Re: The RevLeft Troll Thread

[Einstein]

Someone's sexuality is, when all is said and done, a pretty irrelevent issue. Some people enjoy having sex with the same gender. Great, go for it. Others like having sex with someone from the opposite gender. Sometime utlilising the missionary position, sometimes in so-called doggy fashion.

Big deal. Ho hum, excuse me while I nod off...

This is what the modern left are so obsessed about. Utterly inconsequential matters, such as how people gets thing on in the bedroom.

And whilst they are obsessing about such totally trivial matters, which are personal matters of the people involved, the whole working class, of all nations, is being shafted good and hard (to go back to the sex theme...) by capitalism and globalisation.

THIS is the most vital issue of the day. Not people's personal lifestyle choices.

That's exactly what i'm fighting against! I'm against people trying to control what people do in they own bedroom and descriminating against people because of the way they live they sex/love life. I dont care what people do in they own bedroom and i certaintly do not have a problem with the so called missionary position

As this is a forum that promotes first and foremost the emancipation of the working classes, around the world, then if you can't get that other issues, which whilst are worth addressing at some point, will always come behind the general well-being of the working classes, then you have no place here.

Thats also my primary focus, but like i said in my previous other things are also important, altough not as important as working class liberation.

To prempt you next question, "if that's so, then why do you place so much empahsis on nationalism?" or as you're bigoted mindset would probably put it, ("why are you all such Nazis/fascists?"):

Current modes of multiculturalism and globalisation are doing nothing to foster any sense of international working-class solidarity. The current state of affairs is a capitalist's wet dream. Get loads of cheaper workers to flood a country and push down the wages of said country, so the capitalists make more profit. And as these workers will work for a pittance, and will doing anything the bosses tell them to do, totally destroy all the gains in the realm of working conditions that the said country's generations of workers had toiled for, and often, died for.

The workers of said country will naturally be pretty pissed off with the foreign workers. Afterall, they're showing no class solidarity by taking over other worker's countries, so why should they show any solidarity with them.

I'm against the current mass immigration some contries are currently experiencing because like you said, it pushes down wages. The best the workers can do in that situation is to try and get the immigrants involved in unionising. However in a world that is socialist on a worldwide level i see no reason for immigration controls, since the incentive that makes mass immigration happen would be gone, altough in the transitioning phase from socialism on a national level to socialism on an international level i could see a reason for immigration controls.

And all the while, in the background, the capitalists are laughing their arses off. Not only because they're causing strife between their main enemies, the working class, but the left wing, the people who are supposed to be the champion of the working class, are colluding with their plans! By supporting mass immigration and multiculturalism, the left are doing exactly what the capitalists want. And the left are totally oblivious to their own stupidity. They have become (and this is something of my tradmark phrase here, so if anyone uses it, I'd like a trademark put after it... ) stormtroopers of globalisation.

But hey, whilst all this serious stuff is going on, you concentrate on whether people fully appreciate the fact that some men like to touch other men's genitals.

I'll be over here concentrating on more pressing matters.

Since the vast majority of the socialist movement are already primarily focusing on the working class i dont see the problem with being concerned also with other things than that, as long as the primary concern remains the working class.

[Einstein]

Well Einstein, no one here believes in any of that. That is why they got kicked off Stormfront, which is a site abhorred by most, if not all, members here.

Though, I will say that race/ethnicity is partly tied into culture, and that is not a negative thing. The position is, as a left wing nationalist, that every unique ethnic group has the right to self determination. Not that one gets "preferred" over another or only one gets a job.

If we end up all conglomerated into a monoethnic and a monoculture where does your precious diversity go then?

I would support having a global, socialist sort of para-culture which promotes human individuality and liberty, solidarity, democracy etc but there should beneath that global culture be a wide variety of sub-cultures.

[Leon Mcnichol]

Einstein, the sexual revolution was decades ago, get over it, its done, nobody goes to jail or is discriminated being gay anymore than someone is discriminated for being a fatty. We as a movement and as a forum have bigger fish to fry, like the destruction and oppression of the big masses of workers, who don't have "trendy" movements to defend their cause, and are attacked daily and called "racists", and "priviliged" by those same trendy masses. Sorry, but our socialism is for everybody, not to be some "cool kid" fighting "the system" while including in that "system" the very masses that they should be defending.

[Red & White]

That's exactly what i'm fighting against! I'm against people trying to control what people do in they own bedroom and descriminating against people because of the way they live they sex/love life. I dont care what people do in they own bedroom and i certaintly do not have a problem with the so called missionary position

As I said, sexuality is totally in the remit of the people involved and is nobody elses business. What someone gets up to the in the bedroom is up to them and should be of the utmost disinterest to everyone else. What I do have a problem is with people who obsess with this. Some people are gay. Ho hum. Some straight people prefer missionary to doggie style. Equally ho hum.

