this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2022
1 points (100.0% liked)
GenZedong
4289 readers
90 users here now
This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.
This community is for posts about Marxism and geopolitics (including shitposts to some extent). Serious posts can be posted here or in /c/GenZhou. Reactionary or ultra-leftist cringe posts belong in /c/shitreactionariessay or /c/shitultrassay respectively.
We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space. See this thread for more information. If you believe the server may be down, check the status on status.elara.ws.
Rules:
- No bigotry, anti-communism, pro-imperialism or ultra-leftism (anti-AES)
- We support indigenous liberation as the primary contradiction in settler colonies like the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Israel
- If you post an archived link (excluding archive.org), include the URL of the original article as well
- Unless it's an obvious shitpost, include relevant sources
- For articles behind paywalls, try to include the text in the post
- Mark all posts containing NSFW images as NSFW (including things like Nazi imagery)
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Settlers is an absolutely vital US history book. This is a repost of a comment I made about it a while back. I'll also say, be extremely wary of "debunks" to this book: settlers is an extremely long book, so there are very few of us who have read it, so those that haven't tend to rely on essays that miss all the fundamental points and history laid out in the book.
First I will say that Settlers isn't primarily a theory book, but rather a history book with a guiding central thesis. In reading it, you'll find that it often doesn't define the undercurrents or do analysis of, the historical events it focuses on. Its less "analysis" and more "history" focused, but of course it does have a few central ideas and themes that Sakai feels drives US history.
The main thesis of settlers stands, that is proven thoroughly throughout, is that the US perfected a system of socialized bribery that allowed a minority of capitalists and slave-owners to recruit white settlers from europe, to form a settler garrison in the US, and gain from the genocide and conquering of hundreds of Indian tribes, and to steal the country from coast to coast, in a phase of orgiastic primitive accumulation. The bourgeoisie then continually invented new ways for this absorption into the murican dream and whiteness to occur, and had a mass base to carry out their goals, always at the expense of the oppressed nations living within the US's borders, the black nation, the indian nation, etc whose class interests were at odds with the settlers, and who had no path out of exploitation.
TL:DR; want some free land? All you gotta do is kill some indians to get it. And thousands of poor white proles from europe very loudly said yes.
Its an expose of the US's settler-colonialist foundations, its history of genocide, exploitation, social bribery, and the spoils that went to those who willingly absorbed into whiteness and the murican dream (even if they had to kill indians to get some cheap land to do so.) Also has an excellent and unique analysis of FDR's new deal as the bribery and absorption of the labor movement into settler colonialism that I haven't seen elsewhere.
The spats with other leftists, and detractions from the book are really incidental IMO... the "READ SETTLERS" meme is important because there's nothing more dangerous to the pride of western leftists than telling them they're likely descended from generations of bastards. Making sure people don't read settlers is the best way they can defend their identity and race pride, which must be eradicated for any true internationalism to arise. This book really separates the social chauvinists from the internationalists.
Also there's a tendency for imperialist leftists to dismiss the book by calling Sakai racist, or claim that he was a race essentialist, which has been disproven many times: Settlers probably more than any other book first elucidated the complicated overlap between race and class; how they are inextricable, and how those US leftists who attempt to split the two are committing a mistake, and have their progenitors in the history of the US labor movement.
Oh one other thing, the New Afrikan thing doesn't have to do with Maoism (In a post-interview that I recorded as part of the audiobook, he talks about how he has great respect for mao, but he isn't MZT or MLM), it has to do with the idea of "colonized nations within the borders of empire": IE peoples with shared traditions, origins, and class interests, that should make up a nation with its own autonomy and system of governance, but is prevented from doing so. This is "the right of nations to self-determination", but within the US's borders, that everyone from Malcolm X to Indigenous leaders to puerto rican anti-imperialists pushed for.
Wonderful summary of the book, comrade. While I disagree with some excerpts of the book, such as when Sakai affirms there is no "white proletariat" in the US (sometimes he even affirms there is no proletariat at all), I still think that everyone should read it. But not only read it, but read criticisms of it, analyze them as well, and through this dialectic movement form their own perspective on it. I believe it's still a valuable book which offers many insights into the white supremacist nature of the US and its historical causes.
This is what detractors say but it is never substantiated as a criticism. By what natural law of capital is it so ubiquitous that a revolutionary proletarian class must exist among colonizers? This criticism usually amounts to disappointment or frustration that the processes of class formation in Amerika differ from that of Western Europe. Settlers is not a description of the moral quality of white people but rather the material process of class formation in settler colonial Amerika and its consequences for labor organizations and for colonized peoples. I read the book and I have yet to see any successful criticism of the book among its mkst common criticisms, I have, frankly, only seen strawmen and white fragility.
Where did this "revolutionary" come from? You are putting words in my comments where it does not exist. Interesting how you complain about strawmen and begin your comment with one. I am not a "detractor" of J. Sakai's work, I mentioned several times that there's value in it, but a critical reading is definitely essential. So that I can "substantiate" my criticism, here is an excerpt from the very first chapter :
"most completely bourgeois nation", "bourgeoisified", "Amerika (...) has no proletariat of its own". Sakai uses Marxist terms, but how they are used are completely meaningless. What "bourgeoisify" means? How come Amerika has no proletariat of its own? The country is still an industrial powerhouse, it's a producer of commodities as well, therefore it has proletarians producing these commodities. Even slaves to that point, which consists of 60% of the prison population which are obliged to work for several corporations of different economic sectors.
