That is exactly my point. Land is a means of production, which is by definition owned by bourgeoisie. Israeli workers dont own any land, thats why they are workers. Their higher living standard is only because israeli bourgeoisie chose to give them value extracted from palestinian workers, as a way to bribe them into supporting colonialism and genocide, they are the labor aristocracy.
However, this cant last forever, due to falling rate of profit. Once surplus value from colonized palestinians isnt enough to sustain israeli capitalism, they will start extracting value from israeli workers too, thus getting them out of the labor aristocracy. At that point israeli workers will become revolutionary, just like palestinian workers are now.
For this reason, it is in the LONG term interest of israeli workers to support palestinians rising up against israeli colonialism, overthrowing them and establishing a socialist Palestine. The bribing of the labor aristocracy is only in their interests SHORT term, due to the falling rate of profit as explained above. Thus, all workers have the same interests LONG term, both colonized and colonizer, the socialist revolution and establishment of DotP.
The labor aristocracys selfish proimperialist interests can only last a certain time due to falling rate of profit, and is thus only a SHORT term interest, with the LONG term interest being socialism. This is my point, basic marxism leninism.
Land is a means of production, which is by definition owned by bourgeoisie. Israeli workers dont own any land, thats why they are workers.
If workers aquire land through colonial means they could change classes into the bourgeoisie, petty bourgeoisie, or a kind of yeoman. In two of these cases they may very well not be huate bourgeoisie but overall I think your point here stands. Land acquisition can alter class character. As im sure you are aware, this is part of why settlers are not proletarian.
Their higher living standard is only because israeli bourgeoisie chose to give them value extracted from palestinian workers, as a way to bribe them into supporting colonialism and genocide, they are the labor aristocracy.
Maybe im being nitpicky here, but I contest the idea that this is a mere choice of the bourgeoisie. I’d say its closer to a natural law of capital. If the bourgeoisie failed to make this choice, the may well lose leverage over the colonized and laboring masses, and thus lose their class position. Labor aristocracy is a fundamental part of imperialism, not a mere decision to add icing to the cake or some unique mass bribe scheme. Its a major organ that keeps imperialism alive.
Once surplus value from colonized palestinians isnt enough to sustain israeli capitalism, they will start extracting value from israeli workers too, thus getting them out of the labor aristocracy.
This is simply false. If they cant get surplus from Palestine, they will get it from Syria or Lebanon. Or Bangladesh, India, Indonesia etc etc. Or, they just evict more Palestinians. This idea that immediately the huate bourgeoisie would liquidate their occupation force IMO demonstrates a lack of understanding how these classes form and function together. Furthermore, there would have to be surplus value to extract. There would have to be a monumental reshaping of the global economy in order to facilitate exploitation of the current labor aristocracy to make up for even a fraction of the falling rate of profit. It needs, again, to be emphasized that a drop in quality of life for the labor aristocracy (especially as the actual global proletariat largely is also experiencing lowered quality of life) has little consequence toward changing its class character. Its like if some bourgeoisie lad lost 3 out of 80 employees and people decided this was a fundamental shift in their class character.
The bribing of the labor aristocracy is only in their interests SHORT term, due to the falling rate of profit as explained above. Thus, all workers have the same interests LONG term, both colonized and colonizer, the socialist revolution and establishment of DotP.
I disagree fundamentally with your notions of the labor aristocracy having the same interests as any other worker, especially explicitly colonized workers. Lenin himself was clear that rich countries would have to be ready and willing to endure a major downturn in quality of life in the wake of revolution because it would have to put an end to imperial spoils. The labor aristocracy’s interests are maintaining its quality of life, especially in comparison to the world’s working masses. Sakai also closes Settlers with an entire chapter on Strategic vs Tactical interests that is extremely relevant to this and I recommend you read it, as it states why colonized people have different strategic interests from settlers, but occasionally have similar tactical interests.
The labor aristocracys selfish proimperialist interests can only last a certain time due to falling rate of profit, and is thus only a SHORT term interest, with the LONG term interest being socialism.
