Origin of Settlers (Part III): The Precursor of Settlers
In the previous article where I investigated the origin of Settlers, I provide evidence and arguments that J. Sakai’s ideas can be traced back to Revolutionary Youth Movement I (RYM I), an SDS faction which evolved into the Weather Underground. I provided comparative analysis where I compared the basic framework of J. Sakai’s Settlers and Weather Underground’s Manifesto. Both endorse Maoist Third Worldism. Both agree that there are internal colonies/third world nations within the border of the U.S. Both agree that they’re super-exploited by the white nation. Both agree that workers in the imperial core benefit from imperialism. I also provide a similar comparative analysis between Clayton Van Lydegraf’s “About Privilege” and the basic framework of Settlers.
After I finished my article on the connection between J. Sakai and Weather Underground, I continued to read more about the Weather Underground. While I learned that members of the Weather Underground established Prairie Fire Organizing Committee (PFOC), I wasn’t completely aware of the extent of PFOC’s publications. For instance, I wasn’t aware of PFOC’s published journal series Breakthrough which was published from 1977 to 1995. It was published since the formal dissolution of Weather Underground (1977). While Weather Underground was formally dissolved around 1977, its members continued to be politically active through PFOC. In this sense, PFOC’s Breakthrough can be seen as a further development of Weather Underground’s theory since 1977.
One of the issues of Breakthrough that caught my attention is from 1979 where it contains a major editorial piece. This editorial is strikingly similar to Settlers in many respects. It’s much more similar to Settlers than Weather Underground’s 1969 Manifesto is to Settlers. In my previous article, I noted that while Weather Underground’s Manifesto and Settlers share the same basic outlook, there are some notable differences. One particular difference is that Weather Underground’s Manifesto doesn’t offer a detailed analysis of the oppressor nation, the white nation, in the context of imperialism. Settlers attempts to provides an elaborate and detailed analysis of the white nation in the context of imperialism. What makes the editorial similar to Settlers is that it too offered a more detailed analysis of the oppressor nation compared to Weather Underground’s Manifesto.
A Return Back to National Struggle
It’s worth reviewing what I argued in my previous article about the connection between Weather Underground and J. Sakai. There is at least one concrete piece of evidence that J. Sakai’s theory derives from the tradition of Weather Underground. The piece of evidence in question comes from a book review of J. Sakai’s Settlers by a member of Maoist Internationalist Movement (MIM). The reviewer MC5 points out that J. Sakai’s ideas come from Revolutionary Youth Movement 1 (RYM1) whereas MIM was a progeny of Revolutionary Youth Movement 2 (RYM2). MC5 writes:
Sakai has a dim view of groups like MIM, since Sakai supports armed struggle now. After a simplistic reading of Mao’s work, Sakai even finds justification for this position in Mao’s writings. [The issue of launching armed struggle in the imperialist countries now is handled in MIM Theory 5, Chapter 5 “Armed Struggle Now: An Ultraleft Deviation.”]
Sakai’s political economy is derived from the Revolutionary Youth Movement I (RYM I). For a history of RYM I, MIM recommends SDS by Alan Adelson, or Weatherman, edited by Harold Jacobs. RYM I was a faction of SDS that took the strongest pro-nationalist line and favored immediate urban guerrilla warfare.
RYM II, which is where MIM has greater sympathies for the most part, was more cautious about armed struggle, opposed Trotskyism without cheerleading for every nationalist struggle and generally had a more analytical approach compared with the feel-good armed struggle crowd.
Sakai supports nationalist struggles and opposes white nation chauvinism. So even though Sakai does not explicitly identify him/herself as a descendant of RYM I, that is in fact where Sakai’s ideas come from. And Sakai’s work represents the best that this trend has to offer. (My Emphases).
