As you have all noticed, this seems to be a point of contention here. This is a good thing, since it means someone will learn something.
Now we seem to be all over the place, with this general area of thought, provoking many questions. Whether or not PatSocs are socially conservative, what is position on social conservatism? Many of us are very young, both in age and ML experience, so an online discussion would be a great learning tool.
- Are socially conservative individuals allowed to be apart of the leftist movement?
- A. Are socially conservative individuals victims of bourgeois propaganda?
-B. If socially conservative people are turned away by the left, where do they go?
-C. How high of a position would a social conservative be allowed in a ML party?
-D. How has or will MLs educate socially conservative folk?
-E. &tc, &tc.
- What exactly is Patriotism?
-A. Does patriotism depend on culture?
-B Is possible for a distinction between patriotism for a country and wanting to abolish the state?
-C. Is patriotism corrupted in the Core?
-D How have post imperialist countries with Communist experiments built patriotism?
-E. &Tc &TC
- Who even are the PatSocs?
-A. If the label is too convuluted, should we make a distinction between Maupin and American exceptionalists?
-B. Who of the leaders do we consider MLs?
-C. Should patriotic socialist be distinct from socialism or is inherent in socialism?
-D. How much do WE even know if PatSocs?
-E. &Tc, &tc
We can look at the USSR and GDR for these questions. Remember the Hammer and Sickel came from somewhere.
Things to look out for about the US:
-It is the imperialist power, AND a settler state.
-Low levels of cultural development
-The culture that is there is taken from marginalized groups.
-Americas are the most propagandized people in the World.
-It is huge and incredibly diverse
More questions about the US could follow:
-Should the US be balkanized? If so how does patriotism be built in balkanized regions?
-How does land back go about? Will indigenous countries emerge, and if so should we reconsider American MLs as different MLs for the Regions in North America.
-If we see different nations and regions in North America how does that affect culture? Is the question of how we view the land a prerequisite to discussing patriotism, is it contradictory to call yourself an American Patriot if you decide to divide up the land until regions?
There is so much potential for deep political for North American based Comrades, this is a rabbit hole I do want to delve into. I’ll cross post this to GZD but I want it mainly on Leftist Infighting.
Edit: spacing issues
My thoughts can be summarized by:
I’ve delineated why patriotism in “the West” is always reactionary in the cross post and will not be responding to that inquiry here. Always be Reading Theory. 😎
Outside of western countries, it’s iffy. There’s definitely more incentivised international cooperation in the global south that’s visible even among liberal governments, so they could probably get away with it. But in places like South Africa (for example) where people with European heritage hold reactionary views toward indigenous people of Bantu and Khoi-San heritage, it could easily be used as a method of maintaining oppression and continued segregation. Black Nationalism and Pan-Hispanic projects (like CELAC) have an anti-colonial and internationalist character. But white nationalism always has an imperialist character.
I don’t think anyone should be listening to PatSocs from western countries and using the excuse of patriotism in the global south as a justification for listening to them. Instead we should be platforming socialist leaders from those places to speak for themselves rather than ascribing the character of internet debatebros to them.
-If we see different nations and regions in North America how does that affect culture? Is the question of how we view the land a prerequisite to discussing patriotism, is it contradictory to call yourself an American Patriot if you decide to divide up the land until regions?
There are already cultural differences among both settlers and Indigenous peoples accross the continent.
The question of land is very important to this because PatSoc apologists are typically against “Land Back” or have obtuse and cynical ideas about it. I think its relevant to say that its disingenuous to call for a “Balkankzation” of the US because it implies decolonization is synonymous with the violent, imperial enforced destruction of Yugoslavia and the USSR. There is no “Balkankzation” of the US, there is only restoration and decolonization. If Israel had taken control of the entire southwest asian region, would abolishing Israel be a “Balkankzation?” Of course not, it would be the end of an occupation.
It should be said that America is not a place. Not a land. It is a colonial project that was nutured by colonial powers and settlers into a powerhouse for finance capital by way of the embourgiousiement of white settlers, liquidating and enslaving entire nations, including those within the borders of the US, as well as a nation of enslaved African diaspora, and many nations well outside its borders. This is why American must be abolished both legally and materially through a revolutionary process of decolonization.
-How does land back go about? Will indigenous countries emerge, and if so should we reconsider American MLs as different MLs for the Regions in North America.
