The RevLeft Troll Thread

[No_Leaders]

Wow you guys have it WAY wrong. I don't get the point in calling yourselves "left"nationalists. That's as stupid as the people who call themselves "anarcho"capitalists. Just be honest and say you're a nationalist. Oh and we're not all "lazy". I do plenty of things locally with other anarchists/marxists/radical leftists. You guys get mad because some users call you fascists? Honestly how do you expect us NOT to think you are? Nationalism and fascism go hand in hand, not to mention the racialist? is that what you call it? views.

I don't know what kind of socialism you're fighting for? But i don't want part of some nationalist cause. Most realistic socialists i know are fighting to dismantle capitalism and the state, and for freedom. No one is free if they're being discriminated against and hated against for being somewhere outside of "their" community. Sounds more right wing to me. Sounds pretty oppressive and the opposite of being a radical leftist.

[Comrade Tito]

We are supporting self-determination, not fascist jimgoism.

[GF]

You guys get mad because some users call you fascists? Honestly how do you expect us NOT to think you are? Nationalism and fascism go hand in hand, not to mention the racialist? is that what you call it? views.

Not necessarily. Bakunin had some pan-slavist views. Also, I'm sure we'd all appreciate it if Revleft would at least stop generalizing what all of us agree with based on what only some of use agree with.

I don't know what kind of socialism you're fighting for? But i don't want part of some nationalist cause. Most realistic socialists i know are fighting to dismantle capitalism and the state, and for freedom. No one is free if they're being discriminated against and hated against for being somewhere outside of "their" community. Sounds more right wing to me. Sounds pretty oppressive and the opposite of being a radical leftist.

Well, our socialism is pretty varied, as is our nationalism. But I can tell you that for a fact this forum does not support hating anyone for being outside their community. I can't speak for everyone, but I support collaborating with workers of all the other nations of the world. We don't want to divide proletarians, we just realize that so far as workers want to keep their own nations, they should be able to. Allowing self-determination for the workers of the world does not preclude the fight against the bourgeoisie, as it is only the working class that builds the nation.

[Admin]

All relevant contributions that are made [by RevLeft trolls] in the general forum will be redirected here.

[Pantheon Rising]

What is so wrong with supporting self determination? I have no problem working with members of other races, ethnic groups, nations, etc etc against the system, but if you truly want to give people freedom than also give them freedom of association. I am only asking for territory in which to preserve our collective ethnic identity. And I would ask all others be given the same. That doesn't mean we can't work together.

You claim to support freedom, but forced integration onto people who do not wish it is not freedom. By the way, mass immigration only plays right into the hands of the capitalists.

[Admin]

Wow you guys have it WAY wrong. I don't get the point in calling yourselves "left"nationalists. That's as stupid as the people who call themselves "anarcho"capitalists. Just be honest and say you're a nationalist.

Because there are significant differences between the form of nationalism we support and other expressions thereof. Why is that so terribly difficult for you to comprehend?

Your statement is akin to arguing that Stalinists and libertarian socialists simply forgo stressing the distinctions between their respective ideologies and unite under a common banner. It's an absurd suggestion that no serious person would humor.

Oh and we're not all "lazy". I do plenty of things locally with other anarchists/marxists/radical leftists.

I applaud the purported effort. I would just note that organizing little 'get-togethers' with groups of like-minded individuals does not constitute proper activism. (This fact generally fails to register in the minds of the vast majority of your fellow left-wing scenesters.)

You guys get mad because some users call you fascists? Honestly how do you expect us NOT to think you are? Nationalism and fascism go hand in hand, not to mention the racialist? is that what you call it? views.

That's simply ridiculous. Employing that very logic, I could make the argument that anarchism and Stalinism are identical. I mean, it's all 'socialism', right? Oh, I forgot, when it comes to your worldview, you expect everyone appreciate the ideological distinctions.

Perhaps if you could specifically cite the areas of ideological commonality between left-wing nationalism and fascism, we can actually have an argument. Let's begin with the overall premise of left-wing nationalism.

*What is 'left-wing nationalism'?

