Depends what kind of marxist viewpoint. Traditional Marxist? All these issues of race, sex, etc are going to disappear once the main issue of class is solved. Post-marxist? Here the secondary role of race, sex, etc issues can take a primary role. For example, in feminist fundamentalism there is not global liberation (which includes class) without the liberation of women.
It's a fetish.
The only way you can solve cultural forms of oppression is to let minority groups directly advocate and organize for themselves. "Representation" in capitalist media is just a consolation prize.
there's a questions that don't deserve their own thread thread
This topic has a lot of different views, I think it could be an interesting thread
Black panther is a poor choice, the character is canonically black, it's not representation unless you can know the creators motives.
hetero man here but i don't like watching porn where the man is black, i can't self insert myself into the scenario if the dude is black because i'm not black.
not sure what that adds to the conversation but there you go
>>1050479>Traditional Marxist? All these issues of race, sex, etc are going to disappear once the main issue of class is solved. Post-marxist? Here the secondary role of race, sex, etc issues can take a primary role.
I think secondary issues can be important because quantitative changes lead to qualitative changes, so if racism and sexism objectively help reproduce capitalist social relations, then breaking down those things adds additional "quantity" that will help lead to a change in "quality" (overthrowing capitalism). I think the issue with representation is somewhat different because it's basically postmodern in that postmodernism emphasizes representations over everything else. That is, words and images being like the driving force of events or the situation. But if the basic position that race and gender are socially constructed, and that race and gender hierarchies are part of a material foundation of Western polities and legal systems, then I think that can be true and both independent of particular doctrines about the relation of representations to reality, or whether the situation is driven by them (like Obama and Trump living in stories while the rest of us grapple with an actual world).
I don't think Marxists should say that race and culture don't matter. The inter-relation between them is what's at issue. Certainly Marx thinks the causation runs in one direction: material conditions of production lead to the cultural expressions, so it's a wicked problem for Marxists to deal with.
>muh cultural marixsm
Are you serious, my guy?
I thought you were using it in the Jordan Peterson sense though
When the revolution comes the only art allowed to be made will be about the straight white working class obviously
no, that's pretty fair. probably stop watching porn at some point.
I will urfuck you. If you’re down for it
I think the idea of "representation" is a bit of a false duology.
Marxists aren't asking for representation of the working class in systems of power but a transformative change to the system as whole.
Oh, and race is a form of class and class is a form of race, so the tradmarxists who bang on about how some idealised factory worker is the only subject under capitalism are theoretically behind
Elaborate on your statements. Furthermore, your tradmarxists and the proletarian platonic archetype that you claim they believe in likely never existed in the first place.
They don't even do good representation when they do it. It's always this hamfisted nonsense that feels the need to be an example of everything about whatever group is being represented instead of just being characters who happen to be from that group, with the relevant stuff coming up when it's appropriate instead of having every topical issue being shoved in to check boxes. People from an underrepresented group aren't allowed to just be people or just people from that group. They have to be like cultural ambassadors who put the best foot forward for the group, and that usually comes at the expense of being a compelling character in their own right.
ah shit I need my helmet
race is an ideologically tool that has been weaponised by capitalism to create divisions of labor and production. Race is a form of class.
Conversely, class is a form of race in the sense that the ideological structures that maintain objective class relations are often couched in a pseudo bio-truth way. i.e. people talking about working class people as genetically inferior, etc.
why do people always pull this woo-woo idealist shit
It's got nothing to do with archetypes and everything to do with social structures
Representation does affect ideology insofar as media you consume does propagandize you. However, liberals like to fixate on representation in popular media because they are shallow and don't think beyond aesthetics. The struggle for black people is not that the Oscars have too many white people winning awards. It's that black people are kept in poor neighborhoods, funneled into prison, denied jobs, targeted by police, etc. Liberals think that the world's problems will be solved if we just change hearts and minds, ignoring what happens materially (which is why woke academics started the "bodies in spaces" discourse, that's liberals trying to do materialist analysis lol). Representation isn't nothing. It's worth doing (if you do it right), but fixating on it is a strong sign of being idealist.