As of today it happens through legal processesthat take advantage of contradictions within the colonial system and is discourse. It is oftentimes purchased by Tribal governments, usually lands that have been ruined by chemical polution or properties that are severly delapodated. Tribal governments then work to restore these lands according to community needs and Tribal values.
Some Nations are not federally recognized and are severely hamstrung but manage to hold their nation together through non profit organizations. These Nations work to gain recognition so they can aquire lands in trust with the Department of Interior so they are not crippled by property taxes, but also still look to aquire and consolidate ancestral lands that remain in the family of Tribal members.
“Indigenous countries” already exist. They are just imprisoned by the settler-colonial state. Tho they are not idle. They fight day and night for peace, land, and bread against deeply entrenched barriers placed by the settler state. There has been a lot of progress made and this progress points in a revolutionary direction because at some point it must be asked, where is this all going? The answer is full sovereignty.
But to answer your question about if I am an ML for a certain region or for specific nations instead of the greater American empire, my answer is “sort of.” My praxis is very much tailored for my local region and is done while centering Tribal leadership from local Indigenous Nations. Ultimately, it cannot be seperated so easily, because it is all held together by Washington DC (among other things) so I wouldn’t say im an ML exclusively for a specific regional coalition at the exclusion of others, but I do think it is vital that we understand local and more specific conditions because otherwise we are not actually building a foundation for revolution. Its probable that the material and cultural conditions that my area has will require different approaches and methods to be successful when compared to other parts of the continent.
Okay you seem to be itching a scratch I have in my brain.
Good of you to point out that “balkanization” is a dishonest term, and more appropriately it is decolonization.
But I have a few more questions about Land back.
Does Land Back view white people as settlers? If so why? is it that they’re descendants of settlers so them existing is a remnant of that, or only those who uphold the ideas that “America” and “Canada” exist, or something else entirely?
Now is Land Back a movement for ALL of the land to be returned to the different indigenous nations? If the notion is white people are intrinsically settlers, what do they want to do with them? If the notion is that it is just the STATE that’s a settler state, does the majority of white people in these nations dillude them being Indigenous?
Now when “America” and “Canada” first colonized there wasn’t a proletariat, and it was all settlers. Now as throughout time, the majority of the populations, are wage earners.
So is it fair to call white people settlers in a STATE apparatus formed centuries ago, that enslaves them?
Is it Anti Marxist to return to the way things were, discounting the new conditions formed for all working people? Is there any historical example of decolonizing a Settler State? If white people are born on native land, are they apart of that indigenous nation? Is this an issues of Nationhood and borders in general, or the specific parts of a settler state?
Again, just questions.
Does Land Back view white people as settlers? If so why? is it that they’re descendants of settlers so them existing is a remnant of that, or only those who uphold the ideas that “America” and “Canada” exist, or something else entirely?
White people are settlers, yes. Its not just this simple tho, because of a lot of reasons I cannot afford the time too but It is true materially and culturally that white people are settlers. Many white people own land that goes back to land grabs and handouts during conquest and allotment. Land that was directly stolen and occasionally even has sacred sites. This is ongoing. There are still examples of land being stolen from Native children and other crimes.
It should be noted that this is not meant as a moral statement. I am a settler, although I have no land of my own, my family does, and they certainly taught me settler politics and thinking.
Now is Land Back a movement for ALL of the land to be returned to the different indigenous nations? If the notion is white people are intrinsically settlers, what do they want to do with them? If the notion is that it is just the STATE that’s a settler state, does the majority of white people in these nations dillude them being Indigenous?
Land Back is a platitude. Its not some robust, well defined goal. This is both a strength and a weakness. Allow me to explain.
Land Back has different meanings for different Tribes, individuals, times, and places. Usually, it starts with Treaty Lands which were established via treaty in the 19th century. Native Nations have a legal right to this land according to settler constitutional law, but the settler state has historically not held up its own laws on this or outright failed to ratify the treaty in DC while Indigenous peoples were forced into concentration camps. So there are legal battles about Treaties that make up a big part of Land Back. This is a huge can of worms itself because it means that it is legally true than some entire major cities are on Native land yet Native institutions have no say in what goes on. Corporate lawyers that work for Exxon for example, end up arguing on behalf of the state that it would cause chaos to recognize constitutional legal processes and sometimes it works but there have been examples of legal jurisdictions being changed due to these court battles over treaties.
