This is my last post on this thread as it is pretty evident how the consistent Marxists/Stalinists feel on this based on their posts and votes.
Likewise, I am tired of repeating the same question over and over, no matter how amusing the dodging and evasion has been.
Pants-of-dog wrote:This would then require research into the material conditions unique to each Marxist example.
I think that if you did do such research, you would see that this dichotomy of "orthodox Marxist versus cultural Marxist" is incorrect.
Pants,
When it gets to the point that your system is allegedly so complex that it can't answer simple questions like
"are the white working class in the U.S. part of the oppressed proletariat" or
"would it benefit the goal of proletarian revolution to support the bourgeois state's restriction of firearms to the masses right now" It becomes obvious your system is so hopelessly ambiguous, broad, and divided that it could never hope to liberate the simple working folks who are typically far less educated and nuanced as myself and who would have zero tolerance for such
beating-around-the-bush and
double-speak sophistry.
Its pathetic really, but its also quite comforting.
You have proven, beyond doubt, how hopelessly out-of-touch the left is with the working class when it can't even approximate a plain answer to a plain question.
Likewise, the answers you are avoiding are simple and a viable system would be able to give simple, consistent, and compelling answers to these questions; whereas, you wish to contextualize everything into virtual meaninglessness.
These questions are almost rhetorical...(and this goes for you too @ingliz as you are even more evasive and dodgy than Pants, which is saying something).
1. How the fuck would it have made sense to a system advocating violent proletarian revolution to request and support the enemies of that revolution in disarming or limiting the capabilities of the revolution?
2. How the fuck can you say that the white working class isn't working class (proletarian); if Marxism teaches that the working (labor) class is proletarian by definition? You say:
"well its complicated" Which means:
"my system is an ambiguous load of hogwash that is trying to reconcile incompatible notions and still hasn't figured that shit out." The point is, identity politics that seeks to demonize and demoralize the white working class is counter-productive to keeping the proletarian united and focused on attaining a class consciousness as requisite to organization in the efforts of revolution. Likewise, it is also true that any support whatsoever for notions, ideas, parties, and policies favoring the restricting of this class's access and possession of the firearms needed to their eventual seizing and defending their control of the means of production (by supporting the enemies of this class no less, the bougie-controlled-state's-regulations); is
asinine.
No amount of
"nuance" and
"contextualizing" can unseat these truths.
Its that
simple, and those on this thread trying to dodge this question are doing so for reasons that are apparent to anyone who is causally observing.
The logic is unassailable, but some on here think sophistry is more convenient as it gets them out of a bind created by their own inconsistency and hatred for a particular aspect of the class they allegedly are supposed to be supporting and it also gets them out of supporting the obvious revolutionary policies that would keep them out of bed with statist neo-libs who they can't help but blow since selling-out for popularity with the "Elites" is apparently irresistible.
Who wants to talk guns with a bunch of uneducated white men anyway? Yuck. Its glorious.Thank you.This has been
GREAT.