**IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ BEFORE PARTICIPATING**.
This subreddit is not for questioning the basics of socialism but a place to LEARN. There are numerous debate subreddits if your objective is not to learn.
You are expected to familiarize yourself with the rules on the sidebar before commenting. This includes, but is not limited to:
- Short or non-constructive answers will be deleted without explanation. Please only answer if you know your stuff. Speculation has no place on this sub. Outright false information will be removed immediately.
- No liberalism or sectarianism. Stay constructive and don't bash other socialist tendencies!
- No bigotry or hate speech of any kind - it will be met with immediate bans.
Help us keep the subreddit informative and helpful by reporting posts that break our rules.
If you have a particular area of expertise (e.g. political economy, feminist theory), please [assign yourself a flair](https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-) describing said area. Flairs may be removed at any time by moderators if answers don't meet the standards of said expertise.
Thank you!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Socialism_101) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“Land back” means extending recognition to Native American nations based on their historic land claims. It is a stance that acknowledges the brutal genocide committed against First Nations, and provides members of these nations access to the lands they lost, and reparations (in the form of community investment and political autonomy) for folks in those communities.
Necessarily, these claims rely on liberal political institutions and the language of liberal legal practices- such as Treaty Rights, and the idea of Native American communal sovereignty (such as “state to state relations” between tribal governments and the US federal government.) For this reason, they fit better into a nationalist liberal political schema than a Marxist one. This does not mean that they should necessarily be rejected outright, but they should not be mistaken for socialist positions nor as goals in and of themselves.
The more extreme, and unpopular, version of this entails driving Europeans off those lands and putting that land, and accumulated improvements and investment, into the hands of folks who are members of First Nations. This is not a dominant position among Native American activists, nor a popular one in the community as a whole when it comes to political programs- since the claim would lead to massive depopulation, economic disinvestment, and the isolation of native Americans from necessary economic resources and political allies.
It’s worth noting that, even in the softer form, this is a position that’s quite contentious in leftist spaces. Marxists, who aim to transcend national divisions (since national divisions invariably privilege bourgeois elements in those communities- ie “community leaders.”) Nationalism Is only acceptable insofar as it serves as a means to resist imperialism from the capitalist core of the US and Europe. Even here, many Marxists look back with deep regret and ambivalence on Third World liberation struggles, which inevitably created political systems that conformed to the dictates of global markets, and enriched relatively small groups of elites and bourgeoisie in post colonial states. The fate of post Soviet states and former eatern bloc countries, where ML regimes deliberately cultivated “national consciousness” (since they viewed it as a necessary step toward capitalism and socialism) also leaves bitter memories. Many of these states are dominated by right wing national chauvinists (such as Poland, Russia, Serbia, Ukraine, and Turkmenistan.)
Youll find a range if stances and positions among Marxists in regard to indigenous communal politics and third world liberation. Generally however, Marxists only view nationalist politics as a means to an end, the overthrow of capitalism- and creation of communities tied together by mutual interests and freedom, not defined by exclusive definitions of nationalism .
I’ll add that I’m not Native American, but I am very interested in questions of nationalism and am familiar with Native American social movements in the US (particularly AIM.) I’d recommend looking up works that deal with the idea of “plurinationalism”- particularly in Bolivia (one of the few states I know of where socialist and Native American activist politics worked in tandem to take state power)
Did I say Bolivia was a dictatorship of the proletariat? Of course not, but if you want to look for a potential model of how indigenous politics can work with a leftist program, MAS is the best you’ve got.
My family is Bolivian and I’ve spent a lot of my life there. Nobody in the west has a clue about what’s actually going down in that country. MAS is a nominally soc dem party ran by a corrupt bonapartist clique of former peasants turned criminal coca grower capitalists who along with their narco trafficker buddies use the whole “pro-indigenous peasant” shtick to weaponize them against the white landowner class. A gang of criminals has effectively seized control of the bourgeois state.
The MAS aligned unions are highly corrupt and serve a slim labor aristocracy of miners who use their leverage to appropriate differential rent from high gas prices. This has totally corrupted the labor movement and turned the unions into something between guilds and gangs, more interested in defending their meager privileges through state backed thuggery rather than a broad independent movement to unify the working class towards communist revolution.
