The Amerikkkan situation

There comes a point where mindless populism no longer achieves anything other than false unprincipled unity. This can be seen in Jimmy Dore's unwitting support of the right wing in Brazil (Operation Car Wash). He was swept up in the "anti-corruption" line directed largely at the social democratic Workers Party.

The Social Democratic claim that there exists a rich history of progressivism in America can only lead to more false unity and compromise. The idea that the "American Dream" is something to be entertained for two seconds is a ridiculous thing for any leftist to say to the masses.

Does it even matter? The whole obsession with settler-colonialism stinks of Sakaism. Most people oppose Israelis for their active killing of Palestinians and legal treatment of Arabs in Israel as second-class citizens. Native Americans in the US suffer from a number of serious problems, but there isn't the same sort of explicitly discriminatory legal framework that enshrines being white in itself, for example, or actively attempts to murder them on reservations when they try to leave.

Nor is there any sort of widely shared opinion currently that Native Americans are subhumans who deserve to die.

This is true of course, but do you really believe the government of Cuba or Bolivia should be treated the same way as the government of the US? Leftists should be careful not to do unpaid cop work. This anarchist idea the creation of a Palestinian state is the same thing as the Israeli state, just because they are both states is something that plays into reactionary hands.

Even if you have an end to the apartheid, the situation will simply turn into South Africa today. A corrupt government with a majority white (in this case Jewish) bourgeois class that controls it

It’s becoming more and more obvious that the difference between Marxism and left-populism is the ability to appreciate the positive aspects of both the bourgeois revolutions and even colonialism itself.

For instance, only France, Germany and Russia have revolutionary heritages equal or superior to the US. And in the German case it’s questionable whether what was progressive in German history overrules it’s psycho-reactionary freak-outs.

The US Civil War and reconstruction era probably made it superior to any other Western democracy in its time imo. Never forget that the destruction of slavery was actually a revolutionary process and actually the largest example of confiscation of private property without compensation up until the Russian Revolution.

The Revolutionary generation of the US were progressive in their time period—even if they killed Indians and kept slaves. Marx argued against Proudhon that the most progressive country in his time (in his view the US) was based on slavery! Today most Marxists are neo-Proudhonists decrying the injustices of history and wishing it was possible to turn back the clock instead of appreciating how it was exactly these injustices which led to a situation where it finally became within humanity’s power to end injustice.

The US is the only country in the world except for maybe other ex-colonial countries that I know of that was founded on the basis of a revolution. Even France has a deeper identity that evolved out of more than a thousand years of monarchical rule. The US quite simply did not exist prior to its founding and is in that sense a revolutionary project.

It’s important to teach both the revolutionary struggle and traditions of imperialist countries and colonial countries without falling into left-populism. Quite frankly, without the colonialism we would see no bourgeois revolutionary national struggles in the underdeveloped world—and without them no indigenous capitalism, no indigenous proletariat and no basis for socialism at all. Left-populism sees the colonial struggle and ironically adopts the perspective of the indigenous ruling class and gets stuck in the mire of nationalism without appreciating how it was exactly the crimes that third world nationalists decry that make both third world capitalism and socialism possible.

This goes deeper then just a reaction against the colonizer but rather it should be noted that for instance the British learned the idea of the republic from the Roman colonizers and all of Britain’s colonies learned about it from British traditions and history. Creating an anti-British anti-monarchical and anti-feudal Republic of Ireland was dependent on the existence of British colonialism to start with.

At that point, however, capitalism becomes the principal problem. "More wealthy brown people" is not a left-wing solution, or really a solution at all, to the impoverishment of working class Palestinians that would almost certainly persist if the apartheid situation is resolved.

good post

That Left-populists fail to understand the significance of the black/colored/Indian elites both under Apartheid and after is not surprising. They are always looking to downplay the existence of these factions, always excusing their reactionary tendencies and always portraying them as weaker then they really are.

What is ironic is they often fail to appreciate the real progress the national bourgeoisie has made in South Africa and elsewhere. They also fail to comprehend the rage that the proletariat in developing nations have against their own bourgeoisie.

