Socialism and Race

I know you guys are nationalists, but how tolerant would you be of a view or goal of socialism achieved through seccession that would be specifically be based on or motivated by racial seperatism?

In other words, how accepting would you be of racists who wanted to embrace socialism as the envisioned model for society?

To me the definition of a racist is a person who hates a member of another race. As I don't 'hate' and see those who do as intollerant and often proponents of the 'Supremacist' bull that put us in this position in the first place, I personally would not welcome racists.
I also find the average racists ideas on race as distatefull, based on pseudo-scientific beliefs and cartoon images. I believe (and call it Marxist left wing stupidity if you like) that race is a false construct, created to produce a sense of superiority within one group, therefore aiding the exploitation of the Earth. However, unlike the Marxists I believe that ethnic groups do better when amongst their own kind. So to me 'racialism' and 'racism' are vastly different ideas.

So in short, I wouldn't be very accepting of them at all.

Bloody semantics.

O.K. what about racialist socialism? Does that change your responce?

Also, exactly what do you mean that race is a false construct?

"Racial separatism" is not enough of a valid reason to achieve a socialist nationalist society, plain and simple. The "white race" is and abstract concept that exists mainly outside europe and just "bands together" the exploiters with the exploited. If you only use race as a separatist factor, you won't oppose the same people that exploit the precariat today, and therefore, any socialist objectives are doomed from the start.

The situation in europe is fundamentally different, since nationalist and cultural values can be upheld together with the precariat difficulties in order to advance the interests of the native working class.

godlessnorth wrote:Bloody semantics.

O.K. what about racialist socialism? Does that change your responce?

Also, exactly what do you mean that race is a false construct?

Firstly it's not "Bloody semantics". You asked a question I replied you can change the parameters of you original question, but my answer remains the same - 'racialists' yes, 'racists' no.
As I said, to me 'racism' denotes hatred of others 'races', 'racialism' equals equal respect.
My ambition is to see my Country once again belonging to my people, but that doesn't imply that I also wish to control another's Country.
You might be happy to drink beer with those who shout 'ape' every time they see a black, or make monkey noises in greetings, but I'm not. If you still cant see the difference between a 'racialist' and a 'racist' that's you problem not mine.

And race is a false construct, while different ethnic peoples do exist, attempts to lump them under different colours is a 19th century construct. Allowing Europeans to feel superior whilst being exploited by the same people who were happy to exploit anyone no matter the colour of their skin.

If you truly wish to sit beneath the shade of some trailer, belch and fart with other racists, I suggest you run back to SF where I am sure you would find a warm welcome.

Leon Mcnichol wrote:"Racial separatism" is not enough of a valid reason to achieve a socialist nationalist society, plain and simple. The "white race" is and abstract concept that exists mainly outside europe and just "bands together" the exploiters with the exploited. If you only use race as a separatist factor, you won't oppose the same people that exploit the precariat today, and therefore, any socialist objectives are doomed from the start.

Yes, racial separatism in itself fails to address class inequalities. But I mentioned banding separatism together in a socialist setting,

The situation in europe is fundamentally different, since nationalist and cultural values can be upheld together with the precariat difficulties in order to advance the interests of the native working class.

Thanks for this sensible answer. I hear the notion that racialism is unproductive in an absolute sense, but regardless of this, as a limited goal it might be achievable compared to, say, that grand scale of generalist socialism which is equally grandiose.

It's an issue of effort vs. result. But in principal, which is what I am asking, do you have anything against the ATTEMPT behind racializing class?

Isakenaz wrote:Firstly it's not "Bloody semantics". You asked a question I replied you can change the parameters of you original question, but my answer remains the same - 'racialists' yes, 'racists' no.
As I said, to me 'racism' denotes hatred of others 'races', 'racialism' equals equal respect.
My ambition is to see my Country once again belonging to my people, but that doesn't imply that I also wish to control another's Country.
You might be happy to drink beer with those who shout 'ape' every time they see a black, or make monkey noises in greetings, but I'm not. If you still cant see the difference between a 'racialist' and a 'racist' that's you problem not mine.

And race is a false construct, while different ethnic peoples do exist, attempts to lump them under different colours is a 19th century construct. Allowing Europeans to feel superior whilst being exploited by the same people who were happy to exploit anyone no matter the colour of their skin.

