MUH READ SETTLERS

Easton Adams
Easton Adams

Settlers: The mythology of the white proletariat isn't marxist or even good book. PROVE ME WRONG

Attached: 2-settlers.jpg (3.24 MB, 1800x2700)

Other urls found in this thread:

kersplebedeb.com/posts/raceburn/
thecharnelhouse.org/2017/05/15/dont-bother-reading-settlers-by-j-sakai/
kersplebedeb.com/posts/settlersnsg-2/
uppingtheanti.org/journal/article/02-settlers-the-mythology-of-the-white-proletariat
rashidmod.com/?p=1125
blackagendareport.com/casting-light-reflections-struggle-implement-jackson-kush-plan-part-1-response-comrade-bruce-dixon
youtube.com/watch?v=rVMbeigbH04
archive.org/details/greatsteelstrike00fostiala/page/208
archive.org/details/greatsteelstrike00fostiala/page/212
wsws.org/en/articles/2018/10/01/pers-o01.html
washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2018/07/30/feature/majority-minority-white-workers-at-this-pennsylvania-chicken-plant-now-struggle-to-fit-in/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.be07df9acac4
torontosun.com/2017/02/11/black-lives-matter-co-founder-appears-to-label-white-people-defects/wcm/2748a714-f567-4344-8c08-decfe73d1e52
huffingtonpost.ca/2007/10/15/abizaid-of-course-its-abo_n_68568.html
vice.com/en_uk/article/5ga7w3/the-iraqi-war-wasnt-waged-for-oil-greg-palast
inthesetimes.com/article/17626/what_the_Iraq_war_teaches_us
frontpagemag.com/fpm/182499/war-oil-myth-arnold-ahlert
theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/03/iraq.oil)
marxists.org/archive/foster/1954/foster-history-negro-america.pdf
marxists.org/archive/debs/works/1910/immigration.htm

Noah Cox
Noah Cox

Nobody here denies it. Pure IdPol bullshit.

Logan Morris
Logan Morris

samefag?

Jayden Kelly
Jayden Kelly

No, sameflag.

Colton Long
Colton Long

damn it rhymes

Cooper King
Cooper King

kersplebedeb.com/posts/raceburn/
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"

Elijah Roberts
Elijah Roberts

we should drop crackers and start calling whites milk kin, because uh milk is white

Cooper Morales
Cooper Morales

I will post it here again. Some critiques of this book.

thecharnelhouse.org/2017/05/15/dont-bother-reading-settlers-by-j-sakai/

kersplebedeb.com/posts/settlersnsg-2/

uppingtheanti.org/journal/article/02-settlers-the-mythology-of-the-white-proletariat

Ian Lee
Ian Lee

Attached: 2l32n7.jpg (70.67 KB, 1022x946)

Ryder Powell
Ryder Powell

muh idpol
Not an argument

Jordan Cruz
Jordan Cruz

Shut up, Molyneux

Dominic Hughes
Dominic Hughes

Oh hello, Mr. Sakai. Tell us more about "le ebil white amerikans".

Samuel Martin
Samuel Martin

Prove that the book is good.

Benjamin Baker
Benjamin Baker

Attached: Screen-Shot-2019-02-26-at-3.07.25-PM.png (47.3 KB, 716x131)

Kevin Smith
Kevin Smith

rashidmod.com/?p=1125

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

Attached: occupy.jpg (294.99 KB, 700x914)

Adrian Powell
Adrian Powell

Based

Alexander Jones
Alexander Jones

And what? For him proletariat is the synonym for black people and exploiters and capitalists for whites. So he is pure IdPoler

David Kelly
David Kelly

Can somebody tell me why is this book so much discussed?

Jose Jones
Jose Jones

Class is a identity

Dominic Miller
Dominic Miller

no

Cooper Sanchez
Cooper Sanchez

Starting to think there's a renewed effort of either /pol/ 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

Matthew Gomez
Matthew Gomez

there's ironic radfem posters, maybe someone havin a giggle

Matthew Hall
Matthew Hall

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.

"The conclusion being that these factors combine to create a uniform class of' 'whiteness' that has no proletarian sector."

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.

Pics related.

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.

Attached: SakaiWWC.PNG (78.5 KB, 727x749)
Attached: White-Labor-Backwardness-Class-and-National-Question-Settlers-pg-28.png (323.01 KB, 715x610)
Attached: White-Supremacist-Institutions-Poor-Whites-Settlers-Pg-145.PNG (41.36 KB, 388x217)
Attached: Foster-Racial-Opportunism-St-Louis-Riots-Settlers-pg-74.PNG (360.7 KB, 724x870)

Parker Bailey
Parker Bailey

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.

Wyatt Murphy
Wyatt Murphy

masses of the labor aristocracy*

Juan Turner
Juan Turner

The idea that the masses of white settlers were more inclined toward reformism is an observation made by several Marxists including Lenin for decades.
sauces, pls

Austin Hughes
Austin Hughes

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.

Attached: Lenin-Labour-Aristocracy-Imperialism-pg-31.PNG (100.52 KB, 516x394)

Samuel Foster
Samuel Foster

class is an identity
prove your claim

Cameron Long
Cameron Long

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

Juan Campbell
Juan Campbell

on all levels except physical i am the director of the central intelligence agency
[suicides you]

Aaron Bailey
Aaron Bailey

N. Lenin
hwat

Joseph Kelly
Joseph Kelly

Nikolai

Justin Reed
Justin Reed

but Lenins name was Vladimir

Bentley Phillips
Bentley Phillips

Nikolai was a pseudonym he used, often in the Western press and for pamphlets.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (407.54 KB, 596x395)

Austin Turner
Austin Turner

the labor aristocracy has no revolutionary consciousness of its own and must be led by other sections of the proletariat
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.
blackagendareport.com/casting-light-reflections-struggle-implement-jackson-kush-plan-part-1-response-comrade-bruce-dixon

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?

Julian Rodriguez
Julian Rodriguez

because 30 year old avant teens and maoist wiggers will call me names on twitter if i don't do what they say :(

Liam Sullivan
Liam Sullivan

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.

Attached: Engels-England-Bourgeois-Proletariat-Settlers-Sakai-pg-51.png (131.95 KB, 673x725)
Attached: Social-Bribery-Lenin-Colonial-Chauvinism-Settlers-Sakai-pg-52.png (112.48 KB, 650x627)

Lucas Ramirez
Lucas Ramirez

Good post

Ryan Mitchell
Ryan Mitchell

this

Jace Stewart
Jace Stewart

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.

Based post.

Kayden Hughes
Kayden Hughes

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.

