The Natural Instinct to stick to your own kind.

[#FF0000]

I'd just like to point out that your avatar is a state symbol.

Nah its a subversion of one, to be fair.

To be fairer, I dunno if one can say the Hammer and Sickle is just a state symbol, since it's been used by political groups all over the place that don't necessarily uphold the USSR.

[Remus Bleys]

Althusser strangled his wife. I'm no humanist but Althusser is seriously one of the most moronic, idiotic fools to ever exist who didn't understand marx one bit. Not to mention being a stalinist (not even that, but a revisionist stalinist!) but also popularized maoism
Yeah no bias for distorting marx there.... There is no break with marx, there is only development. The Marx who wrote Grundisse, German Ideology, the Manifesto, is the same as the man who wrote Capital or Critique of the Philosophy of the Right.
In sum: fuck althusser. Why anyone thinks the revisionist of a revisionist is a serious authority is beyond me.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Yeah, but there were other forms of ethnic collectivism. In ancient Greece, people identified with their city-state ethnicity.

What on Earth is a "city-state ethnicity"? The Greek poleis tended to be populated by several ethno-geographic groups; for example, the Dorians, Arcadians and Achaeans inhabited Lacedaemon. Privileged economic groups - mothakes and Sciritae as well as the Spartiates - identified with the state regardless of their ethnic origin (the Sciritae were Arcadians, most of the mothakes had Achaean mothers).

On the other hand, very rarely is solidarity within the same ethnic group invoked or demonstrated; Megarans did not feel any special attachment to the Spartiates for example.

Even then, they still considered the Greek race to be better than all other peoples, whom they called barbarian.

Athenians did. Spartiates considered all non-Dorians and most Dorians beneath them. Macedonians actively fought against the distinction due to their own heritage.

I don't think anyone would dispute that, but it still doesn't prove that multiculturalism works. Look at all of the historical instances of racists of difference races working together to fight off a common enemy, only to revert back to their own racially pure societies when the threat is gone.
Actually, the Greeks can be used as an example here too. As can the Germans when they fought off Rome.

As if Germanic society was "pure". Or the Roman one, for that matter - you do realise many Germanic tribes reached the territory of the Roman empire as settlers, right? That later eastern Roman emperors would invite Germanic tribes to settle in their allegedly pure territories?

Eventually nationalism hit Europe, and people's perceptions of identity changed, but it was a pretty organic process, and didn't expand beyond language-based cultures.

If this were the case, Italy would be something like five or six nations instead of one nation based on a particular regional dialect gaining official status.

Also... Stalin? Really? Please tell me he's not like a mascot on this forum. I can sympathize with Communists, but not mass murders.

The irony of someone who opposes immigration saying something like this is staggering.

[BlackFlag]

Nations? Hahaha.
There are one human species worldwide.
"Nations" are bullshit created, maintained and dictated by STATES.
Why would regional culture not be preserved after communism and after the world is one?
What a load of bullshit.
I still cannot comprehend what must be going on in someone's head to write something such as the original post of this thread.
BlackFlag, stop reading Stormfront.
Or have fun being capital's stooge.

One human species, maybe. But just one type of human? Not a chance. Every race is different and act differently according to their genetic differences, just like every other single animal known to mother nature. Humans are part of the Natural Laws of the universe.

[QUOTE=BolshevikBabe;2759153 don't justify this abhorrent shit that even a passing knowledge of biology or sociology would quickly debunk.[/QUOTE]

Biology, what do you know about biology? If you had any clue about biology, you'd know all about the FACT that races are NOT the same, they are NOT a social construct, there's a huge genetic variations between races.

So called 'intellectuals' will argue that it's "tiny, like 0.5% genetic variation between whites and blacks", but that's HUGE. There's like 1.5% between Humans and Chimps.

Sociology? You mean the typical black Marxist dominated arguments taught in liberal college campuses across the US? 'Socio-economic' factors is the typical rhetoric shouted at us by the Marxist society. Seriously, how can you not see that society is acting increasingly liberal?

Take your 'socio-economic factors' and have a real look at the importance of genetics. Take two twins seperated at birth who lived thousands of miles away, in different families, everything different. The two twins were later found and had EXTREMELY similar mannerisms and IQ. I forget the details on this 'experiment' (obviously wasn't done intentionally).

