NawlinWikiandZzzuzz vs SoWhy and Materialscientist at tuesday in texas

The significant Jewish activity in Russian Revolutionary movement has complex social roots.

But Cultural Bolshevism is was and always will be an inexistent ideology. 

Anyway Bolshevism is justified as is the Left wing revolutions and worker uprisings, this is an example of left wing chauvinism 

The Bolsheviks and other revolutionary workers of all stripes were doing a more left wing and rational version of this late stage non chauvinism:

In 1945, political theorist Hannah Arendt described the concept thus:

Chauvinism is an almost natural product of the national concept in so far as it springs directly from the old idea of the "national mission". ... [A] nation's mission might be interpreted precisely as bringing its light to other, less fortunate peoples that, for whatever reason, have miraculously been left by history without a national mission. As long as this concept did not develop into the ideology of chauvinism and remained in the rather vague realm of national or even nationalistic pride, it frequently resulted in a high sense of responsibility for the welfare of backward people.(Bolsheviks were Anti Barbarians who wanted to modernize and move everyone forward via workerism, civil solidarity and rebellion against the White Russia tsardom)[9]

So the 'Bolsheviks' i.e all workers, proletarians, vanguard etc fighting for a socialistic egalitarian, stateless-classless utopia are like a Left Wing version of Nigel Farage/UKIP's type of ideology that Hanna described above and more

'Bolsheviks' were and are made up of all stripes and creeds equally and were really Syndicalists fighting for all workers of all races-ethnicities, genders and religions/irreligions

They wanted a left wing, egalitarian, light-good version type of prole state which will wither away and lead all workers (i.e proletariat) on Earth to have a homeland/place

They and other leftists and moderate liberals wanted to gradually reign in Cultural liberalism which advocates the freedom of individuals to choose whether to conform to cultural norms and the right to "march to the beat of a different drummer

The United States refers to cultural liberalism as social liberalism; however, it is not the same as the broader political ideology known as social liberalism. In the United States, social liberalism describes progressive moral and social values or stances on socio-cultural issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage as opposed to social conservatism. A social conservative or a social liberal in this sense may hold either more conservative or liberal views on fiscal policy.[4]

We need to end workplace discrimination, then we need to create worker co-ops and to get rid of bosses and allow workers to be their own bosses.  Then we would have solved the problems that Affirmative Action tries to solve

However, diversity at work=good.This is because a broader pool of talent opens to an employer a greater the probability of finding the optimum person for jobs. Innovation and agility are perceived as the great benefits of diversity, and there’s an increasing awareness of what has come to be known as the power of difference.(good only if done without wokeness)

I am not sold on the idea that racism equals prejudice plus power is the correct way to be thinking about the concept, but even if it is I have always been annoyed at how the Liberal 2.0ers have interpreted it.

My point of contention is on how “power” is defined. The Liberal 2.0ers tend to believe that “power” means “the sum of all relative political, social, and economic power structures between whites and non-whites,” which is a unique conception of power to say the least. 

The boss has power over his or her employees. The professor has power over his or her students. 

The armed gunman/gunwoman in your drug store has a vastly actual and physical power over the cowering store patrons. Even in the realm of the purely social sphere, people very commonly have power over other people. For example, a blue-check Twitter user has obvious power to ruin someone’s social life and career by using his or her followers as a weapon to cancel him or her.

However, for one reason or another none of these forms of power count. Racism for one reason or another can only exist when the sum total of every power relation on Earth are tilted, at the most abstract level, towards a particular race. 

And I mean on Earth also too, I have seen some people claim that there is no real thing as anti-White racism in South Africa because they say that Whites on a global scale have ‘power’ over Black people.

Let’s imagine that we could wave a magic wand and correct the entire balance of power to true equality. 

Would the fact that Black people all of a sudden having fair representation in Congress and the same economic outlook as whites somehow change the power dynamic between a gun wielding Lord's Resistance Army member and the victims of his Christian crusade rampage?

