as you've got the mawkish sentimentality for snowflake. The idea that beliefs and practices such as Racism are individual and not structural is Liberalism and the definition of words can change. I'm sure the dictionary definition of Communism isn't very effective either w/o analysis either.

The whites in South Africa and Zimbabwe were pretty much colour coded Kulaks. If you consider their property it's definately a class struggle.

>>3070

>You can define the Third Reich as Communist if you want to and it's kind of obvious that you would love that, as you've got the mawkish sentimentality for snowflake.

i should have realized you were to daft to get the point

>The idea that beliefs and practices such as Racism are individual and not structural is Liberalism

No, it's fucking realism. Thinking white people = racist is liberalism.

>The whites in South Africa and Zimbabwe were pretty much colour coded Kulaks.

yes of course, not even a single poor white worker

You wouldn't happen to be jewish, would you?

>>3073

White people benefit tremendously from Racism as a hierarchy, it's only rational for them to want to continue it and then tell PoC it doesn't exist. Thinking White People are natural altruists is racism even by your stupid dictionary liberal definition. Saying that it's the individuals are racist based on their conscience or not is liberalism.

Honestly, some single poor wittle white worker who stuck around might have gotten offed. That would make a nice ANECDOTE. But honestly they probably fucked off because they had nothing of value in the country and could reasonably expect to sell their labour anyplace else, unlike the farmers who made their living exploiting blacks on the land and treating them like animals for generations and then had the nerve to whine about it when it was taken back. The people who run those tacky blogs with all the pictures of ugly white children begging us to save them from the horrible PoC are even considerate enough to call them FARM MURDERS for us. Of course, you think PoC are savages so you think they'd go for some schlub with a few crumbled ones and a Nandos gift card out of sheer rancor when they could destroy the assholes claiming a piece of their ancestral homeland.

You really think it's only Jews who are capable of despising white people, lol. Are you even a Marxist? The history of Europe in the 19th century is pretty much White people getting sick of White people's shit. "The beauty of the Aryan woman" or w/e sentimentality is totally worth living in a society where the ruling class excepts you to hand over 1/3 of your life to them. On the subject of South Africa, do you ever think about where the colored population came from?

>>3079

You start out with a conspiracy theory, follow up with a strawman, and end with an admission you despise white people. Well done.

The blacks in South Africa had better lives under apartheid, and your question is stupid.

Also, you didn't say no merchant :^)

>>3080

It's not a conspiracy theory that people will generally tend to follow what's in their basic economic interest. It's the basis for determining economic trends and also the reason class struggle exists

I think your definition of strawman is what you shout when you have absolutely nothing else. Your argument was that a poor white worker may have been offed and I countered that that was an anecdote and incidental to the general trend. I argue that the basis for the attacks which happened against the white population was their colonial presence that manifested in their land holdings. A signal case of murder does not a genocide make. The only time White South Africans experienced genocide was when the Afrikaner population was killed by the British during the Boer War.

For the purposes of class struggle it's rational to hate the idea of white people and anyone who proposes said category for political activity under the assumption of racially identical people having a shared economic interest which ties into mystified conceptions of a race that serve as an excuse to ignore conflicting class interest within that racial group.

I'm not saying no, I could be Chabad Lubavitch Old Style and it wouldn't change a word I said. I could even say Jews are white and you'd start bringing up bullshit like Craniology that excludes a good portion of the "White" population and would prove that by White you mean strictly Anglo-Teutonic or "Aryan".

>>3081

'White people' is not an economic class of any kind you autistic shit

>>3084

No, not everything is reducible to "a class" or "not a class" and this is no way conflicts with Marxism, though it may with your resentful class reductionism.

It's a category who's relevance from practice is in the last instance economically determined. Communists have no interests seperate from the interests of the proletariat as a whole and unlike you are capable of determining which groupings are reactionaries and which ones aren't. White people are a category which served the interests of colonialism via Victorian Race theory. In this period the division of labour between settlers and natives was remarkable and it`s effects are still felt today.

