Who is the revolutionary subject in the west?

Gangs are literary business.

The zapatistas, food not bombs, revcom, co ops, occupy, blm, will never equal the bps. The state doesnt even feel threatened by these liberals.

Im white and would do anything to bring back the bp, but theres nothing i can do

As marxist theory developed it was pretty important to know who really was the rev subject of history. In marxian theory it isnt just 'anyone with a bad life' ppl like fanon, mao, fidel, kept changing who it would be

Learn self defense. What if the next revolutionary party wasn't also nationalist and was aracial?

"Those left out of the economy", because eventually that is what is going to happen to us all. Surplus population of the world, unite!

...

It's the traditional proletariat.

Every truly free and democratic society that existed came from a "commoner" class that steadily increased their economic clout until they were poised to overthrow the ruling class. (The plebeian in Rome, the Athenian citizen, the medieval burgher-artisan, the Swiss farmer, the American yeoman-farmer, and even the French syndicalist worker are all examples of this. Even France and Russia relied on artisans for the former and peasants who became yeoman-farmers as their core revolutionary forces, with both being betrayed due to not having solidified their power-base in face of an ascendant centralized state.)

The American union worker is the modern yeoman-farmer, the rightful ruler of the American commonwealth.

The lumpens only are lackeys for the establishment and are incapable of governing themselves. The precariat are a mixed bag, the younger native workers having potential to form unions and join the ranks of the proletariat. However, the immigrant precariat are literally scabs and must be removed to be replaced with proletarian workers.

(Women actually are disproportionately professional-managerial if not housewives, though the precariat is probably the second biggest sector that women are in)

The only way to eliminate capitalism is the complete take over of society by the traditional proletariat, converting the youthful white precariat into their ranks whilst eliminating the capitalist elite, professional-managerial technocrats, the precariat scabs, and the lumpens. Upon this takeover, whether gradual or sudden, the proletariat will ascend and transform into a new burgher class of cooperative-owners and the self-employed. A syndicalist, protectionist economic order based on guilds/labor unions will be established along with a direct-democratic confederation of citizens' assemblies built upon this new ruling class of citizen-soldiers.

In America's case, it will be the victory of Real America over the degenerate cosmopolitan scourge of Anti-America, establishing a republic of virtue.

Only then can there be true liberty. Oh, and fuck lolberts for appropriating the Gadsden flag.

...

aka a mix of "co-ops are totally socialism guys", petit-bourgeois radicalism and 19th-century populist LARPing.

Or, is it the other way around? The Holla Forums rhetoric being window dressing on working-class grievances but ultimately adopted by retarded autists who worship pickelhaubes.

Who could possibly have been behind this post? :^)

All joking aside, is there anything wrong with this?

Why the fuck would natives be likely to form and join and unions, and not immigrants? You don't even point out to any reasons why, you just wanted to take a pot shot at immigrants to show off how not liberal you are.

The reason is that immigrants are inherently new to the workforce and come from impoverished backgrounds expecting the American Dream of a McMansion. They literally work harder for less due to lower standards and the need to make a living for themselves. Immigrants in America are some of the biggest classcucks for that reason. Their idea of the American Dream is work hard so I can be a millionaire (possibly).

Meanwhile, natives come from cozier backgrounds and thus actually have standards when it comes to hours and pay. They also have a more realistic understanding of America and don't idealize the porky-tier American Dream the way immigrants do. The "native" concept of the American Dream is living a stable livelihood and having a degree of independence.

Not to mention the effects that immigration has on the labor force, inflating supply and thus deceasing the power of labor in negotiating disputes. In fact, you trace the rise and fall of American unions and wages to America's immigration policies, and unions were nativist due to that very reason.

This doesn't also account for the fact that unions prosper the most in stable workplaces where employees have a consistent job, not workplaces where employees come and leave on the dime. Immigration is a policy dedicated to having a fluid labor force over a solid one, essentially being scabbing on a global scale.