Sacred sites are also a part of it. Usually, Tribes are unable to get these sites protected unless they try to protect them from an environmental perspective, or if they can purchase them outright.
At the end of the day I think Land Back points toward the death of Amerika. It is not merely about sacred sites and treaties, it is an eternal political struggle against an occupier that has destroyed the landscape and has caused such damage to the global ecosystem that extinction is looming. Land Back is about the survival of Indigenous people first and foremost. But it can only lead to full decolonization if successful. So yes, all land back.
Now back to white people. Ive never heard anyone sincerely say white people have to be expelled. In fact it is usually detractors that say this. Of course there will be some violence. Bill Gates and Ted Turner own a fucking shit ton of Native land and frankly I dont care if they lose every single acre. Same for other fat cats and reactionaries. But remember, Land Back is about survival, not about evoking a deadly reaction from powerful settlers, vigilantes, or the state, so its very political ad it is driven by contradiction.
Personally, I think that undermining the settler state and the conditions of colonialism will end up abolishing whiteness and settler sensibilities over time. Indigenaity and the settler quality are a unity and struggle of opposites that is born of colonialism, so challenging colonial foundations is what I find to be an intuitive way forward.
There is a lot of trauma around the “am I Indigenous” question among Indigenous people due to colonial violence, so of course having a ton of white settlers around is confusing from an identity stand point. But there are plenty of Tribal institutions with members and maintained history and culture. The question to me is more how should us white communists fighting for decolonization see ourselves. I see myself based on a future id like to see, one without the American colonial project holding together a global empire. Not on some sense of shared history among settlers which imo PatSocs utilize. This, along with self criticism and centering Tribal leadership can undermine the superstructural parts of whiteness too. We need to build a system that can reproduce itself as it builds towards communism and so we cant rely on settler sensibilities, naratives or structures. Basically, North America needs to again be indigenized on the terms of Indigenous people and institutions in order to escape colonial development and discourse, and enter a situation where contradictions lead towards classless society instead of fascist reactions.
Now when “America” and “Canada” first colonized there wasn’t a proletariat, and it was all settlers. Now as throughout time, the majority of the populations, are wage earners.
The proletariat is that wretched underclass of workers that is inherently revolutionary due to internal contradictions within capitalism. You can be a wage earning worker and not have revolutionary quality and this is typically the case in the US and Europe. There has always been a working class of settlers and slaves. But which are revolutionary? Not the settlers. There are material reasons for this. It is not a mere moral statement.
So is it fair to call white people settlers in a STATE apparatus formed centuries ago, that enslaves them?
Yes. They are not slaves. They are paid more than their counterparts throught the exploitation of the global proletariat and the theft of land.
There is class conflict in colonial discourse but it is the petite bourgeoisie/labir aristocracy (settlers) vs the huate bourgeoisie (finance, MIC, oil). Of course the haute bourgeoisie is primarily calling the shots and this sometimes pisses off the petite bourgeoisie but historically they have used settlers as an army/occupation force and this has always given settlers political power within the state. People will say this is changing and that things are getting worse for the settlers. They usually leave out its getting worse for most of the periphery too. The huate bourgeoisie need a labor aristocracy for their empire to stand. Labor aristocracy and settler quality is a feature of imperialism that isnt dying out just because this generation cant afford a house as easily as their dad did.
Is it Anti Marxist to return to the way things were, discounting the new conditions formed for all working people? Is there any historical example of decolonizing a Settler State? If white people are born on native land, are they apart of that indigenous nation? Is this an issues of Nationhood and borders in general, or the specific parts of a settler state?
My answer is that I think its dialectical. Sublation of the current arrangement is the way forward. But this is not a matter of policy, it is a matter of contradictions developing the course of history. We should not imagine some ideal and then dogmaticly try to work towards that. We should embrace contradiction. That being said, much of settler sensibility is counter revolutionary, so something has to give on that front. And people doubling down on settler notions is toxic to the development of communism. There needs to be a process of existential death and rebirth alongside undermining capitalism itself.
I do think that by seeking to “return to the way things were” does have some merrit tho. Because we need to develop from a plave that is not baked in colonialism. This has a lot of implications, but basically, Id rather push towards classless society from within the contradictions of Native class systems and lifeways. This is why i typically say America needs two revolutions in other posts.
