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

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

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

These suburbs qualify as settler colonialism because

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

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

  • King_Simp@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    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

    • Red_Scare [he/him]@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      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,

      Wow comrade that’s hardly a reason to

      but they are homes for people. Idk

      Oh! Houses, of course haha, yeah what do we do with them after the revolution?

      • Sodium_nitride@lemmygrad.mlOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        Oh! Houses, of course haha, yeah what do we do with them after the revolution?

        Idk, leave them abandoned and make post apocalyptic scenery?