Rather, Marxism from the beginning has been shaped by vernacular revolutionary traditions. Nevertheless, there is no such thing in historical materialism as a fixed orthodoxy. Returning to Marx as a starting point is crucial in order to develop a materialist critique of capitalism and colonialism. Through this assessment, we believe, the strengths of the classical historical-materialist argument will become evident.
Taking these criticisms seriously, we return to the classical foundations of Marxian theory in order to ascertain where-if anywhere-the analysis went wrong, what can be usefully derived from it, and how to construct (or reconstruct) a Marxian critique of colonialism relevant to contemporary struggles.
In Red Skin, White Masks, Glen Sean Coulthard provides a more nuanced view of Marx and the indigenous, engaging the latter’s critique of “so-called primitive accumulation.” Coulthard insists that “Marx’s theoretical frame” in this respect can be seen as extremely “relevant to a comprehensive understanding of settler-colonialism and Indigenous resistance,” but that this requires that classical historical materialism “be transformed in conversation with the critical thought and practices of Indigenous peoples themselves.” Specifically, he seeks to transcend what he takes to be Marx’s mistaken views (1) that such expropriation is confined to the formative stages of capitalism, rather than constituting an ongoing process (2) that there is an unilinear developmentalist logic to be equated with progress and (3) that the environment is to be treated as constituting a free gift, such that the land is not seen as exploited, only people are. 3 Such charges are often employed to cast historical materialism as irrelevant or even hostile to contemporary indigenous struggles and perspectives. 2 However, a deeper explanation for the gulf between current scholarly work on settler colonialism and Marxism is associated with the claims of some left critics that Marx’s work is characterized by the following: (1) a crude developmentalism and economic determinism (2) a pro-colonialist stance (3) a teleological conception of progress and (4) Prometheanism or extreme productivism in relation to the environment. 1 Part of the reason for this disconnection is that the current discussions of settler colonialism have evolved out of traditions in postmodernist and postcolonial cultural theory that are distant from historical materialism. The “turn toward the indigenous” in social theory over the last couple of decades, associated with the critique of white settler colonialism, has reintroduced themes long present in Marxian theory, but in ways that are often surprisingly divorced from Karl Marx’s critique of capitalism, colonialism, and imperialism. Hannah Holleman is a director of the Monthly Review Foundation and an associate professor of sociology at Amherst College. Brett Clark is associate editor of Monthly Review and a professor of sociology at the University of Utah.
John Bellamy Foster is editor of Monthly Review and a professor of sociology at the University of Oregon.