This is a contentious subject. Please keep the discussion respectful. I think this will get more traction, here, but I’ll cross-post it to !Communism, too.

Workers who sell their labour power for a wage are part of the working class, right? They are wage-workers because they work for a wage. Are they wage-labourers?

“They’re proletariat,” I hear some of you shout.

“Not in the imperial core! Those are labour aristocrats,” others reply.

So what are the workers in the imperial core? Are they irredeemable labour aristocrats, the inseparable managers and professionals of the ruling class? Or are they proletarian, the salt of the earth just trying to get by?

It’s an important distinction, even if the workers in any country are not a homogenous bloc. The answer determines whether workers in the global north are natural allies or enemies of the oppressed in the global south.

The problem is as follows.

There is no doubt that people in the global north are, in general, more privileged than people in the global south. In many cases, the difference in privilege is vast, even among the wage-workers. This is not to discount the suffering of oppressed people in the global north. This is not to brush away the privilege of national bourgeois in the global south.

For some workers in the global north, privilege amounts to basic access to water, energy, food, education, healthcare, and shelter, streetlights, paved highways, etc. As much as austerity has eroded access to these basics, they are still the reality for the majority of people in the north even, to my knowledge, in the US.

Are these privileges enough to move someone from the ranks of the proletariat and into the labour aristocracy or the petit-bourgeois?

I’m going to discuss some sources and leave some quotes in comments, below. This may look a bit spammy, but I’m hoping it will help us to work through the several arguments, that make up the whole. The sources:

  • Settlers by J Sakai
  • Corona, Climate, and Chronic Emergency by Andreas Malm
  • The Wealth of Nations by Zac Cope
  • ‘Decolonization is Not a Metaphor’ by Eve Tuck and K Wayne Yang.

I have my own views on all this, but I have tried to phrase the points and the questions in a ’neutral’ way because I want us to discuss the issues and see if we can work out where and why we conflict and how to move forwards with our thinking (neutral to Marxists, at least). I am not trying to state my position by stating the questions below, so please do not attack me for the assumptions in the questions. By all means attack the assumptions and the questions.

  • @freagle
    link
    81 year ago

    I don’t think landback is a uniquely northern thing. However, you’re right that the north doesn’t look to the south for answers. If we did, we’d see the mestizo movement, the plurinational movement, and the continuing problems of indigenous self determination. We would also see that those movements don’t exist in the north, and that developing them artificially would be nearly impossible, as they were partially born from the distinct material conditions of Spanish colonialism in significantly different natural ecosystems and in their relationship with North American colonial foreign policy.

    In fact, it is likely that if landback in the north takes hold, the lessons learned will influence indigenous peoples in the South and potentially change the dynamic.

    • SovereignState
      link
      7
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I don’t have much to add other than I think the enemies of colonization (or the proponents of decolonization, however you want to look at it) are going to need to look at Bolivia and Nicaragua as prime examples of how it can be done. Reading Álvaro García Linera’s work, former Vice President of Bolivia (and principled Marxist-Leninist), has been inspiring in reinforcing the possibility and plausibility of decolonization in even the imperial core, for me. As we can look to AES states for inspiration for how socialist construction can be done, we absolutely should also be looking at states with a policy of decolonization and the indigenous autonomy they’ve fought for and earned for inspiration.

      China is also often homogenized as being totally “Chinese”, with “Chinese” often denoting some level of Han hegemony when used in Western discourse - completely obfuscating the supreme level of ethnic diversity of China and the policies for indigenous autonomy being pursued by the CPC and the activists and officials within its autonomous zones. China can offer an extremely illuminating example of how autonomy can be achieved in a diverse nation, if activists in the west allow it to.

      • @freagle
        link
        81 year ago

        I don’t disagree. I just think the material conditions in North America are fundamentally different. Giving indigenous people autonomy is going to run face first into military uses of land to defend the settler nation, non-indigenous agrarian uses of the land to feed the settler nation, and the reality of the pioneer and frontier mentalities that continue to have serious repurcussions on North American society. The systemic injustices, the eugenics programs, and many other issues will be points of contradiction that will require concessions from the settler proletariat that will generate significant reaction. I think unlike the smaller nations in the South, the US has a serious complex of reaction around it’s role in indigenous oppression that generates a serious risk of patriotic socialism finding purchase and driving the nation continually towards fascism. It’s not clear this can be resolved through plurinationalism, but its possible. It will take on significantly different characteristics to meet the challenges of the unique conditions in the north.

