this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2023
0 points (NaN% liked)

GenZedong

4302 readers
10 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:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Hey all,

I'm currently developing a Marxist-Leninist analysis of settler colonialism, especially in light of the situation in Palestine, and am going to read Settlers: The Mythology of the White Proletariat by J. Sakai for the first time. Before I do I was just curious what other comrades think of the book and its analysis? It seems a pretty controversial text among many online Marxist groups, to whatever extent that matters, but as an Indigenous communist I feel having a clear and principled stance on the settler question is important for all serious communists. I'm not sure if I'll agree with Sakai specifically, but since I generally agree with the opinions of y'all, I was curious as to your thoughts on the book.

top 30 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Sakai's is wrong, I don't even think you all agree with what he's saying.

I think you like FUKNSLAMMER posts as much as I do.

But do you really think there is no revolutionary potential to the white working class? Maybe this makes sense to people who pigeon hole themselves into media criticism and engagement with malevolvent right wingers.

But the majority of the white working class are not part of the labor aristocracy that is into MAGA shit. I don't think you would agree with the statement that the white working class has no revolutionary potential.

Take a look at where all the JROTC kids come from

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Saying something’s a decent book doesn’t mean one agrees with everything. Most of the people in here include caveats in their support for the book. In my opinion it’s mostly factually and emotionally accurate for the time. But things have changed since then, neoliberalism is proletarianizing white people to a large extent. The text is also sadly lacking dialectics. We do not have no hope in the white working class. We know there is some hope that they will fight for the right side in wars of national liberation. However, settlers must know the revolution is not theirs. We will no doubt benefit (surviving climate change, transitioning to a healthier sustainable lifestyle, avoiding pollution, less queerphobia, workers democracy, and so on), the only caveat being it’s not their nation and they don’t have the possibility to own land (not that most of us have any land anyway). We will fight for it alongside the oppressed nations, and others who were previously neutral will join.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In my opinion it’s mostly factually and emotionally accurate for the time

With all due respect this means absolutely nothing and this is not the foundation for a serious conversation.

You should probably look at what the book has wrought before you start talking about how great its vibes are. You familiar with a Mister Gazi Kodo?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

All I’m saying is it has some decent history and it’s pessimism made sense for the time. Writing a book and getting some dogmatic and uncritical followers is different from starting a cult. That’s like blaming mao’s writing for polpot and Gonzalo.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

You would really enjoy Samir Amin's perspective on Maoism vs Sovietism I think

If I have any weird middle of the night rancor in my posts (it never feels like it at the time) just know I'm tired of hearing the same pseudoleftists like Sakai and Zizek get play over dependency theorists and other interesting shit like that

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

*Sakai's conclusion is wrong

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

Bad analysis of Settler colonialism. Not marxist. It's maoist/anarchist fedcore writing. Like other vaguely leftist or post-marxist books like Bullshit Jobs it gets latched onto by people who don't read.

I will admit the white surprise line is funny.

Anyways, archive deleted the other two but there was a good series of blog posts about how Sakai doesn't exist and is possibly just fed agitprop. https://web.archive.org/web/20220504082412/https://skeptomai.substack.com/p/j-sakai-mim-and-anarchism

I'll wait for the Samir Amin thread!

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It illuminates how and why white Euro-American settlers have always behaved as a group across history. This is crucial, because white settlers keep doing the exact same thing and producing the exact same results, believing all the while that by doing the exact same thing they'll succeed if only they believe hard enough in their own moral righteousness.

It bounces off or upsets many white folks because they're unwilling to accept the conclusions that they as a group materially benefit from imperialism, and that liberation is contingent upon the defeat of that group by people outside of it. Even if white people accept that they hold some abstract level of privilege in settler societies, most won't accept the proposition that liberation doesn't depend on their convincing their white friends to have the right opinions. Liberation requires colonized peoples gaining power by taking it away from white settlers.

