Settlers: The Mythology of the White Proletariat

Settlers scan part 1

Settlers scan part 2

Settlers scan part 3

http://www.akpress.org/2002/items/settlers
http://www.prairiefire.org/Crossroad.shtml#Pubs

The pdfs don't do the graphics in this book justice.

Sakai Rocks!

Sakai politics are a shitty brew of stalinism and the most backwards ass third world nationalism. If anybody thinks that they can change America without white working class support is in fantasyland -- unless you actually believe the "white prloeteriat is a myth" garbage. For a response to Sakai's lousy book people should read Fredy Perlman's "Continuing Appeal of Nationalism" which is a full board smackdownn of "Settlers".

"Continuing Appeal of Nationalism" criticizes nationalism in general and just mentions Sakai in a footnote. Check it out for yourself. http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/perlman-fredy/1984/nationalism.htm Perlman doesn't deal with any of the specific arguments in Settlers. In fact he almost praises Settlers as a "sensitive" work that vividly describes oppression. Perlman just takes issue with the alleged motivation behind the book.

Why are 99% of criticisms of Settlers just emotional outbursts? I've seen barely any original criticisms of Settlers that go beyond remarks (by people who obviously have not read the book) about how Settlers is supposedly racist against whites. The argument in Settlers is class and nation-based and has nothing to do with race.

Perlman claims to discover the true intentions behind Settlers and asserts that Sakai is trying to mobilize hatred against colonialism and imperialism for genocide. (Perlman knows how utterly deceitful that assertion is. He can bring himself only to say "liquidate parasites.") Perlman didn't come to this conclusion by refuting any of the arguments in Settlers. He just paints anti-imperialists as the secret adherents of Mussolini and Hitler who see nationalism as a means for the primitive accumulation of capital. Perlman's premise is that nationalism, not imperialism, is the highest stage of capitalism, a way to perpetuate the system. Perlman doesn't make any distinction between Third World nationalism and First World nationalism.

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Omega/5844/aryanpoliticswto.html

Also, it isn't just "stalinists" reading and distributing Settlers. It's also anarchists who are against nation-states. Liberals are trying to sweep the history of oppression under the rug but others realize the importance of Settlers' argument.

The Continuing Appeal of Nationalism was actually an indirect response to Settlers according to friends of Perlman. In other words the Continuing Appeal of Nationalism is a long essay refuting Settlers. Here's Perlman's one direct quote on the matter.


I have before me a book-length pamphlet titled The Mythology of the White Proletariat: A Short Course for Understanding Babylon by J. Sakai (Chicago: Morningstar Press, 1983). As an application of Mao-Zedong-Thought to American history, it is the most sensitive Maoist work I’ve seen. The author documents and describes, sometimes vividly, the oppression of America’s enslaved Africans, the deportations and exterminations of the American continent’s indigenous inhabitants, the racist exploitation of Chinese, the incarceration of Japanese- Americans in concentration camps. The author mobilizes all these experiences of unmitigated terror, not to look for ways to supersede the system that perpetrated them, but to urge the victims to reproduce the same system among themselves. Sprinkled with pictures and quotations of chairmen Lenin, Stalin, Mao Zedong and Ho-chi Minh, this work makes no attempt to hide or disguise its repressive aims; it urges Africans as well as Navahos, Apaches as well as Palestinians, to organize a party, seize state power, and liquidate parasites.

YES!!

I knew this was a keeper from reading the opening page of Sakai's analysis ('The Land is the Basis of Nationhood'), where he lays bare the true nature of the American national character: manic greed, manifesting initially through the obsession to own land. When lemmings like magon chant "America the free" while masturbating in front of a mirror, this selfishly warped vision of "freedom" is what they're really trading in. It means they get to stuff their faces indefinitely and without remorse -- and fuck the hindmost. America has always been a mecca for such people, who are natural-born quintessential fascists. With all his social engineering, Hitler was just desperately trying to compete

Sakai's opening insight, then, is a triumph of historical re-evaluation that explains pretty much EVERYTHING that's happened here from the Roanoke Colony to the present day. It's also exactly the sort of insight the American bourgeois "liberal" brand of fake enlightenment despises with a murderous vengeance. It yanks their rock away and exposes them as the selfish bugs they truly are. They hate that shit. Sakai points out they're not The World's Most Perfect People after all, and they hate him for it

Try to make a coherent argument that doesn't involve me in your sexual fantasies. That is called a rational debate. I will then tear you a new one about what an anti-white Stalinoid Sakai is.

the thing about these things is, they seem to tend to want to
(is that hedged enough??)
they like to make out "white settlers" to be some monolith that were out there, brutalizing the natives for land to build their castles on. the sad truth is that a lot of the murder that happened was inadvertent, i.e. via disease, and most of that wasnt ever really documented because the germs ran far ahead of the wagons. we really have no idea. the worst thing you can think of is probably orders of magnitude short of just how much was lost, how quickly, all over the western hemisphere-- in all human terms, people, culture, learning, the lot.

it was just too big to be someone's fault. nobody planned it. nobody had any idea. this is what the word "discovery" is really trying to say, not that no one was here nor that the land mass was only real when the "white man" gazed upon it.

not even the fault of-- that's right-- the US army. now, they were real fuckers, if fuckers are here to be found. though, given the mentality of the times, even at least some of that could be called "inadvertent."

but most of the settlers were within a generation or two of a boat experience, and what was on the other side of that? starvation, conscription, pogroms and religious wars, &c &c &c. yeah, owning a piece of land was a fantasy and a dream for these folks because it meant independence-- from serfdom. far away from a government accountable to you.

you cant blame anyone for wanting to escape like that. my point is that they were thinking backwards, not forward. for all the progressivist talk, american settlers were fleeing what was behind, not looking forward to killing people to take their land to build mini-marts on it. they had no idea where they were going, beyond "the hell away from here!!" it is a primary feature of this country's culture to this day ("on the road" baby).

that's the real problem with this kind of "history"-- it wants to blame people. if you want to talk about politicians, sure, go for it. generals, maybe. "little people," let's call them, a thousand times no. such reductionism is as dangerous as it is absurd. humans are too complex to be "factored down" like that, i want to call it-- and it leads to the very kinds of intolerance that our antiracist training is supposed to help us resist. (that's also a disclaimer and curative against seeming to reduce people to their scars, which the above might be read as.)

in short, is is not history, it is polemic. you can prove something happened or didnt, you can argue motivation or point of view. you cannot prove irrational things like a "valid" basis for race hatred of any type. not logically. maybe with faith. but you'll have to take up that kind of discussion with someone else, though.


