Integration of White Americans and "Ghetto" culture

Ok, a simple yet complex question.

What has happened in America is unique, but what are the conditions of seeing White Americans know absolutely nothing of their culture, and a general lack of class consciousness and racial identity?

Is it the schooling, the laws, the media?

I suppose it all depends on what you mean by 'culture'. If by that you mean a cultural identity based upon their respective ethnonational backgrounds, I would agree that such is conspicuously absent within the vast majority of the White American population. (There are some marginal exceptions found within parts of the Italian-American and Irish-American communities.)

However, Americans have traditionally had an acute sense of racial identity, — whether that identity be 'White' or 'Black' — which I contend served to supplant a lack of developed cultural identity. Said (racial) identity transcended the bounds of a mere acknowledgment of distinguishing qualities and backgrounds by assuming the character of power dynamics. (It was the legacy of the European imperial and colonial experience of the New World that established this basic social trajectory.)

The post-Civil War epoch of American history — leading up to and following the subsequent attainment of basic civil rights for African Americans — bears witness to certain cultural and subcultural developments which would serve as a means of dividing or uniting the populations in question, according to various arbitrary standards.

For many years, the bourgeois establishment thrived off of the social divisions that tenuous race relations produced. (They still do today, albeit to a lesser and less conspicuous extent.) Such presented (and continues to present) a barrier to class consciousness. For example, the perceived 'injustice' of affording the fruits of class struggle to racial 'out-groups' is so repulsive to many that they find it necessary to adopt a reactionary worldview — even if that means that his or her own racial 'in-group' will also suffer. Bourgeois liberal economist Paul Krugman argued that sort of racial 'backlash' can account for why the American social safety-net has historically been far less significant than its Western counterparts and I am very much inclined to agree. One can see it with the rise of the Tea Party and one recognizes it throughout virtually all reactionary nationalist movements.

Given these facts, I think that the true task of the progressive nationalist is to accept modern social heterogeneity as an inevitable outcome of capitalism and actively seek to transcend the sorts of social barriers which serve to alienate fellow working class men and women from their collective (class) interests, whilst simultaneously celebrating our respective national/cultural identities. There is no way in which to abolish capitalism unless we can first work together with those of conjoined interests, irrespective of their racial/national/cultural composition.

Admin wrote:I suppose it all depends on what you mean by 'culture'. If by that you mean a cultural identity based upon their respective ethnonational backgrounds, I would agree that such is conspicuously absent within the vast majority of the White American population. (There are some marginal exceptions found within parts of the Italian-American and Irish-American communities.)

However, Americans have traditionally had an acute sense of racial identity, — whether that identity be 'White' or 'Black' — which I contend served to supplant a lack of developed cultural identity. Said (racial) identity transcended the bounds of a mere acknowledgment of distinguishing qualities and backgrounds by assuming the character of power dynamics. (It was the legacy of the European imperial and colonial experience of the New World that established this basic social trajectory.)

The post-Civil War epoch of American history — leading up to and following the subsequent attainment of basic civil rights for African Americans — bears witness to certain cultural and subcultural developments which would serve as a means of dividing or uniting the populations in question, according to various arbitrary standards.

For many years, the bourgeois establishment thrived off of the social divisions that tenuous race relations produced. (They still do today, albeit to a lesser and less conspicuous extent.) Such presented (and continues to present) a barrier to class consciousness. For example, the perceived 'injustice' of affording the fruits of class struggle to racial 'out-groups' is so repulsive to many that they find it necessary to adopt a reactionary worldview — even if that means that his or her own racial 'in-group' will also suffer. Bourgeois liberal economist Paul Krugman argued that sort of racial 'backlash' can account for why the American social safety-net has historically been far less significant than its Western counterparts and I am very much inclined to agree. One can see it with the rise of the Tea Party and one recognizes it throughout virtually all reactionary nationalist movements.

Given these facts, I think that the true task of the progressive nationalist is to accept modern social heterogeneity as an inevitable outcome of capitalism and actively seek to transcend the sorts of social barriers which serve to alienate fellow working class men and women from their collective (class) interests, whilst simultaneously celebrating our respective national/cultural identities. There is no way in which to abolish capitalism unless we can first work together with those of conjoined interests, irrespective of their racial/national/cultural composition.