Idealism. Class is a material relationship to the means of production, while race is a superstructural sociopolitical phenomenon that contains and obscures it. There was a social and economic function that race played at least in the early development of capitalism as a way to codify and justify colonial and neocolonial exploitation. Racial hierarchies have a class content, but to say they’re the same is saying that a chicken and the egg are the same, or that musculature and the skeleton are the same
The only thing that matters is class. Everything else is used to divide working class
Proof: see the twitter response on the recent pilot strike, picturing a long line of pilots in a picket. Most liked tweets were "look at all that diversity" and "such a diverse bunch of tall white pilots, short bald white pilots, fat white pilots" and other snarky replies.
Racecraft and other radlibbery is in direct opposition to solidarity
Representation in capitalist media = letting everyone know that they too can be a cog in the lifeless machine no matter their identity
Yeah, he was a big fan of Ferdinand Lassalle
It is symbolism. Like representational politics, you get nothing substantial. At best, it's a cry for more black capitalists.
>>1050806>class is a form of race in the sense that the ideological structures that maintain objective class relations
I believe you are referring to stratification i.e the differences imposed between classes.
>>1050471>I see a lot of liberals talk about the importance of representation
They believe in representative politics, despite representative democracy having issues with actually representing their voters, they ignore the strong plutocratic tendency.
Creating politics about identitarian representation, has backfired against socialists in all regards. It now serves as a moral justification for imperialism and neo-liberal shock economics. It has become extremely reactionary. Liberals now support Neo-conservative policies.
All Identity politics have a tendency to turn into imperial chauvinism. The left-wing in the bourgeois political spectrum is starting to mirror the right wing. Brutal Neo-liberal economics with aggressive imperial attacks on the periphery and semi periphery.<Pillage and murder all over the world in the name of [insert identity here]
>What is the marxost belief regarding this viewpoint?
said to conduct class struggle, to make the working class politically and economically dominant.
That goal is increasingly getting at odds with the politics of identity.
liberals have managed to incorporated idpol into what Christopher Mott has called the "woke imperium" that serves as a tool for creating reactionary morality to justify what the big bourgeoisie is doing. During the colonial phase of capitalism Christianity played that role. The lesson to draw here is that secular morality is just as corruptible as supernatural morality.
In the end, Class struggle and anti-imperialism is what remains as progressive force.
No. Although you can be born into a class.
>Is class genetic?
no there are no bourgeois genes
You have to change the economic system, you can't fix it with genetic manipulation.
It would be nice if we could end exploitation with a gene-therapy, but it's not going to be that easy.
>>1051438<Pillage and murder all over the world in the name of [insert identity here]
I think that's just a pretext/rationalisation, we as a species like to pillage
> just liberal symbolism
Answered your own question
Is there are test to determine which class you are?
I doubt this is true
I think it is true, why/what do you disagree with
do you own property which generates value
Why is there exploitation?
How do you define "property" and "generates value"?
Read literally anything by marx.
Property is a socially mediated ownership to a resource used in making products to be used for immediate consumption by the maker/makers or to be exchanged for other products according to an abstract measure of the amount of time it takes on average for producers within a given market to make that product. We call this time indicator abstract labor or labor hours. However, we mostly represent this through money, a universal equivalent used to measure value across items that becomes an intermediary which can be exchanged for almost any product. Think of it like how gravity is the strength of the force that attracts two objects together, but that certain quantities of two objects have the same amount of force acting on them. Even in different quantities and being qualitatively different entities, a pound of feathers is the same as a pound of bricks.
People who own the productive tools and resources to make products explicitly to exchange for value (in the form of money) are the bourgeoisie. People who have to rent out their ability to do a certain amount of work per hour/output on a labor market in exchange for a wage are proletarians. Business owners vs wage workers is the most reductive you can get it down to
If i own stocks what am i then?
