this thread¶

Addressing this is deceptively complicated, so in this thread, I'll try to go point-by-point.

Let's start with what exactly Marxism is:

Marxism is a way of understanding the world. It doesn't make value judgements, like "Urbanism is cool" or "Indigenous people are yucky." https://t.co/iVT0pBsvbq Specifically, Marxism analyzes how societies develop, how classes emerge, and how they interact with each other and the world around them. It does this through the lens of political economy; societies are governed by the things they do -- i.e. their economies. Every society has an economy, including indigenous ones, because every society is made of people, who work to meet their needs. They do this through production -- making stuff that either meets a need (e.g. food, housing) or makes it easier to meet those needs (e.g. tools). Marxism sorts these societies into broad categories based on how they do that production. Of particular note is which people do the producing and which people get to decide how the product gets used. For most of human existence, these lined up pretty closely. That is, the product of your labor was pretty much yours to decide what to do with it. Obviously, various concepts of social obligation to produce on behalf of others have always been a thing -- we are a social species. Raising children is a pretty universal example. Class societies emerge when there is a divergence between labor and control over the product of that labor. For example, if there is an entire class of slaves who are compelled to produce food on behalf of the enslavers -- who then "naturally" have the right to ALL of that food. In such a situation, the enslavers would have a material interest in compelling more production, because then they have more stuff. They can use that stuff to get more power -- feed and equip more soldiers, get more slaves, make even more more stuff, and repeat. When Marxists talk about "higher modes of production," it's not a statement of morals, but an observation about what demonstrably happens in the world. Class societies are able to produce more stuff, which they use to get even more powerful, and make even more stuff. All along the way, they use that surplus to develop the means of production, and with that, production accelerates even faster -- as does the need to capture even more territory and subjugate more people and extract more resources to continue that trend. None of this should be particularly controversial -- we can observe these things happening with our own eyes. From these observations, we can begin to craft a political philosophy, at which point concepts of "better" and "just" can finally come into play. The reason we care to do this analysis in the first place is not out of idle navel-gazing, like the philosophers of old. The goal is to not just observe the world, but to change it. We want to destroy this exploitation and extraction and environmental degradation. And yes, it is possible to make all of these observations and come to chauvinist conclusions. Certainly, there are a large number of western "Marxists" who think "Well who cares about indigenous people anyway?" They may say the same about women, queer people, or the global south. They're wrong, of course. Not just "morally" wrong, but also in terms of how to successfully begin, let alone advance and defend a revolution. Explaining exactly why is a bit beyond the scope of this thread, but suffice to say, there are good reasons they have failed thus far. So no, Marxism -- and Marxists themselves -- are not inherently "anti-indigenous." If indigenous liberation is your primary concern, becoming a decolonial Marxist is the best way to accomplish that. It's also the best way to combat chauvinist trends within Marxism.