We are overpaid to produce useless shit that is overvalued under monopoly capitalism because software as a service is hyper efficient rent seeking. Because we make rich people so much money there is industrial level propaganda to make our work out to be some revolutionary science that will solve all of humanities problems.

Least Nazi Seattle Times editor

Heavy agree with this. African diaspora are subject to disgusting violence but we have to explain our innocence, because the assumption is that we must have wronged the Liberal (white) order in some way to have been hurt or killed by the state or "heroic" citizens (lynchers, the prevalence of vigilante characters in Western media should not go unnoticed). The question remains why lynching is acceptable para-legal punishment for Africans but not for "French" people.

If you (2nd person you) say it isn't acceptable for either, then why are we looking to absolve the crimes of the police after the fact? Why don't we see white French speakers in the streets when a person of their skin tone is slaughtered by the police? Is it because they assume they are criminals too? If so, then doesn't that mean your society already sees the rule of law unnecessary in dealing with "undesirables" and lumpenproles (who are in such position through the motions of capitalist economics, especially colonialism)? Is that society not already fascist? The society that projected that indifference to the lives of those who the rule of law doesn't apply in their colonies such as that of Algeria and Libya where hundreds of thousands were slaughtered without having committed a crime, is it not "fascist"?

This tweet from Arnaud Bertrand is good:

[...] First of all, like it or not these "immigrants" are French, in their immense majority. Most often for the 2nd or 3rd generation 🔽 since the bulk of the immigrants from North Africa came in the 60s and 70s. And they came to France because we colonized their country, which was a historical mistake of profound significance, which France committed...

Other mistake: we then parked these populations together in suburban ghettos, meaning that France created this divide that we today live with between these populations and the rest of the French population.

Third mistake: France always had this totally unrealistic ideal of "assimilation", instead of understanding that you can't erase someone's culture, even after multiple generations, and that the only realistic thing to do is therefore to accommodate different cultures. What happens when you have a large population of a given culture and that you don't accommodate or respect it, instead trying to unrealistically convert them to another culture? You create resentment, defiance and, again, divide.

These are the root causes of the issue. Like it or not, France does have a very large Muslim population of North African origin. They will have a different culture than the "traditional" French culture, probably for ever or at least for many, many generations. You can either put your head in the sand (the solution of the left) or go for an apartheid-like regime (the solution of the right) but neither of these are actual solutions. The only actual solution is to change France as a country that accommodates and respects different cultures in its midst.

There are actually excellent examples of this in Asia. Singapore - where approx 15% of the population is Muslim - is an excellent example of how Islam can flourish in the context of a secular state. Muslim holidays in Singapore are public holidays for the whole country. They also have a "Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act" which bans "causing feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility between different religious groups". This is a wise policy that allows for mutual respect and harmony between communities.

Sadly I don't see France adopting a similar path anytime soon. And this is why these problems will keep worsening.

That's my 2-cent.

Post-Colonialism is colonial apologia. Neo-Colonialism, as in colonizers owning private property within a colonized nation, has always been the dominant form of expropriation in the 19th and 20th century colonizations.

These protests and riots are in response to the colonial/fascist (police and far right) oppression that the "French" society directs towards their Colonial diaspora. They are spontaneous and will likely die down because of that. They do represent a massive portion of the proletariat in France and can be lead by a Communist party that recognizes the colonial contradiction within France and its colonies to be turned into a socialist movement. Considering the police are threatening to act para-legally to stomp out the "vermin" and the far-right is taking violence against people as a means to protect private and (bourgeois) public property, it is damning for the Communist Party to be criticizing property damage during the protests for these Africans when they didn't put out such statements regarding pension reform. It seems the shared "French" interests supersede that of class solidarity and internationalism at the moment. The PCF in its current form is unfit for the role of vanguard.

And despite all that effort by Colonizers to set Arab and Black people against each other with colonial apologia, the Africans and Western Asian diaspora in France have spontaneously united against the shared experience of the colonial violence they are subjected to by the "French" society.

Whoever downvotes this is a colonizer

Authoritarianism isn't real. Every state aggressively defends its class base. If you don't face repression from your capitalist country, that says a lot about how the state sees you.

These socialist states aggressively defend the project of socialism in their countries because it represents the working classes.

The situation in Niger has been brewing for years. The French military has been bombing civilians in their "anti-terror" operation. Nigeriens are waving Russian flags because the Russians are actually good at fighting the insurgents and protecting civilians at the same time. In fact, France's actions have been making the situation in the Sahel WORSE!

I doubt the USA has much to do with this coup. The reality is that Neocolonial armies are ripe with contradictions, and one of the outbursts of that is a military mutiny in defense of the exploited masses, as we have seen with Burkina Faso, Libya, Cuba, and Venezuela.

