Race is Artificial

Celtiberian wrote: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.

Maybe not, but they offer a economic solution to almost all problems (collectivised means of production and dictatorship of the proletariat). The biggest problem with Marxism is the dogmatic believe in the abstract man and the absolute equality of all; a man that is not connected with an identity, culture, community or etnicity of his own. It rejects in that sense almost all forms of individuality, which are a motivating factor within society. To suggest that these vital elements of human nature are just "bourgeois values" is in my opinion a very big mistake. This disregard for human nature is the biggest pitfall of the Marxist dogma.

Nationaal-Syndicalist wrote:Maybe not, but they offer a economic solution to almost all problems (collectivised means of production and dictatorship of the proletariat).

Who do you mean by "they"? Marx and Engels—and basically every other serious Marxist scholar—only proposed socialism and communism as a solution to the contradictions of capital, not as a cure-all to the various problems facing mankind.

The biggest problem with Marxism is the dogmatic believe in the abstract man and the absolute equality of all; a man that is not connected with an identity, culture, community or etnicity of his own. It rejects in that sense almost all forms of individuality, which are a motivating factor within society.

Marx never claimed that men were equally endowed with the same innate potential. As the British Marxist (and evolutionary biologist), J. B. S. Haldane, wrote:

"The dogma of human equality is no part of Communism . . . the formula of Communism: 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs', would be nonsense, if abilities were equal."
Haldane, J. B. S. Daily Worker, 14 November, 1949.

What Marx advocated was the formation of a system characterized by economic egalitarianism; the existence of human biological inequality is of no consequence to the prospect of establishing a classless society. As for national identity, I agree that Marx and Engels didn't pay sufficient attention to the importance of the issue, but I don't view that as representing a coup de grâce to the entire theory either. Aside from a few dogmatic simpletons who make a mockery of the tradition, most Marxists haven't made any pretenses to the effect that Marxism provides an analytical framework capable of adequately explaining all social phenomena.

To suggest that these vital elements of human nature are just "bourgeois values" is in my opinion a very big mistake.

Of course.

This disregard for human nature is the biggest pitfall of the Marxist dogma.

As I wrote in my previous post, there are no grounds to claim that Marx and Engels disregarded human nature. If they didn't acknowledge there being a human nature, there would simply be no basis for advocating the abolition of any mode of production. If they had accepted the tabula rasa view of psychology, it would have been pointless for them to stress the existence of class struggle, because they would have understood that it logically follows from such a position that man could be socialized into uncritically accepting the prevailing social order. So, again, it's a straw man to claim that the Marxian tradition doesn't take human nature into account in its analysis.

Celtiberian wrote:As I wrote in my previous post, there are no grounds to claim that Marx and Engels disregarded human nature. If they didn't acknowledge there being a human nature, there would simply be no basis for advocating the abolition of any mode of production. If they had accepted the tabula rasa view of psychology, it would have been pointless for them to stress the existence of class struggle, because they would have understood that it logically follows from such a position that man could be socialized into uncritically accepting the prevailing social order. So, again, it's a straw man to claim that the Marxian tradition doesn't take human nature into account in its analysis.

Thanks for these answers and some new insights. If I look at the most Marxists in my country i think a lot of it's followers don't have much knowledge about the Communist doctrine. It seems to be more about political-correctness, "multiculti" and old enemy images with them.

Nationaal-Syndicalist wrote:Thanks for these answers and some new insights.

I'm glad I could be of assistance, comrade.

If I look at the most Marxists in my country i think a lot of it's followers don't have much knowledge about the Communist doctrine. It seems to be more about political-correctness, "multiculti" and old enemy images with them.

One must always be careful to separate the views espoused by Marx and Engels from those who refer to themselves as "Marxists" today. The current emphasis on multiculturalism and minority identity politics on the Left owes far more to the influence of the so-called "New Left" (the radical movement of the 1960s) than it does to anything out of the Marxian tradition.

Celtiberian wrote: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.

Nail on the head,People will always draw themselves around those that are similar to themselves (language culture ect) in Europe we have been doing this for centuries and this is foundation of our early nation states and in some cases current nation states although these are as we know mostly capitalist constructs.

no-maps wrote:There is nothing organic about race.

How so?

We must be taught how to recognize race,

Sorry, but you don't need to be taught to see differences.

and how to treat others based on their race.

The system tried to tell me blacks and Pakistanis are English. So maybe you do have a point there...

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. 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.

It seems like the opposite way round to me...self discrimination and the veneration of multiracial nations are the required ideology of my nation. Heavily racially mixing in nations creates more division amongst classes, within and between them.

Of course to a certain extent race is artificial, but that doesn't diminish its validity.

Race is a very real thing that has been virtually neutered by the progression of the classes. When we first evolved, everyone spread out, and the ethnicities we speak of today had a clear and identifiable existence.

The moment the ethnicities of the world began to form political hierarchies and came in regular contact with alien groups through either trade or war to satisy the elites was the dawn of miscegenation.

In the late 19th century people tried to make order of the mess that late stage capitalism had created. They thought taxonomy was the answer to establishing races. It wasn't. Recently people examined the haploid group makeups in different countries to find a racial trend by seeing if some ethnic groups were more similar to some than others. That didn't work either.

What is indisputable though is that one can idenitify phenotypically similar pindividuals scattered throughout the countries of the world. These are the descendants of the once distinct groups. This is "race". It has always existed and still does. Its ambiguity does not demean its entity. Once people have begun to reassociate amongst phenotypically like others in the wake of conditions established by socialism, ethnonations (and not the broken nation-states of today) will reemerge.

Race is the product of generations of contact with the land and climate, race is the ongoing diversification of the Human species. All life comes from a primordial, uniform soup, and we evolve into variety.

The ginger person struggles to live in the desert, the Black person struggles to live in the cold. The Oriental has a higher IQ, but would make a poor sprinter, he would also have a racially unique allergy to alcohol.. commonly. These inherent and unique racial strengths and weaknesses will also create an archetypal difference in personality between the races, as we've each evolved around differing traits.