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

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

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Interestingly, his focus on finance capital isn't in contradiction with an understanding of imperialism. The World Bank, IMF, and WTO are agents of the empire that use financial tools (debt and credit and currency exchange and bonds and shares etc etc) to enforce austerity and dismantle the sovereignty of indigenous governments in the periphery, transfer superprofits from them to the imperial core, and redistribute the superprofits among a specially elevated core of bourgeoisified workers through their investments.

The workers who are invested in real-estate and the stock market are invested in imperialism. We have to fight against the bourgeois financial class, but we also have to recognize which workers have become entangled and enriched by superprofits - and we can't ally with them, because their interests only align with empire.

[–] freagle@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The workers who are invested in real-estate and the stock market are invested in imperialism. We have to fight against the bourgeois financial class, but we also have to recognize which workers have become entangled and enriched by superprofits - and we can’t ally with them, because their interests only align with empire.

I think that's entirely true for what we could consider petite bourgeois in the early 1900s - small time landlords and small business owners. I think the fact that USA workers are invested in the financial sector (ignoring their own personal businesses or Air BnBs) makes them resist the liberation of OTHER nations, but I don't actually think it creates resistance for their OWN liberation. Yes, if they abolished securities overnight their net worth would drop but most of that securitized worth is intended as retirement savings. A revolution that abolished the bourgeoisie would immediately solve the retirement problem and no one would need a savings to make that happen. So I don't think the retirement investments, which makes up the bulk of what you're talking about, creates material conditions that would cause reaction.

Land reform would absolute create reaction among landlords, and abolishing the financial sector would absolutely create reaction among independent financial planners, independent tax accountants, day traders, etc. But I'm fairly certain they make a minority even of the MAGA contingent.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago

I think the fact that USA workers are invested in the financial sector (ignoring their own personal businesses or Air BnBs) makes them resist the liberation of OTHER nations, but I don’t actually think it creates resistance for their OWN liberation.

Yes, but these things are directly connected. Our liberation is contingent on their liberation. As long as our class enemies have an army of surplus labor to superexploit around the world, we can never challenge them at home.

A revolution that abolished the bourgeoisie would immediately solve the retirement problem and no one would need a savings to make that happen.

I'm not so sure. Someone who saved for 45 years suddenly seeing their savings evaporate and be replaced by a government pension would feel resentment towards people who didn't have retirement savings that now get to enjoy the same government pension. They materially sacrificed all their life, and now it's all worthless. I don't think investors will accept that.

Land reform would absolute create reaction among landlords, and abolishing the financial sector would absolutely create reaction among independent financial planners, independent tax accountants, day traders, etc. But I’m fairly certain they make a minority even of the MAGA contingent.

Not just landlords, but anyone who owns property - including all home owners. Homes are investments, not just places to live.