u/parwa - originally from r/GenZhou
I know this is more of a Dengist sub than a Maoist one, but I was hoping I could find some insight here as it’s a book I’ve seen praised across many leftist tendencies. I read through some sections of it recently (mostly skipped over the historical stuff because I knew about most of it already) and while I went in with an open mind I’m really torn on it. I’m mostly just unsure of what the conclusion is. If revolution must be led by the colonized, where does that leave everyone else that wants a revolution? Are descendants of settlers supposed to just sit back and wait? Besides, just in terms of pure numbers isn’t that nearly impossible? From my understanding you need mass support to pull off a successful revolution, not just a fraction of the population. I don’t want to just write it off as an op as I’ve seen many others do, because it has some good points, yet I can’t help but think it might be. It seems like both a great way to get people of color to distrust white leftists and refuse to organize with them, and to get white leftists to refrain from organizing in fear of speaking over the colonized. I also feel like it kinda fails to take manufactured consent into account. What are your thoughts on it?

  • archive_botOPB
    1·
    5 years ago

    u/Chaindealer666999 - originally from r/GenZhou
    Read fanon. My interpretation of settlers was quit being a white chauvinist loser and go help people because the revolution is being led by the global south, the colonized and diasporas and as white people and colonizers we need to help support them. Essentially stop being shitty to people and feeling superior in your seat of privilege.

    I could also be totally wrong.

      • archive_botOPB
        0·
        5 years ago

        u/parentis_shotgun - originally from r/GenZhou
        Yes we do.

        • archive_botOPB
          0·
          5 years ago

          u/Chaindealer666999 - originally from r/GenZhou
          What did it say?

          • archive_botOPB
            0·
            5 years ago

            u/parentis_shotgun - originally from r/GenZhou
            Some bullshit about how those of us who have read it “can’t agree on its conclusions”.

  • archive_botOPB
    2·
    5 years ago

    u/parentis_shotgun - originally from r/GenZhou
    First I will say that Settlers isn’t primarily a theory book, but rather a history book with a guiding central thesis. In reading it, you’ll find that it often doesn’t define the undercurrents or do analysis of, the historical events it focuses on. Its less “analysis” and more “history” focused, but of course it does have a few central ideas and themes that Sakai feels drives US history.

    The main thesis of settlers stands, that is proven thoroughly throughout, is that the US perfected a system of socialized bribery that allowed a minority of capitalists and slave-owners to recruit white settlers from europe, to form a settler garrison in the US, and gain from the genocide and conquering of hundreds of Indian tribes, and to steal the country from coast to coast, in a phase of orgiastic primitive accumulation. The bourgeoisie then continually invented new ways for this absorption into the murican dream and whiteness to occur, and had a mass base to carry out their goals, always at the expense of the oppressed nations living within the US’s borders, the black nation, the indian nation, etc whose class interests were at odds with the settlers, and who had no path out of exploitation.

    TL:DR; want some free land? All you gotta do is kill some indians to get it. And thousands of poor white proles from europe very loudly said yes. Its an expose of the US’s settler-colonialist foundations, its history of genocide, exploitation, social bribery, and the spoils that went to those who willingly absorbed into whiteness and the murican dream (even if they had to kill indians to get some cheap land to do so.) Also has an excellent and unique analysis of FDR’s new deal as the bribery and absorption of the labor movement into settler colonialism that I haven’t seen elsewhere.

    The spats with other leftists, and detractions from the book are really incidental IMO… the “READ SETTLERS” meme is important because there’s nothing more dangerous to the pride of western leftists than telling them they’re likely descended from generations of bastards. Making sure people don’t read settlers is the best way they can defend their identity and race pride, which must be eradicated for any true internationalism to arise. This book really separates the social chauvinists from the internationalists.

    Also there’s a tendency for imperialist leftists to dismiss the book by calling Sakai racist, or claim that he was a race essentialist, which has been disproven many times: Settlers probably more than any other book first elucidated the complicated overlap between race and class; how they are inextricable, and how those US leftists who attempt to split the two are committing a mistake, and have their progenitors in the history of the US labor movement.

