"Insert Generic Salutation Here"

[777]

HI, I'm 777 and I'm from North-West England.

I'm here because I want to learn more about the various strains of Leftism. I'm not currently aligned to any Left-groups and my knowledge on the subject is quite limited to my preconceived impressions. I have only really read The Communist Manifesto and Socialism: Scientific and utopian, and I don't think that those are the best to gain insight from.

To be perfectly honest, I come from a National Socialist background. I know that immediately many of you will hate me, mock and dismiss me.

What I would like you to understand is that I have always wanted a revolution for the good of society as a whole. This may be hard for some of you to understand, but I genuinely did not hate other ethnicities. I was on the side of the more left-leaning, anti-authoritarian NS types.

More recently I have begun to have doubts as to the validity of the NS movement; it is hardly full of socially minded people who seek to create a positive change in society.

What I want is a fairer society for all. I have always seen Capitalism as the root cause of the worlds misery and have opposed it in as many ways as I know how (albeit in a very limited capacity).

I have always liked certain aspects of some leftist thinking, mainly the economic aspects. Other aspects still evade me. I still value my heritage and attributes of my inherited ethnicity. To me it has always seemed as if leftists want to destroy this aspect of my identity, an identity which I feel contributes a lot to who I am as a person; this has been a big hinderence for me in becoming active for the left.

I suppose I lean toward Anarchist thinking, but as I say my knowledge on the subject is limited. I hope that using this forum will help me to learn more about the subject so that I can apply myself in a practical and beneficial way.

I hope you wont judge me too rashly.

[Q]

Welcome.

Revleft has a policy of banning fascists on sight. But as you say you're moving beyond that, so let's debate.

I'll pick out your bit on identity for now. I'm not sure why you think we want to destroy your (cultural?) heritage. On the contrary communists defend the rights of national minorities, their freedom to have their own language, culture, etc. What we need to do however, to ensure we can succeed in this, is to destroy the national consciousness, which is a product of capitalism and one of which reasons is to divide the world working class. We argue that we need to unite in a global community, voluntarily and freely on the basis of solidarity, not hegemony of one nation (or for that matter multi-nation) over another. This in order to pose a global alternative to the capitalist order and topple it, to be replaced with our rule, the rule of the working class and, as such, humanity.

I hope that makes some sense.

[777]

Well thanks for our reply. I was never a "Fascist" but a National Socialist of the Strasserite variety. I am here to develop my political outlook, so thanks for not having me banned.

I feel that most leftists ignore the real concerns of the indigenous working class by not just being anti-fascist and anti-racist, but actually pro-immigration. At a time when poorer parts of the indigenous community are finding survival hard, importing labour competition for jobs and resources can create conflict between groups who are able to observe differences, not only physically but culturally as well. The left, instead of explaining how this is a result of Capitalism and the scarcity it creates, seem to just label indigenous workers with legitimate concerns as "Fascist" and "racist".

So by not supporting the indigenous national group as well as the immigrant workers, it seems as if the left simply do not care for us. Indeed, the left seem fond of blaming white folk for everything that has ever gone wrong in the world, much like the Nazis do with the Jews.

It is this frankfurht school of cultural marxism which leaves an unpleasant view of the left for me and others who would otherwise be committed activists.

Instead of calling people racist we should be showing an alternative to the current situation that creates racial conflict by forcing groups to compete for scarce resources.

But most leftists would even deny that I have a cultural identity, calling my genetic make-up a social construct. That means that the other group that is coming here and competing against my community for jobs are simply the same community so I shouldn't be bothered. But the simple fact is that they aren't my community. True, they are working class, but there are cultural barriers that separate us. For some reason people like me feel more fraternal loyalty to people from the same background as ourselves. Surely this can't be dismissed with "go away and read some Marx"?

And by being pro-immigration the left appear to be supportin the disposition of certain sections of the indigenous community, as well as supporting the state in its capitalist multicultural internationalism.

i hope some of this makes sense to you. I'm not here to argue, but to learn and develop. thanks.

[Ravachol]

Well thanks for our reply. I was never a "Fascist" but a National Socialist of the Strasserite variety. I am here to develop my political outlook, so thanks for not having me banned.


While definitions may vary, National-Socialism (Strasserite variants included) is almost universally considered to be a strain of Fascism.



I feel that most leftists ignore the real concerns of the indigenous working class by not just being anti-fascist and anti-racist, but actually pro-immigration.