Many white people see this as "defeatist", believing that if they personally aren't the subjects of revolution, then revolution must not be possible or desirable. White settlers need to be disabused of this individualistic outlook in order to have any productive role in revolutionary struggle. A "morally good" white settler isn't a proletarian in the global sense: they're a class traitor. The highest role that white settlers can take in revolutionary struggle is betraying the class interests of the while settler class.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Liberation requires colonized peoples gaining power by taking it away from white settlers.

Many white people see this as “defeatist”, believing that if they personally aren’t the subjects of revolution, then revolution must not be possible or desirable.

I'm sure plenty of white people resist the idea of a black-led revolution for something similar to this, at least unconsciously. But a much stronger critique of the Settlers philosophy is looking at stuff like this:

  • Settlers itself argues that modern racism was invented specifically to divide the emerging proletariat;
  • U.S. history is littered with examples of leftist movements that ultimately failed in part because even white leftists had reactionary, racist views; and
  • Movements that were predominantly black, or black only, have similarly failed;

And concluding that a multi-racial, anti-racist leftist coalition is necessary for victory. In such a coalition (like in any coalition), you can't expect a large group of members to contribute without some say in leadership. Settlers implies (can't remember if it outright states) that such a coalition is impossible, which is why many leftists read it as defeatist.

Gerald Horne's The Counter-Revolution of 1776 has all the good parts of Settlers without this and the latter work's other flaws.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Movements that were predominantly black, or black only, have similarly failed

Settlers makes pretty clear these were frequently rather successful, but the problem comes when they get co-opted or hijacked by white people. I’d personally agree that the best solution is a mixed coalition, it’s just important that white people’s interests are not prioritized. A problematic idea promoted by patsocs is that since most people on this land are white it will be our revolution ie. finders keepers rule of genocide. We must combat that by putting the interests of those to whom this land belongs first.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Settlers makes pretty clear these were frequently rather successful, but the problem comes when they get co-opted or hijacked by white people.

If you have to say "we were successful until...", how successful were you, really? Ultimately, every leftist project in the U.S. has at most a few significant wins, and none have achieved anything resembling the success of AES states, or even that of groups like the Zapatistas. A movement's resilience against reaction and other right deviations is a key part of its viability; I'm guessing that's part of why most of us here are MLs.

There's also the argument (I'm pulling from In Defense of Looting by Vicky Osterweil, which cites Settlers repeatedly) that co-option/hijacking of potentially greater successes broke down more along ideological lines than racial lines.

A problematic idea promoted by patsocs is that since most people on this land are white it will be our revolution ie. finders keepers rule of genocide. We must combat that by putting the interests of those to whom this land belongs first.

It might be the most just to hand the keys of the U.S. to an indigenous government, but I don't see any realistic way that happens. I don't think this means you abandon the idea entirely, but I do think it means we're going to have to choose between a less-just outcome that might be feasible or nothing.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The EZLN is an indigenous nat-lib movement, rejecting the idea that their lands can be controlled by the Mexican government. Many of the nations in the US and Canada had similarly fought with settlers and armies to maintain their lands, the reservation system is the residue of those conflicts, a suspended state of war.

If you have to say “we were successful until…”, how successful were you, really?

This can be said for any revolution, does the collapse of the USSR deny tested praxis of the Bolsheviks? The existing parties dominated by settlers have yet to provide a theory for revolution that moves beyond somehow changing the minds of the American workers, overwhelmingly labor aristocracy and reproducing with more labor from overseas than they put in. They haven't been able to change many minds; there are some 200k "Socialists" between the ML parties and the DSA, this is smaller than the number of Dine people and dwarfed by the number of Hawaiians who are building an alternative state in opposition to the American occupation. Dozens of millions of Americans straight up don't engage in electoral politics yet the Communists can't seem to make a dent there. The Fish Wars which saw collaboration with what would become the American Indian Movement and the Black Panthers got real wins in forcing the states to recognize treaty law. AIM and the Panthers attracted the most brutal state oppression, not disconnected from the general value American society assigns to black and indigenous bodies, and nothing of the sort has ever been directed at the CPUSA leadership as what befell the Panthers. The CPUSA fell into revisionism and tailed the Liberal Assimilationist line of the so-called "Black Bourgeoisie" which Frazier had proven was lying about the conditions of Black people in the US for the benefit of the Imperialist Settlers. This is not to say that amount of oppression is directly associated with revolutionary-ness, but that AIM and the BP clearly upset the settler order in a way in which Communist parties lead by settlers and white-dominated trade unions never could, and that opportunism for groups capable of upholding the settler order just doesn't exist for groups like AIM and the BP.