There is further evidence to show that MC5’s claim constitutes a reliable testimonial evidence. In MIM’s archive, there are multiple articles by MIM which provide a historical account of the history of the SDS. One of the writers of MIM confesses that they’re from the RYM 2 school of thought in SDS:
This is the first of several testimonial-commentary documents that I want to offer for MIM’s SDS archives. I was active in SDS in its zenith year of 1969; I spent some years as well as a member of one of the SDS-derived RYM II parties. I intend my personal reflections on these years as a contribution to MIM’s summing up of what went right and what went wrong during that time of rapid advancement of the revolutionary forces in amerika. But I particularly offer these few articles as an express challenge to former comrades of that time to come forward with their own recollections and interpretations of those historical events as a service that they are uniquely positioned to render to the international proletariat.
Now, revolutionary justice requires me to begin at the end. That’s because the end of my SDS/RYM II involvement was political degeneration and many long years of turning my back on the revolutionary struggle.
Since MIM is based on RYM 2 and one of its members (presumably a very important member) was present in RYM 2 when SDS was still active, there is a good reason to believe that MC5’s claim that J. Sakai derives his ideas from RYM 1 is based on the testimonial experience of an MIM member who was part of RYM 2. The relationship between RYM 1 and RYM 2 is complex. Both RYM 1 and RYM 2 share many beliefs, but they diverge primarily on the issue of praxis. This disagreement on praxis led to a split between RYM 1 and RYM 2. So, a former member of RYM 2 is more than likely to be familiar with RYM 1. It is likely that this informs MC5’s claim that J. Sakai derives his ideas from RYM 1.
So, MIM’s book review claims that a lot of the ideas of J. Sakai’s Settlers derive from RYM 1 seems plausible. But it isn’t enough to simply take MIM’s word for it. It needs to be shown that J. Sakai’s Settlers is based on the ideas of RYM 1. In my previous article I’ve made a thorough comparative analysis between J. Sakai’s Settlers, Weather Underground’s Manifesto, and Clayton Van Lydegraf’s article “About Privilege.” While there are similarities between Weather Underground’s theory (based on its Manifesto and Lydegraf’s article) and J. Sakai’s Settlers, what was still missing was that J. Sakai provides an elaborate, detailed, and focused analysis of the White oppressor nation in order to show that the white working class doesn’t constitute the proletariat in the proper sense. For a long time Weather Underground didn’t exactly any analysis of the white oppressor nation per se, but rather they explicitly state or indirectly suggest that the white working class belongs to an oppressor white nation and benefit from the white oppressor nation oppressing other nations. However, this changed when the main editorial was published in Breakthrough’s issue from 1979.
Around 1979 Weather Underground formally dissolved, but its members continue to operate within the organization PFOC. Around the late 70s there was an internal conflict between members of the Weather Underground. Some members of Weather Underground begin to conceptualize the working class in America as a multiracial working class that encompasses many different racial groups from white workers to black workers. This conceptualization was more or less in response to the failure of Weather Underground to make meaningful and substantive change in 1969 to early 1970’s. However, the rest of the Weather Underground, especially Clayton Van Lydegraf, object to conceptualizing the working class in the United States as a multiracial working class because this either downplays or rejects that there are oppressor nation and oppressed nations within the United States. In Weather Underground’s original 1969 Manifesto there is an assumption that Black people belong to an oppressed nation whereas white people belong to an oppressor nation. The decision to understand the working class in the United States as a single multiracial working class appears to be a retreat from Weather Underground’s 1969 Manifesto’s axiomatic belief that white workers and black workers belong to oppressor nation and oppressed nation respectively.
Clayton Van Lydegraf wrote an article, published in Breakthrough’s first issue, titled “Class and Revolutionary Politics: The Meaning of Chicago,” where he particularly re-emphasized that the primary contradiction of imperialism is the struggle between oppressed nation and oppressor nation. After a meeting in Chicago, Lydegraf writes:
We were emphatically reminded that for revolutionaries of an imperialist country the distinction between oppressor and oppressed nation is the main thing. This means that to be a communist it is not enough to be for class struggle, for socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat. A white communist must especially fight for the national liberation of oppressed peoples, for self-determination and against special privilege, white supremacy, chauvinism. Our duty to fight great nation chauvinism and for the right of separation of captive peoples is our first priority.
