Beyond Resistance: new NZ class struggle anarchist collective

62 posts / 0 new
Last post
Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Aug 26 2009 11:02

I think that there are problems with the formulation however you try to explain it. The first thing is that it doesn't call for all land to be held in common, but for land to be held in common by a particular ethnic group. The second is about the nature of the demand. It seems to me completly abstract in the way that a transitional demand is.

Devrim

Spassmaschine
Offline
Joined: 29-01-07
Aug 26 2009 12:45
@ndy wrote:
The term 'ethnic', at least as I understand and use it, pertains to the non-indigenous population. That is, it is used as a descriptor of culture and descent among this population. Frequently, the term is used to describe the non-dominant population. That is, to be 'ethnic' is to belong to a national or cultural category that is not Anglo-derived.

Righto, fair enough, except where the term 'ethnic' was used in the thread:

Quote:
supporting the right of one ethnic group to land rights and "self-determination"?

it was referring to a specific 'racial' or 'ethnic' group or whatever term is PC, a particular group defined based on shared culture and ancestry, somehow having a greater entitlement to land. So i don't really get what point you are making with your distinction?

fatbongo
Offline
Joined: 28-01-09
Aug 26 2009 14:02

the maori identity, upon which the idea of self determination is based, depends on the idea of "the maori people". But there was no "the maori people" before colonisation. if you asked maori about their identity before that, they would've said the name of their tribe.

Jared
Offline
Joined: 21-06-09
Aug 26 2009 20:02

I don't think Maori should be understood as an 'ethnicity' Devrim. And in terms of that quote I used being described as 'middle class' or 'liberal' or whatever you'd like to call it — don't we, as members of the working class, go through the same process with regard to our own history and culture? It's a dangerous stance to say any kind of valuation of one's past is 'liberal', unless you meant the way it was voiced (maybe it was too 'spiritual' or feminine for you?).

Also, don't assume what the group has or hasn't done please. You have no idea of the process or discussion we've had in our formation.

Besides, as a friend pointed out to me when I showed him this discussion, your comments could be seen as another form of (white) colonisation (ie you can have self-determination but only if we like and approve of the form it takes). Anarchism to him is not proscribing one form of society for everyone, otherwise that's just another form of fascism (esp in the case of colonial Aotearoa).

I don't disagree with all your comments but as someone on the outside (as we all are) we have to respect Maori and their fight for Tino Rangatiratanga. That doesn't mean we can't argue the advantages of that struggle along anarchist communist lines, but we have to respect the place that struggle is coming from.

Jared
Offline
Joined: 21-06-09
Aug 27 2009 01:52

Sorry Devrim and others if my comments were rather frank, I'm not used to web forums or online discussion!

Jared
Offline
Joined: 21-06-09
Aug 27 2009 02:01

Also, if you read down our aims and principles, you will notice that we talk about common ownership of the means of the production, anarchist communism etc etc. 'Land rights', like 'higher wages', could be classified as reformist or middle class, without the necessary revolutionary additive. I'd like to think our aims make it clear that we are trying to build that perspective.

A 2-3 line aim or principle is by no means the in-depth 'position paper' needed on such topics such as Tino Rangatiratanga — they will come with time — but I do recognise the wording of our first aim & principle is not yet correct and needs work.

Geez this thing is addictive.

Spassmaschine
Offline
Joined: 29-01-07
Aug 27 2009 03:22
Quote:
Besides, as a friend pointed out to me when I showed him this discussion, your comments could be seen as another form of (white) colonisation (ie you can have self-determination but only if we like and approve of the form it takes). Anarchism to him is not proscribing one form of society for everyone, otherwise that's just another form of fascism (esp in the case of colonial Aotearoa).

I don't think people are arguing that 'self-determination' needs the approval of 'whites', but rather that 1) self-determination is not actually possible in any meanful way, 2) calls for national/racial/ethnic self-determination are incompatible with a genuinely communist perspective. It's not an argument about 'proscribing one form of society for someone', but about what actually offers the possibility of changing material conditions and getting ourselves out of this mess.

