>>78238

>We still live in the aftermath of revolutionary justice but that seems to be not a problem for you.

We live in the time leading up to revolutionary justice but that seems to be not a problem for you.

>I don't think that a general goal (something also see profit from which things derive) makes obsolete institutions and their regulatory functions

General goal meaning: all institutions should work towards the destruction of society.

>Ehm, it's tolerated like jokes about women being dumb and emotional as well. I don't think that feminists, both white and nonwhite simply tolerate gangsta rap because these people are oppressed, they will criticize them.

Joke about dumb hairdressers and manta-drivers: why are the funerals of manta-drivers held on mondays? Because the hairdressers get their day of on monday.
Compare to rap-songs about rape, prostitution, murder, etc.
Then talk about fine lines.
Would there be a discussion of stupid jokes about Manta-drivers in Feuilletons? I doubt it. We get a public debate about whether an incredibly stupid song like 'Layla' should be played, but a discussion of 'Haftbefehls' newest Album in the Feuilletons like it was ... something of value and relevance. See https://www.zeit.de/kultur/musik/2020-06/haftbefehl-gangsterrap-das-weisse-album-offenbach-rezension-musik

>Just because gangsta rap is oppressive it doesn't mean that these people have no experience with discrimination etc.
>experience with discrimination

You mean like micro-aggressions? When someone looked at them funny? DER RASSIST ER HAT MISCH ANGESCHAUT ISCH SCHWÖRE? Discrimination like Hengameh Yaghoobifarrah has to suffer every day as a Trans-sexual hard-femme-of color with white passing-privilege? Or making only an upper-middle-class income from writing about Germans who -gasp- don't season their food like proper Iranians would?

Or the discrimination against black american gangsters (a minority among black men, luckily) who sometimes are actually arrested and sentenced for their glorified crimes? A culture that glorifies crime (gangster culture) produces more criminals, this is hardly a surprise.
Maybe society is not sufficiently tolerant towards the crimes of the oppressed?

Black live matters (famously led by 'trained marxists') burned down entire city centers. (a form of revolutionary justice, no doubt) Was that justified? Between January 2021 and July 2022, 7277 people have been shot by the American police. 2/3 of those were armed with a knife or a gun. Unarmed persons have slim chances of being shot by the police. 3180 of these people were white -> being white does not prevent you from being killed by the police. The rate at which black Americans being shot by the police is 40 per million, the rate at which white Americans are being shot by the police is only 16 per million, granted. But the median age of black Americans is 32, while the median age of white Americans is 44, and over 50% of all people shot by the police are below 40.
Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/
I doubt that the chances of a white young man coming at an American police officer with a gun are much better than the chances of black young man coming at an American police officer with a gun. Still, demands to abolish the police were made. To classical marxists, The criminal is a socially friendly element. Stalin granted amnesty to common criminals, but not to political prisoners.

>Multiple times have I mentioned that social progress was an idea of the enlightenment era, closely tied to liberal thoughts and that socialism is an heir of these thoughts.

Cultural Marxism is in opposition to the ideals of liberalism. It sees liberalism itself as 'oppressive' and demands that freedoms are not be universal, but that a preference is to be made for the 'oppressed'. (In quotation marks, as I should have put throughout the entire discussion) More liberté and fraternité for the oppressed, do away with egalité - or more like it: reinterpret egalité. Equality does not mean equal treatment, but equality of outcome-achieved through unequal treatment. But when any institution has to recruit for even its most senior positions by this paradigm, its function will doubtlessly suffer. Especially since the 'oppressed' will not be very motivated-their status as 'oppressed' itself guarantees a certain amount of advancement through the hierarchy.

>ven technological development is largely funded by economic actors not democratically controlled institutions, economic power and profit interests decide the course of scientific discovery and applied sciences.

Why should any investment be made when there is no chance to recoup that investment? Even a communist economy should try to avoid wasting capital and labor on such endeavors, although it would be chronically unable to do so.
Market prices are how we determine the value ascribed to goods. The freer the market, the more accurate this metric becomes. In an un-free economic system, the information on the value assigned to goods are lost.