why are countries like pretty much all of latin america exempt from the "settler colonial" label when they went through the exact same shit as the united states and canada lol. they fit the category quite literally yet everything those bourgeois nation states do is supported uncritically by the same third worldists calling even even the poorest shithole in europe "settler colonial"
>>2472755Because they're too poor and irrelevant
>>2472773They literally are genocidal settler colonies on the same level as anglo america, in fact, I'd say NZ is less of a settler colony than any latinx shithole
>>2472841There were simply far more natives in South America and Mexico in general than the US and Canada, meaning the Spics simply couldn't exterminate most of the indigenous peoples
In more remote countries tho the spics managed to fully genocide and settler colonize (see the Caribbean where the Taino got exterminated as the prime example), the spics did the same to the berber guanches a few centuries ago, claiming spics weren't as genocidal as anglos is pure carlist idpol
>everything those bourgeois nation states do is supported uncriticallyTrump is apparently declaring war on Venezuela right now, if your critiques aren't about the IMF, fuck you
>they went through the exact same shit>quite literallyzero historical materialism thread, sad!
Greg Grandin wrote a book recently about this (search for other interviews like the embedded)
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/747326/america-america-by-greg-grandin/download:
https://libgen.li/edition.php?id=151207586 >>2473803The iberians were plenty genocidal and exterminated many a people, they dabbled in settler colonialism as well. Their racism was almost unmatched too, inventing whole new caste systems n all that. It's just that most of their states did not develop specifically as settler colonial states. The higher amount of native people also just made that kind of colonialism harder to do
>>2473812Uhh no it's because of what I said
>>2472755Because MLism has devolved into doing hitlerism for third worlders, with red flags instead of red, white, and black flags, brown people instead of white people, poor countries instead of rich ones, and an anti-western volkish culture instead of a medieval fantasy and western futurism oriented volkish culture
In fact, contemporary MLism’s only real connection to historical MLism the ultra-nationalist opportunism aspect
(USER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST) >>2475360Basically, thirdoids aren’t the same, but they came about due to MLs already willing to argue:
1. Nationalism is crucial to establishing socialism
2. Socialism can in fact be defined as a communist party maintaining essentially a capitalist economy (but without capitalists as a class, yes, their functional role can be played without them) with socialism as its future goal (this is nonsensical and the sort of thing Marx criticized when he said socialism isn’t a state of affairs to be established, MLs mangled his understanding so badly they actually twisted it to argue the opposite of what he meant, to mean, basically being the West but politically loyal to socialism as a concept)
3. Peasants are a crucial pillar to socialism (lol what?)
4. The key contradiction in the world is actually that of imperialism (already a backdoor defense of capitalism in two ways, firstly, it distinguishes modern imperialism from capitalism by implication, secondly, it is openly saying the main contradiction is not one of capital and labor and their relative position vis a vis each other, but the relations between competing states in the world market, the presumed “solution” being, equalizing the relative positions of all bourgeois states around the world, which is functionally impossible, pushing the socialist horizon beyond the plausible existence of organized human societies)
5. Communism and socialism are separate things (this is one of the most important moves in redefining socialism to an ideal and communism to a fantastical realm rather than a real movement)
6. Being proletariat is not a position of subjection inherently but can in fact be one of privilege and power (fundamentally misunderstands what a proletarian is)
7. Which then allows the individual to conflate the proletariat as a class, with the communist party and those within it, and then further conflate the communist party and those within it with the state (and if you cannot tell the difference, it’s like how Dem or GOP voters aren’t the Dem or GOP parties, and the Dem and GOP parties aren’t the US government (incumbent), and the US government (incumbent) isn’t the structure that is the American national state)
That’s off the top of my head, excuse the brevity
>>2475364Third Worldism ideologically emerged sometime around "Maoist" becoming a separate identifier from "ML". Lenin himself followed Marx's line, that is, revolution must happen in Europe, but also, anti-colonial movements are progressive, following Marx's observations on the negative effects of British and French colonialism in Ireland, India and Algeria (this is also where "labor aristocracy" first emerged as a concept, to describe the hostility of English workers towards Irish immigrants, and if I remember correctly, Marx pointed that Ireland must free itself of England to stop the chauvinism).
