Why do you think there is connection between this stupidity and being straight? If we talk about topics like the origins of family and the means of productions and why the patriarchy developed, the reasons is actually not heterosexuality

Is this something a common straight person seriously assume?

So if I comment not seriously to such comment with :"Of course watching some bisexual gangbang with twinks", you would also say:"Unbelievable, are they OK, how can they seriously think about such thing?". I read this all as a joke, it is a joke. Why do you think is this meant seriously and why is the person straight?

Seeing family and friends for the first time along with going outside and seeing and enjoying nature.

What exactly is your problem? Do you don't understand, that it is meant not serious, but as a joke? Or because it is something sexual?

What is the connection here to straight? These mostly sounds like not a serious comment. However, would I be blind for a time and then cured, reading Yaoi again would be on my list as well

Does Hongkong work too?

This is cursed

Watch this:

https://youtu.be/6P5Nf7xzXS0

And second part:

https://youtu.be/QNNKHYzeuj4

It is breath taking. It is my "every Marxist should watch it" movie. So many topics in this film. Idk how to describe it. It is one of the best kinds of art humanity has ever created.

I ordered in perfect English at McDonalds, where is my praise?

You can have that in Germany. You may be born here or lived only the first 4 years in some other other country and German is basically your first language: You will hear things like "You speak German very well!". If your skin is a bit darker and you are talking in perfect German:"You speak German very well!". I actually answer such comments with "Thank you, you too!".

I have a book, which shows my ancestry back to the beginning of the 19th century rooted in Germany (Immigrated then to Ukraine and then tsarist Russia, later back) and they had their german villages and communities, even refusing to interact much with other ethnic people like russians (Somewhere in the 70s they slowly started to make children with other ethnicities) and preserving their weird old way to speak German till today. Result:"You speak German very well".

Idk what actually you have to do, that people will accept you here somehow. This is absolutely stupid. Even visually I have darker golden blond hair and grey eyes and I am pale as fuck: "You speak German very well." I read Marx in German and speak Russian way worse then english:"You speak German very well!". "You probably like vodka, don't you?", "Do you like Putin?". My grand-grandchildren will probably hear the same compliments about how they speak German very well. Or I am all wrong and Germans simply love to compliment everyone about how one speaks German.

Laughing about USA about racism there, while claiming Europe is so great with that, is absolutely stupid. I remember how other classmates often made fun about someone, who had Father or Mother from Poland, because they are all allegedly stealing. Having this in mind, being from east Asia is way worse regarding racism or if you skin is darker then a normal Turkish person is. The mother of a friend of mine is from Japan, it is not funny what he had and has to hear from others. Also, his German is also very well!

Coming back now: I would never compliment you for ordering something in perfect English, because you didn't do it in flawless German. If you do it, I will record a Video where I say: " You speak German very well! "

I am human. Therefore humans are the good guys.

This a is one of the worst interpretation of art I ever heart. Imagine a Science Fiction movie about how humans put a intelligent humanoid species into slavery. Then this fucker will say, that this is fine, because we are humans. Of course humans are always my top priority. A human life is more worth than the life of a alien bug, because we are humans. But this never excuse actions of humans against non-humans.

This is basic stuff you learn in the kindergarden. Really.

What, german resistance against opening of a Döner Laden? Can't beliefe this is true. I want travel back in time and eat a 3€ Döner. 4,50€ I paid 15 years ago for Lamacun with extra Fleisch and Weichkäse. Then my Döner kept getting more and more expensive. 3,50€ that 4€, 5€ and then 6€. Döner XXL with extra Fleisch and Weichkäse is now 10€. This is sad.

What exactly happened

You need yellow colour, then they automatically think about people from China. They even don't deny their racism

This is a form of animal abuse

France and Germany are already again preparing their attacks against the working class. Also a reason, why Merz attacked Bürgergeld so much. It is not possible anymore to keep going on without attacking the accomplishments of the working class more and more. You only hear about counter-reforms regarding social security and worker rights. But simultaneously they are raising the budget for war and war related infrastructure. Conflicts between the classes are to happen more and more.

Let’s take your Australian as example. Let’s make him a white male factory worker. Could he, despite being a proleterian, subjugate women or non-whites?

