Lenin & Stalin on Decolinzation

Citation preview

1

Lenin and Stalin on Decolonization By Ricardo Saenz Comanche Nation

2

Sections in this document: Introduction Part 1: On Contradictions Part 2: On Self-Determination Part 3: On smashing the Bourgeois State and a ‘New’ State Part 4: On Annexation Part 5: On Autonomy Part 6: On Centralism Part 7: On Population Part 8: On Chauvinism Part 9: On National Antipathies Part 10: On Colonialism Conclusion

3

Introduction As an Indigenous (Comanche) Marxist I come across several issues with settler ‘Marxists’ when it comes to their understanding of our liberation as colonized communities on the North American continent. Most settlers don’t understand history or basic material conditions within their own country. This lack of history makes settler “Marxists” become class reductionists, where they see all oppression on the American continent as economic. Nor do they understand Decolonial theory, because they never read it (or even know it exists in the first place). Thus, when I bring up Decolonization as liberation, most settler “Marxists” would be dismissive, and claim that the only way liberation would happen, is to just overthrow capitalism, pushing the contradiction of settler colonialism aside. One way they’re dismissive is to say that if Lenin or Stalin were alive, they wouldn’t support Decolonization. These same settlers would throw Lenin and Stalin quotes at me dismissively. With this book, I intend to show that Lenin and Stalin would have supported Decolonization. Even though they did not hyperfocus on the material conditions and contradictions of the internal colonies (sovereign Indigenous Nations) within the United States, they still wrote enough to make a strong case that if they were alive today, they would advocate for Decolonization.

4

Quoted Sources included: A) “The Right of Nations to Self-Determination” by Lenin B) “Self-Determination of Nations” by Lenin C) “The Revolutionary Proletariat and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination” by Lenin D) “The Discussion on Self-Determination Summed Up” by Lenin E) “The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination (Theses)” by Lenin F) “State and Revolution” by Lenin G) “What is to be Done?” by Lenin H) “Imperialism The Highest Stage of Capitalism” by Lenin I) “‘Left-Wing’ Communism, An Infantile Disorder” by Lenin J) “The Junius Pamphlet” by Lenin K) “Marxism and the National Question” by Stalin L) “The Foundations of Leninism” by Stalin M) “Historical Materialism” by Stalin N) “On Contradiction” by Mao

5

Part 1: On Contradictions

6 As stated previously, one of the biggest issues I have as an Indigenous person is to explain to settler ‘Marxists’ that the primary contradiction on the American continent is: Settler colonialism. Since settlers only experience economic oppression, they have class reductionist views on oppression & liberation. Indigenous communities know that settler colonialism goes beyond just economics. I like to break things down for settlers this way: if capitalism gets abolished and gets replaced by a Marxist economic mode of production, but the settler state still exist, is that liberation for the sovereign Indigenous nations within the United States? No, it’s not. Settler colonialism needs to be abolished in order for liberation to occur on the American continent. Finding the primary contradiction is essential, this is shown in ‘Quote 1’. Once settler colonialism gets abolished, capitalism will be abolished simultaneously, since capitalism is the child of settler colonialism. We must understand that material conditions vary from location, and we can’t have a ‘copy and paste’ style liberation strategy globally. The North American continent has a unique history and material contradictions that need to be taken into account to properly be able to use dialectical materialism and find the primary contradiction. Quote 1: “If in any process there are a number of contradictions, one of them must be the principal contradiction playing the leading and decisive role, while the rest occupy a secondary and subordinate position. Therefore, in studying any complex process in which there are two or more contradictions, we must devote every effort to finding its principal contradiction. Once this principal contradiction is grasped, all problems can be easily resolved”.

7 (Mao, “On Contradiction”). Quote 2: “The categorical demand of Marxist theory is examining any social question if that the question be formulated within definite historical limits, and if it refers to a particular country (e.g., the national program for a given country), the specific features that distinguish that country from others within the same historical epoch be taken into account”. (Lenin, “The Right of Nations to Self-Determination”) Quote 3: “Hence, the source of formation of the spiritual life of society, the origin of social ideas, social theories, political views and political institutions, should not be sought for in the ideas, theories, views, and political institutions themselves, but in the conditions of material life of society, in social being, of which these ideas, theories views, ect., are the reflection”. (Stalin, Historical Materialism). Quote 4: “During the last two decades the national question has undergone a number of very important changes. The national question in the period of the Second International and the national question in the period of Leninism are far from being the same thing. They differ profoundly from each other, not only in their scope, but also in intrinsic character. Formerly, the national question was usually confined to a narrow circle of questions, concerning, primarily, ‘civilized’ nationalities. The Irish, the Hungarians, the Poles, the Finns, the Serbs, and several other European nationalities – that was the circle of inequal peoples in whose destinies the leaders of the Second International were interested. The scores and hundreds of millions

8 of Asiatic and African peoples who are suffering national oppression in its most savage and cruel form usually remained outside of their field of vision. They hesitated to put white and black, ‘civilized’ and ‘uncivilized’ on the same plane. Two or three meaningless, lukewarm resolutions, which carefully evaded the question of liberating the colonies – that was all the leaders of the Second International could boast of. Now we can say that this duplicity and halfheartedness in dealing with the national question has been brough to an end. Leninism laid bare this crying incongruity, broke down the wall between whites and blacks, between European and Asiatics, between the ‘civilized’ and ‘uncivilized’ slaves of imperialism, and thus linked the national question with the question of the colonies. The national question was thereby transformed from a particular and internal state problem into a general and international problem, into a world problem of emancipating the oppressed peoples in the dependent countries and colonies from the yoke of imperialism. Formerly, the principle of self-determination of nations was usually misinterpreted, and not infrequently it was narrowed down to the idea of the right of nations to autonomy. Certain leaders of the Second International even went so far as to turn the right to self-determination into the right to cultural autonomy, i.e., the right of oppressed nations to have their own cultural institutions, leaving all political power in the hands of the ruling nation. As a consequence, the idea of self-determination stood in danger of being transformed from an instrument for combating annexations into an instrument for justifying them. Now we can say that this confusion has been cleared up. Leninism broadened the conception of self-determinism, interpreting it as the right of the oppressed peoples of the dependent

