Oh, RevLeft... you are a silly bunch

I haven't been using RevLeft much lately, and hardly at all for actual political discussion, but I check the learning section to see this crap:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/anti-white-racism-t171957/index.html

you know someone's a complete tosser when they piss and moan about "anti-white racism".

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't know whites were exempt from racial discrimination. I'm seriously starting to see what a joke RevLeft really is now. It's alright for discussing theory before a Marxist-Leninist starts arguing with a Trot or something stupid like that, but I can't take 9/10 people on there seriously anymore.

DSN wrote:I haven't been using RevLeft much lately, and hardly at all for actual political discussion, but I check the learning section to see this crap:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/anti-white-racism-t171957/index.html

To be fair, the individual who started that thread revealed himself to be a neo-Nazi instigator. Nevertheless, I understand your frustration with RevLeft. Most of their threads dealing with these issues read like an extended sensitivity training course in which Caucasians are portrayed as worthy of nothing but contempt.

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't know whites were exempt from racial discrimination.

It's important that we distinguish between racism and systemic racial discrimination. Minority groups are legitimately affected by the latter, but every race can experience the former. In fact, it's likely that Caucasians are the victims of a higher percentage of racially motivated assaults than minority groups currently are, at least in the United States.

Celtiberian wrote:It's important that we distinguish between racism and systemic racial discrimination. Minority groups are legitimately affected by the latter, but every race can experience the former. In fact, it's likely that Caucasians are the victims of a higher percentage of racially motivated assaults than minority groups currently are, at least in the United States.

I think it would likewise be fair to point out to the kids on RevLeft that minority group need not exclude whites entirely. Europeans who live as minorities inside, say a majority African-American neighborhood, can also be subject to systemic discrimination when applying for local jobs and such.

The only real solution to the problem is to allow the free movement of peoples unhindered by financial and economic boundaries, allowing for a pragmatic form of self determination and nationalism. Since RevLeft supposedly supports the free movement of peoples this should be no issue for them, but their ideology is actually not based on justice, rather their own ego in propping themselves up as "the most anti-racist and tolerant".

Pantheon Rising wrote:I think it would likewise be fair to point out to the kids on RevLeft that minority group need not exclude whites entirely. Europeans who live as minorities inside, say a majority African-American neighborhood, can also be subject to systemic discrimination when applying for local jobs and such.

I will say that at first I wasn't aware of this term now being the official term for only systematic discrimination. Pantheon Rising, you have a point though. I think it was Celtiberian (pardon me if I'm wrong) who recently mentioned having such a large ethnic minority population in his town that it was almost impossible to get a job without being able to speak Spanish. I wouldn't call this "anti-white" referring to the idea of systematic racism, but more simply anti-whatever culture, if anything. With Scumfront Nazis it's always "anti-white" which makes it seem as though being white is more important than anything else in the world. To put it simply, we're creating our own little terms for everything then arguing over semantics.

The only real solution to the problem is to allow the free movement of peoples unhindered by financial and economic boundaries, allowing for a pragmatic form of self determination and nationalism. Since RevLeft supposedly supports the free movement of peoples this should be no issue for them, but their ideology is actually not based on justice, rather their own ego in propping themselves up as "the most anti-racist and tolerant".

Funnily enough, there was a recent poll on RevLeft about a country's right to national liberation and self-determination. I was actually shocked at the results:

Yes to self-determination, Yes to National Liberation Movements --- 23 --- 44.23%
Yes to self-determination, No to National Liberation Movements --- 9 --- 17.31%
No to self-determination, No to National Liberation Movements --- 18 --- 34.62%
No to self-determination, Yes to National Liberation Movements --- 2 --- 3.85%

I was expecting 99% no to self-determination, considering what an important role it plays in defining nationalism.

