No.482566
lamb rack
No.482567
https://youtu.be/qOqg0nuW1AoThis is this woman introducing Bernie Sanders BTW at an event
No.482568
Step 1: Call for all the COLONIZERS to get OFF native LAND!
Step 2: Now that 99% of the country's population has been forcibly expatriated and dumped somewhere in the Arctic we have finally won!
Step 3: Some noble savage tribal """"primitive communism""" occurs here
Step 4: ????
Step 5: Neighboring countries immediately invade for literal free resources
No.482569
>>482568>Step 5: Neighboring countries immediately invade for literal free resourcesStep 6: 200 years later they are forcibly expatriated and dumped somewhere in the Arctic
Such is the eternal cycle of land back.
No.482570
This woman has a PhD too she's not some retarded teenager
.
https://mobile.twitter.com/LakotaScientist No.482571
>>482565>What do these people that desire land back think that will look like in the USA and what will happen? Hopefully the end of the USA
No.482572
>>482570>the end of the USAAnd what does that mean?
No.482573
>>482571>>482572She voted for Biden to "stop fascism" lol.
I don't think she wants to end the usa either
https://medium.com/@sophia.marjanovic No.482574
>>482565They have no concrete idea of what they want, it's just moral posturing and virtue signalling.
No.482577
>Marjanovic
a fellow Serbian native american
No.482578
>>482577>NATO intervention into Yugoslavia traumatized her so hard she ended up looking for any excuse to lay historical claim to another countrySad! Many such cases!
No.482579
>>482575As communists we should support Biden's Build Back Better Plan because it will lead to the end of the USA. How?
Fuck you, whitey.
No.482581
>>482577https://twitter.com/LakotaScientist/status/1178143264521773057?s=20On her linkedin she has her languages listed as "Lakota"
I don't want to post it in case mods consider it doxing
No.482582
>>482572Not sure. I think it could take different forms. The current USA stinks though.
No.482583
>>482582>I think it could take different forms.List the ones now that start from land back and ends in the fall of the US please.
No.482584
>>482570Are you still in college or something? PhD doesn't mean anything. There are retards with PhDs that I'm surprised can prepare a bowl of cereal with milk without help.
I guess you were being fascetious.
>>482577Kek
No.482585
>>482583I just said it's aspirational. Hopefully. But the more people disrespect the USA, the better, because there's no reason to respect it.
No.482586
You guys think people like this are feds?? I googled this girls name and she's part of so many protest!
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/kurds-supporters-rally-d-c-183610645.htmlEven this one demanding Trump keep troops on Syria.
Wtf
No.482588
>>482586Land Back – for us, not those BRUTES in Syria.
No.482593
>>482591>kid is taken because her "Lakota culture would alienate her son."Yeah, she's insane and lying. She must have some serious substance abuse issues or history of abusing her kid and now she says that's part of her "culture".
No.482595
larp
>>482580wtf is the red thing
No.482596
Kid back
No.482597
>>482595Ajvar – and it's manna from the gods.
No.482599
>>482595>>482597and the middle one is kajmak, which is also extremely good
No.482604
>>482602You're assuming garden-variety US shitlib doesn't suck Israel off on the regular.
No.482607
OP is a sicko who is stalking and doxxing a random Indian woman. Saged and reported.
No.482608
>>482607
>random Indian woman. Shut up with your pearl clutching idpol. This was the person at protest yesterday fighting for biden. All of this is public info
No.482609
>revolutions are toxic masculinity and against Mother NatureDr. Marjanovic can be reached at
[email protected]. Dr. Marjanovic's patreon is patreon.com/sophiamarjanovic.
No.482610
>>482609Insane to read lmao.
No.482614
>>482609>Israel needs to do betterThe fucking nerve of these people. UNREAL.
No.482616
>>482614If you think about it that's just MAGA for Israel, coming from a Biden supporter, lol.
No.482617
>>482613>>482611What the fuck?!
>>482606We have some Arizona comrades. Maybe we can get her to be expelled from the DSA.
Maybe an email to the chapter could work?
>>482616Nothing short of insane.
No.482618
>>482617it's pointless to try to purify DSA. it's a lost cause
No.482619
Seriously Google this girls name and political terms or politicians and look at how many articles come up about her she's been featured in for quotes. Bunch of big newspapers quote her for events.
Imagine how many political operatives like this fucking shit up are out there doing this.
No.482621
>>482619The motivation was shits and giggles, of course.
No.482623
>>482622This just keeps getting more insane. I'm here for it.
No.482624
Land back in the order is
1) Glowed to shit
2) Literally based on blut and boden rhetoric disguising as leftist
3) Inherently divisive
Fuck this shit.
No.482631
>>482565Ironically, class reductionism would solve all her problems.
No.482633
https://youtu.be/pIjjvqTuHPcThis channel will teach you need to know about land back from the top expert on the topic in the world.
Highly recommended
No.482634
>>482633This video perfectly explains how to take proper a
Steps to put land back into action
https://youtu.be/gkQmyCCNn_8 No.482637
>>482613>randomly starts fawning over Israel on a completely unrelated postReads like something a bot would write. We sure this is a real person?
No.482638
>>482627>>482628Scratch a sakaist…
>>482636We've been debating 3 anons in the ITG thread for the last 3 days. It comes down to this:
Land back is a series of receding positions.
First its the full "give natives their land". Which means literally just writing all of the US over to "the native american community" which is obviously a monolith, organized, and exists in real life. Once you start pressing the position, then a new position is taken: "Not all land back, just some". When you continue pressing, then it becomes "Only those that are already coherent communities and only on the land they already live in". If they are communist then the final receding point is that "communists should consider the natives when they install communism and maybe give them some land so they can fuck off on their own".
In truth, it is no more than a statement to signal moral virtue. A morality that is apparently shared with Zionist, scratch a liberal…
Truth of the matter is that the US stole half of Mexico and is actively keeping mexicans from returning to their lands. Land backers can't contend with this fact. The colonized have become the colonizers.
No.482639
>>482637Yeah the text in the second picture does look like somebody trying to link a list of talking points with words. This could also be a "meat-bot" and i don't know how useful it is to discriminate between "carbon-bots" and "silicon-bots" because in the end this is just an expression of Zionists realizing that they are loosing the propaganda war, and trying to rebrand as indigenous.
No.482641
>>482635What the fuck is with this music, speeches are supposed to inspire but the music is just shitty vhs horror music from the 90s while this guy dances around acting like a borderlands mini boss. .
No.482642
>>482591>You know you did some fucked up shit when they'll take the kid from the mom in the usaNot at all. The social services in USA dont seem to have the 'keep the family together' mentality in this respect. They seem more happy to take them when they are native too I think.
No.482643
>ITT we pretend decolonialization is White Genocide
I mean if you guys don't wanna look like Nazis, you're doing a poor job.
No.482644
>>482642>They seem more happy to take them when they are native too I think.Go back to reddit
No.482645
>>482643Where do you see this in this post
No.482646
>>482570she might know a lot about micro biology, that being said shes still a retard rad lib
No.482647
>>482644No need to sperg, friend. It seems like a valid critisism.
No.482648
>>482647>It seems like a valid critisism.No it doesn't at all.
No.482649
>>482638None of this is fucking true. What ypu, as a conservative liberal want is a hard rigid definition of what Land Back is and what has been explained to you is that Land Back can look like all of those secenarios.
So a criticism of each of these positions is not a Criticism of Land Back, only the subsets of Land Back that involve these positions.
To take criticise one of these and pretend it's a criticism of all Land Back is what's called "a strawman".
No.482650
>>482645"These posts" you mean? Look closer at the thread, you will find people who thinls it's about deporting most white people or even all of them.
If that's your primary concern over trying to establish how to decolonize america, you're spreading White Genocide hysteria, and that belongs on /pol/.
No.482651
Land back is just brown reactionaries
No.482652
>>482649A term too broad to mean nothing is worthless.
No.482653
>>482642Yes and that extea willingness to take away children away from Natives and transfer them to other groups are a part of the ongoing genocide of Native Americans.
No.482654
>>482652Then communism is meaningless. Stop being a communist.
No.482656
>>482650Clearly it is about that for some people, like this "Lakota Zionist" bitch who literally upholds Israel as a model for indigenous land reclamation.
No.482657
>>482655Who cares?
There are people that believes that socialism and gommunism is when the government does stuff. Is that a good criticism of Socialism and Communism?
No.482660
>>482649you can't even give a meaningful example of something without every example being shown to be terrible, meaningless, or walked back.
even marx, who gave very limited positive development of the concept of lower phase communism, still gave a rough outline of what it would entail.
No.482662
>>482656Okay, so you have an argument to make against the subset of Land Backers that want to solve the issue by deporting all white people. Now can we stop pretending that's all there is to it and stop the White Genocide /pol/ spam?
No.482663
>>482654We have already achieved both Land Back and Communism, so you can go home and stop posting now.
No.482664
>>482648Can you explain why instead of being a sperg?
No.482666
>>482660I have given a rough outline several times.
It means ending settler/white suprmacy within the US, repairing colonized communities and establishing self determination for them and thus and ending the antagonisms within the proletariat and uniting them as one.
Any solution that accomplishes this is Land Back and Decolonization.
No.482667
>>482665>There's a secret conspiracy to genocide white people and they're lying about itEngage in self-crit
No.482668
Land back is the same thing as black capitalism. Doesn't solve anything
No.482669
>>482666And can you give any concrete examples of what this means?
Also, how is this in any meaningful way different from what any serious socialist program is already going to entail under the near universally agreed upon point that socialists need to focus on improving the lives of those worst off? Any serious point you can make about "land back" that isn't "deport whites" in some way shape or form is just going to be a subset of what nearly every socialist already demands.
No.482670
>>482667>completely unrelatedDid reply to the wrong post ?
Or are you trying to pull of the most ambitious bait and switch fallacy ?
No.482671
>>482669>And can you give any concrete examples of what this means?That obviously depends on the solution. It is categorically impossible impossible give you a one true concrete example of a comcept that involves multiplicity of solutions. For example, it is impossible to give a concrete example of what the true definition of a communist revolution looks like, because there were a lot of different solutions to this problem over time.
I can give you examples of ways to approach each solution, but not without a defined solution.
No.482672
>>482670No that's what you're saying. Land Back is secretly just about killing/deporting all white peeps and they just lying about it.
White Gebocide /pol/ posting
No.482673
>>482671Okay let's do a theoritical. I am a white man who owns a 2 bedroom house with my family in Oklahoma where a tribe was before hundreds of years ago.
What happens to me when this land back plan takes action
No.482674
>>482673That depends on the solution to Land Back.
No.482675
>>482674You want us to not make assumptions about this topic then don't give us answers when we ask questions
You see the predicament?
No.482676
>>482675I already specified what Land Back means.
Are you asking what MY soultion to land back is or?
Because I cannot give you the answer to all solutions at once, because dome of them contradict each other, jsut as with ways to implement socialism.
No.482677
>>482674>>482672>>482671at this point you're an absolute pseud and fraud coming up with non-excuses as to why you can't give a single meaningful answer, you can't even explain how your position is even a coherent thought, over multiple days. You're honestly just a piece of shit exploiting the position of native americans to try to win online moralizing points.
Just stop.
No.482678
>>482676Sure what is your solution
No.482679
>>482677Because noone can give one comcrete answer that includes all peoposed solutions, just as with socialism.
You can only give the concrete answers to the concrete solution you subscribe to, so…
No.482680
>>482678The land is transferred to the authority of a Native ASSR. In so far as it is determined that this land is needed for that ASSR's needs, you will be rehomed elswhere within the nation. Otherwise you're free to live as a citizen of that ASSR.
No.482681
>>482680>Otherwise you're free to live as a citizen of that ASSR.I don't believe this land back entails me being able to live on their land still when they get it back. I see this as you white washing the brutal/clean cutness of what land back would be to make it sound more liberal and pretty.
Why would they let white people stay on their land once it is theirs? Have any information of land back people saying the former people who inhabitated "their land" get to stay?
No.482682
>>482681>Why would they let white people stay on their land once it is theirs? Have any information of land back people saying the former people who inhabitated "their land" get to stay?And so what if they decide that you get to be rehomed somewhere else within the USSA?
Is this litterally just conservative fear that Natives not being brought to heel anymore is the same as white genocide?
No.482683
>>482672>No that's what you're saying. Land Back is secretly just about killing/deporting all white peeps and they just lying about it. /pol/ postingSo now that you have been caught motte an baily posting you are combining a ad hominem fallacy and strawmen fallacy to attack me personally and distract from your terrible arguments that can't back up your opinions. Don't you realize that you are really just discrediting the land back movement even more with this display of outrageous dishonesty.
hmm ? or are you trying to make land back proponents look bad on purpose ? Dammit conundrum paradox !
No.482684
>>482682I'm just asking you to be honest about what it is instead of beat around bush avoiding the reality that it appears you know.
No.482685
>>482682>And so what if they decide that you get to be rehomed somewhere else within the USSA?Do you seriously think it's acceptable that people be deported from their homes on the basis of ethnicity? I'm all for the creation of indigenous SSRs with political autonomy, robust investments in native communities, ceding large amounts of land back to them, etc. But this should all come with the caveat that anybody currently occupying that land (porkies excluded of course) has the right to continue living there.
No.482686
>>482684>>482683No, I'm saying that's what the white genocide conspiracy amongst nazis are. The idea that Natives and Black people secretly want them back first chance they get, and thus any loosening of White Suoremacy is in fact White Genocide. This is what you're propagating.
No.482687
>>482685>Do you seriously think it's acceptable that people be deported from their homes on the basis of ethnicity?Depending ol the political history behind thay, sure. Just as it has happened in almost every Marxist state. Hell, what I am saying is to leave it up to the ASSR on am individual basis, what happened historically between Poland and Germany was a mandate to transfer of all Germans into Germany from the very top
No.482688
>>482687>ethnic cleansing is okay if the ethnicity in question did bad things in the past Protip: it was bad when socialist countries did it too.
No.482689
>>482686The white genocide conspiracy isn't some future threat of deportation it's da joos putting mixed couples on tv
No.482690
>>482603>>482602>>482600>zionist landbackeri loled
No.482691
>>482688You're right that it was much worse when the USSR did it as opposed to an ASSR determining it needs some land for its own purposes and then rehomes a person.
Or are you saying that under socialism everyone has property rights and noone can be rehomed even if that is determined to be in the interest of the state.
>>482689White Genocide Conspiracy is the belief that Jews, Natives and Black people want to end white existence by whichever way possible and are secretly lying about it using leftist language and that is also what you believe.
It would be healthy for you to self-crit and reflect over these things you hold in cpmmon with people who identify as nazis.
No.482692
>>482691There's a difference between a piece of land being essential to the interests of society at large and removing people from their homes just because you want to. If it could be proven that a person's land was needed for some public project of great importance, immediate security concerns, etc. then fine, they could be removed with compensation. But without this there is no valid reason to deport people. In other words they shouldn't be allowed to do so just because they don't want white people around.
No.482693
>>482691>White Genocide Conspiracy is the belief that Jews, Natives and Black people want to end white existence by whichever way possibleIs it due to the animosity between the Jews and Whites?
No.482694
can i ask, is creating autonomous zones so they can expand their culture as well as giving land for indians to farm and integrate them into the economy considered land back ?
No.482695
>>482692>There's a difference between a piece of land being essential to the interests of society at large and removing people from their homes just because you want to.Who's to determine what's in the interests of that ASSR's interests at large except for the ASSR itself? What if they determine that a stratum of white settlers are likely to vote against the interests of First Native self termination and as such a security risk to the community and its self determination as a whole?
Luckily, there is no evidence are even half as genocidal and hateful as settlers have proven to be, so I'm sure that's a very unlikely scenario, and if it happens in some individual cases, what of it? The alternative is upholding White Supremacy.
>>482693>Is it due to the animosity between the Jews and Whites?Sometimes, but there are plenty of people that believe in White Genocide and Great Replacement that don't necessarily believe it has anything to do with jews.
>>482694Indeed, that would by and large be a solution to the Land Back issue.
No.482696
>>482695>Who's to determine what's in the interests of that ASSR's interests at large except for the ASSR itself?The nation as a whole, which I'm sure you agree should have a constitution which all member republics must follow. I'm sure you would also agree that this constitution should guarantee protection for all citizens from being targeted or discriminated against on the basis of ethnicity. Hence the ASSR would need a valid reason to remove these people other than "fuck yts".
>Luckily, there is no evidence are even half as genocidal and hateful as settlers have proven to beNow you're veering into race essentiallism. Events like genocides are the product of material forces, they have nothing to do with any kind of inherent cultural or racial traits. Indigenous people were capable of horrific violence themselves when they deemed it necessary. Everybody us capable of genocide.
>What if they determine that a stratum of white settlers are likely to vote against the interests of First Native self termination and as such a security risk to the community and its self determination as a whole?If that's how they want to vote then that's their right, though again I would say that self determination for these regions should be constitutionally guaranteed. Do you think it's okay to discriminate against ethnic groups when they vote in ways you don't like?
>and if it happens in some individual cases, what of it? The alternative is upholding White Supremacy.Do you seriously think that not giving natives the power to engage in ethnic cleansing upholds white supremacy?
No.482697
>>482635Jesus fuck, this cringe boy is gonna end up being the Charles Manson of our generation.
No.482698
>>482696>The nation as a whole, which I'm sure you agree should have a constitution which all member republics must follow.Oh so predominantly white people who be able to determine what Native ASSRs can do with their land, and whether settler communities are a danger to the political project of the ASSR or not?
That gives one community supremacy over any other, and yes, that is going to be White Supremacy.
The destiny of Native communities is thus to be determined primarily by a community of settlers that have spent the last 300 years genociding them.
What you're advocating for is White Supremacy within the DotP.
>Do you seriously think that not giving natives the power to engage in ethnic cleansing upholds white supremacy?I think that leaving it to white people what natives can and cannot do with their self managing community within the confines of Socialist self-determination is White Supremacy, yes.
No.482699
>>482696To put this into perspective, tell me why ethnic cleansing is bad in material terms.
What are the materially detrimental effects to people being resettled that makes this a bad thing?
No.482700
Ok guys, I have an idea.
What if we had American Communism, but WITH PRIVATE PROPERTY. "What???" I hear you say. Don't worry, the private property is held communally.
Here's the plan:
Three States for the evlen Native Americans under the sky,
Seven for the Dwarf Mexicans in their halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Mayonnaise doomed to die,
One for the Dark Black people on their dark people ghetto.
This is totally not role playing at the revolution, this is totally happening, there's a calendar event, and our change.org petition has enough votes.
No.482701
>>482690"Landback zionism" is a perfect example of how grand political gestures can and will remain performative without a clearly understood plan/meaning.
"Land back" is often just "black power" for white people
No.482702
>>482700>Black people associated with Orks, Evil and DarknessNice ass, why don't you show the whole world all of it?
No.482703
>>482702I didn't write the original story. If you have a problem with darkness being associated with evil and orcs, please take it up with the author.
Besides… You're the one who is a race essentialist, a separatist, and believe in universal (quasi divine) property rights. You know, the same things used to enslave and steal POC of Color.
Unless pressed on it, of course. Then you merely advocate being nice to the brownies and making museums of Native American genocides.
No.482704
>tell me why ethnic cleansing is bad in material terms
is this really the point we’re at
<i-if it’s so ridiculous then why can’t you make an argument!!!
don’t reply to me
No.482705
>>482696>Events like genocides are the product of material forces, they have nothing to do with any kind of inherent cultural or racial traitsCulturaes are generated by Material forces. Material forces within the US has created a white culture that is UNIQUELY genocidal and has murdered more people than any other people on earth. This is because for almost 300 years, the easiest ways for White Americans to make wealth was to murder natives and enslave black people, and this in turn created a culture where genocide was encouraged and legitimized.
This is still the predominant culture of White Settlers in the US.
No.482706
>>482703>I didn't write the original story. If you have a problem with darkness being associated with evil and orcs, please take it up with the author. The problem wasn't that you compared darkness with evil and orcs, but that you compared Black people to that, a literal Nazi trope.
Hell "Humans versus Orcs" was a meme for a while for the same reason.
>>482704>is this really the point we’re atYes and it is easy to answer. I'll do it for you: Historical population transfers have been bad because they robbed those peoples from a lot of wealth and welfare, and had materially detrimental effects on those people.
Can the same be said of people being rehomed into other socialist communities within a USSA?
No.
Therefore it would be idealism to say they're are similar, if the material outcomes are different.
No.482708
>>482698>That gives one community supremacy over any other, and yes, that is going to be White Supremacy.Yeah in a country which is run democratically, and where indigenous people are vastly, vastly in the minority, they are not going to have the votes to dictate to the rest of the country. This doesn't mean that their can't be constitutional protections for their autonomy, just that these protections should not include the right to engage in ethnic cleansing.
>The destiny of Native communities is thus to be determined primarily by a community of settlers that have spent the last 300 years genociding them.First off, modern non-indigenous people bear no responsibility for what settlers in previous centuries did just because they're the same race. Huge swathes of the population aren't even descended from those original settlers, and no prole today is responsible for the actions of the US government and ruling class, which I'm sure you agree is in no way democratic. Second, it's a hard fact that natives a small minority, and as such a democratic system is going to result in their futures being largely determined by people other than them. The only way this could change would be either complete independence (which would just create a bunch of small, weak, often landlocked states largely dependent on the rest of America anyway) or literally allowing a racially determined minority to be exempt from the democratic will.
>What you're advocating for is White Supremacy within the DotP.Think about what you're saying here m8, you're literally arguing that constitutional protection from racial discrimination is white supremacy. Up is down apparently.
>>482699>What are the materially detrimental effects to people being resettled that makes this a bad thing?Stoking unnecessary divisions between citizens and creating a stronger basis for anti-indigenous sentiment.
>Material forces within the US has created a white culture that is UNIQUELY genocidal and has murdered more people than any other people on earth. And in the event of a communist revolution, the material forces will necessarily be such as to no longer support such a culture, since if people are rising against capital then they obviously have no stake in the social order which produced this genocide.
>This is still the predominant culture of White Settlers in the US.Then explain the widespread white support for and participation recent movements for black and indigenous rights. It's not the fucking 19th century anymore, white workers gain basically nothing from the continued subjugation of black and indigenous people. You're just trying to make excuses for ethnic cleansing by arguing that white people are inherently reactionary.
No.482710
>>482706>Hell "Humans versus Orcs" was a meme for a while for the same reason.Do you have no sense of self awareness? I was mocking you because what you're pushing is closer to Humans vs Orcs than to anything else. But tbh, not even Tolkien was spooked about divine rights to property like you are lol.
You still haven't acknowledged that half of the US was stolen from Mexicans and they are actively turned away, tortured, sterilized, killed when they try to return to their lands. You keep bitching about Native Americans, but I caught you in your game. You're a fascist who wants to declare stolen Mexican land as Native American and create an ethno-state on settler colonial land. Just like Israel. Curious! I guess Lakota Zionism makes a lot of sense!
No.482711
>>482707>>482709Paradox games were a mistake.
No.482712
>>482708>Yeah in a country which is run democratically, and where indigenous people are vastly, vastly in the minority, they are not going to have the votes to dictate to the rest of the countryNon-sequiteur, no one said they should.
What you're suggesting is that the question of whether or not the Native ASSR is able to rehome individuals on an individual basis along the lines of what it deems to be it's own interest can only be determined by white people at the highest level.
What you want would be equivalent to transferring all small-claims court cases to the supreme court, to determine local issues on the national level. It's ridiculous in pragmatic terms and would overwhelm the national soviet with minute cases, all because you cannot trust the fate of white people in anyone's hands but white people.
>Think about what you're saying here m8, you're literally arguing that constitutional protection from racial discrimination is white supremacy.Sure, racial discrimination. Class discrimination is going to be a part of a DotP, and that will also allow certain discriminations against bourgeois people and settlers. This is to consolidate the proletariat into one.
Furthermore, what I am saying is not that an ASSR should necessarily get to blanket expel all white people, but evaluate on an individual basis on whether or not it needs the land they occupy for their own purposes. Don't attempt to strawman my position.
>First off, modern non-indigenous people bear no responsibility for what settlers in previous centuries did just because they're the same race.Maybe not the same moral responsibility, but that can be argued. They still inheritit the dominant role and supremacist position within societies as those original settlers, and are as such socio-economically indistinguishable from them. This is not about guilt, but power.
>And in the event of a communist revolution, the material forces will necessarily be such as to no longer support such a culture, since if people are rising against capital then they obviously have no stake in the social order which produced this genocide. Unless the new order becomes settlers exploiting colonies, which can still happen. You can easily have a socialist country that exploits countries overseas or internally colonized populations. Settlers would still very much have a stake in that, and race-blindness won't make that go away.
>Then explain the widespread white support for and participation recent movements for black and indigenous rightsYes, because they increasingly recognize the culture they live within. Had that not been their culture, the movements for Black and Indigenous rights had never been necessary in the first place.
>white workers gain basically nothing from the continued subjugation of black and indigenous peopleYes, white privilege. Any disadvantage to others, is an advantage to you. Any advantage you have, is a disadvantage to everyone else.
No.482713
>>482710>Do you have no sense of self awareness?Do you? You can't just repeat literal nazi tropes about black people as a """joke""" and expect not to out yourself as a white supremacist
No.482714
>>482708>Stoking unnecessary divisions between citizens and creating a stronger basis for anti-indigenous sentiment.Why would that happen if rehomed settlers lose literally nothing except white supremacy?
No.482717
>>482715Sure, if Neanderthals still had distinct communities and as such still were an extant population that had been genocided by societies that were still around today, sure, then we could talk about Land Back there.
As it stands, it's not very relevant under any of the factors that make Land Back relevant in the US.
