[ home / rules / faq / search ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internet about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password(For file deletion.)

In for some red terror?
15% off on selected items with promo code "SPOOKY" at shop.leftypol.org


File: 1761372906747.png (2.14 MB, 1000x1160, ClipboardImage.png)

 

I was going to post this in /usapol/ but effort posts usually get buried so bare with me. I just want some opinions on this draft of some thoughts:

The capitalist class operates with little regard for borders, a fluidity it leverages to its advantage. The entire United States functions as a network of neocolonies—these states host governments that do not represent their people, but rather the corporations that operate within them. The majority of the population is exploited within this system; in fact, only a privileged 10% truly benefit from the capitalist-imperialist economy.

Beneath this broadly exploited class lies a layer of the hyper-exploited, who form the core source of slave labor for this anti-life regime. This super-exploitation is manufactured along racial, gender, and other lines, a deliberate construct of capitalism's superstructure. The rise of a hyper-militarized "War from Within," waged by agencies like ICE, makes this brutally clear. Hispanic people—and by extension, Indigenous people, as the term "Hispanic" is itself a colonizer label invented in the 1970s to impose a European (Spanish) heritage—are primary targets. Even the spectacle of Proud Boys leaders who identify as Hispanic cannot obscure this systemic reality; it only reiterates the haunting contradictions we must confront.

This pattern is rooted in an unfinished past. The first American Revolution of 1776 was ultimately a war over which faction of the capitalist class would control the colonies. While it included a small but notable faction of true people's revolutionaries—figures like Thomas Paine, who argued for abolishing slavery from the outset—they failed. Their defeat meant the people's revolution was never completed.

Therefore, we are not simply communists or anarchists, though we may be influenced by both. We are abolitionists. Our purpose is to finish that people's revolution and free this land from capital's control.

This struggle did not begin with us, nor did it pause after 1776. It is a continuous thread woven through this land's history: in the pan-tribal resistance led by Tecumseh, in the stunning victory of Indigenous nations at the Battle of Little Bighorn, in the bloody righteousness of Nat Turner’s rebellion, and in John Brown’s holy war against chattel slavery. The Civil War itself contained revolutionary, abolitionist currents that were ultimately subverted by capital, which traded chattel slavery for the prison of sharecropping and Jim Crow.

This tradition of people's war was carried into the industrial era by the IWW, which waged a protracted struggle from the 1880s to the 1930s. They were ultimately squashed not just by state violence, but by the betrayal of turncoat communists within the CPUSA and other factions that chose alignment with social democrats over revolutionary solidarity.

Even the global fight against fascism in WWII was subverted. While millions fought with an anti-fascist spirit, American corporations had fueled Hitler's rise, and after the war, the state imported Nazi scientists via Operation Paperclip, integrating their expertise into the U.S. military-industrial complex. Remember the Business Plot of 1933, where financiers attempted a fascist coup against FDR; though it failed, its architects remained in positions of immense power.

The central problem has always been the strategic separation of perspectives through intentional racial division, a tactic solidified after Bacon's Rebellion. That rebellion was a prototype, unifying black and white workers to such a degree that the ruling class was forced to invent the concept of "whiteness" and codify chattel slavery to shatter that solidarity.

We can view this entire history through a hauntological lens: If Bacon's Rebellion achieved that much, we must imagine the lost future where that alliance also united with the native tribes, successfully ousting the private landed gentry. That ghost of a future, which was stolen from us, holds the key to the future we can still inherit.

It has been 533 years since Columbus landed on Turtle Island in search of trade, gold, and markets; 406 years since the first person of African descent was brought to these shores in bondage; 350 years since Bacon's Rebellion; and 250 years since the capitalist class subverted the revolutionary currents of 1776—the pattern of division becomes starkly visible across the centuries.

The central, enduring problem of American history has been the strategic separation of perspectives through intentional racial division, a tactic systematically codified in the wake of Bacon's Rebellion. That uprising was a fiery prototype of class solidarity, unifying enslaved Africans, European indentured servants, and landless freemen to such a dangerous degree that the terrified ruling class was forced to engineer a social solution: they invented the legal and social concept of "whiteness" and hardened the system of hereditary chattel slavery specifically to shatter that multiracial solidarity. This was the "counter-revolution of 1676," a preemptive strike against a people's revolution that has shaped all that followed.

We must therefore view this entire history through a hauntological lens. We are haunted by the futures that were stolen from us. If the pursuit of trade and gold 533 years ago initiated this cycle of extraction and division, and if the solidarity glimpsed 350 years ago in Bacon's Rebellion was so potent it required a new system of apartheid to contain it, then we must actively imagine the lost future where that rebel alliance also united with the native tribes whose land was the rebellion's initial object. Imagine a future where that coalition—of the enslaved, the indentured, the landless, and the indigenous—successfully ousted the private landed gentry and built a society on a foundation of mutual interest, not racial capitalism.