Do you make most of your income off stocks?
bourgeois, depends on the significance could be petty
No, bourgeoisie make at least 40% of their income off stocks, other financial instruments and profits
No, last year i made negative money>>1051528
Is there a chart i could look to place myself
Deflection. Do you get paid more from a wage or salary or does the money you put in the bank come more from stock dividends or profits? I don’t care if your revenue exceeded living costs
It was not deflection, it's called loosing money.
Investing in stocks doesn't exactly make you a capitalist in question. If you are like me, you probably bought some stock during the lockdowns hoping to get a return. The thing is unless you own enough stock so you don't have to work anymore, you are more than likely a prole or some neet. There are very few people who "make it" from buying stock.
And, with easier access to stock options through brokerage apps and the like, it signifies the desperation of businesses for newer sources of wealth extraction from the lower class. What stocks are just IOUs that have the prospect of giving you more than put into it. The company already has your money, and since you are essentially waiting for that IOU to increase in value, they don't lose thay money until you sell it (someone who buys the IOU anyways.)
>>1051478>I think that's just a pretext/rationalisation, we as a species like to pillage<It's human nature
I'm kinda surprised, I would have expecting to get this argument from a right-wing capitalist apologetic. Maybe there is more mirroring going on than i thought.>>1051489>Why is there exploitation?
Because the working class hasn't been liberated yet.
We can rule out a genetic basis for class society because genetically modern humans have existed for 70000 to 200000 years, and class societies date back 5000 years. Same genes different societies, rules out genetic factors. If that doesn't convince you look at countries that became socialist, without changing their genetic makeup.
For a proper materialist explanation for the rise of class societies, read the pdf (partial text taken from a book)
Do you mean representation under capitalism or representation in communism?
Because one is a cringe cope for how shit your life is if you’re a black prole, equivalent to digging out a half eaten donut from the bottom of a garbage can and putting whipped cream on it; the other is an attempt to account for the different cultures and experiences of different peoples and the artistic flourishing one is granted by allowing diversity of viewpoints in the arts
I don't exactly find whether or not buying stocks makes you bourgeois to be an interesting discussion. As I said before, I think the new blood being pumped into the speculation frenzy is more interesting. Another thing I wanted to note is that I can see stock ownership as a means to buy off a portion of the working class. Before buying Amazon stock for example, someone would have been happy to see the company get their comeuppance; but, once they buy Amazon stock their loyalty may lie with the company thereafter. Even if this person is earning the same amount of money as before, that added layer of abstraction has shifted their class interests. I think this both a result of ideology and a nominal change in productive relations.
What's your point? termite societies?
>>1051489>exploitation can't be explained through things other than genes
bro… you realize that material conditions can come from other shit than genes, right
His point is that the fact that a number of different societies some of which existed without exploitation have existed within the time frame that homo sapiens has existed rules out the notion that exploitation comes from some kind of universal genetic trait
Depends on how you look on it, i would imagine you being an materialist would explain almost everything with genes. >>1051685
I am not that smart, sorry can you flesh it out for me
So you cherrypick some societies that you prefer, then what?
Can you be charitable and explain why i am wrong
That's not even what i said, but in case that i was misunderstood, what in your life is not made from genes?
I don't trust anyone who seethes the minute they see a black character and go on about "forced diversity"
It should and criticized when it's done badly, and usually by libs. It has its place, but it's not something worth focusing too much on. And I do include the anti-SJW youtube industrial complex built on complaining about how you can't draw Chinese people with lines for eyes anymore
You’re just shouting “cherry picking” which misses the point
The fact that A. diversity in this area exists at all and B. modern humans as a species are literally older than class exploitation poses a problem with your own argument
Who build that? People with genes>water
If you mean drinking water from a pipe, refer above>geography
Some effect by humans>tools>language
By people>available materials
You mean what people can extract, and make them available
I see classes in other species, also conflict, how does this poses a problem for me? ?