        China offers a lot of great solutions, but what you don’t see is the British maintaining their settler existence and sovereignty in Hong Kong, nor in India. We also see the Europeans leave most of their colonies in Africa. It’s unclear to me why it’s such a difficult thing to imagine a complete dissolution of the settler states in the Western hemisphere

        • @lxvi
          link
          1
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Everybody here believes in the dissolution of the capitalist state. The question is what is to be done afterwards. The things you’re talking about are tied to the capitalist state. I don’t think there’s room to talk about reformations outside of the revolutionary process, because these reforms are impossible outside of a greater revolution.

          Obviously giving everything back to the American Indians is unrealistic. It’s never going to happen. There’s no point of making that your final thesis.

          There should, however, be special attentions paid to the tribes. They should be given special representation in their local and federated governments.

          As far as breaking Western Settler-Colonialism ideologically and politically, the new government should reject its special affinity for Europe and emphasize cultural and civilizational ties to America. We need to unify the North to the South as much as possible while severing our unnatural relationship with Europe. Then there will no longer be a “West”. There will be America and there will be Europe.

          Edit: I don’t think that the South is much smaller than the North. I think there are also many similarities among the indigenous South. They have their unique culture separate from the settler governments that rule them. Their lands are exploited for industrial farming, lumber, and mineral extraction. They are militarily and politically repressed.

          The major difference between the North and the South in this is that the Southern indigenous are more numerous and more capable of exerting their own political will. That has to do with them being pushed into the jungles rather than the desert.

          As far as patriotic socialism driving the US towards fascism. I think the US is already a fascist nation. You’re giving the patriotic socialists too much credit. Their wishy-washy position is incapable of providing a meaningful critique. As socialism becomes more popular its going to attract a lot of revisionists. That’s the way of it. If you’re worried about fascism, the liberals are who you should be more afraid of. I don’t have it in me to be worried about a couple of 18 year old gym rats with no theoretical grasp of socialism dismantling the eternal science.

          • @freagle
            link
            31 year ago

            I think we might be just talking past each other at this point:

            Obviously giving everything back to the American Indians is unrealistic

            I’m really not sure how you’ve come to this conclusion. I don’t see any reason why it’s unrealistic for the indigenous to have sovereignty over all of Turtle Island and all European colonies. Start with Hawaii, Alaska, the Arctic circle, a foot hold in the Pacific Northwest, and the North Atlantic. Transfer sovereignty to a body entirely composed of indigenous tribes. Let them figure out how they want to govern it. Establish a program of transference over time, slowly ceding territory back to the indigenous peoples and creating the pathway for European counter-migration. It’s only unrealistic because of reactionaries, not because it can’t actually be done.

            As far as breaking Western Settler-Colonialism ideologically and politically, the new government should reject its special affinity for Europe and emphasize cultural and civilizational ties to America.

            Amerigo Vespucci has no place here. Decolonization must be thorough and complete, including linguistically. European settlers cannot even understand what they’ve destroyed, how are they to be expected to emphasize cultural and civilization ties to the oppressed people of Turtle Island. No, breaking Western settler-colonialism requires nothing less than ceding sovereign power over the continent, come what may. If your theories about proletarian solidarity hold, then the indigenous tribes will create a path for sustainable inclusion of those proletarians that will help them develop society. They get to decide because they know better what they need. European settlers will react, but reaction must be managed, not avoided at the cost of maintaining contradictions.

            The major difference between the North and the South in this is that the Southern indigenous are more numerous and more capable of exerting their own political will. That has to do with them being pushed into the jungles rather than the desert.

            That’s a critical historical difference, but I wouldn’t say it’s the major difference. I think the major differences are the massive underdevelopment, the precarious retention of many of the indigenous habitats due to that underdevelopment, and the prevalence of Mestizo peoples - the US has none of these, Canada has some indigenous habitats still but not the other 2. Attempting to transplant Southern solutions into the USA is going to fail primarily due to the lack of Mestizo. The solutions might be valid organizational structures, but there will be no movement to sustain them, so the only solution would be for the noble white proletariat to find it in their hearts to adopt solutions from the South and impose them for the benefit of the indigenous people of the North.