As for keeping sexual fantasies out of it: "tear you a new one" doesnt make it sound like we're doing a very good job with that. and colonization is always tangled up with sexual fantasization (on everyone's part), much like anything humans do. i say go ahead and let people express it, it can really clarify a lot quickly about the nature of their point of view &c &c...

"it was just too big to be someone's fault. nobody planned it. nobody had any idea."

This is total fucking bullshit

Many pandemics undoubtedly happened in the way you describe, but knowledge of the "smallpox blanket" method of wiping out Indian populations dates back to the 1500s and was widespread among European colonialists. This was probably used by John Smith (of Jamestown) to clear the way for the Plymouth Colony, and again by Lord Amherst during the French & Indian War. It was also used by the Spanish in California against the Dieguenan peoples. It was used most famously at Fort Clark, MO in 1836 to annihilate the Mandans.

Then there are all the other clearly genocidal policies, such as General Sherman's "total war" campaign of the 1870s to destroy the plains tribes. No, this was NOT "inadvertant," you fucking disgusting apologist asshole. It was as orchestrated as it gets, and just the final evolution of what we previously did to the Iroquois (Sullivan) the Creek and Cherokee (Jackson) and Tecumseh's Shawnee Confederation (Harrison). We wanted their land, they didn't want to give it up, so therefore we mass-murdered them, the end. That shit ain't "inadvertant." Neither are SCALP BOUNTIES, which are about as blatant and deliberate as genocidal policy can get.

The case of the California tribes alone, circa 1848 to 1870, totally destroys your obscene bullshit argument.

Where are you getting this trash from? I really want to know

Your problem, see, is you just don't give a fuck. You're walking definitive proof that precisely the wrong people have been getting wiped out by wars for the past 5,000 years, so that the "ultimate victor cultures" now consist entirely of criminal maniacs. American fuckheads like you have been bearing this out all over the planet for the past 60 years, picking up Hitler's ball and running with it for all you're worth. Now you're proving it all over again in the Middle East, just the latest target of your now-classic pattern: "We want it. They have it. Too bad for them."

Trough-wallowing American pig pieces of shit like you will end up being the most despised people in history, quite possibly already are, and this is just the beginning of what you deserve.

...if an attempt to engage in dialogue about what happened in history is enough to make one "deserving" of "extermination," then

a) there's no point even trying, and

b) you've apparently disproven your own race-based theory on the behavior in question.

congratulations-- few make such compelling arguments for nihilism.

ps: a good chunk of "this shit" i got from jared diamond. of course, the pulitzer is just another 30 pieces of silver from the man, right? still, you might try reading a book on occasion-- even (and at times especially) if you disagree with it.

there's nothing wrong with disagreement, you know. and people aren't always evil for it.

best of luck.

Diamond, Jared. "Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies" (New York: Norton & Norton, 1999).

Paperback edition, ISBN 0-393-31755-2

Try pages 210-212.

Funny, the title page doesn't list the race of the author........

Identity matters but at the same time building an ideology around victimhood is very unhealthy.

"Whites" today are not "responsible" for slavery but on average people with lighter skin are richer because of inherited money and connections. Of course jumping from on average to blaming people because of how they look is almost by definition racist. Lets say one has one one side a poor white American living in a trailer and living off welfare whose grandparents personally massacred hundreds of Native Americans and on the other one has someone whose granparents were slaves but whose parents went to college and live in the Berkeley Hills and drive a Volvo and can afford to pay for SAT prep-courses and tutors. The richer African American is probably on average more pivileged currently in many ways but also does have to deal with racism not experienced in the same way by the poorer white American. Getting pulled over by the police for being balck (even when one is wealthy) clearly makes one feel that racism exists and is a major problem but that doesnt really negate one being more priveledged than someone who is poor.

One should use one's priveldge to help others but you cant blame people for the actions of parents or grandparents... people do but that accounts for most of the sectarian violence in the world today.. Bosnians arent guilt for the actions of the Turks 100s of years ago, Germans today arent responsible for Hitler and one cant blame Americans for past actiosn either (especially with so many horrible current actions by the US)

the bottom line:
"in short, it is not history, it is polemic."

giving a shit and speaking truthfully about what happened in the past are two different things. they dont have to be mutually exclusive. but nor do they substitute for one another.

imposing one's own morality on the past, and judging its players accordingly, is very gratifying. but it not a compelling argument.

"you might try reading a book on occasion"

I've consumed dozens of sources specific to the subject of the Indian genocide, which I believe is only peripheral to Diamond's book. If this is his opinion on the subject then his knowledge of it is inferior to my own, and furthermore my estimation of his intellectual courage just fell several notches. Also, why are you hiding behind his reputation and credentials instead of addressing the specific historical points i raised, e.g. scalp bounties?

i never said no one ever campaigned against natives in america-- in fact, i specifically mentioned the u.s. army.

rather, i maintain that the totality of the catastrophe that happened subsequent to 1492 c.e. in north america wasn't some plot by "white people" to wipe everyone out and enslave everyone. i was arguing, in fact, against what one might call 'racial agency'-- this vast-conspiracy idea that looks suspiciously like a version of the "clash of civilizations" model some people are trying very hard to maintain in the middle east.

i'm not hiding behind diamond's credentials-- i'm merely citing a source, as per your request. i dont understand why you're so "surprised" and "disappointed" if you've actually read him. at the same time, it makes me wonder what the hell you're reading, so why dont you give us a few titles.

it also makes me wonder if you read with an open mind, or with (and for) a predetermined agenda, measuring everything accordingly.

you've naturally danced around certain damning points

"[my] attempt to engage in dialogue"

No you didn't. You flat-out denied an epic historical crime

"you cant blame people for the actions of parents or grandparents..."

I sure as fuck can when it's totally obvious they A) haven't given a moment's thought to the subject and aren't vaguely interested in doing so, and B) obviously are exactly like dear old granddad and are presently committing exactly the same type of crime

"giving a shit and speaking truthfully about what happened in the past are two different things."

Uh-huh, but you didn't do EITHER

because you're ignoring the point in return.

you are not interested in history, but in polemics. whatever. as i said, best of luck with that.

and by the way, what's with the sissy-baiting? is that another kind of hate you enjoy?

"i never said no one ever campaigned against natives in america"

This is twice now that I have pointedly mentioned scalp bounties, and twice that you have pirouetted around the subject, pretending it's something else

"-- in fact, i specifically mentioned the u.s. army."

