Re: Socialist Phalanx (RevLeft 2)

The following is a response to a recent thread on RevLeft 2, started by user grigori2.

grigori2 wrote:As a recent victim of the revleft junta i am in no mood to advocate establishing a thought police. But should Socialist Phalanx really be associated with this site?

1. They are essentially National Socialsts (fascists)

2. The junta made up a bullshit story of fascist infiltrators to purge us. Why cause suspicion from potential new members?

1. There is nothing remotely fascistic about this site. I challenge you to cite an instance where anyone outside of the OV section has advocated for anything resembling Nazism or fascism.

People should really consult primary sources pertaining to the Socialist Phalanx (e.g. the relevant content of this forum) before formulating and sharing their opinions.

2. Catering to the irrationality (and corresponding hypersensitivity) of the RevLeft crowd will only get you so far. Look where it got you, for example.

Chris wrote:I agree with grigori somewhat. I mean they are made of up mostly white nationalists and isn't that something people here don't agree with?

That's an absolute misrepresentation. White nationalist (or any racist) viewpoints are not accepted as legitimate here and are therefore confined to the forum's opposing views section. The forum officially promotes left-wing nationalism as a corollary for our socialist internationalism.

Would we allow nationalists to join revleft 2 and put a bad name on revleft 2?

Explain to me how the forum's left-wing nationalism undermines the integrity of RevLeft 2 in any way. It is entirely congruent with the national self-determination of Leninism and the social patriotism inherent to virtually every successful socialist movement.

I mean it seems like revolutionary leftists would look down apon joing a group that is supposed to base their beliefs on unity and anti-nationalism.

Every objectionable component of the sort of "nationalism" traditionally opposed by revolutionary socialists is unambiguously absent from the principles supported here.

They may not be Fascists but they are white nationalists and I feel like if people see that we have white nationalists/socialists in our group they won't want to join. Then that's less leftists we can have to build this group.

Again, this is not a white nationalist forum. Of course, I do not deny the problematic nature of having a forum as controversial as the Socialist Phalanx featured on RevLeft 2. If everyone inclined to join is as closed-minded as you are, it may very well adversely impact the site's development.

Chris wrote:I understand what you are saying to the fullest. I also agreed that they were not Fascists. I don't agree with black nationalism or any form of nationalism because I feel like they want segregation. I wouldn't want to live in a society where races are seperated even if it is called "socialist"

Whatever impact the free political secession of nations would have upon the 'racial' composition of a given area is completely incidental. The whole point of developing a framework for national self-determination within a socialist society is to further democratize said society; thereby maximizing the sort of social cohesion necessary to safeguard the gains of the revolution and establish a genuine system of internationalism — free of coercion.

There is a fundamental difference between a state forcibly dividing its population and a democratic society where people are given the opportunity to voluntarily establish their own autonomous, socialist nations.

grigori2 wrote:After careful deliberation i have deemed it tolerable that social nationalists (thats not right) are not autopurged from the site. I still do not think that they should be advertised in the groups menu ( the junta should remain only for recruiting = trolling missions) but at this early stage beggers can't be choosers. Yet if they are in we should also allow social democrats, anarchists and even petty bougeosie in as well.

Sounds like opportunistic drivel to me. A relatively liberal policy regarding the positions revolutionary socialist groups assume on the national question is one thing; opening the site to basically anyone who merely claims not be a conservative is quite another.

Do you have an account on RevLeft 2, Admin? If so, a response to that thread with a selection of links to threads here explaining the nature of our left-wing nationalism, i.e., the threads substantiating our position with quotes from Lenin, Tito, Mao, Bebel, &c, might be a good idea.

grigori2 wrote:Dear socialist Phalanx,

I took the time to read your post and now desire to clarify some of my beliefs. I will grant you the fact that you are not technically fascists (many seem to forget that fascism means more than being an ignorant, evil racist bastard.)

