GenZedong

Sakai does define the nation by emphasizing that the Afrikan nation, and others, have their own internal workerings for sustaining themselves. Enslaved people had their own internal economy as did the Indigenous nations. This is seperate from the greater settler empire although it is exploited not unlike how peasant economies provide food for metropolitan centers in the periphery.

Taking that into consideration, what is the common territory and economic life of this “Afrikan nation” that is distinguished from the “Euro-Amerikan nation” so that the “Afrikan nation” can achieve its liberation? The more you question it, the less sense it makes.

I like this question because of its difficulty, but the difficulty is moving forward with the national question instead of accepting that there is a Black nation. If you kidnapped millions of people with completely different languages and lifeways, and then tried to systematically eradicate their languages and cultural bonds to ensure servitude, would you have added to your nation? Or would you just have slaves? I dont think it actually works to use the national question to justify settler colonial nationhood here when the entire "national" situation was currated out of violence instead of a sovereign melding of national bonds. Rather the sovereign formation of nationhood within the Black nation as well as many Tribal confederations was forged through surviving colonialism, not through integration and assimilation.

If we consider the Marxist understanding of the nation, we can easily notice how the “Afrikan” and “Euro-Amerikan” nations have in common a language, territory, economic life and culture, perhaps with a few particularities on the culture one. But both constitute a single nation according to Marxist theory of the nation, especially because of the shared economic life.

II feel like what you are saying is that because someone's language was stolen or murdered, that said group of people must now admit they are part of the colonizer nation. Also, "shared economic life" is another white washing of the reality, because slaves and Indigenous people were not even seen as humans for a chunk of history, were legally barred from entire portions of the economy, and have only ever been included among the settler nation for completely cyinical, racist political reasons. I dont think you are properly applying Stalin's ideas of nation.

It’s very clear throughout the whole book how Sakai treats white workers as inherently racist, as if the racist elements weren’t conditioned by racist ideology.

Racism and bigotry are not merely ideological. They are expressions of class society and shared economic interests. White people are by definition inherently racist. This is only a problem if you moralize racism as a personal failing and assume it is merely and only conditioning instead of a material expression of colonial hierarchies and economic interests within class society. Sure conditioning exists too, but it is preceded by colonial, capitalist social relations. White people do not cease to be racist upon realizing that racism is mean or upon breaking conditioning, they cease to be racist when the racist system is dismantled and those social relations are impossible.

Then in the last paragraph, Sakai advocates that considering all of that, white people cannot constitute a proletarian class. This is outright anti-Marxism, because be it a black person or a white-supremacist racist piece of shit, it doesn’t change the relations of production.

Its not anti marxism and the relations kf production are different. Allow me to explain by pointing to China for a moment. I will use ideas from Roland Boer's book Socialism With Chinese Characteristics: A Guid For Westerners, especially chapter 4.

Western marxists oftentimes get China wrong because they assume a universal mode of class formation; very basically, that the bourgeoisie developed in the cracks between fiefdoms, won many revolutions against aristocracy, and of course a proletariat, a class that has revolutionary potential due to the internal condradictions of capitalism developed alongside.

But the Chinese revolution took place before a bourgeoisie class ever established a dictatorship and did not develop in a way like Europe. In fact, the "bourgeoisie" in China was developed under the guidance of the CPC, owing much of its place in the world to proletarian revolution and proceeding politics. This is why China has no proper class of bourgeoisie, despite a casual observer raising alarm over an increasing number of wealthy entrepreneurs and despite such developments being reminiscent of class formation in western Europe. The bourgeoisie in China lacks the class consciousness of a traditional bourgeoisie, which makes it qualitatively different thatn that of the western, colonial bourgeoisie.

In Amerika perhaps we can say the same thing about the settler proletariat as we can about the Chinese bourgeoisie. It lacks a traditional class consciousness, which oight to be an inherently revolutionary class consciousness. This is because of its social relations to production, wealth, land ect etc. It is a colonial relation, an exploitative relation that also fundamentally alters its relation with the settler bourgeoisie. Just as the Chinese "bourgeoisie" is dependent upon the liberation of the means of production and a project for socialist construction led by the CPC, the settler "proletariat" is dependent upon colonial spoils and a colonial project led by the bourgeoisie and their political institutions. This fundamentally alters class antagonisms and relations to production.

How can you say a class of working settlers that are routinely given incredibly cheap stolen land and relatively high wages has the same relationship to production as a slave? Even white slaves, indentured servants, typically recieved land within a few years after their servitude, as wages were higher because of slavery and genocide than back in Europe, and they were granted the right to, ya know, not be enslaved for their entire lives and the right to own property. That is a massive difference in relations to production.

The Rainbow Coalition was a successful example of racial solidarity among different ethnic groups, and avoided the co-optation of leadership by poor whites, and was only ended by the assassination of Hampton. It was so successful and threatening to white supremacist ideology that the FBI planned and executed the assassination of Hampton in the matter of 8 months after the Rainbow Coalition was founded

I dont disagree that the rainbow coalition was a productive thing. I couldn't tell you exactly why it isnt mentioned. There certainly is literature that sheds light on how wealthy whites perceive poor whites that makes points that are relevant to the discussion of colonial class society and could have been included in the book (although this relationship is still qualitatively different that the relationship between colonizer and colonized). But maybe the book isnt really about that as much as it is about how the history of settler-colonialism has benifited white people, even workers, at the expense of and the exploitation of the colonized.