This implies that the US never stopped committing genocide, and now even the most far-left American looks identical to the average Israeli leftist. At least in my view. But this view seems consistent with many others studying the same exact problem.

That begs the question, really: if we saw mass unionization and people going on strike in Israel, or if we saw a left-wing opposition win against Netanyahu and the far-right, or if a bunch of Israelis starting showing support for people in Africa... would we be cheering them on and getting excited? Does it really matter what they read, whether that be Lenin, Marx, Engels, etc., if many of their "Marxist" forefathers read the same work while gunning down Palestinians in 1947, or stealing their homes in 1948?

Better yet, if you were at a concert and your friends fell victim to an "attack" by some natives, would you have more sympathy for your friends, or for the people that attacked them? Regardless of whether or not it served some broader strategy?

And when you consider the many indigenous people who go on to serve in the US military, or the vocal minority that align with the current (and past) administration(s) of the US, would you use that as an excuse in the same manner Israelis point to Ethiopian, Arab and Muslim, Druze, etc. participants in Israeli society and/or military operation to the same extent?

Should we just ask right-wing Navajos what they think, and throw our hands in the air saying "see, indigenous people don't care, it's not a real genocide, our Communists are doing just fine"? Or should we ask Jay-Z about it, or maybe some old-school Chicano nationalists who want their own Aztlan?

I feel like most of the other excuses just remind me of the same Israeli (and former French Algerian) talking points, about how long the settlers lived there and how they have no where else to go, or statements/claims that anyone who doesn't like it should just go to Gaza, go to another country, die, "just don't vote"/"vote for the lesser evil"/"fix the system from within"/"settlers should just get along with the indigenous (and vice versa)"/"it's not a real nation and will never be"/"there's too many settlers"/"it's just impossible or unrealistic"/"liberation will never happen"/"why can't we all just work together"/"share the land"/"the natives aren't ready for independence"/"their resistance isn't good enough"/"they just want to get rid of (or kill) all the settlers", or they point to the well-assimilated non-white/non-french/non-jewish population who speak positively of and enjoy/support the governing colonial entity, etc etc etc.

Let's be real here. Does anyone actually believe a left-wing American organization is possible? Or should we look at Israel's Labor Zionism, or Rhodesia's Labor Party.

Better yet, should we be looking at the "Marxist" now running Sri Lanka, or to the Communist Party of Israel (Maki) and try to use them as legitimate examples?

The question itself might be misleading here. Considering Marx's dialectic was derived more from Hegel, the beter question would be 'how is there a contradiction inherent in concrete labor?'

So - how is that?

Here's the way I'm approaching the question. First, I'm disposing of the thesis-antithesis-synthesis and I'm replacing it with concrete-negative-abstract.

That is to say, there is a contradiction inherent in the concrete, and through the 'negative' process (the mediation process, the process that 'transforms' into the new, the sublation), we arrive at the abstract.

Where does Marx differ in his dialectic here? I know he critiqued both the Young Hegelians and the Hegelians in general for a similar problem. I'm still working out the details here...

On to the 'labor' question: concrete labor is based on the social divison of labor, into separate tasks (i.e., welding, farming, selling shirts, knitting sweaters); abstract labor is general form of labor, the aggregate sum of all labor activities.

Since I'm still uncertain on the differences between Hegelian and Marxist dialectics, I could be wrong on my assumptions following to the next issue.

Is the 'negative' in this case the labor process? Concrete labor, each specific role, is divided up for commodity production. When those commodities are put to market under capitalism (where the commodity form dominates), they meet a common exchange, the universal money-commodity. This is the basis of alienation and commodity fetishization.

Then through the labor process/valorization, labor is passed into its abstract form.

What am I getting wrong here? What exactly is the inherent contradiction? Is it that concrete labor has no value without entering capitalist relations (under an economy of generalized commodity production)? Since labor-power itself must have both a use- and exchange-value?

Or am I way off base?

This is about the fact that indigenous people make up a disproportionate amount of the military population

But when talking to people in general, how do you open dialogue with not just indigenous, but also black and Latino/Chicano veterans and younger people trying to join? A lot of people are lured in by poverty, others are looking for discipline or they have strict families who try to force/impose it.

Is there any advice on having these conversations? I believe it's important to be respectful and mature about it, to not go on lecturing and complaining.

a classic iykyk

Marx states, [emphasis mine]

The character of creditor, or of debtor, results here from the simple circulation. The change in the form of that circulation stamps buyer and seller with this new die. At first, therefore, these new parts are just as transient and alternating as those of seller and buyer, and are in turns played by the same actors. But the opposition is not nearly so pleasant, and is far more capable of crystallisation. The same characters can, however, be assumed independently of the circulation of commodities. The class-struggles of the ancient world took the form chiefly of a contest between debtors and creditors, which in Rome ended in the ruin of the plebeian debtors. They were displaced by slaves. In the middle ages the contest ended with the ruin of the feudal debtors, who lost their political power together with the economic basis on which it was established. Nevertheless, the money relation of debtor and creditor that existed at these two periods reflected only the deeper-lying antagonism between the general economic conditions of existence of the classes in question.

Does, then, this imply also a relationship in capitalist society where debt and finance play a role in the proletarianization of the so-called middle-class (or petty-bourgeois)? After all, you start a small business to jump into self-employment or to make others work for you, and when you inevitably endebt yourself (your business) to achieve success, are you not at risk of proletarianization if the business fails due to unpayable debt?

Or is the force of the haute bourgeoisie a greater factor in proletarianization, thus making the difference of the petty-bourgeois business owner being in debt or not aside from Marx's argument? Surely Marx would've remarked, at some point or another in his writings, the relevance of this if it was actually central to capitalism.

tl;dr - I do NOT like Christian Zionists, give me the resouces to understand and address their bullshit

The Christians followers of this have been talking about the "end times" with very little explanation. I tried looking into their most recent ranting and raving about the red heifer theory, but I was shocked to find that the most popular results were from people who genuinely believe that shit.

I want an explanation for this insane theory. There's something deeply antisemitic about it and I want to get to the bottom of it.

I don't want to criticize this belief by brushing it off as a bunch of loonies, dismissively pointing to the beliefs as not worth my time. I want to know exactly what it is so I can properly address it, at least mentally.

What does finance capitalism serve? When look at the progress of original capitalism, when compared to feudalism especially, there were some clear long term benefits. But what has the capitalism of the neoliberal era done?

Doesn't the existance of the US and UK in the neoliberal era for so many years just mean that we found a way to be fascist while maintaining the liberal-democratic order and bourgeois freedoms?

Or could a modern socialist state wield the teaching of financial capitalism in a progressive manner that can be seized for the benefit of the people without such a socialist state being imperialist or engaging in un-fair or un-equal exchange across borders?