While the national bourgeoisie flirts with reactionary and pointless land reform projects to increase its mass base, the SA proletariat fights for and wins the highest minimum wage on the African continent. This will set standards for the African proletariat to aim and fight for across the continent. Another example, the South African bourgeoisie flirted with AIDs denialism it was the South African proletariat that fought for AIDS medicine. The South African bourgeoisie privatized many of the Apartheid SOEs and cut the subsidies that the regime gave to water and power which lowered prices even for black people. While the South African bourgeoisie acts as economic reactionaries, the South African proletariat has expressed their appreciation for these achievements without the desire to go backwards to the old anti-democratic regime.

Of course, liberal idpol isn't what I was going for. But my point was precisely that ending of apartheid, if this movement is lead by liberals, would lead to a buffonish Palestinian state controlled by the Israelis, similar to the ANC today. The bourgeois class of today's Palestine is also interestingly in the pockets of the Zionists

My point was precisely the creation of a bourgeois coloured class that sells out the proletarian struggle

What are you, some kind of colonizer?
It's a joke, pls no ban

This, South Africa would be a better place for people of all places in Mandela didn’t privatize everything.

Attached: SouthAfricaANCPrivitization#2.png (509x762 32.75 KB, 43.52K)

people of all races

t. Lenin

That's interesting, I seem to remember never having said that before. It's almost as if you're speaking on behalf of people you don't know about.

It’s another ultra-Left tumblr tier extremist with such narrow and sectarian views that no one will ever care about. Have fun in the dustbin of history as you larp as Mao in your first world country.

The only time Lenin ever made me cringe.

You would have made him cringe tbqh w/ u fam

Um, no sweetie

Attached: joe-slovo-4617089651.jpg (350x234, 19.35K)

Now THIS is materialism!

lol the civil war wasn't a revolution. Almost every other western imperialist country had abolished slavery by that point. The fact that America was forced to fight a war over it in fact proves just how reactionary they are and how hopelessly backwards their institutions will always be so long as they continue to cling to muh constitution. The Civil War occurred because in America the law has extremely limited control over private property. It is impossible to remove something from the market there without significant force and the breakdown of liberal institutions.

Attached: 1530683333622.jpg (445x365, 26.4K)

meant to reply to

Have fun with the fucking democratic party
Mao's ideas and MLM is more in touch with the masses than your bullshit entryist tactics that have been tried a million times before.

All this is technically true, but the Soviet line on the "progressive bourgeoisie" never really worked anywhere. It shouldn't be part of our propaganda model to explain to the masses why the US imperialism is a necessity for anti-imperialism to exist, the point is to use the US as a basis to rally against today

This obsession with being Mad About White People is infantile and gets nobody anywhere. For example, the idea that there are "No good Israelis" or "No good white South Africans" is insane, and directly contradicts socialist principles.

This is quite wrong. Britain, the leader in this regard, only abolished slavery in 1833 but given the fact that the abolition decree put the slaves of the empire into a seven year "apprenticeship" this was cut somewhat short by slave resistance and domestic pressure the actual end-date of British slavery was probably around 1838.

But before Britain established its position as "moral leader" on this issue I think its worth noting that the US achieved voluntary and compensated abolition in the North largely before the French Revolution and the succeeding Haitian revolution. The vast majority of New World Spanish-speaking states would follow the US example of compensated and/or gradual emancipation with most of the Spanish Latin America beginning the transition to total abolition of black chattel slavery around the 1850s.

So, before Britain ever freed a single slave I think its worth noting that the US had removed slavery from a large part of the country.

How did France, the Western nation with the most thorough-going bourgeois revolution and the most radical plebeian traditions, do on the issue of abolition? The fact is that France did not re-abolish slavery in her empire until after 1848.

The Netherlands did not abolish slavery in its empire until 1863; by then, the US was already practicing military abolition in the first years of the civil war and finally Lincoln declared complete abolition on Jan 1st 1863.

Spain continued to ply the illegal slave-trade and held slaves in its colonies until it was finally abolished in 1886 in Cuba. Portugal continued to deal in slaves and held chattel slaves in its empire until 1888. Brazil held out until that year as well.

The American civil war did have a chilling effect on the late abolitionist states who recognized that the fall of the confederacy meant that the fall of the institution globally was inevitable.

Not really, this is like saying that the French are reactionary because they had to fight a war over Monarchy and Feudalism.

Ummm…it was more destructive and thorough in its annihilation of the slave-system then the French Revolution was to feudalism. The French actually walked something of a middle-path between radical Soviet-style land reform and the British/Prussian path of just pushing peasants off the land. The French aristocracy actually still exists and while never as strong as before 1789 was nourished back to health by reactionary Napoleonic and monarchial regimes.