Attached: 9w7l66lz8xh21.jpg (84.17 KB, 640x640)

Daniel Baker
Daniel Baker

why tf are all Mao's quotes such simple shit, no offense but it's kind of funny

Dylan Mitchell
Dylan Mitchell

Things don't need to be complex to be clarifying. Most people who speak don't investigate, hence this thread.

Jason Adams
Jason Adams

You only see the quoteable ones. They're short and sweet.

Camden Roberts
Camden Roberts

Attached: lenin.jpg (797.9 KB, 1216x1600)

Logan Lewis
Logan Lewis

There is a joke I heard about Mao that went something like this.
Chairman Mao was the first in the world to use Twitter. All his quotations are within 140 words.

Mason Ward
Mason Ward

It's called quotations by Chairman Mao Zedong not paragraphs by Mao Zedong nigga

Blake Cox
Blake Cox

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!

Josiah Murphy
Josiah Murphy

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.

Jeremiah Sanchez
Jeremiah Sanchez

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.
Give me Sakai quotes where he's being a racist, or un-marxist, or whatever, and explain how.
here’s a quoat from the interview mentioned here 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
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.

Attached: Screen-Shot-2019-02-26-at-3.07.25-PM.png (47.3 KB, 716x131)

Nolan Bennett
Nolan Bennett

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.
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.

Caleb Ross
Caleb Ross

2824944
i'm a mexican and all i want to eat is white pussy tbh maybe taste white meat after i'm done

John White
John White

Except that's all nonsense you buffoon.

Sakai is a fucking racist idiot.

Carson Cooper
Carson Cooper

it argues that, as a social organism, a white proletariat has never existed Amerika
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

James Ortiz
James Ortiz

2824948
my canine teeth are significantly sharper than your bullets

Jayden Mitchell
Jayden Mitchell

how is sakai not just an asian Asser

Jacob Russell
Jacob Russell

White/Black doesn't matter

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.

Attached: Foster-Racial-Opportunism-St-Louis-Riots-Settlers-pg-74.PNG (360.7 KB, 724x870)

Robert Jenkins
Robert Jenkins

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?

Attached: robin-williams.jpg (29.48 KB, 600x250)

Ayden Taylor
Ayden Taylor

PROVE ME WRONG

Nobody here likes that book, tho.

Jackson Watson
Jackson Watson

I've been going through it and so far it's not nearly as bad as you guys make out
They do this because they haven't read it.

Christian Adams
Christian Adams

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.

Blake Howard
Blake Howard

Pure ideology

Charles Kelly
Charles Kelly

They do this because they haven't read it.

People have read it and thought it was shit before.

Isaac Martin
Isaac Martin

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.

Attached: smonk.jpg (16.96 KB, 500x344)

Asher Collins
Asher Collins

It mattered to the leader of the CPUSA
who
It mattered to the Socialist Labor Party
who

Hunter Richardson
Hunter Richardson

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.

Blake Morgan
Blake Morgan

Read the picture.

Evan Barnes
Evan Barnes

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.
And? So what?

Hudson Walker
Hudson Walker

I did and it's trash

Aaron Diaz
Aaron Diaz

You haven't really answered my question.

Tyler Nguyen
Tyler Nguyen

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:

Jack Gomez
Jack Gomez

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

Ryan Murphy
Ryan Murphy

The book is literally about white labor's relationship to ruling-class white supremacy as a settler garrison.
Yeah, and it's shit.
What do you think it means when Foster calls them a 'race of strikebreakers' during the St. Louis riots, Copernicus?
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.
Some of the people on this board have an inability to describe reality for what it is.
You'd know.

Jack Hernandez
Jack Hernandez

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.

Angel Thomas
Angel Thomas

It mattered to the Socialist Labor Party when they backed ethnic cleansing of Africans, Chinese, Mexicans, etc.
proof?
What do you think it means when Foster calls them a 'race of strikebreakers'
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.
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.
90% of this doesn’t apply to modern day scenarios. And Sakai hasn’t proven that this makes people labor aristocrats.

Jayden Jones
Jayden Jones

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.

Race of strikebreakers
Race riot going on in St Louis during that time
Calling them cossacks, to eastern european workers
Didn't allow Africans in white union locals
"Should they succeed to any degree it would make our industrial disputes take on more and more the character of Nazi masturbation fantasys, a consummation that would be highly injurious to the white workers and eventually ruinous to the blacks.”
Not racist

Makes sense!

Isaac Watson
Isaac Watson

you're actually not taking William Z. Foster at his word when he threatens black workers with genocide

You are such a stupid fuckwit, no wonder you believe trash like settlers.

Adam Ramirez
Adam Ramirez

Look at you, screaming and crying when you don't have an argument, sad!

Luke Harris
Luke Harris

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.

Attached: Race-Riot-Organized-by-AFL-St-Louis-Sakai-Settlers-pg-73.png (68.55 KB, 657x308)
Attached: Afrikan-Strikes-in-the-South-Sakai-Settlers-pg-102.png (143.43 KB, 1304x473)
Attached: CIO-Union-Discipline-of-Colonial-Proletarian-Subjects-Sakai-Settlers-pg-89.png (122.84 KB, 742x702)

Christian King
Christian King

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

Attached: Socialist-Labor-Party-Genocide-pg-36.PNG (133.67 KB, 341x647)

Camden Hernandez
Camden Hernandez

Here's the citation.
What citation? Your just making claims that Foster said some things that he didn’t say without giving any source.

Brayden Rogers
Brayden Rogers

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.

Bentley Torres
Bentley Torres

Look again dude
WILLIAM Z. FOSTER. The Great Steel Strike and Its Lessons.
N.Y.. 1920. p. 207.

Aaron Morris
Aaron Morris

youtube.com/watch?v=rVMbeigbH04

Oliver Gonzalez
Oliver Gonzalez

You should really sage your shitposts, bud.

Parker Garcia
Parker Garcia

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.
CPUSA was at it’s peak under the leadership of Foster, they guy your calling a rascist.
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.
Engles never said all or the majority of British workers were labor aristocrats.
As class conflict rose, they found they could neutralize this class conflict by offering unity to certain sections of the working class.
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.
Is it controversial to argue that trade unionism in the U.S. excluded Afrikan, Chicano, Native, and Asian workers?
Because 9/10 times it’s a lie. Unions actually brought together workers of different races and reduced racism.
I've posted some examples from the book here.
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.

Jayden Ross
Jayden Ross

Someone TL;DR this book for me.
Is it really "Let's kill white ppl XD"

Attached: max-stirner-but-with-a-twist.jpg (89.37 KB, 493x455)

Hunter Hughes
Hunter Hughes

read the thread while it's still under 100 posts

Aiden Phillips
Aiden Phillips

Is it really "Let's kill white ppl XD”
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.

