you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 10 months ago (48 children)

You are off your rocker if you think whatever comes next will be indigenous led lol. Not that I would be opposed to it. The scary thing is though, what does come next? If it's socialism great, but what if it's fascism

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 48 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 10 months ago (47 children)

    It's important to recognize that the primary contradiction within the US Empire is settler-colonialism. The ones most oppressed by the current society are generally the ones most quickly adaptive to theory and practice, and this isn't because oppressed people are "morally superior" but out of sheer survival. It's also why there are so many queer communists. Without combatting settler-colonialism, anything that takes the place of the US Empire will fundamentally replicate that and would be closer to barbarism.

    The US Empire is already fascist, fascism isn't a separate mode of production but instead capitalism in decay.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 47 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 10 months ago (10 children)

    Well, I wouldn't really say it's fascist quite yet (maybe I'm ignorant) but it's well on the way. My point is it could get a lot worse before it gets better

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    Both your political parties regularly vote to continue funding ICE, DHS and the NSA. Even as recently as a few days ago. They are both pro-militarisation of the police. They both support the prison industrial complex. They both support US actions in Venezuela. And the fact you can't make political protests in the US without the risk of being shot or imprisoned nowadays should tell you that you are already living in a fascist state. It's a fantasy to think that, even if the Dems somehow get this administration out of office, they will fundamentally change any of those things. At least now the mask is off and you know what you are up against. The problem with libs is that they think everything would be a-ok so long as their fascist was in charge.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 10 months ago* (4 children)

    There are some abominable democrats, but there are some good ones too. Your statements are simply not true for a solid portion of democrats. It is a fantasy to think things would be much better if the Dems get this admin out though, I agree. And to get anything done there is pandering required with the other leading party, which I think stops the Democrats from becoming as leftist as many would want to. So yeah, progress is hard. It seems to me that the political perspective of Americans across the board needs to shift left before much change can be had, so that the Democrats are true leftists and the Republicans are less far right

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 10 months ago

    There are some abominable democrats, but there are some good ones too.

    I totally agree that's true. Most Dems on lemmy are far to the left of their own party on most issues. But unfortunately, the party leadership is way to the right on most issues, and they are the ones in positions of power and influence.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    It seems to me that the political perspective of Americans across the board needs to shift left before much change can be had, so that the Democrats are true leftists and the Republicans are less far right

    This isn't how it actually works, though. The Dems and Reps aren't very representative of the Statesian public, but instead its capitalists. The US is a capitalist state, it's a dictatorship of capital, and both allowed parties represent capital only. This is shown by the low voting rates in the US Empire, the DNC and GOP cannot move left, only working class orgs can represent the working class.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

    No they aren't you are right. But Dem and rep interests have changed significantly over their existence, so it's not like their platform changing is totally impossible. Also, there are plenty more than one allowed party, they don't normally get much traction though. Is it not natural in a system that allows multiple parties, for the voter base to generally fall into a few large groups?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 10 months ago

    The ones the DNC and GOP serve haven't changed, capital's interests have morphed depending on varying domesting and international situations. As for allowing multiple parties, on paper that's true, but not in practice. See the ways they fuck with PSL ballot access, such as in Georgia in 2024. Finally, the idea that voters fall into 2 large groups is a consequence of capitalism being divided into 2 dominant classes, proletarians and capitalists, but only having the parties represent the capitalists. It's political theater, not representation.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    It's been fascist for decades. Fascism doesn't become official only when it happens to white people almost as much as the rest of us.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 10 months ago* (1 child)

    One of the key characteristics of fascism is autocracy. You could argue that applies today but certainly not for decades. Regardless of if, from your perspective, neither party aligns with your goals and are far right by that standard, they are still working against each other.

    Answer this because I'm curious of your perspective. Is Russia fascist, and if not why not? From what I have been exposed to (which certainly is biased admittedly) Russia is at least as far on the fascism scale as the US, they have a lot of similarities in my mind, but nobody on here will say that, but then turn around and label the US fascist.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago

    If you think it wasn't fascist over a century at least and point at anything "politics" then I am pointing at your finger.

    That's a circus; a show.

