As you have all noticed, this seems to be a point of contention here. This is a good thing, since it means someone will learn something.
Now we seem to be all over the place, with this general area of thought, provoking many questions. Whether or not PatSocs are socially conservative, what is position on social conservatism? Many of us are very young, both in age and ML experience, so an online discussion would be a great learning tool.
- Are socially conservative individuals allowed to be apart of the leftist movement?
- A. Are socially conservative individuals victims of bourgeois propaganda?
-B. If socially conservative people are turned away by the left, where do they go?
-C. How high of a position would a social conservative be allowed in a ML party?
-D. How has or will MLs educate socially conservative folk?
-E. &tc, &tc.
- What exactly is Patriotism?
-A. Does patriotism depend on culture?
-B Is possible for a distinction between patriotism for a country and wanting to abolish the state?
-C. Is patriotism corrupted in the Core?
-D How have post imperialist countries with Communist experiments built patriotism?
-E. &Tc &TC
- Who even are the PatSocs?
-A. If the label is too convuluted, should we make a distinction between Maupin and American exceptionalists?
-B. Who of the leaders do we consider MLs?
-C. Should patriotic socialist be distinct from socialism or is inherent in socialism?
-D. How much do WE even know if PatSocs?
-E. &Tc, &tc
We can look at the USSR and GDR for these questions. Remember the Hammer and Sickel came from somewhere.
Things to look out for about the US:
-It is the imperialist power, AND a settler state.
-Low levels of cultural development
-The culture that is there is taken from marginalized groups.
-Americas are the most propagandized people in the World.
-It is huge and incredibly diverse
More questions about the US could follow:
-Should the US be balkanized? If so how does patriotism be built in balkanized regions?
-How does land back go about? Will indigenous countries emerge, and if so should we reconsider American MLs as different MLs for the Regions in North America.
-If we see different nations and regions in North America how does that affect culture? Is the question of how we view the land a prerequisite to discussing patriotism, is it contradictory to call yourself an American Patriot if you decide to divide up the land until regions?
There is so much potential for deep political for North American based Comrades, this is a rabbit hole I do want to delve into. I'll cross post this to GZD but I want it mainly on Leftist Infighting.
Edit: spacing issues
There are already cultural differences among both settlers and Indigenous peoples accross the continent.
The question of land is very important to this because PatSoc apologists are typically against "Land Back" or have obtuse and cynical ideas about it. I think its relevant to say that its disingenuous to call for a "Balkankzation" of the US because it implies decolonization is synonymous with the violent, imperial enforced destruction of Yugoslavia and the USSR. There is no "Balkankzation" of the US, there is only restoration and decolonization. If Israel had taken control of the entire southwest asian region, would abolishing Israel be a "Balkankzation?" Of course not, it would be the end of an occupation.
It should be said that America is not a place. Not a land. It is a colonial project that was nutured by colonial powers and settlers into a powerhouse for finance capital by way of the embourgiousiement of white settlers, liquidating and enslaving entire nations, including those within the borders of the US, as well as a nation of enslaved African diaspora, and many nations well outside its borders. This is why American must be abolished both legally and materially through a revolutionary process of decolonization.
As of today it happens through legal processesthat take advantage of contradictions within the colonial system and is discourse. It is oftentimes purchased by Tribal governments, usually lands that have been ruined by chemical polution or properties that are severly delapodated. Tribal governments then work to restore these lands according to community needs and Tribal values.
Some Nations are not federally recognized and are severely hamstrung but manage to hold their nation together through non profit organizations. These Nations work to gain recognition so they can aquire lands in trust with the Department of Interior so they are not crippled by property taxes, but also still look to aquire and consolidate ancestral lands that remain in the family of Tribal members.
"Indigenous countries" already exist. They are just imprisoned by the settler-colonial state. Tho they are not idle. They fight day and night for peace, land, and bread against deeply entrenched barriers placed by the settler state. There has been a lot of progress made and this progress points in a revolutionary direction because at some point it must be asked, where is this all going? The answer is full sovereignty.
