this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2023
58 points (93.9% liked)

Leftist Infighting: A community dedicated to allowing leftists to vent their frustrations

1283 readers
1 users here now

The purpose of this community is sort of a "work out your frustrations by letting it all out" where different leftist tendencies can vent their frustrations with one another and more assertively and directly challenge one another. Hostility is allowed, but any racist, fascist, or reactionary crap wont be tolerated, nor will explicit threats.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Spicy question maybe, but I'm interested in your takes.

Personally, I think there's some major issues with at least the terminology of the 2 phase model of lower/higher stage communism or socialism/communism as the terms are used in classical theory. Specifically the 'lower stage' or 'socialism' term is problematic.

In the age of revision and after the success of counterrevolution it has become clear that there is in fact a transitional phase leading up to the classical transitional phase. Societies did not jump from developed capitalism to socialism immediately and even the states that arguably did were forced to roll back some of the core tenets of 'socialism' as it is described in Marx, Engels and Lenin. Namely no private ownership of the means of production and no exploitation of man by man.

To ultras this just means countries following this path aren't socialist. So then China isn't, Cuba isn't, no country still is really and those of us claiming they are then have to be revisionists. And to be fair, if you're dogmatic you can make that point going from the source material. China itself recognizes this inconsistency, thus not seeing itself at the stage of socialism. Yet it's a socialist state. But then what do we actually mean by 'socialism' when we use the term like this? Just a dictatorship of the proletariat? Any country in the process of building socialism?

That question comes up all the time and confuses the fuck out of people, because the term is either not applied consistently or as it's defined is lacking. I think discourse in the communist movement and about AES would profit immensely if we had a more consistent definition or usage of the term or a better defined concept of what that transition to socialism is and how we should call it.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 years ago (4 children)

I think that's the point I'm making. Intersectionality and decolonialism have demonstrated that they are required for sustainable revolution, but MLism can't easily incorporate it.

I think various treatments of intersectionality fall to your critique, but I think perhaps your positions of privilege make intersectionality more difficult to feel the power of. There's a ton of power in understanding that storytelling is valid form of historical evidence. There's a ton of power in understanding that your privileges play a similar role to class interests in propagating and resisting ideologies and in determining aggregate behavior. It's critical to see this when you read Fanon and you realize that there exist both proletariat and slaves in the same global world system and that the proletariat depends on the exploitation of slaves in maintaining their ability to reproduce their lives, and that these concepts interpermeate and the lines are terribly blurry. When you look into colonial America and you see indentured servants that are white and sharecroppers that are black, it's insufficient to treat these two group identically due to ideology and superstructure. What do we call that using MLism? As far as I know, we can't call them separate classes because they have the same relations to the means of production, but they have different relations to each other and to the state and to the bourgeoisie.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 2 years ago (1 children)

MLism can’t easily incorporate it.

Cuba has done a pretty good point about making strides for not only it's Black population, but also Women and LGBT+ people as well. I think plenty of communist countries have implemented this more and more into their societies.

This seems mainly a Western ML issue if anything.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I think behaviorally and policy-wise it's easy. I'm saying ML theory struggles to handle it.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I would say ML as a theory isn’t flexible to it, but rather that dogmatic settlers don’t understand that we have to study our own material conditions rather than copy-pasting China on.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I am studying it and I'm struggling to find the linguistic and conceptual framings that work, hence why I posted this as my answer to the question about what I find lacking in MLism.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

One example, the newly passed Families code in Cuba!

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Again, I'm not saying Marxism-Leninism is incompatible with this. I'm saying MLism doesn't seem to provide us with the tools required to analyze and formulate dialectical concepts that demonstrate the reality of the situation that Decolonial and intersectional research and analysis have uncovered.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago

Perhaps I misunderstood your point...I was a bit high. Nonetheless, I'd say that it's not supposed to come with universal frameworks. The experience of these countries is theory in real time.