I might again be simply nitpicking, but it is not mere selfishness anymore than the bourgeoisie’s enforcement of capitalism is mere greed. There certainly are dialectics at play that create moments of qualitative change, and certainly pressure will be put on the labor aristocracy before it is directly put onto the huate bourgeoisie, but this doesn’t make a compelling case that socialism will come about from these specific pressures and contradictions. Socialism is the result of a process of history that unfolds from contradictions embodied in the global proletariat, not the petite bourgeoisie, the global house slaves (to be crass), or the yeoman settlers of settler colonial empires.
Also im not sure how you can really say its actually short term. Wage earners, yeoman, and bourgeoisie settlers alike have held land stolen from Indigenous people for generations, passing it down to their children or selling it to other settlers while Indigenous people are held in open air prisons. Beyond that, capitalism can reset itself through imperialist wars that the labor aristocracy and settlers have routinely supported.
Thus, all workers have the same interests LONG term, both colonized and colonizer, the socialist revolution and establishment of DotP.
#NotAllColonizers
Why is it so hard for you patsocs to accept that the garrison of settler troops, even if they are poor, derive real material benefits from imperialism? Hell, the city that I used to live in was built on land stolen from indigenous americans. Its suburbs now. The indians? Forced onto reservations.
LONG term interest of israeli workers to support palestinians
The palestinians are demanding their land back. That’s their primary demand, for israeli occupiers to leave. They don’t want “solidarity” with the colonizers who are and historically have been killing them. Who the fuck are you to tell them “israeli workers have a right to that land”?
Do you want settlers to join indigenous nations? You don’t want anything with settlers to remain, so what do you want to do with them? Do you want them dead? I have not seen you state any if your ideas for this.
Also why do you hate poor people for just existing?
They are at the mercy of the bourgeoisie forced to settle against their wills, that can’t be refuted. They get little in return and naturally would want to revolt. But you say they CANT and thus are inheritant allies to the bourgeoisie no matter what. This doesn’t make sense could you explain?
But you say even sovereignty in socialism wouldn’t be enough if the settlers and Indigenous peoples coexisted. Why? Isn’t stopping the Imperialist, stopping the genocide? Now if you are so set on that socialism can’t bring soveirgnty what do you think if Kaliningrad or Tibet? This seems to have escaped the ideas of Marx, at least your proposal of the settler state. Marx was alive when when the US was still grabbing land, you don’t think he would of thought to point out the settling? Or Lenin during the Spanish American war?
Why do you live so heavily on one book that proclaims anything against it settler apologia? We know barely anything about the author, why the dogmatic view?
Muad, you say Maupin is fascist but you haven’t put any clips of him announcing fascistic remarks, and if this is true I would really like to see for my own eyes. That’s a huge claim to make with little evidence and we can’t just say that about anyone, especially MLs, otherwise it’s like you are making a boogie man.
Also why do you hate poor people for just existing?
How on earth did you get this from anything i’ve written?
They are at the mercy of the bourgeoisie forced to settle against their wills, that can’t be refuted.
Absolutely false, settlers aren’t kidnapped to colonize lands, they do so because of the promise of cheap or “free” land, and its in their material interests to do so.
They get little in return and naturally would want to revolt.
Why do you live so heavily on one book that proclaims anything against it settler apologia? We know barely anything about the author, why the dogmatic view?
I listed six other marxist-leninst books on the topic of settler colonialism, but yes, sakai’s analysis is extremely important and worth reading.
Muad, you say Maupin is fascist but you haven’t put any clips of him announcing fascistic remarks, and if this is true I would really like to see for my own eyes.
I never said this, but yes maupin has some absolutely dogshit takes. Here are a few of them:
Indigenous peoples polled in the US prefer the term indian above any other term ( take the american indian movement for example ). You don’t know this because you haven’t read a single thing written by any of them.
I would like to start off by thanking you for providing clips, I will respond to them when I can.
Muad, I admit that saying you hate poor people is exaggeration but you do discredit them to an extreme. I mainly wanna focus on your of definition of settling. You say, and rightfully so, that right now settlers are still settling, and the now is time I am referring to, sorry should have specified. So I ask you, where is this cheap land? I see no home ownership but of the bourgeoisie, and the dwindling middle class. But you claim all settlers are the labour aristocracy/petty bourgeois which is contrary to now! Not everyone got your cush life of the suburbs.
