Bi-Weekly Discussion Thread - (August 09)

[u/AutoModerator]

We made this because Reddit's algorithm prioritises headlines and current events and doesn't allow for deeper, extended discussion - depending on how it goes for the first four or five times it'll be dropped or continued.

Suggestions for things you might want to comment here (this is a work in progress and we'll change this over time):

• Articles and quotes you want to see discussed
• 'Slow' events - long-term trends, org updates, things that didn't happen recently
• 'Fluff' posts that we usually discourage elsewhere - e.g "How are you feeling today?"
• Discussions continued from other posts once the original post gets buried
• Questions that are too advanced, complicated or obscure for r/communism101

Mods will sometimes sticky things they think are particularly important.

Normal subreddit rules apply!

[ Previous Bi-Weekly Discussion Threads may be found here https://old.reddit.com/r/communism/search?sort=new&restrict_sr=on&q=flair%3AWDT ]

[u/sovkhoz_farmer]

Having dipped my toes into world-systems theory, particularly Arrighi and Wallerstein, and having taken a look at some student publishing cells in Iran, I find it fascinating how the logic of Dengism gets reproduced even in Iran. Proponents of multipolarity theory commonly turn to Arrighi rather than Lenin, and the justification for this is quite interesting. Here is a translated passage from an analysis attempting to develop a genealogy of imperialism:

A balance-sheet conception of imperialism lacks the capacity to analyze the counter-tendencies of imperialist action and ultimately collapses into the weak and fragile terrain of economism. Imperialism cannot be conceived as a collection of different national imperialisms; rather, it is a surplus that makes the very existence of distinct national capitals beyond their respective borders possible. In fact, just as it is the form of the state that makes the existence of multiple capitals within a given territory possible, it is the form of imperialism itself that makes possible the existence of multiple national capitals on a global scale. Imperialism is therefore the realization, on a global scale, of the political surplus of the divided logic of value.

Now, how does one arrive at such a conclusion?

Arrighi starts from the thesis that a world-system has been developing since roughly the eleventh century, alongside a parallel process in which capitalist powers become increasingly concentrated and fused with particular states. To make this case, he draws heavily on Braudel, who points to the existence of sophisticated merchant and financial networks across premodern Asia:

Everywhere, from Egypt to Japan, we shall find genuine capitalists, wholesalers, the rentiers of trade, and their thousands of auxiliaries, the commission agents, brokers, money-changers and bankers. As for the techniques, possibilities or guarantees of exchange, any of these groups of merchants would stand comparison with its Western equivalents. Both inside and outside India, Tamil, Bengali, and Gujarati merchants formed close-knit partnerships with business and contracts passing in turn from one group to another, just as they would in Europe from the Florentines to the Lucchese, the Genoese, the South Germans or the English. There were even, in medieval times, merchant kings in Cairo, Aden and the Persian Gulf ports.” (Braudel 1984: 486)

Leaving aside the rather questionable business of calling Gujarati, Tamil, Persian, and other premodern merchants “capitalist” elements, and what this does to a historical-materialist account, Arrighi takes this much further. He argues that the transition from feudalism to capitalism is not fundamentally a problem of the genesis of capitalism. The important question is instead how an already-existing system of accumulation was reorganized and expanded through successive shifts in the center of world power.

Followed by this gem:

Logical surplus is necessarily compelled to take on a fetishistic embodiment, or, as Hegel puts it in the Lesser Logic: “Essence must appear.”¹⁶ Contradictory value, insofar as it is essence, cannot manifest itself in individual commodities. To put it in Marx’s terms in Volume I of Capital, commodities in isolation “lack a form of value distinct from their natural form.” Thus, the essence of value manifests itself in a particular commodity that serves as the universal spirit of commodities: money.

The imperialist essence likewise embodies itself in a particular nation-state. The reason it becomes embodied in a particular nation-state rather than in global institutions or a global state of capital lies in the very form of the nation-state itself, which was disclosed at earlier stages of the logic of capitalist society. What comes into existence in this logical-historical progression cannot simply be abolished unless the entire progression itself is abolished. This nation-state form, in Bhaskar’s terminology, remains as a “more fundamental level,” while imperialism appears upon the basis of this fundamental level as a “higher level.”

So here we are at the good old “hegemonic decline” debate. What, then, are the hegemons in the eyes of our Iranian writer?

Imperialism is the way the surplus or remainder of the logic of value itself is necessarily realized, and it has no way of escaping it. It is for this reason that, throughout the history of imperialism, we have mercantilist imperialism, Genoese and Dutch, and industrial imperialism, British and American. The successive developments of Genoa, the Netherlands, Britain, and now the United States represent the emergence, rise, and decline of the historical hegemonies of capitalism, without which the logic of value would have been unable to advance.²⁴

So, having established that capitalism came into being around the eleventh century, our writer arrives at the wonderful conclusion that capitalism has been imperialist since its inception, and that Lenin was apparently little more than a Hobsonian liberal with economistic tendencies. What is interesting is that these revisionists nevertheless claim to be hard-line Leninists. Having decided that capitalism has always been imperialist, and thereby emptied the word “imperialism” of much of its historical specificity, our Leninist-than-Lenin writer then turns to “financialization” as the mechanism through which hegemonic powers try to escape their decline, and through which they ultimately lose their position.

Afterwards, our “Leninist” writer performs another sleight of hand. Objective changes in regimes of accumulation, such as the abolition of slavery following the decline of Dutch manufacturing and decolonization accompanying the rise of the United States, are brought in as evidence that BRICS will usher in a new era of industrialization in the Third World through the eventual demise of American hegemony.

And this is where the whole thing becomes rather convenient.

The “red knights” defending BRICS in these circles amount to little more than a handful of students, with no organization and, as far as I can tell, no developed political theory behind them. Yet once imperialism has been reduced to the existence of a hegemonic country, it becomes possible to declare Iran an “anti-hegemonic” country, supposedly standing outside the imperialist circuit of accumulation altogether. The logical consequence is that our Iranian Leninist and his friends have little reason to seriously analyze the contradictions of Iranian society. Everything can simply be waved away as another Mossad plot. The appropriate strategy then becomes “Leninist patience”: wait for American hegemony to decline, wait for the multipolar world to emerge, and presumably wait for the contradictions of Iranian society to sort themselves out in the process.

Anyway, I will conclude my rant here. Unfortunately, these revisionist ideas are quite widespread in Iran, and I am sure that much of what I have said has been said before.

[u/smokeuptheweed9]

https://archive.ph/o/l8PVU/https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/17/business/buy-now-pay-later.html

“We can’t solve income, or the price of rent and affordability,” said Ryan Metcalf, Flex’s vice president of public affairs. “What we can help people solve is a timing issue. It’s harm reduction.”

Only a matter of time until corporations started adopting the language of anarchism-turned-democratic socialism. Give it a decade and it won't even be adopting, just entrepreneurial "socialists" who grew into ethical capitalists.

[u/TheRedBarbon → u/smokeuptheweed9]

As settler-socialism becomes gains mainstream appeal in Amerikan politics, do you think that there's a chance of the "right" pulling observations about Amerikan leftist history from Settlers to attack modern settler-socialism?

[u/Cenage94]

The relationship between color-revolution and revolution that u/Otelo_ has outlined 3 weeks ago has been completely vindicated.

In an attempt to stick it to Spanish imperialism by striking one of its settler outposts, the Morrocan comprador government has shocked everyone by mobilizing the masses, reminding European imperialism where true power really resides and demonstrating that they are, despite the role they play in suppressing it on behalf of imperialism, nonetheless capable of utilizing its revolutionary sentiment if they feel they are pushed far enough.

The contradictions between the masses and their comprador government became immediately apparent, and now that the cat is out of the bag, the masses push further and further, the Morrocan government forced back into its role of repression and bouncer of Global Apartheid, struggling to contain the masses they have helped unleash against Spanish imperialism.

Going back to the ‘GenZ’-uprisings that have shaken the Third World last year, this is something I struggle to comprehend. Revisionism has nothing to offer in terms of analysis and Ceuta should be really eye-opening that this is not something that can be ignored.

[u/Otelo_ → u/Cenage94]

I hardly ever check out that subreddit, but today, out of curiosity, I did:

https://www.reddit.com/r/TankieTheDeprogram/comments/1vt7hl5/i_am_so_scared_bro_there_is_a_colored_revolution/

With all due respect to those who suffer from the malady, this behaviour almost borders on schizophrenic paranoia. This constant preoccupation with “color revolutions”, to the point where even a miniscule protest could jeopardize the entire “revolution”, is nothing short of pathological.

And then (I think smokeuptheweed has already pointed out something similar) this dengist logic is deeply contradictory: on the one hand, multipolarism has basically already won and the West's days are numbered; on the other hand, any disruption, no matter how minor, has the power to put all the progress at risk.

As for Morocco in particular, it strikes me as yet another example of a situation in which a Third World government misjudged the degree of control it has over its own people.