First of all, the dichtomy between 'indigenous' and 'foreign' working class is irrelevant to Communists (I use this as a catch-all term for all class-struggle leftists seeking to establish a classless, state-less society, ranging from Anarchists to Marxist-Leninists). We are only concerned with the wellfare of our class-brethern and sisters.



At a time when poorer parts of the indigenous community are finding survival hard, importing labour competition for jobs and resources can create conflict between groups who are able to observe differences


The same can be said for pitting the 'indigenous' unemployed against the 'indigenous' employed in order to depress wages, something that has been going on for decades before modern-day immigration even started.

Secondly, the 'problem' here (the depression of wages) is intrinsic to Capitalism and private ownership of the means of production of whatever variety and is bound to happen under Capitalism, even if mass-immigration is stopped (which no Communist is ever going to argue in favor of since it limits the freedom of movement we espouse and it divides the working class ('indigenous' and 'foreign') whilst all our arrows are to be aimed at the bourgeoisie) companies will simply outsource jobs, this is the harsh reality of Capitalism.

The solution to this is international communism (the particular means to achieve this and form is up to the different tendency) which eliminates private ownership of the means of production and thus the profit drive.



The left, instead of explaining how this is a result of Capitalism and the scarcity it creates, seem to just label indigenous workers with legitimate concerns as "Fascist" and "racist".


Nonsen, as an active antifascist myself I've never written off concerns regarding the depressing of wages as 'racist'. What I do write off as 'racist' is mindless 'paki bashing' and the insistence on 'monoculturalism' (whether arguing in favor of a Western-led 'Leitkultur' or conservative, nationalist immigrant communities).



It is this frankfurht school of cultural marxism which leaves an unpleasant view of the left for me and others who would otherwise be committed activists.


Sorry but the Frankfurter schule has nothing to do with this. I am aware many Fascists, 'White Nationalists', NazBols and what not tend to label any form of 'political correctness' (in itself a vague term since the way the British media and establishment treat the war and 'our boys' and surpress any dissenting views is 'political correctness' as well, just not of a 'leftist' variety) as a product of the 'Frankfurter Schule'.



Instead of calling people racist we should be showing an alternative to the current situation that creates racial conflict by forcing groups to compete for scarce resources.


We do, it's called "Class War" as opposed to "Race War".



But most leftists would even deny that I have a cultural identity, calling my genetic make-up a social construct.


Your genetic make-up is irrelevant with regards to your 'culture'. Culture is a product of community and arises out of cumulative practices and tradtion, it has nothing todo with 18th century pseudo-scientific 'race' nations rooted in faulty views of genetics.



That means that the other group that is coming here and competing against my community for jobs are simply the same community so I shouldn't be bothered.


Whether we compete against 'foreign' class brethern/sisters or 'national' class brethern/sisters is irrelevant. The enemy remains the same: the bourgeoisie.



But the simple fact is that they aren't my community. True, they are working class, but there are cultural barriers that separate us.


Who cares. Culture is a product of institutions arising from a society dominated by bourgeois rule and as a result is most likely going to be heavily transformed by the transition to communism anyways. Historically 'tradition' and 'national values' have only served to make the working class serve the ruling class unquestioningly. 'Culture' is something that arises from specific practices and institutions, these institutions have historically been developed in consecutive societies dominated by a changing ruling class and bear all the hallmarks of this class-rule (the 'Droit Divin', 'Protestant work ethic',etc.). As a result, culture usually serves to normalise people and bind them to the very institutions and social functions dominated by the bourgeoisie. A transition to a class-less and stateless society is bound to transform or destroy these institutions and replace them where necessary. This will transform culture in such a way that it will become largely irrelevant anyhow.

I have nothing in common with a member of my 'national' bourgeoisie, while I have everything in common with a member of the 'foreign' working-class. Class, as an objectively existing socio-economic category determines the way we live and what we experience, culture is merely a social construct. Thus Class is what truly binds us.

[777]

Thank you Ravachol, for your detailed reply. You have certainly given me a few things to ponder and weigh up.

But with regards to my genetic make up being irrelevant; It is the physical attribute of who I am as a person.

Different groups of people share specific sets of genes. These genes determine different biological aspects of the self. The biological attributes in turn determine personality traits. There exists real differences between peoples, and peoples have identities. Culture is not static, but born from those genetic personality traits. As such people of the same ethnos will tend to have a lot in common.

The value you place on these shared traits may be a social construct, but the fact of ethnicity is not. Class is itself a social construct, so why favour one construct above the other?

