you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 3 days ago (8 children)

Any chance the way to interpret...

  1. Amerika is so decadent that it has no proletariat of its own, but must exist parasitically on the colonial proletariat of oppressed nations and national minorities.

as more of the wealth that the USA enjoys is derived from outside the USA than from the workers inside the USA? Maybe I'm reaching, but is the majority of the stuff the capitalists of the USA want/need come from the exploitation of proletariat outside of the USA instead of the proletariat inside the USA?

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • Maybe I'm reaching, but is the majority of the stuff the capitalists of the USA want/need come from the exploitation of proletariat outside of the USA instead of the proletariat inside the USA?

    Yes, but perhaps not in a precise, literal way.

    I shared this in another reply, but I think it would be interesting to you: https://mronline.org/2026/10/08/gill-imperialism-then-and-now/

    I have not read enough Lenin to discuss intelligently, but I believe Sakai was building on Lenin's theories of imperialism.

    This is where Lenin argues that monopoly finance capital leads to the search for new fields of profitable reinvestment, which leads to the export of capital to the colonies. What might otherwise have led to socialism–workers in concentrated monopoly firms fighting for a greater share of accumulated surplus–is deferred, because that surplus is directed outward towards what Lenin calls “backward nations.” That surplus builds railroads in the colonies that drain out resources, gains access to cheaper labour, and, by imposing conditions of dependency, forces the dependent countries to offer cheap labour and cheap resources to the core. This export of capital and finance from core to periphery heightens relations of dependency, forcing those countries that receive exported capital to reorient their economies to service the core. This generates super-profits for overaccumulated capital, underdevelops the periphery, and buys off sections of the working class in the core through modest improvements in living standards.

    I think this is why I am having such a hard time understanding the push back on Sakai. He added a lot to the discourse, I don't want to discount that. But this concept of relative privilege being a major detriment to class consciousness isn't new.

    Is it that it is Sakai pointing that at america specifically, and to white americans, that makes it seem more pointed than Lenin's theories of imperialism? It's no longer a concept but an accusation? (Rhetorical, but would accept people's thoughts)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    Prison labor would be an excellent example of internal exploitation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 2 days ago

    But the majority of the USA citizens don't think of themselves as being danger of being sent to prison for a long enough period of time to be exploited that way... and while the USA might have one of the largest prison populations on the planet its not a common experience for the majority of the population.

    So I think there is an argument that it cannot be assumed that the typical un-incarcerated USA citizen might not feel much solidarity with the incarcerated population. I'm finding myself thinking this fact might be something that would strengthen Sakara's point.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 3 days ago* (3 children)

    That still feels like an incredible reach, since local economies nonetheless predominantly rely on the local proletariat, which necessitates the existence of said proletariat. You can’t exactly import every single little commodity or service.

    Plus wealth isn’t the measure of being a proletarian anyway, but ones control over the means of production. Even if every worker in the US was a millionaire, they still would not control any aspect of the system and be entirely at the mercy of the capital owning class.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 days ago*

    Of course. And Sakai's point is precisely that the "local proletariat" in the US was historically never the white settlers, it was the Indigenous, the Africans, the Chinese, then other Asians once the Chinese were massacred and expelled by the Settlers who then "annexed" their jobs and the economy they created, later the Eastern and Southern European migrants (until they too became Americanized) and so on and on.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    Not to disagree exactly, but to speak on the point of millions: If every worker in the US was a millionaire, it would almost certainly mean absurd amounts of inflation has happened and the millions don't mean much. I don't think the capitalists would allow most people to have that kind of money in its current worth because then they'd be able to put it into electoral PACs and such, and have more of a chance to get their interests represented. So keeping most relatively weak in spending power is part of how the system keeps the capitalists in power while being able to maintain the illusion of possible representation for the working class through narratives about getting out and voting (fine print: voting for the candidates the capitalists picked as options). If it came down to it, they could assert the power in other ways (e.g. by force) but it's easier if people genuinely believe in the electoral system as a means of getting seen.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 3 days ago

    I meant millionaire in the colloquial sense, as I meant more to imply every worker magically coming into obscene wealth relative to every other worker on the planet. But I understand what you mean.

    On the topic of PACs and so forth, the worker buying into the system wouldn't accomplish much if every single element of the system is already bought, paid for, and under capitalist control. The capitalist class would simply fall back on obscene amounts of regulatory capture or require additional barriers to entry to prohibit proletarian participation in the electoral system.

  • source
  • parent