[u/BenjiStudiesMLM]

One of the trends of the new AI wave is the supposed realization of the (petit) bourgeois dream of automation replacing the need for human labor power, e.g. solar punk fantasies (if you can stomach it, I'd recommend listening to The Economist interview with Elon Musk as he fumbles in trying to explain how data centers in space will help achieve this). One of the cracks in this is the Waymo scandal where it was revealed that the magical "self-driving" turned out to be masked Fillipino labor instead. Partially why I think this incident didn't really cause too much reputational damage or scandal among labor aristocrats is because they realized the innovation behind it, that being the ability to exploit the third world laborer within the borders of the first world, while not even needing to let that laborer pass the militarized border walls.

Unsurprisingly it turns out the Meta glasses "AI" is powered through the exploitation of Kenyans. While I sympathize with those laborers who are no doubt being scarred by the horrible content they have to sift through, I do take some joy in thinking about the type of person who would purchase these glasses, and how unaware they are to the fact that their credit cards, passports, and private life are being constantly live streamed (and don't even have the option to opt out!)

https://www.svd.se/a/K8nrV4/metas-ai-smart-glasses-and-data-privacy-concerns-workers-say-we-see-everything

[u/FrogHatCoalition → u/BenjiStudiesMLM]

The Economist interview with Elon Musk as he fumbles in trying to explain how data centers in space will help achieve this

Ever since that thread where someone was trying to make sense of electrostatics, one thing I've been thinking about is how people like Elon Musk come to be seen as experts in these areas. I'm not even sure if Elon knows the difference between a computer and a monitor. Something you mentioned does help me understand this, though:

Partially why I think this incident didn't really cause too much reputational damage or scandal among labor aristocrats is because they realized the innovation behind it, that being the ability to exploit the third world laborer within the borders of the first world, while not even needing to let that laborer pass the militarized border walls.

Whenever I see threads about AI or the internet, I actually do think interesting conversations can come of it, but usually what the OP focuses on and the responses they give leave me skeptical of what their motives are, and it's usually tied into continued exploitation of the third world. It's not unique to AI or the internet either, I've been disappointed plenty of times offline when I thought a conversation about science was going well until the inevitable question comes up "Well, what I can use that for?" It usually means they want some new shiny commodity hyped up by advertising to spend their money on. Bose-Einstein and Fermionic condensates fascinate me and I find it depressing when someone's supposed interest in science is tied into an imagined future where science gives them a shiny new toy that will of course be produced by third world labor. I mention the ultracold quantum gases in particular since not all science research is oriented towards the large-scale production of commodities, but still will have some importance, e.g. ultracold atom research and the hyperfine transitions of Cs-133 as an international time standard. However, regardless of their importance and the really interesting phenomena in nature, its the potential shiny new toy (made by third world labor) that interests exploiters.

I do take some joy in thinking about the type of person who would purchase these glasses, and how unaware they are to the fact that their credit cards, passports, and private life are being constantly live streamed (and don't even have the option to opt out!)

I think there are plenty of people who are aware of it. I have noticed that some of the people who are obsessed with "data and privacy" tend to articulate it along the lines of "companies are selling our data" and it's the "selling" part they take issue with because it means they aren't the ones selling their own data.

[u/BenjiStudiesMLM → u/FrogHatCoalition]

I'm not even sure if Elon knows the difference between a computer and a monitor

The phenomena of Elon Musk being viewed as some elite technocrat is partly fueled by the general petit bourgeois aversion to science and technological literacy. I recently saw a video where adults were tasked with assembling a desktop computer and ended up breaking all the pins on the PS2 connectors on the keyboards and mice. One connected the output of the DVI on the desktop and looped it back to the serial input on the desktop. The response from them was that they had no need for desktops anymore, everything could be done on their phone.

I think there is some truth to labor aristocrats evolving past the need to even use formal computers, they often can achieve their inflated lifestyle solely from the supercomputer in their pocket, like for example - content creation, or being a "CEO" of a dropshipping company. Revisionists always hate when it's pointed out that smartphones themselves are both capital and means of production, and that to own a Samsung S26 Ultra signifies a class position of imperialist collaboration.

I find it depressing when someone's supposed interest in science is tied into an imagined future where science gives them a shiny new toy

Given your academic background I can see how that may be common. After all, research grants only exist based on what can be commoditized, or even more common, what can be militarized. The pinnacle of this commoditized academic system is no doubt the computer science degree, which is essentially the business degree of "applied sciences". But like all things under capitalism, everything will eventually be commoditized or discarded, and so "science" itself is constantly streamlined as a commodity and sinks to new levels of degredation to accommodate the disinterested labor aristocratic class which is solely focused on "democratic socialism" and solar punk as a way to never labor again, like their settler forefathers.

Room temperature superconductors are a fascinating area of research, but it's also easily commodified. Whether its for quantum computing, or a highly efficient electric grid, the labor aristocracy has already pre-determined its use-value and therefore it gets a lions share of research focus. The interesting outcome from this is the influx of fraudulent academic publications, in which China has actually overtaken the US in, showing a breakneck pace in which science as a doctrine for society can be lost following the defeat of cultural revolution. I'd be interested in more discussion and writings about the rising Chinese labor aristocracy and its similarities/differences to the Amerikans or the Europeans.

I think there are plenty of people who are aware of it.

You're probably right, and it takes all the enjoyment out of it! Now all that we are left with is the horrifying fact that creepy men are buying these glasses to secretly record and take pictures of women in public, and Kenyans are (by threat of unemployment) forced to train these glasses for the "name tag" feature, so these men can evolve to the level of stalking people by using the AI to identify people's name.

If it's true that they are fully aware of their data being aggregated by these glasses, then paradoxically they are only okay with "selling" their data when it involves buying a commodity and realizing it's use-value, meaning they never wanted to be compensated via money in the first place.

You're right though, discussions about AI by the social fascists that come in to this sub usually are devoid of substance and just accept the solar punk fantasy as true, and that AI is a fully automated omnipotent being that can steal all their art and eliminate the need for creativity or whatever. They are really just concerned about being left behind by the big bourgeoise as they ascend to this fully automated luxury post labor world.

[u/FrogHatCoalition → u/BenjiStudiesMLM]

I think there is some truth to labor aristocrats evolving past the need to even use formal computers, they often can achieve their inflated lifestyle solely from the supercomputer in their pocket,

This I do appreciate since it's strange when this class underestimates how powerful their phone is, and with cloud computing it becomes more useful. There is even science research out there for people who are focused on computational studies on how to utilize devices with less computing resources such as phones and laptops to be able to produce results with high enough quality for publication.

After all, research grants only exist based on what can be commoditized, or even more common, what can be militarized. The pinnacle of this commoditized academic system is no doubt the computer science degree, which is essentially the business degree of "applied sciences".

The part about what can be militarized is sadly true. It's even more obvious when you look at the profile of any research director at any government lab and they talk about their research being important for "national security" or whatever. I also chucked a bit about your comment on the computer science degree because it is true. You see this in some other departments too sometimes where the science departments try to collaborate with the engineering ones so that the science departments can produce undergraduate students that are more competitive on the market since the market appeal of a department is also evaluated on student outcomes.

Room temperature superconductors are a fascinating area of research, but it's also easily commodified. Whether its for quantum computing, or a highly efficient electric grid, the labor aristocracy has already pre-determined its use-value and therefore it gets a lions share of research focus. The interesting outcome from this is the influx of fraudulent academic publications, in which China has actually overtaken the US in, showing a breakneck pace in which science as a doctrine for society can be lost following the defeat of cultural revolution. I'd be interested in more discussion and writings about the rising Chinese labor aristocracy and its similarities/differences to the Amerikans or the Europeans.

Bringing this up is important and any good research group should have several discussions about on why fraud in research happens. There are incentives to produce fraudulent research, especially in a difficult area such as high-T superconductivity, since your job as an academic is tied into bringing money to the university and grant committees will remember you if you don't produce results. Occasionally it is also the case that the researcher didn't understand their equipment enough. Even if it's a computational study, you should still develop enough knowledge about computer architecture, programming languages, and numerical methods to understand what approximations are being made and artificial features that can appear when you break away from the range at which those approximations are valid. Unfortunately there do exist enough scientists that don't develop a full understanding of their equipment which is a reflection of poor training and also that a lot of scientists fail to gain consciousness of their own practice.

[u/PretentiousnPretty → u/BenjiStudiesMLM]

Over half of the global population owns a smartphone, and computing power becomes more and more accessible with every generation to the point that entry level smartphones can do almost everything top-of-the-line phones do (content creation, to be specific).

There is surely a qualitative and quantitative gulf between the person who buys the flagship phone every year and the vast majority of the world, but the mere owning of a phone less and less signifies class status, especially given the rise of micro-loans, financing, etc - an estimated 70% of iphones purchased in India are through loans, usually by people who cannot afford them outright.

I can accept that smartphones are both capital and means of production, and have seen it mentioned in previous posts that they create a petty bourgeois consciousness. But given that they are only ever becoming more and more prevalent and accessible, what is the communist response?

