The mythology of Maoism-Ultraleftism

J. Sakai is a Japanese-American Maoist activist whose main claim to fame is this book, "Settlers: The Mythology of the White Proletariat". The book is something of an underground classic among the more peculiar Maoist groups in North America. Sorry, I mean Amerika! It's also available free on-line.

Sakai argues that the entire White working class in the United States is reactionary rather than revolutionary, and that this has always been the case. Working-class unity between Whites, Blacks, Hispanics and Asians is therefore impossible. Instead, Sakai calls for a kind of nationalist separatism, with each non-White ethnic group creating its own independent organizations. But how should these movements take power in an overwhelmingly White nation? I have "only" read two thirds of this book, but at least in those sections, Sakai never really gives an answer.

Sakai rejects virtually every event or movement considered progressive by the traditional left: the American Revolution, Radical Reconstruction, the Populist movement, the IWW, the CIO, and in practice even the Allied war effort against the Nazis. He wavers a bit on *that* issue, however, since his political heroes Stalin and Mao fought on the Allied side. To the author, all these movements were doomed to defeat from the start, due to the complete impossibility of creating workers' or peoples' unity in the settler nation of "Amerika". While he's at it, he also attacks the Irish and the Boer, two important enemies of the British Empire usually supported by socialists and some liberals during the period in question. The author's positions are so far out, that they are frankly difficult to take seriously. It's also unclear why he *supports* the Union in the Civil War. Logically, he should oppose both the Union and the Confederacy, especially since he views Reconstruction as "neo-colonialist", considers the Republicans racist, etc.

Sakai's ultraleft Maoism is, in effect, a form of despair. I'm not a Maoist, but Chairman Mao could certainly teach this Japanese-American admirer a thing or two about "striking the main enemy first", "win over the centre to isolate the right", analyzing the "main contradiction" etc. I wonder what Sakai thinks of Mao's on-off alliances with Chiang Kai-Shek or the anti-fascist popular fronts?

Another annoying trait of "Settlers" is the strange spelling and terminology: "Amerika" instead of "America", "Afrikans" instead of "Black Americans", etc. It's unclear why the letter "k" is used in both "Amerikan" and "Afrikan". In the first instance, the "k" presumably stands for the KKK. But what does it stand for in "Afrikan"? No idea.

I'm not saying "Settlers" is uninteresting. It belongs to the same genre as Ignatiev's and Garvey's "Race Traitor". In fact, it's more extreme! It could be read as a kind of extended, alternative history of the United States. Even I got a few interesting ideas from this book. It's overall perspective, however, is deeply flawed and it probably won't convince anyone outside a very narrow circle of neo-Maoists and ethnic nationalists.