White people are not part of the Indigenous nation, definitely not just by location. Its not as simple as borders. Indigenous communities are defined by relations. This is a difficult topic to get into because im white and I dont really want to speak to how any Indigenous nation defines itself and I am very uncomfortable saying that white people of today should pursue joining a Tribe or something. White people already do this and it is destructive.
Hopefully this is somewhat helpful in explaining myself but it is a lot to answer.
Okay this helpful but I have a few more questions.
So I agree, that non indigenous people are part of the settler state and thus are considered settlers, but why are they (specifically white people) considered non revolutionary? (I mean we are both considered settlers, yet we are communists)
Is it not in the best interests of both to dismantle the Empire? Is that labour aristocracy exists? Cause I don’t think that is strong as it is anymore and especially with inflation, it seems to be reaching a screeching halt.
Isn’t it more that the state itself funnels, or least tries to, white people into petty bourgeois positions to separate the working class, instead of every single white person being of petty bourgeoisie class? Because it feels pretty Un Marxist to say blue collar, trailer park types aren’t proletarian, but maybe that’s what you were getting at and I misconstrued. But even then, arent petty bourgeois intrests with the proletariat?
Now sorta related, but should MLs in North America, especially the US, support every single secession movement or only specific ones? Should we support Texas seceding because it will be less colonized, and will weaken the Empire, plus might get the ball rolling other “states”?
Again, no malice just questions.
why are they (specifically white people) considered non revolutionary?
Tuck and Yang are pessimistic about the revolutionary potential of settlers because their interests are incommensurable with the interests of the oppressed indigenous people. That is, from an analysis of the interests of settlers, we can see that while settlers have an interest in dismantling the empire, that interest comes from the analysis exposed by Marx - that bourgeois society threatens the ability of society to reproduce us itself sustainably. The problem here is that from the interests of indigenous people, their interest is in settler society not reproducing itself at all. These interests are materially in opposition, they are contradictory, and therefore, the liberation of the indigenous people cannot be born from the interests of settlers. We must work against the interests of settlers, and that means, ultimately, repressing them, because they will react to things that threaten their interests. Hence, they are reactionary and not revolutionary.
Now sorta related, but should MLs in North America, especially the US, support every single secession movement or only specific ones? Should we support Texas seceding because it will be less colonized, and will weaken the Empire, plus might get the ball rolling other “states”?
I believe the analysis is pointing to the idea that those who support developing a sustainable society must support the weakening of the US empire and the strengthening of indigenous sovereignty even when doing so undermines the revolutionary potential of white settler society.
Keep in mind that when saying “descendents of settlers”, you are essentially invoking the “finders keepers” rule. You can do anything, even genocide hundreds of tribes, then wait long enough, and it becomes okay.
Does Land Back view white people as settlers?
Not just. It views EVERYONE that came to the Americas through European conquest as settlers. That includes slaves and subsequent waves of immigrants.
If so why?
“Decolonization is not a Metaphor” gives a strong analysis of why. https://clas.osu.edu/sites/clas.osu.edu/files/Tuck and Yang 2012 Decolonization is not a metaphor.pdf
In summary, it’s because settler colonialism is not a historical event, it is a living system that at its core is a system with the function of oppressing indigenous people through physical, economic, political, social, cultural, religious, and other means. Each non-white person that owns a house or rents from a landlord is participating in the settler colony, whether they want to or not, because their survival interests rely on it. Settler colonies convert land into property as part of their processes. While property exists, settlerism exists, while non-indigenous people own and interact with property, they are settlers active participating in the settler system.
Now is Land Back a movement for ALL of the land to be returned to the different indigenous nations?
Land Back is a movement to invert the power hierarchy and provide sovereignty of all colonized land to the indigenous people who are today oppressed. The indigenous peoples will use that sovereignty as they see fit. Inevitably, all settlers will experience at minimum transitional oppression as they will lose their way of life in part or in full. Land Back is not predicated on settlers feeling comfortable with whatever the outcomes are.
If the notion is white people are intrinsically settlers, what do they want to do with them?
This is idealism and not part of the Land Back analysis. White people don’t exist.
If the notion is that it is just the STATE that’s a settler state, does the majority of white people in these nations dillude them being Indigenous?
It’s not the state, it’s the society. If the state were to change its form, it would still be a settler state. It can be nothing but. The state cannot become indigenous. The state can only cede sovereignty.