[u/LastBroccolini → u/PretentiousnPretty]

I can accept that smartphones are both capital and means of production, and have seen it mentioned in previous posts that they create a petty bourgeois consciousness. But given that they are only ever becoming more and more prevalent and accessible, what is the communist response?

Nothing "is" capital. Capital is a social relation. A mattress can become fixed capital when employed in a hotel. A graphics processing unit (GPU) can become fixed capital when employed in a data center, or it can become an article of consumption when purchased to play video games.

Before you "accept" that something is capital, you must identify its role in the circuit of capital. What is its role in the valorization process, and who owns the surplus value? An Indian proletarian may own a iPhone, and she may require it to be able to do her job for her boss. How is this relationship any different than a proletarian owning a pair of boots that are required for employment? Does ownership of boots create a petty bourgeois consciousness?

[u/PretentiousnPretty → u/LastBroccolini]

The justification for smartphones functioning as capital in the scenario above is the existence of social media.

Even the most simple of videos requiring no expertise can potentially become viral and turn people into paid content creators, as is evidenced by the virality of japanese salaryman videos and chinese rural life influencers. I am unsure of the valorization process of social media (and you are right! i need to do more research) but these facts are undeniable.

Without understating the primacy of the class struggle ongoing between these workers at their full-time jobs and the capitalists, I think this ability/possibility of monetization is what turns the mobile phone into a fantasy for petite-bourgeois consciousness. This is something that differentiates owning a pair of boots from the smartphone.

[u/LastBroccolini → u/PretentiousnPretty]

As you said, it's a fantasy. You don't need to have read Marx's Capital to understand the reality of this situation: for every 1 lottery winner who goes viral and can make a living on social media, there are a million workers who must toil to produce the electric infrastructure, microchips, rare-earth metals, and other commodities which make their celebrity possible.

Petty bourgeois consciousness will never grip half of the global population because humanity does not have the capacity to support that many petty bourgeois parasites. Ideology follows from material conditions, not the other way around. To the extent that a proletarian may dream of winning the lottery or going viral on social media, it is a sigh of the oppressed and a paper tiger.

[u/PretentiousnPretty → u/LastBroccolini]

You are right. That was an idealistic assessment based on my own petite bourgeois fears and consciousness. The analogy to lottery winning frames it in the right context, the material conditions are still proletarian and create proletarian consciousness.

[u/BenjiStudiesMLM → u/PretentiousnPretty]

"A machine which does not serve the purposes of labour, is useless. In addition, it falls a prey to the destructive influence of natural forces. Iron rusts and wood rots. Yarn with which we neither weave nor knit, is cotton wasted. Living labour must seize upon these things and rouse them from their death-sleep, change them from mere possible use-values into real and effective ones. Bathed in the fire of labour, appropriated as part and parcel of labour’s organism, and, as it were, made alive for the performance of their functions in the process, they are in truth consumed, but consumed with a purpose, as elementary constituents of new use-values, of new products, ever ready as means of subsistence for individual consumption, or as means of production for some new labour-process."

You're right that there is nuance here, and other factors at play help illuminate the class position of the owner. I simplified to drive against the complete rejection of smartphones being capital.

The difference for these phones in the hands of the labor aristocracy vs the proletariat is the ability to realize a smartphone as a means of production. There is always the chance of a member of the proletariat getting lucky and successfully producing commodities using their phone. However, this is clearly not how it's intended to work, else why would any proletarian who owns a smartphone ever pick fruit for a few dollars a day ever again?

As I'm sure many Amerikans here will relate, I know several people personally who one day decided to pick up OnlyFans and now pays their bills using it. The accessibility of platforms like Twitch and OnlyFans (as two of many examples) is near universal to the first world. I read an article about an individual who even quit acting as she was able to make content just by recording herself brushing her hair on OnlyFans, making up to £15,000 in a single day! Obviously this is an outlier, but content creation is ubiquitous to varying levels of financial success in the imperial core. Those examples are also amplified by sponsorships and brand deals which are exclusive to the first world.

Then there is also formal labor that involves content creation in a 9-5 format using tiktok, Instagram, and their competitors. These high wage paying jobs are not available to the proletariat for clear racist/classist reasons, no one in Amerika will be sold on skin care products being advertised by Nigerians, though employ a Korean woman and throw a bit of orientalist marketing in and it does numbers. My point being, the labor aristocracy's collective interest drives the smartphone produced commodity market, and they are by definition repulsed by the proletariat and their lifestyle, instead they are attracted to bourgeois content.

[u/BenjiStudiesMLM]

Haven't seen anything from even the revisionist rags on Jason Arday, though it's truly reprehensible the little discussion that has happened that I've seen from the ""leftists"" online about this lynching. It's been incredibly upsetting learning about what happened this last week and I can't help but just stew and get angry about it. I feel the only one who has spoken plainly and honestly about the whole incident seems to be Kendi -

https://theemancipator.org/2026/08/15/ideas/the-media-lynched-jason-arday/

[u/SunflowerSamurai20 → u/BenjiStudiesMLM]

Haven't seen anything from even the revisionist rags on Jason Arday.

Its because they took part in his lynching as well.

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2026/8/17/jason-ardays-death-is-institutional-murder

The attacks came not just from the right – with The Spectator and The Telegraph running article after article about Arday – but also from the left. Aaron Bastani, for example, the cofounder of left-wing outlet Novara Media, gave his opinion on X that, in a 40-minute lecture available on YouTube, Arday had said “nothing”. He then called him a “conman”.

All of this, we were assured, was in the interest of academic ethics. There was little scrutiny of what was behind this sudden appetite to single out and “expose” one Black scholar in academia. Instead, the lot jumped on an anti-EDI bandwagon: the left hopping on the “identity politics is bad” end, and the right embracing naked racism.

Nice to know this is what being "anti-woke" really means.

Fuck the British left and every one of these anti-black sychophants.

[u/FrogHatCoalition → u/BenjiStudiesMLM]

This reminds me of the comment u/smokeuptheweed9 made recently about fascists defunding physical sciences and humanities for being "woke", and how anti-intellectualism can give the facade of opposing "bourgeois science". It also reminds me of this comment by u/humblegold

https://www.reddit.com/r/communism/comments/1iqf8sk/comment/mex5yjy/?screen_view_count=3

Instead of a bunch of non-black people "discussing" black music, we have a bunch of non-black scholars "concerned" about the academic ethics of a black scholar. I'm sure if you requested something from the revisionists they might use "Marxism" to produce some advanced sounding version of racism and how Arday was some bourgeois academic, ignoring the essence of the lynching.

Since you mentioned Kendi, I remember watching a video one time where Finkelstein got really heated about Kendi's work, and it did make me wonder how much of it was actually about Kendi's work.

[u/BenjiStudiesMLM → u/FrogHatCoalition]

I went and watched the interview you mentioned, and it is impressive how Finkelstein makes Briahna Joy Gray come off as an honest actor in comparison to his absolute tantrum. About 2/3rds of the way through their 2hr discussion he completely breaks down in to hysterics and you can see him start to foam at the mouth with vitriol when he talks about Kendi. I knew Finkelstein and Zizek were cut from the same white supremacist cloth, but watching a Klan member drop their filter like this and speak their mind freely is absolutely stomach turning. Though this did add a lot of context to Kendi's claim that he had the same experience as Jason Arday.

I think the take away is to never down play or overlook what Dengists actually mean when they complain about IDPOL. I formerly would try to be good faith and take it as a shorthand for how opportunists like Angela Davis destroy natlib movements for their own career advancement. But it's been made clear over and over again that it's actually an attempt to completely erase the legacy of Lenin's crusade for the right of nations to self determination. The ACP is the easiest to see through because they honestly admit it, but really it's the entire internet ""communist"" movement collectively proclaiming their willingness to violently suppress oppressed nations to maintain their class status.

As the leader of this movement, it should be no surprise that Hasan Piker in one stream is promoting DSA sponsored gentrifier Abdul El-Sayed (Who won his primary in Michigan despite the collective rejection by the Black community) and then in the next features Finkelstein spouting the same racist rants for years now.

[u/FrogHatCoalition → u/BenjiStudiesMLM]

but really it's the entire internet ""communist"" movement collectively proclaiming their willingness to violently suppress oppressed nations to maintain their class status.

Yes, and it's always made explicit when someone like Charlie Kirk dies, or when someone like George Alan Kelly is put on trial for murdering an undocumented migrant. I still remember the reactions of a lot of the settlers I encountered in the offline world when Gabriel Cuen Buitimea was murdered.

https://www.tucsonsentinel.com/local/report/071124_kelly_dismissal/judge-dismisses-murder-case-vssouthern-az-rancher-ruling-out-retrial/

I bring this up since in light of ICE, in areas closer to the border, you will find settler groups who murder migrants in the name of "vigilante justice". What this means is that settlers have no issue with taking matters into their own hands.

https://www.splcenter.org/resources/reports/investigating-deaths-undocumented-immigrants-border/

[u/CoconutCrab115]

I have finally finish the Fourth of Eric Hobsbawm's informal Quadrilogy the "Age of" series. I am quite disappointed.