The way to overcome ethnic conflict is not by claiming all humans to be exactly the same in every way, but to recognise the differences between ourselves and accept them. That way we are not forced into a situation where we must repress the physical aspects of who we are, and in so doing can feel more confident about international solidarity?

With respect, you have exhibited exactly what I am trying to say about how leftists tend to dismiss people with a "go away and read Marx". People value their culture and heritage. To simply dismiss them is not productive.

Instead off a rather blunt dismissal, why not focus more on how Capitalism itself is what causes race conflict? Put forward a concept of international solidarity that does not include the diminishing of cultural identity. Are there any left groups that think that way?

Thanks.:thumbup1:

[Ravachol]

Different groups of people share specific sets of genes. These genes determine different biological aspects of the self. The biological attributes in turn determine personality traits.


First of all, genetic distribution is continuous, not discrete. Whilst Genes are discrete genetic traits, there distribution is continuous, meaning that there exists no bounded, internally homogenous group that could be classified as 'race' (ie. a 'nation' with a genetic basis). In other words, there is no 'point' where the (for example) 'white race' ends and others begin.

Secondly, whilst genes contribute to some personality traits (proneness to neuroticism, for example), personality is (by current scientific consensus) largely (if not exclusively) the result of nurture, thus rendering the genetics-personality link highly unstable.

Thirdly, personality traits are not distributed according to national borders or the concept of national identity. Personality traits are more or less uniformly distrubed with respect to geography.

Fourthly, even if the first, second and third arguments I made would be incorrect, this does not mean culture is related to genetics at all. Even on it's own terms, a scenario where genetic distribution is discrete and personality is a direct result of these genetics, culture is still a product of social functions, something far more complex than a pattern arising from 'personalities'. Similar cultures with a similar socio-economic base and similar social paradigms develop similar cultures, regardless of 'ethnic' make-up.



There exists real differences between peoples, and peoples have identities. Culture is not static, but born from those genetic personality traits. As such people of the same ethnos will tend to have a lot in common.


Not at all. Apart from what I explained above, consider the enormous heterogenic nature of individuals within the same 'cultural' matrix. I, for one, share little customs or 'cultural' appetites with my fellow Dutchmen and so do a lot of people I know. Even if the majority of a certain culture shares the same behavioral pattern, this is a result of the very fact they are products of the same social framework, in turn influencing it even further. This has nothing to do with genetics, it's purely a social construct.

Now, disregarding the discussion above with regards to genetics and culture, as Communists we aren't interested in cultures as such (as I explained in the previous post), so the entire matter of 'cultural/racial/national identity' is rendered moot.



The value you place on these shared traits may be a social construct, but the fact of ethnicity is not. Class is itself a social construct, so why favour one construct above the other?


This is an often heard, yet incorrect, argument. A 'social construct' is a phenomenon or identity arising from purely social functions and/or institutions. National and cultural identity are an example. Class, however, is a socio-economical category, it's roots lie within real-existing economical conditions that would exist and be more or less the same under different social constructs. For example, a 'Pakistani' worker would still be a worker experiencing more or less all the hardships a worker does if he ware 'Indian' or 'Turkish'. Class is what defines our everyday lives and our material conditions and this is what sets it apart from social 'identities'.



The way to overcome ethnic conflict is not by claiming all humans to be exactly the same in every way, but to recognise the differences between ourselves and accept them. That way we are not forced into a situation where we must repress the physical aspects of who we are, and in so doing can feel more confident about international solidarity?


I'm not arguing in favor of global 'monoculture'. While I think culture in itself (all cultures) will be transformed greatly in the progress towards Communism, difference is to be celebrated. Exclusion and the claiming of geographic areas for a certain group based on an identity backed up with a mythical 'birth-right' narrative, is however something to be fiercly combatted.



With respect, you have exhibited exactly what I am trying to say about how leftists tend to dismiss people with a "go away and read Marx". People value their culture and heritage. To simply dismiss them is not productive.


People 'valueing' something is not an argument at all. People might (and do) value multicultural tolerance, is that an argument in itself? If so, your argument about being 'dismissive' is rendered null and void.
What is to be considered is the question of liberation, something people usually instinctively desire.

As for people valuing 'culture', I hardly doubt any young lad or lass these days cares about some boring old sock called St. George. They care more about MTV and 'The Hills'. I'm not saying this is better or worse, I'm saying this is the nature of 'culture. It changes as social functions and institutions change and as such it is not worthy of defense in the progress towards liberation.