But let’s go back to the era of active settling you say “Absolutely false,folk tlers aren’t kidnapped to colonize lands, they do so because of the promise of cheap or “free” land, and its in their material interests to do so.”
That last part, sorta contradicts the first doesn’t it? The majority of settlers were from the lowest rungs of Britain’s social ladder, sure they weren’t “kidnapped” but they were forced between starving and poverty wages or getting land at the expense and bloodshed of the indigenous, they weren’t really in a position to make a choice. Not to mention the actual indentured servants. To ignore this class reasoning is to ignore all of history. Now when they actually started reproducing and getting accustomed to the privilege with land and genocide of the Indigenous peoples, the majority of settlers becomes of a petty bourgeois class, but still a minor proletariat. In the present day, the US settler state has grown so imperial that it has chewed away at the super wages keeping the workers in this labour aristocracy. In the beginning Britain’s proletariat where pushed to Indigenois lands, their numbers dwindled, but now the proletariat has emerged with class interests aligned with the Indigenous population, the overthrow the bourgeoisie!
Now you may be quick to say that settler and Indigenous interests are immediately clashing, but is it not similar to Western allies and the Soviet Union against Nazi Germany at worst, or the core proletariat and periphery proletariat at best?
Now when I say you hate poor people, it is due to you negating the pain and exploitation they face by ignoring their class as labours!
Now I have not seen your list of ML works could you please provide, I would be happy to look at them.
But Muad, the fact you know I was talking about “Settlers” shows just how much the book has been critiqued. Im not saying the book isn’t helpful, it is incredibly helpful and I will go so far that it is nessecary for those in the US settler state to read, but there’s lots of dogmatism following the book due to it being the most influential about the Settler state, and that dogmatism follows with the notion all settlers are petty bourgeois and benefit so much that they have no revolutionary potential. Imagine if we were all orthodox Marxists and believed there would be a synchronized over throw of the bourgeoisie!
Muad, I don’t really wanna play this game, I really don’t, it’s dehumanizing. In my life, in my town, we have a large population of Indigenous folk due to it hosting the largest Indigenous College in the state. In my experience, with these human beings who have to live through their own genocide, are deeply offended by the term Indian. Maybe the majority prefer it, sure, and if so I apologize for being nit picky. It is not for us to decide, but the ones around me treat it as a slur so I am cautioned by it, sorry for jumping the gun.
Muad my question about socialism bringing sovereignty, is one I am try to wrap my head under. If it doesn’t, are places like Kaliningrad and Tibet colonies? The book I was recommended and am reading “Decolonization is not a metaphor” states China as a communist empire? This is geniune, Muad, there seems to be some hole here that you may be able to point out, can you help please?
I am coming out to say, Muad I have no beef with you, I am just learning about movements like Land Back. And I’ll state it that everyone here wants sovereignty to the Indigenous, it’s just that this air of dogmatism is getting nowhere and the threatening purge of unlisted names will not aid in any attempted understanding and especially isn’t helping the Indigenous people. This isn’t an actual communist party it is a ML forum site, if we really wanna help the Indigenous and/or the Working Class this is not the way to do it.
Goodnight Muad, sorry things got heated I don’t want this to turn out like reddit.
Yes, i am extremelly confused by what he is constantly spouting about “setlers”. He knows that every american nation is a colony right? He also know that those same nations did the same thing the US did to the natives, till today, my country still is colonizing and destroying the lifes of the natives on the amazon region, and so are evry other latin american country with an native population. Mexico is an massive graveyard of natives, all brutally genocided, and so are the central american countries.
