Ask Lemmygrad

893 readers

42 users here now

A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Shaggy0291@lemmygrad.ml

GrainEater@lemmygrad.ml

SovereignState@lemmygrad.ml

QueerCommie@lemmygrad.ml

yogthos@lemmygrad.ml

How do we understand the primary contradiction in settler states? (lemmygrad.ml)

submitted 1 month ago by freagle@lemmygrad.ml to c/asklemmygrad@lemmygrad.ml

71 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I was recently in a conversation with a self-described MagaCommunist who held the position that the primary contradiction in the USA was that the financial owning class owned all of the means of production and that the contradictions of settler colonialism were secondary and could only be resolved through a workers' state.

I realized that I hold the position that settler colonialism is the primary contradiction in the USA, but I also found that I struggled to articulate it effectively. I'm looking for your own thoughts or writings that I can study to learn more on this topic.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] CarlMarks@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That's a good framing for diamat, since it involves social action constrained by material forces. Mine was more of dialectics that happens to have a materialist situation.

In terms of breaking the contradiction, what we are usually after is a negation of the contradiction in favor of our desired outcome, done by positioning ourselves on one side of the opposition between bourgeoisie and proletariat (or global north vs south, etc).

[–] freagle@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Struggling to figure out if you're running into the 2-into-1 vs 1-into-2 debate. Are you saying the 2 things in the contradiction resolve when one destroys the other?

[–] CarlMarks@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 1 month ago

There are often two negations considered. One is when one of the opposing elements seemingly "wins", but we must acknowledge that elements of the other remain. The other is when the other has effectively been erased. In terms of socialist thought we can see examples of the first in revolution, dotp, the ruled becoming rulers, etc, but capitalist aspects will of course remain. Socialism negates capitalism in the first sense. The second kind would result from longer struggle, e.g. achieving communism. They are very similar in concept, but useful to think about.

The 1-to-2 and 2-to-1 concepts are very relevant but I was just referring to dialectics' version of a resolution of contradiction - though of course it is less of a resolution than a transformation.