Surely they have to understand that there’s no reason to trust a white man’s word in this day and age when so many treaties, agreements, and doctrines have been brazenly broken by said white men. I read this as a statement of enmity against the historically downtrod, frankly. Indigenous folk have just as much if not more reason to distrust this angle-- post-centuries of slavery, in their first gasps of being free men, Black folk only had Field Article 15 get rolled back before they were fucking us up with Jim Crow and the Black Codes. Indigenous folk done seen damn near every treaty they ever signed with a white man broken.
I don’t have a ‘one-size-fits-all’ response to this for you, in all honesty; but I myself say to all of this, the same thing I say to every other settler-leftist-- ‘show and prove.’ Show me the mettle of your works. Show me you’re willing to put your body on the gears and wheels, prove you’re willing to put as much of your transactional skin in the game as the oppressed around you have to live with being risked. Otherwise, just saying that you’re not a settler, with all the euro-supremacist puffery and arrogance that kind of thing requires, doesn’t make it so. Amerika is an abomination; and this angle of ‘seeing America as a reality’ tells me they’re trying to spitshine a turd and present it as ‘worth assimilating and subordinating into’.
"Have I, ever told you, the definition of insanity?"
Very good point.
Historically your distrust is well justified but you need to be careful to not slip into idealism by essentializing the “white man”. The actions and attitudes of specific groups do not stem from some inherent racial characteristics but from material incentives and interests. The strategic question that the decolonial movement needs to answer is how to align the interests of the colonized nations which yearn for emancipation and historical justice with those among the settler proletariat who also chafe under the oppression of the bourgeois state. There must be a recognition that the decolonization of the continent is also in the interest of the vast majority of the people whose oppression and exploitation under capitalism is being maintained through the spoils of external and internal colonization and imperialism.
I think where we disagree there is that where the law of the land is supremacy under a settler state, I consider that given kind of supremacy to be inherently essential to the settler in question until I’m given direct proof otherwise; (re: the ‘show and prove’ bit) because any lesser amount of vigilance is how you get chalk outlines, and we don’t have bodies to spare like that. The way these guys seemingly demand unfettered, uncritical, and accountability-lacking access to our emotional and strategic labor because “we’re not like the old boss, we promise”, reeks of a chauvinism that is near-inseparable from supremacy to me. It may not be burning crosses on the lawns, but it does ring a bit more an aggression than just micro, and leads me to believe that nothing but worse can be expected over time out of that corner of The Discourse™.
Naturally, there has to be a recognition of the mutual interests of decolonization; but that assumes that the supremacy has been worked out of the settler first, and we don’t even have a single accord with which to begin approaching that question yet. The one thing that’s certain is that this kind of statement in OP’s image absolutely screams “we’re not gonna self-reflect like that” to me. Why I say I don’t have a ‘one-size-fits-all’ take, tbh.
I can totally understand your concerns. I can only look at this from the outside since i have never lived in a settler state, but it seems logical to me that if there is to be an alliance between the indigenous people and the settler proletariat there needs to be some level of trust, and for that demonstrations must be made that the alliance will be mutually beneficial. It’s the same line of logic i follow when i arrive at the conclusion that communists simply must engage in labor activism and always keep pushing to improve the workers’ conditions no matter how “socdem” or reformist that may seem, because we must demonstrate to the working class through concrete actions that we are not only on their side but that their interest is best served by joining our revolution. Trust must be earned.
Trust must be earned.
You see the point I’m pushing here.
This
From what i am reading here their position seems fairly well reasoned, nuanced and in accordance with the traditional Marxist-Leninist line on this subject. They do not commit any obvious major errors that i can see, though i would criticize their implicit assumption of the continued existence of the US as a single entity. For me this is not so clear and i do see a distinct possibility and maybe even the necessity of its balkanization, though that is not set in stone.
Either way i hope they have consulted with black and indigenous comrades when crafting this party line since this is something that impacts these groups the most and as such they are best qualified to offer insights and advice on what needs to be added/corrected and why. If we think of other successful communist parties throughout history, the Bolsheviks had the Soviet of Nationalities and similar forums where they could discuss issues related to policies that specifically impacted the minority nationalities of the Union. And the CPC too has numerous mechanisms to seek the input of the representatives of various ethnic groups when the National People’s Congress takes place.