No.482718
>>482695>>482694 (me)
>Indeed, that would by and large be a solution to the Land Back issue.If that is the case them what is the problem, most comunists advocate for this in the world, heck both stalin and mao did it in their countries, i don't see the drama in it.
No.482719
>>482712>ASSR is able to rehome individuals on an individual basis along the lines of what it deems to be it's own interest can only be determined by white people at the highest level.No I'm saying that a there needs to be a federal constitution, this constitution needs to be decided upon democratically, and that it should explicitly ban any kind of racial discrimination.
>What you want would be equivalent to transferring all small-claims court cases to the supreme court, to determine local issues on the national level.No, it's literally just ensuring universal protection from racial discrimination.
>Class discrimination is going to be a part of a DotP, and that will also allow certain discriminations against bourgeois people and settlers."Settlers" aren't a class, it's a category that needs to make explicit references to race in order to have any coherence. Legalizing discrimination against "settlers" is tantamount to legalizing racism.
>but evaluate on an individual basis on whether or not it needs the land they occupy for their own purposesI already conceded that it would be acceptable to remove people for specific purposes such as infrastructure projects. If they want to build a highway that would dramatically improve the quality of life for the whole region then fine, remove some people. My point is thay there would need to be this or a similar reason to remove them, since just removing white people without such a reason would constitute racial discrimination.
>Settlers would still very much have a stake in that, and race-blindness won't make that go away.That would be equally applicable to indigenous people then, since both would be living in a socialist order with the potential to exploit internal colonies.
>Any disadvantage to others, is an advantage to you. Any advantage you have, is a disadvantage to everyone else.Any advantage that white privilege grants poor whites would be moot in a society where housing, employment, and education are all universal. Sure there would still be competition for higher ranking positions in industry or government, but it's not as if these were accessible to white proles to begin with. The notion that white people have to lose for minorities to gain is literally the lie peddled by the ruling class to convince white workers workers racism was in their interest when it was anything but.
>Why would that happen if rehomed settlers lose literally nothing except white supremacy?They would lose their homes. Would you tell Palestinians displaced by Israel to just move to another Arab country? If Israel bought Palestinians new homes in Jordan would that make forcing them out at gunpoint acceptable?
No.482720
>>482718>If that is the case them what is the problem, most comunists advocate for this in the world, heck both stalin and mao did it in their countriesYes, 100%, I agree. Stalin and Mao did a pretty good job of Decolonization. Land Back is just that specifically applied to the conditions of a settler colonialist society.
No.482721
>>482713I'm repeating myself here:
>>482710>You still haven't acknowledged that half of the US was stolen from Mexicans and they are actively turned away, tortured, sterilized, killed when they try to return to their lands. You keep bitching about Native Americans, but I caught you in your game. You're a fascist who wants to declare stolen Mexican land as Native American and create an ethno-state on settler colonial land. Just like Israel. Curious! I guess Lakota Zionism makes a lot of sense! No.482722
>>482719bro why are you still subjecting yourself to this dialogue loop
No.482723
>>482722My job is borning and involves very little actual work.
No.482725
>>482719>No, it's literally just ensuring universal protection from racial discrimination.Okay, so what assembly is going to evaluate whether someone is being rehomed for legitimate or illegitimate reasons on the individual level? Is that going to be the local ASSR/SSR or the National SSR?
>"Settlers" aren't a class, it's a category that needs to make explicit references to race in order to have any coherence.I've explained how they're a distinct stratum within the proletariat and have to be identified as such because they have acted as such historically.
Also the simple fact that not all white people are settlers and not all settlers are white proves that it is not bound to race, but a mechanism of settler-colonialist exploitation.
>I already conceded that it would be acceptable to remove people for specific purposes such as infrastructure projects. If they want to build a highway that would dramatically improve the quality of life for the whole region then fine, remove some people. My point is thay there would need to be this or a similar reason to remove them, since just removing white people without such a reason would constitute racial discrimination. Okay, so this is literally just Bourgeois property rights then. You know that this is also how imminent domain and property seizure functions right now under liberal bourgeois democracy, right?
No, if the community as a whole decides that it has a need for to your land, whatever the need, even if that's a big open park for wildlife and forests, it has a right to make that.
That you're talking about are bourgeois property rights.
>Any advantage that white privilege grants poor whites would be moot in a society where housing, employment, and education are all universal.And those things are only gonna be universal insofar as white supremacy is dismantled. Otherwise, development of communities and funding of social programmes could EASILY be lop-sided.
>The notion that white people have to lose for minorities to gain is literally the lie peddled by the ruling class to convince white workers workers racism was in their interest when it was anything but. But this is true. This is why this argument was so effective. The bourgs weren't lying. What they were appealing to was the fact that black people being disadvantaged IS a direct advantage to white people. It means that if there's a black guy and a white guy of equal merit competing for anything, the white guy it's it. That's a HUGE boon if you're white.
However, the lie by omission committed by the Bourgeois was that White people have a lot more to win by dismantling capitalism than they win by upholding white supremacy. So yes, dismantling white supremacy will mean that white proles lose power, but dismantling capitalism means they gain even more than they lost.
Unfortunately, the position where they uphold white supremacy and dismantle capitalism is of course the most individually beneficial position to white settlers.
>That would be equally applicable to indigenous people then, since both would be living in a socialist order with the potential to exploit internal colonies. Yes and to the degree that Natives benefit from imperialism that needs to be dealt with, of course.
>Would you tell Palestinians displaced by Israel to just move to another Arab country? If Israel bought Palestinians new homes in Jordan would that make forcing them out at gunpoint acceptable?If Palestine was a Socialist Country under a DotP and Palestinians, as the colonized people, would offer to rehome all Israelis who are the settler colonists, into an Israeli homeland with jobs, home and security guaranteed, yes that would be completely acceptable and the Israeli settler colonists would be completely unreasonable to complain.
No.482726
>>482721Mexico itself is a settler colonialist state, and in turn also owes Land Back, primarily in the areas that were taken by the US.
No.482727
>>482726The people trying to return to their land are settler colonialists? Do you even know the history of colonial relations in Mexico? You are an insane ethno-nationalist.
It's rather staggering how you believe Spaniards are crossing the border.
No.482728
>>482725>I've explained how they're a distinct stratum within the proletariat and have to be identified as such because they have acted as such historically.Fake news. You stole this from the bad historiography and trash analysis of J Sakai's book.
No.482729
>>482727>The people trying to return to their land are settler colonialists? No, the state of Mexico is. The Native communities that are trying to return there are obviously to have Land Back, but as their own, not as a part of Nation-state of Mexico.
>>482728I mean you can clutch pearls, but it's true that historically, Settler Colonists have constituted a distinct stratum in several societies, going back to at least Alexander the great, and such as a disction political stratum must be recognized to have distinct materialist origins.
No.482730
>>482729So you get to determine how Mexicans self-determine? More chauvinism. Really "showing your ass" here, as you say.
Most Mexicans are indigenous descent. Nobody wants to balkanize Mexico, except you. Let me be very explicit. The revolutionary indigenous organizations of Mexico do not want to balkanize. You are imposing that ideology onto Mexicans. Why do you do that? Do you think yourself superior? Do you see yourself as the savior of the indigenous people? You ass is in full view.
>>482729>have distinct materialist origins.Lol. As opposed to similar idealist origins?
Could you name something that doesn't have """"""materialist origins"'""""""?
No.482731
>>482730
>Most Mexicans are indigenous descentYeah sure, and thus most Mexicans are Native Americans. But some Mexicans are white. But you directly said that you don't want Native Americans to have a homeland, so that eliminates the part of Mexicans that are Native Americans, and thus leaves white Mexicans or the nation state of Mexico.
When I am talking about Native Americans, that in turn also includes the Native Americans that currently reside in Mexico.
>>482730>Could you name something that doesn't have """"""materialist origins"'""""""?No, that's my entire point. If something is an identifiable political and historical phenomenon, then it has a material origin and as such is not just "made up", but is reflected in real pragmatic terms in society itself.
No.482732
>>482731So you have no idea what you're talking about then. Please keep telling us how we need to base our politics on race. Totally not a different flavor of naziism. "It's the jews/whites!". Drink bleach.
No.482733
>>482731>white mexican settlersshut the fuck up lol
No.482735
>>482733Are you pretending there are not white people in Mexico? Where did they come from if they did not settle within the country?
>So you have no idea what you're talking about then. Please keep telling us how we need to base our politics on race.Didn't say we should. I said we should base our politics on resolving class antagonisms, between classes and within classes, and as such settler colonists should be liquidated as a class to consolidate the proletariat.
No.482737
>>482735>there's wypipo so I get to determine how you run your countryObese burger hands typed this post.
No.482738
>>482643the thing that kkkolonizers don't understand is that class is directly linked with race and that we need to establish ethno states-i mean autonomous lands for colonized indigenous peoples
No.482739
>>482736Your fantasy isn't real dumbass
No.482740
>>482737Mexico too, as a state, is a white supremacist society, yes. White privilege is a thing there too.
I mean, if you want to have a discussion of which SSR gets to have which Native SSR within it, sure, there is room for that in the post-revolutionary world fine, but to say there should be a homeland for Native Americans obviously includes Native Americans that currently live in Mexico.
>>482737I work out 5 times a week and I've never even set foot in America.
>>482738>Opposing national self-determinationRead Lenin please.
No.482741
>>482565This person would be much easier to bring to our cause than any fascist or anyone fascist-adjacent.
No.482742
>>530914
>i agree and the germany people practiced self determination from 1933 to 1945 until they were destroyed by imperial powers
<imperialism is self-determination
Read Lenin. Or Stalin. Or Mao. Or anyone with sense.
No.482743
>>530965
>mexico already achieved land back
BASED
No.482744
>>482726uyghas with six figure salaries really do love to claim victimhood and then ask to build an ethnostate and deport white people, which now includes Mexico too. Pure burger brainrot
No.482745
>>530965Yeah, 100%, but the political elites within Mexico is will white and white supremacy still exists within the country to some degree.
Yes, it's true that they have come a long way, but even if they had effectively decolonized (which is practically impossible under capitalism) that would still not give the Nation State of Mexico, as opposed to native American communities within Mexico claim to anything.
Again, in a post-revolutionary scenario, it is not out of the question that some land should be transferred from the administration of the USSA to the Mexican SSR.
These things can be discussed within the Movement that sublates and abolishes the capitalist order and determined.
>>482744We aren't talking about individual, but about communities. We're not talking about ethnostates, we're talking about ASSRs. We're not talking about White Genocide and deportation, but to give the ASSRs the opportunity to rehome settlers on an individual basis, if that ASSR determines that is in its interests.
No.482747
>>530999
A country doesn't have to be that in order to be a settler-colonialist society, m8
No.482748
>>482747>Mestizos are settler colonialistBurgeroid brainrot not even once
No.482749
>>530999
>Mexico was never a country with a settler white majority, retard
Neither was Apartheid South Africa
No.482750
>>482749Imagine equating a colonized nation with fucking South Africa to sustain your cognitive disonance lmao
No.482753
>>482751GO back to Twitter radlib faggot
No.482755
>>531044
>Mexico doesn't have majority white communities
No.482756
>>482754Prove that those are somehow comparable
No.482757
>>482751maybe if they want the land back so bad they should make like the palestinians and take up arms
No.482759
>>482753both people are targeted by imperialist states and live under what is effectively occupation
No.482761
>>482755Name a single City in Mexico where the majority of the population is white
No.482762
>>482758i am still not convinced they actually want their land back
No.482763
>>482758Private property is bourgeois, land belongs to the international proletariat
No.482764
>>482761>A city is one community and not several.A city have to be pretty small to constitute a community instead of several.
No.482767
a community is whatever i want it to be :)
No.482768
>>482762oh, definitely not. they enjoy the attention they are getting. everyone gets to feel special.
No.482770
>>482764Are you going to name a city with a white majority or not?
>>482766>hisRead a fucking book, once we achieve communism the proletariat of Japan are foing to be allowed to vote and decide on the issues of Mexico and vice-versa
No.482771
>>482769Right, I forgot a racism is when there are white people :)
No.482772
>>482765part of fighting the international bourgeoisie is helping our indigenous comrades
No.482773
>>482772Land back does not help the indigenous proletariat
A land back movement is going to be sabotaged by corrupt opportunists that will give them and their friends and family the best plots of lands, this is specially true for countries like Mexico
We help indigenlus proletariat by abolishing private property and engaging in communism
No.482774
>>482770Monterrey is one such city. Beyond that there are several white enclaves in cities in Mexico.
>>482771Racism is that Ethnic conflict you pretend doesn't matter and will go away if we don't talk about it.
>>482773>Land back does not help the indigenous proletariatYes it does. It will establish an ASSR for them with more land than their current reservation ghettoes do, and it will provide them with reparations to their economies.
No.482775
>>482773>A land back movement is going to be sabotaged by corrupt opportunists that will give them and their friends and family the best plots of lands, this is specially true for countries like MexicoLand back is mostly advocated for in anglosaxon countries and frankly its preferable to the status quo in these fucked up anglo countries. Also there are mechanisms to prevent corruption, it was an issue in the USSR like dude you're gonna heve corruption no matter what type of system you have, its ignorant to think there would be any less corruption in the context of a "patriotic socialist" revolution
No.482776
>Mods so triggered that Decolonialism gets bumplocked and censored
No.482777
>>482775No but you see, you can trust white people and Natives are probably gonna do bad stuff, anon
No.482778
>>482776everyone is tired of this concern trolling bit you’ve been doing
No.482779
>>482774>MonterreyKek, that's what they wish, they LARP hard as fuck as Americans butnless than 15% of the population is actually white, the majority are mestizos
>white enclavesName them, and explain why they are a problem.
>Racism is that Ethnic conflict you pretend doesn't matterStop arguing a strawman, Ibnever said racism doesn't exist, however the most racist people in Mexico are ironically, the indigenous and mestizos. How do you plan on solving this again?
>Yes it does. It will establish an ASSR for them with more land than their current reservation ghettoes do, and it will provide them with reparations to their economies.There is virtually no difference between a white proprietor and an indigenous proprietor, the hell of capitalism is the fact that the proprietor exist, not that the proprietor is white, reparations are given tonthe proletariat, no matter their ethnicity and the whole world is governed on an internationalist manner.
>>482775>frankly its preferable to the status quo in these fucked up anglo countries. Because you are a liberal
>Avoid corruptionIn Mexico?
KEK No.482780
>>482725>Okay, so what assembly is going to evaluate whether someone is being rehomed for legitimate or illegitimate reasons on the individual level?That's probably best decided in court.
>Also the simple fact that not all white people are settlers and not all settlers are white proves that it is not bound to race, but a mechanism of settler-colonialist exploitation.A mechanism which proles don't control and aren't responsible for by definition, assuming they benefit from it at all, which many don't. I'm sorry m8 but the more we discuss the issue the more I'm convinced that "settler" is an outdated category. The theory of "double oppression" used by the CPUSA to describe the condition of racialized people is, ironically enough, more useful now than it was in the 30s, where "settler" may have still meant something. However in the absence of actual settlement going on, in the absence of de jure racial discrimination, and when class is a far clearer predictor of a person's position in the social hierarchy, the "settler" class starts to become a pretty hard to pin down concept.
>Okay, so this is literally just Bourgeois property rights then. No its personal property rights. A person's home is not private property.
>No, if the community as a whole decides that it has a need for to your land, whatever the need, even if that's a big open park for wildlife and forests, it has a right to make that.Depends on the country really, but in countries in which racial discrimination by the state is unconstitutional, such a forced removal could be challenged in court and found to be illegal if it was shown to be done on racial grounds.
>However, the lie by omission committed by the Bourgeois was that White people have a lot more to win by dismantling capitalism than they win by upholding white supremacy.If you admit this then why do you insist that white proles will have their interests seriously harmed by dismantling white supremacy? If the benefits outweigh the costs then it's in their interest to do so, and white supremacy is therefore ultimately against the interests of the white worker.
>If Palestine was a Socialist Country under a DotP and Palestinians, as the colonized people, would offer to rehome all Israelis who are the settler colonists, into an Israeli homeland with jobs, home and security guaranteed, yes that would be completely acceptableExcept in this hypothetical the position of the indigenous people would ironically enough be more akin to Israel. They would be the ones demanding the evacuation of people who are actually living in an area and have for their whole lives, and doing so on the basis of an ancestral claim to the land.
No.482781
>>482779>Because you are a liberalYou are the only liberal here, you're fucking defending the ziomonarchist crown's claims to massive amounts of land because it makes your white ego comfortable and enables your comfy labor aristocrat life. You're literally patriotic towards anglosaxon imperialism and you're calling the people who want to overthrow it liberal. Un fucking believable.
No.482782
>>482781>MUH JOOS!Classic /pol/, reported
No.482783
>>482782>I have no argument so I must copeI said nothing about muh joos but alright go and call the jannys you love so much, you outed yourself as a redditor. Good night
No.482784
>>482779>There is virtually no difference between a white proprietor and an indigenous proprietor, the hell of capitalism is the fact that the proprietor exist, not that the proprietor is white, reparations are given tonthe proletariat, no matter their ethnicity and the whole world is governed on an internationalist mannerI guess ASSRs were set up for Shits and giggles and Lenin, Stalin and Mao were wrong then.
>>482780>That's probably best decided in court. At which court? The local court within the ASSR?
Or literally at the National Level? Are you saying that every dispute about rehoming someone or kicking them out of their flat should be taken to the Supreme Court of the USSA every time it happens?
Do you know disproportionate that would be?
>A mechanism which proles don't control and aren't responsible for by definition, assuming they benefit from it at all, which many don't.Oops, you have already conceded that while some settler communities only benefit marginally, all settler communities.
That doesn't negate that they benefit, but like a mom-and-pop store isn't less bourgeois because they only accumulate capital a little bit and only exploit their workers a little bit.
>No its personal property rights. A person's home is not private property. Even these are beaten by community rights.
>but in countries in which racial discrimination by the state is unconstitutional, such a forced removal could be challenged in court and found to be illegal if it was shown to be done on racial grounds.Yes, because in those countries that actual ejection from their houses would in no way be compensated, they would not be guaranteed new work and safety. What, rehoming of certain groups is just categorically bad in an idealist way that doesn't effect material conditions or what?
>If you admit this then why do you insist that white proles will have their interests seriously harmed by dismantling white supremacy? If the benefits outweigh the costs then it's in their interest to do so, and white supremacy is therefore ultimately against the interests of the white worker. You ignored the last part. Socialism with white supremacy is actually objectively in the interests of Settler proles, at least in the short term. Only if Black and Native communities guarantee permanent people's war against the settlers communities if that happens do the settlers have a material interests in consolidating their interests with Natives and Black communities. It is for this reason that it is necessary for Native and Black communities to create people's armies that are capable of fighting such a protracted people's war, independently of settlers, IF NEED BE.
>They would be the ones demanding the evacuation of people who are actually living in an area and have for their whole lives, and doing so on the basis of an ancestral claim to the land.They would be like Israel in this hypothetical position if they had come from the outside, murdered several Israelis, stolen their wealth continually for over a century, kept opressing them and murdering them and THEN deporting them from their homeland with no compensation, guaranteed work and safety. Yes, if you ignore all of that, the two situations are the same, but that's undialectial A = A thinking.
No.482785
>>482774>Monterrey is one such city. Beyond that there are several white enclaves in cities in Mexico.Bullshit. 90+% of Monterrey has indigenous heritage.
Shut the fuck up, lol.
No.482786
>>482783>Muh ziomonarchismYeah, nothing related to the jewish boogeyman.
No.482787
>>482785Okay, Idk, colourism and white privilege is still real in Mexico and Mexico AS A NATIONSTATE (but perhaps as an SSR) isn't entitled to Land Back, although certain extant communities with Mexico may be
http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_abstract&pid=S0188-76532018000100215&lng=es&nrm=iso&tlng=enhttps://www.vanderbilt.edu/lapop/news/121317.mexico-theconversation.pdf No.482788
>>482784>Lenin, Stalin and Mao were wrong then.Remind me again what happened to the Soviet Union and China, please
Oh that's right, one was couped by NATO and the other one degenerated into capitalism
No.482789
>>482779>Kek, that's what they wishtrue
>they LARP hard as fuck as Americans and as European
>but less than 15% of the population is actually white, the majority are mestizosYou're being very generous. You must be from San Pedro :P
Truly, these land back people have no weight to their arguments. Mexico is a country of mostly indigenous people, and the rest are also indigenous but LARP as white.
Land back is a scam unless half of the US is returned to the Peoples of Mexico.
>>482787>Mexico AS A NATIONSTATE isn't entitled to Land BackSo we're not entitled to
OUR LAND back unless we fit
YOUR CRITERIA??
A disgusting ethno-fascist, we will come for you, gringo.
No.482790
>>482787>Muy colorismThe people who engage in these harmful practices are indigenous and mestizos themselves, again, how are you going to adress this issue with "land back"?
Retard
No.482791
>>482788Which is relevant to how they decolonized how?
No.482793
>>482789No, a bourgeois nation-state doesn't represent the people that live within it and as such doesn't get the territorial claims of it's people transferred to it.
The extant peoples within Mexico that had land taken away from them by the US, absolutely does though.
No.482794
>>531171
The ASSRs were a clear attempt to end Russian supremacy within the USSR, but you're correct that they didn't go far enough in all instances.
No.482795
>>482793The proto-feudal and slave societies that existed beforehand said bourgeois state does not represent the proletariat either, they can go rot in hell.
No.482796
>>482788Yes lets remember
>USSRIllegaly disolved by a party of anti-comunists in the government.
>ChinaSacrificed idea of the proletariat owning the means of production in a gamble to not be sanctioned and economically cornered like the USSR, same thing goes for vietnam
and yet both of them did more than all of leftcoms revisionist ideas which think that the world revolution will, out of thin air, appear and bring comunism,
kinda how Agent Kochinski thinks the democrats will have a change of heart and coup the government and bring socialism to the US.
No.482797
>>482790Because there are extant indigenous nations within Mexico and they need ASSRs to protect themselves. Many Meztizos in turn have become white by the standards of Mexican society. Apart from that, I have not claimed that decolonializing is a cure-all for societal ills. It's supposed to deal with class antagonisms as they manifest specifically in settler colonialist societies.
No.482798
>>482793You keep shilling for Native American Land Back.
You want to give away land that was stolen from the Mexicans to the blacks and brown gringos.
WTF???
Go fuck yourself. We self-determine however the fuck we want, we don't need your permission, gringo imperialist.
No.482799
>>482795Yes, that's why were not suggesting to give land back to native feudal states, but to from Native ASSRs.
No.482800
>>482798>land that was stolen from the MexicansWhich mexicans?
The native american ones?
I am suggesting a home land is created for them?
The mexicans that were not natives do not have a claim to that land, especaolly not through a bourgeois democracy that doesn't even represent that people.
No.482801
>>482799NOT YOUR LAND TO GIVE AWAY. Gringo imperialists, as per usual, wanting to split the prize between their gringo friends.
Half of the US belongs to Mexicans, and was stolen by your kind.
Apologize, gringo.
No.482802
>>482800The indigenous do.bot have claims to those lands either, because private property is theft
No.482803
>>482801I mean if you want to shill for the claims of a bourgeois nation-state that's fine with me, but I am for socialist nation-building and bouegeois claims don't matter to us.
No.482804
>>482803Neither do proto-feudal nor slave societies of the past.
No.482805
>>482802The Natives held that land as communal land before it was stolen and it shall be returned as such
No.482806
>>482805>The natives held those lands in a communal mannerNo, you need to read a book, retard
Slavery and being forced to pay tribute to Mexicas, who were actually settlers from North America is not "communal order"
No.482807
>>482800>The mexicans that were not natives do not have a claim to that landSo basically very recent immigrants.
Ok, sure, nobody cares, we can genoicde them, whatever. Now fork over half of the US, or stfu.
>especaolly not through a bourgeois democracy that doesn't even represent that people.And who are you to decide that? We are under the yoke of the US. Our current president won by a landslide. The CIA, Narcos, and the CIA-Narcos don't allow for a proper people's democracy to emerge from Mexico.
Gringos of all kind, from the most black to the most brown, to the most condiment, they are all benefiting from the super exploitation of Mexicans, and benefiting from the stolen lands of Mexicans.
You are not consistent with your beliefs. You are an American chauvinist. A "woke" nazi.
kys.
No.482808
>>482804Okay yes, I wouldn't install a Native SSR where the Mexica tribe had hegemony over the rest of tje Nauhtl people, but to each tribe the land they themselves lived upon and held in common.
No.482809
>>482806I am not arguing for the restoration of any precapitalist societies
No.482810
>>482808>Lived and held it in commonExcept that is wrong, retard. The Zapotecs, the mayand and many other nahuatl tribes had slaves and a hierachical society
Read a book, stupid amerifat
No.482811
>>482807If you want to take that land from Natives and incorporate it into a bourgeois nation state, then I challenge you to try.
No.482812
>>482809You wish to divide the land among pre-capitalist order. Stop backpedaling.
No.482813
>kicked out of /itg/ and told to make it its own thread
>thread gets anchored
Based. Now ban this retarded idpozzed faggot.
No.482814
>>482784>At which court? The local court within the ASSR?>Or literally at the National Level?Local courts at first, but appeals to higher courts should be possible.
>That doesn't negate that they benefitActually it does. If they lose more from capitalism than they gain from white supremacy, then supporting white supremacy is a net loss for them.
>Even these are beaten by community rights.When backed by a good reason sure. Again, I have no issue if people are made to move because of construction or similar causes. However I don't see what's so controversial about the statement that in a socialist society, people shouldn't be forced from their homes because of their race.