Left-wing nationalism is a unique variety of nationalism that is both thoroughly anti-capitalist and anti-reactionary. As such, this variety of nationalism inherently rejects the theories and tendencies associated with most other expressions thereof — such as ethnic chauvinism, economic exploitation, and imperialism.

Socialist Phalanx FAQ

Now let's explore specific areas of this overall ideological rubric.

I would say that progressive nationalism is a form of collective identity based upon certain national bonds — those being subject to a criteria determined by a given community, rather than a bourgeois state or its predecessor. (The implications of this, within the context of the current distribution and character of so-called nation states, are self-evident.)

Furthermore, such a nationalism is inherently based upon a revolutionary socialist framework, so as to deprive it of the traditional preconditions that rendered preceding forms of (reactionary) 'nationalism' a vehicle for exploitation and imperialism. As such, progressive nationalism could only truly express itself following the abolition of capitalist social relations. In this respect, it can be argued that its development is entirely dependent upon the success of the worldwide socialist struggle against capitalism.

"Progressive nationalism"

I would only stress that there is a qualitative difference between progressive/left-wing nationalism and other expressions of nationalism that cannot be obscured on account of historical context alone. For example, early American 'nationalism' was clearly not qualitatively progressive in a number of critical areas. As such, it should only be regarded as 'progressive' in relative terms.

Thus, while certain other expressions of nationalism may well possess some inherent (largely strategic) value, I would caution individuals not to conflate ('progressive') functionality with (progressive) ideological substance.

Incidentally, many of us here describe the tendency as 'left-wing nationalism', due to the ambiguity inherent to the term 'progressive nationalism'.

Progressive vs. reactionary nationalism

On the other hand, addressing the systemic nature of the problems facing the world today requires that we part ways with bourgeois convention and stand for solutions that render our agenda fundamentally incompatible with traditional expressions of 'nationalism' — which utilize such social poisons as irrational scapegoating, conspiracy theories, and chauvinism/jingoism, in order to perpetuate capitalist social relations (or other reactionary forms of social stratification). This is what sets left-wing/progressive nationalism apart from the 'nationalism' inherent to such ideological constructs as National Socialism.

The Jewish Question

So you make no effort to conceal your blatant chauvinism or imperialism, yet find these qualities compatible with left-wing nationalism?

The Jewish Question

I trust I have not given the impression that I would any support expression of nationalism that wasn't itself based upon a framework of socialist emancipation.

Eugene Terre'Blanche schools a "colorblind" Liberal

I think those of us who are left-wing nationalists have drawn a very clear distinction between what can generally be regarded as acceptable and unacceptable expressions of nationalism. As such, I am no more inclined to support a movement simply because it pursues a 'nationalist' agenda anymore than I am inclined to support a movement simply because it pursues an 'anti-capitalist' agenda. (Would I support a movement that desires a return to feudalism simply because it opposes capitalist social relations? Surely not. Similarly, I am not going to support a movement that promotes class collaboration, imperialism, etc. simply because it pushes back against certain social developments of recent decades.)

My support for a nationalist movement/cause is entirely contingent upon the totality of the ends it is endeavoring to achieve; for nationalism is not inherently 'noble'. It has been used for generations as a tool to perpetuate social injustices, the world over.

Eugene Terre'Blanche schools a "colorblind" Liberal

Now what about any of this strikes you as constituting a manifestation of 'fascism'? Perhaps this will also help:

*Is this a fascist website?

No. None of the ideologies found within the heterogeneous construct referred to as 'fascism' objectively meet the standards of revolutionary socialism or left-wing nationalism.

Socialist Phalanx FAQ

I don't know what kind of socialism you're fighting for?

The FAQ is your friend. Therefore, if you're asking what framework of socialism this forum is based upon, note the following:

*What is 'revolutionary socialism'?

For purposes of this forum, revolutionary socialism is defined as a socialist tendency based upon a fundamental commitment to the complete abolition of capitalism — this being contrasted to conventional Social Democratic and corporativist models, based upon the partial or complete maintenance of the capitalist mode of production — and the construction of a workers' state.

