organizing indigenous communities

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

One of the interesting things to come out of the post-berlin wall era of the Left was an increased focus on organizing among indigenous people seeking to defend land on which their traditional economies and cultural systems were based. The most famous example of this is the EZLN in Mexico, though there are many others.

Of course, the issues facing the communities are different from those facing traditional working class folks who have largely been displaced from any long-standing traditional territory and are alienated from their background. There is a kind of cosmopolitanism to a proletarian community which is necessarily absent from an indigenous community. Also, most indigenous communities largely continue to have some kind of collective ownership over the means of production, be it rivers, other waterways, farmland, forests, wells, springs and other resources. Their resistance to capitalism is often an attempt to protect this collective property from privatization. When taking leftist political action they are as often trying to protect something they already possess, or re-appropriate something recently lost, as they are trying to appropriate something they have already been systematically alienated from like a factory.

They are also not so different from workers in every case though. While many are subsistence farmers and hunters, others do seasonal work in nearby plantations, haciendas etc that bring them into the broader proletarian community. Their interests are also largely served by the protection and extension of the commons. Lastly, they also suffer impoverishment, alienation and exploitation within a capitalist system. While in some cases there are indigenous members of the bourgeoisie, they mostly suffer from poverty and work as peasants or workers.

Of course, issues of indigenous people remain at the forefront - not only does protecting indigenous forestland in many nations like Brazil offer a great carbon sink, but tribes like the Sioux in Standing Rock are making it a point to protect other collective resources, like water supplies, too, which extend not only to their own water safety but those of other communities downriver. In other cases, the interests of some indigenous people might clash with that of parts of the working class, which has been seen recently in countries like Bolivia over the expansion of roads and transport.

The question is - what theoretical approach do we have towards such communities, and how should we seek to organize them, or organize with them? Some Western Marxists might say these communities are alien to the struggle of the Proletariat due to their distinct cultural and economic histories, or their status as peasant farmers, or their membership in exclusive identity-based communities. Since they are often not workers within the globalized western economic system, are they really capable of being members of the "Communist movement"? Aren't their systems of belief often superstitious, and their approach to their territory and environment often overtly religious and animistic? Perhaps most significantly, can indigenous communities be an integral part of the movement when a vast majority of the working class is not a member of any kind of "indigenous community"? Some might also point out that many indigenous communities practice terribly reactionary things, such as FGM in Africa or forced arranged marriages. On the other hand, I think many would argue that despite their status, indigenous radicals have fought to preserve collective models of governance, distribution and economic decision making against overwhelming odds, and have often gone farther than mainstream western workers to combat more pernicious superstitions like sexism, racism, homophobia and private property in their society. After all, whereas the Eastern Bloc collapsed in a wholly undignified manner, communities like the Zapatista communities in Chiapas have managed to grow and gain both ideological and socio-economic ground. Also noteworthy, many indigenous communities actively seek out solidarity from workers and farmers who are not members of an indigenous community, or are members of other indigenous communities. Perhaps the truth is somewhere in between the two extremes?

[John Nada]

The question is - what theoretical approach do we have towards such communities, and how should we seek to organize them, or organize with them? Some Western Marxists might say these communities are alien to the struggle of the Proletariat due to their distinct cultural and economic histories, or their status as peasant farmers, or their membership in exclusive identity-based communities. Since they are often not workers within the globalized western economic system, are they really capable of being members of the "Communist movement"? Aren't their systems of belief often superstitious, and their approach to their territory and environment often overtly religious and animistic? Perhaps most significantly, can indigenous communities be an integral part of the movement when a vast majority of the working class is not a member of any kind of "indigenous community"? Some might also point out that many indigenous communities practice terribly reactionary things, such as FGM in Africa or forced arranged marriages. On the other hand, I think many would argue that despite their status, indigenous radicals have fought to preserve collective models of governance, distribution and economic decision making against overwhelming odds, and have often gone farther than mainstream western workers to combat more pernicious superstitions like sexism, racism, homophobia and private property in their society. After all, whereas the Eastern Bloc collapsed in a wholly undignified manner, communities like the Zapatista communities in Chiapas have managed to grow and gain both ideological and socio-economic ground. Also noteworthy, many indigenous communities actively seek out solidarity from workers and farmers who are not members of an indigenous community, or are members of other indigenous communities. Perhaps the truth is somewhere in between the two extremes?