The precariat exists only because of globalization and mass immigration. They would either be a unionized worker or in the third world where they belong otherwise.

Yes, it has nothing to do with socialism. What you've just described is nothing more than self-managed capitalism with some tiresome populist rhetoric thrown in. Case in point: you apparently have no problem with that very system being propped up by imperialism, seeing how your third pic depicts a protest led by anti-communist, pro-war construction workers most likely affiliated with the bourgeois AFL-CIO union — just because the protesters are working-class doesn't make it inherently virtuous.

Nonsense — you just pulled that out of your ass. Do you seriously believe Mexican farm workers come to America with the hope of becoming the next Bill Gates, and not out of sheer economic necessity? Do you imagine illegals are starry-eyed when they eventually get over the border wall?

Is that a joke? The native bourgeoisie and the native classcucks are the one who bought into the rag-to-riches mythology in the first place, didn't they? Many may have awakened from that "dream" by now, but it's ridiculous to claim they were somehow immunized from that sort of propaganda by virtue of being natives.

That's not what "scabbing" means. Workers undercut each other on a daily basis; it's called "competition" and its a feature of capitalism, not the result of subjective attitudes. Are Uber drivers "scabbing" taxi drivers? Are New Yorkers "scabbing" Seattleites? You just use that word because of its emotional charge among leftists.

That's flat-out wrong. There was no decline in union membership and activity in 19th-century France or US with immigration at its peak. Those unions that embraced "nativism" — which historically often supported literal pogroms against foreign workers — did nothing but draw a wedge between two arbitrarily-defined segments of the proletariat. "Immigration" didn't wreck the relevance of unions; the neo-liberal restructuring of the workplace and union leaders' complete lack of vision regarding post-Fordist society did.

What do you think is more appealing to the capitalist? A documented immigrant earning minimum wage or a Pakistani paid half a buck an hour? Capitalists exploit immigration to their advantage, that's for sure; but they don't need it in the long run. In fact, soon, they won't even need the gooks; they'll just buy self-operating machines instead.

No matter how elegant your mental gymnastics, you can't hide the fact that your reasoning is built entirely upon anti-immigrant sentiment. You could attack the bourgeoisie for taking advantage of the most vulnerable workers and sowing division among proles, but no — you choose to blame immigrants instead. In short: You're a fucking tool LARPing as a Minuteman.

Sure they are really the revolutionary tool of future :)

I was referring to legal immigrants when it comes to the things involving the "American Dream". Illegals are basically just scabs through and through. They literally bused them in to replace the ironically Hispanic UFW farmhands. In fact, it is desperation and being illegal that makes them such good scabs to begin with.

And, no it isn't. I mostly was referring to native workers, who definitely are not classcucks. There is not "native" bourgeoisie in America, as the entire capitalist class is foreign and international. The only significant native population that believes in that sort of crap are the professional-managerial types, and even then that class is also disproportionately immigrant-filled. In fact, some of the wealthiest groups in America consist of immigrants. (See the eternal pajeet.)

Yes, to Uber drivers. Uber is essentially massive scab operation and should be banned for undercutting cab drivers. As for New York vs Seattle, neither city is cheaper labor wise. The South is scabbing the North due to being right-to-work though, and I honestly have resentments towards classcuck Southerners who don't unionize. Then again, the South is what brought niggers here in the first place, so I guess it's par for the course for them. (Appalachia is the one exception to this rule. I admire them.)

19th century France didn't have high immigration rates. In fact, France had a period of population stagnation due to relatively low birth rates compared to Germany. Europe had more emigration (to America) than immigration from elsewhere. My argument in fact was that France was the model of a "soft" industrialization that was better for workers and unions than America/Britain's hard industrialization. America's mass immigration is what led to the latter, and the consistent problem that unions faced was scab labor and capitalist crackdowns. Guess who filled the ranks of the former, immigrants and niggers. And, guess which party supported the latter, the negroid GOP.