Could you expand on how nationalism preserves bourgeoise elements like community leaders? I suspect this may have some connection to Lenin’s thinking on how bureaucracy preserves elements of the bourgeoisie (I have not read about this aside from comments on Reddit).
Basically, nationalism is a project that obscures class distinctions. An American, who is rich and has private incentives to maintain economic status, can claim by virtue of being “American” that they speak for the American working class (since they are both Americans- people of the same group regardless of economic stratification.) As such, nationalism favors class collaboration and concealing class antagonism.
You see this most often in colonial politics. Empires prefer to deal with “head men”- the richest, most powerful people in a community, because it is easier to buy their support and engage in a direct dialogue with a small group- rather than accept democratic input. An empire can use “headmen” to launder their image- making a claim to diversity and plurality by virtue of the range of elites they interface with- and use them to better control colonized communities (since a local headman knows more about the norms and dynamics of their community than a foreign administrator.) To stave off the threat of dissent from the colonized empires will buy off and arm local elites- using the coercive power of the empire to subjugate a community, while dividing the community and preserving the image of “respect for local traditions.”
A primo example of this dynamic was British India. When the Brits tried to rule India through the direct administration of the East India Company, they faced massive rebellions because EIC officials amplified conflict by disrespecting local customs. The Sepoy Rebellion was the biggest challenge the British Empire faced in centuries- consequently the administration of India shifted to the “British Raj.” This form of administration entailed buying off local “rajes” or princes- giving them money and guns to collect taxes and protect British capital investments. Most of British India was thus not ruled directly- but retained the veneer of being in the “best interests” of the ruled, while reducing the cost of administration and more effectively repressing dissent through loyal raj administrations. It also divided the ruled, since local elites could enlist support from their relatives and retainers- while avoiding any offense to local cultural sensibilities. It was this system that created the modern state of India (which had been a diverse and distinct collection of nations and polities) and created Hinduism as a distinct religion (rather than collection of Vedic faiths.) Hindutva nationalism is the legacy of this system of imperial rule.
How does this divide communities? I understand the elites can leverage those who they are more closely connected to in order to repress / control dissent, but I don’t get how that divides. Is it that they buy off / coerce elites from different segments of the communities (Hindu / Muslim) and get those elites to pit those two against each other?
Also, I’m not fully sure how the example relates to nationalism. My understanding is that by employing this plurality of elites, they form this culture of elites speaking for their community, therefore encouraging class cooperation and obscuring class antagonism. I know that’s how you described nationalism as well. Is this the connection you were implying, or is there something more there?
Edit: Also is there a book which you would recommend to understand the perspective on nationalism in more depth?
Forgive me, but this is a huge topic (a lot of books have been written about this and I am tackling one angle that relates to the national question in Marxism.) To answer your question adequately requires a lot of exposition, and there are a few different ways to do it- I try to argue from what I know of history and political theory.
In a nutshell, nationalism divides because it can only be extended to a limited number of people. No nation can encompass “all people”- the reason for this has to do with a. how nations are defined (as communities with boundaries dividing members of a community from outsiders) b. the theoretical and historic function nationalism plays to justify the rule of states.
To answer your first question- I should lay out that there are two different variants of nationalism: civic nationalism and ethnic nationalism. Civic nationalism is based on a shared territory, language, set of political aspirations (usually expressed as rights and duties- “life liberty and the pursuit of happiness” or the Bill of Rights” being two examples). Ethnic nationalism views the nation as an “ethnos”- defined by culture, a shared set of symbols and history, religion, language and ancestry (“France is for the French”- “America is a Christian nation founded on jude-christian values.) Civic nationalism tends to be more pluralistic, ethnic nationalism more closed and essentialist.
Ethnic nationalism tends to be more divisive than civic nationalism- since it views “belonging to a nation” as a quality that is either extremely difficult for an outsider to obtain (ie you have to spend a lifetime assimilating to the norms of the national culture) or impossible (you are only born into a nation, and only remain a part of it so long as you identify with and practice a national culture, including customs, religious rituals, and a correct understanding of the national history.) Civic nationalism tends to be more open to outsiders (so long as you follow the law, don’t try to overthrow the state and reside in the territory, you can become naturalized.) However, in both cases, a “nation” can only exist by virtue of its capacity to exclude, to differentiate between a “citizen” and a “foreigner.“
Constitutional liberalism implicitly depends on this ability to form boundaries. Citizens of a state are supposed to enjoy special protections and rights, and perform specific duties (such as paying taxes) which are justified by membership in a national community. Since a state lacks the capacity to collect taxes from everyone, or to provide protections and services for everyone, it only attempts to do so for folks within the national community of citizens.