Socialist Phalanx FAQ

But i don't want part of some nationalist cause.

That's your prerogative. The question is whether the majority of the international proletariat will come to the same anti-national conclusions you have. It is our belief that the workers of the world will not voluntarily abandon their respective national identities. Therefore we seek to develop a progressive framework (rooted firmly in revolutionary socialist principles) for said identities, in order to ensure that such does not lead to the sort of counterproductive outcomes hitherto associated with them.

Most realistic socialists i know are fighting to dismantle capitalism and the state, and for freedom. No one is free if they're being discriminated against and hated against for being somewhere outside of "their" community. Sounds more right wing to me. Sounds pretty oppressive and the opposite of being a radical leftist.

No one is advocating hating or antagonizing anyone on the basis of their national/cultural/racial character. At least have the decency to maintain some semblance of intellectual honesty.

Again, there is an abundance of evidence to substantiate this very fact here on the forum. I strongly advise that you to consult it before you bother to respond.

[Admin]

Not necessarily. Bakunin had some pan-slavist views. Also, I'm sure we'd all appreciate it if Revleft would at least stop generalizing what all of us agree with based on what only some of use agree with.

"Nationality. . . is a historic, local fact which, like all real and harmless facts, has the right to claim general acceptance. . . Every people, like every person, is involuntarily that which it is and therefore has a right to be itself. . . Nationality is not a principle; it is a legitimate fact, just as individuality is. Every nationality, great or small, has the incontestable right to be itself, to live according to its own nature. This right is simply the corollary of the general principle of freedom."
Maksimov, Grigoriĭ Petrovich. The Political Philosophy of Bakunin: Scientific Anarchism, p. 325

[No_Leaders]

If someone is proud of their culture and art and diversity and so on that's all fine and great. Nationalism on the other hand is authoritarian in nature. It gives the notion of superiority over another nation state. Not to mention that nationalism is something enforced by the state to fit every individual into a predefined identity. Nationalism keeps the current system intact by creating division amongst people. It keeps the native born people hateful towards "foreigners" or "illegal" immigrants.

Again, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with nationality.. You can be proud of your culture, but where most leftists draw the line is if there's notions of racial, cultural or ethnic superiority or purity, etc etc. At heart nationalism is an ideology of class collaboration. It functions to create an imagined community of shared interests and in doing so to hide the real, material interests of the classes which comprise the population. The "national interest" is a weapon against the working class, and an attempt to rally the ruled behind the interests of their rulers. I don't think revolution should be based on nationalism, revolution is based on your class. It's working class against the oppressors. Class is the binding force not nationalism.

Nationalism has caused countless wars in the "interests of the nation". Look at how many pointless wars have been started because of nationalism. Look at how it is easily used to manipulate and rile people up i.e. Nazi Germany, Nationalist Spain (during the Spanish civil war and after) Not to mention Franco and the nationalists committed countless atrocities against working class comrades, anarchists, socialists and communists alike. All in the name of "defending Spain from the red horde" You see why Nationalism isn't something i see as going hand in hand with working class interests? I don't see how workers would contemplate revolution simply based on community, identity, and so on. If they're working class, they're gonna unite with working class comrades all over. It doesn't matter if they're from a different culture, "nation", background/ancestry, community, or nationality. We're all part of the same class therefore we all must fight together in solidarity.

[No_Leaders]

I applaud the purported effort. I would just note that organizing little 'get-togethers' with groups of like-minded individuals does not constitute proper activism. (This fact generally fails to register in the minds of the vast majority of your fellow left-wing scenesters.)

Also i wouldn't call them "get-togethers" I'm talking about things from protests, to direct action, to helping people in the work place get organized together. When i say working with others, i don't mean we have a get together at my apartment and sit around drinking and talking about how much we can't stand the way things are. Talking won't get anything done, you need to take action.

