Which community is this? Are communities allowed sovereign control over their content or does this fall onto the shoulders of the devs since it is in the primary Lemmy instance?

Interesting…I wonder how the devs will respond to this situation when it unfolds

“As Marxists we must oppose everything the west approves of and approve of everything the west opposes”?

TIL Marxism is when contrarianism

“There is no flagship instance. The developers actively push sopuli.xyz and beehaw.org instead of lemmy.ml for multiple reasons.”

Lib is salty 😝

“Reducing racism to ethnic relations and minority needs it to completely ignore racism entirely.”

I am not reducing racism I understand as you should that when the relations to the means of production advance, the social relations which maintained the previous mode of production will be shed as the new relations necessitate equality (all share the same class), and so the physical reason for racism to exist has been purged. This is the elimination of racism. What remains are capitalist pre-conditioning which must be combated via education, socialization, and solidarity.

"Race"s do have unique needs, as do sexes and genders. An ethnic minority who has been the victim of racism requires justice, requires a remedy for this injustice on a systemic level, requires protection and expansion of their ethnic cultures which were oppressed and mocked under white supremacy. Just as women require the remedy for sexism, and trans people require social justice and healthcare.

To ignore these needs is to perpetuate the same sort of cultural downfall the Soviet Union failed with and Mao aimed at solving. It is purging the superstructure of the capitalist system and creating the superstructure of the socialist system.

"The existence of municipalities in all former and current European colonies is literally the maintenance of setterism. "

This isn’t the maintenence of colonialism, it is the dialectical process of development. The global south is exploited by the social democratic European nations. This is not the same system, it grew out of it and share similarities however the relations to the means of production and the mode of production are different.

“What I missed is your level of ignorance…slave relations were maintained through indentured servitude, through sharecropping, through prison slavery, and through indigenous boarding schools. Second, under Jim Crow and under much of the current legal regime, black workers were used explicitly to appease white workers, by assigning to black workers the most abusive and lowest paying jobs so that white workers wouldn’t revolt”

(proceeds to demonstrate their-own) I have already covered this in my previous reply. You are not taking in the information I am providing. You said it yourself: “black workers were used explicitly to appease white workers, by assigning to black workers the most abusive and lowest paying jobs so that white workers wouldn’t revolt” WORKERS not SLAVES. The means of production were evolved and so the economic relations evolved. I am not saying nor have I ever said that the racist social relations which originated from Slavery went away entirely, I am saying they evolved and no longer govern the process of production. They are inferior to the relations of worker and owner, not that society hasn’t retained any semblance of Slavery. This is evident if you look at the overall picture of society and not solely the experiences of minorities in America who experience the effects of the remnants of these relations. It is possible for black Americans to own businesses, there are latino labor aristocrats, etc…this was not possible under Slavery. And yes I recognize the lag between abolition and the Civil Rights movement, but you must also recognize the ability for the Civil Rights movement to succeed under capitalist relations where it could not before industrialization and worker - owner relations developed within the late old system. So again, what are you missing here?

“Calling national liberation of black and brown peoples “fascism” is the most reactionary take I’ve seen from someone who considers themselves a communist. This is usually a position I see from white supremacists. You are woefully on the wrong side of history, comrade.”

A strawman…I expect this from Reddit liberals not here.

“The System of Racism created racist people. The System of Racism was created by the bourgeoisie to implement class warfare and extraction of surplus value.” That’s capitalism you’re describing and calling it “The System of Racism”. Are you referring to apartheid, a divide and conquer technique leveraging PRE-EXISTING social relations and the new advent of the middle class to maintain power (a form of superstructure OF CAPITALISM)?

“Racism and Slavery and Production INTERPERMEATE. You cannot abolish capitalism and then demand racial reckoning take a back seat on the theory that eventually racism will go away. In order to abolish capitalism you must ALSO abolish the System of Racism, and when black and indigenous MLs write about this, that means national self-determination inline with Lenin’s theory.”