Those Western Marxists are stuck in the 19th century. In fact, Marxism has never been about just the liberation of the proletariat(which was a minority globally until very recently) but all the laboring classes. The point was that the class with nothing to lose could take the lead as the "tribune of the people" and end classes altogether. If anything, Marxism has historically had more success in agrarian nations with the proletariat taking the lead of broader democratic forces encompassing the toiling masses like the peasantry and petit-bourgeoisie. Remember that the proletariat was a small minority in Russia and China but gained the support of the peasantry.

The traditional stereotype of the proletariat as white guys working in the same factory for 40 years needs to be dropped. That's a very small minority of the proletariat globally. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if Indigenous peoples are more proletarianized than dominate nationalities, who have to an extent been embourgeoisified by imperialism. Don't think of the Indigenous peoples, and other oppressed peoples, as some outside force, but part of the deep, hard core of the proletariat.

I think North American Marxists have neglected Indigenous Americans, both in theory and practice. In many states, Native Americans are a significant minority(comparable to African American or Latinxs percentage wise in other states). Some of the larger tribes are comparable to small nation-states in population. Yet compare what's been written about Quebec, the Black-Belt, Puerto Rico or even Aztlan, vs. Indigenous nations? Not nearly as much. Canadian Marxists are probably better in this area, but I rarely see anything about Native Americans from US Marxist orgs unless they make the news.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Those Western Marxists are stuck in the 19th century. In fact, Marxism has never been about just the liberation of the proletariat(which was a minority globally until very recently) but all the laboring classes. The point was that the class with nothing to lose could take the lead as the "tribune of the people" and end classes altogether. If anything, Marxism has historically had more success in agrarian nations with the proletariat taking the lead of broader democratic forces encompassing the toiling masses like the peasantry and petit-bourgeoisie. Remember that the proletariat was a small minority in Russia and China but gained the support of the peasantry.

I think one significant advantage of organizing many indigenous communities over groups like the Chinese and Russian peasantry is that they still to a great degree operate with communal land tenure. Russian peasants wanted land of their own, and did not relate as easily to the message of the Communists. In indigenous communities, some families might have particular plots they cultivate year after year, so the labor itself is often not always collective (though I think it often is when it comes to maintenance, infrastructure etc), but ultimately the land itself is held in common.

The traditional stereotype of the proletariat as white guys working in the same factory for 40 years needs to be dropped. That's a very small minority of the proletariat globally. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if Indigenous peoples are more proletarianized than dominate nationalities, who have to an extent been embourgeoisified by imperialism. Don't think of the Indigenous peoples, and other oppressed peoples, as some outside force, but part of the deep, hard core of the proletariat.

This is especially true in Latin America, where indigenous peoples have historically been used as peons in haciendas and other exploitative enterprises. Many now also leave their communities for work in large factories. Even those that haven't have been victims of capitalist appropriation.

I think North American Marxists have neglected Indigenous Americans, both in theory and practice. In many states, Native Americans are a significant minority(comparable to African American or Latinxs percentage wise in other states). Some of the larger tribes are comparable to small nation-states in population. Yet compare what's been written about Quebec, the Black-Belt, Puerto Rico or even Aztlan, vs. Indigenous nations? Not nearly as much. Canadian Marxists are probably better in this area, but I rarely see anything about Native Americans from US Marxist orgs unless they make the news.

Yes, this is certainly the case. Mexico has seen a lot of active organization, and the Guatemalan Left was active among indigenous communities there. However the left in the US has largely overlooked it, focusing instead on other struggles. I don't know if the fact that the left in the US tends to be more urban, and more concentrated in states like California, Illinois and New York which have a proportionally lower Native American population. Anyway, I think this is an issue which has not gotten the attention it deserves in the Anglophone world - it's like they have bought too much into the Manifest Destiny notion of progress, where Native Americans just disappeared under the tracks of the railroads and the plots of the homesteads. Until the Standing Rock clashes I almost never saw the Left speak to it, nor did I encounter any attempts to organize in or with tribal communities. At best I just occasionally come across admiration for AIM.

It would be nice to see some analysis of the different kinds of social and political conditions in indigenous communities, their dependence on the state and certain corporations, and other important issues.