Anti-colonial Marxism is as good as a country breakfast.

  • 0 Posts
Joined một năm trước
Cake day: Thg 03 23, 2022


There is probably not a universal equation. I think generally extrajudicial killings are immoral in a way that is different from state sanctioned killings, although no state execution is necessarily moral.

If your state is run by a death cult it may be that legal and “legitimate” executions are done out of classist, racist, imperialist intentions. It is probably not controversial to say, without nuance, none of these can be moral.

Extrajudicial killings can delegitimize the state because theoretically it should be able to either execute legally, create a legal means, or, if such laws exist, be able to enforce the law forbidding executions/murder. If a state is oppressing the capitalist class via executions, it must do so openly and legally. If a state is opting to not deal out executions, it should find means of legal force. Otherwise, it proves itself untrustworthy, or unable to carry out its mandate.

I suppose there could be exceptions to this where the state needs plausible deniability among the (imperialist) international community. It’s hard to imagine something legal not being at least somewhat public, but maybe it could be done legally and secretly. I think resorting to this is ultimately a dangerous path to go down. Nobody needs a purge to get out of hand, it helps no one.

In the early 19th century, the Cherokee outlawed any sale of land by Cherokee people to the US under penalty of death. However, the state would not directly carry out executions. Instead, the state revoked any and all protections from the perpetrator, meaning any and all of the perpetrators’ compatriots were basically allowed to kill them at any point, essentially booting them from the nation and the states jurisdiction.

In this case we have sanctioned killings that are not carried out by legally designated, professional court authorities but rather anyone that is willing and able. The state is more nebulous in this situation. It is still the “state” in a very broad sense that is executing them because it is enabling anyone to do it for them which differs from Anglo/Western legalisms. But it is not like the court sentences anyone to die on a certain date and then enforces it to be done by a sanctioned official. There are not really any police to hunt down perpetrators, only community members to jump them. These indirect executions killings, where anyone can kill you if the state wills it, are probably more moral than an unsanctioned murder done by a state agent because the victim is legally ignored by the state in the popular interests of survival and maintains its legitimacy.

During this period the state of Georgia sought to undermine the Cherokee Republic by outlawing Cherokee laws, among other things, in an effort to make their lives as miserable as possible so they would agree to sell their land and leave. So here is an example of perhaps needing to take care of things inconspicuously, with some plausible deniability to perhaps confuse the settler states. In this case, if the Cherokee did something reasonably extrajudicial as a means of carrying out the spirit of the law designed to ensure survival, it would not necessarily be immoral, because there are unique circumstances.

Land is a means of production, which is by definition owned by bourgeoisie. Israeli workers dont own any land, thats why they are workers.

If workers aquire land through colonial means they could change classes into the bourgeoisie, petty bourgeoisie, or a kind of yeoman. In two of these cases they may very well not be huate bourgeoisie but overall I think your point here stands. Land acquisition can alter class character. As im sure you are aware, this is part of why settlers are not proletarian.

Their higher living standard is only because israeli bourgeoisie chose to give them value extracted from palestinian workers, as a way to bribe them into supporting colonialism and genocide, they are the labor aristocracy.

Maybe im being nitpicky here, but I contest the idea that this is a mere choice of the bourgeoisie. I’d say its closer to a natural law of capital. If the bourgeoisie failed to make this choice, the may well lose leverage over the colonized and laboring masses, and thus lose their class position. Labor aristocracy is a fundamental part of imperialism, not a mere decision to add icing to the cake or some unique mass bribe scheme. Its a major organ that keeps imperialism alive.

Once surplus value from colonized palestinians isnt enough to sustain israeli capitalism, they will start extracting value from israeli workers too, thus getting them out of the labor aristocracy.

This is simply false. If they cant get surplus from Palestine, they will get it from Syria or Lebanon. Or Bangladesh, India, Indonesia etc etc. Or, they just evict more Palestinians. This idea that immediately the huate bourgeoisie would liquidate their occupation force IMO demonstrates a lack of understanding how these classes form and function together. Furthermore, there would have to be surplus value to extract. There would have to be a monumental reshaping of the global economy in order to facilitate exploitation of the current labor aristocracy to make up for even a fraction of the falling rate of profit. It needs, again, to be emphasized that a drop in quality of life for the labor aristocracy (especially as the actual global proletariat largely is also experiencing lowered quality of life) has little consequence toward changing its class character. Its like if some bourgeoisie lad lost 3 out of 80 employees and people decided this was a fundamental shift in their class character.

The bribing of the labor aristocracy is only in their interests SHORT term, due to the falling rate of profit as explained above. Thus, all workers have the same interests LONG term, both colonized and colonizer, the socialist revolution and establishment of DotP.