That ghost of a future, a possibility born 350 years ago and suppressed ever since, is a key. It unlocks the understanding that our present is built on a foundation of deliberately fractured solidarity. We are recovering a roadmap to the future we were denied, a future that, in recognizing its own stolen potential, we can still choose to inherit.

LINCOLN WILL BE OUR HERO

You're whitewashing history.

>"However our present interests may restrain us within our own limits, it is impossible not to look forward to distant times, when our rapid multiplication will expand itself beyond those limits, & cover the whole northern, if not the southern continent, with a people speaking the same language, governed in similar forms, & by similar laws; nor can we contemplate with satisfaction either blot or mixture on that surface." - Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1801

File: 1761374360384.png (135.31 KB, 903x550, Selection_044.png)

its an attempt to give as many people as possible an 'easy out' while crafting something that as many people as possible can get behind as quickly as possible, while still having a foundation that an abolitionist party could use

Fire post but I will say that I don't agree 100% with the "the term 'Hispanic' is itself a colonizer label invented in the 1970s to impose a European (Spanish) heritage." Mostly the reason I say this is because that is a huge oversimplification because Latinos truly can come in any color. While the majority are Mestizo (mixed race) the term Latino and Hispanic is less of an ethnic one and more of a cultural one. For example a lot of Argentinians are more white than anything while someone from the Dominican Republic is most likely to be part or almost fully black, the majority of people from Peru are indigenous etc…

Added to that too while there definitely is a lot of racism against people from Latin America in the US there is legitimately a big problem with colorism and discrimination against Indigenous people in Latin American countries as well as diaspora communities. This doesn't mean that people who are Mestizo deserve to be discriminated against, (I should note I've even seen some leftists circles treat people who are Hispanic and very clearly not fully white as Schrodinger's white person when it's convenient) but this reality needs to be acknowledged in order to fight for total liberation.

While I can understand that who is indigenous is going to be arbitrary and a lot of landback activists argue that the migrants who are used as slave labor are indigenous, that can very easily downplay the actual social dynamics at play in said communities.

Also, too that's not even mentioning that a lot of Hispanic people when you try to convince them to fully accept their indigenous part and throw out the European might feel weird about that especially given that a lot of the cultures of Latin America are very much predominately native or European but a mix of both.

TLDR: Be careful with what you say, it's well intentioned but it's just not accurate to reality.

>>2535899
*very much not predominately native or European

>>2535880
>ultimately a war over which faction of the capitalist class would control the colonies
this is controversial for Marxists for some reason lol. Its really important to the WSWS that America's bourgeois revolution against British is celebrated, I've never seen those Trot neocons seethe harder at anything than the 1619 project! They are so mad lol
<As we explained, these fabrications revealed an overarching effort by the Times to promote racial division among American workers and youth by imposing a racialist myth on American history—an attempt “to teach our readers to think a little bit more” in a racial way. The Project would itself both symbolize and project an almost zoological theory of history, which posited that only “black people” could intuit “black history.” https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2025/08/28/vcge-a28.html
So true! Thanks for your ZIonist hasbara explanation about your enslaved "zoological Palestinian people" (notice the scare quotes, as if they scoff at the idea that these "animals" even exist and deserve any attention? hmm)
>the people's revolution was never completed…We are abolitionists
read Black Reconstruction for the history of the ongoing counter-revolution of settlers who did a civil war to protect their right to rape their slaves. Zionists today are also doing their versions of the "caning of Charles Sumner" by attacking abolitionists who dare to break omerta about what Jeffrey Epstein's liberalism was really about

You're making it to be like some of America's more libertarian-leaning founding fathers were anachronistic proto-leftists centuries ahead of their time but that's not what they were at all. They were white nationalist imperialists just like Britain and the other European empires of the era. Their idea of a utopia was an ethnically purified American continent ruled by an oligarchy of benevolent enlightened intellectuals. This was "the left" in 18th century Western thought.

>>2535899
>>2535899
way out of my element on that, this is where i got the concept

https://www.instagram.com/nativeblood.co/

This reeks of ACP "MAGA Communism" American mythos astroturfing.
>>2535899
"race" and "color" are also made up anyway

Also the reason some of the founding fathers were wary of the booming slave trade and African slaves being trafficked into the US is not because they saw black people as equals, but because, as Thomas Jefferson so eloquently put it, they didn't want "blot or mixture" staining the surface of their new continental Empire. The more intelligent among them knew that the subjugation and bondage of the African people may not endure forever and that America would then be left with a superfluous population of black former-slaves, i.e. blot assimilating into white American culture, i.e. mixture.

