[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / edu / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ wiki / twitter / cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internet about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon
leftypol archives


File: 1714855971062.png (207.18 KB, 351x400, animesmoking.png)

 [View All]

Is Tribalism, ethnocentrism, and preference for ones own people, religion, and culture inevitable? And if so, doesn't this hurt the universalism of communism? Is homophily just "human nature" and built into the hunter gatherer id of humans?

>Tribalism is the state of being organized by, or advocating for, tribes or tribal lifestyles. Human evolution has primarily occurred in small hunter-gatherer groups, as opposed to in larger and more recently settled agricultural societies or civilizations. With a negative connotation and in a political context, tribalism can also mean discriminatory behavior or attitudes towards out-groups, based on in-group loyalty.
114 posts and 18 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 

File: 1715305237015.png (120.05 KB, 565x411, Still trust you.PNG)

>>1850176
>Then you’ve got America’s UN representative, a Black Woman, callously vetoing against any resolution that would help Palestinians. But when the topic of things like America’s brutal foreign policy

When it comes to American leftism, its very complicated threading the needle when it comes to racial politics. You got to wade through rightful racial mistrust and also white guilt/resentment. It requires a lot a tact and you're right about this

>America’s brutal foreign policy gets brought up it’s White Americans and solely White Americans that get the blame.


I'm one the anons that has brought up completing the melting project because that shit is already almost done cooking. Black Americans don't want to be seen as some other, they want to be recognized for being Americans and putting in their work in creating this nations wealth and culture. They want to be made whole and there is a lot of confusion in the black community right now cause they can see the black bourgeoisies actively working against them. On the flip side you got the white community, especially the white working class who got the 80s crack epidemic handed to them in the 2000s with opioids. Who are told to suck it up cause their white, shit like what Hillary was doing. So either you got these liberal whites trying to atone for their white guilt or think they're about to be great replaced and it creates an atmosphere of inaction on all sides. Of course you got all the grifters every race playing off the theatrics. What the working class in America is starting to realize is it doesn't matter what color the person in power is. They're still a greedy American pig and they're also taking money from Israel.

>But in spite of all of that I get condescending little shits sneering it’ll never be good enough, that it can never go far enough, you attend the protests, tear down fascist propaganda, try to learn dutifully and assist where you can, and you get some asshole telling you you’ve done “the bare minimum”. You get thrown into a category and blamed whenever anything outside your control happens, and told that unless you scrape and beg and put on some act of hating yourself you’re not being an ally.


People that talk like that I see as wreckers and general just let them say their peace and keep on trucking. I'm not going stop fighting for black liberation cause I'm white and yeah maybe I could do more but I got other shit going on. The people you're helping will remember and care, the wreckers shouting from the sidelines trying to goad you into racism or apathy will be forgotten. Don't let the miserable haters drag you down CPUSA anon. I think you've been really on to something and getting close to threading that needle. When I read your one of your articles on substack. I can't remember the one but you said something like

>Americans will have to become the slaves and the master


That was perfect, Americans want reconciliation, they want a path forward out of the miasma of our narrow politics that rely on keeping us divided.

 

>>1850176
You are being overly invested with the immediate social feedback. While it sucks that some people are dismissive of your efforts or demand you be servile, you should be doing something because it's morally right or strategically correct.

We all want to be exclusively praised but it will never happen. There will always be someone who hates your guts, treats you with condescension or wants you to be servile, even when you are on the same side. But so what? If you need to work with them temporarily just try to ignore their shitty attitude and move on as fast as possible.
However, depending on the situation, people giving you shit might be a signal something is wrong, but if it has any validity they should back it up with real arguments not just attitude and social pressure.

Also, it seems that Solidarity as some vague ideal seems to be overly emphasized by liberals and left libertarians because they don't want a workers' state to enforce action. Not that it doesn't have it's uses but I wouldn't use that as a crutch to lean on.

 

>>1850176
serious question, do you think an appropriately tough and action oriented communist movement would appreciate an exasperated defense of mosley?

 

>>1851005
>>Americans will have to become the slaves and the master
This is literally what finance capital has been trying to get us to do, the ideal capitalist "worker".
>That was perfect, Americans want reconciliation, they want a path forward out of the miasma of our narrow politics that rely on keeping us divided.
Kek, fascist

 

File: 1715520032022.jpeg (613.14 KB, 807x948, IMG_7149.jpeg)

>>1850176
> And I think the great irony of it all is that Sakai is pretty obviously, if not a Black Fascist himself, sympathetic to Black Fascism—a hell of a lot more than he’s sympathetic to communism at least. I would even go as far as saying that if you were to compare his and Mosley’s statements, the latter comes across as arguably less racist than the former. But whenever I’ve pushed against Sakai on the Left, I’ve been told it’s a step too far to call him an idiot, or assert that I have any kind of visceral dislike of him. I’ve been told that even if I “disagree” with him I have to understand “Black anger” or what have you and give him some legitimacy in that context. Of course such a charity isn’t extended to Mosley who, for all he was wrong about, didn’t purposely misquote Communists like Sakai did, as far as I’m aware.
Shit like this is the most on-the-nose example of how the anti-Sakai posting here has always been thinly veiled white idpol and a product of the general background of especially the original leftypol
>Uhhh Sakai is more racist than the literal British fascist that was pro-Hitler during the Holocaust! Why? Well he said white workers aren’t proles and that’s super mean and it hurt my feelings, he’s the reason why radlibs hate white males, not people like polyps, anti-SJWs, and myself, it’s because of an obscure 80s writer under a pen name! Sure, the book was written to try to answer why unions were anti-Civil Rights and pro-Vietnam War, but that doesn’t matter, because muh feelings!
I don’t think you’ve ever read J Sakai if you think he’s a “black fascist” of all things. I’ve never read Settlers, but I’ve read an essay of his called the Shock of Recognition, analyzing historical and contemporary fascisms, written around 2002. Like you, he actually combined historical materialism with what fascists said of their own ideology, unlike you he didn’t come away with a purely idealist analysis that sympathizes with fascism.
It’s ironic to say Sakai would be okay with black fascism, because in the Shock of Recognition, in addition to analyzing groups like the Taliban as Islamic fascists, he actually talks at length about groups like the NoI and modern gang culture while discussing what he saw as an emergent and very dangerous Afro-American fascism.

Honestly I think you know more about what other white leftypolers told you about Sakai’s outlook than having actually read anything Sakai himself wrote, which seems typical, for a certain kind of white communist who knows of Sakai and takes great exception to his 40 year old writings

>Why do people tell me I should understand black anger when they refuse to understand (sympathize with) the anger of some petty booj anglo fascist?

