Race is Artificial

no-maps wrote:What is racialism, and what role does it serve in the process of nationalization? It's not okay for a nation to determine its citizenship based on race, and communists (and all other revolutionary leftists) must resist the formation of any nationalism that uses race as a definition of its citizenship. This whole notion of "self-determination" can apologize for incorrect views for so long before it must be questioned and held accountable.

So are you saying that if for example, after a revolution in the US, if the black community wants their own separate nation state, that should be denied to them?

no-maps wrote:What is racialism, and what role does it serve in the process of nationalization?

Racialism, as I understand it (which may be incorrect), entails a respect for ones ancestry and a desire to preserve it, while making no judgment as to the superiority or inferiority of any ethnic group and opposing the oppression of other populations.

It's not okay for a nation to determine its citizenship based on race, and communists (and all other revolutionary leftists) must resist the formation of any nationalism that uses race as a definition of its citizenship.

National self-determination is guided by the democratic will of the masses. As such, the people may choose to establish whatever criteria they wish for citizenship in their nation.

Technically I understand that such a thing would be democratic, but, personally, I hate the idea of race-based statehood.

Red Aegis wrote:Technically I understand that such a thing would be democratic, but, personally, I hate the idea of race-based statehood.

It's unlikely that nations would establish a strictly race-based policy. For example, the Polish and English are members of the same Caucasian race, but they're very different culturally. It's likely that citizenship will rest more along ethnocultural lines as opposed to strictly racial, though no one can say for certain how each nation will ultimately decide such matters.

Red Aegis wrote:Technically I understand that such a thing would be democratic, but, personally, I hate the idea of race-based statehood.

I think race based statehood is a fantasy espoused by delusional maniacs; as such would entail a lot of horrendous crimes such as ethnic cleansing, but what would be ideal is the construction at least of a nation that respects and acknowledges ethnic-cultural differences, while appealing to the greatest aspects from each ethnic-group within the nation. Race is not even a term I like, as there is no "race based culture". What is known as "the white race" or "the black race" is really just a collection of relatively similar ethno-cultures. Germans are a slightly different ethnicity and cultural group than the Irish. Just like those from Puerto Rico slightly differ from Mexico (I live near an area with a concentration of people from these groups and if you mix up Puerto Ricans with Mexicans they will not be happy).

Now, I am a euro-mutt (German and Polish) but I would still like to see a respect for those cultures and European culture in general in a socialist state in North America as most Europeans here are a mixture of various ethnic groups. Just as all African, South American, Asian, etc cultures should be respected as well. A lot of Europeans lost their identities and cultures in the 1800s when they immigrated, now the move has been made to destroy all unique cultures no matter what people in the name of mindless capitalist consumer culture.

In places that do decide, hypothetically, to have a nation based upon race, would nations overlap and have different laws in areas of varied race? I don't think that it would be fair to force white people out of a place that voted to be a black nation. I don't think that anyone would see that as a respect of the rights of the whites in this scenario. I think that this needs to be expanded upon by those more knowledgeable than myself, possibly in another thread.

My red best,
Red Aegis

I think 'racial' (cultural) separatist statehood (like with the National Anarchists) would more consist of something akin to what the Mormons did-- everyone of a certain group would go and live somewhere separate from everyone else. If they were to try and racially cleanse their population I think the socialist government would have to do something about it.
The main thing would be just to establish a government that takes care to preserve the various cultures it encompasses and prevent tensions between them.

RedSun wrote:I think 'racial' (cultural) separatist statehood (like with the National Anarchists) would more consist of something akin to what the Mormons did-- everyone of a certain group would go and live somewhere separate from everyone else. If they were to try and racially cleanse their population I think the socialist government would have to do something about it.
The main thing would be just to establish a government that takes care to preserve the various cultures it encompasses and prevent tensions between them.

What you're saying now is different from there being separate nations based on ethnicity or culture. What you seem to be espousing is an umbrella socialist gov't that has power over sub-governments in a similar way to the US's control over individual states. This raises another question, in keeping with the right of different groups to form their own nations, what is to stop them from creating an island of capitalism through their democratically chosen constitution. This level of autonomy has no guarantee of a socialist outcome that maintaining a nationalist identity similar to the current state of things would. By this I mean that the separatism that ensues from allowing separate nations within a greater one is detrimental to the revolution at large.

