Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

a_zed_9 wrote

I don't think your analysis is in any way meaningful since you're trying to force communist theory on people who didn't ask for it. Expecting people to wait for a communist revolution that is never going to come before they can live their lives isn't a reasonable request. Furthermore, in the history of communist revolutions, indigenous people were always those who suffered the most when the revolution was inevitably used to give even more power to the state, which quickly worked to force cultural assimilation on them in order to seize and industrialize all their remaining land.

I am not a communist, as well I do not think anyone should be beholdent to any of the texts, or my own thoughts I share, they are simply there to help other build their analysis, and so that others may critique them building my own analysis. If you find what I said unhelpful then I am sorry, but that is still my analysis as of now.

You can't expect me to accept your assertations when you are clearly only concerned with addressing capital and I'm concerned with addressing much more. Capitalism did not create colonization. Communists have never succeeded in abolishing settler states and in fact have greatly strengthened them and widened their reach, increasing the pace of the indigenous genocide project.

I completely agree and apologize that my focus has been solely on concepts related primarily to capitalism, though I do believe that capital relates to civilization as a whole not just capitalism, but I do recognize the term is often used for capitalism. I believe that ones critique must go much further but I think to expand in detail would be beyond the scope of this convo since it seems focused on wealth and property.

Insisting you won't help indigenous people free themselves from the settler state unless they do it on your terms and agree to furthering your ideology just makes you yet another colonizer who paternalizes to people rather than accepting their agency. If people want their land back, who are you to attach a list of ideological conditions they need to meet to gain your approval? Who gives a shit if you approve?

My analysis is not about getting indigenous people to "accept either my terms", I am indifferent to if indigenous people, or anyone else agrees with my analysis. My analysis is for myself, I share it in hopes that others may find it useful, or if not, may offer a critique that is useful to me. I accept the agency if indigenous people, they will do what they will do, and I will do what I will do. What I am concerned with is combating the systems that may limit that "autonomy" and how best, in my own analysis, to combat them. As to the question "who gives a shot if you aprove?" You should not care for my approval, you should see if there is anything I have said that is useful, and if not discard it, and if you feel so compelled, to offer where you disagree.

1

ziq wrote

I am not a communist

I beg to differ. You might tell yourself you've shed the left, but you're beating it like a worn out old drum whenever you speak. You're using your supposed ideological aversion to capital and land transfer to denounce indigenous/black people who ask for relief, while fully participating in capitalism every day of your life. You've even tried to institutionalize lifestylism into an ideology by writing an 'anarcho-lifestylist' manifesto, and you want to talk about the benefits of child rape as ideology. You live and breathe communism. You are the full manifestation of a leftist ideologue.

as well I do not think anyone should be beholdent to any of the texts, or my own thoughts I share, they are simply there to help other build their analysis, and so that others may critique them building my own analysis. If you find what I said unhelpful then I am sorry, but that is still my analysis as of now.

Everyone is beholden to their own words. See, only a diehard commie would refuse to take responsibility for the shit they say and blame it on 'building analysis'. The opinions you're spouting are not analysis, they're pure ideology. You refuse to entertain reparations because you wear your ideology as a shield to excuse your colonialist attachments, the same way you now wear a faux post-leftism as a shield to excuse your true communist attachments.

I apologize that my focus has been solely on concepts related primarily to capitalism

Please don't think you need to apologize to me. I don't know you, don't care to know you and am not affected emotionally by anything you say. But I will continue to point out the absolute absurdity of your words as you continue to unleash them on the world.

2

a_zed_9 wrote

I beg to differ. You might tell yourself you've shed the left, but you're beating it like a worn out old drum whenever you speak. You're using your supposed ideological aversion to capital and land transfer

I don't see how my opposition to capital and property is ideological. We haven't even discussed why I am opposed to it. To elaborate, I oppose both since they are systems/institutions and as such deny my autonomy and the autonomy of all things. Is this what you mean by ideological? Or could you elaborate if not?

denounce indigenous/black people who ask for relief,

I haven't denounced anyone, unless you take all disagreement as denouncement. hile fully participating in capitalism every day of your life

While fully participating in capitalism every day of your life

I agree most people, and definitely no one you will find here is fully free from capitalism, civilization settler colonialism etc. My point though is that there are extents by which people participate, and there are different institutions which comprise these things as a whole. So I think opposing capital, and opposing wealth and opposing property are things that are effective in escaping these systems. Amd so they are methods I employ and "advocate" or share.

Everyone is beholden to their own words. See, only a diehard commie would refuse to take responsibility for the shit they say and blame it on 'building analysis

I don't understand what you mean by "take responsibility for what you say". I said it, it is plain for all to see, what beyond that do you take as "taking responsibility"? I am simply saying you don't have to, and in fact I will state I think you should not, blindly accept what I say, just as I don't blindly accept what you say, and that is what I mean by beholdent.

Please don't think you need to apologize to me.

Okay.

You refuse to entertain reparations because you wear your ideology as a shield to excuse your colonialist attachments, the same way you now wear a faux post-leftism as a shield to excuse your true communist attachments.

Slinging words like "faux post-left" "colonialist" "comunist" doesn't really mean anything to me. You could just replace it with bad. It would make more sense to me if you expanded on what has led you to think this. What makes me a colonialist? Is it because I disagree with you? Because that is the only reasoning I currently see.

1