Because the anger of black communists towards guys like you isn’t remotely comparable to the anger of a suburbanite polyp at the jews?

 

>>1848137
>>1850176
wow what a wall of text.

Can someone explain why white American voters seem to be so much further left than black/brown ones? Look at the Sanders 2016/2020 campaign his supporters were overwhelmingly young and white while it was older MSNBC blacks who were against it.

Are sakaists actually just wrong and its actually anglos who are the most socialistic?

 

>>1852488
>White voters seem much further left than black ones
<Literally almost every white person that voted at all voted Trump in 2016 and most also voted Trump in 2020, and majority have voted Republican in most election cycles since the 80s
Maybe you just have confirmation bias and are actively seeing what you want to see?
Young people as a bloc are significantly more left wing than old people as a bloc, and of all groups, I promise black boomers definitely don’t have the most sway in the DNC, Biden’s base is literally boomer suburbanites and no one else, he had a coalition four years ago but it was a fragile one

 

>>1852490
bernie started losing as soon as he got to the conventions in the south having a larger % of black voters in the primaries despite winning blowout margins in the midwest and northeast

 

>>1852490
>>1852505
>Young people as a bloc are significantly more left wing than old people as a blo
yes thats true as Bernie actually won black voters under 30

 

>>1852505
>>1852507
No, you need to couch these in properly accurate terms
Sanders started losing in the South among Southern voters among the demographics most likely to vote in a DNC party primary, which is a self-selected population and necessarily skewed

 

File: 1715539442360-0.jfif (69.63 KB, 850x400, Garvey Fascism.jfif)

>>1852486
>I don’t think you’ve ever read J Sakai if you think he’s a “black fascist” of all things.

Beyond purposely misquoting White Communists to imply they were racists he also dismissed Black Communists that worked in multiracial orgs in favor of figures like Marcus Garvey, who was buddy-buddy with Klansmen and had pic related to say about Fascism/"National Greatness".

And let's compare a couple quotes from J. Sakai and a couple from Mosley and see who sounds the most hateful of the pair.

>Now, there obviously is a white working class in the u.s. A large one, of many, many millions. From offshore oil derricks to the construction trades to auto plants. But it isn't a proletariat. It isn't the most exploited class from which capitalism derives its super profits. Far fucking from it. As a shorthand I call it the "whitetariat".

-J. Sakai, When Race Burns Class: Settlers Revisted

>Naturally, the revisionists always want to talk about it as a matter of white workers not sharing equally enough-as though when a robber enters your home and takes everything you've earned, the problem is that this thief should "share" your property better! Since the ideology of white labor was annexationist and predatory, it was of necessity also rabidly pro-Empire and, despite angry outbursts, fundamentally servile towards the bourgeoisie. It was not a proletarian outlook, but the degraded outlook of a would-be labor aristocracy.

-J. Sakai, Settlers, "White Labor Against the Oppressed"

>When we say that the petite-bourgeoisie consciousness of European immigrant labor showed that it was a degraded stratum seeking extra-proletarian privileges, we aren't talking about a few nickels and dimes; the issue was genocide, carrying out the dirty work of the capitalists in order to reap some of the bloody fruits of national oppression. It is significant that the organizational focus of the early anti-Chinese campaign was the so-called Working Men's Party of California, which was organized by an Irish immigrant confidence-man named Dennis Kearney. Kearney was the usual corrupt, phrase-making demagogue that the white masses love so well ("I am the voice of the people. I am the dictator.. . I owe the people nothing, but they owe me a great deal.")*


Wow, us Whitetarians sure are thieves. Real scum of the earth types. Now let's see statements Mosley made

<Question : Would you seek to forbid mixed marriages by law?


>Answer: No. It would be enough to let our people know the facts. Very few of them want mixed marriages. All the propaganda in favour of such ideas has had very little effect; the healthy instinct of the mass of the people is too strong. Tell our people the truth and revive the old pride in being British. That would be enough.

>After all, for generations our people ran the biggest Empire of mixed races known to history. It never occurred to them to go in for mixed marriages except in isolated instances, until war-time propaganda (for obvious reasons) began to suggest that all people were the same and that any idea to the contrary was wicked.

>To desire mixed marriages is not normal to the British. Nor is it natural among the Negroes. The leaders of the great negro communities like the Zulus are very averse to mixed marriages. They are proud of their stock and want to preserve it.


<Question : Can racial differences never be overcome intellectually and socially?

>Answer: Yes, of course they can at a certain level of intelligence, education and character. The first gulf which is overcome by intelligence is what was called class. It ceases to exist already at a certain level of intelligence. The next is the gulf of generation. That, too, is overcome at a certain level of intelligence or of character. The third and last gulf to overcome-the hardest task-is the gulf between races. Of course, it is surmounted already by men of very great intelligence. For instance, few of the world’s leading scientists in discussing their own subjects, would be preoccupied by the thought that they came from different races.

I mean racist? Sure. Don't think anyone can deny that. Referring to one race as a whole as thieves, murderers, and coming up with absurd slurs for them? (Let's not pretend "Whitetariat" is a term of endearment) No.

And again.

>The civilisation we intend to create must be durable and humane. This means that the Blacks cannot be subjected to the Whites in Africa, and exploited as a pool of cheap, inferior labour. There is plenty of room for both White and Black in Africa, which is still relatively an empty continent. There is ample room for two nations, each with access to the necessary wealth for a full life and a high standard. But they must be separate nations if we are not to revert to the sweating and exploitation of the old colonialism.


Forgive me, I must have my "white people" glasses on because it seems to me "Don't exploit blacks, there's plenty of room for us to coexist" seems a lot less hateful than:

>Even neo-colonialism was too good for Afrikans in the opinion of white labor.


Y'know the most annoying thing about Sakaifags, beyond the fact they can't even spell "America" correctly, is how they'll say purposely inflammatory shit then take any annoyed reaction to a deliberate provocation on their part as some kind of confirmation of their worldview. They'll call White Workers, all White workers, collectively, thieves, murderers, the scum of the earth, and on and on. They'll insist that there can be no solidarity between the two in the most insulting and contemptuous terms. Then when White people naturally throw up their hands and say "Fine. Clearly we can't live or work together. We don't want anything to do with you." The Sakai types will jump up and down and say, "SEE?! SEE?! HE PROVED OUR POINT!"

