this post was submitted on 10 Dec 2024
22 points (100.0% liked)

GenZedong

4322 readers
51 users here now

This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.

This community is for posts about Marxism and geopolitics (including shitposts to some extent). Serious posts can be posted here or in /c/GenZhou. Reactionary or ultra-leftist cringe posts belong in /c/shitreactionariessay or /c/shitultrassay respectively.

We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space. See this thread for more information. If you believe the server may be down, check the status on status.elara.ws.

Rules:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
GrainEater@lemmygrad.ml
Elara@lemmygrad.ml
ComradePupIvy@lemmygrad.ml
American_Communist22@lemmygrad.ml
22
Urban settler colonialism in the North Americas (lemmygrad.ml)
submitted 1 week ago by Sodium_nitride@lemmygrad.ml to c/genzedong@lemmygrad.ml
7 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I feel like modern communist theory (or at least, the theory of people I have seen) has a major bljnd spot that is causing a lot of issues.

When we think of settler colonialism we think of the yeoman farmers of olden days stealing land from natives. Our understanding of settler colonialism is entirely based on an agrarian settler colonialism which was a feature of early capitalism. This leads to many communists who think that places like North America no longer operate on a settler colonial basis.

However, as far as I can see, American settler colonialism has transformed into its urban and "peaceful" (from a legal/liberal standpoint) stage. The typical modern North American "settlement" is a suburban neighbourhood.

These suburbs qualify as settler colonialism because

  1. They consume the American country's land, water and energy resources to an extreme degree.
  2. They expand uncontrollably by tearing apart dense development and destroying the environment (although the expansion has slowed down)
  3. The North American superstructure caters to the needs of the suburbs at the expense of the "pure" proletariat. The American governments, at the federal, state and local level subsidise suburban development to an unsustainable degree.
  4. The wealth of the suburbs is mostly from inheritance, but the prospect of one day becoming a suburbaner (the "American dream") kept many American proles in line, until the modern times where the dream seems out of sight (because the settler mode is inherently unsustainable, even more so than non-settler capitalism)

What does this mean for our american comrade's political tactics? I'm not sure to be honest.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] Finiteacorn@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I dont really like this take there is no continuity from the frontiers to suburbs and the reasons behind it are quite different, white people didnt make subrubs to have more space tho thats a reason given now a days, they did it because they were racist. And the mechanics of it are so fundamentally different that it feels honestly offensive to compare them, settler colonialism without genocide and stealing land just isnt settler colonialism. When a developer buys a farm willingly sold by farmer or some corporation and makes a bunch of shitty, identical, environmentally destructive, and depressive houses no one is being colonized, or atleast not anymore than building anything anywhere else since its all stolen land.

Also suburbs are not unique to na they are pretty common thru out the world they are just much more pronounced in na.

[โ€“] Sodium_nitride@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 1 week ago

I dont really like this take there is no continuity from the frontiers to suburbs

Fair enough. I haven't really thought or investigatd much about the actual transformation of rural settlerism into "urban settlerism" (if the latter can be said to be a thing).

white people didnt make subrubs to have more space tho thats a reason given now a days, they did it because they were racist.

This seems rather reductive. Certainly both things can be motivating factors. They can even be factors reinforcing each other. White people fearing "overcrowding" and "overpopulation" on racial grounds is certainly a thing.

And the mechanics of it are so fundamentally different that it feels honestly offensive to compare them, settler colonialism without genocide and stealing land just isnt settler colonialism

Suburbanites have certainly used violence (both their own and of the state) to ensure that the suburbs remain "racially pure" (ex - redlining and overpolicing of black communities) and to expand the suburbs (stealing people's housing spaces by clearing them for building inefficient infrastructure). They also use violence to clear the homeless (to raise their property values) and block dense development (denying others housing).

Furthermore, the intensely polluting and consuming lifestyle of the suburbanites (because of their reliance on cars) creates a huge mortality burden on the whole planet.

Let's also not forget that the American suburbanites carry a large amount of guns, often with the explicitly stated fear of "undesirables" stealing their property.

Also, obviously the mechanisms for both rural and "urban settlerism" will be different, the same way that developed urban capitalism functions differently than early capitalism.

When a developer buys a farm willingly sold by farmer or some corporation and makes a bunch of shitty, identical, environmentally destructive, and depressive houses no one is being colonized,

The people who are colonised were already colonised a long time ago. My argument is that just because settlers ran out of farmland to steal doesn't mean that settler rule and many of its corresponding socio-economic characteristics won't be perpetuated into the urban phase of development.

Also suburbs are not unique to na they are pretty common thru out the world they are just much more pronounced in na.

Yes, but quantity can become a kind of quality on its own.