Indigenous protests have been at the vanguard of the environmental "movement" and indigenous lands have almost all of the biodiversity on the continent and indigenous nations are at the fore-front of conservation and environmental science. Black people are at the fore-front of politics surrounding police and have mobilized the largest protests in US history. We focus on black and indigenous people (with special attention towards Latinx and migrant workers given their super-exploitation) because these groups are most readily organized on an anti-Colonial basis. More than half of the settlers frankly live good and have little interest in unsettling the colonial order. This is why our direction needs to build up the most oppressed spectrum of workers in solidarity with those who do not fit in settler-society for one reason or another, push these community building movements into direct conflict with the settler order and stress the contradictions of settler-colonial Imperialism, like what the Palestinian Resistance is doing as we speak, and what the EFF is pushing to do in South Africa, the forms of our struggles differ by conditions but the dynamics are the same, a (class) war of national liberation for decolonization. We just won't see the level of organization from settlers in reaction required to defend themselves from us, our prediction is similar to that of what we are seeing in "Israel", the settlers will run and hide while their society collapses under its own contradictions. We will be there for the refugee settlers who wish to experience a different road.

Settlers as a book just shows actually existing history of the labor movement and choices made by settlers. Today we can see a deep lack in investigation of conditions from the "Communists" here. We will work with settlers who are sympathetic towards us but we will not rely on their assistance, with our without them we will fight.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

does the collapse of the USSR deny tested praxis of the Bolsheviks?

The USSR ultimately failed, yes. This doesn't mean their contributions were worthless, but it does mean we should be generous with our criticisms and that we shouldn't hold them up as a model to copy step-by-step. We should do the same with movements that achieved far less than the USSR, too.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yes and we can and should compare movements of some classes compared to others. The settler class has proven itself incapable of resisting opportunism. MLs in the core need to focus on the classes with revolutionary outlook. Far too many do zero study of the conditions here.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Great book. I disagree with his conclusions (my take is there is a white working class especially with neoliberal proletarianization, but it’s extremely important to consider them as part of an oppressor nation) and it’s not dialectical, but it’s definitely worth reading. I wish someone re-did it today (for more recent data and Marxist analysis. I’m impressed by the scope of the book and I learned a lot from it. You should probably read more better done and specified books along with it though, like ‘the red deal,’ ‘fresh banana leaves,’ etc.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I'd consider any of Zak Cope's work, especially divided world, divided class, as some of the best modern works addressing labor aristocracy / socialized bribery theory and neocolonialism in the modern era.

Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz also has great stuff, an indigenous peoples history, and loaded are excellent expose's of the US settler garrison.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

Totally, also Gerald Horne’s great work among others.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's a good book that's worth reading, even though I disagree with some of Sakai's conclusions, and I think he was unfair to certain multi-racial leftist groups like the IWW.

I'd also recommend An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The funny thing is that Sakai is actually very positive towards the IWW, they come off as one of the best white organisations in US history. I'll admit, though, that he does critique them in regards to their syndicalism.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Maybe I'm thinking of a different org, it's been awhile since I read it

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

Nah, he did critique them on their lack of analysis on imperialism and the state. Generally, Sakai was pretty rough on everyone in the US. He did say a lot of positive things about the IWW, though, which is very unlike every single white organisation (liberal or radical).

He absolutely tore other unions to shreds, though.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

It is fantastic as a revolutionary anti-racist, anti-imperialist history of the US Empire. I recommend it to virtually everyone on those grounds. However, his ideological basis is heavily informed by the widespread pessimism that followed the collapse of the US New Left anti-colonial struggles of internally oppressed nations (as Sakai characterizes). He embraces a brand of Third Worldism whose main practical application is to give up on revolutionary activity in the imperial core, since all workers are labor aristocrats who benefit more from imperialism than they are exploited by Capitalism.