If you truly wish to sit beneath the shade of some trailer, belch and fart with other racists, I suggest you run back to SF where I am sure you would find a warm welcome.

Uh, ok, I'll take that largely as a comment.

No disrespect, but I think the idea of saying X is a false construct is kind of dumb. You don't really elborate on it. From some number of perspectives I can say that consciousness itself is a false construct, the individual is a false construct, class is a false construct, the family is a false construct. You tell me, sir, how do you qualify race as a false construct?

Ultimately, it's not about proving the validity of race, but whether it is ultimately effective in achieving set social aims. The construct of the family is up for discussion in its logical validity, but in practical terms one can see the merit. So, do you see where I am going with this? Your shouts of 'FALSE CONSTRUCT' make not sense in themselves, if I can then, from a practically point of view, go ahead and impose this construct quite effectively in the real world.

Second point, you have to racist to be a racialist. It's impossible to treat everybody equal. On the balance of things, if you are not supporting your own tribe, your are supporting someone elses. Unless you have some kind of quantum machine that distributes all thought and effort into the universal perfectly evenly on an atom by atom basis thereby effectively reducing said thought and effort into tiny fragments of empty sentimentalism.

It's an issue of effort vs. result. But in principal, which is what I am asking, do you have anything against the ATTEMPT behind racializing class?

While i dont' have anything against it from a pure ideological point, i have from a pratical point, since an overfocus on it could be counter-productive, specially in europe. Uk people care little that the eastern europeans that take their jobs are white, as you might imagine.

Leon Mcnichol wrote:While i dont' have anything against it from a pure ideological point, i have from a pratical point, since an overfocus on it could be counter-productive, specially in europe. Uk people care little that the eastern europeans that take their jobs are white, as you might imagine.

Great. It's not a position which you would like to take but it may be feasible given someone else's circumstance.

That's all I wanted to hear, LM. This is a localized struggle. Since I'm not in the UK I cannot comment further.

godlessnorth:

You continue to mix the terms ‘racialist’ and ‘racist’ together as if they both mean the same thing, yet one can be a ‘racialist’ and celebrate their race and its achievements, without falling into the ‘racist’ trap of hatred, envy and a belief in racial superiority. As I said before one is a celebration of what you are, the other is a hatred of what others are.

You claim that my idea of race as a false construct is ridiculous, okay, but perhaps you misunderstand what I mean. I am not referring to ‘physical’ racial differences (after all anyone can see the difference between a black skin and a white skin), merely to the way they are used to create a pseudo-scientific mythology in which one race is considered superior to another.

I call this a ‘false construct’ because that’s what it is, the notions of racial superiority was created by the empire builders of the 19th century to give their plundering of the world an acceptable veneer one that gave even the lowest of their race a feeling of superiority (there was always someone lower down the scale).

In Victorian times ‘race’, and any prejudices involved with it, was happily used to denote any person other than of ‘Anglo-Saxon’ blood. For example the author of ‘Hereward the Wake’ Charles Kingsley described the Irish thus,
“But I am haunted by the human chimpanzees, I saw along that hundred miles of horrible country……..to see white chimpanzees is dreadful; if they were black ones would not feel it so much, but their skins, except where tanned by exposure, are as white as ours” (as quoted in C Husband, ‘Race in Britain: Continuity and Change)

In fact prior to the 1930s the term racism does not exist in the English language, as before then in the 1910 OED it is not noted although both ‘race’ and ‘racial’ are. So it is not until the rise of radical Nationalism in Europe that race begins to become a major issue. Even then the issues tend to be more ‘cultural’ than racial, arguments over ‘racial’ issues being more tied to economic problems (the Jews for example) and political propaganda (anti-slavic propaganda) than differences between skin colours. It is noted that Adolf Hitler (held as the epitome of White Nationalism) shook hands with Jesse Owens in the 1936 Olympics in celebration of his triumph.
The ideology of ‘racism’ tends to walk hand in hand with capitalism. You aren’t getting your just deserts? That’s because the Black/Brown/Yellowman is stealing from you. Not the capitalist, not your leaders, but the foreigner. Not the white foreigner…

So the next time you describe yourself as a ‘racist’, perhaps you might consider who you are benefiting through the use of that term, the ‘White Race’ as a whole, or just a small section of it?