Look at old civilizations, they worked great as one nation, one ETHNICITY. Then the immigration flowed in, and things went downhill FAST. Rome, Greek, Egypt, India, we could go on all day about these factors.

Also, was the meme really necessary? What a way to show yourself as serious communists and not college campus kids with long hair and too much weed.

[Rafiq]

Remus your ignorance is appalling, you really haven't the slightest fucking idea of what you're talking about. If your opposition to humanism is not concurrent with Althusser's, you are a reactionary. This kind of anti-humanism can only translate into one thing: Pre-humanism.

I just cannot even articulate how anyone could believe Althusser was "one of the most moronic, idiotic fools to ever exist" (At least he probably wasn't fucking redundant with his baseless slurs) even those who might disagree with him would never dare hold such reservations. Althusser was not particularly concerned with politics outside philosophy, he may have identified with maoism, but this is most likely due to the background from which he was derived, i.e. New Left France. Actually being a Maoist post 68, despite the fact that Maoism is garbage, can say a lot about you. It's really so silly how you attribute characterizations, and groupings exclusive to this website to others, as if Althusser made his internet tendency "Maoist". It's like some stupid game to you.

Part of development means breaking, part of Christianity developing meant breaking with the Church, part of bourgeois ideology developing meant breaking with religion, part of Marx's development meant breaking with Hegel's idealism, as well as breaking with humanism (though this is an argument for another thread, about whether he broke with humanism). The point is that breaks and developments - there is a false dichotomy you're trying to spew, and that, Remus, that's fucking beyond stupid. I mean it's so ridiculous, you're literally just fucking declaring things. Who the fuck are you, Remus, I mean can't I just say "Marx who was a young Hegelian was the same as the man who wrote Capital", wouldn't that be just as insightful as the shit you're trying to say?

Althusser is by far the greatest proponent of Marx in this post 68 era. It is with Althusser's help that we bring Marxism into today's world, he championed it's legacy. And he's taken for granted, a great many of the reservations held by Marxists today, whether they know it or not were greatly influenced by Althusser and his analysis of the state and ideology, among many other things. Althusser has done more for our legacy than you ever will.

So really, fuck you, Remus. Maybe you'll grow out of this phrase, but honestly, this "edgy bordigist" facade doesn't suite you, it's childish and beyond irritating. It's so ironic that a so-called Bordigist would abandon any sort of Marxist discipline and uprightness, you're literally just spewing nonsense, as though your 'aggressive' tone supplements such utter and complete bullshit.

[Rafiq]

Without Althusser, we are lost, there is really not way we could understand the nature of the existing order today without Althusser, or at least the theories he brought forth.

Correction: Hold on, where the fuck did you get that Althusser was a Maoist? Nothing in his writings is remotely close to Maoism, nothing is remotely influenced by Mao's writings, or the writings of other Maoists. If we understand this, we can only come to the conclusion that Althusser must have identified as one, in order to call him one. So did he? He did not.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Look at old civilizations, they worked great as one nation, one ETHNICITY. Then the immigration flowed in, and things went downhill FAST. Rome, Greek, Egypt, India, we could go on all day about these factors.

Well, you could go on all day, because you're making it all up. Hint: the Roman state was never inhabited by a single ethnicity, neither were Greek territories, Egypt had a number of highly important Libyan, Nubian, Hyksos etc. functionaries and rulers, in addition to an important immigrant population, and of course saying "India" is like saying "Europe", it's an entire bloody subcontinent.

[BlackFlag]

To the people talking about Biology and Sociology, and how race is truly just a social construct or whatever.

If you give me some serious sources, unbiased with decent evidence for what you're pushing, that races really aren't that different, and some good sociological studies I promise I will go over them. Remember I came here because my mind is STILL open, if your evidence is decent, I will do more research than I have on what you're pushing.

If I find it to be true, I'll gladly change my thinking.

[BlackFlag]

Well, you could go on all day, because you're making it all up. Hint: the Roman state was never inhabited by a single ethnicity, neither were Greek territories, Egypt had a number of highly important Libyan, Nubian, Hyksos etc. functionaries and rulers, in addition to an important immigrant population, and of course saying "India" is like saying "Europe", it's an entire bloody subcontinent.

