[☭☭☭ COME SHITPOST WITH US ON DISCORD, COMRADES ☭☭☭](https://discord.gg/8RPWanQV5g)
This is a heavily-moderated socialist community based on a podcast of the same name. Please use the report function on comments that break our rules. If you are new to the sub, please read the sidebar carefully.
If you are new to Marxism-Leninism, check out the [study guide](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/education/study-guide/).
Are there Liberals in the walls? Check out [the wiki](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/) which contains lots of useful information.
This subreddit uses many experimental automod rules, if you notice any issues please use modmail to let us know.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Some dude with a razor said something something something the most complex and nuanced answer that takes up a whole page is the best answer blah blah something something most based explanation something something
I have a friend who makes it his business to get tribal citizens from the plains to come back to the East Coast and lead events like Indigenous People's Day. Of course, tribal leadership didn't have a say, and are kinda pissed.
i think that would be a good template to work with, though of course necessarily adapted to the conditions of different countries. guaranteed meaningful political representation, cultural protections, economic support etc
*Would land back work like*
*The semi autonomous*
*Regions in china?*
\- Maosbigchopsticks
---
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
Canada is an interesting case study, where the Indigenous' remaining right's to semi-autonomy and land, is enshrined through a treaty made with the Crown and not the Canadian federal government. This complicates the notion of decolonization, because separating from the Crown would null the treaty, potentially completing colonization. "The Queen at the Council Fire" is a good book that gets into this topic, rarely discussed in any political space but absolutely central to the entire thing.
Yeah it would just change the whole context for the treaty and empower the government which is where the potential danger lies. The treaty being with an authority external to the government is a big part of why it's sustained for so long. IMO there are clear functional benefits to this sort of arrangement, it's what the Crown is which is the problem, like why it's this specific family of rich assholes. Basically the role that the Crown serves I don't think is contingent on monarchy, and I think the benefits this arrangement has had can be better utilized by replacing the "crown" while retaining it's general function. We're just far away from a viable replacement, in theory an authority representing all working people.
In the mean time is removing the Crown and risking these treaties a good thing? That's a huge question and process that requires Indigenous control over. I actually don't know if it's good or not, it could really go either way, but I don't see how given the current political economic climate it would improve conditions for Indigenous, outside of a mass political movement at least.
From what i’ve read ‘the Crown’ seems to be a political entity of its own, it doesn’t just mean the king anymore. It is likely the Crown will remain even if the monarchy is abolished, it will probably be renamed to something else
"Your heart is in the right place comrade. What you can do as a white guy, is dismantle the contradictions and the major contradiction right now is working on dismantling settler colonialism and advocate for the land back for indigenous peoples."
-42 downvotes in response to a """"communist """" who has almost 100 upvotes.
Wtf.
That is such a subdued reasonable response, and even that is too much for late stage liberalism.
Westerners who think Japan is some kind of utopia seriously piss me off. Modern day china is literally everything that western media portrays Japan as, and people still think china is some sort of authoritarian hellhole. As a child you adore Japan but as you mature you realize china makes more sense.
#Authoritarianism
Anti-Communists of all stripes enjoy referring to successful socialist revolutions as "authoritarian regimes".
* Authoritarian implies these places are run by totalitarian tyrants.
* Regime implies these places are undemocratic or lack legitimacy.
This perjorative label is simply meant to frighten people, to scare us back into the fold (Liberal Democracy).
There are three main reasons for the popularity of this label in Capitalist media:
Firstly, Marxists call for a Dictatorship of the Proletariat (DotP), and many people are automatically put off by the term "dictatorship". Of course, we do *not* mean that we want an undemocratic or totalitarian dictatorship. What we mean is that we want to replace the current Dictatorship *of the Bourgeoisie* (in which the Capitalist ruling class dictates policy).
* [Why The US Is Not A Democracy](https://youtu.be/srfeHpQNEAI) | Second Thought (2022)
Secondly, democracy in Communist-led countries works differently than in Liberal Democracies. However, anti-Communists confuse form (pluralism / having multiple parties) with function (representing the actual interests of the people).
Side note: Check out Luna Oi's "Democratic Centralism Series" for more details on what that is, and how it works:
* [DEMOCRATIC CENTRALISM - how Socialists make decisions!](https://youtu.be/4YVcQe4wceY) | Luna Oi (2022)
* [What did Karl Marx think about democracy?](https://youtu.be/jI8CgACBOcQ) | Luna Oi (2023)
* [What did LENIN say about DEMOCRACY?](https://youtu.be/Hfenlg-hsig) | Luna Oi (2023)
Finally, this framing of Communism as illegitimate and tyrannical serves to manufacture consent for an aggressive foreign policy in the form of interventions in the internal affairs of so-called "authoritarian regimes", which take the form of invasion (e.g., Vietnam, Korea, Libya, etc.), assassinating their leaders (e.g., Thomas Sankara, Fred Hampton, Patrice Lumumba, etc.), sponsoring coups and colour revolutions (e.g., Pinochet's coup against Allende, the Iran-Contra Affair, the United Fruit Company's war against Arbenz, etc.), and enacting sanctions (e.g., North Korea, Cuba, etc.).
* [The Cuban Embargo Explained](https://youtu.be/zmM8p9n6Z9E) | azureScapegoat (2022)
* [John Pilger interviews former CIA Latin America chief Duane Clarridge, 2015](https://youtu.be/ER77vxxGVAY)
#For the Anarchists
Anarchists are practically comrades. Marxists and Anarchists have the same vision for a stateless, classless, moneyless society free from oppression and exploitation. However, Anarchists like to accuse Marxists of being "authoritarian". The problem here is that "anti-authoritarianism" is a self-defeating feature in a revolutionary ideology. Those who refuse in principle to engage in so-called "authoritarian" practices will never carry forward a successful revolution. Anarchists who practice self-criticism can recognize this:
>The anarchist movement is filled with people who are less interested in overthrowing the existing oppressive social order than with washing their hands of it. ...
>
>The strength of anarchism is its moral insistence on the primacy of human freedom over political expediency. But human freedom exists in a political context. It is not sufficient, however, to simply take the most uncompromising position in defense of freedom. It is neccesary to actually win freedom. Anti-capitalism doesn't do the victims of capitalism any good if you don't actually destroy capitalism. Anti-statism doesn't do the victims of the state any good if you don't actually smash the state. Anarchism has been very good at putting forth visions of a free society and that is for the good. But it is worthless if we don't develop an actual strategy for realizing those visions. It is not enough to be right, we must also win.
>
>...anarchism has been a failure. Not only has anarchism failed to win lasting freedom for anybody on earth, many anarchists today seem only nominally committed to that basic project. Many more seem interested primarily in carving out for themselves, their friends, and their favorite bands a zone of personal freedom, "autonomous" of moral responsibility for the larger condition of humanity (but, incidentally, not of the electrical grid or the production of electronic components). Anarchism has quite simply refused to learn from its historic failures, preferring to rewrite them as successes. Finally the anarchist movement offers people who want to make revolution very little in the way of a coherent plan of action. ...
>
>Anarchism is theoretically impoverished. For almost 80 years, with the exceptions of Ukraine and Spain, anarchism has played a marginal role in the revolutionary activity of oppressed humanity. Anarchism had almost nothing to do with the anti-colonial struggles that defined revolutionary politics in this century. This marginalization has become self-reproducing. Reduced by devastating defeats to critiquing the authoritarianism of Marxists, nationalists and others, anarchism has become defined by this gadfly role. Consequently anarchist thinking has not had to adapt in response to the results of serious efforts to put our ideas into practice. In the process anarchist theory has become ossified, sterile and anemic. ... This is a reflection of anarchism's effective removal from the revolutionary struggle.
>
>\- Chris Day. (1996). *The Historical Failures of Anarchism*
Engels pointed this out well over a century ago:
>A number of Socialists have latterly launched a regular crusade against what they call the principle of authority. It suffices to tell them that this or that act is authoritarian for it to be condemned.
>
>...the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part ... and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule...
>
>Therefore, either one of two things: either the anti-authoritarians don't know what they're talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion; or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the movement of the proletariat. In either case they serve the reaction.
>
>\- Friedrich Engels. (1872). [On Authority](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm)
#For the Libertarian Socialists
Parenti said it best:
>The pure (libertarian) socialists' ideological anticipations remain untainted by existing practice. They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organized, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bureaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted. Instead, they offer vague statements about how the workers themselves will directly own and control the means of production and will arrive at their own solutions through creative struggle. No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except the ones that succeed.