While I agree that the abolition of capitalism should serve as our first priority, I do not quite understand what is meant by "work together with those of conjoined interests." We cannot establish some sort of "united" front because we are not united. The best we can do, in my opinion, is to avoid the pitfalls of reactionary nationalism, which sacrifices the class struggle in favor of racial strife and thereby, as is outlined in your post, halts political and economic progress. In this way, we serve neither as an obstacle to social progress, nor do we embroil ourselves in commitments that we cannot ultimately honor, such as multi-ethnic societies by "working together" with other "national" ethnic groups.

Revolutionary Wolf wrote:While I agree that the abolition of capitalism should serve as our first priority, I do not quite understand what is meant by "work together with those of conjoined interests." We cannot establish some sort of "united" front because we are not united. The best we can do, in my opinion, is to avoid the pitfalls of reactionary nationalism, which sacrifices the class struggle in favor of racial strife and thereby, as is outlined in your post, halts political and economic progress. In this way, we serve neither as an obstacle to social progress, nor do we embroil ourselves in commitments that we cannot ultimately honor, such as multi-ethnic societies by "working together" with other "national" ethnic groups.

You may be deducing too much from my point. What I am arguing is essentially what I argued in the How Multiculturalism Killed the Socialist Dream thread. That is to say that we should not be averse to the notion of working with other working class individuals or groups simply because of our ideological commitment to progressive nationalism.

That does not mean that we have to compromise on our values and embrace such social pluralism. What I am suggesting is that we merely accept that nothing can be done about it at the present time and exploit whatever opportunities are afforded to us in our pursuit to abolish capitalism. I personally do not see the value in maintaining an antagonistic approach towards fellow socialist movements or individuals simply because they may be (ethnically) heterogeneous in character and have a cosmopolitan agenda. (Insofar as the latter is concerned, I do not find it to be particularly disconcerting, given the fact that it would, at worst, merely serve to perpetuate the status quo.)

Admin wrote:

Revolutionary Wolf wrote:While I agree that the abolition of capitalism should serve as our first priority, I do not quite understand what is meant by "work together with those of conjoined interests." We cannot establish some sort of "united" front because we are not united. The best we can do, in my opinion, is to avoid the pitfalls of reactionary nationalism, which sacrifices the class struggle in favor of racial strife and thereby, as is outlined in your post, halts political and economic progress. In this way, we serve neither as an obstacle to social progress, nor do we embroil ourselves in commitments that we cannot ultimately honor, such as multi-ethnic societies by "working together" with other "national" ethnic groups.

Admin wrote:You may be deducing too much from my point. What I am arguing is essentially what I argued in the How Multiculturalism Killed the Socialist Dream thread. That is to say that we should not be averse to the notion of working with other working class individuals or groups simply because of our ideological commitment to progressive nationalism.

That does not mean that we have to compromise on our values and embrace such social pluralism. What I am suggesting is that we merely accept that nothing can be done about it at the present time and exploit whatever opportunities are afforded to us in our pursuit to abolish capitalism. I personally do not see the value in maintaining an antagonistic approach towards fellow socialist movements or individuals simply because they may be (ethnically) heterogeneous in character and have a cosmopolitan agenda. (Insofar as the latter is concerned, I do not find it to be particularly disconcerting, given the fact that it would, at worst, merely serve to perpetuate the status quo.)

Admin, it is an extremely naive assumption that socialist organizations of a cosmopolitan character, such as the SDUSA and CPUSA, would ever have anything to do with people like us. Here is an example of the things that they do in pursuit of 'racial equality'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Party_and_African-Americans

You might think we shouldn't be "antagonistic" towards these groups, but the fact of the matter is that they are going to be antagonistic towards us. I'm not trying to be iconoclastic, but the reality is that these people really do hate our guts, they call us "fascists", and "racists", and whatever other libel you could think of.