DSN wrote:I will say that at first I wasn't aware of this term now being the official term for only systematic discrimination. Pantheon Rising, you have a point though. I think it was Celtiberian (pardon me if I'm wrong) who recently mentioned having such a large ethnic minority population in his town that it was almost impossible to get a job without being able to speak Spanish. I wouldn't call this "anti-white" referring to the idea of systematic racism, but more simply anti-whatever culture, if anything. With Scumfront Nazis it's always "anti-white" which makes it seem as though being white is more important than anything else in the world. To put it simply, we're creating our own little terms for everything then arguing over semantics.

It isn't necessarily "anti-white" as it doesn't seem people don't get jobs specifically because of their European heritage. If CeltIberian is from Florida, it is likely he is surrounded by a large Cuban population, and many Cubans I know identify as white themselves. It is more of a cultural discrimination/handicap. If the majority of the community does indeed speak Spanish, it should be required that you know Spanish. It goes both ways though, a person who can not speak English can't just be accepted right into a job at an English speaking community. Exactly why a form of free movement and self determination is vital to justice.

Anyway, I dislike the term "anti-white" for exactly the reason you pointed out. The so called "White Nationalist" community uses it as a complete knee jerk reaction to almost anything they find displeasing, almost as frequently as they throw out the accusation of "Jew".

Funnily enough, there was a recent poll on RevLeft about a country's right to national liberation and self-determination. I was actually shocked at the results:

Yes to self-determination, Yes to National Liberation Movements 23 44.23%
Yes to self-determination, No to National Liberation Movements 9 17.31%
No to self-determination, No to National Liberation Movements 18 34.62%
No to self-determination, Yes to National Liberation Movements 2 3.85%

I was expecting 99% no to self-determination, considering what an important role it plays in defining nationalism.

An interesting poll to say the least. I feel that many on RevLeft will only support self-determination for nations they perceive are being oppressed by a larger nation, rather than apply their self determination universally.

Pantheon Rising wrote:An interesting poll to say the least. I feel that many on RevLeft will only support self-determination for nations they perceive are being oppressed by a larger nation, rather than apply their self determination universally.

There's always some confusing contradiction or whatever on RevLeft, but I honestly don't have the energy to ask about it. I think a lot of it is simply going with the flow to avoid being banned or called a racist. Self-determination and/or an ethnic group's right to exist clearly isn't what they oppose with such passion, but more the scary word of "nationalism" and the reactionary connotations famously attached to it. With left communists it seems to be a bit of a different case though, what with being so extremely anti-nationalist (yet inter-nationalist) and to the "left" of everyone else.

how did i do ? in that poll

wsg1991 wrote:how did i do ? in that poll

Eh?

well sorry , i had some debates in that thread with some people who don't support self determination an national liberation

http://www.revleft.com/vb/arguments-against-right-t173714/index.html

i didnt know where to put this but belive this is the best thread for it

threads like these are sadly a commenality on this site, and i wish them luck in the creation of a 1 team olympic event, an idea just as absurd as a nationess world

4thsupporter wrote:http://www.revleft.com/vb/arguments-against-right-t173714/index.html

i didnt know where to put this but belive this is the best thread for it

threads like these are sadly a commenality on this site, and i wish them luck in the creation of a 1 team olympic event, an idea just as absurd as a nationess world

It's amusing to read how perplexed these cosmopolitans are at the difficulty they encounter while attempting to convince working people that nationality is insignificant to their lives. Of course, being as absorbed with abstractions as they are, they simply can't fathom why workers who haven't the time to indulge in these fantasies are skeptical about, and resistant to, such claims.

What is inexcusable, however, is their equating of those of us who argue that socialism can be organized at the national level with "national anarchists" and "right-wing socialists." The anarcho-synidcalists in Spain, for example, established a viable socialist mode of production on an even smaller (i.e., regional) scale, and communist theoreticians from Marx to Lenin never denied that socialism could operate within the confines of a single nation. The only question worthy of debate historically has been regarding how long isolated socialist nations can expect to remain socialist before the forces of the international bourgeoisie undermine their development. Materialists should be agreed with Marx and Engels, when they wrote: "Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the term." In other words, the proletarian revolution will undoubtedly begin as a struggle for socialism to be applied within individual nations, for it's idealistic to expect workers to risk their lives for strangers in distant lands. The revolution will become international (though certainly not cosmopolitan) only when the workers learn that the only way to preserve what they've achieved is to assist in the abolition of capitalism globally.

