To put it as plainly as possible, if the proponents of the U.S. settler-colonialism theory are correct, then there is no basis whatsoever upon which to build a multinational working class communist party in this country. Indeed, such a view sees the “settler working class” as instruments of colonialism, hostile to the interests of the colonized people, rather than viewing all working and oppressed people as natural allies in the struggle against imperialism, our mutual oppressor.
A shame, a sad sad shame. For anyone that’s read settlers, or knows about the history of labor zionism, or prioritizes any kind of indigenous voice in their praxis, this is really bad. No peace for settlers! Settlers cannot lead the revolution! I hope we see an end to any respect given to this “settler colonialism is over” politic soon.
Are there a lot of reactionary white people? Yes. Are there a lot of reactionary Americans in general, yes. That being said, I don’t think it’s really realistic to think that all Americans aren’t capable of organizing for revolution. America is a settler colony, this is true, but it’s already established and it’s inhabitants don’t stand as much to lose as the settlers in Israel if Israel collapsed tomorrow. I don’t think the average American has as much affinity to the Idea of being “American” as much as the average Israeli settler does to being an “Israeli”.
It’s not necessarily that they can’t organize, I just think they’ve been trying to lead parties when the only really successful attempt at an ML communist party in America has been from the Black Panther Party and that’s for good reason. I see what EFF has been doing in South Africa to move on from some of the failures of the SACP which feel very similar to those of the CPUSA and I think it ought to be learned from. There are quite a few white people in the EFF as well, it’s just that they aren’t the majority in the org.
I just think they’ve been trying to lead parties when the only really successful attempt at an ML communist party in America has been from the Black Panther Party and that’s for good reason.
Successful seems really arbitrary here. CPUSA Pre-fuckery times was majority a white party, and yet it was virtually one of the few meaningful political bodies for black people at the time. We’re talking about becoming organized to reversing death convictions for Black men who were accused of raping a white girl, formation of the first sharecropper unions, being a cornerstone for agitating for the new deal, etc. No one race was leading over another, and they were all working in common.
I read through it and I’m sort of confused what the sides of the argument even are here, apart from arguing over abstractions of terminology.
I’m going to be honest with you, there aren’t really sides here and it genuinely seems like OP hates anyone who the system would label white.
Like I can’t even understand who he wants to lead the revolution other then… “pure” Native Americans and maybe “pure” African-Americans descended from slaves. Which is barely 2-3% of the population if every one in those groups was 100% on board.
Nevermind, going through their posts OP believes that only a decolonial indigenous-only movement is capable of facilitating a communist Revolution in the west. Also creating a government that is representative of the people is also bad, only an indigenous led government and state is allowed. What an utter lunacy of a statement.
Yeah, I’ve had multiple convos with them where I wasn’t entirely clear what their stance is other than centering indigenous struggle (which is sort of vague when, like you point out, the % is so low). If they just think “any not indigenous in leadership bad”, that seems way too simplistic and naive. That said, I believe in the idea even the article seems to include as valid:
The demands of indigenous peoples deserve special consideration and are distinct: full sovereignty and national development of indigenous peoples, and the protection of their cultures, languages and traditions.
The way I’ve understood it in the past is that indigenous liberation and black liberation in the US need a certain amount of independent power as distinct from relying on the good graces of the institution of whiteness. But that said institution, developed over hundreds of years with some pretty arbitrary distinctions made up along the way (like how the Irish in the US weren’t considered white at first), also needs to be dismantled. And it may be that in order for it to be dismantled with security for the most marginalized groups, they need a certain amount of independence of power to guard against revising how it works rather than dismantling it. Along with just needing the sovereignty of culture and so on, in the case of the indigenous.
But none of this means those who would count as descended from settlers can’t hold any power at all; without the numbers there, I just don’t understand the logistics of how it would work. And while there are some people who are considered “white” europeans who are close enough to their ethnic ancestry they could return home and get citizenship, plenty others aren’t (nor does such a path have anything to do with indigenous sovereignty and flourishing necessarily; I’ve never heard of indigenous groups endorsing a mass exodus of “settlers” from the US, but maybe I’m not tuned into the right sources of information). As it is, without time for indigenous groups to have the pressure off and rebuild, simple abandonment of the locale would leave a hell of a lot of cleanup behind for far too few people to fix. The geographical area that counts as the US is huge, one of the largest areas designated as a country in the world, and full of capitalist waste and infrastructure. It’s going to require a lot of people power (in sheer numbers) to address that and begin to get it back to a mode that is more centered on being caretakers for the land.
