The White Social Question

National problems often engulf and become involved with the social questions of our times.
We once lived in the world of the workers. Then we experienced it’s unspeakable privations, its uncertainty of its existence, unemployment, the miserable housing and its many other causes for despair. The notorious mark of the capitalist spirit in the 20th Century, and with it still the Labor question.
The army of workers that swelled in the factories was defenseless at first against the despotism, exploitation, and inhumanity of a system that acknowledged no moral obligation, but pointed to the immutability of so-called economic laws. The vital will of the White worker rose up against this perpetuation of misery and fought for socio-political objectives, for bearable working conditions and for worker protection.
Marxism sees improvement in the workers’ condition only in uniting the proletariat of all countries into a class war against capitalism. To that end, Marxism views the degradation of the worker to a rootless pauperized proletarian as being even desirable. The White worker belongs to the community of blood and destiny of their homelands – for that reason the whole White race is responsible for the condition of its workers.
Not some international paradise, but the nation is the home and the mother of all White workers.
Nationalism and socialism are not antagonistic to each other. On the contrary, when joined together, they are the basis for a sound modern State. The focus of both ideas, nationalism and socialism, must coalesce into one. They must not be played off against each other. They are twin elements of the same cause: the national community that, in nationalism, bears witness to its fateful external struggles and in socialism realizes its fraternal bonds and comradeship with all toiling compatriots.
http://whitesocialist.wordpress.com/

SVANTEVIT wrote:The White worker belongs to the community of blood and destiny of their homelands – for that reason the whole White race is responsible for the condition of its workers.

I think I smell class-collaborationist rhetoric.

Why are you focusing on whites anyway?

SVANTEVIT wrote:We once lived in the world of the workers. Then we experienced it’s unspeakable privations, its uncertainty of its existence, unemployment, the miserable housing and its many other causes for despair. The notorious mark of the capitalist spirit in the 20th Century, and with it still the Labor question.

The only period in which we could be considered to have "lived in the world of workers" was during primitive communism, before surpluses and an asymmetrical distribution of force could be generated (which enabled class society to materialize).

The army of workers that swelled in the factories was defenseless at first against the despotism, exploitation, and inhumanity of a system that acknowledged no moral obligation, but pointed to the immutability of so-called economic laws. The vital will of the White worker rose up against this perpetuation of misery and fought for socio-political objectives, for bearable working conditions and for worker protection.

Not only did they fight for "worker participation," but frequently for complete workers' control of the means of production—e.g., the struggles of the IWW, the early Russian soviets, the Paris Commune, and the anarcho-syndicalist revolution in Spain.

Marxism sees improvement in the workers’ condition only in uniting the proletariat of all countries into a class war against capitalism.

Karl Marx didn't argue that internationalism itself would somehow 'improve' the conditions of the working class, but rather that it is a requisite condition for ensuring that socialism develops under conditions of stability and peace.

To that end, Marxism views the degradation of the worker to a rootless pauperized proletarian as being even desirable.

No, Marxists claim that the relative immiseration of the working class is an inevitable consequence of capital's laws of motion, and that this material reality (coupled with bourgeois social relations no longer being appropriate for the productive forces available) render the proletariat the agents of revolution. In terms of scientific socialism, 'desirability' never factors into the equation.

As for 'rootlessness,' Marx was correct to argue against notions of organic unity being present in class society.

The White worker belongs to the community of blood and destiny of their homelands – for that reason the whole White race is responsible for the condition of its workers.

Then why is the term "White" a historically specific phenomenon? For millenia Caucasian nationalities considered themselves distinct "races." Ethnocultural communities have been, and generally remain, the sources of self-identification. Moreover, the so-called "White race" has thus far neglected its alleged 'responsibility' for providing dignified conditions for labor, which is precisely why proletarian self-emancipation is necessary.

Not some international paradise, but the nation is the home and the mother of all White workers.

The author of this silly, incoherent nonsense clearly hasn't any idea what internationalism is. If he did, he would realize that the nation is not incompatible with it.