Instead off a rather blunt dismissal, why not focus more on how Capitalism itself is what causes race conflict? Put forward a concept of international solidarity that does not include the diminishing of cultural identity. Are there any left groups that think that way?

As I pointed out above, mainly because 'race' doesn't exist (especially not in the genetical sense) and 'culture' is irrelevant when material conditions are considered. We seek to liberate our class, regardless of social identity (whether ethnic, gender, sex,etc.) from it's current-day prison. We are no apologists for this or that fading culture, simply because it is not what determines our material conditions and our day-to-day existence under Capitalism.

[Veg_Athei_Socialist]

Welcome to Revleft:)!

[Jazzhands]

Welcome to Revleft.

We reject national divisions because in all countries there is an oppressed class and an oppressor class. These classes take different forms, but the relationship is essentially the same. National boundaries are fictional lines between large plots of land drawn by the state. The state is dominated by the owners of capital, who forment national/ethnic/racial hatred amongst the working people to divert their attention from the real oppressor, which is capital. Lenin can sum it up more eloquently than me. Here you can change out Jews for pretty much any racial or national group.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rj7iRwzX-A0

[777]

Frankly Ravachol, I completely disagree with your assessment of the fact of ethnicity. Also, if communists really do not care about ethnicity, then why do they try so hard to contradict it? This is what I do not understand. Ethnicity is an empirical phenomenon. I don't see why acknowledging this fact is a problem.

The reason why I feel ethnicity should be recognized is because it does play an integral part to a persons sense of self. Now this is psychology, pure and simple. Social Identity Theory supports this fact - and it is a fact. If it wasn't so then why would there be such things as cultures and even Nationalism?

Now until a more perfect society is achieved, ethnic identity will play a role in peoples political outlook. While people are forced by Capitalism to compete against each other for resources, they will continue to differentiate between "us and them". The key to ending this discrimination is not the denial of differences, both physical and virtual (from which people can draw positive conclusions), but to acknowledge them.

Now, you must understand that I am not arguing against the international class struggle, but am trying to find its context. For accepting international class solidarity seems to mean that people in this land mass must surrender our resources to people who come here from another land mass. This is hardly a good thing for the working class of this land mass is it? If they get displaced then surely this is going to create conflict? Simply saying "it doesn't matter we are all working class" is no comfort to the jobless.

I suppose what I am trying to understand is how transition stages of communism would work. At first borders would be necessary would they not? Understand that I am not suggesting that they must be built along racial lines! I just wonder how immigration would fit into a society on the verge of communism.

Thanks for bearing with me on this as it gives me a chance to explore different avenues of thought.

[Thirsty Crow]

For accepting international class solidarity seems to mean that people in this land mass must surrender our resources to people who come here from another land mass. This is hardly a good thing for the working class of this land mass is it? If they get displaced then surely this is going to create conflict? Simply saying "it doesn't matter we are all working class" is no comfort to the jobless.

First of all, hello there, and welcome to this forum!
I hope you won't find some common views of the revolutionary left towards nationalists offensive.

As far as your arguments are concerned, I have a few questions:
When you say that proletarian internationalism is of no comfort, what would mean comfort, or better yet - hope and a sense of possibility, then? Communists tend to displace the concept of nation and ethnicity since what is keeping us where we are is far better subsumed under the concept of class.
Secondly, as a proletarian you don't have any resources to surrender to immigrants. A nation is divided along cklass lines and I think that should be evident to you. What follows is that, as someone who is forced to enter into a wage relationship, you don't have anything to surrender, and nor do other proletarians who are ethnic Englishmen.
On the other hand, ethnically English capitalists have a potential superprofit to make if they succeed in drawing in waves of immigrants. Keep in mind that, while you do feel a somewhat strong bond with others from your ethnic group, the same cannot be said in their case, i.e. in the case of national capitalists whose only ideal may very well be the conctinuous accumulation of capital.

Ethnicity is an empirical phenomenon. I don't see why acknowledging this fact is a problem.
Your notin of what is "empirical" is faulty.
I suppose that by "empirical" you mean something like self evident and available to the senses.
But what you miss is that the very content of the term is a social construct. And Ravachol is correct to argue that there is no genetic, i.e. biological basis for understanding ethnicity:

First of all, genetic distribution is continuous, not discrete. Whilst Genes are discrete genetic traits, there distribution is continuous, meaning that there exists no bounded, internally homogenous group that could be classified as 'race' (ie. a 'nation' with a genetic basis). In other words, there is no 'point' where the (for example) 'white race' ends and others begin.

