u/parwa - originally from r/GenZhou
I know this is more of a Dengist sub than a Maoist one, but I was hoping I could find some insight here as it’s a book I’ve seen praised across many leftist tendencies. I read through some sections of it recently (mostly skipped over the historical stuff because I knew about most of it already) and while I went in with an open mind I’m really torn on it. I’m mostly just unsure of what the conclusion is. If revolution must be led by the colonized, where does that leave everyone else that wants a revolution? Are descendants of settlers supposed to just sit back and wait? Besides, just in terms of pure numbers isn’t that nearly impossible? From my understanding you need mass support to pull off a successful revolution, not just a fraction of the population. I don’t want to just write it off as an op as I’ve seen many others do, because it has some good points, yet I can’t help but think it might be. It seems like both a great way to get people of color to distrust white leftists and refuse to organize with them, and to get white leftists to refrain from organizing in fear of speaking over the colonized. I also feel like it kinda fails to take manufactured consent into account. What are your thoughts on it?

  • archive_botOPB
    0·
    5 years ago

    u/parentis_shotgun - originally from r/GenZhou

    but he also doesn’t draw on Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Guevara et al. and the heavy engagement with the questions of Imperialism and colonialism in their foundational texts.

    Absolutely false. Yet another person who hasn’t read the book.

    veer off the rails into academic “leftist” eclecticism.

    Settlers is pretty much the antithesis of academic leftism. Its one of the first books to turn a mirror on the empire’s loyal citizens, and look at their history through a materialist lens.

      • archive_botOPB
        0·
        5 years ago

        u/parentis_shotgun - originally from r/GenZhou

        quasimaterialist because of the conclusions that it draws. The undialectical aspect of his central thesis…

        What conclusion does it draw, and why is it “quasi-materialist”? What is undialectical about it?

        because he’s either ignorant of these texts or choosing to ignore them

        Source?

        I’m saying that at no point does he make a human nature argument, but he also doesn’t draw on Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Guevara et al. and the heavy engagement with the questions of Imperialism and colonialism in their foundational texts.

        Do you have anything to back up that statement? Its clear you haven’t read the book.