The Myth of the White Proletariat

[Questionable]

http://ebookbrowse.com/settlers-mythology-of-the-white-proletariat-pdf-d65179030

Has anyone read this? A third-worldist recommended it to me. I usually try to be open-minded but skimming through it it looks like a bunch of trash about how white workers were completely complacent in every racist action taken by the bourgeoisie and never waged any kind of class struggle, so I'm wondering if it's worth my time.

[Ostrinski]

Sounds like moralism in place of what adtually scientifically constitutes class.

White wage workers don't exist? Damn.

[Questionable]

Sounds like moralism in place of what adtually scientifically constitutes class.

White wage workers don't exist? Damn.

That's the position I was taking. My opponent, while very polite, held that Americans were "natural jingoists" and that it wasn't because of capitalism that we were supposedly like this.

[Ostrinski]

That's the position I was taking. My opponent, while very polite, held that Americans were "natural jingoists" and that it wasn't because of capitalism that we were supposedly like this.Right wing lunacy. There's nothing "natural" about national or cultural issues. These characteristics are reflections of the material state of society molded by ideological catalysts.

There certainly are some parallels between these third-worldist folks and right wing groups such as fascists in terms of their line of thought.

[Questionable]

Right wing lunacy. There's nothing "natural" about national or cultural issues. These characteristics are reflections of the material state of society molded by ideological catalysts.

There certainly are some parallels between these third-worldist folks and right wing groups such as fascists in terms of their line of thought.

Well, both ideologies stem from frustrated petty-bourgeois living in the first-world they supposedly hate. Third-worldism is like a reverse fascism if you think about it - rather than seeking to empower its own social base, it desires self-destruction by every other social group.

[Ostrinski]

Well, both ideologies stem from frustrated petty-bourgeois living in the first-world they supposedly hate. Third-worldism is like a reverse fascism if you think about it - rather than seeking to empower its own social base, it desires self-destruction by every other social group.Fucking odd creatures whatever the occasion.

[Marxaveli]

http://ebookbrowse.com/settlers-mythology-of-the-white-proletariat-pdf-d65179030

Has anyone read this? A third-worldist recommended it to me. I usually try to be open-minded but skimming through it it looks like a bunch of trash about how white workers were completely complacent in every racist action taken by the bourgeoisie and never waged any kind of class struggle, so I'm wondering if it's worth my time.

Mythology of the white proletarian. Think about that statement/title for a second: by its very nature is anti-Marxist, so no, it isn't worth your time. Your opponent, to put it nicely, is an idealistic reactionary dumb fuck, regardless of how polite they are.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Sakai, as far as I've been able to tell from interviews I've read from him, believes that class throughout American history has been racialized...ie to be proletarian in, say, 1880 meant that one was also somehow "non-white". It's a dumb thesis.

[cynicles]

The Myth of the Male Proletariat. How abou that one? Or how about, The Myth of the Heteronormative Proletariat? It's just junk identity politics with a heavy dose of essentialism.

[moves]

So no one read the book and you're deciding what it's about and what's it lacking based on a single word in its title.

[Hiero]

So no one read the book and you're deciding what it's about and what's it lacking based on a single word in its title.

That is pretty much how it goes here. I don't think anyone who has commented understands the word "myth". It show's their own fantacism. If their system was scientific as they claim they would take it on as something to study and challenge their own understanding of Marxism, instead the brand before investigation.

[Marxaveli]

The fact the book was recommended to the OP by a third-Worldist does not do it justice - third-worldism is, essentially, horseshit. This would indicate that the context of the book likely reaffirms their view that only minorities are proletarians and thus it is only they who are oppressed by Capitalism.

[Rusty Shackleford]

CHECK THIS SHIT OUT. I DONT EVEN EXIST. lol

[Hiero]

The fact the book was recommended to the OP by a third-Worldist does not do it justice - third-worldism is, essentially, horseshit. This would indicate that the context of the book likely reaffirms their view that only minorities are proletarians and thus it is only they who are oppressed by Capitalism.
Yes, good work!

[Jimmie Higgins]

Sometimes when the mists rise from the moor, a pale white laboring specter appears; driving a truck, filing reports in a cubicle, sorting mail!!!!! :scared:

[SonofRage]

I read this about six or seven years ago. It's worth reading, but I disagree with its conclusion and the political implications of this conclusion. If you read it, I'd recommend following it up with Joel Olson's The Abolition of White Democracy (http://www.amazon.com/Abolition-White-Democracy-Joel-Olson/dp/0816642788).

[Questionable]

That is pretty much how it goes here. I don't think anyone who has commented understands the word "myth". It show's their own fantacism. If their system was scientific as they claim they would take it on as something to study and challenge their own understanding of Marxism, instead the brand before investigation.


Well, considering third-worldists are a big fan of Sakai, it casts a blight over the book. If a neo-nazi recommends me something it might be a great book, but I also don't want to waste my time reading about racial purity when I could be doing something more valuable, hence the reason I posted it here so someone could give me the gist of it.

[SonofRage]

I'm seeing a lot of opinions about a book from people who don't seem to have actually read it. What is the value of these opinions? This book, while I disagree with its political conclusions, is a serious engagement of U.S. history and the development and power of white supremacy.

