• @SaddamHussein24
    link
    -5
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    LMFAO you just said that its false that “all workers have the same interests long term, socialism”. Do you realize the implications of that? By saying that, you are saying that capitalism and imperialism is a sustainable system that will last forever, thus forever bringing benefits to the labor aristocracy ie white workers. This is “the end of history”, completely antimarxist and antidialectic, the world is not static, its constantly changing. If US white workers will always benefit from imperialism, why have living standards consistently gone down for them since Richard Nixon? It is simply impossible to keep bringing surplus value to the labor aristocracy forever, the laws of capitalism, the falling rate of profit, make it impossible. Sooner or later the bourgeoisie will start exploiting the labor aristocracy too, because just the value of the third world wont be enough to sustain capitalism due to the falling rate of profit. This is third worldism, this is maoist bs, this is not marxism wtf dude.

    Israeli workers dont want to “keep the palestinian land” unless misguided by the israeli bourgeoisie through chauvinism, but its not in their interests. This is the problem with this “settler” bs, it often fails to define the class charachter of things, just an abstract notion of “land”. Workers only want land to live on, but colonialism isnt about that, Israel isnt evicting palestinians because they wanna live in their house for some reason. The proletariat wants land to live, the bourgeoisie wants to land to exploit. Colonialism wasnt driven by an irrational drive to “settle white people”, it was driven to extract profits from the colonized territories, both in the form of natural resources and in the form of slave labor.

    Thus, for the bourgeoisie, land is capital, not just a place to live in. However, as i assume you know, by definition, workers do not own any capital, thats why they are exploited, at most they own the small house they live in (if even), but not any capital, nothing that produces wealth besides their own labor. Thus, it is the israeli bourgeoisie, by definition, that owns the palestinian land, not the israeli workers! Sure they may benefit from that now, but that is a temporary concession to divide the working class, and will not last forever due to falling rate of profit and the limits of capitalism and imperialism.

    Thus, decolonization involves abolishing private property, taking the means of production (an actual marxist term, much better than this abstract classless notion of “land”) from the colonizer bourgeoisie, and redistributing them to the workers, both colonized and “settler”, while taking into account the damages caused by colonialism on the colonized, which the colonizer bourgeoisie will repay, not the workers. It doesnt involve killing or deporting all “settler” workers. I mean seriously, even the bourgeoisie can be proletarianized, such as with petty-middle bourgeoisie during heavy economic crises, but somehow the labor aristocracy cant? Ridiculous! This is not marxism nor dialectics!

    • Muad'DibberA
      link
      4
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      “Israeli workers dont want to “keep the palestinian land”.”

      This is nonsense. Land is land, of course they want to continue living there. Ask any Israeli settler if they’re willing to give up their land for free to a Palestinian.

      LMFAO you just said that its false that “all workers have the same interests long term, socialism”.

      Baby-level understanding of class, where there are only two groups, worker and capitalist, and no gradations or levels in between. I tried to illustrate that there are, with my house vs field slave example, which you could only ignore. But here, lets listen to what Lenin says on this:

      For Lenin, superprofits derived from imperialism allow the globally predominant bourgeoisie to pay inflated wages to sections of the (international) proletariat, who thus derive a material stake in preserving the capitalist system:

      In all the civilised, advanced countries the bourgeoisie rob—either by colonial oppression or by financially extracting “gain” from formally independent weak countries—they rob a population many times larger than that of “their own” country. This is the economic factor that enables the imperialist bourgeoisie to obtain super-profits, part of which is used to bribe the top section of the proletariat and convert it into a reformist, opportunist petty bourgeoisie that fears revolution.

      If US white workers will always benefit from imperialism, why have living standards consistently gone down for them since Richard Nixon?

      OECD workers make on average 11x more PPP-adjusted than non-OECD workers according to the ILO. US living standards, while having gone down from their peak post-WW2, is still incredibly better than almost every other country. We are at a level of global inequality that is absolutely indefensible, and to deny this imperialist arrangement, or even worse, suggest that US workers get more of the pie than they already consume, shows where your allegiances lie.

      This is third worldism, this is maoist bs, this is not marxism wtf dude.

      These are convoluted and overlapping terms, but no, it is not “mlm / maoist”, to accept the current imperialist arrangement of the world into rich exploiter countries, and poor surplus-value producing ones.

      Thus, decolonization involves abolishing private property, taking the means of production (an actual marxist term, much better than this abstract classless notion of “land”) from the colonizer bourgeoisie, and redistributing them to the workers, both colonized and “settler”, while taking into account the damages caused by colonialism on the colonized, which the colonizer bourgeoisie will repay, not the workers.

      This is the very definition of class collaborationism. Why on earth should the settler troops of Israel or the US continue to be rewarded with cheap land. When we say decolonization, we mean that truly, and not in an anarchisty “abolish property rights!” way: we mean stewardship and ownership of the land need to be returned to those it was stolen from, without demanding they institute any given economic system. Its theirs to do what they want.

      Consider this a warning also: we allow some discourse around patriotism, but both you and @PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml are risking bans if you continue to say shit like: “Israeli settlers should be given land”.

      • @PolandIsAStateOfMind
        cake
        link
        0
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        if you continue to say shit like: “Israeli settlers should be given land”.

        Now this is fucking low of you, show me where did i ever said something like that.

        EDIT: And the four fuckers downvoting it too. Stop being anonymous, slanderous lumpens, show your lying faces.

        • Muad'DibberA
          link
          62 years ago

          There you continue, using this “land” unmarxist term.

          When you’re an Algerian FLN fighter trying to free your country and a french eurocommunist derides you for using the term land.

            • Muad'DibberA
              link
              52 years ago

              The french population was an extremely small and rich minority (in Algeria settlers were 10% population, while in USA they are 60% and in occupied Palestine they are 70% in Israel and 30% in the West Bank, totally different situation)

              So what you’re saying is the french just needed to kill and evict more algerians, then you’d support them? Guess what the european population was of turtle island before they colonized it? 0%, imagine that!

              begging them independence

              So pushing for independence and the right of self-determination is “begging” now?

              If native or palestinian were to rise up

              They have been, and are. They aren’t asking for the continued existence of israel, or the US like dumbshit patsocs are. They are demanding the return of stolen land, and the return of sovereignty.