/siberia/ - Off-topic

solidarity

>is J Sakai even a real person
no. the book appeared out of nowhere, the author has never been seen, and the book was distributed to black prisoners when normally black prisoners are kept away from radicalizing material at all costs, and the book goes out of its way to falsify quotes from william z foster or take them out of context. it is very clearly a psy op to divide the proletariat.

>>823325
I'm just wondering what's the point of making the supposed author Japanese instead of just black

has brain

i would say settlers was a slightly more sophisticated version of other psy ops that have targeted black americans like black hammer, black hebrew israelites, nation of islam, FBA movement, etc.

>>823326
psy ops all have a signature which is adding a single detail that is so out of place that it becomes more credible by virtue of incredulity. what I mean by that is, you look at the psy op and say "well if I was designing a psy op, I wouldn't have made the author japanese, so that proves it isn't a psy op" this makes you say "it isn't a psy op" which makes the psy op more successful.

>>823329
For some reason I always assumed "Sakai" was African

>>823320
He was mad at BWC and BBC and wanted to see them fight doe

Multiple real people have met Sakai.
>Why would a Japanese-American care about black or native struggles?
Even for a racist this is a deeply retarded and small-minded question.

>>823356
>Multiple real people have met Sakai.
Who?

what is that book about?

>>823359
Whitey bad. Pls don't associate with Whitey

Its especially funny because japs are magnitudes more reactionary than WASPs. Japanese diaspora in the Americans are your Fujimoris, your Fukuyamas, they are easily the most reactionary ethnic group in Hawaii.

>>823359
Sakai's position is essentially this:

"There obviously is a white working class in the u.s. A large one, of many, many millions. But it isn't a proletariat."

Settlers is making a much bigger claim than "racism divides the working class." Sakai's basic argument is that The United States was built as a settler-colonial society, and the white working class developed as a privileged component of that society rather than as a straightforward revolutionary proletariat, however Sakai's position is not merely "the white proletariat is privileged. It is that the white working class in the United States is not a proletariat in the revolutionary/Marxian sense at all. in his framework, race and class in America can't be separated. The conquest of Indigenous land, enslavement of Africans, and later imperial expansion were foundational to American capitalism. Sakai doesn't deny that white workers sell their labor or can be exploited by capitalists. His argument is that their position within the American social order historically gave them advantages that colonized workers didn't have. Those advantages included things like access to stolen land, higher wages relative to colonized workers, exclusion from certain forms of racialized exploitation, citizenship, political rights, and eventually incorporation into a specifically white national identity. Sakai's question is "What does a worker do politically when the society exploiting him is simultaneously giving him a material stake in the exploitation of somebody else?" He says the resulting stratum is a labor aristocracy of workers who remain subordinate to capital but receive enough relative privilege that their interests can become aligned with maintaining the existing order.

Sakai thinks the traditional left makes a huge mistake when it says Black workers and white workers are both workers, therefore their fundamental interests are the same. His response is essentially "Not necessarily. Look at the material history. When one section of the working population has historically benefited from another population's dispossession, then simply declaring all workers to be part of an undivided working class doesn't make those antagonisms disappear. He is not merely saying that some white workers are racist. He's arguing that whiteness itself became a racist political/material relationship.

Sakai thinks much of the white American left wants to universalize its own experience. The white American left says: "We're all exploited by capitalism." but Sakai responds: "You're overlooking the fact that some of you are beneficiaries of the system you're claiming to oppose."

>>823369
Japanese diaspora in Hawaii benefit immensely from the colonization of the indigenous Hawaiian people. Will Sakai condemn this?

>>823374
that would require Sakai to be real

>>823369
>in his framework, race and class can't be separated
no wonder i see people mock this book all the time here

>>823387
race is simply the (real) social mechanism for enforcement (and reproduction) of a class. or rather, of a particular class relation
same with nation, same with gender, same with the bourgeois-proletarian and labor aristocrat - lumpenproletariat distinction.

>>823369
This guys a retard and just a radlib then when none of this has anything to do with marxism.
Theres no such thing as stolen land from a marxist viewpoint.
Everyone is exploited to a different degree under capitalism and everyone benefits from the exploitation of others under capitalism sakai himself and african-americans too

>>823369
>"There obviously is a white working class in the u.s. A large one, of many, many millions. But it isn't a proletariat."
Proletariat and working class are synonymous terms in Marx.

>Sakai's question is "What does a worker do politically when the society exploiting him is simultaneously giving him a material stake in the exploitation of somebody else?" He says the resulting stratum is a labor aristocracy of workers who remain subordinate to capital but receive enough relative privilege that their interests can become aligned with maintaining the existing order.
For that to be true the capitalists not only have to squeeze more out of non-white workers in the US than white workers in the US (according to 1983 Sakai the bigger group), but the capitalists also have to give so much back from that to the white part of the working class that it actually exceeds what the capitalists take from the white workers, otherwise the capitalist arrangement would be a net loss for white workers; and so all profits in the US amount to less than what is squeezed out of non-white workers.

Do you believe that.

>>823409
>Proletariat and working class are synonymous terms in Marx.
The proletariat is the working class of modernity acc. Marx, but the terms are not strictly synonymous.

>>823409
>Proletariat and working class are synonymous terms in Marx.
was explaining sakai's thoughts, not marx's
>Do you believe that.
was not endorsing sakai, merely answering someone's question about sakai

>>823320
Sakai is a rightoid.

roflmao I read that as Jun Kasai

>>823409
>Proletariat and working class are synonymous terms in Marx.
Slaves and serfs are working class but not proles, which has a specific definition, though mostly relevant when dealing with pedants.

Not the answer you want to hear, but I did a tarot reading on "J Sakai" a few years ago.

The cards revealed that "Sakai" was actually multiple people, four to be exact, with one of them being that Henry Park fellow and another being a young woman TA of his. The other two were young men that the cards didn't reveal anything about.

>>823395
>Theres no such thing as stolen land from a marxist viewpoint.
Palestine?

Algeria?

>>823719
>Slaves and serfs are working class but not proles
Can you show a citation of Marx making the same distinction you are doing here?

>>823811
Only liberals and reactionaries care about which made up ethnic group and made up nation state has a "right" to what land.

>>823878
If you back the reply-chain, you can see this started with the statement
>Proletariat and working class are synonymous terms in Marx.
So a citation from Marx making a difference would be relevant to that.

>>823881
anon was being cheeky. the image made that clear. the image makes fun of fallacy-obsessed debatebros. do LLMs scanning the board even see images and how they change the context of posts?

A Jew made that booke

>>823893
>Jews wrote this anti zionist settler book
ok and

>>823895
Jews do a bit of trolling and like to mess around with your mind

>>823848
I guess Marx did not agree emphatically for the Ukrainain right to various territories of the reactionary Russian Empire.
<oh but that wasn't conceived as being some natural right, but just what would be circumstantially a blow against reaction
So what? Most people here support Palestine just to destroy the outpost of US imperialism, and would support it being destroyed even if there were no more Palestinians left to be tortured and displaced.

Whole thread full of white boys who think they're the most racially woke people in the world saying a guy of Japanese descent couldn't possibly care about this issue as much as them hm fascinating