Nope! It’s misguided to say that the Lord's Resistance Army member‘s possession of power in this situation is fully dependent on Representative John Doe/Jane Doe being sworn into office, or on the amount of Black Billionaires in the US, but this is exactly what woke people tend to believe.

The defining principle of Liberalism 2.0, (including Leftism left of Liberalism 2.0 with Liberalism 2.0 traits), when it comes to the topic of race and racism, is in their minds racism is autonomous, that it has no antecedant causes. That to them it just springs randomly from nature without cause. So Ta-Nehisi Coates likening racism to an earthquake. 

It is actually impossible to believe that and to be a Libertarian Marxist, Marxist Leninist, Marxist or a Marxian Leftist because the entire point of being a Libertarian Marxist, Marxist Leninist, Marxist or a Marxian Leftist is historical materialism, and the entire point of materialism is that originary causes must be found in material processes. If you treat racism as autonomous, you’re an idealist.

It is not just that class analysis is not in the conversation, class analysis is actively suppressed, because Capitalism (if it even is a problem at all) is just a component of the actual issue: racism (or "white supremacy"). Any person who attempts to locate the problem in class is to them, distracting from this.

Obviously this why the corporations and brands are so on board with it: it doesn’t threaten them. If anything, it actually increases their cultural capital and thus, their actual capital. 

Radical action only occurs on the symbolic level. You cannot do anything about the material forces that are truly responsible for police brutality (anti blackness, classism and abelism), but hey, you can paint "BLM" on a street or change the name of a town square. Take that, prison-state! And any attempts at formulating a real material demand are almost ridiculous in how naive and not thought out they are (like the defund the police movement)

But here's the true problem: it is not only not an anti-capitalist project;  if you believe that racism is autonomous and "like an earthquake", well it is inevitable. It cannot be defeated (Afro Pessimism offers similar pessimist conclusions as this but offers radical solutions). 

As wokies usually say, "abolishing capitalism won’t abolish racism" - notice that they never follow this up with a suggestion of what would abolish racism. If the end of capitalism and the whole history of class oppression will not bring the end of racism, what possibly could? (Afro Pessimism offers a radical solutions which do not seem practical to say the very least)

So, it is not an anti-racist project either. If it is anything, it’s just some type of pseudo ethno-nationalism. 

They may not be calling for a black ethno-nation-state, however is there any question that they would not be calling for that if that was realistically calledcfor? (Note the fetishization of Africa in modern times). 

But they are seeking their own carved-out space within the class system which currently exists: reparations, tokenism ,representation, the open calls for whites to transfer their wealth to black people or BIPOC as a whole. They've strangely come full circle to a "separate yet equal" system of racial harmony.

Despite it being a quasi black-ethononationalist movement, when I write "they" I am not even referring to black people or even BIPOC as a whole; I am referring to Liberal 2.0ers, black or otherwise (though who more often than not, happen to be white), who have just appointed themselves to the role of spokesman/spokeswoman for all African Americans. Dissident blacks? Well , they're just politically black (different than the Afro Pessimism type of blackbess)

#jobsnotracism

See this too

We need to end workplace discrimination, then we need to create worker co-ops and to get rid of bosses and allow workers to be their own bosses.

Revolution and insurrection are not synonymous. The former is radical change of conditions, of  prevailing status or condition , the state or society, and is thus a political or social act.

The latter has a transformation of conditions which is an inevitable result, but doesn’t start from that, but it starts the discontent of human beings with themselves; it’s not an armed uprising, but of a rising up of people, without the regard for the arrangements that spring from it. 

The revolution is aimed at new arrangements, while the insurrection leads us to no longer let ourselves be arranged. It instead seeks to arrange ourselves, and set no radiant hopes on any institutions. Permanent revolutions are good because they change things in a manner where revoltions don’t take people by surprise since they are ongoing.

More here