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, 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.
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.
Absolute banger of a post
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.
Holy shit I didn’t know he spent time around Dugin lmao
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”.