Socialism, Solidarity, and Indigenous Liberation
By Deborah Simmons
In Canada, a new radical movement of indigenous people is emerging that refuses to be co-opted by the “aboriginalist” policies of the state. This movement aims to resist the destructive, corrupting and oppressive aspects of the system that has been imposed on indigenous peoples since the arrival of the Europeans. At the same time, the new radical indigenism reaffirms and renews the positive aspects of the sovereign societies that existed on this continent before colonization. Inherent in this strategy is a strong sense of autonomy. Indigenous people are responsible for making their own revolution, in their own way.
Given the undeniable fact of radical indigenous autonomy, and given the often shameful record of top-down versions of socialism that claim to have a monopoly on solutions to the “Indian problem,” it would seem that socialism has nothing to contribute to the project of indigenous liberation beyond unconditional solidarity. This is the perspective promoted by Queen’s University scholar Richard JF Day, whose book Gramsci is Dead draws on a certain anarchist tradition and on post-structuralist philosopher Michel Foucault in arguing that there is a kind of totalitarian impulse in all global strategies for social transformation. The book’s title refers to the death of the concepts of dominance or “hegemony” and revolutionary “counter-hegemony” developed by Italian Antonio Gramsci in the 1920s and 1930s.
The example of indigenous movements is important for Day, since these movements affirm alternative local modes of resistance that are truly “indigenous” to local history and culture, and thus exist outside the box of any universal theories or strategies. Insofar as they are specific to the diverse experiences, cultures and histories of the plurality of indigenous peoples, Day would define these movements as “non-hegemonic.”
Groundless Solidarity
Day more broadly celebrates movements that are rooted in autonomy, decolonization and what he calls “affinity.” His examples of such projects include “asambelistas in
Argentina, LPM activists in South Africa, Zapatista villagers in Chiapas, Mohawk warriors within/against North America, squatters in London.” The “affinity” based strategy builds upon the experience of the global justice movement that crystallized in Seattle (1999), Montreal (2000) and Quebec City. Contrary to “vanguardist” strategies requiring an elite minority that must win over the majority to their superior ideas, Day defines affinity as a “groundless solidarity” that permits rebellion through a multitude of perspectives, strategies and tactics – a “decentralized network of alternatives.”
Day argues that the reform versus revolution debate among socialists is actually imprisoned within a sealed logic of domination. Struggles for reform demand recognition of individual rights from the state, this demand in itself tends to reinforce the role of the state. Revolutionaries seek to overthrow or seize the state, and hereby substitute one form of domination for another.
“The idea of revolution is what I call ‘pushing the button,’” Day has said in an interview with Edmonton’s indie mag Vue Weekly. “We’re going to push the button and suddenly everything is good, and it’s going to stay good forever. But it’s not, you know. If I could push the button – and for starters, I wouldn’t – but if I could, I’d expect that, the day after, somebody would start setting up a state, or a corporation, and someone else would say, ‘Those people with brown eyes aren’t as good as us; they should do the work for us.’ It would all begin again; it’s perpetual, it’s endless, and this is why the idea of the revolution is to be gotten rid of – it makes us too lazy, because we think that domination is done with, and it never will be.”
A Contemporary Strategy for Social Change
Radical indigenous activists are now critically reflecting on the history of social movements, and particularly indigenous movements and modes of governance, in order to develop an effective contemporary strategy for achieving social change. The special Indigenous Resurgence issue of New Socialist Magazine (#58) published last fall represents an important contribution to this discussion.
In their article, Taiaiake Alfred and Lana Lowe point to the transience of the pan-indigenous Red Power movement as a critical weakness. This is in contrast to the traditionalist warrior societies, which are locally rooted. The latter strategy is exemplified by the Stop the Violence campaign. In the words of activist Chiinuuks, “We realized, through the help of many good women and elders, that we couldn’t simply ‘drop-in’ to communities, expect to adequately address a problem, and then immediately move on to the next ‘issue’ or community.” The implication is that the project of social change requires patience, long term commitment and willingness to accept limited achievements over the short term.
The editorial by Taiaiake Alfred and Glen Coulthard asserts that the radical indigenous Wasáse movement and New Socialist “share in common the belief that an essential challenge of indigenous self-determination is the question of how to stop, roll back and dismantle capitalism.” We also share an understanding of the need for autonomous organizing of oppressed people, and the need for rootedness and long term commitment to local struggles.
