ed.

Ward
Churchill
Marxism
and
Native Americans
edited by
Ward Churchill
SOUTH END PRESS BOSTON
Other books by Ward Churchill:
Culture Versus Economism: Essays on Marxism in the Multicultural
Arena (with Elisabeth R. Lloyd)
Agents of Repression: The FBI's Secret Wars Against the Black Pan
ther Party and American Indian Movement (with Jim VanderWall)
Critical Issues in Native North America (edited)
Copyright 1983 by Ward Churchil
First Printing, 1983
Second Printing, 1989
Third Printing, 1992
Copyrights are still required for book production in the United States. How
ever, any properly footnoted quotation of up to J sequential words may be
used without permission, so long as the total number of words quoted does not
exceed Z,. For longer quotations please write for permission to South End
Press.
Library of Congress Number: 83-060182
ISBN -606-111-7 Paperback
ISBN -606-116-6 Hardcover
Cover Design and Production by Carl ConeUa
South End Press, 116 Saint Botolph Street, Boston, M 02115
Acknowledgements
The edi tor would l i ke to thank the fol l owi ng i ndi vi duals for t hei r
assistance, both di rect and i ndi rect, i n the completi on of this
project: Charlie Cambri dge, Dan Debo, Reyes Garcia, Deme
t ries Stevies, Tom Hol m, Roxanne Dunbar Ortiz, Nick Mein
hardt, Bertell OIl man, Bill Means, Susi Schneider, Jesse Hi roaka
and Gonzalo Santos, for offeri ng constructive cri ti ci sm of t he
i dea and/ or various aspects of the manuscript. Grace and
Wall ace Black El k, Charles Fast Horse, John Trudell, Chris
Westerman, Rick Willi ams, Charli e Hil l, Cate Gi ll es and others
t oo numerous to menti on provi ded hours upon hours of
conversati on affordi ng i nsight t o a porti on of t he subj ect matter.
And a very special thanks i s due t o Faye Brown who provi ded all
of the above freely and unsti nti ngly.
I'd al so l i ke to thank Bernardi ne Dohrn and Jeff Jones, whose
postulati ons provided my first crash-course into the world of
Marxi st Leninist theory; Walter and Roseanne Ki mmel, teachers
who put a new perspective on my understandi ng of the Marxist
paradigm; Kwame Ture, Bob Brown and Macheo Shabaka,
brothers who are to an i mportant extent broadeni ng that
perspective; Sarah Sneed, who has seen ft to challenge virtually
ever resultant posi ti on I hol d; Norbert S. Hill Jr. , who has
al lowed me a certai n amount of j ob flexi bility i n pursui ng a
project which fai led to particularly i nterest hi m; Michael Al bert
and Shei la Walsh, whose letters, calls and advice from South End
Press provided a vi tal edi tori al assistance; and Alice Engle
bretsen, Janet Shotwell and Carol Moor, whose ski l l s at proofing
and typi ng saved me a demoral i zi ng porti on of the one-fi nger
method through which I ordinarily complete fi nal copy.
Al so: Dakota AI M, Women of All Red Nati ons, Yellow Thunder
Tiospaye, Black Hills Alliance, Akwesane, and-of course-the
contributors from the Preface to the Postscript, as well as all the
others I've missed menti oni ng-t hanks for everythi ng.
DEDICATION
For Mike Jacobs, one of the best and brightest of my
students, murdered by police in Seattle, September 1988.
And for Steve Platero, another, murdered by "person or
persons unknown" on the Navajo reservation during the
same year.
CONTENTS
Preface: Natural to Synthetic and Back
Winona LaDuke
Introduction: Journeying Toward A Debate
Ward Churchill
PART ONE
The Same Old Song
Russell Means
Searching for a Second Harvest
The RCP
The Same Old Song In Sad Refrain
Ward Churchill with Dora-Lee Larson
PART TWO
1
19
35
59
Marx's General Cultural Theoretics 79
Elisabeth Lloyd
Culture and Personhood 91
Robert B. Sipe
Circling the Same Old Rock 113
Vine Deloria Jr.
Observations on Marxism and Lakota Tradition 137
Frank Black Elk
Marx Versus Marxism
159
Bill Tabb
PART THREE
Reds Versus Redskins
Phil Heiple
Marxism and the Native American
Ward Churchill
Notes and Bibliographies
177
183
205
PREFACE
Natural To Synthetic And Back Again
Winona LaDuke
Thi s America has been a burden
of steel and mud
and deat h,
But l ook now,
there are fowers
and new grass
and a spring wi nd
Rising
from Sand Creek.
Si mon J. Ortiz
From Sand Creek
I woul d argue t hat Americans of "foreign" descent must
become Americans. That i s not t o become a patriot of the United
States, a patriot t o the fl ag, but a patriot to the land of t his
conti nent, t hese conti nents. You were born here, you wi l l not
li kely go away, or live anywhere else, and there are si mply no
more front iers to fol l ow. We must al l relearn a way of thi nki ng, a
state of mi nd that is from t his common ground. North America is
not Europe, and t hi s is t he I 980s-t hose are two "facts" that we
must remember when we begin t o relearn and rebuild. And, if we
are i n t his toget her, we must rebui l d, redevelop, and reclaim an
understandi ng/ analysis whi ch i s uniquely ours. Wit hi n the essays
whi ch fol l ow, I believe t hat some of the questions are begi nni ng
to be as ked whi ch we need answer if we are to move towards a
new understanding.
There are many histories of Nort h America. The experiences
of successive waves of i mmi grants are distinct, as are-to a large
degree-the histories of t he di fferent classes comprising the
i mmi grant waves. The hi stories of the various peoples native to
the continent are also quite di sti nct wi thi n themselves. The story
of each of these groups hol ds a ri ghtful claim to its own integrity,
t o its own pl ace and ful l ness of meaning wi thi n the whole. To
deny this is to di stort.
11 Marxism and Native Americans
Yet there is another history, one which i s most frequently
overlooked or ignored i n attempts at understandi ng "America":
the history of the land itself, the land and its relati onshi p to all the
peopl es who l ive, have l i ved, or wi l l l ive here. It is wi thi n t hi s
aspect of reality, a reality common to us al l , that the key to
understandi ng lies. Without addressi ng the hi st ory marked
i ndeli bl y i the land, a history neither t o be refuted nor
"interpreted" thru ideol ogical sophi stry, no theory call be
anchored. Since an unanchored theory must i nevi tably rel!lt in
mi sunderstanding, it is' to the history of t he land that Wt' mlst
turn.
Before the European penetrati on of North America. thou
sands of generati ons of peoples i ndi genous t o t his hemisphere
l ived out thei r lives, practiced their cul tures and extended their
societies t hrough time. The societies t hese peopl e devel oped were
hi ghly ri ch and diversifed but, in general , t hey were universal l y
marked by being "natural" i n the sense t hat t hey functi oned in
accord with, l iterally as a part of, nature and the natural environs.
But with the arrival of the Europeans a break was made
such that every seeming step forward into greater "devel op
ment" coul d be measured si multaneously by the degree of divorce
of s ociety from the natural environs. I t is no acci dent that fel l i ng
natives as a means to expropriate land represented l i ttl e more
wi thi n the operative mentality than fel l i ng trees to clear a field.
The American Indian was rightly, if unwitti ngly, considered as
part and parcel of the natural order, a thing t o be profitably
surmounted.
While proclai ming the land a wilderness t o be brought under
human control, the settlers relied upon the pri mieval richness of
its soi l to provide the basi s of thei r agri cul ture; the pristine
quality of its lakes and rivers to provide fsh and fur; and its
teemi ng wildlife to provide protein. In like fashi on, whi le
pronounci ng the Indian as "savage," they l ifed the form of the
Iroquoi s Confederacy t o organize their government and the
crops of the Pequot and Pennobscott, Passamaquoddy and
Wampanoag as the basis of their agriculture. Never once in their
arrogance di d they stumble upon the singl e fact t hat i n sub
suming t he wilderness and the Indian within thei r synthesis t hey
were irrevocably cutting themselves off from the very substance
of the new life they were forging i n North America.
Preface 11l
The long history of colonization by Europeans changed the
face of the land-for a new economic order was forged on the
land, not with the land. Across the country, forests retreated
steadily before the ax, the wildlife disappeared and, with them,
the indigenous peoples. Land was sacrificed to the need for iron,
and then steel. In West Virginia it was coal. In Pennsylvania, oil.
As the land bled its wealth into the pockets of the newly rich in the
East, the eyes of empire turned west toward gold, silver, and oil;
bauxite and manganese; copper and zeolites, natural gas and
uranium. And thus the developing technological society be
came ever more divorced from nature, ever more "synthetic."
Eden is "tamed," man is master of the universe; that is the essence
of the American synthesis, the foundation of American power.
Two Canadian authors, Robert Davis and Mark Zannis, in
their book The Genocide Machine in Canada. have succinctly
described the result:
Simply stated, the difference between the economics of
the "old colonialism" with its reliance on territorial
conquest and manpower and the "new colonialism,"
with its reliance on technologically oriented resource
extraction and transportation to the metropolitan
centers, is the expendable relationship of the subject
peoples to multinational corporations.
This "new colonialism" was, to a certain extent, predicted by
Karl Marx in his observation that industrialization would
necessitate the expropriation of the general masses of people
from the soil, their means of subsistence. And, in his view, this
fearful and painful expropriation of the peasant formed the
prelude to the history of capitalism.
We would argue that while Marx was correct, not only the
expropriation and its immediate social afermath are important.
Rather, the sort of permanent society which not only emerges,
but which is possible under such circumstances must be brought
into serious consideration. Is it enough to mitigate the physical
suffering of the people thus dislocated, or must one also look to
the psychic or spiritual damage suffered, and /0 the land as well?
Is it possible to heal the wounds of the people, of whatever sort,
caused by the process of separating them from the land, while
keeping them separated by virtue of a process which literally
consumes the land itself In other words, can the synthetic ever
IV
Marxism and Native Americans
adequately replace the organic, the natural? These are questions
which must be asked as the result of any reasonable examination
of North American history.
It is widely recognized that something is drastically wrong.
The topsoil of America has washed away, agriculture can only be
accomplished through massive applications of chemical "en
richments. " This "better l ivig through chemistry" seeps into our
aquifrs, lacing our groundwater with lethal toxins and, as acid
rain produced by the fy-ash of our steel mills and coal-fired
power plants renders our surface water equally lethal, so bottled
water becomes the fastest growing "foodstuff' item in the nation.
The United States t hrashes about seeking technological
"fixes" to technological catastrophes, and entire regions of the
west are written off as UN ational Sacrifce Areas. " In search of a
long-term solution to an array of crises, reliance is placed upon
"the friendly atom," and we fnd increasing expanses of our
environment contaminated beyond habitation for the next
quarter million years. The synthetic system threatens to implode
in radioactive chaos. It is no longer able to fend for itself, but the
momentum of its existence refuses to allow it to stop.
It is the land, always t he land, which suffers frst and most.
As the cities, those ulti mate manifestations of synthetic culture
decay, so increasingly is the produce of the earth ripped loose to
shore up their continuation. Steel, the stuff of the girders
comprising bridges and skyscrapers, becomes exhausted with age
and must be replaced. The earth yields iron ore to processes which
require mushrooming quantities of energy, and so coal is stripped
away from the yawning craters at Black Mesa, WyoOak and
elsewhere to fuel the generators of electrical currents which now
litter the map. The land will yield until the land can yield no more.
But the need for its offerings will remain. And then?
As the land suffers, so suffer the people. Whether they are
the citizens of the natural or the synthetic order, in the end there is
no escaping t hi s basic link. It is an aspect-indeed, the
imperative-of the synthetic order to forget or ignore such facts.
N or could it be otherwise. To face the facts would have led
inevitably to a retreat from synthetic procedures and ideologies,
to a withdrawal from a way of life busily consuming the basis of
life itself. The facts were not faced and, as Malcolm X once put it,
"The chickens are coming home to roost. "
Preface v
The spiraling costs of conti nuously refitti ng cities has
exceeded t he social abi l i ty to pay. Thi s is parti cularly true i n
rel ati on to the current moment, when t he bul of soci al wealth
and resources are bei ng diverted t o t ools of conquest, an overt
return to not ions t hat an expansi on of land base can i n itself
create t he substance of a "vital" and "growi ng" synthetic reality.
Meanwhile, the citizens of the inner cities discover themselves
subsisti ng on a government dol e of dogfood and rice, much t he
same as the citizens of tradi ti onal l y col onized peoples, both
wi thi n and wi thout the United St ates. As t he l and has become
ut terly expendable, so too have the people-al the people-in
the name of "progress" and "the system." Once agai n, perversely,
the land and the people are fused; the logic of synthesis.
How do we turn such a nightmare to positi ve ends? How to
turn from the synt heti c reality of consumpti on and expendability
to t he natural reality of conservati on and harmony? How not t o
perpetuate the cycle of self-destructi on wi t hi n which we are
currently engaged? These are questi ons whi ch not only need to
be, but must be answered-and soon-if we are not to have
passed the point of no return as a species, possi bly as a planet.
We can agree with Marxists that the poi nt i s not onl y to
understand the problem, but also t o sol ve i t. There are un
doubtedly many routes to t he answers. Throughout the United
States people are movi ng i nto resist ance to many of the more
covert forms of synthetic oppression. The draft has met with
massi ve rejection even before it could be fully i mplemented. A
rel atively broad anti-nuclear war movement has taken root
across geographi c, class, sex, and ethni c l i nes. Much the same can
be said of a movement to oppose uti l izati on of nucl ear power i n
any form at al l . A number of envi ronmental i st groups are
engaged i n extendi ng many of the anti-nuclear rati onales to
encompass much of the i ndustrial process i tsel f. Elsewhere,
others have targeted' issues of the most disenfranchised social
strata-mostly within urban centers-as t hei r focus.
The common denomi nator of all t hese i s di rect acti on,
action aimed against the status-quo. If there i s a unifying
t heme, it woul d seem to be a fi rm rej ecti on of the status quo, of
"business as usual . " The synthetic order is thus being questioned
and, i n some areas, truly challenged. This is certai nly t o the good.
But something more is needed. No movement or group of related
VI Marxism and Native Americans
movements can succeed in offsetting present circumstances
merely through a shared rejection. Not only must they struggle
against something, but they must also struggle toward something.
Action alone can never provide the required answers. Only a
unifying theory, a unifying vision of the alternatives can fulfill
this task. Only such a vision can bind together the fragmentary
streams of action and resistance currently at large in America
into a single multi-faceted whole capable of transforming the
synthetic reality of a death culture into the natural reality of a
culture of life.
This need should come as no revelation. It seems well known
within most sectors of the active resistance. The quest for a
unifying vision has been going on for some time. By and large, it
seems to have gravitated steadily towards one or another of the
Marxist or neo-Marxist ideologies with the result that there is
currently in print the widest array of Marxian literature in the
United States since, perhaps, the 1 930s. This is a logical enough
development. Marxism, it must be said, offers a coherent and
unifying system of critical analysis within which to "peg" a wide
variety of lines of action. Further, it offers at least an implicit
range of plausible options and alternatives to the status-quo. The
details of a Marxist society may be forged in the struggle to
overthrow the existing order.
The Marxian scenario is rather neat. It seems all but ready
made for applicaton to our current dilemma. Of course, it will
require certain alterations, modifications intended to keep it
ahead of the development of its opposition, and of those among
its adherents as well, but such adjustment is not impossi ble.
Habermas, Althusser, Marcuse, Gramsci, and others have de
monstrated that. In effect, this is part of Marxism's neatness.
This book questions that very neatness. Without denying
that Marxism is (or can be) a unifying system, it steps outside the
Marxist paradigm to ask new questions. What is Marxism's
understanding of the land? What is or will be the relationship of a
Marxist society to the land? Is Marxist thought other than a part
of the synthetic order which is at issue? If Marxism is now
inadequate to dealing with such issues, can it be altered in such a
way as to make it adequate? If it is to be altered in such ways, will
the result remain Marxist, or will it become something else? Is
Marxism as it is now structured, or could be structured, a part of
Preface Vll
the sol uti on or a part of the problem? And finally, is it, or what i s
appropriate to North America?
These are not questions spri ngi ng from the Marxist t ra
di ti on. Nor do t hey come from any European or neo-European
context. They are not the sort of questi ons posed by "First
W orId" (capitalist) polemicists, by those of the "Second (socialist)
World" or "Third (industrializing) Worl d. " I nstead, t hey come
from the realm of the remai ni ng land based peoples of the Nort h
American continent, the remai ning representatives of the natural
order which preceded the advent of syntheti c reali ty. In some
quarters, this has come t o be called the "Fourth World; " we
prefer t o term it t he "Host World. " In answering such questions,
Marxism goes far i n defi ni ng its true allegiance and place i n the
world. It begins to explain "what must be done" in overcoming
the synt hetic by returning i t to the natural.
We say the questions posed by thi s book come from the
perspective of the North American Host World, the truly
landbased peoples. As Kwame Tun has stated,
"When you
speak of l i beration, true liberation, you are speaking ofland. And
when you speak of land in thi s hemi sphere, you are speaking of
American I ndians. " The questi ons, then, come specifi cally from
t he perspective of t he Native American. The Host World,
however, is not so confi ned. The questi ons asked in the text
whi ch fol l ows could well have been posed by the tri bal peoples of
Sout h or Central America, of Afri ca, the Kurds and others of the
Middl e East, the tri bes of the Scandinavian arctic, the mountain
peoples of Southeast Asia, the Inuit of Greenland, the Pacifc
Islanders, and many ot hers across the pl anet. I n responding to
t he American Indi an critique, Marxis m responds i n some way to
the questions of all these peoples. We have a common ground and
i t i s not only that which l ies beneath our feet. Rather, i t l ies within
a shared understandi ng of the correctness of Si mon Ortiz'
assessment of what America has become, and what it must
become if we are to survive. The massacre of the Cheyenne people
at Sand Creek in 1864 was not theirs alone; it was representative
of the massacre of us all. Such a legacy must be turned into its
opposite. We must "negate the negati on" which is stained by
bl ood t hat forever seeps into the land of Colorado and every
where else the synthetic order has reigned. This i s the visi on, the
dream which will allow us to free ourselves of t he death culture.
llX Marxism and Native Americans
As Simon put it elsewhere in his epic poem:
That dream shall have a name,
Afer all,
And it will not be vengeful
But wealthy in life
And compassion
And knowledge
And it will rise
In this heart
Which is our America
On this continent we have come from the natural to the synthetic.
We must fnd our way back again. We must turn the common
ground of our agony into the common ground of our vision. This
book is an important step in such a process, not because it
provides the necessary answers, but because it asks many of the
right questions. Only through the asking of such questions can
the answers emerge. They must be answers which include the land
as well as the people, which perceive and project land and people
as being one and the same, which understand that until alter
natives are found which prevent the destruction of the land, the
destruction of the people cannot be stayed: the movement back
from the synthetic to the natural.
Within such a movement Marxism, or aspects of Marxism,
may well have a role and function. What and how remains to be
seen. What better direction to turn for clarification than to those
who have no particular question as to their relationship to the
land, those who have all along retained their afnity to the
natural order rather than "progressing" into the synthetic one?
Let Marxism explain its utility to its hosts. Let it differentiate
itself clearly from synthetic reality. And let the hosts for the first
time take an active role in assisting in this process, denying what
is false, supporting that which is true.
Such an interchange cannot help but assist in establishing a
strategy, a vision through which to reclaim the natural order. We
must all participate in the process of completing the cycle: natural
to synthetic and back again.
INTRODUCTION
Journeying Toward A Debate
Ward Churchill
This book was born of a sense of frustration. It began in
earnest nearly ten years ago at a place called Sangamon State
University, with a guest lecture by Karl Hess, former Goldwater
speechwriter, sometime SDS theoretician and at the time a sort
of avant garde urban anarchist. For me it was an evening marked
by an almost crystalline clarification.
Hess' talk covered what was (for him) tried and proven
ground: growing trout under high density conditions in tenement
cellars, roof-top gardening techniques, solar power in the slums,
neighborhood self-police forces and block governing commit
tees, collective small-shop production of "appropriate" tech
nology, the needlessness of federal inc9me tax. The upshot of his
vision was that the federal government is a worse than useless
social oppression which should be dissolved so the United States
can be taken over by a self-sufficient citizenry at each local level.
After the customary polite applause, the session was thrown
open to questions from the audience. The question I had to ask
was: "H ow, in the plan you describe, do you propose to continue
guarantees to the various Native American tribes that their
land base and other treaty rights will be continued?"
2 Marxism and Native Americans
Hess seemed truly flabbergasted. Rather than address the
question. he pivoted neatly into the time-honored polemicist's
tactic of discrediting the "opposition" by imputing to it sub
versive or (in this case) reactionary intentions: "Well, I have to
admit that that's the weirdest defense of the federal government
I've ever heard." The debate was joined.
I countered that I had no interest in protecting the federal
government. but since Hess was proposing to do away with it, I
was curious to know the nature of the mechanism he advocated to
keep the Indian's rather more numerous white neighbors from
stealing the last dregs of Indian land-and anything else they
could get their hands on. After all, such a scenario of wanton
expropriation hardly lacks historical basis.
Perpiexed by my insistence and a growing tension in the
room. Hess replied that the federal government seemed some
thing of a poor risk for Native Americans to place their faith in.
Perhaps. he suggested, it was time Indians tried "putting their
faith in their/ellul1' HUN rather than in bureaucracies." Now it
was my turn to be stunned.
A bit feebly, I rejoined that I wasn't aware that anyone was
making an argument in favor of the federal bureaucracy, but I
was still waiting to hear what his replacement for federal
guarantees would be in the new anarchist society, or in a Marxist
state if he wished to address that. But I couldn't grasp his notion
that elimination of the feds would do anything positive for Native
people if it threw them upon the goodwill of their non-Indian
neighbors. What, I asked, was it that whites had ever done to
warrant the sort of faith in their collective intentions that Hess
was recommending?
Clearly disgusted with my "racism," Hess answered abrup
tly, "I hope at least you're a Native American, given your line of
questioning." I gave up before asking why one needed to be
Indian in order to consider issues relevant to them; somehow, I
already knew the answer. This was in 1973.
* * * * *
As I said, the experience had a certain crystallizing effect for
me. I had been active for years in that vague and amorphous
configuration generally termed the "New Left." It was a time
Introduction 3
when, it was commonly understood, a generation was in the
process of hacking and hewing an "American Radical Vision"
out of the living fabric of U.S. society, an alternative to im
ported
dogmas which had led to intellectual bankruptcy and disaster for
the left in the not so distant past. Yet I had witnessed the
dissipation of SDS at Chicago's Amphitheater in 1969 amidst
choreographed wavings of Mao Tse Tung's Uttle Red Book by
ranks of factionalized automatons chanting prearranged Chinese
slogans in unison. I had been confused by this, to say the least.
I had investigated the Young Socialist Alliance, the youth
wing of the Socialist Worker's Party and erstwhile sponsor of the
Student Mobilization to End the War in Vietnam, as a pro
spective member. The "American Radical Vision" I encountered
was a watered-down version of Leon Trotsky's doctrines. In the
San Francisco area, I found the Free Speech Movement had been
transformed into the "Bay Area Radical Union," an amal
gamation of various left groups sporting portraits of Joseph
Stalin on the covers of their publications. Returning to Chicago,
I explored the legendary Industrial Workers of the World
(Wobblies), and found the publication of songbooks to be its
main contemporary stock in trade; that, and the rehashing of
factional disputes more than half a century old. (The original
protagonists had had the good graces to die off in the interim, but
their descendants didn't seem overly conscious of that fact. )
On the Boston/ New York circuit, the Progressive Labor
Faction of what had been SDS held the Maoist monopoly,
calling on non-whites to join its version of "Third World
Revolution." Elsewhere, tiny splinter groups advanced the
various theses of Euro-communism, Albanian Revolutionary
Principles, Kim el Sung's Maoist variations, and so on, and on;
and Karl Hess' and Murray Bookchin's contemporary anarchism
were also available commodities. Of course there were also grass
roots activism, the growing women's movement, New Leftish
projects, support groups, community organizations and the like.
But the sects were the most visible remnants of the organized New
Left in the early 1970s.
It certainly occurred to me that the white left might not
really be "the wave of the future" in terms of an American version
of radical social change. But a survey of non-white groups
4 Marxism and Native Ameri cans
revealed essenti al l y t he same pattern: an overwhel mi ng rel i ance
on Lenin, Mao, Castro/Guevara; ultimately reliance on adap
t at i ons of t heori es advanced by Karl Marx wel l over a cent ury
earl i er. i n Europe. The Bl ack Panther Party, t he Young Lords
Organi zat i on, and the Brown Berets; each group possessed an
i mported i deol ogy, whi ch, as far as I coul d see, t hey were
attempt i ng to rhet ori cal l y adapt t o t he American context i n t he
same way as t hei r whi t e counterpart s.
Nowhere coul d I see anyt hi ng whi ch remotel y resembl ed t he
cal led-for " Ameri can Radical Vi si on" whi ch had so often and so
l oudl y been promoted i n bot h t he New Left and mai nstream
press. But. whi l e I coul d rai se consi dered obj ecti ons to t hese
parti cul ar devel opment s, I could not defi ne what was l acki ng to
establish a theoret i cal vi si on t hat eouid match t he real i ties of the
American context. The whol e si tuat i on was most discouraging.
Of course, t here were fl i ckeri ngs i n my own experi ences t hat
were indicat ive. but I was unabl e to put t hem t oget her i nt o
anyt hi ng l i ke a coherent framework. Very briefly, i n 1970, l eft
attent i on had been capt ured by t he "Indi ans of Al l Tri bes"
Occupat i on of Al cat raz Isl and; t here was a fl urry of non-Indian
interest. but no more. Local ly, i n Chicago, Indi ans occupied an
abandoned Ni ke Mi ssi l e base; i t caused scarcely a ri ppl e of lef
attent i on. The Bureau of I ndi an Affai rs Bui l di ng i n Washi ngton,
DC. was occupied by a group of Indi ans for nearly a week, but
st i l l l eft attenti on was mi ni mal . Then t here was Wounded Knee i n
1973 ...
It was duri ng t he Ameri can Indi an Movement occupati on of
Wounded Knee t hat Karl Hess made hi s appearance at San
gamon State Uni versi ty. The drama unfol di ng i n Sout h Dakota
was rivet i ng t he at t ent i on of most of the country, the l eft
i ncl uded, as it had become a Nat i onal Media Event. The
American l ef was fi nal ly bei ng made aware of Native Americans,
and it was bei ng made aware i n precisel y the same manner as t he
rest of t he popul at i on-t hrough t he s pectacl es offered by CBS/
NBC/ ABC. In s hort , i t dawned on me t hat t he Ameri can l eft's
awareness of the si t uat i on of Nati ve Ameri cans was not parti
cul arly better i nformed t han t hat demonst rated by t he rest of
America outsi de of "Indi an Count ry. "
The occupati on of Wounded Knee was undertaken pri
marily as a stand concerni ng issues of treaty rights, sovereignty
Introduction 5
and self-determination for Native people. These were precisely
the issues I was attempting to address through my questions to
Karl Hess in a public (overwhelmingly white) forum; they were
and are serious issues to any Native American. His replies, and
indeed his entire attitude, suddenly clarified the whole range of
confusions I had experienced relative to the American left for
several years.
In the first place. he did not seem to wish to deal with Native
American issues at al; he obviously had not considered Indians
in the construction of his utopian scenario and the mere
introduction of such considerations was so threatening and
disturbing as to prompt innuendos of "reaction" from him.
Second. he considered this particular form of reactionary
quest ion to be in some way weird. not a topic for intelligent
discussion. Then there was the pitch to the "greater common
good": there are clearly more invaders than I ndians in this
country so Indian interests must be subordinate; in fact, given
population ratios, a "democratic" assessment of Indian interests
must conclude they are almost non-existent, irrelevant in terms
of revolutionary consideration. And finally, there was his
assertion that to be preoccupied with Native American issues,
one has to be Native, an apt summation of the posture of the
American left; non-Indians simply have more important things
to think about.
Perhaps perversely, Hess' position (if it may be called that)
solidified a notion which had been implicit in my ambiguous
affiliations with the American left for a long while. This was
simply that the touted American Radical Vision was a failed
promise; "American" radicalism was fundamentally and com
pletely an intellectual import. Conversely, there could be no
American Vision, radical or otherwise, which did not begin with
the original "American," the Native American. Unless and until
this population is addressed on its own terms and in accordance
with its own definition of its human needs, any conceivable
revolutionary theory can only amount to a continuation of "the
invasion of America." So much seemed and still seems academic
to me.
Unfortunately, the matter seems a bit less obvious to many
of my opposition-minded colleagues. There are, of course, a
6 Marxism and Native Americans
number of arguments to be made, but one of the more basic
relates to the issue of landbase. There can be no question that
the entirety of the continental United States has been ex
propriated from its original, indigenous inhabitants, with incal
culably harmful consequences accruing to them in the process.
From a moral perspective, it should be equally clear that no
humane solution to the overall issues confronting any American
radical can reasonably be said to exist, should it exclude
mechanisms through which to safeguard the residual landbase
and cultural identities of these people.
This presents a bit of a dilemma in that the land cur
rently occupied by Indian tribal groups contains something on
the order of two-thirds of all readily extractable U.S. energy
resour<t deposits. as well as quite substantial inventories of other
critical raw materials. Such resources are as necessary to a left
oriented industrialized society as they are to one with a right
wing philosophy. Unless the left acknowledges this, there is
potentially no difference between the left and the right in their
impact on Native Americans. On the face of it, matters will be
essentially the same: the Indians will be divested of control over
their last remaining resources by all factions of the Euro
American political spectrum, unless the left can articulate a
coherent formulation of priorities and values allowing for (at the
very least) maintenance of the Indian/ white status quo in terms
of land base. This is not an unimportant consideration, givcn the
direct linkage of indigenous cultures to various geographical
areas and conditions. The alternative to a satisfactory solution in
this instance is genocide.
And yet an examination of the dissident literature reveals an
outright void regarding the Native American. There is a vast
literature generated by non-leftists concerning the Indian, and
sometimes selections from it are read by the left. but nowhere is
there an analytical work, never mind a ho((1' of literature,
considering the Native American, both historically and in
contemporary terms, as a fundamental ingredient which would
make any left vision truly American. As Russell Means so aptly
expressed it to me in late 1980, "Indians just don't fit in
anywhere. "
Oddly, the same cannot be said for the colonized peoplcs of
China, Cuba, Vietnam, Zimbabwe, Algeria, Palestine, South
I nt roducti on 7
Africa, and el sewhere. Concerni ng them, t he Ameri can left has
often devoted i tself t o anal ysi s and theory. Nor can i t be said that
the thoughts and wri ti ngs of other Thi rd Worl d revoluti onary
leaders-Mao, Fanon, Che, Lumumba, Arafat, Ho, K
im
I
I
Sung, Memmi , Castro, among others-have been i gnored to
anythi ng l i ke the extent to whi ch the Ameri can left has i gnored
the voi ces of its own i ndigenous populati on.
* * * * *
In t his context I effectivel y disengaged from acti ve parti
ci pati on on the left per se. I wasn' t di si nterested-the probl em
was what I percei ved as a none t oo subtle shi ft from the 1960s
New Left rej ection of Marxi st tradition as sale pol i t i cal found
at i on, to a formal acceptance of Marxi sm as the gui di ng
Ameri can al ternati ve vi si on. At least pri or to 1 968 t here seemed
t o have been wi despread acceptance of the idea that somethi ng
other t han, or i n addi ti on t o, Marxi sm was necessary to create a
truly Ameri can al ternati ve. By 1 975 it seemed such an i dea had
been defeated. To my eyes Marxism possessed-in one or
another com bi nat i on of its vari ants-a l iteral hegemony over the
Ameri can radi cal consci ousness. To paraphrase songwri ter Pete
Townshend, "Meet the New Left, same as the Old Left."
From t he new stat i ons I t ook up, fi rst in South Dakot a, t hen
i n Wyomi ng and fi nal l y i n Col orado, I consi dered t hi s devel op
ment. Perhaps i t was for t he best, I t hought. Marxism' at least
offered a coherent anal ytical framework i nt o whi ch new data
mi ght be fed, a vast i ntel lectual impr ovement over t he emot ive
radi cal i sm of the 1 960s. Perhaps t he means of synthesizi ng an
Ameri can Radi cal Vi si on was becomi ng avai l abl e through the
unl i kel i est of sources: an often dogmatic and utterly al ien critical
phi l osophi cal st ruct ure. Perhaps the t heoret i cal and anal yti cal
i nsights offered by Marxi sm coul d provide the foundati on from
whi ch t o launch a new perspecti ve for fut ure soci al forms.
I reread the works of Marx, Leni n, Lukacs, and others i n
t his l ight. I ventured i nto Habermas, Marcuse, Adorno, and
Benjami n. I sl ogged t hrough Sart re, Gramsci, Luxemburg and
Mao. I pai d speci al attenti on to Fanon and Memmi . And I t ried
8 Marxism and Native Americans
s omethi ng novel and unique. I combi ned the readi ng wi th
di al ogue and di scussi on wi th other Indi an people from vari ous
tri bal and geographi c backgrounds, various stati ons i n life, and
vari ous pol i tical perspecti ves (i n t he Euro sense of t he term). I
t hen carried t he result s of s uch di alogue back into my readi ng and
on i nt o di scussi ons wi th non-Indi an friends I'd made on t he l eft
over the years.
Ul ti matel y, a pattern of fundamental objecti ons began t o
emerge on t he part of t he Indian peopl e I talked wi th. Si mi l arly, a
pattern of defensive posi t i ons emerged on the part of my Marxi st
friends. Event ual l y, t he Marxi st posi ti on coul d be summed up as
i denti cal to Hess': Nat ive Ameri cans are i rrelevant to t he cours e
of World History, t hey consti tute a mi nor si deshow on t he stage
of \'orld Revol uti on, they are a retrospective consi derati on. One
astute "advanced" Marxi st t heorist even took t i me to inform me
that it would real l y be pointless t o become too i nvolved in such
i ssues because "al l hunting and gatheri ng societies wi l l have
ceased t o exi st before the year 2000." The "i ron laws of hi storical
devel opment" are at work.
My protest that such an at t itude was as genoci dal i n i ts
i mpl icat i ons as anyt hing espoused by Mani fest Desti ny i m
perial i sm or heathen-crushi ng Christianity, met wit h a shrug. My
asserti ons t hat Nati ve peoples were hardly "hunting and gat her
i ng soci et ies" t hese days met wi t h mi l d i nterest on occasi on, but
more often wi th amused commentary on my "romanticism."
American Indi ans, as people and as whole cul tures, had been
effectively written out of seri ous Marxi st consi derati on.
St i l l, I coul d not bri ng myself to discount al l Marxi an
rhet ori c concerni ng "the l i berati on of humani ty." Marxism, for
better or worse, had come t o represent the pri mary "l i berat ory"
al ternat ive wit hi n t he Uni ted States. Naively, I supposed that I
must be tal ki ng t o t he wrong people, t hat among t he broader
spectrum of US Marxi sm there must be si gnificant school s of
t hought whi ch woul d be quick t o pick up on t he i ntri nsi c
cent ral i ty of Native Ameri can i ssues if onl y the facts and the
context were presented in a forum t aken seri ously by them. Such
a process of exposi ti on seemed simple enough.
From early 1978 onward, I began t o write-and to soli ci t
wri ti ng by other Nat i ve Ameri
c
ns-on Indian i ssues as t hese
Introduct i on 9
might relat e to eXlstmg Marxist analyses of Ameri can con
ditions. I contacted several "serious" left publi cat i ons about t heir
willingness to recei ve s uch materi al. All expressed i nt eres t,
observi ng t hat t hey had never before been offered t he oppor
tunity to pu blish t he "i nsi de story on I ndi an Affai rs . " Manu
scripts were dul y s ubmi t ted, but nothing ever saw pri nt . Instead,
each pUblication's editorial board saw fit to "correct" t he political
perspecti ves presented by Indi an act i vi st s and ret urn t he wri tings
for "revi si on. " What was meant i n each case ( and on t he part of
titles as seemi ngly di verse as Marxist Perspectives. The Insurgent
Sociologist. and Socialist Revolution/ Review) was t hat Nat i ve
American s ubmi ssions were desirable, but only i nsofar as t hey
rei nforced preexi st i ng Marxist not i ons of what and how Indi ans
should t hi nk. Marxi sm was presumi ng t o externally assess t he
internal vali di ty of t he Ameri can I ndi an pers pect i ve and was
rejecting i t as unaccept able at every t urn.
The form the manuscripts t ook followed a peculiar li ne of
development . Ini ti ally. t hey consisted pri marily of observat i ons
and analysis of the internal colonial status of the U.S. geographic
tribes, resource distribution within U.S. reservation areas, juridi
cal anal ysi s based on treat ies, etc. As these were returned wi th
comments li ke " ... very useful dat a, but . . . " the content shifted
t o a more theoretical level, in order to art i culate lvhy gi ven
political conclusi ons had been drawn from previ ousl y submitted
data st udies. As t he more t heoret i cal pieces were s ubmi tted, t heir
return became much more prompt, t he comment ary more
det ailed and negat i ve. This, i n t urn, prompt ed a series of
submissi ons flatly challengi ng Marxist cult ural assumpt i ons
which had s urfaced in t he reject i on comment ari es; t he absol ute a
priori vali di ty of Marxi s m it self was brought i nt o q uestion. These
last s ubmi ssions caused abrupt and permanent rupture in
communication between the vari ous journals and aut hors.
What had been i ntended as the i nit i at i on of an i nformed
di alogue between two groups vi tally i nterested in soci al change
ended in host ile si l ence. Organized Marxis m i ndi cated no
Willi ngness to entertain t he viewpoi nt s of Nati ve Ameri ca unless
such vi ews turned out t o be rubberst amps for Marxi s m. No
di alogue was possi ble ei t her way: divergent or counteri ng
lO Marxism and Native Americans
anal ysi s was s i mply rej ected out of hand whi l e rubberst amp
mat eri al-had it been s ubmi tted-woul d have provi ded a rei n
forcement for Marxi sm rat her then a di al ogue concerni ng i ts
meri ts. What t he Marxi st publ i cat i ons sought were essent i al l y
"wooden Indi ans" for t hei r et hni c stables.
The resul ts were mul t i pl e. In a personal sense i t made for a
rat her chast i zi ng l es s on; t he AIM peopl e wi t h whom I ass oci ate
s i mpl y s mi l ed knowi ngl y as i f t o say, "we tol d you so. " And
i ndeed t hey had. On anot her l evel , I found the concl usi ons I had
been reachi ng concerni ng the rel at i onshi p between Marxi sm and
Nati ve Ameri cans cat apul ted i nt o a worl d context. If, as i t
seemed, Marxi sm was unwi l l i ng t o consi der possi ble cul t ural
di fferent i at i on bet ween i t s t radi t i on and t hose of Nati ve peopl es
in t he Ameri cas, what was t he MarJist stance vis a vis ot her
non-European tradi t i ons? I f Marxi sm universally chose t o
di sregard cul t ural perspect i ves out si de its own preconcei ved
paradi gm, what were t he gl obal i mpl icat i ons?
These quest i ons had been t here al l al ong, but it was the i cy
rej ect i on by Marxi st publ i cat i ons t hemsel ves whi ch provoked
t hi s clear formul at i on. Once confronted in such a fashi on, t here
was no way t o back off from t he quest i ons rai sed.
* * * * *
Hence, t hi s book. I l ay out t he precedi ng hi st ori cal sketch
not because I consi der my st range odyssey across t he l andscape
of Ameri can l eft i sm to be especi al ly notewort hy, but becaus e of
t he preci se opposi te. I hol d the bumps and j ol t s and frozen
moments I've experi enced to be gri mly reflecti ve of the ex
peri ences of a large and growi ng number of acti vi sts, bot h Nat i ve
Ameri can and otherwi se. And, al t hough i t seems to have gone
sadl y out of fas hi on i n radi cal ci rcl es, I bel i eve t here remai n a
s i gni fi cant number of us out here st i l l committed t o t he idea that a
uni quel y American radi cal vi si on is a t ranscendent requi rement
t o effect i ng posi t i ve soci al change i n Ameri ca. I mports, i n and of
t hemsel ves, wi thout cri ti que and careful adaptat i on, can onl y
worsen an al ready i nt ol erabl e si tuat i on.
Marxi sm i s no doubt a qui t e useful tool wi t hi n American
t heory, but fi rst t hi ngs fi rst . And t he Indi an was fi rst by any
cri teri on whi ch can be desi gne
d
for eval uat i ve measurement . Thi s
Introduction II
is an objective condition with which Marxism. in its present
configuration, has flatly refused to deal. No American theory can
write t he I nd ian off as irrelevant; the I ndian's is the first vision in
this hemisphere, not only as a matter of chronological fact, but
because the I ndian experience was and remains formative to this
society's psychological and material character. In addition,
Indian cultures adapted to, and where they have not been
destroyed continue to respect, local and regional conditions
rather than treating them purely as resources to exploit. Until
theory comes to grips with these consistently evaded facts, it can
never adequately deal with the realities of the American situa
tion.
No one can speak for the Native American. For any non
Indian to assume a superiority in expressing the "correct" Indian
perspective is arrogant folly at best, intentional and self-serving
distortion at worst. The culturally generated political con
sciousness of Native people must enter into the effective formu
lation of any alternative American politics. The only valid
question is how to effect this.
The nature and structure of this book were dictated by such
considerations. It had seemed to me quite necessary to under
stand the deficiencies of the prevailing Marxist vision in order to
go beyond them. It had also seemed necessary to articulate the
theoretical principles of the Marxist vision in their own right as
the critique proceeded; one cannot necessarily assume they are
known in their particulars
"
I felt Native Americans 'ere in an
ideal position to test the limits and pretentions of the Marxist
vision, to challenge its most basic assumptions: to provide the
critique and thus one pole of the debate.
A natural juxtaposition suggested itself. On the one hand,
Marxists could articulate whatever multi-cultural validity they
perceived in their theory. On the other hand, Native American
writers could explain what they perceived to be the defects and
inadequacies of Marxism. Such a point/ counterpoint would
constitute a dialogue that might allow mutual learning.
I assumed that each side possessed roughly equal oppor
tunity to know the other. Therefore, I "assigned" each author a
given subject to elaborate. I expected each to have a grasp on
hisj her subject matter sufficient to make the case at hand without
12 Marxism and Native Americans
reference to one anot her's manuscri pts. This was i ntended t o
i ns ure presentat i on of each poi nt as i t might be general ly
underst ood rat her than i nterpersonal pol emi cs between aut hors.
The result i ng manuscri pts were t o be edi ted and arranged wi t hi n
two basi c sect i ons: Part I was t o be t he Marxi st Theory of
Cul t ure, whi le Part II was t o be t he Nati ve Ameri can Crit ique.
However, for a vari ety of reasons, vi rtual l y all preconcei ved
not i ons of t he book' s st ruct ure broke down duri ng the process of
i ts assembly. First , the authors changed. Several "big name"
Marxists i ni ti al ly expressed defi ni te i nterest in contri buti ng but
then backed out for reasons such as "lack of t i me. " Then, as
replacement authors came forward I discovered that di rect
manuscript j uxtaposi t i ons were necessary to mai ntai n cont i nui ty
between t he pros and cons of each poi nt covered. The ori gi nal
two-part scenari o had t o be abandoned i n favor of a di fferent
sequenci ng. Fi nal ly, predi ctably enough, certai n wri ters frac
t ured every concei vabl e t i metabl e i n submi tti ng thei r material.
The del ay was not cri t i cal , however, as the book could be
publ ished whenever it was completed.
Pol i t i cal real iti es, however, entered by the si de door. The
ent i re package was ori gi nal ly scheduled t o be be submitted to
South End Press by t he end of June 1980; that i s, pri or t o the
Black Hi l l s Survi val Gat heri ng at Rapi d Ci ty, Sout h Dakota.
Late arrivals caused post ponements, and Russell Means, as was
also schedul ed, read hi s cont ri but i on as a major speech on the
second day of t hat event . * Of course, at that poi nt the i dea of each
aut hor not bei ng made privy t o t he content of any other's essay
became impracti cal , t o say t he least . I ndeed, Means' Black Hills
presentati on provoked a qui te l engt hy and vi tuperati ve pole
mi cal reply from t he Revol ut i onary Communist Party, USA, i n
i ts pol i ti cal organ, The Revolutionary Worker.
' Means' presentation has since appeared in print in several variations: under
the original title used in this book, in the September, 1980 edition of Lakota
yapaha (Pine Ridge, SO); as "Marxism is a European Tradition" in the
Fall 1980 edition of Akwasasne Notes (Mohawk Nation): and as "For the
World to Live, Europe Must Die" in the December, 1980edition of Mother
Jones.
Introduction 1 3
Thi s ultimately proved a n una nticipat ed boon. Cert ai n
diffi cult i es wi t h t he Leninist section of t he book had become
apparent . Des pite repeated and somet i mes quite detailed descri p
t i ons of t he sort of focus needed for t hi s project . lit eral l y every
Leni nist s ubmi ssi on had fal l en considera bly wide of t he mark.
One manuscri pt was an informat i ve t reat ment of "soci al i st
real i st" aest hetics . Anot her at t empt ed t o cope wi t h t he rol e of
Third Worl d literat ure in t he comi ng global revol ut i on. A t hird
beca me opaq uely mired in at t empting to unravel t he distinctions
bet ween early Soviet artistic ex peri ment ation and t he st andards
for "cul t ural depl oyment " establi shed during China' s mi d-60s
"Cul t ural Revolut i on. "
I was ext remel y perpl exed as t here seemed l it tle I could say
whi ch would convince the Leninist writ ers t hat when I solicited
an anal yt i cal ela boration of " Leni nis t Theory of Cul t ure, " I was
not refe rring t o art s and let t ers. dance, fol k forms or any ot her of
t he aest het i c expressions impli ed by t he popular use of t he t erm
t ossed about so casual l y in cont emporary conversati on. Indeed,
I ' d expressly requested an anthropological t reat ment of the
i ngredient s of Leninist t heory whi ch allow i t t o function as a
li berat ory doct rine in a multi-cultural world. I specifical l y
referred t o "l i ngui st i c mat rix, " "soci o-religi ous symbol ogy, "
" ki nship pat t erns, " etc. , as being indicative of the sense in which
t he book woul d be empl oying t he t erm "cul t ure. "
Means, it seemed t o me, had hit s quarely at t he i mpl ici t
cult ural cont ent of t he Lenini st t radi tion i n his st at ement . Yet I
had not hi ng of equal subst ance t o j uxt apose as a Leninist
art i cul at i on. The Revolutionary Worker pol emic actually sal
vaged a bad sit uation, at t he expense of forcing a direct
i nterchange between aut hors ( or aut hori al groups , in t his case).
The two pi eces . t oget her wit h a res ponse t o cert ai n points raised
by the RCP but not addressed i ni tial ly by Means (oi nt l y written
by Dora- Lee Larson and myself) , created a strong section
covring the cont emporary Leninis t et hos. No doubt many
Leni nists wi ll disag
r
ee, feeling t he RCP' s vi ews fai l to represent
"real Leni ni s m. " I n t his connection, i t s hould be noted t hat t he
R C P has s ubjected itself t o a publ i c "self-cri t i cis m" relative t o it s
rejoi nder t o Means. This occurred after t he section was as
se mbl ed, but would have had lit t l e beari ng in any event . The
J 4 Marxi sm and Native Americans
Part y found i t sel f gui l t y of no s ubs t ant i ve errors, ot her t ha n
havi ng acted i nappr opri at el y i n i ncl udi ng t he mat eri al refl ect ed
by t he t i t l e of i t s pi ece ( a mat t er apparent l y now consi dered
accurat e but unnecessari l y "i mpol i t e" by RCP propagandi st s) .
H owever, t he i nt ercha nge on Leni ni sm was cert ai nl y not
enough. Marxi sm t oday hol ds t oo many facets, possesses t oo
many st reams of t hi nki ng t o be readi l y confronted t hrough an
exchange wi t h t he mecha ni st i c chari cat ure offered by t he RCP.
Hence, El i sabet h Ll oyd offers her vi ew of a comprehensi ve
Marxi s m, ri ch i n for mul at i on and pot ent i al for genui ne cross
cul t ural underst andi ng t hrough appl i cat i on of dial ecti cal met hod
ol ogy. Bob Si pe present s a Ma rxi s m emphasi zi ng bot h mat eri al
and psychol ogi cal rel at i ons as i t s rout e t o uni versal l y useful and
appropri at e knowl edge.
Vi ne Del ori a, J r. and Frank Bl ack El k fol l ow by cont end i ng
t hat Mar xi s m, for al l i t s pos s i bl e good i nt ent i ons and grandi
l oquent pronouncement s on behal f of humani t y, remai ns as i t
has al ways been: an et hnocent ri c dogma expressi ng eternal
vari at i ons upon a gi ven t heme and possessi ng l i t t l e concept ual
ut i l i t y beyond i t s ori gi nal European cul t ural paradi gm. At worst .
t hese cont r i but ors cont end, Mar xi s m can only serve t o exacer
bate t he cont emporary pr obl ems faci ng Nat i ve Ameri ca; at best .
Ma rxi s m can empl oy i t s own met hodol ogy t o t ranscend i t s
et hnocent ri s m and t hus hecome useful to peopl es of non
European heri t age. I n ei t her event , Marxi s m i s cur rent l y no
part i cul ar bargai n for I ndi ans .
Bi l l Tabb cl oses out t he d i al ogue wi t h an essay wri t t en aft er
havi ng read al l ot her cont r i but i ons i n t he vol ume t o t hat poi nt .
H i s i s t he perspect i ve of t he commi t t ed Marxi st act i vi s t who has ,
from t i me t o t i me, engaged di rect l y i n I ndi an st ruggl es for l and
and soverei gnt y. He i s p repared t o a rgue t he poi nt s rai sed by t he
I nd i an cri t i ques of t he Ma rxi st t radi t i on, and i n what mi ght be
best descri bed as an acces s i bl e down t o ear t h fas hi on.
Wi t h t hi s mat er i al i n hand, I began t wo proj ect s. Fi rst , I
began t o reassembl e t he manuscri pt , abandoni ng t he di s t i ncti ons
bet ween cri t i cal t heory, phenomenol ogi cal Marxi sm and post
Mar xi s m I had once i nt ended. Second, I began t o make an effort
to br i ng some of t he p rot agoni st s t oget her for purposes of verbal
debat e i n a publ i c for um. The l at t er occurred at t he West er n
Soci al Sci ence Associ at i on Confe rence, i n San Di ego, i n t he
I nt roducti on 1 5
s pri ng of 1 98 1 . Three contri butors were present, as wel l as Phi l
Hei pl e, a post- Marxist schol ar from Sant a Barbara. The resul t s
are i ncorporated i nto Hei ple's excel l ent "postscri pt" contai ned i n
the l ast sect i on of t his col lect i on, whi ch al so i ncl udes my own
comme nts on a number of i ssues rai sed i n t he course of t he book.
Si nce t he poi nt at whi ch the l as t of t hese cont ri buti ons were
received, t hi ngs have gone rat her sl owl y. I have been preoccupi ed
wi th the establi shment of Yel l ow Thunder Ti ospaye, an effort l ed
by Russel l a nd Bi l l Means t o reoccupy a port i on of t he Lakota
t errit ory guaranteed i n perpetui ty by the Fort Laramie Treaty of
1 868, and si nce usurped by t he Unit ed States. The occupat i on
began April 4, 1 98 1 , and cont i nues as a ral l yi ng poi nt of t he
st ruggle for sovereignty and sel f-det ermi nat i on by Ameri can
Indi an peopl es. It seems al most redu ndant t o observe t hat t his
waters hed acti on has received scant at t ent i on and s upport from
t he non-I ndi an lef "opposit i on. "
Even now, I am unsat i sfied wi t h the book whi ch fol l ows. I
al ways wi l l be. Li ke any col l ecti on or ant hol ogy, i t is i ncompl ete,
unbal anced, and anyt hi ng but defi ni t i ve. Sti l l , not hi ng si mi l ar
has gone i nt o pri nt. As an i ndicati on of t he reasons for t hi s, l et me
ment i on t hat Vi ne Del ori a, Jr. , proba bl y t he best - known Ameri
can I ndi an author to thi s poi nt, was i nformed fl atly by his
erst whi l e publ i sher ( Harper and Row) when he del i vered up t he
manuscri pt to hi s Metaphysics of Modern Existence, that
" I ndi ans don't wri te books on phi l os ophy. " For al l t he t housands
of books on Marxi sm i n pri nt and avai l abl e i n t he contemporary
Uni ted States, not one cl earl y attempt s t o assess the Native
American rel ati onshi p to Marxi sm.
And s o t he book i s somewhat fragmentary. It has holes.
Pi eces of t he equati on, both real and potenti al , remai n unad
dressed. It nonet hel ess moves into a vacuum of l eft consi der
at i on, and such i ncompleteness is unavoidabl e. One must begin
s omewhere. I ndi ans do write books on phi l osophy and possess a
k nowl edge of i ts i ntri cacies the "whi te man" has never acknow
l edged. Such books j ust fai l to see pri nt , for t he most part.
Perhaps t hi s col lective effort can do s omet hi ng t o change t hat.
Hopeful l y, t hi s book wi l l anger peopl e. I f. l i ke t he Rep, a
number of Marxi st groups and Marxist i ndivi dual s are provoked
i nt o addressi ng rather t han i gnori ng t he i ssues rai sed, perhaps
t hey wi l l arti cul ate thei r posi t i ons in concrete rat her than
1 6 Marxism and Native Americans
rhet ori cal fashi on. At l ong last, for bet ter or worse, thei r t rue
colors will be fown. Nearly a century into the history of U. S.
Marxi s m, t his seems l i ttl e enough t o as k.
As it i s, concrete posit i ons are t aken i n some rat her
i mportant connect i ons. The s ubject at hand has been broached i n
dept h and by a vari ety of i ndi vi dual s. One hopes that t his
represents at least a tenuous begi nning, a basi s from whi ch
s i mi l arl y focused work may e merge, so omissi ons i n t his part i
cul ar treat ment may be addressed and other pers pecti ves added.
There are cert ai nl y ot her Nat i ve Americans who have much t o
contri bute t o s uch an exchange and no doubt t here are al so
numerous Marxi sts wi t h pieces t o add. Perhaps i n a cauldron of
i ntercul tural dial ogue concerni ng t heoretical issues of si gni
fi cance t o soci al change, a uni quel y American Radical Vi si on
may at l ast be born.
Ward Churchi l l
Boul der, Col orado
1 982
PART ONE
Spread the word of your religion,
Convert the whole world if you can,
Kill and slaughter those who oppose you
It' s worth it if you save one man.
Take the l and t o build your churches,
A sin t o tax the house of God,
Take the child while she i s supple,
Spoil the mind and spare the rod.
Go and tell the savage native
That he must be Christianized.
TeJl hi m, end hi s heathen worshi p
And you will make hi m civilized.
Shove your gospel, force your values,
Down her t hroat unti l its raw,
And afer she is crippled,
Turn your back and lock the door.
Li ke an ever circling vulture,
You descend upon your prey,
Then you pick the soul to pieces
And you watch while it decays.
Missi onaries, missionaries, go leave us all alone.
Take your white God to your white man,
We've a God of our own.
From a Sung Song by
Floyd Westerman
1
The Same Old Song
Russell Means
The onl y possible openi ng for a statement of thi s ki nd is that
I detest wri ti ng. The process itself epi tomizes the European
concept of "legiti mate" thi nki ng; what i s wri tten has an i mpor
t ance t hat is denied the spoken. My cul ture, the Lakota cul ture,
has an oral tradi ti on and s o I ordinarily reject writing. I t is one of
t he white world's wys of destroyi ng the cul tures of non
European peoples, the i mposi ng of an abstracti on over the
spoken relati onshi p of a peopl e.
So what you read here i s not what I've wri tten. It' s what I' ve
sai d and someone else has wri tten down. I wi l l al l ow thi s, because
i t seems that the only way to communi cate wi th the white world is
t hrough the dead, dry leaves of a book. I don't really care whether
my words reach whites or not. They've already demonstrated
t hrough thei r history that they can't hear, can't see, they can only
read (of course, there are excepti ons, but the excepti ons onl y
prove t he rule). I' m more concerned wi th Ameri can I ndi an
people, students and others, who've begun t o be absorbed i nto
t he whi te world through universities and other i nsti tuti ons. But
even then it's a marginal sort of concern. I t' s very possi bl e to grow
i nto a red face wi th a whi te mi nd and if t hat's a person' s
i ndi vi dual choice, so be i t, but I have no use for them. Thi s i s part
of the process of cultural genoci de bei ng waged by Europeans
agai nst American "Indi an peoples today. My concern i s with those
American I ndi ans who choose to resi st thi s genoci de, but who
may be confused as to how to proceed.
1 9
20 Marxism and Native Americans
I t takes a strong effort on the part of each American I ndian
not to become Europeanized. The strength for t his effort can only
come from the tradi ti onal ways, the tradi ti onal values that our
el ders retai n. It must come from the hoop, the four di recti ons, the
relat i ons; i t cannot come from the pages of a book or a thousand
books; no European can ever teach a Lakota to be Lakota, a
Hopi to be a Hopi . A master' s degree in "I ndi an Studies" or i n
"educati on" or anythi ng el se cannot make a person i nt o a human
bei ng or provide knowledge i nto the tradi ti onal ways. I t can onl y
make you i nto a mental European, an outsi der.
I should be clear about s omethi ng here, because there seems
to be some confusi on about i t. When I speak of Europeans or
mental Europeans. I'm not al l owi ng for false disti ncti ons. I'm not
sayi ng that on the onc hand there are t he byproducts of a few
t housand years of genoci dal , reacti onary European i ntellectual
devel opment which i s bad, and on the other hand there is some
new revol uti onary i ntel lectual devel opment which is good. I'm
referring here to the s o-called theories of Marxi sm and anar
chi sm and "lefti sm" in general. I don't bel i eve t hese theories can
be separated from the rest of the European i ntel l ectual tradi ti on.
I t's really j ust the same old song.
Take Christianity as an hi storical example. I n its day
Chri sti ani ty was revol uti onary. I t changed European power
relati ons for all t i me; t hat is, unless you happen to think the
Roman Empi re i s sti l l a domi nant mi l i tary force. But European
cul ture, of whi ch Chri sti ani ty became a part, acted on the rel igion
i n such a way as t o use i t as a tool for the destructi on of non
European peoples, for the expansi on of European mi l i tary and
economi c power across the pl anet, for t he consol i dati on of t he
European nation-states, for the formation of t he capital ist
economi c system. The Christi an revol uti on or revoluti ons were
an i mportant part of the devel opment of European culture i n
di recti ons it was already headed; it changed nothi ng other than to
speed up Europe's genocide outsi de Europe, and maybe inside
Europe too.
The same holds true for the capitalist and other European
"revol uti ons. " They changed power relations within Europe
around a bi t, but only to meet t he needs of the white world at the
expense of everyone and everythi ng else.
The Same Ol d Song 2 1
Newt on "revol ut i onized" physi cs and t he so-cal l ed nat ural
sci ences by reduci ng t he physi cal u niverse t o a l i near mathe
matical equat i on. Descartes di d the same t hi ng wi th culture.
John Locke did i t with pol i ti cs and Adam Smi t h di d it wi t h
economi cs. Each one of t hese "thi nkers" t ook a piece of t he
s pirit ual i t y of human exi stance and converted it i nt o a code, an
abstract i on. They were pi cki ng up where Christ i ani ty ended, t hey
"secularized" Chri sti an rel i gi on as t he "schol ars" l i ke to say-and
i n d oi ng t hi s t hey made Europe more abl e and ready t o act as an
expansi oni st cul t ure. Each of these i ntel l ectual revol utions
served to a bstract t he European ment ality even further, t o
remove t he wonderful complexity and spiri tual i ty from t he
uni verse and repl ace i t wi t h a "l ogi cal sequence"; one-two-three
ANSWER. This is what' s come to be termed as "efi ci ency" in t he
European mi nd. Whatever i s mechani cal is perfect, whatever
seems t o work at t he moment -t hat i s, proves t he mechani cal
model i s t he right one-i s consi dered correct even when i t is
cl earl y untrue. Thi s i s why "trut h" changes so fast i n t he
European mi nd; t he answers whi ch resul t from such a process are
onl y s t op-gaps, only t emporary, and must be cont i nuousl y
di scarded i n favor of new st op-gaps whi ch s upport t he mathe
mati cal model s; whi ch keep t hem (the model s) al i ve.
Hegel and t hen Marx were heirs t o t he t hi nki ng of Newt on,
Descartes, Locke and S mi t h. Hegel fi ni s hed t he process of
secul arizi ng theol ogy-and t hat is put in hi s own terms; he
secul arized the rel i gi ous t hi nki ng t hrough which Europe under
st ood t he uni verse. Then Marx put Hegel ' s phi l osophy i nt o terms
of "materi al i sm. " That i s to say t hat rarx despiri tual ized Hegel' s
work al t oget her. Agai n, t hi s is in Marx' s own terms. And t hi s is
now seen as the fut ure revol ut i onary pot ent i al of Europe.
Europeans may see thi s as revol ut i onary, but American I ndians
see i t si mpl y as sti l l more of t hat same ol d European confl ict
bet ween being and gaining. The i ntel l ectual roots for a new
Marxist form of European i mperi al i sm l i es i n Marx's-and hi s
fol l owers'-l i nks to t he tradi t i on of Newt on, Hegel , etc.
Being i s a s piri tual propos i ti on. Gai ni ng i s a materi al act.
Tradi t i onal l y, Ameri can I ndians have al ways attempted t o be t he
best people t hey coul d. Part of t hat s piri t ual process was and i s t o
gi ve away weal t h, t o di scard weal t h i n order not t o gai n. Material
22 Marxism and Native Americans
gai n is an i ndicat or of fal se status among tradi ti onal people whi l e
i t is "proof that the system works" t o Europeans. Clearly, there
are two compl etel y opposi ng views at issue here, and Marxism is
very far ovr t o the ot her side from the American Indian vi ew.
But let's l ook at a maj or i mplicati on of thi s; i t is not merel y an
i ntellect ual debate.
The European m
a
terialist tradi t i on of despi ri tual i zi ng the
uni verse is very similar t o the mental process whi ch goes i nt o
dehumani zi ng anot her person. And who seems most expert at
dehumani zing ot her people? And why? Soldi ers who have seen a
l ot of combat learn t o do thi s t o the enemy before goi ng back i nt o
combat. Murderers do i t before goi ng out t o commi t murder. SS
guards di d it to concent rat i on camp i nmates. Cops do i t.
Corporati on leaders do i t t o workers t hey send i nto urani um
mi nes and t o work i n steel mi l ls. Pol i ticians do i t t o everyone i n
sight. And what each process of dehumani zati on has i n common
for each group doi ng t he dehumani zi ng i s that it makes it alright
to ki l l and otherwise destroy other peopl e. One of the Chri sti an
commandments says "t hou shal l not ki l l , " at l east not humans, so
the trick i s t o ment al l y convert the vi cti ms i nto non-humans.
Then you can proclai m vi ol ati on of your own commandment as a
virtue.
In terms of the despi ri tual i zat i on of the universe, the ment al
process works s o that it becomes vi rt uous t o destroy the pl anet.
Terms l i ke "progress" and "devel opment" are used as cover
words here the way "vict ory" and "freedom" are used to j usti fy
butchery i n the dehumani zat i on process. For exampl e, a real
estate specul ator may refer to "devel opi ng" a parcel of ground by
openi ng a gravel quarry t here; "devel opment" real l y means total ,
permanent destructi on wit h t he earth i tself removed. But Euro
pean l ogic has gained a few t ons of gravel wi th which more l and
can be "developed" i n the constructi on of road beds. Ul t i matel y,
t he whol e uni verse i s open-i n the European view-t o t hi s sort of
i nsanity.
