u/Tarnawt_n_Tagrawlt

Disclaimer: This is just my point of view and not in any way something to be taken on face value. I know people have different views on this.

I think we need to recognize the difference between co-optation and recognition. In the Maghreb/Tamazgha, only Morocco and Algeria have recognized Tamazight as an official language, Morocco in 2011 and Algeria in 2016. This did not come out of nowhere; it came through struggle and literally blood. Since independence, Amazigh activists and everyday people were jailed and tortured by these states, which feared a diverging identity that could fracture their attempts to homogenize society during the Cold War. That attempt was always impossible, given that regional identities in the Maghreb are inherently diverse.

Morocco and Algeria followed Arabism not out of genuine concern for West Asian or North African causes, but purely to preserve the newly independent state. The first thing the Moroccan state did after independence from France and Spain was to disarm the Amazigh and Arabized tribes from the Rif, the Atlas Mountains, and the Souss. In Algeria, tensions inside the FLN between pan-Arabists and local Amazigh officers from Kabylia persisted well after independence, as the state leaned heavily into Arabism.

Many states in the West Asian-North African region did this, whether monarchies or republics, because they needed legitimacy and a unified identity to rule. Tunisia was more successful at this due to its smaller number of self-identifying Amazigh people. Libya, at some point, would simply make you disappear if you challenged the state. These two countries did not have to concede to Amazigh demands because Morocco and Algeria are different, they have huge Amazigh populations. Arabist identity succeeded in countries like Jordan and Egypt, for example. In Jordan, the kingdom already had Arabized Circassian and Armenian populations in the cities and a dominant Arab Bedouin culture in the rural plains and deserts. Egypt is the same: the Siwa Amazigh, Nubians, and other minor ethnic groups are negligible in front of the dominant Arabized culture, from the Bedouins of Sinai to the fishermen and farmers of the Nile, and the Coptic and Egyptian Arab-speaking intelligentsia in the cities.

Historically, the countries we call today Algeria or Morocco were never centralized nation-states, but rather autonomous tribal confederations, federations, and nomadic tribes who traded, grew agriculture, and herded sheep. The central great cities, in Morocco's case, what we call the Imperial cities, were the trade hubs and places where the central state would organize its political power. The main purpose of this central state was to defend against foreign armies and protect trading routes passing through tribal lands from bandits, in exchange for swearing loyalty and paying taxes.

This brings me to the Arab Spring. After 2011, the Algerian and Moroccan governments realized they could no longer create a homogeneous national identity. Their increasing alignment with Western interests, given the West's dominant position following the Cold War, brought them into a contradiction: their people had become very anti-imperialist and in touch with international movements that threatened the states' own interests and power within this world order.

So, they started co-opting the already rich and existing movements for Tamazight and Amazigh identity. Morocco began sponsoring Amazigh cultural events; Algeria did the same. Over time, they desperately started to identify Amazighism with the state. For example, in Morocco, which has always been pro-Westernn, you will often hear people from a new Moroccan Irredentist movement that you need to align with the state because it is the one that protects Amazigh culture. If you do not, you are labeled an Islamist or pro-Hezbollah and pro-Palestine. They argue that if you do not support the current relationship with the Israeli state, you must be Nasserist or Islamist. They are desperately trying to co-opt a new Amazigh culture instead of recognizing the already existing one. They are trying to convince us that Amazigh culture is Zionist, capitalist, monarchist, or pro-military junta, depending on the country, and that it is tied to the leader and his worldview.

This is why I consider it co-optation rather than recognition. Some of the most neglected areas in Morocco and Algeria are Amazigh. In Morocco, there are still people suffering from the 2023 earthquake, while some rich Moroccan nationalist is happy that a Moroccan football player in the national team has Tifinagh script on his socks. We have Tifinagh everywhere, but what about the people who speak Tamazight? Who identify as Amazigh? Aren't they as important? Recognition and co-optation are different words.

Liberation comes from the individual and the masses liberating themselves in a coalition of progressive liberatory forces not from a savior or a state.