The American Civil War destroyed the Southern slaveowning class and along with it the vast majority of American capital. The fact that progressive forces triumphed against such entrenched opposition is an amazing triumph in world history; almost a miracle. We shouldn't forget that the British ruling class, the greatest power of its time, secretly supported the confederacy and armed it to the hilt.

The progressiveness of the US Civil War can only be denied by goal-posting shifting to issues like racism, willful ignorance of the difference between sharecropping/usury exploitation and actual chattel slavery and continual reference to a small population of black prisoners who were forced to work–something not beyond the standards of other civilized nation. These are the only tools that post-modernists have in their tool-kit but careful historical analysis strips them away quite easily.

Reconstruction was amazingly progressive as well, in terms of black representation and involvement in government it wouldn't be matched again until arguably the 1990s. Many of the rights that blacks received during reconstruction were equal to those that would eventually be won during the civil rights struggle. Reconstruction resulted in the creation of America's first public schools and its first welfare state; the Civil War also saw the establishment of the first progressive income tax in the US.

No Western European state ever went through a challenge that was as deep as reconstruction–attempting to integrate a former enslaved population into a society of equal citizens. I could cite the example of Romania perhaps where Roma slavery ended around the same time but the average Romanian couldn't vote; the average Anglo couldn't vote either. The average Frenchmen could vote after 1848 but it didn't matter because France was a dictatorship until the fall of Napoleon III. I standby my statement that reconstruction America was superior to any other Western democracy in its time and place.

Can someone be a Marxist while denigrating America's revolutionary traditions? In my view, no–they can only be a Christian moralist, which is quite appropriate in your case.

Attached: Sherman.jpg (207x243, 11.58K)

dude massacred Indians, he was scum

Yikes. You should at least recognize he did one thing right…

proofs

Good point. Makes sense, we learn from eachother, we react without being ‘reactionary’. What do we do now? Rather, how will this terribly unsophisticated Drumph idiot and his cronys be handled? By revolution, by democracy, election and impeachment?

What the holy fuck do we do in the US in this epoch?

Please, no disertations. The fascists don’t post thirty pages, believe that!

Attached: 70E04716-3AE6-45EB-A97F-2E40F26D86D7.png (640x1136, 780.27K)

Israel is an abomination of a state, but that doesn’t make snatching Adolf Eichman away to be tried and executed any less based.

but you have to admit, the left in these countries is weak as fuck
the israeli communist party is trash, the murican left is the garbage that we can all see etc..

history.com/news/shermans-war-on-native-americans
legendsofamerica.com/ah-williamsherman/

"Based"? Are you a fucking 12 year old? No, we don't glorify and uphold vicious murderers if they happened to do something "based."

a broken clock is right twice a day

We do, in fact, because "murderer" is merely a label applied to killings which people believe are immoral or not "authorized" in some fashion, and most liberals believe that basically every communist leader is in some way a "murderer."

Not sure why BO banned , unless it was just for "yikes." We should be able to recognize things done correctly and incorrectly in history. Historical figures can often be praised and criticized simultaneously, sometimes for even the same act, and emphasizing only one side or the other for the sake of empty moralizing creates more misunderstanding than understanding.

If you think that historical figures can only ever be glorified in their totality and not recognized as both good and bad then you’re the one who’s 12. Even the best communist heroes did reprehensible shit, and as the case of Sherman burning Atlanta or Israel killing Eichman shows, even the worst reactionaries can do some good. This doesn’t mean let’s all get on the Sherman train, but we can celebrate the good that he did do.

The difference is, Israel is a thriving social democracy where citizens have total control over their government. If Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians, it's only because its citizens want it.

Lmao. There's no lack of reactionary cunts and fundamentalist fanatics in Israel, but this "they have full control of the government" shit is more jihadist-tier propaganda than anything Marxist-related. Nominal democracy =/= accurate reflection of the people's preferences.

Most Israelis are pretty racist dude, they're not all full-on genocidal but the large majority definitely support the oppression of Palestinians

Most of Israel is Mizrachi Jews from Morocco, Yemen, and Iraq. They also happen to be far more anti-Palestinian than the Ashkenazi/white Jews.