My red best,
Red Aegis

Red Aegis wrote:In places that do decide, hypothetically, to have a nation based upon race, would nations overlap and have different laws in areas of varied race? I don't think that it would be fair to force white people out of a place that voted to be a black nation. I don't think that anyone would see that as a respect of the rights of the whites in this scenario. I think that this needs to be expanded upon by those more knowledgeable than myself, possibly in another thread.

It's a very difficult question as to how new nations would be constructed under a policy of national self-determination, the same concerns individuals who don't pass the democratically determined citizenship criteria of where they're currently residing. I suspect it would be somewhat of a messy process at times, but then no one ever said democracy was a panacea.

To cite one example of how self-determination might work in the United States, the Communist Party in the early 20th century supported a policy of self-determination for the so-called "Black Belt" (a Southern region in the country with a very dense black population). Here's how they envisioned the policy would work:

"According to Ford, a United Soviet States of America would mean 'complete independence of the Black Belt region'; Blacks could choose 'federation with or separation from' the United States. The party would 'urge and fight for federation' but 'would respect sovereignty.' In the North, Blacks could 'remain in Harlem' or move; moving would be encouraged as it would 'hasten the destruction of all forms of separation.' In the Black Belt Republic, Blacks would play the 'principal' but not the exclusive role; there would not be a 'dictatorship of Negroes' but the 'workers' since the 'Soviet Negro Republic' would not necessarily be all-Black. Though many whites might find such a program totally objectionable, many African-Americans still find it worth considering."
Horne, Gerald. Black Liberation/Red Scare: Ben Davis and the Communist Party, p. 69.

Red Aegis wrote:This raises another question, in keeping with the right of different groups to form their own nations, what is to stop them from creating an island of capitalism through their democratically chosen constitution. This level of autonomy has no guarantee of a socialist outcome that maintaining a nationalist identity similar to the current state of things would.

The self-determination of nations would occur after the proletarian revolution. If people democratically decided to reinstate capitalism in their respective nation, perhaps bordering nations could interpret that as a threat to their sovereignty (as capitalism is inherently imperialist) and use that as justification for intervention; I really don't know. Theoretically, even if national self-determination were not implemented, in any socialist state that is democratic (as any legitimate expression of socialism would be), there's a risk that people will reinstate capitalism. Consequently, the maintenance of socialism will always depend on majority consensus.

Celt, it's silly to constitute the ideological product of Soviet tactics as synonymous with their own political theory. Marxism must be adapted to the situation, and will depend on region in terms of how advanced it is and the form it takes. Stalinist tactics in the black belt does not mean "it's okay to make racial communes."

no-maps wrote:Celt, it's silly to constitute the ideological product of Soviet tactics as synonymous with their own political theory. Marxism must be adapted to the situation, and will depend on region in terms of how advanced it is and the form it takes. Stalinist tactics in the black belt does not mean "it's okay to make racial communes."

Lenin supported the self-determination of nations because he was pragmatic enough to understand that when the people were given genuine democratic control over the former Tsarist empire—which comprised of dozens of nations—each nationality would desire to govern itself autonomously. Of course, in practice, democracy was never extended to the Soviet populace and their 'self-government' was largely fictitious, but coming to terms with people's desire for self-determination is as relevant for socialism today as it was in Lenin's time.

As for what's "okay," I'm of the view that people should have the right to determine that for themselves.

no-maps wrote:There is nothing organic about race. We must be taught how to recognize race, and how to treat others based on their race. Race is socially constructed and no meaningful genetic or biological difference can be found among different races. The definition of race, and who is a member of what race, also changes from culture to culture. Children find a natural interest in all people and do not have the ability to discriminate until they are instructed on how to do so. The process of racialization is the transformation of unbiased human beings into discriminating social roles within a particular race. This occurs through institutions of learning, but also through media and culture. Society strictly enforces these lessons with severe forms of punishment, as well as rewards for submission. People are required to adopt the psychological characteristics of "their race" based on a false form of heritability that is socially determined, and are severely alienated from their friends and families if they reject racialism.

Race is a biological fact. Race is identifiable by phenotype and gene cluster analysis, and it can be associated with geographical populations. These biological characteristics are inherited, and so race is hereditary, not socially constructed. Race is no less real than biological sex, and it is a similarly significant reality in medicine, forensics, and biology (where it is often referred to by the conveniently neutral term "population"). You have absolutely no evidence to support your assertions, whereas there is a cornucopia of proof for the existence of biologically determined races. That being said, the manner in which we perceive and treat race is, to a large extent, dependent upon social context.