Secondly, whilst genes contribute to some personality traits (proneness to neuroticism, for example), personality is (by current scientific consensus) largely (if not exclusively) the result of nurture, thus rendering the genetics-personality link highly unstable.

Thirdly, personality traits are not distributed according to national borders or the concept of national identity. Personality traits are more or less uniformly distrubed with respect to geography.
There isn't any link between genetics, i.e. biological hereditary elements, and culture (which is, btw., mostly a product of class war, but the one that is waged from top down; in other words, a national culture is always a cultura expression of the ruling class)

Have you read anything about contemporary genetics?

And don't take this as an insult or something alike.

[Sasha]

may i ask you why you chose "777" as your name?
sure that has nothing to do with the AWB's triskel?

anyway, as it seems your not an clear cut fascist anymore, are open about your background and you are willing to learn, welcome for now.
please understand that in the light of your views on etnicity we (the board administration) might deem it nescecary to restrict you toward OI (opposing ideaoligies), you will then still be able to view the rest of the forum but can only post in OI (wich also haves an learning section btw).

if the boardadministration decides so you will be notificated.

[Hit The North]

Frankly Ravachol, I completely disagree with your assessment of the fact of ethnicity. Also, if communists really do not care about ethnicity, then why do they try so hard to contradict it? This is what I do not understand. Ethnicity is an empirical phenomenon. I don't see why acknowledging this fact is a problem.


It's a cultural phenomenon for sure, with empirically observable variables such as language, religion, and other cultural practices but the boundaries between ethnicities cannot be empirically sustained, except through narrative invention. This is because all communal identities are prone to historical change and no single group remains in isolation from others. The tendency in human history is towards an increase in interaction between communities. The myth of a historically static and immutable culture is just that - a myth.


The reason why I feel ethnicity should be recognized is because it does play an integral part to a persons sense of self. Now this is psychology, pure and simple. Social Identity Theory supports this fact - and it is a fact. If it wasn't so then why would there be such things as cultures and even Nationalism?People may draw a sense of identity from certain ethnic traditions, amongst many other claims: social class, gender, religious belief (or not), political allegiances, leisure activities, football team supported, the way they look (tall, short, fat, beautiful, etc.) and so on. It is an arbitrary decision to elevate one aspect of their identities above others. Meanwhile, it is the right-wing which is afraid to recognise the diversity of human cultures and seeks to contain or stifle them. Here on the left, we are unafraid of these differences and therefore we promote the flourishing of diversity.


Now until a more perfect society is achieved, ethnic identity will play a role in peoples political outlook. While people are forced by Capitalism to compete against each other for resources, they will continue to differentiate between "us and them".Yes, this happens as a form of divide and rule and our task is to recognise the impact of capitalism in propelling us into a struggle over crumbs with each other but fight against the conclusion that our liberation from it can be achieved by either participating in that competition or by closing ourselves off from other groups in the working class. Your argument seems to be that you only support solidarity with your own community. Our argument is that only by uniting the working class through solidarity between all workers, can any group of workers be free. Why? Because only the widest base of workers solidarity can overcome the oppression of capitalism.

So our argument is not a moral one, or necessarily a moral judgement on exclusionary communal politics. It is a practical one: the liberation of one can only be achieved on the basis of the liberation of all.


The key to ending this discrimination is not the denial of differences, both physical and virtual (from which people can draw positive conclusions), but to acknowledge them.
Acknowledging them is one thing - and I think it is a caricature of the communist position to say we ignore them - however, the point for us is that ethnic identity is not where our power is as workers. So it is a denial not of the differences themselves, but that these differences will liberate us.


Now, you must understand that I am not arguing against the international class struggle, but am trying to find its context.The context is that capitalism is a global force and that we have no other choice but to seek cooperation and solidarity with workers the world over. This often means defending foreign workers against our own government. As Lenin said, the enemy is at home: It is the capitalist state which seeks to oppress us at home and extend that oppression overseas. We have more in common with workers in Iran (as an instance) than we do with the bankers in the City of London.


For accepting international class solidarity seems to mean that people in this land mass must surrender our resources to people who come here from another land mass. This is hardly a good thing for the working class of this land mass is it? If they get displaced then surely this is going to create conflict? Simply saying "it doesn't matter we are all working class" is no comfort to the jobless.It is a myth that immigration causes unemployment. For instance, in the UK in the 1990s onward where there is an increase in immigration, unemployment fell and remained steady. The increases in the dole queues which we are about to see over the next year or so will be the result of a Tory government pursuing an economic policy which is typically geared to aiding the recovery of capital (especially finance capital) by making millions of ordinary workers pay for the crisis with their jobs. Stopping immigration tomorrow will therefore not eradicate unemployment and so even the staunchest "fortress Britain" policy will be no comfort to the jobless.

