Settlers: The mythology of the white proletariat isn't marxist or even good book. PROVE ME WRONG
MUH READ SETTLERS
Other urls found in this thread:
Nobody here denies it. Pure IdPol bullshit.
damn it rhymes
Read this interview with Sakai. That guy is just idpoler larping as maoist. He just uses marxian theory to justify his hatred against crackers or "white ameriKKKans"
we should drop crackers and start calling whites milk kin, because uh milk is white
I will post it here again. Some critiques of this book.
Not an argument
Shut up, Molyneux
Oh hello, Mr. Sakai. Tell us more about "le ebil white amerikans".
Prove that the book is good.
This is an incredibly precise and complete takedown of both this book and the entire current of "leftism" surrounding it by Rashid Johnson, who is one of a few true latter day Panthers
And what? For him proletariat is the synonym for black people and exploiters and capitalists for whites. So he is pure IdPoler
Can somebody tell me why is this book so much discussed?
Class is a identity
Starting to think there's a renewed effort of either Zig Forums or some aidan type to continually troll along idpol lines. Seen a lot of blatant threads like this lately where a poster comes in and spews Intersectional Radlib bullshit
there's ironic radfem posters, maybe someone havin a giggle
The Charnel House review is complete shit, but the other 2 are more well-made. Inevitably, they rely on complete strawmans of the book, such as the idea that Sakai says there is no class contradictions between the white labor aristocracy and the Euro-American bourgeois ruling-class, which the book makes explicitly clear has had several points of conflict. What Settlers *DOES* argue however, if you get passed how mean Sakai is to huwite people, is that the labor aristocracy has no revolutionary consciousness of its own and must be led by other sections of the proletariat. In America, this is racialized EXCEPT for a very small portion of whites such as in West Virginia, who very commonly did have revolutionary consciousness and understand the extraction of resources from their region clearly. It's the reality of their everyday life. However Sakai elucidates this tradition as not being completely left-wing and radical: there has been numerous opportunisitc, white supremacist and nationalist movements amongst this population of people. This is due to the machinations of American capitalism, demanding the loyalty of whites, disrupting consciousness. Someone only needs to look at the prevalence of white supremacist organizing in those regions and find it. One example is the Populist Party, which switched from showing solidarity with black tenant farmers to being viciously opposed to them in a matter of years for more votes at the polls. This is where "petit-bourgeois character" but "proletarian" relationship to the means of production comes in. They, by themselves, organized into reformist blocs. The CPUSA did this as well, sidelining their more radical Eastern European and Italian membership, at the time considered nonwhites and savages. If you want someone who would definitely disagree with Sakai back this up, read James P. Cannon's "First Ten Years of American Communism" where he gives his firsthand account of the power struggles over party line in the 20s, especially on early black socialist movements that had their roots in expropriating slaveowner property illegally.
I mean honestly guys, you should read the book, or at least the part where Sakai gives props to the IWW's white members. None of this thread has even quoted Sakai unless it's his correct view on how class and race in America are linked.
Give me Sakai quotes where he's being a racist, or un-marxist, or whatever, and explain how.
More strawmanning, even though this is a well-written article. I'll read that Theodore Allen guy but I'll doubt I'll find anything contradictory to what Sakai says in the book, and not what some random NCM offshoot has to say about white people. Sakai makes it clear that settler loyalty is an explicitly ruling class machination that people can be completely comfortable in participating in, and here lies the degenerate apartheid politics of sectors of the most organized American labor unions.
The third one is something I've experienced with my own white family members when talking about basic shit like welfare, where they think it's getting cut for white people and it's all going to blacks, how cops are great people, how America should be a land of opportunity and how minorities have ruined it all for them, etc. The fourth is what this attitude spawned from, and it is exactly the thing that Sakai hammers his point against.
