(February 1, 2014 at 12:53 am)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: I argue against every internationalist ideology, including what they call "humanism" today, as it certainly has nothing to do with humanist ideas of the renaissance.
Humanism tackles nothing. Humanism is merely a delusion, a pair of pink sunglasses that liberal college kids wear.
And I stand by my comparison, as it holds true still. As they believe their ideas to be universal truth, they seek to force them upon the majority that might not agree with them. And when it doesn't, they scream "oppression!".
Equality isn't necessarily an internationalist ideology. I can be, but it generally isn't. It usually starts within a a singular nation in-which the oppressed classes find a way to appeal to the powers that be so that they can have greater rights or advantages. It has traits of being internationalist as it's a fanciful notion that everyone in the world should have equality and freedoms. It's not some kind of looming threat, it's just a nice idea that people have.
Nationalism tackles nothing. Nationalism is merely a delusion, a pair of blinders that right-wing fascists wear. (wow. much opinionated. substance none.)
Holy shit, I agree with you. My main problem with the feminist movement is that it's gotten to the point where they no longer seek equality but there are many radical feminists who want power OVER other people. They want more rights than everyone else and feel entitled to those rights because they're a woman. That's where I stop agreeing though. It's not too surprising for a group that feels oppressed to cry oppression. Did you ever stop to consider that maybe they ARE being oppressed. And even then, why should you care? If they're shot down by the majority then what's the problem? It's good to actually look at the individual human rights proposal rather just making hasty generalizations that all minority classes who seek out rights must just be trying to win one over on the majority. Commonly, people who cry out for more rights, are being oppressed.
Quote:Well, the real thing here is that they think that its always them who are oppressed, and that only they have what they believe to be the solution to oppression, as they believe their ideas to be universal truth, hence their internationalism.
For example, they(the communists) have not shown solidarity with me when the school prohibited me from printing and distributing pamphlets, because it was them who have complained to the school board(full of "ex"-communists) that I was printing out what they believed to be oppressive I guess, i.e. stuff that criticized their bullshit around the campus.
Well, yeah. When feminist felt like they were oppressed and asked for voting power, they felt that their views would solve the problem. That's how these things tend to work. There's still no correlation to internationalism there as these cases are handled nation by nation.
I don't see how that at all is a compelling case that communists don't strive for equality. What was the content of your pamphlets? What drove them to complain to the school board? What have you done to combat the corruption of the school board? How are these people, ' "ex"-communists'?
While I personally wouldn't try to bar someone from expressing opposing viewpoints on campus, I think there's certain lines that should be drawn when something is outright inflammatory and insults groups of people (not saying that your pamphlets did that). My own group was demonized by faculty, not granted club status because we couldn't amend to the ridiculous list of requirements , and the police were called during our first meeting. So I can sympathize with you, but this was done to a Marxist group that invited everyone to come around and discuss their viewpoints. It wasn't so much of a Marxist group as a platform for people to come and discuss their views and to disagree. We welcomed people to come with opposing view points because we wanted a place to have an informed and friendly dialogue.