Most i mportant here, perhaps, is the fact that Europeans
feel no sense of l oss i n all t hi s. After all, their phi l osophers have
despiritualized reality, so there is no satisfaction (for them) t o be
gained i n si mpl y observi ng the wonder of a mountai n or a lake or
a people in being. No, satisfacti on i s measured i n terms of gai ni ng
The Same Old Song 23
materi al -so the mountai n becomes gravel and the l ake becomes
coolant for a factory and t he people are rounded up for
processi ng through the indoctrinati on mi l l s Europeans like to
cal l school s. This i s al l very "rati onal" and to the good, so no
sense of l oss i s experienced. And i t's very di ffi cul t, or i mpossi ble,
t o convi nce a person there's somet hi ng wrong with the process of
gai ni ng when they lack the s piritual wisdom to feel a loss for what
i s bei ng dest royed along the way.
Each new European abstracti on i s born of a di rect need.
Each t i me an abstracti on begi ns t o wear out, each ti me the costs
i nvolved become obvious-even obvi ous t o some Europeans-a
new abst racti on is created whi ch staves off the i nevi tabl e. For a
whi le. Newton, Locke, Descartes, and Smi th lead to Hegel and
Marx and to Darwi n, then there's Einstein and Niels Bohr, etc.
Each one abstracted reality even further and contri buted to
conti nui ng the system of science/ materialism when the old
"answers" were wearing out. But each new abs tracti on, each
stop-gap, upped the ante out in the real world. Take fuel for t he
i ndustri al machine as an example. Little more t han two centuries
ago, nearl y everyone used wood-a replenishable, natural item
as fuel for the very human needs of cooki ng and stayi ng warm.
Along came the i ndustrial revol uti on and coal became the
domi nant fuel as producti on became the social i mperative for
Europe. Pol luti on began to become a probl em i n t he cities and
t he earth was ripped open t o provide coal where wood was always
si mpl y gat hered or harvested at no great expense to the
environment. Later, oi l became the major fuel as the technol ogy
of producti on was perfected through a series of scientific
"revol uti ons. " Pollution i ncreased dramatically and nobody yet
knows what the environmental costs of pumpi ng all that oil out
of t he ground will real l y be i n the l ong run. Now t here's an
"energy crisis" and urani um is becomi ng the domi nant fuel-still
in the name of the same system of materialist val ues which set up
the crises, both of energy and of the environment.
Capi talists, at least, can be rel i ed upon onl y to develop
urani um as fuel at a rate at which they can show a good profit.
That's their ethic, and maybe that will buy some ti me. Marxists,
on t he ot her hand, can be relied upon to develop urani um fuel as
rapi dl y as possible si mpl y because it's the most "efficient"
24 Marxism and Native Americans
producti on fuel avai l able. That's their ethic, and I fail to see
where it's preferable. Li ke I sai d, Marxi sm is right smack i n the
mi ddle of t he European tradi ti on. I t' s t he same old song.
The missionaries spearheaded Europe's drive to destroy the
conti nents of thi s hemi sphere; not j ust the people who are
i ndigenous here, but t he conti nents themselves. The missionaries
are still here and t hey're sti ll acti ve, and tradi ti onal people
recognize t hem as t he enemy. But t hey've mai nly been replaced i n
i mportance by capitalists whose mi ssi on i t i s to "efciently"
e.pl oi t what t he missionaries opened up. This change from
church to capitalism has no doubt made some superficial
di fferences i n t he struct ure of European society-they've even
gone to great lengt hs t o "separate church and state" i n their laws
(to reduce the power of the church)-but, the point i s, this
"revolution" onl y made thi ngs worse for non-Europeans. Capi
talism is more destructive and effcient than the missi onary
versi on of Europe we encountered a few hundred years ago.
There's a rule oft humb whi ch can be appl ied here. You can't
judge the real nat ure of a European revol uti onary doctrine on the
basis of the changes it proposes t o make wit hi n t he European
power structure and s ociety. You can onl y judge i t by the effects it
will have on non-European peoples. This i s because every revolu
tion i n European hi story has served t o rei nforce Europe's tenden
cies and abi l i ties to export destruct i on to other peoples, other
cul tures and the envi ronment itself. I defy anyone to poi nt out an
example where thi s i sn't true.
So now we, as Ameri can I ndi an people, are aSked to bel ieve
t hat a "new" European revol uti onary doctri ne such as Marxi sm
wi l l reverse t he negati ve effects of European hi story on us. Euro
pean power relations are to be adj usted once again, and t hat's
supposed to make thi ngs better for all of us. But what does this
really mean?
Right now, today, we who l ive on the Pine Ridge Reserva
tion are living in what Euro society has designated a "national
sacrifice area. " What thi s means is that we have a lot of urani um
deposits here and Euro culture (not us) needs this uraium as
energy producti on material. The cheapest, most efcient way for
i ndustry t o extract and deal with t he processi ng of thi s uranium is
to dump the waste byproducts right here at the digging sites.
The Same Old Song 25
Right here where we l i ve. Thi s waste i s radi oacti ve and wi l l make
t he enti re regi on uni nhabi table forever. Thi s i s consi dered by
i ndustry, and the white soci ety whi ch created this i ndustry, t o be
an "acceptable" price to pay for energy resource development.
Al ong t he way t hey al so pl an t o drai n t he water-table under thi s
area of South Dakota as part of the industrial process, so the
regi on becomes doubl y uni nhabi tabl e. The same s ort of t hi ng is
happeni ng down in t he l and of the Navaj o and Hopi , up in the
l and of the Northern Cheyenne and Crow, and el sewhere. Over
60 percent of all U. S. energy resources have been found to lie
under reservat i on l and, so t here' s no way t hi s can be called a
mi nor i ssue. For Ameri can I ndi ans it' s a quest i on of survival i n
t he purest sense of t he term. For whi te soci ety and i t s i ndustry i t' s
a quest i on of bei ng abl e t o cont i nue t o exi st i n thei r present form . .
We are resisti ng bei ng t urned i nt o a nat i onal sacrifice area.
We' re resisting being t urned into a nat i onal sacri fice people. The
costs of this i ndustri al process are not acceptabl e to us. It is
genoci de to dig t he urani um here and t o d rai n the water-tabl e, no
more, no less. So the reasons for our resi stance are obvi ous
enough and shoul dn' t have t o be expl ai ned further. To anyone.
N ow let' s suppose that i n our resi stance t o extermi nati on we
begi n to seek alli es (we have) . Let's suppose further t hat we were
to take revol uti onary Marxi sm at its word: that it i ntends nothi ng
l ess t han the complete overthrow of t he European capi tal i st order
whi ch has presented t his t hreat to our very exi stence. Thi s woul d
seem t o be a nat ural al l iance for Ameri can I ndi an peopl e to
make. Afer aU, as t he Marxi sts say, i t i s t he capi tal i sts who set us
up to be a nati onal sacrifice. Thi s i s true as far as i t goes.
But, as I 've tri ed t o poi nt out, t hi s "truth" i s very deceptive.
Look beneat h the s urface of revol ut i onary Marxi sm and what do
you fi nd? A commi tment t o reversi ng t he i ndust ri al system whi ch
created the need of white society for urani um? No. A commi t
ment t o guaranteei ng the Lakota and other Ameri can I ndi an
peopl es real control over the l and and resources they have l eft?
No, not unl ess the i ndustri al process i s to be reversed as part of
thei r doctri ne. A commit ment to our ri ghts, as peopl es, to mai n
tai ni ng our values and tradi ti ons? No, not as l ong as they need the
urani um wi thi n our l and t o feed t he i ndust ri al system of t he
s ociety, the cul ture of whi ch the Marxi sts are sti a part.
26 Marxism and Native Americans
Revol utionary Marxi sm is commi tted t o even further perpe
tuation and perfect i on of the very industrial process whi ch i s
destroying us al l . I t i s offeri ng only t o "redi stri bute" the resul ts.
the money maybe, of this i ndustri al i zati on to a wi der secti on of
the popul ati on. I t offers t o take weal th from the capi tali st and
pass it around, but i n order t o do so, Marxi sm must mai nt ai n the
i ndustrial system. Once agai n, the power relati ons wi thi n Euro
pean society wi l l have to be al tered, but once agai n the effects
upon American I ndi an peopl es here and non-Europeans else
where will remain the same. This i s much the same as when power
was redi stri buted from the church to private busi ness duri ng the
so-called "bourgeoi s revol ut i on. " European soci ety changed a
bi t, at least superfi ci al ly, but i ts conduct toward non-Europeans
conti nued as before. You can see what the American Revoluti on
of 1 776 di d for American I ndians. I t's t he same ol d song.
Revol utionary Marxi sm, as wi th i ndustrial soci ety i n other
forms, seeks to "rat i onal i ze" al l peopl e i n relati on to i ndustry,
maxi mum industry, maxi mum producti on. I t is a materi ali st
doctrine whi ch despises t he Americap I ndi an spi ri tual tradi t i on.
our cul tures, our l i feways. Marx hi msel f called us "precapital ists"
and "pri mi ti ve. " Precapi tal i st si mpl y means that, i n hi s view, we
would eventually di scover capi tal i sm and become capi tal i sts; we
have al ways been economical l y retarded in Marxi st terms. The
onl y manner in which American I ndi an people could parti ci pate
i n a Marxist revol uti on woul d be tojoin the i ndustri al system, to
become factory workers or "proletarians" as Marx cal led them.
The man was very cl ear about the fact that hi s revol uti on coul d
occur onl y through the struggle of the proletari at, that the exi st
ence of a massive i ndustri al system i s a precondi ti on of a success
ful Marxist society.
I thi nk there's a probl em with language here. Christi ans,
capital ists, Marxi sts, al l of them have been revoluti onary i n thei r
own mi nds. But none of t hem reall y me'an revoluti on. What they
really mean is a continuation. They do what they do i n order that
European cul ture can conti nue t o exist and develop according to
i ts needs. Like germs, European culture goes through occasi onal
convul sions, even divi si ons withi n i tsel f, in order to go on li vi ng
and growi ng. This i sn't a revol uti on we're tal ki ng about, but a
means to conti nui ng what al ready exists. An amoeba is sti l l an
The Same Old Song 27
a moeba after i t reproduces. But maybe compari ng European
cul ture to an amoeba is n' t real l y fai r t o the amoeba. Maybe
cancer cel l s are a more accurate compari son because European
cul ture has hi storically destroyed everythi ng around i t; and i t wi l l
eventual l y destroy itself.
So, i n order for us to really j oin forces wi th Marxis m, we
I ndians would have to accept the nati onal sacri fice of our
homel and; we'd have to commit cult ural sui ci de and become
i ndustri al ized, Europeanized, maybe even sanforized. We woul d
have to totally defeat ourselves. Onl y the i nsane coul d consi der
thi s to be desi rabl e to us.
At thi s poi nt, I ' ve got to stop and ask mysel f whether I'm
being too harsh. Marxism has something of a history. Does this
hi story bear out my observati ons? I l ook to the process of i ndus
t rial izat i on i n the Soviet Uni on si nce 1 920 and I see that these
Marxi sts have done what it took t he Engl i sh "i ndustri al revol u
t i on" three hundred years to do; and t he Marxi sts did it i n si xty
years. I see that the territory of the USSR used t o contai n a
number of t ri bal peopl es and t hat they have been crushed to
make way for the factori es. The Sovi ets refe r to thi s as "The
Nati onal Question, " the questi on of whether the tri bal peoples
had t he right to exist as peopl es; and they deci ded the tri bal
peoples were an acceptabl e sacri fice to i ndustri al needs . I l ook to
Chi na and I see the same thing. I l ook t o Vi et nam and I see
Marxists i mposi ng an i ndustri al order and rooti ng out the i ndi
genous tri bal mountai n peopl es.
I hear a l eadi ng Sovi et sci enti st sayi ng t hat when urani um i s
e xhausted then alternatives wi l l be found. I see t he Vi etnamese
t aki ng over a nucl ear power pl ant abandoned by the U. S. mi l
i t ary. Have t hey di smantl ed and destroyed it? No, they are usi ng
i t. I see Chi na expl ode nucl ear bombs, devel opi ng urani um reac
t ors, prepari ng a space program in order to col oni ze and exploi t
the pl anets the same as the Europeans col oni zed and expl oited
t hi s hemi sphere. I t' s t he same old s ong, but maybe wi th a faster
tempo thi s time.
The statement of the Soviet sci enti st is very i nteresting. Does
he know what thi s alternative energy source wi l l be? No, he
s i mpl y has faith. Scie nce wi l l fi nd a way. I hear revol uti onary
Marxi sts saying that the destructi on of the envi ronment, pollu
ti on, radiati on, al l these thi ngs will be control l ed. And I see them
28 Marxi sm and Native Americans
act upon t hei r words. Do they know how these thi ngs will be
control led? No, they si mpl y have fai th. Science will fi nd a way.
I ndustrializati on is fi ne and necessary. How do they know this?
Faith. Science will find a way. Faith of this sort has always been
known in Europe as religi on. Science has become the new Euro
pean religi on for both capitalists and Marxists; they are trul y
i nseparable; they are part and parcel of the same cul ture. So, i n
both theory and practice, Marxi sm demands that non-European
peoples give up thei r values, t hei r tradi ti ons, their cultural exi st
ence al together. We will al l be i ndustrial ized sci ence addicts i n a
Marxist society.
I do not believe that capi tal i sm itself is really responsi ble for
the si tuati on in whi ch we have been decl ared a nati onal sacrifice.
No, it is the European tradi ti on; European cul ture itself i s
responsi ble. Marxi sm is j ust the l atest continuation of thi s tradi
ti on, not a sol uti on to it. To ally wi th Marxism is to ally with the
very same forces whi ch declare us an acceptable "cost. "
There is another way. There i s the tradi ti onal Lakota way
and the ways of the other American I ndi an peoples. It is the way
that knows that humans do not have the right to degrade Mother
Earth, that there are forces beyond anything the European mi nd
has conceived, that humans must be in harmony with al rel ati ons
or the relat i ons wi l l eventually el i mi nate the di sharmony. A
l opsided emphasis on humans by humans, the European arro
gance of acting as t hough they were beyond the nature of all
related t hi ngs, can only result i n a total di sharmony and a read
j ustment whi ch cuts arrogant humans down to size, gives them a
taste of that reality beyond their grasp or control and restores the
harmony. There is no need for a revol uti onary t heory to bring
t his about, it's beyond human control. The natural peoples of thi s
pl anet know thi s and so t hey do not t heorize about i t. Theory is
an abstracti on; our knowledge is real.
Distil led to its basic terms, European faith-i ncluding the
new fai th in science-equal s a belief that man i s god. Europe has
al ways sought a messi ah, whether t hat be the man Jesus Christ or
t he man Karl Marx or the man Al bert Ei nstei n. American I ndi
ans know thi s to be total l y absurd. Humans are the weakest of all
creatures, so weak that other creatures are willing to give up their
flesh s o t hat we may l i ve. Humans are only abl e to survive
through the exercise of rat i onal ity si nce they lack the abilities of
The Same Ol d Song 29
other creat ures to gai n food t hrough t he use of fang and cl aw. But
rat i onal ity i s a curse si nce it can cause humans to forget t he
natural order of t hi ngs in ways ot her creat ures do not . A wol f
never forget s hi s/ her pl ace i n t he nat ural order. Ameri can I ndi
ans can. Europeans al most al ways do. We pray our t hanks to t he
deer, our rel ati ons , for al l owi ng us t hei r fesh t o eat. Europeans
si mpl y take the fl esh for granted and consi der the deer i nferi or.
Afer al l , Europeans consi der t hemsel ves godl i ke i n t hei r rat i on
al i sm and s ci ence; god i s t he supreme bei ng; al l el se must be
i nferi or. Thus, t he abi l i t y of Europe t o create d is harmony knows
no l i mi t s.
Al l European tradi t i on, Marxi sm i ncl uded, has conspi red t o
defy t he nat ural order of al l t hi ngs. Mot her Earth has been
abused, the powers have been abused, and t hi s cannot go on for
ever. No t heory can al ter that s i mple fact. Mother Earth wi l l
ret al i ate, t he whol e envi ronment wi l l retal i ate, and t he abusers
wi l l be el i mi nated. Thi ngs come ful l ci rcl e. Back t o where t hey
started. That 's revol ut i on. And that' s a prophecy of my peopl e, of
the Hopi peopl e and other correct peopl es.
Ameri can I ndi ans have been t ryi ng t o expl ai n t his t o Euro
peans for centuri es. But, as I sai d earl i er, t hey have proven
t hemsel ves unabl e to hear. The nat ural order wi l l wi n out and t he
offenders wi l l di e back, t he way deer die when they offend t he
harmony by overpopul ati ng a gi ven regi on. I t's onl y a matter of
t i me unti l what Europeans cal l "a maj or catast rophe of gl obal
proport i ons" wi l l occur. It i s the rol e of Ameri can I ndian peopl es,
t he rol e of al l natural bei ngs t o survi ve. A part of our survi val i s to
res i st . We res i st, not t o overt hrow a government or t o t ake
pol i ti cal power, but because i t i s nat ural t o resi st ext ermi nat i on,
t o s urvi ve. We don' t want power over whi te i nst i t ut i ons; we want
. whi te i nsti t ut i ons t o disappear. That 's revol ut i on.
Ameri can I ndi ans are sti l l i n t ouch wi t h t hese real i ti es, t he
propheci es, t he t radi t i ons of our ancest ors. We l earn from t he
el ders, from nat ure, from the powers. And when t he catastrophe
i s over, we Ameri can I ndi an peoples wi l l sti l l be here t o i nhabit
the hemisphere. Even if it' s only a handful of red people living
high in the Andes, American Indian people will survive and har
mony will be reestablished. That 's revolution.
N ow, at t hi s poi nt perhaps I s houl d be very cl ear about
anot her matter, one whi ch should al ready be cl ear as a resul t of
30 Marxism and Nati ve Americans
what I' ve said in the past few mi nutes. But confusi on breeds easily
t hese days , so I want to hammer home this poi nt . When I use the
term "European, " I ' m not referri ng t o a ski n col or or a part i cular
genetic st ruct ure. What I' m referri ng t o is a mi nd-set, a worl d
vi ew whi ch is a product of t he devel opment of European cul t ure.
Peopl e are not genet ically encoded t o hold thi s outl ook, they are
accult urated to hol d i t . The same hol ds true for American I ndi
ans or for the members of any other cul ture.
It is possi ble for an Ameri can I ndian to share European
values, a European world-vi ew. We have a term for t hese peopl e;
we call them "apples" -red on the outsi de (genetics) and white on
the i nsi de (thei r mi nds). Other groups have si mi l ar terms; Blacks
have their "oreos, " Latinos have "coconuts , " etc. And, as I said
at the beginni ng of this tal k, there are exceptions to the Euro
norm; people who are whi te on the outsi de, but not white i nside.
I ' m not sure what t erm shoul d be appl i ed to them ot her than
"human beings. "
What I' m put t i ng out here i s not a racial proposi ti on, but a
cul tural propositi on. Those who ul ti mately advocate and defend
the realit ies of European cul ture and i ts i ndust rial is m are my
enemi es. Those who resist i t, who st ruggle agai nst i t, are my
all ies, the al l i es of Ameri can I ndi an people. And I don't gi ve a
damn what thei r s ki n col or happens to be. Caucasi an is t he whi te
term for t he whi te race; European is an outl ook I oppose.
The "Vi etnamese Communists" are not exactly what you
might consi der as geneti c Caucasi ans, but t hey are functi oni ng as
ing a mental Europeans. The same holds true for "Chinese Com
munists, " for "Japanese Capi tal ists" or "Bantu Cat holics" or
Peter McDol l ar down at Navaj o or Di cki e Wi ls on up here at Pi ne
Ridge. There i s no racism i nvolved i n my posi ti on, just an
acknowl edgment of t he mi nd and spi ri t whi ch make up cul t ure.
In Marxi st terms I suppose I' m a "cul tural nati onalist . " I
work fi rst wi th my people, t he t radi ti onal Lakota peopl e, because
we hol d a common world view and share an i mmediate struggle.
Beyond this I work with ot her tradi ti onal American I ndian peo
ples, again because of a certain commonality in world view and
form of struggle. Beyond that I work with anyone who has
experienced the col oni al oppressi on of Europe and who resi sts
Europe as a cultural / indust rial total i ty. Obvi ously, t his i ncl udes
geneti c Caucasi ans who st ruggle to resist the domi nant norms of
The Same Ol d Song 3 1
European cul ture; the Iri sh and the Basques come i mmediately to
mi nd, but t here are many others.
I work pri mari l y wi th my own peopl e, wit h my own com
munity. Other people who hold non-European perspectives
should do the same. I do not proclai m mysel f abl e to effectively
deal with the st ruggl es of the Black communi ty i n Watts or
Newark. And I don't expect a Black activist from t hose commun
i ti es to be particularly efect ive in the day-to-day struggles of the
Lakot a peopl e. Each cul tural group can and must bui l d upon the
basi s of i ts own cul tural i ntegrity. Thi s i s our strength and t he
source of our vi si on, a vi si on whi ch compel l s us to resi st the
i ndustrial izat ion of European cul ture. It i s thi s sort of vi si on
which al l ows us to come toget her, to ally wi th one another, to
pool our st rength and resources to resi st Europe's deat h cul ture
whi le retai ni ng our own identities as human bei ngs.
I do believe i n the slogan, "Trust your brother's vi si on, "
al t hough I' d l i ke to add sisters i nto t he bargai n. I trust the
community / culturally based vi si on of al l t he races whi ch natu
ral l y resi st i ndustri al i zati on and human exti ncti on. Clearly, i ndi
vi dual whi tes can share in t hi s, given onl y t hat they have reached
the awareness that continuation of the i ndustri al i mperatives of
Europe is not a vi si on, but species s uicide. White i s one of the
sacred colors of the Lakota peopl e; red, yel l ow, whi te, and bl ack.
The four di recti ons. The four seasons. The four peri ods of life
and agi ng. Four races of humanity. Mi x red, yel l ow, white, and
bl ack toget her and you get brown, the col or of the fi ft h race. This
i s a natural orderi ng of t hi ngs. And so i t seems natural t o me to
work wi th al l races, each wi th i ts own speci al meani ng, i dentity,
and message.
But t here is a pecul i ar behavi or among most Caucasi ans. As
soon as I become cri ti cal of Europe and its i mpact on other
cul t ures, they become defensive. They begin t o defend t hem
selves. But I' m not attacking them pers onal l y. I' m attacki ng
Europe. I n personal i zi ng my observati ons on Europe they are
personal i zi ng European culture, i dentifyi ng themsel ves with i t; i n
defendi ng themselves i n this context they are ul ti mately defend
i ng the death cul ture. Thi s i s a confusi on whi ch must be over
come, and it must be overcome in a hurry. None of us have energy
to waste in such fal se struggles.
32 Marxism and Native Americans
Caucasians have a more positive vision to offer humanity
t han European cul ture. I bel ieve thi s. But i n order to attai n thi s
vi si on i t i s necessary for Caucasians to step outsi de of European
cul ture-alongsi de t he rest of humanity-to see Europe for what
it i s and what it does. To cling t o capitalism and Marxi sm and all
the other "isms" i s s i mply t o remain wi thi n European culture.
There is no avoi di ng this basic fact. As a fact thi s constitutes a
choice. Understand t hat t he choice is based on culture, not race.
Understand that to choose European culture and i ndustrialism i s
t o choose t o be my enemy. And understand the choice is yours,
not mine.
This leads me back to those American I ndians who are
drift i ng t hrough the uni versi ties, t he city sl ums and other Euro
pean institutions. I f you are t here to learn to resi st the oppressor
i n accordance with your tradi ti onal ways, so be i t. I don't know
how you manage to combi ne the two, but perhaps you wi l l
succeed. But retain your sense of reality. Beware of coming to
believe the Euro world now offers solutions to the problems it
confronts us wit h. Beware too of allowing the words of Native
people to be twisted t o the advantage of our enemies. Europe
invented the practice of turni ng words around on themselves.
You need onl y l ook t o the t reaties between American Indi an
peopl es and vari ous European governments to know that this i s
true. Draw your strength from who you are.
The twisting of words goes on t oday; it has never stopped.
Thi s is why when I spoke in Geneva, Switzerland, about the
col oni zation of i ndi genous peoples i n this hemisphere, I was
misrepresente a a "lefist" by some "rdc. " Ts is why crtn
idiots are believed by a few empty heads when they label Ameri
can Indian activists as being "Marxist-Leninists. " This is
why certain groups in the "lef" believe they share our values
while rejecting the same values at every practical turn. A cul
ture which regularly confuses revolution with continuation,
which confuses science and religion, which confuses revolt with
resistence has nothi ng hel pful t o teach you, has nothi ng to offer
you as a way of life. Europeans have l ong si nce l ost all touch wi th
reali ty, if ever they were i n touch with i t. Feel sorry for them i f
you need to, but be comfortable with who you are as American
I ndians.
The Same Ol d Song 33
So, I suppose t o concl ude t hi s, I s houl d st at e cl earl y that
l eadi ng anyone toward Marxi sm i s t he l ast t hi ng on my mi nd.
Marxi sm is as al i en t o my cul ture as capi tal i sm and Christ i ani ty.
In fact , I can say I don' t t hi nk I ' m t r yi ng t o l ead a nyone toward
anyt hi ng. To some ext ent I t ried t o be a "l eader" i n t he sense t hat
the mainstream media liked to use that term when the American
Indian Movement was a young organization. This was a result of a
confusi on I no l onger have. You cannot be everyt hi ng to every
one. I do not propose to be used in such fas hi on by my enemi es; I
am not a "l eader. " I am an Ogl al a Lakot a pat ri ot . That' s al l I
want or need to be. And I am very comfort abl e wi t h who I am . . .
2
Searching for a Second Harvest
The RCP
It i s a si gn of both t he advances and the sti l l remai ni ng
backwardness of the developing revol uti onary movement in the
U. S. t hat we are forced to repl y to a recent s peech made by
Russel l Means, for some ti me a well-known figure i n t he struggle
of Native Americans. The occasi on for his t i rade was the 1 980
Bl ack Hi l l s I nternational Survival Gat heri ng hel d from Jul y
1 8-27 on a ranch outsi de the Black Hi l l s of South Dakota whi ch
drew and esti mated 1 0, 000 peopl e. Parti ci pants were mostl y
vi sts from t he anti-nuke movement, but t he event al so drew some
I ndi ans and some local ranchers. Thi s area, t he l ocati on of the
Lakota Pi ne Ri dge Reservati on, has been the focus of a great deal
of struggl e as reported i n the R Wi n the past. I t i s a key source i n
t he U. S. of urani um, t he mining of whi ch has l ef behi nd a lethal
legacy of contaminated water, a rate of mi scarriages on the
reservati on 6Y ti mes the nati onal average, and an abomi nabl y
hi gh rate of bi rt h defects, cancer and other causes of death and
di sease to t he Indi an people.
Means s poke on behalf of the Lakota American Indi an
Movement and hi s speech was bi l l ed as the keynote address. It
di sgusted l i terally hundreds, left t housands wi t h a sour taste i n
thei r mout hs, and i n addi ti on to certai n strong-arm tactics
purs ued by s ome forces gathered around Means at the gathering,
has been t he source of widespread controversy within the Indi an
movement and more broadly si nce the event concl uded.
35
36 Marxi sm and Nati ve Americans
The heart of Means' s peech i s an attack on revoluti on i n
general and revol uti onary Marxi sm i n particular. He attempts t o
t rade on hi s reputati on as an " American I ndi an leader" (despi te
the obligatory fal se di scl ai mers of "humi l ity" t o the contrary) to
advocate a program of capi tul ati on to the enemy for both t he
struggle of t he Ameri can I ndi ans-a struggle whi ch is gaini ng i n
i ntensity and has been t he obj ect of vicious government reprisal s
as well as the movement more broadly.
But beyond this, Means' s peech is a sort of inadvertent
admi ssi on of the truth time and agai n noted i n vari ous ways by
the great leaders of communi sm, from Karl Marx t o Mao Tse
t ung: that for t here t o be a revol ut i onary movement, t here must
be revol uti onary theory. Therefore, Means' speech i s princi pal l y
ideological. He i s well aware that pol itical activists from vari ous
spheres of soci al l i fe are searchi ng for answers, searching for a
way out of thi s mad-dog capi tal i st system. He at least senses t he
renewal of revol uti onary ri ppl es i n t he social fabric of thi s coun
t ry and sense that t hese may wel l devel op into mighty waves i n the
not too di stant fut ure. But rather than wel comi ng t hese devel op
ments for the promise t hey hol d, he fears getti ng washed away
l i ke beach debris in the ti des. He has thus assigned hi msel f the
task (and we are not yet prepared t o say t hat he has been assigned
the task) of concentrati ng the most backward ideas which have
ari sen particularly among some ant i-nuke and I ndian acti vi sts
i nto a worked out pol emi c agai nst the most advanced i deas
represented i n the pol i ti cal struggle i n thi s and other countri es,
i deas whi ch are today gai ni ng a begi nni ng but significant i nfu
ence in the struggle of Ameri can Indi ans-the ideas of revol u
ti onary Marxi sm.
To accompl i sh t hi s task, Means adopts the pose of the
"nobl e savage, " fghti ng t o resi st the corrupti on of "European" or
"i ndustrial" society. Hi s t hesi s i s t hat the enemy of Native Ameri
cans i s the industrialization to whi ch I ndians have been subjected
by European civi l i zati on and cul ture. I ndustrializati on-even
material progress i tsel f-i s t he enemy, independent of what cl ass
commands i t. Means sees white everywhere, warni ng I ndi an
youth to rej ect "European cul t ure" and return t o t he "natural
ways" of the I ndi ans. He says: "It takes a strong effort on the part
of each American I ndi an not to become Europeani zed. The
Searchi ng For A Second Harvest 37
s t rengt h of t his effort can only come from t hei r t radi t i onal ways,
the tradi t i onal val ues that our el ders retai ned. It must come from
t he hoop, t he four di recti ons, t he rel at i ons; it cannot come from
t he pages of a book or a t housand books ; no European can ever
teach a Lakota to be a Lakota, a Hopi to be a Hopi .
And furt her, notes Means. when we say European we mean
all whi t es. I n fact, hi s speech mi ght appr opri atel y be enti tled "i t' s
the same ol d song, " a phrase he uses t hroughout. "I shoul d be
cl ear a bout somet hi ng here. because t here seems t o be some
confus i on about i t. When I speak of Europeans or mental Euro
peans. I ' m not all owi ng for false dist i nct i ons. I' m not sayi ng t hat
on the o ne hand there are the byproducts of a few t housand years
of genoci dal , react i onary European i nt el l ectual devel opment
whi ch i s bad, and on t he other hand t here i s some new revol u
t i onary i ntel lect ual devel opment whi ch i s good. I ' m referri ng
here t o the s o-cal l ed theori es of Marxi sm and anarchi sm and
' l eft i sm' i n general . I don't beli eve t hese theori es can be separated
from the rest of the European i ntel lect ual tradi t i on. It' s real l y just
t he same ol d song. "
I ndeed t here is not hi ng al l that new i n a "song" whi ch attacks
Marxi sm, even i n the ever-so-sl i ghtl y adapted "nat ural " garb i n
whi ch i t i s dressed here. And could t he "confusi on" noted by
Means i ndi cate that the general i nt ent of hi s s peech i s a feebl e but
very "t heoreti cal" attempt to drum revol ut i onary Marxi st i dees
out of t he heads of any young acti vi st, or for that mCtter, any
other i deas wi th a revol ut i onary t hrust? Evi dentl y, thi s i s hi s
i ntent, because what fol l ows these i ntroductory comments i s a
t i rade whi ch i nsi di ousl y tries to lump together capi tal i sm and
communi sm, the bourgeoi si e and t he prol etari at, react i on and
revol ut i on. And t hi s i s combi ned wi t h demagogi c but al most
l aughable appeal s t o quit fucki ng wi t h mot her nat ure. And whi l e
al l thi s may wel l had had some i nfuence among peopl e who vi ew
the at om as the enemy, a fact that we certai nly take i nt o account,
i t i s al s o i mportant to note t he wi despread senti ment of many
concerni ng Means' speech, concent rated in the words of one
young acti vist i n the I ndi an movement : "The fool i s t ryi ng t o take
us back 250 years . "
Act ual l y, t here i s even more t rut h i n t hat comment t han t hi s
comrade may have real i zed. For t hi s i dea of t he "nobl e savage, "
t he supposedly natural man who has not been corrupted by t he
38 Marxi sm and Native Americans
arti fi ci al i ti es, hypocri sy and destructi ve spi ri tual empti ness of
ci vi l i zat i on-thi s i dea i s not t he ori gi nal creati on of Russel l
Means or of the Ameri can I ndi ans or of "pri mi ti ve man, " but
rat her has i ts ori gi ns i n Europe some 250-300 years ago. The
expandi ng bourgeoi si e and t hei r i deol ogi sts of t h
a
t ti me i deal i zed
the Ameri can I ndi ans and other i ndi genous peoples with whom
they were aggressi vel y comi ng i n contact, purporti ng to fi nd i n
t hem al l t he vi rtues whi ch t hei r own burgeoni ng ci vil izati on so
obvi ousl y lacked. And as Marx poi nted out, thi s particular ideo
logical creati on was not j ust acci dental, nor was i t what i t
appeared to be on the s urface, but rat her i t had defi ni te root s i n
t he growing bourgeois relati ons of producti on.
The i ndi vdual and i sol ated hunter or fisherman, wi th
whom Smi th and Ri cardo begi n, i s one of the uni ma
gi nati ve fantasi es of ei ghteent h-century romances a Ja
Robi nson Crusoe, whi ch by no means express merely a
reacti on agai nst overrefi nement and a reversion to a
mi s underst ood nat ural l i fe, as cul t ural hi st ori ans
i magine . . .
Thi s i s an i l l usi on and the merel y aestheti c i l l usi on of
the Robi nsonades, great and s mal l . On the cont rary, it
is the anti ci pat i on of "civil society" (capitalism), whi ch
began t o evolve i n t he si xteenth cent ury and made giant
st rides t owards maturity i n the eighteenth. I n thi s
society of free competit i on the i ndi vi dual seems de
tached from the natural ti es, etc. , whi ch in earlier hi stor
ical epochs make hi m an appurtenance of a particular,
l i mi ted human congl omerati on. The prophets of t he
ei ghteent h century, on whose shoulders Smi th and
Ri cardo were sti l l standi ng wi t h thei r whole weight,
envisaged this eighteenth-century i ndividual-the prod
uct of the di ssol uti on of feudal soci ety on the one hand
and of the new producti ve forces evolved since t he
si xteenth century on the ot her-as an ideal whose exist
ence bel onged to t he past. Not as a hi storical resul t, but
as hi story's poi nt of depart ure. Not as ari si ng hi stori
cally but as posited by nature, because this individual
was i n conformi ty with nature, i n keepi ng with their
Searchi ng For A Second Harvest 39
idea of human nat ure. ( Karl Marx, "I ntroducti on to A
Contribution to the Critiques of the Political Econ
omy, " Grundrisse. )
As we shal l see often as we go al ong, far from repudiating,
escapi ng or combatti ng capi tal i sm and European civilizat i on.
Means has i n fact adopted some of the i nsi pi d fantasies of t he
bourgeoi sie and has capitul ated t o them. Furt her, the total
backwardness of Means' adopti on of thi s mythi cal "nobl e sav
age" stance leads to more than a bit of hypocri sy as he attempts t o
carry i t t hrough.
His assault against theory ("theory i s an abstract, our
knowledge i s real") as a "European" devel opment somehow
hasn' t p rev
e
nted hi m from attempti ng to make hi s own "theoreti
cal" contri butions to the ti mes i n whi ch we l i ve. And while he
compl ai ns early i n hi s s peech that "wri ti ng . . . i s one of the white
world's ways of destroying t he cul tures of non-European peoples,
the i mposi ng of an abstracti on over the spoken relati onshi p of a
peopl e, " it was apparentl y wi thi n t he scope of t he "natural"
phi l osophy of Russell Means to have s omeone wri te out, repro
duce and dis tribute thi s speech so t hat peopl e at t he Sur
v
ival
Gatheri ng could read it. .
Consi dering Means' i ncessant chatter about Marxi sm being
a "cont i nuati on of European intel lectual tradi ti on, " he obvi ousl y
feel s it i s best to have hi s own i ntel l ectual roots left underground.
But Marxi sts have no need for such 0 bfuscati on. The phi l osophy
of dial ecti cal material i sm di d i ndeed devel op out of the phi l oso
phi es of t he radical bourgeoisies of Europe, most i mmediately
from the di al ectics of Hegel and the materi al i sm of Feuerbach.
With the devel opment of the modern prol etari at, Marx and
Engels were abl e to leap beyond the i deal i sm of t he former and
the metaphysics of the latter to di scover the true nature of mate
ri al real i ty in hi storical society unhi ndered by t he bourgeoi s
vi ewpoi nt, whi ch l i ke that of all previ ous rul i ng cl asses, has the
need to view its system as the cul mi nati on of al l human develop
ment, eternal , unchanging, etc. As Bob Avakian poi nted out in
his book, Mao Tsetung's Immortal Contributions;
. . . thi s phi l osophy was not si mpl y, or fundamentally,
40
Marxism and Native Americans
the prod uct of the brai ns of Marx and Engels. It was the
result of the devel opment of capitalism, of natural
science and of the class struggle. And it was the product
of a dialectical process of devel opment of philosophy
itself, reflect ing these changes and upheavals in society
and in man's comprehensi on and mastery of the natural
world. Nor did dialectical and historical materialism
represent Marx and Engels and a few others alone; it
was, and is, the revoluti onary phi l osophy of the prole
tariat, both obj ective and partisan, refecting both the
objective laws of natural and historical development
and the i nterests and historic missi on of the proletariat,
which are ful l y in accord with t hese laws. For, unlike all
other classes in human hist ory which have previously
risen to t he ruling position and remolded society in their
i mage, the proletariat aims not merely to seize power;
its mission is not to establish an " eternal" unchanging
system representi ng the "end point" of human devel
opment, but to abol i sh all class distinctions and enable
mankind to continuously overcome barriers to devel
opment of human society and its transformation of
nature. (page 1 39. )
We don't feel there's somethi ng shameful about the fact that
Marxism has its roots i n capital i sm, t hat it developed out of the
contradicti ons of bourgeois society. The proletariat itself is
obviously a product of capitali sm, and i n fact everything devel
ops out of the contradicti ons of what already exists. I f Means
fi nds it necessary to pretend that hi s ideas come from outside of
the world of capital i sm and i mperial i sm, i t is only because he has
something to hide.
Shortly after the passage by Marx quoted above,
he further
notes, "The point need not have been mentioned at all, if thi s
nonsense, whi ch had rhyme and reason for the people of the
eighteenth century, had not agai n been pulled back i n all serious
ness into modern political economy by Bastiat, Carey, Proud
hon, etc." The same can be said about Russell Means. And the
fact t hat he would go several centuries backward to fish up
Searchi ng For A Second Harvest 4 1
aspects o f bourgeoi s myth whi ch has l ost whatever feebl e j usti fi
cat i on it may once have had, and whi ch has by now become bot h
hackneyed and reacti onary, and that he dredges i t up i n order to
attack revol uti onary Marxi sm-wel l , al l thi s shoul d be a cl ue as
to what he has to hi de and what he i s actually up t o.
And s ure enough, we fi nd that Means does after al l draw a
certai n distinction between capi tal i sts and Marxi sts: "Capi tal i sts,
at least can be relied upon to devel op urani um as fuel at the rate at
whi ch t hey can show a good profi t . That' s thei r ethi c, and maybe
that wi l l buy some ti me. Marxi sts on t he other hand, can be reli ed
upon t o devel op urani um fuel as rapi dl y as possi bl e s i mply
because it's the most 'effci ent' producti on fuel avai l abl e. That's
their et hic and I fai l to see where i ts preferable. " This t hi nl y
di sgui sed defense of bourgeoi s cl ass rule i s foll owed by a program
of total capi tul ati on t o i mperi al i sm i n cri si s. Now we are t ol d:
" . . . The European arrogance of acti ng as though t hey were
beyond t he nature of al l related t hi ngs, can onl y res ul t i n a total
di s harmony and a readj ustment whi ch cuts arrogant humans
down t o si ze, gives t hem a t ast e of t hat real i ty beyond thei r grasp
or cont rol and restores the harmony . . . Mother Earth wi l l
retal iate, t he whol e envi ronment wi l l retal i ate and the abusers
wi l l be el i mi nated . . . . I t' s onl y a matter of ti me unt i l what
Europeans call 'a maj or catastrophe of gl obal proporti ons' wi l l
occur. I t i s t he rol e of Ameri can I ndi an peopl es, the rol e of al l
natural -bei ngs t o survive. A part of our survival i s t o resi st. We
resi st, not t o overthrow t he government or to take pol i t ical
power, but because i t i s natural t o resi st extermi nati on . . .
Ameri can I ndi ans are sti l l in t ouch wi th these real i ti es. We
l earned fro m the el ders, from nature, fro m t he powers. And when
the catastrophe i s over, we i ndi genous peoples wi l l sti l l be here to
i nhabi t the hemi sphere. I don' t care i f i t' s onl y a handful of Red
peopl e l i vi ng hi gh i n t he Andes, i ndi genous peopl e wi l l survive
and harmony will be reestabl i shed. That's revol uti on. "
Sorry, Russel l Means, but t hat' s capitulation-to t he hi l t .
Here i s program for wi thdrawal unt i l some never-never ti me off
i n the fut ure after the "catastrophe, " clearly referri ng to the
possi bi l i ti es of nuclear weapons i n t he comi ng s howdown
between the U. S. and t he Sovi et Uni on. As for any funny i deas
a bout t ryi ng to prevent i nter-i mperi al i st war through revol uti on,
any attempts to t urn t hi s around on t he i mperi al i sts i f t hey are
42 Marxism and Native Americans
able to start i t -forget i t, j ust wai t around passively for the new
savior, thi s ti me Mother Earth i nstead of the old, discredited
Jesus Chri st t o take care of i t al l for you. Means has adopted an
old pl an t o let t he real "powers" t hat t oday threaten the worl d's
people with world war completely off the hook. Everythi ng wi l l
work out, as l ong as some "survive" -even if i t' s somewhere i n
t he Andes. And just i n case anyone mi ght not realize through al l
thi s that he i s really quite comfortabl e wi th t he way things are,
Means let i t all hang out at a later poi nt i n the Gathering when he
sai d, "Part of the consumpti on society, the i ndust rial soci ety
which they've l ai d on us, i s i mpati ence . . . we have to acknowl
edge that resi stance is goi ng to take generations, its' a process of
educati on . . . I see no reason to st op i t or hurry it up. "
Anyone who has any sense of the dung heap that is t hi s
society, anyone who has come i nto pol it ical struggle agai nst any
of the atroci ti es of the capi tal i st system-from the whol esal e
sl aughter and conti nui ng degradat i on and oppressi on of the
Native Ameri can people, t o the massive t hreat of di sease and
death posed by the capitalist nuclear i ndust ry, and especially to
the war feveri shly bei ng prepared by t he U. S. i mperiali sts and
thei r Soviet rivals-anyone who wants to do something about al l
this shi t should by now be goi ng through a "process of educati on"
themselves concerni ng the stand, the pol itics-and yes, the
phi l osophy-of Russell Means !
* * * *
Russell Means' speech is bogus. He has no more intenti on of
leadi ng a back-to-nature movement t han the U. S. has of aban
doni ng pl ans to mi ne urani um in the Black Hi lls. His ideological
offensi ve against Marxi sm-and revol uti on in general-is serv
ing an i mportant functi on for the rul ers of the U. S. at a cruci al
ti me i n the hi st ory of thi s country. Just
'
the same, while i t is true
that hi s speech, hi s "natural" pat h forward so to speak, has
i nvoked hosti l ity on the part of many activists, i t is al so t rue that
the general i deology-on which hi s speech was based, one rooted
i n a basic i dealist and metaphysical world outlook, is still wide
spread i n the U. S. today i ncl udi ng among those active in struggle
against various aspects of i mperiali sm, and that in particular, the
spi ri tuali sm of the "revenger of Mother Earth" and the romanti-
Searching For A Second Harvest 43
ci zed not i on of an earlier, pre-i ndustri al ti me i s a wi del y held
vi ewpoi nt among those active in the struggle agai nst the oppres
si on of Native Americans. In other words, many of both the
part icul ar and general i deas Means put s forward are shared by
many who are friends and allies i n t he revol uti onary fight. Thi s is
inevitabl e and will be t rue up to, during and after a revol uti on, for
resi stance, struggle, and even revol uti ons do not come to t hi nk
j ust al i ke. People are drawn i nto s truggle and revol uti on out of
many different necessities and with many di fferent i deas i n thei r
heads. But at the same ti me, revol uti onary struggle wi l l cease to
go forward at some poi nt and will ulti mately fail. if the gui di ng
i deology of the struggle does not consi st of-and i n t he case of
this hi stori cal epoch, thi s means Marxism-the most advanced
and sci enti fic ideas available and i f this i deol ogy doesn' t i ncreas
ingly become the property of the masses of people themselves.
Therefore, first, we recognize a clear and sharp di fference
between friends and enemi es-between those who may have
confused or backward i deas but fight agai nst i mperi al i sm on the
one hand, and those who are tryi ng t o use reacti onary i deas to
derai l the fight and l ead it i n a counter-revol uti onary directi on,
on the other. And second, we struggle agai nst the i ncorrect ideas
t hat confuse and mislead people.
Speci fi cal l y, i n thi s case we must tal k about both a sci entific
world vi ew in general and about a correct understandi ng of the
hi st ory of American I ndi ans i n parti cul ar. The struggle for a
sci entific understandi ng of the hi stori cal devel opment and pres
ent si tuati on of Native Americans i s an i mportant task, but not
because I ndi ans are somehow i nnatel y superi or t o other peopl e,
as Means would have us bel ieve. It i s because such an understand
i ng is an i mportant prerequi site for the correct programme of the
proletari an revol uti on i n thi s country, and wi l l al so make great
contri buti ons to man's understandi ng of the overall devel opment
of society. Actually, one of the big probl ems i nvolved i n such an
undertaki ng is that the vast maj ori ty of the studies done so far
have been colored by the bourgeoi s prejUdices and vi ewpoi nts of
many anthropologists-ideas whi ch in essence are little di fferent
from t hose of Russel l Means. For exampl e, the rampant i deal i sm
of Means' theori es abounds i n numerous studi es of Indi an cul tu
ral forms, separated off from and in fact raised above the devel
opment of the productive forces of the period being discussed.
44 Marxism and Native Americans
This is also true of bourgeois anthropologists. (Incidentally, t his
state of affai rs wi l l itself be transformed one day. It is truly
i nspiring to consi der the fact that once the proletariat has sei zed
power and ended t he bourgeoisies' monopoly over much of the
knowledge of man's devel opment, the cl ass conscious proletariat
will be able t o unite with American I ndians to discover the actual
process of devel opment. Such di scoveries are impossible under
the rul e of the bourgeoisie, whi ch asi de from i ts overall metaphys
ical and idealist viewpoi nt al so has the particular necessity of
j ust ifying i ts conti nui ng nati onal oppressi on of Native Amer
icans. )
Sti l l , there i s much that has al ready been proven whi ch i s
useful today. We know, for exampl e, that at the ti me of the first
l asti ng European contacts i n t he 1 500s the Native American
populati on of what i s now t he U. S. was made up of a wide
di versity of tribes, some of which were mainly nomadic hunters
and gatherers, whil e others were more agricultural and many
relied on a combi nati on of the two for their subsistence. Gener
ally speaking, while there existed the beginni ngs of class divi si ons
among some tri bes, notabl y in the southeastern part of the U. S. ,
overwhel mi ngly devel opment had not gone beyond the upper
stages of pri mitive communal i st-that is, the i nitial stage of
human society pri or to the devel opment of classes and private
property. The low level of the productive forces meant that
people lived at a subsistence level characterized by scarcity: there
was no surpl us t o al l ow for the exi stence of a class that lived off
the l abor of others or for private ownershi p of the means of
production. People were obliged t o work together to avoid star
vation or attack from ani mals and neighboring tribes.
Further, the level of society existing at that time was itself a
product of devel opment from earl ier times. The fi rst Native
Americans were not real ly "native" at all , but came to this conti
nent from Asia, most likely across a land bridge that formerly
connected Al aska and Si beria. Archeological findi ngs have
shown that by about 1 0, 000 B. C. at the end of the Pleistocene
Period (also known as the ice age) man in t his hemisphere was
primarily a big game hunter, travel i ng i n small bands and killing
ani mal s like the mammoth and bi son antiques for his food.
Perhaps the fact t hat these ani mal s no l onger exi st explains
Searchi ng For A Second Harvest 45
Means' rel uctance t o ci te t hi s part i cul ar pre-tri bal peri od as part
of t he "tradi ti onal" ways he clai ms t o want t o ret urn t o; anyone
who depended on t he mammot h for food t oday woul d be i n bi g
t roubl e. I n any case, earl y man' s s upposed "natural harmony
wi th al l rel at ed t hi ngs" di d not prevent hi m from unconsci ousl y
cont ri but i ng to t he disappearance of those ani mal s wi t h such
i nefi ci ent s laughteri ng methods as t he jumpki-wi th t his
met hod a band of hunters armed onl y wi t h spears woul d sur
round a herd of t hese much larger ani mal s and dri ve t hem off a
cl i ff to t hei r death. (And here, where t hi s soci ety was abl e to
create a-momentary-surpl us val ue above subsi stence needs, i t
couldn' t be used and most of t he meat had t o be left t o rot . )
Anot her way of l ife was devel opi ng as t he big game hunti ng
peri od was comi ng t o a cl ose-bands of hunters and gatherers
movi ng around di fferent regi ons, wi th somewhat different levels
of subsi stence based on the amount of smal l game and natural
vegetat i on in the area. Thi s was still marked by ext reme scarcity.
Perhaps Means would l ike t o be t ransported back some 7, 000
years t o t he days of t he desert bands of t he great basi n of Nevada
and western Utah t o l i ve i n t he ways of "the ancest ors" of t hat
peri od. Ant hropol gi sts recentl y exami ned a cave i n t he area and
t he resul ts of thei r fi ndi ngs were s ummed up i n t he New York
Times on Tuesday, August 1 2: "I n one of t he mi ddens ( refuse
heaps) t he sci enti sts found large deposi ts of coprol i tes, desicated
human feces. Si nce i t seemed st range t hat t he anci ent people
woul d use a storage cave as a l atri ne, Dr. Thomas sai d, i t i s
possi bl e t hat the feces were stored t here for what archeol ogi sts
call t he ' second harvest . ' Other pri miti ve peopl e were known to
have s aved t hei r feces so t hat , i n t i me of fami ne, t hey coul d
ext ract undigested seeds and other products for food. Anal ysi s of
the coprol i tes showed t hat the heads of cattai l s and ot her marsh
pl ants were a substanti al part of the l akesi de people's di et. "
And whi l e we are on t he subject of t he supposed gl ori es of
earl i er t i mes, we wonder i f Means woul d advocate a return to a
part of the t ribal tradi ti ons of t he Chi ppewyans of Canada, who
on occasi on al l owed t hei r femal e i nfant s t o die -a practi ce
vi ewed by some of t he adult women as a ki ndness. Women were
beaten frequentl y, and al t hough i t was a cri me t o ki l l a Chi ppe
wyan man, a husband was permi tted t o beat hi s wi fe to death wi th
no punishment at al l . The poi nt here i s not t o l apse i nt o some
46 Marxism and Native Americans
ridicul ous argument that peopl e now are better than peopl e
then, or that one area of t he worl d produced better peopl e than
another-after all , most Europeans (themselves not i ndigenous)
went t hrough si mi lar stages of devel opment. (In the case of the
questi on of treatment of women, t he stage of devel opment sti l l
exi sts to a great degree. ) The poi nt i s to understand what is at the
basis of the devel opment of soci ety and on what society i tsel f i s
based.
As Marx put it in the course of a polemi c against Proudhon
(who has several poi nts i n common wi th Means) describing how
the struggle of man agai nst nature determi nes the overall course
of human hi st ory: "what he has not understood i s that these
defi ni te soci al rel ati ons are j ust as much produced by men as
l i nen, fax, et c. Social relati ons are cl osel y bound up wi t h produc
tive forces. I n acqui ri ng new productive forces men change t hei r
mode of producti on; and i n changi ng thei r mode of product i on,
i n changi ng thei r way of earni ng thei r l i vi ng, t hey change al l thei r
soci al relat i ons i n conformity wi th thei r materi al producti vi ty,
produce al so pri nci pl es, i deas and categori es, i n conformity wi th
thei r social relati ons. " ( The Poverty of Philosophy, p. 1 09. )
Contrast t his analysis of the development of society wi th
Means' i dealist chi l di sh attempts to demoli sh Marxi st materi al
i sm by vulgarly termi ng it "gai ni ng. " Marxist material i sm, says
Means, i s somet hi ng "(seen by) American I ndians . . . as sti l l more
of t hat same ol d European confl i ct between being and gai ni ng . . .
being i s spi ri tual proposi ti on. Gai ni ng i s a material act . Tradi
ti onal l y Ameri can I ndi ans have al ways attempted to be the best
peopl e they coul d. Part of that spi ri tual process was and is to give
away weal th, to discard weal t h in order not to gai n. Material gai r,
is an i ndicator of false status among tradi ti onal people while it is
' proof the system works' to Europeans. Clearly, there are two
cumpletely opposi ng views at i ssue here, and Marxi sm i s very far
over to the other si de of t he Ameri can I ndi an vi ew. "
Where, even i n the most pri mi ti ve society that Means coul d
i nvoke, is it not true t hat society's basi s is the procurement
("gai ni ng") of the means of s ubsi stence? Certai nly not i n t he
previ ous exampl e ci ted, whose "tradi ti onal way" somehow gets
l eft out of the "bei ng vs. gai ni ng" fantasy. And beyond t hi s,
society i s constantl y i n mot i on-nothi ng i n Means' maternal
Searching For A Second Harvest 47
friend nature, including mankind, i s unchangeable. The produc
t ive forces develop as a result of the struggle of man against
nature-and this is independent of anyone's subjective desires.
The Hopi tribe, whose "traditional ways" Means continually
upholds as an example of the type of society to which we all
should return, have themselves gone through this process of
development, attaining higher levels of production of the necessi
ti es of life with new developments in the productive forces. Their
ancestors hunted deer and mountain sheep by throwing wood
and later spears; they lived in caves and rock shelters. With the
i nventi on of both the bow and arrow and certain agricultural
i mplements, t heir society advanced to a higher level . There was
now more certai nty of meat and produce in t heir diet. The
formation of village communities devel oped where maize and
beans were cultivated. The later i nventi on of the hoe led to
greater domesticati on of plant l ife, including cotton (which now
resulted i n new apparel) and a much more complex, mainly
agricultural society. Clearly, there was a great deal of "gaining"
goi ng on here.
Means' claim that Indians gave away wealth, "in order not to
gain," while t rue within many communal , that is classless tri bes,
certainly doesn't apply to relati ons between tribes. He conve
ni entl y i gnores the numerous nomadi c tribes t hat went to war
with each other over the "richest" hunting areas, as well as those
that raided the agricultural settlements of others for their pro
duce and i mplements. It is qui te true that primitive communalism
was very egalitari an-and it i s j ust such equality, of classlesness,
that communism of the future will reproduce, but on a much
higher and qualtatively diferent level. For i n primitive society
thi s equality is quite restricted both in the sense that it applies
only within each tribe, and i n the sense t hat it i s based on a very
restricted level of material-productive development. And be
cause of these facts, it also restricted human development. In
order to move beyond this level, i t was necessary to negate
equality, to move through an epoch of class society, with all its
brutal oppression, i n order to devel op the productive forces of
humanity and make possible a far higher equality. As Engels
explains in Anti- Duhring, in a passage which is worth quoting at
s ome length:
48 Marxi sm and Native Americans
The di vi si on of s oci ety into an expl oi ti ng and an explo
ited class, a rul i ng and an oppressed class, was the
necessary outcome of the l ow development of produc
ti on hi therto. So l ong as the sum of social l abor yielded
a product which onl y sli ghtly exceeded what was neces
sary for the bare exi stence of al l ; so l ong, therefore, as
all or al most al l the ti me of the great majority of the
members of society was absorbed i n labor, so long was
society necessarily divi ded into classes. Al ongside of
thi s great maj ority exclusively absorbed i n labor there
developed a class, freed from di rect productive labor,
whi ch managed the general busi ness of society; the
di recti on of labor, affai rs of state, justi ce, science, art,
and so forth. It is therefore the law of the division of
l abor whi ch l i es at the root of t he divi si on i nto classes.
But thi s does not mean t hat thi s di vi si on i nto classes
was not establi shed by vi olence and robbery, by decep
ti on and fraud, or t hat the rul i ng class, once in the
saddl e, has ever fai led to strengthen its domination at
the cost of the worki ng class and to convert its social
management i nto the exploitati on of the masses.
But i f, on these grounds, the di vi si on i nto classes has a
certai n historical justi ficati on, it has t his only for a
given peri od of ti me, for given soci al condi ti ons. It was
based on the i nsufci ency of producti on; it will be
swept away by the full devel opment of the modern
productive forces. And in fact the aboli ti on of social
classes has as i ts presupposi ti on a stage of hi stori cal
development at whi ch the exi stence not merely of some
particular ruli ng cl ass or other but of any ruling class at
all, that is to say, of class di ference itself, has become
an anachroni sm, is out of date. It t herefore presupposes
that the devel opment of producti on and of products,
and with these, of pol itical supremacy, the monopoly of
educati on and i ntellectual leadershi p by a special class
of s ociety, has become not onl y superfuous but also
economically, pol iti cal ly and i ntellectually a hi ndrance
to development.
Searchi ng For A Second Harvest 49
Thi s poi nt has now been reached. Thei r pol i ti cal and
i nt el l ectual bankrupt cy i s hardl y sti l l a secret to the
bourgeoi si e t hemsel ves, and t hei r economi c bank
ruptcy recurs regul arl y every ten years. In each cri si s
soci ety i s smothered under the wei ght of i ts own pro
duct ive forces and products of whi ch i t can make no
use, and stands hel pl ess i n t he face of t he absurd con
tradi cti on t hat the producers have not hi ng to consume
because there are no consumers. The expandi ng force
of the means of producti on bursts asunder the bonds
i mposed upon t hem by the capi tal i st mode of produc
t i on. Their rel ease from these bonds is t he sole condi
t i on necessary for an unbroken and const antl y more
rapi dl y progressi ng devel opment of t he productive for
ces , and therewi th of a practi cal l y l i mi tl ess growth of
production i tself. Nor i s t hi s al l . The appropri at i on of
soci ety of the means of product i on puts an end not only
to t he arti fi ci al rest rai nts on product i on whi ch exi st
t oday, but al so to the posi ti ve waste and destructi on of
producti ve forces and products whi ch i s now t he i nevit
able accompani ment of product i on and reaches i t s
zeni t h i n cri ses. Further, i t sets free for soci ety as a
whole a mass of means of product i on and products by
putti ng an end t o the sensel ess l uxury and extravagance
of t he present rul i ng class and i ts pol i ti cal representa
t i ves. The possi bi l i ty of securi ng for every member of
soci ety, through soci al product i on, an exi stence whi ch
i s not only ful l y suffi ci ent from a materi al st andpoi nt
and becomi ng ri cher from day t o day, but al so guaran
tees to t hem the completely unrestri cted devel opment
and exercise of t hei r physical and mental facul ti es -thi s
possi bil i ty now exi sts for t he fi rst ti me, but i t does exist.
Engel s conti nues wi t h a discussi on of the fut ure communi st
s ociety:
The sei zure of the means of prod uct i on by s oci ety puts
an end to commodi ty product i on, and t herewi t h to the
domi nat ion of the product over the producer. Anarchy
50 Marxism and Native Americans
in social producti on is replaced by conscious organiza
tion on a pl anned basis. The struggle for i ndividual
existence comes to n end. And at this point, i n a certain
sense, man fi nal l y cuts hi mself off from the ani mal
world, leaves the condi ti on of ani mal existence behind
hi m and enters condi ti ons whi ch are real l y human. The
conditions of exi stence formi ng man' s environment,
which up to now have domi nated man, who now for the
fi rst time becomes t he real consci ous master of nature,
because and i n so far as he has become master of hi s
own social organi zati on. The laws of hi s own social
activity, which have hi thert o confronted him as exter
nal , domi nated laws of nature, wi l l t hen be applied by
man with complete understandi ng, and hence will be
domi nated by man. Men's own social organizati on
which has hi t herto stood i n opposi ti on to them as i f
arbitrarily decreed by nature and hi st ory, will then
become the vol untary act of men t hemselves. The objec
tive, external forces whi ch have hitherto domi nated
history, will then pass under the control of men t hem
selves. It is only from this point that men, with full
consciousness, wi l l fashi on their own hi story; it is onl y
from thi s poi nt t hat the s ocial causes set in moti on by
men will have, predominantl y and in constantly i ncreas
ing measure, the effects willed by men. It is humani ty'S
leap from the real m of necessity into the real m of
freedom.
To carry through thi s world-emancipating act is the
historical missi on of the modern proletariat. And it is
the task of scientific s ocial ism, the theoreti cal expres
si on of the proletarian movement, to establi sh the his
torical condi ti ons and, wi th these, the nature of thi s act,
and thus to bri ng to the consci ousness of the now
oppressed cl ass the condi ti ons and nature of the act
which it is its destiny to accompl ish.
At this point i n hi story, when the leap of mankind i nt o the
real m of freedom is act ual ly on the horizon, to preach i nstead the
necessity for a "second harvest" of primi tive l i fe is an expression
either of despair or of counter-revol uti on and reacti on.
Searchi ng For A Second Harvest 5 1
Wi th Means, i t comes down more t o reacti on. Here he i s
ext ol l i ng pri mitiveness and t el l i ng how I ndians l i ke t o gi ve away
t hei r mat erial goods -whi ch fi ts i n pretty wel l with the ol d capi
t al ist tradi ti on of steal i ng from t he I ndi ans al l t hey have and
forci ng t hem t o l i ve i n abject poverty.
Of course, Means mi ght argue that hi s mai n beef i s agai nst
machi nery and i ndust ry, t hat machi nes pol l ute the water, t hat
machi nes wi l l destroy t he worl d, etc. But really i sn' t t hi s more
t han a l i ttle pragmatic, a "theory" based on t he appearance of
t hi ngs and not t hei r essence? Woul d Means argue, t o take a
not able example from t he hi st ory of t he capi tal i sts' oppressi on of
I ndians, that i nstead of bl ami ng the U. S. government for i nten
t i onal l y i nfesti ng bl ankets sol d t o t he I ndians wi t h smal l pox
vi rus, t hat one shoul d i nstead bl ame the blankets for t he deaths
caused by the di sease?
There was, i n the devel opment of capi tal i sm, a peri od in
whi ch the class struggle between workers and capi tal i sts focused
o n the i ntroducti on of machi nery. When new machi nes were
introduced, vast numbers of people were thrown out of work, and
as a means of gai ni ng back thei r j obs, l arge crowds woul d destroy
the machi nery. The machi nes, on the other hand, were often
consci ously i ntroduced by the capi tal i sts as a means of repressi ng
st ri kes. Marx, i n recount i ng thi s hi st orical peri od, remarks, "It
t ook bot h ti me and experi ence before t he workpeople l earnt to
di sti ngui sh between machi nery and i t s empl oyment by capi tal ,
and to di rect t hei r attacks, not agai nst the material i nstruments of
producti on, but agai nst the mode i n whi ch t hey were used. "
( Capital. Vol . I , page 429).
Here as elsewhere, we see a senti ment or i dea whi ch once had
s ome hi st orical j usti fi cati on, but whi ch has l ong si nce been by
passed-and whi ch Means now proposes to raise to a pri nci pl e!
