Worker vs capitalist
Peasant vs landlord
Native vs colonizer
The last one is the most inherent contradiction in humanity but Marxists play down any class relations other than proles vs capitalists. They even look down on Maoism because it put emphasis on peasants.
Why are they like that?
Because they love capitalism. They just think they can be better capitalists than capitalists.
>>2912641yeah bro the aboriginal australians are just as colonizer as europeans because there were kangaroos there first
>>2912644I don't know the rules tbh. If humans gets to a place first does that mean they eternally own the place? And on what basis do they own the place? Ethnic? Religious? Linguistic? Nationalistic? Does this acknowledge land ownership as a valid concept? If immigrants show up and nonviolently integrate is that the same as colonizing? If people become mixed is that bad?
…What if land isn't a metaphysical thing that a group of people eternally steward over by virtue of getting there first? What if the very construct of "native" is a post-hoc construction after colonizers show up? What if the "natives" are in fact several different peoples who were feuding with and killing each other over control of land and resources when the colonizers first show up? What if their identity as "native" actually got constructed out of being colonized and they had no such identity prior to colonization? What if the colonizers themselves are escaping some kind of political instability, like the sea peoples in the bronze age? What if the the very land itself is constantly shifting and changing with the climate and the movement of tectonic plates? What if change is the only constant and there's no way to RETVRN to pre-colonial times?
>>2912638> They even look down on Maoism because it put emphasis on peasants.No single country on Earth is currently majority peasant. Only a handful of countries are still majority rural, but those rural populations are not majority peasant, just rural proletarians working on capitalist farms.
>Worker vs capitalist
Inherent to the capitalist mode of production. It is the basis upon which it rests.
>Peasant vs landlord
Supplanted by the above. The peasantry willl either be proletarianized by the expansion of capitalism or their class will be dissolved by socialist construction.
>Native vs colonizer
In modern times, the result of exhaustion in the colonizer nation and the endless hunger of capital.
>The last one is the most inherent contradiction in humanity but Marxists play down any class relations other than proles vs capitalists.
It is not downplayed, "native" and "colonizer" are not classes in the same way prole and capitalist are. You can have a proletarian native and a capitalist native but it is impossible to have a native or a colonizer without a relationship to the means of production under capitalism.
When capitalism expands, those who it subsumes are absorbed or exterminated. Absorbtion doesn't nessecarily mean colonization in the way one might picture it, as foreign people coming in and replacing or displacing a population. Rather, it means absorption into the capitalist system in general. Even if a country resists colonizaton, it is almost impossible to resist absorbtion into the capitalist system. When that happens, imperialism does its work. The natives are either made proletarians or capitalists.
If we resolve the tension between capitalists and workers via the victory of communism, the forces driving imperialism/(neo)colonialism are neutered and the contradictions can unravel properly. It is not that marxists think that colonialism isn't worth fighting, it's that it must be fought effectively and the most effective means is proletarian internationalism. The resistance to capitalism without being able to bring to bear the productive forces born of capitalism is futile. There is no victory there, it is the path of exterminaton.
>They even look down on Maoism because it put emphasis on peasants.
Maoism is an application of marxist analysis, as I understand it, unique to the chinese conditions. It is not looked down at more than it is assessed as unfit for the conditions of various nations. What is looked down at are people who insist on the 1:1 replication of the maoist method instead of developing tactics and strategy unique to their environment.
>>2912638>The last one is the most inherent contradictionNot really only liberals care and think your blood quantum determines your right to live on what land.
Colonizer and colonized are just social relations that can and will be abolished.
Marx was pro colonialism and saw it as a modernising force lol.
>>2912680I think the fact that the blood feuds of the world are the only things people understand these days, even after the collapse of the British and the French empires following WW2, is a symptom of the collapse of the socialist left. People are no longer thinking about the possibility of overcoming our current set of social relations, so everybody becomes a retard thinking about the world in terms of a bunch of little ethnic/elite/cultural groups cannibalizing each other. Sad innit
>>2912804Learned Marx from memes and quotes award, didn't read the books award
so true bestie, no war but the race war
>>2912860>People are no longer thinking about the possibility of overcoming our current set of social relations, so everybody becomes a retard thinking about the world in terms of a bunch of little ethnic/elite/cultural groups cannibalizing each other. Sad innityes it is sad
you have described my sadness very well
>>2912860https://marxists.architexturez.net/archive/marx/works/1853/07/22.htmMarx saw Colonialism breaking up old Social orders and introducing new rapid technologies that will replicate and change productive relations.
Remember that Marx saw Capitalism as a progressive force of history.
>>2912966>1853Proving my point here
>>2912966>>2912804>Marx was pro colonialism bailey
>and saw it as a modernising force lol.motte
>>2912987He saw Colonialism as a progressive historical force and that the British Empire was acting as an agent of history by banishing old productive relations and introducing new ones.
This is a pro-Colonial position.
He also supported anti-Colonial movements in places like Ireland as well, this is because he saw it there as a reactionary force in that it hindered the development of the productive relations.
Colonialism is not a universal reactionary relation. Class is the universal and the primary contradiction between all societies.
>>2913011when he says 'progressive' he doesnt mean good, just that bougie society has progressed to a higher stage
>>2913013No, Marx was a H*gelian and H*gelians see historical progress as good so Marx was explicitly pro-colonialism.
>>2913013But if you say industrial society is bad Marxists get quite irate, even though Marx said industry and science had dehumanized man, he just thought it would do the opposite in the future, which hasn't happened yet.
>>29126382/3rds of those class societies collapsed into capitalism.
>>2913308primitivism has no method of implementation. how are you supposed to re-establish hunter gather society through revolution when most conflicts are determined by who has superior productive forces and technology?
>>2913331Because all that fancy machinery is going to run out of oil and lithium, you can’t make more of either, and you can’t use them when the population will be halved by super hurricanes from the el nino and wet bulb temperatures spreading
>>2913359running out of oil and lithium doesn't instantly put us back in hunter gatherer mode, it just means people will fall back on other fuel types. Even if technology goes backwards, conflicts will be determined by who has the most advanced stuff. There is no way to implement primitivism.