Quote:
Sorry Devrim and others if my comments were rather frank, I'm not used to web forums or online discussion!

I wouldn't worry too much about this; it is the nature of this medium that tone and nuance are more difficult to pick up on than in face-to-face conversation; the best thing to do is concentrate on people's arguments and not take it as personal.

Quote:
Also, if you read down our aims and principles, you will notice that we talk about common ownership of the means of the production

This is the key point IMO; we need to think about whether struggles for land rights for specific social groups defined by culture and ancestry are compatible at all with a perspective for common ownership by the entirety of society irrespective of culture and ancestry.

Django's picture
Django
Offline
Joined: 18-01-08
Aug 27 2009 09:34
Jared wrote:
I don't think Maori should be understood as an 'ethnicity' Devrim. And in terms of that quote I used being described as 'middle class' or 'liberal' or whatever you'd like to call it — don't we, as members of the working class, go through the same process with regard to our own history and culture? It's a dangerous stance to say any kind of valuation of one's past is 'liberal', unless you meant the way it was voiced (maybe it was too 'spiritual' or feminine for you?).

Forgive me if I'm misinterpreting you here, but is what you're saying here that we all value our 'own' national/ethnic/linguistic whatever history? Or are you referring to working class history?

Because I think there are criticisms to be made of 'valuing ones past' if that past is an abstract national or ethnic one.

Jared wrote:
I don't disagree with all your comments but as someone on the outside (as we all are) we have to respect Maori and their fight for Tino Rangatiratanga. That doesn't mean we can't argue the advantages of that struggle along anarchist communist lines, but we have to respect the place that struggle is coming from.

I agree that people who are subject to specific forms of racism, dispossession or exploitation should lead struggles against it. At the same time, that doesn't mean that the politics and actions within those groups are beyond criticism or opposition. The article that Skraeling linked to above makes the point that Tino Rangatiratanga means something radically different to a Maori entrepeneur and a Maori worker - because Maoris don't have any single interest and are as stratified on class lines as any other grouping in the world.

But I agree with the above that self determination isn't really possible in capitalism, and isn't compatible with a communist perspective.

Juan Conatz's picture
Juan Conatz
Offline
Joined: 29-04-08
Aug 27 2009 10:46

The question of self-determination is a tricky one. Actually, anything having to do with the question of historically and currently oppressed ethnic and racial groups, anarchists have struggled with.

While I agree, what is commonly seen as 'liberal identity politics' and 'racial nationalism/separatism' can be a bad thing, the sentiment of colorblindness is as equally bad.

Also, I think people, particularly some of the European based posters on this site, forget that the settler nations have entirely different conditions and histories, which often necessitate a different language with its own set of terms, that would not make as much sense in, say, the UK.

@ndy's picture
@ndy
Offline
Joined: 17-03-06
Aug 27 2009 17:17
captain soap wrote:
@ndy wrote:
The term 'ethnic', at least as I understand and use it, pertains to the non-indigenous population. That is, it is used as a descriptor of culture and descent among this population. Frequently, the term is used to describe the non-dominant population. That is, to be 'ethnic' is to belong to a national or cultural category that is not Anglo-derived.

Righto, fair enough, except where the term 'ethnic' was used in the thread:

Quote:
supporting the right of one ethnic group to land rights and "self-determination"?

Quote:
it was referring to a specific 'racial' or 'ethnic' group or whatever term is PC, a particular group defined based on shared culture and ancestry, somehow having a greater entitlement to land. So I don't really get what point you are making with your distinction?

OK.

Two things.

One, the sense in which I use the terms 'ethnic' and 'indigenous', and why I think that they are, or should be considered, to be conceptually distinct. That is: "There's a difference b/w 'indigenous' and 'ethnic', and one is not reducible to the other."

Two, 'where the term 'ethnic' is used in the thread'. Specifically, you asked: "Isn't there a contradiction between being internationalist, and supporting the right of one ethnic group to land rights and "self-determination"?"

The point of the distinction -- between 'ethnic' and 'indigenous' -- is historical and political, and goes some way, I think, to explaining why the distinction is important in this context, and in the context of some notion of 'self-determination'.

