Real question: How essential of a read is this? I downloaded it already but I still have to read more Marx and Lenin before I feel that I have basic theory down. Is this a good one to add in afterwards or in conjunction bc I can read quickly and now I’m on Blackshirts and Reds
I’m not qualified to really say until I finish it, but the general premise is that white workers in the U$ have a different relation to the means of production and the empire then non-white workers. It’s basically a history of the U$ with that thought in mind.
People who dislike it seem to latch on to the idea that he says white people aren’t revolutionary or really proletarian. I think that’s a little reductive, but I haven’t finished it yet. You should read it if you’re curious!
To anyone who has read it all: when he says white workers, is that including like, all of them? Or is he saying aspects of the white people in the imperial core like the labour aristocracy? In the US the average black family has just 10% of the wealth of the average white family. At the same time, that has to brought up a lot by the bourgeoisie, petite bourgeoisie, and labour aristocracy. I could see this moreso in the like 1950s and such but these days we have A LOT of homeless white people. I’ve read that once in situations like that white people may get more opportunity in general such as more people giving them money, food, or job opportunities. But we can’t deny that a lot of homeless white people are suffering more than the average black family right? I’m sorry if these are dumb questions as I’ve never read it, but if that is it’s main thesis I could see how some people could take issue with it. That all white people constitute like a higher class seperate from the POC proletariat. Totally different ball game with indigenous people on reservations of course, I could see that, or the people in our colonies.
Sakai basically includes all white people with the caveat that white people can be de-brainwormed, just that this hasn’t happened on a large enough scale to enact meaningful change or even make small orgs truly internationalist. Being homeless or an sjw doesn’t automagically transform you into a person who can empathize with minorities or the global south. You have to internalize the real world lessons into your theory of reality (dialectically).
For example: impoverished Kentuckians who voted to get rid of their state’s Obamacare program basically shot themselves in the foot when they were aiming at minorities (benefits for me but austerity for thee). They have the experience of being poor but their labor aristocratic ideology prevents them from experiencing solidarity with others in their situation. Rather, their “traditional values” contribute to their own atomization.
Settlers has numerous examples of similar phenomena occurring historically. And tbh, shanty towns and hobo culture were absolutely a thing in the past. I couldn’t imagine saying we’re worse off now than during the Great Depression, materially (yet). However, we are significantly more propagandized with very little rest from media. It’s absolutely possible to blast liberalism into your ears every waking moment of every day, and some do.
I’m confused? The comment I replied to was saying white people have a different relation to the means of production. How is a homeless white guy and homeless black guy in the same area in a different class? That homeless white guy is way closer to the homeless black guy than he is to a business owner or labor aristocratic no?
I understand the difference between whiteness and White people but the comment said White people.
You should also read Decolonization is Not a Metaphor by Tuck and Yang. It’s incredibly thought provoking and really challenging.
For example, your example of white homeless people in America. What do they want? Housing. But they are settlers of Turtle Island, their housing will stand on the slaughter fields of the indigenous, their food will be grown where the buffalo were hunted to extinction, their entire set of interests is opposed to the interests of the oppressed. Not because white people are evil, it’s just the way society has developed through historical forces.
Definitely read Settlers and Decolonization is Not a Metaphor and then post about on Lemmygrad and spark some more convos!
white ideology is what they mean. The ideology of white hierarchy and neoliberalism both serve to create conditions that stagnate or completely stop any widespread class consciousness in imperial core areas.
Most important book for reading if you live in Amerikkka
For me it less opened my eyes and moreso gave me an understanding as to why, with all the power and resources available to them, have white people not realized that this capitalism and racism are inextricably linked together, and overthrown it with other colonized people? They have a material interest in being citizens of the empire, where they can get better jobs for better pay, access to education and resources, and little things like not having to worry about getting shot by police, followed around in a store, they don’t have to worry about anyone’s conditions other than their own.
Whatever problem you have as a white person, at least you’re not Black 🤷🏿♂️ life would be fucking miserable for you otherwise without all that privilege huh?
I’m mostly interested in the history so far. “Proto-socialist” events like Bacon’s rebellion being wholly predicated on native genocide is a really fascinating alternate history.
Bacon’s Rebellion was an armed rebellion held by Virginia settlers that took place from 1676 to 1677. It was led by Nathaniel Bacon against Colonial Governor William Berkeley, after Berkeley refused to aid Bacon in the killing and forceful removal of Native Americans from Virginia.[2]
The brits at that time were trying to put a leash on the colonists and get them to honor treaties with native americans ( also why most tribes fought on the brits side during the revolutionary war ). US settlers were like, nah, we will go to war if you prevent us from expanding westward.
I kinda agree with the premise that the imperial core causes a social and political barrier preventing any true internal revolution or class consciousness
Hey! Everyone missed you. And yes, the ugliness must show through the cracks for everyone to see.
You know what, lemmygrads would like Paranoia Agent if you haven’t seen it. It’s kind of a good metaphor for the contradictions people feel in the imperial core. (CW: violence/death, suicide).
This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.
If you haven’t already found it, this GitHub page is an excellent collection of sources about socialism, imperialism, and other relevant topics, made by @dessalines and others.