Uh-huh, you said their role was "inadvertant." You're wrong. I said you're wrong. You still haven't defended this specifically

"...the totality of the catastrophe that happened subsequent to 1492 c.e. in north america wasn't some plot by "white people" to wipe everyone out and enslave everyone"

What you in your hyper-educated stupidity fail to grasp -- and Diamond should have helped you here -- is that the conspiratorial culprit in question isn't "white" but "civilized," specifically civilized according to that most virulent European model. Civilizations do too seek to "enslave everyone," and those who won't be enslaved they "wipe out." That's precisely their agenda, and I don't care if you or Diamond or the man in the moon agree with me

I mean the class elites of Western civilization, who are absolutely intent on parasitizing everything within reach. For any human within their reach, parasitism translates to "enslavement."

I expect you to particularly loathe this identification of class elites as the true conspiratorial culprit, bacause you have some nasty little aspirations going on around this, don't you?

>> This is twice now that I have pointedly mentioned scalp bounties, and twice that you have pirouetted around the subject, pretending it's something else

well by all means, let me struggle to offer you some satisfaction here.

what about them? who planned them? the king of spain? who enforced them, the continental congress? who executed them-- poineer women? the urban proletariat? suburban shoppers?

please, cite some of those sources of yours, and educate us poor, deluded sissies.


re. the army:
>> Uh-huh, you said their role was "inadvertant." You're wrong. I said you're wrong. You still haven't defended this specifically

uh, yeah. armies fight enemies for the sake of reducing and destroying them. wherever they are, whenever they are. nature or nurture, the behavior is universal.

on the other hand, no one sat down and said "hey, let's kill every native over the next 500 years under a myriad of governments and across several cultures, impose several distinct and contradictory policies in the course of 150 years after founding a representative republic in the center of the north american land mass, just to keep legal jurisdiction and sovereign rights very arcane and confusing, and then name ball teams after whoever we ended up finding and killing." let alone anyone in the military.

theirs, after all, is not to reason why. they are "just" a very stupid, very brutal social machine. as far as that goes, warfare was not unknown over here prior to the despoilation of paradise by the white menace, now was it?

>>... the conspiratorial culprit in question isn't "white" but "civilized," specifically civilized according to that most virulent European model. Civilizations do too seek to "enslave everyone,"...

etc. etc. of course, you have to make it about euro civ in particular, i.e. a "white" thing after all.

nice try.

but take it to its logical limit. does your historical beef extend to latinos? or did they conquer california fair and square, only to have it stolen by whitie?

and who did they in turn conquer, if not for a series of native civilizations, like the maya, the inca, and the notoriously bloodthirsty aztecs?

were those civilizations bad? should they have thus been um, what was the word you used......

see, temper tantrums are quite enjoyable, but hardly convincing... whether you ever bother to cite sources or not. what, dozens of sources, was it? must have taken you whole weeks.....

>>>and I don't care if you or Diamond or the man in the moon agree with me

then why on earth are arguing the point in a public forum?

>>I mean the class elites of Western civilization...

well, that's not what you said.

what do you mean? do you know?

>> I expect you to particularly loathe this identification of class elites ...

but you really have no idea, because you jumped to conclusions and attacked.

wont win much support that way.

>>bacause you have some nasty little aspirations going on around this, don't you?

again, you really have no idea, do you?

maybe you should have bothered to try to find out first. that's a real problem with the polemic approach....

Looked at the "Settlers" website and skimmed through the chapter about the IWW history. The main theme being that the Euro-amerikan IWW organizers were stymied by the bosses when a large number of African-amerikans were influenced into migrating up from the south and working as strikebreakers. This then inflamed racial tensions between workers and strikebreakers, which ended up benefiting the bosses..

Sakai seems to focus on the Eurocentric IWW organizers blaming the Africans for being strikebreakers. The IWW organizers being upset with the Africans is understandable because the strategic damage caused by crossing a picket line is severe. Conditions of poverty and desperation could have also been a factor, crowding people togther in a ghetto often creates internal conflict and tensoins, regardless of race. If workers cannot see beyond their skin color and look at the differences in class and social status, we won't be having equality anytime soon. It seems depressing to think of every historical conflict being motivated or influenced by someone's skin color, but maybe this is the immovable object that continues to prevent any real change from happening..

A few months ago i looked at "Continued Appeal of Nationalism" by Perlman and found some points that i disagreed with. The idea that a specific tribe (Example; Dineh against Peabody Coal, Ogoni against Chevron-Texaco) or people who organizes themselves against oppression and racism shouldn't be considered nationalism. They usually don't have an air force and aren't planning to invade another country, they just want to unify their people so that they can be stronger at resisting the oppressors. Then again the economic growth of any nationalist entity could result in a warlike mentality that encourages conflict with other nationalities, not even as simple as black and white. Historically many peoples experienced low level conflict with their neighbors, though never to the extent of genocide as witnessed in the advanced stages of modern imperialism/nationalism..

If people could finally look outside their skin color we would still have the class problem looming at the doorstep. Even the Mayan workers rebelled against their posh and cruel leaders. Was this a result of the Spanish influencing internal conflicts for their own self interest? Either way, there continues to be a great divide in heirarchal societies based on economic status. If wealthy Africans can't even tolerate being in the same room with a lower income African, how then can Europeans see beyond both race and class??

Sarkai also points out the IWW were capitulating to management to reform the imperialist machine to benefit mostly Euro-american workers. The question of whether factories should even exist to begin with was never brought up. One idea about green anarchy that many syndicalists may not want to hear is that most hunter gatherer societies with little heirarchy and organization didn't have class divisions. Even other nearby tribes were merged with and intermarried without much fussin' and fightin'. Any conflicts that did arise were eventually settled without a great deal of bloodshed..

In a future world where green anarchist values were reintroduced, small groups of people could travel, seasonally farm and forage without concern of what class or what race someone else belongs to, it wouldn't really matter because class/race divisions wouldn't be effective in non-heirarchal societies. The presence of industry and capital seems to eventually bring some form of division, even if based on differences in trade..