The issue of race also divides the working class in a way that prevents solidarity, and reduces the capacity of that class to organize. This weapon of the bourgeoisie against the only class that can alter society in a radical way. We must reject race, and convince those around us to reject it as well.

Heterogeneity within society is indeed divisive and inimical to working class solidarity, which is what we have come to realize during the course of our political sophistication and is why we have come to adopt left-wing nationalism as a guiding principle. Our reasoning concludes that instead of forcefully integrating populations, and thereby alienating large segments thereof, we would perhaps be better served by granting them self-determination.

For the record, there are "Marxists" who propound such absurd notions as those outlined above (David Roediger, Noel Ignatiev, et al.), but these are not Marxist ideas. They are preposterous. I simply wish to clarify for unfamiliar readers that such nonsense is not a component of genuine Marxism, nor even leftism proper, for that matter.

no-maps wrote:Race is socially constructed and no meaningful genetic or biological difference can be found among different races.

It never ceases to amaze me when people come out with such a patently obvious, unscientific, lie.

You know it's bullshit. You know that race is a biological fact. Why peddle this absurdity? Tragically, there are enough moral and intellectual cowards out there who will swallow and parrot any manner of gibberish as long as it's the currently accepted, and fashionable, view to take. You could be one of those I suppose, but you sound like you actually believe this nonsense.

Frightening, that someone can totally and utterly disgregard science and reality just to adhere to adhere to a tenet of their chosen ideology, no matter how much it flies in the face of reason.

But then again, there have always been religious zealots throughout human history, so I shouldn't be surprised.

To Red and White

I think that what is meant by many is that race shouldn't play out in politics, since the genetic differences between races are overshadowed, behaviorally, by the material conditions of people's lives. Medically, racial differentiation is useful, I will give you that, but race should not be considered in law, economics, and culture. I feel that I should clarify what I mean by non-racialist culture: say the white children kidnapped by native americans back in the old west. In some cases the children were taken as babies and raised by the natives as the natives raised their own children, this made the children culturally native. What matters is behavior, and that has very little to do with genetics for almost all cases. I posted a link earlier that says very much the same thing and being an article from Nature, I think that it's fairly unbiased and scientific. Does that clear up what I've meant up till now?

no maps, There is a big difference between acknowledging that race exists and being a Racialist. Racialists are the same thing as White Nationalists, Black Nationalists, or whatever. They believe that the interests of a certain race must be upheld. I certainly dont believe in that ( being a Hungarian Nationalist) and I dont think anyone else on this forum does. This is a not a Racialist forum after all.

As the wise Wikipedia tells us, both Nelson Mandela's African National Congress and Mahatma Mohandas Gandhi's Indian National Congress were left-wing nationalist organisations. Both of them sought to promote and preserve their nations via independence from rule by Europeans. Neither of them could be considered to promote any kind of racial prejudice.

RedSun wrote:As the wise Wikipedia tells us, both Nelson Mandela's African National Congress and Mahatma Mohandas Gandhi's Indian National Congress were left-wing nationalist organisations. Both of them sought to promote and preserve their nations via independence from rule by Europeans. Neither of them could be considered to promote any kind of racial prejudice.

Gandhi is a favorite left wing nationalist of mine (though I never called him that) and an ideological inspiration to myself. Thank you for pointing this out RedSun!

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by how well it treats its animals" - Gandhi

It's a great tactic to use against people who accuse us of being crypto-Nazis. "So you're saying Gandhi and Mandela were racists..."

no-maps wrote:What is racialism, and what role does it serve in the process of nationalization? It's not okay for a nation to determine its citizenship based on race, and communists (and all other revolutionary leftists) must resist the formation of any nationalism that uses race as a definition of its citizenship. This whole notion of "self-determination" can apologize for incorrect views for so long before it must be questioned and held accountable.

Its not okay for a nation to determine its citizenship based on race? Excuse me but who the hell do you think you are? Each Nation decides exactly whatever the fuck it wants about granting citizenship. Period. You dont have any business telling people who cant even speak the same language as you, as to who they can let into their country or not. I personally dont give a rats ass about who other Nations let into their countries but Im sure as hell against all Non Hungarian immigration to Hungary. My country is for my kind only.