A question to all the non-american anons here; if you could choose between an extremely bloody revolution in the US of magnitudes of carnage and death never seen before, but it ends up succeding and socialism is established globally or the US goes ultra isolationist, removing all their troops from foreign countries, ending all their support to antisocialist movements/countries and forever seizes imperialist activites BUT it also goes ultra reactionary, purging all socialist movements within its borders and american workers are left forever in the hands of the bourgeoisie but revolutions all over the rest of the world are much faster and with much less casualties so the entire world enacts global socialism except the US.

That might very well be. Never seen any graphs on it, but I know there is a ton of racist religious nutjobs in Israel. What I reacted to was (what I perceived to be, sorry if that wasn't the case) the notion that the people is responsible for their government's actions in nominal democracies, when, depending on electoral methods etc., you can win elections with only a fraction of voter support. It's the same logic employed by jihadis and people who think pipe-bombing pubs is good praxis. Fuck Israel, but IMO it's more productive to focus the hate on the Israeli government, not the Israeli people.

Fucking this.

One reason why I became very weary of a lot of pro-Palestine groups I used to work with was, a lot of their members (who were primarily white Americans BTW, definitely not Palestinians or Arabs) were so focused on trying to "civilize the Zionist savage" in the sense that they believed ALL Israeli people deserved a proverbial ass-kicking for the crimes of their government. I'm sorry, but BDS isn't going to cleanse anyone's soul; that's not even what it's intended to do. If Israelis are going to "get better" it has to be of their own doing, something internal to their own society, not something imposed on them from white westerners who most likely haven't even met an Israeli much less understands the internal shit in their culture.

I say this as a Pakistani-American ex-Muslim who knows all too well about chauvinism.

Identity politics dominate the American left. They're calling gingerbread men "gingerbread people" to keep it gender neutral. They want Santa to not be a man anymore. I feel like this kind of shit just doesn't happen outside the US.

They're just so touchy and stupid. Comrades, send reinforcements.

Attached: Serj.png (1915x1079, 1.34M)

I forgot to add that people here just don't see capitalism as a problem while fighting over capitalistic things (Santa, racism in products, etc.)

They don't realize that capitalism is the problem. They just don't realize it. Why?

Holy shit it's 2018 and people still don't understand that identity plays a big role in politics.

The only flags that still deserve respect.

Burn all other flags.

Attached: korea2.gif (359x180 1.52 KB, 1.31K)

it's a meme, don't have a cow man

Attached: b4d53a3d2fa4c18f2a07fd149cf16f794f6909ce.jpg (384x384, 33.85K)

This attitude is why the white left fails to capture the support of black and brown working classes. This tone-deaf class reductionism is what cost Bernie Sanders the election

The American Revolution was a Counter-Revolution

nyupress.org/books/9781479893409/

The hundreds of millions of colonized and racialized people who embraced it in the 20th century would like to have a word with you.

Because it's full of self loathing white guys, dumbass burger.

definitely not DNC corruption and Superdelegates or anything

This attitude is why the white left fails to capture the support of white working classes. This tone-deaf idpol is what cost Bernie Sanders the election

Marxism is not class reductionist, Bernie Sanders is

The left should not be conspiratorial in the way that liberals and reactionaries are. Even if it is true that he was robbed, there still is an underlying problem
I think the reason Bernie lost to Hillary was the same reason she lost to Trump. Trump played a certain white identity politics which resonated with his base, and she failed to do so. Bernie failed to address the concerns of the Black Nation, so he became unpopular (more so due to his obnoxious supporters than him, really).
There exist cities in the US, where the primary contradictions is indeed race, like it or not. Don't be expecting to win the Black masses with class reductionist rhetoric. There exist cities where Black cops and White cops have seperate unions, where even the pigs don't get along on the basis of race.
Any real leftist should analyse the material conditions, not parrot the same line over and over (however true it may be) like Bernie Sanders did

This self-loathing of whites, I think is the last defence against really doing some sort of mass work for the black masses, gaining trust and popularity in Black America. So many liberals are willing to travel to Africa on some humanitarian program, yet they would never step into a black neighbourhood of their own city. The worst phenomenon is poverty tourism, and of course riot tourism, in Baltimore etc…

that would mean black voters have a tendency to vote Shillary. can you back up such a heuristic statistically?

Black people have a tendency not to vote. The ones who vote are petty-bourgeois, or the older generation of the working class who grew up on the clinton brand

Coming from someone who's probably not even asian.

Lol, Bernie losing has nothing to do with the fact that the DNC did everything in its power to ensure he didn’t win the primary.

