Right, that's some text, and I'm sure the AI told you it was a very good quote, but you don't seem to understand how it contradicts you. And I'm honestly not sure what you think you're arguing at all besides "socialism is a thing," despite my constant advocacy for it, just not in a way that makes you feel like a good person.

Could you point out where Marx talks about decolonialism in this, which is what apparently this was meant to address? Firstly, if you were in any way familiar with contemporary socialist scholarship, you wouldn't make the mistake of conflating "English" and "European" as "white," when it refers to a specific understanding of whiteness as it exists in a settler-colonial system of power, as a fluid category that rationalizes or pathologizes violence and functions as a primary organizing principle of how resources are distributed in our society. Marx does not understand whiteness in that way, and never claimed to. In fact, the universalization of his economic criticisms both draws on and reproduces settler-colonial practices of erasure and domination that neglects the cultural and material specificities and needs of different places. You seem to think that you're defending socialism, and yet have discarded a century and a half of work of its development to adopt the most favourable elemetns of Marx's argument here to maintain a sense of moral rightness without addressing your own position of power within this system.

Even further, you don't even understand how the materialism applies to this topic. Materialism, both as Marx applies it and throughout subsequent socialist scholarship, is an analytical tool to explain why certain social constructs emerge, and how they relate to the physical, real world conditions. You have misunderstood multiple times now that when I say white settlers behave in their best interest, that it is the moral thing for them to do, which is the exact wrong reading. No, it means that they have a material incentive to do so that is only energized and validated by institutions of knowledge production which discursively constructs the world around them in accordance with that system of power; i.e. thinking that borders exist, thinking that there is a "natural" state of existence relative to this. Those are not real things, they are constructs that exist to facilitate the social relations of domination which Marx is talking about here.

You seem to think that being oppressed means you're not free from privileged, and that is the mentality of someone who has benefitted from privilege. Did you consider, for a moment, why Marx's prediction for England was wrong? Why white labourers in the metropole continue to subscribe to the exact same system they did then, why political reforms that emerged afterward worked to reproduce that system while creating a tolerable level of inequality for maintenance in the metropole? I thought you were joking when you said you thought this discussion was about whether capitalism is bad, you think this is how someone who supports capitalism talks? No, I know it is bad, and I recognize that people like you, privileged liberals, appropriate and weaponize these values to your own benefit, as your positionality affords you both the resources to pressure this system, and you require less from it for your satisfaction. Yes, being white means that you have a material incentive to perhaps challenge this system when it begins to fail you, but also to maintain it as your entire way of life and standard of living is tied to the privilege you inhabit as a settler. What you are doing is exactly what I am warning against, which is refusing to address that you have to give up privilege even though you feel like you don't have enough as it is due to the oppression that we all experience under capitalism, but white settlers less so.

What I am describing is how the prison industrial complex emerged following the Civil Rights era in the US, how homonationalism emerged following the AIDS genocide, how environmentalism is currently appropriated by white activists who want green spaces while still having bananas in winter. It is colonizing. Marx does not take any of this into account, fucking guess why.

Go read Patrick Wolfe's Settler Colonialism and the Transformation of Anthropology (1999), and "Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Native" in Journal of Genocide Research, no. 8 (2006): 387–409; Jasbir Puar's Queer Times, Queer Assemblages (2005), and Terrorist Assemblages: Homonationalism in Queer Times (2007); Pauline Wakeham "The Slow Violence of Settler Colonialism," in Journal of Genocide Research (2022); and Jean O'brien's, Firsting and Lasting (2010).

You'll do better for yourself and everyone else by actually learning about this shit rather than assuming you know everything because you like how people talk about Marxism online. Yeah, people like socialism, it hasn't happened just because we've all been waiting for you to get here, and right now, people like this are as big a threat to its realization as fascism is because, guess what, liberalism has sustained several waves like this in the time since Marx wrote Capital, and it has always been quelled by satiating the white labourers like you seem to be.