You’re right, that isn’t a solid foundation. What is, is working class organization along correct lines of struggle, part of which is decolonization, as the US Empire’s primary contradiction is settler-colonialism.
Further, you’re right to say that if the US Empire collapsed now that it would result in barbarism. That’s the point of organizing, though, so that when the US Empire is in crisis, we can overthrow it and implement a new system.
None of this is based on ideals, but learning from historical struggles for socialism.
Idk mate, you’re the one who brought up the idea of an indigenous socialist revolution and now you’re saying that ideal isn’t a solid foundation. I thought the point was to unite the working class as a whole, not put a generic category of race made by colonialism on a pedestal. “Indigenous” isn’t a single group of people who all think vaguely the same about communism, so I’m not sure why you thought it would be a good idea to say that’s the ideal situation.
It’s multi-faceted. Ignoring the settler-colonial nature of the US Empire ignores its primary contradiction, the forces at play in the given society, and why the US proletariat is against revolution right now. Any working class organization needs correct analysis of settler-colonialism to have success elsewhere. It’s similar to trying to have a TERF worker organization, by excluding marginalized comrades and taking incorrect lines, we damage the movement and lose some of our fiercest fighters, all while winding ourselves into reactionary contradictions and tailism.
I feel that, but when you say the ideal is an indigenous led movement, and case that on the assumption that indigenous people will be all on board, it doesn’t come off as multi faceted, especially when you say that’s the ideal outcome. Your ideal outcome is based off of an assumption based on race, while lumping many races and cultures together. That’s easy different from “we need to bring the various indigenous people to the table and try to rebuild in a way outside of colonialism”.
It’s not at all contradictory to say that in the context of a settler-colony like the US Empire, indigenous peoples will need to play a leading role among the broader working classes. It isn’t about racial supremacy, but about acknowledging the importance of decolonization.
I think we’re having a communication issue, where I’m trying to explain how you’re coming off, and you’re trying to explain how you’re right. Being correct doesn’t mean that you presented that correctness in a way that honors your truth, and can have the opposite effect of what you want. I don’t even disagree with what your overall point is, but the way you’ve been wording things until this last comment hasn’t been doing your overall point justice.
You’re right, that isn’t a solid foundation. What is, is working class organization along correct lines of struggle, part of which is decolonization, as the US Empire’s primary contradiction is settler-colonialism.
Further, you’re right to say that if the US Empire collapsed now that it would result in barbarism. That’s the point of organizing, though, so that when the US Empire is in crisis, we can overthrow it and implement a new system.
None of this is based on ideals, but learning from historical struggles for socialism.
Idk mate, you’re the one who brought up the idea of an indigenous socialist revolution and now you’re saying that ideal isn’t a solid foundation. I thought the point was to unite the working class as a whole, not put a generic category of race made by colonialism on a pedestal. “Indigenous” isn’t a single group of people who all think vaguely the same about communism, so I’m not sure why you thought it would be a good idea to say that’s the ideal situation.
It’s multi-faceted. Ignoring the settler-colonial nature of the US Empire ignores its primary contradiction, the forces at play in the given society, and why the US proletariat is against revolution right now. Any working class organization needs correct analysis of settler-colonialism to have success elsewhere. It’s similar to trying to have a TERF worker organization, by excluding marginalized comrades and taking incorrect lines, we damage the movement and lose some of our fiercest fighters, all while winding ourselves into reactionary contradictions and tailism.
I feel that, but when you say the ideal is an indigenous led movement, and case that on the assumption that indigenous people will be all on board, it doesn’t come off as multi faceted, especially when you say that’s the ideal outcome. Your ideal outcome is based off of an assumption based on race, while lumping many races and cultures together. That’s easy different from “we need to bring the various indigenous people to the table and try to rebuild in a way outside of colonialism”.
It’s not at all contradictory to say that in the context of a settler-colony like the US Empire, indigenous peoples will need to play a leading role among the broader working classes. It isn’t about racial supremacy, but about acknowledging the importance of decolonization.
I think we’re having a communication issue, where I’m trying to explain how you’re coming off, and you’re trying to explain how you’re right. Being correct doesn’t mean that you presented that correctness in a way that honors your truth, and can have the opposite effect of what you want. I don’t even disagree with what your overall point is, but the way you’ve been wording things until this last comment hasn’t been doing your overall point justice.
If I’ve been misunderstood, then it’s important to clarify further.
If you’ve been misunderstood, it’s important to know why you’ve been misunderstood, and that involves listening more, not talking more.
Most people seem to have understood me, and for those who haven’t, I’ve clarified. I am listening, but also responding.