Read several paragraphs up. As for the line of national self-determination I agree and this is not contradictory. America and the native tribes are already separate though interconnected countries. America is of land stolen from the latter yes but it is a distinctly separate country as are the native territories despite the capitalist system not respecting them. We can and should talk about changing the size of these nations to be more just but to pretend America isn’t a country (in fact) and to conflate it with it not being a country (in terms of historical lineage and of course justice) is idealist. America, the country with the capitalist mode of production and relations, exists today. It should no longer exist and we work towards this goal but to say “it’s simply land stolen” is to ignore socialism and aim for communism as the anarchists do. It ignores a vital step of addressing the physical issue of the resolution of that state known as America. And in this resolution, the nation of America must determine it’s future as well. One cannot simply ignore the existence of America and the people (workers) who live in it for historical justicial needs of the native territories. And do not conflate this with “you see, the whites will revolt”, I never said we would have to choose to maintain America, in fact I have brought forth several arguments as to why I believe the two nations will merge and the cultural roots of the former could be migrated into the new nation (akin to handing the new nation to the natives), however the natives are not currently in a state where they are able to govern a socialist country but they can be.

I see what you are saying I believe, a nation is not a race and so it is not liberalism to advocate they govern. Yes, this makes sense, we must simply train them in Marxism. Yes in the case of the natives it makes sense to advocate they lead. In the case of other minorities this is again necessary so they can ensure justice for their groups specific needs however simply excluding non-minorities from governing because they do not suffer under the modern remnants of slave relations isn’t based imo. American workers who are not labor aristocrats suffer under the yoke of capitalism and no longer benefit above the rate of poverty due to their lack of suffrage under the modern remnants of slave relations.

“Racism is literally a legal system whereby throwing black people off a ship in the middle of the Atlantic was not considered murder but was instead considered destruction of property! Literally! Argued in court that legally black people aren’t people and therefore cannot be murdered! It has nothing to do with individual beliefs about people being lesser.”

I have been moving forward under an understanding of this premise. I understand what racism is, I’m not a suburban labor aristocrat, I grew up and am still poor, I am white however I have seen racism first hand with friends and family. You misjudge me.

“RACISM CREATED RACISTS” Yes, but Slavery and agriculture created racism. This is what I’ve been trying to get you to understand. That fact and it’s implications.

“They’re not minority workers. They literally constitute the global majority.” I’m speaking on national terms. In America they are minorities. I believe we are speaking on America yes?

"They established completely autonomous nation-states for national populations and gave them autonomy over their nation and established the constitutional right for them to secede at any time without penalty. "

This is part of what I was referencing, I simply gave the example of the committees. We must build on the successes of previous worker states in similar situations.

“This is the most white European thing I’ve heard on Lemmy.” (continues to use the term ‘racial revolution’ unironically)

“White people live in places explicitly because they were stolen by white people from melanated people.”

I am aware of this. America developed on an injust notion of imperialism. This is why we oppose America and believe it must be destroyed. I’m not sure what notion you are going off of here comrade, I am trying to work with you but you are presenting a lot of misjudgements in regards to me despite my best efforts to demonstrate my positions to you. Much of what we are arguing about we agree on the what just not the how.

“You haven’t even managed to approach my argument, you have no standing to levy this critique.”

I’ve rebuffed your arguments continuously, I believe I do. I have not read anything you have suggested as you continue to demonstrate a lack of fundamental understanding on Marxism. Why would I expand my knowledge outward when you have not satisfied the rudimentary? Why is that necessary if we cannot agree on the process of economic development, social relations under the means of production, or dialectics? This would be entertaining building a roof when the base has not been set.

“This is a liberal metaphysical perspective. They are the same compounds, from the same plants, that have been subject to the same processes of production that all commodities have gone through.”

The drug processes have indeed evolved as with everything else but the drug processes of today are not the same as those of yesterday. You’ve overwritten your own argument.

“The point is that plants that humans have been cultivating for millennia specifically for the effect they have on the human body, whether those compounds are taken in small doses or in concentrated doses, is part of a dialectical process”

Right but as in the last point you seem to not understand the dialectical process. Evolution isn’t in a straight line of “better -> best”, dialectical materialism holds that contradictions meet and are resolved not according to which is better but which is more appropriate for the conditions of which the conflict occurs. This is why one cannot simply go from slavery to socialism as the material conditions which predeceases socialism are not present yet because this hypothetical system has not developed through the various middle stages of development yet.

