Fucking made my month. I can die happy.
Yesterday, I talked (online) with someone who I told that I'm a communist, and using these exact words, they refer to me as a "liberal" later on when I said I don't support Biden:
"I didn't know there were liberals who don't support Biden."
...even though I literally told this person (who was definitely a chud) that I'm a communist.
To chuds, everything to the left of Marjorie Taylor Greene is basically liberal, SJW, woke, communist.
You got the vaxx? Fucking anarchist Stalin lover.
For sure, but it's not even just chuds ime, it's the majority of the US population that thinks the "further left" something or someone is, the more "liberal" it is. Even many liberals think this.
Similar to Angel's story, a while back I told someone (an acquaintance I met irl) that I considered myself a communist and their response to me was:
"I'm pretty liberal myself, but communism is too liberal even for me."
There were several other people present and none of them thought this was a strange thing to say.
When the Soviets sent the dog Laika into space I'm pretty sure the dog understood astrophysics better than your average liberal understands their own ideology.
You'll have identical luck asking them to find a stick with only one end.
I'm assuming that "liberal" for liberals just means "progressive". So like, you don't care that much about thy marginalised?? Wtf.
Telling chuds you hate libs too can really break their brains lol
that's when you call them a liberal, because you're correct and they're not
I talked with someone offline who used the term "liberal" to mean something like "for a better society, progress, for a better world"
Basically just an ignorant rationalization of american liberal vs conservative political understanding.
I got banned on Political Memes@lemmy.world for linking settlers. Reason: "racist"
Anti white racism. Literally the worst kind of racism that's ever existed. Think of all those poor mayos that had to hear the word cracker spoken to them.
Edit: @mathemachristian@lemm.ee I just noticed that you're not from this instance. Sorry that's sarcasm.
I accidentally revealed my power level at a pub once when a white friend's brother visiting town brought up "it's kinda lame there's no cool slurs for white people" And without skipping a beat, I listed "No purpose flour, honkey, cracker, cumskin, Yakub's mistake, spiceless satan, melanoma bait, pale comparison"
No purpose flour
lmao that's even better than "paper-impersonating bleach demon"
What the fuck? That’s tortured logic even for stormfront.world
Like, they’re at least facially progressive in the Reddit / white suburban mom sense.
I don't understand it either but the mod I messaged ignored me 🤷
What's that book that's like Settlers that's more lib-friendly and academic?
Edit: Thanks for all the responses.
The Counter-Revolution of 1776 by Gerald Horne. It's all the content of Settlers, but with a presentation that's much harder for libs to dismiss out of hand.
The Conquest of America: The Question of the Other by Tzvetan Todorov (?)
Settlers is the book that made me truly hate white people. It's good, folks.
i don't think settlers is particularly illuminating about the palestinian context or settler-colonialism in the general sense
The general answer is that Sakai was talking about the bourgeois mentality of white "leftists" and our inability to feel solidarity with the exploited non white people. The pedantic answer is that Sakai explicitly ties US settlerism to zionism.
Actually you're the liberal for not carrying a copy of Settlers with you at all times to quote from.
Wow, this is a really nice book. I've not read it, but the Wikipedia summary has convinced me to, in the nearest future.
InfraWiki
Oof. That's American NazBol Wiki, in a nutshell. You can safely assume the opposite of what's written there is actually true.
Ya calling Sakai a fed is evil fedjacketting shit. That kinda thing requires solid evidence.
Sorry, I meant the comment that J Sakai is a fed. I'll update my post.
Sure J Sakai is a pen name. But he publishes all his books for free, he seems to have cred from his activist days, and he's not pushing anything self serving. If it makes you feel any better, I read Settlers with a critical eye, and checked the footnotes for facts that seemed sus to me, and things in fact checked out.
I can't say enough, any critique of the book comes down to "it's so negative" or "it divides the left", which aren't critiques at all. Anyone can argue against the facts he's stating, yet no one does.
any critique of the book comes down to “it’s so negative” or “it divides the left”, which aren’t critiques at all
Defeatism is a valid critique, as is its cousin, an extremely negative analysis that presents no path forward.
More specifically, there's plenty to critique about the idea that poor (by U.S. standards) white people are unable to be radicalized by virtue of having a higher standard of living than people in developing nations, and by virtue of the privileges afforded to white people in the U.S. There's a passage in Settlers that uses the percentage of U.S. households that have basic appliances like refrigerators to make the labor aristocrat argument. I'm supposed to believe someone working a dead-end, low-wage job can't be radicalized because they have a fridge and a TV?
There's also a contradiction between the point that race was socially constructed to get settlers to buy in to colonization projects and the conclusion that centuries later this constructed identity of whiteness is some immovable barrier. Leftists talk about deconstructing all sorts of deeply-entrenched ideas: economic systems, gender, family, education, justice, etc. But we're supposed to look at whiteness, throw up our hands, and say "I guess communism is just impossible here"?
white people are unable to be radicalized
Book doesn't say that, but OK
There's a passage in Settlers that uses the percentage of U.S. households that have basic appliances like refrigerators to make the labor aristocrat argument. I'm supposed to believe someone working a dead-end, low-wage job can't be radicalized because they have a fridge and a TV?
