Address: full text, then studied line-by-line, then full text again

Hello relatives and comrades.

I want to begin by naming a constraint rather than a position. In spaces like this, some things do not need to be said in order to be understood. That matters, because the point of gathering is not performance but clarity. What I want to do is say only what is necessary for that clarity.

Many of the conflicts inside communist spaces are framed as problems of legitimacy. We argue about who is a real communist, who has misread the texts, who has betrayed the line. Those arguments feel satisfying because they allow separation without explanation. They let us distance ourselves from outcomes we dislike without explaining why those outcomes keep recurring. But separation is not analysis, and it does not resolve harm.

When people appeal to doctrine to exempt themselves from critique, the issue is usually not bad faith. It is that doctrine is being treated as if it operates in a neutral environment. Social conditions shape conclusions long before anyone opens a book.

I want to propose a small analytical shift. Instead of treating ideology as primary and colonial conditions as secondary, reverse the order. Settler and Indigenous orders function like operating systems. They set defaults and constraints that any ideology running on top of them inherits unless explicitly accounted for.

This helps explain why disputes repeat even when the language changes. Practices that claim a scientific basis still reproduce settler homogeneity. That does not require calling anyone a fake Marxist. It requires noticing which conditions are being treated as given.

This is why class positions can behave in ways that look contradictory. It is not a moral ranking but a structural observation. Inherited relations to land and extraction shape what futures appear reasonable.

When I use terms like decolonial Marxism-Leninism, it is not to assert purity. It is to mark an unresolved analytical problem. Marxism contains tools capable of addressing this, but tools are not guarantees. A scientific view requires checking whether conclusions change when conditions are made explicit.

That is the question I am leaving you with. Not whether you hold the correct label, but whether your analysis survives contact with its conditions.

Hello relatives and comrades.

I want to begin by naming a constraint rather than a position. In spaces like this, some things do not need to be said in order to be understood. That matters, because the point of gathering is not performance but clarity. What I want to do is say only what is necessary for that clarity.

Many of the conflicts inside communist spaces are framed as problems of legitimacy. We argue about who is a real communist, who has misread the texts, who has betrayed the line. Those arguments feel satisfying because they allow separation without explanation. They let us distance ourselves from outcomes we dislike without explaining why those outcomes keep recurring. But separation is not analysis, and it does not resolve harm.

When people appeal to doctrine to exempt themselves from critique, the issue is usually not bad faith. It is that doctrine is being treated as if it operates in a neutral environment. Social conditions shape conclusions long before anyone opens a book.

I want to propose a small analytical shift. Instead of treating ideology as primary and colonial conditions as secondary, reverse the order. Settler and Indigenous orders function like operating systems. They set defaults and constraints that any ideology running on top of them inherits unless explicitly accounted for.

This helps explain why disputes repeat even when the language changes. Practices that claim a scientific basis still reproduce settler homogeneity. That does not require calling anyone a fake Marxist. It requires noticing which conditions are being treated as given.

This is why class positions can behave in ways that look contradictory. It is not a moral ranking but a structural observation. Inherited relations to land and extraction shape what futures appear reasonable.

When I use terms like decolonial Marxism-Leninism, it is not to assert purity. It is to mark an unresolved analytical problem. Marxism contains tools capable of addressing this, but tools are not guarantees. A scientific view requires checking whether conclusions change when conditions are made explicit.

That is the question I am leaving you with. Not whether you hold the correct label, but whether your analysis survives contact with its conditions.