Spicy question maybe, but I’m interested in your takes.

Personally, I think there’s some major issues with at least the terminology of the 2 phase model of lower/higher stage communism or socialism/communism as the terms are used in classical theory. Specifically the ‘lower stage’ or ‘socialism’ term is problematic.

In the age of revision and after the success of counterrevolution it has become clear that there is in fact a transitional phase leading up to the classical transitional phase. Societies did not jump from developed capitalism to socialism immediately and even the states that arguably did were forced to roll back some of the core tenets of ‘socialism’ as it is described in Marx, Engels and Lenin. Namely no private ownership of the means of production and no exploitation of man by man.

To ultras this just means countries following this path aren’t socialist. So then China isn’t, Cuba isn’t, no country still is really and those of us claiming they are then have to be revisionists. And to be fair, if you’re dogmatic you can make that point going from the source material. China itself recognizes this inconsistency, thus not seeing itself at the stage of socialism. Yet it’s a socialist state. But then what do we actually mean by ‘socialism’ when we use the term like this? Just a dictatorship of the proletariat? Any country in the process of building socialism?

That question comes up all the time and confuses the fuck out of people, because the term is either not applied consistently or as it’s defined is lacking. I think discourse in the communist movement and about AES would profit immensely if we had a more consistent definition or usage of the term or a better defined concept of what that transition to socialism is and how we should call it.

  • ihaveibs@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    As someone that just took class that utilized intersectionality as a framework, I heavily disagree. Intersectionality is confusing and lacking real foundational principles (i.e. it lacks a materialist perspective) that can interpret the world in real, actionable ways. It is basically like playing whack-a-mole, where each “intersection” requires its own individual investigation and understanding rather than belonging to an overarching understanding of the world. I interpret your critique as saying MLs generally lack a good understanding of class beyond Marx and Lenin (or maybe more generally, 19th and 20th century Europe) and how to incorporate decolonial ideas into class concepts, which I completely agree with. I am also part of the problem! But I don’t think this is something that other MLs haven’t analyzed. I think its a tendency of white labor aristocrats that are overrepresented in Western ML spaces (again, I am part of the problem). If anyone has good resources that bring class analysis into our modern world, I would also appreciate that!

    I now realize I may be misinterpreting what you were saying about intersectionality, as I do think it is successful in at least bringing these topics into the forefront as worthy of serious analysis. I am just really frustrated with it right now since it caused me headaches lol

    • IzyaKatzmann [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Intersectionality itself may not be explicitly materialist, the theory which supports it (which was done so through a marxist perspective) is standpoint theory which is completely materialist. The tokenization and other aspects occur in practice, which is unfortunate but not what the theory itself advocates.

      To boil it down, do physical bodies which have a continuity in time and space have aspects or characteristics which are evident as a result of their environment and the effect of the environment on it?

      In geology an example would be stratification. A large vertical column of earth has within it a novel set of characteristics corresponding to the effect of the environment around it. For example different geological epochs which can be determined through radiometric dating. Another could be a layer of a specific type of soot from the blast of a nearby volcano with compounds novel to the composition of the volcano. This continuous physical body is has information which is evident externally by observers or by other physical forces.

      Similarly the person with an intersection has specific knowledge by virtue of themselves having experienced it. This may not be available to them readily, it may not manifest physically either. Perhaps even outside observers do not know and cannot know. None of that means it did not happen and was not potentially causally involved in the sequence or set of events they experienced.

      EDIT: To add to what you said about ‘whack-a-mole’, it always seemed to me the general distaste towards some of the methods of intersectionality were founded in the relativism individuals engage in. I agree in this sense it becomes ‘whack-a-mole’ as what is kept at the forefront of individuals is their own material conditions and experiences to the consequence of others. Each intersection here becomes a unique identifier which is atomic and incommensurable which does not lead to productive engagement. I think the rational comes after the material conditions they face. However, I don’t think it is appropriate to shoot the messenger for the message, or rather the framework for consequences as a result of it being used by certain individuals in a certain space who are known to take advantage of whatever they can to gain whatever slight they may over others.