>>1051766>missing the point this hard
You realize genetic makeup in populations changes as a result of environmental factors, right?
>>1051768>still missing the point this hard
There literally exist classless societies throughout human history.
Yes, that is part of evolution, the selection part
This place would be so much more efficient if you made your self clear, and not those >… How am i missing the point
First of all where? Secondly so what? What is this supposed to mean
prevention of persecution is more important than representation. Lenin spoke out against antisemitism. But he never said "we need more jews in the politburo!" even though nazis think so
>>1051766>everything about these things is the result of genetic factors
Anon, you realize these things have agency outside genetics, right?
Voluntary human action doesn’t control literally everything
>>1051773>There literally exist classless societies throughout human history.
"primitive communist" hunter gatherer societies still had male/female class stratificiation, age-based class stratficiation, and chiefdom. It didn't have economic class stratification because economic class had not emerged yet.
No, i never claimed that, look at >geography and if you mean geography of pluto, i would have said no part
Literally debunked. These hierarchies are far from universal. Anthropologists and archaeologists have never found conclusive evidence that every single tribe operated this way. It varies from tribe to tribe, and continues to do so. The entire point is the fact that such variation exists in the first place poses a problem for your assertion because if your assertion were true then the historical record would show far more homogeneity than it actually does.
Question: does our genetics determine the stability of land or the chemical composition of available materials?
Yes, see green revolution, or if you think that we are overexploiting the earth to future diminishment.
Yes, chemical composition i mostly think you mean developed techniques to mine, produce… materials
>>1051786>missing the point again
The point is those things are not caused by our genes but have a direct material influence on our lives
What is not made by our genes?
The literal chemical and physical processes that make up a huge chunk of our surroundings that are literally autonomous from human beings and both inform and constrain the literal set of choices that are possible
This isn’t rocket science
You are correct, can you give me 2 examples
Owning stocks does not make you bourgeois. Letting small time traders into the stock market happened because the bourgeoisie realized that most people will trade irrationally and they can use it to bilk more money out of them. Most people with stocks don't own enough for it to meaningfully increase their income. IDK what the numbers are on how many people actually lose money but it's very common.
CASE IN POINT >>1051541
If you make 40-60% of your living living on profits and stocks, you’re a petty booj. If you make 60% and up, you’re a booj.
What is your point? Can you point where i am wrong?
Let me rephrase.
Owning stocks CAN make you bourgeois.
It doesn't AUTOMATICALLY make you bourgeois.
Obviously Warren Buffett is bourgeois.
The point is that owning "capital" is only relevant if owning it is a source of value for you. If your assets just lose money or don't make any money, they're functionally not making you a capitalist.
I would accept 4, if you were referring to basic math. But as world has shown us 2+2=5 if you are referring to some other thing that you want to describe using commons symbols of math.
Why are you so purposefully dense? The point is that humans do not live in a vacuum, and how we interact with the world is largely determined by what exists outside us, our cognition entirely dependent on outside phenomena in order to engage in even the basic process of learning by means of comparison, which is essential to even gaining an understanding of "self" to begin with.
The crusade for equal representation is a statistical game to which there can be no resolution. Identities are arbitrarily defined and correlate to absolutely nothing objective. Thus, any sampling taken will contain inconsistency in regard to the identity groups around which the study is framed. Furthermore, the identity-based framework itself serves to obscure any actually useful data that might be acquired by way of the study. For example, every single identity is disproportionately represented in the prison population in one direction or the other, but nearly all of them are working-class. Here is an article on The Intercept about the subject.https://27m3p2uv7igmj6kvd4ql3cct5h3sdwrsajovkkndeufumzyfhlfev4qd.onion/2018/02/05/mass-incarceration-class-predictor-race/
Now, notice how they frame it. "Class" is broken into lower and middle, because they use it as a measure of income–wages. That obscures the plain fact that all of those sampled were proles when they went in–a 100% correlation with a strong correlation to poverty. None the less, the article uses the data as evidence of an entirely seperate cause for incarceration–racial bias that is not quite so clearly evident. The sampling provided an obvious answer; the identity-based answer that they were looking for had to be created, and it was done so by framing.
