Re: Socialism and Race

by godlessnorth Wed May 11, 2011 10:21 pm

Leon Mcnichol wrote:This is the point that you seem to have a difficult time to understand.

Oh, alright then. Whatever you want to discuss, comrade.

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.

I disagree. When there is a need for co-operation, there is co-operation. WWI, British and ANZACs died alongside the French. In WWII, Australians hated the japs, but sympathized with the Germans in many instances, often making friends with the 'enemy' on the battlefield and post war. My mother's family is a product of such bonds.

Young polish skinheads today sympathize with germany and russians. Because there is a need for for co-operation.

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.

You can't possibly compare the over-arching bond between European peoples and the stratified psyche of the Asians peoples or whimsical Africans. It's an absurd comparison.

by **Admin** Wed May 11, 2011 11:12 pm

godlessnorth wrote:I disagree. When there is a need for co-operation, there is co-operation. WWI, British and ANZACs died alongside the French. In WWII, Australians hated the japs, but sympathized with the Germans in many instances, often making friends with the 'enemy' on the battlefield and post war. My mother's family is a product of such bonds.

Young polish skinheads today sympathize with germany and russians. Because there is a need for for co-operation.

This point of yours, however, can be extrapolated to fit many different contexts. People will invariably cooperate with one another out of sheer necessity. However, once the necessity is removed, such bonds will disintegrate in accordance to the various circumstances.

For instance, many White Nationalists are of the opinion that Whites of every class level must unite under some (exclusively) race-based agenda. Such a scenario would perhaps be plausible if every European was under an identical impression regarding the imperative to pursue that agenda (something that will never happen). Now, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that such did in fact happen and this WN movement subsequently achieved a (racially) homogeneous society. What then will prevent the traditional sources of intraracial social fission — based upon socioeconomic status, power relations, ethnic differences, religious clashes, etc. — from reasserting themselves? A socialist understands that part of this question can only be resolved through the application of socialist policies. A nationalist understands that the other part of this question can be only resolved through a process that mitigates the sorts of ethnonational factors which additionally serve as a source of social conflict.

On this point, White Nationalist ideology would suggest a homogenizing policy, which in turn would serve to eliminate many of the diverse cultural factors which characterize the European community. A progressive nationalist, on the other hand, would seek a reasonable alternative that would preserve said diversity (in terms of establishing and maintaining nation states), as well as foster an international climate based upon varying forms of cooperation between all peoples of the world.

Again, the situation in the post-colonial West is quite different and would require different sorts of solutions. However, at least part of this point — in particular, the socioeconomic question — applies just as much in this general area.

You can't possibly compare the over-arching bond between European peoples and the stratified psyche of the Asians peoples or whimsical Africans. It's an absurd comparison.

What historical instances can you cite which unambiguously demonstrate this 'overarching bond between European peoples'? Cultural interactions brought about through imperialism?

by godlessnorth Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 am

Admin wrote:This point of yours, however, can be extrapolated to fit many different contexts. People will invariably cooperate with one another out of sheer necessity. However, once the necessity is removed, such bonds will disintegrate in accordance to the various circumstances.

For instance, many White Nationalists are of the opinion that Whites of every class level must unite under some (exclusively) race-based agenda. Such a scenario would perhaps be plausible if every European was under an identical impression regarding the imperative to pursue that agenda (something that will never happen). Now, assuming that did in fact happen and this WN movement subsequently achieved a (racially) homogeneous society. What then will prevent the traditional sources of intraracial social fission — based upon socioeconomic status, power relations, ethnic differences, religious clashes, etc. — from reasserting themselves? A socialist understands that part of this question can only be resolved through the application of socialist policies. A nationalist understands that the other part of this question can be only resolved through a process that mitigates the sorts of ethnonational factors which additionally serve as a source of social conflict.

On this point, White Nationalist ideology would suggest a homogenizing policy, which in turn would serve to eliminate many of the diverse cultural factors which characterize the European community. A progressive nationalist, on the other hand, would seek a reasonable alternative that would preserve said diversity (in terms of establishing and maintaining nation states), as well as foster an international climate based upon varying forms of cooperation between all peoples of the world.

Very true. Which is why I am not a White Nationalist. I support a revolutionary ideology, a full time revolutionist, you could say. I have great difficulty imagining what a white state would look like, and nor am I too concerned since it will probably never happen (for reasons you mention). But again, I'm not concerned with such difficulty. Maintaining an environment of perpetual revolution suits me just fine. Where socialist measures can be supported, they will be, but in the mean time there is no way I will be dragged into these hypothetical dilemmas.

A socialist society, no matter how it diverges from its origins, is an offshort of the effort and ideology that I back. The shape of such a society is of little concern since I'm not actively involved in it. I do what I can in the present, and as such dedicate myself to revolution not statecraft.

