DoubleThink!

Pissed off rantings from a middle class adolescent.

Thursday, August 03, 2006

Socialist Actions' Racism

I am a Marxist. In recent days/weeks, I've been overviewing my beliefs and realized that I do support anarchism, but I would consider myself Marxist (due to petty ideological differences). This being so, I have tried hard to read and learn as much as I can about the principles, the working, and the Revolution. Most things that I have come across have fit my perceptions (the dictatorship of the proletariat still makes me iffy) however, when I ran across Socialist Actions' (Youth Socialist Action as well) website, I found myself critical of their racial policies.

Of course, a site called
Youth Socialist Action immediately drew me in. After all, I am a.) a youth and b.) a socialist. I had been told it was credible and a good site for education, so I hit it up. I scanned the first few articles I could find and found them very informative and well written. However, when I reached one titled "When America Goes Socialist," I was bothered by what I read. The first few paragraphs were well thought out and agreeable, however when it came to their views on racism and racial workings after the Revolution, I was in a disagreement with them.

"In the immediate aftermath of the conquest of power, while the material basis for racism will have been smashed, and while we can safely assume that the heroic role played in the revolution by Afro-Americans and other third world peoples will have deeply shaken the racist ideas of many whites, some backward attitudes will persist for a brief time. During this period, we can expect forthright, decisive action by the revolutionary government to prevent the manifestation of race prejudice in any overt act of discrimination, as well as to rapidly remove existing inequalities in education, employment, housing and medical care. Many of the revolutionary leaders in the new government will be third world people. This will also be the time when Blacks, Chicanos, and other minorities will be able to decide whether they want to partition the socialist republic into separate states or join with whites in a singe, multinational revolutionary state. Whatever the decision each group makes, bonds of solidarity will displace mutual antagonisms as all sections advance toward communism and new generations are born into rationally and democratically planned economy of abundance." - YSA

What if myself and the other white Revolutionaries want a seperate state? That would be racist I assume, and I agree; it would be. This would mean though, that creating a seperate Black/Chicano state could be considered racism. Isn't a state that is run by and for one race a racist state? Remember the Arayan Nation? Nazi Germany? Whites are not the only group capable of that (just the most likely).

As a socialist and a human being, I support internationalism, not seperatism.

7 Comments:

At 12:27 PM, Blogger k. edward warmoth said...

Yes, there's small, small army of us in Indiana. Haha.

I know they were victims, however, the Christians were victims of persecution by the Romans, but you and I are both opposed to a Christian state, am I right?

 
At 6:27 AM, Blogger James Nease said...

Iceland, Japan, and North Korea I believe has a demographic of "one race" would they be considered a racist state? I believe what the article was expressing is a choice in assimilation policy.

Seperate but equal is one way to go about it, intergration the other. Basically they are giving both options to not offend anyone, also known as "fence-riding" which would lead to unstability later on.

 
At 7:28 PM, Blogger James Nease said...

National Socialism would, it's still socialist in terms of policy and economics but only applies to one state and it's inhabitants.

 
At 10:43 PM, Blogger k. edward warmoth said...

Right, but Marx clearly says "The worker's have no country..."

 
At 3:46 AM, Blogger James Nease said...

"worker's have no country" can be taken broadly, for example:

Does it mean they have "NO country" as they exist everywhere and cannot be defined as this?

Does "NO country" mean they have no significant power to change the policy hence they don't really belong?

Does it mean that they do not want a state to control them?

Really these things are infinite because it's quite vague, much like the bible I have to take it with a grain of salt.

 
At 11:20 PM, Blogger k. edward warmoth said...

Well the modern and major socialist perception is that it means that we are all one.

 
At 10:06 PM, Blogger James Nease said...

Eh, but they are offering a libertarian principle freedom of choice. I really don't think it's racist to divide people, because I'm not singling out any one race, I'm more of a seperatist, I keep things or people in this instance apart for god knows what reason.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home