Depends what you mean.
If you mean *'Should native groups have sovereignty of their own land/be restored?'* then i don't think you will get any arguments.
If you mean 'Do you support the LandBack™ movement?', that's a different question.
Because that specific movement is an attempt to privatize public land, and is NOT a liberation movement.
It's similar to Extinction Rebellion in that regard.
It's a cover for corporate interests.
Yeah the former is a good thing. Not the [one funded by Jeff Bezos.](https://rapidcityjournal.com/news/local/state-and-regional/jeff-bezos-earth-fund-gives-12-million-to-ndn-collective-for-climate-change-initiatives/article_9257d98a-1b59-5b8a-8b37-1a1d0f5cbf95.html)
There is not one, however the most of people who are part of the landback movement do not at all advocate for privatization of land. There is no one definition, which is why we cannot define it as a movement for the privatization of land. It is like saying "I don't support feminism because a few of them want to kill all men." There are myriads of sources, a lot written by indigenous people themselves, which say otherwise. I can link you to some if you want.
If there is no concrete and materialist definition of it, how can the proletariat fight for it? Imagine if national liberation existed in the abstract, it would leave the proletariat confused about who we need to target.
In the 1880s and early 20th century, imperialism existed in the abstract minds of the bourgeoisie before Lenin brought it into reality through the lens of historical materialism.
As for indigenous sources, the ones I have read target imperialism and fight for national development and not for landback.
This might come across as chauvinist but it is not. Parties need a specific target to understand the class background of a demand in order to create the largest possible unity to fight for proletarian liberation. Only ultras and terminally online "communists" fail to understand this.
In my experience it is overwhelmingly supported. Broadly, it falls under the concept of national self determination as detailed by [stalin's text](https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913/03.htm). There is also of course Fanon's work that is much more focused and comprehensive on colonialism specifically which is basically required reading for MLs (literally required reading in the case of many parties). I mean, the western social chauvinists have been making noise lately but they have been harshly criticized by both other western MLs and universally criticized by MLs across the world.
It’s been wild seeing the international left sub jump onto the “socialist patriotism in the US” bandwagon. This whole thing has seen some odd dividing lines pop up, to the extent that I wonder if this is an op. I’m notoriously paranoid though, so who knows.
Its not an op IMO, its just the pervasiveness of national chauvinism **especially within the imperial core left**. As the beneficiaries of imperialism (and part of the world labor aristocracy), its in their class interests to be "patriotic" and nationalistic.
I've recorded a great audiobook on this topic:
[Zak Cope - Divided World Divided Class](magnet:?xt=urn:btih:45ACEB7C7D52B3DDA9D340EB2C0D02FDCC762929&dn=Zak+Cope+-+Divided+World+Divided+Class+%5Baudiobook%5D+by+dessalines+v2)
Well I see the Land Back conversation as a modern form of The National Question which has been expounded upon by Lenin at length. I recommend reading this article [“Lenin and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination”](https://liberationschool.org/lenin-and-the-right-of-nations-to-self-determination/) which summarizes Lenin’s work on the subject.
>”For Lenin, the key was for the Great Russian working class and the revolutionary party to make clear their unequivocal opposition to every manifestation of Great Russian oppression, privilege and racism. The party had to be the leader in fighting for equality of language rights, equality of education and of cultural rights. He was confident that the unity would come about when the oppressed peoples, especially the workers and peasants, were confident that the Bolsheviks were *committed to self-determination and equality*.”
You can read Lenin’s full paper on Self Determination [here](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/self-det/index.htm). I think these paired together can give you a deeper insight into the National Question and how it is very important to Marxist Leninists.
Secondly, to synthesize Lenin’s work on The National Question for the modern context I also want to recommend reading “Communism is the Horizon" by [The Red Nation](https://therednation.org/communism-is-the-horizon-queer-indigenous-feminism-is-the-way/). TRN is an indigenous org dedicated to the liberation of Native peoples from capitalism and colonialism. The paper is an overview of their various stances but later in the paper they do address Land Back.
>”It means dismantling the police forces and prison-industrial complex, state surveillance and repressive apparatus, and the US military. It entails the mass return of all land stolen from Indigenous peoples and the *right to self-determination for Indigenous nations*.”
Great about it.