Ethnicity was a nice way of saying as the people got blacker.

[Five Year Plan]

Remus your ignorance is appalling, you really haven't the slightest fucking idea of what you're talking about. If your opposition to humanism is not concurrent with Althusser's, you are a reactionary. This kind of anti-humanism can only translate into one thing: Pre-humanism.

Since Althusser was a staunch opponent of humanism, and an avowed structuralist, I am not sure how Remus condemning him for that very reason amounts to "anti-humanism."

I just cannot even articulate how anyone could believe Althusser was "one of the most moronic, idiotic fools to ever exist" (At least he probably wasn't fucking redundant with his baseless slurs) even those who might disagree with him would never dare hold such reservations. Althusser was not particularly concerned with politics outside philosophy, he may have identified with maoism, but this is most likely due to the background from which he was derived, i.e. New Left France. Actually being a Maoist post 68, despite the fact that Maoism is garbage, can say a lot about you. It's really so silly how you attribute characterizations, and groupings exclusive to this website to others, as if Althusser made his internet tendency "Maoist". It's like some stupid game to you.

Life is about transcending backgrounds. Admittedly Remus has a penchant for rhetorical flourishes of a particular kind, but his point still stands: Althusser had awful politics, and those politics coincided with an awful philosophy.

Part of development means breaking, part of Christianity developing meant breaking with the Church, part of bourgeois ideology developing meant breaking with religion, part of Marx's development meant breaking with Hegel's idealism, as well as breaking with humanism (though this is an argument for another thread, about whether he broke with humanism). The point is that breaks and developments - there is a false dichotomy you're trying to spew, and that, Remus, that's fucking beyond stupid. I mean it's so ridiculous, you're literally just fucking declaring things. Who the fuck are you, Remus, I mean can't I just say "Marx who was a young Hegelian was the same as the man who wrote Capital", wouldn't that be just as insightful as the shit you're trying to say?

This is hard to follow. Development of Christianity means breaking with which church? If you are referring to the Reformation, I think that was primarily the result of developments outside of the church, so I still don't get what you're saying here. If Marx's development meant breaking with Hegel, perhaps you should follow suit and stop with Hegelian formulations about things internally developing in isolation from an external reality to the point where they "break."

Althusser is by far the greatest proponent of Marx in this post 68 era. It is with Althusser's help that we bring Marxism into today's world, he championed it's legacy. And he's taken for granted, a great many of the reservations held by Marxists today, whether they know it or not were greatly influenced by Althusser and his analysis of the state and ideology, among many other things. Althusser has done more for our legacy than you ever will.

So really, fuck you, Remus. Maybe you'll grow out of this phrase, but honestly, this "edgy bordigist" facade doesn't suite you, it's childish and beyond irritating. It's so ironic that a so-called Bordigist would abandon any sort of Marxist discipline and uprightness, you're literally just spewing nonsense, as though your 'aggressive' tone supplements such utter and complete bullshit.

I don't think claiming people's political convictions are the result of an immature "phase" is a good way of carrying on a discussion. I also don't see how you can fault Remus for his language when you join him in employing much of that same language.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Ethnicity was a nice way of saying as the people got blacker.

You won't be here for long, poor soul.

Oh, black people. That would include the Nubians - the Nubian pharaohs of the 25th dynasty being considered among of the most successful rulers of the Egyptian polity. One could say the same for the Severan dynasty, founded by a half-Libyan from Africa.

[#FF0000]

One human species, maybe. But just one type of human? Not a chance. Every race is different and act differently according to their genetic differences, just like every other single animal known to mother nature. Humans are part of the Natural Laws of the universe.

What you're saying is antiquated biology relegated to the dustbin of history. "Race" does not exist as a biological category for human beings. It is entirely a social construct.

[BlackFlag]

Race doesn't exist? Then how come Racism is a word? Why am I black, why are they white? Is it just sun tan, by your unsupported logic? It's nothing to do with evolution, and the movement of people from Africa to Europe.

Why do white people have longer noses? Is it just chance that it suits the colder air of Europe? Actually throw a real argument at me, Race does exist just as different breeds of dogs and other animals exist, we are NOT special. We are part of mother nature, we obey the same laws of nature as every other living species on this planet.

