Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist
11th November 2013, 05:46
I'm posting this in learning because I'd like to start a discussion on how exactly the question of indigenous people should be approached by the Communist movement from a Marxist perspective. Before we get started I think it'd be helpful to develop an understanding of a theoretical framework which could be used to approach this question. First off, it's important to understand that modern america is in essence a colonial state and that the act of displacing a native, under-developed, semi-feudal or tribal population with a colonial settler entity is called settler colonialism. JMP from MLM Mayhem wrote a good introductory paper on this subject that is short and I recommend that everyone read it:
http://www.davidpublishing.com/davidpublishing/Upfile/4/2/2013/2013040205685381.pdf
The important thing to recognize here is that the settler-colonialist entity that we have in the U.S, Canada and other colonial states is a direct continuation of early colonialism. Obviously colonialism has evolved over the years but the point that I am trying to make here is that the question of indigenous peoples simply didn't just disappear. You might not hear about it in the news but the colonial question is still very much a relevant aspect of the structure of American society that needs a fresh, concrete application of Marxism if there is to be any communist movement in that country. What needs to be grasped is the uniqueness of the question. as Franz Fanon said "“Marxist analysis should always be slightly stretched every time we have to do with the colonial problem". What I mean here is that the Marxist framework must be expanded if it is to deal with the question of national oppression. A quote from Stalin exemplifies what I think constitutes as the uniqueness of the question:
“Oppressed nationalities are usually oppressed not only as peasants and as urban working people, but also as nationalities, i.e., as the toilers of a definite nationality, language, culture, manner of life, habits and customs. The double oppression can not help revolutionising the labouring masses of the oppressed nationalities, cannot help impelling them to fight the principal force of oppression – capital."
There's also another article on black self-determination which I think is worth referencing even if it does not directly relate to the matter at hand. It isn't worth reading on its own because it is really little more than a context based sectarian tirade but there are some arguments within it that I think are relevant today.
http://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-7/bl-introduction.htm
Here are a couple of quotes:
Yet, all these “revolutionaries” pursue a disgusting national chauvinist policy in regards to the national question in the U.S. They all deny that the U.S. is a prison-house of nations.... They consider that the struggles for self-determination of the Black and Chicano nations and the Natives peoples are “bourgeois nationalist” and “reactionary movements”. They have liquidated the national question within the U.S. from various perspectives such as: “all nationalism is reactionary;” “all nationalism is nationalism;” “industrialization and the dispersion of Blacks from the Black Belt have changed the concept of Black Nation;” etc. To them, the Black question is only a racial and class question.
The article continues:
In the interest of uniting the multi-national proletariat in the U.S. in the struggle to overthrow the bourgeois dictatorship and establish socialism, revolutionary communists in the U.S. must address the national question, especially the Black and Chicano national question. The proletariat from the various oppressed nationalities in the U.S. will not unite with the white American proletariat if the white proletariat and communists do not in deeds repudiate and fight against the annexations, national inequality, national privileges, national chauvinism and racism that their oppressor white nation propagates and implements on a daily basis. The narrow nationalism and “Bundist” deviations on the national question will not be eradicated unless and until the national chauvinism of the oppressor white nation is fought against and defeated. Failure to recognize the existence of oppressed nations within the U.S. and to uphold their right to self-determination will mean failure in accomplishing the socialist revolution in the U.S.
The article then quotes Marx in what I think is a key point:
England now possesses a working class divided into two hostile camps, English proletarians and Irish proletarians. The ordinary English worker hates the Irish worker as a competitor who lowers his standard of life. In relation to the Irish worker he regards himself as a member of the ruling nation and consequently he becomes a tool of the English aristocrats and capitalists against Ireland, thus strengthening their domination over himself. He cherishes religious, social, and national prejudices against the Irish worker. His attitude towards him is much the same as that of the ’poor whites’ to the Negroes in the former slave states of the U.S.A. The Irishman pays him back with interest, in his own money. He sees in the English worker both the accomplice and the stupid tool of the English rulers in Ireland.