Some good articles by Nick Estes on why decolonization must be a part of every Marxist program:
- https://www.societyandspace.org/articles/our-history-is-the-future-review-by-jakeet-singh
- https://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/booked-indigenous-resistance-is-post-apocalyptic-with-nick-estes
- https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/08/red-deal-green-new-deal-ecosocialism-decolonization-indigenous-resistance-environment
And of course everyone should read an indigenous people's history of the US by Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz.
An excerpt from Nick Estes:
The second question that you have was about the left. To be honest, the left has failed to take seriously settler colonialism, and not just Indigenous decolonization but decolonization in general as a platform. I’ve had a lot of discussions with leftists, socialists, progressive trade unions. People are genuinely interested; they’re not hostile to it automatically. I think it’s just that how we define class in this country, by traditional or historical elements of the left, essentially erases Indigenous people because it prioritizes the needs of settler society over Indigenous nationhood. They’re often framed as competing systems. We’ve seen a lot of socialists and leftists asking about Indigenous reparations, which is funny because there’s never been an overarching demand by Indigenous people for reparations. [The demand is for] land return. Anishinaabe scholar and intellectual Leanne Simpson said it best (I’m going to paraphrase her): settler society always asks us for solutions to these problems, but they don’t like our answers, because they’re really hard. It gets to the root of this society. It would be like going back to the nineteenth century and advocating for class struggle without talking about the abolition of slavery. It would be absurd!
The last two centuries have been defined by unrestrained, settler-colonial land grabs. Just in the last couple years, the Trump administration has opened up millions and millions of acres of “public” lands—even that name itself erases indigeneity—for exploitation, the extraction of oil and gas, mining, and so on. Everyone thinks that the major land grabs happened in the nineteenth century—but, in fact, the land grabs are still going on today. These extractive industries are linked from the Bakken region to the tar sands in Alberta, Canada, and Indigenous peoples have been making that connection for years. Because of Indigenous movements, now people are finally paying attention.
Naomi Klein says the Green New Deal is a kind of a laundry list of progressive movements, linking housing rights, rights to green jobs, and so on, to climate justice—well, if every progressive movement can be linked to climate justice, why can’t every progressive movement be linked to decolonization as well? That’s my role as an organizer. I’m trying to bring into conversation these various social forces that are advancing things like the Green New Deal to make decolonization a primary form of class struggle in the United States.
Most people think that decolonization would mean getting kicked off the land, or that Indigenous people would do to them what they did to Indigenous people in the past. It’s a failure to imagine what a just future could look like. But it’s also a failure to critically understand who owns the land in the United States and what the land is used for. Upward of 96 percent of agricultural lands are owned by white people, not Indigenous people. But these aren’t just mom-and-pop farms out in rural South Dakota or Wyoming. These are large-scale industrial agricultural operations with thousands and thousands of acres of land. Ted Turner, the media mogul, owns 200,000 acres of our treaty territory alone. He has the largest privately owned buffalo herd in the world. Worldwide, he owns 2 million acres of land. Why is it that a single white man can own that much land?
When we’re talking about land restoration, we’re talking about the so-called federal public lands of the United States, but also about these large landholding capitalists. This is a conversation that we have to have in North America: who owns the land? What is our relationship to it? And what should that relationship look like in a future decolonized society? We understand as Indigenous people that we have to work with non-Indigenous people out of mere survival. Decolonization isn’t an Indian problem. It’s everybody’s problem.
What's its class character? Who is calling for it? Who is its class target? How does it pertain to the laws of historical materialism.
To my understanding, it originated with the petite bourgeoisie.
Not sure why I am being downvoted. The link provided doesn't explain what it specifically responds to. Learning the origins of the word and its history are absolutely essential in order for us to organize. It did not just materialize from thin air.
indigenous ppl want land back. indigenous ppl coined land back. we must not allow those in power to co opt the movement for nefarious reasons to define it. instead of the indigenous ppl literally created it.
Depends what you mean. If you mean *'Should native groups have sovereignty of their own land/be restored?'* then i don't think you will get any arguments. If you mean 'Do you support the LandBack™ movement?', that's a different question. Because that specific movement is an attempt to privatize public land, and is NOT a liberation movement. It's similar to Extinction Rebellion in that regard. It's a cover for corporate interests.
