Why does it feel like so much “anti-imperialism” has very little — if anything — to do with anti-imperialism and is simply Muslim identity politics?
For instance, why would anyone compare Pakistan to Palestine, when the former is a sovereign nation that was a close US ally during the Cold War and the latter a stateless nation that’s been fighting a 77+ year guerrilla war against one of the most brutal armies in the world and is now facing an all-out genocide? Pakistan and India are both bourgeois states with close ties to the US that both frequently imprison communists. To compare Pakistan to Palestine, in that western activists have a moral duty to hold mass protests waving Pakistani flags and boycott anything Indian is fucking stupid.
Yeah, I’m not shilling for India. But this shit is theoretically weak af.
Also, why does it seem like in every political conflict involving Muslims (except for China vs the Uyghurs) leftists always insist on taking the “Muslim side”? Look at Ethiopia vs Somalia or Christians vs Muslims in Nigeria, for instance. During the Cold War this would have made perfect sense, because the side fighting against the side backed by the West could be allied with the USSR and utilized to fight western capitalists. Today, not so much.
I’d love to understand the logic here.
67 posts and 5 image replies omitted.>>2262385Campist brainlets must uphold the narrative of the current imperialist power they root for uncritically. They can't exist vicariously through Ba'athist Iraq since it no longer exists so they no longer have interest in supporting it, instead they turn to Islamist Iran condemning the now obsolete Ba'athists in the process.
If it was the other way around we would be hearing leftists complain about how Israel and the US armed Islamists in Iran and put them in power aktuahly
>>2259707If India is imperialist so is Mexico and Thailand(its not)
>>2261060Russia isn't imperialist
>>2258756So true!!
Reject the Hamas Islamists!
reminder "islamist" critique is pure idealism. Marx already criticized religion definitively centuries ago. Read theory before saying dumb CIA shit. >>2258756>Also, why does it seem like in every political conflict involving Muslims (except for China vs the Uyghurs) leftists always insist on taking the “Muslim side”? Only retards look at the world through these lens. There is no truth to this.
Leftists in the West support the Uyghurs, just as they supported other CIA and Saudi backed MUSLIM terrorists, anyways. The reason to critically support a specific group is for geopolitical economic analysis in line with the global socialist project. Not religion, you fucking dumbass.
>>2263668I'm Iraqi you retarded faggot
What part of calling out your critical support for US-backed reactionaries is pro-US exactly? You're a liberal so I sadly have to bring myself to your level in order to deconstruct your thought process
>>2263794>muuhh islamismWhat 0 reading does to a mf
>>2263775Literally yes, you fucking retard. Read Marx's critique of Feuerbach and Bauer. Like hownew.ru?
>The purely national character of these questions and solutions is moreover shown by the fact that these theorists believe in all seriousness that chimeras like “the God-Man,” “Man,” etc., have presided over individual epochs of history (Saint Bruno even goes so far as to assert that only “criticism and critics have made history,” [Bruno Bauer, Charakteristik Ludwig Feuerbachs] and when they themselves construct historical systems, they skip over all earlier periods in the greatest haste and pass immediately from “Mongolism” [Max Stirner, Der Einzige und sein Eigenthum] to history “with meaningful content,” that is to say, to the history, of the Hallische and Deutsche Jahrbücher and the dissolution of the Hegelian school into a general squabble. They forget all other nations, all real events, and the theatrum mundi is confined to the Leipzig book fair and the mutual quarrels of “criticism,” [Bruno Bauer] “man,” [Ludwig Feuerbach] and “the unique”. [Max Stirner] If for once these theorists treat really historical subjects, as for instance the eighteenth century, they merely give a history of ideas, separated from the facts and the practical development underlying them;
The Mossad agent needs to fucking read to be more convincing.
Mossad poster BTFOd 2 centuries ago.
The entire body of German philosophical criticism from Strauss to Stirner is confined to criticism of religious conceptions. [The following passage is crossed out in the manuscript:] claiming to be the absolute redeemer of the world from all evil. Religion was continually regarded and treated as the arch-enemy, as the ultimate cause of all relations repugnant to these philosophers. The critics started from real religion and actual theology. What religious consciousness and a religious conception really meant was determined variously as they went along. Their advance consisted in subsuming the allegedly dominant metaphysical, political, juridical, moral and other conceptions under the class of religious or theological conceptions; and similarly in pronouncing political, juridical, moral consciousness as religious or theological, and the political, juridical, moral man – “man” in the last resort – as religious. The dominance of religion was taken for granted. Gradually every dominant relationship was pronounced a religious relationship and transformed into a cult, a cult of law, a cult of the State, etc. On all sides it was only a question of dogmas and belief in dogmas. The world was sanctified to an ever-increasing extent till at last our venerable Saint Max was able to canonise it en bloc and thus dispose of it once for all.
The Old Hegelians had comprehended everything as soon as it was reduced to an Hegelian logical category. The Young Hegelians criticised everything by attributing to it religious conceptions or by pronouncing it a theological matter. The Young Hegelians are in agreement with the Old Hegelians in their belief in the rule of religion, of concepts, of a universal principle in the existing world. Only, the one party attacks this dominion as usurpation, while the other extols it as legitimate.
Since the Young Hegelians consider conceptions, thoughts, ideas, in fact all the products of consciousness, to which they attribute an independent existence, as the real chains of men (just as the Old Hegelians declared them the true bonds of human society) it is evident that the Young Hegelians have to fight only against these illusions of consciousness. Since, according to their fantasy, the relationships of men, all their doings, their chains and their limitations are products of their consciousness, the Young Hegelians logically put to men the moral postulate of exchanging their present consciousness for human, critical or egoistic consciousness, and thus of removing their limitations. This demand to change consciousness amounts to a demand to interpret reality in another way, i.e. to recognise it by means of another interpretation. The Young-Hegelian ideologists, in spite of their allegedly “world-shattering" statements, are the staunchest conservatives. The most recent of them have found the correct expression for their activity when they declare they are only fighting against “phrases.” They forget, however, that to these phrases they themselves are only opposing other phrases, and that they are in no way combating the real existing world when they are merely combating the phrases of this world. The only results which this philosophic criticism could achieve were a few (and at that thoroughly one-sided) elucidations of Christianity from the point of view of religious history; all the rest of their assertions are only further embellishments of their claim to have furnished, in these unimportant elucidations, discoveries of universal importance.
It has not occurred to any one of these philosophers to inquire into the connection of German philosophy with German reality, the relation of their criticism to their own material surroundings.
>>2263824to read too many books is harmful
you are a good example of that
>>2270873>Mohammad Hijab, Ali Dawah, Smile2JannahSalam akhi, I listened to videos and podcasts of these guys and they all say that the free market was ordiened by allah himself
So I recommend you either read Marx and leave the opium aside like I did or admit that you're a liberal Islamist
>>2270892Marxism is islamophobic
Follow the Holy scriptures or follow your jewish prophet Marx. You cannot have both
>>2270894>Hitlerpol has made reactionary Islamists feel welcomelol lmao hahah xdddddd
My holy scripture is capital and my prophet is Marx
>>2263863to have read none is even worse
this thread reeks of mossad hasbarist nonsense.
<have you ever considered that le israel is le progressive force in the middle east and that supporting palestine is literally doing a hecking unwholesome muslamic shareeya law? don't you care about womens rights and stuff bro? Unique IPs: 28