So I guess for me, it comes down to: On the one hand, I would like to be able to say simplistically “oust the settlers and put the indigenous in power.” But having grown up in the US and having a decent level of familiarity with how things are here, it’s hard for me to wrap my head around the logistics of doing so. It seems like there’d sooner be the US split into lots of smaller states without the federal than see something on the federal scale of the US that is indigenous run. I understand there can be issues of white people betraying non-white historically, in working class and other like movements in the US, which I can only guess is where the staunchness of it comes from. But there’s still the matter of the sheer amount of logistical planning and decision-making of scale when we’re talking about the size of the land and the 330 some million people living within it. There are those western chauvinists who don’t care at all and just want better working conditions for white working class people, and they are a real concern, but I don’t see that as being the same as white people who are doing what they can to reject whiteness and organize in solidarity with the most marginalized, where possible and desired.
I do think we won’t ever see this kind of communist America with federal control, as the concept of America was a settler construct to begin with. I understand the logistical issue, but it’s important to understand many areas do have active indigenous presence that could lead governance and steward the land. Many areas have large ghettoized black populations that would be in their best interest to be able to govern the communities they understand and economies they do the labor for. The main idea is taking the settler out of the populace, the white out of the euro-american. Having black people teaching the schools and hiring people and otherwise leading society as to flip this relation on its head and nullify the benefits of white supremacy. Many people will move back to Europe in this process and the rest will either go along and contribute to a new society or need to be policed and prevented from interfering. It’ll largely depend on the specific areas and the forms of governance able to take power, and likely will be an ugly balkanization that deals mostly with preventing white supremacists from ruining society building projects, but this has always been inevitable.
The problem with such statements is that they are inherently defeatist attitudes that only breed complacency and apathy, as if you’re right, then what the hell is the point of trying to organize within nations such as the United States. Further how do you classify who is a settler in a state such as the modern day United States? Do you lock mixed race people out of the movement as well? How about if they are white passing? Or how about recent “white immigrants”? What about the millions of white appearing people descended from settlers that live in abject poverty or are crushed under the oppression of capitalism? You can’t seriously believe that there’s absolutely no way such people could be mobilized or organized to join or lead a revolution, can you?
In such a racially and ethnically diverse nation like the United States, do you genuinely believe that you will ever effectively mobilize the working class if you limit your demographics to… who exactly? “Pure” Native Americans and “pure” black individuals who can trace their roots back to slavery and have no race mixing in their lineage?
I also fail to see the issue with the article, the author agrees that the United States is a settler colonial project, and that the lasting consequences of this must be addressed within a socialist society. However, all he states is that chasing bizarre notions of racial purity when organizing only sets back the movement by isolating elements of the working class that are ripe for education and radicalization. What do you see wrong with his statements?
Ok, lets say you’re right and are able to effectively exclude who you label settlers. Ok… what now? How does this benefit your organizing, popularity among the proletariat, and ability to sway the population to your side?
The issue with the article is that it practically implies that there aren’t any contradictions between settlers and non-settlers. It acts as if settlers class interests don’t often align with that of the bourgeoisie. Practically an outright denial of the labour aristocracy. And let’s just be honest, no one has ever advocated for barring white people from participating in the workers’ movement. Not one.
OPs past comments explicitly state that that’s what they wish for.
Also this is a conflation of the current stage of settler colonialism in states such as Zionist Israel and the United States. Settler interests are not a thing anymore in the United States, beyond maintaining the systems of power and consequences of previous colonial policy. Also no one is denying the labour aristocracy, however being a “settler” does not impart magical labour aristocracy privilege to even the vast majority of “white” people directly descendant from settlers.
Also labour aristocracy arises from workers exploiting super profits from external colonies. How does the author sweep aside that in any way?
Not once in the article is it mentioned that certain parts of the “multinational” US have vested interest in imperialism and internal exploitation. I’ll show you two places where this is completely omitted despite being crucial to the topic
This is because workers of all nationalities, both oppressed nationality workers and white workers, toil shoulder to shoulder on assembly lines and shop floors, in kitchens, warehouses and offices, from coast to coast. Even as national oppression puts greater pressure on oppressed nationality workers, they are still forged into one multinational working class together with their white siblings as they suffer exploitation together under the same bosses.
