A Question

Aren't Socalism and racism fundamentally incompatible? Socialism is about brotherhood and the solidarity of all working people, racism is about putting people in groups defined mostly by how they look, calling one group good and treating it well and treating the other group like shit. How do you expect to make this work?

anon wrote:Aren't Socalism and racism fundamentally incompatible? Socialism is about brotherhood and the solidarity of all working people, racism is about putting people in groups defined mostly by how they look, calling one group good and treating it well and treating the other group like shit. How do you expect to make this work?

Anon we dont believe in calling a certain race good and treating it well while badmouthing another and treating it bad. We only hold positive feelings towards our Race ( the White Race) and believe in upholding its interests. Many ( or most of us) are Nationalists as well. That is we have positive feelings towards our Nation and believe in upholding its interests. Socialism is simply an economic system in which the common good of society ( as a whole) in economic matters is placed above the good of the individual in economic matters. We believe that Socialism cannot work in a multiracial, multicultural, and multinational society. That is why we call ourselves Socialist Nationalists. I hope that answers your question.

Speaking from the standpoint of a progressive nationalist (and a Revolutionary Syndicalist), I can tell you that our nationalism is not of the chauvinistic sort. As such, the imperialistic and antagonistic qualities associated with alternative varieties are very much absent from our conception. Our nationalism is based on a foundation of preservation, as well as the notion that the social cohesion brought about through homogeneity will help to maintain a vibrant socialism. These principles can be applied to any national struggle and are not limited to modern nation-states — the basis of which are not necessarily legitimate in the eyes of the people subjected to them. [For example, Basque nationalism is a perfectly legitimate national struggle by which to apply a Socialist Nationalist ideological framework, as the Basques do not recognize the legitimacy of a Spanish nation—instead viewing it to be an imperialistic, heterogeneous construct.]

Our socialism is based entirely upon a foundation of emancipation of the working class — through the abolition of the bourgeoisie and the implementation of socialist policy based upon workers control of the means of production. Therefore the notion that socialism is incapable of being implemented in a nationalistic context is erroneous. Such cosmopolitan principles are entirely superfluous and impractical, not to mention detrimental to the aforementioned preservation of peoples and cultures. We oppose that agenda to the utmost and see it as nothing more than a superficial reformation of a disastrous bourgeois policy.

Anon- To approach your question from a somewhat different angle, consider what now is apparent to most: Corporate globalism, my preferred term for modern capitalism, and its seemingly indispensible hand maiden, multiculturalism, are clearly not working and are degrading everything- the social and natural environments- and everyone. Within that Everyone is the group I consider my own, by culture and blood. I am most concerned with that group. It does not have to follow that I wish ill towards (or, to use the accepted parlance, hate--) other groups. The modern world is interconnected, of course. Thus the current system affects all, for good or ill, and I would hope and indeed foresee that a rational and organic reordering of the socioeconomic system -socialism- would in fact be truly, to use the trite phrase, be the all-boat-lifting historical tide. Within that historical movement I would be concerned with those and that part pertaining to my own.

Blood and folk are timeless and in the best sense irrational. You are them if you feel and know. Economic systems are rational, and subject to thought and construction even as they are inspired by loftier and longer term values. This group, which I am glad to have found, is genuinely working towards a world having both. That it is reviled by the multicultural marxists and, now, by the corporate racists, means to me that it is an energy whose time is coming.

anon wrote:Aren't Socalism and racism fundamentally incompatible? Socialism is about brotherhood and the solidarity of all working people, racism is about putting people in groups defined mostly by how they look, calling one group good and treating it well and treating the other group like shit. How do you expect to make this work?

It is a profound misconception stemming from the contemporary multicultural and multi-racial paradigm that socialism is anti-nationalist. This has historically never been the case. From the early roots of socialism (in racially and ethnically homogeneous Europe) to its manifestation as state socialism under the Soviet Union and Maoist China, the term socialism has always validated, by de facto if not de jure, homogeneity. Your line of reasoning follows in accordance with the liberal orthodoxy of today, in that you assume that different groups, while identifying as separate and autonomous social clusters, can somehow coexist within the same society. I believe that it is quite simple to refute this myth, and one method of doing so is to underscore the critical role identity politics plays in influencing contemporary government policy for selfish group ends. Socialism, as a purely economic system without the contamination of ideology, has never espoused such a view, nor could it if it were to truly exist.