      If these individuals had a better context with which to engage (e.g. Marxism, or any other developed school of thought) then I don’t believe the relativism nor the ‘whack-a-mole’ would be anywhere near as prominent. The breadth of human experiences and intricacies needs to still be dealt with, and in this case I think it acts as a bolster to Marxist-Leninism which is rather vague initially about how it organizes people.

      • ihaveibs@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Thanks for the detailed and thought-out response, I really appreciate it. My frustrations come purely from the mainstream application of intersectionality which decontextualizes everything for the sake of primacy of racial and social hierarchy, completely ignoring the basic question of why these hierarchies even exist in the first place (presumably because of typical western orthodoxy of “human nature”). I have definitely been rethinking it and seeing its value even in Marxist applications.

    • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think that’s the point I’m making. Intersectionality and decolonialism have demonstrated that they are required for sustainable revolution, but MLism can’t easily incorporate it.

      I think various treatments of intersectionality fall to your critique, but I think perhaps your positions of privilege make intersectionality more difficult to feel the power of. There’s a ton of power in understanding that storytelling is valid form of historical evidence. There’s a ton of power in understanding that your privileges play a similar role to class interests in propagating and resisting ideologies and in determining aggregate behavior. It’s critical to see this when you read Fanon and you realize that there exist both proletariat and slaves in the same global world system and that the proletariat depends on the exploitation of slaves in maintaining their ability to reproduce their lives, and that these concepts interpermeate and the lines are terribly blurry. When you look into colonial America and you see indentured servants that are white and sharecroppers that are black, it’s insufficient to treat these two group identically due to ideology and superstructure. What do we call that using MLism? As far as I know, we can’t call them separate classes because they have the same relations to the means of production, but they have different relations to each other and to the state and to the bourgeoisie.

      • Idliketothinkimsmart@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        MLism can’t easily incorporate it.

        Cuba has done a pretty good point about making strides for not only it’s Black population, but also Women and LGBT+ people as well. I think plenty of communist countries have implemented this more and more into their societies.

        This seems mainly a Western ML issue if anything.

        • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think behaviorally and policy-wise it’s easy. I’m saying ML theory struggles to handle it.

          • QueerCommie@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I would say ML as a theory isn’t flexible to it, but rather that dogmatic settlers don’t understand that we have to study our own material conditions rather than copy-pasting China on.

            • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I am studying it and I’m struggling to find the linguistic and conceptual framings that work, hence why I posted this as my answer to the question about what I find lacking in MLism.

                • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Again, I’m not saying Marxism-Leninism is incompatible with this. I’m saying MLism doesn’t seem to provide us with the tools required to analyze and formulate dialectical concepts that demonstrate the reality of the situation that Decolonial and intersectional research and analysis have uncovered.

                  • Idliketothinkimsmart@lemmygrad.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Perhaps I misunderstood your point…I was a bit high. Nonetheless, I’d say that it’s not supposed to come with universal frameworks. The experience of these countries is theory in real time.

                    Might not necessarily answer your request, but a bit of a different way of thinking about it.

              • QueerCommie@lemmygrad.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I believe ‘decolonized Buffalo’ has a collection of quotes from the ‘five heads of ML’ that can very easily be interpreted in a Decolonial way.

                • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  How would I find this? I listen to the Decolonized Buffalo podcast. Is it an episode? An essay?

                  • QueerCommie@lemmygrad.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Not exactly sure. This is what the podcast description says:

                    spoiler

                    Episode 135: Would Lenin or Stalin have supported the idea of Decolonization? (of the North American Continent)

                    Guests: Derek (PlantsFanon), Victor (Red Falcon)

                    To find the word document that we were reading from, you can go to the podcast share drive, then to go the “Documents” folder. The answer is “YES”, they would support the current idea of ‘Decolonization’. Quoted Sources included:

                    A) “The Right of Nations to Self-Determination” by Lenin

                    B) “Self-Determination of Nations” by Lenin

                    C) “The Revolutionary Proletariat and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination” by Lenin

                    D) “The Discussion on Self-Determination Summed Up” by Lenin

                    E) “The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination (Theses)” by Lenin

                    F) “State and Revolution” by Lenin

                    G) “What is to be Done?” by Lenin

                    H) “Imperialism The Highest Stage of Capitalism” by Lenin

                    I) “‘Left-Wing’ Communism, An Infantile Disorder” by Lenin

                    J) “Marxism and the National Question” by Stalin

                    K) “The Foundations of Leninism” by Stalin

                    L) “Historical Materialism” by Stalin

                    Rick is a citizen of the Comanche Nation, and has a master’s in Indigenous People’s law, from the University of Oklahoma.