This saying that only the US population needs to be despised for being an imperialist setler population is american exceptionalism by itself, its basically saying that the US is more evil then others simply because it is the US, and because it is the US, it will never be able of changing. This is dumb, just because an country is an colony, it doesnt mean it cant become socialist, just because an country is imperialist, it doesnt mean it cant become socialist, thinking otherwise is thirdworldism, and even worse, its american exceptionalism; “because its the US” is american exceptionalism by itself, its like saying “the US is more ‘verb’ then any other place in the world, both on the past and on present, nothing can best the US at being ‘verb’, the US is the most ‘verb’ in the world” see what i am saying? Now put “evil” or “imperialist” or “capitalist” on the place of verb, and now put an positive verb, like “free”, democratic", “civilized”, or any other of those stupid things yankees love to jerk off about their country, see how it sounds? “The US is ‘verb’ simply because it is the US, and because it is the US, it will never change”, this is american exceptionalism, plain and simple, the US is at best, the most relevant and succesfull imperialist power TODAY, 90 years ago, if you asked on Europe, they would say nazi germany was the biggest imperialist, that it was an unfixable country, and would never become socialist, 15 years later, the GDR was born, this proves that even the worse of the worse of a country can be socialist, even something as nazi germany was able to be parcially fixed. And we need to remember, Marx passed most of his life on Britain and Germany, he was able to see the imperialism of both countries, and how britain was building the biggest empire in the world, and even then, he never thought “its impossible to fix GB because its an imperialist country, and therefore, its completelly evil and will never change”, lenin lived on the Russian empire, he was able to see very close how imperialism works, he writed a book about it, but he never sayed “Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, Austria, Belgium, The US, The ottoman empire, those are all imperialist countries, they are the worse of the worse, they will never be socialist because of that, the minds of their people are unchangeable by propaganda, might give up as an revoluctionary them lol”.
Muad, when did i ever deny that the labor aristocracy derive benefits from colonialism and imperialism? I literally said
“Their higher living standard is only because israeli bourgeoisie chose to give them value extracted from palestinian workers, as a way to bribe them into supporting colonialism and genocide, they are the labor aristocracy.”
All i said is that those benefits dont last forever due to the falling rate of profit, meaning that in the future a moment will arrive in which the labor aristocracy doesnt derive this benefit anymore. For this reason, the real long term interest of this labor aristocracy is to stand with the opressed against the bourgeoisie bribing them, since in the long term the bourgeoisie will screw them too, just like they did to the colonized. Thats all i said.
Muad, where did i ever say that “israeli workers have a right to that land”? Please show me where.
But this is beyond the point. What do you have against me Muad? This comment wasnt even a response to you, yet you keep stalking my comments. Are you ok? Do you want a conflict in here that badly? Why not just move on, accepting our disagreements? Why do keep insisting on banning people who have done nothing to you and stand for what you stand? Why do you want to destroy a great educational space? Please relax, life goes on. In a few months you wont even remember about this stupid drama. Dont kill the great space and community we have here, its not worth it.
All i said is that those benefits dont last forever due to the falling rate of profit, meaning that in the future a moment will arrive in which the labor aristocracy doesnt derive this benefit anymore.
This doesn’t make any sense. If this was how material interests worked, then the bourgeoisie would ALSO have a long term benefit to socialist revolution because of the falling rate of profit. If that’s the case, then the proletariat and the bourgeoisie have the same class interest!
You are equivocating on this point. The benefits of the labor aristocracy do not last forever, and that is precisely why they will not just repress but violently oppress other peoples and maintain a “forever” war as long as humanly possible. Because its in their interest to do.
Please relax, life goes on.
You said this
What is more important, worker solidarity and antiimperialism, or these specific social issues? You wont make a revolution by excluding anyone who is slightly more socially conservative, especially in a country as conservative as the USA
Legalizing abortion and gay marriage wont magically create a revolution, only class struggle will. Once we have socialism and economic progress more people will be convinced of these issues, which is why class struggle and worker solidarity must be the main focus. Class struggle and economic progress will lead to social progress. Cancelling anyone mildly conservative wont lead to revolution, it will lead to division among US workers and strenghten the bourgeoisie. Or do you think you will make a revolution without the support of all the workers in the red states? You need all workers on your side, both blue and red.
This is vulgar class reductionism. It espouses a position that makes other human “less than”, and espouses being a society on liberal tolerance of intolerance. There is no need, and indeed no way, to build a socialist movement that will be sustainable if we include people who, by their very inclusion, exclude the most vulnerable of us. It is not the case that simply because there are a lot of evangelical Christians that we should build a community that keeps their sensibilities safe while excluding those against whom they are bigoted.