Admin wrote:

Revolutionary Wolf wrote:While I agree that the abolition of capitalism should serve as our first priority, I do not quite understand what is meant by "work together with those of conjoined interests." We cannot establish some sort of "united" front because we are not united. The best we can do, in my opinion, is to avoid the pitfalls of reactionary nationalism, which sacrifices the class struggle in favor of racial strife and thereby, as is outlined in your post, halts political and economic progress. In this way, we serve neither as an obstacle to social progress, nor do we embroil ourselves in commitments that we cannot ultimately honor, such as multi-ethnic societies by "working together" with other "national" ethnic groups.

You may be deducing too much from my point. What I am arguing is essentially what I argued in the How Multiculturalism Killed the Socialist Dream thread. That is to say that we should not be averse to the notion of working with other working class individuals or groups simply because of our ideological commitment to progressive nationalism.

That does not mean that we have to compromise on our values and embrace such social pluralism. What I am suggesting is that we merely accept that nothing can be done about it at the present time and exploit whatever opportunities are afforded to us in our pursuit to abolish capitalism. I personally do not see the value in maintaining an antagonistic approach towards fellow socialist movements or individuals simply because they may be (ethnically) heterogeneous in character and have a cosmopolitan agenda. (Insofar as the latter is concerned, I do not find it to be particularly disconcerting, given the fact that it would, at worst, merely serve to perpetuate the status quo.)

Agreed. I did think that this was what you were intending to convey, but I wanted to be certain.

Bladridigan wrote:

Admin wrote:

Revolutionary Wolf wrote:While I agree that the abolition of capitalism should serve as our first priority, I do not quite understand what is meant by "work together with those of conjoined interests." We cannot establish some sort of "united" front because we are not united. The best we can do, in my opinion, is to avoid the pitfalls of reactionary nationalism, which sacrifices the class struggle in favor of racial strife and thereby, as is outlined in your post, halts political and economic progress. In this way, we serve neither as an obstacle to social progress, nor do we embroil ourselves in commitments that we cannot ultimately honor, such as multi-ethnic societies by "working together" with other "national" ethnic groups.

Admin wrote:You may be deducing too much from my point. What I am arguing is essentially what I argued in the How Multiculturalism Killed the Socialist Dream thread. That is to say that we should not be averse to the notion of working with other working class individuals or groups simply because of our ideological commitment to progressive nationalism.

That does not mean that we have to compromise on our values and embrace such social pluralism. What I am suggesting is that we merely accept that nothing can be done about it at the present time and exploit whatever opportunities are afforded to us in our pursuit to abolish capitalism. I personally do not see the value in maintaining an antagonistic approach towards fellow socialist movements or individuals simply because they may be (ethnically) heterogeneous in character and have a cosmopolitan agenda. (Insofar as the latter is concerned, I do not find it to be particularly disconcerting, given the fact that it would, at worst, merely serve to perpetuate the status quo.)

Admin, it is an extremely naive assumption that socialist organizations of a cosmopolitan character, such as the SDUSA and CPUSA, would ever have anything to do with people like us. Here is an example of the things that they do in pursuit of 'racial equality'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Party_and_African-Americans

You might think we shouldn't be "antagonistic" towards these groups, but the fact of the matter is that they are going to be antagonistic towards us. I'm not trying to be iconoclastic, but the reality is that these people really do hate our guts, they call us "fascists", and "racists", and whatever other libel you could think of.

Do we care what 'cosmopolitans' think of us to any more or less of a degree than the 'reactionaries'? If we are just here to accept what the fauxleft think of us we just as well hoist a swastika and rejoin the 'movement'. Oh no we can't because they don't want us "Damned commiie Bolshevists" either.
I thought the whole idea of the RSF and this forum was to find a way to create something new, make the left adapt to the 21st century. As far as the reactionary 'movement' is concerned they are still picking their way between the end of the American Civil War in 1865 and the fall of Berlin in 1945.

