I am critiquing from a Marxist perspective, of which Decolonialism is a large part. "Hexbear consensus" doesn't really exist because hexbear is a mish mash of competing ideologies

This is inherently a settler nationalist movement, inherently reactionary. You are on stolen land, settled land. Inventing false nationalisms that have its roots in white supremacy is not decolonialism, it is just a different outlet of that nationalism. It is inherently a petite bourgeoisie kind of nationalism (thus a petty nationalism).This is like being a Texan nationalist, a Californian nationalist, a Quebec nationalist, Deseret, etc. You have still a colonial type of nationalism. The people who truly own the land and from which it was stolen still exist, they exist within 'cascadia' and will be oppressed within it no matter what flag changes.

It is not coming from the oppressed peoples, but comes within a white petite bourgeoisie nationalist character. You disguise this by saying "oh well we fight for the workers, we fight against the US" when its less like New Afrika and more like the Boer sepratists. Oppressor Nationalism. "Cascadia" will be an enemy of anti-colonialism just like the US.

[–] free_casc@hexbear.net 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I am critiquing from a Marxist perspective, of which Decolonialism is a large part. "Hexbear consensus" doesn't really exist because hexbear is a mish mash of competing ideologies

This is valid, and welcome, comrade-to-comrade. I don't think that your original post(s) could be characterized as "critique". We don't need to be terse with each other here like with other platforms. I do appreciate that you posted something more substantial, so we can have a discussion about this topic, and hopefully refine both of our ideas.

As to the content of your post:

I do understand where you are coming from. I don't fully disagree with you. I do want to clarify a few things that are foundational to this "thought experiment" of sorts (it is just online posting, it isn't real):

"Cascadiaposting" is more of a bit, and occasional rhetorical tool that is useful to discussions with liberals that have genuinely progressive convictions, than anything that exists in the real world. It is useful because many of these people need to be offered license to hold the belief that it's ok to dislike or oppose the United States, and that there is nothing about it that is worth saving. This is the core belief that (I hope) you and I agree on.
The full name of this ideology could be considered "Socialism with Cascadian Characteristics". Another thing that you and I presumably agree on, is that the settler-colonial character of the United States must be undermined as part of a revolutionary movement (as with other aspects of the regime). The critique you are bringing forth (as I stated above) is totally valid, and must be incorporated, if this were real.
I'm curious what the actual theory of change would be for this part of the world. I guess maybe one thing that you and I disagree on is that I don't think it will be possible to develop into a fully post-settler-colonial society in the foreseeable future given the current material conditions of this part of the world. This "Cascadia" stuff would probably not even be purely socialist, and probably not even secessionist because nobody actually wants to die in a civil war over this shit. What it is is a thought experiment to introduce [certain, current] liberals to thinking outside the framework offered by liberal ideology. Among socialists who don't need that, it's just a bit.
Following that "Actual socialism" will arise in the global south, especially as the influence of the US empire starts to fade. What better way to speed that up than to add tension between our region and Washington D.C.? The more crap they need to deal with domestically, the less ability they will have to fuck with movements that have the opportunity to get things done. I think that the character of a "Cascadian" movement probably would be social-democratic. Hopefully genuine socialists would have a foothold in that. Hopefully those socialists would be poised to develop a more communist society that we are all striving for, but the weakening of the US is a prerequisite to that in this location, is it not?

That was going to be "just a few things" but I think I'm going to leave it at that for the moment. I hope that clarifies what this is and is not meant to represent. You aren't really wrong that a "Cascadia movement" will probably not actually be socialist. We agree that the work would not be done if it existed. My point is that the material conditions of my corner of the world only allow for that level of progress at this time, but it would be progress that could be built on late in our lifetimes, or by the next generation (who would be less America-brained).

[–] TheGenderWitch@hexbear.net 1 points 2 days ago

"Cascadiaposting" is more of a bit, and occasional rhetorical tool that is useful to discussions with liberals that have genuinely progressive convictions, than anything that exists in the real world. It is useful because many of these people need to be offered license to hold the belief that it's ok to dislike or oppose the United States, and that there is nothing about it that is worth saving. This is the core belief that (I hope) you and I agree on.

We do, but I do not advocate either for anything else within that. No settler petty nationalisms.

The full name of this ideology could be considered "Socialism with Cascadian Characteristics". Another thing that you and I presumably agree on, is that the settler-colonial character of the United States must be undermined as part of a revolutionary movement (as with other aspects of the regime). The critique you are bringing forth (as I stated above) is totally valid, and must be incorporated, if this were real. I'm curious what the actual theory of change would be for this part of the world. I guess maybe one thing that you and I disagree on is that I don't think it will be possible to develop into a fully post-settler-colonial society in the foreseeable future given the current material conditions of this part of the world. This "Cascadia" stuff would probably not even be purely socialist, and probably not even secessionist because nobody actually wants to die in a civil war over this shit. What it is is a thought experiment to introduce [certain, current] liberals to thinking outside the framework offered by liberal ideology. Among socialists who don't need that, it's just a bit.

Its hard to be anti-settler when its inherently a settler entity. It is possible to develop these countries, that is not what I'm disagreeing with. What I have a disagreement with is its foundations and existence. This is outside the framework of american nationalism, but not nationalism at all. This is petty bourgeoisie nationalism. Getting people to instead identify with a new petty nationalism instead of liberation is inherently against the communist and anti-colonial thinking.

I do think you're being at least somewhat serious about this, or you wouldn't go so hard to defend it, or represent yourself as it.

Following that "Actual socialism" will arise in the global south, especially as the influence of the US empire starts to fade. What better way to speed that up than to add tension between our region and Washington D.C.? The more crap they need to deal with domestically, the less ability they will have to fuck with movements that have the opportunity to get things done. I think that the character of a "Cascadian" movement probably would be social-democratic. Hopefully genuine socialists would have a foothold in that. Hopefully those socialists would be poised to develop a more communist society that we are all striving for, but the weakening of the US is a prerequisite to that in this location, is it not?

It is, but just because something weakens the US doesn't mean it is a net good. Social democratic is still settler colonialist, still capitalist. You aren't changing anything but the borders of colonialism. Weakening of empire does not mean socialism, it just is opportunity, opportunity that can be taken advantage of by any group. Moving people towards a new nationalism instead of socialism is working against socialism, not for it. You are strengthening the ties to these nationalist ideologies when you could be fighting them.

Cascadia is not a revolutionary movement, but a counter-revolutionary one.