Isn't this kind of the thesis of settlers? I'm not sure exactly where I land on that at the moment, but there're some good arguments to be made for her being right.
Yeah, it's more along the lines of "whites' existence in this country is parasitic upon their subjugated captive nations, and thus their material interests align explicitly with the fascist bourgeoisie"
I have no desire to look through Settlers again, but yea, if that's the argument, I disagree with basically every part of it. Working backwards, the bourgeoisie aren't fascist--fascism is a movement literally based outside of the bourgeoisie in the enraged petite bourgeois. The interests of that movement might align with those of the bourgeoisie in some circumstances, but the bourgeoisie don't form a meaningful base of that movement--the preferences of whichever capitalists for fascism won't be realized without a mass movement involving mostly people who are not capitalists. Even the most reactionary capitalist cannot substitute themselves for that movement and base.
White people who are structurally in the working class do not have class/material interests that align with the bourgeoisie. I know this is like western maoist canon, but it's untrue to the point of being counterproductive. In the final analysis, divide and rule doesn't benefit the people who are divided for the purposes of subjugation, even if that division offers the more privileged devisees a tangibly better deal than the out group. The whole pie is still worth dramatically more, and a comparative advantage in table scraps is still just that. I'm a poc, and I have no love for racists, but the way to fight racism is by exploiting class divisions, not papering over them with bullshit analysis. With a socialist program, you could objectively offer the vast majority of white people in the US and Europe a much higher and more secure quality of life than they have under capitalism.
As for the "subjugated captive nations," again I don't buy it. Like Marxists should, I support rights to self determination for oppressed nations. But, when I look at, say, African Americans, I don't think the widespread sentiment is for national independence, nor do I think there is any real material benefit to be gained by forming that hypothetical nation, especially if it's formed on a capitalist basis. I think there is much more to be gained for the multiracial US working class in conquering capital.
The "fascist bourgeoisie" thing was more sloganeering than analysis, I'll admit.
What Settlers lays out is how divide and rule has been used. It might not benefit poorer whites in the bigger picture to fight over table scraps, but Sakai spent his life watching whites sell out their comrades and turns out they've been doing that since the 1600s. It was easier for England's petty bourgeois to colonize the natives than to challenge the bigger landholders. It was easier for certain non-landholding whites to become overseers or trade textiles than to join with slaves to challenge the plantation oligarchy. White suburbanites are not distinguishing themselves with their support for BLM or opposition to prison labor, they don't want the freeway blocked on the way to their PMC job so they can keep earning and trying to move into fancier whiter neighborhoods. This isn't a basis for solidarity.
Idk what else you can call African Americans but an internal colony. I don't mean by this that the immediate goal of the true and pure communist movement is the declaration of the People's Republic of New Afrika and the expulsion of whites from the national territory. But... uhhh... i'm high and that would be really based.
Yea. The overwhelming majority of white people in the USA are part of the working class by virtue of their relationship to the means of production. Their revolutionary potential is also a consequence of their relationship to the means of production. Yea, it gets refracted through racial/cultural/whatever lenses, but if you’re not starting your analysis from the point above you’re not doing Marxist analysis, and I’d tend to disagree with you.
Yeah, what I'm saying is that the whole book of settlers essentially argues that being white in America precludes one from being part of the proletariat, due to the relationship to capital that white colonials and settlers had. They had land ownership or even the promise of land ownership, and while they were not true capitalists, their relationship to capital was closer to the real capitalists than it was to the non-white underclasses.
Take a look at the book, it's a pretty good read. Again, I don't know if I agree with it, but it has some valid arguments.
The "white working class" has largely been dealt in by the bourgeoisie in the US. Most see themselves as potential petite bourgeois if they play by the rules and do the bidding of the capitalists.
The 50s were not that long ago. What I'm saying is that historically, going back to the 1600s this is what has happened in the US and greatly effects the reality we live in now. Yes, it is totally breaking down now and everybody is getting fucked.
The thesis of settlers is that there was basically no white proletariat in the colonies/US pre civil war. It was all middle class Brits who saw a chance to get some stolen land and slaves and basically be the feudal lord that they could no longer be in england. Successive waves of irish and german immigrants basically bought into the settler colonial idea as well and tended to fully support the exploitation and genocide of africans and natives. This is literally "The American Dream", living high off the spoils of colonialism.
I highly recommend reading settlers. Really helps you understand the (often deeply repressed) lineage of liberals and chuds.
And yeah this tweet seems to be looking to push buttons but it's 99.7% accurate lol. Like how revolutionary is the white population in South Africa for instance?
For sure, totally agree. I'm not saying that there are no revolutionary anti imperialist white people lol. Generally we have a hell of a lot to learn and unlearn to get there though. I think a book like settlers is important to read in order to really look this history in the eye and root out some very deeply imbedded shit
Because she's partly right. Obviously, saying that there's no revolutionary potential among the white left in America is an overstatment. But it's equally wrong to think it's only about class and that historical racial prejudices and long track records of exploitation have no bearing on the situation today. Intersectionality is where it's at.
Personally, I think if we ever have a revolution in America, of course it will be a movement of the working class of all races, ethnicities, genders, orientations, etc. But the real power train of that movement will be in the communities that have historically seen the most oppression - black and indigenous communities in particular. That's typically how revolutions go, the most oppressed are where the real fire is.
Isn't this kind of the thesis of settlers? I'm not sure exactly where I land on that at the moment, but there're some good arguments to be made for her being right.