You are making an argument from populism. This is not about everyone staying cool and calm while you make theoretical claims. This about you pushing a line of reasoning that threatens the well being of fellow comrades because you think larger numbers are bigger and that’s just “realpolitik”.
Don’t try to make Muad out to be the person who’s introducing all these new interpretations of your words. Your comments are all out there for us to see. You are bringing conversations into this space that will make others feel unsafe and espousing a mass movement strategy that has very dangerous implications. This debate about the appropriateness of Patriotic Socialism on colonial territory is one with incredibly violent outcomes in all directions, and there is, to date, no settled analysis on the question of how to proceed, but there is a growing body of analysis about how not to proceed.
I’m not sure I agree with everything saddamhussein is saying regarding patsocs and Israeli settler colonialism, but I do agree a mountain has been made out of a molehill here.
That is exactly my point. Land is a means of production, which is by definition owned by bourgeoisie. Israeli workers dont own any land, thats why they are workers. Their higher living standard is only because israeli bourgeoisie chose to give them value extracted from palestinian workers, as a way to bribe them into supporting colonialism and genocide, they are the labor aristocracy.
However, this cant last forever, due to falling rate of profit. Once surplus value from colonized palestinians isnt enough to sustain israeli capitalism, they will start extracting value from israeli workers too, thus getting them out of the labor aristocracy. At that point israeli workers will become revolutionary, just like palestinian workers are now.
For this reason, it is in the LONG term interest of israeli workers to support palestinians rising up against israeli colonialism, overthrowing them and establishing a socialist Palestine. The bribing of the labor aristocracy is only in their interests SHORT term, due to the falling rate of profit as explained above. Thus, all workers have the same interests LONG term, both colonized and colonizer, the socialist revolution and establishment of DotP.
The labor aristocracys selfish proimperialist interests can only last a certain time due to falling rate of profit, and is thus only a SHORT term interest, with the LONG term interest being socialism. This is my point, basic marxism leninism.
If workers aquire land through colonial means they could change classes into the bourgeoisie, petty bourgeoisie, or a kind of yeoman. In two of these cases they may very well not be huate bourgeoisie but overall I think your point here stands. Land acquisition can alter class character. As im sure you are aware, this is part of why settlers are not proletarian.
Maybe im being nitpicky here, but I contest the idea that this is a mere choice of the bourgeoisie. I’d say its closer to a natural law of capital. If the bourgeoisie failed to make this choice, the may well lose leverage over the colonized and laboring masses, and thus lose their class position. Labor aristocracy is a fundamental part of imperialism, not a mere decision to add icing to the cake or some unique mass bribe scheme. Its a major organ that keeps imperialism alive.
This is simply false. If they cant get surplus from Palestine, they will get it from Syria or Lebanon. Or Bangladesh, India, Indonesia etc etc. Or, they just evict more Palestinians. This idea that immediately the huate bourgeoisie would liquidate their occupation force IMO demonstrates a lack of understanding how these classes form and function together. Furthermore, there would have to be surplus value to extract. There would have to be a monumental reshaping of the global economy in order to facilitate exploitation of the current labor aristocracy to make up for even a fraction of the falling rate of profit. It needs, again, to be emphasized that a drop in quality of life for the labor aristocracy (especially as the actual global proletariat largely is also experiencing lowered quality of life) has little consequence toward changing its class character. Its like if some bourgeoisie lad lost 3 out of 80 employees and people decided this was a fundamental shift in their class character.
I disagree fundamentally with your notions of the labor aristocracy having the same interests as any other worker, especially explicitly colonized workers. Lenin himself was clear that rich countries would have to be ready and willing to endure a major downturn in quality of life in the wake of revolution because it would have to put an end to imperial spoils. The labor aristocracy’s interests are maintaining its quality of life, especially in comparison to the world’s working masses. Sakai also closes Settlers with an entire chapter on Strategic vs Tactical interests that is extremely relevant to this and I recommend you read it, as it states why colonized people have different strategic interests from settlers, but occasionally have similar tactical interests.