What he cannot and wi l l not understand is s omet hi ng Engels
poi nted out over 1 00 years ago (to quote agai n from Anti
Duhring) :
The forces operati ng i n soci ety work exactl y l i ke the
forces operati ng i n nat ure-bl i ndl y, vi ol entl y, destruc
ti vel y, s o l ong as we do not underst and t hem and fail t o
t ake t hem i nto account . But when once we have recog
nized t hem and understood how t hey work. t hei r di rec-
52 Marxism and Native Americans
tion and their effects, the gradual subjecti on of them to
our wi l l an
d
t he use of t hem for the attainment of our
ai ms depend enti rely upon ourselves. And this is quite
especi al l y true of the mighty productive forces of the
present day. So l ong as we obsti nately refuse to under
stand thei r nature and t hei r character-and t he capital
i st mode of producti on and i ts defenders set t hemselves
agai nst any such attempt -so l ong do these forces
operate in spi te of us, agai nst us, and so l ong do t hey
control us, as we have shown in detai l . But once t hei r
nature i s grasped, i n the hands of the producers work
ing in associ ation they can be transformed from demon
like masters into wi l l ing servants. It is the difference
between the destructive force of electricity in the light
eni ng of a thunderstorm and t he tamed electricity of the
telegraph and the arc l i ght; the difference between a
confagrati on and fi re in the service of man. This treat
ment of the producti ve forces of t he present day, on the
basis of thei r real nature at l ast recognized by society,
opens the way to the replacement of the anarchy of
social producti on by t he socially pl anned regulati on of
product i on i n accordance with the needs both of society
as a whol e and of each i ndividual . The capi tal ist mode
of appropriati on, in which the product enslaves first the
producer and then al so the appropriator, wi l l thereby
be replaced by the mode of appropri ati on of the prod
ucts based on the nature of the modern means of pro
ducti on themselves; on t he one hand di rect social
appropri ati on as a means to the maintenance and
extensi on of producti on, and on the other hand di rect
i ndivi dual appropri at i on as a means to l i fe and
pl easure.
Russel l Means bi l ls hi mself as the exponent of nature and
the natural, but i n fact he never strays outside t he bounds of
capitalism and bourgeoi s i deol ogy. As we saw above, the roman
ti c l onging for the supposed si mpl er and nobl er l i fe of pri mi tive
man is a product and an expressi on of capitalist social relations,
as is the view that hi story wi l l never advance beyond capitalism.
As Marx sums this up: "It i s as ri di cul ous to yearn for a return to
Searchi ng For A Second Harvest 53
t hat ori gi nal ful l ness as i t i s t o bel ieve that with t hi s complete
e mpti ness hi story has come to a standsti l l . The bourgeoi s vi ew
poi nt has never advanced beyond thi s anti thesi s between i tself
and thi s romanti c vi ewpoi nt , and t herefore t he l at t er wi l l accom
pany i t as l egi ti mate anti thesi s up to its blessed end. " ( Grundrisse,
p. 1 62, )
Wel l , i f Russel l Means wi shes to return t o the days of t he
"second harvest" -ei ther economi cal l y or pol i ti cal l y or bot h -he
i s free to do so; i n fact, we are qui te wi l l i ng to help him i n his
quest. We ony plead t hat he not t ake everyone el se al ong wi th
hi m, Hi s "bei ng" i s a head-l ong fl i ght i nt o fantasy over real i ty,
s pi ri t over nature, i deas over matter-al l wi th t he end resul t of
keepi ng man perpetual l y hel pl ess before forces he woul d obsti
natel y have us refuse to understand or control . His i deal i sm
remi nds us of an i nci dent whi ch took pl ace i n a college cl assroom
i n t he earl y ' 70s. A professor, i deol ogical l y i n t he same camp as
Means, theorized that even i f one coul d not swi m, but one
thought one coul d swi m, t hen one coul d swi m. A rebel l i ous
Chi cano student rai sed t he poi nt i n t he di scuss i on: "Wel l , I had a
fri end who reasoned t he same way. So one day he wal ked to the
end of a pi er and j umped i n t he ocean-even though he coul dn' t
s wi m, " The professor anxi ousl y asked, "Yes, and then what
happened?" Anti ci pati ng the professor's schol arl y (and fool i sh)
i nqui ry, the student moved i n for t he ki l l : "The damn fool
drowned t o death, what t he hel l do you t hi nk happened?"
I n t he i nterest of stayi ng afl oat , professor Means, we woul d
hasten to inform you that even the religious i deas oft he Ameri
can I ndi ans, whi ch have themsel ves undergone a great deal of
change and devel opment wi th the corres pondi ng changes i n
I ndi an materi al real i ty, have a materi al basi s whi ch can be
expl ai ned by appl yi ng Marxi sm. Li ke t he rest of t he superstruc
t ure of any society, they corres pond to that s oci ety' s materi al
devel opment. I n parti cul ar, si nce t he I ndi an peopl e were so much
at the mercy of t he forces of nat ure for t hei r s urvi val , it was
t hought t hat these forces commanded supernat ural powers.
However, the rel i gi ous ceremonies and customs vari ed dependi ng
upon the manne'r i n whi ch t hey gai ned thei r s ubsi stence. The
Hopi , for example, bei ng an agri cul t ural t ri be l i vi ng i n t he semi
ari d envi rons of t he Sout hwest , hel d a rel i gi ous bel i ef that after
peopl e died, t hey t urned i nto cl ouds whi ch brought rai n t o
54 Marxi sm and Native Ameri cans
i rri gate the crops. The fi s hermen of t he Nort hwest, on t he ot her
hand, put great st ress on prayi ng t o Sea Spi ri t s t o bri ng t hem an
abundance of fi s h, and t he nomadi c hunters devel oped cere
monies around gai ni ng s t rengt h for t he hunt or t o do battle wi t h
ot her t ri bes. But more to t he poi nt of Means' part icul ar
argument , even t he "revenge of Mot her Earth" phi l osophy he
promotes i s a fai rl y recent devel opment i n the rel i gi on of many
tri bes i n the U. S. , havi ng been adopted after the conquest and
s ubsequent oppressi on by t he forces of capi tal i sm, as t he I ndi ans
saw t he worl d -as t hey had known i t -bei ng dest royed by t he
i nvaders. The use of t he mess i ah who had come back to save
t hose who were not l ost aft er t he apocal ypse was, i n many cases,
borrowed from t he Chri st i ani t y of the Europeans.
Communi sts are opposed t o t he whol e i dea of spirits but not
t o t he spi ri t , i f t hi s i s underst ood t o mean the advanci ng
consci ousness of manki nd, based on t he materi al worl d. I n fact.
we even wri te about i t i n our s ongs: " . . . To make t he t hi ef
di sgorge hi s booty, t o free t he s pi ri t from i ts cel l . . . " goes t he
famous l i neJrom t he Internationale. But t hi s is t he opposi t e of
what Means i s tal ki ng about . We understand t hat i t i s onl y by
correct l y graspi ng the obj ecti ve l aws of nat ure and soci ety,
and t hereby bei ng abl e t o change t he materi al worl d, t hat
man' s "s pi ri t" i s t rul y unl eashed -j ust t hi nk of t he great di ffer
ence if t he woul d- be swi mmer i n t he st ory t ol d above had
merel y done a l i tt l e i nvest igat i on i nto how to avoi d s i nki ng t o
t he bott om l i ke a stone. But Means woul d condemn us al l t o a
"bei ng"-i n fact a "drowni ng"-of backwardness, i gnorance,
and servi l i ty t o t he bourgeoi si e and -despi te protestat i ons to t he
cont rary-t o product i ve rel at i ons characteri sti c of i ts rul e. No
t hanks. Russel l ! We' l l t ake communi s m and t he el i mi nat i on of
cl asses al toget her. )
As wi t h rel i gi on, s o wi th other as pects of t he cul t ures of t he
Ameri can I ndi ans -not onl y was it a hi storical creati on, but
many as pects whi ch have come d own as "tradi t i onal " were
created out of the hi st ori cal confl i ct between capital i st expansi on
and the pri mi t i ve communal soci ety of t he I ndi ans.
I n fact, t he tri bes t hat were most s uccessful i n res i sti ng and
del ayi ng t hei r event ual defeat, l i ke t he Lakota t ri be of whi ch
Means i s a member, were t hose that adopted the more advanced
Searchi ng For A Second Harvest 55
technol ogy of t he i nvader. Actual l y, t he enti re Lakota way of l i fe
was condi ti oned by European contact. Origi nal ly, t he tri be had
been semi-sedentary farmers in what i s now Mi nnesota. They
were attacked by Canadi an t ri bes l i ke t he Cree and Oj i bwa who
had got t en guns from French t raders, forci ng t hem westward i nt o
t he Great Pl ai ns. There t hey fi rst came i nt o contact wi t h horses
which had been brought to the western hemi sphere by the early
Spani sh col onists and subsequentl y sl owl y s pread northward.
(The i ndi genous horse had become exti nct at t he same t i me as t he
mammot h and bi g bi son. ) They qui ckl y became known among
al l t he tri bes of the Great Pl ai ns as t he fi nest buffal o hunters and
warri ors i n t he area. When t hey recogni zed t hat t hei r bows and
arrows were no match for the U. S. Caval ry's more advanced
weaponry, t hey began to conduct rai ds t o obt ai n the more
modern weapons. They adopted the method of fight i ng i nvol vi ng
a fi eld commander gi vi ng tacti cal di rect i on t o t he troops, as
opposed t o t hei r "tradi t i onal " way of every man for hi msel f that
t hey had used i n thei r previ ous fi ghts wi th ot her tri bes. I n thi s
way, t hey were abl e t o i nfl i ct s ome of the most devastati ng
. defeats, i f only temporary ones, on the westward expansi on of t he
U. S. capi tal i sts.
General l y speaki ng, al l t he t ri bes t hat exi sted adopted
as pects of t he i nvaders i nt o t hei r cul t ure, or t hey were t ot al l y
wi ped out . The Navaj os t ook not onl y horses and guns, but al so
devel oped t hei r "tradi ti onal " sheepherdi ng cul t ure by rai di ng
Spani sh settl ements for sheep. The Hopi expanded thei r agricul
t ural compl ex many t i mes over by addi ng domesti cated pl ant
strai ns from both t he Spani sh and t he Ameri cans.
Of course, not onl y was much of what i s today consi dered
"tradi t i onal " I ndi an cul ture a product of t he cl ash of pri mi t ive
communal s ociety wi th capi tal i st expansi on, but that cul t ure was
al so then suppressed by the i nexorabl e capi tal i st drive for total
s upremacy. I n addit i on, genoci de through disease and massacre
reduced the I ndi an popul ati on from 1 0 mi l l i on to 500, 000 i n t he
area nort h of Mexi co wi thi n 300 years. As capi t al i sm expanded
westward, t reaties were signed only t o be broken a few years later,
and I ndi ans were repeatedl y forced ont o concentrati on camps
cal l ed "reservati ons, " onl y t o be moved once agai n i f val uabl e
mi neral s were found, where t he l and was potenti al l y productive
for agri cul ture or where the railroad needed the ri ght of way. As
56 Marxism and Native Americans
capi tali sm consol i dated i ts victory over Native Americans, laws
were passed mandati ng "forced assimi l ati on" and I ndian lands
were broken up i nto s mal l er parcel s to open them up for
settlement . At one poi nt, I ndian l ands were given to Chri sti an
mi ssi onaries to exerci se trusteeshi p over them, while bringing
"rel i gi on to the heathens. " Of course, there was always fierce
resistance to this repressi on and particularly to the attempts to
make the I ndi an tri bes di sappear. In fact, the resistance was so
fierce t hat by 1 934 t he i mperiali sts amended thei r " forced
assi mi l ati on" schemes. They passed the I ndian Reorganizati on
Act, setti ng up t hei r own puppet tri bal counci l s under the
di recti on of the Bureau of I ndi an Affai rs to facilitate the
conti nued armed robbery of Indi an land-a robbery that i s
i ntensi fyi ng today wi th tri bal counci l sancti ons, such as that
ofered by Navaj o tri bal chai rman Peter McDonal d. At the same
ti me, pol iti cal repressi on and outri ght murder is offered to al l
those who dare to resi st.
A hi story of brutal oppressi on; a hi story of attempted
genoci de. I n the face of t his i mperi ali st attempt to wipe I ndi ans
off the face of the earth t here has been resistance, rebel l i on, and
reaffi rmati on by Nati ve Ameri cans of thei r own culture agai nst
the onsl aught of i mperi al i sm. As we've seen, Indi an tradi ti ons are
not capabl e of gui di ng the struggle on the path to real l i berat i on,
even t hough they have played a part i n providi ng a "cult ure of
resi stance" i n the I ndi an movement. But in Means' hands t his
cul ture of resi stance turns i nto i ts opposite-i nto a theory of
capi tul ati on. From a fight agai nst capi tal i sm and i mperialis m, he
t ries to turn i t into a fi ght agai nst the future. He reiterates : "I do
not believe that capi tal i sm itself i s really responsi ble for the
si tuati on i n which we have been decl ared a national sacrifice. No,
i t i s the European t radit i on; the European culture itself is
responsi ble. Marxis m i s j ust the latest conti nuati on of this
tradi ti on, not a sol uti on to i t. To al l y wi th Marxism is to ally with
the very same forces which decl are us an acceptable cost . .. But
we thi nk i n the fi nal anal ysi s t hat you do understand the
di fference bet ween capi tal i sm and Marxi sm, between the revolu
ti onary science of the worki ng class and the react i onary theories
of its enemy. The poi nt i s t hat you have adopted a reacti onary
theory yourself-the i deal i st and metaphysical theory of the
bourgeoisi e!
Searching For A Second Harvest 57
There i s only one final charge made by Means in his speech
to which we must respond. "Look beneath t he surface of
revolut ionary Marxism and what do you f ind? . . . a commi tment
to guaranteeing the Lakota and other American I ndian people
real control over the land and resource t hey have left? No, not
unless the i ndust rial process is to be reversed as part of their
doctrine. A commitment to our rights, as peoples, to maintaining
our val ues and traditions? No, not as long as they need the
uranium wi t hi n our land to seize the industrial system of this
society, the cul ture of which the Marxists are still a part. "
For the position of the proletariat on thi s matter-once it
has seized power-we will let the draft of the New Programme
and New Constitution of the Revolutionary Communist Party
speak for itself:
. . . (Native Americans) have been repeatedly forced off
their land into concentration camps which are euphem
istically called 'reservations. ' In un-doing this long
standing atroci ty the proletariat will, t hrough consul
tation wi t h the masses of the I ndian peoples, establish
large areas of land where they can live and work and
wi ll provide special assistance to the Indian peoples in
developi ng these areas. Here autonomy wi ll be the
policy of the proletarian state-the various I ndian
peoples will have the right to self-government within
the larger socialist state, under certain overall guiding
principles. The overall guiding principles referred to are
that practices and customs must tend to promote
equality, not i nequality, unity not division, between
different peoples, and eliminate not foster, exploitation.
The I ndian peoples themselves will be mobi li zed and
relied on to struggle through and enforce these prin
ciples. This will mean that policies related to local
affairs as well as customs, culture and language will be
under autonomous control, while at the same time the
I ndian peoples will be encouraged as well to take a full
part in the overall affairs of society as a whole. Local
customs and practi ces-such as medi ci ne . . . will be
studied for those aspects that have an underlying
scientific content and t hese aspects will be promoted
and appl ied generally by t he proletariat . . .
58 Marxism and Native Americans
This wi l l not be done because the prol etari at has t he
i mpossi bl e and undesi rabl e dream of goi ng backward i n ti me, but
rat her because i t i s a cruci al part of movi ng forward t o cl ass l ess
s oci ety .
. . . I n parti cul ar, t hi s wi l l most defi ni tel y not be a new
chapter in the hi st ory of oppressi on of t he I ndi an
peoples - forci ng t hem ont o reservat i ons and treati ng
them l i ke speci al ' wards of the state' when t hey move
off them. I nstead t he new prol etari an state, whi l e
favori ng and encouragi ng uni ty and i nt egrat i on, wi l l
ensure t hese formerl y oppressed peopl es' ri ght to
aut onomy as part of a pol i cy of promot i ng real
equal i t y bet ween nat i ons and peopl es. ( New DraJi
Program and New Constitution, Drafs for Di suss i on,
pp. 62-63. )
Thi s great hi stori cal advance can onl y come about t hrough
t he overt hrow of t he exi st i ng soci al order and the establ i s hment
of t he di ctatorshi p of the prol etari at-a peri od st i l l marked by
t he exi stence of cl asses and cl ass st ruggle, but wi t h one i mportant
disti ncti on from previ ous revol ut i ons. The proletariat , t he cl ass
whose ul ti mate goal i s t he el i mi nati on of al l cl asses i ncl udi ng
i tsel f, hol ds the rei ns of state power and exerci ses t hat power t o
consci ousl y wage t he st ruggl e for t he attai nment of cl assl ess
soci ety. It i s i nevi tabl e that thi s revol ut i on wi l l take pl ace, and
furt her t hat humani t y wi l l move beyond it t o that new era where
al l manki nd consci ousl y grasps and appl ies the l aws of natu re t o
cont i nuousl y t ransform i t i n t he i nt erest of manki nd. But unt i l
t hat occurs, and the ul t i mate basi s for t he expl oi tati on of man by
man i s el i mi nated, t here will also inevitably be t hose-l i ke
Russell Means-who jump out t o oppose t he revol uti onary
forward march of hi st ory under t he s ignboard of a ret rograde
retreat i nto the past -and whose "theories" are worth less t han
t hose speci mens of the crop of t he "second harvest" di scovered i n
t he Nevada desert.
3
The Same Old Song In Sad Refrain
Ward Churchil with Dora-Lee Larson
The offi ci al response of the Revol ut i onary Communi st
Part y, USA to Russel l Means' state ment on Marxi sm at t he
Bl ack Hi l l s Survi val Gatheri ng i nduces a react i on of appal l ed
consternat i on and sheer del i ght, i n roughl y equal proporti ons.
The RCP p osi ti on is distressi ng not onl y for i ts seemi ngly wi l l ful
ignorance, but al s o for i t s obvi ousl y consci ous di storti on of
known real i ties. On the other hand, it i s perversely pl easurabl e t o
note that i t coul d hardl y have gone further i n rei nforci ng vi rt uall y
every poi nt posi ted by Means, even i f Russel l had drafted t he
Party paper hi msel f.
The aut hors fi rst felt it most appropri ate t hat a res ponse be
made di rectl y by Means. Subsequent di scussi ons, however, made
it cl ear that he felt compel l ed t o devote hi s ti me and energy to
more pressi ng matters t han t he rhetori cal posturi ng of t he
"caucasi an left , " that nothi ng i n t he Rep pi ece ul ti mately raised
i ssues requi ri ng (for
'
hi s purposes) a t heoreti cal posi t i on di fferi ng
from t hose he'd al ready publ i cl y assumed, and as a resul t he was
more than wi l l i ng to si mpl y i gnore "those i di ot s. "
59
60 Marxism and Native Americans
From a purely American Indian Movement member's
pers pecti ve. Means' at t i t ude seems i ncontestabl y correct in thi s
i nstance. The aut hors, however, remai ned unconvi nced of the
propri ety of t hi s posi t i on beyond AI M. The Rep i s -for better
or worse-one of the more promi nently vocal and vi si bl e l eft
organi zati ons in t he cont emporary Uni ted States. As such, i t
attracts cert ai n attent i on t o i ts formal el aborati ons, attenti on
whi ch necessari ly t ranscends both i ts theoretical content and the
absol ut e numbers havi ng party members hi p. Marxi sts of other
t han Leni ni st j Maoi st persuasi on mi ght argue that such attenti on
i s both practi cal l y and i ntel l ectual l y unwarranted. Thi s i s per
haps true, but does not hi ng t o al t er t he fact that such attent i on is
nonethel ess pai d; i gnori ng t he Rep and si mi l arl y st ruct ured
Marxist- Leni ni st groups accompi i shes nothi ng in comi ng to
grips with t he cont ent of t hei r i mage or thei r abi l i ty t o popul arl y
proj ect i t, often t hrough medi a faci l i ti es unavai l abl e to more
t heoreti cal l y i mportant l eft confi gurat i ons.
Si mply di smi ssi ng t he Rep and ki ndred part i es of t he
Leni nist mol d as bei ng "ti ny, " "i rrel evant" and "i sol ated" wi thi n
the true fow of contemporary U. S. Marxism is an evasion of
consi derati ons of t hei r obvi ous l ongevi ty, cont i nui t y ( i n form, at
l east) , organi zat i onal coherence and publ i c vi si bi l i ty. Al ong wi th
the bourgeoi s medi a, al l t hese factors mi l i tate t o ident ify
sectari an dogma wi t h t he generi c term " Marxi sm" in t he popul ar
mi nd. I t seems i nevi tabl e, t herefore, t hat t hese dogmas must be
deal t wit h seri ously; no real al ternat ive appears for those who
woul d cl ai m the mant l e of Marxi sm i n terms other than t hose
prescri bed by Leni ni st doctri ne.
Thus, we have set out t o address the i ssues and distort i ons
rai sed by t he Rep i n "Searchi ng for the Second Harvest" in s ome
dept h and, i n pl aces, on a poi nt-by-poi nt basi s. Thi s is not done
from a Marxi st posi t i on, t hough i t is done wi th t he knowl edge
t hat the Marxi st paradi gm is hardl y l i mi ted to the Leni ni st
catechi sm. We al so wi sh t o make it cl ear t hat our wri t i ng does not
consti tute an offi ci al AI M res ponse, but rat her poi nts offered by
two peopl e who s hare in the AI M perspect ive and who wi sh to
offer a coherent analysi s to t hose desi ri ng to parti ci pate in a
consi dered forum, who seek to further t hei r underst andi ng of t he
rel at i onshi p of Marxi an t heory to Nat ive Ameri cans, and who
Same Ol d Song I n Sad Refrai n 6 1
wi s h t o reach a real i zat i on a s t o why Ma rxi s m ( t he Leni ni s t
versi on i n part icul ar) t ends t o be di s mi ssed rat her hars hl y by t he
I ndi an popul at i on.
Before p roceed i ng, however, we woul d l i ke t o observe t hat
i n certai n very i mport ant ways, a poi nt- by-poi nt refut at i on of t he
RCP a rgument i s i nsuffi ci ent i n count eri ng t hei r techni que. Thi s
i s beca use t he poi nt s t hey offe r are, i n t he end, secondary t o t he
real lat ure of t hei r at t ack. Fi rst , t hi s i s purel y i deol ogi cal i n t he
nar rowest poss i bl e sense, i . e. : "Does t he i ndi vi dual we are
cons i de ri ng subscri be, and s ubscri be i n every det ai l , t o our
i deol ogi cal post ure'?" Such quest i ons properl y bel ong t o grand
i nqui s i t ors rat her t han debat ers. I nqui s i t i on, however, i s pre
ci sel y t he pa rty' s s t ock- i n-t rade, and from t he part y vi ewpoi nt ,
e nt i rel y warrant ed. The part y i s by i t s own des cri pt i on t he sol e
agent of prol et ari an l i berat i on and t rue revol ut i on at l arge i n t hi s
soci et y t oday. Those who do not conform, i nt el l ectual l y or
ot herwi se, t o part y st ri ct ures are by defi ni t i on counter-revol u
t i onary. That whi ch i s count er-revol ut i onary must be exposed
and at t acked. Hence, t he s ubst ance of t he RCP pol emi c i s
es s ent i al l y an i deol ogi cal l y mot i vated pers onal at t ack on Russel l
Means hi msel f rat her than a reasoned argument agai nst hi s
posi t i on. Wi t h t hi s i n mi nd, we can t urn t o t he materi al wi t h
whi ch t he RCP orchest rated i t s assaul t .
* * * * *
The fi rst poi nt of cont ent i on between t he RCP' s pol emi c and
anyone aware of t he ci rcumst ances l eadi ng up t o Russel l Means'
add ress at t he Bl ack Hi l l s Survi val Gat heri ng i s the quest i on of,
as t he part y put s i t , Means' "attempt s t o t rade on hi s reput at i on
as a n ' Ameri ca n I nd i a n leader ( despi t e t he obl i gat ory fal se
disclaimers of "humility" to the contrary), " The facts of the matter
a re t hat several peopl e ot her t han Means had at t empt ed, duri ng
t he yea r pr i or t o t he event i n ques t i on, t o pres ent essent i al l y t he
s ame a nal ysi s ( i n bot h "scholarly" and "popul ar" format s), to a
number of l eft publ i cat i ons.
Rep cadres were present ed wi t h such material at l east as
early as the Union of Marxist Social Scientists ' Conference
hel d in October, 1 979. Cadre response, however, was si mpl y t o
refuse consi derat i on of any posi t i on devi at i ng from the vari ous
62 Marxism and Native Americans
"Nat i onal Mi nori t i es" planks of t he party's draft platform; Rep
representat i ves flatly mai nt ai ned t hrough t hi s post ure t hat t he
party nat urally possessed more i nherent abi li ty t o deal wi t h
Ameri can I ndi an i ss ues and perspect i ves t han I ndi an people
t hemselves. Clearly, t he part y demonst rated i t s unwi lli ngness to
grace t he pages of ei t her i t s " mass ci rculati on" tabloi d ( Revolu
I iOllary Worker) or i t s " t heoret i cal journal" ( Revolur ion) wi t h
t he vi ews of Nat i ve Ameri can acti vi sts. Even duri ng i t s later
ed i t ori al campai gn t o "let 1 00 schools of thought contend, " the
content of debate i n R W i s restri cted t o an extremely narrow
focus, ent i rely wi t hi n t he d octri nai re confi nes of st andard
Marxi st- Leni ni st di scuss i on.
I n any event, t he pers ons attempt i ng to surface t he analysi s
presented by Russell Means i n JUly, 1 980 shared a common
attri bute asi de from bei ng Nat i ve Ameri can act i vi st s and wri ters.
None of t hem happened t o have recei ved any medi a acclai m as
" I ndi an leaders . " Thus t hey were qui te uni versally i gnored and
frozen out of pri nt . The di fference i n left response accorded
Means, a fi gure hyped for nearly a decade by s uch var i ous
glamori zers as Time, Newsweek, and Andy Warhol, is st un ni ng.
The Rep art i cle i n quest i on here i s fully twi ce t he l engt h 01 t h
text of Russell's ori gi nal s peech.
I n t he event , i t was calculated t hat only a person wh o had
been establi s hed by t he bourgeoi s med i a as a "l eader" coul d i l i 1 Pl'
to penet rate t he monoli t hi c eli t i s m and caucasoi d fantasyl a nd
prevailing i n the contemporary Euroamerican consciousness ,
Marxi st or ot herwi se. As Means put i t near t he end of hi ! S Pl' ll h.
he i s not a leader i n t he sense conveyed by t he med i a, he i s merel y
used by t he med i a; a fact brought dramat i cally home by t he
Rep' s s ni de comment ary on hi s "obligatory" and "false" di s
clai mer, and compounded by t he fact the t he party i tself refused
categori cally to consi der t he st atements of any "lesser" per
sonali ti es. Thus, t he i ssue was forced from a mat ter of poss i ble
product i ve analyt i cal di alogue i nt o t he propagandi st arena of
"t he cult of t he pers onali ty, " an i ntri ns i cally Marxi st proposi t i on
rat her t han an I ndi an one. The Rep i tself was / i s qui te acti vely
i nvolved in creat i ng t he eli ti st cont ext at i ss ue.
* *
Same Old Song I n Sad Refrain 63
* * *
Wi t h a sort of i nevi tabl e appropri ateness, t he Rep launches
i ts analys i s of "The Same Old Song" by utterl y val i dat i ng one of
Means' pri mary t heses. That i s that "revol ut i onary Marxi sm" i s
hopelessl y l ocked i nt o t he noti on that product i on, and thereby
i nd ustri al izat i on, const i tute the "advanced i deas" of humani ty
whi l e t hose opposed t o them are the "most backward. " The Rep
i s confronted wi th t he probl em of provi ng t hat t hese "advanced
i deas" are correct. This i s precisely t he si t uat i on whi ch creates t he
necessi ty for the Rep wri ters to val i date vi rtual l y every poi nt
wi t hi n Means second t hesi s: t hat such a formul a i s i nherentl y
raci st and a total l y i naccurate vi ew of the natural order.
By way of refuti ng the cent ral t hrust of Means' argument,
the Rep once agai n arcs back to t he sni de, i f meani ngl ess, real m
of assaul t on t he personal i ty of thei r opponent . Not only i s Means
a leader ( horrors ! ) , but he adapts t he garb of t he "nobl e savage"
as wel l . Thi s second descent i nto name-cal l i ng i s grounded,
i ntel l ect ual l y, i n the Rep asserti on that Means' commentary on
t he nat ural order harkens back, not to hi s own Lakota heri tage,
but t o Adam Smi t h and and the "Robi nsonades. " Thi s i s, on one
l evel , merel y di stort i on; Smit h, al ong wi t h Descartes, Locke, and
a numbe r of other t hi nkers of European ori gi n are deal t wi th i n
Russel l ' s tal k, securely pl aced i n t he i nt el l ectual devel opment of
capi t al i s m and t herefore di smi ssed as antithet ical t o Nat ive
American i nterests. Nowhere i n his defense of native cult ures i s
t here a s uggesti on of t he ahi st ori cal i ndi vidual i s m for whi ch the
European t heori sts can be justl y cri ti ci zed.
On a second level, t hi s attempt t o l i nk Means' t hi nki ng t o a
European school of i deal i st exponents of an i nvented "noble
savage, " despite hi s crushi ng cri ti que of t hese same i deal i sts,
poi nts t o a much more seri ous probl em. The Rep seems utterl y
i ncapabl e of pl aci ng Means' thought i n any ot her context t han
t hei r own. From t hei r vi ewpoi nt, al l i deas, no matter what t he
cl ai ms of t hei r proponents, can be t raced t o European ori gi ns,
and i f not Marxi st, they must be bourgeoi s; genui nely non
European i deas s
'
i mply do not exi st . It is as if t o the Marxi st
Leni ni st mi nd non-European thought itself i s an i mpossi bi l i ty;
any t radi t i on of t hought al ien to t hat of Europe therefore remai ns
opaque t o the pol emicists of the Rep.
64 Marxism and Native Americans
Gi ven t hat t he Rep vi ews i ndustri al izati on as consti tuti ng
t he i ndi cat i on of "advanced t hought, " i t succeeds i n l i nki ng
t hought i tsel f ( by way of i ts "i nherent" technol ogi cal depl oy
ment) t o product i on of materi al attai nment. A crude cont i nuum
is t hus est abl i shed: t he more materi al attai nment evidenced by a
cul t ure, the more advanced i t s t hought; the less material attai n
ment, t he more backward t he t hought. But -t hi s is extremel y
i mportant-i t al so fol l ows t hat the l i nk between t hought and
product i on i ndi cates t hat gi ven l evel s of t hought cannot be
achi eved jvithout a correspondi ng l evel of materi al attai nment .
The i mpl i cat i ons of t his shoul d be i mmedi atel y apparent .
The Lakot a, of whi ch peopl e Russel l Means i s a member, never
evi denced a materi al cul t ure si mi l ar t o that prevai l i ng i n Europe
at t he ti me the "nobl e savage" i deal i sts did thei r t hi nki ng. Thus,
t he Lakota coul d not have possessed a body of thought whi ch
equal led-much l ess s urpassed-the t hi nki ng of t hese ideal i sts;
such woul d be materialy i mpossi bl e. The noti on t hat t he Lakot a
and ot her non-i ndustri al peoples mi ght have a compl etel y
aut onomous heritage of t hought on matters whi ch i ntersect t he
t hought of Europeans i n certai n superfi ci al ways, but whi ch
fol l ows t he l ogic of t hei r own cul t ural i mperatives and per
cept i ons t o concl usi ons completel y di ssi mi l ar to t hose reached i n
Europe, i s an i mpossi bi l i ty t o t he hi storical materi ali st mi nd.
The Leni ni st doctri ne decrees t hat Lakota cul ture coul d not,
i n and of i tsel f, have hi st ori cal l y generated a body of thought at
t he l evel evi denced by the European i deal i sts si mply because the
Lakota never exhi bi ted a l evel of material attai nment whi ch
would have provi ded the basi s for t hi nki ng such t houghts. The
Lakota i n pre-contact t i mes were, by purel y materi al i st defi ni
ti on. a "st one age" or "pri mi t i ve" cul ture, t he t hought of whi ch
necessari(l' woul d reflect such status. It was t hus incumbent upon
t he Rep wri ters t o assi gn Means a di rect equi val ent i n European
hi st ory, regardl ess of hi s concl usi ons, si mply because of t he
i nternal structure of t hei r own premanufactured t heoreti cal
assumpt i ons. To acknowl edge even the possi bili ty t hat Means'
t hi nki ng has i ts roots i n Lakota rat her than European cul ture
woul d create a seri ous breach in the seaml essness of t he
product i onj i ndustri al i zat i on paradi gm.
Transparent di st ort i ons of Means' content were t hus neces
sary to reconci l e the Rep cri t i que t o the superstructure of
Same Old Song I n Sad Refrai n 65
Leni ni st t heory. But t he matter does not rest wi t h t hi s si ngl e
i nstance. Gi ven product i on/ i ndust ri al i zat i on as t he meas ure by
whi ch al l human advancement may be cal cul at ed, then only
Europe can l ay cl ai m to ul t i mate l eaders hi p i n t erms of human
p rogress and devel opment . Gi ven t he product i vi st l i nk between
mat eri al at t ai nment and conceptual abi l i ty, OflZI ' Europe can l ay
cl ai m t o est abl i shi ng t he i ntel l ect ual basi s of planet ary t hought.
Al l non-European cul t ures must be cons i dered "underdevel oped"
st ages t o be transcended. Al l non-European t hought must be
consi dered ' ' pri mi t i ve" rel ati ve to t hat of Eu rope, consi gned by
"pr ogress" to Trotsky' s "dust bi n of hi st ory. " Al l non-European
art i cul at i ons not correspond i ng t o t he rel ati ve pr i mi t i veness pre
scri bed by hi stori cal materi al i st ass umpt i ons must be pegged to
one or anot her component of t he European i ntel l ectual tradi t i on;
t hey are t o be const rued as "accul t urat i ve att ri but es. " I n essence,
Europe must be t he i deal agai nst whi ch al l peopl e and al l t hi ngs
are measured, the source of al l "val i d" and "advanced" i nspi rat i on.
The mere fact that Means was , i n most i nst ances, si mpl y
appl yi ng t he teachi ngs of t he Lakot a t r i bal el ders ( who, i t can be
vouchsafed, have never heard of, much l ess read, t he " Robi n
sonades") t o the i mmedi ate cont ext wi t h whi ch he was con
fronted, I i s s i ngul arl y lacki ng i n i nterest t o t he part y pol emi ci sts.
Such facts do not fit the "party l i ne. " The nat ure of t hi s wi l l ful l y
arrogant di s regard for and di mi ni shment of even t he possihilily
of non-European cul tural attai nment s and i ntegri ty seems suf
ficient to cause the nazi theoreticians to turn gleefully in their
graves; i t is the penul t i mate in appl ied t heoret i cal raci sm
masqueradi ng behi nd a l i berat ory facade. As Baudri l l ard has
apt ly observed, t he anal yti cal pot ent i al of Marxi sm is broken by
t he cat echi sm, upon the "wheel of product i on. "2
* * * * *
Attempts to t i e Means' argument t o a European t radi t i on he
cl earl y renounces, however, were hardl y enough to carry t he
Rep polemi c to a successful concl usi on. I n order t o establ i sh i ts
count er-positi on, the party (l ogi cal l y enough) percei ved the need
to demonstrate the overall inadequacy of traditional native
cul t ures in relati on to t he "more advanced" European model . I n
66 Marxism and Native Americans
order t o accompl i sh t hi s, a di rect applicati on of historical
materialist cross-cult ural analytical methodol ogy was cal led for.
In what has, by now, become somethi ng of a pattern i n party
exposi ti on, t his argument leads off wi th a snide attempt to
di scredi t the opposi ti on; but t his ti me t he "opposition" i s the
whole compl ex of peopl es and cul t ures referred t o as Nati ve
American. As the party puts i ts, "The fi rst Native Americans
were not reall y nati ve at all, rather t hey "came to thi s conti nent
from Asia, " and further t hi s i mmigrati on probably occurred
"across a l and bri dge which formerly connected Alaska and
Si beri a. " The party t hen proceeds t o ci te "archeol ogical" evi
dence as to the big game hunt i ng habits of the North Ameri can
popUl ati on circa 1 0, 000 Be. This sequence of i ntroduci ng
archeol ogical evidence i s rather i mportant.
I n t he fi rst place, t he physical evidence used to support the
bourgeoi s anthropol ogi cal contenti on t hat American I ndi ans
crossed t he Beri ng St rai t l and bri dge from Asia to the Ameri cas
has been ambiguous at best. There is i n fact considerabl e
evi dence whi ch mi l i tates agai nst the val i di ty of any such noti on.
Geological evi dence poi nt s fi rmly t o t he fact that t he land bri dge
i n questi on would have been passabl e approxi mately 1 2, 000 years
ago, essentially the same period t hat other data points t o the
existence of a popul at i on spread across virtually the whole of the
North Ameri can conti nent-t hi s i s what Rep refers to as the bi g
game hunti ng peri od. Worse, i n terms of what the RCP is
proposi ng, t here i s a vast surpl us of evidence t hat the South
American conti nent was even more t horoughly populated at the
same time. Barring the exi stence of j et aircraft i n the Ameri cas
twelve mi lleni a ago, the RCP chronology is si mply a physi cal
i mpossi bility. An i mpossi bi l i ty whi ch, i ncidentally, has been
acknowledged in all but t he most arcane ant hropol ogical ci rcles
(such as among t he Mormons, who are still bound and deter
mi ned to prove Nati ve Ameri can ori gi ns among the Tri bes of
Israel) for well over a decade. 3
I n addi ti on, more recent i nformati on tends to support
precisely what "pri mi tive" Native Ameri cans have been saying all
along: American I ndi ans di d not mi grate to thi s hemisphere. 4
I ndi an accounts have been consi stentl y chal ked off as "l egend
and supersti ti on" by more "knowledgeabl e and advanced" Euro-
Same Ol d Song I n Sad Refrai n 67
peans. Recently, however, a contemporary ant hropol ogi st, Jeff
rey Goodman, fi nal l y got around t o treati ng Hopi ori gi n
account s as fact rat her than fict i on. When he i niti ated an
a rcheol ogical dig where the Hopis t hemselves state t he t ri be came
from. he found precisely what they sai d he' d fi nd: evidence of
occupat i on ol d enough t o val i date t he Hopi sequence of eart h,
fi re and i ce i n l i teral geol ogi cal rat her that fi gurati ve mytho
l ogical fashi on. 5 In short , archeol ogi cal / ant hropol ogi cal / geo
l ogi cal dat a clearly tend to corroborat e Ameri can I ndi an know
ledge; as Means puts it, "our knowl edge i s real . . . "
I t i s i nteresti ng to note t hat t he whole Beri ng St rai t
s pecul at i on originated wit h no l ess a personage than Thomas
Jefferso n i n hi s musi ngs ent i tl ed Notes on Virginia, publ i shed i n
1 78 1 . Gi ven Jefferson' s part i cul ar out l ook, t he t hesi s may be
vi ewed as somet hi ng of a device to assuage the gui lt experi enced
by a pol i t ical t heori st associ ated wi t h the fi nal phase of genoci dal
pol i cy di rected at the i ndi genous popul at i on of t hi s conti nent.
Al t hough, as was noted earl i er, not hi ng has ever emerged t o
val i date the Jeffersoni an proposi ti on, i t has general l y been
accepted by Euro scholars, perhaps due to the need to justify the
European i nvasi on of Ameri ca: not onl y was t he i ndi genous
popUl at i on "pri mi t ive and savage, " but i t t oo "i nvaded" t he
hemi sphere, held no real nati ve ti tl e t o the l and, and t hereby
const i tut ed j ust another usurpi ng agent i n the game of mi ght
makes ri ght.
The RCP accepts thi s bourgeoi s abst ract i on (coul d anyone
be more appropri atel y t ermed "bourgeoi s" than Thomas Jeffer
s on?) ful l y and wi thout reservat i on, t hereby t heoreti cal l y al i gni ng
i tsel f wi th t he most react i onary possi bl e t radi t i on of Euro
american culture in order to validate its own constructS . Thus it
corroborates Means' assert i on t hat beyond si mply havi ng i ts
i ntel l ectual roots i n t he bourgeoi s t radi t i on, Marxi sm cont i nues
thi s tradi t i on ful l force. In thi s parti cul ar connect i on, i t woul d
seem "revol uti onary" Marxi sm seeks t o do so eve
n
when t he
bourgeoi sie i tself is qui tti ng the myth i n certai n quarters.
* * * * *
Upon compl eti ng i ts abstract characterizat i on of Nat ive
Ameri cans as bei ng non-nati ve, the RCP t urns to a more
68 Marxi sm and Native Americans
concrete agenda; hi stori cal materi al i st methodol ogy does, after
al l , base i tsel f i n "the concrete and the real . " I n order to
accommodate thi s necessity, t he party t urns to that "propaganda
t ool of t he bourgeoi s, " The New York Tmes, t he contents of
whi ch are general ly (and qui te accurately) portrayed by t hem as a
cesspool of capi tal i st di storti on and fabricati on. I n its j udge
ments on American I ndians, however, the Times is suddenl y
sacrosanct i n i ts objecti vi ty.
The speculat i on of a si ngle ant hropologist (hardly a Marxi st
ant hropol ogi st, at that), concerni ng the practice by a certai n
"anci ent people" i n the Great Basi n regi on of stori ng fecal matter
i n a gi ven l ocat i on, t hat perhaps the seed content of thi s fecal
matter consti tuted a sort of reserve food suppl y, l eads party
pol emi ci sts to i mpl y, i n essence, that "all ancient American
I ndi ans ate shi t . " Russel l Means' cal l for the preservati on and
enhancement of Native tradi ti onal i sm is assumed to be ana
l ogous to searchi ng t hrough fecal matter for a few grains of
nut ri ti ve val ue. The bourgeoi s anthropol ogist cited by the New
York Tmes referred to t hi s practice as a possible "second
harvest" (reuti l i zat i on of vegetabl e products). Thi s newly appro
pri ated term was then used by the party as the ti tle of i ts pol emi c,
and presumably as the crux of i ts argument.
Upon exami nati on, one fi nds t hat even the Tmes was
unwil l i ng t o st retch t he quite tentative fi ndi ngs i n a seemi ngl y
i sol ated l ocat i on t o cover al l of Nati ve America 7000 years ago.
The RCP does so i n one wi l d leap. The Times, i n fact, nowhere
demonstrates a readi ness even t o ascri be t hese tentative anthro
pol ogical concl usi ons to the occupants of the si te i n question over
any peri od of t i me; t he RCP is perfectl y prepared to advance t hi s
unproven speCUl at i on as an overarchi ng hi storical reality. As
Means succi nctl y observed: Marxi sm not onl y derives from
i dentical sources as capi tal i sm, it frequentl y goes beyond capital
ism in its negative i mpl icat i ons for I ndi an people.
Assumi ng that the "second harvest" thesi s i s correct i n the
sense that it was advanced i n the Tmes, a possi ble i nterpretati on
of t his woul d be t hat t he group was undergoi ng a fami ne or other
form of natural di saster requi ri ng extraordi nary survival mea
sures. This scenari o i s at least as probabl e as the noti on t hat t hese
"ancient ones" consumed fecal matter due to t he consistently
"pri mi tive" state of their economi c practices.
Same Ol d Song I n Sad Refrai n 69
Ass umi ng, on the ot her hand, the Rep's utterl y unsup
ported concl usi on that such condi t i ons were preval ent i n a
wi despread and mul t i-generat i onal sense, t he party fai l s t o
menti on exactly how t hi s "backward ness" and "pri mi ti ve" condi
t i on di ffers from t he wi despread fami ne prevai l i ng in the US S R
under Leni n' s New Economi c Program, duri ng whi ch i t was not
uncommon to fi nd the rural popul ace separati ng undigested corn
( seeds) from horse dung as wel l as t hei r own excrement as a
s urvi val expedi ent. Nor d oes t he Rep address t he 9 mi l l i on odd
deat hs at t ri butabl e, mostl y by starvat i on, t o St al i n' s forced l abor
reo rgani zat i on of the Sovi et economy whi ch fol l owed on t he
heel s of t he NEP. Were t hese vi cti ms of "advanced i deas"
somehow exempt from eati ng the nut ri ent resi due of t hei r own
st ool duri ng enforced and t ermi nal starvati on? Less so than the
mi l l i ons who were systemat i cal l y st arved t o death i n the Hitl eri an
organi zati on of another "advanced" i ndustri al context? These
quest i ons, much l ess the answers t o t hem are nowhere noted by
t he party i deol ogues. Yet, s pread across t he face of bot h 20th
century Europe and soci al i st Asi a, one encounters preci sel y those
condi t i ons-and on a trui y massi ve scal e-whi ch the Rep poi nts
to as i nd i cat ive of the "backwardness" of Nat i ve t radi t i onal i sm,
a matter supposedly t o be corrected by t he "advanced" ideas of
Marxist-Leninism.
To return di rectl y to t he Rep t hesi s t hat such condi t i ons
prevai l ed across t he cont i nent and over a s ubst ant i al peri od of
t i me i n t he "pri mi t ive" economies of Nat i ve Ameri ca, the part y i s
st rangel y si l ent i n anot her connect i on: gi ven the known death
rates under si mi l ar starvati on condi t i ons under Stal i n, Hit ler,
Mao, and Leni n, how is it that a Nati ve popul at i on survi ved from
a poi nt 7000 years ago t o t he peri od of European i nvasi on and
genoci de? Under such abject poverty, even canni bal i sm coul d not
have prevented exti ncti on i n a much s horter ti me peri od.
A feeble attempt is made to reconci l e t hi s cont radi cti on by
st at i ng el sewhere in the arti cl e t hat " . . . genoci de t hrough di sease
and massacre reduced the I ndi an popul at i on from 1 0 mi l l i on to
500, 000 i n the area north of Mexi co . . . " The obl i que i mpl i cati on
of t his st atement is t hat the precontact Nati ve Ameri can popul a
t i on of Nort h Ameri ca was perpetual l y smal l enough i n pro
port i on to l and base t o al l ow s peci es cont i nuat i on t hrough the
most "pri mi t ive" hunti ng and gat heri ng economi es coupl ed t o a
70 Marxism and Native Ameri cans
( newl y di scovered) "second harvest" economy. But once agai n
t he Rep rel i es upon a bourgeoi s dogma whi ch was al ways
unfounded, and has been fundamental l y di scredi ted, as a basi s
for its case.
The demographic methodol ogy t hrough whi ch bourgeoi s
ant hropol ogi sts and hi st ori ans have reduced ( on paper) t he
precontact Native popul at i on of t hi s hemi sphere are no part i
cul ar secret . The rat i onal e for such stati sti cal sl eight of hand
would not seem al t oget her di fferent from t hat whi ch caused ( and
causes) t he persi stence of t he Beri ng St rai t l and bridge hypo
t hesi s: bad as t he bourgeoi s fi gures s how Euro genocide to have
been, quanti fi abl e gui l t for that genoci de is reduced i f the
precontact Nati ve populat i on can be "proven" to have been l ess
t han i t aci ual i y was. or course, t he Rep has no particular vested
i nterest i n di mi ni shi ng bourgeoi s gui l t ; no, it needs the bourgeoi s
data not t o mi ni mi ze t he i mpl i cat i ons of bourgeoi s genocide, but
to "prove" i ts own t heses on t he i mpl i cat i ons of "pri mi t ive"
economi es. In act ual i ty, the precontact popul ati on of the area
north of Mexico probably exceeded 1 8 million, about twice t he
number al l owed i n t he bourgeoi s rearward project i on ful l y
accepted by t he Rep. 6 Such a popul at i on stretches the economi c
struct ure i mposed by t he party on precontact I ndian peopl es wel l
beyond t he l i mi t of any potenti al vi abi l i ty, and for good reason.
The hunti ng and gat heri ng economi es whi ch Euro schol ars have
al ways i ns isted categorized the Nati ve "natural order" would al so
seem t o be l i t t l e more t han a part of t he myth of the "savage. "
There are substanti al i ndi cati ons t hat agricul t ure pl ayed an
important role i n native economies and that hunting and
gat heri ng was a form forced, i n many i nstances, by massi ve
di sl ocat i ons i nduced i n t hose economi es by the European
i nvasi on i tsel f. 7 I n sum, t he mound of dung t he Rep has fi xed on
so obsessi vel y may wel l have been a compost heap rather than an
i mmediate food suppl y.
Thus, from start t o fi ni sh, t he central Rep thesi s-the
noti on of the "second harvest" -i s an absurdi ty. I t s sources are
spuri ous, i ts l ogi c fal l aci ous, i ts underri di ng metho! o! ogy sheer
sel f-serving propaganda. Al l credi bl e evi dence poi nts di rect ly
away from the Rep conclusions; the party' s insistence on the
val i di ty of i ts posi t i on regardl ess of dat a is not unl i ke the posture
Same Ol d Song I n Sad Refrai n 7 1
o f Chri sti an mi ssi onaries i n relat i on t o Ameri can I ndi an and
real i ty i n general -pure unadul turated fai th.
* * * * *
Throughout i ts el aborati on, t he RCP mai ntai ns a theme of
t he ul ti mate sanctity of i ndustri al i zati on as the advanced form of
human s oci al organizati on. Thi s i s "supported" by a parade of
quotations from a list of deities: Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao, etc. ,
a strange automaton-l i ke performance for "theoreti ci ans" t o en
gage i n. Or perhaps alchemical i s a more appropri ate word. I t i s
as i f at bot t om, t he Rep bel ieves t hat i f t he same i ncantati ons are
reci ted, regurgitated, chanted i n catechi smic repeti t i on often and
l ong enough, then t hey wi l l somehow become true, no matter
how wrong t hey have been i n the past.
Just as t he party never manages t o address t he condi ti ons of
s t arvati on prevai l i ng under Leni n, St al i n, and Mao-whi ch i s
u nderst andable, comi ng from a party which t ends t o fank i t s
s peakers' platform wi t h oversize portrai ts of Leni n, St al i n, and
Mao-whi le l ambasti ng ot her cul t ural economi es for perchance
l eadi ng t o starvati on condi ti ons, so too does i t evade the di rect
i ssues raised by Means in connect i on with the problems of
i ndustri al society as such.
Rather than confronti ng the questi ons posed, the party
d ist orts Means' argument i n order to label hi m as "reacti onary"
and "of servi ce to capi tal i sm. " Means' statement t hat t he planet
woul d soon experience "a catstrophe of gl obal proporti ons" i s
i nterpreted as referri ng only t o nucl ear war, whereas the poi nt
raised by "The Same Ol d Song" i s that even i n the absence of a
nucl ear hol ocaust, the i mperatives of the European i ndustri al
i zat i on process are leadi ng t o an essenti al l y s i mi l ar resul t. And
Marxi sm, rat her than capi tal i sm, now consti tutes the t heoreti cal
(i f not yet t he practi cal ) vanguard of thi s l i ne of "development . "
On thi s poi nt the RCP i s dumbfounded and consequentl y
at t empt s t o di vert the i ssue i n the manner noted above. Maxi
mum p roducti on and i ndustri al effi ci ency, as Means noted, i s
after al l real l y thei r et hic, thei r t heoreti cal pri de and j oy. The
n oti on t hat i t is ul ti mately the destructi ve element of humani ty,
as opposed t o the l i beratory el ement, i s too hereti cal to be deal t
wi th; the party polemici sts are reduced t o chanti ng "Not so. Not
72 Marxism and Native Americans
so. " Yet not a si ngle coherent count erargument is advanced. The
closest t hey can muster i s to make the wildly inaccurate anal ogy
that Means i s somehow equati ng i ndustry to the smal l pox
contaminated blankets issued by U. S. troops to the Mandans a an
extermi nati on device. Bl ame the troops who issued the blanket s,
not the bl ankets (whi ch are i n t hemselves benign) says t he Rep,
accurately enough. And i ndustry i s t he same as blankets, subject
to i ts empl oyment by people, the party asserts with compl ete
inaccuracy.
One di fference between the bl anket and i ndustry, whi ch
shoul d be rather obvi ous, is t hat the bl anket (an i ndustri al
by-product, in this case) consumes no energy; industry does. It
seems more than sl i g
h
tly odd t hat staunchly Marxist-Leni ni st
theori sts, presumabl y steeped in that t radi tion' s pretenti ons to
status as a "science, " mi ght have missed somethi ng as elementary
( t o sci enti sts) as the second law of t hermodynamics. The second
l aw states, among other t hings, t hat energy used for work can
never be used completely effi ci ently, and t hat the waste energy i s
di ssipated i n a more di sorderly form t han the original source. The
unusabl e energy i s frequentl y i n the form of heat but the same
principle appl ies t o the radi oaci ve waste produced by nuclear
reactors.
Industry-the European producti on process-is without
doubt the most energy consumpt ive process ever conceived by
t he human mi nd, and produces the most waste energy as well as
waste materials. Nucl ear weapons are merel y a by-product (l i ke
the germ-laden bl ankets) of that process; even wi thout thei r use,
the radi oactive waste produced by t he "peaceful " use of nucl ear
energy, al ong wi th the by-products of other energy-intensive
i ndustries, t hreatens to accelerate t he termi nati on of t his planet's
ability t o s ustai n l i fe. This thermodynami c di sorder is a parallel
to the soci al and pol i t ical di sorder bei ng created on a gl obal scale
t hrough the process of i ndustri alizati on. Thus, Means' posi ti on
not onl y opposes the depl oyment / empl oyment of nuclear wea
ponry, it goes far beyond this surface concern to oppose the root
probl em, the European product i on feti sh itself.
Clearly, such a posi ti on cannot derive from the l i kes of the
Robi nsonade i deal i sts; thei r concern was with abstract social
forms. Rather, Means' t hesi s i s a physical proposi ti on. I t is based
di rectly i n the fundamental statement uttered by American
Same Ol d Song I n Sad Refrai n 73
I ndi ans ever si nce thei r fi rst encounter wi t h Europeans (and
whi ch, as Means noted, Europeans have resol utel y refused to
hear): "you cannot do thi s. " Not "you s houl dn' t , " not "please
don't , " but "you cannot. " And why? " Because the planet wi l l eat
you al i ve if you do; because the uni verse wi l l destroy you. " There
is no opt i on here, it is a statement of fact, an assert i on of
knowl edge. And i t i s a knowledge borne out di rectl y by modern
physics , t he poi nt bei ng t hat Nat i ve Americans knew t his
centuries before European physi ci sts arrived at t he same con
cl usi ons. So much for the determi ni st correspondence between
materi al attai nment and conceptual abi l i t ies. So much for t he
"i mmutabl e i ron laws of hi story. "
At t hi s poi nt, the Rep fal l s back on preci sel y the fai t h noted
by Means i n "The Same Ol d Song. " Not havi ng a sol uti on t o t he
quest i on of how t o cont i nue t o act ual i ze ever more and greater
product i vi ty and i ndustri al i zati on i n an ent ropi c uni verse, i t
si mpl y asserts the val i di ty of i ts doctri ne wi thout referri ng to the
fundament al i ssue at al l . "Trust us, we' l l figure t hi s out l ater; trust
us , have fai t h, sci ence wi l l fi nd a way. " There i s j ust no ot her way
to assess the posi ti on the pol emi ci sts lay out; t hey are utterly
rel i gi ous i n t hei r exposi ti on. At one poi nt i t was even asserted
t hat the problem of tradi ti onal cul t ures was t hei r "dependence on
nature" as i f somehow Marxi sm had, godl i ke, transcended
nature and gone i nt o another real m (whi ch, of course, i s one way
t o get around questi ons such as t hose rai sed by physi cal law. )
. . . . .
Fi nal l y, after al l of the preceedi ng, a rat i onal e is advanced
to j ust i fy the trust in Marxi st- Leni ni st i ntent i ons req uested by the
RPC from Nat ive Ameri can peopl e. Its nat ure? The contents of
t he party's Draft Programme and New Constit ution, ( t o be
actual i zed after the "prol etari an revol uti on") whi ch reads i n part:
Here autonomy will be the pol i cy of the prol etari an
stat e-t he vari ous I ndi an peopl es wi l l have the ri ght to
sel f-government within t he l arger soci al i st st at e, under
certai n overall gui di ng pri nci pl es . . . t he practi ces and
pri nci pl es must tend t o promot e equal i ty, not i n
equal i ty, uni ty, not divisi on, between peopl es, and
74 Marxism and Native Ameri cans
eliminate, not foster, exploitation . . . [and Indian
people] will be encouraged to take a full part in the
overall affairs of society as a whole . . . [emphasis ad
ded] .
Thi s is haunti ngly fami l i ar rhetori c, vi rtual l y a paraphrase from
Stal in's wri ti ngs concerni ng t he "Nati onal Questi on" i n the
USSR. I O And smal l wonder; a pri mary i ntel lect behi nd t he prose
of the document i n questi on, and t he "Chai rman" of t he
Revol uti onary Communist Party USA is one Bob Avaki an,
unabashed career Stal i nist, an i ndi vi dual who onl y l atel y reached
the dramati c concl usi on that Josef Stal i n "mi ght have" made
several "rel ati vel y mi nor errors" i n the course of hi s tenure of
l eaders hi p i n t he Sovi et Uni on. Can t here be questi on as t o t he
nature of the real i ty l urki ng behi nd the compel l i ng early St al i ni st
rhetoric concerni ng the "Nati onal Questi on"? Can t here be real
questi ons as t o the fate of t he Sovi et mi nori ties so sol i dly ass ured
of "autonomy" wi thi n the "greater society" of the USSR?
The quest i on of the pragmatic significance of a "guarantee"
of autonomy t o American I ndi ans by an i ntel l ectual / pol i ti cal
t radi ti on whi ch states, before the fact, "As we have seen, I ndian
traditi ons are not capable of gui di ng t he struggle on the pat h to
t rue l i berati on . . . " must be confronted. The question of why
Native Americans woul d be better off "withi n the larger socialist
state" than wi thi n geographical l y di screte territories ( nations) of
thei r own as are other sovereign peoples, must be confronted .
The questi on of the advantage to the "l arger social ist state" of
havi ng t hose nati ve groups wi thi n i t s corpus must be confronted.
The meani ng of "soci al ist equal i ty, unity, " etc. within the
Marxist-Leni ni st t radi t i on must be confronted i n the l ight of
readi ly observabl e historical real i ti es, as must the ul ti mate nat ure
of the "encouragement" referred t o i n the party document. The
time for such confrontati on is now, whi l e what the RCP cal l s "the
revol uti onary ri pples" whi ch may become "mighty waves i n t he
not too di stant fut ure" are sti l l ri ppl es; not after a vi si onless and
theoretical l y bankrupt "cadre" has once agai n seized the power
necessary t o conti nue "the same ol d song. "

Same Old Song I n Sad Refrai n 75
Russel l Means' argument i s anythi ng but a cal l t o reacti on or
a defense of capi tal i sm; such a content i on can be predi cated onl y
i n the s i mpl i stically mi ndless vi ew t hat t he range of human opt i on
i s prescribed withi n t he l i mi tati ons of t he European cul tural
paradi gm i tsel f. Even then, i t i s vastl y s i mpl i sti c, an exerci se i n
cyni ci sm and mani pul ati on. There are ot her opti ons, other
t radi ti ons, other heritages leadi ng t o observati ons, percepti ons
and concl usi ons external t o t he European cul t ural context; t hei r
val i di ty cannot be di smissed a priori.
The anal retentive fantasi es of t he Rep are not an i solated
phenomenon on the American left . They are merely presented in
crystal l i ne form by the party. Other school s of Marxi sm advance
t hei r thesi s vari ants in more bri l l i antl y sophi sti cated packages,
calling upon more complex adj uncts to bol ster the general
t heory, offeri ng their posi ti ons in l ess obvi ousl y t ransparent
jargon. But, i n essence, t hey remai n the same.
Terms such as "pri mi t ive, " "precapi tal i st, " "underdeve
l oped, " etc. hold uni versal currency in Marxi sm, regardless of t he
sophi stry wi thi n whi ch t hey are buri ed. I n t he fi nal anal ysi s. t hey
are raci st and arrogant terms, unsupported by fact. No cul ture
other than Europe has ever undergone t he progressi on of
materi al devel opment experi enced i n Europe and i ndi cated by
such t ermi nology; t o presume t hat non- European cul tures would
i nevi tabl y have fol l owed a t raj ectory from pri mi t i ve to pre
capi tal i st to capi tal i st is subl i mel y s pecul ati ve. To l ock such
speculati on i nto a categori cal and uni versal "l aw" i s a corner
st one of al l Marxi st t heory. To t hi s ext ent at l east , t he RCP-for
al l i ts crudi ty and vulgari t y-is representati ve of Marxi an
t hi nki ng.
The converse appl i es here. Europe, preci sel y because of the
nat ure of i ts materi al devel opmental traject ory. has not under
gone the experi ences of non-European cul t ures. On that basi s
al one there i s much knowledge t o be gai ned and shared on a
cross-cul t ural basi s. Pretense at cul t ural hegemony i n terms of
knowledge, on whatever basi s, is merel y obfuscati on, i ntel l ectual
i mperi al i sm, a barri er t o real understandi ng. It i s fai th, not
sci ence. Europe has exported t he fai t h of i t s core i deology under
the mantl es of Chri sti ani ty, capi t al i sm, and Marxi sm at the
expense ofknow/edge throughout i ts hi st ory. To thi s extent, the
pretent i ons of European knowl edge are and must remai n a l i e.
76 Marxism and Native Americans
I n t he i mmedi ate sense, it seems obvi ous that the Rep
knows l i ttl e of Native Ameri cans. Worse, i t seems equal l y
obvi ous t he party seeks no more knowl edge than it has already
achieved. The wi l l i ngness t o di stort, to fabricate, to twist reality
beyond recogni tion i n order to force theoretical conformity t o its
preconcepti ons is st unni ng. The petti ness of t he polemics ad
vanced as party t heses, however, cannot be easi l y di smissed by
ei ther other Marxist school s or non-Marxi sts. The common
al i ties of assumpt i on between Marxi sts are ul ti mately more
compel l i ng than t he evi dent dissi mi l arities. The di fferences are
tactical, t he si mi l ari ti es strategic and theoretical .
I n crit i qui ng t he i nadequacy of the Rep posi ti on, non
Leni ni st Marxi sm must cri ti que t he ground it hol ds i n common
wi th the Rep. A reassessment of t he Marxi an core ideologi es
must occur. The al ternative can only be t hat " Marxi sm no l onger
has anyt hi ng to tell us, " as Sart re so aptly put i t. The redundancy
conveyed by t he phrase "revol ut i onary Marxi sm" can t hen only
consti tute a confl i ct i n terms, renderi ng Russell Means' ob
servati ons j ust t hat much more astute.
What i s requi red at t hi s hi st ori cal j uncture i s an abandon
ment of fai th in the fundamental rol e of prod ucti on. I n its present
configurat i on, Marxi sm has nothi ng to say i n the matter.
St ruct ural l y, however, t hrough i ts di al ectical methodol ogy,
Marxi sm can hope t o t ranscend its own i ntel lectual / theoretical
stalemate. Sel f-servi ng, myt hol ogi zi ng polemics such as the Rep
i l l ustrates so well can serve onl y t o bal k such a process; they are
regressive i n the extreme, t hey are truly "backward," trul y
"reacti onary. "
The absol ute need t o combi ne the knowledges of al l the
cul tures of t he world wi t hi n a comprehensive world view has
never been stronger t han at thi s moment. Marxi sm can and
shoul d have an i mportant rol e t o pl ay i n such a di alectical
endeavor. The i mperati ve t o accrue such knowledge must be
establ i shed before, not afer, some mystical "revol uti onary"
cataclysm. Presupposit i on must be ended and i nteract i on begun.
And t he onl y val i d poi nt of depart ure for American Marxists is
wi th the cul tural knowledge of Nat ive Americans.
