|
not super surprised people were misreading Sakai here
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 05:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 19:50 |
|
|
404 too much prolix found
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 05:56
|
|
|
how can you claim to be decolonizing a place by importing migrant labor? that's like saying haiti was decolonized by the introduction of slaves, as it made the island minority-white again. also, mexican migrants aren't the model minority anymore (if they ever were), and in the age of trump it is clear that conservatives will not let themselves quietly be supplanted by non-whites, and liberal elites will quietly back them.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 06:16
|
|
|
Metal Cat posted:That's the interview I linked in my original post. I was hoping there was a sort of roadmap-ish analysis of how he sees that happening. Any other text you can recommend? oh i didn't check the youtube in your op and assumed it was a different interview. dunno about that. settlers isn't really a prescriptive text, so if such a roadmap exists it probably isn't from sakai directly.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 06:27
|
|
|
R. Guyovich posted:also people pushing the thesis sakai sees whiteness as this immutable, unchanging force throughout history clearly haven't read his work Nobody here accused Sakai of claiming modern concepts of race are eternal, so this is beside the point.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 06:52
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Nobody here accused Sakai of claiming modern concepts of race are eternal, so this is beside the point. wasn't that implicit in what you said earlier
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 06:56
|
|
|
those god drat slick anarchists, always aligning with reform politics!!
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 06:57
|
|
|
Yandat posted:wasn't that implicit in what you said earlier No? Sakai does believe in a transhistorical settlerism that defines all present and historical (Euro-)American politics, but that's not strictly dependent on the conception of race that arose in the 19th century. After all, how would it go back as far as Jamestown if it was?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 07:04
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:No? Sakai does believe in a transhistorical settlerism that defines all present and historical (Euro-)American politics, but that's not strictly dependent on the conception of race that arose in the 19th century. After all, how would it go back as far as Jamestown if it was? having a historical thesis which defines an era and framing your analysis with that thesis in mind isn't the same thing as transposing an unchanging quasi-mystical force on the flow of events
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 07:15
|
|
|
He consistently overplays the utility of his thesis over that of simple greed. None of the quotes you've made contradict my characterization of sakai, and the fact that he sees ameeica only being desettlerised through physical replacement supports the initial accusation - that he sees solidarity as impossible.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 07:38
|
|
|
R. Guyovich posted:having a historical thesis which defines an era and framing your analysis with that thesis in mind isn't the same thing as transposing an unchanging quasi-mystical force on the flow of events He doesn't think settlerism defines an era, he think it defines a nation, the US, through all eras, past, present and future. And he sees the Euro-American nation in indelible conflict with internal colonized nations, which can only be overcome by the division of the US into ethnostates. The problem isn't that this is 'quasi-mystical'; it's just bad theory, bad politics. Racial nationalism is not a viable left outlook in America in the 21st century.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 07:38
|
|
|
Also the fact thay sakai says very little with so many words, and is actuality really coy about his own beliefs, should be a bit of a give away that he's hiding what he thinks behind verbosity.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 07:55
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Also the fact thay sakai says very little with so many words, and is actuality really coy about his own beliefs, should be a bit of a give away that he's hiding what he thinks behind verbosity. "hiding what he thinks behind verbosity" you say.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 08:30
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Also the fact thay sakai says very little with so many words, and is actuality really coy about his own beliefs, should be a bit of a give away that he's hiding what he thinks behind verbosity. 
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 08:38
|
|
|
my posts are dense, not long. i like clear & concise work, but when you have to cover a lot 
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 08:39
|
|
|
rudatron posted:He consistently overplays the utility of his thesis over that of simple greed. None of the quotes you've made contradict my characterization of sakai, and the fact that he sees ameeica only being desettlerised through physical replacement supports the initial accusation - that he sees solidarity as impossible. Yes, well spotted rudatron, greed still exists. Sakai isn't even talking about replacement in that interview, he's talking about how the presence of an indispensable laboring class like the Mexicans radically changes local politics to legitimize their presence regardless of their legal status. Do you really think solidarity is possible with the middle class History Channel Dads who voted for Trump? Get a clue.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 09:05
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:He doesn't think settlerism defines an era, he think it defines a nation, the US, through all eras, past, present and future. And he sees the Euro-American nation in indelible conflict with internal colonized nations, which can only be overcome by the division of the US into ethnostates. The problem isn't that this is 'quasi-mystical'; it's just bad theory, bad politics. Racial nationalism is not a viable left outlook in America in the 21st century. the "era" i was referring to was the entire post-settler era of us history. and again, settlers isn't prescriptive. projecting your imagined solutions onto sakai's work doesn't make them his position. here's the closest thing to a "plan of action" in settlers: quote:Self-reliance and building mass institutions and movements of a specific national character, under the leadership of a communist party, are absolute necessities for the oppressed. Without these there can be no national liberation. This thesis is not "anti-white" or "racialist" or "narrow nationalism." Rather, it is the advocates of oppressor nation hegemony over all struggles of the masses that are promoting the narrowest of nationalisms - that of the U.S. settler nation. When we say that the principal characteristic of imperialism is parasitism, we are also saying that the principal characteristic of settler trade-unionism is parasitism, and that the principal characteristic of settler radicalism is parasitism.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 09:11