I guess this is one of the reasons why the public has the tendency to view left wing movements as 'Culture Dismantlers'. Personally I would care less about the whole notion of race though the rampant debates about its true definition vexes me. Let us all draw a conclusion here, not everyone desires their identity to be simply replaced by some culture that is less than a decade old. While to disregard the idea of 'race' as a caste system is a desirable choice for most people, to accept the abolishment of 'race' as a cultural identity, a heritage, is not. While I do agree with no-maps that racial identity can also be formulated through psychological, if not, environmental influences, I don't see how it is credible to reject 'race' completely.

I think that the formation of racial identity culturally is part of nationalists' point. They feel that their children are being raised in a culture they don't like-- the globalist pseudo-culture. They want the opportunity to create a nation where they can form their own identity. This doesn't necessarily imply hurting anyone else.

no-maps wrote:There is nothing organic about race. We must be taught how to recognize race, and how to treat others based on their race. Race is socially constructed and no meaningful genetic or biological difference can be found among different races.

There are enough studies which contradict that assertion. Sociobiology studies state that there is a biological factor within social behaviour. I believe that is a fact that can't be ignored from some kind of feeling of "political correctness".

The definition of race, and who is a member of what race, also changes from culture to culture. Children find a natural interest in all people and do not have the ability to discriminate until they are instructed on how to do so.

I think one can state that there is a moral equality among races, but that there is a biological difference. Ofcourse the biological factor is secundairy in social communication, although i think a artificial identity (in a cultural sense) forms a primary factor. An identity is the social consensus that is fundamentally needed for any succesfull community.

The process of racialization is the transformation of unbiased human beings into discriminating social roles within a particular race. This occurs through institutions of learning, but also through media and culture. Society strictly enforces these lessons with severe forms of punishment, as well as rewards for submission. People are required to adopt the psychological characteristics of "their race" based on a false form of heritability that is socially determined, and are severely alienated from their friends and families if they reject racialism.

I don't believe in the "Tubula rasa" theory. Discrimination in it's most metafysical way is a important human instinct which gives us the ability to make distinction. Because it's such a important part of human nature i think one could never eradicate it.

The issue of race also divides the working class in a way that prevents solidarity, and reduces the capacity of that class to organize. This weapon of the bourgeoisie against the only class that can alter society in a radical way. We must reject race, and convince those around us to reject it as well.

I think the rejection of race is a rejection of identity in some way. Identity is essential because it's a solid basis for solidarity; the nationalist dogma of a "Fatherland" has just an immense unifying strength as the Marxist dogma of "Communism".

In a sense the rejection of race and identity is beneficiary for capitalism. Capitalism can take many forms, it can be racist and it can be antiracist. Fundamentally the modern Capitalism as a pure economic system (just as Marxism) sees diversity and identity as abberent phenomina. This is because modern Capitalism is striving for a global market of consumers and producers. In that sense one could see simularities between Capitalism and Marxism; both are purely ecomic, believe in the abstract man and don't recognise the existence of a diversity of races, cultures and values that arise from people world wide.

In that sense i think one should not deny biological facts. Solidarity must be based on a sense of moral; who demand self-determination for his self and his community should allow others to do the same.

Nationaal-Syndicalist wrote:Fundamentally the modern Capitalism as a pure economic system (just as Marxism) sees diversity and identity as abberent phenomina. This is because modern Capitalism is striving for a global market of consumers and producers. In that sense one could see simularities between Capitalism and Marxism; both are purely ecomic, believe in the abstract man and don't recognise the existence of a diversity of races, cultures and values that arise from people world wide.

I think it's inaccurate to draw such a conclusion regarding Marxism. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were political economists, so their work obviously reflected that. Seldom did they concern themselves with issues pertaining to ethnicity, but they did focus a considerable amount of attention on culture and human values. Marx's very theory of alienation posits that the current structure of production is debilitating to man's full potential and fundamentally alien to his Gattungswesen—if mankind didn't possess an innate nature, alienation would be an impossibility. Socialism and communism, they believed (in my opinion, correctly), would remedy that situation and therefore serve to liberate humanity.

There is simply no basis for accusing the Marxian tradition of vulgar economism. Of course, there have been several self-identified 'Marxist' intellectuals of which one could legitimately accuse of economism, but certainly not school of thought in its entirety.