PART TWO
At ni ght, when the streets
of your cit ies and vi l l ages are
si l ent and deserted,
t hey will throng with the host
t hat once fi l l ed, and sti l l
l ove thi s l and.
The whi te man
will never
be alone.
-Chief Sealth
(Suquamish)
4
Marx's General Cultural Theoretics
Elisabeth Lloyd
Can Marxi st anal ysi s be appl i ed successful l y t o al l of the
di verse cul tures on our pl anet? Cri ti cs often contend that Marx
i s m possesses no theory of culture per se, and t hat its analysis
tends t o be advanced from such a narrowly European base that
any concl usi ons drawn are strongly suspected of bei ng i nappro
pri at e to Thi rd World contexts. Such an approach to cultural
di versi ty renders Marxi sm as potenti al l y destructi ve t o non
European cultures as capi tal is m/ i mperi al i sm.
Vari ous bits of evi dence are offered to s upport thi s concl u
s i on: these often consti tute parti cul ar and useful cri tic
i
s m of
contemporary Marxi st practice. It might be argued, however,
t hat it i s precisely wi thi n t he real m of practice that the defects
occur, and t hat Marx's theories do contai n materi al appl i cable
wi t hi n a mul ti-cultural arena; that Marxi sm does, i n fact possess
the essenti al s of a theory of cul ture i n preci sely t he sense intended
by criti cs . What follows i s not intended as defi ni ti ve, but as a brief
s ummary of certai n tendencies wit hi n Marx's general theori es
which go counter to the charges of mono-cul turali sm. Addi ti onal
devel opment of t hese poi nts i s appropri ate, but must be lef for
another ti me.
79
80 Marxism and Native Americans
A Question of Defnition
We i mmedi atel y confront a fundamental probl em in termi
nol ogy when we speak of "culture" i n Marxian analysis. Critics
are wont t o point out t hat Marx customarily used this terminol
ogy in relation to haute Kultur and volks Kultur, that is, to
define "high" and "l ow" realms i n l iterature, music, dance, the
plastic arts, etc. Thi s usage supposedly "proves" that Marxism
possesses onl y the most superficial conception of cul ture and has
no sense of how cul ture provides the complete matrix from which
artistic endeavors spring.
Given the broad anthropol ogical defi ni ti on employed by
these critics, their argument is val i d. Observati on on arts and
letters i n no way begi n to address questi ons of cul tural differenti
ati on betwe'en peopl es. Aesthetic cri ti ci sm aux Lukacs and
Adorno is at best opaque and, more probably, i s utterly i rrele
vant i n term of the revol uti onary aspirati ons of an Afghani
tri besman. I f Marxi s m' s concepti on of cul ture was l i mited to t his
aesthetic preoccupat i on, the critics would have their way. Marx
i sm woul d be trul y di sfuncti onal as a tool in all non-European
contexts.
The si tuati on is not so si mple. As has been observed else
where, I Marx frequentl y used concepts in varied and, at t i mes,
apparently contradi ctory ways. Purely semanti c exami nati on of
hi s work can lead t o erroneous observati ons regardi ng his theo
retical concl usi ons. In the case at hand, the si tuati on is even
worse. The anthropol ogical concepti on of cul ture was not cur
rent in Marx's ti me, but was actually popularized long after his
death. Thus, to criticize Marx for not acknowledging the ful l
cul tural matrix in those terms is effectively to discredit hi m for
not having foreseen and uti l ized a vernacular that onl y came i nto
use decades after hi s last work. This is manifestly absurd. The
point at issue i s whether, termi nology notwit hstandi ng, the essen
ti al ingredi ents for a general theory of cul ture exist wi thi n
Marxi sm.
Further expl orat i on of thi s poi nt demands some agreement
regarding the term "cul ture. " For purposes of this discussi on, it
may be posited (as it seems to be by the critics of Marxism' s
"defecti ve" cult ural t heory) that cul ture involves characteristics
which bind a parti cul ar group of peopl e together socially. These
Marx' s General Cul t ural Theoret i cs 8 1
woul d i ncl ude l anguage, basi s o f economy, ki ns hi p rel at i ons
( marri age, bl ood l i nkages, mat ri l i near ! pat ri l i near st ruct ure,
et c. ) , spat i al ! temporal concept ual i zat i on, and rel i gi on, among
ot her factors ; i n other words, the gal axy of base and pri mary
s uperst ruct u ral characteri st i cs whi ch defi ne a peopl e as a peopl e.
Thi s i s a speci fi cal l y ant hropol ogi cal vi ew, but i t has proven
useful i n cross-cul t ural consi derat i ons.
The Di al ectial Method
Gi ven the precedi ng wor ki ng defi ni t i on, a general t heory of
cul t ure woul d not onl y have t o expl ai n how t hi s a rray of t rai t s
and characteri st i cs funct i ons i n a st at e of i nteract i on (each el e
ment i nt eract i ng wi t h al l others) t o create a soci et y, but s houl d
al so provi de cogent i nt erpret at i on of t he nat ure of t hat soci ety,
and i t s hi st ori cal di rect i on. Marxi sm seems emi nent l y equi pped
to provi de t he necessary t ool s for s uch a const ructi ve and
dynami c cul t ural t heory.
The fundament al met hodol ogy empl oyed wi t hi n Marxi st
anal ysi s i s d i al ect i cs, or more preci sel y, t he "t ri adi c , di al ect i c. "
Thi s concept ual formul at i on, borrowed by Marx from Hegel ,
consi st s of t hree pri mary properti es or "l aws": I ) t he t ransforma
t i on of quant i ty i nt o qual i ty; 2) t he uni t y of opposi t es; and 3) t he
negat i on of t he negat i on. 2 These l aws ( part i cul arl y 2) i ndi cat e
t hat al l t hi ngs, whet her const i t ut i ng t he s ubject or object of
exami nat i on, must be anal yt i cal l y treated as i nherent l y rel at i onal
t o al l ot her t hi ngs. The same l aws (part i cul arl y I and 3) necessi
t at e t he consi derat i on of such rel at i ons i n t erms of dynami c
process ( i . e. , transformat i on occurri ng t hrough t i me).
Thus, Marxi st met hodol ogy demands t hat an anal ysi s of
soci ety occur i n hol i sti c fashi on; any soci al el ement can onl y be
ful l y understood i n i ts rel at i ons hi p to all ot hers. Epi st emol ogi
cal l y, d i al ecti cal t hi nki ng or met hodol ogy must i mpl y a proce
d ure whi ch is constant l y sensi t i ve to t he whol eness of t he cont ext
from whi ch t he el ement of exami nat i on has been l i fted; t he
cons i derat i on of any el ement al one, t hough oft en necessary and
useful , i s recogni zed as a potent i al l y di st ort i ng abst ract i on. 3
Gi ven t hi s operat i onal mode, Marxi s m possesses t he concept ual
t ool s requi si te t o an i nteract i ve exami nat i on of soci et y i n pre
ci sel y t he sense cal l ed for by cul t ural theory.
82 Marxi sm and Native Ameri cans
In practi cal appl i cat i on, the di al ect i cal met hod i s brought
i nto pl ay t hrough a seri es of t hree general i ti es perhaps best
arti cul ated by Loui s Al thusser:
I n t heoret i cal practi ce (q. v. ), t he process of t he produc
t i on of knowl edge, General i t i es I are t he abst ract raw
materi al of sci ence, General i ti es I I I are t he concrete,
sci ent ific general i t ies t hat are produced, whi l e General i
t i es I I are t he t heory of sci ence at a gi ven moment , t he
means of product i on of knowl edge. 4
Al t husser goes on t o st at e categorical l y t hat "knowl edge" i s
"General i ti es I I I . " Gi ven t hat d i alecti cs per se const i t ut e t he
essent i ai framewor k for "t he t heory of sci ence at a gi ven
moment , " t hen Marxi st s mus t proceed from a gi ven soci al el e
ment t aken as raw dat a, process t hi s known el ement i n hol i st i c or
di al ect i cal fashi on, and fi nal l y ret urn t hi s el ement as a ful l y
comprehended ent i t y i nt o i ts context. Through such ful l rela
t i onal anal ysi s, t he cont ext of el ement s i tsel f is also compre
hended.
Thus, on both t he met hodol ogi cal level and i n terms of an
i nt el lect ual practi ce, Marxi sm i s quite capabl e of accomodat i ng
the i ntri nsi c compl exi ty of cul t ure, broadl y understood.
I f t hi s is so, t hen why do cri t i cs cl ai m that no adquate
Marxi st cul.t ural anal ysi s has appeared?
The probl em l i es i n t he pract ice and appl i cat i on of di al ecti cs
by Marxi st t heoreti ci ans, most of whom have been unabl e to
di st i ngui sh between t he'i r met hod and some of t he more compl ex
systems of purel y causal rel at i ons such as co-causal i ty, cumul a
t i ve causat i on or s i mul t aneous determi nat i on of a mul ti -vari abl e
structure where no vari ables have been i dent i fi ed as dependent or
i ndependent i n advance. s I n ot her words, t here i s a l ack of cl ear
di fferenti ati on bet ween cause/ effect ( l i neari ty) and di alectics
( hol i sti c relat i vi ty or ci rcul i neari ty) wi thi n contemporary Marx
i st anal ysi s. Whi l e Marxi st t heoret i ci ans claim ont ol ogi cal al le
gi ance t o t he t radi t i on of di al ecti cs, many of t hem seem confused
as t o what, exactl y, di al ect i cal met hodol ogy should look l i ke.
Thi s confusi on i s oft en hi dden t hrough t he mysti ficat i on of l an
guage and val ues so preval ent i n 20t h Cent ury Marxi sm, whi ch
Marx' s General Cult ural Theoret i cs 83
serves as a rhetori cal barrier 0 bscuri ng t he non-di al ecti cal epi s
t emol ogy bei ng practiced.
To return Marxi st t heoret ical practi ce to i ts root hol i sti c
method, as opposed to ul ti matel y abstract systems of causal i t y, i s
s i mul taneousl y to percei ve a Marxi st methodol ogi cal model cap
abl e of allowi ng an adequate (and unbi ased) t he ory of cul t ure.
The questi on remai ns as to whet her Marx hi mself acknowledged,
or even i ntended, the potenti al of t hi s model .
Semantic Considerations
Rather t han sifing Marx for deployment of t erminology
not current to hi m, i t seems more frui tful to exami ne hi s t heori es
for mat erial whi ch approaehes more pert i nent s ubject matter,
al bei t wi th s ome i nterpretat i on necessary. For example, t he sub
sti tut i on of Marx's term "soci ety" for the term "cul t ure" proves
rewardi ng. As he stated i n t he unfi ni s hed Introduction 10 the
Critique of Political Economy:
In t he study of economi c categories, as i n t he case of
every hi storical and soci al sci ence, i t must be borne i n
mi nd t hat as i n real i ty so i n our mi nd t he s ubject
. .. i s gi ven and that the categori es are t herefore but
forms of expressi on, mani festat i ons of exi stence, and
frequentl y but one-si ded aspects of t his s ubject, thi s
defi ni te soci ety. 6
Clearly, Marx was referri ng t o "soci ety" i n t hi s i nstance i n the
same sense t hat "cul t ure" i s referred t o wi t hi n an ant hropol ogi cal
defi ni t i on. The categori es referred t oi n t his case, economi c
are understood as bei ng "forms, " "manifestat i on," and "aspects"
of a l arger whol e, their context. Thi s whol e or cont ext, whi ch
Marx cal l s "soci ety," serves essent i al l y t he same funct i on wi t hi n
hi s theory as does "cul ture" for the cri ti cs.
This i nterpretat i on i s supported by anot her passage from the
Introduction i n which Marx states, "[t he categori es of bourgeoi s
soci ety] serve as the expressi on of i t s condi t i ons and the compre
hensi on of i ts own organi zati on. "7 I n thi s case the "categories"
under consi derat i on are not l i mi ted to t he economic, but are
more general . capable of encompassi ng t he wi de array of super-
84 Marxism and Native Americans
structural elements requi si te t o ant hropol ogical investigati on of
"cul ture. "
Marx becomes more explicit when he asserts, also in t he
Introduction. that:
The si mplest economi c category, say exchange value,
i mpl i es t he exi stence of popUl ati on, popUl ati on that is
engaged in product i on wi th determi ned relati ons; i t
al so i mpl i es the exi stence of certai n types of family,
class, or state, etc. I t can have no other existence except
as an abstract one-sided relation ofan already given
concrete and lving aggregate. [my emphasis] 8
What i s t hi s "concrete and l i vi ng aggregate". i f not "cui tureH,! We
can draw certai n concl usi ons from Marx's statements : that Marx
understood each base and superst ruct ural concept as a compo
nent of a whol e, whi ch he cal led "society"; t hat each component is
l i nked, t hrough i ts rel ati on t o the whole, t o al l other components;
and, gi ven t he i nternal relat i ons between t hese components, the
whol e can be sai d t o be contai ned i n each of i ts parts. each in i ts
parti cul ar i nterconnect i ons wi th the ot hers providi ng us wi th a
versi on of the whol e. I nsofar as thi s is true, the meani ng of
Marx's "whole" or "soci ety" i s cl earl y i dentifiable wi th "cul ture".
Thus Marx di d. i n fact, el aborate an entity whi ch falls wi thi n
the ant hropol ogical defi ni ti on of "cul ture, " termi nol ogical di f
ferences notwi t hstandi ng. The questi on sti l l l i es unanswered of
whether Marx, havi ng arti culated a basi s for such, actually deve
loped somethi ng whi ch l ooks l i ke a "theory of cul ture. " He can be
understood to have done so, but wi thi n a context which he
termed "social relat i ons. "
The Method Applied
"Rel ati ons" are the mi ni mum i rreduci ble units in Marx' s
concept of soci ety. Put another way, hi s subject matter is society
grasped in terms of relati ons. Fami l y, religion, government, etc. ,
are al l conceived as superstructural relations contai ning in
t hemselves, as integral t o t hei r i denti ties, t hose part s with which
t hey tend t o be seen as external l y tied. In Marx' s view, t hese
rel ati ons are conceived as holdi ng properti es i nternal one unto
Marx' s General Cul t ural Theoreti cs 85
the ot her. Any al terat i on i n one rel at i on i mpl i es corres pondi ng
changes i n al l rel ati ons; t he whol e i t sel f is al t ered. For i nst ance,
Marx decl ares i t a t aut ol ogy t hat "t here can no l onger be wage
l abor when t here i s no l onger any capi t al . "9 Such a st at ement
cl earl y i ndi cates t he i nteracti ve, i nterdependent qual it i es of
"rel at i ons . " Further, al terat i ons of rel at i ons at the base l evel wi l l
not onl y i ncur changes i n rel at i ons at t hat l evel but i n t he s uper
st ruct ural l evel as wel l . The i nverse al so hol ds true.
As Marx put i t . "[soci ety i s] man hi msel f i n hi s soci al rel a
t i ons . "l o To paraphrase, it may be assert ed t hat cul t ure is man
hi msel f i n hi s overal l rel at i ons. I s t hi s a misi nt erpretat i on of
Marx' s meani ng? For Marx, al l conj unct i on i s organi c, i nt ri nsi c
t o t he soci al uni t s he considers and i nherent t o each. Of t he
rel at i ons of product i on, di st ri but i on, cons umpt i on, and ex
change, for i nstance, Marx s peci fi es t hat " . . . mut ual i nteract i on
t akes pl ace bet ween vari ous el ements. Such i s the case i n every
organi c body. " " Agai n, the "organi c body" refe rred to can onl y
be const rued as t he soci al whol e, or cul t ure.
I n t erms of t heoret i cal appl i cat i on, consi der Marx' s cl ear
st at ement regardi ng t he connecti on between producti on and
cons umpt i on, "Product i on is . . . at t he s ame t i me cons umpt i on,
and cons umpt i on, product i on. "' 2 The t wo are soci al l y j oi ned and
i nt egral t o o ne anot her . I n anot her passage, Mar x emphasi zes
that " the economic conception [is correct i n holding] that
di st ri but i on exi sts si de by si de wi t h product i on as a sel f
contai ned s phere. " 1 J I n ot her words, t he s t andard non- Marxi st
vi ew t hat product i on and di st ri but i on are i ntegral rel at i ons t o
each ot her i s i nsuffi ci ent ; consi derati on of t hes e t wo fact ors as a
system whi ch is i ndependent from t he rest of t he soci al system i s
i ncorrect. Marxi s m t reat s i t s ent i re s ubj ect mat t er as "di fferent
si de of one uni t "' 4; t hat i s, of cul t ure.
As yet , we have uncovered onl y an appropri at e means t o
di scuss an abstracted st at i c model of a s oci et y or cul t ure. Each
uni t or el ement defi ned as exi sti ng wi thi n a s oci ety may be fully
exami ned (onl y) in its rel at i ons to al l ot her el ement s so defi ned.
H owever, once t his si gni fi cant t ask has been compl et ed, we are
l eft wi t h onl y a dead and mot i onl ess model , and no real soci ety i s
st at i onary. Thus, t he model i s of deci dedly l i mi t ed pract iced
ut i l ity.
86
Marxi sm and Native Americans
As Paul LaFargue has noted, however, Marx' s "highly com
pl i cated worl d" is "i n cont i nual mot i on. "
1
5 The processes of
change and devel opment constantl y occur; structure i s onl y a
st age in t his process . To i nt roduce a temporal di mensi on i nt o
analysi s merely i mpl i es vi ewi ng each soci al el ement as bei ng
rel ated not onl y t o al l el ement s, but al so ( i ntegral l y) t o i t s own
past and fut ure forms. Once t hi s i s accompl i s hed, overal l tem
poral context i s establ i shed by rel ati ng t he past and fut ure for ms
of al l other soci al el ement s as wel l . Whi l e t he procedure i s rea
sonabl y si mpl e t o concei ve, the res ul t i ng anal yti cal panorama i s
i nfi ni tely ri ch and compl ex.
Thi s rel ati onal model offers t he present as a poi nt al ong a
cont i nuum stret chi ng from t he defi nabl e past i nt o a knowabl e
fut ure. Al l soci al change i s concept ual i zed as actual izat i on of
what al ready potent i al l y i s; i t i s si mul taneousl y the unfol di ng of a
pre-exi sti ng process and a spat i al rel at i on. The model i n thi s fi nal
form can handle t he vast array of changi ng human ci rcum
stances. l n
The Relations of Production
The abst ract components have now been establ i s hed for the
Marxi st apprehens i on of cul t ure i n t he broad sense. "Soci ety, " as
Marx put it, i s "the s um of the rel at i ons in whi ch i ndi vi dual s
stand t o one another. " 1 7 When Marx states, "society i tsel f, that i s
man i n hi s soci al rel at i ons, "
1
8
thi s assess ment must be understood
as extendi ng throughout the real m of "t he product(s) of man's
reciprocal activities"; 19 since people are related to one another not
onl y di rectl y, but al so t hrough the objects of thei r producti ve
l abor, a broad defi ni t i on of "soci ety" must i ncl ude both peopl e
and thei r objects.
Marx's depl oyment of his t heoreti cal cul tural el ements
resul t s i n t he speci fi cat i on and expl icat i on of t hese vari ous soci al
relati ons. We turn now t o the parti cul ar prod ucts of Marx's
anal yti cal t ool s, that is, t he act ual descri pti ons of social relat i ons
whi ch complete Marx' s cul t ural theory.
I t is people's need for other peopl e and thei r assi stance i n t he
real i zat i on of human powers whi ch holds soci ety t oget her i n al l
peri ods and pl aces. Thi s "cul t ural cement" i s cons i dered by Marx
to be a "natural necess ity" ( Nat urnot wendi gkei t) or "i nterest . "2o
Marx s t ated i n Int roduct i on to t he Crit ique of Polit ical
Economy":
Marx' s General Cult ural Theoret ics 87
Ma is in the most literal sn of the word a zoon politikon,
not only a soa anmal, but an a which c develop i
to a individua only in soiety. Proucion by isolae i
dvidua outide of soet-something which mit happn
a a excption to a c ma who by acident got into
the wilderess and is alredy dynamicly ps wt
hlf by the forc of soiet-is a geat a absudt a
the ide of the deelopment of a l without i
dividuas livg together and tlkg to one aother.
2 1
There a re t hree poi nts made i n t he precedi ng statement
whi ch s houl d be emphasi zed. Fi rst, Marx once agai n asserts hi s
vi ew that people are i nherently soci al / cul tural bei ngs. Second, he
di rectly acknowledges l anguage as an aspect of cul t ural cement.
Thi rd, he takes up the i ssue of product i on wi thi n thi s paragraph
on t he nat ure of t he human i ndi vidual . Thi s l ast poi nt i s cruci al .
Marx hol ds t hat product i on i s the area of l i fe i n whi ch people's
soci al characters emerge most cl earl y; for Marx, product i on i s
the pri mary exampl e of human cooperat i on. An i mportant
i mpl i cat i on of the above statement from t he Int roduction i s t hat
product i on cannot be separated from t he soci al / cul t ural matri x
of whi ch it i s an i ntegral part, a relation.
Productive work i s the core of "l i fe acti vi ty" for Marx. 22 He
st ates, "producti ve l i fe i s the l i fe of the s peci es. I t i s l i fe engender
i ng life. "23 Marx summarizes hi s understandi ng of the role of
product i on i n the shapi ng of human l i fe as fol l ows: "As i ndi vi d
ual s express t hei r l i ves, so t hey are. What they are, t herefore,
coi nci des wi th thei r product i on, bot h wi th what t hey produce
and with how they produce. "24 In t his cont ext , "what they (men)
are" can be understood as man' s ent i re way of bei ng i n t he worl d,
i ncl udi ng hi s cul tural existence. Through exami nati on of the
products and means of product i on, "the open book of man's
essenti al powers" and "t he exposure to t he senses of human
psychol ogy" are revealed. 25
For Marx, h'umans are i nherentl y soci al bei ngs through the
necessi t y of bei ng materi al l y producti ve. Thus, consi derat i on of
peopl e' s rel at i ons t o product i on are cent ral t o t he apprehensi on
of t he nature of people's soci al / cul tural character at any given
hi stori cal moment and wi thi n any given geographi cal context.
88 Marxism and Native Americans
Conclusion
The precedi ng formul ati on of society and the central role of
product i on i n an analysi s of soci al relat i ons completes the t heory
of culture i mpl icit i n Marxi sm. Rei terat i on of the mai n poi nts of
t hi s argument should cl ari fy the connecti ons between a broad
theory of cul ture and Marx's emphasis on producti on as a soci al
relati on.
The openi ng questi on was whether Marxist analysis coul d
be appl i ed t o diverse cul t ures. Havi ng established an anthropo
l ogi cal defi ni ti on of cul ture as appropriate, we asked whether t he
essenti al i ngredi ents for a general t heory of cul ture exist wi thi n
Marxi sm, and found that Marxi st methodol ogy, i . e. , dialectics, is
equi pped t o expl ai n how the di ferent aspects of cul t ure i nteract
in order to create a soci ety and cul ture. Through dialectical
anal ysi s, each factor in s ociety is expl ored and expl ai ned in
relati on t o al l other factors; the resul t i s a holistic analysi s of the
dynami c creati on of s ociety through t i me. Marxist methodol ogy
therefore fi l l s the requi rement as a t ool for an i nteractive t heory
of cul ture.
Al thusser's schema was used t o expl ore t he pract ical appl i
cati on of t he di al ect ical met hod. Some probl ems arose at thi s
poi nt concerning act ual practice by Marxist t heoreticians; i n
order to arri ve at a non-reducti ve cul tural analysis, theorists must
appl y true di alect ical anal ysi s, rat her than one of the vari ous
forms of causal analysis.
The obvi ous quest i on t hen arose of whether Marx i ntended
hi s analyti c tool s t o be used i n thi s way. Upon exami nati on of hi s
wri ti ngs, i t became cl ear that Marx' s term "society" has the same
essenti al meani ng as the anthropol ogical defi ni ti on of "culture. "
Wi th thi s bi t of i nt erpretat i on i n mi nd, Marx's t heory of s oci al
relati ons surfaces as the s ought afer "theory of cul ture. "
Fi nal l y, we are i n a posi ti on t o summarize the key features of
a Marxi st theory of cul ture. Al l s oci al relati ons are i nteractive
and i nterdependent; when one changes, all others change, as does
the whol e i tself. Thi s whol e i s soci ety, the sum of al l soci al
rel ati ons. At the core of Marx' s theory of soci al relati ons i s
producti on. What peopl e produce and how they do so serves as a
foundation for all other relati ons, for culture.
Some comments are i n order. Gi ven t he i nteractive and
ci rcular nature of dialect ical anal ysi s, producti on shoul d not be
Marx' s General Cul tural Theoretics 89
underst ood as the one si ngl e det ermi nat e of al l ot her soci al
rel at i ons; "t hrough i t s ( producti on' s) i nt ernal ti es t o everyt hi ng
el se, each factor i s everyt hi ng el se vi ewed fro m t hi s part i cul ar
angl e. "26 A superstructural rel at i on from any gi ven cul t ural per
s pect i ve cannot be properl y underst ood i n i sol at i on from base
struct ural rel at i ons, and vice versa.
Thi s l atter is mi ssed all t oo ofen bot h by "practi ci ng Marx
i sts" and by non- Marxi st cri ti cs. To a degree, t hi s may be a resul t
of cert ai n mi sl eadi ng pol emi cal t endenci es o n t he part of Marx
hi msel f. Certai n s uperstructural probl ems such as ki nshi p and
heredi ty at t i mes t hreatened t he coherence of t he practi cal appl i
cat i on of hi s general t heori es . Thi s, as Engel s explai ns, l ed t o an
i deol ogi cal exaggerati on of t he determi nant r ol e of economi c
fact ors. 27 I t has al so been poi nted out t hat Marx s peaks of al l
hi st ory i n t erms of cl ass st ruggle and oft en refers t o format i ons
wi thi n p recapi t al i st soci eti es as "c1 asses . "
2R
Thi s is i ndeed an
exampl e of Marx applyi ng a concept where only a few of many
requi si te components are present (and the nature of these tends to
vary wi th hi s i mmedi ate purpose) and i s t hus open t o di s pute i n
t erms of accuracy. Such "l apses" hardl y di mi ni s h t he i mport ance
of Marx' s general pri nci pl es and i t i s al so pos s i bl e t hat i deol ogi
cal exerci ses al ong t hese l i nes were a tacti cal ploy desi gned to
promote revol ut i onary consci ousness among the European work
ing cl ass of his day. 29
There seems to be not hi ng i nherent t o t he di al ecti cal pri nci
pl es empl oyed by Marx and sketched i n t hi s essay whi ch woul d
l i mi t thei r appl i cat i on t o Europe al one. Any cul ture i s necessari l y
composed of a number of defi nabl e soci al el ements, each of
whi ch has an hi stori cal context, and al l of whi ch must funct i on i n
di rect i nteract i onal relat i onshi p t o one anot her at al l ti mes.
Regardless of s uperst ructural di ssi mi l ari ti es, any gi ven cul ture
mus t -on pai n of s heer survi val -engage i n basi c ( or "base")
materi al product i on. With t hi s as a common denomi nat or or
st art i ng poi nt for anal ysi s, and i n combi nat i on wi t h an anal ysi s of
al l ot her i nt egral soci al fact ors whi ch e merge, an accurate por
trai t of any cul t ure can be drawn.
Marx's t heoreti cal concept i on of s oci ety or cul t ure appears
quite s ound t oday, and hi s general met hodol ogy for exami nati on
qui te appropri ate. Rat her t han present i ng a dangerous or dys
functi onal approach t o cross-cul tural praxis. t hese woul d seem to
90 Marxi sm and Nati ve Ameri cans
offer an i mmedi ate counter to t he bourgeois anthropol ogi cal
devi ce of l i fti ng part i cul ar fact ors out of thei r soci al ! cul t ural
context for purposes of "cri t i cal exami nati on", an approach
consi dered by some t o be a "Euro-speci fic" and al l -encompassi ng
met hodol ogy.
Nor woul d i t seem t here i s anythi ng wi thi n Marx's work
i ndi cati ng that European norms be used as an eval uat ive st and
ard agai nst whi ch a non-European cul t ure shoul d be meas ured.
To t he cont rary, gi ven val i d appl i cat i on of Marxi st di al ect i cal
methods, i t seems obvi ous t hat exami nati on of t he i ntegral com
ponents of t he gi ven cul t ure i tsel f i s s pecifical l y mandated. Thi s
mi l i tates agai nst a val ue-l aden "comparati ve" methodol ogy. To
the extent that Marxist s have been hi st ori cal l y gui l ty of vi ol ati ng
t his procedure, there have been errors of practi ce; t hi s i s not,
however, the same as a defecti ve t heory.
I t shoul d not be forgotten that ent i re cul tures are t hemsel ves
rel at i onal / i nter-rel ated ent i t i es. At the very l east, European
expansi on and col oni al pract i ce has guaranteed t hi s. Cul t ures, i f
t hey ever were, are no l onger "pure, " but are i ntertwi ned t hrough
economic rel ati ons, t hrough ki nshi p i nteracti on. t hrough rel i
gi ous i nterchange, l anguage, and a host of other fact ors. Each
component culture can then be treated as a facet or set of social
rel ati ons i n worl d-wi de soci al context. Marx hi nted at t he neces
si t y of a di alecti cal anal ysi s on a worl d-wi de scale i n the Eco
nomic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844: "Man, much as he
may . . . be a parti cul ar i ndi vi dual r or cul t ure: my note] . . i s j ust
as much as the totality-the ideal totality-the subjective existence
of a thought and experi ence
d
s oci ety present for i tself. "30
Marxi sm provi des t he t ool s for an arti cul ati on of a theory of
s oci al rel ati ons (cul ture) whi ch i ncl udes i ndi vi dual cul t ures as i ts
rel ati onal uni ts. There i s no i ndi cat i on that t hi s shoul d be re
st ricted to a European arena. Marx' s t heori es are t ai l ored not
onl y to his uni que vi si on of capi tal i sm (the context of his own
cul t ure), but t o hi s unusual l y broad concept i on of a t rul y uni ver
sal social ! cul tural real i ty.
5
Culture and Personhood
Robert B. Sipe
The t i me is ri pe for a di al ogue between Marxi sts and Native
Americans. America's European descendent Marxi sts can learn a
great deal about thei r own cul ture and i t s effects upon everyday
l i fe through studyi ng Native Ameri can cul ture. Native Ameri
cans can hei ghten thei r appreciat i on of thei r cul tural tradi ti ons
by exami ni ng the Americanized versi on of European culture.
To fai l t o engage i n thi s di al ogue wi l l have serious conse
quences for bot h groups. For Nati ve Ameri cans, to fai l to
understand t he absorbi ng tendenci es of Ameri can Capi tal i st
cul t ure and i ts effect on psycho-soci al devel opment threatens
thei r abi l ity to keep i n touch wi th the t radi t i ons t hat sustai n and
revitalize t hei r i denti ty, communi ty and spi ri tual i ty. For Marx
i sts, to fai l t o appreciate the cul tural context in whi ch they
struggle i s t o fai l t o come t o gri ps wi th cri ti cal vari ables whi ch
s hape worki ng cl ass consci ousness and praxi s .
For Nat ive and Marxi st Ameri cans al i ke, the meeti ng of
cul tures i s cri ti cal for bui l di ng a new i ntegrated soci al i st cul ture
t o gladden t he future. As Stanley Di amond observes :
Our i l l ness s pri ngs from the very center of civi l i zati on,
not from too much knowl edge, but from t oo little
wi sdom. What pri mi ti ves possess . . . we have l argely
l ost. If we have t he means, the tool s, t he forms, the
rat i onal i magi nati on t o transform t he face of t he earth
and t he contemporary human condi t i on, pri mitive
soci ety at i ts most posi tive exempl i fi es an essenti al
humanity. '
9 1
92 Marxism and Native Americans
II
Among the many approaches to expl ai n the concept of
"cul ture" is George Si mmel ' s defni ti on of cul ture as "human
sel f-creati on i n the context of cul ti vating t hings, or self-cul tiva
tion i n the process of endowi ng the things of nature with use and
meaning. "2 Here we see an i nteractive di chotomy between
subj ective cul ture and obj ective cul ture. The interacti on between
these two cul tural di mensi ons-persons and t hings -is essential
for a critical t heory of cul ture.
I n this essay we will examine how the phenomenal growth
of obj ecti ve cul ture in Ameri can society has endangered subjec
t ive cul ture. The pr0ductive growth of thi ngs has produced a
cri si s i n t he psychi c l i fe of America's pri marily whi te popul at i on.
Through a di alectical met hodol ogy I hope t o shed some l i ght on
how a one-di mensi onal cul ture maintains and expands the
expl oit ive product i on rel ati ons of contemporary American cap
i tal i sm. Yet, a deeper crisi s, a cri si s of being, of personhood exi sts
i n contemporary Ameri can cul ture. How shal l we understand
t his crisis? How has cul ture changed from an integrative force
whi ch tradi ti onal l y cul ti vated our sense of being human i nt o a
di si ntegrative force whi ch fragments, specializes, stunts and
reifes our humanness? These are critical questi ons.
The tensi on between the i ntegrative and disi ntegrat ive
functi on of cul ture in Ameri can soci e.ty grows clearer i f we vi ew
humanki nd as homofaber rather than animal laborens. Such was
the view of Karl Marx, who understood the drive of our species
being t o engage i n creative and purposeful activity. To cul tivate
an i ntegrative cul ture is t he "everlasti ng nature i mposed condi ti on
of human existence.
"
l I n s hapi ng t he worl d and themselves as a
soci al total ity men and women emerge as beings of praxis.
By praxi s, Marx meant somethi ng radically di fferent from
t he common meani ng of "practi ce. " Praxis i s "conscious l i fe
acti vi ty" in whi ch soci al l i fe stands as an object of our will and our
consci ousness. I n praxi s, we uni te t he human faci l i ties of reason,
i maginati on, and communi cati on to devel op a critical con
sci ousness. In this mode of awareness we are able to discover the
struct ure of natural and s oci al processes i n whi ch [we] take part
. . . [and] . . . make extrapol ati ons for the fut ure, project goal s,
and l ook for the most adeq uate means t o satisfy them. ;'4 Praxis i s
Cul t ure And Personhood 93
the creat i ve acti vi ty of constructi ng and reconstructi ng our soci al
total i ty i n accordance wi t h real , hi st ori cal l y created human
possi bi l i t i es. Identi fyi ng our speci es as homo faber suggests
cri teri a by whi ch we can analyze and eval uate modern soci o
cul tural rel ati ons .
The charge of Western Marxi sm stems from t he "emanci
pat ory i nt erests" of humani ty i n the convergence of reason, truth
and freedom. Our quest i s to t ransfor m t he qual i ty of soci al
rel at i ons of men and women and t hei r worl d. I n t he i deal state, a
l i berated, sel f-actual i zed humani ty exi sts i n synergi sm wi t h the
nat ural envi ronment. Thi s way of bei ng exi sted in many cul t ures
before i t was swal l owed by t he wave of i nevi tabl e col oni zat i on,
moderni zat i on, cul tural devastat i on and rat i onal i zat i on churned
up by devel opi ng Western Capi tal i sm. Gl i mpses of t hi s harmony
can be caught i n t he past and present tradi t i ons of Native
Ameri cans. The quest for l i berat i on i s a q uest for a lost uni ty to
i ns pi re our future.
III
Quest i ons about the confl i ct of human and product i on rel a
t i ons were of pr i me i mportance t o a group of German i nt el l ec
t ual s known as the Frankfurt School . I ts leadi ng members -Max
Hor khei mer , Theodore Adorno, and Herbert Marcuse-drew
heavi l y on the t hought of Hegel , Marx. Freud and, of parti cul ar
i mport a nce for thi s a nal ysi s. Georg Lukacs . These t hi nkers
vi ewed cul t ure and soci ety cri ti cal l y, ant i t het i cal l y. as somet hi ng
permeated by a negat i vi ty demandi ng t ranscendance. They
s hared a vi si on of a radi cal l y di fferent soci ety founded on human
happi ness. t he sat i sfact i on of vi tal needs, and t he end t o domi na
t i on. By t hi s vi si on t hey cri ti ci zed t he est abl i shed cul ture and
pl anned fut ure st ruggles .
The Frankfurt School of cul tural anal ysi s st ands in perpe
t ual opposi t i on to t hose aspects of Western capi tal i sm whi ch
serve t he i nt erests of domi nat i on-the soci al i nsti tuti ons, modes
of consci ousness and t he cul ture i ndustry. Yet t he "cri ti ci s m" of
cri ti cal t heory i s of a speci fi c di alect i cal nat ure. "By cri ti ci sm, "
H orkhei mer sai d, "we mean that i ntel l ect ual , and eventual l y
practi cal effort whi ch i s not sat i sfi ed t o accept t he prevai l i ng
i deas, act i ons, and soci al condi t i ons unt hi nki ngly and from mere
94 Marxi sm and Nati ve Americans
habit; effort which aims to coordinate the individual sides of
social life with each other and with the general ideas and aims of
the epoch, to deduce them generically, to distinguish the ap
pearance from the essence, to examine the foundations of things,
in short, to really know them. ' " Critical analysis attempts to
reveal the world as it really is, devoid of rationalizations.
So the forms of soci o-cul t ural life are nei ther accepted by
cust om nor practi ced uncri ti cal l y, but cri ti cal l y scruti nized i n the
i nterest of devel opi ng a foundat i on on which soci ety can bui l d for
general happi ness and emanci pat i on. Critical theory woul d
prevent us from l osi ng oursel ves among the common sense
understandi ngs of everyday l i fe. I t exposes t he contradi cti ons
between what a soci ety cl ai ms t o be and what i t i n fact i s. Cri ti cal
t heory thus at t empts t o expl i cate the "gul f between the i deas by
which ( persons) j udge t hemsel ves and the world on one hand and
the soci al real i ty whi ch t hey reproduce through thei r acti ons on
the other hand. "6
Trent Schroyer further expl ai ns cri t ical theory as an "i mma
nent cri ti que" whi ch "restores mi ssi ng parts to hi storical sel f
format i on, t rue actual i ty t o fal se appearance" so that we can "see
t hrough soci al l y unnecessary aut hori ty and control systems. "7 In
restori ng the mi ssi ng parts cri t ical theory devel ops a soci o
cul tural anal ysi s whi ch is concrete in the Hegelian sense of bei ng
"many-sided, adequatel y rel ated, compl exl y mediated. "g
No si ngle aspect ofsoci o-cul t ural real i ty is complete in i tself.
Al l facets of real i ty are compl exl y medi ated and have meani ng i n
thei r total i ty. The posi ti vi sts' i ndependent and i solated "soci al
facts" are repl aced by the dynami c i nteracti on between moment
and total i ty, parti cul ar and uni versal .
Wi thi n the multi di mensi onal uni verse, cri ti cal theory i s not
content t o complacentl y regi ster and systematize soci o-cultural
facts. From the potenti al i ti es of t he i mmedi ate hi storical si tua
t i on, cri ti cal theory empl oys const ruct ive concepts whi ch depi ct
real i ty not onl y as i t is, but al so as it can be. Accordi ng to Trent
Schroyer, "crit i que reconst ructs the consti tutive genesis of the
exi sti ng order t o recognize the actual or the universal possi bi l i t ies
t hat are obj ectively present i n the exi sting. The i ntent is to
promote consci ous emanci patory acti vity. "9 As mi ssi ng parts are
rest ored, new i nsi ghts i nt o t he potenti al i ti es for soci al transfor-
Cul ture And Pers onhood 95
mat i on emerge. Critical theory i s a means of penetrati ng myths.
I t offers i nsi ghts i nto the construct i on of l ess al i enati ng s oci eti es.
The cri ti cal t heory approach st ands i n s harp relief to
"orthodox Marxism" whi ch pays scant attenti on t o how cul ture
forms soci eti es. The subj ect of ort hodox Marxi st analysis is the
dynami c devel opment between the forces and relat i ons of
producti on. The economi c base is of paramount i mportance,
whi l e the cultural superstructure is secondary at best and
"epi phenomenal" at worst.
Ort hodox Marxists have studi ed t he evol uti on of capi tal i s m
and i ts ensui ng class struggles from gui l ds t o modern factori es.
The evi dence suggested, and right l y so, t hat t he capi tal i st cl ass
was abl e t o assume and subsequentl y i nsure its domi nant
posi t i on i n the social hi erarchy of producti on because it exerted
i ncreasi ng control over al l aspects of producti on. By control l i ng
the means of producti on and t he organi zati on of t he workpl ace,
the capi tal i st cl ass was able to control the products of l abor and
t he l abori ng class. As t he soci al hi erarchy of producti on was
transmi tted to other i nterl ocki ng soci al i nsti tuti ons the domi na
t i on i ncreased. As fami l y, church, soci al servi ces and armed
frces, al l l evel s of government and educati on became i ncreas
ingly bureaucratic, capitalism became life i tsel f.
A uni que cul tural transformat i on whi ch was vi rtual l y
i gnored by orthodox Marxi sts accompanied and perpetuated
t his soci o-economi c transformat i on. The power of the new
cul tural context emerges in the extent t o whi ch the values and
worl dvi ew of the capi tal i st class are successful l y i nternal i zed i n
the psyches of the workers. The i nteri ori zati on of t he capi talist
hierarchy by those whom it most opptesses i s an addi ti onal
bul wark for corporate capi tal i sm. I n cont emporary society, the
sl aves, s o i t seems, embrace thei r chai ns and fi nd sel f-ful fi l l ment
in t hat embrace. We now turn t o t he m.anner in whi ch capi tal i st
socio-cul tural relati ons shape our psyches.
IV
The extensi on of thi s al l-embraci ng s oci al , economi c, pol it
ical and cul tural hegemony t o all facets of l i fe i s the functi onal
i mperati ve to the survival of capi tal i sm. St ructural el ements such
96 Marxism and Native Ameri cans
as the growing rol e of the state i n l abor-capi tal relations, t he
ethni c and soci al di vi si ons, and l abor organizati ons hel p to
mai nt ai n the capi tal i st s oci al hi erarchy. The capital ist soci al
hi erarchy further persi sts t hrough one-di mensi onal socializati on
and accul turati on. I n the fol l owi ng pages, we wi l l consider how
the devel opment of worki ng cl ass consci ousness and praxis have
been overwhel med si nce Worl d War I I .
I f al i enati on is al most compl ete, revol uti onary class con
sci ousness shoul d, says Marx, devel op frst i n the workers.
However, the workers remai n oppressed. Studs Terkel's oral
hi stories of workers suggest t hat despite their anger toward t hei r
j obs and the condi ti ons of thei r l i ves, workers have not recogni zed
t hei r ri ght t o control the l abor process and the condi ti ons that
affect thei r lives . 1 o Why have workers not achieved class con
sci ousness?
Class consci ousness does not demand that each worker
understand the soci o-hi st orical laws of capi tal i st devel opment or
the total i ty of capi tal i st social relati ons. However, working cl ass
consci ousness must reflect some awareness of the connect i ons
between everyday l i fe experi ences and the l arger social order.
Wil hel m Reich suggests the fol l owi ng di mensi ons of cl ass
consci ousness:
' knowledge of one's own vi tal necessities i n al l
spheres;
' knowledge of ways and possi bi l i ti es of sati sfying
them;
' knowledge of t he obstacles that a soci al system based
on private property puts in the way of their satisfaction;
' knowledge of one's own i nhi bi ti ons and fears that
prevent one from clearly real i zi ng one's needs and the
obstacles of t hei r sati sfacti on;
' knowledge t hat mass uni ty makes an invinci ble force
agai nst the power of the oppressors. "
Thus class consci ousness st resses the essential uni ty between
pers onal life and prevai l i ng soci o-cul tural conditions. It demands
that workers know the nature of t hei r un mediated needs, t he
nature of their i mportant i nteracti ons, t he functi oni ng of social
i nsti tuti ons and the cult ural context of capital i sm. Most i mpor-
Cul t ure And Personhood 97
t ant i s t he psychi c struct ure of t he cl ass. The condi t i ons of soci o
cul t ural l i fe are anchored. refected and reproduced i n t he psychic
s t ructure. Capi tal i st soci al i zat i on refects capi tal i st product i on
and so i nt egrates t he condi t i ons of domi nat i on i nt o t he psyche.
Psychi c rei fi cati ons mi ni mi ze the possi bi l i t y of an emergi ng
al t ernat i ve consci ousness and e mpoweri ng soci al act i ons. The
ul t i mate relat i onshi p between psychi c rei fi cat i on and capi t al i sm
const i t ut es a key obstacl e t o t he devel opment of dynami c cl ass
conscI Ousness.
I n hi s earl y wri t i ngs and i n t he more sophi st i cated "fet i shi sm
of commodi t i es" sect i on of Capital. Karl Marx expl ai ned how
capi t al i st soci ety t ransforms soci al relat i ons i nt o "the fantasti c
form of a relat i on bet ween t hi ngs . "1 2 Marx underst ood al i enat i on
as "t he process by whi ch t he u ni t y of t he produci ng and t he
product i s broken. The product now appears t o t he producer as
a n al i en fact i city and power st andi ng i n i t sel f and over agai nst
hi m, no l onger recogni zabl e as a product. "1 3 Hi s soci o-economi c
expl anat i on of al i enat i on s upport s psychol ogi cal rei fi cat i on
"t he moment i n the process of al i enat i on i n which t he charac
t eri sti c of t hi ng hood becomes t he st andard of objecti ve real i ty. "
1 4
Rei fi cat i on is a mode of al ienat i on unique t o capi t al i st soci ety
because onl y i n such an envir onment can workers be so
effect i vel y reduced t o commodi t i es t hat t hey ent er i nt o exchange
rel at i ons hi ps in a money-form. The communal and humani st ic
norms, cust oms and habi t s of pre-capit al i s t soci eti es are de
s t royed by t he i nevi tabl e onsl aught of capi t al i st market rel at i ons.
Max Weber al so recogni zed t hi s phenomena as part of t he
i nevi t abl e rat i onal i zat i on and de-magi ci zat i on of i ndust ri
al izati on. For Weber capi t al i st devel opment i nevi tabl y penetrated
"al l s pheres of soci al l i fe: the economy, cul t ure (art, rel i gi on and
sci ence) , t echnology. l aw and pol i t i cs , and everyday l i fe by a
s i ngl e l ogi c of formal rationality. Thi s l ogic is defi ned by t he
pri nci p le of ori entat i on of human acti on t o abst ract quant i fi abl e
and cal cul able, and i nst rument al l y ut i l i zabl e formal rules and
norms. "' 5
Drawi ng on Marx and Weber, Georg Lukacs provi des a
frui t ful i nsi ght i nt o t hi s t ragedy of cul t ure by re-exami ni ng t he
s ubject i ve and obj ecti ve aspects of rei fi cat i on. 1 6 Many of h is
observat i ons coi nci de wi th previ ous anal yses t hat t he di s mem-
98 Marxism and Native Ameri cans
berment and fragmentati on of the worker and the el i mi nat i on of
s ubj ecti vi ty, stem from the nat ure and organi zati on of capi tal i st
product i on. But Lukacs ext ends hi s anal ysi s to the i nter
rel ati o
'
nshi p of psychi c rei ficat i on and t he phenomenon of
commodi ty fet i shi sm. Fol l owi ng Marx, he posi ts "the fet i shi sm
of commodi t ies" as t he cent ral probl em of modern capital i sm. I t s
universal ity, accordi ng t o Lukacs, "i nfl uences t he total outer and
i nner l i fe of society"1 7 so profoundl y t hat human consci ous ness i s
reduced t o a rei fi ed "second nat ure" unabl e to grasp t he real
dynami cs of capi tal i st product i on. Commodi ty feti shi sm pro
duces rei fi ed soci o-cul t ural rel ati ons whi ch di stort human s ub
j ecti vi ty.
For Lukacs, commodi ty feti shi sm extends to al l soci al
rel ati ons. I n i he ful l y developed market economy, he says,
human acti vi ty becomes est ranged from i tsel f and "t urns i nt o a
commodi t y whi ch, s ubj ect t o t he non- human obj ecti vi ty of t he
nat ural l aws of soci ety, must go i t s own way i ndependentl y of
many j ust l i ke any consumer arti cle.
"1 8 Wi th the capi ta l i st
reducti on of human soci et y t o t he movement s of commodi ti es,
men and women become parts i n a mechani cal syst em. Obj ect
relati ons repl ace s ubj ect rel at i ons. Quant itati ve rel at i ons repl ace
qual itat ive rel at i ons. Human val ue i s determi ned by t he prevai l
i ng rate of exchange. Human needs are satisfied i n terms of
commodity exchange.
Commodi ty feti shi sm engenders a commodi ty consci ousness
among workers-a reifi ed consci ousness unabl e to penetrate the
"mi st envel oped regi ons" of the soci al relat i ons of capi tal i st
product i on and di st ri but i on. For Lukacs, the destructi on of craft
l abor, t he reducti on of work t o a set of repeti t i ous, mechani cal
mot i ons, the repressive organi zat i on of t he factory system, and
the extensi on of t hese processes i nt o t he l arger soci o-cul t ural
i nsti tuti ons of soci ety ext ends ri ght i nt o t he worker's soul . "1 9 The
psyche i s l i kewise fragmented and t he uni fied personal i ty syst em
i nto opposed strands.
Fragmentati on i n turn produces the passive subj ecti vi ty
among workers necessary to t he funct i oni ng of l ate capi tal i sm.
Says Lukacs, "the personal ity can do no more t han l ook on
hel plessl y whi l e i t s own exi st ence i s reduced to an i sol ated
particle and fed into an alien system. "20 Reifed consciousness is
Cul t ure And Personhood
99
also passive: a consciousness devoid of subjectivity, isolated from
praxis.
The al i enati on of t he worker is commodi ty fet i shi sm ex
t ended t hroughout l ife. The power of t he capi t al i st syst em i s
generated at t he expense of t he worker, who i s transformed i nto a
t hi ng, a rei fied commodi ty. I n t he fi nal anal ysi s a maj or reason
for t he fai l ure of the Ameri can worki ng cl ass t o devel op cri t i cal
class consci ousness i s capi tal i s m's penetrat i on i nto the psyche.
v
Late capi tal i sm has requi red t he el i mi nati on of l abor-capi tal
fri ct i on and the cont ai nment of cl ass antagoni sms for i ts
successful funct i oni ng. The compl i cated, hi erarchi cal l y organi zed
and techni call y speci al ized product i on requi rements of l ate
capi t al i s m demand i nfi ni tel y greater and more vari ed soci al and
cul t ural control than ever before. Thi s stems not onl y from the
sci ent ifi c, cal cul able and technol ogi cal requi rements of t he
product i on process, but al so from t he fact that the cont radi cti ons
of cont emporary capi tal i sm are i nfi ni tel y more mani fest and
di ffi cul t to contai n. Accordi ngl y, to obtai n vol untary compl i ance
wi t h the i rrati onal ity of i ts relati ons of product i on, late capi tal i sm
must anchor the performance pri nci pl e wit hi n the worker' s
ment al and psychi c structure. Thi s anchori ng occurs pri mari l y
t hrough the one-di mensi onal soci al i zat i on and accul turati on
process of l ate capi tal i sm. Hence, fragmentat i on, atomi zat i on,
and psychi c reificati on assi mi l ate the worker i nto an antagoni sti c
s oci al real i ty.
The essence of l ate capi tal i s m i s captured i n what Herbert
Marcus e cal l s "one-di mensi onal i ty. " Al l forms of soci al and
cul tural exi stence are defi ned and operati onal i zed wi t hi n the
parameters of the establ i shed soci ety. A one-di mensi onal soci ety
effecti vel y represses the emergence of a qual i tat i ve ant i t hesi s and
t he expressi on of vari ous "moment s of opposi t i on" to the
essent i al negat ivity of t he establ i shed order. Marcuse descri bes
late capi tal i sm as a society whi ch,
mi l i tates agai nst qual itati ve change. Thus emerges a
pattern of one-di mensi onal t hought and behavi or i n
1 00 Marxi sm and Native Americans
whi ch ideas, aspi rati ons, and obj ectives that, by their
content, transcend the establ ished uni verse of discourse
and acti on are ei ther repressed or reduced to terms of
t his universe. They are redefned by the rationality
o
f
the given system and of i ts quantitative extensi on.
2 !
I n late capi tal i sm we understand change as a quantitative
relati onshi p consisti ng of homogenous steps, incremental t o t he
establ i shed economi c base. The qual itative di mensions of soci o
cul tural l i fe must be neutral ized and redefined as quantitat i ve
components. Val ue must assume a homogenous i nterchangeabl e
character best represented i n t he medi um of money. I n capital ist
society, exchange relat i onshi ps subsume social relati onshi ps.
People and t hei r needs become commodities to be bart ered i n the
marketplace.
As the needs, personality, consci ousness, and socio-cul tural
mi l i eu of the workers conform t o the needs of advanced
corporate capital i sm, the worker becomes one wi th society. The
workers' needs belong t o t hei r posi ti ons i n the occupati onal
hierarchy. I dentity becomes a functi on of activity. The tradi ti onal
anti t hesis between proletariat and capital ist i s transformed i nto a
one-di mensi onal uni ty of opposi tes. The worker is i ntegrated
into the "performance pri nci ple" of late capital i sm. That i s our
crisis of cul ture.
The performance pri nci pl e is disti nguished from other
real ity pri nci ples by the phenomenon of "surplus repressi on. "
Our i nsti nctual , psychi c and soci o-cultural structures come to
resemble the product i on exigenci es of late capi tal i sm. I n order t o
reduce t he t ensi on bred by part nershi p wi th an antagoni sti c
soci al reality, "substitute mechani sms" are introduced into our
psychi c and socio-cul t ural structures. Repressi on and manipUl a
ti on of worki ng cl ass sexuali ty, destructi on of the worker's
autonomous ego, the i mposi ti on of a capi tali st social character
and a one-dimensi onal so
c
io-cul tural mi lieu are experiences of
surpl us repressi on. The crisis of the i ndividual i s matched by the
crisis of cul ture. We are enveloped i n a profound alienation
"neuroses, perversi ons, pathol ogical changes i n character,
'
t he
antisocial phenomena of sexual life, and not least, disturbances
i n the capacity for wor
k
. "
22
Cul t ure And Personhood 1 0 1
One-di mensi onal soci ety has i nt egrated t radi ti onal l y ant ag
onisti c s oci al classes and cul t ural mi l ieus i nto a si ngl e mass.
Antagoni sm has been caused by the contradi cti ons of capi tal i st
product i on. The needs and i nterests of the worki ng cl ass were,
when Marx wrote, i n fundamental cont radi ct i on t o those of t he
capi tal i st cl ass. Today, t hi s opposi t i on has been assi mi l ated i nto
t he et hos of bourgeoi s soci ety. We have, Marcuse asserts, been
fattened:
I f t he worker and hi s boss enj oy the same tel evi si on
program and vi si t the same res ort places, i f t he t ypi st i s
as at t racti vely made up as t he daught er of her empl oyer,
i f the Negro owns a Cadi l l ac, i f t hey al l read the same
news paper, then t hi s assi mi l ati on i ndi cates not the
di s appearance of classes, but the extent t o whi ch the
needs and sati sfact i ons that serve the preservati on of
t he Est abl i shment are s hared by t he underl yi ng
popul ati on. 23
The creat i on, mani pul at i on, and exhal tat i on of fal se needs
has co-opted t he worki ng cl ass' revol ut i onary and emanci patory
needs.
Workers i denti fy wi t h t hei r fact ory, and fi nd sel f-fulfi l l ment
t here. Marcuse concl udes:
The same technol ogi cal organi zati on whi ch makes for a
mechani cal communi ty at work al so generates a l arger
i nt erdependence whi ch i ntegrates the worker with t he
pl ant . One notes an "eagerness" on t he part of t he
workers "to share i n the sol ut i on of producti on prob
l ems, " a "des i re t o j oi n acti vel y i n appl yi ng t hei r own
brai ns t o techni cal and product i on probl ems whi ch
cl earl y fitted i n wi th t he technol ogy. 24
As t he workers needs are reshaped t o conform wi th advanced
t echnol ogi cal producti on, their personal needs are condi t i oned
by the demands of the j ob. The worker becomes happi l y
assi mi l ated i nto the machi ne. Al i enated l abor becomes a source
of sel f-ful fi l l ment . The t radi t i onal ant i t hesi s between workers
and bosses is truncated i nt o a one-di mensi onal unit y of opposi tes
whi ch rei nforces the establ i shed order.
1 02 Marxi sm and Native Americans
I ntegrat i on ext ends t o the cul t ure. Tradi t i onal l y, t here has
exi sted a hi gher or cri t i cal cul ture to oppose t he prevai l i ng soci al
real i ty. Wi t hi n art , for exampl e, i s t he power of negati on, t he
power to suggest i mages whi ch transcend soci al real i ty. Here was
suggested "the appearance of the real m of freedom: t he refusal to
behave. "
2
s
Today t hi s cri t i cal el ement has been i ncorporated i nt o
mass cul ture. Says Marcuse:
Today' s novel feat ure i s t he fl at t eni ng out of t he
ant agoni s m between cul ture and soci al real i ty through
the obl i t erat i on of the opposi ti onal , al i en, and tran
scendent el ements in the hi gher cul t ure by vi rt ue of
whi ch i t const i t uted anot her di mensi on of real i ty. Thi s
l i qui dat i on of two-di mens i oral cul t ure takes place not
t hrough t he deni al and rejecti on of t he "cul tural
val ues, " but t hrough thei r whol esal e i ncorporat i on i nto
the est abl i shed order, t hrough thei r reproduct i on and
di spl ay on a massi ve scale.
2
6
Art , or cri ti cal cul t ure, has become an i nst rument of s oci al
cohesi on servi ng t o uni te and rei nforce rat her than refute and
contradi ct the prevai l i ng real i ty.
To t ransl ate and i ntegrate t he symbol s and i magery of
cri ti cal cul t ure i ts subversi ve el ements must be destroyed . Art
t hen becomes l ess t rue. Our t ranscendent i deal s become matter i n
t he form of cons umable commodi t i es. "The musi c of t he s oul is
also t he musi c of sal es manshi p. Exchange val ue, not t rut h val ue
counts, " sai d Marcuse. 27
The t radi t i onal al i en and al i enat i ng works of cri t ical cul t ure
become products t hemselves or rei nforce the marketing of prod
uct s. I nvari ably, one fi nds a print of Pi casso's Guernica adorni ng
a l i vi ng room wal l among America' s l i beral "hi p" popul ace.
I nvari ably too, one hears strai ns of Vi val di in t he hal l s of some
modern s hoppi ng centers. The t rut h val ue of cri ti cal cul t ure of
these works has been effectively reduced. The market pl ace has
become the purveyor of "hi gher cul ture. " Ameri can mass cul t ure
has become one-di mensi onal, homogeneous and steri le.
The cri ses of cul ture fi nds its mate i n the cri si s of the
i ndi vidual . Si gmund Freud postulated al ienati on and neuroses as
an i nevitable, functi onal i mperative for ci vil ized social l ife.
Cul ture And Personhood 1 03
Despi te t he fact that al l i ndi vi dual s suffer i n varyi ng degrees from
i nsti nctual renunciati on and subl i mat i on, t he sacri fice mai ntai ns
ci vi l i zat i on by control l i ng the unrul y i nstincts, the sexual i nsti nct
foremost. Sexual subl i mati on shapes t he individual's fut ure
behavi or. Accordi ng to Freud: "the sexual behavi or of a human
bei ng oft en lays down t he pattern for al l hi s ot her modes of
reacti ng t o l i fe . . . but i f, for al l sorts of reasons, he refrai ns from
sati sfyi ng hi s strong sexual i nsti ncts, hi s behavi or wi l l be
conci l i atory and resigned rather t han vi gorous in other spheres of
l i fe as
wel l . "2
8
T
hus, t he manner in whi ch a s ociety's i nsti tuti ons,
val ues and mores regul ate the sexual behavi or of i ts members wi l l
be a cruci al determi nant of al l behavi or patterns.
Thi . observati on is especi al l y si gni fi cant for our anal ysi s of
Ameri can workers . In light of the previ ous discussi on, i t is
i mperati ve to i nqui re how and to what end contemporary
i nsti t uti ons and soci o-cul tural processes cont rol the sexual
behavi or of Ameri can workers. Rei mut Rei che bel i eves that "the
whol e sphere of sexual i ty is today bi ased i n favour of t he syst em.
Sex i s reduced to a commodi ty, t he human body i s de-eroti ci zed,
and a fal se sexual ity i mposed on l i fe i n general and on people' s
rel ati ons t o t heir products. "29 The social relat i ons of capi tal i st
commodi ty producti on have transformed human sexual i ty. Not
onl y do sexuality and sexual relati onshi ps become object rel a
t i ons among thi ngs, but a general de-eroti ci zati on of the body
al so occurs. This has profound consequences for the successful
funct i oni ng of l ate capi tal i sm. Under the cover of fal se sexual i ty,
i nsti nctual urges and emanci patory i mpul ses can be harnessed
for the system.
The prevai li ng soci al structure i s reproduced wi thi n our
deepest psychi c i nteri ori ty. Thi s anchori ng has occurred t hrough
the repressi on of sexual i nsti nct s and t hrough wholesale i ncor
porat i on of the pl easure pri nci pl e i nt o t he performance pri nci pl e.
The extent of t hi s penetrati on determi nes t he degree t o whi ch
"vol unt ary" compl i ance between the worker and a repressive,
i rrati onal soci al reality i s secured.
The precedi ng analysi s s uggests t hat i n order to obtai n the
necessary i ntegrati on and producti vi ty from the l aborer, con
temporary capi tal i sm requires an ever greater surpl us repressi on
of the pre-genital , erotogeni c zones of t he body. Superi mposed
1 04 Marxism and Native Americans
upon our qual i tative, obj ectless, autoerotic sexuality is a plastic,
quantifiable sexuality more suscepti ble to mani pulati on and
control . Reduci ng our potenti al for pl easure i n being increases
our potential for empl oyment. Erotic and libidinal bei ngs cannot
be chai ned to the al ienati ng, dul l , repetitive j obs or t o the
repressive socio-cul tural domi nati on of late capitalism.
Neutered, we have been harnessed to the market mechani sm
of corporate capi tal i sm. "I am not exaggerating," Freud i nsisted
fifty years ago,
"I am descri bi ng a state of affai rs of which equally bad
i nstances can be observed over and over again. To the
uni ni tiated it i s hardly credi ble how seldom normal
potency i s t o be found i n a husband and how ofen a
wi fe is frigid among married couples who live under the
domi nance of our civil ized sexual morality. "30
As Wi l hel m Rei ch has observed, we become "orgasti cal l y
i mpotent" when our ties to the worl d around us are mechanized.
So t oo the opposi ti on whi ch s houl d prevail between the
worker and an expl oi tat ive soci al real ity i s neutralized. I ntegra
tion and assi mi l ati on are further achi eved by soci o-cultural
institutions and processes which s o fragment the personality that
we cl i ng hel plessly to the forces whi ch have shaped us. Finally the
autonomous ego i s destroyed.
Accordi ng to Freud, we are shaped by our fami lies . The
chi l d' s ego devel ops through confi cts with the moralistic auth
ori ty of t he fat her. The ego becomes the dynami c aspect of the
psyche, medi ati ng between the i d' s pleasure-seei ng i mpulses and
t he moral i sti c i mperati ves of the outsi de world, represented by
the father. Hence, the consci ous, autonomous ego plays a
domi nant role in determining the course of this struggle.
The idealized i ndividual of bourgeois society develops a
strong, autonomous ego capable of reconci li ng i nsti nctual urges
with moralistic demands. Such bourgeois character trai ts as
orderli ness, obsti nancy and parsi mony rei nforce the power of the
autonomous bourgeoi s ego not onl y t o postpone the grati fication
of t hese unruly i nsti nctual urges, but also t o transform them into
socially constructive achievements.
