Daniel Lopez is a Commissioning Editor for Jacobin magazine and the author of Lukács: Praxis and the Absolute. Daniel spoke to the Federation on Lukács at our 2023 Conference in Christchurch.
Let's be clear. The rangatiratanga movement is not aimed at effecting a revolution. It is a continuation in another form of the nineteenth century wars of resistance which sought to retain a limited Maori sovereignty co-existing with the colonialist state. If colonialism can find a way to accommodate rangatiratanga, something that it has failed to do for the past 185 years, then well and good. If it cannot, then given the present demographic and social realities, in order to achieve its objectives rangatiratanga will have to expand its program in a way that appeals to and can incorporate the Pakeha majority. That is not an intrinsically unrealistic proposition, and there is a strength of nationalist sentiment among Pakeha which would make it possible. The state may be colonialist, but the people of Aotearoa as a whole are not. Furthermore, rangatiratanga is much more than "Maori sovereignty" or "Maori nationalism" as the colonialist regime likes to tell us. It incorporates a genuinely democratic and fundamentally different method of social political organisation which is better attuned to the situation and interests of ordinary people than anything that has been delivered or proposed by colonialism, capitalism, or, for that matter, international Marxism.
So while rangatiratanga is not a revolutionary movement, it has the potential to become revolutionary if the colonialist regime fails to deal intelligently with the situation, or can find no way to reconcile its own interests with the interests of Maori.
It is crucial to recognise that rangatiratanga is not so much a political program as a social system. As such it meets Lukacs criteria for a revolutionary movement even though at this point it is not revolutionary. Marxists may realize that the Russian revolution, taking place over a space of only a few weeks and months, was something of an anomaly. The norm is demonstrated in the Chinese, Vietnamese and Cuban revolutions which proceeded over a period of years during which two social systems were in place, giving the mass of people the opportunity to choose between them and act accordingly. The causes of the ultimate failure of the Marxist states were essentially political rather than economic, just as their initial success was essentially political. This illustrates the difficulty of Marxism: that it has devoted a lot of effort to understanding and critiquing capitalist economics, and done virtually nothing to critique capitalist political systems. Thus Marxist regimes have tended to retain the fundamental features of capitalist politics, and as a consequence have naturally reverted to capitalist economics.
You write "For example, in Australia and Aotearoa, it would be quite right to say that the state, courts and parliament are colonial institutions and that they replicate a racist and exploitative logic. However, to conclude from this that contesting elections would reinforce settler-capitalism and racism is to raise an abstract, moralistic barrier to necessary political practice. After all, it’s hard to see how a socialist party will ever be able to lead millions of people without engaging in parliamentary politics."
Yet the conclusion that "contesting elections would reinforce settler-capitalism..." is indubitably correct and understanding that fact is necessary to avoidance of a self-defeating political strategy. If we substitute "colonialism" for "settler-capitalism and racism" the argument becomes even more solid. We cannot effectively oppose colonialism from within colonialist institutions.
I don't know about Australia, but in Aotearoa we have a "society" (system of governance) which "conforms to our own interests" and which stands in opposition to the political institutions of colonialism. That system of governance goes by the name of rangatiratanga, and it is a very effective organising principle capable of mobilizing hundreds of thousands of people, whereas the organisations associated with colonialist institutions, whether of the right or the left, would struggle to mobilize tens of thousands.
Socialist parties "engaging in parliamentary politics" typically have followings counted not in the millions but in the dozens or hundreds at best.
As you quote from Lukacs "They need the evidence of their own eyes to tell them which society really conforms to their interests before they can free themselves inwardly from the old order". That evidence is clearly before us in the functioning of rangatiratanga.
It is probably fair to say that politics is not only mobilisation. "Movementism" as such, power in large demonstrations, has been the modus operandi of the left basically since the advent of the New Left. The power of social movements in pressuring the state is essential, but is effectively a dialing up of pressure on those who 'decide' in the last instance, not changing the deciders. If the intent of recent mobilisations is to replace existing institutions, that isn't particularly clear even for attendees. If Rangatiratanga means the building up of civic institutions which will challenge and replace the state, that's great - but that is not the same thing as a very big protest.