The whole sex thing has been built up to some a ridiculous scale that people aren't actually enjoying it anymore! Sure don't discriminate against people who do things differently to you in the bedroom, but equally, don't make a big song and dance about it either. No one is that bothered.

I'm against the current mass immigration some contries are currently experiencing because like you said, it pushes down wages. The best the workers can do in that situation is to try and get the immigrants involved in unionising. However in a world that is socialist on a worldwide level i see no reason for immigration controls, since the incentive that makes mass immigration happen would be gone, altough in the transitioning phase from socialism on a national level to socialism on an international level i could see a reason for immigration controls.

You seem to be discounting the factor of culture in your apparisal. This is a thing that the mainstream left always do, and I really can't understand their hypocricy on this issue. According to them, it was wrong for white Europeans to go to America and take away the land snd destroy the culture of the Native Americans. It was also wrong for the white man to go to Africa and India and do likewise.

It was apparently wrong for the evil white man to go on colonial adventures because this forced their culture on the indigenous people and forced them on to paths that destroyed their cultures and make them pawns of the emerging capitalist class.

So, was it wrong for the white man to go to these nations and do all of the above?

YES!

But EQUALLY AS IMPORTANT, we must never fall into the same trap of allowing such indigenous cultures to obliterated again. Yet this is EXACTLY what is happening to the cultures of European nations. Do you think the mass immigration of Africans, Asians and ideed other Europeans throughout the EU is not having as equally devastating consequences on respective European culture and peoples? Just because our traitourous governments promote mass immigration and the raping of our homelands, it doesn't mean that we're not facing exactly the same issue that the Native Americans faced or other victims of capitalist colonialism.

What, because we're white Europeans, we're not allowed to retain out cultures and homelands, whilst everyone else is?

Who's the racist again?

Or perhaps you think that because I'm British, I should have my culture and country taken away from me because the ruling elite of my country practised slavery and had an Empire? What, the sins of the father senarion is being invoked here? I, and as far as I can tell from my geneological studies, my ancestors have never been involved in colonialism. My ancestors were British miners. So why should I, in the 21st century, have my culture and homeand taken away from me because of the actions of capitalists, who I had nothing to do with, a couple of hundreds of years ago?

Since the vast majority of the socialist movement are already primarily focusing on the working class i dont see the problem with being concerned also with other things than that, as long as the primary concern remains the working class.

But this is the whole point; the socialist movement as present is NOT focused, at all, on the working class. They are focused almost obsessively on matters that whilst imprortant, do not affect the vast majority of people. You'll never win over the mass of working class people by banging on, constanty, about things like gay issues. You patronise the working class by thinking that this is a big issue for them, that they have to be educated on this subject. It isn't and they don't. They don't give a shit. The vast majority don't care about someone's sexuality.

What they do care about is paying bills and putting food on the table for their families. And if you guys on the mainstream left are content to waffle on about sexuality and seeing racists under the bed, then not a problem. Because we're here, people who actually care about the working class, and we're more than willing, and able, to take over your mantle as champions of the working class.

[Pantheon Rising]

I would support having a global, socialist sort of para-culture which promotes human individuality and liberty, solidarity, democracy etc but there should beneath that global culture be a wide variety of sub-cultures.

Yes, and so does everyone here. But how can you tell Romanians they have no right to be Romanian? Russians no right to be Russian? Germans no right to be German? That is the root of self determination. We are calling for respect and cooperation between groups, not the abolition of any groups.

[Red & White]

I would support having a global, socialist sort of para-culture which promotes human individuality and liberty, solidarity, democracy etc but there should beneath that global culture be a wide variety of sub-cultures.

Would it shock you for me to say that I'm pretty much sure eveyone here would agree with that?

My personal opinion is that there needs to be a global culture of accpetance of differences, the right of freedom of thought for the individual and definitely, a sense of global working class solidarity.

But this global sturcture is not going to be in place if you FORCE people to accept it, as the captialists and their supporters on the mainsteam left are doing. It has to come organically. And the best way to do that is promote a respectful attitude to all of our different cultures and not to try and turn us all into some monstrous, grey mass of humanity, devoid of any refreshing, exciting differences. Which only benefits our enemies who will then have the whole of humanity as their marketplace, a whole world populated by robotic, materialistic drones.

[Rev Scare]

Essentially you have nothing. I wont believe you unless you can prove it.

What is your standard for proof?

