Internal Colonialism Theory posits the US is internally colonized by US elites through a historically continuous process of demographic management and settler-corporate consolidation, thereby creating a political culture of anti-solidarity between working class demos who fall under either “managed” or “colonialized” brackets depending on their class and racial position
So obviously not something that can be confused with the right-wing wrecker stupidity of LaRouchism
Just what do you think “internal” is referring to? The theory is focused on HOW US elites interact with the country they rule, which is in a colonial fashion, lessons learned from overseas replicated and adapted to subdue working class demographics within the United States, particularly Black people who represented the most radical edge of the working class and as a hyper-exploitable class of people
The theory is a Marxist derived formulation to explain both HOW and WHY the white working class and black elites protect the system that destroys themselves and the people who they should have a natural solidarity with; that through-line led directly to the development of the sub theory of Differential Segregation which, is a far more accurate description of HOW labor aristocracy actually works in the United States, that also does away with the false binary of either race or class determination
The thing I’m pointing out is that the posts being made here reframe the US as a country where parts of it are not part of an imperial core which is actually western europe and not the US itself, not the idea that the the US elite extracts wealth from the working class in the united states. The post you initially responded to literally just says “Parts of the US is poor so it’s second or third world and the standard of living is high in western europe so it’s first world”. It is literally stating that the United States, as an entity, is still the victim of European colonialism.
Are you kidding me. It is not some deep analysis of the way in which the economy of the rust belt interacts with financial centers and the actual colonised countries of the world.
The original commenter wasn’t implying Western Europe is the principal agent of exploitation within the United States, you’re being uncharitable
They were simply pointing out the conditions of Western Europe do not resemble the colonialized local conditions of many parts of the United States, that’s true, because unlike the United States social democracy was allowed to flourish and the spoils of empire were more easily distributed then in the US
The United States is still a colony, the European Empires just consolidated and moved their headquarters to the colony.
I mean come on, do you seriously think op believes British elites moved their London mansions and castles to the US and secretly rule DC in favor of the secret North American British Empire?
NO, obviously op was talking about the WASP elite of the United States, who do in fact rule this country through a mechanism of internal colonialism
The existence of a social democratic project does not elevate a country to the imperial core, that is not the difference between exploiter and exploited. Western Europe is part of the “First world” they are the colonisers and part of the imperial core because they benefit from the superprofits extracted from the imperialist and colonialist machine, not because they have a welfare state. If an exploited nation builds a social safety net it doesn’t become part of the imperial core, if France had a sudden economic crash but retained its colonial extraction it wouldn’t cease to be the imperial core. This isn’t fucking materialist analysis, this is just someone saying “Some Americans are poor so they’re not part of the first world”, it is pure nonsense that seeks to excuse Americans from their role as exploiters of the rest of the world, and acting as if I’m unserious because I point out that they’re literally saying that.
Edit:
The argument presented wasn’t “There are parts of the US that are internally exploited in a way that resembles the relationship America itself has with the third world”, it’s “The average Western European has better personal access to the spoils of empire in the form of a higher standard of living, so western europe is really the imperial core” and that is again literally what is being said.
Welfare states are absolutely a sign of imperial coredom, for the simple fact their continued existence implies a lack of western bombs and coup attempts, operate your analysis historically not mechanically
if France had a sudden economic crash but retained its colonial extraction it wouldn’t cease to be t he imperial core.
Nobody said that, you seem to be fighting with phantoms in your head
this is just you saying “Some Americans are poor so they’re not part of the first world”
Nobody said they didn’t live in the first world, your hyper-moralizing is blinding you to obvious FACTS; are Native Americans not colonialized huh? Are black people not subjected to a militarized police state and systematic state depossession? Are Appalachian hollers not toxic wastelands disconnected from centralized power and resources
Stop playing punisher in your head and analyze the real conditions, an empire can indeed eat itself alive
One of the telltale signs that a leftist has matured in their analysis of imperialism is their introduction to ‘Internal Colonialism Theory’
Even more impressive if that leftist comes to those conclusions without ever encountering Robert Blauner
Maturing as a leftist is when you reinvent Larouchian ideas about how the British are still colonising the Americans from first principle.