    Oh one other thing, the New Afrikan thing doesn’t have to do with Maoism (In a post-interview that I recorded as part of the audiobook, he talks about how he has great respect for mao, but he isn’t MZT or MLM), it has to do with the idea of “colonized nations within the borders of empire”: IE peoples with shared traditions, origins, and class interests, that should make up a nation with its own autonomy and system of governance, but is prevented from doing so. This is “the right of nations to self-determination”, but within the US’s borders, that everyone from Malcolm X to Indigenous leaders to puerto rican anti-imperialists pushed for.

    • archive_botOPB
      0·
      5 years ago

      u/ScienceSleep99 - originally from r/GenZhou
      This is one of the best summaries of Settler I’ve read in a while. Good analysis comrade.

      Also there’s a tendency for imperialist leftists to dismiss the book by calling Sakai racist, or claim that he was a race essentialist

      I have also noticed, and have been disappointed, by anti-imperialist comrades abroad who try to lump this book in with their distaste for “idpol”. They will insist, with no real material analysis of what the conditions are like for POC in a settler colonial nation like the US, that we should extend our hand out to even fascists to win them over to communism. That it doesn’t matter if they kick and spit at us, that we should never tire of telling them the gospel of Marx. So they will chide us for not showing some idealistic notion of worker solidarity. It’s as though the issue is with us BIPOC workers and not with the reactionary elements of the white working garrison class.

      The people that tend to spout this stuff are usually comrades from Europe, West or East, who do not come from settler colonial nations, who resent the attack on white workers and are probably sympathetic to the MAGA workers who they feel are just all unintelligent lemmings who’ve simply been rained on propaganda from above. It’s a very vulgar take.

    • archive_botOPB
      0·
      5 years ago

      u/parentis_shotgun - originally from r/GenZhou

      not suggest that there are moral forces at work which drive human behaviour, a claim which is actually central to the text.

      At no point does sakai use a human nature argument, this is the same shit pulled on people like malcolm x for saying white devils.

      It’s quasi-materialist and reflective of the continued purchase that Trotskyism has on the academy.

      Sakai : there are super exploited internal colonies in the US. Here’s a history of the settler colonial conquest of the US by european capitalists and their settler garrison recruits.

      White leftists: That’s quasi materialist!!!

        • archive_botOPB
          1·
          5 years ago

          u/ScienceSleep99 - originally from r/GenZhou
          Can you give an example? I mean his analysis is pretty strong and bears resemblance to Zak Cope’s Divided World, Divided Class. Expecting white workers in a settler colonial society like the United States to take up the cause of the global south and the internal colonies is like asking Israelis to link arms with Palestinians to dissolve the state of Israel.

          The book is vital to waking Americans up to the notion that it isn’t just a mere matter of propaganda rained from above, but that there are real material forces at work here that prevent total worker solidarity. What I find more undialectical is how the left in the West keeps coming up with way to excuse white workers with the idea that they’re just misinformed.

          Then the white western leftist berates workers of color who want to take a step back and reassess what we are doing and come up with better strategies. They tell us that we need to go into fascist strongholds as though we are Christian missionary martyrs to spread the good word.

          The criticisms against Settlers are always shallow.

          • archive_botOPB
            0·
            5 years ago

            u/parentis_shotgun - originally from r/GenZhou
            Thanks comrade, you hit the nail on the head. I also agree that divided world divided class (I recorded the audiobook for that one too!) is a better theory book for labor aristocracy theory overall ( and of course cope cites settlers plenty ), but settlers is excellent US history.

        • archive_botOPB
          0·
          5 years ago

          u/parentis_shotgun - originally from r/GenZhou

          but he also doesn’t draw on Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Guevara et al. and the heavy engagement with the questions of Imperialism and colonialism in their foundational texts.

          Absolutely false. Yet another person who hasn’t read the book.

          veer off the rails into academic “leftist” eclecticism.

          Settlers is pretty much the antithesis of academic leftism. Its one of the first books to turn a mirror on the empire’s loyal citizens, and look at their history through a materialist lens.

            • archive_botOPB
              0·
              5 years ago

              u/parentis_shotgun - originally from r/GenZhou

              quasimaterialist because of the conclusions that it draws. The undialectical aspect of his central thesis…

              What conclusion does it draw, and why is it “quasi-materialist”? What is undialectical about it?

              because he’s either ignorant of these texts or choosing to ignore them

              Source?

              I’m saying that at no point does he make a human nature argument, but he also doesn’t draw on Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Guevara et al. and the heavy engagement with the questions of Imperialism and colonialism in their foundational texts.