You dont see it? Racism is in the media constantly, we are constantly bombarded with messages like we are all racists deep down or that blacks are poorer than whites have nothing to do with racism etc.

That strikes me as a bare assertion. Racists often claim that the converse is true: that we are consistently and pervasively barraged with multiculturalism, "race mixing," and other forms of "liberalism." It seems that it is your turn to offer proof.

The more plausible explanation, in my view, is that what we perceive are in fact contradictions in society which originate, in part, from the social divisions resulting from ethnic diversity.

Yes capitalism is not inherently racist, there is a reason why it's an improvementt over feudalism and slavery based economies.

Utter nonsense. There exists no solid ground upon which to assert that capitalism is somehow less "racist" than preceding social orders. Feudalism and slave based economies displayed no greater historical propensity toward racism than capitalism. The bourgeoisie has, when it served its interests, fueled racial antagonisms in order to disorganize the national proletariat.

And no there is no reason why different racial characteristics should be perceived as negative.

I agree.

What about the minorities who are also working class, do they not matter at all?

Who has alluded to the contrary? National liberation within an international context is essential to the eradication of global capitalism. The overthrow of the bourgeoisie is a common goal shared by all proletarians. You will not find any serious member here who denies this. However, we believe that this will not come about as a result of some international uprising of a unified proletariat, as so many leftists naively cling to.

I'm a little confused over what we are talking about here, are we talking about groups which membership of is voluntary deciding that it's members can only have sex with a certain race, or are we talking about actual states?

Is there a difference? I realize that you are an anarchist, but I wholly reject the notion that purely voluntary association is a viable option as far as maintaining the structural integrity of a group is concerned. A considerable degree of authority is necessary in order to derive any group cooperation. My only concern would be with whom ultimate authority rested. If we can ever achieve a truly stateless society, I cannot help but side with the Marxist conception of the state "withering away" at some post-revolutionary point in time. Anarchist theories toward achieving that end are quite irrational and have never been practiced in reality even by those who most ardently supported them.

To quote Engels:

“...no communal action is possible without submission on the part of some to an external will, that is to say authority. Whether it be the will of a majority of voters, of a managing committee or of one man alone, it is invariably a will imposed on dissidents; but without that single controlling will, no cooperation is possible. Just try and get one of Barcelona’s big factories to function without control, that is to say without an authority! Or to run a railway without knowing for certain that every engineer, stoker etc. is at his post exactly when he ought to be! I should very much like to know whether the good Bakunin would entrust his portly frame to a railway carriage if the railway were administered on the principle that no one need be at his post unless he chose to submit to the authority of the regulations, regulations far more authoritarian in any conceivable state of society than those of the Congress of Basle! All these grandiloquent ultra-radical and revolutionary catchphrases serve only to conceal an abysmal ignorance of the conditions under which the daily life of society takes place. Just try abolishing ‘all authority, even by consent’, among the sailors on board a ship! “
Engels to Lafargue, 30 December 1871 Collected works, Vol 44 p.286

I digress. The answer to your question is rather complex and largely dependent upon the circumstances involved and the degree of socialist development, but decisions regarding the direction of the national formation should be finally approved by democratic workers' councils.

Yes it molds individuals and society, but only because of the racist culture. Change the culture and you would change that too.

Change the culture to what, exactly? As long as group identity exists, cultural biases will endure. The best we can do is to grant self-identified groups the right to self-determination. A strong national character is, in the estimation of most here, a necessary component of a successful socialist society. Even your decidedly cosmopolitan approach would require a tremendous amount of nationalistic impetus in order to come to fruition: the international proletariat would, at some point, have to develop a cohesive national consciousness. We believe that this expectation is pure fantasy, and there is little reason to suspect that national identity will fade into obscurity once revolution occurs.

Using terms like race traitor, race denier etc and calling yourself a racialist is rhetoric only a racist would employ.

I do not quite agree with the chosen terminology, but his post was not in any way racist. He did not advance any conception of supremacy, chauvinism, nor discrimination. Furthermore, considering that the post was made only a short while after the member's expulsion from SF, I would say that it was positively mild in comparison to the oft-repeated rhetoric one encounters on that cesspool of a website. Is that the best you can do?

[TheocWulf]

1. What kind of authority does this community have? Does it have a defined territory (is it a state) or is it simply a group one can voluntarily choose to join with no defined territory?
2. I'm not exactly sure how to respond to this exept that if anyone ever found him/herself in such a situation i would encourage that person to practise civil disobedience instead of leaving in defeat.

1.the authority of the state or autonumus community.