Drugs too have dialectically developed, that is taken on features which match it’s conditions under the resolution of contradiction but not necessarily taken on ideal characteristics for their assigned social role according to the needs of our class - safe and beneficial consumption. Instead they have taken on characteristics which match the economic mode of production under which they must conform to - consumption to satisfy competition within the market. As we know quality has been forgone for quantity to satisfy the rate of profit’s ever growing needs, and as such our commodities have become less and less satisfactory to our needs as a class as this is not our system, we do not control it and as such we are not it’s designers nor it’s primary beneficiaries.

“the unique biochemistries of individual humans”

This is nonsense. Morphine does not act as a cognitive enhancer on some humans, nor does testosterone develop wings on some humans. There is variance yes but the underlying effects of memory displacement (which is well documented and is not my personal belief on the matter) is universal by high majority.

“What the fuck are you talking about? You think the DRUG causes this? You think the bourgeoisie are out there being like “ooh, let’s give people pot because it pacifies them!” You are ridiculous.”

Yes I do and your retort to this argument is the only thing that is ridiculous here.

“A crutch IS an aid!” A crutch is no more an aid than “racial revolution” is at being legitimate Marxist position to aim towards. The phrase means to differentiate an aid that assists and an aid that transfers dependency from the individual’s abilities onto the aid itself to perform the job. This is a well-known phrase also.

“You are literally saying you would rather people suffer so that they can be more revolutionary”

You should read reform or revolution and various critiques on social democracy. This is far from a niche or odd concept within Marxian history. The key point is “suffer more” not “suffer in general”, suffrage is subjective, one can claim if we are not all under socialism we are suffering, and this would be true however materially social democracy has only served to impede revolution it has never once lead to it. As well, to whom are we measuring suffrage of? The imperial core with it’s ability to create a privileged middle class to the suffering of the world proletarian class as a whole, or the relief of suffrage of the entire proletarian class? Which you concern yourself with determines if you are a Marxist or a Menshevik.

“Why do you think people use these types of drugs?” Poverty, of which only socialism can alleviate.

“It’s like you haven’t even bothered to analyze the world before you start pontificating about your morally superior position based on “logic, reason, and the countless video evidence”. What is wrong with your ability to self-critique? Why is it so broken?”

Yet another dodge of my points for preference of liberal ad-hominism. This shows your inability to utilize Marxist theory to engage in productive debate among your peers. Once again I advise you study further.

“People use drugs because they are suffering.” No, this is a distortion of concrete for subjectivity. Poverty is why people use drugs, suffrage to the point of poverty, not suffrage in general.

" You don’t solve that problem through criminalization, You solve that problem by address the root cause of their suffering and by providing support for people suffering from addiction."

Considering I agree and always have you’ve clearly stopped listening.

“You’re such a boss. Your only argument against drugs is that it impacts productivity. You’re the worst Marxist I know.”

You’re clearly not a sufficiently capable Marxist as you still participate in debate as a liberal. Yes this debate has been long however refusing to recognize when one has dug past 6ft is no excuse in my book, at that point it only invites the inevitable conclusion.

You lack a solid Marxist foundation as I’ve had to explain basic Marxist line such as the path towards revolution and other aspects from other arguments we’re currently in but are irrelevant to this present one. One must put aside their ego and look towards the best solution for the working class, which is following the most revolutionary and scientific theory available - Marxism.

The drugs cannabis, psilocybin, coca, and opium have been used for a long time in medicine and religious practices this is true, however cocaine, heroine, LSD, and condensed cannabis such as dabs or keif have not. These are not the same drugs of yester years.

As well, we have created medicines which surpass these in their abilities to aid in medicine save for cannabis. My personal issue with cannabis is it’s negative effects on memory, it’s diverse methods of activity which vary from positive to negative depending on the person’s necessity vs what they are consuming, and ultimately the drug’s tendency to create a pacifist and deradicalized culture around it which damages revolutionary capability within our class. Basically, it works too well; it becomes a crutch as opposed to an aid. This is not in every case, many can consume cannabis without an issue however one cannot deny the prevalence of this culture nor the tendency cannabis in general let alone condensed cannabis has towards pacification within a certain percentage of users.