File: 1761378028919-0.png (299.1 KB, 810x2149, blum coup.png)

File: 1761378028919-1.png (728.6 KB, 1014x650, man shall never fly.png)

maybe once you overthrow your government, stop invading other countries that didn't attack you for several decades, make amends with the countries you did destroy, dismantle your intelligence and soft power apparatuses, bring about socialism, and change your name to something that doesn't evoke a history of genocide and slavery, you'll finally be free to create a new national narrative. But America's national narrative will always be the narrative of a country built on genocide and slavery that spent 95+% of its history at war, and which spent the entire 20th century not just trying to kill socialist revolution in the cradle, but even trying to prevent the third world from realizing their own bourgeois sovereignty. America is so hypocritical that it doesn't want the third world to have its own 1776, let alone its own 1917.


>>2535927
this is true for the vast majority of them yes

>>2535946
You're a retard because the only way we get to do any of this is by over throwing our government which requires a new national narrative. Nothing would be good enough for you, fafgot ass bitch

The ruling class that founded this country purposely made it shitty for a reason. It was always meant to be this way and all the revolts they stomped out throughout history are evidence to that fact.

>>2536413
Idealist af.
It just requires people pissed off enough they can’t get food or water.

>Bacons Rebellion
>class solidarity
The entire point of that rebellion was to drive Indians out.

Probably the most significant thing about America which sets it apart from all previous incarnations of The Empire is that America was the first nation that was designed by conscious human planners to be an empire from the very start, as opposed to all of history's previous empires which began as small neutral benign settlements that metastasized into cancerous empires later on. All the other empires were accidental cases, but America was a deliberate infection.


>>2536456
That's what OP says was the fatal flaw and why the indigenous perspective is the key that unlocks revolution

>>2536475
It’s not just a “flaw”, it was the entire goal of the rebellion. Yes, you had black and white collaborating but they weren’t about to set up a socialist state. The critique built into the revolt was that “colonialism hasn’t gone far enough”. There was never any hope of indigenous collaboration.

>>2536413
any "national narrative" of America seeks to maintain the legitimacy of America as a concept. It is the opposite of what is necessary to achieve the dismantling of America and its rotten institutions that make life living hell for everyone including Americans.

Houdini, I agree with you about needing a new narrative about the place we call America. Its important for normies to be able to identify with lefty ideas. One of the great successes of the Communist Party of China was to make Marxism understandable and relatable to normal Chinese people in the 1920s. One master of this was Li Lisan, a rival to Mao and an early leader of the party.

When he was teaching coal miners, he dressed like a traditional intellectual and spoke about Marx and Marxism in a way that related to the culturally dominant schools of philosophy – Confucianism and Daoism. By connecting Marx to Chinese norms, he was able to recruit a lot of coal miners to his cause. You can read about this in Elizabeth Perry's book, Anyuan, which discusses Li's early years as a labor organizer in Chinese coal mines. You should be able to find the PDF online at the usual places.

In the American context, when you talk about the American Revolutionn, one thing that I think could be interesting for you is the idea of popular sovereignty. This is an idea that became popular after the Revolutionary War as people were thinking about how to legitimate the new government when there wasn't a king anymore as the source of absolute power. In a way, I see the armed uprisings of the 1960s, even in black and brown communities as a continuation of this tradition.

>"Throughout American history, the idea that it could be legitimate and justified for groups of citizens to take up arms against the government was not at all unusual. Such ideas date back to the birth of the United States through the American Revolution against the rule of the British sovereign, King George III. As the legal historian Christian G. Fritz details in his book American Sovereigns: The People and America’s Constitutional Tradition Before the Civil War (2008), even after the drafting of the federal Constitution, a significant portion of the American public believed that the ultimate source of the law was the people at large.

The genuinely revolutionary character of this idea shouldn’t be underrated. In colonial America the sovereign, or ultimate source of the law, had been the monarch seated at the Court of St. James in London. The king stood above the law, and the government ruled in his name – hence “His Majesty’s government.” After the American Revolution, the drafters of the new republic’s highest laws fixed this same sovereignty in the people – hence the famous opening sentence of the Constitution:

Houdini, I agree with you about needing a new narrative about the place we call America. Its important for normies to be able to identify with lefty ideas. One of the great successes of the Communist Party of China was to make Marxism understandable and relatable to normal Chinese people in the 1920s. One master of this was Li Lisan, a rival to Mao and an early leader of the party.