The only link Leninism has with Third Worldism are "Leninist" figures like Michael Parenti playing defense for decaying and revisionist communist regimes, but truthfully, it is questionable how relevant their "Leninism" is, as figures like Noam Chomsky also contributed to the mess of vulgar anti-imperialism, which would culminate in Dugin. One can also trace vulgar anti-imperialism all the way back to Imperial Japan ("Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere").
>>2475384What if the problem is that Lenin was writing in a time when colonial empires actually still existed, while modern MLs need to conflate economic imperialism with colonialism, and then the antagonistic relations between bourgeoisie national states with the specific relations between metropoles and colonies that really could only be broken by nationalist revolutions? Basically, modern MLs are in a holding pattern defending capitalism, arguably I see MLs in the past the exact same way, and their problem is one of a worthless, I’d say even vile sentimentalism. I.e., they have sentimental attachments to societies whose progressive contribution to the world was not at all socialism, which has never existed, bur rather, to the global saturation of the capital system, and bringing each and every country, whether backwards or colonized, into developed capitalism? My deepest critique of MLism is that it is
radically counterrevolutionary, to the point that right now, it’s only functional purpose is to explain why proletarian revolution is impossible, not even why it isn’t happening, but why all hopes rest with the “oppressed” bourgeoisies.
>>2475371Here's how I would define the chronology of Thirds Worldism.
Maoism > Maoism-TWism > Duginism
Standard Maoism is the "seed" of Third Worldism. It is still in principle communist, in line with international solidarity, but breaks away from the notion that revolution must happen in Europe/the developed capitalist world, vulgarizes "labor aristocracy" by treating it as a separate class and thinks of peasants as a revolutionary class.
Maoism-TWism is where the reaction starts. This is the American New Left (J. Sakai and the Maoist International Movement), this is Pol Pot, this is the Peruvian Shining Path. No longer in principle communist, as it breaks away from international solidarity, it further vulgarizes not just "labor aristocracy" but the concept of classes in general, as now "oppressed nations" are the sole revolutionary subject fighting "oppressors" and "compradors" for soil. The link to communism is irrevocably lost.
Duginism is where the reaction culminates. It is no longer about "oppressed nations", but "oppressed nation-STATES". The nation-state is the supreme subject of history now, classes are done away with altogether. No longer must simply "oppressors" and "compradors" be destroyed: the whole countries they reside in must be destroyed. The nukes do not discriminate when they drop.
>>2476863north mexico is not nor has it ever been white or majority european
this seems to have become some meme among chuds the past 2 years or so for some reason
>>2472755Cause the Spanish did mass raping instead of genocide so they just mixed with the native population instead of exterminating them. But yeah they got their own fucked racial politics. I’ve know multiple Mexicans who dropped the
>I’m Spanish so I’m whiteRace is made up and stupid and we can’t ever fix what our parents did. We have to create a world on context outside of them to ever be free. I personally think Americans across the whole continent are their own distinct race outside the old world. But I view race and ethnicity as a cultural/historical thing rather than genetic.
>>2476902The Taino were wiped out 500 years ago, settler colonialism is a relation that exists in presently existing states in oppression of native peoples, if there are no native peoples, its not a settler colony.
>but, people say things like "NYC is Lenape land"Yes, they are very stupid indeed.
>>2476876I think this makes sense, but I think you could expand on this by noting that after independence the governments of the Southern Cone (ruled by the commercial bourg that threw off the Spanish crown) quickly started trying to enclose the Pampas, running into conflict with the gauchos, native tribes and whatever small farmers, so they really doubled down on making everybody wagies.
For Brazil of course the pure slaver logic ran for much longer.
