As you have all noticed, this seems to be a point of contention here. This is a good thing, since it means someone will learn something.

Now we seem to be all over the place, with this general area of thought, provoking many questions. Whether or not PatSocs are socially conservative, what is position on social conservatism? Many of us are very young, both in age and ML experience, so an online discussion would be a great learning tool.

  1. Are socially conservative individuals allowed to be apart of the leftist movement?
  • A. Are socially conservative individuals victims of bourgeois propaganda?

-B. If socially conservative people are turned away by the left, where do they go?

-C. How high of a position would a social conservative be allowed in a ML party?

-D. How has or will MLs educate socially conservative folk?

-E. &tc, &tc.

  1. What exactly is Patriotism?

-A. Does patriotism depend on culture?

-B Is possible for a distinction between patriotism for a country and wanting to abolish the state?

-C. Is patriotism corrupted in the Core?

-D How have post imperialist countries with Communist experiments built patriotism?

-E. &Tc &TC

  1. Who even are the PatSocs?

-A. If the label is too convuluted, should we make a distinction between Maupin and American exceptionalists?

-B. Who of the leaders do we consider MLs?

-C. Should patriotic socialist be distinct from socialism or is inherent in socialism?

-D. How much do WE even know if PatSocs?

-E. &Tc, &tc

We can look at the USSR and GDR for these questions. Remember the Hammer and Sickel came from somewhere.

Things to look out for about the US:

-It is the imperialist power, AND a settler state.

-Low levels of cultural development

-The culture that is there is taken from marginalized groups.

-Americas are the most propagandized people in the World.

-It is huge and incredibly diverse

More questions about the US could follow:

-Should the US be balkanized? If so how does patriotism be built in balkanized regions?

-How does land back go about? Will indigenous countries emerge, and if so should we reconsider American MLs as different MLs for the Regions in North America.

-If we see different nations and regions in North America how does that affect culture? Is the question of how we view the land a prerequisite to discussing patriotism, is it contradictory to call yourself an American Patriot if you decide to divide up the land until regions?

There is so much potential for deep political for North American based Comrades, this is a rabbit hole I do want to delve into. I’ll cross post this to GZD but I want it mainly on Leftist Infighting.

Edit: spacing issues

  • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
    01·
    2 years ago

    Does Land Back view white people as settlers?

    Not just. It views EVERYONE that came to the Americas through European conquest as settlers. That includes slaves and subsequent waves of immigrants.

    If so why?

    “Decolonization is not a Metaphor” gives a strong analysis of why. https://clas.osu.edu/sites/clas.osu.edu/files/Tuck and Yang 2012 Decolonization is not a metaphor.pdf

    In summary, it’s because settler colonialism is not a historical event, it is a living system that at its core is a system with the function of oppressing indigenous people through physical, economic, political, social, cultural, religious, and other means. Each non-white person that owns a house or rents from a landlord is participating in the settler colony, whether they want to or not, because their survival interests rely on it. Settler colonies convert land into property as part of their processes. While property exists, settlerism exists, while non-indigenous people own and interact with property, they are settlers active participating in the settler system.

    Now is Land Back a movement for ALL of the land to be returned to the different indigenous nations?

    Land Back is a movement to invert the power hierarchy and provide sovereignty of all colonized land to the indigenous people who are today oppressed. The indigenous peoples will use that sovereignty as they see fit. Inevitably, all settlers will experience at minimum transitional oppression as they will lose their way of life in part or in full. Land Back is not predicated on settlers feeling comfortable with whatever the outcomes are.

    If the notion is white people are intrinsically settlers, what do they want to do with them?

    This is idealism and not part of the Land Back analysis. White people don’t exist.

    If the notion is that it is just the STATE that’s a settler state, does the majority of white people in these nations dillude them being Indigenous?

    It’s not the state, it’s the society. If the state were to change its form, it would still be a settler state. It can be nothing but. The state cannot become indigenous. The state can only cede sovereignty.

    Now when “America” and “Canada” first colonized there wasn’t a proletariat, and it was all settlers. Now as throughout time, the majority of the populations, are wage earners.

    So is it fair to call white people settlers in a STATE apparatus formed centuries ago, that enslaves them?

    We’re not talking about ideals like fairness. We’re talking about the material analysis of society. It does not matter that peasants became proletarians. What matters is that the interests of the peasants and the proletarians are incommensurable with the interests of the indigenous people who are oppressed by the society that is perpetuated by the peasants and the proles. It’s not the state that is oppressive, the state is merely a component of the violently oppressive society that every day harms the indigenous people of Turtle Island. That the people are enslaved to the system makes no difference because returning sovereignty to the indigenous people harms those who are enslaved as much as it harms those who are not enslaved.

    Is it Anti Marxist to return to the way things were

    Not inherently, no. You’d have to make the case.

    discounting the new conditions formed for all working people

    This statement erases the indigenous peoples completely. It is the single most clarion example of the problem. 8% of indigenous people in the US can speak their own language. They are living through their own genocide. The new conditions that you speak of forming are new conditions only for the settlers. The conditions that formed for the indigenous are those of mass slaughter, destruction of autonomy, destruction land. It is disingenuous to call the slaughter of every single buffalo on the plains a “new condition formed for all working people”. It is disingenuous to call the destruction of clean water for the creation of oil pipelines a “new condition formed for all working people”.

    Is there any historical example of decolonizing a Settler State?

    Not that I’m aware of.

    If white people are born on native land, are they apart of that indigenous nation?

    It could be said that I’ve answered this above. Read Tuck and Yang (above). They go into detail about how many of the white people that claim “we all have Indian blood in us from some ancestor somewhere” is quite literally the claim to innocence based on the fact that indigenous women were raped and their children were forcibly taken from them and integrated into settler society.

    Is this an issues of Nationhood and borders in general, or the specific parts of a settler state?

    It is an issue of contradictions inherent in systems of oppression. The idea of nationhood and borders arises from understanding the contradiction inherent in a society founded on a systemic form of genocide, mass murder, destruction of land, destruction of biodiversity, and oppression that is intrinsic in the system’s functioning, that cohabitates the same historical processes that the society inhabits, and continues every moment that the society exists.