[Isakenaz]

If someone is proud of their culture and art and diversity and so on that's all fine and great. Nationalism on the other hand is authoritarian in nature. It gives the notion of superiority over another nation state. Not to mention that nationalism is something enforced by the state to fit every individual into a predefined identity. Nationalism keeps the current system intact by creating division amongst people. It keeps the native born people hateful towards "foreigners" or "illegal" immigrants.

Again, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with nationality.. You can be proud of your culture, but where most leftists draw the line is if there's notions of racial, cultural or ethnic superiority or purity, etc etc. At heart nationalism is an ideology of class collaboration. It functions to create an imagined community of shared interests and in doing so to hide the real, material interests of the classes which comprise the population. The "national interest" is a weapon against the working class, and an attempt to rally the ruled behind the interests of their rulers. I don't think revolution should be based on nationalism, revolution is based on your class. It's working class against the oppressors. Class is the binding force not nationalism.

Nationalism has caused countless wars in the "interests of the nation". Look at how many pointless wars have been started because of nationalism. Look at how it is easily used to manipulate and rile people up i.e. Nazi Germany, Nationalist Spain (during the Spanish civil war and after) Not to mention Franco and the nationalists committed countless atrocities against working class comrades, anarchists, socialists and communists alike. All in the name of "defending Spain from the red horde" You see why Nationalism isn't something i see as going hand in hand with working class interests? I don't see how workers would contemplate revolution simply based on community, identity, and so on. If they're working class, they're gonna unite with working class comrades all over. It doesn't matter if they're from a different culture, "nation", background/ancestry, community, or nationality. We're all part of the same class therefore we all must fight together in solidarity.

The examples you give are all reactionary, we are not and do not encourage any form of reactionary nationalism. At no time have we advanced the idea that one 'race', culture etc is superior to another.
Like many others you see the eventual outcome of the revolution as paramount, you put the cart before the horse so to speak. First we win the revolution, the PROLETARIAN revolution, then we argue over the formation of worker states and how they are based. I think, or at least I hope, that once we have ride the world of capitalism and international exploitation of workers, whatever their 'race', culture etc, new states will arise that are not based on principals or ideas that belong to the capitalist era. The nations I hope to see formed after the revolution will not be those of the flag-waving imperialist era. I hope that the British 'Union' flag gets confined to the rubbish bin of history along with all the other bourgeois symbols, because in a new-proletarian workers world we will have no need of that, any more than a freed slave needs chains to remind him of his past.

Something new must be built, something that is not of the orthodox left, or the orthodox right. Think about that comrade, try and consider what Bakunin might have said had he been writing now and not within the restrictions of 19th century society.

[GF]

If someone is proud of their culture and art and diversity and so on that's all fine and great. Nationalism on the other hand is authoritarian in nature.

Not necessarily. but I can see how you could have problems with authoritarianism since you are an anarchist. Nationality is a historic fact. Yes, it can sometimes change, but for the most part, people will form a community with other people who share the same cultural and historic bonds.

It gives the notion of superiority over another nation state.

Why should it? Our nationalism is certainly not about superiority. I am a nationalist, and I do not think my nation is superior to others.

Not to mention that nationalism is something enforced by the state to fit every individual into a predefined identity.

How would self-determination for every nation force everyone into a predefined identity? The only "identity" it would force someone into is that of nationality.

Nationalism keeps the current system intact by creating division amongst people.

I don't see why it should. We would collaborate with people of all other nations to overthrow the system, as well as allow them self-determination.

It keeps the native born people hateful towards "foreigners" or "illegal" immigrants.

Perhaps someone can answer that one better than I.

Again, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with nationality.. You can be proud of your culture

Well then you should fit right in.

but where most leftists draw the line is if there's notions of racial, cultural or ethnic superiority or purity, etc etc.

Yes, I can see why, but we aren't into that supremacist stuff. I think maybe you've been getting the wrong idea of our nationalism.

At heart nationalism is an ideology of class collaboration. It functions to create an imagined community of shared interests and in doing so to hide the real, material interests of the classes which comprise the population. The "national interest" is a weapon against the working class, and an attempt to rally the ruled behind the interests of their rulers. I don't think revolution should be based on nationalism, revolution is based on your class. It's working class against the oppressors. Class is the binding force not nationalism.

