this post was submitted on 30 Dec 2024
46 points (94.2% liked)

Ask Lemmygrad

871 readers
127 users here now

A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Shaggy0291@lemmygrad.ml
GrainEater@lemmygrad.ml
SovereignState@lemmygrad.ml
QueerCommie@lemmygrad.ml
yogthos@lemmygrad.ml
46
How do we understand the primary contradiction in settler states? (lemmygrad.ml)
submitted 1 month ago by freagle@lemmygrad.ml to c/asklemmygrad@lemmygrad.ml
71 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I was recently in a conversation with a self-described MagaCommunist who held the position that the primary contradiction in the USA was that the financial owning class owned all of the means of production and that the contradictions of settler colonialism were secondary and could only be resolved through a workers' state.

I realized that I hold the position that settler colonialism is the primary contradiction in the USA, but I also found that I struggled to articulate it effectively. I'm looking for your own thoughts or writings that I can study to learn more on this topic.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] freagle@lemmygrad.ml 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

So the question to answer is WHY is it required to address all these contradictions at once? What is the material basis for this position? My interlocutor's position was that the bourgeoisie would never allow the working class to build a movement with the indigenous to such a mature state that it resolves the settler contradiction while it resolves the bourgeois contradiction. Therefore, his position continues, the primary contradiction is between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, and resolving that contradiction creates the material conditions necessary to solve the other contradictions.

Part of that position is that the indigenous population in the US is simply too small, too divided, and lacks sufficient power over productive forces to have revolutionary potential.

This is not a moral question. It's a material question. I agree with your position, but I am looking for a stronger material analysis to back up the position I share with you.

Maybe I need to reread Settlers and Colonization is Not a Metaphor and On the National Question. But is there more I could read to strengthen my understanding of this topic?

[–] Sodium_nitride@lemmygrad.ml 9 points 1 month ago

So the question to answer is WHY is it required to address all these contradictions at once?

This is because all of the 3 major contradictions of American society (capitalism, settlerism and imperialism) are already "matured" contradictions. Instead of developing "positively", these modes of surplus extraction are all running into their ultimate limits. In most AES societies, capitalism had developed to a very limited extent, which is why most AES societies had to/will have to undergo quite a bit of development before they could/can abolish commodity production, which is the ultimate source of all of modern society's contradictions.

This is not the case for the US. There is no need to undergo a period of state capitalism or anything similar. There is no "primitive" development to wait for. All of the 3 major contradictions of the US (capitalism, settlerism and imperialism) are in their terminal phase right now. In fact, the material basis for imperialism (which is dollar hegemony) and settlerism (which today in America I hypothesize is suburban development [1]) are already collapsing, and may collapse even before a worker's state is established.

My interlocutor’s position was that the bourgeoisie would never allow the working class to build a movement with the indigenous to such a mature state

They will never allow the working class to build a movement, with or without the indigenous.

Therefore, his position continues, the primary contradiction is between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, and resolving that contradiction creates the material conditions necessary to solve the other contradictions.

It is the other way around. The American bourgeoise possess basically unlimited purchasing power because of Imperialism, and settlerism has allowed them to buy the loyalty of the American working classes. As long as America remains settler and imperialist, the bourgeoise in America cannot be abolished.

Part of that position is that the indigenous population in the US is simply too small, too divided, and lacks sufficient power over productive forces to have revolutionary potential.

It is the task of the revolutionary movement to change this fact. If revolutionaries cannot even win over and organize the most fucked over victims of American capitalism, how are they supposed to overthrow the government?

But is there more I could read to strengthen my understanding of this topic?

I am honestly not aware of any marxist works that deal with the present state of class contradictions in American society with the level of broad overview necessary to see the whole picture. My position that I am articulating is largely the synthesis of what I have learnt from other comrades and from American history

[1] even if it isn't, my point still stands, as the growing housing and healthcare crisis is proleterianising the latest generations of Americans en masse.