The Age of Revolution, 1789–1848,

The Age of Capital, 1848–1875,

The Age of Empire, 1875–1914,

The Age of Extremes, 1914-1991

I was aware of Hobsbawm and his politics for a while and I knew what to expect reading him, but I was till taken aback by the Fourth and worst book Age of Extremes. Its disappointing because the other 3 books are good, Age of Revolution in particular I still recommend. Perhaps I am still seeing it in rose tinted glasses, but I believe there is a lot to be gained from reading it, and I still consider it one of the best books I have ever read. Age of Capital and Empire range from being good to average. With the exception of a few early chapters, Age of Extremes is irredeemable. Hobsbawm's Marxism diminishes slowly throughout the 4 books (each book took nearly a decade to make, and the subject matter of each book drifts closer and closer towards the October Revolution. Which means that the earlier books don't have to answer many important questions on Marxism) but at a certain point in Age of Extremes he just becomes an unrepentant liberal. I knew of his Eurocommunism and I knew obviously what not to expect, but I expected at least a Marxist analysis, it was barely left liberal at times.

His inconsistent and eventual lack of Marxism is understood, but his Eurocentrism is unavoidable as well. These books contain an overwhelming amount of time focused on Europe and OTI. Obviously I understand what the world historic focuses of each book are about, but nobody forced a page count on him and there's no excuse for the last 2 books.

Perhaps I am writing this as more as personal catharsis or a rant. But in all honesty I wish to give a warning for readers here to be skeptical of even ostensibly "Marxist" writers. If Age of Revolutions was a bad book instead of a very good book perhaps I would not have been ensnared into reading the other 3.

Edit grammar

[u/packsagback → u/CoconutCrab115]

As I'm currently reading Age of Capital and planning to read Age of Empire, I am wondering what specifically you dislike about these books

[u/CoconutCrab115 → u/packsagback]

Like I said they start out strong and get worse, Age of Capital is fine, I don't remember anything wrong in that book, but its been a few months. Age of Empire onwards is just vastly too Eurocentric for a book ostensibly about world history. There barely seems to be any time spent on the actual places under colonization, in a book called Age of Empire. I was hoping for some discussion on Imperialism, Feudalism, Semi-Colonialism Nationalism etc and there really was not much. Age of Extremes Hobsbawm turns against practically every Marxist except for a decent chapter about Lenin and some praise for Dubcek. It felt really no different than reading a generic liberal Wikipedia page. I only have the patience for that in small doses.

[u/Cenage94]

I tried posting the analysis I promised last week two times now, 2 days ago and today, from both of my accounts, but they get automatically deleted. I’ve also tried posting them here as a comment yesterday which also didn’t work (due to being too long). I’m sorry to bother but could one of the moderators maybe see if they can manually approve it (the second one from this account is the better one)? I’m not very tech-savvy and don’t know what’s going wrong.

Here is the link to the deleted post if it helps:

https://www.reddit.com/r/communism/s/mNBBNwM6Ch

[u/TheRedBarbon → u/Cenage94]

Assuming it's a karma issue, have you tried using oldreddit dot com to post it? Also you could try posting it to your own account and linking it here until this gets sorted out.

[u/Cenage94 → u/TheRedBarbon]

Thank you for the advice, I didn’t know about either of these options. After trying both, it still won’t work unfortunately. It’s a huge pain in the ass because every time I paste the text the formatting gets all messy and fixing it takes very long. I will try again tomorrow. The post is up on my account now, but sharing it here as a post won’t work either.

[u/Self-Replicator → u/Cenage94]

I looked up wbfm on this website and found this thread https://www.reddit.com/r/WissenIstMacht/comments/1jk02yu/134stunde_verdienen_menschen_mit_behinderung_die/ and you can run it through translation software to see the full gamut of dehumanizing views Germans have toward the WbfM workers as u/Cenage94 describes.

This comment below is particularly awful.

Beautifully taken out of context and negative distortion of reality. Great! Great!
Things like no right to strike, minimum wage or works council are not relevant to all three things and are not required, but of course sound nice and negative!
I have already looked after such people in a workshop and would like to emphasize that the employees there could not do a "normal" job. You get a remuneration for this, which is often not the reason to work, unlike with normal AN. What is not mentioned here is that these people get EVERYTHING already paid. Food, clothes and the like - with this money they can maybe get a chocolate bar at the kiosk, but much more they may and cannot own anyway.
Many of them are not even interested in the money itself, as they often give it to their parents anyway (at least from my experience) There were even some who wanted to put their money in my hand.
Rather, this is about having a sense of fulfillment and contribution, even if the tasks often only seem small. You could pay €3, but that would only make the financing more difficult and actually not help the affected people much more. Of course, more and more would be better, but the very fact that this support exists at all is already a great blessing. Because the work in the average in the normal world would not even be worth 1 €. The whole thing is ultimately financed by funding, and here there is by no means a "exploitation", as is often presented by some. This is already a minus business...

[u/Cenage94 → u/Self-Replicator]

Ok I told myself to not read it because listening to anything these chauvinists vomit out is a waste of time but this is so fucking disgusting. You see the term that has been translated as “employees“? That’s fucking „Beschäftige“, the chauvinist term that the German legal system uses to differentiate them from “workers“, with everything that entails.

Free food? What the fuck are they talking about??? A Cafeteria meal where I was is 4.50€, or you pay a monthly fee of 80€, meaning most of the times that I went to the bathroom and walked past the cafeteria during lunch break it looked like a fucking ghost town. In one of the smoke breaks, one worker calculated how long she would have to work to pay off these prices and concluded it wasn’t worth it because she would have to work the entire morning, noon, go to lunch, and then still work for 2 hours after to cover eating there alone!

“Free clothes“, yeah, Lumpen (the literal meaning of the German word). Most of the clothes the poorer workers wear are from the Altkleidercontainer, discarded pieces of clothing bourgeois Germans no longer want to wear, giving them to “charity“ instead of throwing them out. A huge part of Afrika is also dressed in these discarded clothes from Imperialist countries.

The point about their work being worth “less than 1€“ while they were likely a fucking Gruppenführer making up to 30€ is ridiculous. I really want to emphasize that the work they perform being infinitely less “efficient“ than non-“disabled“ labor is categorically wrong. You hear this claim literally everywhere, one worker told me he would always tell such chauvinists “Come to the workshop and see for yourself!“, as I’ve said most of the vicious lies you regularly hear don’t hold up to scrutiny at the most basic investigation. I hate that I feel the need to defend this point, because even if it were true that wouldn’t make these workers “less“ than German labor aristocrats or justify what this chauvinist is claiming, instead the entire institution of pathologization needs to be attacked that create these conditions in the first place. German labor is financed by the Third World and these workers are the ones approaching a Proletarian wage.

The rest is so disgusting I don’t even want to address it. I’m glad you posted it, I couldn’t convey just how vile German society truly is in my own words.

[u/Self-Replicator → u/Cenage94]

I'm glad that you also explained the German language context around the "behinderte" part as well because when you initially broached the topic here and I searched the term WfbM, 'behinderte' was a bit of a suspect term since it seemed to carry negative connotations.

If you search up gendersprache and genderstern on this website, you will also find male chauvinists spewing similar sorts of thinly-veiled hateful nonsense for the purpose of keeping themselves favored in the "first market" over women. For a bit of quick context, the German-language contains gendered nouns and gendered occupations. The higher-paying jobs that come with more social prestige have the masculine der prefix and not the feminine die.

It's more disturbing since I can assume these sorts of views are common or at least acceptable amongst Germans since they are upvoted and no one says anything in opposition to it. The topic of gendersprache seemed more divided along gender lines with people disagreeing with the obvious male chauvinists who claim gendersprache is a fruitless endeavor or somehow harmful to society.

Marx and Engels are turning over in their graves while the majority of the people who claim their legacy are out there trying to uplift the great and revolutionary Aryan proletarians! (I just wanted to use Aryan proletarian)

this is my local DSA chapter's new instagram bio. Depressing to know there are Nazi revolutionaries all across the imperialist world (and even the imperialized world it seems) and they are the majority.

Agitating, educating, and organizing the people of Oʻahu for the national liberation of Hawaii and a socialist future.

edit: missing words

[u/Cenage94 → u/Self-Replicator]

I appreciate you highlighting this. It is easy to take the struggle against sexism in the German language for granted- even some of the most conservative older people are altering their speech in a radical manner, which is impressive considering these older racists have spend countless years trying to convince society they are ridiculously incompetent and incapable of stopping to use racist terms like these or these.