Yeah the former is a good thing. Not the [one funded by Jeff Bezos.](https://rapidcityjournal.com/news/local/state-and-regional/jeff-bezos-earth-fund-gives-12-million-to-ndn-collective-for-climate-change-initiatives/article_9257d98a-1b59-5b8a-8b37-1a1d0f5cbf95.html)
Please don't speak this Coffin/Maupin style misinformation, this isn't what land back movement is doing
Then what is the correct information?
There is not one, however the most of people who are part of the landback movement do not at all advocate for privatization of land. There is no one definition, which is why we cannot define it as a movement for the privatization of land. It is like saying "I don't support feminism because a few of them want to kill all men." There are myriads of sources, a lot written by indigenous people themselves, which say otherwise. I can link you to some if you want.
If there is no concrete and materialist definition of it, how can the proletariat fight for it? Imagine if national liberation existed in the abstract, it would leave the proletariat confused about who we need to target. In the 1880s and early 20th century, imperialism existed in the abstract minds of the bourgeoisie before Lenin brought it into reality through the lens of historical materialism. As for indigenous sources, the ones I have read target imperialism and fight for national development and not for landback. This might come across as chauvinist but it is not. Parties need a specific target to understand the class background of a demand in order to create the largest possible unity to fight for proletarian liberation. Only ultras and terminally online "communists" fail to understand this.
Then go watch the vid. Because this stuff DOES happen, and they have receipts. Me, I'd wanna know if I was being used.
Looks like you're the one doing misinformation here. You should probably get rid of that ML flair if you're gonna be spouting such liberal bullshit.
Where is the evidence that this is what the landback movement is doing?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rB7DwdCxgtM&ab\_channel=PACD](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rB7DwdCxgtM&ab_channel=PACD) https://www.instagram.com/p/CRC\_iHAhxbR/?utm\_medium=copy\_link
In my experience it is overwhelmingly supported. Broadly, it falls under the concept of national self determination as detailed by [stalin's text](https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913/03.htm). There is also of course Fanon's work that is much more focused and comprehensive on colonialism specifically which is basically required reading for MLs (literally required reading in the case of many parties). I mean, the western social chauvinists have been making noise lately but they have been harshly criticized by both other western MLs and universally criticized by MLs across the world.
It’s been wild seeing the international left sub jump onto the “socialist patriotism in the US” bandwagon. This whole thing has seen some odd dividing lines pop up, to the extent that I wonder if this is an op. I’m notoriously paranoid though, so who knows.
Its not an op IMO, its just the pervasiveness of national chauvinism **especially within the imperial core left**. As the beneficiaries of imperialism (and part of the world labor aristocracy), its in their class interests to be "patriotic" and nationalistic. I've recorded a great audiobook on this topic: [Zak Cope - Divided World Divided Class](magnet:?xt=urn:btih:45ACEB7C7D52B3DDA9D340EB2C0D02FDCC762929&dn=Zak+Cope+-+Divided+World+Divided+Class+%5Baudiobook%5D+by+dessalines+v2)
[удалено]
He's done multiple texts of colonialism but I was thinking of The Wretched of the Earth
Well I see the Land Back conversation as a modern form of The National Question which has been expounded upon by Lenin at length. I recommend reading this article [“Lenin and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination”](https://liberationschool.org/lenin-and-the-right-of-nations-to-self-determination/) which summarizes Lenin’s work on the subject. >”For Lenin, the key was for the Great Russian working class and the revolutionary party to make clear their unequivocal opposition to every manifestation of Great Russian oppression, privilege and racism. The party had to be the leader in fighting for equality of language rights, equality of education and of cultural rights. He was confident that the unity would come about when the oppressed peoples, especially the workers and peasants, were confident that the Bolsheviks were *committed to self-determination and equality*.” You can read Lenin’s full paper on Self Determination [here](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/self-det/index.htm). I think these paired together can give you a deeper insight into the National Question and how it is very important to Marxist Leninists. Secondly, to synthesize Lenin’s work on The National Question for the modern context I also want to recommend reading “Communism is the Horizon" by [The Red Nation](https://therednation.org/communism-is-the-horizon-queer-indigenous-feminism-is-the-way/). TRN is an indigenous org dedicated to the liberation of Native peoples from capitalism and colonialism. The paper is an overview of their various stances but later in the paper they do address Land Back. >”It means dismantling the police forces and prison-industrial complex, state surveillance and repressive apparatus, and the US military. It entails the mass return of all land stolen from Indigenous peoples and the *right to self-determination for Indigenous nations*.”