Moreover, given recent events were organised in large part by Te Pāti Māori it is perhaps quite controversial to say that any contestation of elections is inherently an expansion and support of colonialism and racism. Surely the measure of these things could be understood as whether or not a party is "constitutionally loyalist" or not.
Emmy Rākete wrote recently about the value of organisations that can contest high politics "where it exists", as well as from the outside, which can be read over at 1of200 https://www.1of200.nz/articles/domination-and-submissions - I think it provides a good examination of why we shouldn't think "either or".
We've alerted the author to your comment as Daniel may wish to respond himself, too.
Replacing existing institutions is not the purpose of mass mobilisations such as Te hikoi mo te tiriti, but that mobilisation was effected through institutions such as whanau, hapu, iwi organisations which are generally marae based and which in modern times also work through social media. These institutions exist as alternative sources of power to the colonialist state even when they are being used merely as a means to pressure that state into moderating its policies.
They are the real source of power for tangata motu, and Te Pati Maori as a component of the colonialist system also relies almost entirely on marae based organisation as its political base (as do pan-Maori movements such as Te Hahi Ratana and Te Kingitanga), even while depending on the colonialist state for a platform and funding. From the Maori point of view TPM functions as an embassy to the colonialist state, and, quite unashamedly, as political theatre. There is no expectation that it will ever form a majority in parliament, or obtain power over the state.
Te Pati Maori is "constitutionally loyalist" with respect to the colonialist state, because it must be. It is fair to say that it is reluctantly loyal, very reluctantly in fact, but still loyal.
My main point is that I believe that Lukacs was absolutely correct in saying "They need the evidence of their own eyes to tell them which society really conforms to their interests before they can free themselves inwardly from the old order". Maori have already passed that point. It might be more correct to say that Maori have not needed to pass that point because they have always had evidence of a society other than colonialism that actually "conforms to their interests". At this point most Pakeha, most new immigrants, and most leftists do not have such evidence or understanding. That is why Maori are leading the struggle for rangatiratanga, mana motuhake and kotahitanga.
That may all be true enough, though what any of these terms or different kind of society means will be mediated by the simple fact that it will be a post-capitalist form, not a pre-capitalist one.
Surely a clear challenge is for Tauiwi is to build the sort of civil institutions, class institutions and so on, so that they're able to express a liberatory political vision also - not merely to glom on or follow around Māori political movements. It's also fairly clear that aspects of these movements are not always breaking with the colonial system - remember some corners were writing to King Charles to intervene on the Treaty Principles bill.
We will have to agree to disagree regarding whether marxism has a critique of capitalist politics (it does), and whether it provides a meaningful model for organising (it can). The Leninist party may be anachronistic today, but I do not reject contesting capitalist spaces so long as there is the legal right to do so. Abandoning a terrain of struggle because it 'reinforces colonialism' seems an unnecessary obstacle to set ones self - and one you don't seem so sure on being the case if TPM are doing it anyway.
It is a fact that Maori have been among the leading supporters of colonialism. The colonialist regime would never have been successfully established without the support of a substantial element of Maoridom, and without the support of Maori it will not survive into its third century. However that is by the way. The question now is whether the regime can actually continue to maintain a modus vivendi with Maori, and, indeed, whether it recognises the absolute importance of doing so for the sake of its own survival.
I am glad to hear that Marxism has a critique of capitalist politics and would be interested to study it. Would it explain how Marxists rationalize their participation in capitalist politics given that it has failed to deliver anything like a social revolution anywhere over the past century and a half? Given that the capitalist political system mimics the alienation of its economic system, it is not hard to see why successive generations of socialist, communist and Marxist parliamentarians (including many in New Zealand) have crowned their careers by completely capitulating to capitalist values.
Is parliament really a "terrain of struggle"? Even if it is, would not the fact that it "reinforces colonialism" (and capitalism) be a good reason to find an alternative "terrain of struggle" more favorable to the cause?
Tauiwi can do as they will. By all means let them "build civil institutions, class institutions and so on". I don't know quite how they are going to do that, and to date they have shown little capacity for such a task. Once Marxists would have suggested that they follow "the vanguard party". So who is in the vanguard of the struggle against colonialism? The movement for rangatiratanga. That is where tangata motu should be putting their efforts.