As a "transexual" (transgender is the proper word) myself we need representation because otherwise people won't know our specific needs which differ from the greater population, and unique challenges we face. Even on this communist board being respected is hard enough when blatantly transphobic and even violent comments pass by without even being called out. Then when I do its called "idpol". Give me a break.
Nice, a random insult with no context. Off to a great start in this thread.
Like it or not we do have to cope until we achieve capitalism. Ya, give me the cope and stfu.
If only representation actually translated to support. I feel like transitionimg has an income floor.
How does the media tell other people specifically what you need now? How does “awareness” solve your problems? Do you think these producers care outside of anything beyond using you as a marketing tool or a market demographic to cater to?
Trans people’s reproductive and other gender needs issues are healthcare issues that are commensurable with political agitation. Same as guranteed housing for them and everyone else as well as guaranteed employment.
What sort of representation are you looking for?>blatant transphobia
Like what? I rarely see the topic brought up at all. >violent comments
It's an imageboard, anons will sanction your murder over tiny things. If you say pancakes are better than waffles you'll probably get death threats.
Transitioning doesn't have an income floor but being rich gives privilege and makes it easier to transition because it's material. Being rich doesn't solve shit if you are still a kid with parents who refuse to let you transition,abuse you, threaten, throw away clothes, etc
I didn't know trans people existed until late in my life. I should have been taught by dominant culture and sex end class. Keeping the existence of trans people hidden mentally scarred me.
>>1052327>Guaranteed housing, employment and medical services denied from prejudice is not the same as being denied it due to poverty
This is still an economic issue and “rich” isn’t a class category
Boring read moar loser
Base produces superstructure
Superstructure reinforces base
Maybe there's some spandrells so what who cares?
Alright, then better sex and gender identity education in schools.
Maybe you’re from an older generation or from a country where sexual issues and gender identity discussion is severely punished, so I’ll give you the benefit of a doubt
Anon don't act like I'm not aware of class issues. But lots of working class people can afford hormones and opposite gender clothes yet their parents refuse to let them transition. Don't pretend that's economic. Its cultural and social
No I think you're from a progressive place. I'm relatively young and from the US and its that way almost everywhere here
What maintains and reinforces cultural ideas? Economic power. Your parents fan punish you for not following their bullshit cultural and social norms because of their economic control over you. One of the ways you can assert yourself against them is by being able to achieve financial independence from them.
>>1050471>I see a lot of liberals talk about the importance of representation, be it more and better representation of women, black people, handicapped people, transexuals, etc.Effortpost incoming:
Yeah, because liberals only think in regards to representation as opposed to direct political change. They think that if they get the right person in power, they'll enact the change that needs to occur, as opposed to serving the institute they swore allegience to. Anti-racism, anti-queerness, anti-trans etc policies will only be adopted if it serves the interest of the nation state or society as a whole.
To use their logic, me being a bisexual , bisexual characters in media ought to be "normalising" our existance in a heteronormative society. But the problem is this, heteronormative society is not a static entity, it will change and adapt to the point where they try to insist that "society" is one unipolar entity and completely disregard the plurality of the world they live in, and despite gay rights being somewhat protected in certain places, here in Australia our existance was put into danger via legistlation with the religious freedom bill, which, thank god, got shot down.
But to the lib, they think the solution to solve this problem is representation of queer governers, of gay shows, and media because it'll influence children to be tolerant and kind. If that was the case, why the fuck do we get these alt-right wing zoomers running amock as well as 20 something /pol/yps committing mass terror, as well as a growing generation of incels and homophobes who now blame their problems on "globohomo"? This representation politics has played into the hand of conservatives and reactionaries- but the difference between a leftist and a rightist is that the leftist can see this representation as thin, the problem is we keep our mouths shut around minorities who say "well actually this helps". Speaking as bi- I'll tell you this much, it hasn't. It's only normalised LGBTQ and BIPOC as serving the status quo, and there's a strange treatment of white cis-heteronormativity being the default of disourse, as opposed to its own ever changing and evolving category.