Freud' s claim that this process of personality development is
basically ahi storical and t ranscul tural is not valid. The Oedipal
Cul t ure And Pers onhood 1 05
ego is hi st ori cal y rooted i n t he part i cul ar t i me, pl ace and cul t ural
mi l i eu of ni neteent h and earl y t went i et h cent ury European
soci et y. I t i s a fact of soci al i zat i on and accul t urat i on refl ect i ng
t he soci o-economi c dynami cs of t he emergent capit al ism of t he
l at e ni neteenth cent ury.
So t he Oedi pal struggl e may be rendered obs olet e by
contemporary corporate capi t al i sm. The soci al rel at i ons of l ate
capi tal i sm have devel oped uni que modes of s oci al i zati on and
accul t urat i on.
Dyi ng wi th t he Oedi pal si t uat i on are pri vat e and fami l y
enterprises. Since World War II, huge, multinational , quasi
p ubl i c, monopol i st i c corporati ons have repl aced t hem. El i mmat
i ng the i ndi vi dual ent repreneur engendered a second effect. The
fat her-domi nated or pat ri archal fami l y decl i ned as the pri mary
source of accul turat i on. Says Marcuse,
the soci al l y necessary repressi ons and t he soci al l y
necessary behavi or are no l onger l earned -and i nternal
i zed -i n t he l ong struggl e wi th t he fat her-t he ego i deal
i s rather brought to bear on the ego di rect l y and 'from
out si de' before t he ego i s actual l y formed as the
personal and (rel at i vel y) aut onomous su bject of medi a
t i on between hi msel f and ot hers . 3 1
An external accumul at i on process occurs t hrough t he mass
medi a, the e ntertai nment i ndust ry, modern advert i si ng, peer
groups, t he educat i onal system-al l enormous st ruct ures abl e to
i nt rude the requi si t e mores, val ues and worl d vi ew of cont em
porary capi t al i st soci ety i nt o the fami l y.
The aut onomous ego becomes a nascent ego apparentl y
u nder t he control l ed soci al i nsti tut i ons. Mani pul at i on occurs i n
what real i t i es are presented or excl uded and t he very struct ure of
the soci al i zi ng i nst i t ut i ons. St anl ey Aronowi tz suggests,
t he real achi evement of school s consi sted i n t hei r abi l i t y
to t rai n chi l dren to accept t he prevai l i ng cl ass structure
and t hei r fat e as workers wi thi n t he i ndustri al system . . .
st udent s learn t he ski l l s needed t o accomodat e t o t he
fi rst requi rement of i ndustri al l abor; respect for aut hor
i ty, the sel f-di sci pl i ne necessary t o i nt ernal i ze t he val ues
1 06 Marxi sm and Nati ve Americans
of the l abor p rocess, and t he pl ace of the worker wi t hi n
t he prevai l i ng occupat i onal hi erarchi es. 32
Thus, t he fat her-domi nated fami l y has been superceded by
ext rafami li al aut hori ti es i n our hearts and mi nds.
Throughout t he precedi ng capi tal i st peri od t he autonomous
ego has been a s ource of "i nner freedom. " Hans Gerth a nd C.
Wri ght Mi l l s suggest t hat the aut onomous ego const ructs a sense
of sel f by engagi ng i n meani ngful and cri ti cal soci al praxi s wi th
soci al real i ty. But the growi ng power and technol ogical s ophi s
t i cat i on of l ate capi tal i s m have progressi vel y penet rated t hi s
i nner freedom. I ndi vi dual opposit i on t o t he status quo has gi ven
way t o i dent i fi cati on wi th the prevai l i ng soci al relat i ons of
capi tal i st product i on.
.
Management of t he nascent ego has produced vi tal changes
in the psyche whi ch have precl uded the devel opment of cl ass
consci ousness t hrough autonomous egos. Franz Alexander,
noted ego psychol ogi st, has observed "the ego becomes 'cor
poreal , ' so to speak, and its react i ons to the outsi de world and t o
t he i nst i nctual desi res emergi ng from t he i d become i ncreas i ngl y
'automatic' . ")) The defense mechani sms by whi ch the aut on
omous ego was previ ousl y abl e t o regul ate the i nsti nctual urges of
t he id and behavi or now come under the control of t hose who
mani pul ate t he external accul t urati ons. I n t he words of Rei mut
Rei che,
the ego l oses most of i ts cl assi c funct i on of medi ati ng
between id and s uper ego and outsi de worl d and
undergoes an i nvol ut i on t o a state at whi ch i t si mpl y
acts as an agency for t he i nt ernal i zat i on of external
authori ty and compartmental i zed i nfl uences from the
super ego. Wi t h the col lecti ve decomposi ti on of the
funct i on of the ego, a monopol i zat i on takes place i n the
mechani sms of domi nati on. I n psychol ogi cal terms, the
super ego and t he ego become one; i n pol i ti cal terms,
i nsti tuti onal i zed techniques of soci al and pol i ti cal op
pressi on become one wi th the i ndi vi duaJ . 34
Free space has become so narrowed that human reacti ons are
al most Pavl ovi an. The ego's . pri vate space has become publ ic
space occupi ed by t he soci al order. When ego merges i nt o the
Cul ture And Pers onhood 1 07
s uper ego, ri ch and many di mensi onal i nt eract i ons gi ve way to
st atic, one-di mensi onal i dentificat i on with the admi ni stered
real ity princi ple of contemporary capi tal i sm.
The resul t of one-di mensi onal accul t urat i on i s al i enated
i ndividual s unable t o recognize themsel ves as consci ous subjects.
Accordi ng t o Ronal d Lai ng, we l i ve i n our new "ont ol ogical
i nsecuri ty" l i ke zombi es. 35 The i nheri tance of our time i s
engul fment, i mpl osi on, petrificat i on and depersonal i zat i on. We
do not devel op a secure sense of sel f in rel at i on wi t h ot her sel ves.
The most i mportant consequence of t hi s l ack of i denti ty, t his
i nabi l i ty to experi ence t he "I , " i s that "i t prevent s i ntegrat i on of
t he total personal i ty; hence i t l eaves t he person di suni ted. "36 The
rei ficat i on and automati on of the ego produces an ontol ogi cal l y
i nsecure worki ng cl ass unabl e t o devel op meani ngful soci al
p raxi s. Destruct i on of t he pri vate s pace of t he ego prevents
workers from devel opi ng t he requi si te s ubj ecti ve aut onomy to
revol t agai nst expl oi tati on. We become rei fi ed obj ects of admi n
i st rati on that are acted upon. We become commodi t y feti shes.
VI
We have suggested t hat t he i nterl ocki ng cri si s of cul t ure and
the cri si s of the i ndi vi dual i n contemporary Ameri can s oci ety be
understood as resul ts of t he funct i onal needs of t he capi tal i st
production-consumption process. A one-dimensional culture
finds its prototype in a one-dimensional person. Reification
engenders s ubjectl ess s ubjects marri ed to an ant agoni sti c soci ety.
However, a further mani pul ati on of t he workers' s ubj ecti vi ty
causes the s mooth and effi ci ent funct i oni ng of the establ i s hed
soci al rel at i ons of corporate capi tal i s m. The transformati on of
the i ndi vi dual ego i deal i nto the soci al character of corporate
capi t al i sm compl etes the di al ecti cal triad of domi nat i on wi thi n
t he psychi c apparat us. For Eri ch Fromm soci al character i s
embodi ed i n
t he organi zat i on man, a man wi t hout consci ence or
convi cti on, but one who i s proud of bei ng a cog, even i f
i t i s onl y a s mal l one, i n a bi g and i mposi ng organ
i zat i on. He i s not t o ask quest i ons, not t o t hi nk
1 08 Marxism and Native Americans
critical l y, not to have any passi onate i nterests, for thi s
woul d i mpede the s moot h funct i oni ng of t he organi
zati on. l'
Wi th the advent of modern technol ogy, mass communicati on,
behavi or modificati on, and the producti on-consumpti on require
ments of late capi tal is m. Our cri ti cal mental facul ti es, our sense
of personal conscience, responsi bi l it y and autonomy have de
cl i ned in proporti on t o t he decl i ne of the autonomous ego and the
i ndividual ego ideal.
The established order has massi fied our privacy and per
meated our pri vate s pace. As Marcuse has observed, "the
member of s ociety apprehends and evaluates al l thi s, not by
hi mself, i n terms of his ego and hi s own ego i deal . . but through
all others and in terms of t hei r common, external ized ego
ideal. "38 Thi s external ego i deal i s not i mposed by force; there is
no harsh conflict with the fat her. Rather i t i s comfortabl y
accult urated i nto the worker's psyche i n the normal course of
everyday l i fe. The mass medi a, peer groups, school , recreat i onal
acti vi ti es, j obs, are t he excl usi ve forces of psycho-social and
cul tural devel opment from i nfancy unti l death.
Thus we see that the redi recti on of the i d, ego, and ego i deal
of t he workers' psyches t oward t he performance principl e of late
capi tal i sm has created soci al character among workers whi ch
channels thei r energy and behavi or i nto system-supporti ng
outlets. The i ncreasi ng prol etari ani zat i on of the work force has
extended this social character t o ever greater numbers of
workers. Thi s expandi ng soci al character has prevented self
realizati on from theatening the social dynami cs of the establ i shed
order. I t also serves as an i mportant mechani sm for adapti ng
workers t o the i ncreasi ngl y dull, mechanical work relati ons of
capitalist society. The "social character" has mi ni mized the
workers' freedom to oppose t he est abl i shed soci al order.
Workers are i ncreasi ngl y unabl e t o devel op cri t ical con
sci ousness and praxis as a revol uti onary cl ass. Thus t he devel
opment of a pervasive social character completes the trans
formation of the workers from conscious subjects t o reifi ed
beings refecti ng the commodity fetishism of the era.
Conclusion
Cul t ure And Pers onhood 1 09
We have expl ored how the producti on/ consumpt i on proc
esses of contemporary capi tal i sm have shaped the psychol ogical
aspects of human soci al l i fe. And we have offered an i ntegrat ive
framework for understandi ng the cri si s of cult ure and cri si s of the
i ndi vidual which so powerfully engul f contemporary Ameri can
society.
The t radi ti onal Marxi st understandi ng of soci al i st revolu
t i on as the i nevitable resol ut i on of the soci o-economi c contradic
t i ons -t he objective condi ti ons -of the capi tal i st system i s no
l onger suffi ci ent. Psycho-cul tural cont radi ct i ons -the subj ecti ve
condi t i ons -have urgent i mportance for effecti ve revol uti onary
st rategy. The soci al cont radi cti ons of capi tal i sm are i nteri ori zed
in the psychi c apparatus of workers, t here produci ng ever
i ncreasi ng l evel s of neurosi s and mental pathol ogy. The progres
s i ve resol ut i on of the objective crises has been t ransformed into a
regressi ve neut ralizat i on of the cri ses wi t hi n t he SUbjective
cond i ti ons -the psychi c l i fe of workers. The enormity of the
psychic and physi cal i l l ness accompanyi ng the rei ficati on of
contemporary l i fe can only be guessed at. But i ts effect i s obvi ous.
Whi le t he cri si s deepens, no radi cal worki ng cl ass consci ousness
or praxi s i s born. New strategies and t heori es must be devel oped
to penetrate t hi s psychi c and cul tural rei ficat i on. These strategies
must resti mulate our vi si on of a radi cal l y di ferent s ociety based
upon human happi ness, an end to domi nat i on and the real izat i on
of our s pecies-bei ng.
To resolve the twin crises of t he i ndi vi dual and of cul t ure we
must devel op an i ntegrated cul t ure whi ch recapt ures the hol i sti c
and l i beratory aspects of pri mi tive and non-Western cul tures. We
must devel op a new cul t ure congruent wi t h t he non-expl oi ti ve
socio-economi cs we read of i n t he past and present s oci al i st
t heory. To reconceptual i ze the relati onshi p between i ndi vi dual s,
cul t ure and i nstit ut i ons, Marxi sts must engage i n a dial ogue wi th
Nati ve Ameri cans and other non-Western peopl e. We must t ry to
di scern t hose non-European el ements, tradi t i ons and relati ons
which prefigure our i ntegrated and synergi sti c vi si on for Amer
i cans i n a post-capi tal i st soci ety. The cont rast between the qual ity
of l i fe among i ntegrated cul t ures of t he past and modern
Ameri can capi t al i sm i s i mmense. St anley Di amond expl ai ns t hat
1 1 0 Marxi sm and Nati ve Ameri cans
The average pri mi t i ve, rel at ive t o hi s soci al envi ron
ment , and the l evel of science a nd technology achi eved,
i s more accompl i shed, i n t he l i teral sense of that term,
than are most ci vi l i zed i ndi vi dual s. He parti ci pates
more ful l y and di rectl y i n the cul t ure possi bi l i t ies open
t o hi m, not as a consume r, and not vi cari ousl y, but as
an actively engaged, compl ete man.
A maj or reason for t his functi onal i ntegri ty i s i n his
cont rol of t he processes of product i on; that i s, the
pri mi ti ve, i n creat i ng a tool , creates i t from begi nni ng t o
end, uses i t wi t h s ki l l , and cont rol s i t. He has no
schi zoi d sense of i t cont rol l i ng hi m, and he has di rect
access t o t he frui t s of hi s l abor, s ubj ect t o t he reci procal
clai ms of his ki ns men. He st ands , in the face of nature,
much l ess ela borat el y equi pped t han oursel ves. wi t h his
whol e bei ng and al l of hi s facul t ies and act i vi t i es geared
for t he s urvi val. and perpet uat i on of hi s fami l y, cl an,
vi l l age, or tri be. 39
How can t he val ues, t he i magpry, t he way of l i fe of t he ori gi nal
affuent soci et i es s how t he way t o a new Ameri can cul t ure? Better
yet, how can those el ements be preserved wi t hi n i ndigenous
Nat ive Ameri can cul t ures t hreatened wi t h the i nt rusi ons of t he
U. S. Government and i ts corporate al li es?
Thi s anal ysi s i s wr
h
t en to Nat i ve Ameri cans as an expl ana
t i on of t he debi l i t at i ng effects of t he capi tal i st system. Capi tal i sm
i s more t han a syst em of economi c expl oi t at i on; i nherent i n i t s
devel opment and operat i on i s t he abi l i t y t o dest roy non-capi tal i st
cultures, to reshape their dispersed people i n its own image, and
to engender profound al i enat i on and unhappi ness for i ndi vi dual s
under i ts yoke. Psychol ogi cal and cul t ural col oni zat i on i s an
i nevi tabl e compani on t o economi c col oni zat i on. No pri mi ti ve or
Nat ive Ameri can cul t ure has opted freel y for t he American way
of l i fe. Some have chosen death and exti ncti on rat her t han suc
cumb. As Nati ve Ameri cans you must devel op st rategies for
preservi ng your i nt egrated past and for resi st i ng t he hegemoni c
encroachment of t he capi t al i st way of l i fe. Ti mes are i ncreasi ngly
peri l ous. Cri ti cal anal ysis and act i on i s i mperati ve.
Cul ture And Personhood I I I
And how can the worki ng peopl e of corporate America
resol ve their psycho-cul t ural crises and realize t he awesome
pot enti al i ti es for happi ness and emanci pati on whi ch l i e beneath
t he surface of capi tal i sm? I bel i eve thi s i s a t hreefol d process.
Fi rst, we must penetrate the psychi c and cul tural rei fi cati on of
our t i me. We must demysti fy the gl ossi ngs and i deol ogi cal t rap
pi ngs of corporate capi t al i sm and underst and i t as i t i s. Emanci
pat ory Marxi sm, critical t heory, i s our best t ool . What you have
read is a contri but i on i n this effort. New research wi l l poi nt new
ways. Dialogue wi th Native Ameri cans and ot her non- European
people offers new i nsi ghts to penetrate our psycho-cul tural
amnesi a. The peri l ous nat ure of the t i mes makes d ial ogue cruci al .
Second, we must devel op our sense of the obj ecti ve and
s ubj ective potential i ti es for our Ameri can fut ure. I deal l y, through
research and di al ogue, we must devel op sense, vi si on, i ntui ti on,
fant asy of what can and ought t o be. Thi s i s the vi si on of an
i ntegrated cul ture, once enoyed by cert ai n Nati ve Ameri can and
pri mi t ive cul tures whi ch can rise agai n. The new i ntegrated cul
t ure must be through non-expl oi ti ve emanci pat ory soci al i sm.
The vi si ons of the past must be revi tal i zed t o accomodat e the new
technol ogi cal pot enti al i ti es of the current age.
Thi rd, and most i mportant, we must put our analysis and
vi si on i nt o practice. We must begi n a l ong march t hrough t he
institutions of corporate capitalism. We must dismantle, dispel
and root out the i nternal ized psychi c rei fi cati on, t he hegemoni c
i nfl uences of cul tural one-di mensi onal i ty, and t he s oci o-eco
nomi c oppressi on stemmi ng from the i nst i t uti ons and processes
of contemporary capi tal i sm. We shal l have t o fi nd st rategies for
devel opi ng authenti c everyday l i ves. We wi l l have to struggle for
free space i n whi ch t o expl ore our needs and redefi ne our
potenti al i ti es. I n new famil i es, new networks, and i nt i mate smal l
groups, toget her we shal l have t o cast off our chai ns and begi n to
l ive our vi si on.
6
Circling the Same Old Rock
Vine Deloria Jr.
Several years ago, after del i veri ng a s peech on I ndi an phi l
osophi es, I was astounded when the quest i ons rai sed by t he
audi ence al most al l centered on t he rel at i onshi p of I ndi an cus
t oms t o Marxi s m. I passed off most of the quest i ons wi th the
crypti c comment that as I did not di st i ngui sh between the broth
ers, and preferred Harpo, I saw no reason t o go i nto the subj ect .
Yet the questi ons persi sted and t oday I suspect that hardl y an
I ndi an can address an audi ence unl ess he i s prepared t o deal wi th
quest i ons regardi ng the rel evance of Marxi st t hi nki ng to I ndi an
condi t i ons, cust oms, and exi sti ng vi ew of t he worl d. Thi s past
year I have devoted a consi derabl e amount of time to readi ng a
vari ety of materi al s whi ch woul d gi ve me some i nsi ght i nto the
nat ure of Marxi sm and enabl e me t o gi ve more i ntel l igent
answers to t hese quest i ons. I t hi nk I am now abl e to see why
non-I ndi ans feel that I ndi ans and Marxi sts are sayi ng basi cal l y
the same t hi ngs. I t hi nk, however, that a consi derabl e gul f sepa
rates t he two t radi ti ons and t hat t hi s gul f cannot easi l y be
bri dged.
Marxi sm, I ndi an tradi ti ons and Chri sti ani ty al l share a
common fate, i n that t hey represent not cl ear channel s of thought
1 1 3
1 1 4 Marxism and Native Americans
but broad deltas of emot i on and i nsight so that attempting to
arti cul ate one i n order t o compare i t wi th another i nvol ves con
si derabl e hazard. Whi chever tri butary of t hought one mi ght
choose for comparati ve anal ysi s i s al most i mmediately di s
cl ai med by adherents of the respective fai ths in favor of the
i nte rpretati on that appears most si mi l ar to the posi tive i nterpreta
ti on which they wish to gi ve, wi th the resul t that vi rtuall y no
compari son takes pl ace. An arti cul at i on of the I ndi an i dea of the
physi cal worl d, for exampl e, wi l l i mmedi ately i nvoke Chri sti an
clai ms that St. Franci s, not St. Thomas represents the Chri sti an
mai nstream or wi l l produce a Marxi st arguing vehementl y that
nature i ncl udes man and soci ety and precl udes human i nsti tu
ti ons whi ch al i enate and ensl ave. No one i s ever convi nced of the
arguments, but somehow t he audi ence feel s that it has preserved
some ki nd of t enuous uni ty whi ch we should enj oy as human
bei ngs, gi ven t hat t he i nsi ghts i t admi res speak t o al l of us as
human beings.
In this paper I do not wish t o debate the effects of i ndust ri al
izati on. It seems t o me that Marxi st anal ysi s is superi or at t hi s
poi nt t o the hopel ess defense whi ch Chri sti ani ty seems t o offer i n
behal f of vari ous forms of capi tal i sm and t o t he I ndi an refusal t o
take seri ousl y the presence of i ndustri al society on the planet . The
best arena for i ntel l i gent compari son, i t would seem to me, would
be the discussion of human personality as each of the three
tradi t i ons vi ews i t. Cl earl y in t his area we speak of articul ated
goal s and not products of t he process. I ndi ans woul d clearly
emerge as superi or i f we restricted di scussi on to the resul ts of
bel i efs on human personal i ty. After all, we do not have countl ess
coffeetable al bums of phot ographs of ol d Marxi sts or ol d
Chri sti ans -they real l y don' t have i nteresting faces. I n most
respects, Marxists and Chri sti ans si mply grow ol d; t hey do not
appear to grow wi ser whi le doi ng so.
Prior to a discussi on of human personality, and certai nly
prerequi si te to any meani ngful comparison, I bel ieve, is t he sub
j ect of al i enat i on and it i s here t hat we can make cl ear poi nts and
enhance the communi cati on of i deas. I n a nutshel l , Chri sti ans
and Marxi sts spend a great deal of ti me l ooki ng for the roots of
al i enat i on and seeki ng techni ques and i nsti tuti ons through which
t his problem can be addressed. Al ienati on i s clearly a critical
bui l di ng block for both systems. I ndi ans, on the ot her hand, are
Ci rcl i ng The Same Old Rock 1 1 5
notabl y devoi d of concern for al i enat i on as a cosmi c i ngredi ent of
human l i fe, a questi on to be answered or a probl em to be con
fronted. Thi s is not to say that I ndi ans do notfeel s ome degree of
al i enat i on. Rather t hey do not make i t a central concern of thei r
ceremoni al l i fe, t hey do not feat ure i t promi nentl y i n thei r cosmi c
myt hol ogy, and t hey do not see i t as an essenti al part of i nsti tu
t i onal exi stence whi ch col ors thei r approach t o other aspects of
l ife. Al i enati on, therefore, is an essenti al el ement of Western
cosmol ogy, either i n the metaphysi cal sense or in the epi stemo
l ogical di me nsi on; i t i s a mi nor phenomenon of s hort durat i on i n
the larger context of cosmi c bal ance for Ameri can I ndians.
Al i enat i on i s not a whol l y Western i dea si nce Buddhi sm and
other Eastern systems posit human rel at i onshi ps t o t he physi cal
worl d and/ or real i ty as one system i n whi ch al i enati on appears
al most sui generis. The pecul i ari ty of Western al i enati on, how
ever, is that while i t appears at the earl i est stages of t hat tradi t i on,
the wrong quest i ons are asked regardi ng i t s hi st orical genesi s.
Christ i ani ty, buildi ng upon Near Eastern rel i gi ous model s, saw
al i enat i on i n the fi rst act of di sobedi ence of Man towards the
Creator. I t t hereafter pos i ted a Savi our or Messi ah whose task
was t o rest ore the cosmi c bal ance by offeri ng hi msel f as a cosmi c
sacrifice thereby at oni ng for the pri mordi al si n. The probl em
wi t h t hi s cosmi c drama i s that i t fai l s completely t o become
concrete. It is one thing to understand the ancient drama of bl ood
sacri fi ce; i t i s another to feel cosmi cal l y cl eansed by i t some two
t housand years later.
In i dent i fyi ng al i enati on as a pecul i arly human emoti on,
Chri sti ani t y i s clearly pri or t o Marxi sm, but i ts fai l ure t o provi de
a sati sfact ory emoti onal / i ntel l i gi bl e sol ut i on t o t he pro blem onl y
made act ual alienati on, observable i n the i ndustri al soci ety of the
nineteent h century European nati ons, of such cl ear i mportance as
t o attract Karl Marx and Frederi ck Engels t o the quest for i ts
sol uti on. Marxi sm, i n descri bi ng the process of obj ecti fi cati on
whereby the product of human hands becomes t he agent of
human al i enati on, seems to me a powerful model for expl ai ni ng a
great deal of contemporary unrest and acts as a beacon for
suggest
i
ng al ternati ve paths t hat mi ght be wal ked. But a form of
al i enat i on, di scovered onl y two centuri es ago, and cl earl y related
to certa
i
n i nsti tuti onal structures whi ch speak pr
i
mari l y t o the
economi c aspect of modern soci eti es, does not deal wi th the
1 1 6 Marxism and Native Americans
metaphysical presence of alienat i on which must certamly lurk in
the background of the western European pscyhe. That is to say,
the Marxi st descri pti on of al i enati on serves more to condemn
exi sti ng and di scerni ble i nsti tuti ons, thereby making s ome
aspects of alienati on concrete (a task at which Christianity was
spectacul arly i nept) t han it does t o deal with t hi s probl em i n a
comprehensive and comprehensi bl e manner. Adam Schaff ad
mi ts as much: "Together wi th private property, socialism abol
i shes alienation i n the for m i n whi ch i t was known i n capital i sm.
But this eradication is by no means complete: i n a modi fied for m
all the el ements of thi s al i enat i on as specifed by Marx remai n, at
least i n socialism. " I
Soci al i sm speaks specifi cal l y t o alienation which origi nates
in, is generated by, or is intensi fi ed by capitaiist i ndustri al i s m.
I nsofar as socialism removes the specific manner in which capi
tal i sm aggravates or makes concrete exi sti ng Western alienat i on,
it contai ns t he potenti al for reform and healing needed by West
ern civilizati on and t hose soci eti es affected parti cularly by con
tact wi th i t. I t i s, perhaps, the l i ght si de of an otherwise dark step
in human experience whi ch can be seen i n a broader perspect ive
of systematic alienat i on through t he establishment of an abst ract
di mensi on separating the worker from his product. Yet involved
in even thi s analysis are salient points which differentiate West
ern civilizati on from other tradi ti ons and from its basic vi ew of
life and the place of human bei ngs i n the historical process.
A critique of soci al i sm of the Marxist variety would t hen
necessarily involve an exami nati on of t he presupposi ti ons of
Western civilizat ion whi ch go to form its basic perception of the
worl d. Al though these el ements exi st pri marily wi thi n t he West
ern mi l i eu, t hey are believed by Western peoples to be of uni ver
sal significance. Thus statements about the nature of, historical
experience of, or ul ti mate desti ny of human bei ngs withi n the
socialist context are not necessarily appl icable to non-Western
peoples i n a phi l osophical or theol ogical sense. Offering a cri
tique of Western t hi nki ng from outsi de its cul tural boundaries
means that one must i nevi tabl y choose those elements most
cl osel y related to alternatives found i n societies and tradi ti ons
other than t he Western mode of expressi on. Such an arrange
ment necessariy precl udes logical l i nkages that are famili ar and
anticipated by Western t hi nkers. My arrangement of ideas may
Ci rcl i ng The Same Ol d Rock 1 1 7
seem whol l y arbi t rary to t he school ed Marxi st t hi nker but it does
i ndi cate for the astute reader the probabl e hi erarchy of val ues
exi st i ng i n one non-Western tradi t i on and s uggests t he possi bl e
rearrangement whi ch woul d be necessary i f Marxi st t hi nki ng
were t o attempt seri ous di scussi on wi t h peopl e of the Ameri can
I ndian t radi t i on.
A common assumpt i on underl yi ng West ern t hought i s t hat
t hi ngs must have had a begi nni ng. From Chri sti an t heological
speCUl at i ons t hrough Rousseau' s nobl e s avage, i nt o modern
sci entifi c fi ct i ons concerni ng evol ut i on, and i n t he Marxi st analy
si s, begi nni ngs or origi ns are cri ti cal l y i mportant. Whi l e Ameri
can I ndi an t ri bes all have creat i on st ories, t hese are regarded
s i mpl y as t he accumulated knowl edge that has been passed down
from generati on t o generati on. No effort i s made to ground
contemporary phi l osophies, i nst i t ut i ons, or syst ems of bel i ef i n
the real i ty of events l ong ago. Other cust oms may buttress these
st ories of creat i on and ceremonies may be regarded as deri vi ng
from creat i on events or subsequent revel ati ons whi ch organi cal l y
rel ate t o such events but the truth or fal si ty of the stori es them
sel ves is not a terri bl y i mportant matt er. A narrat or of a creat i on
st ory wi l l si mpl y recount what has been t ol d t o hi m or her by
el ders, shrug, and i ndi cate merel y that t he st ory has been
repeated i n as l i teral an account as when i t was fi rst heard by peopl e
of thi s generat i on.
The West ern propensi ty t o absol ut i ze pri mordi al event s or
t o suggest t hat cert ai n condi t i ons must have exi sted at the
begi nni ng-ei ther by a project i on backwards of present condi
t i ons or by assumi ng t he relevance of certai n condi t i onsseems
to me to create unnecessary di ffi cul ti es in understandi ng for
Westerners. I n descri bi ng the nature of consci ousness pri or t o
expl ai ni ng t he Marxi st awakeni ng whi ch i nsight i nt o the work
i ngs of capi t al i sm i nvokes, Herbert Marcuse states:
The fi rst form consci ousness assumes i n hi st ory is not
t hat of an i ndivi dual but of a uni versal consci ousness,
perhaps best represented as t he consci ousness of a pri m
i t i ve group wi tb al l i ndi vi dual i ty s ubmerged i n t he
communi ty. Feelings. sensations. and concepts are not
properly the individual's but are shared among all. so
1 1 8 Marxi sm and Nati ve Americans
that the common and not the particular determines the
consciousness. [Emphasis addedj 2
Thi s hypot heti cal scenario suggests t hat i ndivi dual pai n, l ove,
weari ness, and so forth coul d not be i ndi vi dual expressi ons at al l
but must be si mul taneousl y experi enced by the group and that
i ndi vi dual consci ousness i s act ual l y a very bi g step i n the forma
t i on of human hi story. Thi s myt hical (i n the worst pej orati ve
sense concei vabl e) state of exi stence i s, of course, absurd, yet it i s
seri ously cited as the precondi t i on from whi ch human bei ngs
emerge t hrough a variety of experi ences not the least of whi ch is
l abor i n the anthropol ogical-phi l osophi cal sense which Marx fel t
was hi s uni que di scovery.
I woul d like t o suggest t hat t hi s pri mordi a! state of emo
ti onal bei ng is a proj ecti on backwards from a contemporary
state, perhaps i ntui ted, i n whi ch we can observe certai n functi ons
of a group consci ousness, wi t h thi s word given a very preci se
obj ecti ve referent. For exampl e, Marcuse suggests that "the con
sci ousness of men wi l l conti nue t o be determi ned by t he materi al
processes t hat reproduce thei r s oci ety, even when men have come
to regulate t hei r social relati ons i n such a way that these cont rib
ute best t o the free devel opment of all. But when t hese materi al
processes have been made rati onal and have become the con
sci ous work of men, the blind dependence ofconsciousness on
social conditions will cease to exist. "3 ( Emphasi s added). Here I
beli eve t hat we have a contemporary observati on of seemi ngly
mi ndless group behavi or which provi des the model for vis
'
ual iz
i ng pri mitive condi t i ons. Proper percepti on of the present state of
c
'
onfusi on woul d t hen l ead not s i mpl y t o Marxi sm but to origi nal
purity. Depri ved of the ass umpt i on concerning the ori gi nal state
of consci ousness as a group phenomenon, means other t han
Marxi an analysis woul d be requi red t o really break through
present herd-i nsensi ti vi ty.
Regardless of the di sposi ti on of consci ousness, one of the
avenues out of the pri mordi al communal-tri bal-herd mi st i nto
i ndi vi dual i ty seems to be the creati on / i nventi on of language,
al though, accord i ng to Marcuse, it performs a dual i sti c funct i on:
Language i s t he medi um i n whi ch t he fi rst integrat i on
between subj ect and object takes pl ace. It is also the first
Circling The Same Old Rock 1 1 9
actual community (Al lgemei nheit), i n the sense that it is
objecti ve and shared by all i ndi vi dual s. On the other
hand. language is the/irst medium o/individuationJor
through it the individual obtains mastery over the
objects he knows and names. [Emphasis added] 4
The di ffi culty of starting at a hypothetical begi nni ng and
attempti ng to expl ai n both human hi story and the phi l osophical
meaning of human individual and social li fe should be apparent.
Marcuse sees no i nconsistency i n suggesti ng that l anguage i s the
fi rst efort to transcend the subject-obj ect gul f whi le mai ntaining
that language is t he first medi um of i ndi vi duati on-which creates
the subj ect-obj ect pol arizati on of the worl d. Perhaps more di s
appoi nti ng is his reliance on the Biblical i nterpretation of nami ng
as the cri ti cal element i n human beings gai ni ng mastery over
other l i fe forms.
Whether we take the i ndi vi dual in hi s / her realistic context
or as the pattern for expl ai ni ng readi l y observable facts of dai l y
existence for numbers of people, nei ther t he Marxist nor the
Chri st i an concept of the i ndividual i s sophi sti cated enough to
carry t he burden i mposed on it. Chri sti ans, of course, basing their
concept on the relati onshi p of the s ol i tary i ndi vi dual before
hi s / her maker, forego any realistic analysi s of what we mean by
the indi vi dual in favor of omni potent absoluti sm vested i n the
person of the deity. Marxists seem to transcend thi s crude con
ception. Adam Schaff writes:
The human i ndi vi dual as part of nature; as an obj ect;
the i ndividual as part of society-whose attitudes, opi n
i ons, and eval uati ons are expl ai ned as a functi on of
soci al relati ons; fi nally, the i ndi vi dual as a product of
self-creati on, of the practical acti vi ty of men as makers
of hi story-these are the foundati ons of the Marxian
concept of the i ndividua1 . 5
Thi s complex of ideas tel l s us how Marxi st t hought t akes diverse
strands of i nterpretati on and merges them i nto a complex around
which addi ti onal i nsi ghts can be cl ustered, but it does not tell us
how i ndividuality originates or why t hi s i s considered i mportant.
Tradi ti onal Marxian rej ecti on of rel igi ous i nterpretations
1 20 Marxi sm and Native Americans
may help to account for Marxist concern wi th the i ndividual , but
it essentially restricts the dat a from which the concept of "i ndi
vidual" can draw meaning. I t fai ls to suggest an interpretati on
capabl e of resol vi ng under i ts umbrella all conceivable common
pl ace experiences of t he i ndivi dual , t hereby making it useful
beyond the borders of Western thought. "The interpretati on of
the i ndi vidual both as part of nature and as a function of soci al
rel at i ons fi ts i nto t he man-centered autonomous concepti on t hat
takes the human worl d for i ts poi nt of departure, remains wi thi n
i t, and di ssociates i tself from al l theories that hol d that man' s
destiny is governed by the infuence of any extrahuman
factors, "6 Adam Schaff suggests.
Obviously the concern that extrasensory entities not in
t rude upon t he analysi s or the awareness of the problem lies
behind Schaffs i nsistence that t he i dea of the individual be
generated wi thi n the human worl d and remain wi thi n it. Yet it is
at precisely this point t hat American I ndi an peoples would have
great di ffi culty wi t h t he Marxi st positi on. Rejecting the idea that
there i s a human worl d di st i nct from the rest of existence, Ameri
can I ndians woul d i ncl ude experiences of whol l y rel igious con
tent withi n t hei r scope of i nqui ry, t hereby rej ecting that port i on
of Marxian t hought and presenti ng a di l emma for the Marxist
who wi shed to convi nce t hem ot herwise. Quite properly t he
Ameri can Indi an woul d i nsi st that everythi ng falls wi thi n human
percepti on, and that we have - nothi ng of extra-human origins
except t hose ideas which we revere above our own experiences.
Even shoul d an experience testify t o the ultra-sensory nature of
reality, nevert heless i t happened t o a human being, was communi
cated by hi m/ her t o others, and came to form a part of t he
col l ecti ve social consci ousness / hi st ory while stil l remaining as a
natural part of life. Marxist excl usi on of some ki nds of experi
ences, parti cularly t hose which seem t o motivate human bei ngs,
appears wholly unnecessary and weakens the explanation that
Marxists woul d expect us t o accept.
Schaff provides us with a better phi l osophical statement of
Marxist ideas about t he i ndi vi dual when he writes:
The i ndi vi dual's ontol ogical status i s clearly defi ned
wi thi n the framework of t he Marxi st doctrine: the i ndi-
Circl i ng The Same Ol d Rock 1 2 1
vi dual i s part of nature and soci ety, and t hi s determi nes
his ont ol ogical status. He i s that part of nat ure whi ch
t hi nks and consci ously transforms the worl d, and as
such he i s part of society. As a nat ural -soci al enti ty he
can be apprehended wi th no addi ti onal factors, apart
from obj ective real ity. 7
Put t i ng asi de the conti nui ng object i on t hat we cannot establ i sh
arbi trary and art i ficial l i mits concerni ng obj ectivity, thi s defi ni
t i on approaches what the Ameri can I ndi an mi ght accept regard
ing the i ndi vi dual , were it not for the idea t hat the i ndi vi dual ,
whi le nature's t hi nki ng part, necessari l y must be i nvol ved i n the
t ransformat i on of nature and t hereby gai n entrance i nto society.
Transformati on i s a whol l y Western i dea, l i nked to t he not i on of
Man's i ni t i al domi nance over the other l i fe forms, and suspect i n
that no di recti on for t he transformat i on i s gi ven (even wi t hi n the
evol uti onary process, were that t o be regarded as val i d). The
human rol e respecti ng the worl d i s thus l ef open t o prophetic
i nterpret at i ons which can be seized wi th i ntense fanati ci sm.
Transformat i on, i n fact, i s one of the i nnovati ons suggested by
Hebrew pr ophets to descri be t he events of the l ast days and i n
effect degrades and destroys any val ue i nherent wi thi n nature as
we presentl y fi nd i t .
I n t he Marxi st analysi s we are actual ly unabl e t o move from
begi nni ngs to present real i ti es because of the i nsi stence on the
i ndependent real i ty of pri mordi al condi ti ons from whi ch begin
ni ngs woul d be made. In this respect Marxi sm gives us l i ttl e more
t han Chri sti anity or other )orl d rel i gi ons, whi ch s uggest a nega-
t ive world in need of redempt i on, and t hen suggest that redemp
t i on i s t he nat ural outcome of the present state of t he worl d-i n
effect negat i ng t he exi stence of the creat or ( or suggest i ng that He
was real l y not very bri ght after al l ). Compare these two st ate
ment s whi ch attempt to move us beyond our start i ng poi nt.
Herbert Marcuse writes:
Through hi s l abor, man overcomes t he est rangement
between the obj ective worl d and the s ubj ecti ve worl d;
he transforms nature i nt o an appropri ate medi um for
hi s sel f-devel opment. When obj ects are taken and
s haped by l abor, t hey become part of t he s ubj ect who i s
122 Marxism and Native Americans
able to recognize his needs and desi res in them. 8
Erich Fromm writes:
For Marx the process of al i enati on is expressed in work
and i n the divisi on of l abor. Work is for hi m the acti ve
relatedness of man to nature, t he creati on of a new
world, including the creati on of man hi mself;9
Neither t hi nker really departs from the curse of Genesis regard
i ng the need for work, al though Fromm appears to di sti ngui sh
between work and the divi si on of l abor. Nevertheless, both fi nd
i nherent i n the si tuati on ei ther estrangement or ali enat i on, and i f
we regard t hese words as si mi lar i n content if not whol ly equi va
l ent, we sti B have aiienati on as a given condi tion of human
existence and not as somethi ng produced by the hi storical pro
cess Further, we have accepted the unarticulated premise that
peopl e must be working on and transforming nature t o be
natural-at least a contradi cti on in conceptions i f not i n terms.
Of much more relevance i s Schaffs analysis of t he type of
human activity that seems t o produce alienati on:
It is onl y i n certai n condi ti ons that the obj ectificati on
and reificati on of human activity l ead to alienat i on:
namel y when man' s products acquire an existence that
is i ndependent of hi m and aut onomous, and when man
is unable to resi st, i n a conscious way, the spontaneous
functi oni ng of his own products, whi ch subordi nates
him t o their laws and can even threaten his life.
1 0
Schaff here descri bes a process whereby human bei ngs del ude
themselves i nto thi nki ng that thei r products somehow transcend
i n value the perceived real i ty which they experience. Alfred
Nort h Whitehead descri bed thi s del usi on as the fallacy of mi s
placed concreteness and Christian theol ogians label it idolatry.
Of fundamental importance in this discussion is why Western
peoples would be peculiarly s ubj ect t o this delusi on and why t hey
woul d not recognize it for what it is and reject i t. At any rate, it
was certai nly a histori cal / s oci ol ogical propensity long before
Marx exami ned Western i ndustrialism.
Circl i ng The Same Ol d Rock 1 23
I denti ficat i on of t his process of al i enati on i nspi res me t o si de
wi th Marxi st analysi s regardi ng t he place of rel igi on i n Western
ci vi l izat i on. I n the words of Adam Schaff: "God, a s upernatural
bei ng, i s a creat ure of man, an external i zati on and 0 bjecti fi cati on
of hi s own characteri stics and attri butes. Thi s i mpoverishes man,
because it robs hi m of hi s own feat ures and content i n favor of a
pr oject i on, a product of hi s own mi nd, whi ch acqui res t he gui se
of a soci al bel ief-and so, by maki ng i ts exi stence i ndependent of
i t s maker, becomes an al i en and oft en host i l e force, gradually
coming to rule over man. "l l No quest i on t hat t hi s summarized
t he rol e of Western religi ons and t hei r i nst i t ut i ons. With the
creati on and promulgat i on of creeds, doctri nes, dogmas and
catechi sms, Western rel i gi on became the highest expressi on of
graven i mages because it made i ntel lectual formul as a substi tute
for human experiences. Di scussi ons of t he status of the Son,
nature of the Tri ni ty, status of the saved, freedom of t he wi l l , and
necessi t y t o preach the Gospel al l produced a d readful sense of
al i enat i on i n Western peopl e and i nduced i n them t he belief that
di fferences i n practice of rel i gi on were the ul ti mat e criteria for
discri mi nati on and vi olence.
Western h istori cal expriences are not , however, the stan
dard by whi ch human experiences shoul d be gauged. For every
rel i gi ous fanatic who saw i n God t he Father a j usti ficati on for
put t i ng pagans t o the sword, there were other peoples, parti cu
l arl y Ameri can I ndi ans, who exeri enced God as Grandfather,
who coul d not conceive of commi ti ng vi ol ence because of reli
gi ous di fferences. If we have ampl e evi dence t hat other peoples
experi enced God in terms of human i mages and characteri stics
and di d not fi nd i t an occassi on for murder, I woul d suggest that
the di fference can be expl ai ned usi ng Marxi st l ogi cal categories.
Chri s t i ans were taught that God was t hei r father but rarely
experi enced the d ei ty as such; Ameri can I ndi ans experienced
God as a grandfther but refused to specul ate furt her on the
s ubject, there by precl udi ng the al i enat i on whi ch i s produced by
our own t houghts when t hey become i ndependent of our
experience.
The hi st ory and present confi gurati on of Western ci vi l i za
t i on can be expl ai ned qui te easi l y when we reformul ate it i n terms
of mi spl aced concreteness (or ori gi nal si n, or i ndependent objec-
1 24 Marxism and Native Americans
ti fi cati on of work product) and we need not rely upon the Marx
ian analysis as the defi ni tive account of this process. Neverthe
less, Marx does give us the formul a by which we can make furt her
observati ons on the i l l ness which infects Western civilizati on. I n
descri bi ng t he i nevitable economi c l ogic of capitalism i n Eco
nomic and Phiosophi Manuscripts, Marx observes:
. . . t he more t he worker produces the less he has to
consume; the more val ue he creates the more worthless
he becomes; the more refi ned his product t he more
crude and misshapen the worker; t he more civilized the
product the more barbarous t he worker; the more work
manifests i ntel l i gence the more the worker declines in
i ntelligence and becomes a slave of natur
e
.
1 2
The process i nevitably produces, as Christopher Lasch descri bes
it, in the "culture of narcissism. " Alfred North Whitehead com
mented in a similar vein when he said that while it takes a stroke of
genius to devise a system it took only routine refexes to operate it.
Again the question bounces back to an examination of the origins
of Wester civilization, the intuite or apprehended exstence of
aienation and estragement at its earliest period of awareness, and
its subsequent failure to resolve this problem either religiously,
economically. or politically.
Marxi sm appears to provi de a di fferent answer than Chris
tianity i n the sense t hat it seeks to combine nature and hi story
wi thi n a process t hat can best be described as evolving s ocial
sophi sticati on-that is, a greater qual itative social response to
experience t han mere i ncrease i n the quant ity of goods or t he
conquest of nature. Marx wrote t hat the "human significance of
nature only exists for social man, because only in this case is
nat ure a bond with other men, the basis of his existence for others
and of their existence for him. " And, he argued, "the natural
existence of man has here become hi s human existence and
nature itself has become human for him. Thus society i s the
accomplished uni on of man with nature, the veritable resurrec
t i on of nature, t he realized natural i sm of man and the realized
humanism of nature. " l l While one might argue that such a for
mat produces basically the same result as Christianity, in fact it
Ci rcl i ng The Same Ol d Rock 1 25
escapes the other-worldly, j udgment day eschatol ogy that char
acteri zes the Chri sti an fai th in favor of a progressi ve and seem
i ngly i nevi tabl e goal whi ch nature fi nds in t he hi storical process.
Thi s projected concl usi on to t he hi st orical process whereby
nature and our species are reconci l ed assumes wi thout furt her
quest i oni ng t hat nature and our s pecies are i nit i al ly at odds and
t hat the transformati on of nature through the ful fi l l ment of
human personal i ty provides the fi nal l i nkage whi ch restores t he
separati on. This scenari o, whi le comprehensi bl e to Western
mi nds , fai l s t o confront the Ameri can I ndi an apprehensi on that
nat ure and our species are not oppone nts. Not onl y woul d Amer
i can I ndi ans seri ousl y questi on the gul f between our species and
nat ure, but of equal seri ousness woul d be the cri t i que l evel ed by
I ndi ans agai nst the Marxi an vi ew of soci al i nsti tuti ons.
Marcuse writes that "t he i nsti tut i ons man founds and t he
cul ture he creates devel op l aws of t hei r own, and man' s freedom
has to compl y wi t h t hem. He is overpowered by t he expandi ng
weal t h of hi s economic, social , and pol it ical surroundi ngs and
comes t o forget t hat he hi msel f, hi s free devel opment, i s the fi nal
goal of al l these works; i nstead he surrenders to thei r sway. " 1 4
H ere we seem to move one step beyond t he i dea of mi splaced
concreteness or al i enati on and deal wi t h t he real i ty of group
i dent ity whi ch forges new emoti ons and energi es unpredi ctabl e
by a si mpl e stati sti cal anal ysi s of i ndi vi dual wants, goal s or
d reams . Yet Schaff seems to i mpl y t hat t hese soci al i nsti tut i ons
are so much predetermi ned as to consti tute a barri er to human
ful fi l l ment because of thei r i nevi tabl e domi nati on by economic
consi derat i ons. "Man is born i nt o a defi ni te soci ety under defi
ni t e social condi ti ons and human relati ons, " Schaff remi nds us,
"he does not choose them: rather, t hey exi st as a resul t of the
acti vi ty of earl i er generati ons. And i t i s t he foundat i on of t hese
and no other soci al condi ti ons-whi ch are based on relat i ons of
producti on-that the enti re i nvol ved structure of vi ews, systems
of val ues, and thei r concommi tant i nsti tuti ons i s erected. "
l
s
Granted that soci al rel ati ons are a cumul ati ve factor in human
exi stence, I ndi ans woul d argue t hat customs, sparki ng spontane
ous behavi or on the part of i ndi vi dual s who are ori ented toward
t ri bal l i fe, moderate the effects of t he economi c fact ors and keep
t hem i n l i ne.
1 26 Marxi sm and Native Ameri cans
Both t hese vi ews agi tate agai nst conti nued rel iance of soci e
t ies upon the fi ct i onal soci al cont ract whi ch underli es West e r n
capi tal i sm. I ndi ans woul d see t he soci al cont ract as a pheno
menon havi ng pri mari l y verbal real i ty whi ch i n t urn creates t lw
gul f between promi se and performance now sadl y recogni zed h
Western l i bertari ans. Marcuse attacks t he questi on of soci al
contract di rectl y by noti ng t hat the common i nterest can never he
deri ved from t he separate wi l l s of i solated and competi ng i ndi
vi dual s. Marcuse further suggests that t he soci al contract anthro
pol ogy i s faul ty i n the extreme: "as he appears in the natural-law
doctri ne, man i s an abst ract bei ng who i s later equi pped with an
arbi trary set of attri butes. The select i on of these attributes
changes accordi ng to the changi ng apol ogeti c i nterest of the
parti cul ar doctri ne. "1 6 There should be no quest i on t hat t he
Lockean or Montesqui eu versi on of man i n t he soci al cont ract
appears wi thout gender, age, l anguage, educati on, or emoti onal
commi tment. But s o d oes t he Marxi an soci al i st, and the soci al i st
is further hampered because whi l e he l acks t he posi ti ve attri butes
of reason and sel f-i nt erest whi ch d omi nate Engl i sh and French
rati onal i st theori es of the soci al contract, he carries t he burden of
economi c deprivat i on whi ch i s assumed (al though qui te wrongly)
not to exi st i n the Lockean model . An exceedi ngly st range ver
si on of t he soci al contract is presentl y arti culated by John Rawls
and represents the ul ti mate abstract i on produced by thi s l i ne of
t hought.
Ul ti mately t he soci al contract represents a general ized ver
si on of the Chri sti an doctri ne of t he personal relat i onshi p
between dei ty and t he i ndi vi dual . Marcuse notes t hat "the soci al
contract hypothesi s cannot serve, for no contract between i ndi
vi dual s t ranscends t he sphere of pri vate l aw. The contractual
basi s that i s presumed for the state and society would make the
whole s ubject to t he same arbi t rari ness t hat governs pri vate
i nterest. " 1 7 I t i s thi s very fl aw t hat cont i nual l y undermi nes Chri s
ti an efforts to deri ve a doctri ne of t he church from a theol ogy that
grounds i tsel f i n group-shatteri ng demands of i ndi vi dual conver
si on. I n t he same sense t hat i ndi vi dual cont racts must always
remai n as private l aw, so i ndi vi dual conversi ons really cannot
and do not i ssue i n t he creati on or sustenance of a corporate body
of beli evers. Reduct i on of the human bei ng to an i nterchangeable
Circling The Same Old Rock 1 27
uni t within a larger political, social or economi c theory or theol
ogy si mply restricts analysis to that concept. It prevents the
practical real ization of the intended goal because of its fai l ure to
take wi th any degree of seriousness the real di ffere nces existing
within the spectrum of human personality.
Marxist thought, whi le recognizing the exi stence of classes
and trying to account for their ul ti mate positive contri buti on to
society as a whole, fails as miserably as does Christianity. Schaff
writes that s ocial i sm is by defi ni ti on a system in which every
i ndividual is guaranteed ful l devel opment. But in practice, he
sadly notes, " it did not check the spreading of anti-individualistic
t endencies-not onl y i n the sense of combati ng the psychological
legacy of capi tal i sm, but also i n the wrong sense of denying the
right to individuality. "' 8 Schaf admits that "in all the socialist
societies that have so far exi sted, various forms of alienation have
appeared. In other words, there is no automatic process where
by abol i ti on of private ownershi p of the means of producti on
el i minates alienati on-i f onl y because of the conti nued existence
of the state as a coercive machinery. " 1 9 Final ly Schaff confesses
t,hat "wi thi n the framework of a class society there are groups, for
exampl e, occupati onal, social, and other groups that lead to a
certain division of society along lines of prestige, position in a
social hi erarchy and the l i ke. Si milar di vi si ons cannot be ruled
out in a society that has abolished privated property and classes,
on the contrary, previous experience i ndicates that their exis
t ence needs t o be taken for granted. "2o One need not recount the
sense of helplessness within existing socialist countries, the peri
odi c purges, and the dreadful shifts in power marked by dictator
i al excesses and secret pol ice to understand the fai l ure of the
Marxist analysis to produce the classless society which ful fills
human personality.
The parallels between Marxist thought and Western reli
gi ous thi nking, in particular the Christian religion, would seem to
i ndicate that they di ffer onl y in the degree of real i sm which they
are will ing to acknowledge in selecting their supporti ng data.
Christi an thi nkers al ways seem to be content to see sin in univer
sal generalities, careful l y preparing l oopholes for thei r fock, who
are devoutly convinced that the proper external behavior
coupled wi th proper recitati on of creeds and slogans i s sufcient
1 28 Marxism and Native Americans
to ensure t hei r ulti mate cosmi c salvation. Marxists reject after
death salvation and the j udgment day and rely upon the i nevita
bi l ity of the worki ngs of historical, economic processes to pro
duce basically the same result. In both instances the systems of
t hought are based upon the i ndividual as the fundamental con
cept used in analysis, both systems project the fulfllment of
human personality as the end product of their historical process.
I t i s not strange, t hen, t o discover that both systems see i n educa
t i on the final tool for s ocializati on of individuals into the grand
movement which they purport to describe.
Education was i nitially an ecclesiastical function. Designed
to produce a conti nuing horde of true believers; the churches
devoted considerable time and energy in educati onal pursuits.
The United States, and particularly the Midwest, still evidences
many insti tuti ons founded by church bodies whi ch were sup
posed to ensure the continued survival of the devout. Whi le
paying lip service to brotherhood, church colleges nevertheless
provid-d educati on to the elect. Marxist thinkers seem to place as
much credence in education as did the American church fathers.
But they seem to base i t as much on historical conditions as on
anything inherent in socialist ideology. Schaff represents the
basic Marxist stance toward education:
The historical genesis and tradi tional structure of mod
ern societies still prevents all cultural goods-especially
t hose whose assimilation requi res special preparation
and knowledge-from becoming generally accessi ble.
There is only one conclusion to be drawn from this,
particularly from the point of view of the educative
tasks of socialist society: everything must be done 10 fi
this gap in the education of the masses as quickly as
possible and raise them to a higher level. that is, make
them into a culural elte. [Emphasis addedj2 1
The desired goal of thi s program, and the content which will
i l lumi nate the new cultural elite, according to Schaf, "is to
disseminate through practical example the ideal persuasion, an
attitude of judi cious egalitarianism that precludes the pursuit of
wealth and the enlargement of individual property for the pur-
Ci rcl i ng The Same Ol d Rock 1 29
poses of s oci al elevat i on.
"
22
One cannot exami ne the ideal i st i c goals of soci al ist educa
t i on wi t hout seei ng the si mi l ari ty between i t and t radi t i onal
Western t heories of educat i on. Al t hough t he Chri st i an church
has l ong si nce abandoned i t s role as educat or i n favor of t he st ate,
the underl yi ng assumpti ons by whi ch the Western state now
engages i n universal educat i on at t he pri mary and secondary
l evel s i s i dentical to both anci ent eccl esi asti cal goal s and more
modern desi res t o create a res ponsi bl e ci t i zens hi p. I deal l y, wi t hi n
t he Western t radi t i on, such an educati on, regardl ess of i ts ci vi c
goal s, must consi der knowledge i n t he rati onal format i n which
clear i deas and conci se logic (the sci entific met hodol ogy) i nform,
present, and formulate concepts and t heori es. Reas on underl ies
West ern t heol ogi cal educati on, secul ar Western educati on, and
Marxist soci al i st educat i on. Wit hout reason t he West woul d be
unable t o cl assify and pass al ong i ts versi on of human knowledge.
Thi s passi on of the West is not wi thout i ts faws and few
Western t hi nkers are capabl e of understandi ng how much con
fl i ct such an educat i on produces i n t he body pol i t ic. "Soci al and
pol i ti cal real i ty cannot, for any l ength of ti me, conform to the
demands of reason, " Herbert Marcuse not es, "for t he state seeks
t o mai nt ai n t he i nterest of t hat whi ch i s, and t hus t o fetter t he
forces t hat tend t o a higher hi stori cal form. Sooner or l ater, t he
free rat i onal i ty of t hought must come i nt o
'
confi ct wi th the
rat i onal i t y of the gi ven order of l i fe. "23 Bot h res ponsi ble soci al
cont ract ci ti zens and commi tted soci al i sts depend upon the ul t i
mate rat i onal ity of thei r bel i efs to guarantee t he proper funct i on
i ng of t hei r respecti ve pol i t ical / economi c orders. Educat i on,
whi le advanced as the sol uti on to exist i ng probl ems, becomes t he
ul t i mate nemesi s of the system.
Ameri can I ndians have conti nual l y rejected the Western
ed ucati onal format al l t he whi l e i nsist i ng that t hei r chi l dren
receive an educat i on whi ch enabl es t hem t o understand whi tes
an
d
compete success ful l y wi th them i n the soci al , pol i tical and
economi c real ms . The i nconsi stency i n t hi s posi t i on i s not as
profound or hopel ess as i t woul d seem. The reference poi nt i s
never the t ransformat i on of tri bal cul t ures but the openi ng of the
i nner worki ngs of whi te soci ety t o t he underst andi ng of t ri bal
members. Unfortunatel y, but predi ctabl y, Ameri can society has
1 30 Marxi sm and Native Americans
responded t o I ndi an educati onal demands by attempti ng t o
change I ndi an social and cul t ural patterns -reveal i ng that Amer
i can educati on is a soci al izing process, not one t hat i mparts
i nsights and i nformati on about t he worl d. I n short, I ndi ans want
to learn and are offered i ndoctri nati on. I n t he same manner,
soci al i st countries will eventual ly produce i nternal strife by con
fusi ng educati on and i ndoctri nat i on, but thi s propensi ty to con
fuse one wi th the other seems a trai t as ol d as Western ci vi l i zat i on
itself and must cert ai nl y derive from i t s religi ous ori gi ns and
foundati ons.
Western knowledge, and i ts component parts, i ncl udi ng
educati on, produces al i enati on because it refuses to focus on the
real knowledge t hat can be gai ned from parti cul ars, i n favor of
universal categories of cl assi ficati on which purport to gi ve a
transcendent knowledge abl e to provi de i nstant ori entat i on to
thi ngs known and unknown ali ke. Marcuse puts i t best when he
writes:
Common sense and tradi ti onal scient ifi c t hought take
t he worl d as a t ot al i ty of thi ngs, more or less exi sti ng
per se, and seek t he truth in objects that are taken to be
independent of t he knowi ng subj ect. This is more t han
an epistemol ogical atti tude; it i s as pervasive as the
practi ce of man and leads them t o accept the feel i ng that
they are secure onl y i n knowi ng and handl ing objective
facts. The more remote an idea is from the impulses,
interests. and wants to the living subject. the more true
it becomes. [Emphasis added. j 24
Thi s i nsi ght is equal l y appl i cabl e t o democratic and soci al i st
atti tudes about knowl edge and i t certai nl y descri bes the funda
mental appeal of Western theol ogy. Unfort unately i t al so gi ves
el oquent test i mony regardi ng t he sense of al ienati on experienced
by the West -incl udi ng Marxist t hi nki ng.
Erich Fromm, i n i ntroduci ng Marx's Economic and Philo
sophic Manuscripts to American readers in 1 961 , paid particu
l ar attenti on t o t he place of Karl Marx in Western i ntellectual
and rel i gi ous hi story. "The mai nst ream of Messi ani c thi nki ng
after the Reformat i on, however, was expressed no l onger i n
Ci rcl i ng The Same Old Rock 1 3 1
rel igi ous thought, " Fromm s uggested, "but i n phi l osophi cal , hi s
t orical and s ocial t hought. " And, he concl uded, "it found its
latest and most compl ete expressi on i n Marx's concept of social
i sm. "25 Further, Fromm mai ntai ned, " Marx's phi l osophy was, in
secular, nont hei sti c language, a new and radical step forward i n
t he tradi ti on of prophetic Messiani sm; i t was ai med at the ful l
real izat i on of i ndividual i sm, the very ai m which has guided
Western t hi nki ng from the Renai ssance and the Reformati on far
i nto the ni neteenth century. "26 Marx hi msel f i ssued a phi l osophi
cal clarion cal l to redempti on:
Communism is the positive abol i t i on of private prop
erty. of human se(f-alienation. and t hus the real appro
priation of human nature through and for man. It i s,
t herefore, t he ret urn of man hi msel f as a social, i . e.
really human bei ng, a compl ete and consci ous return
whi ch assi mi l ates al l the wealt h of previ ous devel op
ment. Communi sm as a ful ly-devel oped natural i sm i s
humani sm and as a ful ly-devel oped humani sm i s natu
ral i sm. I t is the definitive resol ut i on of t he antagoni sm
between man and nature, and between man and man. 27
I f not as poetic as Isai ah, we certai nl y have here the promi se of
sal vati on and the announcement of t he day of the Lord, al bei t i n
secular cl othes.
The i mpl icati ons of Marxi st t hi nki ng may be revol uti onary
for Western peoples but t hey rai se a strange response i n Ameri
can I ndi ans. Why i s it that Western peoples feel t hemsel ves
al i enated from nature? And why is it t hat t hey seek s ome ki nd of
messi anic, ul tra-historical sol uti on once they have i denti fied t his
estrangement? To consi der communi sm, even i n its purest form,
the defnitive resol uti on between humani ty and nature i s basic
al l y to announce that the al i enat i on of humanity and nature is the
fundamental probl em around which al l ot hers revolve. Si nce t his
probl em is so cont i nuousl y on the mi nds of Western peoples, and
s i nce, after al l the economic analyses are concl uded, Marx
returns t o this theme, a better use of one's time than advocacy of
capi tal i sm or communi sm might be an exami nati on of how
Western peopl es decided or when t hey fi rst experi enced t his
1 32 Marx
i
sm and Nat
i
ve Americans
al i enat i on-s i nce i t does not occur wi thi n the American I ndi an
context as a probl em of t his magni tude. Marxi sm woul d t here
fore appear to be si mpl y another Chri sti an denomi nati on, al bei t
a hi ghl y seculari zed versi on, seeki ng t o di scover t he Messi ah and
opposi ng the "Ki ngdom of thi s worl d"
I f one needed further confi rmati on of thi s i denti ficat i on, it i s
readi l y apparent i n t he Marxi st concern for i nternati onal strug
gl e. Accordi ng t o Adam Schaff, "i nternat i onal i sm . . . i n t he
Marxi st system i s not si mpl y a councel of battle di ctated by t he
need to uni te forces of one cl ass agai nst another on a supra
nati onal scale, but i t i s al so a pri nci pl e of equal i ty that makes the
noti on of brotherhood real i sti c
.
"
2
8
Coul d Christ i anity have made
a better case for i tsel f? Schaff emphasizes t his argument qui te
el oquentl y when he wri tes:
. . . it is beyond d i sput e t hat internationalism is an
i nseparabl e part of t he atti tude of communi sts and that
both t he founders of Marxi sm and al l thei r di sci pl es
and fol l owers regarded i t as one of the characterist i c
features of the personal i ty of the communist man.
2
9
Go ye therefore i nt o al l t he world, preachi ng my Gospel . "I t i s
al so unchal l enged, " Schaff concl udes, "that internationalist atti
tudes shoul d be fostered consci ousl y, t hat they do not arise
spont aneously, l east of al l in peri ods l aden wi th nati onal i st
moods, but can onl y be formed i n a struggle agai nst nati onal i s m
and raci sm of al l vari eti es and shades. "30 The Marxi st message,
therefore t ranscends l ocal , tri bal , and nati onal boundaries and i s
and must be aggressi vely mi ssi onary-mi nded not si mpl y to suc
ceed but to realize i tsel f in al l i ts essenti al s.
Marx t ruly st ands wi t hi n t he Western t radi ti on and hi s
message i s hardly new or i nnovati ve. F. S. C. Northrup, i n hi s
book The Taming ofthe Nations, descri bed Western uni versal
i sm as fol l ows:
The great achi evement of the West as compared wi th
Asi a
i
s
i
t s capac
i
ty to ach
i
eve pol i t ical uni ty over s ocial
groups and geographical areas extendi ng far beyond
the Hebrew or As
i
an j oi nt fami l ies or t ri bes, a pol iti cal
Ci rcl i ng The Same Ol d Rock 1 33
uni on, moreover, t he moral communal roots of whi ch
have not hi ng t o do wi th fami l y, t r i be. stat us, or i nduc
t i vel y given stat i on. The concept of such a s oci ety was
fi rst envi saged by t he Stoi c phi l osophers who created
Western l aw. This new, more uni versal concept of law
and pol i t ical organi zati on t he Roman St oi cs derived
from Greek natural sci ence and phi l osophy. 3 1
Of parti cul ar i nterest i n understandi ng t hi s pol i ti cal uni ty i s the
type of moral i ty whi ch acts as i ts gl ue, provi di ng t he i nternal
consi stency, apart from force. to make it acceptabl e to i ndi
vi d ual s.
