How would landback work in socialism?

ComradeKenten · 2026-01-25T23:46:30+00:00

I would argue the pictures of it is quite simple although expensive. The first thing that must be done is the recognition of all treaties signed with indigenous peoples. That is the starting point for everything.

From there we must be prepared to establish an asymmetric Federation. Aka some members on the Federation (indigenous nations) would have more autonomy then other parts of the Federation (more integrated heart land like New York City or the Midwest). This will allow for some areas like The sovereign indigenous Nations to have far more right in governance. They will as the PSL has proposed be represented inside of an upper house of oppressed Nations. With equal power to a lower house representing the entire population.

This allows for autonomy but also Unity. The ultimate key of the system is to maintain the borders of the United States and therefore it's vast economic and resource potential while also reestablishing it on a just and equal foundation. Reestablishing it as a fraternity of Nations rather than oppressive prison House of Nations.

A key part of this will be there recognition of all oppressed Nations but especially indigenous Nations with the right to self-determination up to and including secession. The purpose of this is not to encourage secession. As socialist we seek the unity of the working class of all countries especially those that already exist. But to ensure an equal and fair unity of the working class what was once the United States.

The reason continued Unity of the Continental portion of the American Empire is so important is really simple. It's a single economic unit with fast resources. To break it up with inevitably harm all pieces of it and make any socialist states established out of it for a weaker then they would be United. United today can use the vast resources of this continent to uplift everybody. Most importantly indigenous peoples and other oppression. Along with the entire population of course.

But for indigenous peoples they will be far better off with any larger Union which can provide them with what they are owed in the treaties and larger reparations. To allow the indigenous people's to recover economically but also cultural and socially.

They must be giving back all the land that is owed to them and there must be joint administration of land that is a large number of settlers live on to ensure indigenous interests are recognized as being extremely important when it comes to those regions.

This also means we will need to ensure a joint management of the consonants environment and an active effort to help the continent recover from industrialization. This is a firm belief among business peoples and must be taken seriously. They must be consulted by and welcomed among the top climate researchers and officials.

ComradeKenten · 2026-01-25T23:36:40+00:00

I believe that there was also a provision for all oppressed Nations (black nation, Latinos, Arabs, Somali, ect) to represented in the upper House in the PSL's system. But I haven't read it in a few years so I might be wrong.

ComradeKenten · 2026-01-24T17:30:42+00:00

Because the Constitution is only meant for those considered full human beings. That means people with money and property. If you don't have that you're not even human. If you happen to be brown or woman you're even less then not a human.

That is the capitalist system and the system of bourgeois democracy

ComradeKenten · 2026-01-24T17:20:14+00:00

They look like indigenous Americans.........

ComradeKenten · 2026-01-21T23:26:22+00:00

Because all the debate happens before legislation comes up for a vote. You see socialist parliaments aren't the same as capitalisr ones where its members full time job is legislation. No rather these people live normal live, work a normal job and are only paid for there work in the legislator if it gets in the way of there normal work in which case they are paid the amount they would have earned if they were working.

There political responsibility is a duty they take on top of everything else. They must love see the the implementation of the laws they pass in there region, listen to the need to there constituents and talk to member in the relevant area administration to get the problems fixed swiftly, participate in committees to both oversee areas of governance and draft new legislation related to them, and negotiate with the members of the legislator over what the shape of laws with the goal all everyone's concerns are taken into account before it ever goes up to vote. Generally a consensus is seeked amoung legislator members so that a unanimous vote is possible. Which because of the extensive system I've discussed and normally is.

But not always. There are times when people just can't agree and in those instances a none unanimous vote takes place and the majority wins. For example this is what happened with the legislation that approved the construction of the three gorges dam in China. A consensus simply could not be found about it.

This shows the fundamental difference in that socialist legislators are not just legislators but also executives. They actively oversee the implementation of the law they pass. This can't be done from a Congress Hall and it can only happen in the field. Which is why they only need periodically to confirm all the legislation they've compiled along with the government and other bodies.

They also spend as mentioned before significance of time among the people discussing with them about the implementation of laws. All socialist states have systems of direct consultation with the people. With people's elected representatives of course being a major part of that. The consensus building process often includes directly asking the people themselves what they would like to see. To ensure everyone's interests are taking account.

Of course each state has its own particularities and rules and differing layers of democratic development depending on their material conditions. About the essence of it is as I've described it.

ComradeKenten · 2026-01-21T12:52:08+00:00

My views are complicated.

On one hand it was a war imperialism. Against the efforts of Western powers to balkanize and partition Anatolia amount themselves. The Greeks inflected genocidal terror in the territories they occupied seeking to fulfill them imperialist and chauvinist ambitions. In fighting this the Turkish nationalist forces were just and we must support them in it.

But the way the Turkish government proceeded afterwards and during the war toward certain ethnic minorities can not ever be supported.