This is the primary issue with hard drugs, one cannot function as a member of society while high on cocaine, mushrooms, heroin, etc… If one doubts this statement please refer to the countless video evidence of workers too high to function which is available on mainstream platforms for consumption.

Hard drugs (those which are so potent either in their action and/or their addictive properties) impair and greatly reduce a worker’s competency and indeed traps the worker into a vicious cycle of addiction. One cannot be seriously defending hard drug use.

Now there is a separate question in your response - what is to be done regarding workers and drugs. You seem to be under the impression that I am advocating we simply ban drugs and not treat the underlying addictive disease, this is not at all what I am advocating. I agree we must treat the worker with permanent concrete solutions to relieve them of their susceptibility to addiction. I am saying that as Marxists, we should not encourage hard drug usage. That we meet the worker where they are if they are indeed addicted, but not to encourage further drug usage, instead assist them in getting clean.

Suggesting that a more educated person including a government decide what is and is not safe for the consumption of their society of which they are assigned to oversee is in no way chauvinism, this is an anarchist argument which is a pette bourgeois tendency - the rejection of class for individual politics.

This is not true. Placing race above class is liberalism. I am incorporating an understanding of ethnic relations and the necessities of minority workers into my analysis, to promote this any further would place identity or race above class relations which again is liberalism.

One cannot be a settler when one has not settled or currently maintains the relations of settlerism. This is because after the Civil War, slave relations were abolished and the economy evolved to worker-owner relations under bourgeois democracy. I have already explained this, I’m unsure what you’ve missed on this.

"It’s necessarily both, because if it’s one or the other, it’s neither. If you don’t have a racial revolution, meaning a changing of the power holders, then what you imagine is a socialist revolution will be born as a fascist revolution. "

We are saying the same things however you misunderstand “racial revolution”, this would be a fascist revolution.

“The way that production was developed was through racism” No, you have it reversed. Superstructure (such as apartheid or other racist laws) serves to reinforce the base (economic relation to the means of production). The system creates racists, racists did not create a racist system.

Back in slavery times, the mode of production was crafted to serve the needs of humanity. A hierarchy was crafted and so were “lessers”. This became racist the same way imperialism does - one values their herd, their family, their nation over those of whom they do not share an intimate relation with. These modes of production necessitate expansion and as is demonstrated by imperialism today, and so they necessitate intimate and foreign to be compared within the minds of those within said system. “White” people were not born racist, the material conditions following the dialectic process of development created the idea of racism as well as created racists.

“The solution must be a racial revolution - that is replacing the power structures of today with new power structures, and that must be proletarian AND colonized AND women, intersectionally. If it remains white and man and colonizer, then the resulting structure will incorporate the structures of racism which are literally inextricable from the structures of capitalism.”

We are Marxists, we are not liberals. We promote and select leaders based on merit, not based on their identity or racial terms. This is because socialism itself is a system which promotes and is made of merit. Capitalism is a system which superfluously promotes various products to reach an ideal profit and then collapse and repeat the process (such as white supremacy, black supremacy, LGBT supremacy one day, etc…). Of course we must incorporate the needs of minority workers, however this should be done as it was in the Soviet Union, through ethnic councils whose membership consistency and purpose is to address the needs of minority workers. Of course all laws must be made with consideration to the needs of minority workers as well, my issue is with the idea of appointing someone based on their ethnicity, sex, gender, etc… and not on their merit.

And you really must drop the term “racial revolution”, it implies a revolution based solely on race alone, of which you clearly do not aim for.

“You are completely ignorant of race. Race’s don’t have unique needs. Races don’t have a base. They exist only in the superstructure.”

…You have critiqued yourself while referring to me, you do realize this don’t you?

“And all of these destructions result in harm to white people,”

I believe we’ve found the root cause of our disagreement. Show me the laws or actions which treating “black” Americans worse than they treat “whites” makes a net positive for “whites”. This a false paradigm following a zero sum game. The bourgeois do not treat “white” Americans better because they treat “black” Americans worse, they simply treat “black” Americans worse however we are all living in hell as workers (and not labor aristocrats). They are more oppressed however this does not mean that “white” workers are not oppressed, this is exactly what the democratic party emphasizes, that only minorities in America are oppressed and not workers. This is IDPOL. This is liberalism selling us minority supremacy, another product to profit from (check all of the blm gear and rainbow merch floating around).

