Was the anti-Euro racism and ethnic cleansing in Zimbabwe and South Africa a left-wing act or right-wing act?

Was the anti-Euro racism and ethnic cleansing in Zimbabwe and South Africa a left-wing act or right-wing act?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=A0C4_88ub_M
youtube.com/watch?v=8gVfMwXkrkc
twitter.com/AnonBabble

It was reactionary

What about seizing property from those allied to the previous exploitationist government?

If it was seized from a class perspective with the intention of returning land to the native working class, white or black, then that's fine. If it was just too punish white people then it's racist and reactionary.

So, hypothetically speaking, if property were to be seized in Europe from those that were/are aligned with the parasitic classes and given to native European workers, that would be left-wing/progressive?

sometimes i really doubt that whites are the smartest race

we're being played for suckers by apes like mugabe

Wut

Asians do have a higher Autism Level genetically.

If they were born in Zimbabwe, they are a native. I don't think it's a stretch to say that there is a fundamental difference between the working class white in Zimbabwe and the white bourgeois Zimbabwean.


It would depend on what sort of alignment we are taking about, and what sort of property we're talking about. If it's taking some petite bourgeois business and giving it to the workers, that would be leftist. If it's taking land owned by the aristocracy and giving it over to public use, that would be leftist. It wouldn't be leftist to take someone's house or car, but it would if it were an apartment building or cab company. In any event, the workers would have to have some means of democratic control over it.

Really it depends on a number of circumstances and the nature of the seizure. Speaking in universalities is going to lead to inaccuracy.

Based word filter

The difference being that the Chinese can't exploit Africa because, by and large, they're dependent on local labour which is hopelessly inefficient.

Basically, I'm wondering if left-wing decolonisation methods (for lack of a better term) can be applied (both in theory and in practise) in Europe. All of Europe.

My personal view is that non-Europeans in Europe exist solely to suppress native populations, especially the poor. Same goes for non-Africans in Africa, non-Asians in Asia, etc. In fact I'd take that one step further and say multiethnic nations exist solely for the benefit of the ruling class, regardless of how they style themselves.

Just realised I didn't address the specific methodology. They'd be expelled and all their property seized. I don't think it's a good idea to take away somebody's source of income but leave everything else. You might as well just seize everything.

1. They're not, there's mass immigration of china to africa
2. Why can't africa be exploited through local labor? they're doing a pretty good job at it in the zimbabwean gem pits

I don't know how to put this politely but I'll try. Basically, Africans can be used for unskilled semi-forced or forced labour but anything that requires technical aptitude or creative thinking is… an issue. Thus China could, theoretically, build a mine and use the local labour to mine it but can't to it as efficiently as it could in China.

Chinese migration to Africa is relatively low. Certainly not enough to raise efficiency to acceptable levels.

Have you seen Namibia recently?

The place is practically already a Chinese colony.

To ad to this: Africa has resources that China doesn't have, so it's worth it to them even if the mining itself can be done more efficiently in china

It was neither.

I don't doubt that some African leaders have sold out their nations/peoples but they're having little to no luck in places with the rare resources.
youtube.com/watch?v=A0C4_88ub_M

It depends on the resource. If it's not cost effective then it's not cost effective.

Productive property would be seized regardless of the color of the person or people that owned it if it requires employees to run it. An Aldi would be turned over to the workers, but the family run corner grocery would be left alone, regardless of whether it's run by Hanz or Hamid.

Their expulsion really depends on the judgement of the concerned proletariat.

Of course this is all talking about the intellectual ideal. I don't doubt the practical reality will vary incredibly based on the material circumstances.

But the working class has no country. If they want to stay, whoever they are, they have to be willing to work, regardless of whether they are "European" or not.

The working class has no country but it certainly has an ethnicity, a religion, a culture, etc. The denial of reality leads to things like Rotherham and Cologne. At best. At worst? To ethnic strife or even war.

I'm trying to think of a moment in history when different ethnic groups were kept together in the long-term without authoritarian measures. It seems quite clear to me that mutliethnicity is an ideal by the ruling classes for the ruling classes. It would be best if all ethnic groups were left to develop on their own, at their own pace.

