Online """"socialists"""" and "white people"

All races are like that. Nice try though Holla Forums.

Racism doesn't exist because race doesn't exist. Nice spooks retard.

Are you trying to imply that all races have a reason to be racist? Like, human nature or something? Nice spooks.

American thread for american problems. Can BO erase this thanx?

White=/=Bourgeoisie
Black=/=Proletariat
Gas thyself.

Capiyalism was not born out of the Alantic Slave trade it was born out of the merchant class and the privitization of fuedal lands. Not all white people are bourgeoisie and a white prole and black prole share the same class interests.

This is the same teir of logic as "Money doesn't have power because its just a social construct!". It doesn't matter if Race is real it matters that society observes it.

Because most people are white, and most people aren’t extremely racist.

Nothing wrong with that screenshot. Its clearly attacking white suburban burger morons not whites in general.

There’s a lot of blacks and hispanics in NYC’s Suburbia and they tend to have a similar mentality to whites there.
t Person who lives in Suburbia and is leaving ASAP

you'll never get most people to admit this, if they can ever even comprehend it. this goes especially for those who define their personal existence and identity entirely in opposition to "white people" (such as american negroes and so-called "social justice" fanatics), so that their every second utterance is "white people this" and "white people that," and who view the defiance of this trend as the worst treason imaginable

race identitarianism is an infection, like herpes, and the sad truth is that most people are carrying it

So why not accept that most people have this disease, and give them what they want– freedom to not be genocided by other races, or bred out of existence? This seems like the simplest and most egalitarian solution.

So, communism?

that's what they want? typically, what i hear from black identitarians is that they want a genocide of all "white people;" and what i hear from white indentitarians is that they want a genocide of all "black people." as far as i can tell, genocidal violence is simply the logical outcome of this psychology

It's high school/college-y radicalism, not really designed to shock the foundations of capitalist society, but to shock older parents at a family gathering.

I think you're right in how counter-productive it is, but the problem is that this demographic is always counter-productive. Leftists of the urban, middle-class, young, hip, college-educated variety have always done more harm than good, because they're always more focused in making noise and in deliberately distancing themselves from regular society instead of building mass movements. If they stop doing this, they'll just pick up something else that is just as dumb.

The way we fight this is not by trying to tell these people to stop being idiots, which is futile, but by creating movements and organizations that will attract regular working adults who are not interested in being cool online. If you're really tired of this culture, join an union, read on socialist theory and labour practice, pick up on the nuts and bolts and use social media to reach regular people.

You don't have to compete with these people, they're not in our space, they don't own the Left, we can succeed in our objectives without ever interacting them.

Are you maybe lying here? From my experience, the genocidal racial identitarians are a minority on all sides.

That specific tweet is funny and accurate though

what i mean to say is that "white people" and "black people" don't exist; they are invented categories; and in inventing these divisions one also creates the conditions for violence; perhaps not always genocidal, but violence nonetheless. the appropriate solution is thus to simply reject the false division in the first place. problem is most people don't want to do that

Only in the sense that all categorizations are abstractions of reality. The melanin content of human skin is material reality. To discuss that reality, we require the categorizations to exist.

of these two men, who is the "white person" and who is the "black person"?

When did we become "politically correct" again?

...

Yes?

That the borders of those categorizations are blurry rather than sharp is not an argument against the usefulness of those categorizations. Your position is tantamount to claiming red and yellow are meaningless terms because their various shades eventually meet as orange.

how are they useful if they can't be defined?

The problem isn't that we have biological categories. The problem is they they are turned into identities and politicised. Imagine if we had political categories for gingers or blondes.

They are defined.

would you be kind enough to define them? where are the lines drawn, and who draws them? and on what authority or objective, material basis?

If the issue is the politicization of demography, why argue against the existence of demographic terms as did?

I've already dealt with this, autist.

you haven't. it's a simple question: what is a "white person" and what is a "black person"?

It's very obvious what you're up to. Read again. I will not respond further.

so you have no answer and just won't admit it. understood

I didn't call races demographics. Doing that is exactly politicising them.

Is it? Is it politicising them if a medical textbook notes differences in physiology between these groups, which broadly correspond with skin colour?

No, which is what my first point was about.