Bladridigan wrote:Admin, it is an extremely naive assumption that socialist organizations of a cosmopolitan character, such as the SDUSA and CPUSA, would ever have anything to do with people like us. Here is an example of the things that they do in pursuit of 'racial equality'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Party_and_African-Americans

You might think we shouldn't be "antagonistic" towards these groups, but the fact of the matter is that they are going to be antagonistic towards us. I'm not trying to be iconoclastic, but the reality is that these people really do hate our guts, they call us "fascists", and "racists", and whatever other libel you could think of.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that we adopt some masochistic approach, wherein instances of active opposition are not countered.

However, to simply function as a proactively antagonistic force is superfluous. My view of groups that adopt such belligerent tactics is that they tend to be insecure at a fundamental level — and thus find it necessary to insulate themselves in a counterproductive manner. I think adequate anticipation to possible objections, in the form of a well-developed ideological framework and mature activism, is a far better tactic.

The contemporary Western left is deeply fragmented. As such, I don't find your evocation of the CPUSA or the SDUSA — both of which represent marginal constituencies — to be particularly persuasive. Most people, on an individual level, retain sentiments that are not in accord with traditional cosmopolitan values. Exploiting those sentiments, whilst retaining a revolutionary socialist framework, is what will serve to stimulate a new (progressive nationalist) consciousness within the left. (And I am of the firm opinion that once such a consciousness takes root in the minds of a significant plurality of the left, it will in turn sever one of the predominant sources of populist galvanization the bourgeois establishment has.)

The existing groups found within the political infrastructure of the left are far less important. The whole point of not antagonizing them is to avoid unnecessary conflict, retain prospects for whatever cooperation can be achieved, and attempt to not alienate a significant portion of their respective followers.

I would assume that someone of your ideological background would recall that, prior to the integration of acutely reactionary principles, the labor branches of the NSDAP (NSBO) and KPD cooperated with one another in a number of strike actions.

The following is from the Guidelines of the National Factory Cell Executive (1931):

"The strike has become an indispensable weapon in the social struggle for the employee within today's ruling liberal-capitalist economic order. As long as the class contradictions between labour and capital exist and the National Socialist economic order has not been given practical expression, National Socialism accepts the strike as the employee's ultimate weapon. The support for strikes is fundamental and unaffected by the identity of the instigator, whether Christian, National Socialist, or the KPD..."

Now if a party well to the political right of our revolutionary socialism could (at least at one point) recognize the value of cooperation with fellow leftist movements — those that were even actively committed to cosmopolitanism — in such pursuits, I don't see why it is so very difficult to accept the basic premise I put forward.

Admin wrote:

Bladridigan wrote:Admin, it is an extremely naive assumption that socialist organizations of a cosmopolitan character, such as the SDUSA and CPUSA, would ever have anything to do with people like us. Here is an example of the things that they do in pursuit of 'racial equality'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Party_and_African-Americans

You might think we shouldn't be "antagonistic" towards these groups, but the fact of the matter is that they are going to be antagonistic towards us. I'm not trying to be iconoclastic, but the reality is that these people really do hate our guts, they call us "fascists", and "racists", and whatever other libel you could think of.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that we adopt some masochistic approach, wherein instances of active opposition are not countered.

However, to simply function as a proactively antagonistic force is superfluous. My view of groups that adopt such belligerent tactics is that they tend to be insecure at a fundamental level — and thus find it necessary to insulate themselves in a counterproductive manner. I think adequate anticipation to possible objections, in the form of a well-developed ideological framework and mature activism, is a far better tactic.

The contemporary Western left is deeply fragmented. As such, I don't find your evocation of the CPUSA or the SDUSA — both of which represent marginal constituencies — to be particularly persuasive. Most people, on an individual level, retain sentiments that are not in accord with traditional cosmopolitan values. Exploiting those sentiments, whilst retaining a revolutionary socialist framework, is what will serve to stimulate a new (progressive nationalist) consciousness within the left. (And I am of the firm opinion that once such a consciousness takes root in the minds of a significant plurality of the left, it will in turn sever one of the predominant sources of populist galvanization the bourgeois establishment has.)

The existing groups found within the political infrastructure of the left are far less important. The whole point of not antagonizing them is to avoid unnecessary conflict, retain prospects for whatever cooperation can be achieved, and attempt to not alienate a significant portion of their respective followers.