I don't want "more bisexual" characters and virtue signalling capitalists who distort and twist everything and capitalise on civil rights for a pay cheque. I want housing, I want a home, I want to have a job that can contribute to society, and I want others to have the same mobility and opportunity that I've just demanded.
>What is the marxost belief regarding this viewpoint?
I don't claim to be an expert nor do I speak on behalf of every socialist in the world. But imho it means nothing and only serves as something miniscule- it's a band aid solution to a larger family. >Is it just liberal symbolism?
Stop trying so hard to be a class reductionist. 13 year olds aren't going to be economically pressuring their parents any time soon. Remember, people need to do their shit BEFORE we achieve socialism too.
Bi people are the least oppressed out of all the LGBT and can choose to live a cishet life without issues. If I'm wrong correct me. But don't try to speak for LGBT people just because you're bi.
>Don't do things that piss off reactionaries
repeating your shitty take doesn't make it more insightful
You basically said there is no issue and stop complaining because it stirs up reactionaries. Then explained that you are bi and face none of the issues that trans people face. So your critique actually means nothing
i'm not that anon, i just said your criticism was terrible because you said that anon wasn't oppressed enough to have an opinion, and interpreted a reasonable take (that representation isn't working to increase acceptance and it only reinforces straight and cis as the default) in the worst possible way (that we should be afraid of reactionaries and bow to their demands)
>>1052358>If I'm wrong correct me. But don't try to speak for LGBT people just because you're bi.
You should probably read up on this. https://www.health.com/mind-body/lgbtq-health/bi-erasure>>1052366
Different anon. You're putting words in my mouth in saying "don't piss off reactionaries". What i'm saying is that despite representation, LGBTQ people are still ostracised and have our rights brought into question, and our civil rights co-opted by capitalists, which only plays into the reactionaries hands.
I'm pretty sure you've seen the argument of "you claim to be communists and rebels, yet the state and corporations support you". We know this isn't the truth, but these states and corporations don't aid in civil rights, they co-opt them.
Should add, the solutions the articles provided are lib- i.e the representation politics- as opposed to direct social and economic policies, but the issue is very much real.
Ok all of ur posts are noted and my posts were pretty dumb and sorry bianon
no worries mate, we live and learn.
>>1052357>class reductionist>Muh children
That all you got? Social workers and cps. Although these groups mostly exist to take poor, often minority children away from their parents
Yeah, CPS is definitely taking children away to let them transition right now. What is the purpose of your statement?
Spooks squared, if you need some esoteric explanation you are most likely wrong. >how we interact
Genetic>with the world is largely determined by what exists outside us
That the tools to provide the basic safety for LGBT youth are there but not under their control. CPS really should take away kids to let them transition unironically
At what age can kids transition?
Fucked if I know. That’s probably something for the trans community to consider and if not, a case-by-case basis
No i need an age, like a age for voting. Give me your best estimate
You are asking the wrong person, but I’ll ballpark it to 13-14
So at 13 years you can transition your genitalia?
You don’t know what transitioning is or how few people get reassignment surgery, do you? Mostly talking about HRT
I was referring to MTF vaginoplasty, is 13 old enough?
I’m not trans, why would I be in any position to decide?
I respect your rights to not put blacks in your works while you should respect my rights to put ebony queens and kings in mine.
I don’t think OP was going with that.
I’d personally say that there’s a specific type of way that black people are allowed to be presented in media that’s more or less either to make white people feel more comfortable about themselves or to market to what the producers think black people as a consumer market want
So you agree that 13 can transitions hers penis if that is what she decides?
As either the ally to main characters, the token raceswap for a side character or as the main character in stories about a limited version of the black experience where all the problems are analyzed from a liberal perspective and are consequently solved in them.