Which begs the question as to why you have then self-contradicted here

Alright, the word demographic may have been out of place. What I meant was that there is no meaningful way to divide people along the lines of race.
When we say 'black people' we aren't thinking "oh yeah the people with larger bones at the tibia and radius diaphysis".

White peoples are those descended from Europe including all European subgroups and ethnicities. Black people are all people descended from Africa.

Here is the important thing though if we look at the institutions or countries that been wealthened at the expense of all the colonised peoples of the world, they are WHITE. We can squabble about them being white capitalist institutions but they're still white. The majority of liberals are white, Capitalism is the jewel of white supremacy.
In the centres of the white colonies, there exist white settlers and neo-colonialists I.e petty bourgeois, large sections of the proletariat are preyed on by lumpen and the lumpen culture is exalted by the bourgeoisie through media creating a reproducing cycle.

what's europe? where does europe end and africa begin?

...

By "meaningful", you seem to be stipulating "perfectly". Yes, as previously stipulated, the model is imperfect and the borders are fuzzy. The medical textbook remark earlier made the implicit point earlier about the fact that people are thinking about larger bones at the tibia and radius, given that these features tend to occur in a clustering that is strongly associated with a comparatively higher expression of eumelanin in the skin. A Scotsman and a Ugandan are easily distinguished from one another.

so would the offspring of a scot and a ugandan be considered a white person or a black person?

Geography
Look at a map of the world

so is turkey in europe? what about cyprus and malta?

I fucking knew it, like clockwork.

what is a white person and what is a black person?

Tbh, I always think the "it's backfiring" argument is a bit limp. A lot of the time it isn't - I mean, it's shit for actual socialists and people who want real economic change - absolutely. But demographically (ehhhh…) it doesn't seem to be driving people to the social right to anywhere near the extent that it seems tempting to think it would… and even people who should be alienated by it can occasionally be seen sticking around with those crowds in an almost masochistic fashion because they don't see an alternative.

It could backfire - but I think it's more evident that it's been absolute shit for discussion, and (largely) for actual left economics. The latter mostly just because it's aggressively disregarded by the idpol crowd. And the merits of the idpol in-and-of itself… well, it's trash. Like, your Settlers-type stuff - it's a bunch of holy rolling without historical merit. The stuff that springs up around left-idpol, as with more overtly right wing idpol, is a bunch of baseless assertions and semantics that lead largely to hostility.

also, calling turkey an "edge case" is inaccurate. it has a population of 80 million, is a nato member, a council of europe member, and has been trying to join the e.u. since 2005. this suggests turkey is apparently in europe; according to , "white people" are those from europe; yet turks aren't considered "white people" and are also majority islamic, a religion not considered "white"

so, again, what is a white person?

An indigenous native of European Christendom. So no Mehmet, you are not white no matter how long standing your NATO membership is.

turkey is apparently in europe, which means its people are indigenous europeans

No, they're right. You clearly have no refutation.

"whites" don't exist

Humans are fucking terrible though. Dogs on the other hand are innocent af. I do have more sympathy for them.

Turkey is not in Europe nor do her natives fall under the banner of European Christendom. It was always asia minor. Sorry.

You might wish to refer to the event that history calls The Fall of Constantinople, edge case whiners.

Dude that is literally a fact

what are "whites"?

Shall I fetch Holla Forums's chart for claiming that the vast majority of media executives are jewish?

White people only cease to exist when they fight back against attacks leveled against as group. You're fooling nobody with your tactics of convenience, not even yourself.

See:

are jews white? most of them are from europe. most of israel's population was born in russia and eastern europe

Jews do not fall under the banner of "indigenous natives of european christendom" so no. They are alien invaders from the levant. Genetics confirm.

but much of their genes come from indigenous europeans

Holla Forums is actually on the highest-stage of SJWism–they need to be in order to claim that whites everywhere are being oppressed.

Which is exactly why I raised the matter.

this is some stupid shit. you basically make a whole thing to push your """communist""" non-internationalist BS. This party line is stupid. Just because migration doesn't solve every problem doesn't mean it's not rational. Migration of people from the third to first world is the logical outcome of the first world hogging all the tech which makes people have fewer kids and not replace themselves. On the other hand maybe we won't need as much labor because of tech.

