I do somewhat agree with the logic though, that the primary contradiction is colonizer vs. colonized, imperial nations vs. occupied nations, and that the proletariat in the imperial core has been thoroughly indoctrinated with bourgeois propaganda and roped into bourgeois financial assets (someone on here once told me that 40% of workers in the USA have a 401K which is technically an indirect form of owning means of production in the form of stocks). I think it gets somewhat overstated. Like the idea that white people can't be proles despite their relationship to the means of production seems a bit excessive. Like exactly the type of narrative I would promote if I wanted to divide the proletariat in the imperial core on racial lines, and breed a lot of bitterness and bigotry between people.
40% of workers in the USA have a 401K which is technically an indirect form of owning means of production in the form of stocks
That may be true but they don't own 40% of stocks, they own an incredibly small percentage of the total market cap. Capitalists are more than happy to let the workers own like 1% of the company so they have zero control but the capitalists get to act like they're doing workers some big favor
That may be true but they don’t own 40% of stocks, they own an incredibly small percentage of the total market cap.
But they don't see it as market share. They see it as a benchmark until retirement.
When the market tanks and their 401ks fall, they see that as years off their life. When it rises to the point that retirement is feasible, they become that much more untethered from their working peers, as their interests align with the bourgeoisie.
The volume of accrued wealth is less important than the association with the property owning class
the primary contradiction is colonizer vs. colonized, imperial nations vs. occupied nations
where does that leave Europe though which has nations that have imperial hold but locally don't have any people that were displaced America and Israel are settler nations but France isn't
yes they were colonised and France did brutal things there but the French don't live their now while Americans displaced the natives and now live where they used to. Which is a limitation of the term settlers as the French by and large didn't settle the lands they took beyond soldiers and administrators most of whom considered their true homes to be in France and returned there once they were done leaving another Frenchman behind to live where they used to
i misread this thread originally, you are bringing needed clarity to the distinction of settler colonization v colonialism as a form of imperialism, thank you comrade :heart-sickle:
but they did slightly different brutal things than the Americans and for different reasons and the description of what the Americans did therefore doesn't apply.
I get what you mean, but I don't think the difference is slight. Like, Algeria is fucked up by the French. Billions in wealth stolen, millions killed, culture destroyed, even today French is still a main language.
But that's no where near the degree to what happened in NA. Indigenous language barely exist, indigenous "sovereignty" is completely controlled thru the colonizers, and (obviously) most of the people in NA aren't indigenous whereas most folks in Algeria are Algerian
More importantly, it creates a different relationship to imperialism today (hence neocolonial versus settler colonial)
the settler nature of france's colonialism was for the large part resolved with independence in the post war period. just because economic exploitation continued through neo-colonial mechanisms doesn't mean that the french remained settlers.
Piggybacking on what star_wraith said, the purpose of a 401k is financial security, and it doesn’t give people who have them any meaningful control over companies or the economy. Putting people with 401ks in the same category as the wealthy capitalists who own and control large businesses is completely absurd imo.
I think it depends on what the alternative would be. How many people would prefer a guaranteed retirement instead of having it depend on the whims of the stock market? Quite a few, I’d imagine.
Wretched of the Earth by Fanon & The Darker Nations by Prashad are both good.
I've heard it said that Sakai isn't even a real person because there's no pictures of him and his books were distributed by liberal think tanks to black prisoners but that sounds like some tinfoil shit.
I do somewhat agree with the logic though, that the primary contradiction is colonizer vs. colonized, imperial nations vs. occupied nations, and that the proletariat in the imperial core has been thoroughly indoctrinated with bourgeois propaganda and roped into bourgeois financial assets (someone on here once told me that 40% of workers in the USA have a 401K which is technically an indirect form of owning means of production in the form of stocks). I think it gets somewhat overstated. Like the idea that white people can't be proles despite their relationship to the means of production seems a bit excessive. Like exactly the type of narrative I would promote if I wanted to divide the proletariat in the imperial core on racial lines, and breed a lot of bitterness and bigotry between people.
That may be true but they don't own 40% of stocks, they own an incredibly small percentage of the total market cap. Capitalists are more than happy to let the workers own like 1% of the company so they have zero control but the capitalists get to act like they're doing workers some big favor
that's what I said when it was brought up too.
But they don't see it as market share. They see it as a benchmark until retirement.
When the market tanks and their 401ks fall, they see that as years off their life. When it rises to the point that retirement is feasible, they become that much more untethered from their working peers, as their interests align with the bourgeoisie.
The volume of accrued wealth is less important than the association with the property owning class
where does that leave Europe though which has nations that have imperial hold but locally don't have any people that were displaced America and Israel are settler nations but France isn't
or nations like China which are liberated
Morroco, Algeria, Tunisia, Niger, Chad, Central African Republic, Mauritania, Mali, Senegal, Guinea, Cote D'ivoire, Burkina Faso, Benin, Madagascar, Gabon, Cameroon and others would disagree.
yes they were colonised and France did brutal things there but the French don't live their now while Americans displaced the natives and now live where they used to. Which is a limitation of the term settlers as the French by and large didn't settle the lands they took beyond soldiers and administrators most of whom considered their true homes to be in France and returned there once they were done leaving another Frenchman behind to live where they used to
i misread this thread originally, you are bringing needed clarity to the distinction of settler colonization v colonialism as a form of imperialism, thank you comrade :heart-sickle:
:brow: but?
deleted by creator
that's fair. i have no objections to that distinction
but they did slightly different brutal things than the Americans and for different reasons and the description of what the Americans did therefore doesn't apply.
I get what you mean, but I don't think the difference is slight. Like, Algeria is fucked up by the French. Billions in wealth stolen, millions killed, culture destroyed, even today French is still a main language.
But that's no where near the degree to what happened in NA. Indigenous language barely exist, indigenous "sovereignty" is completely controlled thru the colonizers, and (obviously) most of the people in NA aren't indigenous whereas most folks in Algeria are Algerian
More importantly, it creates a different relationship to imperialism today (hence neocolonial versus settler colonial)
deleted by creator
the settler nature of france's colonialism was for the large part resolved with independence in the post war period. just because economic exploitation continued through neo-colonial mechanisms doesn't mean that the french remained settlers.
Piggybacking on what star_wraith said, the purpose of a 401k is financial security, and it doesn’t give people who have them any meaningful control over companies or the economy. Putting people with 401ks in the same category as the wealthy capitalists who own and control large businesses is completely absurd imo.
It does however, further weld the self interest of the worker to the growth of the market, in real terms and symbolically.
I think it depends on what the alternative would be. How many people would prefer a guaranteed retirement instead of having it depend on the whims of the stock market? Quite a few, I’d imagine.
It's less about the end alternative than the effect the actions required to move toward that promised alternative have on what you already have.