HenryKrinkle posted:

if the only time you are going to bring up labor aristocracy is in relation to black people in the US voting for hillary or immigrants in the UK not wanting to be harassed or deported, perhaps you should at the very least apply it to the first world "white working class" as well.

damb, quoting our own post histories back at us... a cutthroat move

blinkandwheeze posted:

this kind of thinking would be ridiculed in every other instance but brexit is making people insane for some reason.

is this what the US looks like from the outside whenever an election year rolls around?

The bourgeoisie, which naturally assumes the leadership at the start of every national movement, says that support for all national aspirations is practical. However, the proletariat’s policy in the national question (as in all others) supports the bourgeoisie only in a certain direction, but it never coincides with the bourgeoisie’s policy. The working class supports the bourgeoisie only in order to secure national peace (which the bourgeoisie cannot bring about completely and which can be achieved only with complete democracy), in order to secure equal rights and to create the best conditions for the class struggle. Therefore, it is in opposition to the practicality of the bourgeoisie that the proletarians advance their principles in the national question; they always give the bourgeoisie only conditional support. What every bourgeoisie is out for in the national question is either privileges for its own nation, or exceptional advantages for it; this is called being “practical”. The proletariat is opposed to all privileges, to all exclusiveness. To demand that it should be “practical” means following the lead of the bourgeoisie, falling into opportunism.

The demand for a “yes” or “no” reply to the question of secession in the case of every nation may seem a very “practical” one. In reality it is absurd; it is metaphysical in theory, while in practice it leads to subordinating the proletariat to the bourgeoisie’s policy. The bourgeoisie always places its national demands in the forefront, and does so in categorical fashion. With the proletariat, however, these demands are subordinated to the interests of the class struggle. Theoretically, you cannot say in advance whether the bourgeois-democratic revolution will end in a given nation seceding from another nation, or in its equality with the latter; in either case, the important thing for the proletariat is to ensure the development of its class. For the bourgeoisie it is important to hamper this development by pushing the aims of its “own” nation before those of the proletariat. That is why the proletariat confines itself, so to speak, to the negative demand for recognition of the right to self-determination, without giving guarantees to any nation, and without undertaking to give anything at the expense of another nation.

This may not be “practical”, but it is in effect the best guarantee for the achievement of the most democratic of all possible solutions. The proletariat needs only such guarantees, whereas the bourgeoisie of every nation requires guarantees for its own interest, regardless of the position of (or the possible disadvantages to) other nations.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/self-det/ch04.htm

I've rethought my position on Brexit now that things have calmed down, pretty sure the communist position is to advocate for the right of all nations in the EU to immediately hold their own referendums. Based on previous referendums on similar issues, there's a good chance Greece/Spain/Portugal would vote to withdraw, which unlike in the rentier state of Britain would put socialism immediately on the table. As for communists in Britain, I guess pushing for the working class demands of Brexit that the conservatives are already backing away from seems like good politics.

I still think we should fight against the portrayal of the vote as the result of racists/idiots. UKIP was in the media spotlight because they are actually powerless. If anything, Brexit was "the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells." And as Marx says later: "The bourgeoisie finds itself involved in a constant battle. At first with the aristocracy; later on, with those portions of the bourgeoisie itself, whose interests have become antagonistic to the progress of industry; at all time with the bourgeoisie of foreign countries. In all these battles, it sees itself compelled to appeal to the proletariat, to ask for help, and thus, to drag it into the political arena. The bourgeoisie itself, therefore, supplies the proletariat with its own elements of political and general education, in other words, it furnishes the proletariat with weapons for fighting the bourgeoisie." But I'm not sure taking a direct position on Brexit as a yes/no choice is particularly useful. and I'm not sure there's much revolutionary potential in the issue until the oppressed nations of the EU have the right to self-determination (or the EU collapses into war).

