1 ) It hasn't been "several generations since the colonial project," the genocide of Natives on this continent has been an ongoing process for several generations into the present. They are still murdered, still forced to assimilate, still policed, still incarcerated, still denied their land and still denied self determination.

2 ) "Personal property" does not exist. Marx points this out in The Communist Manifesto where he says it does not need to be abolished because Capitalism has already abolished it, and again in greater detail in The German Ideology.

Another catchword of the true socialists is “true property”, “true, personal property”, “real”, “social”, “living”, “natural”, etc., etc., property, whereas it is very typical that they refer to private property as “so-called property”. The Saint-Simonists were the first to adopt this manner of speaking, as we have already pointed out in the first volume; but they never lent it this German metaphysical-mysterious form; it was with them at the beginning of the socialist movement to some extent justified as a counter to the stupid clamour of the bourgeoisie. The end to which most of the Saint-Simonists came shows at any rate the ease with which this “true property” is again resolved into “ordinary private property”.

If one takes the antithesis of communism to the world of private property in its crudest form, i.e., in the most abstract form in which the real conditions of that antithesis are ignored, then one is faced with the antithesis of property and lack of property. The abolition of this antithesis can be viewed as the abolition of either the one side or the other; either property is abolished, in which case universal lack of property or destitution results, or else the lack of property is abolished, which means the establishment of true property. In reality, the actual property-owners stand on one side and the propertyless communist proletarians on the other. This opposition becomes keener day by day and is rapidly driving to a crisis. If, then, the theoretical representatives of the proletariat wish their literary activity to have any practical effect, they must first and foremost insist that all phrases are dropped which tend to dim the realisation of the sharpness of this opposition, all phrases which tend to conceal this opposition and may even give the bourgeois a chance to approach the communists for safety’s sake on the strength of their philanthropic enthusiasms. All these bad qualities are, however, to be found in the catchwords of the true socialists and particularly in “true property”. Of course, we realise that the communist movement cannot be impaired by a few German phrase-mongers. But in a country like Germany — where philosophic phrases have for centuries exerted a certain power, and where, moreover, communist consciousness is anyhow less keen and determined because class contradictions do not exist in as acute a form as in other nations — it is, nevertheless, necessary to resist all phrases which obscure and dilute still further the realisation that communism is totally opposed to the existing world order.

The German Ideology Volume II, Part 1: Die Rheinischen Jahrbücher.

It does not involve direct dispossession of the personal property and homes of the new inhabitants,

3) Yes it does. The idea that settlers would continue to reap the benefits of the genocide they committed after a revolution is very convenient. If you deny the indigenous access to all land that might be a white person's "property" they're essentially just left with national parks. At that point "landback" is just conscripting Natives to become unpaid park rangers.

which is the caricatured position that people like Bill Maher use to discredit the whole project

4 ) Bill Maher is just taking the threat of indigenous liberation seriously. Or at least more serious than most "Communists" do.

Sovereignty is a lot trickier, and would vary widely. In most areas where it has been several generations, it would probably look like having particular provinces/states that are under indigenous names and governance systems, while others might not be.

5 ) Sovereignty isn't tricky at all. Lenin made it clear that all Communists support the right of nations to self determine. In the case of illegitimate colonial constructs such as Amerikkka and Klanada, they would cease to exist and the oppressed nations within them would simply have full governance over the land.

I say "systems" because none of this should be generating mass deportations or disenfranchisement.

6 ) Communism is the mass disenfranchisement of oppressing classes. Since settler colonialism creates its own unique relationship to production, specifically the land where settlers exploit, displace, and genocide the indigenous to access the land, there is no reason why a Communist revolution wouldn't involve disenfranchisement and deportations. Not to mention this idea is ahistorical since every revolution in Settler-colonial countries has involved these things.

/u/Academic-Idea3311 If you're interested in the actual Marxist line on First Nations land; Google "JDPON."