>>2477291>settler colonialism is a relation that exists in presently existing states in oppression of native peoplesWhat. Where did you get this definition? This would literally exclude the USA from being defined as such. There is no more violence, the indigenous nations still existing have their own autonomous provinces in the USA.
Furthermore, going by this definition if you insist, there are MULTIPLE PRESENT instances of violence in Latin America directed at indigenous people. Logging, mining, cocaine production, land rights. Ecuador, Chile, Brazil, Colombia, Guatemala. Not too long ago, also, Bolivia, Peru, Mexico.
"They're mixed so they can't be violent colonial racists :)" is some shit cooked out of the clueless idpol kitchen. Believe it or not, mixed people in South Africa were segregated from both whites and blacks. To this day mixed people in South Africa do not get along with either whites or blacks. Shocking, I know, how could the people of color hate each other, man! It's not essentially in their genes to do so!
>>2477515>there are MULTIPLE PRESENT instances of violence in Latin America directed at indigenous people. Logging, mining, cocaine production, land rights.yes
>>2477515>There is no more violence, the indigenous nations still existing have their own autonomous provinces in the USA.pic related
>>2477460>>2477502>>2477519>>2477548 Listen, we all throw a fit every now and then around here. Mine usually have to do with
1. the Yankees couping my country in the 60s (possibly in the 2010s too).
2. The LDS church sending their missionaries all the way here to South America to turn my relatives into self-hating paypigs.
Now I want to know, what are the concrete reasons for yours? Or do you base your politics solely on being pissed off about retards online?
>>2477568>it's completely irrelevant and nobody knows anything about it?Can you read it again?
>>2477564I live in a country that celebrated 9/11 unironically. I'm all-too-well familiar with grievance politics. Death to Amerikkka. Unlimited burger genocide. Blah blah. My politics is communism. Nothing more or less. I'm not sure why you assume everyone has reactionary grievance politics of some kind? Never mind, now that I think about it, this is the reactionary worldview 101. There's always some "hidden" agenda, hm? No such thing as a real communist, it's all a "Judeo-Bolshevik" conspiracy, right?
>>2475367One a month or two or so, in this board, a "I fucking hate Spain" thread pops up, which is always made by the same guy who is from Iraq. It's not guessing, it's pattern recognition.
>>2474059Stay mad.
>>2477385The anti-anti-imperialist project: Projection
Duginismo lol
>>2477580Can you point out where in my post I explicitly talk about hidden agendas or Judeo-Bolsheviks?
I have no way of knowing what the hell the Third Worldists in your country are advocating. Those in mine simply want the nation to industrialize so we can stop being a breadbasket that exports globally while millions of local citizens starve. They want to stop multinationals from polluting and drying up our water sources. They want to apply our own wealth to solving our structural problems, not bombing the Yankees or anything like that.
>>2477596I accept your concession
>>2477597He's the most notorious figure precisely because he's a crackpot, meme, whatever you want to call him. Famous. If some other figure was more famous, it'd be referred to by that figure. What is your point? "Noooo you can't call the phenomenon of Blood & Soil mysticism Himmlerism, Himmler was a crackpot!". Yes, and?
>>2477610There is no "humanity" without international solidarity, try again theorylet
What nation-state are you representing in WW3?
>>2477601I'm saying if this the MOST famous figure you can find to describe this tendency you've found, then you are admitting that it's basically completely irrelevant, because Dugin is an extremely niche figure that nobody really cares about. If this movement was anything of importance, you'd easily be able to find far more famous and influencial people to name it after than some rando crackpot of no importance.
So again, why do you care so much about this nothingburger of yours? Acting as if this guy is the new Himmler lmao
I fear you might be very retarded
>>2477625I don't know how tuned out of mainstream politics in America and Europe you are but Dugin has literally been covered by mainstream news media ever since the Ukraine war (at least that I am certain of, possibly before that even), he's not some "rando"
Furthermore Kautsky is a "rando" to anyone who doesn't read Lenin, were you clutching pearls when Lenin used the term Kautskyite?