To be a moral man means t o be a ci ti ze n not of one' s
fami ly or one's t ri be or of any parti cul ar geographical
area, but t o be a cit izen ofa community o.ftheoret ically
constructed. technical1v concept ualized relations. Thus
l arge numbers of men l i vi ng t oo far apart for i nt ui ti vel y
feIt contact can achi eve a common bond of uni ty by free
i ndi vi dual accept ance of a common const i t ut i onal con
tract whi ch has not hi ng to do wi th i nducti vel y o bserved
fami l y, caste, or t ri bal stat us. ( Emphasi s added. ) 32
Nort hrup was, I t hi nk, wrong i n traci ng t hi s bel i ef backwards
onl y t o t he Roman St oi cs or even t o Greek nat ural phi l osophy
and sci ence. But i f i t can be t raced back t hat far wi th a fai r degree
of consi stency, then we can at least make one i nci si ve comment
whi ch s houl d di s t i ngui s h Ameri can I ndi an fro m Wes t er n
t hought . Western mat hemati ci ans concei ve zero as i ndi cati ve of
nothi ngness and t he concern of Greek phi l os ophy, Socrats,
Pl ato and Parreni des parti cul arl y, revol ves a bout t he i nterpl ay
of bei ng and non-bei ng. American I ndi ans , parti cul arl y the more
advanced groups i n Mexi co, Central and Sout h Ameri ca, con
cei ved t he zero to represent ful l ness, not not hi ngness, and t hus
t he ul ti mate val ue i n abst ract i ons t akes fundament al l y and di a
metri cal l y opposed vi ewpoi nts as between t he two groups.
Even more si gni fi cant, however, i s t he o bservat i on made by
Robert Bel l ah i n hi s essay on rel i gi ous evol ut i on. Bel l ah fi nds
consi derabl e si gni fi cance i n t he fact of t he "emergence i n t he fi rst
1 34 Marxi sm and Nati ve Ameri cans
mi l l enni um B. C. al l across the Ol d World. at l east i n centers of
hi gh cul t ure, of t he phenomenon of rel i gi ous rejecti on of the
worl d characteri zed by an extremel y negati ve eval uati on of man
and soci ety and t he exal t at i on of anot her real m of real i ty as al one
t rue and i nfi ni tel y val uabl e. "33 Bel l ah further observes t hat
"worl d rej ect i on marks the begi nni ng of a clear objecti ficat i on of
the soci al order and sharp cri t i ci sm of i t . I n t he earl i er worl d
acceptance phases rel i gi ous concepti ons and soci al order were so
fused t hat it was al most i mpossi bl e t o cri t i ci ze the l atter from the
poi nt of vi ew of t he former. In the l ater phases the possi bi l i ty of
remaki ng t he worl d t o conform t o val ue demands has served i n a
very di fferent way to mute t he ext remes of worl d rej ect i on. "34
Unless we can accept the i dea that whol e soci eti es coul d suddenl y
and convi nci ngi y accept a complete reversal of thei r underst and
i ng of l i fe-without any external event mot ivat ing t he change-I
suggest that Marxi sm, Chri sti ani ty, and Western ci vi l i zati on
woul d do themsel ves wel l t o pursue thei r hi stori cal i nvesti gat i ons
i nt o thei r own past and di scover what happened. What even
t ri ggered a compl ete and apparentl y humi l i ati ng acceptance of
the bel i ef that thi s worl d, nat ure i ncl uded, no l onger had any
value?
Marxi sm l ooks forward to t he product i on of "uni versal
man" who has the emot i onal , i nt el l ectual , pol i ti cal , and soci al
resources t o t ranscend hi s (si c) own al i enat i on and ful fi l l hi s
personal i ty. Marxi sm makes the clai m t hat it can succeed where
other i nterpretat i ons of human dest i ny have fai l ed by concent rat
i ng on condi t i ons and hi st ori cal forces to the excl usi on of ext ra
human concepts. Yet it must, l i ke al l other Western i nsti tut i ons,
confront the real i ty of i ts cul t ural past and deal fort hrightly wi th
the heri tage of t he West whi ch suggests that an event l ong
s hrouded i n the past provi ded t he si gni ficant t rigger for radical
change-a change that has yet t o be control led or understood. Of
part icul ar i mportance i n begi nni ng t o confront thi s event i s the
recogni ti on t hat Ameri can I ndians and other tri bal peopl es,
i ndeed t hose soci eti es whi ch l acked sophi sti cat i on and compl ex
i ty, di d not suffer t he emot i onal t rauma of t he fi rst mi l l enni um
and consequentl y di d not fi nd it necessary t o l ook beyond nature
and outsi de of themsel ves for meani ng.
Circli ng The Same Old Rock 1 35
Today Western t hi nkers are greatl y agitated wit h the
i nsights of Marxism and wit h good reason. If appl ied pri marily
to an anal ysi s of the effects of i ndustri al i sm, t he segregati on of
wealt h and power by a mi ni scule group of our species and their
s ubsequent i nhuman t reatment of the rest of us, Marxi sm gives
us si gnificant i nsi ghts into our condi t i on. It hel ps to expl ai n the
crude funct i oni ng of the capi tal i st system and i ts oppressi ve
machi nery which expl oi ts the mass of peopl e on t he pl anet. But
capi tal i sm, as Marx wel l knew, is based upon a ri gi d moral
pri nci pl e: t he renunciation of life i tsel f:
The less you eat, dri nk, buy books, go t o the t heatre or
to bal l s, or to the publ ic house, and t he l ess you t hi nk,
l ove, theorize, si ng, pai nt, fence, etc. t he more you wi l l
be abl e to save and the greater wi l l become your trea
sure which nei ther moth nor rust will corrupt -your
capital. The less you are, the less you express your life,
the more you have, t he greater is your alienated l i fe and
the greater i s the saving of your al i enated being. Every
t hi ng which the economi st takes from you i n t he way of
l i fe and humanity, he restores to you in t he form of
money and wealth. 35
The applause which Nort hrup reserves for Western geni us is
t herefore sadl y mi spl aced if we are discussi ng human bei ngs and
the new moral i ty whi ch Western t hought produces. Marxist
abolition of t hi s form of personal expressi on, whi l e it may resolve
s ome hi storical i nequi ti es, hardly provides any ul ti mate sol uti ons
t o t he human probl em.
From t he perspective of American I ndians, I woul d argue,
Marxi sm ofers yet anot her group of cowboys ridi ng around the
same ol d rock. It is Western religi on dressed in economi stic
cl ot hi ng, and shabby clot hi ng it i s. I t accepts uncritically and
ahi storically the worldview generated by some anci ent Western
t rauma t hat our species is al i enated from nature and then offers
but another version of Messi ani sm as a sol uti on to thi s artifcial
probl em. Its universal i sm, disguised i n the costume of inter
nati onal concern and appl icat i on, poses as much t hreat as ever
di d t he Christian mi ssi onaries. I n educati onal theory i t provides
1 36 Marxism and Native Americans
out moded and inapplicable sociali zati on wit h abstract and
useless, if not inval i d, knowledge; at least general izati ons whi ch
have l ittl e relevance to the tribal s it uati on.
American I ndi ans and other tribal peoples stand today as
the sole exampl e of true humani sm because they wil l i ngly
recognize the att ri butes that serve to compose and defi ne the
human bei ng. They revere age and recognize the growing process.
They establ i sh wit h some degree of clarity the di fference whi ch
gender creates i n human perspectives. They admit t hat family
consi derati ons pl ay a cri t ical role i n the distri buti on of goods and
t he appl i cat i on of j usti ce. t hey recognize law but t hey also see the
ful l ness of t he moment and ask legal and political sol ut i ons t o be
just as well as l awful . They rej ect a universal concept of
brotherhood i n favor of respectfui treatment of human bei ngs
wi th whom t hey have contact. It is not necessary, t hey argue, t hat
crows should be eagles . Both Marxists and Christi ans shoul d
heed that i nsi ght si nce in attmepting to transform the world i nto
eagles they have merely produced vultures.
7
Observations on Marxism
and Lakota Tradition
Frank Black Elk
I have been asked t o make some observati ons concerni ng the
rel at i onshi p between Marxism and the spi ri tual tradi ti ons of the
native peoples of this hemisphere. First, allow me to say that I
am no Marxist schol ar. I suppose my understandi ng of the
subject i s t he resul t of what has been popul arly projected t o me,
often enough by people cal l i ng t hemselves Marxi sts or Marxi st
Leni ni sts. I assume that what t hey've passed al ong to me is an
accurate enough summary of the mai n poi nts of thei r tradi ti on.
Second, al l ow me t o say that no i ndi vi dual can hope t o accurately
address the range of spi ri tual tradi t i on i ndi genous to the Ameri
cas . There are a great number of cultures among native peopl e,
each wi th i ts own i nfnitely complex s pi ri tual i ty. To do j ustice to
t he subj ect, representat ives of each tradi t i on woul d be necessary.
Of course, t hi s i s i mpossi ble i n t he context of a book s uch as
that whi ch has been proposed t o me. Coverage of j ust the ques
t i on of spi ri tual i ty would require vol umes, if done i n ful l , and
then the bal ance of the subjects to be covered would remai n,
requi ri ng addi ti onal vol umes. Obvi ousl y, few peopl e would pos
sess the t i me and energy t o read such a l engthy work and so it is
i mpracti cal .
1 37
1 38 Marxism and Native Americans
Of necessity, then, I wi l l restri ct the bul k of my observat i ons
to the tradi ti ons of my own people, the Lakota peopl e. I am not a
spiritual leader or an "expert", even i n thi s. Spiritual leadershi p is
the role of the tri bal el ders, for t he most part, and I am young. I
have nonetheless, been fortunate enough to have benefited from
the wisdom and knowl edge of my uncle, Wallace Bl ack El k, my
aunt, Grace Bl ack El k and vari ous other el ders. I know enough to
speak i n generalities, which i s what i s needed here.
Fi nal l y, my l i mi ted focus upon the Lakota t radi ti ons i s not
as potential l y misleadi ng as it may appear at fi rst glance. I bel ieve
that, despite t heir great di fferences i n some very i mportant ways,
most spiritual tradi ti ons of the Americas share certai n central
values and underst andi ngs. Thi s is, in a way, the same as that the
various factions of the Christian church hold certain core fea
tures i n common, despite other di ssi mil ari ti es. Thi s is not to say
that I believe that al l native spi ri tual ity sprang from a si ngle
source as the Chri sti an rel i gi on is reputed to have, nor even t hat I
believe Christianity is t he product of a given source.
Along .wi th Vine Del ori a, Jr. , i n his book God Is Red, I feel
that spiritual tradi ti ons were probably born of and conti nued by
such t hi ngs as the geography from whi ch they sprang; they are
truly i ndigenous t o certain areas and are the onl y forms of
spirituality appropriate to t hose areas. In any event , an under
standing of the Lakota tradi ti on i n its possible rel ati onshi p to t he
Marxist tradition s houl d prove hel pful to those seeki ng to under
stand si mi l ar relati onshi ps between Marxi sm and other natural
spi ritual tradi ti ons.
I I .
My fi rst i mpressi ons of Marxi sm came t hrough heari ng
statements such as "rel i gi on i s t he opiate of the people. " Si nce
Europeans often have considered native spirituality as being
"religion", such statements were confusi ng to me. I asked several
people for an explanati on of thi s and, in each case, I received
essentially the same answer. Yes, by religi on, spi ri tual ity was
being referred to; spi ri tual i ty or religi on is one of the ways the
"ruling class" subverts the revol uti onary energies of the people.
By promi si ng a gl ori ous "afterlife" or "heaven" to t hose who stay
Marxi sm and Lakota Tradi t i on 139
i n l i ne duri ng thei r l i ves on earth, and by t hreateni ng a horri bl e
and eternal afterl i fe cal l ed "hel l " t o t hose who do not stay i n l i ne,
t he rul i ng class is abl e to mai ntai n i ts posi t i on of soci al power by
fri ghteni ng t he people away from revol ti ng and taki ng power for
t hemselves . The church i s obvi ously associ ated wi th the rul i ng
cl ass and hel ps to defi ne what stayi ng i n l i ne means.
Thi s descri pti on of rel i gi on obvi ousl y served t o describe the
Christian church, an institution which has nothing at all to do
wi th the tradi ti onal spiri tual i ty of t he Lakota peopl e. I poi nted
t hi s out t o each of the i ndi vi dual s who were expl ai ni ng the
vari ous negat ive social effects of rel i gi on t o me, in hopes that t hi s
would cause them t o consi der t hat my people' s "rel i gi on" was not
addressed by thei r anal ysi s. But it di d not . I n each case, it was
asserted (with various twists, accordi ng t o the speaker) that,
whi le rel i gi ous forms tend t o vary from cul ture to cul t ure, or even
wi thi n a gi ven cul ture, t he net soci al resul t of al l religi ons is
essenti al ly the same: the people are "drugged" by rel i gi ous
"supersti ti on" to the poi nt of not reachi ng thei r ful l potenti al as
human bei ngs .
But, I asked, have you real l y exami ned al l t he spi ri tual
traditi ons of al l the di fferent cultures on earth i n order to reach
t hi s concl usi on? Wel l , no, was the general repl y, t hat would be
much too lengthy and complicated an understandi ng. Besi des,
t here's really no need, i t has been di al ecti cal l y determi ned t hat
t his i s the soci al result of religi on. I nstead of wasti ng large
amounts of t i me and energy analyzi ng what it al ready under
stands t o be a socially negati ve condi ti on, Marxi sm wisely
dvotes i ts resources t o the understandi ng of a posi t ive soci al
vi si on whi ch can overcome rel i gi on and rul i ng cl asses i n general.
Usual l y, I tried one last ti me. But tradi t i onal Lakot a spi ri tu
al i ty coul d not serve the soci al purposes you descri be, I i nsisted,
agai n and agai n. The Lakota have never had a rul i ng class;
l eaders serve by consensus of the peopl e. The Lakota have never
been concerned with heaven and hel l . The Lakota have never
even had need for a church, at least not i n the sense t hat Chri s
t i anity has a church. Woul dn' t i t be wi se for Marxi sts to take a
l ook at t radi t i onal Lakota spi ri tual i ty, i n i ts own ri ght , and see i f
i t weren' t somethi ng other than the rel i gi ous "opiate" condemned
by Marxi sm.
1 40 Marxism and Native Americans
But my i nformants woul d have none of t his. They were
sorry, of course, perhaps even a bit embarrassed, to have to .
expl ai n to me that what I was saying, whi l e perhaps true as far as
i t went, di dn't real l y matter. The probl em, as they saw it, was
t hat religi on possessed socially useful attributes at certain, rat her
pri mi tive levels of social organizati on. History shows t hat, as
societies develop, religi on assumes less and less useful soci al
characteristics, becomes more and more socially repressive as a
means to conti nue i ts existence (once the real need for it has
passed) unti l fi nally it assumes a role as one of the most react i on
ary social forces. So, even if Lakota spi rituality seems to retai n
certai n superficially appeal i ng characteristics now, as Lakota
cul ture goes t hrough i ts i nevitable evoluti on "i nto t he twenti eth
cent ury, " thi s same spi rituaiity wi ll j ust become l i ke a dead
weIght around the neck of the people, a weight always attempti ng
to pul l them down i nto the mi re of primitive supersti ti on.
Finally, one i ndividual (gently) expl ai ned to me t hat, whi le
he was t hrilled t o see me standi ng up for the sovereignty and
self-determination of my people-as a "Third Worlder"-
I
had to
be constantly alert to the dangers of "gl amorizing" my heritage
and tradi ti ons. Afer al l , he cauti oned, it is absol utely essential to
a "correct" understandi ng of the situation that one bear i n mind
that tradi ti onal Lakota and other i ndigenous spi ritual forms of
this hemisphere are aspects of stone age culture. and, of course, no
sane human bei ng woul d consci ously advocate a return to life i n
t he stone age. One must be real istic, one must carefully separate
"advanced" ideas from "backward" ideas; a "new age" i s dawn
i ng. What was done to the I ndi ans was genocide, was horri bl e,
but it' s past; t he duty of al l I ndi ans now i s to leave the past behind
and move on into the fut ure, a new social order is emergi ng and
I ndi ans should take an equal place i n that order.
That tore i t. The guy s ounded j ust like the headmaster at the
ol d boardi ng school I was sent t o after being ki dnapped from my
parents by the Bureau of I ndi an Affairs. Al though you can be
assured my oId headmaster was hardly trying to convert me to a
belief i n Marxism, both he and the Marxist were equally sure t hat
they possessed the "keys " to solving the problems of native
people. They were also, despite their prepackaged "solutions, "
equal ly and compl etel y i gnorant . of t he peopl e they figured to
"help". And they were equally disi nterested i n doi ng anythi ng at
all to overcome that little matter of abject ignorance.
Marxi sm and Lakota Tradi t i on 1 4 1
" Li sten, my friend, " I sai d, "the only soci al order I have the
l east bi t of i nterest i n j oi ni ng i s an i ndependent Lakota Nati on,
the same i ndependent Lakota Nati on you fol ks guaranteed us
you woul dn't mess around with before you st arted comi ng up
wi th bet ter ideas of how le shoul d l i ve our l i ves. "
" Frank, " he repl i ed (l aughi ng, of course), "you' re a hopel ess
romanti c. "
" Romanti c, " I retorted (getti ng real l y hot at hi s t oo smug
a musement), "refers to Rome. I , i n case it has n' t dawned on you,
am an Ogl al a Lakota. You wi l l ki ndl y keep your raci st bul l shi t i n
your mout h. "
" Let' s cut t hi s I ndi an crap . . . "
But , I was al ready wal ki ng away rapi dl y. He was l ucky I
di d n't put seri ous press ure on hi s j aw wi th my fi st . Maybe i f, as
al ways, he hadn't been forty pounds and four i nches bigger t han
me, I woul d have. And so i t goes . . . .
Anyway, at that poi nt, Marxi sm and I experi enced a deci ded
parti ng of the ways. Offi ci al l y. Unoffi ci al l y I remai ned i ntrigued
by the "l i berati on" rhetori c of Marxi sm and the obvi ous wi l l i ng
ness of at l east some Marxi sts to put t hei r al l on t he l i ne in efforts
to resi st oppressi on and to overt urn the status quo. Anyone
possess i ng any fami l iari ty at al l wi th t he cont emporary col oni al
conditions imposed On native peoples throughout the Americas
by the status quo, shoul d be abl e to readi l y underst and the appeal
for me t hat comes wi th the i dea of overt urni ng i t. I kept my eyes
open, but I was (and remai n) wary.
I I I .
can' t say that I ' ve exactly been obsessed wi t h t hi nki ng
about Marxi sm si nce I fi rst i nvesti gated i t . But, as I sai d, certai n
as pects of i t retai ned a sort of natural appeal . So, I consi dered the
probl ems whi ch had t urned up i n my di scussi ons wi th Marxi sts,
at l east from ti me t o ti me. Basi cal l y, I came up wi t h what I t hi nk
are a coupl e of major poi nts.
Fi rst, i t seems Marxi sts are hung up on exactl y the same
i deas of "progress" and "devel opment" t hat are t he gui di ng
moti ves of t hose they seek to overt hrow. They have t hi s i dea t hat
Lakotas are (or, at l east, were) a pri mi ti ve peopl e i n relat i on to
Europe. Any rati onal person woul d have t o ask what' s s o "pri mi-
1 42 Marxi sm and Native Americans
tive" about a people whi ch managed to mai ntai n a perpetual l y
democrati c way of life, whi ch shared all soci al power equitably
between both sexes and various age groups, which consi dered
war essentially a game rather than an excuse to i ndulge in the
wanton slaughter of masses of peopl e, which ki l led game only for
food rather t han as a "sport, " whi ch managed to occupy its
environment for t housands and t housands of years without sub
stanti al l y al teri ng it ( t hat is to say, destroyi ng i t) . That same
rational person woul d have t o ask why any sane individual woul d
not choose to live that way i f t he chance were avai l abl e, or aspi re
towards such an exi stence if the chance wasn't i mmediate.
That same rati onal person would then have to ask what's so
"advanced" about a cul ture whi ch generates authoritari ani sm
and diciat orshi p as a sociai norm, whi ch deprives i ts women, i ts
et hni c mi norities, its elders and i ts youth of any true social power,
which engages i n the most lethal warfare on a regular basis and
has left perhaps a half bi l l i on mangled bodi es in its wake during
t his century al one, which i s el i mi nati ng enti re speci es of pl ant and
ani mal l i fe forever and without real concern, and whi ch has
utterly devastated the environment of t his conti nent in approxi
mately two centuri es. Fi nal l y, that same rati onal person woul d
have t o ask what sort of l unatic would choose t o swi tch from the
fi rst way of life to the second.
The answer, of course, is probabl y even a lunati c woul dn' t
choose anythi ng t hat crazy. The real questi on is why peopl e
trapped in the second way of l i fe don't realy start seeki ng ways to
get over i nto the first one. The answer i s, perhaps, si mply that
they don't know how. And, t hey' re so used to pretendi ng to have
al l t he answers (that attitude seems to be i nbred withi n the second
way of life) that t hey're afraid t o admit t hey no l onger know how.
So they-Christians capitalists , communists, fascists , the
whole range of "ists " and "isms " making up Euro culture-de
mand that we native people all become a part of their i nsani ty
and fear.
Our way of l ife was and is possi ble only because of t he values
and attitudes i nstilled in us by our spi rituality, our spi ri tual
traditions . The difference between native spirituality here and
the Chri sti an form whi ch domi nates Europe can be measured i n
t he difference between the two ways of life.
Marxism and Lakota Tradi ti on 1 43
But t hi ngs are not quite thi s si mpl e. The European put down
of native peoples is more complex. They call us primitive, but as
we've seen, t here's no obvi ous rati onal reason for t hi s. And
Europeans pride themselves on thei r rationality. So there must be
a less obvi ous reason. This seems t o be that Europeans have
deci ded, general l y speaki ng, that our pri mi ti veness l i es i n the fact
t hat we (l i ke most of the world) are "underdevel oped. " N ow, it's
not i mmedi atel y clear what is meant by t his ei t her. Clearly,
Europeans general ly don' t know enough about the subtleties-or
even t he cruditi es-of our cul tures t o have any i dea as to the state
of our "devel opment" i n those terms. So the answer must lie in
some superfi cial area which i s i mmediately vi si bl e, even to a total
outsi der.
Thi s l eads me back t o the "comrade's" observati on that my
peopl e, the Lakota peopl e, were a stone age cul ture before the
Europeans came here. But how is that? Is there something stoney
about our governmental forms or our medi ci ne or our emoti ons,
art, or food? What i s thi s stone age by whi ch Euros define our
cul ture? Wel l , it seems that our weapons and tools were made of
stone, a materi al uti l ized i n its more or less natural state. Thus we
are a pri mi ti ve peopl e. No more questi ons t o ask about us i n that.
Thus too, are we underdevel oped. No further questi ons there
ei t her.
It can even be quanti fi ed. Let' s see now, the stone age
occurred i n Europe about 1 0, 000 years or so before Euros went
sai l i ng off to ""di scover" stone using peopl es on the other si de of
the Atl anti c. It fol l ows, t hrough some preoccupati on or demen
ti a, t hat t he people stumbled upon by a group of t horoughly l ost
I t al i an and Spani sh sai l ors must have been 1 0,000 years behind
Europe; after all, they di dn' t even possess muskets and steel
swords wit h which to civilize savages . Gee, what retards.
Now, none of t hese "enlightened" Europeans ever got
around t o aski ng t he savages whether t here might, i n fact be a
reason why the Natives fancied using stone tools and such. After
al l , no one coul d rightly expect an underdevel oped, primi tive
savage to reason about much of anythi ng. Such an assessment,
on purely materi al terms, was clearly borne out by the Aztec, I nca
and Mayan (among other) cities "discovered" almost i mme
diatel y by the conquistadores. And s o, it has become a tradi ti on
i n Europe to vi ew vi rtual l y everyone el se as underdeveloped,
1 44 Marxism and Native Americans
backward and retarded. Whi ch i sn' t t o say that Euros ever had
much reason for such odd behavior, j ust that they were and are
rather greedy fol ks on t he whole, and possessed of the weapons
( pure and si mple) t o enforce t hei r peculiar standard of measure
on anyone who happened to be nearby.
It' s the peculiarity of the standard of measure here whi ch
stri kes me as bei ng most i mportant. I t' s al l a matter of the "wi l l"
and abi l i ty t o accumul ate materi al ; the standard also indi cates a
need t o constantl y arrange and rearrange materi al . The standard
of measure seems t o me t o be that the more compulsive a cul ture
can become i n terms of gatheri ng up and rearranging materi al ,
t he more "advanced" i t i s considered to be. The more relaxed, at
peace, and wi l l i ng t o leave materi al t hi ngs ( beyond real neds)
al one d cul ture can be shown to be, the more "back\' ard" i t is
consi dered. Now, such "logic" i s rather odd, to say the least.
A hundred years ago a great Lakota spi ri tual l eader,
Tatonka Yatonka (
S
itting Bu
ll
), observed of whites that, "the
l ove of possessi ons i s a disease wi th them. " My hunch i s that, as
usual , the savage hi t the nai l squarely on the head. Of course,
Si tti ng Bul l di dn' t know much about the psychoanalyti c theori es
of Sigmund Freud, and neither do I , but i t would seem t hat Freud
and the Bul l were i n total agreement on at least some t hi ngs : t hat
t here is a certain neuroti c behavi or characterized by a d ri vi ng
compul si on t o gather up material and play wi th i t and t hat i t' s an
obsessive preoccupat i on wi th purel y physical accumulati on and
arrangement. The name of t his parti cular disease or di sorder of
the mi nd, Freud termed anal retention.
Perhaps Freud consi dered t hi s to be a di sease i ndi cat i ng an
"advanced" mental state. I ' m not really sure about that. But i t
woul d seem quite possi bl e, given t he standard of measure i t l i kes
to foi st off on other peoples, and which i s really j ust the refecti on
of i ts own cul tural val ue structure, t hat somewhere i n the course
of i ts "development" the whole of Europe got stuck i n the adoles
cent and retentive stage.
Perhaps i f some deep t hi nker can sit me down and prove to
me that the Lakota were and are cul turally deprived because of
thei r marked i nabi l i ty t o i ndulge i n s pectacular material di splays
l i ke World War I I , I woul d be prompted t o change my analysi s of
al l thi s. But I consi der the probabi l i ty of anyone really want i ng to
attempt t o present such a case to be a bit l ow. Li kewi se, if
Marxi sm and Lakot a Tradit i on 1 45
someone could show me how plastic Barbie Dolls, TV dinners ,
Porsche 91 1 s , punk rock, double-olympic-sized swimming pools
const ructed for the offi cers in Sai gon, Cam Rahn Bay and
Danang, napal m and cl uster bombs, l akes of asphal t cal led
parki ng l ot s and all the rest of the vast array of l et hal and usel ess
European materi al reollJ' benefi t s my cul t ural essence one i ota, I
mi ght recons i der. But agai n, I doubt very much t hat anyone
wants t o tackl e such an absurdi ty.
I mean, consider t he i mpl i cati ons of a t radit i on whi ch com
pel s i ts peopl e to march across hal f a cont i nent , engage i n a maj or
war to s t eal the l and from my peopl e, engage i n genoci de i n order
t o preserve t hei r conquest, and all pri mari l y so t hey can di g gol d
out of a smal l port i on of that l and, t ransport i t back across the
cont i nent, and bur i t agai n at Ft. Knox! The vi rul ence of the
di sease Si t t i ng Bul l spoke of i s trul y st aggeri ng.
And, l est Marxi sts thi nk t hey've s omehow evaded t hi s cri
t i que s i mpl y because capi t al i sm hel d and hol ds power duri ng t he
peri ods I ' m t al ki ng about , l et me remi nd you t hat i t was a "hard
core" Marxi st who s o smugl y i nformed me t hat I needed to very
careful l y become "real i sti c, " tojoin the i nsani ty wi t hout "roman
t i c" resi st ance, and get ready for the "new order" comi ng up. No
mat t er what mud t he capi t al i st s mi ght wi sh t o sl i ng at t he
memory of Karl Marx, they can never deny he was a good
European: he transported the Puri t an i deal of heaven i n the next
l i fe t hrough productive work i n t hi s one i nt o an i deal i sm pro
cl ai mi ng heaven i s attai nabl e on earth t hrough the sare produc
ti ve work.
I've heard it sai d t hat Marx' s greatest "achi evement" was to
completel y secul ari ze Chri sti an dogma. I don' t know if this eval
uat i on i s correct. However, I' m cert ai n he accompl i shed thi s, and
t hat i t was a maj or theoreti cal turning poi nt i n European hi story.
He set out to demol i sh t he opi um of Europe' s peopl e, and I 'd
cal cul at e he s ucceeded. Whatever spi ri tual i ty remai ned in Chri s
t endom died wi t h Marx. The anal ret ent i ve complex whi ch had
al ways been sputteri ng i n t he Euro psyche became concreti zed as
"di al ecti cal materi al i sm"; matei al i sm has t hus become the
European rel i gi on.
The ups hot of al l t his i s t hat , as a non-European, an out
si der, J have trouble differentiating between Marxists, capital
i st s, and al l t he ot her "ists . " Just l i ke I 've never real l y been abl e t o
1 46 Marxi sm and Native Americans
unscramble al l the theol ogi cal fi ne poi nts which disti ngui sh the
vari ous denomi nat i ons of the Chri sti an rel i gi on. Al l Chri st i ans
s ay essenti al l y t he same t hi ng t o me: " Become Chri sti an. " Al l t he
materi al i sts have t hei r own, essent i al ly si mi l ar, message: "Get
wi th the program, become a materi al i st. " They are all prosel y
ti zers; that i s, seeki ng to gain recrui t s, more recrui ts. Al l of t hem
want me t o change; none of t hem care t o support who I am. A
European i s a European is a European.
Christians, capitalists, Marxists; all any of them really want
from me is my identi ty as a Lakota, as an "ot her. " Al l any of t hem
really want of the Lakot a i s t hei r i denti ty as a peopl e, as s ome
t hi ng "other" than the understandi ng (or mi sunderstandi ng) of
Europe. I, and my peopl e, are j us t so much more material to be
accumui ated and rearranged i nt o somet hi ng we weren' t and
never wanted to be.
At thi s poi nt, havi ng t hought the matter over, I arri ved at a
monumental l y "romant i c" concl us i on. On a theoreti cal l evel , as
wel l as a personal level, Marxi sm and I were necessari l y goi ng our
separate ways. I may ul t i matel y become fodder materi al for one
another European power group vyi ng for more t hi ngs to pl ay
wi th, but not by choice. t hanks. And as to t he "unreal i sm" of my
deci si on t o attempt to parti ci pate i n the cont i nuati on of Lakot a
tradi ti ons, val ues, and non-materi al i st spi ri tual i ty, I wi l l quote
one of the Marxi sts who di d (and still does, i n a way) attract me,
"Be real i sti c, demand the i mpossi bl e. " I believe Dany Cohn
Bendit said that. And anyway, t he i mpossi ble, ai n't.
Despite my di senchant ment wi th Marxi sm and with the
general potenti al for European cul t ure to provide anything l i ke
sol uti ons t o the gl obal probl ems i t has created, I was i ntrigued
when asked to prepare thi s paper. I deci ded to back up and st udy
i n a bi t more dept h, to read some of t he Marxist l iterat ure beyond
the "fundamental s" I' d earl i er waded t hrough. Much of what I
attempted, al though I t hought I understood Marxi sm t o be
i ntended as a "worki ng cl ass" t heory, was couched in a language
which rendered i t thoroughly uni ntelligi bl e (much l i ke Marx
hi mself. I don't know that I understood all I read; I don't know
that it's an i ssue one way or the ot her. Obfuscati on i s an aspect of
intellectual "gamesmanshi p"; what I' m concerned with are prac
tical real i ti es. I doubt that I ever became profi ci ent in "the mean
ing of Marcuse, " if that matters t o anyone.
Marxi sm and Lakota Tradi ti on 1 47
Two of the books I read duri ng t hi s preparati on peri od di d
gri p my at t ent i on, however; at l east i n certai n secti ons. These
were Unorthodox Marxism by Michael Al bert and Robi n Hah
nel ( Sout h End Press, Boston, 1 978) and Alienation by Bertel l
Oi l man ( Cambridge University Press, 1 97 1 ) . The parts whi ch
real ly got me excited were the sect i ons where the aut hors descri be
t he Marxi st i dea of dialectics, whi ch both books bri ng out i n
remarkably s i mi l ar fashi on, and the meani ng of whi ch I ' d never
been quite clear on before. As Al bert and Hahnel i n particul ar
not e, Marxi sts are ofen to be heard referri ng to d ialecti cs t hi s
and di al ect i cal t hat , but more often t han not , t hey-never mi nd
t he rest of us "uni ni tiated" types-don' t real l y seem to have a
handl e on what thi s somewhat mysti cal word is s upposed t o
mean; it seems to usuall y be j ust anot her of t he eternal st ri ng of
l eft wi ng buzz words. So i t was a revel ati on t o read s ome reason
abl y art i culate defi ni t i on of the famous di al ecti c. I was al so qui te
taken with some aspects of Oi l man's al ienat i on t heory too, but
I ' l l get t o t hat later.
Now, i f I may take the l i berty t o do so, I' d like to briefly l ay
out what i t was t hat struck me about the above aut hors' descri p
tions of how di al ecti cs work. Al l of them seem t o agree that i t i s a
relational means of concei vi ng real i ty. That is t o say that any
as pect of real ity must be viewed as rel ated, by vi rtue of exi sti ng at
al l , to al l other aspects of real i ty. Nothi ng can be trul y under
stood except i n rel ati on to everythi ng el se. Thus, t he universe can
be understood as a total of all i ts part s, but the understandi ng of
any of t he parts does not produce an understandi ng of the uni
verse. I n fact, unl ess the i nteracti on of t he uni verse is understood,
a t rue understandi ng of any si ngle part wi thi n i t can never real l y
be arrived at. Li ke I sai d, di al ecti cs woul d seem to be-by
desi gn-a completely relati onal way of t hi nki ng; in other words,
a vi ew i n whi ch al l thi ngs are rel ati ons.
Di al ecti cs seems t o be held out by Marxi sts as the founda
ti on of al l Marxi an phi l osophy, the way of t hi nki ng whi ch di sti n
gui s hes Marxi sm from other European phi losophi es. Marxists
pri de t hemsel ves i n bei ng able to achi eve a more total vi ew of
ci rcumstances than can thei r opposi t i on, whi ch tends to thi nk i n
terms of more si mpl i sti c l i near systems, l i ke cause and effect. Up
t o t hi s poi nt, I have t o wholeheartedl y agree wi t h the Marxi st
t heory, at l east i n pri nci pl e. But I wonder how many Marxi sts
1 48 Marxism and Native Americans
have ever heard, much l ess understood, the word, Metaku
yeayasi?
As I understand it , Chri sti ans close thei r prayers with t he
word "amen, " the meani ng of which origi nally meant "all men, "
or some such. The term seems rat her limited i n its i ntended
applicati on (one mi ght even term i t "human chauvi nist" i n i ts
i mpl icati ons) and cl early sexi st i n its structure, but that's the
Christian church for you. The Lakota, on the other hand, cl ose,
open, and ofen punctuate thei r prayers wi th the word Meta
kuyeayasi, a generally accepted translati on of whi ch i s "al l rela
ti ons. " And anyone t hi nki ng "all rel ati ons" is referring simply to
fat hers, mothers, cousi ns and brothers, is less than ignorant of
the Lakota. These human relati ons are, of course, included. But,
i n the same sense, so are the four legged ani mals, t he ani mal s
whi ch crawl and swi m and fly, t he pl ants, the mountai ns, l akes,
pl ai ns, rivers, the sky and sun, stars, moon, the four di rect ions . . .
i n short , everythi ng. Everyt hi ng i n t he universe is related wit hi n
the tradi ti on of Lakota spi ri tuali ty; everythi ng i s relat i onal , and
can only be understood i n that way.
The basis for t his understandi ng on the part of tradi ti onal
Lakota cul ture i s its spi ri tual i ty. The relationality of the universe
i s a spiritual propositi on, a force so complex and so powerful that
it creates a sense of wonder and i mpotence in any sane human
who trul y consi ders i t. Only t hrough the devot i on of the better
part of a l i fetime of i ntensi ve study under the supervi sion of an
array of seasoned teachers who have also devoted t hei r l ives to a
l ifeti me of study can one hope to begi n to fathom thi s compl exity
and power whi ch we call Tunkashila, the Grandfat her, the Uni
verse, the Great Mystery. Thi s i s why our tribal elders are neces
sarily our spi ritual l eaders, our teachers: only t hey have had
suffici ent t i me to gain the knowledge whi ch allows even a limited
understanding of the Great Mystery of the Relations.
I t may be a s omewhat j ol ti ng announcement t o make to
doctrinaire Marxists who are convi nced otherwise by the memor
izati on of some "revol uti onary" tract or other, but Lakota spirit
uality is-in perhaps t he only translational terms comprehensible
to Marxi sts-the pursui t of a true understanding of the dialecti
cal nature of t he universe. That, and to conform our lives to living
rel ationally, as a relati on among relati ons; not at the expense of
Marxi sm and Lakot a Tradi t i on 1 49
our rel at i ons. Rat her than bei ng "an opiate" t o the Lakota
peopl e, t he t radi t i onal Lakota spi ri tual i ty, our religion as it were,
act ual l y consti t utes a st i mul ant, a soci al agent requi ri ng a per
pet ual pursui t of di al ecti cal knowl edge and act i on. Thi s, it seems
t o me, is what Marxi sts are al ways saying t hey're about. Meta
kueayasi. on the ot her hand, is the concept ual essence of Lakota
s pi r i t ua l i ty, a spi ri tual i ty whi ch i s the pract i cal essence of Lakota
l i fe i t sel f.
I t al so seems to me, the probl em here is not merel y one of a
one-si ded i nt ercul tural i gnorance. Rat her. as Al bert and Hahnel
poi nt out i n Unorthodox Marxism. even the "heavywei ght"
Marxist t heori sts seem at a loss to defi ne t he di fference between
how t hei r "di al ecti cs" works and how the more compl ex systems
of l i near l ogic work. I bel ieve this i s t rue because Marxi sm, at
l east i n t he form avai l abl e i n t hi s count ry today, doesn't work
t hrough a di al ectical system of t hought at al l . I t does work
t hrough the same l ogical systems as t he "bourgeoi s" t heorists i t
says i t opposes; it takes a l i near, cause and effect, route t o
underst andi ng probl ems and proposi ng sol uti ons, rat her t han a
t rul y rel at i onal approach.
So, when Marxi sts come upon a cul ture whi ch functions on
t he basi s of truly di al ectical underst andi ng and t hought, t hey
don't understand i t , t hey don' t recogni ze i t, t hey condemn t hei r
own avowed means to reason as bei ng "pri mi tive" and "under
devel oped. " As my Marxi st acquai nt ances woul d say, t he magni
tude of the "cont radi cti on" here is overwhel mi ng. And so it
goes . . . .
I t seems enti rel y reasonabl e t o me t hat , i f Marxi sts had ever
real been functi oni ng on the basis of di al ectics, t hey would have
been i nt erested in fi ndi ng out enough about Lakota cul ture to
di scover whatever t he exact relat i onshi p between t he t radi ti on
and t hei rs mi ght be. They didn't. But i f t hey had, I ' m confident
t hey woul d (wi th some astonishment, no doubt) have di scovered
what I ' ve noted above. Of course, si nce t hey have al ways been
prone t o di smi ss Lakota cult ure as backward, before t hey i nves
t igated its t rue nat ure, t here's no way t hey coul d make the subse
quent di scovery. Perhaps even i f t hey had engaged i n some
seri ous at t empts at investigati on t hey woul d stinot have under
st ood t he si gnifi cance of what they were seeing, because I' m
hardl y convi nced they yet understand or practi ce dialectical
reasoni ng.
1 50 - Marxi sm and Nati ve Americans
If Marxi sts had ever come cl ose t o comprehendi ng the uni
verse i n anyt hi ng remotel y resembl i ng a t rul y rel at i onal sense, i t
seems utterl y i nconcei vabl e t hat t hey coul d engage i n perpetuat
ing the arrogance of l ogi c t hrough which Europe has assi gned
humani ty a mysti cal pl ace of i nherent superi ori ty among l i vi ng
t hi ngs. I t seems equal l y i mpossi bl e that a relati onal worl d vi ew
coul d accomodate the rat her st upi d noti on that t he universe was
s omehow desi gned as the pl ayground for human expl oitat i on.
Such exampl es coul d be conti nued at great length.
I n any event, t he questi on must be posed: i f Marxi sm has
been completely unable to discover the rather obvious com
monality noted above between themselves and a Native tradi
tion, what else has their"advanced learning" managed \U miss?
RIi o i o rt i HI o: t ac t i Tf 4 rx i e t e t r 1 1 1 " l<I i c- a i e i c
L # & 6 ' "'''' ' '1 '. l Y w&w U' ) V =
the most sophist i cated " mode of reason" ever di scovered by
humani ty ( and, of course, t hi s d i scovery i s hel d to have been
made i n Europe-t he way Europe "di scovered" Ameri ca), t hen
t hey are hardl y i n a posi t i on to condemn a cul ture whi ch func
t i ons on that basi s as s omet hi ng t o be "transcended" out of hand.
Rat her t han bei ng condemned as "pri mit ive", such cul t ures
must be consi dered-i f Ma rxi st defi ni t i on i s not to be fl atl y
sel f-contradi ctory-as "advanced" i n terms of thei r "modes of
reason. " Europe pal es t o retardat i on by comparison. The si mpl e
fact i s t hat the Lakota possessed a ful l y functi onal l i feway based
i n di al ecti cal knowl edge t housands of years before Marx, and i t
remai ns i n matured effect whi l e Marx's descendents are st i l l
attempt i ng to act ual i ze t hei r di al ecti cal rhetori c. We have much
to teach our prot o-di al ecti cal friends.
v
.
Thi s l eads me to t he second poi nt of real i nterest I discovered
i n read i ng t he books I ment i oned earl i er. This is that a good deal
of the current Marxi st l i terat ure seems preoccupied wi t h a soci al
phenomenon cal l ed "al ienat i on. " I fi nd t hat, accordi ng to Marx
i sts, al i enati on represent s an epi demi c psychol ogical di sorder
among members of modern "devel oped" i ndustri al soci et ies such
as the United States and western Europe.
Thi s si t uat i on, t hey at t ri bute to the soci al condi ti ons of "l ate
capi tal i sm"; a t rue cure t o t he di s order of al i enat i on i s the el i mi
nati on of capi tal i sm; steps l eadi ng t o t he el i mi nati on of al i ena-
Marxi sm and Lakota Tradi t i on 1 5 1
t i on are i n effect steps l eadi ng t o t he el i mi nat i on of capi tal is m. I n
t hi s sense, revol ut i on becomes a matter of psychol ogi cal healt h.
As far as thi s goes, I have to agree.
But, i t seems anyone who wanted to coul d reach a si mi l ar
concl usi on concerni ng soci al / psychol ogi cal condi t i ons i n east
ern Europe, t he USSR, etc. The peopl e in t hose count ries seem
about as al i enated in t hei r l i ves as peopl e in the capi tal i st soci
eti es. Some Marxi st theori sts have not ed t hi s factor and have
devel oped a defense agai nst such arguments. The degree of al i en
at i on experi enced i n t he USS R and el sewhere, they say, corre
sponds to t he degree to whi ch the Sovi ets and ot hers have aban
doned Marxi st i deal s and substi tuted a modi fi ed form of "state
capi tal i sm" in thei r pl ace. I n other words, capi t al i sm i s still the
probl em.
Thi s seems an odd and contorted argument at bes t . Exactly
what i s prescri bed t hrough Marxi sm whi ch hag been perverted i n
Russi a is not real l y, or at l east not convi nci ngly explai ned. Marx
cal l ed for central izat i on/ rati onal i zat i on of s oci ety, and the
Sovi ets have central ized and rational i zed. Marx cal l ed for el i mi
nat i on of al l social classes except t he worki ng cl ass or "proleta
riat . " and the Sovi ets have el i mi nated whol e s oci al classes i n
pursuit of t hat obj ective. Compl ai nts have ari sen t hat t he Sovi ets
have est abl i s hed a massi ve bureaucracy, a pol ice apparatus, huge
mi l i tary budget and standi ng army; Marx never cal l ed for t hese
t hi ngs. But t hen, he never sai d they s houl dn't be establ i shed
ei ther, not when maj or capi tal i st powers sti l l exi st t o confront t he
Marxist countries.
The more sophi sti cated Marxist t heorists tend t o di smiss the
l atter conditions noted above as being "aberrant " or by-products
of Leni n' s "di stort i on" of Marxi sm. I' m not enough of a Marxist
schol ar t o argue the fner points of "revi si oni sm. " but I do know
t hat every Marxi st revol uti on i n hi story has been based on the
Leni ni st versi on of Marx. That i ncl udes Mao's revolution in
Chi na, Castro's in Cuba. Ho Chi Mi nh's movement i n Viet nam,
Ki m el Sung i n Korea, etc. I've never heard of a revol uti on pul l ed
off by t he Frankfurt School , exi stenti al Marxi sm, phenomono
l ogical Marxi sm, struct ural Marxi sm, etc. The quest i on of which
brand i s realy Marxi sm i s about as absurd as whi ch denomi na
t i on is realy Chri sti an; even Mar x was pragmatic enough to
al l ow val i di ty to that group which s howed abi l ity t o exercise
1 52 Marxi sm and Native Americans
power. And that group, among Marxists, is and has al ways been
the Leninists.
So, i f capital i sm i s not real ly the root of the probl em socialist
soci eties s hare with l ate capi tal i st societies, there must be some
t hi ng else, somethi ng s hared in common. And that, it would seem
to me, i s i ndustrial i sm. That, and the peculiar soci al forms gener
ated by the i ndustrial process i tsel f. Centralizati on is a dynami c
shared, of necessity, by any i ndust rial / i ndustrial izing soci ety. It
is not capitalist or communist, it is simply an industrial by-prod
uct. Rati onalizat i on i s anot her fact or; I don't bel ieve assembl y
l i ne workers are al i enated so much by the abstract notion of t hei r
"di stanci ng" from thei r "product" or "proft" so much as they are
al i enated by the sheer physi cal mi sery of bei ng trapped i n a
factory. Peri od. Yet rati onal i zation is a necessity of industrializa
ti on, whether the factories be capitalist or communi st.
The problem at hand here does not exist wit hi n the left / ri ght
paradi gm whi ch underpi ns al l Marxi st political analysi s. Instead,
i t goes back di rect ly to Marxi sm' s rhetorical voicing of a "dialec
ti cal" posi ti on, whi l e never havi ng establi shed a dialectical visi on
to match. If Marxi sm i s t o be forever forced i nt o t he constraints
of i ts opponent' s l ogi c and assumpti ons, then nobody shoul d
wonder why the end resul t of Marxi sm is pretty much the same as
the end result of capital i sm: i ndustrializati on, al ienation and
human exti ncti on. Al i enati on i s j ust one of the aspects of a
cul ture-wide anal - retent i ve neurosis which I referred to earl i er and
of whi ch contemporary Marxi sm is itself a part.
Now, I want to doubl e back again to my Lakota culture by
way of maki ng a contrast. As I noted in the precedi ng sect i on,
Lakota cul ture exi sts on t he basis of a relational or dialecti cal
world-view as t horoughl y worked out as the l i near view is i n
Europe. This is not a mode of t hought we've come up wi th and
are attempting to master, it i s a mode we've practiced for t hou
sands of years. You mi ght say Lakota culture has dialectics down
to a fi ne art . And, preci sel y because of t hi s, questi ons of al i ena
ti on have no meani ng t o us.
We, as a peopl e (wit hi n t he tradi ti onal cul tural view, at any
rate), view ourselves onl y i n di rect (natural) relati on to every
thi ng else at all t i mes. Thus, we cannot feel the sort of distance
i ndi cated i n the notion of ali enati on, either between each other as
peopl e, or between oursel ves and any aspect of the universe.
Marxi sm and Lakot a Tradi t i on 1 53
Al i enat i on is an i mpossi bi l i t y wit hi n t radi t i onal Lakot a cul ture;
we are prevented , by t he way we vi ew real i ty, from t aki ng t hose
steps whi ch woul d, sooner or l ater, produce t he condi t i on of
al i enat i on. Thus, we are prevented, di rectl y and concretel y, from
undertaki ng al i enati ng and sel f-destruct ive st eps such as i ndus
t ri al i zat i on. Lakota cul ture, i n its t radi t i onal form, ends where
the real possi bi l i ty of al i enat i on begi ns. The sol ut i on t o al iena
t i on l i es in di alectical vi si on applied
I f Marxi sm had ever devel oped t he di al ecti cal worl d-vi ew it
cl ai ms as its own, i t coul d not help but arri ve at a very si mi l ar
underst andi ng. To the ext ent that i t has not , it remai ns ful l y a
part of t he process it opposes (i n t heory). Al i enat i on is just one
more i ndi cati on of the fai l ure of Marxi sm t o devel op the dialecti
cal i nsi ghts i t i tsel f offers as the only correct visi on of humani ty,
i nsi ghts hel d by "pri mi tive" non-European cul tures al l al ong.
Unt i l Marxi sm is prepared to di scard i ts sel f-congratul atory
and arrogant assumpt i ons, stop prosel yti zi ng i t s "new" and mi s
gui ded fai t h. and transcend the bi ases of i ts ori gi ns by listening to
peoples al ready possessi ng the correct vi si ons of humani ty. i t can
do no more t han fai l . I t has, t o date, predetermi ned i ts own
fai l ure t hrough i ts bl i ndl y stupi d Eurochauvi ni sm, a characteri s
ti c behavi or not usual l y di sti ngui s habl e to non-Europeans from
any other caucasoid j i ngoi sm.
VI .
I n cl osi ng, I feel t he need t o offer s omet hi ng i n the way of
positi ve commentary rat her t han si mply l eavi ng matters at the
l evel of cri t i ci sm. What I have i n mi nd i s t o poi nt t o a means wi th
whi ch Marxi sts (and ot hers, for t hat matter) mi ght overcome
s ome of t he mental and t heoretical probl ems I' ve tri ed to de
scri be; mi ght be abl e t o get past t he et hnocentri sm of t hei r t heory
and practi ce, mi ght begi n to attai n an actual di al ecti cal vi si on,
might real l y begin to address t he di sease of al i enat i on.
It seems t hat one of t he more promisi ng aspects of contem
porary Marxi sm i n t he United St ates is a rel ati vel y new area
cal l ed "Radi cal Therapy" or "RT' . The basi s of t hi s, as I under
st and i t, is t hat groups of Marxi sts gather around common
i nterests and empl oy vari ous techni ques t hrough whi ch they
hope col lectively t o overcome the oppressi ve "fal se consci ous
ness" t hey associate wi th havi ng l ived t hei r l ives i n capi tal i st
1 54 Marxism and Native Ameri cans
society. Through this process they hope to establish more effec
t ive and penetrati ng social anal ysi s, and thereby discover ways to
reconcile thei r lives t o t hei r analytically generated course of
acti on. This, they believe, wi ll make t hem better Marxi sts, they
wi l l necessarily be better human beings si nce Marxism is t he
theory whi ch seeks to overcome the conditions which lead t o
t hei r need for therapy i n t he fi rst place. This is si mpl i fied but , I
t hi nk, true.
One of the pri mary t herapeutic means employed to thi s end
i s ( by whatever name or j argon it i s descri bed by the vari ous
practicing groups) the ol d Maoi st techni que cal led "critici sm/
sel f-cri ti ci sm. " Thi s is where a group sharing a common theoreti
cal view (in the Maoi st case, cadres of communist troops and
party members) gathers in order t o st raighten out its col l ective
analysis and resul ti ng performance. A particular member will be
sCIected to receive "constructive criticism" of his / her thi nki ng
and activities. Upon compl eti on of t he group analysi s, the
sel ected member does not defend hi m/ herself agai nst the group
cri ti que; the group consensus vi ew is given as i nherentl y superi or
t o "i ndi vi duali st" views. The selected member, rat her than
l aunchi ng i nto self-serving pol emi cs , furthers the group's obser
vati ons / recommendati ons by engagi ng in self-critici sm (agai n
construct ive) designed t o reconci l e t he i ndividual vi ew to the
group vi ew, t he i ndi vi dual l i ne of acti on t o t he needs of the group,
and so on. The functi on of al l t hi s is t o produce t he tightest, most
effective possi ble cadres on the one hand, the most confi dent and
securely developed peopl e on t he other. Through each i ndividual ,
so the group; through t he group, so-eventually-society. I n
rudi mentary form, t his is di alectical or relat ional (i f only between
people).
Cri ti ci sm/ self-cri ti ci sm has been a very useful tool towards
revol uti on for Leni ni sts. I t may become so for non-Leni ni st
Marxi sts. I n any event, the more or less conti nuous processi ng of
thought agai nst a collective soundi ng board and the consci ous
effort to l i ve our lives in the best humanly possibl e way (always i n
di rect conj uncti on wi th others) i s i narguably to the good. Peopl e
engagi ng i n R T, at l east i n thi s form, are clearly attempting to put
thei r bodi es and mi nds where thei r mouths are, they are attempt
i ng to become the best possi ble human bei ngs i n the sense that
they (through their t heory) understand thi s.
Marxi sm and Lakota Tradi t i on 1 55
Consider, now, the pri nci ple of t he Lakota sweatlodge. I f
Metakuyeayasi i s t he conceptual mode underl yi ng al l Lakot a
spi rit ual i t y, t he sweat l odge might be vi ewed as t he fundamental
and consi stent physi cal act i vi ty i nvol ved i n what Marxi sts woul d
cal l our "praxi s. " I t i s wit hi n the sweatl odge that groups of
Lakotas reconcile thei r day t o day l i vi ng wi th the relati onal
world-vi ew. Thi s occurs both i n terms of mental outl ook and
growt h, and i n terms of the physi cal acti vi ti es spri ngi ng from t his
outl ook. Thi s al so occurs both in terms of t he group i nteracti on
i nvolved and through i ndi vi dual efforts t o achieve a reconci l i a
ti on wi th t he group (the people, ul t i mately) both physical l y and
mental l y. The sweat itself faci l i tates t hought, i ntrospecti on and
real i zat i on. The sweatl odge, whi ch t he Lakota have possessed
and used in t his way for t housands of years, i s not unl i ke t he
pri nci pl e of critici sm/ self-cri ti ci sm l at el y di scovered by Marx
I sm.
But , beyond the i mmediate si mi l ari ti es, t here are i mportant
di fferences. Fi rst, and perhaps most obvi ous, i s the fact that t he
Lakota have had vastly longer t o perfect how such an acti vi ty
might most effectively funct i on. Second, and l ess i mmedi ately
obvi ous, i s that the Lakota empl oy t hi s means t o reconci le or seek
harmony wi t h all rel ati ons (rather than only wi th people) whi ch
reflects a more mature dialectical visi on. Thi rd, t he sweatl odge i s
a guidi ng force among all t radit i onal Lakotas, rat her than an
"i nnovati ve new idea" whi ch i t s practi t i oners hope mi ght "catch
on. " And fi nally, perhaps most i mport antly, the Lakota full y
recogni ze t he spi ri tual aspects of t he sweatl odge experi ence; t hey
possess no fal sely arrogant noti ons of thei r own mental omni po
tence; t hey cal l thei r spirituality spirituality, not science.
What I hope is made clear through t hi s fi nal cross-cul tural
compari son i s that t here i s at l east one practical tendency
between "advanced" Marxi st and "pri mi tive" Lakot a praxi s, one
whi ch I bel i eve woul d prove extremel y rewardi ng t o Marxis ts
and Marxi sm iit were pursued t o i ts ful l potenti al .
I bel i eve i t was Leni n who sai d s omet hi ng t o t he effect that
"wi thout revol uti onary theory t here can be no revol uti onary
pract i ce. " I t stands to reason, then, t hat a cri ppled and vi si onless
t heory can yiel d onl y a cri ppled and vi si onl ess "revol uti on. "
What I s uggest i n t hi s concl udi ng sect i on i s not offered as a
1 56 Marxism and Native Americans
panacea, but a means-both tactical and strategi c-to correct a
defecti ve theory whi ch seems to me t o be barring positive act i on.
A truly revoluti onary theory mus t be brought i nto being if there
i s to be revoluti onary acti on.
Perhaps what is most i mmediately needed is si mpl y for
Radical Therapy peopl e to begi n asking the right questi ons, t o
attempt to at least consi der whether t here are not cultural bl i nd
ers t hey need to discard. They mi ght start with playing "devil's
advocate" among themselves and seriously chal lenging the hal
l owed noti on that productive abi l i ti es constitute the measure of
human achi evement. From that, they might proceed to questi on
whether the ul ti mate hegemony of production relati ons i s real l y
the most desi rabl e form of human social organizati on. I f t hese
two questions can be successfully dealt wi th, I believe i t wi n
become obviousl y necessary for RT groups to seek answers to
why producti on has assumed such overridi ng i mportance i n t he
tradi ti onal Marxian "di alectical" world-view, and how such a
world-view di ffers-at a root level -from that fielded by capi t al
i sm. At thi s poi nt , i t seems t o me that the nature of Marxi sm' s
own alienati on wi l l become clear t o Radical Therapists. The
stage wi l l be set for a breakt hrough . . . .
Radical Therapy will then be in a position, as a socio-intellec
tual process, t o begin t o generate a theory capable of faci ng t he
t est of global consi derati ons . At t hat point, I foresee t hat t he l ack
of prefabricated answers thus confronted by RT peopl e wi l l be
rather traumati zi ng. They wi l l be trul y casti ng about for a way
out of the voi d. They wi l l be spiritualized by the overwhel mi ng
complexity and awesomeness of the questions before them.
The cul tures and tradi ti ons of other peoples, which Euro
peans have histori cal l y chosen t o deride and ignore, shall t hen
emerge, revealed as bri l l i antl y coherent and possessed of depths
of understanding unknown to Europe. I t wi l l become clear that
t hose aspects of comprehensi on only now dawning among Euro
peans have truly anci ent appl i cati ons el sewhere. Europe, after
al l, is the pri mitive cul ture, tragi cal l y arrested in the course of i ts
devel opment by an anal fxati on; a pathetic bully, so to speak.
Through RT, such a possi bi l i ty exi sts. It i s the point of departure
to a "new age, " a t i me when-l i ke water seeking its own Ievel
the domi nance of European i rrat i onal i sm is fnally reconciled to
Marxi sm and Lakota Tradi t i on 1 57
i ts ri ghtful relat i ons hi ps wi t h the remai ni ng cul t ures of humani ty
and t akes i ts rat i onal pl ace withi n the rel ati ons of the universe.
Thi s i s not t o say that I am advocati ng t hat masses of
non- Lakotas suddenl y attempt -ei t her l i t eral l y or figurat i vel y
to become Lakota. Or t hat they att empt to become Chi nese,
Ti betan, Bantu or anythi ng el se t hey are not and cannot be.
Rat her, i t i s t o say that the Lakota and other non-European
cul tures claim no monopoly or copyright on vision. They never
di d. It is ent i rely possi ble for Europeans, especi al l y in the i ni ti al l y
s mal l groups i mpl i ed by a structure such as Radi cal Therapy, to
assi mil ate vi si on as a cul turall y benefi ci al characteri sti c. This i s i n
much t he same sense t hat the Lakota once assi mi l ated t he horse
i nto t hei r cul ture. Europeans must devel op an anti dote to t hei r
cul tural chauvi ni sm and bl i ndness whi l e ret ai ni ng t hei r i denti ti es
as Europeans; just as we Lakota have had to adapt t o vastly
changi ng condi t i ons whi l e retai ni ng our i dent i t ies. It i s no easy
task.
Worse, i n t he si tuati on addressed here, i t may ul t i mately
prove i mposs i bl e. The real prerequi si t e to begi nni ng, as wi th any
ot her vi rul ent mental disorder, i s that the pati ent fi rst acknowl
edge that a disorder exi sts, and t hat he / she desires t o be cured.
Admissi on of fundamental i ncorrectness i n anything has never
been demonstrated t o be a European cul tural characteri sti c. A
way must be found out of such an i mpasse. That woul d be t he
si ngl e most therapeuti c benefi t R T could best ow upon i ts
adherents.
And, as advanced peopl es are wont to do, the Lakota wi l l no
dou bt be wi l l i ng t o assi st t hei r neuroti cal l y ret arded rel at i ons t o
achi eve a more adul t and whol esome out l ook on real i ty. I t may
be assumed that other non-European cul tures wi l l do l i kewi se.
We must, as human bei ngs, bui l d upon our common strengths,
not succumb to i nsani ty and weakness. We have much to l earn,
much t o do, as equal partners wi t h the rest of creat i on. And we
must do it t ogether.
8
Marx Versus Marxism
Bill Tabb
On t he Sal t Ri ver Reservati on abuti ng Phoeni x, Ari zona i s
an i ndust ri al park where young Pi ma I ndi ans can learn urban
occupat i ons. "I ndustri al and commerci al devel opment offers t he
best possi bi l i ty for maki ng t hi s reservat i on sel f-supporti ng" Her
shel Andrews, a Pi ma I ndi an who is presi dent of the Sal t River
Pi ma- Mari copa I ndi an Communi ty tel l s the Wall Street Journal.
Mr. Andrews l i kes to tal k about "standi ng on your feet. " That
i sn't easy, says the Journal, on a reservati on that gets hal f its
support money from the federal government . . . at last count,
38% of the more than one mi l l i on U. S. I ndians li ved on i ncomes
bel ow t he poverty l i ne. "Among t he reasons, " says a 1 976
government study, i s "the scarci ty of i ndustri al or commerical
j obs nearby. " 1
I t' s the ol d fami l iar story. I ndi ans are poor because they
won' t move wi th the ti mes. They need to get t rai ni ng and j obs i n
t he modern worl d. The buffalo' s gone and I ndians have become
lazy, drunken wards of the welfare system. But a few l eaders are
trying to help their people, explain the real i ti es of l i fe, hel p them
compete in the modern worl d. Cl i ff Manuel , a Pi ma computer
expert acknowledges t he di sappearance of t ri bal tradi ti ons.
"But, " he says, "we're surrounded. We must compete i n al l sec
t ors wi th peopl e in Phoeni x. To do that, we must have Angl o
educati ons and we must moderni ze. How do you do that and sti l l
retai n ol d tri bal tradi ti ons? That' s the questi on, " he says. "Maybe
you can't turn back the clock. "
1 59
1 60 Marxism and Native Americans
Yes, friends there you have i t, from the mouth of a genui ne
Pi ma I ndi an computer expert. Say, those people are soundi ng
l i ke real Americans. The Wall Street Journal welcomes al l you
mi ni mum wage i ndustri al reservati on I ndians to t he American
workforce, a little Thi rd W orId proft center j ust miles from
downtown Phoenix.
A counter perspective i s offered i n the Marxist tradi t i on.
"I mperial i sm, t he penetrati on of Western capitalism i nt o native
cultures for purposes of expl oi ti ng the
i
r l abor power and appro
priating t heir raw materials represents uneven exchange forced
on the col onized by the capi tali sts, usually through t he use of
force and economi c blackmai l . " Marxists stand wit h the col o
ni zed peoples of t he worl d: "Oppressed mi norities at home and
expl oi ted workers everywhere agai nst the system t hat oppresses
us all". '
Such however was not the stance of the father of sci enti fi c
soci al i sm, Karl Marx. His I ndi an critics are quite right, I t hi nk.
