LovesAGoodPigRoast
Oh okay, sorry for misunderstanding. I saw a lot of people here advocating for this with out the element the establishment of a worker dictatorship. I just think the "white people" in the meme have the correct to response when hearing people say this because they know the level of violence it will take for them to forego any sovereignty. I understand your point is that native people's aren't arguing for a role reversal in the system of oppression that exists now.
If you do I'd be more than happy to contribute.
You have no power to do anything but that friend.
Again.... you think capitalist will give you capital because you asked them for it? I mean, I'm in no way saying not to, and I hope you do. I'm sure you'll get a concession or two. But thinking the state will forgore any sovereignty willingly is idealistic. Please tell me if I'm wrong and it's a common practice somewhere. I've just never heard of it outside of the small reservations given already.
Lmao. The state was the one that committed genocide, so asking it to willingly give up land/stewardship still garners the same response. Idk man, maybe if you beg them enough they'll bless you with their benevolence.
I'm kinda confused by these statements. Was there any real expectation that people would willingly hand over the land they committed genocide for to the victims because we told them so? Would Mexican or Black Americans also need to give back any land?
IMO, the white people in this meme give the correct response. That is exactly what you would have to do to get any land or sovereignty back lol.
100 percent man. Thanks for the conversation. I have a much better outlook of this site. Probably not the best choice to jump into for my first thread lol.
You're describing patsocs in the 20th century not class reductionist, so I don't believe those historical examples mean those beliefs have the same outcome. If they were solely basing policy on class, black workers would have been admitted solely on the merits of being working class. I think that's where we disagree.
I would say any historical context of exclusion based on race is the exact opposite of a class reductionist because they reduced their beliefs upon a racial identity first. Unless I'm unaware of the party in your example explicitly stating they were class reductionist, I don't believe those to be same thing. The only reason why, even as a black person, I have this line of thinking is because I've seen how effective these so called "concessions" have been to my community. They haven't. Being politically emancipated within this bourgeois, capitalist electorate hasn't done much more than made us feel betrayed, and angry. And I believe race, sex, gender, etc are such weak positions to argue leftism from. I know more and more black people (mostly men) supporting right wing ideology and something close to 40 percent of women (albeit within in the American context) vote for the further right wing party. That is what I hope people understand. Being apart of a marginalized group doesn't mean you're naturally apart of a centralized group, with any sort of political consensus. This is not the same thing as saying "the black situation is unimportant or doesnt need to talked about", it's saying "not all black people are or ever will be leftists/comrades so stop addressing the issue as if we are all political monolith".
I mean I've learned a lot already and everyone here is so nice it was hard to believe. Thanks for all of information.
So why do people equate patsoc with class reduction? Tell me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like patsocs are using socialist ideology/esthetic to rally around some sort of nationality/ethnicity/race, wouldn't a class reductionist be the opposite of that?
Imma keep it real with it you man, the vibe I get from some people here is that none of us should be set free unless we're all in the house first. I know that's not the best way of saying it or even if it's true. If this comment is out of bounds go ahead and remove it, but I hope to stick around and learn.