9 countries and colonies to complete secession, as the right of nations to independent existence as states. This precluded the possibility of justifying annexations by interpreting the right to self-determinism as the right to autonomy. Thus, the principle of self-determinism itself was transformed from a instrument for deceiving the masses, which it undoubtedly was in the hands of the social-chauvinists during the imperialist war, into as instrument for exposing all imperialist aspirations and chauvinist machinations, into instrument for the political education of the masses in the spirit of internationalism”. (Stalin, “The Foundations of Leninism”) Quote 5: “All these are problems the solution of which depend on the concrete historical conditions in which the given nation finds itself. More than that; conditions like everything else, change, and a decision which is correct at one particular time may prove to be entirely unsuitable at another”. (Stalin, “Marxism and the National Question”) Quote 6: “The solution of the national question is possible only in the connection with the historical conditions taken in their development”. (Stalin, “Marxism and the National Question”) Quote 7: “If the dialectical approach to a question is required anywhere it is required here, in the national question”. (Stalin, “Marxism and the National Question”)

10

11

Part 2: On Self-Determination

12 Now that it is established that the primary contradiction is settler colonialism, the reader must acknowledge another fact: Indigenous communities within settler states are sovereign nations. They’re internal colonies. Sovereign Indigenous nations within the U.S. have their own governments, court systems, laws, economies, programs, cultures, and languages. Settler Marxists within the United States should learn about the history of federal Indian law, and court cases that pertain to Indigenous sovereignty. To understand Indigenous sovereignty better, it is advised to learn about the Marshall trilogy cases and the history behind them: - Johnson v. Mcintosh, 21 U.S. (8Wheat.) 543 (1823) - Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 1 (1831) - Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 151 (1832) Many treaties between Indigenous nations and the United States government acknowledges the sovereignty of the hundreds of Indigenous nations existed before the arrival of European settlers, since “time immemorial”. While Indigenous communities do have sovereignty, it is limited by a colonial relationship with the U.S. settler state. In Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831), the supreme court establishes a guardian-ward relationship, where the settler state acts as a “guardian” over its “wards” (Indigenous nations). This is ‘sovereign apartheid’ that limits Indigenous sovereignty by prioritizing the sovereignty of the settler state. It also requires a whole different book to explain this concept and history. That’s it is important to highlight this history for the reader to be able to research this history after reading this book.

13 Quote 8: “Self-determination of nations means the political separation of these nations from alien bodies, the formation of an independent national state”. (Lenin, “The Right of Nations to Self-Determination”) Quote 9: “Political self-determination can mean nothing else than the right to secede and to form an independent national state”. (Lenin, “The Right of Nations to Self-Determination”) Quote 10: “Great powers […] Japan […] This state is a bourgeois sate, therefore, it, itself, has begun to oppress other nations and to enslave colonies”. (Lenin, “The Right of Nations to Self-Determination”) Quote 11: “Can a nation be free if it oppresses other nations? It cannot”. (Lenin, “The Right of Nations to Self-Determination”) Quote 12: “Imperialism is the period of an increasing oppression of the struggle of the whole world by a handful of ‘great’ nations; the struggle for a Socialist international revolution against imperialism is therefore impossible without recognizing of the right of nations to self-determination”. (Lenin, “Self-Determination of Nations”) Quote 13: “In any case the wage workers will be exploited. And in order to be able to fight successfully against

14 exploitation, the proletariat must be free of nationalism, must be absolutely neutral, so to speak, in struggle for supremacy that is going on among the bourgeoisie of the various nations. If the proletariat of any one nation gives the slightest support to the privileges of ‘its’ national bourgeoisie, this will inevitably rouse distrust among the proletariat of the other nation; it will weaken the international class solidarity of the workers and divide them, to the delight of the bourgeoisie. And repudiation of the right to self-determination, or secession, inevitably means, in practice, supporting the privileges of the dominating nation”. (Lenin, “The Right of Nations to SelfDetermination”). Quote 14: “Victorious socialism must achieve complete democracy and, consequently, not only bring about the complete equality of nations, but also the right to free political secession. Socialist parties which fail to prove by all their activities now, as well as during the revolution and after its victory, that they will free the enslaved nations and establish relations with them on the basis of a free union – and a free union is a lying phrase without right to secession – such parties would be committing treachery to socialism”. (Lenin, “The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination (Theses)”) Quote 15: “The proletariat cannot evade the question that is particularly ‘unpleasant’ for the imperialist bourgeoisie, namely the question of the frontiers of a state that is based on national oppression. The proletariat cannot but fight against the forcible retention of the oppressed nations within the

15 boundaries of a given state, and this is exactly what the struggle for the right of self-determination means. The proletariat must demand the right of political secession for the colonizes and for nations that ‘its own’ nation oppresses. Unless it does this, proletariat internationalism will remain between a meaningless phrase; mutual confidence and class solidarity between the workers of the pressing and oppressed nations will be impossible; the hypocrisy of the reformist and Kautskyan advocates of selfdetermination who maintained silence about the nations which are oppressed by ‘their’ nation and forcibly retained within ‘their’ state will remain unexposed. The Socialist of the oppressed nations, on the other hand, must particularly fight for and maintain complete, absolute unity (also organizational) between the workers of the pressed nation and the workers of the oppressing nation. Without such unity it will be impossible to maintain an independent proletariat policy and class solidarity with the proletariat of other countries in the face of all the subterfuge, treachery, and trickery of the bourgeoisie; for the bourgeoisie of the oppressed nations always converts the slogan of national liberation into a means for deceiving workers, in internal politics it utilizes these slogans as a means for concluding reactionary agreements with the bourgeoisie of the ruling class”. (Lenin, “The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination (Theses)”)

Quote 16: “The socialist revolution may begin in the very near future. In that event the proletariat will be faced with the immediate task of capturing power, or

