I actually have. The point is that you want everything crucial to be defined the way Marx did. AT best you will prove that Marx was coherent.
Marx is not the biggest materialist thinker. Why don't you get your materialist thinking from the biggest names? Why you try to get every position from Marx?

Who do you think is the best thinker and proponent of Materialism?

It surely isn't Karl Marx

Social Constructivism and Essentialism

Ok, so why do you think "race realism" is untrue. Lets do this in a dialectical way.

What do you mean by post-hoc?

Do you think a particular group of people can be genetically predisposed to aggression?

You are comparing what normal people say to academic studies

Do you think tendency to be aggressive can be acquired genetically?

But some of it is genetic?

There is no such thing as secondary there. Genes express themselves in an environment

So, what is the problem then? It is just a matter of degree.

Not of principle

Black people commit more crimes per capita, that is a fact.

And if you control for them, they still commit more crime

You can perform the analysis yourself

You can control for poverty

By examining all samples having equal household income

You compare a white man with x salary and a black man with x salary

You can control for that too. Do you think that if a black family which is rich is living in affluent neighborhood for several generations, there would be no difference to whites

Of course you cannot control for all factors. But if you will set such a high criteria, then we would have to throw all statistical studies

You have to make some assumptions for every field. The assumption here is just that if you control for some factors that are known to produce higher crime rate, then the difference between crime rates of two groups must be innate.

It is definitely not cherry picked. And bias in these fields is against race realism.
Now, it may be that the there are limitations in current analysis. But as it stands, there are many studies which you can read yourself that show that race is a factor in a lot of things.
Actually you can do the research yourself. I did one myself. Do you want to see the results?

You can link those studies. They are very problematic. .
However, coming to the main point. It is a question of distribution of resources. You cannot improve condition of everyone. It is impossible. From where would you get the money?

So, give me a policy proposal you would want to enact?

I have seen the picture. The point is that these options that Communism proposes are very harmful for productivity. And I am not sure about Black National Self Determination. Whites don't have that. The only thing that it will do is a collectivise blacks.

No.

Yes, and what that will do? It will create a conflict with Whites who won't have such a region.

They don't have an autonomous region for themselves.

Which?

So, what is National Self Determination? I don't follow. What would a White man in Texas feel different if he visits that black autonomous region?

I want to know what National Self Determination means in terms of policies

I am asking just that. What autonomous region means? Does it mean that only black people can be in government?

So, a black person can emigrate to that nation whenever he wants?

White people have to follow same rules as blacks in West

to immigrate

I am not sure why you believe Whites have an autonomous region in West.

You gave the criteria that the such region is one where any person of said race has a right to go.
No one has a right to emigrate to other country in West, just on basis of race.
Your own definition contradicts you.

And if it is true that White identity is based on false victimization and they are not victims, then cool. Whites have an interest in continuing that way. Case closed

If Whites have such power over others, why they should lose it? Why they should give it away?

Your analysis critiques the bourgeosie but fails to explain why they should make way for Proletariat. The only way is if the Proletariat goes against the bourgeosie. But then they would be the new bourgeosie.
So, where does this cycle end?

But there will always be a class that has power, right?
Ok

That makes no sense. Chieftains, theocrats, leaders etc. are those because they are respected by people who are willing to give them things. What you are trying to do is to reset society to zero.
Eventually, all these leaders by virtue of their power would become richer than other people. So, you will have economic classes again. The only way to stop that would be to put strong rules in check and verify transactions made by people to a high extent. That will be exactly like the Stalinist Russia.

They are not. Fascism is the belief that collective is as important as individual while Communism is a belief that Proletariat's individualism suffers due to creation of collective classes

That is the only similarity. And in that there is a distinction too. Fascism allocates resources to benefit everybody. Communism allocates resources to benefit Proletariat.

Communism does not care about common benefit, but benefit of only the oppressed.

No, ideologically too. Who would you regard as a great thinker of Fascist doctrine?

I am talking about the great thinker and what he wrote.

Hitler was not a great thinker of Fascism

Communism's defining feature is that Proletariat seize resources from bourgeosie.
And if you think Hitker was the greatest thinker of Fascism, then I have nothing more to say

Marx wrote that in his own works. That is not attempted Communism.

Communism is a form of Marxism

Marxism is the analysis

Communism is the answer to the problems raised by that analysis

Marxism says Proletariat are oppressed. Communism offers a way for them to gain power

System design of Communism is grounded in the idea that the validity of Communal ownership is due to the exploitation of Proletariat.

Fascism is not decentralized governance

For one

So, what?

Fascism is also not dependent on communal ownership

Nothing of that definition is necessary in Fascism

Lol. No. The aggregated Consensus means that everyone owns the resources.

Yes. If the whole society gets to vote on my stuff, how is that my stuff?

Even after allocation, society can vote to take that out of my hands

You are one making the defintional case and then complaining about autistic comparison. Neat

So, I have high IQ

> Says that Fascism and Communism are same
> Cries autism when shown differences

I showed another one and you said I was being autistic for showing you are wrong

So, Feminism and Monarchism are same because in Monarchism, it is possible to have equal rights for female?