That’s a great idea. I think with America that’s going to be essential.
What group is this?
Email from PCUSA person
They seem based but this topic itself is what is causing a divide between both based parties. It’s not an easy question, it’s the same as what is to be done in regards to Israel? And trust me this will come up with them at that time as well.
They make great points but the question of nuance is what is to be done in the case of historical injustice? America itself is a country of genocide, and it’s continuation not only justifies that genocide but inspires further genocide as it itself would stand as a testimate to the immovability of said injustice. The idea of too big to be humbled, of chauvinism itself lives within the legacy of America. The country America must cease to exist.
They combine the question of America and those currently living in America as 1 and the same issue of which they are not. Only one who has a shallow understanding of the logistics of relocating 340 million people would advocate doing so because they believe it to be right. And the other option is genocide and for those who advocate that I ask them to reevaluate which side of the ‘political isle’ they belong to, which class?
America must become a new country, with new norms, new rules, and a historically just culture without discrediting the current inhabitants nor the original inhabitants. We’re all here now and none of us (working class) are guilty. So the new nation must reflect the needs and culture of those who currently live here while making efforts to repopulate the nation with those who originally lived here. This culture of the newer inhabitants of course must be proletarian culture and the “American culture” must be purged for the sake of the world really.
Similar to my thoughts. If we are really willing to hail a bright new future we must start with the light from burning the flag. 🔥🇺🇸 they’ve been great up until the subject of decolonization has come up, so it’s really shocked me. On the subject of Israel apparently they don’t even think it’s illegitimate any more—And it would be far easier to return that land and evict that minority of settlers than here—
That’s unfortunate. Perhaps they’ll change their position on this issue in time.
I agree with this.
Their response is well reasoned except that they’ve assumed the preservation of the USA as part of their solution. It’s incredibly likely that breaking the white supremacist and capitalist power base will come via a collapse and Balkanization/extreme decentralization of US power. The political landscape of North America after capitalism is fraught with uncertainty but they seem to have plotted a clear, fixed path through the unknown which just smacks of dogma.
if the only way to bring about a revolution is to immiserate millions of people by balkanizing their country then maybe said people would have a thing or 2 to say about your totally not bloodthirsty plan. u cant bring about a revolution while actively antagonizing the very people its supposed to help.
if the only way to bring about a revolution is to immiserate millions of people by balkanizing their country
Where did I say that was the ‘only way’?
your totally not bloodthirsty plan.
What’s my plan? Where did I say I have a fucking ‘plan’ for the US?
u cant bring about a revolution while actively antagonizing the very people its supposed to help.
First, yes you can, but that’s not what I’m advocating. Second, nobody needs to ‘actively antagonize them’, their govermment will do that itself. Third, US Citizens’ ignorance and complacency about their political system doesn’t just harm them, it harms or threatens to harm the lives and prosperity of every human being living in striking distance of their hegemony. A revolution in the US would help everyone, of which the US is a tiny minority. That’s who it’s supposed to help.
Balkanization of the US is not likely because we want it to be but because as this state loses its power there will likely be uprisings in certain portions liberating parts, not the whole immediately. And the part that’s still US will probably be overtly fascist. The land we are on belongs to the indigenous people and the defeat of the settler state doesn’t mean we all have to die, but that it will be up to them how their resources are used. The myth that indigenous people will genocide us comes from the settler psyche in that we’re worried our ancestors methods used against them will be returned in kind. This will not happen because they are fucking savages like the Europeans. Recall that Marx’s idea for future communism came from primitive communism and most indigenous tribes run/ran on collective ownership. They have have a whole lot better chance of achieving socialism here than any white communist movements here have ever had.
if there is a revolution and it ends in stalemate or if the us just falls apart thats one thing, what can you do right, but this is just not the sentiment im seeing from most people who talk about it they want it to happen they call for it they say it is necessary and good because the american nation does not exist or is invalid because of how it came to be. and yeah im not worried that oppressed people are going to genocide white people the number just dont work out and neither will any movement with such ideas at its center anyways which is what am actually worried about. i see such hatred and bloodthirst misdirected at random white working people with people calling most if not all white people animals or inhuman and most around here dont seems at all worried by it, a group which allows ideas like that to be so prevalent and even revel in them can not possible succeed in bringing about any positive change and idk about you but i wanna be alive the day this shithole is no longer capitalist.
so yeah im always gonna call out shitty sentiments like wanting any country to be balkanize or dehumanizing random working people who have done nothing because its bad and its shit and its just plain wrong.
