It’s all I can do short of flying there and picking up a rifle. I’m in and have been in a couple of orgs in real life that have given messages of support their way. What have you done for them?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but if they wouldn’t participate in a proletarian state in the event of one being formed in Mexico, proletarians would end up having to crush them and dispose of their unprincipled practices, right?
I’m not the one fantasizing about crushing indigenous peoples if they don’t comply
I’m not fantasizing about it, I was asking if it might have to happen. This is not the same as saying that it is should happen, this is wondering if conflict between militant non-Marxists and militant Marxists might come to pass, as it often has before. I reiterate, in what way have you done more than me?
Appeals to normality now, huh? How’s it going?
This was in a thread talking about their ideology, and how it is opposed to Marxism. I am not pitting a Mexican settler state against indigenous people in general, I am expecting that a socialist state in Mexico would needs center and prioritize indigenous people, and suggesting that that state might end up in conflict with a specific indigenous organization with a passionate difference in ideology.
The point, which is going waaaaaayyyyyyy over your head is that it’s not the place of a bunch of white people to surmise or steer the discourse on what indigenous people should be doing. If you respect them and their autonomy, as you say you do, then you would listen to what they have to say or mind your own business. An armchair socialist isn’t the peer of actual fighters and border defenders. Buying some coffee doesn’t mean you own a share in your investment or whatever you think that affords you.
The problem here is genocide, them barely speaking the same language, or sharing the same culture with proletarian Mexico, or even rural Mexico for that matter.
All of these things that you want to have happened have happened Mexico and exist in the Mexican under currents.
Why are you putting all of the eggs in one basket as if the rest of Mexico had no sense of self or class conscience? It’s because you don’t know what you’re talking about. All you know is the Zapatistas so you expect a bunch of indians in the jungle with no industrial base or capacity to wage an armed struggle against a far greater foe.
Again, Mexico has a massive history of socialism, ML, strikes, general coalitions, and everything else you’d be expecting but you don’t know that.
You don’t know anything about Mexico but you read a thing on the internet. It’s not even that you put too much weight into some hold-out indigenous movement; it’s that you do it at the expense of the rest of Mexico.
It’s a slur, if a weak one. But sure, advocating a broader movement built on their successes is chauvinist, I guess.
You are a cracker who thinks buying coffee and posting online are revolutionary activities
And the most effort you’ve put into anything is impotent shitposting, so tone it down, kettle.
It’s all I can do short of flying there and picking up a rifle. I’m in and have been in a couple of orgs in real life that have given messages of support their way. What have you done for them?
I’m not the one fantasizing about crushing indigenous peoples if they don’t comply
I’m not fantasizing about it, I was asking if it might have to happen. This is not the same as saying that it is should happen, this is wondering if conflict between militant non-Marxists and militant Marxists might come to pass, as it often has before. I reiterate, in what way have you done more than me?
NORMAL PEOPLE do NOT go around “asking questions” about whether or not indigenous people should be crushed
Appeals to normality now, huh? How’s it going? This was in a thread talking about their ideology, and how it is opposed to Marxism. I am not pitting a Mexican settler state against indigenous people in general, I am expecting that a socialist state in Mexico would needs center and prioritize indigenous people, and suggesting that that state might end up in conflict with a specific indigenous organization with a passionate difference in ideology.
The point, which is going waaaaaayyyyyyy over your head is that it’s not the place of a bunch of white people to surmise or steer the discourse on what indigenous people should be doing. If you respect them and their autonomy, as you say you do, then you would listen to what they have to say or mind your own business. An armchair socialist isn’t the peer of actual fighters and border defenders. Buying some coffee doesn’t mean you own a share in your investment or whatever you think that affords you.
Ad hominem. Whataboutism. Third buzzword.
Hmmmm, gee, I wonder who else wanted to get rid of the “problematic natives”
Hey, look on the bright side, you’ve got a *glowing* career down at the CIA
The problem here is genocide, them barely speaking the same language, or sharing the same culture with proletarian Mexico, or even rural Mexico for that matter.
All of these things that you want to have happened have happened Mexico and exist in the Mexican under currents.
Why are you putting all of the eggs in one basket as if the rest of Mexico had no sense of self or class conscience? It’s because you don’t know what you’re talking about. All you know is the Zapatistas so you expect a bunch of indians in the jungle with no industrial base or capacity to wage an armed struggle against a far greater foe.
Again, Mexico has a massive history of socialism, ML, strikes, general coalitions, and everything else you’d be expecting but you don’t know that.
You don’t know anything about Mexico but you read a thing on the internet. It’s not even that you put too much weight into some hold-out indigenous movement; it’s that you do it at the expense of the rest of Mexico.