Sign in with Facebook
J. Sakai’s Followers (74)
J. Sakai
More books by J. Sakai…
“Amerika is so decadent that it has no proletariat of its own, but must exist parasitically on the colonial proletariat of oppressed nations and national minorities. Truly, a Babylon “whose life was death.”
― Settlers: The Mythology of the White Proletariat from Mayflower to Modern
― Settlers: The Mythology of the White Proletariat from Mayflower to Modern
“In 1858 Engels sarcastically described the tamed
British workers in the bluntest terms: "The English proletariat is actually becoming more and more bourgeois, so
that this most bourgeois of all nations is apparently aiming
ultimately at the possession of a bourgeois aristocracy and
a bourgeois proletariat alongside the bourgeoisie. For a na- tion which exploits the whole world this is to a certain ex- tent justifiable." (2) Britain was the Imperial Rome, the
Amerikan Empire of that day - a nation which "feasted"
on the exploitation of colonies around the entire world.
Engels, as a communist, didn't make lame excuses for the
corrupted English workers, but exposed them. He held the
English workers accountable to the world proletariat for
their sorry political choices.”
― Settlers: The Mythology of the White Proletariat
British workers in the bluntest terms: "The English proletariat is actually becoming more and more bourgeois, so
that this most bourgeois of all nations is apparently aiming
ultimately at the possession of a bourgeois aristocracy and
a bourgeois proletariat alongside the bourgeoisie. For a na- tion which exploits the whole world this is to a certain ex- tent justifiable." (2) Britain was the Imperial Rome, the
Amerikan Empire of that day - a nation which "feasted"
on the exploitation of colonies around the entire world.
Engels, as a communist, didn't make lame excuses for the
corrupted English workers, but exposed them. He held the
English workers accountable to the world proletariat for
their sorry political choices.”
― Settlers: The Mythology of the White Proletariat
“There was major u.s. imperialist support for Italian, Spanish and German fascism before and even during World War II, as opposed to support for fascism at home. Fascism was distinct from racism or white supremacy, which were only "as American as apple pie."
Neither the ruling class nor the white masses had any real need for fascism. What for? There was no class deadlock paralyzing society. There already was a longstanding, thinly disguised settler dictatorship over the colonial proletariat in North America. In the u.s. settlerism made fascism unnecessary. However good or bad the economic situation was, white settlers were getting the best of what was available. Which was why both the white Left and white Far Right alike back then in the 1930s were patriotic and pro-American. Now only the white Left is.
The white Left here is behind in understanding fascism. When they're not using the word loosely and rhetorically to mean any repression at all (like the frequent assertions that cutting welfare is "fascism"! I mean, give us a break!), they're still reciting their favorite formula that the fascists are only the "pawns of the ruling class". No, that was Nazism in Germany, maybe, though even there that's not a useful way of looking at it. But definitely not here, not in that old way.
The main problem hasn't been fascism in the old sense – it's been neocolonialism and bourgeois democracy! The bourgeoisie didn't need any fascism at all to put Leonard Peltier away in maximum security for life or Mumia on death row. They hunted down the Black Panthers and the American Indian Movement like it was deer hunting season, while white America went shopping at the mall – all without needing fascism. And the steady waterfall of patriarchal violence against women, of rapes and torture and killings and very effective terrorism on a mass scale, should remind us that the multitude of reactionary men have "equal opportunity" under "democracy", too.”
― When Race Burns Class: Settlers Revisited
Neither the ruling class nor the white masses had any real need for fascism. What for? There was no class deadlock paralyzing society. There already was a longstanding, thinly disguised settler dictatorship over the colonial proletariat in North America. In the u.s. settlerism made fascism unnecessary. However good or bad the economic situation was, white settlers were getting the best of what was available. Which was why both the white Left and white Far Right alike back then in the 1930s were patriotic and pro-American. Now only the white Left is.
The white Left here is behind in understanding fascism. When they're not using the word loosely and rhetorically to mean any repression at all (like the frequent assertions that cutting welfare is "fascism"! I mean, give us a break!), they're still reciting their favorite formula that the fascists are only the "pawns of the ruling class". No, that was Nazism in Germany, maybe, though even there that's not a useful way of looking at it. But definitely not here, not in that old way.
The main problem hasn't been fascism in the old sense – it's been neocolonialism and bourgeois democracy! The bourgeoisie didn't need any fascism at all to put Leonard Peltier away in maximum security for life or Mumia on death row. They hunted down the Black Panthers and the American Indian Movement like it was deer hunting season, while white America went shopping at the mall – all without needing fascism. And the steady waterfall of patriarchal violence against women, of rapes and torture and killings and very effective terrorism on a mass scale, should remind us that the multitude of reactionary men have "equal opportunity" under "democracy", too.”
― When Race Burns Class: Settlers Revisited
Is this you? Let us know. If not, help out and invite J. to Goodreads.