Now when “America” and “Canada” first colonized there wasn’t a proletariat, and it was all settlers. Now as throughout time, the majority of the populations, are wage earners.
So is it fair to call white people settlers in a STATE apparatus formed centuries ago, that enslaves them?
We’re not talking about ideals like fairness. We’re talking about the material analysis of society. It does not matter that peasants became proletarians. What matters is that the interests of the peasants and the proletarians are incommensurable with the interests of the indigenous people who are oppressed by the society that is perpetuated by the peasants and the proles. It’s not the state that is oppressive, the state is merely a component of the violently oppressive society that every day harms the indigenous people of Turtle Island. That the people are enslaved to the system makes no difference because returning sovereignty to the indigenous people harms those who are enslaved as much as it harms those who are not enslaved.
Is it Anti Marxist to return to the way things were
Not inherently, no. You’d have to make the case.
discounting the new conditions formed for all working people
This statement erases the indigenous peoples completely. It is the single most clarion example of the problem. 8% of indigenous people in the US can speak their own language. They are living through their own genocide. The new conditions that you speak of forming are new conditions only for the settlers. The conditions that formed for the indigenous are those of mass slaughter, destruction of autonomy, destruction land. It is disingenuous to call the slaughter of every single buffalo on the plains a “new condition formed for all working people”. It is disingenuous to call the destruction of clean water for the creation of oil pipelines a “new condition formed for all working people”.
Is there any historical example of decolonizing a Settler State?
Not that I’m aware of.
If white people are born on native land, are they apart of that indigenous nation?
It could be said that I’ve answered this above. Read Tuck and Yang (above). They go into detail about how many of the white people that claim “we all have Indian blood in us from some ancestor somewhere” is quite literally the claim to innocence based on the fact that indigenous women were raped and their children were forcibly taken from them and integrated into settler society.
Is this an issues of Nationhood and borders in general, or the specific parts of a settler state?
It is an issue of contradictions inherent in systems of oppression. The idea of nationhood and borders arises from understanding the contradiction inherent in a society founded on a systemic form of genocide, mass murder, destruction of land, destruction of biodiversity, and oppression that is intrinsic in the system’s functioning, that cohabitates the same historical processes that the society inhabits, and continues every moment that the society exists.
I’m still reading through that pamphlet you gave me.
Edit: How come they call China a “communist empire”? it says Tibet is a colony, but what is our position of this?
You are making really strong points, I guess settlers are displaced by time and “tradition” (plus propaganda) to what is really going on, that is much easier to see in a younger Settler state like Israel.
Near the end when you mentioned Indigenous people still living through their own genocide and it isn’t just “new conditions” really resonated with me.
Now this is just the food on the platter, I don’t really want to start an all out war in this thread, but on multiple. I have y’all some questions to consider and discuss, to really draw out political thought and to progress.
I hope we do not end up in a mass ban, but this will mitigate that. Communication is key.
I agree totally with you, I have seen this topic over and over again with A LOT of misunderstandings. I think this could be a wonderful master thread about people discussing patsocs, patriotism and socialism! Furthermore, I want to emphasize that, we are all comrades here, we may disagree on some matters, but respect is key.
Right, hell this could be a launchpad where we write off PatSocs entirely and look for deeper understanding of the path forward in North American political development. Or we could decide on what PatSocs are and agree entirely, either way it’s a spot we need to pay attention to on Lemmy. Of course with civility. Glad we have something to do other than shitpost.
Edit: skipped a sentence, lol
I for one am split on this issue. I believe that patriotism in AES countries is definitely a good thing and is important for solidarity for the people there.
When it comes to the imperial core, and the US specifically, its much more murky and difficult for me to see whether such a position is effective for gathering support or building solidarity among the average working people. Because ultimately it seems to be an attempt to have something in common with the wider populace to entice people into sympathizing with socialist movements, but do we have any evidence to suggest that these sorts of compromises and tolerance work?
The only other Imperial Core countries with communist experiments are the USSR and GDR. The latter became communist right after being Nazis, so it is important to pay attention to how they denazified and educated the people to be more accepting socially. The former, was the first ever socialist state and consequently has to build proletarian culture and patriotism from the ground up, and from within the Core.