History further demands of us that we fight first of all for the rights and liberation of the Black colony. It also demands that we fight hard for the rights and sovereignty of Native American Nations, the Mexican and Chicano nations and for the independence of Puerto Rico.
Inspired by a meeting in Chicago among like-minded radicals, Lydegraf argues that the distinction between oppressor and oppressed nation is the “main thing.” This isn’t merely a conceptual or theoretical distinction, but a primary contradiction in the Marxist sense. The implication is that the role of white communists is to fight for national liberation of the oppressed nations in the United States. He criticizes some of the members of Weather Underground of right opportunism for retreating from this line of thought to the view that the working class in America is a single multiracial working class as opposed to a multinational society where oppressor nation exploit and oppress oppressed nations.
The significance of Lydegraf’s article from Breakthrough’s first issue is that it laid down the basis for what came next in Breakthrough’s Spring issue in 1979. In particular, in this issue, it begins with an editorial titled “Revolutionary Internationalism: Basis for Revolutionary Movement in the Oppressor Nation Working Class.” The editorial was collectively written by PFOC (Prairie Fire Organizing Committee) National Collective. Like Lydegraf’s article, the main editorial re-emphasizes on the distinction between oppressor nation and oppressed nation as the main contradiction. However, unlike Lydegraf’s article, the editorial provides a more focused, detailed, and elaborate analysis of the white oppressor nation and the white working class’s role as members of the oppressor nation. What makes this editorial significant is that for the first time PCOF’s analysis is centered on the white workers as members of the white oppressor nation. Moreover, PCOF’s analysis both precedes J. Sakai’s Settlers and resembles it to a significant degree. In this sense, the editorial should be seen as an embryonic version or prototype of J. Sakai’s Settlers.
Breakthrough Editorial on the White Oppressor Nation
The editorial begins with a paragraph that emphasizes that the contradiction between an oppressed nation and oppressor nation is the main contradiction because Imperialism is based on the division between oppressor and oppressed nations. The practical implication is that any movement within the U.S. oppressor nation must aid national liberation of oppressed nation:
Because imperialism is a single system built on the division of the world into oppressor and oppressed nations, anti-imperialist movement within the US oppressor nation working class must be based on solidarity with the interests of the oppressed nations and on support for the leading strategies of national liberation, which are toppling the very foundations of imperialism.
The editorial proceeds to attack what it perceives to be a faction of white Leftists whose politics is based on appealing to the material interest of the white working class. It argues that any strategy that is focused on appealing to the material interest of the white working class “falsifies” the material reality that the white working class benefits from the colonial conquest and enslavement of oppressed nations:
By focusing on the exploitation of the white working class, this politics tried to hide the material contradictions which have developed under imperialism between the interests of the white working class and the interests of oppressed nations. It falsifies the reality of white working class history in which material gains, better living conditions, and more democratic freedoms have been fought for and been made possible only through colonial conquest, domination, and plunder of nations within US borders and around the world. The real aim of this politics is to block the development of revolutionary nationalist interests and leadership and to maintain the power and leadership of the white left and working class. It upholds the present relation between oppressor and oppressed nation peoples and backs off from the revolutionary overthrow of imperialism.
What is already apparent in the above passage is that the white working class belongs to an oppressor nation, in particular the white oppressor nation. Moreover, the passage argues that the white working class benefits from the colonial conquest and exploitation conducted by their nation against oppressed nations. The white working class’s material interest is based on the material reality in which the white oppressor nation conquers, colonizes, and exploits oppressed nations. However, the editorial insists that it is still possible for revolutionaries within the white oppressor nation to fight against imperialism, including national oppression:
The terms on which white working class people have historically defined their material interests and identity – in opposition to the interests of the world’s oppressed peoples – must be transformed in order to develop revolutionary consciousness and movement within the white working class. Internationalism – the commitment to fight in the interests of the world’s people with the leadership of revolutionary national liberation movements – is the only basis for developing revolutionary anti-imperialist movement within the oppressor nation.