The US is not a legitimate nation. It was founded on slavery and settler colonialism. If you’ve read Fanon you know that the most oppressed and dehumanized people, those with the least to lose are the most willing to carry out the work of revolution. This is why the Black Panthers focused on the lumpen proletariat. Indigenous people are closer to socialism now than any communist party is. They’ve got millions of people who understand that capitalism has taken their land and are the most likely to fight for it back. They also already have states recognized internationally with a communal culture that inspired Marx. Indigenous comrades understand the conditions of this country the most along with how to live in harmony with the people and land as they’ve done millennia. The reason comrades disparage USians in general is because most labor aristocrats and petty bourgeoise here are complacent and understand the the gains handed down to us by the imperialist bourgeoisie are selfishly not worth giving up for the risks that revolutionary struggle brings. As conditions inevitably worsen (whether you like it as an accelerationist or not) people will have to admit that capitalism and the United States will not last, but for now we need education and organization to avoid the alternative people seeing being fascism. As for the post revolution future there will likely be some sort of black and indigenous socialist confederacy and settlers like us will have representatives. But we have to keep in mind they don’t owe us anything. The might of our ancestors and current leaders does not make right. We must earn it.
Sorry for the rambliness. I hope that clears some things up. I implore you to listen to the Decolonized Buffalo podcast, the Red Nation podcast, and the Marx Madness podcast. If you don’t like podcasts at least read the Red Deal book.
i dont disagree with most of what you said it just has nothing to do with what i said kinda feels like you are just talking past me. tho u seem to be under some kind of illusion that most or even all white people the us are labor aristocracy or petite bourgeoisie which i do disagree with because it is just wrong.
I’m sorry if I sound like that to you. I think comrades see obviously bad labor aristocrats and generalize it to the entire white working class. However we are all being proletarianized and gen z for example are coming around toward class consciousness. I think my previous comment addresses your balkanization fear. Correct me if there is still misunderstanding.
I think this is an excellent take.
Thank you comrade
Too much to unpack and they seem too dogmatic to listen. They know their line and they have picked their side. There is no single response to be made.
For one thing, amorality is not necessarily devoid of normativity. So even if they present as amoral and grounded, you have to ask what the politics are.
Justifying genocide is necessary if you support the settler state, regardless of socialists intentions. In this case they are loyal to an American nation without demonstrating what America actually is - a colonial project that hinges on genocide. The key too this is to frame genlcide as an unessential moralistic concern and America merely as “the people.” These are sinister lies that will always corrode socialist construction.
In one instance they condemn intersectionality as liberal, in the next they practically approach Indigenous issues with liberal thinking, a generic “woke” take that says Indigenous people are only important because they are oppressed, or they are approached with some kind of checklist that can be achieved to wash our hands clean of it all, which is no better than intersectionality while also entirely paternalistic and accommodationist. Also this idea that we should honor the treaties and basically stop there is a great example of liberalism. I mean its what liberals call for all the time! I also guarantee they do not understand the can of worms they are opening just to make it seem like Indigenous people are not being forgotten and they can move on to their real concerns.
In Leanne Simpson’s book “As We Have Always Done” she emphasizes a kind of feminism that is foreign to liberalism. She believes that women, queer, and two spirit people are important, not because they are simply oppressed and morally we should look out for them. Hell no. She believes women, queer, and two spirit Indigenous people are instrumental parts of reproducing tribal society. Violence toward these people is an attack on Indigenous sovereignty, not just a mere crime. Women, queer, and two spirit Indigenous people must be centered because to fail to do so would be to center what Gerald Vizenor calls the manifest manners, which are (I am oversimplifying) the false representations of Tribal ways that have developed from the culture and structures of colonialism and work to erase and frustrate Tribal organization and identiry. This is because of the history of settlers working to enforce patriarchal systems through many different means throughout history, notabley the “status” laws in Canada which basically define a woman’s tribal status as her proximity to an Indigenous man (if she marries a white dude the state refuses to see her as Indigenous, which undermines tribal sovereignty).
