Race- Privilege, Relations, Racism, etc.

Black Communism included many stages from what I could tell. Generally, it seemed many intellectuals joined it in defiance of American racism. Then were disillusioned by the human rights violations as well as naked cruelty. Also, that they were being used as weapons against America. Finally, they leave to make their own political factions.

A few choosing to stick with it thick and thin.

"Not at all, it relies on examining the morality of the goals of one side vs the morality of the goals of the other and recognizing that when the latter is far worse the former is defacto the "good" side.

Not perfect, but definitely heroic. "

Which it goes back to the original point: it define as "are you a nazi? them heroic", the soviet union opress nearly everyone around it(specially stalin soviet union), did genocide twice(and still many denied to this day) and inmedially anex the place they save from nazis for decades to come, hell Stalin suport republican side in the spanish civil war while murdering the anarchist for not doing as he is told(and them leave them to their fate), saying not perfect is underselling them a lot.

Which again, are they heroic for just oposing the nazis? or there is more to it?.

Yeah, there's a lot of stories of early 1900s black intellectuals being essentially bribed into making Stalinist propaganda in exchange for empty promises from the organized US communist parties to support racial equality. Though their politics remained leftist many of them became disillusioned by communism and what amounted to yet another form of exploitation by white people.

It seems historically problematic to call their promises "empty", they very much had a role supporting civil rights. I don't doubt that some black intellectuals became disillusioned with communist parties and their failings but we shouldn't be too reductionist.

There is a reason why African socialism became dominant in the continent rather than communism alone.

It's actually reductionist above because this misses the Great Betrayal of blacks by the US communist party that was actually a very famous incident in destroying the American Left as a political force. You see, the Communist Party was vibrant and growing in the 1930s when Roosevelt was elected.

• And then the Communist Party immediately did their very best to sabotage him and the New Deal under what was discovered to be Soviet orders. The Soviet Union believed that Roosevelt was a threat to communist overthrow of the United States and that reforming capitalism was a danger to their influence. A lot of black Americans were shocked and appalled at what we'd called accelerationism as official party policy.
• The American Communist Party suffered a SECOND mass defection when they started with a policy of non-interventionism due to the 1939 Hitler-Stalin pact. Many blacks were horrified by this given Hitler's open belief and their own rhetoric prior to it being condemnatory. The fact that Hitler's and Stalin's pact fell apart soon after also caused an immediate switch that disillusioned even more. Because it showed that the party really was getting its orders from Moscow.
• The final betrayal was the fact that Communist Party received orders to make a deal with American government and promised they would get rid of the racial improvement element of their rhetoric if politicians would support the United States' entry into the war.

After that, American communism and civil rights was effectively dead. As was the Far Left as a whole in the USA.

Edit:

https://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1196&context=uhp_theses

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Feb 11th 2021 at 7:17:22 AM

Which if you ask me, it was a good thing because it allow US to stand safe from radical ideas or problematic often asociate with hardcore comunism, which little by little have position as good leftism as whole.

The USA wasn't always the good guy and frequently was a bad guy. That doesn't mean the Soviets ever were the good guy.

I think he refers to the fact that usonians were spared from the more radical versions of the left, hence why currently the Democrat/Republican divide is a borderline Black-and-White Morality affair, with the democrats as the good guys.

Pretty much, here in latin america you have higher probablity of left doing or saying stupid stuff like suporting chavez, which brazialian worker party did standing with maduro even when he already a politcally radioactive or the MAS doing the same soon after getting presidency, that kind of tone deaf stuff you barely see with the democrats except every know and them(im looking to you bernie!).

I mean, that completely ignores how leftism as a whole has pretty much atrophied in the US for a long time, courtesy of the Red Scare.

Even to this day you have a large number of people who think the very idea of making sure people don't starve to death is "socialism".

What works in the West works differently for people elsewhere, basically. Vice versa.

On the other hand you dont have the tankie like behavor you see on the left or the whole "well they are bad, BUT....."that you see every now and them.

What? You are aware that the term was originally coined in reference to western (to be specific: British) communists engaging in Soviet apologia, right?

"The west" has its fair share of tankies, especially in countries that never had to suffer under an authoritarian leftist regime themselves.

For example, most of the tankies I personally had to deal with over years were American.

Edited by DrunkenNordmann on Feb 11th 2021 at 8:40:32 PM

And yet countries that have suffer left regimes does have is fair share of tankes, god know very well people have it here.

My point is that US dosent have the same tankie behavor we see in otheres country and I wonder if that happen because their far left imploded on itself decades ago.

Well that's very curious, considering that the majority of the American left spends its time angrily complaining about tankies making it worse for everyone else.

There is a nice insult going around for tankies that I like - 'fascists draped in red paint.'

Tankie usually refers to a very specific type that I've noticed, if we're referring to American ones. These are kids who grew up in super Republican states (Indiana etc) that counter the fascist garbage they're surrounded with by embracing leftism - but in their inexperience, they embrace the most hardline types, and they're usually teenagers who want to shock their parents. So you have Stalinists and Maoists gallivanting around saying how that system is best for the US, or East Germany and DPRK apologists. A good explanation is that they love the aesthetic of communism, but they have no idea of what it's like to actually live in it.

Most of the leftists I meet IRL are socialists, democratic socialists, social democrats, or anarchists who thoroughly reject the dogma of orthodox communism and its hardline variants. Their fury at tankies is that they play right into the hands of fascist propaganda.

To tie this back to race before the conversation gets out of hand, these guys usually tend to say they're for equal minority rights but unironically endorse Soviet policies and attitudes towards minorities that were cruel and imperialistic, for example, or believed that the PRC invaded Tibet to save it from itself.

Edited by TheWildWestPyro on Feb 11th 2021 at 11:52:06 AM

Never mind. Off topic.

Edited by djoki996 on Feb 12th 2021 at 4:57:51 AM

Minor tangent.

I think it would be good to refer to the Latin American region (along with the Philippines and others) as the Far West as a way to acknowledge the differences and similarities between it and the “traditional” West.

I would go with south west. Since its in the south.

Okay dumb joke but I couldn't resist . Lol

Moderates sure have done a great job fighting Climate Climate Change, repairing our infrastructure, reversing segregation, creating a humane healthcare system, and reforming American institutions to not be so backward and ossified.

Truly the lack of radical politics has done great things for the US /s

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Feb 12th 2021 at 7:21:18 AM

Because if you're not a radical, you're *obviously* a moderate. You can only be one of those two things.

Edited by PhysicalStamina on Feb 12th 2021 at 10:48:20 AM

Replace moderate with whatever word you want, the death of radicalism didn't make politics more sustainable or safe.

It just took away bold ambitions and plans in favor of milquetoast reform that has conclusively failed.

And as I pointed out earlier, leftism as a whole pretty much atrophied in the US.

Again, you can still run a campaign based on opposing things like universal healthcare or racial equality simply by calling them socialism.

Not to mention that right-wing radicalism not only didn't go away, it got worse, especially due to its "anti-communist credentials".

Edited by DrunkenNordmann on Feb 12th 2021 at 4:57:22 PM

Is this meant to respond to me?

Just adding to it.