What do these people that desire land back think that will look like in the USA and what will happen?
https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1444878758964514817?s=20>>483234>unnecessary with todays automation and general technologyGuess what retard, we are talking about the historical development, it's doesn't matter if you believe women are hekin empowered now
>which i do have a slight issue with. the constitution of those jobs more depends on globalism. it's more like imperialism let's americans work useless jobs and live a pretty comfortable life anywaysYes, and? I never stated anything against this, nonetheless they both get exploited by the bourgeoisie, the american worker faces a lesser degree of exploitation duento value transfer, that doesn't mean they opress the imperialized nation p-bourg.
>>483235Holy shit, this retard does not understand what oppression means.
Nazis were not oppressed by Americans and Brits, retard
>>483233i guess fascism comes out from the aether as well
>>483236>Guess what retard, we are talking about the historical development, it's doesn't matter if you believe women are hekin empowered nowyou said patriarchy also benefits women as a reason why it's different from racism. your defence of this is by pointing to shit that happened in the stone ages. but the argument ad stonium + your logic that if you ever get benefited by a system you are not oppressed by it suggests that patriarchy somehow doesn't involve the oppression of women. i doubt you have been following your own line of thought here (im barely able to) but it's not coherent. you are just flinging shit and fucking speed reading too
>I never stated anything against this, nonetheless they both get exploited by the bourgeoisieOK then why can't people be oppressed by white supremacy then?
>>483242>to shit that happened in the stone ageKek, do I need to quote an example of how the development of the family is beneficial for both sexes on every age of dehuman development now?
Jesus christ
>>483249Sure, against an imperial enemy, sure. Lenin and Mao did too.
This would mean critical support for bourgeois nations like Iran or Syria.
>>483250Look, you are a retarded liberal that doesn't understand historical and dialectical materialism.
The development of patriarchy and matriarchy depends on the material en ironment a civization develops, and it develops organically because it's main motive is the creation and development of a social order. This is not the case for slavery
>>483253>SureSo you are a fascist
>Critical support to the boojHow about no, opportunist?
>>483249>you support LITERAL CLASS COLLABORATIONwhere did he state he did?
>>483252>>483254>if a non-white bourgeois gets to exploit a white proletariat, how.can you claim white supremacy existso women are not oppressed then?
>>483251>Obviously, but the differences between settler colonial capitalism and non-settler capitalism are clearly much smaller than the differences between socialism and capitalism. We are talking about a specific ideological edifice that isn't even universal to capitalist countries, rather than an entire mode of production.Are you sure that racism hasn't bled into almost every aspect of American society and culture? Are you entirely sure about that?
I wouldn't be.
And I ESPECIALLY wouldn't assume that the US is no longer racist today.
>>483255>So you are a fascistNo? It can just simply be a necessity for worker's and bourgeois elements to collaborate against an imperializing power.
What was Mao supposed to do, just perish?
>>483256>where did he state he did?Here
>>483253
>so women are not oppressed then?By patriarchy? No. As a class whose labour is necessary for the development of capitalism, yes.
The housewive is exploited on the basis that shebis a housewive, not on the basis that she is a woman.
>>483260>No?Yes, actually
>What was Mao doingOpportunism.
>>483262I have read that book in spanish and have listened to it in English
Engels recognizes that the labour of the housewive is exploitation because her labour is necessary for the reproduction of capital cycles. He recognizes that the development of the family is organic and that it benefits both men and women.
Do I need to quote engels where he incorrectly states that slavery is progressive because the slave owner gives food to the slave, who would otherwise have to endure hubter gathering? Engels isn't the end to be all, specially since both Marx and Engels understanding of Anthropology is 200 years old.
>>483266Then it isn't a duck, because we're DiaMat here so we know that A=/=A
Also, it is completely asinine to expect people being invaded by facists to just roll over and die. I mean, at that point if you're not allowed to make alliances to resist against that, we're just LARPing and frankly, you're not serious enough for me to take that accusation to heart.
>>483261>By patriarchy? NoOK, but when that anon asked if you denied patriarchy existed this is most likely what they meant
so, now we have that clear, back to the central problem. you give non-white bourgeois as a counter-example to white supremacism. while this is true, we are talking about non-white proles which were forced into poverty due to racialization. i don't see how examples of some bourg blacks somehow means that racialization isn't reinforced by policies by the us
>>483263lenin was also an opportunist?
>>483268>Lenin was also an oportunistThe biggest one, *cough* NEP *cough*
>>483267>A fash isn't fash because he is brownKek
>>482665Calling it a fallacy sounds like it's a mistake and not a strategy. (Though admittedly it can arise by accident with people in a loosely organized group, with the group communicating this switcheroo without an individual making the hypocritical switch.)
>>483142There is nothing particularly conservative about calling out motte and bailey. Racists engage in m-b strategy all the time (plus disguising statements as humor when there is strong push-back) and they get called out on that.
>>483199I believe you have the terms mixed up. Look at the diagram in
>>482665 again.
>>483212Yes, for the US the settler stage is in the
past. Israel is a settler state in the
present. Any sort of analysis that ignores that is rubbish.
>>483274>but surely everyone except lamb rack anon would identify both as capitalismstrawman, again
<>and you wouldn't say that America is capitalist but Japan isn't<No, but you also wouldn't claim that capitalism in the US is exactly the same as capitalism in Japan, because they're not>>483277>back to the m-b bullshit without making a single quoteyou are a troll
Unique IPs: 15