You're conspicuous attempt to libel the Socialist Phalanx is laughable. Such inane comments do nothing to advance the dialog in a productive capacity. But of course you haven't any interest in such a thing. You are content to simply stand by your silly caricaturization of this forum's principles, because you know that you're incapable of addressing this question from a factual standpoint.

I do believe that your views are misguided.

You don't say. No one would have expected that someone audacious enough to assert that this forum is comprised of "ignorant, evil racist bastard[s]" would also believe that my views are "misguided".

I hold to the view that culture is more important than genetics.

And what makes you think that I prescribe to the opposite point of view? Your own preconceived notions, perhaps?

The difference between you and I is that I actually understand the value of cultural diversity enough to support its perpetuation (within a socialistic sociopolitical framework). As I previously argued, the practicality of establishing a system for national self-determination, within a post-revolutionary context, was obvious enough for the likes of Lenin. National patriotism was also a component of every (at least ostensibly) socialist state.

Your belief in the deevolution of the state in favor of autonomous and potentially independent ethnic homelands would most likely end in ethnic conflict. Your beliefs will not end in peace.

That's pure conjecture and given the fact that you possess an inadequate understanding of what left-wing nationalism constitutes, you're in no position to speculate. My proposals lack historical application and therefore cannot be juxtaposed to the contexts you decided to evoke, in your unimaginative attempt to discredit them. Presenting such obvious straw man arguments as legitimate retort is as disingenuous as attempting to discredit socialism by evoking the instances of social injustice suffered under regimes that purported to be socialist.

The worlds partition would not be peaceful. Each race would fight for its own interests, and eventually the strongest would survive.

Again, this is a disingenuous argument. Such a chaotic outcome would be contingent upon material preconditions that would simply not exist in the sort of (socialistic) context that left-nationalist policies would be introduced under.

Try to think of a time when various races split near or intermingled with each other split peacefully. I know several cases (Yugoslavia, India et al. where the opposite is true.)

I just explained why it's unreasonable to evoke any bygone or current social structures in order to discredit left-wing nationalism.

Furthermore, you keep reducing this to a question of 'race'. Such reveals a fundamental misapprehension of the subject in question.

People forget that the idea of themodern nation state was created on ethnic and cultural linesand we all know how that turned out. Promoting race based politics is a step towards neo-tribalism and stupidity

There is no point in addressing such blatant and petty straw man arguments. You can continue to deny the significance of national identity and see where that gets you and the rest of the marginalized actors involved in the contemporary Western 'left'. Your refusal to accept such a reality is a weakness that the bourgeoisie will continue to exploit to its advantage.

PS:

You missed the point of my final statement. I equated your views first with anarchy to build interest and than to social democracy and the bourgeosie to illustrate the absurdity of calling you revolutionary. I apologise to Anarchists everywhere.

That's a pitiful cop-out. The point of your final statement was to underscore the fact that you are an opportunist, who puts political ambition ahead of principle.

Furthermore, I could just as easily (and arbitrarily) conflate your cosmopolitanism with social democracy and bourgeois institutions — which are both structurally opposed to the development of anything resembling left-wing nationalism. The simple fact of the matter is you have done nothing do demonstrate why it's 'absurd' to consider my views revolutionary.

Chris wrote:Dear Socialist Phalanx,

I understand that some of what I've said may come out as a bit too harsh upon your group and your views..I would like to say that I might have been a little misguided by reading some posts in your forum that show videos with the words white nationalism over the top of the videos and that also show long videos of european white sculptures.

First of all, there is nothing wrong with (or inherently racist about) European sculptures. With respect to the allegation of SP members posting videos that are explicitly white nationalist, outside of content featured in our opposing views section, I cannot recall any such posts in the forum. Of course, some objectionable posts may slip through the cracks, so to speak. (On that point, we have always encouraged our membership to report any/all instances of OV content being published in the general forums.)

Clearly, the broader context of the forum itself — as defined by its foundational principles, policies, and preponderance of content — is what is relevant here.

It was my glancing through the topics that may have led me to think that your group was a nationalist group in terms of wanting to segregate other races and believing that your own race is above all.