As for the issue of "our resources", what do you mean? Even impartial Home Office figures will confirm that the resources of this country are in the hands of a tiny minority of capitalists in terms of ownership of property and accumulation of wealth. Results from the 2005/6 survey highlighted that the bottom 50% poorest households in the UK have less than 5% of the total wealth of the nation at their disposal; whilst the richest 10% of households owned and controlled over 25% of the nations wealth. So the sad fact is that these are not "our" resources; they are the resources of the rich and powerful and we are encouraged to fight over the crumbs.

Emphasising race or ethnic identity over social class solidarity is one way in which these inequalities are perpetuated.

On the other hand, a sober reflection of the real economic divisions in society and an understanding that the class division of society is the main obstacle to a good living for all, is a first step to the abolition of inequality.

[777]

Thanks for all your informative posts. You have helped clear some issues up that I have been thinking about over the past few weeks.

The class issue has always been an important factor in my thinking and has been somewhat suppressed in my mind over the past few years. I guess I find it difficult to relate to foreign workers because of the differences that exist between us. Their way of life seems so alien at times. But it is indeed true that there is one major factor that we all have in common: exploitation. Perhaps in time these barriers will seem less important to me.

@Menocchio, when I say that ethnicity is an empirical phenomenon, I mean that we are able to say "people of gene cluster A tend to show phenotypical trait B". The way genes express themselves is different for each population. The genes determine such things as the amount of certain hormones produced. This is why i believe different populations have different "temprements" which influence the populations culture.

Of course, to reduce the human condition to mere genetic factors (as Nazis do) does ignore the huge influence of socio-economic environmental conditions. The social construct part is also a factor, but not the only one, and relates more to the cultural/virtual manifestation rather than the physical.

Race is real, what you do with that fact is what is the real issue is.

4ZurClqPGLc

(And don't worry, I'm not offended ;) )

@psycho, the name 777 represents the Qliphoth, a Qabbalistic concept. 777 is OVLM HQLIPVTh: The world of shells : עולמהקליפות which is this world of matter. Also the phrase NMLA IVMM : filled with light= 777 (also via Hebrew Gematria). :) Also, I understand the restrictions on this forum and the reasons for them, but I wouldn't go as far as to say that I'm an "OI" (unless you mean the music ;) )

@Bob The Builder, Thanks a lot for your post. I can understand what you are saying and (dare I say it?) even agree with you.

However, one of the things I find uncomfortable with leftist types is their readiness to celebrate any other culture, and the demonizing of my own. The "whites" are always portrayed as the evil guys and any minority is portrayed as "underdog/hero" types. This tends to alienate a lot of white-working-class would be-socialists.

It seems that any attempt to celebrate ethnic English culture is suppressed by anti-fascists. This comes across as terribly one sided.

I imagine that in an Anarchist society, people would be free to indulge in their own cultural groups celebrations without creating conflict, even if that meant an informal discrimination against non-members of that group. With Capitalist exploitation gone, the basis of ethnic conflict would disappear, and such social discrimination wouldn't matter, right? From what I have read, Anarchists tend to reject the multicultural nonsense that has been pushed upon us, instead favoring pluralism. is that right? So groups would be free to pursue whatever ideals they wish, as long as it harms none?

I simply don't want to give up my culture and ethnicity. I feel these contribute to who I am as a person. I don't want to suppress my pride in my people. I don't want to celebrate other cultures over my own. These are things that seem to go along with being a leftist.

I don't want to emphasize race over class-solidarity, but I don't want to diminish my ethnic identity. Are there people on the left who feel this way? I know a lot of Irish Socialists feel this way and still receive general support from the left.

[Thirsty Crow]

It seems that any attempt to celebrate ethnic English culture is suppressed by anti-fascists. This comes across as terribly one sided.

Why would one want to celebrate an ethnic culture which is clearly an expression of a long history of oppression and exploitation of one or more of the groups within the same ethnicity? Maybe because there is no "monoculture", but there are subversive traits of something which could be called ethnic culture?

[Hit The North]

What is English culture, anyway?

And what examples are there of anti-fascists attempting to suppress it?

