[ home / rules / faq / search ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM / ufo / 420 ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]

/siberia/ - Off-topic

"No chin, no right to speak."
Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password(For file deletion.)

Check out our new store at shop.leftypol.org!


File: 1785676946662-0.jpg (40.83 KB, 850x400, 927627214-q.jpg)

 

>Have just read the majority report of the Committee on Immigration. It is utterly unsocialistic, reactionary and in truth outrageous, and I hope you will oppose with all your power. The plea that certain races are to be excluded because of tactical expediency would be entirely consistent in a bourgeois convention of self-seekers, but should have no place in a proletariat gathering under the auspices of an international movement that is calling on the oppressed and exploited workers of all the world to unite for their emancipation. . . .

>Away with the “tactics” which require the exclusion of the oppressed and suffering slaves who seek these shores with the hope of bettering their wretched condition and are driven back under the cruel lash of expediency by those who call themselves Socialists in the name of a movement whose proud boast it is that it stands uncompromisingly for the oppressed and down-trodden of all the earth. These poor slaves have just as good a right to enter here as even the authors of this report who now seek to exclude them. The only difference is that the latter had the advantage of a little education and had not been so cruelly ground and oppressed, but in point of principle there is no difference, the motive of all being precisely the same, and if the convention which meets in the name of Socialism should discriminate at all it should be in favor of the miserable races who have borne the heaviest burdens and are most nearly crushed to the earth.


>Upon this vital proposition I would take my stand against the world and no specious argument of subtle and sophistical defenders of the civic federation unionism, who do not hesitate to sacrifice principle for numbers and jeopardise ultimate success for immediate gain, could move me to turn my back upon the oppressed, brutalized and despairing victims of the old world, who are lured to these shores by some faint glimmer of hope that here their crushing burdens may be lightened, and some star of promise rise in their darkened skies.


>The alleged advantages that would come to the Socialist movement because of such heartless exclusion would all be swept away a thousand times by the sacrifice of a cardinal principle of the international socialist movement, for well might the good faith of such a movement be questioned by intelligent workers if it placed itself upon record as barring its doors against the very races most in need of relief, and extinguishing their hope, and leaving them in dark despair at the very time their ears were first attuned to the international call and their hearts were beginning to throb responsive to the solidarity of the oppressed of all lands and all climes beneath the skies.


>In this attitude there is nothing of maudlin sentimentality, but simply a rigid adherence to the fundamental principles of the International proletarian movement. If Socialism, international, revolutionary Socialism, does not stand staunchly, unflinchingly, and uncompromisingly for the working class and for the exploited and oppressed masses of all lands, then it stands for none and its claim is a false pretense and its profession a delusion and a snare.


>Let those desert us who will because we refuse to shut the international door in the faces of their own brethren; we will be none the weaker but all the stronger for their going, for they evidently have no clear conception of the international solidarity, are wholly lacking in the revolutionary spirit, and have no proper place in the Socialist movement while they entertain such aristocratic notions of their own assumed superiority.


>Let us stand squarely on our revolutionary, working class principles and make our fight openly and uncompromisingly against all our enemies, adopting no cowardly tactics and holding out no false hopes, and our movement will then inspire the faith, arouse the spirit, and develop the fibre that will prevail against the world.

>Yours without compromise,
>Eugene V. Debs.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/debs/works/1910/immigration.htm

>>810805
> The plea that certain races are to be excluded because of tactical expediency would be entirely consistent in a bourgeois convention of self-seekers, but should have no place in a proletariat gathering under the auspices of an international movement that is calling on the oppressed and exploited workers of all the world to unite for their emancipation. . . .
He said it right there. This is such a dumb idea that exists to this day. Because of this boards association to /pol/ and the amount of ex-/pol/tards it's often posited that we should do communism, but with chud charecteristics, and then all the chuds will join en masse. But where is the evidence that this ever worked to gain popularity, nevermind what is the point in bastardizing the whole thing? The chuds will never be principled communists in all but their chuddiest beliefs about race or whatever. I don't know why some of you are so insistent on pushing this. I just see fascists and nazis who are too cowardly to call themselves that at this point, but will likely become open fascists and nazis in due time.

>>810806
workers of the world, unite! unless you're black or gay, u dont count as a worker mkay

I agree with him in spirit, but the reason why this fails is that communists rarely explain the next step. OK we'll keep the borders open, then what? Obviously the direct result of this is depression of wages and increased competition for limited resources.

So you have to put forth the argument why it's worth it. You have to explain people about abolishing wage-labor, money, commodity production etc so that society operates on a principle of production-for-need and that more people no longer means competition but more hands to create social wealth to be enjoyed by all.

Explaining that and really convincing people of that is crucial.

the problem with appealing to chuds is that you either get out-chudded by actual right wing parties or end up giving up any semblance of materialism in an attempt to not get out-chudded.

Leftism in its early days was chud coded
Let’s not forget that Engels and Marx promoted race realism.

>>810806
I find it funny how Leftypol likes to consoling about chuds while also wanting to recruit them

I also find it funny how they use the word chud to mean reactionary when chud just means an agoraphobic hermit person

>>810909
Not how language works, it's about how it is used by people, not by who made up the term in the first place.
Yes even if it means that "literally" may end up meaning the exact opposite of it's definition.

>>810923
I’m well aware that language is mainly connotation but still

It’s like claiming liberals are communist

>>810805
>Would he have won if he had appealed to chuds?
Maybe, but then he'd have been an entirely different person, what stupid fuckin question. Why are y'all so obsessed with winning over chuds? Radlibs are obnoxious but they're not worse, and they're closer to left wing philosophically than the reactionaries so many of you want to court.

>>810957
>Radlibs are obnoxious but they're not worse, and they're closer to left wing philosophically than the reactionaries so many of you want to court.

Wrong. A lot of our reactionaries are former radlibs or vice versa. In fact, most reactionaries have radlib tendencies.
In fact, “reactionary” isn’t limited to right wing sentiments

Believe it or not, most reactionaries aren’t really right wing

You will find more genuine right wingers who will agree with you than any radlib/reactionary.

Radlibs claim to be about equality but they still want men to be the expendable attack dogs for capital. They only want equality for women in the context of aspiring to be draconian girlbosses and madames (female pimps) while still wanting women to be coddled like infants.

(And the irony is, most of these women pursuing thee routes will never reach it. They end up as cattle that’s abused alongside their male counterparts)

Also, radlibs promote minorities as pets to adored via pop cultural icons rather than as people

Radlibs are against educational alternatives to public schooling

They’re against technical skills. They think that learning how to change tires, fix doorknobs, build and fix computers, etc are unnecessary.

They think that discrimination is due primarily and exclusively because of lack of education, ignoring alot of our racists, sexists, queer phones were educated people.
They promote college as a mandatory rite of passage for young people, claiming that college is a gateway for personal development, all the while advocating for paternalistic measures for young people.

A lot of radlibs are grown from the same spaces as their reactionary counterparts.

>>810993
Jesus you're too online, I'm telling you people who give a fuck about other people are closer to being on my side than people who lead with hate.

>>811014
>No you're wrong you're out of touch.

I think the terminally online one is you.
Both radlibs and reactionaries are fuelled by hate.

>>811020
>Both radlibs and reactionaries are fuelled by hate.
Maybe we're not using the term radlib the same then.


Unique IPs: 9

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq / search ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM / ufo / 420 ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]