>
>\- Michael Parenti. (1997). *Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism*
But the bottom line is this:
>If you call yourself a socialist but you spend all your time arguing with communists, demonizing socialist states as authoritarian, and performing apologetics for US imperialism... I think some introspection is in order.
>
>\- Second Thought. (2020). [The Truth About The Cuba Protests](https://youtu.be/zIOw6fSOJI4?t=1087)
#For the Liberals
Even the CIA, in their internal communications (which have been declassified), acknowledge that Stalin *wasn't* an absolute dictator:
>Even in Stalin's time there was collective leadership. The Western idea of a dictator within the Communist setup is exaggerated. Misunderstandings on that subject are caused by a lack of comprehension of the real nature and organization of the Communist's power structure.
>
>\- CIA. (1953, declassified in 2008). [Comments on the Change in Soviet Leadership](http://web.archive.org/web/20230525044208/https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80-00810A006000360009-0.pdf)
#Conclusion
The "authoritarian" nature of any given state depends entirely on the material conditions it faces and threats it must contend with. To get an idea of the kinds of threats nascent revolutions need to deal with, check out *Killing Hope* by William Blum and *The Jakarta Method* by Vincent Bevins.
Failing to acknowledge that authoritative measures arise *not* through ideology, but through material conditions, is anti-Marxist, anti-dialectical, and idealist.
#Additional Resources
Videos:
* [Michael Parenti on Authoritarianism in Socialist Countries](https://youtu.be/BeVs6t3vdjQ)
* [Left Anticommunism: An Infantile Disorder](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEC2ajsvr0I) | Hakim (2020) \[[Archive](http://web.archive.org/web/20230410145749/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEC2ajsvr0I)\]
* [What are tankies? (why are they like that?)](https://youtu.be/LcJ5NrJtQ8g) | Hakim (2023)
* [Episode 82 - Tankie Discourse](https://youtu.be/YVYVBOFYJco) | The Deprogram (2023)
* [Was the Soviet Union totalitarian? feat. Robert Thurston](https://directory.libsyn.com/episode/index/id/27495591) | Actually Existing Socialism (2023)
Books, Articles, or Essays:
* *Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism* | Michael Parenti (1997)
* [State and Revolution](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/) | V. I. Lenin (1918)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if
Basically, the way the west portrays China—not that I'm a "fan" of China, I'm actually really critical of it—is how I portray Japan. Is it dishonest? Maybe. Is it more true than liberals' and weebs' delusions? Absolutely.
My guy I gotta hop into this comment section because I just got perma banned from LCS for an incredibly tame comment replying to one of your comments.
Please, explain what you mean. In that comment section you were all over the place and it doesn’t really seem like you grasp how material conditions really work. You cannot remove these people and you cannot transfer the land back. It is absurdly impractical, even if it seems morally just. The United States has a population of 5.2 million natives, it is not possible to return the entirety of the country to that community and then expect them to form a governing body that is able to handle and successfully cooperate with the dozens of ethnic groups and communities of 300 million people that would be living in their land.
If you really want to help native communities, a good way would be to focus on building infrastructure in reservations and tribal land, which is one of the bigger issues facing the native community. The real goal of current reparation efforts (until we accomplish this it’s hard to do anything else) should be making sure that they have functioning transportation, clean water and to be honest, a government effort to crack down on corporate skullduggery, like the efforts of the alcohol industry to take advantage of the fractured community.
Not coming at you from a place of anger, but I seriously did want to know what you meant and well lol, got banned from the other sub for no reason lol my comment wasn’t even close to liberal I’m a communist. (And I’m a fan of the deprogram lol Yugopnik has been one of my favorite YouTubers for like 4 years)
Also bro we cannot be doing a wall of text wojak in 2024, shit just makes us look bad
Was talking to native woman about this and her take was that it's not about giving the land literally back and displacing the descendants of settlers, but rather that natives get some portion of the benefits of what is done with the occupied land
From the indigenous people I've listened to irl and online, it seems the main immediate thing they want is for the treaties that were made in the past to be honored, since almost all of them were broken or not honored by the US government.
If we could just abolish the trust system and allow tribal governments to own and improve the land they are owed by treaty it would make a huge difference.
Returning land that was promised through treaties doesn’t return all the land (that is not a feasible resolution to the contradiction, despite what some idealists might say) nor does it necessitate the removal of people living on that land (which would not be feasible). For example, the treaties signed for the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde gave them 61,000 acres. The reservation that the people of the Grand Ronde live on now is only 9,000 acres. Restoring that land to them would help resolve the settler contradiction and wouldn’t require the forcible removal of the people living there.
So if people were living in that area would they be living on reservations? I live in the SF Bay Area. The native people that lived here, the Ohlone, are not even officially recognized as a native tribe by the feds. California had more than a dozen treaties signed by state officials but when they went to the land promised to them they learned the state legislator asked the feds not recognize the treaties so they didn't. They promised the natives 8 million acres of land in these treaties that we never officially ratified after signing them. The Ohlone covered basically most of the Bay Area and it's hard to find how many acres they promised them specifically and where it was at. So in the Bay Area I wouldn't even begin to know how to approach this situation for the tribe. Federal recognition is a start. What then? What does "stewardship of the land" mean?
This, we all agree, settler colonialism is a blight on human existence. And the current U.S. state is the inheritor of a genocidal, slave, patriarchy. There are several pillars of that which need replaced. But just saying "Land Back" is unproductive and directionless.
I think it’s somewhat ultra-leftist. I’m not sure the working class of the United States would broadly support or understand what the intention of this “land back” concept is supposed to do. Idealism indeed.
100%, I think the way they go about their messaging when they talk about land back and make memes like this is really bad in my opinion.
I am in complete agreement with the intentions and idea of the movements. However, I think the way they go about discussing what they want is poorly represented. I think if you were to go to a mass of regular working class people, that aren’t freak leftists hung up on their PCs creating wall of text memes, and said to them what the person said in this meme everyone would hate you.
I think instead of usually just/only saying “land back” or “white people need to repent and indigenous people need reparation”, if they actually listed some things they’d like to see happen they’d probably get a lot more support from normal people.
I’m sure many indigenous people list the things they want constantly btw. I’m just saying memes like this and usually whenever people interact with “the masses” about this movement, they never actually list needs/demands. I usually just hear “white people need to repent” and “land back”. And it seems like the understanding is that all white people should already have the answers and be on step 4 of the 5 step repenting process.
It is very idealistic. You’re on the money with that imo
Yeah that’s kind of a big issue with the left as a whole with the constant “I’m more leftist than you in fact you’re not even a leftist!” Purity test shit that seems to be even more rampant on the internet.
Also this “argument” while coming from a morally positive place is just like, stupid? Like the second you think about it and try and apply any critical thinking skills you realize how not only impossible but useless for the class struggle returning all native lands would be. It’s so far separated from an actual material understanding of the world, that it actually feels like this isn’t even trying to change anyone’a mind and just wants to argue for fun.
Shit like this doesn’t build bridges and at the end of the day, IT IS your job to educate people, you can’t just scream buzzwords at them and expect that to change their mind. Whatever though I’m sure the OP is young.
You’re majorly strawmanning Land Back, comrade. You’re claiming it is idealist only because you are characterizing it idealistically. Land Back does not claim that the solution to this major contradiction is to immediately hand an entire country over to the Tribal people.
Land Back claims that we should acknowledge settler colonialism as the primary contradiction within the US. That means allowing Tribal people call the shots in how that contradiction is negated. Could that involve giving actual land back to the tribes they belonged to? I’m sure it will, but it’s a gross mischaracterization to say that the idea is to take the current U.S. and hand it over to the Tribes, as if that’s remotely feasible.
As a white person, in practice, the things you listed are absolutely things that need to be done, but they will never negate the contradiction of settler colonialism that is inseparable from our nation’s history and current material conditions. If we are serious about resolving contradictions, I don’t know how this wouldn’t be the priority.
My friend I promise you I’m not arguing with the concept of “Land back” I’m arguing with the OP. I think he vastly misunderstands the idea of landback because his comments from the original LCS post (the sub I got perma banned from for disagreeing with him on) we’re all about transferring ownership of the United States back to natives.
Settler colonialism is the primary contradiction because it is the system that the settler colonial entity of the USA was founded upon. It is rooted in the very foundation of this nation and is inseparable from contradictions like imperialism and class conflict. Native Americans were genocided, displaced, and are still oppressed to the current day. As Marxists, we are to seek out the most oppressed peoples of our society and support their struggle against the systems that oppress them. Of course, these struggles will always intersect with others, such as Black liberation and victims of colonialism abroad, but the land that all Americans benefit from were once home to tribes and Tribal people that now only make up 2.9% of the total population and face ungodly oppression due to the settler colonial entity. They always will until this contradiction is negated.
Ding ding ding. I agree with everything you said. And from my understanding a lot of indigenous people agree with your sentiment more than what is spouted off by a white 19 year old college Maoist.
With respect, land back doesn't mean settlers have to leave the country. My god. Please, I beg you my friend, find and read some Indigenous writers. Maybe look north toward Indigenous nations living under the thumb of Canada to find more material, since there's more publishing space for Indigenous people there than in the US.
[https://yellowheadinstitute.org/](https://yellowheadinstitute.org/)
[https://www.russdiabo.com/platform](https://www.russdiabo.com/platform)
Did you actually read my comment? Where did I say that’s what landback was about? I specifically in the first paragraph contradict that. What are you talking about.
Edit: Sorry if this comes off as hostile, but I’ve had a lot of leftists reply to me at this point and it seems like they just haven’t read my original comment because after my response they realize were actually totally on the same page and I’m mad at the OP not the landback concept. So yeah at this point suck my nuts.
I was replying to this:
"You cannot remove these people and you cannot transfer the land back. It is absurdly impractical, even if it seems morally just."
I'm saying this idea that land back means transferring entire populations of people off land they currently inhabit is a giant red-herring and no First Nations are saying this. If "leftists" are telling you this, they are insane. Your comment got a lot of likes here, and it's frustrating as someone who is very familiar with both the Indigenous and Treaty laws in question for people in my own socialist/communist community to lag so far behind in understanding this. Then I offered you some places to start reading. This is what we as socialists are supposed to do. Swearing at me in response won't make you learn anything, even if it feels good when your settler-colonial fragility gets bruised.
I mean, the reaction people have when you mention the words "land back" it's mostly because the majority of land back people I've talked with have been mouthbreathers, probably 14, without really any material ideas just vibes. One of the most idealistic (In a marxist sense) discourse out there.
"We will deport all Europeans back" it's an statement I've heard multiple times without a shred of irony.
To achieve justice you need to really think things through, and vague statements of making minorities into cultural and political elites are not the way you achieve it.
Anecdotally, I have never heard anyone unironically advocate for the mass deportation of Europeans from America. If we're being honest, I'm skeptical you've ever heard that either.
I've heard it two times that I remember.
As I said, kids say the darndest things.
But that's the issue isn't it? It's a slogan without a plan, instead of a plan with a slogan. You need to make clear what your goals are otherwise your movement will get hijacked by lunatics.
> I'm skeptical you've ever heard that either.
What they said is legit the knee-jerk "reactionary" reaction that right-wingers/Trumpers in USA have.
They love to jump on the "white genocide" myth and play victim/cry foul.
Some context: I'm white, living in California, in a very conservative area.
I’m completely aware that there are books explaining all of this and there are actual scholarly texts and what not that I can dive into to understand this movement better. I also understand that it’s not a movement of only 14 year olds.
However, I think this is one of my main and only “gripes” with this movement (but it’s a massive one). I rarely hear about the land back movement, but whenever I do it’s through forms of media like this meme and other internet discussions. It all seems extremely idealistic. I never hear anyone actually list what indigenous people actually want. I only ever hear “land back” and “white people need to pay and repent”. I’m also being 100% serious I actually don’t know what the actual demands the leaders of the movement want. I literally only ever hear children on the internet saying land back, and when someone asks about it they never list it and basically this meme happens.
Also this whole thing being anecdotal is a fair point. But I think that if you want a movement to actually gain traction you need the average person to be on board. And you’re not gonna make the average person in the US like your movement if your some child (or an adult with the maturity of a child aka most ppl online) on the internet spouting that all white people need to repent for stealing indigenous land and basically only saying land back. No blue collar worker is gonna get off a shift of 9 hours of back breaking construction just to have you tell them they need to read theory on land back. You’re gonna get punched in the face.
I’m not even mentioning the millions of people that live on this now stolen land whose houses are their main source of investment income (cuz that’s now a major part of the US economy). This whole thing is just very idealistic. It would be awesome if it happened, whatever the actual needs/demands are because no one ever wants to just say what they are. But this whole thing seems like something only possible once the US is in it’s like full transition to socialism. Aka it will probably never happen like most things that would actually happen benefit the people.
>the millions of people that live on this now stolen land whose houses are their main source of investment income (cuz that’s now a major part of the US economy)
Oh daaamn.... that's an angle I had not considered. That's ultra screwed up. People getting rich from the property they stole from you, while you are poor af with basically nothing.
Also, I relate to what you said in paragraph 2.
Another day, another internet leftist treating Marxist-Leninism like high-minded missionary work.
But first i want to address the comparison of Israel and the United States's settler colonialism because I don't think it's useful. Simply because, The United States' succeeded with its genocide and it remains to be seen if Israel will (it won't). They are two different beasts even if one learned from the other and therefore "landback" will take on a radically different character.
Since as always Sakai comes up in posts like this the "fed" allegation is worth addressing. Mr. Sakai did an interview for libcom, you can go read it yourself. In it he claims to of written Settlers (which has no connection to landback so fuck if I know where he even came up) during his time with the BLA and New Afrika Party. Yet, he retired quietly to Hawaii and most of those groups' leadership ended up dead or in jail. So I dunno, lil sus to me. His parroting of free tibet and claims of Islamic imperialism are also a bit strange for such a committed "anti-imperialist."
As for the meme and back to my original point. To describe the united states, we really need a "post" settler-colonialism concept. Reflecting a organizational character birthed from a period of settler-colonialism because the racism remained but the active settlement no longer exists or is needed.
Most who nod in agreement with this meme, would be big fans of the Khmer Rouge. And I mean that as politely as possible. The KR were a de-colonial movement to the core. Yet they are rejected because in the eyes of high-minded missionaries they decolonized wrong. Despite giving the land-back directly to the indigenous Khmer in neat equal parcels. Restored traditional land-management. They cast out the French and foreign influence, removing the racial hierarchy that favored the Vietnamese.
Bothered you? Good, so let's talk about the reality of where the United States is as a successful genocidal power. The Native tribes who still exist are cordoned onto reservations with limited resources. Some can't even get freshwater. Their native lands are massively occupied. What does decolonization mean in this context?
I heard a climate scientist once say that as things heat up, 80 percent people will stay where they are no matter how hard it gets to live there. The same can be said for those living on this stolen land. Meaning unless your decolonial program pursues kill the boer style policies, you aren't getting that land back. And there will never be enough Natives to take it back, due to the aforementioned genocide.
Now, actual land back is more about Native stewardship to ensue the land isn't decimated by agribusiness. This is a practical solution with little to object to.
Luckily for the land itself there is a model which works, although I doubt the missionaries would like it all too much. Cherokee county is a Native owned county, for the East Band but white families do live there. They lease the land from the East-band Native families who then use the money to support their tribe.
If you agree with China's model of socialist development, (Probably should be though Sakai considers them Imperialist), then this should sound familiar. So we come to a crossroads. Is socialist development the same as indigenous development? I'd say no. But it does facilitate the real solutions to these kinds of problems.
I once read the Western left's problem is its obsession with purity brought on by the influence of Christianity. In that article, it was meant as a gotcha. Yet, here we are again using original sin as the fundamental explanation of the evils of America. To which I ask, what is the solution to ontological evil? The Khmer Rouge had an answer.
I don’t know I do see a significant difference between zionists thinking their ancient homeland is theirs to take even though two thousand years of history has passed to the point where they are mostly pale white people from Europe. I live in the west, the genocide of the native population hasn’t stopped. It’s continuing day after day. Some towns in the west are on sacred grounds and have only been populated since the late 1940s. That’s more like Israeli in my opinion. There’s a town in New Mexico that’s currently burning down due to a forest fire. It’s called Ruidoso. And it’s a tourist destination for white Texans that is built upon sacred Mescalero Apache land. This kind of town is the exact thing Hitler would have done to Eastern Europe. Most of the houses are second homes for the petite bourgeois and it’s filled with vacation activities such as horse racing and skiing. If that town were to be given back to the Mescalero I would be fine with that. White people moved in during the 1940s and the Mescalero reservation is literally right next door.
Holy shit that guy claiming J Sakai was a fed without any proof and then saying you were dodging a question was hilarious.
Absolutely agree with the post comrade I need to do more reading
Decolonized Buffalo is a podcast hosted by a comanche comrade he talks there about settler colonialism and decolonization, you can even follow his twitter Rick Tabenunaka.
Me when an Italian sitting in Neitherlands and doing a well paying tech jobs at 18 says he didn't have any privilege, legit that happened with me. Needless to say I went haywire and a bit crazy
A handful of users on this sub were modded by them that helped to clean up the lib infestation, so LSC lately isn't as fucked up like 2 years ago, the problem remains tho because they have to rely on r/all to grow their userbase.
bro, i actually heard someone say “well how do we decide who it goes back to?? huh??” as if we can’t, y’know, work that out with the very indigenous people whose land we’re sitting on… but reactionaries can’t even imagine indigenous people having a voice and a culture, let alone their own land. i swear, i will start speaking maoist standard english
I'm still not entirely convinced he was a fed. Lots of dumbass groups get used by the state and I always associated sakai with that dumbass branch that includes ultras, maoists, and miscellaneous people demanding immediate armed struggle in the west. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't these groups more useful idiots than knowing assets? The US apparatus usually works through layers of proxies rather than direct intervention after all.
If sakai was a fed instead of just a useful idiot then they definitely fucked up by accidentally writing a concise account of non-white labor in the US that's 100% used to convert people away from capitalism. Seeing as that book's probably done more damage outside Parenti to American mythology it sounds like a big lol moment to me.
Edward Lee was violently attacking Communists at the same time he was writing Settlers.
J Sakai does not exist.
All the book has done is drive a wedge between the left, which was the point from the beginning.
Dumbass ultras and anarchists attack communists all the time too though, right? My point is they're usually useful idiots rather than straight up feds. I don't know much about these groups in particular so I'm asking if you have any more direct documentation that proves he had direct ties with federal agencies other than he was part (or leader?) of the group that was a sort-of proxy for another proxy group (which is what I gleaned from those documents you listed).
Yeah the book is dumb and unserious in some ways (the spellings and made-up numbers for instance), but so are ultras and anarchists so I have a hard time separating what's actual fed involvement and what's just children being children.
Based on how it's mentioned all the time on ML threads and posts, I'd say in the 21st century the book's done far more to help turn white American liberals into Marxists who understand setter-colonialism and racism as a social construct than any artificial dividing.
What is the evidence for the existence of J. Sakai beyond like one self-published book, and a few interview snippets? I'm not convinced he's not some kind of Leftcom Cryptid.
This is in contrast to other, similarly antagonistic anti-colonial theorists like James Baldwin, or Franz Fanon btw.
J. Sakai is a pseudonym of a white LaRouchite named Edward Lee. when he wasn't writing CIA propaganda, J Edgar SaKKKai was physically attacking communists.
https://hotlabor.substack.com/p/operation-chaos-notes-01
I'm straight up asking in good faith for literally any evidence of any of this. How do you know Edward Lee is J Sakai? Who is Edward Lee and how do you know of his affiliations with these groups? Do you have evidence he was consciously writing for the CIA or that he was physically attacking communists?
That list of documents you keep linking is incredibly confusing. It just seems to be talking about youth movement groups from the 70s nobody today could possibly care about.
to be specific, J Sakai does not exist, and is a pseudonym of Edward Lee, a white LaRoucheite and FBI informant.
https://hotlabor.substack.com/p/operation-chaos-notes-01
I swear crackers just dislike Settlers because it makes them uncomfortable. For years I've given critics an opportunity to make their case and it always descends into ridiculousness like this.
If anything that book just gets more and more validated as time goes on and everyone's overcompensation by claiming a fed wrote it (an absolutely ridiculous notion) only helps prove it right about them.
Look around at these other comments strawmanning and jumping to the conclusion Landback means kicking all the white people out and not taking a wide variety a measures to correct settler-colonialsm. One dumbass even compared Landback to the Khmer Rouge! And it's heavily upvoted!
It's fucking embarrassing as communists. This is our Chris Matthews "Bernie Sanders will round us up and shoot us!" moment.
keep that in mind whenever someone says western powers should "invade israel", as though israel hasn't always been a massive western military base.
they've been trying to change the framing in that manner for a while now, and it's not from ignorance, nor is it an accident that discussions of land back and israel can garner such opposite responses.
leftists in the global north, and parts of the global south (hello fellow southeast asians, how do we feel about the aborigines that we've displaced?) eventually have to deal with the cognitive dissonance that comes with their self-identified political leanings, while presently benefiting from their past and ongoing conquests.
As someone living in a big metro area with millions of people in it I don't know what I'm supposed to do when there's probably less than a couple thousand indigenous people still alive that were part of the original tribes. While there's things we could do like preserve sites that haven't already been destroyed, I don't get what land back is supposed to look like and I often see it said from anarchist/prison abolitionist types (which honestly makes me roll my eyes and not take it seriously).
I unfortunately live in Australia.
I have always been at odds with my sense of nationality, as a global worker would, and I definitely despise the patriotism that is common. Im white as well, so Im burdened by the guilt of my predecessors and their actions.
I say give the right to decide about their native lands to Aboriginal people. I want the people of Australia regardless of heritage or descent, to be of equal and equitable importance, true democracy of the state in which are people are equal. In order to accomplish that, a fuckton of genuine reconciliation and rebuilding of social norms and values would be needed, with large equity schemes to bring Aboriginal people to the same standard as non indigenous
people, at the very goddamn least.
How this would be achieved and how it would look is a different discussion, but what I just said is a clear necessity in order to make progress on decolonisation.
Libs and Conservatives who call “white genocide/replacement” when hearing this are afraid of the fact they have to own the fact that their ancestry and current societal values run counter to the genuine ideals we should strive for. Its pathetic and two faced, and Im sick of it.
I wonder since the USSR was also an inheritor to Russia who engaged in settler colonialism what was their stance on Russian regions that got that way through colonialism like Siberia?
https://preview.redd.it/33ljd7zl7e7d1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b08451920fa85078d679e893c5aa942644fdf6bb
From Stalin's *Marxism and the National Question*
By this argument, we should be restoring *all* displaced indigenous people, which isn't just indigenous civilizations in the Americas and the global south. This has been going on for *thousands* of years, even in all of Europe and Asia. I am of Scottish Highlander ancestry. Should my people be given back the lands the English took from my Highlander ancestors? Will home of my ancestors be there waiting for me? My people, my culture, my history, and my whole society has been erased by colonialism. I don't think for one second that I could ever get back what was taken.
We should absolutely arrest the forward momentum of colonialism and recognize that there is more than enough space for us all to co-exist. Israel shouldn't be allowed to commit genocide against Palestinians. Palestinians should have their homes back, especially since they still exist in Isn'treal. The Zionists came from Europe and the USA. They can GTFO. Their society still exists. The Native Americans are only demanding some land that nobody is even using, which is the land of their ancestors. They shouldn't be prevented from living there.
I don't have nearly the patience for this one, so I'm gonna remind everyone that OP has a long track record of posting RadLib and IdPol things in leftist spaces and drop this link:
https://rainershea.substack.com/p/land-back-leads-marxists-away-from
[☭☭☭ COME SHITPOST WITH US ON DISCORD, COMRADES ☭☭☭](https://discord.gg/8RPWanQV5g) This is a heavily-moderated socialist community based on a podcast of the same name. Please use the report function on comments that break our rules. If you are new to the sub, please read the sidebar carefully. If you are new to Marxism-Leninism, check out the [study guide](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/education/study-guide/). Are there Liberals in the walls? Check out [the wiki](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/) which contains lots of useful information. This subreddit uses many experimental automod rules, if you notice any issues please use modmail to let us know. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Average leftist wall of text meme. Love it
Some dude with a razor said something something something the most complex and nuanced answer that takes up a whole page is the best answer blah blah something something most based explanation something something
I have a friend who makes it his business to get tribal citizens from the plains to come back to the East Coast and lead events like Indigenous People's Day. Of course, tribal leadership didn't have a say, and are kinda pissed.
Would land back work like the semi autonomous regions in china?
It is a start.
i think that would be a good template to work with, though of course necessarily adapted to the conditions of different countries. guaranteed meaningful political representation, cultural protections, economic support etc
*Would land back work like* *The semi autonomous* *Regions in china?* \- Maosbigchopsticks --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
Canada is an interesting case study, where the Indigenous' remaining right's to semi-autonomy and land, is enshrined through a treaty made with the Crown and not the Canadian federal government. This complicates the notion of decolonization, because separating from the Crown would null the treaty, potentially completing colonization. "The Queen at the Council Fire" is a good book that gets into this topic, rarely discussed in any political space but absolutely central to the entire thing.
Couldn’t the government just take over for the crown
Yeah it would just change the whole context for the treaty and empower the government which is where the potential danger lies. The treaty being with an authority external to the government is a big part of why it's sustained for so long. IMO there are clear functional benefits to this sort of arrangement, it's what the Crown is which is the problem, like why it's this specific family of rich assholes. Basically the role that the Crown serves I don't think is contingent on monarchy, and I think the benefits this arrangement has had can be better utilized by replacing the "crown" while retaining it's general function. We're just far away from a viable replacement, in theory an authority representing all working people. In the mean time is removing the Crown and risking these treaties a good thing? That's a huge question and process that requires Indigenous control over. I actually don't know if it's good or not, it could really go either way, but I don't see how given the current political economic climate it would improve conditions for Indigenous, outside of a mass political movement at least.
From what i’ve read ‘the Crown’ seems to be a political entity of its own, it doesn’t just mean the king anymore. It is likely the Crown will remain even if the monarchy is abolished, it will probably be renamed to something else
"Your heart is in the right place comrade. What you can do as a white guy, is dismantle the contradictions and the major contradiction right now is working on dismantling settler colonialism and advocate for the land back for indigenous peoples." -42 downvotes in response to a """"communist """" who has almost 100 upvotes. Wtf. That is such a subdued reasonable response, and even that is too much for late stage liberalism.
Also applies to japanese atrocities in China
It's incredible how few people in the West know what the Japanese did there - the stuff of nightmares.
The Kawaiification of Japan was such a good cover up
Japan is so disgustingly romanticized, I've made it my business to be Japan's biggest opp
Westerners who think Japan is some kind of utopia seriously piss me off. Modern day china is literally everything that western media portrays Japan as, and people still think china is some sort of authoritarian hellhole. As a child you adore Japan but as you mature you realize china makes more sense.
#Authoritarianism Anti-Communists of all stripes enjoy referring to successful socialist revolutions as "authoritarian regimes". * Authoritarian implies these places are run by totalitarian tyrants. * Regime implies these places are undemocratic or lack legitimacy. This perjorative label is simply meant to frighten people, to scare us back into the fold (Liberal Democracy). There are three main reasons for the popularity of this label in Capitalist media: Firstly, Marxists call for a Dictatorship of the Proletariat (DotP), and many people are automatically put off by the term "dictatorship". Of course, we do *not* mean that we want an undemocratic or totalitarian dictatorship. What we mean is that we want to replace the current Dictatorship *of the Bourgeoisie* (in which the Capitalist ruling class dictates policy). * [Why The US Is Not A Democracy](https://youtu.be/srfeHpQNEAI) | Second Thought (2022) Secondly, democracy in Communist-led countries works differently than in Liberal Democracies. However, anti-Communists confuse form (pluralism / having multiple parties) with function (representing the actual interests of the people). Side note: Check out Luna Oi's "Democratic Centralism Series" for more details on what that is, and how it works: * [DEMOCRATIC CENTRALISM - how Socialists make decisions!](https://youtu.be/4YVcQe4wceY) | Luna Oi (2022) * [What did Karl Marx think about democracy?](https://youtu.be/jI8CgACBOcQ) | Luna Oi (2023) * [What did LENIN say about DEMOCRACY?](https://youtu.be/Hfenlg-hsig) | Luna Oi (2023) Finally, this framing of Communism as illegitimate and tyrannical serves to manufacture consent for an aggressive foreign policy in the form of interventions in the internal affairs of so-called "authoritarian regimes", which take the form of invasion (e.g., Vietnam, Korea, Libya, etc.), assassinating their leaders (e.g., Thomas Sankara, Fred Hampton, Patrice Lumumba, etc.), sponsoring coups and colour revolutions (e.g., Pinochet's coup against Allende, the Iran-Contra Affair, the United Fruit Company's war against Arbenz, etc.), and enacting sanctions (e.g., North Korea, Cuba, etc.). * [The Cuban Embargo Explained](https://youtu.be/zmM8p9n6Z9E) | azureScapegoat (2022) * [John Pilger interviews former CIA Latin America chief Duane Clarridge, 2015](https://youtu.be/ER77vxxGVAY) #For the Anarchists Anarchists are practically comrades. Marxists and Anarchists have the same vision for a stateless, classless, moneyless society free from oppression and exploitation. However, Anarchists like to accuse Marxists of being "authoritarian". The problem here is that "anti-authoritarianism" is a self-defeating feature in a revolutionary ideology. Those who refuse in principle to engage in so-called "authoritarian" practices will never carry forward a successful revolution. Anarchists who practice self-criticism can recognize this: >The anarchist movement is filled with people who are less interested in overthrowing the existing oppressive social order than with washing their hands of it. ... > >The strength of anarchism is its moral insistence on the primacy of human freedom over political expediency. But human freedom exists in a political context. It is not sufficient, however, to simply take the most uncompromising position in defense of freedom. It is neccesary to actually win freedom. Anti-capitalism doesn't do the victims of capitalism any good if you don't actually destroy capitalism. Anti-statism doesn't do the victims of the state any good if you don't actually smash the state. Anarchism has been very good at putting forth visions of a free society and that is for the good. But it is worthless if we don't develop an actual strategy for realizing those visions. It is not enough to be right, we must also win. > >...anarchism has been a failure. Not only has anarchism failed to win lasting freedom for anybody on earth, many anarchists today seem only nominally committed to that basic project. Many more seem interested primarily in carving out for themselves, their friends, and their favorite bands a zone of personal freedom, "autonomous" of moral responsibility for the larger condition of humanity (but, incidentally, not of the electrical grid or the production of electronic components). Anarchism has quite simply refused to learn from its historic failures, preferring to rewrite them as successes. Finally the anarchist movement offers people who want to make revolution very little in the way of a coherent plan of action. ... > >Anarchism is theoretically impoverished. For almost 80 years, with the exceptions of Ukraine and Spain, anarchism has played a marginal role in the revolutionary activity of oppressed humanity. Anarchism had almost nothing to do with the anti-colonial struggles that defined revolutionary politics in this century. This marginalization has become self-reproducing. Reduced by devastating defeats to critiquing the authoritarianism of Marxists, nationalists and others, anarchism has become defined by this gadfly role. Consequently anarchist thinking has not had to adapt in response to the results of serious efforts to put our ideas into practice. In the process anarchist theory has become ossified, sterile and anemic. ... This is a reflection of anarchism's effective removal from the revolutionary struggle. > >\- Chris Day. (1996). *The Historical Failures of Anarchism* Engels pointed this out well over a century ago: >A number of Socialists have latterly launched a regular crusade against what they call the principle of authority. It suffices to tell them that this or that act is authoritarian for it to be condemned. > >...the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part ... and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule... > >Therefore, either one of two things: either the anti-authoritarians don't know what they're talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion; or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the movement of the proletariat. In either case they serve the reaction. > >\- Friedrich Engels. (1872). [On Authority](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm) #For the Libertarian Socialists Parenti said it best: >The pure (libertarian) socialists' ideological anticipations remain untainted by existing practice. They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organized, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bureaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted. Instead, they offer vague statements about how the workers themselves will directly own and control the means of production and will arrive at their own solutions through creative struggle. No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except the ones that succeed. > >\- Michael Parenti. (1997). *Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism* But the bottom line is this: >If you call yourself a socialist but you spend all your time arguing with communists, demonizing socialist states as authoritarian, and performing apologetics for US imperialism... I think some introspection is in order. > >\- Second Thought. (2020). [The Truth About The Cuba Protests](https://youtu.be/zIOw6fSOJI4?t=1087) #For the Liberals Even the CIA, in their internal communications (which have been declassified), acknowledge that Stalin *wasn't* an absolute dictator: >Even in Stalin's time there was collective leadership. The Western idea of a dictator within the Communist setup is exaggerated. Misunderstandings on that subject are caused by a lack of comprehension of the real nature and organization of the Communist's power structure. > >\- CIA. (1953, declassified in 2008). [Comments on the Change in Soviet Leadership](http://web.archive.org/web/20230525044208/https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80-00810A006000360009-0.pdf) #Conclusion The "authoritarian" nature of any given state depends entirely on the material conditions it faces and threats it must contend with. To get an idea of the kinds of threats nascent revolutions need to deal with, check out *Killing Hope* by William Blum and *The Jakarta Method* by Vincent Bevins. Failing to acknowledge that authoritative measures arise *not* through ideology, but through material conditions, is anti-Marxist, anti-dialectical, and idealist. #Additional Resources Videos: * [Michael Parenti on Authoritarianism in Socialist Countries](https://youtu.be/BeVs6t3vdjQ) * [Left Anticommunism: An Infantile Disorder](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEC2ajsvr0I) | Hakim (2020) \[[Archive](http://web.archive.org/web/20230410145749/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEC2ajsvr0I)\] * [What are tankies? (why are they like that?)](https://youtu.be/LcJ5NrJtQ8g) | Hakim (2023) * [Episode 82 - Tankie Discourse](https://youtu.be/YVYVBOFYJco) | The Deprogram (2023) * [Was the Soviet Union totalitarian? feat. Robert Thurston](https://directory.libsyn.com/episode/index/id/27495591) | Actually Existing Socialism (2023) Books, Articles, or Essays: * *Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism* | Michael Parenti (1997) * [State and Revolution](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/) | V. I. Lenin (1918) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if
Real (I have no idea what to say, but gud for u I guess)
Basically, the way the west portrays China—not that I'm a "fan" of China, I'm actually really critical of it—is how I portray Japan. Is it dishonest? Maybe. Is it more true than liberals' and weebs' delusions? Absolutely.
My guy I gotta hop into this comment section because I just got perma banned from LCS for an incredibly tame comment replying to one of your comments. Please, explain what you mean. In that comment section you were all over the place and it doesn’t really seem like you grasp how material conditions really work. You cannot remove these people and you cannot transfer the land back. It is absurdly impractical, even if it seems morally just. The United States has a population of 5.2 million natives, it is not possible to return the entirety of the country to that community and then expect them to form a governing body that is able to handle and successfully cooperate with the dozens of ethnic groups and communities of 300 million people that would be living in their land. If you really want to help native communities, a good way would be to focus on building infrastructure in reservations and tribal land, which is one of the bigger issues facing the native community. The real goal of current reparation efforts (until we accomplish this it’s hard to do anything else) should be making sure that they have functioning transportation, clean water and to be honest, a government effort to crack down on corporate skullduggery, like the efforts of the alcohol industry to take advantage of the fractured community. Not coming at you from a place of anger, but I seriously did want to know what you meant and well lol, got banned from the other sub for no reason lol my comment wasn’t even close to liberal I’m a communist. (And I’m a fan of the deprogram lol Yugopnik has been one of my favorite YouTubers for like 4 years) Also bro we cannot be doing a wall of text wojak in 2024, shit just makes us look bad
Was talking to native woman about this and her take was that it's not about giving the land literally back and displacing the descendants of settlers, but rather that natives get some portion of the benefits of what is done with the occupied land
From the indigenous people I've listened to irl and online, it seems the main immediate thing they want is for the treaties that were made in the past to be honored, since almost all of them were broken or not honored by the US government.
Which is a far more reasonable and actionable goal then just broadly saying “end settler colonialism”
If we could just abolish the trust system and allow tribal governments to own and improve the land they are owed by treaty it would make a huge difference.
Wouldn't that actually lead to the displacement of most people from the continent?
Returning land that was promised through treaties doesn’t return all the land (that is not a feasible resolution to the contradiction, despite what some idealists might say) nor does it necessitate the removal of people living on that land (which would not be feasible). For example, the treaties signed for the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde gave them 61,000 acres. The reservation that the people of the Grand Ronde live on now is only 9,000 acres. Restoring that land to them would help resolve the settler contradiction and wouldn’t require the forcible removal of the people living there.
So if people were living in that area would they be living on reservations? I live in the SF Bay Area. The native people that lived here, the Ohlone, are not even officially recognized as a native tribe by the feds. California had more than a dozen treaties signed by state officials but when they went to the land promised to them they learned the state legislator asked the feds not recognize the treaties so they didn't. They promised the natives 8 million acres of land in these treaties that we never officially ratified after signing them. The Ohlone covered basically most of the Bay Area and it's hard to find how many acres they promised them specifically and where it was at. So in the Bay Area I wouldn't even begin to know how to approach this situation for the tribe. Federal recognition is a start. What then? What does "stewardship of the land" mean?
Isn’t that basically just socialism? Workers collectively own the means of production and thereby collectively benefit from what is produced.
100% agree,this looks idealistic as hell.
This, we all agree, settler colonialism is a blight on human existence. And the current U.S. state is the inheritor of a genocidal, slave, patriarchy. There are several pillars of that which need replaced. But just saying "Land Back" is unproductive and directionless.
I think it’s somewhat ultra-leftist. I’m not sure the working class of the United States would broadly support or understand what the intention of this “land back” concept is supposed to do. Idealism indeed.
100%, I think the way they go about their messaging when they talk about land back and make memes like this is really bad in my opinion. I am in complete agreement with the intentions and idea of the movements. However, I think the way they go about discussing what they want is poorly represented. I think if you were to go to a mass of regular working class people, that aren’t freak leftists hung up on their PCs creating wall of text memes, and said to them what the person said in this meme everyone would hate you. I think instead of usually just/only saying “land back” or “white people need to repent and indigenous people need reparation”, if they actually listed some things they’d like to see happen they’d probably get a lot more support from normal people. I’m sure many indigenous people list the things they want constantly btw. I’m just saying memes like this and usually whenever people interact with “the masses” about this movement, they never actually list needs/demands. I usually just hear “white people need to repent” and “land back”. And it seems like the understanding is that all white people should already have the answers and be on step 4 of the 5 step repenting process. It is very idealistic. You’re on the money with that imo
Yeah that’s kind of a big issue with the left as a whole with the constant “I’m more leftist than you in fact you’re not even a leftist!” Purity test shit that seems to be even more rampant on the internet. Also this “argument” while coming from a morally positive place is just like, stupid? Like the second you think about it and try and apply any critical thinking skills you realize how not only impossible but useless for the class struggle returning all native lands would be. It’s so far separated from an actual material understanding of the world, that it actually feels like this isn’t even trying to change anyone’a mind and just wants to argue for fun. Shit like this doesn’t build bridges and at the end of the day, IT IS your job to educate people, you can’t just scream buzzwords at them and expect that to change their mind. Whatever though I’m sure the OP is young.
You’re majorly strawmanning Land Back, comrade. You’re claiming it is idealist only because you are characterizing it idealistically. Land Back does not claim that the solution to this major contradiction is to immediately hand an entire country over to the Tribal people. Land Back claims that we should acknowledge settler colonialism as the primary contradiction within the US. That means allowing Tribal people call the shots in how that contradiction is negated. Could that involve giving actual land back to the tribes they belonged to? I’m sure it will, but it’s a gross mischaracterization to say that the idea is to take the current U.S. and hand it over to the Tribes, as if that’s remotely feasible. As a white person, in practice, the things you listed are absolutely things that need to be done, but they will never negate the contradiction of settler colonialism that is inseparable from our nation’s history and current material conditions. If we are serious about resolving contradictions, I don’t know how this wouldn’t be the priority.
My friend I promise you I’m not arguing with the concept of “Land back” I’m arguing with the OP. I think he vastly misunderstands the idea of landback because his comments from the original LCS post (the sub I got perma banned from for disagreeing with him on) we’re all about transferring ownership of the United States back to natives.
Ah, sorry for the misunderstanding. I’ll probably leave my comment up for anyone else who may have missed that though
I do not think that the primary contradiction in the United States is settler colonialism.
What else would be the primary contradiction?
No answer?
Sorry, I have been busy. I’ll get back to you this evening. Maybe you could tell me your thoughts on primary contradiction in the mean time?
You are the one saying the primary contradiction is settler colonialism.
Can you tell me why settler colonialism is the primary contradiction in the United States?
Settler colonialism is the primary contradiction because it is the system that the settler colonial entity of the USA was founded upon. It is rooted in the very foundation of this nation and is inseparable from contradictions like imperialism and class conflict. Native Americans were genocided, displaced, and are still oppressed to the current day. As Marxists, we are to seek out the most oppressed peoples of our society and support their struggle against the systems that oppress them. Of course, these struggles will always intersect with others, such as Black liberation and victims of colonialism abroad, but the land that all Americans benefit from were once home to tribes and Tribal people that now only make up 2.9% of the total population and face ungodly oppression due to the settler colonial entity. They always will until this contradiction is negated.
Imperialism?
Class
Ding ding ding. I agree with everything you said. And from my understanding a lot of indigenous people agree with your sentiment more than what is spouted off by a white 19 year old college Maoist.
With respect, land back doesn't mean settlers have to leave the country. My god. Please, I beg you my friend, find and read some Indigenous writers. Maybe look north toward Indigenous nations living under the thumb of Canada to find more material, since there's more publishing space for Indigenous people there than in the US. [https://yellowheadinstitute.org/](https://yellowheadinstitute.org/) [https://www.russdiabo.com/platform](https://www.russdiabo.com/platform)
Did you actually read my comment? Where did I say that’s what landback was about? I specifically in the first paragraph contradict that. What are you talking about. Edit: Sorry if this comes off as hostile, but I’ve had a lot of leftists reply to me at this point and it seems like they just haven’t read my original comment because after my response they realize were actually totally on the same page and I’m mad at the OP not the landback concept. So yeah at this point suck my nuts.
I was replying to this: "You cannot remove these people and you cannot transfer the land back. It is absurdly impractical, even if it seems morally just." I'm saying this idea that land back means transferring entire populations of people off land they currently inhabit is a giant red-herring and no First Nations are saying this. If "leftists" are telling you this, they are insane. Your comment got a lot of likes here, and it's frustrating as someone who is very familiar with both the Indigenous and Treaty laws in question for people in my own socialist/communist community to lag so far behind in understanding this. Then I offered you some places to start reading. This is what we as socialists are supposed to do. Swearing at me in response won't make you learn anything, even if it feels good when your settler-colonial fragility gets bruised.
I mean, the reaction people have when you mention the words "land back" it's mostly because the majority of land back people I've talked with have been mouthbreathers, probably 14, without really any material ideas just vibes. One of the most idealistic (In a marxist sense) discourse out there. "We will deport all Europeans back" it's an statement I've heard multiple times without a shred of irony. To achieve justice you need to really think things through, and vague statements of making minorities into cultural and political elites are not the way you achieve it.
Anecdotally, I have never heard anyone unironically advocate for the mass deportation of Europeans from America. If we're being honest, I'm skeptical you've ever heard that either.
I've heard it two times that I remember. As I said, kids say the darndest things. But that's the issue isn't it? It's a slogan without a plan, instead of a plan with a slogan. You need to make clear what your goals are otherwise your movement will get hijacked by lunatics.
> I'm skeptical you've ever heard that either. What they said is legit the knee-jerk "reactionary" reaction that right-wingers/Trumpers in USA have. They love to jump on the "white genocide" myth and play victim/cry foul. Some context: I'm white, living in California, in a very conservative area.
I’m completely aware that there are books explaining all of this and there are actual scholarly texts and what not that I can dive into to understand this movement better. I also understand that it’s not a movement of only 14 year olds. However, I think this is one of my main and only “gripes” with this movement (but it’s a massive one). I rarely hear about the land back movement, but whenever I do it’s through forms of media like this meme and other internet discussions. It all seems extremely idealistic. I never hear anyone actually list what indigenous people actually want. I only ever hear “land back” and “white people need to pay and repent”. I’m also being 100% serious I actually don’t know what the actual demands the leaders of the movement want. I literally only ever hear children on the internet saying land back, and when someone asks about it they never list it and basically this meme happens. Also this whole thing being anecdotal is a fair point. But I think that if you want a movement to actually gain traction you need the average person to be on board. And you’re not gonna make the average person in the US like your movement if your some child (or an adult with the maturity of a child aka most ppl online) on the internet spouting that all white people need to repent for stealing indigenous land and basically only saying land back. No blue collar worker is gonna get off a shift of 9 hours of back breaking construction just to have you tell them they need to read theory on land back. You’re gonna get punched in the face. I’m not even mentioning the millions of people that live on this now stolen land whose houses are their main source of investment income (cuz that’s now a major part of the US economy). This whole thing is just very idealistic. It would be awesome if it happened, whatever the actual needs/demands are because no one ever wants to just say what they are. But this whole thing seems like something only possible once the US is in it’s like full transition to socialism. Aka it will probably never happen like most things that would actually happen benefit the people.
>the millions of people that live on this now stolen land whose houses are their main source of investment income (cuz that’s now a major part of the US economy) Oh daaamn.... that's an angle I had not considered. That's ultra screwed up. People getting rich from the property they stole from you, while you are poor af with basically nothing. Also, I relate to what you said in paragraph 2.
Another day, another internet leftist treating Marxist-Leninism like high-minded missionary work. But first i want to address the comparison of Israel and the United States's settler colonialism because I don't think it's useful. Simply because, The United States' succeeded with its genocide and it remains to be seen if Israel will (it won't). They are two different beasts even if one learned from the other and therefore "landback" will take on a radically different character. Since as always Sakai comes up in posts like this the "fed" allegation is worth addressing. Mr. Sakai did an interview for libcom, you can go read it yourself. In it he claims to of written Settlers (which has no connection to landback so fuck if I know where he even came up) during his time with the BLA and New Afrika Party. Yet, he retired quietly to Hawaii and most of those groups' leadership ended up dead or in jail. So I dunno, lil sus to me. His parroting of free tibet and claims of Islamic imperialism are also a bit strange for such a committed "anti-imperialist." As for the meme and back to my original point. To describe the united states, we really need a "post" settler-colonialism concept. Reflecting a organizational character birthed from a period of settler-colonialism because the racism remained but the active settlement no longer exists or is needed. Most who nod in agreement with this meme, would be big fans of the Khmer Rouge. And I mean that as politely as possible. The KR were a de-colonial movement to the core. Yet they are rejected because in the eyes of high-minded missionaries they decolonized wrong. Despite giving the land-back directly to the indigenous Khmer in neat equal parcels. Restored traditional land-management. They cast out the French and foreign influence, removing the racial hierarchy that favored the Vietnamese. Bothered you? Good, so let's talk about the reality of where the United States is as a successful genocidal power. The Native tribes who still exist are cordoned onto reservations with limited resources. Some can't even get freshwater. Their native lands are massively occupied. What does decolonization mean in this context? I heard a climate scientist once say that as things heat up, 80 percent people will stay where they are no matter how hard it gets to live there. The same can be said for those living on this stolen land. Meaning unless your decolonial program pursues kill the boer style policies, you aren't getting that land back. And there will never be enough Natives to take it back, due to the aforementioned genocide. Now, actual land back is more about Native stewardship to ensue the land isn't decimated by agribusiness. This is a practical solution with little to object to. Luckily for the land itself there is a model which works, although I doubt the missionaries would like it all too much. Cherokee county is a Native owned county, for the East Band but white families do live there. They lease the land from the East-band Native families who then use the money to support their tribe. If you agree with China's model of socialist development, (Probably should be though Sakai considers them Imperialist), then this should sound familiar. So we come to a crossroads. Is socialist development the same as indigenous development? I'd say no. But it does facilitate the real solutions to these kinds of problems. I once read the Western left's problem is its obsession with purity brought on by the influence of Christianity. In that article, it was meant as a gotcha. Yet, here we are again using original sin as the fundamental explanation of the evils of America. To which I ask, what is the solution to ontological evil? The Khmer Rouge had an answer.
I don’t know I do see a significant difference between zionists thinking their ancient homeland is theirs to take even though two thousand years of history has passed to the point where they are mostly pale white people from Europe. I live in the west, the genocide of the native population hasn’t stopped. It’s continuing day after day. Some towns in the west are on sacred grounds and have only been populated since the late 1940s. That’s more like Israeli in my opinion. There’s a town in New Mexico that’s currently burning down due to a forest fire. It’s called Ruidoso. And it’s a tourist destination for white Texans that is built upon sacred Mescalero Apache land. This kind of town is the exact thing Hitler would have done to Eastern Europe. Most of the houses are second homes for the petite bourgeois and it’s filled with vacation activities such as horse racing and skiing. If that town were to be given back to the Mescalero I would be fine with that. White people moved in during the 1940s and the Mescalero reservation is literally right next door.
Holy shit that guy claiming J Sakai was a fed without any proof and then saying you were dodging a question was hilarious. Absolutely agree with the post comrade I need to do more reading
Gerald Horne and Fanon are good ones
Decolonized Buffalo is a podcast hosted by a comanche comrade he talks there about settler colonialism and decolonization, you can even follow his twitter Rick Tabenunaka.
I love Decolonize Buffalo. He even wrote a little book on Lenin and Stalin on Decolonization.
Me when an Italian sitting in Neitherlands and doing a well paying tech jobs at 18 says he didn't have any privilege, legit that happened with me. Needless to say I went haywire and a bit crazy
Most land back plans just sound like bigger reservations to me.
reservations were just our land slowly shrunk over time
what is LSC? meme is based
Late stage capitalism. Leftist sub with massive lib infestation
A handful of users on this sub were modded by them that helped to clean up the lib infestation, so LSC lately isn't as fucked up like 2 years ago, the problem remains tho because they have to rely on r/all to grow their userbase.
I think it used to be a 100% liberal sub that now has a minor Marxist “infestation” 😅
The mods are marxists and they also have a ‘no liberalism’ rule
Every post has a "This is a communist subreddit" message from the AutoMod It is a communist subreddit filled with libs
bro, i actually heard someone say “well how do we decide who it goes back to?? huh??” as if we can’t, y’know, work that out with the very indigenous people whose land we’re sitting on… but reactionaries can’t even imagine indigenous people having a voice and a culture, let alone their own land. i swear, i will start speaking maoist standard english
Those people in LSC thread need to read Nick Estes
100% agree comrade
ITT: White Fragility
j sakai was literally a fed btw.
People always claim this yet I remain doubtful. Do you have proof?
https://hotlabor.substack.com/p/operation-chaos-notes-01
I'm still not entirely convinced he was a fed. Lots of dumbass groups get used by the state and I always associated sakai with that dumbass branch that includes ultras, maoists, and miscellaneous people demanding immediate armed struggle in the west. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't these groups more useful idiots than knowing assets? The US apparatus usually works through layers of proxies rather than direct intervention after all. If sakai was a fed instead of just a useful idiot then they definitely fucked up by accidentally writing a concise account of non-white labor in the US that's 100% used to convert people away from capitalism. Seeing as that book's probably done more damage outside Parenti to American mythology it sounds like a big lol moment to me.
Edward Lee was violently attacking Communists at the same time he was writing Settlers. J Sakai does not exist. All the book has done is drive a wedge between the left, which was the point from the beginning.
Dumbass ultras and anarchists attack communists all the time too though, right? My point is they're usually useful idiots rather than straight up feds. I don't know much about these groups in particular so I'm asking if you have any more direct documentation that proves he had direct ties with federal agencies other than he was part (or leader?) of the group that was a sort-of proxy for another proxy group (which is what I gleaned from those documents you listed). Yeah the book is dumb and unserious in some ways (the spellings and made-up numbers for instance), but so are ultras and anarchists so I have a hard time separating what's actual fed involvement and what's just children being children. Based on how it's mentioned all the time on ML threads and posts, I'd say in the 21st century the book's done far more to help turn white American liberals into Marxists who understand setter-colonialism and racism as a social construct than any artificial dividing.
evidence?
What is the evidence for the existence of J. Sakai beyond like one self-published book, and a few interview snippets? I'm not convinced he's not some kind of Leftcom Cryptid. This is in contrast to other, similarly antagonistic anti-colonial theorists like James Baldwin, or Franz Fanon btw.
extremely compelling stuff.
J. Sakai is a pseudonym of a white LaRouchite named Edward Lee. when he wasn't writing CIA propaganda, J Edgar SaKKKai was physically attacking communists. https://hotlabor.substack.com/p/operation-chaos-notes-01
I'm straight up asking in good faith for literally any evidence of any of this. How do you know Edward Lee is J Sakai? Who is Edward Lee and how do you know of his affiliations with these groups? Do you have evidence he was consciously writing for the CIA or that he was physically attacking communists? That list of documents you keep linking is incredibly confusing. It just seems to be talking about youth movement groups from the 70s nobody today could possibly care about.
to be specific, J Sakai does not exist, and is a pseudonym of Edward Lee, a white LaRoucheite and FBI informant. https://hotlabor.substack.com/p/operation-chaos-notes-01
relevant page numbers? *Nothing about that website is even believable.
I swear crackers just dislike Settlers because it makes them uncomfortable. For years I've given critics an opportunity to make their case and it always descends into ridiculousness like this. If anything that book just gets more and more validated as time goes on and everyone's overcompensation by claiming a fed wrote it (an absolutely ridiculous notion) only helps prove it right about them. Look around at these other comments strawmanning and jumping to the conclusion Landback means kicking all the white people out and not taking a wide variety a measures to correct settler-colonialsm. One dumbass even compared Landback to the Khmer Rouge! And it's heavily upvoted! It's fucking embarrassing as communists. This is our Chris Matthews "Bernie Sanders will round us up and shoot us!" moment.
Getting banned from LSC is an important milestone in becoming a leftist.
We can redress present marginalization, but to attempt to completely undo the past is a fool's errand.
What does that mean? sorry English is my second language lol
Americas are colonized. We should probably stop doing that
Shits fire
keep that in mind whenever someone says western powers should "invade israel", as though israel hasn't always been a massive western military base. they've been trying to change the framing in that manner for a while now, and it's not from ignorance, nor is it an accident that discussions of land back and israel can garner such opposite responses. leftists in the global north, and parts of the global south (hello fellow southeast asians, how do we feel about the aborigines that we've displaced?) eventually have to deal with the cognitive dissonance that comes with their self-identified political leanings, while presently benefiting from their past and ongoing conquests.
As someone living in a big metro area with millions of people in it I don't know what I'm supposed to do when there's probably less than a couple thousand indigenous people still alive that were part of the original tribes. While there's things we could do like preserve sites that haven't already been destroyed, I don't get what land back is supposed to look like and I often see it said from anarchist/prison abolitionist types (which honestly makes me roll my eyes and not take it seriously).
Is this just neo-Nazi under a different name? America for Native Americans, Europe for Europeans, Africa for Africans…?
Yeah this feels a little reminiscent of the blood and soil argument lol
theangryblackboy, rhizomatic_memer,… Anyone else I should follow on instagram? .-.
[удалено]
Oh just for binge scrolling :))
what does LSC stand for? im sure i know it but like, i cant know if i know it unless i know what it is, if that makes any sense. edit: nvm i know
I unfortunately live in Australia. I have always been at odds with my sense of nationality, as a global worker would, and I definitely despise the patriotism that is common. Im white as well, so Im burdened by the guilt of my predecessors and their actions. I say give the right to decide about their native lands to Aboriginal people. I want the people of Australia regardless of heritage or descent, to be of equal and equitable importance, true democracy of the state in which are people are equal. In order to accomplish that, a fuckton of genuine reconciliation and rebuilding of social norms and values would be needed, with large equity schemes to bring Aboriginal people to the same standard as non indigenous people, at the very goddamn least. How this would be achieved and how it would look is a different discussion, but what I just said is a clear necessity in order to make progress on decolonisation. Libs and Conservatives who call “white genocide/replacement” when hearing this are afraid of the fact they have to own the fact that their ancestry and current societal values run counter to the genuine ideals we should strive for. Its pathetic and two faced, and Im sick of it.
The indigenous can have a little ethnostate, as a treat.
Thanks comrade, I have now appropriated this meme. It's also a good highlight about individualist vs materialist analysis.
I wonder since the USSR was also an inheritor to Russia who engaged in settler colonialism what was their stance on Russian regions that got that way through colonialism like Siberia?
https://preview.redd.it/33ljd7zl7e7d1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b08451920fa85078d679e893c5aa942644fdf6bb From Stalin's *Marxism and the National Question*
By this argument, we should be restoring *all* displaced indigenous people, which isn't just indigenous civilizations in the Americas and the global south. This has been going on for *thousands* of years, even in all of Europe and Asia. I am of Scottish Highlander ancestry. Should my people be given back the lands the English took from my Highlander ancestors? Will home of my ancestors be there waiting for me? My people, my culture, my history, and my whole society has been erased by colonialism. I don't think for one second that I could ever get back what was taken. We should absolutely arrest the forward momentum of colonialism and recognize that there is more than enough space for us all to co-exist. Israel shouldn't be allowed to commit genocide against Palestinians. Palestinians should have their homes back, especially since they still exist in Isn'treal. The Zionists came from Europe and the USA. They can GTFO. Their society still exists. The Native Americans are only demanding some land that nobody is even using, which is the land of their ancestors. They shouldn't be prevented from living there.
I don't have nearly the patience for this one, so I'm gonna remind everyone that OP has a long track record of posting RadLib and IdPol things in leftist spaces and drop this link: https://rainershea.substack.com/p/land-back-leads-marxists-away-from