The thesis of settlers, which I didn’t really agree with, is at least more thoughtful than “whites are not revolutionary. “
Yeah, it's more along the lines of "whites' existence in this country is parasitic upon their subjugated captive nations, and thus their material interests align explicitly with the fascist bourgeoisie"
I have no desire to look through Settlers again, but yea, if that's the argument, I disagree with basically every part of it. Working backwards, the bourgeoisie aren't fascist--fascism is a movement literally based outside of the bourgeoisie in the enraged petite bourgeois. The interests of that movement might align with those of the bourgeoisie in some circumstances, but the bourgeoisie don't form a meaningful base of that movement--the preferences of whichever capitalists for fascism won't be realized without a mass movement involving mostly people who are not capitalists. Even the most reactionary capitalist cannot substitute themselves for that movement and base.
White people who are structurally in the working class do not have class/material interests that align with the bourgeoisie. I know this is like western maoist canon, but it's untrue to the point of being counterproductive. In the final analysis, divide and rule doesn't benefit the people who are divided for the purposes of subjugation, even if that division offers the more privileged devisees a tangibly better deal than the out group. The whole pie is still worth dramatically more, and a comparative advantage in table scraps is still just that. I'm a poc, and I have no love for racists, but the way to fight racism is by exploiting class divisions, not papering over them with bullshit analysis. With a socialist program, you could objectively offer the vast majority of white people in the US and Europe a much higher and more secure quality of life than they have under capitalism.
As for the "subjugated captive nations," again I don't buy it. Like Marxists should, I support rights to self determination for oppressed nations. But, when I look at, say, African Americans, I don't think the widespread sentiment is for national independence, nor do I think there is any real material benefit to be gained by forming that hypothetical nation, especially if it's formed on a capitalist basis. I think there is much more to be gained for the multiracial US working class in conquering capital.
The "fascist bourgeoisie" thing was more sloganeering than analysis, I'll admit.
What Settlers lays out is how divide and rule has been used. It might not benefit poorer whites in the bigger picture to fight over table scraps, but Sakai spent his life watching whites sell out their comrades and turns out they've been doing that since the 1600s. It was easier for England's petty bourgeois to colonize the natives than to challenge the bigger landholders. It was easier for certain non-landholding whites to become overseers or trade textiles than to join with slaves to challenge the plantation oligarchy. White suburbanites are not distinguishing themselves with their support for BLM or opposition to prison labor, they don't want the freeway blocked on the way to their PMC job so they can keep earning and trying to move into fancier whiter neighborhoods. This isn't a basis for solidarity.
Idk what else you can call African Americans but an internal colony. I don't mean by this that the immediate goal of the true and pure communist movement is the declaration of the People's Republic of New Afrika and the expulsion of whites from the national territory. But... uhhh... i'm high and that would be really based.
Can you elaborate? I’m reading Settlers right now and a lot of it seems to reflect my lived reality.
In America
Yea. The overwhelming majority of white people in the USA are part of the working class by virtue of their relationship to the means of production. Their revolutionary potential is also a consequence of their relationship to the means of production. Yea, it gets refracted through racial/cultural/whatever lenses, but if you’re not starting your analysis from the point above you’re not doing Marxist analysis, and I’d tend to disagree with you.
Yeah, what I'm saying is that the whole book of settlers essentially argues that being white in America precludes one from being part of the proletariat, due to the relationship to capital that white colonials and settlers had. They had land ownership or even the promise of land ownership, and while they were not true capitalists, their relationship to capital was closer to the real capitalists than it was to the non-white underclasses.
Take a look at the book, it's a pretty good read. Again, I don't know if I agree with it, but it has some valid arguments.
The "white working class" has largely been dealt in by the bourgeoisie in the US. Most see themselves as potential petite bourgeois if they play by the rules and do the bidding of the capitalists.
deleted by creator
The 50s were not that long ago. What I'm saying is that historically, going back to the 1600s this is what has happened in the US and greatly effects the reality we live in now. Yes, it is totally breaking down now and everybody is getting fucked.
The thesis of settlers is that there was basically no white proletariat in the colonies/US pre civil war. It was all middle class Brits who saw a chance to get some stolen land and slaves and basically be the feudal lord that they could no longer be in england. Successive waves of irish and german immigrants basically bought into the settler colonial idea as well and tended to fully support the exploitation and genocide of africans and natives. This is literally "The American Dream", living high off the spoils of colonialism.
I highly recommend reading settlers. Really helps you understand the (often deeply repressed) lineage of liberals and chuds.
And yeah this tweet seems to be looking to push buttons but it's 99.7% accurate lol. Like how revolutionary is the white population in South Africa for instance?
deleted by creator
I'm just pointing out that settler colonialists tend to not be the most revolutionary minded people, to put it lightly
deleted by creator
For sure, totally agree. I'm not saying that there are no revolutionary anti imperialist white people lol. Generally we have a hell of a lot to learn and unlearn to get there though. I think a book like settlers is important to read in order to really look this history in the eye and root out some very deeply imbedded shit
Most white folks in South Africa are not in the capital class, either. The two contexts are different but not that different.
deleted by creator
Also somewhat thoughts of Du Bois.
http://www.webdubois.org/dbMNP.html
Quick important read imo.
Thanks - good read. I think Sakai expanded on this idea in settlers, but the gist is pretty similar.
Because she's partly right. Obviously, saying that there's no revolutionary potential among the white left in America is an overstatment. But it's equally wrong to think it's only about class and that historical racial prejudices and long track records of exploitation have no bearing on the situation today. Intersectionality is where it's at.
Personally, I think if we ever have a revolution in America, of course it will be a movement of the working class of all races, ethnicities, genders, orientations, etc. But the real power train of that movement will be in the communities that have historically seen the most oppression - black and indigenous communities in particular. That's typically how revolutions go, the most oppressed are where the real fire is.