2.There would be little remit for them to do so as they would have leave the community as soon as they practiced something that was outside of the communitys remit and would have to find a community that supported there choices.Smashing up your folk and familys community becuse of a choice you have made hardly seems fair on the community does it.

[Celtiberian]

The fact that the majority of this site's members are former or current stormfront members proves that this forum is overwhelmingly racist.

It proves no such thing. The forum members which left Stormfront and subsequently decided to join the Socialist Phalanx have chosen to abandon White Nationalism. The fact we don't automatically shun individuals who once held reactionary views doesn't imply we're a "racist" forum.

How can you in the FAQ claim you are not a racist website when you allow so called racialists and former stormfront members to post racist bullshit?

What "racist bullshit"? It's absolutely ridiculous to accuse us of racism when we enforce a policy which doesn't tolerate members who promote race hatred in any capacity. We do, however, debate those who advocate the oppression of other races in the Opposing Views section of the forum, just as we debate fascists, capitalists, and other assorted reactionaries.

Do you have a source for that, that "Race is, simply put, an integral component of human identity"?

I could provide a litany of empirical studies indicating that ethnocentrism is innate. They are, however, susceptible to the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, for the matter cannot be conclusively settled until such a time that scientists can literally name the specific gene(s) which influence ethnocentric behavior—provided there is actually a genetic causation for the phenomenon, of course.

For the time being, we're essentially in the position of competing truth claims (to borrow an expression from the postmodern tradition.) The cosmopolitan left, of which you are an exemplar, contends that ethnocentrism is solely the product of culture—thereby placing a categorical imperative on the overcoming of this behavior for the sake of social justice. Socialist nationalists, conversely, hold that ethnocentrism is most likely innate, but usually expressed in a benign manner. Several implications for the socialist project follow from the latter position. Based upon my reading of history and sociology, I'm of the view that it's reasonable to conclude that ethnocultural homogeneity fosters a sense of solidarity in populations, whereas diversity tends to increase individualism (though it can often lead to tension, conflict, hatred, and even outright warfare as well.) Therefore socialists of my mindset maintain that:

1.) Proletarian revolution is most easily achieved in relatively homogenous contexts, since the most obvious discernible difference within a population then reduces to social class.

2.) Socialist organizations which actively minimize ethnocultural diversity in their propaganda, political platforms, membership, etc. will be most effective.

3.) Since the overall success of socialism and communism hinges on a fairly high degree of solidarity, ethnocultural homogeneity should be sought by all communities following the revolution—the most practical and just method to attain this homogeneity is by establishing national self-determination as an absolute human right.

4.) Proletarian internationalism should be redefined as the global cooperation of autonomous socialist nations, as opposed to the desire of forging a monolithic international community.

You are, of course, free to reject this left-wing nationalist hypothesis, which the socialist and communist members of this forum espouse, but you do so to your detriment. Cosmopolitan extremists have held hegemony over the revolutionary socialist movement for the past 50+ years and, consequently, radical politics have stagnated. You may carry on promoting such foolishness, but we will take a fundamentally different approach in our activism. The fruits of our respective efforts shall determine which side of the debate was ultimately correct.

Seriously how can you claim that being allowed to have sex with whoever you want to regardless of race or gender is not important?

In my opinion, sexual acts can sometimes produce negative externalities and, therefore, a community is within its rights to democratically deliberate on the matter. If it is true that ethnic diversity is a hindrance to solidarity, and thus undermines socialism, then it would be logical for communities to legislate against miscegenation and restrict immigration. Likewise, if mentally retarded individuals who procreate produce retarded offspring (which can occur in certain forms of retardation), and these offspring are incapable of performing socially necessary labor as a result of their handicap, then I believe communities have a right to limit or even prohibit such births from taking place—since the children would have to live off the social product generated by said communities.

Morals are little more than reflections of the intersubjective consensus of a given population, so legislation pertaining to issues such as miscegenation, gay marriage, drug use, etc. would vary to some extent between and within each self-determined nation—though the socialist economic base of those nations would undoubtedly serve to restrict the possible range of the decisions which communities could make (and in ways I think you'd find more objectionable than would be case in bourgeois states, incidentally.)

Cosmopolitan anarchists, like yourself, are in quite a conundrum: on the one hand, you're genuinely concerned with overthrowing capitalism and building a socialist society in its place; but on the other hand, you're extremely concerned with creating the conditions wherein a spirit of radical individualism can flourish. Unfortunately, the two positions are in contradiction with one another, and to elevate one over the other necessarily requires trade-offs. You may think the solution to this problem lies in socially engineering people into possessing a more anarchistic ethos, but while there is a fair amount of plasticity in human behavior, we're definitely not infinitely malleable. I, for one, seriously doubt any sort of educational process can change people into being sufficiently cosmopolitan to successfully achieve your desired anarchist world—if you have examples which prove otherwise, I'd be interested in reading them. (Regimes willing to utilize coercive methods which would make anarchists cringe have already attempted to change human nature to be more compatible with their objectives, and the results have typically been found lacking.)