Tyler Perez
Tyler Perez

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?

Ayden Parker
Ayden Parker

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.
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.

Leo Miller
Leo Miller

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

Samuel Rivera
Samuel Rivera

hardly applicable to today

Doesn't make it any less true or important.

unions brought together workers

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.

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.

You're a frothing-at-the-mouth dummy, I just gave you historical sources from that book that proves your points wrong.

Engles never said all or the majority of British workers were labor aristocrats.

"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

Parker Sanchez
Parker Sanchez

((Adolf Hitler. Mein Kampf. Houghton Mifflin, 1971. p.373-378. Although Hitler’s rep has required critics to always badrap his book, it’s an exhilarating rip-roaring rant that easily roars past most left political writers. It is overly long, but so is the much duller Das Kapital. Supposedly a slimmed-down popular version, with the repetition and long detailed discussions about specifically German issues omitted, will be coming out next year. ))
What did Sakai mean by this?

Attached: dd3.png (143.06 KB, 600x600)

Connor Fisher
Connor Fisher

Sakai is an idiot and you fucking fools should kill yourselves.

hurr race of strike breakers
archive.org/details/greatsteelstrike00fostiala/page/208
The chapter on race relations begins on page 194. The stuff specifically about Negros begins on 205.

So serious was the race situation in the steel strike that the National Committee for Organizing Iron and Steel Workers requested President Gompers to arrange a conference between prominent negro leaders and trade-union officials, to the end that proper remedies may be indicated. The need for action looking towards better relations between whites and blacks in the industrial field should be instantly patent; for there can be no doubt but that the employing class, taking advantage of the bitter animosities of the two groups, are deliberately attempting to turn the negroes into a race of strikebreakers, with whom to hold the white workers in check; on much the same principle as the Czars used the Cossacks to keep in subjection the balance of the Russian people. Should they succeed to any degree it would make our industrial disputes take on more and more the character of Nazi masturbation fantasys, a consummation that would be highly injurious to the white workers and eventually ruinous to the blacks.

For the tense situation existing the unions are themselves in no small part to blame. Many of them sharply draw the color line, thus feeding the flames of race hatred. THis discriminatory practice is in direct conflict with the fundamental which demands that all the workers be organized, without regard to sex, race, creed, politics, or nationality. It injures Labor's cause greatly. Company agents harp upon it continueally, to prevent negroes from joining even the organizations willing to take them in. This was the case in the steel campaign. Moreover these same company agents cited this discriminatory practice most effectively to induce thousands of outside colored workers to come into the industry as strike-breakers. Such a condition cannot be allowed to persist. But to relieve it the unions will have to meet the issue honestly and broad-mindedly. The must open their ranks to negroes, make an earnest effort to organize them, and then give them a square deal when they do join. Nothing short of this will accomplish the desired result.

durpa doo da negro
archive.org/details/greatsteelstrike00fostiala/page/212
But even this did not satisfy; the anti-union propaganda went on undiminished and with tremendous effect. It is true that some far-sighted negrot intellectuals defended the unions; but they were as men crying in the wilderness; the others [anti-union negro community leaders] prevailed. And although the unions kept a crew of negro organizers in the field, and won many concessions for the packing house workers, including the eight hour day, right of collective bargainning, large increases in wages, 40 hour weekly guarantee, retro-active pay, seniority rights, etc, they have never succeeded in organizing the negroes.

They know little of the race problem in industry who declare that it can be settled merely by the unions opening their doors to the negroes. It is much more complex than that, and will require the best thought that conscientious whites and blacks can give it. The negro has the more difficult part to solve, in resisting the insidious efforts of unscrupulous white employers and misguided intellectuals of his own race to make a professional strike-breaker of him. But I am confident that he will win out and will take his place where he blongs in the industrial fight, side by side, with the white worker.

Nathan Jones
Nathan Jones

The negro has the more difficult part to solve, in resisting the insidious efforts of unscrupulous white employers and misguided intellectuals of his own race to make a professional strike-breaker of him. But I am confident that he will win out and will take his place where he blongs in the industrial fight, side by side, with the white worker.
Gee, this doesn't sound at all like how that Settlers defender is describing it… really makes you think!

Dominic Price
Dominic Price

Doesn't make it any less true or important.
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.
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.
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.
"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
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.

Charles Cruz
Charles Cruz

doesn't the fact that i once saw a photo of a poor white person destroy the idea that whites can't be proletariat

Josiah James
Josiah James

no, but this does wsws.org/en/articles/2018/10/01/pers-o01.html

Cameron Mitchell
Cameron Mitchell

Striking isn't something reserved for the proletariat, literally any class can strike

Chase Murphy
Chase Murphy

Very quick, lazy response - without disproving anything about the image:

Even if some people on the left in the 1900s were racist, this does not disprove class struggle unless you simply believe that race is fundamentally more important yourself.

Cooper Rivera
Cooper Rivera

Sweet, someone disproved the claims in the pic, too!

Levi Morales
Levi Morales

As for the actual content, why would lower whites be non-proletarians rather than simply a distinct (and more advantaged) sector of the proletariat?

Nobody knows ~~

Nolan Anderson
Nolan Anderson

As for the actual content, why would lower whites be non-proletarians rather than simply a distinct (and more advantaged) sector of the proletariat?
To sakaists proletariat means poc, specifically black.

Josiah Murphy
Josiah Murphy

I don't know why more anons didn't discuss this

Oliver Young
Oliver Young

Well, here is the proof that Sakai says that there is no white proletariat.

And I still don't understand what conclusions we should derive from this book?

I don't think this book will help to create new black communists, but rather new black nationalists or nazbols like organization "Uhuru".

Attached: IMG-20190227-101548.png (140.2 KB, 720x444)

Camden Rivera
Camden Rivera

"Working class" has been used as a synonym for "proletarian" among Marxists for ages. His separation of the two is specious.

whitetariat
What's the deal with Sakai and these childish coinages? He also has the breathless style of a teenage anarchist in that interview.

Jaxson Murphy
Jaxson Murphy

huwite people

racist.

Jace Perry
Jace Perry

Give me Sakai quotes where he's being a racist, or un-marxist, or whatever, and explain how.
The equation of race issues and class issues at is un-Marxist for one, or intellectually sloppy.

Noah Hughes
Noah Hughes

Only the most exploited people are Proletariat
What the fuck is this dude smoking? You can talk about the complexity of Inter & Intra-Class relations, things like Labour Aristocracy and Countervailing Tendencies (and yes this is particularly pertinent in the US given that it's the major Imperialist power and it's history of development) but this right here is straight up revisionist MTW autism redefining terms.

Adrian Sanchez
Adrian Sanchez

name calling
muh idpol
any better counterarguments?

