Paul Phillips: >Nevertheless, Bhoddi is right in the sense that even if we >restored to all the aboriginals all that we have expropriated >since the original treaties, and even allocated all or most of >the unallocated crown lands, it would do little now to bring >the native peoples up to a decent standard of living. This is almost startling lack of political insight. It suggests that the problem of the detachment of "radical" economists from the mass movement is much deeper than Jim Craven alluded to. Look, the way to approach these problems is not from the standpoint of business school seminar on how to "turn around" reservations. It is from the standpoint of self-determination which socialists have championed throughout the 20th century and hopefully into the 20th century. The Russian revolutionary movement demanded that the oppressed nationalities be liberated. They combined this demand with the demand for peace and bread. Canada just concluded a treaty with the Nisga people, some 3000 or so Indians living in the Northwest. Even though the treaty is considered a sell-out by tribal militants, it literally has the Canadian ultraright in a total dither, just the way that the Australian right-wing has rallied around Pauline Hanson, the neofascist. There is no way to "turn around" the American Indian economy on the basis of capitalism. Their place in the sun is connected to the overall fight against capitalism. You can't put this forward in an ultimatistic manner, however. Jim Craven works with the Blackfoot National Bank, the only Indian owned bank in the country. Does this mean it is correct to support "Indian capitalism?" No, that is not the issue at all. The issue is gaining strength through victories. It is a victory when a reservation or an Indian nation can take control of its own assets and wrest land from the ruling class. Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