16 expropriating the banks, and of introducing other dictatorial measures. In such a situation, the bourgeoisie, and particularly intellectuals like the Fabians and the Kautskists, will strive to disrupt and to hinder the revolution to restrict it to limited democratic aims. While all purely democratic demands may – at a time when the proletariats have already begun to storm the bulwarks of bourgeois power – serve, in a certain sense, as a hinderance to the revolution, nevertheless, the necessity of proclaiming and granting freedom to all oppressed nations (i.e., their right to self-determination will be as urgent in the socialist revolution”. (Lenin, “The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination (Theses)”) Quote 17: “In our theses we said that the demand for the immediate liberation of the colonies is just as ‘infeasible’ (i.e., infeasible without a series of revolutions and transient without socialism) under capitalism as self-determination of nations, or the election of public officials by the people, or a democratic republic, ect. – and on the other hand, that the demand for the liberation of the colonies is nothing more nor less than the ‘recognition of the selfdetermination of nations’”. (Lenin, “The Discussion on Self-Determination Summed Up”) Quote 18: “It was tacitly assumed that the victory of the proletariat in Europe as possible without a direct alliance with the liberation movement in the colonies, that the national-colonial question could be solved on the quiet, ‘of its own accord’, off the highway of the proletarian revolution, without revolutionary struggle

17 against imperialism. Now we can say that this antirevolutionary point of view has been exposed. Leninism has proved, and the imperialist war and the revolution in Russia have confirmed, that the national question can be solves only in connection with and on the basis of the proletarian revolution, and that the road to victory of the revolution in the west lies through the revolutionary alliance with the liberation movement of the colonies and dependent countries against imperialism. The national question is a part of the general question of the proletarian revolution, a part of the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat. […] Leninism replies to this question in the affirmative, i.e., the national liberation movement of the oppressed countries, and the possibility of using these for overthrowing the common enemy, for overthrowing imperialism”. (Stalin, “The Foundations of Leninism”) Quote 19: “The workers therefore combat and will continue to combat the policy of national oppression in all its forms, from the most subtle to the most crude, as well as the policy of inciting nations against each other in all its forms. Social-Democrats in all countries therefore proclaims the right of nations to self-determination. The right to self-determination means that only the nation itself has the right to determine its destiny, that no one has the right forcibly to interfere in the life of the nation, to destroy its schools and other institutions, to violate its habits and customs, to repress its language, or curtail its rights”. (Stalin, “Marxism and the National Question”) Quote 20:

18 “The right of self-determination means that a nation may arrange its life in the way it wishes. It has the right to arrange its life on the basis of autonomy. It has the right to enter into federal relations with other nations. It has the right to complete secession. Nations are sovereign, and all nations have equal rights”. (Stalin, “Marxism and the National Question”) Quote 21: “Right to self-determination is an essential element in the solution of the national question”. (Stalin, “Marxism and the National Question”)

19

Part 3: On smashing the Bourgeois State and a ‘New State’

20 An issue that gets brought up when speaking to settler “Marxists” is imagining a post-liberation government and society on the North American continent. Many settler “Marxists” like to imagine a post-capitalistic state where the U.S. government would be transformed into a “Marxist” state. The problem with this is that no matter what type of economy a settler state utilizes: its still a settler state. All settler states are bourgeois states, and all settler nationalisms are bourgeois nationalisms. For Decolonization (Liberation) of the North American continent to occur, all settler governments and nationalisms need to be abolished. Decolonization (Liberation) cannot happen if settler colonial constructs are allowed to exist after a revolution on the continent. Quote 22: “[Marx] stated that the ‘breaking up’ of the state machinery is demanded by the interests both of the workers and of the peasants, that it unites them, that it places before them the common task of removing the ‘parasite’ and replacing it by something new”. (Lenin, “State and Revolution”) Quote 23: “There is no trace of Utopianism in Marx, in their sense of inventing or imagining a ‘new’ society. No, he studies, as a process of natural history, the birth of the new society from the old, the forms of transition from the latter to the former. He takes the actual experience of a mass proletarian movement and tries to draw practical lessons from it”. (Lenin, “State and Revolution”) Quote 24:

21 “Here is a concrete practicable task, immediately realizable in relation to all trusts, a task that frees the workers of exploitation and makes use of the experience”. (Lenin, “State and Revolution”). Quote: 25: “But Marx did not undertake the task of discovering the political forms of this future stage. He limited himself to an exact observation of French history, its analysis and the conclusion to which the year 1851 has led, viz., that matters were moving towards the destruction of the bourgeois machinery of state” (Lenin, “State and Revolution”) Quote 26: “The dictatorship of the proletariat cannot arise as the result of the peaceful development of bourgeois society and of bourgeois democracy; it can arise only as the result of the smashing of the bourgeois state machine, the bourgeois army, the bourgeois bureaucratic apparatus, the bourgeois police”. (Stalin, “The Foundations of Leninism”)

Quote 27: “The essence of Soviet power consists in the fact that these most all-embracing and most revolutionary mass organizations of precisely those classes that were oppressed by the capitalists and landlords are not the ‘permanent and sole basis of the whole power of the state, of the whole state apparatus’, […] That is why Soviet power is a new form of state organization, different in principle from the old bourgeoisdemocratic and parliamentary form, a new type of state, adapted not to the task of exploiting and

22 oppressing the labouring masses, but to the task of completely emancipating them from all oppression and exploitation, to the task facing the dictatorship of the proletariat”. (Stalin, “The Foundations of Leninism”) Quote 28: “Whether the proletariat rallies to the banner of the bourgeois nationalism depends on the degree of development of class antagonisms, on the class consciousness and degree of organization of the proletariat. The class-conscious proletariat has its own tried banner, and has no need to rally to the banner of the bourgeoisie. As far as the peasants are concerned, their participation in the national movement depends primarily on the national character of the repressions. If the repressions affect the ‘land’, as was the case in Ireland, then the mass of the peasants immediately rally to the banner of the national movement”. (Stalin, “Marxism and the National Question”) Quote 29: “In fighting for the right of nations to selfdetermination, the aim of Social-Democracy is to put an end to the policy of national oppression, to render it impossible, and thereby to remove the grounds of strife between nations, to take the edge off that strife and reduce it to a minimum. This is what essentially distinguishes the policy of the class-conscious proletariat from the policy of the bourgeoisie, which attempts to aggravate and fan the national struggle and to prolong and sharpen the national movement. And that is why the class-conscious proletariat cannot rally under the ‘national’ flag of the bourgeoisie”. (Stalin, “Marxism and the National Question”)