>What, rehoming of certain groups is just categorically bad in an idealist way that doesn't effect material conditions or what?It's categorically bad because it undermines the unity of the working class needlessly, and violates the communist principle of the equality of races. No reasonable person would want to leave their home and its area if they didn't have to, even if they were offered a place elsewhere. Would you accept it if indigenous people living outside the ASSR were forced from their homes on the whims of the white majority, even if they were given a free house somewhere else and compensation? Does allowing such a thing promote or harm the cause of racial harmony and the dismantling of race altogether?
>Socialism with white supremacy is actually objectively in the interests of Settler prolesI would consider that an oxymoron, since socialism will never succeed in America unless it attacks racism head on. Thus a socialist America presupposes an active anti-racist agenda.
>They would be like Israel in this hypothetical position if they had come from the outside, murdered several Israelis, stolen their wealth continually for over a century, kept opressing them and murdering them and THEN deporting them from their homeland with no compensationBut no prole alive today has done this. You can't hold people responsible for the crimes of other members of their race, who they may or may not actually be descended from. Similarly, indigenous people have no right to displace the current inhabitants of a territory that they personally never occupied.
No.482815
>>482810They had a system of Corvee labour between communities yes, often to work on communally held (by the conquering people) land.
Noone is saying we should go back to that.
No.482816
>>482815Land was already given back in the form of Ejidos.
Are you not aware of this?
Communally held land by the village people.
Since you don't understand capitalism, you won't understand why this ultimately failed.
No.482817
>>482815There is virtually no difference between the exploitation they had and the exploitation of modern capitalis order, the obly differences are the obvious ones, class antagonisms existed in both
If you believe a geographical order based on current capitalist borders isnweong because it is exploitative, then so is the older indigenous one
You are fucking stupid
No.482819
>>482812>>482817
>You wish to divide the land among pre-capitalist order. Stop backpedaling.No? I want to give native people the land they lived on back in a post-capitalist order. We can only do this in a post-capitalisst order, because that is the only order that the people's claim translates into the nation's claim, unlike the feudal order or the bourgeois order.
>>482814>Local courts at first, but appeals to higher courts should be possible.Okay, sure, I can live with that.
>However I don't see what's so controversial about the statement that in a socialist society, people shouldn't be forced from their homes because of their race. Oh yeah I agree, but settlerism isn't about race. It would be like ejecting people because they're petit-bourgeois or a labour aristocrat. Sure it's not *nice* abstractly speaking, but it can be a necessity in creating socialism.
>It's categorically bad because it undermines the unity of the working class needlessly,See this is where you sound like a NeoCon again. There is no unity of the working class as long as we have an imperial labour aristocracy. Trying to do something about this antagonism isn't what is creating the tension. The antagonism is already there and race-blindness doesn't make it go away.
This argument is very much akin to when they called civil rights protesters "troublemakers and agitators" as if they were the ones making a problem, and not pointing out that a problem existed.
>Would you accept it if indigenous people living outside the ASSR were forced from their homes on the whims of the white majority, even if they were given a free house somewhere else and compensationYeah this is probably going to happen in the process of creating a homeland for Natives, and it's not as if Settler communities aren't finding ways to unjustly eject natives and black people from the communities anyways, no matter what the law says. So sure, to the extend that the rest of the USSA can justify it as being for the good of the community as a whole (which I do not think they reasonably can), they can go ahead, as a safe homeland with reparations have already been provided.
>I would consider that an oxymoron, since socialism will never succeed in America unless it attacks racism head on. Thus a socialist America presupposes an active anti-racist agenda.Yes, I would agree. Socialism HAS to be decolonist otherwise it will be dominated by a settler aristocracy and be closer to something like Sparta than a true socialist society. Without decolonizing, however, this is an imminent possibility within the US.
>But no prole alive today has done this.Yes. White supremacy is killing black and native people RIGHT NOW in the US just as it is in Israel and mostly at the hands of Settler Proles, often the poorest ones that are rolled into the police and military.
The worst white supremacist violence that natives and black people face is done by settler by the poorest settler proles.
>territory that they personally never occupied<personallyPlease stop thinking in individuals and think in communities and the material forces between them.
No.482820
>>482816"""Land back"""" under a bourgeois democracy into private hands is not quite the Land Back communists are looking for
No.482821
>>482819>No? I want to give native people the land they lived on back in a post-capitalist order. According to geographical divisions established by proto-feudal and slave societies, which do not represent international proletariat struggle
>We can only do this in a post-capitalisst order, because that is the only order that the people's claim translates into the nation's claim,How do you plan to solve the contradiction between the abolishment of private property and the establishment of a nation, retard? Are you going to stop the international proletariat to settle in the Americas because "muh indigenous nation"? Get the fuck out of here retard.
No.482822
>>482642Imagine the hubris of western leftists and “anarchists” who deny the fact there is a cultural genocide against Native Americans going on now.
No.482823
>>482822>Muh *insert some ethnicity here* genocideNo different to /pol/tards
No.482824
>>482821>According to geographical divisions established by proto-feudal and slave societiesEstablished by the people who lived their. I don't respect the claims of the feudal states, but the claims of the peoples within them.
>How do you plan to solve the contradiction between the abolishment of private property and the establishment of a nation, retard?There are none. The establishment of a nation, insofar as it is a socialist one, does not imply the establishment of private property. Self-Determination is not capitalism.
>>482822Completely deluded
No.482825
>>482823>>482824I’m not talking about you guys I’m referring to the Fake Left on Twitter and Facebook.
No.482829
>>482827Self-determination for black people in a black homeland(s) would be Decolonialism and thus Lann Bacc for black people yeah.
No.482830
>>482827It wouldn't be "Land Back" since they never controlled that land in the first place. [spoiler]Also idk how woke people want to give the Southeastern US to both blacks and natives.[/spoiler]
No.482831
Just saw that goofy thing about the Squamish in Vancouver partnering with a real estate developer to build high rises and people on Twitter trying to present this as a landback win and getting 10s of thousands of likes. One guy who was posting it even said it was an example of how it would be a “beautiful example of public lands extracting revenue for public good”, which he bizarrely followed up with “in this case the good of the Squamish”. What about the people building the high rises? I guess the exploitation of their labor for the profits of the Squamish and a private land developer by selling condos in a commodity market for housing is a big win?
No.482833
Land back is CRINGE
No.482834
>>482833Please dun white genocide it's CRINGE
No.482836
>>482835>to build = landlord?
No.482837
>>482831Is the project for housing this tribe?
No.482838
>>482834white genocide through miscegenation is based
No.482839
>>482835Gentrification with indigenous characteristics.
No.482840
Lets not call it landback, lets call it "reverse assimilation"
No.482841
>>482837no, it's for raising revenue for the tribe. The housing is market rate housing sold to people in Vancouver.
>>482836I'm being inflammatory with the image titles, they aren't "landlords" but they are property developers. This is effectively just property development with a marketing pitch that you are helping indigenous people, which technically you could be funding this tribe, but the tribe are literally just in the business of property development. Liberals and bizarre "leftists" in the comments and retweets treat the indigenous property developers as some kind of mystical geniuses of city planning because they are advertising a high rise project.
No.482842
>>482841It's the same as "black capitalism"
Shit is stupid
No.482843
>>482841High rise projects with luscious green spaces and mixed use are based. Le feather man mysticism is not.
I can't hate on them for participating in capitalism, but yes, it seems like a PR spin.
No.482844
>>482841The tribe as a whole or just some native bourgs?
No.482845
>>482843>I can't hate on them for participating in capitalism, but yes, it seems like a PR spin.I wouldn't he hating either if it wasn't for the PR spin and how it seems like a minor shibboleth at the moment. Indigenous property development isn't radical. If this is what "indigenous stewardship" means in the context of landback, then the model might as well be the UAE or Saudi Arabia. The members of the nation get a basic income from the state owned industry, built off of the exploitation of non-members to the nation.
No.482846
>>482844Not sure tbh. I know that sometimes these things disproportionately benefit native bourgs, but I think that is usually because they personally invest. I don't know if the details on the sources of capital are out there, just that they've partnered with a big property developer in Canada that is getting a 50% cut.
No.482848
>300 replies
>twitter
>e-celebs
>liberals
No.482851
>>482827Foster and the CPUSA weren't taking money from billionaires.
No.482852
>>482827Having the democratic elements and cutting of the pervasive rule of the Jim Crow laws is not "landback" in the twatter sakaist sense, is just needed democratization and recognition of equal rights.
Plus, Foster wasn't being funded by Rockefeller or Carnagie
the Bezos of that era No.482853
>>482852>Plus, Foster wasn't being funded by Rockefeller or CarnagieCorrect. The ruling class of his day wanted him dead.
No.482854
Land back is a reactionary movement, the consequence of capitalist realist brain rot. If you want a Landian dystopia, this is the fastest way to get it.
No.482855
>>482827Not going to lie, WZF is the only white dude I could honestly believe when he says he has a black friend.
No.482856
>>482828this
https://www.midwesternmarx.com/articles/marxism-and-the-nationalisation-of-land-by-paul-cockshottpeople read dis
>That is because the mass of the direct producers in the USA are not from the indigenous population. Under these circumstances where they to acquire ownership of all land they would inevitably become and exploiting minority. The situation is quite different in some Southern American countries where a class of landowners of European descent has historically exploited a peasantry of indigenous descent. In that case the indigenous comprise the majority of the direct producers and the transfer of private land to regional governments elected mainly by the indigenous farmers would correspond to the programme of land Nationalisation advocated by Marx.
No.482857
>>482581in the pic she looks Serbian
No.482858
lmao sofija marjanović
- an american indegenous
lmao
No.482859
GET THE FUCK BACK INTO YOUR CONTAINMENT THREAD STORESH…https://www.rt.com/usa/536587-sinema-stalked-plane-airport-democrats/Oho this is pretty entertaining I'll allow it
No.482860
If the landlordist maoist anon is the most radical that land back can get, then I am calm in discarding this as liberalism.
The zapatistas have much better writing about self determination and the rural urban divide, re: indigenous people. Sometimes they virtue signal for their radlib european supporters, but for the most part, it's good shit. Land back in the US is unsurprisingly as rotten as the rest of the country.
No.482862
>>482856>it's another "muh white genocide" alarmismThat is a fair criticism only against those thst believe that Land Back includes the transfer of ALL land withinin the continental US to non-socialist tribal authorities.
The number of those are so exceedingly few that this effecticely is a strawman, one that effectively wants to frame it as if the only two options are no Land Back or complete elimination of all white communities and authority within the US. That is not the discussion we're having.
>>482860You're the liberal.
If you think giving back to peasants communities in England the commons that were stolen from them, and reparations for the productive capability and wealth from which they were excluded by violence is the same as rent, you need to read Marx on the enclosures in England.
No.482863
>>482862>stolen from them,This is capitalist ontology. You can't help but think with liberal ideology.
>reparations for the productive capability and wealth from which they were excluded Kek.
Don't tell anyone to read Marx. You have proven to have grave misunderstandings and abundant ignorance of the subject. Worse is you don't ask questions. You keep bulldozing with your land back bullshit.
Sorrry Langely, your bullshit doesn't pass the sniff test with any serious marxist.
No.482864
>>482863Okay, prove your merits, you redfash liberal.
Show you can explain what rent is and then how it applies to returning comunally held MoP with compensation for lost productive capability.
No.482865
>>482863>This is capitalist ontology. You can't help but think with liberal ideology"Forcefully privatized" if you insist on using inhuman language that the masses can't relate to, larper
No.482866
>>482864I and many other anon have pointed out the multiple flaws of your arguments and propositions over the past 3 days. What is there left to argue about?
It's premised on morality, as you yourself said "because you're a human bean". How can one argue against your own personal moral values. Believe what you want, no different to a personal religion.
>>482865"forcefully privatized from the natives" the sentence makes no sense. Shifting words around won't remove your liberal ontology.
You want to return to the natives the wealth that was created "from their land" or some shit. You've said it a handful of times already. None of this makes any sense from a marxist perspective. From a liberal one, sure, poor native americans, they care so much about mother earth uwu, they deserve reserves, except bigger. Also blank checks from the white man. From a Marxist perspective, this makes 0 sense.
I don't know if you do it on purpose or not, but you keep receding into more and more moderate claims and demands when pressed. A classic "mote and bailey" argumentation style.
Your final recluse is "land back to the natives when the revolution comes". When pressed even further, this "land back" becomes either rent paid towards native americans, or just a museum where native american history is portrayed.
No rent will be paid to an ethnicity after the revolution. Your brain has been melted by idpol.
And don't even start with the "muh rigid definitions are libural". Nobody is asking for a rigid definition. What is being asked here is for a concrete proposal, or a concrete significance of the term. Whenever you try to give one and it is shown to be filled with holes, you weasel away and recede into a different position.
It has been proven you do NOT understand marxism, and might I cite your idea that 50% of wealth belongs to the people who have divine property rights over a land because "half of wealth comes from natural resources, muh marx said it". The jig is up, ethno fash.
No.482867
>>482866>I and many other anon have pointed out the multiple flaws of your arguments and propositions over the past 3 days.But curiously, no quotes by either Marx or Lenin or Mao, and thus no evidence that you have anything to back your position up.
>>482866>"forcefully privatized from the natives" the sentence makes no sense.Yes it does. The property was collective property, used as a MoP to sustain First Nations tribes as a whole.
Natives were using it, thus it was theirs. It was privatized by settlers, thus it was privatized. It was done so by force, thus it was forceful.
> None of this makes any sense from a marxist perspectiveIn fact it ONLY makes sense in a Marxist perspective. According to a Liberal analysis, the very analysis that allowed settlers to settle in the first place, the very ideology by which America was colonized and thus the ideology that didn't recognize Native American collective property. To settlers, because Native American land was not homesteaded and claimed by private citizens, it was not land and not property at all. To liberals, communal claims of land based on utility are invalid.
IN FACT it is ONLY to a Marxist who understand that this land was a MoP that was used to sustain the Natives, that natives have any claim to the wealth that taken away from them through the forceful privatization of their collectively held MoP. It is ONLY to a Marxist, we could understand that these Use-Values that were privatized could have generated so much wealth for the American settlers.
>I don't know if you do it on purpose or not, but you keep receding into more and more moderate claims and demands when pressed. Okay, I want you to demonstrate where I make a radical demand and then receede from it, even once. I want you to prove I secretly plot for white genocide. Demonstrate when I have moved of one position.
>When pressed even further, this "land back" becomes either rent paid towards native AmericansI never said this. I never said that it should just be a lump sum paid to Native Communities.
Never. That was a separate argument where someone argued that settler labour had created nearly all wealth in America and I pointed out that the use-values taking from the MoP/land seized from Native Americans were responsible for at least half the wealth created by settler workers in accordance with how Marx posited how wealth was created, half from Use-Value, half from Value.
If you had paid attention, this discussion had nothing to do with what Natives should be paid in reparations or even if that was all that was to be done.
>or just a museum where native american history is portrayed. Litterally never mentioned this, you're lying now. Quote me saying this or admit you're lying.
>No rent will be paid to an ethnicity after the revolution.No, I agree, not to a demographic where Natives get a check in the mails, but native communities will be repaired in their ASSRs. So no ethnicities, sure, but communities.
>50% of wealth belongs to the people who have divine property rights over a landNot divine right, no, right by right of use and communal use. No private property can undo collective property, and thus undoing settler private property and returning it to those that held it communally, just as you would do with the privatized commons to the peasants, would be integral to communism.
No.482868
>>482867No, collective property narrative is bullshit. Sure, tribes had a part of the land which was collective/communal and everyone worked on it. And then they also had pieces of land that belonged to a single family to produce their food and shit. The Zapatistas in Chiapas reintroduced such a system after all the landlords ran away in 1995 and the managed to reclaim land.
No.482869
>>482868>And then they also had pieces of land that belonged to a single family to produce their food and shit.Yeah, and obviously that land reverts to the Native ASSR as a whole and not just those families, as even before colonization, that privatized land was illegitimate and used to the exclusion of the rest of the tribe by means of violence and also often employed Corvee labour. That is obviously not what giving land back to the First Nation as a whole would be.
No.482870
>>482868>>482869And again, this vastly varies, because there is literally nothing wrong with families just having small scale MoP to sustain themselves, that is only operated by themselves, especially if the proceeds from this can be redistributed according to need.
No.482871
>>482867>quote marx or else you lose.No. I'm not a sloganeer.
I'm telling you nobody is entitled to any land. Native Americans do not work the land where their ancestors were exiled from. So your argument is based on nothing.
>Natives were using it, thus it was theirs.Non sequitor. Ideological statement. Use does not imply ownership.
You keep doing this capitalist ontology shit.
>To liberals, communal claims of land based on utility are invalid.Absolutely not. Communal property is completely compatible with liberal ideology. I already gave you examples of liberals doing exactly this, literally in the context of LAND BACK before it was even woke.
>that the use-values taking from the MoP/land seized from Native Americans were responsible for at least half the wealth created by settler workers in accordance with how Marx posited how wealth was created, half from Use-Value, half from Value.This implies that native americans had inalienable rights to that property. When they lost that land, they lost it. They lost any possible right the bourgeois order could afford them. So nothing is owed to them. If you sell me iron and I make something out of it, you don't get to make claims on my creation because you lost the iron when you sold it to me. By bourgeoise laws, the indians effectively lost any rights to that land. That's how it works, without your morality stupifying things up.
>>482867>Quote me saying this or admit you're lying.You said one of the demands was a truth commission. Same thing in practical terms. A museum might be more informative.
>right by right of use and communal use. No private property can undo collective property, Liberal drivel.
>just as you would do with the privatized commons to the peasants, would be integral to communism."Integral to communism" doesn't mean anything. That's not how communism works. Communism isn't about giving everyone their assigned plot of land based on some ethno-moral-math. It's a scientific project of building a utopia. You're muddying the waters with your moral hand wringing.
>>482869>, that privatized land was illegitimateIt wasn't you imbecile. It was completely lawful and even if it wasn't it would still be legitimate. Omfg.
>>482870>utopianism fantasy world buildingKeep the role playing to your D&D session.
No.482872
>>482870Yes, in a modern society with industrialized food production such a step back would be very VERY wrong and dumb.
No.482873
>>482871>Native Americans do not work the land where their ancestors were exiled from<Use does not imply ownershipHahaha you will argue both sides as long as it's in favour of Settlers.
Natives were using it and needed it to sustain themselves AND STILL DO.
From each according to ability, to each according to need. It was that they were using that MoP, needed that MoP and still do, and there were shut out from that need and productive capability for centuries. Their NEED was deprived for centuries, and they NEED to be compensated for what they have needed throughout history and been denied.
Unless you wanna deny the "to each according to need" of course.
>Absolutely not. Communal property is completely compatible with liberal ideology.No it's not. I want you to quote a liberal/enlightenment thinker talking about communal property and its precedence over private property.
You're not gonna find anyone except Marx (and maybe Proudhon).
>When they lost that land, they lost it. When the workers lost the MoP and land they lost it. Why should they have it back?
Because they need it to sustain themselves.
And because the Bourgeois accumulated wealth from taking away proletarian ability to sustain themselves, the bourgeois don't get to keep the MoP or accumulated wealth either.
>If you sell me iron and I make something out of itYeah, but they didn't sell their MoP did they? You don't sell something you need to survive.
It was taken away from them, privatized and the productive process.
It would be as if I came to your house with a gun, tied you up and went to work at your Job/artisan shop. I would literally have transferred productive capalibility away from you, and the wealth that I would have made from that would have come directly at the expense of your ability to sustain yourself.
>You said one of the demands was a truth commissionONE of the demands, amongst a lot. So you lied. What you said was that
> When pressed even further, this "land back" becomes either rent paid towards native americans, or just a museum where native american history is portrayed. <or just a museum where native american history is portrayed. Which means that according to you, at one point my only demand was a Truth Comminsion. This is untrue and you lied about this.
>It wasn't you imbecile. It was completely lawful and even if it wasn't it would still be legitimate.It doesn't matter if it was Lawful. Private Property is exploitation, it doesn't exist without exploitation, and as such is something that Marxists must not tolerate.
>"Integral to communism" doesn't mean anything.Yes it does. Marx described several traits that Communist society either will have or must have, and these principles are integral to building a communist society, otherwise it is no longer a communist society.
No.482874
>>482870It's literally why the USSR had the 1933 famine.
No.482875
>>482872Okay in terms of how productive it would be, but there would be no exploitation or class antagonisms involved, is what I'm saying.
No.482876
>>482874No it's not.
Note
>especially if the proceeds from this can be redistributed according to need. No.482877
>>482875There is always exploitation in private ownership over the land. Someone always has a bit better patch that produces a bit more and that bit more gives him power over others. That is how big landowners start.
No.482878
>>482877Exploitation is not the same as primitive accumulation. But yeah fine, as I've already said, this isn't how one should go about Land Back, just that these lands originally hardly were Private Property in the truest sense.
No.482879
>>482871> If you sell me iron and I make something out of it, you don't get to make claims on my creation because you lost the iron when you sold it to me.Yes you do. The mechanism you're talking about here is how the US and EU exploits the 3rd world by paying low prices for raw resources and workers in primary economic occupations. In an actually socialist economy, all parts of a productive process must be paid equally for their part in producing a community, not just the people who produce the final form of the product.
This is literal basic Marxist economics, that all chains of a productive process must be understood to be integral.
No.482880
>>482879*producing a commodity
No.482881
>>482862>>it's another "muh white genocide" alarmismUmm, it's not. It's basically exposing the bourgeoisie character of the "Land Back" movement. With the natives becoming porky exploiters. Why else would Amazon and other corporations be funding this? Because these same corporations would stand to gain something from it, obviously.
No.482882
>>482881>Why else would Amazon and other corporations be funding this?Because giving federal land back to tribes that are desperately poor and looking for any means to raise capital is gonna make them sell that land off for cheap, thus allowing Jeff Bezos to buy it up for cheap.
Really? You thought this was a good point?
What you're arguing is that democracy is inherently bourgeois, because it's dominated by the bourgeoisie under capitalism.
Yes. We know.
That's why no one is arguing for bourgeois democracy under capitalism and no one is arguing for privatization for Native land under capitalism.
No.482883
>>482882Noone here, that is
No.482884
>>482879>Yes you doMissed the whole point of the post. You keep thinking in liberal terms of rights, and who gets to do what, and own what.
For the billionth time, its all ideology.
>Hahaha you will argue both sides as long as it's in favour of Settlers.Basic marxism that you fail to grasp. Just go mask off and say Marx was a settler, please.
>Their NEED was deprived for centuries, and they NEED to be compensated for what they have needed throughout history and been denied.You NEED to read Marx so you can STOP with these bourgeoise trash takes. There is no moral imperative here. You're pulling stuff from out of your ass.
>Unless you wanna deny the "to each according to need" of course.You suck as a sophist. Sloganeering with quotes out of context. They dont NEED any plot of land.
>I want you to quote a liberal/enlightenment thinkerIs that all you can do? Collect quotes? Fucking idiot sloganeer, I already cited real life examples of liberal governemnts doing this. Who cares about out of context quotes from thinkers?
>You're not gonna find anyone except Marx Lol. Out of your depth here kid.
>This is untrue and you lied about this.I was being facetious with the museum. I am not lying that the more you are pressed the weaker your demands become. You even coped multiple times with the hazbot response of "word don't need to have definite meaning, thats liberalism". It's a cope to weasel your way out of scrutiny.
>Private Property is exploitation, it doesn't exist without exploitation, and as such is something that Marxists must not tolerate. Ughhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh read marx for fucks sake
>>482882>>482883Yeah yeah, we get it. Now it's reduced to fantasy role play about the coming revolution. Something which you can't plan for because the conditions of said revolution are entirely opaque. Keep larping, defintely not utopian. Just read Marx between the larp.
No.482885
>>482884>For the billionth time, its all ideology<waaaaah i don't like your argument and I wouldn't like to provide quotes disproving it
>You NEED to read Marx so you can STOP with these bourgeoise trash takes.Point me to the concrete Marxist text and where it would disprove my statements, then I will gladly read and learn.
Should be easy for someone like you to tell me, right?
>They dont NEED any plot of landYes they do. Why do you think they're so poor? Why do you think they starved for so long?
The needed that land to sustain themselves and that was taken away from them.
How else do you explain their poverty, if it was not because the things they needed to sustain themselves were taken away from them?
>I am not lying that the more you are pressed the weaker your demands becomeAnd I asked you to provide evidence for that, and the evidence you provided was a lie/"facetious". So now I ask you once again, point to me one time where, when pressed, the weaker my demand became.
>You even coped multiple times with the hazbot response of "word don't need to have definite meaning, thats liberalism". It's a cope to weasel your way out of scrutiny.But it's true, nothing has a hard definition that encompasses all facets of itself.
>Ughhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh read marx for fucks sakeQuote Marx saying we should tolerate exploitation please.
>Now it's reduced to fantasy role play about the coming revolution. Yes, so is everything else about the plancks established by Marxist as guiding principles of things that must be present in a communist society.
No.482887
>>482856>That is because the mass of the direct producers in the USA are not from the indigenous population. Under these circumstances where they to acquire ownership of all land they would inevitably become and exploiting minority.>Landback = Natives become the feudal lords of americaFucking hell, is everyone on the left fucking autistic or something. Are western leftists unable to understand what a fucking SLOGAN IS?
At this moment I just think these childish retarded arguments are dishonest. It is the same as:
>BLM= YES ONLY BLACK LIVES MATTER>Abolish all private property= YES WE NEED TO SHARE EVERYTHING, INCLUDING YOUR TOOTHBRUSH >PEACE, BREAD AND LAND = YES YOU WILL ONLY GET TO EAT BREAD AND EVERYONE BECOMES A FEUDAL LORD Check out the writtings of the Red Nation:
if you actually want to educate yourself
https://therednation.org/10-point-program/ No.482888
once again: decolonization theory is word games for wise guys. through plain marxist class analysis alone people have come to the same conclusions that this guy says would fulfill land back, but he still wants everyone to base their theory off of this settler colonial shit for some reason. there’s literally no reason to be having this discussion.
