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?

Where did this "revolutionary" come from? You are putting words in my comments where it does not exist. Interesting how you complain about strawmen and begin your comment with one. I am not a "detractor" of J. Sakai's work, I mentioned several times that there's value in it, but a critical reading is definitely essential. So that I can "substantiate" my criticism, here is an excerpt from the very first chapter :

When we point out that Amerika was the most completely bourgeois nation in world history, we mean a four-fold reality: 1. Amerika had no feudal or communal past, but was constructed from the ground up according to the nightmare vision of the bourgeoisie. 2. Amerika began its national life as an oppressor nation, as a colonizer of oppressed peoples. 3. Amerika not only has a capitalist ruling class, but all classes and strata of Euro-Amerikans are bourgeoisified, with a preoccupation for petty privileges and property ownership the normal guiding star of the white masses. 4. Amerika is so decadent that it has no proletariat of its own, but must exist parasitically on the colonial proletariat of oppressed nations and national minorities.

"most completely bourgeois nation", "bourgeoisified", "Amerika (...) has no proletariat of its own". Sakai uses Marxist terms, but how they are used are completely meaningless. What "bourgeoisify" means? How come Amerika has no proletariat of its own? The country is still an industrial powerhouse, it's a producer of commodities as well, therefore it has proletarians producing these commodities. Even slaves to that point, which consists of 60% of the prison population which are obliged to work for several corporations of different economic sectors.

I am making a reasonable critique of this work from a Marxist standpoint. If you can only see "strawmen" and "white fragility", I'm sorry, you are possibly projecting a white fragility or white guilt onto others, because I'm not even white by your standards. For all intents and purposes, I am disgusted by white people in United States. I've seen the shit white women (karens) in this awful country do, it's frankly terrifying. But I am a Marxist, I understand that these people were not at all born this way, they are conditioned by their environment, by white supremacist bourgeois ideology, and that treating them and the ideology that affects them as one and the same is the purest sample of race essentialism.

Under the Nazi Germany, the most vile racist chauvinism was promoted as state ideology, and genocidal rapist campaigns of terror were promoted throughout the whole Europe. Yet, Stalin in 1942, in the midst of an war, said:

It would be ridiculous to see in the Hitlerite clique the German people or the German state. Historical experience proves that Hitlers come and go, but the German people, the German state, remains. The strength of the Red Army resides in the fact that it doesn’t nurture, nor could it nurture, any hatred toward other people, and therefore couldn’t even nurture hatred for the German people; it is educated in the spirit of the equality of all peoples and all races, in the spirit of respect for the rights of other peoples.

Nowhere a Marxist would declare a whole people, and even, the majority of the Statesian people as irredeemable to the point they would claim it is useless to work with them. The white people of the US are captured by bourgeois white supremacist ideology, and instead of self-defeating themselves, all revolutionaries should devise strategies and enhance their agitation and propaganda to fight against this ideology, an effort led by the oppressed ethnic groups. Fighting white supremacy does not mean fighting Statesian white people.

Sakai does define the nation by emphasizing that the Afrikan nation, and others, have their own internal workerings for sustaining themselves. Enslaved people had their own internal economy as did the Indigenous nations. This is seperate from the greater settler empire although it is exploited not unlike how peasant economies provide food for metropolitan centers in the periphery.

Taking that into consideration, what is the common territory and economic life of this “Afrikan nation” that is distinguished from the “Euro-Amerikan nation” so that the “Afrikan nation” can achieve its liberation? The more you question it, the less sense it makes.

I like this question because of its difficulty, but the difficulty is moving forward with the national question instead of accepting that there is a Black nation. If you kidnapped millions of people with completely different languages and lifeways, and then tried to systematically eradicate their languages and cultural bonds to ensure servitude, would you have added to your nation? Or would you just have slaves? I dont think it actually works to use the national question to justify settler colonial nationhood here when the entire "national" situation was currated out of violence instead of a sovereign melding of national bonds. Rather the sovereign formation of nationhood within the Black nation as well as many Tribal confederations was forged through surviving colonialism, not through integration and assimilation.

If we consider the Marxist understanding of the nation, we can easily notice how the “Afrikan” and “Euro-Amerikan” nations have in common a language, territory, economic life and culture, perhaps with a few particularities on the culture one. But both constitute a single nation according to Marxist theory of the nation, especially because of the shared economic life.

II feel like what you are saying is that because someone's language was stolen or murdered, that said group of people must now admit they are part of the colonizer nation. Also, "shared economic life" is another white washing of the reality, because slaves and Indigenous people were not even seen as humans for a chunk of history, were legally barred from entire portions of the economy, and have only ever been included among the settler nation for completely cyinical, racist political reasons. I dont think you are properly applying Stalin's ideas of nation.