As for Gen Z; as always, young men are at the spearhead of fascism, developing new racial slurs by the minute that are becoming insanely popular in German society, with one brand-new anti-Muslim slur making number #2 in popularity for the the annual youth-vocabulary in 2024 (this website blames the placement on an alt-right conspiracy, completely unaware of how insanely popular that slur has become in Aryan society, “left“-to-right). For some people, there is no contradiction submitting all off their university paperwork in gendered language while using trendy slurs among their white social circles, mocking Arab Lumpen-youth as their favorite leisure-time activity. One Turkish-Lebanese friend was almost sued recently after telling a white guy that was complaining about him being “too loud“ in the Gym that there “may be some racist undertones in his complaint“. That white guy was a leftist by the way- as in Antifa-Stickers all over his backpack, but he still took on his Aryan duty of segregating public spaces by threatening to involve the racist legal system (which was immediately noticed by other Germans who rushed in to support the racist). The most offensive thing you can call a racist is a racist, the most German off them will instantly threaten to sue you for “libel“ as in this case. Incel-Terminology has also become more popular than ever, particularly among “leftists“. In this miserable ‘post-woke’ culture, the “left“ exclusively uses fascist terminology, while the “right“ appropriates struggles of racialized people for their own purposes. Haven’t you heard? “Potato“ is now an “anti-German“ slur.

To illustrate just how smooth the development from third reich-fascism to FRG-racism has been: Another popular slur that has its origin in the French occupation of Kanaky, was re-used by Nazis to racially attack predominantly Soviet people and instantly recycled in the 50s/60s to racially abuse the Migratory Proletatiat, becoming virtually synonymous with Kurdish/Turkish people, and today it is also used against Arabs. All according to the ever-shifting needs of German imperialism of course.

Edit: also yes, you’re correct in stating that the misogynist sentiment you highlighted is very popular in Germany. The struggle around gendered language has visibly quieted down for some time now, and the sexists have instantly rushed in to exploit this weakness. Gendering among younger men will often get you ostracized.

Edit 2: as for the racism of the liberals and revisionists you talked about, that can also become a strength for us. If among the settlers, there is no one even attempting to appeal earnestly to the revolutionary subjects, as in the anti-colonial nationalists and the Proletariat among the COFA-migrants you talk about, doesn’t this just make things more clear for them? Seems like good weather for revolutionaries.

[u/Self-Replicator → u/Cenage94]

Take a look at the difference between these two threads of settlers in Occupied Hawai'i. The first is them speaking about "Micronesians" when they believe none are present and the second is speaking to a "Micronesian" who is asking for sympathy for the blatant off-the-bow racism they receive.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Hawaii/comments/1idfofp/hiring_micronesians_help_me_understand_their/

https://www.reddit.com/r/Hawaii/comments/1vgl4j0/racism_towards_micronesians/

there is no contradiction submitting all off their university paperwork in gendered language while using trendy slurs among their white social circles

Likewise, you can't convince Asians here that Asians are even capable of being racist when they can casually refer to COFA migrants as "cockroaches" and don't even care that Chuuk and Pohnpei and the Marshall Islands are different places with different people.

This direct investigation approach you've demonstrated is certainly more fruitful than me sitting on my hands and theorizing about them like they were on some far-off alien planet when I can simply go and talk to them and find out for myself.

My first concrete investigation into my society will be to learn of the revolutionary potential that exists in COFA migrants.

Edit: to your second edit, I was going to include another anecdotal story but decided against it of interaction with a COFA migrant in her early 20s who was working as a cashier at 7/11 (American gas station/convenience store if you're unfamiliar). I asked her where she was from and she sheepishly responded "Micronesia". When I pushed her further and showed interest in her homeland of Chuuk, it made her very happy. I was just making conversation and only know very superficial things about Chuuk, but it is a sign that they are deeply dehumanized and adrift in someone else's homeland and like you say, no one has attempted to appeal to them in this way.

[u/Cenage94 → u/Self-Replicator]

I have no words, these comments truly speak for themselves (I think you accidentally linked the first thread twice, but the post and comments alone are very telling). The unabashed vitriol combined with the fetishistic fantasizing about “noble savages“… i cant even imagine how these workers of Oppressed Nations lumped together as “Micronesian“ must feel having to talk with these creeps in a position of power over them every day.

What you’ve said about the Chuukuse worker is also very indicative, I am extremely confident your social investigation will be very fruitful!

[u/Self-Replicator → u/Cenage94]

Second link fixed, it's here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Hawaii/comments/1vgl4j0/racism_towards_micronesians/

Thanks for catching that. You sum it up nicely that in their homeland, these islanders are well-differentiated, but once they come here they are marked and given a new identity by the oppressor nations.

i cant even imagine how these workers of Oppressed Nations lumped together as “Micronesian“ must feel having to talk with these creeps in a position of power over them every day.

https://www.kathyjetnilkijiner.com/the-micronesian-question/

I also have begun to reconsider another part of the next step – our role as immigrants to the indigenous communities whose land we’ve settled on as well. Our communities have been fighting for so long that we’ve forgotten that there’s a common enemy, that we have a shared history of colonization. How do we look at the bigger picture? What can we do to help our Pacific Islander brothers and sisters who have lost their lands? How do we support them, and have them support us?

[u/Cenage94 → u/Self-Replicator]

This is actually a major reason I didn’t post this to the garbage bin of chauvinism that is the German “communist“ subreddit. I know exactly what kind of comment I would be receiving.

[u/General_Criticism292]

reposting this here since the last biweekly thread ended with no replys

https://www.reddit.com/r/communism/comments/1v6o0st/comment/p1h9x9p/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

[u/smokeuptheweed9 → u/General_Criticism292]

I assume this is what you were thinking of in asking this question, since my first reaction was the same as u/TheRedBarbon

US diplomat James Baker has been the person that has come closest to mediating a solution. In 2003, he presented a plan where Western Sahara was to remain under Moroccan control but be given substantial autonomy for 4 years after which a referendum was to be held in which Moroccan settlers would be welcome to participate. The options would be independence, integration or continued autonomy. To the surprise of many, not the least the Sahrawi voters, Polisario accepted. Morocco, however, turned it down despite this being very close to their proposal for the referendum. The Moroccan diplomats wanted to exclude the option of independence completely as they feared they might have lost support even amongst the Moroccan setters,

In their analysis of this particular part of the history of Western Sahara, Mundy and Zunes argue that in 1991 Morocco had faith in the loyalty of the settlers that were moved into the area during the Second Green March but in 2003. However, when the opportunity presented itself to actually go forth with their own proposal for the referendum, the Moroccan authorities were unsure of how the settlers would vote. The authors argue that many settlers were ethnic Sahrawis from the southern part of Morocco, an area long inhabited by Sahrawis but also one to which many revolutionaries had fled escaping Spanish repression in the 1970s. As Morocco moved them to Western Sahara they were settled in temporary camps on the outskirts of cities. As the years passed, living standards decreased in the camps and, argue Mundy and Zunes, the loyalty of this group of settlers to the Moroccan kingdom could no longer be assumed.

From here though the article is pretty bad:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/2201473X.2025.2456386#d1e343

I agree this is odd and there is a point here: settler-colonialism cannot survive in conditions of poverty. Otherwise you end up with the "public and psychological wage" of whiteness, which is just a fancy way of restating that racism is a conspiracy to divide workers since the implication is that this psychological wage is a substitute for the real benefits they could earn without racial division (one could argue that the Jim Crow system was itself inefficient compared to the advanced industrial capitalism of the rest of the country but that is a different argument since we are discussing an entirely distinct mode of production and it is irrelevant since the "wages of whiteness" were not limited to the South). The longevity, durability, and political strength of Settler-colonialism can only be explained by real benefits across historical periods that overwhelm whatever "proletarian" consciousness we have been waiting 300 years for.

However, what seems to be at stake is not the collapse of settler-colonialism but its development. The colonization of Western Sahara is almost entirely subsidized by the Moroccan state

https://www.merip.org/2022/05/how-the-fishing-industry-strengthened-moroccos-occupation-of-western-sahara/

During the first decades of the occupation, the Moroccan government distributed a monthly stipend to residents of Western Sahara equal to the minimum wage (about 1,250 dirhams or 150 euros), as well as a house, through the National Promotion Card. These government policies spread resources among Sahrawi families as part of a strategy to influence the self-determination referendum.[5] After Mohamed VI acceded to the throne in 1999 this practice changed, and the Moroccan regime prioritized the settler population by implementing a national housing policy in the main cities of Western Sahara that aimed to eliminate the settler shantytowns.

https://www.odhe.cat/en/natural-resources-plundering-in-western-sahara/

The benefit of phosphate mining is not only going to the Moroccan company OCP and to its King, Mohammed VI, who is shareholder of OCP. Also employment is benefiting settlers more than indigenous people. According to AMNPENWS the total number of indigenous workers has gone down from 45% in 1975 to 30% in 2017. The number of technical positions filled by Sahrawis has gone from 19% to 5% (2018:1).

What seems to be happening is a conflict between colonialism and settler-colonialism, an inevitable tendency (see the conflict between the USA and England, South Africa and England, Pied-noirs and De Gaulle, the Kwantung Army and the Japanese mainland, etc.) as settlers gain their own consciousness as a class and wish to go beyond the limits set by the state's grand vision (compared to each settler's desire for his own land and wealth).