I would assume that someone of your ideological background would recall that, prior to the integration of acutely reactionary principles, the labor branches of the NSDAP (NSBO) and KPD cooperated with one another in a number of strike actions.

The following is from the Guidelines of the National Factory Cell Executive (1931):

"The strike has become an indispensable weapon in the social struggle for the employee within today's ruling liberal-capitalist economic order. As long as the class contradictions between labour and capital exist and the National Socialist economic order has not been given practical expression, National Socialism accepts the strike as the employee's ultimate weapon. The support for strikes is fundamental and unaffected by the identity of the instigator, whether Christian, National Socialist, or the KPD..."

Now if a party well to the political right of our revolutionary socialism could (at least at one point) recognize the value of cooperation with fellow leftist movements — those that were even actively committed to cosmopolitanism — in such pursuits, I don't see why it is so very difficult to accept the basic premise I put forward.

I understand, I'm just pointing out that the conventional 'left-wingers' are going to oppose us from the beginning for threatening their little stronghold, and stealing away their followers. The more sensible ones will be afraid to associate with us for being "racist".

I believe we should cooperate them to the greatest possible degree, but cooperation, unlike coercion, requires mutual consent, and I doubt they will consent to work with us for the above reasons.

Bladridigan wrote:I understand, I'm just pointing out that the conventional 'left-wingers' are going to oppose us from the beginning for threatening their little stronghold, and stealing away their followers. The more sensible ones will be afraid to associate with us for being "racist".

I believe we should cooperate them to the greatest possible degree, but cooperation, unlike coercion, requires mutual consent, and I doubt they will consent to work with us for the above reasons.

Well, I suppose that the legitimacy of your point is contingent upon the rubric you are choosing to apply to 'us'. Given that your theories are based, at least in part, upon a National Socialist framework, I would imagine that the prospects of ideological appeal to any significant leftist demographic are not favorable, to say the very least. Cooperation with left-wing groups (no matter how conservative they may happen to be) would also be nearly impossible to establish. The associated history is just far too problematic to render any explicitly fascistic/National Socialist group to be considered politically viable within any political current — left-wing or right-wing.

On the other hand, I find that going down an alternative ideological path — based upon an entirely different synthesis of revolutionary theories — yields far more potential for nationalism within the political left. If nationalism is to remain a relevant concept heading into the future its adherents must be willing to impeach every bourgeois/reactionary quality ever associated with it and develop it into something that is sufficiently revolutionary, emancipatory, and mindful of human rights. Anything that violates such parameters risks pushing nationalism into the (far-right) margins of political relevance.

Thus we have the emergence of what I like to refer to as 'progressive nationalism'. The explicitly benevolent (non-racist, anti-chauvinistic) core of this nationalism is what will give the contemporary left cause to revisit its superfluous antipathy towards the notion of promoting (or at least maintaining) a national consciousness. Of course, any movement based upon those (progressive nationalist) principles will be forced to contend with the sorts of baseless charges you mention. However, I find that a movement that has been liberated from the sort of reactionary baggage that accompanies practically every other sort of nationalistic movement (that has not repudiated the reactionary elements inherent to the overall legacy of nationalism) to be in a far more favorable position to accomplish the task of dispelling such notions — especially if the hypothetical movement in question is itself based upon a revolutionary socialist foundation that truly resonates with the values of those found within the political left.

I think it is both schooling and the media. From the time kids are little they learn all about tolerance and diversity and how important it is to accept other cultures, beliefs, and races. Whether the medium be federal brainwashing centers (schools) or the mainstream media the message is still the same.

I remember watching Nickelodean (owned by the jewish Sumner Rothstein) when I was a little kid. Every other week they would have a week celebrating different heritages, such as "Jewish" or "Mexican". Never once was any European heritage celebrated. It is truly sickening and I feel sorry for most of the poor white kids growing up today.

We need to reach our youth with a message of class and racial solidarity. Then we can shake off the degenerate "ghetto" and "sex" culture of today and revive our ancient European values within a strong socialist state.