I'm updating to this one now, but honestly no it's not worth it. I'm on P6P and weird stuff like my call notification just not showing up and random gesture nav freezes has turned me off of participating in future betas. Missing phone calls because I can't see them has been problematic in multiple events these last few months. I'm going to reset my phone come the official update.
ProbablyKaffe
joined 2 years ago
Kollontai is great but heads up FinBol has some credible groomer allegations directed at him
Why do you think Liberal American Wikipedia would have a genuine, Marxist definition of Decolonization? Colonization is the reason why Liberal American definitions are the first thing you think of and seek out. America has manufactured its demographics that favor white settlers, most states were founded with equal to indigenous majority but they weren't considered citizens and the settlers violently expropriated land in self organized, private, and state ventures. America continues to make it seem like indigenous people no longer exist. It's not a coincidence that Liberal American definitions of Decolonization feed into fascist fears of "White Genocide" and "Great Replacement Theory". Did you know that the Bolshevik revolution kicking out German and Polish bourgeois colonizers of what is now Belarus and Ukraine by Slavic and Jewish Communists is what inspired fears of a "Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy to eliminate 'Aryan' dominance"? Doesn't that sound familiar.
Sovereignty over the land will be entirely in indigenous hands. Americans will have rights as citizens such as democratic control over their communities but they will no longer have political control over land in general as they do under the American state.
Indigeneity is not a racial category, nor is colonizer, it is a political category in the national form. The indigenous nations still exist and still have claim to the territories we are settled on. The Black nation has a right to self determination from American rule. This is Decolonization. We will not change the definition. We should never give way to Liberal Colonizer definitions.
This is the same cognitive dissonance surrounding ideas of Communism meaning taking all your stuff and giving everyone exactly the same amount of food. It's them applying idealism to our scientific cause because idealism is the only way they can justify keeping their "so-called primitive accumulation" which Marx sarcastically defined in mockery of Liberal apologists of private property.
It's not just giving land back and reparations. It is the dissolution of the settler state. Americans will not have a state for themselves. They will become citizens of a Decolonial state.
but the word “decolonize” implies people leaving, perhaps by force.
It doesn't. Colonizers have made up this rhetoric as a boogyman, because they displaced people by force to create their colonies. If you don't like the idea of indigenous populations controlling their territories again, you can leave voluntarily. Many cases of Decolonization this has happened, because they couldn't accept not owning all the property, but in partial de-colonized countries like South Africa, they mostly stayed because they got to keep their stolen property. This is why the EFF is getting popular because they want to redistribute the concentrated wealth in the hands of the mostly white settler, bourgeoisie.
Mind you, Colonization is constantly, habitually, force relocating indigenous, racialized, and poor peoples (reservations, terminations, condemnations, and gentrifications). Now we might have to relocate people into more efficient communities, for all of our sake, but there is no need to move them to another continent. They just need to accept that most land will become commons under indigenous stewardship. Most biodiversity is on indigenous territory, the colonial system has proven itself incapable of stewarding the lands.
These urbanism channels just preach supply side Reaganomics, which itself only increases gentrification and displacement because housing/land is commodified in a market.
Europeans cities like Amsterdam were built through Colonialism and getting people around the world hooked on opium. The difference between the Euros and the Settler cities is that the Euros don't want to trash their own land, while the Settler states are trashing someone else's for maximum profitability. Countries like Switzerland built really nice train networks off of centuries of banking for empires. Their money comes from this so they don't need to trash the land for profit as in the US and Canada.
NJBs isn't as much of a Neoliberal dork as Oh the Urbanity or Strong Towns, but still there is zero connection with Colonialism in discussing the settler and colonizer creation of space. Relevant paper on gentrification in settler states: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/918979
Like so much of the shape of cities in "North America" is due to Colonialism in the form of land expropriation, racial segregation and casting, and making maximum money from workers in the form of rent, transportation, and food costs. Marxist Geography has pretty good theories on this stuff, the post I linked criticizes the field of study for its failure to address the specifics of Colonialism in city-building.
But yeah as long as Settlers rule over this land we'll have deadly streets, food deserts, and fossil fuel reliance.
Yeah but their freedom slogan isn't anything unique, it's the core of Liberalism. The freedom slogan works for radlibs because like Libertarians they most likely lived a middle income life, which in America is very wealthy in global standards, and they only think about the state in terms of limiting their Liberty to get what they want, or not doing enough to protect their ability to get what they want.
Their overwhelming interests (needs rather than wants) are being served by the bourgeois settler state, in the same way as the ML AES's proletariat's interests are served by the vanguard and DotP.
I think the anti-establishment politics don't really exist outside of the worker's movement to take power. All bourgeois ideology is establishment.
Hard agree, we should also remember his bad faith readings of Gerald Horne. There are a lot of people (online) who take Rainer's portrayal of certain writers at face value. His bad faith quotes continue into his preferred writers in the form of book worship as well.
All of these attacks to defend coat tailing libertarians and PatSocs. 🤷🏾
Libertarian backers have immense wealth from both the fracking boom and silicon valley. The difference between neolib and libertarian is basically non-existent. The Libertarian anti-war stance is opportunism, and their criticism is just that their PMCs should be hired for more imperialist ventures.
Middle income Americans trend reactionary on political-economy because the bourgeois narratives work for them and their livelihood is secure, and the state does often end up helping them out.
America is an exceptionally bourgeois country, especially considering the colonial question. The proletariat is outnumbered and we really need to stop trying to pander to the settler petit bourgeoisie, they already have state power.
I'm really excited for the supply-lines management
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.
Anyone who downvotes is a settler nationalist
Kick all the unwanted settlers out of Hawaii!
Death to the American occupation!