Internal Colonialism Theory posits the US is internally colonized by US elites through a historically continuous process of demographic management and settler-corporate consolidation, thereby creating a political culture of anti-solidarity between working class demos who fall under either “managed” or “colonialized” brackets depending on their class and racial position
So obviously not something that can be confused with the right-wing wrecker stupidity of LaRouchism
This is literally stating that America is exploited by the first world which is actually in Europe. It is not a reframing of internal exploitation.
Just what do you think “internal” is referring to? The theory is focused on HOW US elites interact with the country they rule, which is in a colonial fashion, lessons learned from overseas replicated and adapted to subdue working class demographics within the United States, particularly Black people who represented the most radical edge of the working class and as a hyper-exploitable class of people
The theory is a Marxist derived formulation to explain both HOW and WHY the white working class and black elites protect the system that destroys themselves and the people who they should have a natural solidarity with; that through-line led directly to the development of the sub theory of Differential Segregation which, is a far more accurate description of HOW labor aristocracy actually works in the United States, that also does away with the false binary of either race or class determination
The thing I’m pointing out is that the posts being made here reframe the US as a country where parts of it are not part of an imperial core which is actually western europe and not the US itself, not the idea that the the US elite extracts wealth from the working class in the united states. The post you initially responded to literally just says “Parts of the US is poor so it’s second or third world and the standard of living is high in western europe so it’s first world”. It is literally stating that the United States, as an entity, is still the victim of European colonialism. Are you kidding me. It is not some deep analysis of the way in which the economy of the rust belt interacts with financial centers and the actual colonised countries of the world.
The original commenter wasn’t implying Western Europe is the principal agent of exploitation within the United States, you’re being uncharitable
They were simply pointing out the conditions of Western Europe do not resemble the colonialized local conditions of many parts of the United States, that’s true, because unlike the United States social democracy was allowed to flourish and the spoils of empire were more easily distributed then in the US
I mean come on, do you seriously think op believes British elites moved their London mansions and castles to the US and secretly rule DC in favor of the secret North American British Empire?
NO, obviously op was talking about the WASP elite of the United States, who do in fact rule this country through a mechanism of internal colonialism
The existence of a social democratic project does not elevate a country to the imperial core, that is not the difference between exploiter and exploited. Western Europe is part of the “First world” they are the colonisers and part of the imperial core because they benefit from the superprofits extracted from the imperialist and colonialist machine, not because they have a welfare state. If an exploited nation builds a social safety net it doesn’t become part of the imperial core, if France had a sudden economic crash but retained its colonial extraction it wouldn’t cease to be the imperial core. This isn’t fucking materialist analysis, this is just someone saying “Some Americans are poor so they’re not part of the first world”, it is pure nonsense that seeks to excuse Americans from their role as exploiters of the rest of the world, and acting as if I’m unserious because I point out that they’re literally saying that.
Edit: The argument presented wasn’t “There are parts of the US that are internally exploited in a way that resembles the relationship America itself has with the third world”, it’s “The average Western European has better personal access to the spoils of empire in the form of a higher standard of living, so western europe is really the imperial core” and that is again literally what is being said.
Welfare states are absolutely a sign of imperial coredom, for the simple fact their continued existence implies a lack of western bombs and coup attempts, operate your analysis historically not mechanically
Nobody said that, you seem to be fighting with phantoms in your head
Nobody said they didn’t live in the first world, your hyper-moralizing is blinding you to obvious FACTS; are Native Americans not colonialized huh? Are black people not subjected to a militarized police state and systematic state depossession? Are Appalachian hollers not toxic wastelands disconnected from centralized power and resources
Stop playing punisher in your head and analyze the real conditions, an empire can indeed eat itself alive