Marx beli eved the barbaric races should be civil ized, made part
of the capitalist system, t urned i nto workers because then they
could become proletarian revolut i onaries and hel p bring about
socialism.
In t hi s essay, I argue that Marx took such a view, that Native
Americans have every r
i
ght to resent h
i
s position, and t hat t oo
many Marxists today st i l l accept what i s a narrow and unsati sfac
t ory analysis of i ndigenous cul tures. I also argue t hat t he Native
Americans and other land based peoples have much to teach
Marxists if we are wi l l i ng t o listen, but also t hat Marxism (as I
understand t hat evolving method of analysis and praxis) al ready
accepts, in its most progressi ve variants, much of the Indi an
critique of industriali sm and commodi ty producti on. The cri
tique of the Native Amer
i
can contri butors to this book may need
not be a di smissal of Marxi sm, but can and should be i ncorpo
rated by Marxists. Marxi sm as a methodology and as revolu
t i onary praxis woul d be the gainer if Marxists could be more
open to such critici sm. The name calling and cheap di smissals of
other views on the part of some "lef" contributors to this volume
does not di mi ni sh the need t o seek the i ntri nsic merit i n the po
i
nts
of v
i
ew.
The quote" are meant to suggest the formul ai c nature of the analysis.
Marx's Eurocentrism
Marx Versus Marxi s m 1 6 1
Marx' s pol i t i cal economy was based o n hi s st udy of Europe.
He expect ed, i n t he words of t he Manifesto. t hat European
capi t al i s m over t i me "d raws al l , even the most barbari an nat i ons
i nt o ci vi l i zat i on. " The cheap pri ces of i t s commodi t i es are t he
heavy art i l l ery wi t h whi ch i t batters down al l Chi nese wal l s, wi t h
whi ch i t forces t he barbari an's i ntensel y obst i nate hat red of
forei gne rs t o capi t ul ate. I t compel s al l nat i ons , on pai n of
ext i nct i on, t o adopt t he bourgeoi s mode of product i on, t o
become bourgeoi s t hemsel ves.
I ndeed Marx and Engel s general l y rooted for t he col oni al i st
powers, bel i evi ng t hat i n t he ul t i mat e sense, and despi t e t hei r
hypocri t i cal rat i onal es of God and ci vi l i zi ng mi ssi on as a
woeful l y i nadequat e cover for greed, col oni al i s m d i d represent a
st at e t hat non-western count ri es necessari l y had t o pass t hrough.
Marx di d wri te:
Engl and has t o fulfi l l a doubl e mi ssi on i n I ndi a: one
dest ruct i ve, the ot her regenerat i ng t he anni hi l at i on of
ol d Asi at i c soci et y, and t he l ayi ng of t he mat eri al
foundat i on of Western soci ety i n Asi a.
Engel s wrote,
The conquest of Al geri a i s an i mport ant and fortunate
fact for the progress of ci vi li zat i on.
Why wouldn't thought ful Nati ve Ameri cans rej ect Marx?
Marx, i t seems probabl e, woul d have rej ected them, caIlng them
pri mi t i ves and barbari ans, backward and i n need of col onizi ng
by Europeans. Marx bel ieved capi t al i sm was dri ven t o expand
and encompass the whol e worl d wi thi n i ts producti ve system, but
t hat i ts very growth coul d not be sustai ned and as i t ran out of
room t o expand i t woul d fi nd the condi t i ons for i ts cont i nued
exi st ence undermi ned. Wi thout being able to expand further, i t
woul d t urn i n upon itsel f, become parasi ti c and undermine i ts
abi l i ty to recreate i tself. The drive t o i ncrease profi ts woul d lead i t
t o i rrat i onal waste of resources, i ts abi l i t y t o produce would
exceed i ts capacity t o create markets, costs would ri se, i ncreas
i ngly more resources would be requi red to produce. He believed
162
Marxism and Native Americans
the gap between what was possi bl e and what could be produced
would wi den as capital i sm became overri pe. Havi ng created vast
technol ogical capacities, capi tal i sm would itself ulti mately stand
i n the way of thei r rati onal uti l izati on.
In a world brought t o an advanced stage i n the devel opment
of the forces of product i on worki ng peopl e woul d see that what
st ood i n the way of a better l i fe was t he i rrati onal economi c
system whi ch kept human potenti al from being real i zed. I t hi nk
i n t hi s analysi s Marx was correct. We see a si ngle world economy
emergi ng, pul l i ng l and based peoples on every conti nent i nt o t he
cash nexus. Commodi ti es find t hei r way everywhere forci ng for
merly self-suffi ci ent people to enter the market in order to pur
chase i tems they come t o see as necessary to thei r exi stence. For
understandi ng t hi s process of capi tai i st accumulati on, Marxi sm
is a most useful analytical tool .
At t he same t i me there are a number of cri ti ci sms Nat ive
Ameri cans i n this vol ume make of t radi ti onal Marxi sm whi ch I
believe must be consi dered seri ously. The fi rst is the questi on of
whether the probl em i s merely capi tal i sm or whether it i s al so
i ndustri ali s m per se. Whether al i enati on, for exampl e, is onl y a
resul t of estrangement from ownershi p and control of the means
of producti on or whether certai n j obs are by thei r nature al i enat
i ng and certai n "effici ent" ways of organizing work are i ntri nsi
cal l y dehumani zi ng; whether factori es i n the Sovi et Uni on do not
have si milarly al i enati ng aspects to those i n capital ist societ i es.
Leni n, i n hi s desi re to modernize, adopted al most too wi l l
i ngly Henry Ford's i deas on pl ant organi zat i on. One can say t hat
t he Sovi et Uni on i s not communi st i n t he way Marx used t he
term, but there is sti l l the i ssue of the way Marxi sts treat the
rel ati onshi p bet ween the forces of producti on and the relati ons of
producti on. Marx bel ieved that overcomi ng basi c scarcity was
necessary before communi sm coul d devel op. I thi nk thi s i s cor
rect . But he underesti mated bot h t he extent to whi ch capital i sm
coul d create artificial scarcity and t hat t he degree to whi ch i t
s ought to i ncrease product i on was itsel destructive of the possi
bilities of healthy growt h. 2
Marx t ook l and for granted. That i ndustri al i sm foul ed t he
ai r and water he was wel l aware. That t he Encl osures, an early
parallel to the seizure of rural lands by large agri busi ness and
Marx Vers us Marxi sm 1 63
mi ni ng corporati ons today, dest royed a peopl e's way of l i fe he
underst ood. But he was basically opt i misti c about the l ong run
effect of such changes i n rai si ng t he overal l standard of l i vi ng. He
coul d not know of t he destructive powers of late capi tal i sm and
i ndustri al i s m on the environment' s abi l ity to sustai n itself.
Class and Landbased Struggles
Marxi sts have made too axi omati c a correl ati on between
devel opment of the forces of producti on and t he potenti al i ty of
human freedom. Whi l e cri ti ci zi ng capitalist adverti si ng wi th i ts
"more i s better" consumeri sm, Marxi sts have accepted the i dea
that capital i sm does create the potenti al for human l i berati on by
creat i ng the possi bi l ity of materi al abundance, the basi s for aj ust
di stri buti on and a transformed economy control l ed by the di rect
producers. Upon t his high material base, unal i enated labor i s
seen to be possi bl e.
Among Marxi sts today t here i s an i ncreasi ng real i zati on
that t echnol ogy i s not neutral, somethi ng easi l y turned from bad
(capital i st) to good (soci al i st) ends. Ends heavi l y i nfuence
means, as an ol d discussi on has i t, and assembl y l i nes and typi ng
pool s just aren't much fun no matter how soci al ly desi rabl e the
end product. Marxists must understand that when a ton of steel i s
produced s o too are workers who are changed by t he experience
of t hei r dai l y work i n the mi l l s. The tol l t he work i tsel f takes must
be cal cul ated as part of t he pri ce of steel . The pois ons emitted i n
the process, the health, safety, and psychological well-bei ng of
producers are all factors, or shoul d be i n a social calcul ati on of
what extent and type of product i on i s desi rabl e. I thi nk i t woul d
be i ncorrect t o say t hat t here are no Marxi sts who thi nk about
such i ssues, and thi s i s clearly to the good.
However, Marxi sm can be an i nsuffi ci ent tool of soci al
anal ysi s to t he extent that i t i s reducti oni st. Economics is
i mportant. It does give shape to cl ass i ssues, to pol iti cs, to
cul ture. But i t is al so i nsuffi ci ent, as femi ni sts ri ghtl y i nsi st, to
understand i ssues such as gender. Si mi larl y, religi on is not merely
the sigh of oppressed people, t hei r opi um. Rel i gi on can, and in
1 64 Marxism and Native Americans
Europe does, embody oppressi ve, aut hori tari an, and profoundl y
repressive val ues. But Ameri can I ndi an rel i gi ons rooted i n a
oneness wi th nat ure can gui de nati ve peoples i n a harmoni ous
l i fe-preservi ng pattern of behavi or i nspi red by a spi ri tual i ty t hat
i s not a reacti on to oppressi on i n a hi erarchical class soci ety.
As an economi st, I fi nd Marxi sm t he most useful approach
to understandi ng advanced capi tal i sm, not because i t has i ron
l aws of hi story t hat repl ace the need for me to t hi nk and do
hi stori cally specifi c research, but because of t he relat i onal i ty of
i ts hi storical materi alist and di alectical approach. This i s my
t radi t i on. Frank Black El k tel l s us, out of hi s tradi ti on, a si mi l ar
rel ati onal means of concei vi ng real i ty i s called Metakuyeayasi.
His spi ri tual i sm and my materi al i sm i ntersect, so to speak.
The I ndian vi ew of nature as a l i vi ng total ity seems more
advanced formul ati on of t he mechanical concept . "spaceshi p
eart h" wi th whi ch techni cal l y at uned men and women t ry to see
t hrough thei r l i mi ted understandi ng of feed back l oops, a system
t hat i s bot h far more compl ex and i nfi ni tel y si mpl er. That i t i s
easi er t o resolve many of our technocratic probl ems by stoppi ng
thei r creat i on and reproduct i on than by l ooki ng for compl ex
patch up sol ut i ons, seems an i dea al most beyond t he compre
hensi on of the i ndustrial world.
Because producti on comes fi rst in contemporary Western
soci ety, sol uti ons take the need to create the probl ems as d given.
Steppi ng outside t he system to see what really needs to be pro
duced, what our real needs are and how best to meet those needs
(rather than to feed the growth i mperative for more commodi
t ies) seems almost beyond Western men and women functi oni ng
i n a capitalist context. Our scienti sts and ecologists predict t he
end of abundance and the need for conservati on, yet they do so
within t he context of tryi ng to continue as many of t he ol d
patterns as possi ble. Native Americans and other land based
peoples have a great deal t o teach t he rest of us about alternatives
that could increase our quality of l ivi ng, if not the GNP.
Vi ne Deloria cogently questi ons: Why should Marx's cen
tral noti ons, such as "alienation", have meaning to i ndigenous
peoples? These concepts are constructs derived from concrete
experience i n a particular hi storial setting, i . e. , i ndustrial capi
tal i sm. This is i ndeed a seri ous criticism of MarXi sm. To the
Marx Versus Marxi sm 1 65
ext ent Marxi s m cl ai ms uni versal i s m, it is fal se t o non-Western
experi ences. I ts general i zati ons trul y have "l i ttl e relevance t o the
t ri bal si t uat i on".
But Del oria has al so asked of Western educat i on t hat it
adapt i t sel f not to "the transformati on of tribal cul tures but the
openi ng of t he inner worki ngs of whi t e s oci ety t o the understand
i ng of tri bal members. " Marxi sm may not be of much practical
us e as a gui de to t ri bal l i fe, who really woul d expect that i t woul d
be? I t was fashi oned t o understand capi t al i sm as an economi c
syst em of expl oi tati on and domi nat i on. I f Nati ve Ameri cans
wi s h to understand t he process whi ch oppresses and col onizes
t hem, t hey may fi nd Marxi sm hel pful to t hat end.
Conversel y, Marxi st i nsi ghts i nt o capi tal i st devel opment
can be e nri ched by Ameri can I ndi an t hi n ki ng about t he destruc
t i ve nat ure of i ndustri al i sm. The 1 9t h cent ury opt i mi sm Marx
had about devel opi ng t he forces of product i on and t hen t urni ng
t hem t o soci al l y constructive ends appears s omewhat superfi ci al
a cent ury l ater. Such i deas of sci ence, progress, and materi al
pl ent y appear naive t o present day Marxi st s too who understand
what the degradati on of work d oes t o humans, what growth
rel i gi on can be about, what cri mes can be committed i n t he names
of i ncreasi ng GNP, compl eti ng t he Fi ve Year Pl an. Si mi l arl y, we
are l ess wi l l i ng t oday t o di smiss the rol e of myt h and bel i ef as
powerful forces i n soci ety as were the rat i onal i sts of the 1 9t h
Cent ury.
Marx was hi msel f a product of 1 9t h Cent ury West ern Euro
pean capi tal i sm. He devel oped a cri t i cal method for exami ni ng
hi s soci ety. His mi nd nonethel ess was not t hat of an i solated
i ntel l i gence, but t hat of an i ndi vi dual wi t h a speci fi c hi st ory in a
concrete cul t ural context. The same const rai nt s cl earl y appl y t o
al l subsequent Marxi sts i n t he European tradi t i on. Nati ve
Ameri cans and other oppressed groups, even whi l e t hey grow up
wi t hi n t he l arger context of capi tal i st i ndustri al s oci ety, have by
the nat ure of their posi t i on and rel ati ve cult ural aut onomy an
a bi l ity to see cert ai n aspects of the domi nant society from a
di fferent perspective.
1 66 Marxi sm and Native Ameri cans
The Strengths of Marism
I have sai d some of Marx' s I ndian cri t ics are ri ght i n t hei r
summary of hi s views. But t here are a number of ot her poi nts t hat
must al so be made. First, Marx i n hi s wri ti ng understood t hat t he
universal system he attempted t o bui l d was not a useful analyt i c
tool for studying non-Western societies . Further, he understood
the need to examine each particular cultural-historical setting
and t he fut i l i ty of deli veri ng obiter dicta of what an unstudi ed
real i ty must be about. Second, t he al ternatives cri ti cs such as
Russel l Means appear t o be offering are i nadequate to t hei r
announced goals of savi ng l and based peopl es. Third, Marxi sm i s
a useful analyti c t ool and pol i ti cal ori ent at i on for deal i ng wi t h
t he mai n enemy at t his t i me: an ever expandi ng gl obal capital i sm,
I wi l l discuss each of t hese t hree poi nts.
I t can be argued, as Shl omo Avi neri has, t hat t i me and agai n
Marx warns hi s disci ples not to overlook t he basi cal ly European
hori zons of hi s discussi ons of hi st orical devel opment. Marx
warned not t o "metamorphose my hi stori cal sketch of the genesi s
of capi tal i sm i n Western Europe i nto an historical-philosophi c
t heory of a general path every peopl e is fated to tread. " Dos
Kapital, he said, "does not pretend to do more t han trace the path
by whi ch, in Western Europe, t he capi tal i st order of economy
emerged from the womb of t he feudal order of society. "3
In thi s famous letter t o the Edi tors of Otechestvenniye
Zapiski of November, 1 877, Marx further wrote, "Thus events
stri ki ngly anal ogous but taking place in di fferent histori cal sur
roundi ngs led to total ly di fferent resul ts. By studyi ng each of
t hese forms of evoluti on separately and t hen compari ng them one
can easi l y fi nd the cl ue t o t hi s phenomenon, but one wi l l never
arri ve there by usi ng as one's master key a general historical
phi l osophi cal theory, the supreme vi rtue of which consi sts in
being super-historical. "4
Marxi sts, surely even wi thout such scriptural citati on,
s houl d see t he need for concrete i nvestigati ons of parti cul ar
cul tures. For Marx hi msel f such studi es were not t he central task,
whi ch was t o i nvestigate t he nature of capi tal i sm as an economic
and soci al system. His concl usi ons as t o t he i mpact of the system
on peopl e remai ns a devastating cri ti que and is i n substanti al
agreement wi t h t hat offered by some of the Nati ve American
writers in this volume.
Marx Versus Marxi sm 1 67
Si tti ng Bull is widely quoted as havi ng sai d of whi tes that
"the love of possessions is a di sease wi th t hem. " Karl Marx's
cri ti que of capitalism was essenti al l y s i mi l ar. Money and the
possess i on of thi ngs created the i l l usi on t hat the weal thy were
more i ntelligent, more beauti ful , more cul tured because they
coul d buy the accoutrements of soci al acceptance. Yet thei r
weal th came from others and the more t hey had, t he less t hey
were, he t hought.
In the "Declarati on of Dependence on the Land", drafted at
and rati fi ed by the I 980 Black H ills I nternati onal Survi val Gath
eri ng, was t he statement, "the l and has been desecrated because i t
has been treated as a commodi ty. " Marx woul d have agreed. I t
was the basi c di sti ncti on between use val ue and producti on to
meet needs on the one hand and exchange val ue, product i on, or
t he market t o expand capi tal and i ncrease cont rol over ot hers,
t hat was a central analytic element in Marx's model
If t he di rect producers control l ed t hei r l abor power, the
l and, and capi tal, as wel l as the creati on ofl abor, then producti on
coul d not be expl oi tati ve. Whi l e Marx saw the oppressi on of men
and women as workers i n t he capi tal i st system t o be expl oitati ve,
he was less sensitive to abuses oft he l and. Wri ti ng at a ti me of the
i ndustri al revoluti on he saw the horrors done t o peple by the
factory system, but he al so knew of the harshness of rural l i fe i n
Engl and and saw the l i berati ng potenti al of machi nery. He was
not altogether wrong in this hope. Sci ence and technol ogy can be
l i berati ng wi thi n a soci etal context of respect for nat ure and our
fel l ow creatures.
While some land based people can survive with less depen
dence on factory-produced goods, it seems to me transforming
i ndustri al soci ety rather t han abandoni ng it is t he more desirable
opti on for most North Ameri cans, few of whom l i ve tradi t i onal
i st lives. And I would thi nk t he maj ority of the world's popul ati on
t oday requi re a relevant i ndustri al soci ety. The I ndian t radi ti on
al i st's preferences for autonomous devel opment must be coordi
nat ed careful l y wi th those of the maj ori ty who now i nhabi t l ands
whi ch were once exclusivel y the I ndians' , Thi s, i t seems t o me, i s
t he crux of t he problem i n Means' t hesi s.
168 Marxism and Native Americans
It seems natural that traditional i st Native Americans want
t o be l eft al one by white soci ety. If whites would j ust go away al l
woul d be well: "What do you whites want? Our l and, the re
sources t hat we are stewards over. Whites pollute the air and
water, wound the l and wi th radi oactivity and the scars of mi ni ng.
I ndi ans don't want power over whi tes. They would l i ke never to
see another white person who seems t o bri ng only destructi on i n
hi s or her short-sighted i gnorance and greedy thi rst to produce
more and more. Whites want t o possess, to accumulate. They do
not know how t o enj oy harmony wi th nature, with the forces of
l ife that offer real contentment and purposeful existence. " But is
t his a matter of ski n color or of our economic and pol i ti cal
system?
Thoughtful whites i n i ncreasi ng numbers share the i ndi an
vi ew of i ndustrial society and i ts dest ructiveness of the environ
ment, its spiritual bankruptcy, and its capacity to destroy the
ecol ogical possi bi l ity of the seventh generati on from now know
i ng the beauty of nature. The questi on for t hem is buildi ng a
revol uti onary movement to chal l enge the existing order.
Means has an apocal ypti c view of "revoluti on. " He tol d the
Gatheri ng: "Al l European tradi ti on, Marxism included, has con
spired t o defy the natural order of t hi ngs. Mother Eart h has been
abused, the powers have been abused, and this cannot go on
forever. No theory can alter that si mpl e fact. Mother Earth wi l l
retal iate, the whol e envi ronment wi l l retaliate, and the abusers
will be el i mi nated. Thi ngs come ful l circle. Back to where if
started. That's revol uti on. "
"It i s the rol e of Ameri can I ndi an peoples, the role of al
natural beings, t o survive. A part of our survival is to resi st. We
resist, not to overt hrow government or to take pol itical power,
but because it is natural to resist extermination, to survive. We
don't want power over white i nsti tuti ons; we want white i nstitu
tions t o disappear. That's revoluti on. "
What are t he prospects t hat white institutions will "di s
appear?" Not l i kely, I thi nk, unless Mot her Earth does retaliate
and the "Fire Next Ti me" destroys the vast maj ority of the human
race. Russell takes heart i n t he l i kel i hood t hat somewhere hi gh i n
the Andes some I ndi ans will survive t o start agai n, or rather
conti nue wit hout the const rai nts of Europeans with thei r greed
and destructi on. Surel y s uch a cal ami ty is to be avoided rather
than wished for and t he question i s how to avert such a fate.
Marx Versus Marxi sm 1 69
S hort of the Apocal ypse, Means advocates an al ternati ve
economi c system wi t hi n t he U. S. and resi stance t o i ndustri al
growth wi t h i ts maxi mal product i on. I t would seem useful t o
expl ore what s uch an al ternati ve woul d l ook l i ke a nd how we get
from here to t here. For many, appropri ate technol ogy, sel f
suffi ci ency and harmoni ous deal i ngs wi t h t he ecol ogi cal l i fe of
the pl anet are the answer. For s ome, such an al ternati ve seems
possi bl e. Land sel f-suffi ci ency, t he use of renewabl e energy
sources, hol i sti c heal th and survi val s ki l l s were al l shared.
But t here was al so a wi de understandi ng, symbol ized by the
gi ant B-52s t hat drowned out speakers as t hey came t o l and at t he
ai r force base on the ot her si de of t he fence from the Gatheri ng
si t e, t hat i t i s di ffi cul t , i ndeed i mpossi bl e t o escape t he system of
vi ol ence, greed and capi tal accumul at i on t hat seeks to expand
and take over everyt hi ng on t he pl anet. The system must be t aken
on and defl ated i f we are t o have t he possi bi l ity of l i vi ng i n
harmony wi t h nature. As t he concl udi ng document t o t he Gath
eri ng states:
The need is not onl y t o conti nue and escal ate t he attacks
on the c orporat i ons, but to broaden and deepen st rug
gles by creati ng an understandi ng of the i nherent de
st ructi ve power of technol ogy. Those who remai n i n
cl ose and sacred contact wi t h t hei r l and have t hi s
understandi ng. Cont rol of l and i s t he u lt i mate corpo
rate control ; fai l ure t o gai n control of t he l and wi l l spel l
the ul t i mate corporate doom. We must turn t o t hose
who l i ve in harmony wi th t he l and for a focal poi nt of
t he struggle for di rect i on and understandi ng. When
cont rol of the use of l and i s hel d by t he people who l ive
on it, technology will be i n the control of the peopl e.
Thi s i s a keystone to al l of our survi val . 5
The analogy t o Marx's vi ew of cont rol by the di rect pro
d ucers of thei r l abor power i s i mmedi ate. Present day Marxists
s houl d cert ai nl y be comfortabl e wi t h t he st ress on l and based
st ruggl es i n the light of the hi st ori c devel opment of energy and
resource struggles and the key rol e t hey play i n capi tal i st devel
opment t oday. A key part of Marxi s m surel y i s to make anal ysi s
of the central contradi cti ons of the hi st oric epoch i n whi ch one
l i ves.
1 70 Marxi sm and Native Ameri cans
Whether Marx woul d have j oi ned any vanguard party whi ch
carried port rai ts of St al i n or Ki m el Sung, Mao, or Che down
Mai n St reet America i n 1 98 1 , I do not know. 1 rather doubt i t .
Lat e i n hi s l ife when told what some of hi s erstwhi l e fol l owers
were up to he responded, "I am no Marxi st. " 1 do know i n t he
context of Ni neteenth Century Engl and Marx di d not favor
conspirator
i
al vanguards, but mass-based working people's asso
ci ati ons. I do not t hi nk he wcul d support i mported i deol ogi cal
structures but mi ght well have some i nteresti ng t hi ngs to say
about Eugene Vi ctor Debs and Mal col m X.
One certai nl y cannot know what he woul d have thought of
Russell Means' speech at The Survi val Gat heri ng. One pres umes
he woul d have sai d, "of course you want i ndust ri al soci et y t o
leave you al one and t o cease destroyi ng t he envi ronment t hat
supports land based peopl es. But capi tal i sm won' t do t hat. I t i s i t s
nature t o chew up workers and t he very earth itself i n pursui t of
wealt h. I t i s a system that must expand or i t wi l l di e. You mi ght as
well rage agai nst t he wi nd for bl owi ng or the moon for cast i ng i ts
l i ght across the ni ght sky. Onl y the worki ng people united can
overthrow this system based on greed. You say you are not a
proletari an and don' t want t o be. I t is not what you want but t he
choices capi tal i sm gi ves you whi ch are at i ssue. True, you can be a
rebel. That may be personal l y grati fyi ng, but is harmless enough
t o them. You must understand how capi tal i sm works and crfates
a cl ass consci ous revol ut i onary movement to overt hrow i t . Onl y
then can t here be respect for nature and human bei ngs' pl ace
wi thi n i t. "
Marxi sts have perhaps been too opt i misti c. Armed wi t h t he
knowledge t hat i n t he l ast chapter t he peopl e's forces rout e t he
capi tal i sts they can be i nsensi ti ve t o t he i rreparable damage
uncontrol led i ndustri al i sm can do. This can lead t o a fai l ure to
see the central ity of control of resources and l and based struggl es
t o t he revol uti onary process.
The st ruggles of Nat ive Americans t o protect t hei r way of
l i fe, indeed t o protect the Eart h as a nurt urer for future genera
t i ons i s an i ntegral part of a number of i nterrelated struggles.
These include on the one side t he so far fai rl y successful eforts of
the energy conglomerates to i mpose the hi gh cost of ecol ogi cal l y
and socially disastrous "sol ut i on" t o the energy cri si s upon the
people of the worl d. The cri ti que of hi ghl y central ized, ex pensive
Marx Versus Marxi sm 1 7 1
and destructive energy paths has l ong been made by Nati ve
Americans. Tradi ti onal i sts have much to teach the rest of us
about how to thi nk of nature and resources i n terms of our
chi l dren's chi l dren seven generati ons i nto t he fut ure. This is not a
romantic backward l ooki ng approach but is an exampl e of sanity
i n a world so used to short-run t hi nki ng that we may be preclud
ing possi bi l it ies of certain desi rabl e fut ures through deci si ons
now bei ng made.
The Unity of the Struggle
Perhaps it is a comment on human nature, or at least on the
ways of l i beral whi te fol ks, that an i ncreas ing sensitivity t o what
t his count ry di d over the past t hree centuri es-mass murder and
steal i ng land from Native Americans-i s not matched by an
i nvol vement in attempti ng t o prevent present day genoci de and
t heft of I ndi an l ands.
The energy cri si s of the l ast decade has opened a new chapter
i n t he genoci de practiced by t he United States agai nst Native
Americans. Because seemingly worthl ess land, t he reservati ons
that I ndi ans were granted, now is found t o contai n si xty percent
of al l domestic energy reserves, a new l and grab i s on. Ignori ng
the guarantees of the Fort Larami e Treaty of 1 868, the U. S.
Government and the energy corporati ons have declared t he
Bl ack Hi l l s of South Dakota a Nati onal Sacri fice Area. Not onl v
Nat i ve Americans but smal l farmers and ranchers are to be dri ven
from the land to devel op coal and urani um.
At t he Gatheri ng, Wi nona LaDuke, a Chi ppewa member of
Women of Al l Red Nati ons, quoted Lucie Keeswood, a Navaj o
acti vist resisting corporate takeovers of I ndian l ands i n New
Mexi co: "Where wi l l we be 20 t o 25 years from now, when the
coal has al l been mi ned and t he companies operat i ng these gasifi
cati on pl ants have al l pi cked up and moved away? There wi l l be
not hi ng t here. They wi l l be worki ng el sewhere and we wi l l be
si tti ng on top of a bunch of ashes wi th nothing to live on. "
Susan Shetrom who, wi t h her husband and seven year ol d
daughter, lives three mi l es from the Three Mil e I s land nuclear
faci l ity, t old the Gathering how s he had totall y trusted the
government and the nuclear i ndustry to act responsi bly, had
never attended a protest rally, but had come to see hersel f and
1 72 Marxism and Native Americans
ot hers as victims of the nucl ear i ndustry's madness and greed.
Her fami l y now had twice t he probabi l i ty of getting cancer as
before t he acci dent, and her daughter' s chance of beari ng a
heal thy chi l d had greatly di mi ni shed.
Activists at the Gatheri ng understood that Susan Shetrom i s
unique onl y i n that she l ives s o cl ose t o TMI . She and t hey
realized t hat t here is no safe pl ace to move. I t is not easy to fi nd a
community total l y removed from the effects of the nuclear fuel
cycle and i mpossi ble t o fi nd one not threatened by nucl ear
weapons.
The aferword t o The Keystone/or Survival, t he Gatheri ng
generated statement, makes the same poi nt. "The cri mes of t he
Hooker Chemi cal Company at Love Canal are repeated in New
Jersey, North Dakota, Los Angel es and elsewhere. The soi di ers
and Nevada ci tizens who were tol d to watch the atom bomb tests
in the 50' s sent their sons to Vietnam to be sprayed with Agent
Orange. "6
Scientists, wi th thei r terri bl e hubri s, have unleashed radi o
active wastes they have no sati sfact ory way of containing; t hey
produce carci nogenic and mutageni c chemicals and cas ual l y
i ntroduce them i nto the l ives of unsuspecting mi l l i ons; they tri fe
wi th the eco-sphere and start i rreversi bl e processes of unknow
able di mensi ons. Present day Marxi st critics of capital i sm, of
societies run by "experts", by a caste of corporate appoi nted
i ni ti ates, can and do adopt many of the criticisms Nat ive Ameri
cans make of i ndustri al i sm into their critique of capital i sm.
The cost of irresponsi ble forestry practices, the conse
quences of chemical i ntensive agri cul ture, of displacing a diver
sity of native seed varieties wi th a few hybrids were not i ssues
Marx coul d have known about. The dumpi ng of chemical and
radioactive wastes, of stri p mi ni ng, hi gh voltage powerlines wi th
thei r damaging elect roni c emi ssi ons are of course thi ngs he coul d
not have foreseen. They are i ssues which shoul d be i mportant to
contemporary Marxists. Not al l Marxists may understand t his,
but then not al l Native Americans do either. I t would be a
mi stake t o set up ei ther "si de" in t hi s very artificial debate as
either of one mi nd or as hol di ng excl usive truth on their side. For
example one of the Survival Gatheri ng documents procl ai ms:
"The Western i ndustrial cycl e of greed, profi t and expl oi tati on is
Marx Versus Marxi sm 1 73
funda ment al l y removed from any sacred t i e to t he Eart h i tsel f.
The Ogl al a Peopl e bel i eve t hi s t i e must be restored t o break t he
dest ruct ive cycle and to show t he way t o l i ve and survi ve i n the
world s o as to preserve t he l and t hrough t he next seven
generat i ons. "7
However, Native Ameri can acti vi sts must face the real i ty of
t hei r el ected t ri bal government s sel l i ng out the t radi t i onal I ndi an
way of l i fe, havi ng accepted energy devel opment and expl oi ta
t i on of I ndi an l ands. Coal gasi fi cat i on pl ants, synfuel processi ng
and nucl ear energy parks are bei ng pus hed on Nat i ve Ameri can
peopl es. Aqui fers depl eted of water used i n mi ni ng wi l l take
cent uri es to repl eni sh themsel ves. St ri p-mi ned l and may take as
l ong t o rehabi l i tate i tsel f and radi oacti ve waste may make areas
u ni nha bi t abl e.
Marxi st s are not surpri sed t o see t he U. S. Government and
the energy corporat i ons create a Counci l of Energy Resource
Tri bes wi t h I ndi an l eaders worki ng t o t ransfer energy ri ch l ands
from I ndi an control . The money i s i n exchange for t he dest ruc
t i on of Nati ve Ameri can l and based l i fe and cul ture.
The I ndi an l eaders quoted at t he start of t hi s paper who hope
to bri ng educat i on and t rai ni ng t o compet e i n cont emporary
Ameri ca t o their peopl e, and tri bal l eaders who are sel l i ng the
coal and urani um on their reservat i ons, gi vi ng permi ssi on for
mi ni ng and bui l di ng power pl ants, act wi t h the aut hority of
democrati c elect i on. They are representat i ves of t hei r peopl e
chosen by t hei r peopl e. Nati ve Ameri cans have not succeeded
any more than whi te radi cal s i n mobi l i zi ng a maj ori ty or even
massi ve mi nority of t hei r peopl e t o oppose capi tal i st domi nance.
N or can any one group in Ameri ca al one defend itself and end the
oppressi on and expl oi tati on t he syst em vi si ts upon t hem.
Whatever the cri ti ci sm t hose i n t he st ruggle may have of
ot hers who oppose the system, t hat cri t i ci sm must be gi ven i n t he
cont ext of t he desi rabi l i ty of uni ty and t he needs of the overal l
st ruggl e. The poi nts of contenti on debated i n thi s book are not
mi nor. I have suggested i ndeed t hat Marxists have much t o l earn
from t hei r I ndi an cri ti cs but al so t hat t he enemy i s cl ass domi na
t i on and a system of expl oitat i on t hat must be understood i f i t is
to be successful l y combated. Marxi sm i s a crucial t ool for under
st andi ng t hat syst em. The task is t o j oi n t he strengt hs of the t wo
1 74 Marxi sm and Native Americans
tradi ti ons and t o forge st ronger al l i ances. Just as the Ameri can
I ndi an Movement came i nto bei ng because it is not just the
Ogl al a peopl e of t he Pi ne Ri dge reservati on who are col oni zed
and feel i ng t he pressure of res ource-hungry corporate Ameri ca,
but t he Navaj o, t he Crow, the Hopi , t he Nort hern Cheyenne and
others, s o t oo t he st ruggle ext ends t o the rest of the Americas and
i ndeed t he whol e worl d. Thi s poi nt was made amply cl ear by
speakers at t he Gat heri ng.
"General Mi l es, who l ed the s laughter at Wounded Knee i n
1 890, ei ght years l ater i nvaded Puerto Ri co, " Jose Al berto
Alvarez, Fi rst Secretary of t he Puerto Ri can Social ist Party for
Nort h Ameri ca, t ol d the Gat heri ng. He descri bed the pl ight of the
i sl and under U. S. col onial i sm and especi al l y of the st ruggl es of
the fis hi ng and farmi ng peopies of t he isiand of Vi eques ( off the
Puerto Ri can coast) to force the U. S. Navy t o stop usi ng t hei r
i sl and as a bombi ng range. Pi erre Vuari n, from Lazac, France,
where over a decade of st ruggl e has t ranspi red between farmers
resi sti ng rel ocati on and NATO, t old a s i mi l ar story.
The Bl ack Hi l l s Al l iance seeks t o uni te t hose theatened by
the energy congl omerates' l and and water grab pl ans -I ndi ans,
ranchers, farmers. I t seeks al l i ances wi t h anti-nuke acti vi sts,
t hose who fi ght t he dangers of nucl ear weapons, t hose concerned
wi th t he fate of urani um mi ners whose very empl oyment i s death.
The Survi val Gat heri ng was an i mportant event i n our his
t ory. It brought di verse peopl es t ogether out of common con
cerns to l earn from each ot her and to better work with each ot her.
The essays i n t his book are a cont i nuat i on of the Gatheri ng. The
di al ogue it i nspi red must go on.
PART THREE
Where were you when we came close
t o the end?
When our land was being stolen, you just
stood by.
When we were being massacred, you di dn't
even cry.
When t hey put us on reservations, you di dn't
lose any sleep.
When we were starving half to death,
you had enough to eat.
When we had no voice, you never said a word.
When we cried out to you, you never
even heard.
When our freedom was being denied, you never
questioned why.
And when we needed hel p, somehow the
well was always dry.
Where were you when we needed you, our friend?
Where were you when we needed you to bend?
N ow you claim to be part Sioux or Cherokee.
But where were you when we came close to t he end?
From a Song Sung By
Floyd Westerman
9
Reds Versus Redskns
Phil Heiple
On A pri 1 30, 1 98 1 , several of the contri butors t o thi s vol ume
had the opportunity to get together and exchange observati ons
on the Marxist / Indi an debate. Wi th Ward Churchi l l moderat
i ng, Vine Deloria, Jr. , Russel l Means, Bob Si pe, the audience,
and I had a highl y sti mulating time clarifyi ng poi nts of contact
and disagreement among us. I'd like to summarize what I thi nk
t hese were, and their rel ati onshi p t o some of the practical pol i ti
cal problems facing us in t hese times.
While Bob and I had certain di sagreements, as di d Deloria
and Means, l i nes of contenti on were clearly established on most
i ssues. On the questi on of what is t o be done, the Marxists (Bob
and I) spoke of a radical reorganizati on of the soci al relati ons of
capital i sm, while the Native Americans (Vi ne and Russell) called
for a qual itative change in the relati onshi p between people and
envi ronments. Where the Marxist point of view i mplied pol i tical
strategies ranging from decentral i zati on to outright seizure of
power, the Native Americans suggested a radical separatism
which eroded the basis for existence of such power and where
traditi onal l i festyles are adopted on a li mited and local scale.
1 77
1 78 Marxism and Nati ve Americans
As the Marxists cri ti ci zed the Native Americans for a fatal
underesti mati on of i mperi al i st ease at corrupting and undermi n
i ng t radi ti onal societi es, t he Nati ve Americans responded wi th
critici sm of Marxi sm as bei ng part of the corrupti ng tradi ti on
i tself. The Marxi sts saw no hope for Native Americans: tradi
ti onal s ocieties were doomed l ong ago. The Native Americans
saw no hope for Marxi sm: any part ici pati on i n Western soci ety,
i ncl udi ng i nternal cri ti ci sm, onl y contri butes to the suici de of
humanki nd.
Al l t hi s appears t o l eave very l i ttl e for Marxi sts and Nati ve
Americans to tal k about wi th any hope of agreement. But t his is
because the di scussi on
t
hus far has focused mai nl y upon the
di fferences between t he perspecti ves, e. g. : where each sees the
other goi ng wrong, i nstead of t hei r many and frui tfui si mi iari ti es.
A survey of t hese si milari ties coul d go a l ong way toward mi ni
mi zi ng the i mportance of di fferences and providi ng some basi s
for mutual understandi ng and cooperati on.
As a si gn of goodwi l l , Marxi sts and Native Ameri cans coul d
agree t o disagree about a great number of thi ngs. Many posi ti ons
i n pol i tical theory are more a matter of personal taste and opi n
i on than of logic and experi ence. "The lyri cs don't matter as l ong
as you l i ke the beat, " so t o speak. By t hi s I mean that the tone and
temperament of a theory are as i mportant as its eluci dati ons. I t
seems to me that these subjective characteri sti cs are what are
most si mi l ar between Marxi sts and Native Americans, especi al ly
those mi l i tants exempl i fied by Russel l Means and the Ameri can
Indian Movement.
I t hi nk the mai n i ntersect i on i s evidenced wi thi n the anger
both si des share toward t he destructi on of human l i fe and natural
resources forged by Western i mperi al i sm. The di fferences stem
from the diverging accounts of the origi ns and evol uti on of t his
destruct i on. Al though both attri bute it to practices and i nsti tu
t i ons originating i n Europe, they di fer sharpl y about the essen
ti al reasons behi nd i t . Marxi sts vi ew t hi ngs i n materiali st t erms,
i n how t he objective condi ti ons necessary for life were created
and controlled by peopl e with materi al access to t hose resources.
Native Americans such as Means and Deloria argue that subjec
ti ve factors-val ues and atti tudes contemptuous of traditi onal
l ifestyle and "the natural order" -are the core probl em.
Reds Versus Redski ns 1 79
Whi chever reason is given, however, a number of pol i ti cal
strategies remain the same. Both si des advocate ci vi l di sobedi
ence and i nvolvement i n opposi ti onal pol i ti cal movements. Both
express a wi l l t oward greater personal i nvolvement i n and control
over the means to survival . Both assert that i denti ty and a sense of
communi ty are superi or t o "security" and a sense of power. And
bot h si des loath and ridicule the symbols of commodi ty cul ture
used to legiti mate the system and e ngender popul ar support.
This strategic commonal i ty shoul d put Marxi sts and Nati ve
Americans si de by side on most contemporary pol iti cal iss ues.
Nevertheless, there is consi derabl e reason for Nati ve Ameri can
mi l i tants to remai n suspi ci ous of Marxi sm. Some of these, such
as t he Chri sti an hue to Marxi st tradi t i on and practi ce, have been
sol i dl y advanced by Delori a and others. To t hi s, I could add my
own list of t heoreti cal and practi cal probl ems relevant to the
debate.
The mai n problem is the manner i n which et hni c struggles
and the "nati onal questi on" have been handl ed wi thi n Marxi st
t radi ti on. Duri ng the peri od wi thi n whi ch they wrote, Marx and
Engels saw t he possi bi l i ty for revol uti on onl y i n l arge, centralized
i ndustri al states. They di d not foresee probl ems of i nt ernati onal
al i gnment as barriers t o change within states, and they therefore
subordi nated questi ons of ethnic st ruggle to questi ons of class
confict.
Hence, one fi nds Marx' s scathi ng crit i que of the British
domi nat i on of Irel and, as wel l as hi s view of the German domi na
t i on of t he Czechs as bei ng a quite di fferent matter: Bri ti sh
col oni zati on of t he I ri sh had "advanced" the l atter peopl e t o the
poi nt at which revol uti on was possi bl e, while Czech i ndepen
dence from Germany would disrupt the economi c organizati on
prerequi si te t o successful proletari an revol uti on i n central Eur
ope. Li kewi se, Engels di smissed Sl av yearni ngs for nati onal
i ndependence on the grounds that subordi nat ion to t he Germans
was the best hope for spreadi ng Western ci vi l i zat i on and social
i sm i n eastern Europe.
Yet, today, when one l ooks around t he worl d, among the
cl earest and most dramati c examples of l i beratory conflict are
et hni c mi norities i nvol ved i n nati onal i st struggl es. Some of these
are the Basques, Catalans and Galicians in Spai n, the Bretons in
1 80 Marxism and Native Americans
France, the Quebequois, Metis and James Bay Cree in Canada,
the Kurds i n south-central Asia, Serbs and Croats i n Yugoslavia,
Palestinians in Israel , the Bahnar, Rhade and other " Montag
nard" tribes in t he hi ghl ands of Vietnam, the Greek and Turk
Cypriots, Corsicans, Sardi ni ans, Pathans, Baluchis, Eritreans,
South Mol uccans and, i n the United States, Chicanos, Puerto
Ricans, Blacks (especial l y Muslims) and Native Americans.
Contrary to Marx's expectati ons, the industrial proletariat
i n the advanced capi tal ist nati ons of t he West (excepti ng perhaps
France and Italy) has demonstrated a greater interest i n aligning
with state power than i n opposing i t. Further, socialist and
Marxist states, whi l e condemni ng the capitalist system, have
been quite ful l of admi rati on for the productive forces that sys
tem has created. That such a situati on should come to pass seems
retrospectively predictable enough, given the concepti on of rel a
tions between humans and nature drawn by Marx i n the Com
munist Maniest o and other writi ngs.
In essence, t hi s amount s to the noti on of an i nherent opposi
ti on between humani ty and nature expressed t hrough the quest
t o gain control over the forces of nature via the medi um of labor
and i n order t o convert t hese forces i nto economic products
within an artificial or man-made worl d. Thi s, i n the Marxian-as
well as capitalist-view represents, or at least has represented,
"progress" for humanity.
On the basis of this tenet, one of Marxism's pri mary func
ti ons i n the post-revol uti onary society of the Soviet Uni on has
been to t ransform a "backward" agrarian society i nto a massive
i ndustrial compl ex rival i ng t hose evidenced i n the late capitalist
nati ons. To this can be added the i mperialism and betrayal waged
i n the name of Marxism duri ng the Twentieth Century: Kron
stadt ( 1 920), Spai n ( 1 939), Yugoslavia ( 1 948), Berlin ( 1 953),
Hungary ( 1 956), I ndonesia ( 1 965), Czechoslavakia and France
( 1 968), Chile ( 1 973), Kampuchea ( 1 976-77), and France (agai n,
i n 1 978). And then t here are other frequently noted facts, such as
that Hi t ler always termed hi mself a "socialist" whi l e developing a
state terrorism qui te si mi l ar in many of i ts aspects to t hat con
structed by Stal i n, or that Mussol i ni emerged quite l i terally from
t he ranks of t he Italian l eft . Today, t here are rumbli ngs of the
Sandi nistas i mposi ng forced rel ocati on upon the Indi an tribes of
Reds Versus Reds ki ns 1 8 1
t he Ni caragua/ Honduras border regi on whi l e t he Vietnamese
conduct mi l i t ary operati ons agai nst mountai n tri bes i n both
Vi etnam and Laos.
To sum up, the compl i mentary atti tudes t oward nature and
"natural peoples" expressed t hrough bot h capi tal i st and Marxi st
doctri ne, as wel l as the hi ghl y suspect performance / politics of the
prol etari at where i ndustrial i sm has occurred, make for a very
weak recommendati on of Marxism as an emanci patory t heory
for ethni c/ tri bal nati onal i sts-or anyone, for that matter.
Thi s critique, however wide-rangi ng, i s nonetheless far from
exhaust i ve. I t si mpl y does not appl y to most mani festati ons of
Marxi sm i n the West whi ch represent consi derable modificati ons
("revi si ons") of Marx' s original theoreti cal model . Counci l
communi sm, cri ti cal theory and phenomonol ogical Marxi sm al l
hold posi ti ons on sci ence, reas on, nature and l abor whi ch are
very di fferent from tradi ti onal or "ort hodox" Marxi sm. There
ue al so i deol ogies of the left , such as anarchi sm and syndical i sm,
whi ch can be (and often are) more critical of Marxi sm t han ei ther
ri ght-wi ng phi l osophy or cri ti ci sm such as that extended by
Del ori a, Means, et. al .
A number of successes can and s hould be posted to Marx
i s m's credi t as well . The Russi an Revol uti on of 1 9 1 7 is probabl y
t he most i mportant, fol l owed by the Chi nese Revol uti on i n 1 949,
and al most every maj or revol uti on si nce: t hose in Cuba, Viet
nam, Algeri a, Angol a, Zi mbabwe, Nicaragua and elsewhere.
Less dramatic are Marxi sm's organizing contri buti ons to such
struggles as t he eight-hour workday, chi l d labor l aws, universal
suffrage and the right of uni ons t o picket and stri ke.
Of less i mportance perhaps, but sti l l notabl y relevant is the
Marxist i mpetus behi nd parl i amentary oppositions wi thi n the
governments of France, England, West Germany, Ital y and
Sweden. To some extent at l east, they have proven s uccessful i n
di mi ni shi ng t he brunt of capitalist i mperial practice agai nst the
very col oni al peopl es represented i n broad terms by the Native
American contri butors t o thi s vol ume, as well as having achieved
certai n concrete gai ns for thei r own "mother country" popu
lati ons.
Fi nal l y, and perhaps least i mportant i n t hi s scheme of
t hi ngs, are the many arti sts whose aes t heti c acumen and soci al
1 82 Marxism and Native Americans
sensi bi li ties have been sharpened t hrough a fami l iarity with
Marxi sm and Marxi st theory. A few of the better known i ncl ude
George Orwel l , Kathe Kollewitz, Bunuel , Ernest Hemi ngway,
John Dos Passos, Bertol t Brecht , Di ego Ri vera, Le Corbusier,
Pablo Neruda, Al dous Huxley, William Faulkner, Pabl o Pi
casso, Andre Breton, Jean Paul Sartre, Rita Mae Brown, Kan
di nsky, Paul Robeson, Ri chard Wright, Jane Fonda, Mati sse,
G. B. Shaw, and Joan Mi ro.
To completely di scount such assets is t o abandon the onl y
tradi ti on whi ch has proven itself capabl e, however ambiguously,
of resi sti ng and defeati ng t he forces of capi tal i sm. Whi l e t he
radical stance of Native Ameri can activists i n wishing to step
outsi de of hi story t o wage thei r struggle at the spi ri tual l evel has a
trendy reiigi ous appeal , it seems to me that the only possibl e
outcome of such a strategy woul d be the accel erati on of t hei r
exti ncti on. More t han personal sui ci de, such a separati st l i ne of
acti on is precisely what representati ves of t he status quo want
and need. The state, afteral I , mai ntai ns i tsel f pri mari l y wi thi n the
rule of "divide and conquer".
The common ground between Marxists and Native Ameri
cans must be furt her expl ored and bui l t upon. Di fferences must
be put in proper perspective and deal t wi th accordi ngly. For
exampl e, not onl y i s the cri ti que of Chri sti an el ements i n Marx
i sm rather weak when compared t o other thi ngs worth compl ai n
ing about, it is extraordi narily mi spl aced consi deri ng t he overt
attempts by pol i ti cal l y-mi nded Chri sti ans (such as the so-cal l ed
"moral maj ori ty") t o control the economy and legi sl ate moral i ty.
From an envi ronmental i st vi ewpoi nt , the greater probl em is not
Marx's l atent posi ti vi sm, but the i deol ogical licence cl ai med by
Reaganites such as I nteri or Secretary Watt, who vi ews hi msel f as
being on a mi ssi on sancti oned by no l ess the Jesus Chri st hi msel f:
"My responsi bili ty is t o fol l ow the scri ptures, which call upon us
to occupy the land unti l Jesus returns. "
We must cl ose ranks i n t he common i nterest and to
confronts the common foe. When Del oria says "God is Red, "
Watt seems only t o el aborate, "He i s red, whi te, and blue. "
Marxism and the
Native American
Ward Churchill
Bat t le has been j oi ned, so t o speak. A summary of the
vari ous arguments and observati ons offered i n t his book seems i n
order, bi ased though my assessment may seem ( or be), for i t i s
onl y t hrough such review that we may seek answers t o the ques
t i on: "Where do we go from hereT
El i zabet h Lloyd has, in my opi ni on, done an excellent ser
vi ce in l ayi ng bare the t heoretical bones of Marx's general theory
of cul ture, a struct ure t hrough whi ch Marxian questi ons con
cerni ng i ssues of cul tural di fferenti ati on mi ght be resolved. I n
t his , she i s reinforced t o some extent by Bi l l Tabb i n hi s notati on
of Marx's admoni t i on t o hi s readers not to attempt t o uni
versalize concl usi ons drawn from t he hi storical materialist exam
i nat i on of European cul tural evol uti on. I t may thus be rightly
contended t hat the rudi ments of a t ruly adequate system for the
apprehensi on of cul tures and t heir manifestati ons exi st i n Marx,
and exi st i n a fashi on remarkabl y cl ear of et hnocentri sm. That
Marx never fleshed out thi s basi c t heory i s certai nly no faul t of
anyone who has come al ong s ince, certai nl y not of the Marxist
contri butors to this volume.
1 83
1 84 Marxism and Native Americans
But neither the framework nor even the ful l bl own renderi ng
of such a theory is, nor coul d be, sufficient, . merely by virtue of
existence. What is, and always was, required is practice derived
from theory: praxis in the Marxist vernacular. This is precisely
what i s lacking in Marx and subsequently within Marxism. It is
not enough t o articulate an appropriate methodology when one
abandons it at the next turn.
The noti on t hat the pronounced economism of past Marx
ian t heoretical practice i s appropriate to elaboration of European
conditi ons and fail s t o bear, i n fact or i ntent, upon non-European
conditions doesn' t pass muster under even the most meagre
scrutiny. The permeati on of the Marxist cosmology with such
concepts as "precapi tal i sC' and / or "preindustrial" as well as a
litter of jargon i ncl udi ng "primitive" and "underdevel oped" has
hardly been restricted in appl icati on-either by Marx or by
Marxists. More than a century of Marxism, begi nning wi th
Marx, has i ndeed applied the standard of measure accruing from
an intensive study of European cul tural evol ution, t he antecedent
phases of capital i sm, t o al l other cultures. This is a mentality s o
embedded i n most aspects of Marxist tradition that i t can onl y be
seen as integral t o the whol e, i n practice if not necessari ly in
theory.
Thus Russell Means' critique of what has essentially been
Lenin's grafting of Bakuni ni sm on t o the corpus of Marxism-as
represented through a series of twentieth century revolutions and
resultant "socialist orders" -need not be restricted entirely t o the
Leni ni st l i ne of thinking. Economi sm i s a strand whi ch runs, with
various degrees of overt expressi on, through virtually al l the
Marxist thi nki ng in thi s vol ume. Means is perhaps preoccupied
wi th Leninist expressi on i nsofar as i t has evidenced itself most
clearly i n historical terms. Hi s analysis noneheless is con
si derably broader in i ts i mpl icati ons . The temporal i nsi nuati ons
of Marxi sm vis a vis al l that i s not European engul f the theoreti cs
spri nging from Frankfurt, for exampl e, to at least as great an
extent as the "cruder" offerings of Leninist doctrine. Citati ons
from critical theory contain references t o the supposed virtues of
"early societies," yet no attempt i s ever made to address the
obvious question of what, exactly, i s "early" about non-i ndus
trialized' societies which exist here and now, in 1 983 . Critical
theory, in thi s sense at least, is perhaps the direct equivalent
within Marxi sm oft he "l i beral sophi stry" of t he fascist / capital ist
"moral majority" trend.
Marxi sm And The Nati ve Ameri can 1 85
Sti l l , it i s certai nl y correct that Leni n
i
st adherents can be
crude, at least at t hi s j uncture. Li ttl e coul d better fi l l t hat descri p
t i on t hat t he "sly" announcement t hat "Russel l Means wants t o
eat shit" ( by "l ooki ng for the second harvest") when he dares to
chal l enge t he scri pt ure of the Revol ut i onary Communist Party
fai th. Desp
i
te (or perhaps because of the vehemence of i ts
response, t he party offered l ittle wi th whi ch to address the s ub
stantive i ssues rai sed by Means' cri t i que. They di d, on t he other
hand, do us al l the service of t rott
i
ng out vi rtual l y t he ful l range of
banaliti es, mi si nformati on and outri ght absurdi ti es concerni ng
I ndi ans l odged i n Ameri cana and hol di ng currency on t he l eft.
Hopeful l y, Dora-Lee Larson and I were abl e t o cl ari fy matters i n
many of t hese areas.
Bob S ipe enters the fray wi th an exposi t i on of the pri nci pal
tenets of cri t ical theory and extends a t horough case as to
i
ts
analytical potenti al as a mode through whi ch Nat
i
ve Amer
i
cans
may better understand the i nner worki ngs of t he domi nant cul
t ure surroundi ng t hem. It seems to me, however, that hi s
argument l oses force i n at l east two si gni fi cant ways: a) hi s cri tical
apprehensi on of advanced capi tal i st negat i vi ty does not seem
parti cul arl y different from that advanced by Means; only hi s
"solu
tio
n
s" are different. b) And, as Vine Deloria Jr. points out
compel l i ngl y, r t hi nk-the sol uti ons hardly corres pond t o needs
generated t hrough t he Ameri can I ndi an heritage and experi ence.
Thus, alt hough Si pe's reci pe for the nat ure of the new s ociety may
be appl i cabl e to t he European heri tage, for Indi ans i t i s a matter
of attempti ng to drive round pegs i nt o square hol es-at any cost.
Thi s, i t seems t o me, i s a cent ral theme common to al l the
I ndi an contri butors t o t hi s vol ume. The Marxi st anal ysi s of
capi talis m i s a good begi nni ng , at l east i n large part: i t i s hel d i n
common and even expanded upon by a number of Nati ve Ameri
can mi l i tants and tradi ti onal i sts. As Phi l Hei pl e poi nts out,
where I ndi ans and Marxi sts part company l i es wi t hi n t he realm
of concl usi ons t o be drawn from analyses of what i s wrong wi th
the capi tal i st process; wi th a v
i
s i on of an al ternati ve soc
i
ety.
Beyond redi str
i
buti on of the products of capi tal i s m i tself, I ndian
cri ti cs see l i ttl e di fferenti ati on between the two supposedly con
tendi ng modes. And redi stri but i on of t he proceeds accru
i
ng from
a systemati c rape of t he earth is, at best, an
i
rrel evancy to Ameri
can I ndi an t radi ti on.
1 86 Marxi sm and Native Americans
Confronted with such argumentation, Marxists seem to
have l i ttl e wi th whi ch t o repl y other than to i nsi st that dei n
dustrial izat i on is "i mpractical" (so say the capitalists, as wel l ).
Beyond thi s, they si mply begi n to repeat-as if by rote-t hei r
arguments toward the humanization of society t hrough worker
control of the means of producti on and concomitant redistri
bution of the weal th produced. At best, Marxists such as Tabb
acknowledge the substance of I ndi an criticism t hrough agree
ment t hat technol ogical sol uti ons to the environmental i mpact of
i ndustry are not onl y cruci al but must be suppl emented by a
reevaluation of s ociety's pri ori ties i n relati on to the natural
worl d. More commonl y, it is assumed that under socialism the
technological problems wi l l take care of themselves.
The i ndi ans i n this vol ume have suggested (or demanded)
somethi ng rather different than application of the proverbial
technol ogical fi x. Rhetorically at least, much of Marxi sm agrees
much more profoundl y wi th Dupont ("Better Li vi ng Through
Chemistry") Chemicals and Phi l i ps ("we can make a well-head
bl end with any envi ronment") Petrol eum than wi th any of the
I ndi an contri butors. Smal l wonder then that Means refers to
"conti nuity rather than revol uti on" as the Marxist credo, and
cal l s both capitalis m and Marxi sm j ust the "same old song" of
Europe.
Such a situation may seem paradoxical. That avowed
revol uti onaries might al l ow such obvi ous commonality between
themselves and thei r "opposit i on" presents a riddle. It may be
explained t hrough another theme, one which runs wi th amazing
consistency t hrough al l the Marxist writing i n thi s volume: The
forces of capitali sm are as inevitabl e and natural a circumstance
as earthquake and glaciati on, as pri meval as life. I n sum, they are
by-products of "human nature, " the "scientific laws
" of human
development, as Marx once put i t.
That capitalis m i s a system composed of a myri ad of human
decisions, and glaci ati on is not, is a di stincti on whi ch seems to
escape them. In elevati ng a humanly determi ned system to the
status of a "natural l aw" they have predetermi ned t hei r inability
to perceive what alternatives are actually viable; the choice has
been made by the very system they ostensi bly oppose. To quote
Engel s, as cited by the RCP i n underpinning i ts polemic against
Marxi sm And The Native American 1 87
Means, "The forces operating in soci ety work exactl y l i ke the
forces operati ng i n nature . . . " Even Tabb, who 'seems to reject t he
"i nevitabl e natural l aw" interpretati on, can fi nd no better
analogy for the fut i l i ty of denyi ng the i nevi tabi l i ty of i ndustri al i sm.
"You mi ght as well rage agai nst t he wi nd for blowi ng or t he moon
for cast i ng i ts l ight across the night sky. "
From fi rst t o l ast , Marxists i nsi st upon the specifi c inevit
abi l ity of industrializati on and capital i sm as sanctificati on of
t hei r "science" i n the same fashi on t hat bi ologists approach
t hei rs: t hrough asserti on of unassai l abl e physi cal /act. From t his
perspective, Marxi sts can no more step out side thei r precon
cepti ons of order t o seri ousl y entertain other consi derati ons t han
a responsi ble biol ogist coul d reasonabl y engage i n professi onal
di scourse on t he aeronautical characteristics of the blue whal e.
Thi s is no doubt understandabl e, given the assumed validity
of the perspective i n questi on. The problem i s that the validity is
only assumed, never proven. For al l Karl Marx's elaborate
attempts to establ i sh his theory as an "objecti ve" or even physical
science, he was unsuccessful , partly because he l i mited his data
essentially to a single cul tural context. That the examples of other
cultures could well have served to refute t he "iron laws" of
societal evolution i nto capital i sm seems hardl y arguable, since
only Europe has ever fol l owed that parti cul ar traject ory. But to
trul y al l ow for thi s di sparity from cul ture t o cul ture woul d
necessarily have removed the aura of obj ective fact from hi s
pronouncements, l eavi ng i nstead the mi st of s oci al science
subj ectivity.
It was thus l eft to those who came after Marx t o uphold hi s
scientism through the excl usi on of al l exampl es, al l data whi ch
would di minish and i mpugn the Marxian hypothesis, constructing
i nstead ever more i nsul ar layers of "proof' and rei nforcement.
Such phenomena are, of course, not wi thout precedent i n t he
real m of pseudo-science. Consi der t he Pi l tdown hoax, or t he
more recent focking of the U. S. anthropological community to
val idate t he fabricati ons of Carlos Castaneda. These two ex
amples were debunked in a quarter-century and less t han a
decade respectively, whi l e Marxi sm has l asted nearl y a century
and a hal f. Al l of Castaneda's supporters have di sappeared now,
except for a few who ral l i ed to hi s "i nsi ghts" l i ke true religi ous
1 88 Marxism and Native Americans
zeal ots. Adherents to Marxism, under its many factional guises,
burgeon with the passage of time. We are confronted wit h
somethi ng rather more t han a false lead in the area of science.
False leads can generally be di spensed with through the extensi on
of contradicting data and the l ogi c of informed argument.
Marxism is a self-contai ned system, allowing considerati on
onl y of data whi ch serve t o perpet uate it; logic and evidence are of
no use i n confronti ng i t. Si nce Marx, the Marxian questi on
has always been "how? ", never "whether? " The latter
approach is magi cal l y but no l ess i nevitably diverted back i nto
the former t hrough sheer reiterati on of scriptural "fact. " Thi s i s
the foundati on of no known sci ence. Rather, i t is the assert i on of
wi l l , of fai th and of pure religi ousity. The RCP's Bob Avaki an is
thus Httle more (or less) than a Marxist equivalent t o Oral
Roberts, Sipe and Tabb equivalents t o Chardi n.
Marxi sm i s predicated upon capitalism for i ts very exi s
tence, and it bel ieves i n the same t hi ngs at base. It can onl y
conti nue, never trul y renounce i ts i ndustrial heritage, for t o do so
would represent i ts own negati on. Hence, i t must insist on the
ul ti mate negati on of al l t hat is non-industrial as the fi nal
significati on of its sancti ty, its "scientifi c" correctness. That thi s
fli es di rectly i n the face of any conceivably "l i beratory" ethi c i s
i rrelevant to t rue bel i evers. Species sui ci de may well be the resul t
of t he "i ron laws of hi story" and a smal l price to pay for fi nal
val i dati on. That Russel l Means rej ects t his as an alternative route
to l i berating his peopl e from the death-grip of i mperialism s hould
come as no surprise.
Nor should Del oria's observation t hat Marxism reduces to
l i ttl e more than "materialist mi ssionarism. " He is, afer all, a
trai ned theol ogian. He recognizes missi onary zeal when he meets
or reads it, regardless of its anti-religious t rappi ngs. And as
mi ght be expected, t he Marxi st counter-arguments seem weak.
For exampl e, the content i on t hat Deloria and other I ndians
"l ook t o the past" for i l l ustrati ons of Native American di f
ferentiation are both i naccurate and i rrelevant. First, traditional
I ndian cul tures-contrary t o Euro mythology of t he "vani shi ng
red man" -conti nue to exist wi th an amazi ng vi tal i ty and con
t i nuity on a number of reservati ons. Hence, "past" is hardly an
appropriate term t o appl y t o the substance of Deloria's examples.
Marxi sm And The Nati ve Ameri can 1 89
Second, Del oria never argues for t he recreat i on of t he specific
physical context of centuries past, but to a further re
l i ance upon the values and worldview of a cultural reality which
has l ong demonstrated i ts abi l i ty to el i mi nate soci al al i enat i on i n
ways onl y s pecul ated upon by Marxi sts. Anal yses of con
t emporary I ndi an tradi ti onal i sm as s omehow "past" dovetai l
neatl y wi th references t o contemporary non-i ndust ri al cul tures as
"earl y. "
Such semant i c gambi ts are i ntended t o mask (though t hey
do a poor jo b of i t) a cul tural chauvi ni sm and arrogance built into
the Marxi st outl ook which is addressed by Frank Bl ack El k when
he pi cks up Del oria' s compari son of Marxi sm to mi ssi onari s m.
