This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.
Serious posts can be posted here and/or in /c/GenZhou.
We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space. See this thread for more information.
Rules:
(Thread here: https://nitter.fdn.fr/RodericDay/status/1666063389733298176#m) They have some decent stuff, but they are also tailist patsocs. It’s probably better to just read the Black Agenda Report article than buy the book.
Nobody is perfect
True, that’s why I think the six downvotes are funny. I imagine them saying “no, MWM is perfect!”
On another note, Roderick Day is an excellent writer and theorist and has tons of great pieces on red sails
This is news to you? Midwestern have always been patsocs, and Liger even recommended Maupin's book as well as admitting to doing a collab with InfraHaz.
the 3 ppl who downvoted me are patsocs :p
Looks like you shamed one of them successfully lol
Tbf as others have said, they’re mostly crypto-patsocs. I’ve primarily seen the good takes on China and Venezuela and assumed they’re alright. When I watched the purity fetish interview there were some dog whistles, but I brushed them off. Only recently was I told of the “in defense of patriotism” article (from Marx madness), and I only happened upon this thread because I finally found Zikato’s Twitter.
That whole thread by Roderic is great and really digs into the problems with midwesternmarx and this book.
They've been flirting with patsocs for a while, but it looks like when pressed about it now they are doubling down. Recently they had some friendly interactions with Haz even.
Nick from RBN invited Eddie and Haz on after Eddie debated Vaush. Nick b talking to LaRouchites on his show so at this point I'm not surprised. These guys are all grifters.
I don't know about the other two but I wouldn't call Nick a grifter
He's a journalist/podcaster that relies on audience donations to stay in business. He may not be a grifter in intentions but he relies on grifters to grow his platform. He's ultimately a tailist, but what's the qualitative difference between a tailist and a grifter?
Yes this article seems to summarize the Midwestern Marx group's schtik.
Tactically for the movement as a whole it is good to have Americans be more anti imperialist and unionizing in order to undermine the power of empire and funnel people to a more marxist lenninist way of thinking. I don't think they want the disaster of unions for whites.
MWM doesn't say much about marginalized people other than say that they are not revolutionary subjects for their minority status, but by their status as workers. They are very much in favor of AES countries. There is the linguistic criticism that Americans can be proud of the historical workers struggles without opposing their American identity. It seems that it is a linguistic strategy to not trigger barriers to conversion.
Is the criticism that they post very long winded stuff and still don't mention how the secondary contradictions of ablism, anti LGBTQ, and white supremecy are superstructural elements that support the base of capitalism?
From an ideological funnel perspective I don't think that they are bad, but useful to the socialist cause. If there were an actual party with power and they were doing what they are doing now, I'd say that they serve the forces of reaction because their kind of discourse isn't necessary when a communist party with effective power exists. In that situation that party would need to push against our old superstructure even further with a cultural revolution.
For those that can be radicalized with compassion, use one kind of rhetoric. For those that can be radicalized with self interest use another. The core of the party must though be those that are compassionate either initially or eventually.
It is sus platforming Haz or Maupin though.
Unless you are a third worldist that thinks that the USA needs to be militarily destroyed by the periphery nations, I don't think they are inherently opposed to the building of the socialist movement in the United States. Tell me where I am wrong.
The US will be destroyed by the fourth worlders. I've posted elsewhere in this thread why American Communists absolutely need to be decolonial revolutionaries. MWM meeting white supremacists halfway leads them away from the decolonial movement, let's them keep their reactionary views, and puts them into opposition to our liberation. Instead of platforming indigenous and Black revolutionary voices they party with white supremacists like Haz and Hinkle.
Supporting indigenous people's liberation is certainly morally correct. The way about linguistically supporting it must appeal to the interests of the people you are trying to convince though. We can talk about how we can use indigenous knowledge to have a healthier relationship with the land and live happier and healthier lives. We can utilize the treaties as a means to an end to give rental properties on their land back to the tribes as a means to undo the exploititative rent of corporations like black rock.
What does being "destroyed by fourth worlders" mean exactly? They are locked out of power to destroy the country without help from colonizers thus proclaiming such a strategy is immaterial.
