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)