SpookyGenderCommunist

What is everyone's thoughts on this? I think this kind of self-criticism and nuance is valuable, and a worthwhile exercise.

But I think it suffers from a framing problem. After presenting the nuances of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, re: Poland. Bad-mouse says "If you're hearing this and thinking 'anti-communism' you're missing the point".

But I don't get that impression from the facts, I get that impression from the way the facts are being framed. The facts are the facts, and we can, and should, have a fruitful, nuanced, discussion as to how the Soviet Union handled the national question in this period, whether the taking of certain parts of Poland after WW2 was just, relations with the Baltic states, etc.

But this isn't framed in that way. It's framed in an almost ultra-left, social-imperialism way, which is what leads me to react to this as anti-communist.

The Soviets anexxing a chunk of eastern Poland that roughly corresponded to what Imperial Russia took in the Third Partition should raise some eyebrows. For instance, it might lead us to ask how a socialist state, formed from a formerly feudal land empire might unwittingly inherit some forms of that old logic.

But that act, in and of itself, is not imperialism. It doesn't match Lenin's definition. Which, if we're doing leftist criticism, we should be using as some kind of standard. Calling it imperialism feels disingenuous.

The Freedom Road Socialist Organization recently put out this article, arguing that the United States isn't a settler-colony and it's rubbing me the wrong way.

The article makes some assertions and assumptions that I have some thoughts about, and I'd love to hear y'alls as well.

[Proponents of the US Settler colony theory say that] The United States remains today a settler-colonial state. People of European descent, regardless of their actual class position, are settlers, and are seen as continuing to benefit from and perpetuate a colonial system. In other words, the people of the United States are divided into two camps, with the colonized in one camp, and the settlers in the other. Some even go so far as to say that this makes up the principal contradiction in the U.S. This is furthermore viewed as a fundamentally antagonistic contradiction

I don't know if this is an accurate description of the US Settler-colony theory. All settler and colonized populations, be they in Israel, Canada, South Africa, etc. Have class distinctions within them that ought to be considered. Saying there's a settler population isn't mutually exclusive with class analysis.

This ought to be contrasted with the Marxist-Leninist view, which sees the United States as an advanced imperialist country. Again, we see a division of U.S. society into two camps. On the one hand there is the camp of the capitalists, and on the other the oppressed and exploited masses of workers and oppressed nationalities. The principal contradiction is therefore between the capitalist class on the one hand, and the multinational working class and its allies on the other, particularly the oppressed nations. 

OK? I don't necessarily disagree, but how does this contradict the notion that the US is a settler-colony? It contradicts the version of that idea given earlier, but I think that's a strawman. Or at least a case of a narrow representation of a wider trend.

The article goes on to describe American history, talks at some length about the class makeup of the settlers. The implication seems to be that this varied class makeup makes them not a single class of "Settlers™". But then goes on to say that the early US was characterized by a:

transitional settler-colonial period

But that this period ended... At some point.

The article also seems to conflate the concept of a Settler-colony and colonies written large.

The United States is the greatest imperialist power in the world. It isn’t a colony. Like Tsarist Russia prior to the Bolshevik Revolution, it is a “prison house of nations.”

Within the borders of the U.S. there are oppressed nations. What is an oppressed nation? As Stalin defines it in Marxism and the National Question, “A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture.” These oppressed nations are nations without states. They don’t govern themselves. The oppressed nations in the U.S. are the African American nation, with its homeland in the Black Belt South, the Chicano nation in the Southwest, and the Hawaiian nation.

So we've finally named some oppressed nations. I don't know why Hawaii is here, but otherwise this is fine. It's how the other colonized/oppressed people's in the US are handled that confuses me

To be perfectly clear, it is important to note that oppressed nations are not the same thing as colonies. The correct demand for a colony is immediate independence. This is the demand we must put forward regarding Puerto Rico and other colonies, where basic democratic rights are denied and which are merely objects of plunder.

