King_Simp

I think this is a fair analysis, although I'm not really sure if it really fulfills the purpose of settler colonialism (which, from my perspective, is living space. In a literal sense it does give white people an advantage in literal space to live, but it doesn't give them an advantage in cheaper resources and petite landowning/Bourgeoisie property ownership.) But i honestly find this very convincing. (Edit: the suburbs and gated communities do help engage in stratification and alienation which might also help in solidifying the definition.)

On the tactics part, however, I would say it doesn't matter too much. Like you said yourself, the life is becoming more and more unstastainable for obvious reasons. More and more people who used to live in suburbs are either going to have their houses crowded when they can't afford living space, or move into traditional inner city homes.

My concern is what to do with them after a revolution. I mean yeah material conditions will change over that time (it's certainly not happening tomorrow) it's just...they're very artificial, but they are homes for people. Idk

insert parenti quote about the Pax Romana here

I was writing this at like, 3 in the morning dude cut me some slack.

What I mean is that, essentially, class divides are lessened between the classes of settler colonialists. You can see this in Israel, for instance, in that white Israelis get to live in "socialist" kittibutzes (however you spell that infernal thing) while underpaid migrant workers and such do much of the work. Ergo it gives white Israelis much more economic and consequently political and social freedom compared to those oppressed people's.

In the same way imperialism uses super exploitation to create a labor aristocracy. Settler colonialism does something similar with land. If you were a poor prole in America, an option you had was to "go west young man." Land monopolization could be delayed in the western terroritories with the expulsion of natives, while the labor power could be bought cheaper from the waves of immigrants from Ireland, Italy, etc.

This isn't to say that it was "good" or avtually slowed down capitalism at all, in fact I'd argue, concurrently with you, that it did indeed speed up the adoption of capitalism. Its a complete mischaricterization of my response. Class conflict and monopolization still occurred, and mainly occurred in the states settled earliest that weren't dominated by slave owning plantations (like new York, Philadelphia, Ohio, Michigan, etc.) However i argue that it occurred to a lesser extent because of the lack of resource competition on the continent, along with the aforementioned boons of settlement and such. This is my general explanation for the lack of class consciousness for much of American history (combined with other factors of course). I use "reset" as a term in comparison to other states on the two continents. In Mexico and other Spanish colonized states, the encomienda system made lesser even the people considered Spanish who did not come from Spain. Of course they held a higher position than slaves and indigenous peoples, but the land owning class was quickly centralized (at least in comparison to the United states). And so class conflict was accelerated in these nations. I'd argue that you can even see this in the American south, where instead of Yeoman farmers you had the slave ran plantations which stifled the growth of capitalism in these areas.

Ergo, what I was arguing in my comment is that, while the legacy still exists, the American proletariat no longer profits primarily from settler colonialism. Rather I say they benefit mainly from imperialism, same as in Europe (i.e, France and Britain). So while I do think that white Americans definitely benefit from the latent boons, it is just as possible for white Americans to be as revolutionary as white Brits or French people in comparison to Israelis because the class contradictions between them and the Bourgeoisie are greater than the material differences between the white proletariat and the black, Latino, etc. population.

This is of course not ignoring the labor aristocracy created by imperialist super profits and such, and so them being revolutionary is unlikely, but not as impossible as, say, a 1900s Boer or modern Israeli.

I think my main issue with your stance here is that it's based much more in absolutism than actual material conditions.

What does settler colonialism provide for its benefittors? Well, as they themselves will often say, land. I resent the term "reset" but settler colonialism is the closest humanity gets to actually turning back time in class society. It slows down the centralization of capitalism and allows for the creation of a large petite landowning population. Of course as well it makes room for large immigrant populations who are generally more friendly to being the exploited proletariat than either the conquered peoples or the settling population.

The problem is, how much does the American proletariat benefit from these things today? How easy is it for a American proletariat to gain land, how many resources remain completely untapped and can be exploited to increase the rate of profit? Etc.

This isn't to say that America and Americans don't benefit from the legacy of settler colonialism, but I agree with the CPUSA that it is not the primary contradiction. It certainly is an existing contradiction, but it isn't the primary one that determines the material conditions of the American proletariat.

Well also using deaths is not useful here because the people in the Donbas rebelled against the coup and initial stages of cultural genocide. Then the war started because Ukraine specifically began to formulate an attack on the region. It's like saying I shouldn't intervene to protect someone from getting shot because the person had actually been shot yet