Either way, there's nothing wrong with migration and spoiler alert: communism involves much more industry everywhere, not bringing it back to the first world. Take your shit-tier infographic back to the drawing board and give up your shitty lines you use to appeal to racists

Why so triggered at a picture user? We don't really care about immigration policies.

Allow me to help you:

move first-world industry back to the *first* world.

^It could also read this way. If you think a country (whether it's capitalist or LARPing as communist) ought to maintain industries which it controls in other poorer countries in order to not have to deal with labor conditions at home, then you have reason to support 'outsourcing' of industry. Is this your kind of internationalism?

Lol I was supposed to put the stars around the first first-world. Damn, it might be confusing now.

...

Easter Europe

Most Turks are genetic Greeks. So Turks are indigenous Europeans.

You are putting the focus on the wrong thing by referencing witness. A clear trend in capitalism is, simply put, that the wealthy get wealthier and the poor poorer. White's relative advantages is all down to getting an early start at capital accumulation which built on itself. That this happened along racial lines is an accident of history and geography, and to try to essentialize this is a waste of time.

Holla Forumscuck logic on
trannies
whiteness

...

The Anatolian peninsula figures prominently in European history and was people with European ethnic groups for thousands of years. The Trojan War, Alexander the Great, the Romans, Byzantines, Crimea, Gallipoli–Turkey is an integral part of Europe's historical heritage.

Greece, the Balkans, and Spain aren't part of Europe because they got conquered.

I don't just care about labor conditions in one country but across the whole world. Under global socialism it won't be about moving industry back to where it "belongs" and making certain countries deal with "their own" problems. Just pointing out this infographic is peddling the "socialism except we're anti immigration and internationalism" meme people spread to bait hungover nationalists.

I mean, what are you implying about the socialist moment? Outsourcing is implying that some countries are getting the benefit and giving shit work to other countries. When we change things you want the same countries to still be the ones getting the benefit only now they have to deal with the consequences? How about everyone gets the benefit and everyone deals with the consequences instead?

Plenty of punk-ass cryptoreactionaries here do, don't deny it

Ever heard of Japan?
No but seriously have you ever heard of Japan

The establishment knows if they promote these neolib idpol retards as leftists/socialists it'll turn off potential allies alienated by capitalism and distract them from revolutionary potential. I firmly believe if it were not for these types being prevalent 90% of the "alt right" on Holla Forums would be socialists or at the very least Bernie supporters, along with many working class individuals who otherwise voted for Trump in 2016.

This is why we need to drop the label leftist, it's so intertwined with neoliberal-leftistism that it hinders us more then it helps us.

I'm a communist, not a leftist.

see: occupy wall street

Now you are intertwined with the muh gorillions narrative and muh authoritarianism. If you really care about optics then congrats, you found something worse and that is extremely hard to dispel in most of the West.

How about "Democratic socialist"?

...

*actually dig the ditch

I don't disagree with him, but I think capitalism is a system, and systems can spread beyond their cultural context. Neoliberalism and globalization are forms which capitalism takes to export itself. So right now China is becoming more and more capitalist. N Korea allows people to sell goods and become rich because the state can't provide for everyone. Seeing a system start in one place and export itself beyond its origin isn't unnatural, but the history of capitalism remains unchanged in the face of new developments.

I rather deal with that baggage then being mixed up with liberals, especially when liberalism is dying and people are flocking to alternative solutions

Like said, you'll get stuck with other, even worse labels. Ideally, we need a new name and a cohese aesthetic to go with it (like it or not, it's an important part of spreading an ideology), but these require a comprehensive and at least partially novel approach to Marxism or socialism in general. And these Lenins don't show up often.

We do not need a new name. The reactionaries have been shitting their pants for centuries at the mere uttering of the word communism. This is a power we can use.

The problem is, so has the rest of the population. Reactionaries have been in control of mass media forever, after all.

I think he's just triggered about the moving industry back, as in, de-industrialize the developing countries and use that capital to build new factories in the first world. While obviously the people in the developing world should seize their own factories and fixed capital, as should those in the first world do where they live (the first world still has plenty of industry, just very few people working in it because of automation). And whoever succeeds does socialism in one country as best they can for as long as they have to.
Or you can be a total dimwit who imagines some kind of global simultaneous revolution and a sudden evaporation of all borders and conflicts of interest after which we will have FALC

many 'developing countries' actually underwent a parallel process of outsourcing and deindustrialisation. Before neoliberalism and the IMF, the model of import substitution was prevalent throughout Latin America. Industrial production was kept within national borders through protectionism, energy subsidies and prohibitive tariffs on imports.

