Marxism-Leninism and the theory of settler-colonialism in the United States
fightbacknews.org
The purpose of Marxist analysis is so that we can know how to make revolution, so that we understand the terrain of struggle, formulate...

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.

  • borschtisgarbo@lemmygrad.ml
    8·
    2 days ago

    Not once in the article is it mentioned that certain parts of the “multinational” US have vested interest in imperialism and internal exploitation. I’ll show you two places where this is completely omitted despite being crucial to the topic

    This is because workers of all nationalities, both oppressed nationality workers and white workers, toil shoulder to shoulder on assembly lines and shop floors, in kitchens, warehouses and offices, from coast to coast. Even as national oppression puts greater pressure on oppressed nationality workers, they are still forged into one multinational working class together with their white siblings as they suffer exploitation together under the same bosses.

    The multinational working class and the liberation movements of oppressed nationalities found themselves with a common enemy – the monopoly capitalist class. Thus, a united front against monopoly capitalism, based on the strategic alliance of the multinational working class and the oppressed nations, became both possible and necessary.

    OP didn’t mention that in this thread though. Albeit i haven’t checked their past comments on other threads

    • ComradeSalad@lemmygrad.ml
      47·
      2 days ago

      I would suggest reading through their comments. They believe that no one beyond black individuals descended from slaves and indigenous population deserve to participate and lead revolutionary organizations and that white participants can neither understand nor have a place in a decolonial world.

      They froth at the mouth about “Starbucks leftists” over and over. This person is not serious.

      “Deep issues due to the settler base of the parties”

      Ie: it’s not government interference or other issues, it’s the white people who ruin everything.

      • borschtisgarbo@lemmygrad.ml
        4·
        2 days ago

        Okay, yeah i don’t agree with that view. I just misunderstood OPs views

        Still a sprinkle of truth to be found in there though. Specifically when they mention CPUSA, Maki, SACP struggling with the labour aristocracy due to, again, many of them having a vested interest in maintaining the present state of things.

        • StalinistSteve@lemmygrad.mlOP
          161·
          2 days ago

          I mean, that’s what I believe. I don’t think settlers can’t participate but they need to be subjegated to the actual proletariat (ie join the PFLP and not Maki, the EFF not SACP) and focus on decolonial marxism and not a labor politics that ignores very real contradictions. When they lead a communist party, you have a party with labor aristocracy conciousness. Also, I don’t think Ive ever mentioned “starbucks leftists” like was claimed, no clue where that came from other than trying to make me out as a crypto conservative

            • ComradeSalad@lemmygrad.ml
              15·
              2 days ago

              This is where Starbucks leftist came from. No clue who he is referring to with this. This is the classic conservative line.

              • StalinistSteve@lemmygrad.mlOP
                71·
                2 days ago

                I’m talking about self described leftists who actively chose not to boycott Starbucks for Palestine because they’d rather their blood soaked US-imperialist slave picked treats over any form of activism, usually under a mis-appropriation of the term “No ethical consumption under capitalism”. You use the term Starbucks leftists as if I said the ACP line of “Baristas can’t be revolutionary” when I never said that and minimum wage work can often be more revolutionary than many other jobs in the imperial core.