The following speech was given by Russell Means in July 1980, before several thousand people who had assembled from all over the world for the Black Hills International Survival Gathering, in the...
Thanks for posting this, a really fascinating article. I think the tension between indigenous peoples (and to extent the black radical tradition) and Marxism is the Western conception of "progress." Marxism, as Russell Means points out, is built upon the Western intellectual tradition which accepts the idea that "progress" and all that that entails is something desirable, good, and in a lot of ways inevitable. "A better world is possible" is an inherently progressive statement. Marxism seeks to improve on an already existing system. Remember, Marx always said that capitalism was necessary for communism to exist. Socialism, communism, etc are all later "stages" of economic development, or progress.
From the view of native peoples, capitalism itself should have never been allowed to exist, for colonialism and capitalism have been truly disastrous for Amerindians. They watched their entire world get murdered by Europeans. So for them to accept that capitalism is a necessary stage that we must build upon and move beyond is, understandably, a bridge too far. Likewise, there's the contention that history is "progressive." For Amerindians, quite frankly, it's not. If anything, their history is regressive—their entire civilization was basically swept off the earth, and all the environments they grew up with destroyed and distorted by the invisible hand of the market. To claim that the arc of the world bends towards progress to an Amerindian is tantamount to laughing in their face. So when they encounter a philosophy like Marxism, which claims that it will "progress" the world, they are rightfully skeptical. This is not an unbridgeable gap, but as a white Marxist in the United States, I don't think I'm going to be the one to do it.
Thanks for posting this, a really fascinating article. I think the tension between indigenous peoples (and to extent the black radical tradition) and Marxism is the Western conception of "progress." Marxism, as Russell Means points out, is built upon the Western intellectual tradition which accepts the idea that "progress" and all that that entails is something desirable, good, and in a lot of ways inevitable. "A better world is possible" is an inherently progressive statement. Marxism seeks to improve on an already existing system. Remember, Marx always said that capitalism was necessary for communism to exist. Socialism, communism, etc are all later "stages" of economic development, or progress.
From the view of native peoples, capitalism itself should have never been allowed to exist, for colonialism and capitalism have been truly disastrous for Amerindians. They watched their entire world get murdered by Europeans. So for them to accept that capitalism is a necessary stage that we must build upon and move beyond is, understandably, a bridge too far. Likewise, there's the contention that history is "progressive." For Amerindians, quite frankly, it's not. If anything, their history is regressive—their entire civilization was basically swept off the earth, and all the environments they grew up with destroyed and distorted by the invisible hand of the market. To claim that the arc of the world bends towards progress to an Amerindian is tantamount to laughing in their face. So when they encounter a philosophy like Marxism, which claims that it will "progress" the world, they are rightfully skeptical. This is not an unbridgeable gap, but as a white Marxist in the United States, I don't think I'm going to be the one to do it.