Has to be Mario Sunshine (Via Wii) , Mario Galaxy, Kirby’s Epic Yarn, or really any Wii game my grandma got us. I still tear up just by hearing the main menu ambience. Mario Sunshine was wild, cause I never really played it as a kid, but my dad did and the imprint was still nostalgic so when I did play it a few years ago in that definitely a scam Mario 3D Allstars it scratched an itch of nostalgia and new experience.

I read it as “The rule of Shrek” 😭

I’m so happy I saw Life of Brian after I had experienced leftist discourse firsthand, otherwise it would have all gone over my head.

Plot twist CriticalResist8 is the alt account and we are dealing with a deeper and more meta, primary account pulling the strings >:)

To be honest I am pretty put off that they discredit some of the biggest strides in decolonization, and I think it stems from a lack of class analysis. Why do they see exploitation of the land for the good of all as settler colonialism?

From what I have garnered so far, settler colonialism is based on hierarchy of “national classes” (for lack of a better word). Nations have a class of proles and bourgeoisie, when in a settler colonial state the bourgeoisie give a their proletarian cultural group a priority and kickbacks for settling hence the bourgeois position. So the settler proles and oppressed proles hold contradicting positions, as long as the settler proles hold a bourgeois position.

We have seen settlers and indigenous nations work together to overthrow colonialism, in the USSR, China, Cuba and even with bourgeois democratic states in LatAm. Why is this? I believe it is because the class of settlers have been proletarianized enough to align with the oppressed and synthesize into a new state. Russians, Han Chinese, and Spaniards under the boot of Imperialsm had proletarian positions, and thus could synthesize with any oppressed nationalities With DOTPs specifically we see the first blow to settler colonialism, the elimination of the bourgeoisie as an oppressing class and thus the need for nations in the first place has started crumbling.

Sadly Tuck and Yang’s Liberalism holds them back from a class analysis, but their own class interests allow them to address settler colonialism. At the moment, they ARE right in saying that the most progressive way to decolonize the US is putting land back in Indigenous hands (proletarian hands). This is because as long as US Imperialism exists (as it does now) the Euro Americans hold a bourgeois and counter revolutionary position. (keep in mind this is not an exact science, and anglos are being proletarianized more and more each day. Hell I am a white settler and I am living barely on paycheck to paycheck).

What happens is the Indigenous revolutionary kernel is much more developed compared to the Settler revolutionary kernel. Thus the indigenous people hold a vanguard position, as any indigenous population has always had across history. Only when settler’s kernel is developed enough can it synthesize with the oppressed nations into a DOTP. And you can see indigenous leaders for decolonization even without a class analysis advocate for this synthesis. The more settlers work together with the oppressed nations, the less it will be solely indigenous but until that happens it holds an indigenous character (if that makes sense)

Okay this helpful but I have a few more questions.

So I agree, that non indigenous people are part of the settler state and thus are considered settlers, but why are they (specifically white people) considered non revolutionary? (I mean we are both considered settlers, yet we are communists)

Is it not in the best interests of both to dismantle the Empire? Is that labour aristocracy exists? Cause I don’t think that is strong as it is anymore and especially with inflation, it seems to be reaching a screeching halt.

Isn’t it more that the state itself funnels, or least tries to, white people into petty bourgeois positions to separate the working class, instead of every single white person being of petty bourgeoisie class? Because it feels pretty Un Marxist to say blue collar, trailer park types aren’t proletarian, but maybe that’s what you were getting at and I misconstrued. But even then, arent petty bourgeois intrests with the proletariat?

Now sorta related, but should MLs in North America, especially the US, support every single secession movement or only specific ones? Should we support Texas seceding because it will be less colonized, and will weaken the Empire, plus might get the ball rolling other “states”?

Again, no malice just questions.

Okay you seem to be itching a scratch I have in my brain.

Good of you to point out that “balkanization” is a dishonest term, and more appropriately it is decolonization.

But I have a few more questions about Land back.

Does Land Back view white people as settlers? If so why? is it that they’re descendants of settlers so them existing is a remnant of that, or only those who uphold the ideas that “America” and “Canada” exist, or something else entirely?

Now is Land Back a movement for ALL of the land to be returned to the different indigenous nations? If the notion is white people are intrinsically settlers, what do they want to do with them? 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?

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?

Is it Anti Marxist to return to the way things were, discounting the new conditions formed for all working people? Is there any historical example of decolonizing a Settler State? If white people are born on native land, are they apart of that indigenous nation? Is this an issues of Nationhood and borders in general, or the specific parts of a settler state?

Again, just questions.

Thanks! Do, whatcha call em, western “leftists” knee-jerk into hating Stalin cause of their leftover liberalism prohibits them from learning past the propaganda? How can people realize that the rich aren’t our friends and never trace it back to the Amerikkkan bourgeoisie atnd their Empire?