It's been said before but MAN does this shit really make you think
I don't feel like "bunch of losers" is standard wikipedia terminology but :shrug-outta-hecks:
Well, just by definition it would be a Marxist who is pretending not to be a Marxist and hiding Marxist ideas in supposedly non-Marxist speech. I don't think very many such people exist though lol
Literally no one in any sort of real power in politics.
But also me trying to play it cool at house parties
Me living next to reactionary af Polish neighbors who are otherwise nice and make good food.
Lmao, so like the ones who only exist in Jordan Peterson's brain
:jbp:
he recently tried to name some. the list consisted exclusively of people who were either just run-of-the-mill non-marxist postmodernists or Sartre and Angela Davis. the post-modern neo-marxist unicorn who can somehow synthesize poststructuralist idealism and dialectical materialism into a single coherent ideology still remains an elusive beast kermit just can't track down.
presumably someone who claims not to be a marxist but actually is. totally not connected to any other terms at all, nope
I'm wondering what kind of person must've typed this, European Nazi or Hindutva Fascist? Ikik :same-picture:
Edit: leaning more towards Hindutva "Trad" Fash especially with the last sentence. These people think Indian history taught in schools and universities is written by leftists and Muslims who focus only on Mughals.
"Dynastic and elite narratives" is probably referring to Gandhi family secular liberals.
I have the unfortunate "pleasure" of personally knowing a cracker who self identifies as a "nationalist socialist" and is deep into Hindu nationalism. He even kind of writes like this.
Don't miss out on the initial offering of MARXCOIN. HODL to the moon on a Soyuz Rocket comrades!
wtf this shit has been thoroughly debunked in academia. love to parade fascist phrenology as science.
to clarify i think the first part is their characterization of older orientalist views, they just wrote it weird. i think it really goes off the rails after that.
IDK what npov means but this section got removed you can check the edit history
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
figures, this is too overt for wikipedians. you'd have to add a section "Marxist uses" under the relevant page and then you could spew hinduvata stuff there
the page actually does have a section on Marxist historiography and it was fine lol
Any historian or theorist or really anyone who pretends to be neutral and not have a bias is either an ignorant fool who doesn't understand the position from which they are speaking, or they're lying to you by trying to sell the idea that their ideological position is natural and neutral. Even when you present "Just the facts" you have to curate your sources and decide which sources you consider legitimate, what parts of those sources you present, and what context you present them in. It's bias all the way down.
the "Aryans" invaded Europe too, the only difference being that unlike in India, they went buck-fucking-wild there.
India is basically the Bolivia to Europe's Brazil. 200M people still speaking a pre-Indoeuropean language, vs. the 1.5M ish that lives in Basque country
So is this perspective expressed here that "the legacy of white supremacist colonizers in India gives the contemporary Indian left ammo with which to attack and undermine the goodly Hindu nationalists who totally don't want to revive reactionary, patriarchal bullshit"? Do I have that right?
That's part of it but they also mention the impact of the subaltern school of Indian historiography which involves studying lower class and common people rather than elites. I didn't include that context on the screenshot but in any case the logical outline of this section is confused at best
Could you say more about how that school ties into the overall analysis?
bit drunk rn and just absolutely going :jesse-wtf: at this, does it make sense to sober people or is it absolutely batshit insane?
It's an extremely tortured sentence but they're saying that scholarship studying diversity in India gets used by Marxists to argue against any form of nationalism. The Marxists apparently do this by strawmanning those positions as all those things listed at the end.