The working class has none of those spooks and is and should be unconcerned with bourgeois identity politics.

So you think you know the working class better than they know themselves?

Then you don't know your history. Multicultural and multiethnic empires are the norm. Rome, China, the Mongols, Byzantines, Inca, etc etc etc. From Alexandria to Xanadu, people of all different sorts have been able to live and work together for hundreds and sometimes thousands of years.

I know spooky feels before reals bullshit when I see it.

Exactly: Empires. Authoritarian measures.

Blood and culture are far more real than the mythical "working class."

Just so we're clear, there are individual "working classes" and individual "ruling classes" but there is no collective. Ruling classes are in competition with one another as are working classes.

...

...

Don't let Stirner see this thread you guys. He'll have an aneurysm.

Oh I didn't realize that empires don't count lol my b

What makes your authoritarianism legitimate but not that of an empire? The fact you want to kick out people not like you?

They're more tangible than classes, at the very least. By blood I mean things that are biological. Ethnicities are as tangible as families, only on a much greater scale.

…it doesn't? I mean I personally only care about the end result. What's fact is fact. I'm just doing a thought experiment to see if one can be pro-European and left-wing or if left-wing(ness?) is inherently anti-European. And if it is whether it's by design or circumstance.

You are objectively wrong

Do tell me more about how you're able to discern what's objective and what's not.

Jej

Ethnicities are not in any way tangible. They are an immaterial and arbitrary abstraction.


It is anti European. Full stop. The universality of the working class isn't negotiable. Unlike your feels>reals, spooky nonsense.

Yeah, they practically don't. Employees compete with one another. Employers compete with one another.


Families and species are tangible. Ethnicities lie between those two things yet aren't tangible?

Tell me, once labour is replaced with robots, will robots be part of the working class? How does that factor into Marxist definitions? I hope you've thought about it because it's already happened in places and will soon evolve into an outright revolution.

The idea of working class is as ridiculous as the idea that the guild artisan pre-industrial revolution had anything to do with the factory worker post-industrial revolution even though they made exactly the same product. You need to either expand your definition or redefine it.

And this means that said classes don't exist? You know you're dealing with a true genius when someone comes along and says "hey Marxists! if class is real, why are some workers and some business owners in completion to each other?" and apparently expects this to flummox us. like in the 150 years that our ideas have existed not one Marxist has ever noticed this or taken it into account?


Depending on whether we live in a socialist society or a capitalist society when this happens, either we will see a classless society in which everyone's needs and wants will be met without anyone engaging in labour, or we will see a society in which a very large portion of the population is constantly unemployed and in conditions of dire poverty. In the latter scenario the working class may not be doing an awful lot of working apart from taking on whatever remaining menial tasks, craftsmanship and trading there is to do for a living, but the fundamental distinction between the social class which owns the means of production and the one that does not will still exist.

Family is an arbitrary definition based entirely on your feels. Ethnicity is the same. They have as much scientific value as mesmerism or phrenology. Sorry to break it to you.

Are you actually retarded? You might as well ask if a hammer is part of the working class. Further, the entire point of Marxism is the elimination of class altogether. If you think the idea of a working class is ridiculous, you're just demonstrating you have no idea what you're talking about.

This is what happens when you base your worldview on your feelings and spooky tribalism. You become disconnected from reality.

Feel free to join us in the real world when you're ready to stop believing in fairy tales.

Violently suppress dissenting thought for the sake of freedum (tm), and the oppressed simply fall back on the ideological basis of their oppression after flipping the tables. In other words, the Anglosphere ardently backed South Africa for literally no other reason than because muh reds, so they shrugged and ran when shit got unpleasant.

Backing SA is why Zimbabwe (Rhodesia) got ass fucked, on top of the UK establishing an authoritarian society with an uneducated lower class then suddenly getting up to leave without teaching any of said lower class how to do anything in a society they had no part in before.

The thing is Marxists haven't explained it, only addressed it. I've found no satisfactory answer. Much like Marx's inability to realise that efficiency would eventually make the working class obsolete. Considering how capitalist technology/methodology increased industrial efficiency exponentially during his lifetime, he should've reasoned. But I guess one can't expect much from just another prophet making just another prediction that proves completely incorrect.

