I was recently in a conversation with a self-described MagaCommunist who held the position that the primary contradiction in the USA was that the financial owning class owned all of the means of production and that the contradictions of settler colonialism were secondary and could only be resolved through a workers’ state.
I realized that I hold the position that settler colonialism is the primary contradiction in the USA, but I also found that I struggled to articulate it effectively. I’m looking for your own thoughts or writings that I can study to learn more on this topic.
They’re basically trying to do everything but realize the contradiction staring them in the face because they know that they’re a settler and they’re scared what decol means for them. That’s all there is to it. Their class interest as settlers prevents them from accepting the contradiction.
I understand there’s no point in me debating them through proxy because you and I agree. If I had some writing I could recommend I would. I know of some decol works, but if I haven’t read them myself I wouldn’t recommend them. I’ve done that before and then sometimes it turned out the work contained inaccuracies or flat out wrong facts. I can recommend The Wretched of the Earth because I’ve read it, but it’s not really a how-to guide so I’m not sure how much it will help you. It’s still a good read though.
Still to explain what I mean by their internal contradiction:
the US was industrial under slavery and it didn’t benefit _every_one. Because they’re a patsoc they’re basically saying they want economic growth to be based on “real” production, i.e. the transformation of resources instead of finance. But that by itself does not necessarily mean progress for the population. In capitalism we produce tons of value and all of it goes to the bourgeoisie – and I’m not convinced patsocs want to do away with the bourgeoisie at all considering they say shit like recognizing small businesses.
Basically what they’re proposing, at least from what you’re saying, isn’t sufficient. It doesn’t explain how Indigenous nations will be able to defend their minority interests against the larger settler population. It’s on them to offer a solution to this.
Trying to decide for Indigenous Americans what is best for them is exactly settlerism. The Lakota for example signed the Treaty of Fort Laramie in 1866, in which the US federal government recognized the Black Hills as “unceded Indian territory” meaning that they basically recognized sovereignty of the Lakota over this land. In 1872 gold was discovered in the Hills and the US Army went to war against the Lakota to allow settlers to move in. But the Lakota never rescinded the treaty, and have been calling for the US federal government to recognize it year after year.
Are patsocs ready to recognize all the treaties (and there are many, I’m planning on making a list) the US government signed with Indigenous tribes? Are they ready to cede this land back as per the treaties?
It happened just fine in Haiti under a bourgeoisie. More than fine actually. They’re putting this off as a detail for later basically.
Your understanding is fine I think. Maybe what you’re looking for is not necessarily theory as a set of methods but pure history. To understand decolonization we must first understand colonialism and how it played out.
This line of questioning was pretty solid as it through them into a tailspin and they landed on: the bourgeoisie wouldn’t respect the treaties but a DotP would, so first, we do the DotP and then we’ll resolve the treaties and we’ll renegotiate them to the mutual benefit of all. When I raised the fact that the indigenous can’t trust the settlers, the response was the same: they can’t trust the class-based settlers, but they could trust a DotP. When I said that needed to be part of the platform, I was met with: that’s just putting in a purity test and will divide the efforts to establish a DotP.
The argument there was that the Haitian revolution was massively in favor of the enslaved - there were 500k enslaved and only 30k colonists. Compare that to the US context and the indigenous do not have the numbers to force the issue. Essentially, he was putting “might makes right” into a “realpolitik” framing.
I’m not ready to accept that. I want to learn more.
I think I need to understand a) what is the precise formulation that makes colonialism a contradiction and b) why is that contradiction salient to a proletarian revolution
Exactly, they reframe everything to always come out right. Your interlocutor is arguing in bad faith so that’s why I think your understanding is fine or at least not in massive jeopardy.
their response was that the treaties would be ‘renegotiated’ and this wasn’t sufficient to you. The treaties exist, they just need to be enforced by the US. Indigenous nations have been calling for the government to stop violating them year after year. As you said, to come around and tell them “actually we’re going to renegotiate them for ‘mutual benefit’” sounds like settlerism.
There are around 4 million Indigenous Americans in the US today, and probably not one more communist than that. Should communists also abandon revolution because they don’t have the numbers required? The tailist patsoc would have to say yes to that. They should become conservatives instead and – they did.
Of course they would say “but we can build socialism!” but why can’t you build decolonialism? Do you need to be Indigenous to fight for Indigenous rights? Do you need to be socialist to fight for socialism?
They make an a priori postulate that “seems” reasonable but isn’t backed up by theory or practice because they have yet to put it into practice. Like I said in another comment all the major parties in the US reject the settler-colonial aspect of the US bc they’re settlers themselves (but when you look at Palestine right now it’s pretty evident), but their anti-imperialist line has not been successful either for the over 100 years they’ve been at it. So is it really reasonable to say that tackling decol is harder than tackling imperialism?
I will probably get back to you on that in a few hours if I don’t forget.
Gentle reminder as I’m curious as to your response.
It seems to me that the simplest aspect of it is that two opposing forces can’t both occupy and control the same land at the same time. The colonists decide before they leave home that they are willing to do whatever it takes for absolute control over the colony.
That contradiction is salient because the coloniser is always an oppressor even if they also work. The mere act of going to work in a settler colony involves recreating the settler-colonial relationship. Life might not be great for every settler but any glimpse of prosperity comes at the expense of the indigenous.
I’ll be honest I’m just lazy over having to type out the response and think about how I want to lay it out. I can tell it’s gonna take me some time lol.
I might eventually get to writing it but you’re basically on the right track. Indigenous exists in relation to settler and everything flows from there. @freagle@lemmygrad.ml
Hah! I feel that!