Disclaimer: This is just my point of view and not in any way something to be taken on face value. I know people have different views on this.

I think we need to recognize the difference between co-optation and recognition. In the Maghreb/Tamazgha, only Morocco and Algeria have recognized Tamazight as an official language, Morocco in 2011 and Algeria in 2016. This did not come out of nowhere; it came through struggle and literally blood. Since independence, Amazigh activists and everyday people were jailed and tortured by these states, which feared a diverging identity that could fracture their attempts to homogenize society during the Cold War. That attempt was always impossible, given that regional identities in the Maghreb are inherently diverse.

Morocco and Algeria followed Arabism not out of genuine concern for West Asian or North African causes, but purely to preserve the newly independent state. The first thing the Moroccan state did after independence from France and Spain was to disarm the Amazigh and Arabized tribes from the Rif, the Atlas Mountains, and the Souss. In Algeria, tensions inside the FLN between pan-Arabists and local Amazigh officers from Kabylia persisted well after independence, as the state leaned heavily into Arabism.

Many states in the West Asian-North African region did this, whether monarchies or republics, because they needed legitimacy and a unified identity to rule. Tunisia was more successful at this due to its smaller number of self-identifying Amazigh people. Libya, at some point, would simply make you disappear if you challenged the state. These two countries did not have to concede to Amazigh demands because Morocco and Algeria are different, they have huge Amazigh populations. Arabist identity succeeded in countries like Jordan and Egypt, for example. In Jordan, the kingdom already had Arabized Circassian and Armenian populations in the cities and a dominant Arab Bedouin culture in the rural plains and deserts. Egypt is the same: the Siwa Amazigh, Nubians, and other minor ethnic groups are negligible in front of the dominant Arabized culture, from the Bedouins of Sinai to the fishermen and farmers of the Nile, and the Coptic and Egyptian Arab-speaking intelligentsia in the cities.

Historically, the countries we call today Algeria or Morocco were never centralized nation-states, but rather autonomous tribal confederations, federations, and nomadic tribes who traded, grew agriculture, and herded sheep. The central great cities, in Morocco's case, what we call the Imperial cities, were the trade hubs and places where the central state would organize its political power. The main purpose of this central state was to defend against foreign armies and protect trading routes passing through tribal lands from bandits, in exchange for swearing loyalty and paying taxes.

This brings me to the Arab Spring. After 2011, the Algerian and Moroccan governments realized they could no longer create a homogeneous national identity. Their increasing alignment with Western interests, given the West's dominant position following the Cold War, brought them into a contradiction: their people had become very anti-imperialist and in touch with international movements that threatened the states' own interests and power within this world order.

So, they started co-opting the already rich and existing movements for Tamazight and Amazigh identity. Morocco began sponsoring Amazigh cultural events; Algeria did the same. Over time, they desperately started to identify Amazighism with the state. For example, in Morocco, which has always been pro-Westernn, you will often hear people from a new Moroccan Irredentist movement that you need to align with the state because it is the one that protects Amazigh culture. If you do not, you are labeled an Islamist or pro-Hezbollah and pro-Palestine. They argue that if you do not support the current relationship with the Israeli state, you must be Nasserist or Islamist. They are desperately trying to co-opt a new Amazigh culture instead of recognizing the already existing one. They are trying to convince us that Amazigh culture is Zionist, capitalist, monarchist, or pro-military junta, depending on the country, and that it is tied to the leader and his worldview.

This is why I consider it co-optation rather than recognition. Some of the most neglected areas in Morocco and Algeria are Amazigh. In Morocco, there are still people suffering from the 2023 earthquake, while some rich Moroccan nationalist is happy that a Moroccan football player in the national team has Tifinagh script on his socks. We have Tifinagh everywhere, but what about the people who speak Tamazight? Who identify as Amazigh? Aren't they as important? Recognition and co-optation are different words.

Liberation comes from the individual and the masses liberating themselves in a coalition of progressive liberatory forces not from a savior or a state.