For statistics, you can look at union memberships from when the immigration act was passed by LBJ onwards, or the rise of union membership after the immigration restrictions of the early 20th century. Low immigration wasn't the only factor in this, but it did play a key role along with a prosperous post-war industrial economy.

Depends, if the job can be shipped overseas, then the latter. If not, then the documented immigrant is the "least worst" option for porky.

The neo-liberal restructuring of the workplace relies on mass immigration, to replace the rebellious old workforce with a new one. The unions might've lacked vision as to how to react, (Which ironically would've included rebelling against the Democratic party that was letting in said immigrants) but the capitalist class used immigration as one weapon to destroy the American working class.Basically, I oppose every aspect of neoliberalism.

And here comes the strawmanning. I never said that we ought to ignore capitalists and just attack immigrants. If you actually read my post, you would've noticed that I said "eliminate the capitalists" before bringing up immigrants and lumpens. I blame capitalists for bringing in the immigrants, but that doesn't mean that I have to hold hands with them. Eliminating both is the best option.

My reasoning is built on both anti-immigrant and anti-capitalist sentiment.

Of course, you see to really lack the ability to read. Maybe if you spent more time learning how to read instead of fapping to ganguro anime trash, then maybe you wouldn't be complete trash. :^)

It is all about semantics with you, isn't it?

It isn't about whether something is "socialist" or "capitalist". It doesn't matter what you call a system, it only matters as to what it is.

Though, I would say that "capitalism", in its' modern definition, was first used by Louis Blanc and Proudhon. "What I call 'capitalism' that is to say the appropriation of capital by some to the exclusion of others" for Blanc and "Economic and social regime in which capital, the source of income, does not generally belong to those who make it work through their labour" for Proudhon. By virtue of being first, I would say that my definition of capitalism stands the strongest.

As for muh imperialism, I care not what happens in the third world. The Hardhat movement was more a reaction to the blatantly retarded and anti-American spergery that was the New Left and their abandonment of the working class in favor of lumpens, bohemian college students, and liberal intellectuals, with Vietnam merely being an excuse. Incidentally, George Wallace, who actually won the favor of the hardcore hardhat in places like Michigan, was pretty anti-war when it came to Vietnam. As for my own stance, I think Ho Chi Minh could've been a good potential US ally, an Asian Tito to pit against the Chinese.

But yes, in a way, them being working class DOES make it virtuous. They, who have experienced the material conditions of being a proletarian, know more about what the proletariat needs than detached college students and intellectuals. The point of my ideas is working-class rule, and thus the opinions of the working-class should be paramount in such.

And, please don't slap the word "bourgeois" everywhere. Bourgeois is a class, not an ideology or a feeling. Reformist or centrist would be a better term to describe working-class organizations that aren't militantly revolutionary. The only "bourgeois" union would be an employer's association. Otherwise, we would call medieval guilds "aristocratic" or "patrician" since they often coexisted with the partician class that they fought with over political power.

Ultimately, that is my point. You can play semantics and say that I'm wrong because my views are x, y, and z and not a, b, and c. But, you haven't addressed the actual content. If my ideas aren't socialism, which isn't true, then socialism has failed the worker and needs to be replaced with something better.

They really were the last genuinely great thing the American left produced.

I hope you're not implying the BP were nationalists or racial.

They were immunized by there experiences of living in America to see how bullshit the idea of the american dream is. Immigrants have no experience of America, all they know of America is what Hollywood shows them. So they believe myths like the America dream more.

You are half way there. But you still want a solution that ends with capitalism and genocide. Your ethnostate will not come true, but honestly after revolution America will probably become whiter.

Okay, keep repeatedly the strawman despite my deconstruction of it. "Self-manged captialism" is impossible according to the original definition of capitalism established by Louis Blanc and Proudhon. Capitalist does not even more an ideologue for a system of capitalism, merely the name for the ruling class of the system who rule based on their ownership of capital and having wage laborers.