It’s very clear throughout the whole book how Sakai treats white workers as inherently racist, as if the racist elements weren’t conditioned by racist ideology.

Racism and bigotry are not merely ideological. They are expressions of class society and shared economic interests. White people are by definition inherently racist. This is only a problem if you moralize racism as a personal failing and assume it is merely and only conditioning instead of a material expression of colonial hierarchies and economic interests within class society. Sure conditioning exists too, but it is preceded by colonial, capitalist social relations. White people do not cease to be racist upon realizing that racism is mean or upon breaking conditioning, they cease to be racist when the racist system is dismantled and those social relations are impossible.

Then in the last paragraph, Sakai advocates that considering all of that, white people cannot constitute a proletarian class. This is outright anti-Marxism, because be it a black person or a white-supremacist racist piece of shit, it doesn’t change the relations of production.

Its not anti marxism and the relations kf production are different. Allow me to explain by pointing to China for a moment. I will use ideas from Roland Boer's book Socialism With Chinese Characteristics: A Guid For Westerners, especially chapter 4.

Western marxists oftentimes get China wrong because they assume a universal mode of class formation; very basically, that the bourgeoisie developed in the cracks between fiefdoms, won many revolutions against aristocracy, and of course a proletariat, a class that has revolutionary potential due to the internal condradictions of capitalism developed alongside.

But the Chinese revolution took place before a bourgeoisie class ever established a dictatorship and did not develop in a way like Europe. In fact, the "bourgeoisie" in China was developed under the guidance of the CPC, owing much of its place in the world to proletarian revolution and proceeding politics. This is why China has no proper class of bourgeoisie, despite a casual observer raising alarm over an increasing number of wealthy entrepreneurs and despite such developments being reminiscent of class formation in western Europe. The bourgeoisie in China lacks the class consciousness of a traditional bourgeoisie, which makes it qualitatively different thatn that of the western, colonial bourgeoisie.

In Amerika perhaps we can say the same thing about the settler proletariat as we can about the Chinese bourgeoisie. It lacks a traditional class consciousness, which oight to be an inherently revolutionary class consciousness. This is because of its social relations to production, wealth, land ect etc. It is a colonial relation, an exploitative relation that also fundamentally alters its relation with the settler bourgeoisie. Just as the Chinese "bourgeoisie" is dependent upon the liberation of the means of production and a project for socialist construction led by the CPC, the settler "proletariat" is dependent upon colonial spoils and a colonial project led by the bourgeoisie and their political institutions. This fundamentally alters class antagonisms and relations to production.

How can you say a class of working settlers that are routinely given incredibly cheap stolen land and relatively high wages has the same relationship to production as a slave? Even white slaves, indentured servants, typically recieved land within a few years after their servitude, as wages were higher because of slavery and genocide than back in Europe, and they were granted the right to, ya know, not be enslaved for their entire lives and the right to own property. That is a massive difference in relations to production.

The Rainbow Coalition was a successful example of racial solidarity among different ethnic groups, and avoided the co-optation of leadership by poor whites, and was only ended by the assassination of Hampton. It was so successful and threatening to white supremacist ideology that the FBI planned and executed the assassination of Hampton in the matter of 8 months after the Rainbow Coalition was founded

I dont disagree that the rainbow coalition was a productive thing. I couldn't tell you exactly why it isnt mentioned. There certainly is literature that sheds light on how wealthy whites perceive poor whites that makes points that are relevant to the discussion of colonial class society and could have been included in the book (although this relationship is still qualitatively different that the relationship between colonizer and colonized). But maybe the book isnt really about that as much as it is about how the history of settler-colonialism has benifited white people, even workers, at the expense of and the exploitation of the colonized.

Random side point, but look at all our anti-imperialist works: nearly all of them depict the struggles against colonialism. Settler's is unique, because it shows the other side: it holds a mirror up to the culture and history of the colonizer nation: what are his institutions, what is his history, how has he acted and treated people.

In movies like star wars, the anti-imperialist struggle is told through the eyes of colonized, while the colonizers are depicted as mindless automatons ala storm troopers, and soulless military leaders and and killers like vader. I imagine if george lucas had even one storyline focus on the lifestyles of the empire's citizens or aristocracy, or dealt with the more complicated treatment of them being real people and not simply brainless drones, it would've touched too close to home and offended euro-amerikkkans, when depicting the Vietnam vs USA metaphor.

Love star wars obviously, but I can't think of a single work of fiction that deals with the other side of settler-colonialism, and the benefits it brings to the colonizer's lifestyles.