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

[–] CriticalResist8@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 1 month ago

The argument there was that the Haitian revolution was massively in favor of the enslaved - there were 500k enslaved and only 30k colonists. Compare that to the US context and the indigenous do not have the numbers to force the issue. Essentially, he was putting “might makes right” into a “realpolitik” framing.

Exactly, they reframe everything to always come out right. Your interlocutor is arguing in bad faith so that's why I think your understanding is fine or at least not in massive jeopardy.

their response was that the treaties would be 'renegotiated' and this wasn't sufficient to you. The treaties exist, they just need to be enforced by the US. Indigenous nations have been calling for the government to stop violating them year after year. As you said, to come around and tell them "actually we're going to renegotiate them for 'mutual benefit'" sounds like settlerism.

There are around 4 million Indigenous Americans in the US today, and probably not one more communist than that. Should communists also abandon revolution because they don't have the numbers required? The tailist patsoc would have to say yes to that. They should become conservatives instead and -- they did.

Of course they would say "but we can build socialism!" but why can't you build decolonialism? Do you need to be Indigenous to fight for Indigenous rights? Do you need to be socialist to fight for socialism?

They make an a priori postulate that "seems" reasonable but isn't backed up by theory or practice because they have yet to put it into practice. Like I said in another comment all the major parties in the US reject the settler-colonial aspect of the US bc they're settlers themselves (but when you look at Palestine right now it's pretty evident), but their anti-imperialist line has not been successful either for the over 100 years they've been at it. So is it really reasonable to say that tackling decol is harder than tackling imperialism?