(i feel this fits in opposing ideologies better than politics since the issue isn’t socialism)

-Rhodesia and America were both founded by white settlers who invaded and stole the land from the native population. In America the settlers exterminated, drove out, or totally marginalized the native population. In Rhodesia the settlers remained a minority and eventually had to relinquish power to the masses. In both countries the settlers were bribed with land and thus developed class interests that were antagonistic toward the oppressed.

-In the case of Rhodesia, as the white settlers recognized their system of privilege was coming to an end, they embraced the paranoid extremist politics of groups like the John Birch Society. For example, they blamed the effete liberals in the British government of colluding with Marxist guerillas and working for the defeat of Western civilization. This reactionary article is a fine example: "How the West Sentenced Rhodesia to Communism" http://www.globalpolitician.com/25161-rhodesia-zimbabwe

-Within the last few decades the Western ruling class has become more multi-cultural and cosmopolitan.

-Right-wing extremism has regained popularity in the USA and moved into mainstream discourse with Lou Dobbs, Jerome Corsi, and Glenn Beck all espousing JBS-like paranoia about immigration, socialist cabals in government, and the erosion of national sovereignty.

-While still holding onto their privileged status, the descendants of American settlers are starting to feel anxious about competition from the influx of immigrant workers and the demographic growth of the oppressed. Will the new ruling class sacrifice them for profit?

Q: How do we deal with the growing antagonism between reactionary settler politics and the oppressed?

I was tempted to stop reading after the first sentence, "The West has a notoriously bad habit of betraying countries which defend freedom". Overall the article was a good insight into the minds of the newest neocons.
I'm not sure you could accurately call white US politics 'settler' politics. The US thinks itself the center of western civilization, no longer on the frontiers. The settler mindset has pretty much disappeared, replaced by racist nationalism similar to what Europe was experiencing before the Second World War.

I disagree. The frontier attitude is what drives American ideology. If you listen to the speeches of politicians, you'll see this. Take Obama's acceptance speech on Thursday, in which he kept alluding to settlers who "pushed west for a better future," American "ingenuity," and the US being the "last best hope for mankind." The settler mindset is a racist nationalism, except the American variety is inclusive of people from oppressed groups, as long as they sell out and accept the official mythologies and realities.

Also, why do you think they always talk about a "dangerous world?" The world is the new "frontier" that needs to be "tamed," keeping in line with American hegemonic attempts, now on a global instead of continental level.

Well, what else is there? Really. Communism has failed in Russia and China. The people of South America and especially Africa live a jumble of short brutish and nasty lives if they are poor, which is about almost everyone. Europe is but a pale reflection of America--they watcvh America TV--eath American food and live in the shadow of America culture.

well it isn't racist is everyone that wants to joins in. There is some racism from the past but it is dissipating. And as for joining in, no one forces you to live a Capitalist life--but for the vast majority it is the consensus.

It is dangerous out there.

This is another ignorant view from an American. Why not visit Romania's medieval town? America TV? That shit rarely exist. American Food? There wasn't any American food and it all from the world. Really, TomK? Stop watching Communist News Network and Faux News. Culture? Wow Tomk, you're brillant!

Just because CNN and Fox News said it? Oh wow! It also dangerous walking alone the street. Dangerous is everywhere, not where we like to pretend or to see.

I've been all over the world--and for the most part you can get a McDonald's hamburger EVERYWHERE--even in Romainia. You can get a Coke everywhere. Turn on a radio in Pretoria or Calcutta, tell me what you hear? China is turning more and more American every day. India is becomming one great call center for American technical questions. Globalization is AMERICANIZATION. That much should be clear.

As far a danger goes, people die by the score in the Middle East. There are kiddnapping galore in South America, do you think human life is worth anything in most of Africa? America is a safe country, yea there are problems--but no mass murders like in the rest of the world.

You are living too fat of a life here in America my friend--go see how the rest of the world lives.

You mean we been exploiting the world, of course. If America are weak now, you think they gonna keep McDonald alive? They not embracing, they are forced to take in what we demand.

Doesn't mean the dangerous isn't in here as there is safe place around the world too. I admit I never went outside of North America(Been though Canada, Mexico, Guatamala & Honduras. If only the state and property-lover disappeared, we able to cross the world freely.

I don't know, but they seem to like the hamburgers and the Coke.

Of course. We should all put that on our wish list to Santa.

[Edit] Look, I'm not saying this is a good thing or a bad thing. Personally, I'm not in favor of globalization. I have plenty of "America" where I live, I don't need to go to it when I travel. But that's the way I see the world moving.

The new ruling class has already begun to sacrifice the descendants of settlers for profit. Jobs continue to be outsourced to China and India while local industries suffer.

The problem with "settler" politics and the "oppressed" is that they have the same frame of mind. They are merely opposing forces with the same racial approach to things.