Let's pretend for even an instance that Sakai was right; then clearly as a White working class guy you need to start thinking in terms of limited resources and a conflict over those resources. In that regard it's a matter of whether you want those resources going towards "us" or "them", and you have to determine that any advancement in the African American community is coming at your cost. If a Black man gets a house, that means you lose a house. If a Black man gets a job, you lose a job. Consequently, every social welfare policy designed to uplift the poor (of which an enormous portion are African-American) comes at the cost of making you poorer.

But Sakai-types want to have their cake and eat it, too. The message to White workers is they should be lectured to, insulted, demeaned, and made to feel ashamed. It wants them scraping and pleading for any kind of "forgiveness" they don't deserve purely because of an accident of birth. But if White workers read that, and, en masse, say "Well it's them or us, and I don't want it to be us." Then Sakai will have achieved a situation that would be truly awful for Black America. It'd be a dismal war of White on Black that would impoverish both, but likely end in even worse circumstances for Black America. Because rather than class consciousness (which will rise regardless) leading to the solidarity of Black and White, it would be segmented and pit the two against one another.

But these are all just casual thoughts.

 

File: 1715540365233.jpeg (974.68 KB, 1340x1130, IMG_7164.jpeg)

>>1852699
Is there a reason you didn’t respond to most of what I said, or am I meant to reply to your personal cherrpicked reply, where you scream and shit yourself because you think a single writer was unfair to white proles 40 years ago, while downplaying a literal explicit Hitlerite’s racism, ignoring the reality that the collaborationism of unions reached a point of literally attacking protestors against the Vietnam War which was after decades of unions siding with racial chauvinism over class solidarity no matter how it affected their class, and ignoring the reality that when Sakai was actually writing America had just elected Ronald Reagan to function as the Grim Reaper of the New Deal and Civil Rights Movement put together

But I guess only imperial chauvinists, nationalists, and explicit fascists are the only people that should be understood, the context Sakai was writing in shouldn’t be discussed or recognized, only Anglo Hitlerites like Oswald Mosley get such a privileged 😴

It does seem peculiar to me that you find Hitlerites that praise nationalism, imperial statecraft, racial separatism, and white supremacy sympathetic in a way you cannot with a self-described communist that criticized the white labor movement (from all that I’ve heard, Settlers was essentially a critique of the racial chauvinism in the US labor movement and US socialists) but that’s just a casual observation

 

>>1852478
<>That was perfect, Americans want reconciliation, they want a path forward out of the miasma of our narrow politics that rely on keeping us divided.
>Kek, fascist
nta but how is national unity, just by itself, fascism? Can't socialist use national unity as a stepping stone to effective collective action?

 

>>1852736
National unity is literally the essence of fascist politics
Literally the annihilation of all that divides the nation

 

>>1852699
I like that part in settlers when Sakai uses that quote about blacks being [made into] a race of scabs as proof of white racism when in context it's actually the exact opposite. Like he had to intentionally misrepresent it, just straight up lie, to try and make his point. After that it's ridiculous that anyone would take him seriously.

 

>>1852749
>annihilation of all that divides the nation
It would be fascist if the goal was to unite the bourgeoisie with the worker.
But his argument was about using nationalism to unite the workers and fight the bourgeoisie.

 

>>1852773
I guess his argument is, to me, the typical historical ignorance of the leftypol milieu
Appealing to national chauvinism and calling out porky as le parasitic traitor to the nation was already attempted, it resulted in the original fascists
Honestly a big part of why this board keeps running back into the dead end of national chauvinism and proto-fascism is the extreme, powerful ignorance people on this board have regarding the origin of fascism
It’s all bound up in tying fascism to being a scheme by capitalists and also ontologically evil that most here don’t actually know many of the OG fascists were themselves dissident socialists

 

File: 1715544678760.jpg (202.02 KB, 1755x2455, Patsoc_Army_Vet.jpg)

>>1852708
>Is there a reason you didn’t respond to most of what I said, or am I meant to reply to your personal cherrpicked reply, where you scream and shit yourself because you think a single writer was unfair to white proles 40 years ago

If you're a Communist or Anarchist you're informed by writers from hundreds of years ago. You're trying to say a writer who, as far as I know, is still alive today, is irrelevant because that was "ages ago" while still insisting he's right about things.

Again, you want to have your cake and eat it too. You very clearly like Sakai and agree with him on some things, but when people respond "Well I dislike him" you huff and cry that they shouldn't even be thinking about him 'cause that was 40 years ago.

>while downplaying a literal explicit Hitlerite’s racism


<Question : Then you did not at any time agree with Nazi racial policies?

>Answer: No, I did not agree and have expressed myself clearly on the point in public on a number of occasions. Our policy in this respect as in others was very different. The reason was that our problem and our aim were both different. Our problem was to conduct a great Empire consisting of many different races, and our aim was to hold it together and develop it. The Nazi Party’s declared policy was to unite all the German peoples in Europe, and their aim was to bring them together in an area adequate to their economic survival. Our policy on racial matters was therefore naturally different from their policy. And now that the war has broken up the Empire and made the conduct of what remains in the old way impossible, we do not change the British tradition in racial policy. We would discourage mixed marriages, but would not repress them by law. We can trust our people under the right guidance not to make them.
>Our British contribution should always be balance and sanity in such matters. There was an element of hysteria in the Nazi approach to these things, which ended in disaster. The racial theme was exaggerated and pushed to extremes. (I speak now of peace time, and not of war atrocities which I deal with in another answer). An exaggerated and hysterical view of facts which are true in themselves can lead to an inhuman situation in which things are done which frustrate the very idea it was desired to promote. It is right to be proud of your own race and to try to preserve it, but not to lose all sense of balance and proportion on the subject.

From Mosley himself. You're promoting a guy who's calling literally every White worker a thief then acting outraged that one of those same supposed murderous thieves is quoting a guy saying "Well races shouldn't mix but otherwise I wish them the best."

The fact you're complaining about "cherry-picking" when Sakai purposely cherry-picked quotes from White Communists to call them racists proves my point, you want to have your cake and eat it too.

>ignoring the reality that the collaborationism of unions reached a point of literally attacking protestors against the Vietnam War which was after decades of unions siding with racial chauvinism over class solidarity no matter how it affected their class


It was White students that were murdered at Kent State. You and Sakai both would be whining that they were settlers. And as for racial chauvanism affecting class; there no longer exists class in Sakai's worldview. Just race, which supersedes it.