Attached: 66a1c1f1b3e1f07ad4c9135123a9586d65094f94.jpg (40.56 KB, 640x471)

Aiden Harris
Aiden Harris

Fuck off samefag

Luke Rogers
Luke Rogers

wunderbar! - that is what I call based und redpilled

Nolan Allen
Nolan Allen

naziposter likes Sakai
oh god oh fuck

Brayden Gomez
Brayden Gomez

The only conclusion I got from this thread and that one user trying to defend the book is that I should get around to reading Lenin eventually. Even if Sakai is correct regarding historical race relations and labor, his racializing divisions seem completely useless unless you're a black nationalist of some kind.

As an aside, I went to some labor organizing meeting last week and the training basically reflected what says: that whites working in poor black communities can work, but requires constant effort to keep the people engaged and actually in charge of themselves, plus it's constantly at risk of being co-opted by "community leaders" seeking political power or bourgeois compromise.

Adrian Garcia
Adrian Garcia

What a seriously good read! Thanks for the recommendation. Very enlightening.

Josiah Edwards
Josiah Edwards

Jason Unruhe replies in the comments.

Juan Thompson
Juan Thompson

identitarian niggers

literally worse than hitler

Liam Garcia
Liam Garcia

based

William Jenkins
William Jenkins

CPUSA
Are you trying to be funny?

washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2018/07/30/feature/majority-minority-white-workers-at-this-pennsylvania-chicken-plant-now-struggle-to-fit-in/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.be07df9acac4
torontosun.com/2017/02/11/black-lives-matter-co-founder-appears-to-label-white-people-defects/wcm/2748a714-f567-4344-8c08-decfe73d1e52
It's a two way street. I can't count the number of times I have seen baseless provocations from blacks and whites alike. They hate one another because porky sets them against one another. This is worsened by the fact that during the 80s Ghetto culture was created, creating a new generation of people who celebrate "thug life" and thus behave loud, rude and extremely antagonistic and aggressive. As well as very deeply triggering and problematic, because they're told its whitey putting them down. Rather than the rich fucks putting everyone down. Tupac understood this and tried to tell people to think otherwise, but rap became a gimmick part of ghetto culture and is now a glorification of the ills that result of it, rather than the criticism that Tupac promoted.
The article may sound racist but it is understandable considering the completely idiotic idpol that contaminates US society; Where whites should repent, repent and again repent for their 'crimes' even when only a small percentage of white people are responsible for the issues of african-americans and are hardly the sole cause.
It's getting to the point where Africans immigrating to the USA are so disgusted by this self-pitying yet arrogant behavior that they try to distance themselves from it, and get called Uncle Toms for doing so.
The recent Black Panther film and the resulting twitter splurge by african-american fanboys who don't understand how shite the film's promoted ideas are, is a perfect example of this today.

Attached: Black-Panther-is-Alt-Right.jpg (167.01 KB, 1200x1050)
Attached: ClipboardImage.png (4.71 MB, 1568x4228)
Attached: ClipboardImage.png (641.56 KB, 904x821)
Attached: ClipboardImage.png (1.33 MB, 1169x6371)

Blake Perry
Blake Perry

to add

The American 'purges' of communists had to be more roundabout. They set up perjury traps. They made oaths of loyalty compulsory for large swaths of the population, who swore they did not support overthrowing the States by force or violence. Then they prosecuted them for perjury if they had partied with members of the CPUSA on the theory that the CPUSA advocated overthrowing the States by force or violence. Everybody knew that was true so they didn’t have to prove it by finding a single instance where the CPUSA had ever mentioned such a thing. It was not, of course, part of its platform or its rhetoric.

Eli Hernandez
Eli Hernandez

Well, as a historical work it could be good. But the conclusions Sakai derives from it are completely wrong.
white proletariat does not exist
thus all white "settler" people are reactionary
How is that different from white nationalism?

Joseph Rogers
Joseph Rogers

How is that different from white nationalism?
It's literally not. Its the same position that white nationalists and fascists hold: that in order for blacks or others to gain, whites must lose. The reality is that both white and non-white workers stand to gain from socialism.

Nathaniel Morgan
Nathaniel Morgan

I don't think he disagrees with that, he's a christcom. From what i can tell he's talking about generalizing all whites in america as non proletarian and reactionary, just like white nationalism could generalize blacks are the only capable of being proletarian, while whites must always be high class.

Henry Gomez
Henry Gomez

I think he didn't go far enough honestly. Nearly all non-whites in the US are also settlers and as such have a uniquely reactionary bent to their world views.

Michael Myers
Michael Myers

Honestly this, Mestizo Mexicans fucking hate Indios and Blacks, and Asians are racist against anyone with darker skin.

Easton Perry
Easton Perry

Asians are racist against anyone with darker skin.

fuck off I'm Asian and not racist at all

Colton Williams
Colton Williams

I do live in México and my mom definitely goes in subconcious rants about white skin being inherently more beautiful so yeah, we look kind of white ourselves. They use the word indio a lot and while i don't live in parts with extremely dark skinned people i've heard they aren't very well treated in places like México City.

Xavier Barnes
Xavier Barnes

Lmao, do you guys think Black Red guard visits leftypol? I think he is heavily influenced by Sakai.

Attached: IMG-20190302-202718-492.JPG (38 KB, 600x457)

Parker Evans
Parker Evans

This is the result of Sakai's influence. These people literall believe that white people are born with racism

Attached: Screenshot-2019-03-02-20-52-18.png (180.04 KB, 600x1024)

Kevin Sullivan
Kevin Sullivan

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.
"As a social organism" is a meaningless statement in Marxist terms. If you do not differentiate between the base and the superstructure, YOU ARE A FUCKING IDEALIST.
Most of the book is historical cherry-picking meant to convey the idea that non-racist whites have literally not existed in the United States until recently. It is impossible to come to any sort of conclusion like his without willfully ignoring any evidence to the contrary (white abolitionists, anti-racist propaganda by the American far left, etc), which he does to such an extent that you have to live in a reality bubble not to notice. Which most of his followers do, being MTW roleplaying teenagers on Tumblr.
Sakal hates whites. That's literally it. He is not a Marxist, even if he thinks he is one.

Attached: d2c99d36df8f31faeb8f1578704e081754f89cd7acb49d6b465d98cc41d5d200.jpg (22.28 KB, 324x299)

Aaron Foster
Aaron Foster

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.
You are essentially stating that as a white working class American, I should just abandon leftist politics entirely, because according to Sakal, I do not exist.

Owen Jenkins
Owen Jenkins

They're not saying that white people are geneitcally racist, they're saying the entire conception of "white" and "non-white" predicates racism.