For revolutionaries in the United States, it is critically necessary to understand its history and the development of white supremacy as a hegemonic force dividing the American working class. Unfortunately, so many revolutionaries seem to know more about the Russian and Spanish revolutions than they do about the history of the country they live in.

[~Spectre]

is a serious engagement of U.S. history and the development and power of white supremacy.


If you say so.


So Settlers was researched backwards. i knew what the conclusion was in the mid-1970s, that white supremacy ruled the white working class except in the self delusions of the Left. "No politician can ever be too racist to be popular in white amerikkka", is an amazingly true saying.

[Invader Zim]

So no one read the book and you're deciding what it's about and what's it lacking based on a single word in its title.

Well, I read the introduction and first chapter - and it seems to me that they have the book well covered, actually. It seemingly contends that there was, historically, no white proletariat in 'Amerika' and holds, as an underlying assumption that 'the white man' (having a uterous seemingly demotes one beyond worthy of consideration) is 'completely racist and treacherous'. Or, inherently the oppressor.

This is not, as it claims to be, a 'scientific' alaysis. It is a dogmatic screed on the evils of white people.

[ComradeOm]

That is pretty much how it goes here. I don't think anyone who has commented understands the word "myth". It show's their own fantacism. If their system was scientific as they claim they would take it on as something to study and challenge their own understanding of Marxism, instead the brand before investigation.Well, it's certainly not about a Sorelian myth :glare:

In fact even the most cursory reading (as in the first page or two) reveals it to be a bog-standard Third World-ist tract, replete with the usual tripe of 'New Babylon' and 'Euro-Amerikans'. Witness this classic denial of the existence of an American proletariat:

"While there are numbers of Euro-Amerikan workers, they no longer combine into a separate proletarian class. The old white industrial proletariat of the 1930s has been dissolved by promotion and privilege, and its place taken by the colonial proletariats. The abnormal and historically brief contradiction of proletarian class conflict within the settler garrison has been ended. Just as in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, the U.S. oppressor nation is again a non-proletarian society that is purely capitalistic in character"

It's also an incredibly poorly put together piece of work filled with incoherent arguments, selective fact-picking and dire writing. What's of worth is unoriginal and what's original is not of worth. So yeah, the initial instincts of most posters here were correct


This book, while I disagree with its political conclusions, is a serious engagement of U.S. history and the development and power of white supremacy. "Serious"? It's a hack job and an unpleasant one at best. I particularly loathed the racist accusation that Russian Jewish immigrants to the US were somehow less deserving than others. That, unlike Puerto Ricans, these Jews were immediately tapping into a "rich, privileged lifestyle"

[Peoples' War]

http://ebookbrowse.com/settlers-mythology-of-the-white-proletariat-pdf-d65179030

Has anyone read this? A third-worldist recommended it to me.

:laugh:

[Yuppie Grinder]

Anyone else bummered out to find out they don't exist?

[cynicles]

Anyone else bummered out to find out they don't exist?
I always had an inkling you white devils we're a myth, but it took this hack piece of literature to convince me of your non-existence. Like with religion I am now an atheist on the subject.

In regards to the whole not having read the book, I've followed Sakai for a year now reading what articles I could and read the intro and 1st chapter, it's neither impressive nor a serious analysis. It tends to lose credibility with the whole obnoxious "amerika" thing, which amuses only in offhanded conversation, not in a serious political discource where I expect the author to get serious. It would be like writing a critique of Islam and saying "islamofascism" in place of islam and expecting people to take you seriously.

[Positivist]

So no one read the book and you're deciding what it's about and what's it lacking based on a single word in its title.

Yes, because the implication that white people cannot be compensated at less than the value of their productive contribution, can't be socially and creatively alienated, cannot have stratified access to resources and further that they on the contrary "naturally" uphold these insititutions is totally reasonable and scientific.

[Questionable]

Yes, because the implication that white people cannot be compensated at less than the value of their productive contribution, can't be socially and creatively alienated, cannot have stratified access to resources and further that they on the contrary "naturally" uphold these insititutions is totally reasonable and scientific.

Actually, third-worldists believe that first-world white workers get the full value of their work PLUS surplus-value from exploited countries in their wages, thus making them non-exploited. Which is totally ridiculous and can be easily debunked by looking at the gap between total wealth created and wages paid in America.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Actually, third-worldists believe that first-world white workers get the full value of their work PLUS surplus-value from exploited countries in their wages, thus making them non-exploited. Which is totally ridiculous and can be easily debunked by looking at the gap between total wealth created and wages paid in America.

Yeah these theories made a kind of sense to US radicals in a superficial way during the "guns and butter" domestic policies of the post-war. At that time you had pretty steady gains for white union workers and a decrease in struggle as the radicals and militants were pushed out and the union heads developed a negotiation strategy; also at the same time that class struggle was subsiding in Western Europe and North America there were revolutions and national liberation movements in the so-called third world.

So without our heinseight and without a larger view of revolutionary history and politics and without an influential alternative to "official Marxism" many young radicals were convinced that the western working class was a barrier and some of them even believed that white workers are part of the problem and benifit from US imperialism and domestic oppression. Of course the odd thing is that is what the US rulers wanted to convince the population of: "we have our military so you can have your freedom, don't question what we do abroad, it's why life is good for you".