One thing Maupin (who I associate with PatSocs) believes in (which I personally don’t) is that the US working class shall take the stars and stripes, and then after the revolution decide to use them or not. This is what Castro said, supposedly, and that seems to be Maupin’s line. I think it is the role of MLs whether in the States as whole, or as an independent region of North America, to build a form of proletarian culture, and to distance from the previous “patriotic” symbols.
USSR was not an imperial core country, it was mostly feudal. GDR is an interesting case, because its the only case in history of a capitalist -> socialist transition. But it only went through that because of its proximity to the USSR, and because the USSR forced through de-nazification.
The thing with the us flag is that most people dont relate it with what it actually means. My country flag has the same problem, its related to the old royal flag, and the lies of the republic, but most people just think of it as an simbol of our gold, our sea and our forests. Lots of people say we reapropriated the flag, maybe its true, but i still think that using a flag without knowing what it trully represents is a bit ignorant, or idealist. Also both the US and our flag are soooo ugly, we can keep the colours but please throw the design on the garbage.
deleted by creator
I know right?! Body count of colonies, literally!
My idea for a flag in the Midwestern region where I am based is: Brown background, with GDR type wheat arcs around the center piece. Here is a simplified profile of a rooster’s bust. White head and neck facing towards the right, beak’s yellow matching the wheat, and finally a massive red crest with it’s top completing the subconscious circle from the wheat.
I don’t think the flag is really that important of a symbol to alienate potentially several allies in the working class. Is it worth losing out on support just because of a piece of cloth?
1 A—Depends much on the historical conditions of the country, countries that went through military dictatorships (like Brazil) tend to have a much more conservative population. Principally between older people (40 – 80) that see LGBT+ as defying their old ways and customs, with usually seeing them as “ugly” (speaking from personal experience). So bourgeois propaganda can be a big factor but not all the time, the bourgeois will always do what gives more profit, if that means being “woke”, so be it. Religious extremism is also a factor, but religion itself is not the reason.
1 B—I believe it depends on their current material conditions, if the current economic situation is terrible for them, they will choose a candidate that promises appeasing the situation while keeping the social situation more conservative or the same. If that is not possible or does not exist one who promises as such, they will still vote for a more left candidate.
1 C—Congress maximum, the problem is not having one, two, twenty social conservatives but having an amount that stops the progress in social areas. Though one could also argue that for such reason they should not be allowed to be lawmakers since that could result in having an enough amount of social conservatives that stop the progress.
1 D—I really like this quote from Paulo Freire: “When education is not liberating, the dream of the oppressed is to be the oppressor” social conservatives are only social conservatives because they did not have enough education on that subject or have prejudice against a group. Education is the best, although slow and long way to handle the situation.
2 A—I don’t think so, I like defining patriotism as a love for the people of your country and due to that wanting to do the best for them. I don’t think anyone here became a ML for selfish reasons, but wanting to help your people and understand the reality we live on.
2 B—Yes, if we use my definition of patriotism (which is above). You don’t like your government or the bourgeois, but you want to do the best to help the people and if that means abolishing the state, then it shall be done.
2 C—The so-called “Patriotism” is very much used as a tool of masses control in the Imperial Core, but this is a different kind of patriotism. It is used to make people proud of how things are or of their past (which, in the Imperial Core, has not been any good).
2 D—This is an extremely important question, I think education about the past crimes committed by the bourgeois governments is a good start. Then begin teaching socialism at schools, which is very essential to the creation of a national identity. This will create a good kind of patriotism, the one that is love for your people and being proud of those who fought for and the current achievements of socialism.
Okay it seems I agree with everything you are saying, great input. We are using a label we haven’t agreed on to describe a wide range of people, instead of stating our positions on issues like conservatism and patriotism. I believe once the fog is cleared we will come to realize we all have similar position.
Now the biggest wonder I have which I’ll probably make in the next post is if those actual, socially progressive MLs who call themselves PatSocs, are being redundant or not. For one, socialists want to build culture and thus patriotism in a new society so saying you are a specifically patriotic socialist is benign and a major reason why you are associated with American exceptionalism. And two, if you agree that the US (and Canada) is superficial settler STATE (a government, again not represented by the people) and that there are different regions and nations like New Afrika and dozens of Native Tribal states, why are you an “American patriot”?
As I have been writing this and pondering lately I think this goes much deeper to be a call of balkanizing US and Canada to more representative regions and nations. And if that’s the case should people like me start calling myself an ML based in North America?