Juan Lopez
Juan Lopez

Lol at this boomer crypto-/pol- facebook post. I bet "leftsists" here take this seriosuly.

Alexander Richardson
Alexander Richardson

it's not genes, it's magical metaphysics
How helpful.

Carter Nguyen
Carter Nguyen

White people aren't fooled into being racist. Racism is an inherent aspect of being white.
From this you can literally derive conclusion that white people are born to be racist.

Levi Rodriguez
Levi Rodriguez

I don't understand how the black proletariat in America is not also settler colonialist.

Attached: buffalo-soldiers.jpg (45.42 KB, 768x432)

Jordan Bennett
Jordan Bennett

Racism is an aspect of being white as whiteness is a racist construct to begin with. We're not talking about european people, but WHITENESS, which holds amorphous definition and always had. Unfortunately now, european has become so entwined with whiteness that many wont differentiate the two.

The argument many "anti-whites" are, or should be making is to abolish whiteness altogether. This will not be quick process and will probably need a global upheavel in relations coinciding with communist revolutions so we can do away with much of the "muck of ages".

Where did I allude to anything magical? I literally described the abstraction of whiteness. You're probably American and only have the identifier of white to ground you.

Austin Bailey
Austin Bailey

Also don't misconstrue my "abolish whiteness" into a white genoc.ide argument. You fucking people should have more sense than your average /pol/tard.

Henry Robinson
Henry Robinson

He didn't say that "whiteness" is social construct, so it is easy to make such conclusion.
And many of these people unironically believe that white people are biologically determinated. I know, they are just twitter freaks, but…

Benjamin Phillips
Benjamin Phillips

And many of these people unironically believe that white people are biologically determinated. I know, they are just twitter freaks, but…

Well in this world of seemingly immutable ideologies, what would be the difference between the two understandings of whiteness?

Like I disagree outright with the genetic disposition towards racism, but when every single child is conditioned into race, what is the difference between a genetic or environmental basis for racism?

Sebastian Gray
Sebastian Gray

I just got here, could you explain your argument in the simplest way possible?

Luis Cook
Luis Cook

Some would argue that whites are born inherently racist, this leads to genetic determinism which is something leftist should avoid. However, a white child will invariable be socially conditioned as white. As will a black child with their respective "race".

So one could say all "white" people are born with the racist construct of "whiteness" in their mind because they all are told they're white, inevitable. So the difference between a genetic foundation for this racism and an environmental one seems to be of inevitability. But both are inevitable in our current system, so what is the difference?

Hunter Nguyen
Hunter Nguyen

Your argument does not make any sense: if it is inherent, it is biological.

Wyatt Harris
Wyatt Harris

I said it's inherent to whiteness, not european people. That is the entire basis for this argument, that whiteness is illigitimate.

Zachary Taylor
Zachary Taylor

both are inevitable
No, they aren't. Do you seriously believe that "all white people are racist"?

Camden Wood
Camden Wood

So, you are saying basically that racism is a thing thanks to children recognizing they are different from other people at a certain age? i thought this was very well known, i think it was around 4 that children recognize some look very different from them and develop a type of "me and them" mentality.

Noah Gutierrez
Noah Gutierrez

No, I believe that "white" is something that sets itself apart from "non-white" and has, and is, been used a racist division. Please don't give me libertarian responses as a "leftist" - i acknowledge that individual white people aren't racist but the entire construct of whiteness IS.

Hunter Moore
Hunter Moore

Oh man, really? Yes I understand that children can pick up on "differences", it's that european children further define these differences with the construct of whiteness. They understand themselves as white as opposed to non-white, this leap SHOULDN'T exist, but it does. Kids can see differences between themselves and others WITHOUT explaining it through a social-caste prism.

Brayden Jenkins
Brayden Jenkins

"leftist"
we are leftists, too, man. Don't be so paranoic. I am just asking, because I have not understood your thesis properly.

Mason Wilson
Mason Wilson

What's hard to understand about it? That "whiteness" has been used historically to antagonize "non-whites"? Is that really controversial?

Jack Phillips
Jack Phillips

Where do you think we should go from here? what to do about this inherent "whiteness"

Chase Martin
Chase Martin

And how are people born with it if it is a social construct? You cannot have both. It is very clearly racism masquerading as Marxist analysis.

Oliver Allen
Oliver Allen

Abolish whiteness as a concept? I just stated that above, many other "SJWs" say the same thing but people, even here, strawman them into saying "kill all whites". Like really many, are you better than a /pol/tard or not?

Why can't white people just define themselves as europeans and acknolwedge others as their own respective nationality or whatever? Why the big blanket terms of "white" "black" "asian". It's so amerocentric and regressive. Doing away with "whiteness" would actually improve the knowledge of many, as they could learn about each nations domestic issues instead of just looking at them as "that poor place with black/asian/indian people", then ascribing weird nazi-esque mythology to said places because of blood characteristics or some shit.

As I said, It would coincide with revoltution, as that's the time most ripe for doing away with many old conventions. Have faith in humanity, we can move beyond a lot of shit we regard as "human nature".

Brandon Morales
Brandon Morales

The reason I said there's little difference is because white children will all be conditoned into whiteness regardless of their environment. I am NOT arguing that whites are born WITH racism at conception, that's idiotic. But that it wouldn't make a difference if they were or not if one of the first identities they adopt is that of "white". Now obviosuly this can change, but I stand by my point that this is inevitable as long as we persist under the current system.

Julian Powell
Julian Powell

And I mean regardless of their environment under the current global system.

Evan Walker
Evan Walker

They do say that "no white person can escape complicity in it," but even if I interpret that as "no one who identifies as white and believes in whiteness can escape complicity in white supremacy" then at best the initial phrasing is cryptic bullshit. On the surface level it honestly seems way more likely that the poster means that anyone assimilated involuntarily into "whiteness" from the outside is complicit in white supremacy - which is nonsense. But so is a lot of this sort of discussion when it comes to talking about "white supremacy," which is really more of a doctrine and ideology than anything.

Andrew Cruz
Andrew Cruz

So you just want to do away with blanket terms, understandable. I don't think that's happening any time sooner, and i don't really think it is that much of a problem, even thought i would indeed like to do away with generalizations.

Hudson Reyes
Hudson Reyes

What do you define as white supremacy? I know a lot of americans tend to only accept something when it's an overt, cartoonized parody of itself.

Henry Hernandez
Henry Hernandez

No, whiteness isn't just about language, don't be disingenous. I really don't understand why this board feigns ignorance when it comes to issues like this.

Oliver Sanders
Oliver Sanders

I really don't understand why this board feigns ignorance when it comes to issues like this
oh no, r/socialism attacks again

Levi Morris
Levi Morris

What's r/socialism about my post? I'm discussing obversable reality yet you all want to bury your heads. I get that you're all ex-/pol/ morons, so that's where the problem probably lies.