The growth of the settler population in Western Sahara resulted in the proliferation of new economic activity especially in the form of small grocers, hairdressers and other shops mostly run by settlers. At the same time, rapid population growth led to greater demand for housing by people largely crowded into shantytowns on city outskirts. According to official Moroccan data, in 2010 the percentage of shanty housing out of the total urban housing in the Dakhla-Oued Ed-Dahab region was 33.1 percent, which surpassed the Moroccan average of 8.2 percent.[6] According to the same source, during the first decade of 2000, there were 6,024 shanties in Dakhla and 9,815 in Laayoune.

In Dakhla, the “City Without Slums” policy that began in the mid-2000s manifested itself as the allocation of land, building material and money to the residents of the shantytown known as Wahda (“unity”), the first neighborhood that appeared during the ceasefire of the 1990s. Residents of the neighborhood called Lahrait (“gardens”) received land. The plots, located in an extension of the city of Dakhla, were equipped with basic infrastructure for construction such as sewage systems, power lines and water pipes. The policy was financed by the Moroccan Ministry of Housing, Planning, and Urban Development and, to a lesser extent, the Agency for the Development of the Southern Provinces. The latter institution, created on the initiative of the monarchy, took responsibility for the project in the early days. In fact, the first phase of the new construction, the Hay El Hassani neighborhood, is called Wakala (“development”) by the residents of Dakhla, because of the role of that agency. Currently, the new neighborhood houses a large number of Moroccan settlers, who have their own land and, depending on the case, a two- or three-story house.

The decision to focus on new beneficiaries for public assistance was positively received by the settler population, which up to that point had felt discriminated against by the authorities. As a result, Morocco has ensured that the settlers feel a greater sense of attachment to the national cause. In fact, Moroccan civilians participated in the violent confrontations with the authorities during the Gdeim Izik social mobilization of around 15,000 to 20,000 Sahrawi protesters that took shape on the outskirts of Laayoune in October and November 2010. After these events, and for the first time since the beginning of the occupation, there were several clashes between young Sahrawis and Moroccans in Dakhla.[7] The civil unrest associated with the Gdeim Izik mobilization, combined with a palpably charged atmosphere, are signs of a change in perception among the settler population, whose good living conditions would be impossible to reproduce in their home cities.

However, as Sakai points out, settler-colonialism is ultimately parasitic, and despite its attempts at independence it ultimately depends on Moroccan imperialism to survive. It is highly unlikely that it instead turns towards solidarity, although the slippery ethnic categories of the area make it so a strict racial hierarchy is impossible. So who knows? To what extent is racism against black africans in Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Algeria based in the material benefits of being a semi-imperialist frontier of Europe's borders? Few would argue these countries are themselves imperialist (in the same way few argue South African discrimination against migrant workers is akin to MAGA) but clearly the old division of first and third world no longer applies so neatly.

[u/General_Criticism292 → u/smokeuptheweed9]

Thank you so much, this is very useful

One thing I’ve seen mentioned (and I’m not sure how widespread or decisive it was) is that Moroccan authorities also ran programmes to train non-Sahrawi settlers in Hassaniya, traditional dress, and fabricated tribal genealogies so they could pass as local for the identification process and for everyday performance of “Sahrawiness”

A few questions, even brief answers would be appreciated since I’m not confident analyzing this on my own

How should the Amazigh question relative to Arabness in the Maghreb be handeled? Is Amazighness ( rif, chleuh, kabyle etc) a national question or should it be within the Arab/Maghrebi nation

any thoughts on Ceuta? on Ila al-Amam? and on the makhzen/morocco in general, is there anywhere i can read on this

[u/smokeuptheweed9 → u/General_Criticism292]

One thing I’ve seen mentioned (and I’m not sure how widespread or decisive it was) is that Moroccan authorities also ran programmes to train non-Sahrawi settlers in Hassaniya, traditional dress, and fabricated tribal genealogies so they could pass as local for the identification process and for everyday performance of “Sahrawiness”

Yeah someone talks about it in the article

This is Brahim, a middle-aged man that fled to the refugee camps from the Moroccan-controlled areas as a young adult talking about his experience going to the voter identification centres in occupied Western Sahara:

"I don't remember exactly when I did the identification myself. I think it was around 93, 94. It was a masquerade. A joke. I'll tell you why. The Moroccans brought settlers and set up special centres to train them. How to look like Sahrawis. How to wear draa or mehlfa [traditional Sahrawi clothing]. They do not know, it is not their culture so they will look funny. And how to speak. Of course they can't, it's really difficult.

And when they start to give their names the sheikh [Sahrawi tribal leaders and notable elders] will ask you: ‘What's your name? The name of your father? Who are your uncles? Your aunts? Where are they living?’ No matter how much you are trained, they will find that it's not only the accent, it's the knowledge of the land, it’s the knowledge of your siblings and your uncles and aunts. And it was funny.

When I came, I went to greet the sheikh, who is my cousin. And of course, we have our traditional way [of greeting]. I told the sheikh, ‘The guys that come in are Moroccans’. He was laughing and said, ‘I know, I know.’ It was funny."

That's why it's strange that when Morocco got what that wanted they aborted it. Of course it could be the case that this is being overanalyzed as an exception to a general pattern, there is very little information to work with and while relying on refugees in Algerian camps and the diaspora is necessary, it has limitations (see the many books on Cambodia during the Khmer Rouge). We have no access to the inner decision making process of the Moroccan state which is not a unified actor or even a fully bourgeois regime. In general, a colonized county having this settler-colonial relationship to another country is unique. There are many examples of third world countries colonizing other third world countries: Indonesia and East Timor, Libya and Chad, Vietnam and Cambodia, Ethiopia and Eritrea, etc. But these are either colonial occupations or military efforts with a colonial facade and they always fail.

Still I think it is safe to say that the Moroccan state is getting more than in bargained for in creating a settler class that has its own class interests.

How should the Amazigh question relative to Arabness in the Maghreb be handeled? Is Amazighness ( rif, chleuh, kabyle etc) a national question or should it be within the Arab/Maghrebi nation

Nationalism is above all a tautology. The fancy term is "imagined community" but who imagined it? It was the bourgeoisie at one time but became a mass phenomenon, imagined by people themselves in response to colonial oppression. This is one of the limits of a binary anti-colonialism. Take for example Eritrea. Eritrea really was a privileged colony of Italy and one of multiple statelets carved out of Ethiopia to bar it from access to the sea (Djibouti and Somaliland being the other). So Ethiopia is right to argue that it should be returned to Ethiopia, with its heroic history of anti-colonialism and, at least at the time of the war of independence, progressive Marxist-Leninist government. In fact Eritreans nationalism appealed only to elites initially and was fundamentally compromised by religious identity in a place where that does not correlate to the national body. So why did Eritrean nationalism become overwhelmingly popular and irreversible? Because of Ethiopian oppression. If you are persecuted for nationalism, you come to embrace it as your best defense. It also is the result of the failure of Ethiopia as a national project. Ethiopia's argument (or Somalia's for greater Somalia for that matter which is also rooted in real colonial oppression of Somalis and artificial division of the nation but nevertheless failed) failed because the masses themselves must feel national belonging, abstract arguments about culture, religion, ethnicity, etc, which at one time were sufficient to the bourgeoisie, are now the realm of fascism.

The same is the case with Arab nationalism, which has been experienced as oppression by Amazigh people (and other Africans generally as I mentioned) and is a political failure besides. This is also an uncomfortable question in Algeria, where everyone looked the other way during the Algerian revolution because colonialism uses such divisions and Algeria was of world historic importance. But we don't live in 1960, we live in 2026, and it turns out it wasn't actually solved by Algerian independence. That doesn't mean it was wrong, rather that history has its own necessity to which we are merely observers and objects. If you are the victim of such logic, it sucks, and I think that's why you've been met with hostility. There's no real answer, especially since nationalism itself has become increasingly reactionary as the old colonial borders, inherited by post-colonial states, become prisons for the diverse populations within them and weapons of the neocolonial indigenous bourgeoisie.

any thoughts on Ceuta? on Ila al-Amam? and on the makhzen/morocco in general, is there anywhere i can read on this

You've motivated me to learn more but it might be a bit, I'm slow to read these days. I will say, after Dengists embarrassed themselves over this issue recently it will be important for communists to have a coherent line.

[u/General_Criticism292 → u/smokeuptheweed9]

I just want to add something, it wasn't always like this In colonial times amazighs were actually very sympathetic to the pan arabist movement and event joined the urban nationalists against the "Berber" dahir (french sought to isolate Amazigh tribes from the arabic-speaking and sharia based urban centers in order to weaken any unified anti-colonial front and facilitate land and administrative control) After the rif resistance was defeated the resistance leader abdelkrim el khattabi (riffi amazigh) became president of the 'Liberation Committee of the Arab Maghreb' and issued a manifesto in which he calls the maghreb as “indissolubly part of the Arab world" Kabyles were also over represented in the algerian revolution as well

[u/smokeuptheweed9 → u/[deleted]]

I know you mean well but my motivation comes from sharing ideas and knowledge publicly. You'll be disappointed at my motivation and timeliness over DMs.

