The Anne Applebaum quote seems to suggest that they believe “authoritarianism” to be some sort of primitive instinct. She probably relates it to genetics too because bourgeois scientists are now looking inside people’s brains to understand “authoritarianism.” It’s essentially phrenology applied to the brain.

Considering how nazified the world is getting it won’t be long before we’re being rounded up and herded to our deaths.

Yep. That’s exactly what the ruling class is planning to do, and with the help of the high salaried workers too. It’s so frustrating to hear communists say that the high salaried workers are proletarians and therefore part of our movement. Reddit is filled with skilled workers who are “middle/upper class” and what these people detest above all else are the people who need social assistance. They view us as “life unworthy of life.”

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

I often think back about this book by William Blum, the one aptly titled Killing Hope. The book itself is, of course, excellent but it’s the title that captures my mind again and again. The US is effectively killing not just people but the very notion of hope.

Where did i act like that? With that guy? https://lemmygrad.ml/post/13059680/8847137 He was extremely rude.

In my libbed up lib days,

They implied i was a lib. That is not good faith.

I know marxism more than you. Did you read anti-duhring or materialism and empirio-criticism? Did you read Lenin’s philosophical notebooks? No? Surprising…

No you were being extremely condescending. I replied in kind.

Actually, now that I think about it, the fancy suits these people wear are an accurate manifestation of whiteness.

I remembered an old comment from long ago on lemmygrad. It joked about how Obama was whiter than Italians. That’s all.

oh, yeah I am a long time lurker. Replying here because i don’t want to spam and get in trouble for that.

But you do agree black people as a whole are an oppressed minority in the US surely?

Yes. That’s self evident. I didn’t bother reading the rest of your comment…

Also fed posting like in the last line will get you banned here. Actually, now that I think about it: New account, no other posts, trying to stir up trouble, fed posting… Makes me wonder

Wonder no more… i deleted that part. Also, you’re from hexbear not lemmygrad.

OTOH, black people have long been a minority in the US and are oppressed as one.

Obama is black and he is certainly not oppressed. When I speak of the aristocracy of wealth it includes people like him. Actually, now that I think about it, the fancy suits these people wear are an accurate manifestation of whiteness. Perhaps even some sort of measurement? 🤔

I also know that the Irish were not considered to be “white” at the offset and developed into being considered white over time, in part through betrayal of other non-white people from what I remember, such as through joining the police force.

Reading Gerald Horne taught me that it was religion, first, that separated peoples, and that because slavery needed to be solidified and secured in the American colonies, race then became primary. The Irish and their catholicism no longer mattered in the british colonies/USA as long as their white skin solidified slavery.

As for the rest of your comment, I might give you answers later.

“Target” as in “the lowest common denominator,” or the low-hanging fruit. I am not saying white men are the most oppressed; if anything, it’s the opposite… But it is only in appearance that “the lowest common denominator” happens. You should question why most people say “whiteness” rather than whiteness without quotes. What is whiteness? For me it’s the result of the aristocracy of wealth.

There is a term for when a communist flattens the society and makes class the only differentiator. I can’t recall it but it creates tendencies by which minorities like women etc. can be excluded. Identity politics helps against this.

My point is to go beyond that by universalizing human beings. I don’t believe class is the only differentiator. My argument is that identity politics must do exactly that: universalize human beings. I suggest going beyond class through class struggle. I firmly believe in the inexorable unity of the human race. I am replying to you only because some users here seem to accuse me of rejecting the struggles of vulnerable groups, which I do not.

Women aren’t even a minority. They make up half the world…

https://redsails.org/what-is-dialectics/

Read this and maybe you’ll learn something

pretending artificial racial hierarchy or gender hierarchy doesn’t exist.

I don’t dispute this. They both exist. Why does this racial hierarchy exist, according to you? For me, it exists to solidify capitalism and was likewise created by it. Do you consider capitalism to be a social construct? I consider it to be a result of historical materialism. The white race is the result of the aristocracy of wealth. Wealth created the aristocracy of the white race. The racial hierarchy is a hierarchy of money, wealth, and/or capital. The bourgeoisie and the aristocracy are two different things, mind you. The former has mobile capital as its origin; the latter has nobility and immovable wealth, e.g., land. Failing to understand this you cannot even understand the political struggles of the 19th century.

Well, it depends, I guess. A lot of people nowadays will say that race is a social construct but ethnicity isn’t. My opinion is that it’s an arbitrary divide.