                    Idk where this podcast share drive is.

      • Kaffe@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Indenture contracts most often guaranteed the servant land upon finishing their obligations. It was an upwardly mobile system that allowed settlers to enter debt for entrance into the colonial planter class. Indenture was basically dead for over 50 years by the time black sharecroppers became the dominant form of agricultural worker for black people.

        Indentured servants were still part of the colonizer class, and were obligated to defend the colonies in militias alongside their masters. Indenture fell out of fashion after a series of servant revolts through which the servants won significant rights in the colonies. These revolts increased the planter class’ reliance on African slaves. By the time of the Revolution indenture was basically irrelevant.

        Decolonial Marxism is perfectly compatible with MLism, in fact it is a reorientation of MLism, into the perspective of the colonized. Colonization is the subjugation of one nation by another. It is the purpose of Marxists in the colonizer nation to practice defeatism in solidarity with their nation’s colonized peoples. The Marxists of the colonized nations need to defeat the chains of Imperialism by fighting against their colonizers.

        America being a settler state, a state by and for settlers where settlers exercise political supremacy (as seen in the Navajo water case just ruled by the SC), lives alongside its primary colonial subjects, the extant indigenous nations (most are still around) and the black nation. The secondary subjects being the migrant workers from colonized nations around the world (predominantly Latinos and Asians).

        The Settlers as a nation are a colonizer class above the indigenous and black people. The contradiction between settlers of the bourgeoisie and property-less is secondary to the nation-state’s looting of indigenous land and super-exploiting black workers. The Pick-Sloan dams are a prime example of the white laborers working on genocidal projects that benefited white people overall. The condemnation of black and asian neighborhoods made way for downtown highways for white beneficiaries of the GI bill.

        America has massive weaknesses in the production of Imperialism, namely in the necessity of the US to continue colonization of indigenous territory to maintain dollar imperialism. The DAPL and KXL protests blocked and delayed massive oil projects that the US and Canada need to control the price of oil. Biden has signed off on massive drilling projects in Alaska on indigenous land where the residents don’t have running water or electricity. This project is to replace the reliance on Saudi Arabia in maintaining a low price of oil. In response to unfavorable global conditions, the settler states dip into their own resources to replenish their empire. I think MLs in America should focus on attacking the US in its arteries, the production chain of imperialism. The dismantling of White Supremacy means removing White rule over the vast territories of North America and depriving the settlers of a state for themselves. The Dictatorship of the Colonized Nations is the necessary form of state that will replace the US, Canada, and Mexico.

        • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I agree with you about what is to be done. But I haven’t heard of “Decolonial Marxism” as a body of theory. I am going to research it, but do you have any preferred sources?

          • Kaffe@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            It’s a retronym, Marxist theorists in this space never unified the theories and applications of ML utilized by Fanon, Rodney, Lushaba, Wynter, etc., under a specific title. However, the revolutions in Cuba, Vietnam, and China have been Decolonial in nature and should be studied in the way they took special attention to the society of the colonized masses when constructing Socialism that would go on to challenge and defeat Colonial rule.

            The basis is the refusal to start history at the time of colonization, or from the reference point of the colonizers. The context of the settler states needs to start before the settlers arrived, how they arrived and came to dominate, and understand the protracted resistance against the settlers. When understanding the structure of a particular colonization, which is really how national resources are processed and consumed, we can see the relationship between the colonizer class and the colonized.

            When I say Decolonization is a reorientation of ML I mean that ML was developed to explain the need for the proletariats of Imperial nations to understand the development of Imperialism in relation to class struggle. The American MLs know they need revolutionary defeatism but they do not understand what they need to defeat and where. The struggle for gender is one of deconstructing Colonialism, the struggle for race is one of deconstructing Colonialism, the struggle for the environment is one of deconstructing Colonialism. The struggle for class is one of deconstructing Colonialism. Decolonial Marxism is Scientific Socialism that builds a society that supplants the Colonial order.

            • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              we can see the relationship between the colonizer class and the colonized.

              This is the language I struggle with when dealing with MLism. Is it possible to use class as the type of thing we refer to when we say colonizer and colonized? Is colonizer a class? How does that work with proletariat and bourgeoisie? Do the classes interpermeate or are they distinct?

              • Kaffe@lemmygrad.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Colonizer refers to anyone involved in the entire process of expropriation of the resources of another nation, this is a national distinction, not a racial one. Colonized, or indigenous in the settler form, refers to those who’s national property in land, resources, and labor is expropriated by a colonizing nation. The American nation owns, is hegemonic over, or exercises sovereignty over, the lands of Turtle Island. The nations that rely on those resources are being pushed off of them while the resources are expropriated for the entire Settler economy, the “free gifts of nature”. So colonizer vs colonized or settler vs indigenous relates to the definite relations between national (social) groups. Colonizers have exploitative positions in consumption of expropriated resources from the colonized groups in land and labor. As in when you have super exploited national groups within a country, it means that the colonial proletariat is exchanging less labor for the same returns in the distribution of resources in the economy. The state, superstructure turned back into material, allocates expropriated resources/property/consumption for members of the colonial nation, as if it were a bourgeoisie as a whole. So why isn’t the class differences within the colonial nation the primary contradiction (or the primary class contradiction, i.e. peasant vs prole) in a settler society? Because even if the settler proletariat defeated the settler bourgeoisie, it would still maintain national differences in the means of production and ownership of yet to be utilized resources. The settlers would have to voluntarily give up their position of expropriation over the other nations, that would have to be maintained by the decolonial state apparatus, the end of American supremacy.

                Do the classes interpermeate or are they distinct?

                Yes, distinct in the way of definite social relations to production, but like the bottom of the bougies and the top of the labor, the consumption by individuals varies beyond national bounds depending on the relationship to property within each nation. Colonialism once it has subjugated competing nations converts the structure of those nations into a model that provides the most expropriated resources with the least effort, in the case of the US the Americans can either totally expropriate territory from the indigenous, taking from bougie and prole alike, or in a neo-Colonial form where the indigenous bourgeoisie allows super exploitation of their proletariat and resources by a higher power in exchange for a share of the proceeds and reinforced rule by the colonizers. This form remains dominant as indigenous territory is used for meat, lumber, oil, and mineral production (especially Uranium), while indigenous workers rarely get those jobs from the American bourgeoisie as it is reserved for the American workers. Essentially any resources claimed by the colonial bourgeoisie are also claimed by colonial proletariat, this is the fuel of reactionary nationalism within the colonial nations.

          • QueerCommie@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Theres literally a book by Walter Rodney of that name (it focuses on Africa). For Turtle Island (US) specific books check out Custer Died for Your Sins, Fresh Banana Leaves, we do this til they free us, the rediscovery of America, playing Indian, the red deal, the prison writings of Leonard peltier, and more.

        • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think your comment gets across a valid point by way of analogy. The analogy might not be the most rich and useful in a debate, but it establishes your position as a genuine attempt to show intersectionality is materialist

      • ihaveibs@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, I think I’m reacting to the capital I “Intersectionality” reproduced in the bowels of liberal academia that is designed to explicitly be incompatible with materialism. I totally hear what you are saying and appreciate the critique. I know I have blind spots, so if you know of any resources particularly about the necessity of intersectionality and decolonialism for sustainable revolution it would be much appreciated.

        • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Honestly, just keep working with black and indigenous sources. Red Nation Podcast has really helped me understand the criticality of indigenous knowledge to the survival of society and the incommensurability of indigenous interests with settler interests. Read Settlers, Decolonization is not a Metaphor, and Wretched of the Earth. If you’ve read them already, read Fanon again, and read more Fanon.

          What I found through engaging these texts is that not only do I have a blindspot as a white settler, these communities know I have a blind spot and they have stopped trying to convince us. They are talking with each other about what to do. So listening to it as a form of self crit really opened my eyes to the reality that the only way forward is national sovereignty, a la Lenin, applied to indigenous nations AND African diaspora as a nation, and that not only is this the only way forward but the global majority knows it and will force it on settler populations once hegemonic collapses.