Was there a single thing he predicted? His biggest prediction was that all the successful revolutions would occur in industrial/urban societies. All the successful organic revolutions occurred in agrarian/rural societies. And now? Urban areas are becoming increasingly obsolete due to automation.


It's going to be capitalist. It's already happening, actually. Fully automated factories utilising primitive robots are already being implemented. Semi-autonomous robots exist as prototypes.

When robots take over all labour, which means both skilled and unskilled, they'll become the working class by Marxist definition. Hell, they already are in some cases.


I wouldn't be here if I wasn't legitimately retarded. I think it's a prerequisite of this board, TBH.

I like how you side-stepped species there. Species are just families on a grander scale writ large. I really can't even begin to imagine how your brain thinks that families and ethnicities don't exist but somehow class (based around something that couldn't of existed before Humans because it's dependent on your utility at the moment which is completely relative/subjective) exists.

Okay, so the purpose of Marxism is to get rid of class? So first it defines class so that it has purpose until this vague, intangible thing stops existing? Much like Abrahamic religions and sin, no? Who's the one who believes in fairytales here, boy? Next you'll tell me that labour has intrinsic worth.

Species, much like the Marxist definition of class, has a specific and scientific definition. Saying class won't disappear is like saying species don't go extinct.

Class isn't based on 'utility'. It's based on material relations to the means of production. You either own them or you don't. I guess I shouldn't be surprised you have difficulty with even these simple concepts.

You are seriously too stupid to believe. Get out and don't come back till you read a book or several. Hundred.

Species are tangible, classes aren't.

Whether something is owned is even less tangible than a person's utility.

Your insults are as weak as the definitions outlined by your crypto-religion and the predictions made by your crypto-prophet.

It was a nigger act. Sooner or later all niggers will act this way.

youtube.com/watch?v=8gVfMwXkrkc

What the fuck is there to explain? You're the one who needs to explain how it contradicts the Marxist idea of class.

Yeah, like how Karl Marx described looms and steam engines as being part of the working class back in the 1800's.

To understand what I'm getting at you need to first understand that class isn't a problem. The fact that within five decades at least 95% of Mankind will be unemployable is. What do you think is going to happen? Keep in mind that in this situation, supposed class struggle will be even less likely because at least 95% of Mankind will not be allowed anywhere near industries and that all industries will be under the control of the supposed ruling class at the beginning of any strife.

Why would unemployment among the working class be a problem for Marxists? if any thing the poverty, anger and alienation felt by the working class would be a boost to our ideas, when stuff can be produced by machines without anyone having to do anything, then why have capitalism? Clearly abundance is possible without labour so the scarcity that the unemployed people have to endure would be artificial, revolution would be an easy thing to argue for.

This is all hypothetical of course, people were saying stuff like this back in the seventies and we haven't been all replaced by computers just yet.

You seem to think that those factories would be producing for the majority of people even though the owners have absolutely no selfish incentive at to do so beyond retaining a monopoly via violence. Do you honestly think there's going to be favourable conditions for your religion?

And this isn't even taking into the account the possibility of the invention of sentient robots. If that happens then all bets are off since the owners could simply replace Mankind entirely and could do so at their own discretion.

That's capitalism right now you mong, what do you think a revolution is anyway? did you think that Marxists just go around asking the bourgeoisie to give up their wealth and assets? No they have to be taken by force. What the fuck are you doing try to have an argument about something you obviously don't understand

You don't really understand the whole "Marxism" thing, do you?

wow it's fucking nothing

kek

...

With what are they going to take it? The rulers will have 100% of the industry on their side and they'll be running them without the need of people. With their industries they can bribe whomever to their side for however long. As far as the technological gap is concerned, do you know what happened when the Gatling gun was first deployed in battle? It'll be like that only a hundred times worse. Any losses can be easily replaced a thousand times over.

Enjoy your class struggle, fellas. *tips ushanka*

it was justified because the whites stole the land

again, capitalism is already like that.