Of course. But it doesn't mean that women and non-whites are suddenly a class. Chauvinism does not equal, that the opressed ones are automatically a class. This is the crucial point of your misunderstanding, what a social class is. When Lenin wrote about the great russian chauvinism, it was never about a "great russian class", because there was and is not such a thing. What you are trying to imply is, that I think, that the white male factory worker can not express oppression towards women or non-white, because he is immune to it, because he is part of the working class. And this is clearly not the case.

I can only quote again:

Classes are large groups of people who differ from one another according to their place in a historically determined system of social production, according to their relationship (largely fixed and formulated in laws) to the means of production, according to their role in the social organization of labour and consequently according to the way in which they acquire and the size of the share of social wealth they possess. Classes are groups of people, one of which can appropriate the labor of another due to the difference in their place in a particular system of the social economy.

[LW Volume 29 (German, idk where to find "Die große Initiative" online in english), Page 410]

This is something very concrete. When Lenin writes that "Classes are groups of people, one of which can appropriate the labor of another due to the difference in their place in a particular system of the social economy", then he does not mean, that the opressed and exploited south is now a class. It is pretty narrowed to the question regarding the relationship towards the means of production. The exploitation of the global south you see now is not rooted in the existence of a "non-white" class, but in capitalism - especially imperialism at its highest stage. A social class is determined by the material relations to the means of production.

If he were to do so, does he do so as individual or as part of a class with systemic features that allows him to enact his power?

Which class? I asked you already about which other classes you are talking, but you are simply stating, that they are part of a ominous class. Is it the "man class" or a "non-white class"? The oppression of women roots historically in the existence of privat property, divison of labour and and and, but neither women and men are a own class. The same as nations. Oppressed groups are not automatically a class. Classes are linked to production and change as it develops:

Now as for myself, I do not claim to have discovered either the existence of classes in modern society or the struggle between them. Long before me, bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this struggle between the classes, as had bourgeois economists their economic anatomy. My own contribution was 1. to show that the existence of classes is merely bound up with certain historical phases in the development of production; 2. that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat; 3. that this dictatorship itself constitutes no more than a transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society.

source

What is the relationship of the proleteriat in the imperial cores with those from the peripheries?

Imperialism has the tendency to segregate privileged categories among the workers as well and to separate them from the great mass of the proletariat. The real situation of working class in the imperial core and the peripherie is not the same. The existence of opportunism in the working class in an imperialist country does not mean, that entirely new social classes exist, which are as many as nations exist. You have the indian, austrian, australian, vietnamese and ukrainian working class in the historical period we actually live now, but not a whole nations as one class.

And I’m side-stepping your condescension in attempt to answer in good faith but my patience is thin.

(It’s fine not to know and explore. It is not fine to confidently double down on ignorance, which is the impression you are giving off)

Nah, stop with that rhetoric. Your patience is really not part of my concerne. Your understanding, what a class is simply contradicts the marxist understanding what a social class is. In the opposite you are trying to draw something quite interesting: If men and women are not a class, then there is somehow not oppression towards women or what are you trying to say? You are calling almost everything a class, as long there is somewhere a form of oppression. Looking at the oppression of homosexuality, do we have a homosexual and heterosexual class? Because only then the white australian factore worker can be homophobic. How does the class war between men and women look like and how is the situation of the non-binary class, if gender is a class how to stated.

Would you be happy for me to use your responses and turn it into a post? I’m sure you are not the only one who thinks like this.

I would probably be neither happy or unhappy if you do it. But it would be fine if you find time to answer this comment.

As a westerner, you are part of a class that subjugates the global south.

Nations of peoples and genders are definitely classes.

Classes are the result of the social division of labor under the constraint of economic scarcity. Members of different classes differ economically from one another in terms of their position in the system of social production. Or to let Lenin speak:

The fundamental criterion by which classes are distinguished is the place they occupy in social production, and, consequently, the relation in which they stand to the means of production. Appropriation of one part or another of the social means of production and its application to private enterprise, to undertakings organised for the sale of the product, is the fundamental distinction of one class in present-day society (the bourgeoisie) from the proletariat, which is deprived of the means of production and sells its labour-power.

source

Gender and nation are not a class. This is in total contradiction to Marxism. You can talk about an Australian working class, but you can't talk about Australians as a class per se. That makes no sense. Same with gender.