Marxists reject this analysis of reality (individualism) and this methodology of action which is a critique which is safe for the power relations: “We simply need more minorities in power and all is well”. I believe you understand the necessity for the end to reflect both economic and cultural evolution from revolution, however some of the specific details are still being viewed through a liberal framework.

Thank you for sharing this. Black Americans are forced down the race rabbit hole because the settler whites (MAGA, the middle class, the racist pigs, etc…) drag you down it. I understand you see things as race for survival. Do you recognize that the slavery economic mode of production from which their terror originates has passed and we are in the capitalist mode of production and with it capitalist relations to the means of production?

This means that the only escape from this terrorism this racist tyranny, is through a working class revolution. America has never had a feudal mode of production. It is likely that if we were to go the way of barbarism here at the point of capitalist crisis instead of socialism, we could very well see slavery come back. This being the backfoot of the bourgeoisie is likely how these settlers still persist similar to how the remnants of the Russian Empire (White Army) persisted in Soviet Russia.

I cannot simply waive my mouse and like magic this contradiction of needing the non-black working class and not trusting the non-black working class will be resolved. I simply as that you listen to the points I’ve made. The rest is a matter of struggle and solidarity within our class.

Browns combined the right and the left into a political leadership over the country, Shea is speaking of bolstering the anti-war movement’s numbers and thus power with the right instead.

“that “these people aren’t interested in liberation, they’re only out for self and for kin.””

This is not how he comes off to me but you are entitled to your opinion.

“I am still not convinced that concepts like Haywood’s Black Belt Republic aren’t the direction my folk should be going in”

Black Americans do not have the numbers to accomplish such a task as a Black Republic and hold it without the US bourgeois state along with the Canadian lapdog seizing the land back. This just isn’t realistic. If you want your people to be free, socialism is the best way to achieve such goals because it takes into account the interests of all workers equally. It does not cater only to the needs of black workers, no, however this is not something Marxism aims to do.

“definitely won’t long-knife y’all when your usefulness is through”, that tells me that your movement is predicated on anyone else’s sacrifice but your own, and leaves me considering you as deeply unserious to the point of being literally hazardous to any oppressed folk in your orbit.”

I understand your distrust however I remind you that even utilizing race relations analytics defensively is still viewing the world on terms of race. Marx shows us that method of analysis is useless, it is one which serves to create and then re-enforce capitalism.

“have helped the state’s aims. What the state wants is the narrative precedents required for carrying out these indictments, and all the future repression that’s been made possible by these actions.”

A shocking number of comrades fall for this fear stoking. Did the Bolsheviks hide from the might of the Czarist regime or did they go through it? One’s organizing cannot avoid the inevitable, that is idealism. Our class will respond and the bourgeois’ state will to our response and so on. That is the nature of conflict, of dialectical development. Of course no one says toss strategy aside, however using fear as a crutch simply cripples us.

“Unlike the CIA, which operates with a scary level of undemocratic impunity, the DOJ can only function as long as there’s enough popular will to support its activities, or at least enough of an absence of organized opposition.”

Not at all. The bourgeois state as a whole operates with undemocratic impunity. Do not allow yourself to become diluted with the lies of “democracy” or “freedom” under capitalism, these are methods of control. The way in which we approach the DOJ should be no different than the CIA.

“By targeting RAWM with unprincipled criticisms, then refusing to properly investigate what RAWM’s nature and purpose truly are, the sectarian elements in our movement have helped let the DOJ feel comfortable enough to carry out this attack against freedom of speech and assembly.” I can see where he is coming from however he arrives here in an interesting manner.

“But if these pro-Russian orgs are the ones that should be distrusted so intensely, why have the anti-Russian orgs been so silent on the DOJ’s actions? What’s more opportunistic than refusing to challenge the DOJ out of expediency?”

Not a great argument but yes.