This thread is one of the more interesting comments discussions if people could avoid direct insults that may be an improvement to the other comment threads that disintigrate into nyah nyah namecalling. Debate the idea, not the person with the idea, no matter how much u disagree with their ideas. Either way this is an important topic that may need to be discussed further..

luna moth

"...though never to the extent of genocide as witnessed in the advanced stages of modern imperialism/nationalism.."

how on earth would anyone know? where is it written down, dug up, or otherwise attested to?

extra credit: how did, for example, the jews feel about the assyrians? (xref babylonian captivity). that shit was so heavy, the rastafarians are still singing about it.....

despite accusations to the contrary, i didnt seem to fail to notice the tragic nature of the material at hand:

"most of that [death & destruction of native americans by diseases] wasnt ever really documented because the germs ran far ahead of the wagons. we really have no idea. the worst thing you can think of is probably orders of magnitude short of just how much was lost, how quickly, all over the western hemisphere-- in all human terms, people, culture, learning, the lot." [look it up yourself in diamond]

furthermore, the blame game obscuring this particular sentiment perpetuates the tragedy of loss of native civilization, because it prevents preservation, resuscitation, and reproduction of surviving native civilization(s)-- a project most americans would heartily support (and with cash at that, if casino propositions and attendance are any indication).

why not take advantage of a cultural opening to rebuild?
[personal opinion]

now whaddaya think about them apples?

re: educate us on scalp bounties

No. You stepped into this thread presuming to wield a definitive knowledge of Indian persecution in North America, so therefore YOU need to tell ME about scalp bounties. That was my point.

"a very brutal social machine"

That is deployed by executive parties for certain ends, in this case the end of wiping out native resistance to land usurpation. That is not "inadvertant."

"but take it to its logical limit. does your historical beef extend to latinos?"

Yes, to the extent that they continue to exhibit the peculiar mental syndrome of the civilized: obsessive predatory greed, narcissism, cowardice, dishonesty, corruption, etc. whether it's emerging from a European, Meso-American, Chinese what have you. Absolutely.

What you effect as "intellectual discipline" is in fact a human impossibility and ultimately a lie, an especially insidious one. You have your polemical agenda too, you've just adopted the pretense of detachment as a strategy for winning the game. It's all so coy and clever it amounts to you playing head games with yourself. Meanwhile you resent Sakai's affront to your culture and are here to exonerate it, are you not?

re: class elites of Western civilization "well, that's not what you said."

What was it I said then?

"maybe you should have bothered to try to find out first. that's a real problem with the polemic approach...."

Okay. Do tell

"You stepped into this thread..."

...when i should have first realized it meant "debating" race with Uhuru-brainwashed types. i didnt even ask permission first!!

but as ever, it's like trying to teach pigs to sing.

my mistake indeed.

You resent Sakai's affront to your culture and are here to exonerate it, are you not?

"You resent Sakai's affront to your culture..."

no, rather, i believe in the rationalist myth that people are essentially good and can change.

as i said earlier, thanks for making the case to the contrary. it's certainly food for thought.

"...and are here to exonerate it, are you not?"

you still have no idea, which speaks volumes about your reading-comprehension skills.

To Magon: I saw that Perlman paragraph about Settlers. Could you point me to where Perlman's friends say this is a criticism of Settlers? Even if that's true Perlman's essay is just innuendo casting Sakai as an apologist for genocide and plunder for primitive accumulation.

Turning the thesis of imperialism as the last stage of capitalism on its head, Perlman says the Celestial Empire represents the real imperialism. Nationalism is the latest stage of captialism he says. There's nothing marxist about this analysis. Perlman isn't just criticizing Settlers he's criticizing marxism.

Perlman says the North American colonizers weren't "quite a nation" when they landed but he admits they became one through racism. I don't think this disagrees with Settlers. On the other hand Perlman doesn't deal with Settlers' argument. Sakai's thesis about the Euro-American proletariat and his critique of settler politics stand on their own whether you believe in nationalism or not.

"Sakai's thesis"

well, that's one source.

"it was just too big to be someone's fault. nobody planned it. nobody had any idea."

Quick comment on this. Obviously it's not just critics of Settlers who are going to disagree with what "thing about these things is" is saying here about the genocide of indigenous peoples being an accident. (Although I find it ironic this is the kind of stuff that is being raised in reaction to Settlers.) However, it's pretty clear Settlers is not making some sort of "original sin" argument or just looking at the legacy of inequality that genocide or slavery left. Settlers is saying that contemporary "Euro-Amerikan" working class is not proletarian. Sakai talks about the "mode of life" of these workers on page 147 for example. So all the comments above about victimhood identities, the ability of people to change and this type of thing are missing the point. I don't anybody here would insist imperialists can change. Sure even some millionaires could change but that doesn't mean they aren't oppressors as a class.

"well, that's one source."

Sorry, not sure what you are refering to.

I searched the settlers pdf posted here and there's no mention of Perlman. I've seen a web page saying the Perlman piece is an "indirect" criticism of Settlers but it is really tangential to what Settlers is saying.

"critics of Settlers"

typo. make that "fans of settlers"

Uhuru, based on these writings, wants a nation-state for Africans in America, right?

And that's different than the nazi/klan policy of forced race separation, how, exactly?

or are you in fact allies, when it comes to this policy?

why should Black people have Indian land for what The White Man did to them?

Come on, Mr So-Much-More-Educated than us, do explain, please, your particular brand of racist hypocrisy.

Just forget it. Why would this weirdo give a direct answer to a simple question when you're setting him up for another round of his "only I know" ego jerk-off game?

I guess the person I was referring to would be YOU, ha-ha! I got confused by the way you projected your arrogance

"Come on, Mr So-Much-More-Educated than us..."

The 'ego jerk-off game?' comment was directed at you, hun

i'll take that as a yes, with a double side of coverup.

To Magon: I saw that Perlman paragraph about Settlers. Could you point me to where Perlman's friends say this is a criticism of Settlers? Even if that's true Perlman's essay is just innuendo casting Sakai as an apologist for genocide and plunder for primitive accumulation.

_____ I talked with a friend of Perlman's who told me that his essay was prompted by Settlers. I think the person I talked to was credible.

Turning the thesis of imperialism as the last stage of capitalism on its head, Perlman says the Celestial Empire represents the real imperialism. Nationalism is the latest stage of captialism he says. There's nothing marxist about this analysis. Perlman isn't just criticizing Settlers he's criticizing marxism.

______ I would say he was critizing Leninism more specifically. But I'm not sure of your point.


On the other hand Perlman doesn't deal with Settlers' argument. Sakai's thesis about the Euro-American proletariat and his critique of settler politics stand on their own whether you believe in nationalism or not.


_______ Perlman deals with "nationalism of the oppressed" which is my opinion is a thorough rebuttal of "Settlers". Perlman doesn't address specifically "the Euro- American Proleteriat". I did and I think its absurd to say that there's no white working class in America. I'm not sure what there is to debate.

Perlman went from a situationist influence Libertarian marxist to a sort of anarcho-primitivist, he then died.

The Dineh and the Ogoni aren't nationalist movements but if they decided to seize state power, jail and kill those interfering with there national accumalation of capital, and assert themselves as a new ruling class that would be a different story.

For about a century now, nationalism has intersected with rejection of externally imposed colonialism/imperialism and I do not accept that this is a bad thing. Why should I?