            The way I said that sounds bad, right? What’s the solution to that? Give the indigenous sovereignty and follow their leadership.

            As far as patriotic socialism driving the US towards fascism. I think the US is already a fascist nation.

            It is either proto-fascist or its neo-fascist, but it’s not yet Euro-fascist. If its neo-fascist, which I suspect it is, I don’t believe it is fully developed neo-fascism, that is to say I think it’s most likely proto-neo-fascist. Which means there’s room for it to develop fascism significantly further.

            You’re giving the patriotic socialists too much credit. Their wishy-washy position is incapable of providing a meaningful critique.

            No, you misunderstand me. My conjecture is that if we manage to get a socialist movement rolling the North America, it will be co-opted by the Pat Socs and directed towards the development of fascism, either into the Euro-fascism we know or to a developed neo-fascism. Not that we should fear the Pat Socs will do it first, but that Patriotic Socialism is the most likely path for a socialist movement to follow in North America due to the existence of fascist structures for managing and directing upheaval.

            If you’re worried about fascism, the liberals are who you should be more afraid of.

            I am, right up until they start losing to the socialists, and then I’m going to be afraid of the socialist movement being co-opted into a fascist one.

            I don’t have it in me to be worried about a couple of 18 year old gym rats with no theoretical grasp of socialism dismantling the eternal science.

            Me neither.

            • @CountryBreakfast
              link
              21 year ago

              Give the indigenous sovereignty and follow their leadership.

              Yes exactly. And there are plenty of ways to aid in entrenching Indigenous leadership and sovereignty. Comrades need to get to know the local Tribes and what problems they face. Sometimes they are quite specific to Indigenous circumstances that settlers may be unaware of, others might be entirely universal.

              There are oftentimes material struggles like access to water or resources, legal struggles like ICWA etc, political struggles like local governments or oligarchs encroaching on sovereignty, land back movements.

              I also encourage comrades to consider learning Indigenous languages if possible and participate in “revitalization” efforts.

              My advice is to do so with humility, respect, sensitivity, and be eager to learn things you didn’t know you needed to know. Be willing to be uncomfortable and don’t think your marxism makes you special but also do give your perspective when it is relevant.

              • @redteaOP
                link
                31 year ago

                with humility, respect, sensitivity, and be eager to learn things you didn’t know you needed to know

                ^ Crucial.

                Be willing to be uncomfortable and don’t think your marxism makes you special but also do give your perspective when it is relevant.

                I’ve been looking into race for a while now. It’s been a strange time. I still get uncomfortable talking about race with black people, especially liberals, partly because I read Marxist sources (e.g. Fanon and Stuart Hall) so I’m often working off different assumptions that could make it seem as if I (a white person) am telling black people what race/ism is. I hope I don’t come off in this way when I do give my view; and if I succeed in that, it’s due to those first factors, above.

                One book that helped me re-frame a lot of issues was Reni Eddo-Lodge, Why I’m No Longer Talking to White People About Race. It should be required reading for every school-leaver; like, that’s the final exam, ‘read the book’. It’s punchy, well-written, and easy to read (linguistically – some of the facts and messages will anger anti-racists and may induce cognitive dissonance for racists and anti-racists alike).

            • @redteaOP
              link
              11 year ago

              Could Zimbabwe or South Africa be used as rough models for ceding power? I don’t know enough about either region, so this could be a terrible idea. But with Zimbabwe, especially, I remember hearing stories about white people leaving en masse because they felt ‘oppressed’ after independence.

              It’s interesting that Anglo-European powers thought they could claim that colonialism was ‘over’ when they ‘closed’ their colonial offices, but refused to leave their settler states. Just noting this as it’s not obvious from the everyday language of ‘post’-colonialism, but it becomes stark when the issue is considered in more depth.

              Is there another significant factor with regard to North/South differences? Namely, that Spain was kicked out of the South, whereas Britain (and other Europeans) stayed in the North (albeit under ‘new’ states). And, following this, the US, especially, is now the world’s dominant imperial power. While Spain was one of the most powerful empires at one time, it did not move the seat of that power to any of its colonies.