So my state, Washington, is expected to grow by 2 million people by the 2030s and our airport (SeaTac) is expected to grow too crowded to have as many one way destinations as it has right now.

A major Republican just put out an op ed saying that we need to build another airport, but nobody wants to live next to it. So to solve this, we need to plan a new 250k+ city and give it an airport. The level of NIMBYism we are entertaining is a planned economy to keep the landed folks rich.

Ahh yes we are Liberals for not wanting to work with white supremacists and homophobes.

Nobody has yet to explain how we can oppose Imperialism through peaceful protests.

Rainer spends 50% of his time tailing "paycheck to paycheck" petty bougies and the other 50% making adventure time fanfiction.

Welcome cousin

Ba'athists were originally Marxists and scientific socialists (they have since grown into "big tents"). They split with the Comintern communists in West Asia due to those parties being weak on French and British Imperialism as well as the early Comintern lines on Israel. They are primarily focused on building socialist states in the region to eventually merge into an Arab Socialist nation. It's a decolonization movement. However, Bashar's father was a revisionist who caused MLs to leave the Ba'ath in Syria. The Iraqi Ba'athists held the original lines up until they were ousted in 2003. Overall they are very watered down on the ML side and more-so focused on the NatLib side of things.

One more thing that made them keep a distance from other Socialist movements was the religion question. Iraq and Syria are very diverse countries and have communities practicing some of the oldest religions in the world. They were secular but did not have an anti-religious line and in fact believed religions in the region could play a revolutionary role against colonialism.

He's a Communist. He's people first, so he is a good Communist. He ran a poverty alleviation program as a provincial secretary which got him the national position, which he has been overseeing poverty alleviation at the national level. The program he ran took wealth and Capital from his coastal province Fujian and built up the Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region. The poverty alleviation in Xinjiang that occured in the last decade is a continuation of Xi's work. He was really the guy Xinjiang needed in a time of crisis with deep poverty where the citizens there have a larger barrier to migrant labor opportunities due to language barriers (many older Uighurs don't know Mandarin or Chinese script and only use Uighur script).

Xi's ideology in terms of which theories he upholds is honestly less relevant (even so, he upholds ML), because he is the lead organizer of an AES state where attending to the needs of the people is most important. For him and China's context this means improving peoples' lives without bringing too much chaos, but always identifying problems by their primary contradictions so that they are eventually solved.

You'll never guess what he tweets the day after

For bugs and pretty rocks

Indenture contracts most often guaranteed the servant land upon finishing their obligations. It was an upwardly mobile system that allowed settlers to enter debt for entrance into the colonial planter class. Indenture was basically dead for over 50 years by the time black sharecroppers became the dominant form of agricultural worker for black people.

Indentured servants were still part of the colonizer class, and were obligated to defend the colonies in militias alongside their masters. Indenture fell out of fashion after a series of servant revolts through which the servants won significant rights in the colonies. These revolts increased the planter class' reliance on African slaves. By the time of the Revolution indenture was basically irrelevant.

Decolonial Marxism is perfectly compatible with MLism, in fact it is a reorientation of MLism, into the perspective of the colonized. Colonization is the subjugation of one nation by another. It is the purpose of Marxists in the colonizer nation to practice defeatism in solidarity with their nation's colonized peoples. The Marxists of the colonized nations need to defeat the chains of Imperialism by fighting against their colonizers.

America being a settler state, a state by and for settlers where settlers exercise political supremacy (as seen in the Navajo water case just ruled by the SC), lives alongside its primary colonial subjects, the extant indigenous nations (most are still around) and the black nation. The secondary subjects being the migrant workers from colonized nations around the world (predominantly Latinos and Asians).

The Settlers as a nation are a colonizer class above the indigenous and black people. The contradiction between settlers of the bourgeoisie and property-less is secondary to the nation-state's looting of indigenous land and super-exploiting black workers. The Pick-Sloan dams are a prime example of the white laborers working on genocidal projects that benefited white people overall. The condemnation of black and asian neighborhoods made way for downtown highways for white beneficiaries of the GI bill.

America has massive weaknesses in the production of Imperialism, namely in the necessity of the US to continue colonization of indigenous territory to maintain dollar imperialism. The DAPL and KXL protests blocked and delayed massive oil projects that the US and Canada need to control the price of oil. Biden has signed off on massive drilling projects in Alaska on indigenous land where the residents don't have running water or electricity. This project is to replace the reliance on Saudi Arabia in maintaining a low price of oil. In response to unfavorable global conditions, the settler states dip into their own resources to replenish their empire. I think MLs in America should focus on attacking the US in its arteries, the production chain of imperialism. The dismantling of White Supremacy means removing White rule over the vast territories of North America and depriving the settlers of a state for themselves. The Dictatorship of the Colonized Nations is the necessary form of state that will replace the US, Canada, and Mexico.

