Not in any specific order, they all have their moments for me.

Instead of seizing the gravity of the caste question and facing it, the communists took shelter under Marx’s metaphor of base and superstructure, as though it was incontrovertible.

I think atleast CPI(M) have shown a willingness to adapt Marxism to the current Indian material conditions. One of the articles I linked in the other comment mentioned how:

Perhaps the most important retrograde development is that the entire caste system has become hereditary and transformed itself into a crystallized prejudice structure. Although it is still a superstructure of the relations of production, it has over the centuries acquired a measure of autonomy, and in some ways behaves independently of the relations of production. This is the most distinctive characteristic of class relations in India today. This is also the single most important social reality that the left forces spearheading the class struggle in India must weave into their strategy.

In their 23rd political resolution (latest), one of their clauses mentioned Casteism specifically:

Abolishing of the caste system and all forms of the caste oppression; special measures to ensure basic human rights to the SCs and STs; enactment of central legislation for special component plan for SCs and an ST sub-plan with an empowered committee to monitor its implementation; protection of Constitutional and legal provisions for adivasi rights to forest lands, livelihood and culture; enactment of law to provide reservations in the private sector; filling up of all backlogs of jobs in reserved categories. Strict implementation of the abolition of manual scavenging; strict punishment against practices of untouchability; strict implementation of the Forest Rights Act; caste census to enumerate OBCs.

Oh of course. I assume that the diaspora still has some remaining casteism but I just mean in terms of like political organization it is not a relevant factor over here.

An issue that is prominent in Malaysia specifically is Tamil dominance in politics and of course just general race-based and communal issues. Especially with regards to other Indian minorities like Malayalis, Punjabis, etc.

And I don’t really expect anyone to know much about Malaysian history, that’s all fine.

Malaysian Indian history especially is neglected in the literature as well.

Personally, I have complete respect for my Indian comrades. It was the Indian proletariat that lead the struggle for labour unionisation and became prominent union leaders in our history.

I have heard about this criticism of the CPI(M) before.

Is there any specific statistics or articles that speak on this matter?

Because I know for a fact that there are materials on the CPI(M) website that mentions caste.

CASTE AND CLASS IN INDIAN POLITICS TODAY

and

CLASS STRUGGLE AND CASTE OPPRESSION : INTEGRAL STRATEGY OF THE LEFT .

A relatively more recent article on this subject: Caste and the CPI(M) in Tamil Nadu

This was from a quick online search I did months back when I was curious about the topic.

Do you believe that the party has not adequately addressed the issue despite all this?

Is it a case of not walking the talk?

I am very curious, because back in my home country, caste among Malaysian Indians is considered quite antiquated. From what I understand, and know, it is not as pervasive as in the past, and perhaps the nature of the political economy here destroyed any material basis for caste oppression specifically.

Yeah it’s really weird. The British were inventors of a vicious form of financial capital that is holding the whole world hostage. A cultural tradition of short-term predatory lending and “indirect rule” that controls colonized populations through false rulers.

And we focus on… a local town somewhere just acknowledging their history and holding a community event that has been done for the last 700years.

This is exactly my thought process. I really don’t see a big deal here.

I didn’t put forward an argument in my original comment because I genuinely thought there was nothing much to argue about.

It’s so trivial.

Let the people have fun and participate in community events.

It is, from what I gather, a small town anyways. It will affect like, what, 0.0001% of the entire population?

I don’t really see a problem with this to be honest.

Just a quirky local tradition.

Saw a reel (TikTok? Shortform video?) about a Guy that was larping as a NEET in a tropical country.

And one comment really summed up my thoughts: go back home and get a job lmao.

Why do these people celebrate being leeches to society and seemingly aren’t self-aware?

They get our scientists and engineers meanwhile we get this.

They’re not sending us their best folks

Thank you for enhancing my scrolling experience with these images 🫡

take your opinions elsewhere

I have no skin in the game regarding this current debate so I’ll keep my own opinions to myself for now.