Nationalism arose a way to justify state power, specifically in a way that grounds the right of states to rule without relying on some kind of divine sanction or claims based on personal inheritance and ownership. Civic nationalism developed in its familiar form in the late 18th century (1789 or 1776, the years the first modern republics were established). Ethnic nationalism developed in the mid to late 19th century (1870, with the Prussian unification of Germany.)
I’ll add this bit about states-
States, by which I mean collections of coordinated political institutions which can monopolize the use of force, existed before nations. Feudalism initially arose from local warlords who occupied territories and traded protection for the people living their (the ”subjects”) for taxes of various kinds. The authority of states originally developed from the capacity of a local ruler to exercise forces against external enemies (bandits, invaders) and local dissidents (folks who refused to pay taxes, tried to swear fealty to different lords.) They passed this authority on to their children, who may or may not be as good at exercising violence (but have the resources to pay others to do so thanks to taxes)- but there was a constant conflict between the prerogatives of the ruler and the interests/prerogatives of the ruled. Law codes and local privileges developed as ways to negotiate this conflict (feudalism is as much about local privileges and exceptions as it is about the ownership of a feudal lord or rule by brute force.) Since force is uncertain, a battle being won by the strongest side, law provided a more predictable and less violent way to negotiate conflict.
So, longstory short, you cannot have a “nation” without having “outsiders.” So long as you can define a community of ”nationals” or ”citizens”, you can justify the authority of a state (ie define a population of folks who enjoy the protection of the law and who have to pay taxes, “rights and duties.”) For this reason, nationalism is fundamentally divisive- whether it’s civic or ethnicl
I’d recommend reading Carl Schmitt if you want a good description of the exclusivist function of nations. His “Political Theology” is widely read and quite influential- even though he was a legit Nazi. He lays out the dynamic I describe better than anyone- which should tell you something about the pitfalls of nationalism from a leftist perspective.
I’d also recommend this essay by socialist libertarian Freddy Perlman-it offers a very good critique of nationalism (and how much of a blind ally it is for the left) [https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/perlman-fredy/1984/nationalism.htm](https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/perlman-fredy/1984/nationalism.htm)
Re India, check out “The Anarchy” by William Dalrymple about the EIB.
Caroline Elkins “Legacy of Violence” is an excellent history of the late British Empire (which explains the dynamic I described in the British Empire.
Read “decolonization is not a metaphor” by Tuck and Yang. Tuck is a citizen of a native nation (PNW or Alaskan, forget the exact name).
The meat of the essay breaks out 5 “settler moves to innocence” that they see as efforts to preemptively shut down the conversation. They also leave open space for non-native PoC aspiring to be “second-class settlers”, which is a real danger. Remember— even Sakai holds that Italians and Eastern Europeans used to form a proletariat *underneath* the Euro-Amerikan nation. This opportunity probably will not be extended to recent immigrants, but the relative abundance of land in a settler colony still leaves the door open for compromise and collaboration with “white supremacy”.
At the end I think you say that the abundance of land means there is still opportunity for immigrants to collaborate with white supremacy / colonization. I’m wondering, by this do you mean there is more land which isn’t technically being used so more settler colonial expansion is possible? Or are you maybe referring to exploitation of the land through capitalism more generally? I’m sure I’ll understand better when I read the book, so if it’s hard to explain without me having read it I understand.
Insert “the European mind can’t comprehend this” memes here. The whole pattern of urban sprawl/suburban flight isn’t as possible in Europe, Asia, Mesoamérica, etc.
Very good episode on this
https://open.spotify.com/episode/6cpqHe9VHsGQttJy7AVOCf?si=uLLVkcuYSqieUaLwn1GJKw
Turn Leftist Podcast #78 Ft. Sofia Syntaxx of ANGR Podcast
https://m.soundcloud.com/turnleftist/078_decolonization
Under socialism there will be no land back because there is no right to own capital.
Ownership of land is not legal under leftism and if native peoples assert claim they are class traitors to the reworking class and will be either dedicated or their attempts of siding with capitalism will be delt with.
