@bloom-for-me.bsky.social

Not a particularly big fan of the last of works. Throwing "Indigenous Communism" into the title while relegating the actual discussion therein to a few pages at most is, at best, irresponsible, and at worst problematic.

Carver & Tanyildiz offer a good response and critique to Anderson's approach 💙

I only meant to point out that we much each decide what is or isn't important to us in terms of reading. I do not imagine I will ever be caught up with the subjects I care for. Marxism is only one of them: Indigenous political theory; anarchism; queer theory; and the relevant legal theories, etc.

There is only so little we can read, each of us.

An important marker in the development of the tradition, nonetheless..

Marx had ADHD?

Harsh on Marx and Engels, as expected.

This is true... too many "activist" who call themselves "organizers" don't organize anything but demonstrations. In New Orleans I used to call them "event planners" because that's all they did. Plan one event after another. As if a demonstration is an adequate means of communicating with the public.

Another book to the reading list! certainly an interesting takeaway from Shoikhedbrod’s writings. Thanks!

Cannot tell if sarcasm or a deep misreading of Shoikhedbrod

me, but rather historic specificity. Such a broad use of neocolonialism renders the term useless. Marxist analysis should not consist in broad generalizations which presuppose their own context, but instead in critical categories of analysis constructed from real historic phenomena.

Likening neocolonalism *to* the realm of countries risks invalidating the experiences of, for example, Indigenous peoples, who do not even experience colonialism as "country vs country," a context you have chosen to presuppose. That aside, it is not some concept as abstract as violence that concerns

I'll just ask this: What is the point in flattening modern forms of colonialism into "neocolonialism," which you assert entails "enough influence to control a country"? The most glaring issue is that neocolonialism is not just a state-level phenomena, but also a substate level phenomena.

Is this really neocolonialism? I think that's underselling the distinct nature of western involvement in regions like Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa relative to its involvement in Eastern Europe. Formal and informal imperialism deserve independent analyses even if they are uniformly decried.