Leftoids when le noble savages owned land six trillion years ago
RRRREEEEE GIVE IT BACK!!!
Please stop. Land doesn’t belong to anyone. This has to apply to everyone. Or it means nothing.
Obviously in this case it’s a convenient legalism to block an awful prison from being built and there’s no shame there and only joy, but please don’t turn this into a solidarity-shattering, shitflinging competition about what land belongs to who when all land belongs to everyone.
there is no contradiction between private property abolition and land-back.
private property abolition is about ending rentseeking and recommoning the means of (re)production.
land-back is about self-determination and reparations for the descendants of these genocided peoples; peoples whose destruction still benefits the living descandants of settlers. it’s about returning to broken treaties, ending extractive capitalism on their sacred land, and ending the process of enclosure which cuts them off from their culture, families and neighbours. it’s about restoring rights and laws of stewardship to the people who actually live there and have a connection to the land.
land-back doesn’t mean transferring private property. it means reöpening it and giving indigenous peoples back their right of stewardship.
land-back is private property abolition. it’s also an environmental movement.
To be fair, a lot of leftists are pro-nationalism, so it’s not inconsistent for them to demand hundreds of nationalistic ethnostates for indigenous populations. It’s a sad state of affairs
FYI, most “land back” campaigns are more about stewardship than possession. That is to say: there’s no interest in kicking families out of their homes, but instead about managing the land and resources.
That’s the thing though - “managing the land and resources” is effectively in many ways amounts to ownership of the means of production, and that “most” is doing a lot of legwork too. I find the whole concept problematic and I don’t like that this obvious legal victory is being tied to this by leftists here.
I’m just trying to point you in the direction to educate yourself. You’ve got a certain “vibe” towards the concept. I’m giving you an alternate vibe to consider, but I have lived somewhere that ‘land back’ actually happened, and that’s where I came by my vibe.
Read ‘seeing like a state’ and tell me indigenous land management in the americas was worse than what we have now.
I want the means of production producing and sustainable, and ideally egalitarian. This serms like the most politically viable way to do that. Therefore: landback.
NOOOO LAND BELONGS TO LE EVERYONE!!!
RRRREEEEE GIVE IT BACK!!!
Please stop. Land doesn’t belong to anyone. This has to apply to everyone. Or it means nothing.
Obviously in this case it’s a convenient legalism to block an awful prison from being built and there’s no shame there and only joy, but please don’t turn this into a solidarity-shattering, shitflinging competition about what land belongs to who when all land belongs to everyone.
Damn, this comment and “Oh dear. Blocked.” were really unnecessary in tone, because otherwise at least your other comments in this thread seem OK.
Let’s see if 6 months is long enough for you to mature LOL.
Thank god for user tags. It’s not the first time I’ve seen this user being confidently wrong on multiple levels.
there is no contradiction between private property abolition and land-back.
private property abolition is about ending rentseeking and recommoning the means of (re)production.
land-back is about self-determination and reparations for the descendants of these genocided peoples; peoples whose destruction still benefits the living descandants of settlers. it’s about returning to broken treaties, ending extractive capitalism on their sacred land, and ending the process of enclosure which cuts them off from their culture, families and neighbours. it’s about restoring rights and laws of stewardship to the people who actually live there and have a connection to the land.
land-back doesn’t mean transferring private property. it means reöpening it and giving indigenous peoples back their right of stewardship.
land-back is private property abolition. it’s also an environmental movement.
Land does belong to you if you live there imo…
Yes that’s why colonialism is obviously bad. Personal vs. Private property. Landback isn’t about that though.
To be fair, a lot of leftists are pro-nationalism, so it’s not inconsistent for them to demand hundreds of nationalistic ethnostates for indigenous populations. It’s a sad state of affairs
Yeah, I guess I didn’t know that nationalism of all things would be something I’d see leftists defending.
FYI, most “land back” campaigns are more about stewardship than possession. That is to say: there’s no interest in kicking families out of their homes, but instead about managing the land and resources.
That’s the thing though - “managing the land and resources” is effectively in many ways amounts to ownership of the means of production, and that “most” is doing a lot of legwork too. I find the whole concept problematic and I don’t like that this obvious legal victory is being tied to this by leftists here.
I’m just trying to point you in the direction to educate yourself. You’ve got a certain “vibe” towards the concept. I’m giving you an alternate vibe to consider, but I have lived somewhere that ‘land back’ actually happened, and that’s where I came by my vibe.
Read ‘seeing like a state’ and tell me indigenous land management in the americas was worse than what we have now.
I want the means of production producing and sustainable, and ideally egalitarian. This serms like the most politically viable way to do that. Therefore: landback.
I would rather the most brutal aztec king or comanche warlord own the place i live than blackrock.
Your weird property fetish should stay on fetlife. Or 4chan if you’re banned from fetlife.
deleted by creator