Yes, a revolution should be based on class, I agree. We support nationalism without any sort of class collaboration, so that is not always the heart of nationalism. Our nations would have no classes. We are no supporters of the "national interest". Exactly, class is the binding force. That is why there's nothing wrong with collaborating with others not of your nation to overthrow capitalism.

Nationalism has caused countless wars in the "interests of the nation". Look at how many pointless wars have been started because of nationalism. Look at how it is easily used to manipulate and rile people up i.e. Nazi Germany, Nationalist Spain (during the Spanish civil war and after) Not to mention Franco and the nationalists committed countless atrocities against working class comrades, anarchists, socialists and communists alike. All in the name of "defending Spain from the red horde" You see why Nationalism isn't something i see as going hand in hand with working class interests?

I see why reactionary nationalism is, but why not nationalism that is based on the working class. We are nationalists without class collaboration because the bourgeoisie should not be in the nation!

I don't see how workers would contemplate revolution simply based on community, identity, and so on. If they're working class, they're gonna unite with working class comrades all over.

Exactly! A world wide revolution! Workers of all countries uniting to overthrow capitalism, that is how the revolution will succeed.

It doesn't matter if they're from a different culture, "nation", background/ancestry, community, or nationality. We're all part of the same class therefore we all must fight together in solidarity.

I agree with you entirely. The bourgeoisie of the world must be fought against by the proletarians of the world.

I hope you have understand our views better now.

[Leon Mcnichol]

It keeps the native born people hateful towards "foreigners" or "illegal" immigrants.

You are making the classic mistake of confusing Nationalism or Patriotism with chauvinism.

[Leon Mcnichol]

I don't see how workers would contemplate revolution simply based on community, identity, and so on. If they're working class, they're gonna unite with working class comrades all over. It doesn't matter if they're from a different culture, "nation", background/ancestry, community, or nationality. We're all part of the same class therefore we all must fight together in solidarity.

And here you make the classic mistake of ignoring the power of communities in favor of some sort of "class solidarity" that proved time and time again to be a too weak force to unite even the workers of the same country, let alone the workers of the entire world. Before international class solidarity, you need national and community awareness to happen. People don't wake up and think "i must join my chinese comrades against the system", no, they wake up and SEE and HEAR their community problems, and think about their community or their country first.

[Celtiberian]

The number of non sequiturs and utterly baseless conflations No_Leaders writes in each post is truly astounding. Being that s/he is from RevLeft, I suppose it shouldn't surprise me.

If someone is proud of their culture and art and diversity and so on that's all fine and great. Nationalism on the other hand is authoritarian in nature. It gives the notion of superiority over another nation state. Not to mention that nationalism is something enforced by the state to fit every individual into a predefined identity. Nationalism keeps the current system intact by creating division amongst people. It keeps the native born people hateful towards "foreigners" or "illegal" immigrants.

'Nationalism' is simply a term used to define the prideful sentiments people frequently exhibit toward their nation, as well as their desire for national self-determination. It's an emergent human phenomenon which pre-dates both feudalism and capitalism, and which most likely cannot be suppressed for any appreciable amount of time. No one here denies the fact that monarchists and the bourgeoisie have exploited nationalism throughout history to further reactionary objectives, but in and of itself, nationalism is benign and largely apolitical.

With that said, I would argue that without the social cohesion nationalism fosters within a population, socialism most likely cannot be achieved. There's a reason every socialist regime ever documented had to resort to employing nationalistic rhetoric during times of war and peace alike. You may suggest that those regimes weren't "truly socialist" or that they had "no choice," given that the international proletarian revolution has not yet occured, but I find such ideas incredibly naive.

Again, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with nationality.. You can be proud of your culture, but where most leftists draw the line is if there's notions of racial, cultural or ethnic superiority or purity, etc etc.