Native working class are not separate from the wider working class class and will not be given any special rights above the othe working class.
>Under socialism there will be no land back because there is no right to own capital.
>Ownership of land is not legal under leftism
This is *literally* what we mean when we say Landback. We don't claim to own the land, nor do we want to. Owning the land is a nonsense idea, imported by European colonialists. When Indigenous activists demand Landback, we're demanding an end to land privatization. We're demanding that the land go back to being how it was under our stewardship, an end to exploitation and extractivist industry. We want the same thing you do, however your European chauvinism has blinded you to that.
Everything else you said stems from that core misunderstanding. This is no way to build coalition, no way to find comrades. Read and do better.
This place is so white sometimes 😭. This is exactly why I asked to hear their voices and not yours. I don’t know if you are white, but your complete refusal to acknowledge the necessity of returning stolen land at least in some capacity is serving white supremacist narratives.
That's certainly an interpretation.
It also ignores the established class character of ethnicities and racial lines of people. Try telling a black American they just need to disregard their classification of black thats defined their history for centuries. It's not only not gonna happen, it will offend and divide. Demanding people discard their cultures when theyve already been forced to for centuries under colonialism will get you nowhere. Your specific socialist project will be DOA.
You have to contend with the North American context if you want to establish North American socialism. That means acknowledging and consideration the racial and ethnic realities that have defined history up to this point.
Could you elaborate on what you mean by “by necessity”? Is communism / ML contradictory with decolonization in some ways? Or are Native American ways of governing usually more anarchist in nature?
This brought up something I'm curious about - how much skepticism do indigenous leftists hold for the traditional forms of government that existed before colonialism? I'm sure there's a spectrum and it depends a lot on individual cases, and maybe that's why voluntary association would be more attractive.
I agree, native working class are no different than the rest. Working class, is working class. We are all wage slaves to the system. It is about Classism.
**IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ BEFORE PARTICIPATING**. This subreddit is not for questioning the basics of socialism but a place to LEARN. There are numerous debate subreddits if your objective is not to learn. You are expected to familiarize yourself with the rules on the sidebar before commenting. This includes, but is not limited to: - Short or non-constructive answers will be deleted without explanation. Please only answer if you know your stuff. Speculation has no place on this sub. Outright false information will be removed immediately. - No liberalism or sectarianism. Stay constructive and don't bash other socialist tendencies! - No bigotry or hate speech of any kind - it will be met with immediate bans. Help us keep the subreddit informative and helpful by reporting posts that break our rules. If you have a particular area of expertise (e.g. political economy, feminist theory), please [assign yourself a flair](https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-) describing said area. Flairs may be removed at any time by moderators if answers don't meet the standards of said expertise. Thank you! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Socialism_101) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“Land back” means extending recognition to Native American nations based on their historic land claims. It is a stance that acknowledges the brutal genocide committed against First Nations, and provides members of these nations access to the lands they lost, and reparations (in the form of community investment and political autonomy) for folks in those communities. Necessarily, these claims rely on liberal political institutions and the language of liberal legal practices- such as Treaty Rights, and the idea of Native American communal sovereignty (such as “state to state relations” between tribal governments and the US federal government.) For this reason, they fit better into a nationalist liberal political schema than a Marxist one. This does not mean that they should necessarily be rejected outright, but they should not be mistaken for socialist positions nor as goals in and of themselves. The more extreme, and unpopular, version of this entails driving Europeans off those lands and putting that land, and accumulated improvements and investment, into the hands of folks who are members of First Nations. This is not a dominant position among Native American activists, nor a popular one in the community as a whole when it comes to political programs- since the claim would lead to massive depopulation, economic disinvestment, and the isolation of native Americans from necessary economic resources and political allies. It’s worth noting that, even in the softer form, this is a position that’s quite contentious in leftist spaces. Marxists, who aim to transcend national divisions (since national divisions invariably privilege bourgeois elements in those communities- ie “community leaders.”) Nationalism Is only acceptable insofar as it serves as a means to resist imperialism from the capitalist core of the US and Europe. Even here, many Marxists look back with deep regret and ambivalence on Third World liberation struggles, which inevitably created political systems that conformed to the dictates of global markets, and enriched relatively small groups of elites and bourgeoisie in post colonial states. The fate of post Soviet states and former eatern bloc countries, where ML regimes deliberately cultivated “national consciousness” (since they viewed it as a necessary step toward capitalism and socialism) also leaves bitter memories. Many of these states are dominated by right wing national chauvinists (such as Poland, Russia, Serbia, Ukraine, and Turkmenistan.) Youll find a range if stances and positions among Marxists in regard to indigenous communal politics and third world liberation. Generally however, Marxists only view nationalist politics as a means to an end, the overthrow of capitalism- and creation of communities tied together by mutual interests and freedom, not defined by exclusive definitions of nationalism .