Alexander Adams
Alexander Adams

this board being a lot of ex-/pol/ morons (probably not anymore since the great purge) is what made it so great in the first place.

Kayden Taylor
Kayden Taylor

one of the first identities they adopt is that of "white"
lmao, really? In which countries is this realy? They adopt they "nationality" more earlier than "whiteness".

Isaac Cox
Isaac Cox

In America, which the author is criticizing foremost. Learn to follow a conversation.

Bentley Lewis
Bentley Lewis

regardless of their environment.
…how?

Michael Perez
Michael Perez

White supremacy is overt. Racism isn't necessarily overt, but white supremacy was an ideology which flavored official US policy for most of the country's history. That's been dismantled, and is largely fringe now. What's left is a couple things - economic disparity with roots leftover from that era of official supremacist policy, and the continued existence of interpersonal racism and deliberate infiltration of the government by racists.

IE I don't think "white privilege" and "white supremacy" are the same thing.

Dominic Nelson
Dominic Nelson

How is this real in America? Even there they are learned to be "americans" and not "whites".

Liam Lee
Liam Lee

Even there they are learned to be "americans" and not "whites".

Every single black child learns they are black VERY early on. Are whites just more enlightened?

Camden White
Camden White

We're not feigning ignorance, your arguments are genuinely nonsensical, and we have no reason to assume they are being made in good faith when multiple anons have already posted historical evidence that Sakal was lying out of his ass.
"White supremacy" is constantly being asserted as some fundamental force of society that does not need to be proven empirically, which is a middle finger to anyone even vaguely familiar with historical materialism. It does very much sound like it is supposed to be magical.

Attached: 8f2aee8333a3a6dcb275c64bbf68c7c0c5f9c841f0ef55c7131ce3be1d46e10d.png (100.85 KB, 1307x848)

Austin Gonzalez
Austin Gonzalez

Nearly every singly US led war to date has ran on white supremacist undertones AND overtones. Every one of them have relied on racist interpretations of foreign states than hail from white supremacist beliefs.

Lincoln Bell
Lincoln Bell

Are whites just more enlightened?
Well, whites are mostly learned to identify with their nationality not race.

Matthew Collins
Matthew Collins

Sakal can very well be wrong on certain issues, in fact him being wrong on one or two historical accounts doesn't negate his entire premise.

Ryder Miller
Ryder Miller

Nah they're not, this is wishful thinking. The vast majority of American whites learn they're white very early on as well.

Checks flag

Thought I was arguing with a liberal and wasn't surpised when I was.

Michael Peterson
Michael Peterson

Another thing, there's MANY things, even in science that can't be empirically proved yet are INFERRED and accepted as existing. As I said before, you need a parodied, cartoonized version of white supremacy, like something straight out of wolfenstein, to be convinced.

Ayden Lopez
Ayden Lopez

Well, I was born to canadian ukrainian community. And I was never learned to be "white", but "ukrainian". The fact I am white was always minor fact in my life.

Brody Howard
Brody Howard

Nice metaphysics, radlib faggot. Go back to tumblr.

Ryan Torres
Ryan Torres

Continue to believe in fairy tales, retard.

Landon Cruz
Landon Cruz

Hitler can be wrong on a few things, but this doesnt deny his whole premise which happens to resonate with my own emotional insecurities and intuitions
Based

Mason Edwards
Mason Edwards

lol are you the same person that wrote this?

Attached: yourbrainonfeminism.png (176.37 KB, 1200x897)

Jace Hall
Jace Hall

Most of the wars the US has fought were before the end of segregation afaik and a lot of those were also against countries in Europe (tho I can't say all of those were US-led).

Though yeah - you're sort of right about the Iraq and Afghanistan war, too, although the thing about those is they had an element of big tent racism and Islamophobia. I remember seeing kids from multiple ethnicities finding common ground in jokes about how the Afghan skin tone was a result of bathing in piss. There was a broader kind of pseudo-racialized patriotism which antagonized Muslims, but I'm not sure if it constituted real white supremacy or just American hegemony over weaker states. If it wasn't white supremacy, would that make it OK, and if not why not? In the absence of an official white supremacist doctrine, it's easier to determine that it was imperialism than it is to prove it was white supremacy.

Nathan Jenkins
Nathan Jenkins

bush invaded iraq because he hated darkies and not because of oil

wow great materialist analysis retard

Hudson Gutierrez
Hudson Gutierrez

on certain issues
His entire concept of American racial history is extremely biased and heavily reliant on questionably meaningful anecdotes. It is an objective fact that, regardless of some inevitable populist sentiments, the far left was always instrumental in the fight for equal rights for blacks, and the idea that non-racist whites are a myth in America is absolute bullshit; whether they are a majority is debatable, but whether they exist at all, or are even a significant faction, is indisputable.
Yes, his entire premise is wrong.
even in science that can't be empirically proved yet are INFERRED and accepted as existing.
And yet, there are still attempts to provide this evidence. It is not simply asserted as self-evident, actual reasons for it are given.

Jordan Torres
Jordan Torres

literally putting race before class, a true idpoler he is

Jaxon Gomez
Jaxon Gomez

he fell for the "war in iraq was for oil" meme
it was for the military industry :^)

Hudson Morgan
Hudson Morgan

To be fair, it can be both.

A lot of the historical exercise of white supremacy in foreign policy has been to block power for and exert power over "non-white" nations. It served economic interests as well as "racial interests" as the power and wealth taken was handed to and credited to "whites."

Lucas Bennett
Lucas Bennett

well, maybe he hated "darkies" but this fact wasn't primal in that war.

Eli Cook
Eli Cook

Wrong.

huffingtonpost.ca/2007/10/15/abizaid-of-course-its-abo_n_68568.html

but it's from the libtards at huffpost

Look up the quote it's legit.

Aaron Sullivan
Aaron Sullivan

Of course it can be both, but that does not mean it was both. It is true that racism was a factor in the War on Terror (against Arabs in this case), the idea that it has to do with some notion of ~white supremacy~ is vague and unhelpful, even if you set aside its hypocritically biased undertones.
In fact, the War on Terror is a fantastic example of how racial ideology stems from capitalism and not the other way around: the racial elements were used to justify American imperialism by othering the victims so American citizens would not sympathize with them.

Ryan Mitchell
Ryan Mitchell

So how exactly is the average US whitey cracka benefiting from the US gov supporting an illegal president brought in through election fraud in Haiti? Was the US still "white supremacist" under Obama when he bombed Libya and intervened in Syria?

