Let me ask you a serious question

I fucking hate that quote and that meme because it is used to shut down real discussion. I don't recall broke ass Klansmen in shitty ass trucks having any particular financial leverage, and the tools of violence and intimidation used by the many against the few are typically either cheap or free.

There is a difference between facing racism as a wealthy man and facing racism as a poor man. I'm not just talking about black/white either, I'm talking about anyone likely to be singled out by significant difference from the majority.

I'm not talking about mere insult.

so why support a system in which the majority of blacks, them being part of the working class, are prone to poverty?

kek

Not what I said retard

Because when you abolish poverty you also abolish wealth, and wealth is presently the only shield that an "other" has against the masses.

Guns are cheap. Rope is cheap. Fists are free. Clubs are easy to improvise. But please, continue to use semantics to evade what I'm saying, and make sure to throw in some cheap internet sarcasm to demonstrate your derision to boot.

Don't pretend to be me you fuck.

lel!

See, this is exactly what I mean. Why should anyone who has cause to fear a mob no longer held at bay by the imposition of state rule or incentivized by private gains ever side with you? You can't even respond to this line of questioning without dancing behind semantic evasions or mocking the notion of the question itself.

state rule does not help those who face violence from the mob

you claim your position as axiomatic, that under capitalism, racial violence is held at bay, but its easy to see that its not

The poor are generally not tolerated. Minorities and difference within poorer communities (actual communities, not the abstract blocs of liberal identity politics) are less tolerated.
Basically you're saying you don't really care about your in-group in general unless they can now personally overcome what you see as economic systemic oppression then it's their own fault (contradictory), or maybe thinking that when you and others like you become members of the bourgeoisie, you'll be charitable enough to help them up. However, there were black slave owners in America and many other examples that show this to be an empty promise. Your emotional attachment to your particular narrative as current doesn't really guarantee anyone anything. Nor do you really seem to care about other out-groups that are not put on a pedestal currently for the liberal coalition within your country (crypto-nationalism), such as the 2 billion living in extreme poverty or the brutal conditions of blacks around the world under capitalism. You're just asking why you, as someone who has benefitted from capitalism, should support changing the system, while masking it as concern / altruism for a coalition of others you see as prejudicially disadvantaged. Your focus on the Klan, an irrelevant entity for many decades, reeks of liberal grievance sob stories that are basically just a narrative way to mask a politics of pure self-interest and apologize for naked status climbing as if it were some kind of brave struggle.

I don't even know what you're arguing. Are you asking for reasons why porky should support socialism? Or are you asking why minorities should support socialism when currently under capitalism the ability to amass capital can gain security for a minority of those minorities?

How do laws against hate crimes, enforced by the state against a hateful plurality of the populace, not protect those who face violence from the mob? How does the rule of law, imposed by the instruments of the state, not supplant mob rule?

Some of us remember the existence of sundown towns, gay bashings, and recall the existence of pogroms prior to modern protections of minority groups by the state. When you say things like this it merely demonstrates that you are out of step and living in your own little revolutionary fantasy.

I thought Capitalists were supposed to be the spooked ones. I don't even know where to begin to formulate a response to what you've put into my mouth or the motivations that you have ascribed to my position without sufficient cause.

Actually it is reviving for the fourth time, it has risen four times in American history and been extinguished thrice.

You aren't making any sense. What do hate crime laws have to do with capitalism again? Gay bashings and lynchings didn't happen under capitalism?

We're discussing Communism. You know, there thing where you dismantle the State.

...

Those rules, while enforced by the state, do not eliminate the real issue at hand, sure, it might be easier to send someone to jail on the basis of racial prejuice, but the notion of discrimination still exists, the state can change its doctrine tomorrow if it stops being profitablemformthe ruling class

Some of us remember when the state allowed said gay bashing, racial lynching and the like

You should step away of your liberal bubble and see ifmsuch petty laws actually solve the issue

Yes that makes sense because USSR was not a state. What?

Along with the economic structure that let whites exploit blacks aswell, dumb dumb

Nor does abolishing the state and private ownership, the only two existing partial shields that the Other has against the many.

You should step out of your warm house into the snow and see if such petty structures actually solve the issue of your being cold.

To say such a thing, that a house is no shield against the elements because it can rot away or be knocked down, as justification to knock someone's house down inadvertently is a poor answer.

…did you not read Marx?

Economic structure is not required for oppression.

I think you're confusing communism with anarchism.

Yes this is why hobos have the ability to opress billionares

Its basically what happens, billionares live in constant fear of the homeless in afghanistan

No, I just actually read the goddamned literature.

How are you this stupid?

Keep lying.

In order for a communist revolution to be successful, the "in-group/out-group" mentality would need to change from being centered around race, nation, etc, to being based around classes, proletarians and bourgeoisie.

How not? If its the state and private property what is used to opress the individual

Probably, however that is not the issuenat hand, the issue here is thatnsome people, who are exploited by the masses, dont even have a house

I expected to open the thread to lively discussion, with ideas proffered and discussed that propose a solution to the problem that OP is describing. Instead I'm seeing Holla Forums hitting OP in the face with a wall of stupid and I'm very embarrassed to see it.

How are you this stupid?

Communism is stateless.

The USSR never claimed to have achieved communism.

stop projecting m8

the very question is based on an absurd premise which doesn't hold any water. of course no good discussion has come of it

op if you need to ask that question you either never met a leftist or you're trolling.
i hope mods put the thread into autosage.