Even if a communist can colloquially describe themselves as being on the left, there’s a distinction between communism and “the left.” This is implied right in the title of Lenin’s Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder. Whereas the left, a big tent term for a myriad of incompatible ideologies, aims merely to act as an opposition towards the present order for the sake of it, communists have a coherent vision for how to defeat the system: by advancing history’s development to the next stage. The left, because of its lack of commitment to that central Marxist goal, naturally takes on an opportunistic role. Because when you want only to build a movement as an end in itself, rather than use this movement as a means for defeating the system, you become nothing more than an actor who benefits from discontent without helping solve the problems behind that discontent.
As materialists we have to remain grounded in reality. No disrespect intended but wars aren’t won just by having the moral high ground. I’m not saying it can’t be done but if you are serious about decolonization then it can’t just be rhetoric and moral principles, you need a plan, you need to figure out how to overcome the various material obstacles and disadvantages. It is not clear to me how they achieve victory in this particular struggle without allies.
And what is exactly the goal? Full independence for indigenous nations? And if so in what borders? Would those borders even be defendable, would they allow for the survival of the indigenous states or would they be able to be blockaded and cut off from trade with the rest of the world? Would population transfers have to happen to ensure an indigenous majority? Because if there is a majority settler population within the borders of the new indigenous states then there is a risk of the usurpation of power by the settlers and the previous power dynamics just being replicated again.
Or is the goal just the destruction of the settler state and its replacement with a pluri-national model like Bolivia’s? Would that even be sufficient? Is that not also in essence a kind of assimilation? Would that not require a partnership between the settler proletariat and the indigenous people? These questions are not for me to answer but they do need answering in order for a coherent strategy to be formulated.
A big complicating factor here is that unlike with the Soviet republics or the various autonomous regions in China for ethnic minorities, the population of the colonized nations in the US is not concentrated in one contiguous geographical territory, rather it is spread out and interspersed with a numerically superior settler population. It is more akin to what the Zionist apartheid state seeks to achieve in Palestine.
That has clearly been purposely done by the settler state to cripple the potential of the colonized for banding together and posing a threat to the settler-colonial project. They were also purposely pushed onto land that is as resource scarce as possible. If all majority indigenous areas were to declare independence tomorrow the settler state could isolate them, starve them out and crush them one by one.
These are some of my thoughts as someone trying to analyze the situation looking at the US from the outside. I’m sure there is a lot that i am missing or don’t know about and i’m sure other people have had the same thoughts and maybe even figured out elegant solutions to these problems. I’m eager to learn.
“wars aren’t won just by having the moral high ground.”
Of course not, I was simply saying perhaps utilizing a different argument or even rephrasing the one you put forward so as to not stoke conflict within the discussion. For example, instead of pointing out the lack of forces instead focus on the fact that the argument being made by them isn’t based in the first place. Show them that they are theoretically wrong instead of going to the material inferiority, which only presents itself to be a challenge to overcome, and not a disqualification in of itself.
“And what is exactly the goal? Full independence for indigenous nations? And if so in what borders? Would those borders even be defendable, would they allow for the survival of the indigenous states or would they be able to be blockaded and cut off from trade with the rest of the world? Would population transfers have to happen to ensure an indigenous majority?”
Yes, indeed. This is what we are here to determine. What IS the goal?
-> “A big complicating factor here is that unlike with the Soviet republics or the various autonomous regions in China for ethnic minorities, the population of the colonized nations in the US is not concentrated in one contiguous geographical territory, rather it is spread out and interspersed with a numerically superior settler population.”
-> This is a great point and I add the arrow so as to draw attention as this adds to the overall conversation on the matter. IMO socialist policy would have to incorporate the specific needs of minorities within the proletarian class, it would have to be similar to how it is now under the neoliberals - general law effecting society. As for the issue of land ownership I believe an interstate labor transport project which would be similar to the EU’s free to travel between states policy except gov provided and for labor, could also help move specific populations from several areas into a few specific ones (tribal lands which will be expanded). The only issue I would have is the same one I have when comrades suggest a minority-only-ran government: It has to be socialist, it has to serve the cause the best. We can help them get there if that is what the nation (of our class) decides but as such these tribal nations must too be under proletarian control, they cannot become sanctuaries for parasites.
I personally advocate for a proletarian state which is blended and in harmony, where all needs are respected no matter who is in power as our class is the only one in power and so our interest of equality is enforced.