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)?
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?
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
>>2555036I 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.
>>2555121Alternative 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 nonsensesuch that indians are low-status?
this isnt controversial.
>right-wing parties wouldnt allow these people at allthe 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…
>>2555036Bait. Racists always complain about how communists parties in Europe are full of brown people.
>>2555036Divide 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