>and ignoring the reality that when Sakai was actually writing America had just elected Ronald Reagan to function as the Grim Reaper of the New Deal and Civil Rights Movement put together


Again it's a conflict of resources between races in Sakai's worldview. The destruction of the New Deal was disastrous for White people and a problem for White people. So taking it seriously as a White worker who's read Sakai, the goal should be to secure another New Deal for Whites and upend these politicians who've betrayed White workers. There's no room for sympathy or solidarity in that worldview. No room for working together.

>But I guess only imperial chauvinists, nationalists, and explicit fascists are the only people that should be understood, the context Sakai was writing in shouldn’t be discussed or recognized, only Anglo Hitlerites like Oswald Mosley get such a privileged 😴


You're whining that people are given a book that insults them, explicitly, and they aren't treating it with "nuance" and "respect". Maybe if Sakai were a bit more polite, sure, but he gets the respect he gives.

Also was it "just 40 years ago" and thus can be ignored or do we have to treat it seriously and with respect? Make up your mind.

>It does seem peculiar to me that you find Hitlerites that praise nationalism, imperial statecraft, racial separatism, and white supremacy


Is it racial separatism or white supremacy? Because if races are kept separate from each other and unable to dominate one another's affairs, how is that enforcing the supremacy of any particular race?

>in a way you cannot with a self-described communist that criticized the white labor movement (from all that I’ve heard, Settlers was essentially a critique of the racial chauvinism in the US labor movement and US socialists) but that’s just a casual observation


Well it's really simple: Sakai straight up lied about White Communists to make them sound racist. Dunno why you're ignoring that fact. When White Union leaders pointed out that Capitalists would try to use underpaid minorities as scabs to break up labor solidarity and stir racial resentment, Sakai would come in and claim that they were threatening to lynch black people and telling them to be subservient. I've read Mosley's critiques of Communism and they're fairly blase in comparison: he claims Communists are economically deterministic and deny human agency. Probably his most insulting critique is the old canard that Communists had "aggressive foreign policy". For fuck's sake his response to China going to Communist was essentially "When you beat people down long enough, force them into sweatshops, and deprive them of their dignity of course they're going to go Communist. You left them with no other option!"

Mosley appears to give more credit to his ideological enemies than Sakai gives to his supposed ideological allies. Like I said, I've read plenty of Mosley and a bit of Sakai. The only way you can honestly wonder why I'd find one more sympathetic than the other is so glaringly obvious that I'm surprising you don't realize it. Seriously, do I have to say it out loud? Alright, fuck it: Empathy 101 time.

Okay, so when some White politician talks about "welfare queens" or uses coded language to obliquely attack the Black Community, Black people get rightfully angry, right? If some fucking hick says something like "We've got a real problem with all these 'urban youths' doing crime" then plenty of people would suspect he's just couching his bigotry behind another term. And if any of these people are confronted on it, they'll try to worm their way out of it and say something like: "What? Noooo I wasn't talking about Black people. Why did Black people think I'm attacking them when I talk about lazy people abusing welfare… unless?" If a Black person speaks up when a hick whines about "urban youths" and says he finds the statement atrocious, and the hick responds: "What? I was just talking about Criminals! Not Black people!" Then we rightly agree that for however much crime might be an issue, he's specifically trying to racialize it and that's wholly unacceptable, right?

Again, these Sakai quotes:

>>Now, there obviously is a white working class in the u.s. A large one, of many, many millions. From offshore oil derricks to the construction trades to auto plants. But it isn't a proletariat. It isn't the most exploited class from which capitalism derives its super profits. Far fucking from it. As a shorthand I call it the "whitetariat".

>>Naturally, the revisionists always want to talk about it as a matter of white workers not sharing equally enough-as though when a robber enters your home and takes everything you've earned, the problem is that this thief should "share" your property better! Since the ideology of white labor was annexationist and predatory, it was of necessity also rabidly pro-Empire and, despite angry outbursts, fundamentally servile towards the bourgeoisie. It was not a proletarian outlook, but the degraded outlook of a would-be labor aristocracy.
>Kearney was the usual corrupt, phrase-making demagogue that the white masses love so well ("I am the voice of the people. I am the dictator.. . I owe the people nothing, but they owe me a great deal.")*

He's not even being oblique about it! It's not coded. It's not indirect. He's telling you explicitly what he feels. So what am I supposed to think? That I'm not part of the "whitetariat"? That I'm not part of "predatory white labor"? That I'm not born from the "white masses" that apparently love demagogues?

Am I supposed to think that I'm just "one of the good ones"?

I genuinely, earnestly, can't understand how this really simple thing is so fucking hard for Sakai's minority supporters to understand. In fact part of me expects you know full well why people dislike him, but you're playing the same wormy game that the racist does when he talks about being "tough on crime". You aren't stupid, and I everyone here knows how insulting and dismissive "you're one of the good ones" is.

And yet, this is what blows my mind, you're pretending like you can't understand why we'd dislike the guy calling us a "predatory, corrupt, whitetariat". And after showing zero concern at the guy referring to White laborers and White union leaders in such bitter terms, you act shocked when they sympathize more with the guy complimenting them!

It's fucking absurd. It's like Republicans wondering why they don't have more black people in the party. "B-But we're the party of Lincoln! You should be on OUR side!"

 

>>1852488
>>1852507
Just wanna say this makes a nice little addendum to my post here: >>1852806

>Black voters overwhelmingly vote Biden against Bernie. A few young Black activists try to publicly disrupt Bernie events or accuse him of racism.

<"No no no. You've got to understand, it was older Black voters that voted against him, and maybe they thought Biden was the best shot to win? You need nuance."

>White Boomers overwhelmingly voted for Reagan, leading to the destruction of the New Deal

<"White people are to blame for this! They aren't proletarians, they're whitetarians! They're servile minions of the Bourgeoisie!"

If I recall correctly, the Black vote was also a major reason for Prop 8 in California back during 2008.