Communists in the settler and Imperialist countries can't seem to grasp their contradictions. They need to step back and research the material conditions to find their actual mass base and primary contradictions.

For Brazil the settler population owns most of the property and the largest vehicle for "wealth creation" is expropriating and exploiting indigenous land and labor for international markets. This process is fueling the Brazilian middle class which has so far shown itself to be very reactionary. This is not coincidentally why Bolsonaro's camp has been destroying the Amazon and murdering activist land protectors (mostly indigenous). Communists in Brazil who don't see this will cause fractures in their parties and movements.

Relevant MintPress article: https://twitter.com/...

I also want to point out that many of our comrades here who disagree with our takes on Decolonization are being good party members and holding the lines that their and many parties around the world are holding, hope in the American workers. But these parties especially the ones in the settler colonies of North America have not done the necessary investigation of their settler society and land and resource theft. Many of them are petit/semi (landed) bourgeois, educated, and through this have privileged entrance into Marxist theory, me included. We know that Lenin and the colonized comrades had an uphill battle against European Chauvinism within the international Communist movement which is what crystalized Marxism Leninism in the first place.

There is no reason to abstract internal colonization as either finished or different from external colonization, even calling it internal colonization makes it seem like the solution for the colonized Africans and indigenous nations is to absorb them into the settler nation. No, the settler states exist on stolen resources that they use to dominate the rest of the world, but its connection to wealth is here, inside its borders. It needs settlers to take land and hold it for the bourgeoisie to later expropriate. It needs settler dominated unions to build and work the environmentally extractive and damaging infrastructure that only benefits the settler masses. I posted about armed indigenous resistance (backed by the Panthers) to racist fishing enclosures in the 1960s that sparked the American Indian Movement, and that post had far less traction than this one about MWM.

American comrades, find out what tribes inhabited the places you have physical connections to. Learn how they came to no longer own that territory and why you and your people now do. You will learn far more about capitalism and America than through studying other movements, because our conditions are not the same. Apply the methodologies of MLism to the history of this continent, stop importing the solutions from others.

You'll have to be more specific, all revolutionary theory is "books on how to destroy capitalism".

I like the idea of being sustainable, growing your own food, and living naturally. I used to dream about starting a commune or homestead, but now I’m starting to think the idealization of it is petty bourgeois and part of the settler mindset.

It absolutely is the settler mindset. Homesteading is an economically stagnant practice at best. Homesteading served a few historical functions. First, it was an outlet for the downwardly mobile classes of Europe (at first, just England) to escape the monopolization and enclosures of land. Now, all these Europeans coming over for their homesteads had to come out, take land that was developed by other humans, destroy it, terraform, and fill it with European taxa (honey bees, apples, grass, mice, and salad weeds like dandelions), settle it, and defend it from recapture. Homesteading has been an occupation and colonization tactic of people and nature from the start, and Jefferson's ideas turned it into a literal war tactic on Indian Country. In macro, homesteading was a way to have loyal settlers occupy territory for the high bourgeoisie to later expropriate. This takes the form of the land being seized on debt defaults, land sold to extractive (oil, mining) interests, land sold to real estate interests (suburbanization). Often times to pay the debts back the planters need to exploit the earth at greater and greater intensities, eating away at the soil environment until the land itself dies as in the case of the Dust Bowl (the victims of which, got free land seized in California and Washington from interned Japanese farmers).

Homesteading itself isn't a real economic practice, it serves a specific function in colonization (of people and environment) and can't exist independent from the larger market society. There is no way for it to be revolutionary, as it is an atomized form of the feudal village farmer, and only succeeded with the importation of outside labor (servants slaves and migrants). It's a yearning for the life of a yeoman (who's existence was a sign of Capitalism developing), and the greenwashing surrounding it calls back to not nature, but the total colonization of nature by man, in America it means turning a piece of Turtle Island into a model of Europe (looking at you, Solarpunk and Cottage Core).

Overall I think homesteading is poor use of land. We need collaborative and socialized food production so we can limit the amount of land necessary to meet the needs of our people. Homesteading as an escape from Capitalism is utopian and it failed over and over for the same reasons.

Yes the Jihadists are the same people who crashed Libya for the US and France. As well as Syria. The armies of these Sahel countries have been crafted as puppets to defend specifically French and American property in Northern Africa.

https://peoplesdispatch.org/...