You'd be hard pressed to find a left-wing nationalist espousing a racial supremacist worldview, I assure you. Nevertheless, even if an individual should completely reject supremacism, there are still clear phenotypic differences between the various human ethnicities which people don't usually ignore. I believe that outright racial animosity would significantly decline once we move past the economics of competition and greed (otherwise known as 'capitalism'), and advance toward a more cooperative economy (i.e., socialism), but there's no reason to suspect that people would magically cease in noticing ethnic differences and exhibiting the behaviors related to that observation—e.g., self-segregation—once capitalism has been transcended. Moreover, as I alluded to above, ethnic and/or cultural fragmentation would serve as a hindrance to the development of socialism in a nation, which is precisely why a policy of national self-determination for all peoples should be supported.

At heart nationalism is an ideology of class collaboration. It functions to create an imagined community of shared interests and in doing so to hide the real, material interests of the classes which comprise the population. The "national interest" is a weapon against the working class, and an attempt to rally the ruled behind the interests of their rulers.

Absolute nonsense. Bourgeois nationalism certainly advocates class collaborationism, but socialist nationalists understand that class antagonisms are endemic to the capitalist mode of production. The interests of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie are diametrically opposed to one another, therefore, no collaborationist policy can actually end the class warfare capitalism engenders. Nothing short of completely transcending capitalism can accomplish that, hence why we're socialists.

I don't think revolution should be based on nationalism, revolution is based on your class. It's working class against the oppressors. Class is the binding force not nationalism.

Obviously.. But proletarian revolution has always, and will always, occur on a national scale first. To entertain the notion that some spontaneous revolution will occur internationally, and in unison, no less, is beyond absurd. Workers in the United States don't know and, frankly, don't care what the plight of, say, the Egyptian proletariat is, and vice versa. A materialist would understand that workers only have the time to understand the issues which are immediately affecting them, and that doesn't go beyond the national level.

Nationalism has caused countless wars in the "interests of the nation". Look at how many pointless wars have been started because of nationalism.

The sordid history of reactionary nationalism is irrelevant to what we espouse here. Be serious and debate us over the views we actually subscribe to; conflating Nazism and fascism with left-wing nationalism is just a waste of everyone's time. What you're doing is akin to what reactionaries do when they conflate the excesses of Stalinism (e.g., authoritarianism, purges, gulags, etc.) with communist theory.

You see why Nationalism isn't something i see as going hand in hand with working class interests?

Not at all, sorry.

I don't see how workers would contemplate revolution simply based on community, identity, and so on.

Who have you witnessed on this forum advocating on behalf of a revolution "based on community and identity," pray tell? Our nationalism refers to what we believe will best serve the interests of the working-class after the revolution.

When Friedrich Engels wrote:

"The nationalities of the peoples associating themselves in accordance with the principle of community will be compelled to mingle with each other as a result of this association and thereby to dissolve themselves, just as the various estate and class distinctions must disappear through the abolition of their basis, private property."
Engels, Friedrich. The Principles of Communism (1847).

He was making a hypothesis, and one based on nothing more than conjecture. The empirical evidence, however, leads to a fundamentally different conclusion. Even if you disregard said empirical evidence due to the fact a genuinely communist society has yet to exist, for instance, that still doesn't vindicate Engels's hypothesis (which, incidentally, most cosmopolitan leftists continue to adhere to). Contra Engels, I think it's entirely reasonable to predict that once capitalism has been abolished and a socialist mode of prodcution has been constructed in its place, people will identify even more strongly with their national identity than they previously had—since class divisions will no longer divide communities, and we have absolutely no reason to suspect that cultural and ethnic identity will suddenly vanish when the means of production have been collectivized. And therein lies the crux of our disagreement: the cosmopolitan left thinks humanity will homogenize following the revolution, thereby rendering nationality anachronistic, whereas left-wing nationalists contend that there's no logical reason to believe that will transpire—nor do we believe that international cultural and/or ethic homogenization is desirable or even necessary for socialism to flourish (if anything, the converse is true).

[No_Leaders]

Sorry for the late reply I've been awfully busy with work and classes starting at the community college. I apologize if i originally came off very hostile, you guys cleared up a lot of things for me. I came here assuming you guys were nationalists (in the reactionary sense) and knowing most folks came from SF before.. i assumed this was going to be about dividing communities based on race. I really just had a biased view of what you guys stood for, but after clearing things up i now understand what you mean.

