As you have all noticed, this seems to be a point of contention here. This is a good thing, since it means someone will learn something.
Now we seem to be all over the place, with this general area of thought, provoking many questions. Whether or not PatSocs are socially conservative, what is position on social conservatism? Many of us are very young, both in age and ML experience, so an online discussion would be a great learning tool.
- Are socially conservative individuals allowed to be apart of the leftist movement?
- A. Are socially conservative individuals victims of bourgeois propaganda?
-B. If socially conservative people are turned away by the left, where do they go?
-C. How high of a position would a social conservative be allowed in a ML party?
-D. How has or will MLs educate socially conservative folk?
-E. &tc, &tc.
- What exactly is Patriotism?
-A. Does patriotism depend on culture?
-B Is possible for a distinction between patriotism for a country and wanting to abolish the state?
-C. Is patriotism corrupted in the Core?
-D How have post imperialist countries with Communist experiments built patriotism?
-E. &Tc &TC
- Who even are the PatSocs?
-A. If the label is too convuluted, should we make a distinction between Maupin and American exceptionalists?
-B. Who of the leaders do we consider MLs?
-C. Should patriotic socialist be distinct from socialism or is inherent in socialism?
-D. How much do WE even know if PatSocs?
-E. &Tc, &tc
We can look at the USSR and GDR for these questions. Remember the Hammer and Sickel came from somewhere.
Things to look out for about the US:
-It is the imperialist power, AND a settler state.
-Low levels of cultural development
-The culture that is there is taken from marginalized groups.
-Americas are the most propagandized people in the World.
-It is huge and incredibly diverse
More questions about the US could follow:
-Should the US be balkanized? If so how does patriotism be built in balkanized regions?
-How does land back go about? Will indigenous countries emerge, and if so should we reconsider American MLs as different MLs for the Regions in North America.
-If we see different nations and regions in North America how does that affect culture? Is the question of how we view the land a prerequisite to discussing patriotism, is it contradictory to call yourself an American Patriot if you decide to divide up the land until regions?
There is so much potential for deep political for North American based Comrades, this is a rabbit hole I do want to delve into. I'll cross post this to GZD but I want it mainly on Leftist Infighting.
Edit: spacing issues
Okay this helpful but I have a few more questions.
So I agree, that non indigenous people are part of the settler state and thus are considered settlers, but why are they (specifically white people) considered non revolutionary? (I mean we are both considered settlers, yet we are communists)
Is it not in the best interests of both to dismantle the Empire? Is that labour aristocracy exists? Cause I don't think that is strong as it is anymore and especially with inflation, it seems to be reaching a screeching halt.
Isn't it more that the state itself funnels, or least tries to, white people into petty bourgeois positions to separate the working class, instead of every single white person being of petty bourgeoisie class? Because it feels pretty Un Marxist to say blue collar, trailer park types aren't proletarian, but maybe that's what you were getting at and I misconstrued. But even then, arent petty bourgeois intrests with the proletariat?
Now sorta related, but should MLs in North America, especially the US, support every single secession movement or only specific ones? Should we support Texas seceding because it will be less colonized, and will weaken the Empire, plus might get the ball rolling other "states"?
Again, no malice just questions.
Tuck and Yang are pessimistic about the revolutionary potential of settlers because their interests are incommensurable with the interests of the oppressed indigenous people. That is, from an analysis of the interests of settlers, we can see that while settlers have an interest in dismantling the empire, that interest comes from the analysis exposed by Marx - that bourgeois society threatens the ability of society to reproduce us itself sustainably. The problem here is that from the interests of indigenous people, their interest is in settler society not reproducing itself at all. These interests are materially in opposition, they are contradictory, and therefore, the liberation of the indigenous people cannot be born from the interests of settlers. We must work against the interests of settlers, and that means, ultimately, repressing them, because they will react to things that threaten their interests. Hence, they are reactionary and not revolutionary.
I believe the analysis is pointing to the idea that those who support developing a sustainable society must support the weakening of the US empire and the strengthening of indigenous sovereignty even when doing so undermines the revolutionary potential of white settler society.