Message from @Enigmatic★Chromatic
Discord ID: 508445759071453194
But then again white racial identity politics are primarily based in false victimization, so I shouldn't be so surprised
whites are exploited by a fifth column movement of intersectionalism which is just subjectively exploited and projected at every turn
That's a really silly claim
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
Well white majority nations have as part of them primarily white power and white power over non-whites. The solution to the contradiction here is that non-whites get autonomous regions. This is specifically decolonization
Imperialized countries have the right to self determine as well
For example o support Assad against US imperialism so that Syria can self determine
If Whites have such power over others, why they should lose it? Why they should give it away?
Assad is a chad
Well ultimately I don't think it's all white people working class folk, both white and black, are both negatively affected by Capitalism and would mutually benefit by working together for their interests. This is where is different from liberals on this as they think all white people benefit from institutionalozed racism, and I think this is false. Another example is that when Mexicans are chosen for cheap labour both white and Mexican people are negatively affected. White people lose their jobs or have to accept lower pay, and Mexicans are further exploited with less and less pay and worse conditions. In the case of it being under the table it's even worse the shady shit cappies do. This example could apply to all
So really it's the bourgeoisie who benefit from racism
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?
This kind of gets into historical Materialism
We have not seen a revolutionary class establish a state like the former, it always takes a form which benefits their class
The bourgeoisie formed from the merchant class and when it overthrew the Feudal Lords did not themselves become Feudal Lords
And I think we could both agree Capitalism is better than Feudalism
If the proletariat seize power they will form a state and political economy that is a reflection of their class and class interests
Nothing but socialism can arise from this
Btw I have to drive so brb
But there will always be a class that has power, right?
Ok
Well the majority of human existence has been in tribal societies where there were no class distinctions
there were de facto autocrats
chieftains
elders
theocrats
Those are not classes
Leaders will always exist
not economic classes no
Exactly
but involuntary control
My issue is not with hierarchies in and of themselves
Socialism is the abolition of class distinctions, not the abolition of the concept of leaders
yes i know
i am a socialist
In fact I think Engles puts it best
Are you a Marxist socialist? Or a sort of NazBol thing
i consider myself a marxist
the epistemological break is an important component to me
i find myself more intrigued with marx's scientific theories than his worldly philosophy
Well they're interconnected
I mean insofar as i don't need to rely on anything dialectical or materialistic to arrive at empirical worker exploitation and the effectiveness of worker self-management and proletarian freedom