You know where this is improving, though? Children’s entertainment. Camp cretaceous and into the spiderverse are two examples I can think of
Only if you get the green light from a sample of trans people and psychology and sexual health experts. But after that, why the fuck not
Black Panther. Where the CIA’s the good guys and a revolutionary was both co-opted in universe after his death and by the writers who had to make him into some marcus garvey type instead of Thomas Sankara or Muammar Qaddafi
It’s up to the aforementioned. Why the fuck am I supposed to care?
Homeboy, what in the fuck did I write here >>1053576>a limited version of the black experience where all the problems are analyzed from a liberal perspective and are consequently solved in them.
Are you for real? Look, If you’re trying to do a socratic thing, I get it, I like doing it myself, but I’m a bit lost on where you want me to go with this.
It’s somewhat abstracted from real black experiences, that’s my contention, but tries to talk about racism, colonialism, police violence and black impoverishment, etc. the aforfuturism thing is cool, but it’s more like marketing a fantasy vision of black and african identity, whose groundedness I’m quick to critique. The Wakandans worship Hanuman and Bastet, Indian and Egyptian figures whose relevance to Sub-Saharan Africa is tenuous. They speak West African Xhosa in east-central Africa, instead of a language that’d be more indicative of the region. And lastly, it’s a fucking Marvel Movie
Sorry, not Xhosa, but Hausa
I’ve seen django, but nothing else. I can’t speak much on the black experience personally, since I’m not black but south asian
The wire’s fucking Kino and I’d argue is one of the exceptions. It feels in many places to be almost an academic, sociological look at criminal enterprises in underserved, african-american neighborhoods
Sure, what’s your take?
And where are you from, friend?
I ask this because I think you’re dead-ass wrong
Massive Social Inequities and Police Violence? Do a couple of tokens make that irrelevant?
Health, Education, Employment and Housing are the big four
White americans? Have you been following this conversation or did you just get here?
Can you pasty gringo self-obsessed chan cunts not worry about your movies and video games for 2 seconds? Why don't you think about the broader concept of what inspires your droll entertainment. Imagine you lived in a civilization where every historical figure of note or anyone to be admired and revered looked a certain way. A way you could basically never emulate. How do you think that would affect you? Probably not well. And in any case is that a society or civilization supposed marxists should be okay with?
Did you read anything in this thread? Even the OP?
Amake bolar age, je ami ek shada, ekhane banglaye likhbo
>>1052351>I don't want "more bisexual" characters and virtue signalling capitalists who distort and twist everything and capitalise on civil rights for a pay cheque. I want housing, I want a home, I want to have a job that can contribute to society, and I want others to have the same mobility and opportunity that I've just demanded.
Fuckin'-A, my brother.
All of those correlate to income levels a whole lot more closely than they do to race. But…>>1053735
Nobody can do well for themselves unless they started off well to begin with. Where you started is almost certainly where you are going to end up. That is before your retirement evaporates for various reasons and you are forced to spend your remaining years on Social Security in a cockroach-infested trailer in Arizona. The game is rigged.
Don't need too. I know it's mostly just bloviating about anti-id pol, lel radlibs and feels vs reels.>>1053897
Now, that's what I'm talking about. Be more like this guy /leftypol
Is that why marx said labor in white skin cannot be free when labor in black skin remains in chains
I can't watch real porn with guys in it. Has to be solo/lesbian or hentai.
There's nothing in that statement that goes against what he advocated for and is 100% correct
burger mind rot is that anything that isn't tailored for minority consumption isn't solving minority issues and is also racist. Nothing but liberal idealism
>>1053910>the american branch of the organization was purge of its anti-racist elements
sounds like something a lib lying about marx would say
vid related, lenin doing a liberalism according to you
The common view as Marks and Engels being egalitarians is false. They did not desire an egalitarian social order. They were rather racist actually and seen "inferior races" as a hindrance to the revolution
>"There is no country in Europe which does not have in some corner or other one or several ruined fragments of peoples. Among all the large and small nations of Austria, only three standard-bearers of progress took an active part in history, and still retain their vitality - the Germans, the Poles and the Magyars. Hence they are now revolutionary. All the other large and small nationalities and peoples are destined to perish before long in the revolutionary world storm. For that reason they are now counter-revolutionary."