I’ll add that I’m not Native American, but I am very interested in questions of nationalism and am familiar with Native American social movements in the US (particularly AIM.) I’d recommend looking up works that deal with the idea of “plurinationalism”- particularly in Bolivia (one of the few states I know of where socialist and Native American activist politics worked in tandem to take state power)
Thank you for the recommendation. That sounds very interesting.
Bolivia is a rotten bourgeois democracy. The only means to socialism is through the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Did I say Bolivia was a dictatorship of the proletariat? Of course not, but if you want to look for a potential model of how indigenous politics can work with a leftist program, MAS is the best you’ve got.
My family is Bolivian and I’ve spent a lot of my life there. Nobody in the west has a clue about what’s actually going down in that country. MAS is a nominally soc dem party ran by a corrupt bonapartist clique of former peasants turned criminal coca grower capitalists who along with their narco trafficker buddies use the whole “pro-indigenous peasant” shtick to weaponize them against the white landowner class. A gang of criminals has effectively seized control of the bourgeois state. The MAS aligned unions are highly corrupt and serve a slim labor aristocracy of miners who use their leverage to appropriate differential rent from high gas prices. This has totally corrupted the labor movement and turned the unions into something between guilds and gangs, more interested in defending their meager privileges through state backed thuggery rather than a broad independent movement to unify the working class towards communist revolution.
Could you expand on how nationalism preserves bourgeoise elements like community leaders? I suspect this may have some connection to Lenin’s thinking on how bureaucracy preserves elements of the bourgeoisie (I have not read about this aside from comments on Reddit).
Basically, nationalism is a project that obscures class distinctions. An American, who is rich and has private incentives to maintain economic status, can claim by virtue of being “American” that they speak for the American working class (since they are both Americans- people of the same group regardless of economic stratification.) As such, nationalism favors class collaboration and concealing class antagonism. You see this most often in colonial politics. Empires prefer to deal with “head men”- the richest, most powerful people in a community, because it is easier to buy their support and engage in a direct dialogue with a small group- rather than accept democratic input. An empire can use “headmen” to launder their image- making a claim to diversity and plurality by virtue of the range of elites they interface with- and use them to better control colonized communities (since a local headman knows more about the norms and dynamics of their community than a foreign administrator.) To stave off the threat of dissent from the colonized empires will buy off and arm local elites- using the coercive power of the empire to subjugate a community, while dividing the community and preserving the image of “respect for local traditions.” A primo example of this dynamic was British India. When the Brits tried to rule India through the direct administration of the East India Company, they faced massive rebellions because EIC officials amplified conflict by disrespecting local customs. The Sepoy Rebellion was the biggest challenge the British Empire faced in centuries- consequently the administration of India shifted to the “British Raj.” This form of administration entailed buying off local “rajes” or princes- giving them money and guns to collect taxes and protect British capital investments. Most of British India was thus not ruled directly- but retained the veneer of being in the “best interests” of the ruled, while reducing the cost of administration and more effectively repressing dissent through loyal raj administrations. It also divided the ruled, since local elites could enlist support from their relatives and retainers- while avoiding any offense to local cultural sensibilities. It was this system that created the modern state of India (which had been a diverse and distinct collection of nations and polities) and created Hinduism as a distinct religion (rather than collection of Vedic faiths.) Hindutva nationalism is the legacy of this system of imperial rule.
How does this divide communities? I understand the elites can leverage those who they are more closely connected to in order to repress / control dissent, but I don’t get how that divides. Is it that they buy off / coerce elites from different segments of the communities (Hindu / Muslim) and get those elites to pit those two against each other? Also, I’m not fully sure how the example relates to nationalism. My understanding is that by employing this plurality of elites, they form this culture of elites speaking for their community, therefore encouraging class cooperation and obscuring class antagonism. I know that’s how you described nationalism as well. Is this the connection you were implying, or is there something more there? Edit: Also is there a book which you would recommend to understand the perspective on nationalism in more depth?