I think most of the hostility really was from knowing some people were active in white nationalist movements. I realize though people break from movements and can change their ideas from being racist to the complete opposite. I had a friend who was a nazi and involved locally with other nazis and white nationalists. Now he's an anarcho-communist and does a lot to organize and work with people here in town and in phoenix. I always tried to talk him out of it but i realized he wasn't gonna change his views unless he wanted to. Thanks for clearing everything up, sorry i jumped the gun here :p

I was obviously getting nationalism mixed up with how leaders manipulate and distort it to turn people hateful, and feel sense of superiority, and discriminatory towards others (typically immigrants). You get the idea. I mostly equated nationalism with right-wring rhetoric and ideology, which always seems hateful, and that's where the assumption came from.

[GF]

Sorry for the late reply I've been awfully busy with work and classes starting at the community college. I apologize if i originally came off very hostile, you guys cleared up a lot of things for me. I came here assuming you guys were nationalists (in the reactionary sense) and knowing most folks came from SF before.. i assumed this was going to be about dividing communities based on race. I really just had a biased view of what you guys stood for, but after clearing things up i now understand what you mean.

I think most of the hostility really was from knowing some people were active in white nationalist movements. I realize though people break from movements and can change their ideas from being racist to the complete opposite. I had a friend who was a nazi and involved locally with other nazis and white nationalists. Now he's an anarcho-communist and does a lot to organize and work with people here in town and in phoenix. I always tried to talk him out of it but i realized he wasn't gonna change his views unless he wanted to. Thanks for clearing everything up, sorry i jumped the gun here :p

I was obviously getting nationalism mixed up with how leaders manipulate and distort it to turn people hateful, and feel sense of superiority, and discriminatory towards others (typically immigrants). You get the idea. I mostly equated nationalism with right-wring rhetoric and ideology, which always seems hateful, and that's where the assumption came from.

I'm sure we all appreciate you coming to understand our views as neither class collaborationist nor bourgeois.

[Coach]

Sorry for the late reply I've been awfully busy with work and classes starting at the community college. I apologize if i originally came off very hostile, you guys cleared up a lot of things for me. I came here assuming you guys were nationalists (in the reactionary sense) and knowing most folks came from SF before.. i assumed this was going to be about dividing communities based on race. I really just had a biased view of what you guys stood for, but after clearing things up i now understand what you mean.

I think most of the hostility really was from knowing some people were active in white nationalist movements. I realize though people break from movements and can change their ideas from being racist to the complete opposite. I had a friend who was a nazi and involved locally with other nazis and white nationalists. Now he's an anarcho-communist and does a lot to organize and work with people here in town and in phoenix. I always tried to talk him out of it but i realized he wasn't gonna change his views unless he wanted to. Thanks for clearing everything up, sorry i jumped the gun here :p

I was obviously getting nationalism mixed up with how leaders manipulate and distort it to turn people hateful, and feel sense of superiority, and discriminatory towards others (typically immigrants). You get the idea. I mostly equated nationalism with right-wring rhetoric and ideology, which always seems hateful, and that's where the assumption came from.

There is no shame in making this common mistaken assumption. Honestly, our left-wing nationalism is rare, and most people aren't taught about how we can really win working class people away from reactionary conceptions. This is made worse by the fact that most of today's "Left" has given up on its stated ideals and on any sort of revolutionary anti-capitalist action program...in other words, they are defeatists expecting to lose "for the forseeable future", and that perspective ensures it will be a self-fulfilling prophesy for all who follow them into the abyss.