Iskanez, I understand that you are a Briton, so you have little use for 'White Nationalism", but here in America and other former colonial lands, there are no clearly delineated ethnic communities anymore. There are no Germans, Russians, Danes, Irish, or whatever, at least in the conventional sense, they have all been intermixed and the result has been described as "White", so that is what we have to work with.

Isakenaz wrote:godlessnorth:

You continue to mix the terms ‘racialist’ and ‘racist’ together as if they both mean the same thing, yet one can be a ‘racialist’ and celebrate their race and its achievements, without falling into the ‘racist’ trap of hatred, envy and a belief in racial superiority. As I said before one is a celebration of what you are, the other is a hatred of what others are.

You claim that my idea of race as a false construct is ridiculous, okay, but perhaps you misunderstand what I mean. I am not referring to ‘physical’ racial differences (after all anyone can see the difference between a black skin and a white skin), merely to the way they are used to create a pseudo-scientific mythology in which one race is considered superior to another.

I call this a ‘false construct’ because that’s what it is, the notions of racial superiority was created by the empire builders of the 19th century to give their plundering of the world an acceptable veneer one that gave even the lowest of their race a feeling of superiority (there was always someone lower down the scale).

In Victorian times ‘race’, and any prejudices involved with it, was happily used to denote any person other than of ‘Anglo-Saxon’ blood. For example the author of ‘Hereward the Wake’ Charles Kingsley described the Irish thus,
“But I am haunted by the human chimpanzees, I saw along that hundred miles of horrible country……..to see white chimpanzees is dreadful; if they were black ones would not feel it so much, but their skins, except where tanned by exposure, are as white as ours” (as quoted in C Husband, ‘Race in Britain: Continuity and Change)

In fact prior to the 1930s the term racism does not exist in the English language, as before then in the 1910 OED it is not noted although both ‘race’ and ‘racial’ are. So it is not until the rise of radical Nationalism in Europe that race begins to become a major issue. Even then the issues tend to be more ‘cultural’ than racial, arguments over ‘racial’ issues being more tied to economic problems (the Jews for example) and political propaganda (anti-slavic propaganda) than differences between skin colours. It is noted that Adolf Hitler (held as the epitome of White Nationalism) shook hands with Jesse Owens in the 1936 Olympics in celebration of his triumph.
The ideology of ‘racism’ tends to walk hand in hand with capitalism. You aren’t getting your just deserts? That’s because the Black/Brown/Yellowman is stealing from you. Not the capitalist, not your leaders, but the foreigner. Not the white foreigner…

So the next time you describe yourself as a ‘racist’, perhaps you might consider who you are benefiting through the use of that term, the ‘White Race’ as a whole, or just a small section of it?

Fair point, comrade. To benefit the 'white' community as a whole, the word 'race' and is counterproductive. These anti-Irish and anti-Slavic elements of history which you mention make me physically sick. I don't planning I making such mistakes.

That said, I see nothing wrong with hatred or supremism. They motivate and unify, and don't lend themselves to capitalist exploitation anymore than say love or ambition.

Bladridigan wrote:Iskanez, I understand that you are a Briton, so you have little use for 'White Nationalism", but here in America and other former colonial lands, there are no clearly delineated ethnic communities anymore. There are no Germans, Russians, Danes, Irish, or whatever, at least in the conventional sense, they have all been intermixed and the result has been described as "White", so that is what we have to work with.

Point taken.
It's not a "case of having little use for 'White Nationalism'". It's more a case of having little use for some of the people that hide behind that label. I realise that in certain countries the 'White Race' has become a catch-all for a multi-diversified, european-ethnic folk whose cultures have been blended out of necessitie, yet even so it would appear that the different european cultures are celebrated at all times. Italian-Americans celbrate Italian culture Irish-Americans Irish culture equally, so to me 'White Nationalism' is simply a flag of convenience. But then as a European, and a Briton in particular, I have no wish to see my heritage swamped by another culture, whether white or not.

Isakenaz wrote:....as a European, and a Briton in particular, I have no wish to see my heritage swamped by another culture, whether white or not.

Racist!

godlessnorth wrote:

Isakenaz wrote:....as a European, and a Briton in particular, I have no wish to see my heritage swamped by another culture, whether white or not.

Racist!

Isakenaz wrote:

godlessnorth wrote:

Isakenaz wrote:....as a European, and a Briton in particular, I have no wish to see my heritage swamped by another culture, whether white or not.

Racist!

Because you can't be racialist/pro-British without also being racist/supremacist. "MY culture is better than the alternative."

There's no dichotomy.

If you choose to believe that, fine. I consider my culture the 'British culture' to be of paramount concern, but I don't understand how that makes me a 'racist'. Being so would imply that I view the British a a seperate race, which I do not, we are simply a part of an Ethno-European people, the same Ethno-European people who make up the 'White' element of your Nation. Will you now argue that white Australians are a seperate race?

Godlessnorth, what specific distinct positions do you stand for in opposing contrast to the 'WN movement'?

Why are you here, rather than or in addition to on Stormfront, VNN, eNat, and all the rest of the 'WN movement' forums?

What specifically do you want to accomplish?

Are you a 'socialist'? If so, what does 'socialism' actually mean to you?

godlessnorth wrote:

Isakenaz wrote:

godlessnorth wrote:

Isakenaz wrote:....as a European, and a Briton in particular, I have no wish to see my heritage swamped by another culture, whether white or not.

Racist!

Because you can't be racialist/pro-British without also being racist/supremacist. "MY culture is better than the alternative."

There's no dichotomy.

I strongly disagree. Just because one may feel a strong allegiance to his or her own nation, culture, etc. (one that may naturally supersede his/her regard for any other), it does not follow that (s)he in turn believes said nation, culture, etc. to be 'superior' to any other. Nor does it mean that such an individual necessarily holds negative views regarding other nations.

For example, a parent naturally feels a stronger attachment to his or her child than that of a stranger. That does not mean that the parent finds his or her child to be inherently superior to the other, nor does it mean that (s)he harbors any ill will towards the other child. (Certainly, a sane and reasonable individual would not.) And so it goes with the question of nationalism.

Extremists —imperialists, (reactionary) Social Darwinists, and others — have long since overshadowed any reasonable expression of nationalism, which has only served to benefit capitalist cosmopolitanism. Most people, who might otherwise gravitate towards a progressive expression of nationalism, want nothing to do with such chauvinistic movements (and rightly so).

SN Labor Champion wrote:Godlessnorth, what specific distinct positions do you stand for in opposing contrast to the 'WN movement'?

Why are you here, rather than or in addition to on Stormfront, VNN, eNat, and all the rest of the 'WN movement' forums?

What specifically do you want to accomplish?

Are you a 'socialist'? If so, what does 'socialism' actually mean to you?

I'm more than happy to answer such questions as long they are in good spirit.

Firstly, I am here because I believe socialism is the fundamental basis for a noble society.

Second, I want to accomplish or achieve an understanding of how socialism can be implemented in the real world.

Finally, socialism to me simply means freedom from economic bondage. From there the rest is upto the people.

Admin wrote:I strongly disagree. Just because one may feel a strong allegiance to his or her own nation, culture, etc. (one that may naturally supersede his/her regard for any other), it does not follow that (s)he in turn believes said nation, culture, etc. to be 'superior' to any other. Nor does it mean that such an individual necessarily holds negative views regarding other nations.

For example, a parent naturally feels a stronger attachment to his or her child than that of a stranger. That does not mean that the parent finds his or her child to be inherently superior to the other, nor does it mean that (s)he harbors any ill will towards the other child. (Certainly, a sane and reasonable individual would not.) And so it goes with the question of nationalism.

That's fine, comrade. In an unthinking, unfeeling world it would be possible to assume that no parent looks differently at his child than to others, and wouldn't choose his own child over another. But in my experience, people have a preference for their own child, and do actually think that their own children are better than others. It's fine if don't think so, very fine infact.

Extremists —imperialists, (reactionary) Social Darwinists, and others — have long since overshadowed any reasonable expression of nationalism, which has only served to benefit capitalist cosmopolitanism. Most people, who might otherwise gravitate towards a progressive expression of nationalism, want nothing to do with such chauvinistic movements (and rightly so).

Obviously, I don't support capitalist cospolitanism. I see how it would work against honest nationalism. I would not like, however, you to confuse chauvinism with an uncompromising ethic. Yes, people disagree. I would think it would be obvious to see for budding revolutionaries. I would not want to isolate anyone, but when you are clear when what needs to change, i.e. class, it's not fair to compromise this ambition just because it is unpalatable to the fickle masses.

