(Thread here: https://nitter.fdn.fr/RodericDay/status/1666063389733298176#m) They have some decent stuff, but they are also tailist patsocs. It’s probably better to just read the Black Agenda Report article than buy the book.
(Thread here: https://nitter.fdn.fr/RodericDay/status/1666063389733298176#m) They have some decent stuff, but they are also tailist patsocs. It’s probably better to just read the Black Agenda Report article than buy the book.
When the whites exclude marginalized people from unions, that always makes the unions less effective. Yes I agree. China liberating the the third world will make things worse for people in the first world and I suspect that will increase both the revolutionary potential and the forces of reaction. The previously colonized world sanctioning the USA would be an effective tactic for bringing a socialist world into being.
How do you expect a bourgeoisie with this many nukes to allow that to happen? I’ve pointed out in this thread the US increasing internal Imperialism to massively expand oil production to maintain dollar imperialism. It’s frankly a Trot opinion to think America will die from external causes. Block America’s access to internal wealth and you can choke Imperialism from within. I don’t know how much protesting Ukraine aid is gonna hurt Imperialism, but the no DAPL protests certainly did. The Cop City protests prevent international states from studying urban occupation.
Our Bourgeoisie thinks they can survive a nuclear war. They can’t survive one if we are sieging their neighborhoods. Necessarily we owe it to the world to end America, we don’t have the privilege to sit it out.
You mention that America’s imperialist contradictions will increase revolutionary potential and reaction. Which direction do you think will work best in our favor? Bending to reaction at the expense of the colonized peoples, or guiding them towards the decolonial movement?
External factors will contribute to the fall of western capital, not the only factor. Domestically building a means to support people in a socialist manner when that system falls is an important goal. Protesting the movements of capital are defensive but necessary.
I guess my point is that we should focus our energy on building socialism rather than destroying capitalism. I also think that the decolonization should be done in a socialist manner, not in the liberal essentialist manner.
What Liberalism advocates Decolonization at all. Liberal Decolonization is the propertied nation giving nominal rights to their colonies, i.e. neo-colonialism. Any system that gives the settlers political or economic supremacy is going to maintain settler Colonialism.
I’m uninterested in what the settlers deem socialist, because they don’t even understand their own settler relationship to the colonized peoples. They are overwhelmingly illiterate in the history of how we became colonized.
Building socialism necessarily includes black and indigenous sovereignty, not something given to us afterwards. It is the path towards Socialism. Our Bourgeoisie is nothing without their ongoing colonization of Indigenous land and their comprador settler workers who labor those resources. Ideally the American workers’ movements wake up to this contradiction and exercises it, otherwise the fight against Colonialism will take other, less ideal forms.
I don’t dispute that black and indigenous people should fight for their rights. I’d be in favor of minority groups politically being able to stonewall any proposals that undermine that group’s needs like the supreme court. I also think that settlers ought to have the superstructure respect these marginalized communities and learn the history from a Marxist Lenninist lens.
After the end of the enforcement of bourgeoisie laws, the material basis of being in the bourgeoisie stops existing. The same can be said for being a settler. If the material basis in employment opportunities, housing, healthcare, wealth, ability to raise a family are available to everyone independant of their ancestry as a settler or not, in the same matter, nobody is a settler at that point.
This isn’t true. The land is still stolen by one nation from another. The settlers can still dominate the colonies politically and decide things for them. Ancestry is not important outside of the racialized black context, and even black people can be settlers. It’s a national question and the indigenous nations have their own national political systems to define who is and isn’t indigenous. Again you misunderstand and overstate the importance of the American nation. Signing treaties of equality in a confederated context between all nations on this continent is a necessary precondition to Socialism. Political supremacy over land will be taken from the settlers and placed into the hands of a decolonial government. This decolonial government will bring about the eradication of the settler nationality as it itself withers away. The settlers maintaining power and “releasing” the imprisoned nations is tantamount to reforming the settler system, it isn’t a revolution for us.
The primary contradiction is settler Colonialism. Not the bourgeois-proletarian contradiction between settlers. This is proven by the history of this country and the consistent collaboration between settlers against colonized groups. Black Wall Street, the wealthiest black-oriented community in US history, was founded by Black land grabbers who got indigenous land for free and sold it to white settlers. Even when Black people joined in on the settler system, the white settlers destroyed it.
Yes that colonization was terrible. If we had a time machine those atrocities should be prevented, but we don’t.
I don’t understand what you are asking of white allies that are disgusted by the history of colonialism and subjection if you don’t want to be given anything. I suspect you want some things given that you can get easily and take with a bit more force that is not relinquished easily.
You say “The settlers can still dominate the colonies politically and decide things for them.” even in the context when political power is materially in the hands of previously colonized peoples. If the material conditions supporting white domination stop supporting that domination, how does that domination still exist? Or is it that you want 0 political power for the descendants of colonizers? Please clarify
World war 1 occurred as a result of capitalist imperialist countries fighting and destroying each other, but that does not negate the power of imperialism.
It’s not done history, it’s ongoing as I mentioned in other comments. Most recently the drilling project in Alaska. Pretending it’s done is the same as pushing the “So-called Primitive Accumulation” stance, which Marx made fun of. Stolen land is still stolen resources and supremacy over these resources is the source of white supremacy and US Imperialism.
Yes as in the lands claimed by the Americans will largely be returned to sovereign indigenous nations. The overall territories of the US, Canada, and Mexico will be governed by confederations of indigenous nations, the Black nations, and the settler descended peoples. Through the withering of the decolonial states will this occur:
Those material conditions being sovereign access to stolen territory. Voluntarily or by force these will be reclaimed. Force will be necessary to defend the transfer though, even if largely voluntary. White domination isn’t only in the form of inequality under the settler majority political system, white domination is the settler majority system itself. Settlers cannot have equal individual power to the colonized individuals, i.e. the American system. We will not be assimilated. We will take control over our systems.
Only in the way that the Bourgeoisie loses political power as a class, they earn it back by working for socialism. Americans will still control what they work and their settlements, and where interests interact with other nations it will be resolved through the decolonial states.
The Americans grew as an annexationist society, their power comes through their constant annexations. This ability will be de-fanged in the form of Land Back.
I agree with you on most of that and a return to indigenous sustainable land management and a proper place to live off the reservations that were cut off from vital infrastructure.
Using pre colonized borders for the confederacy? I don’t think most socialists care about the shape or name of their local governance.
When you say “white domination is the settler majority system itself”. Does that mean that the land having a vast majority of the population being settlers + one man one vote is the problem? You intend to only have a vangard party rule that made of people that support land back, decolonization, and unionization of all industry?