You should stop pretending to be a Marxist before you embarass yourself further.

>>3089

>this is no way conflicts with Marxism,

It does

>class reductionism.

A.K.A. Marxist theory

>Communists have no interests seperate from the interests of the proletariat as a whole

Except those straight white male ones amirite??

>determining which groupings are reactionaries and which ones aren't.

No group is inherently reactionary, even the bourgeoisie

>White people are a category which served the interests of colonialism

>In this period the division of labour between settlers and natives was remarkable

Consider them fully decolinized

>>3090

>Marxism is Class Reductionism

>No class is inherently reactionary

lol

You sent me a video where some loser takes artistic videos by feminists and uses them as evidence that feminism is a religious cult, as if artistic expression is the exclusive domain of religious cults. I really don't know what you intended. This might suffice for the Gamergate crowd who take 1984 seriously and believe in totalitarianism. Sargon of Akkad also considers himself anti-ideology, Can you explain how the opinion of anyone so balefully stupid should be taken seriously.

Straight white males are a reactionary grouping. All three of those attributes are as alienable as private property (provided your conception of biology extends past Noah's Arc). The first refers to a role in the gendered capitalist reproduction of labour power. the second a status in Victorian Race theory that served colonialism. the last to the binarist concept of gender which some uneducated humans wrongly ascribe as universal to all species.

No grouping are 'inherently' reactionary ( i don't think you can really appreciate the ), but certain grouping are definately reactionary, the bourgeoisie in imperialist countries are inarguable so, if the national bourgeosie in colonized countries may not be necessarily. Straight white males are defs reactionary thought. I've been making that point endlessly and nobody has been able to rebut it. The extend of your critique is "no, it does", which though weak is better than speculation about some personal characteristics of mine.

>fully decolonized

??? Settler Colonial states are in existence all over the globe. My use of past tense may have confused you. That's my fault. To clarify, they used to, and they still are. They are however historically doomed with the struggles for national liberation in the 20th century has demonstrated.

I do respect you for trying. As such, if you don't want to be relegated to assistant Bullprep or the person who pounds the gong beforehand, you better carefully get your hands on Federici's "Caliban and the Witch" and study it carefully ASAP. Marxspeed.

Even here I can't get a rest from these SJWs. The one here is a bit different though, since they have a taste for verbose commentary. And seems to be an anti-natalist as well.

> Straight white males are defs reactionary thought. I've been making that point endlessly and nobody has been able to rebut it.

Yeah, right. You totally proved, with perfect logic, how it's impossible for anyone who is not a lesbian woman of colour to be a communist.

> the insular male culture normalizes rape on the basis of health.

*sigh*

>>3096

1/2

This year let's have a look at what "SJW" actually means shall we, before we blithely incorporate such a philistine term in political practice as Marxism-Leninists. I'll note it's nice to see you use correct pronouns. If SJWs are everywhere you should perhaps consider the validity of what they are saying.

No consistent definition of SJW is given by anyone apart from reactionaries. It is not because they are reactionaries that they are wrong, their subjective reflections are simply that of enemy classes. According to American Renaissance "“SJW” stands for “social justice warrior,” which is approximately synonymous with: militant, politically correct ideologue. Or perhaps stridently leftist cultural Marxist".

militant means "vigorously active, combative and aggressive". That's correct.

"politically correct". Marxist-Leninists should strive for political correctness because the correctness of the political line is what the success or failure of their movement depends on.

"ideologue" The ideology of socialist production is opposed to capitalist production, it is being articulated in the form of rights as they exclude the bourgeoisie through class struggle.

"stridently leftist" this is correct, Marxist oppose authority with consistent ideology and the development of superior organization

"Cultural Marxist" Superstructural expressions of the base developed in class struggle are the means of expressing the movements political line, it is no exaggeration to say Marxism is inevitably cultural, in the senses of the word that marks it as modern and the creation of new forms of culture as a result of socialist production. One example is Socialist Art, which was a development on techniques Capitalist production could not sustain.

