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, 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.