But to answer your question about if I am an ML for a certain region or for specific nations instead of the greater American empire, my answer is "sort of." My praxis is very much tailored for my local region and is done while centering Tribal leadership from local Indigenous Nations. Ultimately, it cannot be seperated so easily, because it is all held together by Washington DC (among other things) so I wouldn't say im an ML exclusively for a specific regional coalition at the exclusion of others, but I do think it is vital that we understand local and more specific conditions because otherwise we are not actually building a foundation for revolution. Its probable that the material and cultural conditions that my area has will require different approaches and methods to be successful when compared to other parts of the continent.
Okay you seem to be itching a scratch I have in my brain.
Good of you to point out that "balkanization" is a dishonest term, and more appropriately it is decolonization.
But I have a few more questions about Land back.
Does Land Back view white people as settlers? If so why? is it that they're descendants of settlers so them existing is a remnant of that, or only those who uphold the ideas that "America" and "Canada" exist, or something else entirely?
Now is Land Back a movement for ALL of the land to be returned to the different indigenous nations? If the notion is white people are intrinsically settlers, what do they want to do with them? If the notion is that it is just the STATE that's a settler state, does the majority of white people in these nations dillude them being Indigenous?
Now when "America" and "Canada" first colonized there wasn't a proletariat, and it was all settlers. Now as throughout time, the majority of the populations, are wage earners.
So is it fair to call white people settlers in a STATE apparatus formed centuries ago, that enslaves them?
Is it Anti Marxist to return to the way things were, discounting the new conditions formed for all working people? Is there any historical example of decolonizing a Settler State? If white people are born on native land, are they apart of that indigenous nation? Is this an issues of Nationhood and borders in general, or the specific parts of a settler state?
Again, just questions.
White people are settlers, yes. Its not just this simple tho, because of a lot of reasons I cannot afford the time too but It is true materially and culturally that white people are settlers. Many white people own land that goes back to land grabs and handouts during conquest and allotment. Land that was directly stolen and occasionally even has sacred sites. This is ongoing. There are still examples of land being stolen from Native children and other crimes.
It should be noted that this is not meant as a moral statement. I am a settler, although I have no land of my own, my family does, and they certainly taught me settler politics and thinking.
Land Back is a platitude. Its not some robust, well defined goal. This is both a strength and a weakness. Allow me to explain.
Land Back has different meanings for different Tribes, individuals, times, and places. Usually, it starts with Treaty Lands which were established via treaty in the 19th century. Native Nations have a legal right to this land according to settler constitutional law, but the settler state has historically not held up its own laws on this or outright failed to ratify the treaty in DC while Indigenous peoples were forced into concentration camps. So there are legal battles about Treaties that make up a big part of Land Back. This is a huge can of worms itself because it means that it is legally true than some entire major cities are on Native land yet Native institutions have no say in what goes on. Corporate lawyers that work for Exxon for example, end up arguing on behalf of the state that it would cause chaos to recognize constitutional legal processes and sometimes it works but there have been examples of legal jurisdictions being changed due to these court battles over treaties.
Sacred sites are also a part of it. Usually, Tribes are unable to get these sites protected unless they try to protect them from an environmental perspective, or if they can purchase them outright.
At the end of the day I think Land Back points toward the death of Amerika. It is not merely about sacred sites and treaties, it is an eternal political struggle against an occupier that has destroyed the landscape and has caused such damage to the global ecosystem that extinction is looming. Land Back is about the survival of Indigenous people first and foremost. But it can only lead to full decolonization if successful. So yes, all land back.
Now back to white people. Ive never heard anyone sincerely say white people have to be expelled. In fact it is usually detractors that say this. Of course there will be some violence. Bill Gates and Ted Turner own a fucking shit ton of Native land and frankly I dont care if they lose every single acre. Same for other fat cats and reactionaries. But remember, Land Back is about survival, not about evoking a deadly reaction from powerful settlers, vigilantes, or the state, so its very political ad it is driven by contradiction.