The only one who actually went through the trouble of giving a definition is none other than Vox Day, who's answer to the Eurytphro arguement was "both". Let's go through it:

>a philosophy of activism for activism’s sake

each stage of class struggle is the basis for another higher stage of class struggle, this is true.

> a dedication to rooting out behavior they deem problematic, offensive, or unacceptable in others

As opposed to Liberalism, which is hypocritical and contradictory acceptance. For the most part this is true of every ethical human being on earth, it is wrong not to criticise, identify and offer a corrective to something which is mistaken.

>a custom of primarily identifying individuals by their sex, race, and sexual orientation

There is a tendancy to ascribe individual into categories on their appearance (and behaviour in the last case) within their own models as far as they believe them to correspond correctly with reality. The response to this is to identify the response to these trait as they are perceived universally and objectively without the same conclusions being made.

>a hierarchy of intrinsic morality based on the identity politics of sex, race, and sexual orientation

Ethically this is no more legitimate place a to derive behavioral codes than any other, in fact in political practice it may be even more so.

>a quasi religious belief in equality, diversity, and the inevitably of progress . . .

Beliefs are quasi-religious as a historical departure of scientific knowledge from criticism of received tradition or religious dogma. Materialism is Egalitarian. Diversity (differentiation) exist irrespective of one's belief in it, as objective reality as matter is produced and formed into shapes which are different. Progress is inevitable not metaphysically, but historically as the accumilation of productive forces contribute to increased faculty to depart from nature and correspond to the actualization of human desire to a greater degree. History is the story of men in pursuit of their ends.

>>3096

>>3090

Why do you both keep feeding it? Haven't you already seen how xir's uses ML terms as a way to hide his post-modern discourse? Or is this board so dead that entertaining this stupid autist is a valid way to keep it from dying? The faggot is basically re-hashing liberal feminism in ML terms while condemning those so it can feel special.

>*sigh*

You're as bad as him, you goddamn nigger.

>>3100

The "you're as bad as the SJWs!" defense is my favourite. It's because the ones who truly fear the cuck (legalized community of women) are always prone to turn on anyone willing to bring it out when they see Trumplings do to far to nobly entrench themselves in real Kshatiya Warrior discourse and impale themselves on the spear of stupid that belongs to w/e Hindu divinity Dugin appropriates this week.

You have to admit he's Zizek for people raised by New Agers.

... and obviously the SJWs are always better.

For you ofc any feminism is liberal, ignoring that liberal feminism is a contradiction that is being resolved. The tenets of Liberalism are deeply anti-feminist and so within feminism there is class struggle.

You tie your hands in advance and will not carry the struggle through to the reproduction of labour power.

>>3095

>>3097

>>3098

>>3101

>>3104

>>3105

>>3106

>>3107

>>3108

>>3109

>>3104

lol, I don't have a quarter of a day to blow listening to why Carl Benjamin hates feminism. Apparently he's not even competent to inform his advocates of his principles to the point where they can speak for themselves. I already know why: 1) because they knocked over his WH40K game and he's very sensitive about being a real gamer. 2) He's anti-ideology(sic).

Fundamentally, feminism isn't about anything men have to say about it, the same as how Communism isn't about anything the bourgeoisie have to say about it. Si

Do not listen to anyone who is anti-ideology. Besides being a rare combination of politically and They're one of the few sorts who can legitimately and decisively dismissed by the rejoinder "let's agree to disagree".

>>3112

Why haven't you killed yourself, faggot??

>>3096

>Straight white males are defs reactionary

Well yeah, if all you care about is externinating straight white men

>>3114

Ask yourself this: Why have you been unable to criticize me short of some combination of those words?

Why would I begin to consider suicide at the insistance of anyone who is fumbling, inarticulate, and ill informed and doesn't even seem to be a Marxist-Leninist. If you are not, you might as well be a Capitalist.

Sargon of Akkad is not a Marxist-Leninist. Their opposition to feminism is useless because it is not part of the anti-capitalist project.

