>>555472>Attitudes which anybody can see are not universal among white people
They wouldn't have to be, they'd just have to be generally wide-spread amongst them, and they are.
>This isn't even taking into account how a socialist revolution both presupposes and would produce a major decline in settler ideology.
Nop. Settler proles can easily rebel against their bourg overlords without a single decline in their commitment to white supremacy.
The violence of reciprocal deportations. The difference in contexts there are pretty obvious.
>this is shown by the fact that many racialized groups hold and held power in their own communities, which were unable to translate into power at the national level.
But it doesn't have to. My argument isn't that this fixes white-supremacy in society in general or will get black or native people into national leadership roles, because there is no way to ensure this unless you reserve such positions for them in the constitution (which I would also support), the point here is to make places where black and natives people can go to escape discrimination if it still exists in the general national structure, and give them institutions which they can utilize against the state if that state should infringe upon them as a community.
>Even if it grants them power in their own communities, this is useless without corresponding power at the national level
What? No not useless. These are organized institutions by which Natives and black people can go and get organized if society in general does not give up on discrimination against them. Of course we also have to struggle to lake society in general less racist, that's granted, no one denies that.
But there needs to be institutional guarantees for black and native people if that fails, otherwise there is literally nothing to guarantee their security and no means by which they can organize.
>The deportations accomplished nothing apart from instilling anti-Soviet sentiments in the targeted populations.
Proofs? Aren't the poles a lot more angry at the USSR than the Germans? Do Kazakhs hate the USSR more than Ukrainians?
>Once again, I have never seen anything to suggest that either union or autonomous republics had the power to deport different ethnicities whenever they wanted for whatever reason they saw fit. So don't try to draw an equivalence between what you are proposing and what the Soviets did.
But rehomings happened, so whether the ASSR took that decision or asked the USSR to do it and it then ordered those rehomings on behalf of the ASSR is a little immaterial. It was a solution to the national question in Eastern Europe and a way to end some of the tensions born from settler colonialism.
>The only way you would think that such a measure would be necessary to guarantee the safety of minorities is if you literally think that they are incapable of living alongside whites, or that whites constitute a danger merely by existing
No it follows from the already established fact that there's no guarantee that white supremacy can be dismantled before fFALC, as before then Settlers would have an incentive to uphold the already established mechanisms of White Supremacy to gain an edge towards the limited amount of higher-end jobs and government positions.
As such, Black and Native people cannot ever be safe within white society before it is thoroughly decolonized and white supremacy is dismantled in totality. Until then, they need somewhere to be safe, because they won't necesarrily be within white society.
>Uprooting your entire fucking life is much more than an inconvenience holy shit.
I've done it a few times in my life, voluntarily even. Sure it's a hassle, but it was in no way comparable to genocide or what other ethnicities have gone through when being deported. As such the comparison falls flat.
Now consider on top of that also being compensated with free new homes and jobs-guarantees, and the only real consequence for those rehomed is slight inconvenience.
>The contradiction between different races of workers are non-antagonistic
No, the antagonism between colonizers and colonized ARE antagonistic. Settlers MUST be liquidated as a class and white supremacy dismantled before the antagonism is solved. That means that settler-power and white supremacy must be taken away from settlers, there is no mutual benefit on that vector - it's a zero-sum game where settlers benefit from the subjugation of native and black communities. It's one of wealth transfer and power-dynamics and as such it is not just the tension between two ethnicities, it's a question of one ethnicity that dominates and extracts wealth and privilege from another.