 

>>1852806
> If you're a Communist or Anarchist you're informed by writers from hundreds of years ago. You're trying to say a writer who, as far as I know, is still alive today, is irrelevant because that was "ages ago" while still insisting he's right about things.
I think Sakai is irrelevant because he’s largely unknown, not because he wrote in the 80s. How many people know of J Sakai outside of fringe radical circles? Most people aren’t communists and most communists never talk about J Sakai, yet they’re the few people who would even know of him. I’ve actually read more said about Sakai from white socialists offended by him than I have from straw-radlibs that stan him.
> Again, you want to have your cake and eat it too. You very clearly like Sakai and agree with him on some things, but when people respond "Well I dislike him" you huff and cry that they shouldn't even be thinking about him 'cause that was 40 years ago.
I mentioned very directly the only text ever written by J Sakai I have ever read, which was the Shock of Recognition, an essay discussing fascism that goes out of its way to state fascism is not simply a phenomenon of white people or european societies and admonishes leftists that believe so, I’m sure you missed that when whining about me stating you didn’t respond to what I said in my previous comment.
> From Mosley himself. You're promoting a guy who's calling literally every White worker a thief then acting outraged that one of those same supposed murderous thieves is quoting a guy saying "Well races shouldn't mix but otherwise I wish them the best."
I’m sure Mosley is being extremely honest and speaking in good faith while denying his support for the Nuremberg Laws and the Final Solution in the years after the war
At any rate, I never actually mentioned Sakai at all before you mentioned him, because you think my own observation about how certain white socialists behave is “sakaism”, and not observations about people I’ve interacted with online and IRL

Your kneejerk, hysterical response is the sort of thing I was talking about FYI
> The fact you're complaining about "cherry-picking" when Sakai purposely cherry-picked quotes from White Communists to call them racists proves my point, you want to have your cake and eat it too.
I say you’re cherrypicking because you’re parroting snippets of singular quotes from different things written by him and outlining what you think is the important part
Except unlike you, Sakai actually didn’t have the internet 40-50 years ago to go back and see if he was correctly characterizing the people he was quoting, because I’d agree that as far as I know he did misquote some famous US communist.
> It was White students that were murdered at Kent State. You and Sakai both would be whining that they were settlers. And as for racial chauvanism affecting class; there no longer exists class in Sakai's worldview. Just race, which supersedes it.
Lmao I wouldn’t whine about the protestors, but I’m sure you would defend the majority of Americans that supported their murder.
> Again it's a conflict of resources between races in Sakai's worldview. The destruction of the New Deal was disastrous for White people and a problem for White people. So taking it seriously as a White worker who's read Sakai, the goal should be to secure another New Deal for Whites and upend these politicians who've betrayed White workers. There's no room for sympathy or solidarity in that worldview. No room for working together.
If someone talking about the reality of racial chauvinism in the United States and the fact that white laborers historically chose the marginal benefit of racial oppression over the absolute benefit of class struggle offends you this much, can you see why they, someone that lived in a time when racial oppression was a legally enshrined institution, thought the way they do?
Like, you’re offended at Sakai’s writing, but the difference between you and Sakai is that Sakai actually was around in the 60s and 70s
> You're whining that people are given a book that insults them, explicitly, and they aren't treating it with "nuance" and "respect". Maybe if Sakai were a bit more polite, sure, but he gets the respect he gives.
I’m not whining at all, I’m saying very directly that the reason you can apply nuance to historical fascists organizing at the height of fascism’s dominance but not to some new left radical writing after the rise of Reagan is very obvious; when it is showering praise upon you the writing is sympathetic to you no matter what worldview is espoused, vice-versa if it feels it criticizes you

For instance, “given a book”, except, who would have given you Settlers to read, other than some stupidpol type trying to make you feel victimized for being white? I don’t even think Settlers was written specifically for white leftists in the 2010s to begin with, I think it was written for the left being shoved underground in the 80s, it wasn’t really meant to be some treatsie to anger some potential white communist 40 years after its publication.
>Also was it "just 40 years ago" and thus can be ignored or do we have to treat it seriously and with respect? Make up your mind.
I didn’t say anything about treating it with respect, are you mad that I noticed that you’re more willing to hold nuance for explicit Hitlerites over “sakaists”?
> Is it racial separatism or white supremacy? Because if races are kept separate from each other and unable to dominate one another's affairs, how is that enforcing the supremacy of any particular race?
“Separate but equal” was already attempted in the United States, yes, “separate but equal” is just the supremacy of whatever racial group is enforcing laws against “race mixing”
> Well it's really simple: Sakai straight up lied about White Communists to make them sound racist.
That’s fair, I’m not sure if it was necessarily lying so much as simply misreading or not understanding what the individual had said, after all, the world wide web and Marxists.net didn’t exist when Settlers was published

Is there a reason you keep dancing around the fact that you do not feel similar revulsion for open, explicit, Hitlerite fascists with actual influence?

Like, let me sum it up mate:
You are hopping up and down claiming Sakai is completely wrong, and also a super mean, evil, wicked anti-communist and far worse than actual, explicit, influential fascists, whilst you yourself have been jerking it to Oswald Mosley quotes and talking about how you’re getting ready to abandon politics because “the Left” keeps attacking “White People”

Like seriously, this is your argument dude
>I AM SO FUCKING SICK OF RADLIBS PRETENDING TO BE COMMUNISTS AND TRYING TO DESTROY THE NATION, THE RACE, AND THE CULTURE, HERE’S THIS BASED MOSLEY QUOTE ABOUT CAESAR AND SPARTACUS
<Why are you implying I’m a racial and national chauvinist, how dare you say this is something you’ve seen with white communists before, YOU DERANGED SAKAIST LUNATIC
Shit like this is exactly why “sakaists” (POC leftists that criticize the conduct of white socialists) will always exist dude
So long as “Always cater to my feelings or else I join the Nazis” continues to be a thing among white anti-capitalists “sakaism” will continue to be a thing

 

>>1852798
>typical historical ignorance of the leftypol milieu
Didn't it work in the 20th century with all the socialist states though? Obviously the end results were not optimal but that's because it didn't move beyond nationalism. Nationalism shouldn't be the end goal but it can be a first step to overcome racial and ethnic division.

 

Why are you guys defending Mosley or Sakai, they're both terrible. Though Mosley is worse obviously.

 

File: 1715549804058.jpeg (94.45 KB, 722x1024, biden-israel-1.jpeg)

>>1844601
ITT, self aggrandizing and lotsa stroking off, mentally.

 

>>1852847
>Except unlike you, Sakai actually didn’t have the internet 40-50 years ago to go back and see if he was correctly characterizing the people he was quoting, because I’d agree that as far as I know he did misquote some famous US communist.

It wasn’t accidental. He’d take excerpts from speeches and deliberately remove context, like we aren’t talking about him forgetting what’s on page 13 after reading page 1, he would ignore what’s in the next sentence to prove his point. That isn’t “a mistake” as you’re characterizing it, that’s intent.

As for the Mosley being dishonest or untrustworthy, I can find text that’s pre-war and pre-holocaust where he explicitly says he disagrees with Nazi racial policy.