Celtiberian wrote:It's amusing to read how perplexed these cosmopolitans are at the difficulty they encounter while attempting to convince working people that nationality is insignificant to their lives.

in this thread they obviouslydemonstrait that they have no understanding of nationalism(the cotemparary left as a whole is ignorent to what it means) and instantly come to the conclusion that its both racist and anti-international,.

right-wing socialism is a meaningless term, and what i know of national anarchism is that it strives to creat ethnically pure folk societies that will govern themselves autonomously(though i have invested little into the study of the political ideology) which is not advocated by anyone on our forum or anyone considering themselves a progressive nationalism that i know of. though it is worth a good laugh, the impotence of cosmopolitanism will render the rest of there ideas(revolutionary or not) impotent as well and i see no need to worry about these simpletons gaining any kind of influence as long as they remain dogmatic to "internationalism" a term misused in there hands that has only done a disservice to the masses and led to the reactionary forces guiding national sentiment for there own agenda.

if the forum and contemporary left was not so hostile to those they have deemed on a basless claim "reactionary" i see it being a simple task to sway them of there cosmopolitan idealist nonsense, although we have no such luck

I just happened to be browsing through RevLeft by chance earlier today, when I came across an interesting thread entitled Craziest 'far-left' parties? The first party they chose was the Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist), due to their stance against immigration and espousal of workers' nationalism. This wasn't especially surprising, given the cosmopolitan extremism advocated by the majority of that forum, but the fallout certainly caught my attention. For example, one of the few sane members of that forum, dodger, was placed under restriction for merely stating the obvious fact that immigration is only supported because it benefits capital by putting downward pressure on wages, thereby worsening conditions for the national proletariat. No rational arguments were offered to counter dodger's position, so restricting him was the best they could do to intimidate other members from acknowledging the validity of his claims. Despicable.

It's pathetic that they restrict someone for such an acknowledgment of facts. It would have been one thing to debate and disagree but to restrict someone for something trivially obvious like that shows a fridgid fear of differing opinions. They also restrict market socialists. With their logic, the anarchists of '36 would have held restrictable views.

I see dodger has moved to a Marxist-Leninist forum I joined some time in the last couple of months, so hopefully he's happier there now. The attitude of the majority of the left is honestly starting to worry me, what with the extreme censorship and hostility to people looking for a civilised conversation. I've seen him defend workers' nationalism before (I think it might've been in the thread I linked in the OP) and was surprised to see no one tearing him down and calling him reactionary. I think it might be worth introducing ourselves to some of the less dogmatic ex-RevLefters and restricted members who are clearly not on the same level of idiocy that RevLeft is famous for. The forum seems to be more of a comfort zone for people who feel comfortable clinging to a group that accepts them as opposed to a place for decent discussion. All that RevLeft has to offer anyone is a watered down introduction to communism and endless rants about minority discrimination.

Red Aegis wrote:With their logic, the anarchists of '36 would have held restrictable views.

Indeed. The majority of the pre-1960s socialist and communist movement held views which would warrant restriction by RevLeft standards.

Anyone fancy a RevLeft impersonation thread? Best post wins a prize.

Can anyone give me example of anti white racism and back it up with sources?

SalfordAnarchist

SalfordAnarchist wrote:Can anyone give me example of anti white racism and back it up with sources?

It depends on what you mean by "racism." If you're referring to casual instances of racial discrimination against Caucasian people, examples abound throughout the United States. Institutional discrimination against Caucasians, however, doesn't occur—and I explain why it doesn't here.