If we see all workers as workers regardless of background and organize in such a manner, but listen to the marginalized about the ways that the capitalist superstructure is perpetuated within our new organizations in order to take actions to meet their needs.
Who they platform is sus though.
I think the core issue is that the working class in the USA is having trouble conceptualizing how to actually achieve power.
The thing is that the majority of the working class in the US and the white sections of the working class in particular simply aren't revolutionary classes due to their material conditions. They all benefit from imperialist superprofits from abroad (not just by higher wages but also by cheap goods, commodities, services, and things like entertainment, etc.) and the whites also benefit from the greater exploitation and oppression of minorities within the US. Not all workers in the US are the same, some are much more oppressed than others. These are key points to analyze when considering the revolutionary potential in any country.
You can see examples in the US historically of large sections of white workers being opposed to or at best indifferent towards indigenous or black revolutionary liberation movements. These examples exist because of the material conditions causing differences in interests between these groups. The white settler population will not give up its position without significant pressure both internal and external. Not necessarily military defeat (although that's a likely road due to current imperialist politics) but certainly economically by breaking enough of the chains of imperialism externally (by the third world liberating itself) causing more exploitation internally which will push larger sections of the population to revolutionary action the first among which will again be the minorities.
MWM (Eddie) and Rainer Shea are crypto patsocs. They don't believe in Land Back and Black Liberation, they believe Settler Colonialism in the US is over and thus the decolonial movement doesn't apply.
They are dogmatists who refuse to do any historical research of North America, and are class reductionists (who ignore that racism and colonialism are class systems in the first place).
I've noticed a few times that decolonial points get brought up, specifically in relation to US settlers today, the comments expressing these ideas tend to get quite a few downvotes without anyone really offering a substantive critique. I find it a bit worrying but I don't know if it's some external brigading or if some of the users here hold these views.
In any case, like you said, the US is very much still a white-supremacist settler state. There is a very real material basis leading to differences in interests between racial groups in the US. This kind of divide makes it very difficult if not impossible to rely on a predominantly white working class to be a revolutionary force. There's a reason that most of the theoretical development and all the revolutionary movements in the US have been led by minorities and the conditions to change that aren't there yet. Not even close.
spoiler
Like confused men they don't understand that the system of oppression can hurt them while still overwhelmingly benefit them
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.
A decolonial vanguard government cannot be ruled by the colonizer class, end of. White supremacy needs to be destroyed in its political-economic form, landed property, and the developing white proletariat needs to shed it or it will be consumed by history.
Unity slogan for the colonized masses is asking us to work for our colonizers. America will be destroyed. The Americans will no longer have sovereignty over the land, but they will have use-rights.
I want to point out that the trend of Imperialism being the primary contradiction over Settler Colonialism, so we should form unity around anti-Imperialism, is ignoring the huge flaw that Settler Colonialism is what gives the US the ability to maintain global dominance. The US achieved energy independence and reasserted dollar supremacy under Bush and Obama by massively increasing resource extraction on indigenous and stolen lands. The indigenous nations were at the forefront of trying to stop the expansion in environmental exploitation, DAPL, KXL, etc. Just a few months ago Biden approved a massive project in Alaska on indigenous territory where the people there don't even have running water or electricity, this was just so the US could replace the gulf states' oil output to depress prices enough to harm Russia. (Also want to mention Cop City in Atlanta, where an ancient indigenous forest is being razed to build a mock city for states all over the world to practice occupying urban centers. An indigenous protestor was murdered by police there while trying to block construction.)
This doesn't ignore that Canada and Australia are two more settler colonies that use their own stolen resources to boost the US Empire. If we are to attack the empire from within, doesn't it make more sense to damage its extractive capabilities rather than engage in unity politics to, what amounts to, reforming the Imperialism? Contesting land within the US is far more crippling for the glass cannon that is the US empire.
Yes he's fairly reactionary, very much in the patsoc grift sphere. Basically at the level where I'm very comfortable gatekeeping and saying they are neither Marxist nor communist, just looking for a way to soak up disaffected cishet white Americans who might otherwise properly radicalize. Kind of like certain Tacoma-basrd sexpests, just with a different angle.