Btw, the video you link to doesn't provide any evidence of genetic differences between human populations in order to define 'race', but relies on the differences between humans and chimps and makes a non-evidential inference from there. It also seems confused about how to define 'race' as opposed to 'species' or 'ethnicity'. Despite its rejection of the socio-cultural origins of the term 'race' it does not offer a rigorous scientific justification for its use over an above the more modern use of the term 'ethnicity'. The point is that the concept of 'ethnicity' has a greater explanatory value than 'race'. For example, let us take a favourite argument of race analysis: that different races have different innate abilities and that, following from this, some races are more intelligent than others. Then we try to empirically prove this assertion by reference to the educational acheivments of different 'races' within the same education system. What British studies show is that there is an association between ethnic communities and educational achievement, which reads, hierarchically from top to bottom like this:

1. Chinese
2. Indian
3. White British
4. African*
5. Afro-Caribbean*
6. Pakistani
7. Bangladeshi

The problem race analysis has here is to explain the wide disparity in educational achievement between members of the Indian community and those from the Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities. I mean, they're from the same 'racial group' aren't they?

This is a general problem with all forms of biological determinism which seeks to explain social outcomes by reference to perceived biological differences and this is one of the problems with the concept of 'race'. Ethnicity on the other hand, allows us to think about the historical and social and cultural development of different groups across national identities and within those identities, how they are located within specific social relations and how those relations produce entrenched social outcomes.

*I may have the position of these two groups in reverse. I'm working from memory.

[777]

What is English culture, anyway?

And what examples are there of socialists attempting to suppress it?

What is English culture? It is the shared customs and traditions
of the indigenous people of England. It's our history too.

How is it suppressed? Well the Ethnic identity of the English is suppressed. References to the indigenous population are seen as racist as opposed to a simple fact.

As much as I dislike Nick Griffin, he illustrated this point quite well on Question Time. Nobody would dream of telling Native Americans or Australian Aboriginals that they are not indigenous.

Why would I want to celebrate it? Well because it is what makes us unique. In the same way that I am proud of my parents, I am proud of the cultural achievements of my ancestors. Plus, it's quite good fun.

[Hit The North]

What is English culture? It is the shared customs and traditions of the indigenous people of England. It's our history too.


Which shared customs?

So far I've not seen anti-fascists intervene to suppress morris dancing or picket fish and chip shops! Is that what you mean? You need to be more specific about what you think these shared customs are.


How is it suppressed? Well the Ethnic identity of the English is suppressed. References to the indigenous population are seen as racist as opposed to a simple fact. Apart from the obvious problems of defining who is indigenous in the British Isles (Celtic? Roman? Jute? Norse? Saxon? Norman?), where is your example of this?


As much as I dislike Nick Griffin, he illustrated this point quite well on Question Time. Nobody would dream of telling Native Americans or Australian Aboriginals that they are not indigenous.
But no one in their right minds would use this in order to force the non-indigenous population of America or Australia to subject themselves to second class status or be expatriated back to their "country of origin". either. Or would you? If I could prove that your ancestors came over here in 1066 in order to destroy the indigenous political elite of Saxon England and steal its land, would you be prepared to kindly bugger off back to France (only for the French to deport you back to Norway which is where the Normans originally came from)?


Why would I want to celebrate it? Well because it is what makes us unique. In the same way that I am proud of my parents, I am proud of the cultural achievements of my ancestors. Plus, it's quite good fun.Fine. Break out the bells and the birch-sticks and I'll dance with thee.

http://wa3.images.onesite.com/blogs.telegraph.co.uk/user/emma_hartley/emmaid.jpg?v=80000

Although be warned, there is a possibility that Morris dancing originated in the Moorish culture of Muslim North Africa:

http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/customs/questions/mayday/morrisdancing.html

:lol:

[Jazzhands]

How is it suppressed? Well the Ethnic identity of the English is suppressed. References to the indigenous population are seen as racist as opposed to a simple fact.

suppressed? compared with what, Ireland? Or Scotland? or any other nation occupied by imperialists? you don't get to complain about suppression of ethnic identity when all the African nations the British enslaved are still struggling with the consequences of slavery and British imperialism. Or when the Native Americans are still struggling to recover from the forced resettlements and genocide by European colonists. Once you have been sold into slavery or can only make a living being shot by John Wayne over and over, then we'll talk.

[777]

Fine. Break out the bells and the birch-sticks and I'll dance with thee.


Haha :laugh: , fair enough.

