Roo vs. Muke

China, North Korea, Libya, Zimbabwe, Nasser's Egypt, Assad's Syria, Kampuchea, Israeli kibbutzim, Somalia, Ethiopia.

The point is, socialism has to be universalist. It can't be nationalist. Ever. As soon as socialism loses its universalist and inclusive nature it immediately descends into fascism.

This is why Turd Worldism is essentially bullshit. There is no way an eastern nation which rejects western, secular Christian Enlightenment values can lead a genuine socialist revolution. All eastern "socialisms" fall into fascism because the East is tribalist and lacks a "there is no Jew or Greek" mentality.

If you think making a typical wage in the first world makes one petit-bourgeois/labor aristocracy then it’s illogical to claim that a white guy earning that wage is a labor aristocrat and a black guy earning the same wage is a true oppressed prole.

I’m not even saying I believe in MTW myself but Sakaism is obvious bullshit

IT does make sense, because Brandon benefits from the settler-colonial apparatus (at least, according to Sakai) whereas Tyrone doesn't.

Who wants to bet during the first 10 minutes of the debate Jason Unruhe is going to bring uphis doxx and accuse Muke of having dropped them?

One can rely on the concept of a universality, independent of particularity - to presume otherwise is to regress to the conception of the 'East' as an essential category, one that would violate the same universalist corpus that socialism would lay claim to.
One could as easily characterize this as simply the passage of event into being, not at all particularly predicated by the specificities of the Christian faith, except in referential context.

You will be hardput to find a single non-Christian country where socialism maintained its universalist attributes.

Christianity was the first religion to not be held down by tribe, race, or language. Even Islam is very akin to an Arab tribal religion which simply became "universalist" only due to empire expansion. When socialism comes about in the West, or a Christian country, it becomes internationalist and seeks to spread its influence. When socialism is established in an Islamic, Buddhist, or non-Christian country, it becomes ethnocentricist, racialist, and heavily fascistic.

Barring consideration of the other confounding variables, of which there are many - to suppose necessarily that the production of Christianity as a unique institutional entity was to the abridgment of the category of the particular (certainly to afford it more gravity than even it may carry) is to assume an ontological basis from constructed or social bodies, all of which are bound to their antinomies and sublimations. This is not to derelict the universalist character of the Christian faith in its nascent form, but that one can appreciate this without then assuming the non-universal derivation and pursuing orientalism as an explanatory variable.
Were we to approach the telos of this particular universal Christianism, for it is certainly not the Christian Universalism of Badiou, we will fully ensconce ourselves within the idea of a monistic development of universalism - which would bind you to the contradictions of equally attempting to prove that Christianity and Universalism necessitate one another AND that the incidences of the modern forces of reaction are derived from this mysterious force inimical to the Christian character and that of the enlightenment (given that the two become unified in this theory). In the end, we find ourselves as trapped within representations of being, subject to static teleology and unable to overcome the force of ideology.

I, in all candor, deny those Christian countries their 'universalist' socialist character. If they fully encompass the breadth of socialist being, then we've failed egregiously.

From whence comes this sycophantic cathexis that we must be subject to a body. If what we can learn from the distinctly European and Christian origins of fascism, as well as the preponderance of the state entity as representation of ethnic or racial antagonism on behalf of its valent population, it must surely be that we are subject to no scalar or purely static conception of thought. Just know that always something slips through the cracks, and can't be explained by a simple set of axioms. There are a huge number of ontological assumptions made that must be accounted for

lacan.com/badeight.htm

Wat even is that?