This antagonism is artificially kept alive and intensified by the press, the pulpit, the comic papers, in short, by all the means at the disposal of the ruling classes. This antagonism is the secret of the impotence of the English working class, despite its organization. It is the secret by which the capitalist class maintains its power. And the latter is quite aware of this
Indeed this also explains the impotence of American labor since the early fifties. As the Black movement arose, as the anti-war and student movements arose, the American proletariat was relatively quiet. Although this is due to the objective economic conditions of relative stabilization of capitalism at that time, this is not sufficient to explain the tremendous passivity of much of the white proletariat and the large section of it that regarded itself in comparison to Blacks “as a member of the ruling nation and consequently becomes a tool” of the American bourgeoisie against the Blacks. This strengthens the domination of American capital over all of the working class. These white workers see the Black workers as their competitors, who lower their standard of living. They cherish religious, social, national and racial prejudices towards Blacks. Of course, the Blacks pay them “back with interest” and see in them “the accomplice and the stupid tool of” the white rulers in America.
Some of you might be interested in reading the article and there are indeed other parts of it which are of value, but I thought that I'd do the kindness of presenting the relevant points in order to save time. Another document from time period on the black national question can also be re-appropriated for our purposes, I'll quote some important sections here:
The theory and practice of the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP), under the slogan, “Workers Unite To Lead the Fight Against All Oppression!,” is a good teacher by negative example. This slogan is dangerous, not because it is wrong, but because it purposefully omits any recognition of the independent revolutionary significance and potential of the Black liberation movement. As practice has shown, the RCP insists that the Black liberation movement be subsumed within the multi-national labor movement, and must abandon its independence. This they term, “Building the fight against national oppression as a component of the overall class struggle.” In short, they liquidate the Black national movement as an independent revolutionary ally of labor. The trademark of the RCP is confusion and inconsistency on this issue, and they continue to speak of the “Black people’s struggle” and of the need for “an alliance”. Where is any RCP practice in building the Black liberation movement? There is none. Why? Because the RCP sees no need for it. In fact, they view the independent Black liberation movement as a threat to multi-national unity.
http://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-5/bacu-2/resolution3.htm
Unlike the other document I personally recommend that you read it because it engages the topic in depth in brevity and in detail without being as unreadable as the other document. All of this brings me to what I want to say next.
The oppression of indigenous peoples is one of those "special oppressions". Alot of people on here are very well read and have good politics regarding the queer question and I think that there is a certain degree of overlap in how it is approached. The whole spiel by some that queer,woman and colonial oppression don't constitute "real" oppression since they aren't directly related to class and capital and therefore should not be engaged by Marxists is something that Marxist Feminists and radical queers have pointed out is patently false because both are apart of the totality of capitalist civilization and its structure and that the argument itself is objectively chauvinist as it lends its hand to support the oppression it claims to be neutral on. Of course then there is the argument made by the opportunist sections of the left that these questions are "divisive" and should be avoided in fear off offending the white proletariat but of course the obvious reply is that the material conditions are what divide the proletariat, not leftists and that these conditions must be engaged if there is to be a living marxism. Then there is the argument that there can be no solution to these questions until the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism and that they can not be posed til that moment. What is wrong with that argument and really all of these arguments is that they have a leftist drap for what in reality doesn't even merit the title "left opportunism" because it is clear that these "leftist" masks are just an attempt to appeal to right-wing conservatism and chauvinism within the workers movement. Since I'd rather not dwell on this too much I'll link a very short piece which deals with these common arguments and refutes them:
http://moufawad-paul.blogspot.com/2012/08/dividing-working-class.html
So what I would like to propose here is that we acknowledge all of the common objections to radical woman and queer politics and apply the same logic in refuting them to refuting the objections to indigenous politics and the politics of oppressed nations in America. These are "special" oppression that deserve "special" attention which should be reflected in theory and praxis and I think arguments against that are chauvinist for the same reason that the "left" opponents to queer politics are chauvinist. Again I know these issues should be engaged in greater length but I'd rather go in detail during the course of this discussion rather than here.