I think Maupin is a very import figure right now for the North American left, but I don’t quite understand why he calls himself an “American Patriot” and that “he loves his country” even though positions seem to contradict that.
I think Maupin is a very import figure right now for the North American left, but I don’t quite understand why he calls himself an “American Patriot” and that “he loves his country” even though positions seem to contradict that.
My fascist family uses the same lines when they run for office to convince old timer democrats to vote republican. This is an example of someone trying to manipulate colonial discourse into their favor.
Maupin’s error is assuming that all class consciousness is good, that it all leads to proletarian revolutionary consciousness. He is incorrect.
If you tell people whoes livlihood depends on maintaining the wealth they recieved during the Homestead Act of 1862, or from super profits that are recycled into super wages for the Global North’s working class, that they have nothing to lose but their chains and that America deserves better, they will not hear the same thing a Haitian, or otherwise imperialized/colonized person hears. They will hear a call for fascism, for another round of colonial conquest and extraction, so they can get theirs once again.
deleted by creator
Amazing analysis! This is the stuff we need here, well informed objective analysis, not fear mongering!
This is the best summary of Maupin’s political stance and faults summed up, and on top of that doesn’t paint him as a rabid Nazi wishing for the destruction of all minorities. You could use this comment as a blog post even. Wish I could favorite twice. You basically said all of what I conveyed.
The US is a good example of an unequal exchange. Many times, wage increases for oil/petrol workers are at the behest of the wishes of indigenous peoples that the US has fucked over too many times already. Being a PatSoc means protectionist politics, which Marx himself argued against, ESPECIALLY imperial core countries. It also means thinking the Founding Fathers had any class interests in mind besides those of the rich landowners and slave owners.
Removed by mod
What exactly do you mean? Nations in general?
I mean sure YOU can find that nostalgic and pretty much outdated, but I don’t think the rest of the World is quite up YOUR speed.
I mean humanity exists in Nature, and has risen from somewhere, and will continue to exist somewhere. Based on different geographies and climates (material conditions) life has developed different features. People who are in the same area, overtime, will come together to form a similar communication system. Also the different slight adaptations they have will solidft the more they reproduce. People in these groupings will also have around them similar means of sustainability, I e food products that have adapted to their similar region, you wouldnt see American Bison being eaten in Vietnam. To make an analogy to a zoo is odd, since this a natural development of societies.
This was all well and good until Feudalism started dying off and Capitalism came along. When Europeans started colonizing that’s when Nations really come into importance. Before you could have Romans and the Chinese trade and at least respect each other’s culture. But for in the name of “Britain” or “Spain” or what have you, European nationalism started taking down and tearing apart cultures of what is now known of the general periphery. The Anglos specifically succeeded in this, by almost wiping out entire races and stealing all of their homes. And that I have just mentioned, they used Race science to justify it! Not even nations or common demographics but entire Continents! Now instead of race science Capitalist Propaganda tells children in the Global South to consume and confirm to American life.
Instead of using the interconnected world system to realize eachother differences and come together, we have intensified them to there extremes. The periphery’s nations (not exactly the borders, I consider Lat Am and the Arab world unjustly split) and the colonized nations to be, must be preserved.
You saying you don’t believe in soil centric ideologies and that they are nostalgic and pretty outdated, is the Anarchism of the National Question!
Sorry got sassy at the end, so let me restate what I mean.
We all want to have humanity under one banner and that’s not happening time soon, so it is very Non Marxist to ignore Historical and Material realities like Nations and common demographics.
there are endemic species adapt to certain environments and then there is humans and migratory species, who by nature do not know borders. the rest is all social construct by people jealous of each others fiefdoms. i do believe in federalisation of ubuntu communities, and i do accept a certain degree of localisation. But you’re not gonna get me with “blood & soil” bs… The principle and ends will be the same, the means may differ, so in the end the only barrier to you doing whatever you do somewhere else (if you so wish) would be that of language, local traditions/cuisine (and maybe local differences in communication protocols).
the rest is the same. people work. follow dreams, love, shit, eat, play, have kids, educate themselves, enjoy and suffer and hope everything will turn out fine and then eventually they die. and that is what a society of any size should be concerned with first and foremost. And it is not really much dependent of the color of the rag you associate with a given piece of soil…
