is the book 100% supposed to be read that way? i think the subtitle is purposefully "the mythology of the white proletariat" with emphasis on the mythology. that there's a level of unlearning that the white proletariat must work through before achieving any revolutionary character. they must first account for the absolutely bloody foundation they stand on before moving on. otherwise, their own mythology will keep mystifying their struggle
edit: for example, he critiques early union activity in america and points out that they needed to account for imperialism for long term success. if he was just being a wrecker, his conclusion in that part would be something like "lol, white people bones are bad for organizing"
“Self-reliance and building mass institutions and movements of a specific national character”, he’s talking explicitly about forming a breakaway ethno-nationalist movement.
ooof, big stretch.
the quotes above only support the point i made. that the white proletariat often forgets to account for imperialism. this is pretty much fact. i mean, did you not see the way warren, someone who some on the left supported, advocated for a green imperialism?
what he claims kind of aligns with what fanon talks about. that a de-colonial liberation struggle needs a national character to unite oppressed peoples. i agree with this point, but i'm happy to be proven wrong if others have examples of revolutions in the so called developing nations that had no national character
is the book 100% supposed to be read that way? i think the subtitle is purposefully "the mythology of the white proletariat" with emphasis on the mythology. that there's a level of unlearning that the white proletariat must work through before achieving any revolutionary character. they must first account for the absolutely bloody foundation they stand on before moving on. otherwise, their own mythology will keep mystifying their struggle
edit: for example, he critiques early union activity in america and points out that they needed to account for imperialism for long term success. if he was just being a wrecker, his conclusion in that part would be something like "lol, white people bones are bad for organizing"
updated my comment with explicit quotes
ooof, big stretch.
the quotes above only support the point i made. that the white proletariat often forgets to account for imperialism. this is pretty much fact. i mean, did you not see the way warren, someone who some on the left supported, advocated for a green imperialism?
what he claims kind of aligns with what fanon talks about. that a de-colonial liberation struggle needs a national character to unite oppressed peoples. i agree with this point, but i'm happy to be proven wrong if others have examples of revolutions in the so called developing nations that had no national character
deleted by creator
dudes, in fact, don't rock