(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.
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?
Borders are a colonial construct. Indigenous claimed territory was specific to the territory’s economic function and specific resources. The confederations’ granting of territorial use-rights may not necessarily take the shape of precolonial relations, but it’s fine to look at it as a blurry model of the future.
Yes in the same way as “one person one vote” is necessarily not existing at this moment in AES countries as well, or in any theoretical ML state which would intentionally subjugate its vestigial Bourgeoisie and proletarianize them. Though most land in the US is not settled by Americans but reserved by the federal government for future extraction. Much of this will be immediately expropriated by the existing indigenous nations. Most homesteaded land works the same, it has basically been reserved under private ownership until the haute Bourgeoisie expropriates it and sometimes de-classes the settlers depending on the price. Beverly hills hillbillies being the successful image of that process for the petty bourgeois settler. Every town in America has a class of real estate agents who’s wealth came from selling their family’s stolen land, ala Primitive Accumulation. In simple terms just because your Bourgeoisie stole property doesn’t mean you’re the one entitled to its expropriation, the rightful owner is in the people it was stolen from.
Exactly, most USians own nothing. If you’re lucky you own a house. Very few own large tracts of land. Land back means taking the land from the colonial government and bourgeois landlords and landholders like Bill Gates.