But that people can STILL make this arguement after 35 or so years of increasing US imperialism at the same time and as a partial cause of increased economic inequality and downward push on the working class (moreso on non-whites, but objectivly and significantly on whites as well) is just absurd. To hold this line while world-wide working class struggles are actually more common and similar in demands, grievences, and even tactics is similarly bizzare - as if Spain is different qualitativly than Egypt rather than different only by degrees and according to specific traits of these countries.

There are divisions within the class for sure, many whites who buy into racist arguments and logic, many men who buy into sexism, many US workers who buy into nationalism and jingoism - but to say that they objectivly benifit from the system is like saying that coach passengers on a sinking ship are benifiting from that ship because they won't drown as quickly as the poor below decks in steerage.

[Hiero]

It's also an incredibly poorly put together piece of work filled with incoherent arguments, selective fact-picking and dire writing. What's of worth is unoriginal and what's original is not of worth. So yeah, the initial instincts of most posters here were correct

You would read it as a metaphor for the fractionalisation of class in the US and documenting White hegemony. Ofcourse it is not "science" nor academic, it is meant to be agitation and thought provoking. It is scary to most people because it diverges from the Stalinist and Trotskyist narrative about the 'proleteriat' that is meant going to much down the street hand in hand.

The instict from most posters reveal their fanatical attachment to Marxism and their general lack of understanding of Marxism. Is it really marxist to dismiss the labour aristocracy, the history of racism and the wars of imperialism as having no affect on class formation and ideology?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Is it really marxist to dismiss the labour aristocracy, the history of racism and the wars of imperialism as having no affect on class formation and ideology?

Disagreeing with a theory or set of ideas and their logical conclusions doesn't mean denying or downplaying the observations that led some people to develop that theory. I want to organize against and fight sexism, I know it's a major factor in life, but I still reject the arguments by some feminists that oppression of women is something biologically or psycologically in-born in men.

[ComradeOm]

You would read it as a metaphor for the fractionalisation of class in the US and documenting White hegemony. Ofcourse it is not "science" nor academic, it is meant to be agitation and thought provoking. It is scary to most people because it diverges from the Stalinist and Trotskyist narrative about the 'proleteriat' that is meant going to much down the street hand in handNo, that doesn't follow. Bad history and poor analysis can't be excused by 'provoking thought'. You can easily do the latter with something that's actually worth reading. Even as judged as a polemic this is pretty dire, for the reasons mentioned above


The instict from most posters reveal their fanatical attachment to Marxism and their general lack of understanding of MarxismThis is the bit where you tap-dance around your own Third-Worldism while accusing others of not understanding your own brand of Marxism, right? The latter being definitely 100% something that isn't going to get you restricted but that you don't want to elaborate on, just because.

[Hiero]

Disagreeing with a theory or set of ideas and their logical conclusions doesn't mean denying or downplaying the observations that led some people to develop that theory. I want to organize against and fight sexism, I know it's a major factor in life, but I still reject the arguments by some feminists that oppression of women is something biologically or psycologically in-born in men.

What occurs usually though is people just presuppose where thoose observations are going to go. For instance MIM made some pretty wild claims, but some of their observations were valid. When people picked up on thoose observations (for instance acknowleding the labour aristocracy which Engels and Lenin observed over a 100 years ago) they were accused of holding the most ridiculous conclusions. I believe there is a labour aristocracy (I profess to belong to that group and have a mix of middle class and working class habitus because of it), but I never denied the existence of white workers. On this forum however if I mention labour aristocracy, peeople assume I am denying that you can be white and working class person.

MIM created the perfect scapegoat for projecting ones own fundamentalist understanding of Marx and imaginary conception of the working class (as a large homogenous contingent). People's defence against bringing forward observations about the stratification of class was just to excuse someone as being a "third worldist". Without any explanation what it all meant. Marxism then turns into a wierd conservatism, just blindly defending it against potentionally dangerous observations, such as a stratum of white working class who live comfortably in capitalist soceity. Which is my lived experience as I see my childhood friends live a middle class standard of living while holding blue collar jobs. I don't deny they are workers, who work to produce surplus value for a bourgeoisie (or another middle class), I just have to acknowledge a class of workers that don't fit the one size fits all 'proletariat'. You not going to convinces these guys that they are being explioted when they are paying off mortgages while going to trips to Bali.

[black magick hustla]

if mormons recommend the book of mormons and i reject it without reading it am i being dogmatic?

people take recommendations seriously from people they take seriously. i don't know what is there to take seriously about the bible of anachronistic college kids that could never think beyond the theories of 1968 and listen to backpacker hiphop


canada has been making me hate white people a lot lately though so maybe i can start to sympathize

[Hiero]

if mormons recommend the book of mormons and i reject it without reading it am i being dogmatic?

people take recommendations seriously from people they take seriously. i don't know what is there to take seriously about the bible of anachronistic college kids that could never think beyond the theories of 1968 and listen to backpacker hiphop


canada has been making me hate white people a lot lately though so maybe i can start to sympathize

You're so street, is that why you never use capitals?

You know Marx was a college kid, I bet he read alternative poetry.

[Jimmie Higgins]

What occurs usually though is people just presuppose where thoose observations are going to go. For instance MIM made some pretty wild claims, but some of their observations were valid. When people picked up on thoose observations (for instance acknowleding the labour aristocracy which Engels and Lenin observed over a 100 years ago) they were accused of holding the most ridiculous conclusions. I believe there is a labour aristocracy (I profess to belong to that group and have a mix of middle class and working class habitus because of it), but I never denied the existence of white workers. On this forum however if I mention labour aristocracy, peeople assume I am denying that you can be white and working class person.Well the observation I was thinking was that there are different divisions within the class and differences in relative conditions faced by workers based out of the specific point of history and where they are.

