this post was submitted on 30 Dec 2024
46 points (94.2% liked)
Ask Lemmygrad
871 readers
134 users here now
A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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!