Let's be clear. The rangatiratanga movement is not aimed at effecting a revolution. It is a continuation in another form of the nineteenth century wars of resistance which sought to retain a limited Maori sovereignty co-existing with the colonialist state. If colonialism can find a way to accommodate rangatiratanga, something that it has failed to do for the past 185 years, then well and good. If it cannot, then given the present demographic and social realities, in order to achieve its objectives rangatiratanga will have to expand its program in a way that appeals to and can incorporate the Pakeha majority. That is not an intrinsically unrealistic proposition, and there is a strength of nationalist sentiment among Pakeha which would make it possible. The state may be colonialist, but the people of Aotearoa as a whole are not. Furthermore, rangatiratanga is much more than "Maori sovereignty" or "Maori nationalism" as the colonialist regime likes to tell us. It incorporates a genuinely democratic and fundamentally different method of social political organisation which is better attuned to the situation and interests of ordinary people than anything that has been delivered or proposed by colonialism, capitalism, or, for that matter, international Marxism.
So while rangatiratanga is not a revolutionary movement, it has the potential to become revolutionary if the colonialist regime fails to deal intelligently with the situation, or can find no way to reconcile its own interests with the interests of Maori.
It is crucial to recognise that rangatiratanga is not so much a political program as a social system. As such it meets Lukacs criteria for a revolutionary movement even though at this point it is not revolutionary. Marxists may realize that the Russian revolution, taking place over a space of only a few weeks and months, was something of an anomaly. The norm is demonstrated in the Chinese, Vietnamese and Cuban revolutions which proceeded over a period of years during which two social systems were in place, giving the mass of people the opportunity to choose between them and act accordingly. The causes of the ultimate failure of the Marxist states were essentially political rather than economic, just as their initial success was essentially political. This illustrates the difficulty of Marxism: that it has devoted a lot of effort to understanding and critiquing capitalist economics, and done virtually nothing to critique capitalist political systems. Thus Marxist regimes have tended to retain the fundamental features of capitalist politics, and as a consequence have naturally reverted to capitalist economics.
You write "For example, in Australia and Aotearoa, it would be quite right to say that the state, courts and parliament are colonial institutions and that they replicate a racist and exploitative logic. However, to conclude from this that contesting elections would reinforce settler-capitalism and racism is to raise an abstract, moralistic barrier to necessary political practice. After all, it’s hard to see how a socialist party will ever be able to lead millions of people without engaging in parliamentary politics."
Yet the conclusion that "contesting elections would reinforce settler-capitalism..." is indubitably correct and understanding that fact is necessary to avoidance of a self-defeating political strategy. If we substitute "colonialism" for "settler-capitalism and racism" the argument becomes even more solid. We cannot effectively oppose colonialism from within colonialist institutions.
I don't know about Australia, but in Aotearoa we have a "society" (system of governance) which "conforms to our own interests" and which stands in opposition to the political institutions of colonialism. That system of governance goes by the name of rangatiratanga, and it is a very effective organising principle capable of mobilizing hundreds of thousands of people, whereas the organisations associated with colonialist institutions, whether of the right or the left, would struggle to mobilize tens of thousands.
Socialist parties "engaging in parliamentary politics" typically have followings counted not in the millions but in the dozens or hundreds at best.
As you quote from Lukacs "They need the evidence of their own eyes to tell them which society really conforms to their interests before they can free themselves inwardly from the old order". That evidence is clearly before us in the functioning of rangatiratanga.
Kia ora Geoff
It is probably fair to say that politics is not only mobilisation. "Movementism" as such, power in large demonstrations, has been the modus operandi of the left basically since the advent of the New Left. The power of social movements in pressuring the state is essential, but is effectively a dialing up of pressure on those who 'decide' in the last instance, not changing the deciders. If the intent of recent mobilisations is to replace existing institutions, that isn't particularly clear even for attendees. If Rangatiratanga means the building up of civic institutions which will challenge and replace the state, that's great - but that is not the same thing as a very big protest.
Moreover, given recent events were organised in large part by Te Pāti Māori it is perhaps quite controversial to say that any contestation of elections is inherently an expansion and support of colonialism and racism. Surely the measure of these things could be understood as whether or not a party is "constitutionally loyalist" or not.