You clearly didn't explore our topics in any significant depth (nor bothered to read through our FAQ or Guidelines) if you were left with the impression that this forum endorses racial supremacism and endeavors to segregate the so-called races.

Maybe if you could explain to me how nationalism can bring about internationalism in a more clear way, then I could probably be more 'open-minded' to what you guys view.

To begin with, I would recommend that you discount the notion that left-wing nationalism and divergent expressions of 'nationalism' possess the same homogeneous properties.

While left-wing nationalism is based upon an affirmation of the right to national self-determination, it distinguishes itself in terms of how it endeavors to apply that principle. With respect to that point, there are a number of elaborations to be found throughout the forum.

Left-wing nationalism corresponds with socialist internationalism because it establishes a superior framework for cooperation and federation. Lenin put it this way:

Vladimir Lenin wrote:Victorious socialism must achieve complete democracy and, consequently, not only bring about the complete equality of nations, but also give effect to the right of oppressed nations to self-determination, i.e., the right to free political secession. Socialist Parties which fail to prove by all their activities now, as well as during the revolution and after its victory, that they will free the enslaved nations and establish relations with them on the basis of a free union and a free union is a lying phrase without right to secession—such parties would be committing treachery to socialism.

The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination (1916)

Also, just because I say things about a group that i perceived as white nationalist does not mean that am not open-minded and I am very well willing to listen to what you have to say with my fullest intent to understand your views..

You being closed-minded is a possibility given the fact that you were so quick to dismiss an entire forum, that you admittedly know very little about, as "white nationalist" without any legitimate cause.

I may have been misguided but calling people close-minded because they don't understand is not something a group should say about other leftwing comrades especially when they may just be ignorant to left-wing nationalism and certainly not close-minded.

Outside of the actions and statements of comrade David, I've encountered no treatment that is emblematic of socialist camaraderie. I have been accused of being a fascist, racist, etc. for no credible reason. The irrational (practically Pavlovian) reactions to anything that merely presents itself as nationalistic have guided this discourse thus far. No honest inquiry has been conducted in order to reach a consensus regarding the forum. Rather, people ignorant of the relevant facts pertaining to the Socialist Phalanx have hastily demanded its expulsion from anything having to do with RevLeft 2.

Chris wrote:I understand exactly what you mean. I never once called you racists or fascists. I actually spoke against calling you fascists and you still seem like you are against me. I tried explaining that I may have been ignorant and misguided..Then you said that me being close-minded is a probability.

You stated that the Socialist Phalanx is "made of up [sic] mostly white nationalists" and stood by that assertion, despite the blatant disparities between your 'evidence' and the (relevant) information pertaining to the forum's ideological parameters, policies, etc. Given the unambiguous nature of the latter, I found your statements to amount to little more than the sort of libel commonly employed against the forum by its detractors.

If you take the time to read some of the posts in this link to your 'Education' section you may understand why, when I went to go and learn in the 'Education' section, I acted the way that I did.

http://www.socialistphalanx.com/t131

I reviewed the content in question and understand completely why you found it objectionable. However, given the broader context—e.g. the thread's inherent incompatibility with forum's ideological parameters and policies (hence, its removal); the date in which said thread was posted; and the individuals who contributed to it—I do not see how one could reasonably find it to be reflective of the forum's character.

Maybe the administration should refrain from allowing members to post things like this when non-members are looking through the education section of their forum.

As I said before, our policy explicitly precludes such content from being posted outside of the opposing views section. However, I never denied the possibility of a few isolated instances of OV content failing to be properly filtered out of the general forums. (This is why we strongly encourage our membership to report any/all instances of objectionable content being posted in the general forums.)

Did the link that I posted serve as gratitude as to why I has it in my mind that your group was more/less white nationalist?

If you were honestly unaware of the aforementioned [broader context], I am prepared to accept your previous (erroneous) characterization of the Socialist Phalanx as the byproduct of a legitimate misapprehension.

Anyway, I understand and respect your views.. Now that that is cleared up..

Comrades?

Fair enough.