Before colonialism, empires would conquer lands and then just make the people who already live there into their subjects.
And before empires and agriculture and such, people weren’t really organized enough to steal land (and weren’t embedded deeply enough in the land for it to be stolen). They’d just move to the new land and become part of the people already there.
And before empires and agriculture and such, people weren’t really organized enough to steal land (and weren’t embedded deeply enough in the land for it to be stolen). They’d just move to the new land and become part of the people already there.
Yeah, that’s my point. At one point in time land wasn’t something owned, just something utilized. The fact that governments exert control over them implies they were stolen, as it prevents some people from utilizing it. See: Proudhon - What is Property?
Okay, you need to recognize that there are greater and lesser contradictions. Yes, all property is theft, but is that a useful line for Palestinians to struggle against? Can they even meaningfully abolish property without solving the colonial question?
That’s why we say the colonial question is the primary contradiction. Israelis are colonial invaders that have come to steal the land and expel or kill the indigenous population. This is a greater concern than, say, Palestinian business owners owning property (and thus stealing the land from the Commons). If we don’t focus our struggles and identify the primary contradiction, we just lash out at every injustice all at once and accomplish nothing because we are overwhelmed.
Every successful decolonial struggle for national independence involves cooperation between the landless and the landed, because colonialism takes primacy. We can deal with the question of “who gets to own the land” once the invaders are gone.
Yes, all property is theft, but is that a useful line for Palestinians to struggle against? Can they even meaningfully abolish property without solving the colonial question?
I never said that, though “the colonial question” is solved if you abolish property, so it’s still worth considering, even in this context.
Israelis are colonial invaders that have come to steal the land and expel or kill the indigenous population. This is a greater concern than, say, Palestinian business owners owning property (and thus stealing the land from the Commons).
Yes, and the whole system is built on ownership of property. Addressing the surface level issue (colonizer stealing land) is great, but you should also consider the root cause. If they can’t own land then there’s no colonization. It’s worth looking at both of these and fighting both. If there is to be a system enacted (which currently is no where close to happening, but still needs to be a consideration), it should be one that protects people and prevents exploitation, so this doesn’t happen again.
We can deal with the question of “who gets to own the land” once the invaders are gone.
It’s too late to do it then. That’s how you have a revolution collapse into something horrible; it didn’t have a plan for what comes after. The people struggling to just survive don’t need to consider this, but it does need to be considered. If you wait until after it’s done then you just end up with squabbling, and the group who can exert control takes it without consent.
It’s an order of operations. If they try to resolve every contradiction all at the same time they stretch the revolution too thin and drive all of their enemies into one unified front.
That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t even think about the other contradictions (in fact, progressive forces should internally theorize and strategize in secret about what to do after the colonial occupation is defeated) but it does mean that those secondary contradictions are to be set aside in public while they focus on the primary contradiction.
Now isn’t the time to air the dirty laundry of everyone that’s on your side against the occupation.
Obviously propertied interests are going to be a problem after the occupation is defeated, but until the occupation is defeated they can used. Not only does this increase the power and size of the decolonial struggle by creating a unified front, but without that ability to set aside secondary contradictions those propertied interests will join the occupation’s side instead. Those propertied interests are only using the revolutionaries for their own ends, but progressive forces are only using them in turn.
This is how every successful decolonial struggle was won.
Many decolonial struggles only achieved flag independence and failed to achieve sovereignty because they either failed to identify those secondary contradictions or chose to forget the secondary contradictions in their nationalistic fervor, but that’s not what I’m advocating! Once the occupation is defeated one of those secondary contradictions will become the new primary contradiction, and progressive forces will need to be prepared for that.
But that has to wait. In the immediate struggle, everyone has a common enemy.
For the first part of your post, where am I saying they need to focus on this now? I think I specifically said they don’t actually. However, we’re on an internet forum and it’s good to talk about these topics. No one is trying to divert the focus to this in totality. We are not part of either of these groups (I’m assuming). Can you stop acting like this shouldn’t be brought up?
Before colonialism, empires would conquer lands and then just make the people who already live there into their subjects.
And before empires and agriculture and such, people weren’t really organized enough to steal land (and weren’t embedded deeply enough in the land for it to be stolen). They’d just move to the new land and become part of the people already there.
Yeah, that’s my point. At one point in time land wasn’t something owned, just something utilized. The fact that governments exert control over them implies they were stolen, as it prevents some people from utilizing it. See: Proudhon - What is Property?
Okay, you need to recognize that there are greater and lesser contradictions. Yes, all property is theft, but is that a useful line for Palestinians to struggle against? Can they even meaningfully abolish property without solving the colonial question?
That’s why we say the colonial question is the primary contradiction. Israelis are colonial invaders that have come to steal the land and expel or kill the indigenous population. This is a greater concern than, say, Palestinian business owners owning property (and thus stealing the land from the Commons). If we don’t focus our struggles and identify the primary contradiction, we just lash out at every injustice all at once and accomplish nothing because we are overwhelmed.
Every successful decolonial struggle for national independence involves cooperation between the landless and the landed, because colonialism takes primacy. We can deal with the question of “who gets to own the land” once the invaders are gone.
I never said that, though “the colonial question” is solved if you abolish property, so it’s still worth considering, even in this context.
Yes, and the whole system is built on ownership of property. Addressing the surface level issue (colonizer stealing land) is great, but you should also consider the root cause. If they can’t own land then there’s no colonization. It’s worth looking at both of these and fighting both. If there is to be a system enacted (which currently is no where close to happening, but still needs to be a consideration), it should be one that protects people and prevents exploitation, so this doesn’t happen again.
It’s too late to do it then. That’s how you have a revolution collapse into something horrible; it didn’t have a plan for what comes after. The people struggling to just survive don’t need to consider this, but it does need to be considered. If you wait until after it’s done then you just end up with squabbling, and the group who can exert control takes it without consent.
It’s an order of operations. If they try to resolve every contradiction all at the same time they stretch the revolution too thin and drive all of their enemies into one unified front.
That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t even think about the other contradictions (in fact, progressive forces should internally theorize and strategize in secret about what to do after the colonial occupation is defeated) but it does mean that those secondary contradictions are to be set aside in public while they focus on the primary contradiction.
Now isn’t the time to air the dirty laundry of everyone that’s on your side against the occupation.
Obviously propertied interests are going to be a problem after the occupation is defeated, but until the occupation is defeated they can used. Not only does this increase the power and size of the decolonial struggle by creating a unified front, but without that ability to set aside secondary contradictions those propertied interests will join the occupation’s side instead. Those propertied interests are only using the revolutionaries for their own ends, but progressive forces are only using them in turn.
This is how every successful decolonial struggle was won.
Many decolonial struggles only achieved flag independence and failed to achieve sovereignty because they either failed to identify those secondary contradictions or chose to forget the secondary contradictions in their nationalistic fervor, but that’s not what I’m advocating! Once the occupation is defeated one of those secondary contradictions will become the new primary contradiction, and progressive forces will need to be prepared for that.
But that has to wait. In the immediate struggle, everyone has a common enemy.
For the first part of your post, where am I saying they need to focus on this now? I think I specifically said they don’t actually. However, we’re on an internet forum and it’s good to talk about these topics. No one is trying to divert the focus to this in totality. We are not part of either of these groups (I’m assuming). Can you stop acting like this shouldn’t be brought up?