If one is not to consider nations as classes then what part of marxism would national liberation theory come from?

It is about oppressed peoples in an colonised country fighting against imperialism, even if this means that the working class allies itself with the own bourgeoisie. But this does not create a class of its own. In the end the own bourgeoisie has to be fought as well.

What of Engel's Orgin of the Family with regards to gender (which has since been developed further)? Think about the consequences here if you do not think about them as classes.

This book does not state genders as classes. It shows clearly what the origin of family is and how it is strongly connected to private property.

This is not wild stuff. This is basic marxism. Otherwise you will end up with the likes of the ACP and Trots

Definitely not, really. It is pretty clear, what a class is. You can't call everything a class. That seems to be antagonising with something.

Your answer answered not my question. You said, that shedding liberal frameworks goes against our class interest. Also, about which class are you speaking, that we are part off?

Genders and nations are classes for example.

Genders are definitely not a class. Also not a nations. This is wild, where did you read it?

I also propose a Syrian Constitutional System of Government and its simply putting those guys on the picture into a Gulag.

Please don't push your self to hard and look after your health. Starting from when I was 16, I did a lot of things. I had some talent in composing music (various genre) and was quite active in playing guitar, I didn't had a lot free time, because it was reserved for performing at gigs for three bands. I loved writing poems too, read a lot of books and somehow I managed to be highly invested in IT. Education was not a problem at all, school was easy.

Youth can be a great thing, I tell you. Its not like that I am old now (I passed the 20s the last year), but today I can't do this all. The problem is not even work or managing the household in addition, but somehow the energy is not there anymore. Being highly disabled is a reason of course too, but this not the reason for the trend regarding the decline of having energy.

When I was 22 years old, I got the chance to buy the collected works of Lenin. The dude who selled it inherited all this from his recently deceased father, who was a member of the DKP. For 10€ more I got some books by Marx and Engels, a small part of the collected works of Marx and Engels, some Stalin, Ulbricht, Thälmann and protocols of SED meetings. The guy had no idea what he was selling. Together with the Lenin works it was 35€. And then I had the strength and energy to read the stuff somehow, I really devoured Lenin. Lenin is particularly easy to read.

However, I didn't take my limits seriously. Especially because I took into account what the communists of the time were doing at my age. You shouldn't do that and it was a mistake I made. Over the next few years, I simply didn't want to accept that I couldn't do as much as I did when I was 17 or 18. It's still frustrating now. But it was good that I used that time so much for all sorts of things. I just should have understood that you can't maintain a level like that forever.

Basically, I just want to say this: make the most of the opportunities you have now. When it comes to books, I can highly recommend reading Lenin. It's a very good feeling to be able to pursue so many things, I remember that. But in any case, take good care of yourself and try to accept it if you can no longer maintain this level.

We should be materialists and not based on vibes. Growing up in the west and attempting to shed liberal frameworks is not easy because for a lot of us it goes against our class interests.

Which class? It goes not against the class interest of the proletariat.

Hmm well it happened in the US. The country where a 13 year old can be suddenly treated and sentenced as an adult, if the committed crime is severe enough. Receiving a 200 years sentence is a thing there too.

The Anglo-Saxon legal system is an imposition as it is, with its urge to maintain legal continuity (in 1790, a similar legal dispute was decided this way and that). In my opinion, it is one of the worst of all bourgeois legal systems.

The average American likes to philosophise about how wrong and suspicious it is for a 16 year old to have a relationship with an 18 year old. Maturity and experience suddenly play a role and these teenagers are denied a certain ability to be autonomous. But then vodka is only available from the age of 21, under that age you're not mature enough to make decisions. Voting is also only possible late in life.

But if a 12-year-old has committed a crime, then she is suddenly adult and mature enough to be sent to prison. Or if the crime was serious enough, then the justice system can treat the child directly like the 50-year-old John. And some people think that's okay, because only a person who is mature enough can commit such a crime. A 13-year-old goes to prison for over 20 years. The people there are totally stupid for tolerating something like that. I don't get it.

Hey, if they can suddenly be mature enough at the age of 13 to be sentenced under adult criminal law, then a 13-year-old should also suddenly be mature enough to drink Vodka, vote and become president. Replace Trump with a 13yo skibidi toilet Fortnite childe. Only a mature person can have the urge to be a president!!!