When I say we should reject “Land Back,” I’m not referring to the concept of indigenous sovereignty in itself. The tribes have a right to self-determination, as the Palestinian people have a right to become free from their “Israeli” settler-colonial occupier. The problem with using the “Land Back” label to represent oneself as a Marxist in today’s discourse is that radical liberals weaponize this phrase against mass-centered, materially based struggles. In practice, “Land Back” is a shorthand to signal that you’re loyal towards pan-leftism; that you’re willing to compromise on Marxism-Leninism’s core practices just for the sake of building connections within the left. Practices like aligning oneself with the broad masses, advancing solidarity with anti-imperialist countries, and speaking to the masses in ways which they can actually relate to.
Within the ideological orientation that “Land Back” represents, there’s a fundamental lack of belief in the people’s revolutionary potential. An attitude that the bulk of the people are inherently reactionary, due to their not sharing the mindset of the people in these radical liberal circles. Within this anti-popular mindset, there’s a self-reinforcing feedback loop, because the majority of the people are never going to be brought towards the mentality of the groups enamored with Land Back. They’re never going to be receptive towards a message and program that’s based within rejecting patriotic symbols, rather than within advancing their class interests.
When I was operating in Land Back circles, I thought these two practices could be reconciled, but that was a futile pursuit. For a Marxist-Leninist, the way to become effective is not by trying to fit into these pan-leftist spaces. Instead, it’s embracing an anti-imperialist practice that can actually connect with the masses. Part of this is not using the language of these insular circles.
The issues with the “Land Back” phrase, and with the political practice it represents, go beyond how “Land Back” has been co-opted by corporate NGOs. There are plenty promoting the phrase who seek to distance themselves from these NGOs, but they’ve made a mistake just by basing their practice within those terms. The reality of modern activism and left discourse is that if you seek to align yourself with the ideological forces which center Land Back, you’re going to end up on the same side as the radical liberals. This is true even if you call yourself a Marxist-Leninist.
The radlibs aren’t going to accept into their circles anyone who genuinely advances scientific socialism. They don’t want you to build anti-imperialist alliances with anyone who’s outside of leftism, and they don’t want you to seek out any solutions beyond the dogmatic theories they espouse. You go against Gerald Horne’s ahistorical argument about 1776 being a “counter-revolution,” and you’re out of the circle. You talk to any of the “bad” anti-imperialists who don’t promote Land Back, and you’re not welcome. This is the policing you’ll experience if upon entering into radical politics, you cultivate the kinds of allies who promote Land Back. It’s a trap of social pressure that many U.S. Marxists will never escape once they’ve fallen into it.
Beyond these ways that Land Back is used to create cliques, the theory it represents is itself flawed. As I’ve commented on, the predominant ideological currents that use this phrase advocate for a type of “Land Back” program which ironically aids U.S. imperialism, because it wants to abolish not just the United States but also Mexico. These “anti-colonial” theories claim to be Marxist, but the only effect they have is to undermine solidarity with Mexico’s anti-imperialist forces, and with broader Latin America. That’s what happens when you apply Horne’s race reductionist views of history to today’s conditions: you come to the conclusion that any state whose borders aren’t consistent with all historical tribal territories is an enemy. This is an especially detrimental stance for U.S. Americans to take, because it’s our government that seeks to break up the countries challenging imperialist interests in the name of “anti-colonialism.”
These ideas which the pro-Land Back elements put forth also hinder our own class struggle within the United States. Because even among the Land Back advocates who don’t claim to advocate for balkanization, or who don’t claim to support the capitalist “anti-colonialism” of the NGOs, the impact their practice has is to make a unified revolutionary mass force less likely to emerge. And to therefore make way for such counterrevolutionary projects.
In order to realize such a mass force, we need to build a united front against imperialism. Because imperialism represents the highest levels of capital, and we therefore can’t defeat capital without seriously combating it. But the standard position on U.S. imperialism among Land Back leftists—even ones who say they support countries like China and Russia—is that fighting imperialism isn’t as important as fighting to give the land back right here.
This is the sentiment that’s represented by the strategy of pan-leftism, where somebody above all else prioritizes making alliances with people on the left. The reasoning is that we need to build as many ties as we can with people who share the Land Back orientation, because that supposedly gives us the best hope for advancing the struggle. This thinking is backwards. Building a pan-leftist coalition comes at the expense of building an anti-imperialist coalition, because what we call the left is dominated by elements which are hostile towards anti-imperialism. That will exclude you if you support Russia, or China, or any anti-imperialist group (such as CPI and Midwestern Marx) which backs these countries in a way that’s not pan-leftist. If we invest our practice in Land Back, we’ll perpetuate these divisions among anti-imperialists. Which means hindering both the fight against U.S. hegemony, and thereby every other type of popular struggle.
Our focus needs to be on doing whatever is necessary to advance the class struggle, and in this time and place, our most urgent task when it comes to the class struggle is advancing anti-imperialism. There is no class struggle without a serious effort to defeat U.S. hegemony. And such an effort isn’t possible when one acts dependent on leftism, because that leads to conflicting loyalties. The gatekeepers of what “Land Back” means are going to ask you to act loyal towards their pan-leftist coalition, which means compromising on anti-imperialism and embracing anti-popular ideas. Such a path is ironically opposed to the interests of real anti-colonial movements, i.e. ones which come from materially based mass interests. There’s a disconnect between what the Land Backers are doing, and what we actually need to do to defeat our class enemies.
You can invest yourself in this “anti-colonialism” that proclaims itself as the only path to victory, while consistently rejecting practical means for defeating our ruling institutions. Or you can fully embrace the anti-imperialist struggle, which truly makes victory possible. Rejecting “Land Back” is at this stage the best way to advance anti-colonialism, because anti-colonialism’s triumph is made possible when we have an effective anti-imperialist and class struggle.
————————————————————————
If you appreciate my work, I hope you become a one-time or regular donor to my Patreon account. Like most of us, I’m feeling the economic pressures amid late-stage capitalism, and I need money to keep fighting for a new system that works for all of us. Go to my Patreon here.
To keep this platform effective amid the censorship against dissenting voices, join my Telegram channel.
