This is exactly the kind of chauvinistic approach that has alienated so many Indigenous movements from western Marxists. National liberation for Indigenous people does not run along the lines of colonial borders: they seek liberation for their nation, which is to say for their people, whose nations do not conform to the borders imposed upon them by colonial powers.
Imposing views about the “correct” form of a national struggle is a continuation of settler dynamics in which those who deem their own ideals to be “more advanced” or “superior” to the communal organisations of Indigenous peoples see it as their place, and more their duty, to “correct” them and “raise them” to the standards of the settlers.
In Native Americans and Marxism this exact tension between western Marxists and Indigenous peoples is explored, where we can see that many Indigenous people struggle to see western Marxists as anything more than a new form of the same colonial dynamic, where Indigenous nations and Indigenous sovereignty will continue to be pushed aside for the “greater good” of the settler. To many Indigenous people, there is no liberation through western Marxist organising when their traditions, communities, ties to the land and sovereignty will continue to be in question. While the settler proletariat seeks to gain, they would be left in the same position as colonial subjects.
This can be seen in your own thinking when you finish by saying that they have lost your support, showing that your belief in the autonomy, sovereignty and self-actualisation of Indigenous nations is something they have to “earn” to be worthy of support. Anything other than unconditional acceptance of Indigenous self-direction is a continuance of colonial ideology. It is not for settlers to determine the direction of the colonised.
As a side note, your dismissal, also, of “identity politics” shows a misunderstanding of the very radical origins of identity politics. The first usage of identity politics was the Combahee River Collective’s statement in 1977. To the CRC, identity politics was an understanding of the interlocking forms of oppression that are imposed on the exploited by virtue of their very identity, and thus something that can not be either transcended or pushed aside. The CRC asserted that such oppressions–racial, gender, class, sexuality–are sources of political radicalisation and revolutionary zeal. As queer Black women, they saw the unique and varied, overlapping oppressions that came through misogyny, homophobia, racism, and the poverty they experienced due to racial capitalism. Their socio-economic position made them uniquely susceptible to violence and disenfranchisement, making them less invested in maintaining the status quo, and ultimately, capitalism. They saw this as a furtherance of Lenin’s call for Communists to side with racial minorities in their fight against the “special oppression” they faced as national minorities and the racism leveraged at them. Identity Politics was an understanding that your very self would render you eminently exploitable, and thus Identity Politics was not about who you were, but what you could do to confront these interlocking oppressions and combat the systems that kept them in place.
Thanks for making no attempt to understand where my criticisms are coming from and jumping straight to “they must be a chauvinist.” My point is that they aren’t building any kind of solidarity with anyone, and that is a fundamental task of the proletarian movement, to build solidarity between working and oppressed peoples around the world. Denouncing everyone and not seeking to expand what I acknowledge is a better set of living conditions to the other indigenous people in the area seems closed-minded and opposed to solidarity. I’m not saying they are wrong in some nebulous way, I’m saying it is confusing and disappointing to not see them expanding the boundaries of class struggle and anti-imperialism, and that their hostility to proletarians is utopian and anachronistic.
My understanding is that there are several indigenous nations in Mexico, and while the ELZN are of those they aren’t a whole indigenous nation or even part of just one indigenous nation, as they are limited to half of Chiapas which is home to a few ethnic groups, some of which are present in the other part of Chiapas or other parts of Mexico. It makes no sense that they should stay holed up in one small area and not try to liberate others, no? Why not make some effort to at least unite the indigenous people of Chiapas or the whole areas that those nations occupy, if Mexico as a state is too colonial? I would support the self determination of all of the nations of Mexico and the broader Americas to the point of independence, but not as explicit enemies of the broader proletarian movement. Look at the USSR as compared to the Russian empire. Many nations became Union Republics, some ASSRs. Consider the handful of socialist states in Asia working together on the basis of solidarity. The thing was and is, none of them were cut-off communes without proletarian states. They should be allowed to define the nature of their existence and relations between them and the other nations, but there must still be some working relationship between them and the rest of the world, no? Even with the other indigenous nations of their region, they seem completely ambivalent, and if indigenous proletarians (as there are many of those in Central America) built a proletarian state, from what I’ve seen of the Zapatistas they would be hostile to it in much the same way they are hostile to other orgs now. While they claim not to be anarchists, I would compare their theory and practice to them in several ways. I do not support anarchists, but my support for the Zapatistas is still critical support (note that I said losing, not lost). I think they are making errors in neither working with others nor seeking to expand their own influence.
Perhaps identity politics is the wrong term, by I was not aware of that history, what I am talking about is the non-Marxist schools of thought that seeks to seeks to oppose imperialism or colonialism while rejecting Marxism, as they have explained they do.
I think it is wrong to compare Mexico to the US when it comes to racial/ethnic politics here, because Mexico is substantially different. To my understanding, the majority of the population in Mexico are mestizo, which makes calling them settler seem a bit off.