Furthermore another point that I think is the most important to emphasis is that the line of "unite and fight" entirely removes the agency from oppressed peoples and deprives them of the possibility of autonomous action while subordinating them to the politically dominate and strongest section of the working class; the white working class. Real unity can only be grasped as working class solidarity with the movement of oppressed indigenous peoples. As that infamous line from the Enfurt Programme goes "Socialism can only come about through the self-emancipation of the proletariat" it is also correct to say that the colonizers can not free the indigenous proletariat from the chains of imperialism and colonialism. In my opinion the only principled stance is applying the Leninist doctrine of revolutionary defeatism to the indigenous question even if that involves "stretching" it to a degree. Just as the ultimate goal for the organized communist worker is to defeat its own bourgeois, it must be the goal of any Communist worker within a colonial state to stand with the colonized people and to defeat his own nation while assisting the indigenous proletariat in destroying the colonial state which can only be an act of the indigenous peoples themselves.
I think it is too early in this attempt to begin an analysis of the structure of American society to present a coherent strategy of what an American Communist movement might look like. But I think that it is fair to say that there can be no revolutionary movement without the abolition of the vestige of colonialism. This doesn't mean that I envision a two stage revolution where these tasks are completed and then socialism can come afterwards. On the contrary what I am proposing is that in this era of atomization, that the proletariat does not act as a consistent social bloc except as a purely economic relation between the means of production and rather is a loose association of groups with differing and conflicting interests and that we can envision the most oppressed proletariat acting as the natural vanguard and leaders of the class as opposed to the labor aristocracy which has been thus far unable to provide such leadership and as opposed to certain deviationist trends which envision the working class as a homogeneous entity and elevates "the party" to the position of vanguard and assumes that being ideologically Communist makes one a member of the advanced section of the proletariat rather than the relation to capitalist society as a whole.
The reason why I posted this in learning is because what I have said here is simply a suggestion on how the question of indigenous peoples should be approached, I don't think that my thoughts on the question are complete enough for the formulation of a comprehensive theoretical framework to approach the question, nor do I think that I have devloped a theory which could translate into concrete Communist praxis on the question. So with this in mind I am asking you all to share your thoughts and some tools to study so a more comprehensive look at this neglected question could become possible.
I did find this suggested reading list by an indigenous communist organization in Canada and while I disagree with their political line I'll link it here and as I study I'll post what I see as important tid-bits that merit discussion:
http://onkwehonwerising.wordpress.com/resources-for-study/basic-reading-list/
http://www.davidpublishing.com/davidpublishing/Upfile/4/2/2013/2013040205685381.pdf
The important thing to recognize here is that the settler-colonialist entity that we have in the U.S, Canada and other colonial states is a direct continuation of early colonialism. Obviously colonialism has evolved over the years but the point that I am trying to make here is that the question of indigenous peoples simply didn't just disappear. You might not hear about it in the news but the colonial question is still very much a relevant aspect of the structure of American society that needs a fresh, concrete application of Marxism if there is to be any communist movement in that country. What needs to be grasped is the uniqueness of the question. as Franz Fanon said "“Marxist analysis should always be slightly stretched every time we have to do with the colonial problem". What I mean here is that the Marxist framework must be expanded if it is to deal with the question of national oppression. A quote from Stalin exemplifies what I think constitutes as the uniqueness of the question:
“Oppressed nationalities are usually oppressed not only as peasants and as urban working people, but also as nationalities, i.e., as the toilers of a definite nationality, language, culture, manner of life, habits and customs. The double oppression can not help revolutionising the labouring masses of the oppressed nationalities, cannot help impelling them to fight the principal force of oppression – capital."
There's also another article on black self-determination which I think is worth referencing even if it does not directly relate to the matter at hand. It isn't worth reading on its own because it is really little more than a context based sectarian tirade but there are some arguments within it that I think are relevant today.
http://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-7/bl-introduction.htm
Here are a couple of quotes:
Yet, all these “revolutionaries” pursue a disgusting national chauvinist policy in regards to the national question in the U.S. They all deny that the U.S. is a prison-house of nations.... They consider that the struggles for self-determination of the Black and Chicano nations and the Natives peoples are “bourgeois nationalist” and “reactionary movements”. They have liquidated the national question within the U.S. from various perspectives such as: “all nationalism is reactionary;” “all nationalism is nationalism;” “industrialization and the dispersion of Blacks from the Black Belt have changed the concept of Black Nation;” etc. To them, the Black question is only a racial and class question.