    Look at the Banks. That's politics. Watch it stringing the hands of workers a families. Sure their politics are in an Arch of characterization oration but they're not even trying to force make anyone do anything.

    Look at the Money. They're puppetstrings fluxxing like Marty never fixed the Cubs mistake when it turned out that whole shenanigan was done like an inbelievably candid rigged card game, so named and trapped all attention from seeing the hot ounce balloon inflated for show. Pop the bubble. It was made to be see happening so we not get the trick dropped in 'Nam and settle for watching this cheeky shown name deflating like a doll.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -8 points 10 months ago (35 children)

    "native Americans are more likely to like communism" isn't exactly a solid foundation for establishing "an indigenous led, decolonial socialist state [that] takes the place of the former US Empire,"

    It is highly unlikely that if the us government collapses everyone's going to be like "whelp let's let the communist indigenous people lead may as well, even though they don't have the numbers, arms, food or production to run anything"

    Sure in an idealistic sense it would be cool to go full Ferngully/dances with wolves/Avatar/noble savage cliche but if we're going to dream that big I'd like an infinite pizza shooting unicorn.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 35 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 10 months ago (34 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 34 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 10 months ago (33 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 33 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (32 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 32 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 10 months ago (31 children)

    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".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 31 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (30 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 30 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 10 months ago (29 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 29 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (28 children)

    If I've been misunderstood, then it's important to clarify further.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 28 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (26 children)

    Most people seem to have understood me, and for those who haven't, I've clarified. I am listening, but also responding.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (24 children)

    I don't really like the condescension in your tone, it leads me to believe your advice wouldn't be very helpful in making people feel heard.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] -1 points 10 months ago (22 children)

    I think it's fair to say that explaining my views more thoroughly when it's clear that they've been misunderstood is important. Further, the original commenter misunderstood the post, thinking it accelerationist, which I tried to explain why it isn't. None of that was me being condescending.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 10 months ago (21 children)

    You don't get to tell others how they feel about things, that's very invalidating.

    If you weren't intending on being condescending but to others you seem condescending, that's a problem to fix on your end, right?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (20 children)

    Based on voting totals though, it seems most people understood me. I'm not telling anyone how to feel, and for the minority that misunderstood me, further elaboration helps clear it up. I'm not sure what you're trying to add to that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 10 months ago (19 children)

    I'm trying to get you to understand that you've been coming off like a dick and trying to help you not come off like a dick, because I believe in what you're trying to do, and coming off as a dick is hurting the cause of things we both want in this world.

    Telling people that you aren't coming off as a dick (i.e. condescending) is saying their feelings aren't valid and is being a dick. So yeah, you were telling people how to feel. "Well I wasn't trying to be a dick so you shouldn't feel like I was being a dick" isn't a great for you, me, or our mutual cause.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (18 children)

    I appreciate your intent, but I don't see the problem you're seeing. I'm not being condescendng by saying so, I just fundamentally don't see the problems with what I'm saying from an optics perspective that you claim to see.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 10 months ago (17 children)

    That's why I'm pretty sure you have been more invested in talking than listening, because I've been trying to get you to see the problem for days now my man.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (16 children)

    I understand, but the fact that I don't see it doesn't mean that I haven't been listening.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 10 months ago (15 children)

    You are terrible at showing that you've been listening.

    Look man your heart is in the right place but your approach is very academic and comes off as patronizing, it might be time to talk to people irl about noon political stuff, might help when talking to people outside of the usual socialist social circle.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (14 children)

    See, I do talk to people IRL (both about politics and non-political things) and you're being patronizing by insinuating that I don't. This is why I don't really see why you'd be helpful for me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 10 months ago (13 children)

    I was genuinely saying that not to be an insult, you just come off as the guy who just talks down to people using jargon, and figured talking to people outside of where that might be more of a norm would help. I apologize.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (12 children)

    Apology accepted. I understand that that's what you percieve about me, but that just generally isn't a common thing for when people talk to me. I don't get that frequently, and I talk to a lot of people, online and offline. That's why I don't see it as a broader issue, but a smaller and particular one, which is why I focused on further explaining myself.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 10 months ago (11 children)

    I think that even if you're talking to a lot of people, given our interaction, it's a blind spot for you. People may just give up and not talk to you when you are being condescending or just not day anything because they want to be polite. It's a little presumptuous to say "well most of the time it isn't a problem but since it's only come up once or twice I don't have to respect these people to acknowledge what they are saying and can just double down on educating them."