The Marxists in Africa had the opportunity to make a racial issue into a class issue but didn't. The politics of before was racial, but in modern times it remains racial, albeit reversed. Zimbabweans use racial politics to maginalize the Whites, just as the Rhodesian government marginalized Blacks.

The problem with the majority of the leftist movement is the fact that they, like the colonial right, throw racial labels on the ruling class and oppressed.

To answer your question, it is extremely difficult to make either side distinguish themselves from racial lines. Zimbabwe and South Africa already displayed that those in the lower class don't want to throw off the label that they are oppressed Blacks as opposed to just oppressed. This of course alienates the Whites and causes the "reaction" in the "reactionaries".

The Soviet Union and China were (in the case of China, still is) state capitalist, and only "Communist" in name (really, the state and capitalism are mutually reinforcing). Why do the poor in Africa and Latin America live "short brutish and nasty lives?" Oh, I forgot, in part thanks to the American installation of dictators and support of reactionary terrorists (Contras, other death squads, SS-style police). Also, while I wish for a more independent Europe, I would certainly not call them a "pale reflection" of America. Furthermore, no terrorist state is the "last best hope for mankind," and the fucking arrogance required for a person to utter something like that is amazing. The last best hopes for mankind rest in civil society and social movements, and people who wish and fight for a better world.

Additionally, it is racist, because people are first required to reject themselves, their culture, and their origin, for the official state mythology. There were African-American slaveowners. Are you willing to say that just because there were some, slavery was not a racist institution?

True they weren't "by the book" Communists, but they are what Communism look like when translated into real life. Communism doesn't get any better than the Soviet Union and Communist China--and in fact it can (like Cambodia and North Korea) get a whole lot worse.

You can blame a lot of things--the fact is though those peole have to pull themselves out of their troubles. Wishing for pie in the sky Communism to come and save them is a bit far fectched.

I was a bit harsh, to be sure--but for the most part European culture is a reflection of American culture--on the other hand, I'll grant you American Culture is a reflection of European culture.


Your Commercial Break for Moralizing.

Another Commercial Break--but I agree with this one.

If that's true (and I don't quite buy it) than that stuff was done a long time ago and it's done and over. African-Americans are Americans who's ancestors happened to have come from Africa. They are perfectly American. They have no African culture or origin to reject. They are just another part of the vast melting pot that is America. It's nice they have ancestors form Africa--but they aren't African.

It was racist--but it doesn't exist any longer in America. That's history. On the other hand slavery still exists today in Africa--and that is hardly racist.

What makes you think this? Isn't it apparent that the policies promoted by most members of this forum are radically different than those in existance - both rhetorically and politically - in those revolutions?

Hmmm.... I'm not sure whether the original question is relevant any more. I can't think of many nations that still have a "settler" mentality living alongside a group that could be meaningfully categorised as "oppressed". (the only one that immediately springs to mind might be Israel, but I doubt that would fit into the colonial model suggested by Turquino).

Meow Purr

I I don't know if most RevLefters are that much different than the "Historic" Communists. There are plenty of Trotskyist, Leninist, and Maoists here. But my main point is that Communism has been tried lots of times and each time it devolves into something "unplanned" with Gangs of Four and Collective Farms and Cults of Personality and all sorts of nuances never intended.

I think Communism has been tried enough in real life that we can see pretty much how it will turn out if it is tried again. I think Communism has vast amounts of good ideas that would help people in this world, but as a coherent policy I think it has been tried and been found wanting.

I'm a reformist and Restricted for good reason.

I'm quite sure that if there existed a sizable enough white underclass in Rhodesia there would've been unity between the white and black workers and peasants. Remember that races don't exist, but nations do.

I notice a lot of comrades attacking post-colonial governments in Africa for being subservient to neocolonialism and making the issue nation but not 'class'. But look at it this way: even the African workers are closer in prosperity to their nation's petty-bourgeois traders and bureaucrats than they are to a white settler or worker in the developed world. So which class should they side with?

another note-I think another exceptional thing about settlerism is its egalitarian outcomes within the oppressor nation. Once the natives had been subjugated and the land appropriated, the settler nation didn't need class divisions. Nazi lebensraum and national socialism attempted to abolish class antagonisms within the German 'racial community' by plundering Eastern Europe and bribing the volk with land and slaves. They weren't entirely unsuccessful in buying that loyalty, but the settler nations of North America, Australia, and New Zealand did it better.

I'm not entirely sure about Rhodesia, but I think that South Africa provides a good example of race and class relations. Afrikaners are becoming marginalized in a post-apartheid government due to state intervention to enfranchise Blacks (ie. Black Economic Empowerment), yet there is no overwhelming support for the Black-run ANC. The ex-pats I've seen and met think the ANC is a joke. I think it still lies with an identity issue. My personal belief is that the lagging Afrikaner is more loyal to nation than class.