The "labor aristocracy" as described by Engels and Lenin is based on observations of real things, although there I disagree with some of the way they formulate this as consituting a "labor aristocracy". For Engels he was describing a layer of skilled workers who were opposed to industrial unskilled workers because they saw the rise of modern industry as a threat to their craft positions and power to negotiate. Lenin was talking about the people in society who owe their position in society to negotiating capitalism with or on behalf of workers - they recoiled from revolution because what good is a labor beurocrat or a parlementary socialist if there's no capitalism and workers rule on their own behalf!

But it seems to me that the issue with the modern "labor aristocracy" ideas that we are discussing here is that this idea is not really rooted in fundamental material conditions, but an understanding of class which conflates wage income with social class, and is based mostly on the "attitudes" of people rather than their fundamental relationship to capitalist society.

This idea had some appeal when western countries had a period of "labor peace" and Keynsian reforms while the thrid world was engaged in a series of colonial and post-colonial liberation struggles, but I think history has shown that this was an impressionistic view because struggle has returned more generally throughout the capitalist world and specifically, US workers have faced attacks and declines at the same time that US imperialism emerged as the sole top imperialist power.


MIM created the perfect scapegoat for projecting ones own fundamentalist understanding of Marx and imaginary conception of the working class (as a large homogenous contingent).Why in the world would the rallying cry of Marxism be "workers of the world unite" if we were already, or if Marxism percieved workers to be, one homogenous mass?

There is a history of marxists and anarchists not fully grasping the role of either internal oppression or national oppression through imperialism and there's even a history of pre-1917 social-chauvanism (socialists and anarchists who supported white supremacy or had antisemetic views) but there was almost always also some kind of opposition to these views - moreso after the begining of the 20th century. More importantly, for all the things that early marxists got wrong, the ideas of class struggle and the ideas of Marx lay the basis for an understanding of where this comes from and how to ultimately change that. I think it just simply isn't the case that non-3rd worldists see the class as one big group.


People's defence against bringing forward observations about the stratification of class was just to excuse someone as being a "third worldist". Without any explanation what it all meant.I have no argument with the observation that there are division within the class, that there are subjective differences, and that workers are subjected to oppressions in different ways with some groups being targeted for more oppression like sexism or Islamophobia or whatnot.

What I object to about these ideas is that fighting and sucessfully wining some economic struggles makes workers no longer real workers. I object to the idea that the nationalism and jingoism used by all ruling classes and pushed onto workers somehow makes workers in the US or Japan or Europe a different class in a material sense, rather than it being "the ruling ideas of society being the ideas of our rulers" and mixed consiousness. What I object to is the idea that a period of low struggle signified a fundamental material change in the way capitalism operates and the relations of people to production.


Marxism then turns into a wierd conservatism, just blindly defending it against potentionally dangerous observations, such as a stratum of white working class who live comfortably in capitalist soceity.Conservativism? Well that's funny because "worker's benifit form US military power" is exactly what US right-wingers argue to try and get workers to support US imperialism: we have to make the world safe for our way of life/it's a clash of civilizations - ours or the evil Islamic world. It's the same argument made by the 2nd International "labor aristocrats" during WWI: we have to defend our home country because look at how many rights we've won here in Germany!"

But it's a shallow impression when it comes in an affermative version as well as in the negative 3rd worldist version.

And if it was true, then there never would have been worker uprisings in Germany after WWI. If Lenin's views were the same as the 3rd Worldists, then he would have not put his hopes in a German Revolution to help Russian worker's achieve socialism.


Which is my lived experience as I see my childhood friends live a middle class standard of living while holding blue collar jobs. I don't deny they are workers, who work to produce surplus value for a bourgeoisie (or another middle class), I just have to acknowledge a class of workers that don't fit the one size fits all 'proletariat'. You not going to convinces these guys that they are being explioted when they are paying off mortgages while going to trips to Bali.First, well paid workers still have grievences - control of time, control of pace of work, safty concerns, etc. In the 1970s there was a wave of wildcat strikes - and this was basically at the height of wages relative to the national wealth in the US. Mostly these strikes were not over wages but over other issues realted to safty and control of conditions on the job.

Second, just telling someone something, probably isn't going to convince people if they are not receptive, so your friends going to Bali might feel secure and not be receptive. (Un)fortunately, the system has a tendency to need to constantly upend our lives and lower labor costs and go into crisis and this will convince people of their own precarious nature, even as better paid workers. Just ask the "entitled" (according the the US and German press) workers of Greece, or the "middle class" people in the US underwater with their mortgages, bankrupt from medical or education debts, or having their homes forclosed.

[Invader Zim]

Ofcourse it is not "science" nor academic, it is meant to be agitation and thought provoking.

So when it directly purports to be 'scientific' (as if any historical analysis of any depth can be), such as when it states that it is 'time to scientifically examine the oppressor society', p. 3 (the statement of intent of the book), the author actually had something different in mind?

It would seem that it is far from the books critics here who have not bothered to glance through it....

