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.
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.
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.
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?
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 :
When we point out that Amerika was the most completely bourgeois nation in world history, we mean a four-fold reality: 1. Amerika had no feudal or communal past, but was constructed from the ground up according to the nightmare vision of the bourgeoisie. 2. Amerika began its national life as an oppressor nation, as a colonizer of oppressed peoples. 3. Amerika not only has a capitalist ruling class, but all classes and strata of Euro-Amerikans are bourgeoisified, with a preoccupation for petty privileges and property ownership the normal guiding star of the white masses. 4. 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.
“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:
It would be ridiculous to see in the Hitlerite clique the German people or the German state. Historical experience proves that Hitlers come and go, but the German people, the German state, remains. The strength of the Red Army resides in the fact that it doesn’t nurture, nor could it nurture, any hatred toward other people, and therefore couldn’t even nurture hatred for the German people; it is educated in the spirit of the equality of all peoples and all races, in the spirit of respect for the rights of other peoples.
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:
America has 20 million millionaires.
50% of Retiring Americans have at least $100,000 in savings, and depend heavily on investments to supplement their income.
16% of millenials have at least $100,000 in savings.
25% of Americans make over $100,000 per year, which puts them in the class of people who can enjoy owning a boat, buy a “second property”, or pay off their debts in a few years without too much hassle. The system is working well enough for these people.
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.
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.
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.
Sakai uses Marxist terms, but how they are used are completely meaningless.
Engels said the same thing Sakai said, but about England. They were both correct.
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.
I dont think Sakai does either. But he doesn’t pretend white people are a product of ideology, but rather class society.
I’m not even white by your standards
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Our “prolétarian” is economically none other than the wage labourer, who produces and increases capital, and is thrown out on the streets, as soon as he is superfluous for the needs of aggrandisement of “Monsieur capital,” as Pecqueur calls this person.
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.
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.
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.
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.