radmenacer wrote

If anyone called it "blackness", i would imagine most people would see why its racist.

um see f/blackness

black supremacy is an issue

You are insinuating reverse racism ( which is not really a thing )...

I still don't think the term "whiteness" is a good term. "White supremacy" or "systematic racism" seem to be better.

...and caping for a separation of whiteness and systemic white oppression, without consideration that one relies on the other.

You are in essence arguing from a reactionary platform due to a fundamental misunderstanding of some cornerstones in revolutionary theory. For one racism is defined as systemic oppression and can only be fully executed when one majority class has the power (and representation) to use institutions against a minority.

More importantly, your definition of intersectionality is not nuanced. Your comments seem to hint that it is all inclusive, when the original intention and accurate definition is "an analytical framework which attempts to identify how interlocking systems of power impact those who are most marginalized in society" the key word being most marginalized.

Also, "whiteness" doesn't fit the situation in South Africa

I am ignorant over what you are referring to as black supremacy in Africa, but it honestly sounds like a dog whistle. If you are reading stories about this, it may help to shift your perspective to one of anti-colonialism in order to gain a little insight. Remember apartheid is still happening in the world, and many native peoples are struggling to take their land back from neo-colonial governments and corporations all across the world. These entities have a vested interest in running the narrative that whites consume and I would expect them to use this "black supremacist boogeyman" tactic to manufacture consent. (As they did vs black panthers )


radmenacer wrote

You seem to be talking about the USSR... Which was not communist in any way, shape or form.

Communism is a stateless, classless, and moneyless society.

Guess what the USSR had?

A totalitarian state, a brutally strong class system, and money.

It was, by definition, not communist.

At best, they were a society in the socialist stage of development, according to Marx's historical materialism.

At worst, and what most anarchists and pure Marxists would argue; they were state capitalist with the capitalist class and the ruling class being one in the same, as opposed to how it is in most free-market capitalist countries where they merely have a great deal of connections between them.

The only problem you listed that could really apply was the first, but the reason you considered it a problem wouldn't apply.

To understand what communists, and socialists in general, mean when they say they oppose private property, you need to keep in mind the distinction between personal property and private property.

Personal property is property used and/or occupied by the owner.

Private property is property that is neither used nor occupied by the owner.

Thus your living space is personal property, but a restaurant is private property.

When multiple people use/occupy something, then, under personal property, they would all own it collectively. So you and your roommates would own your home and you and your coworkers would own your workplace. We oppose private property, but not personal property. In communism, you would own the field you worked or your house. However, no one could ever own a field and have others work it for them.

Having others labor for you would be capitalism.

This, by the way, is why many consider the USSR to be state capitalist. The state owned what others labored for, just as the capitalists do in free-market capitalism.

tl;dr You critiqued state capitalism, not communism.

It's a common mistake thanks to the USSR's deafening propaganda.