Bl ack El k, however, makes his approach i n pri mari l y concrete
rather t han t heoreti cal terms, cal l i ng on his own l i fe experiences
to punctuate hi s poi nt s . A veritabl e one-two punch is t hus
afforded between t heory and practice whi ch s hould give pause to
t hi nki ng Marxi sts, but one whi ch is neatl y si destepped by the
other cont ri but ors. For exampl e. whi l e Tabb focuses wi th some
enthusi asm on Bl ack El k's stated percepti ons of at l east potenti al
commonal i ty between Lakota t radi ti on and t hat of Marxi sm, he
homes precisel y upon the aspect of Black El k's essay whi ch
serves, however tenuousl y, to validate the pri nci ples of Marxist
doctri ne.
And wi th the except i on of Tabb, the Marxi st contri butors
i nsi st that t he el aborate texture of Marxi sm represents a
necessary and "overarchi ng" real ity t o whi ch Indi ans an,d thei r
i nsi ghts must inevi tabl y be s ubordi nated. The fi rst priority is for
Nat ive Americans to become i nti matel y acquai nted wit h thi s
i mpli ci tl y more "advanced" perspecti ve, s o that they wi l l be i n a
posi ti on to assist in the perfecti on of Marxi sm. Marxists
uni forml y maintain that t heirs is the "superi or" system, all the
while picki ng of pieces of "I ndian-ness" with which to enrich
thei r outl ook. Sipe di scovers that I ndians may well be l iving a
"prefigurati on" of the coming s oci al i st order, a way out of the
oedipal tangle of capitalist socialization. Tabb and Sipe
acknowledge that "Indians have much to tell us" about matters
such as ecology, environment, and "appropriate technology. "
One might add, about agriculture, pharmacology and a few
other things as well , if Marxists were "astute enough to listen. "
But there are many ways to listen.
1 90 Marxi sm and Nati ve Americans
(The reader will forgive me if I recal l that i t was t he maj or
formul ative aspect of t his book-an aspect expressed t o al l
contri butors al ong t he way-that i t was Marxism whi ch was t o
respond to cri ti que by defi ni ng i t s util i ty and potenti al to I ndi ans,
not t he other way around. I t seems dubi ous at t hi s poi nt that
many I ndians have been or are l i kel y to be swayed by t he Marxi st
arti cul ati ons here. The Marxi sts, on t he other hand, seem to have
gl eaned a l ot of potenti al from the I ndian vi ew, i f onl y for
depl oyment wi thi n Marxi sm . . . whi ch is what t he I ndi ans have
i nsi sted t horoughout . This shoul d tel l someone something. )
The posi ti ve cont ri but i ons avai l abl e wi thi n i ndigenous
tradi ti ons which mi ght be made, contri but i ons whi ch should
surpri se no one except Euro-supremi ci sts, are not at issue here.
The point i s whet her Marxi s m is i ntent upon a symbi oti c or even
a reci procal relat i onshi p with non-European cul tures and
t radi ti ons. Truly, we find even t he more "sympat hetic" Marxi st
contri butors t o thi s vol ume ski mmi ng off the "high poi nts" of
I ndi an cul ture for potenti al i ncorporati on i nto their syst em. And
what do t hey offer i n exchange? Onl y the "superiority" of an
anal yt ical system whi ch i s at best sUbstan
"
ti al l y si mi l ar to that
al ready uti lized by t he I ndi an, and a set of concl usi ons, t he
outc
o
me of which woul d necessarily be the di ssol uti on of I ndian
cul ture. One hears echoes of t he crusaders pirating the concept of
t he vaulted arch from t he "heat hen" Moors and i ncorporat ing i t
i nt o European architecture. European systems and instituti ons
have al ways enriched themselves wi th the knowledge and at t he
expense of non-Europeans. I t i s a method Mart i n Carnoy cal l s
"cul tural i mperial i sm. "
Empi re, whet her it be physical or i ntel l ectual , must be
defended. Hence, one fi nds even the most clear-thi nki ng Marx
i sts resorti ng t o all manner of strange and wonderful argument s
as a means of defendi ng t he sanctity and hegemony of t hei r
theoreti cal domai n. Wi t ness Bi l l Tabb warning I ndi ans t hat t hei r
tradi ti onal cul ture cannot prevai l i nsofar as thei r "elected"
leaders cooperate with t he federal government. Asi de from t he
observable fact t hat t hi s i s preci sel y the same rat i onal e uti l ized by
the Bureau of I ndi an Affai rs t o i mpose its "superior" vi si on and
management upon I ndi ans, what does thi s mean?
Marxi sm And The Native American 1 9 1
Tabb maintains t hat I ndians must "face the real i ty of t hei r
own elected officials sel l i ng out the tradi ti onal I ndian way of
l i fe. " Conversely, the BIA holds that I ndi ans must face the fact
that tradi ti onal i sm sells out "progress. " Does Tabb concur?
Cl early, hi s versi on of progress woul d di ffer from that projected
i n BIA scenari os, but the suggesti on i s that tradi ti onalism i s a
write-off either way, whether its passing is assisted or lamented.
And this hi nges, neatly, on the fact that elected officials are
i nvolved.
As Tabb should know, this democratic j argon is extremely
mi sleadi ng. The system of so-called elected officials never derived
from tradi ti onal cul ture, nor does i t in any way represent
tradi ti onal s. It was in fact i mposed from Was hi ngton, essentially
by fi at, t hrough the "I ndi an Reorganizati on Act of 1 934. " The
traditionals did not and generally do not vote i n the elections for
the si mpl e reason that voti ng was not and is not a part of their
t radi ti onal form of governi ng themselves. The tri bal councils
referred t o are the appurtenances of col oni al rule, and are thus
designed t o sell out tradi ti onalism at every turn. How such a
system works shoul d present no particul ar mystery t o anyone at
all knowledgable i n the met hodol ogy of col onialist rule (like
Tabb).
The sell-out by elected officials has never precluded
Marxi sts from advocating t he development of autonomous l ocal
res istance struggles. To put i t another way, woul d Marxists have
been inclined to advise the Castro brothers and Che Guevara
t hat the struggle for l i beration in Cuba was hopeless because
Batista was an obvious U. S. puppet? Would they have sought to
expl ai n to Ho and Giap that the unificati on struggle in Vietnam
should be considered as vain because t he elected offi cials of the
South had sold out to U. S. interests? What woud their advce have
been to Fanon during t he . latter' s preparati on of manuscripts
concerni ng t he anti-colonial struggle in Al geria?
The s it uational analyses i n these cases rack up rather
di fferentl y t han that usually afforded to I ndi an acti vi sts. Why?
Surely t he acutely negative obj ective condi ti ons faci ng the other
di ssi dents were at times comparable to those facing I ndians i n
thi s country t o-day. Yet t he lef i s known t o have frequently and
l oudly proclaimed that those who were so badl y outgunned
1 92 Marxism and Native Americans
eventual l y won out in each case, won wi th active moral support
from Marxists and peopl e of conscience abroad. Such support i s
frequently denied I ndi an resistence fighters through precisely
Tabb's formulati on, which somehow proves that their cause is
much more hopeless than the rest.
Of course, each struggle at some level or another is
emphatically different from the others. On the other hand, each
of the non-Indian struggles is the same insofar as t hey share a
doctrinal adherence to the principles of Marxism. Shoud RqsseU
Means and John Trudel l suddenly announce a newfound fai th in
Marxist scripture, one i s forced t o wonder whether Marxi sts
might equall y suddenl y discover a way to overcome the reality of
the sell-out of tri bal offi ci al s. At that moment, might the left fi nd
some corner withi n t he Marxist analysis for a prospering of
I ndian t raditionali sm?
These correspondences between t he arguments advanced by
Tabb and orthodox Marxist positions gi ve rise to questi ons
about the "mi ssi onarism" attri buted by Deloria and others to
Marxist theory and practice. Tabb has done and conti nues to do
work wi th I ndian-focused organizations such as the Black Hil l s
Al liance. His work, noted i n hi s essay, relative to t he 1 980 Black
Hi lls I nternational Survival Gathering was commendable; his
services are val uable, hi s explanations of t he intricacies of
advanced capi tal i st processes gladly accepted and put t o use. But
this does not deny t he appropriateness of the question which
must be asked of any Marxi st: Does he or she come ultimately to
joi n an extant and ongoi ng struggle conducted by local peopl e, or
do they come to transform that struggle i nto a refecti on and
validati on of thei r own faith? Are t hey ultimately supporters or
recruiters? Fighters of thi s struggle or missionaries of another?
Such questions perhaps carry with them no i mmediacy
Marxists, after all, are not presently in power in the United
States-. But as Means rightl y insists, in the longer view t hese issues
will emerge as crucial consi derati ons.
This dynami c is expl icit i n Sipe, who cal l s upon Native
Americans to devel op a "class consciousness" as a means to
associate themselves with the broader mass of common op
pressi on and common i nterest across the nation. While Si pe
presumably means more than just economic class, the termi n
ol ogy minimizes the vast di fferences between the oppressi on of
Marxi sm And The Nati ve Ameri can 1 93
t he I ndi an and t he prol etari at under capi t al i sm. Ameri can
I ndians have no cl ass i n any convent i onal sense; i nsofar as they
have become prol etari ans (usual ly unempl oyed) t hey have al
ready been t orn from thei r tradi t i onal cul t ures-a condi t i on t hat
Si pe and Hei ple, for example, want to encourage, as i t provi des
potent i al supporters for their cause.
Where is i t wri tten i n Marxi st scri pture t hat the col onized, as
a matter of "first pri ority, " must i denti fy wi t h t he worki ng class of
the col oni zi ng power? Fanon has been stood on his head. Did not
Sartre argue convi nci ngly enough that t he task of Marxi sm (and
the left in general) was t o convi nce the worki ng class of France
t hat t hei r cl ass i nterests l ay with the colonized of Al geria? I n the
U. S. , ths fow is magicay reversed: the "black skin, white masks"
of Fanon's t hesi s are t o be i mposed by t he "l i beratory" doct ri ne
of Marxi sm i tself.
Many Marxi sts even go beyond Si pe' s posi t i on to ri di cul e
Native American "Third World pretensions . " In this view, the
col oni al equat i on is predi cated upon t he exi stence, occupati on
and adequate defense of a defi ned (or at l east defi nable)
homel and, a content i on whi ch woul d no doubt cause a certai n
consternat i on among Palest i ni ans. Si nce t he Ameri can I ndi an
cannot be counted upon to successful l y defend reservati on areas
agai nst al l- out mi l i tary assaul t by the Uni ted St at es, the whol e
consi derat i on of engagement i n purel y ant i-col oni al st ruggle is
di smised as absurd. In effect : "I ndi ans shoul d give up t his
del usi onal nonsense of retai ni ng t hei r cul tures and homel ands,
get t i ng on with the important busi ness of mergi ng wi th the
i nterests expressed by everyone el se among the opposi t i on. " Of
course, t here i s a word for t hi s l i ne of t hi nki ng and acti on:
assi mi l ati on. I t s res ul t i s cul t ural . genoci de. Abandonment of
t hei r l andbase is not an opt i on for Nati ve Ameri cans, ei t her i n
fact or i n t heory. The resul t would si mply be "auto-genoci de. "
These are poi nt s whi ch are bound to i nduce somet hi ng l ess
than ent husi asti c trust and confi dence among Indi ans concerni ng
the "al ternat ives, benefi ts and sol uti ons" avai l abl e t o t hem
t hrough contemporary Marxist t hi nki ng. To t he contrary, it
seems al most as i f the Marxi st contri but ors to this book had
deci ded among t hemsel ves to val i date Russel l Means' "harsh"
assess ment that Marxi sm i s i dentical i n i ts i mpli cati ons for
1 94 Marxism and Native Americans
i ndi genous peoples as is capital i sm, i ntenti ons notwi thstandi ng.
Certainly, t hey have proceeded t o bear hi m out t hrough al l
manner of contradi ct ory and convol uted logic.
When seemi ng opposites become i deol ogically fused, a
whole resul ts. I n a sense, t he Indi an cri ti que of Marxi sm likens i ts
relati onshi p t o capi tal i sm as a sort of parallel to the relat i onshi p
of the democratic and republ i can parties wi thi n the Uni ted
States. Between democrats and republi cans i deological di s
ti nctions certainly exist and are t he source of bitter controversy.
To a Marxi st, such disti ncti ons are i nsubstantial, i dl e chatter, the
contestants represent basically the same thi ng regardless of style
and inflecti on. So too, to tradi ti onali st Nati ve Americans, are t he
fi nely wrought differenti ati ons bet wen Marxi sts and capitalists .
To a democrat or republ i can, the terms of the game are
clearly understood and representative of t he "r eal i st i c" choices
available. It must seem i nconceivable to eit her that another
individual might reasonabl y step outside t he game altogether and
thereby determi ne other viable opt i ons. opt i oll s whi ch truly
transcend the so-cal led "lef-right dichotomy" wi t hi n U. S. elec
t oral pol i ti cs. Yet any Marxi st can testi fy t ha t nne may t ake such
a step and, i ndeed, be the better for i t . OWl t a k C I l , t he step
beyond t he elect oral system opens new \st il of npport uni ty,
releases the s hackl es of narrowly defi ned pnl l ! i .: a I constrai nts,
and so on. The choi ce between democra t , Hi d I ' T" hh: an seems
trivial or irrelevant to the Marxist, and t he L! I . I st i s no doubt
right i n thi s summati on.
Yet, as democrats and republ icans Ci l I l I l I ; 1 : dl ow t hat t hei r
perspecti ve might be useful ly t ranscended, l i Ct hI ' / can Marxi sts.
The idea that there are other vi ews on thi s pl anet which go wel l
beyond the l i mits afforded through their syst em i s as alien to
them as it is to thei r capi tal i st counterparts. And as Mi lton
Friedman and Wi ll i am F. Buckley resort t o all manner of
s purious "techniq ue" to defend thei r chosen doctrine from
transcendence, so too do Marxists. As defensi ve polemic takes
hold, t he openness necessary for theoretical development at
rophies. and the basis for broadeni ng the range of understandi ng
di sappears. Doctrine becomes dogma, regardless of the sophist
icati on and permutati ons of its articulati on. So it is wi th
Marxi sm, and so it has been for some ti me.
Marxism And The Native American 1 95
Perpetual i ncantati on of the catechi sm of Marxist virtue
does no more to favorably resolve the situation than do si mi lar
pronouncements on the part of exponents of "free market"
doctri ne. As Means observed, Marxi sm and capi tal i sm are two
sides of t he same coi n. He then went on to describe the
fundamental att ributes he perceived the contenders holding i n
common. None of the Marxi st rej oi nders refuted, or real l y
attempted to refute, any poi nt of t hat l i st. Yet each i n t urn
professed t o be appalled at his concl usi on, i nsi sti ng he was wrong
despi te taci tly acknowledging his correctness t hrough the lack of
refutati on.
The t wo s ides of the coi n are t hus demonstrabl y fused,
alt hough one half sti l l demands t o be consi dered as operating
i ndependent l y of the ot her. The coi n may wel l bel ieve thi s, but
observers need not fol l ow sui t. A term is necessary to denote the
phenomenon; Means empl oys "Euro" (a generic term, l i ke
"I ndi an"). It is perhaps not the best possi ble word choice (i s
"Indi an"? Native American"? Ameri ndian"?), but i t i s at least
accurate i nsofar as it ascri bes the origi ns of the outl ooks that
I ndi ans fi nd both synonomous and reprehensi bl e-capital i sm,
Marxi sm and missi onari sm-to Europe, cul tural transplanta
ti ons from that conti nent to t his. Unt i l Marxi sm can extricate
itself from its commonal i ty i n exi stence with capi tal i sm i t can
never be other than uEuro, " a part of the same cul tural coin.
Nonet hel ess Means mai ntai ns t hat Euro" i s a mi ndset, a
worldview, not an i nnate characteri sti c whi ch accompani es white
ski n. As was noted earl ier, the "system, " whet her defined as
Marxi st or capitalist or Euro, is composed of human acti ons,
human deci si ons. Onl y those devoutl y rel i gi ous i n thei r zeal
would ascri be its existence t o an act of god, somethi ng not to be
transcended t hrough conscious counter-acti on. For them, there
may well be no hope; regrettabl y t hi s neurosi s encompasses all
who hol d t hei r human system to have been enacted as a pri meval
force, Marxi sts or not.
That one need not be genetical ly, or even cul tural ly for that
matter, non-European i n order to t ranscend the bi nary opti ons of
the Marxi st / capital ist coin i s demonst rated by the recent pheno
menon of "post-Marxist" theory. Thi s process of "immanent
cri ti que" ( i dentical i n name and pract ice to the methods em-
1 96 Marxism and Native Americans
pl oyed by Karl Marx i n t ranscendi ng Feuerbach) represents
Marxists t hemselves overcomi ng t he i nherent contradi ct i ons of
thei r system whi ch has l ong left t hat doctrine hopelessly t heo
logical and ethnocentric i n its basic assumptions.
Perhaps the exempl ary exponent of this practice i s the
French writer Jean Baudril l ard whose book, The Mirror of
Production, shoul d be read by al l , especially Marxists, who have
been given even bri ef pause by t he I ndi an critique offered i n t he
present volume. Thi s holds parti cul arly true for Baudri l l ard' s
essay " Marxist Anthropol ogy and the Domi nati on of Nature. "
The reader wi l l fi nd t hat despite a rather tortuous language and
occasi onally circui tous route, Baudrillard arrive at many of t he
same concl usi ons as Means, Deloria and myself, and for vi rtual l y
the same reasons. For exampl e:
Radical i n i ts logical anal ysis of capital" Marxist
theory nonetheless maintains an anthropological con
sensus with the opti ons of Western rationalism i n i ts
defi ni tive form acqui red i n eighteenth century bour
geois thought. Sci ence, technol ogy, progress, hi story
i n these ideas we have an enti re civilizati on that
comprehends i tel f as produci ng its own devel opment
and takes its dialectical force towards completi ng
humanity i n terms of totality and happi ness, Nor di d
Marx invent t he concepts of genesis, devel opment and
fi nality, He changed not hi ng basic regardi ng the idea of
man producing hi msel f i n hi s i nfi nite determination,
and continually surpassi ng hi mself toward his own
end.
Thi s, despi te an ent irely di fferent sort of background and
heritage from any Native American author.
The I ndi an arguments are thus no more innately I ndi an than
"Euro-consciousness" i s i nnately the property of those possessi ng
caucasi an genes. They are shared i n large part by at least a few
European theorists, Thi s, it would seem to me, represents
somethi ng of a breakthrough, i f only a small one at present. But
to paraphrase Marcuse, it is from such small breakthroughs that
the overcoming of false consci ousness can occur. The route
Marxi sm And The Nati ve Ameri can 1 97
currentl y bei ng expl ored by Ameri can I ndian acti vi sts (and other
Thi rd or Fourt h Worlders) from one cul tural perspective and,
from anot her by Baudri l l ard and other post- Marxists, suggests
i tsel f as an obvi ous course to be pursued beyond the di scuss i on
contai ned i n t hi s book.
Thi s i s, however, a more or l ess purel y theoreti cal di recti on.
Many peopl e, Marxists and I ndians al i ke, are not parti cularl y
i ncl i ned t oward the rarified atmosphere of ful l bl own abstracti on.
More di rect sorts of activity are requi red to al l ow for constructive
parti ci pat i on by al l t hose of Marxi an bent who wish to test the
real i ty behi nd the Indi an words contri buted to t hi s dial ogue.
Here I wholeheartedly concur with the line of activity
undertaken by Bi l l Tabb in his associ ati on with the Black Hil l s
Al l i ance. I al so compl etel y agree wi th hi s eval uat i on of the 1 980
Bl ack Hi l l s I nternati onal Survival Gathering, spons ored i n large
part by t he Al l i ance, as a singul arly i mportant event. I woul d
suggest. however, t hat generalized support for and participation
i n Al l i ance acti vi ti es not be restri cted to maj or and s pectacular
demonstrat i ons such as the Gatheri ng. There is day to day
struggl e bei ng waged. Marxists can learn the real i ti es of t his
struggle t hrough di rect participati on on a consistent basis .
Pri or t o undertaki ng such a l i ne of act i on, a bi t of factual
ori entat i on (as opposed to theory) seems i mperati ve. Thi s is
mul tifaceted and coul d easi ly become a career occupation, so
l ittl e is real l y known by the bulk of the American left about the
I ndi an experi ence in America, but I will attempt to assemble a
rudi mentary "cras h course" whi ch wi l l al l ow up front per
spective. First, everyone needs "historical grounding, " so
copies of Francis Jennings ' The Invasion ofAmerica and Ralph
K. Andrist ' s The Long Death are i n order. Many lefists have
read such materials, but few go beyond this rather minimal
historical perspective in attempting to truly understand things
Indian.
A second historical orientati on is needed, concerning the
evolution of Indian policy from 1 776 through the present. Here,
Francis Paul Prucha' s Documents of United States Indian
Polcy will prove useful , especially in combination with Vine
Delori a Jr. and Clifford M. Lytle' s American Indians,
American Justice and Delori a' s American Indian Polcy in the
198 Marxism and Native Americans
Twentieth Century. The more ambitious may wish to secure a
copy of Charles Kappler ' s massive compilation, Indian
Treaties, 1 778-1883. Other useful readings include Deloria' s
Behind the Trail ojBroken Treaties and Roxanne Dunar Ortiz' s
The Great Sioux Nation: Sitting in Judgement on America.
As to achieving a grasp of the events within the Indian
movement itself, we can recommend nothing better than my and
Jim VanderWall ' s Agents oj Repression and Jim Messer
schmidt ' s The Trial oj Leonard Peltier. Peter Mat
thiessen' s In the Spirit ojCrazy Horse is also extremely valuable,
as is Rex Weyler' s Blood ojthe Land, and Roberto Maestas' and
Bruce Johansen' s Wasi 'chu: The Continuing Indian Wars.
I t seems that most non-I ndi ans, for whatever reasons, wi s h a
groundi ng in "I ndian spi ri tual ity" before approaching Native
American setti ngs . This is well nigh i mpossible, parti cul arly
t hrough such standards as Black Elk Speaks. Lame Deer: Seeker
oj Viions and The Sacred Pipe, all of which attempt (unsucess
ful ly) t o convey l i teral cont ent t o t he unni tiated. I wi l l recom
mend onl y Vi ne Del oria's God is Red and The Metaphysics of
Moder Existence t o offer appropriate i nsi ghts, as wel l as t o
expl ai n why detai l ed knowledge i s i mpossi ble i n t hi s connect i on
on the basi s of literat ure. At thi s poi nt, the nature of I ndi an i ssues
s hould be emergi ng.
Next, a visual exercise i s i n order. Acqui re a standard
Bureau of I ndi an Affai rs map i ndi cati ng the l ocati on and
boundaries of al l current reservati on areas. I t comes i n bl ack and
whi te, so col or i n the reservat i ons wi th a red magic marker or
col ored penci l . Pi n i t to your wal l . Practice l ooki ng at t he scal e of
t he l and base i nvol ved, not as federal trust areas aki n t o nati onal
parks, but as s overeign territ ori es guaranteed in perpetui t y by
i nternat i onal l y bi ndi ng treaty agreements between the Uni ted
States government and t he vari ous I ndi an tri bes. Consi der t he
i mpl icati ons of t hese nati ons l yi ng within the borders of t he
Uni ted States i tsel f; they are internal col onies presently engaged
to varying extents i n anti-col onial struggle.
Two thi ngs shoul d have occurred at this poi nt for pers ons
who approach the proj ect wi th an open mi nd. First, the potenti al
for opposi ti onal act i on, centeri ng upon tangi bles such as l and
base rather than abstracti ons on the order of "class interest" and
Marxism And The Native American 1 99
(worse) "repressive desublimation" s houl d be starkl y evident.
Concomi tantly, t he t hreat to the stabi lity of t he status quo shoul d
be readi l y apparent. A whol e body of anti-col oni al theory shoul d
spring to t he mi nd of any well-read lefti st and serve t o underscore
this poi nt. Prel i mi nary factual ori entati on s houl d now be
complete.
One i s now ready to begin the approach t o di rect acti on per
se, but as a novi ce, not an "expert . " These readi ngs and exercises
have barely scratched t he surface of what must be learned. The
particul ars of struggle, in America as much as anywhere in the
world, are i ntrinsically the product of l ocal condi ti ons and local
people. The latter are the experts. I nitially at least, i nformati on
fl ow is l i kely to be one way; "they" wi l l i nform you as to the
meani ng, content and i mportance of vari ous actions and pheno
mena. There is very little of relevance you may i nitially impart, no
doubt a bi tter psychol ogical pill for a member of a tradi ti on
predicated upon "explaini ng the worl d t o itself."
Onl y t hrough learning the specifics of the l ocal struggle can
one hope to "fit it i nto the broader pi ct ure" without i ntellectually
forcing it, a priori, into the constrai nts of preconception and
stereotype. Often, the "broader pi cture" itself i s changed for the
better i n the process. This is an enti rely valid methodol ogy
seemingly l ong forgotten by the American left, at least where
I ndians are concerned. Such a prescri pti on does nothi ng of itself
to deny t he analytical utility of Marxi sm i n understanding the
i nternal dynamics of capitalism (whi ch Marxi sts seem so defen
si ve about). I t does, on the other hand, precl ude Marxism's
automatic assignment to itself of "most favored theoretical
status, " from overri di ng ("overarchi ng") the reality with which it
purports to deal. Or, t o put i t another way, i t allows Marxism
fi nally-to remain true to Marx's own methodological structure,
as spelled out by Elisabeth Lloyd.
Perhaps t hrough the si mple expedi ent of taking Marx at his
word wi t hi n hi s met hodol ogi cal post ul at i ons , Marxi st s
can overcome t he l ong stasis of ethnocentrism deriving from
confusi on of the tenets of general theory and the specific
byproducts of his i nvestigation of particulars. It can be argued,
after al l , t hat Marx designed his system to transcend itsel I f
there is any merit at all to t hat poi nt, Marxists have l ong since
200 Marxism and Native Americans
fai led the promise of thei r frst thi nker. Baudrillard is generati ons
overdue.
Such a move woul d do much t o start the removal of the
intellectual baggage currently i mpedi ng or preventing fruitful
intercul tural di al ogue, understandi ng and joi nt action. And i t
woul d do more: i n recognizi ng the Eurocentrism of the assump
ti on of economic determi ni sm, Marxism coul d open itself up t o
t he ful l range of socio-cult ural realities operant withi n the
European paradigm itself. Thus could Marxists at l ong l ast begin
to fuly i nvestigate the meani ngs and functions of such thi ngs as
ki nshi p structures, sex roles, and aging, l ong subordi nated-i n
thei r gui se of mere "superstructural" el ements-to the tyranny of
the economic base.
This prospect shoul d be encouraging, indeed sti mulati ng, to
those seeking true understandi ng of and solutions to the vast
compl exity of interpenetrating probl ems facing us al l . At mi ni
mum, the propositi on shoul d hold nothing fearful to anyone wi th
an open and reasonably i nqui ri ng mi nd. I n such an endeavor,
those like American Indians, who harken from markedly
di fferent patterns of soci o-cul tural experience, should prove
admi rabl e al l ies i f accepted for whom and what they are, rather
than what t hey are needed t o be by the requirements of one or
another theoretical predetermi nati on.
In any event, a frst los of action i s necessary. In this , there
are a number of concrete options. Truly interationa efforts ae on
going in behalf of AIM prisoner of wa Leonad Peltier through the
Lenad Peltier Defense Committee, located in Kansas City; a simi
lar level campaign continues to be conducted in behalf of traditional
Dine (Navajo) pople being forcibly relocated from their graing
lands in the Big Mountain aea of Navajo and Hopi reserations.
The Big Mountain Resistance is, of course, located on the land it
self, but the support effort is centere in Fagstaff, Aona.
At the more regional or even local levels, activists might render
assistance to the Ashinabe (Chippewa) people of northern Minne
sota in their ongoing strggle not only to preserve their residual
landbase, but to recover portions of their treaty-guaranteed territory
expropriated over the past centur by both state and federal govern
mental actions. Contact c be made through Ashnabe Akeeng
(people's Land Organition) in White Eth, Minnesota. Simlarly,
Marxi sm And The Nati ve Ameri can 20 1
throughout the Pacifc northwest, an array of Aerican Indian na
tions-the Nisqually, Suquamish, Lummi , Siletz (Tuni), Muckle
shoot, Quinalt, and P
uya
llup among them-are waging an intense
struggle to preserve the fshing rights upon which their traditional
economies are based. These are highly visible efforts and thus
should be easy to contact. The same might be said for the Black
Hills land claim campaign in South Dakota, the international status
effort being undertaken by the Mohawks and other members of the
Iroquois Six Nations Confederacy in upstate New York, and so on.
In Canada, too, hooking up with indigenous liberation struggles
is not particularly difcult. Support is needed for the widely publi
cized Lubicon Lake Cree resistance to being forced from their tradi
tional homeland in Norther Alberta by a conglomertion of gover
ment and cororate interests. The same principle would pertain to
the anti-uranium mining struggle being fought i the norther reaches
of the sae province, and the effort to end "hydrologcal enneer
ing" in Ontao being conducted by the James Bay Cree, the Dam the
Dams Campagn, and other entities. At a more diplomatic level, ac
tive support to the Canada-wde Council of First Nations is in order
and, as in the United Sttes, the list could be extended to geat length.
There is no legitimate reason why anyone in either country "can't
fnd" an indigenous struggle to plug in to.
So why has the lef such a poor track record in this regard?
One can only suspect that it is because there is almost absolute reluc
tance on the part of most non-Indian activists to accept Indian
values and perspectives as being valid, or to place themselves under
Indian leadership in anything, even the Indian struggle itself. There
are, of course, exceptions to this, but (as the saying goes) those ex
ceptions only prove the rule.
For t hose who still cannot reconcil e themselves to a l i ne of
action which allows for unchal lenged I ndian leadershi p of Indi an
struggles and supports struggles for Indi an sel f-determi nati on at
face val ue, free of a residual clutter of "class struggle" and the
l i ke, there remai ns a substantial basi s for supportive parti ci
pati on. Consi der t hat every i nch of st olen ground recovered,
every bi t of control over resources regai ned, every iota of pol itical
autonomy achieved by anti-col oni al ist Native Americans comes
di rectly from the imperial integrity of the U. S. itself.
If the agendas of AIM and other oppositi onal Indian
groups were ful filled, i f the treaty obligations of the United
202 Marxism and Native Americans
States to the various tribes which are on the books right now
were met , the land base of the 48 contiguous states would be
diminshed by approximately one third. Further, identified U. S.
energy resource reserves would be reduced by two thirds.
Signifcant reserves of minerals i ncluding gold, silver, iron,
molybdenum, magnesium, bauxite and sulphur would also pass
from U. S. control . Any hard-nosed Marxist revolutionary
should be able to detect the absolutely critical nature of the
issues . By any defniti on, the mere potential for even a partial
dissolution of the U. S. landbase should be a high priority con
sideration for anyone concerned with destabilizing the status
quo.
Of course "the I ndi an can't go it al one. " The I ndi an never
asked to. Native Americans are bei ng forced to attempt t o do so
by a persistent demand from al l quarters that t hey stop bei ng
I ndi an as a precondi tion to assi stance. The I ndian can do l i ttl e t o
change t his, but t hose doi ng t he demandi ng can. Assistance and
support wi thout precondi ti ons are enti rely wi thi n the grasp of
Marxists and progressi ves i n general. The left i n t hi s country i s i n
the process of mi ssi ng a critical and unique opportunity t o forge a
truly American radicalism based first on those condi ti ons whi ch
are most peulia to America, one with a chance of cutting the U. S.
power structure deeply. By al l owi ng American Indi an struggl es
to be conducted i n effective isolati on while Marxi sm concerns
itself with "more i mportant matters" such as how t o assert i t s
"natural primacy" and hegemony over al l liberatory st rategi es,
t he left i s consigni ng itself t o more of the repeated cycl es of
oblivion which has marked its hi story i n the United States.
I share with various Marxi st authors in thi s book a belief
t hat the Native American has much to teach Marxism. I di ffer i n
t hat I don't hold that the way for thi s t o occur i s for I ndi ans t o
become Marxists, but that t hrough wide-eyed participati on i n
I ndi an l i berati on st ruggles on I ndian terms Marxi sts wi l l learn
much about themselves wi th whi ch to alter and enrich t hei r own
doctrines and tradi ti ons. I rely upon di rect act ion and experi ence
to overcome the defects of theory and massive ignorance of the
first Americans which currently pervades contemporary U.S.
Marxist thi nki ng, and I extend a basic human fai th t hat such new
found knowledge can be put to use i n better assisting the process
of decolonizing the I ndi an nati ons. I call this common ground.
Marxi sm And The Native Ameri can 203
If the liberation struggles of Native America are defeated
while the left stands idly by debating "correct lines" and "social
priorities, " a crucial opportunity to draw a line on the capitalist
process in America will have been lost, perhaps forever. In the
view of the emergence of outright American neo-fascism-as
represented by the "New Right" and "Moral Maj ority"-none
of us can afford to pass such opportunities by, least of all on
points of polemical pride.
A general i zed and consi stent left support for Native Ameri
can causes could be enough to tip t he scal e t oward l i mi ted wins in
i ssues of land / resource rights and s overei gnty. These wins can
and s houl d be rallying poi nt for al opposi ti onal peopl e. Bi l l
Tabb has sai d, "Let the debate conti nue. " I woul d onl y add, "and
let the act i on begi n. "
NOTES AND BIBLIOGRAPHIES
206 Marxism and Native Americans
Notes For
The Same Old Song In Sad Refrain
by Ward Churchill and Dora Lee Larson
1 . The language related to the Insurgent Sociologist request for
manuscripts comes from correspondence to Ward Churchill generated
by Eugene (Ore. ) editorial collective member, Rebecca McGovern.
The request was reiterated on several occasions, verball y. The
language concerning the rej ection was made by a regular IS consultant
reader and editorial collective member at large who preferred (of
course) to remai n anonymous but who i s known to be a white j unior
college sociology teacher i n Minnesota.
2. It could be asserted with equal validity that Means was applying
the teachings of his elders ' elders. See, by way of readily accessible ex
amples, Black Elk Speaks, John G. Neihard (transcription) , Universi
ty of Nebraska Press, Lincol n, 1 961 and The Sacred Pipe, Jospeh
Epes Brown (transcription), University of Oklahoma Press, Nor
man, 1 953 .
3. See The Miror ofProduction, Jean Baudrillard, TELOS Press ,
St. Louis, 1 977.
4. Leakey i s more generally noted for his discovery of skeletal
material of Momo habis ("handy man") in Africa during the 1 960' s
in "Zinj anthropus, " a large variety of Australopithecine at Olduvi
Gorge (East Kenya) . These discoveries of "pre-human" types has led
to a considerable revision of the theoretics concerning human evolu
tion. His final discoveries at Calico Hills, i n conj unction with Ms.
Ruth deEtte Simpson, could have even more far-reaching conse
quences i n rearranging notions of evolutionary chronology and
geography. See "Archeological Excavations in the Calico Mountai ns ,
California: Preliminary Report , " L. S. B. Leakey, R. E. Simpson, and
T. Clements, Science, V1 60, March I , 1 968. Also see Leakey's Luck,
Sonia Cole, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York, 1 975 .
5. There are, of course, exceptions to this position on the part of
Native Americans; non-migration i s not a monolithic belief. For ex
ample, in his book They Came Here First, D' Arcy McNickle accepted
the 1 2, 0year Bering Strait land bridge position fully. Archeological
data, however, disputes McNickel ' s contention as readily as anyone
else' s. It seems probable that the Eskimos and certain Athabascan
groups did cross the Strait from Asia during the period in question; an
interesting proposition in this connecti on, and one which seems to be
gaining some degree of currency, i s that these groups represent a
retur migration rather than a simple infux of population for reasons
unknown.
Notes
207
6. Goodman has a book, American Genesis: The American Indian
and the Origins ofModer Man (Summit Books, New York, 1 980)
which covers not only his own work in the Flagstaff area, but the
whole of the data underpinning reverse migration theory. The bulk of
the data in thi s section derives from that book.
7. For an articulation of how these demographic calculations have
been derived over the past century, see The Invasion of America,
Francis Jennings, (W. W. Norton, New York, 1 975). Also see Wilbur
Jacobs ' testimony on Native American demography as presented at
the 1 976 Sioux Sovereignty Hearings and published in The Great
Sioux Nation: Sitting in Judgement on America, Roxanne Dunbar Or
tiz, Moon Books, New York/San Francisco, 1 977.
8. See Roxanne Dunbar Ortiz' testimony on indigenous agricultural
economies in The Great Sioux Nation, op. cit .
9. For a brilliant and closely reasoned articulation of the implica
tions of the second law of thermal dynamics in the socio-industrial
context, see Entropy: A New World View, Jeremy Rifkin with Ted
Howard, New York: Viking Press, 1 980.
1 0. See Selections From V I. Lenin and J. V. Staln on the National
Colonial Question, Calcutta Book House, Calcutta, India, 1 970.
208 Marxism and Native Americans
Bibliography fr
The Same Old SODg In Sad Refrain
By Ward Churchill and Dora Lee Larson
Baudri l lard, Jean, The Mirror ofProduct ion. St. Louis, Mi ssouri : TELOS
Press, 1 977.
Brown, Joseph Epcs, (Transcripti on), Te Sacred Pipe: Black Elk's
Account of the Seven Rites of the Oglala Sioux. Norman, Oklahoma:
University of Oklahoma Press, 1 953.
Cole, Sonia, Leakey's Luck. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovick, 1 975.
Goodman, Dr. Jeffrey, American Genesis: The American Indian and the
Origins ofModern Man. New York: Summi t Books, 1 980.
Jenni ngs, Francis, The Invasion ofAmerica: Indians. Colonists and the
Cant ofConquest. New York: W. W. Norton Co. , 1 975.
Leakey, L. S. B. , R. E. Si mpson, and T. Clcmments, "Archeological Exca
vations in t he Calico Mountains, Californi a: Prel i mi nary Report," Science.
VI 60, March I , 1 968.
Lenin, V. I. , and J. V. Stalin, Selections From V. I. Lnin and J. V. Stalin on
the National Colonial Question. Cal cutta Book House, Calcutta, I ndi a,
1 970.
McNickle, D'Arcy, Tey Came Here First: The Epic of the American
Indian. New York: Harper and Row, 1 949.
Neihard, John G., (Transcripti on), Black Elk Speaks: Being the Lie Story
of a Holy Man of the Oglala Sioux. Li ncol n, Nebraska: University of
Nebraska Press, 1 961 .
Ortiz, Dr. Roxanne Dunbar, The Great Sioux Nation: Sitting in Judge
ment on America. New York and San Francisco: I nternati onal Treaty
Council / Moon Books, 1 977.
Rifki n, Jeremy with Ted Howard, Entropy: A New World View. New York:
Viki ng Press, 1 980.
Notes For
Notes
209
Marx's General Culture Theoretics
By Elisabeth Lloyd
I . See BerteH Oi lman, "Wit h Words That Appear Like Bats," Alien
ation, 2nd Edition, Cambridge University Press, 1 976.
2. This i s essent ially Lenin's articul ati on of triadic dialectical
characteristics, as expressed i n his Karl Marx. Foreign Language
Press, Peking, 1 976.
3. For a ful l er and qui te lucid exami nati on of di alectical ontol ogy
and epistemol ogy, see Mi chael Al bert and Robi n Hahnel , Unortho
dox Marxism. South End Press, Boston, 1 979.
4. The quotati on from Althusser is gl eaned from t he glossary of his
For Marx. Vintage Books, New York, 1 969.
5. Al bert and Hahnel, op. cit . , p. 53.
6. Introduction t o the Critique of Political Economy. Vintage
Books, New York, 1 973, p. 302.
7. Ibid, p. 30.
8. Ibid. , p. 294.
9. The Communist Maniesto. Washi ngton Square Press, New
York, 1 967, p. 36.
1 0. Grundrisse, Vintage Books, New York, 1 973, p. 600.
I I . Introduction to the Critique ofPolitical Economy, p. 292.
1 2. Ibid. , p 278.
1 3 . Ibid. , 276.
14. Ibid. , p. 291 . Also: the "totality of social l i fe, " whi ch Marx seeks
to expl ai n is, as he tell s us on another occasi on, "the reciprocal
action of the various sides on one ant her, " The German Ideology,
International Publishrs, New York, 1 939, p. 28.
1 5 . Paul LaFargue is quoted from "Reminiscences of Marx, "
Reminiscences ofMarx and Engels, Moscow, no date, p. 78.
1 6. Many of the formul ati ons in thi s sect i on are borrowed from t he
work of Bertell Oilman.
1 7. Grundrisse. p. 1 76.
1 8 . Ibid. , p. 600.
1 9. Marx and Engels: Selected Correspondence. ed. and trans.
Dona Torr, London, 1 940, p. 7.
20. The Holy Family, International Publishers, New York, 1 949, p.
1 63.
2 1 . Introduction t o the Critique ofPolitical Economy, p. 268.
22. The Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of1844, Interna
ti onal Publishers, New York, 1 973, p. 75.
23 . Ibid.
2 1 0 Marxism and Native Americans
24. The German Ideology, p. 7.
25. Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of1844, p. 72; Grun
drisse, p. 505.
26. Oilman, op. cit. , p. 23.
27. Marx and Engels: Selected Correspondence, p. 447.
28. Capital, Vol. II, New World Publishers, New York, 1 967.
29. Poverty ofPhilosophy, Moscow, no date, p. 1 95; and Letters 10
Kugleman, London, 1 94 I . p. 1 9.
30. The Eonomic and Philosophic Manuscripts of1844, p. 1 05.
Bi bliography for
Marx's General Cultural Theoretics
By Elisabeth Lloyd
Al bert, Michael; and Hahnel , Robi n, Unorthodox Marxism. Sout h End
Press, Boston, 1 979.
AI thusser, Louis, For Marx, Vi ntage Books, New York, 1 969.
Engel s, Freidrick, The Dialectics ofNature, I nternati onal Publishers. New
York, 1 940.
La Fargue, Paul , Reminiscences ofMarx and Engels. Moscow, no date.
Lenin, V. I. , Karl Marx. Foreign Language Press, Peking, 1 967.
Mao Tsetung, Selected Readings From the Works ofMao, Foreign Lan
guage Press, Peki ng, 1 97 1 .
Marx, Karl, Capital. Vol. III, New World Publisher, New York, 1 967.
Marx, Karl ; and Engels, Frei dri ck, (The) Communist Maniesto. Washing
ton Square Press, New York, 1 967.
Marx, Karl , (The) Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of1844. I nter
national Publishers, New York, 1 973.
Marx, Karl , (The) German Ieology, I nternati onal Publishers, New York,
1 934.
Marx, Karl , (The) Grundrisse, Vi ntage Books, New York, 1 973.
Marx, Karl; and Engel s, Freidri ck, (The) Holy Family, I nternational Pub
lisher, New York, 1 940.
Marx, Karl, Liters to Klugeman, London, 1 94 1 .
Marx, Karl ; and Engel s, Freidrick, Marx and Engels: Selected Correspon
dence, ed. and t rans. by Dona Torr, . London, 1 940.
Marx, Karl, (Te) Poverty ofPhilosophy. Moscow, no date.
Oilman, Bertel l, Alienation. 2nd editi on, Cambridge Universi ty Press,
1 976.
Notes For
Culture and Personhood
By Bob Sipe
Not es 2 1 1
I . Diamond, Stanley, "The Search for the Pri mitive, " Te Concept of
the Primitive, Ashley Montague, ed. , The Free Press, New York, 1 968,
p. 1 44.
2. Arato, Andrew and Eike Gebhardt, eds. , The Essential Frankfurt
Shool Reader, Urizen Books, New York, 1 978, p. 1 85.
3. Marx, Karl, Cital, Vol. J, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1 965, p.
1 83.
4. Markhovic, Mi hai l o, From Affuence to Praxis. University of
Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, 1 974, p. 66.
5. Horkeimer, Max, Eclipse ofReason, Seabury Press (a Continuum
Book), New York, 1 972, p. 270.
6. Ibid. , pp. 267-268.
7. Shroyer, Trent, Te Critique of Domination. George Braziller,
New York, 1 973, pp. 30-3 1 .
8 . Jay, Marti n, The Dialectical Imagination, Little Brown and Com
pany, Boston, 1 973, pp. 82-83.
9. Te Critique o Domination, op. ci t. p. 30.
1 0. Terkel, Studs, Working, Random House ( Pantheon Books), New
York, 1 972.
1 1 . Reich, Wilhel m, Sex- Pol: Essays, 1929- 1934, Random House
(Vintage Books), New York, 1 972, p. 358.
1 2. Capital, op. ci t . , p. 72.
1 3. Berger, P., and S. Pullberg, "The Concept of Reificati on, " Te New
Lft Review. 35, London, 1 966, p. 6 1 .
1 4. Ibid.
1 5. The Essential Frankfurt School Reader. op. cit. , p. 1 9 1 .
1 6. Lukacs, George, History and Class Consciousness: Studies in
Marxist Dialectics, Rodney Livingstone, trans. , MIT Press, Cambridge,
Ma. , 1 97 1 .
1 7. Ibid . p . 84.
1 8. Ibid. , p. 87.
1 9. Ibid. , p. 88.
20. Ibid . p. 90.
2 1 . Marcuse, Herbert, One Dimensional Man, Beacon Press, Boston,
1 964, p. 1 2.
22. Sex- Pol, op. cit . , pp. 234-235.
23. Oe Dimensional Man. op. cit. p. 77.
24. Ibid. , p. 30.
2 1 2 Marxism and Native Americans
25. Ibid . p. 7 1 .
26. Ibid . . p. 57.
27. Ibid.
28. Freud, Sigmund, "Character and Anal Eroti cism, " The Standard
Edition ofthe Complete Works ofSigmund Freud. Vol. IX Hogart h
Press, London, 1 957, p. 1 98.
29. Reiche, Reimut, Sexuality and Class Struggle. Praeger Publishers,
New York, 1 97 1 , p. 25.
30. "Character and Anal Eroticism, " op cit . , p. 201 .
3 1 . Marcuse, Herbert, An Essay on Liberation, Beacon Press, Boston,
1 969, p. 47.
32. Aronowitz, Stanley, False Promises: The Shaping ofAmerican
Working Class Consciousness. McGraw Hi l I , New York, 1 973, pp.
74-75.
33. An Esay on Liberation, op. cit . , p. 1 4.
34. Sexuality and Class Struggle, op. cit . , pp. 1 35- 1 36.
35. Laing, R. D. , The Divided Sel Random House (Pantheon Books),
New York, 1 969, pp. 40-68.
36. Fromm, Eric, Beyond the Chains ofJusion, Simon and Schuster,
New York, 1 962, p. 56.
37. Ibid . p. 1 40.
38. An Esay on Liberation. op. cit . , p. 5 1 .
39. "The Search for the Pri mitive, " op. cit. , pp. 1 24- 1 26.
Bibliography for
Culture and Personhood
By Bob Sipe
Notes 2 1 3
Arata, Andrew and Ei ke Gebhardt . eds. The Essential Franfurt School
Reader. New York: U ri zen Books, 1 978.
Aronowi t 7, St anl ey. False Promises. The Shaping ofAmerican Working
Class Consciousness. New York: McGraw-Hi l i . 1 973.
Baran, Paul and Paul Sweezy. Monopoly Capital. An Essay on the Ameri
can Economic and Social Order. New York: Monthl y Revi ew Press, 1 966.
Bari t z, Loren. The Servants (f Power: A History of the Use of Social
Science in American Industr. New York: John Wi l ey & Sons, 1 96
5
.
Bl auner, Robert. Aienation and Freedom. the Factory Worker and His
Industry. Chicago: Uni versi ty of Chi cago Press, 1 964.
Boadel l a, Davi d. Wilhelm Reich, The Evolution of His Work. Chi cago:
Henry Regnery Co . . 1 974.
Braverman. Harry. 'abor and Monopoly Capital. The Degradation of
Work in the Twentieth Centur'. New York: Mont hl y Revi ew Press. 1 974.
Bri ght , James R. Automation and Management. Boston: Harvard Uni ver
si ty Press, 1 958.
Brown, Bruce. Marx, Frpwi and the Critique of Everyday L(fe. New York:
Mont hl y Revi ew Press, 1 973.
Crozi er, Mi chel . Te World of the Office Worker. Chi cago & London:
U ni versit y of Chicago Press, 1 97 1 .
Edwards, Ri chard c. ; Rei ch, Michael ; and Wei ss kropf. Thomas E. The
Capitalist System, A Radical Analysis of American Society. Engl ewood
Cl i ffs, N. J. ; Prentice-Hal l , 1 972.
Freud, Si gmund. Civilization and Its Discontents. New York: W. W.
Nort on and Co. , 1 96 1 .
Freud, Si gmund. a' roup Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego. New
York: Bantam Books, 1 960.
Freud, Si gmund. The Ego and the Id. New York: W. W. Nort on & Co. ,
1 960.
Freud, Si gmund. Three Contributions to the Theory of Sex. New York: E.
P. Dut t on & Co. , 1 962.
Friedan, Bet t y. The Feminine Mystique. New York: Del l Pub. Co. , 1 963.
Fromm, Eri ch. Beyond the Chains of Illusion. New York: Si mon and
Schuster, 1 962.
Fromm, Erich. Crisis ofPsychoanalysis, Essays on Marx, Freud and Social
Psycholgoy. New York: Hol t, Ri nehart, and Wi nston, 1 970.
.
Fromm, Erich. Escapefrom Freedom. New York: Avon Books, 1 94 1 .
Fromm, Eri ch. Man For Himsel New York: Greenwi ch, Conn: Fawcett
Pub. , .1 947.
2 1 4 Marxi sm and Native Americans
Gerth, Hans and C. Wright Mil l s. Characte and Social Structure. New
York: Harcourt Brace and World, I nc. (A Harbi nger Book), 1 953.
Gi l bret h, Li l l ian. The Psychology of Management. The Writings oft he
Gilbreths. Edited by Wi l l i am R. Spriegel and Clark E. Meyers. Homewood,
I l l : R. D. Irwi n, 1 953.
Greenstei n, Fred I . Personality and Politics. Problems ofEvidence. Influ
ence, and Conceptualzation. Chicago: Markham Pub. Co. , 1 969.
Horkhei mer, Max. Critical Theory. New York: Seabury Press (A Cont i
nuum Book), 1 969.
Horkhei mer, Max. Eclipse ofReason. New York: Seabury Press, (A Con
t i nuum Book), 1 974.
I srael , Joachi m. Alienation. from Marx to Moder Sociology. Bost on:
Al l yn and Bacon, I nc. , 1 97 1 .
Jay, Mart in. The Dialectical Imagination. Boston: Li ttl e, Brown & Co. ,
1 973.
Lai ng, R. D. The Divided Sel New York: Random House (Pant heon
Books), 1 969.
Lens, Si dney. The Labor Wars. Garden Ci ty, N. Y. : Doubleday & Co.
(Anchor Books), 1 974.
Lowen, Al exander. Bioenergetics. New York: Coward, McCann & Geogh
agen, Inc. , 1 975.
Lukacs, George. History and Class Consciousness. Studies in Marxist
Dialectics. trans. by Rodney Li vi ngst one. Cambridge, Mass: The MI T
Press, / 97 1 .
Marcuse, Herbert. An Essay on Liberation. Boston: Beacon Press, 1 969.
Marcuse, Herbert. Eros and Civilization. New York: Random House ( Vi n
tage Books), 1 955.
Marcuse, Herbert. Negations. Bost on: Beacon Press, 1 968.
Marcuse, Herbert. One- Dimensional Man. Boston: Beacon Press, 1 964.
Markovic, Mi hai l o. From Affuence to Praxis. Ann Arbor, Mi ch. : Uni ver
si ty of Michi gan Press, 1 974.
Marx, Karl . Capital. Vols. I-II I Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1 965.
Marx, Karl and Frederick Engel s. Selected Works. Vol s. I-I I I . Moscow:
Progress Publ i shers, 1 969.
Masl ow, Abraham. Toward A Psychology of Being. Pri nceton, N. J. : D.
Van Nostrand Co. , 1 962.
McLean, Al an. Mental Health and Work Organizations. Chicago: Rand
McNally & Co. , 1 970.
Pol lard, Sidney. Te Genesis of Modern Management: A Study of the
Industrial Revolution in Great Britain. Cambridge, Mass. : Harvard Uni
versity Press, 1 965.
Reich, Wi l hel m. Function ofthe Orgasm. New York: Farrar, Straus, and
Gi roux (Noonday Press), 1 97 1 .
2 1 5
Rei ch, Wi l hel m. Sex- Pol Essays, 1 929- 1 934. New York: Random House
( Vi ntage Books), 1 972.
Rei ch, Rei mut. Sexuality and Class Struggle. New York: Praeger Publ i sh
ers, 1 97 1 .
Sartre, Jean Paul. Search for a Method. New York: Al fred A. Knopf
( Vi ntage Books), 1 968.
Schi l l er, Herbert. Mass Communication and American Empire. Bost on:
Beacon Press, 1 97 1 .
Schi l l er, Herbert. The Mind Managers. Bost on: Beacon Press, 1 973.
Schroyer, Trent . The Critique ()f Domination. New York: George Brazi l l er,
1 973.
Shepard, Jon M. Automation and Alienation: A Study of Office and
Factory Workers. Cambri dge, Mass: Harvard Univ. Press, 1 97 1 .
Tayl or, Frederick W. The Principles ofScientiic Management. New York:
Harper & Row, 1 967.
Tayl or, Frederick W. Scientic Management. New York and London:
Harper, 1 947. Thi s si ngle vol ume contai ns: Shop Management ( 1 903);
Principles ofScientic Management ( l 9 1 I ); and a publ i c document, Hear
ings Before Special Committee ofthe House ofRepresentatives to Investi
gate the Taylor and other Systems ofShop Management ( 1 9 1 2).
Thompson, E. P. The Making ofthe English Working Class. New York:
Random House, 1 963.
Zaretsky, El i . Capitalism. t he Family. and Personal Lie. Santa Cruz,
Cal i forni a: Loaded Press, 1 974; (ori gi nal l y pri nted i n Socialist Revolution.
Jan. -June, 1 973).
ARTICLES
Adorno, Theodore, "Soci ol ogy and Psychol ogy," New Left Review, 46,
1 967, pp.
Berger, P. and S. Pul l berg, "The Concept of Rei fi cati on, " New Lft Review,
35, 1 966, pp. 56-7 1 .
Di amond, Stanley, "The Search for the Pri mi t i ve, " The Concept of the
Primitive. Edi ted by Ashley Montague, New York: The Free Press, 1 968.
Freud, Si gmund, "Character and Anal Erotici sm, " The Standard Edition
of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, Vol . IX, London:
Hogarth Press, 1 975, pp. 1 69- 1 75.
Freud, Si gmund, .. ' Ci vi l ized' Sexual Moral i t y and Modern Nervous
I l l ness, " The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of
Sigmund Feud, Vol . IX, London: Hogarth Press, 1 957, pp. 1 8 1 -204.
Granni s, Joseph c. , "The School as a Model of Soci ety, " The Larning of
Political Behavior. Edi ted by Norman Adl er and Charl es Harrington,
Gl envi ew, Il l . : Scott Foresman & Co. , 1 970, pp. 1 39- 1 48.
2 I 6 Marx
i
sm and Nat
i
ve Amer
i
cans
Marglin, Stephen A. , "What The Bosses Do; The Origin and Functi on of
Hierarchy i n Capitalist Producti on, Parts t & I I ," Review of Radical
Political Economics. Summer 1 974, pp. 60- 1 1 2; Spring 1 975, pp. 20-37.
Portes, Alejandros, "On the I nterpretation of Class Consciousness," Amer
ican Journal ofSociology, Vol . 77, No. 2, Sept. 1 97 1 , pp. 228-244.
Rothschi l d, Emma, "GM in More Trouble, " New York Review ofBooks,
March 23, 1 972, pp. 1 9-23.
Smith, M. Brewster, "A Map for t he Analysi s of Personality and Politics, "
Journal ofSocial Issues. Vol. XXI V, No. 3, I
Notes For
Circling The Same Old Rock
By Vine Deloria Jr.
Not es 2 1 7
1 . Schaff, Adam, Marxism and the Human Individual, p . 1 34.
2. Marcuse, Herbert, Reason and Revolution, p. 74.
3. Ibid. , p. 3 1 9.
4. Ibid. , p. 75.
5. Schaff, p. 73.
6. Ibid. , p. 69.
7. Ibid. , p. 10.
8. Marcuse, p. 77.
9. Fromm, Erich, Marx's Concept ofMan, p. 47.
1. Schaff, p. 1 06.
1 1 . Iid. , p. 1 1 2.
1 2. Marx, Karl , Economic & Philosophic Manuscripts, i n Marx's
Concept of Man, p. 97.
1 3 . Marx, Karl , Private Property and Labor, in Marx's Concept of
Man, p. 1 29.
1 4. Marcuse, p. 246.
1 5 . Schaff, p. 66.
1 6. Marcuse, p. 60.
1 7 . Ibid. , p. 1 87.
1 8 . Schaff, p. 43 .
1 9. Ibid. , p. 1 28.
20. Ibid. , p. 1 32.
21 . Ibid. , p. 229.
22. Ibid. , p. 205 .
23 . Marcuse, p. 239.
24. Ibid. , p. 1 1 2.
25 . Fromm, p. 66.
26. Ibid. , p. 3 .
27 . Marx, Karl, Private Property and Labor, i n Marx's Concept of
Man, p. 1 27.
28 . Schaff, p. 222.
29. Schaff, p. 21 8 .
30. Ibid.
3 1 . Northrup, F. S. C. , The Taming of the Nations, p. 1 89.
32. Ibi. , p. 1 92.
3 3 . Bell ah, Robert , Beyond Belief "Religious Evolution, " p. 22.
34. Ibid. , p. 45.
35. Fromm, p. 36.
2 1 8 Marxism and Native Americans
Bibliography for
Circling The Same Old Rock
By Vine Deloria Jr.
Bellah, Robert, Beyond Belief New York: Harper & Row, 1 970.
Fromm, Eri ch, Marx's Concept of Man. New York: Frederick Ungar
Publ ishi ng Co. , 1 96 1 (Containing several of Karl Marx's shorter works
including: Private Property and Lbor and Economic and Philosophical
Manuscripts)
Marcuse, Herbert, Reason and Revolution. Boston: Beacon Press, 1 960.
Northrup, F. S. C. The Taming ofthe Nations. New York: Macmi l l an,
1 954.
Schaff, Adam, Marxism and the Human Individual. New York: McGraw
Hill Paperbacks, 1 970.
Notes For
Marx Versus Marism
By Bill Tabb
Not es 2 1 9
1 . Ray Vicker, "The Industrial Reservation; Plan seeks to Blend In
dians into Urban Society Without Sacrificing Identity as Tribe
Members, " Wall Street Joural, May 21 , 1 98 1 , p. 56.
2. See William E. Connolly, "The Politics of Industrialization, "
Democracy, July 1 98 1 , pp. 20-21 ; and Andre Gorz, Ecology as
Politics, Boston: South End Press, 1 980 for ecologically "with i t "
Marxist perspectives .
3. See Shlomo Avineri , ed. , Karl Mar on Colonialim and Moderization,
Garden City, N. Y. : Anchor Books, 1 969, p. 6.
4. Ibid. , p. 470.
5. Black Hills Alliance, The Keystone to Survival, Rapid City, South
Dakota, Black Hills Alliance, P. O. Box 2508, 1 98 1 , p. 1 03.
6. Ibid. , p. 1 07.
7. Ibid. , p. 57.
220 Marxism and Native Americans
ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS
Frank Black Elk, Oglala Lakota, is the former head of the Col
orado . chapter of the American Indian Mo
vement and presently
a youth counselor in Denver.
Ward Churchil, Creek/Cherokee Metis, is codirector of the
Colorado chapter of AIM. He is also director of the Educa
tional Development Program and coordinator of American
Studies in the Center for Study of Ethnicity and Race in
America at the Uni"rsity of Colorado/Boulder.
Vine Deloria Jr. , Hunkpapa Lakota, is a professor of American
Indian Studies, Political Science, and History of Law at the
University of Arizona. He is author, editor or coauthor of
numerous books, including Custer Died/or Your Sins; We Talk,
You Listen,' Behind the Trail oj Broken Treaties,' 0/ Utmost
Good Faith,' Indians oj the Paciic Northwest; God Is Red,'
Metaphysics oj Moder Existence,' The Nations Within;
American Indians, American Justi' and American Indian
Polcy in the Twentieth Century.
Phi Heile is an applied cultural activist/critic working as a disc
j ockey (specializing in reggae music) with radio station KDYP i n
Santa Barbara. He has published several essays and polemics in
Insurgent Sociologist.
Winona LaDuke, Anishinabe, was an early member of Women
of All Red Nations and participated in the establishment of the
United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations .
She was a founder of Anishinabe Akeeng (People's Land
Organization) at her native White Earth Reservation, and has
published widely i n j ournals such as Siniter Wisdom, New Age,
Radical America and Co-Evolution Quarterly.
Elsabeth Lloyd holds the doctorate in social philosophy from
Princeton University, and is currently an associate professor of
philosophy at the University of California at Berkeley.
Notes 22 1
Russell Means, Oglala Lakota, was a major leader i n AIM dur
i ng the peak peri od of i ts organi zati onal promi nence. In thi s
capaci ty, he was shot t hree ti mes, stabbed once, taken to tri al
. on numerous occasi ons and sent t o prison. Duri ng the 1 980s ,
Means resigned from AI M as a result of i t s "confused
priori ties " concerni ng extension of support to the Mi ski to,
Sumu and Rama Indi an resistcnce to bei ng subordi nated t o
Marxian state power i n Ni caragua. He has si nce become acti ve
i n Li bert ari an politi cs and continues to l ecture widely.
Bi Tabb tea.hes economics at Queens College, CUNY. He is
author of The Long Default: New York City and the Urban
Fiscal Crisis as well as a number of scholarly and popular
economi cs arti cl es .
Robert B. Sipe teaches political and psychol ogical theory at
Sangamon St ate Universi ty. He has been an editor of Issues in
Radical Therapy and is a contributing edi tor to New Studies on
the Left.
Nat i ve Amer i cans/Pol i t i cal Sci ence
MARXISM
and NATIVE
AMERICANS
ed. wrd Churchill
u. s. $1 6. 00
Cont ri butors: Russel l Means, Wi nona LaDuke,
Vi ne Del or i a, J r. , Frank Bl ack El k, El i sabet h Ll oyd,
Bi l l Tabb, Dora Lee Larson, Robert Si
p
e, t he
Revol ut i onary Communi st Party, Ph i l Hei
p
l e and
Ward Churchi l l
I n a u n i que for mat of i nt el l ectu al chal l enge and cou nt er
chal l enge promi nent Nat i ve Amer i cans and Marx i sts de
bate t he vi abi l i ty of Marx i sm and t he preval ence of ent hno
cent r i c bi as i n pol i t i cs, cu l t u re, and soci al t heory. The
aut hors exami ne t he stat us of Western not i ons of " p ro
gress" and "devel opment " i n t he context of the pract i cal
real i t i es faced by Amer i can I n d i ans i n t hei r ongoi ng
st ruggl e for j ust i ce and sel f-determi nat i on . Th i s d i al og u
offers cr i t i cal i nsi ghts i nto t he nat u re of ecol og i cal aware
ness and d i al ect i cs and i nto t he poss i bi l i ty of const r uct i ng
a soci al t heory that can br i dge cul t ural boundar i es.
9 0 0 0 0
9 7
SOUTH END PRESS I SBN: O-89608- 1 77-X