I say this because this way of thinking is called grounded normativity. Simpson calls her grounded normativity Nishnaabeg Intelligence. It does not moralize things in some way that waters down or idealizes the world but rather it is a normativity that emerges naturally from our relations with the world and from tribal intelligence.
With a grounded normativity it is much easier to understand why tribal leadership is essential. It is not just some group that we are “allowing” to be taken with us to our new communist heaven. They are absolutely essential to creating it. If a party fails to recognize Tribal people as essential partners in building a new future, that party is nothing but a tool of the maintenance of colonialism and will only succeed in maintaining primative accumulation and thus the expansion of capital.
I would prefer to not to write an essay about how weird it is to talk about “regional nations” as a way of obfuscating and misunderstanding whiteness but it seems natural someone who doesn’t understand race, or indigenaity, would do this to muddy the water when talking about settlers or Indigenous issues.
The point about respecting treaties seems to contradict a lot of the earlier points. An aspect of this is acknowledged in the first paragraph, but only partially.
I find it strange that the text opens with qualifications, apologism for, and a defense of the (white) settlor state. Is this based on a material analysis or is it an attempt to appease the ‘white working class’ or is it something else?
Asking black and indigenous people for input could be good. But without more context it could also be problematic if it relies on cultural brokerage and standpoint epistemology without / instead of material analysis.
The text seems to address colonialism but not imperialism. Maybe this should be implied. But I don’t know how the US question can be answered without also explaining what will be left for settlers if they can’t exploit the rest of the world or it’s internally colonised peoples (especially if the original treaty rights are enforced).
I’m not well educated on this aspect but I’m sceptical of the legitimacy of treaties signed with armed, violent, and manipulative Europeans. Maybe indigenous negotiators accept the treaties’ legitimacy but then I must ask, is it because they’re negotiating with armed, violent, and manipulative Europeans?
The founding of America was bloody. That bloodiness is ongoing. Accepting the first without acknowledging the second is going to result in some shaky conclusions, as those conclusions are at risk of being reduced to an absurdity.
I’m unsure what it means to ‘assume an assumption of intersectionality’. If this is a rejection of intersectionality or of the concept of racial capitalism, it seems flawed and may, again, lead to unsound conclusions.
I realise this is a summary of a pamphlet, so it may not include all the details. But if it’s an accurate summary, I would likely have more questions for the pamphlet itself.
The intersectionality bit is worded poorly, but they don’t appeal to a mythical white working class, an American working class rather. The pamphlet is just the supposed program for indigenous rights—how poor they are doing now, and what should be done after the revolution— it calls for renegotiation of treaties, reparations for damage from finance capital? (Does that not include primitive accumulation damage?), and others. The email is not a summary.
The idea that there are regional nations in the U.S. is laughable. The U.S. is incredibly homogeneous.
Body image 1 text T-Mobile LTE 11:33 @ 90% This pamphlet is the line of the Party. You have to understand that the ultraleft has long attacked our party using similar rhetoric. Yes there exists a contradiction between indigenous territories which are still suffering under colonial relations. However, America’s bloody founding doesn’t invalidate the existence of an American people and the multinational character of America. Our Party stands in contrast with the other left as we recognize America as a reality, not an ideal or mistake. The ultra left has taken the identity politics of the 1960s and substituted it for a Bolshevik stance on national self determination. Furthermore “BIPOC” is a liberal catchphrase which infantizilies and assumes an assumption of “intersectionality” which is an anti-Marxist political theory. Black Americans and Native Americans are different nations within America and have a unique history, relationship with the land and a struggle against racism and capitalism. v Reply Mail Search 16 Calendar
Body image 2 text T-Mobile LTE 11:33 @ 890/0(—) We are not a party of the ultraleft and do not take the settlers line. “white” Americans today are not settlers. Furthermore the category of “white” can’t adequately describe the regional nations that have formed as a result of immigration and the interactions of Americans of European descent to Americans of non-European backgrounds. Regional nations such as Appalachia, New England, Aztlan, Black Belt, Rustbelt have long since developed within America. Our party line is the same of that of the CPUSA of old. We seek renegotiation of treaties, the full rights and reparations for native nations which will allow them to preserve and expand culture, living standards, industry and land. This line is completely within Lenin’s concept of national self determination and the Bolshevik policy. v Reply Mail Search 16 Calendar
This action was performed by a bot.
Awesome! This works too!