You dont see it? Racism is in the media constantly, we are constantly bombarded with messages like we are all racists deep down or that blacks are poorer than whites have nothing to do with racism etc.

Whatever subliminal racist messages are being sent through the media are eclipsed by the explicitly anti-racist themes promoted not only in the media, but in our educational institutions as well.

As for black Americans being poorer than Caucasians on average, it's certainly partially a result of discrimination, but it's overwhelmingly due to the culture of poverty the black community lives under. Gang glorification and an emphasis on athletics as a way out of poverty, as opposed to honest work, has crippled the black community for decades. Uneven development, produced by capitalism, is also at fault. However, even within a socialist mode of production, I think the black community would possess a higher rate of voluntary unemployment than other ethnic groups—and this will continue until there's a social zeitgeist shift in the black community itself.

I'm against the current mass immigration some contries are currently experiencing because like you said, it pushes down wages. The best the workers can do in that situation is to try and get the immigrants involved in unionising.

The union movement in this country is powerless at this point, so advocating on behalf of immigrant unionization is useless. Employers who hire illegal aliens are technically committing a criminal offense, but their incentive to continue the practice is obviously the cheap labor immigrants provide. The immigrants are clearly content with the arrangement, since it's better than having to endure the situation in Mexico, and the American working-class resents them for breaking the nation's laws and driving down wages—thereby making it highly unlikely for the two groups to ever unionize with each other.

The most effective solution, given our current predicament under capitalism, is to advocate on behalf of stricter immigration laws which harshly punish the employers of illegal labor.

the vast majority of the socialist movement are already primarily focusing on the working class

Nonsense. The socialist movement has been marginalizing the plight of the national proletariat for years (see Noam Chomsky's comments on the topic, for example.)

[Einstein]

As I said, sexuality is totally in the remit of the people involved and is nobody elses business. What someone gets up to the in the bedroom is up to them and should be of the utmost disinterest to everyone else. What I do have a problem is with people who obsess with this. Some people are gay. Ho hum. Some straight people prefer missionary to doggie style. Equally ho hum.

The whole sex thing has been built up to some a ridiculous scale that people aren't actually enjoying it anymore! Sure don't discriminate against people who do things differently to you in the bedroom, but equally, don't make a big song and dance about it either. No one is that bothered.

I dont really disagree with any of that.

You seem to be discounting the factor of culture in your apparisal. This is a thing that the mainstream left always do, and I really can't understand their hypocricy on this issue. According to them, it was wrong for white Europeans to go to America and take away the land snd destroy the culture of the Native Americans. It was also wrong for the white man to go to Africa and India and do likewise.

It was apparently wrong for the evil white man to go on colonial adventures because this forced their culture on the indigenous people and forced them on to paths that destroyed their cultures and make them pawns of the emerging capitalist class.

So, was it wrong for the white man to go to these nations and do all of the above?

YES!

But EQUALLY AS IMPORTANT, we must never fall into the same trap of allowing such indigenous cultures to obliterated again. Yet this is EXACTLY what is happening to the cultures of European nations. Do you think the mass immigration of Africans, Asians and ideed other Europeans throughout the EU is not having as equally devastating consequences on respective European culture and peoples? Just because our traitourous governments promote mass immigration and the raping of our homelands, it doesn't mean that we're not facing exactly the same issue that the Native Americans faced or other victims of capitalist colonialism.

What, because we're white Europeans, we're not allowed to retain out cultures and homelands, whilst everyone else is?

Who's the racist again?

Or perhaps you think that because I'm British, I should have my culture and country taken away from me because the ruling elite of my country practised slavery and had an Empire? What, the sins of the father senarion is being invoked here? I, and as far as I can tell from my geneological studies, my ancestors have never been involved in colonialism. My ancestors were British miners. So why should I, in the 21st century, have my culture and homeand taken away from me because of the actions of capitalists, who I had nothing to do with, a couple of hundreds of years ago?

No i do not agree with the cultural preservationist argument. My problem with european immigration to the americas is not that they influenced (or if you think cultures should be preserved in the same state forever destroyed) the natives culture. I do not view any culture as specifically worthy of preservation, as it is a historical fact that cultures change and cultures will always change over time whatever it is from immigration or some other factor.