Black people loved Sanders more than any other candidate or race you faggot.

keep telling yourself this

even if it is the case, there is still an underlying problem. This is the left's version of Russia hysteria. Refusal to accept criticism, blaming external factors rather than self-criticising

It's true that non-whites prefer Sanders more than whites.

Based on the Wikileaks documents, the DNC was opposed to Sanders' candidacy and did what it could to stymie him in favor of Clinton. How much it truly impeded his candidacy versus other factors is a valid question, but the DNC did strongly oppose him.

Attached: sanders poll.png (920x417, 11.17K)

They prefer not to waste time voting

Even if it is true, it doesn't address the underlying problem.
As slovene lacanian sniffman says, if a husband is suspicious that his wife is cheating, that jealousy can be psthological, regardless if she is not or really is cheating on him.
The easiest thing in the world is to be right. Even if you are technically right, you refuse to understand the underlying point, which you would be confronted with if you lived anywhere near non-white working class in the US

Non-whites aren't the same as blacks though, they also include other races. Idk if blacks like Sanders or not but that chart doesn't show it either way.

How is that even relevant to the point you were trying to make about black people not supporting Sanders?

Prior to the documents, I personally didn't care, so it was hardly pathological. I didn't even support Sanders's candidacy at the time, since I regarded his "socialism" as a fraud (and still do). It's just objectively true that the DNC was opposed to his candidacy and did what it could to impede him.

Yes, it must be very hard for you, being wrong at every possible opportunity.

So now it's "I have no argument against this being true, but I disagree anyway."

The survey attached is clearer, but it's a different one, from around last year.

Attached: sanderspoll.png (640x360, 123.81K)

this was my point, even if it is objectively true, there were still blind spots in the sanders campaign. You missed the point three times now

what a fucking melt. They don't vote …how is that relevant???

m-muh statistics

Your original assertion was:
Which isn't even true from all evidence. He's quite popular among black people. What little evidence there is for this involves liberal "think"-pieces decrying him for not addressing the "black community" from identitarians appointed by media organs as speakers for the racial identity. This is not objective evidence, nor is this even the sort of evidence one would care about as a communist.

You're saying "they don't vote," and it's true that they didn't insofar as the 2016 primaries are concerned, but there's no evidence that they were refraining from voting for Sanders specifically rather than simply refraining from voting at all, or not able to vote due to other impediments (inability to register to vote, difficulty voting generally, lack of name recognition, etc.). You've failed to distinguish any of those causes from what you're asserting. It isn't relevant until you demonstrate its relevance to the specific circumstances.

Insofar as you've made any concrete assertions, they haven't been true. It's the easiest thing in the world to make vague, insinuating assertions.

OP outs himself as troll outsider by stumbling over the word-filter, gets called out by the first response, and still gets the thread going. Never change, Zig Forums

It is though. According to Marxist doctrine all oppression stems from class oppression. Even Marxist Feminists believe this.

Attached: f67b86b0210e973feafbdba019051e545de503d4.jpg (850x400 85.22 KB, 44.2K)

As someone who doesn't consider himself left because of said self-loathing, how exactly is it that liberal unwillingness to visit black neighborhoods is due to them being self-loathing whites? Unless you're arguing that their shame keeps them out rather than an obvious classism.

You're correct in that white self loathing among the left is harmful however. I was reading this article by an anarchist philosopher discussing demographic politics in the U.S., and he whined that even though he was a straight white male he'd support the dems because he couldn't stand voting for the party that's racist against women and minorities.

It's absurd really, it's saying white men have no place in the left except if they're willing to purposely curb their own interests in order to serve the interests of others. You appeal to more people by appealing to their self-interest rather than their morality, and adding to that appeal to "morality" a statement that you'd be acting as someone else's servant is only more humiliating.

Yet it seems this attitude is enforced. Most white left wingers I know wouldn't dare insult a black person, even if in some case they were worthy of an insult (before anyone even tries to argue this point, I'm arguing that in a hypothetical situation wherein one may deserve an insult or would be given an insult by the speaker in question, they get a free pass because they're black). In cases of displays of heterosexuality it must always be couched in some mewling, submissive statement: "Oh I want her to sit on my face!" Or softened by statements of openness to the idea of bisexuality.

Overall white leftists are the most noxious kind of people and actively off putting to the rest of the white community.

Attached: 1536891448048.png (2000x2000, 1.54M)