Real question: How essential of a read is this? I downloaded it already but I still have to read more Marx and Lenin before I feel that I have basic theory down. Is this a good one to add in afterwards or in conjunction bc I can read quickly and now I’m on Blackshirts and Reds
Absolutely essential, probably the best US history book overall. I’d read it after some Lenin, and when you want to get into more Marxist history.
That’s fair, I’ll toss it in between Imperialism and maybe something else by him
What is in it that makes people so mad
I’m not qualified to really say until I finish it, but the general premise is that white workers in the U$ have a different relation to the means of production and the empire then non-white workers. It’s basically a history of the U$ with that thought in mind.
People who dislike it seem to latch on to the idea that he says white people aren’t revolutionary or really proletarian. I think that’s a little reductive, but I haven’t finished it yet. You should read it if you’re curious!
To anyone who has read it all: when he says white workers, is that including like, all of them? Or is he saying aspects of the white people in the imperial core like the labour aristocracy? In the US the average black family has just 10% of the wealth of the average white family. At the same time, that has to brought up a lot by the bourgeoisie, petite bourgeoisie, and labour aristocracy. I could see this moreso in the like 1950s and such but these days we have A LOT of homeless white people. I’ve read that once in situations like that white people may get more opportunity in general such as more people giving them money, food, or job opportunities. But we can’t deny that a lot of homeless white people are suffering more than the average black family right? I’m sorry if these are dumb questions as I’ve never read it, but if that is it’s main thesis I could see how some people could take issue with it. That all white people constitute like a higher class seperate from the POC proletariat. Totally different ball game with indigenous people on reservations of course, I could see that, or the people in our colonies.
Sakai basically includes all white people with the caveat that white people can be de-brainwormed, just that this hasn’t happened on a large enough scale to enact meaningful change or even make small orgs truly internationalist. Being homeless or an sjw doesn’t automagically transform you into a person who can empathize with minorities or the global south. You have to internalize the real world lessons into your theory of reality (dialectically).
For example: impoverished Kentuckians who voted to get rid of their state’s Obamacare program basically shot themselves in the foot when they were aiming at minorities (benefits for me but austerity for thee). They have the experience of being poor but their labor aristocratic ideology prevents them from experiencing solidarity with others in their situation. Rather, their “traditional values” contribute to their own atomization.
Settlers has numerous examples of similar phenomena occurring historically. And tbh, shanty towns and hobo culture were absolutely a thing in the past. I couldn’t imagine saying we’re worse off now than during the Great Depression, materially (yet). However, we are significantly more propagandized with very little rest from media. It’s absolutely possible to blast liberalism into your ears every waking moment of every day, and some do.
there is a difference between white people and white ideology
I’m confused? The comment I replied to was saying white people have a different relation to the means of production. How is a homeless white guy and homeless black guy in the same area in a different class? That homeless white guy is way closer to the homeless black guy than he is to a business owner or labor aristocratic no?
I understand the difference between whiteness and White people but the comment said White people.
You should also read Decolonization is Not a Metaphor by Tuck and Yang. It’s incredibly thought provoking and really challenging.
For example, your example of white homeless people in America. What do they want? Housing. But they are settlers of Turtle Island, their housing will stand on the slaughter fields of the indigenous, their food will be grown where the buffalo were hunted to extinction, their entire set of interests is opposed to the interests of the oppressed. Not because white people are evil, it’s just the way society has developed through historical forces.
Definitely read Settlers and Decolonization is Not a Metaphor and then post about on Lemmygrad and spark some more convos!
white ideology is what they mean. The ideology of white hierarchy and neoliberalism both serve to create conditions that stagnate or completely stop any widespread class consciousness in imperial core areas.
Okay that makes total sense! Thanks comrade. Gonna start reading this text this week.
Most important book for reading if you live in Amerikkka
For me it less opened my eyes and moreso gave me an understanding as to why, with all the power and resources available to them, have white people not realized that this capitalism and racism are inextricably linked together, and overthrown it with other colonized people? They have a material interest in being citizens of the empire, where they can get better jobs for better pay, access to education and resources, and little things like not having to worry about getting shot by police, followed around in a store, they don’t have to worry about anyone’s conditions other than their own.
Whatever problem you have as a white person, at least you’re not Black 🤷🏿♂️ life would be fucking miserable for you otherwise without all that privilege huh?
Hence why all the great replacement nuts fear becoming minorities themselves. They can’t imagine not being on top of the hierarchy.
What’s the most interesting anecdote so far, you think?
I’m mostly interested in the history so far. “Proto-socialist” events like Bacon’s rebellion being wholly predicated on native genocide is a really fascinating alternate history.
Oof, even wikipedia is in agreement on that one.
The brits at that time were trying to put a leash on the colonists and get them to honor treaties with native americans ( also why most tribes fought on the brits side during the revolutionary war ). US settlers were like, nah, we will go to war if you prevent us from expanding westward.
I kinda agree with the premise that the imperial core causes a social and political barrier preventing any true internal revolution or class consciousness
we must chip away at it
Hey! Everyone missed you. And yes, the ugliness must show through the cracks for everyone to see.
You know what, lemmygrads would like Paranoia Agent if you haven’t seen it. It’s kind of a good metaphor for the contradictions people feel in the imperial core. (CW: violence/death, suicide).
I will try it, I’ve been looking for something to watch