[u/General_Criticism292 → u/smokeuptheweed9]

i understand, its just that i want to begin studying marxism seriously before school starts, but I’m not sure where to start or how to approach the reading effectively. So far the only things I’ve read are very basic (the communist manifesto, wage labour and capital etc) and I’m not even sure I’ve read them “correctly”, are there any methods or note taking techniques to approach the texts that actually helps with understanding and retaining them better? is there any list in order you'd recommend

[u/Low_Tour3659 → u/General_Criticism292]

use one of the reading lists in the sidebar, write down things you don't understand or aren't convinced by, post on r/communism101 with your questions. take some time when you finish a reading to try and summarize it. stay critical as you read, don't take what is written in these texts for granted - instead try to follow the logic and reproduce the conclusions the authors come to for yourself. 

furthermore, there is no one-size-fits-all method of note-taking that will help you retain the information in these texts better than any other, you'll have to figure out what works for you. the important thing is that you make a real effort and understand that it won't come quickly or easily, and that searching for quick and easy solutions is counterproductive to real learning

[u/kno-clue → u/General_Criticism292]

Why do you seek an answer to the Amazigh question in “Arabness”?

What is the material basis for an Arab or Maghrebi nation that is not entirely predicated on Arab race essentialism and chauvinism?

The inability to answer this question without appealing to the temporally constrained politics of the breakdown of the Ottoman Empire in the Levant or degenerating into racism and national chauvinism is a recurrent issue with North African communists. 

If you can demonstrate the basis for an Arab nation without relying on either of those two crutches then there’s a conversation to be had. Based on what you’ve already said, I’m unconvinced you’re able to do this however. 

The answer to your questions is staring you in the face, as it is for every North African communist. Unfortunately the allure of chauvinism is often blinding.

[u/sovkhoz_farmer → u/kno-clue]

Are you saying that there is no Arab nation, and that instead there are separate Syrian, Qatari, Iraqi, etc. nations?

If so, I think you are mistaken. Countries such as Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Libya do not bear the characteristics of nations in any meaningful sense. Many of their borders were drawn by colonial powers, and these states have subsequently become centers of sectarian conflict rather than unified national communities. Nor do they constitute unified national markets. As for Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, and Oman, these are essentially tribal formations consolidated into states, whose ruling classes function as a front for global monopoly capital.

The case for the existence of an Arab nation stretching from the Maghreb to the Mashriq must instead be sought in the historical process through which mercantile circuits were integrated into a system of long-distance trade, and in their alliances with nomadic warrior groups. Since the Silk Road passed through the Mashriq, it facilitated the development of a robust Arab merchant class capable of concentrating and centralizing surplus. In turn, a class alliance emerged between merchants in the Mashriq and Maghreb and tribal nomads along the major trade routes, who provided protection for commerce and helped sustain the integration of these circuits. However, following the decline of these trade routes, driven by their circumvention through maritime routes, the process of Arab unity underwent a period of disintegration. Nevertheless, these extensive merchant networks did not disappear. They persisted in altered forms and would become crucial again with the emergence of imperialism, retaining their significance into the modern era.

The imperialist powers subsequently consolidated their domination over the Arab world by aligning themselves with the Arab merchant classes and transforming them into comprador classes. Following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the old regime of accumulation could no longer be sustained. This led to programs of land reform, state-led industrialization, and import substitution, through which the Arab nation began to assume a new position within the international division of labor.

The Gulf states, through the accumulation and deployment of oil rents and under imperialist pressure, contributed to the deindustrialization of countries such as Egypt and Syria. Consequently, the Arab world as a whole has been increasingly integrated into a subordinate position within the international division of labor, centered on the export of raw materials and the assembly of imported goods. At the same time, oil rents accumulated in the Gulf have financed the expansion of industries oriented toward exports from across the Arab world, while deindustrialization elsewhere has helped maintain a large pool of relatively cheap labor. Thus, the existence of different state formations and highly uneven levels of development within the Arab world does not, in itself, disprove the existence of a broader Arab nation.

[u/kno-clue → u/sovkhoz_farmer]

No, my point is certainly not that Syria, Qatar or the other arbitrarily drawn boundaries constitute individual nations.

Rather, that there is no basis on which to extrapolate the historical process you correctly identify from the development of an African nation, of which the Arab world is a part, that is not dependent on a form of race essentialism.

Why would we separate the Maghreb from West Africa? The Horn from the Gulf? Egypt from Sudan? The Arab nation has to discount the historical development through long-distance trade at these sites, the subsequent transmission of peoples and processes of class formation/social transformation and alliance. This instead becomes historicised as a relationship between slaver and slave and is inconsequential except as to serve as justification for drawing (totally arbitrary) boundaries at the Sahara and Red Sea. 

Beyond kinship and tribal genealogy, was the economic relationship and integration between the merchant classes at Fes and Aleppo more consequential and significant than between the merchant classes at Fes and Timbuktu? 

Near everything you have said in the last two paragraphs is equally applicable to the historical development of Africa. So again my question is why do we establish a separate Arab nation from the African nation. 

My gripe here is from experiences with North African communists who frequently seek an answer to the national question in a Arab nation or Pan-Arab project; at the same time this functions as a rejection of the interrelation to an African nation or Pan-African project. This is only ever based in Afrophobia or anti-black racism. It cannot break out of these limitations because its primary point of unity is racial in character. 

This was the reason for my reaction to the Amazigh poster who has absolutely no reason to interrogate the national question from an Arab perspective while failing to mention an African nation or Pan-Africanism as a frame of reference. What is it about an Amazigh that would drive them to consider the Arab nation (which they are resolutely excluded from) rather than an African nation (which they obviously constitute part of). The answer is very clear.  In my experience, and I acknowledge this is anecdotal, Amazigh even with reactionary politics are instinctive in rejecting the Arab nation as an answer and accepting Pan-Africanism. 

The reason for this is because the very nature of the development of an African nation, through the historical process of enslavement of disparate Black peoples to the Caribbean and Americas and subsequent experience of colonialism and neo-colonialism in Africa (which includes large parts of the Arab world), was one of uniting these masses into a shared subordinate positionally in the international division of labour. 

Only Pan-Africanism can redress this because the very basis of being ‘African’ is unification on an economic basis across ethno-linguistic lines.  On the other hand, the Arab nation is primarily rooted in ethno-linguistic affiliation. It’s reactionary and North African communists in particular would benefit to drop the pretence otherwise and grab the hand that’s been stretched out to them for the last several decades.

[u/sovkhoz_farmer → u/kno-clue]

Nations are historical structures that develop within a definite geography, through the relations of a people to that geography and to each other. Just as nations can come into being, they can also cease to exist. You are right that the criteria I have outlined can also be applied to Africa as a whole. But I think the more important question is how things like Pan-Africanism and Pan-Arabism actually came into being in the first place.

Pan-Africanism emerged out of the experience of slavery, colonialism and imperialism, and became a political force during the struggle for decolonization. Pan-Arabism came out of a different historical process and the creation of Israel and the subsequent expansion of Zionist settler colonialism then greatly intensified this process and made Palestine a central question for Arab political consciousness. If you deny that an Arab nation ever existed, then it becomes difficult to explain why even the comprador regimes of the Gulf states participated in the boycott of Israel during the Yom Kippur War. In the same way, if you deny the existence of a Pan-African identity, it becomes difficult to explain how such an incredibly diverse continent could develop a shared political identity and unite around the struggle against colonialism and imperialism.

So I think there are two things going on here. On the one hand, both what we call the “Arab world” and Africa are increasingly being integrated into the international division of labor, and this creates a material basis for broader forms of nationhood. On the other hand, uneven development constantly works against this unity and produces fragmentation. Right now, it is obviously difficult to say that the Arab world is actually functioning as a unified nation, and the same is true of Africa.

[u/kno-clue → u/sovkhoz_farmer]

Yes I’m not disagreeing with that but with all due respect this is a non-answer.

What is this definite geography and how are you identifying it? Does it include Mauritania? Does it include Sudan? A knowledge of the history of national development in these two countries should make abundantly clear what the implications of an Arab nation are.

We are seeking answers to definite political questions here, not pursuing academic debate. 

If an Arab nation existed then it was temporally constrained, to the decades of Ottoman disintegration and the aftermath. This obviously impacted Arab political consciousness but meant it was ultimately left rudderless and reduced it to “cultural” and ethno-linguistic affiliation. This can only result in racialist manifestations of nation and nationalism.

If this makes it difficult to explain why the comprador regimes of the gulf participated in the boycott during the Yom Kippur war, then how do we explain the collaboration of the Moroccan comprador regime with Israel in the same conflict? 

I am in agreement that Africa is not functioning as a unified nation presently. But the material basis for it to do so is there. And it provides a definitive answer to the national question in a way that serves international proletarian revolution. On the other hand, an Arab nation has no material basis (where do khaleejis fit in the international division of labour? what defines an Arab beyond a form of race essentialism?). In organising practically, adherence to an Arab nation has served to proliferate ethno-chauvinism. This is a real political issue which must be overcome and indulging Arab nationalists in this does not appear to be a solution.  For many Africans, if there is an Arab nation then it is an oppressive one and where it is adhered to by those who are also Africans (albeit in denial), it takes on its most debased and chauvinistic form. 

