What do you mean you aren't a third worldist anymore? Do you reject settlers? If so then why?
When I say I am no longer a 3rd wordist, I mean that I no longer uphold a slew of common ideas found within the trend of "3rd world Maoism" which are undialectical and reject class struggle. The basis of 3rd worldism is the following;
Socialist revolution is imposable in the 1st world until the chains of Imperialism are broken in the 3rd world because the Imperialist Bourgeoisie pacify all, or at least the vast majority of workers in the 1st world with Imperialist superprofits, turning them into labor aristocrats.
This line of thinking is absurd and clearly contrasts with the reality experienced by the majority of the working class in the 1st world, any "data" which claims to back this up tends to be from the US shortly following the 2nd world war or handpicked data from places like Europe which does not actually account for general experience. Real data as well as spending time with the working class in the 1st world shows that the majority of workers are poor or at least not particularly wealthy and are clearly being exploited, the line that 1st world workers are paid with wages above and beyond the value of their labor with imperialist superprofits falls apart quite easily in most cases. This forces 3rd worldist ideologs to re-define the labor aristocracy, with a somewhat common line being that any worker who benefits at all from imperialism is labor aristocratic, no matter how small the benefit. By this logic a Puerto Rican worker in NYC working minimum wage, only a few steps away from poverty, but sometimes buys plantains extracted from Cameroon in order to enjoy their culture's food is a reactionary labor aristocrat and could never become a class-conscious worker. This is obviously nonsense.
This line of thinking also shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how class consciousness develops. 3rd worldists basically believe that 1st world workers can only develop Class-in-Itself consciousness, that is the petty-bourgeoisie type of class consciousness where workers become aware of their collective short term interests (higher wages, pensions, workplace safety, etc.) but are not aware of their long-term interest in making socialist revolution. They argue that because these workers gain some benefit from imperialism, they would never be able to struggle for the abolishing of Imperialism and the socialist revolution, thus gaining Class-for-Itself consciousness, because this would go against their short term interest of gaining benefits from Imperialism.
If any 3rd worldist who happens to be reading this honestly believes that the majority of workers in the US, or any other Imperialist country believe that the short term interests of workers lie more with their own exploiters than against the, please do yourself a favor and spend a few months working job equal to or below the living wage in the US, (which is 23$ an hour on average, the kind of job which roughly 69% of the working US population have) and then tell me where your short term class interests lie.
As for Settlers, it is not a bad history book but its class analysis is simply stupid. In order to justify his claim that Euro-Americans are all still settlers today Sakai argues that white suburban communities act as garrison forts to occupy nationally oppressed communities. This is correct, but this did not account for a large portion of Euro-American workers who did not live in such communities, and it accounts for an even smaller portion of Euro-American workers today.
Another one of Sakai's big arguments is that long, and even short term alliances between white workers and non-white workers is generally a bad idea. To justify this anti-labor claim he cites the many instances in which state-unions like the United Mine Workers Union sold out black workers by collaborating with the bosses, in exchange granting white workers a couple more crumbs off the table. What Sakia leaves out is that these kinds of deals resulted in long term losses for white workers as well, and that this kind of divide and conquer strategy is not unique to America or any other country founded on Settler Colonialism. In fact this strategy can be found anywhere there can be found state unions and multiple nations, castes or anything that can divide workers. Really what Sakai is describing is an issue of State Unionism and a poignant reminder on why the labor movement must be lead by the Communist Party, not proof that white and black workers are enemies.
Ultimately the 3rd worldist and Settlers line is anti-revolutionary, re-casts the majority of workers in the US as enemies and thus removes the advantage of our class in numbers. It is absolutely true that in the US there must be a strong national liberation element to our socialist revolution because one nation, the Euro-American nation, is oppressing all the other nations in the US, but this is not unique to the US. India is also a prison house of nations, is the CPI (Maoist) making a mistake when it tries to organize Hindu workers?
Ultimately 3rd worldists need to get off their lazy asses and do some mass work, and no hosting "education meetings" or sitting around reading theory all day doesn't count.
Workers of the World Unite must always be are slogan, but 3rd worldism only seeks to divide workers and thus can never be allowed to take the reigns of the communist movement.