But, you may call me a producerist, syndicalist, or a workerist instead of a socialist if it pleases your sensibilities.

Also, a strawman. I have no interest in an ethnostate or racial purity. I acknowledge that I probably want a country that is whiter than the one we have now, but I don't want a state that is based on race. I wouldn't want to give one inch of American clay to racial separatists.

Regardless, I guess you are getting my point there. I acknowledge that America will get whiter and that minorities will get the short-end of the stick in any sort of real working-class revolution. And, I embrace it. I also have a deep fear that America will lose the ability to have a revolution along with the rest of the West if the traditional proletariat disappears and is replaced with the precariat and lumpens. We'll end up in the same situation as the Romans when the plebeian class of small farmers disappear and is replaced by the urban unemployed, degeneration into empire and the complete nullification of any revolutionary potential until the empire collapses. Actually, I would say that republicanism, democracy, and any idea of giving power to the producing classes would probably never emerge again, as the Western culture it was built upon would be destroyed completely and replaced with oriental and third-world cultures that reject such ideals. This is probably the last time in history we have a chance to start a revolution. It's now or never. Either it's victory for the working-class or their complete extermination by the hands of the capitalists. I hope you can see why I advocate for such drastic measures.

What the FUCK are you on? This is bonkers. I can't believe anyone could write such bold-faced nonsense.

This is demonstrably false and evidence that you have no idea what you're talking about. Read Gérard Noiriel, foremost historian of immigration in France.

Maybe inciting pogroms against Irish and Chinese immigrants and excluding black Americans from unions outright might have played a role in them not being as active in organized labor. :^)

The "old workforce" ceased being "rebellious" a long time ago — and immigration had nothing to do with it. You live in an alternate reality where the "white working class" eternally consists of 19th-century striking rioters.

How are immigrants responsible for the misdeeds of capitalists? Are you also going to "eliminate" any and all of these people you describe as being engaged in scabbing? Because there won't be many people left in America after that massive sperg-out.

… And words are used to describe the content of that system. Not sure where you're trying to go with this.

That's your problem right here. Proto-socdem Louis Blanc and petit-bourgeois reactionary Proudhon were retards. Their definition of capitalism is vague, superficial and you can pretty much use it to mean anything you want it to mean. Nobody cares that they were "first", it's worthless anyway. Read Marx, you know, the guy who actually studied capitalism in-depth.

Yeah, you don't actually care about workers unless they're white — we got it, you're obnoxious enough about that.

Working-class villagers lynching Italian laborers in Aigues-Mortes were not "virtuous". Working-class Klansmen burning a black neighborhood to the ground in Tulsa were not "virtuous". Working-class NSDAP stormtroopers terrorizing Jews in the streets of Munich were not "virtuous". Working-class Red Guards humiliating alleged right-deviationists in Beijing were not "virtuous". Plebeian moralism is intellectually bankrupt.

These unions were not bourgeois because they were insufficiently militant but because they wholeheartedly accepted capitalism. It's that simple.

Capitalism isn't just property-based class rule. Capitalism is first and foremost an abstract system of market imperatives. You could get rid of capitalists as a class, and that would not abolish capitalism. Just because a certain form of capitalism happens to be more democratic doesn't make it not capitalism. "You can have capitalism without the bourgeoisie, but you can't have capitalism without the proletariat." (Moishe Postone)

There is nothing inherently "democratic" about "Western culture" or "undemocratic" about "Oriental culture". "Cultures" are not inert monoliths that exist outside of history, their content is constantly shifting. If the West is oh-so democratic by essence, why the fuck was '30s Europe dominated by rabidly anti-democratic dictatorships? Hell, why did the birthplace of republicanism in Europe, France, actually went through longer phases of monarchical rather than republican governments in the 19th century?

lifestylist liberal detected

He precisely described them as liberals. Did you even read the fucking comment in full before vomiting your response?