This is what happens when you don't read.
Point me to where I said that identity is foundational when it comes to political struggle. Identity is about how people relate to the current world in their practice, but they are not fully conscious of the reality of their practice itself when they perform whatever actions they do. This practically-unconscious domain is where we find class relations, particularly as it concerns the proletariat, who do not in any way need to identify as proletarians to be proletarians. Even if they do call themselves proletarians and act as proletarians, in fact, they do not necessarily act as a unified class (one can identify as a proletarian but also be a scab), and even when they do, it is not necessarily with the Communist project in mind. Nevertheless, this business about me sidelining class in the analysis isn't as relevant as you are saying it is, since that is not what you are saying you are isolating within my text as the concern for your objection. You point to my words about the necessity of choosing an identity of no identities as evidence of me being an identity-reductionist. I did not say that the Communism is reducible to proletarians doing this. It is one of several requirements! Communism is a conscious project, and as such it requires that people settle upon some kind of identity at some level, even if it is not of the same sort as the identities which we are used to encountering and buying into in our world of bourgeois politics. Again, if you were bothered to put together the pieces of what I've been saying over and over again - that an identity is related to how we understand our footing in the world and what we should be doing alongside how we act in our practice; that Communism hinges upon consciousness of the world as part of its project of radical practical criticism and engineering of all that exists - this would be very fucking clear to you.
Stop ignoring what I've said:
Is Capital Itself Bad?
Read the critique of the gotha program
half of my slaves are women i am progressive.
Capital on it's own isn't bad. Hell, it in of itself is critical in order to reach a higher stage of development within society. The main problem rests in how it has been and is accumulated within Capitalist society as a whole, (CEOs extracting it from workers and hoarding it for themselves to increase profits yada yada). Capital can be eventually used to benefit society as a whole when it is re-distributed to benefit the people as a whole.
checks out
As other people have pointed out, "capital" is a thing with multiple meanings even within marxist terminology, but that aside, what are you arguing he didn't read or understand about Marx?
They will always criticize and ridicule the tank until the enemy is at the gates
This guy named carl wrote a great book on capital, he even named it "the capital"
Give it a once over OP
sjw fag
You are an idealist retard who will probably be mulched in the coming years, maybe TV is a hobby more fitting for you.