I might again be simply nitpicking, but it is not mere selfishness anymore than the bourgeoisie’s enforcement of capitalism is mere greed. There certainly are dialectics at play that create moments of qualitative change, and certainly pressure will be put on the labor aristocracy before it is directly put onto the huate bourgeoisie, but this doesn’t make a compelling case that socialism will come about from these specific pressures and contradictions. Socialism is the result of a process of history that unfolds from contradictions embodied in the global proletariat, not the petite bourgeoisie, the global house slaves (to be crass), or the yeoman settlers of settler colonial empires.
Also im not sure how you can really say its actually short term. Wage earners, yeoman, and bourgeoisie settlers alike have held land stolen from Indigenous people for generations, passing it down to their children or selling it to other settlers while Indigenous people are held in open air prisons. Beyond that, capitalism can reset itself through imperialist wars that the labor aristocracy and settlers have routinely supported.
Maybe a bit too basic tho?
#NotAllColonizers
Why is it so hard for you patsocs to accept that the garrison of settler troops, even if they are poor, derive real material benefits from imperialism? Hell, the city that I used to live in was built on land stolen from indigenous americans. Its suburbs now. The indians? Forced onto reservations.
The palestinians are demanding their land back. That’s their primary demand, for israeli occupiers to leave. They don’t want “solidarity” with the colonizers who are and historically have been killing them. Who the fuck are you to tell them “israeli workers have a right to that land”?
Muad, I am confused
Do you want settlers to join indigenous nations? You don’t want anything with settlers to remain, so what do you want to do with them? Do you want them dead? I have not seen you state any if your ideas for this.
Also why do you hate poor people for just existing?
They are at the mercy of the bourgeoisie forced to settle against their wills, that can’t be refuted. They get little in return and naturally would want to revolt. But you say they CANT and thus are inheritant allies to the bourgeoisie no matter what. This doesn’t make sense could you explain? But you say even sovereignty in socialism wouldn’t be enough if the settlers and Indigenous peoples coexisted. Why? Isn’t stopping the Imperialist, stopping the genocide? Now if you are so set on that socialism can’t bring soveirgnty what do you think if Kaliningrad or Tibet? This seems to have escaped the ideas of Marx, at least your proposal of the settler state. Marx was alive when when the US was still grabbing land, you don’t think he would of thought to point out the settling? Or Lenin during the Spanish American war?
Why do you live so heavily on one book that proclaims anything against it settler apologia? We know barely anything about the author, why the dogmatic view?
Muad, you say Maupin is fascist but you haven’t put any clips of him announcing fascistic remarks, and if this is true I would really like to see for my own eyes. That’s a huge claim to make with little evidence and we can’t just say that about anyone, especially MLs, otherwise it’s like you are making a boogie man.
Also nice use of “the indians”
How on earth did you get this from anything i’ve written?
Absolutely false, settlers aren’t kidnapped to colonize lands, they do so because of the promise of cheap or “free” land, and its in their material interests to do so.
I listed six other marxist-leninst books on the topic of settler colonialism, but yes, sakai’s analysis is extremely important and worth reading.
I never said this, but yes maupin has some absolutely dogshit takes. Here are a few of them:
Indigenous peoples polled in the US prefer the term indian above any other term ( take the american indian movement for example ). You don’t know this because you haven’t read a single thing written by any of them.
Absolute banger of a post
Removed by mod
I still don’t know why Dugin is so popular in the West, in Russia he is generally regarded as a niche,weird and overall irrelevant old dude
Yeah exactly. Western leftists think hes the new Hitler when in reality hes just some weird conservative boomer.
Holy shit I didn’t know he spent time around Dugin lmao
I would like to start off by thanking you for providing clips, I will respond to them when I can.
Muad, I admit that saying you hate poor people is exaggeration but you do discredit them to an extreme. I mainly wanna focus on your of definition of settling. You say, and rightfully so, that right now settlers are still settling, and the now is time I am referring to, sorry should have specified. So I ask you, where is this cheap land? I see no home ownership but of the bourgeoisie, and the dwindling middle class. But you claim all settlers are the labour aristocracy/petty bourgeois which is contrary to now! Not everyone got your cush life of the suburbs.