The passage seems to argue that it’s possible for the white working class to define its interest and identity less in terms of material interests and more in terms of a pure commitment to fight for national liberation of oppressed nations. Exactly how this transformation takes place isn’t clear from a materialist point of view. If the white working class’s material gains stem from not only belonging to a white oppressor nation, but also that their nation colonizes and exploits oppressed nations, how is it possible for them to overwhelmingly transcend their material interest? It is possible that a handful might overcome their material interest to aid national liberation of oppressed nations, but to expect workers of oppressor nation to sacrifice their material interest is unrealistic. There is a kind of incoherence to PFOC’s strategy because on one hand it insists that the material gains of white workers’ are rooted in imperialism, but on the other hand it suggests that white workers can be radicalized once they understand the nature of imperialism. This is an idealist strategy as opposed to a materialist one. I personally suspects that PFOC doesn’t really believe in its own strategy, but rather PFOC believes that only a handful of exceptional white revolutionaries can help the national liberation struggle by oppressed nations against imperialism.
So far we already see a striking similarity between the main editorial and J. Sakai’s Settlers. Both believe that white workers materially benefit from the white oppressor nation’s colonization and exploitation of oppressed nations. Both believe that any strategy that appeals to the material interest of white workers is bound to fail because it ignores or “falsifies” the reality that white workers’ material interest is rooted in maintaining imperialism in which the oppressor white nation colonizes oppressed nations. The only main difference is that on the face of it PFOC holds out hope that it can build an anti-imperialist movement among white workers from educating them about the reality of imperialism whereas J. Sakai is likely to reject this strategy.
In the next section titled “Conquest, Slavery, and Colonialism,” the editorial asserts that:
The development of the white working class in this country is totally tied up with the history of slavery and colonialism. The colonizers of the Americas were mainly white Europeans searching for a better life, for better living and working conditions in the “new world” for themselves and their families. It was not “false consciousness” about their material interests which led white settlers to murder Indians in order to steal Native lands, but a commitment to their own interests in acquiring land to farm, grow crops on, make profits from. It was not a lack of understanding about their interests which led poor white settlers to become slave catchers and overseers, but the privileges and power gained from cooperating with the system of white supremacy and Black slavery. White supremacist privilege was institutionalized into law by the emerging bourgeoisie precisely to tie white working class interests to bourgeois interests in enforcing African slavery, and to “exclude Afrikans from the nation that they were using [them] to build” (Notes from an Afrikan P.O.W. Journal, book two, p. 3).
What’s interesting about the above passage is that J. Sakai makes a very similar claim in Settlers. Sakai explains the development of the white working class in the United States from its colonial period to today in similar terms. He argues that the development of the white working class is tied to slavery and settler-colonialism. He argues that many White settlers who arrived in mainland United States were searching for a “better living” by stealing lands and resources from indigenous nations. White workers who were active participants in maintaining slavery were not merely misguided, but act on their material and social interest to occupy a relatively privileged position in a white supremacist system that ties their interest to that of the white bourgeoisie. The overall theme of J. Sakai’s Settlers is that the development of the white working class as a labor aristocracy of an oppressor white settler nation is largely ignored by white leftists and communists.
The next argument is particularly interesting since it virtually agrees with J. Sakai that class struggle conducted by the white working class and their trade unions against their exploiters ultimately benefit them at the expense of oppressed nations. The argument goes:
Throughout the 19th century, the white working class waged militant struggles against its own exploitation — for higher wages, better working conditions, unions. This is the side of white working class history left historians focus on. What they ignore is that the gains won through these struggles were tied to the expansion of empire to the Pacific, the annexation of half of Mexico, the colonization of Puerto Rico, Cuba, and the Philippines — which the white working class supported and fought for. In particular, the white working class has built its identity and its interests on the backs of Black people colonized within US borders. With the end of legalized slavery, the white working class supported the development of new forms of colonial domination. Labor unions promoted white labor and excluded Black labor. Segregated schools systems, Jim Crow laws (apartheid), and organized terror and violence against Black people, typified by the KKK, were all aimed at maintaining the privilege and power of white people and keeping “free” Black people in colonial subjugation.