In essence, the notion of 'land rights' (in the Australian context) does indeed rest upon there being some notion of "a particular group" or groups whose existence is "based on shared culture and ancestry": that is, 'indigenous' -- not 'ethnic' -- peoples. For example:

Gurindji (strike) : http://www.abc.net.au/gnt/history/Transcripts/s1147120.htm
Mirrar : http://www.mirarr.net/
Wiradjuri (Mum Shirl): http://www.reasoninrevolt.net.au/biogs/E000359b.htm

To begin with, I think it would be worthwhile examining the state of the contemporary Aboriginal ('indigenous') movement, one of the central demands of which has been for 'land rights'. (I'm not especially familiar with the situation in New Zealand/Aotearoa, so will leave that to others.) This has often been framed in terms of some notion of 'social justice'. That is, it is right and proper that the indigenous peoples who have survived the genocidal conquest of Australia should be accorded some recognition, in law and in government, of their 'rights'. The question of 'land rights', it has been argued, is central to this proposition because of the distinctive nature of Aboriginal (and Torres Strait islander) peoples' relationship to the land, and its role in their communal lives. Thus:

Quote:
The notion of ‘ownership’ need not have exclusively ‘propertarian’ overtones. For example, my understanding is that, in Australia, Aboriginal societies developed a precise, although complex, concept of landholding, in which individual men and women hold particular relationships to land, inherited from parents and arising from their own conceptions and birth sites. These relationships entail obligations and responsibilities to protect the land, its species and people from damage and unauthorised use; and to husband the land, use it, harvest it and do the things it needs to maintain its productivity. Thus the Aboriginal concept of landholding is very different from the (hegemonic) European concept of land as individually owned private property, a commodity to be bought, sold and used to generate profit. So yes, the land “belongs” to the Wurundjeri people; more importantly, the Wurundjeri belong to the land.

I suppose one question that occurs to me is: what, if any, ethical or political injunction exists in relationship to -- that is to say against -- conquest? That is, if everyone is equally entitled to "land" (in the fully abstract sense of the term), on what basis, if any, is it possible to oppose colonisation? Is 'colonisation', in the context of Australia, something that happened once, a long time ago, or is it, in fact, as many colonised peoples maintain, an ongoing process?

The above questions, and others like them, require extensive research and reflection, and in these few, brief comments, I've not done any of them justice, and don't pretend otherwise. By way of conclusion:

Quote:
Gary Foley, one of Australia’s most provocative and respected Aboriginal leaders and intellectuals, identifies some of the key problems with our approach to Indigenous policy, by both the Howard and Rudd Governments.

He argues that if Australian government policies continue in their present direction, Aboriginal people will be extinct by 2075.

Foley identifies key concerns with the influential politics of fellow Aboriginal activist Noel Pearson, particularly with Pearson’s assertion that "self-determination has failed".

He is critical of the assumption that the Australian Labor Party has been an ally of Aboriginal people and argues that the Rudd apology to the Stolen Generations is an example of the duplicity and deceit of politicians.

Gary Foley is an indigenous Australian activist, academic, writer and actor. He is best known for his role in establishing the Aboriginal Tent Embassy in Canberra in 1972 and for establishing an Aboriginal legal service in Redfern in the 1970s. He currently runs an Aboriginal history website and lectures and tutors at Victoria University.

This talk will be followed by a Q & A Session.

Duration: 60 minutes with no interval

http://www.sydneyoperahouse.com/priority/fodiby2075aboriginalgenocidewillbecomplete.aspx

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Aug 27 2009 17:26
@ndy wrote:
In essence, the notion of 'land rights' (in the Australian context) does indeed rest upon there being some notion of "a particular group" or groups whose existence is "based on shared culture and ancestry": that is, 'indigenous' -- not 'ethnic' -- peoples.