Reminder that all of this stuff has a direct relation to Leninist concepts of organization, especially the vanguard. The idea that the masses of white settlers were more inclined toward reformism is an observation made by several Marxists including Lenin for decades. Revolutionary consciousness is a sweep, and is imparted onto groups.
masses of the labor aristocracy*
W.E.B. DuBois in the "Black Reconstruction of America" (I said reformism but I'll also include violent white supremacy as a form of nationalism/opportunism as well), James P. Cannon's justifications for trailing the Democratic Party in elections from "Ten Years of American Communism", Lenin's analysis of the labor aristocracy in imperialist nations, etc. That isn't to say they're unrecoverable. See the first picture of my previous post.
prove your claim
how could it possibly be proven? Identity means what one is. Literally the id-entity. It's subjective. If a bunch of other people say "I identify as a prole" then it is their identity. It's that simple. inb4 inb4
on all levels except physical i am the director of the central intelligence agency
but Lenins name was Vladimir
Nikolai was a pseudonym he used, often in the Western press and for pamphlets.
Ah yes, because only southern blacks can have class consciousness and are inoculated against the allure of petit-bourgeois opportunism. They've never been tempted themselves down the road of electoralism and compromise with capital, no sir.
What even is this book trying to say, other than moaning about how if the hwite majority didn't exist we would have communism by now? Why bother praising these tiny minority factions of radical groups if they never had mass support, and apparently never will?
because 30 year old avant teens and maoist wiggers will call me names on twitter if i don't do what they say :(
Sakai argues in "The Shock of Recognition" that yes, the black strata in Amerika has developed in some cases counter-revolutionary and even fascist consciousness. The difference between him and you is that he simply looks at reality and described it, instead of having a meltdown.
Here's a brief thesis of the book:
In America, because of a "Settlerist" strategy pursued by the Amerikan bourgeoisie, white class consciousness, i.e. recognition of itself as a class with a historical role and interests, did not develop as it did in Europe. The strategy was simple: give the white settler population material unity with empire, give them garrison access to better professions, and a guaranteed spot in the social hierarchy above the oppressed New Afrikan colonial nation which existed within the country.
This doesn't argue that white people can't be communists in any sense, it argues that, as a social organism, a white proletariat has never existed Amerika. This doesn't argue that white people can't exist as a proletariat, it looks at a concrete example, settler amerikan society, and looking at its history (the racist exclusion of afrikans from the New Deal, the chauvinism and exclusion of Afrikans, Chicanos, and Asian Amerikans from industrial unionism, the racism of the Socialist Party movement around the turn of the century) concludes that, at the time it was written, a white proletariat has never existed.
If you get over the whining wah wah hurt feelings idpol bogeyman, it's not a controversial argument. In fact it's a classic Marxist argument in the tradition of Lenin and Engels, who both observed that the proletariat of an empire are often bourgeoisified and "bought in" to material unity with the empire to function as a garrison population over the other inhabitants of that empire.
Wipe the tears from your eyes and read the book, brainlet. Including that, you should also read some Lenin as well as a history of the Russian Revolution.
The anons in this thread criticising Settlers sound like they haven't even read it. is a good synopsis, but really please read it before you go yammering on about how evil Sakai wants to do a anuddah shoah.
why tf are all Mao's quotes such simple shit, no offense but it's kind of funny
Things don't need to be complex to be clarifying. Most people who speak don't investigate, hence this thread.
You only see the quoteable ones. They're short and sweet.
There is a joke I heard about Mao that went something like this.
It's called quotations by Chairman Mao Zedong not paragraphs by Mao Zedong nigga
Unless you have investigated a problem, you will be deprived of the right to speak on it. Isn't that too harsh? Not in the least. When you have not probed into a problem, into the present facts and its past history, and know nothing of its essentials, whatever you say about it will undoubtedly be nonsense. Talking nonsense solves no problems, as everyone knows, so why is it unjust to deprive you of the right to speak? Quite a few comrades always keep their eyes shut and talk nonsense, and for a Communist that is disgraceful. How can a Communist keep his eyes shut and talk nonsense?
It won' t do!
It won't do!
You must investigate!
You must not talk nonsense!
So what praxis is derived from this theory? Do we kill all white Americans? Nuke the USA down to the bedrock? Because if I buy this argument it seems like there is no way out of this dilemma.
Also does this apply to apartheid South Africa? Israel/Palestine? How about Americo-Liberians in Liberia? or the European/black/mestizo/etc. divisions in Latin America? Certainly this "classic marxist argument" applies in colonized nations other than the United States.
