Permanently Deleted
The problem with Sakai is that there’s basically no evidence that he exists outside of the book and like one other article he wrote.
Ehhh he's probably a real person. Here's a phone interview with him and here's some other stuff he wrote.
Is it sketchy as hell that he doesn't even have a Wikipedia page? Absolutely. But what's more likely:
- Feds created this persona to write a super-niche leftist book in the 80s, fleshed out his bibliography a bit despite the book not catching on even among most leftists, and then got someone to do an interview as the persona in 2003, when the feds had all sorts of other shit to worry about and when American leftism might have been at its lowest point? Or,
- Some leftist activist wrote a book in the 80s, occasionally put out a few other publications, but never really put any effort into making it as an author?
I won't say it's obvious one way or the other, but I'm leaning towards Option 2.
I mean they could have just had an intern do it. Imagine that being your project in college or something.
What the CIA used to do during the cold war was fund left wing groups that were critical of the soviet union already. Not saying this is what happened here but they don't create personas when they do this sort of thing
Settlers is just "fuck white people" but unironically. It was absolutely written by a fed.
Lots of good stuff in there:
What to make of this? It depends on who we're talking about. If a black revolutionary group took the "Settlers" view of European-Americans, and concluded from it that nothing good could ever be expected from them, I would not argue, for it is undeniably true that no black movement ever failed, no black person was ever lynched, for underestimating the good faith of white folks.
But for people attempting to intervene politically among European-Americans, this stuff is a dead-end. I will not here dispute the "Settlers" version of history: it is admitted that so far neither white workers nor any other sector of white society have separated themselves categorically from the entire infamy. Perhaps they never will. As many people have pointed out, class is not a listing of individuals by occupation but a process whereby some people come to see they have common interests in opposition to the interests of others, and that these interests include the building of a new society. In the final analysis only events will determine whether any sector of European-Americans make up a portion of the global proletariat. In the meantime, for the relatively small number of European-Americans who are dedicated to the fight for a better world, and who think that revolution is necessary, what better use of their time, intelligence, and energy is there than the effort to crack open white society? And to do that, they need a theory that will point out the fissures in it, not deny their existence.
This was written in 1996, when the millennial generation that's eaten so much shit over the last ~13 years wasn't part of the equation. Shutting so many people -- including many white people -- in that generation out of the middle class may result in a "sector of white society" distinguishing itself from the mass of deproletarianized European-Americans. It's no coincidence that people of that generation and younger are so skeptical of capitalism.
This part also struck me as insightful:
[T]he [white] people in the garrison are like most human beings in most times and places, as good as their circumstances allow them to be, willing to do the right thing if it isn't too inconvenient.
That's about how I read it. "Many will do the right thing if you make it easy for them."
I don't think this is universally applicable to white people, but it might apply to enough.
Nothing, you're a One True Leftist now, and can be really smug when talking about racism!
nothing. if you read it, buy into it, and internalize it, then just accept that you're not a member of the proletariat revolutionary class. that's its whole thesis.
edit: here it is from the actual book (that most people who tell you to read it haven't fucking read)
The actual history disproves the thesis that in settler Amerika "common working class interests" override the imperialist contradictions of oppressor and oppressed nations when it comes to tactical unity around economic issues. The same applies to the thesis that supposed ideological unity with the Euro-Amerikan "Left" also overrides imperialist contradictions, and hence, even with their admitted shortcomings, they are supposed allies of the oppressed against U.S. Imperialism.
...
The thesis we have advanced about the settleristic and non-proletarian nature of the U.S. oppressor nation is a historic truth, and thereby a key to leading the concrete struggles of today. Self-reliance and building mass institutions and movements of a specific national character, under the leadership of a communist party, are absolute necessities for the oppressed. Without these there can be no national liberation. This thesis is not "anti-white" or "racialist" or "narrow nationalism." Rather, it is the advocates of oppressor nation hegemony over all struggles of the masses that are promoting the narrowest of nationalisms - that of the U.S. settler nation.
bear in mind that the whole point of the book is applying labor aristocracy to the treatment of non-whites by whites (Euro-Amerikan) by viewing non-whites as an effectively colonized oppressed nation. so when he says "Self-reliance and building mass institutions and movements of a specific national character", he's talking explicitly about forming a breakaway ethno-nationalist movement.
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
updated my comment. i was just summarizing him but i included quotes about how he advocates abandoning whites as a part of a revolutionary group and pursuing ethnonationalist organization patterns
updated my comment. i was just summarizing him but i included quotes about how he advocates abandoning whites as a part of a revolutionary group and pursuing ethnonationalist organization patterns
Be a class traitor
Edit: this comment brought to you by someone who hasn't read the book
Be aware of dynamics of pacification by “inclusion/sharing the plunder”, that is all?