I do not care about extermination straight white men, I just believe that process would be helpful in the struggle against capitalists as the overlap between those groups is significant. Straight white males hate each other because of fierce competition in the mating process (not to mention economic competition which is an aspect of capitalism). This can expediently be put to use.

>>3115

>Sargon of Akkad is not a Marxist-Leninist. Their opposition to feminism is useless because it is not part of the anti-capitalist project.

I'm sure you don't realize this is a logical fallacy

>Straight white males hate each other because of fierce competition in the mating process

Actually it's women that have that mutation. Are you implying that straight and white men are evolutionarily different from minority men??? Are you implying that gay men ever even evolved??

>(not to mention economic competition which is an aspect of capitalism).

How is this exclusive to straights whites or men?

>>3112

>He's anti-ideology(sic).

He is anti-idealogue. There is a difference.

>Fundamentally, feminism isn't about anything men have to say about it,

If you had watched the videos you would know that all of this information is coming directly from feminists.

>>3112

>Do not listen to anyone who is anti-ideology.

Again, anti idealogue.

>Besides being a rare combination of politically and They're one of the few sorts who can legitimately and decisively dismissed by the rejoinder "let's agree to disagree".

Do you object to skepticism?

Are you straight white or male?

>>3117

No it's not a logical fallacy. I don't want to harass Anita Sarkessian all day so I have nothing in common with Sargon in terms of objectives. He wants feminism to be discredited to disqualify via rational of ahistoricity the record of abuses against women for false liberal egalitarianism. His analysis of the origins of feminism isn't materialist.

It's not a mutation or evolution that men believe they will go insane or die if they do not mate in their lives, it's just a very very popular lie.

The bourgeoisie will hire straight white males unless forced to otherwise. Competition in this regard is between them first.

He explicitly states himself to be anti-ideology not ideologue.

If all his information comes from feminists, then why does he bother with his pointless commentary? Does he really believe a movement intended exclusively to the cause of women will benefit from what a man has to say? Like Marxism is about excluding the voice of the bourgeoisie in the destiny of the working class, Feminism is about excluding the voice of men in the destiny of women.

No shit I object to skepticism, do you think I would be a materialist otherwise?

That question has nothing to do with any of this.

>>3144

>I don't want to harass Anita Sarkessian

Anita does not recieve genuine harrasment, and sargon very rarely even talks about her

>He wants feminism to be discredited to disqualify via rational of ahistoricity

Actually he simply discredits it by virtue of it's own Ethos

>women for false liberal egalitarianism

In what way is a promotion of Equality NOT left-wing or marxist?

>His analysis of the origins of feminism isn't materialist.

Here's another case of that fallacy i mentioned, it's called ad hominem. You are not adressing anything he says.

>It's not a mutation or evolution that men believe they will go insane or die if they do not mate in their lives, it's just a very very popular lie.

Yes, propagated by feminists and no one else.

>The bourgeoisie will hire straight white males unless forced to otherwise.

A-are you being serious right now?? This is so fundemantly detatched from reality that it's not even wrong.

>He explicitly states himself to be anti-ideology not ideologue.

A lie.

>If all his information comes from feminists, then why does he bother with his pointless commentary?

One might ask the same thing about Socrates and the Sophists.

>Does he really believe a movement intended exclusively to the cause of women will benefit from what a man has to say?

Do you really believe a movement inteded exclusively to the cause of workers will benefit from what a property owner has to say? Clearly Engels' ideas are worthless to the communist movement.

> Like Marxism is about excluding the voice of the bourgeoisie in the destiny of the working class

No Marxism is about the elimenation of class.

>Feminism is about excluding the voice of men in the destiny of women.

I'm glad you agree Feminism is nothing more than a female supremacist movement

>No shit I object to skepticism

Then go back to church you fucking faggot

>That question has nothing to do with any of this.

Oh, i think it does. If you are straight/white/male (or worse all of the above) your existence is transgressive to feminism.

>>3172

As if this thread didn't have enough retarded tripfags

>pedophiles and terrorists

A new low, jim