Palantir is a global threat to all people of this world.

AI and security contractor companies should be regarded with the same animosty and lens we view the Imperialist, Reactionary and counter-revolutionary powers of global capitalism.

A lot of people tend to forget that Palantir is not an american problem but a global people's problem.

We already see Despotic states in the middle east use Israeli spy software like Pegasus on dissidents as a treat for normalization of relations with that state.

A lot of Monsters are salivating at this prospect.

Organize worldwide!

Just a question. alot of socialist subreddits seem very hostile to anyone who asks questions that challenge the organization, party, or ideology they identify with.

For context, I come from the Global South and still live in Africa. Whenever I raise questions that seem unfamiliar to many Western Marxist-Leninists, I am quickly labeled as a "Western leftist" or "infantile." That assumption does not make sense. I have worked alongside real Marxists and socialists in unions, student movements, and protests under a highly repressive state. My experience with them is very different from what I often see in online Western ML spaces.

I found libertarian socialism and democratic confederalism through years of practical work, not internet debates. I spent some time organizing with students and working with Amazigh and Arab-speaking communities in rural and mountainous regions while experiencing the repression of an authoritarian state that serves Western imperial interests but is also willing to cooperate with any government that benefits it, including China.

Reading Bookchin and Öcalan connected with experiences I had already lived. Their ideas helped me think about a diverse confederation of the peoples of Tamazgha/Maghreb at a time when nationalism, chauvinism, and rivalry between Morocco and Algeria continue to divide populations with deep historical and cultural ties. I came to these ideas through a mix of practice and theory, from student assemblies and direct democratic organizing to years spent working with marginalized mountain communities.

This leads me to my question about many Western Marxist-Leninists.

Do they not see that revolutions are almost always coalitions of different progressive forces? Most socialist tendencies understand this, including anarchists. Yet many online ML spaces seem focused on dominating every organization they enter until anyone who disagrees is pushed out. Ironically, this is similar to the factionalism they often accuse Trotskyists of practicing.

No revolutionary movement succeeds through ideological purity alone. If you refuse to work with people who disagree with you, spend your time belittling them, and treat texts from a century ago as unquestionable scripture, you make coalition-building impossible. Those works are valuable and should absolutely be read, but they should enhance your analysis, not replace it. Discussions often end with someone posting a Lenin quote or suggesting a book they have not even read themselves.

I am also worried about how many Western Marxist-Leninists reduce international politics to supporting whichever state opposes the United States. This often means treating ordinary people as pieces on a geopolitical chessboard.

There is a real disconnect between many Western online MLs and socialists living under authoritarian governments. You can see this divide between Iranian socialists and Western "anti-imperialists." You can also see it in Myanmar, where the Tatmadaw has received support from countries such as China, Russia, Belarus, North Korea, and even Israel at different times. Meanwhile, many forces resisting it include Marxists, Maoists, communists, socialists, ethnic liberation movements, and democratic organizations. Reality is much more complicated than the idea of an "anti-imperialist camp."

The same applies elsewhere. The Sudanese Communist Party focuses on organizing in communities and helping people survive harsh conditions rather than defending foreign governments online. Socialists doing real work generally get that states pursue their own interests, not ideological loyalty.

This is why I believe the idea of a coherent global anti-imperialist bloc is largely a fantasy. States compete based on strategic interests, not revolutionary principles. Treating every geopolitical rival of the West as inherently progressive is not dialectical materialism.

Marxism-Leninism is an important socialist tradition, but it is not the only one, and it is not the dominant tendency everywhere. The world changes. If your politics mainly consist of quoting century-old texts while refusing to engage with contemporary struggles, local conditions, or other socialist traditions, then you risk becoming disconnected from the very people you claim to represent.

A revolutionary should be judged by their ability to organize, build solidarity, and improve material conditions, not by how faithfully they quote their favorite theorist or how aggressively they dismiss everyone who disagrees with them.

And mandatory fuck the settler colonial entity and it's imperialist backers.