There’s nothing to suggest that white americans are all labor aristocrats. Hell, I’d be surprised if more than one in five were. Just because someone dons’t have revolutionary consciousness dons’t mean that their a labor aristocrat.
here’s a quoat from the interview mentioned here
Class isn’t an identity, because class is a material relation to the means of production. “Identifying” as a certain class doesn't make you that class, neither does culture, or anything except for relation to the means of production.
Sakai is wrong though. Their are no nations of labor aristocrats, their have never been, any, and their are none, and their will never be any. Marx and Lenin never said this.
I mean, you can't deny that most Israeli Jews and most White South Africans (including the proletarians) have historically been extremely reactionary. Obviously there are exceptions (like Joe Slovo) but even today most Whites in South Africa align themselves with the conservative party, and most Israeli Jews outright support ethnic cleansing. Hell, even the poor, exploited Mizrahim absolutely despise Palestinians. Even in Cuba, which is probably the strongest counterexample (insofar as most of the big-name leaders of the revolution were white), a significant number of reactionary whites fled the country after the revolution. Or look at pictures of Chavistas vs. anti-Chavistas in Venezuela; obviously it varies and there are noteworthy white Chavistas but there's a clear race divide.
i'm a mexican and all i want to eat is white pussy tbh maybe taste white meat after i'm done
Except that's all nonsense you buffoon.
Sakai is a fucking racist idiot.
Striking workers in the 1890s would like to argue otherwise. There WAS and remains a proleteriat in the USA, White/Black doesn't matter, their lack of class-consciousness is because of things like COINTELPRO and Mockingbird and Gladio. Yes whites proles may have a marginally better time than blacks (and that is arguable) but even then that was not 'whitey' stuff that is porky intentionally causing racial rifts. During the 17th-19th century it was justified as 'niggers' being descendants of the sinner Ham, in early 20th century it was Eugenics, they couldn't help be inferior, and in the 60s-80s onward, it was softer methods, the creation of Ghettos created toxic thug-life culture which promoted an image of black crime. This is all the blame of CAPITALISM. Whites are not a single being they are individuals. What the rich faggots told their white workers to delude them into dividing themselves by race would help the rich prevent unified socialist movements. Settlers does the same thing but for Black people. It serves no purpose other than to create the same viewing angle but from a leftist spectrum.
TL;DR third worldist id-pol
my canine teeth are significantly sharper than your bullets
how is sakai not just an asian Asser
It mattered to the leader of the CPUSA. It mattered to the Socialist Labor Party when they backed ethnic cleansing of Africans, Chinese, Mexicans, etc.
How many of you guys have actually read settlers?
I've been going through it and so far it's not nearly as bad as you guys make out. The biggest problem I've run into so far is that Sakai doesn't really explain what a "labor aristocrat" is, which is important because he points to the lack of solidarity among the white cohort of the early American industrial proletariat with proletarians of other races as being primarily due to them being "labor aristocrats", not racism (in fact, he claims that the idea that it was simply racism is idealist). It has something vaguely to do with getting a cut of imperial/colonial loot, but he doesn't really go into how it is that early white American "labor aristocrats" were getting any of it before the advent of the welfare state, except I guess they were paid more presumably?
Nobody here likes that book, tho.
They do this because they haven't read it.
If you really want Sakai's "praxis" it's to not give into blatantly undemocratic reform/nationalist efforts like the ones carried out by the Euro-Amerikan settler proletariat that reinforced white supremacy by collaborating with the ruling class. The book was written nearly 40 years ago of course, and things have changed, and I view Settlers as an important historical/polemical work in understanding modern American fascism and my own experiences with settlerism.
People have read it and thought it was shit before.
This. Neither have I, but it's pretty obvious most of the fags on this board are constantly commenting on shit they haven't read.
Yeah, he goes into it later. Better jobs because of jim crow, access to better public buildings, living off of certain types of slave labor, the fact that most original settlers started out as small business owners with stolen native land, etc.
Read the picture.
And? So what?
I did and it's trash
You haven't really answered my question.
The book is literally about white labor's relationship to ruling-class white supremacy as a settler garrison. What do you think it means when Foster calls them a 'race of strikebreakers' during the St. Louis riots, Copernicus? Some of the people on this board have an inability to describe reality for what it is. See these posts for the umpteenth explanation of the book:
Honestly, if it wan't for revleft and the twitter woke-left holding this book up like some sort of party line bible the book wouldn't nearly get as much flake as it does here.