23

Part 4: On Annexation

24 An issue with settler “Marxists” not being able to properly envision what liberation consists for sovereign Indigenous nations, is that settlers imagine a post-capitalistic state where Indigenous nations would become absorbed (annexed) into a “Marxist” settler state. There is another term for this concept: assimilation. Indigenous nations being assimilated or annexed into a “Marxist” settler society is not liberation. It is still a form of settler colonialism. Settlers must rid themselves of colonial sensibilities, biases, and the notion that their societal epistemologies are supreme. In a Decolonial society, Indigenous people wouldn’t be absorbed into “Marxist” settler society, settlers will be absorbed into a decolonial society, where all communities contribute jointly. Quote 30: “It is in the name of this right, and fighting for its unequivocal recognition, that the Social-Democrats of the oppressing nations must demand the freedom of separation for the pressed nations, for otherwise recognition of the equal rights of nations and international solidarity of the workers in reality remains an empty phrase, a hypocritical gesture. The Social-Democrats of the oppressed nations, however, must view as foremost the demand for the unity and the fusion of the workers of the oppressed nations with the workers with the oppressing nations, because otherwise those Social-Democrats involuntarily become the allies of one or another national bourgeoisie, which always betrays the interests of the people and of democracy, and which in its turn is always ready for annexations and for oppressing other nations”. (Lenin, “The Revolutionary Proletariat and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination”, 68)

25 Quote 31: “The majority of the Socialists of the world belong, in our imperialist epoch, to nations that oppress other nations and strive to widen the scope of that oppression. This is why our ‘struggle against annexations’ will be meaningless and not at all terrifying to the social-patriots, if we do not declare that the Socialist of an oppressing nation who does not conduct a propaganda, in defiance of the governmental prohibitions, i.e., in a free, i.e., in an illegal press, is not a Socialist or an internationalist but a chauvinist, whose adherence to national equality is sheer hypocrisy” (Lenin, “The Revolutionary Proletariat and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination”) Quote 32: “The specific question of annexations has become a particularly urgent one owing to the war. But what is annexation? Clearly, to protest against annexations implies either the recognition of the right to selfdetermination of nations, or that the protest is based on a pacifist phrase which defends the status quo and opposes all violence including revolutionary violence. Such a phrase is radically wrong, and incompatible with Marxism”. (Lenin, “The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination (Theses)”). Quote 33: “If we are at all concerned about our principles being theoretically thought out and clearly and precisely formulated, we cannot evade the question of what annexations are once we employ this term in our political propaganda and agitation. The evasion of this question in a discussion among colleagues cannot be interpreted otherwise as a surrender of one position.

26 Why did we raise this question? We explained why when we raised it. Because ‘a protest against annexations is nothing more nor less than recognition of the right to self-determination’. The term annexations ordinarily includes: (1) the concept of force (forcible incorporation); (2) the concept of alien oppression (incorporation of an ‘alien’ territory, ect.), and sometimes, (3) the concept of violating the status quo. […] Try as you will, you cannot avoid this conclusion: annexations violate self-determination of nations; they establish state boundaries against the wishes of the proletariat. Being opposed to annexations means being in favor of the right to selfdetermination”. (Lenin, “The Discussion on Self-Determination Summed Up”) Quote 34: “If a socialist Party declares itself to be ‘opposed to the forcible retention of an oppressed nation within the boundaries of an annexation state’, the party thereby undertakes to abandon forcible retention when it comes to power”. (Lenin, “The Discussion on Self-Determination Summed Up”) Quote 35: “If we do not want to betray socialism, we must support every rebellion against our main enemy, the bourgeoise of the big states, provided it is not the rebellion of the reactionary class. By refusing to support rebellions of annexed territories we objectively become annexationists”. (Lenin, “The Discussion on Self-Determination Summed Up”)

27 Quote 36: “We are opposed to annexations because they violate the right of self-determination of nations or, in other words, are one of the forms of national oppression”. (Lenin, “The Discussion on Self-Determination Summed Up”, 99) Quote 37: “The second argument: (Annexations) ‘create a gulf between the proletariat of the ruling nation and that of the oppressed nation… The proletariat of the oppressed nation would unite with its bourgeoisie and would regard the proletariat of the ruling nation as its enemy. Instead of the international class war of the proletariat against the international bourgeoisie there would be a split in the ranks of the proletariat, it would become ideologically corrupted…’ […] On the contrary, from this point of view annexations should be regarded as a condition for bringing the proletariat of various nations closer together. We say: In order that we may be able to bring about the socialist revolution and overthrow the bourgeoisie, the worker must unite more closely, and this close unity is facilitated by the struggle for selfdetermination, i.e., against annexations”. (Lenin, “The Discussion on Self-Determination Summed Up”) Quote 38: “The main ‘base’ of the opponents of selfdetermination is ‘infeasibility’. The same idea, slightly different in shade, is expressed by the reference to ‘economic and political concentration’. It is clear that concentration takes place also by means of the annexation of colonies. Formerly, the economic difference between colonies and European nations – at

28 least the majority of them – was that the colonies had been drawn into the sphere of exchange of commodities, but not yet into the sphere of capitalist production. Imperialism has changed this. Imperialism, among other things, means the export of capital. Capitalist production is more and more rapidly being transplanted to the colonies. It is impossible to liberate them from their dependence upon European finance capital. From a military point of view, as well from the point of view of expansion, the secession of the colonies can, as a general rule, be achieved only with the advent of socialism; whereas under capitalism it is possible, either as an exception, or as the result of a series of revolutions and rebellions in the colonies and the mother country”. (Lenin, “The Discussion on Self-Determination Summed Up”). Quote 39: “The weight of emphasis in the internationalist education of the workers of the oppressing countries must necessarily consist in advocating and getting them to demand freedom of secession for oppressed countries. Without this there can be no internationalism. It is our right and duty to treat every Social-Democrat of an oppressing nation who fails to conduct such propaganda as an imperialist and a scoundrel. This is an absolute demand, even if the chance of secession was possible and ‘feasible’ only one in a thousand before the introduction of socialism. It is our duty to educate the workers to be ‘indifferent’ to national distinctions. Nobody will dispute that. But not to be indifferent in the spirit of the annexationists. A member of an oppressing nation must be ‘indifferent’ to whether small nations belong to his state or to a neighboring state or to themselves,