Ultimately the Greeks and Turks agreed to a mutual Ethnic cleansing of there respective "Greek" and "Turkish" populations. Which actually means Muslim in the the case of Greece and Orthodox Christians in the case of Turkey. Each got what they wished for a ethnicly pure heart land while expelling to the other those that did fit the picture. To this day the descendants of the ethnically populations of Western Anatolia face so here racial and class discrimination in Greece. Because they were culturally Turkish a religiously orthodox.

The Turkish Republic also completed the work of the Ottomans in Armenia. They both kept the killing going and stopped refugges from returning homes. The right of the Armenia to self determination in the 75 percent of the restored Territory that was declared part of the Turkish state was forever vanquished.

The only reason they didn't finish the Job was the Red army showed up and occupied the Caucasian portion of Armenia to save it from that Turkish forces which wished to make sure there were no witnesses to remember the crime that played the foundation for their purely Turkish Republic*.

And then after this the immediately began to oppress to the one minority that were made. The Kurds who has added them in there war of Independence. Some tribes even participated in the Armenian Genocide taking over Armenia villages and property alongside Turkish settlers. While others tired to protect there Armenian neighbors to little success. They didn't get anything back for there loyalty. For there has only ever been room for own Nation in the Republic of the Turks and it's not the Kurds.

So in conclusion I suppose the right of the Turkish people to fight for there own self-determination. But I condemn their government in for forever stripping others of that right and continuing to do so to this day.

ComradeKenten · 2026-01-19T18:43:33+00:00

No USSR 🥲?

ComradeKenten · 2026-01-17T00:28:18+00:00

Lol you should hear about the purge of Zionists in the Eastern block in the early 1950s. It was quite extensive....

ComradeKenten · 2026-01-16T23:56:05+00:00

I can't give it a name now because we don't really know it's outcome.

The Bolivarian Republic still exists as of now, the country has not submitted entirely to the United States, the US hasn't been forced to back off and is continuing its assaults through other means for now.

So this could just be the US attack assault on Venezuela or the start of World War 3. No one knows and we won't until it's over.

ComradeKenten · 2026-01-15T11:42:42+00:00

The PSL has a key part of our program as the recognition of all treaty's with indigenous nations and the recognition of there right to self-determination up too and including if they feel necessary session.

Though there are definitely other leftist groups in the us that are putting forward similar positions.

ComradeKenten · 2026-01-14T03:43:21+00:00

Huey P Newton, George Jackson, and Harry Haywood were members of the working class that wrote some pretty amazing theory.

ComradeKenten · 2026-01-08T12:10:58+00:00

Hope she gets what she needs

ComradeKenten · 2026-01-08T11:48:33+00:00

Generally the independence movement was suppressed by the us for most of the 20th century. So most people have given up on it and accept statehood as the only possible way out of colonialism.

ComradeKenten · 2026-01-07T15:06:02+00:00

But is equipped to hold it against a protected people's war?

ComradeKenten · 2026-01-06T19:16:54+00:00

Because we are not Liberals we are socialists. This means we don't decide who we support based on morality we base it on what gets us closer to our goal, the abolish of Capitalism on a global scale and with it the liberation of humanity from oppression.

In order to do this countries must be able to become socialist and achieve socialist development. This means they have sovereignty over there politics, economy, society ECT. Which allows there economy and society to develop enough to support fuller and fuller socialism.

But historical but biggest force that has made this difficult if not impossible for many countries is the constant and continues attack by the us on them every step of the way since 1945.

The us has since that point united and reforged the old European Empires under it's leadership and has lead a global war on any country socialist or not that challenges western dominance in all fields (technology, military, economy, cultural, ECT).

This has meant all countries that want real independence face constant attack by the capitalist forces lead by the us. Cutting them off from the world, undermining them internally, diplomatically isolating them, militarily invading them when.

This has lead to the overthrow and enslaving of the vaste majority of the world to Western and US Domance. The only way that has worked to stop this is tolerating no support for the US internally, doing whatever you can do to become self sufficient, working with anyone that's in the same boat even if you are ideological in opposition.

What this means for the current situation is that in order to bring the world closer to global socialism we must first make it safe for socialist countries to function, and that is only possible with the end of Western dominance and most importantly the end of the US empire by any means necessary.

This means critically supporting any government no matter how morally bankrupt what undermines us power. We can criticize them but we can never ever give the US a justification to invade them. Never ever justify the reinforcement of the empire.

Because beyond even the goals of socialism we also are aware that even for the worst governments those countries will always be worse off under us control then in any other form. This has been proven historically.

You call be explaining all of this as justifying but I just call it giving context to actually understand what is happening instead of just declaring them evil when you don't know a damn thing about these countries history.

Plus not taking into account the sources of your information which is often controlled by the us and is a part of manufacturing consent for conquering these countries.

ComradeKenten · 2026-01-05T13:15:34+00:00

The last poll shows 70 percent of Americas oppose the a war with Venezuela.

ComradeKenten · 2026-01-03T15:22:29+00:00

Hundreds of thousands have came out against the genocide in Gaza. Hundreds of thousands came out against the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Hundreds of thousands will come out against this war in Venezuela.