We don't claim to have all the answers. In fact, we surely need YOUR HELP to get closer to that. We feel that the working class, oppressed peoples and youth deserve much more and much better than the current faux-Left can provide. It really is largely due to their errors, sellouts and ignoring of the worse off layers of society that many get disillusioned and then turn to the Right for false consciousness, false scapegoats to blame, and phony solutions. They turn to the Right because it seems that the Left doesn't really give a shit about those like them at the bottom, because they are even sometimes cheerleadering hand in hand with bourgeois liberals as they divide our class against each other (on race, sex, age, etc), and because they will do NOTHING that could actually fundamentally challenge this system (because the faux-Left really thinks this system is the best of all realistically possible systems, and they think this mainly because of the class/status demographics within the faux-left and because of their primary orientation to the better off labor aristocrasy and other middle class layers).

It's time for the Next Revolutionary Left...independent of these institutionalized reformists and centrist phonies who orbit and appease the "middle class" while forgeting and ignoring and even sometimes condemning those at the bottom and their class struggle active initiatives. Enough of the sellout, ivory tower, defeatist-loser scene. There is a reason it is difficult to tell them apart from bourgeois liberals when it comes to their non-revolutionary and insufficient stances on issues of special oppression, or imperialism, or advancing class struggles to victories. And those who do pay a bit of lip service provide nothing more, especially when the poor and the oppressed take action on their own initiative, and especially when this happens "here at home". No respect for those whose bite isn't nearly as noticeably distinguished as their bark. No respect for those who avoid and then comfortably criticise from afar those poor and oppressed when they do make a struggle in the streets. The faux-left is dead for the purposes of those with "nothing to lose but our chains".

Let's be different, think different, act different. We really do have a new liberating and liberated world to win.
"Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it." Karl Marx, Eleventh Thesis on Feuerbach

[Pantheon Rising]

Define racist for us, Einstein. In your own words.

[Einstein]

Define racist for us, Einstein. In your own words.

If you treat people differently based on the color of they skin or other racial criteria for example believing only certain ethnic should be allowed to have citizenship, should only be allowed to have certain job or only a specific amount of that ethnic gruop should be allowed at a workplace, should only be allowed to marry members of they own race or not being allowed to marry a specific race, believing that race is tied to which culture you have etc. In general believing a certain group should be preferred over other racial groups. Since stormfront is a white nationalist forum, meaning they believe whites should be preferred over other groups. Since this forums membership seems to come almost exclusively from stormfront this means they must be racist, and as such this forum can be characterised as racist.

[Red & White]

If you treat people differently based on the color of they skin or other racial criteria for example believing only certain ethnic should be allowed to have citizenship, should only be allowed to have certain job or only a specific amount of that ethnic gruop should be allowed at a workplace, should only be allowed to marry members of they own race or not being allowed to marry a specific race, believing that race is tied to which culture you have etc. In general believing a certain group should be preferred over other racial groups. Since stormfront is a white nationalist forum, meaning they believe whites should be preferred over other groups. Since this forums membership seems to come almost exclusively from stormfront this means they must be racist, and as such this forum can be characterised as racist.

Do you think that Israel and Japan are racist countries?

[TheocWulf]

If you treat people differently based on the color of they skin or other racial criteria for example believing only certain ethnic should be allowed to have citizenship, should only be allowed to have certain job or only a specific amount of that ethnic gruop should be allowed at a workplace, should only be allowed to marry members of they own race or not being allowed to marry a specific race, believing that race is tied to which culture you have etc. In general believing a certain group should be preferred over other racial groups. Since stormfront is a white nationalist forum, meaning they believe whites should be preferred over other groups. Since this forums membership seems to come almost exclusively from stormfront this means they must be racist, and as such this forum can be characterised as racist.

Who said that?

[Einstein]

Do you think that Israel and Japan are racist countries?

Israel certainly is racist. I dont why Japan would be.

[Einstein]

Who said that?

He asked me to define racist in my own words and i did.

[Einstein]

I would like to hear your forums weird definition of racism since according to the FAQ racism is banned.

[TheocWulf]

He asked me to define racist in my own words and i did.

Fair one but nobody on this forum supports your above points as far as I know.I wont speak for the others but I just want to live among my own people in my own culture and have good realtions with other groups be they mixed or one culture/tribe groups and all of us to live within our boundries free from exploitation in worker states.

[Sponsored content]