|
|
|
the migrant laboring class isn't indispensable, it's preferred by capital because of lower wages. Sakai says americans 'dont work' (read: dont work at those wage levels) as a result of a 'compact with capital', but those two things contradict each other. It's the class antagonism between american capital + labor that encouraged capital to use lower-wage migrant labor. That's not a 'compact', that's conflict. Similarly, american wages were the result of successful labor struggles, they were not 'given away' for free. The instant they could have been undermined, they were, which is what we're seeing. so sakai's thesis is basically bullshit from the start. if there's a convergence of interests, its between migrant labor wanting higher wages, and american capital, happy to import that labor to undercut the wages they have to pay. It is not the 'presence' of mexicans that allowed de-facto legitimation, but the utility to capital. where migrant labor not useful to capital, it wouldn't exist. But even then, I wouldn't call it that a 'compact', because class antagonism always exists. The possibility of solidarity always exists. Because denying the possibility of solidarity, you end up embracing reactionary thought by default. rudatron fucked around with this message at 09:23 on May 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 09:20
|
|
|
a hallmark of depression is negative self-talk - things that are simple seem much harder than they actually are, possibilities are closed off, opportunities are never taken. Your way of thinking, politically, is depressive, not because it's pessimistic, but because it has those same hallmarks of pathological depression. If you take a broader view, a system level view, that doesn't essentialize people, things aren't so simple. tl;dr get over ur sadbrains
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 09:23
|
|
|
rudatron posted:a hallmark of depression is negative self-talk - things that are simple seem much harder than they actually are, possibilities are closed off, opportunities are never taken. this is gobbledygook
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 09:25
|
|
|
If you have depression, things that are simple seem more complex. You're like that because of your thinking, which is the same as depression. If you weren't depressed (Sad Brains Forum Meme™), you'd be able to see things weren't simple, they're actually complex, the opposite of what I just said. Stop being a sadbrains depresso. Im' smart.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 09:29
|
|
|
rudatron posted:the migrant laboring class isn't indispensable, it's preferred by capital because of lower wages. Sakai says americans 'dont work' (read: dont work at those wage levels) as a result of a 'compact with capital', but those two things contradict each other. what the gently caress is this poo poo
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 09:32
|
|
|
R. Guyovich posted:If you have depression, things that are simple seem more complex. You're like that because of your thinking, which is the same as depression. If you weren't depressed (Sad Brains Forum Meme™), you'd be able to see things weren't simple, they're actually complex, the opposite of what I just said. Stop being a sadbrains depresso. Im' smart. I'm saying it's not 'hard', because the politics behind it is more 'complex' than he thinks. The task is 'simple', and the theory is 'complex'. you're observing the use of a homophone.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 09:40
|
|
|
Absolutely zero revolutions in history were realized through a solidarity with the ruling class and its attendants. There's no basis for solidarity when someone's privileges and material security is already guaranteed by the system. You might as well be trying to argue that solidarity is possible with Bari Weiss, or John McAfee. Solidarity is only possible among the laboring classes, not with anybody. The migrant laboring class is indispensible because they're the only ones willing to perform necessary labor at an affordable wage rate. White guys aren't willing to work grueling hours in the sun for even minimum wage, just so they can pick somebody else's crops or maintain & enhance the value of somebody else's house. Without that labor the wealth of the pampered middle class will decline, because they either can't or won't perform that necessary work themselves. Even despite the reactionary backlash against migrants, they will still bend over backwards to make sure that there are exceptions for the people who work for them. And by the way, the fact you're ignoring this reactionary backlash against migrants while still insisting there's a possibility of solidarity with those reactionaries is really bizarre.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 09:42
|
|
|
the american middle class doesn't exist, and i'm talking about workers. the fact that you're viewing white workers as 'attendants' is pure ideology. suburban republicans are either petit or full on bourgeoisie, as are the most virulent reactionaries. I'm not proposing an alliance there.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 09:48
|
|
|
rudatron posted:the american middle class doesn't exist, and i'm talking about workers. the fact that you're viewing white workers as 'attendants' is pure ideology. suburban republicans are either petit or full on bourgeoisie, as are the most virulent reactionaries. I'm not proposing an alliance there. My parents live in the suburbs, in a right wing part of the country. My dad was an electrician and my mom is a teacher. They've never been even close to petit bourgeois all their lives. Do you even go outside? Just because the middle class is shrinking from downward mobility doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. I'm getting the impression that you don't have much of a grip on reality.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 09:55
|
|
|
and how many personal servants do they have? you continuously characterize all white people as basically non-laborers, and as if they all have their own personal landscapers. that's not even half true.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 10:13
|
|
|