The article continues:
In the interest of uniting the multi-national proletariat in the U.S. in the struggle to overthrow the bourgeois dictatorship and establish socialism, revolutionary communists in the U.S. must address the national question, especially the Black and Chicano national question. The proletariat from the various oppressed nationalities in the U.S. will not unite with the white American proletariat if the white proletariat and communists do not in deeds repudiate and fight against the annexations, national inequality, national privileges, national chauvinism and racism that their oppressor white nation propagates and implements on a daily basis. The narrow nationalism and “Bundist” deviations on the national question will not be eradicated unless and until the national chauvinism of the oppressor white nation is fought against and defeated. Failure to recognize the existence of oppressed nations within the U.S. and to uphold their right to self-determination will mean failure in accomplishing the socialist revolution in the U.S.
The article then quotes Marx in what I think is a key point:
England now possesses a working class divided into two hostile camps, English proletarians and Irish proletarians. The ordinary English worker hates the Irish worker as a competitor who lowers his standard of life. In relation to the Irish worker he regards himself as a member of the ruling nation and consequently he becomes a tool of the English aristocrats and capitalists against Ireland, thus strengthening their domination over himself. He cherishes religious, social, and national prejudices against the Irish worker. His attitude towards him is much the same as that of the ’poor whites’ to the Negroes in the former slave states of the U.S.A. The Irishman pays him back with interest, in his own money. He sees in the English worker both the accomplice and the stupid tool of the English rulers in Ireland.
This antagonism is artificially kept alive and intensified by the press, the pulpit, the comic papers, in short, by all the means at the disposal of the ruling classes. This antagonism is the secret of the impotence of the English working class, despite its organization. It is the secret by which the capitalist class maintains its power. And the latter is quite aware of this
Indeed this also explains the impotence of American labor since the early fifties. As the Black movement arose, as the anti-war and student movements arose, the American proletariat was relatively quiet. Although this is due to the objective economic conditions of relative stabilization of capitalism at that time, this is not sufficient to explain the tremendous passivity of much of the white proletariat and the large section of it that regarded itself in comparison to Blacks “as a member of the ruling nation and consequently becomes a tool” of the American bourgeoisie against the Blacks. This strengthens the domination of American capital over all of the working class. These white workers see the Black workers as their competitors, who lower their standard of living. They cherish religious, social, national and racial prejudices towards Blacks. Of course, the Blacks pay them “back with interest” and see in them “the accomplice and the stupid tool of” the white rulers in America.
Some of you might be interested in reading the article and there are indeed other parts of it which are of value, but I thought that I'd do the kindness of presenting the relevant points in order to save time. Another document from time period on the black national question can also be re-appropriated for our purposes, I'll quote some important sections here:
The theory and practice of the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP), under the slogan, “Workers Unite To Lead the Fight Against All Oppression!,” is a good teacher by negative example. This slogan is dangerous, not because it is wrong, but because it purposefully omits any recognition of the independent revolutionary significance and potential of the Black liberation movement. As practice has shown, the RCP insists that the Black liberation movement be subsumed within the multi-national labor movement, and must abandon its independence. This they term, “Building the fight against national oppression as a component of the overall class struggle.” In short, they liquidate the Black national movement as an independent revolutionary ally of labor. The trademark of the RCP is confusion and inconsistency on this issue, and they continue to speak of the “Black people’s struggle” and of the need for “an alliance”. Where is any RCP practice in building the Black liberation movement? There is none. Why? Because the RCP sees no need for it. In fact, they view the independent Black liberation movement as a threat to multi-national unity.
http://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-5/bacu-2/resolution3.htm
Unlike the other document I personally recommend that you read it because it engages the topic in depth in brevity and in detail without being as unreadable as the other document. All of this brings me to what I want to say next.