What historical instances can you cite which unambiguously demonstrate this 'overarching bond between European peoples'? Cultural interactions brought about through imperialism?

'Cultural interaction', what kind of buzz word is that? When they want to work together, it's the people that work together, not the culture(s). Sure, culture is a by-product of co-operation, but the failure of the European bond is not a failure of 'cultural interaction', but of willing co-operation. With revolution in mind, it's not a macro-scale that you can focus on, but the bonds between people who want to work together. This, to me, is the necessity of revolution.

by **Admin** Thu May 12, 2011 10:43 am

godlessnorth wrote:
Very true. Which is why I am not a White Nationalist. I support a revolutionary ideology, a full time revolutionist, you could say. I have great difficulty imagining what a white state would look like, and nor am I too concerned since it will probably never happen (for reasons you mention). But again, I'm not concerned with such difficulty. Maintaining an environment of perpetual revolution suits me just fine. Where socialist measures can be supported, they will be, but in the mean time there is no way I will be dragged into these hypothetical dilemmas.

Surely one must be willing to fathom a post-revolutionary context, within a concrete ideological framework, in order to give coherence and purpose to his or her revolutionary conviction. Anything short of that is a (personal) revolt without direction or appeal.

My position is that Revolutionary Syndicalists work to address these outstanding questions, in order to ensure that those principles have the best possible chance being realized. To do otherwise would undermine my convictions. My point regarding the utter impossibility of White people of all socioeconomic backgrounds to collectively ban together in order to pursue a White Nationalist agenda — something that simply doesn't register as a priority to most White people in the West — does not negate the imperative to actually work towards realizing Revolutionary Syndicalist principles. (This does not require inter-class collaboration, nor does it require that the targeted constituency — in this case, the national working class — simply dispense with the totality of their interests, in order to simply attain social homogenization.)

You see, I don't find the bleak prospects facing White Nationalism in the contemporary West to signify much in terms of constituting any sort of political obstruction facing Revolutionary Syndicalism. White Nationalism, apart from being a rather vacuous concept, carries with it unnecessary baggage. Such baggage will not simply carry over to our socialism — despite the futile efforts of some of our detractors — because we will ensure that our ideology is not based on the same foundation of sand that WN is.

A socialist society, no matter how it diverges from its origins, is an offshort of the effort and ideology that I back. The shape of such a society is of little concern since I'm not actively involved in it. I do what I can in the present, and as such dedicate myself to revolution not statecraft.

Your personal drive may function independent of post-revolutionary considerations, but that of your potential comrades most likely will not. As such, I think you should reconsider this position of yours.

'Cultural interaction', what kind of buzz word is that? When they want to work together, it's the people that work together, not the culture(s). Sure, culture is a by-product of co-operation, but the failure of the European bond is not a failure of 'cultural interaction', but of willing co-operation. With revolution in mind, it's not a macro-scale that you can focus on, but the bonds between people who want to work together. This, to me, is the necessity of revolution.

Perhaps I missed your point somewhat. My evocation of cultural interactions arising through imperialism was intended to illustrate the fact that certain of the bonds Europeans share with one another are themselves not based upon historical instances of willing collaboration between peoples. For instance, though most of Iberia and Italy share strong cultural ties to one another, such arose through Roman imperialism — which killed and enslaved many Iberians. Similarly, the Anglo-Germanic bonds are based upon less sophisticated acts of Germanic conquest. (Of course, there are also many instances of cultural diffusion arising through commerce, relatively peaceful migrations, etc. but this does not constitute the totality of the picture.)

It seems as though you wish to reduce this question to one of some sort of racial exceptionalism that exists between Whites within the context of social collaboration (correct me if I'm wrong). Now, I personally find this to be a particularly naive opinion to hold. If anything, Whites have conclusively proven to be the most individualistic social group within the post-colonial West. Conversely, one encounters much stronger solidarity between various minority groups inhabiting the same states. No doubt, the contexts are somewhat different, as various levels of institutional accommodation exist for non-White expressions thereof, whilst institutional hostility is directed towards comparable initiatives undertaken by Whites. However, we also have an entire history of international conflict within the West to demonstrate that our own capacity to disregard our shared biological characteristics is no less pronounced than that of the contemporary East Asian example you previously cited. (And, as I previously stated, racial homogeneity invariably ensures that other traditional [non-racial] forms of social fission come to the fore.)