I’ll unfortunately have to respond to the rest of your post later, but it’s still funny you can’t see the fucking irony here. “Uhh you’re not reading Sakai, you’re not giving him a fair shot!” Well, what of Mosley’s works have you read?
>”I won’t read Mosley because he’s a white supremacist!”
<“Well, how do you know unless you read him?”
>”I don’t have to! He called himself a Fascist!”
Sakai specifically called me and other white workers shifty backstabbers. It doesn’t take a genius to see in his writing that he’s a very angry man who genuinely hates us. Why would I want to read that or take it seriously? Just because he calls himself a communist? He’s just a National Socialist for the Black Nation. Thing is you’re so used to the double-standard at this point that you’ve begun to think of it as the standard, and it makes you angry when people aren’t playing to it: chauvinism and resentment for me, sober nodding and guilty acknowledgments for thee. When Mosley restates a position he’s restated multiple times, well that’s just cause he’s a dastardly fascist who’s lying to make his ideas look correct. When Sakai intentionally misquotes White Communists to make them look racist, well the internet wasn’t around! It was an honest mistake! When Sakai calls all white people a bunch of servile thieves and oppressors, it’s the duty of those same servile thieves and oppressors, according to you, to cross their legs and nod sheepishly along, to see him as a “serious thinker” using “serious, intellectual” terms like “whitetariat”. When Mosley says “races have to be kept separate to avoid exploiting each other, but can still live as neighbors” you huff and puff. It’s an outrage! And you demand we all trip over ourselves to repudiate him; not merely say we disagree, but to be as angry and upset at the statement as you are. Why?

Well, proletarian solidarity of course! The same solidarity that Sakai spent his whole literary career taking a shit on. We’re supposed to feel some kind of affection or desire to help the people insisting we aren’t the same, not the same class, not the same people. You can only muster up the most limp fucking critique of Sakai; “oh, he made some mistakes but it’s really the people who dislike him who are the problem!” Then act like it’s some personal hypocrisy when people mirror your position right back at you.

And Sakai is “worried” about nonwhite Fascism? He reaps what he fucking sows.

 

>>1852927
>When Sakai intentionally misquotes White Communists to make them look racist, well the internet wasn’t around! It was an honest mistake! When Sakai calls all white people a bunch of servile thieves and oppressors, it’s the duty of those same servile thieves and oppressors, according to you, to cross their legs and nod sheepishly along, to see him as a “serious thinker” using “serious, intellectual” terms like “whitetariat”. When Mosley says “races have to be kept separate to avoid exploiting each other, but can still live as neighbors” you huff and puff. It’s an outrage! And you demand we all trip over ourselves to repudiate him; not merely say we disagree, but to be as angry and upset at the statement as you are. Why?

What possible logical leap from your criticism of Sankara could lead to your conclusion that Mosley is based and redpilled or whatever about white supremacist racial segregation. It seems you're irrationally whipping to the opposite end of the same argument out of emotion and spite, something you surely wouldn't do if you had any material disagreements with the premise of Sankara's argument.

 

>>1852847
>Except unlike you, Sakai actually didn’t have the internet 40-50 years ago to go back and see if he was correctly characterizing the people he was quoting, because I’d agree that as far as I know he did misquote some famous US communist.
I went and read the book he got the "race of strike breakers" quote from and to come to the conclusion that Sakai did you'd either have to completely ignore everything leading up to it or else intentionally mischaracterize it.

Either way it severely undercuts any credibility he has. He's either lying in order to make his point or his scholarship is so rubbish that you can't take anything he says seriously. And this happens repeatedly in his "work" where if you go to the trouble of tracking down his sources the context points to the exact opposite conclusion that he draws.

 

>>1852944
And tbh the reason that Sakai straight up lies about the quote is because it not only points to Communists coming to grips with the deleterious effects of racism on the movement, but it also illustrates that it wasn't only whites that were at fault. While white people were keeping black workers out of the union, black religious leaders were also doing a lot of heavy lifting to keep the races separate because unionization was a direct threat to their power.

Like you have a communist saying with his full throat "we have to start working NOW to overcome racism in our society and movement and not let the capitalists use our racial estrangement to keep us both in bondage" and Sakai is like "see? Crackers just hate black people."

 

>>1852858
I wasn't defending Sakai, I was adding nuance to the claims made by and about Sakai after CPUSA anon tried using Sakai' existence to justify their own chauvinism
CPUSA anon is part of a subset of the internet communist milieu that sees any critique of white self-described socialists from non-white self-described socialists as "sakaism", so when I stated a lot of their posts reek of national chauvinism and it comes off like they sympathize heavily with Mosley they responded with bizarre off-kilter white grievance arguments and accusing me of being a "sakaist"

 

>>1852963 (me)
To add on since then they've resorted to trying to cover up their retreat into white identity politics and national chauvinism with foaming mouthed rants about Sakai not venerating unions from the 30s or the CPUSA enough and whining that Sakai just hated white people and how if Sakai was right they (CPUSA anon) ought to just become a fascist then (revealing enough on its own)

At least what's telling to me is the fact that CPUSA anon is mainly ranting about how Sakai was mean to white Americans and was dishonest, rather than just explaining why he was wrong from a materialist perspective

 

>>1852963
>>1852966
>I'm not owned! I'm not owned!!

 

>>1852943
I’m sure you’re misspelling Sakai here, I’ve got no problem with Sankara.

My point is it’s an obvious double standard. Minority communists sympathize with Sakai and they won’t make any intense criticism of him, but they’ll demand that White communists completely annihilate even the smallest speck of chauvinism in them. They’ve got no problem hearing vulgar racist statements from their own but act like it’s the duty of the White communists to repudiate racist statements from Whites and tolerate racist statements from nonwhites.

>>1852966
I’ve seen actual scientists argue with flat earthers. The flat earther kept whining the scientist was being a dick, because the scientist kept calling him a moron and wasn’t engaging with his “scholarship” seriously.

It’s fucking absurd. It just shows the blatant double standard. “Hmm, why aren’t you taking the guy ranting and raving about the ‘whitetariat’ seriously and engaging him in sober materialist debate?” It’s because he doesn’t even take his own writing seriously! Read that mother fucker, and it’s obvious he’s writing from a place of hate and anger. It’s fucking seeping off the text! Again, the only reason anyone is demanding we treat him as a serious scholar is because we’re used to a double standard by now.

 

>>1852488
As far as Bernie's loss in 2020 goes, his defeat was largely thanks to the Black political machine that emerged out of the civil rights movement. Radical black leaders died or were imprisoned or killed, while the survivors integrated into the middle class/democrat party.