While the degree of exploitation of workers in the imperial core is unquestionably lower, while White workers unquestionably benefit immensely from racism, we cannot accept defeat as a given.

The primary contradiction in the world is between Imperialist Nations and Colonized Nations. "Leftists" in the imperial core cannot wait for the comrades in the Global South to liberate themselves, we must be active strugglers for their liberation and our own. We must believe revolution is possible to hold any attitude other than 'lie down and rot'.

Also watching white people squirm reading is really fun. A comrade's conservative, racist sibling has possibly the only actual 'SJW Marxist Professor' in the US who is making the class read it. The comrade has been giving us updates on the growth of their sibling's growing guilt and political conciousness.

Read Settlers!

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The pessimism makes more sense given the context of the time it was written in. I've heard Gerald Horne's Counterrevolution series described by some as a more contemporary analysis that succeeds Settlers.

I think the controversial rap the book gets is due more to its more dogmatic followers. Like a lot of maoists/third worldists, they have accurate observations but draw questionable conclusions from them.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's definitely a justifiable pessimism at the time, but that doesn't make it correct or currently applicable.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

According to you, maybe. From where I sit, the decade's watchphrase has been "second, third, fourth, and fifth-through-tenth verses, same as the first"; where the first verse was the failure of Reconstruction. For 100+ years, settlers have done us the dirtiest(right behind to the damn-near-totally-extincted tribes of the Indigenous if I'm honest), and it doesn't appear to be changing its intensity, just its manifestations. So... Why isn't that pessimism applicable?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

To me, pessimism is defeatist and essentialist. It seems to state that the current principle contradiction within settler society (anti-Blackness) is insurmountable. I agree, anti-Blackness is inherent to the US settler civilization but I have to believe that that civilization can be overcome in order for revolutionary work to be possible. It is not likely in the short-term, but to me you have to believe something is possible in order to struggle for it.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because we have to believe in something if we are going to escape the climate crisis as a species. We are capable of success as the US empire crumbles and comrades wake up to decolonial thought. We all need to be involved in some kind of organizing, whether it be international solidarity or building dual power.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You're not wrong for the need for some kind of belief; but I don't apply mine to some rosy ideal that after all that's been done, after 200 years of slavery and dehumanization, and then 200 more years of even more abuse, marginalization, and oppression (but legal under the constitution and bill of rights this time!), we're somehow going to find a way to put all that behind us and skip merrily, arm-in-arm into the sunset. I apply my belief and optimism to the idea that one day, we'll have a nation of our own, carved out of the guts of Amerika, hand in hand with our indigenous comrades. I have none for those who descended from this nation's original settlers. My organizing is explicitly with the colonized.

I constantly watch the descendants fail to put their bodies on the same wheels and gears we're forced to put our bodies on, day in and day out. I see them let Black bodies get slabbed out by pigs. I see them let Black children get stripped of their mothers and fathers, their parents condemned to carceral slavery, and those children mandated to a foster pipeline that will inevitably see them in the same prisons, likely abused into antisocial behavior-sets beforehand. I see them let Black would-be professionals get stripped of their inroads to the same successes that the whites are practically hand-gifted.

You'll have to forgive me for not putting my faith in any of that; because I don't see the settlers en masse adopting decolonial thought. The sheer vast weight of Amerikan cognitive dissonance will break at least (there was a much more harsh percentage here. Being charitable, we'll say 'half') of them before they get there. I don't see a society I want to be a part of in the settlers anymore, or that I'd want my family and community a part of; even if we assume the descendants were able to unlearn everything they've been taught.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Speaking as Latino person, that hope is one of the only things that keeps me alive. And in a slightly dark but bright side-ish way, we don't need every settler to adopt decolonial thought. Just enough to have an army.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

And even then, we won’t be the only army. We will have international allies (including victims of Amerikkan imperialism on this continent and abroad).