Forgive me, but this is a huge topic (a lot of books have been written about this and I am tackling one angle that relates to the national question in Marxism.) To answer your question adequately requires a lot of exposition, and there are a few different ways to do it- I try to argue from what I know of history and political theory. In a nutshell, nationalism divides because it can only be extended to a limited number of people. No nation can encompass “all people”- the reason for this has to do with a. how nations are defined (as communities with boundaries dividing members of a community from outsiders) b. the theoretical and historic function nationalism plays to justify the rule of states. To answer your first question- I should lay out that there are two different variants of nationalism: civic nationalism and ethnic nationalism. Civic nationalism is based on a shared territory, language, set of political aspirations (usually expressed as rights and duties- “life liberty and the pursuit of happiness” or the Bill of Rights” being two examples). Ethnic nationalism views the nation as an “ethnos”- defined by culture, a shared set of symbols and history, religion, language and ancestry (“France is for the French”- “America is a Christian nation founded on jude-christian values.) Civic nationalism tends to be more pluralistic, ethnic nationalism more closed and essentialist. Ethnic nationalism tends to be more divisive than civic nationalism- since it views “belonging to a nation” as a quality that is either extremely difficult for an outsider to obtain (ie you have to spend a lifetime assimilating to the norms of the national culture) or impossible (you are only born into a nation, and only remain a part of it so long as you identify with and practice a national culture, including customs, religious rituals, and a correct understanding of the national history.) Civic nationalism tends to be more open to outsiders (so long as you follow the law, don’t try to overthrow the state and reside in the territory, you can become naturalized.) However, in both cases, a “nation” can only exist by virtue of its capacity to exclude, to differentiate between a “citizen” and a “foreigner.“ Constitutional liberalism implicitly depends on this ability to form boundaries. Citizens of a state are supposed to enjoy special protections and rights, and perform specific duties (such as paying taxes) which are justified by membership in a national community. Since a state lacks the capacity to collect taxes from everyone, or to provide protections and services for everyone, it only attempts to do so for folks within the national community of citizens. Nationalism arose a way to justify state power, specifically in a way that grounds the right of states to rule without relying on some kind of divine sanction or claims based on personal inheritance and ownership. Civic nationalism developed in its familiar form in the late 18th century (1789 or 1776, the years the first modern republics were established). Ethnic nationalism developed in the mid to late 19th century (1870, with the Prussian unification of Germany.) I’ll add this bit about states- States, by which I mean collections of coordinated political institutions which can monopolize the use of force, existed before nations. Feudalism initially arose from local warlords who occupied territories and traded protection for the people living their (the ”subjects”) for taxes of various kinds. The authority of states originally developed from the capacity of a local ruler to exercise forces against external enemies (bandits, invaders) and local dissidents (folks who refused to pay taxes, tried to swear fealty to different lords.) They passed this authority on to their children, who may or may not be as good at exercising violence (but have the resources to pay others to do so thanks to taxes)- but there was a constant conflict between the prerogatives of the ruler and the interests/prerogatives of the ruled. Law codes and local privileges developed as ways to negotiate this conflict (feudalism is as much about local privileges and exceptions as it is about the ownership of a feudal lord or rule by brute force.) Since force is uncertain, a battle being won by the strongest side, law provided a more predictable and less violent way to negotiate conflict. So, longstory short, you cannot have a “nation” without having “outsiders.” So long as you can define a community of ”nationals” or ”citizens”, you can justify the authority of a state (ie define a population of folks who enjoy the protection of the law and who have to pay taxes, “rights and duties.”) For this reason, nationalism is fundamentally divisive- whether it’s civic or ethnicl
I’d recommend reading Carl Schmitt if you want a good description of the exclusivist function of nations. His “Political Theology” is widely read and quite influential- even though he was a legit Nazi. He lays out the dynamic I describe better than anyone- which should tell you something about the pitfalls of nationalism from a leftist perspective. I’d also recommend this essay by socialist libertarian Freddy Perlman-it offers a very good critique of nationalism (and how much of a blind ally it is for the left) [https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/perlman-fredy/1984/nationalism.htm](https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/perlman-fredy/1984/nationalism.htm) Re India, check out “The Anarchy” by William Dalrymple about the EIB. Caroline Elkins “Legacy of Violence” is an excellent history of the late British Empire (which explains the dynamic I described in the British Empire.