Large scale industry can no longer provide mass employment due to the development of automation. Communism would probably mean localism and the rediscovery of craft production, of truly finding joy in one's work.

Post WW2 on. And that propaganda died with the Soviet Union. It's a factor in why people born after 1990 aren't afraid of and increasingly support "Socialism" and "Communism." That's an opportunity to be embraced instead of shrank from.

Akshually, there are more industrial workers then ever. The "third world" is extraordinarily diverse, many nations, especially African nations have made little-to-no progress or have actually regressed whereas certain Latin American nations and much of Asia excluding Japan have made great strides in industrial development.

for your shitposting purposes

at least Mexico, Brazil and Argentina have witnessed massive deindustrialisation that I know of. Maquiladora slave labor can't make up for the union jobs of the PRI corporatist social democracy oil money era.

it's all so fucking tiresome. I'm fucking glad that the most shit tier warlike and imperialist nations of the "West" are getting de-industrialized. Mind you they are doing this themselves and you want to hand them back to capitalists that don't even fucking want them. Fuck them all those shit tier industries like chemicals manufacturing steel auto and shit. and I'm past the point of feeling sorry for the fuckers and trying to appeal to right wing populism.

The way I see it socialists wouldn't even have to bring back those industries to the first world. All those countries can keep all those factories and plants once porky gets rekt here and if their workers seize power there even better. We'll jsut launch a new re-industrialization programme that's environmentally friendly and shit. Build a bunch of solar farms or some shit

You realize that these jobs typically pay usually more than retail, fast-food, and driving an uber? They also had greater unionization rates enabling them to carry out class struggle, wonder why the capitalists wanted them exported to their fascist Neo-colonial hellholes in the Third World? It was really the bottom half of the Western working class that suffered the most, those "middle class" professionals did quite fine out of deindustrialization. Protecting working class jobs isn't right-wing populism and the fact that you think that probably has a lot to do with why many people started turning to the right instead of the Left during the greatest crises of capital in 80 years.

It's already been pointed out by others ITT that this isn't necessarily a zero-sum demand, and none of my critics have yet to respond to my point is that the real racism is thinking that Thais, Bangladeshis, and Chinese should spend their time working their asses off making your fancy consumer widgets all so you don't have to see the inside of a factory.

Offshoring actually increases imperialism's reliance on foreign labor and deepen's the slavery of developing nations to core nations. They receive even less in return, now the core countries content themselves with exporting software, porn, movies, music, and loans instead of actually making tangible commodities to sell as they did in the past.

Funnily enough, the combination of low-interest rates, rising third world wages and renewed core nation economic growth is setting the stage for renewed industrial growth in the West. It was the Volcker shock that made it so profitable to off-shore production and using the profits made from high-interest bonds off usually paid for with capital taken out of the productive sector in the first place.

The core capitalists pretty much own the production facilities in the Third World (except for China), directly or indirectly anyways. So, it isn't like we're "giving" them back anything they don't already have.

Interesting, I thought Brazil was the major success story of Latin America, industrially-speaking? AFAIK, Brazil is the only country on Earth that hosts all ten major car manufacturers.

American jobs for American workers, sionista.

Just accept that you were born into genocidal progeny. The majority of racism comes from white people so you just have to swallow this pill, it's your historical duty.

Plus self-hatred amongst whites can actually be a useful tactical principle. Whites have consistently jeopardized and betrayed movements out of their allegiance to whiteness resulting in class collaboration.

Being able to put up with this deeply triggering and problematic trend and remain an active contributor to the movement is to me the litmus test for a committed revolutionary perspective. So far I don't consider the majority of leftypol to have moved past the second Internationale and are operating slightly above labour zionism tier. Read the attached text.

Turkey is also white. They are in NATO and are colonizers. There's nothing else to talk about, being Muslim doesn't make you not white.

Jews are also white.

I've never seen anyone turn things upside down this badly.

oh fuck off.

...

You're the one who sounds like the third-worldist here.

Very insightful post.