The NO in Britain denotes the sharpening of inter-imperialist contradictions

The NO of the peoples of EU must advance through popular struggles

1. The Brexit predominance in the referendum in Britain is an important moment in the sharpening of inter-imperialist contradictions so better conditions could be created for the redivision of the world and to deepen the onslaught on the rights of the working class and peoples. Despite the pressure by important sections of the British imperialist bourgeoisie – and also the US and EU – for the predominance of «Remain», despite the efforts of both Conservatives and Labor, the referendum leaned toward the NO. Cameron’s and the City’s pressures, for «special terms» regarding the status of Britain inside the EU and against the German dominance have not brought favorable results so they resorted to threats with a referendum.

On the other hand we had – with the same aims – the alignment with Brexit of sections of British capital who consider that the imperial capabilities of UK would be greater this way. There were also along them various nationalist – reactionary forces who took advantage of the growing indignation of popular strata against the anti-people policies of EU and the Cameron government. The result was the predominance of the exit vote.

This is a decision that denotes a new higher level of the contradictions globally, where wars and interventions come hand to hand with “peace plans” and where each imperialist seeks his role either for himself or along alliances.

This is the shattering of delusions about both integration and globalization.

Finally, exactly because the choice of that dangerous political move belongs to the bourgeois economic and political establishment, it is obvious that the handling of the result is his, too.

2. The furious onslaught on the working class and the peoples waged for decades by the imperialists and especially through the recent years of sharp economic crisis, has created an unfavorable class correlation, driving broad popular masses into misery and unemployment.

It is expected that mass popular indignation would be growing, although unorganized. But the working class struggles in France, Belgium, and elsewhere and also the people’s disposition to free themselves from the EU wolf-pack are optimistic signs that the popular masses and the progressive forces can and must intensify their struggles against capital and imperialism.

3. It must also be clear that these targets cannot be successful through either referendums or elections. Neither can be accomplished with alignments behind reactionary sections of the bourgeoisie who dream about plundering other peoples or the working class of their own country. It is certain that whichever result came out of the polls the condition of the working class in Britain would be the same. Now the working class of Britain will suffer a new attack on their rights this time in the name of the British empire.

The defeat of the communist movement and the weakness of the communist Left regarding the smashing of the imperialist edifice of the EU is no excuse for the popular dispositions to be exploited by persons like Farage or Le Pen. The only way to help people to unchain themselves from delusions that the EU issue could be solved through referendums or a good electoral result, is to make clear to the masses the true class content of the referendum.

4. It is the duty of the Left everywhere to lead the true dispositions of the peoples towards the overthrow of imperialist yoke of the EU and the US, through mass class struggles shouting louder and more resolutely the slogan “OUT OF THE EU”.

It is the duty of the communist Left to lead the growing rage of the toiling masses towards a broad RESISTANCE and DEMAND FRONT, in order to overthrow this exploitative system and open the road for a socialist society.

Only in this way, the indignation of the British popular masses, who have been deceived by both the Labor Party and the Lexit followers about reforms inside capitalism. will be justified and a true Brexit by the masses will be won.

EmanuelaBrolandi posted:

That's from the KKE (ML) different from the KKE

thats fucked up

le_nelson_mandela_face posted:

racism and nationalism are treated as insanities, instead of as things that are of benefit to poor white people. what does some cracker dropout in west virginia bring to the table? he's not bright, or handsome, or educated, or that local to economic centers, or particularly skilled. but he is white in a pro-white society. his whiteness gives him benefits he hasn't earned, where a black person with the same background would have a rougher time in employment, dealings with law enforcement, etc. same with some 4chan wretch in a flyover state - he's not socially competent or attractive or particularly bathed, but he is white. aside from whiteness, what other benefits do these guys have to the employer over an illegal immigrant or chinese slave? well, they're americans, which means they're still relatively local and can be hired without added risk or investment, and they speak english. so of course they oppose weak borders and become angry when another language is used - these things further undermine their meager, shoestring value.

the claim is made that the working class is for trump and brexit because they are mad at globalism and are lashing out in irrational ways, but i don't think so. racism and nationalism are of rational benefit to them. if blacks can't get hired that means there are more jobs for whites. probably this wouldn't be the case, but the logic seems trivially sound. the group with more power wants to suppress the group with less; basic, basic stuff, but people profess revulsion at such axiomatic conflict theory if they can buy into the plight of the oppressor. plight, of course, does not make right

And here we witness the conversion of the white trash underclass into the white labor aristocracy