Super disingenuous way for frame the following text:
All statistics show that the amount of consumption in Euro-Amerikan society is staggering. Enough so that it establishes for the mass a certain culture. In the settler tradition today’s Euro-Amerikan culture is one of home-owning, with 68.4% of all settler households in 1979 owning their own home (up 50% from 1940). These households share a cornucopia of private electric appliances: 89.8% of all U.S. homes in 1979 had color TVs (watched an average of over 6 hours per day), 55% had air-conditioning, 77.3% had washing machines and 61% had clothes dryers, 43% had dishwashers, 52% had blenders and food processors, and so on. 1 ^ Much of the world’s health products are hoarded in the U.S., with, for example, one out of every three pairs of prescription eyeglasses in the world sold here.
In terms of the “basics,” the most characteristic for Euro-Amerikans is the automobile. In 1980 there were a total of 104.6 million cars on the road. 84.1% of all U.S. households had cars, with 36.6% having two or rnoreJ^ 1 Everyone says that owning automobiles is a “necessity,” without which transportation to work (83% drive to work), shopping, and childcare cannot be done.
(All in bold is my emphasis). Comrade, it's not just TVs and fridges. Engage with the text as it stands.
Super disingenuous
Come on. I read the book a few years ago; there's nothing disingenuous about correctly remembering it uses "a cornucopia of private electric appliances," among other items, to argue that poor white Americans are so well off they (generally) won't respond to radicalization. Bringing in the actual text is good for the discussion, but there's no reason to start accusing people of intentionally misrepresenting it.
Besides, I'm mostly questioning the conclusion here, not the facts it's drawn from. Of course living standards are higher in the U.S. than, for instance, Guatemala. But most Americans will never visit Guaremala or have more than a passing thought about living standards there, so how relevant is that disparity to whether I can radicalize a poor white American? If a politician from either major party told poor Americans they can't complain because poor people in other countries have it worse, we'd clown on that, and your poor American would compare their living standards to that of their boss and think it's nonsense, too. It's a bad argument.
I'm not seeing you self crit about taking a passage about a majority of whites owning homes and cars, and simplifying it to refrigerators and TVs, nor has your comment changed to reflect the accuracy of the text I demonstrated. I'm not hear to shame a fellow Marxist, but I hope that seeing the how facts suffer from you perspective might change your opinion.
If a politician from either major party told poor Americans they can't complain because poor people in other countries have it worse,
The book doesn't come close up stating this. Hexbear is filled with white ppl complaining about the state of affairs, and no one is doing this.
I'm mostly questioning the conclusion here
Your conclusion doesn't seem accurate, as I've pointed out
I'm not going to self crit over not remembering every part of a passage verbatim. The exact details of American living standards aren't what's important, anyway (which is why I'm not getting into the lack of comparison points; for instance, what percentage of black Americans own a car/drive to work?).
My criticism is that if you're poor relative to the people around you, that's far more of a factor in your radicalization potential than how much you have relative to people you hardly think about. Especially as the American version of poor still involves serious issues like housing instability, hunger, significant barriers to healthcare, etc.
I'm not engaging with you further until you at least edit your objectively wrong assessment about refrigerators and TVs in the book.
"I refuse to engage with the substance of what you're saying until you edit a comment, no I don't care that you already acknowledged you did not remember the whole quote verbatim"
Debate pervert shit. You want to talk about self crit, start there.
Disengage (FYI the Hexbear rule saying I'm done with this convo, pls don't continue it with me)
But we're supposed to look at whiteness, throw up our hands, and say "I guess communism is just impossible here"?
Again, not in the text. We just can't pretend that settler attitudes don't exist in settler countries. Please don't attach your own ideas to the book. At least engage with the text.
I don't think the text ever literally says "you can't do communism in the U.S. because of the role of whiteness and settler colonialism," but that's the takeaway of almost everyone who reads and agrees with it. What the vast majority of people read a text to mean = what the text means.
It's not the takeaway that I have. You could source a positive opinion this. Honestly I think you're adding your own preconceptions of the book. Have you read it?
I've read it. The takeaway I'm describing is easily the most common among discussions on Settlers:
Like the idea that white people can't be proles despite their relationship to the means of production seems a bit excessive.
IMO the bulk of white Americans are a lost cause. Not to say white folks can't be revolutionary (I'm white), but I think we probably should be spending our very limited time and resources on folks outside the imperial core break from western imperialism, and focus on the oppressed within the core.
The thesis, as they state it, is that Americans can't organize a leftist front because they are Settlers.
Sakai's position that has so offended these reviewers, is that:
"While there were many exploited and poverty-stricken immigrant [colonizing] individuals, these… Euro-American workers as a whole were a privileged labor stratum. As a labor aristocracy it had, instead of a proletarian consciousness, a petit-bourgeois consciousness that was unable to rise above reformism." (Sakai, Settlers, 24-25)
Note that the last one references the text itself, where Sakai argues that "Euro-American workers [are] unable to rise above reformism." People aren't pulling this interpretation out of thin air.
Now, how would you feel if it turned out that J Sakai was actually Bernie Sanders
there being no white proletariat in the West
I don't even think that statement is true. The book was written in the 80s? Even Sakai admits that material conditions have changed since then. To hyper simplify, the book argues that a large segment of the white population has been bought off, which is petty unarguable. Historically, whites have actively tried to push him whites out of the best jobs, which Sakai footnotes like hell. I don't think anyone can debate the second part. Lastly, a lot, but not all, white left movements in the US were pretty reactionary with race. The most obvious would be Bacon's Rebellion. The left used to uphold that as some sort of cross class revolution movement. Sakai was ahead of his time, now we all know that it was about stealing indigenous land and owning more slaves.
welcome to the team, comrade