But this is the whole point; the socialist movement as present is NOT focused, at all, on the working class. They are focused almost obsessively on matters that whilst imprortant, do not affect the vast majority of people. You'll never win over the mass of working class people by banging on, constanty, about things like gay issues. You patronise the working class by thinking that this is a big issue for them, that they have to be educated on this subject. It isn't and they don't. They don't give a shit. The vast majority don't care about someone's sexuality.  

What they do care about is paying bills and putting food on the table for their families. And if you guys on the mainstream left are content to waffle on about sexuality and seeing racists under the bed, then not a problem. Because we're here, people who actually care about the working class, and we're more than willing, and able, to take over your mantle as champions of the working class.

I dont agree with what your saying here, it is my impression that the vast majority of the socialist movement are dedicated to the working class cause.

[Einstein]

Would it shock you for me to say that I'm pretty much sure eveyone here would agree with that?

My personal opinion is that there needs to be a global culture of accpetance of differences, the right of freedom of thought for the individual and definitely, a sense of global working class solidarity.

But this global sturcture is not going to be in place if you FORCE people to accept it, as the captialists and their supporters on the mainsteam left are doing. It has to come organically. And the best way to do that is promote a respectful attitude to all of our different cultures and not to try and turn us all into some monstrous, grey mass of humanity, devoid of any refreshing, exciting differences. Which only benefits our enemies who will then have the whole of humanity as their marketplace, a whole world populated by robotic, materialistic drones.

I dont think you understand at all what the mainstream socialist movement stands for.

[Leon Mcnichol]

No i do not agree with the cultural preservationist argument. My problem with european immigration to the americas is not that they influenced (or if you think cultures should be preserved in the same state forever destroyed) the natives culture. I do not view any culture as specifically worthy of preservation,
as it is a historical fact that cultures change and cultures will always change over time whatever it is from immigration or some other factor.

Funny how this is the exact same argument that global capitalists and imperialists use. "One global economy, one global culture, borders slow human progress and commerce" they say, while invading countries, or destroying others economically. Are you sure you got your tendency right?

[Einstein]

That strikes me as a bare assertion. Racists often claim that the converse is true: that we are consistently and pervasively barraged with multiculturalism, "race mixing," and other forms of "liberalism." It seems that it is your turn to offer proof.

The more plausible explanation, in my view, is that what we perceive are in fact contradictions in society which originate, in part, from the social divisions resulting from ethnic diversity.

Can you be a bit more specific?

Utter nonsense. There exists no solid ground upon which to assert that capitalism is somehow less "racist" than preceding social orders. Feudalism and slave based economies displayed no greater historical propensity toward racism than capitalism. The bourgeoisie has, when it served its interests, fueled racial antagonisms in order to disorganize the national proletariat.

Well feudalism in general certaintly had a different world view than capitalism.

Who has alluded to the contrary? National liberation within an international context is essential to the eradication of global capitalism. The overthrow of the bourgeoisie is a common goal shared by all proletarians. You will not find any serious member here who denies this. However, we believe that this will not come about as a result of some international uprising of a unified proletariat, as so many leftists naively cling to.

Most leftist i have seen support a domino effect approach, with revolutions in one country sparking revolutions in other countries, not some at the same time worldwide revolution.

Is there a difference?

Obviously there is.

I realize that you are an anarchist, but I wholly reject the notion that purely voluntary association is a viable option as far as maintaining the structural integrity of a group is concerned. A considerable degree of authority is necessary in order to derive any group cooperation.

I do believe that in order for a group to work a minority sometimes have to submit to the authority of the majority, altough only if they do it voluntarily. I see no problem with minorities splitting off a group over major disagreements, after all, if someone does't believe wholeheartedly in the groups cause, arent they just going to be detrimental to the groups cause?

My only concern would be with whom ultimate authority rested.

In my opinion authority should collectively rest with all of the groups members.

If we can ever achieve a truly stateless society, I cannot help but side with the Marxist conception of the state "withering away" at some post-revolutionary point in time. Anarchist theories toward achieving that end are quite irrational and have never been practiced in reality even by those who most ardently supported them.

Anarchist Spain?