Therefore I don't think it's right to assume that Whites are exceptional in this area when we really lack any concrete examples with which to compare to various other racial groups. However, let's say I was willing to humor the notion that Whites are somehow exceptional and have a stronger intraracial bond than that of other races [I assume you may be confusing this for capitalism's success in homogenizing the cultures of European states and their post-colonial counterparts in such a way as to marginalize certain of the traditional social barriers], it still does not follow that White people would be able to transcend social disintegration based upon the same socioeconomic and (remaining) ethnocultural factors I've already addressed in some White Nationalist-like state. (Insofar as the latter point is concerned, if such a thing were indeed plausible, one would then have to ask himself or herself whether or not (s)he found the tradeoff of marginally increased levels of social cohesion to be worth the loss of ethnocultural diversity.) I think you can at least agree with me on that point.

Of course, in terms of international cooperation between European (and other Western) revolutionaries and/or post-revolutionary states, I welcome the notion of increased solidarity. However, I think this will be attained more through the conscious acknowledgment of shared class interests than shared biological characteristics.

by godlessnorth Sat May 14, 2011 6:50 pm

Admin wrote:Surely one must be willing to fathom a post-revolutionary context, within a concrete ideological framework, in order to give coherence and purpose to his or her revolutionary conviction. Anything short of that is a (personal) revolt without direction or appeal.

My position is that Revolutionary Syndicalists work to address these outstanding questions, in order to ensure that those principles have the best possible chance being realized. To do otherwise would undermine my convictions. My point regarding the utter impossibility of White people of all socioeconomic backgrounds to collectively ban together in order to pursue a White Nationalist agenda — something that simply doesn't register as a priority to most White people in the West — does not negate the imperative to actually work towards realizing Revolutionary Syndicalist principles. (This does not require inter-class collaboration, nor does it require that the targeted constituency — in this case, the national working class — simply dispense with the totality of their interests, in order to simply attain social homogenization.)

You see, I don't find the bleak prospects facing White Nationalism in the contemporary West to signify much in terms of constituting any sort of political obstruction facing Revolutionary Syndicalism. White Nationalism, apart from being a rather vacuous concept, carries with it unnecessary baggage. Such baggage will not simply carry over to our socialism — despite the futile efforts of some of our detractors — because we will ensure that our ideology is not based on the same foundation of sand that WN is.

[...]

Your personal drive may function independent of post-revolutionary considerations, but that of your potential comrades most likely will not. As such, I think you should reconsider this position of yours.

[...]

Perhaps I missed your point somewhat. My evocation of cultural interactions arising through imperialism was intended to illustrate the fact that certain of the bonds Europeans share with one another are themselves not based upon historical instances of willing collaboration between peoples. For instance, though most of Iberia and Italy share strong cultural ties to one another, such arose through Roman imperialism — which killed and enslaved many Iberians. Similarly, the Anglo-Germanic bonds are based upon less sophisticated acts of Germanic conquest. (Of course, there are also many instances of cultural diffusion arising through commerce, relatively peaceful migrations, etc. but this does not constitute the totality of the picture.)

It seems as though you wish to reduce this question to one of some sort of racial exceptionalism that exists between Whites within the context of social collaboration (correct me if I'm wrong). Now, I personally find this to be a particularly naive opinion to hold. If anything, Whites have conclusively proven to be the most individualistic social group within the post-colonial West. Conversely, one encounters much stronger solidarity between various minority groups inhabiting the same states. No doubt, the contexts are somewhat different, as various levels of institutional accommodation exist for non-White expressions thereof, whilst institutional hostility is directed towards comparable initiatives undertaken by Whites. However, we also have an entire history of international conflict within the West to demonstrate that our own capacity to disregard our shared biological characteristics is no less pronounced than that of the contemporary East Asian example you previously cited. (And, as I previously stated, racial homogeneity invariably ensures that other traditional [non-racial] forms of social fission come to the fore.)

Therefore I don't think it's right to assume that Whites are exceptional in this area when we really lack any concrete examples with which to compare to various other racial groups. However, let's say I was willing to humor the notion that Whites are somehow exceptional and have a stronger intraracial bond than that of other races [I assume you may be confusing this for capitalism's success in homogenizing the cultures of European states and their post-colonial counterparts in such a way as to marginalize certain of the traditional social barriers], it still does not follow that White people would be able to transcend social disintegration based upon the same socioeconomic and (remaining) ethnocultural factors I've already addressed in some White Nationalist-like state. (Insofar as the latter point is concerned, if such a thing were indeed plausible, one would then have to ask himself or herself whether or not (s)he found the tradeoff of marginally increased levels of social cohesion to be worth the loss of ethnocultural diversity.) I think you can at least agree with me on that point.

Of course, in terms of international cooperation between European (and other Western) revolutionaries and/or post-revolutionary states, I welcome the notion of increased solidarity. However, I think this will be attained more through the conscious acknowledgment of shared class interests than shared biological characteristics.