White isn't a skin colour. It's a metaphor for colonial politics in the bourgeoisie and class collaboration in the proletariat. It's applied because most of this (fact) is found amongst actual white people.

For instance, Barack Obama is white.

What's the string that produces "deeply triggering and problematic" in the word filter?

Actually it is a skin color, and you're gonna have a hard time convincing me that when smol brained normalfags, liberals, and reactionaries talk about le white people they have some kind of deep colonial metaphor in mind rather then the literal physiology and a common Euro-descended heritage and culture in mind.

That's very interesting, how do you deal with the "fact" that in those countries dominated by """"people of color""""" the native proletariat also collaborates with the bourgeoisie instead of overthrowing it.

Not sure what you have in mind, give me an example.

They don't need to understand it to use it correctly because it applies to the people they use it against. It likely applies to you as well, something you'll have to learn to accept.

Just open your eyes. Bourgeois political parties exist and dominate in the Third World too, even when there isn't ballot doctoring or intimidation. Third World politics for the last 60 years has been almost nothing but tailing the national bourgeoisie especially in those countries where there is no communist movement or insurgency to speak of.

Third World "communist" regimes (like Vietnam, China etc.) went revisionist even faster and more severely then the European communist regimes. Chilean truck drivers helped Pinochet overthrow the government and Indonesian lumpen, some peasants, and probably some proles helped kill millions of people and commit the worst genocides seen since the Holocaust in East Timor and West Papua.

You just don't have to be a genius to see this, which is why I'm not a Third Worldist.

Allende was a socdem at best. Also just because a small portion of the workers are reactionary does not mean that all of them are (though that is usually the case in the west.)

I should note here I mean politics that can be described as left or progressive in that part of the world. From the center to the far-right of the political spectrum basically they usually don't even pretend to be opposed to go-fast capitalism or that they aren't good dogs of the West. When some far-right nationalist does break from that mold though it seems that we don't see any Nassers or Gaddafi's but instead we see fascists like Modi and Duterte coming to the fore who abandon their pledges not to take orders from abroad as soon as they come to power.

Why don't we talk about that? Why did the world's largest electorate of one of the world's most impoverished countries vote for a brazen fascist that makes Trump, Le Pen, and Abe all long like Berkley-bred liberal babies crying for a safe space?

You're fucking stupid.

Another point is that Abe is far more of a fascist then any right-winger in mainstream electoral politics in the West. But identitarians won't touch that, just like they didn't touch the fact that Park was the daughter of a fascist and her own worldview can be described as fascist. But hey, she was a POC woman so it is different.

I strongly doubt it.

No it wasn't. There are always proletarian forces fighting against neocolonialism, the existence of compradors don't tell us that the proletariat is cooperating with the bourgeoisie. In fact in almost all of these cases the compradors are maintained through external influence. This doesn't serve as an example.

The proletariat do not cooperate with the bourgeoisie in these countries, the suppress them. It is the bourgeoisie who cooperate with the proletariat in these countries.

Chile was a previous Spanish colony and there still exist petite-bourgeois elements that descended from them. It is no surprise that there are reactionary elements in that nation.

The lumpen and peasants are not proletarians. They both in turns exploit and oppress the proletariat where it suits them.

While I do rebuff your concrete attempts at establishing your point I do see what you're trying to say in the abstract. You're discovering neo-colonialism exists. What you'll begin to understand however is that neo-colonial governments and states of affairs are never disconnected from the global economy but must integrate into global capitalism and in doing so white supremacy. Almost every neo-colonial government is maintained by the great colonial powers of old.

Death of the Author

Your example of India is funny because there were reports of an unbelievable 180 million people engaging in strikes and protests not too long ago.

First worlders cannot even imagine such a thing. It is beyond anything they could ever experience in their lifetime barring extreme economic collapse in their home countries.

Okay so:

Indonesia - CIA backed government did the killings
Chile - CIA op )well known too)
South Korea - US colony and used to be a military dictatorship run by the pentagon, now a liberal democracy run by the pentagon
India - Huge opposition movement, biggest proletarian movement in the world today outside of China

Well Japan is also white as well. They're more important to the tripartite surplus recycling system than all individual European states.