Well it's not to say that there are class issues involved, but the people themselves add in concepts of race and nation into their struggle. Mugabe obviously turned government based on racial policy into... a government based on racial policy. The colonial classes are still hung up on racial identity and there's no escaping it.

It is an interesting phenomenon. I agree that they didn't need class divisions between settlers, but I'm sure it existed within South Africa and Rhodesia/Zimbabwe. There sure are class divisions within other settler states like the US, Canada, Australia, etc.

Good observation. I wouldn't necessarily say that the Volk were bribed with land and slaves, however. National Socialism was brought to fulfill the idea of the Anschluss, which attracted many Germans to the NSDAP in the first place. Hitler did only take half Poland (Prussia) while having Stalin keep the rest. As for slaves, I don't think slaves were any part of the deal, at least for when the Nazi party was voted in anyway.

Comparing colonialism to Lebensraum isn't really accurate. Ethnic Germans had ties to lands in the Lebensraum while settlers from Britain, France, Spain, etc. didn't have any connection to the lands they occupied. In the end, you're absolutely right that Britain's babies did it better.

I think it's idealist to talk about the USA as having "settler politics" outside of a situation where there are actual settlers. Sure, the ideological/cultural baggage is important, especially in times of crisis and class struggle, and helps to hold back the consciousness of the class. but this is subnordinate to the reality today - an imperialist state in its own right with a mass proletariat ever more exploited under one banner. this is not the same at all as a situation like Israel, apartheid South Africa, or the Kelpers in the Malvinas. A white in the US does not enjoy qualitatively the same kind of privelege over non-whites that an Israeli Jew/white south african/kelper enjoys/enjoyed overe the masses in the society they were settling above.

The reason for this? The US has been able to establish a unified state with no real challenge to its legitimacy as a "nation" from within, no alternative bourgeoisie or mass oppressed nationality pressing on its borders or trying to replace the current state with its own state, etc., and therefore the ruling class does not need to protect a particular nationality with entrenched priveleges in order to garuantee its own existence.

I agree, not sure what that has to do with America thought

Yes and the best civil society and most effective social movememnts are in america. Hence we are the last best hope

Wait so a pan-racial identity is racist because it requires them togive up a stereotypcial identity you assign them based on their birth? How the fuck do you stay ane

Slavery itself is not a a racist institution- historically slavery happened to all races and in many societies it was to members of their own race whether due to debt or being captured in war etc. Hell most slaves in America were captured by African tribes.

The United States is the leading terrorist state in the world. The relevance of my previous comment is quite obvious.

The American "civil society" is hardly the best or the "most effective." You want to see effective civil societies, look at Bolivia, look at Argentina, look at Venezuela, and, although to a lesser extent in the past few years, France, for example. The "last best hope" is global civil society. Don't be a tool.

I'm not assigning anyone a "stereotypical" identity. The country was founded on skulls and bones, it's maintained on skulls and bones, and it will bring in people from those nations whose skulls and bones it's founded on and maintained by to provide a facade of "multiculturalism." Ah, multiracial and multicultural imperialism. Sound familiar? Kind of like those barbaric authoritarian Romans? They invaded territories and then brought in conquered peoples to help them conquer more territory. Pathetic.

Most slaves were not "captured by African tribes," considering the American slave trade continued well after the country legally "stopped" engaging in the Transatlantic slave trade. Most slaves were born into slavery. Chattel slavery in the Western hemisphere was (and is, as it exists in its basic form still, maybe given the appearance of being more humane) a racial system to benefit white elites, although the white masses were brought aboard as well, in order for the white elites to divide up potential threatening groups. That doesn't absolve non-elite whites of responsibility, however, as some people on the left often posit, when they say things like "it's just a tactic to divide the working class." Well, yes, but it's pretty much bullshit to say that to someone whose neck is being crushed by that person's boot who got caught up in ideas that "divide the working class."

On a side note, turquino, how can you post this and then turn around and post an article (and endorsing it) that wants criticism of Israel (some points in that article I agree with, but most were ridiculous) to be muted basically?

Only if one uses the broadest definition of "terrorist". I find it interesting that leftists on the one hand mock the war on terror and on the other try and use it's language.And how do you measure those as being superior civil societies?
You're saying they should retain "their" culture based on their ethnicity/race rather then adopt a pan-racial identity and saying that the pan-racial identity is the racist one. Please feel free to explain that one.

1) Yes I assumed a genius such s yourself would be able to recognize that I was referring of the slaves captured abroad.

2) In what way does Slavery still exist in America?

3) Slavery has roots far outside the western hemisphere and was practiced by almost every group of people at one time or another, generally without racial connotations.