Might not necessarily answer your request, but a bit of a different way of thinking about it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I believe ‘decolonized Buffalo’ has a collection of quotes from the ‘five heads of ML’ that can very easily be interpreted in a Decolonial way.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

How would I find this? I listen to the Decolonized Buffalo podcast. Is it an episode? An essay?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Not exactly sure. This is what the podcast description says:

spoiler

Episode 135: Would Lenin or Stalin have supported the idea of Decolonization? (of the North American Continent)

Guests: Derek (PlantsFanon), Victor (Red Falcon)

To find the word document that we were reading from, you can go to the podcast share drive, then to go the “Documents” folder. The answer is “YES”, they would support the current idea of ‘Decolonization’. Quoted Sources included:

A) “The Right of Nations to Self-Determination” by Lenin

B) “Self-Determination of Nations” by Lenin

C) “The Revolutionary Proletariat and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination” by Lenin

D) “The Discussion on Self-Determination Summed Up” by Lenin

E) “The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination (Theses)” by Lenin

F) “State and Revolution” by Lenin

G) “What is to be Done?” by Lenin

H) “Imperialism The Highest Stage of Capitalism” by Lenin

I) “‘Left-Wing’ Communism, An Infantile Disorder” by Lenin

J) “Marxism and the National Question” by Stalin

K) “The Foundations of Leninism” by Stalin

L) “Historical Materialism” by Stalin

Rick is a citizen of the Comanche Nation, and has a master’s in Indigenous People’s law, from the University of Oklahoma.

Idk where this podcast share drive is.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Indenture contracts most often guaranteed the servant land upon finishing their obligations. It was an upwardly mobile system that allowed settlers to enter debt for entrance into the colonial planter class. Indenture was basically dead for over 50 years by the time black sharecroppers became the dominant form of agricultural worker for black people.

Indentured servants were still part of the colonizer class, and were obligated to defend the colonies in militias alongside their masters. Indenture fell out of fashion after a series of servant revolts through which the servants won significant rights in the colonies. These revolts increased the planter class' reliance on African slaves. By the time of the Revolution indenture was basically irrelevant.

Decolonial Marxism is perfectly compatible with MLism, in fact it is a reorientation of MLism, into the perspective of the colonized. Colonization is the subjugation of one nation by another. It is the purpose of Marxists in the colonizer nation to practice defeatism in solidarity with their nation's colonized peoples. The Marxists of the colonized nations need to defeat the chains of Imperialism by fighting against their colonizers.

America being a settler state, a state by and for settlers where settlers exercise political supremacy (as seen in the Navajo water case just ruled by the SC), lives alongside its primary colonial subjects, the extant indigenous nations (most are still around) and the black nation. The secondary subjects being the migrant workers from colonized nations around the world (predominantly Latinos and Asians).

The Settlers as a nation are a colonizer class above the indigenous and black people. The contradiction between settlers of the bourgeoisie and property-less is secondary to the nation-state's looting of indigenous land and super-exploiting black workers. The Pick-Sloan dams are a prime example of the white laborers working on genocidal projects that benefited white people overall. The condemnation of black and asian neighborhoods made way for downtown highways for white beneficiaries of the GI bill.

America has massive weaknesses in the production of Imperialism, namely in the necessity of the US to continue colonization of indigenous territory to maintain dollar imperialism. The DAPL and KXL protests blocked and delayed massive oil projects that the US and Canada need to control the price of oil. Biden has signed off on massive drilling projects in Alaska on indigenous land where the residents don't have running water or electricity. This project is to replace the reliance on Saudi Arabia in maintaining a low price of oil. In response to unfavorable global conditions, the settler states dip into their own resources to replenish their empire. I think MLs in America should focus on attacking the US in its arteries, the production chain of imperialism. The dismantling of White Supremacy means removing White rule over the vast territories of North America and depriving the settlers of a state for themselves. The Dictatorship of the Colonized Nations is the necessary form of state that will replace the US, Canada, and Mexico.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I agree with you about what is to be done. But I haven't heard of "Decolonial Marxism" as a body of theory. I am going to research it, but do you have any preferred sources?

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

It's a retronym, Marxist theorists in this space never unified the theories and applications of ML utilized by Fanon, Rodney, Lushaba, Wynter, etc., under a specific title. However, the revolutions in Cuba, Vietnam, and China have been Decolonial in nature and should be studied in the way they took special attention to the society of the colonized masses when constructing Socialism that would go on to challenge and defeat Colonial rule.

The basis is the refusal to start history at the time of colonization, or from the reference point of the colonizers. The context of the settler states needs to start before the settlers arrived, how they arrived and came to dominate, and understand the protracted resistance against the settlers. When understanding the structure of a particular colonization, which is really how national resources are processed and consumed, we can see the relationship between the colonizer class and the colonized.