The oppression of indigenous peoples is one of those "special oppressions". Alot of people on here are very well read and have good politics regarding the queer question and I think that there is a certain degree of overlap in how it is approached. The whole spiel by some that queer,woman and colonial oppression don't constitute "real" oppression since they aren't directly related to class and capital and therefore should not be engaged by Marxists is something that Marxist Feminists and radical queers have pointed out is patently false because both are apart of the totality of capitalist civilization and its structure and that the argument itself is objectively chauvinist as it lends its hand to support the oppression it claims to be neutral on. Of course then there is the argument made by the opportunist sections of the left that these questions are "divisive" and should be avoided in fear off offending the white proletariat but of course the obvious reply is that the material conditions are what divide the proletariat, not leftists and that these conditions must be engaged if there is to be a living marxism. Then there is the argument that there can be no solution to these questions until the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism and that they can not be posed til that moment. What is wrong with that argument and really all of these arguments is that they have a leftist drap for what in reality doesn't even merit the title "left opportunism" because it is clear that these "leftist" masks are just an attempt to appeal to right-wing conservatism and chauvinism within the workers movement. Since I'd rather not dwell on this too much I'll link a very short piece which deals with these common arguments and refutes them:
http://moufawad-paul.blogspot.com/2012/08/dividing-working-class.html
So what I would like to propose here is that we acknowledge all of the common objections to radical woman and queer politics and apply the same logic in refuting them to refuting the objections to indigenous politics and the politics of oppressed nations in America. These are "special" oppression that deserve "special" attention which should be reflected in theory and praxis and I think arguments against that are chauvinist for the same reason that the "left" opponents to queer politics are chauvinist. Again I know these issues should be engaged in greater length but I'd rather go in detail during the course of this discussion rather than here.
Furthermore another point that I think is the most important to emphasis is that the line of "unite and fight" entirely removes the agency from oppressed peoples and deprives them of the possibility of autonomous action while subordinating them to the politically dominate and strongest section of the working class; the white working class. Real unity can only be grasped as working class solidarity with the movement of oppressed indigenous peoples. As that infamous line from the Enfurt Programme goes "Socialism can only come about through the self-emancipation of the proletariat" it is also correct to say that the colonizers can not free the indigenous proletariat from the chains of imperialism and colonialism. In my opinion the only principled stance is applying the Leninist doctrine of revolutionary defeatism to the indigenous question even if that involves "stretching" it to a degree. Just as the ultimate goal for the organized communist worker is to defeat its own bourgeois, it must be the goal of any Communist worker within a colonial state to stand with the colonized people and to defeat his own nation while assisting the indigenous proletariat in destroying the colonial state which can only be an act of the indigenous peoples themselves.
I think it is too early in this attempt to begin an analysis of the structure of American society to present a coherent strategy of what an American Communist movement might look like. But I think that it is fair to say that there can be no revolutionary movement without the abolition of the vestige of colonialism. This doesn't mean that I envision a two stage revolution where these tasks are completed and then socialism can come afterwards. On the contrary what I am proposing is that in this era of atomization, that the proletariat does not act as a consistent social bloc except as a purely economic relation between the means of production and rather is a loose association of groups with differing and conflicting interests and that we can envision the most oppressed proletariat acting as the natural vanguard and leaders of the class as opposed to the labor aristocracy which has been thus far unable to provide such leadership and as opposed to certain deviationist trends which envision the working class as a homogeneous entity and elevates "the party" to the position of vanguard and assumes that being ideologically Communist makes one a member of the advanced section of the proletariat rather than the relation to capitalist society as a whole.
The reason why I posted this in learning is because what I have said here is simply a suggestion on how the question of indigenous peoples should be approached, I don't think that my thoughts on the question are complete enough for the formulation of a comprehensive theoretical framework to approach the question, nor do I think that I have devloped a theory which could translate into concrete Communist praxis on the question. So with this in mind I am asking you all to share your thoughts and some tools to study so a more comprehensive look at this neglected question could become possible.
I did find this suggested reading list by an indigenous communist organization in Canada and while I disagree with their political line I'll link it here and as I study I'll post what I see as important tid-bits that merit discussion:
http://onkwehonwerising.wordpress.com/resources-for-study/basic-reading-list/