this post was submitted on 09 Dec 2024
0 points (NaN% liked)

GenZedong

5236 readers
85 users here now

This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.

See this GitHub page for a collection of sources about socialism, imperialism, and other relevant topics.

This community is for posts about Marxism and geopolitics (including shitposts to some extent). Serious posts can be posted here or in /c/GenZhou. Reactionary or ultra-leftist cringe posts belong in /c/shitreactionariessay or /c/shitultrassay respectively.

We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space. See this thread for more information. If you believe the server may be down, check the status on status.elara.ws.

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

To put it as plainly as possible, if the proponents of the U.S. settler-colonialism theory are correct, then there is no basis whatsoever upon which to build a multinational working class communist party in this country. Indeed, such a view sees the “settler working class” as instruments of colonialism, hostile to the interests of the colonized people, rather than viewing all working and oppressed people as natural allies in the struggle against imperialism, our mutual oppressor.

A shame, a sad sad shame. For anyone that's read settlers, or knows about the history of labor zionism, or prioritizes any kind of indigenous voice in their praxis, this is really bad. No peace for settlers! Settlers cannot lead the revolution! I hope we see an end to any respect given to this "settler colonialism is over" politic soon.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ComradeSalad@lemmygrad.ml -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (19 children)

The problem with such statements is that they are inherently defeatist attitudes that only breed complacency and apathy, as if you're right, then what the hell is the point of trying to organize within nations such as the United States. Further how do you classify who is a settler in a state such as the modern day United States? Do you lock mixed race people out of the movement as well? How about if they are white passing? Or how about recent "white immigrants"? What about the millions of white appearing people descended from settlers that live in abject poverty or are crushed under the oppression of capitalism? You can't seriously believe that there's absolutely no way such people could be mobilized or organized to join or lead a revolution, can you?

In such a racially and ethnically diverse nation like the United States, do you genuinely believe that you will ever effectively mobilize the working class if you limit your demographics to... who exactly? "Pure" Native Americans and "pure" black individuals who can trace their roots back to slavery and have no race mixing in their lineage?

I also fail to see the issue with the article, the author agrees that the United States is a settler colonial project, and that the lasting consequences of this must be addressed within a socialist society. However, all he states is that chasing bizarre notions of racial purity when organizing only sets back the movement by isolating elements of the working class that are ripe for education and radicalization. What do you see wrong with his statements?

Ok, lets say you're right and are able to effectively exclude who you label settlers. Ok... what now? How does this benefit your organizing, popularity among the proletariat, and ability to sway the population to your side?

[–] borschtisgarbo@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 2 years ago (10 children)

No one said anything about the labour movement in the US needing to bar white people from participating in it. The problem with the article is that, one, it is completely unnecessary because, again, no one had advocated for barring white people from organising. It's just pointless. Two, it outright denied the existence of a labour aristocracy which is often aligned with the bourgeoisie. This is seen in the text the OP quoted.

[–] ComradeSalad@lemmygrad.ml -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (8 children)

“No one said anything….”

Who is OP referring to then. Which group of people do we think op is talking about.

[–] borschtisgarbo@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

"Settlers cannot lead the revolution!" doesn't mean white people shouldn't be barred from organising. Settlers have a vested interest in protecting the racist, colonial institutions of the US. This does not say settlers should be barred from leadership positions, it says that the interests of the settler colonial class shouldn't dictate what the revolutionary movement does. The same thing as you wouldn't want the labour aristocracy in charge of labour movements, as they have vested interest in protecting the current order. Look at what happened to the communist parties of the US and Europe.

[–] ComradeSalad@lemmygrad.ml -1 points 2 years ago

OP gave the game away. They legitimately just despise white people and saying that white people should not be part of the revolutionary movement is exactly what they meant with their statement.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (15 replies)