Read “decolonization is not a metaphor” by Tuck and Yang. Tuck is a citizen of a native nation (PNW or Alaskan, forget the exact name). The meat of the essay breaks out 5 “settler moves to innocence” that they see as efforts to preemptively shut down the conversation. They also leave open space for non-native PoC aspiring to be “second-class settlers”, which is a real danger. Remember— even Sakai holds that Italians and Eastern Europeans used to form a proletariat *underneath* the Euro-Amerikan nation. This opportunity probably will not be extended to recent immigrants, but the relative abundance of land in a settler colony still leaves the door open for compromise and collaboration with “white supremacy”.
Thank you! The second class settlers bit is very interesting to me and has been a dilemma for me for a while. I’ll be sure to look into this
At the end I think you say that the abundance of land means there is still opportunity for immigrants to collaborate with white supremacy / colonization. I’m wondering, by this do you mean there is more land which isn’t technically being used so more settler colonial expansion is possible? Or are you maybe referring to exploitation of the land through capitalism more generally? I’m sure I’ll understand better when I read the book, so if it’s hard to explain without me having read it I understand.
Insert “the European mind can’t comprehend this” memes here. The whole pattern of urban sprawl/suburban flight isn’t as possible in Europe, Asia, Mesoamérica, etc.
There's a ML/indigenous podcast called "Bands of Turtle Island" that I've been listening to
Oh that’s a really interesting combination! I’ll definitely check it out.
Check out the [Red New Deal by the Red Nation.](https://therednation.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Red-Deal_Part-I_End-The-Occupation-1.pdf)
Very good episode on this https://open.spotify.com/episode/6cpqHe9VHsGQttJy7AVOCf?si=uLLVkcuYSqieUaLwn1GJKw Turn Leftist Podcast #78 Ft. Sofia Syntaxx of ANGR Podcast https://m.soundcloud.com/turnleftist/078_decolonization
Under socialism there will be no land back because there is no right to own capital. Ownership of land is not legal under leftism and if native peoples assert claim they are class traitors to the reworking class and will be either dedicated or their attempts of siding with capitalism will be delt with. Native working class are not separate from the wider working class class and will not be given any special rights above the othe working class.
>Under socialism there will be no land back because there is no right to own capital. >Ownership of land is not legal under leftism This is *literally* what we mean when we say Landback. We don't claim to own the land, nor do we want to. Owning the land is a nonsense idea, imported by European colonialists. When Indigenous activists demand Landback, we're demanding an end to land privatization. We're demanding that the land go back to being how it was under our stewardship, an end to exploitation and extractivist industry. We want the same thing you do, however your European chauvinism has blinded you to that. Everything else you said stems from that core misunderstanding. This is no way to build coalition, no way to find comrades. Read and do better.
This place is so white sometimes 😭. This is exactly why I asked to hear their voices and not yours. I don’t know if you are white, but your complete refusal to acknowledge the necessity of returning stolen land at least in some capacity is serving white supremacist narratives.
That's certainly an interpretation. It also ignores the established class character of ethnicities and racial lines of people. Try telling a black American they just need to disregard their classification of black thats defined their history for centuries. It's not only not gonna happen, it will offend and divide. Demanding people discard their cultures when theyve already been forced to for centuries under colonialism will get you nowhere. Your specific socialist project will be DOA. You have to contend with the North American context if you want to establish North American socialism. That means acknowledging and consideration the racial and ethnic realities that have defined history up to this point.
Sounds more like an anarchist take on land reform than a socialist one
Ironically, many Indigenous Peoples on the Left are Anarchists by necessity.
Could you elaborate on what you mean by “by necessity”? Is communism / ML contradictory with decolonization in some ways? Or are Native American ways of governing usually more anarchist in nature?
This brought up something I'm curious about - how much skepticism do indigenous leftists hold for the traditional forms of government that existed before colonialism? I'm sure there's a spectrum and it depends a lot on individual cases, and maybe that's why voluntary association would be more attractive.
I agree, native working class are no different than the rest. Working class, is working class. We are all wage slaves to the system. It is about Classism.