              Do you have anything to back up that statement? Its clear you haven’t read the book.

  • archive_botOPB
    2·
    5 years ago

    u/leninfan69 - originally from r/GenZhou
    Good book whose name has been sullied by association with the squalling mass of insufferable white western MZT/Shining Path people

    • archive_botOPB
      0·
      5 years ago

      u/Chaindealer666999 - originally from r/GenZhou
      I thought MZT was =/= Maoism? Like I read Mao but I’m not a Maoist.

      • archive_botOPB
        0·
        5 years ago

        u/cholantesh - originally from r/GenZhou
        That’s right. MLM includes Gonzalo thought under its umbrella and is influenced by but is not the same as MZT.

    • archive_botOPB
      1·
      5 years ago

      u/parentis_shotgun - originally from r/GenZhou
      Settlers is a US history book, and the existence of fanon doesn’t mean you shouldn’t read sakai.

    • archive_botOPB
      0·
      5 years ago

      u/parwa - originally from r/GenZhou
      I’ve heard to read Fanon, haven’t given him a shot yet.

      clean your own backyard first, then build pragmatic relations with black nationalist/communists political organs

      I suppose my question there is how do we organize a white proletariat on its own without essentially advertising a whites-only leftist group? Should we not be striving to build a rainbow coalition? Does this not only serve to divide the left further?

      • archive_botOPB
        0·
        5 years ago

        u/champ1337 - originally from r/GenZhou
        >I suppose my question there is how do we organize a white proletariat on its own without essentially advertising a whites-only leftist group?

        in every state / city / neighborhood communist political organs should reflect the average working person living there on the basis of class.

        naturally you get some locations where communist orgs are going to be 90%+ white in locations where only white people live.

        in every state / city / neighborhood Black Nationalist communist political organs should reflect the average working person living there on the basis of national liberation struggle first and foremost class.

        >Should we not be striving to build a rainbow coalition?

        you can get to that point when all communities are organized and they can form strategic and practical alliances together against a common enemy. In other words, they form a coalition. We also share goals between white and black, like the question of land.

  • archive_botOPB
    3·
    5 years ago

    u/parentis_shotgun - originally from r/GenZhou
    A warning here, if you haven’t read settlers, I will remove your comment. No investigation, no right to speak.

    I’ve even recorded it as an audiobook on youtube and torrents, so you have no excuses to not read one of the most important us history books.

  • archive_botOPB
    0·
    5 years ago

    [deleted] - originally from r/GenZhou
    Here’s another discussion found on communism101 that may answer your questions, OP.

    • archive_botOPB
      0·
      5 years ago

      u/parwa - originally from r/GenZhou

      His conclusions basically fell apart by simply remembering that the Whig party existed.

      Could you expand on this more?

    • archive_botOPB
      0·
      5 years ago

      u/parentis_shotgun - originally from r/GenZhou

      fundamental revisions to Lenin’s concept of labor aristocracy

      Which revisions are those?

      a pop-history book

      Nice try.

        • archive_botOPB
          0·
          5 years ago

          u/parentis_shotgun - originally from r/GenZhou

          In all the civilised, advanced countries the bourgeoisie rob—either by colonial oppression or by financially extracting “gain” from formally independent weak countries—they rob a population many times larger than that of “their own” country. This is the economic factor that enables the imperialist bourgeoisie to obtain super-profits, part of which is used to bribe the top section of the proletariat and convert it into a reformist, opportunist petty bourgeoisie that fears revolution.

          • Lenin

          Please read more about labor aristocracy theory, I suggest especially Zak Cope - Divided world divided class, which I’ve recorded as an audiobook on youtube.

            • archive_botOPB
              0·
              5 years ago

              u/parentis_shotgun - originally from r/GenZhou
              Not petit bourgeois, but labor aristocracy, yes.

              ILO wage rates / Global inequality, 2007

              • Inflation-adjusted Average Hourly Wage Rates for male OECD workers in 2007 = $17
              • Inflation-adjusted Average Hourly Wage Rates for male non-OECD workers in 2007 = $1.50
              • Factoral Difference between OECD and non-OECD wages = 11x

              That 1.50 number, is what marx called the social cost of reproduction of labor power. You make more than that, then you are technically labor aristocracy, and in the minority of the worlds workers.