rudatron posted:and how many personal servants do they have? you continuously characterize all white people as basically non-laborers, and as if they all have their own personal landscapers. that's not even half true. I never did that at all. It's no wonder that you're mischaracterizing J. Sakai as an exterminationist. You not only don't understand books you haven't read, you don't even understand posts in this thread. It's obvious that you're being touchy about the issue of white settlerism and the impossibility of solidarity with the middle & upper class, because you're white yourself. The solution to identitarianism isn't to reflexively embrace racial identity yourself. You need to kill the white man in your mind.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 10:30
|
|
|
you kinda did though:Pener Kropoopkin posted:Absolutely zero revolutions in history were realized through a solidarity with the ruling class and its attendants. Pener Kropoopkin posted:Solidarity is only possible among the laboring classes, not with anybody.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 10:33
|
|
|
Now quote the line where I said solidarity isn't possible with any white people.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 10:37
|
|
|
your characterization as this being a difference is 'spirit' and not ideology is also telling. you've embraced identity politics, but this conflicts with your left politics, so you end up internalizing self-hate/white-guilt. i reject identity politics.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 10:39
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:White guys aren't willing to work grueling hours in the sun for even minimum wage, just so they can pick somebody else's crops or maintain & enhance the value of somebody else's house. Pener Kropoopkin posted:Solidarity is only possible among the laboring classes, not with anybody what do you think these 2 things imply.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 10:40
|
|
|
rudatron posted:your characterization as this being a difference is 'spirit' and not ideology is also telling. you've embraced identity politics, but this conflicts with your left politics, so you end up internalizing self-hate/white-guilt. i reject identity politics.  That's not what it looks like my dude.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 10:42
|
|
|
rudatron posted:+ It implies that white guys can get better jobs performing easier labor for better pay, and that they'd rather hold out for a job at a gas station than doing hard labor for some rich guy. That doesn't mean they aren't laborers, it means that they aren't being forced into more extreme forms of exploitation.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 10:44
|
|
|
So in other words: they're not a labor aristocracy, they're a laboring class in an antagonistic relationship with capital, whether they are conscious of that or not, and suggesting that solidarity is impossible, is an anti-marxist assumption.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 10:48
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 10:53
|
|
|
rudatron posted:So in other words: they're not a labor aristocracy, they're a laboring class in an antagonistic relationship with capital, whether they are conscious of that or not, and suggesting that solidarity is impossible, is an anti-marxist assumption. Oh no, they're definitely a labor aristocracy. So is every other American worker. You're just confusing a bunch of different issues as all being one big issue because you're having trouble grasping the concepts. Solidarity is only possible now because American capitalism has spent the last several decades cutting out American workers from their share of the superprofits - which is why white workers have been rapidly overcoming race identity and the settler mindset. It's a shift in material conditions that is leading to an awakening of class consciousness. So if there's a particular group of white people whose material conditions haven't changed, and which are still good, what do you think their ideology is like? Liberals aren't immune to settler ideology either. They still buy in to all the foundational myths of American ideology, which are rooted in its history as a settler state. They only feign interest in minority issues as a cynical political strategy which guarantees their status by allowing them to exploit the political economy. They also pretend to not be racist because they're obsessed with being good people - but when the time comes for meaningful revolutionary change, there's no basis for solidarity because they remain at base settler-colonial ideologues. rudatron posted:you're giving whiteness an ephemeral & almost mystical quality, that must be 'exorcised', like a demon. that's superstitious/non materialist thought Even identifying with whiteness means you're buying into a constructed racist identity based on a presumption of superiority. Being a white-skinned descendant of European peoples is incidental to the concept of "whiteness" which is an ephemeral concept that shifts when it's convenient, so much so that it can even extend to people who aren't even white Europeans when it's suitable to the purposes of colonialism and capitalism. Whiteness is an ideological tool of capitalism meant from the beginning to prevent class solidarity. Pener Kropoopkin fucked around with this message at 11:06 on May 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 11:02
|
|
|
in fact, transforming identity into an individual condition, instead of a social condition beyond the control of any one person, you're taking an extremely liberal approach, not a socialist approach to the issue. Sorry to burst your bubble.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 11:02
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 11:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 19:50 |
|
|
but that's not sakai's conceit - his conceit is that white workers perform no useful labor, and only have their position they do as a vanguard of empire. he does this by downplaying the antagonism in america between labor + capital, and attributing past success of labor, not the strength of labor to dictate terms, but because of the 'generosity' of capital to its vanguard. It's ahistorical, and not predictive, because it doesn't explain why capital decided to use migrant labor as soon as they could (why sell out your own vanguard, that you made because of your 'generosity'?). They did it because of that class antagonism - which is what undermines calling all whites a 'labor aristocracy'. Which is coincidentally what makes this: Pener Kropoopkin posted:It implies that white guys can get better jobs performing easier labor for better pay, and that they'd rather hold out for a job at a gas station than doing hard labor for some rich guy. That doesn't mean they aren't laborers, it means that they aren't being forced into more extreme forms of exploitation.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 11:21
|
|