“The reason why there’s such a lack of principle within the left, and within the parts of the communist movement that view “the left” as the only element of the people worth trying to reach, is that in the imperial center there’s an incentive for leftists not to prioritize winning. Most of what we in America call the left isn’t actually concerned about victory, or else the class struggle would by now at the least be in a vastly more advanced stage. What it’s primarily concerned with is engaging in “movementism,” where actors build political projects as an end in itself. Or with building platforms within the “left” discourse spaces, wherein one can only maximize one’s popularity by adhering to a set of approved ideas. Trying to fit into such an insular and toxic environment is not conducive to a serious type of Marxist analysis. At best, it allows for selectively using quotes from Marxist theorists to support one’s assertions, while ignoring the parts of this theory which vindicate stances that challenge the circle’s beliefs.”

He’s 100% correct. What the American left is infected with is ultraleft pette bourgeois-minded (immature, concerned with popularity instead of factual soundness) under-developed workers who either have not or can not developed their commitment to the cause to maturity (towards principled Marxism), instead merely dipping their toes into the revolutionary lake as it were. These workers must become more serious and dedicated to the cause, and as the contradictions sharpen they will however a spade must be called a spade.

" Lenin provided a proper perspective for what relatively small societal elements these insular spaces represent, saying the parts of the labor movement which ally with imperialism are the “privileged minority” of well-bribed workers."

Yes, the labor aristocracy. Specifically opportunistic labor aristocrats. These too infect the left and have since Lenin’s time.

“Just because somebody is on the left of the political spectrum, or purports to be the most “radical,” doesn’t mean they’re compatible with revolutionary politics. Given the insidious influence the Democratic Party has over the left, and how easy it is for the “ultra” lefts to aggressively side against anti-imperialist stances out of misplaced righteousness, these types can be among the most dangerous. We need to build connections with those who are most compatible with the pro-Russia, pro-China, and otherwise revolutionary orientations. Not with the “left” actors who will betray the class struggle as soon as they find a contradiction in one of the countries that’s fighting U.S. hegemony.”

This paragraph and the one prior to it…I would appreciate if he specified who he is suggesting we focus on. Pro-Russia one can think of conservatives, but who is pro-China or China orientated aside from us?

Overall I concur with comrade Shea, in the anti-war front, as I’ve stated before on this matter, a broad coalition benefits the cause over a sectarian one. I am more skeptical over his inclusion of those types for the revolution however that is a separate matter.

On the face, but you have to look at the history between “Taiwan” and China to understand their true purpose and thus intentions.

Thanks

Love the FBI one

Slogans

CIA: “Get in the -white- blacked out van, we have -candy- drugs”

DEA: “Where the cartels go to learn how to smuggle drugs!”

NED: “We love freedom and democracy” (snorts things which legitimize the concept of freedom in their minds, shoots democracy in the face)

Speaking of snorting things which create grandiose delusions…

Zelensky: “The victory is coming…just like the dragons in Game of Thrones, the victory is on it’s way…but I just need more money…for weapons…white powdery weapons of mass delusion…I mean destruction!”

CPUSA: “We’re definitely not reactionary opportunists in bed with the democrats…btw don’t forget to vote for the democrats!”

NATO: “We’re a “defensive organization”…if you obliterate the entire definition of defense and replace it with a picture of a monkey scratching his ballsack”

DPP: “WE ARE REAL CHINA!!..HEY! WHY IS NO ONE LOOKING AT ME?! …WHAT?! FUCK UKRAINE, LOOK AT ME!!! I AM ALL OF CHINA!!!”

Democrats: “Have you heard about this thing that sucks? Let me tell you how I’m not going to do anything about it. Actually, I’ll stop you if you try to do anything about it too…also fuck the republicans, they’re everyone bad from us to Putin to Satan except for when we’re talking about Putin then he is still Putin but also a republican/every republican and sometimes also the left who we try to make our base but could really give a shit less about because they aren’t bourgeois and those are the only people we even care to try and persuade with any real material concession…we just lie to the prols, then smack them on the noses like a bunch of stupid animals. Big dumb and stupi…wait is this thing still on?..Shit! Um…um…RUSSIA DID IT!!! Russia did it and I will gaslight the ever-living fuck out of you until you either believe it or there’s so much bullshit going on in the social strata that no one can organize an actual response to my bullshit. Yay, tyranny! Er- I mean dEmOcRaCy!!1!”