However, you mentioning Brazil’s multi-party system did pique my interest because something similar happens here.

It didn’t occur to me that for most USians having more than 2 relevant parties really is an abnormality.

I shared the full talk here a while back.

It’s interesting to note that even Singapore has started to drift from the West. (Which explains the WSJ article that was published a few days back.)

Of course George Yeo is not Foreign Afffairs Minister anymore, but this view is also advocated by Singapore’s current minister of foreign affairs.

Igauan Malam - Insomniacks right now but honourable mention to When The Moon Shines Red by Powerwolf, I listen to it regularly ever since I first found out about it a while back.

You are set on target, you can see the point when talking about the Quran, that then it’s ok to speak up, even if the country in which it happened, allows for the burning to happen. But then, when it comes to LGBT, the country’s law must be respected and you can’t talk about it.

No. I am historicizing both LGBT people and Islam. I am saying that queerphobia and Islamaphobia are not the same. They have interactions of course, like all social phenomena does, but they are qualitatively different and have different responses.

The nature of the countries in question also affect the situation at hand.

It is you who thinks that being Queer and being Muslim is like collecting trading cards or are just mere identities rather than historically situated phenomena. This is why I treat them differently - because they are.

How is Turkish citizens expressing discontent on another country’s policy in Turkey remotely the same as a British performer entering Malaysia for a concert then VIOLATING the social norms and practices?

It is insane that you are making a false equivalence between these two things.

Over here:

Certainly, there is a dialectic with the nationalism-internationalism question, but this is outside the scope of this response, which is long enough as it is.

I explicitly mention that not all issues are to be resolved internally - there are valid avenues for internationalism.

But it seems like there is no point in continuing this conversation because I realise now we operate in totally different frameworks.

yeah I see that lmao

You say that Malaysia and Singapore share similar cultures, and I agree.

You say that because of this similarity, Malaysia should share the same “progress” of Singapore.

I say that it can’t and it hasn’t because they are not the same. They have different material conditions.

But then you come back and say

I’m saying that is Singapore can do it, Malaysia should be able to do it within a comparable period of time.

I don’t know how to continue. It seems like we are talking past eachother.

If let’s say you were living in a country where Islam was a minority and burning the Quran was legal, wouldn’t you want to have a conversation started and hope that there was some progress for your situation as well? What would you think if others in that country were to say that Türkiye protesting on your behalf would be comparable to supporting jihadist and that should not be allowed?

The reaction against the unprovoked burning of the Quran is objectively correct because Islam is globally oppressed, through wars of destabilization and occupation in West Asia, through funding of Wahhabist and Salafist groups, through neocolonial control of the Persian Gulf states, through Orientalism and Racism. So when these oppressed countries reject this imposition of Western cultural values - it is only reactionary if you are on the side of the Imperialists.

The “conversation” that happens is just further policing of LGBT communities here in Malaysia - what “progress” is that?

When the government introduces guidelines for performers, which include not talking about sensitive topics as well as behaving appropriately, and it was violated by foreigners, shouldn’t the government act? What would it look like if they don’t act?

It would delegitimize their rule causing further destabilization, and wreck our economy. What use would that brief conversation on LGBT rights be for people in my country, geopolitically and materially? We don’t need the colonizers and the imperialists themselves protesting on “our behalf” because it causes more problems than solutions.

Certainly, there is a dialectic with the nationalism-internationalism question, but this is outside the scope of this response, which is long enough as it is.

Also, Singapore’s “progress” is encumbered with problems too. Pink Dot SG, the foremost NGO advocating for LGBT rights in Singapore, had large Amerikan corporate sponsors like Facebook, Google and Apple until the government stopped it. We must question why these NGOs can easily associate themselves with Western Capital without an ounce of reflection. There are no easy answers.

Culturally, Malaysia and Singapore are sister countries, in historical times, they were only recently separated (not even 100 years yet). Not comparable with Hong Kong because Malaysia and Singapore where not given to another country that had different cultural values. They both became independent on their own. If Singapore can talk and make progress for the LGBT community, so could Malaysia.