The militant class struggle by the white working class and their trade unions against the capitalists was in fact a struggle for their own material interest at the expense of oppressed nations. How? The white working class and their trade unions can win higher wages, better working conditions, and so on from colonial expansion and instituting the Jim Crow. J. Sakai makes a similar argument in Settlers.
In the next section titled “Placing White Working Class Interests at the Center,” it begins with an assertion that foreshadows J. Sakai’s Settlers:
The understanding that the US is a settler nation built upon colonialism and that the identity and interests of the white working class have historically been defined in opposition to the interests of colonized peoples, runs totally counter to dominant white left interpretations of US history. The white left has viewed US history through white-colored glasses, defining the waged labor of the white proletariat as the basis of capitalist wealth while ignoring the central role of conquest and slavery in producing that wealth; glorifying the legacy of anti-capitalist labor struggle while discounting the white supremacist terms which those struggles were waged on.
What is striking about the above passage is that it explicitly defines the U.S. as a settler nation built upon colonialism. Moreover, as a result, the identity and interests of the whit working class has been historically defined in opposition to the interests of colonized people. The obvious implication from the passage is that white workers are settlers. Weather Underground’s 1969 Manifesto never came close to identifying white workers as settlers, but this editorial more or less identifies white workers as settlers since they belong to an oppressor white settler nation. In this respect, their interests are defined in opposition to the interests of colonized nations.
The next paragraph is just as striking and significant as the last:
Building on this distorted history, most of the white left accepts imperialist-won borders and denies that Black, Native American, or Chicano/Mejicano peoples are colonized nations forcibly held within US-proclaimed borders. Most of the white left insists that these nations are part of a white-majority, white-dominated, “multi-national” working class. They argue that anti-colonial, revolutionary nationalist strategies sabotage the “unified interests” of the multi-national working class. Even those sectors of the white left that give lip-service to self-determination for oppressed nations within US borders still hold that working class unity is the priority and reject independence as an incorrect goal. While these political lines pretend to speak to the interests of all oppressed peoples within the US, they really place the interests of the white working class at the center, forcing political movement to occur on the terms and timetable of the white oppressor nation majority. White supremacy within the white working class is either ignored or defined as a product of false consciousness. Efforts to confront white supremacy are condemned as anti-working class and anti-Marxist.
What’s so significant about the above quoted passage is that it explicitly rejects the framing of the working class in America as a multinational and multiracial working class in favor of framing America as consisting of multiple oppressed nations colonized and exploited by an oppressor white nation. Since the dynamic between the white oppressor nation and oppressed colonized nations within the U.S. is the main contradiction, it would be wrong and dishonest to call for a multinational working class when in reality it doesn’t exist. This is largely the same view shared by J. Sakai’s Settlers.
The editorial continues to accuse white leftists of being opportunists who abuse Marxism by misusing it for justifying their white chauvinism and right-opportunism. It argues that one of the main errors of Marx and Engels is their over-emphasis on the revolutionary potential of the European proletariat in western capitalist countries. However, in reality revolutions tend to occur in colonized nations where colonized workers are the main revolutionary agents:
Contrary to this perspective on the central revolutionary importance of the proletariat of the capitalist nations, the history of the last century has shown that the oppressed and colonized nations of the world have been the main builders of revolution and socialism. Within the borders of the US as well, it has been colonized peoples who have led revolutionary movement against imperialism. Far from having led revolutionary anti-imperialist struggle, the working classes of the oppressor nations, and in particular the US white working class, have for the most part resisted and fought against the revolutionary changes being brought about by national liberation.