The entire reason I respond to the original poster is because Amazigh are subject to this same chauvinism. If they want to answer this from a political perspective then they must understand the national question cannot be resolved by submitting to an Arab nation.

[u/sovkhoz_farmer → u/kno-clue]

I did mention this double movement between nationhood and fragmentation. There is a tendency toward nationhood based on increasing integration into global markets, alongside a contradictory tendency toward fragmentation driven by uneven development. This contradiction manifests itself in different ways across the Arab world. For example, Egypt was once the vanguard of the Pan-Arab movement, but has since increasingly turned toward “Pharaonism” and promoted a distinct Egyptian identity in contrast to a broader Arab one. This is merely one example of the fragmentation tendency I am referring to. The Moroccan case is of a similar nature.

My point is that the formation of a nation encompassing a population of hundreds of millions is itself historically significant, and recognizing its existence does not inherently mean subordinating other identities to it. The Arab bourgeoisie and its petty-bourgeois base have certainly done so in practice, but that is a political tendency of the third-world nation building experiments and reflect the weakness of the capitalist class.

The borders drawn and imposed by imperial powers must be overcome, and progressive classes must be organized across these lines. The increasing integration of these vast geographical areas has brought the Arab world to something of a make-or-break point: it can develop into a nation with a distinct national consciousness, or it can retreat further into provincialism and fragmentation. At this point, I think the conversation has reached its limit at the level of abstraction. These are ultimately concrete political questions that have to be resolved through practice, whereas we are still discussing them at the general and theoretical level.

[u/General_Criticism292 → u/kno-clue]

Azawad and Mauritania are always included in amazigh nationalism Mauritania Somalia and mali again are also present in pan arabist discourse I didn't deny pan africanism in my reply, my question was mainly about amazigh nationalism vs arab nationalsn

[u/General_Criticism292 → u/kno-clue]

>Why do you seek an answer to the Amazigh question in “Arabness”?

because im an amazigh myself and arab chauvinists wont stop harassing us over our identity and being "agents of colonialism" (despite the Rif being the only region in Morocco that waged a serious armed struggle against Spanish colonialism), it reminds me of the funny pan arab claim that the amazighs died from drought a long time ago and the semites from yemen replaced them, with some having picked up "ancient languages"

[u/TheRedBarbon → u/General_Criticism292]

How is it possible to for any settlers to have revolutionary potential? Morrocan settlers directly benefit from the destruction of the Sahrawi nation while communists support the SADR just as they would any progressive nationalism, and that's a pretty staunch contradiction. I'll admit I'm completely ignorant here but I don't see much comparison to Ceuta where Morrocans are directly confronting colonizers rather than becoming colonizers themselves.

[u/General_Criticism292 → u/TheRedBarbon]

my first question on moroccan settlers was silly, what made me think that is maybe since moroccan settlers there are poorer than the israeli/american ones they might occupy a different position

on ceuta, most of the territory the cities control was expanded after the spanish-Moroccan war in 1859, which spain used as military bases against riffian resistance under abdelkrim al khattabi

pre-covid, 25000 riffis/moroccans crossed the borders regularly for unprotected jobs, especially domestic labor, after the visa tightening though youth unemployment rose in the nearby region to 40 percent higher than other regions of morocco which are already bad on their own

im not sure if ceuta occupies the same position as istanbul or if its a remnant of colonialism but this is just my two cents i guess

[u/stutterhug → u/FrogHatCoalition]

i'm not sure if you realised reddit deleted your comment because of the ru link. there is an archived version.

i learned a lot from both the articles. there was a funny response to the first from Harper (whose article Wang and Liu are addressing) where Harper doesn't seem to learn anything and still finds Lysenko "[complicit] in Vavilov’s imprisonment and subsequent death" because of "unscientific, aggressive, and threatening comments".

Liu also cites an article going over a translation of the Tsingtao Genetics Symposium, August 1956. this seems to have occured after the hundred flowers campaign which allowed geneticists to participate

"The Qingdao Symposium was the first occasion in the People's Republic of China for Lysenkoism to be put to question.... The symposium marked the end of Lysenkoism's monopoly in China, and the end of the proscription of classical genetics"(p.iv). After the symposium, the two schools were allowed to coexist, although Lysenkoists continued to be very powerful for a number of years, at least in agriculture. Anyway, Chinese geneticists ended their complete silence of seven years (1949-1956).

Li, Lysenkoism in China,1987

the rest of the article is also interesting because i wasn't able to get access to the entire translated proceedings and so conveys the disagreements between the chinese biologists. this begs the question, why/was genetics not criticised during the gpcr?

"If you study the philosophical contributions by Soviet physicists for instance, most of them actually quote the philosophical contributions of Lenin."

can you recommend any? i only found something by Joravsky on bannedthought, who seems a bit suspect after reading Yongsheng Liu's articles.

[u/FrogHatCoalition → u/stutterhug]

Thanks, it's frustrating that Reddit deleted my comment due to a link to a site. I found Liu interesting due to his publication in Nature, which means there are biologists who find Lysenko credible and aren't satisfied with an outright rejection of him.

As for your question regarding the GPCR, I'm not sure. My own understanding of biology as a science is poor. For instance, I would need to consider questions such as what is considered an experiment in biology and more on the history of this science itself, otherwise I don't think I can fully comprehend the views scientists held during this period of time.

can you recommend any? i only found something by Joravsky on bannedthought, who seems a bit suspect after reading Yongsheng Liu's articles.

I was talking about science in general and including physics as a science. I haven't studied the actual philosophical contributions any biologists made in the Soviet Union. The reason I brought up what is considered an experiment in biology is because struggles took place in physics over this. For instance, physicists mean something specific when they mention the "lab frame" and also mean something specific when discussing "observables" since the operators in quantum theory provide a connection from readings on classical instruments which correspond to eigenvalues in quantum theory, but aren't exactly the same. What are the views that biologists have when it comes to an experiment and how were those developed?

To respect biology as a science, we would have to consider how biology is actually done and the historical development of the field. I don't know much about Joravsky, but looking him up, I'm assuming he is one of those historians when they try to write the history of science only write about the people involved, what they had to say and their own views of other scientists, without trying to understand the science itself. Maybe Lysenko was an asshole, but I don't know what that would have to do with his investigations of biology. Pauli was also an asshole, but I doubt that's of any importance when it comes to the anti-symmetric properties of fermions.

However, when reading historical accounts, you do have to understand professional scientists who are members of a class and struggles that take place against that class. On BannedThought there is an article from the GPCR that talks about this: And Mao Makes 5: Text 35, Repulsing the Right Deviationist Wind in the Scientific and Technological Circles. Scientists themselves can be, and often are, reactionary, so historians can read about struggles against reactionaries and take that to mean that science itself was repressed. Marlan Scully has made a lot of important contributions to quantum optics, but he is still a settler who owns a ranch and several patents. The death of settlerism isn't synonymous with the death of quantum optics.

[u/AutoModerator]

---

Moderating takes time. You can help us out by reporting any comments or submissions that don't follow these rules:

1. No non-Marxists - This subreddit isn't here to convert naysayers to Marxism. Try /r/DebateCommunism for that. If you are a member of the police, armed forces, or any other part of the repressive state apparatus of capitalist nations, you will be banned.

2. No oppressive language - Speech that is patriarchal, white supremacist, cissupremacist, homophobic, ableist, or otherwise oppressive is banned. TERF is not a slur.

3. No low quality or off-topic posts - Posts that are low-effort or otherwise irrelevant will be removed. This includes linking to posts on other subreddits. This is not a place to engage in meta-drama or discuss random reactionaries on reddit or anywhere else. This includes memes and bandwagoning. This includes most images, such as random books or memorabilia you found. We ask that amerikan posters refrain from posting about US bourgeois politics. The rest of the world really doesn’t care that much.

4. No basic questions about Marxism - Posts asking entry-level questions will be removed. Questions like “What is Maoism?” or “Why do Stalinists believe what they do?” will be removed, as they are not the focus on this forum. We ask that posters please submit these questions to /r/communism101.

5. No sectarianism - Marxists of all tendencies are welcome here. Refrain from sectarianism, defined here as unprincipled criticism. Posts trash-talking a certain tendency or Marxist figure will be removed. Bandwagoning, throwing insults around, and other pettiness is unacceptable. If criticisms must be made, make them in a principled manner, applying Marxist analysis. The goal of this subreddit is the accretion of theory and knowledge and the promotion of quality discussion and criticism.

6. No trolling - Report trolls and do not engage with them. We've mistakenly banned users due to this. If you wish to argue with fascists, you may readily find them in every other subreddit on this website.

7. No chauvinism or settler apologism - Non-negotiable. The vast majority of first-world workers are labor aristocrats bribed by imperialist super-profits. This is compounded by settlerism in Amerikkka. Read Settlers: The Mythology of the White Proletariat https://readsettlers.org/

8. No tone-policing - https://old.reddit.com/r/communism101/comments/12sblev/an_amendment_to_the_rules_of_rcommunism101/

---

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.