...

wikipedia wrote:
An ethnic group is a group of humans whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage that is real or presumed.[1][2]

Ethnic identity is further marked by the recognition from others of a group's distinctiveness[3] and the recognition of common cultural, linguistic, religious, behavioural traits as indicators of contrast to other groups.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnicity

i'm still not sure what the distinction you're trying to make is? confused

surely 'indiginous' is simply a subset of ethnicity, that is the ethnic group that supposedly has the oldest lineage in a given territory (i say supposedly, because often the ethnicity is a post facto narrative)?

Spassmaschine
Offline
Joined: 29-01-07
Aug 29 2009 12:48
@ndy wrote:
To begin with, I think it would be worthwhile examining the state of the contemporary Aboriginal ('indigenous') movement, one of the central demands of which has been for 'land rights'. (I'm not especially familiar with the situation in New Zealand/Aotearoa, so will leave that to others.) This has often been framed in terms of some notion of 'social justice'. That is, it is right and proper that the indigenous peoples who have survived the genocidal conquest of Australia should be accorded some recognition, in law and in government, of their 'rights'.

See, to me this largely reads like liberal gibberish. Even if we assume the existence of some overarching contemporary Aboriginal movement (and I am not convinced that there is a ‘movement’, outside the minds of a few activists, Aboriginal academics and ‘leaders’ and whichever Aboriginal groups are currently making land rights claims; certainly nothing that relates to the interests of the vast majority of those identifying as ‘Aboriginal’), doesn’t the obsession with ‘social justice’ and legal recognition obscure the material reality of the dispossession suffered by Aborigines? Isn’t the problem that Aborginies, like other proles, are cut off from control over their lives and from access to the things they need, not that their dispossession doesn’t have formal recognition? As class struggle anarchists/communists, shouldn’t we be more concerned about struggles for actual material improvements to living conditions, i.e. struggles by aborigines to force society to fulfil their needs, rather than give a shit about whether rights are properly, formally recognised. After all, Kevin Rudd was perfectly capable of making an official apology, to mass approval, while at the same time intensifying the ‘intervention’ begun under Howard. The fetishism of land rights at best side-tracks, and at worst suppresses, concrete struggles for a better life. The attainment of land rights serves only to confirm Aborginial people as ‘true’ proletarians, as it leaves their material dispossession intact, while at the same time making them fully paid-up bourgeois citizens, free to sell themselves to a boss, whether an evil white one, or the local Aboriginal Corporation.

You linked in passing to the Gurindji strike. Gurindji started out as a strike for better material conditions, but was later subsumed into a struggle for land rights. It would be interesting to know whether the Gurindji strike has made any significant difference to the material conditions of most Gurindji. Is work and life on Wave Hill Cattle Station under the management of the Murramulla Gurindji Company qualitatively less alienated, or did the attainment of native title play a recuperative role, effectively putting a brake on struggle while continuing the same capitalist relations as existed before, only obscured/ made somehow more legitimate because the relations are now personified by people of the same race? Did land rights make access to health care, education, housing, employment and cheap commodities magically easier, or do communities with native title still suffer from abysmal housing conditions, ridiculously expensive food, lack of funding for proper education and health services, chronic unemployment, in the same way that communities without native title do, due to the fact that they are ignored by governments and located in the middle of nowhere.

Quote:
The question of 'land rights', it has been argued, is central to this proposition because of the distinctive nature of Aboriginal (and Torres Strait islander) peoples' relationship to the land, and its role in their communal lives.

Given that the vast majority of those identifying as ‘Aboriginal’ do not live in remote communities but in cities and towns, how can we even talk about ‘Aboríginal’ people having a distinctive relationship to the land? Surely ‘their’ culture is the dynamic culture that they have directly experienced throughout their lives, rather than some static, romanticised thing that they somehow have an innate connection to, despite not actually ever having experienced? What material form does this special relationship actually take?

georgestapleton's picture
georgestapleton
Offline
Joined: 4-08-05
Aug 29 2009 14:40
Jared wrote:
I don't think Maori should be understood as an 'ethnicity' Devrim. ...Anarchism to him is not proscribing one form of society for everyone, otherwise that's just another form of fascism (esp in the case of colonial Aotearoa).