No.482889
>>482888> decolonization theory is word games for wise guys.POV: LEAST RETARDED TROTSKYITE
No.482890
>>482887I kind of was a Marx also
>NOOO you can't use language that simplifies things for the masses, everything must be pedantically accurate to an autistic degree at all timesThe best criticism of Marx was that he himself was never able to organize workers, and stuff like this was part of that reason.
>>482888>through plain marxist class analysis alone people have come to the same conclusions that this guy says would fulfill land backNot necessarily, no. A sold Marxist colonial argument can be made the proletariat in the US ought keep all their ill-gotten gains, and keep exploiting colonized populations as that's in their objective interest.
It's only in the decolonial recognition that colonized populations ought resist such a order by means of absolute force and people's war that Settler Marxians are given an objective material interest in decolonizing and thus consolidating all of the proletariat into one.
No.482891
>>482885><waaaaah i don't like your argument and I wouldn't like to provide quotes disproving itMarx isn't a source of truth!!!!!! What would the quote you want me to find even look like?
>give me something to readI would start with the early Marx. Def read the german ideology and thesis on feuerbach.
I already explained why you are wrong, but you dismiss them out of hand unless I quote The Holy Books. Marxism won't give you the answers. It will give you the tools to think, and to think differently. It's also not the end of the story. Many theorists including non-marxists add to this, eg Neitzche.
>>482885>they needed land because they need to not be poorWhy do they need to not be poor? It is clearly not a necessity if native americans have been poor for generations. A necessity for what even? Very ideological statement!!!!
>How else do you explain their poverty, if it was not because the things they needed to sustain themselves were taken away from them?Good of you to ask. Originally, yes. For sure. But that doesn't explain their current poverty. Capitalist relations do.
>>482885>So now I ask you once again, point to me one time where, when pressed, the weaker my demand became.Originally land back was a serious movement, but then you started receding until it became simply something communists should keep on the back of their mind.
"We want land back" to "umm please keep a note somewhere in your papers or just keep it in your mind". Your demand is literally for people to merely rememebr a random wish list item for the revolution. Sorry, but that is the most mild idealist shit you can ask for.
>Quote Marx saying we should tolerate exploitation please.Marx isnt a source of truth. If you want a religion try somewhere else.
>Yes [land back is a fantasy role playing game], so is everything else about the plancks established by Marxist as guiding principles of things that must be present in a communist society.Ok, glad we agree.
>>482888Yep. I agree. I really wish the anons were open to have their minds changed. Leftypol changed my mind and educated me through copious bullying and meticulous dissection, sometimes I was a bystander. I intend to return the favor. If anyone reading this can see through Land Back as anything more than empty sloganeering intended for liberals, then that would still be a win. Sometimes a good foil is needed to expose liberalism.
No.482892
Europeans have no place in America, this much is true. Look at the facts of history, even Trotsky geared his efforts in America to the building of an African nation. Run by and for the revolutionary interests of Africans. As a non-indigenous people, they do not have any unique claim to geographic territories, which makes Europeans lands the best starting points for Internationalism, and the global working class struggle. This is essentially why racism is such a significant obstacle to Marxism.
No.482893
>>482892>As a non-indigenous people, they do not have any unique claim to geographic territories, which makes Europeans lands the best starting points for Internationalism, and the global working class struggle. This is essentially why racism is such a significant obstacle to Marxism.What do you mean?
No.482894
<This is essentially why racism is such a significant obstacle to Marxism.>First of all, we say primarily that the priority of this struggle is class. That Marx, and Lenin, and Che Guevara end Mao Tse-Tung and anybody else that has ever said or knew or practiced anything about revolution, always said that revolution is a class struggle. It was one class—the oppressed—those other class—the oppressor. And it’s got to be a universal fact. Those that don’t admit to that are those that don’t want to get involved in a revolution, because they know that as long as they’re dealing with a race thing, they’ll never be involved in a revolution. They can talk about numbers; they can hang you up in many, many ways, but as soon as you start talking about class, then you got to start talking about some guns. And that’s what the Party had to do.>When the Party started to talk about class struggle, we found that we had to start talking about some guns. If we never negated the fact that there was racism in America, but we said that when you, the by-product, what comes off of capitalism, that happens to be racism, that capitalism comes first and next is racism. That when they brought slaves over here, it was to take money. So first the idea came that we want to make money, then the slaves came in order to make that money. That means that capitalism had to, through historical fact, racism had to come from capitalism. It had to be capitalism first and racism was a by-product of that.>Anybody that doesn’t admit that is showing through their non-admittance and their non-participation in the struggle that all they are, are people who fail to make a commitment; and the only thing that they have going for them is the education that they receive in these institutions—education enough to teach them some alibis and teach them that you’ve gotta be black, and you’ve gotta change you name. And that’s crazy.https://www.marxists.org/archive/hampton/1969/11/class-struggle-godamnit.htm No.482896
>>482893That Europeans are a non-indigenous people and cannot be uniquely associated with any land.
That the movement of non Europeans to European countries will aid in the growth of revolutionary leftism as it renders nationalism democratically unviable.
That racism is a fundamental problem as it leads to Europeans dividing themselves off and laying claims to lands as their own.
No.482897
>>First of all, we say primarily that the priority of this struggle is class.
Marx spoke favorably of historic socialist writers he disagreed with. His disagreement was based on the fact history had developed to the point that their ideas are no longer workable. An approach which overlooks race, in multiracial societies which favour whites over non-whites, is noble in intent but no longer workable.
No.482898
>>482892If Europeans have no place in America than neither do Africans.
No.482899
>>482895lmfao what the fuck is this racist shit
No.482900
>>482896>That Europeans are a non-indigenous people and cannot be uniquely associated with any land.Kek, "Africa for the Africans, Asia for the Asians, Europe for everyone," but unironically?
>That the movement of non Europeans to European countries will aid in the growth of revolutionary leftism as it renders nationalism democratically unviable.There are already plenty of non-whites in Western Europe but somehow the revolution doesn't seem to be on the horizon.
>That racism is a fundamental problem as it leads to Europeans dividing themselves off and laying claims to lands as their own.Racism is clearly a problem, but it's not why Europeans "lay claim to lands."
No.482902
>>482898Africans were taken to America against their will. Africans, whether you acknowledge it or not, are second class citizens in America. If we could even begin to engage this fact then maybe we could talk about a universal class struggle. Until then, how could you guarantee that Africans would not suffer over again in some race blind class-exclusive revolution?
No.482903
>>482891>Many theorists including non-marxists add to this, eg Neitzche. Why would you read non-marxists to learn about marxism, especially outright anti-marxists? That’s how you end up like infrared.
No.482905
>>482901Will "Latinx" serve as a more suitable label?
No.482908
>>482900
>There are already plenty of non-whites in Western Europe but somehow the revolution doesn't seem to be on the horizon.I do not agree. Have you not been on Twitter? In England at least every trending topic is geared towards equality and minority voices, with thousands of not millions getting behind them. I can set up a stall and distribute communist literature freely and without fear of intimidation. I can visit numerous bookshops in cities like London selling communist and anti racist literature. Meanwhile, fascism is in such a state of decline that they are afforded no platform in the real world. Imagine what would happen to them if they tried to protest? They’d be shut down by organised anti fascist efforts.
No.482910
>>482908this gimmick is unfunny
No.482911
>>482896>That Europeans are a non-indigenous people and cannot be uniquely associated with any land.Uhhh, Europe? You know, the place Europeans are named after coming from?
No.482912
>>482902A lot of Europeans were transferred into the USA against their will as prisoners because the UK didn't feel like jailing them at home. After the US independence was won the UK used Australia as its "criminal" dumping ground. Also, what about the Irish, who were escaping from a devastating famine, and then experienced indentured servitude in the USA.
But this nuance you completely disregard is besides the point. Crying about shit that happened 300 years ago is the most retared thing ever. You would have to redraw completely almost all national borders on Earth if you used the same idiotic principles that you are using for the Natives in the US.
No.482913
>>482910Gimmick? I didn’t realise rejecting despair was a gimmick.
No.482915
>>482908>In England at least every trending topic is geared towards equality and minority voices, with thousands of not millions getting behind them. Yeah I'm sure most people in Britain are liberals of some stripe; that goes double for Twitter users.
>I can set up a stall and distribute communist literature freely and without fear of intimidation. I can visit numerous bookshops in cities like London selling communist and anti racist literature. You can do that in most countries.
>Meanwhile, fascism is in such a state of decline that they are afforded no platform in the real world. Imagine what would happen to them if they tried to protest? They’d be shut down by organised anti fascist efforts.I never said fascism was popular, I said communism is unpopular.
No.482916
>>482912European colonialists stole Palestine and infested it with murderous genocidal European Jewish squatters over biblical fairytales and myths from over 3000 years ago
No.482917
>>482894Yes, we need more people like Fred Hampton who realize that racism comes from capitalism.
No.482918
>>482896>That Europeans are a non-indigenous people and cannot be uniquely associated with any land.What racist idiocy is this?
Europeans are indigenous to Europe wtf?
>>482900>Kek, "Africa for the Africans, Asia for the Asians, Europe for everyone," but unironically?What's this quote from, sounds absolutely ethno-fascist.
Lamb rack are idpozzed libs.
No.482919
>>482918>What's this quote from, sounds absolutely ethno-fascist. It's common way white nationalists characterize left-wing views. Apparently this guy actually agrees with them and thinks it's a good thing.
No.482920
>>482918Europeans were originally albino mutants from Iran and Afghanistan, who infested the peninsula now called Europe and exterminated most of its autoctonous population, the only surviving ones being the Sami
No.482922
>>482902>Africans, whether you acknowledge it or not, are second class citizens in AmericaThey are full american citizens, eligible to the full system of american welfare.
Half of Mexico was stolen by the US and Mexicans currently living there are not even second class citizens. They are raped, hunted, sterilized, killed. Yet I don't see you saying shit about it.
Americans being nazis about their race. Nothing new here.
No.482924
>>482923kek, this is your brain on LANGLY CRACK.
No.482925
>I never said fascism was popular, I said communism is unpopular.
I’m not buying it, I can literally find a communist newspaper in my local supermarket. I would face no kind of difficulties were I to promote communism openly, people even show interest. I see Leftist anti fascist imagery online as well as in businesses in real life. I walked past a bank displaying an LGBT flag and a store in a shopping mall encouraging people to research overlooked points in black history.
No.482926
>>482923first sentence:
>SCIENCE IS NOT AN EUROPEAN INVENTIONYeah, science is not an "invention" at all. It's an organized human activity developed into institutions that spontaneously emerged in several human civilizations.
So that is as far as I'm reading.
No.482927
I have too many days like this when nothing but evil comes
from the sell-proclaimed "Great White Race of Planet Earth".
The Republicans, Conservatives, Zionists, Racists, Americans,
the Evil Genocidal Rapist Robbers, Pirate European Monsters,
are devils, a disgrace to the human race of Earth.
My anger is not just for the defense of my people, but for all of humanity
that is not European, that suffers European terrorism, their oppression,
their evil actions that are something more than immoral,
more than savage barbaric actions which have killed
hundreds of millions of human lives in the last 500 years.
They are also physically destroying planet Earth and its inhabitants.
They live like parasites on the rest of humanity:
killing Non-Europeans as if we are subhumans;
stealing our lands and our wealth and our freedom;
corrupting our people with drugs and money and immorality;
destroying our lives with their terrorism and bombs and their media;
controlling our lives with their evil governments on our continent.
Too much evil being done by this pale race of Europe, these "whites".
There may be some few good European descent people in the world,
some in Europe, some in the lands that they have stolen and colonized,
but like there may have been good Germans, very few, in Nazi Germany,
and like there are some good cops in the world,
those few good Europeans, those good cops allow the bad to do their evil,
we will soon not be able to see good Europeans or good cops, only Evil Europeans,
because all we see and fear and feel are the evil fucken Europeans,
the evil fucken cops, the evil that they do upon the non-European world.
The Nazi European Jews in Palestine, the Nazi Americans in the Middle East,
the Nazi French and Nazi British bombing Libya, and the Nazi European settlers
that make all Nican Tlaca live like impoverished slaves on our continent
while they gorge themselves on our lands and our wealth and our labor.
In the end those few "good" left amongst the Europeans must make their voices
turn to actions against their evil kin and blood, because this world
has little patience left for justice to be made in our lives,
for the evil reign of terror of the Europeans on planet Earth to end.
The world will be left free from European terrorism and occupation
one way or another, sooner or later, but the longer those good "white" people
wait to make their moves, the more horrendous will be the price
that all of humanity and all of the planet Earth will have to pay.
No.482928
>>482925>I walked past a bank displaying an LGBT flag Oh I see, you're just pretending to be retarded. Carry on then.
No.482929
>>482919Funnily enough when I addressed the simple fact that Europeans are not an indigenous people I was met with resistance here. These same people want me to buy into a race blind revolution while they use fascist talking points.
Yes. Europe for everyone. Unironically yes.
No.482930
>>482871i appreciate your efforts trying to educate drooling morons, but i think its a lost cause
No.482932
>>482928Try being less pessimistic. I’m just saying I’m seeing some good things in the world.
No.482933
>>482929>Europe for everyone.The immigrants who are forced to flee to Europe, for example because of wars or climate change, would prefer not to flee, FYI.
You are glorifying current day tragedies into a political imperative, scum.
No.482935
So far the Land Backers I've seen since this shit started to trend:
>as per OP: serbian-american woman
>last night's Haz debate with a white college student from America who has "native friends"
>Jason Unruhe (white) who has "native comrades"
>Luna Oi, an idpol pushing Vietnamese, who is in complete opposition on policy to the Vietnamese Communist Party, and "supports" land back because internet points
>Luna's white American bf
Not looking good, I must say.
No.482936
>>482933Revolution has historically come with a human cost. This is not a mindless, humanitarian movement. Do you think gulags were holiday camps. It’s like you are suggesting we shouldn’t be geared towards winning. I am a non European in Europe. Our stories are far more complex than just ‘fleeing war’.
No.482937
>>482935To be fair, most Native Americans want the US to return the land it took from their tribes. It's definitely not just a thing for Twitter weirdos.
No.482938
>>482924>LANGLY CRACK.Anon. Thsts just regular crack.
No.482939
>>482936You are not addressing the point raised and continue to LARP and everyone can see this fact.
Again, the point, since you are retarded:
>You are glorifying current day tragedies into a political imperative, scum.>>immigrants […] would prefer not to flee No.482940
>>482936> I am a non European in EuropeSo you're a settler. Who cares what you think
No.482943
>>482940>So you're a settler. Who cares what you think>settlerI dont want to be mean anon but why are you even participating in this conversation if you do not understand God concept as used ITT?
No.482944
>>482937Obviously true, but this shit gets pathological when white college kids and insane serbian-americans start to push "all land back," because it's an over-identification with an otherwise common sense and much milder cause, with the "ideological surplus" attained thereby being their self-perceived moral superiority.
No.482945
>>482902>Africans were taken to America against their will.Many Europeans were forced to come to America against their will as refugees.
>Africans, whether you acknowledge it or not, are second class citizens in America.So are workers. Besides, you haven't actually made an argument for why being oppressed entitles them to stay.
>Until then, how could you guarantee that Africans would not suffer over again in some race blind class-exclusive revolution?Even this would be a massive improvement for the majority of black people. The differences in QoL between races of the same income level and class background are actually quite small.
No.482946
>>482940Who cares? Millions. The biggest sport in this country is football and they spend as much time discussing anti racism as they do the sport itself. People absolutely care about non European perspectives.
No.482948
>>482930Thanks, anon. I guess you're right. After 4 or 5 days, it seems it is a lost cause.
>>482939>You are not addressing the point raised and continue to LARP and everyone can see this fact.I confirm this anon's statement.
>>482946Ok lib. Go talk to them, then.
No.482950
>>482942Yes, it is. "Immigration" is a term used to hide the ongoing colonization of countries. There is no immigration. There is only colonization and ongoing theft of native land throughout the world. Stealing someone else's land and then inviting others to live on it is "immigration".
>>482946>>482949All settlers should be killed tbh.
( indistinguishable from pol) No.482952
>>482950>All settlers should be killed tbh.and you should be banned
No.482953
Give me land
No.482955
>>482950>Yes, it is. "Immigration" is a term used to hide the ongoing colonization of countries. There is no immigration. There is only colonization and ongoing theft of native land throughout the world. Stealing someone else's land and then inviting others to live on it is "immigration".Who is behind this dastardly plot, anon?
No.482956
>>482954Landback does mean the removal of all non-indigenous people though, that's the whole point.
No.482957
>>482954>Privatizing public land to own the whitoidsThis plan sucks.
No.482958
>>482895>Redhead latinaThe only time I have seen a readhead in all my life has been in britain.
>Emiliano ZapataLast time I checked he spoked spanish, had a spanish surname his ancestors had spanish surnames and yet, he was a peasant who rose up with his class to seize their destinies and their rights they were denied for generations as a class by the Porfiriato and those before them.
Looks like we had an influx of lireral racism, maskoff of some good trollerinos.
>>482901>In english>>482921Revive the ilotes!!!!
No.482959
>>482891>Marx isn't a source of truth!About Marxism, he is. Otherwise for all intends and purposes for this conversation, we can ignore him.
>Def read the german ideology and thesis on feuerbach. >I already explained why you are wrong, but you dismiss them out of hand unless I quote The Holy Books. Quote this text and use it to back up your sentiments. Otherwise your position is just "well I read Marx, so my position is correct" and thus as your statements are made without reference to concrete theory I can dismiss them without reference to concrete theory
>Why do they need to not be poor? It is clearly not a necessity if native americans have been poor for generations. A necessity for what even? Very ideological statement!!!! Well plenty of natives litterally did starve to death, so they definitely didn't have enough to not perish.
So your revisionist take on Marx is
<From each according to ability, to each just enough that they don't technically starve to death but it's okay if they don'tYou're the only Marxist to ever read Marx like this.
>Good of you to ask. Originally, yes. For sure. But that doesn't explain their current poverty. Capitalist relations doAnd as someone who presumably understands dialects and thus that A =/= A, you would also know that any concrete problem must be understood in it's very origins, and since settler poverty and Native poverty have different origins, they must be understood differently. Capitalist relations was imposed upon them by forcefully privatizing the MoP away from the hands of Natives and it doesn't matter if it's been 10, 100 or 300 years since then, that is still a giant part of what has caused Native poverty. Had they still held that land communally, they would have been way better off even under capitalism.
>Your demand is literally for people to merely rememebr a random wish list item for the revolutionI said we have to keep them in mind as guiding principles of the revolution, much as any other traits of a communist society that Marx laid out. Otherwise we're not building socialism
Quote me backing down from any position or admit you lied.
>Marx is not a source of truthQuote anyone else on the issue that might have authority to a Marxist then, or admit it's about your feelings
No.482960
>>482920No, retard, the Protocol-Indo-Europeans migrated from the Eurasian steppe/Armenia into Iran/Afghanistan, not the other way around.
No.482961
>>482960I meant proto lol🤣
No.482963
>>482954It's honestly absurd to assume that indigenous people would necessarily be more concerned with sustainable development and environmentalism than anybody else. Sure, traditional indigenous society was pre-capitalist and thus inherently more capable of sustainable land management, but once capitalist mechanisms were introduced into their societies, they became just as susceptible to its pressures as anybody else. During the 17th century they almost hunted beavers to extinction in Quebec to meet demand for furs. In the modern day some indigenous groups have put tremendous pressure on fresh water fisheries to supply local restaurants and food trucks. "Indigenous people are inherently in harmony with nature" is literally a noble savage narrative. They are products of their material environment like everybody else.
No.482964
>>482954what a self-own vid tbh
No.482965
>>482740Lenin was wrong and it ended up destroying the USSR
We need less ethnostates. Less tribalism. Less breakaway states that end up as permanently impoverished Bantustans. More class.
What has "national self-determination" given Eastern Europe, Middle East and elsewhere? Rabidly anti-communist comprador regimes
There is a lot of revisionism surrounding anti-colonialist struggles, and the whole part about workers first demanding the same rights and citizenship as the colonizers (which wasn't given leading to colonial wars) is left out almost entirely
t. minority in a non-western country No.482966
>>482959>And as someone who presumably understands dialects and thus that A =/= Ayikes!
No.482967
>>482966>if I clutch pearls harder it proves my point and I don't have to prove anything<I AM NOT HERE TO EDUCATE YOU😂😂😂 triggered lib
No.482968
>>482967i don’t actually need to make any further points because you’ve been getting destroyed for nearly a week straight at this point.
how odd that this idpol liberalism is all the leftypol old guard has to offer.
No.482969
Do you know what other country was a violent settler colobial state based on slavery of Africans and the genocide of the indigenous? Cuba, Cuba didn't need to dissolve itself in favor of a Taino ran state, it gave all land to the tillers and mostly fixed racism without even having to change national symbols.
No.482970
>>482968>UGH ARE YOU SERIOUSLY ASKING FOR AN ARGUEMENT<UGH IM NOT HERE TO EDUCATE YOU SHITLORD>UGH YOU ARE OWNING YOURSELF YOU DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND HOW TO REFORM THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY WITH AOC<GOODBYE I AM DONE WITH YOUYouTube comments is on another webpage than this one.
No.482971
>>482969One of the biggest issues of the Cuban revolution is how they failed to take care of afro-cubans and native communities for a long while.
When they did so, that was a decolonialist effort and even then it was not nearly enough.
Cuba is not a great example of soil to the kkkiller.
No.482972
>>482959Marx isn't a source of truth about marxist analysis which is what we're engaging in now. Marx isn't a prophet and his writing aren't holy scripture of truth.
>and thus as your statements are made without reference to concrete theory I can dismiss them without reference to concrete theory What do you want a quote from? I can't produce a "pro-landlord maoist is wrong lmao" quote from Marx, so what do you want proven by the Holy Concrete Books of Theory?
>Well plenty of natives litterally did starve to death, so they definitely didn't have enough to not perish.Where is the necessity?
>You revisionist take on MarxNo, anon. YOU are the revisionist. Marx is referring to the HIGHER stage of communism. You were using the quote in the context of historic and accumulated needs of native americans.
COMPLETELY out of context.
Here's the fucking relevant Holy Scripture, for your revisionist needs:
>In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!Emphasis mine.
>You're the only Marxist to ever read Marx like this.lol. It's all out of context slogans with you.
>And as someone who presumably understands dialects and thus that A =/= A, [rest of the paragraph]No. History doesn't exist anymore. To understand it, sure, you need to understand the historic origins. But the settler class no longer exists. It has morphed into something else. You know, like dialectics materialists A =/= A sublimation station or whatever.
>Otherwise we're not building socialismSo we need to have the right ideas in order for socialism to sprout.
Cool, got it. Totally not idealism, don't worry.
>Quote anyone else on the issue that might have authority to a Marxist then, or admit it's about your feelingsRetard, you're the moralfag here. You keep moralizing absolutely ever single argument you make. I don't need to quote anyone. It's not about authority, I'm making the arguments here, to you, and not only me, there's several anons who have dissected your arguments and laid out why they are wrong. Do you want me to make a seance so that Althusser can tell you why you're being an idealist? Like what the fuck do you want?
>>482968>how odd that this idpol liberalism is all the leftypol old guard has to offer.This kid is not "old guard" at all.
No.482973
>>482963It’s like 19th century orientalism. I honestly think it’s crazy that so many people who are overtly concerned with racism just regurgitate this shit about “indigenous land stewardship” without seeing how racist it is. There is no innate quality of indigenous people such that they are more capable of protecting the land or the ecology. The overwhelming majority of indigenous people are modern, they do not know more about ecological land stewardship than the people in the agriculture departments of the universities. They also aren’t anymore equipped to enact ecological policy in that regard, as can be seen by the Vancouver case that people erroneously spread as an example of the ecological land stewardship of the Squamish (by producing renders of high rises with plants on them). They are building and commodifying housing, and the income will inevitably go to reifying capitalist social relations in their daily lives of consumption and work.
This is unrelated, but I also don’t know what people mean when they say something like land back means restoring indigenous sovereignty with the caveat that it doesn’t mean ejection of current non-indigenous residents. So it is ok to end bourgeois democracy for political sovereignty based on ethnic historical claims to land? And when this is pushed back on the common response I’ve seen is either
>you cowardly settler, so you believe the natives will genocide you like your government did to them?Or
>why do you believe the indigenous are incapable of government?When the real issue is that you’re implicitly arguing for ending suffrage of non-indigenous, otherwise what does “indigenous sovereignty” paired with “you don’t have to leave” mean? That we are just renaming the territory but everyone still gets the same political rights to vote on their representatives? If there isn’t political privilege for the indigenous, how is it specifically “indigenous sovereignty”? If you’re just advocating for like, expanded democracy that in some way helps with reducing minority oppression and bourgeois rule, then what does it have to do in particular with the indigenous?
No.482974
How come pro-Land Back people are not funny, like at all?
No.482975
>>482832He literally predicted that this would happen.
No.482976
>>532877
Go back to /pol/
No.482977
>>482954https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairy_Creek_old-growth_logging_protestsis there any reason to think the natives would actually take better care of Forrests then Canadas version of the forrest service?