The multinational working class and the liberation movements of oppressed nationalities found themselves with a common enemy – the monopoly capitalist class. Thus, a united front against monopoly capitalism, based on the strategic alliance of the multinational working class and the oppressed nations, became both possible and necessary.
OP didn’t mention that in this thread though. Albeit i haven’t checked their past comments on other threads
I would suggest reading through their comments. They believe that no one beyond black individuals descended from slaves and indigenous population deserve to participate and lead revolutionary organizations and that white participants can neither understand nor have a place in a decolonial world.
They froth at the mouth about “Starbucks leftists” over and over. This person is not serious.
“Deep issues due to the settler base of the parties”
Ie: it’s not government interference or other issues, it’s the white people who ruin everything.
Okay, yeah i don’t agree with that view. I just misunderstood OPs views
Still a sprinkle of truth to be found in there though. Specifically when they mention CPUSA, Maki, SACP struggling with the labour aristocracy due to, again, many of them having a vested interest in maintaining the present state of things.
I mean, that’s what I believe. I don’t think settlers can’t participate but they need to be subjegated to the actual proletariat (ie join the PFLP and not Maki, the EFF not SACP) and focus on decolonial marxism and not a labor politics that ignores very real contradictions. When they lead a communist party, you have a party with labor aristocracy conciousness. Also, I don’t think Ive ever mentioned “starbucks leftists” like was claimed, no clue where that came from other than trying to make me out as a crypto conservative
Alr, thanks for clarifying
No one said anything about the labour movement in the US needing to bar white people from participating in it. The problem with the article is that, one, it is completely unnecessary because, again, no one had advocated for barring white people from organising. It’s just pointless. Two, it outright denied the existence of a labour aristocracy which is often aligned with the bourgeoisie. This is seen in the text the OP quoted.
“No one said anything….”
Who is OP referring to then. Which group of people do we think op is talking about.
“Settlers cannot lead the revolution!” doesn’t mean white people shouldn’t be barred from organising. Settlers have a vested interest in protecting the racist, colonial institutions of the US. This does not say settlers should be barred from leadership positions, it says that the interests of the settler colonial class shouldn’t dictate what the revolutionary movement does. The same thing as you wouldn’t want the labour aristocracy in charge of labour movements, as they have vested interest in protecting the current order. Look at what happened to the communist parties of the US and Europe.
OP gave the game away. They legitimately just despise white people and saying that white people should not be part of the revolutionary movement is exactly what they meant with their statement.
This seems to be a category error. Settler and white aren’t synonyms even if there is significant overlap in a white supremacist system.
Then who is a settler in the United States at this point? For Israel the distinction is easy. The lines are to muddied in the US.
Yes it is a white supremacist system, but settlerism is entirely obsolete save for the vestiges of colonial policies that are still maintained.
Even the American liberals realise that vast differences exist in the wealth of the different races in America that are the direct result of explicit discrimination that existed just 2-3 generations ago and implicit discrimination that still exists today. The existence of a settler class in America is undeniable.
Finding out which individual belongs to which class is one the other, almost always a pointless endeavour since classes are an emergent phenomena in groups of people.
Again, you are conflating race and settlerism. The US is a white supremacist state, but you are using settler and race interchangeably.
Who is a settler?
Again, you are conflating race and settlerism
Race is entirely a product of settlerism in the first place.
Who is a settler?
The settler class as a whole inherited humongous amounts of real estate wealth (which then exploded exponentially further under neoliberalism) and live in the more developed neighbourhoods of the country.
Think of suburban single family homeowners. These people are settlers in the truest sense of the word. They are the urbanised version of the settler yeoman farmer. They use more land, water and energy than basically any non-bourgeois class on earth, and by a long shot.
Their lifestyle and luxury is fueled by government subsidies (distributed on a racial basis) to the massively inefficient infrastructure and agriculture needed to sustain them.
When I say that the US and Canada continue to practice settler colonialism and still have a settler mode of production, I mean it quite literally. North american suburbs are notorious for their urban sprawl, that is, uncontrolled expansion, which is/was fueled by tearing apart dense developments suitable for the lifestyles of the proletariat. Not to mention that the urban proletariat’s production is siphoned off to the suburbs via the government.
The author doesn’t refute labour aristocracy? He simply states that even the labour aristocracy can be mobilized against the the bourgeoisie because they themselves are suffering under capitalism.
A McDonald’s worker is “labour aristocracy”, do you think they aren’t ripe for radicalization? The author is stating that pushing them away from the movement based on race is foolhardy and bizarre.