I am making a reasonable critique of this work from a Marxist standpoint. If you can only see "strawmen" and "white fragility", I'm sorry, you are possibly projecting a white fragility or white guilt onto others, because I'm not even white by your standards. For all intents and purposes, I am disgusted by white people in United States. I've seen the shit white women (karens) in this awful country do, it's frankly terrifying. But I am a Marxist, I understand that these people were not at all born this way, they are conditioned by their environment, by white supremacist bourgeois ideology, and that treating them and the ideology that affects them as one and the same is the purest sample of race essentialism.
Under the Nazi Germany, the most vile racist chauvinism was promoted as state ideology, and genocidal rapist campaigns of terror were promoted throughout the whole Europe. Yet, Stalin in 1942, in the midst of an war, said:
Nowhere a Marxist would declare a whole people, and even, the majority of the Statesian people as irredeemable to the point they would claim it is useless to work with them. The white people of the US are captured by bourgeois white supremacist ideology, and instead of self-defeating themselves, all revolutionaries should devise strategies and enhance their agitation and propaganda to fight against this ideology, an effort led by the oppressed ethnic groups. Fighting white supremacy does not mean fighting Statesian white people.
I agree in that I think bourgeoisification is a bad term to use when Labor Aristocracy is a perfectly good term for the same idea. But I think some context is needed:
Obviously there is a huge rift between these people and the 60% with less than $1000 in savings. I'm not going to deny that they're exploited, as I've said before. But they're essentially fighting the 30-40% with savings and financial planning. The top half of the country lives vastly different lives from the bottom half. It doesn't know what a food bank is and thinks most people using food stamps are exploiting taxpayers. They think they should pay for their own healthcare so they don't have to share it with the dirty poors. They think home ownership is just a matter of personal effort. And they fight tooth and nail to pay less taxes than the bottom 50%. They think they owe nothing to society and society owes nothing to them, and the richest among them propagandize the bottom 50% into believing all the same things.
I think Engels was correct in saying that speculation and investment banking need to completely collapse before most Americans are willing to look at the situation honestly. Until then, PoC seem to be the most likely to understand how bad the situation is, and I've seen them dunk on white libs. Downwardly mobile white people come at a close second place, but it seems like only a small percentage are capable of self-crit. Most seem to prefer the air of superiority their party ideology gives them.
Unfortunately it has gotten to the point where we can't think this way any more. The USA is an existential threat to humanity at this point. There's no time left to do this little "we can change their minds" dance. American socialists should grab whatever allies they can and start planning on a specific region to begin taking and holding ground through revolutionary praxis. Once a real vanguard emerges and things start to get organized and snowball into a larger movement then you can worry about "changing hearts and minds". Once a revolutionary socialist group has the power to do so they can begin a coordinated campaign of ideological resistance to bourgeois programming up to and including reeducation and vocational training for people who refuse to get with the program and pose a threat to themselves or others.
Revolutionary class consciousness is a fundamental aspect of the proletariat that not every working class has. If a working class has no consciousness and no revolutionary potential, then it is not a proper proletariat even if it performs wage labor.
Not trying to put word in your mouth. Im trying to communicate how we differ in our analysis of class, especially in the US.
Your criticisms dont answer my question on why it is ubiquitous that such a class must exist among colonizers. IMO it is a fundamental question to understanding class in Amerika.
As I understand, the proletariat is not only a wage-slave but also a producer of commodities. In a footnote on the first volume of Capital, Marx writes:
I cannot confirm that every time Marx refers to the proletariat he means this. But this definition is extremely important. In the whole book of Capital, Marx is analyzing how value is produced, and how it is extracted by the bourgeoisie to turn into profit.
Under this definition of proletariat, the revolutionary potential of this class becomes more clear: they are the producers of everything that is consumed, even by the bourgeoisie, therefore, they are in a better position to bargain, protest and organize a general strike which is the ultimate weapon of the working class.
The US has proletarians, irrespective of the color of the skin. But the bulk of everything that is consumed by US citizens is actually produced by the proletarians in the Global South.
Engels said the same thing Sakai said, but about England. They were both correct.
I dont think Sakai does either. But he doesn't pretend white people are a product of ideology, but rather class society.
Superfluous. I stand by what I said that oftentimes criticism of the book amounts to white fragility. Regardless, it was not directed towards you. (Also white fragility isnt limited to people with white skin because whiteness isnt an ethnicity, its a colonial hierarchy and a relation to production in a colonial context. I would say compradores have qualities of whiteness by US standards even when race manifests differently in the global south for example but maybe im just running my mouth too much on this.)
If acknowledging history is now pure race essentialism then I think socialist construction is a doomed project. If I told you socialism is not in the interest of the bourgeoisie you wouldn't be so resistant. But when someone says socialism isnt in the interest of whiteness/white people who by definition receive colonial spoils, somehow it is not apparent that these statements are basically the same but in a more explicitly colonial context. Its class analysis, not essentialism.
I think this needs to be said when Settlers is discussed. That people go against their interests frequently. Class traitors are arguably inherent to any revolutionary process. Its just taking the book at face value and with dogmatic notions of class formation to say the book automatically and completely disqualifies white people from a revolutionary process, if not outright obtuse.
The value of the book is to warn colonized people of the pitfalls of organizing among colonizers. Ive never taken this book to disqualify anyone, but rather is a sober look at the material conditions present and the problems that arise from them when engaging in traditional marxist praxis. It can help us refine rhetoric and praxis to build better organizations and to avoid mistakes that have been made throughout history.