Personally, I think that undermining the settler state and the conditions of colonialism will end up abolishing whiteness and settler sensibilities over time. Indigenaity and the settler quality are a unity and struggle of opposites that is born of colonialism, so challenging colonial foundations is what I find to be an intuitive way forward.
There is a lot of trauma around the "am I Indigenous" question among Indigenous people due to colonial violence, so of course having a ton of white settlers around is confusing from an identity stand point. But there are plenty of Tribal institutions with members and maintained history and culture. The question to me is more how should us white communists fighting for decolonization see ourselves. I see myself based on a future id like to see, one without the American colonial project holding together a global empire. Not on some sense of shared history among settlers which imo PatSocs utilize. This, along with self criticism and centering Tribal leadership can undermine the superstructural parts of whiteness too. We need to build a system that can reproduce itself as it builds towards communism and so we cant rely on settler sensibilities, naratives or structures. Basically, North America needs to again be indigenized on the terms of Indigenous people and institutions in order to escape colonial development and discourse, and enter a situation where contradictions lead towards classless society instead of fascist reactions.
The proletariat is that wretched underclass of workers that is inherently revolutionary due to internal contradictions within capitalism. You can be a wage earning worker and not have revolutionary quality and this is typically the case in the US and Europe. There has always been a working class of settlers and slaves. But which are revolutionary? Not the settlers. There are material reasons for this. It is not a mere moral statement.
Yes. They are not slaves. They are paid more than their counterparts throught the exploitation of the global proletariat and the theft of land.
There is class conflict in colonial discourse but it is the petite bourgeoisie/labir aristocracy (settlers) vs the huate bourgeoisie (finance, MIC, oil). Of course the haute bourgeoisie is primarily calling the shots and this sometimes pisses off the petite bourgeoisie but historically they have used settlers as an army/occupation force and this has always given settlers political power within the state. People will say this is changing and that things are getting worse for the settlers. They usually leave out its getting worse for most of the periphery too. The huate bourgeoisie need a labor aristocracy for their empire to stand. Labor aristocracy and settler quality is a feature of imperialism that isnt dying out just because this generation cant afford a house as easily as their dad did.
My answer is that I think its dialectical. Sublation of the current arrangement is the way forward. But this is not a matter of policy, it is a matter of contradictions developing the course of history. We should not imagine some ideal and then dogmaticly try to work towards that. We should embrace contradiction. That being said, much of settler sensibility is counter revolutionary, so something has to give on that front. And people doubling down on settler notions is toxic to the development of communism. There needs to be a process of existential death and rebirth alongside undermining capitalism itself.
I do think that by seeking to "return to the way things were" does have some merrit tho. Because we need to develop from a plave that is not baked in colonialism. This has a lot of implications, but basically, Id rather push towards classless society from within the contradictions of Native class systems and lifeways. This is why i typically say America needs two revolutions in other posts.
White people are not part of the Indigenous nation, definitely not just by location. Its not as simple as borders. Indigenous communities are defined by relations. This is a difficult topic to get into because im white and I dont really want to speak to how any Indigenous nation defines itself and I am very uncomfortable saying that white people of today should pursue joining a Tribe or something. White people already do this and it is destructive.
Hopefully this is somewhat helpful in explaining myself but it is a lot to answer.
Okay this helpful but I have a few more questions.
So I agree, that non indigenous people are part of the settler state and thus are considered settlers, but why are they (specifically white people) considered non revolutionary? (I mean we are both considered settlers, yet we are communists)
Is it not in the best interests of both to dismantle the Empire? Is that labour aristocracy exists? Cause I don't think that is strong as it is anymore and especially with inflation, it seems to be reaching a screeching halt.
Isn't it more that the state itself funnels, or least tries to, white people into petty bourgeois positions to separate the working class, instead of every single white person being of petty bourgeoisie class? Because it feels pretty Un Marxist to say blue collar, trailer park types aren't proletarian, but maybe that's what you were getting at and I misconstrued. But even then, arent petty bourgeois intrests with the proletariat?
Now sorta related, but should MLs in North America, especially the US, support every single secession movement or only specific ones? Should we support Texas seceding because it will be less colonized, and will weaken the Empire, plus might get the ball rolling other "states"?