The passage claims that the white working class of the oppressor nations have resisted national liberation struggle for the most part. This claim implies that the white working class has severely limited revolutionary (if any) potential. Moreover, given what was argued previously so far, the editorial paints the picture that the white working class has no revolutionary potential because its material interest is tied to the success of the settler nation’s colonialism and imperialism. But the editorial seems to believe that the white working class can still play a revolutionary role against imperialism. How? The editorial argues that revolutionaries can’t appeal to the white working class’s material interest in order to convince them to support national liberation struggle precisely because its in their material interest to oppose said struggle:
After all, how can support for a war of national liberation really be justified on the basis of the direct interests of the white working class. Genuine support for a war of national liberation means the willingness of white working class women and men to fight and die on the side of the Puerto Rican people and other colonized peoples if they are called upon to do so. It means being prepared to sacrifice immediate material interests to achieve revolutionary goals. And this is precisely what the Guardian and other opportunist forces who condemn armed struggle as terrorism are trying to avoid.
The editorial calls for revolutionary internationalism in which the white working class sacrifice its material interest for national liberation struggles of colonized nations, including colonized nations within the U.S. Empire. Solidarity with colonized nations can’t be centered on the material interest of the white working class, but it can only be centered primarily on the material interest of oppressed nations. The editorial criticizes the strategy that tacitly incorporates material interests of white working class:
However, on the whole, white left strategies for solidarity with national liberation have collaborated with imperialism’s efforts to control and coopt the revolutionary motion of national liberation. Solidarity is offered on white people’s terms and on their timetable. The assumption behind most efforts to organize solidarity among white people is that the white working class can only be won to support national liberation on the basis of how those struggles will benefit them. PFOC’s line that white working class women would be won to international solidarity by explaining the links between their oppression and the oppression of Third World women, was a variation on this opportunist theme. Such arguments are aimed at convincing white people that their privileges will not be upset by supporting national liberation, but that they’ll only gain more.
The problem with the passage, including the previous quoted passage, is twofold. First, it implicitly denies that reality of class exploitation of the white working class. The argument made in both passages would make no sense without assuming that the white working class experiences no class exploitation but on the contrary receive a significant portion of wealth expropriated from colonized nations. But there are a couple reasons to doubt this view. First, it doesn’t explain why many white workers still experience poverty. If the white working class receives a significant portion of wealth expropriated from colonized nations, why does poverty retain its noticeable presence in sections of the white working class? Why would Lyndon Johnson attempt to carry out his War on Poverty program if the white working class benefited so much from imperialism? The War on Poverty would have been superfluous and unnecessary. Second, how come real wages became stagnant while profit margins increased since the Reagan years? Almost 50 trillion dollars worth of wealth has been expropriated from the working class in the United States since the Reagan administration. If poverty remains present in at least a handful of white working class communities and the working class experiences class exploitation, it would be a reasonable strategy to appeal to their material interest.
Settlers and Revolutionary Internationalism
So far I more or less picked out a sample of passages from Revolutionary Internationalism in order to paint a picture of Weather Underground’s perspective on the white working class and their relationship with national liberation struggle. The overall picture is that the white working class belongs to an oppressor settler nation and materially benefits from its colonial and imperial conquests. In particular, the white working class benefited from slave labor of the black colony, the settler colonial annexation of territories formerly owned by indigenous nations (e.g. Native Americans, Chicanos, Puerto Ricans, and so on), and overall the system of imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism. Since the white working class materially benefits from imperialism and colonialism, any strategy that appeals to their material interest is futile. A viable revolutionary strategy is to appeal to their moral compass.
What my readers may notice so far is that the picture isn’t very different from J. Sakai’s view in Settlers. The only difference is that the editorial maintains that one could convince at least a section of the white working class to sacrifice their material interests by supporting national liberation struggles, but this strategy seems absent in J. Sakai’s Settlers for obvious reasons. But despite this one crucial difference, overall outlook of both Settlers and the editorial are strikingly similar. Does this piece of evidence prove that there is a connection between J. Sakai’s ideas and the editorial or is it largely a coincidence?