I disagree fundamentally with your notions of the labor aristocracy having the same interests as any other worker, especially explicitly colonized workers. Lenin himself was clear that rich countries would have to be ready and willing to endure a major downturn in quality of life in the wake of revolution because it would have to put an end to imperial spoils. The labor aristocracy’s interests are maintaining its quality of life, especially in comparison to the world’s working masses. Sakai also closes Settlers with an entire chapter on Strategic vs Tactical interests that is extremely relevant to this and I recommend you read it, as it states why colonized people have different strategic interests from settlers, but occasionally have similar tactical interests.

The labor aristocracys selfish proimperialist interests can only last a certain time due to falling rate of profit, and is thus only a SHORT term interest, with the LONG term interest being socialism.

I might again be simply nitpicking, but it is not mere selfishness anymore than the bourgeoisie’s enforcement of capitalism is mere greed. There certainly are dialectics at play that create moments of qualitative change, and certainly pressure will be put on the labor aristocracy before it is directly put onto the huate bourgeoisie, but this doesn’t make a compelling case that socialism will come about from these specific pressures and contradictions. Socialism is the result of a process of history that unfolds from contradictions embodied in the global proletariat, not the petite bourgeoisie, the global house slaves (to be crass), or the yeoman settlers of settler colonial empires.

Also im not sure how you can really say its actually short term. Wage earners, yeoman, and bourgeoisie settlers alike have held land stolen from Indigenous people for generations, passing it down to their children or selling it to other settlers while Indigenous people are held in open air prisons. Beyond that, capitalism can reset itself through imperialist wars that the labor aristocracy and settlers have routinely supported.

This is my point, basic marxism leninism.

Maybe a bit too basic tho?

Inb4 “actually this is good because Stalin blah blah most workers arent wOkE etc etc”

if the israelli workers are getting anything from the colonization of palestine, they will not after the colonisation is complete

The colonization of these settler colonies you are talking about has never been completed. To assert so is erasure of Indigenous people. Furthermore, when colonial spoils slow down there certainly is qualitative change, but to say that because there is no Homestead Act of 2023 on the horizon spells the end of colonial spoils is being willfully ignorant of how colonialism and imperialism function. Hell, Israel is occupying more than just Palestine even right now and the US extracts rent from practically every human civilization. Capitalism isnt sustainabile, but that doesn’t mean it can find new places to supee exploit, or it cant drum up a new round of violence directed toward the colonized.

Just like nowadays on capitalistic post colonies, like the US, Canadá, Brasil, and other examples of capitalistic ex colonies, the worker classes are still being explored even when they are the “settler” because they dont own no means of production, the stolen land?

Exploitation does not simply purify counter revolutionary tendencies that exist within a portion of the working class due to there better global class position. Also comparing the Canadian and US working class to Brazil is disingenuous if not laughable. Also, a declining state doesn’t always signify exploitation either. Workers in the global north are basically not exploited of their surplus value in any way comparable to the global south.

it does not take a genious to see that the burgeoise giving stolen land to israellis is just burgeoise apeasing

You say it’s merely appeasement as if workers are being drugged into some kind of colonial stupor. I say it fundamentally impacts their position in a global class system.

Lmao land is a means of production. Someone’s social relationship to land can massively impact their class character. How is gaining land something people want only if the bourgeoisie “misguides” them? Seems idealist. Gaining land is in anyone’s material interests.

I didn’t realize systems theory was that new although it does seem like a truly ripe field for graduate studies. Maybe i am just ignorant. Im in global studies and im totally jealous.

Its bad enough dealing with peers and professors at a normal institution. But the military academy? Are your options really that limited? What on earth is there to gain at west point that is unavailable elsewhere besides the craven aspirations of future weapons contractors?

Also people have this “grandfather” view of the military that somehow the military is a rational, masculine, institution that is as close to being in touch with reality as possible and therefor military academies are these rigid and prestigious institutions that can prepare anyone for anything. This is a myth. It is a scam for valor fabricators to create upward mobility for people with connections to the ruling classes.

Every university is ultimately guilty and in many ways part of going to school is getting a feel for the corruption, complicity, and cynacism present in these institutions, not to mention all the things you dont talk about in class ect etc. But Idk why you would subject yourself to west point of all places.

Demoralizing the decision does not necessitate taking the “opportunity”

ML, but really im just a dirty thrid worldist

I simply cant watch Its Always Sunny in Philadelphia for this reason. It just stresses me out. I tried to watch it because its so beloved but I just cant. I have zero appreciation for it.

Im not sure what effect it has on people tho.