Last Poster

"For about a century now, nationalism has intersected with rejection of externally imposed colonialism/imperialism and I do not accept that this is a bad thing. Why should I?"

Magon responds: Maybe you should read the history of third world nationalist revolutions. Pretty much they all ended in some form of dictatorship. The embryonic domestic bourgeios took over and capitalism rolled right on in partnership with the "imperialists".

In Iraq ethnic nationalism is devolving into a very ugly and very bloody civil war. That's is a bad thing.

Like this weird equation Magon is trading in whereby the Dineh and Ogoni, by asserting sovereign control of their ancestral territories by means of force -- because that's what it takes, kids -- would suddenly redefine themselves as "the oppressor" by doing so, and just forget that self-liberation is their conscious motive. Dat don mean nuttin. The fact that US global empire is parked on their backs like a 500-ton stone Buddha, dat don mean nuttin needah. All that matters is that they don't do anything naughty. Uh-huh. Is it just me, or is this condemnation of revolution not the perfect complement to the global empire's desire for unchallenged control? What sort of "leftist" would refuse to notice this?

Perlman was brilliant, no doubt, but ya know sucking down someone else's pre-packaged take on history is just not very anarchist-like, not to mention intelligent. You think Perlman's cool for busting on Marxists? Tell you what: bust on them for something they do that's hands-down amazingly stupid and nuts, like mindlessly traipsing along after their doctrine-GODS: LENIN (hosannahs!) or MAO (all bow down) or AVAKIAN (swoon!) or PERLMAN (hint nudge)

to Magon: you seem to be insisting that nationalism is either always good OR always bad and ruling out the influence of context.

"Maybe you should read the history of third world nationalist revolutions."

This pre-supposes that I don't already know a great deal about them, but I do, and based on that knowledge this statement of yours

"Pretty much they all ended in some form of dictatorship.
The embryonic domestic bourgeios took over and capitalism rolled right on in partnership with the "imperialists". "

Is either disinformed or disinformative. You're talking about corruption. Nationalism does not produce it, it's an independent variable. You're also ignoring the hand of imperialists in strategically accelerating the problem through covert connections, etc. What would have happened to any one of these countries if it had escaped deliberate molestation this way is an interesting totally hypothetical question. The nationalist / anti-colonialist sensibility DEFINITELY seeks to keep a countries ENTIRE GDP circulating domestically, while the neocolonial quisling elites you're referring to are complicit in funneling the bulk of it toward their foreign masters, thus keeping their countries perpetually impoverished. These quisling local elites are NOT nationalists, but the exact antithesis. Equating the two is preposterous, and that IS what you're doing. In the Caribbean and Central America alone I can give you multiple case histories in which the nationalists and corrupt quisling wannabes were in perpetual hostile tension with each other, with control see-sawing repeatedly. The nationalist movements were without exception left-leaning, egalitarian, desired full ownership of GDP, while the quislings -- the people you're conflating with them -- were their polar opposites. Cuba, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Honduras, and Guatemala are all excellent examples.

Your analysis is profoundly (willfully?) ignorant of the realities of colonialism, which hasn't receded AT ALL

"In Iraq ethnic nationalism is devolving into a very ugly and very bloody civil war."

And how it is that you're cleanly seperating this from occupation and resistance and magically analyzing it on it's own is beyond me. Also, your argument supports the position that we should have left Saddam the hell alone, but I KNOW that's not what you're saying. A little birdie is tweeting into my ear that you're trying to convince me that Iraqi and Palestinian and any other ARAB nationalism in particular is what's bad, and that all such movements should just collapse immediately and let the Western empires have their way with the Middle East. I wonder why you would do that...

"These quisling local elites..."

...are always there, and they always reemerge after "revolutions." and the people they serve will always make war on anyone challenging them, pushing any revolutionary nation into a war footing, until it's either destroyed from without or corrupted from within. armed nationalist revolution was made obsolete by the bomb. you remember da bomb..... it was big in the 50s and 60s and 70s, about the time a string of nationalist-liberation movements were failing in the face of the cold war, and became either soviet or amerikan puppet regimes? not to digress.

that is also primary lesson of the failure of marxism. (russia? china?) to wilfully ignore it becuase it doesnt fit your ideology, and then to blame the failures of your ideology on some external bogeyman rather than the failure of your ideology to adequately account for empirical reality, is intellectually weak. maybe that's why you front it with so much attitude....

also, basing a nation on race is bound to perpetuate the very evils you would eradicate. also, that's the thing about being a minority-- one tends to lose in fights of force. that's why they invented constitutions. and, why have a nation, if it's not to raise and perpetuate an army? nations always do, your sermons about gdp and whatever notwithstanding. armies, now there's a gdp-breaker. just ask the gloriously-liberated-by-their-very-own-nation-state israelis.....

thus, nationalism's not very convincing, overall, as a revolutionary strategy. it denies too much history. but hey, knock yerself out. i'd be loath to tell you what to do, now...

"[quisling local elites] are always there, and they always reemerge after "revolutions." and the people they serve will always make war on anyone challenging them, pushing any revolutionary nation into a war footing, until it's either destroyed from without or corrupted from within."

I agree with most of this, but how does it succeed in criminalizing nationalism? I said it was an independent variable, and you're essentially agreeing.

Also, "always" is a pretty insupportable word choice. Cuba and North Korea, whatever else may be said of them, are noteable exceptions

"armed nationalist revolution was made obsolete by the bomb."

Not true. The bomb was never a viable weapon for use against these movements, as is borne out by the multiple times US presidents struggled with the decision to use nukes against China and its satellites BEFORE CHINA HAD ITS OWN BOMB. Even after this, China's bomb was not an effective deterrent for, say, Vietnam, which continued to be a prospective target for nuclear attack, i.e. if we had bombed North Vietnam, China would not have unleashed doomsday on itself by bombing us back.

Similarly, if nukes had been a viable weapon to use against nationalists, Castro & friends would have become a white-hot gas shooting into the ionosphere back around 1960. Same goes for Daniel Ortega et al. What would have stopped the Pentagon psychopaths from doing this? The Soviet deterrent? Which they would have expended on **Ortega's** behalf? Puh-leez.

The real deterrent restraining us from doing such things is political, not of the total war variety. Political communities all over the world would have suddenly forgotten what an asshole Hitler was because a new even larger menace would have announced itself.

What really caused the flight of nationalist movements toward one ar another world power was the incredible destructive capability of CONVENTIONAL warfare, such that no revolutionary movement which failed to obtain advanced weapons systems or tactical training could hope to succeed, and this required alignment with one or another world power.