When he was teaching coal miners, he dressed like a traditional intellectual and spoke about Marx and Marxism in a way that related to the culturally dominant schools of philosophy – Confucianism and Daoism. By connecting Marx to Chinese norms, he was able to recruit a lot of coal miners to his cause. You can read about this in Elizabeth Perry's book, Anyuan, which discusses Li's early years as a labor organizer in Chinese coal mines. You should be able to find the PDF online at the usual places.

In the American context, when you talk about the American Revolutionn, one thing that I think could be interesting for you is the idea of popular sovereignty. This is an idea that became popular after the Revolutionary War as people were thinking about how to legitimate the new government when there wasn't a king anymore as the source of absolute power. In a way, I see the armed uprisings of the 1960s, even in black and brown communities as a continuation of this tradition.

>Throughout American history, the idea that it could be legitimate and justified for groups of citizens to take up arms against the government was not at all unusual. Such ideas date back to the birth of the United States through the American Revolution against the rule of the British sovereign, King George III. As the legal historian Christian G. Fritz details in his book American Sovereigns: The People and America’s Constitutional Tradition Before the Civil War (2008), even after the drafting of the federal Constitution, a significant portion of the American public believed that the ultimate source of the law was the people at large.

>The genuinely revolutionary character of this idea shouldn’t be underrated. In colonial America the sovereign, or ultimate source of the law, had been the monarch seated at the Court of St. James in London. The king stood above the law, and the government ruled in his name – hence “His Majesty’s government.” After the American Revolution, the drafters of the new republic’s highest laws fixed this same sovereignty in the people – hence the famous opening sentence of the Constitution:
>
> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
>
>Even today, the idea of the people as sovereign is an important part of the American legal system. For example, in California, criminal prosecutions are carried out in the name of the “People of the State of California,” by the deputies of an elected Attorney General. In the United Kingdom, by contrast, prosecutions are carried out by the Crown Prosecution Service in the name of the Sovereign, e.g. “Rex [The King] vs Smith.”
As not only Fritz but various other historians demonstrate, the ideology and rhetoric of popular sovereignty were present, often quite explicitly, in many political struggles that defined the early republic – much of the time, to justify taking arms against an unfair social order. Such disparate movements as Shays’ Rebellion, the Whiskey Rebellion, and even the most radical wing of the early socialistic land reform movements were suffused with the idea that ultimate political and legal legitimacy lay directly with the will of the people, unmediated by whatever political structures happened at any given moment to already exist."

https://archive.is/uPqvb
https://strangematters.coop/the-double-counterinsurgency-gun-rights-popular-sovereignty/
(the original link has access to the footnotes, which also have some good context and might be useful for you)

The article goes into great detail about the narrative of popular sovereignty, including its problematic origins in the white colonial culture, but also a lot of information about how it influenced left wing struggles, including those of non-white people.

I'm curious what you'll think about it.

>>2535880
You wrote a long, intelligent materialist analysis clearly laying out the primary strategy of bourgeois rule in the US (divide and conquer, super-exploitation alongside a relatively comfortable sub-section of the proletariat), and then stained it with idealist academic shit. You can get away with never saying "we must therefore view" or "hauntological" ever again. There's nothing that's added by imagining a future from a past that didn't happen. The strength here is the materialist analysis that correctly analyzes still existing contradictions and strategies. It's like those pomo fake marxists who say "imaginary futures" to cover up their lack of program for dealing with the present and it's immediate challenges.

Maybe we should view it through a lens of the present as it is. What we see is that the issue today is still to fight against the super-exploitation of some groups within the proletariat in order to liberate the whole class. I'd also advise you to read Principles of Communism, because it talks a little bit about socialist transition. We don't need utopianism, we just need to resolve the issues right in front of us in favor of the workers; this will destabilize the capitalist system and open up further issues, and the process of resolving them all as they come up, in favor of the working class, is the process of socialist transition.

We're not haunted by futures that didn't happen (whatever that means - you know deep down it's just an academic's flourish), we're haunted by the past and it's troubling to me that you lay out a whole post on the past only to bring out the concept of anything other than that same past haunting our present. You're weakening your message by hiding a seed of idealism in it out of intellectual vanity.

>>2535880
good essay but you repeated a few parts -

It sort of sounds like you think the liberal revolution was never really completed - I agree this was true for most America's history but after civil rights and sharecropping ended in the 1950s-1960s, America did come closer to being a true "bourgeois" liberal democracy - The revolution of 1968 sort of completed the revolution of 1776 in your terminology.


Unique IPs: 12

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq / search ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]