Despite the idpol nature of the book it does point out an important contradiction of white American society (conversely settler-colonial society). It's a must read for any worker especially white Americans for them to understand the racial conflict in American politics
Yeah, and it's shit.
I don't really care about what this dipshit said a hundred years ago you dumb fuck. Sakai is a fuckwit and I'm not going to just take him at his word.
Which part? The part about settler-colonialism in Israel and South Africa? Yes, it can and does apply. That's where Sakai derived some of the inspiration of the book, since analyzing "whites" in America in the same way you would the militarized settler-colonial Zionist fanatics is verboten and politically incorrect.
he was upset that their were black scabs. He wasn’t being racist. The American communist and labor movement was responsible for anti-rascist organizing.
90% of this doesn’t apply to modern day scenarios. And Sakai hasn’t proven that this makes people labor aristocrats.
you're actually not taking William Z. Foster at his word when he threatens black workers with genocide
WILLIAM Z. FOSTER. The Great Steel Strike and Its Lessons.
N.Y.. 1920. p. 207.
Here's the citation.
You are such a stupid fuckwit, no wonder you believe trash like settlers.
Look at you, screaming and crying when you don't have an argument, sad!
Sakai's argument is at its roots one of the theory of settler colonialism, so yes, in a sense it does apply to the nations you mention, though his book only talks about Amerika. There are differences, largely because in the U.S. the situation is of a garrison majority oppressing a minority rather than the other way around in places like South Afrika, though there are similarities. Amerika's function as the center of a worldwide empire also complicates things.
Your hyperbolic remarks about nuking the US or killing euro-amerikans is ridiculous and hysteric. Step back and try to assimilate facts and analyze them. There are two things:
1) Sakai's book makes an arguments about Amerika in the 1980s: the class composition has changed since then in some senses, though the broad contours are still the same.
2) The main lesson I learn from this is that it's a waste of time to specifically target the settler strata for building a revolutionary party. There's a reason why the CPUSA went from the tip of the spear in class struggle in the United States to endorsing Hillary Clinton, and that's because it fell to bourgeoisified settler reformism. It's no accident that at its peak in both numbers and influence, it focused heavily on liberating the black proletariat, who were (and are still) super-exploited by settler society.
Why is Sakai wrong? In my previous post I provided quotations of Engels and Lenin making just this argument, if catechism is all you care about. Engles makes it about the British, as does Lenin. In the time he is writing, the U.S. is the dominant world empire and a similar insight applies.
Striking workers in the 1890s are exactly the point, and encapsulate the bourgeois strategy. As class conflict rose, they found they could neutralize this class conflict by offering unity to certain sections of the working class. Building on a familiar strategy, and because of the sheer numeric weight of the euro-amerikan population in the U.S. this was the strategy they used. By the way, industrial and craft unions, like the one you are valorizing, excluded black, brown, and asian workers, so when you say race doesn't matter you're wrong, it does, not because racism matters but because this is exactly what the bourgeoisie does, creates divisions among the latently revolutionary social mass to block off challenges to their power.
Where Sakai's argument becomes heterodox is where he argues that this racism isn't simply a "deception" that it doesn't "fool" white workers, but that it is in their material interests. This is where it is such a pernicious strategy, it gives a material basis for racism, because it gives euro-amerikan workers unity with the empire.
None of this is "third worldist" or "idpod." You're simply reacting emotionally instead of stepping back and assimilating facts.
Please calm down. Facts don't care about your feelings. Why is what he's saying wrong? Is it controversial to argue that trade unionism in the U.S. excluded Afrikan, Chicano, Native, and Asian workers? Seriously, what's controversial about that? I've posted some examples from the book here.
HERBERT HILL. "Anti-Oriental Agitation and the Rise of Working Class Racism." Society. Jan.-Feb., 1973. p. 43-54.
^(A labor organizer who campaigned for union desegregation)
PHILIP S. FONER. "A Labor Voice For Black Equality: The Boston Daily Evening Voice, 1864-1867." Science & Society, 1974. p. 304-305
What citation? Your just making claims that Foster said some things that he didn’t say without giving any source.