But let’s go back to the era of active settling you say “Absolutely false,folk tlers aren’t kidnapped to colonize lands, they do so because of the promise of cheap or “free” land, and its in their material interests to do so.”
That last part, sorta contradicts the first doesn’t it? The majority of settlers were from the lowest rungs of Britain’s social ladder, sure they weren’t “kidnapped” but they were forced between starving and poverty wages or getting land at the expense and bloodshed of the indigenous, they weren’t really in a position to make a choice. Not to mention the actual indentured servants. To ignore this class reasoning is to ignore all of history. Now when they actually started reproducing and getting accustomed to the privilege with land and genocide of the Indigenous peoples, the majority of settlers becomes of a petty bourgeois class, but still a minor proletariat. In the present day, the US settler state has grown so imperial that it has chewed away at the super wages keeping the workers in this labour aristocracy. In the beginning Britain’s proletariat where pushed to Indigenois lands, their numbers dwindled, but now the proletariat has emerged with class interests aligned with the Indigenous population, the overthrow the bourgeoisie!
Now you may be quick to say that settler and Indigenous interests are immediately clashing, but is it not similar to Western allies and the Soviet Union against Nazi Germany at worst, or the core proletariat and periphery proletariat at best?
Now when I say you hate poor people, it is due to you negating the pain and exploitation they face by ignoring their class as labours!
Now I have not seen your list of ML works could you please provide, I would be happy to look at them.
But Muad, the fact you know I was talking about “Settlers” shows just how much the book has been critiqued. Im not saying the book isn’t helpful, it is incredibly helpful and I will go so far that it is nessecary for those in the US settler state to read, but there’s lots of dogmatism following the book due to it being the most influential about the Settler state, and that dogmatism follows with the notion all settlers are petty bourgeois and benefit so much that they have no revolutionary potential. Imagine if we were all orthodox Marxists and believed there would be a synchronized over throw of the bourgeoisie!
Muad, I don’t really wanna play this game, I really don’t, it’s dehumanizing. In my life, in my town, we have a large population of Indigenous folk due to it hosting the largest Indigenous College in the state. In my experience, with these human beings who have to live through their own genocide, are deeply offended by the term Indian. Maybe the majority prefer it, sure, and if so I apologize for being nit picky. It is not for us to decide, but the ones around me treat it as a slur so I am cautioned by it, sorry for jumping the gun.
Muad my question about socialism bringing sovereignty, is one I am try to wrap my head under. If it doesn’t, are places like Kaliningrad and Tibet colonies? The book I was recommended and am reading “Decolonization is not a metaphor” states China as a communist empire? This is geniune, Muad, there seems to be some hole here that you may be able to point out, can you help please?
I am coming out to say, Muad I have no beef with you, I am just learning about movements like Land Back. And I’ll state it that everyone here wants sovereignty to the Indigenous, it’s just that this air of dogmatism is getting nowhere and the threatening purge of unlisted names will not aid in any attempted understanding and especially isn’t helping the Indigenous people. This isn’t an actual communist party it is a ML forum site, if we really wanna help the Indigenous and/or the Working Class this is not the way to do it.
Goodnight Muad, sorry things got heated I don’t want this to turn out like reddit.
Yes, i am extremelly confused by what he is constantly spouting about “setlers”. He knows that every american nation is a colony right? He also know that those same nations did the same thing the US did to the natives, till today, my country still is colonizing and destroying the lifes of the natives on the amazon region, and so are evry other latin american country with an native population. Mexico is an massive graveyard of natives, all brutally genocided, and so are the central american countries.