29 according to where their sympathies lie: if he is not ‘indifferent’ in this way he is not a Social-Democrat. To be an internationalist Social-Democrat once must not think only of one’s own nation, but must place the interests of all nations, their general liberty and equality, above one’s own nation. In ‘theory’ every one agrees with this, but in practice an annexationist indifference is displayed. Herein lies the root of the evil”. (Lenin, “The Discussion on Self-Determination Summed Up”) Quote 40: “Hence the two sides, the two tendencies in the national question: the tendency towards political emancipation from the shackles of imperialism and towards the formation of the independent national state – a tendency which arose as a consequence of imperialist oppression and colonial exploitation, and the tendency towards closer economic relations among nations, which arose as a result of the formation of the world market as a world economic system. […] For imperialism these two tendencies represent irreconcilable contradictions; because imperialism cannot exist without exploiting colonies and forcibly retaining them within the framework of the ‘integral whole’, because imperialism can bring nations together only by means of annexations and colonial conquest, without with imperialism is, generally speaking, inconceivable. For communism, on the contrary, these tendencies are but two sides of a single cause – the cause of emancipation of the oppressed people from the yoke of imperialism; because communism knows that the union of peoples in a single world economic system is possible only in the basis of mutual confidence and voluntary agreement, and that the road to the

30 formation of a voluntary union of peoples through separation of the colonies from the ‘integral’ imperialist ‘whole’, through the transformation of the colonies into independent states. Hence the necessity for a stubborn, continuous and determined struggle against the dominant-nation chauvinism of the ‘Socialists’ of the ruling nations (Britain, France, America, Italy, Japan, ect.), who do not want to fight their imperialist governments, who do not want to support the struggle of the oppressed peoples in ‘their’ colonies for emancipation from oppression, for secession. Without such a struggle the education of the working class of the ruling nations in the spirit of true internationalism, in the spirit of closer relations with the toiling masses of the dependent countries and colonies, in the spirit of real preparation for the proletariat revolution, is unconceivable”. (Stalin, “The Foundations of Leninism”)

31

Part 5: On Autonomy

32 Another issue with settler Marxist is they envision a post-capitalistic society where Indigenous communities would be “autonomous”, while a “Marxist” settler state obtains power. Settler “Marxists” suggest that the post-revolution “Marxist” (settler) state would ask for advice from Indigenous nations when it needs it. Again, this is not liberation. This colonial vision is a continuation of settler colonialism under a different economic mode of production. Autonomy under a “Marxist” settler state continues the colonial guardian-ward relationship and suggesting a “better relationship” doesn’t negate its coloniality. Quote 41: “A reformist change is one which leaves the foundations of the power of the ruling class intact and which is merely a concession by the ruling class that leaves its power unimpaired. A revolutionary change undermines the foundations of power. The reformist proposals in the national program do not abolish all the privileges of the ruling nation; they do not establish complete equality; they do not abolish national oppression in all its forms. An ‘autonomous’ nation does not enjoy equal rights with the ‘ruling nation’ […] Only by its free secession was it equality manifested in practice and proved (and let us add in parentheses that it was precisely this free secession that created the basis for a more intimate and democratic friendship founded on equality of rights). […] (the essence of reformism lies in mitigating as evil and not destroying it), but entirely removed (the principal criterion of the revolutionary character of a program). Be it noted, in passing, that autonomy as a reform differs in principle from freedom of secession as a revolutionary measure. This goes without saying. But

33 as every one knows, in practice a reform is often merely a step toward revolution. It is precisely autonomy which enables a nation forcibly retained within the boundaries of a given state to constitute itself completely as a nation, opportune moment to declare…”. (Lenin, “The Discussion on Self-Determination Summed Up”) Quote 42: “Self-determination endows a nation with complete rights, whereas national autonomy endows it only with ‘cultural’ rights”. (Stalin, “Marxism and the National Question”) Quote 43: “If national autonomy is unsuitable now, it will be still more unsuitable in the future, socialist society”. (Stalin, “Marxism and the National Question”)

34

35

Part 6: On Centralism

36 After I’ve destroyed settler’s visions of a colonial post-capitalistic society, and they have trouble using their imagination, settlers would ask, “How does Decolonization look like?”. Easy. Decolonization is total sovereignty by Indigenous nations upon the North American continent. This requires a Decolonial governmental body that brings together Indigenous nations, but also respects the sovereignty of Indigenous nations. This cold be done with a ‘Decolonial Senate’, that consists of one representative of each Indigenous nation. Since we’re imagining a continental-wide government, this would consist of a senate with 1,000+ seats. This concept of a Decolonial Senate would also be receptive of adding representatives of descendants of Africans that were forcefully into the Americans for slavery, by colonialism (This is sometimes called the nation of New Africa). Within this senate all the Indigenous nations can create policy that would benefit all of the people on the continent, even descendants of settlers. This is liberation. This is Decolonization. The concept of a Decolonial senate/government promotes the idea of abolishing settler states and settler nationalisms. While at the same time advocating and strengthening Indigenous sovereignty. The Decolonial Senate would help Indigenous nations come together in continental solidarity to protect themselves against any future colonial encroachments and sabotage. I believe that Lenin’s concept of centralism promotes the vision of a Decolonial Senate. Which is also aligned with the vision that Tecumseh had of Indigenous nations sharing land (All settlers should read about Tecumseh).

37 Quote 44: “We demand the freedom of self-determination, i.e., independence, i.e., the freedom of separation for the oppressed nations, not because we dream of an economically atomized world, nor because we cherish the idea of small states, but on the contrary because we are for large states and for a coming closer, even a fusion of nations, but on a truly democratic, truly internationalist basis, which in unthinkable without the freedom of separation” (Lenin, “The Revolutionary Proletariat and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination”) Quote 45: “Marx is a centralist. […] Only people full of pettybourgeois ‘superstitious faith’ in the state can mistake the destruction of the bourgeois sate for the destruction of centralism. But will it not be centralism if the proletariat and the poorest peasantry take the power of the state in their own hands, organize themselves freely into communes, and unite the action of all the communes in striking at capital, in crushing the resistance of the capitalists, in the transfer of private property in railways, factories, land, and so forth, to the entire nation, to the whole of society? Will that not be the most consistent democratic centralism? And proletarian centralism at that? Bernstein simply cannot conceive the possibility of voluntary centralism, of a voluntary union of the communes into a nation, a voluntary fusion of the proletarian communes in the process of destroying bourgeois supremacy and the bourgeois state machinery. […] Marx, as though he foresaw the possibility of the perversion of his ideas, purposely emphasizes that the accusation against the Commune that it desired to destroy the unity of the nation, to do