They are larpers

Who would have thought that "Right" in 21st Century would be filled with Marxists😂

😂 I don't know man. In whatever Right Wing servers I go, I meet National Socialists, Bolshevists, Marxists and Communists in much larger quantity (as active debater).😂

I am not a leftist, liberal, or a Marxist. So, I think I would fall on Right. I am not a racialist like many guys on Right are right now. I am also not a complete traditionalist.
I am a Reactionary though. I think that word would best describe me.

Lol, what exactly.

I think modern world is toxic, retarded and immoral. And we should revolt against it. _Tips hat to Evola_

Even if that is true, it is not completely because of them. Do you know about Fascist views of cycles and Spengler's analysis?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsaieZt5vjk

Must watch ^^

Capitalism is merely a system where capital owner gets the share in profit.

It is not defined by relationship to production. Marx believed that power exercised by bourgeosie over Proletariat was due to the wealth inequality and the biggest source of that inequality was the ownership of capital/means of production. If it was such that controlling means of production would not make the class get richer by a huge margin, Marx would have had no problem. This is why Marx puts greatest emphasis on Industrialisation. The ownership of capital has been prevalent since the man formed societies. What Marx was upset about, primarily, was not ownership of capital, but the fact that such ownership allowed certain people to keep on getting richer and exercise undue power over Proletariat.

We know that to be the case as we know that Marx did the Marxist analysis of not only workplaces, but also families. He supported masculinised women, i.e., women doing the role of men. It was not because in a marriage, men controlled means of production. But because Marx believed that unless women had their own earnings, men could exert undue influence on them.
It is a white washing of what Marx actually believed that is done by Cuck Philosophy, Three Arrows and other Marxists. Marx could not be more clear about this.

_"Under private property ... Each tries to establish over the other an alien power, so as thereby to find satisfaction of his own selfish need. The increase in the quantity of objects is therefore accompanied by an extension of the realm of the alien powers to which man is subjected, and every new product represents a new potentiality of mutual swindling and mutual plundering."_
_"Political Economy regards the proletarian ... like a horse, he must receive enough to enable him to work. It does not consider him, during the time when he is not working, as a human being. It leaves this to criminal law, doctors, religion, statistical tables, politics, and the beadle."_
_"And now as to myself, no credit is due to me for discovering the existence of classes in modern society or the struggle between them. Long before me bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this class struggle and bourgeois economists, the economic anatomy of classes. What I did that was new was to prove: (1) that the existence of classes is only bound up with the particular, historical phases in the development of production,
(2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat, (3) that this dictatorship itself only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society."_

- Marx

So, the only classes in Marxism are that of ownership of means of production and not?

I love the least defense of a Marxist. You don't understand Marx, 😂

I love how you did not answer this question.
_"For Engels, the result was "the world historical defeat of the female sex. The man took command in the home also; the woman was degraded and reduced to servitude; she became the slave of his lust and a mere instrument for the production of children." (Sydie, pp. 120-121). Engels notes that "within the family he is the bourgeois, and the wife represents the proletariat." (Sydie, p. 137). The husband, father and patriarch became the master with slaves, and with wife-servant (s) and children-servants. There were many different forms that this took in different societies, "but in all cases the general relationship is seen to hold that women are subject to men in and out of marriage." (Sydie, p. 97)."_
So, tell me. Was Engels blind to not know that most men, who worked as service men did not own any or much means of production or you are ignorant or dishonest?

Let me ask the question again. Is wife a proletariat to the husband? If yes, where is that husband's means of production.

So, the husband does not own means of production necessarily but is still bourgeoisie?

Oh! So he says that the husband is the bourgeois. Thanks.

Bye Commie. Lie to someone else:)

Yes, Marxist circle jerk works very well. Btw, I thought you ran away to your daddy Marx.

@Enigmatic★Chromatic I never said that under Communism everyone would be equally rich. I said that Marx's critique was that some classes of people have undue power over other classes of people. This power comes from the fact that one class is richer than the other and one of the reasons for that is ownership of capital/means of production.
We know that because (Marx and) Engels said that in most cases, husbands are the bourgeoisie and wives are proletariat, though they also said that most men are Proletariat. The only logical way that both can be true is if the class analysis is not restricted to just means of production.
_"It's really disengenuous to tell a Marxist what Marx thought"_
Just because you are a Marxist, does not mean that you know more than others about Marx. I quoted their exact statements to back my assertion.

That is more probable, except the bourgeoisie of the Communist Party

Yep. It is the fallacy of assuming that hierarchy goes away if you protest against it. Natural Law > Communism

None of that was allowed to not be seized because government had almost unlimited power of seizure.

So, I guess potatoes, potatoes

Potatoes can be excellently transported using helicopters

What does bourgeoisie mean? Define it please?

Yes. I don't drink Marxist Kool Aid

So, is a husband a bourgeoisie?

So, why Engels said that?

I quoted him.