• QueerCommie@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I liked settlers. It’s thesis was a little extreme, but I learned a lot of new stuff from it (probably because it’s old). Which parts did you learn in history class? In a way I don’t want patsocs to be able to group us in the Sakai stans, but I’d also like to promote it to spite them. Yes, there are better books now.

    • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      We are communists, we don’t automatically refuse extreme just because. Problem with it that it was undialectical and thus unmarxist.

      • QueerCommie@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t mean too extreme as in “extremism=bad” like libs. I mean he lays out evidence that USian crackers are part of an oppressor nation and have historically benefited from imperialism, but goes as far as to say that we cannot be working class and nothing good can ever come from us or from working with us because we are inherently opportunistic and bourgeois or something like that. I agree he failed to use dialectical and historical materialism as a mode of study.

    • Pluto [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The Filipino War, the genocide of Indigenous peoples, the ethnic cleansing of the “civilized tribes,” New Deal and the inherent racism of it, etc. I’m, err, not exactly sure what I’m missing, but there you go.

      But hey, if you want to spite PatSocs, you do you. As you yourself said, there are better books now since 1979.