    Maybe then people won't assume you're being low-key racist and call you out on it like I did.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (10 children)

    I can acknowledge that you personally feel this way, but I don't see it as a broader phenomenon because I don't run into this problem. I was never being racist either.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 9 months ago (9 children)

    If you don't get how you came off as racist then you clearly didn't care to listen to what I said earlier.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (8 children)

    I listened, I just don't agree.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 9 months ago (7 children)

    Wow, you sound like someone refusing to apologize for a rape joke right now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (6 children)

    I never made anything close to a joke about SA or any racist statements, though, and you sound like someone trying to discredit a point by wielding this accusation like a club just because I don't agree with you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    I didn't say that you said anything about rape. Damn you really don't care about what other people say do you... If you cared you'd actually read stuff and try to understand it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    You compared me to someone refusing to apologize for a joke about SA, which I said I never made anything close to that. I didn't say you said I made one. I really don't think I should listen to what you have to say if you don't actually care to read and understand what I say.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -2 points 9 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (3 children)

    Like, you come on in here saying that maybe Americans should lead a communist revolution, because they all think the same,

    Never once said this.

    even though that’s like, a lot of different cultures and everything, and when someone points out that’s kinda racist, your response was to explain communism harder and say that it wasn’t racist because you decided it wasn’t.

    I never said that there weren't a lot of cultures, my point was that those oppressed by present conditions most readily grasp the necessity of resisting them.

    And I’ve tried multiple angles for days to see if you at any point would go “yeah that was a little fucked up of me” or even the minimum of “I could see how someone could see that”, and instead you humblebrag about how “no one else has had a problem with it with my many many friends”, and double down again.

    You completely invented a point I never made, accused me of racism for said point, and then tried to tell me to apologize for the point you invented. No, I am not apologizing for something I never said.

    So I’m pretty sure that wraps up this saga. I can’t get you to admit you did anything wrong because you think you’re perfect

    Nope, I know I'm not perfect. I do know that one person inventing a point doesn't mean I need to apologize for said invented point.

    Knowing your type, you’ll probably insist of having the last word anyway, try to pull off that W in the Internet debate box, but I’m not above that either and maybe you’ll surprise me and end this charade.

    I'm not going to stand for libel, you're perfectly capable of admitting that you invented a point I never made. Asking me to apologize for a point you invented is absurd.

    We aren't coming to a deeper understanding together, you're insistent that if I don't agree with you that I'm in the wrong. I understand that people can misunderstand or misinterpret my point, and I clarified that I think it's best to further explain points that are misinterpreted. You took deep offense to that and proceeded to have this back and forth for days with nothing constructive coming from it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -1 points 9 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Be bigger than that. You don't need to make up what I said, you're more than capable of answering points I made directly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -1 points 9 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    I don't make assumptions based on race, though, and your insistence that I do is plain libel. You completely misunderstood my point, and no matter how much I further elaborate on it, you try to flip it into being my problem when you invented a strawman to argue against.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -1 points 9 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago

    I already explained how you made assumptions based on race. You did it twice. You said that you think native Americans would be more in favor of socialist ideologies. That’s making an assumption based on race, cut and dry, plain and simple, period, end of sentence.

    I never made that argument, nor was my argument based on ethnicity. I said oppressed people, colonized people, are more willing to resist the system that oppresses them. There's nothing biological or race-based about that, except in that the US Empire is a settler-colony on stolen land. To deny that is to make a racist statement, akin to saying the US doesn't have racist systems.

    It’s the added level of ignorance to lump in all native Americans as one collective when they are multiple different cultures.

    I never once did this, again, more of you making up strawmen to fight. All of the various first nations are currently colonized by the US Empire, please speak with anyone from any of these cultures.

    You really didn’t read anything, did you? Just waiting to get that last word on so you feel like you’re right.

    I understood perfectly, you keep digging deeper. It's not about me feeling right, it's about libel.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)