I don't disagree with all your comments but as someone on the outside (as we all are) we have to respect Maori and their fight for Tino Rangatiratanga. That doesn't mean we can't argue the advantages of that struggle along anarchist communist lines, but we have to respect the place that struggle is coming from.

Devrim isn't an anarchist. He's a leninist. (Albeit a leninist who doesn't call himself a leninist. Seemingly leninism is a betrayal of lenin. roll eyes )

Quote:
Sorry Devrim and others if my comments were rather frank, I'm not used to web forums or online discussion!

Also the guy has basically said that you are advancing Nazi politics, so I figure you can tell him to go fuck himself. You definitely don't need to be apologizing to him.

@ndy's picture
@ndy
Offline
Joined: 17-03-06
Aug 31 2009 01:07

Yo.

I'll reply to captain soap and Joseph Kay some time in the next few daze.

smush
Offline
Joined: 30-11-04
Sep 10 2009 23:56
Quote:
Also the guy has basically said that you are advancing Nazi politics, so I figure you can tell him to go fuck himself. You definitely don't need to be apologizing to him.

phew, well said!

Spassmaschine
Offline
Joined: 29-01-07
Sep 11 2009 06:04
smush wrote:
Quote:
Also the guy has basically said that you are advancing Nazi politics, so I figure you can tell him to go fuck himself. You definitely don't need to be apologizing to him.

phew, well said!

Not really. For context, here is Devrim's comment that I assume georgestapleton is trolling to:

Devrim wrote:
BR wrote:
We recognise that the indigenous peoples of Aotearoa belong to the land on which we stand, and act in solidarity with Maori engaged in grassroots struggle for land rights and self-determination (much needed discussion on this is ongoing within the group).

The first part really reads like 'blood and soil' nationalism. It is exactly the sort of thing that I could imagine fascist leaders in this country saying.

'Well said' would perhaps be more applicable if george actually offered an argument as to how the the idea of a particular ethnicity somehow having an innate connection or 'right' to the land doesn't follow the same racialising logic of the fash. Or perhaps george is arguing that Turkish fascists don't actually advocate blood and soil nationalism?

At least the OP has tried to respond to the various criticisms raised in this thread, and seems to be open to comradely discussion.

Also, given that Jared wrote:

Quote:
Besides, as a friend pointed out to me when I showed him this discussion, your comments could be seen as another form of (white) colonisation (ie you can have self-determination but only if we like and approve of the form it takes). Anarchism to him is not proscribing one form of society for everyone, otherwise that's just another form of fascism (esp in the case of colonial Aotearoa).

shouldn't george be consistent and also tell Jared to tell his own friend to fuck off, since "the guy has basically said that [we] are advancing Nazi politics"?

Yorkie Bar
Offline
Joined: 29-03-09
Sep 11 2009 13:52

Yeah, grow the fuck up, folks, this is juvenile. Devrim made a valid point about the nationalist overtones of this document. He didn't even mention fascism - what he talked about was 'blood and soil' nationalism. No-one is having a go at either of the two posters who actually did make comparisons to fascism - Joseph Kay and Jarred.

The comments of georgestapleton and smush just seem like contrived personal attacks to me.

~J.

Yorkie Bar
Offline
Joined: 29-03-09
Sep 11 2009 18:34
weeler wrote:
Why has nobody pointed out that this is quite simply the politics of post-colonial guilt? Also, its called New Zealand not Mordor or Aoetorria or whatever.

Oh, and that too.

~J.

Juan Conatz's picture
Juan Conatz
Offline
Joined: 29-04-08
Sep 11 2009 23:48

Post-colonial white guilt or colonialism disguised as far left politics?

Meh.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Sep 12 2009 07:59

words on the internet constitute colonialism now? doesn't that trivialise colonialism somewhat? i mean seriously, you might disagree with criticisms of ethnic self-determination, but it's not like assorted libcommers are assembling an invading force backed by one of the worlds most powerful states to conquer territory, plunder resources and expel/exploit/exterminate the resident population. bit of perspective pls.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Sep 12 2009 09:25
Jared wrote:
Sorry Devrim and others if my comments were rather frank, I'm not used to web forums or online discussion!