Socialism does not make history, people and social movements do. In fact, socialist ideas have repeatedly been shaken up by the reality of the social movements that spring from the struggles against capitalist exploitation and oppression. We have much to learn as history unfolds, and this learning will take place through activism, dialogue and debate. We owe a particular debt to indigenous peoples, who throughout the inhumane and environmentally destructive history of capitalism have shown that there are alternative ways of organizing society. This was the basis for Karl Marx’s fascination with indigenous societies – in particular the society of the Iroquois – during the last years of his life. This egalitarian and democratic people provided him with insights into the concrete possibility of a free society. It was this living presence of alternative societies that led him to tell Russian socialists the peasant commune should be seen as “the fulcrum for social regeneration in Russia.”
Socialists should be absolutely committed to working in both ideas and activism toward strategies that might shed light on the long term possibility of radical social transformation – revolution. True, there is no push-button short cut to this, and socialists will not be the vanguard leading the unenlightened masses to victory. There is no fixed formula for dismantling capitalism; neither is there a crystal ball in which a fixed model for a future revolutionary society is inscribed. The socialist method is much more difficult and complex, bringing analysis of history and of systematic patterns at a global scale to bear on the shifting and diverse local realities of human resistance and rebellion. This is the essence of strategic thinking, which moves beyond anger and spontaneous rebellion to carefully calculated long-term planning.
In this sense, our solidarity with radical indigenous movements is by no means “groundless,” based on a merely conjunctural affinity or instrumental convergence. As Alfred and Coulthard put it, “Solidarity is hard work. It requires a great deal of critical self-reflection and commitment to action …” Solidarity is both a strategy for winning battles against the depredations of capitalism, and it is a laboratory for the longer-term goal of revolution. For socialists, solidarity is both a means and an end in the project to transform society.
The following appears in a box next to the above article in the magazine version:
Is Gramsci Dead?
The title of Richard JF Day’s book Gramsci is Dead refers to the purported death of the concepts of dominance or “hegemony” and revolutionary “counter-hegemony” developed by Italian Antonio Gramsci.
Gramsci was politicized as a result of new industrial conflicts in Turin, where he was a university student. He joined the Italian Socialist Party in 1913, and became a supporter of the workers councils that spontaneously emerged during a series of mass strikes in 1919 and 1920.
However, the councils failed to expand into a national movement – so Gramsci came to support the idea of a Communist Party devoted to overthrowing the capitalist state. He eventually became critical of Stalin in 1926, but was imprisoned by Mussolini’s fascist regime that same year. His most well known texts were written in fragmented and partial coded form while he was in prison. Gramsci died in 1937 after only three years of freedom.
As Richard Day notes, Gramsci’s concept has been taken up as a cornerstone of the New Left since the 1970s, particularly because of its analysis of culture and ideas as important components of social conflict. In fact, it might be argued that culture and ideas gained a determining role among later champions of Gramsci – material conditions and experience became secondary.
The problem is, Gramsci’s ideas have often been taken out of their historical context. His perspective was forged during a period of major social upheaval: mass strikes, the hope of radical social change represented by the early days of the Russian revolution, the later betrayals of Stalinism – and the brutal defeat of radical social movements by fascist reaction. The question of how to challenge the dominance of the capitalist state (or in Russia, its mirror image the Stalinist state), was a matter of life and death for those who opposed the state.
For Gramsci, solidarity is forged through the battle of ideas combined with the experience of collective struggle. Far from being about the domination of the many by an elite few, solidarity involves intensive dialogue among the exploited and oppressed. According to Gramsci, “all men [sic] are intellectuals,” and no one has a monopoly on correct ideology: “The mode of being of the new intellectual can no longer consist in eloquence, which is an exterior and momentary mover of feelings and passions, but in active participation in practical life, as constructor, organizer ‘permanent persuader’and not just a simple orator.”
The concept of ideas forged through dialogue provides an important tool for understanding the ways that distinct social movements can develop an understanding of their intersecting interests, and build strength through strategic solidarity in struggle. This is radically distinct from the systematic deceptions imposed upon us by the ruling classes and the capitalist state. Perhaps Gramsci is not dead after all!
[Deborah Simmons lives and works in Denendeh – the Northwest Territories. She is a member of the New Socialist Group.]