So you have Obama at the top clearing out all the rest of the "challengers" and then Cockburn disciplining the Black vote in SC, which has the added detriments of being dominated by deeply religious and conservative organizations making them poorly disposed towards Sanders for being a white, progressive Jew, and the history of KKK/FBI activity eliminating any real political alternatives.

And personally, I wouldn't put too much faith in the outcome as being indicative of Black disposition in general, because as we've already seen the Democratic Party will do whatever it takes to get the results they want, so it's not like you can take the primaries at face value.

 

>>1844601
>is le patriotism bad
anarchist detected: read Ho Chi Minh

 

>>1853006
Literally nothing you’ve done actually amounts to a material critique of Sakai, you just, again, keep circling back to him being mean to white Americans, so mean that it’s somehow encouraging you to read Mosley, and also something something darkie commies aren’t as heckin mad at Sakai as you think they should be

Where is the materialist takedown of Sakai’s position? I know you like Mosley and ᴉuᴉlossnW too much to bother criticizing their positions and nationalism anymore, but since you’ve got dribbling hatred for Sakai I’m sure you can at least engage in a materialist critique of his outlook?

Or are you too far removed from materialism by now to takedown what I think actually is a theoretically flawed approach by Sakai, from what I know of his outlook?

Or would doing that and then moving on from the “Sakai” deflection lead us back to what you’re actively trying to distract from, namely, you psyoping yourself towards fascism because black leftists were too mean to white people on Twitter(?)

Ngl at this point idk what even got you this far down the abyss of white grievance posting

 

>>1853025
>you just, again, keep circling back to him being mean to white Americans
Sakai enjoyer admits to poor reading comprehension, shocking no one.

 

>>1853006
I'm>>1852943

yeah I did mistake Sankara for Sakai for some reason. Entirely different figures. Apologies.

 

>>1853023
patriotism and racism not the same thing lol

 

>>1853025
There's plenty of people better than me that have made more in-depth critiques of Sakai, but to elaborate on my critique more.

Sakai's writing style and obvious anger is, in fact, a material critique. Reducing it to just "being mean to White people" is incorrect. The entire premise of Settlers is undermined because Sakai can't restrain his obvious hatred and anger. Sure, Karl Marx could get "snarky" in a few segments of Capital but with Sakai his anger overrides his scholarly arguments. If Marx spent Capital telling horror stories about how the Bourgeoisie treated proles instead of the much meme'd on fixation with the price of bolts of linen, then he never would have gotten far as an actual scholar and his work could be dismissed out of hand.

When it comes to Sakai's actual scholarship it's rife with errors. As I mentioned he intentionally misquotes White Communists to make them sound racist. Again, I have to keep hammering that point. It's on the same level of Homer Simpson's "Sweet Can" moment. The most-quoted example being the "race of strike breakers" where Sakai intentionally characterizes White communists as threatening Blacks to "get in line" when they were explaining that they can't let the Bourgeoisie try to turn Blacks into scabs and stir up White racial resentment (as that would obviously distract from class struggle).

Then there's his poor sourcing. It's to the point it appears that whenever he quotes a percentage he's just making up statistics. He'll reference a stat, say, however many factory workers are in the U.S. (using Bureau of Labor Statistics) then just say outright "60% of these are Labor Aristocrats" without elaborating on how he got to that number. He claimed Lenin once said that 20% of the German Social Democratic Party were "Labor Aristocrats" and people have been unable to find any quote from Lenin where he says such; and given Sakai's prior habit of intentionally misquoting Communists, it's not hard to think that he just made up a Lenin quote.

There's also the very nature of the "Labor Aristocrat" argument, which is that it's used more as a justification after the fact for why Communists couldn't win over elements of the working class, and it doesn't have much to go off of but vibes.

One can say a person is a Proletarian if their primary source of income is derived from selling their labor (e.g. earning a wage) and that's a pretty solid category. A Bourgeois individual derives their income primarily from owning the means of production and that category can follow a gradient from petite-bourgeoisie (usually defined as a "small business owner" who has a limited amount of capital, may work for himself or alongside his employees) to haute-bourgeoisie (the real movers and shakers of the Capitalist world, you don't see Jeff Bezos working in an Amazon fulfillment center to keep his business running).

All those prior terms at least have a material basis in one's relationship to the means of production: working it but not owning, working it and owning it, owning it but not working it, etc.

What makes someone a "labor aristocrat"? Is there any threshold one crosses in which they go from being a prole to being a labor aristocrat? Is it just "proles who make a lot of money"? Well how do we categorize "a lot of money"? If you own one home, are you a labor aristocrat? Or do you have to own at least two? If you make $100k a year but work 12 hours a day in a factory, 6 days a week, are you a "labor aristocrat"? Are certain professions labor aristocrats? Is a worker who saves up some money to buy stocks a labor aristocrat; in which case Marx would perhaps be one himself. Of course, every now and again I won't have a problem making a judgement based off vibes: I talked a friend out of an extremely sketchy drug deal based off of nothing more than vibes, but Sakai uses Labor Aristocrats categorically; all the White masses are servile, racist, treacherous, and so much so that they magically cease to be proletarian; of course, no mention is made of how the Black Buffalo Soldiers slaughtered Plains Indians and whether that makes Blacks "Labor Aristocrats" because ultimately Sakai was setting out to make a claim and then find evidence for it later, the fact he had to completely fabricate evidence in some cases only serves to undermine his original claim.

All this brings me to my final point, which is that for as much as Sakai is a niche author, his attitude and his work is representative of a broader trend within the American Left in particular. Away from what's intended to be a mass political movement and toward a niche subculture, personally I suspect the cross-pollination with Anarchists and the Punk scene is partly to blame. Sakai only serves to give a voice and a text to a general attitude: contempt for the masses, contempt for the mainstream, flip the script so that it's the working masses that betrayed Socialism rather than the Socialists who've failed the masses. The position which has become common enough in the broader radical Left, that radical or revolutionary change has become wholly impossible in the first world and so Socialists have to "undermine the imperial core" (almost always meaning just post like a misanthrope) so the "real" revolution can begin elsewhere. And the big irony is that same attitude is just a mirror of Rod Dreher's "Benedict Option" ("Oh Conservative Christianity has failed! We need to retreat from the world like the monks of old! Then after society collapses we can emerge from our enclaves and achieve a final victory!") It's just millenarian proselytizing from a group that's completely surrendered making meaningful political change. Thank Christ the Palestinian Solidarity movement isn't completely run by Communists, because chances are they wouldn't even get a protest off the ground if that was the case ("Oh the Unis won't ever divest from Israel, and the feds will just break up our group anyways, all we can do is loudly talk about how angry we are all the time while Hamas does all the hard work!")