Isakenaz wrote:

Bladridigan wrote:Iskanez, I understand that you are a Briton, so you have little use for 'White Nationalism", but here in America and other former colonial lands, there are no clearly delineated ethnic communities anymore. There are no Germans, Russians, Danes, Irish, or whatever, at least in the conventional sense, they have all been intermixed and the result has been described as "White", so that is what we have to work with.

Point taken.
It's not a "case of having little use for 'White Nationalism'". It's more a case of having little use for some of the people that hide behind that label. I realise that in certain countries the 'White Race' has become a catch-all for a multi-diversified, european-ethnic folk whose cultures have been blended out of necessitie, yet even so it would appear that the different european cultures are celebrated at all times. Italian-Americans celbrate Italian culture Irish-Americans Irish culture equally, so to me 'White Nationalism' is simply a flag of convenience. But then as a European, and a Briton in particular, I have no wish to see my heritage swamped by another culture, whether white or not.

Understood, comrade.

godlessnorth wrote:That's fine, comrade. In an unthinking, unfeeling world it would be possible to assume that no parent looks differently at his child than to others, and wouldn't choose his own child over another. But in my experience, people have a preference for their own child, and do actually think that their own children are better than others. It's fine if don't think so, very fine infact.

'Better', in this context, is a relative statement. It has much to do with feeling, but very little to do with thinking. Does a parent think that his or her child is really smarter than the child prodigy? Does a parent think his or her child is more athletic than the sports star? And what if the child is physically or mentally impaired? Does this blatant disadvantage to most other children make the parent feel a stronger attachment to the stranger's child than his/her own? Hence my point that attachment to one's kin, nation, or what have you, has little to nothing to do with such supremacist notions.

Obviously, I don't support capitalist cospolitanism. I see how it would work against honest nationalism. I would not like, however, you to confuse chauvinism with an uncompromising ethic. Yes, people disagree. I would think it would be obvious to see for budding revolutionaries. I would not want to isolate anyone, but when you are clear when what needs to change, i.e. class, it's not fair to compromise this ambition just because it is unpalatable to the fickle masses.

You would have to elaborate more on this 'uncompromising ethic' before I could comment upon the totality of your point. In any case, my position on the matter in question has far less to do with how receptive the masses would be to national/racial supremacist theories and more to do with the fact that I find such theories to be rather objectionable in their own right. Not only do I find that the general embrace of such ideas leads to fundamentally counterproductive policy outcomes, but also negative social outcomes — both of which can easily evolve into new forms of stratification and social conflict.

Given the history of those interpretations of nationalism — characterized by unnecessary warfare, destruction, and ruin — I think modern nationalists would do well to avoid even humoring such principles. What positive outcomes do you foresee coming from a society embracing them?

Isakenaz wrote:If you choose to believe that, fine. I consider my culture the 'British culture' to be of paramount concern, but I don't understand how that makes me a 'racist'. Being so would imply that I view the British a a seperate race, which I do not, we are simply a part of an Ethno-European people, the same Ethno-European people who make up the 'White' element of your Nation. Will you now argue that white Australians are a seperate race?

My impression is that mine and perhaps British culture is discontinious with the past. The modern world is detached from history and the culture which defined a great sum of its history has been lost. You can disagree because at this point in time it is speculation. But answer this: which parts of British culture do you prefer to embrace? And then what of its various, discontinued ages which have risen and fallen on the island, how does that factor into the broad 'British culture' umbrella. Australia has a view short history and I still struggle to gather a logical, cohesive picture of the society, so I have difficultly seeing how you do it.

To me, race, i.e. the Ethno-European people are much more enduring and cohensive in concept and in history. As a large democratic it transcends culture and its future as a whole is best assured with such a collective, ethnocentric view of its whole.

Admin wrote:'Better', in this context, is a relative statement. It has much to do with feeling, but very little to do with thinking. Does a parent think that his or her child is really smarter than the child prodigy? Does a parent think his or her child is more athletic than the sports star? And what if the child is physically or mentally impaired? Does this blatant disadvantage to most other children make the parent feel a stronger attachment to the stranger's child than his/her own? Hence my point that attachment to one's kin, nation, or what have you, has little to nothing to do with such supremacist notions.