[Five Year Plan]

Race doesn't exist? Then how come Racism is a word? Why am I black, why are they white? Is it just sun tan, by your unsupported logic? It's nothing to do with evolution, and the movement of people from Africa to Europe.

Race and racism are both words. Only one refers to something with an actual existence that can be measured. Guess which one.

Nobody is saying skin colors aren't real. But skin colors do not amount to discrete races.

Why do white people have longer noses?

Because they tell more lies?

[Hrafn]

Why isn't BF banned yet? His racialist, anti-immigration, etc. stances should quite clearly not be welcome here.

[#FF0000]

Race doesn't exist? Then how come Racism is a word? Why am I black, why are they white? Is it just sun tan, by your unsupported logic? It's nothing to do with evolution, and the movement of people from Africa to Europe.

You realize that phenotypical differences between human beings doesn't mean that they are different subspecies, right? You realize dog breeds are a result of thousands of years of selective breeding, as well as total isolation of different dogs from each other?

And where did race come from? It started as a way of categorizing people around the age of colonialism. Before then, it was used interchangeably with "species". The concept of "white" and "black" races came about only in the past four centuries, at most.

You're asking me, here, to teach you basic biology, as well as sociology and history. I think that this might be a good place for you to start. "Race" as a strict biological category has been dismissed by biology for years. It is only used as a rough shorthand for populations with similar "fuzzy sets" of physical traits -- which falls apart as soon as two scientists with different ideas of what constitutes "asian" try to speak to one another.

[Remus Bleys]

Remus your ignorance is appalling, you really haven't the slightest fucking idea of what you're talking about. If your opposition to humanism is not concurrent with Althusser's, you are a reactionary. This kind of anti-humanism can only translate into one thing: Pre-humanism.

I just cannot even articulate how anyone could believe Althusser was "one of the most moronic, idiotic fools to ever exist" (At least he probably wasn't fucking redundant with his baseless slurs) even those who might disagree with him would never dare hold such reservations. Althusser was not particularly concerned with politics outside philosophy, he may have identified with maoism, but this is most likely due to the background from which he was derived, i.e. New Left France. Actually being a Maoist post 68, despite the fact that Maoism is garbage, can say a lot about you. It's really so silly how you attribute characterizations, and groupings exclusive to this website to others, as if Althusser made his internet tendency "Maoist". It's like some stupid game to you.

Part of development means breaking, part of Christianity developing meant breaking with the Church, part of bourgeois ideology developing meant breaking with religion, part of Marx's development meant breaking with Hegel's idealism, as well as breaking with humanism (though this is an argument for another thread, about whether he broke with humanism). The point is that breaks and developments - there is a false dichotomy you're trying to spew, and that, Remus, that's fucking beyond stupid. I mean it's so ridiculous, you're literally just fucking declaring things. Who the fuck are you, Remus, I mean can't I just say "Marx who was a young Hegelian was the same as the man who wrote Capital", wouldn't that be just as insightful as the shit you're trying to say?

Althusser is by far the greatest proponent of Marx in this post 68 era. It is with Althusser's help that we bring Marxism into today's world, he championed it's legacy. And he's taken for granted, a great many of the reservations held by Marxists today, whether they know it or not were greatly influenced by Althusser and his analysis of the state and ideology, among many other things. Althusser has done more for our legacy than you ever will.

So really, fuck you, Remus. Maybe you'll grow out of this phrase, but honestly, this "edgy bordigist" facade doesn't suite you, it's childish and beyond irritating. It's so ironic that a so-called Bordigist would abandon any sort of Marxist discipline and uprightness, you're literally just spewing nonsense, as though your 'aggressive' tone supplements such utter and complete bullshit.

