O.O
Online American MLs pls stop being cringe.
What is that title? What the fuck is "Dengist Vaush"? I don't want to watch this. Western Left fix your shit challenge.
Seriously, please. What the hell is a "Dengist Vaush"? :agony-yehaw:
A guy who, unlike Vaush, loves China, but, like Vaush, thinks US is great.
He argues that bringing up slavery and the genocide of indigenous population is "moralizing" and the reason US became an empire is because of the Deep State.
Thanks for explainin', pardner. :deng-cowboy:
:amerikkka: :stalin-gun-1::agony-yehaw:
I don't think he thinks the US is great, he says all the time that US is on the descent & that its imperialism must be attacked from all angles
Also don't recall him saying that bringing up genocide is "moralizing", but it is true that from a foreign policy standpoint, the US didn't pursue anything other than a protectionist & "American system" economic model until roughly the 1880s & 1890s. It was the drift toward taking the reigns from the Brits in the late Victorian era that these issues on the global stage cropped up, in China & Africa most egregiously, but also by the time Spain's imperialist grip had hit a wall
Bruh just watch the video lol. He literally says bringing up indigenous genocide and slavery is “moralising”.
I see that at ~10:28 he says that he doesn't think morality is the basis of material reality, which is true and is the Marxist position. He also says that he doesn't contest that genocide & brutal removal of Indigenous happened
The point is that bourgeois morality & bourgeois right shouldn't be the focus.
Return of ancestral lands & restitution to Indigenous groups should be a focus, but for Communists it's certainly not relegated to this "moralism."
In 1875 Marx calls it a "crime" to "pervert" the Party's "realistic outlook" with "ideological nonsense about right and other trash so common among the democrats and French socialists"
goddamnit Haz is so fucking funny
OF COURSE I'M CHIMPING OUT, I'M A HUMAN BEING!!!
Infrared is a joke, acting like he's the face of MLism is like calling Beria the leaded of the socialist movement
Also he's a piece of shit sexist and racist. As far as I'm concerned :stalin-gun-1::stalin-gun-2:
Lol just look at the comments in this thread to see a few people defending him.
Hi ML here no ML likes him. Only lib larper individualists that like the red asthetic like him.
The american revolution was led by slave owners throwing a hissy fit over a bit of taxes and temporarily being held back from genocide
are you saying the inception of the Cold War wasn't America's coronation as successor to Western imperialism?
How is today's Russophobia & Sinophobia not a continuation of the British "Great Game" in Central Asia & domination of East Asia?
never said that, just saying that the US didn't need a british coup to become imperialists
the US needed the British empire's reach & financial ballast & finally its cooperation to carry out these schemes
Hence why the London-Washington axis is the guarantor of external links between operations like NATO & at least at one point, the European Union's legitimacy
yes, with Victorian era assistance through financialization & aqcuisition & export in these guano islands, sure
American protectionism ending meant that international finance could step in & play a heavy-handed role
Marx says this in a letter in 1842:
"I desired that, if there is to be talk about philosophy, there should be less trifling with the label "atheism" (which reminds one of children, assuring everyone who is ready to listen to them that they are not afraid of the bogy man), and that instead the content of philosophy should be brought to the people"
point out where he says he's not an atheist, he's complaining about people being militant about labeling, there's no argument against the content of the philosophy
he says he rejects the label & wants to treat with the essence & the social context of philosophy itself
In 1844, Marx writes about the critique of religion as contributing to the formulation of socialism, but that "Atheism, as a negation of God, has no longer any meaning, and postulates the existence of man through this negation; but socialism as socialism no longer stands in any need of such a mediation"
This is important because it's still about the material bearing that any of these philosophical renderings has on social life, and on the individual
"Religious suffering is at one and the same time the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world and the soul of soulless conditions"
Dogmatic atheism for Marx in this sense is to attack humanity's means to abstractly or at the most socially alleviate its own suffering
Further, Marx writes: “everyone should be able to relieve religious and bodily nature without the police sticking their noses in"
In Capital Marx writes this: "This antagonistic stage cannot be avoided, any more than it is possible for man to avoid the stage in which his spiritual energies are given a religious definition as powers independent of himself. What we are confronted by here is the alienation [Entfremdung] of man from his own labour"
So while Marx was under the influence of the Enlightenment & specifically of Feuerbach's critique of theology (Feuerbach himself also rejected puerile "atheism" as such), Marx is approaching these things from a historical standpoint to reveal the very human essence at the heart of such striving
Hot take I guess but Haz is a smart dude who knows his shit. BadEmpanada just doesn't understand the arguments being made and also lacks the knowledge which Haz is taking for granted when he says the shit he does. So naturally the thing to do for a low-effort content reaction video like this is to just make bad faith assumptions and dismiss the guy as a delusional idiot.
In case you were curious about Haz's rebuttal: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1168636717?t=00h29m30s