38 away with a central power, was a deliberate falsehood. Marx purposely uses the phrase ‘to organize the unity of the nation’, so as to contrast conscious, democratic, proletarian centralism to bourgeois, military, bureaucratic centralist,. But no one is so deaf as he who will not hear. The opportunists of contemporary Social-Democracy do not, on any account, want to hear of destroying the state power, of cutting off the parasite” (Lenin, “State and Revolution”) Quote 46: “From the point of view of the proletariat and the proletarian revolution, Engels, like Max, insists on democratic centralism, on one indivisible republic. The federal republic he considers either as an exception and a hindrance to development, or as a transitional form from a monarchy to a centralized republic, as a ‘step forward’ under certain special conditions. And among these special conditions, the national question arises” (Lenin, “State and Revolution”)

39

Part 7: On Population

40 Now that a vision of decolonization is established, a response that I get from settlers is, “But we (settlers) outnumber you (Indigenous). How would that be fair?”. Then settlers make statements insinuating that if a small population of Indigenous gets total legislative power over the continent, somehow these Indigenous people would become an “Indigenous bourgeois class”. This is an incorrect way of seeing Decolonization, and this rhetoric excuses the genocide committed by settler colonialism by saying, “Well, now we outnumber you, and since we do, it is unrealistic to give you the land back (Liberation)”. If this colonial rhetoric was as all acceptable, that would mean any nation could commit massive genocide upon another nation, then cleanse themselves from accountability. This rhetoric is counter-revolutionary. It doesn’t matter the extend of a genocide that was committed towards an Indigenous population, the Indigenous communities should always strive for liberation. Quote 47: “Of course, growth of population does influence the development of society, does facilitate, or [hinder] the development of society, but it cannot be the chief force of development of society, and its influence on the development of society cannot be the determining influence because, by itself, growth of population does not furnish the clue to the question why a given social system replaces precisely by such and such a new system and not by another, why the primitive communal system is succeeded precisely by the slave system by the feudal system, and the feudal system by the bourgeois system, and not by some other”. (Stalin, “Historical Materialism”)

41 Quote 48: First dogma: concerning the conditions for the seizure of power by the proletariat. The opportunists assert that the proletariat cannot and ought not to take power unless it constitutes a majority in the country. No proofs are brought forward, for there are no poofs, either theoretical or practical, that can bear out this absurd thesis. Let us assume that is so, Lenin replies to the gentlemen of the Second International; but suppose a historical situation has arisen (a war, an agrarian crisis, ect.) in which the proletariat, constituting a minority of the population, has an opportunity to rally around itself the vast majority of the laboring masses; why should it not take power then? Why should the proletariat not take advantage of favorable international and internal situation to pierce the front of capital and hasten the general denouement? Did not Marx say as far back as the fifties of the last century that things could go ‘splendidly’ with the proletarian revolution in Germany were it possible to back it by, so to speak, a ‘second edition of the Peasant War’? is it not a generally known fact that in those days the number of proletarians in Germany was relatively smaller than for example, in Russia in 1917? Has not the practical experience of the Russian proletarian revolution shown that this favorite dogma of the heroes of the Second International is devoid of all vital significance for the proletariat? Is it not clear that the practical experience of the revolutionary struggle of the masses refutes and smashes this obsolete dogma?” (Stalin, “The Foundations of Leninism”)

42

43

Part 8: On Chauvinism

44 Usually when I get this far into explaining Decolonization, there are two different responses by settlers. The first is by settlers that I consider actual Marxists. They support the idea of Decolonization, and agree that settler colonialism is the primary contradiction. The next is by all other types of settlers. These settlers believe that Decolonization is unrealistic for many reasons that are rooted in colonial sensibilities. Ironically, some of these settlers consider themselves “Marxists” as well. I don’t consider them Marxists; I consider them colonial chauvinists with “Marxist” aesthetics. Luckily as Marxists, we can read what Lenin wrote about chauvinism. Quote 49: “The bourgeoisie always places its national demands in the forefront. It advances them categorically. For the proletariat, however, these demands are subordinate to the interests of the class struggle. Theoretically, it is impossible to vouch beforehand whether the secession of a given nation from, or its equality with, another nation will complete the bourgeois-democratic revolution; in either case, the important thing for the proletariat is to ensure the development of its class. For the bourgeoisie it is important to hamper this development and to put the aims of ‘its’ nation before the aims of the proletariat. That is why the proletariat confines itself, so to say, to the negative demand for the recognition of the right to self-determination, without guaranteeing anything to any nation, without undertaking to give anything at the expense of another nation”. (Lenin, “The Right of Nations to Self-Determination”)

45 Quote 50: “The Great Russian proletariat cannot achieve its own aims, cannot clear the road to freedom for itself unless it systematically combats these prejudice”. (Lenin, “The Right of Nations to Self-Determination”) Quote 51: “The socialists cannot reach their great aim without fighting against every form of national oppression. They must therefore unequivocally demand that the Social-Democrats of the oppressing countries (of the so called ‘great’ nations in particular) should recognize and defend the right of the oppressed nations to selfdetermination in the political sense of the word, i.e., the right to political separation. A Socialist of a great nation or a nation possessing colonies who does not defend this right is a chauvinist”. (Lenin, “Self-Determination of Nations”) Quote 52: “On the one hand, we see the rather avowed servants of the bourgeoisie who defend annexations on the ground that imperialism and political concentration are progressive and who repudiate the right to selfdetermination on the ground that is utopian, illusory, petty-bourgeois, ect […] On the other hand, [names chauvinists in his time]. These stand for unity with the first-mentioned group, and in practice their conduct is the same in that they advocate that right to selfdetermination in a purely verbal and hypocritical way. They regard the demand for the freedom of political secession as being ‘excessive’ […] they do not advocate the need for revolutionary tactics, especially for the Socialists in the oppressing nations, but, on the opportunism, they make it easier to deceive the people, they evade precisely the question of the frontiers of a state which forcibly retains subject nations, ect.