No.482978
>>482976Work on your bipoc fragility, sweetie
No.482979
>>482956According to her it means privatizing public land so that the tribes can sell development rights rather than the state. Which is essentially less democratic than what exists and the creation of a kind of pseudo landed aristocracy. Even supposing the indigenous tribes mutualize the profits to all tribal members, this is again little different than mutualization of oil profits to members of arabic nations. In a world of commodities and private commerce ruling our lives, the tribal members will have every reason to do what every other national body with something that has a market price have done, which is sell it and use the gains to sustain their own livelihoods. That is the only way you survive in this world. Honestly the Israelis are a better example than the supporters of landback seem capable of acknowledging, as even they started out with a bunch of bohemian, cosmopolitan and even COMMUNIST Jews flooding to Palestine. They all still exist, Israel is famous for its bohemian weirdos. Marianne Williamson was on Twitter reflexively defending Israel’s abuse of Palestine. The bohemian weirdos just happened to become crazed fascists when they came into possession of something they had the unique right to sell or dispose of at the expense of other groups.
No.482980
>>482977Native americans are connected to the land through their long ponytails. Didn't you see avatar?
No.482981
>>482973>So it is ok to end bourgeois democracy for political sovereignty based on ethnic historical claims to land?Well to be fair I don't think most land back advocates are calling for all of the America's to be placed under "indigenous sovereignty," rather they want the land promised to them under the treaties with "settler" governments combined with an actual respect for their control over this land, I.e. no building golf courses or pipelines on it without their express permission.
No.482982
>>482974Comedy appropriates indigenous Hellxnistic culture.
So does tragedy, which is why this entire thread has been a farce instead. No.482983
>>482972>Marx isn't a source of truth about marxist analysis which is what we're engaging in now. Marx isn't a prophet and his writing aren't holy scripture of truth.<I can't produce a "pro-landlord maoist is wrong lmao" quote from MarxFine. Then again, if you cannot quote Marx, quote someone who would have authority to a Marxist instead.
What I want from you is that when you make positive statements about what is proper Marxist Orthodoxy, you back that statement up with something concrete, otherwise I can dismiss it without presenting anything concrete.
>You were using the quote in the context of historic and accumulated needs of native Americans. Sure, and what Marx highlights here is that human need is not only the means of life, but life's prime wants.
This is what was taken away from Native American communities, this is what they needed the land for. They near totally lost all of their life's prime wants which is a need that they have but to a very large degree also their very ability to survive.
And yes, people need to survive and thrive. That is a need.
>But the settler class no longer existsYes it does. It has changed, no doubt about, but it's still measurable in American criminology, justice, healthcare outcome, food security etc.
This is why you cannot say that a native poor prole is poor for the same reason that a poor settler is poor, because that's not true to a dialectical analysis, and they're not poor in the same way, they don't experience poverty in the same way.
>So we need to have the right ideas in order for socialism to sprout.Yes, this is why Marc set out what the traits of a communist society are. These were principles to be built towards.
Are you implying he did so on a lark?
>I'm making the arguments hereGood, that's okay, but then you cannot appeal to Marxist Orthodoxy. What you need to make clear is that you are arguing on your own behalf, not of the behalf of any thinker whom you can quote on the relevant issues.
No.482984
>le land back thread
>400 replies
Fuck this meme literally no one outside burgerland and breadtube cares about this shit.
No.482985
>>482984Anglo pseudopolitics lives on leftypol rent free
No.482986
>>482984>>482985>Politics central to the biggest capitalist empire in the world and also Israel is not important to leftistsWith all due respect, I disagree
No.482987
>>482973>Native Self-Determination is White GenocideWhy does so many here have /pol/ brain?
No.482988
>>482977whyte man = technology
native man = nature
t. totally not racist
No.482989
>>482987>Z area is X ethnicity clay>X ethnicity must repopulate Z area>Lebensraumit is you who has a nazi brain
No.482990
What's the difference between Land Back and Zionism? Just the time difference?
No.482991
>>482990Brown man good
Jew man bad
No.482992
>>482986israel is nearly every leftists problem because every liberal democracy on the planet has their grubby hands in that situation and thus it’s not outside of the realm of possibility to exact change from overseas
on the other hand what’s the connection between a guy living in, say, belgium and landback?
No.482993
Black dude in car:
Landback Discourse is Hogwashhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hkg2laHGUyU No.482994
>>482983>Yes it does. It has changed, no doubt about, but it's still measurable in American criminology, justice, healthcare outcome, food security etc.So what exactly is the difference between racial disparities in America and racial disparities in Europe? Similar trends exist among many immigrant communities in Europe, who are often heavily racialized. However you wouldn't refer to indigenous Europeans as "settlers" would you?
No.482995
>>482983>Sure, and what Marx highlights here is that human need is not only the means of life, but life's prime wants.You were arguing that Native American historic needs accumulate like monetary debt.
lol, but no. The quote you used had no bearing on the context, and you tried to weaponize Marx and failed.
> It has changedIt has changed so that the nature of its existence is not primarily one of settler. In fact, it has changed so much you can't even identify who is a settler and who isn't. As some people have said, are the people who were forced to come here settlers like the irish, some british, many refugees, black slaves, etc? You can try to justify your moral position, people here have already poked enough holes in your theory to make it mostly holes.
>Are you implying he did so on a lark?I'm implying that "having the right ideas in order to progress history" as you suggest is so liberal, it makes me cry blood.
>Good, that's okay, but then you cannot appeal to Marxist Orthodoxy. What you need to make clear is that you are arguing on your own behalf, not of the behalf of any thinker whom you can quote on the relevant issues.Of course I am arguing on my behalf, using marxist analysis. You haven't cited ANY philosopher except one time, which you used out of context in a way that was self-own.
>>482991Zionism and Landback are entirely compatible. The person in the OP is a "Zionist Lakotan".
Land back is either empty sloganeering, a signaling of moral virtue, insane ethno-nationalism, or role playing about the coming revolution. A mental masturbation fit only for the most brainwashed individuals on the face of the Earth.
No.482996
>>482892Are you supposed to be a pan-african imposter or attempting to frame my ideology?
>As a non-indigenous people, they do not have any unique claim to geographic territories, >which makes Europeans lands the best starting points for Internationalism, and the global working class struggle. How do these 2 statements even follow eachother? Also why would the imperial be the best starting place for revolution?
>This is essentially why racism is such a significant obstacle to Marxism.The only way to "solve racism" is by destroying the material reality that reproduces the ideas of race.
This can only be done by a New Republic with a revolutionary state that is ideologically antii-settler and anti-racist, promotes economical development and sovereinty for the black belt and other regions, promotes co-developement and cultural exchange with the African continent and South-America, has heavy re-education of white workers, black etc. and slams down on any white supremacist organizing, to prevent class collaboration of white workers with capital.
White workers won't be shipped back to Europe that's just anti-Marxist and stupid
No.482997
>>482981I’ll be honest, that’s only a marginally more agreeable stance simply because most of the land is likely empty. But in the cases where municipalities actually exist on that land or it’s otherwise occupied by non-indigenous resident, I think the same objection applies. I don’t see what the justification is for removing the political rights of people currently residing in an area to decide how it is managed collectively, even if under the rule of capital that right is of course a shadow. It just legitimizes the exclusion and exploitation of groups of aliens to the land who have no explicit political right to determine collectively how to manage the municipality they live in because of their ethnicity. It feels like it is just the easy way out for rightfully angry indigenous activists, a way to not think about the scale of the problem, which is capital itself. Instead of dealing with how the colonial legacy of capital excluded these people and continues to exclude them through a historical inertia of dispossession, the answer is displaced from ending the power of capital altogether to giving the power of capital to the indigenous at the expense of another group, the people already living there. Expanding universal suffrage was a key goal of Marx, Engels and many early communists. They thought legitimizing the right to popular rule politically was an important step to legitimizing the social right to the productive forces. I think any step towards removing those rights just spreads a backwards ideological position.
But in the case that the land is unoccupied and owed to the indigenous tribes by treaty, they should get it back. If it is occupied then perhaps they can get it back, but the residents should be brought into the tribe as voters. The area can be renamed and follow the political form and laws of the tribe, but it still has to be democratic and the residents have to have the standard liberal rights to representation that have already been hard won.
No.482999
>>482994No, and that's because Europeans Racism has a very different origin and doesn't work in the same way. European racism is usually primarily sectarian.
To the degree that white people enjoy white privilege in Europe it is usually from imperialism and their proximity to the imperial core.
So there are some similarities, but European white supremacy have other origins and as such are better understood through a different lens, that of imperialism.
No.483000
>>482999Non-white euros enjoy this "white"-privilege resultingnfeom imperialism too
No.483001
>>483000Yeah okay, granted
No.483002
>>482993>>482998Guy brings up South Africa as a counter-example, as though Native Americans don’t have equal rights. South Africa was an apartheid state with a racial caste system that literally split the political state such that black representation was in a subordinate body. To the extent this is even comparable to American indigenous relations, it would be an ironic analog, as the claim is that the indigenous want to have an independent sovereignty rather than want to overcome it for political equality (which they already have as US citizens, also hard won up into the civil rights movement).
No.483003
>>482995>You were arguing that Native American historic needs accumulates like monetary debtYes, exactly, because what's necessary to cover ones essential needs and life's prime wants also does evolve as the wealth of society does.
If you just gave them back what would have been enough for life's prime wants in 1650 or whatever, that would not nearly be enough today.
So yes, that has accumulated, as they have been unable to meet their needs and unable to developed for a long time.
>In fact, it has changed so much you can't even identify who is a settler and who isnI've done so several times, and pointed to the fact that settlerism isn't so much about individuals, but more about geo-communities that play specific political roles and thus turn the people within them settlers. I can, and I have done so a few times, and they're still identifiable.
>Are the people who were forced to come here settlersThat depends on whether or not they were integrated into setter communities or in turn themselves were superexploited.
So the Irish weren't initially, but became settlers over time.
Black slaves and their communities served an entirely different material, historical and political role than settler communities ever did and their relation to the MoP was different than that of settlers, and as such, their communities are not settler communities, but communities that were internal domestic colonies that then in turn created a culture and communities that could only call itself native to America and nowhere else.
>I'm implying that "having the right ideas in order to progress history" as you suggest is so liberal, it makes me cry blood.So are you suggesting that none of the traits of a Communist Society are not guiding principles of such a society and as such that Marx only wrote about them because he thought it was funny.
No, these principles matter, and they are essential to understanding how we even build a communist society and a barometer as to whether or not we're on the right track.
>>482990Zionism is settler colonialism. Land Back is the opposite.
Here's a question: Does Israel have a right to exist?
If not, how do you say it have no right to exist without arguing that Palestinians should have their land back?
No.483004
>>483002>the claim is that the indigenous want to have an independent sovereignty rather than want to overcome it for political equality (which they already have as US citizens, also hard won up into the civil rights movement).>political equality (which they already have as US citizens, also hard won up into the civil rights movement).<political equality>which they already have as US citizenstfw it's the Candance Owens argument
No.483005
>>482999>No, and that's because Europeans Racism has a very different origin and doesn't work in the same way. Why does its origin matter? Japan's capitalist system had its own origins separate from those in Europe, yet they are both considered capitalist. What do you mean by them "not working the same way"?
>To the degree that white people enjoy white privilege in Europe it is usually from imperialism and their proximity to the imperial core.How is that different from white privilege in North America?
>>483002Bruh he says all sorts of retarded shit in there.
>Indigenous people practiced anarchism/communism for thousands of yearsYeah so did literally everybody, but neither white people nor indigenous or black people are currently living in a precapitalist society, and their behaviors reflect their current conditions. Moreover it would be impossible to return to pre-industrial forms of social organization in an industrial society.
>It's not our job to educate white people It literally is, that's how you build a political movement.
>Indigenous people wouldn't throw white people out, look at South Africa!I mean I agree that it would be pretty unlikely, mostly since if they tried nobody would comply and they're massively outnumbered. However the obvious fly in the ointment of his example is Zimbabwe.
>Indigenous people don't want to throw out the white people but they would be justified in doing soMask off moment. If you think ethnic cleansing is ever justified you get the wall.
>BIPOCThis entire concept is retarded. Black and indigenous people have basically nothing in common apart from both being racialized. In fact blacks were often settlers in the most literal sense, as in settling on indigenous land that had recently been depopulated. There's no reason to treat them as a single category.
No.483006
>>483005>Why does its origin matter?Because in dialectics and anti-postitivist marxism, you absolutely have to look beyond what a thing appears like, and understand it holistically and how it evolved. Two things can appear to be 100% the same thing at a certain moment, but if they have different origins, then we are also to expect that they will evolve differently and as such are only the same in appearance, but not in fact.
>How is that different from white privilege in North America?Because that is not the only way in which settler communities benefit from white supremacy benefits in the US.
In the US settler communities literally live upon the land and use the resources that other people need to sustain them selves, and use that generate their wealth. To the degree that this happens in Europe, they aren't actively doing this to extant domestic populations, but often do it overseas, often off the back of the US empire.
No.483007
>>483005>If you think ethnic cleansing is ever justified you get the wall.This is equivocating. You're using the fact that population transfer is technically ethnic cleansing, and the fact that the term "ethnic cleansing" has been synonymous with genocide since the 90's to imply that population transfer is genocide.
It's not.
It's not great, but it's not genocide.
No.483008
>>483007Those are a lot of words just say "Yes, I want to ethnically cleanse the Americans of white people"
No.483009
>>483007i’m sure the proletarian masses will be moved and thrilled by this rhetoric of “yeah it’s technically ethnic cleansing, but…”
No.483010
>>483003>If not, how do you say it have no right to exist without arguing that Palestinians should have their land back?Because Israel is an overt apartheid state. It’s leaders openly declare it is designed to be Jewish and give preference to Jews immigrating there while keeping Arabic political participation limited. In the case of Gaza it blockades its trade and enforces such strict military control as to be suffocating it with clear intent.
One solution could be to simply free Gaza, as in remove the blockades and military control. But that isn’t a true solution as that isn’t what Palestinians want, they’re fighting for property that was stolen from them as little as two generations ago for some of the oldest. In effect, they want to be allowed back into what is now called “Israel” and receive their own private land back. Like their actual domiciles, their residences from ~60 years ago. Most communists don’t want a two state solution or a Palestinian ethno-state (though at this point the tensions are so high that the pro ethno-state Palestinians certainly have their own political base of support). They want a one-state solution akin to South Africa, where apartheid is lifted and Palestinians are given equal political rights alongside whatever reparations are feasible, whether it be purely monetary or in-kind. Again, the indigenous in America already won political equality alongside black people. I do think they have some right to reparations within the liberal order, given their total poverty.
>>483004Stop being retarded. Candace Owens denies that black people are disproportionately exploited and excluded by capital and targeted by racist police. I don’t deny Native Americans are incredibly impoverished as a group, for instance. But it doesn’t follow from that that the answer is revoking liberal political rights of representation for other people in an area historically claimed by them. Rather, it follows that they should be targeted for efforts to relieve their poverty. But for communists that also needs to be strategically analyzed. Giving greater control of public trust land to indigenous tribes was supported by the Trump administration for the sake of opening it to resource extraction, and it had indigenous partners involved. This would of course give more money to indigenous tribes, but in a circuit of capital accumulation that encourages them to just sell development rights to private companies that they get a cut of. This would create a situation where the indigenous tribe members derive income from simply owning land that they have privileged access to by ethnic lineage, which would make them diverge in interests from the general proletariat.
No.483011
>>482996
>has heavy re-education of white workers, black etc. and slams down on any white supremacist organizing, to prevent class collaboration of white workers with capital. Heavy re-education of white workers yes. Africans should be instilled with a sense of pride and destiny. Any exclusively European organisation is problematic and leads to exploitation and conquest down the line.
No.483012
>>483010>Because Israel is an overt apartheid state. It’s leaders openly declare it is designed to be Jewish and give preference to Jews immigrating there while keeping Arabic political participation limited. In the case of Gaza it blockades its trade and enforces such strict military control as to be suffocating it with clear intent.So, land back?
No.483013
>>483006>In the US settler communities literally live upon the land and use the resources that other people need to sustain them selves, and use that generate their wealththis seems like an odd analysis.
fundamentally the land of the US is if anything inefficiently underutilized. it's more than capable of providing for all of the people within it. there's no necessity of population transfers on a greater degree than "bulldoze all the fucking suburbs."
the question is surely one of how wealth is generated and how efficiently it is generated: the ideal position appears to be that settlers are moved on and that native people adopt a kinder, gentler relationship to the land which nevertheless provides them a standard of wealth equivalent to that of the dominant group who're there at present.
now, forgive my reprehensible misanthropy, but my presumption would be that if the anglo-dutch oil company came along and offered billions of Europounds to the newly liberated people of turtle island in exchange for oil drilling rights (all the jobs created going to natives etc, naturally, unless they'd prefer a stipend and itinerant workers doing the actual labour) they'd wind up taking the deal by one means or another. capitalism rests for no tradition.
No.483014
>>483006>Two things can appear to be 100% the same thing at a certain moment, but if they have different origins, then we are also to expect that they will evolve differently and as such are only the same in appearanceBut they aren't just the same in appearance, and the proof of this is that you can't seem to identify the material factor which distinguishes them. In both cases we have racialized groups, pushed into low paying jobs and segregated communities via capitalism, racism, and in-group cultural cohesion. In both cases racist ideology producers disparities between them and white people of similar economic backgrounds, resulting in lower wages and superexploitation, higher unemployment, disadvantaged access to housing, education, etc, great police brutality. In both cases this takes place within a framework of bourgeois democracy and official equality under the law. What is the fundamental difference?
>In the US settler communities literally live upon the land and use the resources that other people need to sustain them selvesI fail to see the significance of this particular fact in the modern context. The free availability of land in the past was indeed a relevant factor, since it served as a form of welfare for poor whites, lessening the antagonism between them and the ruling class. However this is no longer the case, there is no free land waiting on the frontier to bribe the poor white population with. The fact that the land that is now America was once occupied by another people is not relevant relevant America's current class and social dynamics.
>You're using the fact that population transfer is technically ethnic cleansing, and the fact that the term "ethnic cleansing" has been synonymous with genocide since the 90's to imply that population transfer is genocide.I didn't say it was genocide and I don't consider the two to be equivalent. That doesn't change my position.
No.483015
>>482866>I and many other anon have pointed out>>482863>You have proven to have grave misunderstandings and abundant ignorance of the subject.>>482884>Out of your depth here kid. >>482884>idiot sloganeer,>>482966>yikes!>>482972>idealism>>482972>several anons>>482972>you're being an idealistYou don't know what idealism is and no one agrees with you. Samefagging doesn't make you correct. Do you actually have an argument with citations? Why are you lying to actual communists? Are you intentionally trying to cause a split? Have you read a single book or do you just posture and insult people? You have posted some 20+ times in this thread and have said a grand total of fuck all. Are you aware that people like you get gulaged for wrecking when they pull this shit IRL?
No.483016
>>483009USSR did it with Crimean Tatars, Estonians and Ingush - and for less than what whites did in America.
It was possible then, why should it suddenly be impossible now?
No.483018
>>483016that was one of the ussr's greatest mistakes
No.483020
>>483007I agree with you except this. Population transfer is unnecessary and the reason it is technically ethnic cleansing is that no one in history has ever successfully done it without killing innocents. Humans have not demonstrated that they are capable of moving masses of people without starving them. You don't need to include it if you are just talking about eminent domain for 1% of people because thats already covered.
If were doing the stupid utopian hypotheticals I don't see land back giving occupied land anyway. What natives want is the unoccupied farm land that is held by mega corps and most specifically they want water rights for the Mississippi river so that they can coerce corporations to not dump chemicals in the water. You don't need to kick people out of homes to stop corporate pollution, which is the primary focus.
No.483021
>>483016Yeah and it was shitty and retarded when the Soviets did it too.
No.483022
>>483015Sakaism is idpol and liberalism ¯\_ (ツ)_/¯ I don't make the rules.
Samefagging doesn't mean posting several times in the same thread. Just because I'm not a namefag or a flag fag doesn't mean I'm samefagging. Others with flags have disagreed with that anon. I have not used flags.
And, I'm still right. I don't need to cite shit niqqa, I saw this all in a dream. And I'm not the one making claims that there is a settler colonial class super exploiting the native americans. If something needs citations, it's that shit.
No.483025
>>483006> In the US settler communities literally live upon the land and use the resources that other people need to sustain them selves, and use that generate their wealth.There are no “settler communities” in the US. US citizens are entirely proletarianized and don’t own anything other than residential property at most, the latter of which is a flatly bad development and shouldn’t simply be transferred to indigenous owners. Home ownership in America has just created a bunch of lunatics who often try to raise property values at the expense of any class politics.
No.483026
>>532877
Spain should be conquered by Mexico.
No.483027
>>483024>>483023You will never be able to get the hispanic blood that runs theough your veins.
You will never be an Aztec
You will never marry the malinche
No.483028
>>483027This "mestizaje" mentality is why we have remained in this shithole of colonialism and genocide for the last 500 years.
The "mestizaje" mentality is a dead end. It is a plan for assimilation and extermination of our people as an Indigenous people. And, the Spaniards themselves do not celebrate or take pride in their Arab blood or heritage, they are very ashamed of it, they take their identity and their pride in their pre-Arab history and blood.
We are the only people in the world who are still fooled by this celebration of rape and conquest.
The Jews are the biggest "mestizos" in the world and you don't see them celebrating their Germanic heritage, the rape of their people by Germans, Poles, and Russians. Jews celebrate the heart of who they are: JEWS.
We need to learn and embrace the heart of who we are and of the land in which we stand: We are Nican Tlaca of Cemanahuac ("North and South America").
We need to do serious study of our colonized minds. We need to get up off our knees as slaves to this "mestizo" mentality; but the majority of our people will not do the study that is necessary to break from the chains of this idiotic slave "mestizo" mentality; nor will they end their Stockholm Syndrome love of all things European, until they learn to love themselves as Nican Tlaca.
No.483029
its a waste of time
No.483030
>>482958>Last time I checked he spoked spanish, had a spanish surname his ancestors had spanish surnames and yet, he was a peasant who rose up with his class to seize their destinies and their rights they were denied for generations as a class by the Porfiriato and those before them.IF
1) BEING SPEAKING SPANISH
AND /OR
2) HAVING SPANISH NAMES (Jose/Maria)
AND/OR
3) HAVING SPANISH SURNAMES (Garcia, Martinez, etc)
AND/OR
4) HAVING EVEN ONE DROP OF SPANISH BLOOD
AND/OR
5) EVEN HAVING NOT ONE DROP OF SPANISH BLOOD
(but being full-blood and speaking Spanish, and having imposed
Spanish language, names, and surnames)
SO, IF ALL OF THAT MAKES US "HISPANIC/LATINO/LATINX"
("US" here refers to
the full-blood Nican Tlaca and mixed-blood Nican Tlaca,
to all of the Indigenous people of this continent).
SO, IF "HISPANIC/LATINO/LATINX" CAN BE "LOGICALLY"
APPLIED TO NICAN TLACA,
then "Native Americans" and "African Americans" are
"logically" "Britanic" and "English" people
for speaking English, for having British names and/or surnames,
and for having some British blood.
That also makes the people of any nation
that speaks English or that have English first names
or surnames: a Britianic nation, and an English people.
Jamaicans, Irish, Kenyans, Singapore and Hong Kong people,
Philipinos, and any other nation or people that speak English,
uses English names or surnames is therefore also Britanic
and English: if we follow the logic of why we Spanish speakers
are "Hispanic" and "Latino", or "Latin" or "Latinx"
or any other genocidal term that is meant to
keep us culturally castrated
and on track for an existential annihilation.
AND
why aren't Philipinos Hispanic and/or Latino or Latinx?
They have Spanish names and surnames
and at one point spoke Spanish,
and there are a few drops of Spanish blood!
"HISPANIC" AND "LATINO" WHEN APPLIED TO
NICAN TLACA ARE BOTH GENOCIDAL TERMS THAT
ARE MEANT TO EXTERMINATE THE EXISTENCE OF NICAN TLACA!
THOSE GENOCIDAL TERMS
ARE AN EXISTENTIAL THREAT TO OUR PEOPLE!
No.483032
>>483015>>483022Wait asshole, where did I lie?
>No one agrees with youNo one has argued against me except the sakaist
>You don't know what idealism isWhy do you say that? I was referencing something very specific, which is that "having the right thought will lead to the revolution". That is very classic "liberal idealism". Not any particular brand of idealism, and idealism is used here in the same manner it is used informally in any Marxist circle.
>Do you actually have an argument with citations?Citations of what?
>Are you intentionally trying to cause a split?Split of what?
>Have you read a single book or do you just posture and insult people?I do, although I admit to posturing and insulting.
>You have posted some 20+ times in this thread and have said a grand total of fuck all.Absolutely rude. Sakaism must not be given any ground.
>Are you aware that people like you get gulaged for wrecking when they pull this shit IRL?This is an anonymous forum? Did you expect me to namefag?
No.483034
>>483030>That also makes the people of any nation>that speaks English or that have English first names>or surnames: a Britianic nation, and an English people.
>Jamaicans, Irish, Kenyans, Singapore and Hong Kong people,>Philipinos, and any other nation or people that speak English,>uses English names or surnames is therefore also Britanic>and English: yes
(but not the norman conquerors, they will be driven back into the sea for their crimes against the brittonic man.)
No.483035
>>483030YES
We call them Angloids for a reason. Black burgers are burgers, people from bumbaklaat land are infected with the same Anglo brain worms.
No.483036
>>483032LMFAO wrong again dumbass. Is this supposed to be a joke? Its really just sad. You have proven to have grave misunderstandings and abundant ignorance of the subject. You can't help but think with liberal ideology. You obviously haven't read Marx and think that "converting" from 8kun last week makes you on the correct side of things. Changing into a red shirt doesn't make you a communist you actually have to learn how to read.