[Hiero]

So when it directly purports to be 'scientific' (as if any historical analysis of any depth can be), such as when it states that it is 'time to scientifically examine the oppressor society', p. 3 (the statement of intent of the book), the author actually had something different in mind?

It would seem that it is far from the books critics here who have not bothered to glance through it....

I am saying it is not science, the author may think otherwise. I should have wrote that it should be 'read as'...

[PC LOAD LETTER]

Anyone else bummered out to find out they don't exist?
Wanna help me wash my unicorn? Cyclops is grilling steaks later today. We could maybe go watch the sunset on Arrakis after.

[Hiero]

Well the observation I was thinking was that there are different divisions within the class and differences in relative conditions faced by workers based out of the specific point of history and where they are.

The "labor aristocracy" as described by Engels and Lenin is based on observations of real things, although there I disagree with some of the way they formulate this as consituting a "labor aristocracy". For Engels he was describing a layer of skilled workers who were opposed to industrial unskilled workers because they saw the rise of modern industry as a threat to their craft positions and power to negotiate. Lenin was talking about the people in society who owe their position in society to negotiating capitalism with or on behalf of workers - they recoiled from revolution because what good is a labor beurocrat or a parlementary socialist if there's no capitalism and workers rule on their own behalf!

But it seems to me that the issue with the modern "labor aristocracy" ideas that we are discussing here is that this idea is not really rooted in fundamental material conditions, but an understanding of class which conflates wage income with social class, and is based mostly on the "attitudes" of people rather than their fundamental relationship to capitalist society.

This idea had some appeal when western countries had a period of "labor peace" and Keynsian reforms while the thrid world was engaged in a series of colonial and post-colonial liberation struggles, but I think history has shown that this was an impressionistic view because struggle has returned more generally throughout the capitalist world and specifically, US workers have faced attacks and declines at the same time that US imperialism emerged as the sole top imperialist power.

Why in the world would the rallying cry of Marxism be "workers of the world unite" if we were already, or if Marxism percieved workers to be, one homogenous mass?

There is a history of marxists and anarchists not fully grasping the role of either internal oppression or national oppression through imperialism and there's even a history of pre-1917 social-chauvanism (socialists and anarchists who supported white supremacy or had antisemetic views) but there was almost always also some kind of opposition to these views - moreso after the begining of the 20th century. More importantly, for all the things that early marxists got wrong, the ideas of class struggle and the ideas of Marx lay the basis for an understanding of where this comes from and how to ultimately change that. I think it just simply isn't the case that non-3rd worldists see the class as one big group.

I have no argument with the observation that there are division within the class, that there are subjective differences, and that workers are subjected to oppressions in different ways with some groups being targeted for more oppression like sexism or Islamophobia or whatnot.

What I object to about these ideas is that fighting and sucessfully wining some economic struggles makes workers no longer real workers. I object to the idea that the nationalism and jingoism used by all ruling classes and pushed onto workers somehow makes workers in the US or Japan or Europe a different class in a material sense, rather than it being "the ruling ideas of society being the ideas of our rulers" and mixed consiousness. What I object to is the idea that a period of low struggle signified a fundamental material change in the way capitalism operates and the relations of people to production.

Conservativism? Well that's funny because "worker's benifit form US military power" is exactly what US right-wingers argue to try and get workers to support US imperialism: we have to make the world safe for our way of life/it's a clash of civilizations - ours or the evil Islamic world. It's the same argument made by the 2nd International "labor aristocrats" during WWI: we have to defend our home country because look at how many rights we've won here in Germany!"

But it's a shallow impression when it comes in an affermative version as well as in the negative 3rd worldist version.

And if it was true, then there never would have been worker uprisings in Germany after WWI. If Lenin's views were the same as the 3rd Worldists, then he would have not put his hopes in a German Revolution to help Russian worker's achieve socialism.

First, well paid workers still have grievences - control of time, control of pace of work, safty concerns, etc. In the 1970s there was a wave of wildcat strikes - and this was basically at the height of wages relative to the national wealth in the US. Mostly these strikes were not over wages but over other issues realted to safty and control of conditions on the job.

Second, just telling someone something, probably isn't going to convince people if they are not receptive, so your friends going to Bali might feel secure and not be receptive. (Un)fortunately, the system has a tendency to need to constantly upend our lives and lower labor costs and go into crisis and this will convince people of their own precarious nature, even as better paid workers. Just ask the "entitled" (according the the US and German press) workers of Greece, or the "middle class" people in the US underwater with their mortgages, bankrupt from medical or education debts, or having their homes forclosed.

I will reply in brief. In brief because I am not really a 'third worldist' in the sense most people hold, I just see some value in reading third world literature for its agitation purposes. And I will reply because you took time to post a wel thought out post. Sorry if you want a "third worldist" rant, you will have to track down the MIM/IRTR.

Generally my positions these days are that a lot of those problems described above can be attacked and solved (momentarily) through trade unions. That the forms of class conflict in the 1st world are mostly limited to fractions of classes fighting over claims to how much their labour is valued at. Those industries with strong trade union members are able to bargain the best that their value of labour is worth more than others, this being typically non-migrant and male dominated work. Cornelius Castoriadis criticised Karl Marx over this point in regards to his theory of exploitation, the fact that Marx supposedly never considered the effect of workers changing their wages and conditions through worker action. I identify a labour aristocracy as the most organised and in stable employment conditions; who have managed through struggle to maintain the best conditions in a society. I find Marxist actual dismiss material conditions as subjective, that living as a worker comfortable in a capitalist society is dismissed as false consciousness, when it is an actual material existence creating consciousness and ideology that general fits material existence.