He literally gives the source in his post. You can check it yourself if you care. You need to calm down and make yourself a cup of tea, you're trembling.
Look again dude
You should really sage your shitposts, bud.
CPUSA was at it’s peak under the leadership of Foster, they guy your calling a rascist.
Engles never said all or the majority of British workers were labor aristocrats.
When confronted with revolution Porky offers reforms, this is nothing new, or unique to the first world. Feudal leaders did it when faced with bourgieous revolution.
Because 9/10 times it’s a lie. Unions actually brought together workers of different races and reduced racism.
Settlers is not an accurate source of history. It’s a shity book that’s highly biased in favor of the ethno-nationalist idea the white Americans can’t be proletarian.
this text is referring to stuff from the nineteenth century (when America was an ethno-state), hardly applicable to today.
Someone TL;DR this book for me.
Is it really "Let's kill white ppl XD"
read the thread while it's still under 100 posts
No, it’s far worse. The jist of it is that all white workers are labor aristocrats and that it’s in the self interest of white workers to be fascists. It’s basically a nazi false flagger.
Okay, the argument sounds coherent and worth taking seriously, but what's with the intentional misspelling? It's kind of distracting and gives the vibe of some schizophrenic's blog.
As for the actual content, why would lower whites be non-proletarians rather than simply a distinct (and more advantaged) sector of the proletariat?
Except it isn’t. White workers still experience exploitation, and thus their interests are not secured by capitalism in any way. What “benefits” they may receive from a racist power structure in the US are simply relative, rather than absolute. In practice racist attitudes among the white workers weaken their ability to organize, distract them with idpol issues, etc and thus objectively lower their ability to secure higher wages, better conditions, and exercise political power. Ultimately they are still victims of exploitation, still excluded from political power, and still proletarians. Furthermore there’s nothing to suggest that the advantaged position of white workers comes directly at the expense of black workers in the core (people of the third world are another story), the prosperity of working class whites is not conditional on the poverty of blacks. The only people who ultimately benefit from racism in the US in an absolute rather than a relative sense is the bourgeoisie, which includes plenty of black people. If this is the case, then Sakai’s book which, stirs up racial antagonism by accusing white workers of being part of a racially determined ruling class, only benefits the bourgeoisie by further undermining interracial solidarity. It’s worth noting that this was a fact recognized by actual revolutionaries like the Panthers. Sakai’s thesis ultimately reproduces the same concept floated by white racists: that the advancement of black people necessarily implies the worsening of conditions for whites.
And on top of all of it the guy is a glow in the dark CIA cunt.
the shitdick blowhards who read like two paragraphs of it and then jump on twitter certainly act like that but the actual content of the book is relatively benign and more of an interpretation of colonial history than a racialist screed
biggest problem is that it enables third worldists
Doesn't make it any less true or important.
Idiotic generalization, as evidenced by the plethora of evidence to the contrary. The SLP did not advocate for full political rights for black people, Mexicans or Chinese workers. Foster advocated for race riots against black people, who were coming to work from poverty and without unions of their own, because they were barred from them most of the time. They were the rules, and not the exceptions.
You're a frothing-at-the-mouth dummy, I just gave you historical sources from that book that proves your points wrong.
"Engels didn't say British workers were a majority labor aristocrats, so that means Sakai is wrong because he says most American workers are!" great facts and logic
What did Sakai mean by this?
Sakai is an idiot and you fucking fools should kill yourselves.
The chapter on race relations begins on page 194. The stuff specifically about Negros begins on 205.
Gee, this doesn't sound at all like how that Settlers defender is describing it… really makes you think!
This is hugely important because revolution happens in the here and now, for what is done is done, but the future is an open book.
All bullshit. When blacks and whites went os strike together they realized that their common material interest was one and the same, an end to capitalism. Also Foster isn’t a racist. His leadership over the CPUSA oversaw it being a leading anti-segragation organization, also it isn’t racist to condemn scabs of color.
yes because nations do not exist in a material sense. Being a member of X nation or Y nation isn’t a material condition. Nations are an abstract concept that only exist in an idealist sense.
doesn't the fact that i once saw a photo of a poor white person destroy the idea that whites can't be proletariat
no, but this does wsws.org
Striking isn't something reserved for the proletariat, literally any class can strike