This saying that only the US population needs to be despised for being an imperialist setler population is american exceptionalism by itself, its basically saying that the US is more evil then others simply because it is the US, and because it is the US, it will never be able of changing. This is dumb, just because an country is an colony, it doesnt mean it cant become socialist, just because an country is imperialist, it doesnt mean it cant become socialist, thinking otherwise is thirdworldism, and even worse, its american exceptionalism; “because its the US” is american exceptionalism by itself, its like saying “the US is more ‘verb’ then any other place in the world, both on the past and on present, nothing can best the US at being ‘verb’, the US is the most ‘verb’ in the world” see what i am saying? Now put “evil” or “imperialist” or “capitalist” on the place of verb, and now put an positive verb, like “free”, democratic", “civilized”, or any other of those stupid things yankees love to jerk off about their country, see how it sounds? “The US is ‘verb’ simply because it is the US, and because it is the US, it will never change”, this is american exceptionalism, plain and simple, the US is at best, the most relevant and succesfull imperialist power TODAY, 90 years ago, if you asked on Europe, they would say nazi germany was the biggest imperialist, that it was an unfixable country, and would never become socialist, 15 years later, the GDR was born, this proves that even the worse of the worse of a country can be socialist, even something as nazi germany was able to be parcially fixed. And we need to remember, Marx passed most of his life on Britain and Germany, he was able to see the imperialism of both countries, and how britain was building the biggest empire in the world, and even then, he never thought “its impossible to fix GB because its an imperialist country, and therefore, its completelly evil and will never change”, lenin lived on the Russian empire, he was able to see very close how imperialism works, he writed a book about it, but he never sayed “Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, Austria, Belgium, The US, The ottoman empire, those are all imperialist countries, they are the worse of the worse, they will never be socialist because of that, the minds of their people are unchangeable by propaganda, might give up as an revoluctionary them lol”.
Muad, when did i ever deny that the labor aristocracy derive benefits from colonialism and imperialism? I literally said
“Their higher living standard is only because israeli bourgeoisie chose to give them value extracted from palestinian workers, as a way to bribe them into supporting colonialism and genocide, they are the labor aristocracy.”
All i said is that those benefits dont last forever due to the falling rate of profit, meaning that in the future a moment will arrive in which the labor aristocracy doesnt derive this benefit anymore. For this reason, the real long term interest of this labor aristocracy is to stand with the opressed against the bourgeoisie bribing them, since in the long term the bourgeoisie will screw them too, just like they did to the colonized. Thats all i said.
Muad, where did i ever say that “israeli workers have a right to that land”? Please show me where.
But this is beyond the point. What do you have against me Muad? This comment wasnt even a response to you, yet you keep stalking my comments. Are you ok? Do you want a conflict in here that badly? Why not just move on, accepting our disagreements? Why do keep insisting on banning people who have done nothing to you and stand for what you stand? Why do you want to destroy a great educational space? Please relax, life goes on. In a few months you wont even remember about this stupid drama. Dont kill the great space and community we have here, its not worth it.
This doesn’t make any sense. If this was how material interests worked, then the bourgeoisie would ALSO have a long term benefit to socialist revolution because of the falling rate of profit. If that’s the case, then the proletariat and the bourgeoisie have the same class interest!
You are equivocating on this point. The benefits of the labor aristocracy do not last forever, and that is precisely why they will not just repress but violently oppress other peoples and maintain a “forever” war as long as humanly possible. Because its in their interest to do.
You said this
This is vulgar class reductionism. It espouses a position that makes other human “less than”, and espouses being a society on liberal tolerance of intolerance. There is no need, and indeed no way, to build a socialist movement that will be sustainable if we include people who, by their very inclusion, exclude the most vulnerable of us. It is not the case that simply because there are a lot of evangelical Christians that we should build a community that keeps their sensibilities safe while excluding those against whom they are bigoted.
You are making an argument from populism. This is not about everyone staying cool and calm while you make theoretical claims. This about you pushing a line of reasoning that threatens the well being of fellow comrades because you think larger numbers are bigger and that’s just “realpolitik”.
Don’t try to make Muad out to be the person who’s introducing all these new interpretations of your words. Your comments are all out there for us to see. You are bringing conversations into this space that will make others feel unsafe and espousing a mass movement strategy that has very dangerous implications. This debate about the appropriateness of Patriotic Socialism on colonial territory is one with incredibly violent outcomes in all directions, and there is, to date, no settled analysis on the question of how to proceed, but there is a growing body of analysis about how not to proceed.
I’m not sure I agree with everything saddamhussein is saying regarding patsocs and Israeli settler colonialism, but I do agree a mountain has been made out of a molehill here.
I don’t like patriotic socialism, but I do see where you’re coming from
Thanks. I hope we can keep the community united despite heavy disagreements and respect each others opinion.