>>2477631I live in Europe and no, Dugin is not some important figure in the Ukraine war. He's a talking head they pull up every now and then, very very sporadically I might add, to be like "wow ruskies so crazy", in leftist circles noone talks about him either really, again expect for perma online hazite type people. It seems you base a lot of your views on things around this kind of online shit lol.
Kautsky, was an actual influential figure in the movement, he was well respected, had a lot of support, was considered an important person. In those circles at least. Dugin is none of those things.
>>2477644>He's not a "rando" on leftypol-type platforms, at the very least.This is what you base your perception of people's importance/relevance on?? Lmaooo you are actually retarded bro sorry. You gonna get all upset about "Maupinism" next?
My point is you are making mountains out of molehills because of some imagined importance around Dugin, which you then somehow connect to your other imagined problems with "third worldism" (another non movement, at least in the way you are using it lol)
My recommendation is to touch grass and stop basing everything on your perma online perception of the world
>>2477660>Not the logical follow-up to Maoism-TWismNo lol, "Duganism" in so far as it can even be called a phenomenon has very little to do with MTWism or TWism lol
>Not the grievance narratives being expressed in this very thread even in the face of contradictory facts. Just my "imagination", silly me. "Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere"? It's just your "imagination" brother, no such thing as reactionaries co-opting communist rhetoricYou are such a baby lmaooo, you're like pouting about it lolol. Yes dude, you are imagining shit to be upset about, I'm sorry to tell you. You are a big baby and a drama queen comparing Dugin's "philosophy" that nobody cares about to the imperial project of fascist japan like idk how you are not embarrassed by this
>>2477641>>2477660Is it the legacy of fucking GONZALO that springs to mind when you think of Dependency Theory? Asinine perspective, man, it's a different beast. The man was influenced by Mariátegui, a thinker from a distinct tradition. In fact, we have a long-standing controversy here between the exponents of Dependency Theory and the Maoists regarding the stage of economic development our societies currently find themselves in (semifeudal or not, and so on). It's like hearing about some Palestinian intellectual circle wondering
>well, what about Daesh huh?If you fancy yourself some kind of Marxist, then you should try to understand all the baby-boiling and puppy-hanging mainly by analyzing the contradictions in the class relations of those involved and the historical development of the region, not by digging into theorists from completely different countries in search of "subliminal messages."
>>2477663It begins with peasants (who are actually agrarian petty-bourgeoisie if you paid attention). It shifts to "oppressed" nations. It ends at "oppressed" nation-states. Another anon quite correctly noticed the "national" porky connection.
Yeah, yeah, "fascism". Dugin's a "fascist". If that makes you happy. Not the term I'd use, but sure (I actually take a leftcom-esque position on "fascism", which is that imperialism is already a "fascism", we never stopped living in "fascism").
>>2477664You showed up at just the right time. Are you part of my "imagination"?
>>2477669I didn't say Gonzalo was influenced by dependency theory, rather I'm asking, what happened? Gonzalo is not a "freak accident", there's clearly some pattern between the various Maoist-TWist groupings. How'd that pattern happen?
>>2477664Honestly, yeah.
It may say something else in the good book or whatever. But empiria (reality and its observation) reigns supreme.
Do you even know the normative power of facts?
Bet ya don't, anglos.