Following this understanding of the human condition, we strive to preserve the ethnic legacy of peoples. This does not necessitate an antagonistic trend toward those who are of a different culture; on the contrary, it allows for the formation of solidarity amongst the working classes of the world without the mindless encroachment upon the organic nation states which harbor them, as has been an unfortunate and countervailing force within the neo-Marxist tradition. Only when we respect the natural order of peoples can we hope to achieve a just and sustainable future.

Wherever one finds "diversity" in the world, one inexorably finds conflict and tension. It does not require extensive analysis to grasp this: one need simply read the headlines around the world. Homogeneity in society facilitates socialism as it removes barriers that exacerbate class tension. Conversely, heterogeneous societies must constantly strive to maintain social order and to provide, at the very least, a veneer of political integrity if the differing group interests are to remain relatively passive. It is impossible for a heterogeneous society to proceed in any direction based upon self-evaluation, as such self-evaluation would inevitably result in alienation and disenfranchisement, which can only lead to disaster.

The final state of affairs of "diversity," particularly within capitalist systems, is the formation of a consumerist monoculture based upon lowest common denominator logic. It appeals to unity under universal commonalities, such as materialism and individualism. Such a society must constantly strive to compromise, eschewing any methods that would allow one group to elevate above others and in doing so, ensuring that any true social progress becomes muddled, disoriented, dysfunctional, and ultimately stagnant. In reality, the consequences are even more dire due to the contribution of the aforementioned identity politics, which pits varying group interests against each other by bidding for special treatment, thereby fomenting antagonism and greater alienation. Assimilation in a society like this, which our own real societies mimic to a spectacular degree, is impossible, and with the impossibility of assimilation comes the impossibility of common interests that transcend the lowest common denominator, and ultimately progress.

Needless to say, the above described social order is fundamentally incompatible with socialism, which seeks to foster solidarity amongst members within groups by eliminating class injustice. These groups are already provided to us by nature: family, tribe, and nation. These are the principal elements by which all human societies, regardless of culture, have structured themselves in some manner. All liberal myths aside, this is the reality of the situation.

anon wrote:Aren't Socalism and racism fundamentally incompatible? Socialism is about brotherhood and the solidarity of all working people, racism is about putting people in groups defined mostly by how they look, calling one group good and treating it well and treating the other group like shit. How do you expect to make this work?

I believe that attempting to create one heterogenous society plays straight into the capitalists hands. Rather than creating an end to class distinctions and the 'fabled' equality of man, the diversification of society creates a situation where disasters (whether economic or social) can be blamed on one group (the most acceptable to the majority). So instead of allowing the pursuit of the end of capitalist domination it allows it to continue through divide and rule.

I do hope that "anon" returns to continue this debate.

Isakenaz wrote:I do hope that "anon" returns to continue this debate.

I have a feeling he wasn't expecting these kind of high-brow responses.

Then maybe he'll carry back to wherever he came from that we are worth debating with.

Good point. We need numerical strength...

anon wrote:Aren't Socalism and racism fundamentally incompatible?

Being that no one is a "racist' here, your question is irrelevant. If, however, you consider people who believe in maintaining national identity to be "racist," then the history of socialism itself is replete with racists and you should be asking yourself why that is.

I would submit to you that socialism is fundamentally incapable of being achieved without the social cohesion left-wing nationalism fosters being firmly established.

Socialism is about brotherhood and the solidarity of all working people, racism is about putting people in groups defined mostly by how they look, calling one group good and treating it well and treating the other group like shit.

See above.

The members of this forum have absolutely no interest in something as petty as wasting time needlessly discriminating against people who merely look different from us. We actually respect differences, so much so that we look onto the forced homogenization of different cultures taking place throughout the world with sorrow. We're also realists, in so far as we understand that the sort of "international solidarity" certain idealists seek to establish is utterly impractical. That doesn't suggest we favor the perpetuation of reactionary policies like imperialism though, quite the opposite.

