Alright so I'll to explain why I disagree with is in a principled way: the problem with throwing out the question of who is indigenous or not obscures the colonial nature of the conflict and hence how the relation of an oppressed/oppressor nation is constituted.

https://twitter.com/BenBurgis/status/1765814774800298380

Ben here makes a common error that indigeneity is some relation of essential connection to the land rather than a social relation, much like class, that is constituted through a process of dispossession where one nation builds itself on-top of another nation through expulsion.

Marx clearly defines productive labor from the standpoint of capital and not “labor in general” because such a task is fruitless in abstraction from a given mode of production. The question is what laborers produce surplus value. marxists.org/archive/rubin/… If I am a capitalist and hire a housecleaner, it’s just an expense for me. It’s not productive labor. If I were to hire cleaners and have them clean houses at a profit, then they would be producing surplus value and therefore be productive laborers.

One of the reasons the right is sympathetic to PMC analysis is that the left is historically an alliance between intellectuals and proletarians, and that by using an analysis that poses intellectuals as the cause of all problems in the labor movement can break up this alliance. Right wing people are just as often PMC as the left, working for think tanks and foundations for inflated salaries. But by posing the PMC as the main enemy of the workers they can portray the left as the real exploiters of the working class.