>"The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that too, is a progress."
(Engels, 1849 - The Magyar Struggle)
Good thing we just take their methods of analysis and worthwhile contributions and don't worship them as people, right? Sometimes they get treated the way Americans treat Jefferson and Franklin, endlessly discussing their personal lives and what their opinions would be on x thing today. It doesn't matter. They were assholes like all 19th century bourgers. What matters is the usefulness of their thoughts.
They probably would have gotten themselves sidelined if an actual revolution happened and they tried to have any hand in leading. Marx wasn't gonna be president of the communist federation of europe, he would have been a Michel Aflaq-esque figure at best.
peak retard post, insane chinlet
note, Marks wasn't free from ideology of his own time. Besides that, what >>1054411
said. I might add that, Marx's and Engels' proposition about races was overturned if we consider that countries with revolutions weren't primarily "european".
>>1054384>Using a quote from Che's edgy younger college days before he was ever politically conscious
Yeah not gonna read sorry uygha
What is it with people treating everything like religious dogma
Marx called people Jewish niggers, do you think that's what people read him for?
It's nice to watch, read or hear something you can find relatable, on pic related I don't think there's any political value, but it can have by showing something like a shitty work place that people will recognize as their own but showing a path to try to make it better such as unionizing.
>>1050471>Leftist point on representation
Liberal representation is just an euphemism for divide-and-conquer identity politics. Marxist representation (in this case) manifests in the form of solidarity and working in commonality towards a shared future.
Oh it’s the polyp who tried to redpill us on race realism with Marx a few months ago
That wasn't me. I was answering OP you retard. They asked the viewpoint of race from Marx. Why is everyone getting so pissy?
Literally tossing in a che quote that che guevara disavowed later in his life and sayingg “I’m talking about Marx?”
Yeah it shows you Marxism traditionally never gave a shit about race and anything that does is a later development. If I remove the Che Guevara quote the point still stands. So what?
>>1057302>Quote from someone before being a marxist <Uses it to make a point about Marxism
Why are you people such dishonest wastes of flesh
When it was useful to abandon his previous racial views to fight in the Cuban revolution, he readily did so. When it was convenient to use racial stereotypes to cover-up the deficiencies of his fellow Cubans he didn't
I mean I'm Pakistani and my specific ethnic group is less then 1% of the population, there is no chance in hell that my people represented that often and frankly we don't give a shit,
Why are you lying?
It's sheer fantasy. It's a good way to deceive working class minorities , who collectively form the majority of the proletariat worldwide, into thinking capitalism acknowledges them. Why not "represent" all those black and brown people with access to healthcare, affordable housing, clean drinking water, and safe neighborhoods ? Power fantasies are a clear ideological opiate to deceive the masses into thinking they have some control in an obvious attempt at deflecting any awareness of the relations of production which often subordinate these minorities as a class along racially coded lines.
Along similar lines, these media representations present the illusion that progress is happening for these minority groups, because wow, look! Powerful women and blacks are shown in the movies! You can do it too! When in reality this is all pantomime and the underlying material conditions remain unchanged.
I can't watch real porn or hentai with women in it. Needs to bara or muscle on muscle.
>>1050790>People from an underrepresented group aren't allowed to just be people or just people from that group. They have to be like cultural ambassadors who put the best foot forward for the group, and that usually comes at the expense of being a compelling character in their own right.
It's like this in real life.
If you are the only one from <X group>, then you are treated as a representative and everything you do reflects on that group. This happens with race and nationality obviously. But as a child, I even remember it happening with <X school>, <X neighborhood>, etc.
>>1052326>If you say pancakes are better than waffles you'll probably get death threats
Unique IPs: 62