There are two further pieces of evidence, when jointly put together, that suggest there is a connection. First, J. Sakai has connections with the Black Liberation Army. J. Sakai wrote in his very short autobiography that he originally wrote Settlers for the Black Liberation Army’s internal educational program:
Even then i didn’t believe there was any audience for it, and planned to only photocopy fifty copies of my typed draft for internal education in the underground black liberation army coordinating committee. Comrades with more sense than myself insisted that we publish it as a book if only for the liberation movement.
The second piece of evidence is that according to the website Organization for Liberation Of Oppressed Peoples (LOOP) (which happens to be named after The Loop in Chicago where Weather Underground held a protest) that published the editorial it writes the following semi-preface:
Despite being underdiscussed and little-known, this editorial from the Prairie Fire Organizing Committee is one of the most significant theoretical articles produced by this offshoot of the Weather Underground Organization, advancing an understanding of solidarity that would lead to further collaboration between PFOC members and national liberation organizations, including the formation of the Revolutionary Armed Task Force – a fusion of east coast PFOC members organized as the May 19th Communist Organization and the Black Liberation Army.
The semi-preface indicates that PFOC and Black Liberation Army collaborated in writing the editorial. After all, the sentence “further collaboration between OFOC and national liberation organizations, including the formation of Revolution Task Force – a fusion of east coast PFOC members….and the Black Liberation Army” implies that PFOC and Black Liberation Army collaborated before and wish continue their collaboration. Moreover, PFOC cited Black Liberation Army once in the editorial. The editorial cites Black Liberation Army as follows:
In speaking of the efforts of white leftists to liquidate the existence of the colonized Black nation within US borders, the Black Liberation Army (BLA) writes: “The current Marxist proletariat seeks to channel black liberation into proletarian revolution because black liberation posed as a colonial question inherently entails armed struggle. . . . And this is the root of the problem. There is no place in the vision of the amerikkkan proletarian revolution for violence.”
Since J. Sakai says that he has connections with Black Liberation Army and the organization in turn has collaborated with Weather Underground’s PFOC in writing the editorial, there is reason to believe that there is a connection between J. Sakai’s Settlers and the editorial. What exactly is the nature of the editorial? There are two possibilities. First, J Sakai manage to influence the editorial through Black Liberation Army’s collaboration with PFOC, so his ideas became part of the editorial. However, his ideas reached maturity in the book Settlers. Second, PFOC and Black Liberation Army wrote the editorial which in turn inspired J. Sakai to write Settlers. Both possibilities are plausible given that the editorial was published in 1979 which was four years before the publication of Settlers (1983). Which possibility is more likely? I suspect the second possibility is more likely since there is no testimonial evidence that J. Sakai was personally involved in the editorial.
It would be fair to say that J. Sakai’s Settlers was largely a legacy of both Weather Underground and Black Liberation Army. Because Weather Underground and Black Liberation Army were so intimately connected and intertwined, especially in the May 19th Communist Organization, it is very likely that J. Sakai got his ideas from both Weather Underground and Black Liberation Army.
Concluding Remarks
J. Sakai is largely a product of the 70’s New Left. His book Settlers was published only four years after the 70’s ended, so it shouldn’t be surprising that there are influences from the 70’s New Left leaving imprints. These influences come more or less directly from both Weather Underground and the Black Liberation Army. I mentioned in my previous article that the Black Liberation Army contributed to Weather Underground’s 1969 Manifesto, so it isn’t surprising that Black Liberation Army continues to contribute to Weather Underground’s future works. In this sense, both Weather Underground and Black Liberation Army are ideological parents of J. Sakai. In retrospect, Maoist international Movement was half correct when they claim J. Sakai derives his ideas from Revolutionary Youth Movement 1 (Weather Underground). They forgot to mention that J. Sakai also derived his ideas from Black Liberation Army.