Oh this is fucking rich coming from some DNZ-ist. I mean weren't you the same guy calling the ICC petite-bourgeois because of... a polemic against the Russian Lefts. I mean you want to talk about acting like assertion of nonsensical claptrap in an aggressive manner gives you some credibility, then read your own post. There is literally nothing of value in it, just a banal assertion of Althusser being somehow theoretically coherent. Who the fuck cares if Althusser remained a maoist post 68? Camatte remained a Communist post 68 and he went fucking insane. A better example yet, remaining a Kruschevite in the face of Yeltsin, who cares?
Rafiq you want to talk about teenage edginess... Let's talk about this nonsense you spew about updating Marx, about some snobby know it all approach that through the shit of renegade Kautsky and that farce Althusser you have found the right answer.
PROtip Rafiq I don't give a damn about enriching the "legacy," and I don't give a damn about you. You want to act like I'm the one talking this as some Internet tendency... Well you're in the SPUSA. It's laughable that you Chavismo supporting, Third World Caesarist, DNZist (LIGHT OF THE WORLD), SPUSAer (ITS JUST FOR DEBATE! IT'S JUST FOR DEBATE! Who cares, what debate are you going to get out of that?) pretend to pass as an authority.
Its with Althusser's help... Jesus Christ, do we need gramsci too? For fuck's sale rafiq, at least get your ideology coherent. And I'm not even going to deal with this nonsensical "opposition to humanism and Althusser is pre humanism" as if Althusser defined one of the more complex things to be found in Marx... But you would rather brush off the "young marx" like bernstein before you. And yes Rafiq you do stink of opportunism. You act as if all that is needed is an ideological victory is all that is necessary: Well then read your Young Marx, you fool! "The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism of the weapon, material force must be overthrown by material force; but theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses."
you certainly understand the necessity of theory, but of praxis? Heavens no. Your support of chavismo is proof enough against this.
Rafiq, oh how ye have fallen! Or were you ever on high? I think, unfortunately, no. You have this inability to separate politics from philosophy, Althusser himself revised the dialectic... Because Stalin said! How is that doing what you desire, i.e. abandoning the old movement? But, no, you place this stalinist Above that, making him out to be some sort of God amongst men, this hack becomes a mere Bernstein, revising Marx and making breaks where there are none.
What is more Bernstein about you? That you support this insane Third World Caesarism (as if some Bourgeois state will lead to socialism!), that you focus merely on the ideological, that you falsely separate narx into a mere young and old, or that you are into the SPUSA?
In short: fuck you, you wretched parody of Second International Opportunism!
That you do not see the codependant relationship of philosophy from politics is sophmoric at best.
Edit: I see the reactionaries (the stalinist, the nationalist, and the jucheist/MRNer) agree with rafiq. No surprise there. You suck when you aren't talking about violence.

[Thirsty Crow]

I've changed since I first joined this forum, now let me ask a question.

The Communist and Marxist Socialist ideas seem to ignore the fact that humans are naturally ethnocentric and bind together, that's how nations came to be. It's natural for people to wish to stick to their own culture, what's the communist opinion on 'culture' anyway? Do people even have a culture in an 'ideal communist society'?

Patriotism and a love for your own kind is just natural. Look at the past - tribes, nations, all of that. Hell, even violent street gangs tend to be Asian, or Black, White, whatever. The tribal instinct still exists.

Now, I'm not a White Nationalist. If anything, I'm a Nationalist, but not a Fascist. I support some Socialist policies as Classism DOES exist.

What are opinions on this natural instinct? And do people need to rid themselves of their culture in a communist society, and become drones?

The natural instinct you talk of is bogus.

At best you could ground a sort of an immediate kinship bond in certain evolutionary processes - which leaves out any of the compatriots not comprising the immediate family. So much for nation being a result of "natural" instincts.

In other words, this is completely bogus, and a cop-out - all that is necessary is some guy to proclaim it's all natural y'all. Well, no shit Sherlock, everything people do is natural - as opposed to supernatural in origin, at least for people who're not believers in supernatural forces.

[#FF0000]

"Prove to me race doesn't exist. Yes I am scientifically illiterate, why do you ask?"

[BolshevikBabe]

To the people talking about Biology and Sociology, and how race is truly just a social construct or whatever.

If you give me some serious sources, unbiased with decent evidence for what you're pushing, that races really aren't that different, and some good sociological studies I promise I will go over them. Remember I came here because my mind is STILL open, if your evidence is decent, I will do more research than I have on what you're pushing.

If I find it to be true, I'll gladly change my thinking.

There's no such thing as an unbiased source.