These were great responses.
Race is definitely an issue, and Whites need to be proactive, just as other races are...
We Americans, and I say this in a broad-based, over-generalizing sense, but let me make a point...really care about our work. We want to go to work and feel it is profitable. We care about quality, and we don't want to be told to just be mediocre. But that is what has happened, and of course, the workforce always gets the blame. Yes, there are lazy people, but not everyone is, and now that merit increases, raises, promotions, and cost of living increases are virtually gone, there isn't much to aspire to. Someone once said, "Well, you're only there for the money?" Duh..yeah...if I didn't have to work, I'd be painting on the coastline or playing music, learning something new, or growing something. What the heck...but since I HAVE to work, I DO care about what I do.
A job now is simply survival, and all the bells and whistles that employment once had are gone, except for the managers and higher eschelon.
Hence quality is gone down, service has gone down, and no one really cares because morale has been bludgeoned to death.

Capitalism is a system where the few favor each other, and you can work and work and try to get ahead, but unless someone graces you with elitism, you won't rise above.

I personally disagree with the concept of racism myself, as racism seeks to define an entire ethnicity or racial group by genetic standards, as opposed to by standards which relate to individual behavior out of the collective. As well, within socialism, all of those should be upheld equally in a self-determined fashion that allows for their own dignity and respect to be maintained as opposed to a racially abusive form.

I as well have skepticism related to the potential of White Nationalism, as historically there hasn't been a defined sense of White and the birth of White Nationalism has existed in order to abolish previously existing ethnic identities of oppressed Europeans. IE: The Irish who were not previously considered White but were whiteified in an attempt to abolish the growing sense of cultural growth and nationalism. If anything, what should be accepted is a form of cultural self-determination and nationalism based on the concepts of localized European cultural, IE: Ireland, Scotland and other European nationalities rebirth and maintain their own cultural self-determination and rebirth their culture in a respective form. Not to mention, the whiteification process as previously said only seeks to abolish the nationalism of distinct European nationalities.

Harakiyyin wrote:I as well have skepticism related to the potential of White Nationalism, as historically there hasn't been a defined sense of White and the birth of White Nationalism has existed in order to abolish previously existing ethnic identities of oppressed Europeans. IE: The Irish who were not previously considered White but were whiteified in an attempt to abolish the growing sense of cultural growth and nationalism.

What you've highlighted is a problem unique to post-colonial territories. In the United States, for example, the government was faced with the difficulty of having to assimilate diverse European populations into the nation, and the most practical method to accomplish that was to forge an entirely new, more inclusive, European "racial" identity. It was relatively easy to achieve the formation of such an identity, since the phenotypic variation between European groups is relatively minor, and cultural ties to their Europe homelands seemed to diminish more with each passing generation. As a consequence, the various European ethnic populations began intermingling with each other to the extent wherein, today, any given Caucasian residing in the United States is most likely an amalgam of various European nationalities. The same was accomplished with African slaves, albeit in much more of a coercive and inhumane manner, earlier in the "New World's" history.

Thus, post-colonial territories must handle the issue of self-determination in a manner which diverges significantly from the methods which will be utilized in Europe, East Asia, and so forth.

If anything, what should be accepted is a form of cultural self-determination and nationalism based on the concepts of localized European cultural, IE: Ireland, Scotland and other European nationalities rebirth and maintain their own cultural self-determination and rebirth their culture in a respective form.

I agree, but such a process can only work within continents which don't possess the post-colonial status of the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, etc. A good example would be Iraq. The borders of contemporary Iraq were drawn by British imperialists and ruthlessly maintained by Saddam Hussein. However, the people of Iraq know that it's very much an artificial "nation"—which fractions along Sunni, Shi'a, and Kurdish lines. A socialist movement in Iraq would surely demand that each group be given the fundamental right to self-determination.

Not to mention, the whiteification process as previously said only seeks to abolish the nationalism of distinct European nationalities.

Indeed.

It depends what you mean by racism, there could even be world communism and the different nations could only stay within their respective nations. There can be socialism for one race or one nation which in not as concerned with other races or nations. I care about other nations and races somewhat though I am most concerned with my own. Many nations that share a culture, language ect are multiracial. South America, India, many Arab countries ect.