46 Both groups are opportunists who prostitute Marxism and who have lost all capacity to understand and theoretical significance and the practical urgency of Marx tactics, an example of which he gave in relation to Ireland”. (Lenin, “The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination (Theses)”) Quote 53: “The decision of the International Socialist Congress held in London in 1896, which recognized the selfdetermination of nations, must, on the basis of the above-mentioned postulates, be supplemented by references to: (1) the particular urgency of this demand under imperialism; (2) the politically conditional nature and the class content of all the demands of political democracy, including this demand; (3) the necessity of drawing a distinction between the concrete tasks of the Social-Democrats in the oppressing nations and those in oppressed nations; (4) the inconsistent, purely verbal, and, therefore, as far as its political significance is concerned, hypocritical recognition of self-determination by the opportunists […]; (5) the actual identity of the chauvinists and those Social-Democrats, particularly the Social-Democrats of the Great Powers (Great Russians, Anglo Americans, Germans, French, Italians, Japanese, ect.) who fail to champion the freedom of secession for the colonies and nations oppressed by ‘their own’ nations; (6) the necessity of subordination the struggle for this demand, as well as for all the fundamental demands of political democracy, to the immediate revolutionary mass struggle for the overthrow of the bourgeois governments and for the achievement of socialism”. (Lenin, “The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination (Theses)”)

47 Quote 54: “In our very first thesis it is stated that the liberation of oppressed nationalities presupposes a twofold change in the sphere of politics: (1) Complete equality of all nationalities. There is no dispute about this, and it applies only what takes place within the state; (2) Freedom of political secession. This concerns the determination of the boundaries of the state. This alone is in dispute. And this is the very point our opponents ignore. They refuse to consider the question of state boundaries, or even of the state in general. This is a sort of ‘Imperialist Economism’ similar to the old “Economism’ of 1894-1902, which argued in this way: Capital is victorious, therefore it is no use raising political questions. Imperialism is victorious, therefore it is no use raising political questions! Such a political theory is essentially hostile to Marxism”. (Lenin, “The Discussion on Self-Determination Summed Up”) Quote 55: “Engels by no means supposes that ‘economics’ will itself and directly remove all difficulties. An economic revolution will be a stimulus to all peoples to tend towards socialism; but at the same time revolutions – against the socialist state – and wars are possible. Politics will inevitably adapt itself to economies, but not immediately and smoothly, not simply, not directly. Engels mentions as ‘certain’ only one, absolutely internationalist, principle, which he applies to all ‘other nations’, i.e., not to colonial nations only, namely: to force blessings upon them would mean undermining the victory of the proletariat. The proletariat will not become holy and immune from errors and weaknesses merely by virtue of the fact that it has carried out a social revolution. But possible

48 errors (and selfish interest – attempts to ride on the backs of others) will inevitably cause it to appreciate this truth”. (Lenin, “The Discussion on Self-Determination Summed Up”) Quote 56: “Let them howl. The bourgeoisie will praise them for it”. (Lenin, “State and Revolution”, 55) Quote 57: “But why, the reader will ask, does the spontaneous movement, the movement along the line of least resistance, lead to the domination of bourgeois ideology? For the simple reason that bourgeois ideology is far older in origin than Social-Democratic ideology; because it is more fully developed and because it possesses immeasurably more opportunities for becoming widespread. And the younger the Socialist movement is in any given country, the more vigorously must it fight against all attempts to entrench non-Socialist ideology, and the more strongly must it warn the workers against those bad counsellors who shout against ‘exaggerating the conscious elements,’ ect.” (Lenin, “What is to be Done?”)

Quote 58: “Nothing is so ridiculous and harmful as pretending that we are ‘old hands’ who have long ago experienced all the decisive episodes of the struggle!” (Lenin, “What is to be Done?”)

49 Quote 59: “For he who forgets that ‘the Communists support every revolutionary movement’, that we are obliged for the reason to emphasize general democratic tasks before the whole people, without for a moment concealing our socialist convictions, is not a SocialDemocrat. He who forgets his obligation to be in advance of everybody in bringing up, sharpening and solving every general democratic question, is not a Social-Democrat.” (Lenin, “What is to be Done?”) Quote 60: “A ‘vanguard’ , which fears that consciousness will outstrip spontaneity, which fears to put forward a bold ‘plan’ that would compel universal recognition even among those who think differently from us – Are they not confusing the word ‘vanguard’ with the word ‘rearguard’?” (Lenin, “What is to be Done?”) Quote 61: “Oh! Don’t start howling about my ‘uncomradely methods’ of controversy. I have not the least intention of casting aspirations upon the purity of your intentions. As I have already said, one may be a demagogue out of sheer political ignorance. But I have shown that you have descended to demagogy, and I shall never tire of repeating that demagogues are the worst enemies of the working class. They are the worst enemies of the working class because they arouse bad instincts in the crowd, because the ignorant worker is unable to recognize his enemies in men who represent themselves, and sometimes sincerely represent themselves, to be his friends. They are the worst enemies of the working class, because in this period of doubt and hesitation, when our movement is only just

50 beginning to take shape, nothing is easier than to employ demagogic methods to side track the crowd, which can realize its mistake only by biter experience.” (Lenin, “What is to be Done?”) Quote 62: “Compromise with the bandits of imperialism lay in the fact that they made themselves accomplices in imperialist banditry”. (Lenin, “Left-Wing Communism, An Infantile Disorder”) Quote 63: “The victory of the revolutionary proletariat is impossible unless this evil is combated, unless the opportunist, social-traitor leaders are exposed, discredited and expelled.” (Lenin, “Left-Wing Communism, An Infantile Disorder”) Quote 64: “It is important to single out from the practical questions of the politics of each separate or specific historical moment those which reveal the principal type of impermissible, treacherous compromises embodying the opportunism that if fatal to the revolutionary class, and to exert all efforts to explain them and combat them. During the imperialist war of 1914-18 between two groups of equally predatory and rapacious countries, the principal, fundamental type of opportunism was social-chauvinism, that is, the support of ‘defense of the fatherland’, which is such a war, was really equivalent to defense of the predatory interests of ‘one’s own’ bourgeoisie.” (Lenin, “Left-Wing Communism, An Infantile Disorder”)