To quote Engels:

“...no communal action is possible without submission on the part of some to an external will, that is to say authority. Whether it be the will of a majority of voters, of a managing committee or of one man alone, it is invariably a will imposed on dissidents; but without that single controlling will, no cooperation is possible. Just try and get one of Barcelona’s big factories to function without control, that is to say without an authority! Or to run a railway without knowing for certain that every engineer, stoker etc. is at his post exactly when he ought to be! I should very much like to know whether the good Bakunin would entrust his portly frame to a railway carriage if the railway were administered on the principle that no one need be at his post unless he chose to submit to the authority of the regulations, regulations far more authoritarian in any conceivable state of society than those of the Congress of Basle! All these grandiloquent ultra-radical and revolutionary catchphrases serve only to conceal an abysmal ignorance of the conditions under which the daily life of society takes place. Just try abolishing ‘all authority, even by consent’, among the sailors on board a ship! “
Engels to Lafargue, 30 December 1871 Collected works, Vol 44 p.286

This is just a misrepresentation of anarchist beliefs. If someone promises to be at a post than staying at that post against one's will is nothing more than holding one's word.

I digress. The answer to your question is rather complex and largely dependent upon the circumstances involved and the degree of socialist development, but decisions regarding the direction of the national formation should be finally approved by democratic workers' councils.

Well i think it is kind of important how any idea is going to affect society practically.

Change the culture to what, exactly?

An individualist culture that respects diversity.

As long as group identity exists, cultural biases will endure. The best we can do is to grant self-identified groups the right to self-determination. A strong national character is, in the estimation of most here, a necessary component of a successful socialist society. Even your decidedly cosmopolitan approach would require a tremendous amount of nationalistic impetus in order to come to fruition: the international proletariat would, at some point, have to develop a cohesive national consciousness. We believe that this expectation is pure fantasy, and there is little reason to suspect that national identity will fade into obscurity once revolution occurs.

Why is a strong national character " a necessary component of a successful socialist society"?

I do not quite agree with the chosen terminology, but his post was not in any way racist. He did not advance any conception of supremacy, chauvinism, nor discrimination. Furthermore, considering that the post was made only a short while after the member's expulsion from SF, I would say that it was positively mild in comparison to the oft-repeated rhetoric one encounters on that cesspool of a website. Is that the best you can do?

Well he did say he was pro-white which would imply he is not pro other parts of humanity.

[Einstein]

1.the authority of the state or autonumus community.

2.There would be little remit for them to do so as they would have leave the community as soon as they practiced something that was outside of the communitys remit and would have to find a community that supported there choices.Smashing up your folk and familys community becuse of a choice you have made hardly seems fair on the community does it.

In any culture that respects individual autonomy no one would be able to "Smashing up your folk and familys community becuse of a choice you have made".

[TheocWulf]

In any culture that respects individual autonomy no one would be able to "Smashing up your folk and familys community becuse of a choice you have made".

individual autonomy? im all for individuality but not at the expense of the community and its values.If you dont want to live by the communitys rules then dont be a part of it.

[Einstein]

individual autonomy? im all for individuality but not at the expense of the community and its values.If you dont want to live by the communitys rules then dont be a part of it.

Do i have to move to no longer be a part of the community or can i simply say i no longer want to be a member?

[TheocWulf]

Do i have to move to no longer be a part of the community or can i simply say i no longer want to be a member?

Yea if you are outside of the communitys standards or rules then you would have to leave its boundries and join one where the individual and his/her standard is acceptable in community of likewise thinking people.

[Rev Scare]

Can you be a bit more specific?

"Diversity" implies diverse—often conflicting—interests, customs, and beliefs within a given social formation. As Celtiberian has noted, it is reasonable to conclude that diverse societies will display less solidarity. Less social cohesion is possible when individuals share fewer significant ties; ethnocultural heterogeneity therefore germinates individualism and trammels cooperation.

Well feudalism in general certaintly had a different world view than capitalism.

The relevant differences between capitalism and feudalism do not bear upon my statement regarding the matter.

Most leftist i have seen support a domino effect approach, with revolutions in one country sparking revolutions in other countries, not some at the same time worldwide revolution.

I do not believe that most cosmopolitans truly anticipate such a preposterous scenario ever arising, but the general disposition toward both activism and theoretical inquiry amongst those of the cosmopolitan left tends to utterly disregard national struggle, and this is to put the matter rather mildly. The focus, if it actually is on class struggle, is usually upon the inarticulate progression of the international proletariat, and the national context is either ignored or deemed irrelevant. This dismissal of national identity along with overt concentration upon peripheral issues, such as immigrant and LGBT rights, has resulted in a largely alienated national proletariat, which finds little commonality with the contemporary left.

Obviously there is.

I fail to see why the medium by which the decision would be made has any meaningful impact.

I do believe that in order for a group to work a minority sometimes have to submit to the authority of the majority, altough only if they do it voluntarily. I see no problem with minorities splitting off a group over major disagreements, after all, if someone does't believe wholeheartedly in the groups cause, arent they just going to be detrimental to the groups cause?

In order for any form of successful communal action to come about, some degree of submission to authority would be required.