>>2477675>It begins with peasants (who are actually agrarian petty-bourgeoisie if you paid attention). It shifts to "oppressed" nations. It ends at "oppressed" nation-states.Completely baseless assertions, you are just connecting them because it fits nicely into your imagined philosophical development. Dugin is not actually inspired or informed by MTWism, as far as I'm aware he's never even talked about it. You're just connecting them to fit this narrative you're trying to produce, without actually substantiating it with anything other than vague surface level similarities lol
>Yeah, yeah, "fascism". Dugin's a "fascist". If that makes you happy. Not the term I'd use, but sure (I actually take a leftcom-esque position on "fascism", which is that imperialism is already a "fascism", we never stopped living in "fascism").Lmao you're now saying that Dugin's cringey crackpot philosophy is actually comparable to Japan's actual fascist imperial project, because according to you everything is fascism anyway. Do you see how your presumptions cloud any actual analysis of what is happening in the world? The comparison now extends to Japan's imperialism, maoism, followers of Dugin, etc. all these things are not really related to each other in the real world, but in your mind they're basically all part of the same thing/philosophy/phenomenon whatever
God you are retarded man, it's frustrating talking to you
>>2477680You stated Third Worldism begins with dependency theory, a pretty uncontroversial theory if you're not Paul Cockshott as far as I can tell? I ask, how did it end up with "oppressed" nations, condemning workers of the "core" as "labor aristocrats", breaking with international solidarity, etc.?
>>2477685You don't even understand the relation between base-superstructure and that capitalism reproduces ideology regardless of geographic, temporal, communicative, etc. barriers. You're here lecturing me and you're talking like communist theory wouldn't exist if the individual named Karl Marx wasn't born. Shut the fuck up.
>>2477702I did not state that the ideology of Imperial Japan is the same as Dugin's. Else I'd be calling it Hirohitoism or something, and wouldn't link it with Third Worldism at all. I simply pointed out that vulgar anti-imperialism coming from reactionaries is about as old as Imperial Japan.
>unimportantI don't know why you keep tunnel visioning on "importance". Left-communist currents for example aren't very "important" yet we discuss them on leftypol all the same.
>>2477694>You stated Third Worldism begins with dependency theory No, I didn't. If I had, it would have been a falsehood. I mentioned Dependency Theory before, along with figures who are equally Third Worldists but not necessarily adherents of it. Here in my country the term "Third Worldist" is used by academia and the media to designate a wide range of different movements, of which Maoism is just one among several others that have been way more influential here.
>"oppressed" nations>labor aristocratsYour choice of terms indicates much more of a problem (you) have with Maoism-TW (and Maoism itself apparently) and the Three Worlds Theory than with Third Worldism in general. Again, if you want to understand what happened in Peru, I've already pointed the way. Alternatively, you can go to /latam/ and if luck strikes, maybe a Peruvian will give you some perspective.
>>2477709When we discuss leftcomism we don't pretend it's more important than it is, if anything it's irrelevance is one of the main things that is brought up. You are the one trying to make Duganism a movement akin to or in line with maoism or even mtwism, as niche of a tendency as those tendencies are already, at least to some extent they are actual movements with a real history.
> vulgar anti-imperialism coming from reactionaries is about as old as Imperial Japan.Fair enough
>>2477742Now you are confusing Mao Zedong Thought with Maoism and Third Worldism. Oh lord. Where to even begin untangling this mess.
Maoism encompasses the writings of Chairman Mao before the Sino-Soviet split + contributing successors after the split.
Maoism-TWism is the synthesis of Maoism and Third Worldism, the Third Worldism part doesn't actually come from Mao.
Mao Zedong Thought encompasses the writings of Mao post Sino-Soviet split. Last I checked it is fringe outside China itself. Probably because it's Mao pulling a Trotsky and Gramsci, and we already have Trotsky and Gramsci at home.
Anyway, treating the "labor aristocracy" as a separate class is indeed Maoism. Condemning the workers of the "core" of all being "labor aristocrats" is not, that's TWism.
The "oppressed" nation in Maoism refers to the "people's war" revolutionary tactics, where all the "poorer" stratums of both peasants and workers unite. NOT "oppressed" nation as a sole revolutionary subject, that is TWism.
I am not surprised that Third Worldism has a different connotation in your country, I am assuming you are Latin American, they still study Marxism in a lot of LatAm economics departments, right?
I also don't get why are you focused on the Shining Path when I'm asking about TWism in general. I don't want to get lost in the weeds here. I mentioned Pol Pot, can you guess the relevance of Khmer Cambodia under him? It starts with the letter V. And it's not a coincidence.
Unique IPs: 53