How I see the third world and first world divide is how Malcolm X saw the dichotomy between the “field negro” and the “house negro”.

[Jimmie Higgins]

^I'd like to reply in more detail but work has been busier than normal so I won't have time tonight. But I just want to thank you for the thoughtful reply and and just clarify that I wasn't expecting a 3rd worldist rant or wasn't accusing you personally of anything, just trying to work through these debates and different ideas.

[Raúl Duke]

I like the direction this thread is going (about 1st world false consciousness/material consciousness; etc that Hiero mentioned). At first I though this thread would end up being just one big anti-maoist3rdworldist circle-jerk (not that I mind, I don't like MTWs either; but c'mon revleft is suppose to be about discussions. Hell, a lot of post here are one-liners about not-existing and unicorns, not that I mind although the admin/mod board may).

[Rottenfruit]

Sakai, as far as I've been able to tell from interviews I've read from him, believes that class throughout American history has been racialized...ie to be proletarian in, say, 1880 meant that one was also somehow "non-white". It's a dumb thesis.
And there never was prolteterian in third world nations?Relly what about chinese dinistays? The class system in Hindindusim, classism existed before and would exist in the same state even if the white race did not exist, the trouble with third worldism is that it blames a entire race of people for the actions of few, third worldism is racialist and theres no deying that.

Also why is ukraine a white nation a third world country then, Ukraine is poorer then most nations in south america and poorer then some in africa

Bluer nations are richer
Ukraine disproves third worldism
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/Ukr_world_GNI_percapita.PNG

[the last donut of the night]

part of third worldism's problematic world-view is that the original third world nations used as models have changed a lot since

[Fruit of Ulysses]

The simple fact that the ukraine, a "white" nation, is poorer than some non-european 3rd world countries does not disprove third worldism at all. The Ukraine is neither a first world or third world country, since the threeway division of nations during the peak of the imperialist epoch the Ukraine has been considered a second world country. Keep in mind that third-worldism is distinct from the three worlds theory which is a tenet of Maoism. Maoist third-worldism as an ideological trend developed later, supposedly making the three-worlds theory the basis of a new qualitative development in revolutionary theory: "maoist third worldism", the "fourth stage" of communism. While MTW as a movement is BS they still bring up good points and should not be laughed off entirely. To be frank, a revolutionary movement in the first world is impossible without solidarity with and assistance from third world revolutionaries whose continued success works to dismantle the system artificially sustaining moribund capitalism. Also, be careful not to conflate the bourgois use of the terms "first and third world" and the different definition used in maoist or maoist third worldist discourse. Mao defined first world countries as nuclear superpowers, second world countries as their sphere of influence, and third world countries as the non-nuclear and/or non-aligned developing countries. While Chairman Mao developed this thesis in the 1970s and things have changed, its general spirit holds true. How rich a country is isnt the prime indicator of a nations status in that regard, much in the way how high ones wage are isnt the prime indicator in class status, rather ones relationship to the ownership of the means of production.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

part of third worldism's problematic world-view is that the original third world nations used as models have changed a lot since
Plus, you know, it's kind of reactionary to assert race as anything other than a random, subjective category. It may as well be "The Myth of the Proletariat with Type A Blood" or "The Myth of the Ginger Proletariat".

100-120 years ago in the US I wouldn't have been considered 'white', now I am, just like Italians and Irish weren't either around the same time. Shit's subjective.

[Raúl Duke]

Plus, you know, it's kind of reactionary to assert race as anything other than a random, subjective category. It may as well be "The Myth of the Proletariat with Type A Blood" or "The Myth of the Ginger Proletariat".

100-120 years ago in the US I wouldn't have been considered 'white', now I am, just like Italians and Irish weren't either around the same time. Shit's subjective.

It's interesting to put it that way...

In another thread (referring to the LLCO), something was mentioned about the way that 1st world economies are centered (work that isn't industrial/commodity production) which makes the worker population here "privileged" or something; irregardless of race. (I don't believe in that theory)

But Sakai's theory is more racial based than that. Now, I'm not going to deny that non-Whites have been fucked over big time and that racism does have a negative effect towards the development of worker's consciousness/etc even in times of struggle; but a racial-based categorical exclusion of being proletariat while discounting the material conditions of the economy here is even more sillier than that other (LLCO's?) "3rd worldist" theory. After all, African-Americans, etc are for the most part being a part of that same "service industry, etc" that waged white laborers also work for.

[Hiero]

Plus, you know, it's kind of reactionary to assert race as anything other than a random, subjective category. It may as well be "The Myth of the Proletariat with Type A Blood" or "The Myth of the Ginger Proletariat".

100-120 years ago in the US I wouldn't have been considered 'white', now I am, just like Italians and Irish weren't either around the same time. Shit's subjective.

I don't know Sakai's arguement, but I have never read any of this so called "third worldist" material that use race as a biological construct. White is usually taken as a social-ethnic context. Even MIM (a forum for the discussion and promotion of "third worldist" theories) describe White as a social category, and their gender is even more fluid. They labeled 1st world biological women as gendered male due to their hierarchical standing. Where gender formation is resulted from power relationship, which is a more of a post-modern reading of gender than just cultural or biological catergories.

