/siberia/ - Off-topic

Thats because orthodox Marxism is predicated on the belief that the revolution will happen in the part of the world with the most developed productive forces, which in this case is America. If this can't happen because American workers are fattened up by loot of conquest as third worldists said then the logical step is that you should pin your hope in the Third World.
But the Third World does not and cannot have communism because their productive forces are not developed enough. Their focus, even during the heyday of Fanonianism is to have sustainable development and political autonomy, not abolition of the present state of conditions. See also Mao getting friendly with the petit bourgeois (and eventually the national bourgeoisie, to the point that today you have people in the PRC thread praising the CPC for crushing labour unions and ensuring a profitable export economy.)

With this being the case their goals slowly but surely start aligning with these states and governments, and they went from radicals saying that we need Global Maoism into becoming Socdems who support Dengism and Iran and whatever else. They have become in effect apostates although they still claim to be more radical than any other leftists

So true bestie, the real struggle isnt between classess but races.

>>719997
literally no one said that. why do whiteoids wanna be oppressed so badly

>>720072
hallucinations going strong here

>>719991
i don't care what the book says, every person who touts it is contrarian past the point of saving and will claim that any type of organizing in the first world is pointless

>>720075
>I-I don't know what you're talking about!
Why are Sakoids so disingenuous?

>>720122
Why don‘t you start listing some example buddy

>>720125
On the first point, I can't prove a negative. Go look, it isn't there.

On the second point, one part that left me scratching my head was when it claimed that New Orleans was a hub of radical activity with no other evidence than it being minority white. I am unaware of New Orleans having ever been particularly radical. It was different, I'll grant you that, but it was different in a "it had a caste of mixed-race slave owners" way, not in a communist or proto-communist way, which is what the book implies.

On the third part, in the part about Reconstruction, it just straight up brings out the servile insurrection myth used in Birth of a Nation, but frames it as some kind of "New Afrikan" revolution that was supposedly "proletarian" in nature (implying that it was either communist or proto-communist.) There was some minor unrest during Reconstruction, but there was no servile insurrection. That is a KKK myth.

>can't get over
The doomerism of that claim is idpol. It's quite easy to get over it and many do.

>>719991
Sakai is only right in saying that white proletariat is not conscious. Proletariat in general is not conscious. Consciousness resides in the party.

>>720130
Yes this is what Marx said