/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

People’s primary motive is survival, if you’re already disadvantaged in society based on race or gender then revolutionary politics only improve your chances after a successful revolution but massively decrease them otherwise.

Frankly, a lot of open communists in the west are not only white, male, hetero, cis, etc but also from more affluent backgrounds because they’re risking privileges not necessarily their lives or livelihoods

>>2555036
I agree with Lenin that the proletariat can only develop union consciousness without the external influence of the vanguard

>>2555036
> Whereas the membership of contemporary rightoid fascist groups is disproportionately hispanic, Indian or otherwise nonwhite, overwhelmingly male, and rife with pedophiles, perverts and other abusers?
The idea that the Right are primarily non-white is just another pol meme leftoids on this board retardedly accept uncritically

Anyway thanks for repositioning hispanics and indians as the modern jew!

you'll notice that its the same difference between popular right vs left parties as well. the conservatives gave the UK the first female, jewish and non-white PM (the tories have had 3 women PMs), with also the first catholic PM in boris johnson. labour on the other hand have been accused of internal racism against dianne abbott for example, and zarah sultana complains that corbyn is a bit of a misogynist.

an explanation is found along the lines of elite theory; that the left as the cultural elite hold power by setting patrician standards, while social rejects (the lumpenised) fall into the right, hence the various marginal identities of right-wing personalities. a lack of cultural capital (being indian, asian, etc.) makes you unpopular; the right is a consolidation of rejects (i.e. spergs), thus, the right gains ascendancy this way (prominent leaders of the british right is the nigerian kemi badenoch, the pakistani ben habib and sri lankan zia yusuf, who is a "british muslim patriot"). the dirlewanger brigade is a perfect illustration.

>>2555121
Alternative theory (that doesn’t rely on hitlerite nonsense)

What if the only individuals of “marginalized identities” that capital would ever allow into power almost always going to be the most reactionary of such people?

Though the snag in both our theories is obviously the fact that this is nonsensical bullshit and the first waves of culturally marginalized individuals to achieve political power within the state were liberals and progressives and what you see now is an entirely modern development as prior to now right wing parties simply wouldn’t allow such people at all

>>2555128
>hitlerite nonsense
such that indians are low-status?
this isnt controversial.
>right-wing parties wouldnt allow these people at all
the first black MP in england was elected by in 1832; john stewart, a tory member. benjamin disraeli was first elected prime minister in the conservative party, 1868. the first black labour MP was dianne abbott, elected in 1987…

>>2555036
Bait. Racists always complain about how communists parties in Europe are full of brown people.

>>2555036
Divide and conquer by playing favourite with different demographics

whites are ubermensch and therefore communist

>disproportionately hispanic, Indian or otherwise nonwhite, overwhelmingly male
I don't think this is a rule at all for every reactionary movement's but for the US, many latinos who are not white passing identify themselves as white anyway, or at least feel whiter than their peers, so it's the prevailing colorism within non-white communities that makes them feel identified with the white supremacist cause

>>2555036
>Has there ever been a materialist explanation for why western socialist and communist groups are overwhelmingly white, relatively gender balanced and majority cis (disregarding pronoun nonsense)?
Most people in the west are white, their population is genderbalanced, and most of the population is cis.

>>2555036
>Why are socialist/communist party demographics similar to the demographics of their country?
Who knows.

>>2555367

Next they'll be telling us that the communist party of China is mainly composed of…. Chinese people!?!??!

Imagine my shock.

>>2555036
the evil bolsheviks killed 60 gorillion white christians and conservatives. This was so extreme that thy were virtually all eliminated. This is why all white nationalists nowadays are brown

>>2555151
Tories are barely right wing, they would be democrats in the US. Yes your post is hitlerite nonsense. It ignores religion (Hindus tend to vote conservative, Muslims vote Labor and new leftist parties like Greens), it ignores the large number of minorities in Labor. you ignore these things to make some dumb point about "cultural rejects" moving to the right. Also ignoring the right is moving towards Reform which is overwhelming white

Its only true for internet lover who browser image boards any where else it's the opposite.

There are two types of "right wing". Ethnonationalist right and civic nationalist right. Ethnonationalist right are almost entirely white. Civic nationalist right are majority white, but does have some minorities in it.

The left in most countries has a much bigger minority presence, since the left is (or at least claims to be) the defenders of minority rights.

So in short OP you should take your hitlerite proganda and shove it up your ass. The ethnic nationalist right continues to be irrelevant, and the civic nationalist right continues to eat it's lunch and cuck it out of politics.

Most Westoid communists and socialists are just LARPy libs affected with white guilt.

A lot of people seem to be misreading OP's point about the right being disproportionately ethnic minority as implying that it is majority ethnic minority.
A single black Klansman is disproportionate, given the stated aims of the KKK!

>>2555036
per >>2546215
left-wingers have high cultural capital, while right-wingers have low cultural capital. this divide is more fundamental than the racial divide, which is why you get the ironic situation that low-cultural-capital ethnic minorities will team up with racists because racism, too, is a low status belief. meanwhile anti-racism is high-status, so you'll have an anti-racist communist org which is 100% white.

>>2555121
you're basically right in the second part, but the case of party leaders is muddied a little by events and general cultural stereotypes.
when a woman leads a socdem party, people think she's distrustworthy for showing desirable socdem traits like being caring, empathetic, etc. because these are all female stereotypes anyway, they serve as a disadvantage. meanwhile in a right-wing party, you have to show everyone that you're a sociopathic bastard - which neutralizes the feminine stereotypes.

as for ethnic minorities, in britain the case is more mixed. Welsh Labour and the SNP both had ethnic minority leaders who held public office (albeit briefly, because the Welsh one was a crook and the SNP one took some terrible advice and blew up his own coalition.) overlapping with Sunak, and even Sunak (unlike Thatcher) was electorally unsuccessful.

>>2555128
It's not hitlerite nonsense to talk about cultural capital. It's not some transcendent truth that certain races are high/low capital or anything like that. It's always culturally contextual.
It's most interesting to discuss precisely within the context of white people. What is the strongest predictor of how a white boy will vote? Well, in the data it's education, but if you're going by vibes, it's how cool he is. for a certain definition of cool. you might want to get into a pissing contest about whether being a gay furry is cool, but it's a hell of a lot cooler than being a /pol/ user.

>>2555036
What is your question?

>overwhelmingly white
Its statistics, like the birthday problem or something
>(disregarding pronoun nonsense)
OP is a reptile who poops and pees out of the same cloaca hole