are you… perhaps… ya know… attracted to the same gender as yourself?

go on dates with your wife

Existing indigenous nations govern the land. Even the neo-Colonial IRA governments are at the forefront of fighting climate change, habitat destruction, and mass extinctions (almost all biodiversity is on indigenous managed land). There are Communists in these nations trying to build them into radical socialist projects. Some nations are very radical.

The settlers will be governed by a joint dictatorship of the oppressed nations, but will have political rights within revolutionary institutions for women, LGBTQ2S+, youth, workers, etc. Much the same as how the CPC rules China, the dictatorship will be selective in who it elevates into the state machine but will stay in touch with the masses through mass organizations like those listed above.

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.

For both the Syrian and Ukrainian wars you have to remember what each of the challengers to state power wanted to do, destroy anti-Imperialist forces. So I think the only way the US has another civil war is in reaction to a serious disturbance of Capitalism where a progressive force challenges the the sovereignty of the state/property order (like the German Revolution). The US police/militia forces would do what the French police threatened to do a month ago, break from the authority of the state to “restore order”. I don’t think this is a civil war as much as it is the property order recovering from a crisis. A civil war will only come from revolution.

I think we have to be prepared as a movement for serious disturbances to society from the environment. I don’t think people realize how badly the Gulf of Mexico states collapsed during and after Katrina. Millions of people left the region, white supremacist gangs were lynching Black people. Only the military had the capability of entering the New Orleans. There are many disasters like this brewing in the US (fires and earthquakes in the west, Colorado River crisis, aquifers depletion in the prairies, tornadoes in the mid-west, hurricanes in the south and east). We need to prepare our communities for these crises, which Capitalism will actively attempt to prevent us from doing, this is where we can prove that Capitalism is holding us back.

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.

so no red? 🥺

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.

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.

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.

So my state, Washington, is expected to grow by 2 million people by the 2030s and our airport (SeaTac) is expected to grow too crowded to have as many one way destinations as it has right now.

A major Republican just put out an op ed saying that we need to build another airport, but nobody wants to live next to it. So to solve this, we need to plan a new 250k+ city and give it an airport. The level of NIMBYism we are entertaining is a planned economy to keep the landed folks rich.

It’s problematic that settlers in a settler colony don’t know what the environment looked like before their ancestors colonized the land. I’m not saying nature in the abstract but the specific environments of the Americas that were destroyed due to homesteading and colonizing. They want a return to “green” but that “green” is imported flora and fauna.

They can brainstorm all day but when it comes down to praxis, if they are reproducing settler Colonialism of the environment, they are a problem. If Solarpunks in the colonies don’t have an intimate understanding of their local native species, they are just colonizers, not much better than people who keep their lawn green.

Edit: relevant image I just ran into

That one Chobani commercial is still a cornerstone in the Solarpunk “movement”, at least on social media (where I expect it lives and dies). There is a “de-advertised” version where someone took the time to remove all of the references to the dairy magnate. There is no criticism of the environment depicted in the art being full of colonizing species, only derision in it being produced by Chobani. This is worrying because the settlers in the settler states, even the “environmentally conscious”, can’t even imagine a form of living alongside nature, only a continent sized homestead. Environmental collapse is more than just carbon emissions and asphalt, the environments of the Americas have been collapsing ever since the colonizers came and exterminated tens of millions of bison, tens of millions of beavers, wolves, dammed rivers that wipe out salmon populations. It’s problematic that people here don’t know what nature actually looks like, especially those who play around with “revolutionary aesthetics”.

I like the idea of being sustainable, growing your own food, and living naturally. I used to dream about starting a commune or homestead, but now I’m starting to think the idealization of it is petty bourgeois and part of the settler mindset.

It absolutely is the settler mindset. Homesteading is an economically stagnant practice at best. Homesteading served a few historical functions. First, it was an outlet for the downwardly mobile classes of Europe (at first, just England) to escape the monopolization and enclosures of land. Now, all these Europeans coming over for their homesteads had to come out, take land that was developed by other humans, destroy it, terraform, and fill it with European taxa (honey bees, apples, grass, mice, and salad weeds like dandelions), settle it, and defend it from recapture. Homesteading has been an occupation and colonization tactic of people and nature from the start, and Jefferson’s ideas turned it into a literal war tactic on Indian Country. In macro, homesteading was a way to have loyal settlers occupy territory for the high bourgeoisie to later expropriate. This takes the form of the land being seized on debt defaults, land sold to extractive (oil, mining) interests, land sold to real estate interests (suburbanization). Often times to pay the debts back the planters need to exploit the earth at greater and greater intensities, eating away at the soil environment until the land itself dies as in the case of the Dust Bowl (the victims of which, got free land seized in California and Washington from interned Japanese farmers).

Homesteading itself isn’t a real economic practice, it serves a specific function in colonization (of people and environment) and can’t exist independent from the larger market society. There is no way for it to be revolutionary, as it is an atomized form of the feudal village farmer, and only succeeded with the importation of outside labor (servants slaves and migrants). It’s a yearning for the life of a yeoman (who’s existence was a sign of Capitalism developing), and the greenwashing surrounding it calls back to not nature, but the total colonization of nature by man, in America it means turning a piece of Turtle Island into a model of Europe (looking at you, Solarpunk and Cottage Core).

Overall I think homesteading is poor use of land. We need collaborative and socialized food production so we can limit the amount of land necessary to meet the needs of our people. Homesteading as an escape from Capitalism is utopian and it failed over and over for the same reasons.

He’s a Communist. He’s people first, so he is a good Communist. He ran a poverty alleviation program as a provincial secretary which got him the national position, which he has been overseeing poverty alleviation at the national level. The program he ran took wealth and Capital from his coastal province Fujian and built up the Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region. The poverty alleviation in Xinjiang that occured in the last decade is a continuation of Xi’s work. He was really the guy Xinjiang needed in a time of crisis with deep poverty where the citizens there have a larger barrier to migrant labor opportunities due to language barriers (many older Uighurs don’t know Mandarin or Chinese script and only use Uighur script).

Xi’s ideology in terms of which theories he upholds is honestly less relevant (even so, he upholds ML), because he is the lead organizer of an AES state where attending to the needs of the people is most important. For him and China’s context this means improving peoples’ lives without bringing too much chaos, but always identifying problems by their primary contradictions so that they are eventually solved.

It’s actually less than that. A quarter includes agriculture, where a fifth of it is sold to our colonies over seas:

Less than 6% of US land is considered developed. Let’s also look at how they “developed” that land:

De-colonization is not just about people, it’s about our non-human neighbors as well. If I may share a tweet of mine: https://twitter.com/probablykaffe/status/1662860482360020992?t=-px_6GplvTFzoPrXTOH9zQ&s=19

There’s a level of American Exceptionism that occurs in the decolonial reaction. This myth that the Americans seriously control the vast territories within their border. They really live far beyond their means and bringing them back to balance is really the only goal we can have. Half of Americans live in single family suburbs. This is unacceptable land use and they will consolidate their space.