And if you respond to all this wishy-washy defeatism with "Well if we're fucked here, I still want to do something good with my time on earth, guess I'll just become some kind of radical SocDem" you'll get shouted down and cursed out because you're "breaking the faith." You don't want to seclude yourself in a monastery and wait for the end times to wipe the slate clean. You want to struggle and fight even if you're doomed, not seclude yourself to pray in some cloister. If the Huns are at the gate, you want to be able to look them square in the eye. If the fight's doomed, then it's doomed. If every claim about the struggle being hopeless, impossible, or self-defeating is true, then you can at least give yourself a purpose by struggling in spite of that. Making changes that you think can lead to success, however small. It's sure a lot better than waiting around with your cock in your hands.

 

>>1854403
how is preferring your own people racist?
it is pretty normal to care for ones own ingroups first. your family should come before your neighbours and your compatriots should come before the rest of the world.
if there was a revolution in italy tomorrow you wouldn't go live in paradise and leave your people to the clutches of the bourgeoisie, no you'd stay and be or support the vanguards of your home to achieve the same.

 

pretty simple yeah. its us lot(humans) versus nature and maybe aliens if we ever find them. that's all the tribalism u need

 

>>1861036
Some pigskin yankee thinking a fucking German is more “their own people” than a fellow black yankee can only come about through racism
>Well the German is a fellow pigskin so even though they have a different culture, language, government, history, political system, and economy than me, and although I may even know many black people IRL, I’m more similar to a kraut I only share a skin color with than a black man I share my entire national culture, history, and language with
It’s racist nonsense

 

File: 1716304200861.jpg (70 KB, 898x720, simppig.jpg)

>>1844601
>Is Tribalism, ethnocentrism, and preference for ones own people, religion, and culture inevitable?
No, to be quick and quaint, cultures, religions, and classes (peoples) are all reflections the mode of production that society has. As the mode of production changes so do each of those. Religion is quickly changed to suite the new. Cultures are created or changed to reflect the new. And new classes emerge, with the dominant one playing a role in fostering the new society.

 

>>1861440
this, same goes the other way too even tho panafricanism does allow for a degree of real black internationalism it comes from a political conviction. in the same way an argentine and turkish communist would get along on the basis of politics often better than they can with others from their own country, a panafricanist from mississippi and one from nigeria can do the same with regards to their shared political position, but lots of black americans think of africans as starving spearchuckers and lots of africans think of black americans as degenerate slave-stock, and you see that kind of tension wherever african immigrant communities overlap with black americans

where it becomes "complicated" is that despite white and black americans both having far more in common with eachother, a huge part of american identity is tied to racialization, implicitly or otherwise, whether its overt racism or liberal whitewashed idealization of the civil rights movement

DuBois: "Most persons do not realize how far [the view that common oppression would create interracial solidarity] failed to work in the South, and it failed to work because the theory of race was supplemented by a carefully planned and slowly evolved method, which drove such a wedge between the white and black workers that there probably are not today in the world two groups of workers with practically identical interests who hate and fear each other so deeply and persistently and who are kept so far apart that neither sees anything of common interest."

 

>>1861459
why is panafricanism good but paneuropeanism bad?

 

>>1876385
Paneuropeanism is a pipe dream cause there isn't a place on Earth with more nationalists than the european peninsula. It would be good, but so much power and anti-nationalism would be required that it's better to just go all the way and make it panhumanist. I say that implying you aren't bait and you don't secretly think paneuropeanism is a German or French Empire.

 

>>1876417
the EU already is de facto the fourth reich anon

 

>>1876385
pan-europeanism already exists. "the west" effectively functions as a coalition of european and euro-settler nations, through NATO, the world bank, US empire in general, etc etc. as with all national liberation movements, pan-africanism is the acknowledgement of the reality of some common african experience that is produced by a "pan-europeanism" that denies the dynamic exists at all.

of course youre probably asking in bad faith, assuming that pan-africanism is necessarily an affirmation of racialism, instead of a response to the reality of colonialism and imperialism imposing racialization on the world. you probably think youre being clever saying "why cant whitey have it too?" when the fact is that a neocolonial order in which the exploitation of billions of poor segmented into races and client-states is justified with enlightenment values about equality and universality, that is actually existing pan-europeanism

 

>>1876440
>pan-europeanism already exists. "the west" effectively functions as a coalition of european and euro-settler nations, through NATO, the world bank, US empire in general, etc etc. as with all national liberation movements
yeah but thats not explicitly based on race?

 

>>1883069
it has its foundation in a few centuries of colonialism and imperialism that explicitly justified themselves through racialism, first on a religious basis and then refined into the 'scientific' racialism that persists in the way a few major phenotypical differences still function aa markers for what quadrant of humanity you belong to. because we live in "actually existing" pan-europeanism, the racialist ideology has had to compromise with reality in that people who dont "look european" arent actually a different or lesser type of human, and will fight back when treated as such. so the european and euro-colonial empires are put in a position where the same racialism that formerly justified their global dominance is now a liability, and they have in the last century been trying to lean on 'universal values', liberalism, etc to justify the west's continued position at the '"commanding heights" of the global economy. its an honest hubris, because the euro/colonial empires genuinely thought they were racially superior, and now they think theyre morally and culturally superior, and all the while theyve been thinking capital is a tool of their superiority when in reality capital is entirely ambivalent to the particular cultural or ideological justifications for its reproduction. the european colonial empires carried out enclosure of the commons on a global scale, and told themselves that this was the rightful inheritance of their race, civilization, ideas, etc., a global pax-europa. that ideology shaped and still shapes much of the historical particulars of how global enclosure into capital happened, but capital obviously cant "care" one way or the other, its a material process that selects only for its own reproduction. the western empires dont understand this, which is why theyre confused that they cant just rebrand their supremacy as cultural and moral instead of racial – they cant shake the idea that modernist industry and commerce (i.e. capitalism) is a product of their own basic superiority, rather than a complex sequence of historical contingencies that made the western fringe of eurasia the petri dish for a new mode of production.

 

>>1844717
I mean genetically a brit and frenchmen are probably closer related than a brit and a mongolian. Whats arbitary is creating a category called white that that artificially lumps them together.


Unique IPs: 25

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / edu / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ wiki / twitter / cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]