No.483037
>>483036what a really truly pathetic way to react to disagreement. good discussion has been had in this thread and this baby rage post is totally unwarranted. if you have any arguments that can stand to the ruthless criticism, then start making them.
No.483038
>>483037>disagreement>>483022I don't need to cite shit niqqa, I saw this all in a dream.
fuck off back to /pol/ You can come back when you learn to read
No.483039
>>483038landback isn’t communism, hth
No.483040
>>483012That’s not “landback”. Are you being intentionally obtuse? It’s roughly analogous to America’s blockade of Cuba, but of much greater severity. Nobody calls the end of the Cuban blockade “landback”. Gaza theoretically already has sovereignty, it is just besieged and slowly being conquered. In the Israeli case “landback” would be in respect to claims to Israel as a whole, which I addressed directly. The ideal case would be that Israel becomes a unified state under Arabs and Jews with equal political rights like in South Africa, but with reparations (either monetary or in-kind where possible) for Arabs that had their land stolen. By comparison, indigenous in America already have equal political rights and only really need reparations and targeted assistance to get out of poverty. But making them an ethnic caste of landowners is a bad idea, it will just fully divorce them from proletarian interests. Look at how emiratis treat “foreign workers” (the majority population of the UAE). They have different class interests because they have a privileged access to oil profits. At root this is a problem of nations in general, but it is a progressive step for nations to be liberalized, ie not be ethnic enclaves. National self-determination, when it is most agreeable, usually involves creating nation-states in areas with a high density of some minority nationality that desires independence, but still with liberal political rights. As in, the minority nationality (a local majority) doesn’t have political privilege, the sovereignty of the independent nation-state merely gives them local political unity so that a central or federal state can’t abuse them anymore. But local minorities who may even be majorities in the rest of the former unified nation-state still have equal political rights in the new independent nation-state, and if they aren’t some direct colonizer they shouldn’t be directly dispossessed. At most in such cases the new state should seek to uplift the former oppressed nationality through public policy, like free education or job opportunities, or also through cash and in-kind compensation (housing, in rural economies maybe empty acreage for a farm, etc)
No.483042
>>533070>>483008<I carry the genetic trauma of my Ancestors<Yes, I want to ethnically cleanse the Americans of white people>Muh White GenocideQuote me saying that
>>483013>there's no necessity of population transfers on a greater degree than "bulldoze all the fucking suburbs."I didn't say there was a need for large population transfers, I'd leave that to the ASSRs that are to be established for Native peoples to decide upon.
>now, forgive my reprehensible misanthropy, but my presumption would be that if the anglo-dutch oil company came along and offered billions of Europounds to the newly liberated people of turtle island in exchange for oil drilling rights (all the jobs created going to natives etc, naturally, unless they'd prefer a stipend and itinerant workers doing the actual labour) they'd wind up taking the deal by one means or another. capitalism rests for no tradition.Yes, and that is a great argument against bourgeois liberal native nationalist seperatism, which does not however include the full scope of Land Back. Your argument is valid and is also why that is not the version of Land Back that I, as a communist, refer to.
>and the proof of this is that you can't seem to identify the material factor which distinguishes themProblem is that I have done this several times. I will now attempt to walk you through this again.
In Europe there never was a period where a labour aristocracy that made its wealth primarily as a warrior-citizen caste that colonized people and settled as independent yeomen.
This never happened in European history. There never was a specific subset of the European working class that had this specific relationship to the MoP, as people that had an interest in settler colonialism, that is to say, to fare war and establish themselves as settler-yeomen or potentially, as petit-bourgeois bourgeois slaveholders that worked the land alongside slaves. This is the material origin of the settler communities and settler class within the US. The last time that happened was in the Great Migrations during the fall of Western Rome, and that cannot be compared to US settler colonialism 1-to-1.
I have pointed this mechanism out to you several times, and unless you can point to some kind of mass-phenomena within Europe where there were was a class that functioned in a comparative manner, the matierialist must come to the conclusions that these are indeed different phenomena with different origins, that function in different ways HOWEVER MANY SIMILARITIES MAY OTHERWISE EXIST.
>I fail to see the significance of this particular fact in the modern context.The land is still stolen. The needs of the native and black communities are still not being met. The land that was essential to their survival and well-fare is STILL TO THIS DAY in the hands of other people, and the productive capacity that they are dependent upon to survive and thrive is still something they are shut away from. Theft of MoP is not something that happens in just a moment. It is something that happens IN ALL the moments a community are being deprived of the means necessary to sustain themselves. This is as true now as it was 200 years ago.
>The fact that the land that is now America was once occupied by another people is not relevant relevant America's current class and social dynamics. Yes it is, because those people are still extant, and white people are inherently given an advantage over them. It is a HUGE boon to white people that when all things otherwise are equal, they win out when they apply for jobs, schools, run for office whatever, and that boon specifically only exists because there is an underclass of natives and black people that are still extant within the US.
>There are no “settler communities” in the USYes there are. There are communities into which wealth is transferred from colonized communities into settler communities. These are communities that benefit from white supremacy. They are indentifiable as as a class as they have historically constituted a material and identifiable political force.
They constitute a labour-aristocracy that must be liquidated as a class to consolidate the working class into one proletariat.
No.483043
>>483039Land to the Killer is the main driving force of Nazism.
No.483044
>>483020>If were doing the stupid utopian hypotheticals I don't see land back giving occupied land anyway. What natives want is the unoccupied farm land that is held by mega corps and most specifically they want water rights for the Mississippi river so that they can coerce corporations to not dump chemicals in the waterYeah, which is why "muh white genocide" alarmist scaremongering is so stupid. Just because Natives get a homeland where they can call the shots as to their specific needs on how to decolonialize, doesn't mean anything happens to anyone, and EVEN IF IT DID it wouldn't be the end of the world, it certainly wouldn't be enough reason to limit native self-management just because we want to panic-monger about what the Black people and Native could do if they technically had the option to rehome settlers, with all costs guaranteed and jobs and safety guaranteed.
No.483046
>>483043What issue do you have with nazism? The invasions of poland and czechoslovakia were just land back. Germans in the formerly german territories were being oppressed and their wealth extracted by settlers in the respective lands. What did they do wrong?
No.483047
>>483046They saw what the British and Americans were doing and wanted to do it to.
shitty b8
No.483048
>>483046>What issue do you have with nazism? The invasions of poland and czechoslovakia were just land backThey were revanchist genocidal imperial invasions based on irredetism stemming from earlier imperial settler colonialism.
Maybe if we were suggesting that Natives should make an independent genocidal fascist state and then invade and genocide America, then yes good point, it would have a good response to such a position.
No.483049
>>483045The real joke is that both of them are losers that pretend to be tough.
No.483050
>>483042>I have pointed this mechanism out to you several times, and unless you can point to some kind of mass-phenomena within Europe where there were was a class that functioned in a comparative manner, the matierialist must come to the conclusions that these are indeed different phenomena with different origins, that function in different ways But you haven't shown that they function in different ways in the present, only that they came about through different historical processes. Notice that your entire post here is basically just talking about the past, there's nothing which outlines how the present situation is meaningfully different. Can you explain what separates the
present condition of racialized people in Europe from those in America without references to the past? Speaking only of how class and race functions in the current year? If not, then there is no longer a meaningful difference between the two, and thus the "settler" designation is outdated.
>The needs of the native and black communities are still not being met.The needs of many white communities are not being met! The stealing of native land and African slavery explain the historical causes of black and native poverty today, as well as the origins of racist ideology. However there is no longer any unique mechanism by which black and indigenous people are exploited from which white workers are exempt, wage slavery is the primary means of surplus extraction for all American workers. Natives and blacks are landless, but so are most white people, and unlike the 19th century nobody is handing them free land on the frontier. The only difference between white and other proles is that this exploitation is often more intense and made worse (as well as justified) by racism. In other words, apart from being racialized, there is no qualitative difference between a white prole and a black or native one.
>It is a HUGE boon to white people that when all things otherwise are equal, they win out when they apply for jobs, schools, run for office whateverAll you're saying here is that black and indigenous people are racialized, something I won't deny. However this alone isn't enough to justify the designation of a "settler" stratum without also doing so in other countries with racialized minorities, and coming the absurd conclusion that white Europeans are "settlers" in their own homelands. Today there is no difference between white and minority workers in terms of their relationship to the means of production.
>There are communities into which wealth is transferred from colonized communities into settler communities. These are communities that benefit from white supremacy. These are just petty bourgeois communities, they exist in every country.
No.483051
>>483010>This would create a situation where the indigenous tribe members derive income from simply owning land that they have privileged access to by ethnic lineage, which would make them diverge in interests from the general proletariatno one here is saying they should get land back but privatized. obviously socialism is a prerequisite. where's the real disagreement?
No.483053
>>483042>The land that was essential to their survival and well-fare is STILL TO THIS DAY in the hands of other people, and the productive capacity that they are dependent upon to survive and thrive is still something they are shut away fromas a different person I appreciate i may be circling back to a prior argument and that this might look like one of those tedious attempts to subject one of the few people actually advocating a person to death by a thousand cuts in the hopes of making them be quiet, but:
how does this differ from what happened to most Englishmen when the commons were enclosed? they too had land that was once effectively theirs taken from them. (we might draw the argument further - that the very definition of a proletarian is surely someone who is deprived of the MoP?) is it not questionable to draw a major distinction on the grounds that "well, at least your MoP was stolen by a fellow Englishman rather than by a foreigner"? especially given the fact a huge chunk of the "English" nobility are of foreign origin.
No.483054
>>483050>But you haven't shown that they function in different ways in the present, only that they came about through different historical processes. Notice that your entire post here is basically just talking about the past, there's nothing which outlines how the present situation is meaningfully different.That is fine, and don't worry, I will, but to Marxists I wouldn't have to.
Racism in the US and Europe can appear to be 100% the same thing and in the present appear to function 100% the same way.
In terms of dialectics, they would be understood to be different, even if they are otherwise identical, if they have different origins.
So in terms of Marxism, I don't have to argue that they are presently manifested different, as long as they historically different, they aren't the same and won't develop the same way. However I will run over some of the differences.
> Speaking only of how class and race functions in the current year?Yes. In Europe racism is largely amongst either National or Secterian lines. That is to say, it is much more likely that your perceived religious or national origin is gonna matter than your actual skin colour. Europeans hate Muslims, and other Europeans much more so than they hate black people.
So while secterian and race based bigotries exist both in America and Europe, Race and skin colour is the primary defining factor of American racism, and sectarianism is the primary defining factor of European racism. This is one major way American and European racisms concretely are different in the present.
>The needs of many white communities are not being met!Yes and so what? What relevance does it have to the discussion? Does one white man being merced by the cops disprove police racism? Please, that's not how anything works.
>However there is no longer any unique mechanism by which black and indigenous people are exploited from which white workers are exemptYou can only say this, if you deny that white privilege/supremacy is real. Do you deny it?
>However this alone isn't enough to justify the designation of a "settler" stratum without also doing so in other countries with racialized minorities, and coming the absurd conclusion that white Europeans are "settlers" in their own homelands.Now I will ask you, very politely: Did you skip the part where I wrote about what happened in America, that didn't happen in Europe, that established the settler-class to begin with. Is it because you did not read that part that you ignore it?
>Today there is no difference between white and minority workers in terms of their relationship to the means of production.Let's say that was true. A =/= A in dialectics. Let's say they were completely the same, no difference in terms of their relationships in pragmatic terms currently. There are, but let us entertain the notion that there aren't.
Even if currently they are the "same", they aren't the same if the way they got there was entirely different. That's how dialectics work. And that how you from a materialist perspective explain why white privilege is real and why black communities are so poor, because black people don't actually interact with capitalism on equal footing as white people do. Even if at face value they do, in reality they don't.
That's how anti-postivist dialects work.
>Today there is no difference between white and minority workers in terms of their relationship to the means of production.No they're not. A community doesn't have to be petty bourgeois in order to benefit from white supremacy.
Even if settler communities were identical functionally in the present day to other petty bourgeois communities, they wouldn't actually be the same. Again, different origins, anti-postitivism, dialectics.
No.483055
>>483053>how does this differ from what happened to most Englishmen when the commons were enclosed? Thank God! I actually brought this up earlier.
YES! That's almost completely the same, but without the obvious genocide and slavery part, so not completely the same.
But yes, the English had land stolen from them, and that is DEFINITELY land they should take back, and theft that has deprived them over generation.
>"well, at least your MoP was stolen by a fellow Englishman rather than by a foreigner"? especially given the fact a huge chunk of the "English" nobility are of foreign origin.Hey, if you wanna argue "On English Neck a Norman Yoke"/"In our Land, A Common Treasure" like a based Roundhead Leveller or something, I'm all for it, no issue with that
No.483056
>>483044reminds me of isrealis who think giving Palestinians the right to vote is genocide
people who are afraid of becoming a minority should focus on making it so minorities can't be abused and realize that calls for equality are not calls for revenge
these people are a living meme, its pure distilled reaction
No.483057
>>483051>no one here is saying they should get land back but privatized. but that’s what the land back movement actually materially is, and the question is why marxists are identifying with it.
>>482835this is only one example among many.
No.483058
>>483056you haven’t read a single post by the opposing side itt
No.483059
>>483042> Yes there are. There are communities into which wealth is transferred from colonized communities into settler communities. I just don’t know what you mean by this. Israel has settler communities that directly transfer wealth from one individual or family to another based on nationality (based largely on ethnicity). That is unambiguous settler-colonial wealth extraction. People in America overwhelmingly have their property transferred in open markets. As in, they’re put in positions of poverty by capitalist exploitation and driven to sell their property or otherwise have it repossessed by claimants like lenders/banks. This can be racialized, but it takes the form of basic capitalist property relations. Christopher Columbus enslaved and massacred people for their land. Colonists tend to take possession of land and people through conquest in relationships of opposing sovereignties, an outside colonial state subjugating aliens. This is just overwhelmingly not how people relate to each other in the US anymore, even in respect to the natives. White proles in America are not actively dispossessing indigenous families of their houses. Even big businesses find it hard to access indigenous land for development because it is so highly protected that often the tribes themselves can’t adequately access rights to it, because partners and lenders will want some security by collateralizing the property and reservation land often can’t be adequately collateralized because it is held in trust for the tribe, it just can’t be transferred like that. That’s why native americans rely on it so much. Vast swathes of them are unemployed, but they are able to survive off of meager federal stipends because their land can’t be taken from them. That gives them an amount of security, but it’s a miserable kind of security in conditions of crushing poverty.
No.483060
>>483058Seething about twitter isn't an argument.
No.483061
>>483057>but that’s what the land back movement actually materially is, and the question is why marxists are identifying with it>materially iswtf r u saying. stop conflating what libs have to say about an issue with what marxists have to say please
No.483062
>>483057>but that’s what the land back movement actually materially isAnd Socialism in the US is Bernie Sanders and AOC. So what? Does that say anything about actual socialism?
No. It says something about liberalism and liberal takes on every idea being the dominant ideology.
>>483059>People in America overwhelmingly have their property transferred in open markets.Oh, but these markets are not free markets. There's a reason a dollar leaves a black community much more quickly than it leaves a white one. That entire Market is rigged against natives and black people in favour of white people/settlers and this is the modern way that colonial homesteading, as a white privilege, has continued.
>White proles in America are not actively dispossessing indigenous families of their houses. Oh, but this is still happening. Settlers often build highways or pipeline on native lands, both bourgs and proles, and Black people are pressured out of their communities through gentryfication, redlining or other sorts of discrimination. These things, just as many other sorts of oppression under capitalism, have simply taken a new look, but they are still present mechanism. Nothing has changed since 1850, everything's just gotten better PR.
No.483063
>>483055The guy who keeps calling others undialectical is advocating for peasant socialism. You aren’t getting the commons back, history abolished the commons. We have to mutualize control of the machines. I don’t even want to live off of the land, and I doubt the majority of millennials or zoomers do either. They might romanticize it sometimes but they just want a garden and a wood shop in the scenic countryside or something. They don’t want to make their clothes and grow their food as a matter of subsistence, that world is done with.
No.483064
>>483054>Racism in the US and Europe can appear to be 100% the same thing and in the present appear to function 100% the same way.So in other words as far as modern day organizing and revolutionary politics is concerned, there is functionally no difference, and the "settler" designation rests entirely on historical rather then extant mechanisms.
>they aren't the same and won't develop the same wayThat's impossible to say, they could both develop in any number of ways. Societies with radically different origins can develop in convergent ways, just as societies with similar origins can develop in divergent ways. However if they both function more or less identically in the present, then there is no point to giving them a different designation. Black people were historically slaves, but it would be ridiculous to insist upon designating them as such today. Historically feudalism existed in Europe but not America, but you wouldn't refer to modern Europe as a peasant society. Likewise settler colonialism is a very real historical phenomenon that explains much about America's present, but this in and of itself does not make it descriptive if the current situation. If in the future they develop in significantly new and different ways then it would he appropriate to apply different designations but until then "settler" is effectively just a buzzword meaning "middle class and not racialized," something hardly unique to supposed "settler colonial" nations.
>That's how dialectics work. Dialectics also work through constant change and the qualitative transformation of one thing into another. However you are insisting that America's status as a "settler" society is apparently immutable and static despite the many changes that have occurred over the course of its history, changes which cause it to more closely resemble societies which cannot be called settler colonies by any means. You're trying to justify your categorization based on the past rather than the present, and if we're doing this we might as well say that Britain is a feudal country and Russia is a proletarian dictatorship.
No.483065
>>483061Its a 15 year old who just became a communist after watching youtube. They don't actually know whats going on they just repeat what streamers say.
No.483067
>>483055fair play, that's an internally consistent view.
alas, anti-norman politics doesn't seem to be a huge growth market. (despite the efforts of
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/dec/17/high-house-prices-inequality-normans )
No.483068
>>483061what do marxists have to say about it, exactly? where is the real marxist landback movement i can point to?
No.483069
>>483063>The guy who keeps calling others undialectical is advocating for peasant socialismQuote me doing that.
>>483064>That's impossible to say, they could both develop in any number of ways. Societies with radically different origins can develop in convergent ways, just as societies with similar origins can develop in divergent ways.Buddy, I'm just telling you how dialectics work. If two societies converge into being identical at one point, they are not in fact identical.
Let's say you have to C students, both students that have had a C three months in a row. In all ways they are equal at face value.
Now, one used to be getting A's all the time, and the other used to getting F's all the time. The Former slowly degraded to a C and the latter slowly got better.
These, in spite of all appearances, even if identical, are not the same. Unde the surface, one of them is actually having a problem and the other is thriving, even though, if we ignore their histories, they are identical.
>America's status as a "settler" society is apparently immutable and staticNo, I've repeatedly stated the opposite. Settlerims is not immutable, and no settlerism today is not LITTERALLY the same as it was 200 years, but it is a class that has evolved from settlers, that is distinct from all other kinds of petty bourg stratas, and for which there exists no other word to describe them, and as such there is no pragmatic distinction to be had from using a different term between them and literal settlers, if their function within white supremacy is the same.
I mean the proletariat has changed vastly from 200 years ago too, but since we have no utility in making the distinction, we don't.
>ou're trying to justify your categorization based on the past rather than the present, and if we're doing this we might as well say that Britain is a feudal country and RussiaNo, because feudalism and noble domination in England actually ended for real. White Settler Surpemacy, as the direct consequence of Settler Colonialism is still around. These things are not comparable.
No.483070
>>483068Where the real Marxist ANYTHING within the US you can point to?
No.483071
>>483070yeah, that’s kind of the point.
No.483072
I'm honestly curious what decolonialists actually want, like I want to know what a decolonized USA would look like
No.483074
>>483072Yeah of course.
First of all we'd establish a homeland in the form of an ASSR within the US
Then we have a truth commission to evaluate and make clear the horrors and injustices inflicted upon the Native and Black people that need to be redressed or at least acknowledged.
Then, extensive reparations are done to the Native ASSRs in the form of development of industry, education, infrastructure, food security etc. as to remove any and all institutional advantages that former settler communities could have within the USSA.
Then the proletariat is consolidated as a whole, and as such the DotP is able to represent the proletariat as a whole.
No.483076
>>483074Thank you
Yeah personally this doesn't seem that controversial to me
No.483077
>>483076You're welcome! Thank you for engaging, friend!
No.483079
>>483078Literally just /pol/ ""converts"" reusing their reparations talking points
No.483080
>>483078>everyone is pretending to disagree because they don't like brown people being mentioned in their socialismNow I'm not saying it's definitely this, but…
No.483081
>>483078Because anon just pulled a political program out of his ass that isn't in any of the Actually Existing "landback" texts.
No.483082
>hundreds of posts of philosophical debate across multiple threads
<they’re just racist!!
it’s all so tiring.
No.483083
>>483081Show me the real actual "Land to the Tiller" movement within the US.
No.483085
>>483083>>483084What are you on about schizo
No.483086
>>483085Just ignore him, people have tried to talk to him but he just deliberately misrepresents what they say to keep the argument going.
No.483087
>>483085>>483086The Bundy Farm siege was a group of right wing libertarians that seized federal land they were using because they didn't feel like paying taxes on it.
If we are talking about what Land Back versus Land to the Tiller looks pragmatically like in the US, right wing extremists are the ones supporting Land to the Tiller.
No.483089
>>483088i thought you were smarter than this. a “real actual "Land to the Tiller" movement” doesn’t need to be pointed out because it is ideologically and physically hegemonic within america.
No.483090
>>483089>>483088like, isn’t that the whole point of the settler/colonized dynamic?
No.483091
>>483089>a “real actual "Land to the Tiller" movement” doesn’t need to be pointed out because it is ideologically and physically hegemonic within America.Yeah, which is awesome, because that means the position is just Pro White Supremacy.
Yeah, if "Land to the Tiller" if the dominating ideology in the US, then Land to the Tiller is very racist, because so is the dominating ideology of the US.
What you now have to demonstrate, like I was asked to demonstrate, are non-white supremacist communist who hold the "Land to the Tiller" position in opposition to Land Back.
No.483092
ITT, based on unique IPs:
>3 white LARPers emphasizing the importance of land back
<104 people criticising/laughing at them
THIS IS A FACT
No.483093
>>483069>Buddy, I'm just telling you how dialectics work. That's not how dialectics works, at least not materialist dialectics. The entire point is transformation and change, and America, through a dialectical process, has evolved into a society in which there is no unique mechanism of surplus extraction or disposession which only affects certain racial groupings. It's complete idealism to endow social relations in America with some special status it inherits from its past, rather than defining it by the mechanisms that govern its present. It has evolved into a capitalist society in which some people experience racial in addition to class oppression, exactly the same as Europe and many other places in the world. The mere existence of this racial oppression is not a qualitative difference, but an ideological mechanism that intensifies the same suffering experienced by workers in general.
>that is distinct from all other kinds of petty bourg stratasNo it isn't, it's functionally identical to the petty bourgeois stratas which exist in Europe, right down to the advantages granted to them by racism. The fact that they evolved from actual settlers doesn't change this. Much of Europe's bourgeoisie evolved from the nobility, this doesn't make them an actual aristocracy.
>No, because feudalism and noble domination in England actually ended for real.Slavery in America ended, so did the process of indigenous disposession and de jure racial discrimination. In the absence of these elements, there is nothing that separates a black or native worker from a white one apart from the double oppression of racism, which on its own is not enough to make a society a settler colonialist one.
No.483094
>>4830922 of the main posters in the thread were arguing against land back
No.483095
>>483091weird kafkatrap bro. there’s many shades of middle ground between directly serving the us state, which actually is what perpetuates white supremacy, and clinging on to whatever lib movement exists now as cope.
No.483098
>>483093>It's complete idealism to endow social relations in America with some special status it inherits from its past, rather than defining it by the mechanisms that govern its presentBut it does. You have to. That is how anti-positivism works. What you're advocating is positivism, that is to say that A = A.
Yes, the US has a special status it inherits from its past. So did Russia and China. That was why socialism had to be adapted to the histories thus the concrete realities of those countries. The same is true of America. Solutions to building socialism will not be exactly the same as it would in a non-settler colonialist society, in a semi-feudal society, in a feudal society, etc.
>It has evolved into a capitalist society in which some people experience racial in addition to class oppression, exactly the same as Europe and many other places in the world.As I already tried to lay out, racism in Europe isn't the same as racism in America. They target different groups, are aligned along different categories, and have different histories. Racism in America is largely race-aligned, In Europe it is along sectarian lines.
To say that America and Europe are both racist societies is not true, because they are not racist in the same way. They have different histories of exploiting minorities and don't do it in the same ways.
>No it isn't, it's functionally identical to the petty bourgeois stratas which exist in Europe, right down to the advantages granted to them by racism.But those two "Racisms" while sharing the same name, is not the same thing. They manifest concretely in different ways and have different histories.
>Much of Europe's bourgeoisie evolved from the nobilityEhhhh not really, most of them were Poppolo Grosso, rich urbanites. Very few of them were literally nobles. And yes, that is significant to how capitalism functions in Europe and concretely manifests, versus how it does in America, in Japan, In China, etc.
>Slavery in America ended, so did the process of indigenous disposession and de jure racial discrimination.No they didn't. Black bodies are still used as labour in the penal system, the effective extension of slavery, Natives are STILL being dispossessed (look up "unceeded land" or "native lands pipelines) and dejure discrimination doesn't matter if defacto discrimination is still in place.
You act as if White Supremacy is already solved, but then conceede that it is still around.
What, is racism just when white people are mean to black people to you?
No. Racism is a systematic on-going thing, and the reason it is, is because America is a settler-colonialist state, just as secterian racism continues because it's an anti-semitic imperial crusader empire.
No.483099
>Marjanovic
OF COURSE I AM NATIVE, YAKUBIAN DEVIL. THE WHITE MAN WILL BUILD ME A CONDO I CAN COLLECT RENT FROM, OR ELSE. LAHNBAHCK!