This is exactly the kind of chauvinistic approach that has alienated so many Indigenous movements from western Marxists. National liberation for Indigenous people does not run along the lines of colonial borders: they seek liberation for their nation, which is to say for their people, whose nations do not conform to the borders imposed upon them by colonial powers.
Imposing views about the “correct” form of a national struggle is a continuation of settler dynamics in which those who deem their own ideals to be “more advanced” or “superior” to the communal organisations of Indigenous peoples see it as their place, and more their duty, to “correct” them and “raise them” to the standards of the settlers.
In Native Americans and Marxism this exact tension between western Marxists and Indigenous peoples is explored, where we can see that many Indigenous people struggle to see western Marxists as anything more than a new form of the same colonial dynamic, where Indigenous nations and Indigenous sovereignty will continue to be pushed aside for the “greater good” of the settler. To many Indigenous people, there is no liberation through western Marxist organising when their traditions, communities, ties to the land and sovereignty will continue to be in question. While the settler proletariat seeks to gain, they would be left in the same position as colonial subjects.
This can be seen in your own thinking when you finish by saying that they have lost your support, showing that your belief in the autonomy, sovereignty and self-actualisation of Indigenous nations is something they have to “earn” to be worthy of support. Anything other than unconditional acceptance of Indigenous self-direction is a continuance of colonial ideology. It is not for settlers to determine the direction of the colonised.
As a side note, your dismissal, also, of “identity politics” shows a misunderstanding of the very radical origins of identity politics. The first usage of identity politics was the Combahee River Collective’s statement in 1977. To the CRC, identity politics was an understanding of the interlocking forms of oppression that are imposed on the exploited by virtue of their very identity, and thus something that can not be either transcended or pushed aside. The CRC asserted that such oppressions–racial, gender, class, sexuality–are sources of political radicalisation and revolutionary zeal. As queer Black women, they saw the unique and varied, overlapping oppressions that came through misogyny, homophobia, racism, and the poverty they experienced due to racial capitalism. Their socio-economic position made them uniquely susceptible to violence and disenfranchisement, making them less invested in maintaining the status quo, and ultimately, capitalism. They saw this as a furtherance of Lenin’s call for Communists to side with racial minorities in their fight against the “special oppression” they faced as national minorities and the racism leveraged at them. Identity Politics was an understanding that your very self would render you eminently exploitable, and thus Identity Politics was not about who you were, but what you could do to confront these interlocking oppressions and combat the systems that kept them in place.
Thanks for making no attempt to understand where my criticisms are coming from and jumping straight to “they must be a chauvinist.” My point is that they aren’t building any kind of solidarity with anyone, and that is a fundamental task of the proletarian movement, to build solidarity between working and oppressed peoples around the world. Denouncing everyone and not seeking to expand what I acknowledge is a better set of living conditions to the other indigenous people in the area seems closed-minded and opposed to solidarity. I’m not saying they are wrong in some nebulous way, I’m saying it is confusing and disappointing to not see them expanding the boundaries of class struggle and anti-imperialism, and that their hostility to proletarians is utopian and anachronistic. My understanding is that there are several indigenous nations in Mexico, and while the ELZN are of those they aren’t a whole indigenous nation or even part of just one indigenous nation, as they are limited to half of Chiapas which is home to a few ethnic groups, some of which are present in the other part of Chiapas or other parts of Mexico. It makes no sense that they should stay holed up in one small area and not try to liberate others, no? Why not make some effort to at least unite the indigenous people of Chiapas or the whole areas that those nations occupy, if Mexico as a state is too colonial? I would support the self determination of all of the nations of Mexico and the broader Americas to the point of independence, but not as explicit enemies of the broader proletarian movement. Look at the USSR as compared to the Russian empire. Many nations became Union Republics, some ASSRs. Consider the handful of socialist states in Asia working together on the basis of solidarity. The thing was and is, none of them were cut-off communes without proletarian states. They should be allowed to define the nature of their existence and relations between them and the other nations, but there must still be some working relationship between them and the rest of the world, no? Even with the other indigenous nations of their region, they seem completely ambivalent, and if indigenous proletarians (as there are many of those in Central America) built a proletarian state, from what I’ve seen of the Zapatistas they would be hostile to it in much the same way they are hostile to other orgs now. While they claim not to be anarchists, I would compare their theory and practice to them in several ways. I do not support anarchists, but my support for the Zapatistas is still critical support (note that I said losing, not lost). I think they are making errors in neither working with others nor seeking to expand their own influence. Perhaps identity politics is the wrong term, by I was not aware of that history, what I am talking about is the non-Marxist schools of thought that seeks to seeks to oppose imperialism or colonialism while rejecting Marxism, as they have explained they do. I think it is wrong to compare Mexico to the US when it comes to racial/ethnic politics here, because Mexico is substantially different. To my understanding, the majority of the population in Mexico are mestizo, which makes calling them settler seem a bit off.
https://cosmonautmag.com/2021/12/dialectics-of-dependency-by-ruy-mauro-marini/
This looks interesting and I will read it soon. Would you mind giving me a brief rundown, as it is quite long?
No. Go read.