O.K. objectivity you may have weight in individual cases, but the notion I was more alluding to is that parents want what is best for their children and I'll explain why. It is more productive for them to assume that even if their child is underperforming they still hold this intangible value which continues to merit their ongoing support. Ask any parent if they would want to swap their child for another, 'better' one, and the majority will say no. Their child is their blood, and this is meaningful for them. In this way, the children are superior according to the respective parent. So, it is not so much the objective value that concerns me, it is recognising the inherent, natural supremacy which parents recognise their children having relative to themselves. Maybe it is chauvinistic, but it's not so because I intended it.

You would have to elaborate more on this 'uncompromising ethic' before I could comment upon the totality of your point.

I don't want to compromise this reality because it is unpalatable, and this is what I mean by 'uncompromising ethic'.

In any case, my position on the matter in question has far less to do with how receptive the masses would be to national/racial supremacist theories and more to do with the fact that I find such theories to be rather objectionable in their own right. Not only do I find that the general embrace of such ideas leads to fundamentally counterproductive policy outcomes, but also negative social outcomes — both of which can easily evolve into new forms of stratification and social conflict.

I don't think so. The existance of the family unit proves that while membership is exclusive, co-operation between families is still prefered. The rise of capitalism and technology has usurped this sense of belonging, which is much more worrying to me than natural, foreseeable tensions arising from tribalism.

Given the history of those interpretations of nationalism — characterized by unnecessary warfare, destruction, and ruin — I think modern nationalists would do well to avoid even humoring such principles. What positive outcomes do you foresee coming from a society embracing them?

The very idea of banding together as ethno-europeans is to overcome history of intra-european conflict. Is this to say that such feelings would only be projected outward against the rest of the world? Probably. But, like the days of the Crusades, its a preferable outcome because we would then be unified on such an unprecedented scale. Am I saying that local identities should be discarded? No. I'm just alluding to a larger picture that is at stake.

Socialism used as an instrument to carry out a RAHOWA? No thanks. No way.
Yeah I know what your avatar means, and now it all makes perfect sense what you are arguing for.

I see that this discussion has turned to the subject of 'supremacism', 'jingoism', and 'chauvinism' a rather dubious notion I might say, considering that its supposed adherents never describe themselves as such.

I have this to say about 'supremacism'...the notion that one nation is inherently superior to another presupposes the existence of a universal standard by which all nations can be measured, and therefore universalist, and thus incompatible with nationalism.

For a Croatian to judge his nation to be superior to all others would be silly, because he would be necessarily judging said nations by Croatian standards, and no nation, except his own, would be capable of living up to those standards.

As the proponents of a true nationalism, we must acknowledge the reality that each nation carries within itself the standard of its own perfection, one which is inapplicable to any other.

godlessnorth wrote:

Isakenaz wrote:If you choose to believe that, fine. I consider my culture the 'British culture' to be of paramount concern, but I don't understand how that makes me a 'racist'. Being so would imply that I view the British a a seperate race, which I do not, we are simply a part of an Ethno-European people, the same Ethno-European people who make up the 'White' element of your Nation. Will you now argue that white Australians are a seperate race?

My impression is that mine and perhaps British culture is discontinious with the past. The modern world is detached from history and the culture which defined a great sum of its history has been lost. You can disagree because at this point in time it is speculation. But answer this: which parts of British culture do you prefer to embrace? And then what of its various, discontinued ages which have risen and fallen on the island, how does that factor into the broad 'British culture' umbrella. Australia has a view short history and I still struggle to gather a logical, cohesive picture of the society, so I have difficultly seeing how you do it.

To me, race, i.e. the Ethno-European people are much more enduring and cohensive in concept and in history. As a large democratic it transcends culture and its future as a whole is best assured with such a collective, ethnocentric view of its whole.

This is the point that you seem to have a difficult time to understand.

For Europeans, history is paramount. For them, there was never a "white race", but diferent nationalities wich history mixes itself with their own "biological" perception of themselves.

You would have a hard time making the polish band with the germans, or the english with the french, specially for a "common ground" that they never aknowledged.

And this is not exclusive to europeans. Try band together the Chinese with the Japanese or the various african tribes, and you will have the same problem. "Race" is just too weak at this point in our history to serve that purpose.