I'm like 9 beers in, wdhmbt?
I have two important questions for Zig Forums
Alexander Adams
Ryan Morales
god i can't wait to see you fags lose another world war
Benjamin Anderson
yes except this time it will be in literal self defense
Landon Robinson
A lot of it is education, the poor tend to be much less educated than the rich, both formally in a school and informally at home. The lack of education tends to make them easy targets for porky propaganda and idpol.
Ian Allen
who hurt you sweaty?
just be nice to black people and they'll be nice to you it's not hard unless you are literally autistic
Liam Martinez
maybe black people are the autistic ones
did you ever think of that. they're certainly not very nice as a rule.
Andrew Jenkins
Whoever came up with the idea of tying education funding to property taxes should be tortured and executed.
Grayson Powell
The core of the argument of Settlers is that the US had a high agrarian population and higher than average wages than other European countries therefore making its proletariat reactionary.
But, wait, weren't most European countries which Sakai lionizes in the book peasant majority until the late 19th-early/mid 20th century?It isn't a well-known fact but it is a fact nonetheless that Brazil of all countries had a higher median wage than Italy and Spain–which is why South American actually attracted millions of European immigrants in the late 19th century.
If we applied settlers framework to Latin America then we would be forced to conclude that even much of South America is just hopelessly reactionary. A more succinct and coherent explanation would be that the New World in general experienced a labor shortage in the 19th century which led to higher than average wages in those places where slavery/feudal labor-systems were abolished or inapplicable.
Going by Sakai's reasoning since European workers earned far better wages than those available in Asia in the 18th-19th centuries we would also be forced to conclude that they were a hopeless labor aristocracy. In Sakai's pseudo-Marxist understanding higher living standards cannot be the result of natural historical development, technology, or class struggle but solely through colonialist pillage. What could Sakai's frame of reference tell us about the fact that Europeans were already the richest people in the early modern age even before capitalism itself became super-charged during the "Great Divergence"? Not much.
What would Sakai have to tell us about the fact that wherever Europeans settled en masse they also improved the economies of the regions they settled? Not much except maybe, in accordance with the eternal laws of fairness and justice, that it shouldn't have happened.
Sakai's argument seems to be that the US white proletariat is a lost cause because there was no Paris Commune in the US. But the Paris Commune was also a historical specific event that wasn't recreated anywhere prior to 1917. The US proletariat did play a key-role in the second American revolution (known as the Civil War) that destroyed the slave-system.
With the exception of the counter-revolutionary violence in Germany and France–the US labor wars were far bloodier than comparable uproars in Europe. Only in the US did the government bomb striking workers from the air during a guerrilla war of laborers that killed hundreds. The term "redneck" itself stems from the West Virginia miners who wore red bandanas to signify their class loyalty.
Of course, Adolphe Reed BTFOs this stuff far more eloquently than I ever could. Give him a read:
nonsite.org
bennorton.com
Ethan Nelson
People who throw away white proles as "reactionary" ignore that most poor white proles, as much as poor non-white proles, don't vote(about 50%), historically can't or don't vote(Jim Crow Southern states often had a peak turnout of 25% and before Jim Crow the state governments were a coalition of poor white and poor black populists)and an even larger chunk aren't even registered or legally allowed to vote. There's also great evidence to suggest among these non-voters, the vast majority(75%+) favor restoring union rights, and most of these non-voters are white and low-income.
They don't, the poor among the white working class are underrepresented at the polls by huge margins while the rest of the "white working class voters" are small business owners, low ranking managers, police, etc. Professions that have high turnout and are lumpen bootlickers to the core.
People also play ignorant to the fact that prole whites have shown revolutionary potential before.
Also the 1919 Seattle strike, where (virtually all-white) workers took over the city in an attempt to establish socialism.
Or even Richard Ojeda, who's twitter feed consists of him calling out people as "capitalists" got 45% of the vote in deep-red Trumpian country.
Luis Mitchell
Fucking love Adolphe Reed.