It can’t be a proletarian ideology if it reproduces the behaviors of bourgeois ideology: that of being inaccessible in language, requiring years and years of studies to even start to grasp, requiring the reading of earlier philosophers in an academic manner (pouring over every word), and attaching itself not to the substance – despite what patsocs say they do – but to the form.

Lmao having a vocabulary is bourgeoisie. You seem to have a an anti-intellectual view of academia. Tell me, do you think the world is understandable to a proletarian because the world carries with it an affectation of simplicity that can work with the proletarian character, or because proletarians simple must engage with the world?

Also it’s just wrong to say academics pour over every word. Do you think people can read hundreds of books that way and get anywhere? Please return your caricature of academics to wherever you found it.

I am extremely jade about this. A lot of action that is taken can be reduced down to anxiety relief and identy expression. Anarchists and many leftist types fetishize action but imo it just increases the amount of masterbatory, self serving actions that are more about profile building than anything else.

There is the trope that western leftists don’t do anything. Haha… Well it’s actually a lot worse than that I’m afraid. It’s also that the actions that are taken are also undignified. It’s not just a lack of organization or action that holds us back.

Yes capitalist social relations are absolutely a cancer.

What we really need is a stakeholder cancer that is more sustainable /s

Where did this “revolutionary” come from?

Revolutionary class consciousness is a fundamental aspect of the proletariat that not every working class has. If a working class has no consciousness and no revolutionary potential, then it is not a proper proletariat even if it performs wage labor.

Not trying to put word in your mouth. Im trying to communicate how we differ in our analysis of class, especially in the US.

Your criticisms dont answer my question on why it is ubiquitous that such a class must exist among colonizers. IMO it is a fundamental question to understanding class in Amerika.

While I disagree with some excerpts of the book, such as when Sakai affirms there is no “white proletariat” in the US (sometimes he even affirms there is no proletariat at all), I still think that everyone should read it.

This is what detractors say but it is never substantiated as a criticism. By what natural law of capital is it so ubiquitous that a revolutionary proletarian class must exist among colonizers? This criticism usually amounts to disappointment or frustration that the processes of class formation in Amerika differ from that of Western Europe. Settlers is not a description of the moral quality of white people but rather the material process of class formation in settler colonial Amerika and its consequences for labor organizations and for colonized peoples. I read the book and I have yet to see any successful criticism of the book among its mkst common criticisms, I have, frankly, only seen strawmen and white fragility.

It essentializes white people as irreparably racist, and it conveys a defeatist message altogether, implying there’s nothing to be done to fight it, and that white people cannot be allies.

Looks like someone forgot to read the book.

I think those who defend this work to be of utmost value to the US radical left should address those critiques.

Those critiques have to exist first. All the links you provided are exactly the people spreading strawman representations of the book. They don’t engage with it at all. They just make up an argument based on what they think the book is about or they read it they way a Christian reads the Quran.