Well you are quite right. There is little attempt to disrupt events unless they are actually organized by fascists (wow, feels weird to use that term.lol).

I used to be under the impression that the government (which I now know is not truely left-wing) would fund schemes specifically for minority groups and force multiculturalist doctrines on people.

What do I define as indigenous British? Well, the Naturally occuring peoples of these isles. People who came from Celtic and Germanic stock. People are quick to point out that these isles had many waves of immigration, but fail to note that these waves happened slowly and over many years. Also, the people who came shared cultural and genetic traits.


But no one in their right minds would use this in order to force the non-indigenous population of America or Australia to subject themselves to second class status or be expatriated back to their "country of origin". either.

That is not what I am suggesting. I am just saying that ethnic English are not allowed to be labelled as such.


If I could prove that your ancestors came over here in 1066 in order to destroy the indigenous political elite of Saxon England and steal its land, would you be prepared to kindly bugger off back to France

No, for the reasons I stated above. People want to deport immigrants because they come here in huge numbers and share little cultural similarities.

But all that is really just semantics.

Oh, and btw...I wouldn't class myself as English!

[777]

suppressed? compared with what, Ireland? Or Scotland? or any other nation occupied by imperialists? you don't get to complain about suppression of ethnic identity when all the African nations the British enslaved are still struggling with the consequences of slavery and British imperialism. Or when the Native Americans are still struggling to recover from the forced resettlements and genocide by European colonists. Once you have been sold into slavery or can only make a living being shot by John Wayne over and over, then we'll talk.

Er yes I do! Don't be stupid. Surely it was the bourgeoise who did that and not an ethnicity? Betraying your own class-consciousness there matey!

And FYI, I'm Scottish from Irish Catholic migrants so don't moan to me about that!

[Jazzhands]

Er yes I do! Don't be stupid. Surely it was the bourgeoise who did that and not an ethnicity? Betraying your own class-consciousness there matey!

yeah, but what I'm saying is that because of bourgeois imperialism, the ethnicity of those particular bourgeoisie got off easy.


And FYI, I'm Scottish from Irish Catholic migrants so don't moan to me about that!

:thumbup1:Almost the same thing, but in reverse. American from Irish Catholic migrants from Scotland.

[Hit The North]

And FYI, I'm Scottish from Irish Catholic migrants so don't moan to me about that!

Now I'm confused. You're Scottish from Irish Catholic migrants, now living in England... So what ethnic identity are you celebrating?

I reckon the sooner you accept your human mongrelness, the happier you'll be. It's all about getting your mind out of the ghetto and joining the human race, mate.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Socialism is the self emancipation of the working class. Its people democratically taking control of society from the blind forces of capital.

Its a basic assumption that people share common interests in connection with their position in the material reproduction of society.Races and ethnicity are distractions from this. Ethnicities are social constructs. Former Yugoslavia is a good example. Most of the peoples in this part of the world share the same language and essentially are the same "people". Because of accidents of history and collisions between rival empires there ended up two alphabets and three religions.Ethnic nationalism can be reactionary.

Its true that identity politics if it is used to replace class solidarity can be used to support a reactionary agenda. This would partially explain the trajectory of New Labour.

I'm in the US. As far as I understand the culture of the north of England was largely formed from class struggle. Underneath that is a Celtic substrate. In the States Celtic culture is certainly celebrated. Its difficult to say what English culture is. The English, being subjected to early capitalism or pre-capitalism longer than the Celtic "periphery", lost much of the ancient communal traditions.Much of English folk culture is probably of Celtic derivation as well.

My understanding is that archeologists don't differentiate between "Germanic" and "Celtic" peoples in Europe. There was always a huge mixture.Also much Celtic lore was largely made up in the 18th century.

Its a popular myth among the far right that leftists, in their weakened modern version as liberals, have failed to take power though the working class and class struggle. Therefore they've resorted to "Frankfurt School Cultural Marxism" to enforce their agenda. This is the idea that the "left" now uses culture to subvert a civilization they couldn't destroy like their heroes Lenin or Stalin. Cultural Marxism either works to destroy people's Christian faith, their sense of national pride, or with NS types, their pride in being white people.It helps that the Frankfurt School thinkers were largely Jewish.

This might be a caricatured version of this idea but I've come across it in a lot of far right literature. Its ironically the flip side of post-modernist identity politics.It makes no sense at all and is reactionary but I do understand many people can be confused by this.

Anyway communities exist but race and ethnicity are social constructs. Class is not. Its lived reality.