Well, this is what it comes down to, isn't it. I find it convenient that you focus on imperialism, capitalism and conflicts, instead of the character of the agents behind these events. In any case, this is understandable since your focus is first on class not race. Ideally, these things go hand in hand.

I too am happy to primarily support the focus on class in this arena if it better suits the aims of the phalanx. This is why I am here, because I denounce class. I appreciate that this discussion has been allowing to take place. Perhaps it will arise again from time to time, but I respect that it is secondary, in this arena, to issues of class. At least in terms of presenting the message.

by **Admin** Thu May 19, 2011 12:08 am

godlessnorth wrote:Well, this is what it comes down to, isn't it. I find it convenient that you focus on imperialism, capitalism and conflicts, instead of the character of the agents behind these events.

Well, what exactly do you mean by that? The institutions themselves are the problem. It matters not what the composition of the beneficiaries happens to be, so long as the institutions function in accordance to the same negative principles. (In the case of capitalism, this means private exploitative property, wage-labor, etc.) Now, I am not suggesting that you feel this way, but many so-called nationalists indulge the notion that we can simply homogenize our way out of the problem. This requires a suspension of disbelief on the part of most people. Individuals driven by negative emotions or excessive pride, on the other hand, may be so inclined as to feel that homogenization —whatever that means to them— can be an end in and of itself.

In any case, this is understandable since your focus is first on class not race. Ideally, these things go hand in hand.

Well, one clearly transcends the other. However, that does not mean that a commitment to the resolution to both questions is in any way fallacious. As I said before, social homogenization only further necessitates the need to adequately resolve the other outstanding issues pertaining to social relations within a given society. As such, nationalism (of any sort) should never be regarded as an end, but a means to an end. The ideal is a society of maximized cohesion and harmony. A society wherein the needs of all are met equitably and social consciousness does not manifest itself in a negative, self-destructive capacity.

I too am happy to primarily support the focus on class in this arena if it better suits the aims of the phalanx. This is why I am here, because I denounce class. I appreciate that this discussion has been allowing to take place. Perhaps it will arise again from time to time, but I respect that it is secondary, in this arena, to issues of class. At least in terms of presenting the message.

It's probably because many of us are on the same page when it comes to questions of nationalism that it is not discussed so often. However, I suspect the topic will invariably come up more regularly as the forum's membership diversifies.

by godlessnorth Thu May 19, 2011 8:03 am

Admin wrote:The institutions themselves are the problem. It matters not what the composition of the beneficiaries happens to be, so long as the institutions function in accordance to the same negative principles. (In the case of capitalism, this means private exploitative property, wage-labor, etc. Now, I am not suggesting that you feel this way, but many so-called nationalists indulge the notion that we can simply homogenize our way out of the problem. This requires a suspension of disbelief on the part of most people. Individuals driven by negative emotions or excessive pride, on the other hand, may be so inclined as to feel that homogenization —whatever that means to them— can be an end in and of itself.

I can see where you could imagine a connection, but you'd have to be pretty short-sighted as a revolutionary-racialist if you did not simultaneously tackle all effecting layers of society. I too, then, reject people who do not ask the necessary questions to compliment their ethnocentric viewpoint, much as you yourself are saying.

Managing holistic approaches are practical matters, not necessarily ideologically driven. It is not fair to assume that because someone is racist that he ignores what logically follows in the holistic pursuit of that emotion. On the same token, I recognise that a large segment of these often people fall head first into the sand without further resolution. I would not consider such failures anymore my comrade than you would consider a drug addict communist yours (for example).

Well, one clearly transcends the other. However, that does not mean that a commitment to the resolution to both questions is in any way fallacious. As I said before, social homogenization only further necessitates the need to adequately resolve the other outstanding issues pertaining to social relations within a given society. As such, nationalism (of any sort) should never be regarded as an end, but a means to an end. The ideal is a society of maximized cohesion and harmony. A society wherein the needs of all are met equitably and social consciousness does not manifest itself in a negative, self-destructive capacity.

I absolutely agree.

It's probably because many of us are on the same page when it comes to questions of nationalism that it is not discussed so often. However, I suspect the topic will invariably come up more regularly as the forum's membership diversifies.

Well, we still have disagreements on what constitutes a nation. I want to say that a nation is an abstract construct, and others here want to insist that race is an abstract construct. Well, it isn't black and white, as invariably things overlap.

Nations come and go, and I want to say the same thing about racial identities. The possibilies of either are there for the ones bold enough to embrace it. And, depending on your perspective, be it Pan-European or Hypernationalist, this possibily is either salvation or disaster. But: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. I think racialism and nationalism can work together here, so long as we approach it holistically, just as we have been discussing. Yes, there are difficulties, but here we are.

by Sponsored content