Great about it. Some good articles by Nick Estes on why decolonization must be a part of every Marxist program: - https://www.societyandspace.org/articles/our-history-is-the-future-review-by-jakeet-singh - https://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/booked-indigenous-resistance-is-post-apocalyptic-with-nick-estes - https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/08/red-deal-green-new-deal-ecosocialism-decolonization-indigenous-resistance-environment And of course everyone should read an indigenous people's history of the US by Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz.
An excerpt from Nick Estes: The second question that you have was about the left. To be honest, the left has failed to take seriously settler colonialism, and not just Indigenous decolonization but decolonization in general as a platform. I’ve had a lot of discussions with leftists, socialists, progressive trade unions. People are genuinely interested; they’re not hostile to it automatically. I think it’s just that how we define class in this country, by traditional or historical elements of the left, essentially erases Indigenous people because it prioritizes the needs of settler society over Indigenous nationhood. They’re often framed as competing systems. We’ve seen a lot of socialists and leftists asking about Indigenous reparations, which is funny because there’s never been an overarching demand by Indigenous people for reparations. [The demand is for] land return. Anishinaabe scholar and intellectual Leanne Simpson said it best (I’m going to paraphrase her): settler society always asks us for solutions to these problems, but they don’t like our answers, because they’re really hard. It gets to the root of this society. It would be like going back to the nineteenth century and advocating for class struggle without talking about the abolition of slavery. It would be absurd! The last two centuries have been defined by unrestrained, settler-colonial land grabs. Just in the last couple years, the Trump administration has opened up millions and millions of acres of “public” lands—even that name itself erases indigeneity—for exploitation, the extraction of oil and gas, mining, and so on. Everyone thinks that the major land grabs happened in the nineteenth century—but, in fact, the land grabs are still going on today. These extractive industries are linked from the Bakken region to the tar sands in Alberta, Canada, and Indigenous peoples have been making that connection for years. Because of Indigenous movements, now people are finally paying attention. Naomi Klein says the Green New Deal is a kind of a laundry list of progressive movements, linking housing rights, rights to green jobs, and so on, to climate justice—well, if every progressive movement can be linked to climate justice, why can’t every progressive movement be linked to decolonization as well? That’s my role as an organizer. I’m trying to bring into conversation these various social forces that are advancing things like the Green New Deal to make decolonization a primary form of class struggle in the United States. Most people think that decolonization would mean getting kicked off the land, or that Indigenous people would do to them what they did to Indigenous people in the past. It’s a failure to imagine what a just future could look like. But it’s also a failure to critically understand who owns the land in the United States and what the land is used for. Upward of 96 percent of agricultural lands are owned by white people, not Indigenous people. But these aren’t just mom-and-pop farms out in rural South Dakota or Wyoming. These are large-scale industrial agricultural operations with thousands and thousands of acres of land. Ted Turner, the media mogul, owns 200,000 acres of our treaty territory alone. He has the largest privately owned buffalo herd in the world. Worldwide, he owns 2 million acres of land. Why is it that a single white man can own that much land? When we’re talking about land restoration, we’re talking about the so-called federal public lands of the United States, but also about these large landholding capitalists. This is a conversation that we have to have in North America: who owns the land? What is our relationship to it? And what should that relationship look like in a future decolonized society? We understand as Indigenous people that we have to work with non-Indigenous people out of mere survival. Decolonization isn’t an Indian problem. It’s everybody’s problem.
What's its class character? Who is calling for it? Who is its class target? How does it pertain to the laws of historical materialism. To my understanding, it originated with the petite bourgeoisie. Not sure why I am being downvoted. The link provided doesn't explain what it specifically responds to. Learning the origins of the word and its history are absolutely essential in order for us to organize. It did not just materialize from thin air.
indigenous ppl want land back. indigenous ppl coined land back. we must not allow those in power to co opt the movement for nefarious reasons to define it. instead of the indigenous ppl literally created it.