You have to read these things with a bit of foreknowledge and common sense. Alot of issues around race has already been discussed and dealt with. I might write a paper titled "Race Riots in the United States of America". That doesn't mean I believe in Race as biological determinent. Most of the race deconstruction already took place in the 60s and 70s, you should not be expected to constantly re write about the history of Race as a concept in the western world everytime you want to talk about power relations and ethnicity.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

I don't know Sakai's arguement, but I have never read any of this so called "third worldist" material that use race as a biological construct. White is usually taken as a social-ethnic context.
That is Sakai's argument.


from Ch. 4 sec 4, print page 41:
"Some may consider it unusual that white workers
opposed Black Reconstruction; particularly since Black
Reconstruction not only bent over backwards to treat the
entire white community, from planters to Poor whites,
with great respect, but introduced social reforms which
gave a real boost upwards to poor whites. Poor whites
were able to send their children to the new public schools,
and for the first time in much of the South they were able
to vote and hold minor public offices (during the "Slave
Power" reign stiff property qualifications barred many
whites from having political rights). These gifts failed to
win the gratitude of poor whites."


He's clearly disregarding socioeconomic status, or propertyless 'whites' would not have been referred to as such.



You have to read these things with a bit of foreknowledge and common sense.
"Common sense" - there's no such thing - and you've admitted you didn't read the damn thing.



Alot of issues around race has already been discussed and dealt with. I might write a paper titled "Race Riots in the United States of America". That doesn't mean I believe in Race as biological determinent. Most of the race deconstruction already took place in the 60s and 70s, you should not be expected to constantly re write about the history of Race as a concept in the western world everytime you want to talk about power relations and ethnicity.
I don't care

[l'Enfermé]

They labeled 1st world biological women as gendered male due to their hierarchical standing.
:laugh:

[Hiero]

I don't care

Wow, proud to be ignorant, go fuck yourself. I am done with you morons.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

Wow, proud to be ignorant, go fuck yourself. I am done with you morons.
"I don't care" as in "that's irrelevant". The 'race deconstruction' period you mentioned began some decades before the 60s and 70s; its first inklings began with Boas in (if I remember correctly) 1914-1917, and later really taking off with Montagu's work in the 40s. I've actually read Montagu's work on race from the time period. Have you?


Again, Sakai is using the dated and very reactionary biologic hypothesis of race.


I think you're a third-worldist who gets upset when contradicted, like a cult member being told his savior is just a man.

[Rottenfruit]

The simple fact that the ukraine, a "white" nation, is poorer than some non-european 3rd world countries does not disprove third worldism at all. The Ukraine is neither a first world or third world country, since the threeway division of nations during the peak of the imperialist epoch the Ukraine has been considered a second world country. Keep in mind that third-worldism is distinct from the three worlds theory which is a tenet of Maoism. Maoist third-worldism as an ideological trend developed later, supposedly making the three-worlds theory the basis of a new qualitative development in revolutionary theory: "maoist third worldism", the "fourth stage" of communism. While MTW as a movement is BS they still bring up good points and should not be laughed off entirely. To be frank, a revolutionary movement in the first world is impossible without solidarity with and assistance from third world revolutionaries whose continued success works to dismantle the system artificially sustaining moribund capitalism. Also, be careful not to conflate the bourgois use of the terms "first and third world" and the different definition used in maoist or maoist third worldist discourse. Mao defined first world countries as nuclear superpowers, second world countries as their sphere of influence, and third world countries as the non-nuclear and/or non-aligned developing countries. While Chairman Mao developed this thesis in the 1970s and things have changed, its general spirit holds true. How rich a country is isnt the prime indicator of a nations status in that regard, much in the way how high ones wage are isnt the prime indicator in class status, rather ones relationship to the ownership of the means of production.
You dont need to put ukraine in "" as if if you doubt its a majority white nation, it is,
Ukraine has higher povetry then almost all of south america and only 2 or 3 nations in south america rivial ukraine in povetry and South Africa and some parts of africa have less povetry then ukraine.

[black magick hustla]

Wow, proud to be ignorant, go fuck yourself. I am done with you morons.

dude you always come to this forum and piss and rant that everyone is dogmatic and nobody gets it, and then you showcase your dumb eclectic patch quilt of theories borrowed from freshman classes of sociology and anthropology to wow us as if anybody hasn't heard, read that shit. the truth is that a lot of the stuff you say is pretty standard and stereotypical from especially, american activist circles so everyone that has been through them has had to dealt with some insufferable prick talking about intersectionality and the New Exciting Idea They had to Read from some phd that wrote his thesis on how cereal boxes are racist to feminist black muslims. you are a walking corpse with not an iota of original thought

[Jimmie Higgins]

Hmm, I don't know if Hiero is still reading this thread, but I post my reply to our last exchange just in case.

Generally my positions these days are that a lot of those problems described above can be attacked and solved (momentarily) through trade unions. That the forms of class conflict in the 1st world are mostly limited to fractions of classes fighting over claims to how much their labour is valued at. Those industries with strong trade union members are able to bargain the best that their value of labour is worth more than others, this being typically non-migrant and male dominated work.Well while there's no deneying that struggle has often been at a low level in our era - and it is true that when economic struggle directly in the workplaces happens now it is usually pretty controlled and contained by the union leadership. But I think this is not necissarily the case and unions in times of increased class radicalization have become on of the ways workers have fought (often against their own leadership and establishing new democratic means of organizing either within the union membership or through reform movements in the union) the class struggle.