Alexander Gutierrez
Alexander Gutierrez

okay so when do we get to killing whitey

Jeremiah Edwards
Jeremiah Edwards

I'm not arguing that the present day US is white supremacist. I was just pointing out that economic motives for war can be incorporated into white supremacist imperialism and the two aren't inherently separate.

Alexander Barnes
Alexander Barnes

it argues that, as a social organism, a white proletariat has never existed Amerika.

This is literally wrong though. Even when Europeans first showed up in the Americas they had their rich, their upper class, their middle class, their lower class, and their impoverished class. Hell, even for a long time after black slavery ended, black people were constantly denied jobs due to racism. Everywhere, white bosses hired white workers.
Furthermore, within these groups white bourgeois would plant seeds of hatred in the minds of white workers, diving them against each other along ethnic lines.
"Ah! A Frenchmen! Always good to have workers like you around! Not so much that lazy Irishmen over there, watch out for him. He might try to get you fired."
If this is the basic premise and it's blatantly wrong, why should anyone read this?

Andrew Reed
Andrew Reed

white supremacist imperialism
it is more like US imperialism, no? White supremacism are more like additional to it. The pigs create demonic picture of "le ebil muzlimz who want to destroy our freedomz and freezed peaches" to convince people to die for their interests.

Josiah Hall
Josiah Hall

Believing in white supremacy is akin to believing in fairy tales

Lol what a fucking joke of a board.

Jose Torres
Jose Torres

Operative word is RAN, not started. They were legitimized through racist beliefs. The actual motives for the wars, even to this day, are still obscure. You point to oil, but many right wingers state that the oil gained from the middle east wasn't enought to even cover the war itself.

David Harris
David Harris

You point to oil, but many right wingers state that the oil gained from the middle east wasn't enought to even cover the war itself.
How does it disprove his point?

Nicholas Myers
Nicholas Myers

t. 1/32 german

Robert Barnes
Robert Barnes

take you and your idealism back to tumblr, radlib

Attached: bce.jpg (78.27 KB, 586x720)

Leo Kelly
Leo Kelly

That oil wasn't the main reason the US went to war in the middle east.

Isaac Peterson
Isaac Peterson

Honestly you are no different to a sargon fanboy. Embarrasing.

Jackson Cruz
Jackson Cruz

"Many right-wingers say" isn't source, dude.

Noah Perez
Noah Perez

I responded to a sourceless claim with another. He should have set a good precedent.

Jason Foster
Jason Foster

it is more like US imperialism, no? White supremacism are more like additional to it.

Yeah, but it took a pretty central role at one point afaik.

They were legitimized through racist beliefs.

Not entirely, no. Or even mostly, I don't think. The selling point for Afghanistan was that it was some kind of revenge (IRL Afghanistan was essentially a whipping boy for SA and other countries whose higher-ups supported the hijackings), and the selling point for Iraq was a mixture of that, false claims that Saddam was planning an attack, and "spreading Democracy."

As someone else already pointed out, the primary immediate economic motive behind the Iraq war was probably not acquisition of oil but military industry - with the greater motive being to take out various dictators who our dictator friends didn't like and exercise greater control over the middle-east alongside our Arab and Israeli buddies.

Joshua Scott
Joshua Scott

<Everyone I don't like is /pol/
Fuck off to /leftpol/

Owen Wright
Owen Wright

Someone actually sourced "It's about oil" earlier tho.

"We've treated the Arab world as a collection of big gas stations," the retired general said. "Our message to them is: Guys, keep your pumps open, prices low, be nice to the Israelis and you can do whatever you want out back. Osama and 9/11 is the distilled essence that represents everything going on out back."

Luke Ross
Luke Ross

He gave some link in answer to another poster
Here>>2828476

Attached: IMG-20190303-014239-706.JPG (18.96 KB, 600x167)

Levi Bailey
Levi Bailey

"labor aristocracy* is literally just class struggle (getting a min wage, safety standards, unions) + infrastructure and education making first world laborers more productive

Jordan White
Jordan White

I don't agree with these articles but it's providing counter evidence to the "war for oil". The only reason I post these is to say that there IS evidence behind that claim. Even though I don't agree with the other assertions pushed by these sources.

vice.com/en_uk/article/5ga7w3/the-iraqi-war-wasnt-waged-for-oil-greg-palast

inthesetimes.com/article/17626/what_the_Iraq_war_teaches_us

Also the right winger argument I talked of:

frontpagemag.com/fpm/182499/war-oil-myth-arnold-ahlert

Jace Nguyen
Jace Nguyen

Oil Companies made more money with the insurgency than the USA being there.

Xavier Lee
Xavier Lee

I think the idea that George W. Bush got up one day and said "I'm going to invade Iraq to enrich oil companies" is obviously wrong, but the idea that oil had nothing to do with the war is also rather silly (even the Vice article you quote notes oil was still relevant, just not in the sense pop culture imagines it.)

Simply put, Saddam was at odds with US foreign policy in the region. He was at odds in 1990 when he tried to acquire nuclear weapons to offset Israel's arsenal (and of course when he invaded Kuwait.) He was still at odds in the early 2000s when there was growing pressure by France, Russia and China to ease sanctions on Iraq so as to secure lucrative investments in the country.

On the other hand, Saddam was supposed to be replaced with a pro-US government which would greatly liberalize the economy and deal with American corporations. Hence, even before the invasion:

The leader of the London-based Iraqi National Congress, Ahmed Chalabi, has met executives of three US oil multinationals to negotiate the carve-up of Iraq's massive oil reserves post-Saddam.

Disclosure of the meetings in October in Washington - confirmed by an INC spokesman - comes as Lord Browne, the head of BP, has warned that British oil companies have been squeezed out of post-war Iraq even before the first shot has been fired in any US-led land invasion. . . .

Although Russia, France and China have existing deals with Iraq, Chalabi has made clear that he would reward the US for removing Saddam with lucrative oil contracts, telling the Washington Post recently: 'American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil.'

(Source: theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/03/iraq.oil)

Since Saddam posed no real threat to Americans, whereas he certainly did pose a threat to America's "national interests" (i.e. the US government and imperialist bourgeoisie) in the Middle East, the only people in the US to benefit from the war were indeed those who profited off of companies doing business in "liberated" Iraq.

Logan Carter
Logan Carter

everything this guy said is true and leftypol can't handle it lmao

Easton Hernandez
Easton Hernandez

Not an argument.

Thomas Ramirez
Thomas Ramirez

You already failed there, I'm just laughing at you.