In my opinion authority should collectively rest with all of the groups members.

I would probably agree with this position, but it is little more than an insubstantial outline.

Anarchist Spain?

This is just a misrepresentation of anarchist beliefs. If someone promises to be at a post than staying at that post against one's will is nothing more than holding one's word.

Granted, the quote by Engels was directed at Bakunin's anti-authoritarian rhetoric against Marx's camp within the First International, but I simply wanted to provide a coherent stance with respect to the necessity of authoritative will in collective decision making. As for "anarchist" Spain, there is much to be discussed pertaining to the topic, but this is not the thread for it.

I do not necessarily disagree with the abstract objectives of anarchism; I simply tend to find the various anarchist theories and methodologies, typically incorporeal, questionable. Nevertheless, the subject is beyond the scope of this thread.

An individualist culture that respects diversity.

What is an "individualist culture"? A culture centered around individualism? A culture that respects individuality? I can support the latter, but the former is wholly pernicious and strikes me as encompassing corporate America.

Why is a strong national character " a necessary component of a successful socialist society"?

It intensifies bonds and thereby fosters social fellowship, which is something that I view to be a positive development as well as crucial to the proper functioning and extended health of a socialist system.

[City of the Sun]

My god what have i joined. Icant believe a left wing version of "they tukyur yerb" actually exists. Viva La Revolution. Viva los Latinos

[Pantheon Rising]

My god what have i joined. Icant believe a left wing version of "they tukyur yerb" actually exists. Viva La Revolution. Viva los Latinos

I guess we know who THIS is.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/socialist-phalanx-p2282960/index.html#post2282960

[Rev Scare]

My god what have i joined. Icant believe a left wing version of "they tukyur yerb" actually exists. Viva La Revolution. Viva los Latinos

Actually, I believe that the injurious effects immigration and outsourcing have upon the domestic workforce are legitimate issues and grievances. Despite your parochial concerns, these factors do not at all contribute to, but in fact detract from, proletarian solidarity—both national and international.

As for what you have joined, did you not peruse the forum before creating an account? Honestly, what is with you twits and your sudden indignity at having mindlessly joined a website whose views you do not agree with? Spare us your stupid incredulity.

[Celtiberian]

My god what have i joined. Icant believe a left wing version of "they tukyur yerb" actually exists.

Your utter disregard for the plight of Western workers is duly noted. You wouldn't happen to be a Maoist third-worldist, would you?

Viva los Latinos

You chastise this forum for its promotion of left-wing nationalism, then proceed to write something as blatantly nationalistic as "¡Viva los Latinos!"? Oh, the irony..

[Red Aegis]

I would personally accept either an international proletariat uprising or a nationalistic one, whenever one occurs. That said, with the state of international proletarian class consciousness, I think that a nationalistic one has more of a chance of developing at the moment. Since nationalism has not collapsed into class struggle, we, as socialists, should support nationalism as a uniting factor towards the goal of revolution. After revolution we may no longer need nationalism and should be wary of it, in my opinion, but only when it seems outgrown, not before.

[DSN]

It's actually sad how obsessed RevLeft is with Stormfront at times. Fuck building a red army, RevLeft has a tendency army that sits there waiting to pounce on anyone who uses the word 'nationalist' or disagrees with the RevLeft code of ultra mega 100% anti-nationalist culture-is-a-myth internationalism. I've never actually seen any of them explain how left-wing nationalism is anything even close to fascism or white nationalism. Oh dear, national liberation! I'm gonna get my daddy to beat you up for saying that!

Oh, and could someone tell me why the word 'phalanx' is censored on RevLeft? Apparently it's because people from this site were spamming RevLeft too much. I was actually pointed towards this website by someone inboxing me about it, but I was convinced that you lads were all racist or something at the time so I think I reported the person lol.

[Celtiberian]

I've never actually seen any of them explain how left-wing nationalism is anything even close to fascism or white nationalism. Oh dear, national liberation! I'm gonna get my daddy to beat you up for saying that!

They usually use the straw man argument of accusing all conceptions of nationalism (left-wing or otherwise) of being inherently class collaborationist. This is convenient for them, of course, because it leaves the impression that only cosmopolitanism is consistent with revolutionary socialism. Omitted is the fact that the majority of socialist theorists in the past found left-wing nationalism unobjectionable from the perspective of class struggle. Now, nationalism obviously can be utilized by the bourgeoisie to quell the class struggle, but it can just as easily be used by socialists and communists to advance the class struggle, as Jame Connolly understood. In other words, nationalism is a neutral medium which needs to be provided with content in order to be politically effective.

[Sponsored content]