Again, no malice just questions.
Tuck and Yang are pessimistic about the revolutionary potential of settlers because their interests are incommensurable with the interests of the oppressed indigenous people. That is, from an analysis of the interests of settlers, we can see that while settlers have an interest in dismantling the empire, that interest comes from the analysis exposed by Marx - that bourgeois society threatens the ability of society to reproduce us itself sustainably. The problem here is that from the interests of indigenous people, their interest is in settler society not reproducing itself at all. These interests are materially in opposition, they are contradictory, and therefore, the liberation of the indigenous people cannot be born from the interests of settlers. We must work against the interests of settlers, and that means, ultimately, repressing them, because they will react to things that threaten their interests. Hence, they are reactionary and not revolutionary.
I believe the analysis is pointing to the idea that those who support developing a sustainable society must support the weakening of the US empire and the strengthening of indigenous sovereignty even when doing so undermines the revolutionary potential of white settler society.
Not just. It views EVERYONE that came to the Americas through European conquest as settlers. That includes slaves and subsequent waves of immigrants.
"Decolonization is not a Metaphor" gives a strong analysis of why. https://clas.osu.edu/sites/clas.osu.edu/files/Tuck%20and%20Yang%202012%20Decolonization%20is%20not%20a%20metaphor.pdf
In summary, it's because settler colonialism is not a historical event, it is a living system that at its core is a system with the function of oppressing indigenous people through physical, economic, political, social, cultural, religious, and other means. Each non-white person that owns a house or rents from a landlord is participating in the settler colony, whether they want to or not, because their survival interests rely on it. Settler colonies convert land into property as part of their processes. While property exists, settlerism exists, while non-indigenous people own and interact with property, they are settlers active participating in the settler system.
Land Back is a movement to invert the power hierarchy and provide sovereignty of all colonized land to the indigenous people who are today oppressed. The indigenous peoples will use that sovereignty as they see fit. Inevitably, all settlers will experience at minimum transitional oppression as they will lose their way of life in part or in full. Land Back is not predicated on settlers feeling comfortable with whatever the outcomes are.
This is idealism and not part of the Land Back analysis. White people don't exist.
It's not the state, it's the society. If the state were to change its form, it would still be a settler state. It can be nothing but. The state cannot become indigenous. The state can only cede sovereignty.
We're not talking about ideals like fairness. We're talking about the material analysis of society. It does not matter that peasants became proletarians. What matters is that the interests of the peasants and the proletarians are incommensurable with the interests of the indigenous people who are oppressed by the society that is perpetuated by the peasants and the proles. It's not the state that is oppressive, the state is merely a component of the violently oppressive society that every day harms the indigenous people of Turtle Island. That the people are enslaved to the system makes no difference because returning sovereignty to the indigenous people harms those who are enslaved as much as it harms those who are not enslaved.
Not inherently, no. You'd have to make the case.
This statement erases the indigenous peoples completely. It is the single most clarion example of the problem. 8% of indigenous people in the US can speak their own language. They are living through their own genocide. The new conditions that you speak of forming are new conditions only for the settlers. The conditions that formed for the indigenous are those of mass slaughter, destruction of autonomy, destruction land. It is disingenuous to call the slaughter of every single buffalo on the plains a "new condition formed for all working people". It is disingenuous to call the destruction of clean water for the creation of oil pipelines a "new condition formed for all working people".
Not that I'm aware of.
It could be said that I've answered this above. Read Tuck and Yang (above). They go into detail about how many of the white people that claim "we all have Indian blood in us from some ancestor somewhere" is quite literally the claim to innocence based on the fact that indigenous women were raped and their children were forcibly taken from them and integrated into settler society.
It is an issue of contradictions inherent in systems of oppression. The idea of nationhood and borders arises from understanding the contradiction inherent in a society founded on a systemic form of genocide, mass murder, destruction of land, destruction of biodiversity, and oppression that is intrinsic in the system's functioning, that cohabitates the same historical processes that the society inhabits, and continues every moment that the society exists.