Landon Morris
Landon Morris

back to your torture chamber

/r/socialism/
/faggot/index.html
/liberalpol/index.html

Nolan Anderson
Nolan Anderson

But he was proven wrong, Sakai literally does say that there is no white proletariat

Attached: 910a421cfc9474b97d1989d6922ae555bc1a9b376f3dc6bb9f21a5be85188af0.png (102.32 KB, 720x444)

Joseph Powell
Joseph Powell

Check out these posts about Foster, you retard

Luke Sanchez
Luke Sanchez

This Sakai guy doesn't even understand what the word proletariat means, and some people here want us to take his shit seriously. Top Kek.

Attached: 1yjepe.jpg (79.23 KB, 900x900)

Isaiah Jones
Isaiah Jones

Class is material reality, existing, tangible physical conditions that are apparent
Identity is a social construct

Jace Allen
Jace Allen

Besides Foster being quoted out of context, it's worth noting (since an earlier comment referred to Foster in 1919-20 as "the leader of the CPUSA") that Foster back then was not yet a Communist. He had spent years under the influence of Anarcho-Syndicalism. He visited Moscow in 1921 for the founding of the Profintern and decided to become a Communist based on what he saw in the land of soviets. The Trade Union Educational League he founded actively worked to combat racism in the labor movement during the 20s. Towards the end of his life he even wrote a lengthy work titled "The Negro People in American History": marxists.org/archive/foster/1954/foster-history-negro-america.pdf

Elijah Allen
Elijah Allen

muh white people

this is all Murican cancer. All this insane idpol shit and mutual hatred. Like fuck America ok. You will never reconcile the internal contradictions of this hell empire that's built on genocide slavery and racism into something workable. American idpolers are actually correct in pretty much everything they complain about

David Rodriguez
David Rodriguez

Maybe he isn't an idiot, but redefining terms on purpose to turn what other people have said into incomprehensible nonsense. Maybe Settlers is the "Anarchist" Cookbook for American Marxists, if you catch my drift.

Oliver Fisher
Oliver Fisher

Wow honestly this is really damning indicment of Sakai's "scholarship." He is clearly intentionally taking things out of context to create a false impression of what is being said in the quoted text.

Honestly whenever someone quotes text the way he does in settlers (i.e. quoting 2-3 words at a time with their own interpretation filled in) it should make you extremely suspicious. In that Race Burns Class interview he also claims that one of the demands of the Flint Sit-down strike was maintaing segregation in the factory which is 100% false.

Sakai is just some pseud who had his brain rotted by idpol and dressed this up under marxist categories. This is pretty typical of American maoists who are pretty much all retards who dont understand theory.

Adam Sanchez
Adam Sanchez

Hmm yes the famous definition of the Proletariat: "the most exploted class from which capitalist derives it's super-profits." Only a settler brocialist like Marx defines the Proletariat as those who work for wages and have nothing to sell except their labour power.

Mason Perez
Mason Perez

Whatever the validity of Sakai's thesis, he's definitely sloppy on the historical front (as I noted here )

One example I remember from reading Sakai's work like ten years ago was his reference to the "Socialist Party of Eugene Debs" opposing immigrant labor from Asia. While leading figures of the party certainly did take that attitude, adding "of Eugene Debs" without any clarification implies:

1. That Debs was in the leadership of the Socialist Party (he wasn't, he purposefully stood aloof from the party machinery to the frustration of the party's left-wing and glee of the party's actual leadership);
2. That Debs supported such restrictions, which… he didn't: marxists.org/archive/debs/works/1910/immigration.htm

The SLP did not advocate for full political rights for black people, Mexicans or Chinese workers.
That isn't quite accurate, from what I recall reading of the SLP in other works. The SLP's main problem was sectarianism. It thought that struggles to outlaw lynching and obtain civil rights for Black people were "distractions" whipped up by the Black petty-bourgeoisie to distract Black workers from becoming supporters of socialism which would solve everything. This was also the general sentiment of the Socialist Party, and in the latter's case it gave "theoretical" justification for capitulating to racism (such as segregated Socialist locals in the South.)

But unlike the Socialist Party, the SLP came out against attempts to scapegoat foreign labor and was against racism in general. Victor Berger, Ernest Untermann and other leading Socialist Party members who espoused white supremacy were denounced by De Leon who on the contrary argued:

Why should a truly Socialist organization of whites not take in Negro members, but organize these in separate bodies? On account of outside prejudice? Then the body is not truly Socialist. A Socialist body that will trim its sails (to the sacrifice of principle) to 'outside prejudices' had better quit.

Blake Young
Blake Young

It thought that struggles to outlaw lynching and obtain civil rights for Black people were "distractions" whipped up by the Black petty-bourgeoisie to distract Black workers from becoming supporters of socialism which would solve everything.
Holy shit this is basically what some anons here would say if this board was made at the time, don't take this seriously i think Sakai is a dumbass but that was too funny.

Charles Anderson
Charles Anderson

Utterly fucking based and high Autism Level

Jayden Sanders
Jayden Sanders

Another random observation:
He is not a Marxist, even if he thinks he is one.
I don't know about nowadays, but when I first heard of Sakai in the 2000s, he literally wasn't a Marxist; he identified by then as an anarchist.

Hunter Bailey
Hunter Bailey

Pls, sauce

Colton Hall
Colton Hall

he literally wasn't a Marxist; he identified by then as an anarchist
What faggotry is this?

Attached: 1vg6kVd.mp4 (124.14 KB, 532x300)

Chase Russell
Chase Russell

I don't have an example of Sakai being described as an anarchist (again, last time I read about Sakai was like ten years ago), but for what it's worth Sakai's book is published by AK Press (anarchists), Sakai was interviewed in 2003 by Ernesto Aguilar (an anarchist), and another site Sakai was involved in back in the day (kersplebedeb) promotes anarchism.

Daniel Reyes
Daniel Reyes

Do you think he is really lurking this thread?

Attached: IMG-20190305-102527-861.JPG (57.51 KB, 600x326)

Matthew Edwards
Matthew Edwards

It's not very good diamat to ignore the relative populations of those various settler African tribes like the Boers vs the Bantu or avoid the material outcomes of these revolutions

Gavin Scott
Gavin Scott

How is it not marxist? Its explicitly looking at race through a materialist lens through people's relation to the means of production.

Tyler Bell
Tyler Bell

/thread

Attached: db8b3c4dc369bc77a1b39f8aaff0ad25~(1).jpg (288.29 KB, 597x719)

Chase Reed
Chase Reed

this pic proves blacks need reparations everywhere

Jason Butler
Jason Butler

If only the whites actually tried to educate and train the locals instead of using them as literal slaves.

Juan Cox
Juan Cox

See How is it "materialist" to make up your own special snowflake definition of Proletariat, then use that to arbitrarily claim there is no "white" proletariat.

If you think Proletariat = "the most exploited class from which capitalism derives its super profits" then you don't understand literally the most basic Marxist theory.