51

52

53

Part 9: On National Antipathies

54 A response that I hear from settlers is that Indigenous people mean to “oppress” settlers, or ship settlers back to Europe, after a decolonial revolution. This is not true. Decolonization is for everyone, even descendants of settlers. Unless a settler is part of a white nationalist organization, or has done saboteur activities against the Decolonial state, I don’t see why any descendants of settlers would be shipped to Europe. Simultaneously, settlers need to realize that the trauma caused by them, via settler colonialism, has most of the Indigenous population hesitant to trust the settler class. If settlers really want to be allies and work together towards a Decolonial society with Indigenous leadership, settlers must learn to be patient and humble. Quote 65: “National antipathies will not disappear so quickly: the hatred – and perfectly legitimate hatred – of an oppressed nation for its oppressor will continue for a while; it will evaporate only after the victory of socialism and after the final establishment of completely democratic relations between nations. If we desire to be faithful to socialism we must educate the masses in internationalism now, which is impossible in oppressing nations without preaching freedom of secession for oppressed nations”. (Lenin, “The Discussion on Self-Determination Summed Up”)

55

Part 10: On Colonialism

56 Settler colonialism has many features (pillars) to it. They are; Governmental/Political (the settler state), Militaristic (settler military and militias), Religious (christianity), Economic (capitalism), Cultural (materialism, hyper-individualism, & relationships methods), and Espitemological dominance. Some of these pillars overlap with each other. We need to understand that settler colonialism will not be defeated unless all its pillars are destroyed. If one pillar of settler colonialism is left standing, then like fungus, the other pillars will grow back. This is why settler Marxists need to understand all the contradictions and pillars of settler colonialism to be true allies and comrades. Quote 66: “Colonial policy and imperialism existed before this latest stage of capitalism, and even before capitalism”. (Lenin, “Imperialism the Highest Stage of Capitalism”) Quote 67: “Colonial possession alone gives complete guarantee of success to the monopolies against all the risks of the struggle with competitors, including the risk that the latter will defend themselves by means of a law establishing a state monopoly. The more capitalism is developed, the more the need for raw materials is felt, the more bitter competition becomes, and the more feverishly the hunt for raw materials proceeds throughout the whole world, the more desperate becomes he struggle for the acquisition of colonies.” (Lenin, “Imperialism the Highest Stage of Capitalism”)

57 Quote 68: “The division of the world into two main groups – of colony-owning countries on the one hand and colonies on the other – is not the typical of this period – there is also a variety of forms of dependent countries; countries which, officially, are politically independent, but which are, in face, enmeshed in the net of financial and diplomatic dependence. We have already referred to one form of dependence – the semi-colony.” (Lenin, “Imperialism the Highest Stage of Capitalism”) Quote 69: “Further, national wars waged by colonial, and semicolonial countries are not only possible but inevitable in the epoch of imperialism. The colonies and semicolonies (China, Turkey, Persia) have a population of nearly one billion, i.e., more than half the population of the earth. In these countries the movements for national liberation are either very strong already or are growing and maturing. Every war is a continuation of politics by other means. The national liberation politics of the colonies will inevitably be continued by national wars of the colonies against imperialism. Such wars may lead to an imperialist war between the present “Great” imperialist Powers or they may not; that depends on many circumstances. […] Such indifference becomes chauvinism when members of “Great” European nations, i.e., nations which oppress a mass of small and colonial peoples, declare with a learned air that “there can be no more national wars!” National wars against the imperialist Powers are not only possible and probable, they are inevitable, they are progressive and revolutionary, although, of course, what is needed for their success is either the combined efforts of an enormous number of the inhabitants of the

58 oppressed countries (hundreds of millions in the example we have taken of India and China), or a particularly favourable combination of circumstances in the international situation (for example, when the intervention of the imperialist Powers is paralysed by exhaustion, by war, by their mutual antagonisms, etc.), or a simultaneous uprising of the proletariat of one of the Great Powers against the bourgeoisie (this latter case stands first in order from the standpoint of what is desirable and advantageous for the victory of the proletariat)”. (Lenin, “The Junius Pamphlet”)

59

Conclusion Even though I showed that if Lenin or Stalin were alive, they would support the idea of Decolonization of the American continent, I hope settlers that read and learn about Indigenous and Black decolonial scholars after reading this book. Some decolonial scholars are Vine Deloria Jr., Phillip Deloria, Howard Adams, Taiaiake Alfred, Kim Tallbear, Circe Sturm, Glen, Coulthard, Gerald Horne, Frantz Fanon, Walter Rodney, Harry Haywood, and Lwazi Lushaba. Some settlers would ask, “Are these scholars Marxists?”. Some are, some aren’t. But just because Indigenous or Black voices are not Marxists, it doesn’t mean they’re not worth listening to. They’re still addressing material conditions, and contradictions caused from settler colonialism. It’s essential for settlers to learn from decolonial voices to be better allies.

60

Works Cited Lenin: Lenin, Vladimir I. Imperialism The Highest Stange of Capitalism. International Publishers, 1939. Lenin, Vladimir I. "Left-Wing" Communism, An Infantile Disorder. International Publishers, 1940. Lenin, Vladimir I. State and Revolution. Martino Publishing, 2011. Lenin, Vladimir I. "The Junius Pamphlet." Marxists Internet Archive, 2005, www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/jul/juniu s-pamphlet.htm. Accessed 2023. Lenin, Vladimir I. What is to be Done? International Publishers Co., Inc, 1929. The following works from Vladimir Lenin were cited from: Lenin, Vladamir I. The Right to Nations to SelfDetermination. University Press of the Pacific, 2004. “The Right of Nations to Self-Determination” by Lenin “Self-Determination of Nations” by Lenin “The Revolutionary Proletariat and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination” by Lenin “The Discussion on Self-Determination Summed Up” by Lenin “The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination (Theses)” by Lenin Mao: Zedong, Mao. On Policy, Practice and Contradiction. El Paso Norte Press, 2009. Vol. 3 of Collected Writings of Chairman Mao.

61

Stalin: Stalin, Joseph. Dialectical and Historical Materialism. SAI Press, 2021. Stalin, Joseph. Marxism and the National Question. Red Star Publishers, 2015. Stalin, Joseph. The Foundations of Leninism. Red Star Publishers, U.S., 2010.