For a guy who dances so pretty you sure play stupid real good too. Multitalented, eh?

"soviet ... puppet regimes"

The leftist revolutions of Latin America, Africa, and elsewhere were often not "Soviet puppet regimes." Like the perennial "missile gap," this is one of those cold war myths dished out by Reader's Digest etc that you've lapped up just like an over-educated idiot. Imagine that. Look into the REALITY of the Soviet relationship with Sandinist Nicaragua, Bosch's Dominican Republic, Bishop's Grenada, Arbenz's Guatemala, Allende's Chile, Mossadheg's Iran, Sukarno's Indonesia, etc. and you'll discover it was a lot more casual than advertised. Actually it was non-existent in a majority of these stated examples. The puppeteers in Langley, the Pentagon, and Madison Avenue have played you like a musical instrument, and continue to. They summoned the 'russion commie menace' bogeyman in every one of these cases because they knew it would get you foaming at the mouth like a good patriot-'droid. Refer back to 'over-educated idiot.'

"...primary lesson of the failure of marxism. (russia? china?) to wilfully ignore it becuase it doesnt fit your ideology ... is intellectually weak."

The failure of Marxism/nationalism doesn't fit with anti-civ anarchism? Gee, you don't say. You tend to muddle things up, don't you? To reject undue criticism of nationalism is different from ADVOCATING nationalism, okay yutz? As for my actual avowed ideology, "winning" is simplicity itself: all I have to do is stand back and watch with contempt as all the over-educated, over-socialized, over-clever urban gollums "pursue progress" until it drives you insane or outright kills you. I just hope to stick around long enough to dance/piss on your graves, but your ghastly final destiny is certain regardless, and it's an eminently fair punishment for murdering God

Clue: "empirical reality" is much larger than all things human, brainiac

"why have a nation, if it's not to raise and perpetuate an army?"

Why have a nation / why raise an army? Because in a world of relentlessly consolidating empires (constant theme of Western "civilization" going back to antiquity; now a global condition) there is no other option. You will have a nation and raise an army, or some other nation will come along with its army and absorb you into itself, in the meantime destroying your culture, your economic autonomy, etc. Um, like, duh.

Also, I'm not fixated on the idea of race. You are.

"nationalism's not very convincing, overall, as a revolutionary strategy"

Nationalism is not a "revolutionary strategy." It's an ideological means of unification and agitation, i.e. a prerequisite of revolutionary strategy, and as such is still unsurpassed. When you call it "unconvincing," say so in this proper context so that we'll know how disingenuous you're being, which is to say "stop lying," which is to say "stop moving your lips." Ah shucks, it's not your fault -- you have an urban mind. Your last really truthful ancestors probably died in the Bronze Age

"i'd be loath to tell you what to do, now..."

Don't sweat it. Your God-like command of historical/rational subjects leaves me less than blown away. Your fondness for oblique one-up-manship ego-stroke-off games is such that you tend to stray into totally irrelevant terrain. If this is your idea of verbally dueling with me, it's a really contemptible hair-pulling eye-gouging method. Oh, and ineffectual.

all laid out real nice, in the indybay marketplace of radical ideas. thanks for the clarifications, btw, even if it took a bit of prodding and gouging and whatnot...

now let's see who's buying.

hmm.... racist nationalism as a "revolutionary" solution? nope, not me. i must bee too stupid, or sissy, or something, eh? really, i just cant stand the smell. maybe not black enough, or sorry enough, or something....

really, best of luck with that very hard sell you got on your hands there.... tho i dont think even luck is gonna help ya much. oh well, at least you can feel oh so superior, with your dozens of sources and macho attitude, there.

you project very well though. enjoy yourself, now....

Funny juxtaposition there. Nationalism is invariably racist, is it? Try this: put down the hand mirror, quit choking Mr. Happy with your other hand, and supply a simple straightforward answer.

Look, I'm sorry about all the gratuitous abuse, okay? Your contention that European settlers were/are blameless for the destruction of Native American societies was a bit much for me. You go ahead and deny responsibility for all that; I can't.

Minus the unnecessary cheap shots, I stand by everything I've said here

I'm always hoping to make contact with like-minded people, but as for "selling" anti-civ anarchism, not a chance. Present-day technological civilization is plummeting straight into a hell of its own making, and I know it won't be stopped, and that the glassy-eyed herd won't ever stop believing. The best of all probable scenarios is that resource extinction and global environmental collapse will bring about a rapid total self-destruction of technological civilization from which it will never recover, and that there will still be enough biodiversity on hand when this happens to allow the earth to bounce back within a few million years. Human cleverness and self-obsession being what they are, though, it could well get much uglier. You may remember a grim vision I mentioned once before: human "evolution" ending with vats of protoplasm tended by robots in nuclear-powered bubble cities on a dead planet. Or even worse: the protoplasm-worshipping robots become space-faring and transport our germ line to new glorious living worlds in other solar systems, where the cycle is repeated ad infinitum -- Humans as planet-killer virus

Of one thing I'm absolutely sure: history will vindicate me. The most glorious experience of being human is in our deep past, before fear eclipsed all other human capacities.

well, since we get to pick and choose that to which we respond:

*********exerpt from this wondrous thread:
"[quisling local elites] are always there, and they always reemerge after "revolutions." and the people they serve will always make war on anyone challenging them, pushing any revolutionary nation into a war footing, until it's either destroyed from without or corrupted from within."

I agree with most of this, but how does it succeed in criminalizing nationalism? I said it was an independent variable, and you're essentially agreeing.

Also, "always" is a pretty insupportable word choice. Cuba and North Korea, whatever else may be said of them, are noteable exceptions

****************************

it doesn't "criminalize" nationalism. it discredits it as a strategy for liberation. i dont care what kind of "variable" you want to redefine it as, it doesnt make anyone free.

and north korea trades weapons technologies with the pakistani dictator musharraf on high principle, right? speaking of american client states gone wrong. as for cuba, it is certainly a nation... one with more than the usual excuses for why it's not free, many of them quite valid. guess we'll see how long that paradise lasts when the strongman kicks the bucket (and those oh-so-freed nations usually come with oh-so-strongmen at the helm, for years and decades, dont they?? doubleplusfree. and why are they always men? why and why and why?)


>>>Sandinist Nicaragua, Bosch's Dominican Republic, Bishop's Grenada, Arbenz's Guatemala, Allende's Chile, Mossadheg's Iran, Sukarno's Indonesia, etc. and you'll discover it was a lot more casual than advertised.


yup, a real winner's circle of nationalist liberation ya got there.