Singapore is different from Malaysia, precisely because they were controlled differently. Singapore was part of the Straits Settlements, same as Penang, Melaka and Dinding. The strait settlements were crown colonies, versus the indirect rule found in the Federated and Unfederated Malay States.

Are we to ignore that the original reason for Singapore’s expulsion was because of it’s Chinese-majority that would have counterracted the power given to the Malay sultans?

progress for the LGBT community

Again - that word is used. “Progress”? Gender and sexual diversity was more progressive in 1600s Southeast Asia than 1900s Europe. What is “progress”?

Singapore can afford to be much more generous in terms of civil rights because of it’s role as a tax haven for ASEAN economies. The material conditions could be anything but different.

Singapore can “progress” on civil rights while supporting imperialism in other SEA states. Until this contradiction is removed, LGBT people can’t “progress” nor can they achieve liberation.

Also you seem to think that I believe that it’s culturally impossible for Malays to accept LGBT people. That isn’t my point. My point is that for acceptance to occur it means 0 meddling from the Global North of Global South affairs.

Until the contradictions within Malaysian society is resolved and managed, LGBT acceptance will never be reality with Imperialism being the primary contradiction.

Malays live in Singapore, same race as the Malays that live in Malaysia different citizenship only.

I agree, up to a certain point, although I would avoid using the word “race” for it’s tainted colonial history. Malaysia-Singapore has never moved past their idiotic use of the word “race” precisely because they never fully decolonized.

Also this suggests that there aren’t Singaporeans with Malaysian citizenship - which isn’t the case. As we both probably know, Singaporean citizens are given til 22 to renounce any foreign citizenship.

I agree with this at face-value but it is one contradiction of many within a postcolonial or Third World country.

If we agree that the primary contradiction is imperialism, than all other contradictions are subsumed under it. They become secondary contradictions affected by the primary.

If we agree that it is Imperialism vs Decolonization, or in other words, the freedom to exploit versus the self-determination of the Third World, then all attempts at rejecting this imperialist-capitalist system is progressive in nature and anything but reactionary.

Reactionary has a very specific meaning in Marxism, and is not just when it goes against Western values. Is it reactionary for countries to assert their own self-determination which will objectively lead to the uplifting of the lives of the people?

Is the Taliban being reactionary when it was the US that maintained a multi-billion dollar heroin industry in Afghanistan?

Reaction is primarily done by the comprador classes within a (post)colonial society, as it is in their interest to maintain the current or past capitalist status quo. The national bourgeoisie may not necessarily have to be comprador - and that is the view I hold about my current government.

Singapore’s Mufti seems to be more understanding of the situation. Why can’t Malaysia try a more sensible approach?

Sensible to whom? Western observers? Or the people that live here?

Singapore and Malaysia has a shared history for millenia, and already got seperated due to colonization. I agree with that. However, because of that, the situation is a bit more complicated and the material conditions between the 2 countries can’t ever be more different.

It’s like arguing that Taiwan Province or Hong Kong has LGBT rights so why can’t mainland China have it.

The questions we must ask: is there majority will for further LGBT protection and “rights”? Is this event where a White Guy trashes the government and then subsequently leaves for his next tour beneficial for LGBT people on the ground? What are the local and international conditions in which this “outrage” took place?

Why should we be mad at a government in which we already knows is forced to do this, which everyone here knows is homophobic, when this was clearly initiated by those outside the country that can’t even respect our normal cultural practices, and then tries to shoehorn a politically sensitive issue like homosexuality?

Is this for the benefit of our people? Or is it a very self-evident case of liberal virtue signalling?

This then just places the members of these marginalized communities at even greater risk, but of course the West doesn’t care about this.

I personally believe that this is intentional - it was never ever about rights. Making lives worst in Third World countries allows continuous migrant flows into the metropole, in addition to the other effects of destabilization you mention.