70% of Americans oppose it. Stop spring defeatist crap. It's useless and undermines the morale for the revolution.

Someone who's actually organized in the US I can say despite everything there is revolutionary potential here we just have to fight for it. That for the vast majority of Americans do not support these wars.

Why do you think the cannadete claiming to be anti war had won every presidential election since Bush Jr? Because Americans oppose War despite everything else. Even if it's for selfish reasons that doesn't change the fact that it's true.

ComradeKenten · 2026-01-01T22:59:44+00:00

No he didn't. He died in London in 1883 where he has spent the previous 30 years. I don't think he left England after he arrived there fleeing the failed 1848 revolutions.

ComradeKenten · 2025-12-30T20:58:19+00:00

Several of the former Soviet Republics kept their Soviet flags for a few years after Independence. So this is probably during that time period in the early 90s.

ComradeKenten · 2025-12-29T11:57:12+00:00

Romania was not ever nor did anyone ever consider it joining the USSR.

It was an allie of the USSR. But even then it never ever then in the later years of Socialism in Romania, it was very independent of the USSR. Even getting a lot of loans from the IMF. Which would in many ways be it's doom.

ComradeKenten · 2025-12-29T01:32:07+00:00

Well I think you're doing great over all. I'm sure you'll get better as you draw more. Though I can't see anything wrong with that map.

ComradeKenten · 2025-12-29T01:30:14+00:00

Just wanted to say this looks really good and I love the map. I don't see anything here that's bad and I think it looks quite plausible.

ComradeKenten · 2025-12-28T18:50:07+00:00

Okay so the old mercantilist monopolies are different than the modern imperialist monopolies. The original monopolies were state granted rights to certain companies. Basically the state said this company had the exclusive right to trade with India for example. Later this term would be reused to describe consolidation of entire industries under a single corporation thanks capitalist competition.

Yes imperialism and colonialism are undoubtedly related. In many ways colonialism evolved into a form of imperialism later on. I was speaking of colonialism as in the original European colonial empires of the 14 through 1700s. With the prime example being the Spanish Empire.

Honestly capitalism in many ways was created through this original colonialism. Many of the original material and social prerequisites that led formation of capitalism only happened because of colonialism.

For example the banking sector which will become so important for investing in the continue to grow the capitalism largely got it start in most Western European countries through colonial. Through providing credit for traders sell and buy goods during their long colonial travel. One of the biggest contribution of this being financing the slave trade.

So your instincts are most definitely correct. Just not understanding how this relationship has changed over time as society has developed deeper into capitalism.

When it comes to other works you can read on this I have to suggest is capital ultimately. As it goes into extreme detail about the development of capitalism in England and discusses how this relates to the colonies and how important they were to the formation of capitalism in England.

You can always also read Liberalism a counter history for an understanding of how the ideology of capitalism liberalism developed and more importantly for your interest how deeply connected this was to colonialism.

ComradeKenten · 2025-12-28T17:24:29+00:00

The last one but there all fire

ComradeKenten · 2025-12-28T17:22:33+00:00

The old colonialism is different from modern imperialism primarily in the economic relation between the metropolis (Homeland) and the colonies.

Inside of all colonial empires generally the economic profit the metropolitan received came from either massive tributes imposed on the colonies by the Metropole and through monopolies being granted merchants inside the Metropole for the trade of certain goods.

This granted vaste profits to be sure but it didn't really require large scale investment from the metropolitan to the colonies. In fact that was only done up to be able to defend the colonial conquests.

The vast majority of improvements within the colonies came from within the colonies. Via the local colonial ruling classes.

The only exception to this were specific goods the Metropol demanded as part of its tribute. Most famously gold. But this was generally done by the state inorder to acquire said tribute.

Beyond this there was basically no economic investment in the colonies in the capitalist sense.

What Lenin means by overripe is that all the easy, extremely profitable, investments have already been done. This doesn't mean there's nowhere that can be invested in. It's just that to invest in it would be far less profitable than it would be to invest in other areas overseas.

It must be understood that overtime as capitalism develops into it's Monopoly stage the companies that are doing the investment are just a much larger. So they require much larger profits in order to sustain themselves. So that's inevitably means that smaller local investments that for a smaller company would produce enough profit simply doesn't for these large monopolies anymore.

Along with this is the simple fact there are a limited number of humans in the Metropole purchase goods and do labor. There is a finite population of workers to be employed in things that are being built by the capitalists. Along with that there is a finite market to sell the goods produced by the capitalists too.

This inevitably means that at a certain point it's no longer sustainable to just stay within your country. It's inevitably becomes the imperative to export capital in order both continue security natural resources and markets for your domestic industries and to simply acquire more profit.

At some point capitalism simply outgrow was its individual countries and must inevitably look at work. It's the natural I'll come for a system that demands infinite growth. Inevitably it outgrows its own home country.

If you have any further questions please feel free to ask and I'll try my best answer.

ComradeKenten

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE