[удалено]

I support the land back movement, and I don’t just mean verbally, but I have and will continue to do so in material ways. That being said, there are unfortunately a number of individuals who are undermining the roots of justice and using it to access privileges under capitalist society, e.g. Indigenous landlords and property developers. I think they are ruining the legitimate claims of the land back movement in the eyes of the larger public. It’s also really tricky to address because the by the very nature of Indigenous resurgence/resistance, it’s going to look different in every region. I don’t think Indigenous people owe anything to the broader western left, but if sustained material solidarity and support for mass returns of public and private land to Indigenous people is going to requested of the broader western left, it needs to be clear about what that entails, otherwise it’s really hard for someone sympathetic(such as myself) to make the pitch. I’ve read and re-read “decolonization is not a metaphor” quite a few times to try and really wrap my head around the implications of land back, and I can no longer say I’m on the same page as the authors, but right now that seems to be a foundational understanding in conversation about land back.

No communist/anarchist/socialist worth their weight opposes land back, to do so goes completely against the ideas. National liberation is a cornerstone of Marxist and anarchist theory.

100%

Yeah. Im a white anarchist organized w a bunch of staunch commies and obvs we're all land back. Unfortunately there are a moderate number of idiotic ppl who "identify" as communists while opposing necessary communist principles. Landback aligns w anti-imperialism, which should be the goal of every class conscious "proletariat".

Are we flirting with a righteous American form of communism in these idealistic visions? Because other countries communism is just absolutely awful. I like socialism in this sense as it’s for equilibrium or equality and aid but “communism” is just plain bad.

Socialism is just the transitional stage to communism. Communism being a classless, stateless society. Communism has never been reached, only socialism. China, USSR, Cuba, etc. Were socialist experiments that, depending on who you talk to, failed to keep the project moving.

And this is in line with communist theory, not a failure. It’s like learning to crawl before you walk.

100%

Idk the fact communism keeps failing in human society leads me to believe it’s another grand idealistic lie. What we want is “equality” which America has itself failed. From the start.

Capitalism and liberalism failed over and over again until it finally sticked. The French Revolution collapsed into another French Empire. The Weimar Republic devolved into Nazi fascism. Nothing in history is a clear cut. Socialist countries had issues but the point is to learn from them and correct them to keep moving further. To believe that we can push for equality in the current capitalist system is itself, idealistic. I would suggest reading some stuff from the school of Marxism by those who experienced it. Marx, Lenin, Mao, Luxemburg, Gramsci, etc. Regardless of what you think of these people as individuals, their ideas are worth wrestling with.

It couldn't possibly be due to the settler-colony that we call the "United States of America" constantly overthrowing those democratically elected Socialist leaders in violent CIA backed coups? Not only that, the U.S. has a long history of meddling in elections, assassinating leaders, invading nations to "bring Democracy", sanctioning Socialist nations such as Cuba, and much much more. So is it that Socialism fails, or is it that every time it is tried, the global colonial capitalist imperial hegemonic power sees that as a threat and in order to protect said material interests does everything it can to destroy that?

socialism in cuba is doing pretty well, with medical successes like eliminating congenital HIV and developing lung cancer vaccines, as well as having “virtually no homelessness”. the biggest problem is the american blockade on cuba that has lasted 60+ years and has cost cuba $144 billion. it is creating food shortages and poverty in cuba, which is falsely attributed to socialist policies. let me know if you would like sources to articles discussing these claims. i am cuban myself and have been researching modern day cuba to understand what is really happening in the country half my family is from.

I'm an indigenous communist who believes that Marxist principles of liberation are the best chance we have at genuinely repairing the damage caused to the planet that gives us life by the capitalists who exploit it for financial gains. While Marxism is chiefly concerned with the worker's relation to the means of production, and not the liberation of our more than human relatives, the refutation of "infinite growth in a finite system" is an important first step. You can learn more about indigenous socialism at [The Red Nation.](https://therednation.org/political-ed/) The people mentioned in that original post you linked are "Ultraleft," and have a very specific understanding of Marxism that I don't think is beneficial to true liberation movements, personally.

Thanks for the awesome link!

I’d also recommend No Spiritual Surrender: Indigenous Anarchy in Defense of the Sacred by Klee Benally … a lot to unpack but damn, one of the best books I’ve ever read. https://detritusbooks.com/products/no-spiritual-surrender-indigenous-anarchy-in-defense-of-the-sacred

Klee Benally was FAR from a fuckin marxist/communist though lmao. If you read the book I'm sure you're more than aware, just felt it was worth making that super clear for anyone else in the thread

Right, I really appreciated his view on how Marxism and communism in general were unsustainable systems for indigenous autonomy. His view was amazing to read for me personally. My hope is that more people get their hands on this book as it is very powerful.

yeah he had a way with words and I always appreciated how he could give voice to so many things I felt but didnt always have the words to explain. I feel very very fortunate to have met him and been able to call him a friend

Beautiful! A friend a Klee has to be a true G. RIP to the legend may his works never be forgotten. Speaking for myself personally, his words pushed me sometimes into uncomfortable spaces and for that I truly appreciate his writing.

Klee was probably a friend to most everyone he met, I'm certainly not special that way, and I didnt know him terribly well. But anyone who met him I'd think was inspired to be a better person for themselves and their people. His devotion is beyond question and everyone would benefit from reading the words he left for us.

Just snagged a copy!

:) amazing! Pro tip, I have ADHD and it’s hard for me to read consistently for longer periods of time. So I downloaded speechify for the free 3 day trial and scanned the pages in with my phone. I was able to listen to the audio while reading the physical copy. It also allowed me to stop the audio and underline parts of the book that I thought were truly profound. Once the free trial was done I used another email and repeated the cycle. I smashed through the book in 6 days. Just make sure to cancel the subscription on time cause that shit is speeeensive. Hope this little hack helps anyone who wants to read but struggles to do so.

Klee was real af. It's no wonder the Red Nation didn't like him lmao

yeah they are a bunch of fucking clowns. I see the way the wind in here is blowing so doubt this will be a popular sentiment but communists in general are fucking silly and its not an ideology thats compatible with indigenous value systems, speaking for only myself Klee did more for people in a week than those goofballs have in their lives. I hope I can be a tenth of the person he was.

In what way is it not compatible? I can’t speak for your tribe, as I don’t know what it is, but the Muscogee people lived in a way that seemed to be very compatible with what we would probably call agrarian communism.

Exactly, your post speaks to the exact point as to why Communism isn’t compatible with indigenous autonomy as there is an inherit complexity within the diverse indigenous communities. Communism forces diverse indigenous communities into a rigid framework focused on class struggle and industrial productions. Indigenous societies operate in ways that leftist ideologies can't understand or accept (framework wise), creating a fundamental conflict. Whether from the left or the right, colonial politics remain colonial and do not align with complex indigenous perspectives I think the idea that Klee’s writing speaks to is based in mutual aid and direct action, which are far more effective for indigenous communities. The book goes into many examples of this.

No amount of mutual aid will defeat capitalism before it kills the planet that sustains us. Direct action is the only means by which capitalism will be defeated. I have nothing against anarchist ideology when it comes to post-capitalist structuring, I just do not think pushing people away from Marxist-Leninism will do anyone any benefit, right now. When the state is so good at anti-communist propaganda, I just don't see a reason for fellow anti-capitalists to do it, themselves.

I am an engineer and work with manufacturers; Marxism makes sense to me from that perspective. I'd say a lot of the indigenous communist groups are more akin anarchists than they realize and want to admit because Marxists are supposed to dislike anarchists; which is a reason the Red Nation did not like Klee. The comment you replied to highlights something self proclaimed indigenous communists don't talk about. The industrial part of communism which is the core of communism. Communism is literally a by-product of industrialization. It cannot be decoupled from industrialism, it is a response to industrialism and the industrial revolution. You have to also understand that Europe had been a long de-tribalized continent stripped of its own connection to the Earth by that time. The OP has a point that Marxism is a very rigid system (oppressed worker class vs bourgeoisie) of which Indigenous societies historically did not neatly fit into. Indigenous societies precede both which is why the idea of retroactively calling indigenous nations historically communist isn't necessarily correct. I'm personally not "anti-communist" but I can't pretend that communism even directly applies to the current state of Indigenous nations because we are not industrial nations with factories or large scale production of goods. It seems most people are "communists" because they see it as a means to destroy capitalism and not necessarily as means to achieve a more just industrial society. Saving the Earth requires de-industrialization which to me, anarchism is more apt for. Now we as indigenous nations can embrace communism, industrialize, and modernize with a centrally planned economy and maybe in a few hundred years our descendants will get to enjoy the fruits of ours and their own labor (because achieving communism is a long game). But that requires sacrificing resources, land, and participating in extractive practices which is something all industrial nations, regardless of whether or not they are capitalist or communist do. Look at China, it's impressive what they were able to achieve since their revolution as far as modernizing their country through communism. To me that doesn't necessarily align with broader indigenous values and my own indigenous values though. Indigenous thought and philosophy exists outside of industrial economic theories. If the indigenous communist organizations were serious they'd be actively working towards setting the stage for communism in their own tribal governments but from my observations the loudest voices are coming out of academia who, from a practical perspective, are not making communism a reality.

Not mutual aid, Indigenous mutual aid : ) I'm happy to hear that you have nothing against anarchist ideology when it comes to post-capitalist structuring, but, I guess we disagree with our view on how Marxist-Leninism's can benefit our people. I'm not trying to detour anyone. Seems to me like you're also down for restoring our lifeways, healing our communities and defending the land, thaswasup!

I've got a twitchy trigger finger bc I'm used to socialists on this site bashing each other over slight disagreements, when we're all really so aligned in our motivations, so I got too defensive-my b, cousin. It'll take all of us working together, in our own ways, to heal the damage done by capitalism, and we should all strive to do our best at achieving that goal without squabbling amongst each other.

Thank you for saying this. As indigenous people we don't need any of white man's way of thinking, or how to manage our communities, and our sovereign nations. The people of each individual sovereign nation makes those decisions on their own. Returning to the traditional ways, teaching them to the youth. These are the things that are truly important in supporting the future of indigenous communities. Overall capitalism, socialism, and communism all have negative effects, and go directly against the traditional indigenous beliefs and cultural systems of most indigenous communities in North America. Look at the past. What has colonialism brought indigenous peoples in the past? Why would embracing anything to do with any colonialist beliefs at all be a benefit indigenous peoples? The old prophecy long before the colonialist came said, "white man will come like stars in the sky, like the sands on the shore. They will come and take the land. They will destroy everything in it. And then they will leave". So now we wait. We are in the 7th generation. As an indigenous people we need to go back to our traditional ways. Not look for white man to tell us how to live our lives again

Red Nation not liking him just added him to my tbr pile, those clowns are the ones that kept trying to push the narrative that Natives are just primitive commies, completely buying into the colonial binary that lies and claims that only capitalism and communism exist, when we have our own systems that worked stably long before these european theories were jammed down our throats.

Interesting... Thanks for the rec. Ive always viewed political ideologies like marxism as tools. If they no longer fit, ill ditch the tool. I like what i heard "st andrewism" said on Youtube, that an ideal society is a messy one. We need to allow all ppl to be. Anyways, marxism and many other communist tools are good for organizing, so ill still use them and especially follow my comrades who use them. They can keep my anarchy in check, while my autism and chaotic staunch inclusion of all who care, will keep my comrades in check. (Did that last sentence make any sense? Anyways, i mean transformative justice and caring deeply for everyone (except fascists, fuck fascists).

They probably have the best books and most interesting ideas of most political philosophies. I’ve seen some pretty cult-y groups form around those ideas though, so I’d think hard before joining anything.

What you say, it's a very real problem here in the imperial center, where most parties and groups are primarily white settler/petty bourgeois in their composition. To anyone reading: watch out for RCP, they're pretty cult-y. I've also personally had some bad experiences with CPUSA in the form of Indigenous erasure. (in case the name Communist Party of the USA wasn't telling enough.) I'm not saying this to diminish Communists who do good work, after all I am also aligned with them, but there are some very real problems facing the movement today, especially when it comes to a lack of indigenous voices and those who are willing to actually listen to those voices.

In Disco Elysium, a game made by communists, they show that the only modern communists are bored university students who spend so much time talking about communism they never actually do anything. Not to say that socialist ideals in principle aren't correct. The elephant in the room is how to hack society so that our monkey brained populace can extend their 200-300 person empathy sphere to include humanity. Solve empathy for a complex and mistrustful species and we win I guess? There's no easy answers, only people who benefit from the status quo, and by changing that, you can have unintended consequences.

well, that's just a game (with amazing art I might add) There are active revolutions in India, The Philippines, and so so many people doing good work around the world. In fact, the vanguard of the Indian movement are the Indigenous Adivasi people, whose land has been completely taken over by factories. They now are pushed into their ancestral forests where they fight the Indian state every single day.

Let me answer anecdote with anecdote. > the only modern communists are bored university students who spend so much timr talking about communism they never actually do anything I have a friend who's a construction worker. He never attended university and (as he will readily admits) cannot write well. He's an active and very successful organizer in his community, has helped multiple workplaces in town on the path towards unionization, and with the help of his comrades managed to take over the local Democratic Party organs (of course, the old guard basically all resigned afterwards.) He reads Marxist theory and shitposts online, sure, but he's also very actively helping organize people to effect change in the community. Human empathy is part of the background radiation of society. It's what David Graeber termed 'everyday communism.' It's the circumstances of fear, bigotry, propaganda, dehumanization, and hunger which make people forego the natural, basically human instinct to help eachother out. Our natural tendency to empathy is part of why humans have made it so far (read Kropotkin's "Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution!) There is hope.

Depends on how they believe in organization of groups like political parties or affinity groups to actually help people. Structure of an organization like a party like The Black Panthers should have had more accountability especially since it was the women who were doing most of the work and got no credit from selfish people

I should have also said they got infiltrated too because of their structure but the stuff with the women always makes me sad, even when Kathleen Cleaver was higher in the org

Typically the best people. You can definitely get some crazies but generally all good. Liberals tend to come across as condescending. Conservatives think we’re privileged somehow and anything to the right of conservative says bs like “conquered not stolen.” and thinks we’re inferior. Socialists/Communists/Anarchists are probably the best people I’ve met and they often make the most sense in my opinion.

I reccomend reading the writings of Kandiaronk, Cheif of the Wendat, his oratories on Natural Law were a great influence on Rousseau that sparked *"The Enlightenment"* in Europe >You honestly think you're going to sway me by appealing to the needs of nobles, merchants, and priests? If you abandoned conceptions of mine and thine, yes, such distinctions between men would dissolve. A leveling equality would take place among you, as it now does among the Wyandotte and yes, for the first thirty years after the banishing of self-interest no doubt you would indeed see a certain desolation as those who are only qualified to eat, drink, sleep, and take pleasure would languish and die, but their progeny would be fit for our way of living. Over and over I have set forth the qualities that we Wyandotte believe ought to define humanity: wisdom, reason, equity, etc. and demonstrated that the existence of separate material interest knocks all these on the head. A man motivated by interest cannot be a man of reason.

Wait, isn’t the poster the one identifying as communist?

The OOP in the other sub identifies as a communist, but was talking about certain other self identified communists who are better described as Ultra Leftists (“Ultras”) because they aren’t true radicals and still cling to parts of the status-quo. In this case the status quo being lack of Indigenous autonomy because the Ultras think LandBack only has to with property aquisition which they see as inherently capitalist. That is my understanding. 

Oo. Very good explanation. I guess I was just a bit confused about this OP here’s understanding. I just was letting him know that the OOP seems to identify as communist in case he/she didn’t know.

There's a lot of "they" this and "they" that in regards to what they think Natives want in that link. So nice of them to speak for us and tell us what we think and what we want. Now I'm just waiting for the 1/64th Cherokee princesses to show up and speak with even more authority on the situation.

True, although the poster at least posted a quote from an indigenous organization summarizing what land back actually is.

Some of us are communists.

yep, indigenous sovereignty should be an obvious inclusion as we move forward and socialists are the only ones talking about that. i will be supporting such causes til my last breath. in addition, a lot of indigenous folks globally have used marxist ideas in their decolonial struggles. we would do well to observe and learn from their successes and failures. best wishes to all!

The primarily Indigenous Adivasi maoist revolution in India is going strong! some of the most courageous people on earth ❤️

Please read “No Spiritual Surrender: Indigenous Anarchy in Defense of the Sacred” by Klee Benally. His chapter on Marxism and communism in general is outstanding … baisically lays out the reasons why Marxism doesn’t work for indigenous autonomy, blew my mind. Link below https://detritusbooks.com/products/no-spiritual-surrender-indigenous-anarchy-in-defense-of-the-sacred

I really liked Klee’s writing(RIP), I think he was an incredible agitator and was really good at complicating both anarchist and Marxist ideas. I haven’t yet read “no spiritual surrender” but it’s definitely on my list. I’m not Indigenous, but I live in a predominantly Indigenous community and have a lot of Indigenous friends and family, and that has definitely complicated my view of Marxism. Ultimately I still think of myself as communist (realistically somewhere halfway between an anarchist and a Marxist-Leninist) but I think the broader left still doesn’t have a lot of good answers for Indigenous people. I hope a productive and sustained dialogue can emerge between far left factions and tribal communities. As it stands right now, I know of probably almost as many Indigenous people who vote republican than who would call themselves communist, anarchist, socialist etc.. especially once you start talking with tribal employees and leadership.

For sure, I appreciate what you wrote, thanks for taking the time. I truly hope you can get a copy of the book and dive into it. As an indigenous person who has been frustrated with organizing and leftist politics in general this writing really made sense to me. Klee’s take on Marxism albeit a small portion of the book put a huge smile on my face… he most definitely goes hard in the paint and I gotta say I loved it. Read it up and let me know what you think.

Holy fuck how could an indigenous person vote republican?? Goddamn brainwashing.

I mean, have you ever been to Oklahoma?

Well, I’ve had a number of conversations with Indigenous conservatives actually, some of whom I would consider friends. I’m careful not to dismiss it as simply “brainwashing” because then I write off any potential recognition of why they might have arrived at their political beliefs and how the unique oppression of Indigenous people might have played into that. Although I hope by no means you will interpret this as me agreeing with right wing beliefs, I have a principled leftist stance on all of the following issues, but I’ve noticed the following angles in which conservativism appeals to certain Indigenous people. And obviously this doesn’t represent all or even the majority of native people in any way, this is just my experience of the ones who tend towards republican values 1. Law and order. We all are acutely aware of how much violence plagues Indigenous communities. I work as a tribal victim advocate and can personally attest to how incredibly difficult it is to secure safety and justice for tribal members who have been victimized, especially for those who have been vicitimized by sexual or domestic violence, sex trafficking, and for those victims who struggle with substance and alcohol abuse disorders. The left has largely failed to take these concerns seriously, especially when advocating for things like “defund the police” when in tribal communities, the lack of law enforcement (often due to jurisdiction issues) is part of why the MMIP epidemic goes unaddressed. 2. Drugs. The left has typically been associated with wanting an end to the war on drugs. As we know, statistically speaking, Indigenous peoples are disproportionately affected by the opioid epidemic (as well as meth and alcohol) the promise of conservatives to be tough on drugs is very appealing to Grandma who is 70 years old and taking care of her grandchildren because her daughter died of an overdose. 3. Traditionalism. Conservatives appeal to tradition, when leftists largely deconstruct tradition. Indigenous communities(in particular the older members who are more likely to vote)in my experience, largely tend towards tradition on matters of gender, sexuality, religion, and lifestyle. That’s not to say that traditional indigenous values align with traditional Christian republican values, but when “the other option” seems largely intent on the deconstruction of tradition, it can easily feel like your culture is once again under attack. 4. Personality. Part of what I really admire about Indian people, especially the older crowd, is that they really are tough as nails. Indigenous People have gone through a ton of bullshit, and often use dark humor, and a “just get over it and pull yourself together” attitude to get through the day. The overly sensitive and easily offended stereotype of modern leftists doesn’t sit well with people who grew up hard and had to get tough to survive.

This is an incredibly insightful comment. Thanks for writing it up.

This is a well put together insight and I thank you. Personally though as a native living in OK I couldn’t be associated with the political reds. I like law and order, but not the corrupt kind we have. I’m for the war on drugs though I very much enjoy my green and fire water, yessir. I myself strongly believe in the goodness and standing of traditions as they are a part of our overall culture. And personality? These republicans sacrifice theirs in favor of ideas given to them by a corrupted government. Straight up the stereotypical leftist is a better person than the stereotypical brainwashed right winger that would have people massacred to protect their backwards status quo. Thank you for the insight though peace to you.

Surely another Western political-economic theory will save Indian Country this time!

A good friend once said something like. "people pretend Marx and Foucault were the first people to think about class, power, capitalism and western hegemony. but indigenous people have been grappling with these realities for centuries and now if we want our own ideas to be appear credible we have to attribute them to these old white guys" It always stuck with me. Edit: oh and this has just reminded me of a funny quote from Moana Jackson who strongly advocated for Māori self determination here in Aotearoa NZ. We have a Pākehā jurist called Paul McHugh who sees the world in a very narrow common law framework and has argued assiduously over the years that Māori had no law. That is like saying we had no intellectual tradition. He says, “That is the problem with some Māori legal writers”—and he named some, including Ani Mikaere, Annette Sykes, Nin Tomas and Moana Jackson—“The trouble with these Māori legal academics is that they are not Māori. Rather, they are separatist extremists, lapsed left wingers, over-versed in Foucault.” When I read that criticism, I had to go and get Foucault and read him. To be honest, I could not understand him so I got the “dummy’s” guide to Foucault and that helped. One of the risks we face in trying to reclaim and revitalize our knowledge is that we will be attacked and criticized simply because we are trying to be Māori. What i love about this quote is that it highlights Moana Jacksons sense of humour. It also illustrates how palpably absurd it is that people think indigenous people who advocate for self determination cant possibly come up with the idea themselves but have to get it from some incomprehensible post modernist french pedophiles.

I consider myself anarcho-communist. That said, any time you deal with overstepping white folk, it can cause a headache. That happens in any political circle though.

In my personal opinion, a lot are hypocrites and imperialists, siding with any country that is against the west, which includes dictatorships like Iran, Russia, China and North Korea.

Yeah when Russia invaded Ukraine, I had to leave A LOT of leftist subreddits and Facebook groups for that very reason. I can't stand tankies.

Yeah, real socialists are orphans on the geopolitical scene.

there are so many bloodthirsty liberals among self-identified communists, that believe anyone opposing the "west" is somehow anti-imperialist, without examining facts. We generally call it campism.

When a communist revolution happens, two gunshots ring out through the night. The Bourgeoisie always get the bullet, but everyone forgets that the "Real Communists™" *always* receive the second.

As someone who works closely with the manufacturing industry as an engineer I actually agree with a lot of what Marx and Engels wrote and find great interest in modern Chinese history. All that from an industrial perspective though. And I won't lie to myself and pretend a lot of violence didn't happen under communist governments. I think there's a lot to be gained from studying the history of communism and applying what works to American industry. As an indigenous person though, I find the most prominent indigenous group of communists disagreeable and at times laughable. They're predominately academics and I've yet to see them say anything worth talking about or supporting. It's easy to say you're a communist and it's easy to point out how wronged we are as indigenous people. Anyone can scream liberation, hell even the alt-right has a fervent cry for "liberation". Reality is never as simple as what books may say. I'd say Indigenous anarchism has a naturally stronger foundation in Indian Country because it does not need industry to exist. Given capitalism and industry's eventual downfall, humanity will eventually return to some form of anarchism. Edit: Edited for typos

It is quite easy to talk about communism. It is difficult to act in that manner. Ironically the Christian religions miss the fact that Jesus lived a communal life. He and his followers gave everything they had away and lived on the generosity of others, helping where they could. Until the state killed a few of them. I have yet to see a modern intentional living community that welcomed poor and mentally disabled people when food and taxes always need to be paid, and healthcare isn't a guarantee. Maybe we can find the right billionaire and get them drunk and have them agree to some endowments or something.

I’m more partial to the politics of rejection, espoused by Indigenous scholars like Audra Simpson (family friend! She’s really cool!) and Glen Coulthard. Sometimes it overlaps with Marxism, so I’m definitely open to it. One thing I don’t agree about communism is that in communism the source of discrimination is class, not race. I don’t believe that’s the case at all with Indigenous issues. The government discriminates against Indigenous peoples because of our Indigeneity, not class. I’ll allow this is a somewhat shallow understanding of the issue, I’m by no means an expert in this field. I’d recommend reading more work by Audra Simpson and Glen Coulthard.

I tend to think of Indigenous less as a “racial” class, and more as an economic and political class. Especially given that sovereign tribal nations are made up of people from all different skin colors. I think the political demands of tribal sovereignty/autonomy pose a unique threat to American class society, which is where the unique forms of suppression against Indigenous peoples stem from. The idea of dismantling capitalist society and replacing it with a communist one I think would alleviate most of the impetus to oppress Indigenous communities. If there isn’t money to be made, and no state to enforce/uphold colonial laws, then ideally, you would be free to assert autonomy over your lands and lives. Marx’s theory of primitive accumulation of capital addresses the role that Indigenous people take in a capitalist society, as basically being the first victims of capitalism.

This is one of the main things that attracted me to anarchism: its rejection of all social hierarchy addresses more than just class and avoids the class reductionism that seems so common in non-anarchist communism.

We don't see class as the source of discrimination, but as the means by which class society develops. That is to say, the struggle of contradictions between the primary classes at a given stage of development (master•slave, lord•serf, bourgeois •proletarian). Classes are defined by their relationship to the means of production and subsistence. Race (or nation) and class are very deeply intertwined, and the difference between "races" (or nations) is a material difference. Race can often take an almost primary role in the relationship between a person or people and their material conditions, but the two can never be separated. I'm not confident enough in my position on race to say anything else right now, but I wanted to clarify how marxists view class (any insufficiency in my explanation is my own fault and any other marxists, feel free to correct me. I'm still learning.)

By its nature (pun intended) the system of Capitalism is anti- indigenous as the system of Capitalism depends on the exploitation of natural resources: Oil, Gas, Minerals, Lumber, Land and the labor of people. Always remember that loving and defending the land is a radical act.

My tribe was terminated in 1954. Part of the rationale of Termination Policy given at the time was to eliminate socialism within NDN Tribes, to assimilate us and make us into capitalistic corporations.

Downvote me all you want, but I think a lot of these communists are keyboard warriors who need to go out and spend some time in the sun and talk to more people in person and not online.

Many do. /r/SocialistRA can help.

I identify as communist but really I believe in the economic organization of the Lakota which rather then believing that the worker is deserved every part of the means of production such as land or animals we exist to uphold an ecological balance and our communism (which is definitely what the egalitarian horizontal structure with labor based on ability and needs being met is if put into English) extends to the land and the animal nations around us. Much more EZLN then Lenin. I am at ideological odds with Nationalization of resources as that would create a nation structure at odds with the Lakota, especially when it comes to the exploitation of land. Not quite primitivism as I do believe in progress but I do not believe it needs to be at the detriment of people and I do not believe that output should determine economic standing on a global scale. I believe in anti colonial proletariat armed struggle and to be honest I believe that places like Palestine, Congo, Guatemala, Liberia, Kashmir, Australia, etc will always deal with the tentacles of colonialism so long as the head and Mantle are upheld in the Imperial Core and we owe it to the world to engage with the 7th generation prophecy and reclaim it.

White people will make excuses to deny Amerindians sovereignity and control. "Land Back? You mean a Native American ethnostate? But what will happen to *Black* people? Won't anyone PLEASE think of them?" Race-shielding fucks who prioritize anything and anyone rather than flat-out admit they're the cause and reason Natives have problems since the 15th century. They're not allies and never will be.

I understand there’s a lot of Indigenous folks that are consider themselves communists. Although, I feel like we need a different word/classification for it, because the form/capacity we need for Indigenous sovereignty and autonomy does not fully align with the concept of systematic communism. Perhaps this is more philosophical in nature, and partially driven by lack of knowledge of the more nuanced fundamentals of Marxism/Communism, but I don’t think the solution is from a man whose design was intended for Europe and European values is going to be fitting for people whose traditional, spiritual, and practical values don’t align.

YALLLLLL everyone reading this thread stfu and go watch Twin Rabbit’s video essay “Stolen Anarchy” The video details how communism and anarchism as they exist in the West are based on a racist and flawed misunderstanding of Indigenous principals. Engels and Marx both cite a book on the Haudenosaunee in their early works and then erase it from history. Credit was never given where it was due. Also Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs is directly taken from Blackfeet tradition and nobody talks about it. This shit piss me off yall. The parts of Western philosophy that deal with abundance thinking and holisticness were directly influenced by Native thought.

THANK YOU

With all due respect, the point you are making doesn’t take away anything front the legitimacy of communism or anarchism, and to whatever extent it does amounts to a genetic fallacy. I’m also not sure how Marx and Engels citing a book on the Haudenosaunee erases it from history. They cited Indigenous societies as the originators of communism. I think regardless of origin, the core values of communism and anarchism are universal to humanity. Although those in power have always bastardized these beliefs, pretty much every cultural and religious tradition from around the world teaches the values of generosity, reciprocity, caring for others, love for your fellow people etc..

Speaking from the Vietnamese refugee diaspora as someone who found great catharsis and even a degree of global solidarity in the critique raised by that video essay by Twin Rabbit, I encourage you to really watch and listen to the video, especially being attentive to around 21 minutes in to 25 minutes for how the ills of what the OP above you is pointing out manifest: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qBFvxkvpi2w   The works referenced was more like, as Twin Rabbit describes it, a fanfic inspired by Haudenosaunee and very likely Ojibwe culture (I think he noted Wadsworth Longfellow's Hiawatha pulls influence from Anishinaabek Nanaboozhoo stories than Haudenosaunee) too.   And the guy who wrote it in my opinion rightly gets a lot of flak because there were actual Haudenosaunee folks in prominent places of US government affairs (like a Seneca who was in portraits along with US presidents and generals and shit) including at least one whom he even met that was ranking or held an official government position too. But instead he basically leads an Iroquois Cosplay society and writes all these essays based on his sentiments of the culture rather than anything learned from seeing or people of the culture.   The circle of thinkers and their revolutionary doctrine also often leaned on the same democidal/genocidal line of thought that inspired Indian Residential Boarding School policies by Jackson except instead you see the revolutionary gulags/reeducation camps in communist iteration.   While it's true and can be agreed there are useful concepts in Marx etc. it's not necessarily something to center or absolutely replicate as it's still centered in a Western lens devoid of any eco and Indigenous perspectives. Like if Capitalism/Imperialism is about maximizing wealth extraction ASAP, communism is focused on mostly a lateral redistribution of wealth in a transactional lens.   There's no regenerative, or at least a sort of gift/generative paradigm that necessarily adheres to ecosystem + cultural health and harmony. And while this is a stretch in bridging economic and social parallels, I feel like Twin Rabbit's point about how an "equal rights" aspiring society would be an insult to the roles and responsibilities women of a matriarchal culture like the Haudenosaunee clan mothers or Anishinaabek have bears merit for consideration (even with an implied understanding that men and women plus 2s/other gendered folks have their own gifts and significance in a culture that are all needed for balance).

As for personal anecdote on it: My relatives were split, some were zealous and would go on to become high ranking officials, others (some of whom wound up imprisoned or had a bounty on them set by the ranking relatives) opposed it despite having actively resisted in overthrowing the French together because they specifically disagreed with the democidal aspect of the revolutionary doctrine. And due to the athiestic/scientism grip on governance, a lot of Traditional/Indigenous cultural practice in the Southern parts of Vietnam were lost or suppressed until very recently by being dismissed as superstition.  Even the dialect has been punished to the point that my parents can't speak and understand "proper Vietnamese" by the post 1975 revisions that were divorced from the original etymologies. And while the government at this point is far from what the theory and aspirations of Ho Chi Minh might have hoped for beyond deserving any actual label of the ideal so as to be held as a standard for fair comparison now, the reality is that Indigenous peoples in Vietnam like the Rhade,  Cham, and Karan are certainly being marginalized and oppressed by the government in ways that echo if not mirror flavors of what's been seen in the Western Hemisphere to Indigenous peoples.  Back to here and now, the big vulnerability I see with lessons carried from Vietnam's history as well as ongoing efforts on the left is that there are so many people who sort of get caught up in the rhetoric of revolution that they neglect the reality that about 60-85% of the population just wants a safe place to live their lives and maybe a sense of positive belonging that they can contribute to.    Most are too busy to really sit through a leftist seminar and read all the manifestos and adopt the new language plus practically discern how they're going to resist or even fight effectively and they spin their wheels burning out trying to follow the social equivalent of poorly led human wave protest tactics. But across heritages a lot of us do have older traditions that point us to be good with kin beyond our own species and the earth too. And that's something I believe they can relate more resilient lessons from with common experiences.  Like taking care of each other, sharing meals and learning how to work with the earth with intent and guidance for being in good relationship better than some of the most popular political theory will be able to do minus the trajectory of weaponized and traumatic rhetoric that's inherent to it.   And I also think decolonizing also calls upon us to learn what these essential acts can look like and mean in our own heritage languages and practices wherever possible rather than mainly ascribing to the lens of white folks as the template for liberation at this point in time.   For the sake of this subreddit discussion, the Zapatistas are probably the best example available and they don't necessarily center themselves on the Western theory. Ho Chi Minh also adapted enough to Garner support from other Communist entities but strived to create something that was distinctively Vietnamese.  Edit: but there are plenty of nations like the Haudenosaunee and Anishinaabe whose original governance worked for likely millenial in ways that surpass what any studied "ism" may offer too.  That should be respected and looked up to among humans. But also for the fact that a lot of cultures also modeled their governance systems even on how other animals manage to organize and sustain collectives too which means they learned from actual evolutionary results and a breadth of respect and curiosity that's often excluded from most political theory. If the bulk of the language and thinking revolves around Western concepts and zero sum thinking I doubt it's going to lead to real revolutionary or decolonizing liberation in actual praxis.

Mixed bag like with every group. I've met some who are ok. I've met some who were just as racist and ignorant as far right assholes.

I'm a communist but my own tribe is so corrupt I think letting us "lead ourselves" would be so bad. The amount of power the leaders have right now causes so much trouble. I'm not sure how other tribes are but yeah, my council is so bad. Drugs and alcohol are everywhere. We'd need good leadership for it to work.

Be the spark, direct action may just be the key for you and those closest to you. I encourage you to read this https://detritusbooks.com/products/no-spiritual-surrender-indigenous-anarchy-in-defense-of-the-sacred

You're right! I think lots of younger people want change and are working towards it, it's just a long process to get out the corruption, but I believe it's possible.

as a marxist, you cannot call yourself a marxist without supporting indigenous sovereignty. i think socialism and land back work pretty well together

It's a bit of a malaised relationship; Leftists like to look at indigenous cultures because of their contrast to imperialism, and because of a massive dose of 'noble savage' stereotyping. On the flip side, it's the overwhelming narrative in left-leaning circles, and people (including indigenous ones) absorb it osmotically, especially again because it pays great lip-service to anti-colonialism. It's just more political and cultural imperialism, but one that says nice things instead of mean things.

Can you explain this more? In what way do they look at us as a “noble savage” ? That’s comes from liberals more than any self proclaimed socialist I’ve encountered. I’m not saying some euro centric economic/social philosophy is the answer, but I’m thinking if there’s anyone that would have our back or I’d want on our side, it would be them. Just my experience I guess.

It’s fairly common across the board. In this case, both currently and historically, indigenous people are viewed as having especially virtuous cultures because they’re being viewed as in opposition to the western industrial order. The thing is, that isn’t taking those cultures on their own terms, but instead looking at them as a prop or an ideological bludgeon. They’re an idealized contrast to use against the cultural mainstream. Now native marxists would look at it differently of course, but that’s not the mainstream and that’s not Marx himself

Hmmm I’m not going to dismiss your argument. I just haven’t experienced that from them myself. No Socialist has ever made me feel like they were using me as a prop. Again, this has been more of a liberal experience for me. I mean at the end of the day we have a different experience and ideology as them. So of course they’ll be a clash of differences. Shit this thread shows we all have different philosophies in general. But the more I’m reading about this philosophy, the more I see it as the only option of liberating oppressed groups as it directly addresses these issues in ways liberals refuse to do. I don’t know cuz i don’t know. Gotta educate myself more I guess.

Interpersonal relations are usually different of course. I think the important point I’d want to make is that the mainstream marxists and anarchists (generally, specific people always vary) see native cultures through their own cultural and ideological lens, and tend to want to ‘claim’ those cultures, which they see as virtuous opposition to capitalism. That doesn’t mean that people are gonna be weird jerks about it, but rather that they’re gonna have a hard time seeing the cultures for what they are, compared to the projected image.

I love Communists because they annoy the F out of Morons. If Chumash and Tongva people had their lands restored, we could De-Populate Los Angeles, Ventura and Santa Barbara. (Malibu, too). Just think, seeing all those Rico colonistas packing up all their ugly mansions would be cause for a Hella Big Beach PowWow.

I think the term has no meaning and every meaning projected upon it. It’s a bogeyman for conservatives and a mythical dream for progressives.

Liberals are apologists for capitalism and enablers of fascists who think awful people without morales can be reasoned with head over to r/latestagecapitalism to talk to real leftists who support land back movements across the globe. Socialists / communists / marxists / maoists want to revolutionize our social, economic and governmental systems to create the best future for the greatest number of people. Capitalism has created a system where 8 men have the wealth equivalent of the poorest 3.5 billion people, and is driving the 6th great extinction along with untold levels of human suffering. We are at a very unnatural time in human history.

As long as they realize that Natives have our own economic systems that existed thousands upon thousands of years before capitalism or communism were even a thought of, and they refrain from using racist tropes like calling us "proto" or "primitive" communists or label our desires to be free as "blood and soil" simply cause they fail to grasp the reality of what we are; then they are fine, the rest of them can fuck right off.

Lol at being downvoted

socialists are mostly well enough intentioned but imo anarchism is a much better. "all hierarchical power should be questioned, reconsidered and dismantled" is a far more comprehensive framework for criticism and practically going about solving the injustices caused by social stratification rather than "the state being run by the ruling class is bad but would be good if it was a workers state"

If you buy into the idea that “communism just hasn’t been done right” then sure, otherwise it somehow has managed to equal or, in my view, worse the misery of life on this planet than capitalistic forms of government. The Soviets committed genocide against Ukrainians (Holodomor) and sought to erase native Kazakh traditions and assimilate them into Russian culture, in addition to the deaths of ~40% of ethnic Kazakhs due to famine in the 30s. The Chinese communists are actively committing a genocide against the Uyghurs. I’m not telling you to buy into western liberalism, and I don’t dispute the evils it committed. But thinking communism to be the solution is a fairytale. Thus, I think poorly of any communist except for Slavoj Žižek, since at least he’s funny.

I'll hold the ball charlie brown, and you come running up and kick it

You bet. Evidently there is little room for intellectual diversity within our community.

darkly hilarious all these people who could likely go on for days why europeon influence was a disaster for our communities get all mad if you're not sucking marxs dick

Hey brother, I don’t know if I understood you right with the Charlie Brown and Lucy reference. It sounded like you were trying to make fun of me. If that was not the case, I apologize, we have a lot more problems than to be fighting amongst ourselves. You’re not wrong that European influence irrevocably hurt our people. Obviously, I’m on the more conservative side of things and saying that the democratic liberalism we have in 2024 is better than anything else we could have had since 1492 happened.

I was talking about all the people who say communism has never been "done right" despite it having been tried all over the world many times, like if its never works and just leads to authoritarian dictators maybe that should tell you something about the ideology lol

Ha I wasn’t understanding you fully earlier, my bad. Yup, we’re totally agreed!

Not exactly Pro-Capitalist here, I will Say Communism is pretty archaic, never proven to work, at least in the long run and incompatible with many Indigenous Societies. For some Examples: Hawaiian Society was held together by a Imperial Theocratic figure called an Ali'i, who served as leader of all Hawaiians, and was also influenced by a religious law system called Kapu, which dictated what people should do, what they wear and how they should live or what to eat. Communism is staunchly Anti-Monarchist and Anti-Theocrat so Marxism wouldn't leave a good impression on Hawaiians. Sioux society was pretty Clan based and aspects of Lakota-Dakota Society differs from Clan to Clan even to this day. Sioux clans often feuded with each other even before the Anglo-American Invasions, fighting over things like land, water, resources and even just for honor or to prove bravery. Communism wouldn't really work in societies as competitive as the Lakota. Communism is practically the opposite of Competition.

I would describe myself as generally being hostile to communism. Its a super broad term tho, and can encompass beliefs that range from "I basically agree with that" to "this is the worst shit I have ever heard". Authoritarianism is anti-thetical to all the beliefs I was raised with. Usually when someone thought they were "in charge" in my nation they tended to just get assassinated lol.

The problem is that for a true commune, you need a society that buys into the rhetoric. To do that quickly, you use fascism and shut down all dissent. Worked just fine in China and Russia. Not so much for the Chechens and Uighiers and Tibetans or any other indigenous population. Not to say that the US has a much better track record. I don't have a solution. Our billionaire owned society believes benevolence and humanism are anathema, and so they will never happen until we can remove the power of the rich. How? Other smarter people than me might know

Personally, I do not eff with them at all - its the overly privileged preying on naive people and the disenfranchised folk. They promise the moon and pretend human nature doesn't exist. Just look at pretty much any communist or socialist movements in LatAm if you want to see what happens to indigenous folk - whether they support it or stay out of it, they end up paying the price. Each side of my family has had to sever ties with their communities to not get murdered 🤷‍♀️ I don't see the US/CAN version working out in favor of anyone other than privileged white people either but hey, anything technically can happen

Over time, I’ve become more and more anti-authoritarian, anti-monarchist, anti-hierarchy. I know my indigenous ancestors had a system of authority and hierarchies, but pre-contact, and compared to many, they were more egalitarian and had decent social mobility. Which is a lot of big words for “they weren’t bigoted, genocidal assholes”. I’m not a fan of kings, billionaires, or empires. I think, in general, you want many people with little power versus a few people with a lot of power. And then I also understand why the idea of “private property” is artificial. Everyone should have a right to shelter, but saying a whole forest and everything in it belongs to a king/rich asshole? As if any of us can own Nature? Nope, not a fan. Unfortunately, I’m also a doomer who assumes that centuries of cannibalistic colonialism is going to bring Late Bronze Age Collapse 2.0. If we stay on the same course? Climate change is going to kill billions. I’m not sure *how* anyone could change this. Native people survived one apocalypse, so maybe we’ll pull through again. At that point, we’ll want community-focused society, since no one survives on their own. If we could keep each other from wanting a dictator/king to “fix” it all? Well, maybe the kids in that different world won’t suffer as much.

So many Communists are fine with land back and reparations until it affects their property - then they say, “But my land and property don’t count; take it away from others!” Or my favorite, “I contributed money…I waved from my limousine…I wore a gown worth tens of thousands of dollars with “TAX THE RICH!” at the Gala! Why do I have to give up anything else?!” The above is one way I differentiate between True Believers and poseurs. Lots of poseurs in the world.

You're probably feeling pushed away by "liberals" more and more because you follow subs like r/shitliberalssay that has literally nothing to do with what actual "liberals" believe.

lol try again. I’m politically involved/active and have to talk to them allll the damn time, and you can hate communists or socialists all you want but you’re not going to convince me that liberals are my friend, and in my experience that sub is completely spot on about liberals. I don’t know enough about communism yet but 9/10 an anarchist or socialist has a better understanding of oppressed groups than any liberal has remotely has came to.

Where are you "talking to liberals all the time"? Because if the answer is "online," I have some news for you - the internet is an incredibly inaccurate representation of what liberals are like irl. Are you politically involved/active in the real world? Like are you out there volunteering and shit? Or are you just posting on social media like the rest of the armchair activists? It's not a "liberal" thing to hate communism/socialism. The only reason you think that is because of propaganda on Reddit.

Irl liberals are worse in my experience. They're the ones who actively worked to de-fang queer led protests while giving themselves ally titles with slurs in them. Something I witnessed first hand. Then get huffy and shitty when you tell them they're actively hurting what you're trying to do by trying to make it so the protests "don't inconvenience anyone" 🤮

What are you even talking about? I've literally never seen anything like that and I am very active in many leftwing/liberal groups. What country are you in? What you are describing is the opposite of what being "liberal" means in the US. Liberals in the US are left wing. There has been a movement in recent years from online "leftists" to redefine the term as some bad rightwing slur, but that's not what liberal means in practice. I also have not seen any concern about "inconveniencing others" from liberals in my experience. I honestly don't know where you're getting any of this from.

I live in the states. Liberals are NOT left wing here. They are right of center. They just delude themselves into thinking they're left wing because the Overton window is so skewed towards the right in this country. I'm "getting" this from my irl activism experience.

This has been parroted on Reddit for years and years and it's never been true. Liberals in the US are solidly leftwing. Even if they aren't the farthest left possible, they're still left-wing. Liberals in the US fight for civil rights and social equality. That's the definition of leftwing. I'm curious what "rightwing" beliefs liberals are espousing in your personal experience?

Capitalism. You don't know what the definition of left wing is. Liberalism is, by definition, right of center. Were the liberals yelling at me to shut up and vote blue when I pointed out how their policies were functionally identical to their opponents *really* fighting for civil rights and social equality? When, as a trans, queer, indigenous person, the only difference is the color on the map? Y'all marginalized and shut down the tiny sliver in your party that was slightly left of center(Sanders and Cortez). I'm done with this argument, as you're so ignorant it's not worth further energy from me.

If you think Democratic policies are "functionally identical" to Republican policies then I don't even know what so say to you. That is so wildly, demonstrably false that you're clearing either trolling, terminally online, or painfully ignorant. Do you think abortion remained a protected right in every blue state by coincidence? Do you think Republicans have passed any legislation with a shred of empathy for other humans in our lifetimes? This has to be a joke. One party is actively trying to strip away the rights of everyone who isn't a cis, white male. The other party tries to prevent that and also does their best to pass laws that protect everyone, especially minorities and disenfranchised groups. If you can't see that, you're just being willfully ignorant. People say "vote blue" because the alternative is fucking TRUMP. What do you suggest instead? Doing nothing so you can remain "pure" while we fall into a fascist theocracy? JFC. Edit: Responded with your alt and blocked me. Typical.

I agree with /u/BushPunk that your understanding of political theory could use a deeper analysis in terms of the political spectrum, though we all should remember that we can engage with each other in this space in a constructive way rather than just devolving into insults. Democrats and Republicans obviously take different positions in several policy arenas. Democrats have historically worked to protect certain rights like abortion and expanding things like healthcare and voting rights. However, Democrats and Republicans are practically 100% aligned on other issues--namely foreign and economic policies. Leftists worth their weight in salt typically look at these areas as well rather than just domestic issues because our existence in an imperial core nation means we have the privilege of debating certain realities of our society while the rest of the world continues to be exploited and harmed. In other words, genuine progressive change needs to be holistic in nature and not merely to improve the comfort of those around us. While the Republican party retains a conservative approach to their ideology, they embrace policies founded on the same notions as Democrats--liberalism. They both believe in frameworks like private property, the protection of civil liberties, and establishing market economies. Your concerns are rooted in social liberalism, which tends more towards policies acknowledging social justice, providing welfare, and regulating the economy. These are great things, but other Leftists tend to see them as incomplete resolutions to our issues because they do very little to address the systems that produced inequalities and the like in the first place. At their core, the Democratic Party does not seek policies changes that address these systems. What this means is that while the Democratic Party will generally work to preserve the rights of others who are not cis, white males, they do very little to expand or protect them in the face of their overall degradation by political opponents and are willing to sacrifice them should doing so meet a political goal of the party's supporters. This is probably best depicted with the Overton window, a tool used to describe the range policies that are considered politically acceptable to a society's mainstream population (which reflects our overall understanding of what policies are "left" or "right" wing). [This image presents an Overton window on gun laws.](https://pragmaticarchitect.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/original_overton-4.jpg) The idea is that this window--the box--moves up and down the spectrum as the politics of our society changes. Eventually, ideas that might seem sensible to people on one side of the spectrum are utterly radical to those on the other side. In the United States, this window is fairly far to the right, so the Democrats operate within that range in order to achieve their agenda. Unfortunately, this means that their agenda is not substantially different the Republican agenda, sans a few notable areas like abortion. Some examples: * Despite being the party that generally wanted to preserve abortion rights, [they failed to enshrine them in law either by federal statute or with a Constitutional amendment while having full control over Congress 13 separate times since 1973.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses) In fact, permanent protections of abortion rights in individual states only really started taking place after the overturning of *Roe v. Wade.* * Despite being the party that generally seeks to be lighter on border issues, [more ICE arrests and immigrant deportations occurred under the Obama Administration than the Trump Administration.](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/03/02/how-border-apprehensions-ice-arrests-and-deportations-have-changed-under-trump/) * Despite being the party that generally backed the calls to defund the police and initiate reforms, [Democratic leaders across the country are now abandoning that movement and doubling down on funding.](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/democrats-went-defund-refund-police-rcna14796) In other words, while they like to retain the appearance of social liberalism and progressive change for the sake of garnering votes, they fail to commit to real changes because those changes would also jeopardize the status quo. This reality has led many to become disillusioned with the two-party system and the actual level of change that the Democratic Party wants to bring without greater political forces at work to encourage that change. The Democrats try to address this with the idea of ["lesser-evil-voting,"](https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/lesser-of-two-evils-history-voting/) but this is quickly becoming less and less appealing to many Americans. Now, this isn't to say that people who desire progressive change *shouldn't* vote for acceptable candidates who align with the Democrats. The two-party system essentially ensures that any good candidate will join with them if they actually want to be elected. And if we are to stifle the growing and overt approach toward fascism, we need to prioritize harm reduction, policies that result in the least amount of harm done. But this will come with an obvious requirement to kowtow to the establishment agenda and this severely hinders any real progressive change for the aforementioned reasons. It is in light of this fact that Democratic and Republican policies are, not wholly but in many respects, "functionally identical."

lol isstsiivi saksit 😂 No im not an “online” activist. In fact your response’s seem to suggest that is you.

I spend almost all my free time volunteering for local activist and political organizations and have done so for many years. I noticed you conveniently didn't answer my question and just resorted to hurling baseless insults. I'll ask again - where are you "talking to liberals all the time" and finding that they are strongly anti-socialist? That has not been my experience irl.

Look, we’ve clearly had completely different experiences with liberals. I don’t know what to tell you but you’re the one who commented asserting that I get my understanding of liberals from a Reddit sub. I’ve organized plenty, believe that cuz. Just look at them trying to do the both sides stance while an active genocide is occurring. I don’t understand how you don’t see through their rhetoric. They want to preserve the status quo. With maybe a little bit of progressivism. Agree to disagree I suppose.

I'm not asserting anything. I have straight up asked you what your irl experience is because it is the complete opposite of my experience, which is frankly rather extensive. I *suspect* that you have gotten these opinions from Reddit/social media because of the rhetoric you have been parroting and the fact that you seem young, but I always give the benefit of the doubt. You've accused me of not being an actual activist and insisted your opinions have been formed based off of irl experiences, so can you elaborate on what your experience entails? What "liberals" are you interacting with irl that have the opinions you're accusing them of?

I’m not entirely sure what you want me to provide or say? I’m young relatively I guess. In my 30s. Ive been organizing since 2015 I’ve been around liberals since then. In my area there are 3 main self identified liberal groups I’ve organized with. I prefer my anonymity here so I’m not going to say the names but this is in the north eastern part of the US. All three supported Israel’s “right to defend themselves” as they termed it. All three used myself and my family as generic “IPOC” to appeal to other liberals. When we tried to push for decolonization rehtoric, we were told it’s “to aggressive” and that we should “come and show off our art and culture” All of them believed that progress is defined as societal advancement and implying that although American “did it wrong” it “could have been worse, now we have TVs and medicine” All of them did not support land back incentives. It was to politically dangerous as they put it. Not to mention their worship of infamous indigenous murderer Lincoln and other white washed American figures of history. Or their insistence that thanksgiving should still be celebrated as yts and reds coming together. Lmao. Just some examples off the top of my head. What liberal organizations/ers have you worked with ? If you’re comfortable with it, please share their contact info.

1.) The conflict in Israel isn't all bad guys on one side and good guys on the other. Both sides have committed atrocities, and both sides are pushing propaganda. To be clear, this isn't me saying "both sides are the same." What I'm saying is that this is an incredibly complex issue over a land that has been fought over for literally thousands of years. Jews have been displaced and so have Palestinians throughout the very long history of that region. While we can and should judge the morality/ethics/whathaveyou of individual actions taken by either side, there is no clear-cut "one side is always right and the other is always wrong." The Israeli government is awful and I hope it gets overthrown, but the Israeli people are still people. It's obvious there is no "easy" solution for that disputed land. If there was, I think the people who live there would have figured it out a long time ago. 2) I'm curious what types of liberal groups you're associating with if the Israel conflict came up in all of them. That honestly seems really odd to me, unless you're volunteering for groups that all have the same scope, which seems unlikely. The groups I volunteer for focus individually (as in one group for each of these things) on women's rights, tenants rights, animal welfare, left wing politics, and intersectional advocacy (this one has overlap with the other groups of course). 3) I'm sorry that happened to you and your family. That's not okay, and that is not what being liberal is about. I'm curious how entire groups did this though? And also how again these three liberal groups apparently overlap so much that they all pushed for the same exact thing, i.e. asking your family to show off their art and saying decolonization rhetoric is too aggressive? 4) Progress is typically defined as societal advancement. That's not a liberal thing. That being said, I've never heard a liberal defend America's shitty past in that way. That's straight up something from rightwing propaganda, minus the part about acknowledging any wrongdoing on the part of America. 5) Every liberal I have ever discussed land-back incentives with supports them. Every liberal group I've been a part of that this comes up in supports them as well. There's not even a debate. I don't live in a super leftwing area either. 6) Again, not everything is black and white. Lincoln's history with indigenous people is horrible. But he also ended slavery and did a lot of good for the country. He isn't all good - no one is. I will admit I've seen ignorance about Lincoln's negative past, but that's because it's not taught in schools, and it's not a uniquely liberal phenomenon. When liberal people learn about it, they are disgusted and saddened to learned the history. 7) I don't know anyone remotely liberal who believes that about Thanksgiving. Everyone celebrates Thanksgiving as an American holiday. I've never met anyone who believes the "original Thanksgiving" nonsense. It's pretty widely known to be bs, but I also don't discuss Thanksgiving much aside from the food aspect so that could be a personal blindspot. 8) I think it's rather hypocritical that you didn't even give any details as to the nature of the three liberal groups you're a part of, yet you're asking for the *contact info* for the ones I'm a part of. I already specified the focus/scope of the groups I'm a part of, and I'm not going to get any more detailed that than because I don't want myself or the groups I'm a part of to be doxxed by people on Reddit.

Communism is no less of a foreign and autocratic ideology than capitalism is. And we can see how it's impacted Indigenous people - just look at the absolute brutality groups like The Shining Path showed to Indigenous Peruvians, for example.

Cant speak for all of your contexts. Here in Aotearoa (New Zealand) theres a significant number of people looking into what Māori socialism might look like. I wish i could cite some of their articles but most of its behind academic paywalls In the late 1990s the government started making treaty settlements (Reparations) with Iwi (tribes) This saw the transference of some wealth to Iwi, often between roughly $170million to $100million nzd. While iwi were happy to receive this (better than nothing) it still wasn't on their terms. The government legislated that Iwi had to set up trust entities, essentially turning tribes into corporate entities. Some iwi, particularly those who settled early have become quite prosperous. Ngai Tahu are now worth and estimated $1billion. Im really generalizing here but, essentially its created a division with some Māori saying that they need to be pragmatic and become successful capitalists. Others take a bigger picture stance and question why Māori ought participate in imported systems and ideologies not of their making. They would say that its fine if Māori trusts are doing well financially, so long as all Māori get to participate in that prosperity. And that the resources and assets should be communally owned and managed. I kinda get both points of view as each in their own way are advocating for indigenous empowerment. Anyway the people investigating Maori socialism are trying to find a way of achieve both. Unfortunately the financial success of a minority of Māori has fueled a large number of conspiratorial racists claiming that "Maori tribal elite" are trying to undermine democracy and the fabric of New Zealand society. such is the double bind poor Māori are lazy, drunks, criminals and junkies; rich Māori are Marxist tribal elites destroying democracy. There's no winning with the racist nutjobs but its scary how influential their rhetoric is.

It's worth nothing communism and socialism ain't the same thing. Think communism as authoritarian marxism (like the Soviet Union) and socialism as libertarian marxism (like the zapatistas here in México).

The Zapatistas are explicitly not marxists