No.483101
>>483098> Black bodiesGod you’re an annoying one aren’t you. Regardless, landback is never happening. Texas is going to secede before landback becomes a reality, and in the case landback ever does happen on any scale it will probably be some national park being given to a tribe that within 10 years sells a chunk of it to a company producing natural gas and another chunk to a wind farm. And people will celebrate it as progressive and the private developers will be happy with their virtuously acquired profits.
No.483103
>>483102Communism will happen, landback wont.
No.483104
>>483103Why. Who's gonna stop it. You?
No.483106
>>483105Okay, tell me what's the Motte and quote me saying that, and tell me what's the Bailey and quote me saying that.
Easy, right?
No.483107
>>483098>No they didn't. Black bodies are still used as labour in the penal systemholy shit, i never thought about it this way. with the current labor shortage, this will be an excuse to put people incarcerated into modern slavery. the us constitution completely permits this. im tired of people bringing up "ancestral sin" and slavery 300 years ago whenever people talk about white supremacy. segregation was decades ago! the war on drugs was not only decades ago but on going! neo-colonialism where third world nations are extorted of their earnings is still happening! none of this is some ancient history
>>483101>Regardless, landback is never happening>socialism is never happening???
>>483105i never believed the land back movement was about simply deporting white people. it's such a ridiculous position it had to be a straw man
No.483108
>>483097<no i just want to take land from bourg land owners and use it to develop the industries of first nations people. basic socialism shiti've asked several times over the last few days how anything socialists would support in land back isn't just already contained in socialist principles anyway
No.483109
>>483107you only now thought about the fact that prisoners are used in huge numbers for labor, and that it has severe racial targeting character?
No.483110
>>483108>isn't just already contained in socialist principles anywayit is just socialist. that's the other poster's argument
>>483109it didn't all click and connect back to past slavery because i am stupid
No.483111
>>483108>i've asked several times over the last few days how anything socialists would support in land back isn't just already contained in socialist principles anywayBecause it isn't automatically. It is entirely feasible that a DotP under the control of a labour-aristocracy settler class would prioritize itself and it's own communities and their privileges over superexploited native and black ones, and as such to prevent that when building socialism, Land Back and decolonialism must be a guiding principle.
No.483112
>>483110>it is just socialistand by this i mean if you are actually taking these principles seriously instead some weird red brown shit
No.483113
>>483111So this is only an issue if
literal NazBols take power?
No.483114
>>483113It is an issue, because as someone also pointed out, White Supremacy is already the dominating ideology within the US, and as such by default, any socialist movement will be NazBol, unless it makes certain that it is not.
No.483115
>>483104I don’t have to do anything, it’s entirely unfeasible as a project aside from being less than coherent in its goals. It’s maximum program as far as I can see is native “control” or “stewardship” of ALL public land. Anything below that could be called “landback” in progress, so in effect it means nothing but the expansion of tribal territory. Tribal territory may expand, which I have no particular qualms with, but “landback” will never be achieved in totality because it is an entirely unrealistic project. One of the smallest minorities in the country is going to gain possession of ever growing tracts of land by guilting the capitalist money making machine? No, the capitalist money making machine will maneuver to privatize what public lands it finds valuable or necessary by getting its political lapdogs to transfer it to tribal governance, and then thoroughly greasing the palms of tribal leaders in exchange for development. And then the tribes with the valuable land will be a giant interest group for natural gas or whatever.
No.483118
>>483098>That is how anti-positivism works. What you're advocating is positivism, that is to say that A = A.I'm curious where you read or saw this, you've mentioned it several times already. It's best to think of dialectical materialist developments as processes in the present. They carry the weight of the past and the inertia of the present. After a while, the past looks like a different process than the present, but you can trace a line between the two. The question always is, "how does the process work today".
>>483107This reads like a crypto-land back.
Nobody in this thread denies modern day slavery and the continued captialist expansion on previously granted land. The observation is that this is a capitalist mechanism, not a colonial one. Even if it has a colonial past, in the present, it is capitalist. If you try to understand the political economy of the US through colonial lens, you will fall short. No such thing will happen with standard marxism, which already accounts for the colonial past of the US.
>>483113Aren't internet nazbols all about ethno states? Everyone "with their own kind" and shit? Mmmm…. maybe this land back stuff will only happen if literal nazbols come into power.
A non insane version of this is what the zapatistas propose. It is fully aware of the deep integration of indigenous nations and the urbanscape. Communists in Mexico take to the zapatistas as reference on how they should act on topics that affect indigenous people. And zaptistas always stress that they are open and always learning from the urban comrades. There's no "land back" stuff here. Just "the narco-state should fuck off" and full solidarity with urban comrades. The way they envision communism is, as they say, "a world where many worlds fit". They don't demand the urban communists that land be given to them. That's very silly. And urban comrades understand that there are many nations in our nation, and that together, through solidarity, communication, and support, we can build the world we want.
This land back thing, at its last instance, "a reminder to communists to please consider the natives when they install communism", has a unique American character that presupposes (communal) property rights and antagonism on property rights of ethnic groups. Something that is absurd for Mexican comrades. How can you "give" land under socialism? Makes no sense, but then again, it's the USA. Not many things make sense.
No.483119
>>483098>Yes, the US has a special status it inherits from its past. So did Russia and China.This status does not transcend the concrete relations that exist in the present. It's idealism to suggest that America's settler colonial past supercedes its existing social relations, which far more closely resemble those of Europe than either its own past or currently existing settler societies like Israel. You're essentially endowing settler colonialism in America with a trans-historical character, one which persists despite qualitative transformations in the status of indigenous and black people.
>As I already tried to lay out, racism in Europe isn't the same as racism in America. They target different groups, are aligned along different categories, and have different histories.That isn't relevant for whether or not a country is considered settler colonialist. Israel targets people on different criteria than America did too, but the relevant issue is the actual mechanism through which it extracts wealth from a designated group.
>And yes, that is significant to how capitalism functions in Europe and concretely manifests, versus how it does in America, in Japan, In China, etc.Of course it's significant, but these countries are all considered capitalist (controversy over China notwithstanding) because they are dominated by the same basic mechanisms of surplus extraction and class rule. They resemble one another more than they differ, and you wouldn't say that America is capitalist but Japan isn't just because its capitalism developed in radically different ways. Similarly, when two countries have similar mechanisms of racial oppression, it makes more sense to classify them together rather than lump one in with a society which operates via very different mechanisms. What you're proposing would be like claiming North Korea is capitalist because it's historical development more closely resembles South Korea than it does Cuba, despite the opposite being true as far as its current social order is concerned.
>No they didn't. Black bodies are still used as labour in the penal systemThere are plenty of white people in prison too, and the chances of incarceration are much higher among poor people regardless of race. Again, the only difference here is that black people are overrepresented within a penal system that oppresses everybody. This is a problem which affects all proles, but racism makes it proportionally worse for black and Hispanic ones. Its a quantitative rather than a qualitative difference.
>Natives are STILL being dispossessed (look up "unceeded land" or "native lands pipelines)Sometimes yes, but with important caveats. First, there is an increasing trend of courts in these same "settler colonialist" societies deciding in favor of indigenous land claims. Second, this displacement is typically not done for the purposes of settling white people on these lands, but for resource extraction. In this sense it more closely resembles other forms of colonialism such as those which predominated in Africa during the colonial period. Dispossession is necessary but not sufficient for settler colonialism, just like racism is necessary but not sufficient.
>No. Racism is a systematic on-going thingI don't deny this, but we've already established that systemic racism is not the same as settler colonialism.
No.483120
>>483118> Makes no sense, but then again, it's the USA. Not many things make sense.I like to remind myself of this. The USA really is a basket case.
No.483121
>>483118>I'm curious where you read or saw this, you've mentioned it several times alreadyThis is from my philosophy textbooks from college, but it's sorta basic stuff, so I suppose you can just google "Postivism vs. Antipositivism" or just "antipositivism Marx" and I betcha you're gonna find something like this real quick.
>The question always is, "how does the process work today".But you learn that from observations in the present AND it's past, thus creating a holistic image where both define each other.
>How can you "give" land under socialism?ASSRs and SRRs are a thing, and these can manage land. That's how you give it under socialism.
No.483122
>>483118>I'm curious where you read or saw this, you've mentioned it several times already.to add on to this, that line of thinking is specifically wrong because a does equal a. hegel himself says the law of noncontradiction is trivially true. dialectics does not seek to refute formal logic, and formal logic is in fact a moment in the dialectal process.
No.483124
>>483119Based posts in this thread anon. Very calm, orderly, collected, and well said.
No.483125
>>483113pic rel
>>483118>Nobody in this thread denies modern day slavery and the continued captialist expansion on previously granted landim referencing posts like >>528899 and >>528593
>this is a capitalist mechanism, not a colonial oneshit wasn't racialized against non-white peoples out of the aether. it's looks entirely arbitrary until you factor in the colonial history which captalism is building off of. that's called explanatory power. you can't just pretend you are doing dialectics by ignoring history when you don't want to talk about brown people. wtf do you think sublation is?
No.483126
>>482665>>482683>>483105>motte and bailey curious
>>518872you have to go back
No.483127
>>483119>What you're proposing would be like claiming North Korea is capitalist because it's historical development more closely resembles South Korea than it does Cuba, despite the opposite being true as far as its current social order is concerned.Well put.
No.483128
>>483093Are you the same cat in the China thread that argues that they are imperialist?
No.483129
>>483126you don’t feel embarrassed grasping at straws like this?
No.483130
>>483119>This status does not transcend the concrete relations that exist in the present.It doesn't transcend it, but it defines this. Nothing exists independently of it's origin. A=/=A, and the two C student aren't the same.
What you're saying is that because capitalism isn't precisely the same thing it was 200 years ago, it's modern form is in no way informed by that which preceded it.
Yes, Settler Colonialism and Capitalism has changed in the last 200 years, no doubt about it, but their modern form is influenced and shaped by it's origins, and it's modern form is distinct from other societies that established their capitalism in other ways.
Thus, America is a modern settler-colonialist capitalist society, because it developed out of a premodern settler-colonialist capitalist society, and this in certain ways distinguishes it from societies that did not.
One of these ways, is how race relations work in the concrete and the specific ethnic questions that are relevant within the US.
Both capitalism and settler colonialism has changed in the last 200 years. It is as accurate today to say that the US is settler colonialist as it is to say that it is capitalist. It isn't in the ways it was 200 years ago, but these two traits are the legacies of the system that have developed within the US. Other capitalist societies, which in turn are also pretty racist, have other legacies from which they spring that cause them to be racist in different ways, that then in turn have effected how capitalism and racism function within these countries today.
This is not to say that these have transhistorical characters, but to say that they are living legacies, defined by their outset.
>and you wouldn't say that America is capitalist but Japan isn'tNo, but you also wouldn't claim that capitalism in the US is exactly the same as capitalism in Japan, because they're not. They have traits they share, but they are different and have unique issues, that are to be solved in unique ways, and to ignore these differences or pretend that they aren't there, is not going to help us when dismantling capitalism in either Japan or the US. For both of these, we have to develop socialisms, that can deal with each of their specific question and antagonism within their societies. Japan in turn has much more of a gender and age antagonism, and that must be addressed in ways specific to Japanese society, lest they risk going unadressed, much like how racism uniquely manifests in the US may well go unadressed.
>What you're proposing would be like claiming North Korea is capitalist because it's historical development more closely resembles South Korea than it does Cuba, despite the opposite being true as far as its current social order is concerned.That doesn't follow. What I am saying, and what does follow, is that DPRK and Cuba have socialist societies that look different, because they have different histories.
And I am saying that DPRK and ROK have similarities because they share a history, and that both South Korean capitalism and North Korean Socialism must be understood in the light of that shared legacy, to provide context as to what is going on.
>There are plenty of white people in prison tooAnd what does that signify? That black communities are not systematically targeted ny the US prison system because of their race?
Unless you deny that, this fact has no bearing on my argument. As long as black people are targeted for being black, the presence of some white people within the system absolutely doesn't matter in regards to whether systematic racism is real or not.
>Second, this displacement is typically not done for the purposes of settling white people on these lands, but for resource extraction.So this continuation of settler-colonialism, that just like capitalism, has changed character is doing the same thing it has always done, and in the same context, but towards slightly other *ways* or siphoning wealth from Native Lands, just as capitalism has changed in the ways it concretely extracts value from workers, yes.
These are the modern american itterations of both systems, yes.
>I don't deny this, but we've already established that systemic racism is not the same as settler colonialism.In America, it is. There exists no racism in America that does not exist in the context of the legacy of settler-colonialism and it is as such deeply influenced by it.
>>483123>Completely unproven conjecture that just straight up assumes complete bad faith in the socialist movementIs the dominating ideology within America white supremacist y/n?
No.483131
>>483111>Because it isn't automatically. It is entirely feasible that a DotP under the control of a labour-aristocracy settler class would prioritize itself and it's own communities and their privileges over superexploited native and black ones, and as such to prevent that when building socialism, Land Back and decolonialism must be a guiding principleThis is nonsense. The proletariat has an interest in correcting the uneven development of its class in order to achieve statelessness through the end of antagonisms and communism through the end of scarcity.
It is also impossible in a commonly owned economy for one part of labor to exploit another part.
No.483132
>>483131>The proletariat has an interest in correcting the uneven development of its class in order to achieve statelessness through the end of antagonisms and communism through the end of scarcity.Yeah, as a whole. But if they aren't whole, that is to say, if there are unadressed internal antagonism that may benefit a certain labour aristocracy that is also in control of the DotP, then that labour aristocracy will act in their own interest and the result is Sparta.
No.483133
>>483130>Is the dominating ideology within America white supremacist y/n?The dominant ideology is liberalism in advanced capitalist societies.
No.483134
>>483133Liberalism is very often white supremacist, especially in the US.
No.483135
>>483132>Yeah, as a whole. But if they aren't whole, that is to say, if there are unadressed internal antagonism that may benefit a certain labour aristocracy that is also in control of the DotP, then that labour aristocracy will act in their own interest and the result is SpartaWhat the hell are you talking about? The labor aristocracy is not a creation of colonialism and other precapitalist conditions, but imperialism and the high stage. It doesn't exist under socialism. It's a product of class compromise in imperialist countries.
No.483137
>>483133>Liberalism is very often white supremacist, especially in the USNonsense, liberalism is definitely euro or west-centric owing to its uneven development but it's by no means dedicated to preserving a caste system which predates it. On the contrary, liberalism is a product of secularized forms of religion that came after the bourgeois democratic revolution, sometime from the 1830s onward. The whole thing is based on promises of human development and emancipation, just in a very bourgeois sense
No.483138
>>483137>>483134Meant this for you
No.483139
>>483130You are failing to distinguish between changes which fundamentally alter social relations and those which do not. Yes, everything is a product of its past, but through a dialectical process societies undergo transformations which change them enough so as to constitute an distinct entity. When something comes to resemble one form of social organization than it does another, then we can agree that it has undergone a process of fundamental transformation, and needs to be categorized as such. E.g. when a society comes to resemble socialism more than it resembles capitalism, we consider that society to be a form of socialism. This is how we distinguish between the two. By the same token, when a settler colonialist society begins to resemble a society which we all agree is not settler colonialist, then it would not be appropriate to keep categorizing it as such. You yourself accept this premise, because you agree that America is not eternally settler colonialist, but could be tansformed into a genuinely egalitarian system. This means you agree with the premise that when America comes to more closely resemble a non-settler society more than it does a settler ones, it can be reclassified. In the last 200 years capitalism has changed much, but it does not more closely resemble a non-capitalist society than it does its 19th century incarnation. By the opposite token, because race-class relations in America more closely resemble those of Europe (a society we all agree is not settler colonialist, despite the existence of systemic racism, internal colonies, etc) than they do Israel (a society we all agree IS settler colonialist) it is no longer appropriate to apply this label.
No.483140
>>483137> it's by no means dedicated to preserving a caste system which predates itstrange, yet that's what it effectively does
No.483141
>>483135>It doesn't exist under socialismIt easily can. All you need is for the white proletariat to decide that imperialism and systematic racism is kinda good for them and then decide to keep it, and then there is nothing systemic to prevent it from being perpetuated.
There has got to be a conscious decolonizing effort to prevent this.
>>483136<actually socialism is compatible with slavery and the claiming of others' work, as long as it's racially orientedI'm not saying that this would be socialism, but I am saying that actual societies where citizens didn't have classes amongst them, but still had slaves and engaged in imperialism have existed historically and could exist again insofar as the US did nothing to docolonize.
>>483137John Locke died in 1704. White supremacy and it's caste system only barely predates European liberalism by maybe a few decades. In fact, most liberal thinkers held deeply racist beliefs.
No.483142
>>483129He is entirely correct. Motte-and-bailey fallacy was coined in 2004 by a conservative so that he could complain about post modern neo-marxism and then was popularized in 2014 after gamergate as a weapon against social justice. Today its primarily employed by stormfront types trying to argue against the topics in the screenshot - feminism, white privilege, systemic racism, etc as a trojan horse for white genocide hysteria. Maybe you don't know that because your brain has been poisoned by 4chan but thats not my problem. You need to get over your fear of women and brown people.
You haven't actually provided a coherent argument, any counter points, or sourced a single claim. You just keep repeating strawmen and pretending that you haven't been proven wrong so that lurkers will have doubt.
No.483143
>>483113Didn't you get the memo, white people are literal nazis because their skin is white
No.483144
>>483139>By the opposite token, because race-class relations in America more closely resemble those of Europe (a society we all agree is not settler colonialist, despite the existence of systemic racism, internal colonies, etc) than they do Israel (a society we all agree IS settler colonialist) it is no longer appropriate to apply this label.100% disagree. See, it doesn't matter if the US is 100% like Europe right now. The fact that one has a settler colonialist past and the other doesn't make it so even if they appear identical, they aren't. What you're advocating is positivism. That is the fundamental flaw of your argument. A=/=A. Even if Europe and America converged 100%, they wouldn't be the same. You can't point to Europe and compare it to America and conclude from that comparison that America is no longer settler-colonialist. That is not how anti-positivist Marxist philosophy works.
Beyond I have already highlighted the myriads of ways that American racism differes form European racism and the main vectors of ethnic conflict within these countries.
100% the US is more like Israel than it is Europe. You have already conceded that the US, just as Israel does, encroaches on native land, and yes the main conflict in Israel is absolutely also racial. Israel is just on an earlier stage of the same mechanism as the US.
100% Israel and the US are the closest to each other. The US is nothing like Europe and just saying that you don't think that the distinctions matter, won't make them go away.
Racism will never be solved in the same way in Europe as it will in the US. Impossible.
No.483145
>>483143No but america is currently white supremacist and the socialist movement that will grow out of the American working class will be informed by that history UNLESS struggles are made to negate that.
No.483146
>>483126Not him but using these words, like pointing out this fallacy exist, make you a /pol/tard?
This doesn't make any sense
No.483147
>>483145You see, socialism is not opportunism, you are worried a socialist movement will mantain racism because you are projecting your own intentions
You do not understand international solidarity, which is why you believe evwey movement is bound to fall into the hands of opportunists like yourself
No.483148
>>483147No, it has specifically to do with the dominating ideology of the US today and how that has to be addressed and won't go away on its own.
No.483149
>>483142Ummm, are you sure about that? It was coined by a British professor in 2005 and he didn't say anything about "post-modern Neo Marxism".
No.483151
>>483148>The dominant ideology in the USliberalism? How is that related to your masturbatory fantasies of literal nazis controlling the US?
No.483153
>>483151White supremacist liberalism yes, and if the party doesn't make any efforts to combat both liberalism and white supremacy in their members and in the population, then liberalism and white supremacy will dominate the party and the DotP
No.483154
>>483152404 Marxists not found
No.483155
>>483142alright then, i’ll use a different word to convey the same idea next time.
>You haven't actually provided a coherent argument, any counter points, or sourced a single claim.and neither have you. i’m not sure what exactly is under contention here, besides me apparently being sexist and racist. i have said nothing about women itt. as for racism, i’m frankly disgusted you would accuse me, a hispanic man living in the southern usa, of hating brown people. there’s no way you could’ve known that of course, but if you’re thinking about telling me i’m self hating or something i’m gonna have to ask you to self crit.
No.483157
>>483144>Even if Europe and America converged 100%, they wouldn't be the same. I'm not comparing it to Europe, I'm comparing it to itself. You yourself agree that America could theoretically become non-settler colonialist society, meaning that there will one day be a point where it resembles a non-settler society than it does a settler one. If Europe is not a settler society, then America has already reached this point.
>100% the US is more like Israel than it is Europe.Not in terms of its actually existing social relations! The experiences of racialized minorities in America more closely resemble those of their counterparts in Europe than they do the Palestinians in almost every way. The primary problems American minorities face include discriminatory policing/sentencing, unemployment, unequal access to education, employment, housing, and many other forms of systemic racism. These are all problems also faced by their European counterparts, even if European discrimination falls along different lines. Moreover they are problems which all proles face, but they suffer to a significantly greater degree due to racism. What neither American nor European minorities suffer from (but the Palestinians do) is de jure apartheid, military occupation, or regular mass displacement to make room for Settlers to occupy their land. These are problems which, unlike in Europe, are experienced only by the oppressed racial group rather than simply being a more intense version of a problem faced by all workers in the country. Israelis are literally protected from all of these by law and do not experience them at all. Thus the experience of both the dominant and oppressed racial groups in Europe and America more closely resemble each other than either one does Israel. Therefore America more closely resembles a non-settler society than it does a settler colonialist one.
No.483158
>>483157>I'm not comparing it to Europe, I'm comparing it to itselfThat's wrong, you're saying America is now more like Europe and Europe is not settler colonialist, and thus the US isn't. Anti-postitivist dialectics forbid this.
Therefore:
>You yourself agree that America could theoretically become non-settler colonialist societyYes
>meaning that there will one day be a point where it resembles a non-settler society than it does a settler oneYes
>If Europe is not a settler society, then America has already reached this point.No
No.483159
>>483155>i’m not sure what exactly is under contention here, besides me apparently being sexist and racistwhat's under contention is that you keep fucking strawmanning people just like you are right now, then when people repeat their position you call it backpedalling
>i’m frankly disgusted you would accuse me, a hispanic man living in the southern usa, of hating brown peoplemost of /pol/ isn't white so i have no idea why this automatically means you aren't infected with /pol/tism kek
>>483156congrats, you've fell for the liberal idpol and will now ignore all of the imperialism and enforcements of a caste society liberal states have actively done because they say they are for "emancipation :^)"
No.483160
>>483159>Imperialism and caste systemAn imperialism and caste system non-whites benefit from and not wvery white person benefits from? That's white supremacy?
Lol
No.483161
>>483141>citizens didn't have classes amongst them, but still had slaves >didn't have classes>still had slaves <slavery isn't a form of classed societymarx btfo
No.483162
>>483159put on your mod tag lol
No.483163
>>483158>Anti-postitivist dialectics forbid this.Then I guess Marxism is positivism. It's perfectly compatible with Marxist dialectics to propose that a society evolve into something qualitatively different, that this is a gradual process, and that eventually it will come to resemble something else more than it did its original form, and can therefore be called a distinct social order.
No.483164
>>483130>some white people within the systemwhites represent ~57% of the national prison population. while this is an underrepresentation, to say that *some* white people are in the system is a gross understatement.
the growth of incarceration has been shifting from urban areas (~55% white) to rural areas (~80% white). (from 2013 to 2019 the urban and rural prison populations have changed by -18% and 27%, respectively.)
https://www.vera.org/downloads/publications/people-in-jail-in-2019.pdfi hypothesize that mass-incarceration has more to do with the presence of stable jobs than race. the decline of the auto industry in the 70s disproportionately hurt blacks as those jobs were in urban locations. the decline of coal in the late 2000s/early 2010s (
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=48696) coincides with the rise of rural incarceration.
this is not definitive evidence but suggests that there's more to it than race. lastly, the burden of proof is on you to prove that black communities are targeted specifically because of their race.
No.483166
>>483163The guy you’re responding to is either retarded and possibly in Black Hammer or a troll with a lot of free time. I’m leaning towards a member of Black Hammer because of his many paragraphs of obstinate garbage.
No.483167
>>483161That's what I am saying. If a revolution doesn't eliminate white supremacy, then it preserves a kind of class, while abolishing it amongst its labour aristocracy.
>>483163>Then I guess Marxism is positivism.No. Marxist dialectics have always been anti positivist.
So yes, America can become a non-colonial society, but never by becoming like another society that happens to be non-colonial for unrelated reasons.
>>483164>hites represent ~57% of the national prison population. while this is an underrepresentation, to say that *some* white people are in the system is a gross understatement.I am sorry if my language made you upset in any way, but the reason I said "some" is because that the number doesn't actually matter if black people are being targeted more EVEN adjusting for race which
>>483165Neatly demonstrates.
Sure, class functions better, but as long as race correlates distinctly from class, then yes, black people are targeted for being black within the US (even if we are to ignore that being black often means systemic pressures to keep you in poverty which would inflate the rate that arrests corellate with class)
No.483168
>>483167In other words,you literally have no concept of what Marx means when he says "classed society" and instead take on a definition of "class" that not only would every single Marxist disagree with you, but so would even most Liberal scholars.
Because if your concept of "classed society" doesn't include
fucking slavery then you're honestly just fucking ignorant or insane.
No.483170
>>483164>>483160>the burden of proof is on you to prove that black communities are targeted specifically because of their race.could you at least use the pol flag
No.483171
>>483146Its not a fallacy its a cryptic way to deny reasoning you disagree with. It could be intentional or it could be a side effect of positivist thinking. Person A makes an analogy X is like Y in Z relevant ways, so they should be treated as the same in those circumstances, then Person B claims that person A is making a fallacy because X is not exactly Y, instead of saying that they disagree because then they can pretend the disagreement is a matter of science by claiming your categories or axioms are unfounded.