The argument about a colony requiring independence is compelling. But why is Hawaii not included with Puerto Rico? Why does one island nation stolen by the US empire get independence, and the other doesn't? There's no fleshed out analysis on that.

Also, an overseas colony and a settler-colony are different.

The demands of indigenous peoples deserve special consideration and are distinct: full sovereignty and national development of indigenous peoples, and the protection of their cultures, languages and traditions.

I think this is the first mention of indigenous peoples, and we're 2/3 of the way through the article.

WHY ARE THEY DISTINCT? HM? COULD IT BE THAT THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO THE PROCESS OF SETTLER COLONIALISM MEDIATES THEIR INTERACTIONS WITH THE BOURGEOIS STATE?

The U.S. isn’t an apartheid system, like “Israel” or “Rhodesia” for example. The horrific system of Jim Crow segregation that followed the betrayal of Reconstruction was itself uprooted by the Black liberation movement. While national oppression remains, de jure segregation no longer exists. The working class, as a result of its historical development, is therefore multinational in character.

.... So you know we shoved indigenous people onto reservations and continue to systematically exclude them from modern American life. South Africa was pushing Africans onto reservations, and Israel is de-facto doing the same thing to Palestinians.... Because they're replacing the native population with a settler one...

De Jure Segregation being over means nothing in terms of the actual material conditions of oppressed nations in the US.

I could go on. But the article just seems poorly thought out. Despite supposedly refuting the idea that the US is a settler-colony, it spends so little time actually talking about indigenous peoples.

Am I onto something? Is the analysis of this article missing the mark? Or am I a petty-bourgeois radical, like the article suggests?

Inshallah 🙏

It's really good, and I'm enjoying it. But holy fuck does the licensed music in this show suck! Not only does it not really fit the setting, and is just kinda meh.... But Imagine Dragons are diagetic????

Is this guy cool? Does he have any capacity to spread socialism to Sri Lanka? What's the current state of politics in the country?

Howdy y'all!

A few years back, I did a deep dive into the history and politics of the DPRK, but the one thing that I struggled to wrap my head around was The Juche Idea, and I'm wanting to jump back in and try again!

So, what are the main principles of Juche?

How does it compare to other ML variants in the rest of East Asia/in general?

I once saw Juche compared to existentialism. Is that accurate?

Any resources to help me learn more? Most of what I've found has either been old, difficult to understand, translations of old DPRK books, and uncritical regurgitations of those old books with little in the way of commentary.

Dora Richter, the first ever trans woman to undergo gender reassignment surgery, was usually thought to have died during the Nazis burning of the Institute for Sexual Research. However, new evidence points to Richter having successfully escaped the Nazis, and living a long life, until 1966, where she died at age 74.

Hello fellow Gamers, gather round to hear my rambling thoughts about a cheesy videogame from 25 years ago!

When I was about 12 years old, circa 2010, a friend of mine dug out an old n64, and a few games, and one of those games was Resident Evil 2.

For those who haven't played this charmingly bad game from 1998, in the midst of this gory, violent, and gritty (by 1998 standards) game, you come across a little girl named Sherry, and you have to escort her around.

Sherry is simultaneously the most interesting character in the entire game, and also the most annoying. And among the reasons she is annoying, are the segments where you have to play as her.

Now, when I was a kid, when a game asked me to pick a gender, I would always pick boy, because I felt like I had to. But when I played these Sherry segments, this was the first time I had played as a girl in a video game, that I could conceivably relate to in some way.

I wasn't having fun, really... These segments are god awful to play. But they did awaken something in me. I was like, ".......You mean I get to be the little girl???"

I wanted to be her so bad! This didn't crack my egg, and I quickly buried all of these feelings once I finished the game. But it's definitely a thing I look back on and think "oh the signs were always there.

Anyway, this post is mostly just an excuse to get people to talk to me about my Trans Sherry headcanons.

Also, ask me my opinions on the RE2 remake. I just finished it!

Yeah, I'm a gamer

Burn in hell