When I say Decolonization is a reorientation of ML I mean that ML was developed to explain the need for the proletariats of Imperial nations to understand the development of Imperialism in relation to class struggle. The American MLs know they need revolutionary defeatism but they do not understand what they need to defeat and where. The struggle for gender is one of deconstructing Colonialism, the struggle for race is one of deconstructing Colonialism, the struggle for the environment is one of deconstructing Colonialism. The struggle for class is one of deconstructing Colonialism. Decolonial Marxism is Scientific Socialism that builds a society that supplants the Colonial order.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

we can see the relationship between the colonizer class and the colonized.

This is the language I struggle with when dealing with MLism. Is it possible to use class as the type of thing we refer to when we say colonizer and colonized? Is colonizer a class? How does that work with proletariat and bourgeoisie? Do the classes interpermeate or are they distinct?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Colonizer refers to anyone involved in the entire process of expropriation of the resources of another nation, this is a national distinction, not a racial one. Colonized, or indigenous in the settler form, refers to those who's national property in land, resources, and labor is expropriated by a colonizing nation. The American nation owns, is hegemonic over, or exercises sovereignty over, the lands of Turtle Island. The nations that rely on those resources are being pushed off of them while the resources are expropriated for the entire Settler economy, the "free gifts of nature". So colonizer vs colonized or settler vs indigenous relates to the definite relations between national (social) groups. Colonizers have exploitative positions in consumption of expropriated resources from the colonized groups in land and labor. As in when you have super exploited national groups within a country, it means that the colonial proletariat is exchanging less labor for the same returns in the distribution of resources in the economy. The state, superstructure turned back into material, allocates expropriated resources/property/consumption for members of the colonial nation, as if it were a bourgeoisie as a whole. So why isn't the class differences within the colonial nation the primary contradiction (or the primary class contradiction, i.e. peasant vs prole) in a settler society? Because even if the settler proletariat defeated the settler bourgeoisie, it would still maintain national differences in the means of production and ownership of yet to be utilized resources. The settlers would have to voluntarily give up their position of expropriation over the other nations, that would have to be maintained by the decolonial state apparatus, the end of American supremacy.

Do the classes interpermeate or are they distinct?

Yes, distinct in the way of definite social relations to production, but like the bottom of the bougies and the top of the labor, the consumption by individuals varies beyond national bounds depending on the relationship to property within each nation. Colonialism once it has subjugated competing nations converts the structure of those nations into a model that provides the most expropriated resources with the least effort, in the case of the US the Americans can either totally expropriate territory from the indigenous, taking from bougie and prole alike, or in a neo-Colonial form where the indigenous bourgeoisie allows super exploitation of their proletariat and resources by a higher power in exchange for a share of the proceeds and reinforced rule by the colonizers. This form remains dominant as indigenous territory is used for meat, lumber, oil, and mineral production (especially Uranium), while indigenous workers rarely get those jobs from the American bourgeoisie as it is reserved for the American workers. Essentially any resources claimed by the colonial bourgeoisie are also claimed by colonial proletariat, this is the fuel of reactionary nationalism within the colonial nations.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Theres literally a book by Walter Rodney of that name (it focuses on Africa). For Turtle Island (US) specific books check out Custer Died for Your Sins, Fresh Banana Leaves, we do this til they free us, the rediscovery of America, playing Indian, the red deal, the prison writings of Leonard peltier, and more.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago
[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Yeah, I think I'm reacting to the capital I "Intersectionality" reproduced in the bowels of liberal academia that is designed to explicitly be incompatible with materialism. I totally hear what you are saying and appreciate the critique. I know I have blind spots, so if you know of any resources particularly about the necessity of intersectionality and decolonialism for sustainable revolution it would be much appreciated.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Honestly, just keep working with black and indigenous sources. Red Nation Podcast has really helped me understand the criticality of indigenous knowledge to the survival of society and the incommensurability of indigenous interests with settler interests. Read Settlers, Decolonization is not a Metaphor, and Wretched of the Earth. If you've read them already, read Fanon again, and read more Fanon.

What I found through engaging these texts is that not only do I have a blindspot as a white settler, these communities know I have a blind spot and they have stopped trying to convince us. They are talking with each other about what to do. So listening to it as a form of self crit really opened my eyes to the reality that the only way forward is national sovereignty, a la Lenin, applied to indigenous nations AND African diaspora as a nation, and that not only is this the only way forward but the global majority knows it and will force it on settler populations once hegemonic collapses.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago

Word, thanks comrade!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Please see my reply to the same comment. If you disagree I would be glad to hear why so so can foster a better understanding on my end.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

I think your comment gets across a valid point by way of analogy. The analogy might not be the most rich and useful in a debate, but it establishes your position as a genuine attempt to show intersectionality is materialist