Emmy Rākete wrote recently about the value of organisations that can contest high politics "where it exists", as well as from the outside, which can be read over at 1of200 https://www.1of200.nz/articles/domination-and-submissions - I think it provides a good examination of why we shouldn't think "either or".
We've alerted the author to your comment as Daniel may wish to respond himself, too.
Cheers
Tom
Replacing existing institutions is not the purpose of mass mobilisations such as Te hikoi mo te tiriti, but that mobilisation was effected through institutions such as whanau, hapu, iwi organisations which are generally marae based and which in modern times also work through social media. These institutions exist as alternative sources of power to the colonialist state even when they are being used merely as a means to pressure that state into moderating its policies.
They are the real source of power for tangata motu, and Te Pati Maori as a component of the colonialist system also relies almost entirely on marae based organisation as its political base (as do pan-Maori movements such as Te Hahi Ratana and Te Kingitanga), even while depending on the colonialist state for a platform and funding. From the Maori point of view TPM functions as an embassy to the colonialist state, and, quite unashamedly, as political theatre. There is no expectation that it will ever form a majority in parliament, or obtain power over the state.
Te Pati Maori is "constitutionally loyalist" with respect to the colonialist state, because it must be. It is fair to say that it is reluctantly loyal, very reluctantly in fact, but still loyal.
My main point is that I believe that Lukacs was absolutely correct in saying "They need the evidence of their own eyes to tell them which society really conforms to their interests before they can free themselves inwardly from the old order". Maori have already passed that point. It might be more correct to say that Maori have not needed to pass that point because they have always had evidence of a society other than colonialism that actually "conforms to their interests". At this point most Pakeha, most new immigrants, and most leftists do not have such evidence or understanding. That is why Maori are leading the struggle for rangatiratanga, mana motuhake and kotahitanga.
That may all be true enough, though what any of these terms or different kind of society means will be mediated by the simple fact that it will be a post-capitalist form, not a pre-capitalist one.
Surely a clear challenge is for Tauiwi is to build the sort of civil institutions, class institutions and so on, so that they're able to express a liberatory political vision also - not merely to glom on or follow around Māori political movements. It's also fairly clear that aspects of these movements are not always breaking with the colonial system - remember some corners were writing to King Charles to intervene on the Treaty Principles bill.
We will have to agree to disagree regarding whether marxism has a critique of capitalist politics (it does), and whether it provides a meaningful model for organising (it can). The Leninist party may be anachronistic today, but I do not reject contesting capitalist spaces so long as there is the legal right to do so. Abandoning a terrain of struggle because it 'reinforces colonialism' seems an unnecessary obstacle to set ones self - and one you don't seem so sure on being the case if TPM are doing it anyway.
Kind regards,
Tom
It is a fact that Maori have been among the leading supporters of colonialism. The colonialist regime would never have been successfully established without the support of a substantial element of Maoridom, and without the support of Maori it will not survive into its third century. However that is by the way. The question now is whether the regime can actually continue to maintain a modus vivendi with Maori, and, indeed, whether it recognises the absolute importance of doing so for the sake of its own survival.
I am glad to hear that Marxism has a critique of capitalist politics and would be interested to study it. Would it explain how Marxists rationalize their participation in capitalist politics given that it has failed to deliver anything like a social revolution anywhere over the past century and a half? Given that the capitalist political system mimics the alienation of its economic system, it is not hard to see why successive generations of socialist, communist and Marxist parliamentarians (including many in New Zealand) have crowned their careers by completely capitulating to capitalist values.
Is parliament really a "terrain of struggle"? Even if it is, would not the fact that it "reinforces colonialism" (and capitalism) be a good reason to find an alternative "terrain of struggle" more favorable to the cause?
Tauiwi can do as they will. By all means let them "build civil institutions, class institutions and so on". I don't know quite how they are going to do that, and to date they have shown little capacity for such a task. Once Marxists would have suggested that they follow "the vanguard party". So who is in the vanguard of the struggle against colonialism? The movement for rangatiratanga. That is where tangata motu should be putting their efforts.
Nga mihi nui
Geoff
"The movement for rangatiratanga. That is where tangata motu should be putting their efforts."
What do these efforts entail, specifically?
Understanding the principles of rangatiratanga and applying them in one's own community.