Republicans: “…What the democrats said/did but also fuck minorities. Guns and Jesus and stuff…”

Elon/Trump: “Let me show you why you can trust me” (sells a pile of bullshit then proceeds to fuck everyone over)

Gates: “This is why I’m NOT a weird anti-social sociopath” (proceeds to be a weird sociopath but in a social manner) “Welcome to my humble abode…whoops, mind the landmines! Have a seat on my couch made from refugee skins, you might feel a pinch, that’s just Cortana taking a DNA sample”

I like this. I’m going to do something like this.

I’m unfamiliar with Tuck and Yang, and since they are not well known Marxist theorists such as Marx or Lenin, could you raise their arguments here? One cannot simply walk into a theoretical space and say “x is fact, read person largely unknown in the space” and expect myself or others to simply accept the authority of these authors.

Cities and deserts are included in Marx’s evaluation of the contradictions between city and country side. The city exploits the country and in doing so must hold leverage over it (water). You conflate all of society which lives under settler society with those who benefit from it and thus maintain it. This is pointing to a contradiction which does not exist equating “white” Americans with the pette bourgeois simply because of their ethnicity. Class not “race” determines politics, Lenin makes this perfectly clear. Your argument that “all white people will band together to suppress the indigenous” falls flat once one looks to Standing Rock or the various pipeline protest movements.

It is indeed at odds with the historical reality of settler colonialism, which has changed over time and is no longer the same as it once was. The descendants don’t magically have some racist gene, once’s interests are formed by their material conditions and their relation to the means of production of which the indigenous and proletarian “whites” share. You advised me to read Tuck and Yang, I advise you to read Marx and Lenin.

So we’ve touched on the decolonizing the US part of this article a lot, but I want to talk about the drugs for a moment.

Comrade Shea is 100% based on this imo and as well I would like to add a sort of ‘other side of the coin’ aspect to this conversation.

While drugs which illicit an extreme response such as hard illegal ones do are undoubtedly harmful to our cause as currently the contradictions are so that drugs are not required to “wake” a liberal prol out of their fantasy (they do have their uses in certain scenarios), prescription psychoactive drugs of a mild variety can play a limited beneficial role.

Antidepressants and other medications, while in many cases are damaging to the body, can artificially stabilize a prol enough to be able to study, plan, and learn. However, this does cause dependence upon the pharmaceutical industry and in turn upon legal society which could become detrimental later on although there are ways around this issue.

I think these should be used wisely and phased out over time if appropriate as deemed by scientists under socialist economy.

These topics being brought up in this article should be addressed as should all other aspects of neoliberal culture which have largely gotten grandfathered into our own as our base model. We know for sure where we stand on minority worker’s needs, I believe we should work to iron out the logistics of what exactly 21st century predominately western proletarian culture is, and reject outright what has been dictated to us by the bourgeois class. Yes it will be controversial but so long as we show each other respect, solidarity, and participate in good faith we will gain more answers than headaches.

Ehh, I challenge your concept of the term ‘settler’ in reference to proletarian decedents of settlers. Quite simply, class determines politics (Lenin), not race. The only people in America today who have a continuing interest in their heritage of exploitation are those whom still benefit from such behavior - the pette and big bourgeoisie.

“Which is a matter for the community to handle”

The progress of society (socialist construction) is not a “race” matter, it is a class matter, no matter it’s racial complexion.

“Do you really think this mentality can be excised from the settler without incurring losses, heavy losses?”

You missed my point about the liberalism conflict concept. I was not saying Shea was phrasing things as a matter of conflict, I am seeing yourself focusing too much on racial divide and not enough on class imo. Race isn’t removed, but this isn’t a “racial revolution” it’s a socialist one, one based in economic progression, of advancing the mode of production and relations so as to meet the new needs of society today (justice, equality, even distribution of resources).

“So what’s the answer to that?”

Although I am unfamiliar with Sakai I am not ignorant of the settler state issue. I would never say to put your trust in anything you yourself do not have a direct say in, that’s a bad idea go move forward with. I recommend you work with your class no matter it’s racial complex for the interest of your class and your race’s unique needs. And I’m saying due to being the same class, and the proletarian class whose interest is equality, that it is within the goals within socialist construction to address the unique needs of all sections of the proletarian class.