Actually, I think that you were perfectly polite and reasonable. This is how not to do it:

georgestapleton wrote:
Also the guy has basically said that you are advancing Nazi politics, so I figure you can tell him to go fuck himself. You definitely don't need to be apologizing to him.

As has been pointed out what I said was:

Devrim wrote:
BR wrote:
We recognise that the indigenous peoples of Aotearoa belong to the land on which we stand, and act in solidarity with Maori engaged in grassroots struggle for land rights and self-determination (much needed discussion on this is ongoing within the group).

The first part really reads like 'blood and soil' nationalism. It is exactly the sort of thing that I could imagine fascist leaders in this country saying.

I think it was fair comment.

Also I would just like to comment on this too:

georgestapleton wrote:
Devrim isn't an anarchist. He's a leninist. (Albeit a leninist who doesn't call himself a leninist. Seemingly leninism is a betrayal of lenin. roll eyes )

I don't think I am a Leninist. I am interested in why you think I am one.

Devrim

Ed's picture
Ed
Offline
Joined: 1-10-03
Sep 12 2009 10:56

devrim, please keep this on topic. If you want to discuss why you're a leninist then start another thread. cheers.

Jared
Offline
Joined: 21-06-09
Sep 12 2009 11:14

Maybe to keep this constructive we could start to talk a bit more about concepts of nationalism with regard to self-determination? To me, there's a big difference between a nationalist struggle in order to control or even set up a 'nation' state, and a struggle for self-determination as a cultural/indigenous/class group at the grassroots/libertarian level.

As regards to some of the other comments re post-colonial guilt... well I have to put this down to plain ignorance or a really narrow mentality. When you look at the overiding facts of Aotearoa's class make-up, it's predominantly a Maori working class — Maori have clearly, and still do, suffer from capitalist/colonial endeavours. Maori are by far the poorest, less educated and deeply effected community in Aotearoa — to ignore these facts and to simply say that past race/indigenous struggle in Aotearoa is detrimental to the wider 'class struggle' is to ignore the reality of the struggle we face here. This is far from a 'Nationalist' document, nor is it advocating blood and soil nationalism — it's recognising the grey areas of capital social relations as it affects us here.

Keep it constructive yeah?

Farce's picture
Farce
Offline
Joined: 21-04-09
Sep 12 2009 15:09
Jared wrote:
When you look at the overiding facts of Aotearoa's class make-up, it's predominantly a Maori working class — Maori have clearly, and still do, suffer from capitalist/colonial endeavours.

Really? What proportion of the population are they? There's a big difference between saying "the Maori are mostly working-class" (which I'm sure is true), and saying "the working class are mostly Maori" (which sounds like what you're saying, but sounds highly dubious to me).

Yorkie Bar
Offline
Joined: 29-03-09
Sep 12 2009 17:18
Quote:
Keep it constructive yeah?

Fair comment.

Quote:
To me, there's a big difference between a nationalist struggle in order to control or even set up a 'nation' state, and a struggle for self-determination as a cultural/indigenous/class group at the grassroots/libertarian level.

So I kind of agree that there's a difference, but I don't think that "self-determination" is a useful concept in terms of communist struggle. The key notion of communism isn't self-determination of individuals or groups - it's more like the conscious determination of society by everyone.

We don't want 'self-dermination' as proletarians; we want to stop being proletarians and get rid of all classes in the process. The idea of proletarian 'self-determination' is really pretty odd, to me, since to be proletarian is to be dispossessed, to be enslaved - is this condition compatible with 'self-determination'? Frankly, if it is, you can keep it.

And what real meaning can ethnic or indigenous 'self-determination' really have? In capitalist society, such groups are divided along class lines. 'Self-determination' by the group as a whole could only mean the determination of the whole group by the ruling class within the group. Do you see what I mean? As long as our bosses are calling the shots, they'll control any kind of 'self-determination' process.

~J.

