GenZedong

I also want to point out that many of our comrades here who disagree with our takes on Decolonization are being good party members and holding the lines that their and many parties around the world are holding, hope in the American workers. But these parties especially the ones in the settler colonies of North America have not done the necessary investigation of their settler society and land and resource theft. Many of them are petit/semi (landed) bourgeois, educated, and through this have privileged entrance into Marxist theory, me included. We know that Lenin and the colonized comrades had an uphill battle against European Chauvinism within the international Communist movement which is what crystalized Marxism Leninism in the first place.

There is no reason to abstract internal colonization as either finished or different from external colonization, even calling it internal colonization makes it seem like the solution for the colonized Africans and indigenous nations is to absorb them into the settler nation. No, the settler states exist on stolen resources that they use to dominate the rest of the world, but its connection to wealth is here, inside its borders. It needs settlers to take land and hold it for the bourgeoisie to later expropriate. It needs settler dominated unions to build and work the environmentally extractive and damaging infrastructure that only benefits the settler masses. I posted about armed indigenous resistance (backed by the Panthers) to racist fishing enclosures in the 1960s that sparked the American Indian Movement, and that post had far less traction than this one about MWM.

American comrades, find out what tribes inhabited the places you have physical connections to. Learn how they came to no longer own that territory and why you and your people now do. You will learn far more about capitalism and America than through studying other movements, because our conditions are not the same. Apply the methodologies of MLism to the history of this continent, stop importing the solutions from others.

It's nothing to do with morals. It's ending the colonial relationship to land and depriving the settlers of landed property rights. The struggle for indigenous sovereignty won't end until this happens so it doesn't matter if white Americans build their national socialism they'll have to fight off attempts of the indigenous and Black nations asserting their sovereignty.

Frankly we are soon heading towards the settler nation abandoning large swathes of territory due to their own economic practices. California was settled by the refugees of the self imposed Dust Bowls who were given Californian farms managed by Japanese migrants who were interned by the settler states during WW2. There is no new West to bail them out of their contradictions. It's not listening to indigenous, it's working for them. The decolonial government will take sovereignty over the lands out of the hands of the colonizer class. Political supremacy of the settlers is a continuation of white supremacy. I have no interest in respectability politics if the audience is settler nationalist, we do not politic for the settlers, this is not their liberation (nor was American Liberty calling for the emancipation of slaves). There will be millions of Americans who will follow us, I'm sure of it, but we are right to select them ourselves, and set standards for working together.

We are not trying to convince reactionaries of our cause, we will work with those who are not. Those who'd rather be approachable to the reactionaries than work with colonized revolutionaries are preparing themselves for the dustbin of history.

Someone recently said something like (paraphrased): Many of us Communists will end up going to prison. For you White Communists, you will be forced to chose between the White gangs and the Communists/Brown folks. If you think there is tactics in pretending to be a white supremacist to save yourself, you are not a Communist, you are an enemy.

He's a journalist/podcaster that relies on audience donations to stay in business. He may not be a grifter in intentions but he relies on grifters to grow his platform. He's ultimately a tailist, but what's the qualitative difference between a tailist and a grifter?