>>> To reject undue criticism of nationalism is different from ADVOCATING nationalism


riiii-iiight. and freedom is slavery. words can mean anything we want em to.

last but least,
as for "ego-stroke-off games"............ real or alleged.......

maybe you should try the occasional orgasm yerself. it might help you unwind a bit. from the looks of things, you could sure use a 10-20 minute vacation, buddy. of course, under pressure, you may find it takes a lot less than that...

don't forget to enjoy!!

Yutz: "it doesn't "criminalize" nationalism. it discredits it as a strategy for liberation. i dont care what kind of "variable" you want to redefine it as, it doesnt make anyone free."

Um, I already addressed this: "Nationalism is not a ... "strategy." It's an ideological means of unification and agitation, i.e. a prerequisite of revolutionary strategy, and as such is still unsurpassed."

Before you can get to the "liberation struggle" part, you have to get people interested, and their geographic/cultural sense of identity is an excellent stimulant. Whether or not they actually end up free as a result is vastly more complicated than whether or not nationalism "really works." For the purpose I stated -- getting them interested -- it incontrovertibly works really well, and that is my point. More liberation struggles have been instigated this way than by all other means combined, and nationalism is ONLY a prelude to the real work of liberation. It really pisses me off how you're blithely ignoring this proper context for the "success" of nationalism. It in fact SUCCEEDED in generating insurrections scores of times, but the majority of attempts were crushed before they proceeded to later stages -- but THAT IS IRRELEVANT. Your "logic" is comparable to saying "applying for college admission is a failed strategy unless you actually graduate." No it fucking isn't!! The test of this strategy's "success" is whether you get in, not whether you graduate. Nationalism is how you ENTER Liberation University; whether or not you graduate is contingent on a vastly larger set of influences.

Your logical fallacy is really clear, and I think you definitely have an agenda. I checked your attempt to blame corruption on nationalism, and now you're back at it again, blaming nationalism for this along with a nebulosity of other down-the-road developments. Your lips are moving again.

In the several dozen cases where autonomy was achieved, the most common demise by far of the resulting states was being subjected to merciless military/economic sieges by their former imperial/colonial masters, and these eventually destroyed them. It has been rare for nationalist revolutions to survive this second threat, because empires CAN NOT allow such examples to persist. They pull out all the stops in their determination to destroy them.

In those cases where nationalist revolutions have succumbed to corruption, what's generally happened is the revolutionary government has been TOPPLED and replaced with a colonial client. Examples are legion. This accounts for nearly all of the cases of "failed" liberation you're rhetorically capitalizing on. To say in these cases that the native revolutionary movement has betrayed its own cause is ludicrous because it's not the same people at all. If you want to contest this I'm going to have to insist on specific case histories. Prepare to get more of your lies exposed.

Yutz: "and north korea trades weapons technologies with the pakistani dictator musharraf on high principle, right?"

Oh this just tears it! Why am I discussing LEFTIST political theory with a fucking closet John Bircher? And that really does explain your entire position: "no, no, nationalism is bad because it encourages people to disrupt the global colonial food chain that keeps shoveling the world's wealth at ME ME ME." This is by a default a pro-IMPERIAL argument

What you assholes are totally missing about Perlman's argument is that the goal of statehood is a self-defeating one as regards the truest meaning of liberation. Perlman is really discrediting national entities primarily, and nationalist revolution only insofar as another national entity -- the real problem -- is its eventual goal. I don't disagree, but then what pragmatic alternative is there to a state if one is to avoid getting sucked back into the greater evil of colonization?

Also I have to suspect, given the prevalence of zionist trolls around here, that Arab nationalism is the real target of your antics

Yeah, now I've finally caught on pal: you're a right-wing troll here to amuse himself. You want me to take a 10-minute vacation? Fine: open wide

"you have to get people interested, and their geographic/cultural sense of identity is an excellent stimulant."

so, people are too stupid to want freedom for its own rewards? they have to be led with nationalist lies?

nations always involve armies, and the control/suppression of minorities with violence. nations are this problem, not a solution to it.

you want to motivate people? hate does that. greed does that. pride does that. hey, whatever works, right?

let's see, in this case, you want to make it all about how the awful white people deserve what you're going to give them, so you can live your vicarious strongman fantasy of nation-building. that's why you give so much credit-- for power, for brains, for foresight-- to the real enemies of humanity-- because you just want to replace them. your image if them is your image of yourself writ large. maybe that's why they're also all men, like you.

any human beings are capable of the things you get so touchy about "white people" having done, to you, on purpose, all of them, apparently. this is the same racist rot you would complain about. here's some ethnic-nationalist leaders with unique motivational ideas for ya: pol pot, idi amin, mussolini. some of us would rather just get rid of the bloody-nationlist paradigm altogether, whatever color or ideology it comes wrapped in.

we are all well advised now, for seeing your agenda for what it is.

thanks for that!!! most sincerely.

"so, people are too stupid to want freedom for its own rewards? they have to be led with nationalist lies?"

Your twisting here of what I actually said, it takes me right back to back-of-the-bus banter in junior high school. I remember nurturing some hope then that the rest of human society was not like that, but now I just keep running into cowardly arrested adolescent fuckheads like you.

You have not overturned in any way the immense HISTORICAL REALITY of what I said. After all your early pretense of god-like intellectual powers, you are now revealing yourself to be a TOTAL FUCKING PUNK with a thoroughly unrepresented emotional motive

"nations are this problem, not a solution to it."

Um, I addressed this, PUNK:

quote: "...the goal of statehood is a self-defeating one as regards the truest meaning of liberation. Perlman is really discrediting national entities primarily, and nationalist revolution only insofar as another national entity -- the real problem -- is its eventual goal. I don't disagree, but then WHAT PRAGMATIC ALTERNATIVE IS THERE to a state if one is to avoid getting sucked back into the greater evil of colonization?"

I mean, are you fucking STUPID in addition to merely dishonest? But then, dishonesty does generate stupidity in the form of delusional belief, i.e. the habit of relentlessly lying to oneself about every important existential question. That IS the cardinal trait of the urban degenerate. Which cities has your family lived in for the past 20 generations?

"...you want to make it all about how the awful white people deserve what you're going to give them"

Uh-huh, and there you go fixating on race again, when historical instances of nationalism that WERE NOT predicated on race must number at least in the dozens. Do you live in America? I'm judging from your crypto-fascist sensibilities that you like it pretty good here, don't you? Yeah, well guess what: this country is a product of a NATIONALIST REVOLUTION, so just cry in your fucking beer already.

Which is it then? Do you reject nationalism as invariably racist, or do you accept as a rah-rah-USA fuckhead that it can mean something else?

