Yeah there was some pretty cringe stuff in there. The colonialism of tibet line made me laugh with incredulity. But there is some good analysis in there too. There is a lack of resolution in the text which is a classic example of liberalism. Point at the problem and describe it in detail without highlighting the root cause or the way to fix it.
I think analyzing a problematic text with good ideas in it is more interesting and useful than re-reading the building block books of Communist Theory.
Point at the problem and describe it in detail without highlighting the root cause or the way to fix it.
The root cause is the need for “rescuing settler normalcy, rescuing a settler future”, the methods to create that normalcy are outlined in the text. In a word, the way to fix that root cause is: decolonisation.
In order to reach the point where decolonisation is a possibility, which is mentioned in the text several times, what is necessary is “abandoning the hope that settlers may one day be commensurable to Native peoples”. After reaching that point, obviously many many question will arise, which again is mentioned in the text: “these are questions that will be addressed at decolonization, and not a priori in order to appease anxieties for a settler future”.
the need for “rescuing settler normalcy, rescuing a settler future.”
That is not the root cause of colonization. The root cause of colonialism is the capitalist desire to find new resources and peoples to exploit.
the way to fix that root cause is: decolonisation.
and the way to not being sick is to be healthy. This is pure idealist nonsense.
You can’t just say “decolonisation” like its an action like “juggling” or “chewing gum” or “seizing the means of production.” Those things have a method implied for their execution. There is a history of completion to refer to. There isn’t a rewind button on the colonialism machine.
The text is aiming to address treating decolonisation as a metaphor. That is what I was talking about.
I don’t expect to hit the magical decolonisation button and decolonisation occurs overnight. What is the implied method for decolonisation that you’d like to discuss?
This comment chain was more of a meta discussion of the work as a whole and the problems it has.
Point at the problem and describe it in detail without highlighting the root cause or the way to fix it.
This was a general statement at how liberal “progressives” prefer to navel gaze, theorize, and expound everything except the real solution. Treating decolonization as a metaphor isn’t a real problem… unless you think you can decolonize while maintaining capitalism.
Decolonization without a socialist revolution is just way to make another layer of exploitation in the form of a indigenous bourgeoisie and government which will collaborate with international capital to form Neo-colonial systems.
The authors go out of their way to not blame capitalism and say (incorrectly) that “socialism does colonialism too.” That is done in order to talk about something in detail instead of addressing the real issue.
I basically agree with all of those points. There are some ties in the text between the settler nations and their sources of capital i.e. land/nature/slaves, but not explicitly.
Treating decolonisation as a metaphor is a real problem…especially if you are planning to overthrow/dismantle Capitalism. Acknowledging the challenges that will come and trying to shatter those illusions about decolonisation is critical. Decolonisation is only ever going to be a metaphor in a world dominated by Capitalism.
Yeah there was some pretty cringe stuff in there. The colonialism of tibet line made me laugh with incredulity. But there is some good analysis in there too. There is a lack of resolution in the text which is a classic example of liberalism. Point at the problem and describe it in detail without highlighting the root cause or the way to fix it.
I think analyzing a problematic text with good ideas in it is more interesting and useful than re-reading the building block books of Communist Theory.
On this, I agree.
The root cause is the need for “rescuing settler normalcy, rescuing a settler future”, the methods to create that normalcy are outlined in the text. In a word, the way to fix that root cause is: decolonisation.
In order to reach the point where decolonisation is a possibility, which is mentioned in the text several times, what is necessary is “abandoning the hope that settlers may one day be commensurable to Native peoples”. After reaching that point, obviously many many question will arise, which again is mentioned in the text: “these are questions that will be addressed at decolonization, and not a priori in order to appease anxieties for a settler future”.
That is not the root cause of colonization. The root cause of colonialism is the capitalist desire to find new resources and peoples to exploit.
and the way to not being sick is to be healthy. This is pure idealist nonsense.
You can’t just say “decolonisation” like its an action like “juggling” or “chewing gum” or “seizing the means of production.” Those things have a method implied for their execution. There is a history of completion to refer to. There isn’t a rewind button on the colonialism machine.
Are we discussing the text?
The text is aiming to address treating decolonisation as a metaphor. That is what I was talking about.
I don’t expect to hit the magical decolonisation button and decolonisation occurs overnight. What is the implied method for decolonisation that you’d like to discuss?
This comment chain was more of a meta discussion of the work as a whole and the problems it has.
This was a general statement at how liberal “progressives” prefer to navel gaze, theorize, and expound everything except the real solution. Treating decolonization as a metaphor isn’t a real problem… unless you think you can decolonize while maintaining capitalism.
Decolonization without a socialist revolution is just way to make another layer of exploitation in the form of a indigenous bourgeoisie and government which will collaborate with international capital to form Neo-colonial systems.
The authors go out of their way to not blame capitalism and say (incorrectly) that “socialism does colonialism too.” That is done in order to talk about something in detail instead of addressing the real issue.
I basically agree with all of those points. There are some ties in the text between the settler nations and their sources of capital i.e. land/nature/slaves, but not explicitly.
Treating decolonisation as a metaphor is a real problem…especially if you are planning to overthrow/dismantle Capitalism. Acknowledging the challenges that will come and trying to shatter those illusions about decolonisation is critical. Decolonisation is only ever going to be a metaphor in a world dominated by Capitalism.