Not really sure what to ask here, I think the left focuses more on "class consciousness" as a possible problem to their goal of "equality".
They think a minority of wealthy capitalists are against the workers, so they want to abolish
"capitalism" and property so the workers have a universal kind of equality.
Conpro seems to think these capitalists are (((capitalists))), who maybe are not engaging in "real capitalism". But it seems like successful gentile capitalists or corporations may tend to act like (((capitalists))): towards a "raceless" society in service of profits above any other value in order to "boost the GDP".
So is "class consciousness" something the right-wing is generally lacking, while "race consciousness" may be something the left-wing is lacking?
(Are there some other kind of "consciousnesses" that people debate about and discuss? Maybe in the dimension of religion or something?)
That is, to repurpose a Marxist term, false consciousness. Only a moron completely bereft of a moral compass and filiality would side with a Nigerian against his own brother if, and just because, the former is a proletarian and the latter is bourgeois. However, that is what Marxism demands.
It's no different to nutters with false religious ideas who insist, for instance, that you should side with a Nigerian against your own brother if, and just because, the former is a Christian and the latter is an atheist or of some other religion.
Any political ideology or religion that doesn't harmonize with filiality is false.
> Capitalism
The things that drive 'capitalism', e.g. benefit- and profit-seeking, do not require yids. The French counter-revolutionaries were good examples of anti-capitalist Rightists. In generally being closer to them than to any other Western political movement, I am also anti-capitalist, but for different reasons than the Left, such as that capitalism doesn't equalize people enough, a concern with which I have zero sympathy.
Capitalism is actually very good for the Left: Leftists are just too dumb to see it. Capitalism benefits from globalization, because capitalists ideally like to move capital and labour across borders as interchangeable cogs in a world marketplace without restriction. Capitalism benefits from social liberalism and social excess, because you sell more when people have licentious rather than austere attitudes. Capitalism benefits from feminism, because women become economically productive assets and are no longer merely economic consumers. Capitalism drives people away from *Gemeinschaften* and what Marx called the 'idiocy of rural life', because the city is where such things as employment and private property are found. Capitalism destroys spiritualism because many people, sufficiently contented by the abundance of material objects, no longer seek contentment from other, non-material means. These are just the points that have came to mind without putting much effort into it.
Thus, everywhere you look, capitalism and Leftism are co-constitutive, fitting together like hand in glove. The Left's only complaints, ultimately, are those of the extreme and impatient, that capitalism hasn't been faster and more intense in its effects: not enough equality, not enough freedom, not enough individualism, not enough materialism. Not enough of what they want fast enough.
You'll find plenty of apologists for capitalism outside of the Left for the simple reason that they see the Left opposing it and therefore think that it must be theirs to defend. For the Centre, fair enough. It is yours to defend. The reality is that people like Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were very bad for the Right, very good for the Centre, and, in the long-term, very good for the Left.
For which president was it that brought in Martin Luther King Day and amnestied three million illegal immigrants? Surely a Democratic one, right? Wrong! It was Reagan. In 1983 and 1986, respectively.
Which British Prime Ministers said that they would lower immigration? Technically, just about all of them. But that includes most or all of those considered Rightists: Thatcher, Cameron, and Johnson chief among them.
Why would any non-Rightist dislike such heads of state and government, then? It is only because they falsely believe that these people are all 'nationalists' and 'racists' and the like, when it couldn't be further from the truth. Look at how many 'conservative' yids surrounded Thatcher: Leon Brittan, Michael Howard (Hecht), Keith Joseph, Nigel Lawson, Oliver Letwin, Malcolm Rifkind, Stephen Sherbourne (also homosexual), Alfred Sherman, David Wolfson, and Britain's Chief Rabbi, Immanuel Jakobovits.
Thatcher knew that they were all yids, but simply didn't care because, far from being a 'racist', she was a filthy philo-semite who believed that yids were superior and thus well deserved such extreme over-representation. Around a quarter of her cabinet was yiddish at one point, in a country from which almost every kike was expelled in 1290 but which is now around 0.4% yiddish. 0.4% of the inhabitants were around 25% of cabinet members? Possibly more disproportionately yiddish even than the Biden Administration.
David Cameron, who himself has yid ancestry, even joked that the Tory Party was now the Torah Party, in reference to the sheer yiddishness of the Tories in his own time. A new generation of yids, such as Stanley Fink; Andrew Feldman; Richard Harrington; Howard Leigh; Ian Livingston, of 'Polish-Lithuanian Jewish' descent; and Grant Shapps had come to dominate the party.
Then people wonder why the Tories have since become so comical as to be more completely dominated by Indians, Pakistanis, and niggers than the more Leftist Labour and Liberal Democrat parties, and has sunk to such lows that an unsightly Nigerian Yoruba negress is now in charge, expelling all of her main rivals - most notably, deputy leader Robert 'Jew-Wife' Jenrick - from the party, and running this once-behemoth of British politics into the ground.
But what do people expect? Given that it was dominated by yids decades earlier, the party's eventual capture by all kinds of other nons seems inevitable. It's like South Africa: they captured it from the Whites and are losing it to the niggers, leading them to emigrate *en masse*. The yid is good at capturing but not so good at managing and maintaining what he has already captured: he has a tendency to later lose his grip on what he has captured, and thus his control has never been permanent.
ln conclusion, as someone most in the vein of the counter-revolutionary Rightists, defending capitalism and the likes of Adam Smith against the Left isn't my fight. At the same time, attacking capitalism by sympathizing with such Left-Wing concepts as 'class consciousness', 'class struggle', and 'class war' also isn't my fight. I don't need Marx's pseudoscientific paradigm or other any Left-Wing nonsense to see capitalism for what it is. As for capitalism and what was once more openly labelled Judeo-Capitalism, capitalism minus kikes is bad enough; capitalism plus kikes gives you the bageller-dominated clownshows that were the Thatcher, Cameron, and Biden governments.