"your image if them is your image of yourself writ large"

Wrong-o, PUNK. I'm the most genuine anarchist there is; I have no desire to lord over any other living being and I long for a world totally devoid of human authority of any kind. But I have come to understand who my mortal enemies are, and that it is completely rational and moral to HATE yes HATE one's mortal enemies. Anarchism does not deny the existence of power relationships, is acutely conscious of them, and my ability to experience hatred for those who would walk on me makes me invincible. I can be killed, but I will never be defeated. This is not "machismo," oh no, it's vastly larger. Hatred is the only emotional force that can override and disperse fear, and that's why you're told 15 times a day "don't hate, oh no no, hate is evil. Love is the answer." Civilization is predicated on the abject fear of the many, i.e. on the proscription of hatred. To overcome that message is to emerge forever from enslavement. I daresay you'll never understand this most elemental kind of liberation.

"some of us would rather just get rid of the bloody-nationlist paradigm altogether"

Uh-huh, so tell us how a stateless world can be achieved, then -- other than the FAKE vision the neo-con globalists hold forth, which will be a planetary fascist STATE that ruthlessly parasitizes 99% of humanity while ladling the milk and honey into the mouths of petulant babes like YOOOO. Ah, but the neo-con-game's vision of total empire is also your dream of global harmony, isn't it, lying fuck?

"...for seeing your agenda for what it is."

Uh-huh, and what pray tell is YOURS, you fucking PUNK? C'mon, tell the truth now, I'm holding my breath. Since you've totally skirted the subject, I assume I've laid my finger on this one as well:

"...given the prevalence of zionist trolls around here... Arab nationalism is the real target of your antics"

How 'boutsit then, PUNK? Am I wrong? Why don't you disclose a few things yourself? Got something you need to hide? Don't worry, lying and manipulation is your immediate social reflex, remember? That's why you are FUCKING LOSING: you can't even see your way out of the thicket of lies you fervently believe in. It's your intellectual prison cell. Just give up on breaking out of it, okay? That takes real heroism

screaming "punk" at another poster on indybay, as if it were an insult?

like, what, do we hafta fight now? is it a masculine code of honor thing?

tho you're right-- the personal factor is really what makes this whole thread so special. you keep saying a lot about you that way.....

by all means, carry on.

Uh-huh, and what pray tell is YOUR [agenda]? C'mon, tell the truth now, I'm holding my breath. Since you've totally skirted the subject, I assume I've laid my finger on this one as well:

"...given the prevalence of zionist trolls around here... Arab nationalism is the real target of your antics"

How 'boutsit then, PUNK? Am I wrong? Why don't you disclose a few things yourself? Got something you need to hide? Don't worry, lying and manipulation is your immediate social reflex, remember?

because this isnt really about me (or you for that matter), your best efforts notwithstanding. this is really about "your" ideas about "revolutionary" nationalism-- my agenda's just to get to the bottom of all that. my whole intervention started with wanting more truth than was evident in all your polemicizing, personalizing rhetoric.

indeed, you are dominating the discursive agenda, big man. and it looks like it's starting to occur to you that this was a tactical mistake on your part. you have let so much slip, really, often in a Freudian manner. to read back over this thread in toto is a brilliant expose. i will not give you a bunch of material to try to turn your response (even further) into a personal critique, because this isnt about personalities (though you certainly seem to think so). you're already doing a fine job of personalizing the question just with what you "have," big man.

you forgot about your audience, didnt you? if in fact one exists to you, outside your own head.

as i said, please, carry on. every gem from your keyboard is a better illustration of the tragedy of your ideas than any oppositional rhetoric might ever hope to illustrate.

Uh-huh, so your agenda is to discredit "the tragedy of my ideas" while exposing your own to as little scrutiny as possible, but "this isnt about personalities"

also

"my whole intervention started with wanting more truth than was evident in all your polemicizing, personalizing rhetoric."

No it didn't. You came in here passing gas with your opinion that Europeans are not responsible for the destruction of the native societies of the Americas

Like every other post from you, this one is just more lies, deflection, apologetics, symptomatic distortions of history

...lying and manipulation is your immediate social reflex, remember?

I'm outta here. This circle jerk is all yours. Sorry, I know you were savoring the boarding school memories

we've taken this to its conclusion, and the record stands for all to scrutinize and, in turn, draw their own conclusions.

i'm also quite sure we'd never have had this conversation in public. all hail indybay!!

Except for Magon, the person or persons posting to this thread don't use a consistent name, so it's rather hard to follow the discussion.

More generally, I can't see any justification for most of the posters to indybay not using their real names. It seems to me a way for people to run at the mouth (or keyboard) without taking responsibility for their words.

If you have a good security reason for not using a name you're known by in the real world when you post here, at least have the courtesy to maintain a consistent identity, at least throughout a single discussion!

Personally I think its great that people dont use consistent names much when they argue since the arguments themselves can stand on merit without it degenrating into attacks on a specific person or guilt by association. Sure it is also easy to be uncivil without using a name but the incivility tends to focus on the immediate arguments not political associations and other squabiliing within political scenes.

Magon is a a neocon/anarchist who uses trotskyist like absolutism to make Blair like arguments for war. But he/she may also be a radical who wouldnt argue these same views if his/her real name were associated with the arguments. The arguments can be argued against and ultimately defeated while Magon him/herself could in person be a hardcore anachist/post-leftist who would be afraid to admit to sucuming to the appeal of necon cultural chauvanism. The consistent name is perhaps a consistent thread of argument but if as you supposed Magon is a singleminded postleftist necon and that alone, that would be sad. People should have enough thought in their heads to hold mutually contradictory views in the absense of the absolute truth that is only held by fundamentalists (religious, libertarian, neocon or otherwise) but somehow assumed by a broader segment of the population to be the norm among everyone aside from themselves.

Check out Looking at the White Working Class Historically by political prisoner David Gilbert. It's a nuanced discussion of Sakai's work, among others.

Also check out When Race Burns Class: "Settlers" Revisited, an interview with J.Sakai that clarifies where he was coming from when he wrote the book.

just trolling here, but the discussion about this book doesn't seem at all to be about the book, just like how fredy perlman saw some pictures of mao and stereotyped the work.

basically, the arguments of the book are that class is visible in america as race, that race is a construction, and the it's foolish to think that the 'white' working class in america, which we know was deliberately grown to include other european ethnicities, will ever have much solidarity with the 'real proletariat', the truly unprivileged.

white supremacy in america is real. acknowledging this doesn't make you anti-white. the defensive posture of whites when reacting to this work seems very similar to the tea party, a 'movement' that bears witness to a lot of what sakai wrote.