Jared
Offline
Joined: 21-06-09
Sep 12 2009 20:12
Farce wrote:
Jared wrote:
When you look at the overiding facts of Aotearoa's class make-up, it's predominantly a Maori working class — Maori have clearly, and still do, suffer from capitalist/colonial endeavours.

Really? What proportion of the population are they? There's a big difference between saying "the Maori are mostly working-class" (which I'm sure is true), and saying "the working class are mostly Maori" (which sounds like what you're saying, but sounds highly dubious to me).

Point taken. I mean to say that most Maori are predominantly working class.

Thanks for your comments BigLittleJ. The term 'self-determination' is used to reference the recent past of Maori struggle (being a young country of less than 200 years), but I recognise the tensions you describe with that term.

Quote:
We don't want 'self-dermination' as proletarians; we want to stop being proletarians and get rid of all classes in the process

I agree with this, but how would this relate to Maori (or any other indigenous culture), who obviously don't want to negate their own diversity or get rid of their pretty specific origins/identity? I understand it in terms of class, but my understandings of class and racial identity must be a bit foggy

Yorkie Bar
Offline
Joined: 29-03-09
Sep 12 2009 22:06
Quote:
how would this relate to Maori (or any other indigenous culture), who obviously don't want to negate their own diversity or get rid of their pretty specific origins/identity? I understand it in terms of class, but my understandings of class and racial identity must be a bit foggy

I think that a movement based on Maori 'self-determination', is radically different from the communist movement for just this reason. That's why I see class-struggle as absolutely central to revolutionary politics. Class is really a very different thing from race (that's not to say the two aren't connected).

My main problem with the politics of Maori 'self-determination' is this: If the Maori are to have self-determination as a group, in the context of class society, then that process, that self-determination, will be dominated by those Maori who are of the ruling class. As such it will be a movement of the ruling class - in this case, it would be a Maori bourgeoisie.

Now, just to clarify - I by no means wish to play down the role of racism in the oppression of workers. I think racism is always anti-working-class, and always counter-revolutionary. But I think the answer is to resist racism as workers - to put what we have in common as proletarians before what divides us as Maoris, whites, blacks, immigrants, indigenous or whatever. Does that make sense?

~J.

Jared
Offline
Joined: 21-06-09
Sep 13 2009 00:14

Makes total sense, and I agree with the analysis, but a lot of effective Maori struggle has been both grassroots/working class and against what we would call 'ruling class' Maori, those who run their tribes on corporate models. But I agree these struggles may have been for reasons not typically anarchist communist (which we can critique but as Pakeha/English we still need to respect), and that the task ahead is to further the class struggle perspective.

Yorkie Bar
Offline
Joined: 29-03-09
Sep 13 2009 10:30
Jared wrote:
Makes total sense, and I agree with the analysis, but a lot of effective Maori struggle has been both grassroots/working class and against what we would call 'ruling class' Maori, those who run their tribes on corporate models. But I agree these struggles may have been for reasons not typically anarchist communist

I don't know much about the situation in NZ, but I would suggest that as communists we can support the struggles of working class Maori, but still criticise some of their demands and argue for better ones.

But I think that we basically agree on this now, so I'll leave it there. See you,

~J.

@ndy's picture
@ndy
Offline
Joined: 17-03-06
Sep 18 2009 10:11

Oh yeah.

I'm still gonna post a reply.

Like, next week.

Maybe.

Problem is, I think that the issues are fairly complex, and it doesn't appear that there is common agreement on what these issue actually are; a matter complicated by the fact that there are, either explicitly or implicitly, different definitions of key terms being employed. This leads, inevitably, to misunderstandings, and I think productive conversation relies upon there being, at the very least, acceptance of common definitions. Only from this point can disagreements be -- again, at the very least -- clarified. I also think that context, especially historical context, is important, and I don't think that the situation of anarchists in, for example, the UK, is analogous to that of anarchists in Australia, or Aotearoa/New Zealand. That is, there are political concerns for anarchists in Australia and Aoteraoa/New Zealand that do not confront anarchists elsewhere, including those in the heart of the former British Empire.

But more on all that later.