So stepping back and focusing on the more general (rather than specific as in the state of the unions currently) role of unions and this kind of struggle, I don't think workers are fighting over shares that one set of workers make over others. In a union struggle, what workers are fighting over when they are fighting over wages, benifits, or pace or legth of labor is the share of the surplus that workers get vs. what the bosses get. Often in real life workers are pit against eachother, but this is circumstantial and usually by design by the bosses - so the union workers might get something but a concession they make is that the new hires get less pension or health coverage - or one union gets what they demand while workers under a different union or in a different sector don't get anything. But this is by the bosses and a divide and rule tactic - they can split a workforce making solidarity and a unified strike much harder in this way.

Second, the idea that unionISTs are white males is an outdated stereotype. In the public sector unions being attacked right now, women are tend to be the majoirty and in urban and suburban areas are probably disproportionately black. Becoming a nurse or a teacher is the way that many post WWII blacks and latinos and blue collar whites began to get a more stable and secure job and some upward mobility within the working class (from female black maids and white secretaries in the 1950s to office workers nurses and teachers). Unions are much more repersentative in the membership these days, even if the leadership does still tend to be white males.



Cornelius Castoriadis criticised Karl Marx over this point in regards to his theory of exploitation, the fact that Marx supposedly never considered the effect of workers changing their wages and conditions through worker action. I identify a labour aristocracy as the most organised and in stable employment conditions; who have managed through struggle to maintain the best conditions in a society. I find Marxist actual dismiss material conditions as subjective, that living as a worker comfortable in a capitalist society is dismissed as false consciousness, when it is an actual material existence creating consciousness and ideology that general fits material existence.
Not sure exactly what this criticism is. In Value Price and Profit, Marx argues that workers fighting for better wages is actually a fight for more control over their labor power and effort. If Marx is being criticized on this basis (in favor of the idea that if workers are more comfortable, then they become passive) then I just disagree. Suffering or lack doesn't automatically create fight-back but it can - winning reforms or more wages doesn't automoatically create fight-back but it can too. There can be class struggles at the low end, like immigrant farmworkers or industrial workers before WWI - but they can also happen when workers have much more power and control like the wildcat strikes of the 1970s or the post WWII strike-wave. People might fight because their backs are against the wall and they have no choice, but they also might fight if they feel like they are in the right and powerful enough to win. So to me the main factors are not relative poverty or relative comfort, but organization and confidence of the class. This is why although not much has really changed between 2009 and 2012, after Wisconsin and Occupy, some workers are much more confident and combative and we have seen a small increase in strikes in the US compared to the decrease of the previous recession years. This is why although French workers have more security and benifits than US workers, French workers are still more combative and militant than US workers.


How I see the third world and first world divide is how Malcolm X saw the dichotomy between the “field negro” and the “house negro”.Well Malcolm was hinting at a class division within the black community and talking about the moderate black leaders who wanted to accomodate to Democrat's attempts to slow the growing militancy of the civil rights movement. I think an analogy can be made with the militant rank and file worker vs. the union leader often, but it can't really be made between first world and third world workers now because revolts don't seem to be diverging along these lines. I think the analogy works better when seen within various societies: so you have the revolt of people in Egypt and sections of the movement want to salvage the Egyptian government but just get rid of the corruption and the deformations of a capitalist economy tied into a military beurocracy on the one hand, while other parts of the movement, often workers and the poor, really want a totally different kind of system - socialism isn't really "on the table" but people want more than just the same regime with suits instead of military attire and a better market economy.

[Hiero]

dude you always come to this forum and piss and rant that everyone is dogmatic and nobody gets it, and then you showcase your dumb eclectic patch quilt of theories borrowed from freshman classes of sociology and anthropology to wow us as if anybody hasn't heard, read that shit. the truth is that a lot of the stuff you say is pretty standard and stereotypical from especially, american activist circles so everyone that has been through them has had to dealt with some insufferable prick talking about intersectionality and the New Exciting Idea They had to Read from some phd that wrote his thesis on how cereal boxes are racist to feminist black muslims. you are a walking corpse with not an iota of original thought


You know what I find funny, a lot of the criticism you make against me reeks of a hidden elitism. You constantly attack me for being a 101 postmodernist or a freshman, as if I am on a lower rank of the academic hierarchy than you. You can try to hide it by not using capitals in the right places and worse grammar then myself, but you can't hide that you're university educated. Your basis for attacking me is my lack of academic prestige, which makes you a bigger "insufferable prick" who constantly tries to hide their own prestige behind a fake street facade...


You're an idiot and you're annoying, so fuck off and stop trolling me.

[Fruit of Ulysses]

You dont need to put ukraine in "" as if if you doubt its a majority white nation, it is,
Ukraine has higher povetry then almost all of south america and only 2 or 3 nations in south america rivial ukraine in povetry and South Africa and some parts of africa have less povetry then ukraine.

i didnt put the name of the nation in "" i put the word white in quotation marks, in an effort to suggest that the term white is subjective and not a concrete classification. I did not intend to cast doubt on how european the coutnry of ukraine is. And yes, I am well aware of its abject poverty, I've been there actuallly