Its why poltards say that 13/50 is proof that black people are violent instead of proof that police are racist. Or that Ben Shapiro causes mass shootings. They either do not believe or find it convenient to deny that stochastic effects exist and they have the entire western liberal sphere of influence on their side because if there isn't a legally provable and empirical direct cause and effect then they can claim that it is not real; ie that racism is just a thing that liberals made up to make white people(women) feel guilty, and by extension not breed(with poljack), destroying the white race and western civilization(video games).
Thats why he didn't actually point out the motte and bailey when asked.
>>483106There isn't one.
he will now again try to strawman the position and/or isolate one word/example to demand "proof" No.483172
>>483168>Because if your concept of "classed society" doesn't include fucking slavery then you're honestly just fucking ignorant or insane.Please re-read what I wrote.
<If a revolution doesn't eliminate white supremacy, then it preserves a kind of class, while abolishing it amongst its labour aristocracy.That's my point. A society that doesn't decolonize, doesn't actually abolish class, if it doesn't integrate everyone into it's socialism.
No.483173
>>483160>non-whites benefit from and not wvery white person benefits fromsee
>>483130>There are plenty of white people in prison too<And what does that signify? That black communities are not systematically targeted ny the US prison system because of their race?<Unless you deny that, this fact has no bearing on my argument. As long as black people are targeted for being black, the presence of some white people within the system absolutely doesn't matter in regards to whether systematic racism is real or not.you have to ignore policies that have targeted specific ethnic groups like the war on drugs to believe this
>>483162based schizo
>>483163>Then I guess Marxism is positivismno, sublation uygha. see
>>483125the point of necessity does not simply mean things will necessarily turn out a certain way. rather, it means that things according to a way they makes sense. this sometimes involves recapitulations of past trends in history now retooled for a higher mode. racialization is obviously done by capitalists, but it needed colonialism to make sense. it isn't an accident that things were racialized in favour of white people. it's called history
seriously, marx literally criticized positivist sociologists. why do you think he argues dialectically? do you know what fichte called this method of argumentation? "a pragmatic history". and fichte is far more ahistorical in the treatment of his logic than hegel or marx
No.483174
>>483172So you're accusing socialists of not wanting classless society now?
No.483175
>>483173>it means that things according to a way they makes sense*it means that things evolve according to a way they makes sense
No.483176
>>483169>Positivism is the most insidious type of idealism. Of course Marxism isn't positivism, but he's accusing me of positivism for engaging in basic Marxian materialist analysis. There's nothing anti Marxist or idealist about what I'm saying. Nobody would call me a "positivist" if I said the USSR more closely resembled a socialist society than a capitalist one in terms of its institutions and social mechanisms.
So why am I a positivist for pointing out that America more closely resembles a non-settler society than a settler one in its mechanisms of class and racial supremacy?
No.483177
>>483174And no, just because it's being justified racially doesn't make it "kind of sort of a class". It's just fucking classed society. American slavery of the 1700s and 1800s wasn't "kind of classed" because the slaves were blacks and the owners were a "classless society of whites". It was just classed society.
No.483178
>>483174I am saying that socialists have to be very careful when building socialism that they actually achieve that, and without certain guiding principles, it's very easy to fall into.
>>483176
>So why am I a positivist for pointing out that America more closely resembles a non-settler society than a settler one in its mechanisms of class and racial supremacy?Because you drew that conclusion based on how much it was like a non-colonial society that is non-colonial for different reasons and thus you posited that A=A
No.483179
>>483178>you guys are going to become literally Nazis if you don't take extra steps like Land Back to specifically not become Nazisthanks, I guess I'll keep that advice in mind, right next to "don't stick my dick in a wall socket" in case i ever happen to be in such a situation and cannot figure out if I should try fucking electrical infrastructure or not.
No.483180
>>483167>black people are being targeted more EVEN adjusting for raceyes but you are saying that it is a consequence of their race specifically and not the factors correlating to that. the purpose of the part of the post concerning rural incarceration was to show that economic decline is the ultimate cause of increases in incarceration given the correspondence of the decline of coal and subsequent increase of rural incarceration.
further evidence of an equalization between urban and rural would be the decline of the black portion of incarceration persons and the white rise of that from 2008 to 2018.
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2020/05/05/bjs-reports/ No.483181
>>483180But it still shows a difference in arrest rates even correlating for class.
I'm not trying to argue that classism is fake.
What I am trying to argue is that racism is also a factor.
No.483182
>>483181*adjusting for class
>>483179Good to have you on team Land Back then!
No.483183
>>483178>Because you drew that conclusion based on how much it was like a non-colonial society I'm basing it based on comparisons to concrete, actually existing examples of societies we both agree are settler and non-settler respectively, Israel and Europe. How else are we to assess a society's character if not through comparisons to actually existing examples? I'm comparing America to actually existing societies with concrete similarities and differences, and finding that it has more silimarities with an actual non-settler society than with an actual settler one. Whereas you are comparing it to some hypothetical future non-racist America which doesn't actually exist. If anybody is being an idealist it's you, since you are working with an abstract ideal while I'm working from real life examples.
No.483184
>>483182yeah you really haven't convinced me of anything other than this multi-day conversation was a waste of time
No.483185
>>483170Yes, that's precisely how it works
>see >>483130What makes you believe I am reading your schizo ramblinga, non-whites benefit from American imperialism too
No.483187
>>483176>So why am I a positivist for pointing out that America more closely resembles a non-settler society than a settler one in its mechanisms of class and racial supremacy?Why can't it be both? Do you also think that there is no patriarchy?
No.483188
>>483183>How else are we to assess a society's character if not through comparisons to actually existing examples?By comparing it to itself. Europe is not a settler society because it never was. America was, so it can never be a non-settler society for the same reasons that Europe is.
That is to say, America can never not be a colonialist society because it never was, like Europe, and thus the only way to evaluate whether or not America is no longer a settler-colonialist society is to evaluate if all the antagonisms spawned from settler colonialism have been solved.
As we have established ITT, these problems are still very much around. As such, America is still a settler-colonialist society no matter how much or how little it is like Europe.
No.483189
>>483185>non-whites benefit from American imperialism tooYes, and to the degree that is true that needs to be addressed as well.
No.483190
>>483185>WORDSuygha i quoted what to read. yes black americans and indigenous people benefit from imperialism too but this is a non-sequitur. other countries need to be decolonized as well
No.483191
>>483187Patriarchy also benefits women though, patriarchy and racism are not comparable
>>483189But America is a white suptemacist nation somehow???
No.483192
>>483190It'snpretty much not a non-sequitor because it makes the whole white suptemacist ideology fall flat on it's face
Whites and non-whites who benefit from "white supremacy" actually benefit from bourgeois supremacy, which is why class is the core issue here
Fucking hell, Marx wrote a book about a similar issue 200 years ago, you fucking retards
Read a fucking book
No.483193
>>483191capitalist liberal white-supremacist settler-colonial patriarchy with imperialist characteristics(primarily imperial)
CLWSSCPI²
No.483194
>>483191>But America is a white suptemacist nation somehow???Yes. Non-whites can benefit from overseas exploitation and the US can still be white supremacist.
Under your definition the only discrimination that could ever exist is one that is absolute in all instances with no caviots what-so-ever.
I think we both know the world is a little more complex than that.
No.483195
>>483194>white supremacy is when non-whites enjoy the same degree of privileges as whitesLol
No.483196
>>483192Non-whites don't benefit from White Supremacy within the US, you're thinking of Imperialism.
No.483197
>>483191>Patriarchy also benefits women though, patriarchy and racism are not comparableCan you elaborate?
No.483198
>>483192>Whites and non-whites who benefit from "white supremacy" actually benefit from bourgeois supremacy, which is why class is the core issue here<white supremacy means that non-whites shouldn't benefit at all from a systemno
No.483199
>>483195Motte and Bailey.
Motte:
>white supremacy is when non-whites enjoy the same degree of privileges as whitesBailey:
>non-whites benefit from American imperialism tooSee, it's easy to point to when it's real.
No.483200
>>483197Patriarchy is an organic development, women benefit from it because it gave them access to shelter, food, protection, etc. Not every housewive was treated like an slave by the husband, kids also benefit from patriarchy for similar reasons. On societies that developed under matriarchy, like Island nations were there were no natural predators or foreign tribe, the tribe as a whole benefitted from matriarchy, as it was the order that allowed them to reach a civil society.
This isn't the case for racism, racism recepients are always facing oppression.
No.483201
>>483195>white supremacy is when non-whites enjoy the same degree of privileges as whites<benefiting from imperialism completely dissolves the race based oppression you face at homeno
No.483202
>>483188>That is to say, America can never not be a colonialist society because it never was, like Europe, and thus the only way to evaluate whether or not America is no longer a settler-colonialist society is to evaluate if all the antagonisms spawned from settler colonialism have been solved.No AES state ever solved all the antagonisms spawned by capitalism. Does that mean none of them were socialist societies? A society doesn't need to resolve all of its old antagonisms before it can be considered a fundamentally new social order, and Marx was explicit about this.
No.483203
>>483196Nonetheless there are non-whites who have the same privileges as the average white american lol, sometines even more.
Almost as if the "white-suptemacist" thesis is wrong
>>483198That is correct, yes. Otherwise it can't be a supremacists position.
The bourgeois supremacy over the proletariat is an absolute one.
>>483201If you benefit from the "white-supremacist" empire you don't get to claim to be oppressed by it lol.
A woman does not benefit from her rapist, an murder victim does not benefit from his assassin, a ran over pedestrian does not benefit from the driver that ran him over.
No.483204
>>483202By what criteria are states actually socialist?
No.483205
>>483202>No AES state ever solved all the antagonisms spawned by capitalism. Does that mean none of them were socialist societies?Yes. They were all explicit about this. They were DotP's that were building socialism.
As far as I am aware only Pol Pot claimed to have achieved socialism.
No.483206
>>483200So they aren't comparable to you because patriarchy is good?
No.483207
>>483203>The bourgeois supremacy over the proletariat is an absolute one.That's not true. National bourgeois can be oppressed by imperial ones. As a bourgeois person, you can have racial, gender, etc. disadvantages.
Hell, some workers are richers than some bourgeois people, so no, bourgeois supremacy is not absolute in all cases.
No.483208
>>483206They aren't comparable because one is an organic development aimed at creating a social order, and the other one is an artificial social construct aimed at disrupting a social order.
>>483207>National booj is oppressedKEKscreencapped for future reference
No.483210
>>483203>The bourgeois supremacy over the proletariat is an absolute one.Not really. Capital fucks with the boogies too. If they aren't ruthless enough they become a prole.
No.483211
>>483208>KEKBut they are, that's why Popular Frontism is a thing, and why the CPC allied the worker with the National bourgeois to fight off the imperial invaders.
No.483212
>>483205>They were all explicit about this. They were DotP's that were building socialism.Regardless, Marx specifically describes the lower stage of communism as a society which bears many characteristics of the previous era, but which constitutes something fundamentally different. Contradictions originating from capitalism persist here, and yet it is not capitalism. I think that America is in an analogous position vis a vis settler colonialism: it has evolved to a stage in which it bears the many characteristics of that older social order, but now more closely resembles actually existing non-colonial societies than either historical or existing colonial ones.
No.483213
>>483208>an organic development aimed at creating a social orderHow is this not just muh hooman nature?
Capital also benefits proles. Imperialism provides sweatshop jobs.
No.483214
>>483213>Imperialism provides sweatshop jobs.not even that. all of us in the first world have nice relatively comfortable lives thanks to imperialism. this logic just leads to class collaboration ideas
No.483215
>>483212I really must stress that the differences between capitalism of the 19th century capitalism and lower stage socialism are LEAPS AND BOUNDS further away from each other, than America currently is from it's still active settler-colonial past I mean to be honest, I think the optimism regarding race relations in the US here is a little unfounded, especially compared to the massive overhauling change that Marx is talking about.
No.483216
>>482565>>483209>>483210>>483211You people can't be fucking serious
See, THIS is why you don't advertise on reddit
>>483213Holy shit, repeating cappie propaganda now, liberals truly are the lip service of capitalism
The owner of the sweatshop is not necessary, the workers DO NOT NEED him to keep part of their surplus value.
Fucking hell, these fucking retards don't even understand Marx, I hate opportunists so fucking much
No.483217
>>483212> many characteristicsWhat characteristics?
>>483212non-colonial societies
Is non-colonial a type of society? What type of society is America and how do you determine that?
No.483218
>>483214Yes haha good point. If Natives are not oppressed because they benefit from Imperialism, then neither do Proles.
>>483216I've been posting on leftypol since 2015
No.483219
>>483216>Holy shit, repeating cappie propaganda now, liberals truly are the lip service of capitalismThat was said in response to the claim that patriarchy benefits women because it gives them a domestic job, I think.
No.483220
>>483218>Natives are not oppressed because they benefit from Imperialism, then neither do Proles.Natives donno exist outside of class society, retards, natives are exploited on the basis of class, proles who benefit from value transfers are still exploited
>From 2015Imagine if instead of spamming this site with liberal garbage you fead Marx, you fucking retards don't even understand value transfer and think of it's existance as a pathetic "gotcha" point
No.483221
>>483216Marx said that Capitalism was progressive.
No.483222
>>483221Correct, progressive when conpared to feudalism
>>483219Again, women are not always exploited under patriarchy, the proletariat is ALWAYS exploited by the bourgeoisie, if you believe otherwise you are a cappie
No.483223
>>483220>Natives donno exist outside of class society, retards, natives are exploited on the basis of class, proles who benefit from value transfers are still exploitedThis is a good response to the claim that settler proles are not exploited. They are. That has never been a point of debate.
No.483224
>>483216>not even addressing my pointk
>>483222>the proletariat is ALWAYS exploited by the bourgeoisieno one is objecting to that. proles are exploited yet they benefit from imperialism. you can have both lol
No.483225
>>483200>>483222>some plantation owners didn't whip their slaves and even built them log cabins and fed them! holy shit dude burger education is real
No.483226
>>483223>>483224Again, the proletariat benefit from imperialism due to value transfers, which means that the proletariat in the developed world benefit from the superexploitative labour of the PROLETARIAT in the country facing imperialism
This doesn't mean that the bourgeoisie of the country facing imperialism is oppressed by the proletariat of the developed world, you fucking retards
No.483227
>>483225Men need women and women need men, this symbiotic relationship aometimes developed itself as patriarchy and sometimes as matriarchy. No slave needs a slave owner
Retard
No.483229
>>483226>This doesn't mean that the bourgeoisie of the country facing imperialism is oppressed by the proletariat of the developed world, you fucking retardswho the fuck suggested this?
>>483227>Men need women and women need menoh no no no no no
No.483230
>>483226>This doesn't mean that the bourgeoisie of the country facing imperialism is oppressed by the proletariat of the developed world, you fucking retardsCan you… quote someone claiming that?
No.483231
>>483230>>483229Holy shit, you literally just said that the National booj is oppressed by capitalism, this is not true, capitalist oppression is defined as the exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie
Read a fucking book, retards
>Oh no no noRetarded shitlib doesn't know anthropology, more news at 11
Remind me again who is going to defend the pregnant cavewoman against predators or foreign tribemen? Remind me qho is going to watch over the kids when the men go hunting?
The social relation resulting of our sexual reproduction benefit both of us.
>REEEE THAT'S HETERONORMATIVEdial 8
No.483232
>>483231>Holy shit, you literally just said that the National booj is oppressed by capitalismYes, National bourgeois can be oppressed by Imperial bourgeois.
That is not to say what imperial proles oppress national bourgs necessarily.
No.483233
>>483232>Yes, National bourgeois can be oppressed by Imperial bourgeois.KEK, THE RETARD JUST DOUBLED DOWNno, they aren't oppressed, retard
No.483234
>>483216also
>The owner of the sweatshop is not necessary, the workers DO NOT NEED him to keep part of their surplus valueyou are misinterpreting what that anon said
>IMPERIALISM provides sweatshop jobs.which i do have a slight issue with. the constitution of those jobs more depends on globalism. it's more like imperialism let's americans work useless jobs and live a pretty comfortable life anyways
>>483231>Remind me again who is going to defend the pregnant cavewoman against predators or foreign tribemen? Remind me qho is going to watch over the kids when the men go huntingunnecessary with todays automation and general technology
No.483235
>>483233>no, they aren't oppressed, retardYes, they often are. Usually Imperial powers don't want nations to develop their own independent bourgs and national democratic revolutions. There absolutely is an antagonism between imperial and national bourgeois forces.
No.483236
>>483234>unnecessary with todays automation and general technologyGuess what retard, we are talking about the historical development, it's doesn't matter if you believe women are hekin empowered now
>which i do have a slight issue with. the constitution of those jobs more depends on globalism. it's more like imperialism let's americans work useless jobs and live a pretty comfortable life anywaysYes, and? I never stated anything against this, nonetheless they both get exploited by the bourgeoisie, the american worker faces a lesser degree of exploitation duento value transfer, that doesn't mean they opress the imperialized nation p-bourg.
No.483237
>>483235Holy shit, this retard does not understand what oppression means.
Nazis were not oppressed by Americans and Brits, retard
No.483238
>>483237No, but the Chinese were under Japanese imperialism, and so were most indian bourg and African bourg under imperialism.
No.483239
Imperialism is in the commodity form, not the relative success of the particular bourgeoisie
No.483240
>>483238> but the Chinese were under Japanese imperialism, and so were most indian bourg and African bourg under imperialism.You are a fucking retard and a literal fascist lol
No.483242
>>483233i guess fascism comes out from the aether as well
>>483236>Guess what retard, we are talking about the historical development, it's doesn't matter if you believe women are hekin empowered nowyou said patriarchy also benefits women as a reason why it's different from racism. your defence of this is by pointing to shit that happened in the stone ages. but the argument ad stonium + your logic that if you ever get benefited by a system you are not oppressed by it suggests that patriarchy somehow doesn't involve the oppression of women. i doubt you have been following your own line of thought here (im barely able to) but it's not coherent. you are just flinging shit and fucking speed reading too
>I never stated anything against this, nonetheless they both get exploited by the bourgeoisieOK then why can't people be oppressed by white supremacy then?
No.483243
>>483240Why am I a fascist now?
No.483244
GUIZE GUISE GUIZE, EVERY BOOJ IS OPPRESSED BY BEZOS BECAUSE BEZOS IS JUST HEKIN HYPER MEGA RICH, POOR PETIT-BOUJ ARE OPRESSED BECAUSE THEIR E-COMMERCE STORES ARE NOT AS SUCCESFUL.
CRITICAL SUPPORT TO ELON MUSK AND TESLA ON THEIR FIGHT AGAINST GENERAL MOTORS, VOLKSWAGEN AND TOYOTA
THIS TOTALLY MAKES SENSE AND I AM NOT A RETARDED PSEUD
No.483246
>>483244Based. Uphold Gonzalo Thought
No.483247
>>483242>to shit that happened in the stone ageKek, do I need to quote an example of how the development of the family is beneficial for both sexes on every age of dehuman development now?
Jesus christ
No.483248
>>483244"National bourgeois" is something you have in a colony as opposed to the Imperial bourgeoisie that belongs to the colonizing nation.
No.483249
>>483243I don't know, maybe because you support LITERAL CLASS COLLABORATION
No.483250
>>483247that's not even the main problem speed reading retard
No.483251
>>483215>the differences between capitalism of the 19th century capitalism and lower stage socialism are LEAPS AND BOUNDS further away from each otherObviously, but the differences between settler colonial capitalism and non-settler capitalism are clearly much smaller than the differences between socialism and capitalism. We are talking about a specific ideological edifice that isn't even universal to capitalist countries, rather than an entire mode of production. As such it can be expected that the difference between a starting point and a transitional point would also be smaller.
No.483252
>>483242>OK then why can't people be oppressed by white supremacy then?What??? Non-whites need to be oppressed for the thesis of white supremacy to exist, if a non-white bourgeois gets to exploit a white proletariat, how.can you claim white supremacy exist?
No.483253
>>483249Sure, against an imperial enemy, sure. Lenin and Mao did too.
This would mean critical support for bourgeois nations like Iran or Syria.
No.483254
>>483250Look, you are a retarded liberal that doesn't understand historical and dialectical materialism.
The development of patriarchy and matriarchy depends on the material en ironment a civization develops, and it develops organically because it's main motive is the creation and development of a social order. This is not the case for slavery
No.483255
>>483253>SureSo you are a fascist
>Critical support to the boojHow about no, opportunist?
No.483256
>>483249>you support LITERAL CLASS COLLABORATIONwhere did he state he did?
>>483252>>483254>if a non-white bourgeois gets to exploit a white proletariat, how.can you claim white supremacy existso women are not oppressed then?
No.483257
No.483258
>>483256>where did he state he did?nvm i see
No.483259
>>483251>Obviously, but the differences between settler colonial capitalism and non-settler capitalism are clearly much smaller than the differences between socialism and capitalism. We are talking about a specific ideological edifice that isn't even universal to capitalist countries, rather than an entire mode of production.Are you sure that racism hasn't bled into almost every aspect of American society and culture? Are you entirely sure about that?
I wouldn't be.
And I ESPECIALLY wouldn't assume that the US is no longer racist today.
No.483260
>>483255>So you are a fascistNo? It can just simply be a necessity for worker's and bourgeois elements to collaborate against an imperializing power.
What was Mao supposed to do, just perish?
No.483261
>>483256>where did he state he did?Here
>>483253
>so women are not oppressed then?By patriarchy? No. As a class whose labour is necessary for the development of capitalism, yes.
The housewive is exploited on the basis that shebis a housewive, not on the basis that she is a woman.
No.483263
>>483260>No?Yes, actually
>What was Mao doingOpportunism.
No.483264
>>483263Okay haha noted, you little prat ;)
No.483265
>>483262I have read that book in spanish and have listened to it in English
Engels recognizes that the labour of the housewive is exploitation because her labour is necessary for the reproduction of capital cycles. He recognizes that the development of the family is organic and that it benefits both men and women.
Do I need to quote engels where he incorrectly states that slavery is progressive because the slave owner gives food to the slave, who would otherwise have to endure hubter gathering? Engels isn't the end to be all, specially since both Marx and Engels understanding of Anthropology is 200 years old.
No.483266
>>483264Hey man you do you, just remember, if it walks like a duck…
No.483267
>>483266Then it isn't a duck, because we're DiaMat here so we know that A=/=A
Also, it is completely asinine to expect people being invaded by facists to just roll over and die. I mean, at that point if you're not allowed to make alliances to resist against that, we're just LARPing and frankly, you're not serious enough for me to take that accusation to heart.
No.483268
>>483261>By patriarchy? NoOK, but when that anon asked if you denied patriarchy existed this is most likely what they meant
so, now we have that clear, back to the central problem. you give non-white bourgeois as a counter-example to white supremacism. while this is true, we are talking about non-white proles which were forced into poverty due to racialization. i don't see how examples of some bourg blacks somehow means that racialization isn't reinforced by policies by the us
>>483263lenin was also an opportunist?
No.483269
>pro-Land Back ppl are literally insane
No.483270
>>483269isn't the thread full? i dont think you can bump anymore
No.483271
>>483268>Lenin was also an oportunistThe biggest one, *cough* NEP *cough*
>>483267>A fash isn't fash because he is brownKek
No.483272
LEBENSRAUM, but with native characteristics
No.483273
>>483271so should we ban all marxist leninists now?
No.483274
So the lamb back anon has been discussing with actual Marxists for the past 5 days and still hasn't changed their opinion.
What's missing here? Why are points not connecting? Why is the argument cycling over and over. I've seen the anon say "A =/= A" several times to avoid scrutiny. Meanwhile sabocat poster has patiently explained proper Marxist analysis and a Marxist view of the development of society. Of course nothing can be said to be equal to any other thing, so European capitalism is different to American capitalism, but surely everyone except lamb rack anon would identify both as capitalism.
How can the man sack anon finally be taught proper Marxism, and have them finally see that their Langley crack is liberalism at worst, empty words at best?
No.483276
>>483275>nsa.gov/djfkfk4ke92i2Not gonna click it.
No.483277
>>482665Calling it a fallacy sounds like it's a mistake and not a strategy. (Though admittedly it can arise by accident with people in a loosely organized group, with the group communicating this switcheroo without an individual making the hypocritical switch.)
>>483142There is nothing particularly conservative about calling out motte and bailey. Racists engage in m-b strategy all the time (plus disguising statements as humor when there is strong push-back) and they get called out on that.
>>483199I believe you have the terms mixed up. Look at the diagram in
>>482665 again.
>>483212Yes, for the US the settler stage is in the
past. Israel is a settler state in the
present. Any sort of analysis that ignores that is rubbish.
No.483278
>>483276It’s just some weirdo on Instagram that is saying only native tribes should own land and if you buy land but don’t give it to a tribe you’re a modern colonizer.
No.483279
>>483274>but surely everyone except lamb rack anon would identify both as capitalismstrawman, again
<>and you wouldn't say that America is capitalist but Japan isn't<No, but you also wouldn't claim that capitalism in the US is exactly the same as capitalism in Japan, because they're not>>483277>back to the m-b bullshit without making a single quoteyou are a troll
No.483280
>>483278>if you buy land but don’t give it to a tribe you’re a modern colonizerso you are just defending bourg land owners. i hope the 5 dollars deposited into your account was worth it
No.483281
>>483280He's saying that the guy on instagram is saying that. Read more carefully.
No.483284
>>482751Real question: How would you react if you had a daughter and she came home with a white boy one day?
Unique IPs: 165