#1
lots of valid points brought up, going to edit it

Edited by toyot ()

#2
With the assertion that animal liberation begins at the farm, what does that look like in action? What sort of work is done to advance animal liberation and raise the consciousness of humans until we get to the point where we are redistributing land?

If food surplus is the source of class, what does that mean for the construction of a classless society? How does this view on the origination of class interact with feminist theories about the origins of patriarchy and animal liberation theories about the origins of speciesism?
#3
cant see the quote in the tenth paragraph
#4
i don't think presenting land redistribution as a question of prior significance before approaching the development of a militant social movement makes any sense. the reason that the land question was of fundamental importance to the chinese & russian experience was not because of some universal significance of land, but because the exploitation of the peasantry was mediated directly by their relationship with land ownership. this is a social relation that simply does not exist in the imperialist core

this is not the case for the imperialist, developed nations where agricultural labour is exclusively proletarianised and only related to land ownership in the most abstract sense. in the same way that we would not consider the land question as a primary contradiction facing the factory worker just because they do not own the land the factory occupies -- it is their productive relationship with their employer that is the defining form of their exploitation

placing the demands of liberating and distributing land as a primary focus rather than an ongoing result of formation of proletarian revolutionary movement seems entirely ultraleft and adventurist. this declaration of liberating parcels of land as autonomous zones is in fact typical of anarchist and left-communist radicalism. i remember recently you said that the land question was the pressing demand of movements "from occupy to CHAZ," which i do not think is nearly as flattering an example as you intended it to be
#5
i caution against the oversimplification at 1. and 2. implying that indigenous peoples are only hunter/gatherers
#6
gonna need at least 8 more theses to beat those Germans in the other thread
#7

blinkandwheeze posted:

i don't think presenting land redistribution as a question of prior significance before approaching the development of a militant social movement makes any sense. the reason that the land question was of fundamental importance to the chinese & russian experience was not because of some universal significance of land, but because the exploitation of the peasantry was mediated directly by their relationship with land ownership. this is a social relation that simply does not exist in the imperialist core

this is not the case for the imperialist, developed nations where agricultural labour is exclusively proletarianised and only related to land ownership in the most abstract sense. in the same way that we would not consider the land question as a primary contradiction facing the factory worker just because they do not own the land the factory occupies -- it is their productive relationship with their employer that is the defining form of their exploitation

placing the demands of liberating and distributing land as a primary focus rather than an ongoing result of formation of proletarian revolutionary movement seems entirely ultraleft and adventurist. this declaration of liberating parcels of land as autonomous zones is in fact typical of anarchist and left-communist radicalism. i remember recently you said that the land question was the pressing demand of movements "from occupy to CHAZ," which i do not think is nearly as flattering an example as you intended it to be



the universal significance of land is that it makes a type of commodity, on which the production of all other commodities depend on: it makes food, and all commodities are made by human labor, and all human labor depends on human metabolism, which depends on food. so i think i disagree with what you said: the food question does have a universal significance to all labor and all commodities.

that's a good point about how land labor changed from labor -> food, to labor -> money -> food. what do you think?

fwiw there's lots of food production in the imperialist core. in amerika farm food is produced in the mississippi tributary basin, and in the california central valley sierra western runoff. i don't know how it's done elsewhere but the labor of food production appears almost entirely performed on national lines out west here by the mexican-amerikan proletariat from farm-to-table. delicious!:
https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/map-croplands-united-states

i see one role of a communist as participating in, then interpreting the social movements in our era against theory, then returning to the social movement. this is how masses of people acted, why did they act this way, and not another equally plausible way. i wasn't trying to flatter anyone or the social movement saying this about occupy and chaz. i am trying to say, why did the people act this way, and not a way we did in a past era in the factory struggles. this era people have been taking and controlling urban land in a mass insurrectionary movement this summer, at least seen as so by DC. the people are taking urban land to build attempted communes. we might imagine a future insurrectionary movement more militarily skilled, and once formed, can expand into a base area that includes acreage for food production, and hold a perpetual perimeter around that commune area.

Edited by toyot ()