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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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!
One of my top ten books, it changed my life and my whole worldview. I’m glad that this thread isn’t devolving into all the other internet discussions on Sakai, which is to criticism him for things he never said. Even the disagreements I’m seeing here seem fair.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