Likely a first day leftists, probably reads Jacobin as well.

lmao

Believe it. Duterte wasn't the rich man's candidate, he was the poor man's choice. The liberal elite in Manilla absolutely despised him but it wasn't enough to keep him from getting elected. The "Dutertards" as his critics dubbed his fanboys were not created by the Obama administration, the EU, or any neo-colonial clique intent on serving the interest of the "Triad"

They also elected a man guilty of genocide, who had a hand in killing at least 3,000 muslims.While it was a great thing, you also have to keep in mind that even if we are to believe the claims that it was 180 million people that represents a rather small part of India's population since it is enormously populous. All you have done is prove that semi-colonial countries have progressive elements and movements, a fact I never denied, but you did deny the real reactionary movements that exist there or explain them away as merely the puppets of the old colonial countries. The same could be said about the working class in the core countries, there are reactionary elements but also progressive ones.

There isn't any point to continuing this conversation. stop samefagging its embarrassing

The Philippines needs a stronger and independent national bourgeoisie. He is opposing US military presence in his country and removing corruption. He's a strident nationalist and seeks to cooperate more with China and Russia in order to decrease US power over his nation. The man is basically fighting the 21st centuries opium war, how exactly is he the fascist?

No what I've shown is that the proletariat in these countries aren't reactionary. Which is what we've been talking about and for every individual that goes out on the streets to protest there will be five who would but couldn't. I don't need to prove that the bourgeoisie in India isn't reactionary, it simply follows that a capitalist nation will have a bourgeois leader because this is how liberal (electoral) democracy works.

You've already forgotten what point you were arguing against. You want to show that the white proletariat isn't inherently reactionary and you intend to establish this how? By showing that other proletariats around the world are also reactionary but this is nothing other than a tu quoque. What you need to show is that the white proletariat isn't reactionary and that it's not reactionary due to whiteness and labour aristocracy.

I'm not the Christian.

Funny again, a first worlder will refer to Duterte as a fascist for cleaning his country up from the drugs pumped into it by his own (US and UK).

At the same time the population unanimously support the drug war and its methods (because it gets results). Actually I forgot to add previously the drug war is part of the war against corruption, in this sense Duterte is not cooperating with the national bourgeoisie although he is acting in their interest in terms of establishing independence.

youtube.com/watch?v=siAjsu0ZmKE

Japs have genocidal opinions about other Asians. It's not white supremacy but there is a Yamato supremacy.

proofs? i find that hard to believe when "white people" only account for something like 15% of the global population. what of all the chinese, indian, japanese etc. business & property owners?

i've noticed one thing with discussions about whiteness is that, quite ironically, they seem to take place in a very US-centric lens. perhaps this is because of their immense obsession with race?

He was a socdem in the traditional sense - a Marxist who went through the democratic political process. That is literally true. It doesn't really take away from his politics.

on the contrary, the concept of 'whiteness' is a product of capitalism, if you want to understand the US look into suburban property-kinship structures. This explains why a good third of hispanics and asian americans sided with Trump, because their culture is suburban. SJWs are helping capitalism administrate people rationally and that obviously means streamling stuff, the bad goes away with the good, and the people living in the absolute outside of the system remain as worse off as before. Capital itself is indiscriminating, it can make billionaires out of arab sheiks and chinese/russian apparatchiks, it can promote the 'liberation' of women and formerly oppressed castes as long as that 'liberation' means accumulating more capital.

No shit, different species cannot interbreed and create fertile offspring. The question is of breed, not species. Humans exhibit different cognitive capabilities and behavioral tendencies across breeds due to environmental and reproductive pressures of their regions just like different breeds of dogs or any other mammal species.

OP i agree with everything you said, idk what is up with people online that perpetuate this shit.

ever notice how twitter is full of this kind of crap too? i don't think it's funny. it was in like 2011 when the whole 'wypipo' memes were still kinda fresh with ugg boots and starbux and shit. now its just low hanging fruit for 'woke' shitlibs

heh i'm a phukking white male and i agree. look at blacks right now. fucking rap isn't even revolutionary – everyone is rapping about money and success in hip hop culture. idk, shit is fucked and the 3rd worldist critiques that everyone eats up saying black people are 'inhernetly revolutionary' or some shit piss me the fuck off

wow hot take from token black power guy looks like thread is over folks gg

Stay true to yourselves Holla Forums

lol saved